Published on April 14, 2004

MONTPELIER — Negotiations between the state and wind developers over how to best study migratory birds and bats at East Mountain may have collapsed.

East Haven Windfarm developer David Rapaport recently said he “was bowled over” by the proposed scope of studies that could cost his company between $740,000 and $840,000 and take up to three years to complete.

That is the low and high range of a study that the Agency of Natural Resources is proposing for a project, now before the Public Service Board (PSB) to place four 320-foot towers on the summit of East Mountain in East Haven. The study would be paid for by the Montpelier developers.

“It’s shocking that they would seek someone to spend that kind of money on four towers at an already developed site,” said Mr. Rapaport, who along with Matthew Rubin wants to build an industrial wind farm on ridgelines in Essex County.

“It’s another way of saying we don’t want wind,” he added in interview last Friday, April 9.

Controversy has dogged the developers ever since they announced plans last year to put towers up on a mountain that lies in heart of the region’s most rugged and scenic landscape.

Concerns among environmentalists over the impact the demonstration towers may have on birds and bats surfaced earlier this winter when Vermont’s chapter of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the state Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) requested more time for a study.

The parties began talking privately about what steps could be taken, but it now appear those negotiations are on the verge of collapse.

Mr. Rapaport said the company plans to meet with high ranking officials of the Douglas Administration in hopes they will “rein in this rogue agency.”

“I haven’t showed this to anybody who hasn’t been outraged by it,” he said, speaking of ANR’s proposed study.

As summarized by the Montpelier based company, the study calls for spending up to $375,000 for radar, acoustic, and stopover netting studies of bird migration over three years: up to $140,000 for similar studies of bat migration over two years; and up to $330,000 for breeding bird studies that would run three to four years.

For his part, Warren Coleman, an environmental lawyer with ANR, accused the developers of acting in bad faith.

“The agency is not pleased that East Haven Windfarm has gone public with what was supposed to be a private document,” he said in an interview Friday.

He said the proposed study was ANR’s initial position on the project, and went out with the support of the secretary of the agency Wibs McLain.

Mr. Coleman said by making the document public, East Haven Windfarm had “clouded the ability to go much further” with negotiations.

The falling out between the two parties is the latest chapter in a spirited debate throughout the state over whether industrial wind farms should be sited on Vermont’s ridgelines.

ANR recently completed a round of public hearings to see if wind towers should be placed on land that is publicly owned. The agency is expected to come out next month with a policy on that issue.

Mr. Coleman said that neither the hearings nor preparations for that policy had any bearing on ANR’s position toward the East Mountain project.

In the present case, he said, ANR was doing its job by presenting the board with an assessment of the impact the project might have on wildlife and birds at East Mountain, the site of a former U.S. Air Force radar base. Mr. Coleman said the scope of studies would be different if the project was located at another site where there had been no roads or development.

As outlined by the company, ANR’s proposal calls for “a minimum of three experienced field biologists” who would be provided housing at or near the site.

Given the project’s size and what it hopes to achieve as a demonstration model, Mr. Rapaport said, ANR’s proposed study is way out of line. He said one of the reasons for the project is to provide hard and fast data on how wind towers affect wildlife.

“When we put the towers up, that’s when we’ll get real information on mortality risks,” he said.

Studies of migratory birds and bats on East Mountain undertaken earlier by the company concluded that the towers would have no biologically significant impact. But those conclusions were challenged by TNC, who called for both pre-construction and post-construction studies at the site.

Now it appears that they are being joined in that call by ANR.

“The agency wants more than a body count,” said Mr. Coleman, who didn’t see anything extraordinary in the proposed scope of studies.

“We’re reviewing it essentially as we would do an Act 250 project,” he said.

To put the towers up, East Haven Windfarm needs to obtain a certificate of public good from the PSB, the state agency that regulates the siting of all electrical generating plants and transmission lines.

If the two parties don’t resume their talks, or fail to reach an agreement, their arguments will likely go before the three-member board during a scheduled round of hearings.

The board has already granted a request from environmentalists for more time to study the behavior of birds and bats at East Mountain. Granted last month, the extension will carry the hearings into next spring.