An Act Concerning the Review of Certain Projects under the Site Location of Development Laws
Maine Legislature, Session 127, LD 0911
Committee: Environment and Natural Resources
Sponsors: WINSOR, SAVIELLO, CAMPBELL, DUCHESNE, DUNPHY, HARLOW, MORRISON
Amends: 35-A MRSA §3451, 35-A MRSA §3452

Legislative Document 
No. 911 
H.P. 631 
House of Representatives, March 12, 2015 
An Act Concerning the Review of Certain Projects under the Site 
Location of Development Laws 
Reference to the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources suggested and ordered 
printed. 
ROBERT B. HUNT 
Clerk 
Presented by Representative WINSOR of Norway. 
Cosponsored by Senator SAVIELLO of Franklin and 
Representatives: CAMPBELL of Orrington, DUCHESNE of Hudson, DUNPHY of Embden, 
HARLOW of Portland, McCREIGHT of Harpswell, MORRISON of South Portland. 
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine as follows: 
Sec. 1.  35-A MRSA §3451, sub-§§1-D and 1-E are enacted to read: 
1-D.  Combined observation.  "Combined observation" means a view of more than 
one group of generating facilities within the field of view of a stationary viewer. 
1-E.  Cumulative scenic impact or effect.  "Cumulative scenic impact or effect" 
means the potential adverse effect on the scenic character and existing uses related to the 
scenic character of scenic resources of state or national significance resulting from the 
incremental impact of a proposed wind energy development when added to the effects of 
other past or present wind energy developments within the viewshed of a scenic resource 
of state or national significance.  A determination of cumulative scenic impact or effect 
may be based upon the combined observation, successive observation or sequential 
observation of wind energy developments by a viewer. 
Sec. 2.  35-A MRSA §3451, sub-§9, ¶D, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 661, Pt. A, 
§7, is amended to read: 
D.  A great pond that is: 
(1)  One of the 66 great ponds located in the State's organized area identified as 
having outstanding or significant scenic quality in the "Maine's Finest Lakes" 
study published by the Executive Department, State Planning Office in October 
1989; or 
(2)  One of the 280 great ponds in the State's unorganized or deorganized areas 
designated as outstanding or significant from a scenic perspective in the "Maine 
Wildlands Lakes Assessment" published by the Maine Land Use Regulation 
Commission in June 1987; or 
(3)  One of the great ponds listed in the publications cited in subparagraphs (1) 
and (2) but not considered to have outstanding or significant scenic quality under 
subparagraph (1) or designated as outstanding or significant from a scenic 
perspective under subparagraph (2) on which there is located at least one 
commercial sporting camp that was established prior to 2007; 
Sec. 3.  35-A MRSA §3451, sub-§§9-A and 9-B are enacted to read: 
9-A.  Sequential observation.  "Sequential observation" means a view of more than 
one group of generating facilities as the viewer travels along a linear route, including, but 
not limited to, a hiking trail or river. 
9-B.  Successive observation.  "Successive observation" means views of more than 
one group of generating facilities from a single viewpoint as a result of the viewer turning 
the viewer's head or body. 
Sec. 4.  35-A MRSA §3451, sub-§10-A is enacted to read: 
10-A.  Viewshed of a scenic resource.  "Viewshed of a scenic resource" means the 
geographic area as viewed from a scenic resource of state or national significance that 
includes a proposed wind energy development.  The viewshed of a scenic resource may 
include the visible proposed wind energy development from a single viewer position or 
the visible proposed wind energy development from multiple viewer positions.  The 
viewshed of a scenic resource is limited to the geographic area within 15 miles, measured 
horizontally, from the proposed wind energy development's generating facilities. 
Sec. 5.  35-A MRSA §3452, sub-§3, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 661, Pt. A, §7, is 
amended to read: 
3.  Evaluation criteria.  In making its determination pursuant to subsection 1, and in 
determining whether an applicant for an expedited wind energy development must 
provide a visual impact assessment in accordance with subsection 4, the primary siting 
authority shall consider: 
A.  The significance of the potentially affected scenic resource of state or national 
significance; 
B.  The existing character of the surrounding area; 
C.  The expectations of the typical viewer; 
D.  The expedited wind energy development's purpose and the context of the 
proposed activity; 
E.  The extent, nature and duration of potentially affected public uses of the scenic 
resource of state or national significance and the potential effect of the generating 
facilities' presence on the public's continued use and enjoyment of the scenic resource 
of state or national significance; and 
F.   The scope and scale of the potential effect of views of the generating facilities on 
the scenic resource of state or national significance, including but not limited to 
issues related to the number and extent of turbines visible from the scenic resource of 
state or national significance, the distance from the scenic resource of state or 
national significance and the effect of prominent features of the development on the 
landscape. 
In applying these evaluation criteria, the primary siting authority shall consider the 
primary impact and the cumulative scenic impact or effect of the development during 
both day and night on scenic resources of state or national significance.  A finding by the 
primary siting authority that the development's generating facilities are a highly visible 
feature in the landscape is not a solely sufficient basis for determination that an expedited 
wind energy project has an unreasonable adverse effect on the scenic character and 
existing uses related to scenic character of a scenic resource of state or national 
significance.  In making its determination under subsection 1, the primary siting authority 
shall consider insignificant the effects of portions of the development's generating 
facilities located more than 8 miles, measured horizontally, from a scenic resource of 
state or national significance. 
Sec. 6.  35-A MRSA §3452, sub-§4, as enacted by PL 2007, c. 661, Pt. A, §7, is 
repealed and the following enacted in its place: 
4.  Visual impact assessment; rebuttable presumption.  An applicant for an 
expedited wind energy development shall provide the primary siting authority with a 
visual impact assessment of the development that addresses the evaluation criteria in 
subsection 3 as follows. 
A.  If portions of the development's generating facilities are located within 8 miles, 
measured horizontally, from a scenic resource of state or national significance, a 
visual impact assessment is required. 
B.  Notwithstanding paragraph C, if portions of the development's generating 
facilities are located within 15 miles, measured horizontally, from Acadia National 
Park, the Appalachian Trail, a federally designated wilderness area, Baxter State Park 
or the Allagash Wilderness Waterway, a visual impact assessment is required. 
C.  If portions of the development's generating facilities are located more than 8 miles 
and up to 15 miles, measured horizontally, from a scenic resource of state or national 
significance, there is a rebuttable presumption that a visual impact assessment is 
required. Information intended to rebut the presumption must be submitted to the 
primary siting authority by the applicant with the application.  An interested person 
may respond to the applicant's rebuttal information within 30 days of the acceptance 
by the primary siting authority of the application as complete for processing. 
D.  The primary siting authority may require a visual impact assessment for portions 
of the development's generating facilities located more than 15 miles, measured 
horizontally, from a scenic resource of state or national significance if it finds that 
there is substantial evidence that a visual impact assessment is needed to determine if 
there is the potential for unreasonable adverse effects on scenic resources of state or 
national significance.  Information intended to rebut or support the need for a visual 
impact assessment of effects on scenic resources more than 15 miles from the 
development's generating facilities must be submitted to the primary siting authority 
by the applicant or any interested person not later than 60 days after acceptance by 
the primary siting authority of the application as complete for processing.  The 
applicant has an additional 15 days to respond to information submitted by interested 
persons. 
The primary siting authority shall make decisions under this subsection based on a 
preponderance of evidence in the record. 
SUMMARY 
This bill: 
1.  Creates several new definitions relating to the scenic impact of a wind energy 
development; 
2.  Allows for the consideration of cumulative scenic impacts in the permitting of 
wind energy developments; 
3.  Adds to the definition of "scenic resource of state or national significance" great 
ponds that were studied for their value in 1987 or 1989 and that have on them commercial 
sporting camps established prior to 2007; 
4.  Allows the Department of Environmental Protection to require a visual impact 
assessment for wind energy developments located within 15 miles of scenic resources of 
state or national significance and mandates a visual impact assessment if a generating 
facility is located within 15 miles of specific scenic resources of state or national 
significance; and 
5.  Allows the Department of Environmental Protection to require a visual impact 
assessment for wind energy developments located beyond 15 miles from scenic resources 
of state or national significance under certain limited circumstances.