1

Michigan Wind EnErgy LandscapE syMposiuM

Workshop rEport

Prepared by Roopali Phadke, Christie Manning, Ava Buchanan, Erica DeJong and

Natalie Camplair

Phot

o: L

ynn

O’C

onno

r

August 6, 2011

2

Acknowledgements

This symposium would not have been a success without the contribution of energy and enthusiasm from our partners. First, we would like the 21 panel-ists who contributed their time and thoughtfulness. We extend thanks to the staff of the Alliance for Eco-nomic Success and the leadership team of the “Un-derstanding Wind Initiative”. We particularly owe thanks to Tim Ervin, Brad Hopwood, Cyndy Fuller and Jami Schneider for their leadership and logisti-cal support. We also thank Lynn O’Connor for her photography, and Emma Anderson for her sketches, and Asa Diebolt for graphic design. Additionally, we would like to thank Dave Long, Jim MacInnes, Erik Nordman, Dan Shepard and Matt Wagner for their presentations on our expert panel. Finally, we would like to thank Ann Esson and Sarah Horowitz at Ma-calester College for their assistance.

wind energy symposiA

This symposium is part of a broader research proj-ect aimed at better understanding the role of public deliberation in the siting of wind energy projects. The research is funded through a National Science Foun-dation grant (# SES 1027294) to Roopali Phadke at Macalester College.

This report was prepared by a research team from Macalester College. Throughout the symposium, the research team collected demographic data about participants, gauged their familiarity with wind en-ergy, and elicited their perceptions about landscape impacts. This was done through the use of interac-tive keypad polling, photographic analysis within fo-cus groups, open-ended writing exercises and a final evaluation. The data were brought back to Macal-ester College for coding and analysis. This summary was prepared as a way of reporting back to local par-ticipants, informing local policy makers about com-munity perceptions, and developing a symposium model for the future.

For more information about this project and pre-vious research visit www.macalester.edu/windvisual

UnderstAnding wind initiAtive

The Understanding Wind Energy Initiative is led by a team representing six townships in Manistee and Benzie counties to facilitate community learning and education about wind energy options. The initiative will guide township plans and wind ordinances that reflect community goals and scientific research.

The leadership team for the Initiative includes representatives from Arcadia, Onekama, Bear Lake and Pleasanton Townships in Manistee County and Blaine and Joyfield Townships in Benzie County. The Initiative has evolved to encompass three phases, guided by a Macalester College research team:

1. this Wind Energy Symposium reported here;2. a Wind Energy Community Survey mailed to

property owners and administered in street level in-terviews; and,

3. responses to over 20 pages of questions about wind energy submitted by a large number of resi-dents and other interests.

Macalester College was selected as a lead con-sultant for the project by the Leadership Team as a result of a recommendation from the Michigan Asso-ciation of Planning and review and follow up discus-sions with members of the Macalester team.

3

i. introdUction

Facing growing concerns over energy indepen-dence, climate change, and local economic develop-ment, state governments have mandated wind energy development by utility companies. As a result, wind farms and wind farm proposals now dot the nation-al landscape, bringing with them a host of benefits, challenges, and concerns for local communities and policy makers. These issues are particularly pressing for communities as they weigh the pros and cons of wind energy for their area. As local governments en-gage with these issues, there is a growing need for better communication between citizens and officials so that wind energy policy can be comprehensive, deliberative, and reflective of local values.

Manistee and Benzie Counties, located on the northwestern shores of Lake Michigan, are situated within a unique nexus of political and environmen-tal factors that make wind energy development a complicated issue. The counties have been identi-fied by the state of Michigan as having a very high wind resource potential and are located in a state with a large manufacturing base. At the same time, these counties are renowned for their scenic beau-ty, sensitive environments and protected lands, and recreational opportunities. As a result, tourism is an important economic driver. Fur-ther, there is a large wind devel-opment proposal pending in the area that has generated consider-able local debate about the mer-its of wind energy and whether these counties are an appropriate location for it. These factors have both opened up opportunities for these counties to approach en-ergy policy in a new, collabora-tive way, and generated conten-tion as citizens and officials try to grapple with how this technology will change their landscapes and livelihoods.

The Michigan Wind Energy Landscape Symposium was de-veloped by a Macalester College research team as part of the “Un-derstanding Wind Initiative”. The symposium aimed to facilitate a deliberative process among a small select group of residents of

the townships of Bear Lake, Pleasanton, Onekama, and Arcadia in Manistee County and Joyfield and Blaine in Benzie County. The symposium’s goals were to provide a forum for citizens to discuss their hopes and concerns for wind energy and to develop input for township officials regarding wind energy planning. The symposium attempted to understand participants’ perceptions about wind energy—espe-cially regarding aesthetic preferences and mitigation concerns—and explore how a deliberative process can build consensus and influence policy.

The participants were chosen by the Macalester research team from a pool of applicants. Using cen-sus tract data, the Macalester research team worked with local co-sponsors to recruit for occupational, age, income, gender and educational diversity. Par-ticipants were compensated for their time with a $100 stipend. Prior to the symposium, participants received a background dossier on wind development in Michigan that was compiled by the research team in collaboration with local partners. The symposium was facilitated by Patrick Field from the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Of the 21 participants, 66% were between the ages of 50–64, 14% were between 30–49 years old, and 19% were under 29 years old. There were equal numbers of men and women at the symposium.

Figure 1. Participants from around the Manistee/Benzie region engage in a discussion in the morning breakout session.

4

While 43% of the participants were from Pleasanton township, there was at least one person from each of the other five townships in the area. In addition, 76% of participants lived in the area full-time and 76% had lived in Michigan for 20 years or more.

The symposium engaged participants in a range of deliberative exercises including real-time interactive keypad polling, photographic analysis, and computer visualizations of hypothetical projects. Through facil-itated small group discussions and brief open-ended writing exercises, participants reflected on questions like: What are the most valued local landscapes? Are there places that should remain protected from new energy development? Are there landscapes/sites ap-propriate for wind development? How can new en-ergy developments be designed to avoid negative impacts? How might those impacts be mitigated (vi-sually, socially, economically)?

The symposium began with a photo essay depict-ing local landscapes and various forms of industrial and economic development infrastructure in Man-istee and Benzie counties. This was meant to put the discussion of wind energy in the context of other types of development that has occurred in the area throughout history. This was followed by a morning pre-symposium keypad poll, which collected data about the participants’ perceived concerns, benefits, and attitudes toward wind energy development be-fore the discussions began. Following the keypad poll, participants shared their initial concerns about the opportunities and challenges they thought wind energy development would bring. Following this ses-sion, the participants broke into three smaller groups based on which part of the region they resided in. More details about this session are provided in Sec-tion III. After a lunch break, participants heard from a panel of experts on wind energy. The panelists in-cluded representatives from Detroit Edison (a Michi-gan utility), a four-season resort owner with prior experience in power plant development, a professor from Grand Valley State University, a member of a local concerned citizens group and a tribal planner. Participants asked panelists about the development process, wildlife impacts, sound and health impacts, and appropriate setbacks.

After the panel, participants again broke into small groups for the afternoon discussion session. This part of the symposium sought to extend the conversation beyond landscape concerns and generate discussion about the wider socio-economic impacts of wind en-ergy. An exercise involving three hypothetical wind

projects was designed to get participants thinking about what aspects of wind development they liked and disliked for their communities. From there, each group created a list of several best design principles they would like developers and townships to con-sider. Finally, the full group reconvened and voted on a compiled list of best principles.

The rest of this report describes the data col-lected from participants during this symposium. The input of participants has helped us build a broader understanding of perceived impacts and opportuni-ties for wind energy development.

ii. wind energy in michigAn

Because of its location and terrain, the state of Michigan has been identified as having significant wind resources—enough to generate over 70% of Michigan’s electricity—and is currently ranked 14th in the country for wind energy potential. Additionally, Michigan has been identified as a state with great manufacturing capabilities, making it even more at-tractive for wind development. Despite this potential, there are only five developed wind farms in Michi-gan. The largest of these is Michigan Wind 1, a 69 MW project in Ubly, Michigan. In total, wind ener-gy currently supplies 0.3% of electricity in the state. Michigan continues to rely heavily on other sources of energy, most notably coal, nuclear, and natural gas. Because Michigan produces only about 30% of its electricity in-state, it spends, on average, $26 bil-lion annually importing energy from other states and countries.

In 2008, Michigan passed the Clean, Renewable, and Efficient Energy Act that mandated that utilities in the state generate 10% of electricity from renew-able sources by 2015. To meet this target, Michigan will need to produce 5,274 MW from renewable en-ergy resources by 2015. Although Michigan has cre-ated a legally binding renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and the Department of Labor and Economic Growth has developed zoning guidelines for wind energy, the state has delegated zoning, permitting, and environmental review of wind energy projects to local governments and townships.

Manistee and Benzie Counties are located within a major wind corridor off the coast of Lake Michi-gan. In those counties, wind power potential has been deemed as “having the highest potential” by

5

the Michigan Wind Energy Resource Zone Board be-cause of wind speed, terrain, and other environmen-tal factors. This makes these counties attractive for wind development. Townships within Manistee and Benzie are responsible for reviewing, regulating, and permitting wind development within their communi-ties. Ordinances in Joyfield, Arcadia, Blaine, Oneka-ma, Bear Lake, and Pleasanton vary greatly. Some townships have moratoria, some have wind energy ordinances, and others have no policy relating to wind energy development. There is a large wind de-velopment proposal currently pending in Manistee and Benzie Counties, making more comprehensive wind energy policy a pressing matter in the area.

iii. Findings

The discussions and data gathered from partici-pants revealed interesting perceptions about poten-tial wind energy development. This section repre-sents these findings.

i. Landscape ValuesThe morning small group activity had participants

identify places in Manistee and Benzie counties that were most significant to them and record what quali-ties made those places meaningful and valuable. Working in three small groups, participants identified important places on an aerial map, shown in Figure 2, and then discussed the relevance of those places. Fig-ure 3 shows all the places that participants selected and highlights the areas which had the most conver-gence. Several themes arose from these discussions. Participants connected to places that they considered natural environments, such as wildlife viewing areas and significant local ecosystems. Participants repeat-edly referred to the “pristine,” “peaceful,” and “unde-veloped” qualities of the area. The Grand Traverse Land Conservancy owns 34,000 acres in Northwest Michigan, and participants repeatedly referred to significant places on Conservancy properties. One participant put it elegantly: “Conservancy land is my church.”

Another related theme was the restorative quality of the local landscape. Several participants referred to “moving up north” to “get away” from southern Michigan and Detroit. Participants spoke of favorite

“areas to retreat to and recharge us” and “places to relax, places to be alone.” Furthermore, participants

Figure 2. Participants record their choices on an aerial map.

Figure 3. The aerial map exercise identified partici-pants’ most meaningful places. The three different colors indicate locations selected by each group.

6

expressed pride in the ageless, small town character of Manistee and Benzie counties. Towns and homes were referred to as “villages” and “cottages.” One participant described a local town: “[There is] no Best Buy, no WalMart…it’s just old Americana the way things used to be in the 1950s.”

Participants also chose many places on the map with popularly known scenic value—such as Inspi-ration Point, an overlook onto Lake Michigan from State Highway 22 that was featured as the backdrop of a 1966 Chevrolet convertible commercial. Yet, they also chose scenic places along major inland roads that participants drove past frequently. Many participants selected their favorite places based on activities, experiences and memories. It was clear throughout the discussion that a majority of partici-pants had a strong, positive emotional connection to places in Manistee and Benzie counties. The white outlined circles in Figure 3 indicate areas of conver-gence among the three breakout groups.

ii. Visual ImpactsOur visualization exercises in the morning small

group sessions provided useful information about general landscape preferences, while also teasing apart some of the complex rationales for such prefer-ences. In addition to the mapping exercise described above, the morning session involved three additional image activities: a poll of photographs of three local landscapes without turbines, a poll of the same im-ages with turbines simulated, and a poll for three sim-ulations in which the layout and design of turbines varied across the landscape. The images were taken

by a local photographer, Lynn O’Connor, and were chosen to be representative of the area’s landscape. The simulations were generated by a graphic designer in Saint Paul with input from visualization experts. Overall, the activity intended to reveal if participants found certain local landscapes to be more compat-ible with utility scale wind energy systems.

The first task helped participants express their initial aesthetic preferences and revealed a range of opinions and choices about preferred images. Al-though opinions were diverse and people gave a va-riety of reasons for their choices, in general partici-pants tended to prefer Image A because it portrayed the “diversity” and “best features” of their area by combining water, hills, and farmland. Image C was described by participants as the most “natural” and

“peaceful,” reminding them of wildlife habitat. The undeveloped layout and “openness” of Image B at-tracted far fewer people. Figure 4 depicts the photos used, along with poll results and the main terms par-ticipants used to describe the images.

The second task helped distinguish landscapes that may be suitable for wind development. It gener-ated significantly different responses than the previ-ous set of images; a large majority chose Image 2, mostly because the turbines seemed to “fit better with agriculture” or seemed “less disruptive” to the landscape of the townships. Many participants felt that the turbines clashed with the water in Images 1 and 3, also noting concern that the turbines in these other images might have non-visual impacts on wild-life, tourism, or local character. A few qualified their choices as the “best of the worst” and would rather

Image A. 11 participants (52%) preferred this image. Key descrip-tors included: recreation, best of all features in area, lake, hills, di-versity, memories.

Image B. 2 participants (10%) preferred this image. Key descrip-tors included: open, undevel-oped, near home, flat, farmland.

Image C. 8 participants (38%) preferred this image. Key descrip-tors included: wildlife, diversity, marshland, natural, water, peace-ful, protected area.

Figure 4. Landscapes Preferences

7

have had no turbines on any of the landscapes. Some participants expressed positive opinions about the images after turbines were added. One participant felt that the “sight of the turbines actually enhanced the image somewhat,” and another pointed out that the turbines didn’t change their preference because they hardly noticed them past an initial glance. Fig-ure 5 displays the simulations, poll results, and key descriptors from worksheets.

Finally, the third set of simulations led to a discus-sion of what participants felt was the most acceptable layout for turbines on a landscape. People’s aesthetic preferences varied significantly, leading to a wide range of ideas, concerns, and remarks on the images. All three groups shared a sentiment that maintaining the “symmetry” and “balance” of the turbines on the landscape was critical to designing the most ac-ceptable layout, preferring Image 1, above, with its three turbines over images 1b and 1c pictured below (See Figure 6). When turbines were placed in higher density (Image 1c), participants felt like the “picture changes to an industrial area” and stated that it was obviously being used as an “extractive resource”. However, other participants expressed an opposite reaction that once there was one turbine on the land-scape, the addition of more was not nearly as prob-lematic as the initial “jump from zero to one.” Again during this exercise, a small subset of participants strongly voiced their preference for no turbines on

the landscape whatsoever.The visualizations used in each of the above tasks

generated rich discussions that often extended be-yond the aesthetic quality of the images to include economic factors, environmental considerations, and local politics. Participants concluded that because aesthetics are personal values, their preferences for a particular image are often linked to their perceptions of social impact. Overall, however, the activity re-vealed a range of opinions about wind energy land-scapes and established some common values among participants.

iii. MitigationThe morning breakout sessions indicated that

many participants were concerned with both the aesthetic and social impacts that wind energy could have on local communities and landscapes. Though some people said that they would prefer to have no wind turbines sited in their community, many par-ticipants acknowledged the importance of discussing mitigation strategies as Manistee and Benzie counties have attracted the interest of the wind industry.

Following the discussion of aesthetic values and design configurations, the morning session conclud-ed by asking participants to identify their top three design and siting preferences for mitigating the visual impacts of a wind energy project. In total, partici-pants indicated that their top three mitigation strate-

Image 2. 15 participants (71%) preferred this image. Key descrip-tors included: no water, no wild-life harm, fit with agriculture, busi-ness landscape, least scenic, least disruptive to character of area, flat, not tourist destination, no residences

Image 1. 2 participants (10%) preferred this image. Key descrip-tors included: best balance, feng shui, memories

Image 3. 4 participants (19%) preferred this image. Key descrip-tors included: flat, broad, mono-tonic, turbines blend in best

Figure 5. Landscape SimulationsThe turbines are difficult to see at this image scale. Larger versions can be viewed at the project website.

8

gies were: increasing the setback distance between turbines and structures, limiting the number of tur-bines in or near protected natural areas, and limit-ing the overall height of turbines. Some of the “other” responses that were expressed included placing tur-bines offshore, creating areas where important view-sheds would be protected from turbines, increasing setbacks from property lines, lake shores, and scenic areas, and siting turbines only on agricultural land.

Though this morning activity attempted to cap-ture the ways in which manipulating the design, sit-ing, and configuration of wind farms could mitigate the visual impacts of wind energy, many participants felt that social factors, and not just design, impacted the way they viewed a project. For example, one participant stated: “I think aesthetics can be affected by whether it is a local co-op energy facility as op-posed to an out of state corporation.” Though the scale and size of wind farms was very important to a majority of participants, a few individuals stated that once you put a single turbine on the landscape, the height of the turbines and their density didn’t matter. In regards to this, some of these people stated that their in terest was in maximizing energy production instead of mitigating the aesthetic or landscape im-pacts.

In the afternoon breakout sessions, participants were presented with three different projects of vary-ing scale that were based on wind farms construct-ed in the Great Lakes region. Project 1 was a small (30MW) locally owned wind farm, Project 2 was a medium (87 MW) wind farm, and Project 3 was a

large (129 MW) wind farm. For each project, partici-pants were also given information about community compensation, landowner lease payments, the area the project spanned, the cost of the project, the num-ber of jobs it created, and the year the farm was built. The goal of the activity was to determine best prac-tices for local government policy by comparing and contrasting wind energy scenarios. In order to do this, the facilitators asked participants to imagine that they were on a township planning board and were asked to vote yes or no on each project as a whole. Some participants abstained from voting because they did not feel they had sufficient information about the projects or their communities’ opinion.

When all three groups’ results were tabulated, Project 2 received the most “yes” votes from the par-ticipants. When they were asked about their choices, participants noted many features of the projects that they liked and disliked at each scale. Some people liked that a smaller project would likely have less of a visual impact on the landscape. Expressing this idea, one participant said: “The fewest number of turbines, the better.” Conversely, other participants disagreed, saying that once you put one turbine on the land-scape, scale doesn’t matter as much—“You should just try to maximize energy production. Place tur-bines in a high density with a small footprint and make sure the farm has a large generation potential.” Other participants felt that a medium sized project was a good compromise—it could generate a con-siderable amount of energy without having a large impact on the landscape.

Image 1b. Image 1c.

Figure 6. Layout SimulationsThe turbines are difficult to see at this image scale. Larger versions can be viewed at the project website.

9

There were differing opinions about the prefer-able height of turbines and the configuration of a wind farm. While 12 participants voted that limiting the overall height of turbines was one of their top three mitigation strategies during the morning session, other participants said that if you are going to site a turbine, you should use a taller turbine and try to maximize energy production. Expressing this senti-ment, one participant said, “If I have to look at it, I want to get the biggest bang out of it.”

The topic of ownership also produced fruitful conversation about tradeoffs. Though many partici-pants liked the idea of a locally owned project, they disagreed as to whether this would actually translate into greater benefits for the host community. During this discussion, a tension arose between wanting to support a smaller, local developer and knowing that a larger, nonlocal wind developer may have greater resources to compensate the host community.

In terms of compensation, many participants liked the idea of a Payment In Lieu of Taxes (piLot) agreement. As one participant stated, this “makes the economic benefits of the project more tangible and concrete,” as it could direct money towards the local government and school districts. As another participant put it, a piLot agreement provides a fairer distribution of public to private benefit. Yet, others expressed concern that a piLot would not generate as much total revenue as personal property taxes would, as taxes can increase while a piLot is fixed. Many of these same participants also said that if the piLot could be flexible and increase proportion-ally with property taxes, it would have their support. Additionally, participants generally supported good neighbor agreements and felt that neighbors living near turbines should be compensated for the im-pacts that the turbines might have on their viewsheds, health, and livelihoods.

Finally, setbacks were also an important part of the discussion. Though participants acknowledged that setbacks are site specific—and that a setback study is needed to fully understand what is appropri-ate for each community—many participants felt that allowable setbacks would figure prominently into their decision to accept or reject a wind energy proj-ect proposal.

After this discussion, each small group took the features they liked and disliked about wind energy projects and translated them into a list of “best-practice development principles” that they hoped would inform zoning and siting regulations for the

six townships. The principles from each group were then compared, and brought to the large group to be voted on. These principles are listed and discussed further in the “Outcomes” section of this report.

iv. The Deliberative ProcessAn important goal of the symposium was to give

participants a safe space to talk about their varying and conflicting opinions about wind energy. Through a deliberative process that included information sharing, education, and thoughtful discussion, par-ticipants were encouraged to share their opinions with one another in order to better understand each other’s views. Morning and afternoon keypad polls were conducted to gauge how people’s opinions changed over the course of the day, as well as morn-ing and afternoon questionnaires to track more nu-anced changes in opinion about 23 specific impacts of wind energy. Finally, a symposium evaluation was collected at the end of the day to give participants a chance to assess their experience with the delibera-tive exercises.

The keypad polls asked participants to describe

Figure 7. Keypad poll results show the number of par-ticipants who expressed each opinion of wind energy in the United States.

I need more information to decide

Other

I strongly support it

I have reservations,but cautiously support it

I am neutral

I oppose it

I strongly oppose it

Pre-symposium Post-symposium

5%

24%

19%

14%

10% 19%

5%

52%

24%19%

10%

Opinions of wind energy in the US

10

their attitude towards wind energy development in the United States, giving them a chance to express support, opposition, and neutrality. A comparison of the morning and afternoon polls shows that overall, participants significantly changed their opinions. In general, the group became less strongly opposed and more cautiously supportive. Figure 7 provides a graphic representation of this change in opinion be-tween the pre-symposium and post-symposium eval-uations. A similar question was asked of their attitude toward wind energy in their township specifically, to which participants generally felt more opposed and their opinions changed much less over the course of the day. Figure 8 shows graphs of this data. This is consistent with the scholarship that suggests there is a “social gap” in support for wind energy, where there is higher levels of acceptance for wind energy in theory compared with development in one’s own township.

In addition, we also saw a change between the pre and post-symposium questionnaires on perceived impacts of wind energy. The morning questionnaire established that in general, 11 participants’ average opinions about a variety of potential wind energy im-pacts were negative, 6 people felt neither negative nor positive or didn’t know enough about the issues, and 5 people felt that the impacts would be positive.

Over the course of the day, however, these per-ceptions appeared to change slightly—while 8 peo-ple still perceived impacts as negative, 7 felt neither negative nor positive or didn’t know and 6 felt posi-tive on the afternoon questionnaire. Though opinions remained diverse, participants generally perceived a slightly higher positive impact of wind energy by the end of the day. Figure 9 shows the average opinion change by person between the two questionnaires.

Likewise, of the 23 potential impacts listed on the questionnaire, participants began to perceive 15 of them more positively, 4 more negatively, and did not change opinions on 4 over the course of the sympo-sium. Figure 10 lists the average change in opinion among participants about the 23 potential impacts of wind energy (the values indicate the average change between the pre and post-symposium opinions, which were given values according to the scale 1 be-

Figure 8. Keypad poll results show the number of participants who expressed each opinion of wind en-ergy in their townships.

Figure 9. Questionnaire results indicate the overall change in participants’ average perceptions of wind energy’s impacts.

I need more information to decide

Other

I strongly support it

I have reservations,but cautiously support it

I am neutral

I oppose it

I strongly oppose it

Pre-symposium Post-symposium

38%33%

14%19%

19%

19%14%

14%

10% 10%5%

5%

no change

more positive

more negative

30%

60%

10%

Opinions of wind energy in participants’ townships.

Change in Perception of Wind Energy’s Impacts

11

ing “very positive” and 5 being “very negative”). As a group, people’s opinions changed the most about the effect of wind farms on outdoor recreation activities, with impressions becoming significantly more posi-tive. Conversely, people began to think less positively about the effect on Michigan’s economy. While these changes don’t necessarily indicate strong consensus, they do represent the ability of deliberation to alter

peoples’ opinions.We also asked participants about their experi-

ence with the symposium format and facilitation in a final evaluation. The results of these evaluations further indicated the ability for the deliberative pro-cess to educate and inform participants about wind energy development: 90% agreed that they learned something new at the symposium, 90% felt they had a better understanding of difficult choices as a result of the symposium, and 86% rated the experience as useful. The evaluation of the morning and afternoon sessions revealed similar feedback, with greater than 70% in both morning and afternoon finding their ex-perience useful. A majority of participants responded that the opportunity to converse with other partici-pants, experts, and facilitators was valuable. Several participants expressed a desire for a continued par-ticipatory process beyond the symposium.

Overall, 68% found the facilitation to be fair and balanced, 14% were neutral, and 19% did not think the facilitation was fair and balanced. It is important to note that several participants raised concerns that they did not have an adequate opportunity to reject wind energy in general. Though the symposium at-tempted to incorporate this option into activities—providing pictures of landscapes without turbines in the morning and allowing participants to vote no to each of the three projects compared in the afternoon excersize—the organizers acknowledge the need for clearer communication and will keep this concern in mind during future symposia. Several participants also communicated that they felt that the expert panel was unbalanced, with three out of the five panelists presenting a “pro-wind” stance. The inten-tion had been to provide a diversity of expertise, not necessarily to create a panel with equal numbers of opponents and proponents. Nonetheless, local staff from the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and local conservation groups had been invited to participate on the panel. They declined or were un-able to attend. Participation from these stakeholders may have attenuated concerns about panelist bias because of their more cautious stance toward wind development in the region.

When asked if participants felt that their opinions about some aspects of wind energy had changed as a result of the symposium, only 48% stated that they had. However, their responses on the keypad polls and questionnaires suggested that a much higher percentage had changed their opinions in nuanced ways, as described previously.

Figure 10.Questionnaire results indicated participants’ average change in opinion across 23 potential impacts of wind energy. Impacts with higher values indicate that these topics became less of a concern for participants or they thought the impact would be more positive over the course of the symposium. Negative values indicate that participants perceived the impact as becoming more of a concern or more negative. People did not change their opinion on some topics.

Impact of a wind turbine on... Average change in opinion

Condition of local roads 0.38Quality of life of other people in the area 0.33Outdoor recreation activities 0.29Air pollution (quality) 0.24Attracting seasonal residents 0.24Local character of your area 0.24Local landowner incomes 0.19Local scenic beauty 0.19Attracting full-time permanent residents 0.19Creating new jobs 0.14Local property values 0.14Producing clean energy 0.10National energy independence 0.10Local people’s physical health 0.10Appearance of night sky 0.05Local tourism 0.00Your personal quality of life 0.00Your personal livelihood 0.00Birds and wildlife 0.00The local economy -0.05Stopping climate change -0.05Residents’ electricity costs -0.10Michigan’s economy -0.14

12

Best Practice Principles1. Minimum Setbacks—from property lines, residential

structures, etc. 90% Strongly Support.

2. Payment in Lieu of Taxes Agreement—certainty, fee simple arrangements, proportional to property tax increases 57% Strongly Support

3. Independent Studies Evaluation—noise study, setback study, etc conducted by townships. 81% Strongly Support

4. Good Public Process—sponsoring citizen forums 81% Strongly Support

5. Using Local Jobs, Materials, and Manufacturing 81% Strongly Support

6. Restricting the Size and Scale of a Project 62% Strongly Support

7. Placing Siting Restrictions—in relationship to population densities, bodies of water, and natural and scenic areas 86% Strongly Support

8. Addressing Shadow Flicker and Light Issues 62% Strongly Support

9. Maximize Energy Production 62% Strongly Support

10. Establishing non-participating landowner impact contingencies – for impacts on property values, agricultural animals, etc 71% Strongly Support

11. Wildlife Protection—for example, Fish and Wildlife Service Recommendations 71% Strongly Support

12. A Fair Public to Private Benefit Ratio—for example, a Co-op model 71% Strongly Support

13. Demonstrating Overall Project Need 38% Strongly Support

iv:oUtcomes And next steps

The charge for participants during the sympo-sium was to provide guidance to their townships about local landscapes of value and ordinances to protect those places. From the afternoon discussion, participants generated a list of thirteen best practice principles to guide local government officials as they consider wind development. At the end of the day, participants were polled on their level of support for these principles, ranging from “Strongly Support” to

“Strongly Oppose.” Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties we experienced with the polling software we were only able to gather the numbers of partici-pants who strongly supported each principle. Nev-ertheless, we found that there was convergence and general support among participants regarding many of the principles. The importance of setbacks and careful siting emerged once again as the two prin-ciples that received the highest levels of support (See Figure 11).

Despite participants’ general support for these principles, there is some ambiguity in the data. For example, though 62% of participants supported placing restrictions on the size and scale of a project, 62% of participants also supported maximizing en-ergy production. Similarly, participants were divided about whether property taxes or piLot agreements were the best tool for compensating the community. These topics will require further discussion and delib-eration by township leaders.

The overall results of this symposium are valu-able in multiple ways. They help township officials in Manistee and Benzie Counties develop local wind energy policy that is responsive to citizen’s concerns, they help scholars understand wind energy at a com-munity level, and they foster a model of energy policy making that is participatory and deliberative. Sympo-sium organizers hope that township officials, scholars, citizens, and all local stakeholders will continue to engage with each other and the issues brought up during the event as they work towards comprehen-sive wind energy policy.