DOCSLIB.ORG

Pre-Filed Direct Testimony of Robert Kimber on Behalf of the Friends of the Boundary Mountains Before the Maine Land Use Regulation Commision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pre-Filed Direct Testimony of Robert Kimber on Behalf of the Friends of the Boundary Mountains Before the Maine Land Use Regulation Commision PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ROBERT KIMBER ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS OF THE BOUNDARY MOUNTAINS BEFORE THE MAINE LAND USE REGULATION COMMISION In the matter of the Rezoning Application ZP 709 TransCanada Maine Wind Development, Inc. and Plum Creek Maine Timberlands, LLC. For a 132 MW Wind Energy Plant in Skinner Township and Kibby Township, Franklin County, Maine Introduction My name is Robert Kimber. I live at 147 Intervale Road, Temple, Maine 04984. Mailing address: PO Box 525, Temple, Maine 04984. I am a semi-retired translator and freelance writer with a special interest in outdoor and environmental subjects. I say semi-retired because writers do not retire for good until they keel over. I have summarized those parts of my work and experience relevant to this proceeding in a résumé attached to this testimony as Exhibit RK-1. I will focus my remarks on “remoteness and the relative absence of development” and their bearing on scenic values and recreational opportunities, especially on backcountry recreation. These topics are closely related and cannot be treated in complete isolation from each other. Passages I consider most relevant to these topics from the applicable statutes, rules, and 1 standards are listed and quoted in the footnote below. 1 For the Commission to approve rezoning of a P-MA subdistrict to a D-PD subdistrict, it must ensure that the proposal “(1) Conforms with the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and 12 M.R.S.A., 206-A; (2) Incorporates, where the land proposed for inclusion in the D-PD subdistrict is in a protection subdistrict, a substantially equivalent level of environmental and resource protection as was afforded under such protected subdistrict; (3) Utilizes the best reasonably available site for the proposed use.” (Chapter 10, Section 10.21.G.8.b(1), (2), and (3). The pertinent sections of M.R.S.A., 206-A, both reinforce and add to these requirements: The Commission may not approve an application unless: “The proposed land use district satisfies a demonstrated need in the community or area and has no undue adverse impact on existing uses or resources…” (Title 12, 685-A, 8-A(B). “Adequate provision has been made for fitting the proposal harmoniously into the existing natural environment in order to assure there will be no undue adverse effect on existing uses, scenic character and natural and historic resources in the area likely to be affected by the proposal.” (Title 12, 685-B, 4-C) The purpose of the Mountain Area Protection Subdistrict (P-MA) as defined in 10.23.G (P-MA), paragraph 1, is “to preserve the natural equilibrium of vegetation, geology, slope, soil and climate in order to reduce danger to public health and safety posed by unstable mountain areas, to protect water quality, and to preserve mountain areas for their scenic values and recreational opportunities.” Title 12, 685-A(1)(A) provides a general definition of protection districts as “areas where development would jeopardize significant natural, recreational and historic resources, including, but not limited to, flood plains, precipitous slopes, wildlife habitat and other areas critical to the ecology of the region or State.” 2 The construction of the wind-power plant that would follow on rezoning Kibby Mountain and the Kibby range would sacrifice an important region, which, if left undeveloped, will continue to provide the people of Maine with far greater benefits than forty-four wind-power turbines can. But of greater import here than my personal opinion is whether the proposed project meets the criteria for approval spelled out in Maine statutes, in LURC’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), and in its Chapter 10 Land Use Districts and Standards (Ch. 10). I am convinced that it does not. But before I turn to specific points in the petitioner’s application, I’d like to make two general observations. 1. My first observation concerns the big picture within which TransCanada’s application has to be assessed, a picture of increasingly diversified ownerships and of increasing competition over increasingly rare resources in LURC’s jurisdiction. No one is more aware of that big picture than the members of this Commission, who have to deal in this one year with three major wind-power proposals and, at Moosehead Lake, with the most massive development proposal Maine has seen to date. As the CLUP notes (p. 47), “Many of the [LURC] jurisdiction’s values are closely linked to forest resources, including large-scale commercial forestry, ecological diversity, and recreation in a remote setting ….Fragmentation of ownership and associated changes in use and management threaten to undermine the integrity of the forest resource in a way that compromises these values.” In short, a wind-power project in the location and of the scale proposed by TransCanada is alien to the principal values of the jurisdiction and destructive of them. 2. Secondly, if there is any one concept implicit throughout the CLUP and underlying its goals and policies, that concept is the integrity of the jurisdiction—its wholeness, its soundness as a natural system. Forestry, ecological diversity, and recreation in a remote setting all depend on keeping the jurisdiction intact and on putting the strictest of limits on uses and management incompatible with those traditional uses and principal values. As the CLUP notes (pp. 46-47), now that the de facto protections of few roads in the jurisdiction and of large ownerships devoted primarily to forest management and outdoor recreation are no longer in place—controls that prevailed from late in the nineteenth century and through much of the twentieth—it now falls increasingly to the Land Use Regulation Commission to protect the North Woods’ principal values and traditional uses and to see that “the natural world remains the dominant presence” in the jurisdiction. (CLUP, p. 16) “Natural area…forestry…recreation”—these terms keep recurring in the CLUP in various permutations, leaving no doubt in the reader’s mind that the Commission’s broad mandate does not include encouraging residential sprawl or industrial development. Noteworthy, three of the jurisdiction’s four principal values (p. 114) focus on primitive outdoor recreation or the intrinsic value of natural resources: “Diverse and abundant recreational opportunities, particularly for primitive pursuits. (italics added) 3 “Diverse, abundant and unique high-value natural resources and features, including lakes, rivers and other water resources, fish and wildlife resources, ecological values, scenic and cultural resources, coastal islands, and mountain areas and other geologic resources. “Natural character values, which include the uniqueness of a vast forested area that is largely undeveloped and remote from population centers.” (italics added) Further, “Remoteness and the relative absence of development are perhaps the most distinctive of the jurisdiction’s principal values, due mainly to their increasing rarity in the Eastern United States. (italics added)… The value of natural resources is generally enhanced when they are part of a large, undisturbed area, especially one that encompasses entire watersheds or ecosystems” (CLUP, p. 114). “Remote, undeveloped qualities are also particularly sensitive to permanent changes in the landscape resulting from development. The remote character of a pristine pond, for instance, may be lost long before development threatens water quality or wildlife habitat. These values may be difficult to quantify but they are integral to the jurisdiction’s identity and to its overall character” (CLUP, p. 115). Among Maine’s “exceptional recreational opportunities” the CLUP enumerates are “approximately 100 mountain peaks over 3,000 feet high,” adding: “As exceptional as these resources are, it is the area’s remoteness and lack of development that sets it apart…For many users, these remote, undeveloped qualities not only enhance, but essentially define, their recreational experience, distinguishing it from excursions in more populous areas. As other recreational lands are increasingly developed, opportunities for backcountry experiences will become scarcer, and the remote values of the jurisdiction will become even more highly prized.” (CLUP, pp. 59-60) (italics added) I have quoted these passages from the CLUP at some length because they state unequivocally that the jurisdiction’s very identity depends both on its vast size and on the relative absence of development. To meet the rezoning criteria and receive project approval, the proposal must show consistency with the CLUP. But any large industrial project in the Boundary Mountains, such as the one proposed by TransCanada, would represent a massive presence of development and is totally at odds with the CLUP’s stated values for the jurisdiction, with the Commission’s lead policies for Location of Development (CLUP, p. 140), Forest Resources (CLUP, p. 136), and Recreational Resources (CLUP, p. 138), and with the traditional uses of the North Woods. In light of all these factors—the ownership and management shifts that threaten both to suburbanize and industrialize the North Woods, the Commission’s statutory commitment to protect the integrity of the jurisdiction, and the increasing demand for back-country recreational resources—we should be jealously guarding every inch of semi-wild land we have left for the benefit both of Maine residents and of the visitors who come here hungry to experience landscapes that still retain significant wild character. 4 Remoteness The words “remote” and “remoteness” occur over 100 times in the CLUP, often in conjunction with phrases like “undeveloped character.” Indeed, “remoteness and the relative absence of development are perhaps the most distinctive of the jurisdiction’s principal values.” One of the CLUP’s policies on Infrastructure states: “Require that new utility lines, pipelines, and their associated facilities be…(c) located so as not to inappropriately encroach upon or change the character of remote areas…” (CLUP, p. 142). In this project, new utility lines and the turbines associated with them would inappropriately encroach upon and change the character of a remote area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecological Values of the Western Maine Mountains
    DIVERSITY, CONTINUITY AND RESILIENCE – THE ECOLOGICAL VALUES OF THE WESTERN MAINE MOUNTAINS By Janet McMahon, M.S. Occasional Paper No. 1 Maine Mountain Collaborative P.O. Box A Phillips, ME 04966 © 2016 Janet McMahon Permission to publish and distribute has been granted by the author to the Maine Mountain Collaborative. This paper is published by the Maine Mountain Collaborative as part of an ongoing series of informational papers. The information and views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Maine Mountain Collaborative or its members. Cover photo: Caribou Mountain by Paul VanDerWerf https://www.flickr.com/photos/12357841@N02/9785036371/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ DIVERSITY, CONTINUITY AND RESILIENCE – THE ECOLOGICAL VALUES OF THE WESTERN MAINE MOUNTAINS Dawn over Crocker and Redington Mountains Photo courtesy of The Trust for Public Land, Jerry Monkman, EcoPhotography.com Abstract The five million acre Western Maine Mountains region is a landscape of superlatives. It includes all of Maine’s high peaks and contains a rich diversity of ecosystems, from alpine tundra and boreal forests to ribbed fens and floodplain hardwood forests. It is home to more than 139 rare plants and animals, including 21 globally rare species and many others that are found only in the northern Appalachians. It includes more than half of the United States’ largest globally important bird area, which provides crucial habitat for 34 northern woodland songbird species. It provides core habitat for marten, lynx, loon, moose and a host of other iconic Maine animals. Its cold headwater streams and lakes comprise the last stronghold for wild brook trout in the eastern United States.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Maine Department of Conservation Land Use Regulation Commission
    STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION LAND USE REGULATION COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF MAINE MOUNTAIN POWER, LLC ) BLACK NUBBLE WIND FARM ) ) PRE-FILED TESTIMONY REDINGTON TOWNSHIP, FRANKLIN ) APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB COUNTY, MAINE ) DR. KENNETH D. KIMBALL ) ZONING PETITION ZP 702 ) I. INTRODUCTION My name is Kenneth Kimball. I hold a doctorate in botany from the University of New Hampshire, a Masters in zoology from the University of New Hampshire and a Bachelors of Science in ecology from Cornell University. I have been employed as the Research Director for the Appalachian Mountain Club since 1983. I have overall responsibility for the club’s research in the areas of air quality, climate change, northeastern alpine research, hydropower relicensing, windpower siting policy and land conservation and management. I was the organizer of the Northeastern Mountain Stewardship Conference, held in Jackson, NH in 1988, co-organizer of the National Mountain Conference held in Golden, CO in 2000 and one of the original founders of what is now the biannual Northeastern Alpine Stewardship Symposiums. I have conducted research on New Hampshire and Maine’s mountains, including on Mount Katahdin, Saddleback, Sunday River Whitecap and the Mahoosucs. I am currently the principal investigator of a NOAA-funded research project titled “Climate and air pollutant trends and their influence on the biota of New England’s higher elevation and alpine ecosystems”, which includes partner organizations the University of New Hampshire and Mount Washington Observatory. I have been involved in research and policy development related to windpower siting in the northeast for over a decade. I have organized and chaired several forums on the need for states to develop windpower siting policy in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and spoken at a number of forums on this need.
    [Show full text]
  • Consideration of Removal of Places from the Expedited
    STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION & FORESTRY LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION 22 STATE HOUSE STATION WALTER E. WHITCOMB PAUL R. LEPAGE AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0022 COMMISSIONER GOVERNOR NICHOLAS D. LIVESAY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Memorandum To: LUPC Commissioners From: Tim Beaucage, Senior Planner Date: March 2, 2016 Re: Expedited Permitting Area Removal Petitions – Rulemaking to Remove Places from the Expedited Permitting Area In 2015 the legislature enacted Public Law 2015, Ch. 265, which became effective January 1, 2016. The statutory change created a six month time window within which registered voters in a given town, township, or plantation within the Commission’s jurisdiction may petition to have a place removed from the expedited area. Title 35‐A, section 3453‐A describes the mechanism by which the petition process is to take place, and provides the opportunity for any person to object to the removal of the specified place by requesting “substantive review” of the petition. Pursuant to the provisions of this section, when a valid petition is filed, the specified place automatically will be removed unless a person requests substantive review. On January 7th and 14th, the Commission staff posted a number of petitions to the Commission’s website. The corresponding deadlines for requesting substantive review closed on February 22nd and 29th. Although the Commission received some requests for substantive review, no requests were filed for 13 of the petitions: Big Moose Twp (21801); Harfords Point Twp (21811); Highland Plt (25150); Lexington Twp (25831); Moosehead Junction Twp (21816); Moxie Gore (25838); Parlin Pond Twp (25839); Rockwood Strip (T1 R1 NBKP) (25844); Sandbar Tract Twp (25848); The Forks Plt (25320); Trescott Township (29811); West Forks Plt (25330); and Freeman Twp (07808).
    [Show full text]
  • Kibby Wind Project Visual Impact Assessment Part A
    KIBBY WIND PROJECT Visual Impact Assessment April 2007 Jean E. Vissering Landscape Architecture KIBBY WIND POWER PROJECT VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Abstract: The following report examines the aesthetic impacts of the proposed Kibby Wind Power Project. The project would consist of 44 turbines located along the Kibby Range and portions of the Kibby Mountain ridge. Based on the criteria contained within the Maine Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and on standard visual impact assessment criteria, the proposed project would not result in undue adverse aesthetic impacts within the surrounding landscape. The project ridges are difficult to see generally, and are not distinctive in form or important focal points. They are not located near any designated recreational uses of either high sensitivity or of state or national significance. The proposed project would be over 15 miles away from the closest point of the Appalachian Trail. The project size is modest, occupying only two named ridges with numerous undeveloped ridges remaining around the project including the northernmost summit of Kibby Mountain itself. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Part I: Introduction 1 A. Purpose of Report …………………………………….... 1 B. Author Background and Qualifications ………………... 1 C. Aesthetic Assessment Methodology …………………… 2 Part II: Visual Impact Assessment 7 A. Project Description……………………………………... 7 B. Project Site Characteristics ……………………………... 8 C. Character of the Region ………………………………… 10 D. Visibility of the Proposed Project ……………………... 12 E. Sensitivity of Viewpoints ………………………………. 23 F. Assessment of Visual Impacts …………………………... 31 G. Rezoning Criteria and Land Use Review Standards ……. 39 H. Conclusions ……………………………………………... 41 Appendices A. Viewshed Maps Project Map 15- Mile Radius Viewshed 20-Mile Radius Viewshed Viewshed Methodology B.
    [Show full text]
  • USACE Environmental Assessment
    CENAE-RDC; NAE-2017-01342 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUBJECT: Department of the Army Environmental Assessment and Statement of Findings for the Above-Referenced Standard Individual Permit Application This document constitutes the Environmental Assessment, 404(b)(1) Guidelines Evaluation, as applicable, Public Interest Review, and Statement of Findings for the subject application. The construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of the proposed electric transmission facility at the proposed location for the U.S.-Canada international border crossing at Beattie Township will require authorization from the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in the form of a Presidential permit. The applicant applied to DOE on July 27, 2017 for a Presidential permit for the proposed Project in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 10485 (September 3, 1953), as amended by EO 12038 (February 3, 1978), and the regulations at 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 205.320 et seq. (2000), "Application for Presidential Permit Authorizing the Construction, Connection, Operation, and Maintenance of Facilities for Transmission of Electric Energy at International Boundaries." As required by 10 CFR 205.320(a), any entity "who operates an electric power transmission or distribution facility crossing the border of the United States, for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country, shall have a Presidential permit." The DOE Office of Electricity, Transmission Permitting and Technical Assistance Division, is responsible for reviewing Presidential permit applications and determining whether to grant a permit for electric transmission facilities that cross the United States' international border. The Presidential permit Docket Number for this project is PP-438. DOE will author an independent assessment in support of their permit decision and pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    [Show full text]
  • Rule Revisions: Petitions for the Removal of Certain Places from the Expedited Permitting Area for Wind Energy Development
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY MAINE LAND USE PLANNING COMMISSION Rule Revisions: Petitions For The Removal Of Certain Places From The Expedited Permitting Area For Wind Energy Development March 9, 2016 The following amendments propose changes to Chapter 10, Land Use Districts and Standards for Areas within the Jurisdiction of the Maine Land Use Planning Commission. This document only includes relevant sections of Chapter 10 and indicates additions in underline and deletions with a strikethrough. F. EXPEDITED PERMITTING AREA FOR WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT The following areas, not including areas below the high water mark of coastal wetlands, comprise the expedited permitting area for wind energy development to accomplish the purposes of “An Act to Implement Recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development”, P.L. 2007, ch. 661, and “An Act To Improve Regulatory Consistency within the Jurisdiction of the Maine Land Use Planning Commission,” P.L. 2015, ch. 265. The Commission may add and remove areas within its jurisdiction to and from the expedited permitting area for wind energy development in accordance with Title 35-A, Section 3453 and Section 3453-A. 1. Entire townships and plantations. The following entire townships and plantations: Albany Twp., 17802; Cary Plt., 03090; Alder Stream Twp., 07801; Centerville Twp., 29080; Argyle Twp., 19801; Chase Stream Twp., 25816; Bald Mountain Twp., T2 R3, 25805; Chester, 19100; Baring Plt., 29040; Codyville Plt., 29110; Barnard Twp., 21030; Concord Twp.,
    [Show full text]
  • Visitor's Guide to JACKMAN MAINE
    Visitor’s Guide to JACKMAN MAINE Jackman-Moose River Region Chamber of Commerce On the Old Canada Road Scenic Byway 1-888-633-5225 [email protected] Jackmanmaine.org Sparkling pure lakes, tumbling streams, sweeping mountains, and the vast north woods... Four Seasons of Fun! Acknowledgements EVENTS: There is something We would like to thank those who happening here all year like the helped put this guide together and to Hunters Supper, horseshoe those who donated the beautiful photography of our region. tournaments, golf tournaments, Tamara Cowen Christmas tree lighting, or our 4th John Farnsworth of July parade and fireworks. You Marlene Griffin Nick Hamel can always find out what is Briana Harris planned on our events page: Annie Nielsen Jeffrey Rancourt Sadie Theriault Eric Winsor Jackmanmaine.org Copyright 2018 Jackman Moose River Region Chamber of Commerce. Sparkling pure lakes, tumbling streams, sweeping mountains, and the vast north woods... Four Seasons of Fun! Maine’s Hidden Treasure The Jackman-Moose River Region book; FALL with its spectacular palette Chamber of Commerce invites you to of colors ushers in the bird, bear, deer visit our world of scenic beauty and and moose hunting seasons. Shortly quiet splendor. Whatever season you thereafter, WINTER descends and the choose, there’s something for valley becomes a wonderland for cross everyone to enjoy. country skiing, SPRINGTIME offers some snowshoeing, ice of the best fishing to be fishing, and found in the northeast; snowmobiling on SUMMERTIME is delightful hundreds of miles of with moderate daytime scenic groomed trails. temperatures and Whether you’re evenings just right for sleeping after a looking for great recreation or peaceful day of boating, canoeing, kayaking, relaxation, what could be better than whitewater rafting, mountain biking, time in the great outdoors! ATV riding, or just enjoying a good WHERE TO STAY ALLEN’S FOUR SEASONS ACCOMMODATIONS 37 John's Street, Jackman, ME 04945; 207-668-7683, [email protected] Campground, Laundromat, public showers, rec.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Existing and Potential Wind Power Development on High-Value Scenic Resources in Maine
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Lithologic and Structural Controls on the Geomorphology of the Mountainous Areas in North-Central Maine
    Maine Geological Survey Studies in Maine Geology: Volume 5 1989 The Lithologic and Structural Controls on the Geomorphology of the Mountainous Areas in North-Central Maine Lindley S. Hanson Department of Geological Sciences Salem State College Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dabney W. Caldwell Department of Geology Boston University Boston, Massachusetts 02215 ABSTRACT In the mountainous areas of north-central Maine, the highest peaks are commonly formed in hornfelsic rocks which surround Acadian plutons. Quartzites and felsic volcanic rocks form ridges and steep-sided mountains. The only summit supported by granitic rock is Mount Katahdin, which has a resistant cap of granophyre that overlies the weaker granular-textured granite. Lowlands are underlain by platonic rock, of both granitic and gabbroic composition, and by pervasively cleaved pelitic rocks. In Maine, the area of greatest relief occurs in a northeast-trending belt, referred to here as the Central Highlands. High peaks that exceed 4000 feet (1220 m) are most abundant in the Rangeley area, western Maine. The highlands continue into New Hampshire to the even higher peaks of the Presidential Range. In the center of the belt, near Greenville, there are no peaks that rise above 4000 feet (1220 m). All other high elevations are associated with the Katahdin massif, near the northeastern terminus of this mountainous region. The rugged topography of the Central Highlands has formed from the erosion of the Acadian orogen, which was either originally higher toward the southwest or has been differentially uplifted by one or more subsequent thermal events. Trellis drainage systems are best developed in areas of low-grade, regionally metamorphosed sandstones and petites.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017-7-26 Presidential Permit Application
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ELECTRICITY DELIVERY AND ENERGY RELIABILITY Docket No. PP-_____ APPLICATION OF CENTRAL MAINE POWER COMPANY FOR A PRESIDENTIAL PERMIT FOR THE NEW ENGLAND CLEAN ENERGY CONNECT July 26, 2017 Pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended by Executive Order 12038, Central Maine Power Company hereby applies to the United States Department of Energy for a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities for the transmission of electric energy at the international border between the United States and Canada. This application is made pursuant to the United States Department of Energy’s applicable administrative procedures (10 C.F.R. §§ 205.320, et. seq.). {W6269174.1} Contents GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................................ 12 SECTION 1 INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPLICANT ............................................................ 16 1.1. Legal Name and Description of Applicant ........................................................................16 1.2. Legal Names of All Partners ...................................................................................................16 1.3. Correspondence and Communications .............................................................................16
    [Show full text]