Assessing Potential Conflicts Between Wind Power Development and Other Land Uses Dr. David A. Publicover, Catherine J. Poppenwimer and Dr. Kenneth J. Kimball, Appalachian Mountain Club Research Department, Gorham, NH

STEP 2 - Identify Factors that are Potentially in Conflict INTRODUCTION This project was not undertaken to provide a plan for wind with Development power development in the Berkshire region, and is not intended to promote or constrain development of any In the Northeast the primary terrestrial sites for commercial Data on protected Open Space land and 16 ecological, particular site. The region was chosen solely as a pilot area to wind power development are higher elevation ridgelines - recreational and scenic factors that might potentially conflict Ecological Factors test the methodology. Conservation Status often the least developed parts of this heavily settled landscape with development was compiled from the and areas of potentially high ecological, recreational and Geographical Information System, obtained from other Areas of Critical scenic value. Stakeholders are faced with two worthy but organizations or developed by AMC. (See small maps to the Environmental Concern A - Legally Prohibited conflicting goals - promoting the development of clean, CAVEATS right. Two factors - generalized conservation priorities Ecological Factors BioMap Supporting renewable energy and conserving large tracts of undeveloped identified by The Nature Conservancy and snowmobile B - Primary Purpose - forest land. This project represents a starting point for assessing wind Natural Landscape Conservation - are not shown). Outstanding Resource Waters power siting across broad regions. However, many caveats BioMap Core Habitat C - Other Open Space Currently wind power development projects at sites chosen by must be kept in mind when evaluating the approach and Living Waters Core Habitat Lands developers are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by both results reported here: STEP 3 - Evaluate Each Site for Each Factor P - Unrestricted Private regulators and stakeholders. What has been missing is an Living Waters Critical overall landscape-level assessment that considers all potential - Not all factors relevant to wind power siting are considered Lands Potential development sites were overlaid with data on Open Supporting Watersheds sites, and public policies that guide development to the most (e.g. bird migration routes). Space land and each of the 16 factors and assigned a potential suitable sites from an overall social benefit perspective. - The factors considered in the analysis vary in importance, conflict rating as described below. Most sites were divided both legally and in the relative importance placed on them by into multiple segments to account for partial overlap with the The Appalachian Mountain Club, working in collaboration various stakeholders. various factors. with a variety of other interest groups, has developed a - The analysis considers only the spatial relationship between methodology for assessing the potential conflicts between potential development sites and potentially conflicting factors. wind power development and other land uses and values The presence of a potential conflict does not necessarily create Conservation (Open Space) Status across broad landscapes. The project is intended to: an actual conflict. - Factors may be related; multiple factors may represent the A: Land where development is legally restricted or clearly in - Allow a comparative evaluation of all potential wind presence of a single underlying feature or landscape condition. conflict with the primary purpose (e.g. ecological reserves or power development sites. - The analysis of scenic impact (perhaps the primary factor Wilderness areas). In this analysis only the Appalachian Ecological Factors - Guide development to the most suitable sites. affecting public view of wind power) is rudimentary and corridor was considered, though other lands (e.g. no- - Serve as a starting point for discussion of appropriate incomplete. development easements) could also qualify. Important Bird Areas state wind power siting policies that address the - The analysis does not consider existing land use (though in B: Other Federal or state land for which a primary purpose is unique issues associated with this technology. this area almost all sites lie on undeveloped forest land) or the conservation. Priority Habitat for presence existing development or infrastructure. C: Other Massachusetts Open Space lands (e.g. conservation Rare Species - The analysis does not consider economic factors of interest to easements, municipal land, land owned by non-profit BASIC ANALYTICAL APPROACH developers, such as distance from existing roads or conservation organizations). transmission lines. P: Unrestricted private land. The method taken in this project involves three steps: Although this methodology yields valuable information about Ecological, Recreational and Scenic factors 1. Identify potential wind power sites. potential conflicts between wind power development and other land uses or resource values, in the end a detailed examination 2. Identify factors that are potentially in conflict with Each of the 16 factors was rated as to the level of potential of each site is required to determine how development would development. conflict as follows: 3. Evaluate each site for each factor. affect each factor. Development Prohibited Significant potential conflict - segment overlays a feature or No attempt has been made to weight factors or to develop an (Conservation Status A) This process results in a comprehensive database that can then condition of primary importance for that factor. overall "suitability rating" for each site. Any attempt to be used to address a wide range of questions, including: Number of Factors Rated Significant develop such a rating would be inherently subjective, and Moderate potential conflict - segment overlays a feature or Ecological Factors 0 - 2 - What potential land use conflicts may affect wind involves considerations beyond those included in this analysis. condition of secondary importance for that factor. 3 - 5 power development at a particular site? In some cases a single factor may create an overriding Old Growth - How does a particular site compare with other impediment to development Developing overall ratings No potential conflict - segment does not overlay that factor. 6 - 10 would require the participation of and acceptance by the full potential sites in regards to the extent and nature of Large Roadless Areas range of stakeholder groups with an interest in wind power potential conflicts? It is important to recognize that the ratings assess the spatial development. - Which sites are affected by the most and fewest relationship between a site and the various factors, and thus potential conflicts? highlight potential conflicts. The presence of a Significant or - How much of the wind power potential of any Moderate conflict does not necessarily preclude wind power particular region is affected by any particular APPLICABILITY TO OTHER AREAS development. Rather it indicates factors that could affect the conflicting value? suitability of a site for development, and which should be - What tradeoffs might need to be made in order to The basic methodology outlined should be applicable to other considered in more detail if development is to proceed. meet specific targets for wind power development areas. However, the value of the assessment is strongly across a region of interest? dependent on the information that is available on potential conflicts, which will vary from region to region (much of it on Examples of conflict ratings: a state-by-state basis). If available data does not represent a PILOT PROJECT broad range of potential conflicts, the assessment will not give BioMap Habitat Areas a complete picture of what factors might affect wind power The AMC worked in consultation with other organizations development. Application of the methodology to areas where (S) Segment lies within BioMap Core Habitat. with an interest in appropriate wind power siting to develop the suitable wind power resource encompasses broad areas (M) Segment lies within BioMap Supporting Natural Landscape. Ecological Factors Miles and test this methodology. The project used the Berkshire (such a plains, coastal or off-shore areas) rather than discrete 0 5 10 15 20 Slope (%) Mountains region of western Massachusetts as a pilot study and easily delineated ridgelines would require some variation (X) Segment lies outside of BioMap habitat areas. area, with the goal of developing an approach that can be in the analytical approach. High Recreational Use < 25 applied to other regions. Recreational Factors Scenic Factors > 25 Evaluation: Mohawk Trail Viewpoints (S) Site lies within a high recreational use area* and is High Recreational Use accessed by a recreational trail (other than a Long Viewpoints Distance Trail). Commonwealth Connections STEP 1 - Identify Potential Wind Power Sites (M) Site is accessed by a trail (other than a Long Distance Vision Areas Mohawk Trail Trail) but lies outside high recreational use areas. Appalachian Trail Wind resource data developed by TrueWind Solutions, LLC was used to identify potential wind power development sites. (X) Site is not accessed by a recreational trail (other than a Long Distance Trails Areas with a wind power class of 4 or above (considered the minimum suitable for commercial development given current Long Distance Trail). Number of Viewpoints technology and economics) were isolated and the associated ridgeline was digitized by reference to contour line data. Long Distance Trail From Which a Site is Visible 1/2 Mile Buffer *High recreational use areas were defined as large public 1 lands that have a high density of recreational trails as shown on published recreational trail maps and are promoted as 2 recreational areas by the state. 3

Appalachian National Scenic Trail Viewshed 4

(S) Segment lies within the Foreground zone (<1/2 mile) or 5 Segment lies within the Middleground zone (1/2 to 2 miles) and is visible from any viewpoint or Segment lies within the 6 Background zone (2 to 4 miles) and is visible from two or more viewpoints. DATA SOURCES Generalized conservation priorities (M) Segment lies within the Background zone and is visible data was provided by the from one viewpoint. Massachusetts Chapter of The Wind resource data was provided by Nature Conservancy. (This data is ME (X) Segment lies more than 4 miles from the AT or Segment TrueWind Solutions, LLC (developed not shown as it is not available under contract to AWS Scientific, Inc. for public display). lies less than 4 miles from the AT but is not visible from as part of a project jointly funded by the any viewpoint. Clean Energy Fund, the Important Bird Areas data was VT Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, provided by the Massachusetts and Northeast Utilities System). Audubon Society.

The following data was provided by Snowmobile trail data was obtained Massachusetts Geographic Information from the statewide snowmobile Systems: corridor trail map (2002) published RESULTS * For all 16 factors, the proportion of ridgeline rated as having by the Snowmobile Association of Table 1. Percent of ridgeline rated Significant for each factor. Table 2a. Conservation Status by number of factors rated Significant. Protected and Recreational Open Space Massachusetts. This data was not Miles a Significant level of potential conflict was greater for available in digital form and therefore 0 5 10 15 20 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern NH Among the results derived from this analysis are: ridgeline on Major Public Lands. For 11 of the 16 factors the NHESP BioMap Core Habitat is not displayed. The relationship BioMap Habitat Areas 57% Conservation Status NHESP BioMap Supporting Natural Landscape between trail location and potential proportion rated Significant was at least 50% higher on Major Large Roadless Areas 47% Number of factors rated Significant A B C P All Outstanding Resource Waters wind power sites could only be approximately determined. Commonwealth Connections Vision Areas 41% 0-2 0% 22% 50% 75% 40% NHESP Living Waters Core Habitat * 93 miles of potentially developable ridgeline were delineated Public Lands. NHESP Living Waters Critical Supporting in 62 discrete sites ranging from 0.1 to 5.5 miles in length. * Segments rated Significant for many factors involve potential High Recreational Use 37% 3-5 27% 56% 48% 22% 39% Watersheds Nature Conservancy Priority Areas 30% 6-10 73% 22% 2% 3% 21% Priority Habitats of Rare Species ADDITIONAL INFORMATION * conflicts with a wide range of resource values and may be less Long Distance Trails Wind Power Class 4 - 7 15% of the ridgeline lay along the Appalachian Trail corridor Long Distance Trails 30% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (Conservation Status A). Another 38% was on other major suitable for development. The likelihood that a segment Appalachian National Scenic Trail Viewshed 28% The following data was developed by the Detailed information on the objectives, state and federal lands (Conservation Status B). Together involves multiple conflicts is much greater on public Habitat for Rare Species 26% Table 2b. Number of factors rated Significant by Conservation Status. Appalachian Mountain Club: procedures and results of this project can be found in A Methodology for MA these two categories (considered "Major Public Lands") conservation lands than on private land. About 40% percent Topography (steep slopes) 25% Large roadless areas Assessing Conflicts Between Wind encompassed 53% of the potentially developable ridgeline. of the ridgeline was rated Significant for two or fewer factors Important Bird Areas 25% Conservation Status High recreational use areas (a subset of Power Development and Other Land Snowmobile Trails 16% Number of factors rated Significant A B C P Total MassGIS Protected and Recreational Uses (AMC Technical Report 04-2, May Another 13% lay on other Open Space lands (Conservation (large map and Table 2a); 63% of this lies on unrestricted Open Space data) 2004). For copies of this report, contact Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway Viewshed 12% 0-2 0% 21% 16% 63% 100% Commonwealth Connections Vision Areas Dr. David Publicover RI Status C) and 34% on unrestricted private land (Conservation private lands (Table 2b). These are the sites that may be Outstanding Resource Waters 6% 3-5 11% 55% 16% 19% 100% (as part of a cooperative project with the ([email protected]). most appropriate for initial consideration of wind power 6-10 54% 41% 1% 4% 100% Massachusetts Department of CT Status P). Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 5% Environmental Management) Funding for this project was provided by * For individual factors, the proportion of total ridgeline rated development. Another 21% was rated Significant for six or Old Growth 2% All 15% 38% 13% 34% 100% Slope (derived from USGS 30-meter Digital grants to the Appalachian Mountain Club Living Waters Habitat Areas <1% Elevation Model data) Research Department from the Significant ranged from less than 1% to 57% (Table 1). more factors, of which 95% is located on Major Public Lands. Appalachian National Scenic Trail viewshed Massachusetts Technology Collaborative These are the sites that may be the least appropriate for Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway viewshed and the Merck Family Fund. wind power development. Old growth data was provided by GIS software provided by grant to the Gary Beluzo and Robert Leverett. Appalachian Mountain Club from ESRI Environmental Conservation Program.