Appendix B – Comment Response Record Hill Responses to Comments DOE received 35 individual comment submissions totaling 167 individual comments. DOE reviewed each comment received on the Record Hill EA and has grouped the comments into the following comment categories as noted in Table 1. The individual commenters are identified in Table 2. Table 1 – Comment Response Matrix Section Topic Commenter Numbers Comments 1. NEPA Process 3, 15, 16, 18, 24, 26, 30 3a, 15a, 15m, 16b, 18e, 24a, 24m, 26a, 26l, 30f Purpose and 1, 2, 12, 14, 18, 25, 27, 28, 1a, 2a, 2c, 12a, 14c, 18b, 18d, 18l, 25a, 25i, 27a, 28b, 28c, 2. Need 29, 33 28d, 28f, 29a, 29b, 29c, 33h, 33i Proposed 1a, 3b, 16d, 18c, 18f, 18g, 18h,18i, 18m, 18n, 18o, 18q, 18r, 3. Action and 1, 3, 16, 18, 25, 29, 33 25b, 25c, 25h, 29d, 33h Alternatives Water 5, 15, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 5a, 15c, 15e, 15g, 18t, 18u, 18v, 20f, 23a, 24c, 24e, 24f, 4. Resources 26, 30, 32 25e, 25g, 26c, 26e, 26f, 30d, 30e, 32a 5. Noise 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 35 11a, 11b, 14a, 14d, 17c, 18w, 19a, 20g, 35a Historic, Archaeological, 6. 20, 22 20b, 22b and Cultural Resources Aesthetic and Visual 12b, 15i, 18k, 18s, 18x, 18z, 18ab, 18ac, 20d, 20e, 24h, 7. 12, 15, 18, 20, 24, 26, 33 Resources and 26h, 33e Topography 8. Shadow Flicker 14 14b, 14d Occupational 9. Health and 11, 14, 15, 21, 24, 26 11a, 11b, 14d, 15h, 21a, 24g, 26g, Public Safety 3c, 5a, 5b, 13a, 13b, 15b, 15c, 15d, 16c, 17a, 17b, 17d, 17e, Biological 3, 5, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 24, 10. 17f, 17g, 17h, 17i, 17j, 18k, 18ae, 18af, 18ag, 18ah, 24b, Resources 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33 24c, 24d, 25d, 26b, 26c, 26d, 27b, 28a, 30b, 30c, 33g 2, 5, 7, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 2a, 2b, 5b, 7a, 14b, 15j, 15k, 17j, 18y, 20e, 24i, 24j, 25f, 11. Socioeconomics 24, 25, 26, 33 26i, 26j, 33a Cumulative 12. 13, 17, 18 13c, 17c, 18e, 18ai Effects General 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 4a, 6a, 8a, 9a, 10a, 11c, 12b, 13b, 15f, 15l, 16a, 18a, 18ad, opposition and 13. 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 18j, 18n, 18p, 18aa, 20a, 20c, 20h, 22a, 24k, 24l, 24m, 25a, Local 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 26k, 28d, 28e, 29a, 29b, 30a, 31a, 33b, 33c, 33d, 33f, 34a Governance Table 2 - Comment Response Key Commenter Number Commenter Name Comments #1 Dan McKay 1a #2 Peter Buotte 2a – 2c #3 Bob Weingarten 3a – 3c #4 Judith Allen 4a #5 Penny Gray 5a – 5b #6 Kevin Corbett 6a #7 Penny Gray 7a #8 Mike 8a #9 Margery Ripley 9a #10 Mike 10a #11 Monique Aniel 11a – 11c #12 True Engineering, Inc./ 12a – 12b Gretchen Schreiner #13 Cathy Mattson 13a – 13c #14 Linda Kuras 14a – 14d #15 Coastal Counties Workforce Inc./ 15a – 15m Christine Dube #16 Casco Bay Engineering/ 16a – 16d Eric Dube #17 Greg Perkins 17a – 17j #18 Ron Dube 18a – 18ai #19 Steve Thurston 19a #20 Colleen Martineau 20a – 20h #21 Dan McKay 21a #22 Betsy Bell 22a – 22b #23 Maureen Hassett 23a #24 Silver Lake Camp Owners’ 24a – 24m Association/ Angela Arsenault #25 Alice Barnett 25a – 25i #26 Leola Ballweber 26a – 26l #27 Leola Ballweber 27a – 27b #28 Mountain Spring Farm B&B/ 28a – 28f Barry J. Allen #29 Steve Thurston 29a – 29d #30 Leo F. Kersey, Jr. 30a – 30f #31 Denise Hall 31a #32 Denis Bourassa 32a #33 Anne Morin 33a – 33i #34 Robert & Joann Moulton 34a #35 Rufus E. Brown, Esq. 35a The following responses are grouped by category and by subject within each category. For example, all the responses on comments related to bald eagles are addressed in a single response under biological resources. 1. NEPA Process Commenters 3, 15, 16, 18, 24, 26, and 30 Comments: 3a, 15a, 15m, 16b, 18e, 24a, 24m, 26a, 26l, 30f Several commenters provided comments on the overall process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Commenters stated that the EA was deficient and that an EIS should be prepared; that the data used in the analyses should not be provided by the Applicant; that independent environmental studies should be completed; questioned if DOE had actually visited the site; and that the project needed more in- depth research and needed to allow the citizens of Record Hill to provide documentation and testimony. Response 1 - DOE prepared the EA for the proposed Record Hill project in accordance with NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508) and DOE’s regulations for implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021). In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.5 environmental specialists within the Environmental Compliance Division of the Loan Programs Office (LPO) completed independent reviews of the data used in the analyses contained in the EA (validated all the information provided by the applicant), conducted site visits, and met with local officials and residents. Staff from the DOE LPO Environmental Compliance Division, including the Director, as well as several staff members from the DOE LPO financial and technical teams have visited the Record Hill site and surrounding area, and met with local officials and citizens. The independent environmental review and information collected during the site visits were used to assess and document the significance of the impacts associated with the proposed action by reviewing the context and intensity of the potential environmental impacts as defined at 40 CFR 1508.27. The consideration of context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole, the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. In the case of Record Hill, the regional context includes a rural area of Maine situated with numerous seasonal residents, the affected interests include the existing natural, physical, and socioeconomic features, while the locality of the project area consists of land owned by a timber company that manages the land to harvest timber. The intensity refers to the severity of the impact and several considerations are evaluated to determine the intensity, including: 1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. 2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. 3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. 5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. 6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. 8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. 9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. DOE documented its analyses of the impacts in the EA prepared for the proposed Record Hill project and ensured that accurate and sound environmental information was available to public officials and citizens before making a decision whether or not to issue a loan guarantee. In doing so, DOE issued the public Draft EA for the proposed Record Hill project for publication on February 16, 2011, by submitting the document to the State of Maine, posting an electronic copy on the DOE LPO NEPA website, and running an announcement in the Rumford Falls Times. In accordance with DOE’s regulations for implementing NEPA that specifies a 14 to 30 day comment period, DOE initially provided a full 30-day comment period (February 16 to March 18, 2011). Based on requests from public officials in Maine, DOE extended the comment period to April 1, 2011, to allow public officials and citizens an extended period of time to review and comment on the public draft EA. In accordance with NEPA and DOE’s regulations for its implementation, based on the findings and conclusions presented in the Final EA, DOE has determined that there would be no significant impacts, the preparation of an EIS is not required, and has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact. 2. Purpose and Need Commenters 1, 2, 12, 14, 25, 27, 28, 29, 33 Comments: 1a, 2a, 2c, 12a, 14c, 18b, 18l, 25a, 25i, 27a, 28b, 28c, 28d, 29a, 29b, 29c, 33h Several commenters expressed general concern regarding the purpose and need of the proposed Federal action. The comments questioned the need for using or risking taxpayer money to fund or subsidize the proposed project, and that the federal loan guarantee is not needed for the proposed project because of existing and sufficient financial backing. Commenters also expressed concern about taxpayers providing subsidies for private enterprises, particularly innovative, clean energy development that is unproven economically and technically.