The impact of existing and potential wind power development on high-value scenic resources in

APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB

Executive Summary

The impact of existing and potential wind power development on high-value scenic resources in Maine

David Publicover and Catherine Poppenwimer Appalachian Mountain Club Research Department Gorham, NH

AMC Technical Report 19-1 November 2019

Acknowledgements Funding for this project was provided by the Horizon Foundation, the Sally Mead Hands Foundation and five individual donors. We thank them for the support. We also thank our Maine Audubon Society colleagues Sarah Haggerty, Eliza Donohue, Sally Stockwell and Susan Gallo for their assistance and support during this project. Suggested citation Publicover, D. and C. Poppenwimer. 2019. The impact of existing and potential wind power development on high-value scenic resources in Maine. AMC Technical Report 19-1. Appalachian Mountain Club, Gorham, NH.

This study was undertaken as part of a collaborative project with Maine Audubon Society. MAS has released a companion report titled “Renewable Energy and Wildlife in Maine: Avoiding, Minimizing and Mitigating Impacts to Wildlife and Habitat from Solar, Wind and Transmission Facilities”, available at https://www.maineaudubon.org/advocacy/climate-energy/.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview This project was undertaken to better understand the visual impact of existing wind power projects on high-value scenic resources in Maine (especially mountains and large lakes), how these impacts have been evaluated in permitting decisions, and the potential for future impacts to these resources from proposed or potential projects. The information was developed to better inform the on-going discussion on the future development of this renewable energy technology in Maine’s landscape. In particular, it seeks to address the question of whether the existing standards for evaluating the scenic impacts of wind power development are adequate given the state’s growing experience with this technology. Wind power has emerged as an important source of renewable energy generation in Maine, accounting for 21% of all the electricity generated in the state in 2017 and 2018. The fourteen grid-scale projects currently operating in Maine, which include 372 turbines with a combined capacity of 904 megawatts (MW), span the state from Aroostook County to the Downeast and Western Mountains regions. The rapid advancement of this technology over the past decade has not been without controversy, with the potential for adverse scenic impacts a major point of contention. There is no question that wind turbines are a highly visible feature in the landscape, and the potential visibility of wind turbines has increased due to their ever-greater height, from under 400 feet in 2007 to nearly 600 feet today. Permitting of wind power projects is governed by the Maine Wind Energy Act, originally enacted in 2003 and significantly amended in 2008. The 2008 amendments enacted the recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development established by former Governor John E. Baldacci. The amendments made several changes to existing law with the goal of easing the permitting of wind power development, including establishing an “expedited permitting area” (EPA) in which certain requirements were relaxed, most notably changing how scenic impacts are evaluated within the EPA. These changes included limiting the evaluation of scenic impacts to a defined set of Scenic Resources of State and National Significance (SRSNSs) within eight miles of a project. Beyond eight miles scenic impacts are deemed by law to be “insignificant”. This project consisted of the following steps:  Conducting a literature review of the scenic impact of wind power projects.  Evaluating the extent of the commercially viable and potentially available wind resource across the state at heights of 100 and 140 meters (328 and 459 feet).  Determining the number of existing and proposed grid-scale projects within 3, 8 and 15 miles of 59 “high value scenic resources” (HVSRs), including 28 trail-accessible mountain summits and 31 lakes greater than 1000 acres in size and rated “outstanding” for scenic value.  Determining the number of existing projects within 3, 8 and 15 miles of the 346 great ponds defined as SRSNSs.  Reviewing permitting decisions to determine how permitting agencies made decisions about scenic impacts of existing wind projects.  Conducting bare-earth viewshed studies for hypothetical projects at five potential development sites to determine the potential impact to scenic resources beyond eight miles.

i

Literature review While there are numerous general descriptions of the visual impact of wind power projects in the literature, there are few studies that evaluate the visibility of projects at different distances. However, the available literature indicates that wind power projects can be a major focus of visual attention at distances of 10 to 12 miles and under clear conditions can be visible at 25 miles. Recommendations for the evaluation of scenic impacts (particularly from highly sensitive viewpoints) generally extend to 10 or 15 miles. The literature does not support the current legal standard in Maine that visual impacts beyond eight miles should always be considered “insignificant”. Maine’s wind resource At a height of 100 meters (the hub height of turbines commonly in use in Maine) the “viable wind resource” encompasses about 17% of the state, with 42% of that area lying within the EPA (excluding conservation land). At a height of 140 meters (above the hub height of current turbines but within the range of turbines that could be used in the near future), the viable wind resource encompasses 62% of the state with almost half of this within the EPA. While taller turbines may have greater scenic impact, they also greatly expand the area where wind power development is viable, allowing projects to be sited in less visually sensitive areas. There are numerous other constraints on wind power development beyond wind speed, and how much of this resource is realistically developable is unknown. Existing wind power projects and scenic resources Overall a relatively small number of the scenic resources we evaluated have been impacted by wind power development within eight miles:  Of the 59 HVSRs (28 summits 31 lakes), none have an existing project within three miles; the two projects that have been proposed in such close proximity to an HVSR (Redington/Black Nubble and Bowers Mountain) were denied permits due to their scenic impact.  Five HVSRs (8%) have a project that would be fully or partially visible within eight miles.  Of the 346 great pond SRSNSs, 18 (5%) have at least partial visibility of a project within eight miles, of which four would have extensive visibility of a project within three miles. Notable regulated scenic resources that have been impacted by wind power projects within eight miles are (Saddleback Ridge project), (Record Hill project), Nicatous Lake (Passadumkeag project) and Donnell Pond (Bull Hill project). Other regulated scenic resources that have been significantly impacted by wind power development, but were deemed to be of lower scenic significance during permitting, include Tunk Mountain (Bull Hill and Hancock projects), Mattawamkeag and Pleasant Lakes (Oakfield project), Narraguagus Lake (Bull Hill project) and Saponac Pond (Passadumkeag project). Review of regulatory decisions These projects provide a good indication of where the permitting agencies have drawn the line between acceptable and unacceptable scenic impacts. The 2008 amendments to the law concede that some level of scenic impact from wind power development is acceptable. By themselves, close proximity to a project, full visibility of a project, or high significance of the scenic resource has been insufficient to deem an impact unreasonable. Factors cited in permitting decisions as mitigating against a finding of unreasonable adverse scenic impact (even when the impact was recognized as being adverse) include the distance of the project from the scenic resource (with projects in the outer part of the eight mile zone deemed of lower impact), the extent of project visibility, the significance of the scenic resource, the level and nature

ii

of public use, and the results of user surveys. Only two projects have included a review of cumulative impacts, both of projects in close proximity to each other in the Downeast region. These reviews provide little guidance on how cumulative impacts may be evaluated in the future. Scenic impacts not considered under current law This assessment focused on regulated scenic resources. However, there are other scenic impacts that are not considered under the current law, including impacts to scenic resources not defined as SRSNSs (such as 86% of great ponds in the state) as well as views from private businesses, residences, camps and lands and most public roads. Consideration of these impacts is intended to be addressed during municipal permitting, though they receive no consideration in the unorganized territories Most notable for this assessment are impacts beyond the current eight mile regulatory limit. There are considerably more projects within 15 miles of scenic resources than there are within eight miles:  Eight of the 59 HVSRs have an existing project within eight miles but 24 (41%) have a project within 15 miles.  Thirty-six of the great pond SRSNSs have an existing project within eight miles but 99 (29%) have a project within 15 miles.  Nine of the HVSRs have a proposed project within eight miles but 26 (44%) have one within 15 miles. Anecdotal evidence from users of scenic viewpoints indicates that existing projects are readily visible (though not dominant) at distances beyond eight miles, with notable examples including the Bingham project from Moxie Bald, the Record Hill project from Baldpate Mountain, and the Groton Wind project from Cardigan Mountain in New Hampshire. The proposed (but subsequently withdrawn) Highland Wind project would have been fully visible within 15 miles from the summit of Bigelow Mountain, but only 6 of the project’s 48 turbines lay within eight miles of Avery Peak and none within eight miles of West Peak. Had the project proceeded through permitting, most or all of it would have been considered legally invisible from these viewpoints. In addition, for at least four projects only a portion of the project lay within eight miles of an HVSR, precluding consideration of the full visual impact. The eight mile limit may also preclude full consideration of cumulative impacts, which will become more relevant as additional projects are developed. While four HVSRs (one summit and three lakes) have more than one existing and proposed project within eight miles, nineteen (seven summits and twelve lakes) have multiple existing and proposed projects within 15 miles. While cumulative impacts to lakes from projects beyond eight miles are be less likely to be found unreasonable, there is greater potential for significant cumulative impacts from summits with panoramic views. Viewshed case studies The viewshed case studies also illustrate the limitations of the eight mile limit. For a hypothetical project on Misery Ridge (site of the proposed Somerset project), only a miniscule portion of lies within eight miles, but large parts of the lake (as well as Big Moose Mountain) would have extensive views of the project in the 8 to 15 miles range. Similarly, most of Rangeley Lake would have extensive views of a hypothetical project on Deer Mountain in the 8 to 15 mile range. The scenic impact on Moosehead or Rangeley lakes if these sites were developed would be significant but would not be considered during project permitting. For the three case studies in the Downeast Lakes region there was little additional visibility from HVSRs in the 8 to 15 mile range, though there would be some potential visibility from other great pond SRSNSs.

iii

Recommendations In its 2012 review of the 2008 amendments to the Wind Energy Act, the Governor’s Office of Energy Independence and Security included the following recommendation: “Amend the wind law to require scenic impact evaluations to eight miles, with a fifteen mile standard option and provisions made for review to greater distances.” The precedents set by the permitting of existing projects indicate that in most cases impacts beyond eight miles are unlikely to be considered unreasonably adverse, and full implementation of this recommendation does not appear warranted. However, our assessment indicates there are at least some situations where scenic impacts beyond eight miles should be considered, most notably where there would be extensive views of a project from more significant viewpoints. Thus, we offer the following recommendations: RECOMMENDATION 1: Require consideration of visual impact where the evidence indicates that there would be visibility of a project at distances between 8 and 15 miles from a SRSNS of high or medium value as determined under rules adopted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. RECOMMENDATION 2: Extend the distance for analyzing cumulative impacts to 15 miles for any SRSNS of high or medium value as determined under rules adopted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. RECOMMENDATION 3: When only a portion of a project lies within eight miles of SRSNS, assessment of visual impacts shall consider the entire project including those portions lying more than eight miles from the SRSNS. While scenic impacts beyond eight miles are less likely to be considered unreasonable, in certain situations the failure to consider these impacts will reduce public confidence in the permitting process. Adoption of these recommendations would increase the credibility of the permitting process, increase confidence in the ability of Maine’s laws to adequately consider impacts to the state’s most significant scenic resources, and help to more fully realize the Governor’s Task Force’s objective to ensure that wind power development does not degrade Maine’s quality of place.

iv