Published on May 12, 2004

EAST HAVEN — The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has added its voice to a chorus calling for more migratory bird studies before siting four wind towers here on East Mountain.

“Of primary concern is the paucity of preconstruction data from which to assess impacts and design the project to avoid or minimize them,” wrote the service's New England field office supervisor, Michael Bartlett, in a letter last month to East Haven Windfarm (EHWF) President Matthew Rubin.

The letter joins calls from the state’s Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), along with the Vermont Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, for an extended study of migratory birds and bats before any construction gets underway.

“We believe a three-year timeframe would provide an adequate sampling period to account for yearly and seasonal variability of bird, bat, insect, and other wildlife activity at the proposed EHWF site,” advised Mr. Bartlett.

The USFWS’s objections comes at a time when the issue of the wind towers’ impact on migratory birds and bats is becoming central to the debate over whether industrial wind farms should be sited on state ridgelines.

EHWF is proposing to erect four 320-foot towers whose turbines will generate enough electricity, 1.5 megawatts apiece, to power roughly 3,000 residential homes. The company’s project is currently before the Public Service Board (PSB), the state agency that regulates electrical generating and transmission projects.

Recently the PSB granted an extension to allow ANR and The Nature Conservancy to “conduct fall migratory studies." This month the Montpelier-based wind company filed a motion with the PSB asking it to either overturn the extension on the grounds that such studies “are not necessary or useful,” or schedule a full hearing on the merits.

David Rapaport, the company’s vice-president and all-around point man, said he was not surprised by the objections raised by federal wildlife officials. In an interview last week, Mr. Rapaport noted the service has raised similar objections to four other wind power projects that are currently underway in Massachusetts.

“Their position is not supported by the facts,” he said in response to the letter.

If the wind farm entrepreneurs were feeling they should circle the wagons in light of mounting calls for more studies, they may have gotten a morale booster a few weeks ago in a ruling from the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs.

Secretary Ellen Herzfelder ruled that preconstruction bird and bat studies were not needed for a wind improvement project at Princeton, Massachusetts, where two towers with the capacity of 3.2 megawatts will be installed.

“I have reviewed the existing literature on avian risk from windpower nationwide and regional data and experience with the Searsburg wind farm, and I am generally satisfied that with few exceptions, risks from wind turbines have proven very minimal,” she wrote in a decision handed down on April 23.

News of the decision was both encouraging and timely for the Vermont company. Secretary Herzfelder went on to note that to require small wind developers “to conduct multi-year studies will either render economically infeasible, or at a minimum result in significant delays to, projects that have demonstrated environmental benefits... and present little potential for significant risks to avian populations.”

EHWF says it must have a certificate of public good by December 2004 in order to start construction in 2005. Any delay is expected to cost the company money, and in its motion before the board, the company estimates it will cost up to $200,000 a year to do the studies that have been requested.

As proposed, the four towers are to serve as a demonstration model. And although EHWF plans to sell Lyndon Electric the power its turbines generate, developers argue that the best evidence of their impact will come once the demonstration project is up and running.

“We need something real to look at,” noted Mr. Rapaport in a later interview this week.

But environmentalists argue preconstruction studies are critical, in light of the fact that very little is known about the impact an industrial wind farm could have on bats and birds.

While developers have argued that the impact would be biologically insignificant, officials like Mr. Bartlett with USFWS find such a conclusion “unavailing, especially as the applicant has not presented population and life history data and other resources that would justify such a conclusion on a site-specific basis.”

The federal service does not have party status in the case, and consequently is not eligible to provided testimony before the three-member PSB. It might, however, seek to intervene if the board elects to hear oral arguments on whether extensive bird studies are necessary.

In raising their objections, federal wildlife officials are putting the Vermont wind company on notice that it will be in violation of the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty if any birds are accidentally killed on East Mountain by the towers’ sweeping blades.

The East Mountain project marks the first time that USFWS has been involved in a PSB or Section 248 process, according to Vernon Lang, a biologist and assistant supervisor at the service’s New England office.

“It’s a unique animal,” he said in an interview last week, noting that neither New Hampshire nor Massachusetts has anything to compare to it.

Mr. Lang confirmed that his office has registered similar objections to wind power projects in Massachusetts, but added that each project has its own characteristics. Overall, he said, none of the projects “have significant data for us to make a sufficient determination” on their impact on birds and bats.

In regard to the ruling in the Princeton project, Mr. Lang noted that projects under 100 megawatts do not undergo a stiff regulatory review in Massachusetts.

Because of the proximity of East Mountain to the federal refuge on 26,000 acres of the former Champion lands, federal wildlife officials may be taking a special interest in the Vermont project.

“We are also concerned about potential impacts to the Nulhegan Unit of the Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge visitor experience, especially given the time, energy, and resources that Vermont, the Service, and the interested public have dedicated to the establishment and management of this area,” wrote Mr. Bartlett in his April 14 letter to Mr. Rubin.

While Mr. Lang said last week that the service will enforce the federal laws that are on the books, he added it will also “play it one step at a time” when it comes to taking a role in the PSB hearing that is now underway.

On Tuesday, Mr. Rapaport said he hopes to learn within the week whether the board will hear oral arguments on the need for migratory bird studies on East Mountain.