Title: In re Application of Firelands Wind, L.L.C.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as In 
re Application of Firelands Wind, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2023-Ohio-2555.] 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2023-OHIO-2555 
IN RE APPLICATION OF FIRELANDS WIND, L.L.C., FOR A CERTIFICATE OF 
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY AND PUBLIC NEED TO CONSTRUCT A WIND-
POWERED ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY IN HURON AND ERIE COUNTIES, 
OHIO; DIDION ET AL., APPELLANTS; POWER SITING BOARD, APPELLEE; 
FIRELANDS WIND, L.L.C., INTERVENING APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as In re Application of Firelands Wind, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 
2023-Ohio-2555.] 
Power Siting Board—R.C. 4906.10(A)—Wind-powered electric-generating 
facility—Application for certificate of environmental compatibility and 
public need—Power Siting Board’s order granting certificate affirmed. 
(No. 2022-0055—Submitted February 8, 2023—Decided July 27, 2023.) 
APPEAL from the Power Siting Board, No. 18-1607-EL-BGN. 
__________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
2 
DEWINE, J. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from an order of the Ohio Power Siting Board 
authorizing Firelands Wind, L.L.C., to construct a wind farm in Huron and Erie 
Counties.  The appeal is brought by 19 nearby residents (“the residents”)1 and by 
the Black Swamp Bird Observatory. 
{¶ 2} The residents and Black Swamp argue that the board improperly 
determined that the wind farm satisfies the statutory requirements for constructing 
a major utility facility.  They assert that the project could disrupt the area’s water 
supply, create excessive noise and “shadow flicker” for residents near the wind 
farm, and kill bald eagles and migrating birds.  They also claim that the board 
improperly delegated its duties to its staff and other government agencies, failed to 
follow its administrative rules, and should have required additional testing before 
granting the certificate. 
{¶ 3} We conclude that the residents and Black Swamp have not established 
that the board’s order was unlawful or unreasonable.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
board’s order. 
I.  The Power Siting Board Issues a Certificate Approving the Emerson 
Creek Wind Farm 
{¶ 4} The power siting board must issue a “certificate of environmental 
compatibility and public need” before a facility capable of generating at least 50 
megawatts of power may be built.  R.C. 4906.01 and 4906.04.  In January 2019, 
Firelands filed an application to construct the Emerson Creek Wind Farm—a 
facility that would generate up to 297.66 megawatts of electricity. 
 
1. The residents are Patricia Didion, Jane Fox, Marvin Hay, Theresa Hay, Patricia Olsen, Sheila 
Poffenbaugh, Walt Poffenbaugh, Christina Popa, John Popa, Lori Riedy, Charles Rogers, Kenn 
Rospert, Dennis Schreiner, Sharon Schreiner, Donna Seaman, William Seaman, Deborah 
Weisenauer, Kenneth Weisenauer, and Gerald Wensink. 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
3 
{¶ 5} Multiple parties intervened in the proceeding before the board, 
including various local governments, the residents, and Black Swamp.  Black 
Swamp is an Ohio nonprofit organization that fosters appreciation for and 
conservation of birds and their habitats. 
{¶ 6} The board staff investigated the potential impact of the project and 
submitted a report in March 2020.  Subsequently, Firelands, the board staff, Huron 
County, Richmond and Norwich Townships, and the city of Willard entered into a 
stipulation recommending that the board issue the siting certificate subject to 44 
conditions.  Neither the residents nor Black Swamp joined the stipulation. 
{¶ 7} Following a nine-day hearing, the board in June 2021 issued a 
decision and order approving the stipulation, with modifications, and directing that 
a certificate be issued for the wind farm.  As approved, the project will consist of 
up to 71 turbines and cover 32,000 acres of leased land, including 84.5 acres of 
built facilities.  In addition to the turbines, there will be access roads, buried 
electric-collection cables, a substation, an operations-and-maintenance facility, and 
meteorological towers. 
{¶ 8} The residents and Black Swamp filed a rehearing application, which 
the board denied.  This appeal followed.  The residents and Black Swamp raise 
seven propositions of law.  The first four are raised by the residents alone, and the 
remaining three are raised jointly. 
II.  The Residents and Black Swamp Have Failed to Demonstrate that the 
Board’s Order Was Unreasonable or Unlawful 
{¶ 9} Before it may issue a certificate for the construction of a new major 
utility facility, the power siting board must make eight substantive determinations, 
which are set forth in R.C. 4906.10(A).  Three are at issue in this appeal.  
Specifically, the residents and Black Swamp contend that the board failed to meet 
its obligations “to find and determine” the following under R.C. 4906.10: 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
4 
 
(2) [t]he nature of the probable environmental impact; 
 
(3) [t]hat the facility represents the minimum adverse 
environmental impact, considering the state of available technology 
and the nature and economics of the various alternatives, and other 
pertinent considerations; [and]  
 
* * * 
 
(6) [t]hat the facility will serve the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity. 
 
{¶ 10} As a creation of statute, the board may exercise only the powers 
granted to it by the General Assembly.  See Discount Cellular, Inc. v. Pub. Util. 
Comm., 112 Ohio St.3d 360, 2007-Ohio-53, 859 N.E.2d 957, ¶ 51.  And here, the 
legislature has granted the board the authority to issue a certificate of construction 
if the board makes the substantive determinations set forth in R.C. 4906.10(A). 
{¶ 11} Our standard of review is also prescribed by statute.  We may 
reverse, modify, or vacate an order of the board only when, upon consideration of 
the record, we conclude that the order “was unlawful or unreasonable.”  
R.C. 4903.13; R.C. 4906.12.  The challengers to a board order bear the burden of 
establishing that the order is unlawful or unreasonable.  See In re Complaint of 
Reynoldsburg, 134 Ohio St.3d 29, 2012-Ohio-5270, 979 N.E.2d 1229, ¶ 18; 
Monongahela Power Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 104 Ohio St.3d 571, 2004-Ohio-
6896, 820 N.E.2d 921, ¶ 29.  In the past, we have not generally distinguished 
between “unreasonable” and “unlawful.”  But the meanings of the terms are 
different, as evidenced by the legislature’s use of the disjunctive “or” in the 
“unlawful or unreasonable” statutory standard of review, R.C. 4903.13; R.C. 
4906.12.  See also 2 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Administrative Law, Section 221 
(2016) (explaining that the terms “unlawful” and “unreasonable” refer to different 
aspects of an agency’s order). 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
5 
{¶ 12} The “unlawful” part of the standard refers to our review of legal 
questions: questions like what is the proper interpretation of a statutory term, see 
Elyria Foundry Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 114 Ohio St.3d 305, 2007-Ohio-4164, 871 
N.E.2d 1176, ¶ 56-58, or whether the board followed the procedures prescribed by 
statute, see Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 111 Ohio St.3d 300, 
2006-Ohio-5789, 856 N.E.2d 213, ¶ 14-15, or by its own regulations, see Ohio 
Partners for Affordable Energy v. Pub. Util. Comm., 115 Ohio St.3d 208, 2007-
Ohio-4790, 874 N.E.2d 764, ¶ 12. 
{¶ 13} Our review of such questions of law is de novo.  See In re 
Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., 166 Ohio St.3d 438, 2021-Ohio-3301, 187 
N.E.3d 472, ¶ 11.  We recently clarified that “the judicial branch is never required 
to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law.”  (Emphasis sic.)  TWISM Ents., 
L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, __ Ohio 
St.3d __, 2022-Ohio-4677, __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 14} This case involves a statute by which the legislature has directed an 
agency to make determinations as to a project’s compliance with broad statutory 
criteria.  See R.C. 4906.10(A) (the board must “find[] and determine[] all of the 
following”).  Most notably, does the facility “represent[] the minimum adverse 
environmental impact, considering the state of available technology and the nature 
and economics of the various alternatives, and other pertinent considerations” 
(emphasis added), R.C. 4906.10(A)(3), and will the facility serve “the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity” (emphasis added), R.C. 4906.10(A)(6).  The 
statute dictates that the board make these determinations, not this court. 
{¶ 15} The open-textured nature of the terms at issue inherently vests a 
degree of discretion in the administrative agency.  That’s where the “unreasonable” 
part of the standard of review comes in.  The agency’s exercise of its 
implementation authority must fall within the zone of permissible statutory 
construction.  We will examine the reasonableness of an agency’s decision about 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
6 
such things as whether a facility represents the “minimum adverse environmental 
impact,” R.C. 4906.10(A)(3), or whether it will serve the “public interest,” R.C. 
4906.10(A)(6), by looking to whether the agency’s decision falls within that zone.  
See generally Ohio Edison Co. v. Power Siting Comm., 56 Ohio St.2d 212, 214, 
383 N.E.2d 588 (1978) (noting that the broad statutory criteria that the agency 
consider “environmental impact” and “public interest” permitted the agency to 
consider a facility’s impact on current and potential recreational areas). 
{¶ 16} Additionally, we have found an agency’s decision unreasonable 
when the decision is manifestly contrary to the evidence in the record or when the 
evidence clearly isn’t enough to support the decision.  See, e.g., Ohio Consumers’ 
Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 114 Ohio St.3d 340, 2007-Ohio-4276, 872 N.E.2d 
269, ¶ 26, 41; Schwerman Trucking Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 10 Ohio St.2d 253, 
258, 227 N.E.2d 217 (1967).  The same goes for when an agency’s order is 
internally inconsistent.  See, e.g., Ridgeview Ctr., Inc. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of 
Revision, 42 Ohio St.3d 30, 31, 536 N.E.2d 1157 (1989). 
{¶ 17} Finally, in adjudicating whether a board determination is 
unreasonable, we do “not * * * reweigh the evidence or second-guess [the board] 
on questions of fact.”  Lycourt-Donovan v. Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc., 152 Ohio 
St.3d 73, 2017-Ohio-7566, 93 N.E.3d 902, ¶ 35.  We will not disturb the board’s 
factual determinations “when the record contains sufficient probative evidence to 
show that the board’s decision was not manifestly against the weight of the 
evidence and was not so clearly unsupported by the record as to show 
misapprehension, mistake or willful disregard of duty.”  In re Application of 
Champaign Wind, L.L.C., 146 Ohio St.3d 489, 2016-Ohio-1513, 58 N.E.3d 1142, 
¶ 7. 
A.  Turbines in a Karst Plain 
{¶ 18} In their first proposition of law, the residents argue that the board 
erred by allowing wind turbines to be placed in a karst plain to the detriment of the 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
7 
area’s water supply.  In doing so, they contend, the board violated its duty to 
determine that the facility “represents the minimum adverse environmental 
impact,” R.C. 4906.10(A)(3). 
{¶ 19} The northwestern portion of the wind farm is located in the Bellevue-
Castalia Karst Plain.  Karst is a terrain that forms over soluble bedrock like 
limestone.  Sinkholes, caves, springs, and disappearing streams are common 
features of karst topography. 
{¶ 20} During the board’s evidentiary hearing, Firelands submitted a 
geotechnical report in which the subsurface of the project area was evaluated.  
Alfred Williams, a geotechnical engineer who oversaw the study, testified that the 
project area was suitable for turbine construction and that most of the proposed 
turbines would be located on shale bedrock, which is not prone to karst 
development. 
{¶ 21} However, Williams identified some proposed turbine locations that 
had a moderate to high probability of karst development and suggested that 
additional testing be undertaken at these sites.  For sites where karst features were 
identified, he recommended injecting grouting (a mixture of sand, bentonite, and 
cement) into the karst openings to provide a more stable foundation for the turbines. 
{¶ 22} The residents presented their own expert, Dr. Ira Sasowsky, a 
geoscientist and professor.  He testified that Firelands did not adequately 
investigate the risks associated with developing a wind farm on karst.  He opined 
that areas with karst require special attention to avoid (1) sinkholes, collapses, and 
other land failures and (2) disrupting or contaminating the water supply.  Dr. 
Sasowsky testified that most of the homes in the project area receive their water 
from private wells.  Turbine development, he cautioned, could redirect 
contaminated water from fields or construction areas into sinkholes, which feed 
into the underground aquifer.  He also warned that grouting could disrupt the water 
supply to private wells. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
8 
{¶ 23} In response to these concerns, the board adopted several measures 
designed to mitigate problems presented by Karst topography.  As an initial matter, 
the board accepted a condition in the stipulation that Firelands must submit 
“detailed engineering drawings” that “account for karst topography” to the board’s 
staff for approval before construction may commence. 
{¶ 24} The board also modified the stipulation to impose additional 
restrictions.  For instance, the board prohibited construction of eight turbines that 
had been proposed in areas with either existing karst features or a moderate to high 
probability of karst development.  Further, the board ordered Firelands to avoid 
turbine construction in areas “where initial review and testing confirm[ed] that karst 
is likely to be encountered at a level that is moderate or above.”  The board also 
ordered that grouting could be used only where karst is at low levels and only on 
approval of the board staff.  Subject to those restrictions, the board concluded that 
the project was sufficient from a public-safety perspective and that the project’s 
effects on water resources were expected to be minimal. 
{¶ 25} The residents contend that the board did not go far enough.  They 
point to a geological map of the project area contained in Firelands’s geotechnical 
report.  The map contains an area that is shaded light green.  The residents identify 
this area as the karst plain and assert that it contains 25 proposed turbines.  They 
maintain that “[g]iven the board’s determination that turbines should not be sited 
in areas of moderate or high karst risk, the board should not have approved any of 
the turbine sites in the [light-green-shaded area].”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 26} The problem is that the record does not support the residents’ 
assertion that the entire light-green-shaded area represents “areas of moderate or 
high karst risk.”    Williams testified that the light-green-shaded area represents 
areas where the bedrock is less than 30 feet.  He also testified that soil conditions 
can vary within an area.  And while Williams stated that the light-green-shaded area 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
9 
shows where karst may “potentially be found,” the residents do not point to any 
evidence establishing that the karst level for that area is moderate or above. 
{¶ 27} Here, the board went beyond the stipulation and imposed additional 
restrictions to minimize the environmental impact that the karst might have.  The 
residents have not proved that those additional restrictions were insufficient or that 
the evidence required prohibiting all turbine construction in the light-green-shaded 
area.  The board’s statutory obligation was to determine that the facility “represents 
the minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the state of available 
technology and the nature and economics of the various alternatives, and other 
pertinent considerations,” R.C. 4906.10(A)(3).  By its terms, this standard does not 
require the board to conclude that the facility will have no adverse environmental 
impact—only that the adverse environmental impact is minimal in light of the 
constraints.  We do not find the board’s determination to be unreasonable. 
B.  Evaluation of Impact on Water Supplies 
{¶ 28} The residents next argue that the board erred by failing to require 
Firelands to conduct a hydrogeological study at each turbine site.  In support, they 
point to a provision in the Ohio Administrative Code requiring an applicant to 
provide “an evaluation of the impact to public and private water supplies due to 
construction and operation of the proposed facility,” Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-
08(A)(4)(a). They contend that the board’s failure to require a hydrogeological 
study violated its duty to determine the nature of the project’s probable 
environmental impact, R.C. 4906.10(A)(2), and whether the project represents the 
minimum adverse environmental impact, R.C. 4906.10(A)(3). 
{¶ 29} With its application, Firelands submitted a “Groundwater, 
Hydrogeological, and Geotechnical Report” conducted by Hull & Associates, Inc.  
The report reviewed hydrogeological literature about the project area, including 
information relating to surface-water flows and groundwater resources.  It 
acknowledged that the wind farm would be located in a rural area where the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
10 
residents rely on private wells for their drinking water.  Hull & Associates mailed 
a survey to landowners within the project area to gather information about the wells 
on their properties.  Based on the literature that Hull & Associates reviewed, the 
well surveys, and field reconnaissance—as well as the fact that turbines must be set 
back a minimum distance from the nearest residential structure—the report 
concluded that construction of the wind turbines was “not anticipated to result in 
any significant negative impact to the property owners’ wells.” 
{¶ 30} The residents complain that Firelands conducted only a geotechnical 
survey when, in their view, it should have conducted a hydrogeological study.  In 
the residents’ words: “Geotechnical surveys determine whether the land will 
support a heavy wind turbine.  Hydrogeological studies determine whether the 
intrusion of a turbine foundation or grout on karst openings will pollute or dewater 
someone’s water supply.” 
{¶ 31} The administrative rule, however, simply required Firelands to 
“[p]rovide an evaluation of the impact to public and private water supplies,” Ohio 
Adm.Code 4906-4-08(A)(4)(a).  The Hull & Associates report provided such an 
evaluation.  The residents have failed to show that the board acted unlawfully in 
determining that the report was sufficient to comply with Firelands’s obligation 
under the administrative code.  And they have failed to show that the board violated 
its obligations to determine the nature of the probable environmental impact of the 
project and that the facility represents the minimum adverse environmental impact.  
See R.C. 4906.10(A)(2) and (3). 
C.  Noise 
{¶ 32} The residents claim that the board has “authoriz[ed] noise that will 
cause stress, annoyance, and health damage” to nearby residents in violation of the 
requirement that the board determine that the facility will have the minimum 
adverse environmental impact.  See R.C. 4906.10(A)(3).  They contend that the 
wind turbines will generate a variety of unpleasant sounds, including “mechanical 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
11 
sounds from the turbine hub” and “swishing” and “whooshing” sounds caused by 
the rotating blades. 
{¶ 33} The noise impact of a facility is measured by comparing turbine 
noise to the preexisting background (or ambient) sound level.  The residents 
contend that the ambient-noise study performed by Firelands was flawed.  This 
argument centers on Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-09(F)(2).  That provision specifies 
that a wind farm’s operation must “not result in noise levels at any non-participating 
sensitive receptor within one mile of the project boundary that exceed the project 
area ambient nighttime average sound level (Leq) by five A-weighted decibels 
(dBA).”2  In essence, the regulation requires that at a residence neighboring a 
facility, the noise level caused by the wind farm  may not exceed five dBA above 
the nighttime average ambient-noise level of the project area. 
{¶ 34} Firelands submitted a noise assessment conducted by Resource 
Systems Group, Inc. (“RSG”).  As part of the noise assessment, RSG installed nine 
sound monitors at various locations around the project area and determined that the 
background nighttime average noise level in the area was 44 dBA.  Thus, RSG 
calculated the wind farm’s nighttime noise limit to be 49 dBA (the background 
noise plus 5 dBA).  The board found that Firelands’s background-noise study was 
reasonable and that the project complied “with sound limitations necessary for the 
public’s protection.” 
{¶ 35} In arguing that Firelands’s study was flawed, the residents point to 
Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-09(F)(2), which requires a wind farm’s noise limit to be 
 
2. “[S]ensitive receptor” refers to “any occupied building,” such as a residence.  Ohio Adm.Code 
4906-4-09(F)(1).  “Non-participating” refers to “a property for which the owner has not signed a 
waiver or otherwise agreed to be subject to a higher noise level.”  Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-09(F)(2).  
According to Firelands, “Leq” is “the average sound pressure level over [a] specified period of 
time,” such as one hour or one day.  “A-weighted decibel” (“dBA”) “is a scale that attempts to 
measure the loudness of sound waves the human ear perceives as audible sound.”  Champaign Wind, 
L.L.C., 146 Ohio St.3d 489, 2016-Ohio-1513, 58 N.E.3d 1142, at ¶ 35. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
12 
calculated based on the background nighttime average noise level of “the project 
area.”  The residents complain that RSG installed two of the sound monitors outside 
of the project area.  The residents also claim that these two monitors, as well as one 
other, were placed in areas that were noisy and not representative of the project 
area.  Each of those locations had background nighttime average noise levels of 50 
dBA or higher, while the noise levels at three other locations were much lower—
34, 36, and 40 dBA. 
{¶ 36} Firelands presented the testimony of Eddie Duncan.  A director at 
RSG, Duncan is board certified in noise-control engineering and has 17 years of 
experience in acoustics, including measuring and analyzing noise from energy 
projects.  He testified that “[e]ach [monitor] location was selected as representative 
of a given landscape or soundscape experienced by sensitive receptors in and 
around the project area” based on factors such as “land use, road traffic, distance to 
roadways, population density, and distance to geographic features.”  He explained 
that when selecting the locations, he followed industry best practices—citing two 
industry standards—and relied on his professional judgment and experience. 
{¶ 37} The residents have not pointed to any evidence contradicting 
Duncan’s monitor-selection methodology.  Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-09(F)(2) does 
not specify how to calculate the “nighttime average sound level.”  Presumably, a 
monitor location may be representative of a soundscape within the project boundary 
even if that monitor is located beyond the boundary.  The residents have not 
established that the board committed reversible error merely because RSG 
positioned two monitors near—but beyond—the project-area boundary.  Similarly, 
the residents have not pointed to credible evidence proving that RSG purposely 
chose monitor locations to skew the average higher. 
{¶ 38} The residents contend that nothing precludes the board from 
imposing noise limits that go beyond those required by the Ohio Administrative 
Code.  That may well be the case.  But for our purposes, we find nothing unlawful 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
13 
in the board’s decision to evaluate the facility based on the limitations set forth in 
the administrative code.  Nor do we find the board’s determination that the facility 
represents the minimum adverse environmental impact to be unreasonable. 
D.  Shadow Flicker 
{¶ 39} The residents next argue that the board failed to require Firelands to 
meet the shadow-flicker standard set forth in the Ohio Administrative Code.  
“Shadow flicker” refers to the moving shadows that a wind turbine casts on a 
building when the turbine is between the sun and the structure. 
{¶ 40} Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-09(H)(1) provides: 
 
 
The facility shall be designed to avoid unreasonable adverse 
shadow flicker effect at any non-participating sensitive receptor 
within one thousand meters of any turbine.  At a minimum, the 
facility shall be operated so that shadow flicker levels do not exceed 
thirty hours per year at any such receptor. 
 
{¶ 41} Firelands’s application included a shadow-flicker analysis 
projecting that of the 1,495 “receptors”—i.e., occupied buildings—within 1,500 
meters of any proposed turbine site, 55 nonparticipating receptors would receive 
more than 30 hours of shadow flicker per year.  Throughout the board proceedings, 
Firelands conducted additional shadow-flicker analyses but never produced a study 
showing that all nonparticipating properties would be exposed to less than 30 hours 
of shadow flicker per year.  Firelands nevertheless guaranteed that the shadow-
flicker exposure for none of the nonparticipating homes would exceed the 30-hour 
limit.  It explained that it would achieve this result through the final design of the 
project and, if necessary, by implementing mitigating measures such as curtailing 
turbine operation during certain times of the day. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
14 
{¶ 42} The board found that the project would not cause adverse shadow-
flicker impacts, based on (1) a requirement in the stipulation that Firelands submit 
a final study 30 days prior to construction showing that the shadow-flicker impacts 
will not exceed 30 hours per year at any nonparticipating receptor and 
(2) Firelands’s ability to employ mitigating measures to maintain shadow flicker 
within the permissible limit. 
{¶ 43} The residents contend that because Firelands’s study did not show 
compliance with the administrative-rule shadow-flicker standard, the board should 
not have approved the project.  They argue that allowing Firelands to submit a 
postcertification study violates their right to participate in the review process and 
divests the board of its nondelegable duty under R.C. 4906.10(A) to make required 
findings. The board’s decision, they proclaim, “delegates all shadow flicker 
decisions to unaccountable Staff members.” 
{¶ 44} Contrary to the residents’ contention, Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-
09(H)(1) does not require Firelands to produce a precertification study showing that 
all nonparticipating receptors will experience less than 30 hours of shadow flicker 
per year.  Rather, the rule requires only that an applicant design the facility “to 
avoid unreasonable adverse shadow flicker effect” and that “the facility * * * be 
operated so that shadow flicker levels do not exceed thirty hours per year at any” 
nonparticipating receptor.  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 45} The board determined that even though Firelands’s initial shadow-
flicker studies showed some nonparticipating properties above the limit, Firelands 
had presented sufficient assurances that it could operate the facility within the rule’s 
limitations.  More importantly, the board emphasized that Firelands must submit 
another, final shadow-flicker study at least 30 days before construction and that 
Firelands had the ability to employ postconstruction measures to mitigate the 
effects of shadow flicker.  The residents have not demonstrated that Firelands 
violated, or that the board failed to enforce, Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-09(H)(1). 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
15 
{¶ 46} We also reject the residents’ contention that the board unlawfully 
delegated decisions to board staff.  R.C. 4906.10(A) empowers the board to grant a 
siting certificate “upon such terms, condition, or modifications of the construction, 
operation, or maintenance” of the facility as the board deems appropriate.  Thus, 
the board acted lawfully when it conditioned its approval on Firelands’s submission 
of a study showing that the shadow-flicker requirements would be met.  See In re 
Application of Buckeye Wind, L.L.C., 131 Ohio St.3d 449, 2012-Ohio-878, 966 
N.E.2d 869, ¶ 14-15; In re Application of Icebreaker Windpower, Inc., 169 Ohio 
St.3d 617, 2022-Ohio-2742, 207 N.E.3d 651, ¶ 37-44. 
E.  Environmental Impact on Migrating Birds 
{¶ 47} The residents and Black Swamp assert that Firelands should have 
conducted nighttime radar studies to evaluate the wind farm’s impact on migrating 
passerines.  Passerines include a wide variety of small-birds, mostly songbirds.  The 
residents and Black Swamp claim that without such a study, the board could not 
determine “[t]he nature of the probable environmental impact” as required by 
R.C. 4906.10(A)(2). 
{¶ 48} Firelands conducted numerous bird studies throughout the project 
area.  It retained Rhett E. Good, a biologist with 24 years of experience conducting 
wildlife research, including at other Ohio wind farms, to assist in the development 
and review of these studies.  Good testified that he had consulted with the Ohio 
Department of Natural Resources (“ODNR”) and the United States Fish and 
Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) on behalf of Firelands and that Firelands’s studies 
were done in accordance with ODNR’s On-Shore Bird and Bat Pre- and Post-
Construction Monitoring Protocol for Commercial Wind Energy Facilities in Ohio 
(the “ODNR protocol”) and the USFWS’s Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines 
(the “USFWS guidelines”). 
{¶ 49} The residents and Black Swamp countered with the testimony of 
Mark C. Shieldcastle, a former ODNR wildlife biologist and the current research 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
16 
director for Black Swamp.  He opined that Firelands had not sufficiently analyzed 
the probable environmental impact on migrating birds and that Firelands’s 
passerine-migration studies were not properly designed.  Most notably, Shieldcastle 
testified that Firelands’s passerine surveys were conducted during the day, even 
though most passerines migrate at night. 
{¶ 50} The residents and Black Swamp emphasize that unlike other Ohio 
wind farms, the project area here is located within an important bird-migration 
pathway—i.e., near Magee Marsh and the Lake Erie shoreline.  Accordingly, they 
assert that the board must count the number of migrating birds prior to certifying 
the project, rather than relying on postconstruction monitoring. 
{¶ 51} The board found that the wind farm’s impacts on birds were 
“predictable” and “reasonably in line with similarly situated wind farms that have 
received certificates in Ohio.”  The board further concluded that the safeguards in 
place—such as a requirement that Firelands conduct postconstruction bird 
monitoring and, if necessary, implement mitigation plans approved by board staff 
and ODNR—provided “further assurances that the project’s environmental impact 
is within the [b]oard’s reasonable expectations for this type of wind farm.” 
{¶ 52} We conclude that the record contained sufficient probative evidence 
for the board to determine the nature of the probable environmental impact to 
passerines.  See R.C. 4906.10(A)(2).  Firelands conducted numerous site-specific 
studies, including surveys relating to migrating passerines, in accordance with the 
ODNR protocol and the USFWS guidelines.  The board also reviewed hundreds of 
bird studies from existing wind farms.  Firelands’s witness, Good, explained why 
Firelands did not conduct nighttime radar studies for this project: ODNR has 
mapped areas of Ohio that are high-risk for nocturnal migrating passerines, and the 
wind farm here does not fall within such an area.  As the residents and Black 
Swamp’s own witness, Shieldcastle, acknowledged, ODNR only recommends that 
wind developers conduct nighttime radar monitoring for high-risk project areas. 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
17 
{¶ 53} Based on this record, we cannot conclude that the board’s failure to 
require nighttime radar testing was unlawful.  Nor can we deem unreasonable the 
board’s determination that the project represents the minimum adverse 
environmental impact.  See R.C. 4906.10(A)(3). 
F.  Economic Impact 
{¶ 54} The administrative rules require an applicant to provide “an estimate 
of the economic impact of the proposed facility on local commercial and industrial 
activities.”  Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-06(E)(4).  The residents and Black Swamp 
argue that Firelands did not comply with this rule and that without a complete 
economic analysis, the board had no support for its finding that the project served 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity under R.C. 4906.10(A)(6). 
{¶ 55} Firelands submitted a socioeconomic report prepared by EDR 
Environmental Services (“EDR”).  The report concluded that in addition to lease 
payments to landowners, the wind farm will create a significant number of jobs 
during construction and operation, all of which will have a ripple effect on the local 
economy and a positive impact on the local tax base.  The board accepted 
Firelands’s evidence and concluded that “overall, the project is economically 
beneficial to those in the project area.”  After balancing the facility’s projected 
benefits with the potential negative impacts, the board found that the project “will 
serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity” as required by 
R.C. 4906.10(A)(6). 
{¶ 56} The residents and Black Swamp claim that Firelands’s study was 
inadequate because it failed to account for potential negative economic impacts.  
Specifically, they assert that the facility will reduce birding tourism, harm local 
farmers by killing insect-eating bats, and compete with the nearby Davis-Besse 
Nuclear Power Station. 
{¶ 57} We conclude that Firelands submitted what Ohio Adm.Code 4906-
4-06(E)(4) required: an “estimate of the economic impact of the proposed facility 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
18 
on local commercial and industrial activities.”  (Emphasis added.)  EDR used a 
model developed by the United States Department of Energy’s National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory.  The model allowed EDR to estimate not only the number of 
jobs and earnings that the project would create but also the project’s economic value 
for the manufacturing, retail, and service-provider sectors.  According to EDR, the 
model included state-specific multipliers to track unique industry groups in the 
project area and considered “a small degree of negative impacts.”  Based on the 
model, EDR calculated the facility’s total economic output to be $170.4 million per 
year during construction and $10.6 million per year during operation. 
{¶ 58} The administrative code provision did not require Firelands to 
specifically quantify potential losses to tourism, farmers, or other energy providers.  
And nothing prevented the residents and Black Swamp from submitting evidence 
of such potential losses.  The rule required only that Firelands provide an estimate 
of the economic impact on local commercial and industrial activities, which it did.  
We find nothing unlawful about the board’s interpretation of the rule and nothing 
unreasonable about its determination that the project “will serve the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity,” R.C. 4906.10(A)(6). 
G.  Impacts on Bald Eagles 
{¶ 59} The residents and Black Swamp contend that because the wind farm 
will impact bald eagles, the board failed to determine that the facility represents the 
minimum adverse environmental impact.  See R.C. 4906.10(A)(3).  They maintain 
that the board should have forbidden construction altogether.  As an alternative, 
they argue that the board should have imposed a requirement that any turbine be 
located at least 2.5 miles away from any eagle nest. 
{¶ 60} The USFWS estimated that the wind farm had a preliminary risk of 
killing about 2.5 eagles per year and that the area’s eagle population would increase 
over time.  To help protect the bald eagle population, the board staff and Firelands 
agreed to two conditions in the stipulation.  First, Firelands committed to 
January Term, 2023 
 
 
19 
developing and implementing, prior to turbine construction, an “eagle conservation 
plan” in accordance with USFWS guidance for wind farms.  Second, Firelands 
agreed to apply for an “eagle take permit” from USFWS before the facility becomes 
operational.  An eagle-take permit authorizes unintentional eagle death resulting 
from an otherwise lawful activity.3  To obtain an eagle-take permit, a wind-farm 
developer must follow a multistage process that typically includes site-specific 
surveys, risk assessment, and the preparation of an eagle-conservation plan. 
{¶ 61} The board found that the stipulation condition was a sufficient 
safeguard to protect bald eagles.  Although the board acknowledged that the 
permitting process may take several years, it concluded that Firelands “remains 
accountable to USFWS for the project’s impact to eagle populations” and that if 
Firelands does not secure the permit, it would be subject to the USFWS 
enforcement measures for any eagle fatalities. 
{¶ 62} The residents and Black Swamp raise a number of objections.  As an 
initial matter, they contend that there are more bald eagles in the area than estimated 
by Firelands and that the USFWS’s projection of eagle kills is too low. 
{¶ 63} Both sides put on expert testimony about the prevalence of eagles in 
the area.  A Firelands witness testified as to eagle surveys that were completed in 
accordance with the ODNR protocol and the USFWS guidelines.  The residents and 
Black Swamp relied on surveys conducted by neighbors, including a trained 
wildlife biologist.  The biologist acknowledged, however, that she was not familiar 
with the ODNR protocol or the USFWS guidelines and that the neighbors had not 
been trained by a wildlife agency.  Accordingly, we find no error in the board’s 
decision to rely on Firelands’s surveys, rather than the residents and Black Swamp’s 
evidence, to determine the prevalence of bald eagles near the project area. 
 
3. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 668 et seq., prohibits the “tak[ing]” of a 
bald or golden eagle without a permit.  The act defines “take” as “[to] pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, 
wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.”  16 U.S.C. 668c. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
20 
{¶ 64} The residents and Black Swamp also contend that Firelands likely 
will not qualify for an eagle-take permit.  They assert that because an eagle nest is 
within the project area’s boundary, the project falls under a risk level at which wind 
farms are “not recommended.”  But this is not the appropriate forum to interpret 
the meaning of the USFWS guidance or to predict whether the agency will issue a 
permit to Firelands.  The USFWS guidance indicates that in the first stage of 
developing an eagle-conservation plan, the wind-farm developer should work with 
the USFWS to place the potential wind farm in the appropriate risk category.  Thus, 
assessing the risk level for the wind farm will be part of the permitting process. 
{¶ 65} In a related vein, the residents and Black Swamp argue that the board 
abdicated its duty to protect bald eagles by directing Firelands to merely work with 
the USFWS after certification.  But the residents and Black Swamp have not 
adequately explained why that is a problem.  The USFWS has in place a robust 
process to guide wind-farm developers in siting and operating their facilities while 
protecting bald eagles.  It was reasonable for the board to rely on the agency with 
federal enforcement authority and the appropriate experience, expertise, and 
procedures in place.  As the board explained in its order, it has imposed conditions 
in other siting cases subject to ODNR’s or the USFWS’s approval.  And as we have 
explained, the board is not required to resolve all issues relating to a facility’s 
potential environmental impact before issuing a certificate.  See, e.g., Buckeye 
Wind, 131 Ohio St.3d 449, 2012-Ohio-878, 966 N.E.2d 869, at ¶ 13-25; Icebreaker, 
169 Ohio St.3d 617, 2022-Ohio-2742, 207 N.E.3d 651, at ¶ 39-40. 
{¶ 66} The residents and Black Swamp also argue that the board violated 
Ohio Adm.Code 4906-4-08(B)(3)(b) by failing to require a minimum 2.5-mile 
setback between any bald eagle nest and a turbine.  The rule requires an applicant 
to provide information regarding potential impacts to ecological resources during 
operation of the facility, including “the procedures to be utilized to avoid, minimize, 
and mitigate both the short- and long-term impacts of operation and maintenance.”  
January Term, 2023 
 
 
21 
The rule imposes duties on Firelands, not the board. Firelands complied with the 
rule by identifying measures to minimize impacts on bald eagles.  Nothing in the 
rule mandates a 2.5-mile buffer area. 
{¶ 67} The residents and Black Swamp also argue that by not requiring a 
2.5-mile buffer area, the board failed in its duty to ensure that the facility represents 
the minimum adverse environmental impact.  Firelands presented evidence 
showing that based on the USFWS guidance, eagles nesting within 1.18 miles of 
the wind farm are the most likely to be disturbed by turbines.4  A Firelands witness 
further testified that the USFWS does not prohibit wind-farm infrastructure within 
this distance but does require that such nests receive special consideration and 
attention.  For example, a nest within the radius could be selected for focused 
monitoring. 
{¶ 68} The board acknowledged that bald eagles may die as a result of the 
wind farm’s operation.  The question before the board, however, was whether the 
facility represents “the minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the 
state of available technology and the nature and economics of the various 
alternatives, and other pertinent considerations,” R.C. 4906.10(A)(3).  Firelands’s 
application represented that the project’s anticipated short- and long-term 
operational impacts on wildlife were expected to be minor.  The application 
described ways in which Firelands had designed the facility to minimize or mitigate 
bird mortality, including siting turbines so as “to avoid bald eagle nests and areas 
of concentrated eagle use.”  And the stipulation ensured that the wind farm would 
be built and operated in accordance with USFWS guidelines for protecting bald 
eagles.  We cannot say that the board’s determination that the facility represents the 
minimum adverse environmental impact was unreasonable. 
 
4. The 1.18-mile distance was calculated based on the “half-mean inter-nest distance,” which refers 
to one half of the average nearest-neighbor distance between occupied eagle nests. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
 
22 
III.  Conclusion 
{¶ 69} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the board’s order granting 
Firelands a certificate for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the 
Emerson Creek Wind Farm. 
Order affirmed. 
KENNEDY, C.J., and FISCHER, DONNELLY, STEWART, BRUNNER, and 
DETERS, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Van Kley & Walker, L.L.C., and Jack A. Van Kley, for appellants. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, John H. Jones, Section Chief, and Werner L. 
Margard III, Robert A. Eubanks, and Shaun P. Lyons, Assistant Attorneys General, 
for appellee. 
Dickinson Wright, P.L.L.C., Christine M.T. Pirik, Terrence O’Donnell, 
William Vorys, and Jonathan R. Secrest, for intervening appellee. 
Hubay Dougherty, L.L.C., and Trent A. Dougherty; and Arnold & Porter 
Kaye Scholer, L.L.P., and Michael B. Gerrard, urging affirmance for amici curiae 
Tom Yingling and Kevin Erf. 
Chris Tavenor, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Environmental 
Council. 
Steptoe & Johnson, P.L.L.C., Dallas F. Kratzer III, and Rebecca Schrote; 
and Keving D. Shimp, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Chamber of 
Commerce. 
_________________