Wind farm SEPA finding: Wind farm opponents fail to change planner’s decision

County planner Alan Thomson last week affirmed his decision that the county’s proposed commercial wind ordinance would have no significant environmental impacts. The opinion was issued under requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act.

Thomson’s decision was challenged by Roger Whitten of Oakesdale, Carolyn Kiesz of Thornton and Brian Bannan of Uniontown.

Thomson’s affirmation said their comments did not bring up any significant impacts on the environment.

Under SEPA provisions, the three challengers have the opportunity to appeal. Because the county lacks a defined process to hear SEPA appeals, the opponents can take their appeals to superior court.

Whitten said the ordinance did not adequately protect the general public from low frequency noise pollution emitted from industrial wind turbines. Whitten suggested the county ordinance use a more stringent C-weighted scale for measuring sound frequencies. The ordinance uses the A-weighted scale.

Thomson said the planning commission looked thoroughly into the issue while drawing up the ordinance. He said state law and all Washington county codes use the A scale in their ordinances. He also noted the A scale is cited as adequate in many industry regulations and studies.

He similarly responded to Kiesz’ comment that the ordinance did not adequately address low frequency noise pollution.

Kiesz contended turbines would be detrimental to the Palouse Scenic Byway. Erection of wind towers along the byway, she said, would be detrimental to the county’s tourism economy. Bannan also commented that the byway would suffer from wind turbines.

Thomson responded to both that state law has no regulatory power over private land outside the right of way of the road.

On a side note, the Palouse Scenic Byway Committee recently issued a statement in support of development of commercial wind farms.

Kiesz’ also said the proposed ordinance does not protect migratory patterns of birds.

Thomson said the ordinance was sent to the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, which did not respond to the SEPA determination within the 14-day time frame. Still, he said, the planning commission put the agency’s avian suggestions into the ordinance. He added avian flight paths would be considered during the permit process of any specific project.

Kiesz urged the county to reqwuire a technical advisory committee to oversee the impacts a wind farm might have on wildlife.

Thomson replied such a committee was unnecessary because state and federal agencies can force wind farm owners to mitigate impacts to wildlife at any time they occur during the life of the project.

Most of Bannan’s comments said that wind farms would have an adverse effect on the visual appeal or aesthetics of Whitman County.

Thomson said aesthetics have been deemed as an insufficient reason for banning development of wind farms in several instances of case law. He added some of Bannan’s requested restrictions would be “an unreasonable burden” on the property rights of owners of land on which wind farms are being considered.