permitting of wind energy facilities · pdf filematthews, joe o’hagen, ... rows of wind...

Prepared by the NWCC Siting SubcommitteeAugust 2002

Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

A HANDBOOKREVISED 2002

Principal Contributors

Dick Anderson, California Energy CommissionDick Curry, Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C.

Ed DeMeo, Renewable Energy Consulting Services, Inc.Sam Enfield, Atlantic Renewable Energy Corporation

Tom Gray, American Wind Energy AssociationLarry Hartman, Minnesota Environmental Quality BoardKarin Sinclair, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Robert Therkelsen, California Energy CommissionSteve Ugoretz, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

NWCC Siting Subcommittee Contributors

Don Bain, Jack Cadogan, Bill Fannucchi, Troy Gagliano, Bill Grant, David Herrick, Albert M. Manville, II,Lee Otteni, Brian Parsons, Heather Rhoads-Weaver,

John G. White

The NWCC Permitting Handbook authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions of those whoworked on the first edition of the Permitting Handbook.

Don Bain, Hap Boyd, Manny Castillo, Steve Corneli, Alan Davis, Sam Enfield, Walt George, Paul Gipe,Bill Grant, Judy Grau, Rob Harmon, Lauren Ike, Rick Kiester, Eric Knight, Ron Lehr, Don MacIntyre, Karen

Matthews, Joe O’Hagen, Randy Swisher and Robert Therkelsen

Handbook compilation, editing and review facilitation provided by Gabe Petlin (formerly with RESOLVE)and Susan Savitt Schwartz, Editor

NWCC Logo and Handbook DesignLeslie Dunlap, LB Stevens Advertising and Design

Handbook Layout and ProductionSusan Sczepanski and Kathleen O’Dell, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

The production of this document was supported, in whole or in part by the Midwest Research Institute,National Renewable Energy Laboratory under the Subcontract YAM-9-29210-01 and the Department ofEnergy under Prime Contract No. DE-AC 36-83CH10093. Financial support by the Midwest ResearchInstitute, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Department of Energy does not constitute anendorsement by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory or the Department of Energy of the views

expressed in the this document.

Cover photo courtesy of Green Mountain Power Corporation

Printed on recycled paper.

Acknowledgments

A HANDBOOKREVISED 2002

Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

Prepared by the NWCC Siting Subcommittee

National Wind Coordinating Committeec/o RESOLVE1255 23rd Street, Suite 275Washington, DC 20037www.nationalwind.org

August 2002

Preface

This handbook was developed by the Siting Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee(NWCC). The NWCC was formed in 1994 as a collaborative endeavor composed of representatives fromdiverse sectors including electric utilities and their support organizations, state utility commissions, state legis-latures, consumer advocates, wind equipment suppliers and developers, green power marketers, environmen-tal organizations, and state and federal agencies. The NWCC identifies issues that affect the use of windpower, establishes dialogue among key stakeholders, and catalyzes appropriate activities to support the devel-opment of an environmentally, economically and politically sustainable commercial market for wind power.

The NWCC Siting Subcommittee was formed to address wind generation siting and permitting issues. Inpreparing first edition of this handbook, published in 1998, members of the Subcommittee drew from theirown experiences in developing and permitting wind projects, reviewed materials used for permitting windprojects at the federal, state and local level, and interviewed over two dozen individuals who have beeninvolved in some aspect of wind project permitting. This 2002 revision of the handbook reflects extensiveexperience with wind project development in several regions of the united states since 1998, as well as theinsights contained in the first edition.

In addition to this handbook, the National Wind Coordinating Committee will be posting and linking to addi-tional permitting-related materials on its web site: www.nationalwind.org. The NWCC also has a series ofWind Energy Issue Papers and Briefs and is developing other resources on wind generation and related sitingconsiderations. For comments on this handbook or questions on wind energy permitting, contact the NationalWind Coordinating Committee Outreach Coordinator c/o RESOLVE, 1255 23rd Street NW, Suite 275,Washington, DC 20037; phone (888) 764-WIND, (202) 944-2300; fax (202) 338-1264; [email protected].

ii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Summary of Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Executive Summary References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE PERMITTING PROCESSIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Anatomy of a Wind Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Steps and Participants in Wind Farm Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Chapter 1 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

CHAPTER 2 GUIDELINES FOR STRUCTURING THE WIND FARM PERMITTINGPROCESSTypical Steps in Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Principles Common to Successful Permitting Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Chapter 2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

CHAPTER 3 SPECIFIC PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONSLand Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Birds and Other Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Soil Erosion and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Public Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Cultural and Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Solid and Hazardous Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Air Quality and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31Chapter 3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Further References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIESThe Stateline Project (Oregon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34Permitting Large Wind Energy Systems in Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Siting Wind Power in Wisconsin: Making the Case at the Local Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

APPENDICESA. Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44B. Noise Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

iii

1. Rows of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass, sited to take advantage of strong summer winds. . . . . . . . .6

2. Today's utility-scale (900 kW) wind turbines feed clean energy to utility grids from rural areas. . . . . . .6

3. Tubular towers in a linear array in South Point, Hawaii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

4. Typical wind farm layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

5. A large 1.5-MW wind turbine towers over a service car in Trent Mesa, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10The hub height for this turbine model varies from 65 to 80 meters.

6. A large crane is used to raise a rotor into position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

7. Agriculture is one example of a wind energy-compatible land use. Here a farmer plows . . . . . . . . . . .23the earth and will raise crops almost to the foot of the turbines.

8. Unconcerned with the rotating blades, a pronghorn antelope grazes near these . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27wind turbines in Fort Davis, Texas.

9. Compare the visual effect of widely-spaced turbines at a wind farm in Lake Benton, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Minnesota (top) with the visual impact of a more densely-spaced array in California’s Tehachapi Pass (bottom).

10. Roads on slopes can have a distinct visual impact, even from a great distance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

List of Figures

iv

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTIONThe power of the wind was first used to generateelectricity nearly 100 years ago. Today, wind tur-bines in the United States play an increasinglyimportant (though still small) role in meeting ourelectricity needs. They currently produce over10 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually—enough to meet the needs of over 1 million house-holds.1 Commercial wind energy projects havebeen permitted in at least half the states. Givenwind energy’s environmental benefits, coupled withdramatic equipment cost reductions and reliabilityimprovements over the last 20 years, it is antici-pated that more wind projects will be proposed forapproval in communities throughout the UnitedStates.

Why Wind Energy?The production of energy is one of the most far-reaching of human activities in terms of its environ-mental impacts. Wind energy and other renewableenergy sources, such as solar and geothermalenergy, offer the prospect of producing largeamounts of electricity with greatly reduced effectson the environment. These and other advantages todeveloping electricity generation using windresources include the following.

• There is growing agreement in the scientificcommunity that air pollution is a serioushealth risk. Electric power plants are a majorsource of air pollution, emitting 70% of totalU.S. sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, 33% ofnitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, 28% of par-ticulate matter, and 23% of all heavy metalsair toxics. Wind farms emit no air pollutants.

• The scientific community also sees the world-wide buildup of greenhouse gases, includingcarbon dioxide from the combustion of fossilfuels, as a likely contributor to global climatechange. U.S. electric power plants are respon-sible for 34% of the nation's total emissions ofcarbon dioxide (CO2), the most importantgreenhouse gas. Unlike fossil-fueled powerplants, wind farms emit no greenhouse gases.

• Wind project operation does not consume sur-face or groundwater, or discharge wastewater

containing heat or chemicals.

• Wind facilities produce electricity withoutrequiring the extraction, processing, trans-portation, or combustion of fossil fuels.

• The fuel source for electricity generation fromwind is free, thereby eliminating fuel costuncertainty over the life of the facility. Theoverall price of electricity from wind will bemore stable than from fossil-fueled powerplants.

• Investments in wind energy development cancreate jobs, income and tax revenues, espe-cially in rural communities.

• Wind energy development in rural areas canalso benefit farmers by providing incomeopportunities from leasing farmland to winddevelopers.

• Overall national security can be enhanced bythe development of diversified and distributedelectricity generation resources, such as wind.

Making Use of this HandbookThis handbook is written for individuals and groupsinvolved in evaluating wind projects: decision-mak-ers and agency staff at all levels of government,wind developers, interested parties and the public.Its purpose is to assist stakeholders to be informedparticipants in the wind energy development deci-sion-making process. This handbook covers permit-ting issues that have come to the attention of theNWCC up to this point. The NWCC realizes that aswind development proceeds, other issues willemerge and will need to be addressed.

Some jurisdictions already have energy facility per-mitting processes, but participants may not befamiliar with wind generation technologies andapproaches to resolving wind permitting issues.Other jurisdictions may not have dealt with anywind farms. This handbook is designed to benefitstakeholders with varying degrees of experience inwind farm siting. Different readers may make use ofall or only portions of the handbook’s four mainsections:

Executive Summary 1

1 For updated information on U.S. wind power capacity and on installed wind projects and their locations by state, see the AmericanWind Energy Association (AWEA) Web site, www.awea.org.

2 Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

Chapter 1–Overview of Wind Development andPermitting describes the basic features of a windproject and walks the reader through the basicsteps in planning, permitting, construction, opera-tion and maintenance and closure of a wind farm.

Chapter 2–Guidelines for Structuring the WindFarm Permitting Process presents principles,processes and concepts that agencies, developersand the public may want to employ in the consid-eration and oversight of proposed wind projects.

Chapter 3–Specific Permitting Considerations andStrategies discusses the tradeoffs to be consideredin weighing the environmental and other issues thatmay arise in permitting wind farms at various loca-tions, and provides suggestions on how to dealwith those issues.

Chapter 4–Case Studies describes the permittingprocesses in place in three states, presenting thepermitting histories of several wind energy conver-sion projects to illustrate points raised in Chapters1-3.

In addition to the above sections, there are appen-dices to the handbook that refer the reader to addi-tional resources and provide additional informationon noise considerations.

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

Distinguishing Features of Wind FarmsSome aspects of wind farm permitting closelyresemble permitting considerations for any otherlarge energy facility or other development project.Others are unique to wind farms. Unlike mostenergy facilities, wind generation farms tend to belocated in rural or remote areas. They may extendover a very large area and have a broad area of

influence, but physically occupy only three to fivepercent of the total land area for the turbine towersand associated structures and access roads (Broweret al., 1993). The rest of the land may be left largelyundisturbed and available for continued use by thelandowner. Chapter 1 describes the major compo-nents of a wind project: wind turbines, anemome-ters, electrical power collection and transmissionsystems, control and maintenance facilities, and siteaccess and service roads—some or all of whichmay be present in a given project. It also providesan overview of the major steps in wind projectdevelopment: planning, permitting, financing,power purchase and transmission agreements, con-struction, operation and maintenance, and decom-missioning.

Structuring the Wind Farm PermittingProcess As with other energy facility permitting processes,the goal of the wind farm permitting process is toreach decisions that are timely, minimize chal-lenges, and ensure project compliance with existinglaws and regulations providing for necessary envi-ronmental protection. Chapter 2 briefly describesthe typical steps in permitting a wind farm: pre-application, application review, decision-making,administrative and judicial review, and permit com-pliance. The chapter then discusses the followingeight guidelines for structuring a permitting processto allow for efficient agency review, meaningfulpublic involvement, and timely and defensibledecisions:

1) Significant Public Involvement. Providingopportunities for early, significant, andmeaningful public involvement is crucial toa successful process, but there is no onesimple formula for achieving this.

2) Issue-Oriented Process. An issue-orientedapproach can help focus the debate, edu-cate the public and decision-makers, andensure an analytic basis for the eventualdecision.

3) Clear Decision Criteria. Decision-makingcriteria should be clear and consistentlyapplied, and made known from the outsetto all participants and interested parties.

NOTE TO REGULATORY AGENCIES:Permitting issues and process will vary bylocation and project. Agencies are encour-aged to become familiar with all of theissues that this handbook presents, and toapply that information and those tips thatare relevant to their authority and setting.

4) Coordinated Permitting Process. Wheremore than one agency has jurisdiction overpermitting, agencies are encouraged tocoordinate so that project review can pro-ceed simultaneously and that redundant,conflicting or inconsistent requirements,standards and processes can be avoided.

5) Reasonable Time Frames. Delays and asso-ciated uncertainties can be minimized ifpermitting agencies establish reasonabletime frames for each of the major phases ofthe permitting process, and manage theprocess to stay within those time frames.

6) Advance Planning. Both developers andagencies should know as much as possibleabout the project, the process, the partici-pants, and the issues prior to commencingthe formal permitting process.

7) Timely Administrative and Judicial Review.Following established procedures designedto systematically narrow the issues of con-cern and produce factually-based decisionscan significantly limit any administrative orjudicial appeals and allow them to proceedmore efficiently.

8) Active Compliance Monitoring. Most agen-cies include in their permits specific condi-tions that must be met during construction,operation and maintenance, and projectdecommissioning. These conditions canbest be implemented if they are: specific,measurable, agreed upon by all parties,realistic, set within reasonable time frames,enforceable, and actually enforced.

Specific Permitting Considerations andStrategiesWhether a wind project consists of a large windfarm or a single turbine, a range of considerationsmay be raised before, during or after project devel-opment. Siting decisions inevitably require balanc-ing the various benefits and impacts and makingtradeoffs among them. Permitting agencies alsoneed to consider cost-benefit tradeoffs associatedwith impact mitigation strategies. The permittingprocess seeks to strike a balance between making aproject acceptable to the community and preserv-ing the project’s economic viability in a competitiveelectricity market. A community desire to foster

clean energy sources may also be a factor in somecases. The following wind farm siting considera-tions are discussed in Chapter 3, along with strate-gies and “tips” for addressing them within the con-text of the permitting process. All parties need torecognize that the applicability of these considera-tions will depend on the specific wind project pro-posal and site conditions. Not every considerationwill apply to each wind project.

• Land Use. Depending on the site, size anddesign of the project, wind development maybe compatible with a variety of other landuses, including agriculture, grazing, openspace preservation, and habitat preservationfor some species. Other land uses and resourcevalues need to be considered when siting largewind projects in remote areas. Stakeholdersneed to understand the full range of land useissues associated with a site before gettinglocked into development plans, permit condi-tions, or other requirements.

• Noise. Because noise emitted by wind turbinestends to be masked by the ambient (back-ground) noise of the wind itself and falls offsharply with distance, noise-related concernsare likely to center on residences closest to thesite, particularly those sheltered from prevail-ing winds. Advanced turbine technology andpreventive maintenance can help minimizenoise during project operation. It may also beuseful to characterize other sound sources inthe affected area for comparison purposes.

• Birds and Other Biological Resources. Thepotential for collisions between birds and batsand wind energy facilities has been a contro-versial siting consideration. Biological resourcesurveys can help to determine whether or notserious conflicts are likely to occur. In mostcases, biologically significant impacts areunlikely to occur, or can be adequately miti-gated; if not, wind development may not beappropriate in a particular location.

• Visual Resources. There are a number of waysto reduce the visual impact of wind projects,but there may be tradeoffs to consider. Forexample, tubular towers may be more attrac-tive at short distances than lattice towers, butthey may also be more visible from a distance.Simulations using computer-aided graphics or

Executive Summary 3

artists’ renderings can be developed to facili-tate comparison of what the wind resourcearea looks like before and after the proposedturbines are installed.

• Soil Erosion and Water Quality. Like otherconstruction activities, wind projects are sub-ject to the Clean Water Act. If a project dis-turbs more than five acres, the developer mustprepare a Storm Water Pollution PreventionPlan in order to obtain a National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) com-pliance permit, which is issued by the state’senvironmental quality agency.

• Public Health and Safety. Most of the safetyissues associated with wind energy projectscan be dealt with through adequate setbacks,security, safe work practices, and the imple-mentation of a fire control plan.

• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Windfarms, like other developments, are subject tolegislation designed to protect important cul-tural and fossil resource sites. These include:the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,the Federal Land Policy and Management Act(FLPMA) of 1976, and the American IndianReligious Freedom Act of 1978. Special caremay need to be taken to preserve the confi-dentiality as well as the integrity of certain sen-sitive resources, or sites sacred to NativeAmericans.

• Socioeconomic/Public Services/Infrastructure.Developers and permitting agencies shouldcoordinate with local public service agenciesto determine whether and how the projectmay affect the community’s fire protection andtransportation systems, and nearby airportsand communications systems.

• Solid and Hazardous Wastes. Wind farms, likeother developments, are subject to theResource Conservation and Recovery Act.Normal methods of managing solid wasteshould be adequate.

• Air Quality and Climate Change. Wind pro-jects produce energy without generating any ofthe conventional pollutants or greenhousegases produced by fuel combustion. New gen-eration supplied by wind projects results in no

additional air pollutant emissions. Temporarylocal emissions associated with project con-struction and maintenance can and should beminimized.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REFERENCESBrower, Michael C., Michael W. Tennis, Eric W.Denzler, Mark M. Kaplan, “Powering the Midwest:Renewable Electricity for the Economy and theEnvironment,” Boston: Union of ConcernedScientists, 1993.


INTRODUCTIONThis chapter describes the basic features of a windproject and the steps developers take to get a pro-ject on line. Wind energy and other renewableenergy sources, such as solar and geothermalenergy, offer the prospect of producing an increas-ing share of US electricity production with greatlyreduced effects on the environment. The recover-able portion of the total wind resource in the con-tiguous US is approximately 1,230,300 averageMW, assuming Class 3 wind resources.2 This isalmost 3.5 times the 48 states’ total electricity con-sumption in 1990 (Pacific Northwest Laboratory,1991). While technical and other issues may limitthe contribution of wind energy, its potential isquite large. (For a general overview of the windenergy industry and the status of commercial winddevelopment in the United States, see the AmericanWind Energy Association’s publication, “The MostFrequently Asked Questions about Wind Energy.”3)

ANATOMY OF A WIND PROJECTWind projects vary greatly in size, from a few windturbines (“distributed wind systems”) serving indi-vidual customers or operating either at substationsor at the end of a utility’s distribution system, tolarge arrays of wind turbines (“wind farms”)designed for providing wholesale bulk electricity toutilities or to an electricity market.

The role wind generation plays in the electricpower system depends on the nature of that systemand the relationship between daily and seasonalsystem needs and wind patterns. In some locales,however, periods of significant electricity demandcorrelate with periods of high and consistent windconditions. In the same manner, some electricpower systems, such as those that use a significantamount of hydroelectric power, can use wind gen-eration not only to produce power but to help man-age other limited resources.

Distributed wind systems. Most distributed windsystems range in size from one kW to about 5 MW,providing on-site power in either stand-alone orgrid-connected configurations.4 When grid-con-nected, these systems are interconnected to the

electricity distribution system rather than to thehigher voltage electricity transmission system. Suchsystems are used by industry, water districts,schools, rural residences, farms, and other remotepower users. In cases where wind patterns matchwell with electricity load patterns on distributionfeeder lines, distributed wind systems also can beused by utilities to reduce line loads and voltagevariations.

Wind farms. Larger arrays usually are owned andoperated by independent power producers whichtraditionally have sold their power to – or by – elec-tric utilities. These facilities are grid-connected, andare interconnected to the electrical transmissionsystem. Wind farms vary in generating capacityanywhere from five to more than several hundredmegawatts and may consist of a few to severalthousand wind turbines of the same or differentmodels. The turbines are mounted on towers andoften are placed in linear arrays along ridge tops, orsited in uniform patterns on flat or hilly terrain (seeFigures 1, 2, and 3).

The wind turbine on its tower is the most notice-able feature of a wind project. Other componentsmay include anemometers (wind measuring equip-ment), an electrical power collection and transmis-sion system (transformers, substation, undergroundand/or overhead lines), control and maintenancefacilities, and site access and service roads (seeFigure 4). Each component is described in the para-graphs that follow.

Wind TurbinesWind turbines capture the kinetic energy of thewind and convert it into electricity. The primarycomponents of a wind turbine are the rotor (bladeassembly), electrical generator, and tower. As thewind blows it spins the wind turbine’s rotor, whichturns the generator to produce electricity. Figure 5illustrates a typical turbine design.

The rotor is the part that captures the wind. Onmost wind turbines the rotor consists of two orthree blades which spin about a horizontal axis.“Upwind” turbines have the blades facing into the

Overview of Wind Development and Permitting 5

Chapter 1Overview of the Permitting Process

2 A Class 3 wind resource is defined as an annual average wind speed of 11.5-12.5 mph (5.1-5.6 m/s) measured at a height of 33 ft.(10 m).

3 This publication may be obtained at <http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/FAQUPDATE.PDF>. The AWEA Web site also providesinformation on installed wind projects and their location by state, and on the total installed wind energy capacity in the United Statesby year.

4 A megawatt (MW) is one million watts. A kilowatt (kW) is one thousand watts, a unit of power that is measured instantaneously. Akilowatt-hour (kWh) is a unit of energy (power supplied over time), specifically, one kilowatt of electricity supplied for one hour.

wind, in front of the generator and tower. Theblades on “downwind” turbines are located behindthe generator and tower as viewed from the direc-tion of the prevailing wind. Increasingly rare, butstill occasionally seen, are the Darrieus (or “egg-beater”) wind turbines, whose rotors spin about avertical axis. New turbine manufacturers enter themarket from time to time with a variety of otherdesigns, but to date, none of these machines hasachieved significant commercial sales.

The nacelle, mounted on top of the tower, housesthe wind turbine’s electrical generator. A generator’srating, in kilowatts or megawatts, indicates itspotential power output. Actual generation, as kilo-watt- or megawatt-hours, will depend on rotor sizeand wind speed. Larger rotors allow turbines tointercept more wind, increasing power output. Theamount of power in the wind is a cubic function ofwind speed; thus wind turbines produce an expo-nentially increasing amount of power as windspeeds increase. For example, if the wind speeddoubles, wind power increases eight-fold. Also,since the rotor’s swept area (the area of a circle) is a function of the square of the blade length (theradius of the circle), a small increase in bladelength leads to a large increase in swept area and


Figure 1. Rows of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass, sited to take advantage of strong summer winds. Photo courtesy of the AmericanWind Energy Association (AWEA).

Figure 2. Today's utility-scale (900 kW) wind turbines feedclean energy to utility grids from rural areas. Photo courtesyof NREL.

energy capture. Economies of scale are quite signif-icant in wind turbines.

A wind turbine’s blades typically begin spinning aswind speeds reach approximately seven miles perhour (mph). At nine to 10 mph (“cut-in” speed),they will start generating electricity. Rated output isusually reached in 27- to 35-mph winds. To avoiddamage, most turbines automatically shut them-selves down when wind speeds exceed 55 to 65mph (“cut-out” speed). Because wind is intermit-tent, wind turbines will seldom operate at theirrated power output for long periods of time. A typi-cal large-scale turbine, however, will generate someelectricity 60% to 80% of the time.

Wind turbines typically are mounted on tubularsteel or lattice (open framework) towers. Thetower’s function is to raise the wind turbine abovethe ground to intercept stronger winds that providemore energy. Taller towers also usually allow tur-bines to capture less turbulent winds, unimpededby nearby trees, buildings, and other obstructions.Tubular towers are anchored to concrete founda-tions 8 to 35 feet (about 2 to 11 meters) deep toprevent them from being toppled by strong winds.Lattice towers typically use four piers.

As the industry has gained experience, rotor diame-ter, generator rating, and tower height have allincreased. During the early 1980s, wind developerswere installing turbines with rotor spans of about 33to 49 feet, or 10 to 15 meters (m) and generatorsrated at 10 to 65 kW. By the mid- to late 1980s, turbines began appearing with rotor diameters ofabout 49-82 feet (15 to 25 m) and generators ratedup to 200 kW (Gipe, 1995; AWEA, 1993). Today,wind developers are installing turbines rated at 600kW to 2 MW with rotor spans of about150-260 feet(47 to 80 m).

According to AWEA, today’s large wind turbinesproduce as much as 120 times the amount of elec-tricity as early turbine designs with operations andmaintenance (O&M) costs that are only modestlyhigher, thus dramatically cutting O&M costs perkWh. Improvements in turbine technology andmaintenance programs have produced highly reli-able, efficient machines. According to AWEA, theturbines used in the early 1980s were available foroperation 60% of the time. Today’s state-of-the-artwind turbines have an availability rating averaging98% (NREL, 1999).

AnemometersThe instrumentation used for wind resource assess-ment may be unfamiliar to many people. A windmeasurement system includes three major compo-nents: (1) anemometers, which are sensors to measure the wind speed and direction, (2) data logger and, (3) a meteorological mast, or tower.Measurement of temperature and pressure, whichrequires additional sensors, is also common.Meteorological towers typically are lattice towerssupported by guy wires.

Anemometers continuously measure and recordwind speed. Anemometer towers usually are thefirst structures built on a site to determine whether it has adequate wind resources for cost-effective


Figure 3. Tubular towers in a linear array in South Point, Hawaii.Photo by Paul Gipe.

development. These towers may be temporary andmoved around the potential site (or sites). Duringoperation of a wind facility, permanent anemome-ters may be used to transmit information aboutwind speed and direction to each wind turbine andto the control facility, where a record of windspeeds throughout the wind farm is stored.Anemometers can be mounted on towers as high as350 feet (107 m) or directly mounted on each windturbine. Wind turbines will begin operating whenthe anemometers detect sufficient wind speed.

Power Collection and TransmissionSystemLarge arrays of wind turbines require an extensivepower collection and electric interconnection sys-tem for delivering electricity to the electrical sys-tem. This may be to the distribution system, gener-ally in the case of smaller facilities, or to the highvoltage transmission system. Power generated byeach wind turbine is typically carried by low volt-age underground cables at 480 volts5 to pad-mounted transformers located throughout the windfarm. There may be one transformer adjacent toeach wind turbine. Medium voltage undergroundcables collect the electricity from the transformersand deliver it to an overhead or underground col-lection line. Power is transmitted by the collectionline to the wind farm’s substation for further step-upto match the voltage of the line to which it is inter-connected.

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition(SCADA) SystemAn operations control facility maintains two-waycommunications with each wind turbine. This sys-tem typically is called a Supervisory Control andData Acquisition (SCADA) system. SCADA allows acentral computer system to monitor and controleach turbine’s operation. The SCADA can belocated on- or off-site. Through the use of inte-grated computer systems, it is possible for a SCADAin one location to monitor and control wind pro-jects in several different locations.

Maintenance FacilityA large wind project will require a maintenancefacility for storing trucks, service equipment, spareparts, lubricants, and other supplies. The mainte-nance facility may be located on- or off-site. Somewind farms combine control and maintenancefunctions in one building.

Access RoadsThere usually will be one or more access roads intoand around a wind project. These service roadsprovide access to each wind turbine, and typicallyrun parallel to a string of turbines.

STEPS AND PARTICIPANTS IN WINDFARM DEVELOPMENTDevelopment of a wind farm is a complex processinvolving developers, landowners, utilities, the pub-lic, and various local, state, and federal agencies.The amount of time required from initial planningto project operation in an area without existingwind projects will vary, and can range from one totwo years or more. The development time for sub-sequent projects at the same or a nearby site maybe reduced by several months, provided that:

• permits are issued for the project as a wholeand construction is done in phases;

• a comprehensive environmental review [envi-ronmental assessment (EA) or impact statement(EIS)], is prepared in compliance with theNational Environmental Policy Act, or a stateequivalent. Should the analysis show that theimpacts of the first project do not suggest a sig-nificant adverse cumulative impact, an equiva-lent environmental review may not be neededfor later projects;

• additional experience and knowledge aboutwind energy projects removes some of theuncertainties that contribute to lengthy analy-ses and processes. This handbook providessuch information and also lists contacts foradditional background.

The major steps in the wind project developmentprocess are described below.

• Planning

• Permitting

• Financing

• Power Purchase and Transmission Agreements

• Construction

• Operation

• Decommissioning


5 A volt is a unit of electromotive force.


Figu

re 4

. Typ

ical

win

d fa

rm fa

cilit

y la

yout

.

© C

opyr

ight

199

4 by

Bra

un In

terte

c C

orpo

ratio

n. A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

PlanningA wind project may be proposed by an indepen-dent company, a local government agency, or aunit of a traditional electric utility. The first step indeveloping a wind project is to identify a suitablesite for the turbine or turbines and a likely marketfor the project’s output. To identify possible winddevelopment areas, developers usually consult published wind resource studies or wind resourcemaps such as Pacific Northwest Laboratory’s WindEnergy Resource Atlas of the United States. Thedeveloper also will study maps of the electricpower system and the local area. To select a spe-cific site within a region, developers may gatherlong-term wind information from the nearest windmeasurement station. They will also visit project

site locations to collect general information, includ-ing obvious signs of strong winds (e.g., flaggedtrees, sand dunes and scours), accessibility of ter-rain, proximity to an electrical transmission line,and any potential environmental constraints (seeChapter 3 for further discussion).

After finding a potentially suitable site, the devel-oper negotiates to gain access to or control of theproperties to conduct further investigations.Developers may secure options for long-term leasesor simple anemometer agreements from thelandowners. During the option period the devel-oper obtains the landowner’s permission to erectanemometers for making site-specific wind mea-surements. The developer usually collects data atthe property for at least one full year to determinethe average annual wind speed. More than oneyear may be needed if site measurements do notcorrelate well with those made by the closest windmeasurement station. If wind data show that thesite has economic potential for wind energy gener-ation, the developer will prepare an initial site planwhich proposes where to put the wind turbines andelectrical facilities that connect to the power grid.In some instances, the ability of the local electricalsystem to handle the output of the wind farm mayhave a substantive effect on its location and design.Depending on market prospects, an anemometeragreement may be upgraded to an option or leaseat this point if an option or lease has not alreadybeen signed.

PermittingTypically, wind projects are required to obtain apermit from one or more government agencies. Awind project typically can be permitted within 12months. Early in the project planning and develop-ment process, the wind developer should contactall relevant permitting agencies or authorities.Permitting entities at the federal, state, and locallevels may have jurisdiction over a wind develop-ment. The number of agencies and the level of gov-ernment involvement will depend on a number offactors particular to each development. These fac-tors primarily include: applicable existing laws andregulations, location of the wind turbines and asso-ciated facilities or equipment, need for transmissionlines and access roads, size of the wind farm, own-ership of the project, and ownership of the land.Chapters 2 and 3 discuss the permitting processand various considerations for agencies that may be involved in permitting wind farms.


Figure 5. A large 1.5-MW wind turbine towers over a service carin Trent Mesa, Texas. The hub height for this turbine modelvaries from 65 to 80 meters. Photo courtesy of AWEA andAmerican Electric Power.

Local permitting authorities. In many states the pri-mary permitting jurisdiction for wind farms is thelocal planning commission, zoning board, citycouncil, or county board of supervisors or commis-sioners. Typically, these local jurisdictional entitiesregulate through zoning ordinances. In addition tolocal zoning approval, permitting under local juris-diction may require a developer to obtain someform of local grading or building permit to ensurecompliance with structural, mechanical, and elec-trical codes.

State permitting authorities. In some states, one ormore state agencies may have siting or reviewresponsibilities for wind developments. Stateauthorities may include natural resource and envi-ronmental protection agencies, state historic preser-vation offices, industrial development and regula-tion agencies, public utility commissions, or sitingboards. Depending on the state where the winddevelopment is proposed, state permits may berequired in addition to local or conditional use per-mits. In other states, state law may supersede someor all local permitting authorities. Where there isstate level regulation there may be a lead agency tocoordinate the regulatory review process or a “one-stop” siting process housed under one agency.

Whether the permitting jurisdiction is state or local,wind projects may be subject to local and stateenvironmental policy acts. These laws generallyadhere closely to the language of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (see below). The contentrequirements of these laws parallel those of federallaw, except where specific language narrows thescope of the impact statements.

Federal permitting authorities. In some cases(notably in the West), federal land managementagencies such as the Bureau of Land Managementor the United States Forest Service may be both themanager and the permitting authority. Additionally,agencies such as the Bonneville PowerAdministration (BPA) or Western Area PowerAdministration (WAPA) may be either a wind devel-oper or the customer for the power. If the proposedwind farm has the potential to impact aviation, theFederal Aviation Administration (FAA) may beinvolved. Generally, when structures exceed 200feet (about 61 m), the FAA is involved. If the projectposes potential impacts on wildlife habitat andspecies protected under the Endangered SpeciesAct, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, orthe Migratory Bird Treaty Act, wind project permit-ting may involve coordination and consultationwith the United States Fish and Wildlife Service andstate wildlife agencies.

Federal actions are subject to the requirements ofthe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).Depending on the type of actions and the potentialfor impacts, the federal agency may have to preparean environmental assessment or environmentalimpact statement for the project before it can act.The NEPA process requires public involvement inidentifying issues to be considered and in com-menting on the agency’s analysis. The reviewingagency may use the results of the NEPA review toclarify requirements for mitigation and monitoringto address the project’s environmental impacts.

FinancingTo secure financing, a wind project developerneeds a site with a permit to develop it, a com-pletely defined project, a power purchase agree-ment, and firm access to a market. The financingentity must have confidence in the performanceand reliability of the wind turbine being chosen forthe project. There may be several equity holders ina project who together usually supply 10% to 50%of the project’s capital costs. The remainder is bor-rowed from lending institutions, including banksand insurance companies, over a term of about 12to 20 years.

Wind project developers can lower costs by takingadvantage of the wind energy Production Tax Credit(PTC) or Renewable Energy Production Incentiveprogram (REPI) included in the Energy Policy Act of1992. Under current law, a privately-owned windfarm beginning operation by December 31, 2001,


Figure 6. A large crane is used to raise a rotor into position.Photo courtesy of AWEA.

can qualify for a federal tax credit of $0.018 (1.8cents) per kilowatt-hour (in 2001 dollars; amountadjusted annually for inflation). The federal incen-tive is applicable to the first 10 years of the farm’soperation. A wind farm owned by a public entityreceives the production incentive as a payment of$0.018 per kilowatt-hour (if funds have beenappropriated on an annual basis).

Power Purchase and TransmissionAgreementsThe wind farm developer also begins negotiatingwith a utility or other buyer for a power purchaseagreement, a transmission interconnection agree-ment, or both. Power may be sold to the local util-ity, a more distant utility, or to a different wholesaleor retail customer. The developer will have to workwith the local distribution utility or transmissionsystem operator to obtain access to the electricpower grid.

While negotiating with a buyer, the developer willobtain exclusive long-term development rights tothe property by either buying or leasing the rightsfrom the landowner. If the land is leased, thelandowner can negotiate with the developer theterms of the relationship between the wind farmand other uses of the property, the location andtype of access roads and other support facilities,and the condition of the land after wind operationscease. Lease conditions may influence some of thepermitting considerations discussed in Chapter 3.The developer may also acquire easements fromadjacent landowners to assure continuing access tothe wind. Easements may restrict vegetation, struc-tures, or other obstacles that would alter the flow ofwind to the project site. Easements or leases mayalso be needed for the right to cross adjacent prop-erties for the construction and maintenance ofaccess roads or transmission lines.

ConstructionThe amount of time required to construct a windproject will depend on its size and the terrain andclimate of the site. A wind project typically can bebuilt and operational within a year of the date con-struction begins. Wind farm construction requiresheavy equipment, including bulldozers, graders,trenching machines, concrete trucks, flat-bed trucksand large cranes. Construction normally beginswith grading and laying out the access roads andthe service roads that run to the wind turbines.

After the roads are completed, the concrete founda-tions for the turbine towers and ancillary structuresare excavated and poured. Foundation work is fol-lowed by digging the trenches for the undergroundelectrical cables, laying the electrical and commu-nication cables, and building the overhead collec-tion system and substation. Subsequent activitiesinclude assembling and erecting the wind turbinetowers, mounting the nacelles on top of the towers,and attaching the rotors. (See Figure 6.) Once thewind turbines are installed, the electrical connec-tions between the towers and the power collectionsystem are made, and the system is tested.

The construction stage is the point at which someagencies initiate monitoring programs, if needed, toensure that project construction and subsequentoperation complies with any permit conditions;particularly conditions related to development nearsensitive environmental or other resources.Monitoring programs are further discussed inChapter 2.

OperationA wind farm is almost completely automated,requiring few on-site personnel. The developer mayoperate the wind farm directly or by contract withan operation and maintenance company. Undernormal conditions, wind turbines will operate auto-matically. Each wind turbine is equipped with acomputer for controlling critical functions, monitor-ing wind conditions, and reporting information tothe Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition(SCADA) system. The SCADA system monitors theactivity of each wind turbine and diagnoses thecause of any failure. If a wind turbine shuts downand the operators are unable to restart it directlyfrom the SCADA system, a crew of specially-trainedmechanics (“windsmiths”) are dispatched to per-form repairs. SCADA operators also monitor thepower output from each wind turbine and from thewind farm as a whole.

Repowering/DecommissioningRepowering of a wind farm entails the removal ofindividual turbines and foundations, which are thenreplaced with new, typically larger and more cost-effective, equipment. If a wind project cannotmaintain low operating costs but wind turbine tech-nology continues to improve, the economics maysupport repowering of the site with newer technol-ogy. This may allow a site to continue producing


power for decades. Over time, however, individualturbines or an entire wind farm may be decommis-sioned.

The decommissioning of a wind farm entails thedismantling and removal of all wind turbines andtowers, as well as the underground and overheadcollection and transmission system. Typically, thefoundations for the towers and other structures areremoved to a specified depth below the ground sur-face. Depending on the permits and terms of thelease, the wind developer may be required torestore vegetation to the site and return the propertyto its natural state or prior use. Decommissioning isfurther discussed under ACTIVE COMPLIANCEMONITORING in Chapter 2, and is touched uponin Chapter 3 as it relates to specific permitting con-siderations.

CHAPTER 1 REFERENCESAWEA, “Wind Power: Clean Energy for the 21stCentury,” 1996a.

AWEA, “Worldwide Wind Capacity Surpasses5,000 MW Mark—and Continued Growth isExpected,” April 12, 1996b.

AWEA, “Wind Energy Continues as World’s FastestGrowing Energy Source,” January 28, 1997.

California Energy Commission (CEC), Draft 1996Energy Technology Status Report, 1997.

Gipe, Paul, Wind Energy Comes of Age, New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.

Loyola, Juanita, Wind Project Performance: 1994Summary, California Energy Commission, 1995.

Pacific Northwest (Battelle) Laboratory, Assessmentof the Available Windy Land Area and Wind EnergyPotential in the Contiguous United States, PNL-7789UC-261, 1991.

Pacific Northwest (Battelle) Laboratory, WindEnergy Resource Atlas of the United States, U.S.Department of Energy, DOE/CH10093-4, 1987.Available on the web at http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas.

Small, Catherine, Draft Wind Project Performance:1995 Summary, California Energy Commission,1997.

Utility Wind Interest Group (UWIG), America TakesStock of a Vast Energy Resource, 1992.

Yen, Dora. Wind Project Performance: 1999Summary, California Energy Commission, 2001.

Windpower Monthly, “Wind Wire,” November,1996.


This chapter describes the typical steps in windfarm permitting, and presents several principlescommon to many successful permitting processes.Chapter 1 described how permitting can occur atvarious levels of government and how permittingprocesses can vary between and within states.Nothing in this handbook is intended to prescribe aspecific permitting process or determine whichlevel of government should be responsible for per-mitting. Each state and local government is encour-aged to develop the process best suited to its needsand determine which decision-making considera-tions are applicable and appropriate. If the potentialfor wind development exists within their jurisdic-tions, permitting agencies are encouraged to con-sider the topics discussed in Chapter 3 in the con-text of the following suggestions for structuring aneffective wind permitting process.

TYPICAL STEPS IN PERMITTINGMost permitting processes for energy facilities,including wind turbines and associated transmissionfacilities, consist of five basic phases:

1) Pre-application

2) Application Review

3) Decision-making

4) Administrative and Judicial Review

5) Permit Compliance

Pre-applicationThe pre-application phase occurs before a permitapplication is officially filed with the permittingagency. This phase may be formal or informal andmay be a required part of an agency’s permittingprocess or at the project developer’s option. It mayoccur from a few days to as much as a year prior tofiling a permit application. During this phase, a pro-ject developer and permitting agencies typicallymeet to help ensure that both understand the pro-ject concept, permitting process, and possibleissues. The permitting agency should clearly specifywhether environmental analysis or surveys arerequired or what other information must be submit-ted with the permit application. The permittingagency may also take this opportunity to becomefamiliar with the project site, establish working rela-tionships with other agencies, and acquaint com-munity leaders and interest groups with the permit-

ting process. Some agencies may review drafts ofthe permit application, environmental analyses, orother materials during this phase if time allows.

During the pre-application phase, project develop-ers often meet with nearby landowners, communityleaders, environmental groups, and other poten-tially affected interests. This acquaints the developerwith their initial concerns and allows the developerto respond to questions regarding the project. Insome jurisdictions, the project developer is requiredto hold public meetings or submit a public noticeregarding the project during this phase.

Application ReviewFor most agencies, the application review beginswhen the project developer files a permit applica-tion. Many agencies may review the filing to ensurethat it contains sufficient information for the agencyand the public to adequately understand the projectand its consequences. If the agency has a timerequirement for making a decision on the project,the “clock” often starts once the agency has deter-mined that the application is complete, in that itcontains the appropriate type and amount of infor-mation.

The activities and time frames of the applicationreview phase vary according to each agency’s per-mitting process requirements. Some processesrequire public issue identification sessions, meet-ings, and site visits. Others also allow a “discovery”period where any formal participants in the processcan question other participants regarding the pro-ject, potential impacts, and mitigation measures orpossible alternatives. If a formal process is in place,the “lead” permitting agency may be required toevaluate the short- and long-term consequences ofthe proposed wind farm. This evaluation and theagency’s recommendations on alternatives andrequirements for mitigating the impacts, if neces-sary, frequently are presented to the project devel-oper and the public in an environmental assessmentdocument. These documents may be prepared bythe appropriate federal, state, or local permittingagency staff, or by consultants for the agency.

Decision-makingIn its decision-making, the agency not only deter-mines whether or not to allow a proposed windfarm to be constructed and operated, but alsowhether environmental mitigation and other con-struction, operation, or wind farm decommissioning

Chapter 2Guidelines for Structuring the Wind Farm Permitting Process


requirements are needed. This phase frequentlyincludes one or more public hearings. Some per-mitting processes require that these hearings takeplace in the community most directly affected bythe proposed project, while others are held in thecounty seat or state capital. For many state agen-cies, the final decision-maker is a siting board orcommission. The City Council, County Board ofSupervisors or Township Board of Supervisors is thefinal decision-maker for most local agencies.However, in some places the local decision-makingbody may consider a project only after it has beenreviewed by a separate Planning Commission.

Administrative Appeals and JudicialReviewAppeals of all or a portion of a final decision areconsidered during the administrative and judicialreview phase. The first avenue of appeal is directedto the decision-maker. Only after all administrativeappeals have been exhausted are challenges to thedecision reviewed by the courts. Appeals to thecourts most frequently are directed at determiningwhether the permitting process was executed fairlyand in accordance with the review requirements. Inaddition to considering such “procedural errors,”the courts occasionally are also asked to considerfactual errors that may have arisen during the per-mitting process.

Permit ComplianceThe permit compliance phase extends throughout awind project's lifetime, and may include inspectionor monitoring to ensure that the project is con-structed, operated, and decommissioned in compli-ance with the terms and conditions of its permitand all applicable laws. For some agencies, thepermit compliance phase also includes resolvingpublic complaints and expeditiously consideringchanges or amendments to a previously permittedproject. Wind farm closure or decommissioningmay also be monitored to ensure that a non-operat-ing project does not represent a health or safety riskor pose environmental concerns, and that it is dis-posed of either in conformance with the permitconditions, or as warranted at the time operationscease. Agencies may: 1) require wind developers topost bonds after permitting to ensure that decom-missioning costs are covered; 2) rely on the projectdeveloper to contribute to a decommissioning fundas the project generates revenue; or 3) rely on thesalvage value of any abandoned equipment.

PRINCIPLES COMMON TO SUCCESSFULPERMITTING PROCESSESThe following eight elements are suggested as keysto a successful process for permitting wind farms:

1) Significant Public Involvement

2) Issue-Oriented Process

3) Clear Decision Criteria

4) Coordinated Permitting Process

5) Reasonable Time Frames

6) Advance Planning

7) Timely Administrative and Judicial Review

8) Active Compliance Monitoring

While each of these guidelines may be appliedindividually, collectively they represent principlesfor structuring a permitting process to allow fortimely agency review, meaningful public involve-ment, and sound decisions.

Significant Public InvolvementA key feature of a successful permitting process isproviding opportunities for early, significant, andmeaningful public involvement. The public has aright to have its interests considered in permittingdecisions, and without early and meaningful publicinvolvement there is a much greater likelihood ofsubsequent opposition and costly and time-con-suming administrative reviews and judicial appeals.

While each agency’s permitting process is likely todiffer in the timing, location, and forum for publicinvolvement, methods that have been used to facili-tate public participation in a permitting processinclude:

• developers consulting with potentially affectedor interested persons and giving them theopportunity to comment before proposals aresubmitted for permit approval;

• permitting agencies notifying potentially affect-ed persons (adjacent landowners and the com-munity at large) at the time of filing to informthem that a permitting process is beginningand describing how they can participate;

Guidelines for Structuring the Wind Facility Permitting Process 15

• permitting agencies holding public informationmeetings at the beginning of the permittingprocess to inform the public of the project, thepermitting process, possible issues, and waysthey can provide input;

• permitting agencies holding meetings or work-shops in the community at times when themost people can attend to allow meaningfulpublic involvement throughout the applicationand review phase;

• permitting agencies sending copies of anyanalyses or pre-decision documents to affectedor interested persons and requesting formalcomments;

• permitting agencies providing advanced noticeto all affected or interested persons and thecommunity in general of any decision-makinghearings or meetings; and

• decision-making agencies allowing formalpublic involvement in open hearings whenmaking the decision on the proposed projector considering appeals to the decision on theproject.

Issue-Oriented ProcessSuccessful siting processes often focus the decisionon issues that can be dealt with in a factual andlogical manner. No project, whether it is a wind tur-bine or any other type of development, is withoutissues. Chapter 3 of this handbook discusses theissues that are most likely to be encountered in per-mitting wind farms.

A key to dealing with issues objectively and in atimely manner is having appropriate informationavailable early in the permitting process. Becausethe collection of information or data represents amajor up-front cost, agencies need to provideopportunities for project developers to learn aboutinformation requirements well in advance of thepermitting process. The requirements should beclear, reasonable, consistently applied to all pro-jects (and all developers), and reflect informationthat actually will be used in the process.

Even with a focus on issues and the development ofconsistent, up-front information requirements, someissues may not be easily solved from a purely ana-lytical perspective. Issues such as real or perceivedpublic health effects associated with magnetic

fields, fear of possible changes in property values,and visual impacts can become emotional. Anissue-oriented approach can help focus the debate,educate the public and decision-makers, andensure an analytic basis for the eventual decision.While this approach may not eliminate all opposi-tion to a proposed project, a focus on issues allowsfor a clearer understanding of the objections to aproject and a decision that is more likely to with-stand any administrative or legal appeals of thefacts associated with those objections.

Clear Decision CriteriaKnowing in advance the criteria the decision-mak-ers will use in making their decisions is an impor-tant feature of a fair and efficient permittingprocess.

To help provide clear criteria and also more cer-tainty on the likely outcome of a project, somedecision-makers have taken one or more of the fol-lowing steps in drafting ordinances or regulations:

• list all of the findings that need to be made inthe decision;

• identify specific criteria to be used in decision-making;

• define which factors will be considered in adecision and how they will be consideredand/or weighted;

• specify how environmental impacts, both posi-tive and negative, and mitigation measures,economic considerations and other factors willbe balanced in the decision-making process;and

• set minimum requirements to be met by a pro-posed project.

Specific decision-making criteria or factors will varydepending on the permitting agency involved, theissues or concerns within their jurisdiction, and theresources likely to be affected by wind develop-ment.

Most representatives of agencies, environmentalinterest groups, and members of the public indicatethat the primary permitting criterion is a finding thatthe project either has no significant environmentalor public health and safety impacts or that theseimpacts have been mitigated so that they are not


significant. Participants in the permitting processgenerally rely on existing federal or state lawsrequiring an environmental assessment documentprepared by the permitting agency as the basis forthe evaluation of project impacts. However, thetype of issues considered and the scope of theanalysis can vary depending on: the agency, group,or local public involved; familiarity with the area,the project and the technology proposed; and theimpact potential.

Many agencies also stress the importance of mak-ing a finding that the project complies with allapplicable laws, ordinances, regulations, or stan-dards. These include Federal AviationAdministration standards, Public Utility or PublicService Commission standards for electrical lines,state or federal endangered species laws, and localland use ordinances. Some local agencies believethat the requirements for Conditional Use Permits(CUP) are adequate for wind developments and feelthe CUP process is well understood by all of theparticipants. Other local agencies have determinedthat their CUP process does not readily apply towind energy developments and have modified theirpermit processes to better fit the characteristics andissues of wind projects.

Anticipating the potential for future wind develop-ment, some agencies have identified preferred sit-ing areas for wind projects prior to receiving permitapplications. In this manner, they have been able toguide development of the initial wind projectstoward the least environmentally sensitive lands.This allows wind projects and their potentialimpacts to be better understood before develop-ment is permitted in more sensitive areas.

Some agencies use economic development consid-erations as decision-making criteria. Agency staff,public interest groups and wind developers havestressed the importance of including economics inthe decision-making process and openly presentingthe property tax, jobs, and economic developmentbenefits as well as any costs associated with a pro-ject.

Wind developers indicate that they generally seekthe highest wind sites in known wind resourceareas that are economically feasible to construct,close to existing transmission facilities, and havelow potential for significant environmental impacts.The developer is responsible for mitigating project-

related impacts. With proper construction tech-niques and restoration practices, the need for addi-tional mitigation may be limited.

Along with criteria related to integrating wind gen-eration into the regional or state electrical system,some agencies also include the “need” for addi-tional generation facilities in their decisions. Thismay be considered in the context of a state or util-ity service area “integrated resource plan” or otherenergy policies or goals such as energy diversity. Inmoving to a competitive electricity market struc-ture, some states have discontinued the require-ment to evaluate “need” because the project’sfinancial risk is not borne by the electricity ratepay-ers. Others have dropped the “need” process incases where wind projects have been mandated bystate law.

Coordinated Permitting ProcessProject permitting can be one of the significantcosts associated with developing wind resourcesand one of the major sources of uncertainty.Projects can be delayed and developers and agen-cies can incur significant costs when multiple agen-cies require separate processes, or where environ-mental impact assessment and mitigation require-ments are inconsistent. This problem may be partic-ularly significant where the wind resource areaincludes more than one jurisdiction or the pro-posed wind project and related facilities such astransmission lines or access roads affect multipleagencies with land use or permitting authority.

The most efficient permitting process for energyfacilities would be one in which there is little or noduplication of documents or review by permittingentities, no conflicts between the different agenciesin resolving issues, and no inconsistencies in permitrequirements. Coordinated permitting has beenachieved by:

• issuing all state and local permits by oneagency in one process;

• making one agency responsible for coordinat-ing the permit review by all other agencies;

• having all agencies agree on concurrentreview processes and schedule and on amethod for resolving any differences or dis-putes; or by


• establishing a multi-agency decision-makingauthority to consider the review and permitrequirements of all agencies in one forum.

Coordination also is important in implementing per-mit requirements, monitoring during constructionand operation, and decommissioning wind farms.Inconsistencies can develop when responsibilitiesshift from one agency or department to another. Forexample, the applicability of permit conditions andagreements can become confused when responsi-bilities are transferred from a local PlanningDepartment that had the responsibility for permit-ting to the Building Department that had no previ-ous involvement in the project but is now expectedto monitor a project’s compliance. If possible, theagency that developed the permit conditions shouldalso be responsible for monitoring compliance.

Wind developers and agencies within some windresource areas have found it beneficial to pool theirresources to resolve issues and problems that ariseduring project development, site planning, con-struction, or operation. Pooled resources have ledto ongoing studies of avian mortality, erosion con-trol, noise, and other issues of local concern. Forexample, Minnesota's avian requirements werepooled so that there was one study that all develop-ers paid for on a per-megawatt basis.

Reasonable Time FramesIn addition to close coordination between regula-tory agencies, certainty in permitting can also beprovided by establishing clear and reasonable timeframes for completing the various steps in the per-mitting process and reaching a final decision. Aprincipal concern of any developer is that the finaldecision on their proposed project will be subjectto lengthy, unnecessary delays. Developers preferknown “stop points” for providing project informa-tion and making significant project changes so theycan complete project design and financing arrange-ments.

Agencies, representatives of interest groups and thegeneral public also need to have some certaintyabout the permitting schedule so they can plan theiractivities and make the best use of their resources.

In general, the timing of a permitting process is theresponsibility of the permitting agency or agencies.Timing usually can be controlled if either oneagency is in the lead for all permitting activities or

all agencies involved have agreed to coordinatepermitting activities and meet specific time goals.Many permitting agencies have found that the bestway to address the concern about unnecessarydelay is to specify reasonable time frames for eachof the major phases of a permitting process leadingto a final permitting decision. They clearly commu-nicate the time frames to all participants throughoutthe process so that all involved have commonexpectations on the time available and how it is tobe used.

Advance PlanningThe successful permitting of any energy facilityrequires early planning and communication on thepart of the developers and the permitting agencies.

Some state and local agencies have geographic-based information systems that identify land useand environmental resources. These may includezoning and land use designations, transmissionlines, roads and highways including scenic designa-tions, biological resources, parks, and recreationareas. A few agencies have discussed using thisinformation to identify in advance geographic areasthat: have developable wind resources or presentopportunities for locating wind farms; are likely topose permitting problems for wind farms; or wherewind development would not be allowed.Establishing communications is another criticalfunction of advance planning. Most participantsinvolved in permitting wind farms – developers,agencies and the public – concur that identifyingthe key players and initiating communications isimportant to successful permitting and should bedone before the formal permitting process beginswhenever possible.

Timely Administrative and Judicial ReviewIf issues or conflicts raised during a permittingprocess are not satisfactorily resolved, the dissatis-fied party – project developer, concerned public, oreven agency staff – typically has an opportunity toappeal the decision to the decision-makers or to ahigher administrative body. If the appeal is notresolved or if an administrative appeal process isnot available, the conflict can be raised in local,state, or federal courts. While judicial appeals maybe filed because of alleged factual or proceduralerrors, most successful appeals are the result oferrors in the actual permitting process.Consequently a major goal of most wind permittingprocesses is to follow established procedures and


produce factually-based decisions so that subse-quent judicial appeals may be minimized. Shouldlegal appeals occur, whether in an administrative ora judicial forum, the goal becomes to proceed effi-ciently and reach a conclusion in a reasonableamount of time.

One method used by many jurisdictions to increasethe efficiency of handling appeals is to design thepermitting process to systematically narrow theissues of concern. While all potential issues may bereviewed at the beginning of the process, issuesthat are either not of concern or that can be readilyresolved in a manner acceptable to the developer,permitting agency staff, and concerned public maybe set aside early in the process through meetings,workshops, or initial environmental documents. Asa result, only those issues specifically identified bythe parties as being in dispute need to be consid-ered in hearings before the decision-makers. Boththe hearings and preliminary decision documentscan also be used to further focus the issues. Using a"scoping process," the permitting agency can pro-duce a focused and detailed administrative recordwhich can be used to support their decision. Thiscan significantly limit any administrative or judicialappeals and allow them to proceed more effi-ciently.

Some of the methods agencies have used toenhance an efficient administrative and judicialreview process include:

• using an issue-oriented public hearing processincorporating significant public involvement toreach a permitting decision;

• using a contested case or trial-type hearingprocess for an administrative review or appealof the final permitting action;

• allowing consideration only of the record ofthe contested case proceeding in a judicialappeal;

• limiting the judicial appeal to only those issuesidentified and unresolved in the administrativeappeal;

• defining who has standing to initiate thereview;

• specifying time limits within which appealsmust be initiated;

• setting standards for review;

• specifying how the costs of appeals will bepaid and whether costs can be awarded to aprevailing party; and

• directing that judicial review will be to thehighest state court of competent jurisdiction,thereby eliminating any intermediate appellatecourt review.

Active Compliance MonitoringMost agencies include in their permits specific con-ditions that must be met during construction oroperation to ensure public health, safety, and envi-ronmental protection. These monitoring programsmay include annual or periodic site visits, more for-mal inspections or annual reports on wind farmoperations and conditions. Active compliance mon-itoring also allows agencies to respond rapidly toresolve any public complaints, and to work withproject developers to modify permits if projectchanges are needed.

Not all agencies carry out the compliance monitor-ing function in the same manner. The degree ofmonitoring typically depends on the interest andexperience of the permitting agency. In some cases,few problems are encountered and the agenciesfeel little on-site monitoring is necessary. In others,the agency may have a very active program to per-form monitoring, complaint resolution and projectamendment functions.

If an agency establishes a compliance monitoringprogram, the agency should apply the programconsistently and should:

• monitor only to ensure that permit conditionsactually are being met;

• work closely with project developers to resolveany problems before they become complianceissues;

• establish a complaint resolution process andprovide the public with a specific contact andphone number to call in the event of a com-plaint;

• identify in advance procedures and possibleactions to deal with non-compliance;


• develop in advance a process for openly andexpeditiously reviewing project amendments;

• establish provisions, in advance, for dealingwith repowering, closure, or failure of projects;and

• stay abreast of the status of individual winddevelopments by maintaining communicationwith the developers throughout the life of theirprojects.

Funding of compliance monitoring programs varieswith the permitting agency. In some cases, staff andother resources needed to implement monitoringare funded through general state or local revenues(income tax, energy surcharge, or property taxes). Inother instances, monitoring activities are fundedthrough a one-time or annual project fee. Most fed-eral agencies have permit requirements for projectslocated on public lands and monitor these condi-tions with a portion of the development fees orannual lease payments. Some of these federal leaseagreements also include requirements for perfor-mance bonding for use of the leased lands toensure ongoing monitoring of the project and main-tenance of the project and the leasehold.

The potential for public health and safety or envi-ronmental concerns does not end when construc-tion of a wind project is completed or even when itceases operation. Many agencies currently includeconditions in their permits to deal with project clo-sure or decommissioning and site restoration,including:

• removal of non-operating or downed equip-ment;

• removal of any residual spills;

• cleanup of storage yards and maintenanceshops; and

• restoration of tower pads, access roads, andother areas.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCESMany states and localities have (or are putting)wind energy conversion system permittingprocesses or guidelines in place. The World WideWeb is a good source of current information onspecific state and local wind energy permitting laws and guidelines (search on “wind energy” plus “ordinance”, “permitting”, “zoning” or “planning”). Workshop presentations on this subject are accessible through NWCC’s Web site:www.nationalwind.org.


This chapter examines some of the specific consid-erations that may need to be addressed in permit-ting wind projects, whether they are large windfarms which sell power to utilities, one or more tur-bines constructed to support the existing transmis-sion and distribution system, or single turbines toprovide power to a single user. In planning forpotential wind energy development or reviewing aproposed project, permitting considerations mayinclude impacts and benefits associated with any orall of the following:

• Land use

• Noise

• Birds and other biological resources

• Visual resources

• Soil erosion and water quality

• Public health and safety

• Cultural and paleontological resources

• Solid and hazardous wastes

• Air quality and climate

Not all permitting considerations apply to everywind project. The relative importance of theseissues and appropriate methods for addressing themwill vary for each project because of differences intopography, land use, environmental resources,community concerns, agency experience andexpertise, permitting processes, project economics,state or local energy policies, electrical systemneeds and characteristics, local attitudes and poli-tics.

LAND USEMany federal, state, and local agencies prepare andimplement plans or policies that set goals andguidelines for the development and use of landswithin their jurisdictions. These are intended toensure that there is sufficient land available for vari-ous uses, that adjacent uses are compatible, andthat there is an orderly transition between differingtypes of uses. In determining whether a proposedproject is both consistent with existing plans, goals,and policies and compatible with existing and

planned adjacent uses, permitting agencies oftenconsider a project’s potential to change the overallcharacter of the surrounding area, disrupt estab-lished communities, or physically intrude upon thelandscape. Where land use plans and policies exist,they often are critical to the outcome of local orstate-level permitting decisions. However, a pro-posed project which is inconsistent or incompatiblewith existing land use plans and policies may stillbe approved if the permitting agency grants a vari-ance.

Planning for wind development. If wind resourcesexist within a jurisdiction, land use planning agen-cies are encouraged to consider these resourcesearly in their planning and policy activities. Someagencies, recognizing the potential for wind gener-ation, have prepared maps of the potential windresource areas showing information such as windspeed and duration, topographic features, site char-acteristics, existing roads and facilities, potentiallysensitive land uses, and environmental considera-tions. Agencies also should review existing land useplans, zoning designations, and policies to provideappropriate, up-front guidance to developers onwhere and how to locate wind projects so that theyare as consistent as reasonably possible with exist-ing land uses and the environment. (See Figure 7.)These same actions will ensure that other develop-ment activities do not preclude the constructionand operation of electric generation in prime windresource areas. Some agencies have formally identi-fied wind resource areas (WRAs) in their plans tofacilitate permitting and development of wind gen-eration in preferred locations.

Coordinating to resolve land use issues. As empha-sized in Chapter 2, close coordination can benefitall the project stakeholders – including utilities,agencies, the public, and developers – by ensuringcontinuity, consistency, and certainty. Wind projectdevelopers should contact the land use agency oragencies regarding their plans and policies veryearly in the project planning process. To effectivelyresolve potential land use concerns, all the agen-cies involved in reviewing and making land usedecisions on proposed wind generation projectsmust coordinate and communicate with each otherin a timely manner throughout the lifetime of theproject. It is also essential that staff within variousoffices or departments of an individual agencywork together during the permitting process so that

Specific Permitting Considerations 21

Chapter 3Specific Permitting Considerations

any conditions or requirements are consistent andare monitored throughout the lifetime of the pro-ject.

NOISE Noise may be defined, for the purpose of permittingproposed development projects, as any unwantedsound. Whether a noise is objectionable will varydepending on its type (tonal, broadband, low-

frequency, impulsive, etc.) and the circumstancesand sensitivity of the individual who hears it (oftenreferred to as the receptor). Primarily because of thewide variation in the levels of individual tolerancefor noise, there is no completely satisfactory way tomeasure the subjective effects of noise, or of thecorresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatis-faction. It may, however, be useful for comparisonpurposes to measure noise of various types from


Source and Given Distance from A-Weighted Environmental Noise Subjectivity/that Source Sound Level in Impression

Decibels (dBA)

Civil Defense Siren [TONAL] 140-130 PainThreshold

Jet Takeoff (200') 120[BROADBAND and TONAL]

110 Rock Music ConcertVery Loud

Pile Driver (50') [IMPULSIVE] 100

Ambulance Siren (100') [TONAL] 90 Boiler Room

Freight Cars (50')[BROADBAND and IMPULSIVE]

Pneumatic Drill (50') Printing Press Loud[BROADBAND] 80 Kitchen with Garbage

Disposal Running

Freeway (100') 70[BROADBAND] Moderately

LoudVacuum Cleaner (100') 60 Data Processing Center[BROADBAND and TONAL] Department Store/Office

Light Traffic (100') 50 Private Business Office[BROADBAND] ` Quiet

Large Transformer (200') [TONAL] 40

Soft Whisper (5') 30 Quiet Bedroom

20 Recording Studio

10 Threshold of Hearing

0

Source: Peterson and Gross, 1974

Table 3.1 Typical Environmental and Industry Sound Levels

other sources in the area of the project, or to pro-vide sound levels associated with common activi-ties and situations (see Table 3.1). For regulatorypurposes, noise limits often are specified at thenearest receptor (property line or residence) to thenoise source, or at a given distance from thesource.

Noise ConsiderationsOperating noise produced by wind farms is consid-erably different in level and nature than that gener-ated by most power plants. Wind farms are typi-cally located in rural or remote areas, with lowpopulation densities and low ambient noise levels.Due to the inherently windy nature of these loca-tions, however, and to the quiet nature of modernwind turbines, ambient, or “background”, noisegenerated by the wind often is sufficient to masksounds generated by the wind farm, even for thevery few individuals located close enough to thewind farm to be able to hear it.

A more detailed discussion of noise measurement,including the development of acoustic standardsspecifically designed for measuring noise fromwind turbine generators, is in Appendix B.

Noise produced by wind turbines has diminishedmarkedly as the technology has matured. Orienting

rotors on the “upwind” side of the turbine toweravoids the low-frequency sounds associated withthe passage of the blades through the tower’s windshadow, as occurs on “down-wind” machines.Also, the few down-wind machines that are beingdeveloped or sold have been intensively engi-neered to reduce low-frequency noise, throughtechniques such as increasing the distance of therotor from the tower. Tubular towers and modernnacelles are streamlined, and produce little or nosound with the passage of the wind. Nacelles aremore heavily sound proofed, resulting in bettercontainment of sounds generated by the equipmentinside them. And as blade airfoils have becomemore efficient, more of the wind is converted intorotational torque and less into acoustic noise.Under most conditions, modern turbines are quiet,generating primarily broad-band sound levels nohigher than those of a moderately quiet room atdistances of 750 to 1000 feet (about 230-300 m).(See Table 3.1 for several examples of typical envi-ronmental and industry sound levels.)

Construction-related noise generated by wind projects. As with most developments which involveconstruction, noise levels associated with the con-struction or decommissioning of wind power pro-jects can be significant. Principal sources of suchnoise include truck traffic, blasting associated withfoundation blasting (if necessary), and operation ofheavy equipment. Construction or decommission-ing of a project is accomplished within a fewmonths’ time. Vehicular traffic during operationstypically is minimal.

The most significant impacts associated with con-struction noises would occur if they disrupt criticallife-cycle activities (mating, nesting, etc.) of animalspecies of concern, or if they occur during off-hoursand disturb people living near the site.

Noise StrategiesStrategies employed by some agencies in address-ing potential noise concerns have included predict-ing and measuring noise levels, establishing noisestandards, requiring noise setbacks, establishingzoning restrictions, and making turbine modifica-tions. To effectively handle noise concerns that mayarise after permitting, some agencies have imple-mented a noise complaint and investigationprocess.


Figure 7. Agriculture is one example of a wind energy-compatible land use. Here a farmer plows the Earth and willraise crops almost to the foot of the turbines. Photo courtesy ofLisa Daniels, Windustry, and the American Wind EnergyAssociation.

BIRDS AND OTHER BIOLOGICALRESOURCESBiological resources include a broad variety ofplants and animals that live, use or pass through anarea. They also encompass the habitat that supportsthe living resources, including both physical fea-tures such as soil and water, and the biologicalcomponents that sustain living communities. Theserange from bacteria and fungi through predators atthe top of the food chain.

Any construction project can affect the biologicalresources at the site by disrupting the physical andecological relationships of the communities livingthere. Power plants can have direct effects bydestroying habitat and resident organisms. There arealso indirect effects by releasing pollutants thataffect organisms’ health or by producing noise,motion, or another disturbance that affects thebehavior of animals. These effects may be confinedto a small part of the power plant where the distur-bance is most acute, or may be dispersed over awide area.

Biological Resource ConsiderationsBecause wind projects typically are located in ruralareas that are either undeveloped or mainly usedfor farming or grazing, the potential to directly andindirectly affect biological resources varies greatly.Conflicts, if any, will depend on the plants and ani-mals present and the location and design of thewind farms. In a few cases permitting agencies havediscouraged or prevented development due topotential adverse consequences to these resources.In cases where sensitive resources were not presentor where impacts could be avoided or mitigated,development has been allowed to proceed.

Biological resource concerns associated with winddevelopment may include:

• Causes of direct fatalities, such as bird and batcollisions with turbines, electrocutions, andother direct wildlife impacts;

• Loss of wildlife habitat due to wind farm con-struction;

• Indirect impacts on wildlife, such as loss of theuse of an area due to disturbance; and

• Loss of natural vegetation.

Experience has shown that unless protected plants,animals or their habitat are destroyed or displacedduring construction, permitting agencies are likelyto find the non-collision consequences of winddevelopment on wildlife to be insignificant.Constructing wind farms to disturb only a smallamount of surface area confines habitat losses toonly a small part of the entire project. In manycases, impacts on protected plant species can beavoided or minimized by carefully planning andconstructing the project.

The impact of collisions between birds and windfarms has been the most controversial biologicalconsideration affecting wind farm siting. In NorthAmerica, only one wind resource area, with thou-sands of turbines, combined with site characteristicsthat attract some types of birds, has producedenough bird collisions and deaths to raise concernsby fish and wildlife agencies and conservationgroups. On the other hand, most large wind farmshave been operating for years with only minorimpacts on birds and bats. To date, the only knownconcern regarding population effects has arisen inthe Altamont Pass WRA. Population effects are afunction not of the absolute number or birds or batskilled, but of the number killed relative to the sizeof the total species population in the region.

Estimates of annual bird fatalities due to collisionswith man-made structures in the United Statesrange from 100 million to greater than 1 billion.These structures include vehicles, buildings andwindows, power lines, communication towers andwind turbines. Structures such as smokestacks,power lines, and radio and television towers havebeen associated with far larger numbers of bird killsthan have wind farms. Other sources of bird fatali-ties, such as motor vehicles and pollution, areresponsible for a much higher proportion of totalbird deaths. Even cats (domestic and feral) accountfor an estimated 100 million bird deaths per year.Based upon an estimate of 15,000 operating windturbines in the US, estimates of birds killed by windturbines are projected at 33,000 bird fatalities peryear for all species combined (WEST, Inc. forNWCC, 2001).

Many of the bird fatalities tend to come from com-mon species (many of which are non-natives) suchas house sparrows, starlings, gulls and rock doves(pigeons) (WEST, 2001). Raptors are a special con-cern, due to their low numbers and the protectedstatus of most species. With the exception of


Altamont Pass WRA, even the numbers of thisgroup killed by wind turbines are quite small. Shoreand water birds are occasional fatalities at locationsnear seasonal or year-round water features.

Avian collisions and electrocutions. As with anytall facilities, birds can hit wind turbines. Themovement of the blades is unique, and adds thepotential for striking birds as they fly, although it isnot known whether this increases avian mortality atwind turbines compared with other tall structures.Bats also have been killed by wind turbines. Theseconcerns apply both to the individual animalskilled, and the potential for affecting the popula-tions of particularly sensitive species. Studiesreporting the losses of raptors (birds of prey such ashawks and eagles) at the Altamont Pass windresource area in California and soaring birds (storksand vultures) at Tarífa in Spain, have made bird col-lisions with wind turbines the most publicized bio-logical resource concern associated with winddevelopment. These studies showed that bird colli-sions can be a serious problem and that it is impor-tant to carefully evaluate the potential for collisionsbefore developing any wind resource. Since then,studies in other wind resource areas have shownthat bird collisions are not a critical problem atmost wind development areas. (For a review ofinformation about avian collisions with man-madestructures, see West, Inc. 2001, USFWS 1980, andBanks 1979.)

While collisions with wind turbines are relativelyinfrequent, they do occur, and birds and bats arekilled or seriously injured. Depending on the pro-tective status or the number of individuals involved,these collisions may or may not be considered abiologically or legally significant impact. Becausestate and federal laws protect most raptors, anythreat posed to these animals may present a legalbarrier as well as a source of concern to local con-servation groups.

Both the wind industry and government agencieshave sponsored or are conducting research intocollisions, relevant bird behavior, and mitigationand avoidance measures at wind farms. Studiesfocus on the effects on birds of the wind farm com-ponents—for example, comparing mortality at openframed lattice towers and closed tubular towers.They may also focus on the micro-siting of turbines(i.e., exactly where turbines are placed within thewind farm).

Other research is investigating birds’ sensory physi-ology, and how it affects their ability to detect thecomponents of a wind turbine. An example of thiskind of study is painting different color patterns onturbine blades and observing whether the birdsreact to the turbines at a greater distance, or morerapidly (see Howell, Noone and Wardner, 1991;McIsaac, 2001, Hodos, et al., 2001).

Some of these studies are finding that both residentand migratory birds are involved in collisions. Birdstypically migrate at altitudes of 1,500 to 2,500 feet(460-760 m). Even migrating songbirds fly at analtitude of 500 to 1,000 feet (150-300 m), wellabove the top of turbine blades in most locations.Therefore, collisions with wind turbines duringactual migratory flights should be, and appear inactuality to be, rare. Studies of bird behavioraround wind turbines have shown that when theturbines are visible, birds will change direction toavoid flying directly into turbines. In addition,water birds such as geese and swans tend to avoidthe vicinity of turbines, keeping from 800 to 1,600feet (250 to 500 m) away from them. (See studiesby J. E. Winkelman, 1992.) As with other highstructures, reduced visibility due to fog, clouds, rainand darkness may be a factor in collisions.

Aviation marker lights installed on turbines over200 feet (60 m) may also be a factor in bird and batfatalities. Birds are known to respond to red lights,which they may perceive as navigational clues.However, this has not been shown to be a problemat any wind energy development to date.

In some wind areas and on many transmission sys-tems in the west, large birds have been electro-cuted on distribution or transmission lines. This canoccur when the bird touches two electrical conduc-tors or one conductor and a grounded wire, eitheron a power line, at a riser pole, or in a substation.In all cases, when APLIC (Avian Power LineInteraction Committee) standards are applied elec-trocution potential is substantially mitigated.

The National Wind Coordinating Committee’sAvian Subcommittee has produced a guidance doc-ument designed to promote standardization of stud-ies to allow comparisons among sites, technologies,groups of birds, etc. Chapter 2 of that documentstresses the value of an initial site evaluation inidentifying possible risks to avian species:


“When one or more sites are under consideration,some quick and effective methods can be utilizedto determine the types of bird resources on andnear the site. Information-gathering at this stage cancover many variables and is intended to eliminateproblematic surprises late in the permitting processand during operation. By conducting an appropriateassessment, the wind plant proponent and permit-ting authority will be able to estimate potential birdrisk. A written assessment of each site consideredshould include:

1) Information from existing sources, includ-ing:

• local expertise

• literature searches

• natural resource database searches for sensitive species, for bird species known to be susceptible to collision events, and for areas used by large numbers of birds

2) Reconnaissance surveys

3) Vegetation mapping, habitat evaluation,and wildlife habitat relationships

4) Consideration as to whether the existinginformation and site visit information willallow compliance with, and be defensiblefor, regulatory and environmental law pur-poses.” 6

Overall, bird mortality has been a minor effect ofwind energy development in most locations in theContinental United States. The numbers of birdskilled have been low. In addition, the species killeddo not always match the types and numbers ofbirds observed in pre-installation counts. This sug-gests that simple presence and numbers are notalways accurate predictors of mortality. The resultsof numerous studies indicate that abundance andutilization are not clear indicators of potential fatal-ity rates for individual species. The data suggest thatjust because a species is abundant does not mean itwill have a high fatality rate (turkey vultures andravens in the Altamont are two examples).Conversely, species that have a low abundance andutilization of a WRA do not necessarily have a lowfatality rate. An extensive long-term research project

was carried out at wind farms in southernCalifornia. Those studies indicated that mortality formost species was relatively low, and that raptorfatalities at the level seen at Altamont Pass may beunique. (See studies by Orloff and Flannery, 1996;Thelander and Rugge, 2000 (a) and (b), 2001;Anderson et al. 1996, 2000; Anderson et al. 2002aand 2002b, in preparation.)

Although normally not the most abundant species,raptors appear to be at high risk relative to othertypes of birds at several sites under study. (Again,however, in terms of actual raptor fatalities at windprojects, the Altamont appears to be unique). Basedon what we know from the data, a pre-constructionevaluation of species utilization will not predictwhat species will be killed. However, combinedwith results from other site studies, an assessment ofpotential species impact can be made. To date,most studies are not pointing to an issue withmigrant songbirds.

Wildlife and habitat loss. Construction and opera-tion of wind farms can affect wildlife through (indescending order of impact):

1) Collision with turbine structures, turbineblades and anemometer guy wires, causingdeath or injury;

2) Electrocution by contact with two or morephases of a three-phase electrical circuit orbetween any single phase and a groundedobject such as a metal tower;

3) Direct loss of habitat;

4) Habitat alteration as a result of soil erosion,introduction of non-native vegetation, orconstruction of obstacles to migration;destruction of the nests of ground-nestingbirds; increased predation by providingadditional perches for raptors; and

5) Indirect habitat loss as a result of increasedhuman presence, noise, or motion of oper-ating turbines.

Because wind farms affect a relatively small propor-tion of the land they occupy, these effects should beminor in most cases. However, agencies mayrequire them to be evaluated, particularly if pro-


6 Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document, Dec. 1999 (www.nationalwind.org), p.12.

tected species are present. A developer who isaware of protected or sensitive species within anarea may choose to alter the siting plan in order tominimize the proposed project’s impact on thosespecies. (See Chapter 4, “The Stateline Project” forone such example.)

Water quality and fish habitat can be affected ifwind project development increases runoff or soilerosion from the site. See SOIL EROSION ANDWATER QUALITY for discussion of this considera-tion.

Increased traffic, noise, night lighting, and otherhuman activities can discourage wildlife from usingareas around energy facilities and cause indirecthabitat losses. Most of these effects are temporary,occurring only during construction, but some con-tinue during operations at reduced levels. Theseactivities are not likely to result in biologically sig-nificant effects for most wind projects. Again, how-ever, agencies may require them to be evaluated.

Wind project construction also may alter an area orits habitats in a way that affects wildlife. For exam-ple, non-native plants may invade areas withground loosened by construction and displace veg-etation with higher wildlife food value. A disturbedground surface can be more suitable for burrowinganimals, many of which are attractive prey for rap-tors and other predators.

In areas subject to development pressure, wind pro-jects can have a positive impact on wildlife by pre-serving open space and habitat that would other-wise be occupied by suburban housing and com-mercial development. (See Figure 8.)

Wind farms also may disrupt wildlife movements,particularly during migrations. For example, herdanimals such as elk, deer and pronghorn can beaffected if rows of turbines are placed along migra-tion paths between winter and summer ranges or incalving areas. However, studies conducted at FooteCreek Rim in Wyoming documented no small-scaledisplacement effects of pronghorn antelope.Pronghorn use on the Rim has not declined sinceconstruction of the wind plant (Johnson, et al.,2000) While this type of effect is unlikely to occur,it should be considered when wildlife experts cansubstantiate that it is a reasonable possibility.

In the Prairie Pothole region of the Dakotas, con-cern was expressed about effects of wind projectconstruction and operation on breeding birds. Amodeling study was conducted by the NaturalResources Conservation Service for the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (Leddy et al, 1999). That mod-eling effort forecast very small effects on breedingsongbirds and waterfowl. Monitoring studies atfuture operating wind installations in that regionshould help to verify the forecast.

Natural vegetation loss. The significance of vegeta-tion loss associated with a wind project usuallydepends on the size of the area disturbed andwhether rare or sensitive native plants are affected.Building a wind farm comprised of all of the com-ponents described in Chapter 1 disturbs some ofthe existing surface vegetation. Depending on theproject design, these disturbances typically affectonly three to five percent of the total surface area ofa wind development site.

Site topography and the layout of access roads willaffect the extent of vegetation disturbance and loss.Construction in steep areas can produce greaterdisturbance because these facilities require moreextensive “cut and fill” as well as longer, morecomplex road systems. The establishment of inva-sive, weedy (noxious) plant species that thrive indisturbed areas may compound these losses. These

27Specific Permitting Considerations

Figure 8. Unconcerned with the rotating blades, a PronghornAntelope grazes near these wind turbines in Fort Davis, Texas.Photo courtesy of AWEA.

often must be controlled to allow native vegetationto be re-established. Some wind projects includeagreements or requirements to remove or preventthe re-growth of nearby trees that disrupt wind flowand reduce available energy (Gipe, 1995). Theextent of the clearing typically depends on the windspeed, duration, and direction; topography; and therelative height and placement of the turbines. Inforested areas, selective clearing may be necessaryfor turbine siting and operation. When applicable,biological resource evaluations of wind projectsshould consider the need for and effects of treetrimming and removal.

VISUAL RESOURCESVisual or aesthetic resources refer to those naturaland cultural features of an environmental settingthat are of visual interest to people. An assessmentof whether a project will be visually compatiblewith the character of the project setting or the nat-ural landscape is based upon a comparison of thesetting and surrounding features with simulatedviews of proposed project structures and facilities,as measured from several key observation pointsand as perceived by various observers. Questions toask include:

• Will the project substantially alter the existingproject setting (sometimes referred to as the“viewshed”), including any changes in the nat-ural terrain or landscape?

• Will the project be in conflict with directly-identified public preferences regarding visualand environmental resources?

• Will the project comply with local goals, poli-cies, designations, or guidelines related to visu-al quality? (Walker, 1996)

Visual Resource ConsiderationsWind projects have somewhat different impacts onvisual resources than most other electric generationtechnologies. This is in part because they usuallyhave been located in rural or even remote areas,often with few nearby residential developments andonly intermittent human visitation and use. Thepotential for visual resource impacts is sometimesconsidered as part of the evaluation of land usecompatibility among multiple parcels with eithersimilar or a diverse set of uses. The degree to whichaesthetic impacts may become an issue during theproject permitting process is a function of the valuepeople place on the visual quality of the project set-

ting and many other individual considerations.Elements which may influence visual impactsinclude the spacing, design and uniformity of theturbines, markings or lighting, roads built on slopes,and service buildings.

Spacing and turbine design. Effective use of windresources requires maintaining adequate spacingbetween individual turbines as well as betweenrows, banks, or tiers of turbines. The spacing ofwind turbines is determined by the distance neededfor the winds to replenish. Turbines with shorterblades can be placed much closer together thanlarger turbines. Older, large-scale turbine projectstended to feature a larger number of closely con-centrated units; today one new turbine may pro-duce the same power as six to ten of the earlierunits. Fewer and wider-spaced turbines may presenta more pleasing appearance than tightly-packedarrays (see Figure 9).

Markings and lighting. Most modern wind turbinesare of heights that bring them into airspace regu-lated by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA). Thus,lighting, and possibly marking, are likely to berequired on certain portions of the turbines installedin a wind project. More lights or markings may berequired in installations near airports where theproject may extend into the flight paths. Tall towersfor anemometers or meteorological data gatheringalso may require similar markings and lighting.Federal regulations require markings on all objectsover 200 feet (about 60 m), and state regulationsmay impose lower thresholds.

Roads on slopes. Where wind turbines are arrayedalong ridgelines to capture wind flows over theridges, the units are visible over greater distances.Against the sloping terrain of the ridges, surfacesnewly exposed by construction of access roads andturbine pads may contrast sharply with existing soilsand/or vegetative cover. From a distance, the visualimpact of roads on slopes may be greater than thatof the turbines. Constructing roads on slopes to gainaccess to the ridge tops also opens the potential forerosion that can produce additional long-termvisual changes in the site area. (See Figure 10.)

Buildings and Storage. Service and maintenancebuildings located within the project leasehold mayvisually intrude upon the surrounding landscape.Other visually undesirable aspects of the area mayinclude: crates or stacks of materials stored for pro-ject repair; barrels, reels, and piles of waste materi-


als; and non-functional turbines that are awaitingrepair or removal, or have been disposed of on-site.

A valuable process tool for the assessment of poten-tial project impacts to sensitive visual resources isthe preparation and use of visual simulations.Evaluation of these simulations allows the projectdeveloper, permitting agencies, and the public tosee the site as it is, and to see the changes the pro-ject will bring to the existing setting and any sensi-tive resources. After viewing the simulations ofimportant vantage points, all stakeholders can beinvolved in adjusting project layout and design tominimize potential impacts.

SOIL EROSION AND WATER QUALITYSoil erosion is a normal process in which soil parti-cles are detached and removed by wind or water.Deposition of this eroded material, especially into

waterways, is called sedimentation. Land distur-bance resulting from construction and operation ofenergy generation facilities can remove vegetationand loosen soil particles, allowing them to be sweptaway by wind or water. This can accelerate the ero-sion process considerably if proper precautions arenot taken, resulting in significant impacts (includingboth direct and indirect economic costs) both onand off the site.

Wind-induced erosion can increase fine particulatematter in the air which can adversely impacthuman health and reduce visibility. Water-inducederosion, in addition to removing soil and decreasingits productivity, results in sedimentation whichdegrades water quality,7 damages biologicalresources, exacerbates flooding, and accelerates filling of reservoirs.

With appropriate precautions, the impact of windprojects on soil erosion and water quality should beminimal at most sites.

Developing an area for energy generation facilitieschanges site and surrounding area runoff anddrainage characteristics and may adversely impactresources on and off-site. Uncontrolled runoff fromconstruction sites can cause short-term increases inturbidity and siltation in nearby watercourses.Deposition of this sediment in nearby watercoursesmay adversely affect sensitive habitats, contribute to flooding, induce stream bank erosion, and alterdownstream flow patterns. The costs associatedwith removing sediment from waterways, culverts


Figure 9. Compare the visual effect of widely-spaced turbines ata wind facility in Lake Benton, Minnesota (top) with the visualimpact of a more densely-spaced array in California’s TehachapiPass (bottom). Photos courtesy of the American Wind EnergyAssociation (top) and the California Energy Commission (bottom).

Figure 10. Roads on slopes can have a distinct visual impact,even from a great distance. Photo courtesy of the CaliforniaEnergy Commission.

7 Uncontrolled erosion and runoff is the major cause of degraded water quality in the United States, depositing not only sediment, butalso metals, nutrients and other contaminants in adjacent waterways.

and drains can be significant. Spills resulting fromproject construction and operation activities, suchas refueling heavy equipment, may also impactwater quality.

Soil Erosion and Water QualityConsiderationsAlthough more dispersed than most other types ofenergy generation development, wind projects canstill require a significant amount of land distur-bance, especially where built on steep slopes. It isimportant to distinguish between temporary andpermanent impacts.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETYThe public health and safety concerns for electricalgenerating facilities typically are associated eitherwith the release of emissions into the atmosphere orsolid and liquid wastes into surface or groundwaters or the soil. Any of these can cause adversepublic health impacts, violate standards for publichealth protection, or represent risks for workers.Wind farms differ substantially from most otherelectrical facilities in that they do not use a com-bustion process to generate electricity and hence donot produce any air pollutant emissions. In addi-tion, the only potentially toxic or hazardous materi-als associated with most wind farms are relativelysmall amounts of lubricating oils, and hydraulic andinsulating fluids. (However, bear in mind that evensmall leakages of such materials can have groundwater or habitat impacts if left unchecked overtime. See SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES,below.) Setback requirements – whether part of aformal regulatory process or self-imposed by projectdevelopers for operational considerations – providean adequate buffer between wind generators andconsistent public exposure and access. Changes inlarger turbine technology and design limit access tooperating equipment. Most wind projects are onprivate land that is posted and not accessible with-out the permission of the landowner and the plantoperator.

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCESCultural resources are the structural and culturalevidence of the history of human development.They include both prehistoric and historic archaeo-logical resources, as well as ethnographic and eth-nic resources. Prehistoric archaeological resourcesare those materials relating to prehistoric humanoccupation and use of an area. Historic archaeolog-

ical resources usually are associated with Euro-American exploration and settlement of an area andthe beginning of a written historical record.Ethnographic resources are those materials impor-tant to the heritage of a particular ethnic or culturalgroup. Cultural resources may be encountered assub-surface deposits or as surface trails, sites, arti-facts, or structures. Cultural resources may also beassociated with above-ground natural features, withplants or species harvested for traditional purposes,or with the surrounding physical setting.

Paleontological resources are the fossilized remainsor trace evidence of prehistoric plants, animals, orvery ancient humans preserved in soil or rock.Fossil resources may be found nearly anywhere butare most often found in geologic rock units com-prised of water- or wind-borne sedimentarydeposits. Fossilized evidence of ancient life-formsand environmental conditions may be weatheringout onto the surface or may lie buried far beneaththe modern-day ground surface.

Any type of project which includes vegetationclearance, disturbance of the ground surface, orexcavation below the ground surface has the poten-tial to affect archaeological and paleontologicalresources which may be present in the area.Additional impacts may be caused by compactionof the ground by heavy equipment or by the cre-ation of improved public access to rural or previ-ously isolated areas. The potential for impacts tocultural and fossil resources usually is directly cor-related to the amount of ground disturbance, buteven a “small” project area can contain particularlysensitive and valuable resources.

Cultural and PaleontologicalConsiderationsIn all states, cultural and fossil resources are pro-tected by several federal laws, as well as by stateand local laws. During project design and sitedevelopment, cultural and fossil resource sitesshould be avoided and protected. Usually the loca-tion of most wind turbine towers and related accessroads, transmission lines, and service or mainte-nance structures can be adjusted during the designphase to avoid impacts to known surface or sub-surface cultural and fossil resources.

If project development impacts cannot be avoided,a program of data and resource recovery can usu-ally mitigate any potential effects to cultural and


fossil resources (both of which generally employsimilar data recovery techniques). An important firststep in choosing appropriate mitigation measures isthe evaluation, by a knowledgeable, qualified pro-fessional, of the project setting and site topography,to estimate the type and extent of the resources pre-sent (or expected) and the type and degree of miti-gation, data recovery, and monitoring required.Preparation of an archaeological resource monitor-ing and mitigation plan will provide a set of contin-gency measures for previously unknown resourcesthat may be encountered during project construc-tion. The plan should be developed early and takeninto account during the design phase of the project.

SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTESA wind project may be spread out over a wide area,and consist of several individual sites. Waste mate-rials will be generated during construction as wellas operation of the wind farm. If turbines are notwell-designed and maintained, fluid leaks at the tur-bine may occur, resulting in fluids not only drippingdirectly downward but flying off the tips of theblades and contaminating the ground below. Thesemay be gearbox oils, hydraulic and insulating flu-ids. Some fluids may become hazardous wasteswhen spilled on the ground. On-site storage of new

and used lubricants and cleaning fluids also consti-tutes a hazard.

It is necessary to ensure that construction wastes arecollected from all such sites and disposed of at alicensed facility. When the wind farm is operating,waste production may be concentrated at servicefacilities and control centers, except when units arebeing serviced. Waste disposal practices should notbe different from those required at other powerplants or repair facilities.

Problems with fluid leaks can be anticipated andavoided by use of non-hazardous fluids. If any haz-ardous fluids (or fluids which may become haz-ardous wastes if spilled) are used, a HazardousMaterials Management Plan should be drawn up toaddress avoidance, handling, disposal, and clean-up. Turbine maintenance facilities and major tur-bine repairs can be done off-site. Some permitshave banned on-site repairs of construction andmaintenance vehicles.

AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATEWind generation is a non-combustion process rely-ing on the direct conversion of mechanical energyinto electrical energy. Thus unlike conventional fos-sil-fired electric power plants there are no emissionsfrom the generation process. Indeed, to the extentthat energy from wind farms displaces electricityfrom fossil fuels, pollutant emissions in other areasare reduced. Similarly, to the extent that energyfrom wind farms displaces existing or additionalelectricity from fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emis-sions and the prospect of resulting global climatechange impacts are reduced. The extent of suchpollutant and greenhouse gas emissions displace-ment can be calculated using the average emissionsof the fuel mix from which the utility or other cus-tomer purchasing the wind-generated electricitynormally obtains its electricity supply.

Federal, state, and local air quality plans are con-cerned with particulate matter less than 10 micronsin diameter, known as PM10. Production of particu-late matter is the only air quality impact likely tooccur in conjunction with a wind farm, and is pri-marily associated with construction activities. Thesepollutants will be largely confined to the projectarea. No negative long-term air quality impacts arelikely to occur.


Where to Learn More aboutControlling Erosion and Runoff

Local conservation districts, the NaturalResource Conservation Service, and theappropriate city or county can provideguidance on development of a storm watermanagement plan, calculating runoff flowsand selecting control practices to ensurewater quality is protected. Local planningand permitting departments should haveinformation on floodplain locations andexpected flood levels and frequency.Inundation maps prepared by the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA)show foot-by-foot inundation contours formost river/creek systems in United States.These FEMA maps should be available forreview and copying at local land use plan-ning or management agencies and are spe-cific to the agency’s own jurisdictionalboundaries.

During the siting and permit processes, the questionof whether construction and operation of the windgeneration project will impact air quality often isaddressed. While it is difficult to accurately estimateproject construction emissions, the potential forconstruction impacts on ambient air quality gener-ally can be adequately mitigated during sensitiveoperations so that the overall impact is likely to berelatively small and temporary. The permit processwill determine whether the project will complywith the applicable federal, state, and local airquality requirements.

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCESAnderson, R.L., J. Tom, N. Neumann, and J.A.

Cleckler. Avian monitoring and risk assess-ment at Tehachapi Pass Wind ResourceArea, California. Staff Report to CaliforniaEnergy Commission, Sacramento, CA,November 1996. 40pp.

Anderson, R.L., D. Strickland, J. Tom, N. Neumann,W. Erickson, J. Cleckler, G. Mayorga, G.Nuhn, A. Leuders, J. Schneider, L. Backus,P. Becker and N. Flagg. Avian monitoringand risk assessment at Tehachapi Pass andSan Gorgonio Pass wind resource areas,California: Phase 1 preliminary results. Pp.31-46 in Proceedings of the NationalAvian-Wind Power Planning Meeting III.National Wind CoordinatingCommittee/RESOLVE. Washington, D.C.2000.

Anderson, R.L., W. Erickson, M. Bourassa, K.Sernka, D. Strickland, J. Tom, N. Neumann,J. Cleckler, G. Mayorga, G. Nuhn, A.Lueders, J. Schneider, L. Backus. Avianmonitoring and risk assessment atTehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area,California. California Energy Commission,National Renewable Energy Laboratory,WEST, Inc. joint report. SacramentoCA.80pp. 2002a (in prep.).

Anderson, R.L., W. Erickson, M. Bourassa, K.Sernka, D. Strickland, J. Tom, N. Neumann,J. Cleckler, G. Mayorga, G. Nuhn, A.Lueders, J. Schneider, L. Backus. (in prep).Avian monitoring and risk assessment atSan Gorgonio Pass Wind Resource Area,California. California Energy Commission,National Renewable Energy Laboratory,WEST, Inc., joint report. Sacramento CA.80pp. 2002b (in prep.).

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC).Proceedings: Avian Interactions with UtilityStructures International Workshop. ElectricPower Research Institute and AvianPowerline Impact Committee. December1993.

Banks, R. Human related mortality of birds in theUnited States. Special Science Report,Wildlife 215. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Washington, D.C. 16 pp. 1979.

California Energy Commission (CEC). Effects ofWind Energy Development: An AnnotatedBibliography. California EnergyCommission. March 1996.

Gipe, Paul. Wind Energy Comes of Age. New York:John Wiley & Sons. May, 1995.

Hodos, William, A. Potocki, T. Storm, and M.Gaffney. “Reduction of Motion Smear toReduce Avian Collisions with WindTurbines.” In Proceedings of the NationalAvian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV,pp. 88-105. 2001.

Howell, J. A., J. Noone, and C. Wardner. VisualExperiment to Reduce Avian MortalityRelated to Wind Turbine Operations:Altamont Pass, Alameda and Contra CostaCounties. Submitted to U.S. Windpower,Inc., Livermore, California. 1991.

Johnson, G.D., D. Young, W.P. Erickson, C. Derbyand M.D. Strickland. 1995-1999 Wildlifemonitoring studies, SeaWest WindpowerPlant, Carbon County, Wyoming. TechnicalReport submitted by WEST, Inc. to SeaWestEnergy Corporation and Bureau of LandManagement. 2000.

Leddy, Krecia L., K.F. Higgins, D.E. Naugle. Effectsof wind turbines on upland nesting birds inConservation Reserve Program grasslands.Wilson Bulletin 111(1), pp.100-104. 1999.

McIsaac, Hugh. “Raptor Acuity and Wind TurbineBlade Conspicuity.” In Proceedings of theNational Avian-Wind Power PlanningMeeting IV, pp. 59-87. 2001.


National Research Council Committee on thePossible Effects of Electromagnetic Fieldson Biological Systems. Possible HealthEffects of Exposure to Residential Electricand Magnetic Fields. National AcademyPress. 1996.

NWCC. Studying Wind Energy / Bird Interactions: AGuidance Document. Prepared for theAvian Subcommittee of the National WindCoordinating Committee. Washington,D.C. 87 pp. 1999.

Orloff, S. and A. Flannery. “A ContinuedExamination of Avian Mortality in theAltamont Pass Wind Resource Area.”Prepared by BioSystems Analysis, Inc.,Tiburon, California, for the CaliforniaEnergy Commission, Sacramento, CA. 48pp., 1996.

Peterson, A.P.G. and Gross, Jr., E. E. Handbook ofNoise Measurement. General Radio. 7thedition. Concord, MA, 1974.

Thelander, C.G. and L. Rugge. “Avian risk behaviorand fatalities at the Altamont WindResource Area: March 1998-February1999.” Report to National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, Subcontract TAT-8-18209-01. National Technical InformationService, U.S. Department of Commerce,Springfield, Virginia. 2000a.

Thelander, C.G. and L. Rugge. “Bird Risk Behaviorsand Fatalities at the Altamont WindResource Area.” Proceedings of theNational Avian-Wind Power PlanningMeeting III, San Diego, California, May 27-29, 1998, pp. 5-14. 2000b.

Thelander, C.G. and L. Rugge. “ExaminingRelationships between Bird Risk Behaviorsand Fatalities at the Altamont WindResource Area: a Second Year’s ProgressReport.” Proceedings of the NationalAvian-Wind Power Planning Meeting IV,Carmel, California, May 16-17, 2000, pp.5-14. 2001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Avian mortality atman-made structures: an annotated bibliog-raphy (Rev.). USFWS Biological ServicesProgram, National Power Plant Team(FWS/OBS-80-54). Washington, D.C. 152pp. 1980.

Walker, Gary D. “Visual Resources,” in the FinalStaff Assessment for the San FranciscoEnergy Project, Application forCertification.” California EnergyCommission. June, 1996.

Winkelman, J.E. The Impact of Sep Wind Park NearOosterbierum (Fr.), the Netherlands, onBirds. Volume 1: Collision Victims (RIN-Rapport 92/2). Volume 2: NocturnalCollision Risks (RIN-Rapport 92/3). Volume3: Flight Behavior During Daylight (RIN-Rapport 92/4). Volume 4: Disturbance(RIN-Rapport 92/5). DLO-Instituut voorBos-en Natuuronderzoek (in Dutch; Englishsummary). 1992.

WEST, Inc. Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: ASummary of Existing Studies andComparisons to Other Sources of AvianCollision Mortality in the United States.2001.

WEST, Inc. “Avian Monitoring Studies at the BuffaloRidge, Minnesota Resource Area: Results ofa Four-Year Study.” September 22, 2000.

FURTHER REFERENCESFor further information about one or more of thepermitting issues discussed in this chapter, seeAppendix A (Additional Resources) and B (NoiseMeasurement).


This chapter presents the permitting histories of sev-eral wind energy conversion projects. Sited inOregon, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, these casestudies illustrate the range of permitting processes inplace in different locations. Although far fromexhausting all the possible permutations of processand project experience, these cases do begin toindicate the range of project settings, developerapproaches, and key permitting issues – as well as avariety of outcomes.

THE STATELINE PROJECT (OREGON)Size of project FPL Energy Vansycle LLC (FPL) proposed to con-struct and operate a wind energy facility in Oregonand Washington with an overall capacity of about282 megawatts (MW), of which about 84 MWwould be built in Oregon. (References to the “pro-posed facility” are references to the Oregon portionof the overall Stateline Wind Project, which spansthe Oregon/Washington border.)

The proposed facility in Oregon would consist of127 Vestas V47-660-kilowatt wind turbines with atotal nominal electric generating capacity of 83.8MW (127 turbines, each with a capacity of 0.66MW). The proposed energy facility site occupies anarea of approximately 15 square miles. Within thatarea, 127 wind turbine towers, four meteorologicaltowers and approximately 17 miles of new orimproved access roads would cover a total of about60 acres of land surface. Turbines would be arrayedin nine strings along natural ridges within the facil-ity site area. The number of turbines per stringwould vary from 4 to 37. The distance between tur-bines would be approximately 250 feet.Underground 34.5-kV cables connected to the sub-station in Washington would collect the electricaloutput of each Oregon turbine string.

The project is expected to have at least a 30-yearlife, maybe longer with repowering.

Location of project The Stateline project would be constructed on pri-vately owned land in Umatilla County, Oregon, andWalla Walla County, Washington. The projectwould connect to the Bonneville PowerAdministration (BPA) 115-kilovolt (kV) Franklin-Walla Walla electric transmission line approxi-

mately 3 miles north of the Walla Walla River andto the PacifiCorp 230-kV line approximately 1 milesouth of the Walla Walla River through a projectsubstation in Washington. The Oregon portion ofthe proposed facility is located north and east ofHelix in Umatilla County and extends north to theOregon-Washington border. The wind turbineswould be located on ridge tops east of theColumbia River and south of the Walla Walla River.There are very few trees and no forests in the imme-diate area. The predominant forms of vegetation areagricultural crops and native grasses.

The proposed energy facility and its related or sup-porting facilities would occupy and permanentlydisturb about 60 acres of land. The facility islocated on land that is zoned for exclusive farmuse, most of which is either planted with dry-landwheat or grazing crops or is planted with nativegrasses under the Conservation Reserve Program(CRP). In addition to the permanently disturbedareas, about 117 acres of land would be temporar-ily disturbed during construction.

Permitting process and/or regulatoryframework in placeThe Washington portion of the project was not sub-ject to a state-level review. On November 15, 2000,Walla Walla County granted a conditional use per-mit to the project, following a Washington stateenvironmental policy act process. (A NEPA processhad been initiated by BPA in the spring of 2000, butBPA withdrew after FPL decided to sell the entireoutput of the facility to PacifiCorp.) Constructionbegan in Washington in January 2001.

In Oregon, under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)469.320 in effect at the time the application wassubmitted, an applicant for an electric generatingpower plant with a nominal electric generatingcapacity of 25 megawatts or more of wind powerfrom a single energy generation area must obtain asite certificate from the Oregon Energy FacilitySiting Council (Council) before beginning construc-tion.8 The Council is a seven-member citizen com-mission appointed by the Governor. Staff work insupport of the Council is done by the OregonOffice of Energy (OOE). OOE staff are sensitive tothe public interest, the rules and standards of theCouncil, and the needs of the developer.


Chapter 4Case Studies

8 The Oregon Legislature amended ORS 469.320 in HB 3788, which became effective in June 2001. Under Section 7, paragraph 9, ofthat law “an electric power generating plant with an average electric generating capacity of less than 35 megawatts produced fromwind energy at a single energy facility…may elect to obtain a site certificate.” The election is final upon submission of an applicationfor a site certificate.

Under ORS 469.503 and OAR 345-022-0000(1),the Council must determine, before issuing a sitecertificate, that a preponderance of the evidence onthe record supports the following conclusions:

1. The proposed facility complies with thestandards adopted by the Council pursuantto ORS 469.501.

2. Except as provided in ORS 469.504 forland use compliance and except for thosestatutes and rules for which the decision oncompliance has been delegated by the fed-eral government to a state agency otherthan the Council, the facility complies withall other Oregon statutes and administrativerules identified in the project order asapplicable to the issuance of a site certifi-cate for the proposed facility.

3. The facility complies with the statewideplanning goals adopted by the LandConservation and DevelopmentCommission.

The Oregon siting process is explained on the web site of the Oregon Office of Energy. Seehttp://www.energy.state.or.us/siting/process.htm fora general introduction to the Oregon energy facilitysiting process.

Primary issues that emerged during thepermitting processThe primary issue that emerged during the sitingprocess was what level of wildlife monitoring (par-ticularly post-construction monitoring) would beadequate to assure the Council that the proposedfacility would comply with the Council’s Fish andWildlife Habitat Standard.

Oregon law required the Siting Council to followestablished standards, two of which relate speciallyto wildlife issues (the Fish and Wildlife HabitatStandard and the Threatened and EndangeredSpecies Standard). Several sensitive wildlife speciesand species protected federally were known tooccur in the region. Since the project lacked anyfederal nexus, no federal wildlife statutes (otherthan the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)) appliedto the project. It is unclear, legally and practically,how wind turbines will impact habitat quality perse, since very little wildlife habitat is lost by build-ing wind turbines and much of the area is already

intensively farmed. In other words, although distur-bance caused by construction is known to alteraccess to habitat by animals, it is not clear howextensively wind turbine development at this pro-posed site will impact wildlife habitat. It is antici-pated that data collected by FPL will begin toanswer this question.

Several raptor species, including golden eagles,prairie falcons, Swainson's hawks and ferruginoushawks (a species of concern because of its rare sta-tus and known high sensitivity to any type of distur-bance) are known to nest in the area of the project.At the same time, there is essentially no informationon migrant numbers or species that use the area. Asa result, there was never any question that somepost-construction wildlife monitoring would berequired.

Initially the OOE preferred a more substantial pro-gram of monitoring than FPL first proposed. Theapplicants emphasized that no endangered birdspecies were likely to be impacted, so little mitiga-tion or monitoring would be warranted. The OOEstaff and consultants emphasized that until the initial monitoring of the project occurred, noassessment could accurately be made of the possible impacts of the project.

The OOE consultants used data provided by theproponent’s biologists, and standard statisticalmethods, to determine sample sizes needed toachieve statistically rigorous and thus reliableresults (e.g., power analysis). Power analysis wasconducted, but the proponent’s biologist disagreedwith the approach used, and the results. The con-sultants’ results showed that to achieve a reason-able level of detectability, especially for such a rareevent as a bird collision, all of the turbines beingproposed needed to be systematically surveyed forthree consecutive years.

The proponents argued that this was excessive sam-pling and that the level of detectability used in thepower analysis was too high. The OOE’s proposedplan originally called for surveying 120+ turbinesfor three years. In addition, the proponentsattempted to estimate the cost of the proposed 3-year carcass monitoring effort. Their estimate,though never disclosed or supported, indicated thatthe money needed could be better used for habitatimprovement than to monitor the turbines. Thus,the proponents’ plan proposed surveying 50% of

Case Studies 35

the turbines one year, and the other 50% of the tur-bines in the second year.

During the discussion on sample size and carcassmonitoring, FPL informed OOE that, based on pre-construction monitoring, the Washington groundsquirrel, a state-listed endangered species, occupiedhabitat in (or near) where 27 of the turbines were tobe located. At least one member of the Oregon leg-islature threatened to introduce a bill to specificallyexempt the wind energy project from the state’sendangered species protection legislation and toallow the 27 turbines to stay in the project wherethey were originally proposed. A bill that wouldhave had this effect was passed by the OregonLegislature but vetoed by Governor Kitzhaber.Instead, FPL opted to exclude these turbine loca-tions from the project, avoiding the affected area.

Determination of an appropriate wildlife monitoringprotocol was the most contentious issue at stake inthis case, but it was not the only issue that requiredcareful review and analysis. Other significant issuesincluded whether the facility complied with thestatewide land use planning goals. Because thefacility would preclude more than 20 acres of farm-land from use, the Council had to decide whetheran exception to the state’s agricultural lands goalwas warranted. In addition, substantial analysis wasneeded to determine the cost of site restoration, toaddress cultural and archeological issues and toassess potential seismic hazards, scenic impacts andnoise generated by the wind turbines. Public com-ment also raised the issue of local economic benefitto the county, although the Council’s standards donot directly address the question.

How were the issues resolved?As part of the siting process, the Oregon Office ofEnergy (OOE) contracted with a biological consult-ing firm experienced with wind energy issues relat-ing to bird and bat collisions. The OOE staff neededtechnical support on avian collisions, monitoringprograms, and other technical input specific towind developments. (The decision to hire an out-side wildlife consultant was made by OOE in con-sultation with the Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife (ODFW).) The OOE was reimbursed for thecost of the consultant through application fees paid

by the project proponent, but the consultantworked directly for the OOE staff.9

The OOE consultant was provided with copies ofthe project’s formal application and the proposedmonitoring plan for natural resources, especiallybirds and bats. In this case, the proponent’s projectincluded wind facilities in Washington and Oregon,but the application process required separate pro-ceedings in each state. A previously built windfacility existed in the general vicinity, and data onbird use were made available from that project toassist with determining possible impacts from theproposed project.

After much discussion, the OOE and FPL compro-mised on a monitoring protocol which was muchless intensive than the one OOE had initially pre-ferred, but much more intensive than the one FPLhad first proposed. The plan now allows for addi-tional monitoring beyond the first two years, basedon analysis of the results. One concern about theproposed proponents’ carcass monitoring plan wasthat it may not recognize that all turbines possessan equal probability for bird fatalities. The agreed-upon approach emphasizes the average number ofkills per turbine per year, and will be largely insen-sitive to the kill rates of individual turbines.However, the OOE will be provided with all fielddata collected, not just the field averages.

In addition to fatality surveys (which will includesearcher efficiency and searcher bias assessments),the monitoring effort will include: raptor nestingsurveys, burrowing owl surveys, continued monitor-ing of pre-construction transects (to determinewhether the operation of the facility results in lossof habitat quality), and, the utilization of a databaseto record bird and bat carcasses found by construc-tion and maintenance personnel (Wildlife Responseand Reporting System).

The Council approved a site certificate for theStateline Project on September 14, 2001.

Lessons learned?The value of the Oregon energy facility sitingprocess is that it provides a deliberative structure inwhich difficult siting issues can be addressed and


9 Oregon law provides that the applicant must pay all expenses of the Siting Council and Office of Energy in the review of a site certifi-cate application. This includes hiring outside consultants. In this case, to help with noise, site restoration and seismic issues, OOE alsohired a general energy consulting firm, which subcontracted with a structural engineer.

resolved. It is a process structured to allow inputfrom all affected state agencies, local governmentsand tribes. It is a process that allows for public par-ticipation, comment and access to information.

Resolution of issues requires the ability and willing-ness of the developer to respond to Siting Council(Oregon Office of Energy) staff requests for addi-tional information. The developer must be preparedto invest additional resources, if necessary, to meetthe need for complete information in a timely man-ner. In this case, the applicant’s delayed filing, cou-pled with its desire to complete construction beforethe expiration of the production tax credit, putunusual pressure on the Office of Energy to expe-dite the permitting process.

It is critical for the developer to plan for sufficienttime for the siting process. This is particularlyimportant if the economic feasibility of the projectdepends on completing construction by a certaindate. At a minimum, the developer should assumethat the Oregon state siting process will take twelvemonths to complete.

Secondly, potential avian impacts need to be identi-fied before construction, and suitable monitoringplans need to be developed to adequately assessimpacts in the early stages of operation so that miti-gation strategies can be implemented to minimizeimpacts.

Recent changes to the regulatory reviewprocessSince the permitting process for the Stateline pro-ject began, the Oregon Legislature has enacted leg-islation making Siting Council jurisdiction optionalfor wind facilities with an "average electric generat-ing capacity" of less than 35 megawatts. The con-version of peak or nominal generating capacity to"average electric generating capacity" is written intothe law. For a wind facility, an average electric gen-erating capacity of 35 megawatts equates to a facil-ity of 105 megawatts nominal capacity. Becausethe Stateline Wind Project (Oregon portion) has anominal capacity of approximately 84 MW, itcould have chosen a county-level review under thenew law.

However, the Legislature also included language inthe legislation that allows the developer of a windfacility of less than 35 average megawatts electricgenerating capacity to elect to obtain a site certifi-

cate. That is, the developer may choose the SitingCouncil process rather than going through a localpermit process and dealing with state agencies indi-vidually. The Office of Energy has been working ona model ordinance and guidebook for county per-mitting of small-scale energy facilities. (These toolsare not yet available as of this writing.)

PERMITTING LARGE WIND ENERGYSYSTEMS IN MINNESOTASize of projects Since 1995, the Minnesota Environmental QualityBoard (MEQB) has permitted seven large windenergy conversion systems (LWECS) greater than5 megawatts. The projects range in size from a10.2-MW facility consisting of 17 600-kW turbinesto a 130.5-MW wind farm consisting of 87 1.5-MWturbines and a 107.25-MW wind farm comprising143 750-kW turbines. More details about individ-ual projects can be obtained from the MEQB’s Website at: www.mnplan.state.mn.us/eqb/wind. Severalsmall wind energy conversion systems (SWECS),less than 2 MW, have also been built in Minnesota.Local units of government, typically counties,approve SWECS.

Location of projects The projects permitted by the MEQB encompassapproximately 40,000 acres of land in southwest-ern Minnesota in the counties of Lincoln, Pipestoneand Murray. Known as Buffalo Ridge, this area is a100-kilometer segment of the Bemis Moraine thatruns diagonally from the northwest to the southeast,separating the Missouri and Mississippi River water-sheds. It is located in the Coteau des Prairies phys-iographic region and ranges in elevation from1,790 to 2,000 feet above sea level.

These wind farms are located within a lightly popu-lated rural agricultural area, characterized by farmfields, farmsteads, fallow fields, pasture, nativeprairie, large open vistas and gently rolling topogra-phy. Local vegetation on the Buffalo Ridge is pre-dominantly pasture with corn, small grains and for-age crops, creating a low uniform cover. A mix ofdeciduous and coniferous trees planted for wind-breaks surrounds farmsteads. Typically, the farm-steads and residences are located at lower eleva-tions to avoid the winter winds. In the swales, thereis occasional riparian growth of native willows, cat-tails, sedges and rushes. The transportation systemin this area is composed of state, county and town-ship roads.

Case Studies 37

Permitting process and/or regulatoryframework in placeIn 1994, after completing an EnvironmentalAssessment Worksheet for the state’s first proposed(25 MW) wind energy installation, the MEQBappointed a citizens’ advisory task force to makerecommendations on whether wind energy facilitiesshould be regulated and, if regulated, who shouldhave authority to regulate the permitting of largewind energy conversion systems. The task force,comprised of county commissioners, interested citi-zens and others, reviewed a number of issuesrelated to wind energy development and made spe-cific recommendations to the MEQB. Upon accep-tance of these recommendations, the MEQB sub-mitted proposed legislation in 1995, and the windsiting act was passed. This act declared it to be thepolicy of the state to site large wind energy conver-sion systems (LWECS) in an orderly manner com-patible with environmental preservation, sustainabledevelopment and the efficient use of resources.

The legislation (Minnesota Session Laws 1995,chapter 203, codified at Minnesota Statutes sections116C.691 to 116C.697), requires that any personseeking to construct a large wind energy conversionsystem in Minnesota obtain a Site Permit from theMinnesota Environmental Quality Board. A LargeWind Energy Conversion System (LWECS) is a com-bination of wind turbines that generates 5,000 kilo-watts (5 MW) or more. Features of this legislationprovide for:

1. EQB authority to issue site permits for allwind energy facilities larger than5 megawatts.

2. A streamlined regulatory and reviewprocess

3. Issuance of a permit within 180 days (typi-cally permitting takes from 60 to 90 days)

4. Environmental review as part of the permit-ting process

The act gives the MEQB rulemaking authority thatprovides: 1) an expedited process for LWECS; 2) auniform and consistent review procedures forLWECS larger than 5 megawatts; 3) requirements forenvironmental review of the LWECS; 4) conditionsin the site permit for turbine type and designs; site

layout and construction; and operation and mainte-nance of the LWECS, including the requirement torestore, to the extent possible, the area affected byconstruction; 5) procedures for notification to thepublic of the application and for the conduct of apublic information meeting and a public hearing onthe proposed LWECS; 6) revocation or suspensionof a site permit when violations of the permit orother requirements occur; and 7) that the MEQBsite permit be the only site approval required. InApril, 2002, the MEQB adopted permanent rules(Minnesota Rules, chapter 4401) for siting LargeWind Energy Conversion Systems. (These rules are available on the MEQB’s Web site at:http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/eqb/wind.)

Primary issues that emerged during (andafter) the permitting processDevelopment issues. These permitted wind projectsencountered very few issues during the review andpermitting process. To date, issues have been raisedin the permitting process primarily by other winddevelopers, and have included topics such as: windrights acquisition, which developer was entitled touse the wind rights when they were held by a thirdparty, real projects versus phantom projects, andrequirements for proceeding with a project and pro-ject production data reporting.

In addition to these issues, the potential for avianand bat impacts has been raised, and the MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Resources (MDNR) hasexpressed concern about the placement of turbineaccess roads and turbines in native prairie.

Post-construction issues. Minnesota’s wind farmshave generally been well accepted by the publicand nearby residents. However, several issues havebeen identified such as television reception. Severalresidents in proximity to the wind farms havereported the inability to receive a clear picture ontheir television set. Another, but more isolated issueis caused by loose pieces of material within theblade. At lower wind speeds when the turbine isfreewheeling, the centrifugal force is not strongenough to eliminate material bouncing aroundinside the blade. Cleanup of materials associatedwith turbine or blade modifications also has been aminor problem.


More recently the MEQB has received commentsfrom residents who do not like the appearance ofstructures on the horizon. This comment has beenmore common in areas where the telephone linesand electric distribution lines have been placedunderground.

Avian issues were addressed by the board’s site per-mit condition that established avian monitoringstudies requirements for the Buffalo Ridge WindResource Area. The permit also established a mech-anism for equitably sharing the costs of implement-ing the study among the various developers of windprojects within the Buffalo Ridge Wind ResourceArea. The proposed study establishes protocols forevaluating the cumulative effects on birds of pro-posed wind energy development in the BuffaloRidge area of southwestern Minnesota. That studywas terminated in 2000, when the board deter-mined that avian impacts were minimal in south-western Minnesota. However, because of the num-ber of bat fatalities that were identified during theavian studies, the board has required wind devel-opers on Buffalo Ridge to fund the costs of aBuffalo Ridge Windplant/Bat Interaction Study.

MDNR’s concern about the placement of turbineaccess roads and turbines in native prairie has beenaddressed in the board’s site permit for each pro-ject.

Lessons learned?Minnesota’s site permit requirements have estab-lished high standards for wind farm projects,designed to protect the interests of counties, com-munities and residents. Minnesota’s site permitreview and permitting for wind facilities also pro-vides an environmental review for developers thatis flexible, timely and efficient, but also has theability to resolve issues before they become prob-lems.

If projects are to be successful for the developerand for the community in which they are located,wind developers must be aware of local issues andproactive in addressing them.

SITING WIND POWER IN WISCONSIN:MAKING THE CASE AT THE LOCALLEVELThe state of Wisconsin has sought to encourage thedevelopment of renewable energy resources, specif-ically including wind power, by a number of

means. Independently-owned power plants under100 MW require only local land use permits, andstate law limits the types of siting restrictions thatcan be placed on wind (and solar) energy systemsat the local level. Wisconsin also has required utili-ties to build or acquire new renewable generatingcapacity, and has established a renewable portfoliostandard designed to increase the contribution ofrenewable power sources to the state’s electricpower mix. Over 16,000 Wisconsin residential andbusiness customers purchase electricity from greenpower programs.

Size of projects Not all of the wind turbines in Wisconsin werebuilt in response to policy requirements. However,this case study focuses on three wind energy pro-jects subject primarily to local approval under thenew legislation. The projects were:

1. Madison Gas & Electric (MG&E) – 17 tur-bines totaling 11.2 MW

2. FPL Energy (FPL) – 28 turbines totaling25.2 MW in eastern Wisconsin

3. FPL Energy (FPL) – 20 turbines totaling30 MW in western Wisconsin

Location of projects

Madison Gas & Electric – Calumet andKewaunee Counties Madison Gas & Electric sought to locate 17 tur-bines either in the Township of Stockbridge inCalumet County, or in the Townships of Lincolnand Red River in Kewaunee County. The CalumetCounty site was the utility’s preferred location.

Stockbridge (Calumet County). The Town ofStockbridge is on the Eastern Shore of LakeWinnebago. The Niagara Escarpment forms anextended bluff near the lakeshore. The bluff isnearly 300 feet high in places. On top of theEscarpment, the flat to gently rolling terrain slopesgently downward to the east. Farms average 80-120acres in eastern Wisconsin, more suitable for dairy-ing than for crop production. Many parcels havebeen divided into 1- to 20-acre lots, ready for resi-dential development. Since 1990, population hasincreased at the rate of 1% a year, with many newhomes built along the bluff for a view of LakeWinnebago. Unlike other Wisconsin towns where

Case Studies 39

wind farms have been erected, Stockbridge doesnot have a local zoning ordinance.

Lincoln and Red River (Kewaunee County). Thesetwo adjoining Towns are in the northwest corner ofKewaunee County, bordering Door County. Here,the Escarpment is lower than in Calumet County.Unlike the shoreline communities of Door County,the two towns see very little tourist traffic. As inCalumet County, farms tend to be small dairies, andthere are fewer rural residential developments. Totalpopulation of both towns, excluding villages withintheir boundaries, was about 2,300 in 1990. Thepopulation of both towns has remained fairly con-stant since then, with an increase in the numbers ofnon-farm residents, mostly commuters to GreenBay.

FPL Energy – Washington CountyIn October 1998, in response to the incentivesincorporated into Wisconsin’s Electric ReliabilityAct (1997 Act 204), FPL Energy Wisconsin WindLLC (FPL, a division of Florida Power & Light)advanced a proposal for developing a wind farm inthe Town of Addison in western WashingtonCounty. Wisconsin Electric Power and AlliantEnergy selected FPL’s proposal to meet their Act204 renewable requirements, and signed powerpurchase agreements with the developer in April1999.

Addison Township. The Town of Addison is aboutfive miles west of West Bend, and about 45 milesnorthwest of Milwaukee, accessible from a majorfour-lane highway. Parts of the County are growingrapidly, including more rural towns like Addison.Household income in Washington County is sub-stantially higher than in more rural Iowa andKewaunee Counties. North-south running U.S.Highway 41, and east-west running State Highway33, divide the town into four roughly equal quad-rants. The Niagara Escarpment runs east ofHighway 41, although not as prominently as inCalumet County. Most of the turbines would belocated in the southeast quadrant, where a few sub-divisions have been built in recent years.Washington County farms tend to be smaller thanthose in Kewaunee, with more non-farm neighbors.

FPL Energy – Iowa CountyRepresentatives from Enron Wind Energy Companybegan reviewing potential wind farm sites in west-ern Iowa County and contacting landowners in

June 2000. The project was eventually sold to FPLEnergy.

Eden Township. The Town of Eden, in western IowaCounty, is about an hour’s drive west fromMadison. Farming still dominates the economy.Farms are larger than in eastern Wisconsin, andpopulation density is very low. Development pres-sure in Iowa County (and Eden Township) is light,and confined to the eastern flank of the county andthe fringes of the cities. The Military Ridge in theDriftless Area of Southwestern Wisconsin extendsfrom just southwest of Madison into Grant County,running straight across Eden just south of U.S.Highway 18. It is not as high as the NiagaraEscarpment, and the wind resource is less.However, the land is relatively flat, open, and tree-less, and can more easily fit larger groups of windturbines.

Permitting process and/or regulatoryframework in placeIn 1994, Wisconsin adopted legislation to increasethe state’s use of renewable energy resources. Non-combustion renewables are ranked just belowdemand-side measures. The same legislation (1993Wisconsin Act 414) limits the scope of local gov-ernment’s regulation of wind energy systems.Specifically, local restrictions on wind energy arepermissible only if they: 1) serve to preserve or pro-tect public health and safety; 2) do not significantlyincrease the cost of the system or decrease its effi-ciency; or 3) allow for an alternative system ofcomparable cost and efficiency. This was supportedin March 2001, when the Court of Appeals reverseda lower court decision that upheld the local Boardof Appeals’ decision to deny two landowners per-mission to construct a wind turbine on their land.The higher court instructed the local Board toreconsider the conditional use permit applicationsin light of the statutory restrictions placed on localregulation of wind energy systems.

Electric reliability legislation adopted in 1998 (1997Wisconsin Act 204) obligated four easternWisconsin utilities to build or acquire a total of 50MW of new renewable generating capacity byDecember 31, 2000. Act 204 also changed the def-inition of “large generation facilities”, requiring statereview, from anything over 12 megawatts to any-thing over 99 MW. This effectively handed sitingauthority over to local governments. Non-utilitywind projects under 100 MW need only local landuse approvals.


Primary issues that emerged during thepermitting processesGiven the regulatory framework in place, the pri-mary issues to emerge during the three permittingprocesses were of a local nature, focusing on theconcerns of local residents and property owners(particularly farm vs. non-farm property owners) inthe Townships where land use permits were beingsought.

Madison Gas & Electric In April 1998, Madison Gas & Electric (MG&E)hosted informational meetings in Calumet Countyand Kewaunee County. The following month, theutility filed two applications for ConstructionAuthority to install 17 Vestas V-47 turbines, eitherin the Township of Stockbridge (Calumet Co.) or inthe Townships of Lincoln and Red River (KewauneeCo.)

The following month, a resolution was introducedbefore Calumet County Board of Supervisors inopposition to MG&E’s wind development proposal,and in July 1998 the Calumet Board adopted ananti-windpower resolution. At issue were the aes-thetic impacts of wind turbines in a rural setting.The primary opponent of the proposed project wasan individual wealthy landowner. MG&E thenshifted its focus to Lincoln and Red RiverTownships in Kewaunee County.

In August 1998, MG&E signed agreements witharea landowners to site nine turbines in theTownship of Red River and eight in the Township ofLincoln. The utility began discussing with localgovernment officials the procedures for obtainingpermission to build a wind farm.

Although formal opposition did not crystallize asquickly and effectively as it did in Stockbridge,concerns were raised about potential noise prob-lems and aesthetic impact, and participatinglandowners were slow to rally in support of theproject.

Some of the objections stemmed from an earlierfailed effort to develop windpower in the Townshipof Lincoln. In 1994, several landowners had signedoptions with New World Power, which had pro-posed to develop a wind farm and sell the power toa utility. According to some reports, when its bidwas not selected, New World was slow to honor itsagreements with participating landowners.

FPL Energy – Washington CountyThe FPL Energy (FPL) project team prepared its pro-posal to construct a 20.7-MW windpower project,consisting of 33 900-kW wind generators, andsigned power purchase agreements with the utilitiesprior to receiving approval from Addison Townshipto erect three meteorological towers in June 1999.FPL did not submit a zoning application to theTownship until September 1999. Newspaper arti-cles reported on the developer’s agreements withWisconsin Electric and Alliant Energy, and alsochronicled some complaints regarding soundimpacts from Wisconsin Public Service’s wind tur-bines in the Township of Lincoln.

In October, FPL withdrew its application inresponse to public opposition, and proceededinstead to host a series of informational meetingson the proposed project. Project opponents orga-nized the Town of Addison Preservation Group(TAPG), while host landowners and other wind-power supporters organized themselves as theTaxpayers for Addison Wind Farm. As in Kewauneeand Calumet Counties, the core issue is whetherproject benefits – which accrue primarily to indi-vidual farm owners – offset the aesthetic impact oferecting wind turbines in a rural area experiencingsuburban growth.

FPL submitted a revised conditional use permit(CUP) application in December 1999, which it sub-sequently withdrew in response to a FederalAviation Agency determination that some of theproposed turbine locations were too close to a pri-vate airport. TAPG continued its campaign againstthe project, noting that the 33 proposed turbineswould be some of the tallest in the world (over 350feet tall), and that there are 800 existing homes in“immediate proximity” to the proposed turbinesites.

FPL Energy – Iowa CountyEnron Wind Energy Company submitted an appli-cation to Iowa County to situate 20 1.5 MW tur-bines in the Township of Eden in August 2000.Because two of the town’s three board membersare project participants, the application was takenup by the Iowa County Zoning Committee, whichheld a hearing and determined that the project arealand would have to be reclassified from A-1Agricultural to M-1 Industrial. At the hearing, onecounty resident expressed concerns over potentialimpacts, but did not oppose the project outright.

Case Studies 41

No formal objections or other significant issueswere raised.

How were the issues resolved?Madison Gas & Electric (MG&E) Both the Townships of Lincoln and Red River issuedCUPs to MG&E in October 1998, and in June,1999 all 17 of MG&E wind turbines were placed inservice. However, shortly after the dedication cere-mony, both townships adopted 18-month moratoriaon siting windpower. A Lincoln Moratorium StudyCommittee formed to discuss possible changes tothe local zoning ordinance that would apply tofuture windpower proposals. Lincoln Township’smoratorium was extended in January 2001, whileRed River Township’s moratorium passed unevent-fully.

Although MG&E had quickly abandoned theStockbridge site in response to anti-windpower res-olutions adopted by the Calumet County Board ofSupervisors, in September 1998 the Calumet Boardwent on to adopt a moratorium on constructingwind towers over 100 feet along the NiagaraEscarpment.

FPL Energy – Washington CountyIn August 2000, Wisconsin Electric Power andAlliant Energy terminated their power purchaseagreements with FPL, citing their obligation to fulfilltheir Act 204 renewable requirements by the end ofthe year. In October, FPL submitted its third CUPapplication to Addison officials. The applicationsought to build a 25.2-MW project, consisting of 28(rather than 33) 900-kW turbines. TAPG filed a law-suit seeking a judgment on the Township’s authorityto regulate windpower development within its bor-ders. The suit was subsequently withdrawn follow-ing the Court of Appeals decision described earlier,which affirms statutory limitations on regulatingwind energy systems by local governments.However, as of this writing, FPL has opted not topursue wind energy project development inAddison Township.

FPL Energy – Iowa CountyIn September 2000, the Iowa County ZoningCommittee approved Enron’s request to rezone15.65 acres of prime agricultural land as M-1 indus-trial, and also approved a conditional use permitallowing installation of 20 turbines. The IowaCounty Board approved the project, which Enronsubsequently sold to FPL Energy. Wisconsin Electricagreed to purchase the output from 17 turbines

(25.5 MW), helping the utility to fulfill its Act 204renewable generating capacity obligation. AlliantEnergy agreed to purchase power from the remain-ing three turbines (4.5 MW), enabling the developerto complete the project as permitted. FPL com-pleted construction and commissioning of all 20turbines in June 2001.

Lessons learned?Letting external deadline pressures drive projecttimetables is a recipe for trouble. Madison Gas &Electric accelerated its outreach and educationefforts to beat the impending expiration of the fed-eral Production Tax Credit (PTC). At both sitesunder consideration, the community learned ofMG&E’s intentions only a month before it filed anapplication for Construction Authority. This didn’tallow time to communicate informally with localcommunity leaders, potential project participants,and their neighbors. The compressed timetablearoused needless concern among local residentsand started the local permitting process off on thewrong foot.

It is critically important to cultivate local champi-ons early and avoid making implacable foes.MG&E’s hasty action prevented them from becom-ing familiar with the communities, including theirhistory with windpower. In both Stockbridge andKewaunee, opposition arose before MG&E couldgain any local support. In Stockbridge, MG&E wasopposed by a wealthy landowner, who perceivedwind turbines as an adverse change in his area andwas able to support a lawsuit and other oppositiontactics long after MG&E had abandoned plans forthe site. In Kewaunee, at least one of the strongopponents had opposed the earlier New WorldPower proposal. Familiarity with this project wouldhave allowed MG&E to anticipate his oppositionand try to address it proactively.

When project opponents take the initiative, partici-pating landowners tend to avoid public discussions,and may not actively defend their interests, for fearof further dividing the community. Intimidation bymore forceful opponents can also be a factor. InKewaunee, this put the utility in the position of try-ing to sell the project without apparent local sup-port. It was a long time before the participatinglandowners began to publicly assert their interests.If the landowners had more time before permittingto explain their decision to lease land for wind tur-bines, the process may have been less divisive.


In Iowa County, by contrast, outreach to landown-ers as well as county officials began before thedeveloper submitted a formal siting application.Moreover, the turbine layout proposed for the EdenTownship project helped forge a united and com-mitted base of landowners, who in turn acted asproject advocates and persuaded their neighborsand elected officials to support the project. Beyondthe initial phase of outreach, the project developerdid not need to play the role of prime persuader.

The risk of opposition increases in areas experienc-ing significant (>1%/year) population and/orhousing growth. Residential growth in an area withgood technical potential for wind generation com-plicates the siting and permitting process. As thenumber of houses near to, or with a view of theinstallation increases, the likelihood of aesthetic oreconomic objections seems to increase. To theextent that new homeowners were attracted by thearea’s rural character, do not view their land as asource of livelihood, nor identify with the farmersin the area who earn their living working their land,these “commuter” households are less likely to sup-port a proposed wind project. They do not under-stand the economic situation of resident farmers,and the extent to which wind energy revenues mayact as a buffer against the fluctuations of the farmeconomy.

Suburban development pressure may not be a fatalproblem if the remaining farmers still control thelocal government. In both Kewaunee and Addison,however, neither the old-line farm families nor thenewcomers hold a distinct political advantage. Thismay help explain why the future of wind develop-ment is still unresolved in these towns.

Finding ways to address the concerns of neighbor-ing non-participating farmers needs to become ahigher priority. Some of the opponents to theAddison project are farmers without turbines pro-posed on their land. Opposition leaders may directexisting tensions onto the wind proposal.Developers may wish to consider compensating thecommunity in some fashion that benefits even non-participants, such as impact payments to the town-ship. Resulting benefits, such as reduced propertytaxes, may help to address concerns aboutinequities.

Local governments need help with the permittingprocess. The first towns approached by wind devel-

opers had no zoning classifications that directlyaddressed this type of facility. After the contentiousKewaunee County experience, several countieshave passed ordinances specific to wind develop-ment, some fairly restrictive. It is very difficult forproject developers to gain a variance from an exist-ing ordinance without demonstrating hardship.Without state assistance to help local governmentsestablish a procedure for reviewing wind projects,conflicts at the local level are likely to occur, espe-cially for larger projects.

Limited experience suggests that it is easier todevelop wind turbines in western Wisconsin thanin eastern Wisconsin. Even though the windresource is better along the Niagara Escarpment, sit-ing turbines is more difficult there, due to smallerfarm sizes and higher population densities. Also,local governments in western Wisconsin tend to bemore responsive to the needs of farmers than thosein the east. Perhaps this is because there is lesslikely to be political power split between farmersand non-farming homeowners in the West.

Case Studies 43

GENERALAmerican Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

Publications include: Wind Energy Weeklyand Windletter. Fax-on-request service: 1-800-634-4299. Web Site: http://www.awea.org. For a complete publications list,call (202) 383-2500. AWEA is the nationaltrade association of the U.S. wind energyindustry.

Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC). General Policyon Windpower. Revised draft approved byAMC Conservation Programs CommitteeJune 1996. Boston, Ma.: AMC, 1996.

Landowner’s Guide to Wind Energy in the UpperMidwest. Nancy Lange and William Grant.Minneapolis: Izaak Walton League ofAmerica, 2001 (2nd ed.). Handbook writ-ten for landowners in the Upper Midwestinterested in opportunities for wind powerdevelopment. Discusses how landownerscan evaluate their wind resources, howthey can evaluate the economics of windenergy under different development scenar-ios, and the contractual issues betweenlandowner and wind developer.

Wind Energy Comes of Age. Paul Gipe. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995. Provides acomprehensive review of the wind energyindustry. Addresses development of windturbine technology, environmental costsand benefits of wind energy, and futuredevelopment potential of wind energy.

Wind Energy in America: A History. R. W. Righter.University of Oklahoma Press, 1996.

Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States.Elliott, D.L., C.G. Holladay, W.R. Barchet,H.P. Foote, W.F. Sandusky.

DOE/CH10093-4. Richland, Washington: PacificNorthwest (Battelle) Laboratory, 1987.http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas.

Wind Energy Series. Issue Papers and Briefsreleased by the National WindCoordinating Committee. Prepared by M.Brower, J. Chapman, K. Conover, J.Hamrin, R. Putnam. Washington, D.C.:1997. Available from RESOLVE, Inc., (202)

944-2300 and www.nationalwind.org.Titles include 1) The Benefits of WindEnergy, 2) Wind Energy EnvironmentalIssues, 3) Siting Issues for Wind PowerPlants, 4) Wind Energy Resources, 5) TheEffect of Wind Energy Development onState and Local Economies, 6) UtilityProcurement of Wind Resources, 7) Windin a Restructured Electric Industry,8) Incorporating Wind into ResourcePortfolios, 9) Wind Energy Transmission &Utility Integration, 10) Wind PerformanceCharacteristics, and 11) Wind Energy Costs.

Wind Energy System Operation and TransmissionIssues Related to Restructuring. Prepared byChristopher T. Ellison, Andrew B. Brownand Nancy A. Rader for the National WindCoordinating Committee. Washington,D.C.: NWCC, 1998.

Wind Power for Home & Business: RenewableEnergy for the 1990s and Beyond. PaulGipe. Post Mills, Vermont: Chelsea GreenPublishing Co., 1993.

Windy Landowner’s Guide to Wind FarmDevelopment. Sam Sadler, et al. Livingston,Montana: Windbooks, 1984.

Windpower Monthly News Magazine. GrandJunction, Colorado.

SITING PROCESSEnergy Aware Planning Guide: Energy Facilities.

California Energy Commission: 1996.

Energy Infrastructure of the United States andProjected Siting Needs: Scoping Ideas,Identifying Issues and Options – DraftReport of the Working Group on EnergyFacility Siting to the Secretary of theDepartment of Energy. Department ofEnergy. December, 1993.

Minnesota State Legislature. Wind Siting Act[Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116C.691-116C.697]. An act relating to energy;exempting wind energy conversion systemssiting from the power plant siting act;authorizing rulemaking; proposing codingfor new law in Minnesota Statutes.


Appendix A:Additional Resources

Model State Certification and Siting Code forElectric Transmission Facilities—Final StaffReport of a Keystone Policy Dialogue. TheKeystone Center. March, 1994.

Wind/Soar: A Regulatory Guide to Leasing,Permitting, and Licensing in Idaho,Montana, Oregon, and Washington. DonBain. Portland, Oregon: The BonnevillePower Administration, 1992.

NOISESee Appendix C for resources related to noise mea-surement and control.

BIRDS AND OTHER BIOLOGICALRESOURCESEffects of Wind Energy Development: An Annotated

Bibliography. California EnergyCommission (CEC), March 1996.

Avian Monitoring and Risk Assessment atTehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area,California: 1995 Progress Report. Availablefrom the California Energy Commission,(916) 654-4166.

Proceedings: Avian Interactions with UtilityStructures International Workshop. ElectricPower Research Institute and AvianPowerline Impact Committee (APLIC),December 1993.

Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind PowerPlanning Meeting, Denver, Colorado, July20-21, 1994. Proceedings published April,1995. DE95004090. Available from NTIS,US Dept. of Commerce, 5285 Port RoyalRoad, Springfield, VA, 22161. (703) 487-4650. Available on the web athttp://www.nrel.gov/wind/avian.html.

Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind PowerPlanning Meeting II, Palm Springs,California, September 20-22, 1995.Proceedings published October, 1996.NREL/CP-500-23821. Available from NTIS,US Dept. of Commerce, 5285 Port RoyalRoad, Springfield, VA, 22161. (703) 487-4650. Available on the web athttp://www.nrel.gov/wind/avian.html.

Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind PowerPlanning Meeting III, San Diego, California,May 27-29, 1998. Proceedings publishedJune, 2000.. Available on the web athttp://www.nrel.gov/wind/avian.html.

Proceedings of the National Avian-Wind PowerPlanning Meeting IV, Carmel, California,May 16-17, 2000. Proceedings publishedMay, 2001. Available on the web athttp://www.nrel.gov/wind/avian.html.

VISUAL RESOURCESFoundations for Visual Project Analysis. Richard C.

Smardon, James F. Palmer, and John P.Felleman, eds. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1986. Includes chapters on“Landscape Visibility,” “CountrysideLandscape Visual Assessment,” “SimulatingChanges in the Landscape,” and “Decision-Making Model for Visual ResourceManagement and Project Review.”

Visual Resource Management Program. US Bureauof Land Management (BLM), 1980. StockNo. 024-011-00116-6. US GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, DC 20402.The BLM’s Visual Resource Management(VRM) procedure assigns numerical ratingsto Scenic Quality, Sensitivity Level, andDistance Zones to determine the degree ofmodification allowable on a given parcelof BLM land. Designed primarily for use inremote, rural areas.

Wind Turbines in harmony with the landscape.Working report prepared for LogstorMunicipality by Moller & Gronborg, archi-tects and planners, AS. Analysis of windturbines in a Danish municipality and alter-native scenarios for replacing them, withconsideration given to visual impacts.

SOIL EROSION AND WATER QUALITYBiotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control.

D.H. Gray and A.T. Lester. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold, 1992. Handbook com-bines engineering and revegetationapproaches to erosion control that areaccessible to the layperson as well as theprofessional.

Additional Resources 45

California Stormwater Best Management PracticeHandbook, Construction Activity. CampDresser & McKee, Larry Walker Associates,Uribe and Associates, and ResourcesPlanning Associates, 1993.

Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. S.J.Goldman, K. Jackson, T.A. Bursztynsky.New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1986.

Erosion Control. Bimonthly publication of theInternational Erosion Control Associationpresents informative articles accessible tothe layperson on all aspects of erosion con-trol in the U.S.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Bimonthlyjournal of the Soil and Water ConservationSociety. Oriented to agricultural issues, butalso contains informative articles on allaspects of erosion control and water qualityprotection.

Land and Water. Foster Communications.Bimonthly magazine with brief, informativearticles on recent developments in erosionand runoff control.

Manual of Standards for Erosion and SedimentControl Measures. Association of Bay AreaGovernments. Oakland, California: Secondedition, 1995.

Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff fromNew Development. New York StateDepartment of EnvironmentalConservation, Division of Water, Bureau ofWater Quality Management, 1992.Handbook reviews storm water principlesand issues for the layperson.

Revegetation of Disturbed Land in California. L.Van Kekerix and B.L. Kay. CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation, Division ofMines and Geology, 1986. Handbook eval-uates the issues involved in the revegeta-tion of disturbed sites. Information applica-ble to arid portions of the western US.

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.Virginia Department of Conservation andRecreation, Division of Soil and WaterConservation. Third edition, 1992.Technical handbook presents planning

guidelines and technical design informa-tion, including standards and specifications.

Water Quality, Prevention, Identification andManagement of Diffuse Pollution. V.Novotny and H. Olem. New York: VanNostrand Reinhold, 1994.

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICRESOURCESNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Includes

amendments through 1992. [Title 16,United States Code, section 470]. This actwas adopted by the US Congress to estab-lish a national policy to preserve for publicuse historic sites, buildings, and objects ofnational significance for the inspiration andbenefit of the people of the United States.

Executive Order 11593, “Protection of the CulturalEnvironment,” May 13, 1971. [36 Code ofFederal Regulations, section 8921 as incor-porated into Title 16, United States Code,section 470a]. This order requires the pro-tection and enhancement of the culturalenvironment through providing leadership,establishing state offices of historic preser-vation, and developing criteria for assessingresource values.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA):1976. [Title 43 United States Code, sections1701-1784]. Requires the Secretary ofInterior to retain and maintain public landsin a manner that will protect the quality ofscientific, scenic, historical, ecological,environmental, air and atmospheric waterresource, and archaeological values [sec-tion 1701(a)(8)]. The Secretary, with respectto the public lands, shall promulgate rulesand regulations to carry out the purposes ofthis Act and of other laws applicable topublic lands (section 1740). Based on thedirectives of this Act, the Department ofInterior has developed guidelines for pale-ontologic resource protection and impactmitigation.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 1978. [title42 United States Code, section 1996]. Thisact protects Native American religiouspractices, ethnic heritage sites, and landuses.


Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary ofInterior’s Standards and Guidelines. [Aspublished in Part IV of the Federal Registeron September 29, 1983]. Developed andpublished for use by the National ParkService and now used by other federal,state, and some local agencies.

Regulations of the Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation Governing the Section 106Review Process. Revisions effectiveOctober 1, 1986. [36 Code of FederalRegulations, Part 800: Protection ofHistoric Properties]. Section 106 of theNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966requires a federal agency head to take intoaccount the effects of an agency’s under-takings on properties included in, or eligi-ble for inclusion in, the National Registerof Historic Places. These regulations setforth the steps that must be taken to iden-tify, evaluate, and protect eligible or poten-tially eligible properties.

Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act. 1990. [Title 25, UnitedStates Code section 3001, et seq]. Defines“cultural items,” “sacred objects,” and“objects of cultural patrimony;” establishesan ownership hierarchy; provides forreview; allows excavation of humanremains but stipulates return of the remainsaccording to ownership; sets penalties;calls for inventories; and provides for returnof specified cultural items.

Curation of Federally-Owned and AdministeredArchaeological Collections: Final Rule. [Aspublished in Part III of the Federal Registeron September 12, 1990]. Developed andpublished for use by the National ParkService and now used by other federal,state, and some local agencies.

Additional Resources 47

INTRODUCTIONSound is typically measured in decibels (dB). Thedecibel scale is logarithmic and results in the fol-lowing relationships:

• except under laboratory conditions, a changein sound level of 1 dB cannot be perceived;

• outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change insound level is considered a barely discernabledifference;

• a change in sound level of 5 dB will typicallyresult in a noticeable community response;and

• a 10 dB increase is subjectively heard as anapproximate doubling in loudness, and almostalways causes an adverse communityresponse.

In determining responses to changes in noise, ana-lysts usually measure noise in decibels on aweighted scale or dB. This scale is similar to theresponse of the human ear. Other statistical descrip-tors are used to describe the time-varying characterof ambient noise, and to account for greater sensi-tivity to nighttime noise levels. (See Table 3-1.)

In a typical community or habitation, ambient(background) noise is typically a conglomeration ofnoise from nearby and distant sources, relatively

steady and homogeneous, with no particular sourceidentifiable within it. Manmade noise is noticeableto many receptors when it exceeds the naturallyoccurring background noise by about 3 dB. Tonal(distinct frequency) noise is much more noticeableat the same relative loudness level because it iscomposed of one or more distinct tones, whichstand out against broadband (multi-frequency)background noise.

WIND TURBINE ACOUSTICSSTANDARDSA number of noise measurement techniques havebeen developed that are specific to wind energysystems:

• “A Proposed Metric for assessing the Potentialof Community Annoyance for Wind TurbineLow Frequency Noise Emissions” (SERI/TP-217-3261). Published in November, 1987 bythe Solar Energy Research Institute (now theNational Renewable Energy Laboratory) basedin Golden, Colorado. In this publication, NeilKelly proposed a low frequency noise metric.

• “Procedure for Measurement of AcousticEmissions from Wind Turbine Generator Systems,Tier 1 - 2.1” Published by the American WindEnergy Association (AWEA), Washington, DC,1989. Copies of AWEA’s measurement proce-dure are available from AWEA’s PublicationsDepartment at (202) 383-2520.


Appendix B:Noise Measurement

Types of Noise Which May be Generated by Wind Turbine Operation

Broadband. Noise characterized by a continuous distribution of sound pressure with frequenciesgreater than 100 Hertz (Hz). Often caused by the interaction of wind turbine blades with atmosphericturbulence. Also described as a characteristic “swishing” or “whooshing” sound.

Tonal. Noise at discrete frequencies. Caused by wind turbine mechanical components such as mesh-ing gears, by non-linear boundary layer instabilities interacting with a rotor blade surface, by vortexshedding from a blunt blade trailing edge, or unstable shear flows over holes or slits.

Impulsive (RARE). Short acoustic impulses or thumping sounds that vary in amplitude as a function oftime. Caused by the interaction of wind turbine blades with disturbed air flow around the tower of adownwind machine (one on which the rotor faces away from the prevailing wind). Very fewmachines being installed today are downwind units.

Low Frequency (RARE). Noise with frequencies in the range from 20 Hz to 100 Hz associated mostlywith older-model downwind turbines. Caused when wind turbine blades encounter localized flowdeficiencies due to the flow around a tower, wakes shed from the other blades, etc.

In addition to these, a standard measurement docu-ment has been adopted by the InternationalElectrotechnical Commission (IEC). To obtain themost current information about the status of thisstandard, contact the IEC at:

International Electrotechnical Commission3, rue de VarembeP.O. Box 1311211 Geneva 20SwitzerlandPhone: 011-41-22-919-0211Fax: 011-41-22-919-0300

ADDITIONAL NOISE MEASUREMENTREFERENCES/RESOURCESCalifornia Department of Health Services, Office of

Noise Control. Guidelines for Preparationand Content of Noise Elements in GeneralPlans, 1976.

California Department of Health Services, Office ofNoise Control. Model Community NoiseControl Ordinances, 1977.

Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. Guidelines forPreparing Environmental Impact Statementson Noise. National Research Council /National Academy of Sciences, 1977.

Peterson, Arnold P. G. and Ervin E. Gross, Jr.Handbook of Noise Measurement, 7th ed.GenRad, Concord, Mass., 1974.

Suter, Alice H., “Noise Sources and Effects - A NewLook.” Sound and Vibration, January 1992.

Thumann, Albert and Richard K. Miller,Fundamentals of Noise ControlEngineering. Prentice-Hall, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).Information on Levels of EnvironmentalNoise Requisite to Protect Public Healthand Welfare with an Adequate Margin ofSafety (55/9-74-004), 1974.

Noise Measurement 49

Definition of Some Technical Terms Related to Noise

Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times thelogarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the soundmeasured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20micronewtons per square meter).

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second aboveand below atmospheric pressure.

A-Weighted The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a Sound Level

Sound Level, dB Meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filterde-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency componentsof the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of thehuman ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.All sound levels in this paper are A-weighted.

L10, L50, & L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 10%, 50%, and90% of the time, respectively, during the measurement period. L90is generally taken as the background noise level.

Equivalent Noise Level Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the Noise Level mea-surement period.

Community Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-

Equivalent Level, CNEL hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels to levels in theevening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels tosound levels in the night between 10 pm and 7 am.

Day-Night Level, Ldn The Average A-Weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtainedafter addition of 10 decibels to levels measured between 10 p.m.and 7 a.m.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal orexisting level of environmental noise at a given location.

Intrusive Noise That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambientnoise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sounddepends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time ofoccurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the pre-vailing ambient noise level.

Source: California Department of Health Services, 1976.


The NWCC is a collaborative endeavor formed in 1994 that includes representatives from electricutilities and their support organizations, state legislatures, state utility commissions, consumer advo-cacy offices, wind equipment suppliers and developers, power marketers, environmental organiza-tions, and state and federal agencies. The National Wind Coordinating Committee identifies issuesthat affect the use of wind power, establishes dialogue among key stakeholders, and catalyzes appro-priate activities to support the development of an environmentally, economically, and politically sus-tainable market for wind power.

For additional information or to schedule a wind permitting workshop, please contact

This complete document is available on NWCC’s website: http://www.nationalwind.org.

Alliance of Energy SuppliersAmerican Electric PowerAmerican Wind Energy AssociationAtlantic Renewable Energy CorporationBonneville Power AdministrationCalifornia Energy CommissionCenter for Resource SolutionsCity of Lake Benton, MNCommunity Energy Inc.CSGServices Inc.EAPC Architects EngineersEd Holt & AssociatesElectric Power Research InstituteEnergy and Environmental Research CenterEnron Wind CorporationEnvironmental & Energy Study InstituteExeter AssociatesFPL EnergyGreenmountain Energy Co.Green MarketerIowa State LegislatureKansas Corporation CommissionKansas State RepresentativeLand & Water Fund of the RockiesLast Mile Electric Co-opLincoln County Enterprise Development

CorporationMidwest Renewable Energy CorporationMinnesota Environmental Quality Board

Montana Public Service CommissionNational Association of Regulatory Utility

CommissionersNational Association of State Energy OfficialsNational Conference of State LegislaturesNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryNorth Dakota Office of Community AssistanceNorth Dakota State RepresentativeNebraska Public Power DistrictNEG Micon USA, Inc.Oregon Office of the GovernorPacifiCorpPennsylvania Public Utilities CommissionRenewable Energy Consulting Services, Inc.South Dakota Governor’s OfficeSouth Dakota Public Utilities CommissionUnion of Concerned ScientistsU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of Interior/ BLMUtility Wind Interest GroupVermont Environmental Research Associates, Inc.Vermont Public Service BoardWestern ResourcesWind Management, LLCWindustry ProjectWyoming Business CouncilXcel Energy

Outreach CoordinatorNational Wind Coordinating Committeec/o RESOLVE1255 23rd Street, Suite 275Washington, DC 20037

Phone: 202-944-2300 or 888-764-WINDFax: 202-338-1264E-mail: [email protected]

NWCC members include representatives from:

permitting of wind energy facilities · pdf filematthews, joe o’hagen, ... rows of wind...

Documents