Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities...eration and oversight of proposed wind projects. Chapter...

Prepared by the NWCC Siting SubcommitteeMarch 1998

Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

A HANDBOOK

Principal Authors

Bob Therkelsen, California Energy CommissionBill Grant, Izaak Walton League of America

Don Bain, Oregon Department of EnergyAlan Davis, Consultant

Tom Gray, American Wind Energy AssociationDon MacIntyre, Consultant

Steve Ugoretz, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

The NWCC Permitting Handbook Authors Group wishes to acknowledge the contributions of California Energy Commission staff including

Judy Grau, Joe O’Hagen, Eric Knight, and Kathryn Matthews.

NWCC Siting Subcommittee

Abby Arnold, RESOLVE, FacilitatorBill Grant, Izaak Walton League of America, Chair

Bob Therkelsen, California Energy Commission, Co-Chair

Don Bain, Oregon Department of EnergyHap Boyd, Enron Wind Corporation

Manny Castillo, Northern States PowerSteve Corneli, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office

Sam Enfield, Seattle, WashingtonBill Fannucchi, Wisconsin Public Service Commission

Walt George, Bureau of Land ManagementPaul Gipe, Paul Gipe & Associates

Rob Harmon, FloWindLarry Hartman, Minnesota Environmental Quality Board

Lauren Ike, Montana Power CompanyRick Kiester, National Association of Counties

Ron Lehr, National Association of Regulatory Utility CommissionersRandy Swisher, American Wind Energy Association

Steve Ugoretz, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources

Handbook compilation, editing and review facilitation provided by Heather Rhoads, RESOLVE, and Susan Savitt Schwartz, Editor

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

Handbook Layout and ProductionKristin Tromly, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Cover photo courtesy of Green Mountain Power Corporation.

Printed on recycled paper.

Acknowledgments

A HANDBOOK

Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

Prepared by the NWCC Siting Subcommittee

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

March 1998

Preface

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

The NWCC Siting Subcommittee was formed to address wind generation siting and permitting issues. Inpreparing the handbook, members of the Subcommittee drew from their own experiences in developing andpermitting wind projects, reviewed materials used for permitting wind projects at the federal, state and locallevel, and interviewed over two dozen individuals (listed in Appendix D) who have been involved in someaspect of wind project permitting. Together, these sources form the basis for the information, tools, andinsights contained in the handbook.

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

ii

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Summary of Key Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF WIND DEVELOPMENT AND PERMITTING Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Anatomy of a Wind Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Steps and Participants in Wind Project Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

CHAPTER 3 GUIDELINES FOR STRUCTURING THE WIND FACILITY PERMITTING PROCESS Typical Steps in Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Principles Common to Successful Wind Facility Permitting Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

CHAPTER 4 SPECIFIC PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS AND STRATEGIES Tradeoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Birds and Other Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Visual Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42Soil Erosion and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Public Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48Cultural and Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52Socioeconomics/Public Services/Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54Solid and Hazardous Wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57Air Quality and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

APPENDICESA. Additional Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-1B. Sample Local Government Requirements for Wind Energy Conversion Systems (California) . . . . . . . . .B-1C. Noise Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1D. List of Interviewees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D-1

iii

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

2. Open lattice wind towers in the Altamont Pass. Note the service road in the foreground . . . . . . . . . . .7

3. Tubular towers in a linear array in South Point, Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

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

5. A large 500-kW, three-bladed wind turbine towers 40 meters over a service vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

6. A two-bladed wind turbine design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

7. A large crane is used to raise a rotor into position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

8. Wind energy is compatible with cattle grazing in California’s Altamont Pass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

9. Unconcerned with the rotating blades, a Pronghorn Antelope grazes near these wind turbines in . . . .29Fort Davis, Texas.

10. Compare the visual effect of widely-spaced turbines at a wind facility in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Lake Benton, Minnesota (top) with the visual impact of a more densely-spaced array in California’s Tehachapi Pass (bottom).

11. Roads on slopes can have a distinct visual impact, even from a great distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

12. Site access and service roads can produce erosion in steep terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

13. It may be necessary to post warning signs near wind facilities to protect public safety . . . . . . . . . . . .50

14. Wind turbine parts can become solid waste, and need to be handled appropriately . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

List of Figures

iv

Chapter 1Executive Summary

INTRODUCTIONThe power of the wind was first used to generateelectricity nearly 100 years ago. Today, wind tur-bines in the United States play an increasinglyimportant (though still small) role in meeting ourelectricity needs. They currently produce over threebillion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually—enough to meet the needs of over one million peo-ple. Commercial wind energy projects have beenpermitted in several states including California,Minnesota, Hawaii, Texas, Massachusetts, Vermont,and Maine. Given wind energy’s environmentalbenefits, coupled with dramatic equipment costreductions1 and reliability improvements over thelast 20 years, it is anticipated that more wind pro-jects will be proposed to decision-makers and com-munities throughout the United States.

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

• There is growing agreement in the scientificcommunity that air pollution, part of whichcomes from fossil-fueled power plants, poses aserious health risk. Whereas a 100-megawattnatural gas-fired power plant may emit75-100 tons each of nitrogen and sulfur oxidesper year, wind facilities emit no air pollutants.

• The scientific community also sees the world-wide buildup of carbon dioxide from the com-bustion of fossil fuels and other “greenhousegases” in the atmosphere as a likely contribu-tor to global climate change. Unlike fossil-fueled power plants, wind facilities emit nogreenhouse gases.

Making Use of this HandbookThis handbook has been written for individuals andgroups involved in evaluating wind projects: deci-sion-makers and agency staff at all levels of govern-ment, wind developers, interested parties and thepublic. Its purpose is to help stakeholders makepermitting decisions in a manner which assuresnecessary environmental protection and respondsto public needs. Such timely and defensible

decisions are less likely to be challenged in court,and will allow wind to be a competitive electricalgeneration resource.

Some decision-makers already have energy facilitypermitting processes but may not be familiar withwind generation technologies and approaches toresolving wind permitting issues. Other decision-makers may not have dealt with any energy facili-ties. Because this handbook was designed to bene-fit decision-makers and others with varying degreesof experience in facility siting, different readers maymake use of all or only portions of the Handbook’sthree main sections:

Chapter 2–Overview of Wind Development andPermitting describes the basic features of a windproject and walks the reader through the basicsteps in planning, permitting, construction, opera-tion and closure of a wind facility.

Chapter 3–Guidelines for Structuring the WindFacility Permitting Process presents principles,processes and concepts that agencies, developersand the public may want to employ in the consid-eration and oversight of proposed wind projects.

Chapter 4–Specific Permitting Considerations andStrategies discusses the tradeoffs to be consideredin weighing the environmental and other issues thatmay arise in permitting wind facilities at variouslocations, and provides suggestions on how to dealwith those issues.

In addition to the above sections, there are appen-dices to the handbook which refer the reader toadditional resources and which give examples oftools and techniques (e.g., wording from local ordi-nances) that have been applied in some permittingsituations and may have application in others.

Executive Summary 1

1Wind generation today is in a competitive range, although still slightly more expensive than most new fossil-fueled power plants.

Because permitting issues and processeswill vary according to location and individ-ual wind project, regulatory agencies areencouraged to apply those parts of thisHandbook that most directly meet theirneeds. Not all the information or processrecommendations will be applicable inevery situation.

2 Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

Distinguishing Features of Wind Energy Facilities Some aspects of wind facility permitting closelyresemble permitting considerations for any otherlarge energy facility or other development project.Others are unique to wind generation facilities.Unlike most energy facilities, wind generation facil-ities tend to be located in rural or remote areas,and are land-intrusive rather than land-intensive.Thus they may extend over a very large area andhave a broad area of influence, but physicallyoccupy only three to five percent of this acreage forthe turbine towers and associated structures andaccess roads. The rest of the acreage may be leftlargely undisturbed and available for other compati-ble purposes. Chapter 2 describes the major com-ponents of a wind project: wind turbines,anemometers, electrical power collection and thetransmission system, control and maintenance facil-ities, and site access and service roads—some or allof which may be present in a given project. It alsoprovides an overview of the major steps in windproject development: planning, financing, permit-ting, construction, operation, and decommission-ing.

Structuring the Wind Facility Permitting Process As with other energy facilities, the goal of a windfacility permitting process is to reach decisions thatare timely and avoid unnecessary court challenge;ensure project compliance with existing laws andregulations providing for necessary environmentalprotection at a reasonable cost; and allow wind tobe a competitive electrical generation resource.Chapter 3 briefly describes the typical steps in per-mitting a wind facility: preapplication, applicationreview, decision-making, administrative and judi-cial review, and permit compliance. The chapterthen discusses the following eight guidelines forstructuring a permitting process to allow for effi-cient agency review, meaningful public involve-ment, and timely and defensible decisions:

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

2) Issue-Oriented Process. Understanding the

most important issues in each wind projectand focusing the permitting process onresolving them helps make for timely deci-sions and a smaller likelihood of litigation.

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

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

5) Reasonable Time Frames. Unnecessarydelays and associated uncertainties can beminimized if permitting agencies specifyreasonable time frames for each of themajor phases of the permitting process, andmanage the process to stay within thosetime frames.

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

7) Efficient Administrative and JudicialReview. Following established proceduresdesigned to systematically narrow theissues of concern and produce factually-based decisions can significantly limitappeals and allow them to proceed moreefficiently if they do occur.

8) Active Compliance Monitoring. Most agen-cies include in their permits specific condi-tions that must be met during construction,operation, and project closure; these condi-tions can best be implemented if they are:specific, measurable, agreed upon by allparties, realistic, set within reasonable timeframes, enforceable, and actually enforced.

Specific Permitting Considerations and StrategiesWhether a wind project consists of a large windfarm or a single turbine, a range of considerations

may be raised before, during or after project development. Siting decisions inevitably requirebalancing the various impacts and making tradeoffsamong them. Permitting agencies also need to con-sider cost-benefit tradeoffs associated with impactmitigation strategies. The permitting process seeks tostrike a balance between making a project accept-able to the community and preserving the project’seconomic viability in a competitive electricity mar-ket. The following wind facility siting considerationsare discussed in Chapter 4 along with strategies and“tips” for addressing them within the context of thepermitting process. All parties need to recognizethat the applicability of these considerations willdepend on the specific wind project proposal andsite conditions. Not every consideration will applyto each wind project.

• Land Use. Depending on the site, size anddesign of the project, wind development maybe compatible with a variety of other landuses, including agriculture, grazing, openspace and habitat preservation. Other landuses and resource values need to be consid-ered when siting large wind projects in remoteareas. Stakeholders need to understand the fullrange of land use issues associated with a sitebefore getting locked into development plans,permit conditions, or other requirements.

• Noise. Because noise emitted by wind turbinestends to be masked by the ambient (back-ground) noise of the wind itself and falls offsharply with distance, noise-related concernsare likely to center on residences closest to thesite, particularly those sheltered from prevail-ing winds. Advanced turbine technology andpreventive maintenance can help minimizenoise during project operation.

• Birds and Other Biological Resources. Thepotential for collisions between birds and windenergy facilities has been a controversial sitingconsideration. Biological resource surveys canhelp to determine whether or not serious con-flicts are likely to occur. In many cases, impacton birds and other sensitive biologicalresources can be adequately mitigated; if not,wind development may not be appropriate in aparticular location.

• Visual Resources. There are a number of waysto reduce the visual impact of wind projects,but there may be tradeoffs to consider. One of

the best tools for assessing project impact isthe use of visual simulations.

• Soil Erosion and Water Quality. Wind projectsentail both temporary and permanent soil dis-turbance, and some care must be taken to esti-mate and control both runoff and erosion fromthe site, particularly where access roads andfacilities are located in steep terrain.

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

• Cultural and Paleontological Resources.During project design and site development,important cultural and fossil resource sitesshould be avoided and protected, or a mitiga-tion plan developed. Special care may need tobe taken to preserve the confidentiality as wellas the integrity of certain sensitive resources, orsites sacred to Native Americans.

• Socioeconomic/Public Services/Infrastructure. Developers and permittingagencies should coordinate with local publicservice agencies to determine how the projectmay affect the community’s fire protection andtransportation systems, and nearby airports andcommunications systems. Communities shouldwork with wind project developers to ensurethat any financial burden placed on them willbe compensated through appropriate/reason-able property tax or other revenues.

• Solid and Hazardous Wastes. Solid wastesneed to be collected from dispersed sites andproperly disposed of; non-hazardous fluidsshould be used where possible, and aHazardous Materials Waste Plan drawn up iftheir use cannot be avoided. Problems can beavoided by performing major maintenance andrepair work off-site.

• Air Quality and Climate. Wind projects pro-duce energy without generating many of thepollutants associated with fuel combustion.Temporary, local emissions associated withproject construction and maintenance can beminimized, and any micro-climatic impactsshould be insignificant.

Executive Summary 3

Chapter 2Overview of Wind Development and Permitting

INTRODUCTIONThis chapter describes the basic features of a windproject and the steps developers take to get a pro-ject on line. It also provides some backgroundinformation on the wind energy industry, a briefhistory of commercial wind development in theUnited States, wind power’s potential for meetingour electricity needs, and the extent to which it hasexpanded internationally.

In the United States, commercial wind develop-ment began in California in the early 1980s, pro-ducing the world’s first large-scale wind plants.California’s wind plants or “wind facilities” havebeen installed primarily in three wind resourceareas: the Altamont Pass located east of SanFrancisco, the Tehachapi Pass located north of LosAngeles and east of Bakersfield, and the SanGorgonio Pass located east of Los Angeles andnorthwest of Palm Springs. Together these representabout 95% of California’s wind-generated electric-ity. Development proceeded rapidly during the firsthalf of the 1980s as wind developers took advan-tage of federal and state tax credits and long-termutility contracts offering favorable rates. These eco-nomic incentives helped California’s wind industryto grow from no installed capacity in 1979 to about500 megawatts1 (MW) at the beginning of 1985, toa high of 1,679 MW at the end of 1991. In 1994,the state’s wind industry generated a record high of3.2 billion kilowatt-hours2 (kWh) of electricity,enough output to meet the annual electricity needsof more than 500,000 typical California homes(Loyola, 1995).

Wind development in California has slowed con-siderably in recent years. From 1992 to 1994, only79 MW of new capacity was installed. This slow-down was the result of several factors, includinglimited financial incentives (federal and state taxcredits expired in 1985 and 1986, respectively), theexpiration of the fixed payment phase of the InterimStandard Offer (ISO4) utility contracts, and the elec-tricity industry’s uncertainty about restructuring.Over the same period, many older turbines wereretired after reaching the end of their economicalservice life (CEC, 1997). In this economic environ-ment, California’s installed capacity dropped to1,523 MW at the end of 1995. Electricity produc-tion also had declined to 2.9 billion kWh (Small,1997).

In some cases, wind plant owners have chosen toreplace older turbines with modern technology, aprocess known as “repowering.” Modern wind tur-bines are quieter, more reliable, and, being larger,are sited less densely. (For example, one Californiawind plant operator replaced 85 old turbines withseven new 600 kW machines.) Thus repoweringhas the advantages of increasing electricity produc-tion while lowering operation and maintenancecosts and alleviating public concern, particularlywith regard to noise and visual impacts (AWEA,1993). Repowering has the added benefit of utiliz-ing existing sites with known wind resources,thereby reducing the costs and siting issues associ-ated with development of new resources (CEC,1997). As California’s wind plants are repowered,salvageable turbines may have value as an inexpen-sive source of turbines for new projects elsewherein the US or the world (Gipe, 1995).

While California continues to dominate wind-gen-erated electricity production in the US, other statesalso are using their wind resources. These includeMinnesota, Iowa, Texas, Vermont, Massachusetts,Hawaii, and Wyoming. According to the AmericanWind Energy Association (AWEA), the US had1,770 MW of installed wind capacity at the end of1995 (AWEA, 1996a). A study of US wind resourcepotential by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory foundthat wind power could supply 20% of the nation’selectricity needs. To produce this electricity—nearly560 billion kWh annually—would require develop-ment of 18,000 square miles of land, or 0.6% ofthe land area of the lower 48 states. Less than 5%of this land would be occupied by the wind tur-bines, electrical equipment, and access roads.Wind development would not prevent the use ofthe remaining land area for other purposes, such asfarming and ranching (UWIG, 1992). The relation-ship of a wind project’s “footprint” to other landuses is discussed further in Chapter 4.

While the US market for wind energy has leveledoff in recent years (in part because of the electricityindustry’s uncertainty over restructuring), the windpower industry is experiencing rapid growth on theinternational front. In 1995, world installed capac-ity increased by 1,291 MW, two-thirds of whichoccurred in Germany and India alone. In this sameyear, the US installed only 41 MW of new capacity(AWEA, 1996b). New installations worldwide in


1A megawatt is one million watts.2A kilowatt (kW) is one thousand watts. A kilowatt-hour (kWh) is one kilowatt of electricity supplied for one hour.

1996 amounted to 1,225 MW, with Germany andIndia again leading the way, adding 439 MW and264 MW respectively (AWEA, 1997). As a result ofincreased development abroad, combined with theslow rate of domestic growth and retirement ofCalifornia’s older turbines, the US has seen its shareof total world wind capacity drop from about 90%to 30% since 1988 (AWEA, 1996b). AWEA statesthat much of the wind industry’s growth in othercountries can be attributed to government policiesdesigned to foster the use of clean, renewableenergy sources. Countries that have been develop-ing their wind resources include: Denmark, theNetherlands, the United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden,Greece, New Zealand, Australia, China, Costa Rica,Brazil, Israel, Iran, and Italy.

Wind energy and other renewable energy sources,such as solar and geothermal energy, offer theprospect of producing an increasing share of USelectricity production with greatly reduced effectson the environment. The recoverable portion of thetotal wind resource in the contiguous US is approxi-mately 110 quads—about four times the 48 states’total electricity consumption in 1990 (PacificNorthwest Laboratory, 1991). While technical andother issues will limit the contribution of windenergy, its potential is quite large.

ANATOMY OF A WIND PROJECTWind projects vary greatly in size, from one or twowind turbines (“distributed wind systems”) servingindividual customers or operating either at substa-tions or at the end of a utility’s distribution system,to large arrays of wind turbines (“wind facilities”)designed for providing wholesale bulk electricity toutilities or an electricity market.

Distributed wind systems. Most distributed windsystems range in size from one kW to 25 MW, pro-viding on-site power in either stand-alone or grid-connected configurations. Such systems are used byindustry, water districts, schools, rural residences,farms, and other remote power users. Distributedwind systems also can be used by utilities for reduc-ing loads at the end of heavily used power lines. Byinstalling turbines close to the point of demand,utilities can avoid the costs of upgrading their elec-trical distribution systems (Gipe, 1995).

Wind facilities. Larger arrays usually are owned andoperated by independent power producers whichtraditionally have sold their power to electric utili-ties. Wind facilities vary in generating capacity any-

where from five to more than 100 MW and mayconsist of 20 to 1,000 wind turbines of the same ordifferent models. The turbines may be mounted ontowers of equal or varying height and often areplaced in linear arrays along ridgetops or sited inuniform patterns on flat or hilly terrain (see Figures1, 2, and 3).

The wind turbine on its tower is the most noticeablefeature of a wind project. Other components mayinclude anemometers (wind measuring equipment),an electrical power collection and transmission sys-tem (transformers, substation, underground and/oroverhead lines), control and maintenance facilities,and site access and service roads (see Figure 4). Allof these components may not be included insmaller projects. Each component is described inthe paragraphs that follow.

Wind TurbinesWind turbines capture the kinetic energy of thewind and convert it into electricity. The primarycomponents of a wind turbine are the rotor (bladeassembly), electrical generator, and tower. As thewind blows it spins the wind turbine’s rotor, whichturns the generator to produce electricity. Figures 5and 6 illustrate some typical turbine designs.

The rotor is the part that captures the wind. Onmost wind turbines the rotor consists of two orthree blades which spin about a horizontal axis.“Upwind” turbines have the blades facing into thewind, in front of the generator and tower. Theblades on “downwind” turbines are located behindthe generator and tower. Less common are theDarrieus (or “eggbeater”) wind turbines, whoserotors spin about a vertical axis.

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

A wind turbine’s blades typically begin spinning aswind speeds reach approximately seven miles perhour (mph). At nine to 10 mph (“cut-in” speed),

Overview of Wind Development and Permitting 5

they will start generating electricity. Rated output isusually reached in 27 to 35 mph winds. To avoiddamage, most turbines automatically shut them-selves down when wind speeds exceed 55 to65 mph (“cut-out” speed). Because wind is inter-mittent, wind turbines will seldom operate at theirrated power output for long periods of time.

Wind turbines are mounted on lattice (open frame-work) or tubular steel towers. The tower’s functionis to raise the wind turbine high enough above theground to intercept stronger winds that providemore energy. Taller towers also usually allow tur-bines to capture less turbulent winds, unimpededby nearby trees, buildings, and other obstructions.Tubular towers are anchored to concrete founda-tions 15 to 35 feet deep to prevent them from beingtoppled by strong winds. Lattice towers use three orfour piers instead of a single massive concrete pad.

As the industry has gained experience, rotor diame-ter, generator rating, and tower height have allincreased. During the early 1980s, wind developerswere installing turbines with rotor spans of 10 to15 meters (about 33 to 49 feet) and generators ratedat 10 to 65 kW. By the mid- to late 1980s, turbines

began appearing with rotor diameters of 15 to25 meters (m) and generators rated up to 200 kW(Gipe, 1995; AWEA, 1993). Today, wind developersare installing turbines rated at 225 to 750 kW withrotor spans of 25 to 44 m. According to theCalifornia Energy Commission, 99% of all newcapacity installed in California during 1994 waslarger than 200 kW (Loyola, 1995). In part toaccommodate larger rotors, tower height hasincreased from 18 m common during the early1980s to 30 to 49 m for today’s turbines.

According to AWEA, today’s large wind turbinesproduce as much as 10 times the amount of elec-tricity as early designs with about the same opera-tion and maintenance (O&M) costs, thus dramati-cally cutting O&M costs per kWh. Improvements inturbine technology and maintenance programshave produced highly reliable, efficient machines.According to AWEA, the turbines used in the early1980s were available for operation 60% of thetime. Today’s state-of-the-art wind turbines have anavailability rating of 98% (AWEA, 1993; AWEA,1995).


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

AnemometersAnemometers continuously measure and recordwind speed. Anemometer towers usually are thefirst structures built on a site to determine if it hasadequate wind resources for cost-effective develop-ment. Site-specific measurements (called “micro sit-ing”) identify the optimal placement for individualwind turbines. During operation of a wind facility,anemometers transmit information about windspeed and direction to each wind turbine and thecontrol facility, where a record of wind speedsthroughout the wind facility is stored. Anemometerscan be mounted on towers as high as 350 feet ordirectly mounted on each wind turbine. Wind tur-bines will begin operating when the anemometersdetect sufficient wind speed.

Power Collection and Transmission SystemLarge arrays of wind turbines require an extensivepower collection and electric interconnection sys-tem for delivering electricity to the high voltagetransmission system. Power generated by each windturbine is typically carried by low voltage under-ground cables at 480 volts3 to pad-mounted trans-formers located throughout the wind facility. Theremay be one transformer adjacent to each wind tur-bine or one for each row of turbines. The transform-

ers raise (“step-up”) the voltage to 12 to 34.5 kilo-volts (1000 volts). Medium voltage undergroundcables collect the electricity from the transformersand deliver it to an overhead or underground col-lection line. Power is transmitted by the collectionline to the wind facility’s substation for further step-up, usually up to 69 to 230 kilovolts, before inter-connection with and export to the high voltagetransmission system.

Control FacilityAn operations control facility maintains two-waycommunications with each wind turbine. Thisallows a central computer system to monitor andcontrol each turbine’s operation. The control facilitycan be located on- or off-site. Through the use ofintegrated computer systems, it is possible for acontrol facility in one location to monitor and con-trol wind projects in several different locations.

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

Access RoadsThere usually will be one or more access roads intoand around a wind project. These service roads pro-vide access to each wind turbine, and typically runparallel to a string of turbines. Some projects do notuse permanent access roads. (See Chapter 4,VISUAL RESOURCES, for a discussion of alterna-tives to permanent roads.)

STEPS AND PARTICIPANTS IN WIND PROJECT DEVELOPMENTDeveloping an operational wind project is a com-plicated and time-consuming process involvingdevelopers, landowners, utilities, the public, andvarious local, state, and federal agencies. Over 30months is typically required from initial planning toproject operation in an area without existing windprojects. The development time for subsequent pro-jects at the same or a nearby site may be reducedby several months, provided that:

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


Figure 2. Open lattice wind towers in the Altamont Pass. Notethe service road in the foreground. Photo courtesy of AWEA.

3A unit of electromotive force.

• an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) isdone (in compliance with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act or a state equivalent)for the first project and the results show that asubsequent EIS does not need to be preparedfor later projects; and/or

• additional experience and knowledge aboutwind energy projects removes some of theuncertainties that contribute to lengthy analy-ses and processes.

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

• Project planning

• Permitting

• Financing

• Construction

• Operation

• Decommissioning

PlanningA wind project may be proposed by an indepen-dent company, a local government agency, or a unitof a traditional electric utility. The first step in devel-oping a wind project is to identify a suitable site forthe turbine or turbines and a likely market for theproject’s output. To identify possible wind develop-ment areas, developers usually consult publishedwind studies or wind resource maps such as PacificNorthwest Laboratory’s Wind Energy Resource Atlasof the United States (listed in Appendix A). Thedeveloper will also study maps of the electricpower system and the local area. To select a spe-cific site within a region, developers may gatherlong-term wind information from the nearest windmeasurement station. They will visit likely projectsite locations to collect general information, includ-ing obvious signs of strong winds (e.g. flagged trees,sand dunes and scours), the accessibility of the ter-rain, proximity to a utility transmission line, andany potential environmental constraints (seeChapter 4 for further discussion).

After finding a potentially suitable site, the devel-oper negotiates to gain access to or control of theproperties to conduct further investigations.

Developers may secure options for long-term leasesor simple anemometer agreements from thelandowners. During the option period the devel-oper obtains the landowner’s permission to erectanemometers for making site-specific wind mea-surements. The developer usually collects data atthe property for at least one full year to determinethe average annual wind speed. More than oneyear may be needed if site measurements do notcorrelate well with those made by the closest windmeasurement station. If wind data show that thesite has economic potential for wind energy gener-ation, the developer will prepare an initial site planwhich proposes where to put the wind turbines andelectrical facilities that connect to the power grid.Depending on market prospects, an anemometer


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

Overview

of Wind D

evelopment and Perm

itting9

Figure 4. Typical wind farm facility layout.

© Copyright 1994 by Braun Intertec Corporation. All rights reserved.

agreement may be upgraded to an option or leaseat this point.

Wind facility developers also begin negotiatingwith a utility or other buyer for a power purchaseagreement, a transmission interconnection agree-ment, or both. At present, the likely purchaser ofthe electricity is the utility serving the area wherethe wind facility is located. In a restructured elec-tricity industry, however, power may be sold to amore distant utility or to a different wholesale orretail customer. In this case, the developer will haveto work with the local utility to obtain access to theexisting transmission system.

While negotiating with a buyer, the developer willobtain exclusive long-term development rights tothe property by either buying or leasing it from the

landowner. If the land is leased, the landowner cannegotiate with the developer the terms of the rela-tionship between the wind facilities and other usesof the property, the location and type of accessroads and other support facilities, and the conditionof the land after wind operations cease. Lease con-ditions may influence some of the permitting con-siderations discussed in Chapter 4. The developermay also acquire easements from adjacentlandowners to assure continuing access to thewind. Easements may restrict vegetation, structures,or other obstacles that would alter the flow of windto the project site. Easements or leases may also beneeded for the right to cross adjacent properties forthe construction and maintenance of access roadsor transmission lines.

PermittingVirtually all wind projects are required to obtain apermit from one or more government agencies.Early in the project planning and developmentprocess, the wind developer should contact allpotential permitting agencies or authorities.Permitting entities at the federal, state, and locallevels may have jurisdiction over a wind develop-ment. The number of agencies and the level of gov-ernment involvement will depend on a number offactors particular to each development. These fac-tors primarily include: location of the wind turbinesand associated facilities or equipment, need fortransmission lines and access roads, the size of thewind facility, ownership of the project, and owner-ship of the land. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss the per-mitting process and various considerations foragencies that may be involved in permitting windfacilities.

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

State permitting authorities. In some states, one ormore state agencies have siting responsibilities forwind developments. State permitting authoritiesmay include natural resource and environmental


Figure 5. A large 500-kW, three-bladed wind turbine towers 40 meters over a service vehicle. Photo courtesy of AWEA andVestas-American Wind Technology.

protection agencies, state historic preservationoffices, industrial development and regulation agen-cies, public utility commissions, or siting boards.Depending on the state where the wind develop-ment is proposed, state permits may be in additionto local permits. In other states, state law maysupersede some or all local permitting authorities.Where there is state level regulation there may beeither a coordinating or lead agency regulatoryscheme or a “one-stop” siting process housed underone agency.

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

Federal permitting authorities. In some cases(notably in the West), federal land managementagencies such as the Bureau of Land Managementor the United States Forest Service may be both themanager and the permitting authority. Additionally,agencies such as the Bonneville PowerAdministration or Western Area PowerAdministration may be either a wind developer orthe customer for the power. If the proposed winddevelopment facility has the potential to impact avi-ation, the Federal Aviation Administration may beinvolved. If the project poses potential impacts onwildlife habitat and species protected under theEndangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden EagleProtection Act, or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,wind project permitting may involve coordinationand consultation with the United States Fish andWildlife Service.

When federal agencies or federally managed landsand resources are involved, the requirements of theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mayapply. Compliance with NEPA will be required ifthe wind development or authorization to developis a federal action, qualifies as “major,” and haspotential for a significant environmental impact. If awind project is proposed on federal land, a federalagency has the power to control the authorizationof the wind project (e.g., a federal permit or lease isrequired). In this case, or if there is a substantialcommitment of federal resources (monetary or oth-erwise), there must be compliance with NEPA.Where multiple federal agencies have NEPAresponsibilities, a lead agency will be appointed tocoordinate NEPA compliance.

Involving the general public. Compliance withlocal, state or federal permitting processes involvesthe general public at some stage. Consequently, thewind developer can help assure a timely permitdecision and reduce the possibility of protracted liti-gation by actively promoting general publicinvolvement early in the permitting process. Thegeneral public includes residents and members ofcommunities near the wind development, commu-nity officials and representatives of various interests,including economic development, conservation andenvironmental groups. Public involvement is dis-cussed in more detail in Chapters 3 and 4.

Some permitting authorities either require ordevelop mitigation plans and monitoring programsfor dealing with potential environmental impacts.Plans may include grading, erosion control or avian


Figure 6. A two-bladed wind turbine design. Photo courtesy ofAWEA.

injury and mortality study and reduction plans.Various types of mitigation plans are discussed inChapter 4.

FinancingTo secure financing, a wind project developerneeds a site with a permit to develop it, a com-pletely defined project, a power purchase agree-ment, and firm access to a market. The financingentity must have confidence in the performanceand reliability of the wind turbine being chosen forthe project. There may be several equity holders ina project who together usually supply 10 to 50% ofthe project’s capital costs. The remainder is bor-rowed from lending institutions, including banksand insurance companies, over a term of about12 to 20 years.

Wind project developers can lower costs by takingadvantage of the Renewable Energy ProductionIncentive program included in the Energy Policy Actof 1992. As currently enacted, a privately-ownedwind facility beginning operation by June 30, 1999can qualify for a federal tax credit of $0.015 perkilowatt-hour (adjusted annually for inflation). Thefederal incentive is applicable to the first ten yearsof the facility’s operation. A wind facility owned bya public entity receives the production incentive asa payment of $0.015 per kilowatt-hour (if fundshave been appropriated on an annual basis). TheSacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)received $216,000 from the federal incentive in1995, most of the payment for power produced bySMUD’s wind facility in Solano County, California(Windpower Monthly, Nov. 1996).

ConstructionThe amount of time required to construct a windproject will depend on its size and the terrain andclimate of the site. A wind project typically can bebuilt and operational within nine to 18 months.Wind facility construction requires heavy equip-ment, including bulldozers, graders, trenchingmachines, concrete trucks, flat-bed trucks and largecranes. Construction normally begins with gradingand laying out the access roads and the serviceroads that run to the wind turbines. After complet-ing the roads, the concrete foundations for the tur-bine towers and ancillary structures are excavatedand poured. Foundation work is followed by dig-ging the trenches for the underground electricalcables, laying the electrical and communicationcables, and building the overhead collection system

and substation. Next activities include assemblingand erecting the wind turbine towers, mounting thenacelles on top of the towers, and attaching therotors. (See Figure 7.) Once the wind turbines areinstalled, the electrical connections between thetowers and the power collection system are made,and the system is tested.

The construction stage is the point at which someagencies initiate monitoring programs to ensure thatproject construction and subsequent operationcomplies with any permit conditions; particularlyconditions related to development near sensitiveenvironmental or other resources. Monitoring pro-grams are further discussed in Chapter 3.

OperationA wind facility is almost completely automated,requiring few on-site personnel. The developermay operate the wind facility directly or by con-

tract with an operation and maintenance company.Under normal conditions, wind turbines will oper-ate automatically. Each wind turbine is equippedwith a computer for controlling critical functions,


Figure 7. A large crane is used to raise a rotor into position.Photo courtesy of AWEA.

monitoring wind conditions, and reporting informa-tion to the control facility. Operators in the controlfacility monitor the activity of each wind turbineand diagnose the cause of any failure. If the opera-tors are unable to restart the wind turbine directlyfrom the control facility, a crew of specially-trainedmechanics (“windsmiths”) are dispatched to per-form repairs. Control facility operators also monitorthe power output from each wind turbine and fromthe wind facility as a whole.

Repowering/DecommissioningRepowering of a wind facility entails the removal ofindividual turbines which are then replaced withnew equipment. If a wind project cannot maintainlow operating costs but wind turbine technologycontinues to improve, the economics may supportrepowering of the site with newer technology. Thismay allow a site to continue producing power fordecades. Over time, however, individual turbines oran entire wind power generating facility may bedecommissioned.

The decommissioning of a wind facility entails thedismantling and removal of all wind turbines andtowers, as well as the underground and overheadcollection and transmission system. Typically, thefoundations for the towers and other structures areremoved to a specified depth below the ground sur-face. Depending on the permits and terms of thelease, the wind developer may be required torestore vegetation to the site and return the propertyto its natural state or prior use. Decommissioning isfurther discussed under ACTIVE COMPLIANCEMONITORING in Chapter 3, and is touched uponin Chapter 4 as it relates to specific permitting con-siderations.

CONCLUSIONThe wind industry has gained considerable experi-ence over the past two decades in constructing andoperating both individual wind turbines and largerscale wind facilities. During that time there havebeen substantial resource assessment and techno-logical improvements. Both wind developers andresource protection agencies have gained an oppor-tunity to understand the potential public health,safety and environmental considerations associatedwith wind development—and to develop, imple-ment, and improve processes that facilitate the per-mitting of these facilities. Chapter 3 describes thebasic steps in permitting and offers guidelines forstructuring a fair, timely, and effective permittingprocess. Chapter 4 discusses specific permitting

considerations and identifies strategies to addressissues associated with wind development.

CHAPTER 2 REFERENCESAmerican Wind Energy Association (AWEA),

“Comments by the American Wind EnergyAssociation for the 1994 Biennial Report onRepowering California’s Wind Industry,” 1993.

AWEA, “The US Wind Energy Industry: BringingState-of-the-Art Technology to theMarketplace,” 1995.

AWEA, “Wind Power: Clean Energy for the 21stCentury,” 1996a.

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

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

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

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

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

Pacific Northwest (Battelle) Laboratory, Assessmentof the Available Windy Land Area and WindEnergy Potential in the Contiguous UnitedStates, PNL-7789 UC-261, 1991.

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

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

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

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


The goals for permitting wind generating projects,as for other energy facilities, include reaching deci-sions that:

• ensure that projects comply with existing lawsand regulations providing for necessary envi-ronmental protection at a reasonable cost;

• are timely and minimize court challenges (orare legally defensible); and

• allow wind to be a competitive electrical gen-eration resource.

Consistently and efficiently achieving these objec-tives requires a clearly defined permitting processand open communication that involves all the par-ticipants, particularly the public. This chapterdescribes the typical steps in wind facility permit-ting, and presents several principles common tomany successful permitting processes. It alsoincludes observations and recommendations madeby permitting agencies, developers and othersinvolved in permitting wind projects.

Chapter 2 described how permitting can occur atvarious levels of government and how permittingprocesses can vary between and within states.Nothing in this handbook is intended to prescribe aspecific permitting process or determine whichlevel of government should be responsible for per-mitting. Each state and local government is encour-aged to develop the process best suited to its needsand determine which decision-making considera-tions are applicable and appropriate. If the potentialfor wind development exists within their jurisdic-tion, permitting agencies are encouraged to con-sider the topics discussed in Chapter 4 in the con-text of the following suggestions for structuring aneffective wind permitting process.

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

1) Preapplication

2) Application Review

3) Decision-making

4) Administrative and Judicial Review

5) Permit Compliance

PreapplicationThe preapplication phase occurs before a permitapplication is officially filed with the permittingagency. This phase may be formal or informal, maybe a required part of an agency’s permitting processor at the project developer’s option. It may occurfrom a few days to as much as a year prior to filinga permit application. During this phase, a projectdeveloper and permitting agencies typically meet tohelp ensure that both understand the project con-cept, permitting process, and possible issues. Thepermitting agency should clearly specify whetherenvironmental surveys are required or other infor-mation must be submitted with the permit applica-tion. The permitting agency may also take thisopportunity to become familiar with the projectsite, establish working relationships with otheragencies and acquaint community leaders andinterest groups with the permitting process. Someagencies may review drafts of the permit applica-tion, environmental analyses or other materials, iftime allows.

The preapplication phase often is when projectdevelopers meet with nearby landowners, commu-nity leaders, environmental groups and other poten-tially affected interests. This acquaints the developerwith their initial concerns and allows the developerto respond to questions or misconceptions regard-ing the project. In some jurisdictions, the projectdeveloper is required to hold public meetings orsubmit a public notice regarding the project duringthis phase.

Application ReviewFor most agencies, the application review beginswhen the project developer files a permit applica-tion. Many agencies review the filing to ensure thatit contains sufficient information for the agency andthe public to adequately understand the project andits consequences. If the agency has a time require-ment for making a decision on the project, the“clock” often starts once the agency has determinedthat the application contains the appropriate typeand amount of information, or is complete.

The activities and time frames of the applicationreview phase vary according to each agency’s per-mitting process requirements. Some processesrequire public issue identification sessions, meet-ings and site visits. Others also allow a “discovery”period where any formal participants in the processcan question other participants regarding the pro-ject, potential impacts and mitigation measures or

Chapter 3Guidelines for Structuring the Wind Facility Permitting Process


possible alternatives. Frequently the “lead” permit-ting agency is required to evaluate the short andlong term consequences of the proposed windfacility. This evaluation and the agency’s recom-mendations on alternatives and requirements formitigating the impacts frequently are presented tothe project developer and the public in an environ-mental assessment report. These documents may beprepared by the appropriate federal, state or localpermitting agency staff, or by consultants for theagency.

Decision-makingIn its decision-making, the agency not only deter-mines whether or not a proposed facility will beallowed to be constructed and operated, but alsoestablishes the environmental mitigation and otherconstruction, operation or facility closure require-ments. This phase typically includes one or morepublic hearings. Some permitting processes requirethat these hearings take place in the communitymost directly affected by the proposed projectwhile others are held in the city that houses thecenter of either the state or local government. Formany state agencies, the final decision-maker isoften a siting board or commission. The CityCouncil or Board of Supervisors is the final deci-sion-maker for most local agencies. However, insome places they may consider a project only afterit has been reviewed by a separate PlanningCommission.

Administrative Appeals and Judicial ReviewAppeals of all or a portion of a final decision areconsidered during the administrative and judicialreview phase. In most cases, any appeals are firstremanded (directed back) to the decision-maker.Further challenges to the decision are reviewed bythe courts only after all administrative appeals havebeen exhausted. Appeals to the courts most fre-quently are directed at determining whether thepermitting process was executed fairly and inaccordance with requirements. In addition to con-sidering such “procedural errors,” the courts occa-sionally are also asked to consider factual errorsthat may have arisen during the permitting process.One concern of many state-level permittingprocesses is to avoid unnecessary or lengthy legalchallenges to energy projects that may be consid-ered a public convenience or necessity.Consequently, these processes seek to avoid the

need for legal challenges or direct them to the high-est court possible.

Permit ComplianceThe permit compliance phase involves monitoring awind facility to ensure that it is constructed, oper-ated and decommissioned in compliance with theterms and conditions of its permit and all applica-ble laws. Ideally, the monitoring program isdesigned to accomplish these objectives withoutbeing burdensome to the project developer oradministering agency. For some agencies, the per-mit compliance phase also includes resolving pub-lic complaints and expeditiously consideringchanges or amendments to a previously permittedproject. Facility closure or decommissioning is alsomonitored during this phase to ensure that a non-operating project does not represent a health orsafety risk or pose environmental concerns, andthat it is disposed of either in conformance with thepermit conditions, or as warranted at the time oper-ations cease. Agencies may: 1) require wind devel-opers to post bonds after permitting to ensure thatdecommissioning costs are covered; 2) rely on theproject developer to contribute to a decommission-ing fund as the project generates revenue; or 3) relyon the salvage value of any abandoned equipment.

PRINCIPLES COMMON TO SUCCESSFUL WIND FACILITY PERMITTING PROCESSESThe following eight elements are suggested to pub-lic policy makers as keys to a successful process forpermitting wind energy facilities:

1) Significant Public Involvement

2) Issue-Oriented Process

3) Clear Decision Criteria

4) Coordinated Permitting Process

5) Reasonable Time Frames

6) Advance Planning

7) Efficient Administrative and Judicial Review

8) Active Compliance Monitoring

While each of these guidelines may be appliedindividually, collectively they represent principles

Guidelines for Structuring the Wind Facility Permitting Process 15

for structuring a permitting process to allow for effi-cient agency review, meaningful public involve-ment, and timely and defensible decisions.

Significant Public InvolvementA key feature of a successful permitting process isproviding opportunities for early, significant, andmeaningful public involvement. The public has aright to have its interests considered in permittingdecisions, and without early and meaningful publicinvolvement there is a much greater likelihood ofsubsequent opposition and costly and time-con-suming litigation. Interviews with wind projectdevelopers, regulatory agencies, community mem-bers, and environmental interest groups consistentlyyielded one strongly stated message: “Publicinvolvement is always worthwhile; public work-shops are crucial!”

While each agency’s permitting process is likely todiffer in the timing, location and forum for publicinvolvement, methods that have been used success-fully to ensure public participation in a permittingprocess include:

• developers consulting with potentially affectedor interested persons and giving them theopportunity to comment before any final pro-posals are submitted for permit approval;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meetings, workshops and hearings offer importantopportunities to share information, exchange views,and correct misunderstandings. They also can beexpensive and time-consuming for developers,agencies and the public. If meetings or hearings aretoo frequent, last too long or become too detailed,the public can become burned-out or frustrated andconsequently seek other avenues to influence thedecision. Similarly, if they become focused on emo-tional issues or are dominated by one segment ofthe community to the exclusion of others, theseactivities may not be effective.


Effective Public Involvement

Establishing an effective public involvementprogram is not always easy. The compo-nents of a successful program may varydepending on the public’s interest, permit-ting process and project developer. Some ofthe questions that may be considered wheninvolving the public include:

• What is the most effective way of noti-fying the interested public of meetingsand hearings? (Newspaper, radio,direct mail, community fliers, or anoth-er method?)

• Where is the best location and whatare the best times to facilitate publicparticipation? (In the community, inthe local government center, at otherlocations? Days, evenings, weekdays,weekends?)

• How many meetings or hearingsshould be held to accommodate public participation?

The agency responsible for public involvementshould try to determine the number and timing ofmeetings or hearings during the permitting processto make the most effective use of the public’s timeand resources and reach an informed decision in aresponsible amount of time. Some agencies initiatetheir public involvement program prior to submittalof a formal application to avoid “surprising” thepublic, and continue it after approval of the projectpermit to deal with any concerns that may ariseduring project construction or early operation.

Regardless of the location, timing and frequency ofmeetings or hearings, it is important that any publicinvolvement program be meaningful and genuine.Members of the public have expressed concern thatin some permitting processes they feel ignored,uninformed, and excluded from the decision-mak-ing process. By involving the public in a meaning-ful way throughout the permitting process—work-ing one-on-one to share information and concernsand to explore likely solutions to problems—thelikelihood of a hostile community or subsequentcourt challenges can be reduced.

Issue-Oriented ProcessSuccessful siting processes often focus the decisionon concrete issues that can be dealt with in a fac-tual and logical manner. No project, whether it is awind turbine or any other type of development, iswithout issues. Chapter 4 of this handbook dis-cusses the issues that are most likely to be encoun-tered in permitting wind generation facilities.

For many projects, the question is not “if” or“which” issues will arise, but “when.” Becausewind projects represent a long-term investment, it isimportant to identify any potential issues as early aspossible. Most developers expect their facilities tooperate for 30 years or more, and the public has asimilar long-term investment in any project locatedin their community. Issues that are ignored or raisedafter permitting and construction of a project usu-

ally are more difficult and costly to resolve thanthose identified and dealt with early. Overlookedissues also can lead to bad feelings between theparties involved and can adversely affect futurewind development. Understanding the most impor-tant issues in each wind project and focusing thepermitting process on solving them is important tomaking timely decisions and reducing the likeli-hood of litigation.

Once issues are identified, the permitting processshould work toward solving them in a timely andequitable manner. The process should be flexibleenough to reflect the significance of the issues anddegree of public concern. While decision-makersshould consider all public comments on the pro-posed facilities, they need to determine the rele-vance of the comments to the permitting decisionand try to keep commentors focused on the salientissues. The process also should contain “off ramps”or other means of expediting the decision-makingon a particular wind development if there are notsignificant issues or public concerns.

A key to dealing with issues objectively and in atimely manner is having appropriate informationavailable early in the permitting process. Becausethe collection of information or data represents amajor up-front cost, agencies need to provideopportunities for project developers to learn aboutinformation requirements well in advance of thepermitting process. The requirements should beclear, reasonable, consistently applied to all pro-jects (and all developers) and reflect informationthat actually will be used in the process.Representatives of the public and interest groups, aswell as developers, have suggested that agenciesprovide a sample checklist as a guide for the typesof information needed to assess potential projectimpacts and develop appropriate monitoring andmitigation requirements. (Information requirementsrelevant to specific siting considerations are dis-cussed in Chapter 4.)

Even with a focus on issues and the development ofconsistent, up-front information requirements, someissues may not be easily solved on an analyticallevel. Issues such as real or perceived public healtheffects associated with magnetic fields, changes inproperty values, and visual impacts can becomeemotional. An issue-oriented approach can helpfocus the debate, educate the public and decision-makers, and ensure an analytic basis for the


If meetings or hearings are too frequent, lasttoo long or become too detailed, the publiccan become burned-out or frustrated andconsequently seek other avenues to influ-ence the decision.

eventual decision. While this approach may noteliminate all opposition to a proposed project, afocus on issues allows for a clearer understandingof the objections to a project and a decision that ismore likely to withstand any legal challenge of thefacts associated with those objections.

Clear Decision CriteriaTo most participants involved in considering windfacilities, knowing in advance the criteria the deci-sion-makers will use in making their decisions is animportant feature of a fair and efficient permittingprocess. Many individuals who have been involvedin wind permitting have observed that if the deci-sion-making criteria are not clearly understood, thedecision is likely to be viewed as more arbitrary orpolitical, and more susceptible to legal challenge.As many parts of the country move toward a morecompetitive electricity industry, making clear andconsistent criteria known to all market participantsin advance will become even more important.

Some developers have expressed the concern thatonce wind projects have been approved, new crite-ria can come into play to work against a projectand the wind industry. They urge agencies not tochange the rules after their projects are permitted orconstructed. Similarly, participants including devel-opers and environmental group representativesexpress concern over very specific, inflexible andinappropriate decision criteria. They have indicatedthat inappropriate criteria can overwhelm benefitsof the permitting process, and urge agencies to lookcarefully at their criteria to ensure they are realistic,workable, enforceable, and are applied in the sameway to other non-wind development situations.

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

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

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

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

• specify how environmental impacts, both posi-tive and negative, and mitigation measures,

economic considerations and other factors willbe balanced in the decision-making process;and

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

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

Most representatives of agencies, environmentalinterest groups, and members of the public indicatethat the primary permitting criterion is a finding thatthe project either has no significant environmentalor public health and safety impacts or that theseimpacts have been mitigated to insignificance.Participants in the permitting process generally relyon existing federal or state laws requiring an envi-ronmental assessment document prepared by thepermitting agency as the basis for the evaluation ofproject impacts. However, the type of issues consid-ered and the scope of the analysis can vary depend-ing on: the agency, group, or local public involved;familiarity with the area, the project and the tech-nology proposed; and on the impact potential.

Many agencies also stress the importance of makinga finding that the project complies with all applica-ble laws, ordinances, regulations or standards.These include Federal Aviation Administration stan-dards, Public Utility or Public Service Commissionstandards for electrical lines, state or federal endan-gered species laws, and local land use ordinances.Some local agencies believe that the requirementsfor Conditional Use Permits (CUP) are adequate forwind developments and feel the CUP process iswell understood by all of the participants. Otherlocal agencies have determined that their CUPprocess does not readily apply to wind energydevelopments and have modified their permitprocesses to better fit the characteristics and issuesof wind projects.

Anticipating the potential for future wind develop-ment, some agencies have identified preferred sitingareas for wind projects prior to receiving permitapplications. In this manner, they have been able toguide development of the initial wind projectstoward the least environmentally sensitive lands.This allows wind projects and their potential


consequences to be better understood before devel-opment is permitted in more sensitive areas.

Some agencies use economic development consid-erations as decision-making criteria. Agency staff,public interest groups and wind developers havestressed the importance of including economics inthe decision-making process and openly presentingthe property tax, jobs and economic developmentbenefits as well as any costs associated with a pro-ject. However, this can have a down side if thedeveloper is seen as “buying” a favorable decision.

The needs of utilities, other power purchasers orregional reliability councils can also be importantin establishing decision criteria. Some utilities haveused a Request For Proposal (RFP) process todevelop wind energy programs. One utility’s RFPspecified they were seeking development of renew-able generation sources that would be cost-effec-tive, non-polluting to the air, beneficial to the localeconomy and able to match the utility’s load andpower needs. This utility’s siting considerationsincluded availability of a good, long season windsource; overall project cost and size; availability ofland for sale; favorable zoning; and no adjacentresidences.

Wind developers indicate that they generally seekthe highest wind sites in known wind resourceareas that are economically feasible to construct,close to existing transmission facilities, have lowpotential for environmental impacts, and require aminimum of mitigation.

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

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

Wind developers note that consistent requirementsin the siting and permitting processes, especiallywithin the same Wind Resource Area (WRA), pro-vide them with a desirable and beneficial level of


Achieving Greater Coordination

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

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

• making one agency responsible for coordinating the permit review by all other agencies;

• having all agencies agree on concurrent review processes and schedule and on a method forresolving any differences or disputes; or by

• establishing a multi-agency decision-making authority to consider the review and permit require-ments of all agencies in one forum.

predictability and stability. They and members ofthe public have expressed concern that the rules“seem to change” across jurisdictional boundarylines and over time. Many wind developers havesuggested that if more than one level of governmenthas jurisdiction over a single development project,these agencies should coordinate to allow projectreview to proceed simultaneously rather thansequentially, and to avoid conflicting requirements,standards and processes. Agency staff also stress theimportance of beginning close coordinationbetween agencies prior to the filing of a permitapplication, and continuing it throughout the per-mitting, and even the compliance monitoringprocess.

Coordination is also important in implementing per-mit requirements, monitoring during constructionand operation, and closing wind facilities.Inconsistencies can develop when responsibilitiesshift from one agency or department to another. Forexample, permit conditions and agreements can getconfused when responsibilities are transferred froma local Planning Department that had the responsi-bility for permitting to the Building Department thathad no previous involvement in the project but isnow expected to monitor a project’s compliance. Ifpossible, the agency that developed the permit con-ditions should also be responsible for monitoringtheir compliance.

Wind developers and agencies within some windresource areas have found it beneficial to pool theirresources to resolve issues and problems that ariseduring project development, site planning, con-struction, or operation. Pooled resources have led toongoing studies of avian mortality, erosion control,noise, and other issues of local concern. They havealso improved communication and coordinationand reduced overall costs for all involved.

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

for permitting consultants and in finance charges. Insome cases, the developer will already have had toorder equipment with lengthy manufacturing ortransportation times which may end up sitting idlewaiting for construction to begin.

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

In general, the timing of a permitting process is theresponsibility of the permitting agency or agencies.Timing usually can be controlled if either oneagency is in the lead of all permitting activities orall agencies involved have agreed to coordinatepermitting activities and meet specific time goals.Many permitting agencies have found that the bestway to address the concern about unnecessarydelay is to specify reasonable time frames for eachof the major phases of a permitting process leadingto a final permitting decision. They clearly commu-nicate the time frames to all participants throughoutthe process so that all involved have commonexpectations on the time available and how it is tobe used.

Because of past concerns about unreasonabledelays in permitting energy projects, some stateshave established time requirements that must bemet, or the project is automatically approved.While this has worked, it can also result in agenciesnot deeming a project application to be filed (or tobe complete) until it is certain the project can beapproved in the time specified. Other agencies haveestablished specific time frames for the final deci-sion but have allowed some flexibility to balancethe needs of time certainty and adequate publicinvolvement, or a full hearing of disputed issues inparticularly controversial cases. They have con-tended that a little additional time during the per-mitting process can be justified if it eliminates asubsequent legal challenge.


Many permitting agencies have found thatthe best way to address the concern aboutunnecessary delay is to specify reasonabletime frames for each of the major phases ofa permitting process leading to a final per-mitting decision.

Advance PlanningThe successful permitting of any energy facilityrequires early planning and communication on thepart of the developers and the permitting agencies.In interviews with wind developers, governmentagencies and the public, a common theme was theneed to know the project, know the process, knowthe participants, and know the issues up front. Inspite of pressures to the contrary, as the electricityindustry moves toward greater competition,advance planning will become more important toallowing the industry to receive necessary permitsin the minimum time and with the minimum costwhile allowing agencies to fulfill their obligations toprotect the public and its resources and avoidunnecessary legal challenges.

For developers, getting to know the project and thesite location is one of the most critical steps leadingto successful permitting.

Developers also stress the need to know the windpotential and micro-variants in the project area aswell as the baseline environmental resources andconditions at and around the site area proposed forthe project. This is helpful in responding to ques-tions from the agencies and public during permit-ting and in designing a project that responds to theenvironmental conditions of the site and the likelyconcerns of the community.

Knowledge of potential projects and likely sites isalso important to agencies in advance planning forwind development. Members of the public whohave been involved in permitting wind projectsoffered that: “Governments in charge of sitingshould have better advance planning processes andthink through the issues, impacts, problems, solu-tions, and results ahead of time.”

Permitting agency staff similarly have observed thatgood planning is essential, even in a period oftighter resources and budgets. The time spent in

advance planning is often recovered by reducingtime spent in conflict later.

Some state and local agencies are seeking to assistthe permitting process by establishing a geographicbased information system that identifies land useand environmental resources. These may includezoning and land use designations, roads, transmis-sion lines, roads and highways including scenicdesignations, biological resources, parks and recre-ation areas. A few agencies have discussed usingthis information to identify in advance geographicareas that: have developable wind resources orpresent opportunities for locating wind energy facil-ities; are likely to pose permitting problems forwind facilities; or where wind development wouldnot be allowed. If this occurs, agencies should alsoconsider the possible future expansion of winddevelopment in areas that were not initially identi-fied but are compatible with wind development.Delineation of these areas should be based onexisting laws and regulations, environmentalresources, or community concerns.

As discussed above under the CoordinatedPermitting Process section, establishing communi-cation is another critical function of advance plan-ning. Most participants involved in permitting windfacilities—developers, agencies and the public—concur that identifying the key players and initiat-ing communication is important to successful per-mitting and should be done before the formal per-mitting process begins whenever possible.

Efficient Administrative and Judicial ReviewIf issues or conflicts raised during a permittingprocess are not satisfactorily resolved, the dissatis-fied party—project developer, concerned public oreven agency staff—typically have an opportunity toappeal the decision to the decision-makers or to ahigher administrative body. If the appeal is notresolved or if an administrative appeal process is


“Know all you can about the proposed project: proposed facilities—whose design, output size, unitdimensions, unit siting density; need for services—electric, telephone, fiber-optic, microwave, lubri-cants; dimensions of equipment and components to be delivered, size of delivery and assembly vehi-cles; type and amount of site preparation and grading; number, type, size, incline, and surface ofaccess roads; and location, description, and size of any off-site structures or facilities.”

–an experienced wind developer

not available, the conflict can be raised to local,state or federal courts. While judicial challengesmay be filed because of alleged factual or proce-dural errors, most successful challenges are theresult of errors in the actual permitting process.Consequently a major goal of most wind permittingprocesses is to follow established procedures andproduce factually-based decisions so that subse-quent court challenges are not necessary. Shouldlegal challenges occur, whether in an administrativeor a judicial forum, the goal becomes to proceedefficiently and reach a conclusion in a reasonableamount of time.

One method used by many jurisdictions to increasethe efficiency of handling appeals is to design thepermitting process to systematically narrow theissues of concern. While all potential issues may bereviewed at the beginning of the process, issues thatare either not of concern or that can be readilyresolved in a manner acceptable to the developer,permitting agency staff and concerned public areset aside early in the process through meetings,workshops or initial environmental documents. As aresult, only those issues specifically identified bythe parties as being in dispute need to be consid-ered in hearings before the decision-makers. Boththe hearings and preliminary decision documentscan also be used to further focus the issues. Using a“narrowing process,” the permitting agency canproduce a focused and detailed administrativerecord which can be used to support a controversialdecision. This can significantly limit any administra-tive or judicial appeals and allow them to proceedmore efficiently.

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

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

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

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

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

• defining who has standing to initiate thereview;

• specifying time limits within which appealsmust be initiated;

• setting standards for review;

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

• directing whether judicial review will be to thehighest state court of competent jurisdictionand eliminating any intermediate appellatecourt review.

Active Compliance MonitoringDuring the initial years of wind development in theUS, permitting and environmental review consistedprimarily of a simple overview of the project.Relatively few conditions were placed on develop-ment and few, if any, provisions were made for fol-low-up monitoring by permitting agencies, espe-cially after construction was complete.Unfortunately, some of these early projects wereproposed by companies without an establishedtrack record or a commitment to the continued,long-term development of wind resources. Some ofthese companies located wind turbines in marginalresource areas, did not maintain their equipmentand improperly managed their operations. Whenthey went out of business, they left abandonedequipment, unsightly storage yards and mainte-nance shops, and occasional environmental dam-age. In addition to creating visual impacts andpotential nuisance and safety hazards, these actionshad the potential to harm legitimate developerswho sought to manage their activities in a responsi-ble manner.

Over the past several years, many of these concernshave been eliminated. Wind generation technologyhas evolved, resulting in more efficient and reliableequipment. Wind resource assessment techniquessimilarly have improved and the wind industry isnow predominantly characterized by more stable,mature companies.


Permitting processes also have improved such thatmost agencies include in their permits specific con-ditions that must be met during construction oroperation to ensure public health, safety and envi-ronmental protection. Many of these agencies alsohave established compliance monitoring programsto see that the conditions are carried out over thelife of the project. In some states, compliance mon-itoring is required by law as part of the environ-mental review process. These monitoring programsmay include annual or periodic site visits, more for-mal inspections or annual reports on facility opera-tions and conditions. Active compliance monitoringalso allows agencies to respond rapidly to resolveany public complaints, and to work with projectdevelopers to modify permits if project changes areneeded.

Not all agencies carry out the compliance monitor-ing function in the same manner. The degree ofmonitoring typically depends on the interest andexperience of the permitting agency. In some cases,few problems are encountered and the agenciesfeel little on-site monitoring is necessary. In others,the agency may have a very active program to per-form monitoring, complaint resolution and projectamendment functions. In interviews, many repre-sentatives of agencies, environmental groups, andthe public urged the importance of actively moni-toring wind projects after permitting. Too often,however, monitoring is not done because of insuffi-cient resources or other priorities.

If an agency establishes a compliance monitoringprogram, the agency should apply the programconsistently to all energy projects and should:

• monitor to ensure that the permit conditionsactually are being met, rather than “monitorfor the sake of monitoring”;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permit Conditions. Permit conditions are the back-bone of any monitoring program. When permittingagencies propose conditions, they should attemptto ensure that each requirement is SMARTE(Specific, Measurable, Agreed Upon, Realistic, TimeFramed, and Enforceable—see next page).

Flexibility. Where it is appropriate and feasible,agencies should build flexibility into the permitrequirements. The project will change in manyways after approval. Both the agency and the devel-oper may require some flexibility to respond withchanges of equipment, equipment locations, orwith alternative methodologies. Agencies shouldavoid being inflexible unless there is no chance thatthey would approve an alternative product, parcel,piece of equipment or chemical. The conditionsalso should be consistent with the conditions pro-posed in other related technical areas.

Funding. Funding of compliance monitoring pro-grams varies with the permitting agency. In somecases, staff and other resources needed to imple-ment monitoring are funded through general stateor local revenues (income tax, energy surcharge, orproperty taxes). In other instances, monitoringactivities are funded through a one-time or annualproject fee. Most federal agencies have permitrequirements for projects located on public lands


“Monitoring usually only lasts until con-struction is complete and maybe onecheck-up a year later if resources are available; then we only go out if someonecomplains. Subsequent experience withproblems such as noise, spills, breakdowns,equipment failures, intrusions, vandalism,indicates that monitoring should be ongoing.”

–agency staff member

and monitor these conditions with a portion of thedevelopment fees or annual lease payments. Someof these federal lease agreements also includerequirements for performance bonding for use ofthe leased lands to ensure ongoing monitoring ofthe project and maintenance of the project and theleasehold.

Project closure and decommissioning. The poten-tial for public health and safety or environmentalconcerns does not end when construction of a windproject is completed or even when a facility ceasesoperation. Many agencies currently include condi-tions in their permits to deal with project closure ordecommissioning and site restoration, including:

• the removal of non-operating or downedequipment;

• removal of any residual spills;

• clean-up of storage yards and maintenanceshops; and

• restoration of tower pads, access roads andother areas.

As necessary and appropriate, these conditionsshould be established either when the project per-mit is first issued or at a date prior to the plannedcompletion of operation.

For most companies, decommissioning wind tur-bines is a normal part of doing business, and meet-ing decommissioning conditions is critical to main-taining a long-term position in the wind electricgeneration business. However, some agencies havefound that project closure conditions are useless ifan unanticipated business failure precludes thewind developer from fulfilling its obligations andthe agency either does not have sufficient financialresources or cannot access the financial resourcesof the wind developer. These agencies have had topay to remove equipment and clean up the sitesafter some wind developments failed.

One developer estimates that the current cost toremove turbines and above-ground improvements,remove foundations and buried electrical improve-ments to a depth of three feet, restore and re-seedthe affected areas is approximately $1,500 to$3,000 per turbine (1997 dollars) for a 100 kW to600 kW size turbine. (This figure does not includethe salvage value of the tower, copper lines, trans-formers, or turbines.)

Agencies have relied on a variety of methods tofund decommissioning activities, including letters ofcredit, performance bonds, permit fees, or leaseholdfees maintained in a special account. Some agen-cies have regarded up-front funding mechanisms asplacing an excessive financial burden on develop-ers and have chosen instead to rely on the scrapvalue of the equipment to obtain funds if necessary.


“SMARTE” Permitting Conditions

SPECIFIC: Provide clear direction so that all parties understand what needs to be done.

MEASURABLE: Provide an objective standard for measuring whether a condition has been met.Avoid setting up future subjective debates.

AGREED UPON: Strive for agreement with the project owner, other agencies, and interested partieson condition requirements.

REALISTIC: Strive for the simplest, most direct, and least costly condition requirements thatwill achieve the required goal.

TIME FRAMED: Provide clear, realistic time frames for compliance with each condition.

ENFORCEABLE: Make sure there is a practical method of verifying compliance with each of theconditions stipulated in the permit.

However, one agency cautions that if a wind facil-ity has financial difficulty, the equipment is anattachable asset and may not be readily availablefor scrap. This agency expressed the concern thatby the time a financial situation has been resolvedand the distribution of assets decided, everythingmoveable may have been pilfered and the remain-ing equipment may be so weathered as to have lostits scrap value. Regardless of the methods used fordealing with closure, agencies are urged to deter-mine if decommissioning represents a concern and,if it does, to carefully select the funding mechanismthat best meets their needs.

CONCLUSIONSAs many parts of the country move toward a morecompetitive electric industry, efficient and consis-tently handled permitting of wind facilities is moreimportant than ever. Regardless of which level ofgovernment is involved, permitting processes thatresult in timely decisions, focus on the criticalissues early, involve the public, and avoid unneces-sary court challenges will enable wind generationto compete with other energy technologies andprovide a diverse and environmentally responsiblesupply of energy.

CHAPTER 3 REFERENCESMuch of the information in this chapter was drawnfrom interviews with individuals involved in someaspect of wind permitting. See Appendix D for acomplete list of the individuals interviewed. NWCCSiting Subcommittee members also contributedtheir experience and expertise.


This chapter examines some of the specific consid-erations that may need to be addressed in permit-ting wind projects, whether they are large windfacilities which sell power to utilities, one or moreturbines constructed to support the existing trans-mission and distribution system, or single turbinesto provide power to a single user. Strategies and tipsfor dealing with these potential issues should beconsidered in the context of the guidelines andprinciples presented in Chapter 3. In planning forpotential wind energy development or reviewing aproposed project, permitting considerations mayinclude impacts and benefits associated with any orall of the following:

• Land use

• Noise

• Birds and other biological resources

• Visual resources

• Soil erosion and water quality

• Public health and safety

• Cultural and paleontological resources

• Socioeconomics, public services, and infrastructure

• Solid and hazardous wastes

• Air quality and climate

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

Many tradeoffs and costs are associated with strategies to address these considerations.It is important to remember that impact mitigationstrategies often have some economic cost associat-ed with them, and that tradeoffs may have to bemade, both in terms of project economics and interms of addressing different impacts. The sitingprocess involves balancing issues and making trade-offs, both among the various impacts and betweenthe benefits and costs associated with impact miti-gation measures. Permitting agencies must strike a

balance between what is required to make a projectpublicly acceptable and the costs these require-ments and conditions impose on the developer andthe project. This chapter begins with a brief discus-sion about making such tradeoffs.

The issue-specific discussions which follow focuson considerations unique to wind facilities. Becausewind facilities are land “intrusive” rather than land“intensive,” and because they most typically arelocated in rural or remote areas, impacts tend to besomewhat different from those of most other elec-tric generation facilities. Wind facilities may be“pioneer” developments in previously undevelopedareas. These factors create unique implications forland use, visual, noise, biological, and cultural con-siderations in particular. Many agencies have foundthat visual resources, noise, safety, and avian colli-sions are the most common concerns encounteredin wind facility permitting. However, even signifi-cant concerns about a project may be resolvedthrough planning, education, minor projectchanges, appropriate mitigation measures, andactive compliance monitoring.

Following the discussion of each specific area of consideration, several possible strategies are presented. Strategies offered in this chapter includeboth technical or physical strategies for mitigatingpotential impacts, regulatory tools, and suggestionson how these may be incorporated into the permit-ting process outlined in Chapter 3. Many of thesestrategies are based on insights from individualswho have been involved in permitting, constructing,operating, or monitoring wind facilities. Each sec-tion concludes with a few “tips” for permittingagencies or project developers to consider whenproposing or reviewing wind facilities.

Further Resources. Appendix A lists resources,annotated for those who wish to learn more about aparticular topic. Appendix B presents a matrix ofthe wind-related ordinances adopted by local agen-cies in California, and Appendix C provides a moredetailed discussion of noise measurement tech-niques and considerations.

TRADEOFFSSiting a wind facility requires making tradeoffsamong impacts and mitigation strategies and also interms of the decision-making process itself. Processtradeoffs pertain to decisions about how the permit-ting process is structured and carried out. Creating aprocess that provides for better and more defensible

Chapter 4Specific Permitting Considerations and Strategies


decisions lessens the likelihood of delays and litiga-tion, thus reducing the risk and overall cost of thepermitting process. However, developing anddesigning such a process requires a commitment ofgovernment resources and may be viewed bydevelopers as unnecessary regulation, rather thanas an improvement. Impact and mitigation tradeoffsconcern choices which must be made in balancingthe benefits of proposed impact mitigation strate-gies against the costs of such measures, and also inweighing the relative importance of differentimpacts.

Process TradeoffsThe three major process tradeoffs are made in:

1) committing to develop a formal wind sitingprocess;

2) deciding when and to what extent toinvolve the public; and

3) establishing a time frame within which theoverall process should reach a decision.

Review of statutory authority to develop a sitingprocess. If there is a reasonable likelihood thatwind energy development will occur in a particulararea, the appropriate government body shouldreview its legal authority for permitting wind facili-ties (or for making other decisions that could beused to permit wind facilities) and decide if it isadequate for and suited to wind facility siting. Thereare benefits to being able to clearly specify what isexpected of wind developers and how decisionsare to be made on wind facilities, but seeking spe-cific statutory authority also takes time and a com-mitment of resources on the part of an agency.Some in the industry do not want to see specificstatutory authority developed for wind facilities,and view such statutes as creating new and unnec-essary regulations. Others see specifying the rulesof the game for all participants as a way to lowerthe likelihood of litigation and otherwise reduce thelevel of uncertainty and risk associated with thepermitting process. Public officials need to considerthese factors in reviewing the statutory authority ofthe decision-making agency (or agencies) anddeciding whether any wind-specific statutes or ordi-nances need to be passed.

Public involvement. Successful siting processes forother types of generating facilities have been mov-

ing in the direction of increasing public involve-ment and involving the public earlier in the deci-sion-making process. Yet there is a tradeoff to bemade in opting for early public involvement. To theextent that involving the public early provides achance to resolve problems before the final deci-sion is made, the likelihood of litigation and associ-ated costly delays can be reduced. However, publicinvolvement should be tailored to the magnitude ofthe project, its likely impacts on public resources,and the level of public concern. Extensive publicinvolvement may not be warranted if there are nosignificant public issues or concerns; however, itgenerally is wise to tell people about a proposedproject as early as possible.

Reasonable process time frame. The permittingprocess should provide adequate time to identifyimpacts, to develop appropriate mitigation mea-sures, and to inform and involve the public. On theother hand, the longer the permitting process, thehigher the cost to developers (and, indirectly, to thepublic). Public officials need to balance the needfor adequate time to identify and address issueswith the need for timely decision-making. Forexample, if it appears a proposed wind facilitymight have an impact on migratory birds, the per-mitting process should provide time to gather infor-mation on these birds when they are in the area. Toproceed without adequate information only toencounter problems after a facility has been sitedmay mean having to delay operations while mitiga-tion measures are developed and implemented. Inmany cases, such measures could have been incor-porated more cheaply and effectively during designand construction. Similarly, while there is a costassociated with providing time for public involve-ment, not providing adequate time for commentand resolution of issues may result in these issuesbeing taken up in the courts. This can significantlydelay a project and impose substantial costs ondevelopers, no matter what the outcome of thelegal process.

Impact and Mitigation TradeoffsThere are two major types of tradeoffs associatedwith impacts and mitigation. The first is the tradeoffbetween the benefit and the cost of mitigation mea-sures and the second involves tradeoffs among dif-ferent impacts.

Mitigation costs. The most important tradeoff tokeep in mind when considering impacts and

27Specific Permitting Considerations and Strategies

mitigation strategies is their effect on the cost of theproject. The front-end costs associated with mitiga-tion measures are of particular concern to develop-ers. Permitting agencies must respond to the pub-lic's concern that project impacts be kept to anacceptable level, and generally have a legal obliga-tion to mitigate significant environmental impacts.But agencies also have substantial latitude in decid-ing what constitutes appropriate mitigation.Because each project is different, there is no simpleformula for reaching this decision. In general, deci-sion-makers need to make sure that:

• the impacts are significant enough to warrantmitigation;

• the mitigation measure is appropriate and likely to be effective;

• the permitting agency has a legal basis forimposing the cost of mitigation on the devel-oper; and that

• developers are asked to spend only what isnecessary to mitigate the impact.

If the cost of mitigating a significant impact—e.g., athreat to an endangered species—proves to be cost-prohibitive, the best decision may be to deny thepermit for the facility. (Indeed, in such a situationthe developer may wish to withdraw the applicationbefore spending additional monies in what couldbe an expensive and perhaps futile process.)

Tradeoffs among impacts. As this chapter indicates,wind energy projects have the potential to create avariety of impacts. Strategies for mitigating certainof these impacts may exacerbate other impacts. Forexample, painting wind turbine generators to blendin with the background will reduce the facility’svisual impact, but may create an unacceptable pub-lic safety hazard if there is an airport nearby.Fencing generator areas to prohibit public accessfor safety’s sake may interfere with wildlife grazingand migration. Weighing and balancing theseimpacts is the job of the permitting agency and itsdecision-makers. In some cases (air traffic safety vs.visual impact), the choice may be clear; in othercases, a general consensus about how to balancecompeting impacts may emerge from public partici-pation in the permitting process.

There are also cases in which the same mitigationmeasure addresses a number of likely impacts.

Adequate buffer zones (distance from the edge ofthe development to the turbines) reduce noise andvisual impacts, create safety zones, and generallylessen the likelihood of any impacts on (or from)neighboring properties. Reducing the need for roadswithin a wind development preserves habitat orcropland while reducing project infrastructure costs,erosion and water quality problems and visualimpacts. An expensive mitigation measure such asinstalling underground electrical wires, which maynot be justified on the basis of its effect on a singleimpact, may prove to be cost-justified when all theimpacts the measure would mitigate are taken intoaccount. In any case, decision-makers are encour-aged to look for opportunities to reduce multipleimpacts with a single mitigation measure.

LAND USEMany federal, state, and local agencies prepare andimplement plans or policies that set goals andguidelines for the development and use of landswithin their jurisdiction. These are intended toensure that there is sufficient land available for vari-ous uses, that adjacent uses are compatible and thatthere is an orderly transition between differing typesof uses. In evaluating whether a proposed project isboth consistent with existing plans, goals and poli-cies and compatible with existing and plannedadjacent uses, permitting agencies often consider aproject’s potential to change the overall character ofthe surrounding area, disrupt established communi-ties, or physically intrude upon the landscape.Where land use plans and policies exist, they oftenare critical to the outcome of local or state-levelpermitting decisions. However, a proposed projectwhich is inconsistent or incompatible with existingland use plans and policies may still be approved ifthe permitting agency adopts a variance or makes afinding of overriding considerations.

In most land use plans and policies, electrical gen-erating facilities are allowed in areas that have beendesignated for manufacturing and industrial purpos-es. Conventional coal, oil or natural gas fired powerplants are characterized by some combination ofindustrial buildings, tall smokestacks, tanks andpipe lines, electrical switchyards and the associatedindustrial sounds and smells. They tend to be landintensive, compressing a variety of industrial equip-ment and structures into a relatively small space.Their structural requirements and visual characteris-tics often blend in with the facilities in industrialareas and are buffered from other quieter or moresensitive land uses. Some land use plans also allow


electrical generating facilities to be located in ruralor relatively undeveloped areas—close to fuel sup-plies, water resources, transmission lines or trans-portation systems needed for operation, or awayfrom population centers if they pose a potentialhealth or safety concern.

Land Use ConsiderationsUnlike most power plants, wind generation projectsare land intrusive rather than land intensive. On amegawatt (MW) output basis, the land required fora wind project exceeds the amount of land requiredfor most other energy technologies. However, whilewind facilities may extend over a large geographicarea and have a broad area of influence, the physi-cal project “footprint” covers a relatively small por-tion of that land. A 50 MW wind facility, for exam-ple, may occupy a 1,500-acre site; but the amountof land actually occupied by the facilities describedin Chapter 2 may only be three to five percent ofthe total acreage, leaving the rest available for othercompatible uses. (See Figures 8 and 9.)

Because wind generation is limited to areas whereweather patterns provide a relatively long season ofstrong and consistent wind resources, the develop-ment of wind projects in the United States hasoccurred primarily in rural and relatively openareas. These lands are often used for agriculture,grazing, recreation, open space, scenic areas,wildlife habitat, forest management, and seasonalflood storage. Wind development typically is com-patible with the agricultural or grazing use of a site.Although these uses may be interrupted during con-struction, only intensive agricultural uses may bereduced or modified during project operation.

Development of wind projects may affect other useson or adjacent to a site, or in the surroundingregion. Some parks and recreational uses thatemphasize wilderness values and reserves dedicat-ed to the protection of wildlife—particularly birds—may not be compatible with nearby wind develop-ments. Other uses, such as open space preservation,growth management or non-wilderness recreationfacilities, may be compatible depending on set-backs, the nature of on-site development, and theeffect on resources of regional importance. The vari-ables that may determine land use impacts include:the site’s topography; the size, number, output andspacing of the turbines; the location and design ofroads; whether accessory facilities are consolidatedor dispersed; and whether the electric lines areoverhead or underground.

Land Use StrategiesA wide range of actions may be taken to ensure thatwind projects are consistent and compatible withmost existing and planned land uses. Many of theseinvolve the layout and design of the wind project.For example, where wind development is locatedin, near, or adjacent to recreational or scenic openspace uses, some permitting agencies have estab-lished requirements to “soften” the industrial natureof the projects.

Figure 8. Wind energy is compatible with cattle grazing inCalifornia’s Altamont Pass. Photo courtesy of the American WindEnergy Association (AWEA).

Figure 9. Unconcerned with the rotating blades, a PronghornAntelope grazes near these wind turbines in Fort Davis, Texas.Photo courtesy of AWEA.


These include:

• selecting equipment with minimal structuralsupports such as guy wires;

• requiring maintenance facilities to be off-site;

• requiring electrical collection lines to beplaced underground;

• consolidating equipment on the turbine toweror foundation pad;

• consolidating structures within a wind area,project, or region;

• requiring use of the most efficient or larger tur-bines to minimize the number of turbinesrequired to achieve a specific level of electricaloutput;

• selecting turbine spacing and types to reducethe density of machines and avoid the appear-ance of “wind walls” (see Figure 10, bottom,page 42);

• use of roadless construction and maintenancetechniques to reduce temporary and perma-nent land loss;

• restricting most vehicle travel to existing accessroads;

• limiting the number of new access roads,width of new roads, and avoiding or minimiz-ing cut and fill; and

• limiting placement of turbines and transmissiontowers in areas with steep, open topography tominimize cut and fill.

In determining whether to apply these impact miti-gation strategies to a project, permitting agenciesshould consider the costs associated with a pro-posed strategy, type and level of impact, the reason-ableness of the actions, the land use objectives ofthe community, the significance of any potentialland use inconsistency or incompatibility, and theavailable alternatives.

Many of these techniques have been adopted inEuropean countries. Wind projects in Europe areoften located in rural and agricultural areas, butthey have tended to be single dispersed units or

relatively small clusters. In several countries, thewind turbines have been placed on dikes or levees,along coastal beaches and jetties, or off-shore.Turbines located in agricultural use areas are sitedto minimize disturbance to cropping patterns, andthe necessary permanent infrastructure and servicesare consolidated within a single right-of-way placedon field edges, in hedgerows or along farm roads.Often no access roads are constructed, and con-struction or periodic maintenance is done withmoveable cushioned mats or grating. Thus the foot-print of the project is further reduced, and minimalland is lost to production.

Other land use strategies associated with develop-ment of wind generation sites in the United Statesinclude the use of buffer zones and setbacks to sep-arate wind projects from other potentially sensitiveor incompatible land uses. The extent of this separa-tion varies depending on an area’s land use objec-tives and other concerns such as aesthetics, noise orsafety (see VISUAL RESOURCES, NOISE, and PUB-LIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, below). Some localland use agencies in California have adopted ordi-nances establishing setbacks which range from twoto four times the height of the wind turbine or aminimum of 500 to 1,200 feet from any off-site resi-dence or residential area. A few local agencies haveestablished setbacks from all property lines thatrange from 1.25 to four times the height of the windturbine or a minimum of 500 feet from exteriorproperty boundaries (see Appendix B). The State ofMinnesota has similarly established minimum set-backs of 500 feet from occupied dwellings.

“Wind access buffers” and other measures to pro-tect wind rights have also been established for someprojects. In Minnesota a wind access buffer of notless than five rotor diameters has been required toensure that wind projects on adjoining propertiesdo not interfere with each other. On some projects,the resource managers for adjacent properties haveestablished lease or permit conditions so that windproject development on one parcel does not blockuse of the wind resource on the adjacent parcels.

Planning for wind development. If wind resourcesexist within a jurisdiction, land use planning agen-cies are encouraged to consider these resourcesearly in their planning and policy activities. Someagencies, recognizing the potential for wind genera-tion, have prepared maps of the potential windresource areas showing information such as windspeed and duration, topographic features, site


characteristics, existing roads and facilities, poten-tially sensitive land uses, and environmental consid-erations. Agencies should also review existing landuse plans, zoning designations and policies to pro-vide appropriate, up-front guidance to developerson where and how to locate wind projects so thatthey are consistent with existing land uses and theenvironment. These same actions will ensure thatother development activities do not preclude theconstruction and operation of electric generation inprime wind resource areas. Some agencies have for-mally identified wind resource areas (WRAs) intheir plans to facilitate permitting and developmentof wind generation in preferred locations.

Coordinating to resolve land use issues. As empha-sized in Chapter 3, close coordination can benefitall the project stakeholders—including utilities,agencies, the public, and developers—by ensuringcontinuity, consistency, and certainty. Wind projectdevelopers should contact the land use agency oragencies regarding their plans and policies veryearly in the project planning process. To effectivelyresolve potential land use concerns, all the agenciesinvolved in reviewing and making land use deci-sions on proposed wind generation projects mustcoordinate and communicate with each other in atimely manner throughout the lifetime of the pro-ject. It is also essential that staff within variousoffices or departments of an individual agency worktogether during the permitting process so that anyconditions or requirements are consistent and aremonitored throughout the lifetime of the project.

Finally, land use agencies should recognize thatindividual landowners play a critical role in the pro-posed use of a site for a wind project. Like the winddevelopers, landowners need to know how theirproperty fits into the larger picture of developingavailable wind resources before negotiating privatewind leases and easements. If landowners areaware of agencies’ policies and requirements, theycan ensure that their agreements with wind project

developers are compatible, and that all their con-cerns are or will be addressed. These concerns willvary with the interests of the landowners and mayinclude:

• road location, paving, and maintenance;

• construction of new fencing, gates or livestockfacilities;

• security and public access controls;

• dust and erosion controls;

• topsoil retention;

• fire protection;

• interference with agricultural practices;

• electric line placements;

• future planting rights; and

• site restoration.

Few of these topics typically appear in leases todate. However, it is important for agencies to real-ize that contract or lease conditions required byland owners or managers may be relevant to subse-quent permit conditions. While agreements withindividual property owners are negotiated outsidethe permitting process, they should be completed inanticipation of the permit so there are no looseends or conflicts which may delay permitting orconstruction of a project.


Wind Development and Open Space

Some communities have used the planned development of wind generation projects to control thegrowth of communities and infrastructure by precluding or discouraging urban or residential land usesin the vicinity of the wind resources. Wind development can help maintain a feeling of open space inareas where urbanization is spreading, or provide a buffer to protect agricultural land uses.

Land Use Tips

Stakeholders

1) BE FLEXIBLE - Don’t get locked in to development plans, permit conditions or other require-ments before you understand the big picture.

Permitting Agencies

1) Look at the land use relationships and objectives for an entire wind resource area. Earlyknowledge of concerns and planning is crucial to reducing potentially incompatible uses.

2) Consider the potential impacts of both wind and non-wind project development in the windresource area before development projects are proposed, and develop a plan for the area thatminimizes land use conflicts.

3) With input from wind developers, resource agencies and the community, develop specificland use classifications, zones, policies and development guidelines for wind projects inadvance of permit applications.

4) Review each individual wind project design for compatibility with existing and other plannedland uses in the wind resource area.

5) Ensure that all the stakeholders fully understand the entire project (construction, operation,and decommissioning) in order to address and resolve potential land use issues.

6) Consider landowner agreements before making specific permit conditions. (If it isn’t a prob-lem, don’t fix it!)

Project Developers

1) Contact agencies, property-owners and other stakeholders early to identify potentially sensi-tive land uses and issues.

2) Learn the rules that govern where and how a wind project may be developed.

3) Review and resolve land use compatibility issues before leasing the land.

4) Design the project site layout for efficient use of the land and consolidate necessary infrastruc-ture requirements wherever possible.

5) Beware of potential conflicts between lease provisions and permitting agency conditions forproject development.


NOISENoise is defined as any unwanted sound. Concernsdepend on the level of intensity, frequency, fre-quency distribution and pattern of the noise source;background noise levels; terrain between emitterand receptor; and the nature of the noise receptors.The effects of noise on people can be classified intothree general categories:

1) Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance,dissatisfaction.

2) Interference with activities such as speech,sleep and learning.

3) Physiological effects such as anxiety, tinni-tus, or hearing loss.

The sound levels associated with environmentalnoise, in almost every case, produce effects only inthe first two categories. Workers in industrial plantsand around aircraft can experience noise effects inthe last category. Whether a noise is objectionablewill vary depending on the type of noise (tonal,broadband, low frequency, or impulsive) and thecircumstances and sensitivity of the individual (orreceptor) who hears it. Primarily because of thewide variation in the levels of individual tolerancefor noise, there is no completely satisfactory way tomeasure the subjective effects of noise, or of thecorresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatis-faction.

A somewhat more detailed discussion of noisemeasurement, including the development ofacoustic standards specifically designed for measur-ing noise from wind turbine generators, can befound in Appendix C.

Noise ConsiderationsOperating noise produced by wind facilities is con-siderably different in level and nature than that gen-erated by most power plants, which are typical oflarge industrial facilities. Wind facilities are oftenlocated in rural or remote areas with a correspond-ing ambient noise character. While noise may be aconcern to persons living near wind electric gener-ators, much of the noise emitted by the turbines ismasked by the ambient or background noise of thewind itself. Noise of all kinds falls off sharply withdistance.

Noise produced by wind turbines has diminishedas the technology has improved. Early model tur-bines are generally noisier than most new andlarger models. As blade airfoils have become moreefficient, more of the wind is converted into rota-tional torque and less into acoustic noise. Undermost conditions, modern turbines are quiet.However, some components used for rotor speedcontrol, braking, and electronics or fluid coolingcan create noise even in a well-designed turbine.

Noise generated by wind projects. Constructionnoise generated during site development andrestoration (blasting foundation holes and air liftturbine installation, maintenance, and turbineremoval) is not typical of wind project operation.The largest impacts from construction noises arelikely if they coincide with bird mating or nestingseasons, or if the activities take place during off-hours when people living near the site are trying tosleep. During project operation, wind systems maymake noise in two ways (see box, next page, fornoise definitions).

1) Aerodynamic, including:

• broadband

• impulsive noises, and

• low frequency; and

2) Mechanical, including:

• tonal noises.

Aerodynamic noise is made by the flow of air overand past the blades. It increases with rotor speed.This broadband noise typically is the largest com-ponent of a turbine noise measurement. When theturbine is not turning due to lack of sufficient wind,no noise is emitted. When the wind is turbulent,the blades also can make low frequency noise asthey are buffeted by changing winds. If the wind isdisturbed by flow around or through a tower beforehitting the blades as in a downwind turbine design,the blade will emit an impulsive noise every time itpasses through the “wind shadow” of the tower.Such low frequency noise is not adequately repre-sented by A-weighted measurements.

Unlike variable speed turbines which turn fasterwith increasing wind speed, fixed rotor speed

Specific Permitting Considerations and Strategies 33

turbines come up to full rotational speed at windspeeds just above the wind speed (typically nine or10 mph) at which the turbine “cuts in,” or beginsproducing electricity. (Some turbines are capable ofboth modes of operation or have two rotor speeds.)Because lower background noise conditions maketurbine noises more noticeable, fixed speed turbines are most likely to have noticeable aerody-namic noise just above cut-in wind speeds beforethe wind-induced background noise rises enough tomask the noise of the turbine.

Mechanical noises can be produced by a variety ofcomponents of the wind system. Depending on thecondition of the gear faces and bearings, gearboxescan be significant sources of tonal noise. Generatorbearings can become defective, and open framegenerators may include integral cooling fans. Someyaw drives may cause irregular, creaking, impulsivenoises which may resonate throughout the turbinestructure. Yaw and drive train brakes that areabruptly fully-activated also may cause noises thatresonate in the structure. High speed cooling fansmay be used in the nacelle for cooling power elec-tronics, hydraulic or gearbox fluids, or at groundlevel with power electronics subsystems. Normalwear and tear, poor design or adjustment, or lack ofpreventive maintenance of any of these componentsmay cause them to become noisy over a turbine’slife.

Variables affecting noise receptors. In general, themore the new noise level exceeds the ambientnoise level, or the more the new tonal characteris-tics differ from the prior, the less acceptable thenew noise will be to exposed individuals. Manyvariables can affect the noise produced by a windproject and its effect on receptors. Wind directions,speeds and turbulence levels are important vari-ables. Site topography and vegetation affect turbu-lence and background noise levels. Interveningtopography and atmospheric conditions (boundarylayers, temperature gradients, air absorption, etc.)affect propagation from source to receptor.

If a receptor is in a location where the wind is nor-mally slower than at the wind turbine, the back-ground masking noise there will be lower too. Thisis unlikely in flat terrain. However, in undulatingterrain, residences often are built in the depressions(for protection from the wind) where the maskingnoise will be lower. Given the relationship betweenturbine noise and wind speed, a turbine is morelikely to be heard at twice the normal distance at awind-sheltered location.

The background noise, even in otherwise very quietlocations, is strongly determined by the wind speedand nearby obstacles which induce turbulence.When wind speed rises, so does the broadbandbackground noise which masks aerodynamic noisefrom a turbine’s rotor. However, if the turbine’s


Types of Noise Which May be Generated by Wind Turbine Operation

Broadband Noise. Noise characterized by a continuous distribution of sound pressure with frequen-cies greater than 100 Hertz (Hz). Often caused by the interaction of wind turbine blades with atmos-pheric turbulence. Also described as a characteristic “swishing” or “whooshing” sound.

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

Low Frequency Noise. Noise with frequencies in the range from 20 Hz to 100 Hz associated mostlywith older-model downwind turbines. Caused when wind turbine blades encounter localized flowdeficiencies due to the flow around a tower, wakes shed from the other blades, etc. (At its worst, suchnoise has been described as “an ongoing debilitating sound” that can cause structural vibration.)

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

noise is tonal (probably from a mechanical source)it is much more noticeable at the same relativeloudness level because it is not broadband, butcomposed of one or more distinct tones.

Predicting and measuring noise levels. Accuratepre-project estimates of noise emissions and levelsat receptors are very difficult to make, and do notlend themselves to easy comparison with absolutelevels in permitting standards. Predicting and mea-suring noise from a proposed project involves manycomplicating factors, some of which are not con-trollable or easily reproducible. Turbine noise mea-surements taken under certain conditions at onesite may not be representative of noise emissions bythe same turbine at another site. If the originalnoise measurements have been adequately docu-mented, the predictions may be partially applicableelsewhere, but the measurements may not reflectconditions encountered at another site or show the turbine’s greatest apparent noise level. For instance,winds from one direction may be more steady (sta-ble), and produce less measured low frequencynoise than more turbulent winds from anotherdirection. Prior noise measurements may not havebeen made at wind speeds just above cut-in, which(because broadband noise readily blends withbackground noise) is when the potential for objec-tionable noise is greatest. A-weighted measure-ments are effective for measuring this noise andmay be transferable from another site but may notreflect levels at receptors due to propagation differ-ences.

Noise StrategiesIn the course of permitting wind projects, manypermitting agencies conduct a noise analysis toestimate:

• whether the facility can be constructed andoperated in compliance with any and allapplicable guidelines or local ordinances;

• whether any potentially significant noiseimpacts may result from the construction andoperation of the facility; and if so,

• whether feasible mitigation measures can beemployed to minimize or eliminate significantnoise impacts resulting from construction andoperation of the facility.

These agencies have dealt with potential noise con-cerns by predicting and measuring noise levels,establishing noise standards, requiring noise set-backs, establishing zoning restrictions, and makingturbine modifications. To effectively handle noiseconcerns that may arise after permitting, someagencies have implemented a noise complaint andinvestigation process.

Predicting and measuring noise. Turbine noise stud-ies should include separate measurements of lowfrequency and A-weighted noise levels across arange of wind speeds (including near cut-in) andturbulence conditions, distances from the turbine,and locations of the receptor relative to wind direc-tion. Appendix C cites two proposed noise mea-surement techniques specific to wind energy sys-tems.

Background noise measurements could be made atrepresentative dwellings up to one quarter mile inflat terrain and one half mile in uneven terrain fromthe nearest turbine. Potential receptors at relativelyless windy or quieter locations than the projectshould be emphasized. This information could berequired by the permit, provided it is within theagency’s authority to do so. It must be borne inmind, however, that it is almost impossible to pre-dict accurately noises that may occur under the fullrange of possible conditions.

Noise standards. Although no federal noise regula-tions exist, the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has promulgated noise guidelines. Similarly,most states do not have noise regulations. Manylocal governments however, have enacted noiseordinances to manage community noise levels. Thenoise limits specified in such ordinances are typi-cally applied to acute noise sources and specify amaximum permissible noise level. They are com-monly enforced by the police, but may be enforcedby an agency which issues development permits.

Imposing a fixed level noise standard may not pre-vent noise complaints. This is due to the changingrelative level of broadband turbine noise withchanges in background noise levels. If tonal noisesare present, higher levels of broadband backgroundnoise are needed to effectively mask the tone(s).Also, the impact of noise depends on what peopleare doing: lower levels of noise will be objection-able during sleeping hours than during the day.


Some states have lower noise standards during nighthours.

Noise setbacks. Because noise diminishes with dis-tance, adequate setbacks are the primary tool forpreventing noise problems. An appropriate distancemay range between 1,000 feet and one-half mile.(An exception may be made for the turbine’sowner.) If the only applicable scale for assessingcompliance with a noise standard is the dB(A)scale, more liberal setbacks may be required toavoid low frequency and tonal noise problems. Ifthe residences are at locations shielded from pre-vailing winds, a greater setback is needed than ifthey are in an exposed location.

Zoning. If residential or commercial developmentoccurs in the vicinity of an established wind projector a designated wind resource area, conflicts arelikely to occur. To prevent or minimize these, landuse and permitting agencies should identify windresource areas and establish appropriate zoning toprevent encroachment and future conflicts. (SeeLAND USE.)

Turbine modifications. Turbines can be designed orretrofitted to minimize mechanical noise. This caninclude special finishing of gear teeth, using lowspeed cooling fans and mounting them in thenacelle instead of at ground level, adding bafflesand acoustic insulation to the nacelle, using


Noise Tips

For Permitting Agencies

1) Do not expect the final word on noise levels and their acceptance until the project has operated under all the usual wind conditions at the site.

2) If applying noise standards, make sure they provide a relative noise standard for broadbandnoise. This will account for the relative background noise level changes caused by wind. Forexample, the threshold for taking action to reduce noise levels could be when wind facilitiesexceed the background noise by 5 to 8 decibels. Use of this standard would require takingpreconstruction background noise surveys at nearby residences. Be cautious, however, aboutusing noise standards designed for other purposes since they are not likely to do a good jobfor all the types of noise that may be present, i.e., broadband, tonal, low frequency and impul-sive noises.

3) Pay particular attention to potential noise concerns at residences in wind-sheltered locationsthat are close to wind project areas.

4) Establish a noise complaint and evaluation process (see box next page).

For Project Developers

1) Design projects with adequate setbacks from dwelling units, especially where the dwellingunit is in a relatively less windy or quieter location than the turbine(s). Assume that residentswho like the wind system may some day be replaced by others who are annoyed by anynoise.

2) Consider making extra efforts to prevent problems by upgrading all turbines installed whereresidences are nearby. Use extra sound insulation and baffled nacelles, soft equipment mountsand braking systems, and low speed fans for cooling. Fans could be relocated to the nacelles.Equipment needing cooling could be relocated to where it is cooled by the wind. Blade trail-ing edges could be made sharp. Avoid locating marginally noisy turbines in projects withnearby residences.

BIRDS AND OTHER BIOLOGICALRESOURCESBiological resources include a broad variety ofplants and animals that live, use or pass through anarea. They also encompass the habitat that supports

the living resources, including both physical fea-tures such as soil and water, and the biologicalcomponents that sustain living communities. Theserange from bacteria and fungi through the predatorsat the top of the food chain.

Any construction project can affect the biologicalresources at the site by disrupting the physical andecological relationships of the communities livingthere. Power plants can have direct effects bydestroying habitat and some of the organisms foundin it, and indirect effects by releasing pollutants thataffect organisms’ health or by producing noise ormotion that affects the behavior of animals. Theseeffects may be confined to a small part of thepower plant where disturbance is most acute, ormay be dispersed over a wide area.

Biological Resource ConsiderationsBecause wind projects typically are located in ruralareas that are either undeveloped or used for farm-ing or grazing, they have the potential to directlyand indirectly affect biological resources. Conflicts,if any, will depend on the plants and animals pre-sent and the location and design of the wind facili-ties. In some cases permitting agencies have dis-couraged or prevented development due to likelyadverse consequences to these resources. In caseswhere sensitive resources were not present orwhere impacts could be avoided or mitigated,development has been allowed to proceed.

Biological resource concerns associated with winddevelopment may include:

• Bird collisions with turbines, electrocutions,and other direct wildlife impacts;

• Loss of wildlife habitat and other indirectimpacts on wildlife; and

• Loss of natural vegetation.

The problem of collisions between birds and windenergy facilities has been the most controversialbiological consideration affecting facility siting.Wind developments with several hundreds to thou-sands of turbines, combined with site characteris-tics that attract some types of birds, have producedenough bird collisions and deaths to raise concernsby fish and wildlife agencies and conservationgroups. On the other hand, several large wind facil-ities have been operating for years with only minor


Establishing a Noise Complaint Resolution Process

Some permitting agencies have set up noisecomplaint resolution processes. A numberwhere the agency can be notified of anynoise concern is made public. Agency staffare prepared to respond to any complaintwithin 24 to 48 hours, and to work withthe developer and concerned citizens toresolve the issue.

Complaints should meet certain validityrequirements to ensure legitimate use ofsuch a process. Information such as thedate and time(s), location, noise descrip-tion, and background noise conditions atthe receptor should be documented.Agencies should review their statutoryauthority to see whether they are in a posi-tion to impose or enforce noise standardson a project, or merely play a mediatingrole.

vibration isolators and soft mounts for major com-ponents and brakes, and designing the turbine toprevent noises from being transmitted into the over-all structure. There are costs associated with suchmodifications. If low frequency impulsive noise is aconcern in an area, the permitting agency may limitthe development of down-wind turbines.

Complaint resolution. Noise concerns may occurduring the life of a wind project, particularly if resi-dential land uses are allowed to encroach on awind resource area. It is in the best interest of allinvolved to raise and resolve these concerns expe-ditiously. In some instances the noise may becaused by a unique environmental circumstance; inothers there may be a mechanical or other problemwith the turbine that requires attention. The processallows all concerned to be involved in a promptevaluation of the complaint and a resolution con-sistent with the permit requirements.

impacts on birds and other flying vertebrates.Structures such as smokestacks and radio and tele-vision towers have been associated with far largernumbers of bird kills than have wind facilities.Other sources of bird mortality, such as highwaysand pollution, are responsible for a much higherproportion of total bird deaths.

Avian collisions and electrocutions. Like any tallfacilities, wind turbines can be hit by birds; themovement of the blades is unique, and adds thepotential for striking birds as they fly. Some batshave also been killed by wind energy facilities.These concerns apply both to the individual ani-mals killed, and the potential for affecting the popu-lations of particularly sensitive species. Studiesreporting the losses of raptors (birds of prey such ashawks and eagles) at the Altamont Pass windresource area in California and soaring birds (storksand vultures) at Tarifa in Spain, have made bird col-lisions with wind turbines the most publicized biological resource concern associated with winddevelopment. These studies showed that bird colli-sions can be a serious problem and that it is impor-tant to carefully evaluate the potential for collisionsbefore developing any wind resource. Since then,studies in other wind resource areas have shownthat bird collisions are not a critical problem at allpotential wind development areas. (For a review ofinformation about avian collisions with man-madestructures, see the California Energy Commission’sEffects of Wind Energy Development: An AnnotatedBibliography, listed in Appendix A.)

While collisions with wind turbines are relativelyinfrequent, they do occur and birds and bats arekilled or seriously injured. Depending on the pro-tective status or the number of individuals involved,these collisions may or may not be considered abiologically or legally significant impact. Becausemost raptors are protected by state and federal laws,any threat posed to these animals may present alegal barrier as well as a source of concern to localconservation groups.

Both the wind industry and government agenciesare sponsoring or conducting research into colli-sions, relevant bird behavior, and mitigation andavoidance measures at wind facilities. Studies focuson the effects on birds of the wind facility compo-nents—for example, comparing mortality at openframed lattice towers and closed tubular towers.

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

Some of these studies are finding that both residentand migratory birds are involved in collisions. Birdstypically migrate at altitudes of 1,500 to 2,500 feet(even migrating songbirds fly at an altitude of 500to 1,000 feet), well above the top of turbine bladesin most locations. Therefore, collisions during actualmigratory flights should be rare. Studies of birdbehavior around wind turbines have shown thatwhen the turbines are visible, birds will changedirection to avoid flying directly into turbines. Inaddition, water birds such as geese and swans tendto avoid the vicinity of turbines, keeping from 250to 500 meters (800 to 1600 feet) away from them.(See studies by J. E. Winkelman, 1992.) As withother high structures, reduced visibility due to fog,clouds, rain and darkness may be a factor in colli-sions.

In some wind areas, large birds have been electro-cuted on distribution or transmission lines. This canoccur when the bird touches two electrical conduc-tors or one conductor and a grounded wire, eitheron a power line, at a riser pole, or in a substation.

An extensive research project at wind facilities insouthern California aims at developing a compre-hensive way to measure the risk to birds not only ofwind facilities, but of other human-created hazardssuch as highways or buildings. The study is underreview by the National Wind CoordinatingCommittee’s Avian Subcommittee. The CaliforniaEnergy Commission (CEC) and National RenewableEnergy Laboratory are providing funding. This CECstudy will continue through 1998.1 The system forassessing bird risk, which was developed by CECbiologists and other experts, consists of several ele-ments:

• Bird Utilization Counts, in which an observernotes the location, behavior and number ofbirds using the area. Bird behaviors notedinclude: flying, perching, soaring, hunting, for-aging, and actions close (50 meters or less) towind plant structures.


1An initial report is available from the California Energy Commission (CEC, 1995).

• Bird Utilization Rate, which is defined as thenumber of birds observed divided by the timeof observation.

• Bird Mortality, a simple count of dead birdsfound within a given area of land.

• Bird Risk, defined as Bird Mortality divided bythe Bird Utilization Rate. Bird Risk can beused to compare risk differences for many vari-ables: varying distances from wind facilities;species, types, and all birds observed; naturalcommunities; seasons; and turbine structuretypes. Bird Risk can be used to compare riskfor other Wind Resource Areas and for othertypes of facilities such as highways, powerlines, and television and radio transmitter towers.

• Rotor Swept Hour and Rotor Swept Hour Risk, two measurements that look at the effectsof various turbine types.

Wildlife and habitat loss. Construction and opera-tion of wind facilities can affect wildlife through:

1) Direct loss of habitat;

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

3) Habitat alteration as a result of soil erosion,introduction of non-native vegetation orconstruction of obstacles to migration;

4) Collision with structures, turbine bladesand wires causing death or injury; and

5) Electrocution by contact with live electricalwires.

In most cases, the primary biological consequenceof developing wind projects is the direct loss ofwildlife habitat. While some small animals may bekilled by construction activities, the more mobilespecies will leave the area. However, the resultingloss of habitat often reduces the available livingspace, food resources and, in some cases, the pop-ulation levels of both prey and predator species.(Because wind facilities affect a relatively small pro-portion of the land they occupy, these effectsshould be minor in most cases.) Water quality and

fish habitat can be affected if wind project develop-ment increases runoff or soil erosion from the site.See SOIL EROSION AND WATER QUALITY for dis-cussion of this consideration.

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

Wind project construction also may alter an area orits habitats in a way that affects wildlife. For exam-ple, non-native plants may invade areas withground loosened by construction and displace veg-etation with higher wildlife food value. A disturbedground surface can be more suitable for burrowinganimals, many of which are attractive prey for rap-tors and other predators. Overhead lines, guy wires,turbines, and towers may provide new perchingopportunities for raptors, but also increase the riskof collisions and electrocutions.

Wind facilities also may disrupt wildlife move-ments, particularly during migrations. For example,herd animals such as elk, deer and pronghorn canbe affected if rows of turbines are placed alongmigration paths between winter and summer rangesor in calving areas. Because there is not enoughinformation to predict whether this effect is likely tooccur, it should be considered only where wildlifeexperts believe it is appropriate.

Natural vegetation loss. The significance of vegeta-tion loss associated with a wind project usuallydepends on the size of the area disturbed andwhether rare or sensitive native plants are affected.Construction of a wind energy facility including allof the components described in Chapter 2 disturbssome of the existing surface vegetation. Dependingon the project design, these disturbances typicallyaffect only three to five percent of the total surfacearea of a wind development site.

Site topography and the layout of access roads willaffect the extent of vegetation disturbance and loss.Construction in steep areas can produce greaterdisturbance because these facilities require more


extensive “cut and fill” as well as longer, morecomplex road systems. These losses may be com-pounded by the establishment of invasive, weedy(noxious) plant species that thrive in disturbed areasand often must be controlled to allow native vege-tation to be re-established.

For some wind projects, there are agreements orrequirements to remove or prevent the regrowth ofnearby trees that disrupt wind flow and reduceavailable energy (Gipe, 1995). The extent of theclearing typically depends on the wind speed, dura-tion and direction; topography; and the relativeheight and placement of the turbines. In forestedareas, permanent clearing of wide swaths along tur-bine corridors may be required. When applicable,biological resource evaluations of wind projectsshould consider the need for and effects of treetrimming and removal.

Biological Resource StrategiesConsultation. Appropriate planning and close coor-dination with permitting agencies can reduce thechances of expensive project delays. To avoid orminimize biological resource concerns, most per-mitting agencies recommend that wind developersconsult with them and the appropriate naturalresource protection agencies early in the site selec-tion process. This allows the wind developers andagencies to determine the potential for biologicalresource conflicts and discuss any studies or infor-mation needed in the permitting process. Biologicalresource studies typically involve a review of theapplicable scientific literature and natural resourcedatabases; consultation with local, state, and federalexperts; and field surveys to evaluate the resourcespresent at a specific site.

An important concern is whether state or federallyprotected plants and animals (generally classified as“threatened,” “endangered,” or “species of concern”by natural resource or wildlife agencies) are knownto inhabit, use or migrate through the area. Unique

or rare habitat types (such as fens, vernal ponds,and savannas) also tend to be of interest. If any ofthese species or habitat types are likely to be pre-sent, more in-depth field surveys may be warranted.Some permitting agencies may also require an alter-native site analysis as part of an application or envi-ronmental analysis document. In this case, the ini-tial site evaluation may need to compare the biolog-ical resources of alternative sites and use the resultsin selecting sites for development.

Biological surveys. The timing of biological surveysand studies is important. Some resource informationmust be obtained seasonally. For example, someprotected plants only bloom for a few weeks ormonths of the year and surveys may be requiredduring that time to determine whether the proposedwind project is likely to affect the species in ques-tion. Bird use or migration patterns through an areamay have to be surveyed over a period of severalmonths or years. It is important that surveys bedone at an appropriate time and with sufficient fre-quency to account for movements, seasonal varia-tions and other biological considerations. The sizeand location of the study area is another importantconsideration when collecting biological resourceinformation. Many agencies stress the need to con-sider the specific species involved. Some birds, forexample, have large home ranges, and may beaffected by a proposed wind project located awayfrom their regular nesting or roosting sites.

Risk reduction. Theoretically, it should be possibleto reduce the risk of bird collisions by avoiding sitesnear major bird feeding, roosting and resting areas,wetlands, rookeries, and low-level flight paths.Although research is in progress to identify otherrisk reduction measures, at this time there are nodesigns or modifications that have been statisticallyproven to significantly reduce the risk of bird andbat collisions with turbines. At present it may there-fore be prudent to avoid areas with high levels of


Surveys Can Indicate Whether Bird Mortality Likely to be a Problem

The large prey base of ground squirrels at California’s Altamont Pass might have suggested that raptorswould be attracted to the area in large numbers. The potential for collision mortality with intensivewind energy development might have been foreseeable. By contrast, a biological reconnaissance ofthe Buffalo Ridge Wind Resource Area in Southwestern Minnesota indicated that serious conflictsbetween birds and wind projects were unlikely. Subsequent monitoring has confirmed that prediction.

bird or bat activities, especially if sensitive speciesare involved.

Appropriate equipment selections may help toreduce mortality, however. One study in theAltamont Pass wind resource area of Californiadetermined that tubular towers are associated withless collision mortality than open lattice towers,especially those with horizontal elements. Designsthat reduce perching opportunities on all facilitiesalso appear to reduce collisions. Applying the mea-sures recommended by the Avian Powerline ImpactCommittee (APLIC, 1993) can reduce electrocutionmortality.

The National Wind Coordinating Committee hasestablished a Subcommittee on avian issues toassist developers and agencies in determining thepotential for conflict between birds and wind pro-jects. This NWCC Subcommittee is working toidentify research priorities and to establish standardmethods and measures for avian studies.

Unless protected plants, animals or their habitat aredestroyed or displaced during construction, mostpermitting agencies are likely to find the non-colli-sion consequences of wind development onwildlife to be insignificant. Construction of windenergy facilities can be carried out in a manner that


Biological Resource Tips


1) Become familiar with the literature on wind power development’s impacts on biologicalresources, especially flying vertebrates. The California Energy Commission (CEC)’sBibliography is a good place to start.

2) Consider requiring developers to follow standardized study plans to ensure that informationgathered at all sites is compatible, and that experience at one site can contribute to learningabout other locations.

3) Keep the level of studies appropriate to the level of risk likely to exist at the site, given the levelof development considered for the area. A small, distributed generation project of only a fewturbines is unlikely to pose as much risk as a large, widespread project.

4) Work with potential developers to find low risk sites that will keep the level of study and asso-ciated costs reasonable.

5) Use existing Avian Powerline Impact Committee (APLIC) guidelines to develop electrocutionprevention requirements.


1) Consider the biological setting early in project evaluation and planning. Hire a reputable bio-logical consultant to conduct a preliminary biological reconnaissance of the site area. If apotential site has a large potential for biological conflicts, it may not be worth the time andcost of detailed wind resource evaluation work.

2) Contact the local resource management agency early in the process to find out if there areany resources of special concern in the area you are considering.

3) Involve local environmental/natural resources groups as soon as practicable. They will be lesslikely to react negatively to a project if they understand your requirements, and see that youare willing to seriously consider their concerns.

disturbs only a small amount of surface area, con-fining habitat losses to only a small part of theentire project area. In many cases, impacts on pro-tected plant species can be avoided or minimizedby using detailed information on the location ofsensitive plants to plan the project facilities.

Direct wildlife habitat loss can be reduced throughrevegetation efforts, selecting turbine and transmis-sion tower locations to minimize cut and fill, andcarefully planning and constructing the access roadnetwork to minimize the number and width ofroads actually built. Ensuring that only authorizedaccess roads are used during operations anddecommissioning is also important, as is, wherepractical, using locked gates to limit unauthorizeduse. Adding “perch guards” to power poles and tur-bine towers will discourage birds from landing onthem and help prevent electrocutions.

Cover vegetation should be quickly restored at anydisturbed area. Revegetation of parts of some winddevelopment areas can be difficult because ofextreme climatic conditions and high winds thatmay blow away seed, mulch and exposed topsoil.Revegetation methods, timing, plant species andseed mixtures all must be selected carefully to max-imize the likelihood of success. Plantings caninclude sensitive species or seed mixes appropriatefor site conditions. Many agencies will monitor arevegetation program to ensure that it is appropri-ately implemented and to learn what is and is notsuccessful in their area to improve future revegeta-tion efforts.

Designing and implementing water quality or soilerosion control measures that match the topo-graphic and climatic conditions of the site can usu-ally eliminate or minimize adverse effects to wet-lands, water bodies, and fish and other aquaticspecies.

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

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

• Will the project deviate substantially from theform, line, color, and texture of existing elements of the viewshed that contribute to itsvisual quality?

• Will the project substantially degrade the visu-al quality of the viewshed, affect the use orvisual experience of the area, or intrude uponor block views of valuable visual resources?

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

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


Figure 10. Compare the visual effect of widely-spaced turbinesat a wind facility in Lake Benton, Minnesota (top) with the visualimpact of a more densely-spaced array in California’s TehachapiPass (bottom). Photos courtesy of the American Wind EnergyAssociation (top) and the California Energy Commission (bottom).

Visual Resource ConsiderationsWind projects have somewhat different impacts onvisual resources than most other electric generationtechnologies. This is in part because they usuallyhave been located in rural or even remote areas,often with few nearby residential developments andonly intermittent human visitation and use. Thepotential for visual resource impacts is sometimesconsidered as part of the evaluation of land usecompatibility among multiple parcels with eithersimilar or a diverse set of uses. (In an area withmany wind projects, one more could either blendin or it could become the one that tips the balanceaway from compatibility.) The degree to which aes-thetic impacts may become an issue during the pro-ject permitting process is a function of the valuepeople place on the visual quality of the projectsetting and many other individual considerations.Elements which influence visual impacts includethe spacing, design and uniformity of the turbines,markings or lighting, roads built on slopes, and ser-vice buildings.

Spacing and turbine design. Effective use of windresources requires maintaining adequate spacingbetween individual turbines as well as betweenrows, banks, or tiers of turbines. There is consider-able visible motion in the blades when the windsblow. The perception of motion is intensified whenturbines are closely spaced, are of mixed designs,or rotate in different directions. The spacing of windturbines is determined by the distance needed forthe winds to replenish. Turbines with shorter bladescan be placed much closer together than larger tur-bines. The closer spacing of the older, large-scaleturbine projects also meant that more units wereconcentrated closer together where today one newturbine may produce the same power as six to tenold units. Fewer and wider-spaced turbines presenta more pleasing appearance than tightly-packedarrays (see Figure 10). Uniformity in tower design,number of blades and rotational direction is criticalto minimizing visual impact.

Markings and lighting. Painted markings and/orlighting may be required on very large turbines, onfacilities in certain types of terrain or at certain ele-vations, or on installations near airports where theproject may extend into the flight paths. Tall towersfor anemometers or meteorological data gatheringalso may require similar markings and lighting.Federal regulations require markings on all objectsover 200 feet and state regulations may impose

lower thresholds. Special designs, colors, or mark-ings might be used to reduce avian collisions withturbines. (See BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.) Clearlythere are tradeoffs to be made between the use ofsuch markings to prevent accidents and the unde-sirable visual impacts which may result.

Roads on slopes. Where wind turbines are arrayedalong ridgelines to capture wind flows over theridges, the units are visible over greater distances.Against the sloping terrain of the ridges, surfacesnewly exposed by construction of access roads andturbine pads may contrast sharply with existing

soils and/or vegetative cover. From a distance, thevisual impact of roads on slopes may be greaterthan that of the turbines. Constructing roads onslopes to gain access to the ridge tops also opensthe potential for erosion that can produce addi-tional long-term visual changes in the site area.(See Figure 11.)

Buildings and storage. Service and maintenancebuildings located within the project leasehold mayvisually intrude upon the surrounding landscape.Other visually undesirable aspects of the area mayinclude: crates or stacks of materials stored for pro-ject repair; barrels, reels, and piles of waste materi-als; and non-functional turbines that are awaitingrepair or removal, or have been disposed of on-site.

Visual Resource StrategiesA range of mitigation measures is available toreduce the visual impact of wind projects. Onemajor opportunity available to agencies havingjurisdiction within a wind resource area (WRA) is


Figure 11. Roads on slopes can have a distinct visual impact,even from a great distance. Photo courtesy of the CaliforniaEnergy Commission.

the preparation of maps, plans, guidelines anddesign standards for wind generation developmentprior to initiation of wind project proposals in thatWRA. If more than one agency has jurisdiction,agencies should coordinate their efforts to ensureconsistent application of the overall plans, stan-dards, and guidelines within the WRA. The pre-development planning process for the WRAs shouldbe open and accessible to all stakeholders in theproject area. Early involvement helps identify sensi-tive resources and allows permitting agencies toconsider tradeoffs and negotiate agreements inde-pendent of public sentiment over a specific project.

Once the overall development concept has been setfor the WRA, site design criteria and requirementscan be adjusted to fit site characteristics or mitiga-tion requirements for each individual project.However, it is essential that individual projectdevelopment and design be consistent with anyoverall plans for the WRA. All stakeholders and par-ticipants should be bound by the same set of guide-lines and criteria.

Design strategies for reducing impacts to visualresources may include:

• Using the local land form to minimize visibilityof access and service roads and protect soilsfrom erosion and slippage.

• Consolidation of roads or use (and subsequentremoval) of mesh mats or grating over existingvegetation for temporary access without roads.

• Soils and vegetation removed or reshaped dur-ing project construction on slopes should notbe bladed or “side-cast” down the slope wherethe newly exposed materials may create astrong contrast in color and texture with theexisting soils and vegetation.

• Use of low-profile and unobtrusive buildingdesigns to minimize the urbanized appearanceor industrial character of projects located inrural or remote areas.

• Use of uniform color, structure types, and sur-face finishes to minimize project visibility insensitive areas with high open space or otherscenic values. (Note, however, that the use ofnon-obtrusive designs and colors may conflictwith efforts to reduce avian collisions, and maybe in direct conflict with FAA requirements fordistinctive markings.)

• Selecting the route and type of support struc-ture for above-ground electrical facilities aswell as the method, mode, and type of installa-tion (below vs. above-ground) can reducepotential impacts. Where multiple generationunits are to be sited close together, consolida-tion of electrical lines and roads into a singleright of way, trench, or corridor will cause less-er impacts than providing separate access toeach unit.

• Controlling the placement and limiting thesize, color, and number of labels or markingsplaced on individual turbines or advertisingsigns on fences and facilities.

• Prohibiting lighting except where required foraircraft safety prevents light pollution in other-wise dark settings (and may incidentally mini-mize collision by nocturnal feeders which preyon insects attracted to lights).

• Controlling the relative location of different tur-bine types, densities, and layout geometry tominimize visual impacts and conflicts withinWRAs and specific project sites. Turbine typesand those with opposing rotational directions


Scenic Impacts in the Eye of the Beholder

In one wind resource area, public and agency concern that the visible presence of the wind turbineswould turn away visitors seeking the beauty of the open scenic vistas led to the establishment of atwo-thirds-of-a-mile scenic setback corridor along all major access routes through the wind resourcearea. No wind development was allowed within this scenic corridor. Some fifteen years after develop-ment of the wind resources began, agencies are getting requests for tours of the wind developmentsfrom visitors who want to see the local wind industry.

can be segregated by buffer zones. Mixing oftypes should be avoided or minimized.

• Using air lift for transport of turbine compo-nents and turbine installation, major mainte-nance and removal to greatly reduce the sizeand placement of roads in remote locations orsensitive visual areas. (This also would lowerimpacts on public and rural roads and providefor quicker installation, but it is expensive andmay be infeasible for larger turbines.)

As with land use strategies, costs associated withthese strategies need to be taken into consideration.

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


Visual Resource Tips


1) Consider formulation of macro-level plans for the wind resource area, inviting public inputand taking into consideration the cumulative impacts of multiple projects; coordinate plan-ning efforts with all jurisdictions and stakeholders.

2) Set standards early and clearly; apply consistently to all development projects.

3) Educate all stakeholders about what to expect from a wind project; prepare to make impacttradeoffs.

4) Be aware that project development in sloping terrain presents extra design problems for mini-mizing impacts to visual resources.


1) Prepare and use visual simulations of the post-project setting to identify potential impacts tosensitive visual resources.

2) Prepare a public education program on the benefits and tradeoffs involved in wind generation.

3) Listen to the community(ies) and stakeholders in all project phases; be prepared to adaptdesign to:

• minimize industrial characteristics and structures; and

• minimize visual exposure from sensitive areas.

4) If project is proposed in sloping terrain, design the project and the site layout to minimize visi-bility of roads and structures and to minimize visible aspects of cut and fill or side-casting ofnewly exposed soils during site and pad preparation and road construction.

5) Consider the overall benefits of using roadless project designs in remote or sensitive visualareas.

involved in adjusting project layout and design tominimize potential impacts.

SOIL EROSION AND WATER QUALITYSoil erosion is a normal process in which soil parti-cles are detached and removed by wind or water.Deposition of this eroded material, especially intowaterways, is called sedimentation. Land distur-bance resulting from construction and operation ofenergy generation facilities can remove vegetationand loosen soil particles, allowing them to be sweptaway by wind or water. This can accelerate the ero-sion process thousands of times over normal rates,resulting in significant impacts (including bothdirect and indirect economic costs) both on and offthe site.

Wind-induced erosion can increase fine particulatematter in air which can adversely impact humanhealth and reduce visibility. Water-induced erosion,in addition to removing soil and decreasing its pro-ductivity, results in sedimentation which degradeswater quality,2 damages biological resources, exac-erbates flooding, and accelerates filling of reser-voirs.

Developing an area for energy generation facilitieschanges site and surrounding area runoff anddrainage characteristics and may adversely impactresources on and off-site. Uncontrolled runoff fromconstruction sites can cause short-term increases inturbidity and siltation in nearby watercourses.Deposition of this sediment in nearby water coursesmay adversely affect sensitive habitats, contribute toflooding, induce streambank erosion and alterdownstream flow patterns. The costs associated withremoving sediment from waterways, culverts anddrains can be significant. Spills resulting from pro-ject construction and operation activities, such asrefueling heavy equipment, may also impact waterquality.

Finally, siting of energy generation facilities such aswind generation projects in flood prone areas maypose a risk to the project as well as adversely effectother downstream properties. Facility constructionwithin a floodplain poses the risk of flooding at thesite or may exacerbate flooding elsewhere.3

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

Construction. Construction of a wind generationproject consists of several activities: clearing vegeta-tion; grading access roads; site and pad preparation;excavation for footings or foundations and trenchingfor underground services; and construction andinstallation of major equipment and structures. Theinitial grading activities remove the vegetative coverand strip or compact the top soil. In hilly terrain,cuts and fills alter the slopes and natural drainagepatterns. Grading, excavation and trenching activi-ties create large piles of unconsolidated soil. This isespecially true for road grading in hilly areas wherethe excavated material is pushed aside and spilleddown the slope (“side cast”). Heavy constructionequipment compacts the soil. These activitiesexpose the soil to the highly erosive effects of rain,overland water flow or wind. Exposed spoil pilesare especially vulnerable to erosion. Alteration ofnatural drainages re-routes runoff into other areas,leading to erosion there. Soil compaction greatlyincreases the amount of runoff generated, leading togreatly increased erosion and sedimentation down-gradient. The steeper the incline, the greater the ero-sion consequences from road construction.

Project operation. Erosion and sedimentation con-tinues during operation of wind projects as mainte-nance activities continue to impact access roadsand turbine pads. Actively used unpaved roads havebeen shown to produce significantly more sedimentthat abandoned ones. Areas rendered impermeableby asphalt and concrete will generate storm waterrunoff that can cause erosion and sedimentationdown-slope if proper drainage control is not pro-vided. Unprotected soil on cut and fill slopes, bermfaces and other areas will continue to erode. (SeeFigure 12.)

Soil Erosion and Water Quality StrategiesAn important first step in selecting erosion and sedi-ment control measures is estimating the amount of


2Uncontrolled erosion and runoff is the major cause of degraded water quality in the United States, depositing not only sediment but alsometals, nutrients and other contaminants in adjacent waterways.3Because of federal subsidized flood insurance requirements, most development is prohibited in a floodway, defined as the area necessaryto convey the water from a flood with a one percent chance of occuring, more commonly known as a one hundred year flood.

runoff and erosion that may occur on site. Informa-tion on the different approaches to calculating bothrunoff and erosion is readily available from the USNatural Resource Conservation Service (formerlythe Soil Conservation Service), local conservationdistricts, and cities and counties.

Selection of the appropriate erosion and sedimentcontrol measures will be dictated by site condi-tions, project details, costs and regulatory require-ments. Taking into account erosion control con-cerns in the design stage of the project, such ashaving access roads follow existing contours to thegreatest extent possible, may minimize the cost ofinstalling and maintaining erosion control measuresthroughout the life of the project. The following areapproaches to controlling erosion and sedimenta-tion:

• Utilize existing terrain as much as possible tominimize the amount of grading that is neces-sary, leaving a smaller area that is vulnerableto erosion and taking advantage of the existingdrainage ways.

• Schedule and stage grading and constructionactivities to minimize soil exposure and stabi-lize denuded areas, including drainageways,as soon as possible. (Depending on the severi-ty and duration of the temporary disturbance

associated with construction activities, and theseason during which it takes place, temporaryerosion prevention and restoration measuresmay be warranted.)

• Retain existing vegetation wherever feasible. Inarid areas, protecting desert pavement or a sur-face soil crust may effectively control erosionas well.

• Divert runoff away from disturbed areas andensure all sediment remains on site. Sedimentponds, straw bales, silt fences and other mea-sures can ensure that any runoff leaving thesite is not contaminated with sediment.

• Minimize length and steepness of slopes andkeep runoff velocities low.

• Ensure all sediment retention and runoff con-trol facilities are properly sized to accommo-date sediment and water flows.

• Inspect and maintain erosion and runoff con-trol measures.


Figure 12. Site access and service roads can produce erosion insteep terrain. Photo courtesy of the California EnergyCommission.

Where to Learn More aboutControlling Erosion and Runoff

Local conservation districts, the NaturalResource Conservation Service and theappropriate city or county can provideguidance on development of a storm watermanagement plan, calculating runoff flowsand selecting control practices to ensurewater quality is protected.

Local planning and permitting departmentsshould have information on floodplain loca-tions and expected flood levels and fre-quency. Inundation maps prepared by theFederal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), show foot-by-foot inundation con-tours for most river/creek systems in UnitedStates. These FEMA maps should be avail-able for review and copying at local landuse planning or management agencies andare specific to the agency’s own jurisdic-tional boundaries.

Construction in a flood plain may require specialmeasures to ensure that structures do not undulyrestrict the flow of floodwater and that they remainsafe and intact during and after high waters. Theseadditional measures may add significantly to con-struction costs. Generally, construction within a100-year floodplain is prohibited.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETYThe public health and safety concerns for electricalgenerating facilities typically are associated eitherwith the release of emissions into the atmosphere orsolid and liquid wastes into surface or groundwaters or the soil. Any of these can cause adversepublic health impacts, violate standards for public

health protection, or represent risks for workers.Wind facilities differ substantially from most otherelectrical facilities since they do not use a combus-tion process to generate electricity and hence donot produce any air emissions. In addition, the onlypotentially toxic or hazardous materials associatedwith most wind facilities are relatively smallamounts of lubricating oils, and hydraulic and insu-lating fluids. (Bear in mind that even small leakagesof such materials can have ground water or habitatimpacts if left unchecked over time. See SOLIDAND HAZARDOUS WASTES, page 57.)


Soil Erosion and Water Quality Tips


1) Most erosion and sediment control plans are written to address the minimum requirementsset forth by local ordinances and/or standards. Therefore, agencies need to provide clearlywritten, detailed guidance for plan writers to follow. The aim of such guidance and any imple-menting ordinance or standard should be to require an appropriate level of erosion and sedi-ment control.

2) Ensure long-term monitoring and compliance with the erosion control plan. Revegetation stan-dards can be based on performance of re-growth and cover.

3) For wind energy projects sufficient to disturb five or more acres, the project developer mustcomply with the individual state’s provisions for the general construction permit for managingstorm water runoff as required by the Clean Water Act (Title 33, United States Code section1251 et seq.). This general permit requires the project owner to develop and implement aConstruction Storm Water Management Plan. Local agency review of this plan will ensure thatwater quality issues associated with storm water management will be addressed.


1) The design phase of the wind development project may be the most critical in realizing effec-tive erosion and sediment control throughout the life of the project. During the design phase,the developer can minimize the footprint of the project and evaluate alternative turbine padand access road siting and layouts.

2) Whenever possible, avoid road construction on steep slopes.

3) In selecting the appropriate erosion control measures, the developer should be aware that,although some measures may require greater expense initially, significant savings will occurover the life of the project in reduced maintenance and replacement costs. Furthermore, awell developed erosion and sediment control plan may also reduce regulatory delays inapproving and monitoring the project.

Public Health and Safety ConsiderationsThe primary health and safety considerations asso-ciated with wind are related to the movement ofthe turbine blades and the presence of industrialequipment in areas that are potentially accessibleto the public. Depending on where they arelocated, wind facilities may also represent anincreased fire hazard. Like all other electrical gen-erating facilities, wind electrical generators alsoproduce electric and magnetic fields.

Blade throw. “Blade throw” refers to rare eventswhen a turbine blade or pieces of the turbine sepa-rate from the rotor and “fly” off downwind. Turbineblades have been known to delaminate and splinterin mid-blade without breaking. Wind turbines thathave guy wires or other supports can also be dam-aged if a wire is snapped or one of the supportsbreaks. Turbine nacelles and rotor nose cones alsomay be blown off in high winds. These events arerare and usually occur under unexpected orunprecedented wind conditions. The distance ablade or turbine pieces may be thrown dependsupon turbine height and blade length, piece sizeand mass, topography and wind conditions, butrarely exceeds 1,500 feet. Most pieces will befound within 300-500 feet of the tower.

Tower failure. Complete failure of turbine towers orguy wires usually bring the entire unit to theground if the rotor is turning at the time or theproblem is not immediately detected. High iceloads on turbines and towers, poor tower or foun-dation design, salt corrosion, and high windsincrease this risk, which is more likely to be associ-ated with hobbyist (as opposed to professionally-installed) systems.

Falling ice. Another rare problem can occur whenlow temperatures and precipitation cause a build-up of ice on the turbine blades. As the bladeswarm, the ice melts and either falls to the groundor can be thrown by the spinning blades. Falling icefrom nacelles or towers can be dangerous directlyunder the turbine.

Attractive nuisance. Although most wind genera-tion projects are located in rural areas on lands thatare privately owned, many are visible from activelyused public roadways and are relatively accessibleto the public. Because the technology and theequipment associated with a wind generation pro-ject is sometimes new and unusual, it can be an

attraction to those who want to see and touch anoperating turbine or one that is inactive or disabledand waiting for repair or decommissioning.Members of the public who attempt to climb tow-ers, open access doors or electrical panels could besubject to injuries from moving equipment, thrownparts, or electrical equipment during operation andfrom collapsed or downed turbines, exposed elec-trical facilities or other hazardous situations duringdecommissioning.

Fire hazard. In the more arid parts of the country,site characteristics that are preferable for develop-ment of wind electrical generation projects—highaverage wind speeds, low vegetation and few trees,and variable topography—may also reflect a highfire hazard potential during the dry months of theyear. These projects typically are located in ruralsettings where dry land grain farming occurs or thenatural vegetation grows uncontrolled and is avail-able as fuel for escaped sparks or flames. Fires canoriginate when equipment is poorly maintained ornot monitored, resulting in turbine bearings burningout or crankcases running out of lubricant andcausing hot parts drop onto the ground. Fires havealso started as the result of sparks escaping duringwelding; metal blades striking rocks during gradingor discing; exposed drop cables from the top ofexposed towers becoming twisted, shortened, andfrayed during rotation of the turbine unit; electricalshorts occurring within a turbine unit; or carelessoperators. Fires also can be caused by electricalarcing in the transmission and distribution facilities.The two leading causes of fire are careless use oftall machines around overhead lines and electro-cuted birds.

Worker hazards. As with any industrial activity,there is the potential for injury or the loss of life toindividuals working with wind electric generators.There are no statistics to indicate whether windfacility work is any more or less dangerous thanwork on other energy facilities. However, severalpeople have been killed when working aboveground, and one by falling ice inside a tower.

Electromagnetic fields (EMF). Electric and magneticfields are created when electrical charges flowwithin any object which conducts electricity. For atransmission line, these fields are created by currentin a conductor. When a voltage is applied to a con-ductor, a magnetic field is created in the space


around the conductor. Field intensity decreasesrapidly with distance.

In recent years some members of the public havebecome concerned regarding the potential forhealth effects associated with magnetic fields. Thisconcern has been due to a perception that exposureto magnetic fields is associated with various formsof cancer or other diseases. Because wind develop-ment typically occurs at remote areas, the transmis-sion lines connecting wind generators with theexisting electrical system are usually located awayfrom residences, schools or other potentially sensi-tive populations. In addition, the available EMFresearch does not establish that exposure to mag-netic fields poses an increased risk to the public ofcancer or non-cancerous effects. The NationalResearch Council has concluded that: “...the cur-rent body of evidence does not show that exposuresto (magnetic) fields present a human-health hazard”(National Research Council, 1996).

Public Health and Safety StrategiesBlade throw and falling ice. The most commonmethod for reducing blade throw potential is theapplication of sound and detailed engineering andquality control. Braking systems, pitch controls andother speed controls on wind turbines should pre-vent design limits from being exceeded. These con-trols automatically stop the turbine from turning athigh wind speeds.

Because of safety concerns with blade throw andstructural failure, many permitting agencies haveseparated operating wind turbines from residences,public travel routes and other land uses by a safetybuffer zone or setback. Minimum setback distancesthat have been established by permitting agenciesrange from 500 to 1,200 feet between wind tur-bines and residences or other habitable structures,1.25 to six times the height of the wind turbinestructure from public roads and highways, and 1.25to four times the height of the wind turbine struc-ture from adjacent property lines (see Appendix B).Distances less than 500 feet may be appropriate formajor structural failure but inadequate for thrown orwind-blown pieces of turbines.

To reduce injury to workers, discussions of bladethrow and ice throw may be included in workertraining and safety programs. Project operatorsshould not allow work crews in the field duringwindy and icing conditions, or when a turbine isoperating out of control.

Attractive nuisance. Many jurisdictions haverequired fencing and posting at wind projectboundaries to prevent unauthorized access.However, other jurisdictions prefer that the landsremain unfenced, particularly if located away fromwell-traveled public roads, so the area appears toremain open and retains a relatively natural charac-ter. Many jurisdictions require the developer to postsigns with a 24-hour toll-free emergency phonenumber at specified intervals around the perimeterof the project site if the area is fenced and throughout the wind development area if it isunfenced. Liability concerns dictate use of warningsigns and labels on towers, electrical panels and atproject entrances. (See Figure 13.)

To reduce public hazards and personal injury, vari-ous agencies have required project developers to:

• lock access to towers and electrical equipment;

• place warning signs on towers;

• store spare parts and other equipment infenced storage yards and to quickly removeequipment when it is no longer operational;

• require the lowest portion of the turbine bladeto be at distances ranging from no lower than15 or 30 feet above the ground; and

• clearly mark all guy wires or other supports toavoid collisions.

Fire hazard. The single most effective fire hazardavoidance measure is to underground all electricalwiring between turbines and the project substation.In fire-prone areas, most agencies establish permit


Figure 13. It may be necessary to post warning signs near windfacilities to protect public safety. Photo courtesy of the CaliforniaEnergy Commission.

conditions on the project which address the poten-tial for fire hazard. A fire control plan may berequired. Typically they require a cleared space atthe base of each turbine unit and at the base ofeach electric tower/pole or electrical facility toreduce fuel available to sparks or flaming debrisfrom unexpected electrical and mechanical prob-lems. However, falling electrocuted birds can behazardous all along the wires’ span, and maintain-ing such clearance can significantly impact landuses. Most agencies also require fire preventionplans and training programs to further reduce thepotential for fires to escape the project and spreadinto surrounding areas. In some cases these trainingprograms are performed in conjunction with localfire agencies. Local fire crews can be provided siteaccess keys.

Worker hazards. General requirements or “safework practices” for the protection of workers arecommon to the construction and operation of mostprojects. These practices include: lock-out/tag-outprocedures and warning signs to reduce employeeexposure to moving equipment and electricalshock; “hot work” safety procedures; and provi-sions for Neighborhood Emergency Response Teamtraining. Education includes training personnel inpotential hazards, safe procedures and practices,and preventive and protective actions.Implementation and enforcement of federal, stateand local regulations should provide adequate mar-gins of safety and adequate levels of fire preventionduring construction and operation of a project.

Electromagnetic fields. Given the uncertainty overthe potential for public health impacts associatedwith exposure to magnetic fields in the late 1980s


Public Health and Safety Tips


1) Establish and apply consistent safety setback distances from wind turbines and habitabledwellings, public highways and property lines. The setback should provide adequate protec-tion from falling ice, blown turbine parts and major structural failure. Require prompt report-ing of all events related to turbine damage. Require all turbines to be equipped with provencontrols to stop turbine blades in extreme or emergency conditions, and with loss of electricpower from the utility.

2) Require fencing if projects are located near public areas, posting along fence lines and withinwind project areas and provision of 24 hour, toll-free emergency phone numbers. Also requireclean-up of discarded equipment or materials and decommissioning of non-operating turbinesand equipment.

3) Require pre-permit plans and provide for their compliance monitoring and enforcement inpermits.

4) Consider the benefits of undergrounding all wiring between turbines and project substation.

5) Require locks and warning signs on access doors to towers and electrical equipment.

6) Require towers not be climbable up to 15 feet from the ground.


1) Design facilities and turbine pads to prevent or avoid public and worker safety problems.

2) Establish worker safety training programs and emergency procedures.

and early 1990s, a few states (Montana, Minnesota,New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon andFlorida) have sought to limit field exposure levels tothe levels from existing transmission lines by speci-fying limits on field strengths, either within or at theedge of the rights-of-way, for new lines. In Florida,limits on the strengths of magnetic fields from newtransmission lines also have been specified. Califor-nia has adopted EMF design guidelines that limitthe magnetic fields from electric transmission linesthrough technology-related, no-cost or low-costapproaches with the intention that expenditures tominimize EMF exposure would be commensuratewith the scientific research and knowledge andwould not unduly impact transmission line safety,efficiency, maintainability, and reliability.

Measures adopted to either reduce exposure tomagnetic fields or prevent any significant increasein field levels include: increasing the distance (foroverhead lines) from the conductor to the ground;using field strength-minimizing conductor configu-rations; and undergrounding. The generally rurallocation of wind development projects also shouldreduce public concern over potential exposure toEMF from transmission lines since fewer peoplereside in or use these areas and there are moreopportunities to locate lines away from people.

As with the mitigation strategies considered else-where in this section, there are costs associatedwith many of the measures which may be under-taken to ensure public health and safety. The cost ofspecific measures (such as undergrounding trans-mission wires) need to be taken into consideration,and tradeoffs among impacts thoughtfully weighed.

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICALRESOURCESCultural resources are the structural and culturalevidence of the history of human development.They include both prehistoric and historic archaeo-logical resources, as well as ethnographic and eth-nic resources. Prehistoric archaeological resourcesare those materials relating to prehistoric humanoccupation and use of an area. Historic archaeolog-ical resources usually are associated with Euro-American exploration and settlement of an area andthe beginning of a written historical record.Ethnographic resources are those materials impor-tant to the heritage of a particular ethnic or culturalgroup. Cultural resources may be encountered assub-surface deposits or as surface trails, sites, arti-facts, or structures. Cultural resources may also be

associated with above-ground natural features, withplants or species harvested for traditional purposes,or with the surrounding physical setting.

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

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

Cultural and PaleontologicalConsiderationsWith concentrations of turbines, multiple accessroads, and myriad distribution and transmissionlines, a large wind facility has the potential toimpact most types of cultural and fossil resources. Adispersed turbine layout design with fewer turbinesand consolidated service facilities reduces potentialimpacts. The extent of the potential for impacts willvary with the topography, vegetation, the extent ofthe resource area, and the presence or absence ofother developments. Techniques for data recoveryand mapping of the fossil record may make itunnecessary to redesign or modify the turbine lay-out design.

For certain types of cultural resources, the physicalsetting and vicinity of the resource site contributematerially to its value. In this case the area ofpotential impact may include areas within audibleor visual distance of the sensitive resource. Forexample, wind generation sites are often located onthe sides and ridges of hills and may be near thecoast or shoreline of large water bodies. Such areasalso were used by native peoples for traditional


resource harvest and seasonal and religious cere-monies. Wind development in such locations has agreater potential to affect large-scale, above-groundcultural resources or resource settings. The area ofpotential impact may extend only a few tens of feetor may extend out to one-quarter mile or more. Thistype of impact is most likely to be associated withlong-standing resource collection areas, landmarks,or sacred areas and features. Cultural resourceimpacts in these areas may also include concernsabout disturbance of traditional practices due tonoise and visual impacts.

Cultural and Paleontological StrategiesIn most states, cultural and fossil resources are pro-tected by several federal laws, as well as state andlocal laws.4 During project design and site develop-ment, cultural and fossil resources sites should beavoided and protected. Usually the location of most

wind turbine towers and related access roads, trans-mission lines, and service or maintenance struc-tures can be adjusted during the design phase toavoid impacts to known surface or sub-surface cul-tural and fossil resources.

If project development impacts cannot be avoided,a program of data and resource recovery can usual-ly mitigate any potential effects to cultural and fos-sil resources (both of which generally employ simi-lar data recovery techniques). An important firststep in choosing appropriate mitigation measures isthe evaluation, by a knowledgeable, qualified pro-fessional, of the project setting and site topography,to estimate the type and extent of the resources pre-sent (or expected) and the type and degree of miti-gation/data recovery/monitoring required. Prepara-tion of an archaeological resource monitoring andmitigation plan will provide a set of contingency


Cultural and Paleontological Tips


1) Identify potentially sensitive resources and involve all stakeholders early on.

2) Consult with qualified professional specialists who are familiar with cultural and fossilresources in the project development area.

3) Sensitive resource sites may be confidential to Native Americans. Agencies should respect thisconfidentiality and may need to work closely with tribal representatives to protect theseresources.

4) Review project design to avoid impacts to sensitive resources.

5) Require appropriate mitigation of unavoidable impacts and monitor to ensure measures areimplemented.


1) Same as 1, 2, and 3, above.

2) Design project site layout to avoid sensitive resources if possible.

3) Prepare a monitoring and mitigation plan for protection of sensitive resources during construc-tion and operation of the project.

4) Allow adequate time in the project schedule for data and specimen recovery, mapping, analy-sis, and reporting.

4Appendix A includes an annotated list of the relevant federal statutes and regulations.

measures for previously unknown resources thatmay be encountered during project construction.The plan should be developed early and taken intoaccount during the design phase of the project.

SOCIOECONOMICS, PUBLIC SERVICESAND INFRASTRUCTUREMany agencies evaluate the potential for socioeco-nomic, public service and infrastructure conse-quences to an area when planning for or permittingthe development of any sizable piece of land or sig-nificant project. Development projects may createnew employment opportunities and local economicactivity and contribute to local tax revenues. Theymay also increase demand for available housing,public services and infrastructure (utility and fireprotection services, transportation systems), oradversely affect adjacent property values. Otherimpacts that may need to be considered includetourism, airport operations, and electromagneticinterference. As with any siting decision, care mustbe taken to apply and enforce environmental lawsfairly and consistently, and that facilities which maybe perceived as less desirable are not located pre-dominantly in minority or low-income communities.

Socioeconomic/Public Services/Infrastructure ConsiderationsEmployment. Development of a wind generationproject may cause a small, long-term increase inlocal employment and could benefit the economyin the project area. Local businesses may receiveincreased revenues from the purchase of materialsand supplies needed for operation and maintenancethroughout the lifetime of the project. While windgeneration projects tend to be located in rural orremote areas, the number of workers required forconstruction and/or operation is relatively few. Thusthere is no need to import a large work force andproject development is not likely to overburden theresources of most communities.

Public services. Development of wind generationprojects are also not likely to cause significantimpacts on the ability of a community to providepublic services in the project area. The relativelysmall number of operation and maintenanceemployees places a low demand on public servicessuch as water, gas, and sewer services. Some windprojects can meet on-site electrical services fromtheir own generation.

Fire services. Fires associated with wind generationcan be started by downed transmission and collec-tion lines, electrocuted birds, metal or parts thrownfrom malfunctioning turbines, operating tall equip-ment in the vicinity of electric lines, or by humanerror. Depending on whether the project is locatedin a fire prone area and on the design and installa-tion of the turbines and electric lines, wind devel-opment may increase the need for fire protectionservices (see PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY). How-ever, a wind project generally should not have asignificant impact on an agency’s ability to provideservices to the entire community.

Transportation systems. There may be a potentialfor wind projects to affect rural roads designed forinfrequent traffic or lightweight vehicles.Construction and operation of a wind generationfacility requires use of heavy equipment for sitepreparation, transport of construction supplies andproject components, and for the erection of turbinesand electric poles and towers. Existing road bedsmay have to be rebuilt or reinforced to support suchadditional loads without degradation, and the fre-quency of scheduled maintenance on these roadsmay have to be increased.

Airports. Turbine height and location, as well as theconcentration of turbines, may be of concern as anaviation navigation hazard. In one wind resourcearea, the whirling blur of turbine blades has causedghost readings of non-existent aircraft on radarscreens at the local airport. Location of turbinesalong the crest of ridges within the approach pathsfor airports may create safety concerns for aircraftoperators.

Electromagnetic interference (EMI).Electromagnetic interference is the disruption ofelectromagnetic signals used in communicationtechnologies including radio, television andmicrowaves. It has been discussed as a possibleproblem with certain aspects of wind generation,primarily the rotating blades of wind turbines andvery high voltage electric transmission lines. UHFtelevision signals are most easily reflected by tur-bine blades and television reception within threemiles (UHF) or 3/4 mile (VHF) of a turbine of suffi-cient size may be affected. The degree of interfer-ence depends on the blade material, turbine loca-tion relative to the signal path, and turbine size.Interference with FM radio reception has not beenreported. Microwave repeating stations are oftenlocated on remote and rural hilltops. These stations


rely on unobstructed line-of-sight paths for their sig-nals and consequently may be affected by windprojects which intrude into the beam corridor.Turbines can be built in close proximity to such sta-tions provided no portion of any structure intrudesinto the beam path. In addition, the electrical cir-cuits in the turbine may transmit an electromag-netic signal (noise) if it is not properly installed andmaintained. If this occurs, the FederalCommunications Commission requires that theinterfering signal be eliminated.

Local finances. Most jurisdictions in the UnitedStates assess and collect some type of propertytaxes. Development of wind resources may alsoprovide a new income to landowners and anincrease in the local tax base. The amount of prop-erty taxes likely to be paid by wind developerseach year is based upon the land and facility valueonce the project is operational. When a privatewind developer constructs a project on publicly-owned or managed land, property taxes may becollected on the value of the facilities and equip-ment, but usually not on the land itself. If the pro-ject developer is a government agency or a pub-licly-owned utility, they may be exempt from pay-ing property taxes. If there are adverse conse-quences to public services or infrastructure thatresult from development of these projects, the com-munity may not receive tax income to respond tothe consequences. A community may also beharmed financially if the community suffers adverseconsequences from a project but the tax revenuegoes to another entity such as a county.

Property values. Wind development projects havethe potential to affect property values but it remainsuncertain whether such effects are real or per-ceived. Whether and how the value of propertyunder the turbines is affected depends on the pro-ject’s impact on uses of the land and how paymentsto the landowner are structured. In one windresource area, property owners immediately adja-cent to a wind development leasehold argued thatwind turbine operation had significantly reducedtheir property values.

Tourism. Tourism is a unique consideration for afew communities. Some local governments havehad concerns about potential negative impacts ofwind development on local tourism. In oneinstance, the local government is now finding thatmany visitors are drawn to their area, asking about

wind energy technology and seeking tours of thewind facilities. This has enhanced the area’s attrac-tion to tourists and provided a small boost to thelocal economy. For this community, the wind tur-bines and their setting have even been used asbackdrops for television commercials.

Socioeconomic/Public Services/Infrastructure StrategiesPerforming an objective evaluation of the size ofthe project and the construction workforce, the tim-ing of project construction and operation, and thepotential overlap with other projects that may drawupon the same community resources is the key toresolving most concerns associated with socioeco-nomics, public services and infrastructure. Sincethe project may include construction of new roadsand services into previously inaccessible areas, newelectrical interconnections and transmission lines,the area affected by project development mayinclude several communities and extend into thejurisdiction of more than one agency.

An assessment can be conducted when adopting ormodifying a regional land use plan, when undertak-ing a general plan or zoning process, or when per-mitting an individual project. The earlier the assess-ment is performed, the greater its value will be inproviding guidance to developers, information tothe community and data to decision-makers. Theassessment should look at the construction andoperation of the development5 and compare theexisting community resources with the expecteddevelopment-related changes in population and theneed for services. Depending on the life-time of thedevelopment and its significance to the community,the assessment can also consider the project’sdecommissioning. In performing the assessment, itis important to define the area that may be affected.This may include an area located within one to twomiles from an individual project site for concernsabout community disruption or an area of one toone-and-a-half hours’ driving time from theresource area in the case of a concern such ashousing or worker implications.

For wind generation projects, especially those withdispersed turbines rather than concentrated masses,significant impacts on community resources areunlikely. For most project proposals, interagencycoordination and a simple review of basic designfeatures should provide adequate information andresolve the potential for project impacts.


5 “Development” as used here can range from the entire wind resource area to an individual project.

Demographics, employment, and public services.It is not expected that unique strategies for socioe-conomic, employment or public services will benecessary for most wind generating facilities.

Fire services. In fire sensitive environments, thedeveloper and permitting agency should workclosely with fire departments to develop construc-tion requirements and performance standards forwind generation projects. The design and place-ment of access roads and electric facilities is partic-ularly important in assisting with fire avoidance,suppression and control. Undergrounding of allelectric wiring up to the project’s substation willavoid most potential problems. In many cases, jointtraining of fire agency and protective services staffand industry personnel increase their overall abilityto respond to emergency situations. Most agenciescharge developers for the cost of fighting firesstarted by their equipment or workers. Permits forsome wind projects in fire prone areas includemutual aid agreements that extend to include allagencies with jurisdiction over a particular windproject site. (See PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.)

Transportation systems. The permitting agency canminimize impacts on transportation systems throughcareful route selection for transporting heavy equip-ment to and from the project site and by incorporat-ing road construction, maintenance and seasonalload restriction requirements into permit conditions.Road requirements should consider other concernssuch as erosion, visual impacts, and biologicalresources. They should also consider thelandowner’s needs and future closure of the facility.If the roads are likely to increase public access toan area which may result in safety, vandalism orenvironmental concerns, the number of roadsshould be minimized and use of the roads con-trolled. In cases where more than one wind devel-oper shares access roads, the permitting agencyshould coordinate requirements and efforts so alldevelopers who benefit also contribute to the costs.

Developers can be made responsible for impacts onpublic roadways through route requirements, condi-tion inspections and timely repair compensation.Where project roads enter paved public roads,paved aprons for a given distance may be required.

Airports. Conflicts between wind development andairports can easily be avoided through careful coor-dination between wind developers and local airportofficials in selecting sites and turbine types.

Electromagnetic interference (EMI). Non-metalblades currently used in most wind turbines havegreatly reduced concerns regarding electromagneticinterference. If interference problems are likely toexist after construction of a wind facility, highlydirectional satellite dishes, deep fringe antennas,local television repeaters, circularly-polarized trans-missions, and cable or satellite reception are poten-tial mitigation measures. Small, inexpensive digitalsatellite dishes are becoming more common, reduc-ing the likelihood of impact and making this mitiga-tion readily available.

The microwave communications industry has toolswhich define the necessary beam path’s locationand height above the ground between stations.Wind project developers can easily avoid creatinginterference by working with operators ofmicrowave communications stations in the vicinityof the project.

Local finances. In most cases, wind equipment andrelated development will be assessed for propertytaxes at the prevailing industrial use rate. The rateshould be correlated with the cost of providing ser-vices to the wind development (e.g., road mainte-nance, fire protection). Some states have reduced orexempted wind from property taxes to encouragedevelopment. In instances where a developer is


Property Tax Revenues vs.Cost of Additional Services

The long term value of tax revenues fromwind facilities was significant enough ($1.3 million annually) for one city toextend its jurisdictional boundaries fartherinto the wind development areas and wrestmost of the wind leases (and revenues)away from the adjoining jurisdiction.

On the other hand, some states havereduced or exempted wind from propertytaxes to encourage development.Developers, planners, and communitystakeholders need to take a realistic look atthe property tax implications of a proposedproject. Both projected revenues and thecost of additional public services need tobe considered and balanced.

exempt from taxation, the developer may agree topay fees for use of the land in lieu of property taxesto compensate for any additional burden placed onlocal services.

Property values. At least one developer avoidslocating wind facilities within a half mile of anyexisting residential developments to avoid issuesover property value impacts. Some permitting agen-cies have established land use buffer zonesbetween wind facilities and residential land uses toreduce or eliminate land use or property value con-cerns.

Tourism. Permitting agencies and project develop-ers should work together on opportunities toenhance the potential for wind energy projects tobenefit local tourism. Some communities have cre-ated information centers or viewpoints along majorroads or highways within the wind resource area toeducate the public and allow safe observation atlocations where wind turbines are not directly

accessible. One community hosts an annual “windfair” in coordination with wind project developerswhile another provides information on wind devel-opment over the radio for travelers passing throughthe wind resource area.

SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTESMost human activities produce some wastes whichmust be properly disposed of to protect the envi-ronment. These may be solid materials or liquids,inert or reactive, benign or hazardous. Wastes areproduced during construction, operation anddecommissioning of power plants, but their quanti-ties and characteristics are a function of the type offacility. It is important to plan for all three phases toprevent waste disposal from becoming a problem.For a coal-fired power plant ash is the most criticalsolid waste; for other mechanical plants the manylubricants, solvents and other fluids that keep theplant operating smoothly may be the most impor-tant wastes from an environmental perspective.When a power plant ceases to operate, all of its


Socioeconomic/Public Services/Infrastructure Tips


1) Early in the planning phase for a wind project, identify any community services and infrastruc-ture that may be affected by a project and work to involve all stakeholders in solving any con-flicts and designing mitigation plans.

2) Carefully review project design to avoid impacts to sensitive resources.

3) Work with all the concerned stakeholders to develop appropriate mitigation for unavoidableimpacts and monitor compliance to ensure the measures are implemented.

4) As any changes to the property tax rate are considered, local taxing jurisdictions should seekto recover only those costs directly associated with services to the wind development to avoiddiscouraging new wind projects.


1) Coordinate with the local agencies and service districts to determine if and how the projectmay affect community services and infrastructure.

2) If possible, design the project and phase construction to avoid or minimize potential impactson community services and infrastructure.

3) When possible, draw from the local labor pool and contract with local providers for suppliesand equipment during the construction and operation phases of the project.

components may become wastes which must beappropriately handled. (See Figure 14.)

Solid and Hazardous Waste ConsiderationsA wind project may be spread out over a wide area,and consist of several individual sites. Waste materi-als will be generated during construction as well asoperation of the facility. If turbines are not well-designed and maintained, fluid leaks at the turbinemay occur, resulting in fluids not only drippingdirectly downward but flying off the tips of theblades and contaminating the ground below. Thesemay be gearbox oils, hydraulic and insulating fluids.Some fluids may become hazardous wastes whenspilled on the ground. On-site storage of new andused lubricants and cleaning fluids also representhazards.

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

Problems with fluid leaks can be anticipated andavoided by use of non-hazardous fluids. If any haz-ardous fluids (or fluids which may become haz-ardous wastes if spilled) are used, a HazardousMaterials Waste Plan should be drawn up toaddress avoidance, handling, disposal, and clean-up. Turbine maintenance facilities and major tur-

bine repairs can be done off-site. Some permitshave banned on-site repairs of construction andmaintenance vehicles.

AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATEThe emissions from power generation plants typi-cally raise concerns about air quality and micro-cli-mate impacts. These concerns are addressedthrough the applicable facility siting and permittingprocesses.

The air quality impact analysis for most power gen-eration technologies focuses on the expected, day-to-day, ongoing emissions of both “criteria” and“non-criteria” air pollutants from the constructionand operation of the project.6 Typically, an air qual-ity impact analysis includes pinpointing the locationof the project site; reviewing local topography,regional climatology and meteorology, and existingambient air quality conditions in the project area;evaluating potential project emission types andrates; and the types of air pollution control mea-sures proposed. The analysis also evaluates whetherthe project will conform with all applicable airquality laws, ordinances, regulations, and standardsand whether the project is likely to cause new vio-lations or contribute to existing violations of thesestandards for ambient air quality.

Air Quality and Climate ConsiderationsAir quality. Wind generation is a non-combustionprocess relying on the direct conversion of physi-cal/mechanical energy into electrical energy. Thusunlike conventional electric power plants there areno emissions from the generation process. Indeed,to the extent that energy from wind facilities dis-places electricity from fossil fuels, pollutant emis-sions in other areas can be reduced.

Federal, state, and local air quality plans are con-cerned with particulate matter less than 10 micronsin diameter, known as PM10. Production of particu-late matter is the only air quality impact likely tooccur in conjunction with a wind energy facility,and is primarily associated with construction activi-ties. These pollutants will be largely confined to theproject area. No negative long-term air qualityimpacts are likely to occur.

Climate. The effects of wind turbines on localmicro-climates are not well known. However, the


Figure 14. Wind turbine parts can become solid waste, and need to be handled appropriately. Photo courtesy of the California Energy Commission.

6Under federal standards, “criteria” pollutants include sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter of various categories (soot),carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead. Non-criteria pollutants include organic toxic substances like dioxins and metals such as mercury.

effects of semi-porous wind breaks (which are simi-lar to the effects of a turbine rotor) have been stud-ied. Downwind effects include decreased windspeed, increased turbulence, slightly increased rela-tive humidity, and slightly increased soil moisture.The cross-sectional area of reduced wind velocity isslightly larger than the area swept by the blades,and extends about seven to twenty rotor diametersdownwind. These effects are moderated by changesin wind direction and the height of the rotor abovethe ground. Turbine-induced changes are expectedto be within the range of effects caused by naturalprocesses. Any increased soil moisture in moistenvironments such as coastal areas should have noappreciable effect. Thus, wind project-inducedmicroclimatic changes should be insignificant.

Air Quality and Climate StrategiesDuring the siting and permit processes, the ques-tion of whether construction and operation of thewind generation project will impact air quality isoften addressed. While it is difficult to accuratelyestimate project construction emissions, the poten-tial for construction impacts on ambient air qualitygenerally can be adequately mitigated during sensi-tive operations so the overall impact is likely to berelatively small and temporary. The permit processwill determine whether the project will complywith the applicable federal, state, and local airquality requirements.

CHAPTER 4 REFERENCESAvian Powerline Impact Committee (APLIC).

Proceedings: Avian Interactions with UtilityStructures International Workshop. ElectricPower Research Institute and AvianPowerline Impact Committee, December1993.

California Energy Commission (CEC). AvianMonitoring and Risk Assessment atTehachapi Pass Wind Resource Area,California: 1995 Progress Report. Initialreport on an ongoing CEC study.

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

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

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

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

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

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


GENERALAmerican Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

Publications include: Wind Energy Weeklyand Windletter. Fax-on-request service:1-800-634-4299. Web Site:http://www.igc.apc.org/awea. For a com-plete publications list, call (202) 383-2500.AWEA is the national trade association ofthe U.S. wind energy industry.

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

Landowner’s Guide to Wind Energy in the UpperMidwest. Nancy Lange and William Grant.Minneapolis: Izaak Walton League ofAmerica, 1995. Handbook written forlandowners in the Upper Midwest inter-ested in opportunities for wind powerdevelopment. Discusses how landownerscan evaluate their wind resources, howthey can evaluate the economics of windenergy under different development scenar-ios, and the contractual issues betweenlandowner and wind developer.

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

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

Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States.Elliott, D.L., C.G. Holladay, W.R. Barchet,H.P. Foote, W.F. Sandusky. DOE/CH10093-4. Richland, Washington:Pacific Northwest (Batelle) Laboratory,1987. http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas.

Wind Energy Series. Issue Papers and Briefs releasedby the National Wind CoordinatingCommittee. Prepared by M. Brower, J. Chapman, K. Conover, J. Hamrin, R. Putnam. Washington, D.C.: 1997. Available from RESOLVE, Inc., (202) 944-2300 andwww.nationalwind.org. Titles include

1) The Benefits of Wind Energy, 2) WindEnergy Environmental Issues, 3) SitingIssues for Wind Power Plants, 4) WindEnergy Resources, 5) The Effect of WindEnergy Development on State and LocalEconomies, 6) Utility Procurement of WindResources, 7) Wind in a RestructuredElectric Industry, 8) Incorporating Wind intoResource Portfolios, 9) Wind EnergyTransmission & Utility Integration, 10) WindPerformance Characteristics, and 11) WindEnergy Costs.

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

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

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

Windpower Monthly News Magazine. GrandJunction, Colorado.

SITING PROCESSEnergy Aware Planning Guide: Energy Facilities.

California Energy Commission: 1996.

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

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

APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Appendix A A-1

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

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

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

BIRDS AND OTHER BIOLOGICALRESOURCESEffects of Wind Energy Development: An Annotated

Bibliography. California EnergyCommission (CEC), March 1996.

Avian Monitoring and Risk Assessment at TehachapiPass Wind Resource Area, California: 1995Progress Report. Available from theCalifornia Energy Commission, (916) 654-4166.

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

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

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

VISUAL RESOURCESFoundations for Visual Project Analysis. Richard C.

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

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

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

SOIL EROSION AND WATER QUALITYBiotechnical Slope Protection and Erosion Control.

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

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

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

A-2 Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

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

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

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

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

Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff fromNew Development. New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation,Division of Water, Bureau of Water QualityManagement, 1992. Handbook reviewsstormwater principles and issues for thelayperson.

Revegetation of Disturbed Land in California. L. VanKekerix and B.L. Kay. CaliforniaDepartment of Conservation, Division ofMines and Geology, 1986. Handbook eval-uates the issues involved in the revegetationof disturbed sites. Information applicable toarid portions of the western US.

Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.Virginia Department of Conservation andRecreation, Division of Soil and WaterConservation. Third edition, 1992.Technical handbook presents planningguidelines and technical design information,including standards and specifications.

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

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICRESOURCESNational Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Includes

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

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

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA):1976. [Title 43 United States Code, sections1701-1784]. Requires the Secretary ofInterior to retain and maintain public landsin a manner that will protect the quality ofscientific, scenic, historical, ecological, envi-ronmental, air and atmospheric waterresource, and archaeological values [section1701(a)(8)]. The Secretary, with respect tothe public lands, shall promulgate rules andregulations to carry out the purposes of thisAct and of other laws applicable to publiclands (section 1740). Based on the direc-tives of this Act, the Department of Interiorhas developed guidelines for paleontologicresource protection and impact mitigation.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 1978. [title42 United States Code, section 1996]. Thisact protects Native American religious prac-tices, ethnic heritage sites, and land uses.

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

Appendix A A-3

Regulations of the Advisory Council on HistoricPreservation Governing the Section 106Review Process. Revisions effective October 1, 1986. [36 Code of FederalRegulations, Part 800: Protection of HistoricProperties]. Section 106 of the NationalHistoric Preservation Act of 1966 requires afederal agency head to take into accountthe effects of an agency’s undertakings on properties included in, or eligible forinclusion in, the National Register ofHistoric Places. These regulations set forththe steps that must be taken to identify,evaluate, and protect eligible or potentiallyeligible properties.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatria-tion Act. 1990. [Title 25, United StatesCode section 3001, et seq]. Defines “cultur-al items,” “sacred objects,” and “objects ofcultural patrimony;” establishes an owner-ship hierarchy; provides for review; allowsexcavation of human remains but stipulatesreturn of the remains according to owner-ship; sets penalties; calls for inventories;and provides for return of specified culturalitems.

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

A-4 Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS

Examples Taken from Nine California Counties

Appendix B B-1

Additional examples of wind energy permitting laws and guidelines,including those listed in Appendix A, are accessible through NWCC’s website: www.nationalwind.org.

B-2

Permitting of W

ind Energy Facilities

3X total WECSheight1fromresidential orcommercialzoning2(but in nocase less than500 ft)3

3X total WECSheight from aDwelling Unit2(but in no case lessthan 500 ft)4

1.25X total WECSheight from allproperty lines

3X total WECSheight from aBuilding Site uponwhich a windfarmhas not beenapproved2 (but inno case less than300 ft)4

3X total WECSheight2(but in nocase less than500 ft)3

6X total WECSheight from thetravelled way ofI-5805 (but in nocase less than500 ft)

NA

NA

Setback: Structures(e.g. residences,businesses)

Setback: Propertylines

Setback: Publicroads, highways

Setback: Railroads

Setback:Above GroundTransmission Lines(more than 12 kv)

Minimum 4X totalWECS height or1,000 ft (which-ever is greater)from any off-siteresidence on anadjacent parcel6

Minimum 1.5Xtotal WECS heightfrom any on-siteresidence oraccessory structuredesigned forhuman occupancy

4X total WECSheightor 500 ft(whichever isgreater)fromexterior bound-aries if projectsiteis adjacenttoparcels of less than40 acres6

1.5X total WECSheight from allexteriorboundariesif projectisadjacentto parcelsof 40 acresor more(allowance forsetbackreduction)

Minimum 1.5Xtotal WECS height

Minimum 1.5Xtotal WECS height

NA

No WECSshall becloser than 1,200ftfrom any residence,hotel,hospital,school, library, orconvalescenthome(may be reduceddue to factorsoftopography or thecharacteristicsofthe proposedWECSproject)

1.25XtotalWECSheight from any off-site building9

1.25X total WECSheight from any lotline9

Minimum 200 ftfrom any lot lineof a lot containinga dwelling

1.25X total WECSheight9

Scenic setbacksrequired fromvarious statehighways androads

1.25X total WECS

height1.25X total WECS

height9

Horizontal AxisWECS: 2X totalWECS heightfrom structuresand homes

Vertical AxisWECS: At least 10blade diametersfrom structuresand homes

NA

NA

NA

NA

1.25X total WECSheight from anyhabitable structure

2X total WECSheight from anyproperty line

5X total WECSheight from theright-of-way lineof any public roador highway

NA

NA

Setbackinformation is forCommercialWECS only

1.25X to 3X totalWECS height fromany building7 8

1.25X to 3X totalWECS height fromany lot line7 8

(If WECS islocated in the W-Eor W-1 zone) 3Xtotal WECS heightfrom lot line ofany lot containinga dwelling8

1.25X to 3X totalWECS height7 8

Scenic setbacksrequired fromvarious statehighways

1.25X to 3X totalWECS height7 8

1.25X total WECSheight

Minimum of 10 ftfrom any structureon the property

Minimum 1.25Xtotal WECS heightfrom any propertyline (Setbacksdetermined byheight may bewaived whenappropriateeasements aresecured fromadjacent propertyowners)

300 ft from anydistrict whichdoes not permitWECS

NA

NA

NA

NA

1.25X total WECSheight from anyexterior propertyline

1.25X total WECSheight

NA

NA

REQUIREMENTS ALAMEDA GLENN KERN MERCED MONTEREY RIVERSIDE SOLANO PALM SPRINGSCONTRA COSTA

A minimum of1,000 ft from anyexisting off-siteresidences orresidential areas

All WECS,buildings, andstructures shallbe sited tominimize visualimpact toresidenceswithin one mile

3X total WECSheight or 500 ft(whichever isgreater) fromexterior projectboundaries

All WECS,buildings, andstructures shallbe sited tominimize visualimpact toadjacentroadways, andCounty scenicroutes

NA

NA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS for WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS)

Appendix B

B-3

REQUIREMENTS ALAMEDA GLENN KERN MERCED MONTEREY RIVERSIDE SOLANO PALM SPRINGSCONTRA COSTA

Not closer than1,000 ft in anupwind directionfrom anydwelling; norcloser than 300 ftin any otherdirection fromany dwelling orBuilding Site;bonds required10

File reports;obtain veterinarycare; paymonitoring fees11

Electrocutionprotectionmeasures

Required prior toissuance of anybuilding permits

Noise Levels

Interferencewith BroadcastSignals/NavigationalSystems

Avian Injury/Mortality

Distribution Lines/Power Poles

Soil Erosion/SedimentationControl Plan

All on-siteelectricalwiresassociatedwith WECSshall beinstalledunder-ground

Not to exceed 55dB(A) atmeasurementpoint; limitreduced by 5dB(A) if pure tonenoise will begenerated;setbacks12

Shall comply withFAA regulationsfor sitingstructures near anairport orVORTAC station

NoncommercialWECS:Not toexceed65 dB,measured atnearestresidentialdwelling

Commercial WECS:Not to exceed65dB, measured atnearest inhabitedstructure

Shall not createelectromagneticinterference thatcan disrupt localresidents orbusinesses

File reports;contact avianrehabilitationcenter

NA

NA

In compliancewith NoiseElement of theGeneral Plan

No disruptingelectromagneticinterference shallbe caused

NA

NA

Not to exceed65dB(A);60 dB(A) ifpoint ofmeasurement isadjacent to a lotused for residential,hospital, school,library, or nursinghome purposes;AccessoryWECSnot to exceed60dB(A)

Not to exceed 50dB(A) CNEL atany property lineabutting aresidential zone;60 dB(A) CNEL atany otherproperty line

Wind turbinesshall be filteredand/or shieldedto preventinterference withbroadcastingsignals

File reports;annual fee tofund avianactivity research(Limited term,now expired)

Grading/erosion/sedimentationcontrol planrequired

Wind turbinesshall be filteredand/or shieldedto preventinterference withbroadcastingsignals

NA

Erosion controlplan required

Not to exceed65dB(A)as measuredat any lot line

Cashdeposit of$3,000 used inthe investigationand evaluation ofa noise complaintor permitviolation

Shall bedesigned,installed, andoperated so thatno distruptingelectromagneticinterference iscaused

NA

NA

NA

Not to exceed 45dB(A) for morethan 5 minutesout of any hour;or to exceed 50dB(A) for anyperiod measuredwithin 50 ft ofhome, school,hospital, church,or public library

Not to exceed60 dB(A) CNELfrom closestexistingresidence

NA NA Shall complywith FAAregulations forsiting structuresnear an airport orVORTAC station

NA NA NA Report all deadbirds found within500 ft of a WECS

Report all deadbirds found within500 ft of a WECS

Electricaldistributionlines onproject site shall beundergrounded

Transmissionlines under-grounded; raptorprotectionmeasures

Electricaldistributionlines onprojectsite shall beundergrounded;raptorprotection

Required prior toissuance of anybuilding permits;surety bond toguaranteeimplementation

NA NA

Inoperable orUnsafeWECS/SiteReclamation

Not operationalor not producingelectricity,dismantle bladeswithin 6 months;not operationalfor continous 2year period,reclaim site tonatural state

Not operationalfor continousperiod of 1 year,required to beremoved;permittee shallmaintain a fundpayable toCounty for theremoval

Surety bondsmay be requiredto guananteeremoval of anyabandonedwindmills

Reclamationplan and bondrequired

Reclamationplan required;cash depositrequired toinsurecompletion ofsite reclamation

Inoperable andunsafe WECS shallbe repaired orremoved by theowner; site shallbe restored to itsnatural condition;a bond may berequired

Not operationalfor continous 1year period WECSshall be declareda public nuisanceand must berepaired orremoved; a bondmay be required

NA

Halt work within30 meter radius;retainarchaeologist

EncounteringAchaeologicalResources

Halt work; retainarchaeologist

NANANA NA NA NANA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS for WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) (cont)

Has not produced electricity in 1year;50% of turb-ines being remov-ed or in disrepair, permittee shall restore site; cashperformance deposit required

Maintain phonenumbers ofinhabitants of alladjacentproperties inevent of fire

Blend withsurroundings

Safety/Security

WECS Height

Height of BladeTip from Ground

Density

Color/Finish

Accordancewith industrystandards

Fencing; warningsigns; fireprotection

Not to exceed200 ft

1 turbine per 10acres

NA

Fencing; warningsigns; manualand auto controlsto limit bladespeed

NoncommercialWECS:Not toexceed 50 ft;100 ftif parcel WECSislocatedon is 10acresor larger

Commercial WECS:200 ft maximum13

NA

Colors andsurface treatmentshall minimizedisruption

Fencing; guy wiresmarked; warningsigns; fireprotectionmeasures

Minimum 15 ftfrom groundunless enclosedby 6 ft highfence

Neutral,nonreflective

NA

REQUIREMENTS ALAMEDA GLENN KERN MERCED MONTEREY RIVERSIDE SOLANO PALM SPRINGSCONTRACOSTA

Warning signs;manual andautomaticcontrols to limitblade speed;tower accesslimitation

NA

NA

Nonreflective,unobtrusivecolor

Warning signs;fencing; fuelbreak

Braking system;blade pitchcontrol; manualand autooverspeedcontrols

NA Not to exceedmaximumheightallowed forantennaeand towersby the district withwhich Wind EnergyDistrict is combined

CommercialWECS: Complywith height limitsof zone wherelocated

Accessory WECS:80 ft or less in anyzone

NA No lower than15 ft unlessenclosed by 6 fthigh fence

Lowest position ofblade shall be atleast 30 ft abovethe ground and 30ft above highestexisting structureor tree within a250 ft radius

Lightenvironmentalcolors, or darker,fully-saturatedcolors; matte orgalvanized finish

ProjectIdentificationSigns/Advertising/Logos

Brand names oradvertising shallnot be visiblefrom any publicaccess

No advertisingsign or logo onany WECS; nomore than 2projectidentificationsigns, not toexceed 16 sq ftin area or 8 ft inheight

One projectidenification sign,not to exceed 50sq ft or 8 ft inheight; noadvertising signsor logos on WECS

One projectidentificationsign, not toexceed 32 sq ft inarea

Rated capacity,meteorologicaldata, actualpower generated

Status Report Ratedcapacity,meteorologicaldata, actualpowergenerated

NANANA NA Quarterly powerproduction reportto the PlanningDepartment

NANA

NA

NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA NANANA

Nonreflective,unobtrusivecolor;nonreflectivesurface

Nonreflective,nongloss gray

Lightenvironmentalcolors, or darker,fully-saturatedcolors; matte orgalvanized finish

NA NA NA No advertisingsign or logos onWECS; no morethan 2 signsrelating to thedevelopmentallowed, not toexceed 15 sq ftin area or 8 ft inheight

Brand names oradvertising shallnot be visiblefrom any publicaccess

ComprehensiveGeneral Liabilityin minimum of$1,000,000

Insurance Policy GeneralLiability andWorkers'Compensationin minimum of$1,000,000

NANANA Shall maintain aninsurance policyto coverinstallation andoperation ofWECS

NANA NA

d

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENTS for WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) (cont)

Windmillequipped withbraking system;blade pitchcontrol

Horizontal axisWECS: No lower than 25 ft; Vertical axis WECS: If rotors are <15 ft from the ground,WECS shall beenclosed by a fence

Horizontal axisWECS: No lower than 25 ft; Vertical axis WECS: If rotors are <15 ft from the ground,WECS shall beenclosed by a fence

B-4

Permitting of W

ind Energy Facilities

APPENDIX B NOTES

1 Total WECS height is measured from grade to the uppermost extension of any blade, or the maximum height reached by any part of thewindmill.

2 If the ground elevation of the windmill is 2 or more times the height of the windmill above the protected feature, the setback shall be 4Xtotal height of the windmill.

3 A reduction may be granted if it is shown in a report prepared by a qualified professional, and verified by the County, that a lesser mini-mum setback is adequate, however, in no case shall a setback less than 300 ft ever be provided.

4 This setback may be reduced by a maximum of 50% if the written, notarized, and recorded agreement of the affected property owner isobtained.

5 Setback from the travelled way of I-580 shall be 8X the total height of the windmill if the ground elevation of the windmill is 2 or moretimes the height of the windmill above the travelled way of I-580.

6 The Planning Director may allow a reduction in this setback, not to exceed a minimum setback of 1.5X total WECS height, if a letter ofconsent from the owner of the adjacent parcel is filed with the Planning Department.

7 If WECS is located in the W-E zone or W-1 zone, the setback shall be 1.25X the total WECS height from the protected feature. If locatedin any other zone, the setback shall be 3X the total WECS height.

8 This setback shall be reduced to 1.25X total WECS height if WECS is certified as complying with safety standards or may be reduced to1.25X total WECS height if the topography of the adjacent property eliminates or substantially reduces potential safety hazards.

9 This setback may be reduced to less than 1.25X total WECS height if Planning Commission determines that the topography of, or otherconditions related to, the adjacent property or right-of-way eliminates or substantially reduces the potential safety hazards.

10 A cash bond in the amount of $2,000 to be used in the investigation of a noise complaint. A $10,000 performance bond which shallinure to the benefit of property owners or residents within one half mile of the windfarm who suffer damage as a result of a violation ofthe noise standard.

11 Fees shall be used by County to hire a consultant to prepare a permanent compliance monitoring program to oversee compliance withexisting and proposed mitigation measures, EIR, and General Plan.

12 Wind turbines prohibited within 200 ft of any property used for residential, hotel, hospital, school, library or convalescent home pur-poses. Acoustical report indicating compliance with noise level limits required for wind turbine development at a distance between 200 ftand 3,000 ft from previously stated land uses. At distances greater than 3,000 ft from previously stated land uses, development may bepermitted without acoustical study.

13 WECS shall be equipped with air traffic warning lights and shall have prominent orange markings on the rotor blade tips if total heightexceeds 175 ft or if any WECS exceeding 125 ft in total height is placed at an elevation over 200 ft.

Appendix B B-5

APPENDIX C: NOISE MEASUREMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a typical community or habitation, ambient(background) noise is typically a conglomeration ofnoise from nearby and distant sources, relativelysteady and homogeneous, with no particular sourceidentifiable within it. Manmade noise is noticeableto many receptors when it exceeds the naturallyoccurring background noise by about 3 dB. Tonal(distinct frequency) noise is much more noticeableat the same relative loudness level because it iscomposed of one or more distinct tones, whichstand out against broadband (multi-frequency)background noise.

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

• “A Proposed Metric for assessing the Potentialof Community Annoyance for Wind TurbineLow Frequency Noise Emissions” (SERI/TP-217-3261). Published in November, 1987 bythe Solar Energy Research Institute (now the

National Renewable Energy Laboratory) basedin Golden, Colorado. In this publication, NeilKelly proposed a low frequency noise metric.

• “Procedure for Measurement of AcousticEmissions from Wind Turbine GeneratorSystems, Tier 1 - 2.1” Published by theAmerican Wind Energy Association (AWEA),Washington, DC, 1989. Copies of AWEA’smeasurement procedure are available fromAWEA’s Publications Department at (202) 383-2520.

In addition to these, a standard measurement docu-ment is being developed by the InternationalElectrotechnical Commission (IEC)’s TechnicalCommittee 88 (TC-88) on Wind Turbine GeneratorSystems. The document was prepared by WorkingGroup 5 on Acoustic Measurement Techniques forWind Turbine Noise Emissions. It was balloted as aDraft International Standard, but the draft wasrejected. The draft may either be revised and bal-loted again, or a new acoustics standard may bedeveloped based on recent scientific advances. Toobtain the most current information about the statusof this standard, contact the IEC at:

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix C C-1

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

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

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

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

C-2 Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

Appendix C C-3

Typical Environmental and Industry Sound Levels

Source/Distance A-Weighted Environmental Subjectivity/from Source Sound Level Noise Impression

Civil Defense Siren 140-130 Pain Threshold[Tonal]

Jet Takeoff (200’) 120[Broadband and Tonal]

110 Rock Music Concert Very Loud

Pile Drive (50’) 100[Impulsive]

Ambulance Siren (100’) 90 Boiler Room[Tonal]

Freight Cars (50’) 80[Broadband and Impulsive]

Pneumatic Drill (50’) 80 Printing Press Loud[Broadband] Kitchen Garbage Disposal

Freeway (100’) 70 Moderately[Broadband] Loud

Vacuum Cleaner (100’) 60 Data Processing Center[Broadband and Tonal] Department Store/Office

Light Traffic (100’) 50 Private Business Office Quiet[Broadband]

Large Transformer (200’) 40[Tonal]

Soft Whisper (5’) 30 Quiet Bedroom

20 Recording Studio

0-10 Threshold of Hearing

Source: Peterson and Gross, 1974

Definition of Some Technical Terms Related to Noise

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

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per secondabove and below atmospheric pressure.

A-Weighted Sound Level, dB The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on aSound Level Meter using the A-weighting filter network. TheA-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and veryhigh frequency components of the sound in a manner simi-lar to the frequency response of the human ear and corre-lates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levelsin this paper are A-weighted.

L10, L50, & L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 10%, 50%,and 90% of the time, respectively, during the measurementperiod. L90 is generally taken as the background noise level.

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

Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day,obtained after addition of 5 decibels to levels in theevening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night between 10 pmand 7 am.

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

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. Thenormal or existing level of environmental noise at a givenlocation.

Intrusive Noise That noise which intrudes over and above the existingambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusivenessof a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequen-cy, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational con-tent as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: California Department of Health Services, 1976.

C-4 Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities

APPENDIX D: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

John BalestreryMerced County, California

Hap BoydEnron Wind Corporation

Sheila BradyEnvironmental consultant

Bill ChapmanWind Master

Paul ClarkRiverside County, California

Zach CowanCity of Berkeley, California

Dick CurryKenetech

Rich FergusonSierra Club/Center for Energy Efficiency andRenewable Technologies

William “Wally” FlintCarter Wind Turbines

Paul GipePaul Gipe & Associates

Diane GomezUS Bureau of Land Management

L. Darryl GrayAlameda County, California

Elaine HebertCalifornia Energy Commission

Wayne HoffmanFloWind

Lori JablonskiCenter for Energy Efficiency and RenewableTechnologies

Claude KirbyUS Bureau of Land Management

Kip KuntzSea West

Dave McIlnayUS Bureau of Land Management

Emil MorozUniversity of Texas, El Paso

Paul OlmsteadSacramento Municipal Utility District

Brian ParkerSolano County, California

Richard PatenaudCity of Palm Springs, California

Javier RiosZond Systems, Inc.

Doug RomoliUS Bureau of Land Management

Joanie StewartKenetech

Georgette TheotigSierra Club

Jim WilliamsUS Bureau of Land Management

Linda WhiteKern Wind Energy Association

Appendix D D-1

The National Wind Coordinating Committee gratefully acknowledges the input of the following individuals,who agreed to share their experience and expertise in the permitting of wind energy facilities in confidentialinterviews with the authors of this handbook.

The NWCC is a collaborative endeavor formed in 1994 that includes representatives from electric util-ities and their support organizations, state legislatures, state utility commissions, consumer advocacyoffices, wind equipment suppliers and developers, power marketers, environmental organizations,and state and federal agencies. The National Wind Coordinating Committee identifies issues that affectthe use of wind power, establishes dialogue among key stakeholders, and catalyzes appropriate activi-ties to support the development of an environmentally, economically, and politically sustainable mar-ket for wind power.

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

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

American Wind Energy Association

California Energy Commission

Colorado Public Utilities Commission

Conservation Law Foundation

Edison Electric Institute

Electric Power Research Institute

Enron Wind Corporation/Zond Systems

Environmental & Energy Study Institute

Environmental Defense Fund

Green Mountain Power Corporation

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Izaak Walton League of America

Minnesota Attorney General’s Office

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

Missouri Public Counsel’s Office

Montana Power Company

National Association of Regulatory UtilityCommissioners

National Association of State Energy Offices

National Conference of State Legislatures

New Hampshire Consumer Advocate Office

Northern States Power

Ohio Consumer Counsel

Oregon Public Utility Commission

PacifiCorp

ReGen Technologies/AllEnergy

Texas General Land Office

Texas State Energy Conservation Office

Union of Concerned Scientists

U.S. Department of Energy

Utility Wind Interest Group

Vermont Department of Public Service

Vermont Public Service Board

Worldwatch Institute

Wyoming Energy and Conservation Office

Wyoming Public Service Commission

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

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

NWCC members and alternates include representatives from:

Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities...eration and oversight of proposed wind projects. Chapter...

Documents

Transcript of Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities...eration and oversight of proposed wind projects. Chapter...