VCE’s Comments on the state’s draft energy plan

VCE filed these comments on the state draft energy plan on Nov. 4.

Green Energy Times becomes Green Mountain Power Times

Readers of Green Energy Times brought to our attention the newspaper’s write-up of the Lowell Wind project.  The title of the article is “LOWELL WIND UPDATE…A LEARNING EXPERIENCE.”  We’ll offer our comments after sections of the article, below:

Green Mountain Power’s Lowell Wind Project had already been termed ‘a learning experience’.  Last week, after construction had started, ANR put a ‘Stop Work’ Order on the project temporarily.

Why?  because the storm water system that was still in the process of being built did not adequately handle an unforeseen 4″ rainfall that occurred recently.  (We have certainly had our share of them this year).  While the stop order was in place, crews worked to strengthen the stormwater systems.  Once ANR and GMP were satisfied, the order was lifted on October 12.  GMP’s Dorothy Schnure told us that they “got a little bit ahead of themselves.  We need to have always built to the highest standards and will move forward doing exactly that.  We agree with this order and are now moving forward, holding to the highest environmental standards possible.”

Well, that’s very interesting spin, but the stormwater design was supposed to prepare for a 100 year flood event and a mere 4″ of rain should have been no problem.  Here’s what the Stop Work Order said:

The observed non-compliance included but was not limited to the failure by the permittees to construct the necessary permanent stormwater dry ponds, wet ponds, and/or level lip spreaders to serve as temporary sedimentation traps and/or basins in order to manage stormwater runoff from contributing earth disturbance, as specified in the approved erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC) plan.

In other words, GMP didn’t comply with its permit conditions and built roads without even attempting to control stormwater runoff.  Oh, gee, it rained?  During the rainy season, no less?  Darn.  Here’s a picture of some of the sediment going into the streams, in violation of the permit and the Clean Water Act.

21 Vestas Wind Turbines will be installed, which will produce 63MW of electricity.

Well, no, Nancy Rae, the turbines will produce 63MW of electricity only if the wind blows continuously.  Ever heard of capacity factor?  It’ll be roughly 1/3 (or less) of 63MW that’s produced.  ISO-NE said at a forum we attended in June that the 500MW of wind energy currently on the New England grid is just “noise” to them.  So another 20MW isn’t going to make much difference in the regional electricity picture.  There are some facts for you to print since you are so interested in facts.

To clarify the rumor that this project would be ‘blowing off the mountaintops’, like they do with dirty, polluting coal, we were assured that they would NOT be blowing off any mountaintops.  Not one!  Whew!

Here’s a picture taken on Saturday showing a large area that has been blasted

and before you get picky and say “but that’s not the mountain top”, here’s a picture of the top of the highest point on the Lowell Mountains, all of which is to be blasted away real soon.  Look for the person in the photo, he’s there for scale.  Yep, the whole mountain top is about to be blasted away:

In fact from the road or from a distance it will barely even be noticeable that anything has changed except for wind turbines that will serve to bring roughly 180,000 MWh per year of clean, renewable energy to our state.  There will be some necessary leveling that will require some blasting so that the roads and the turbine pads can be built.  Whew, again!

Time for another photo.  Barely noticeable?  By whom? The bear, moose, and other wildlife who have called these woods home for centuries?

Just as with any building site, during the construction period, there will be some disturbance at the work areas (which has been authorized by state and federal environmental regulators) – but a year from completion, the grass will be growing and look like our other mountain tops where you see lush green pastures throughout our beautiful state – but with some working art in motion.

If you want to see lush green, better get up there soon, because these areas won’t exist much longer, especially since Green Mountain Power is disrupting groundwater flows and rearranging the hydrology of the mountain, and opening up wide canopies that will raise water temperatures and dry out the ridgeline:

It will also be necessary to do some blasting for the road up to the ridge line.  The material from the blasting will be ‘recycled’ by using it for the road itself.  Very Nice!

Very nice, indeed!!

134 acres of trees will need to be cut, unfortunately, but to mitigate this, GMP is conserving more than 1000 acres that will never be able to be developed, as well as conserving more than 1,000 acres more for fragmentation mitigation.  Assuredly, there will be no bears going hungry or starving.

You could just stop after bears, as in “there will be no bears.”  Their habitat is being destroyed, the trees that provide them food are gone.  Yes, there will be bears somewhere, but the ones who have lived on and rely on the Lowell Mountains are being displaced to make room for your pinwheels.

In other countries, wind turbines gently spin along the horizon, an incredibly thrilling sight, in itself, understanding that they represent good changes for that our future.

If our future does not include respecting our water resources and the sacred places on our mountains, what kind of a future is that?

Rumors can cause confusion and deviations.  Green Energy Times thought it was time to present these facts.  It is always best to go to the source before forming opinions.  Then, an educated opinion or decision can then result.  For concerns, please contact Dorothy Schnure at GMP:  802.655.8418

Nancy Rae, if your “source” for “educated opinion” and “facts” is Green Mountain Power, you have sold out to the corporate/government complex that is ruling our state and our country.  Very sorry to see that’s the price of keeping your newspaper going.

A bright orange line across the mountain

http://energizevermont.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/chr-2011-10-05-all.pdf

Barton Chronicle Editorial

October 5, 2011

by Chris Braithwaite

If you are at all uneasy about the wisdom of industrializing our ridgelines with wind turbines, if you like to admire the fall foliage, and if you feel the need for a bit of exercise, we have a suggestion.

Put on a pair of stout, waterproof boots and head over to Albany. Find the farm of Don and Shirley Nelson (it’s in Lowell, but you can’t get there from Lowell), and take a walk up their mountain.

The path to a new campsite is marked with bright bits of surveyor’s tape, so you shouldn’t get lost. It will take you up to a big hayfield decorated with a couple of ponds and a tiny hunting camp. The view to the west is spectacular. Then it’s into the woods and up a path so wet, in spots, that it does a fair imitation of a creek. You’ll cross a couple of nameless tributaries of Shatney Brook, each featuring very busy waterfalls.

The forest is mixed, cut over countless times in the past couple of centuries, but never farmed. The terrain is much too steep for farming.

By the time you reach the campsite you may feel that you’ve arrived at a wonderful sort of nowhere, high, silent except for the occasional birdcall and the rushing of those waterfalls, about as peaceful as a place could be.

Oddly, though, there’s a bright orange tape snaking through the trees a few feet further west, parallel to the ridge. Oddly, there’s a sudden deep, echoing boom. If you didn’t know better, you’d think someone was trying to blow up the mountain.

Minutes later there’s the clank of big, really big, machinery off to the west, working its way ever-so-slowly toward you.

On the other side of that tape there is no quarter for Mother Nature. She’s in the way, and so being reformed to suit the needs of the trucks that will climb the mountain with the bits of the machines that will be put together to, in their turn, put together the 21 turbines.

If you make the effort to climb that steep, slippery trail, the bright orange tape might strike you as a dividing line of sorts.

Between an old and new vision of the Northeast Kingdom.

Between a Kingdom that has been husbanded, however imperfectly, by generations of people who did things in a small and simple way; and a Kingdom that can be transformed by people who don’t seem to care about all that — people who will embrace any technology as long as it is trendy and profitable.

Between people who will get along pretty well on surprisingly little, as long as they value the products of their labor; and people who will sell out their town, and their neighbors, for a little relief on the tax bill.

Between a place that is so high, so cussedly strewn with deadfalls and moose shit that nobody goes there except to hunt and hike and, each winter for many years, enjoy the near-wilderness experience of camping in the snow; and a mountain so convenient that a guy can drive his pickup to the top to check the oil on a multi- million-dollar machine.

Both places are right there, right now, divided only by that bright orange ribbon. If you’re willing to risk feeling that you’re being torn in two, it’s a place well worth visiting.

If you do accept the hospitality of Don and Shirley Nelson, you might get in the way of the blasting crew and buy a little time.

Time, perhaps, for all those extremely nice people at Green Mountain Power to consider, one more time, whether they really should be doing business with those damn fools in the Northeast Kingdom.

The Green Mountain Power State

Welcome to Vermont, the Green Mountain Power State

Vermont is Open For Business

Beneficiary in Chief

One Stop Shopping  

Want to Build on Top of Our Mountains?  Let us fly you over  – for free — so you can pick out which mountain to destroy next.

You’ll need a consultant to get all your permits.  You can hire just one expert to meet all your compliance needs.  We’ll even let him write your permits for you!

Worried about those pesky members of the public and Vermont’s reputation for being a difficult place to do business?  Not any more!!  We aren’t afraid to tell the public that we disagree with them.  Public, what public?  We don’t have to listen to no darn public.

We make sure they don’t know what we’re talking about behind closed doors, and we definitely don’t have time to meet with their experts, except well maybe a perfunctory meeting, but we assure you we will not let you down.  We are here to serve our customers, the business community.

As for our reputation as a “green” state, we’ve gotten away with keeping just how bad we are at enforcing anything pretty well under wraps, so you can get permits to do all kinds of things you would never have thought possible.  We don’t care about water, except Lake Champlain and what’s near Vermont Yankee, so as long as you keep your damage in rural areas away from where any important politicians live, you’ll be fine.

Just make sure you meet with the right people early on, that’s the only way to get anything done in this state.  As long as you know who to talk to and where to put your resources, you’re all set.  We highly recommend that you volunteer to serve on all kinds of important boards, and by all means make sure you have the ear of the governor. Promise jobs, that’s all it takes.  Oh, and if you can throw in greenhouse gas emission reduction — don’t worry, you won’t have to prove anything you say — you’re gold.

But if you need proof, we just showed what we can do:

Agency approves water quality permits for Kingdom Community Wind Project 

Lowell Wind Project Receives Key Permits

We Deliver on Our Promises!

Open letter to the PSB…..

WHO IS THE PUBLIC—–WHO IS NOT????  WHERE IS THE PUBLIC GOOD????

The PSB issues CPG’s right and left for various types of projects. Have you ever saved an area for the GOOD of ALL the people in a surrounding area or is everything done for the good of the applying corporation? At the first of the technical hearings one of the corporate lawyers made a comment to the effect – get these people out of here so we don’t have to look at their faces. It was clear to those that heard it who they were referring to.

You should take notice of what it does to the people of the area. You are destroying and breaking up families and friends – tearing apart communities and towns, taking away all property rights of many only to say we have to ensure a very few the right to destroy the landscape and character of the state. To enable this even more you are allowing big companies to threaten to take right-of-ways by eminent domain or offer pitifully small payments for any property the company wants to take over or use. Don’t you realize these people surrounding each of these areas had lives, hopes, dreams, families and most of all they worked hard to build their homes, restore older homes and design their surroundings – many to embrace and take advantage of the views which often have the mountains as a backdrop to what they love and cherish? You are not only doing this to the people of the Lowell Mountains but each and every project in the state. You are taking away the rights of many for the economic gain of a few. Most of the people that own these huge tracts of property on ridgelines originally got them as a way to make money logging and as the logs were depleted they were left with the land which no one wanted to buy because there was no value left for many years in the future. This is the new way to make big money from their land. I can understand that concept but this particular type of development is destroying the rights and character of the state as well as the lives, homes and wellbeing of people that live here.

The members of the Agency of Natural Resources and the Department of Public Service have become tentacles of the governor and no longer work to protect the state and it’s assets in an effort to SAVE THEIR JOBS.

You are allowing the ANR and DPS to MITIGATE away very important parcels of land to be hidden behind the ‘switch and bait’ technique. If you destroy the source of a stream of water it eventually affects the end. For example, the springs at the tops of these mountains feed the ponds, lakes, beaver dams etc. that we all enjoy. The wildlife connectivity corridor that goes along the Lowell Mountains as it goes through the state is being compromised. The animals that use these areas now were using them long before the Long Trail was a part of the state. The animals will be hard pressed to read the signs that tell them they can no longer use the centuries old corridors but must go to a mitigated area – mitigated by someone that really doesn’t care as long as they get their paycheck!

Just the process of what the ‘not public’ people have to go through is devastating to so many.  Friends are taking medications for high blood pressure, anxiety and depression to name a few.  Where is the public good???  In some cases marriages have broken down, family members no longer speak to each other, there is destruction to property, friendships have been compromised, trust has been destroyed, property rights taken advantage of and taken away. Where is the public good???? Bullying, harassment and threats are everyday occurrences. Where is the public good???? Some people have given up their homes and many keep loaded guns in their homes now. Where is the public good????

In a time of IRA’s and 401k not everyone had the chance or the ability to put money into these funds but little by little used every cent they could save to put into their properties as a retirement fund. A lot of this happened because of the location and VIEW these properties have. They each had something to offer that was unique! Your decisions have destroyed these. Where is the public good????

Our backyards and front yards are your great outdoors so WHERE IS THE PUBLIC GOOD?????

Respectfully,

Shirley Nelson

First Wind’s Sheffield Wind Site Construction Video

Here’s a 3 minute and 50 second video that is a compilation of photos of the Sheffield First Wind construction site, in chronological order beginning Sept. 2010 through July 23, 2011.

Vermont’s DEC says the site is a model of how to do things right.  What do you think?

This video is a compilation of photographs taken by interested Vermonters by air and on the ground, and from Erosion Prevention Sediment Control (EPSC) reports prepared by First Wind’s stormwater expert VHB filed with the state and obtained through public records requests, and there are a few photos taken by ANR stormwater staff.

The state files do not contains photographs of the streams. VCE asked why the reports that are about protecting the water quality of the streams do not contain photos of the streams. The answer from ANR General Counsel is:

“With regard to the Sheffield project, in addition the EPSC reports I have sent, you have asked why the EPSC report does not contain any information or photos about the streams. I spoke with the WQD about your question. I have been informed that the EPSC reports focus on the construction occurring at the site at a particular time, and the practices being employed to control erosion. The reports do not require photographs of all streams affected by the project. The WQD staff did note that the construction stormwater permit requires all discharges in violation of the permit be reported.”

“Discharges in violation of the permit” require only one value: 25 n.t.u. Vermont’s Water Quality Standards to protect trout streams is 10 n.t.u., and to protect water quality pH and Temperature and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) should also be monitored and reported. ANR’s permit does not require monitoring for anything other than sediment at 25 n.t.u.

 

 

 

How Does GMP Propose to Maintain and Protect Water Quality on the Lowell Mountains?

Vermont ANR 1st Public Hearing on GMP Lowell Wind Project Wetlands CUD and 401 Water Quality Certification, 6/20/11

Video Presentation by GMP’s experts, Adam Crary and Jeff Nelson of VHB and Public Comment (1 hour, 48 minutes)

Vermont ANR 2nd Public Hearing on GMP Lowell Wind Project 401 Water Quality Certification, 7/13/11

Video Part 1:  Presentation by Energize Vermont experts, Geoffrey Goll and Mark Gallagher of Princeton Hydro (1 hour, 11 minutes)

Video Part 2:  Public Comment (52 minutes)

Complete Audio of Presentation and Public Comment (2 hours, 4 minutes)

Power Point Presentation by Princeton Hydro (note that several of the slides at the end were skipped over, so there is more material in the presentation than were covered at the hearing)

Wind Energy Development is Damaging Our Democracy

In Wind Developments, the Most Affected are the Most Ignored

Vermonters living near mountains proposed for big wind turbines and people who care about the natural resources, scenic and economic benefits of Vermont’s unspoiled beautiful mountains are dealing with one of the most surreal situations citizens of this state have ever faced.

Without clear and convincing evidence that meaningful positives will result from building 450+ foot tall machines on top of mountains, wind believers expect the people who live near their beloved mountains to sacrifice their business interests that rely on tourism and the peaceful enjoyment of their properties to “save the planet”.

Wind project neighbors are called NIMBYs.  If they want to participate in the permitting process they are given the opportunity to hire and pay for expensive lawyers and experts and devote hundreds of unpaid hours for more than a year to a process that ignores their input.

The final insult to the enormous injury these fine Vermonters are enduring is watching the destruction of extraordinary, sacred places where generations have hunted, fished, hiked and enjoyed.

People from all walks of life – natives and newcomers, rich and poor, conservatives and liberals – have researched the well-documented problems associated with giant wind machines, and how those problems are worse in mountainous terrain:  more money, explosives, diesel fuel and emissions, crushed rock, culverts, miles of new roads, destruction of more special natural areas, wildlife, geology and hydrology.

Yet, the people most impacted are scorned, ridiculed, and dismissed.  Rarely has a population been so disempowered and ignored by their elected officials.

From Senators Sanders and Leahy, Congressman Welch on the federal level to Governor Shumlin and his appointees and key legislators on the state level, nobody is willing to listen.  The door has been slammed shut in a way I have never seen in my twelve years working with Vermont citizens who are dealing with environmental issues in their communities.

Senator Sanders helped First Wind circumvent US Fish & Wildlife Service staff concerns about impacts to water resources.  Governor Shumlin helped Green Mountain Power overcome ANR staff concerns about natural resource impacts in Lowell.  The Public Service Board ignored recommendations by the Department of Public Service to establish setbacks protective of public safety.  Rep. Tony Klein refused to give even one hearing to legislation addressing appropriate setbacks for public health and safety.

This combination of power against the people is unusual in a state that prides itself on open government and giving fair hearing to people who have legitimate concerns.

What is happening to Vermonters who live near these wind energy projects brings out feelings of grief.  The loss that people are experiencing, even before the projects are built, is palpable and deeply painful, magnified by the disdain to which they have been treated by the people who hold all the power.

Vermonters forced through accident of location learn about what is involved in wind machine development and operation on ridgelines:  destruction of critical wildlife habitat, the guaranteed death of birds and bats, displacement of bears and demolition of their food sources, rearrangement of the hydrology of the mountains, devaluation of properties, investments and businesses, and the high likelihood that some people will no longer be able to live in their homes because of noise.

Governor Shumlin’s stock response to concerns about ridgeline wind development is that people in his area have sacrificed for years because of Vermont Yankee and now it is time for others to sacrifice.  The Governor refuses to listen to the people most impacted.  Vermonters deserve better than pronouncements at press conferences about pushing the sacrifice around. We need planning and a thoughtful discussion of solutions.

Must we abandon compassion and honest dialogue to create new forms of energy?  Will Senators Sanders and Leahy, Rep. Welch, Governor Shumlin and Rep. Klein accept this public invitation to sit down with the neighbors of mountains targeted for wind development and listen?  Or is our democracy so far removed from the people and so dependent on money that our citizens no longer have a voice?

“Sheffield made its way into Washington”

This is the story of how wind developers doing business as Signal Wind, Vermont Wind, UPC Wind and First Wind received permits to construct more than 5 miles of new roads on top of a mountain in Sheffield, Vermont with five high quality streams and numerous wetlands, without addressing concerns raised by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the US Army Corps’ permitting process.

The story begins in 2001, with the announcement by then-Congressman Bernie Sanders of a $1 Million grant to Washington Electric Coop to begin development of a wind project.  At that time, the average wind turbine was about 1 MW.  Turbines as large as the 2.5 MW size turbines approved for Sheffield did not exist until 5 years later.  It is unlikely that this initial proposal envisioned sixteen 420 foot tall turbines.  The newsletter says “eventually, the project could reach several million dollars.”  The Sheffield wind project is now being reported as a $90 million dollar project.

Five years after Rep. Bernie Sanders got the seed grant money for the Sheffield Wind project, UPC Wind applied for permits to construct a larger project than was finally approved.

Testimony by Agency of Natural Resources staff about the first project design indicate they had significant concerns and found there would be an undue adverse impact.

July 28, 2006 Direct Testimony of ANR in Sheffield Wind PSB docket

We cannot, based on the information provided, conclude that the project as proposed does not pose an undue adverse impact.  In addition, we are unable to determine whether the applicant has taken all reasonable measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the potential impacts.  – John Austin, Wildlife Biologist

A few months later, Governor Douglas appointed his third Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources.  Secretary Crombie was appointed during the month of December when the technical hearings on the Sheffield wind project were occurring before the Public Service Board, and those hearings extended into January.  George Crombie was a surprise pick; his history working with Sanders when he was mayor of Burlington was the only connection to Vermont that was evident.  Nobody knew why Douglas chose him.

Former Sanders appointee to be Natural Resources secretary

Published: Wednesday, December 20, 2006                                                                       By Ross Sneyd, The Associated Press

MONTPELIER — A man who worked for Bernie Sanders when he was mayor of Burlington is being appointed by Gov. Jim Douglas as secretary of the state’s Natural Resources Agency.

George Crombie, 58, is currently the public works director in Plymouth, Mass., but he spent seven years working for the city of Burlington in a similar role. From 1985 to 1992 Crombie reported to Sanders and then to Peter Clavelle, Sanders’ successor in the mayor’s office.

Crombie left Burlington to join then-Gov. Bill Weld’s administration in Massachusetts. He first served as a regional director of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and then undersecretary of environmental affairs. Crombie worked in Weld’s administration from 1992 to 1999 and then took a job as director of public works for the city of Nashua, N.H., before moving to a similar position in Plymouth, Mass.

As Vermont’s natural resources secretary, he’ll be in charge of most environmental policy in the state, fish and wildlife and forests and parks.

He’s replacing Tom Torti, who left the post in late summer to take over as the president of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce in the Burlington area. 

Soon after Crombie’s appointment to head Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources, the US Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a letter to UPC Wind expressing concerns about the proposed wind project.

January 3, 2007 USFWS letter to UPC Wind 

The proposed Sheffield Wind Project raises a number of potential concerns to the Service in the general areas of habitat fragmentation, impacts to waters/wetlands and bird and bat mortality.

A little over a month after Secretary Crombie’s appointment, ANR entered into an MOU with UPC Wind, finding the project is not expected to pose an undue adverse impact to wildlife.  The MOU ended ANR’s participation in the PSB process.

January 31, 2007 ANR MOU with UPC Wind  

Whereas, the parties agree, nonetheless, that based upon the site-specific studies that have been performed and other available information, UPC has met its burden of proof under the wildlife criteria of section 248, and the Sheffield Wind Farm is not expected to pose an undue adverse impact to wildlife, provided the mitigation and studies outlined in this MOU are implemented.

In August 8, 2007 the Vermont Public Service Board issued a Certificate of Public Good for Sheffield Wind project

The US Army Corps and US Fish and Wildlife Service were still concerned about impacts to water quality from the high elevation project, and after the CPG was issued the Army Corps wrote a letter to UPC Wind stating that the project was not eligible for a Vermont General Permit because aquatic impacts are “more than minimal”

August 23, 2007 USACE letter to UPC Wind 

The US Fish and Wildlife service (USFWS) has determined that the aquatic impacts of the proposed project are more than minimal.  As required by the procedures in the VT General Permit program, the project at this time is not eligible for authorization under the VT General Permit, and must be reviewed under the individual permit review procedure.

In Feb. 2008 in an internal memo, USFWS staff reported that UPC Wind personnel indicated they were going to “pull other levers” including going outside the F&W Service and were looking at ways to avoid the 404 permitting process altogether.

February 27, 2008 Memorandum for the Regional Director, USFWS 

On August 7, 2007, the New England Field Office requested that the Section 404 application by UPC Wind for the Sheffield Wind Project be removed from the general permit category (i.e., kicked out), and processed as an individual permit because the impacts were more than minimal.  We have had several meetings and discussions with UPC Wind since then, and continue to believe the impacts are more than minimal, despite modifications to the footprint of the project by UPC.  Recently, UPC Wind personnel indicated that they were going to “pull other levers”, and have contacted regional (Alex Hoar) and Washington (Dave Stout) office staff and we presume others outside of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

In March 2008, the USFWS followed up with a letter to VT ANR detailing the specific concerns with the draft permit ANR had under consideration.  Vernon Lang of the USFWS asked questions about permitted turbidity levels, the lack of requirement to monitor Temperature, and other critical water quality protections.  These are the very issues that were litigated before Environmental Court in 2009 and are currently being litigated before the Vermont Supreme Court.  

March 21, 2008 USFWS letter to VT ANR 

We understand that these streams and unnamed tributaries are classified as Class B cold water systems by the Vermont Water Quality Standards and that the new turbidity standard for these waters is none in such amounts or concentrations that would prevent the full support of uses, and not to exceed 10 NTU as an annual average under dry weather base-flow conditions…

Hence, our question is, given the nature of these receiving waters, how does the 25 NTU action level where runoff leaves the construction site ensure compliance with the full support or 10 NTU instream standard? …  

It seems difficult to reconcile the permit limits with the water quality standards criteria because 1) it is not clear what existing and designated uses are recognized and how full support of uses is measured in these waters, and 2) it is not clear who is responsible for measuring turbidity levels to establish the annual average under dry weather base-flow conditions…  

Another closely aligned question concerns compliance with temperature criteria…Given that, the only monitoring specified in the draft permit is for turbidity as discussed above, how can the Department be certain that the temperature criteria will be complied with during project construction when it is not called out in the permit or addressed in monitoring protocols?…  

In addition, we are uncertain whether the “new” or the “old” turbidity criteria are applicable given that EPA has not, to our knowledge, approved these “new” turbidity criteria.

Soon after Vern Lang laid out the concerns about impacts to water quality from construction of such a large project on the mountain in Sheffield, US F&W Service emails indicate that First Wind used their political connections to overcome the environmental issues associated with the federal agency staff concerns:

From: Michael Bartlett

To: Vernon Lang

Subject: Sheffield

Date: 4/18/2008 3:46:58 PM

Vern

Sheffield made its way into Washington. There is a long email floating around the RO (including Stout) trying to set up a meeting with Marvin. Thabault bumped it to Jeff Underwood.

Thabault wanted to know why we were fighting over “3/4 acre” of wetlands. I tried to set the story straight.

Let’s discuss

Mike

*****************************************

Michael J. Bartlett

Supervisor

New England Field Office

70 Commercial Street

Concord, NH 03301

phone: (603) 223-2541×26

fax: (603) 223-0104

email: michael_bartlett@fws.gov

website: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/newenglandfieldoffice

In April 2008, UPC Wind sought to meet with USFWS staff and now-Sen. Bernie Sanders’ office wanted to “dial in to keep current on the project.”

From:  Matt Kearns <MKearns@upcwind.com>

To: <Jeff_Underwood@fws.gov>

Subject: RE: Meeting Schedule for Sheffield Wind Project

Date:  4/25/2008  1:57:54 PM

Jeff

Thanks for setting this up. I know travel schedules are challenging during the field season.

My wife and I are due with our first child on May 16th so I may not be there in person but would like to call in.  A member of our Environmental Affairs group will attend.  Also, Sen. Bernie Sander’s office would like to dial in to keep current on the project.

Our goal for the meeting on May 22nd is to have an open and collaborative discussion covering the following (please modify as necessary):

o Background on UPC Wind www.upcwind.com - New England wind projects and company environmental commitment

o Projects endorsed by Audubon, Appalachian Mountain Club, and Conservation Law Foundation

o Pre and post construction studies at New England wind farms

o Collaboration with New England natural resource agencies

o Bat Wind Energy Cooperative (BWEC) peer review

o Overview of the 16 turbine Sheffield Wind Project [www.sheffieldwind.com] – approved by VT Public Service Board August, 2007

o Summary of 17 seasons of wildlife data collected

o Overview of VT Agency of Natural Resources (VT ANR) Stipulation Agreement

o Post construction study proposal to VT Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

o Describe proposed wetland impacts (approximately 1/10 acre)

o USFWS recommendation to USACE for IP vs. GP

o Status

In May 2008, ANR Sec. George Crombie defended ANR’s permit and sought a meeting.

May 21, 2008 VT ANR Sec. George Crombie letter to USFWS

It was with some surprise that I read the letter of March 21, 2008 sent to the Water Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Conservation from Vernon C. Lang, and copied to a number of parties.  Mr. Lang poses several pointed questions, and challenges a number of permitting decisions made by the VTDEC, despite the fact that the standards used and applied in this case are widely viewed as state-of-the-art with regard to erosion prevention and sediment control.  I am concerned that these issues was not broached as matter between our agencies.

An email dated June 18 indicates that on May 24, UPC met with the US F&W Service.

The result was that US F&W Service’s concerns went away, the Army Corps permit changed from an Individual to a General permit, and UPC got what it wanted.

More emails were exchanged on July 2 and 10, 2008, though some of the information was redacted when the public records were released.

By July 10, the
matter was labeled “Urgent” and the correspondence was privileged.  Information was redacted when the records were released to the public.

On July 18, the US Army Corps wrote to UPC indicating a General permit would be issued instead of an Individual Permit.  The concerns raised by USFWS’ Vernon Lang were never addressed.  He was removed from USFWS review of wind projects and then he retired.

And then George Crombie left Vermont state government.

JONATHAN WOOD appointed Secretary of Natural Resources

DOUGLAS THANKS Crombie for Service

Montpelier, Vt. – (November 7, 2008) Governor Jim Douglas today announced that Forest, Parks and Recreation (FPR) Commissioner Jonathan Wood has been appointed Secretary of Natural Resources.

Wood replaces George Crombie who, after nearly two years as secretary, is pursuing other opportunities.

Governor Douglas thanked Crombie for his service. “I appreciate the time George dedicated to our state and the work he did to advance my climate change initiatives and the Clean and Clear Action Plan,” Governor Douglas said. “I wish him well in his future endeavors.”

Governor Douglas said Wood, who he appointed FPR commissioner in 2003, brings a wealth of policy knowledge and management experience to his new post.

“Jonathan shares my view that environmental protection and economic growth go hand-in-hand. He understands that our environmental policies must be about ensuring that every Vermonter can enjoy Vermont’s hills and valleys, lakes and streams, our forests and fields without worrying that their next paycheck will be their last,” the Governor said. “I know he will continue to serve Vermonters very well as the secretary of natural resources.”

One of the curious things about the Sheffield wind project is that it was developed during the reign of anti-wind Governor Jim Douglas.  Near the end of his tenure, Gov. Douglas said on Vermont Public Radio

“So I hope Vermonters will not be enchanted by the quick and easy entreaty of those who say it’s (wind energy) a nice, clean renewable source and think about the aesthetic and economic consequences as well as the environmental impact of those huge industrial machine.”  − Jim Douglas

Douglas’ opposition to wind energy development on Vermont’s mountains begs the question, why did his ANR support First Wind’s permit despite the US F&W Service’s concern that it was not protective of water quality?  In the litigation over the stormwater construction permit in Environmental Court in November and December of 2009, ANR and the State of Vermont devoted significant legal resources to fully participating in the litigation, taking First Wind’s side every step of the way.  With an anti-wind governor, the staff time and expense being expended by the state didn’t make sense.

Factor in Bernie Sanders and it begins to add up.

EPA, the Circ Highway, and the Clean Water Act

EPA’s Regional Administrator’s letter to Vermont written May 9, 2011 refers to Vermont’s water quality certification evaluation, particularly impacts to wetlands and other waters associated with the project, and identifies concerns relevant to the State’s Section 401 review.  The letter says:

“Among those concerns are increased phosphorus loadings to Lake Champlain (which is impaired due to excess phosphorus), with no demonstration that the load would be offset through reductions from other sources; the loss or alteration of an entire network of headwater streams that is an essential source of clean, cold water for Allen Brook, an impaired water; the failure to demonstrate that antidegradation requirements would be satisfied in light of the significant degradation of wetlands and other waters that would occur from this alternative; and likely violations of water quality criteria in affected streams during construction.”

I highlighted in red the three areas of concern that describe the problems currently occurring on the mountain where First Wind is constructing its project in Sheffield.  An entire network of headwater streams that are an essential source of clean, cold water, are being degraded

anti-degradation requirements are not being satisfied and significant degradation of waters is occurring

and violations of water quality criteria is likely occurring during construction but nobody will be able to prove it because the Environmental Court judge decided to support ANR’s permit that requires no monitoring for Temperature, pH, or Total Suspended Solids during construction, and set a turbidity standard of 25 n.t.u. which is not protective of trout streams.

VCE has been working on water issues for nearly a decade, and our focus has been primarily on groundwater.  VCE is now filling the vacuum created by wind projects on ridgelines where the Vermont environmental organizations who typically devote staff time to protecting waters from stormwater run-off have been absent.  We have been learning about stormwater regulation in general, reading EPA reports about various state’s approaches to controlling sediment, understanding the Clean Water Act and the Vermont Water Quality Standards, and Vermont’s approach to developing an antidegradation implementation policy [see #10 for a review of the history], which right now is a Procedure (and since when did ANR begin adopting Procedures rather than going through Rule-Making?).

While the issue of water quality protection and controlling stormwater run-off quickly becomes very technical, the fundamental issue is simple.  Keep soil, sediment, dirt, whatever you want to call it, out of the water.  These waters are where the fish are born and hatched, they are the source of your drinking water and the source of all life.  The highest quality water in Vermont is on top of our mountains, which soak up the rain and fog, where water pools on the surface and seeps in through pathways developed over time.  Vermont’s mountains are our reservoirs, our catchments that store up water and release it slowly through the seasons.

Wind turbine construction on Vermont’s mountains requires roads cleared 100 feet wide with intersections even wider.  Here is one of the smaller intersections just constructed on the mountain in Sheffield, next to a wetland

The photo below shows a wetland next to the newly constructed road, where water is pooling next to a berm.

On the other side of the road, below, water and sediment seep over the silt fencing (which, according to the permit, is supposed to be maintained on a daily basis and has not been maintained since the snow left the mountain in April)

Which mountain targeted for a wind turbine project is this?

or this?

or this?

Yes, those are photos of three different mountains where developers are proposing to build wind turbines.  One of them has a Certificate of Public Good from the Vermont Public Service Board.

And yes, I’m sorry to burst your bubble if you thought wind energy was a good idea for Vermont.  The reality is it’s not like driving out into a field and plunking down some concrete and steel.  It’s a huge assault on the environment requiring exponentially larger inputs of diesel fuels, blasting compounds, and greenhouse gas emissions.  We have been aware that wind turbines kill more bats on ridgelines than on flat ground, that migratory raptors and other birds of types not normally killed by cats or automobiles are killed on ridgeline wind projects, that the creation of the roads fragments habitat and eliminates critical habitat for songbirds, bears and all kinds of other wild species, and that some people living near wind turbines may get sick and/or have to abandon their homes because of noise.

But the statewide discussion about wind energy in Vermont has really missed the mark because we have failed to recognize that we really are different.  We have critical water quality issues that cannot be overcome.  Compliance with water quality standards and the Clean Water Act simply is not possible for these high elevation projects.  We need to protect and respect this source water, not degrade it.  The law requires it.  When will the EPA and Vermont’s ANR, which is delegated to implement and enforce the Clean Water Act, stop issuing permits for wind turbine projects that are guaranteed to degrade water quality, just as they have decided not to issue permits for similarly destructive projects like the Circ Highway?

VCE is working on a post about the history of the efforts by Vermont citizens to protect the water quality in Sheffield, and why First Wind is now able to release sediment into high elevation trout streams with the blessing of Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources.