Des Moines County work session presses for tighter wildlife monitoring, debates turbine curtailment and buffers

Des Moines County officials and members of the public spent a work session reviewing a draft wildlife monitoring and mitigation chapter that would impose new pre‑ and post‑construction studies, require consultation with Iowa DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and create operational triggers for mitigation on wind, solar and battery energy systems.

The draft would require developers to document consultations with Iowa DNR, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Des Moines County Conservation Board, run two years of preconstruction acoustic monitoring for bats, and submit ongoing post‑construction mortality monitoring and annual wildlife monitoring reports for county review. The county conservation director said those reports should include methods, raw data and analysis so officials can see whether mortality rates exceed predicted thresholds and whether mitigation actions are needed.

“Population is down about 88% in Des Moines County right now,” said Darren Shea, a resident who identified himself and urged the county to gather local data before permitting projects. Public commenters and conservation staff highlighted local studies at Big Hollow that they said should inform siting decisions.

Developers urged a site‑specific approach rather than a blanket operational ban. “We prefer to stick with [the Fish and Wildlife Service] process that’s laid out for us already rather than jumping straight to turning turbines off at night,” said Libby Thorin of AES, a wind developer, describing the industry practice of two‑year presence/absence surveys and then tailored mitigation and curtailment only during particular periods such as migration.

Staff and some supervisors pushed back that federal review can approve mitigation that relocates impacts outside the county, which may not protect local populations. The conservation director said the county wants demonstrable evidence that proposed facilities “will not have a direct or indirect negative impact” and stressed local consultation so county knowledge (for example, of known roosts or nesting sites) can be included in federal reviews.

Participants discussed buffer distances for sensitive sites. Iowa DNR guidance cited in the session recommends a 1‑mile buffer from state or county public lands and larger buffers for big public tracts; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidance on eagles was described as narrower (660 feet from active nests). Attendees debated whether to codify fixed setbacks in the county ordinance or retain site‑specific buffers developed during agency consultations.

The draft would make preconstruction studies, the developer’s wildlife monitoring and mitigation plan, and post‑construction monitoring subject to review by the county conservation board (as a recommending body) and to public notice and hearing before the board of supervisors approves any siting permit. Staff said the ordinance text currently anticipates one conditional permit covering a project site (not a per‑turbine permit) with periodic renewal and monitoring; inspections by a land‑use administrator are authorized in the draft.

Workshop participants also raised related issues for battery energy storage: potential fire, chemical runoff and contamination of Flint Creek were singled out as concerns. The conservation director recommended containment measures, first‑year inspections of containment systems and an environmental liability insurance requirement for developers.

The working group did not adopt final distances or a mandatory blanket nighttime shutdown; instead, members directed staff to revise the draft to reflect today’s comments, to add public‑notice and hearing language for wildlife monitoring plans, and to preserve the county’s ability to review annual monitoring reports. The county scheduled a follow‑up work session to continue drafting.