Wind-Abilities: A Mixed-use Model for Thoughtful Wind Farm Design (MLA Thesis, 2017) by Lauren Arledge

Wind-Abilities: A Mixed-Use Model for Thoughtful Wind Farm Design Lauren Habenicht Arledge

Wind-ÂAbilities: A Mixed-Use Model for Thoughtful Wind Farm Design Lauren Habenicht Arledge Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture In Landscape Architecture

Nathan Heavers, Chair Paul Kelsch Michael Ezban

12 May 2017 Alexandria, Virginia Keywords: Renewable Energy, Wind Energy, Eco Recreation, Forestry, Silviculture, Conservation, Cherokee National Forest, Appalachian Trail

Wind-ÂAbilities: A Mixed-Use Model for Thoughtful Wind Farm Design Lauren Habenicht Arledge

Abstract Globally, wind power is leading the renewable energy revolution. While carbon neutral and cost-effective, wind energy infrastructure is immobile and has the potential to profoundly change land use and the visible landscape. As wind technology takes its place as a key contributor to the US energy grid, it becomes clear that these types of projects will come into greater contact with areas occupied by humans, and eventually with wilderness and other more natural areas. This increased visibility and close proximity necessitates the development of future wind farm sites that afford opportunities for auxiliary uses while maintaining their intrinsic value as energy producers. In short, it is important for wind farms to be versatile because land is a finite resource and because over time, increasing numbers of these sites will occupy our landscapes. In the Eastern US, the majority of onshore wind resources suitable for energy development are found along ridge lines in the Appalachian mountains. These mountains are ancient focal points in the landscape, and subsequently host myriad sites of historic, recreational, and scenic significance. In the future, these windswept ridges will likely become targets for wind energy development. This thesis demonstrates a methodology for the thoughtful siting and design of future wind projects in the Appalachian mountains. Opportunities for offsite views, diversified trail experiences, and planned timber harvests are realized by locating a seven-turbine wind park adjacent to the Appalachian Trail in Cherokee National Forest in Carter county, Tennessee. The proposed wind park demonstrates the sound possibility of thoughtfully integrating wind infrastructure along Appalachian ridges in conjunction with forestry and recreation opportunities, such as hiking and camping. The design is a wind park rather than a wind farm because in addition to its inherent function as a production landscape, it is also a place that is open to the general public for recreational use.

Acknowledgements I am forever grateful for the unending support I have received from many throughout this endeavor. To my committee: thank you Professor Heavers for lengthy desk crits, your ability to make it all make sense, and for making me believe I could do this. Thank you Professor Kelsch for helping me “find the resistance” in this project and to really lean into it. Thank you Michael Ezban for your directness, your high expectations, and for first introducing me to process landscapes. To my colleagues at the WAAC: thank you for your perspective, friendship, and knowledge. I can’t imagine sharing this experience with a better cohort. To my parents: Mike and Ruth, and to the rest of my dear family and friends: your incredible patience, understanding, and encouragement are invaluable, thank you for sticking it out with me. To my husband, Curt Arledge: Thank you for giving me the courage to persist and follow this path. You inspire me every day.

iii

Contents Introduction + Context

1 - 2

System

3 - 8

Siting 9 Case Studies 10 - 12 Site Selection

13 - 22

Site Analysis

23 - 27

Process + Design

28 - 43

Conclusion

44 - 45

Bibliography

46 - 50

List of Images + Image Sources

51 - 52

wind production facilities EASTERN UNITED STATES

Introduction + Context U.S. deployment of green energy resources, like wind power, is increasing, perhaps in light of the growing acceptance of human contributions to global climate change. As of December 2015, there are over 980 dedicated wind farms in the United States and over 50,000 individual wind turbines, producing enough energy to power over 19 million homes (AWEA 2015). Globally, wind energy is the most rapidly expanding renewable energy resource (Pasqualetti 2001). While carbon neutral and cost effective, wind production technology is immobile and has the potential to profoundly change land use and the visible landscape. In contrast with conventional energy resources like fossil fuels, which follow a long and winding road from harvest, to refinement, to supplier, to consumer, wind energy is generated, transformed, and transmitted directly from the production site, and into the power grid (Pasqualetti 2000). As the presence of wind turbines in the landscapes we occupy becomes more salient, humans are forced to acknowledge that the energy we use originates from a source, a fact that the conventional fuel production chain makes easy to ignore (Pasqualetti 2000). Due to their scale and visibility in landscapes, dedicated wind farms are subject to specific land use classifications defined by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) as Direct Impact Area (land disturbed during construction of facilities, roads, turbines and other infrastructure), and Total Project Area (the perimeter of land 1

240 wind projects 210 on-shore 30 off-shore

annually generating 6070mw of CLEAN energy

legend 5000.00 - 5040.00 4000.00 - 4999.99 3000.00 - 3999.99 2000.00 - 2999.99 1000.00 - 1999.99 500.00 - 999.99 250.00 - 499.99 100.00 - 249.99 50.00 - 99.99 25.00 - 49.99 10.00 - 24.99 1.00 - 9.99 0.50 - 0.99

number of megawatts (mw) generated annually

0.00 - 0.99

4.0 - 4.5

1.00 - 4.99

4.5 - 5.0

5.00 - 9.99

5.0 - 5.5

10.00 - 24.99

5.5 - 6.0

25.00 - 49.99

6.0 - 6.5

50.00 - 99.99

6.5 - 7.0

100.00 - 249.99

7.0 - 7.5

250.00 - 499.99

7.5 - 8.0

500.00 - 999.99

9.0 - 9.5

number of functioning turbines: proposed, under construction, or in service

8.5 - 9.0

1400.00

scale: 1 inch = 60 miles

sources: https://maps.nrel.gov/wind-prospector https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

8.0 - 8.5

1000.00 - 1399.99

120

Image 1 - Wind Energy Production Facilities of the Eastern United States

180

240

mean annual wind speed (m/s) at 100 meters (m)

miles

potential wind resources EASTERN UNITED STATES

Introduction + Context included as part of the total project site) (Denholm, et al. 2009). While wind energy projects typically require between 30-80 acres per megawatt of capacity, the production and maintenance infrastructure associated with wind farms actually only accounts for around five percent of that acreage due to the vertical nature of these projects (AWS Truewind, LLC 2009). â&#x20AC;&#x153;A further element of the land question revolves around the potential for multi-purpose use that wind allows,â&#x20AC;? (Pasqualetti 2000, p. 389). This prompts another question: what other types of use could exist on the ground within the remaining project boundary? Through the exploration of siting, anatomy, and land use specific to wind farms, this thesis explores a suite of uses known to exist on sites in tandem with wind energy generation. It provides case study examples at a range of scales, locations, and types of mixed-use on existing wind farms, exploring their respective successes and drawbacks. Finally through the siting and design of a wind project in the mountains of Eastern Tennessee, the author explores the possibilities for best mixed-use distribution in proposed utility scale wind farms as it relates to humans, ecosystems, and landscapes.

number of megawatts (mw) generated annually

0.00 - 0.99

4.0 - 4.5

1.00 - 4.99

4.5 - 5.0

5.00 - 9.99

5.0 - 5.5

10.00 - 24.99

5.5 - 6.0

25.00 - 49.99

6.0 - 6.5

50.00 - 99.99

6.5 - 7.0

100.00 - 249.99

7.0 - 7.5

250.00 - 499.99

7.5 - 8.0

500.00 - 999.99

8.0 - 8.5

1000.00 - 1399.99

8.5 - 9.0

1400.00

9.0 - 9.5

number of functioning turbines: proposed, under construction, or in service

mean annual wind speed (m/s) at 100 meter (m) hub height

scale: 1 inch = 60 miles 0

120

180

240

miles

sources: https://maps.nrel.gov/wind-prospector https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

Image 2 - Potential Wind Resources of the Eastern United States 2

System Wind farms can be broken down into a set of components, all of which can be found on any project site. These include the turbines themselves, turbine foundations, service roads, power collection systems, substation, control system, and the operations facility (AWS Truewind 2009, p. 19) Turbines: Wind turbines are the piece of wind farm infrastructure that literally capture the energy of wind and transform it into power. They are also the most visible and iconic components of wind farms at the landscape scale. Turbines are laid out on a site in rows, a grid, or in clusters, but the main factors influencing their position and spacing are optimal orientation for wind capture and the ground conditions at the turbine base. For example, wind farms located on ridgelines are typically arranged into a single string configuration while those located on flatter, more even land can be laid out in a grid or cluster pattern with multiple rows (Denholm, et al. 2009). In any case, turbines are always oriented perpendicularly to the the direction of the strongest winds (AWS Truewind 2009, p. 97).

System wind project layout configuration 1

LINEAR

ARCED

BASIC GRID

RANDOM

turbine layout configuration

SINGLE STRING

MULTIPLE STRING

PARALLEL STRING

CLUSTER

sources: http://www.mdpi.com/19961073/7/11/7483/htm Image 3 - Wind Project Layout Configuration Denholm, P., Hand, M., Jackson, M., & Ong, S. (2009). Land Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States. Retrieved March 2, 2016.

System Another factor in arrangement is turbine size and rotor diameter. In any configuration, wind turbines must have adequate space between them in order to function properly. This means allowing enough distance between the turbines for maximum production while minimizing the exposure of downwind turbines to the “wake effect” produced by wind generated by upwind turbines, which acts as a type of turbulence, impacting the prevailing wind exposure of the downwind turbines, and finally causing energy loss and affecting the lifespan of downwind turbines (AWS Truewind 2009, p. 97). An example of ideal spacing on relatively flat land with several rows of turbines is a 3 x 10 project. This means that within each row, turbines have three rotor diameters separating each from one another and that rows are separated by ten rotor diameters (AWS Truewind 2009, p. 97). Ultimately when considering cost, projects need to consider the value of acquiring more land (acreage) to allow for greater space between turbines, which will increase their efficiency (an upfront cost), versus the long-term cost of skimping on space, which decreases individual turbine production capacity and the overall life of the system later on. It’s a trade off (Blowing in the Wind 2011, p. 159).

rotor diameter + spacing IDEAL CONDITIONS ON LEVEL GROUND

ROTOR DIAMETER (EG. 300’)

10 ROTOR DIAMETERS (EG. 3000’)

3 ROTOR DIAMETERS (EG. 900’)

Image 4 - Wind Turbine Spacing 5

exploring turbine foundation scale TURBINE BRAND: GAMESA G90, 2.0 MW

System Crane Pads and Foundations: Crane “pads” are the cleared areas located around the bases of individual turbines and foundations. They are installed during road construction at the beginning of projects and provide construction vehicles, like cranes, access to the turbine area (FitzPatrick 2010). Assembly of the hub, the portion of the turbine containing the blades, also occurs on the ground within the pad before it is hoisted into place (Gamesa N.d.), justifying the cleared one-acre requirement per pad typical of many wind projects. Foundations, the support structure for turbine towers, are built into the pads. Foundation design depends on the weight of individual turbines, supporting soils, and also wind intensity (FitzPatrick 2010). Foundation options include shallow foundations, which work well in optimal ground conditions with sound soil structures. These foundations are made of cast concrete and come in circular, hexagonal, or octagonal footprints. Due to the makeup of their material, these types of foundations are relatively sustainable, cost effective, and quick to construct. On sites with softer, less stable soils, deeper foundations are needed. These foundations require extensive excavations, sometimes to the depth of bedrock in order to support the weight of turbines. For deep foundations, piles made from wood, cast concrete, or steel are driven deep into the ground (FitzPatrick 2010).

hub height: 78M / 256’ blade length: 44M / 144’ turbine pad cleared: 1AC / 208.7FT2 turbine foundations: 24’DIA X 6’DEEP concrete per: 100YD3 rock anchors per: 18 (3”DIA 42’DEEP)

scale: 1 inch = 20 feet 0

feet 60

Image 5 - Wind Turbine Scale and Foundations

sources: http://www.sprucemountainwind.com/SpruceMountainConstructionPresentation.pdf

System Service roads: Roads are laid out during the initial construction phase. The roads are typically six meters wide and are designed according to standard road engineering specifications, considering turning radii and carrying capacity, in order to accommodate the weight and dimensions of materials being delivered to the construction site. Crane pads are located off to the side of these roads. The service roads and crane pads remain in place upon completion for later maintenance access (AWS Truewind 2009, p. 20). Power connection systems: The energy produced is collected and transmitted to the power grid via medium-voltage underground cabelling. Wind farms are often located within 10 miles of high voltage transmission lines due to the economy of proximity (AWS Truewind 2009, p. 19). Substation: Energy generated by turbines is metered and its voltage increased to be compatible with the rest of the local utility grid (AWS Truewind 2009, p. 19). Control System /Operations and Maintenance: The controls for the wind array are housed here, along with staff offices where technicians monitor energy output and analyze wind speed data from a central computer. The system control cables connected to each turbine stem from this point (AWS Truewind, 2009, p. 20).

System how wind turbines work WIND TURBINES

wind blows, turning blades, and spinning the rotor to generate energy

THE POWER GRID

NETWORK TRANSMISSION LINES

DISTRIBUTION LINES

allow electricity to travel across long distances

deliver electricity to towns and individual homes

energy is converted to electricity and the voltage is amplified within the turbines

CABLING medium voltage underground cabling conveys electricity to the power grid

SUBSTATION meters energy and increases voltage, making it compatible with the rest of the power grid

sources: www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=900 Image 6 - How Wind Turbines Work www.energy.gov/eere/wind/animation-how-wind-turbine-works

Siting Locations for wind projects are chosen based on a range of criteria but there are five main considerations that must be addressed before a site is selected. Achieving a balance between these five criteria is possible through a process called site screening: 1. Quality of Wind Resource The presence of prevailing winds should be strong enough for optimal production, this is the most important factor influencing a wind farm’s energy generation and economic potential. 2. Enough Land Area Developers typically choose sites that are connected and have the capacity to host at least 30 mw of production infrastructure or at least 10 turbines (EWEA, n.d.). 3. Suitable Ground Stable soils and gentle slopes but if the overall project site is favorable and the wind resource is great enough, concessions are sometimes made to help mitigate poor ground conditions. Image 7 - Pennsylvania Wind Turbines

4. Land Use Compatibility The site should be compatible with land use restrictions and environmental constraints. wind projects shouldn’t be located near sensitive habitats or ecosystems. they are also subject to compliance with local land use cover requirements, which take into account the project’s proximity to residential development, moreover the residential development’s access to open space and parks. 5. Access to Transmission Lines Electrical transmission facilities should be in close proximity, ideally within 10 miles of the project. Larger projects occasionally locate facilities further away from the transmission facilities, but smaller projects need to be nearer to facilities to maximize the return (AWS Truewind, 2009, p. 85-94).

Case Studies With the growing deployment of wind energy infrastructure, it is clear that the land area required for these projects will likely come into greater contact with areas where humans live, our infrastructure, and with more natural areas and ecosystems. â&#x20AC;&#x153;This proximity makes significant portions of land unusable for the (wind farm) designers, introducing a set of land-use constraints,â&#x20AC;? (Sorkhabi, et al., 2015). But do landuse restrictions actually have to render large portions of land unusable? Wind production infrastructure is vertical with only a small footprint associated with each turbine, and there are already a suite of known uses that are compatible within a wind facility, on the ground in the areas unoccupied by the turbines, service roads, and other production components. The four sites chosen as case studies illustrate mixed-use spanning agriculture, conservation, recreation, and other forms of energy generation. The sites were selected due to their inclusion of one or more types of mixed-use in addition to wind energy production. Each site helps demonstrate the compatibility of wind projects with the various types of mixed-use listed above and which types of use are compatible, or incompatible with one another.

uses known to exist with wind energy production FORESTRY CONSERVATION RECREATION COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGRICULTURE OTHER ENERGY PRODUCTION WASTE TREATMENT Image 8 - Mixed-Use In Existing Wind Projects

Case Studies casestudies

MULTI-USE IN WIND FARMS

WHITELEE WINDFARM glasgow, scotland

WEST WIND WIND FARM makara, new zealand

WILD HORSE WIND + SOLAR ellensburg, washington

JERSEY ATLANTIC WINDFARM atlantic city, new jersey

nearest urban center: GLASGOW population: 600,060 acreage: 14,080 number of turbines: 215 annual energy productions: 539MW configuration: MULTIPLE STRING ground condition: UNSTABLE, SATURATED, PEAT BOG. 960FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL. TURBINE BASES REQUIRE ROCK SUPPORTS character: PART MOORLAND, PART FORESTRY PLANTATION. LANDSCAPE IN-FLUX DUE TO TIMBER HARVEST. RURAL

nearest urban center: WELLINGTON population: 204,000 acreage: 1,309 number of turbines: 62 annual energy productions: 142MW configuration: MULTIPLE STRING ground condition: FAULT LINE, RUGGED, STEEP SLOPES, WETLAND. ELEVATION RANGES 820-1476FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL character: COASTAL AND HILLY WITH EXTREMELY HIGH REGIONAL WINDS. RURAL FARMLAND WITH A FEW SETTLEMENTS

nearest urban center: SEATTLE population: 652,405 acreage: 10,000 number of turbines: 149 annual energy productions: 273MW configuration: MULTIPLE STRING ground condition: RIDGELINE, 3,500FT ABOVE SEA LEVE ON WHISKY DICK MOUNTAIN character: EXTREME WEATHER FLUCTUATIONS, TEMPERATURES RANGE BETWEEN 0 AND 100 DEGREES F, MOSTLY SCRUB BRUSH AND NON-FORESTED

nearest urban center: NEW YORK population: 8.406 MILLION acreage: 50 number of turbines: 5 annual energy productions: 7.5MW configuration: SINGLE STRING ground condition: TIDAL FLATS, COASTAL MARSHLAND. TURBINE BASES PILE SUPPORTED character: FLAT, COASTAL, INDUSTRIAL, DEGRADED

sources: http://www.whiteleewindfarm.com/ https://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/about-us/our-power-stations/wind/west-wind http://pse.com/inyourcommunity/ToursandRecreation/WildHorse/Pages/default.aspx Image 9 - Case Study Examples of Mixed Use http://www.acua.com/green-initiatives/renewable-energy/windfarm/

Case Studies Discussion: The study sites show that there are various types of mixed-use that can co-exist within wind farm boundaries. However, some forms of mixed-use seem to work better together than others. For example, while agriculture works well with wind power, it is likely incompatible with wildlife conservation due to the expanses of cleared land required for crop production. For conservation to work, large swaths of forest, scrub brush, wetland, or other natural areas are needed to provide habitat value for wildlife, thus forestry would work well in this scenario. However, if the project area is large enough, it seems that agriculture, forestry, and wildlife conservation could exist simultaneously, but they would likely need to occur on opposite ends of the project site. Other types of energy production, like solar arrays, appear to be a good fit for wind projects in less forested areas. Recreation is a great choice for wind farms. The road infrastructure can create a ready-made trail network for walking, biking, or horseback riding. Adding a recreational component to wind projects is good for communities and for developers. If a wind project is initially viewed as unfavorable by locals, developers could leverage recreational value when lobbying for the project, especially in areas lacking parks and accessible open spaces. Allowing the public into these sites works for another reason: it makes people aware of wind power as a valuable source of renewable energy.

Image 10 - School Buses at Wild Horse Wind and Solar

potential wind resources MID-ATLANTIC REGION

Site Selection

legend

In the United States, the current goal is for wind energy to supply 20% of electricity by 2030 (Lindenberg, et al., 2008). “In order for wind to be a truly national resource like it is in Europe, contributing 20% or more of the nation’s total energy by 2030, future wind projects need to include lower wind speed sites, like those in the Southeastern US (in addition to higher wind energy resources),” (Zayas, et al., 2015).

5000.00 - 5040.00 4000.00 - 4999.99 3000.00 - 3999.99 2000.00 - 2999.99 1000.00 - 1999.99 500.00 - 999.99 250.00 - 499.99 100.00 - 249.99 50.00 - 99.99 25.00 - 49.99 10.00 - 24.99 1.00 - 9.99 0.50 - 0.99

0.00 - 0.99 1.00 - 4.99 5.00 - 9.99 10.00 - 24.99 25.00 - 49.99 50.00 - 99.99 100.00 - 249.99

number of megawatts (mw) generated annually

250.00 - 499.99 500.00 - 999.99 1000.00 - 1399.99 1400.00

4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0

number of functioning turbines: proposed, under construction, or in service

5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.5 6.5 - 7.0

OVER 200K

7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0

100 - 200K

8.0 - 8.5

50 - 99.99K

8.5 - 9.0

30 - 49.99K

9.0 - 9.5

mean annual wind speed (m/s) at 100 meter (m) hub height

major population centers, 30,000 + people

scale: 1 inch = 20 miles miles sources: https://maps.nrel.gov/wind-prospector https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

wind production facilities + urban centers MID-ATLANTIC REGION

Based on this goal and findings from the case studies, this design exploration aims to site, layout and program a multiuse wind farm in the Southeastern US, which incorporates recreation, forestry, and wildlife conservation.

0.00 - 0.99 1.00 - 4.99 5.00 - 9.99 10.00 - 24.99 25.00 - 49.99 50.00 - 99.99 100.00 - 249.99

number of megawatts (mw) generated annually

250.00 - 499.99 500.00 - 999.99 1000.00 - 1399.99 1400.00

4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0

number of functioning turbines: proposed, under construction, or in service

5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.5 6.5 - 7.0

OVER 200K

7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0

us energy generation by energy source

100 - 200K

8.0 - 8.5

50 - 99.99K

8.5 - 9.0

30 - 49.99K

9.0 - 9.5

mean annual wind speed (m/s) at 100 meter (m) hub height

major population centers, 30,000 + people

scale: 1 inch = 20 miles miles

COAL 33% NATURAL GAS 33%

sources: https://maps.nrel.gov/wind-prospector https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

wind production facilities + urban centers APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN RANGE

NUCLEAR 20% HYDROPOWER 6% WIND 4.7% BIOMASS 1.6% PETROLEUM 1%

SOLAR .6% GEOTHERMAL .4%

0.00 - 0.99 1.00 - 4.99 5.00 - 9.99 10.00 - 24.99 25.00 - 49.99 50.00 - 99.99 100.00 - 249.99

number of megawatts (mw) generated annually

250.00 - 499.99 500.00 - 999.99 1000.00 - 1399.99 1400.00

4.0 - 4.5 4.5 - 5.0

number of functioning turbines: proposed, under construction, or in service

5.0 - 5.5 5.5 - 6.0 6.0 - 6.5 6.5 - 7.0

OVER 200K

7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0

Image 11 - US Energy Generation by Source Images 12-14 (left) Wind Resources, Production Facilities, Population Centers, And Appalachian Mountain Range 13

100 - 200K

8.0 - 8.5

50 - 99.99K

8.5 - 9.0

30 - 49.99K

9.0 - 9.5

mean annual wind speed (m/s) at 100 meter (m) hub height

major population centers, 30,000 + people

scale: 1 inch = 20 miles miles sources: https://maps.nrel.gov/wind-prospector https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

Site Selection People often express concerns about the effects of wind turbines on bird populations, which seems out of step with this projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s conservation goals. However, a publication from the North American Bird Conservation Initiative shows that wind turbines are on the low end of the human drivers of bird decline (The State of the Birds, 2014)

estimated number of birds KILLED annually 3 BILLION 236 MILLION 434 THOUSAND human drivers of bird decline in the US

74.2%

18.5%

6.2%

.8%

.2%

.17%

.01%

2.4 BIL

599 MIL

200 MIL

25 MIL

6.6 MIL

5.6 MIL

234 K

Image 15 - Human Drivers of Bird Decline

sources: http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2014/2014%20SotB_FINAL_low-res.pdf

Site Selection With project goals in place, an additional set of criteria are added to the general guidelines for new projects. These are to optimize the potential mixed-use possibilities. 1. Quality Wind Resource in the South Eastern US A high wind resource in a generally lower wind resource area is a goal. The presence of prevailing winds should be strong enough for energy production, however it may not be strong enough for optimal production. 2. Population Center Greater than 30,000 This project imagines a place that becomes part of a larger eco-recreation corridor, connecting communities of different scales across a larger region. Proximity to a population center of greater than 30,000 also ensures that energy transmission infrastructure is already in place. 3. Hydroelectric Dam A Norwegian approach suggests that excess power produced by the wind turbines can be used to pump water from below a hydroelectric dam upstream and into the reservoir behind the dam for later release through hydroelectric turbines. This allows the water body to act as a giant energy storage battery for the excess wind power (Gurzu, 2016), while fitting into the eco-recreation story as people use it for boating, fishing, and swimming, with the wind energy directly influencing water levels. 15

4. Timber Harvesting The land is or has been used for timber production. This ensures that quality tree species can be grown in the area. Continuing strategic plantations can help function as a way to improve the land for wildlife. Roads used for harvesting timber could also serve as access roads the turbines, and as an additional network of trails. 5. National Forest The majority of high wind resources occur on ridgelines within national forests. National forests are developing policies to include renewable energy as an alternative to coal and natural gas extraction (USDA/USFS 2011). They are also regional hubs of recreation.

Site Selection

hydroelectric battery storage power control room

upper reservoir

transmission lines

transformer

to power grid

lower reservoir

excess to reservoir

access shaft reservoir tunnel

pressure shaft generation powerhouse

tail range tunnel

Image 16 - Hydroelectric Battery Storage

Site Selection Wind in National Forests: In 2016, ground was broken on the first wind project within a National Forest in Green Mountain National Forest, in Searsburg, Vermont (Wind-Watch.org, 2016). The Deerfield Wind project features 15 turbines measuring 389 feet from base to tip of blade and is expected to produce enough electricity to power roughly 13,000 homes per year (FS.fed.us, 2012)

precedent study: wind power production on usfs lands DEERFIELD WIND PROJECT | SEARSBURG, VERMONT extensive high wind resources

readsboro searsburg

harriman reservoir

wilmington dover

SEARSBURG IS LOCATED IN THE NEW ENGLAND PROVINCE IN VERMONT. WHILE THERE ISN’T ACTUALLY MUCH OF A TOWN IN SEARSBURG, THE NEIGHBORING TOWN OF DOVER IS A POPULAR SEASONAL RESORT TOWN, FEATURING MT. SNOW, A PROMINENT SKI ATTRACTION. THERE IS AN EXISTING 11 TURBINE WIND PROJECT, THE SEARSBURG WIND FACILITY, LOCATED JUST OUTSIDE THE GREEN MOUNTAIN NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY. IN SEPTEMBER, 2016, GROUND WAS BROKEN ON THE FIRST EVER WIND PROJECT ON NATIONAL FOREST LAND, DEERFIELD WIND. BUILT ADJACENT TO THE SEARSBURG FACILITY, DEERFIELD WILL INSTALL 15 TURBINES ON 80 ACRES OF USFS LAND. THE TURBINES WILL BE 389 FEET TALL FROM GROUND TO TIP OF BLADE AND ARE PROJECTED TO PRODUCE 92,506MWH (CAPACITY 30MW), ENOUGH TO POWER 13,000 HOMES PER YEAR.

3 scale: 1 in = 3388 ft

legend 6.0 - 6.5 6.5 - 7.0 7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0 8.0 - 8.5 8.5 - 9.0

mean annual wind speed (m/s) at 100 meter (m) hub height

2. development + recreation neaby towns (within 4-7mi) dover and wilmington are resort destinations with some of the best skiing in the northeast

3. wilderness the green mountain national forest is a northern hardwood forest, characterized by yellow birch, eastern hemlock, sugar maple, and northern red oak,

4. hydroelectric infrastructure the harriman reservoir was created by damming the deerfield river near searsburg to produce hydroelectric power. it is also used for recreation.

4 scale: 1 in = 3388 ft

feet 0 1694’3388’ 6776’

1. existing wind power infrastructure the searsburg wind facility has 11, 40m (hub height) turbines producing 6mW of nominal power along 1.5 miles of road just outside usfs land

feet 0 1694’3388’ 6776’

hydroelectric reservoir national forest boundary proposed wind project

Image 17 - Precedent Study: Deerfield Wind Project - Searsburg, VT 17

Site Selection A McHargian approach to overlaying GIS data for ecological planning reveals a region that is well suited to the initial and newly established criteria for siting in the Cherokee National forest along the eastern border of Tennessee. There are a couple more specific areas in the region that best fit the constraints: Greater Johnson City - population 63,000 (JohnsonCityTn.org) and Greater Cleveland - population 41,000 (USCensus.gov, 2015).

Image 18 - Site Selection Study Working Map 18

Site Selection In the Greater Cleveland region, there are three bodies of water near wind resources that could fulfill the hydroelectric system requirement: Parksville lake in Tennessee, and Blue Ridge and Nottely lakes just over the state line in North Georgia. Ultimately, the Blue Ridge/Nottely location was not chosen because it is over the state line and because the wind resource is 50 miles outside of Cleveland, which is not close enough for economy of electrical transmission. In addition, there is not enough timber activity in the area. The Parksville lake location was not selected because it is not close enough to Cleveland and because there is too much Federally designated wilderness, a factor that this project aims to respect.

Site Selection site selection studies + key adjacencies GREATER CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE

cleveland

mccaysville

blairsville

CLEVELAND IS LOCATED IN SOUTHEASTERN TENNESSEE IN THE BLUE RIDGE PROVINCE WITH A POPULATION OF ROUGHLY 41K PEOPLE. IT IS LOCATED DUE WEST OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST AND TO THE NORTH WEST OF THE CHATTAHOOCHEE NATIONAL FOREST IN NORTHERN GEORGIA. THE AREA IS A POPULAR RECREATION DESTINATION WITH THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF FOREST, WATERFALLS, TRAILS FOR HIKING, RIVERS AND LAKES FOR PADDLING. THE OCOEE SCENIC BYWAY, WHICH RUNS ALONG CLEVELAND AND THE NATIONAL FOREST, WAS THE FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THE NATION. CLEVELAND FEATURES A NUMBER IMPORTANT HERITAGE SITES OF THE CHEROKEE NATION AND THE CIVIL WAR. CLEVELANDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S INSTITUTE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, LEE UNIVERSITY, IS PRIVATELY OWNED AND AFFILIATED WITH THE CHURCH OF GOD, HAVING JUST UNDER 5K STUDENTS. THE TOWN HAS ONE BREWERY AND A NUMBER OF RESTAURANTS AND SHOPS.

blue ridge lake/reservoir

nottely lake

blue ridge

3 2

4 5

1. hydroelectric infrastructure the dam and turbines on the blue ridge reservoir have the capacity to produce up to 4,745 mw annually. reservoir aids in flood protection

2. milling + timber harvest some sites have been logged recently or in the past. dominant trees include 9 species of oak and 7 species of hickory (photo depicts a sawmill)

3. hydroelectric infrastructure the dam and turbines on the nottely reservoir have the capacity to produce up to 6,570 mw annually. reservoir aids in flood protection

4. development + recreation both bodies of water are used for boating, fishing, and swimming. development continues to climb to surrounding higher elevations

5. pasture + farmland tracts of land used for pasture and cultivation are present, along with with settlements in valleys

6. wilderness chattahoochee national forest is an oak hickory forest of approximately 750,000 acres. it features hundreds of waterfalls and a variety of recreational opprotunities

1. hydroelectric infrastructure the dam and turbines on the parksville lake reservoir have the capacity to produce up to 8,760 mw annually

2. active timber harvests many sites have been logged recently or in the past. dominant trees include 10 species of oak and 8 species of hickory

4. wilderness cherokee national forest (southeast) is an oak hickory forest. with over 650,000 acres, it is the largest swath of public land in tennessee. the benton mackye trail is shown along a ridgeline

6 scale: 1 in = 1.82 mi miles

tennessee

georgia

.91 1.82

3.64

north carolina

parksville lake

scale: 1 in = 2.5 mi miles 0 1.25 2.5

legend 6.0 - 6.5 6.5 - 7.0 7.0 - 7.5 7.5 - 8.0

mean annual wind speed (m/s) at 100 meter (m) hub height

hydroelectric reservoir national forest boundary

3 scale: 1 in = 1.82 mi miles 0

.91 1.82

3.64

Image 19 - Site Selection Study: Greater Cleveland, TN 20

Site Selection The region that best conforms to the requirements for siting and desired mix of uses is Greater Johnson City, Tennessee. The body of water that fulfills the hydroelectric system requirement is Watauga Lake. The highest wind resources in the region are located on private property, or on lands that are Federally designated wilderness. In order to keep the wind park off these two land classifications, it is necessary to site the project at an elevation still high enough to tap wind resources, but without encroaching on wilderness. The chosen location is White Rocks mountain in the small hamlet of Roan Mountain, Tennessee. The site comes with the added benefit and challenge of proximity to the Appalachian trail. This location has strong regional connections, along with existing US Forest Service timber harvesting operations, and road networks.

Site Selection

Image 20 - Site Selection Study: Greater Johnson City, TN 22

BEECH RIDGE ENERGY- GREENBRIER COUNTY, WV HP+3900’

HP+3100’

HP+4200’ HP+3400’

HP+3200’

HP+4000’ HP+4000’

HP+3500’ HP+3200’

HP+4000’

HP+3600’

HP+3500’

HP+3900’

HP+3600’ HP+4000’

HP+3900’

HP+4000’

HP+3700’ HP+4300’

HP+3600’

HP+3900’

Site Analysis

HP+3000’

HP+3800’

HP+3000’

HP+4300’

HP+4100’

HP+3000’

HP+4200’

HP+3400’

HP+3300’ HP+3800’

HP+2800’ HP+3500’ HP+4200’ HP+3500’

It is critical to understand the relationship between the placement of individual wind turbines and the strongest local wind resources. A survey of existing wind project configurations in mountainous terrain, and their respective wind resources (right) reveals that the turbines do not need to be sited precisely within the highest wind resource zones, so long as they are placed, at elevations high enough to capture the prevailing winds, unimpeded by surrounding land forms. White Rocks mountain conforms to this requirement with a summit at 4200 feet, one of the highest peaks in the region (below).

HP+4000’

HP+3300’

HP+3400’

HP+2400’

HP+3900’ HP+3900’

SOUTH CHESTNUT WIND FARM - GIBBON GLADE, PA HP+2000’ HP+1100’

HP+2700’

HP+2300’

HP+1200’

HP+1900’

HP+2100’ HP+1900’

HP+1100’ HP+2600’

HP+2000’ HP+2000’

HP+1000’

HP+2000’ HP+2600’ HP+1100’

HP+2700’

HP+2200’

HP+1900’

HP+2500’

HP+1100’

HP+2000’

HP+2700’ HP+1200’ HP+2600’

HP+2000’

HP+2600’ HP+1100’

HP+2500’

HP+1200’

HP+2700’

HP+1900’

HP+2400’

HP+1100’

HP+1800’

PENNSYLVANIA WEST VIRGINIA

HP+2400’

HP+2600’

HP+1200’

HP+2000’ HP+2000’

SPRUCE MOUNTAIN WIND FARM - WOODSTOCK, ME HP+2000’

HP+1400’

SITE SELECTION STUDY AREA - CARTER COUNTY, TN

HP+1800’ HP+2100’ HP+2000’

HP+2000’

HP+3000’

HP+3400’

HP+3200’ HP+1300’

HP+2200’

HP+3000’

HP+4200’ HP+3000’

HP+2200’

HP+3800’ HP+4000’

HP+3800’

HP+3200’

HP+2500’

HP+3300’

HP+4000’

HP+3400’

NEDPOWER MOUNT STORM WIND FARM - GRANT COUNTY, WV

HP+3600’ HP+3400’

HP+3500’

HP+2500’

HP+3100’

HP+3300’

HP+3600’

HP+3000’

HP+3400’

HP+2500’ HP+2000’

HP+3200’

HP+4000’

HP+3200’ HP+2500’

HP+3300’

HP+3000’

HP+3500’ HP+3600’

HP+3400’

HP+4000’ HP+4500’

HP+3200’

HP+3300’

HP+2600’

HP+3400’

HP+1700’ HP+1800’

HP+3200’

HP+3600’ HP+3300’

HP+3400’

HP+3200’

HP+1800’ HP+1700’

HP+2700’ HP+1900’

HP+4500’ HP+3400’

Image 21 - Site Selection Topographic and Wind Study: Carter County, TN Image 22 - Existing Mountain Wind Farms: Topography and Layout in Relation to Wind Resources 23

HP+2100’ HP+3500’

HP+2400’

HP+3400’

HP+3600’ HP+4000’

HP+2000’

HP+3300’ HP+3300’

HP+3500’

HP+1900’

HP+3100’

HP+2600’ HP+4200’

HP+3000’

HP+3100’

HP+3000’

HP+3400’

HP+2800’ HP+2500’

HP+2000’

N 15%

12%

10%

12%

ry ua

oct

15%

12%

jan

10%

december

rua

feb

15%

12%

march

september

ril

y ma

june

10%

au 4%

The prevailing wind direction is important to note because it will impact the orientation and placement of the the turbines. All wind turbines have a mechanism, the yaw, which rotates in order to accommodate changes in wind direction (Wind Energy Technology, N.d.), however the default position should be perpendicular to the prevailing winds.

15%

vem no

It is important to study the wind resource a planned project will exploit. Wind data from the National Climatic Data Centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bristol station gathered over thirty years reveals that the prevailing winds in the region blow from the west southwest to the east northeast for most of the year. The average regional wind speed is six mph, with peak gusts reaching 63 mph (NOAA 1998). Six miles per hour (2.68 meters per second) is considered low speed in the context of siting wind projects. However, data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratoryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s (NREL) online application for wind project planners, The Wind Prospector, shows more favorable site-specific average wind speeds of between 13 - 18 mph (6 - 8 m/s) in the area chosen for this project (The Wind Prospector, N.d.).

jul y

Site Analysis

greater bristol wind rose (data compiled over 30 years) PLOTTING WIND DIRECTION + SPEED + FREQUENCY OVER TIME

15%

12%

10%

> 11.05 8.49 - 11.05 5.40 - 8.49 3.34 - 5.40 1.80 - 3.34 0.51 - 1.80

wind speed (m/s)

sources: https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/downloads/climate/windrose/tennesee/bristol/ https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/wind1996.pdf

Image 23 - Wind Direction and Frequency Over time: Greater Bristol, TN

Site Analysis Characterization: The Cherokee National Forest is a mixed Appalachian forest and a part of the Appalachian / blue ridge forests ecoregion. As part of the Appalachian mountain chain, most of the ridges in this area are eroded and run northeast to southwest. There are a variety of geologic formations, soils, and climates, each contributing to the diversity of flora and fauna in the the region. There are two primary forest types within the Appalachian / blue ridge forest ecoregion, each dictated by changes in elevation: mixed oak forests occur at lower elevations (between 820-4430 feet), with diverse cove forests in the mid range, and spruce fir forests dominating ridge lines (above 4430 feet) (Loucks, et al N.d.).

Image 24 - Elevation, Key Adjacencies, and Forest Typologies: Town of Roan Mountain, TN 25

Site Analysis The Forest Service manages timber harvests for two age shelterwood with the goal of keeping 65% mature canopy and key species to include oak and hickory in prime mast (acorn) producing years in order to provide food and shelter for wildlife (Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 2004). The areas indicated by boxes on the map below show where past timber harvests have taken place. The timeline (right) depicts US Forest Service road development, timber removal, and regrowth over time.

3500

00 30

00 35

3500

00 34 00

3000

3600

00 35

29 00 3200

00 32

34 00

3200

30 00

3400

3500

34 00

3300

00 35

3400

3200

3300

3500

3400 34 00

36 00

3500

00 35

00 35 00

3500

3600

35 00

3600

37 00

3300

34 00 35

00 36

3500

3700

3800

3700

3600

3400

3600

00 36

3600

3700

3400

3200

32 00

3400

3100

3300

3100

2500

3300

3100

00 26

2800

0 27

3500

2900

2700

2900

2800

33 3200

3200

3000

3200

3500

3600

3200

35 00

3600

3700

3200

0 27 0

36 3600

3400

3600

4100

4200

3700

0 33

00 31

2500

3600 3100

3000

2800

2700

3000

00 34

3800

3700

3600

3500

3000

3600

3900

3200

3900

3600

3000

2900

00 36

3800 3200 33 00

3500

2600

3300

2600

00 35

00 34

00 31

2800

3600

3300

3600

3500

2900

3000

3300

27 00 28 00

3000

3300

3400

3500

3400

3600

2500

3300

3600

2600

3400

3200

3100

3200

2700

3300

3800

3700

4 36

3600

appalachian trail

3300

00 35

3800

3400

hydroelectric reservoir

3100

100â&#x20AC;&#x2122; contour lines

2600

3000

2800

road

00 31 3200

2700

00 29

2800

2700 00 26

3000

3400

previously cleared

3500

00 30

2600

3700

3600

3400

0 70

0 33

0 31

2600

legend

4000

3200

3500

3700

3600

3800

3600

2700

2500

0 34

3600

2900

2600

2500

3800

2500

2600

3200

3000

3700

3800

4000

3200

3400

2800

2600

00 32

00 40

3600

2500

3700

3800

2500

2600

3200

2800

2600 00

3400

0 35

3100

3200

3300

32 35

3300

3400

3900

3500

3300

3500

3900

4000

3900

3000

2900

3200

2800

3400

3200

3500

3300

3800

0 10

3200 00

00 36

3700

3800

3500

3700

3800

00 40

3400

3800

37 00 36 00 3400

3300

3900

4000

3300

3100

4100

3600

3500

4200

3600

36 00

3100

3700

3400

3500

3600

3800

3700

00 32

4100

3900

3200

3400

01/2007 09/2007

3400

3200

3800

3600

4000

3700

1997

3300

3600

3800

2700

3800 00

3700

3900

3100

3200

3400

3400 33

3400

3600

3700

3800

3700

3400

3500

3100

3500

33 3200

3200

3800

3800 00 37

3400

3500

3700

2900

3400

3100

3400

3600

30 2900

2900

3200

3500

1993

3600

3300

3000

3600

3500

3400

3800

3200

3900

3800

usfs road development + clearing and regrowth

35 36

3600

3100

3000

3300

3000

3400

31 33

3700

3800

4000

2900

3500

3900 37

3800

3300

3600

0 30 3200

3000

3400

3700

3500

3400

3000

3600

3200

3100

3000

2900

3500

3700

4100

3100

3800

4000

3200

3300

3500

3400

00 34

00 35

3300

site topography + circulation + forest management timeline ROAN MOUNTIAN, TENNESSEE

3000

3100

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Image 25 - White Rocks Mountain: Site Topography, Circulation, and Forest Management Time26

Site Analysis shelterwood silvicultural system variations IN A SHELTERWOOD SILVICULTURAL SYSTEM, AN OLD STAND OF TREES IS REMOVED IN A SERIES OF CUTS RATHER THAN BEING CLEAR CUT ALL AT ONCE. IN THIS SCENARIO, “RESERVE” TREES REMAIN TO SHELTER NEW GROWTH AND PROVIDE SEED FOR NATURAL REGENERATION, WHILE PROVIDING NON-TIMBER VALUES LIKE WILDLIFE HABITAT, BIODIVERSITY, AND AESTHETICS (ZIELKE AND BANCROFT, N.D.).

original stand

prepatory cut

strip shelterwood

group shelterwood UNCUT STAND

INITIAL CUT 20-40%

2ND CUT, 10 YRS LATER

REMOVAL CUT, 5-10 YRS LATER

establishment cut

removal cut

UNCUT STAND

irregular shelterwood UNCUT STAND

15 YRS AFTER ESTAB CUT

40 YRS AFTER ESTAB CUT

ESTAB REMOVAL CUT CUT

PREP CUT

natural shelterwood UNMANAGED STAND, NATURAL SHELTERWOOD

REMOVAL CUT

nurse tree shelterwood 1ST CUT: STRATIFIED STAND

2ND CUT: THIN OVERSTORY

3RD CUT: REMOVE OVERSTORY, THIN UNDERSTORY

Image 26 - Shelterwood Silvicultural System Variations 27

Process + Design With a site in-hand and analysis (seemingly) completed, the next step is undertaking a series of design iterations to determine the number and configuration of wind turbines. Based on previous research, the turbines could be configured in the following ways: single string, multiple string, grid, or cluster. When presented with a ridge, the obvious choice is to place the turbines in a single string along the ridge line. This approach is unsatisfactory and out of step with some of the goals of the Cherokee National Forest. At this stage, it is clear that a site visit is needed to assess the ridge in context with the surrounding mountains and to hike this portion of the Appalachian Trail.

Image 27 - Design Exploration: Turbines Along the Ridge

Process + Design Feeling Conflicted I traveled to Eastern Tennessee and hiked, with my husband, roughly ten miles up to the ridge of White Rocks Mountain. I was enamored with the sweeping offsite views to nearby Roan and Ripshin mountains afforded by winter, which would have been obscured by the green of warmer months. The name, White Rocks mountain, was demystified by the presence of large granite boulders jutting out along the narrow line of the Appalachian trail. Clumps of Rhododendron and Mountain laurel, along with Hemlocks and the occasional Pine provided a bit of green in an otherwise brown and dormant forest. As I hiked the Trail, I wondered aloud, â&#x20AC;&#x153;What am I doing trying to put a wind farm on this incredible mountain?â&#x20AC;? Visiting the site made me feel a deep sense of conflict about pursuing the project further. But ultimately the goal is to design a future scenario for a world that looks very different than the one we know today, and perhaps feels a little uncomfortable. In this world, the intersections of technology and nature are commonplace. I fundamentally believe that as landscape architects, it is our duty to consider these possibilities and provide design solutions that can help to turn negative perceptions into positive experiences and that it is better to do it preemptively. I set out to design in a way that could do just that. Image 28 - View of Ripshin Mountain from White Rocks Mountain - Roan Mountain, TN

Process + Design The Sublime From the moment I saw my first wind turbine, I was awestruck by its beauty and enormity. I have also often found myself enraptured by the forests and mountains I grew up with in southern Appalachia. In his book the American Technological Sublime, David E. Nye presents his idea of the experience of sublime: “…the sublime was not a part of a static view of the world, nor was it part of a proto-ecological sensibility that aimed at the preservation of wilderness. Rather, to experience the sublime was to awaken to a new vision of a changing universe,” (Nye 1994, p. 5-6)… “The experience (of the sublime), when it occurs has a basic structure. An object, natural or man-made, disrupts ordinary perception and astonishes the senses, forcing the observer to grapple mentally with its immensity and power. This amazement occurs most easily when the observer is not prepared for it; however, like religious conversion at a camp meeting, (Nye 1994, p.16).” These ideas do well to characterize the feeling that this project strives to evoke: that unexpected discoveries and juxtapositions may make us uncomfortable, but at the same time can serve to fascinate, delight, and inspire. Image 29 - View of Mount Storm Wind Project - West Virginia

Process + Design After experiencing the site and considering the character of a sublime experience, the design process is resumed. By overlaying turbine configurations with ideal spacing (3 x 10 rotor diameters) on a topographic map of White Rocks Mountain, certain features of the site are revealed, including an upland plateau with several mini-ridges, which were explored as part of a multiple string configuration scenario. Keeping in mind factors like the direction of prevailing winds, the necessity of keeping turbine blades above surrounding landforms, and the desire to utilize turbine access roads as part of the silvicultural system, helped to determine the shape of the park. Ultimately, the chosen configuration of turbines will help to structure the the design of the silvicultural system in the next phase.

SINGLE-STRING ALONG THE 4000â&#x20AC;&#x2122; CONTOUR LINE

MULTI-STRING ADJUSTED FOR TERRAIN; HIGHLIGHTS MINI-RIDGES

Images 30-34 - Design Explorations, Versioning BASIC 3 X1 0 GRID

STAGGERED GRID FOR OPTIMIZED PRODUCTION

GRID ADJUSTED FOR TERRAIN

Process + Design The selected configuration is a single string of seven turbines, on the lee side of the ridge, each at the same elevation along the 4000 foot contour line. While at first, it appears counterintuitive to locate the turbines on the back of the ridge, it likely will not affect the amount of wind that they are able to capture, due to their overall height. The summit of White Rocks Mountain is at 4250 feet and the blades of the turbine model chosen for this project (Gamesa G90, 100 meter or 328 feet, 2MW model (GamesaCorp 2015 - see p. 5, Image 5,)) will reach beyond the height of the mountain when in their most upright position. The total height of the wind turbines from base to tip of blade is 472 feet. Locating the turbines at the same elevation gives hikers on the Appalachian Trail the feeling of rising up to meet the blades because the trail gains elevation while the turbines do not.

Image 35 - Chosen Project Configuration - Single String of 7 Turbines along the 4000 foot 32

Process + Design The lee-side, single string configuration works for a number of reasons, among them are reduced visual impacts from other local high-points and also from an historic scenic byway: the Overmountain Men commemorative motor route in the valley below. Locating the wind park just off the ridge reduces impacts to the Appalachian Trail, which follows the ridge line, and allows for a prescribed 100 foot buffer zone on either side of the Trail (Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 2004) to remain mostly intact. It presents an opportunity to create an entirely new Energy Trail, which intersects at two points with the AT. Finally, by locating the turbines and associated road infrastructure along the 4000â&#x20AC;&#x2122; contour line, the turbine road can serve as an access road for the silvicultural system. The extent of the of the silvicultural system is limited by the proximity of access roads and also by the extent to which timber harvesting equipment, especially wheeled Skidders, can remove material, a distance of up to 1000 feet from a dedicated access road (Forests and Rangelands N.d.). Because access roads for timber harvesting already exist near the site, it is clear that the new silvicultural system should be located (mostly) on the slope between the new access road for the turbines and the existing timber access road (depicted in brown on the adjacent plan drawing) . The distance between the two roads is greater than 1000 feet in some areas, but it is overall favorable for the scope of this project. Image 36 - White Rocks Mountain Forest Character

Process + Design Due to the sculptural nature of wind turbines and because their placement in the landscape warrants a more formal distinction from their naturalistic surroundings, the configuration of the single string is adapted to conform to an arc formation with a one-mile radius. This means that each individual turbine is situated along the line of the arc and that the turbines are spaced 1000 feet apart, a distance slightly greater than required to maintain ideal spacing. The goal is for the turbines and their one-acre pads to remain at an elevation of 4000 feet. This decision necessities the construction of bases to accommodate the turbines, their foundations, and pads, and also the excavation of granite bedrock to help level the sites. The excavated material is utilized in the creation of the turbine bases, helping to balance cut and fill, and a stone mill is brought on-site to shape excavated granite bedrock into blocks for the facades of the bases. Because some of the bases are very tall, up to 90 feet above the surrounding terrain in some cases, buttresses are created to provide stabilization, while helping to accommodate a portion of individual turbine blade foot prints during turbine assembly. The existing 4000 foot contour line is present as a visual remnant, represented by the location of the turbine access road, save a few small adjustments to accommodate turning radii of trucks.

PAD 7

PAD 6

PAD 5

PAD 4

PAD 3

PAD 2

PAD 1

Image 37 - White Rocks Mountain Wind Park - Design Layout, Grading, and Key Circulation 34

Process + Design Among the benefits of this site are the existing system of US forest service roads that can be developed more formally. One road in particular was essential in determining the layout of the site as it connects to the road network in the town below. Using this existing forestry road as a starting point to access the wind park is less invasive than carving an entirely new roadway into the mountainside to create a connection between the town and the ridge. The turbine access road (aka the Energy Trail) is designed to adhere to traditional roadway design specifications, but with added considerations specific to wind farm needs. For instance, the maximum longitudinal grade for wind project roads is 14%. This steep grade is necessary in a small portion of the roadway in order to negotiate terrain. Turning radii for the trucks delivering turbine components to the site is another factor. The sheer size of the infrastructure and delivery vehicles dictates the required turning radii: a minimum 150 foot radius for the centerline, and a 115 foot radius for the outside edge of the roadway (DeLuca-Hoffman Associates, Inc. N.d.). Wind project roads are typically 6 meters (19.7 feet) wide (AWS Truewind, LLC. 2009), however this roadbed is 30 feet wide in order to accommodate the associated buried power cabelling in its shoulder, and to allow for possible future access as a two-lane scenic drive.

Image 38 - Design Process: The Access Road 35

Process + Design An important aspect of wind turbines is that their typical service life is 20 years due to fatigue of the generator. At this time the wind farm is often decommissioned and the land is restored to its previous condition (Carrascal 2014). This project envisions a scenario where the turbines are replaced every 20 years, in lieu of decommissioning and restoring the site. In order to accomplish this and also for aesthetic reasons, the wind parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s network of pathways, apart from the access road, are formed out of the footprints of turbine hubs and blades. These remnants afford a place for the new infrastructure to be assembled when it is time to replace components, while providing recreational users a sense of scale for the parts of infrastructure that are furthest from the ground. These footprints are indicated in the following ways: cantilevered scaffolding-style catwalks that jut out over the buttressed pad edges and act as entrance points at the western and eastern ends of the park, mowing regimes that indicate the blades within the pad when not canted, and a central granite disc for the footprint of the hub. PROPOSED SECTIONS THROUGH:

ACCESS ROADWAY

PAD 7

CANTED CATWALK OVERLOOK

PAD 6

BUTTRESSED FOUNDATION

Image 39 - Pad Seven: Detailed Grading and Key Circulation Image 40 (right) - Proposed Topographic Sections: Pads 5, 6, and 7

PAD 5 36

strip shelterwood silvicultural system LANDSCAPE MOSAIC: ADVANCE + REGENERATION OVER 40 YEARS

original stand SPECIES INCLUDE: OAKS, HICKORIES, HEMLOCK, PINE, RHODODENDRON, AND MOUNTAIN LAUREL

Process + Design The design features a strip shelterwood silvicultural system, which echoes the arc of the turbines and is managed for oaks and hickories in their prime mast (nut) producing years. This system was selected based on the management goals of the Cherokee National Forest and on the desire to create a sublime experience in the landscape.

A CLEAR CUT STRIP IS MAINTAINED TO ACCOMODATE THE NEWLY-GRADED ROAD, TURBINES, AND PADS. SOME AREAS MAY BE PLANTED LATER ON. TURBINES INSTALLED AT THE END OF THIS PHASE AND SILVICULTURE BEGINS

40 - foot rate of advance per year harvested into the direction of prevailing winds

end year 10 400 TOTAL FEET OF ADVANCE. OLDEST TREES ARE UP TO 20 FEET TALL.

FEET

1600

1200

800

400

FEET

1600

1200

800

400

FEET

1600

1200

800

400

FEET

1600

1200

800

400

end year 20

40 - year regeneration period

The shelterwood system cycles over a 40 year regeneration period. This means that the trees will have a 40 year period of growth before they are harvested, allowing them to achieve and remain in peak mast output (reached after 25 years), a move that is beneficial to wildlife (Revised Land and Resource Management Plan 2004). The trees are harvested in 10 year periodic blocks with a 40 foot rate of advance per year into the direction of the prevailing winds, which provides added protection for new growth by older growth (Matthews 1991). For example, if a regeneration area is 1600 feet deep, then at the end of the first 10 year periodic block, trees will have been harvested 400 feet deep into the regeneration area. At the end of the fourth 10 year periodic block (40 years) the entire regeneration area will have undergone a harvest and will be in various stages of regeneration.

initial clear cut + site prep

800 TOTAL FEET OF ADVANCE. OLDEST TREES ARE UP TO 40 FEET TALL AND CAPABLE OF GOOD MAST PRODUCTION. TURBINES ARE REPLACED.

end year 30 12OO TOTAL FEET OF ADVANCE. OLDEST TREES ARE UP TO 60 FEET TALL.

end year 40 1600 TOTAL FEET OF ADVANCE. OLDEST TREES ARE UP TO 80 FEET TALL AND HAVE REACHED THEIR PEAK MAST PRODUCTION POTENTIAL. TURBINES ARE REPLACED.

Image 41 - Strip Shelterwood Silvicultural System: Advance and Regeneration over 40 years

scale: 1 inch = 1000 feet 0

500 1000

2000

scale: 1 inch = 100 feet 3000

4000

feet

100

200

300

400

feet

Process + Design The strip shelterwood system on this site is unique because it calls for the 40 foot rate of advance per year to occur across the entire length of one strip, in this case, an arc length offset from the original 1 mile radius arc for the turbines. Harvesting in this way creates a shifting landscape mosaic gradient that cycles over 40 years. Because it is a shelterwood system, older growth trees are always present within strips along with new growth. This creates a distinctive forest strata in each strip that looks more or less dense depending on where the regenerating trees are in the 40 year cycle. The illustration (below) depicts a snapshot of the wind park at the end of year 35. In addition to the new turbine access road and the existing timber roads, an informal trail network emerges in the forestry zone due to the entry of vehicles used for timber removal. These equipment trails can also be used by hikers, creating another new trail experience: the Forestry Trails, which are accessed from the turbine zone via staircases built into the buttresses of each turbine pad. Image 42 - White Rocks Mountain Wind Park: Landscape Mosaic Snapshot - Year 35

Process + Design The site is White Rocks Mountain Wind Park and depicted is the first encounter with the park as viewed by a hiker ascending a scaffold-style blade remnant staircase on Pad 7 (from the west). This is a critical moment in the experience of the site where the user is presented with a choice: to take the Appalachian trail along the ridge, the Energy trail behind it, or to descend one of the other staircases into the Forestry trails below. Image 43 - First Encounter with the Wind Park, Eastbound, Pad 7

Process + Design Pad 7 is also the moment that eastbound users first come into close contact with the turbines, and the intent is to elicit a sensation of wonder at the sheer scale of the infrastructure as it relates to the human form. The blade replacement pathways are each of the scaffolding type on this pad. In the case of the path that crosses over the roadway to access the Appalachian trail, the scaffolding can be lifted to provide clearance for maintenance trucks to the site when necessary, but it is high enough off the roadway below to accommodate passenger vehicles (up to 6 feet tall) without being removed. The scaffold-style catwalks afford users the opportunity to walk among the tree tops, taking in sweeping views of offsite mountains.

Image 44 - Curt Arledge Views Ripshin Mountain From White Rocks Mountain

Image 45 - Turbine Blade Remnant Skywalk and Scaffolding Staircase 40

Process + Design The specific experiential qualities vary from pad to pad, but the five middle pads are each used for picnicking and camping, with plenty of room for multiple tents. Boulders are scattered throughout the site, and a granite sheer, exposed during the road and pad excavation acts as a barrier between the turbine zone and the ridge zone. Over time, ferns and mosses will colonize the rock sheer. Image 46 - Experience on Pad 6, Camping Opportunities

Process + Design This image depicts the Wind Park experience from its eastern edge. Because the roadway does not extend beyond the turbines, a circulation loop is constructed, creating an opportunity to plant a micro-forest in the island formed by the internal portion of the loop. The access roadway is paved with packed gravel, providing a smoother ride for those accessing the site by mountain bike. The silvicultural system is seen below and the arc of turbines disappears into the distance. Image 47 - Experience from Turn-Around Loop, West Bound, Mountain Biking Opportunities

Process + Design

Image 48 - White Rocks Mountain Wind Park as Viewed From Offsite 43

Conclusion Through thoughtful site selection, configuration of turbine layout, road placement, and planning for mixed-use, wind farm sites can be made valuable for reasons other than their intrinsic value for energy generation. It is important for wind farms to perform multiple functions and services for the communities and ecosystems where they exist because land is a finite resource, and because over time, more of these sites will occupy our landscapes. “Landscape Architects are Visualizing the Future of Renewable Energy,” is the subtitle of an article in the March 2017 issue of Landscape Architecture Magazine. In this article, Robert Ferry, a co-founder of the Land Art Generator Initiative, discusses the possibility for wind projects to become objects of pride for communities, “they [will] become landmarks, monuments to this important time in human history,” (Schuler 2017, p. 68). He continues, “Renewable energy infrastructure can do more than produce power. It can become part of the story of a place,” (Schuler 2017, p. 68). The goal of this thesis is to increase our understanding of how to thoughtfully site wind energy infrastructure and to explore the synergy between different types of use, like recreation, forestry, conservation, and energy production. The approach will differ from site to site, because site specific variables should be considered when taking on projects of this scale. This approach can be deployed regionally. White Rocks Mountain Wind Park is just one stop along a larger Energy Trail, which includes the hydroelectric system at Watauga lake and other existing and potential wind farm sites in the Cherokee National Forest and the wider Appalachian mountain zone. The Appalachian trail strings these sites together in some places. In other places, the Energy trail is a spur, providing a connection to a nearby town. The intent is not for wind projects to encroach upon or displace the Appalachian Trail, but rather to present alternative experiences along it that provide added benefits to users, like camp sites, comfort stations, and exposure to truly sublime experiences and teachable moments. Occasionally these moments intersect, briefly, with the Appalachian Trail as in turbines one and seven of this thesis. Siting wind projects as guided by this thesis may go against current existing land use codes and regulations. Projects sited in this way may not generate energy at their optimal engineered capacity. But a great advantage to this methodology is the prospect of longevity. If future wind projects are perceived as favorable, adding experiential value to the communities where they exist, the author believes that they can become timeless and add value because they are continuously renewed on previously prepared sites. This means that rather than decommissioning wind projects after the 20 year turbine life cycle, seeking new 44

Conclusion sites and undertaking the essential site preparation, the turbines can instead be replaced and the project can live on as a beloved eco-recreation asset. This approach may also be more favorable for wilderness and other more natural areas, which may remain intact longer if wind projects can persist on sites that are already prepared to host them. Wind projects have the potential to be so much more than vehicles for energy generation. They should be planned responsibly and with an eye toward the future so that they can reach the full extent of their potential as multifunctional sites that have the ability to benefit both humans and the environment. Image 49 - Watauga Lake: Adjacent Appalachian Trail and Hydroelectric Dam Spillway

Bibliography American Wind Energy Association. (2015). American wind power breezes past 70-gigawatt milestone. (2015, December 21). Retrieved March 03, 2016, from http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=8255 AWS Truewind, LLC. (2009) Power Naturally: New York State Wind Energy Toolkit. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Retrieved March 3, 2016. “Bristol, TN Wind Roses.” Climate.gov. N.p., 19 Feb. 2010. Web. Accessed 4 Apr. 2017 from https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/downloads/climate/ windrose/tennesee/bristol/ Carrascal, Sergio R. Life Cycle Assessment of 1 Kwh energy generated by Gamesa G114-2.0MW On-shore wind farm. Rep. Comp. Pablo S. De Avalle and José R. Pereg. Basque Ecodesign Center, in conjunction with Gamesa, Sept. 2014. Web. 27 Mar. 2017. <http://www.gamesacorp.com/recursos/ doc/productos-servicios/aerogeneradores/life-cycle-assesment-g114-20-mw.pdf>. Information about life cycle and decommissioning of wind projects “City of Johnson City.” The City of Johnson City, TN. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 1 Dec. 2016 from http://www.johnsoncitytn.org/demographics/ DeLuca-Hoffman Associates, Inc. Redington Wind Farm Project - Basis of Design for the Roadways to Access Wind Turbines. Tech. N.p., n.d. Prepared for: Endless Energy Corporation of Yarmouth, Maine. Web. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017 from http://www.maine.gov/dacf/lupc/projects/windpower/redington/Documents/Section01_Development_Description/Development_Roads/Basis_of_Access_ROADWAY_Design.pdf Denholm, P., Hand, M., Jackson, M., & Ong, S. (2009). Land Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States. Retrieved March 2, 2016. FitzPatrick, Brendan, PE. 2010. “Innovative Turbine Foundation Solutions: The Rammed Aggregate Pier system, designed by the Geopier Foundation Company, provides reliable support solutions for tower foundations.” Wind Systems Magazine. May 2010 GamesaCorp. N.d. Manufacturing and Assembly Process. Retrieved April 25, 2017 from http://www.gamesacorp.com/en/products-and-services/ wind-turbines/design-and-manufacture/manufacturing-and-assembly-process.html GamesaCorp. Gamesa 2.0-2.5 MW Technological Evolution. N.p.: GamesaCorp, 2015. GamesaCorp.com. GamesaCorp, Sept. 2015. Web. Accessed 30 Nov. 2016 from http://www.gamesacorp.com/recursos/doc/productos-servicios/aerogeneradores/catalogo-g9x-20-mw-eng.pdf Gurzu, Anca. “Oil-rich Norway could become Europe’s ‘green battery’.” Politico - European Edition. Politico, 16 Aug. 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016 from http://www.politico.eu/article/norways-glaciers-could-fill-europes-energy-gap-green-battery-renewables/ 46

Bibliography Kricher, John C., and Gordon Morrison. Eastern forests: a field guide to birds, mammals, trees, flowers, and more. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. Print. Lindenberg, Steve. 20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy’s Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply. Ed. Kathy O’Dell and Brian Smith. Washington, D.C.: United States. Dept. of Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2008. US Department of Energy. Web. Accessed 10 Oct. 2016 from https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/f5/41869.pdf Loucks, C., D. Olson, and E. Dinerstein. “Appalachian-Blue Ridge forests.” World Wildlife. World Wildlife Fund, n.d. Web. Accessed 17 Mar. 2017 from https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/na0403 Matthews, John D. Silvicultural systems. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Print. Mercer, Evan and Schlichting, Kerry. (2010). Blowing in the Wind: Evaluating Wind Energy Projects on the National Forests. Journal of Forestry • April/ May 2011. Retrieved February 17, 2016. Pasqualetti, M. J. (2000). Morality, Space, And The Power Of Wind-Energy Landscapes. Geographical Review, 90(3), 381-394. Retrieved March 2, 2016. Pasqualetti, M. J. (2001) Wind Energy Landscapes: Society and Technology in the California Desert, Society & Natural Resources, 14:8, 689-699. Retrieved 26 January 2016 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920117490 “Population estimates, July 1, 2015, (V2015).” Cleveland city Tennessee QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 1 Dec. 2016 from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/4715400 Pumped Energy Storage. Digital image. RenewEconomy.com. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 11 Dec. 2016 from http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/ uploads/2016/05/hydro-2.jpg Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Cherokee National Forest. US Forest Service , Jan. 2004. Web. Accessed 21 Mar. 2017 from https:// www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5269436.pdf Schuler, Timothy A. “The Art of Infrastructure .” Landscape Architecture Magazine Mar. 2017: 60-68. Print. “See & Do.” Visit Cleveland TN. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 1 Dec. 2016 from http://visitclevelandtn.com/see-do/ 47

Bibliography “Skidders.” Forests and Rangelands. United States Department of the Interior and the United States Department of Agriculture , n.d. Web. Accessed 23 Mar. 2017 from: https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/catalog/equipment/skidders.shtml Sorkhabi, S. Y., Romero, D. A., Yan, G. K., Gu, M. D., Moran, J., Morgenroth, M., & Amon, C. H. (2016). “The impact of land use constraints in multi-objective energy-noise wind farm layout optimization.” Renewable Energy, 85, 359-370. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2015.06.026 Spruce Mountain Construction Presentation. N.d. WoodStock, ME. Web. Accessed Feb. 2017 From http://www.sprucemountainwind.com/SpruceMountainConstructionPresentation.pdf Sutherland, L., & Holstead, K. L. (2014). Future-proofing the farm: On-farm wind turbine development in farm business decision-making. Land Use Policy, 36, 102-112. Retrieved February 17, 2016. “Tennessee geologic map data.” Interactive maps and downloadable data for regional and global geology, geochemistry, geophysics, and mineral resources; products of the USGS Mineral Resources Program. US Department of the Interior / US Geological Survey, n.d. Web. Accessed 14 Mar. 2017 from https://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=TN. The State of The Birds 2014 - The United States of America. Rep. North American Bird Conservation Initiative , 2014. Web. Accessed 16 Sept. 2016 from http://www.stateofthebirds.org/2014/2014%20SotB_FINAL_low-res.pdf. The Wind Prospector. US Department of Energy / National Renewable Energy Laboratory , n.d. Web. Accessed Aug 2016 - May 2017 From https:// maps.nrel.gov/wind-prospector/#/?aL=xY_VBM%255Bv%255D%3Dt&bL=groad&cE=0&lR=0&mC=36.22336511338353%2C-82.0345687866211&zL=12 “Things To Do.” Johnson City Convention & Visitors Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 1 Dec. 2016 from http://visitjohnsoncitytn.com/things-to-do US Department of Energy. N.d. The Inside of a Wind Turbine. Energy.gov http://energy.gov/eere/wind/inside-wind-turbine-0 US Department of Energy. N.d. How Wind Turbines Work. Energy.gov http://energy.gov/eere/wind/animation-how-wind-turbine-works “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 02 Dec. 2016. From https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Bibliography “US Forest Service approves Vermont wind power facility.” US Forest Service approves Vermont wind power facility | US Forest Service. N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Dec. 2016. <https://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/us-forest-service-approves-vermont-wind-power-facility>. USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed Aug 2016 - May 2017 From https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ United States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Climatic Data Center. Climatic wind data for the United States. Asheville, NC: National Climatic Data Center, 1998. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Web. Accessed 21 Mar. 2017 from https://www.ncdc. noaa.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/wind1996.pdf United States. US Department of Agriculture / Forest Service. US Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework. By Ann Acheson, Marilyn Buford, and Mary Carr. US Department of Agriculture / Forest Service, n.d. Web. Accessed 30 Nov. 2016 from https://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/documents/ Signed_StrategicEnergy_Framework_01_14_11.pdf “U.S. Cities - their Populations.” U.S. (American) cities in all 50 (fifty) states listed by population size and alphabetical. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 15 Sept. 2016 from http://www.togetherweteach.com/TWTIC/uscityinfo/uscities.htm Various wind farm layout designs. Digital image. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 2 Mar. 2016 from: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/7/11/7483/htm Wang, L. (2015, November 30). Ride a wind turbine in this crazy wind farm amusement park. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from http://inhabitat.com/ridea-wind-turbine-in-this-crazy-wind-farm-amusement-park/ Watch, National Wind. “First wind project on U.S. Forest Service land set to break ground.” National Wind Watch. N.p., 17 Sept. 2016. Web. Accessed 3 Dec. 2016 from https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2016/09/17/first-wind-project-on-u-s-forest-service-land-set-to-break-ground/ “Wilderness.org.” Northeast Wind | Wilderness.org. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 02 Dec. 2016 from http://wilderness.org/article/northeast-wind “Wind 101: the basics of wind energy.” AWEA - American Wind Energy Association. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 20 Feb. 2016 from http://www.awea. org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=900&navItemNumber=587 Wind energy frequently asked questions (FAQ)| EWEA. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2016, from http://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ Wind Energy Technology: What Works & What Doesn’t . Power Point Presentation. University of Hawaii, n.d. Web. Accessed 20 Mar. 2017 from www. hawaii.edu/offices/cc/green/Wind_Turbine_Technology.pdf 49

Bibliography Zayas, Jose, Michael Derby, Patrick Gilman, and Shreyas Ananthan. Enabling Wind Power Nationwide. Washington, D.C.: United States. Dept. of Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2015. US Department of Energy. Web. Accessed 10 Oct. 2016 from https://www.energy.gov/ sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/Enabling%20Wind%20Power%20Nationwide_18MAY2015_FINAL.pdf Zielke, Ken, and Bryce Bancroft. “Introduction to Silvicultural Systems.” Introduction to Silvicultural Systems. BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Resource Practices Branch Victoria, BC, n.d. Web. Accessed 22 Mar. 2017 from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/training/00014/ index.htm (This website is based on the published workbook: Introduction to Silvicultural Systems, second edition July 1999).

List of Images + Image Sources (Refer to Bibliography pages for full citation) Image 1 - Wind Energy Production Facilities of the Eastern United States (Sources: The Wind Prospector N.d.; USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer N.d.) Image 2 - Potential Wind Resource of the Eastern United States (Sources: The Wind Prospector N.d.; USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer N.d.) Image 3 - Wind Project Layout Configuration (Sources: Denholm, et al. 2009; adapted from - Various wind farm layout designs N.d) Image 4 - Wind Turbine Spacing (Sources: Denholm, et al. 2009) Image 5 - Wind Turbine Scale and Foundations (Sources: Spruce Mountain Construction Presentation N.d.) Image 6 - How Wind Turbines Work (Sources: AWEA N.d: “Wind 101: the basics of wind energy.”; adapted from - DOE. N.d.: How Wind Turbines Work Image 7 - Pennsylvania Wind Turbines Image 8 - Mixed-Use In Existing Wind Projects (Sources: See Case Study Sources) Image 9 - Case Study Examples of Mixed Use (Sources: See Case Study Sources) Image 10 - School Buses at Wild Horse Wind and Solar (Sources: Tahoma Sustainability N.d) Image 11 - US Energy Generation by Source (Source: US EIA N.d.) Images 12-14 Wind Resources, Production Facilities, Population Centers, And Appalachian Mountain Range Sources: The Wind Prospector N.d.; “U.S. Cities their Populations.” N.d.; USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer N.d.) Image 15 - Human Drivers of Bird Decline (Sources: - adapted from: The State of The Birds 2014) Image 16 - Hydroelectric Battery Storage (Sources: - adapted from: Pumped Energy Storage N.d) Image 17 - Precedent Study: Deerfield Wind Project - Searsburg, VT (Sources: Google Earth Imagery; The Wind Prospector N.d.; USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer N.d.; Wilderness.org N.d.) Image 18 - Site Selection Study Working Map (Sources: The Wind Prospector N.d.; USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer N.d.) Image 19 - Site Selection Study: Greater Cleveland, TN (Sources: Google Earth Imagery; The Wind Prospector N.d.; “U.S. Cities - their Populations.” N.d.; USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer N.d.; Visit Cleveland N.d.) Image 20 - Site Selection Study: Greater Johnson City, TN (Sources: “City of Johnson City” N.d; Google Earth Imagery; Johnson City CVB N.d; The Wind Prospector N.d.; “U.S. Cities - their Populations.” N.d.; USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer N.d.) Image 21 - Site Selection Topographic and Wind Study: Carter County, TN (Sources: The Wind Prospector N.d.) Image 22 - Existing Mountain Wind Farms: Topography and Layout in Relation to Wind Resources (Sources: The Wind Prospector N.d.) Image 23 - Wind Direction and Frequency Over time: Greater Bristol, TN (Sources: “Bristol, TN Wind Roses” 2010; NOAA 1998; Image 24 - Elevation, Key Adjacencies, and Forest Typologies: Town of Roan Mountain, TN (Sources: Loukes, et al. N.d; USDOI/USGS - “Tennessee geologic map data,” N.d.; USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer N.d.) Image 25 - White Rocks Mountain: Site Topography, Circulation, and Forest Management Timeline (Sources: Google Earth Imagery; USGS TNM 2.0 Viewer N.d.) Image 26 - Shelterwood Silvicultural System Variations (Sources: - adapted from - Zielke and Bancroft, N.D.) Image 27 - Design Exploration: Turbines Along the Ridge 51

List of Images + Image Sources Image 28 - View of Ripshin Mountain from White Rocks Mountain - Roan Mountain, TN Image 29 - View of Mount Storm Wind Project - West Virginia Images 30-34 - Design Explorations, Versioning Image 29 - View of Mount Storm Wind Project - West Virginia Images 30-34 - Design Explorations, Versioning Image 35 - Chosen Project Configuration - Single String of 7 Turbines along the 4000 foot contour Image 36 - White Rocks Mountain Forest Character Image 37 - White Rocks Mountain Wind Park - Design Layout, Grading, and Key Circulation Image 38 - Design Process: The Access Road Image 39 - Pad Seven: Detailed Grading and Key Circulation Image 40 - Proposed Topographic Sections: Pads 5, 6, and 7 Image 41 - Strip Shelterwood Silvicultural System: Advance and Regeneration over 40 years Image 42 - White Rocks Mountain: Landscape Mosaic Snapshot - Year 35 Image 43 - First Encounter with the Wind Farm, Eastbound, Pad 7 Image 44 - Curt Arledge Views Ripshin Mountain From White Rocks Mountain Image 45 - Turbine Blade Remnant Skywalk and Scaffolding Staircase Image 46 - Experience on Pad 6, Camping Opportunities Image 47 - Experience from Turn-Around Loop, West Bound, Mountain Biking Opportunities Image 48 - White Rocks Mountain Wind Park as Viewed From Offsite Image 49 - Watauga Lake: Adjacent Appalachian Trail and Hydroelectric Dam Spillway (All images and drawings by Lauren Habenicht Arledge unless otherwise noted)