Forward Wind back

Developer:  Invenergy
Dodge and Fond du Lac Counties, WI

• Project Background
• Wisconsin Context
• Siting and Zoning
• Environmental Impact Statement and Public Discourse
• Conclusions
• Bibliography

“I think the number one issue with opponents of wind farms is the view. I think people use other issues because they are concerned about this.”
-Kevin Smith, Senior Vice President, Invenergy, LLC

“They’re hideous. They remind me of ‘The War of the Worlds.’ They’re alien. They don’t belong here and anybody who doesn’t see that has dollar signs in their eyes.”
–Joe Breaden, President, Horicon Marsh System Advocates

Project Backgroundtop

The Forward Wind Energy Center is located in southern Fond Du Lac County and northern Dodge County in eastern Wisconsin, home to the small agricultural towns of Brownsville, South Byron, Oakfield, Lomira, and Leroy. These small communities are located fifty miles north of Milwaukee and twelve miles south of Fond Du Lac, one mile west of Highway 41, the main route of travel between these two cities. According to 2005 census estimates, Dodge County had a population density of 100 people per square mile, while Fond Du Lac County had a density of 137. The median household income is $50,000 in Dodge County and $48,000 in Fond Du Lac County. Brownsville, the largest of the nearby towns, has a population of 563 and a median income of $69,000.

The Horicon National Wildlife Refuge lies two miles to the east of the Wind Energy Center. The Marsh is a nationally and internationally renowned wetland and, at 32,000 acres, the largest cattail marsh in the world. The northern part of the marsh near the Forward wind farm is managed by the US Fish & Wildlife Services and is classified as a National Wildlife Refuge. Over 223 species of birds have been documented at the marsh, including endangered species like the Sandhill Crane. Fishing and hunting are allowed in the marsh, and a number of roads, bike trails, and hiking paths surround the area.

In 2004, Forward Wind LLC, a division of Invenergy Wind LLC, filed an application with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) for the authority to construct a 133 turbine, 200 MW wind energy facility. The Forward Project is the largest project in the state. The turbines are General Electric 1.5 MW turbines, with a ground-to-rotor tip height of nearly 400 feet. The proposed area is on a slight ridge and land use in this area is categorized as over 95% agricultural. The project area was chosen for its good wind resource, transmission availability, and perceived community acceptance.

Significant public opposition to the project developed in late 2004. Invenergy released the final environmental impact statement for the project in June 2005. The PSC approved the project in July, but opponents appealed the decision. The project was delayed for over a year as the appeal went through the courts. Invenergy would have been able to begin construction at this time, but the Federal Aviation Administration put a temporary moratorium on large wind farms while it conducted a study on impacts on military radar syst The PSC’s decision was affirmed in 2007, and construction began in late 2007. The first phase of the project (86 turbines) went online in April 2008. The public response for this project will be discussed in more detail in the last section.

Wisconsin Context top

In 1999, Wisconsin passed a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that required 2.2% of all electricity purchased by utilities to be from renewable sources by 2011. In 2003, the RPS was expanded to reach 10% by 2015. Wisconsin is an energy importer, buying over $6 billion per year of electricity from nearby states.

Wisconsin has few options for renewable development, which means that good wind resource areas are quickly being developed to meet the state’s RPS goals. Nearly all of the class four wind areas, which have annual wind speeds of 15-16mph, are in eastern Wisconsin near Lake Winnebago.  This area has been the focus of wind development, and almost 500 MW of wind energy are now either operating or under development in Dodge, Fond du Lac, Calumet, and Manitowac counties.

A number of these projects have been controversial, including Forward Wind. Ordinances restricting or obstructing wind development were passed in six counties in Wisconsin in the wake of these controversies.  However, in August 2009, the District 2 Appeals Court struck down the ordinances in Calumet County. The state legislature is likely to set new siting requirements that will do away with the existing patchwork of local ordinances.  In the meantime, some Wisconsin utilities are looking to build wind farms out of state in order to fully meet state RPS goals.

Siting and Zoning top

All proposed power facilities greater than 100 MW must obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources requires erosion control and stormwater runoff permits for wind turbine construction. The Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) stipulates that large power facilities that are subject to both PSC and DNR restrictions must draft an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) outlining the project’s impact on the human and natural environment and submit it to the PSC. The draft will be revised and then presented to the PSC as a Final EIS in a public hearing after which, the PSC will choose to either accept or deny the application.

The PSC does have extensive requirements for the assessment of wind impacts on wildlife, some of which were developed after or in response to the controversy surrounding the Forward Project. However, the PSC has no requirements for visual impact assessment. It has the ability to exercise broad control over the definition of an “individual hardship” and could therefore block a wind farm that doesn’t complete a visual impact analysis, but it has yet to exercise this option.

Finally, a wind project can obtain special or conditional-use permits from the surrounding townships. These permits are not necessary once PSC approval has been granted, but they are important for maintaining good community relationships. Invenergy was able to obtain permits from all the surrounding towns for Forward Wind.

Environmental Impact Statement and Public Discourse top

Public opposition to the Forward project began forming almost immediately in the affected towns. Two Brownsville residents, Joe Breaden, a high-school ecology teacher, and Curt Kindschuh, a former deputy and founder of Drunk Busters of America, formed the Horicon Marsh Systems Advocates (HMS Advocates) in 2004 to oppose the wind development. The Advocates primarily opposed the wind turbines because of their impacts on the wildlife in Horicon Marsh, but their website cites a number of other concerns, including aesthetics, property devaluation, and noise. In order to redress these concerns, the HMS Advocates asked for a three-year bird and bat study, a more comprehensive study on property values, and an unconditional five-mile setback from the Horicon Marsh before any construction could begin.

In late 2004, Invenergy held a number of town meetings which attempted to dispel “rumors” surrounding the wind farm development. Its meetings were well attended, with more than 125 individuals attending in Brownsville in November. The HMS Advocates were also able to draw over 120 individuals to their Brownsville meeting three months later

Figure 2: Sign developed by the HMS Advocates

By early 2005, the public controversy had escalated. HMS Advocates built a website, filed as a nonprofit and began accepting donations to further their cause. With donations and other funding, HMS Advocates was able to commission outside reports and hire professional lawyers. The group also began selling large yard signs that exclaimed “NO WIND TURBINES HERE!” These yard signs became a larger part of the controversy when two 21-year-olds stole at least ten of the signs and vandalized seven more. Kindschuh would later sue for $5,000 for trespassing, past and future emotional distress, and property damages.

In April 2005, the PSC and DNR released the 600-page draft EIS (DEIS) outlining the environmental and human impacts of the Forward project. Because the PSC, DNR and WEPA do not require wind projects to perform a visual impact assessment, Invenergy included only a brief (five page) assessment on visual impacts without any qualitative assessment or conclusions. This route was taken because “many factors, as well as individual ideas and experiences, would determine how a wind energy facility…was aesthetically perceived.” Nonetheless, the document concluded that the project would result in permanent changes in the physical environment.

Figure 3: Forward Simulation

In order to demonstrate the visual impacts, Invenergy performed four visual impact simulations (Figure 1). All of these simulations were done under overcast or foggy conditions. These simulations portrayed a potentially unrealistic depiction of the turbines, since Wisconsin has many sunny days during the year. This led the PSC to include photos taken of the Montfort, WI wind farm, the largest wind farm in Wisconsin at the time. These pictures showed varying light conditions for comparison, including during sunny, clear days and at dusk. The PSC also included a photo simulation constructed by citizens in the area. The simulation is taken from the Horicon Marsh (Figure 2). An altered version of the simulation is also displayed on the HMS Advocates’ website, which features birds flying across the viewshed in front of turbines (Figure 3). It’s unknown whether the birds were in the original photograph and later removed or were added by the HMS Advocates.

Figures 4, 5 : Conflicting simulations

The DEIS received over three hundred public comments. National conservation groups found faults in the wildlife impact assessment, which Invenergy admitted was less thorough than comparable wind developments in Wisconsin has been. By this point, Invenergy had already committed to doing a more thorough and ongoing wildlife impact survey. Most citizens worried about the impacts to wildlife and aesthetics, branding turbines as “spinning machetes of death,” “scars,” and comparing them to the “Black Plague.” While many of the comments came from local citizens and organizations, an additional seventy were sent in by out-of-state citizens via a form letter citing wildlife concerns. These comments were struck from the record by the PSC as they were “duplicative.” Other concerns arose over corporate ownership, health effects, the turbines’ proximity to private airstrips, and decreased property values. The property values debate was especially contentious, with both HMS Advocates and Invenergy commissioning studies. The PSC concluded that property values would not be significantly affected by the wind farm.

The project also received many comments of support from organizations and citizens. Clean Wisconsin and RENEW Wisconsin were both strong advocates of the project throughout the hearing process. Some residents, who had lived near the area for more than fifty years, also indicated their support. Those who would have turbines on their property were generally very supportive. Others put the Horicon Marsh in perspective, noting that turbines kill far fewer birds than coal plants, hunters, the roads surrounding the refuge, and past dredging of the marsh.

Invenergy responded to these concerns in the June 2005 Final EIS (FEIS). The PSC’s July public hearing approved the project. Invenergy was already in the midst of a follow-up wildlife study, so the PSC found no fault with the wildlife impacts as outlined in the FEIS. They noted that more environmental impacts would be avoided by using wind power rather than fossil fuels. The PSC did require a two-mile setback from the Horicon Marsh, much less than the demands of many conservation groups but eliminating two strings of potential turbine sites and reducing the first phase of the project down to 86 turbines. The first phase could be further extended after the wildlife studies were completed. After the decision, the HMS Advocates immediately petitioned for a rehearing, but were denied.

In a surprising move after gaining PSC approval, Invenergy chose to offer nearby landowners compensation for potential property devaluation due to the visual impact of the wind farm. Residents living within one third of a mile of one turbine would receive $500 per year, and those living within one third of a mile of two or more turbines would receive $750 per year. The move came as the town of Byron was negotiating a special-use permit for the project, which was unanimously approved after the addition of these compensatory funds.

The HMS Advocates continued to fight the project by petitioning the PSC-affirming decision made by the Dodge County Circuit Court. Their request was denied in March 2006, and so HMS Advocates appealed that decision as well. The group was not secret about its intentions with the appeals. “We could very easily drag this out for several years in our legal system, and we have every intention of doing that,” said Kindschuh. However, the appeals court ruled in favor of Invenergy in July 2007 and HMS Advocates chose not to take the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Because of the appeals process and a tardy permit from the Federal Aviation Administration on military radar impacts, project construction was delayed until late 2007. The first phase of 86 turbines went online in March 2008. As of August 2009, there has been no announcements about the construction of a second phase of development.

Conclusions top

It’s difficult to assess what role visual impacts played in the Forward Wind case. While the earliest and primary concern voiced by the opposition was over wildlife impacts, visual impacts were often articulated as unease about property values. It’s also difficult to pinpoint the heart of the concerns because, it seems that once the HMS Advocates decided to stop the project at all costs, they began citing multiple concerns about health, noise, and corporate influence. All of these concerns have had an influence on the development of broader opposition campaigns to utility-scale wind power in Wisconsin.

Invenergy’s choice to commit very little resources toward a visual impact analysis in this case so near residences is rather unusual. While a visual analysis doesn’t guarantee community support, it provides the public with a more detailed explanation of potential impact. Their decision to compensate landowners who would be most visually impacted  remains a unique part of the case. Although it’s difficult to assess the success of this move, public opposition to the Forward project continued to wane afterward its construction.

The HMS Advocates did succeed in steering the PSC towards a middle path. The decision to install only the easternmost turbines in the first phase could be counted as a huge victory for the group. The less-than-rigorous wildlife study that Forward Wind performed for the DEIS was forced to be reassessed and turned into a comprehensive three-year study. After these challenges, Forward Wind was modestly successful in gaining more community support and moving forward with a compromise.

In the period since the resistance to the Forward project was formed, opposition groups in eastern Wisconsin have had greater success at stopping projects. Projects less than 100 MW have been stalled because of county wind moratoriums, resulting in an increasing number of projects greater than 100 MW. Groups have expanded upon the HMS Advocates position by articulating fears about the noise, health, and water impacts of turbines. Litigation battles have ensued between residents, developers, local governments and state agencies. The promise of statewide wind siting regulation may bring some resolution to this stalement, but as of now, Wisconsin’s wind farms continue to be very controversial.

Full Bibliography top

Bergquist, Lee. “PSC approves state’s largest wind farm.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 9, 2005. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=339775 (Accessed June 26, 2008).

Blohm, Jared. “Fight continues against wind farm.” Fond Du Lac Reporter, May 26, 2006. Pg03A.

Breister, Peggy. “Turbine meeting addresses ‘rumors’.” Fond Du Lac Reporter, December 15, 2004. Pg 01A.

Content, Thomas. “Invenergy to pay landowners within sight of turbines.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 27, 2005. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=366269 (Accessed June 26, 2008).

“Horicon Marsh System Advocates.” http://www.hmsadvocates.org (Accessed June 23, 2008).

Kottke, Colleen. “Wind Energy.” WisInfo.com, January 14, ,2008. http://www.windaction.org/news/13588. (Accessed June 30, 2008).

Margelofsky, Lara. “Opponents mobilize against Horicon Wind Farm.” Fond Du Lac Reporter, February 28, 2005. pg 01A.

“Wind Center gets go-ahead.” Fond Du Lac Reporter, July 10, 2005. pg01A.

Paynter, Brian. “Vandal in wind farm case gets probation.” Daily Citizen, May 25, 2006. http://www.windaction.org/news/3179 (Accessed June 27, 2008).“Wind farm wins again.” Daily Citizen, August 2, 2007. http://www.windaction.org/news/11102 (Accessed June 27, 2008).

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin “Case 9300-CE-100 (Forward Wind Project).” http://psc.wi.gov/index.htm (Accessed June 23, 2008).

“Forward Wind Project – Final Environmental Impact Statement.” May 18, 2005. http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=34146. http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=34147 (Accessed June 23, 2008).

“Public Comments to the Wisconsin PSC concerning Forward Wind Project.” http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=36939. http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=36938. http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=36937 (Accessed June 27, 2008).

Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resourcess. “Forward Wind Project - Final Environmental Impact Statement.” May 18, 2005.

Renew Wisconsin. “Wind farm sites in Wisconsin.” May 20, 2008. http://renewwisconsin.org/windfarm/windwisconsin.html (Accessed June 28, 2008).

Image Bibliography

Figure 1
Renew Wisconsin. “Proposed Wisconsin Wind Farm Sites” May 20, 2008. <http://www.renewwisconsin.org/windfarm/ProposedWisconsinWindfarmsmap6dec07.pdf>. (Accessed June 28, 2008).

Figure 2
“Horicon Marsh System Advocates.” <http://www.hmsadvocates.org/>. (Accessed June 23, 2008).

Figure 3
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. Forward Wind Project – Final Environmental Impact Statement. May 18, 2005. <http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=34147>. (Accessed June 23, 2008).

Figure 4
Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. Forward Wind Project – Final Environmental Impact Statement. May 18, 2005. <http://psc.wi.gov/apps/erf_share/view/viewdoc.aspx?docid=34147>. (Accessed June 23, 2008).  

Figure 5
“Horicon Marsh System Advocates.” <http://www.hmsadvocates.org/>. (Accessed June 23, 2008).