Mars Hill wind power plan OK’d BEP sets conditions, demands research on wildlife impacts

AUGUSTA – The wind power development proposed to crown Mars Hill Mountain in central Aroostook County will go forward, the Board of Environmental Protection decided Thursday.

However, in the interest of setting precedent for future wind developments, board members also voted to specify details of what sort of research into potential wildlife impacts they expect of developer Evergreen Windpower LLC and its successors in the wind industry.

“This is the board speaking,” said member Irving Faunce of Kennebunkport. “This is a big project. … It’s important as a record of what we expect wind power projects to do.”

Peter Gish, of Evergreen’s parent company, UPC Wind Partners LLC, said Thursday that the project is on schedule to have financing as soon as federal legislators renew a renewable energy tax credit, which is believed to have bipartisan support, and will likely come up for a vote this fall. If so, construction could begin once the ground thaws next spring.

“We’re cautiously optimistic,” Gish said.

The proposed installation of 33 wind turbines along the mountain’s ridge, producing an estimated 50 megawatts of “green” energy, was approved by the Department of Environmental Protection in June.

But Maine Audubon filed an appeal of the company’s permit, arguing that almost no data exist describing bird and bat migrations in Aroostook County and that a full year of formal studies would be needed before the 400-foot-tall turbines could be deemed safe for wildlife.

Initially, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife raised similar concerns, but after meeting with Evergreen this summer, it struck a compromise requiring that the company conduct extensive monitoring of wildlife impacts once the turbines are in place.

The agreement also required that the company conduct limited surveys of bird and bat populations at the site prior to and during construction.

The research plan provides some baseline data of the site prior to the installation of the turbines, but places the focus of spending on the more scientifically valuable post-construction monitoring, according to testimony by Ken Elowe, head of DIF&W’s Bureau of Resource Management, during a public hearing held earlier this month.

On Thursday, the board voted unanimously to deny Audubon’s appeal, saying that the sort of formal pre-construction studies that the environmental group wanted could make it more difficult for the company to finance the development – a project that board members agreed would have an overall benefit for Maine’s environment.

Yet the board did, after some debate, add new requirements to “clarify” the agreement, stating that Evergreen must inform the DEP upon receiving the financing for the wind farm, and that pre-operational wildlife surveys must begin within 30 days of that financing.

The company also agreed to work with the DEP and DIF&W over the next month to design the scope and methodology for research, then submit their plan to the department.

Department staff members called the board’s attention to their finding – based on a great deal of data about other wind developments, and the little that is known about Mars Hill’s bird and bat populations – that the development would have no adverse environmental impact.

And any impacts would be found, and addressed, during the rigid monitoring scheduled after the turbines start turning, they said.

Board Chairman Richard Wardwell of Orono agreed, arguing that the company could be trusted to act in its own best interest and take precautions if the pre-operation research reveals anything unexpected.

“Whacking a bunch of birds with those blades, … it just doesn’t make sense as a businessperson to do that,” Wardwell said.

Jen Burns, a lawyer employed by Maine Audubon in Falmouth, said Thursday that while she would have preferred to see the wind project construction contingent upon the completion of fall and spring migration research, the amended requirements improve a project that can be good for Maine.

“We’re pleased that [the board] heard our concerns,” she said.

Though Evergreen’s Portland-based lawyer, Juliet Browne, on Thursday called the new provisions unnecessary, she raised no objection to their inclusion, adding that the company had always intended to pass on all data to state regulators.