Evergreen Wind Power V, LLC Stetson Wind Project T8 R3 NBPP and T3R4 NBPP, Washington County

1. Evergreen Wind Power V, LLCStetson Wind ProjectT8 R3 NBPP and T3R4 NBPP, Washington County Final Development Plan Permit DP 4788

3. Administrative History DP 4756 (a-t-f in part, Dec 2006) Wind resource monitored since 2003 Class 4 to 5 wind resource ZP 713 and Preliminary Development Plan for 38 turbine wind power facility (Nov 7, 2007) 4,800 acre parcel rezoned to (D-PD) Planned Development Subdistrict Previously M-GN, P-SL and P-WL Subdistricts Preliminary Plan reviewed and approved No development in LURC mapped P-WL Subdistricts Public hearing - August 7 and 8, 2007 Final Development Plan permit application accepted for processing on November 21, 2007 Class 4 to 5 = 7.5 m/sec = Good/Excellent on the US Dept of Energy NREL wind classification scale Class 4 needed for a viable project Class 4 to 5 = 7.5 m/sec = Good/Excellent on the US Dept of Energy NREL wind classification scale Class 4 needed for a viable project

4. Proposal - Turbines 38 GE 1.5 MW wind turbines Approx. 7 miles along ridgeline Turbine and pad dimensions 389 ft tall at tip of blade Tower - 262 ft tall, 14.5 ft diameter at base Turbine pads 250 ft diameter, plus 0.28 acre for fill Includes permanent crane pad Re-vegetated after construction except for 0.17 acre Concrete bedrock anchor foundations 24 ft diameter concrete cap (average 5 ft deep) Rock anchor rods 40 � 50 ft deep Lighting plan (approved by FAA) 11 towers lit w/single, red, slow pulsing light

6. Proposal Roads Upgraded: 3.37 miles New: 5.9 miles Ridgeline and spur roads - 32 ft wide surface during construction, reduced to 16 ft wide (clearing 90 to 140 ft wide during construction) Access roads - 16 ft wide (clearing 45 ft wide) O&M facility (3 acres cleared) 7,000 sf office/warehouse building and parking Communication tower - 100 ft tall Substation Two permanent meteorological towers, 262 ft tall (2.26 acres) 1. Areas cleared along roads for construction would be re-vegetated 2. O&M building would have well and septic system 3 acres would remain permanently cleared 3. Met tower area would be re-vegetated, except as needed around base and for access 1. Areas cleared along roads for construction would be re-vegetated 2. O&M building would have well and septic system 3 acres would remain permanently cleared 3. Met tower area would be re-vegetated, except as needed around base and for access

7. Proposal � Transmission Lines Transmission lines 34.5 kV collector line along ridgeline and spur roads Above-ground corridor 60 ft wide Below-ground along spur roads 115 kV transmission line corridor LURC permit includes substation, and clearing and wetland impacts in corridor (3,380 ft by 150 ft wide, except 135 ft wide through forested wetland) MDEP reviewing 115 kV line starting at substation, wetland impacts outside D-PD Subdistrict ACOE reviewing all wetland impacts for turbine area and entire 115 kV line Transmission line corridors would remain permanently cleared, with vegetation 3 to 4 feet high. Status of MDEP permit review � Status of ACOE permit review � Status of town permits - Transmission line corridors would remain permanently cleared, with vegetation 3 to 4 feet high. Status of MDEP permit review � Status of ACOE permit review � Status of town permits -

10. Proposal � Temporary activities during construction Areas to be re-vegetated after construction Two crane assembly pads (0.56 acres) Lay-down/equipment storage areas with office and storage trailers (15.2 acres) Two meteorological towers � 262 ft tall (2.26 acres) Stump disposal area (1 acre) Gravel pits (1 on-site*, 2 off-site owned by LSI) On-site pit may be used for road maintenance up to 30 acres, with no more than 15 acres not in reclamation at any one time Off-site pits � Evergreen to track the size and other aspects of these pits to assure conformance with rules On-site pit may be used for road maintenance up to 30 acres, with no more than 15 acres not in reclamation at any one time Off-site pits � Evergreen to track the size and other aspects of these pits to assure conformance with rules

12. Proposal: Final Plan substantially the same as Preliminary Plan, w/changes: Area permanently cleared 21 acres, decreased from 33 acres Roads New - 5.9 miles, decreased from 9.74 Upgraded - 3.37 miles, decreased from 5.18 O&M building 7,000 sf, increased from 5,000 sf Wetland alterations 24,552 sf, increased from 14,000 sf 115 kV transmission line corridor in D-PD Subdistrict 3,380 ft long, increased from 3,000 ft No concrete production on-site Roads - Removed many spur roads Wetlands � Stream crossings and clearing in P-WL3 wetlands Tier 2 wetland reviewRoads - Removed many spur roads Wetlands � Stream crossings and clearing in P-WL3 wetlands Tier 2 wetland review

14. Proposal Parcel owned by Lakeville Shores, leased by Evergreen Landowner would continue timber harvesting Site access Primary access point at north end � via Atlas Rd. from Rt. 169 Southern access point via Tar Ridge Rd. for light vehicles, concrete trucks at southern end, exit for some gravel trucks Setbacks 400 ft from D-PD Subdistrict boundary (except access roads and 115 kV line) 100 ft from streams within D-PD Subdistrict Otherwise as determined by the Commission

15. Proposal: Environmental Assessment Updated in Final Plan Wetlands Increased impact area (14,000 sf to 24,552 sf) All for road crossings or clearing Restoration of an old crossing (1,800 sf) Noise Ambient and post-construction monitoring Historic report � MHPC sign-off No changes, reviewed in Preliminary Plan Wildlife and habitat Bird and bat post-construction monitoring Visual assessment No undue adverse impact determined for ZP 713 approval

16. Proposal:Environmental Assessment Soils and phosphorus control Soils suitable for proposed use; limitations during saturated or frozen conditions to deal with 250 ft buffer proposed along roads Erosion and storm water control Plans appropriate to handle runoff Review of final acid rock management plans Use of rock sandwich to maintain hydrology Third-party inspection and reporting of e/s measures Re-vegetation monitoring and reporting Geotechnical investigation Acidic bedrock at 22 turbine sites To crush and re-use as fill, material must be tested, adjustments made to erosion control measures, runoff and receiving water quality tested, diversion of runoff to buffers, drainage in pads toward center, etc. Submit final management plan w/in 30 days of permit

17. Agency Review Comments (p 27-29) State Soil Scientist Reviewed level of soils mapping of development areas Erosion and storm water control showing on plans dated Dec 13, 2007 should be used Review and comment on final plan for management of runoff from acidic bedrock MDEP Phosphorus best handled using MDEP storm water BPMs and 250 ft buffers along roads * Blasting plan acceptable Management plan for runoff from acidic bedrock needed: test rock and gravel, establish baseline for stream water quality, find alternatives for crushed acidic rock Phosphorus comment during Preliminary Plan review, no additional comments on final Applicant met with Dave Rocque and Mark Stebbins about acid rock, also with Dave about soilsPhosphorus comment during Preliminary Plan review, no additional comments on final Applicant met with Dave Rocque and Mark Stebbins about acid rock, also with Dave about soils

18. Agency Review Comments (p 27-29) MDIFW Reviewed Preliminary Plan, no additional comments on Final Plan Recommended post-construction bird and bat monitoring in consultation w/MDIFW MHPC Reviewed archaeological and historic surveys No impact to archaeological or historic resources MDOT In respect to transportation of turbines to site In general, all permits for transportation of equipment to the site must be obtained DHHS/DHE Reviewed septic system design No comments from Intervening or Interested Parties, one comment from a member of the public about noise standardsNo comments from Intervening or Interested Parties, one comment from a member of the public about noise standards

19. Review Criteria and Conclusions Conclusion #1 - 12 M.R.S.A., � 685,B(4); Criteria for approval of development (p. 29) Technical and financial capacity Circulation of traffic in, on, and from the site; will not cause congestion or unsafe conditions Harmonious fit and no undue adverse impact Will not cause unreasonable soil erosion & suitable soils available for septic system In conformance with Chapter 206-A Evidence of economic benefits and impact on energy resources may be provided by the applicant Meets statutory review criteria Discussed under individual standards and/or conclusions already made during Preliminary Plan (i.e. regarding no undue adverse impact)Meets statutory review criteria Discussed under individual standards and/or conclusions already made during Preliminary Plan (i.e. regarding no undue adverse impact)

20. Review Criteria and Conclusions: Conclusion #2 - D-PD Subdistrict Rules, �10.21,G (p. 30) 10.21,G,2 � 400 ft setback from D-PD boundary 10.21,G,8,c(3) � Submit Final Plan w/in 18 months of D-PD approval 10.21,G,10,a � Required submittals for Final Development Plan Complies with conditions of Preliminary Plan In substantial compliance with Preliminary Plan Required 400 ft setback would be met All required exhibits submittedRequired 400 ft setback would be met All required exhibits submitted

21. Review Criteria and Conclusions: Conclusion #3 - �10.25: [All permitted activities must meet these standards] (p. 30/31) Technical and financial capacity Vehicle circulation, access, and parking Scenic character, natural and historic features Noise and lighting 1. Technical and financial capacity � Reviewed in Preliminary; use of standby letter of credit proposed for decommissioning Traffic � Parking areas and site distance provided for; transport of turbines to site is GE�s responsibility; MDOT reviewed Scenic character � Reviewed in Preliminary Plan - concluded no undue adverse impact, and consistent with 10.25,E,1 � ridgeline low, rolling, partially masked or only visible at a distance, often not visible at all Natural features � MNAP & MDIFW review, no undue adverse impact, in Preliminary Plan � no listed species of communities directly affected Historic features � no impact, per MHPC review Noise in D-PD as determined by the Commission � Proposed MGN standards 55 dBA during operation and night construction Daytime construction exempt; monitoring of noise proposed Lighting � turbines per FAA approved plan, minimized; during construction nighttime lighting used only when needed to construct turbines when weather conditions require it, limited to two turbines at once; during operation on-site lighting would meet LURC standards 1. Technical and financial capacity � Reviewed in Preliminary; use of standby letter of credit proposed for decommissioning Traffic � Parking areas and site distance provided for; transport of turbines to site is GE�s responsibility; MDOT reviewed Scenic character � Reviewed in Preliminary Plan - concluded no undue adverse impact, and consistent with 10.25,E,1 � ridgeline low, rolling, partially masked or only visible at a distance, often not visible at all Natural features � MNAP & MDIFW review, no undue adverse impact, in Preliminary Plan � no listed species of communities directly affected Historic features � no impact, per MHPC review Noise in D-PD as determined by the Commission � Proposed MGN standards 55 dBA during operation and night construction Daytime construction exempt; monitoring of noise proposed Lighting � turbines per FAA approved plan, minimized; during construction nighttime lighting used only when needed to construct turbines when weather conditions require it, limited to two turbines at once; during operation on-site lighting would meet LURC standards

22. Review Criteria and Conclusions: Conclusion #3 - �10.25: [All permitted activities must meet these standards] (p. 34) Soil suitability Solid waste disposal Subsurface wastewater disposal Phosphorus control Erosion and sedimentation control Wetland alterations 1. Soils suitable - SSS reviewed and discussed with applicant; project designed to avoid areas of sensitive soils 2. Solid waste disposal � Stump dumps and bury stumps on-site 3. Subsurface waster water disposal � system design approved 4. Phosphorus control � MDEP recommended 250 ft buffer along roads and using MDEP�s BMPs 5. E/S Plan generally acceptable, uses rock sandwich; third-party inspection program proposed Concern remains for handling acid rock drainage, plan proposed, work in progress � management plan being prepared 6. Wetlands � Meet standards for Tier 2 review, no compensation need � most alterations clearing or crossings 1. Soils suitable - SSS reviewed and discussed with applicant; project designed to avoid areas of sensitive soils 2. Solid waste disposal � Stump dumps and bury stumps on-site 3. Subsurface waster water disposal � system design approved 4. Phosphorus control � MDEP recommended 250 ft buffer along roads and using MDEP�s BMPs 5. E/S Plan generally acceptable, uses rock sandwich; third-party inspection program proposed Concern remains for handling acid rock drainage, plan proposed, work in progress � management plan being prepared 6. Wetlands � Meet standards for Tier 2 review, no compensation need � most alterations clearing or crossings

23. Review Criteria and Conclusions: Conclusion #4: �10.26 - Minimum dimensional requirements (p. 37) 10.26,F � Maximum building height may exceed 100 ft for structures with no floor area (spires, towers, etc) 10.26,G � Except for shoreline setbacks, dimensional requirements in D-PD Subdistricts are set by the Commission Project meets shoreline setbacks � 100 ft from streams and P-WL1s 50 ft road setback for structuresProject meets shoreline setbacks � 100 ft from streams and P-WL1s 50 ft road setback for structures

24. Review Criteria and Conclusions: Conclusion #5: �10.27 � [Standards for activities not requiring a permit; may be exceeded with a permit] (p. 38) Clearing Mineral extraction Roads and water crossings Filling and grading Signs Clearing � No clearing in P-SL2s except for crossings � 75 ft wide vegetated buffer and 100 ft setback; most of area would be re-vegetated Clearing in P-WLs as determined under the wetland review 2. Mineral extraction � pit on site would be limited to size in M-GN rules and meets setbacks; tested to determine if it is acidic; applicant would track off-site pits sizes to assure compliance 3. Roads and water crossings � use of rock sandwich provided for in LURC�s rules for wetland crossings; replacing existing culverts, road slope maximum 14%; shoulders 2:1; permanent road 16 ft wide 4. Filling and grading � set back at least 100 ft from all streams, filling and grading areas mostly 0-10% slope; all disturbed soils will be stabilized >> filling would be within 250 ft of a wetland delineated on the ground by the applicant, but not within 250 ft of a LURC mapped wetland. 5. Directional signs � Condition says no more than 4 sf if visible from public road, no more than 12 sf if not visible form roadway Clearing � No clearing in P-SL2s except for crossings � 75 ft wide vegetated buffer and 100 ft setback; most of area would be re-vegetated Clearing in P-WLs as determined under the wetland review 2. Mineral extraction � pit on site would be limited to size in M-GN rules and meets setbacks; tested to determine if it is acidic; applicant would track off-site pits sizes to assure compliance 3. Roads and water crossings � use of rock sandwich provided for in LURC�s rules for wetland crossings; replacing existing culverts, road slope maximum 14%; shoulders 2:1; permanent road 16 ft wide 4. Filling and grading � set back at least 100 ft from all streams, filling and grading areas mostly 0-10% slope; all disturbed soils will be stabilized >> filling would be within 250 ft of a wetland delineated on the ground by the applicant, but not within 250 ft of a LURC mapped wetland. 5. Directional signs � Condition says no more than 4 sf if visible from public road, no more than 12 sf if not visible form roadway

25. Review Criteria and Conclusions: Conclusion #6: Post-construction monitoring and reporting (p. 40) Contribution to state energy policy for 2 years Re-vegetation monitoring Until 85% coverage achieved Re-assess site condition after 85% cover achieved * Changes to plan must be reviewed and approved Bird and bat monitoring As proposed in Preliminary Plan, per MDIFW�s recommendations Report annually, re-assess after three years Erosion/sedimentation control Third-party monitoring Keep inspection reports on site for three years * Re-vegetation � Applicant requested deleting req. to re-assess once 85% cover achieved E/S plan � conditions should have included report annually Re-vegetation � Applicant requested deleting req. to re-assess once 85% cover achieved E/S plan � conditions should have included report annually

26. Review Criteria and Conclusions: Conclusion #7: (p. 41) Final SPCC Plan must be submitted December 13, 2007 engineered plans are the approved version Approach to provisions for decommissioning plan is appropriate, given the time period until the need for such a plan would be determined. Maintenance of project roads are the responsibility of the applicant; lease agreement provides legal right to do this work Blasting Plan acceptable (meets State law requirements)

27. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Development Plan Permit DP 4788 for the 38 turbine Stetson Wind Project, with the following conditions: Condition #1 (p.42) Only uses approved in the Final Plan allowed Uses allowed w/out a permit in M-GN, P-WL, and P-SL continued Must meet standards in 10.25 to 10.27, except as provided herein Condition #2 (p. 43) � Permittee responsible for all proposals made in consultation with State agencies

28. Conditions (p. 43) #3 � Report contribution to State policies* #4 - Setbacks 400 ft from D-PD boundaries 50 feet from traveled surface of roads 100 feet from streams and P-WL1 wetlands #5 - Traffic flow Provide for safe traffic conditions and prevent congestion of vehicles leaving and entering the site (site distance, directional signs) Use southern access only for light vehicles, concrete trucks serving southern end, and as exit for gravel trucks As requested by the Commissioners, and as conditioned in Preliminary PlanAs requested by the Commissioners, and as conditioned in Preliminary Plan

29. Conditions (p. 43) #6 - Noise Limits at D-PD Subdistrict boundary 55 dBA during operation 55 dBA during construction - 7 pm to 7 am* Monitor ambient sound, sound during construction, and sound during operation Report Bi-monthly during construction Quarterly during first year of operation, propose remedial measures if needed Condition #6 should read 55 dBA at night (7 pm to 7 am) Daytime construction noise exempt from standards Condition #6 should read 55 dBA at night (7 pm to 7 am) Daytime construction noise exempt from standards

30. Conditions (p. 44) #7 - Lighting Turbines - FAA approved plan O&M lighting in accordance with 10.27,F,2 Nighttime lighting during construction limited #8 - Erosion and storm water control 250 ft wide buffer along roads Third-party site inspection and reporting Use of �rock sandwich� road design Frozen or saturated conditions - as recommended by SSS and geotechnical report Final Plan to handle acid rock drainage 30 days from issue date of permit * #9 - Solid waste disposal Stump use and disposal Wash-down of concrete trucks Dave Rocque submitted comments on Dec 28, after reviewing staff recommendation � not comfortable with issuing permit before acid rock management plan submitted and approved Dec 28 � draft management plan submitted, Dave Rocque reviewed and commented on Dec 31Dave Rocque submitted comments on Dec 28, after reviewing staff recommendation � not comfortable with issuing permit before acid rock management plan submitted and approved Dec 28 � draft management plan submitted, Dave Rocque reviewed and commented on Dec 31

31. Conditions (p. 45) #10 - Mineral excavation Track off-site gravel pits Use of on-site pit after construction for road maintenance Size limit per M-GN Subdistrict rules #11 - Wetlands P-WL1 impacts for road crossings of streams Up to 25,000 sf of P-WL3 forested wetland impacts approved Additional impacts reviewed cumulatively, and in accordance with �10.21,G,10,c and �10.25,P Maintain 250 ft buffer around vernal pool, except that road may be 150 ft from pool

32. Conditions (p. 46) #12 - Environmental monitoring and reporting Re-vegetation: Report bi-annually 1st year; must have 85% cover and if not, remedial measures taken Bird and bat monitoring: Report annually; propose remedial measures if needed; re-assess after 3 years to determine is level of monitoring should change Erosion and storm water control: Third party inspection and reporting; keep on�site for three years * * This condition should have also included annual summary reporting to LURC * This condition should have also included annual summary reporting to LURC

33. Conditions (p. 46) #13 � Decommissioning If project ceases to operate Notify LURC within 60 days Submit detailed schedule and plan, per June 2007 plan Year one - By Dec 31, secure irrevocable stand by letter of credit for $76,000 Years 2 through 7 - Add $76,000 annually Year 7 � Total amount at least $650,000 Years 8 to 14 � Increase amount to ensure costs will be covered Submit report annually to Commission Year 15 - Secure letter of credit in full amount needed #14 � Miscellaneous conditions Septic system in location in HHE-200 Obtain Certificate of Inspection from LPI Submit Final Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan for O&M facility Directional sign size limitations in accordance with 10.27,J #14 � Miscellaneous conditions Septic system in location in HHE-200 Obtain Certificate of Inspection from LPI Submit Final Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan for O&M facility Directional sign size limitations in accordance with 10.27,J

34. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Final Development Plan Permit DP 4788 for the Stetson Wind Project, as conditioned.

37. Staff - Edits and Corrections Add Cond.#12,C - Third party E/S inspection - �and submit annual E/S report to Commission� Bird diverters on guy wires not in conditions, but should have been Change Appendix A, page 53, #(9)(a) - Change O&M building size from 70 ft x 1,000 ft to 70 ft x 100 ft p. 16, reference to FOF #41 should be FOF #40.

38. Applicant requested eidtis/changes FOF #23,A & Concl. #4,B - Turbine base 14.5 ft diameter, not 13.5 ft FOF #31 - Change �blade� to �rotor� FOFs #35 & #37 - Change �J.W. Sewall to �Contractor� FOFs #35 & #36 - Add language to clarify E/S measures Concl. #3,D(2)(a) & Cond. #7,B - Specify �incandescent over 160 watts� * Concl. #3,F � Add �or licensed hauler� Cond. #8,A � Add �project� before �roads� Cond. #11 � Add �not otherwise authorized herein� (forestry?) Cond. #12 � Delete language about re-assessing after 85% cover since 85% is threshold for calling cover achieved Cond. #14 � Delete MDOT (too many permits) O&M building lighting must be in accordance with 10.25,F,2 O&M building lighting must be in accordance with 10.25,F,2

39. Applicant requested edits/changes Noise limit of 55 dBA � Designate �day� and �night� to clarify Change to condition to say 55 dBA at night during construction; corresponding conclusion says this FOF #38,C; Concl. #3,D,(1); Cond. #6 �Commission review and approval� to �staff review and approval� for acid rock management plan and third party inspection FOF#37; Concl. #3,I(3); Cond. 8,B & E Alternative language for bird monitoring condition Concl. #6,C & Cond. #12,B Delete monitoring of sound during construction Concl. #3,D(1)(c) and Cond. #6,B & C Change language about decommissioning financing FOF #15 & Conds. #13,B and #13,D Noise limit - 55 dBA during daytime during operation 55 dBA during construction at night daytime construction noise exempt from 10.25,F,1 standards Decommissioning � FOF 15 & Cond 13,B � change �minus� to �taking into account� � ok Cond. 13,D � delete last sentence after $650,000 - discussNoise limit - 55 dBA during daytime during operation 55 dBA during construction at night daytime construction noise exempt from 10.25,F,1 standards Decommissioning � FOF 15 & Cond 13,B � change �minus� to �taking into account� � ok Cond. 13,D � delete last sentence after $650,000 - discuss