Caring More About PLACEMENT

...apart, of course, from the company need for suitable wind locations

Where might we place wind turbines in Vermont?


The question is likely to produce strong and highly varied reactions.


Some people find the new, large, commercial or community-scaled machines beautiful as they turn slowly in the wind -- and others see them as industrial encroachment into their communities or valued wild places.





A study by the Vermont Public Service Department (Vermont Energy Future Final Report, available through www.vermontsenergyfuture.info) suggests that a large majority of Vermonters favor wind development. I would guess many of those same people also might want to protect the outstanding scenic beauty with which our state is blessed (and preserved through the hard work of its citizens).

Can we have both? How do we decide? Are there rational ways to address aesthetics?


As a landscape designer, those questions form the basis of my job: I work regularly on the visual impacts of new structures -- and, hopefully, inspire more productive, civil discussions.

We humans experience our surroundings in large part with our eyes, so it is not surprising these large and highly visible machines elicit visceral reactions. We can't tuck them away behind pine-tree hedges in industrial parks. They need strong, steady wind. In Vermont, that usually means they must be sited on ridges or at least on high-elevation land.

No form of power generation is without impacts, and wind energy, though benign in a number of respects, still raises environmental concerns. Aesthetics is one of them. There are many excellent studies examining why people find some landscapes beautiful and others ugly. They show that while it might be difficult to predict individual reactions to development, we often agree about what we find to be scenic.

So, as we collectively try to figure out if wind turbines might fit in an area, we might begin by describing the overall visual characteristics of the area and its particular scenic resources.
Next we look at the visual attributes of the proposed project (the number of turbines, their visual proximity to important scenic features or viewing areas, the visibility of other project components such power lines or roads).





Finally we consider the extent to which these attributes could detract from our experience of the scenic resources in the surrounding landscape.


Below are six considerations for evaluating the visual impacts of a wind project. Any single issue is unlikely to mean a project is inappropriate, but the presence of numerous issues could raise red flags.

• Scenic quality: Landscapes with high scenic quality tend to be those with high natural diversity; for example, rugged topography, rich vegetation patterns, perhaps the presence of water features such as lakes or waterfalls, and naturally exposed rock ledges.

Highly scenic views often extend over a considerable distance. Usually particularly scenic landscapes are what we would call "intact," retaining natural or historic vegetative or settlement patterns. The most scenic landscapes often include a dramatic focal point, and especially a compelling and distinctive natural or cultural feature that draws the eye (and might be a subject for photographers or painters).

• Uniqueness of resource: Vermont has many scenic landscapes, including many lakes and ponds, and all are valued. But some stand out as unique and distinctive in shape, color or other physical attributes. Camels Hump is an obvious example, but other examples occur in every region of the state.

• Viewer expectations: An area that has been protected for the express purpose of enjoying a natural landscape might lead us to expect a certain experience in which nearby and prominent views of wind turbines could be inappropriate. For example, the Appalachian Trail is a national park and scenic trail that was established to provide an opportunity to experience a relatively unspoiled natural environment.

• Documented significance: When a scenic resource is identified in public documents (a town plan, for example), it indicates broad public consensus about value. It is especially persuasive if specific scenic characteristics and values are identified clearly.• Duration of view: If large portions of a wind project were visible from numerous and extended distances and areas around the region, it could be more prominent, especially if these extended viewing areas involve identified scenic resources or viewpoints.





• Proximity of view: Obviously the closer one is to a wind turbine, the larger it appears.


A word about scale here: Scale is a term used to discuss the relative or apparent size of an object in relation to its surroundings. Much is made about the great height of wind turbines, but their apparent size varies depending on the distance from which they are seen and the setting in which they appear. Often in relation to their mountain settings they appear relatively small.

Decisions about visual impacts are rarely clear-cut, but they can be informed and rational. Knowing what the scenic resources are within an area, their relative significance, and how they are viewed by the public provides a meaningful basis for evaluating visual impacts.

Fortunately, our complex Vermont landscape, with its numerous ridges and valleys, should be able to absorb a number of well-sited projects.


How big is big?

Wind turbines are sized depending on their use and power. Small wind turbines serve individual residences, businesses or institutions and tend to be 100-150 feet high. They usually are located in close proximity to the buildings they serve. Here we discuss larger-scale projects such as community wind projects, often initiated by local communities or community groups. These turbines can range in height from 250 feet up to 420 feet at the tip of the blades. In Vermont, projects being considered range in size from five to 55 turbines.