1. Audible Sound Limit.

a. No Wind Turbine or group of turbines shall be located so as to cause an exceedance of the pre-construction/operation background sound levels by more than 5 dBA or dBC. The background sound levels shall be the L90 dB sound descriptor (both A and C weighting) measured during a pre-construction noise study during the quietest time of evening or night. Measurements shall be for ten (10) minutes or more. L90 results are valid when L10 results are no more than 15 dB above L90 for the same time period. Noise sensitive sites are to be selected based on wind farm’s predicted sound emissions (in dBA, dBC and 1/3-octaves to blade passage frequency), which are to be provided by developer.

b. A 5 dB penalty is applied for pure tones or when the sound emissions fluctuate in amplitude or frequency over time in reasonable synchronicity with the blade revolution.

2. Inaudible (e.g., Low Frequency) Sound Limit.

a. Not to exceed dBC − dBA greater than 20 dB inside or outside any occupied structure.

3. General Clause.

a. Not to exceed 40 dBA or dBC within 100 feet of any occupied structure.

L. Setbacks. Setbacks shall be measured from the outermost edge of the closest of the circular path of the wind turbine rotor blade. The Town Board may increase the following minimum setbacks on a case-by-case basis, in order to protect public health and safety.

1. Participating Property Line: 1.1 times the total height of the Wind Turbine from the nearest property line of a participating property owner.

2. Non-participating Property Line: Five (5) times the rotor diameter but not less than 1,300 feet from the nearest property line of a non-participating property, unless the owner of the non-participating property grants an easement for a lesser setback. The easement must be recorded with the County Register of Deeds and may not provide for a setback that is less than 1.1times the total height of the Wind Turbine.

3. Public Roads and Highways: 1,300 feet or three (3) times the total height of the Wind Turbine, whichever is greater.

4. Above Ground Power/Telephone Lines: 1,300 feet or three (3) times the total height of the Wind Turbine, whichever is greater, from the nearest above-ground public electric power line or telephone line.

5. Residences & Other Buildings: 2,640 feet from the nearest residence, business, school, daycare facility, church, hospital and other sensitive receptors.

6. Wetlands: 1,000 feet from all sinkholes and wetlands.

7. Water Bodies Setbacks: 1,300 feet from the ordinary high water mark of all navigable water bodies.

8. Parks & Public Property: 2,640 feet from any town, county or state park, property, recreational or rest area.

Download “Wilton, Wisc., Wind Ordinance” (PDF)

Download “Ridgeville, Wisc., Wind Ordinance” (Word document)

During micrositing many aspects have to be regarded:

• wind conditions (statistic data concerning wind speed and wind direction)
• building requirements (e.g. distances to residences)
• ownership structure of the area
• accessibility (existing roads)
• influence of the WTG on the environment (e.g. shadow flickering, noise emission)
• distances between the individual turbines in a park

The knowledge of the wind conditions is very important for the decision about the development of a wind park. It is always the best to have measured data of the planned site for a period of at least two years. But this is not always possible. In case of a shorter measurement period wind consultants can find out the conditions by an interpolation of long-term measurements of near-by weather-stations.

Based on the information about the wind conditions it is possible to choose the type of turbine and the park layout which provides the highest energy production while keeping the external requirements. Based on a realistic forecast of the energy production it is possible to decide whether to invest in wind energy or not.

It is important to keep a distance to the next residences in order to not disturb the inhabitants by noise emission and shadow flickering of the turbine. [emphasis added] Normally there have to be at least 500 m [1,640 ft] between the WTG and the next residence.

But it is also very important to keep the distance between the turbines in the park. A layout of a wind farm where the turbines are placed too close to each other could endanger the material and reduce the operating life of the turbines. A rotor of a WTG causes high turbulences that reduce the energy output of the next turbine. Compared with a single stand-alone turbine there are also higher loads on the following turbine because of increased turbulences in the wind park. Therefore the minimum distance between two turbines depends on the wind conditions and may be e.g. 6 rotor diameters (D) in the main wind direction and 4 diameters in other directions. As a matter of principle the turbulence intensities at the WTG should not exceed the certificated turbulence intensities.

The distances between the turbines also have a strong effect on the energy output of the wind park. This effect is described by the park efficiency, the relation between the output of the park and the output of the same number of stand-alone turbines. Therefore the layout has to be planned carefully.

Download “Micrositing”

Extracted text:

Wind Project Siting Issues
• Need high quality wind resources
• Large footprint, small power output
• Wind power — Green but high cost alternative
• Tall Structures — Highly Visible
• Impact on local property values
• No air/water emissions but may pose other environmental health & safety challenges
• Wind generation environmental/economic benefits

Wind Project Development Issues
• Large footprint, small power output
– Industry rule of thumb has been that a conventional 1.5 MW
turbine design needs turbine spacing of roughly 40 acres of cleared
land/turbine to avoid wind turbulence interference. AWEA
believes 75 acres/turbine required for larger new turbine designs.
To displace energy from New England’s smallest coal unit
(Somerset) would require 167 turbines covering 22 miles of
mountain ridge line.
– As turbines have gotten larger (up to 3.6 MW offered), minimum
spacing requirements have also increased. Need spacing of roughly
8-10 blade lengths (4-5 rotor diameters) between turbines. Newer
larger model designs may require spacing equivalent to 75-100
acres/turbine.
• Wind power — Green but high cost power alternative
– High capital cost
– Low capacity utilization
– Little capacity credit towards reserve margin requirements
– Heavily dependent upon large ratepayer & taxpayer subsidies and mandates to compete against conventional electrical power generation sources

Wind — A High Cost Alternative
• High Capital Cost
– Project capital costs have been rapidly escalating due to high turbine demand, weak dollar and rapid increases in labor, materials and supplies
– Capital costs have escalated to $2,100-2,400/kW
• Poor Capacity Utilization
– 29% in 2005 average for 83 reporting projects
• Low Assigned Capacity Value towards reserve margin requirements
– 5,000 MW of new wind project capacity required to offset need for one 500 MW fossil fired powerplant in New England

Wind Production Cost Before Federal/State Incentives

Production Costs are highly sensitive to projected project output performance
Capital Cost $2,100/kW
Fixed O&M $35/kw-yr
Cost of Capital 13.3%
@30% CF — $120/MWh

Renewable Energy Subsidies
Federal
• Federal Production Tax Credit — $20/MWh for 2007 (10 years — must be online by 12/31/07).
• Accelerated 5 year depreciation (Federal)
State
• Renewable Portfolio Standards — Renewable energy credit market developed to implement standard. In one project analysis, these credits may exceed more than 25% of the project capital cost.
• State tax incentives
• Green power purchase programs
• Public Benefit funding for qualifying projects

Wind Project Issues
• Tall Structures — Highly Visible
– Wind turbines can range from 320-510 high
– Taller than Statue of Liberty (305 feet high — 112 feet without base)
– Turbine towers can range from 200-350 feet high
– Turbine rotor can range from 250-340 feet in diameter
– Night lights on structures for safety reasons

Wind Project Development Issues
• Small contribution to county property taxes
– In some states, energy producing equipment exempt from property taxes, taxable items may be limited to foundation and tower structure
– Some developers also apply for additional local tax relief.
• Impact on local property values
– 7 Studies: Wind farms may have adverse property value impacts
– 4 Studies: No adverse property value impacts

Effects on Local Property Values — Few studies exist, some methodology flaws

– Several factors drive local property values– interest rates, local economic activity, supply/demand for area properties, recreational activities, etc. It is difficult to isolate market impact from wind turbines without conducting a large, long term assessment.

– Does it affect property demand?

Studies Concluding Wind Turbines Devalue Local Property Values
• 2001-02 Lincoln Township WI study comparing property sales prices to assessed values before and after wind farm construction. Assessor reported that property sales (vs. 2001 assessed values) declined by 26% within 1 mile and by 18% >1 mile of its wind farm project.
– However, study includes related party transactions. Moratorium Committee survey of County residents reported 74% of respondents would not build/buy within 1/4 mile, 61% within 1/2 mile and 59% within 2 miles of wind farm.
• May 2000 Country Guardian article Case Against Windfarms — Observations of English surveyors concluding wind turbines significantly decrease property values by as much as 30%.
– Simple survey, no transaction data provided.
• 1996 Danish report Social Assessment of Wind Power — Visual Effect and Noise from Windmills — Quantifying and Valuation contained survey of 342 people living close to wind mills. Survey found 13% of people surveyed considered wind mills a nuisance and would be willing to pay 982 DKK per year to have them leave. Survey of house sale prices showed 16,200 DKK lower price near single windmills and 94,000 DKK lower price near wind farms versus similar houses located in other areas.
• Assessed values declined significantly for property adjoining Mackinaw City WTG after it started operation.
• Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land: An RICS survey (November 2004) Khatri, 2004 Survey by Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors found 60% of respondents thought a wind farm would decrease value of residential properties within its view. Only 28% of the respondents thought a wind farm would decrease the value of surrounding agricultural land while 9% thought there would be a positive agricultural land value impact. Provided no analysis of value change or supporting transaction data.
• Economic Analysis of a Wind Farm in Nantucket Sound (May 2004) Haughton, Survey of land owners from 6 towns on Cape Cod. On average, home owners believe that the windmill project will reduce property values by 4.0%. Households with waterfront property believe that it will lose 10.9% of its value. Applying these survey results, the study estimated the total loss in property values resulting from the construction of an offshore wind farm to be over $1.3 billion, a sum that is substantially larger than the approximately $800 million cost of the wind farm itself. Provided no supporting transaction data
• Appraisal Consulting Report — Forward Wind Project — Dodge County WI (May 2005) Zarem Appraisal report examining paired sales of electric transmission line in Wisconsin concluded that a wind farm would cause an estimated 17-20% lot value loss within view shed.

Studies Concluding Wind Turbines Do Not Devalue Local Property Values
• Economic Impacts of Wind Power in Kittitas County (2002) ECONorthwest– Telephone survey of tax assessors views of 2 proposed Washington projects. Concluded no adverse property impacts. No supporting transaction data provided.
• Effect of Wind Development on Local Property Values (May 2003) Renewable Energy Policy Report examines property values in areas within 5 miles of surrounding 9 large wind farms. Concludes “presence of commercial scale wind turbines does not appear to harm property values.” Did not attempt to look at property values from within 1 mile due to limited data. Could not compare “like” properties. Roughly 70% of data was related party transactions and 72% of the data did not have actual views of the turbines.
• A Real Estate Study of the Proposed Forward Wind Energy Center Dodge & Fond du Lac Counties WI (May 2005) Poletti & Associates, Examined property sales records in Kewanee County Wisconsin and Lee County Illinois, had discussions with two town assessors, reviewed the two prior wind property studies above and reviewed property value impact studies of sanitary landfills. Concludes that the “Forward Wind Energy Center is so located as to minimize the effect on the value of the surrounding property.”
• Impacts of Windmill Visibility on Property Values in Madison County New York (April 2006) Hoen reviewed 280 homes sales within 5 miles of an operating wind farm and concluded that view of wind turbines in this county did not affect real estate values. Hoen cautions about applying conclusions to other non-similar settings.

Wind Project Development Issues
• No air emissions but may pose other environmental
health & safety challenges
– Wildlife: Has caused bird and bat deaths if poorly located. Concerns raised when endangered species are in area
– Shadow Flicker: Strobe like effect caused by shadows of moving blades
– Noise: Noise at turbine hub can range from 100-105 dBA. Can be noticeable for long distances in more remote areas with existing low ambient levels (Humans can differentiate sounds up to 3 dBA above background levels)
– Aviation hazard: May cause radar interference. FAA can deny permits if turbine heights pose airport safety risk. Illinois Agricultural Aviation Association has adopted a resolution not to serve areas inside or immediately adjacent to wind turbine groupings
– Ice Throw: Turbines can throw ice accumulating on blades. Risk increases with decreasing distance.

Wind Siting Issues — Environmental Health & Safety

• Local ordinances for wind power development needed to protect public health
& safety, minimize adverse environmental impacts and achieve land use plan
Setback provisions
– Noise
– Visibility — Address through limiting allowable sites and setting minimum
project setbacks and height restrictions.
– Shadow Flicker — Address though minimum setbacks and/or WTG location
– Safety (blade throw, ice throw, structural failure, ground clearance) — Use Setback & minimum clearance requirements.
– Setbacks can reach up to 2500 ft; Boone County: 2,000 feet setback provision; Bureau County: 750 minimum setback from any residence, Lee County: 1,400 feet from residences, 500 feet from roads; Pike County: minimum 3 times turbine+tower height from home
– 9-10 Rotors recommended
– Height restrictions
– Exclude areas from development
• Local ordinances for wind power development needed to protect public health & safety, minimize adverse environmental impacts and achieve land use plan
– Unsafe & inoperable wind energy facilities — Require bond to cover cost of removal & site restoration.
– Interference with navigational systems — Location away from airport flight paths & locking mechanisms to limit airport radar interference
– Non-compliance penalties — Must remove facility if out-of-compliance

Claimed Wind Project Benefits
• No air emissions
– SO2/NOx emissions may be displaced but are not avoided. Displaced generation cancel/transfer their emission credit to other stations/units. As environmental limitations continue to tighten, the amount of displaced emissions will continue to decrease.
– Projects will displace emissions of CO2 emissions from generation sources on margin (usually natural gas fired power facilities). However, if region has cap & trade program emissions may be displaced and not avoided.
• Reduced dependence on fossil fuel
– Wind/renewable projects displace generating units on the margin — in New England mostly gas-fired generation
– Since wind power has no capacity value, power companies must still build new fossil fuel capacity to meet increase power demand
• Lease payments to local property owners (>$1,000/turbine/year)
– Property owners often lose ability to develop their property during lease period (up to 30 years). In some cases, WTGs have devalued local surrounding property values and Commissions have ordered developers to pay adjoining landowners.
• Jobs
– Some temporary construction jobs created to erect wind turbines (0.7-2.6 jobs per turbine depending upon construction period).
– Few maintenance jobs (usually <10 for large wind farms).
-- Some economic activity and jobs may be lost if higher power costs imposed onto local ratepayers through renewable portfolio standards.

Avoided Emission Claims -- Fact of Fiction?
• SO2 and NOx powerplant emissions are subject to cap and trade programs. Owner of any displaced emissions can sell surplus/unused credits to another emitting source allowing it to emit at levels above their initial allocation. Therefore, pollutants subject to cap & trade programs may be displaced but not avoided.
• In 2009, CO2 emissions from the power sector in 10 RGGI states will become subject to a cap & trade program. Two states have authorized CO2 cap & trade programs. Ten more states committed to starting one
• For any individual power project, avoided emissions should be a comparison of total power sector emissions with and without the stated project. Since most wind projects are being built to meet a state RPS requirement, the "without the project case", would likely be another renewable energy project that would be built to meet the special set-aside RPS demand. Therefore, the correct comparison for a given individual project would be a comparison of emissions from the proposed wind project vs. another qualifying renewable project.

Download “Wind Power Siting Issues — Overview”

• Regulation of the siting and installation of wind turbines is necessary for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of neighboring property owners and the general public.
• Wind Energy Facilities represent significant potential aesthetic impacts because of their large size, lighting, and shadow flicker effects.
• If not properly regulated, installation of Wind Energy Facilities can create drainage problems through erosion and lack of sediment control for facility sites and access roads, and harm farmlands through improper construction methods.
• Wind Energy Facilities may present a risk to bird and bat populations if not properly sited.
• If not properly sited, Wind Energy Facilities may present risks to the property values of adjoining property owners.
• Wind Energy Facilities are significant sources of noise, which, if unregulated, can negatively impact adjoining properties.
• Construction of Wind Energy Facilities can create traffic problems and damage local roads.
• Wind Energy Facilities can cause electromagnetic interference issues with various types of communications.

Download “Local law governing wind energy facilities in the town of Hamlin”

Download “Comments to the Moresville Energy Project DEIS” (large)

Download “Comments to the Moresville Energy Project DEIS” (small)

Decision: The appeal is dismissed. (Date 07/02/08)

Main issues: In my view the main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and the effect on residential amenity.

Download “Appeal Decision, Rhos Garn Whilgarn, Tagarreg, Llandysul, Ceredigion”

First, a decision to allow wind development on WMAs would set a precedent not only for other Oklahoma public lands, but also for public lands in adjacent states. This could cascade into large-scale habitat fragmentation which would directly conflict with the stated goals of management of these lands. Additionally, private landowners in the immediate area would essentially see any wind development on public land as an indication that wind power is compatible with ecological integrity and function. The scientific and conservation communities have ample data that indicates it is not. … Furthermore, endorsing wind development on a WMA would directly contradict the professional recommendations of wildlife biologists, including ODWC staff, which will compromise the credibility of wildlife professionals at multiple levels. …

[T]he Lesser Prairie-chicken, a game species in serious decline, is known to have recently occupied the Cooper WMA and adjacent lands. The USFWS is currently considering if the Lesser Prairie-chicken’s candidate status warrants elevation. This is due primarily to the effects of habitat fragmentation from rapidly increasing oil, natural gas, and wind power development within the range of the species. Prairie grouse in general exhibit strong avoidance of vertical structures, habitat fragmentation, and human disturbance. As Cooper WMA is one of the few publicly-managed parcels within occupied range, wind power development would be detrimental to the Lesser Prairie-chicken’s current status and future recovery. … In addition to concerns regarding the Lesser Prairie-chicken, this area also falls within essential flight zones for the endangered Whooping Crane and Mexican free-tailed bat maternity caves.

We realize that, on the surface, wind power appears attractive as a source of renewable, non-polluting energy — something all of us in the conservation community support. However, we must stand by the data, which raise serious concerns regarding wind energy production potential, limited carbon offset, minimal local economic benefit, and permanent fragmentation of habitat. Thus, the ecological footprint is large relative to the meager environmental benefits. [emphasis added -- NWW] We can provide data from around the world to support that wind turbines and the associated infrastructures have deleterious effects on wildlife species. In fact, The Wildlife Society (the professional organization of wildlife biologists) recently released an official statement entitled “Impacts of Wind Energy Facilities on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat” that clearly states the negative consequences of wind power with recommendations regarding placement. …

Dr. R. Dwayne Elmore, Treasurer
Oklahoma Chapter, The Wildlife Society

Dr. Craig A. Davis, President
Oklahoma Chapter, The Wildlife Society

Dr. Rick Baydack, President
North American Grouse Partnership

Dr. Steve K. Sherrod, Executive Director
Sutton Avian Research Center

Donald H. Wolfe, Senior Biologist
Sutton Avian Research Center

Dr. Timothy J. O’Connell, President
Oklahoma Ornithological Society

Download “Letter to Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Conservation”

Each Wind Turbine must be set back:

1. at least 1,000 feet from the nearest property line and at least 5 times the rotor diameter of the rubine from the property lines of all adjoining property owners who have not granted an easment for a lesser setback; and
2. at least 1,000 feet of three (3) times the total height of the Wind Turbine, whichever is greater, from any public road, railroad or power line right-of-way; and
3. at least 1,000 feet of three (3) times the total height of the Wind Turbine, whichever is greater, from the nearest above-ground public electric power line or telephone line; and
4. at least 2,640 feet fro the nearest residence, business, school, daycare facility, church, hospital and other inhabited structures; and
5. at least 1,000 feet from all sinkholes to prevent groundwater contamination; and
6. one mile from emergency communications towers.

Download “Town of Union Wind Energy Systems Licensing Ordinance”

Download “Town of Union Large Wind Turbine Citizens Committee Setback Recommendations Report” (24 MB)

January 23, 2008

Attention: Director, Lands Staff
4th Floor-South
USDA Forest Service
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Mailstop 1124
Washington, DC 20250

FAX: 202-205-1604

Download “Comments: USFS Wind Energy Proposed Directives”

Also see the letter from Friends of Beautiful Pendleton County here at National Wind Watch.

April 2007

“This document does not question whether we should be developing windfarms or should not be developing windfarms, or even whether they look good on a landscape or are a visual intrusion on the landscape. We are simply addressing the methodology used by the windfarm industry, who in our opinion, have been using misleading methods for the last 11 years whilst seeking to obtain planning permission.”

Download “The Windfarm Visual Issue”