is the DEP slowly understanding the concept of cumulative impacts ?

hello  folks
for  those  who attended the Dixfield meeting on Saddleback  project you may remember that James  Cassida said  that after  the meeting it was  clear that the DEP would  ask for few more questions to Patriot Renewables. Following is the response from Mark Margerum to my email on this topic .
I am baffled by the last one concerning cumulative impacts :are cumulative impacts finally coming into DEP 's  assessments of wind projects ? This is certainly not part of LD 2283 !
Is common sense coming into their minds ? Is this a "calming the rebels " tactic ? You take your pick .
But is is  most annoying to see that Mark Margerum is asking the applicant whether there are any project within 8 miles of a significant scenic resource from which the saddleback project could be seen ! Does he not have access to the DEP files on Roxbury ? Is he not aware of Longfellows ,Colonel Holman mountain's projects and their location  ? Is this the job of Patriot Renewable to inform the DEP on Record Hill  location .?  etc,,,,,What would happened if Patriot Renewable would say that they are NOT aware of any other project ? would that be a comfortable answer for DEP ?\I urge any one of you interested in that question to pursue it futher with Mark Margerum .
monique
 
Monique
    
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 9:14 AM
Subject: RE: Saddleback

Since the public meeting last month the applicant has proposed a new turbine blade design for the Saddleback project.  This necessitated the revision of the noise study, and updates of the visual impact and shadow flicker assessments.  These materials have been posted to the Department’s webpage on the Saddleback application, linked below.  The Department’s review of this modification will add two to three months to the processing of this application.  The Department will continue to accept public comments on all the application materials during this time.

 

Also since the public meeting the Department has directed four questions to the applicant, below.  When we receive the answers to these questions they will be posted to the application webpage.  We have not received the transcript of the public meeting yet, but when we do we will also post that to the webpage.

 

Questions directed to applicant:

Ground Water Protection:  Public comments expressed questions about measures to protect private wells from potential contamination due to the construction or operation of the project.  Ordinarily additional groundwater protection measures are detailed in the project blasting plan and the project SPCC or Spill Prevention, Containment and Countermeasures plan which are required as a condition prior to construction.  Please identify any known public or private wells or springs within 4000 feet of any turbine location, substation, or proposed blasting activity.  Please describe the measures which you are proposing to protect these wells or other wells which might be discovered in the project vicinity, including any measures which will be a part of the SPCC or blasting plans, and explain the basis for your proposals.

 

Fire Risk:  Public comments expressed concerns about the risk of fire originating in a turbine and causing a forest fire.  Please describe any fire history with General Electric turbines, describe any design or operational measures proposed to reduce fire risk, and describe how you would detect and respond to a fire at a turbine.

 

Scenic Impact:  Public comments expressed concerns about the potential cumulative impact of multiple wind energy projects being proposed in the region.  Please identify any wind projects by you or others which have been approved at the state or local level, or for which applications have been submitted, that would be within eight miles of the significant scenic resources from which the Saddleback Ridge project will be visible.  Also, please identify any projects which you are currently planning within eight miles of these significant scenic resources.

 

Please provide NRO-1 & 2 octave band sound power levels by windspeed for the GE 2.75-103.

 

Sincerely,

Mark Margerum

Maine DEP

 

 


 

Views: 147

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by alice mckay barnett on May 9, 2011 at 8:28pm

thank you monique for posting,  i have not heard from Mark Margerum of DEP for weeks.

I guess they do not have a webmaster...so... who knows when we know.

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service