Co-Chairs' comments on Saddleback draft permit

Dear Mr. Margerum,

We oppose the issuance of a permit for the Saddleback Wind project and submit the following comments in response to the draft permit issued for the Saddleback Wind Project: 

Criteria 5. Noise  

In the draft permit the Department relies on testimony by former MCDC director Dora Mills in the BEP citizens’ rulemaking process, wherein she states, “"there is no credible scientific evidence at this time supporting directly caused health problems, diseases or syndromes resulting from wind turbines that are in compliance with Maine’s regulations and current modeling strategies."    

What the draft permit fails to mention is that, in response to the preponderance of testimony submitted during the process, the BEP has approved new noise regulations for wind turbines, requiring nighttime operation to not exceed 42 decibels.  The BEP recognized the potential for more citizens to be negatively impacted by turbines if the existing noise regulations were not amended to provide more protection for people living near turbines.   The Department should recognize the actions of the BEP, which has oversight over the Department, and include the BEP’s decision in the findings of fact in its decision on Saddleback.  We thus contest unequivocally the acceptance by DEP of Doctor Mills' opinion on the absence of health effects of wind turbines under current DEP noise regulations. 

In the draft permit the Department recognizes the “rapidly evolving” post construction avian monitoring protocols, and conditions the permit on future changes to the requirements for such monitoring, and adaptive measures if necessary to limit avian and bat mortality risk.   In the same spirit, the Department must recognize the “rapidly evolving” science of wind turbine noise impacts.  The permit, if issued,  should contain a condition that if the project leads to community complaints the Department may require changes to the allowable noise limits for this project in compliance with any new noise rules in effect. 

Noise Reduced Operation (NRO) has not been proven to achieve claimed reductions in noise levels on Vinalhaven and is an unenforceable condition since the Department has no way of confirming the operational status of wind projects in real time.  Since the applicant rejects reduced cut-in speeds to minimize bat mortality for economic reasons, (see #7 below) it follows that permit conditions which reduce electrical production to minimize noise impacts would also be undesirable and ripe for abuse.   The Department should not allow NRO as a means of compliance.

Alice Barnett’s dwelling meets the definition of a residential structure.  It is not a recreational vehicle, which implies that it is self propelled.  It is not a tent or a watercraft.  It is a trailer like many other seasonal dwellings, made permanent by the removal of wheels and axles, and lacking only the issuance of a waste water permit to be in complete compliance with local and state regulations.   Most importantly, it is in fact a place of residence with real human beings living in it.  It is her property and she has every right to live on it and enjoy the protections afforded by Maine’s noise limits.  To deny her this protection is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.   At a minimum there should be a noise easement conveyed on this property.  Lacking an easement, or the acquisition of the property,  the applicant must adhere to the noise limits for a protected location.

Criteria 6. Scenic Character

The scenic impact of wind turbines conflicts with every effort the state has made in the past 50 years to preserve and protect Maine’s scenic mountain assets.  As recently as 2002 conservationists worked hard for public and private funding to permanently conserve nearly 12,000 acres near Saddleback. This land and the adjacent Mount Blue State Park are considered a scenic resource of state or national significance by the Wind Law.   While the Wind Law says that the presence of turbines from a scenic resource of state or national significance alone is not necessarily an unreasonable impact, the relative importance of the scenic resource must be taken into account.  The draft decision does not appear to recognize this concept. 

For instance, while Halfmoon Pond is a protected scenic resource of state or national significance, the visual impact of turbines on Saddleback  from Halfmoon Pond is less severe,  because views of Saddleback are screened by dense foliage and Saddleback is not a dominant feature on the landscape. 

On the contrary, viewers on Mount Blue and other peaks in the protected Blue State Park will be drawn to the stark image of large kinetic machines in an otherwise natural, seemingly wild and undeveloped landscape.   To quantify the view as a narrow portion of the viewshed is ludicrous.    Wind turbines are like a hairy mole on an otherwise attractive face.  Your vision is drawn to them and it is them impossible to ignore them.  Considering the cumulative impact of Record Hill and Saddleback, and knowing that other wind projects are in various stages of development in the River Valley area,  it will be impossible to look out from Mount Blue or Tumbledown and not see turbines prominently featured in the view.  

Turbines do not belong in the viewshed of protected, highly popular destination peaks such as Mount Blue and other peaks within the Mount Blue State Park.  To say the impact is low to moderate is arbitrary and capricious.  The turbines currently under construction in Roxbury, about 5 miles from Tumbledown, are a prominent feature on the landscape when viewed from the summit, regardless of the number of degrees of horizontal area they occupy.  Turbines on Saddleback will add to the cumulative effect of Maine’s western mountains becoming increasingly cluttered with wind turbines. 

With  regard to the draft permit’s mention of opinion polls taken by the applicant, the attitude of hikers or others whose opinions about the visual impact of turbines are polled is irrelevant.  There must be a presumption that wind turbines are somehow good for the environment for people to accept their intrusion on the landscape and pronounce them acceptable.  There is no scientific evidence that wind turbines in Maine’s mountains will result in significant emissions reductions.  The Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power recognized this fact:

               • Confusion over the benefits of wind power development. Wind power displaces electricity generated from fossil fuels and reduces emissions of atmospheric greenhouse gases and a variety of other pollutants (SOx, NOx, mercury, etc.). However, because backup plants, many of which burn fossil fuels, are needed for when wind velocities are low, there has been some confusion among both the public and decision-makers over whether and the degree to which these benefits really exist. This confusion needs to be clarified dispositively so that the regulatory process can focus on real environmental issues.

The topic of whether or not wind power projects actually result in reductions of atmospheric

pollutants has somewhat surprisingly turned out to be a major issue in the public dialogue at

recent hearings.

The Governor's Task Force did not attempt to provide a scientific answer to the questions raised about wind power’s effectiveness, but rather passed the issue to the legislature to decide “dispositively”.  Since the resulting Expedited Wind Law, LD 2283,  was a governor’s emergency bill,  the governor had the bill drafted to make emissions benefits a presumption, without the necessary scientific rigor that such a presumption requires.   The bill was passed “under the hammer” by the legislative body without any debate and most legislators never read the bill or understood the ramifications of their lack of scrutiny. 

Propaganda by the wind industry has influenced the misperception of the public that wind turbines are beneficial.   For example, such inaccurate statements as “wind power will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil”, by high profile people such as Angus King, have created a distorted view of wind power in the public eye. 

For these reasons, the views of hikers polled by the applicant as evidence of the acceptability of the visual impact of the turbines, hikers whose opinions may be based on the false propaganda of self serving wind industry promoters, should carry no weight. 

No reasonable person can argue that a mountain in its natural state is not preferable to a mountain whose ridge is lined with the largest industrial machines currently in production on this planet.   Placed in the historic context of Maine’s long and effective conservation movement and state policies protecting the high elevations, the proliferation of turbines near protected places flies in the face of the type of stewardship of the landscape that Mainers have supported repeatedly over the decades.

In 2002 then Governor Angus King announced the permanent conservation of 11,600 acres around Tumbledown Mt:

“Today, nearly 12,000 acres of forestland, including popular hiking trails up Tumbledown Mountain and a pristine alpine pond at its summit, have been protected forever,” said Governor Angus S. King, Jr. “Maine's congressional delegation played a critical role by securing federal funding for this purchase. In addition, I would like to highlight the critical funding provided by the Land for Maine's Future Program, the leadership of the Department of Conservation in spearheading this effort, and the partnership of many private organizations and supporters. Maine citizens will benefit for generations from the legacy we are leaving today.”

Joining King was Senator Olympia Snowe:

“From its inception, the protection of Tumbledown has been guided by a shared vision for conserving and managing Maine's scenic and unique forestland, which is why I fought so hard to secure the federal funding that, in part, makes this announcement possible,” said U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), who with Senator Collins spearheaded efforts to secure $2.1 million in federal funding for the Tumbledown project."

Permitting this project in such close proximity to Mount Blue State Park, and the peaks within the park, is a crime against Maine’s landscape, against all of the efforts over the years to protect it, and against present and future generations of residents and visitors who will be denied the opportunity to enjoy it in its natural state.  

Criteria 7.  Wildlife and Fisheries

Bats

MDIFW  recommended a 5 m/s cut-in speed during migration periods to minimize risk to bat species.  The applicant responded that such a recommendation if implemented would have an adverse economic impact on their project.   There is no mention in the draft permit of the recommendations made by USFWS, (see the attached letter dated May 11, 2011 which was cc’d to Mark Margerum) which USFWS requested be made part of the permit conditions. (This letter is not included in the DEP online database for the Saddleback project, but since it was cc'd to Mark Margerum there should be a hard copy in the record.)  The recommendations contained in the USFWS letter include the need for more radar studies due to the unexpectedly high numbers of birds detected in earlier radar studies, and concurrence with MDIFW that cut- in speed for the turbines should be increased during periods of high risk to bats.  

Why have the recommendations of MDIFW and USFWS been ignored by the Department?  These are the 3rd party experts the Department should rely on in crafting a permit,  not ignored because the applicant complains about the cost.  Bat numbers are in a precipitous decline because of white nose syndrome.  It is irresponsible to create unnecessary risk to remaining bat populations when research based measures recommended by state and federal agencies are available.  

Golden Eagles

The draft permit is silent about golden eagles despite the lengthy discussion of golden eagles in the letter from USFWS.  Information in the  letter from USFWS is in direct conflict with the claim that raptor migration, particularly golden eagles which are an endangered species,  is greater closer to the coast.  According the letter from USFWS, recent telemetry data from radio tagged golden eagles “clearly shows that the mountains of western Maine are the primary migration corridor for the Gaspe population of golden eagles”.  

Further, in the letter from USFWS the date ranges of spring and fall golden eagle migration through Maine are given.  Spring migration occurs from March 10-25, yet the applicant did not begin raptor surveys until April.  Fall migration occurs over a 5 week period from October 15 to November 20 and yet the applicant only conducted surveys on two days during the first week of this period, on October 16 and 23 for a total of 10.67 hours of observation.  How can the Department ignore in its findings of fact the information submitted by USFWS?  How can MIFWS not comment on the inadequacy of the golden eagle surveys?  In view of the absence of golden eagle surveys during the time period when golden eagles are known to be migrating the applicant should be required to perform fall and spring surveys during the appropriate time periods prior to construction.     

Respectfully submitted,

Monique Aniel, MD  and Steve Thurston, co-chairs

Citizens’ Task Force on Wind Power

PO Box345   Oquossoc, ME 04964