Post on 18-Jun-2020
STATE OF THE ART IN WIND SITING:
A SEMINAR
Pre-Publication Copy
MEETING PROCEEDINGS October 20-21, 2009
Washington, DC
Photo credit: Tom Maves, Ohio Energy Office
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 2 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 2
Meeting Purpose ................................................................................................................... 3
Welcome and Introductions................................................................................................... 3
Session I: Visual Impacts ........................................................................................................ 4
Visual Considerations: Public Perception, Regulatory Environment and Assessment Methods in the
Eastern U.S. ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Visual Resource Management ...................................................................................................................... 6
Visual Considerations: FAA Obstruction Lighting and Marking for Wind Turbine Farms ............................ 9
Session II: Acoustic Considerations ...................................................................................... 11
Wind Turbine Sound ................................................................................................................................... 11
Sound Propagation...................................................................................................................................... 12
Calibration Studies and Sound Modeling .................................................................................................... 14
Questions for the Acoustics Panel .............................................................................................................. 15
Panel Discussion on Research Priorities Relating to Visual and Acoustic Impacts ..................................... 16
Session III: Radar Interference ............................................................................................. 18
Introduction to the Issues ........................................................................................................................... 18
Federal Agency Perspectives and Research ................................................................................................ 20
Candidate Solutions .................................................................................................................................... 24
Research Needs Identified by Panel ........................................................................................................... 28
Session IV: Property Values ................................................................................................. 29
Questions on Property Values .................................................................................................................... 31
Session V: Icing Considerations ............................................................................................ 32
Appendix A: Seminar Agenda............................................................................................... 34
Appendix B: Seminar Participants ........................................................................................ 38
Appendix C: Meeting Sponsors ............................................................................................ 43
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 3 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Meeting Purpose
The National Wind Coordinating Collaborative (NWCC) teamed with the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to convene leading researchers, developers,
policymakers and regulators in a discussion about the state-of-the-art in wind energy siting.
Welcome and Introductions
Abby Arnold, NWCC Facilitator, welcomed attendees to State of the Art in Wind Siting. She explained
that this meeting aimed to provide an update on the information presented in 2005 at Technical
Considerations in Siting Wind Developments1 and to examine emerging issues in relation to wind siting.
Ms. Arnold encouraged attendees to take advantage of the wealth of knowledge and experience present
in the room. She highlighted opportunities for participant discussion following each session in which
attendees would be able to enrich the conversations begun during speaker panels. Ms. Arnold also
noted that attendees represented a variety of sectors and capabilities and, by working together, could
identify additional research and coordination needs and mutual solutions for many of the problems that
would be discussed during the meeting.
After participant introductions, Ms. Arnold noted that the workshop would examine five primary topics
in wind siting:
Visual impacts
Acoustic impacts
Radar interference
Property values
Icing
1 Proceedings from Technical Considerations in Siting Wind Developments are available at:
http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/blog/FINAL_Proceedings.pdf.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 4 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Session I: Visual Impacts
Visual Considerations: Public Perception, Regulatory Environment and
Assessment Methods in the Eastern U.S.
Matt Allen, Saratoga Associates, is a landscape architect who has worked with visual
impact assessment for over twenty years. His experience has focused primarily in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States.
Mr. Allen noted a few factors that impact how wind facilities are viewed in the eastern U.S. Open
spaces are valued at a premium because of land scarcity. Much of the east has been highly developed,
leaving less scenic open space proximate to cities. Additionally, wind development tends to be closer to
residential areas in the eastern U.S., where population density in counties where wind projects are
located is much greater than wind development areas in the western or central portions of the U.S.
Mr. Allen noted a conflicting land ethic in the East: there is a significant presence of “NIMBYism.”2 To
many, wind turbines are perceived as an unwanted "industrialization" of the landscape. Mr. Allen
suggested that this perception may differ by personal values and land ethic. That is, those who visit
rural areas or own rural property to escape over-developed urban conditions often view wind turbines
as an unsightly disturbance to a pastoral landscape. On the other hand, those who reside full time in
rural areas may view the landscape as a working landscape – to be used for agriculture and other uses;
to these people, renewable energy development visible on the landscape is a positive sign of economic
growth.
Conflicts pertaining to claims of visual effects often arise in the early stages of the project development,
before facts concerning project visibility are known. Wind energy developers are often put on the
defensive by unsubstantiated claims of adverse visual impact resulting in controversy and delay. Mr.
Allen suggested that developers might avoid these delays by engaging the local community in
conversations about visual impacts earlier in the development process. He encouraged developers to
provide the public with factual information at an early stage in planning. This should include clear
predictions of the expected impacts, allowing the public to determine whether concerns exist. Such
early consultation removes the guesswork and speculation that often plagues late-stage visual
assessment. In addition to providing factual information in a timely manner, Mr. Allen encouraged
developers to solicit feedback in a public forum and work with the local community to address concerns.
2 “NIMBY,” short for “Not In My Back Yard,” is a term that is used negatively to characterize opposition by residents to a
proposal for new development within the proximity of their homes or places of work.
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 5 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Siting policy differs by locale in the eastern U.S. Developers are usually required to conduct a visual
resource assessment (VRA) in order to receive permits from the state and county. Mr. Allen explained
that questions a VRA’s should address include:
What is being proposed?
In what visual context will it be located?
From where will it be visible?
What visually sensitive places will be affected?
What will it look like?
Will the project will blend in with or be in contrast to the current landscape?
A VRA must also identify mitigation opportunities, including decommissioning3 and consideration of
visual offsets4.
However, few states or counties prescribe a particular method for VRA’s. Furthermore, methodologies
for VRA’s are generally based on research from the 1970s and 1980s that fails to consider the unique
impact of wind facilities; additional research is needed to adapt these methodologies for wind
development.
Mr. Allen highlighted some of the recent technological advancements available to predict visual impacts.
He explained that pairing geographic information system (GIS) technology with databases of land cover
information has enabled more realistic modeling of impacts. Previous modeling resulted in a “bare
earth” analysis, which did not take into account the ability of tree cover to minimize view shed impacts.
Mr. Allen also reported that Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) technology helps to resolve accuracy
issues associated with more traditional analyses.5 LIDAR produces more accurate assessments of
structure and vegetation dimensions. Unfortunately, the use of LIDAR is currently limited by a
somewhat prohibitive cost associated with the acquisition of data, costs will likely decrease in the
future.
Local communities often express interest in previewing impacts prior to development. Video
animations can be time- and cost-intensive to produce, but provide a very realistic prediction of
impacts. Animation made through a video composite method, where wind turbines are modeled onto
existing video footage, is available to developers. This type of animation removes the need to model
the existing landscape and can be produced more quickly and cheaply.
Questions on Visual Considerations in the Eastern U.S.:
Question: Simulations are useful, but what can a developer do to address the concerns of stakeholders
who just don’t like the way a proposed facility will look?
3 Removal of structures and restoration of landscape at the end of useful life of the project.
4 Correction of an existing unsightly condition.
5 Mr. Allen included visualizations using traditional technology and LIDAR in slides 20 and 21 to illustrate the improvement
LIDAR offers.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 6 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Answer: In these circumstances, it is important to examine local guidance or regulations on the
importance of the landscape. Landscapes of statewide importance should be privileged over an
individual’s backyard view.
Question: Has improved visualization technology had any impact on rates of public acceptance of
proposed wind facilities?
Answer: It does provide better data and improves the communication between developers and
communities. Communities appreciate data they can trust. However, improved data does not always
lead to increased permitting.
Visual Resource Management
John McCarty, Bureau of Land Management, is the BLM’s Chief Landscape Architect
and the national lead on Visual Resource Management (VRM).
Mr. McCarty explained that Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 256 million surface acres of
Western landscape and 700 acres of subsurface mineral estate in the United States. BLM administers
surface use under a multiple-use management mandate, among them: recreation, forestry, livestock
production, energy development, mineral mining, and communications. Mr. McCarty noted that the
variety of uses can occasionally generate conflict. Further, as communities continue to expand, the
buffers between urban and federal land shrinking with increasing populations that be sensitive to
changes to the BLM landscapes. As a result, the development of renewable energy (wind, solar,
geothermal) on rural BLM landscapes has generated levels of public concern. With respect to wind
energy development, the Wind Energy Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) found that
approximately 20 million acres of BLM land were potentially suitable for wind energy development.
Subsequent PEISs have or are in the process of evaluating potential for geothermal and solar energy
development that will substantially add to the acreage disclosed in the Wind Energy PEIS.
BLM’s VRM program maintains four principles:
Inventory and describe the existing visual environment
Designate and comply with visual resource management objectives
Utilize good design principles to minimize visual contrast of new development in natural settings
Conduct an visual assessment of the proposed changes, document visual contrast and mitigate
impact to meet the designated Visual Resource Management Class objectives
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 1976 (FLPMA) requires the BLM to manage for and
protect scenery values. In response, the BLM structured the VRM policy and procedures, which all
permitted surface disturbing land use is subjected to, including wind energy development. The BLM
manages scenery through inventorying visual values and then designating prescriptive management
objectives. Inventoried visual values are defined within Visual Resource Inventory (VRI) Classes I – IV
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 7 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
with Class I and II having the highest value, Class III moderate value, and Class IV lowest value. These
classifications serve as information used in land use decision making and baseline data for analyzing
impacts.
Visual Resource values are inventoried through evaluating scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance
zones. Scenic quality is based on visual variety within the landscape by measuring factors such as
landform, color, vegetation, scarcity, cultural modifications, influence from adjacent scenery, and
presence of water. Sensitivity levels are determined by considering the presence of recreational
settings, important cultural or historic landmarks, legally protected landscapes, travel corridors, users,
amount of users, adjacent land uses and more. The VRI also considers visibility at various distances
from where people customarily view the landscape. Visibility distance ranges are divided into
foreground/middle-ground (out to 5 miles); background (5 to 15 miles); seldom seen (beyond 15 miles
or hidden landscapes within the other distance ranges).
The VRI values, land uses and desired outcomes are all considered when designating Visual Resource
Management (VRM) Classes, which are determined during the land use planning process. VRM Classes
dictate the prescriptive visual management objectives. The classifications range from VRM Class I to IV,
with VRM Class I being the most constraining and VRM Class IV as the least.
Mr. McCarty made the point that the BLM does not judge the subjective aesthetics of wind energy
development, but instead objectively measures the visual contrast. Conformance of proposed
developments (wind energy or other) to the VRM Class objectives is determined through measuring
their potential contrast with the landscape setting. Contrast rating procedures follow the BLM’s
systematic process outlined in Handbook 8431-1 “Visual Resource Management - Contrast Rating” that
compares the design elements (form, line, color, texture, scale) of the project with the characteristics of
the landscape. This analysis considers ten factors that may influence the visibility of landscape
modifications: distance, angle of observation, length of viewing time, size and scale, season of use, light
conditions, recovery time, spatial relationships, atmospheric conditions, and motion. With these factors
in mind, the analysis then evaluates the contrast created within the landform, vegetation and other
structures found within the landscape and ranks the contrast as none (VRM Class I), weak (VRM Class II),
moderate (VRM Class III) or strong (VRM Class IV).
Typically, the more scenic and publically sensitive the landscape, the more protection within the BLM
land use plans. The more scenic landscapes are often composed of vegetative and topographical
variations including a series of ridgelines defining the visual horizons. These ridgelines may also be
suitable locations for optimal wind turbine placement creating potential conflict between resource uses.
Consideration for both protecting visual values and advancing wind power development within high
valued settings will lead to challenging land use decisions. If determined to adjust the VRM Class
through a land use plan amendment or revision from a more protective designation to one that permits
significant visual change of the landscape, the BLM still has a legislated obligation to require projects to
be visually mitigated to reduce visual contrast.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 8 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
While landscapes with more variety are typically inventoried to have higher visual values, these same
landscapes may also provide an opportunity for facility concealment. Distance from viewers is a key
factor in visibility and contrast assessment. Mr. McCarty stressed the need to reassess the relevance of
the BLM’s VRM distance ranges (foreground/middle-ground; background; seldom seen discussed
earlier) for large vertical scale development such as wind turbines and other similar scaled facilities. He
indicated that BLM is currently investigating how distance influences visual discernment of large scale
vertical development and define more practical ranges. These findings are intended to help both the
BLM and industry better understand the influence of distance on visibility, which can be factored into
land use management decisions, project site selection and facility design.
The BLM is evaluating new methods for mitigating visual impacts associated with wind energy
development. For instance, BLM is currently collaborating with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) evaluating the suitability of a technological alternative that may allow color treating turbines to
help reduce visual contrast while still allowing FAA to achieve its mission of air safety. Additionally, BLM
is developing and evaluating the application of advanced camouflage technology that may help reduce
visual contrast of other smaller scale ancillary wind energy facilities. Mr. McCarty also noted that
preservation of existing vegetation or implementing adaptive landform grading and appropriate
revegetation strategies can be utilized to mask lower profile ground installations.
BLM will soon begin collaborating with the U.S. Department of Energy and Argonne National
Laboratories to develop a visual risk assessment methodology. BLM has already developed a Visual
Resource Management/Inventory data standard and geodatabase. For more information, contact him
at: john_mccarty@blm.gov.
Questions on Visual Resource Management:
Question: What training is available for BLM field offices regarding the Visual Resource Management
methodology?
Answer: BLM offers two 5-day courses a year and numerous on-demand 2-day short courses throughout
the year. These 2- or 5-day courses are typically limited to 35 people. Training is available to BLM
employees, other agencies personnel, federal contractors, industry and industry consultants. Feel
free to email john_mccarty@blm.gov for updates on scheduled training opportunities.
Question: Has BLM begun discussions about how it will handle the development of transmission on BLM
lands in the West?
Answer: BLM has completed a West-wide Programmatic EIS establishing corridors in which transmission
development would have the least visual impact. While transmission developers are not required to
site within these corridors, approval decisions will be expedited more rapidly within the corridors. All
transmission right of way permit applications are subject to NEPA with decisions based on
environmental impact analysis.
Question: Some landscape architects believe that structures moving with nature are more visually
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 9 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
acceptable than static structures. Does BLM use this to evaluate the visual impact of wind turbines?
What about static transmission?
Answer: BLM does factor movement into its analysis, but has found that movement appears to attract
attention. Transmission may be more visually acceptable, depending on its location. Collocating
transmission lines along natural lines within the landscape will help reduces visual contrast, as well as
placing lines where there is a landscape backdrop and color treating transmission towers to visually
blend with the background.
Question: How are birds affected when turbines or transmission is camouflaged?
Answer: It is not likely that multiple color camouflage technology would be applied to wind turbines,
but rather to the lower profile ancillary facilities associated with wind energy development.
However, the BLM is evaluating single color application to help large vertical development to visually
recede more into the background, which may be used for wind turbines and transmission towers.
Appropriateness is considered on a case by case basis, and with collaboration with FAA on facilities
that fall within their authority.
Visual Considerations: FAA Obstruction Lighting and
Marking for Wind Turbine Farms
Jim Patterson, Federal Aviation Administration, is an Airport Safety Specialist with the
Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Safety Technology Research and Development
Sub-Team at the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ. He
manages research projects in visual guidance, aircraft rescue and firefighting, airport design safety, and
operation of new large aircraft.
Mr. Patterson noted that an FAA approved lighting and marking plan is required for any structure
exceeding 200 ft. in height. He reflected that, a few years ago, the FAA realigned its standards and
process for wind facility assessment. Previously, FAA had required that each turbine in a wind facility be
outfitted with two lights (the redundancy served as a precaution in the event that one of the bulbs
burned out). However, lighting requests from developers and other agencies were very inconsistent –
some projects used red lights, some used white, and others used flashing lights. FAA developed a new
standard that was published in an FAA Technical Note in 2006, and later adopted in 2007 that efficiently
and effectively lights wind facilities while addressing the needs of the other parties involved.
The FAA conducted airborne evaluations of 11 facilities with varying patterns of turbines. This survey
concluded that:
Safety requires that the outer turbines be lit, but the interior clusters do not pose any threat to
aviation.
The separation gap for unlit turbines should not exceed ½ statute mile.
Simultaneous flashing or strobe lights (either red or white) are preferable.
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 10 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Red flashing lights (L-864) of 2,000 candelas are the most preferred.
If requested, white strobe lights should be used alone (and not with red lights).
Meteorological towers often provide optimum placement for lighting.
Daytime lighting can be omitted if the turbines are painted white.
As long as the site is regularly maintained, there is no need for a second bulb backing up each
light.
Light fixtures that are mounted to the turbine should be placed on the turbine housing, where
the tower cannot block the light in any direction.
To test these conclusions, FAA permitted a wind facility in Lawton, Oklahoma, utilizing these criteria.
The new approach proved to be an improvement and was implemented into the 2007 FAA guidelines.
Mr. Patterson also shared some current FAA activities. FAA recently announced approval to use Audio
Visual Warning Systems for obstruction lighting on a case by case basis. Using these systems, a project
could remain unlit except when the radar component of the system identifies an airplane in the vicinity.
When an airplane is observed, the system begins to flash the facility’s lights and also broadcasts a radio
warning to the approaching plane.
In addition, the FAA has begun working with the wildlife community to evaluate obstruction lighting
standards for other infrastructures, including communications and met towers. He also noted a joint
project with West Point designing a turbine that may reduce or avoid radar interference issues.
Because of time restrictions, questions for Mr. Peterson were saved for the joint visual/acoustic panel
following Session II.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 11 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Session II: Acoustic Considerations
Wind Turbine Sound
Mark Bastasch, CH2M Hill, is a registered acoustical engineer with CH2M HILL. Mr.
Bastasch’s acoustical experience includes preliminary siting studies, regulatory
development and assessments, ambient noise measurements, industrial
measurements for model development and compliance purposes, mitigation analysis,
and modeling of industrial and transportation noise.
Mr. Bastasch provided some background on acoustical considerations associated with wind power. He
began with the basics, explaining that sound is a pressure fluctuation above and below atmospheric
pressure. Because sound spans many orders of magnitude in terms of energy and pressure, sound is
measured in decibels, a logarithmic unit of measurement. To illustrate this point, Mr. Bastasch shared a
chart illustrating a range of noises and their corresponding decibel and energy measurements (slide 3).
Mr. Bastasch then distinguished between sound pressure and sound power. He explained that the
pressure of a given sound will fluctuate depending on the recipient’s distance from the source, while
power is independent of distance.
The threshold of hearing for low frequency noise is louder than high frequency noise (a low frequency
noise needs to be louder to be heard – for example, 30 dB at 1000 Hz is equally as loud as 65 dB at 40
Hz). However, once above the hearing threshold, a smaller increase in low frequency noise is required
to achieve a similar increase in loudness (for example: an increase of 10 phons, a measure of loudness,
a 10 dB increase in volume is required at 1000 Hz, where as only 5 dB is required at 40 Hz). Louder
turbines require larger setback distances to achieve the same sound level, which can affect the potential
size and productivity of a facility. Therefore, developers have an economic incentive to utilize quieter
turbines.
Blade movement causes the dominant source of noise at wind facilities. This source of noise is referred
to as “aerodynamic generation,” and is generally proportional to tip speed. Mechanical sources,
including the gearbox, generator, yaw drives, and cooling fans also contribute to the overall noise
produced by the facility. Traditional sound mitigation approaches (e.g. a barrier surrounding the
turbine) cannot be implemented because most would also hamper energy production.
Many organizations – both public and private – have begun researching the issue of aerodynamic noise.
Some of these organizations are listed on slides 12 and 13 of Mr. Bastasch’s slides. Additionally, several
locations in the U.S., Denmark, and the Netherlands have acoustical test facilities.
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 12 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
As they plan facilities, developers will identify noise sensitive areas, such as homes and schools. They
will also note setback requirements associated with roads, property lines, and protected areas. These
constraints will be overlaid on a wind resource map to begin constructing the initial turbine layout.
Using this layout, along with sound power level data for the proposed turbines, a developer will then
develop an acoustical model to determine whether predicted sound levels will create trouble for the
noise sensitive areas. The results from these predictions inform the iterative refinement process of
turbine layout.
Mr. Bastasch explained that turbine vendors can use a number of tools to measure sound at the
proposed facility, including acoustic arrays, parabolic microphones, and International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC) methods. However, he noted that long-term environmental measurements require
different methods, for which he recommended the use of oversized or secondary windscreens to collect
wind speed data near ground level and hub height.
Mr. Bastasch encouraged developers to engage with the local community during this time of planning.
He noted that such engagement would allow developers to understand concerns, including non-acoustic
factors, in the community. He suggested that a field trip to an operating wind facility could help
community members understand potential effects and also noted that it is important to recognize that
silence is not a realistic expectation nor is it required from other sources of environmental sound.
Interacting with communities can also allow for full communication of benefits associated with a facility.
It will also permit developers to coordinate start-up and construction stages to avoid conflicts with the
community. Mr. Bastasch also encouraged developers to remain responsive to the community following
the completion of the facility. For instance, complaints may indicate a malfunction or maintenance
need.
Mr. Bastasch suggested that additional effort is needed to develop certified equipment or standardize
measurement approaches. A uniform standard of practice would improve comparability of data.
Questions for Mr. Bastasch were held for the end of the panel and follow Mr. Kaliski’s presentation.
Sound Propagation
Bo Søndergaard, DELTA, is a senior consultant in DELTA’s Acoustics Department. He
possesses more than 20 years of experience as a consultant on environmental noise
measurements, predictions and assessment. Mr. Søndergaard discussed:
Results from his research on low-frequency noise produced by turbines
An overview of his work on the IEC methods
A new noise propagation method
Wind shields
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 13 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Mr. Søndergaard has been investigating low-frequency noise produced by turbines. Larger wind
turbines turn more slowly than smaller turbines, meaning that all the rotating parts turn more slowly.
The gear box transfers the slow rotation of the rotor into the faster rotation of the generator. The gear
box generates noise at discrete frequencies, which are heard as tones (this can cause annoyance). For
smaller wind turbines, these tones were at frequencies around 400 Hz. For modern wind turbines, these
tones occur at frequencies below 200 Hz. The sound spectrum (the distribution of high and low
frequencies) does not seem to differ between large and small turbines.
Some controversy exists about the potential health effects of infrasound (sound at frequencies lower
than 20 Hz). Infrasound is inaudible to the human ear unless there is very high sound pressure (this
does not occur for modern wind turbines).
There are three steps involved in predicting low-frequency noise: obtaining reliable measurements,
modeling noise propagation, and measuring sound insulation at nearby homes. For the first step –
obtaining reliable measurements – Mr. Søndergaard recommended using the IEC methods for sound
emission mentioned by Mr. Bastasch. This involves using an extra wind shield on the microphone to
reduce wind induced noise in the equipment. The IEC 61400-11 standards, which were developed in
1998 and revised in 2002, help to measure the tonality of wind turbine noise and provide results at
integer wind speeds from 6-10m/s. Amendments to the standards were finalized in 2005. Future
changes include replacing a regression analysis with a bin-analysis, using hub-height wind speed as the
reference wind speed, and shortening averaging time, among other changes. There are not consistent
standards for sound immission (which the European Environment Agency defines as “The introduction in
the environment of noise deriving from various sources that can be grouped in: transportation activities,
industrial activities and daily normal activities”).
For the second step in predicting low-frequency noise -- modeling noise propagation -- Mr. Søndergaard
suggested using the NORD 2000 method, as many other propagation measures are ineffective for low-
frequency sound. The ISO 9613-2 model is typically used to predict wind facility noises, but this model is
best suited to sources closer to the ground than wind turbines. It is also best suited for low wind
speeds. Finally, it offers only two input options for modeling the terrain (hard or soft). Mr.
Søndergaard instead recommended using the NORD 2000 model, which can take complex terrains into
account. Since terrain can cause the predicted decibel level to significantly vary (more than 5 decibels),
this is an important component for predictive accuracy. The NORD model can predict both upwind and
downwind noise propagation, unlike the ISO model, which is best for downwind conditions. The NORD
model can also predict propagation under a number of weather conditions, rather than assuming one
fixed weather condition.
For the third step -- measuring sound insulation at nearby homes -- Mr. Søndergaard suggested using
the ISO standards for microphone positioning. These measurements also help to identify possible
options for mitigating noise inside individual homes.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 14 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
There is significant motivation to improve prediction capabilities, especially for sound propagation. This
motivation stems from an increase in the size and number of wind facilities. Because of these increases,
more people are exposed to noise from turbines.
Mr. Søndergaard also discussed new technologies with wind shields. He explained that wind shields
remove the noise that is generated solely by the presence of the measuring equipment (much like wind
in one’s ear changes sound depending on a person’s position). They can also reduce the skewed
measurements that occur in response to low frequency pressure variations in wind. Wind shields do
cause some loss of acoustical noise, but explained that appropriate adjustments can be made to
compensate for this loss.
Questions for Mr. Søndergaard were held for the end of the panel and follow Mr. Kaliski’s presentation.
Calibration Studies and Sound Modeling
Ken Kaliski, RSG, Inc., is Director of Resource Systems Group's Environmental Services
Division. He has been consulting on the noise impacts of wind energy systems for over
15 years. He is a licensed professional engineer, is Board Certified through the Institute
for Noise Control Engineering (INCE), and serves as Vice President for Board Certification at INCE. He is
also a member of the Acoustical Society of America and his firm is a member of the National Council of
Acoustical Consultants.
Mr. Kaliski explained that developers often use modeling in the pre-development stages to assess
potential acoustical impacts from turbines. However, standard algorithms for measuring sound were
not originally designed to assess turbines, creating some difficulty in accurately predicting acoustic
impacts at wind facilities. To improve predictions, studies have been done to improve predictions done
using the ISO standards. In addition, other models have been developed in Europe, as previously
discussed by Bo Søndergaard. These models contain adjustments for wind speed and direction, as well
as atmospheric stability.
Because the ISO model assumes that wind speeds are between 1-5 meters per second, Mr. Kaliski
explained that calibration is needed for higher wind speeds. The ISO method gives standard errors for
sound propagation with sources up to 30 meters from the ground, which does not accurately assess
sound produced by the industrial turbines commonly used by developers today, which can exceed 80
meters in height at the hub. Because wind sound can be refracted in different directions depending on
wind shear, temperature, and wind direction, variations in these must also be taken into account.
Ground softness and humidity levels can account for some absorption of noise, creating yet another
consideration in the assessment phase. Although calibration can be done for different levels of ground
hardness, the ISO method does not account for the inversion of noise which occurs over water, meaning
that this method may need to be adjusted when measuring noise at offshore sites.
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 15 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Mr. Kaliski discussed a calibration study in Kansas in which 67 turbines were modeled during 162 10-
minute increments in the evening and early morning, when sound impacts are usually greatest due to
increasing temperatures and less background noise generated by other activities. The downwind terrain
was flat and porous, but the total area contained numerous terrain types. The study found that the ISO
method can significantly underestimate impacts if soft ground parameters are used. However,
adjustments to the ground and meteorological factors included in the model can account for this
concern.
In addition to this research, Mr. Kaliski showed how sound can be modeled not just for one hour, but
over the course of the year, by using actual meteorological data (e.g. temperature, wind speed and
direction, cloud cover, and wind shear). The data showed that annual impacts are related to not only the
number of turbines, but how they are situated around a property.
Mr. Kaliski also offered a few recommendations for further research:
Additional calibration studies are needed
Directly measuring ground impedance to understand how much sound terrain absorbs. Testing
this methodology over other terrain types, monitoring sound over a large range of wind speeds,
and conducting calibration studies on new models like Harminoise and Nord 2000.
Questions for the Acoustics Panel
Question: Do meteorological assessments typically include humidity?
Answer: Most met towers do not measure humidity but could be outfitted to do so.
Question: Given the new Nord 2000 model and Mr. Søndergaard’s reassessment of the ISO model,
should current setback distances be changed? Also, do these studies offer insight into who might be
most affected by noise/most likely to complain?
Answer: The ISO model has pretty accurately predicted noise at shorter distances, which affects
setbacks. However, the model has struggled more with predicting perceived noise at larger distances.
The studies do not directly identify who might be most affected, since annoyance is multi-faceted.
Investigations into complaints about noise often reveal annoyances about other issues.
Question: Are there recommendations about how to mitigate noise level impacts on wildlife?
Answer: There is some concern about how noise might affect bird leks (areas where male birds
congregate to attract females). However, impacts are very species specific; for instance, large
mammals tend to habituate to the impacts. When assessing noise impacts and potential mitigation
strategies, it is important to consider other potential industrial activity in the area and the impacts
from that. Peter Stiles at Keele University has done some good work developing measurements for
evaluating ground vibration effects at a nuclear test ban monitoring facility.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 16 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Question: What is the reaction to communities asking about health impacts?
Answer: Some people have raised concerns, but there has also been some misunderstanding of the
technical literature and the metrics used, especially regarding infrasound and low frequency noise.
It’s important to keep in mind the broader noise level from other sources. It’s worth noting that the
topic of health impacts from turbine noise brings together two very disparate worlds – medical
science and engineering. Medical scientists do not appreciate acoustical engineers making definitive
statements about medicine and vice versa. These two worlds could benefit from collaboration. This
collaborative opportunity must be facilitated, because it is unlikely to happen on its own.
Panel Discussion on Research Priorities Relating to Visual and Acoustic
Impacts
Matt Allen (Saratoga Associates), Mark Bastasch (CH2M Hill), Ken Kaliski (RSG, Inc.), John McCarty
(Bureau of Land Management), Mike Pasqualetti (Arizona State University), and Bo Søndergaard (DELTA)
Mike Pasqualetti, Professor in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning at Arizona State
University, began the panel with a short presentation on social barriers to wind energy development.
Pointing to some experiences of protest against wind facilities around the world, Mr. Pasqualetti asked
whether “we are worrying about the right things?” He explained that quality of life issues generally
comprise the root of protests against wind.
Panel participants then discussed priority research needs and best practices:
Mr. Bastasch encouraged the expansion of community involvement as a way of gaining social
acceptance. He explained that communities need to feel that developers understand their
concerns and appreciate community input.
Mr. Søndergaard noted a need for more annoyance studies similar to those in Sweden and
Holland. He recommended that these be improved and expanded, with an emphasis on
acoustics.
Mr. Kaliski asserted the need to conduct more dose-response studies, in which observed health
impacts are tied to the levels of noise the subject encounters. He also recommended additional
calibration studies to enhance model accuracy.
Mr. McCarty suggested that there is a great need for improved education within regulatory
agencies, the industry, and the public. He noted the importance of consistency in educating
these sectors to improve communication between them.
Mr. Allen reflected that many consider “aesthetics,” as it relates to wind, to include only the
appearance of wind facilities and turbines. He suggested that, instead, that term should also
include the improved air quality associated with the use of clean renewables when displacing
the use of fossil fuels.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 17 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Mr. Pasqualetti encouraged research into the social and behavioral aspects of energy use. He
noted a recent Congressional bill that would, if passed, establish a new post at the U.S.
Department of Energy to look at behavioral aspects of energy use and demand.
Audience members also suggested the following:
Simulations of predicted sound levels would be useful to communities seeking information
about a potential wind project in their area.
Developers and regulators need to think about how to communicate with the public about
shared benefits.
At present, only the owner of the property where the turbines are sited profits from the
turbines. However, those on adjacent land plots may experience some visual or acoustic effects.
Direct and indirect benefits should be experienced more equally.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 18 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Session III: Radar Interference
Gary Seifert, Idaho National Laboratory, moderated the session on radar interference from wind
facilities. Mr. Seifert is a senior program manager at the laboratory, where he has worked since 1979.
He has responsibility for multiple technical tasks for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S.
Navy, and NASA. Mr. Seifert is also currently involved in studies for multiple Department of Defense
wind projects and leads a technical wind radar interaction project for the U.S. DOE.
The panel would cover current research on wind-radar interaction and current collaboration needs. The
panelists would attempt to identify the concerns of their respective agencies and highlight technical
solutions under development.
Introduction to the Issues
Mr. Seifert introduced Geoff Blackman, Westslope Consulting, who consults with many of the national
laboratories, wind developers, and the American Wind Energy Association on wind-
radar issues. Mr. Blackman works with developers who are seeking approval to
construct wind farms that are on hold because they have the potential to interfere
with radar and/or air traffic control operations. This work involves identifying impacts, outlining
mitigation techniques and strategies, modeling, simulation, data analysis, optimization, and defining and
testing software and/or hardware changes. Mr. Blackman has also provided support to Idaho National
Laboratory to further the understanding of impacts and existing and potential mitigation techniques and
to the Air Force during the ARSR-4 wind turbine interference and mitigation testing at King Mountain,
TX.
Mr. Blackman explained that the rapid rate of wind energy expansion has highlighted coordination
needs relating to wind and radar. In 2008, approximately 4,000 turbines (totaling 830,000 MW in
capacity) were installed, and 2009 was on track to double that installation. However, developers also
noted that a significant portion of planned wind facilities have been held up, deferred, or abandoned
due to concerns about interference with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Defense
(DOD), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) radars.
Goals from the U.S. Department of Energy, which has proposed a scenario in which 20% of the nation’s
electricity could be obtained from wind energy by 2025, would require installation of up to 16,000
turbines per year. The President has proposed an even stronger goal – 25% wind by 2025. Mr.
Blackman asserted that this degree of growth cannot occur without addressing the issues that create
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 19 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
the above hold-ups, deferrals, and abandoned projects. He suggested that these issues can only be
resolved through coordination between the industry and federal agencies.
Mr. Blackman explained that wind facilities visible to radar can prevent detection of weather or planes
flying over the facility. Turbines can also appear as false indications that can be misconstrued as real or
threat aircraft. Finally, wind facilities can result in corrupt data, especially weather data, in which
turbines can appear as weather patterns or mask actual weather. These potential impacts cause
concern for sensitive areas or when large areas will be affected. Yet, Mr. Blackman noted that there is
no standard for what constitutes acceptable vs. unacceptable impacts. For this reason, decisions to
delay, defer, or reject a project are highly subjective.
When proposed projects are expected to cause interference, developers and regulators may consider
mitigation measures. However, the criteria for what constitutes sufficient mitigation are also quite
subjective. Furthermore, mitigation options are somewhat limited at present, with many promising
technologies not expected to be market-ready for another decade. Other possible measures are
obstructed by limited funding and agency staffing.
The project approval process also poses a challenge, with regulators entering the conversation during
late stages of wind facility planning. Mr. Blackman indicated that a standardized method of engaging
agencies early in the process would assist the industry in its planning. Additional needs include:
Modeling capabilities that would provide objective and timely evaluations;
Sufficient numbers of trained agency personnel;
Standardized operational requirements to help distinguish between acceptable and
unacceptable impacts and to justify decisions to defer or terminate the project; and
Funding for mitigation research and development.
Mr. Blackman offered a brief history of the recent U.S.-based efforts to address wind-radar issues. In
2005, the U.S. Congress mandated a Department of Defense (DOD) study on the subject. The
subsequent report was limited in its analysis of radar types and proposed mitigation strategies, but
committed DOD to conduct additional research. Beginning in 2007, the FAA and DHS collaborated to
provide online information on long-range radar systems, NEXRAD, and DOD flight paths to help industry
in its planning. A series of other forums and problem-solving workshops have included industry and
government representatives, including:
The annual WINDPOWER conference conducted by the American Wind Energy Association
(AWEA)
The 2008 FAA Competition for the Skies Conference, at which a number of agencies and the
industry mutually agreed to collaborate on research and development of mitigation options
A 2009 meeting between U.S. and British industry and agency counterparts to discuss the recent
UK Memorandum of Understanding between British agencies and industry, which established a
mechanism for early agency screening of proposed facilities
And a number of other examples (see slides 7-11)
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 20 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Federal Agency Perspectives and Research
Kevin Haggerty, Federal Aviation Administration, is the Air Traffic Organization’s Manager of
Obstruction Evaluation and is responsible for determining the effect that objects have on navigable
airspace. In 2004, he served as the U.S. State Department’s FAA liaison to the Republic of Iraq’s General
Establishment for Civil Aviation. During his service, he helped to establish Iraqi control of the Baghdad
International Airport and to enable civilian, reconstruction, and humanitarian flights to and from Iraq.
Mr. Haggerty began with a series of examples of wind-radar conflicts. In one instance in Illinois, U.S.
Senators delayed approval of FAA and DOD political appointments in response to a delay by those
agencies in approving a proposed wind facility. He noted, with some optimism, that this instance did
raise awareness of wind-radar concerns within the leadership of the two agencies. He explained that
buy-in by agency leadership is key to enabling programmatic changes to FAA’s approach to evaluating
wind facilities.
Mr. Haggerty noted that many types of radar are affected by wind energy. He asserted that
collaboration will be necessary to understand and address the full scale of the issue, which will only
increase given aggressive goals for renewable energy development. He explained that the FAA has
expressed interest in creating an advisory workgroup consisting of representatives from agencies and
industry. He envisions that the workgroup would develop a memorandum of understanding identifying
key research needs and funding resources to accomplish that research.
Mr. Haggerty expressed optimism that the leadership of agencies like FAA and DOD will provide the
support and direction required to sufficiently address the issues.
Russell Wright, Department of Homeland Security, shared information about DHS’ work on wind-radar
interference. Mr. Wright serves as a Program Manager under the Executive Director, Operations, within
Customs and Border Protection, Office of Air and Marine (OAM). He is assigned to the Long-Range
Radar Joint Program Office (JPO) located at Langley AFB, VA, where he supports the office’s mission to
ensure that reliable primary long-range radar systems and associated air navigation, surveillance, and
communications systems are maintained.
Mr. Wright explained that the JPO consists of DHS and DOD staff, since both organizations face similar
mandates regarding long-range radar. He asserted that both organizations support renewable energy
development but noted that DOD and DHS’ mandate – to enhance detection and monitoring capabilities
for “low and slow observables”—sometimes competes with the nation’s goals for expanding renewable
energy production
The agency reviews projects within two different contexts – technical and operational. While a radar
facility might face a major technical impact from a proposed wind project, mitigation might be feasible if
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 21 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
impact to overall radar operations is minimal. Conversely, a proposed wind facility might pose a
minimal technical threat to existing radar, but might be rejected because the radar is already
compromised by other obstacles.
Mr. Wright responded to the common belief that next generation radar technologies will eradicate
many of the current wind-radar issues. He argued that these technologies are unlikely to be available in
the near future or in the quantities needed. If the nation is to accomplish its renewable energy
development goals, agencies must determine methods for mitigating wind-radar impacts without
relying on next generation technologies.
Mr. Wright also noted that the recent change in Administration has created the need to repeat efforts
to raise the issue with and garner support from agency leadership. He argued that support from
leadership is critical to providing the direction, support, and authority needed for effective change in
agencies. Without direction from the top, penetration of the many agency layers is nearly impossible,
Mr. Wright said. Further, only leadership from the top can create a sense of ownership and guarantee
the budget needed to address these issues.
Mr. Wright noted that DHS has begun efforts to develop standardized criteria to help identify actual
impacts. He explained that these criteria will allow DHS to objectively quantify impacts, assisting in the
identification of needed mitigation methods. Furthermore, he said, the better the certainty about
impact assessments, the more willing DHS will be to release nearby land for wind energy development.
Mr. Wright announced that DHS would soon release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development
of an assessment tool.
Mr. Wright asserted that, while there have been a number of efforts made within individual agencies,
there remains a real need for coordination between agencies. Without this, he warned, agencies will
lack the necessary sense of shared ownership and joint benefit from the tools developed.
Ken Kingsmore, Department of Defense, serves as the DoD leadership within the Long-Range Radar JPO,
where he works with Mr. Russell Wright of the Department of Homeland Security. He also manages the
Joint National Airspace System Defense Planning Group (JNDPG) serving as the DoD leader since 1985.
Mr. Kingsmore was a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force, retiring after more than 28 years of service.
Mr. Kingsmore elaborated on some of the concerns about radar interference from wind facilities. He
explained that the Department of Defense faces some obstacles in testing interference mitigation
options as there are few “sterile” areas left. Due to the large scale of residential and industrial
development surrounding military bases (which are often a boon for local economic development), few
bases remain on which potential solutions can be tested.
He echoed the proceeding speakers’ comments encouraging cross-agency collaboration. He asserted
that the primary method for resolving conflicts about deferred, delayed, or rejected wind facility
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 22 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
proposals, which entails Congressional involvement on a case-by-case basis, is not sustainable. Mr.
Kingsmore concluded by expressing a strong desire for the wind industry and the radar industry to
collaborate with agencies toward a technical solution for radar interference from wind energy.
Ed Ciardi, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), discussed concerns
about wind energy’s interference with weather radar and shared information about
some of the agency’s mitigation research initiatives.
Mr. Ciardi is a meteorologist at the Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) Operations Center in
Norman, Oklahoma, where he has worked for 16 years. The Center provides operational support,
depot-level hardware and software maintenance, configuration management, and logistics support to
the 166 NEXRAD radars within the U.S.’ national network.
Mr. Ciardi explained that while radars can filter out stationary objects, the movement of turbine blades
makes wind facilities highly visible to radar. Turbine blades are reflective and can appear on weather
radars as thunderstorms, resulting in the inaccurate but automatic calculation of derived products like
estimated precipitation. When forecasters must rely on these radars for weather forecasts, they can
inaccurately perceive a flash flood. Since much of the nation’s best wind resource occurs in the
Midwest, aka “tornado alley,” there is concern that a forecaster might be unable to accurately
understand weather conditions at a facility, even in the event of a severe weather event.
This is also a problem for the Department of Defense, as military pilots use these radars to identify safe
flight paths avoiding major storms. It is inefficient for these pilots to “fly around ghosts,” and unsafe to
risk missing a real weather event because of interference.
He explained that moving or adjusting radar angles to avoid interference from wind facilities would
cause coverage gaps and blind spots. However, Mr. Ciardi acknowledged that re-siting or re-orienting
wind turbines also represents a loss for developers and energy production. For that reason, NOAA is
looking at alternative mitigation options, such as operational curtailment – turning off the turbines
during weather events in which an accurate forecast is especially important. This option is somewhat
attractive to developers; because wind turbines shut down automatically at severely high wind speeds,
weather-related curtailment requirements would not likely result in significant loss for developers.
Additionally, NOAA is interested in working with developers to utilize the meteorological tower data
collected by developers at wind facilities. Information about temperature, wind speed, and
precipitation, when provided to local forecasting offices, could compensate for the contamination of
precipitation estimates discussed above.
Mr. Ciardi also shared that NOAA is collaborating with DHS to develop a radar and wind interaction
model. He noted that NOAA is working with the University of Oklahoma to develop an automatic wind-
turbine filtration system for weather radar. NOAA is also collaborating with the University on a study of
signal processing identification, but explained that this solution is many years in the future.
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 23 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
In the future, Mr. Ciardi believes that the industry can contribute to decreased interference by
remaining a reasonable distance away from radar facilities and by incorporating tools like stealth
designs, curtailment options, and met-data sharing. For the agencies’ part, improved modeling tools,
better forecaster training, and alternative radar arrays hold promise as potential contributions to a
common solution. He feels that a MOU between industry and federal agencies (such as the UK MOU
discussed by Mr. Blackman) would also benefit all involved and enable better collaboration. Finally, he
said, developers need a “one stop shop” – an opportunity for early consultation with representatives
from all applicable agencies to screen out the most problematic sites and to highlight issues that need to
be mitigated before the project can be approved.
Note: The following section is still undergoing technical review and is not final.
Mr. Seifert provided an overview of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) activities relating to radar
interference DOE is at the center of the many overlapping circles of wind industry and other agencies.
DOE is responsible for supporting the national renewable energy development goals, but as a
government agency, it must avoid interference with the mission of other agencies.
Mr. Seifert noted that DOE has approached wind-radar issues by focusing primarily on research and
development of mitigation options. It has also worked aggressively over the past years to improve
education on the issues and potential mitigation strategies to developers and other agencies, as well as
internally. This has resulted in awareness by developers of the need to approach FAA early in the
planning process.
However, of the total megawatt capacity of wind energy proposed for development in 2008, a larger
portion was affected by radar issues than was installed. This trend poses a problem for meeting national
renewable energy goals; in order to reach those goals, development will have to double each year until
2025.
Comments, Questions & Answers
Comment (by AWEA): From the perspective of the wind industry, a suite of mitigation options will allow
for the most efficient use of wind resources. The industry wants to use caution in identifying which
options should be on the table – for instance, curtailment may affect income streams – but does want to
offer a number of options. The industry also appreciates the efforts by agencies to coordinate with
developers and to keep developers informed.
Response: In return, it would be useful to agencies if the industry shared results of its own technological
developments and mitigation tests.
Question: When developers notify the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of
proposed facilities, are those plans distributed to all agencies for review?
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 24 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Answer: FAA has the best process for distributing that information; by notifying both NTIA and FAA, a
developer could ensure that all appropriate agencies are informed of plans.
Question: Are other European countries interested in following the UK MOU model or is it perceived to
pose a threat to national security?
Answer: The UK is seen as a leader in this realm. It experienced many of these problems well in advance
of the U.S.; we can learn from their history of exploring and attempting to address the issues.
Question: The idea of operational curtailment during major storms seems appealing to developers.
However, what do grid operators think? It is difficult to transition from high bursts of energy (which the
grid would experience immediately prior to curtailment) to low energy.
Answer: Grid operators are starting to require meteorological data within wind farms. They can use this
information while still protecting proprietary information. Incidentally, developing relationships with
grid operators is an additional need.
Candidate Solutions
Geoff Blackman, Westslope Consulting, reviewed some of the impacts from wind energy to primary and
secondary radar systems. He explained that current technological solutions are
limited, with radar unable to filter out wind facility “clutter” and turbines lacking the
ability to minimize the amount of energy reflected back to radar. He asserted that
both turbines and radar must be updated to minimize the impacts. Solutions should be considered for
turbines, wind facilities, radar systems, and automation or command and control systems.
Mr. Blackman explained that older radars have limited mitigation options and will need to be replaced,
but newer radar might suffice with additional upgrades. However, solutions for one type of radar may
not work for others. As the UK MOU states, “There is no universal solution to mitigating the effects of
wind turbines on radar.” Therefore, a toolbox of options is needed. Mr. Blackman explained that the
UK collaborative developed by MOU will research options relating to different types of radar, including
holographic and in-fill radar, as well as stealth options for turbines (e.g., Vestas and QinetiQ have
developed stealth blades). In addition, the collaborative will develop a web-based site screening tool
incorporating criteria from each relevant agency. Mr. Blackman argued that the U.S. would benefit from
similar efforts. Collaboration would enable the development of common understandings of impacts,
issues, existing mitigation options, and potential solutions.
Mr. Blackman discussed the current radar systems in the U.S. and reviewed the state of knowledge on
each:
Long-range radar – the backbone of primary surveillance in the U.S
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 25 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
FPS-20 series and ARSR 1/2s – Comprised of 65 systems, these radars were deployed in the late
1950s and early 1960s and upgraded in the early 1980s. Mr. Blackman explained that this
upgrade improved the performance, but noted that it is a crude fix in relation to wind facilities.
He went on to say that a Long Range Radar Service Life Extension Program (LRR SLEP) was
currently underway, which will modify the architecture and significantly increase the capability
of these radars. The changes to the architecture will provide a foundation that is both flexible
and scalable to allow for future hardware and software improvements. Potential mitigation
options for these radars include adding a high beam to the antenna (thereby allowing radar to
see over the turbines), implementing concurrent beam processing, and passing additional target
report information to military command and control systems.
ARSR-3 – Deployed in the late 1970s and upgraded in the 1980s, there are 13 of these systems
in the U.S. These need to be somewhat desensitized in order to avoid the false signals projected
by wind facilities, but caution is needed to avoid over-desensitizing them and losing data. Mr.
Blackman anticipates that a prototype modification, the Advanced Runlength Process, will be
relatively inexpensive. Mr. Blackman explained that this modification would be an interim
solution and that the aforementioned LRR SLEP would present a short term solution
ARSR-4 – There are 43 ARSR-4 systems in the U.S., deployed in the 1990s. To mitigate impacts
to these systems, Mr. Blackman recommends possibly adding Doppler processing to upper
beams and enhancing map clutter processing, but notes that there is concern about making
alteration to the hardware as it would require redesign of its many dedicated components.
TARS – 7 TARS systems were deployed in the early 1980s. Mr. Blackman recommends
conducting field trials with SPE-3000.
Air Traffic Control
ASR-8 – There are 38 of these systems, which were deployed in the 1970s. Mr. Blackman
suggests upgrading them with a digitizer, such as a TDX-2000 or newer SPE-3000, or replacing
them with an ASR-11 or similar.
ASR-9 – 135 of these systems were deployed in the mid 1980s. For these, Mr. Blackman
recommends retro-fitting them with as part of a service life extension program or replacing
them with ASR-11s.
ASR-11 – The 110 ASR-11 systems began to deploy in the late 1990s. Mr. Blackman suggests
implementing concurrent beam processing for these radars and/or integrating gap-fillers (see
below).
Gap-Fill Radar
Many technologies of gap-fillers exist, including options produced by Cambridge, DeTect,
Harrier, OCAS, Raytheon, and more. These radars are sited to offer a different and unimpeded
view of an area of interest. In the case that a wind facility blocks important visibility for a radar,
a gap-filler could be installed on the opposite side of the wind facility to provide a
supplementary view of the area of interest. These radars are capable of observing a range of
detail, from bats, to hang-gliders, to tornadoes. When fused with existing radar systems, it is
important that observers be able to distinguish aircraft among the other data.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 26 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Next Generation – long term solutions
Automation systems are typically limited to one radar only to control traffic. Multi-radar
trackers to fuse data from various radar offers a simple solution to the effects of wind facilities
when coverage is overlapping.
Mr. Blackman notes that existing signals from radar could be utilized to detect aircraft over wind
facilities via bi-static/passive radar technologies.
Two other options currently being considered to replace long range and weather radar includes
MPAR and CASA. Requirements should be incorporated to mitigate wind facility “clutter”.
Weather
WSR-88D – Mr. Blackman referred attendees to Mr. Ciardi’s presentation in relation to this
technology, which was deployed in the late 1980s and comprises 159 systems. He highlighted
that current research on interpolation schemes (which measure movements) might aid in
distinguishing turbines from other data.
Mr. Blackman summarized by acknowledging that a number of candidate solutions to radar interference
have been presented. The current task is to cull the best options from the many candidates and
prioritize funding to the most-needed solutions. He reiterated the need for collaboration between
industry and government agencies. He also recommended coordinating with the UK and other
international working groups to avoid redundancy and to build on lessons learned.
Francis Lok, Raytheon Company, discussed improved radar system possibilities. Mr. Lok received his
B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Electronic Engineering from the University of Sussex, U.K. He has
been with Raytheon Company since 1985. He worked on various Air Traffic Control radar
systems including ASR-10, ASR-11, the U.S. Army Mobile Air Traffic Control, and Precision
Approach Radar system. His recent assignment is Technical Director for the Long-Range Radar Service
Life Extension Program.
Mr. Lok explained that echoes from wind facilities can have similar characteristics to those of an aircraft
and can sometimes be significantly stronger in amplitude. This can result in high alarm rates and missed
aircraft detections. A number of mitigation strategies (listed on slide 3) have been implemented,
proposed, or flagged for additional research for both long-range radar and air traffic control radar.
Mr. Lok examined a case study near Travis Air Force Base in California. The Solano County Wind
Resource Area created a “black hole” for Travis’ air traffic controllers. He shared an illustration (slide 3)
on which the significant number of red dots represent “transponder response only” targets (i.e., targets
that show up on the primary radar but do not send identification verification signals to the secondary
radar). These false alarms were created by the wind facility.
As a potential mitigation method, Raytheon attempted to look over, rather than through, the wind
facility by increasing the angle at which the radar antenna was tilted. Raytheon also chose to extend the
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 27 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
high beam over the wind farm, transitioning to low beam at a greater distance. Utilizing these methods,
Raytheon was able to increase the average probability of aircraft detection above the wind resource
area from 67.53% to 92.72%.
Raytheon is also using an X-Band gap filler technique to cover targets above the wind farm. Because the
gap filler utilizes a narrow pencil beam radar, the wind farm interference can be avoided entirely, as
opposed to the wider fan beam radars already installed (see slide 16). This, in effect, allows the radar
system to detect the area surrounding, including the area above, the wind facility.
Alternately, X-Band panels could be attached to towers at wind facilities (see slide 18). These panels
would then monitor the area immediately above the turbines. However, growing turbine heights pose a
complication, as the towers on which the panels are mounted must exceed the turbine heights.
In summary, Mr. Lok noted that each site is different and there is no silver bullet. However, he believes
that X-Band offers an important candidate for wide application for wind turbine interference mitigation.
Melissa McCarthy, OCAS, is the General Manager of OCAS Inc. Ms. McCarthy is a
graduate of the United States Military Academy with a degree in engineering
management. She served 6 years in the US military as a Communications Officer rising
to the rank of Captain. After leaving the military, Ms. McCarthy has focused on using her leadership
experience and skills to develop new technologies in the interest of national security, primarily in the
aviation field.
Ms. McCarthy gave a quick presentation on a potential mitigation technique – the audiovisual warning
system. The system incorporates detection radars, placed around the periphery of the wind facility, and
uses them to detect and track aircraft. It assesses the relative position of the aircraft; once the aircraft
crosses a certain threshold, the warning system begins to transmit a radio warning to the approaching
pilot. It also flashes warning lights to illuminate the facility and allow the pilot to avoid all turbines and
other facility infrastructure.
The OCAS system addresses some of the concerns about lighting discussed on Day 1 of the meeting. The
FAA has agreed to approve, on a case-by-case basis, the substitution of such warning systems as
satisfactory for meeting the FAA’s visibility requirements. Rather than utilizing bright lighting at all
hours (or at least at night), the facility could leave the lights off for the majority of the time; they would
only turn on automatically when an aircraft approaches.
The OCAS system could also be used to solve some of the radar interference problems experienced at
wind facilities. With its inherent radar capabilities, OCAS can detect low flying approaching aircraft that
are otherwise lost behind the shadow of the wind farm and relay this data to the other FAA or DOD
radar security systems.
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 28 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Research Needs Identified by Panel
As a conclusion to the panel, Mr. Seifert offered a list of research priorities needed for wind-radar
interference issues:
Organizational needs
o Funding for research
o Outreach/education at senior levels of agencies
o “Toolbox” of best practices in siting
Technologies to test:
o Sensor fusion
o Gap fillers
o NEXRAD screening tool
o Improved radar systems
o Advanced software
o Manufacturing (turbines) with stealth filters
Research on potential mitigation strategies:
o Operational curtailment for turbines
o Sharing of met tower data with NOAA
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 29 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Session IV: Property Values
Ben Hoen, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, shared the results of a
groundbreaking study on impacts to property values at nearby homes resulting from
the development of nearby wind facilities. Mr. Hoen works under contract to the
Laboratory to investigate community responses to different renewable energy sources. In addition to
completing the study presented here, he is currently working on a separate analysis of the impact of
solar energy systems on home selling prices as well as an investigation into public acceptance of
households living near wind turbines. Mr. Hoen has spoken numerous times on the issue of wind energy
and property values, is a graduate of Bard College with a Masters Degree in Environmental Policy, and
holds Bachelors degrees in Finance and Business from University of Maryland.
Mr. Hoen explained that his presentation would focus on the results of a study he has conducted over
the past few years in tandem with colleagues at LBNL, San Diego State University, and Bard College. He
noted that his presentation would not discuss mitigation strategies or next steps. Nor would it attempt
to explain effects, if any. Instead, the study focuses on whether any effects to property values exist.
Because property values have been linked to aesthetics and because aesthetic concerns exist in some
corners regarding wind turbines, LBNL sought to address concerns that the construction and operation
of wind facilities would decrease nearby properties. LBNL distinguished between three categories of
impacts:
Area stigma – Concerns that rural areas will appear more developed
Scenic vista – Concerns over decrease in quality of scenic vistas from homes
Nuisance stigma – Potential health and well-being concerns of nearby residents who might
wonder about sound, flicker, etc.
Basic research questions of the study include:
1. Is there evidence that views of turbines measurably affect sale prices?
2. Is there evidence that proximity to turbines measurably affect sale prices?
3. Do the results change over time and are there other observable impacts?
Plenty of “grey” literature exists on this topic and has generated quite a bit of interest. However, this
literature has not been published in peer-reviewed journals and questions exist about the intentions of
many of the authors. He explained that, after reviewing the literature, the researchers collected data on
sales transactions within multiple sample study areas. They then visited each home in the survey areas
to measure impacts. The researchers used multiple statistical models, relying primarily on the hedonic
pricing model, to measure effects. They tested for the presence of all three stigmas mentioned above.
The results have been peer reviewed and will culminate in an LBNL report and publication in at least one
journal.
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 30 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Mr. Hoen illustrated the study’s sample areas (slide 11), which occur in Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin,
Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania. He noted that roughly 7500 home-selling
or -buying transactions occurred within these study areas. Most of these transactions occurred after the
construction of the wind facility; others occurred after the facility was announced but before it was
built.
The Hedonic pricing model assumes that homes have various characteristics that a buyer will take into
consideration (e.g. number of bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.) Using the information about a local
marketplace, sellers can assess the marginal value of performing construction or renovations prior to
selling the house. He also stressed that significance levels are important.
In discussing the results, Mr. Hoen began with the scenic vista stigma. He explained that this required
researchers to measure the value of the scenic vista prior to wind facility construction. Each home was
rated in terms of its scenic vista prior to construction, with rating ranging from poor to premium.
Following construction, the dominance of turbines within the view shed was ranked from minor to
extreme dominance (see slide 15). Using the Hedonic model, researchers found that buyers and sellers
both care about scenic vista. The results (statistically significant above the 1% level) showed
comparable homes with poor vistas sell for 21% less than those with an average vista. Similarly, homes
with a premium vista sell for 13% more than those with an average vista.
However, the researchers found (at a 10% statistical significance level) that turbines do not create a
scenic vista stigma. That is, they do not affect selling prices.
To study the area and nuisance stigmas, researchers used geographic information systems (GIS) to
estimate the distance of every home from the nearest turbine. Distances were divided into 5 intervals
(see slide 16). They found that the effects outside of 1 mile are relatively small and statistically
indistinguishable from zero. However, effects within one mile were slightly larger and negative. Mr.
Hoen stressed that no differences in selling prices are statistically significant at the 10% level.
Interest piqued by the nearby impacts, the researchers conducted further investigations and found that
homes within one mile of construction already had a depressed value prior to the announcement of the
wind facility’s construction. (Mr. Hoen hypothesized that this depressed value might coincide with a
rural location that is better suited for wind facilities.) For these homes, values decreased slightly
following the announcement of the construction but increased significantly following construction.
Mr. Hoen briefly reviewed other models contained in the report (see slide 29), including the repeat sales
model, the sales volume model, the orientation model, and the overlap model. The researchers found
that results are consistent across all models.
In summary, the study concludes that: “Although the analysis cannot dismiss the possibility that
individual homes have been or could be negatively impacted, the Berkeley Lab research finds that if
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 31 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
these impacts do exist in the sample of homes analyzed, they are either too small and/or too infrequent
to result in any widespread, statistically observable effect.”
Note: in the final presentation posted to the LBNL and NWCC websites, LBNL offers some
recommendations on additional research needs.
Questions on Property Values
Question: Is there any possibility that the presence of a developer who is shopping around for land could
confound the data?
Answer: There were some qualifications to the types of sales included in the data; sales to corporations
and family members were among the transactions excluded.
Question: Did you test for tax brackets, school quality, and other issues?
Answer: LBNL tested for schools; results were robust. Although they did not test for taxes specifically,
the team examined other microspatial factors, which might include taxes, and found that they did not
affect results.
Question: Do you think there might be effects from high voltage transmission lines? Also, do other
facilities have infrastructure extended more than 1 mile beyond the primary project?
Answer: For some other types of facilities (e.g. Superfund sites), effects can extend for miles. Concerns
about potential health impacts can cause some large effects. Concerns about visual impacts result in
much smaller effects.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 32 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
Session V: Icing Considerations
Jeff Freedman, Senior Research Scientist at AWS Truewind, LLC, provided an overview
of studies regarding icing considerations. Dr. Freedman possesses both academic and
professional degrees in meteorology and oceanography, atmospheric science and law.
Prior to earning his Ph.D. at the University at Albany, State University of NY, Dr. Freedman was Assistant
Counsel to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. Dr. Freedman is a Certified
Consulting Meteorologist and was principal for the meteorological consulting firm Atmospheric
Information Services before joining AWS in February 2007.
Mr. Freedman began by differentiating between types of icing. He explained that rime icing occurs
when clouds of supercooled water droplets come into contact with sub-freezing surfaces. Glaze icing
occurs when liquid water (rain or drizzle) freezes on sub-freezing surfaces.
He discussed a high resolution modeled climatology recently developed by AWS to identify icing
frequencies in the U.S. and Southern Canada. Validation of the model used available estimates from
long-term tall towers, high altitude surface observation stations, and previous in-situ mountain studies
at various heights above ground level. For the study, icing frequency was defined as the number of
hours a particular point would be immersed in sub-freezing cloud divided by the total number of hours
in the simulation. Maps illustrating the results at various heights above ground level can be seen on
slides 9-13.
Observed icing areas correlate with the modeled icing areas; however, the persistent freezing of
equipment may skew the degree of icing impact by a factor of 10 or more.
Dr. Freedman also offered some background on general siting considerations associated with icing. He
noted that areas prone to icing require different equipment. Heated sensors allow for the collection of
wind data event during icy weather events. However, although the sensors themselves may work in
extreme conditions, the build up of rime ice on supporting infrastructure may result in blockage of the
airflow in and around the anemometer.
Other icing considerations involve production losses, especially degraded power performance associated
with blade ice. Facilities may also need to shut down to ensure safety and prevent ice throw. In the
event that severe weather prevents maintenance access, a facility might also need to shut down.
Finally, downed power lines can also cause a shutdown. In certain areas, Dr. Freedman said, losses due
to icing can exceed 8%.
Dr. Freedman outlined some areas where additional research is needed regarding icing. First, better
instrumentation and monitoring abilities are needed to enable consistent measurement during actual
Click to view
presentation
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 33 of 43
Meeting Proceedings October 20-21, 2009
icing events. Additional measurements should also include solar radiation, precipitation, and
precipitation type. Dr. Freedman also noted that he will participate on a project in Vermont to assess
actual impacts to turbines as icing occurs.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 34 of 43
Appendix A: Meeting Agenda October 20-21, 2009
Appendix A: Seminar Agenda
Purpose:
Review and discuss existing research, methods, and tools available to address technical issues
associated with siting wind energy facilities. Because the NWCC convenes a separate, biennial
meeting on wildlife concerns associated with wind siting, this meeting will not address that topic.
Examine the state of knowledge on pressing issues for siting wind facilities, and identify research
needs or other next steps that might lead to solutions for those issues.
Develop meeting proceedings which may be used as an unbiased source of technical information for
those engaged in siting and permitting wind facilities.
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 35 of 43
Appendix A: Meeting Agenda October 20-21, 2009
DAY 1: OCTOBER 20, 2009
12:00 pm Registration and lunch
Location: National Hall,
Washington Plaza Hotel
1:00 pm Welcome, Introductions & Meeting Purpose Abby Arnold, NWCC Facilitator
1:15 pm I. Visual Considerations
The first portion of the Visual Considerations session will examine
issues, regulations, and mitigation methods for visual impacts
from wind facilities.
Eastern U.S. - Assessment methods, public perception and
regulatory environment in the eastern US.
Western U.S.:
o BLM Visual Resource Management methodology
o Research to assist the wind industry in measuring
visual risks early
o Other research initiatives
Matt Allen, Saratoga Associates
John McCarty, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management
2:05 pm Addressing aesthetic concerns and FAA requirements for
lighting and marking
o Agency coordination
John McCarty, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management
Jim Patterson, FAA
2:55 pm Q&A
3:10 pm Break
3:30 pm II. Acoustic Considerations
Wind Turbine Sound
o Fundamentals of perception
o Noise generating mechanisms
o Research and planning considerations
Mark Bastasch, CH2M Hill
3:50 pm Sound propagation
o Development of new methods & metrics
o Wind screen techniques
Bo Søndergaard, DELTA
4:10 pm Calibration studies and sound modeling
Ken Kaliski, RSG, Inc.
4:30 pm Q&A
4:50 pm Break
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 36 of 43
Appendix A: Meeting Agenda October 20-21, 2009
5:00 pm
Panel Discussion – Acoustic and Visual Considerations
o What is the state of knowledge? What conclusions
can be made? What are the implications?
o What outstanding questions need to be answered?
What are the priority research needs?
Moderator: Abby Arnold, NWCC
Facilitator
Mark Bastasch, CH2M Hill
Ken Kaliski, RSG, Inc.
Mike Pasqualetti, Arizona State
University
Bo Søndergaard, DELTA
Matt Allen, Saratoga Associates
John McCarty, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management
6:00 pm Q&A
6:15 pm Adjourn to reception Diplomat Room,
Washington Plaza Hotel
DAY 2: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009
8:30 am Breakfast
National Hall,
Washington Plaza Hotel
9:00 am Welcome and review daily agenda
9:15 am III. Radar Interference
Introduction to the issues
Geoff Blackman, Westslope
Consulting
9:30 am Panel: Federal agency perspectives and research
During this panel, representatives from federal agencies will share
research results and the primary relevant concerns of each agency
o U.S. Department of Homeland Security
o U.S. Department of Defense
o Federal Aviation Administration
o National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
o U.S. Department of Energy
Moderator: Gary Seifert, INL
Russell Wright, DHS
Ken Kingsmore, DOD
Kevin Haggerty, FAA
Ed Ciardi, NOAA
10:50 am Q&A
12:10 pm Lunch
Diplomat Room,
Washington Plaza Hotel
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 37 of 43
Appendix A: Meeting Agenda October 20-21, 2009
1:10 pm Potential Solutions
During this time, speakers will identify some of the potential
solutions and mitigation technologies
o Improved radar systems
o Stealth technology
o “Gap fillers”
o Siting
Geoff Blackman, Westslope
Consulting
Dr. Francis Lok, Raytheon
Melissa McCarthy, OCAS
2:15 pm Q&A
2:25 pm Break
2:45 pm IV. Property Values
Methodology, findings, and implications from recent study
Ben Hoen, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory
3:15 pm Q&A
3:25 pm V. Icing considerations
Frequency of icing and icing events
Siting considerations
o Equipment requirements
o Efficiency impacts
o Safety considerations
Additional research needs
Jeff Freedman, AWS Truewind
4:00 pm Q&A
4:15 pm Adjourn
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 38 of 43
Appendix B: Meeting Participants October 20-21, 2009
Appendix B: Seminar Participants
Final List of Participants
John Albers
Director, Industrial/Energy Programs
Woolpert
Matthew Allen
Principal
Saratoga Associates
Daniel Ancona
Program Manager
Princeton Energy Resources International
Suzi Asmus
Project Manager
Horizon Wind Energy
Jennifer Banks
Offshore Wind and Siting Specialist
AWEA
Brice Barton
Development Manager
TradeWind Energy
Jeffrey Basch
General Manager
Accio Energy, Inc.
Mark Bastasch
Lead Acoustical Engineer
CH2M Hill
Matthew Behrum
Associate Scientist
Integral Consulting
Geoff Blackman
Principal
Westslope Consulting, LLC
Josh Bohach
Project Manager
Horizon Wind Energy
Travis Bullard
Real Estate Coordinator
Eolian Renewable Energy
Kraig Butrum
President
American Wind Wildlife Institute
Alex Cantu
Meteorologist
enXco
Edward Ciardi
Meteorologist
NEXRAD Radar Operations Center
Rachel Clement
Assistant Project Engineer
enXco
Werner Cook
Research Associate
University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Wind Power
Initiative
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 39 of 43
Appendix B: Meeting Participants October 20-21, 2009
Thomas Cotton
Vice President
Complex Systems
Shannon D’Agostino
Sr. Environmental Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Huy Dao
Computer Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration
Tricia DeBleeckere
Energy Facilities Planner
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Ed DeMeo
President
Renewable Energy Consulting Services, Inc.
Michael Derby
Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
Michele DesAutels
Communication Specialist
Department of Energy
Robert DeSista
Regulatory Branch Chief
US Army Corps of Engineers
Lynn DiTullio
Wind Energy Center Program Manager
University of Massachusetts Wind Energy
Center
Nick Doss
Meteorologist
Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
Paul Dwyer
Student
U.S. Military Academy
Dept. of Systems Engineering
James Field
Supervisor, NUC/Engineering Plant Support
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Patricia Fleischauer
Vice President
TRC
Larry Flowers
National Technical Director
National Renewable Energy Labratory
Valerie Franklin
Project Manager
Horizon Wind Energy
Jeff Freedman
Senior Research Scientist
AWS Truewind, LLC
Chris Galazzi
Consultant
Zenergy, Inc.
Emile Ganthier
Software Engineer
Harris Corp
Tim Gehring
Project Manager
RMT, Inc.
Jason Gifford
Consultant
Sustainable Energy Advantage, LLC
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 40 of 43
Appendix B: Meeting Participants October 20-21, 2009
Patrick Gilman
Presidential Management Fellow
Wind and Hydropower Technology Program
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
US Department of Energy
Krista Gordon
Business Developer
Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.
Anne-Marie Griger
Environmental Planner
Tetra Tech EC Inc
Kevin Haggerty
Manager
Federal Aviation Administration
Spencer Hamilton
Owner
Shore Green Energy LLC
Ben Hoen
Subcontractor
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Laurie Jodziewicz
Manager of Siting Policy
AWEA
Tre Jerdon
Research Associate
American Planning Association
Kenneth Kaliski
Director
Resource Systems Group Inc
Aileen Kenney
National Director - Wind Energy
Tetra Tech EC, Inc.
Kenneth H. Kingsmore
Program Manager
DoD Long Range Radar Joint Program Office
Francis Lok
Engineering Fellow
Raytheon Company
Todd Mattson
Senior Environmental Project Manager
HDR Inc.
Melissa McCarthy
General Manager
OCAS
John McCarty
Chief Landscape Architect
Bureau of Land Management
Michael Musich
Permitting Administrator
Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.
Martin J. (Mike) Pasqualetti
Professor
Arizona State University
School of Geographical Sciences and Urban
Planning
Jim Patterson
Airport Safety Specialist
Federal Aviation Administration
Rorik Peterson
Project Developer
Horizon Wind Energy
Scott Phillips
Director - Energy Program Development
Tetra Tech EC
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 41 of 43
Appendix B: Meeting Participants October 20-21, 2009
Eva Piltch-Boucher
Systems Engineer
SRC
Maria Pirone
Senior Bus Dev Manager
Harris Corporation
Jim Ploger
Regional Coordinator
National Association of State Energy Officials
Lester Polisky
Senior Principal Engineer
Comsearch
Bonnie Ram
Asst. Vice President
Energetics Incorporated
Russell Raymond
Renewable Energy Policy Analyst
Energetics Incorporated
Rio Roland
Resource Assessment Engineer
enXco
Glenn Schleede
empaine@aol.com
Gary Seifert
Senior Project Manager
Idaho National Lab
Bo Sondergaard
Senior Consultant
DELTA
Hong Spores
Hydrogeologist/Project Manager
HDR Engineering
Jennifer States
Energy Specialist
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Howard Swancy
GAITS, Inc.
Gunnar Tamm
Instructor
U.S. Military Academy
Dept. Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Patricia Temple
Complex Systems
Colonel Timothy Trainor
Professor and Department Head
U.S. Military Academy
Dept. of Systems Engineering
Kurt Tramposch
Environmental Planner
SuAsCo Watershed Council
Gilbert Velasquez
CTO/Owner
Breeze Energy, LLC
Matthew Wagner
Manager-Wind Site Development
DTE Energy
Wendy Wallace
Energy Analyst
Energetics Incorporate/ Department of Energy
Robert Williams
Environmental Consultant
Dominion Resources Services
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 42 of 43
Appendix B: Meeting Participants October 20-21, 2009
Joe Wood
GIS Manager
Ridgeline Energy LLC
Russell Wright
Program Manager
Long Range Radar Joint Program Office
Katharine Wurzbach
Student
U.S. Military Academy
Dept. of Systems Engineering
NWCC Staff:
Abby Arnold
Vice President and Senior Mediator
Kearns & West
(202) 535-7800
aarnold@kearnswest.com
James Damon
NWCC Outreach Coordinator
RESOLVE
(202) 965-6383
jdamon@resolv.org
Taylor Kennedy
NWCC Associate
RESOLVE
(202) 965-6392
tkennedy@resolv.org
State of the Art in Siting Seminar Pre-Publication Copy Page 43 of 43
Appendix C: Meeting Sponsors October 20-21, 2009
Appendix C: Meeting Sponsors
The planning and execution of the State of the Art in Wind Siting Seminar and the production of this
document was supported, in whole or in part, by the United States Department of Energy under
Contract No. DE-AT01-07EE11218. Financial support by the Department of Energy does not constitute
an endorsement by the Department of Energy on the views expressed in this document, nor do the
views and opinions of authors expressed herein necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
government or any agency thereof.