DOCSLIB.ORG

The Impact of Existing and Potential Wind Power Development on High-Value Scenic Resources in Maine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The impact of existing and potential wind power development on high-value scenic resources in Maine APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB 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 Mount Blue (Saddleback Ridge project), Tumbledown Mountain (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
Recommended publications
  • Penobscot Rivershed with Licensed Dischargers and Critical Salmon

    Penobscot Rivershed with Licensed Dischargers and Critical Salmon

    0# North West Branch St John T11 R15 WELS T11 R17 WELS T11 R16 WELS T11 R14 WELS T11 R13 WELS T11 R12 WELS T11 R11 WELS T11 R10 WELS T11 R9 WELS T11 R8 WELS Aroostook River Oxbow Smith Farm DamXW St John River T11 R7 WELS Garfield Plt T11 R4 WELS Chapman Ashland Machias River Stream Carry Brook Chemquasabamticook Stream Squa Pan Stream XW Daaquam River XW Whitney Bk Dam Mars Hill Squa Pan Dam Burntland Stream DamXW Westfield Prestile Stream Presque Isle Stream FRESH WAY, INC Allagash River South Branch Machias River Big Ten Twp T10 R16 WELS T10 R15 WELS T10 R14 WELS T10 R13 WELS T10 R12 WELS T10 R11 WELS T10 R10 WELS T10 R9 WELS T10 R8 WELS 0# MARS HILL UTILITY DISTRICT T10 R3 WELS Water District Resevoir Dam T10 R7 WELS T10 R6 WELS Masardis Squapan Twp XW Mars Hill DamXW Mule Brook Penobscot RiverYosungs Lakeh DamXWed0# Southwest Branch St John Blackwater River West Branch Presque Isle Strea Allagash River North Branch Blackwater River East Branch Presque Isle Strea Blaine Churchill Lake DamXW Southwest Branch St John E Twp XW Robinson Dam Prestile Stream S Otter Brook L Saint Croix Stream Cox Patent E with Licensed Dischargers and W Snare Brook T9 R8 WELS 8 T9 R17 WELS T9 R16 WELS T9 R15 WELS T9 R14 WELS 1 T9 R12 WELS T9 R11 WELS T9 R10 WELS T9 R9 WELS Mooseleuk Stream Oxbow Plt R T9 R13 WELS Houlton Brook T9 R7 WELS Aroostook River T9 R4 WELS T9 R3 WELS 9 Chandler Stream Bridgewater T T9 R5 WELS TD R2 WELS Baker Branch Critical UmScolcus Stream lmon Habitat Overlay South Branch Russell Brook Aikens Brook West Branch Umcolcus Steam LaPomkeag Stream West Branch Umcolcus Stream Tie Camp Brook Soper Brook Beaver Brook Munsungan Stream S L T8 R18 WELS T8 R17 WELS T8 R16 WELS T8 R15 WELS T8 R14 WELS Eagle Lake Twp T8 R10 WELS East Branch Howe Brook E Soper Mountain Twp T8 R11 WELS T8 R9 WELS T8 R8 WELS Bloody Brook Saint Croix Stream North Branch Meduxnekeag River W 9 Turner Brook Allagash Stream Millinocket Stream T8 R7 WELS T8 R6 WELS T8 R5 WELS Saint Croix Twp T8 R3 WELS 1 Monticello R Desolation Brook 8 St Francis Brook TC R2 WELS MONTICELLO HOUSING CORP.
  • ' Committee on Environment and Natural

    ' Committee on Environment and Natural

    ’ PO Box 164 - Greenville Junction, ME 04442 Testimony Before the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources on LD 901, HP 0629 An Act to Amend the Laws Governing the Determination of a Wind Energy Development's Efiect on the Scenic Character of Maine’s Special Places March 23, 2017 Senator Saviello, Representative Tucker, Distinguished Members of the Committee: My name is Christopher King, I live in Greenville, and I am Secretary of the Moosehead Region Futures Committee (MRFC), a Maine non-profit corporation, which has been active in shaping the Moosehead Lake Region's future development for more than a decade. I wish to testify in favor of LD 901, and to urge the Committee to adopt certain amendments to this bill. Specifically, the MRFC requests that the Committee amend LD 901, by adding to the language proposed in Section 3 (35-A MRSA §3452, sub-§4), paragraph B, the following subparagraphs: {Q} Big Moose Mountain in Piscataquis County; and ('7) Mount Kineo in Piscataquis County. MRFC TESTIMONY ow LD 901 BEFORE ENR COMMIITEE - 3/23/2017 - PAGE 1 OF 3 The purpose of LD 901 is to extend the protections granted by the Legislature in 35-A MRSA §3452 to Maine’s scenic resources of state or national significance (SRSNS), defined with precision in 35-A MRSA §3451 (9), to certain SRSNSs which are situated between 8 and 15 miles from a proposed wind energy development’s generating facilities. Currently, the Department of Environmental Protection “shall consider insignificant the effects of portions of [a wind energy] development’s generating facilities located more than 8 miles...from a [SRSNS].” 35-A MRSA §3452 (3).
  • Winter 2016 Volume 21 No

    Winter 2016 Volume 21 No

    Fall/Winter 2016 Volume 21 No. 3 A Magazine about Acadia National Park and Surrounding Communities Friends of Acadia Journal Fall/Winter 2016 1 President’s Message FOA AT 30 hen a handful of volunteers And the impact of this work extends at Acadia National Park and beyond Acadia: this fall I attended a Wforward-looking park staff to- conference at the Grand Canyon, where gether founded Friends of Acadia in 1986, I heard how several other friends groups their goal was to provide more opportuni- from around the country are modeling ties for citizens to give back to this beloved their efforts after FOA’s best practices place that gave them so much. Many were and historic successes. Closer to home, avid hikers willing to help with trail up- community members in northern Maine keep. Others were concerned about dwin- have already reached out to FOA for tips dling park funding coming from Washing- as they contemplate a friends group for the ton. Those living in the surrounding towns newly-established Katahdin Woods and shared a desire to help a large federal agen- Waters National Monument. cy better understand and work with our As the brilliant fall colors seemed to small Maine communities. hang on longer than ever at Acadia this These visionaries may or may not year, I enjoyed a late-October morning on have predicted the challenges and the Precipice Trail. The young peregrine opportunities facing Acadia at the dawn FOA falcons had fledged, and the re-opened trail of its second century—such as climate featured a few new rungs and hand-holds change, transportation planning, cruise and partners whom we hope will remain made possible by a generous FOA donor.
  • Natural Landscapes of Maine a Guide to Natural Communities and Ecosystems

    Natural Landscapes of Maine a Guide to Natural Communities and Ecosystems

    Natural Landscapes of Maine A Guide to Natural Communities and Ecosystems by Susan Gawler and Andrew Cutko Natural Landscapes of Maine A Guide to Natural Communities and Ecosystems by Susan Gawler and Andrew Cutko Copyright © 2010 by the Maine Natural Areas Program, Maine Department of Conservation 93 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333-0093 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the authors or the Maine Natural Areas Program, except for inclusion of brief quotations in a review. Illustrations and photographs are used with permission and are copyright by the contributors. Images cannot be reproduced without expressed written consent of the contributor. ISBN 0-615-34739-4 To cite this document: Gawler, S. and A. Cutko. 2010. Natural Landscapes of Maine: A Guide to Natural Communities and Ecosystems. Maine Natural Areas Program, Maine Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine. Cover photo: Circumneutral Riverside Seep on the St. John River, Maine Printed and bound in Maine using recycled, chlorine-free paper Contents Page Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... 3 Foreword ..................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ...............................................................................................
  • 2012 Annual Report Maine Public Reserved

    2012 Annual Report Maine Public Reserved

    2012 ANNUAL REPORT to the JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE on AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY MAINE PUBLIC RESERVED, NONRESERVED, AND SUBMERGED LANDS Seboeis Lake Unit MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY Division of Parks and Public Lands March 1, 2013 2012 ANNUAL REPORT Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Division of Parks and Public Lands TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………….. 1 II. 2012 HIGHLIGHTS…………………………………………………………………..1 III. SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITIES………………………………………………….. 4 IV. LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING……………………………………………….. 8 V. NATURAL/HISTORIC RESOURCES……………………………………………...9 VI. WILDLIFE RESOURCES……………………………………………………………11 VII. RECREATION RESOURCES………………………………………………………12 VIII. TIMBER RESOURCES……………………………………………………………...18 IX. TRANSPORTATION………………………………………………………………… 22 X. PUBLIC ACCESS…………………………………………………………………… 22 XI. LAND TRANSACTIONS……………………………………………………………. 23 XII. SUBMERGED LANDS……………………………………………………………… 24 XIII. SHORE AND HARBOR MANAGEMENT FUND………………………………… 24 XIV. COASTAL ISLAND PROGRAM…………………………………………………… 24 XV. ADMINISTRATION………………………………………………………………….. 25 XVI. INCOME AND EXPENDITURES ACCOUNTING – CY 2012………………….. 26 XVII. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FY 2014……………………………………………… 29 XVIII. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….. 36 Appendix A: Map of DPPL Properties & Acquisitions in 2012…………………. 37 Appendix B: Table of 2012 DPPL Acquisitions and Dispositions………………… 38 Appendix C: Federal Forest Legacy Projects Approved and Pending……………... 39 Cover Photo by Kathy Eickenberg
  • Maine Boating 2008 Laws & Rules

    Maine Boating 2008 Laws & Rules

    Maine State Library Maine State Documents Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Law Books Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 1-1-2008 Maine Boating 2008 Laws & Rules Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalmaine.com/ifw_law_books Recommended Citation "Maine Boating 2008 Laws & Rules" (2008). Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Law Books. 479. http://digitalmaine.com/ifw_law_books/479 This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Inland Fisheries and Wildlife at Maine State Documents. It has been accepted for inclusion in Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Law Books by an authorized administrator of Maine State Documents. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATE OF MAINE BOATING 2008 LAW S & RU L E S www.maine.gov/ifw STATE OF MAINE BOATING 2008 LAW S & RU L E S www.maine.gov/ifw MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR & COMMISSIONER With an impressive inventory of 6,000 lakes and ponds, 3,000 miles of coastline, and over 32,000 miles of rivers and streams, Maine is truly a remarkable place for you to launch your boat and enjoy the variety and beauty of our waters. Providing public access to these bodies of water is extremely impor- tant to us because we want both residents and visitors alike to enjoy them to the fullest. The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife works diligently to provide access to Maine’s waters, whether it’s a remote mountain pond, or Maine’s Casco Bay. How you conduct yourself on Maine’s waters will go a long way in de- termining whether new access points can be obtained since only a fraction of our waters have dedicated public access.
  • Acadia Activities Brochure

    Acadia Activities Brochure

    Acadia Mt Desert Island, Maine Samuel E. Lux June 2019 edition planyourvisit/conditions.htm or by searching http://www.mdislander.- Hiking com, the local newspaper, for “precipice trail”. Neither is reliably The hiking in Acadia is, to my mind, up-to-date. The Harbor Walk in Bar the best in America. The approxi- Harbor and the walk along Otter mately 135 miles of trails are beauti- Point (Ocean trail) are both very fully marked and maintained. Many beautiful and very easy. Another have granite steps, or iron ladders or short, easy hike is to Beech Cliffs railings to help negotiate difficult/ from the top of Beech mountain. dangerous spots. They range from road. Only 0.3 mile and great views. flat to straight up. And you get the Kids also love the short walk to the Fig. 1. View of Sand Beach from best views with the least work of any rocky coast and myriad tide pools on part way up Beehive trail trail system anywhere. Beehive to the Wonderland trail. Couch potatoes Gorham mountain and Cadillac can drive to the top of Cadillac Cliffs, then walk back along shore mountain, the highest point in the (Ocean trail), Precipice (appropriately park. Views are worth it. named), and the Jordan Cliffs trail Excellent Circle Hikes followed by a walk back down South Ridge of Penobscot mountain trail are Beehive-Gorham-Ocean Drive my favorites, but there are dozens of Park at Sand Beach on the Park Loop great ones, at least 50 overall. For Road. Do this hike early in the day kids over 6 to 7 years the Beehive trail before the crowds arrive.
  • Land, Timber, and Recreation in Maine's Northwoods: Essays by Lloyd C

    Land, Timber, and Recreation in Maine's Northwoods: Essays by Lloyd C

    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Miscellaneous Publications Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station 3-1996 MP730: Land, Timber, and Recreation in Maine's Northwoods: Essays by Lloyd C. Irland Lloyd C. Irland Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/aes_miscpubs Recommended Citation Irland, L.C. 1996. Land, Timber, and Recreation in Maine's Northwoods: Essays by Lloyd C. Irland. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Miscellaneous Publication 730. This Report is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Miscellaneous Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Land, Timber, and Recreation in Maines Northwoods: Essays by Lloyd C. Irland Lloyd C. Irland Faculty Associate College of Natural Resources, Forestry and Agriculture The Irland Group RR 2, Box 9200 Winthrop, ME 04364 Phone: (207)395-2185 Fax: (207)395-2188 FOREWORD Human experience tends to be perceived as taking place in phases. Shakespeare talked of seven ages of man. More recently Erik Erikson has thought of five separate stages in human life. All of these begin to break down, however, when we think of the end of eras. Partially because of the chronological pressure, such times come at the end of centuries. When one adds to the end of a century the concept of an end of a millennium, the sense of change, of difference, of end time can be very powerful, if not overwhelming. The termination of the nineteenth and the eighteenth centuries were much discussed as to the future.
  • Maine SCORP 2009-2014 Contents

    Maine SCORP 2009-2014 Contents

    Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2009-2014 December, 2009 Maine Department of Conservation Bureau of Parks and Lands (BPL) Steering Committee Will Harris (Chairperson) -Director, Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands John J. Daigle -University of Maine Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Program Elizabeth Hertz -Maine State Planning Office Cindy Hazelton -Maine Recreation and Park Association Regis Tremblay -Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Dan Stewart -Maine Department of Transportation George Lapointe -Maine Department of Marine Resources Phil Savignano -Maine Office of Tourism Mick Rogers - Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands Terms Expired: Scott DelVecchio -Maine State Planning Office Doug Beck -Maine Recreation and Parks Association Planning Team Rex Turner, Outdoor Recreation Planner, BPL Katherine Eickenberg, Chief of Planning, BPL Alan Stearns, Deputy Director, BPL The preparation of this report was financed in part through a planning grant from the US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Maine SCORP 2009-2014 Contents CONTENTS Page Executive Summary Ex. Summary-1 Forward i Introduction Land and Water Conservation Fund Program (LWCF) & ii Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) ii State Requirements iii Planning Process iii SCORP’s Relationship with Other Recreation and Conservation Funds iii Chapter I: Developments and Accomplishments Introduction I-1 “Funding for Acquisition” I-1 “The ATV Issue” I-1 “Maintenance of Facilities” I-2 “Statewide Planning” I-4 “Wilderness Recreation Opportunities” I-5 “Community Recreation and Smart Growth” I-7 “Other Notable Developments” I-8 Chapter II: Major Trends and Issues Affecting Outdoor Recreation in Maine A.
  • 7.0 Wildlife and Fisheries Overview

    7.0 Wildlife and Fisheries Overview

    Redington Wind Farm Redington Pond Range, Maine Section 7: Wildlife and Fisheries Prepared by Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. Topsham, Maine Redington Wind Farm Page i Section 7 – Wildlife and Fisheries Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Ecological Setting of Project area........................................................................... 3 3.0 Natural Communities and Wetlands ....................................................................... 5 3.1 Methods................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Natural Community Descriptions ........................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................ 8 3.2.2 Beech-Birch-Maple Forest............................................................................. 9 3.2.3 Spruce-Northern Hardwood Forest.............................................................. 10 3.2.4 Spruce-Fir-Mountain Sorrel-Feathermoss Forest ........................................ 11 3.2.5 Fir-Heartleaved Birch Subalpine Forest ...................................................... 11 3.2.6 Regenerating Forest Stands.......................................................................... 14 3.2.7 Wetlands and Streams.................................................................................. 16 4.0 Fish
  • State of Maine Land Use Regulation Commission

    State of Maine Land Use Regulation Commission

    STATE OF MAINE LAND USE REGULATION COMMISSION Application for Development of ) PRE-FILED TESTIMONY TransCanada Maine Wind Development, Inc. ) OF DYLAN VOORHEES Kibby Mountain Wind Farm ) NATURAL RESOURCES Rezoning Application ZP 709 ) COUNCIL OF MAINE I. Summary My name is Dylan Voorhees. I am the Clean Energy Director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM). NRCM is a private, non-profit, membership organization established in 1959 to advocate for the protection and conservation of Maine’s natural resources. NRCM has a strong interest in the development of clean forms of electricity generation that will help reduce the environmental and public health harm caused by existing forms of power production. We share the view articulated in the Maine Land Use Regulation Commission’s (the “Commission”) Comprehensive Land Use Plan that “windpower offers an attractive alternative to the burning of fossil fuels.”1 NRCM also has a strong interest in land conservation for areas with unique natural resource, recreation, and remote resource values. Accordingly, we recognize that the Commission has an important responsibility in considering how to balance impacts and benefits when it comes to wind power projects in its jurisdiction. NRCM has carefully examined the application, visited the site, and strongly concludes that this project conforms to the Commission’s evaluation criteria and policies, Maine’s energy policies, 1 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (1997), Chapter 3, Natural and Cultural Resources, p. 40 ZP 709, Kibby Wind Farm 1 Voorhees Pre-Filed Testimony and the public interest. The Kibby Wind Farm would generate a substantial amount of new renewable power in Maine at a time when we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
  • FINAL AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Project Icebreaker in Lake Erie

    FINAL AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Project Icebreaker in Lake Erie

    FINAL AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT Project Icebreaker in Lake Erie Cuyahoga County, Ohio Report Prepared for: Lake Erie Energy Development Corporation (LEEDCo) October 2013 Report Prepared by: Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D., and John Guarnaccia Curry & Kerlinger, L.L.C. P.O. Box 453 Cape May Point, NJ 08212 (609) 884-2842, phone (609) 884-4569, fax [email protected] Project Icebreaker Executive Summary This report reexamines and updates potential risk to birds from the six-turbine Project Icebreaker, a demonstration wind-energy project proposed for the waters 11-16 kilometers (km) (7-10 miles) off of Cleveland, Ohio. Turbines would have an 87.5-meter (m) (287-foot) tubular steel tower on which a rotor of 120 m (394 feet) in diameter would be mounted. Rotors would sweep from a maximum height of 147.5 m (484 feet) to a minimum height of 27.5 m (90 feet) above the lake, making a rotor swept area of 11,310 m2. Each turbine would generate a nameplate capacity of 3.0 megawatts (MW). Lighting on turbines has not yet been determined, but this analysis is based on L-864, red-strobe obstruction lights mounted on nacelles, as generally required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for wind turbines. A docking platform would be constructed at the base of each turbine to allow maintenance crews to access the turbines. Potential avian risk from a demonstration wind farm in the waters off of Cleveland was considered previously in a document hereafter referred to as the 2008 risk assessment (Guarnaccia and Kerlinger 2008), which depended on research that had been conducted in Europe to date, where many of the same species as occurring in Lake Erie, or closely related species, were studied.