Redington/Black Nubble Wind back

Developer:  Maine Mountain Power / Endless Energy / Edison International
Wasco County, OR

• Project Background
• Maine Context
• Siting and Zoning
• Environmental Assessment and Public Discourse
• Conclusions
• Bibliography

"OK, so you can see wind turbines from the Appalachian Trail. You can also see and hear aircraft flying overhead at frequent intervals or steeples of churches, God forbid! There are always reminders of civilization on the trail, including hiking boots and backpacks, not to mention hiking poles or cell phones! Keep things in perspective, I suggest."
-Klaus Kleinschmidt
Lancaster, Mass.
AMC Outdoors Magazine, November 2004

Project Background top

The Redington Wind project was proposed in Franklin County by Maine Mountain Power, a company jointly owned by Edison International and Endless Energy Company. It was originally proposed as a thirty turbine project on both Redington and Black Nubble Mountains, but was later scaled back to eighteen turbines on only Black Nubble Mountain. The turbines were to be large three megawatt generators. The project is referred to as both the Redington Wind Farm and the Black Nubble Wind Farm. Franklin County is home to 29,857 people with about 17 people per square mile. According to the 2000 census, the county has a median household income of $35,891.

While the area is sparsely populated, it is enjoyed as a recreational area for many people from Maine and neighboring states. As originally proposed, the project would have been within a mile of the Appalachian Trail. Hikers could have been within four miles of the wind farm for seventeen miles of their trek. The second proposal made the closest turbines over three miles away. The proposed project was also close to the Sugarloaf ski area and its associated development.

The development was to be on mountaintop land owned by Redington Mountain Windpower, LLC, which is a subsidiary of the developer, Endless Energy. Unlike in many other projects, there were no private landowners with whom the developer had to negotiate leases.

Maine Context top

Maine has an aggressive Renewable Portfolio Standard, calling for 40% renewable energy by 2017. The Renewable Portfolio Standards of Connecticut and Massachusetts also create an incentive for wind development in Maine. Still, the state ranks 25th in installed capacity, with only 103.6 MW of installed wind projects. There are an additional 25.5 MW under construction. Even in the scaled-back proposal, the 54 MW project on Black Nubble Mountain would be one of the largest wind projects in New England.
Many of the sites with the best wind resources in Maine are in the relatively unpopulated western and northern parts of the state. This area largely coincides with the jurisdiction of the Maine Land Use Regulation Committee, which makes land use decisions in the "unorganized areas."

Siting and Zoning top

The developer states that the site was chosen for its proximity to roads and transmission lines and its "excellent wind resource." The area also has significant existing development and use, from a ski resort to extensive logging. The developer believed this would minimize environmental impacts.

The project required that the Maine Land Use Regulation Committee (LURC) rezone about 1000 acres to a Planned Development subdistrict. Maine Mountain Power applied for such a rezoning in December 2005 and revised that application in February 2006. LURC denied the application for rezoning in June 2007. Maine Mountain Power reapplied for a smaller project the next month, but were again rejected, apparently ending the years old effort to put wind turbines on Black Nubble and Redington peaks.

Anticipating "that the proposal will generate a significant amount of interest," LURC created a website for the regulatory consideration of Black Nubble. The website links to pertinent law and procedural rules and contains a catalogue of meetings, hearings and documents pertaining to the application process, going back to 2002. The website is a remarkable resource for citizens interested in the process, in the legal context or in being involved. Through that website, LURC offered postal or email notices "about upcoming events, hearings and important deadlines" regarding the project.

LURC's process included a period for public review and comment and at least four public hearings. In addition, interested parties could apply for intervenor status, and intervenors had their own conference with the applicant and submitted comments.

The developer submitted a Draft Petition for Rezoning in December, 2005. A series of hearings, public comments, conferences and a site visit led to denial of the application by LURC commissioners in June 2007. This appears to be against the recommendation of the LURC staff, who recommended approving the rezoning. LURC commissioners decided that the project was not consistent with the Commission’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Maine Mountain Power, LLC quickly reapplied for a scaled down version of the proposal, including only eighteen turbines on one mountain. That application was also denied in January 2008.

In the Spring of 2009, after discussion with Endless Energy Corporation, the town of Carrabassett Valley proposed annexing the unincorporated land encompassing the project site. With the land no longer under the jurisdiction of LURC, Endless Energy could have applied for permits to the the town directly. In Maine, the state legislature must approve such an annexation before putting it before town residents in a referendum. The State and Local Government Committee approved the measure with a vote of 8-3. Later, however, it conclusively failed to pass the senate by a 29 to 6 vote. Senators apparently agreed with opponents that the move would set a poor precident for avoiding unfavorable LURC rulings on development plans.

Environmental Impact Statement and Public Discourse top

The Redington Wind Farm did not require a federal Environmental Impact Statement or a state equivilent. The rezoning application, submitted to LURC, included an environmental impact analysis. The developer also had to apply for permits from the State Department of Environmental Protection and Army Corps of Engineers.
The Visual Impact Assesment section of the rezoning application was prepared by Terrence J. DeWan & Associates (TJD&A), a local landscape architecture firm. TJD&A analyzed the project's visual impacts using established methods for forestry projects, in terms of its foreground, midground and background impacts. They noted that there is no public access to points where the turbines would dominate the foreground (within half a mile). The midground (half a mile to four miles) was to be the most impacted area. TJD&A estimated that there would be about 1,150 feet of Appalachian Trail where the turbines would be visible from under four miles. From between four and fifteen miles, the topography and vegetation would shield the turbines from most viewpoints. They argued that where they could be seen in the background, "the effects of distance and atmospheric perspective often will obliterate the surface textures, detailing, and form of any project components."
DJD&A catalogued visually sensitive sites such as parks, historic sites and scenic byways, which occur within fifteen miles of the project. Because the proposed project is fairly remote and in a wooded, mountainous area, it seemed it would not be visible from many such sites. The Appalachian Trail sections were the main exception to that finding.

DJD&A photographed the project site from many locations, during "on-leaf" and "off-leaf" seasons. These photographs were used to make photosimulations of the project. Using ESRI's 3D Analyst software, they created 3D models of the turbine towers, transmission lines and roads. These were added to the original photographs using Adobe Photoshop.

DJD&A considered the affected population, breaking it down into residents, working population and recreating population (which was further broken down into groups participating in different activities, such as skiers, hikers, snowmobilers). Residents were said to be highly sensitive to visual changes, but minorly impacted, because of the remoteness of the project. The working population (those involved in forestry in the area) were expected to be minimally sensitive to the change. Recreational users, were expected to have high expectations for their views. DJD&A then did what is seldom done in VIAs. They surveyed the affected population.

Figure 1: Official simulation from Sugarloaf Mountain.

The first intercept survey was performed in 2004 by Market Decisions, a Maine market research firm. The survey was designed with input from the Appalachian Trail Club and the Appalachian Mountain Club, both of which opposed the project. They surveyed people by intercepting them at sites where the project would be visible, showing them photosimulations and asking them about their impressions. They surveyed hikers (57% thought the development appropriate, 23% thought it inappropriate), hunters (67% supported the development, 20% opposed), local residents (68% supported, 16% opposed), skiers (72% supported, 15% opposed) and snowmobilers (63% supported, 25% opposed). In 2003 and 2004, Market Decisions surveyed hikers in the area again. The second survey used superior photosimulations, reflecting a decade's technological improvement. The results were similarly positive towards the development, with 60% of hikers finding the wind farm would have no effect or a positive effect on their hiking experience.

The Readington Wind Farm proposal attracted controversy from the very beginning. Many of the groups taking positions for or against the project were existing organizations committed to protecting the area. The Maine Appalachian Trail Club (MATC) and the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) sent representatives to the 2002 Pre-application Conference. Both groups became official intervenors, opposing the initial project, along with the Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) and Friends of the Western Mountains (FWM). NRCM proposed the alternative plan of fewer turbines on only Black Nubble Mountain, and endorsed the developer's revised proposal.

In comments to LURC, the Maine Appalachian Land Trust opposed the project, calling for state guidelines for wind siting. Maine Audubon feared harm to birds. Friends of the Boundary Mountains wanted to preserve the area for "their traditional uses of recreation and forestry."

Figure 2: Photo simulation from Sugarloaf Cirque by Matt Robinson. Photo courtesy of Appalachian Trail Conservancy

Groups associated with the Appalachian trail were among the foremost opponents of the wind development. The Appalachian Mountain Club directors issued a statement in opposition, fearing the project "would violate the natural beauty of the area, detract from the enjoyment of the natural Maine environment and do serious economic and aesthetic damage to the trail, the surrounding communities and the enjoyment of many thousands of Maine residents and visitors." The governors of the ATC were unanimous in their opposition to the wind farm, fearing it posed a threat to the area's "scenic beauty, remote character, rugged terrain, high mountain vistas and its undeveloped landscape."

The National Park Service (NPS) strongly opposed the project due to its proximity to the Appalachian Trail, which is part of the National Park System. Noting that they were not opposed to wind development in general, and had not opposed other projects which stood farther from the trail, the NPS argued against this one "because of the unmitigatable visual impacts and the alteration of the sense of remoteness that characterizes this particular stretch of the AT." The NPS hired a landscape architect, Eric Crews, to review the VIA and prepare comments. According to comments submitted to LURC, he determined that the affected section of trail "provides a backcountry hiking experience, that the 'natural-appearing' views along this stretch of the AT create a 'sense of remoteness', and that 'remoteness is undermined by man-made alterations of the landscape.'"

Along with aesthetic concerns, the Appalachian Trail organizations warned that the project would endanger plants and animals, especially seventeen rare species, including the Bicknell Thrush. Concerns about impacts on wildlife seemed focused on construction, and the slow rate of revegetation in alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems.

Figure 3: Protest against Redington Wind

Although the leaders of the Appalachian Trail organizations formed a united front against the development, many of their constituents were less circumspect. The various Appalachian Trail publications were filled with lively debate including many letters written by hikers in support of the wind development. As noted above, Endless Energy commissioned a survey from Market Decisions in 1994 to assess the attitudes of various groups. One-hundred and sixty hikers were surveyed on the trail, near potential viewpoints, and shown visualizations of the proposed wind farm.

The developer worked hard to show public support for the project, not only with this survey—which was presented in the application—but also with a petition and by encouraging supporters to write letters and attend hearings. Their website contains a long list of individual supporters.

Many organizations supported the project as well. This included health organizations such as the American Lung Association of Maine, Maine Public Health Association and the Physicians for Social Responsibility/Maine. Project supporters also included environmental groups, such as the Conservation Law Foundation, Environment Maine and Maine Global Climate Change, Inc. Lastly, economic development organizations such as the Maine Center for Economic Policy, the Franklin County Development Corporation and the Maine State Chamber of Commerce all lined up behind the project. The Natural Resources Council of Maine strongly backed the wind development after it was proposed as a smaller project restricted to Black Nubble mountain.

One point that proponents and opponents of the project seemed able to agree on was the neccessity of updating Maine's guidelines for wind development. Theo Stein, an editorial writer at the Portland Press Herald, bemoaned LURC's decision and noted that it was based on outdated criteria. The state legislature has set a high goal for increasing wind production, but LURC is evaluating new projects based on a Comprehensive Land Use Plan last revised in 1997, before wind was prioritized. He urged the legislature to create new guidelines for siting wind because "the best decisions... aren't likely to be made if we're going to fight these things mountain by mountain."

Opponents of the project also saw such a need. The AMC urged the state to adopt the guidelines developed by their Senior Staff Scientist, Dave Publicover. They argued that his "model incorporates more than a dozen established ecological, recreational, and scenic criteria for each potential location, including whether it is on conservation land, in important wildlife areas, or lies within view of the Appalachian Trail." They would assign points based on those criteria, which would determine the acceptability of the site for wind development.
Maine Audubon also took the step of creating guidelines for the state's consideration. They identify a set of "wildlife themes" to consider for any site. Their guidelines are far less concerned with visual impacts than are those of the AMC. They stated in a press release, “We hope state regulators adopt these guidelines and that wind-power developers use them to avoid project sites that threaten high-value wildlife habitat.”

Governor Baldacci created a "Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development" in May of 2007, and its recomendations were made into law in April of 2008. The stated objective was to make Maine a leader in wind energy while protecting its "quality of place and natural resources."

Conclusion top

While this project appears to have failed, Maine Mountain Power and LURC seem to have succeeded in some areas where other developers and lead agencies have not. The siting process was transparent, the applicant was flexible to community concerns and a compromise was made to mitigate the greatest impacts of the project. And yet, the project failed, about fifteen years after the developer first proposed it. This may have been because the Appalachian Trail organizations represented an organized, experienced and professional opposition to the project. Maine's governor and legislature responded to calls for updated guidelines, offering the hope that future projects would be easier to develop while mitigating their impacts.

Full Bibliography top

Black Nubble Wind Farm Development Application." July 9, 2007. http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc/projects/redingtonrevised/Click_to_Start.htm (accessed July 7, 2008).

Carroll, Catherine. "Denial of Zoning Petition ZP 702 LURC Decision (2007), http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc/projects/redington/ZP%20702%20Denial%20final%20draft%5B15-16-06%5D.doc. (accessed July 7, 2008).

"Endless Energy: Redington Hiker Support Letters." http://endlessenergy.com/RMhikersupport.shtml/ (accessed July 7, 2008).

"Maine Audubon Releases Wind-power Siting Guidelines" January 10, 2008, http://www.maineaudubon.org/news/1.14.08_wind_guidelines.shtml. (accessed July 10, 2008).

"Maine Mountain Power | Redington Wind Farm." 2006. http://mainemountainpower.com/default.htm (accessed July 7, 2008).

"Maine Summits Protected–Appalachian Trail Conservancy." February 2008. http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.839393/k.8DFF/Maine_Wind_Farm.htm (accessed July 7, 2008).

"Project Update: Proposed Wind Farm in Redington Township." January 8, 2008. http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc/projects/redington.html (accessed July 7, 2008).

Stein, Theo. "Redington Fight Emblematic of Maine's Challenge." Red Orbit, January 31, 2007, http://www.redorbit.com/news/politics/822270/redington_fight_emblematic_of_maines_challenge/index.html. (accessed July 7, 2008).

"Visual Impact Assessment." Black Nubble Wind Farm Application (2007), http://mainegov-images.informe.org/doc/lurc/projects/redingtonrevised/Documents/Section06_Visual_Scenic/Section_6_Visual_Scenic_Report.pd. (accessed July 7, 2008).

Image Bibliography

Figure 1 - Maine Mountain Power. "Black Nubble Wind Farm Development Application." <http://www.maine.gov/doc/lurc/projects/redingtonrevised/Click_to_Start.htm>. (Accessed August 5, 2008).

Figure 2 - Robinson, Matt. "Redington Wind Farm in Maine Rejected." The Vista, February 5, 2007. <http://americanhiking.chattablogs.com/archives/044720.html>. (Accessed August 5, 2008).

Figure 3 - Wellenbach, Pat. "LURC stymies western Maine wind power project." The Associated Press, Bangor Daily News, January 25, 2008. <http://bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=145573&zoneid=500>. (Accessed August 5, 2008).