Wind Energy Siting Plan

Wind Energy Siting Plan
for Dukes County
Draft Working Document

Version 1 – Background and Possible Approaches
January 11, 2010
Wind Siting Plan for Dukes County – Draft Working Document – Version 1 1
This is a draft working document. We invite corrections, clarifications,
corrections, and additions.
Note: This document was prepared by the MVC staff and has not been reviewed by the
Commission. Any analysis or comments should not be taken as reflecting on possible current or
future positions of the Martha's Vineyard Commission.
The preparation of the Dukes County Wind Siting Plan – Phase 1 was financed in part by the
Massachusetts Department of Energy and Environmental Resources – District Local Technical
Assistance.
MARTHA'S VINEYARD COMMISSION
P.O.BOX 1447  33 NEW YORK AVENUE  OAK BLUFFS  MA  02557

508.693.3453  FAX: 508.693 7894 
INFO@MVCOMMISSION.ORG  WWW.MVCOMMISSION.ORG
REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY OF DUKES COUNTY

SERVING: AQUINNAH, CHILMARK, EDGARTOWN, GOSNOLD, OAK BLUFFS TISBURY, & WEST TISBURY
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Planning and Regulatory Context

a. Energy Use and Needs
b. Commonwealth of MA Energy Initiatives
c. Martha's Vineyard Commission
d. Town Regulations: Existing and Pending
3. Factors for Siting Wind Turbines

a. Wind Availability and Access
b. Safety
c. Noise and Vibration
d. Flicker Effect
e. Relation to Transportation
f. Natural Environment
g. Economic Activities and Property Values
h. Recreational Activities
i. Visual Impacts and Scenic Values
j. Cultural Values
k. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)
l. Construction and Decommissioning
m. Operation and Maintenance
4. Project Development and Regulatory Process

a. Public, Inter-Municipal and Community Development and Benefits
b. Planning and Regulatory Processes
Appendices
1. Introduction
In the fall of 2009, the Martha's Vineyard Commission began working on a Wind Energy Siting
Plan for Dukes County. The Plan deals with both land-based and offshore wind energy facilities,
particularly those that have a regional impact. When completed in 2010, the Plan will include
standards for the siting of wind turbines, including ancillary equipment, access roads, and
transmission lines.
The Wind Siting Plan will be able to be used in four ways.
 The MVC will use the Siting Plan to help revise the DRI Checklist, which is used to
determine which projects should be reviewed by the MVC as Developments of Regional
Impact. It will also be used as criteria for reviewing these DRIs.
 The MVC, towns, and non-profit organizations can use the Siting Plan to identify
possibilities for inter-municipal or regional approaches regarding financing, development,
distribution, and electricity use.
 The Siting Plan will also address the MVC’s role, expected to be recognized in the
Commonwealth’s Ocean Management Plan, to determine what constitutes appropriate
wind energy facilities in ocean waters.
 The Siting Plan’s process and results should also prove useful to towns reviewing
applications for wind turbines under existing regulations. It can also be used by towns
evaluating their own wind facilities regulations, especially as they pertain to larger
turbines, and to formulate new zoning regulations, such as under the auspices of a District
of Critical Planning Concern.
The existence of clear project evaluation criteria will allow property owners and developer to
know what parameters must be met and what factors the regulatory authority will weigh in
evaluating the proposal. For decision making bodies, the criteria guide their evaluation of
proposals, ensuring that pertinent issues for consideration have already been identified.
This Document: At this stage, this document is basically an overview of information relevant to
the preparation of the Wind Siting Plan for Dukes County. As we move through the process, we
anticipate that future versions of this document will serve as the main reference document in the
process of arriving at a definitive plan and set of standards for siting wind turbines.
There are many other useful documents and sources of information related to this issue. Some
references are provided throughout this document, and a few key ones are listed below.
The Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan deals in great depth with many of the issues and
factors involved in siting offshore wind turbines and will be used as a starting point for efforts
here. There are references to relevant materials in that Plan, but no attempt has been made to
repeat or summarize that information here. Also, there are many guides available to assist wind
energy developers, which include considerable useful information which is not repeated here. This
document focuses mainly on issues relative to public authorities planning and regulating wind
development, especially as it pertains to Dukes County, Massachusetts.
Wind Energy: Generating electricity locally can help stabilize our energy costs; reduce
hazards, power losses and costs associated with bringing fuel and power from off-Island; and
provide a strong new sector to our year-round economy and labor market. The main potential
local sources for renewable generation – wind, solar, and geothermal – can provide the
Vineyard’s power needs while appreciably lessening our carbon dioxide emissions. Energy
generated from biomass, septic waste, or solid waste may also supplement our needs.
There are three general categories of wind turbines:
- small, residential-scale, or on-site, facilities serving the relatively small energy demands of the
individual landowner,
- medium, municipal-scale facilities for 500'
individual users with large energy

needs or serving a cluster of energy
users, and
- large, utility-scale facilities providing
power to a broad community of users.
300'
There are no standardized measures to

distinguish among these. Some places use
the power generation capability to
differentiate among classes, others use
Wind, especially the stronger winds
offshore, offers the best opportunity for 100'
utility-scale generation, which is needed if

we are to meet much of our Island's
energy needs. Relatively large amounts of
5 kW East 10 1.3 2.5 MW 6 MW
Res Chop kW MW Offshore Offshore
Light HS Hull
land are needed for utility-scale solar and
wind facilities, and large wind turbines could have significant local impacts, which is an
inducement to erect wind powered facilities offshore.
The map on the next page shows why wind energy is of such great interest here, namely because
our area has the best wind resources on the Atlantic coast.
Sources of information: It is challenging to find objective and reliable information about wind
energy development. Most of the available information comes from one of two sources.
 The first type of source is the wind industry as well as government departments with the
specific mandate of promoting wind energy. This information seems to downplay the
possible negative impacts associated with developing wind turbines. They generally
propose standards that appear to be quite permissive (for example, setbacks only 1.5
times the height of the turbine or noise being acceptable provided it is above 55
decibels).
 The second source is groups opposing wind farms. This information emphasizes the most
negative impacts of wind energy development. They call for standards that appear to be
quite restrictive (for examples, setbacks of 1 to 2 miles, or noise levels limited to 35
decibels).
As our community works to understand the issues involved, it will be desirable to identify sources
of neutral expertise. The fact that, like us, Cape Cod will be working on this in the coming year
offers the possibility of a fruitful collaboration, and the Martha's Vineyard Commission and Cape
Cod Commission have started exploring how this could take place.
The following are a few key sources of information. Others are listed in relevant sections and in
the appendix.
 U.S. Department of Energy -
 Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources –
 U.S. Department of Energy – Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy – Wind and
Hydropower Technologies Program - http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/
 Smart Growth Toolkit – Wind:
http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod-wind.html
2. Planning and Regulatory Context
2.1 Energy Use and Needs

Note: This section is excerpted from the Martha's Vineyard Island Plan
As of 2005, the Vineyard used approximately 4.3 trillion BTUs of energy annually (equivalent to
757,000 barrels of oil, or three quarters of a 1000’-long supertanker). We use about 30% of this
energy for heating and cooling our buildings, 33% for electricity for lighting, appliances,
machinery, and 37% for transportation. Our primary energy fuels are oil, propane, and gasoline,
as well as electricity generated primarily from the source fuels (in order of magnitude) natural gas,
nuclear, coal, and oil. Most of the cordwood burned for heat comes from off island. The
generation of electricity on-Island from small wind turbines and various solar systems does not yet
produce a meaningful percentage of our energy needs.
The Vineyard intrinsically consumes a disproportionally high amount of energy because of the
nature of our buildings and settlement pattern. It costs a lot more to heat a single-family dwelling
with four exposed walls and a roof, than an apartment that only loses heat through one exterior
wall. And our low-density housing, spread-out across the Island, means that we have a much
higher proportion of people that drive compared to an inner-city neighborhood where people can
more easily walk, bike, and take transit.
There are several reasons to want to change the current system of providing energy to the
Vineyard community.
 With respect to cost, the Vineyard has a large and steadily increasing annual energy bill (more
than $64 million in 2005). Our energy costs are among the highest in the United States. Since
more than 99% of our energy is produced off-Island, these expenditures leave our local
economy. Both the Vineyard’s year-round community and visitor-based economy are particularly
sensitive to high energy costs and disruptions to the energy supply.
 With respect to the environment, fossil fuels are our major source of energy. There is general
scientific agreement that burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide that is influencing the
earth’s atmosphere and contributing to rapid climate change. Burning these fuels results in air
and water pollution and emissions, which endanger health and contribute to climate change.
Annual carbon dioxide emissions attributable to the Vineyard were 329,000 tons in 2003 and
will rise to 457,000 tons by 2050 if we take no new action. The Vineyard is particularly
vulnerable to effects of climate change such as rising sea levels, more frequent and severe
weather, and health risks from insect-borne diseases. Importing our electricity from distant
power plants means that a substantial amount of power is wasted in the conversion of source
fuels into electricity and in transmission losses; it takes about three units of energy at the plant to
produce one unit on the Vineyard.
 With respect to reliability, foreign fuel sources are increasingly insecure and unstable and may
subject the community to supply shortages and price fluctuations beyond our control. The fact
that we have to bring energy to our shores results in higher risks. Fuels are shipped to the Island
by ferry or barge, subjecting the Vineyard to shipping-related issues. Electricity is brought to the
Island by four 23.2 kilovolt underwater cables that are vulnerable, hard to repair, and the
Vineyard’s 50-megawatt peak electricity usage level is fast approaching their 62.5 megawatts
capacity; the cost of additional cables will be high and will be borne by all.
Many communities in the U.S. and elsewhere are well ahead of us in embracing new
technologies to change their dependence upon fossil fuels, and can serve as models for Martha’s
Vineyard. Also, the Vineyard’s abundant resource of wind energy gives us options not available
to most other communities.
Well before 2050, the Vineyard could generate enough renewable energy to supply our
electricity needs and to offset the carbon from the fossil energy we would still likely need to
import, based on the projection that energy efficiency measures will reduce demand by 50%. Any
number of potential combinations of energy source type and scale could achieve energy self-
sufficiency. One largely decentralized scenario of mostly on-site, municipal-scale wind and solar
facilities would have a capital cost of about $1.4 billion. A more centralized scenario of utility-
scale facilities would produce the same energy at about half the cost.
2.2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Energy Initiatives

The Patrick administration and Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs have taken an
aggressive approach to energy efficiency. The Governor set an objective of having 2000
megawatts, 15% of the Commonwealth’s total electrical consumption, coming from renewable
sources by 2020.
2.2.1 Green Communities Act: In July 2008, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed
into law the Green Communities Act (Section 105 of chapter 169 of Acts of 2008). This Act
“launches the Commonwealth into a new era of clean energy development. It remakes the
electricity market to reduce energy consumption through a dramatic increase in energy efficiency
technology and renewable energy development. The Act requires that the Department of Energy
Resources (DOER) complete numerous tasks within a relatively short period of time.”
The Act created the Green Communities Program within DOER (Commissioner Phil Giudice) to
serve as the hub for all cities and towns on all matters related to energy. The goal of the
Program is to: “enable cities and towns to maximize opportunities to save energy in schools, city
halls, firehouses, and other public buildings; to generate some of their energy needs from wind,
solar, and forest trimmings; and to make other decisions that reduce their environmental impact
and carbon footprint, and ultimately, to put the Commonwealth at the hub of the 21st century
clean energy economy.”
Municipalities can qualify as Green Communities provided they meet five requirements:
 adopt local zoning bylaw or ordinance that allows “as-of-right-siting” of renewable energy
projects – siting that does not unreasonably regulate these uses;
 adopt an expedited permitting process related to the as-of-right facilities;
 establish a municipal energy use baseline and establish a program designed to reduce
baseline use by 20% within five years;
 purchase only fuel-efficient vehicles for municipal use, whenever such vehicles are
commercially available and practicable;
 require all new residential construction over 3,000 square feet and all new
commercial and industrial real estate construction to reduce lifecycle energy costs.
The Green Communities Program offers a range of initiatives and services to cities and towns on
the path to becoming Green Communities. These include:
 An Energy Audit Program that provides auditors to assist communities in benchmarking their
buildings with the EIS, perform detailed energy audits of those building that are
underperforming, provide recommendations for energy efficiency measures with their costs
and estimated energy savings, and performs feasibility studies for clean technology where
appropriate.
 Energy Management Services Technical Assistance, a form of energy savings performance
contracting, to allow town implement significant energy savings measures without upfront
capital; the projects are paid for by borrowing against future energy bill savings. Per statute,
the state’s Department of Energy Resources (DOER) has oversight authority for city and town
performance contracts, and can assist communities in all aspects of considering the use of
this contracting mechanism.
 The Green Communities Grant and Loan Program for qualifying communities, to help them
implement significant energy efficiency measures, construct large renewable energy projects,
or pursue other innovative projects that further the communities’ efforts to reduce their fossil
fuel energy consumption.
 The Program also offers a team of experts to assist towns in becoming Green Communities
and a toolkit to guide communities through the Qualification Criteria for becoming a Green
Community and other services. Two towns in Dukes County, Tisbury and West Tisbury, are
among the 106 municipalities in Massachusetts that requested and were given Green
Community planning technical assistance.
2.2.2 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan: The Massachusetts Oceans Act,

adopted in May 2008, allows for certain types of development within ocean waters that had
previously been prohibited by the Ocean Sanctuaries Act. It allows for “appropriately-scaled”
renewable energy (wind, tidal), sand and gravel, pipelines, aquaculture, etc. in conformity to an
Ocean Management Plan and set a procedure for development of this Plan. The Commonwealth’s
Ocean Management Plan was finalized at the end of 2009. It includes a comprehensive analysis
of available data in order to determine what ocean areas a suitable for various types of
development.
The Ocean Plan identifies two areas in state waters for commercial, utility-scale wind-generated
renewable energy, both in the waters of Dukes County. One area is south of Nomans Land Island
(in the waters of Chilmark and Aquinnah) and the other is south of the Cuttyhunk Island (in
Gosnold). Combined, these two areas could host about 150 turbines (3.4 megawatt, 440’ high)
producing about 600 megawatts.
The Ocean Act allows the State’s Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) to override town or MVC
decisions to deny or condition commercial developments within the EFSB’s jurisdiction, currently
more than 100 megawatts, provided the proposal conforms to the Ocean Plan. As a result of
representations by state and local elected officials and by the MVC, the Secretary of Energy and
Environmental Affairs agreed that the final version of the Ocean Plan specifies that Regional
Planning Agencies with regulatory authority will make the determination as to what constitutes the
“appropriate scale” of a facility, effectively determining what type of development is acceptable.
It specifies that for Dukes County, the recognition of MVC applies only to the Nomans Land site,
not to the Gosnold one.
In addition, the Ocean Plan provides for “community” wind developments, namely up to a given
number of turbines per region – 17 for Dukes County – to be planned and apportioned among
member municipalities by regional planning agencies and subject to approval by town boards of
selectmen.
The Ocean Management Plan also suggests that the federal government develop additional
turbines in federal waters between and beyond the two state-designated areas to create one large
wind farm area which would wrap around the western and southern sides of Dukes County.
The Ocean Plan provides that 50% of mitigation fees from renewable energy projects would “flow
through” municipalities.
The Plan also suggests that the federal government designate the federal waters joining these
areas to create one large wind farm area. The federal government has initiated a process for
planning development of wind farms in a large area of federal waters stretching from south of
Martha's Vineyard to south of Nantucket identified as having exceptionally good wind resources.
This area offers the potential of significantly greater energy production due to higher wind
speeds, while minimizing environmental and other impacts on the land and in coastal areas
(birds, boating, scenic values, etc.). However, technologies for erection of wind turbines in
deeper waters are not as proven.
These state and federally identified areas could not only serve as the site for any Vineyard-
initiated or owned wind projects, they could also generate many times the power needed by the
Vineyard. It is very likely that power from these wind facilities would be connected to a substation
in New Bedford.
The Gosnold Board of Selectmen came out in favor of the windfarm west of Cuttyhunk provided it
meets certain requirements, such as setting turbines farther offshore and avoiding the fishing area
on Sow and Pigs reef.
Note that the MVC made comments on the Ocean Plan supporting local control over decision
making and pointing out several deficiencies in the methodology, but did not take a position in
favor or against the basic idea of having wind turbines in the proposed or other locations.
References:
 Ocean Management Plan
 MVC Comments on Draft Plan – parts 1 and 2
 Gosnold Board of Selectmen Comments on Draft Plan
2.2.3 Wind Energy Facilities Siting Reform Act: As called for in the Green Communities
Act, the Commonwealth intends to adopt the Wind Energy Facilities Siting Reform Act, which
would streamline approval of large-scale wind turbines throughout Massachusetts. The objective is
to: Encourage the development wind energy generating plants and ancillary facilities by
establishing clear siting standards, one-stop permitting at the local and state level, and
streamlined appeals of such permits.
The current version of the Act deals with facilities greater than 2 megawatts, such as three 660
kw turbines and includes the following provisions.
 The Commonwealth’s Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) already has the authority to
override local permitting for energy facilities of more than 100 megawatts. The current
wording of the bill would lower this threshold to 2 megawatts.
 It calls for the establishment of state wind siting standards, to be set with input from an
Advisory Group and which could vary region to region. The standards should protect
residential neighborhoods, and protect significant scenic and recreational resources and
environmentally sensitive areas (state or federally recognized). A project developer who meets
the state standards would be eligible for fast-track permitting at state and town levels.
 It allows for the creation of municipal “Wind Energy Permitting Boards”, with representatives
from the Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and ZBA. In high wind speed areas
designated by DOER, creation of the Board is mandatory; otherwise, the Planning Board acts.
The Board would be the single permitting entity for the town, can waive local requirements
(e.g. zoning height and use limits), can hire technical consultants and charge a fee, can
impose an impact fee (capped by DOER), can accept other mitigation, and can enter into a
power purchase agreement. If a proposal meets the state standards, the Board must act in
120 days; otherwise in 180 days.
 The original proposal included a provision that would have allowed the Commonwealth’s
EFSB to override an MVC or town decision to condition or deny a wind energy facility of
more than 2 megawatts. As a result of efforts by the MVC and other regional planning
agencies, by the Mass Municipal Association, and by our senators and representatives, the
latest draft wording no longer includes this provision. However, abutter and other third party
appeals would go to the EFSB.
It is not clear if or when the Commonwealth intends to move ahead with this proposal.
References:
 Wind Energy Siting Reform Act - Draft
 MVC Comments on Earlier Draft
2.3 Martha's Vineyard Commission

2.3.1 Energy Policy: In 2006, the MVC adopted an Energy Policy favoring promotion energy
efficiency and the appropriate development of local renewable energy production.
2.3.2 Energy Policy for DRI Review: In 2008, the MVC adopted the DRI Energy and
Environmental Building Policy. It outlines criteria for project review including energy efficiency
standards. It also includes guidelines to: Design and construct all buildings to provide for the
incorporation - now or in the future - of renewable energy.
2.3.3 Island Wind District of Critical Planning Concern: The Martha's Vineyard
Commission recently designated the Island Wind District of Critical Planning Concern for the
airspace above most of the lands and waters under its regulatory jurisdiction. The Ocean Zone of
the DCPC was designated on November 4, 2009, and includes the airspace above elevation
220’. The Land Zone was designated on December 17, 2009, and includes the airspace above
150’ in Aquinnah, Chilmark, Oak Bluffs, Tisbury, and West Tisbury, with certain exclusions.
Under the DCPC, the MVC set goals and guidelines which provide the framework for the towns to
develop regulations that are then administered by the towns. A moratorium on permits in the
District is in effect until towns adopt regulations or for a maximum of twelve months.
2.3.4 Island Plan: In December, the MVC adopted the Island Plan for guidance and vision.
The Plan outlines long-term goals for the Island, including the proposal that over the next
generation, the Island become much more energy self-sufficient. This would involve greater
efficiency measures and locally produced energy from renewable sources. The Plan recommends
that, with current technology, off-shore wind appears to be the most cost-effective way of
producing substantial amounts of renewable energy, but the Plan makes no suggestion as to
where such offshore facilities might be located.
Island Plan Objectives and Strategies Related to Renewable Energy Generation

Objective E5: Pursue local, utility-scale generation of energy.
 Advocate changing State law to allow electricity distribution by local energy generation
facilities.
 Establish an electrical cooperative or Island utility company.
 Prepare a plan that identifies the best locations for renewable energy facilities .
 Explore renewable energy generation with site-specific sources.
Objective E6: Optimize potential for on-site, residential-scale energy generation.
 Identify sites with advantageous access to renewable energy sources.
 Require that new development provide for the incorporation - of renewable energy.
 Promote conversion to more energy-efficient building and hot water systems.
 Develop information and incentive programs for property owners to encourage on-site
energy generation.
 Investigate renewable energy options specific to farmers.
Objective E7: Develop capacity and a regulatory framework to encourage and support the
development and installation of renewable energy generation.
 Create training programs for workers needed to support the growing renewable energy
industry.
 Adopt development regulations that encourage renewable energy generation.
 Improve consumer education and protection by providing current information on products
and practices.
2.4 Town Regulations: Existing and Pending
Regulation of wind turbines vary greatly among the six Vineyard towns and Gosnold. Some have
not revised their zoning bylaws to acknowledge wind turbines and treat them as they would
communication towers with height exemptions. Others have added or are in the process of
adding wind turbines as an accessory land use and proscribing the zones in which they are
allowed (all but Oak Bluffs are by Special Permit).
All the town’s wind regulations seem oriented to single user scaled turbines but also allow for
shared “community” and municipal turbines. Oak Bluffs proposed bylaw and Aquinnah’s newly
adopted wind bylaw limit land-based turbines to a blade-tip height of 150 feet (except for
publicly owned turbines). Aquinnah is the only one setting out and reserving sections in
anticipation of future regulations for offshore wind facilities.
(See 2.3.3 Island Wind District of Critical Planning Concern about the process underway for
developing regulations pertaining to large wind turbines on and off shore.)
Note: A matrix of local bylaws will be added here.
3. Factors for Siting Wind Turbines
In addition to the technical feasibility (sufficient wind resource, connectivity to electrical grid, site
accessibility, etc.), there are many local factors that typically arise in the evaluation of wind
turbines for a particular site. Considerable difference of opinion exists regarding the validity of
concern for some of the factors, and there is a wide disparity among some of the regulatory
practices and standards employed by communities in North America and Europe.
3.1 Wind Availability and Access

This factor applies to both land-based and offshore wind turbines.
Issues
Wind has to be of a certain quality in order for it to be utilized by wind turbines to generate
electricity. The wind resource varies with the time of day, season, height above ground, and type
of terrain. Annual average wind speeds of about 8 miles per hour may be adequate for small
domestic applications but large, grid-connected turbines need speeds of 11 mph, with about 16
mph being preferred. At 164 feet (50 meters) above ground, all of Dukes County has average
wind speeds above 13.4 mph. At 230 feet up (70m), wind speeds over most of Gosnold,
Aquinnah, the western half of Chilmark, Katama and Chappaquiddick exceed 16.8 mph and
most of the rest is above 15.7 mph. Except northeast of Oak Bluffs, offshore speeds top about 18
mph.
The slight differences in speed greatly affect the energy potential of the wind. The energy
available in a wind stream is proportional to the cube of its speed, which means that doubling the
wind speed increases the available energy by a factor of eight. Wind Power Density, measured
in watts per square meter, indicates how much energy is available at the site for conversion by a
wind turbine. A wind power rating of Class 4 or higher is preferred for large scale wind plants.
In addition to the quality of the wind resource, another consideration in siting wind facilities is
how to transmit the turbine’s electricity to the electrical grid or directly to the consumer. Large
wind facilities with large and/or multiple turbines require transmission lines to the grid of sufficient
size. If these are not part of the local existing electrical grid network, lines will have to be
extended – adding greatly to the project cost.
Since the wind is a resource with economic value to a landowner, there is the concept of
protecting the wind resource from abutting landowners. The wake effects of a turbine on wind
currents are such that multiple turbines are spaced 3 rotor diameters crosswind and 10 diameters
downwind. If those distances extend beyond the property on which the turbine is located, this is
essentially taking the undisturbed wind resource that otherwise would be available to the abutting
landowner (akin to an upstream landowner damming the stream or altering its flow or quality for
the downstream landowner). Setting back such distances requires very large properties, the size
found in extensive farmlands or mountainous area; not usually on the Vineyard, but present on
most of Gosnold. Nevertheless, if there are a few particularly well suited properties for large wind
turbines on the Vineyard, whether due to their size, location, public ownership, or the presence of
a large electricity land use, it may be prudent to consider protecting the quality of the wind that
reaches such properties. This could be by the turbine developer obtaining the wind development
rights of the abutting properties or, if there was sufficient public welfare as stake, the locality
might regulate turbines – large and small – on nearby properties.
Approaches
Proper siting in windy locations, away from large obstructions, enhances a wind turbine's
performance. Localities can zone areas with favorable wind resources for wind facilities, looking
at possible grid connections and planning upgrades to foster their development.
To protect the wind resource of landowners, setbacks may be established to prevent the turbines
on one property from diminishing the potential for abutting properties to (similar to some localities
prohibiting a landowner from blocking direct sunlight – potential solar energy source – that would
otherwise shine on an abutting property). A California community required a lateral setback (in
relation to the wind direction) of 3 rotor diameters. Sometimes a turbine developer will obtain
easements to prevent abutting property from potentially affecting the characteristics of wind that
approaches the turbines. This same principle could be used for downwind abutters.
Resources
 Table of wind speeds and power density from American Wind Energy Association, Basic
Principles of Wind Resource Evaluation http://www.awea.org/faq/basicwr.html
 Larwood, Scott, and van Dam, C.P. (California Wind Energy Collaborative). 2006. Permitting
Setback Requirements for Wind Turbines in California, California Energy Commission, PIER
Renewable Energy Technologies. CEC-5---2005-184.
3.2 Safety
Issues
The physical safety of surrounding landowners, occupants and property is the type of land use
protection localities are most familiar with addressing. A British-based source tracking reported
wind turbine accidents cites the following [Note: The source does not include the total number of
wind turbines erected, so no estimation is made of the rate of accidents. The numbers following
each of the accident causes are the source’s cumulative reported numbers from 2005 through
2009 and are provided as an indication of relative frequency among the causes.]:
 Blade failure (82 accidents) [Note: Another source reviewing pre-2005 data placed the
risk of failure at approximately 1-in-1,000.] arise from a number of possible sources, and
results in either whole blades or pieces of blade being thrown from the turbine. Sources
differ on the maximum distance that small blade fragments have been confirmed to fly
from a turbine’s base (500 meters and 1,300 meters), and the maximum throw distance of
an entire blade was 150m.
 Fire (72 accidents) is a concern because local firefighting capabilities may not be able to
reach the height of the tower, leaving the fire to extinguish itself.
 Tower collapse (48 accidents), for which one analysis of Danish and German turbine
failures showed the risk zone to be equal to the tower height plus half the rotor diameter –
essentially, the blade-tip height.
 Ice throw (11 accidents) is the shedding of ice attached to the blades as they revolve. This
was thought to be greatly underreported and appears to count only the incidents of ice
throw that resulted in some damage. Ice throw has been reported to 140m. However,
most wind turbines are fitted with vibration sensors to detect any imbalance which might
be caused by icing of the blades. This enables the operation of machines with iced blades
to be inhibited.
Approaches
A setback distance from property lines is the remedy to protect surrounding properties and
abutters from potential structural failure of turbines. In looking at the setback requirement of other
localities, it cannot always be determined when a setback is based on safety issues, since
setbacks are also often used to mitigate other issues such as noise. The minimum setback found
was at least equal to the tower height plus half the rotor diameter.
An Environmental Impact Statement prepared prior to the development of regulations by the
heavily developed Riverside County, CA, in the early 1980s contained an estimated fragment
throw distance of three times the blade-tip height.
A California study observed that the throw distance is a function of tip speed, and tip speed has
remained nominally unchanged as turbine size has increased. Therefore, it concluded, safety
setbacks based on overall turbine height may be reduced for larger turbines.
The Canadian utility Hydro One Systems is putting in place a guideline to require wind turbines to
be 500 meters (more than 1,500 feet) from its critical assets, the 500 kV transmission corridors.
Less important power lines have lesser setbacks of 250m and 150m.
The General Electric turbine manufacturer recommends an ice safety setback of 1.5 times the sum
of the turbine hub height plus the rotor diameter.
Exclusion zones from wind facilities for safety and security purposes limit access around turbines.
In the United Kingdom, they are typically 500m during construction and 50m during operation.
Developers can apply for safety zones around any wind, wave or tidal energy generating station
within English, Scottish and Welsh waters within the 12-mile limit, but not power cables.
France imposes a 500m “no-go” area to the public around operational turbines.
Resources
 Rademakers and Braam, Analysis of Risk-Involved Incidents of Wind Turbines, Attachment 1
published as Appendix A in Guide for Risk-Based Zoning of Wind Turbines, 2005
 Setbacks explained at www.windconcernsontario.wordpress.com
 Caithness Windfarms Information Forum, Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31
December 2009 http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/accidents.pdf
 Palmer, William, Improvements to Wind Setbacks in Europe and Elsewhere, November 2009,
Posted on Wind Concerns Ontario.
 Planning Advice Note 45 (revised 2002): Renewable Energy Technologies , Scotland
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/02/pan45/pan-45
3.3 Noise and Vibration

This factor applies primarily to land-based wind turbines.
Issues
Sound from wind turbines will vary depending upon the size and make of the turbine and
atmospheric conditions. Turbines can make different types of sounds: broadband, infrasonic,
impulsive and tonal. The reach of these sounds and whether they are objectionable, i.e. noise,
will vary depending on its type, the physical characteristics of the surroundings and atmosphere,
and the circumstances and sensitivity of the individual receptor. Studies indicate that people who
find wind turbines objectionable for other reasons (visual impact, lack of participation in decision
making) have heightened perception of turbine noise and experience more irritation than others.
The wind industry acknowledges that noise is a legitimate concern. Issues with wind turbine noise
revolve around the appropriate measurement of noise, the acceptable amount of sonic change to
the surroundings, and the distinction between annoyance and health impacts.
Sound is perceived based on a combination of two variables: pitch (i.e., tonal or frequency
measured in wave cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz) and loudness (i.e., volume or sound
pressure level measured in decibels (dB) and the dB(A) scale adjusted to give more weight to
the audible spectrum). The higher the pitch, the less sound pressure is necessary to be audible.
Conversely, very low frequency sounds require high pressure before being audible.
 Broadband sound is comprised of multiple sound waves with different frequencies and has
no distinct pitch nor does it start or stop abruptly. Lower frequencies (less than 100Hz) can
often be felt before heard, such as an approaching car stereo’s bass.
 Infrasonic sound is very low frequency (less than 20Hz) sound is barely audible, but can
be relatively high decibels, and cause structural vibrations, such as window rattling.
 Impulsive sound is a burst of sound pressure like a clap or door slam, but need not be
loud.
 Tonal sound can have a distinct pitch, like a musical note, and does not start or end
abruptly.
Modern large wind turbines have greatly minimized mechanical sound generated from gearboxes
and control mechanisms, although these can still be a source of tonal sound. The main source of
turbine sound is aerodynamic sound produced by the turbine blades moving through the air.
Aerodynamic sound is greatest at the blade tip and most pronounced on the downswing of the
blade, resulting is a perceptible, rhythmic “swooshing” approximately every second. This
frequency modulation is now thought to be related to the difference in wind speed between the
top and bottom of the rotation of a blade. This fluctuation is most pronounced under stable
atmospheric conditions – which usually occur at night.
Which Sound to Measure - The American and Canadian Wind Energy Associations
(AWEA/CanWEA) state at distances between 1,000 and 2,000 feet, wind turbine noise is
generally within 40 to 50 dB(A) (a December 2009 AWEA report states no more than 50 dB at
about 1,500 feet), comparable to the typical sound in a living room (40 dB) or light auto traffic
from 50 feet (50 dB). The decibel scale is logarithmic, so a 10 db increase represents a doubling
in loudness. An increase in 3 dB is perceptible to the human ear.
The focus on loudness does not address the acknowledged major concern with turbine noise,
namely its fluctuating nature. As the annoyance of a given sound increases as loudness increases,
there is also a more rapid growth of annoyance at low frequencies. Additionally, critics point out
that using the dB(A) weighting system significantly reduces the measured intensity of the
problematic low frequency component of wind turbine sound. One suggestions has been to apply
a 5 dB(A) penalty to counterbalance the inherent low decibel levels of wind turbine’s cyclical
sound. Such penalties are used to better adjust decibel weighting scales as applied to different
types of sounds.
Source / Activity Indicative noise level dB(A)
Threshold of pain 140
Jet aircraft at 250m 105
Pneumatic drill at 7m 95
Truck at 30mph at 100m 65
Busy general office 60
Car at 40mph at 100m 55
Wind farm at 350m 35-45
Quiet bedroom 35
Rural night-time background 20-40
Threshold of hearing 0
Source: PAN 45 (2002), Scotland
The International Standards Organization (ISO) recommends setting a base limit of 35– 40 dB(A)
and adjusting the limit by district type and time of day. This table lists the adjusted limits from a
base of 35 dB(A).
ISO 1996-1971 Recommendations for Community Noise Limits
District Type Daytime Limit Evening Limit (7 - Night limit (11
11 PM) PM – 7 AM)
Rural 35 dB(A) 30 dB(A) 25 dB(A)
Suburban 40 dB(A) 35 dB(A) 30 dB(A)
Urban
45 dB(A) 40 dB(A) 35 dB(A)
residential
Urban Mixed 50 dB(A) 45 dB(A) 40 dB(A)
Acceptable change in background sound - Industry sources cite baseline noise levels
ranging from 40 dB(A) and up, above which a 5 and even 10 dB increase from turbine noise
may be allowed. Scotland recognizes low noise environments where noise should be limited to an
absolute level (no increase from turbines) within the range of 35-40dB(A). The actual value chosen
within this range depends upon the number of dwellings in the neighborhood of the wind farm,
the effect of noise limits on the number of kWh generated, and the duration of the level of
exposure. Some argue that even this level represents a significant intrusion upon rural background
noise levels that are typically 25 dB(A).
Industry guidelines often acknowledge that wind turbines are usually set in more remote, rural
settings with low populations and low ambient noise levels, where any sound from the turbines
would be more noticeable. At the same time, they also often point out that the “inherently windy
nature” of the turbine sites generates ambient background noise “sufficient to mask sounds
generated by the wind farm”. However, wind shear – the variation in wind speed at different
altitudes – can prevent such masking. Wooded areas that block the wind will have a greater wind
shear than open fields. As a Maine professor explained, “Where there is little to no wind at
ground level but 12+ mph winds 200 feet up to power a turbine, there is little ground level
ambient noise to mask the turbine noise.”
Sound Impacts on People – There is no dispute that some people experience irritation and
annoyance in reaction to wind turbine noise. There is a dispute as to is whether such reactions
impair physiological health.
As excerpted from the National Wind Coordinating Committee’s 2002 handbook:
 At normal separation distances, wind turbines do not produce sound at levels that cause
speech interference, but some people may find these sounds to be annoying.
 Any sound that is chronically annoying, including very soft sounds, may, for some people,
create chronic stress, which can in turn lead to other health problems. On the other hand,
many people become accustomed to regular exposure to noise or other potential stressors,
and are no longer annoyed.
 The proportion of people “annoyed” by wind turbine sound is higher than for other
sources of environmental noise at the same decibel level.
 Annoyance originates from acoustical signals that are not compatible with, or that disturb,
psychological functions, in particular, disturbance of current activities.
 It is suggested that the main function of noise annoyance is as a warning that fitness may
be affected, but that it causes little or no physiological effect. Protracted annoyance,
however, may undermine coping and progress to stress related effects. It appears that this
is the main mechanism for effects on the health of a small number of people from
prolonged exposure to low levels of noise.
 The main health effect of noise stress is disturbed sleep, which may lead to other
consequences….There is no evidence that sound at the levels from wind turbines as heard
in residences will cause direct physiological effects. A small number of sensitive people,
however, may be stressed by the sound and suffer sleep disturbances.
The term “wind turbine syndrome” has been coined to describe the experience of noise sufferers
extending over a number of years: distraction, dizziness, eye strain, fatigue, feeling vibration,
headache, insomnia, muscle spasm, nausea, nose bleeds, palpitations, pressure in the ears or
head, skin burns, stress, and tension.
In December 2009 the American Wind Energy Association released a review by a panel of
medical doctors, audiologists, and acoustical professionals from the United States, Canada,
Denmark, and the United Kingdom that looked a peer-reviewed literature which concluded that
“[T]here is no reason to believe, based on the levels and frequencies of the sounds, that they
could plausibly have direct adverse physiological effects. Further, sub-audible, low frequency
sound and infrasound from wind turbines do not present a risk to human health.” The report
remarked on “the similarities of common human stress responses and conversion symptoms to
those described as ‘wind turbine syndrome’ are striking. An annoyance factor to wind turbine
sounds undoubtedly exists, to which there is a great deal of individual variability. Stress has
multiple causes and is additive. Associated stress from annoyance, exacerbated by the rhetoric,
fears, and negative publicity generated by the wind turbine controversy, may contribute to the
reported symptoms described by some people living near rural wind turbines.”
Critics point out that the review’s principal finding concerns auditory health – it found the
relatively low volume of noise emanating from turbines would not damage one’s hearing – and
does not address the stress-related symptoms that are understood, even among the wind industry,
to have physiological effects.
Approaches
Despite pro-wind studies concluding no or relatively little impacts from sound based on “normal
separation distances” or “typical setbacks”, AMEA/CanWEA states that no uniform regulatory
approach for wind turbine noise has been established in North America or internationally. In
practice, localities pose one of both of two regulatory measures: a separation distance from
property lines or buildings, and sonic thresholds.
Before deciding upon an appropriate method for guarding against unreasonable noise, a
community should first agree on what the sonic norm (background) is and on how much of an
increase from that norm is acceptable. It may be appropriate to have different standards, or even
regulatory approaches, for parts of the community that differ significantly in their background
noise levels – ocean surf sound and well as human and mechanical.
The use of setbacks is a traditional approach to separating incompatible land uses and sound
decreases rapidly with distance, but lower frequency sounds wave travel farther; doubling the
distance from a sound source to a listener lowers the sound by roughly 6 dB. Setbacks, even
when linked to turbine size, do not take into account the variability of sound from different makes
of machines nor the topography, vegetative cover or the ambient noise of the surroundings. There
is also debate on what to setback from – property lines or occupied buildings; some places have
a setback for each. Consequently, setbacks for noise range widely. Massachusetts’ Renewable
Energy Research Laboratory suggests a “rule of thumb” of three times the hub height from
residences, which for most utility-scale turbines would be less than twice the blade-tip height. The
industry’s decibel measures of turbines range from 1,000 to 2,000 feet. The National Research
Council concluded in 2007 that noise produced by wind turbines is generally not a major
concern beyond a half mile. European setbacks are customarily on the order of 1,500 feet, but
some nations have adopted setbacks up to 2 kilometers (more than 6,500 feet).
Use of sonic thresholds is appealing because they can account for differences in circumstances
and they can provide a kind of “failsafe” protection for unanticipated noise. The Commonwealth’s
noise law of no new generation of noise more than 10 dB(A) above ambient is this type of
approach, which was established for all noises from all sources.
 Absolute standards establish a fixed limit irrespective of existing noise levels. Scotland
recommends noise from wind farms be limited to 5dB(A) above background for both day-
and night-time, remembering that the background level of each period may be different.
Some places such as Ontario have different limits for various wind speeds.
 Relative standards limit the increase over existing levels and may also establish either an
absolute floor or ceiling beyond which the relative increase is not considered. For
example, if a relative increase of 10 dB(A) with a ceiling of 50 dB(A) is allowed and the
existing level is 45 dB(A), a level of 55 dB(A) would not be allowed. Similarly, if a floor of
40 dB(A) was established and the existing level is 25 dB(A), 40 dB(A) rather than 35
dB(A) would be allowed..
A fundamental flaw in the reliance on measurable sound threshold – and, indeed, setbacks – is
the assumption that, if exceeded, they can be remedied. Actual sonic conditions after installation
of a turbine are not always as anticipated, despite accurate noise modeling capabilities.
Mechanical noises can often be adjusted, but few remedies exist for acoustical noise other than
shutting down the turbine when propagating conditions are present (and this is harder for single
turbine installations to economically justify). Shifting the location of the large turbine is not a
practical solution. Thus, “sound easements” over adjacent property or sharing of royalty payments
with affected neighboring landowners may be necessary. In some instances wind facility
developers have also had to purchase homes because of unanticipated noise that could not be
abated.
Resources
 Primer for Addressing Wind Turbine Noise, Daniel J. Alberts, Lawrence Technological
University, 2006
 National Wind Coordinating Committee, Siting Subcommittee, Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities,
2002.
 Soysal, Hulkat and soysal, Oguz, Wind Farm Noise and Regulations in the Eastern United States,
2007.
 Rademakers and Braam, Analysis of Risk-Involved Incidents of Wind Turbines, Attachment 1 published
as Appendix A in Guide for Risk-Based Zoning of Wind Turbines, 2005.
 Minnesota Department of Health, Environmental Division, Public Health Impacts of Wind Turbines
referencing National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC 2007), 2009.
 Wind Power: Impacts and Issues, Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, UMass Amherst.
 “Wind Turbine Sound”, New England Wind Forum website, U.S. Department of Energy.
 Kamperman, George E. and James, Richard. R., The “How To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines to
Prevent Health Risks from Sound, 2008.
 Palmer, Bill, Understanding Wind Turbine Setbacks, November 2009,
www.windconcernsontario.wordpress.com
 Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects - An Expert Panel Review, Prepared by: W. David Colby,
M.D.,
 et al for American Wind Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association, December 2009
http://awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_CanWEA_SoundWhitePaper_12-11-09.pdf

 Wind Power Technology Overview, prepared by Global Energy Concepts for New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority, October 2005
 Womersley, Dr. Michael, Noisy turbines and solutions, Sustainability Activities at Unity College (Maine)
blog, http://ucsustainability.blogspot.com/ December 10, 2009, posting.
3.4 Flicker Effect

Issues
Flicker describes the rapid, intermittent interruption of normal daylight caused by the rotation of a
turbine’s blades. With large wind turbines, the frequency of this interruption can be every second
(1 Hz), and more frequent with faster spinning smaller turbines. The locations where a person
(receptor) can perceive flicker is a function of the distance from the turbine, angle of the sun and
turbine blade angle and width. Flicker is of limited duration at any given point as the sun moves
across the sky and varies seasonally with the sun’s changing azimuth, but the higher the sun
angle, the longer the duration.
Shadow flicker occurs when revolving turbine blades cast intermittent shadows upon a given
point. This is the main type of flicker that is generally dealt with in wind turbine planning. Shadow
flicker intensity is the difference in brightness at a given location in the presence and absence of a
shadow. The closer the receptor is to the turbine, the greater will be the portion of the sun’s disk
covered by the blade, increasing the flicker intensity. Shadow flicker is visible from more points
when the sun is at a low angle in the sky, such as mornings and evenings in the summer, or
during the winter when the sun’s lower azimuth increases the range where shadow flicker may
occur. Shadows also extend further when the shadow is downhill from the turbines. At longer
distances from the turbine, shadow flicker is less distinct and of shorter duration. Beyond nuisance
irritation, health concerns from shadow flicker include headache, loss of balance, nausea and
disorientation. Although some sources caution that shadow flicker may induce seizures in
susceptible individuals, the Epilepsy Foundation says that frequencies below 10 Hz are not likely
to trigger epilepsy seizures, and flicker from large turbines does not usually exceed 1 Hz (for
comparison, strobe lights in discotheques flicker between 3 Hz and 10 Hz).
The Chatauqua County (NY) Citizens For Responsible Wind brings up another kind of flicker
effect, that of strobing. This occurs when sunlight reflects off the rotating turbine blades, causing
repetitive flashes of light. Strobing can occur at any time of day from anywhere the turbine is
visible, but principally from the east, south and west. Use of non-reflective materials on the blades
may be the most effective mitigation measure for strobing.
Approaches
The Commonwealth’s Model Wind Bylaw suggests the following wording:
Shadow/Flicker Wind facilities shall be sited in a manner that minimizes
shadowing or flicker impacts. The applicant has the burden of proving that this
effect does not have significant adverse impact on neighboring or adjacent
uses through either siting or mitigation.
Turbines should be sited to minimize the extent of their shadows cast upon adjacent lands and
buildings (such as positioning the turbine towards the southern side of the site parcel rather than
the northern side). Computer models can accurately predict where shadows from a proposed
turbine would occur as well as the frequency of their likely occurrence. Alameda County, CA
increases the setback distance from three times the total turbine height to four times where terrain
is sloped. Scotland’s planning guidance is “where separation is provided between wind turbines
and nearby dwellings (as a general rule 10 rotor diameters), "shadow flicker" should not be a
problem.”
The Wind Energy Planning.com website refers to the possible installation of a sensor which shuts
down the wind turbine when flicker is causing a serious problem.
Resources
 This link has a video clip showing the effects of shadow flicker. (Others are also available on
YouTube) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbIe0iUtelQ
 This Shadow Flicker Briefing includes technical information related to calculating flicker:
http://www.efsec.wa.gov/wildhorse/deis/apendices/05%20Wind%20Engineers%2011-20-
03%20memo.pdf
 Planning Advice Note 45 (revised 2002): Renewable Energy Technologies , Scotland
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/02/pan45/pan-45
3.5 Relation to Transportation

Issues
Installing a wind turbine or building a wind farm can interfere with transportation routes.
The Ocean Plan indentified main ferry and other public transportation routes to be considered in
locating off-shore wind turbines. MVC comments on the draft plan noted that the only exclusionary
area for commercial wind areas is areas of concentrated traffic. It apparently doesn’t consider the
presence of a federally designated navigable channel running down the Vineyard Sound and it
would seem problematic to erect wind turbines in the approaches to or in the middle of a
federally designated shipping lane, especially given the foggy conditions that often fall upon
these waters. The MVC comments also noted that the traffic of larger ships heading up the coast
through Buzzards Bay to the Cape Cod Canal was tracked using GPS monitoring systems and the
resulting data layer is represented in the Ocean Plan. There is also considerable boating traffic
coming up the coast and heading up Vineyard Sound, but since these boats are smaller and
generally don’t have GPS systems, the data are not available.
The other major potential transportation conflict with wind turbines is the relation to air travel.
FAA approval must be received for turbines, especially within 3 miles of an airfield or airport
where there is a presumption of possible conflict. The FAA either doesn’t have or is apparently not
prepared to make public clear standards as to what is acceptable, and deals with applications on
a case-by-case basis. The MVC has discussed with the Martha's Vineyard Airport administration
the possibility of carrying out a study that gives general guidance about what is likely to be
acceptable or not acceptable.
Approaches
Additional information is needed, such as:
 Completing the Ocean Plan mapping of ferries and other boat transportation routes,
 Working with the Martha's Vineyard Airport to map the areas where turbines of various
heights are likely to be acceptable.
3.6 Natural Environment

Issues
The National Wind Coordinating Committee identifies wildlife and habitat loss that can result
from the construction and operation of wind farms through (in descending order of impact):
 Collision with turbine structure and anemometer guy wires.
 Electrocution by contact with two phases of a circuit of one phase and the metal tower
 Direct loss of habitat
 Habitat alteration from soil erosion, introduction of non-native vegetation, or construction
of obstacles to migration;
 Indirect habitat loss due to increased human presence, noise, or motion of operating
turbines.
Birds and bats: The impact of collisions between birds and wind turbines has been the most
controversial biological consideration concerning wind turbines. This has been attributed in part
to the public awareness of serious problems with raptors deaths in one of the nation’s first large
windfarms in Alatamont, California. Of concern is the impact on both resident and migratory
species.
Industry sources point out that bird mortality from wind turbines is a very small compared to other
causes such as domestic cats and collisions with tall buildings. They note that most migratory
birds, including songbirds, fly above 500 feet, higher than most turbines, and collisions during
actual migratory flights appear to be rare. However, apparently some species fly at lower levels,
and all species can fly at lower levels during fog and storms, and when landing to feed and rest.
The UMass (Amherst) Renewable Energy Research Laboratory notes that areas in heavily used
bird migration paths or that have endangered species may not be appropriate for wind power. A
NWCC publication states “while collisions…are relatively infrequent, they do occur, and birds
and bats are killed or seriously injured. Depending upon the protective status or the number of
individuals involved, these collisions may or may not be considered a biologically or legally
significant impact. Because state and federal laws protect most raptors, any threat posed to these
animals may present a legal barrier” to permitting a wind turbine. Industry sources recommend
siting turbines in major migratory paths or between bird nesting and feeding areas.
Martha's Vineyard and Gosnold are located in the Great Atlantic Flyway, the main migratory
path running up the east coast of the nation. A challenge for our islands is that there is little
accurate information on the specific migratory patterns. The Ocean Plan used data compiled by
Mass Audubon which, as pointed out in a brief prepared by the Martha's Vineyard Commission,
apparently has serious deficiencies.
Habitat: The construction of wind turbines with their supporting infrastructure eliminates areas of
existing habitat and may affect immediately surrounding areas. Trees may be felled for some
distance to improve the wind flow, converting the woodland habitat to an open environment
favoring different species. It has been argued that, due to the large amounts of land that typically
surrounds them, wind turbines actually retain open space habitat that might otherwise be
developed and built upon. Disturbed earth can pose soil erosion and water quality issues,
potentially affecting aquatic habitat.
The securing of offshore turbine foundations and the laying of interconnecting cables may disturb
greater areas, in part because the economic pressure to erect larger and taller turbines offshore
which require proportionally greater separation distance between turbines. Hazardous material
leaks or spills will have a greater and more rapid dispersion at offshore sites. Noise and vibration
can affect wildlife. In particular, some aquatic life are known to be sensitive to very low frequency
sound, which travels long distances under water.
The Commonwealth’s Ocean Management Plan contains a considerable amount of additional
information on this. Other currently available data for Dukes County includes habitat for rare and
endangered species, wetlands, frost bottoms, and a number of other factors shown in the maps
accompanying this report.
Approaches
A basis for adequate planning and regulation of wind turbines is to properly map sensitive
resources. This will involve identifying inadequacies in existing mapping and obtaining other
readily available data. For some factors, additional data collection will be required, and this
could pose a problem with respect to funding and timing. For example, it would be desirable to
carry out a more complete avian analysis, but this could cost many hundreds of thousands of
dollars and take a year or more.
The first approach to prevent potential wildlife impacts from wind turbines is to avoid locating
turbines in environmentally sensitive locations or places where the type and numbers of species
may be particularly negatively impacted. Localities can identify environmentally sensitive areas
prior to requests for developing turbines and prohibit turbines from certain areas or establish
increased setbacks. Minnesota’s model ordinance suggests 600 feet separation from conservation
and wetlands. A New York state model ordinance cites at least 1,500 feet from State-identified
wetlands and 2,500 feet from Important Bird Areas as identified by New York Audubon.
Setbacks have even been tailored to specific species. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management
recently directed its Wyoming offices to consider as a goal that there be no more than one new
oil or gas well or wind turbine per square mile in core habitat of the endangered sage grouse
(which does not like vertical features).
In areas where wind power generation is critical or of exceptional quality but also contains high
concentrations of birds, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suggests an average of three years
monitoring data (e.g., acoustic, radar, infrared, or observational) should be collected pre-
installation and used to determine peak use dates for specific sites. Such a comprehensive study
would help resolve the dispute of Vineyard bird experts concerning the Commonwealths’
assessment of avian habitat contained in the Ocean Management Plan. Depending upon the
potential for negative impacts, post-installation monitoring is sometimes required.
Modifying the characteristics of the wind facility is another way to address wildlife issues. Lattice
structure towers for turbines, or any type of appendage upon which birds might roost, should be
avoided where bird mortality is a concern. Similarly, burying facility power lines or employing
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards substantially reduces electrocution
potential. Navigational lighting also can affect birds. According to the FWS guidelines, “unless
otherwise requested by the FAA, only white strobe lights should be used at night, and these
should be the minimum number, minimum intensity, and minimum number of flashes per minute
(longest duration between flashes) allowable by the FAA. Solid red or pulsating red incandescent
lights should not be used, as they appear to attract night-migrating birds at a much higher rate
than white strobe lights.”
A third type of action to enable wind facilities to coexist with sensitive species is to modulate the
operation of the turbines to accommodate seasonal activities. The FWS suggest that where
feasible, turbines should be shut down during periods when birds are highly concentrated at
those sites.
Resources
 National Wind Coordinating Committee, Siting Subcommittee, Permitting of Wind Energy
Facilities, 2002.
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/publications/published/communityWindFactSheets/RERL_Fact_Sh
eet_4_Siting.pdf
 Minnesota model -
http://www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org/files/2005_model_wind_ordinance.pdf
 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Interim Guidelines to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts
from Wind Turbines
http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/Service%20Interim%20Guidelines.pdf
 Model Ordinance from NY
http://www.powernaturally.org/Programs/Wind/toolkit/2_windenergymodel.pdf#search=%
22model%20ordinances%20wind%20turbine%22
 MVC Comments on Draft Ocean Management Plan – Comments on Avian Resources,
October 12, 2009 (discusses relation to migratory paths.
3.7 Economic Activities and Property Values

Issues
Installing a wind turbine or building a wind farm can impact existing or potential commercial
activities, as well as property values.
Commercial Fishing: Offshore turbines pose potential negative impact for commercial fishing. In
addition to concerns about damaging or changing the habitat that sustains the fisheries, there are
issues about equipment entanglements, changed currents and bathymetry, and the prospect of
exclusion zones around the turbines – whether for safety or security purposes. Of increasing
concern is the potential of such zones being expanded in the future in light of homeland security
issues. These concerns also relate to the impact on recreational fishing which also has a
considerable direct and indirect impact on the economy.
This issue has been addressed in the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan which includes
mapping of commercial and recreational fishing areas, although there is some concern about the
accuracy and completeness of this data. The Martha's Vineyard Commission worked with the
Dukes County Fishermens Association to compile more detailed data about the fishing areas used
by local fishermen, and this methodology was then used to compile data for some other regions;
however, it was not included in the final version of the Ocean Plan because these data were not
available for the whole Commonwealth.
Farming and Other Land-Based Operations: Large wind turbines usually require large amounts of
land due to setbacks, so farmers often find leasing space to utility-scale turbine operators can
supplement their farming operations, providing lower or at least stabilized energy costs, and
providing a source of revenue for leasing rights. There are reported cases where farmers signed
lease agreements and then found that turbine developers located turbines, transmission lines, and
access roads so as to carve up farm fields and impact drainage systems. Many of the other
factors discussed in this section could have economic impacts for farmers and other property
owners contemplating construction of wind turbines on their property and for abutters. This could
include the impact of noise, vibrations, and flicker on farm animals; the need to ensure that land
disturbed for construction is properly restored; and the possibility that safety perimeters around
the turbine reduce the amount of workable land. (See also section 4 – farms.)
Property Values: The residential tax base of the Vineyard and Gosnold is substantially linked to
the desirability of property by seasonal residents, so the extent to which wind turbines may
potential diminish property values is of great local significance. Negative impacts could arise
from noise and vibrations, visibility of turbines and obstruction of scenic vistas, and the general
impact if the presence of turbines diminishes the desirability of the area, by have it perceived of
as being somewhat more industrial and less natural and pristine.
Considerable difference of opinion exists about the impact of turbines on property values. Wind
industry proponents have studies showing no detrimental impact to property values from the
presence of wind turbines and the National Association of Realtors concurs with that position. A
2009 U.S. Department of Energy study of American home sales within 10 miles of 24 wind
projects in 9 states showed “no widespread property values effects.” The analysis did reveal that
home sales prices are very sensitive to the overall quality of the scenic vista from a property, but
that a view of a wind energy facility did not demonstrably affect sales prices. Even among only
those properties within one mile of a turbine showed no persuasive evidence of a property value
impact. They conceded that there could be small numbers of homes that have been negatively
impacted, but that “their frequency was too small to result in any widespread, statistically
observable impact.”
Critics fault such property value studies as including too broad a sample – anywhere from 5 to 10
miles from the turbines – and that the conclusions are qualified with “no widespread impacts”.
Another critique of the studies is that they don’t take into account properties that are unable to be
sold. There is at least one court case that supports the case of depreciated value due to the
presence of a wind turbine. A judge in the United Kingdom found that a landowner who had sold
a home without divulging that a turbine was to be erected nearby had to compensate the
purchaser for the 20% reduction in value from the purchase price. In Denmark, there are
provisions requiring compensation of abutters for loss of property values (see section 4).
[Note: One observation from the DOE study results is that the nearest home was 800 feet from a
turbine – perhaps at least two-and-a-half times the blade-tip height of the turbines that would have
been installed during the 1996 to 2007 period examined.]
Approaches
As with other factors, a basis for planning and regulation is the identification of resources of
critical economic importance and determination of the extent to which wind facilities might
compromise the resources. The Ocean Management Plan contains an initial delineation of aquatic
resources and commercial fishing areas. The Wind Siting Plan should include revising and
completing this based on local knowledge to map areas of economically sensitive areas.
If there is a discretionary approval process, then review of a proposed wind facility can require
the minimization of impacts on economic resources and mitigation of unavoidable impacts. For
example, an applicant on a farm could demonstrate why existing roadways and field borders
cannot be used and how siting of the turbine and supporting equipment have taken into
consideration any activities unrelated to the wind facility that will be occurring on the premises.
Resources
Facilities, 2002.
 National Association of Realtors webpage “Field Guide to Wind Farms and Their Affect on
Property Values” http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg509
 Link to European safety zone June 2009 news article:
http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=32&listitemid=271
1
 European government safety zones guidance (2007):
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40651.pdf
 U.S. Department of Energy property value study press release http://newscenter.
Lbl.gov/press-releases/2009/12/02/wind-power-property-values/
 Appendix 1 of wind farm noise study addressing property values
http://www.windcows.com/files/Noise-radiation-from-wind-turbines-installed-near-homes-
effects-on-health.pdf
3.8 Recreational Activities

Issues
Leisure and recreation play strong roles in the islands’ visitor economy. Wind facilities may
possibly affect recreational activities quantitatively and qualitatively.
Exclusion zones around turbines can prohibit previously available access to recreational areas.
For the islands, this potential is probably most likely to affect recreational boating and fishing, but
turbines placed on public lands could restrict access to walking and hunting areas. There is no set
exclusion distance for turbines. Some may be covered by other setback requirements or there may
be no substantial setback at all. The initial turbine in Hull, MA, is sited at the perimeter of the high
school track and football field, 220 from the school.
The presence of turbines can diminish the recreational quality of the surroundings by altering the
character and habitat. Add to this any audible noise from the rotating blades, and bird watching
could be more difficult. Turbine noise or flicker evident from walking trails in conservation lands
may be considered a diminution of the quiet outdoors (see Noise and Flicker sections).
Approaches
As with many of the other issues, the first approach is to avoid developing turbines at locations
where there are likely conflicts with recreational activities. The type of activity will affect both the
potential impacts of the turbine and the possible mitigation measures – setbacks or minimal
exclusion zones – that can allow both the recreational activity and turbine to coexist.
Resources
Facilities, 2002.
3.9 Visual Impacts and Scenic Values

Issues
One of the most important potential factors related to erecting wind turbines is their visual impact.
However, this can also be one of the most difficult factors to deal with. Some proponents claim
they are things of beauty that adding interest to the landscape, or dismiss consideration of visual
factors as “merely” aesthetic and subjective. Some opponents argue that these are industrial
machines which are out of place in, and a blight on, the countryside, and that no turbines should
be visible. In between, there are those who feel that wind turbines could be compatible with
scenic values provided there is a clear, objective methodology and predictable criteria for
minimizing the visual impact, especially on locations with significant visual resources. There is
also the factor of value shifts changing what individual and communities perceive as incongruous
or even attractive.
Scenic values are particularly critical to areas such as Dukes County, where the economy is driven
by the vacation industry. For Martha's Vineyard alone, this represents a gross domestic product of
about $800 million a year and property values of about $18 billion. The Massachusetts Ocean
Plan indicates that by far the most economically important sector of the marine economy is coastal
tourism and recreation ($8.7 billion annually) and that the second most important activity, after
swimming, is “ocean viewing”. Extensive public input in the Martha's Vineyard Island Plan
indicates that protecting the Vineyard’s scenic character and pristine natural beauty are very high
priorities among residents and visitors. In choosing to live or visit a place of great scenic beauty
despite the high cost of living and other inconveniences, the residents of and visitors to the
Vineyard and Gosnold likely have a much higher percentage of people for whom aesthetics and
scenic values are important.
Public Scenic Resources: In dealing with the visual impact of wind turbines, the highest priority is
the impact on public lands that are usually visited by the general public, especially if those visits
are in part with the purpose of enjoying their visual quality. These include resources of national,
statewide, regional, and local significance. They could include:
- parks, overlooks, public and semi-public beaches, public waterfronts, and other public
open spaces and publicly accessible conservation land;
- scenic roads including shoreline roads and their adjacent viewsheds;
- the viewsheds of significant vistas;
- public trails; and
- publicly accessible waters such as the ocean and coastal ponds.
The fact that Massachusetts’ only two commercial wind farms are both located off Aquinnah
raises concerns in relation to the Gay Head Cliffs, one of the main attractions of Martha's
Vineyard and arguably one of the most important scenic vistas on the east coast of the United
States, recognized by its designation as a National Historic Landmark.
Other Visual Impacts: Although of secondary importance compared to public views, consideration
of private views is also warranted, especially in a community such as Dukes County where this
plays an important role in the quality of life, property values, and the attraction for people to live
on and visit the islands.
The following are some of the factors affecting visibility and visual impact.
 Proximity: In most cases, this is the most important factor. The appendix includes
illustrations of the visual impact of a hypothetical offshore windfarm located at various
distances from the shore. They show, for example, that for each doubling of the distance
from shore, a group of turbines is only a quarter as visible, so compared to a location 1
mile off shore, locating them 2, 4, and 8 miles off shore would reduce their visibility by
75%, 87%, and 94% respectively.
 General Context: With a wind energy facility of a given visibility, the visual impact is
largely dependent on the existing context. Being able to see a large structure might be
considered normal in an industrial park or a built-up area, but could be jarring in an area
of pristine natural beauty. A survey in Australia found that this was the single most
important factor as to whether people were favorable or not to the installation of wind
turbines.
 Specific Surroundings: The presence of topography and or vegetation can have a
significant impact on the visibility of a turbine or ancillary structures from a given location.
 Roads, Buildings, and Storage: The visual impact of an access road can be as great as
that of the turbine itself, but of most concern when serving hilltop or ridge-top facilities.
Similarly, support buildings and outdoor storage can be unsightly if not carefully
considered.
 Lighting: The impact at night can be especially significant if lighting is required, such as to
meet FAA requirements for turbines higher than 200’, or less in certain locations.
Apparently, the Cape Wind project has agreed with the FAA that not all turbines in that
windfarm will be lit, but only the perimeter ones.
Approaches
The following mapping can serve as a basis for dealing with scenic values and visual impacts.
 Public Scenic Resources: As described above.
 Land and Shoreline Uses: Identification of broad categories of land uses based land uses
(open space, level of public access, residential density, commercial, industrial, etc.)
grouped based on a scale of how problematic new development might be, i.e. with
pristine natural areas at one end, and industrial areas at the other.
Standards could involve prohibiting turbines in the most critical areas and requiring special
review (MVC DRI review and/or town special permit or site plan review) for areas where turbines
are permitted but the visual impacts are likely to be problematic. These thresholds could be
related to various heights in different locations. See section 4 for a more complete discussion.
The following are some measures that can be used to analyze and mitigate the visual impacts of a
proposal.
 Visual Impact Assessments: An applicant can be required to prepare an assessment of the
visual impact of the proposal and an analysis of possible mitigation measures. It should
indicate the areas of the scenic resources from which the turbines are visible, and include
visual simulations from representative and worst-case viewpoints
 Siting: Properly siting can be the most effective way to mitigate potential visual impacts.
This could involve prohibiting turbines is the most critical areas, and minimizing the visual
impact in others. The measures to be used could involve locating the turbine or facility as
far as possible from Public Scenic Resources, as well as from private uses. It could also
involve considering visual impact when doing the specific siting. In the case of a group of
two or more turbines, especially for offshore wind, it is usually desirable that the turbines
be clustered so that as much as possible of the landscape or viewscape remains
undisturbed; there could be a restriction on what percentage of the angle of view could be
disturbed from any given point. Minnesota’s model ordinance contains a setback for
commercial turbines of 500 – 1,340 feet from Scenic River Bluffs. The European PAN 45
states that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an open
landscape. Scotland supports separating turbines 2 km from edges of cities, villages and
towns.
 Design: Measures to reduce the visual impact of a turbine and ancillary facilities could
include using tubular rather than lattice towers, requiring a neutral color and non-reflective
paint, minimizing lighting, and prohibiting or minimizing signage. It could also involve
locating and designing access roads and support facilities to minimize visual impact by
avoiding ridgelines and steep slopes, and by providing screening of support facilities such
as with appropriate enclosures, fencing, or vegetation.
 Offsets: In some cases, it is not feasible to completely deal with the visual impacts of a
project that is deemed, on balance, to be desirable. In this case, it might be possible that
the project proponent offset the visual impacts with the correction of an existing visual
problem identified within the viewshed of the same scenic resource, such as burying
telephone wires, screening existing unsightly structures, or increasing vegetation. Another
possible offset would be to create a public viewing amenity such as a scenic overlook.
Resources
 Minnesota model -
http://www.cleanenergyresourceteams.org/files/2005_model_wind_ordinance.pdf
 Scottish Planning Policy SPP6
3.10 Cultural Values
Issues
Cultural values generally deal with the following specific categories, between which there is some
overlap: historic, archeological, and sacred. These include resources of national, statewide,
regional, and local significance.
Historic Properties or areas that associated with significant historic events, with that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or that are associated with the lives of
people significant in our past. Buildings or other structures that embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, that represent the work of a master,
that possess high artistic values, that serve as landmarks in a community, and/or that are
contributing elements to larger groupings such as streetscapes, roadscapes, or districts that have
the above significance.
Archeological: Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, artifacts or other
information important to prehistory or history.
Spiritual: The National Historic Preservation Act recognizes Native American Traditional Cultural
Properties as a specific historic property type based on two criteria:
- a location associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its
origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world; and
- a location where Native American religious practitioners have historically gone, and are
known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with
traditional cultural rules of practice.
Approaches
Similar to other types of resource protection, the basic tools are mapping of resources, possible
prohibition of development in the most critical areas, and a requirement for additional project
review (MVC DRI and/or town special permit) for some areas along with guidelines for carrying
out this review which would seek to minimize the impact of the construction of turbines and
ancillary facilities on cultural resources.
For projects in areas where there is reason to be concerned about the impact of construction on
cultural resources, there could be a requirement to carry out a cultural resource impact analysis --
by an independent expert and normally financed by the project proponent – to identify the
potential impacts and to propose appropriate mitigation.
Resources
3.11 Electromagnetic Interference (EMI)
This factor applies to and land-based and offshore wind turbines located close to shore or as it
affects boating.
Issues
The operation of wind turbines can interfere with various electromagnetic systems such as TV,
radio, cell phones, microwave links, and radar waves such as those used in navigation systems.
The degree and nature of the interference will depend on the signal transmission and reception
methods used by the system, and the electromagnetic scattering characteristics of the WT blade
which depend on turbine dimensions, turbine rotational speed, blade construction material, blade
angle and geometry, and tower geometry.
Approaches
Signal interference standards ensure that the construction and operation of a wind energy facility
will not interfere with television, microwave, navigational, or radio reception in any neighboring
areas.
Resources
 Technical discussion of EMI - Bacon, D.F., "Fixed-link wind-turbine exclusion zone method"
2002
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/ifi/licensing/classes/fixed/Windfarms/windfarmdav
idbacon.pdf
3.12 Construction and Decommissioning

Issues
Wind facilities involve more than just the turbine(s). The actual footprint of the supporting
infrastructure requires new access roads (18-20’ wide) and crane pads (flat, well graded and
compacted areas constructed of crushed rock) adjacent the tower foundation that remains in
place during project operation in the event a crane is required to replace a large component.
Above ground medium-voltage power collection line usually link the turbine to an on site
substation, which then connects via a high-voltage interconnection line to the electric grid
transmission line. Structures may be necessary for the storage of spare parts, control computers
and communications system.
Wind turbines are designed to function about 20 years. Once erected, they will eventually need
to be removed, or decommissioned. Whether they are replaced with new turbines (“repowered”)
and whether the significant infrastructure invested in the site remains viable will depend upon the
state of future technology. Communities should anticipate the eventual removal of a turbine should
it become abandoned or inoperable to ensure that the turbine developer bears the cost and not
the community.
Both construction and decommissioning of wind turbines take place over a few months, the
impacts of which occur off site as well as on site. First, the large components of a turbine,
especially the blades, must be transported to the site over existing public roads not usually
designed for such large loads, dimensional as well as weight. Transport sometimes requires
removal of roadside vegetation, temporary removal of utility lines and even temporary road
fortification. The Vineyard’s narrow, tree lined roads, and in places boarder closely by buildings,
may provide added obstacles. Transport via barge directly to a construction site on the Vineyard
or Gosnold might be possible. It is likely that the construction of larger, offshore turbines would be
out of another location, such as New Bedford.
Noise can be significant from truck traffic and heavy equipment and the possible blasting for
foundations.
Between the turbine foundation, crane pad, access roads, and other site infrastructure, significant
amounts of land disturbance can occur, so potential soil erosion and impacts to water quality
need to be addressed.
Approaches
In planning for the transportation of turbine components, localities should consider the physical
capacity to accommodate large turbine components, and the extent and duration of any physical
disruption of the roadways or the circulation of normal traffic. The developer should be
accountable for any damages or restoration or mitigation.
For both construction and decommissioning, the locality should know which site disturbances are
only temporary. A plan should identify the site conditions after the construction or
decommissioning: the final grading, re-vegetation of disturbed areas, the extent below the surface
from which foundations are removed, etc.
Construction activities should be timed not to occur when they might disrupt mating, nesting or
other critical life-cycle activities of animals of concern. They should also be prevented from
occurring during off-hours to minimize disturbing people.
Resources
Facilities, 2002.
3.13 Operation and Maintenance

Issues
Vehicle traffic during ongoing operations is usually minimal. Turbines require lubricating oil and
hydraulic and insulating fluids, some of which may be hazardous if spilled on the ground. If not
maintained, turbines may leak fluids not just dripping downward but also flying off tips of the
blades. Wind facilities must be secure. Most facilities prevent unauthorized access.
Approaches
Site plan review during the initial permitting process can address a wide range of factors.
 Localities may require monitoring of noise, wildlife, animal fatalities or other factor.
 Some places require signs containing contact information; some restrict signage or
advertisements.
 One industry source recommends facilities have waste management plans.
 Use of non hazardous fluids should be encouraged. If hazardous materials are used, the
facility should have a Hazardous Materials Management Plan addressing avoidance,
handling, disposal, and clean-up.
 Turbine maintenance and repair should also be considered; some permits have banned on-site
repairs of construction and maintenance vehicles.
Resources
 Wind Power Technology Overview, Global energy Concepts for New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority, October 2005
Facilities, 2002.
4. Project Development and Regulatory Process
4.1 Public, Intermunicipal, and Community Development and

Benefits
This section discusses various ownership models for wind turbines, focusing on their relation to
community control and benefit. It also addresses the possibility of intermunicipal collaboration in
the development and regulation of wind turbines.
Public Utilities: A utility is a regulated monopoly and once franchised in a municipality is
protected from regulation but is subject to regulation of rates. Regulations governing private
electric utilities such as NStar give them certain exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the
transmission and distribution of electricity within a municipality. As a result, a property owner or
public entity may install a wind turbine, or other energy source, to generate electricity for its own
use, but may not sell or give this electricity for use on another property, other than the exceptions
outlined below. (Department of Public Utilities’ website: www.mass.gov/dpu.)
Net Metering: Net metering allows customers of an electric distribution company to generate
their own electricity in order to offset part or all of their electricity usage, and thereby reduce or
eliminate their electricity bill. It also customers to be compensated for electricity they generate but
do not use. Customers install generating facilities such as solar panels or wind turbines that spin
the meter backwards when they are generate more electricity than they use, building up a credit
for other times when they need to draw energy from the grid. The 2008 Green Communities Act
facilitates net metering in Massachusetts and increases the maximum for a property from 60
kilowatts to 2 megawatts. (Information about net metering:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeamodulechunk&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Grants+%26+Technical+Assistance&L2=Gui
dance+%26+Technical+Assistance&L3=Agencies+and+Divisions&L4=Department+of+Public+Utilities+(DPU)&sid=Eoee
a&b=terminalcontent&f=dpu_electric_faq_net_metering&csid=Eoeea).
Municipal Light Plants: Presently, 41 Massachusetts cities and towns have a municipal utility,
which owns their electric distribution systems (poles, wires, transformers, substations, etc.) and
performs all the functions of a utility, including billing, maintenance and power supply. No city or
town has created a municipal utility since 1926 as the current regulations apparently make the
cost and process onerous on municipalities. There have been recent efforts to change the
regulations to make it easier for municipalities to create municipal electric utilities. The Town of
Lexington concluded that residential customers would save up to 25% if the town had a municipal
electric utility and customers typically receive better service compared to investor-owned utilities.
The fact that the Hull Municipal Light Plan is a municipal electric utility was critical in leading the
town to erect two utility-scale wind turbines that generate electricity that is then distributed to
citizens of the town.
Municipal or County Ownership: A municipality or county may generate electricity, such as
by erect and operate a wind facility, and provide electricity for its own uses. The towns of
Edgartown and Tisbury have been working on proposals to erect such turbines, located
respectively at their wastewater treatment plant and landfill.
Electric Cooperatives: An electric cooperative may generate electricity, feed it into the electric
grid, and assign the electricity to its members. There are two electric cooperatives in existence or
in formation in Dukes County.
 The Cape & Vineyard Electric Cooperative: CVEC was established in September 2007 as a
result of a desire to develop renewable energy projects and use renewable energy projects to
stabilize electric rates for ratepayers within CVEC member communities. CVEC membership
also provides eligibility for lower cost financing for renewable energy projects, such as
through the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service, and the
cooperative structure generally limits member communities’ financial liability. There are
currently fifteen members including the Town of Edgartown, the County of Dukes County, and
the Cape Light Compact. CVEC plans on allowing member communities to use renewable
energy projects that they host to net meter their municipal load and allocate their excess
generation to other member communities. CVEC’s long-term goal is to develop a 20 to 30
turbine wind farm throughout member communities on the Cape and Vineyard in the next five
to ten years, with a first phase of four or five turbines in the near future. Through the
Cooperative, it would appear possible for one town to collaborate with another on a joint
project for construction of a single wind facility, and have the excess energy assigned to the
other town.
 Vineyard Power: This was established in 2009 as a community-owned consumers’ energy
cooperative whose purpose is to generating renewable energy and stabilize and minimize its
members' electrical costs while reducing the Island’s overall carbon footprint. It was
established by the Vineyard Energy Project. It is currently enlisting members. Their position on
renewable energy generation is as follows. “Given the state of current technology, studies
have shown that wind power is the most promising and abundant renewable energy resource
on and around Martha's Vineyard. Private wind power developers have also realized this
potential; the waters surrounding Martha's Vineyard have become the subject of many
development interests. Vineyard Power is a way for Vineyarders to take ownership for our
island and our surroundings, and to ensure that the generation of wind energy off our shores
directly benefits our community. Local control will also ensure that location of offshore
turbines must be appropriate for our island's landscape and cultural values. How and where
Vineyard Power generates energy will be determined directly by its member-owners.”
Farms: Farms traditionally used wind turbines to power their operations, including in Dukes
County. Today, farms around the world are often used to house utility-scale wind turbines because
they offer wide-open, wind-swept spaces for the turbines; the presence of the turbines doesn’t
normally interfere with farm operations and there are generally few abutters that would be
affected by the presence of the turbines; and this provides an additional source of revenue to
farmers. In Massachusetts, the fact that farming is exempted from many provisions of zoning
regulations could provide the owner of a farm and/or a turbine developer with an opportunity to
bypass normal zoning review in erecting a turbine, provided it was for farm use. On Martha's
Vineyard, farm uses are not exempt from the regulatory authority of the Martha's Vineyard
Commission, so a proposal to erect a wind turbine could be referred to the MVC as a
Development of Regional Impact. With net metering, it is possible to generate electricity on one
farm, and assign to other farms the excess electricity beyond that needed by the host farm. Two
farms on Martha's Vineyard – the Allen Farm in Chilmark and the Northern Pines Farm in Tisbury
– are presently exploring the possibility of erecting large-scale wind turbines and have either
erected or received a building permit for erecting their meteorological towers to collect data to
ascertain the feasibility.
Private Development and Community Benefits Royalties: In addition to the models
discussed above, it is of course possible that some wind energy projects are proposed by private
developers. This could especially be the case with respect to the large commercial wind area
designated in the Massachusetts Ocean Plan off of Nomans Land. The Ocean Plan states that
community and commercial wind energy projects should provide direct economic benefit to the
community in which they are located.
It is important to differentiate between three different types of potential fees.
 Mitigation fees: These may be assessed to offset project impacts that cannot be otherwise
mitigated, such as impacts to resources protected by the Ocean Sanctuary Act. There should
be a direct nexus and proportionality between the impact and the mitigation charged. These
fees should be used exclusively to mitigate project impacts in the same geographic area as
generated.
 Royalties or user fees: These are essentially rent for use of public land or waters. They also
offset general impacts on the community beyond those able to be specifically identified and
mitigated. Since the Commonwealth owns the seabed, offshore royalties should be assessed
for the use of public property and to mitigate the indirect impacts relative to the public trust
doctrine that protects the public’s rights to a pristine resource. The royalties should not be
held to the same nexus criteria. The MVC has proposed that, in the case of offshore wind
energy projects, they should be shared between the Commonwealth and host communities,
possibly 50% each. (For federal offshore projects, the Minerals Management Service
requires that 27% of the royalties go to the local share.)
 Bonding: A fund or bonding to address decommissioning, environmental disasters, and
impacts not predicted at permitting stage such as by requiring the posting of bonds.
For commercial projects on public land or in public waters, it could be possible to require one or
a combination of the following.
 Requiring or facilitating that a portion of a private project be locally owned. This could
translate into public private partnerships, such as with a town or with one or both of the two
local cooperatives (Cape and Vineyard Electric Cooperative, and Vineyard Power).
 Including a fixed rate for royalties and a fixed percentage of these royalties that are
directed to local communities.
 Requiring that most or all of the royalties be directed to achieving sustainability objectives,
especially related to energy. This could be part of a partnership between the
Commonwealth and the local communities to transform Martha's Vineyard and Gosnold into
model prototype “sustainable islands”, with efforts such as funding energy-efficiency
programs in host communities, connecting Gosnold to the electric grid so power is no longer
generated from diesel generators, setting up prototype projects for energy-efficient
transportation, etc.
For developments on public lands and in public waters, there should be meaningful and early
collaboration on future development projects between towns and the MVC – and the
Commonwealth for ocean waters – that integrate local benefit in the pre-planning stages setting
the parameters of any RFP and in the project selection process. In its comments on the draft
Ocean Plan, the MVC said the following. There should be an open, competitive bidding process
to select project developers. For offshore development, this should include a methodology similar
to that used by the MMS whereby, in the leasing process for commercial wind, proposals which
offer direct local benefit have priority over other equivalent commercial projects. The project
selection process should include provisions favoring local preference and local benefits such as:
- Having a time period when adjacent town or a rate-payers cooperative could propose a
project, before an RFP is issued;
- Having a right of first refusal for municipalities or local cooperative projects, as the
MMS does; this would allow the local community to partner with a developer and
incorporate community concerns directly in the partnership agreement;
- Including community benefit in project selection criteria as does MMS.
Other Factors Affecting the Development of Wind Energy Facilities: There is a whole
range of other economic, technical, and management issues related to the development of wind
energy facilities that are not touched on here. There is considerable information and technicial
assistance available to towns and other entities that wish to erect wind turbines, ranging from
feasibility studies to assistance in obtaining financing. The Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative offers grants and technical assistance to facilitate implementation of renewable
energy in the Commonwealth.
4.2 Planning and Regulatory Processes

This section outlines some considerations related to the planning and regulation of wind facilities
in Dukes County.
Relation between state, MVC, and town processes
The Commonwealth, MVC, and towns are all potentially involved in various aspects wind energy,
namely:
- Planning,
- Regulation, and
- Development, in some cases.
It will be desirable to work out a way to clarify respective roles and to seek collaboration between
various entities:
- To share expertise and data about these often complex issues, and
- To provide a coherent regulatory framework so the requirements at various levels are
complementary rather than contradictory,
- To ensure that developments carried out by public entities are coordinated with other
efforts.
For regulations, this will mean setting thresholds to determine what authority or authorities review
projects, depending on criteria such as their size and location. This includes the MVC setting DRI
thresholds for review of wind turbines by the Commission.
For the possible future development in the commercial Wind Energy Areas identified in the Ocean
Plan, the MVC has proposed that representatives of the MVC, towns, the Wampanoag Tribe, and
the Commonwealth work on a protocol which allows for meaningful involvement of all these
entities at all stages of the project planning and approval process. This would include early
collaboration in all stages leading to the possible development of projects, including the pre-
planning stages to set the parameters of any RFP and then working with developers to outline
studies and shape the project. The aim is to avoid a situation where a developer has invested
significantly in preparing a proposal before it is submitted for town or RPA consideration. This
should include phased approvals by all parties to allow closing in on an optimum project design
in mutually agreed steps. This would reduce the cost and delay for the developer.
Type of Approval Process: There are essentially two types of approval process, as-of-right or
discretionary.
 As-of-right zoning means that an applicant can apply for and receive a permit by
following the zoning regulations without needing any additional approvals. As-of-right
works better for smaller and less problematic projects with clearly defined parameters.
They provide greater assurance to someone contemplating a project that they can precede
if they meet the clearly defined requirements.
 A discretionary process makes issuance of the project approval subject to additional
review, such as with a Special Permit Process at a town level or a DRI process at the MVC.
This works better for larger and more complex projects involving the relation of many
different factors.
With respect to wind turbines, thresholds for discretionary review could involve criteria such as
the following.
 Size: For example, there could be a requirement that any turbine greater than height X
needs a special permit, and any turbine greater than height Y be referred to the MVC as
a DRI.
 Location in or near a critical resource areas: For example, there could be a requirement
that projects located in resource areas with regional impact be referred to the MVC, and
those located in resource areas with local impact be reviewed by the town.
 Location closer than given setbacks: For example, as will be further discussed below, there
could be two setback numbers, anything closer than the lower number would be
prohibited, anything greater than the higher number would be as-of-right, and in between
could be permitted by special permit and/or MVC approval.
Mapping: Once completed, the Wind Siting Plan will include two main components: 1)
mapping of resources and areas, and 2) standards. A preliminary set of resource area maps is
included with this version of this document, to serve as a starting point for discussions. In addition,
the maps of the Ocean Management Plan should also be considered. These maps will be revised
and refined, and additional mapping will be done throughout the process. The final version of the
Wind Siting Plan could include another map that indicates those areas where turbines of various
height are prohibited, where they are permitted subject to town and/or MVC review, and where
they are permitted as of right. Also included are some maps illustrating the impact of the
application of some of the possible standards outlined below.
Standards: In addition to, and often in relation to the mapping of resources is a series of
standards dealing with each of the topics outlined in section 3 of this report. These can be
translated into regulations and or guidelines for project review. Standards can prohibit projects in
certain resource areas or set requirements for projects in those areas. It would appear that the two
standards that generally have the greatest impact are setbacks, especially from buildings and
property lines, and noise standards (discussed in section 3).
Setbacks: Minimum setbacks are probably the most critical parameter affecting the development
of wind turbines.
 Setbacks from buildings and adjacent properties directly or indirectly address most of the
environmental factors discussed in section 3, such as safety, noise, shadow flicker, and
visual impact. They can also be used to protect the access to wind resources of property
owners by limiting the possibility that another upwind turbine is so close that in creates a
wake effect making it infeasible to erect a turbine on the other property.
 Setbacks are typically established from dwellings, from occupied buildings, from property
lines, and/or from roads. Setbacks are generally set as: a multiple of (or other mathematic
formula based on) the turbine height and/or blade radius; a fixed distance; or as the
greater of the two numbers. The setback can vary by area, and could be increased on
sloping sites.
 There is often a method of differentiating between participating and non-participating
properties, so that most setback provisions other than those needed for safety can be
reduced or waived for properties either involved in the turbine project (e.g. joint owners),
or who otherwise give their consent.
 A concern about establishing setbacks only from existing dwellings or buildings is the
impact on future development, particularly for smaller lots which
Increasing minimum setbacks reduces the potential impact of a turbine on abutting and nearby
properties, but can reduce the feasibility of erecting a turbine on a given property.
As mentioned earlier, required or recommended setbacks seem to vary widely in different areas.
Requiring that a turbine be set back three times its overall height (to blade tip) seems to have been
a common setback in North America. There is unconfirmed information on various websites
indicating much larger setbacks around the world (1 kilometer in Western Australia1, 1.6 km in
Germany, and 1.8 km in Holland). Apparently, in Denmark, the minimum setback is 4 times the
overall height, and beyond that distance, there is a provision requiring the turbine owner to
compensate abutters for loss of property values as determined by an objective assessor. [It would
be most useful to have additional information about this.]
The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources model bylaw suggests the following wording.
3.10.3 Setbacks A wind turbine may not be sited within:
1
Guidelines for Wind Farm Development Planning Bulletin, Western Australia – to be verified
(a) a distance equal to the height of the wind turbine from buildings, critical infrastructure, or
private or public ways that are not part of the wind energy facility;
(b) three times (3x) the height of the turbine from the nearest existing residential structure; or
(c) one point five times (1.5x) the height of the turbine from the nearest property line.
3.10.4 Setback Waiver The Site Plan Review Authority may reduce the minimum setback distance
as appropriate based on site-specific considerations, or written consent of the affected abutter(s), if
the project satisfies all other criteria for the granting of a building permit under the provisions of this
section.
It would appear that the minimum setbacks in the regulations in some Vineyard towns are much
less than typical.
Although Dukes County has a generally remote and rural character, the islands of Martha's
Vineyard and Cuttyhunk are actually quite heavily settled. Applying typical setbacks would make
it difficult to erect wind turbine of viable heights in most areas.2
2
For example, a square three-acre property would be 360’ by 360’, and if rectangular would be even
narrower. A 3 times the height setback from residences and 1.5 times the height from the property line
would result in a height limit of 120’ for a turbine located in the middle of a square 3-acre lot.
Appendices
A1: Types of Wind Turbine Sound

From “Wind Turbine Sound”, New England Wind Forum website, U.S. Department of Energy
Wind turbines make different types of sound, including broadband, infrasonic, impulsive, and tonal sound.
The presence of wind turbine sound is dependent on atmospheric conditions, including air flow patterns
and turbulence, and the ability to perceive wind turbine sound varies based on the presence of other
nearby sources of sound, manmade or otherwise, and site-specific topography.
 Broadband Sound: Broadband sound is made up of a combination of sound waves with different
frequencies. Broadband sound has no distinct pitch and could be described as a humming, whooshing,
or swishing sound. Broadband sound does not start or end abruptly. Broadband sound has frequencies
higher than 100Hz and is most typically caused by the interaction of the turbine blades and
atmospheric turbulence. Low-frequency sound (between 20 to 100Hz) usually only occurs when the
wind turbine blades are located on the downwind side of the turbine tower. The turbine blades
experience airflow deficiencies because airflow is partially blocked by the tower. Low-frequency noise
can often be felt before it's heard clearly. An example of low-frequency broadband sound is the
rumbling of a train heard from far away.
 Infrasonic Sound: Infrasonic sound is low-frequency sound of less than 20Hz. Infrasonic sound is
always present in the environment. Depending on the locations, examples include the sound of flowing
water, waves, or air turbulence. Infrasonic sound can propagate further than higher, more audible
frequencies, but it has higher levels of dissipation and blends in with ambient noise. Though infrasonic
noise is barely audible, it can cause structural vibration, such as windows rattling. In the majority of
cases, window vibration caused by infrasonic sound from a wind turbine will be inaudible.
 Impulsive Sound: Impulsive sound can be generated when disturbed airflow interacts with turbine
blades or when multiple turbines making swishing noises synchronize in stable winds. Impulsive sounds
are characterized by thumping sounds that can vary in amplitude over time. As with low-frequency
sound, impulsive sound from a single turbine tends to occur in downwind turbines as a result of air
flowing around the tower to reach the blades. Examples of impulsive sounds include a door slamming,
a person stomping, or a clap of thunder.
 Tonal Sound: Tonal sound can be caused by the rotation of shafts, generators, and gears operating at
natural frequency; unstable airflow over holes or slits; or non-aerodynamic instabilities interacting with
the blade surface. Tonal sounds can have a distinct pitch, such as a music note, and do not start or end
abruptly. Because tonal sound can be problematic, wind turbine manufactures are paying particular
attention to addressing tonal sound produced by the operation of their turbines.
Turbine and tower design can also affect sound output. Modern commercial turbines are designed so that
the turbine is upwind of the tower, which mitigates low frequency and impulsive sound. As previously
referenced, the hub, rotor, and tower components of a turbine sometimes emit mechanical sound. Further
research is being done to develop sound mitigation techniques.
A2: Visibility of Wind Turbines Based on Distance
Illustration showing the reduction in visibility the farther away the project is located. Visibility is
reduced to 25% each time the distance from the shore doubles. A group of turbines 4 miles off
shore would only be 6% as visible as the same group only 1 mile off shore. The illustration and
map use setbacks of 1, 2, 4, and 8 miles, with the factor of reduction of visibility constant (75%)
at each additional distance.
Visibility at 1 mile
Visibility at 2 miles (25%)
Visibility at 4 miles (6%
Visibility at 8 miles (2%)
Note:
The method used to identify uninhabited areas led to some quirky anomalies, such as leaving out Naushon Island and some of the
Squibnocket area on the Vineyard. This should be corrected to include all habitable areas.
A3: References
 Chatauqua County (NY) Citizens For Responsible Wind website

 Wind Turbine Sound and Health Effects - An Expert Panel Review, Prepared by: W. David
Colby, M.D., Robert Dobie, M.D., Geoff Leventhall, Ph.D., David M. Lipscomb, Ph.D., Robert
J. McCunney, M.D., Michael T. Seilo, Ph.D., Bo Søndergaard, M.Sc. for American Wind
Energy Association and Canadian Wind Energy Association, December 2009
 Wind Power Technology Overview, prepared by Global Energy Concepts for New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority, October 2005
 Womersley, Dr. Michael, “Noisy turbines and solutions”, Sustainability Activities at Unity
College (Maine) blog, December 10, 2009, posting.
Facilities, 2002.
 Minnesota Department of Health, Environmental Division, Public Health Impacts of Wind
Turbines referencing National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC 2007),
2009.
 “Wind Turbine Sound”, New England Wind Forum website, U.S. Department of Energy.
 Kamperman, George E. and James, Richard. R., The “How To” Guide to Siting Wind Turbines
to Prevent Health Risks from Sound, 2008.
 Palmer, William, Understanding Wind Turbine Setbacks, November 2009, Posted on Wind
Concerns Ontario.
 Soysal, Hulkat and soysal, Oguz, Wind Farm Noise and Regulations in the Eastern United
States, 2007.
 Rademakers and Braam, Analysis of Risk-Involved Incidents of Wind Turbines, Attachment 1
published as Appendix A in Guide for Risk-Based Zoning of Wind Turbines, 2005.
 Nielson, Arne, Shadow-Flicker Modeling - Wild Horse, WA., 2003.
 Firestone, Jeremy, et al, Regulating Offshore Wind Power and Aquaculture: Messaged from
Land and Sea, Cornel Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 14:71, 2004.
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/cms/jfirestone/WindAquaRegCJP.pdf
 Bowdler, Dick, Assessment of Wind farm Noise, 2001
http://www.viewsofscotland.org/library/docs/Assessment_of_WF_noise_Bowdler_Jul01.pdf

Wind Energy Siting Plan - Working Document Version 1 Draft

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Wind Energy Siting Plan - Working Document Version 1 Draft

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

for Dukes County

Draft Working Document

MARTHA'S VINEYARD COMMISSION

P.O.BOX 1447  33 NEW YORK AVENUE  OAK BLUFFS  MA  02557

REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY OF DUKES COUNTY

2. Planning and Regulatory Context

3. Factors for Siting Wind Turbines

4. Project Development and Regulatory Process

individual users with large energy

There are no standardized measures to

utility-scale generation, which is needed if

2.1 Energy Use and Needs

2.2 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Energy Initiatives

2.2.2 Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan: The Massachusetts Oceans Act,

2.3 Martha's Vineyard Commission

Island Plan Objectives and Strategies Related to Renewable Energy Generation

Note: A matrix of local bylaws will be added here.

3.1 Wind Availability and Access

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Source / Activity Indicative noise level dB(A)

Threshold of pain 140

Jet aircraft at 250m 105

Truck at 30mph at 100m 65

Busy general office 60

Car at 40mph at 100m 55

Wind farm at 350m 35-45

Rural night-time background 20-40

3.4 Flicker Effect

3.5 Relation to Transportation

3.6 Natural Environment

3.7 Economic Activities and Property Values

3.8 Recreational Activities

3.9 Visual Impacts and Scenic Values

3.12 Construction and Decommissioning

3.13 Operation and Maintenance

4.1 Public, Intermunicipal, and Community Development and

4.2 Planning and Regulatory Processes

A1: Types of Wind Turbine Sound

Visibility at 2 miles (25%)

Visibility at 4 miles (6%

Visibility at 8 miles (2%)

 Chatauqua County (NY) Citizens For Responsible Wind website

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi