Pictured are some of the 22 turbines that were erected during the first phase of the Kibby Wind Power project last year; 22 more are in construction. TransCanada has two more proposals before LURC. (David Hart photo) KIBBY TOWNSHIP -– TransCanada’s plans to expand its already approved 44-wind turbine 132- megawatt facility is on its way to denial. The Land Use Regulation Commission took a straw vote last Wednesday, July 7 suggesting that it will deny a proposal to place 15 turbines on a ridgeline north of Sisk Mountain.

The proposed ridgeline does fall under the Wind Energy Act’s area for “expedited wind energy permitting.”

According to LURC staff director Catherine Carroll, the commissioners while reviewing its criteria had a host of issues and concerns with the 15-turbine proposal. The primary concern had to do with undue adverse impacts on wildlife for a portion of the area. Other concerns had to do with the scenic character and the impacts it would have from the Arnold Trail and the Chain of Ponds. The state has determined that this area has “outstand- ing” scenic significance.

Most of the concerns came in the southern and lower section of the proposal where seven turbines were proposed. This area is known for its fir/heart-leaved birch subalpine forest. It is this type of forest that the Bicknell’s Thrush, a rare migratory bird, is known to breed in.

LURC staff did not make a recommendation on this proposal, as directed by the commissioners who wanted to deliberate on their own, Carroll said.

As part of the record many environmental groups such as the Natural Resource Council of Maine, Maine Audubon and the Appalachian Mountain Club felt the project had some benefits, but had serious concerns with specific portions of the proposed area.

In 2007 the three conservation organizations supported the Kibby project with appropriate mitigation.

“We strongly support Maine’s goal of developing 2,000 megawatts of wind power by 2015 because doing so will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and is an essential part of our regional strategy to significantly reduce global warming pollution,” said Dylan Voorhees, Clean Energy Director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine. “NRCM recognizes the balance that must be struck between producing clean energy and protecting mountain and scenic resources. In our final analysis, we find part of this project achieves that balance, and part of it does not.”

The environmental groups felt the northern eight turbines should be approved, but the southern seven turbines were of concern.

“TransCanada could come back with a smaller proposal. There is nothing that’s stopping them from doing that,” Carroll explained.

The LURC director also said she wants to clarify that the 15-turbine proposal on the ridgeline north of Sisk Mountain is known as the Kibby 2 project. Another proposal outside of the expedited zone on Sisk Mountain was delivered to LURC in December and is known as Kibby 3.

Carroll said the commissioners wanted to review Kibby 2 first before they review the potential of expanding the “expedited wind energy permitting area.”

Commissioners will review the expansion of the area under a different set of criteria. Issues to consider when considering an expansion include: if it meets the States Energy Goals, does it make logical geographical sense and/or does it meet LURC’s comprehensive plans, as examples.

If Sisk Mountain is expanded into this zone, the same criteria would be used for Kibby 3 as is being used for Kibby 2.

Carroll explained that the commissioners asked the staff to draft a letter of denial for TransCanada’s Kibby 2 project. That draft will be presented at the next LURC meeting Aug. 4 in Bangor.

TransCanada delivered a third proposal to LURC in December. Known as Kibby 3, that project is proposed for Sisk Mountain an un-expedited area.