HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101015 March 9, 2010
•
Mr. Thomas Holton
Mr. Erich Ehrilch
Mr. David Long
RE: Cedar Creek II
Gentlemen:
My family has lived on our land just east of the eastern boundary of the proposed Cedar Creek II
wind farm for almost 100 years. My grandmother and her 3 brothers homesteaded this land and
then my dad, former State Representative, Walt Younglund, owned it until just prior to his death
at which time I purchased the original homesteads. My brother, Monty Younglund, lives on the
ranch.
We declined the original offer to lease our land for the wind farm when that lease contained
restrictions on hunting and building heights. A fundamental way of the west is to be able to use
your land without undue restrictions. After we declined to participate on the first round leasing,
BP Alternative Energy subsequently made 2 more attempts to get us to lease to them. Seeing the
destruction of the land at the base of each tower where the grass has still not come back after 2
"'ars and the density of the siting in Phase !, east of Grover, together with continued restrictions
on the use of our land caused us to again reject their offers even though they it was for more than
25% that had been offered to the neighbors with signing bonuses. The fragility of the top soil in
this area and the amount of land needed to support cattle with our minimal rainfall, does not
make it feasible to support both cattle and BP's tax dodge.
This business model is based upon BP receiving the `green' tax credits and not based upon an
economically profitable business based on the demand for power. There is not sufficient power
demand to support all the `green energy' projects in Colorado and this area is too far distant on
the grid to keep the towers fully operational and thus being profitable. (Some of the neighbors
who leased in the original phase say that what they were promised in revenues has not been
realized.) Additionally, the advances being made in solar power will soon result in comparably
cheaper power and site specific energy delivery which could very well mean that this wind
power approach will quickly be obsolete and this land will be littered with white monstrosities.
Even though our land is posted and we have continually asked BP to refrain from trespassing and
we have declined to participate in their leasing program, they continue to stake our land for
potential towers. Late last fall, as they started siting towers on the land immediately west of our
land, they asked us to enter into a "good neighbor contract" to abandon use of the airstrip we
have and to again restrict any building on our property. When we declined their offer as we want
Anthe option of the continued use of the landing strip, they initially suggested that they would be
Willing to pay us $75,000 for a 50 year lease if we would enter into an agreement to abandon the
landing strip rights.
EXHIBIT
I 10 . 06
2010-1015
1
.
Our grandmother and her brothers and my dad, mom and 7 brothers and sisters put in many long
and hard years to stay on this land. This kind of money would be a windfall, but it would not
replace our private property rights and concerns about the harm to the countryside both through
the dense siting of the towers and destruction of the land with the building of service roads and
the footprints of each tower where the grass does not easily come back. And, sooner than later,
the white elephants towers will become shooting targets as they stand still and not generating any
power because the tax credits will have been long since spent by BP and the business will no
longer be profitable.
It is also troubling to us that BP has been willing to pay us substantially more to lease to them
than they did to our neighbors even though we would have minimal towers on our land.
Our 'good neighbor' request of BP is to be good neighbors to us and site the towers so that they
do not restrict the use of the landing strip. When they were trying to get us to lease our land to
them they told us that we could help determine where the towers would be sited. While we hear
about their need for scientific and advantageous positioning of the towers, everyone who lives in
this part of the country know that the wind blows most everywhere up here.
dike specifically appeal the positioning of the towers on the land immediately west of us to allow
unrestricted use of the runway. And, we hope that these Texans will come to understand what
being a good neighbor means in Northern Colorado.
Sin re
� r
Ladonna nglund Lee
4216 Filter Plant Road
Ft. Collins, CO 80512
CC: Mr. Trevor Jirickek
Mr. Bill Hall
Mr. Alexander Zauder
Mr. Nick Berryman
Mr. Roy Spitzer
Mr. Robert Grand
Mr. Jason Maxey
Mr. Mark Lawley
Mr. Monty Younglund
From: Penny Persson [mailto:iam@pennypersson.com] — — caw
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:27 PM
To: 'cgathman@co.weld.co.us'
Subject: Cedar Creek II public hearing comment
Eris Gathman
ld County Dept. of Planning Services
918 10th Street,Greeley CO 80631
Mr. Gathman,
I would like to be included in the public record of the hearing to take place Tuesday March 16th, at 1:30 p.m. at the
Planning Board office regarding the Cedar Creek II public hearing. If you could please make arrangements to have the
letter below read and entered into public record I would appreciate it.
To the Weld County Planning Board:
I have been a long time resident and land owner in Weld County. As a rancher and steward of the land, and as part of
the global community, I would like to commend Weld County on their forward stance in environmental care and
concern. I could mention the need for production of American owned energy,but you all know and understand the
importance of renewable energy for America. I could also discuss the positive environmental impact that renewable
energy such as wind power has on the county and the world,but once again—who can argue with that?
What I would like to state is how proud I am to be a citizen of a county with such vision and global concern. Weld County
made a statement to the world when it approved and embraced wind power with Cedar Creek I,and now you are
reinforcing the positive message with an approval of Cedar Creek II.
Wind is a resource that we have in abundance in Weld County,it is clean,natural,and available. By approving this
project, you as planning board members are sending a message to the state and to the world that in Weld County we
are committed to a healthy future,to clean renewable energy as a resource,and to a growing economy in Weld County.
Thank you for your continued and ongoing commitment to the future of our county.Thank you for being forward
thinking and environmentally aware. Finally thank you for contributing to the growth of our local economy by approving
Siologically sustainable projects such as Cedar Creek I and Cedar Creek II.
ncerely,
E. Penny Persson
70008 WCR 132
New Raymer, CO 80742
EXHIBIT
2 •G
ih52 11x3
Chris Gathman
Steve O'Hare [flcactus@live.com]
emt: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:18 PM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: Cedar creek II wind farm
Hello , my name is Steve O'Hare. I live in the boundaries of Cedar Creek wind farm. My
families ranches are leased to the Cedar Creek project. We are looking forward to the time
we will have turbines on our places. It will be a change to see these machines on the land,
just as it was a change when the first roads and fences made their way. Change comes slow
but it does come, some welcome it as I do, as my family does. There may be some who see it
as an encroachment of the modern world, it is. But the economic gain to the people who have
eked out a subsistence in this bare land this opportunity is to good to be denied, much as
the homestead act, that brought the first changes to this country was a boom to our
grandfathers. This wind farm will be a blessing to their children and Grand children.
My next point is, this is not an irreversible thing, when this technology is replaced by
the next, these towers can come down, leaving very little evidence of ever being here.
Thank You, for your time.
Steve O'Hare
IIe New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started.
I tp://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?bXabz3RXCSmkTXzD4Po08Na25153V6vVvb13p4opcDYfc46W5ylrige2Mq
zzh0C-AA2kw52ES2h09118cON81gGBY2Uj64w56NkbzomiKODt6UGOrLOpEVsho78EI6zATsSWvrrjrE2zV6vVsS-
CMyrhisu7niiuKrjodvnEr4Qgmz Bih06xFEwciwwg87tyGrDUvf5zZB0SvrhdIIFLT78ECWReY6-PA>
• EXHIBIT
1
Landowner Response cedar creek Phase II 031510.txt
• From: Millennium III Partnership, LLC [m3p@skybeam.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:48 PM
To: chris Gathman
Subject: Landowner Response Cedar Creek Phase II
To:
The weld County Department of Planning Services:
Please read the following statement into the official record of comments given
by landowners regarding The Cedar Creek wind Farm Phase II:
At its essence, our story is no different than those of our neighboring
landowners. Each of us has our history of triumph and tragedy. All of us have
endured flood and drought, high yields and low market prices; disasters both
natural and man made.
As you review the opinions put forth regarding construction of Phase iI of
The cedar Creek Wind Farm, every producer and landowner can and likely will
tell you that this renewable energy project will add stability to an
uncertain agriculture economy. At full operational strength, land use and its
value will inevitably increase in a reliable and measurable rate.
It will establish a new sense of economic security that is, at the moment,
diminishing on the family farm.
During our 50 plus years as owners and producers, we have taken great pride
with each harvest that our efforts, along the hard work and cooperation of so
many others, have provided employment and a steady food source for this
nation.
• our cooperation with the united states Department of Defense illustrates an
additional commitment we've made by yielding a portion of our property for the
purpose of national security.
And of great importance, we must note that we've worked closely with British
Petroleum since the early stages of the Phase II planning process and believe
that they are operating in the best interest of the owners and producers, the
various environmental groups and the adjacent existing enterprises as they
fulfill their obligations to bring this vital energy resource online.
with a clear sense history along with our unflagging dedication to uphold the
legacy left by previous generations, we look to the future and stand behind
this project and encourage all levels of weld County government to do so, as
well .
Thank you.
Peter K. wehner
Emily A.Brantley
John E. Wehner III
owners
Farm 9880
• EXHIBIT
Page 1 (0 ,e
n ,e
• Jennifer VanEgdom
From: Chris Gathman
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 5:44 PM
To: Jennifer VanEgdom
Subject: FW: Comments on the Cedar Creek II Project
Here is the e-mail from Mr. Holland for USR-1723.
Chris Gathman
Planner III
Weld County Department of Planning Services
918 10th Street, Greeley, CO. 80634
Ph: (970)353-6100 ext. 3537
Fax: (970)304-6498
Original Message
From: Gonzalez, David [mailto:David.Gonzalez2@bp.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 7:50 AM
To: Chris Gathman
Subject: FW: Comments on the Cedar Creek II Project
It looks like Larry Holland had a typo in your e-mail address, so I wanted to be sure that you received this e-mail
note. FYI
• DG
From: DSW486@aol.com [mailto:D5W486@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 11:24 PM EXHIBIT
To: cgathman@co.weld.us
Cc: Gonzalez, David
Subject: Comments on the Cedar Creek II Project
Hello:
As I will be unable to attend the March 16 meeting on the above project, please allow me to voice
my full support for the approval of this project (and any other alternative energy projects) that can help
improve the economic prosperity of the High Plains in Weld County. The property that my family owns
in the proposed Cedar Creek II project has been owned by the family since 1966. We have watched with
dismay over the years as agriculture, oil &gas, and other economic endeavors in the area have declined
and economic opportunities for local people have lessened. We believe that the proposal(s) by BP
to build Cedar Creek II represent a tremendous potential to turn the tide of the last 20 years and restore
prosperity and economic improvement to the high Plains.
We also believe that BP and the Cedar Creek II represent the kind of sustainable, green growth that
is welcome and carries an acceptable footprint. The attention to detail and concern for the environment
• shown throughout this project is a welcome chnge for the future.
We look forward to the progress of Cedar Creek II and BP on the High Plains.
Sincerely,
1
• Larry Lee Holland
P.O. Box 11508
Pueblo, CO 81001
•
•
2
• BE MA( O IN(
August 10, 2009
BP Wind Energy JEREMY ENS/
Attn: Mark Wengierski
700 Louisiana St., 33rd Floor
Houston,TX 77002
Re: Cedar Creek Wind Farm,Weld County, CO
Dear Mark:
Thank you for taking the time last week to discuss our respective operations in 12N-56W, Weld
County,Colorado. As I mentioned, Beren Corporation is actively unitizing a number of oil and
gas leases in this area with plans of installing a waterflood.
I have enclosed a map showing the unit outline, existing and proposed above-ground utilities,
and proposed underground injection and flowlines. Additionally, I have enclosed a
topographical map with the roads we plan on utilizing highlighted in yellow. On both maps, I
have indicated where the unit tank battery will be located. This is adjacent to an existing battery.
The three other active batteries in the field will be decommissioned in the coming months.
• We will likely begin our construction activities and rig work in the spring of 2010,although we
may do some this fall and winter if the weather permits.
As I mentioned earlier, we have no issues with you using our existing lease roads providing that
you have the permission of the landowner(s)and that we not be held responsible for maintaining
the roads above their current standards.
In the interest of being good neighbors, we will attempt to route our utilities and lines around
your operations. If the need arises, I'm sure we can make arrangements to move any existing
lines if they are in your way.
I look forward to working with you to see the successful installation of both of our projects.
Sincerely,
C
Jeremy Ensz
District Engineer
Enclosure
EXHIBIT
a (oa
I
, ,,,, ,,: ;. -11., '.:, 1.•;• - l'-' (-7
/
/
1 , j1.•
'4619 20 /,
2 T12N-R56W /� /t
-
1
I I _ -k_ ti
1 �lX
t.y1
I I /' J
I ! I r-, a.
•, 2I It
' la L
�1-A 3•
l0 29 2O
1 i
i /3 1 /3 _ gyp' 1 1
?. / I ° 2 1
C 2 t
1 �� /1 I / I
•
III
AP. ,•,..
- /'/ 4 ?
I4 .
I 2 I
0 ile
16-7
31 32 I :1.
Beren Corp. I- s'/ ��'
," 2
/ S I I•A
-A
Moyer Unit I I
Unit Area Plat I ,../
•
1
I Proposed Moyer Unit Boundary
Proposed Welibore Status I 8 ° . 9 i
We Co;:rty, CO
.1. T11 N-R56W
POS�ED`HELLDAiA 1=,- -C,--
1, Ii
/z 1
•
Y l
war.
-- -- l WELL SYMBOLS /
•/ Oil WV ', /41/
X Plugged and Abandoned 32-8 i / 2
-A injection Well
-Q- Dry Hole 4
• Oil and Gas Well 6 5
'• Shut In Oil Well {
0
,
Ey. JRE
April 15, 2O09 2:29 PM •
•
PETRA 4t1SR009 2-2919 PM r
?M J 4MLC -CL41,d 1 O1,A :.LC S
+,.wrev •
IIII
________ .
@. I, :s4• n
\ ..t.o„c+ g.on.,J a t: 44i-,e ..)
A • •
CU.5. GBANK,FCB
o
February 16, 2010
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
rg 18 min
ac CEIVED
Weld County Planning Commission
918 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Application for Development
Cedar Creek II, LLC, BP Wind Energy North America Inc.
Hearing date March 16, 2010
Dear Commissioners:
• We recently received notification (attached), that Cedar Creek II, LLC has filed
an Application for Development with the Weld County Planning Commission to
develop a wind energy generation facility and transmission line. The U.S.
AgBank FCB is the owner of minerals underlying some of the acreage that is
within the defined project area. The Bank has no objection to this plan of
development, as long as such development does not impede our ability to
develop our mineral estate.
/
Sincer ly,
ii
Patricia A. Gorki ---C___,
Assistant Director — Minerals
cc. Cedar Creek II, LLC
EXHIBIT
14
Part of The Farm Credit System
ADMINISTRATIVE orrice 245 N. Waco 67202 • P.O. Box 2940 67201-2940 •Wichita, KS •Tel: 316-266-5100, Fax 316-266-5121
SACRAMENTO OFFICE 3636 American River Drive, Ste. 100 • Sacramento, CA 95864-5901 •Tel: 916-973-3014, Fax: 916-973-3092
Hello