The Land Use Regulation Commission is considering a request from TransCanada to allow extension of its Kibby wind farm into a portion of LURC jurisdiction that has been considered unexpedited. Currently this area is subject to the usual protected mountain zoning restrictions.
This request has focused attention on the rules governing such expansion. We recall that the Wind Power Task force enabling legislation was rapidly moved through the Legislature last year. It is our belief that these rules are currently too vague and permissive. Because a central part of our chapter’s mission relates to protection of the habitat in our region, western Maine, we have taken particular care to study this project and the implications of its expansion.
Rather than allow this project to go forward at this time we feel that a moratorium on expansion of the expedited territories is called for pending better definition of these rules. Furthermore, because the siting criteria for wind power lack provision for adequate study of wildlife and environmental impacts, we believe a general moratorium should be put in place until we have better assessment methods.
We share with our parent organization, Maine Audubon, a belief that properly sited, wind power can play a role in reducing our reliance on non renewable energy sources. However, also like our parent organization, our chapter’s foremost concern is how the location of wind-power plants might affect wildlife. Potential impacts include effects on soils and plants, bird and bat migration patterns, fragmentation of habitat from roads and power lines, and bird and bat morality from the turbines themselves.
While there has been pressure to move ahead with projects as quickly as possible, we believe a deliberate approach makes more sense. In its recent publication, Birdscope, The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology cautioned that at this point proper studies have not been done. Even more fundamentally, they believe that the proper technologies and methods have yet to be developed to conduct these studies properly. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has recommended a minimum of three years of study before wind project sites are approved to assess wildlife impacts yet no Maine project has yet gotten this kind of assessment.
The original wind power legislation was passed quickly but in reality we should proceed with such key land use decisions with due diligence.
Since LURC is now being asked to expand the expedited wind zone we believe the criteria for expansion needs to be redrawn to reflect these issues. These criteria should include guidelines for assessment of wildlife impacts along the lines of the USFWS recommendations.
In conclusion, we would like to stress that we offer these recommendations in a constructive spirit, hoping to play a positive role in decisions about the future of the mountains in which we live and which we love. Maine has a long history of making difficult conservation decisions: a good example would be LURC’s courageous and far-sighted creation of the Rangeley Plan. In that instance the commission articulated a plan and other state agencies involved in the siting of wind power in the mountains to view our recommendations in the light of such examples.
Burt Knapp, president
Paul McGuire
Christine Blais
Nancy Knapp
Steve Bien
Peggy Dwyer
Vera Traften
Art Wilder
Nick Rehagen
Robin Lee
Sallie Wilder
Cindy Langwisch Rehagen
I’m happy to see a few members of Audubon are seeing the light. But let’s not forget:
1) Maine Audubon’s $5,000 – $9,999 donor list includes Central Maine Power, First Wind LLC, and Stantec Consulting (formerly known as Woodlot Alternatives, the company that does avian risk assessments for wind companies; the Stetson I project was one of its contracts).
2) Jody Jones, a Wildlife Ecologist with Maine Audubon was a member of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development and played a role in crafting the expedited wind zone legislation.
Bravo for this Western Maine Audubon group’s stand! But I agree with Gary Campbell. Two years ago, on behalf of Friends of Lincoln Lakes, I went to the Maine Audubon headquarters in Falmouth and I was treated like a leper when I made known that I wanted to talk to someone about the impact of First Wind’s turbines on the eagles that nest on three of the Lincoln Lakes, plus the ospreys and loons.
I finally was shuttled off to some lowly staffer, obviously an out of stater, who didn’t even know where Lincoln is. The response? The line that air pollution and climate change will hurt the birds more than wind turbines! What claptrap! Later, I tried in vain to speak with Jody Jones.
Same thing happened with Nature Conservancy. After writing a letter and dropping it off with a cd of the powerpoint presentation on the Friends of Lincoln Lakes, I gave up on anyone there ever taking a phone call or giving me the courtesy of a returned call.
These arrogant environmental elitists have decided to be closed minded about industrial wind turbines proliferating in rural Maine..
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5187502-losing-endangered-species-to-green-energy-the-wind-industry-and-the-incidental-take-permit
The Wind Industry and the Incidental Take Permit
Every day at wind farms across America threatened or endangered species are killed from collisions with the blades of the prop wind turbine. This is considered legal because the offending wind farms either hold the “Incidental take permit” or were not required to have one because they did not fully disclose the environmental impacts of their activities. The Environmental Protection Agency requires the procurement of an Incidental take permit for any individual or private industry if threatened and endangered species are going to be killed in a project. This is killing is referred to as “take” and the incidental take permits give the permit holder immunity from prosecution.
Currently the EPA is not protecting America’s rare and endangered species nor are they enforcing the law. There are dozens of California Condors and Whooping Cranes that have disappeared in recent years. Many(including myself) believe they are dying at winds farms and are not being reported as required by the EPA. An investigation and interrogation of wind farm employees is needed to expose all of this. There are other species as well like the Ferruginous Rough-Legged Hawk that are rapidly heading towards the endangered species list. The use of lie detectors in the process would quickly eliminate the cloak of bird mortality secrecy that permeates the wind industry. After all the incidental take permit requires that “the death or escape of all living wildlife covered by the permit shall be immediately reported to the Service’s office designated in the permit.” This is Federal law but where are these reports?
The California Condor, Whooping Crane and many others bird species face a very grim future if the wind industry installs the several hundred thousand prop wind turbines they have planned for America. The Whooping Crane population is rapid decline and in grave danger because of the increasing wind farms that exist in their migration route. They must fly the prop turbine gauntlet twice every year on their way to and from Texas.
In Southern California, the California Condor must have their behavior manipulated with feeding stations to keep them safe from flying off into the blades of prop wind turbine blades in search of food. This too is against Federal law because one of the primary criteria for the issuing of the incidental take permit is that “any authorized take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of any species”. Take away the feeding stations from Tejon Ranch and see how fast the condors get slaughtered in the thousands of prop wind turbines that exist their habitat. Sadly because of the Prop wind Turbine, their fate is sealed. Recently two new wind farms have been approved in their habitat. Again, the cumulative impacts of the prop turbine were ignored as experts and planning commissions looked the other way. This silent fraud also violates Federal Law.
Many times to avoid the need for an incidental take permit, wind industry sponsored studies are conducted with a “no look no tell” approach. These half-ass studies lead to the submission of fraudulent Environmental Impact Reports that are presented to Planning commissions. This is exactly what has happened with the wind farms located in California Condor habitat.
The truth is that I have yet to read an honest wind industry EIR. For this collusion and fraud there has been no accountability.
To further protect this corruption driven industry there is the 1998 no surprises clause that was written into the federal regulations. This protects the industry from the details and cumulative impacts that were conveniently left out of their fraudulent biological assessments. What has the Fish and Wildlife Service done about their requirement to intervene when unforeseen circumstances are jeopardizing these endangered and threatened species? So far concerning the wind industry, virtually nothing. Federal law states that they must intervene on behalf of the species.
I have come to the conclusion that if local communities want to stop this slaughter of rare and endangered species they will need to take matters into their own hands. It does not look like the EPA or any state agency will ever uphold the law. As it now written, the primary condition for the authorized killing of a protected species is that the “take” is “incidental to an otherwise lawful activity”. It is time for communities to get organized and make this killing an unlawful activity. New laws need to be passed that ban the “Take” of these protected species by prop wind turbine. There should also be a very serious consequence for the illegal “Take” of a “Threatened” or “Endangered species. There is plenty of precedence for this because local communities all over the country have limited gun possession, stopped hunting in city limits, stopped the use of center fire ammunition and passed many other similar laws that have to do with the killing of wildlife. By banning “take” with the use of the use of the Prop Wind Turbine, prop wind farms will not be eligible for any incidental take permits.
It is long overdue because birds and bats will never be compatible with the 200 mph tip speed of prop turbine blades. This has been known for over 25 years. America needs to close the book on the dreadful Prop wind turbine industry and move on to the next generation of truly green wind turbines.
The laws governing the incidental take permit can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 50 sections 17.22 and 17.32. Jim Wiegand