Des Moines County reviews tighter wildlife protections in draft wind-and-solar ordinance

Des Moines County supervisors and staff spent an extended work session Oct. 21 reviewing revisions to a draft wind-and-solar siting ordinance that would tighten wildlife protections, require third-party monitoring and require developers to consult conservation agencies before siting or operating projects.

The most substantive change to Article 11 would replace a broad ban on “substantial negative impact” with a narrower test that projects must not impair “the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations in Des Moines County,” county planner Jared said. “It now states that it will not negatively impact the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations in Des Moines County,” Jared told the work session.

Why it matters: staff said the revision is intended to focus review on whether a project threatens a species’ ability to persist in the county, rather than every short-term change in local abundance. That standard affects how mitigation, setbacks and permitting will be evaluated across siting applications.

Key changes under consideration - Required documentation of consultation: The draft now requires developers to document consultation with the county Conservation Board and with identified state and federal conservation agencies regarding any endangered species, and to include any agencies’ recommendations on proximity to habitats such as the Mississippi flyway, riparian corridors, bald eagle nests and bat maternity/foraging areas. - Predicted mortality baseline and post-construction monitoring: Developers must include a predicted mortality rate for applicable species to be used as a baseline; a third-party professional must monitor bird and bat populations for a minimum of three years after construction. If observed mortality exceeds the predicted rate, the ordinance would require identified mitigation measures. - Mitigation examples: The draft lists potential measures including design modifications, deterrent technologies, lighting changes, temporary shutdowns or “feathering” of blades and other operational adjustments. Jared said any mitigation adopted must be discussed with county, state and federal conservation entities before implementation. - Long-term monitoring: The Conservation Board recommended — and staff added — periodic monitoring every five years for the operational life of a project after the initial three-year period; triggers for additional mitigation would remain operative throughout the project’s life. - Technology evaluation: Instead of barring equipment older than an arbitrary threshold, the draft requires a developer-funded licensed third-party technological risk evaluation to determine whether proposed turbine technologies are appropriate for county requirements; the results would be provided to the county and the public.

Public comment and local concerns Public commenters and Board of Health members raised concerns about wildlife impacts. Charles Tominson urged supervisors to consider bat safety and argued large turbines could kill bats; he described turbine dimensions and concerns about blade-tip speeds during his allotted public comment time. Allison Moore asked whether the Board of Health would provide a formal recommendation from its prior wind-turbine discussion and noted that county staff had invited rural utility service staff to a November Board of Health meeting.

Staff next steps Jared told supervisors he expects to compile the revised draft within one to two weeks and present a finalized draft to the board for direction on whether further work sessions are needed. No final siting decisions or ordinance adoptions were made at the Oct. 21 meeting.

Ending The work session concluded with staff agreeing to produce the updated draft for board review within two weeks and with supervisors planning future consideration of the ordinance in public meetings.