Des Moines County supervisors and staff refine road‑use, wildlife, emergency response and decommissioning rules for proposed wind/solar/battery ordinance

Des Moines County supervisors and county staff on Sept. 23 conducted a chapter‑by‑chapter review of a draft wind, solar and battery ordinance that would set rules for road use, wildlife monitoring, emergency response and decommissioning for large energy installations.

County staff said Article 10 (road use) was reorganized to cover construction, repowering and decommissioning and now requires a road‑use agreement before transporting oversized equipment. The draft asks developers to contact the county engineer a year before planned decommissioning and, in some cases, 30 days before transporting oversized items for repowering. County secondary‑roads staff said routine permitting should not create delays, but board members pressed for explicit emergency exceptions so a damaged turbine could be taken down and removed on an expedited schedule.

Under Article 11 (wildlife monitoring and mitigation), the draft now requires field studies by a licensed third‑party and references the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s land‑based wind energy guidelines. Staff added that studies should include acoustic bat monitoring, migratory‑bird observations, radar monitoring, raptor and eagle nesting surveys and wetland and corridor assessments. The county conservation office asked that the conservation board review those plans in consultation with Iowa DNR and U.S. Fish & Wildlife and solicit comments from property owners in and around a project area before the supervisors approve a plan.

The draft also builds in post‑construction monitoring: owners or operators would submit annual monitoring reports for three years after construction that list data-collection methods, raw data and analyses of avian and bat mortality. If measured mortality exceeds 25 percent above the predicted rate in a plan, the owner or operator must propose mitigation measures — which could include deterrent technologies or temporary shutdowns during peak activity. Conservation staff and multiple speakers asked that the ordinance clarify how the “predicted” rate is set and which agencies will confirm acceptability before construction.

Article 12 (emergency response) was expanded to require plans that address hazmat incidents, ice throw, medevac landing zones and roles and responsibilities between the operator and local emergency responders. The draft asks operators to demonstrate an ability to coordinate on‑site response and to offer annual training and on‑site tours for emergency personnel. Board members asked for clearer response‑time expectations and requested wording changes so the plan’s list of incidents is not read as an exhaustive checklist.

Decommissioning standards now require removal of above‑ground structural components and include an expectation that below‑ground components be removed unless the participating property owner signs a waiver at the time of decommissioning. The draft directs restoration of disturbed soils to a corn‑suitability rating (CSR) of at least 95 percent of pre‑construction values, unless waived. Staff recommended a surety bond as the financial security mechanism; the board discussed a bond sized at about 150 percent of estimated removal costs (the draft previously considered higher multipliers) to ensure funds for cleanup, restoration and potential environmental remediation.

Public commenters pressed practical concerns: counting fatalities is difficult because scavengers remove carcasses and mowing can erase evidence, and some residents questioned whether monitoring protocols could reliably capture mortality. Others asked how contaminated soils would be documented and who would pay for lost crops if debris or contamination delayed planting; staff responded that monitoring studies would be paid for by the developer and that environmental cleanup obligations should be clarified with reference to applicable DNR requirements.

Next steps: staff said they will compile the chapter edits, publish the current draft and annotated notes to the county website, and return with additional chapters (setbacks, enforcement and definitions) at upcoming sessions. The board set an Oct. 7 follow‑up meeting to continue ordinance discussion.

Why this matters: The ordinance would govern where and how large energy installations operate in Des Moines County — determining developer obligations for roads, wildlife protection, emergency planning and how to restore farmland if equipment is removed. The draft combines technical standards (party‑paid studies and monitoring protocols) with enforcement mechanisms (financial security and post‑construction reporting).

The county’s ordinance review is ongoing; staff said the next public draft and a matrix of expected timelines for construction, emergency removal and decommissioning will be circulated before the next meeting.