Overcoming obstacles in wind energy development - Solar, Wind and Land: Conflicts in Renewable Energy Development - page 191

Cannon entitled to capture wind currents above its leased parcel, regardless
of its impacts on NWP's wind farm operations downwind?
Cannon's attorneys searched and searched under applicable law and
found no definitive answer to their client's questions. The law regarding
turbine wake interference was totally unclear. Rather than take its chances
in court, Cannon elected to approach NWP and try to negotiate some sort
of mutually beneficial settlement with the company.
Ultimately, to the benefit of both parties, cool heads prevailed. The parties
managed to finalize and execute a settlement agreement resolving the wake
interference issue. Their agreement described, in metes and bounds, an
“Upwind Prevailing Wind Direction Exclusion Zone” within which each party
agreed not to install any turbines. The agreement also involved the exchange
of a transmission line easement and some other land rights. After executing
the agreement, the parties recorded a memorandum of the agreement in the
county real estate records. The agreement was a surprisingly good outcome
for Cannon and for NWP—it provided certainty to both parties on an issue
for which there remained plenty of uncertainty under state law.
Addressing wildlife conflicts
From the very beginning, one favorable aspect of south-central Klickitat
County from Cannon's perspective was that it contained relatively few
sensitive habitat areas that might complicate efforts to build a wind farm
there. Private landowners had been using most of the area for farming
and ranching activities for several decades, so additional development on
it was unlikely to trigger major new conflicts with wildlife. Nonetheless,
Cannon knew that some limited wildlife-related issues could arise. The
project site did include a few pockets of potentially sensitive habitats
that were likely to require special attention. Some aspects of commercial
wind farms—including their very tall towers and large moving parts—are
also inherently more likely to disrupt certain wildlife than ranching and
farming.
Habitat mitigation leases
Many of Cannon's steps to mitigate the wildlife impacts of its project
resulted from permit conditions negotiated during the state and local
approval process. As is commonly the case, these conditions required
Cannon to do more than merely conduct environmental studies and seek
to site turbines, roads, and other improvements away from sensitive areas.
Most notably, Cannon entered into two long-term habitat conservation
leases as a form of partial off-site mitigation for its project's anticipated
impacts on local animal species.
Cannon's first habitat conservation lease set aside 24 acres of land as a
wildlife preservation area, precluding any development within the leased