My Passadumkeag Comments

I sent the letter below to the DEP, on Company letterhead.  If you have not yet commented on this project, please take a few minutes and do it before 5 P.M. today.  Tell DEP that this project will have an Unreasonable Adverse Impact on wildlife, on tourism, and on those scenic lakes that are especially deserving, under the law, of special protection.  Email your comments to:



David P. Corrigan

Registered Maine Master Guide

82 Little Houston Brook Road

Concord Township, Maine 04920


July 26, 2012


Patricia Aho, Commissioner,

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Augusta, Maine

C/O Jim Beyer, MDEP Project Manager

Via email:

RE: Passadumkeag Mountain Wind Project

Dear Commissioner Aho,

Please consider this letter and all attachments, references, and links as my submission to the MDEP on the matter of the proposed Passadumkeag Mountain Wind Project, to be entered into the official record for this case. I am writing to request that you deny this permit application, and I am including evidence that I believe will be helpful to you in reaching that decision.

I believe that the information that you received at the July 12 public meeting should have constituted overwhelming evidence that the applicant has failed to meet their burden of proof that this project would not have an unreasonable adverse impact on not only the surrounding area, but also on those lakes and other resources that qualify for special protection under the law, as ‘Resources of State or National Significance.’ However, I am going to provide even more reason for you to deny this project.

I have not had the opportunity to fully review the permit application, but I have read the complete MDEP draft analysis, and also having attended the second public meeting in Greenbush on July 12 [where I was not allowed to speak, due to time constraints], I offer you my perspective and my reasons for asking that you deny this permit application.

It might be helpful to point out that I was an Intervenor before LURC in the recent First Wind/Bowers Mountain Project, and I did considerable research into the scenic impact, wildlife impact, and impact on tourism related business of wind projects for that case. As the Passadumkeag Project and the Bowers Project share a lot of similarities, including general geographic area, scenic impacts to water bodies recognized for their scenic qualities, and similar potential threats to wildlife and wildlife habitat, I am asking that you review the entire Bowers Mountain/LURC DP4889 file and decision, and enter both into evidence as part of this MDEP review process. I believe that by reviewing that case, which benefited from a full public hearing process, and by entering both the evidence and the final decision into the record for the Passadumkeag Project, you will be able to better reach a decision that is within the law, and that serves the People and the Natural Resources of Maine which you are sworn to protect. That file is too large to attach here, but it can be easily accessed/downloaded from this link:

I would ask you to pay special attention to the wildlife impacts, especially to the Threatened Canada Lynx, and the Bats which are currently in a very dangerous population decline due to White Nose Syndrome. As in the Bowers Case, I can not find any evidence that the applicant in the Passadumkeag Project took these concerns seriously. I have several questions that I would like to see you demand answers to:

What actual on the ground surveys were done for Lynx in and around the project area? We know from those who use the area that Lynx are present, so why were on the ground tracking surveys not done?

Has anyone from MDEP contacted local MDIF&W Game Warden Paul Farrington, to get his personal opinion about the local Lynx population? Having spoken to him myself, I know that he is quite knowledgeable on the subject.

Has anyone from MDEP asked Mark McCollough at The United States Fish and Wildlife Service if he has specific concerns about Lynx, Bats, Birds, or other Threatened/Endangered species, including Turtles? Has he gone on the record as saying that this project will definitely NOT have an unreasonable adverse impact on any of these species? If he is not able to say, in writing, that there will be no unreasonable adverse impact, then the project must be denied.

Mr. McCollough refused to appear as a witness in the Bowers case, but in a phone conversation with me while I was preparing for that case, he expressed concern that not enough studies had been done on Lynx populations in this general area, and he also expressed concern for the potential of catastrophic bird mortality events. He went on to recommend that Jennifer Vachon from The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife should be involved with Lynx Studies in the area, and he told me that USFWS was so concerned with the possibility of Lynx mortality that they were considering requiring any wind projects in potential Lynx habitat to gate their roads, to prevent access by hunters and trappers as well as to prevent Lynx/vehicle collisions. Most people in the area are under the impression that the wind project area will be open to both vehicle and foot traffic after construction. Has this access issue been considered by MDEP? Although this conversation took place over a year ago, before the population of Myotis Species Bats in Maine had been confirmed to have experienced the severe die off from White Nose Syndrome, Mr. McCollough expressed great concern over the effect of additional wind turbine mortality on an already stressed population. But, as he would not attend the public hearing, and as he told me that he was much too busy to even read, let alone comment on, most new wind applications, much of this information will not be forthcoming and confirmed unless MDEP Staff directly and specifically question Mr. McCollough.

I am requesting that MDEP place a phone call to Mr. McCollough presenting him with these questions, and requesting a written response, for the record.

Has anyone at MDEP spoken to Jennifer Vachon at MDIF&W about her concerns for Lynx in the area? I am requesting that she too receive a phone call and a request for a written response regarding potential impacts to Lynx and/or Lynx habitat, for the record. If she can not say, in writing, that there will be no unreasonable adverse impact, then the project must be denied.

Has anyone from MDEP spoken to John DePue at MDIF&W about his specific concerns for Bat mortality, especially given the recent news that certain species are facing 80 to 100 percent mortality in certain areas of Maine, due to White Nose Syndrome? Can he say that we can afford to risk loosing even one more Bat to wind turbines under the current circumstances? I am requesting that Mr. DePue also receive a phone call with a request for written details of his specific concerns for Bat mortality at this project site, and cumulatively, at all Maine wind project sites. If he can not say, in writing, that there will be no unreasonable adverse impact, then the project must be denied.

Even if these experts offer the opinion that the project will not have an unreasonable adverse impact on the animals and habitats in question, the MDEP must remember that it is still only an opinion. Such an opinion must be backed up with science and facts, not just ‘because I said so,’ in order to carry any weight. The duty of MDEP is not to simply take an opinion [even an expert opinion] at face value, but to actually study the situation, gather the facts, apply ALL of the available information, and make decisions that are in the best interest of the Resource which they are charged with protecting. Just because an ‘expert’ is willing to abdicate his responsibility to the Resource in favor of political expedients [yes, it has been known to happen], does not absolve MDEP from ultimate legal and moral responsibility to protect that Resource.

Despite the applicant’s [in the Bowers case--First Wind], claims in later news articles, a careful review of the Bowers record will show that the LURC Commissioners never actually determined that the project would not have unreasonable adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat. They simply decided to spend their limited time deliberating on the scenic impact, as it was obvious that this was huge. I would ask the MDEP to review the relevant parts of my testimony and my cross examination of the applicant’s consultants as well as of the MDIF&W personnel in the Bowers case, [available at the above link], and carefully consider that information in making any determination as to the potential effects of the Passadumkeag Project on animals and/or animal habitat.

On the subject of “Financial Capacity,” I can only say that while it may be true that the applicant in the Passadumkeag Project has the financial capacity to build the project, it has not yet been proven. The pages from the application that I was able to review were mostly blacked-out redaction. In my view, there was nothing presented that came anywhere near providing the proof of financial capacity that is required under Maine Law. This in and of itself should have been reason to deny the application from being deemed complete and ready for processing.

On the subject of Unreasonable Adverse Scenic Impact, which is perhaps the criteria that the approval or denial of this application is most likely to center on, all I can say is, the facts speak for themselves. The applicant’s so called ‘survey’ is a joke, and the petitions submitted by actual users of the resource, along with the testimony at the July 12 meeting in Greenbush, should be considered as more than overwhelming evidence that the applicant has failed to meet their burden of proof on this count. Combine this with the information on scenic impact as provided in the full Public Hearing held by LURC in the Bowers case, and it becomes obvious to even the casual observer that the scenic impact of this project is most certainly unreasonably adverse, and reason enough to deny the permit.

While on the subject of scenic impact, I would like to comment on an obvious problem with the MDEP process. You have retained David Raphael, of Land Works, as you ‘independent’ third party visual consultant. Given the fact that Mr. Rafael was the visual consultant hired by First Wind to convince the LURC Commissioners that the Bowers Project would not have an unreasonable adverse scenic impact, and given the fact that the LURC Commissioners [as well as virtually every user of the resource who commented], unanimously and emphatically disagreed with him, I have to ask; Why is he now considered qualified to provide ‘unbiased’ recommendations to the MDEP? The man’s record clearly shows that he was either terribly mistaken, or openly corrupted in the Bowers case, and yet you are now depending on him to provide you with guidance on the Passadumkeag Project. I would like to know how Mr. Rafael was chosen for this position, and why you consider his opinion to be trustworthy and reliable, given his record.

In closing, I would simply request that you follow the evidence, listen to the People who have spoken, and then do the right thing for the People and the Resource which you are charged with protecting.

I would like answers, in writing, to the questions contained in this submission, before any decision is made in this case. I would like those answers not only sent to me, but also to be made part of the official record for this case. I would also like to be put on a list of Interested Persons to be notified of any developments or updates in this case, and of its final outcome.

If I can be of any service, or if there are questions that I can help answer for you, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.

Respectfully submitted,

David P. Corrigan

About David Corrigan

Registered Maine Master Guide-- Owner, Fletcher Mountain Outfitters-- Operator, Appalachian Trail/Kennebec River Ferry Service
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to My Passadumkeag Comments

  1. thank you once again david

  2. Bob Baker says:

    Great letter! I will try fashioning a letter to send.

  3. Dave says:

    Great letter Dave.
    Many questions remain and soon we will be fighting on the front lines for our very own mountains once again.
    Since we have backed off on our regular monthly Friends of The Highland Mountains meetings, we feel like we are playing in the back field. We opposed doing away with the formal meetings and just having social events. Helping others with their wind issues has kept us tuned to a degree.

    Why aren’t environmental impact statements (EIS) required for these projects? I asked this once several years ago early on in this fiasco and am pretty sure the individual bushed it off as not being a government requirement.
    They must of been exempted by the fed. gov. to help force wind projects through.
    They are required for everything else that affects the environment.
    I have brought up wind power related issues at several state “out of door related meetings” and have been brushed off by participants at those meetings. At the first one that I brought it up, I was told (yelled at) that we weren’t going to discuss any dam wind at the meeting.
    Seems like our old governor had covered his bases with all the state agencies and out of door interest groups that depend on regulation through the state.
    The most powerful SAM, TU, MPGA, & MTA have not stepped out against wind.
    At least not that I am aware of.

  4. dan McKay says:

    Damn good letter, Dave, and good tie-in to LURC and Bowers. Everyone at the Greenbush meeting expressed the importance of maintaining the visuals of the area as it related to quality of life in Maine.

  5. Hart Daley says:


    Excellent letter. Well written and to the point. You clearly have identified the failures surrounding the DEP permit approval (not review) process. David Raphael, of Land Works, as you ‘independent’ third party visual consultant. Thank you for pointing out that Mr. Rafael was the visual consultant hired by First Wind to convince the LURC Commissioners that the Bowers Project would not have an unreasonable adverse scenic impact and that the LURC Commissioners as well as almost every user of the resource who commented unanimously disagreed with him, indicating his ignorance, disconnect, bias and/or corruption.

    I wish more people would take the time to educate themselves on this farce as you have. Keep up the great work!


  6. Terri says:

    Awesome letter!

  7. Don says:

    I am overwhelmed by your comprehensive and articulate letter to the Maine DEP! All I can say is simply, thank you, for that effort. I am sure everyone who is familiar with the wind issue feels indebted to you for that heroic piece of work. This should be an eye opener for them.
    Sincerely, Don Moore

  8. Penny Gray says:

    Thank you, David, for an excellent letter. I hope you will post the MDEP’s replies to your questions, as well. It will be most interesting to see if they do their homework.

  9. All I did was present the facts that I had, and ask some questions that needed to be asked. The folks from Passadumkeag Mountain Friends, and all the folks who signed the petitions and showed up at the Public Meetings [proving that the developer was totally off base with their 'survey,'] are the real heroes here.

    Working together, we WILL run these carpetbaggers out of Maine!

    And Dave— During the Bowers case the MPGA [along with the Maine Sporting Camp Association] DID come out with an anti wind statement. Perhaps not as soon or as strongly worded as we would have liked, but they ARE coming around.

    As for the others…..SAM has taken the money, and when I personally called Trout Unlimited, they told me that they were too busy with other things to become involved in fighting wind……… Sounded to me like they were too busy kissing ass, trying to get their pet projects done.

    Maine Wilderness Guides Organization has received information from us on several occasions, but I think too many of the Granola Guides have drank the Cool Aid……. They should be ashamed of themselves, but they seem to have no idea what wind is doing, and is going to do to this State, and their business.

    I haven’t heard from MTA.

    Penny— Yes, I will definitely post any reply that I get from MDEP regarding my questions.


  10. Mike D says:

    Great job Dave, and thanks for the reminder to submit letters. Funny how P Mtn. was on the hit list map presented by FirstWind at the Lincoln hearing, then appeared as another company for the final application. I smell a rat. The guy running the projector zipped thru the map to the next frame like there were things they didn’t want us to see. We noticed a couple anyway and P Mtn was one. With the great showing at the Greenbush school it would seem like it is time for a leg. review of the expedited wind law and what areas are suitable for windsprawl( there are none). The reps to the leg. need to be responsive to the many who show up protesting the travesty to our state.

  11. Pingback: Dave corrigan | Ewomencleanse

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>