Lowell wind hearings open

NCUHS
snowboarders
Town meeting
Canadian border
All four towns with ballots
have races.
GAO report says security
agencies should work
together.
Riding on improvised
jumps.
2
12
19
the Chronicle
THE WEEKLY JOURNAL OF ORLEANS COUNTY
VOLUME 38, NUMBER 6
At the PSB
Lowell wind
hearings open
THREE SECTIONS, 64 PAGES
FEBRUARY 9, 2011
EIGHTY-FIVE CENTS
Whoo’s there?
by Paul Lefebvre
MONTPELIER — Heated allegations by an
attorney that a study on the aesthetic impacts of
the proposed Lowell Mountain wind project were
tilted heavily in favor of money and power
prompted the chairman of the Public Service
Board Tuesday to call for a return to civility,
during the fourth day of hearings here on a
petition to erect up to 21 turbines on the
mountain.
“You’re being awfully combative,” noted
James Volz, who heads the three-member board,
known as the PSB. “We don’t approve of it,” he
said, adding that the attorney’s approach was
neither typical of the process nor productive.
The chairman’s admonition came during an
exchange between David Raphael — a land
architect employed by the project’s developer,
Green Mountain Power (GMP), and Gerald
Tarrant, a Montpelier attorney representing the
Green Mountain Club.
The club is the state’s host to the Long Trail,
the oldest long distance hiking trail in the
(Continued on page twenty.)
In Craftsbury
New hearing on
Coburn Hill
by Bethany M. Dunbar
CRAFTSBURY — The Craftsbury Selectmen
have decided that a new hearing is needed on the
Coburn Hill Road. The board set April 23 as a
date for a site visit, and May 3 as a date for a
hearing, at 7 p.m. at the Town Hall in
Craftsbury.
The selectmen held a hearing on December 7,
took evidence and heard opinions about a section
of the Coburn Hill Road that turns into a trail
and has been a source of contention for more
than eight years.
The trail goes through land owned by
Mission New England, a religious survivalist
group known to follow Sunday services with
small arms practice. The mission has put up a
gate and has discouraged visitors. In 2009 the
selectmen said the mission could keep the gate
as long as it was unlocked.
According to a document sent to the
Chronicle by certified mail, the selectmen got
some new evidence after the hearing. Mission
New England asked the town selectmen to “reset
the location of the trail to avoid the built-up area
of its developed property.”
(Continued on page twenty-seven.)
Ray de la Bruere snapped this photo on January 31 in the family’s backyard in Troy.
Photo courtesy of Tina de la Bruere
Just how rare i s t h u n d e r s n o w ?
by Tena Starr
It’s hard to say exactly how rare Saturday
night’s winter thunderstorm was, says Chris
Bouchard, a meteorologist at the Fairbanks
Museum in St. Johnsbury.
“I don’t have any numbers on its frequency,”
he said. “But lightning as frequent as Saturday’s
is something I’ve never experienced with snow
falling.”
The official term for a thunderstorm with
snow is “thundersnow.”
Thunder and lightning might occur once or
twice a winter in the state, Mr. Bouchard said.
But generally it’s very localized.
“There might be one flash over one town. This
last event was pretty unusual because there were
hundreds of lightning strikes on Saturday night,
in lots of towns. I’ve seen snowstorms with a flash
here and there, but nothing with frequent
lightning like that.”
One reason thunderstorms don’t often occur in
winter is because warm air is usually behind their
development, and there just isn’t much warm air
around in winter.
Thunderstorms are caused by rapidly rising
air currents, which form very tall clouds,
sometimes billowing up over 40,000 feet in height.
(Continued on page three.)
In Island Pond
Pellet plant seems at dead end
by Paul Lefebvre
ISLAND POND — Plans to bring a pellet
plant into the old Ethan Allen furniture factory
appeared to have come to a dead end.
The deadline for a $1 million grant in
federal funds has passed; a House committee is
trying to rescind legislation authorizing the sale
or lease of the John Boylan Airport to the
plant’s developer; and Brighton Selectmen have
been left high and dry.
“We tried to get him to ask for an
extension,” said Chairman Jerry Goupee,
speaking of the grant’s deadline. “All they had
to do was sign their name.”
But the developer, Fran Azur, doing
business as Vermont Biomass Energy, said he
wasn’t interested.
“And that’s all we got,” said Mr. Goupee.
Friday, February 4, a bill was sent to the
House Committee on Institutions for the
purpose of releasing “the state from its
obligation to sell or lease the airport to certain
parties.”
As one of the six representatives from the
Northeast Kingdom who signed onto the bill,
Janice Peaslee of Guildhall said sponsors of the
bill were feeling uncomfortable with what
appeared to be an open-ended offer to Mr. Azur.
Although the deadline for the grant has
passed, the money is still there, according to
Josh Hanford, director of the Vermont
Community Development Program.
The money, which is a federally funded block
(Continued on page twenty-four.)
Page Four
the Chronicle, February 9, 2011
Letters to the editor
Grandmother reports on scam
Dear Sir/Madam:
Editor’s note: The following is a letter
submitted to the Office of the Attorney General,
Public Protection Division. We are omitting the
name of the victim here in hopes she won’t be
targeted again. Below the grandmother’s letter is
the entire response she received from the Vermont
Attorney General’s office:
...I am a widow, 74 years old, residing in
Island Pond, Vermont. I was a recent victim of a
telephone scam on November 16, 2010, requesting
$6,000. This was reported to State Trooper Ben
Shelp, at the Derby Vermont State Police
Barracks on November 17, 2010, after I received
the second call requesting $27,000. After giving
him the details of the scam, he stated that he
would investigate and get back to me. On
December 19, I received a call from him. He
stated that I should call 1-800-649-2424, William
Sorrell, the Attorney General. The person who
answered wondered why I waited so long to
report this scam. The reason has been stated in
the above paragraph.
I was requested by your office to file the
complaint giving all the information I had.
On November 16, 2010, my phone rang and a
man stating he was Sgt. Dean Sanders at the Red
Rock Holding Facility #P119. He said he was
holding my grandson-in-law ... an active member
of the Vermont National Guard, recently
stationed in Afghanistan. He married my
granddaughter. He continued to state that [my
grandson-in-law] had gone to Canada as one of
the Chronicle
© copyright, 2011
Volume 38, Number 6
February 9, 2011
Published weekly, except for the last
week in December, by the Chronicle, Inc.
the Chronicle (014-590)
Publishing Office: 133 Water Street
Barton, VT 05822
Telephone: (802) 525-3531
Fax: (802) 525-3200
Please call the office during business hours.
Web site: www.bartonchronicle.com
E-mail addresses:
• Editorial department —
[email protected]
• Advertising department —
[email protected]
• Circulation department —
[email protected]
Periodicals postage paid at Barton, VT, and
additional mailing offices, including North
Haverhill, NH.
Postmaster—Send address changes to:
P.O. Box 660, Barton, VT 05822
Subscriptions: $24
$37
$28
85¢
per year in Vermont
per year out of state
online
per newstand copy
In an EMERGENCY, to contact a reporter at
home, nights and weekends, you may call
525-3545, 525-8875, or 533-2575.
Publishers: Chris & Ellen Braithwaite
General Manager: Tracy Davis Pierce
Co-Editors: Bethany M. Dunbar &
Tena Starr
Staff Writers: Paul Lefebvre &
Joseph Gresser
Production: Manager Brianne Nichols,
Jeannine B. Young, Kathy Seymour,
Amy Elliott & Elizabeth Trail
Advertising Sales: Manager LeAnn Cady &
Kjya Detoma
Circulation Manager: Georgia Young
Circulation: Nelson Stevens, Trudy
Blackburn, Billy Thompson, Tom Doyle
& Deana Cowles
Founded in 1974 with Edward Cowan
his friends’ grandmother had died and he was
going to attend the funeral. He and his friend
found out the funeral had already been held.
They decided to go around the area and
stopped to talk to two men who were fishing. The
men needed a ride back to town. [My grandsonin-law] and his friend decided to give them a ride
back to town. On the way back [he] noticed that
one of them was stuffing something in the back
seat. About this time they were stopped by the
Provincial Police. They (the police) searched the
car and found drugs. They were taken to the Red
Rock Holding Facility.
Sgt. Sanders felt since [my grandson-in-law]
had served his country, that he was willing to
help him get back to the U.S.A. and that this
charge would not show on his service records.
Supposedly, [he] was allowed one phone call. He
did not want to worry his wife, so he called me,
the grandmother. The voice was so muffled and
sounded as if he was crying or upset. [He]
wanted to get back to the U.S.A. and could I help
with the bail money.
Sgt. Sanders got back on the phone and
stated that the bail would be $6,000 to be paid
within 48 hours by Personal Money Wire by
Western Union at the nearest Rite Aid Store. I
was to call # 1-514-224-7816 after I had done so,
not to tell anyone, because if someone found out,
it would hurt his service record.
The money order was to be sent to Angelica P.
Jackson, a Bondswoman in Las Vegas, Nevada.
He stressed to make sure to put her middle initial
“P” – .... I did not ask when [he] was to be
released. I followed the instructions as I was
trying to help [him].
Then on November 17, 2010, I received
another call. I am not sure if it was the same
person. He stated he received the money.
However, now he stated that [my grandson-inlaw] needed a public defender in court. He was
not sure if the public defender was going to cost
anywhere from $6,000 to $27,000 for all the fees.
I was so upset.
On the 17th before going to the state police, I
called [my granddaughter] and found out that
[my grandson-in-law] was home. Then that same
day (the 17th) I went to the Derby State Police
barracks and wondered about the last request.
Trooper Ben Shelp listened to my story and called
the # 1-514-224-7816. He never said anything.
He then called Western Union but no information
could be given him without my consent. I called
the Western Union on Monday, December 20,
2010, and gave my consent after hearing from
Trooper Shelp on the 19th. Western Union traced
the transaction and told me the money had been
cashed on November 16 — 2 hours and 15
minutes after it had been wired. They would try
to track who cashed it. Money order by Western
Union #1049094113.
I also called the Attorney General’s office to
file a complaint as a victim of Grandparents
Scam. After thinking about everything. I was
amazed that the scammers knew so much about
me, my family and the area.
... I certainly hope that this is enough
information is my report to help you investigate
this matter.
“Thank you” for any assistance you may be
able to help me with this matter.
Enclosing copies of my notes that occurred on
November 16-17, Western Union Customer
Receipts.
Office of the Attorney General
Public Protection Division
Dear [Grandparent]:
Thank you for your letter of complaint. We
will keep this information on file for five years.
As a public record, it will be available to any
individual who requests it. It may also be used to
determine the priorities of this office in enforcing
Vermont’s Consumer Protection Law.
Sincerely,
Anthony Bambara
Consumer Advisor
Lowell wind project would have unacceptable costs
Editors,
Although I am a resident of South Burlington,
I have spent considerable time recently in the
Northeast Kingdom, specifically in the area
surrounding the Lowell Mountain Range.
Currently the Vermont Public Service Board is
holding hearings on whether to approve the
largest wind project in Vermont on four miles of
the range ridgeline. Having read extensively
about this project and researched large scale wind
production, I feel approving this project would be
a grave mistake.
Aside from the very mixed environmental
benefits of large scale wind projects of this type,
this project will inalterably change a rare and
scenic natural resource. The scale of this project
with multiple 450-foot-tall wind towers and
hundreds of developed acres of access roads,
Death notice
Edwin Leland Bowman, 69, of Derby died
at his home in Derby on February 7, 2011,
surrounded by his loving family.
Funeral services will be held at 3 p.m. on
Friday, February 11, at the Curtis-BritchConverse-Rushford Funeral Home at 4670
Darling Hill Road in Newport with the
Reverend Glenn Saaman officiating. Friends
may call at the funeral home on February 11
from 2 p.m. until the hour of the funeral.
Online condolences may be sent to the
family through the funeral home website at
www.curtis-britch-converse-rushford.com.
transmission lines and clearings is completely
inappropriate for a region of the state that prides
itself on natural beauty. Moreover, the state is
approving a number of projects of this type in
rapid fashion in order to take advantage of tax
credits (without which these projects are not even
remotely feasible), without a reasonable period to
establish a single project of this scale and
evaluate its benefits and impact.
Vermont has a long and valued history of
preserving its natural and scenic resources, in
particular its mountains and ridgelines. In fact,
the home page of the Public Service Board
website displays a photograph of a striking (and
pristine) mountain ridge. Aside from the irony,
this graphic demonstrates how important our
mountain views are to all Vermonters and how
they convey the essence of the state we love. I
understand that we are facing huge energy issues
and that there are no free or easy solutions to the
problems that face us. But massive industrial
energy production on scenic and remote ridgelines
is not, I believe, an acceptable cost.
Jeffrey Rand
South Burlington
February 1-7, 2011
High
T
W
Th
F
S
S
M
2/1
2/2
2/3
2/4
2/5
2/6
2/7
12
16
18
24
36
30
33
Low
-5
3
7
10
14
24
28
Prec.
0.10”
0.65”
0.01”
0.00”
0.52”
0.17”
0.08”
Snow
2.5”
10.3”
1.0”
0.0”
5.2”
3.1
1.0”
Snow on
Ground
13.00”
22.50”
22.00”
21.00”
25.00”
26.00”
26.50”
the Chronicle, February 9, 2011
Page Five
Opinion
Let’s keep the public’s trust alive on state lands
by Senator Vincent Illuzzi
Environmentalists have squared off against
Vermonters who want to use all terrain vehicles
(ATVs) on connector trails over public lands.
But a battle that pits one group of outdoor
enthusiasts against another is sure to create more
heat than light.
A moderate, middle way approach — based on
good science, stewardship and a case by case
review of allowing limited connector trails to
connect privately owned lands — will better serve
Vermont.
Vermont already welcomes diverse uses to its
public lands, balancing environmental protection
and sound resource management with the public’s
desire to use those resources in many ways.
Ski areas, television and radio stations, utility
companies, schools, businesses, hunters, trappers,
snowmobilers and others have all been granted
use of public lands after thoughtful
environmental review and the application of
reasonable fees and conditions.
Given this historic and reasoned approach,
there is no hard science or logic to drawing a
bright red line outlawing all ATVs from using
connector trails, no matter what!
Consider the background for the debate. In
2004, Governor Douglas convened a task force of
all stakeholders to consider ATV issues. The
group acknowledged that ATV use has grown in
the past decade for both work related and
recreational uses, yet there are few places where
they can be legally used.
The task force posed a menu of 24
recommendations to promote safe riding,
education, enforcement, and stewardship, which
mirrors the successful approach used by the
Vermont Association of Snow Travelers.
Fast forward to one year ago. Then Natural
Resources Secretary Jonathan Wood adopted a
rule that allowed application for up to three ATV
connector trails as pilot projects if they met strict
criteria like whether ATV use is consistent with
existing management plans; to what extent the
natural environment may be impacted; whether
there would be conflicts with other land users;
and, whether a connector trail is the shortest and
most practical way to connect existing trails on
private lands.
The rule required a finding of public good and
demonstrated compliance with extensive criteria.
Sadly, one of Secretary Deborah Markowitz’s
first public acts was to throw out all of this work,
and in the process, write off a growing number of
Vermonters and tourists who support this
growing sector of our recreation economy.
Why would Markowitz lay waste to that
thoughtful process and slam the door in the face
of those Vermonters?
Why would Markowitz do so without so much
as a single meeting?
Maine, New Hampshire and Quebec have
embraced this form of outdoor recreation, and
their extensive trail network beckons those tossed
out of Vermont, including aging baby boomers,
who must rely on ATVs.
Hailing from the Northeast Kingdom, where
motorized recreation is both popular and a source
of significant business income, this move has
many in this region scratching their heads.
Most Vermonters agree that ATV use does
not make sense on all or even most public lands.
But few believe it should be completely outlawed.
Working with the Vermont Natural Resources
Council on other land use issues, I would like to
revisit a pilot project and consider additional
criteria to ensure the dual goals of environmental
protection and the ability to use connector trails.
The Vermont Legislature created the
Vermont ATV Association as a user and watchdog
group to oversee the use of ATVs in Vermont, and
the development of a statewide network of trails.
Extreme views like those displayed by
Markowitz are never a good thing, especially
when it comes to the use of public lands that all
Vermonters hold so dear and support with their
tax dollars. We have a history of being able to
negotiate these difficult issues.
For example, Bicknell’s thrush shares its
habitat with telecommunication towers. Native
trout populate brooks crossed by ski trails. And
the Kingdom’s rare spruce grouse has heard more
than one snow traveler pass in the night.
As a conservationist, I worked with former
Governor Howard Dean to purchase the
Champion Lands in Essex County in the 1990s.
We guaranteed traditional uses on those lands. I
am confident we can find a way to accommodate
connector trails on some state lands.
Letter to the editor
Blowing in the wind
Editors,
Wind energy is so important to keeping
Vermont green. There have been rumors in
towns surrounding Lowell, that Lowell residents
are no longer in favor of the Kingdom Community
Wind project.
As a resident of Lowell, I can tell you that is
far from the truth.
Most folks I talk to want to know how much
longer before we see the majestic turbines on the
mountain, making clean energy for our children
and grandchildren.
Wouldn’t it be nice to tell them we no longer
have to burn fossil fuels, pollute our air with
smoke and gases that cause all types of problems?
That we have left you a clean, healthier, green
Vermont, where you can breathe fresh air. Wow
what a great day that will be.
When will that day come? One only hopes
soon. But as we all know “The answer my friend
is blowing in the wind.”
Beth Viera
Lowell
Top Label Brand
CLOTHING
42 Eagle’s Nest Drive, off East Main St.
Newport, VT
334-1733
Winter hours: Thurs. 10-5, Fri. 10-6, Sat. 10-3.
United Christian Academy
BIG SAVINGS!
Make your
dream come
true… ask
about our
pilot financing
program!
$
49
GIFT
CERTIFICATES
AVAILABLE.
INTRO
FLIGHT
Scenic
flights
always
available.
February Calendar Sale
• Homemade Beef Jerky –
3 Flavors: Hot, BBQ & Maple
• Custom Smoking & Cutting
Booking by the Week
• Beef Sold by the Quarters
for Butchering.
or by the Pound
• Half Beef • Half or Whole Pigs
• Pork Sold by the Halves
or by the Pound
• Pick Up Service Available
Meat Market & Slaughterhouse • Call for an Appointment
BRAULT’S
Troy, Vermont • 744-2271
525-3422 • 169 Main Street, Barton, VT
Serving customers from a historical attraction established in 1896!
ew Aviatio
iFLIGHT
v
e
k
n
La SCHOOL
Newport State Airport
2628 Airport Rd., Newport, VT
802-334-5001
The Best
NOW BOOKING Meat
Around!
FOR FEBRUARY
E.M. BROWN & SON INC.
OPEN MON.-FRI. 6:30 AM–5 PM, SAT. 7 AM–2 PM
Independent Christian School
65 School Street, Newport, VT 05855 • 802-334-3112
Call: Toni Roberge (802) 233-7826.
New & Gently Used Misses & Women’s
BOUTIQUE
For students grades K-12
www.ucaeducation.org
Need your banks pushed back?
Tractor snow blowing available.
Sunflower
Founded in 1995
Too Much Snow?
Wednesday, Feb. 9th: ALL MUGS — 60% OFF
Thursday, Feb. 10th: ALL BOXED NOTECARDS — 75% OFF
Friday, Feb. 11th: VERMONT PEANUT BUTTER — 25% OFF
Saturday, Feb. 12th: FLIP FLOPS — 75% OFF
Sunday, Feb. 13th: ALL HANDBAGS — 50% OFF
Monday, Feb. 14th: ANYTHING RED OR PINK — 14% OFF
Tuesday, Feb. 15th: ALL JIGSAW PUZZLES — 50% OFF
Stop in to pick up your calendar!
Valspar Guardian
Flat White Latex
Free tube
of Painter’s
Caulk with
every gallon
purchased!
Wall &
Ceiling
Paint
Reg. $12.99
9
$
99
9” Heavy Duty
Roller Frame
Reg. $3.99
1
$
99
No other discounts apply. In-stock items only.
60 Route 111, Derby Village
(50 yards from Derby Village Store)
(802) 766-2852 • toll-free 1-888-334-7906
Mon.-Sat. 9:30-5:30 • Sun. 10:30-4
Check out our web page at:
www.countrythymevermont.com
Free gift wrapping.
Gift baskets & boxes shipped anywhere.
3 Piece
Paint
Tray Set
Reg. $4.99
2
$
99
Page Twenty
the Chronicle, February 9, 2011
Wind farm’s visual impact greatest on Long Trail
(Continued from page one.)
country. The trail passes through Lowell
Mountain, and Mr. Raphael and Mr. Tarrant
could not agree on how many turbines would be
visible from one of the popular huts along the
trail.
“How many turbines do you count there,”
asked Mr. Tarrant, after showing a photo of the
ridgeline that was one of the photos contained in
Mr. Raphael’s report.
“Twenty-one,” he responded.
“Yes,” said Mr. Tarrant, returning back to an
earlier response in which the architect said four
turbines would be visible. “That was wrong,
correct?
“No,” said Mr. Raphael, bristling to hear his
credibility challenged. But before he could finish
explaining that the wind farm’s visibility was
relative, depending on one’s location by Tillotsen
hut, he was interrupted.
“So, you could kneel down behind a tree and
not see it?” charged Mr. Tarrant, his voice rising
sarcastically.
Tuesday’s spirited exchange served to
illuminate one of the most fundamental
differences between environmentalists who are
pushing wind as the most viable renewable
energy source to lessen the state’s dependency of
fossil fuels and those who believe that Vermont
ridgelines are no place for industrial wind farms.
Known as Kingdom Community Wind, the
project is going before the board with two options.
One would create a wind farm with 21 turbines
with the capacity of producing 63 megawatts
(MW) of power; the other would other would come
in at 50 MW to be generated by 20 turbines.
Charles Pugh, Green Mountain’s general
manager, told the board on Wednesday, February
2, — the opening day of the hearing — that no
decision has been made on what brand of turbines
the company will use. The hearing is scheduled
to run through this week and resume on the last
Monday in February.
According to testimony, the project would be
constructed on roughly 124 acres of land. Mr.
Pugh said that 75 percent of the leases and
rights-of-way have been acquired from 100 or so
landowners. If a CPG is granted, he said
condemnation proceedings would begin against
landowners who refuse to work with the
company. One holdout late in January was
recently offered $652 for an easement on his
property, according to a letter from a lawyer
representing Green Mountain Power and
Vermont Electric Cooperative.
In the two years it has taken to plan the
project, Mr. Pugh testified there had been “no
show stopper,” noting that the project easily won
support from Lowell voters. Opponents have
criticized the vote, charging the results were
skewed by putting the dollar amount the town
would receive in taxes on the ballot if the project
went through.
On the stand Friday, February 4, the
chairman of the Lowell Selectmen said the ballot
was properly worded.
“I felt the voters should know what they were
voting on,” he said of the decision to include on
the ballot the $400,000 the company would pay
annually in taxes.
“I think that’s what the select board’s job is,”
he added a little later.
Later in the day, an economist hired by Green
Mountain Power said a wind farm on Lowell
Mountain would not adversely affect property
values or tourism. John Kavet, who is also an
economic adviser to the Vermont Legislature,
testified that the wind farm would have to be
built before it could be determined what its
impact would be on community property values.
“What matters is actual transactions,” he said
at one point. “What matters is not what you think
but what happens after you build it.”
To David Stackpole, a Lowell attorney
representing himself, Mr. Kavet’s conclusions
sounded tentative.
“Why is this not advocacy?” he asked,
commenting on the testimony.
According to testimony, the wind farm is
expected to produce between 6 and 7 percent of
the annual power required by Green Mountain to
supply its customers. As one of the early
witnesses in the hearings, the company’s CEO
defended its decision to own a power source
rather than buy or rent power from someone else.
When a power contract comes to the end of its
term, testified Mary Powell, her company has no
leverage; it has to start from scratch in
negotiating a new power price. But if it owns the
facility, it has an asset that produces power at a
known cost. And while a wind farm was not for
the “faint of heart,” she went on to say that the
Lowell wind farm “makes the most sense for the
state of Vermont.”
But from the very beginning of the hearings,
Mr. Tarrant contended that all the other factors
were being downplayed in the face of wind
becoming economically viable for the company.
“GMP is opposing the visual impact solely on
economic reasoning,” he charged while crossexamining the company’s general manager.
Prior to the hearings, the Green Mountain
Club and GMP worked out a compromise to
install a lighting system on the towers that would
only be activated when an aircraft is flying in the
area. But Mr. Tarrant wondered why when it
came to the number of turbines the company was
considering, there were only two options and not
three.
A third option, he suggested, would be to
erect 17 turbines, each with a 3MW capacity.
That would meet the company’s goal of running a
wind farm with the capacity of producing between
50 and 63 MW of power.
“It’s not about the number, but the capacity,
correct?” he asked Mr. Pugh, suggesting the board
should have the flexibility of choosing a third
option.
Mr. Pugh said to reduce the number of
turbines would cost the company money, and that
the goal is to get the highest output of power from
the wind the site offered.
But Mr. Tarrant argued that a balance had to
be struck between a wind farm’s power
production and the impact it would have on the
area. The problem with the application, he
added, was that the pre-filed testimony was based
on erecting the largest number of turbines,
especially when it came to the project’s aesthetic
impact.
He went to say that Mr. Raphael, the
company’s expert on aesthetics, had already
“taken the ball and ran with it.”
On the stand Tuesday, Mr. Raphael had to
defend challenges from Mr. Tarrant that his
assessment of the project’s visual impact was
based on the wind farm’s economic viability.
In an exasperating exchange, the two men
went back and forth on how a visual impact was
assessed from a popular hut or camp on the Long
Trail.
Mr. Raphael testified the assessment was
done by using both simulation and the results of
a field study. The key question of a visual impact
appeared to be what does one see?
Earlier, under cross examination from
attorney Geoffrey Commons, of the Department of
Public Service — the public watchdog in matters
of electric generation and utility charges to
ratepayers — Mr. Raphael testified it is the
turbine’s hub and not the tip of the blades that is
measured when it comes to visibility. He also
testified there were three homes within one mile
of the proposed wind farm, and that the project’s
visual impact would be greater on people who
were standing still than those walking along a
trail.
“Clearly we are dealing with generalities,
right?” asked Mr. Commons.
“Yes,” replied Mr. Raphael, who went to say
that the visual impact would be greater on crosscountry skiers than it would on snow machine
riders.
“Which one is a dog sled more like?” asked
Mr. Commons, as conversation turned toward a
dog sledding center in Eden.
In his overall aesthetic assessment of the
project, Mr. Raphael found it would have no
undue adverse effect — a conclusion that Mr.
Tarrant argued was shortsighted.
Mr. Raphael told the board that he was asked
to do his assessment on the basis of a 21-turbine
wind farm. A farm with 17 to 19 turbines, he
added, never came up prior to conducting the
study.
He agreed that the Long Trail was the most
significant asset in the viewshed, with unique
scenic and conservation benefits to the public.
But he quickly came under a withering attack
when he conceded that before completing his
report neither he nor any member of his staff had
visited the popular hut or camp on the trail where
the Lowell Mountain range is visible. He made it
within 100 yards last winter, but had been turned
back by the snow, he said.
“It’s not as if we ignored it,” he said a little
later, adding that an assessment was made with
help from his staff, using simulation and
gathering information from a member of the
Green Mountain Club.
With his ears still burning from the
chairman’s scolding, Mr. Tarrant lightly
requested a show of proof.
“Name, rank, and serial number of the Green
Mountain Club member who said you could only
see four turbines,” he said, minutes before ending
his cross-examination Tuesday morning.
Ridge Protectors appeal Sheffield wind project
The Ridge Protectors have filed a notice of
appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court of rulings
by the Vermont Environmental Court. The
rulings reaffirm a stormwater construction
permit for UPC Vermont Wind’s Sheffield
project.
Stephanie Kaplan, the lawyer representing
the Ridge Protectors, said the group believes the
Environmental Court’s rulings are based on
critical misinterpretations and applications of
Vermont laws involving the Water Quality
Standards (VWQS) and the issue of who has the
burden of proof.
“The decision is inconsistent with Vermont
legal precedent, with legislative intent, and if
allowed to stand eviscerates the VWQS when it
comes to stormwater, which cannot be
permissible under the Clean Water Act,” said
Ms. Kaplan.
The citizens argue that the most significant
error the court made was ruling that monitoring
of streams during construction and applying the
numerical standards and anti-degradation
requirements of the VWQS are not practical or
necessary in the context of stormwater. The
presumption that stormwater construction
permittees that comply with Best Management
Practices automatically therefore comply with
VWQS creates a very far-reaching precedent
that cannot be allowed to stand, the group says.
“What it means is that the state of Vermont
is knowingly putting at risk and willingly
trading off unique headwater stream ecosystems
including the native brook trout and other
species that inhabit them. These ecosystems
exist only in isolated pockets across Vermont’s
mountain landscape,” said Paul Brouha, a
retired fisheries biologist and one of the
appellants who live adjacent to the project. —
from the Ridge Protectors