Wild Horse Wind back

Developer:  Horizon/Puget Sound Energy
Kittitas County, WA

• Project Background
• Regional Context
• Siting and Zoning
• Environmental Assessment and Public Discourse
• Conclusions
• Bibliography

Project Background top

The Wild Horse Wind Project (WHWP) is located on the ridges of Whiskey Dick Mountain, about 10 miles east of Kittitas and 15 miles east of Ellensburg, in Kittitas County, Washington.  This area is a part of the Columbia River Plateau region of northeast Oregon and eastern Washington.  The county is sparsely populated (population: 37,189, density: 16 persons/square mile) and the major land use patterns are agriculture and forestry.  In the 2000 census, the median household income in Kittitas County was $32,546 and the per capita income was $18,928.
           
The WHWP, as it is currently operating, has a capacity of 229 MW using 127 Vestas V80 1.8 MW turbines that reach a total height of 351 feet.  The project area covers 8,600 acres of cattle rangeland, roughly 165 acres of which is disturbed by the turbines, access roads, collector lines, grid interconnection and associated buildings.  The project did not require the construction of any new high voltage transmission lines. In early PSE, an amendment to PSE’s site certificate was passed with little contention, allowing PSE to expand their land to build 20 more turbines. 
           
Horizon Wind developed WHWP and sold the Site Certification Agreement (SCA) to Puget Sound Energy (PSE) in August 2005.  PSE currently operates and distributes the power from the project to its customers through PSE's Intermountain Power 115 kV transmission line.  Horizon Wind was owned by Goldman Sachs at the time of development (it has subsequently been sold to EDP, a major Portuguese utility that focuses on renewable energy), and has developed wind projects throughout the United States.  PSE is Washington's oldest and largest utility company.  The WHWP is PSE's second wind power facility and wind power currently makes up 2% of the total energy they generate.  However, PSE elects to sell their wind energy through Renewable Energy Credits, and therefore does not officially include wind in their power supply profile.

On their website, Horizon Wind branded the project as providing “affordable, pollution-free electricity to the Northwest,” that has brought new jobs and substantial property tax revenues to Kittitas County.  Furthermore, they write that the different parts of the project “blend well with other land uses”. Their website displays a picture of the project with a wolf trotting through a snowy landscape filled with turbines.  PSE's website stresses the new jobs and “more than $2 million in tax revenue annually to the community” through the project.

The project includes a 500 kW demonstration solar array, and in April 2008, PSE opened their “Renewable Energy Center” at the site.  Open to the public seven days a week from April to November, the Center includes views of the entire facility, Mt. Rainier, Mt. Adams, Mt. Hood, and the Columbia River Basin to the east.  Interpretive displays at the center, developed by Central Washington University, “lead visitors on a trail of discovery as they learn about the site and renewable energy.”

Regional Context top

The Columbia River Plateau is one of the fastest developing regions in the country for wind energy.  As of July 2009, the region had 2704-MW of installed wind power at 22 different projects, up to 1632-MW under construction at 6 sites, 2429-MW approved but not constructed in 13 different projects, and 1695-MW under permit review at 7 different projects.
Statewide energy policy in Washington is favorable toward wind development.  Widespread public support for renewable energy led to a citizen-drafted ballot initiative that passed in 2006.  I-937 requires public and private utilities in the state to provide 3% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 15% by 2020. 

Kittitas County passed an ordinance in December 2002 that required any proposed wind development to gain approval of the Board of County Commissioners to rezone the site as a Wind Farm Resource Overlay Zone in addition to obtaining the necessary Development Agreement from the County Commissioners.  In 2007, amid controversy surrounding Kittitas Valley Wind and Desert Claim Wind, two other proposed projects in the county, the Board of Commissioners pre-defined approximately 500 square miles of the county as a Wind Farm Resource Overlay Zone, indicating that the area was generally acceptable for wind development.  WHWP had already been constructed and operating for over six months, and its site fell within the pre-defined area.  Since then, one additional project (Vantage Wind) has been approved in that zone. 

Siting and Zoning top

According to their website, Horizon Wind chose the Wild Horse site for its “energetic wind resource and its access to several sets of power transmission lines, which have adequate capacity to allow the wind-generated power to be integrated into the power grid system.”  It seems that the site was also valued for its zoning as “Forest and Range” by the county, which is considered acceptable for wind development.  The project saw little opposition based on its visual impact, which could likely be credited to its distance from any local residences.

Because Horizon chose to develop WHWP under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC), they were subject to its permitting process which includes an application for a Site Certification Agreement (SCA), followed by a public meeting, a land use hearing, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and a permit review. The Council then makes a recommendation to the Governor, who holds the final power to approve or deny the project (with the possibility of review by the state Supreme Court). 

Environmental Assessment and Public Discourse top

Figure 1: Visual Simulation

The EFSEC commissioned Jones & Stokes, an environmental consulting firm with offices in Washington, Oregon, California, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming, to draft the EIS, which included a Zone of Visual Influence study and  visual simulations of the most likely scenario as well as alternatives from six viewing locations.  A night-time photo of the nearby Nine Mile Canyon Wind Farm was also included to provide a sense of potential impacts.  The Final EIS included changes that had been made to the site plan due to FAA regulations and revised simulations from the two original viewing locations that were affected by those changes.

In addition to the ZVI analysis and computer generated simulations, a visual impact study was performed from the six viewing areas identified in the simulations.  The study was based on three months of fieldwork, photos of the project site and views of the project site, local planning documents, a literature review of the visual impact field, and the computer simulations.  This analysis categorized the views based on the level of their scenic qualities, the sensitivity of their views, and their distance from the project site to determine the expected level of visual impact.  The scenic qualities of a view were defined by it vividness, intactness, and unity of patterns in the landscape.  The potential impacts were rated on a scale of low, moderate, or high.  Of the six views analyzed, three were determined to be moderate and three as low. 

The EIS also included analysis of noise, wildlife, and vegetation impacts, all of which were determined to be minor.  The nearest home is almost two miles away from the site and the noise from the turbines would be quieter than the background noise level there.  While there is a potential for adverse impact to birds from the project, the EFSEC determined the site area was not any more likely to be used by migrating birds than other areas of the valley.  Bat studies are not required by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Guidelines for Baseline and Monitoring Studies for Wind Projects.  While there were disturbances of fragile soils and ecosystems during construction and now during operation of the project, the fact that the project impacts less than 1% of the land within the project boundaries means that over 99% of the land (much of which is fragile sage brush habitat) will be protected from further, more damaging development such as housing or ranching.

Public response to the WHWP has been mixed, but not highly contentious compared to other large wind projects in the region.  There was a public hearing on the completeness of the Draft EIS where a few citizens voiced concerns about the impact the project might have on wildlife and recreation within and around the site.  The most contentious issue seemed to be the possibility that a private road within the project site might be closed to public access and that hunting within the site would be restricted.

The EFSEC only received 32 public comments outside of the public hearing on the Draft EIS, many of which were in support of the project and many of which were from people who commented at the public hearing as well.  Helen Wise, a local retiree, commented in her letter: “I came to this valley 51 years ago when my boys were five and seven.  I knew we had been blessed that life had brought us to such a beautiful and majestic country.  Wind turbines will not destroy such grandeur; rather, turbines will be monuments to the wind which is, in part, created by the mountains and valleys to our northwest.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and, therefore, is not subject to mitigation for many opponents.”  She goes on to clarify that she would get no material gain from the project and supports it out of environmental concerns. 

The strongest letter of opposition came from the Kittitas Audubon Society, whose concerns ranged from general impacts on raptors, passerines, and bats to the specific case of Sage Brush Steppe habitat and the impact of the project on the sage grouse.  Nine turbine locations were eliminated near potential sage grouse habitat and WHWP preserved 600 acres of sage grouse habitat within the project boundaries with a conservation easement.  The Society also voiced concerns over the cumulative effects of wind development in Kittitas County and the Columbia River Plateau, arguing that the state was neglecting its oversight duties by only considering the other projects in the county as alternatives in the Draft EIS, when in reality they are likely to be cumulative.  The EFSEC responded to this concern by pointing to the Final EIS, in which they address some of the possible cumulative effects of wind development, but do not address the cumulative effects on birds or bats, claiming that “Analyzing cumulative impacts at the state and national level is outside the scope of this EIS.”

Friends of Wildlife and Wind Power (FWWP), a group of citizens from Kittitas county, wrote a public comment to the EFSEC requesting that about half of the turbine sites be relocated to avoid adverse wildlife impacts.  The group claimed to have an interest in the project's success because of its environmental advantages, but wanted to minimize wildlife impacts.  FWWP members own land in close proximity to the project site, and one of their requests was to move the north string of turbines southeast of the southern string to avoid wildlife impacts on five canyons.  The group had “no objection to the southern string of turbines...but request[ed] consideration that they be moved slightly south to reduce their visual impact from the north.”

The repeated concerns throughout the public commenting process about access to the land were complicated by the fact that the land was private property held by an absentee owner.  Local residents had become accustomed to accessing the area through a private road and hunting on the private property, despite the fact that they had no legally guaranteed right to do so.  The WHWP did bring changes to that, but PSE agreed to allow controlled access to some areas of the site for recreational uses, including hunting.

On July 8, 2008, PSE announced it was requesting an amendment to the Site Certification Agreement that would allow for 26 additional turbines to be added to the project, which would expand the land needed from 8,600 to 9,880 acres.  In September, responding to public comment, PSE reduced the number of turbines requested to 22.  Controversy over the request was limited; in the public hearings on the amendment certificate, every citizen who gave comment stressed how PSE had been very cooperative, and lent either strong support or cautious support with minor concerns. PSE had voluntarily become partners in the local Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) plan, which conducted research and gave recommendations for mitigation of wildlife impacts. The amendment also contained a clause which would move PSE towards creating a conservation easement, further reducing overdevelopment concerns.  The EFSEC approved the amendment in January of 2009, and construction began in May on the expanded project.

Soon after, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife created a set of wind power guidelines that set out policy to mitigate the wildlife impacts of development.  It was publically commended by wind developers and conservation groups alike.  Although the guidelines were created after Wild Horse was constructed, many of the actors involved with Wind Horse, include PSE and the Audubon Society, were involved in the creation of the guidelines and commended it for laying forth a streamlined process for reducing the wildlife impacts of wind turbine construction.

Conclusions top

The WHWP can be classified as a successful project.  It achieved widespread public support before the permit was approved and construction began.  The project site has also become a renewable energy testing ground of sorts, with the state's first large-scale solar power demonstration project installed in early 2008, including the first solar panels manufactured in the state. PSE’s information center also highlights its model development status.

While WHWP met little public resistance, more recent wind projects in Kittitas Valley have been more controversial. The Kittitas Valley Wind Farm, another project of Horizon Energy, has been the center of a nearly-five-year controversy that has set new precedents for wind development in Washington.  When the project was not approved by the county government, the EFSEC exercised its authority and requested that Governor Chris Gregoire approve the project.  Gov. Gregoire’s eventual approval set off a court battle that ended in the state Supreme Court.  The precedent set by the decision to affirm the state’s power over the county has increased tensions over the lack of local decision-making capabilities in wind development.

Perhaps, then, the most interesting facet of the Wind Horse study is that it has been so successful.  The Board of County Commissioners, in the face of controversy over further wind development, managed to find an area that was generally acceptable to both wind developers and residents of the county that could be designated as a Wind Farm Resource Overlay Zone.  Why has Wild Horse been so successful when other projects in this same county have met staunch resistance?  Ed Garrett, the spokesman for Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines, a group opposed to two other wind projects in the county, is quoted in a news story on Horizon's website: “Our hope has always been that they put wind farms out where people don't live, where there are fewer impacts.  The two people who live near the Wild Horse project support it.  Wild Horse has all the good points going for it.”

Development in the Columbia Basin will continue to be a source of public conflict as long as the area remains an important public resource for recreation and sight-seeing. There is hope among conservationists and developers that the new public guidelines for wildlife impact mitigation may pre-empt conflicts, but the increase of turbines will continue to have significant visual impacts.  Moreover, the controversy around the state’s authority to give the final approval of wind development may set the stage for future conflicts over citizen participation in wind development.  Wind Horse could be seen as an example for proper development, but it is likely that controversy in the Columbia basin is far from settled.

Full Bibliographytop

Cornwall, W. “An ugly battle over clean power.” Seattle Times. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003762626_wind26m.html (accessed July 17, 2008).

Duryee, T. “Power Shift: Wind now seen as a viable alternative energy source.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/ 2002046381_wind26.html (accessed July 17, 2008).

Duryee, T. “PSE buying wind-power farm.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002046381_wind26.html (accessed July 17, 2008).

Garber, A. “Renewable resources focus of I-937.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002981358_initiatives09m.html (accessed July 17, 2008).

Horizon Wind. “Wild Horse Wind Farm, Washington.” Developed and Sold Projects. http://www.horizonwind.com/projects/whatwevedone/wildhorse.aspx (accessed July 17, 2008).

Johnston, M. “County approves Vantage wind farm.” Daily Record. http://www.kvnews.com/articles/2008/05/07/news/doc48220be47eccd918829802.txt (accessed July 17, 2008).

Johnston, M. “Supreme Court decision paves way for wind farm.” The Daily Record. http://www.kvnews.com/articles/2008/12/29/news/doc495929df4b73b382207273.txt (accessed July 23, 2009).

Johnston, M. “Wild Horse Wind Farm Going to Governor; State Energy Agency Gives Thumbs Up.” Zilkha News. http://www.horizonwind.com/news/articles/2005may26-2.aspx (accessed July 17, 2008).

Oregon Energy Facilities Siting Council. Wind Projects in the Columbia Plateau Region. http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/SITING/docs/Wind_Projects90526.pdf (accessed July 22, 2009).

Puget Sound Energy. “Wild Horse Wind Facility.” PSE Wind Assets. http://www.pse.com/energyEnvironment/energysupply/pages/EnergySupply_ElectricityWind.aspx?tab=3&chapter=1 (accessed July 17, 2008).

Washington Energy Facility Siting Evaluation Council. “Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” http://www.efsec.wa.gov/wildhorse/deis/whdeis.shtm (accessed July 17, 2008).

Washington Energy Facility Siting Evaluation Council. “Final Environmental Impact Statement.” http://www.efsec.wa.gov/wildhorse/feis/whfeis.shtm (accessed July 17, 2008).

Washington Energy Facility Siting Evaluation Council. “Wild Horse Wind and Solar Power Project.” http://www.efsec.wa.gov/wildhorse.shtml (accessed July 23, 2009)

Washington Energy Facility Siting Evaluation Council. “Wild Horse Wind Power Project Public Hearing Transcript.” http://www.efsec.wa.gov/FILES/minutes/2008/Transcript%20from%20hearing%208-6-08.pdf (accessed July 23, 2009)

Image Bibliography

Figure 1 - Washington Energy Facility Siting Evaluation Council. “Draft Environmental Impact Statement.” http://www.efsec.wa.gov/wildhorse/deis/whdeis.shtm (accessed July 17, 2008).