HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101009 • Q
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Gathman, Planning Services
FROM: Lauren Light, Environmental Health ,t.
COLORADO SUBJECT: USR-1723 Cedar Creek II
DATE: 4/6/2010
Environmental Health Services has reviewed this proposal for a Major Facility of a
Public Utility for a wind energy facility. This proposal includes 120 to 200 wind turbines,
construction of a 230 KV transmission line a 10,000 square foot operations and
maintenance building and temporary concrete batch plants and associated facilities.
Portable toilets, hand washing units and bottled water can be utilized during
construction of the facility and associated turbines and transmission line.
Permanent water and sewer is required for the operations and maintenance building.
The application indicates that a well will be installed prior to the start of the commercial
• aspect of the facility. A septic system will also be installed to serve the operations and
maintenance building. The septic system shall be designed by an engineer and sized to
accommodate the maximum number of employees on site.
The application indicates that water will be trucked in for dust control during
construction, for the concrete batch plants and the temporary construction sites. Since
an individual well will be provided for the operations and maintenance building, trucked
in water for temporary uses is sufficient. A detailed dust control is required for onsite
dust after construction is completed.
A waste handling plan is required and should include the name, address and phone
number of the waste removal company. The plan should indicate how any waste
associated with the facility is disposed of.
EXHI IT
•
2010-1009
• We have no objections to the proposal; however, however, we do recommend that the
following conditions be part of any approval:
We recommend that the following requirements be met prior to allowing the plat to be
recorded:
1. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan, on site dust, for review and
approval, to the Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of
Public Health & Environment.
2. The applicant shall submit evidence of an Air Pollution Emission Notice
(A.P.E.N.) and Emissions Permit application from the Air Pollution Control
Division, Colorado Department of Health and Environment for the concrete batch
plants and any other operations required by CDPHE to have an APEN.
3. In the event washing of vehicles or equipment will occur on site the applicant
shall ensure that any washing areas shall capture all effluent and prevent
discharges from the washing of vehicles in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. Washing areas should be designated on the plat.
4. The applicant shall submit written evidence from the Colorado Division of Water
Resources, demonstrating that an individual well is or can be appropriately
•
permitted for the commercial use.
5. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the
Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public
Health & Environment. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should
include expected volumes and types of waste generated, including lube
oil).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including
the facility name, address, and phone number).
We recommend that the following requirement be incorporated into the permit as a
condition that must be met prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy:
1. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the operations and
maintenance building and shall be installed according to the Weld County
Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
•
2
We recommend that the following requirement be incorporated into the permit as a
• condition that must be met one month prior to construction activities:
1. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a construction site where a
contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or equal to one
acre in area. Contact the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment at
www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more information.
We recommend that the following requirements be incorporated into the permit as
development standards:
1. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for
final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater
contamination.
2. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not
meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid
waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S.,
as amended.
3. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls
• fugitive dust, fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential
nuisance conditions.
4. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling
plan", at all times.
5. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled along the
construction route as well as after construction is completed. The facility shall be
operated in accordance with the approved "dust abatement plan", at all times.
6. Adequate toilet facilities (portable toilets) and handwashing units shall be
provided during construction of the project.
7. Bottled water shall be utilized for drinking during construction of the project.
8. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary
purposes for the permanent facility.
9. Adequate drinking, handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for
employees and patrons of the facility, at all times.
•
3
10.This application is proposing a well as its source of water. The applicant should
• be made aware that while they may be able to obtain a well permit from the
Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, the quantity of water
available for usage may be limited to specific uses, i.e. domestic use only, etc.
Also, the applicant should be made aware that groundwater may not meet all
drinking water standards as defined by the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment. We strongly encourage the applicant to test their drinking
water prior to consumption and periodically test it over time.
11.Sewage disposal for the permanent facility shall be by septic system. Any septic
system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld
County Code, pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.
12.This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the
Industrial Zone as delineated in Section 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code.
13.Any vehicle or equipment washing areas shall capture all effluent and prevent
discharges from drum washing and the washing of vehicles in accordance with
the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission, and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
14.AII chemicals must be stored secure, on an impervious surface, and in
accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.
• 15.If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control
Division.
16.The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State
and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code.
•
4
y ` • Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
• 444t611- MEMORANDUM RECE�
TO: Chris Gathman, Planning Services DATE: 02/10/10
I WI O FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator tiv
O Clay Kimmi, P.E., CFM
COLORADO Janet Carter, E.I.
SUBJECT: USR-1723, Cedar Creek II Comments
The Weld County Public Works Department reviewed the submitted application for critical items, including but
not limited to Site Plan, Traffic Study, Preliminary Drainage Report, Geotechnical Soils Report, and Flood
Hazard Development Permit. Comments made during this stage of the review process will not be all inclusive,
as revised materials are submitted other concerns or issues may arise. All issues of concern and critical
issues during further review must be resolved with the Public Works Department.
Following Board of County Commissioners Hearing
1. A Road Maintenance Agreement for the designated haul route will be required. The maintenance
agreement implies that the applicant will be responsible for the maintenance of roads within the project
area and bonding to insure repairs and maintenance are kept up to a high level of service.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for posting collateral (bonding) to insure road repairs and road
maintenance do not impact the level of service for the county roads.
3. A map showing all approved haul routes will be submitted to Public Works for review and acceptance.
•ior to Recording of the Plat
1. A Final Drainage report must be submitted to Public Works for review and acceptance. The report
must be stamped, signed, and dated by a registered professional engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado and must address the following items:
a. Address all Preliminary Drainage Report red line comments that were returned to the applicant's
engineer.
b. Please address the capacity of the WCR 135 culvert to ensure that the release rate from the
detention pond does not overtop the road.
c. Please explain in the Final Drainage Report how the runoff generated by the developed
condition is less than the runoff generated by the historic condition.
2. Final construction drawings must be submitted for review and acceptance by Public Works. Upon
acceptance by Public Works, the applicant will be required to provide three sets (1 24x36 and 2 11x17)
of construction drawings to Public Works.
Prior to Commencement of Construction Activities
1. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit for any project improvements that disturb more than one
acre of land. The grading permit application shall include an erosion and sediment control plan, a
grading plan, installation details for all BMPs to be used, installation and maintenance notes for all
BMPs to be used, and a copy of the stormwater construction permit from the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment. Please note that construction activities will not be allowed to begin until
a grading permit has been issued.
2. The applicant shall obtain overweight and/or over width special transport permits from Public Works for
all applicable trucks. Please contact Amy Burry at 970-381-3779 if there are any questions regarding
• the special transport permits.
Page 1 of 2
\\Filesrvr06\pw\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\USR-Use by Special Review\USR-1723 BP Cedar Creek II\USR-1723 Cedar Creek II
Comments 2-10-10.DOC
• •
3. The applicant shall obtain right of way permits before installation and/or construction of any above
ground or buried features in or crossing Weld County road rights-of-way.
• 4. The applicant shall provide three gravel stockpile locations and stock each one with 5,000 cubic yards
of gravel that can be used for road repairs.
5. The applicant shall provide evidence showing that an on-call contractor has been contracted to handle
emergency road repairs.
6. A Final Traffic Study must be submitted for review and acceptance by Public Works.
Original & Email: Chris Gathman, Planning Services
pc: USR-1723
•
•
Page 2 of 2
\\Filesrvr06\pw\PLANNING—DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\USR-Use by Special Review\USR-1723 BP Cedar Creek II\USR-1723 Cedar Creek II
Comments 2-10-10.DOC
• •
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Ritter,Jr.,Governor O11444„.. O.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
• AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ilD4!k
O '�
14
Thomas E.Remington, Director 4 OF
6060 Broadway
Denver,Colorado 80216 For F Wildlife,Iife
Telephone: (303)297-1192
wildlife.state-ca.us
December 7,2009
Mr.Chris Gathman—Planner
Weld County Planning and Zoning
918 10th St
Greeley,CO 80631
Re: USR 1723 Cedar Creek II(BP Wind Energy North America, Inc.)
Dear Mr.Gathman:
The Colorado Division of Wildlife(CROW)thanks Weld County Planning Department for the opportunity
to provide recommendations on the proposed 300 megawatt wind energy expansion in northern Weld
County. Division staff has reviewed the information provided and has consulted with personnel from
• the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Forest Service. For more than a year we have also met on
numerous occasions with BP Wind Energy(BP)and their consultants to discuss potential natural
resource concerns associated with the development. CROW has general recommendations for wind
developers,and these are appended to this letter for your information.
BP has delineated 1000-ft wide corridors where turbines would be constructed after final decisions are
made on turbine size and placement. BP has located the corridors to comply with recommendations for
setbacks from nesting raptors,which is a chief concern for CDOW. Because of the size of the turbines
and the blades,and the fact that the blades can"feather"to utilize wind from different directions, it is
possible that a turbine placed at the edge of a corridor could have its blades extending into the buffer
zone of a nest. CDOW requests:
• that the turbines in their entirety be limited to the corridors.
• a review of actual turbine locations before the plan is finalized.
The expansion project will require construction of about 20 miles of transmission line for Phase 1,a 230-
kb line that would connect to the substation at Cedar Creek 1. The new line would cross one drainage
and would come within 0.5 mi of a golden eagle nest. CROW requests that:
• construction of this section of line be performed in the period between July 15 and December
15.
• a survey for sharp-tailed grouse and raptors be performed along the route for the transmission
line route. This has been performed for the proposed wind facility site.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,James B.Martin,Executive Director
1111 WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Brad Coors.Chair•Tim Gem.VK:e Chair•Dennis Buechler.Secretary
Members,Jeffrey Crawford•Dorothea Farris•Roy McAnaly•John Singletary•Mark Smith•Robed Streeter
Ex Officio Members,James B.Martin and John Stulp
^,. r..3' yrrt rx S .a.. s.^?.5 .�7t'r.
The project would require an onsite batch plant for the concrete pads.
• + CDOW recommends that any associated fluids be contained in tanks rather than open pits,
Migratory species,songbirds, raptors,and most wildlife are protected by federal and/or state law.
Through proper design and intelligent placement of facilities,much can be done to minimize the risk of
take.
On behalf of COOW, I thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you or
the applicant has any further questions, please feel free to call Troy Florian at 970-443-1993-
Sincerely,
- i
Mark Leslie
Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: Steve Yamashita, Kathi Green,Troy Florian,Celia Greenman,Sandy Vana-Miller(USFWS).
•
2
•
STATE OF COLORADO
OD%
Bill Ritter,Jr.,Governor GO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES b :
• DIVISION OF WILDLIFE
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER sr ON 4t"
Thomas E. Remington, Director Weld County Planning Department OF
6060 Broadway GREELEY OFFICE For Wildlife-
Denver, Colorado 80216 For People
Telephone: (303)297-1192 MAR 1 q 781(1
wildlife.state.co.us ay�r
March 8, 2010 RECEVED ED
Mr. Chris Gathman—Planner
Weld County Planning and Zoning
918 10`h St
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: USR 1723 Cedar Creek II (BP Wind Energy North America, Inc.)
Dear Mr. Gathman:
This letter is an addendum one that was sent to you dated December 3, 2009. In a subsequent meeting with BP
Wind Energy,Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) was informed that parts of the 1000-ft wide turbine
corridors had been reconfigured based on a more precise wind analysis. In viewing the map with the changes,
CDOW did not have objections to the corridor modifications. In our previous letter CDOW had requested that
• the turbines in their entirety be limited to the corridors. There are now a few places where the rotor swept area
will extend beyond the corridor boundary; however, these places are not in proximity to buffer zones of mapped
nests, and CDOW does not feel the adjustments present a problem. CDOW still requests a review of actual
turbine locations before the plan is finalized.
BP also mentioned that they are planning one substation instead of three, and that the 230kV transmission line
in the eastern part of the project would be eliminated. CDOW views these changes as positive.
The other comments and recommendations written in our previous letter remain valid. On behalf of CDOW, I
thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. If you or the applicant has any further
questions, please feel free to call Troy Florian at 970-443-1993.
Sincerely,
7az4L
Mark Leslie
Area Wildlife Manager
Cc: Steve Yamashita, Kathi Green, Troy Florian, Celia Greenman, Sandy Vana-Miller(USFWS).
•
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,James B.Martin,Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Tim Glenn,Chair•Robert Streeter,Vice Chair•Mark Smith,Secretary
Members, Dennis Buechler•Brad Coors•Jeffrey Crawford•Dorothea Farris•Roy McAnally•John Singletary
Ex Officio Members,James B.Martin and John Stulp
APPENDIX A
• The recommendations listed below are best management practices for wind farm development.
1. Avoiding/Minimizing Impacts. In selecting sites for construction,focus on options that avoid
critical wildlife habitats, over the use of mitigation strategies. Areas that exhibit high levels of
wildlife use within this project area would benefit greatly by not placing facility infrastructure,
including transmission lines,adjacent to or over such areas. Locally, micro-siting of turbines and
infrastructure might be effective in minimizing losses to habitat and wildlife. If all options for
avoiding impacts are taken and prove insufficient,then mitigation strategies should be identified and
implemented.
2. Study Protocols. Consult with CDOW for review and comment on wildlife and habitat survey
protocol, including monitoring locations, before the protocol is finalized. It is recommended that pre-
construction and construction/post-construction monitoring be conducted using similar methods, so
that valid comparisons can be made. The recommended length of study for both pre and post-
construction surveys is 1 year. CDOW requests the opportunity to comment on baseline or impact
surveys, as well as amendments made to infrastructure/facility placement, county permit requirements
or recommendations. CDOW encourages developers to be proactive in bringing plans for additional
phases or developments to our attention prior to establishing infrastructure placement and routing, in
the hope that proactive, cooperative efforts will identify concerns early in the project so that they may
be appropriately addressed.
3. Access/Monitoring. Provide CDOW with pre-construction and post-construction reports with all
forms of raw data collected at onset, during, and post construction surveys. It is recommended that
all research data(observed,written, recorded, GPS files, etc.)collected be accessible and provided to
•
CDOW's district wildlife managers and biologists in a timely manner.
4. Operational Considerations. Limit on-site visit frequency and duration by service personnel,
especially during critical nesting time, to minimize impacts to wildlife. Educate personnel on wildlife
issues, such as where species might be found, and at what time of day. During the operational phase,
train staff in documenting wildlife mortalities and notifying local wildlife officials in a timely
manner.
5. Reclamation and Decommissioning. Reclaim areas disturbed by construction. The width of access
roads can be reduced after construction of the turbines. Areas should be reclaimed with seed for
native vegetation. Develop long-term decommissioning and reclamation plans in the event that it is
decided to decommission any infrastructure of the facility. Decommissioning plans should include
(but not limited to)timing of decommissioning individual or project wide infrastructure and plans to
reclaim areas back to pre-construction conditions.
6. Hunting.At the landowner's discretion, hunting should be allowed to continue within and adjacent
to the project area. It is recommended that traditional uses of the land, including hunting, not be
prohibited as a condition of the lease by the project proponent after construction at the site is
completed. Colorado wildlife statutes prohibit landowners from claiming game damage
reimbursements due to hunting restrictions on their property. Hunting restrictions further burden the
state's ability to manage wildlife populations; exacerbating state/landowner relationships and
increasing forage conflicts.
7. Weed Management. Noxious weeds reduce or destroy wildlife habitat. Actively eradicate noxious
• weeds, and develop and implement a noxious weed and re-vegetation management plan where there
will be disturbance due to construction or maintenance activities. Clean equipment when it is moved
from site to site to remove weed seeds even if no weeds are recognized.The applicant may wish to
3
•
contact the(NAME)County Weed Inspector to facilitate development of reclamation and weed
management plans for the facility.
• 8. Livestock Fencing. Use wildlife friendly fencing to prevent harm or fatalities to wildlife. Fencing
should allow free passage of wildlife, incorporating three or four strand fencing with a bottom strand
height of 16 inches and a maximum top strand height of 42 inches, along with installation of double
stays between posts. Chain link and mesh fencing should be kept to a minimum and used only to
protect facilities where security is required. Substation fencing should be built according to and meet
applicable standards.
9. Wildlife Protection. The proposed wind energy project will be in an area that is rich in wildlife
diversity and will span a variety of regionally unique habitat types. We recommend that sensitive
wildlife species and critical habitat features be identified and buffered when considering
infrastructure placement and operation,especially during critical nesting periods. We suggest that as
more detailed planning occurs,you continue to contact DOW representatives to determine specific
sensitive areas for each of these species.
(The species listed below are suggested as examples only. Your site may be different)
o Greater prairie chicken.Add what is appropriate, possibly, Use Colorado Division of Wildlife
survey results(recent and historic)for greater prairie chicken to site wind turbines and other
infrastructure (including transmission lines) away from breeding and production areas. Greater
prairie chickens are known to avoid areas of man-made disturbance; it is believed that they avoid
tall structures, such as wind turbines,transmission towers,and buildings because they present
possible perches for raptors. Roads contribute traffic noise and the possibility of collision. Such
• appurtenances could be a factor in the failure of nests and brood-rearing, and thus, appropriate
setbacks are recommended. Setbacks for greater prairie chicken are 0.6 mi from leks and 2.2 mi
from brood rearing habitat from March 1 through June 30.
o Lesser prairie chicken. Add what is appropriate, possibly, Use Colorado Division of Wildlife
survey results(recent and historic)for lesser prairie chicken to site wind turbines and other
infrastructure (including transmission lines) away from breeding and production areas. Lesser
prairie chickens are known to avoid areas of man-made disturbance; it is believed that they avoid
tall structures, such as wind turbines,transmission towers, and buildings because they present
possible perches for raptors. Roads contribute traffic noise and the possibility of collision. Such
appurtenances could be a factor in the failure of nests and brood-rearing,and thus, appropriate
setbacks are recommended. Setbacks for lesser prairie chicken are 0.6 mi from leks and 2.2 mi
from brood rearing habitat from March 15 through June 15.
o Plains sharp-tailed grouse. Add what is appropriate, possibly, Use Colorado Division of
Wildlife survey results(recent and historic)for plains sharp-tailed grouse to site wind turbines
and other infrastructure (including transmission lines) away from breeding and production
areas. Plains sharp-tailed grouse are known to avoid areas of man-made disturbance; it is
believed that they avoid tall structures, such as wind turbines,transmission towers, and buildings
because they present possible perches for raptors. Roads contribute traffic noise and the
possibility of collision. Such appurtenances could be a factor in the failure of nests and brood-
rearing, and thus, appropriate setbacks are recommended. Setbacks for plains sharp-tailed grouse
are 0.4 mi from leks and 1.25 mi from brood rearing habitat from March 1 through June 30.
•
4
o Raptors. Identify raptor nests within the project area and implement an appropriate buffer from
wind turbine and transmission lines. During nesting periods, observe timing stipulations for
• construction activities located near nests. Site turbines no less than '/4 mile from all deciduous
trees. Raptors are likely to use any trees or larger rock escarpments for nesting or perching.
Prairie dog towns located in the project area also provide excellent shelter, feeding and nesting
habitat for numerous resident and migratory raptors. By affording these areas a buffer when
considering turbine placement, impacts to raptor species will be greatly reduced. CDOW raptor
guidelines for buffers are found in Appendix B. Only a subset of these raptors is expected to be
found in the project area.
o Mountain plover and long billed curlew. Identify habitat and plover/curlew nests within the
project area, and plan construction activity outside of critical nesting periods,April 1st through
August 15 where these species are found. Mountain plovers can nest in short-grass prairie,
dryland cultivated farms, and prairie dog towns; all of which are located on the project site. Long
billed curlews can nest in short grass prairie. In a cooperative program,the CDOW and Rocky
Mountain Bird Observatory(RMBO)provide free services of biologists trained to detect plover
activity on farm lands. (Mountain Plover and Long Billed Curlew are Colorado species of special
concern)
o Bats. Acoustic monitoring of bats is recommended with the monitoring device placed 30 to 50
meters above ground level of the MET tower. Acoustic monitoring is recommended for spring
and fall seasons. Mist netting is recommended near water bodies where bats roost. It is
recommended that all survey data collected be accessible and provided to CDOW.
o Swift fox. Identifi and avoid all maternal swift fox den sites. Swift fox live here year-round,
breed, during December, and raise their young into the next fall. Any disturbance or destruction .
• of dens from December 15th through August 15th would be detrimental to this species. It is
recommended that swift fox surveys include daylight searches for den areas and nighttime
spotlight searches during August and September.Swift fox is a species of state and federal
concern that lives in and around the proposed area.
o Black-tailed prairie dogs. All prairie dog towns within and adjacent to the proposed project
should be located prior to construction. If a prairie dog town falls within an unavoidable
construction site,the town should be surveyed for other species, such as burrowing owls and
mountain plover. (Burrowing Owls are a State Threatened Species)
o Reptiles and amphibians. Identify critical reptile and amphibian habitat, including
escarpments, ephemeral ponds, and wetlands, and avoid during construction and when siting
infrastructure. With an increase in roads and traffic, reptiles and amphibians could be negatively
impacted within the project area. The "operational considerations"portion of this document
should be considered.
o Deer and pronghorn. The effects that wind turbine placement will have on mule deer and
pronghorn are not well known, but studies suggest there is noticeable displacement from areas
where there has been construction of roadways and increased service vehicle traffic. Personnel
should be informed that poaching is illegal and will not be tolerated.
•
5
APPENDIX B
IIP RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
FOR COLORADO RAPTORS
Tolerance limits to disturbance vary among as well as within raptor species. As a general rule,
Ferruginous Hawks and Golden Eagles respond to human activities at greater distances than do Ospreys
and America Kestrels. Some individuals within a species also habituate and tolerate human activity at a
proximity that would cause the majority of the group to abandon their nests. Other individuals become
sensitized to repeated encroachment and react at greater distances. The tolerance of a particular pair may
change when a mate is replaced with a less tolerant individual and this may cause the pair to react to
activities that were previously ignored. Responses will also vary depending upon the reproductive stage.
Although the level of stress is the same,the pair may be more secretive during egg laying and incubation
and more demonstrative when the chicks hatch.
The term "disturbance" is ambiguous and experts disagree on what actually constitutes a disturbance.
Reactions may be as subtle as elevated pulse rate or as obvious as vigorous defense or abandonment.
Impacts of disturbance may not be immediately evident. A pair of raptors may respond to human
intrusion by defending the nest, but well after the disturbance has passed,the male may remain in the
vicinity for protection rather than forage to feed the nestlings. Golden eagles rarely defend their nests, but
merely fly a half mile or more away and perch and watch. Chilling and over heating of eggs or chicks
and starvation of nestlings can result from human activities that appeared not to have caused an
immediate response.
A `holistic' approach is recommended when protecting raptor habitats. While it is important for land
• managers to focus on protecting nest sites, equal attention should focus on defining important foraging
areas that support the pair's nesting effort. Hunting habitats of many raptor species are extensive and may
necessitate interagency cooperation to assure the continued nest occupancy. Unfortunately, basic
knowledge of habitat use is lacking and may require documentation through telemetry investigations or
intensive observation. Telemetry is expensive and may be disruptive so a more practical approach is to
assume that current open space is important and should be protected.
Although there are exceptions,the buffer areas and seasonal restrictions suggested here reflect an
informed opinion that if implemented,should assure that the majority of individuals within a species will
continue to occupy the area. Additional factors, such as intervening terrain, vegetation screens, and the
cumulative impacts of activities should be considered.
These guidelines were originally developed by CDOW raptor biologist Gerald R. Craig(retired) in
December 2002. To provide additional clarity in guidance, incorporate new information,and update the
conservation status of some species,the guidelines were revised in January 2008. Further revisions of
this document may become necessary as additional information becomes available.
0
6
• RECOMMENDED BUFFER ZONES AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS
1. BALD EAGLE
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area; see `Definitions'
below)within '/ mile radius of active nests(see `Definitions' below). Seasonal restriction to human
encroachment(see `Definitions' below)within 1/2 mile radius of active nests from October 15 through
July 31. This closure is more extensive than the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines
(USFWS 2007)due to the generally open habitat used by Colorado's nesting bald eagles.
Winter Night Roost:
No human encroachment from November 15 through March 15 within '/ mile radius of an active
winter night roost(see `Definitions' below) if there is no direct line of sight between the roost and the
encroachment activities. No human encroachment from November 15 through March 15 within %z
mile radius of an active winter night roost if there is a direct line of sight between the roost and the
encroachment activities. If periodic visits(such as oil well maintenance work)are required within the
buffer zone after development, activity should be restricted to the period between 1000 and 1400
hours from November 15 to March 15.
Hunting Perch:
Diurnal hunting perches(see `Definitions' below)associated with important foraging areas
should also be protected from human encroachment. Preferred perches may be at varying distances
from human encroachment and buffer areas will vary. Consult the Colorado Division of Wildlife for
• recommendations for specific hunting perches.
2. GOLDEN EAGLE
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy(beyond that which historically occurred in the area)within % mile radius
of active nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/2 mile radius of active nests
from December 15 through July 15.
3. OSPREY
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area)within 'A mile radius
of active nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 3/4 mile radius of active nests from
April 1 through August 31. Some osprey populations have habituated and are tolerant to human
activity in the immediate vicinity of their nests.
4. FERRUGINOUS HAWK
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area)within %z mile radius
of active nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within %1 mile radius of active nests
from February I through July 15. This species is especially prone to nest abandonment during
incubation if disturbed.
•
7
•
5. RED-TAILED HAWK
• Nest Site:
No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area)within 1/3 mile
radius of active nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/3 mile radius of active
nests from February 15 through July 15. Some members of this species have adapted to urbanization
and may tolerate human habitation to within 200 yards of their nest. Development that encroaches on
rural sites is likely to cause abandonment.
6. SWAINSON'S HAWK
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area)within '/ mile radius
of active nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within ''/e mile radius of active nests from
April 1 through July 15. Some members of this species have adapted to urbanization and may
tolerate human habitation to within 100 yards of their nest.
7. PEREGRINE FALCON
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area)within '/2 mile radius
of active nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/2 mile of the nest cliff(s) from
March 15 to July 31. Due to propensity to relocate nest sites, sometimes up to %2 mile along cliff
faces, it is more appropriate to designate 'Nesting Areas'that encompass the cliff system and a %2 mile
buffer around the cliff complex.
• 8. PRAIRIE FALCON
Nest Site:
No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area)within '/2 mile radius
of active nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within 1/2 mile radius of active nests
from March 15 through July 15.
9. NORTHERN GOSHAWK
No surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area)within '/2 mile radius
of active nests. Seasonal restriction to human encroachment within %2 mile radius of active nests
from March 1 through September 15.
10. BURROWING OWL
Nest Site:
No human encroachment within 150 feet of the nest site from March 15 through October 31.
Although Burrowing Owls may not be actively nesting during this entire period, they may be present
at burrows up to a month before egg laying and several months after young have fledged. Therefore
it is recommended that efforts to eradicate prairie dogs or destroy abandoned towns not occur
between March 15 and October 31 when owls may be present. Because nesting Burrowing Owls
may not be easily visible, it is recommended that targeted surveys be implemented to determine if
burrows are occupied. More detailed recommendations are available in a document entitled
"Recommended Survey Protocol and Actions to Protect Nesting Burrowing Owls"which is available
• from the Colorado Division of Wildlife
8
•
DEFINITIONS
Active nest—Any nest that is frequented or occupied by a raptor during the breeding season, or
which has been active in any of the five previous breeding seasons. Many raptors use alternate nests in
various years. Thus,a nest may be active even if it is not occupied in a given year.
Active winter night roost—Areas where Bald Eagles gather and perch overnight,and sometimes
during the day in the event of inclement weather. Communal roost sites are usually in large trees(live or
dead)that are relatively sheltered from wind and are generally in close proximity to foraging areas. These
roosts may also serve a social purpose for pair bond formation and communication among eagles. Many
roost sites are used year after year.
Human encroachment—Any activity that brings humans in the area. Examples include driving,
facilities maintenance,boating,trail access(e.g., hiking, biking), etc.
Hunting perch—Any structure on which a raptor perches for the purpose of hunting for prey.
Hunting perches provide a view of suitable foraging habitat. Trees are often used as hunting perches, but
other structures may also be used(utility poles, buildings, etc.).
Surface occupancy—Any physical object that is intended to remain on the landscape permanently or
for a significant amount of time. Examples include houses, oil and gas wells, tanks, wind turbines, roads,
tracks, etc.
CONTACT
For further information contact:
David Klute
Bird Conservation Coordinator
Colorado Division of Wildlife
6060 Broadway
Denver, CO 80216
Phone: 303-291-7320
Email: david.klute(tr�,state.co.us
REFERENCES
Bechard, M.J., and J.K. Schmutz. 1995. Ferruginous Hawk(Buteo regalis),The Birds of
North America Online(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the
Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/172
Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus),The Birds of North America Online
(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America
Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506
Call,M. 1979. Habitat management guides for birds of prey. Technical Note No.338, U.S. Bureau of
Land Management, Denver Service Center, Denver,CO. 69pp. Energy Research and
Development Administration (ERDA). 1977. EIA for CUI Venture application for geothermal
loan guarantee(Beryl and Lund,Utah). EIA/GE/77-8. Washington, D.C. 109pp.
• England,A.S., M.J. Bechard, and C.S. Houston. 1997. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni),The
9
•
Birds of North America Online(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;
Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
• http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/265
Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group. 1996. Greater Yellowstone bald eagle
management plan: 1995 update. Greater Yellowstone Bald Eagle Working Group, Wyoming
Game& Fish Dept., Lander WY 82520. 47p
Grier,J.W., F.J. Gramlich,J. Mattisson,J.E. Mathisen,J.V. Kussman,J.B. Elder,and N.F. Green.
1983. The bald eagle in the northern United States. Bird Cons. 144-66.
Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), The
Birds of North America Online(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;
Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/061
Holmes, Tamara L. 1993. Behavioral responses of grassland raptors to human disturbance. MS
Thesis. Cob. State Univ., Fort Collins. 62pp.
Holthuijzen, A.M.A., W.G. Eastland, A.R. Ansel!, M.N. Kochert, R.D. Williams, and L.S.
Young. 1990. Effects of blasting on behavior and productivity of nesting prairie falcons. Wildl.
Soc. Bull. 18:270-281.
Kochert, M.N., K. Steenhof, C. L. Mcintyre, and E. H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle(Aquila
chrysaetos),The Birds of North America Online(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
• http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/684
Martin, D.J. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75:446-456.
Mackessy, S.P. 1998. The massasuaga rattlesnake and the Texas horned lizard. Final Report to the
Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Team. 1983. Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 75pp.
Olendorff, R. R., and W.D.Zeedyk. 1978. Land management for the conservation of endangered
birds. Pages 419-428 in S.A. Temple, ed. Endangered birds. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Poole, A.F., R.O. Bierregaard, and M.S. Martell. 2002. Osprey(Pandion haliaetus),The
Birds of North America Online (A. Poole,Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;
Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/683
Preston, C.R., and R.D. Beane. 1993. Red-tailed Hawk(Buteo jamaicensis),The Birds of North
America Online(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the
• Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.comell.edu/bna/species/052
Reynolds, R.,R.T. Graham, H.M. Reiser. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern
goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-217. Fort Collins, CO.
10
• •
U.S. Dept of Agri., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
90pp.
• Richardson, C.T. and C.K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from human
disturbance: a review. Wildl. Soc.Bull. 25(3):634-638.
Rocky Mountain/Southwest Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 1984. American peregrine falcon
Rocky/Southwest population recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv. 105pp.
Squires,J.R., S.H. Anderson, and R. Oakleaf. 1993. Home range size and habitat-use patterns of
nesting prairie f fffalcons near oil developments in northeastern Wyoming. J. Field
Ornithol. 64:1-10.
Steenhof, Karen. 1998. Prairie Falcon(Falco mexicanus),The Birds of North America Online
Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America
Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/346
Squires, J.R., and R.T. Reynolds. 1997.Northern Goshawk(Accipitergentilis), The Birds of
North America Online(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from
the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298
Suter, G.W. and J.L. Joness. 1981. Criteria for Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, and Prairie
Falcon nest site protection. J. Raptor Res. 15(1):12-18.
Swenson,J.E. 1979.Factors affecting status and reproduction of ospreys in Yellowstone National
Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:595-601.
• Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland Municipal Airport.
Condor 73:177-192.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorvbirds/issues/BaldEagle/NationalBaldEagleManagemen
tGuidelines.pdf
White, C.M.,N.J. Clum, T.J. Cade,and W.G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus),
The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;
Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660
•
11
Illk ID
I b:
• z
1,1
o ^W . .
ma “. id -i Sitil,!,:H.4---H:::.'ri i,Pc!'i t'ia; '','L :: 7:„:._ s
e
m: 1-,c...7 ko,i.:
o.
ffi
y e
`n al _ / v i M 5 'r,2
1] G .a x. tk is: r"'
b 4 lit
t q, ti c ski H3:�9 5,
.'sqL "rf ° 3n4� 41 ct ,fir i
O
W �i • rci
.t - t r T' tx
C w4 3 rt°� $ P� 4:4? : k� 4 '.
:c �I"3's
ih
0
0 O
o o
�
U
v
0.1
as
a
c
v 0 c xe 0 0 c c c c c c a
a >, . s" E s, a E v E 0 E E v u T 6 E E
c0 s c s c s0 c s c = G s (: s c s L
Ca a. F `� F = `U° n. = `� `� c. n. a. ro
ai O vj 0 H 0 c 0 c 0 c 2 0 O 00 0 0 0 2 c 0 c O 2
ft
O Q O OW O 9 O W 0 0
00 O W O W O W Ot O W O w O W W
I
U w eca C 7 L7 E 0 0 o Ct 0 7 0 m 0 00 V eca o Ct tetl
7 0 7 0 7 0 7 7 E 7 7 ft 7 7l j 7 3 7
o Z o z x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
z � czc4 ° x zz zz zz zz zz Z.
zz ZZ Z
m vFi z °? Z s w ri vmi m cFia vci v - vv) ccr 3 vD c cFn vci cr v vci cFia _ vri
W °h ^ oua w W w W ° W w W W ° W w W W ww .yW W 3W
zzr o — wv = zz zz yzzxzzxzz � zz oz2 ozzpz
w � F [ • H — F ° �Fj E cHF >,FF pHF '* F u°, FF H H yFb AH F 3H
dWc) LJ Q .0Q $ o 'flQQ `m< Q i4QtiQQ aQQ °u' QQ � dQ iQQ ` d
L O O
V
V1 P1 U" 0 W Fi ct C. P+ Z 0.1
• iijki County Planning Department
AREELEY OFFICE
41114.6
nEC (19 7(1n9• it. RECEIVED
Weld Count Referral
I County
October 30, 2009
•
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
'Applicant Cedar Creek II (BP Wind Case Number USR-1723
Energy North America Inc.)
Please Reply By December 2, 2009 Planner Chris Gathman
Project A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility(A wind energy facility with a generating capacity up to 300
megawatts(MW) along with a 230-kilovolt(kV)electric transmission line, 1-3
permanent 80-meter meteorological towers, along with three(3)temporary batch
plant and construction facilities) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Wind Energy Facility
T1ON R57W Section 6
. T1ON R58W Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
T11N R56W, Sections 5, 6, 8, 17
T11N R57W Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
T11N R58W Sections 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 27, 34, 36
T12N R56W Sections 28, 32, 33
T12N R57W Sections 25, 27, 32, 33, 35
Transmission Line
T1ON R58W Sections 1, 2, 3 (on section lines)
T1ON R58W Section 4
T1ON R58W Sections 5, 6 (on section lines)
T1ON R59W Sections 1, 2, 3 (on section lines)
T1ON R59W Section 4
T1ON R59W Sections 5, 6 (on section lines)
T1ON R6OW Section 2
T11N R57W Sections 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16
T11N R58W Sections 12, 13, 24, 25, 36
T11N R59W Sections 31, 32 (on section lines)
T11N R6OW Sections 35, 36
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Wind Generator facility is generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of
and adjacent to CR 138; North of and adjacent to CR 120 and west of CR 153. The
section of transmission line lying outside of the boundaries of the Wind Generator
Facility is located north of CR 118 and west of and adjacent to CR 382.
• Parcel Number Various
•
• •
• The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that
new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you
desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning
Services.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Commission date once the date is determined.
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
because
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
* See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature Date at 2tvf
Agency /S/&)S/&'tht tdci 3 / /o c-
• / DUC49
•
*Weld County Planning Dept. 0918 10ih Street,Greeley,CO.80631 40(970)353-6100 ext.3540 0(970)304-6498 fax
OENT OF
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
4ACH 3 se Ecological Services
Colorado Field Office
P.O. Box 25486, DFC (65412)
Denver, Colorado 80225-0486
IN REPLY REFER TO:
ES/CO: Wind Energy/Cedar Creek II
TAILS: 65412-2009-TA-0079
DEC - 7 2009
Mr. Chris Gathman
Weld County Planning Department
Greeley Office
918 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: USR-1723, Cedar Creek II, LLC (BP Wind Energy North America Inc.) - Wind
Facility and Transmission Line— 1041 Permit Application
Dear Mr. Gathman:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received your Referral Notice dated October 30,
2009, requesting our review and recommendations on Case USR-1723, Cedar Creek II Wind
• Energy, LLC's proposed 300 megawatt(MW) Wind Energy Project (Project) in northern
Weld County, Colorado. These comments and recommendations have been prepared under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et.
seq.), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA), as amended (16 U.S.C.
668 et. seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et.
seq.), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 48 Stat. 401, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq.).
According to available online information that was identified in a November 2, 2009, email
we received from Kristine Ranslem, Weld County Planning Technician,the subject Project
would involve construction, operation, and maintenance of a 300 MW wind energy facility
with turbines, a 230 kV electric transmission line, and 1-3 permanent 80-meter meteorological
towers adjacent to and east of the existing Cedar Creek Wind Energy Facility in northern
Weld County, Colorado.
The Service has reviewed the 1041 Permit Application for the Project dated May 2009, with a
cover letter dated May 20, 2009, that were submitted to your office and has the following
comments:
1. pg. 10, Table 3 —Transmission Line Route Evaluation; we are concerned that the proposed
transmission line route crosses within 0.5 mile of golden eagle nests. Eagles have special
protection under the BGEPA beyond the MBTA; for example, the BGEPA protects eagles
•
Page 2
• from disturbance/anything that may impact the productivity/success of the nest, adults, young,
their foraging, etc. BP Wind Energy has indicated they are willing to implement construction
timing constraints near these nests (see pg. 57 of subject Application). However, the
proposed transmission line route is less than 0.5 mile from one or more golden eagle nests,
which does not adhere to the Colorado Division of Wildlife's (CDOW) recommended 0.5 mile
buffer for golden eagle nests that the Service considers a minimum. Consequently, my staff
has encouraged further discussion with BP Wind Energy in order for BP to avoid/minimize
project impacts to these eagle nests.
2. pg. 27, last paragraph, "The transmission line structure specifications would..."; there is no
mention of Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines being implemented
for raptor protection. The Service strongly recommends that BP follow the latest APLIC
guidelines, ""Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art
in 2006", when constructing transmission lines as well as associated collection lines for the
Project. APLIC guidelines were not followed for one or more collection lines on the Cedar
Creek I Project, which resulted in electrocution of a golden eagle in July 2009.
3. pg. 29, last paragraph, on gravel and water use; if the Project has a federal nexus, e.g., a
USACE Nationwide Permit, and water for the Project would come from the Platte River
Basin(for concrete, dust suppression, etc.),the USACE will need to formally consult, under
section 7 of the ESA, with the Service for project impacts to listed species downstream in
• Nebraska.
4. pg. 30, Table 5 and pg. 31, Table 6—Projected Development Schedule; the tables indicate
that construction would occur from March through October. The Service recommends that
project activities occur outside of the nesting season(approximately February-July, and later
for burrowing owls) so as not to disturb migratory birds that may nest in or near the project
area. If this is not possible, the applicant should conduct pre-construction surveys for all
nesting migratory birds within suitable habitat in the project area, and time construction to
avoid activities within appropriate buffer zone(s) of any active nests until after the young have
fledged. Efforts to identify and avoid nesting birds, nests, and their young do not assure that
project operations, as enabled by your approval of the subject Project, will not result in
adverse effects to eagles and other migratory birds. The MBTA prohibits taking,killing,
possession, transportation, and importation of all migratory birds (e.g., ground nesting birds,
raptors, etc.), their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically authorized by the
Department of the Interior. Unlike the ESA, neither the MBTA nor its implementing
regulations (50 CFR Part 21) provide for permitting "incidental take" of migratory birds.
5. pg. 38, 21-3-330.B.5.1 - Wind Energy Facility; the 7 m bullet says towers shall be located at
least"150 feet from the tip of the turbine blade to escarpment features where raptor nests have
been indentified". The Service suggests this may be a typographical error and instead should
be a minimum, standard setback along the entire escarpment whether or not nests occur, as the
8th bullet describes greater setbacks (per CDOW) from identified raptor nests. Furthermore,
the Service believes a 0.5 mile setback is likely inadequate for golden eagle nests and has
•
Page 3
• expressed our concern to BP; my staff is currently engaged in discussions with BP Wind
Energy in order for BP to avoid/minimize project impacts to golden eagles and their nests as
well as other raptor nests.
6. pg. 40, 21-3-330.B.6, Wind Energy Facility; this section said that 36 active and inactive
raptor nests were identified, and CDOW's recommended setbacks were implemented. This
does not appear to correlate with Appendix I—Cedar Creek II Environmental and Resource
Study Executive Summaries, Avian Baseline Studies, which said that 28 active and 28
inactive raptor nests were documented at and near the Project during 2008. Because maps
and other data providing specifics, e.g., on raptor species and nest locations, were not
provided in the Application or separately to the Service, the Service is not able to comment
fully on the Project's effects on raptors as well as other migratory birds. Additionally, as
stated above, eagles have special protection under the BGEPA beyond the MBTA; for
example, the BGEPA protects eagles from disturbance/anything that may impact the
productivity/success of the nest, adults, young, their foraging, etc. Also, as stated on pg. 40,
due to possible preconstruction shifting of individual turbines within the proposed 1,000 foot
corridors, some of the wind turbines could be located 0.5 mile or less from one or more
golden eagle nests, which does not follow CDOW's recommended 0.5 mile buffer for golden
eagle nests that the Service considers a minimum. My staff has expressed our concerns to BP
Wind Energy and encouraged BP to meet with the Service and discuss additional data
collection and avoidance/mitigation measures that BP can implement for golden eagles
• nesting in or near the project area.
7. pg. 41, 21-3-330.B.6, Transmission Line; BP Wind Energy has indicated they are willing
to implement construction timing constraints near these golden nests. However,the proposed
transmission line route is less than 0.5 mile from the nests, which does not adhere to CDOW's
recommended 0.5 mile buffer for golden eagle nests that the Service considers a minimum.
Again, my staff is currently providing recommendations to BP Wind Energy so that BP can
avoid/minimize project impacts to these eagle nests.
8. pg. 49, 21-3-330.C.2 - Vegetation/ Wind Energy Facility; this section states that the
Project would probably require a USACE Nationwide Permit. If so, as stated above, if the
Project plans to use water from the Platte River Basin(for concrete, dust suppression, etc.),
the USACE will need to formally consult with the Service for project impacts to listed species
downstream in Nebraska
9. pg. 55-56, Wind Energy Facility; the bottom of pg. 55 said that escarpments within the
project area as well as the occasional tree or shelter belt could provide suitable nesting habitat
for raptors such as ferruginous hawk, prairie falcon, golden eagle, etc. However, BP has
stated in meetings with my staff that these and other species/their nests have been confirmed
in the project area. Then, the first paragraph on pg. 56 said another season of raptor nest
surveys would be conducted prior to construction to locate new nests and "relocate previously
identified nests". It was unclear what was meant by "relocate"; BP would need to apply for
and be issued a take permit by the Service before an eagle nest can be lawfully removed/
•
Page 4
• relocated or destroyed. Other raptors' nests can only be removed outside of the nesting
season (before the first egg is laid and after the last fledgling has left the nest). On pg. 56, 1St
bullet, the Service provided comments to BP last March 2009 on the draft environmental
components for the subject Application, which included a recommendation that BP pursue
additional consultation with the Service specific to project impacts to golden eagles/nests; in
November 2009, BP contacted my office and further discussions are now underway.
10. pg. 57-58, Transmission Line; regarding the proposed line, and raptors and risk of
collision, "APLIC 2006" was cited at the bottom of pg. 57 but the paragraph does not state
that APLIC guidelines will be implemented for raptor protection. The Service strongly
recommends that BP follow the latest APLIC guidelines, "Suggested Practices for Avian
Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006", when constructing transmission
lines and associated collection lines for the Project.
11. pg. 58-60, Special Status Species—Wind Energy Facility, and Transmission Line; golden
eagle was not mentioned although the species is afforded special protection under the
BGEPA.
12. Appendix F—Standard Construction Mitigation Practices, pg. F-3, #13; the Service
believes that information collected to date on golden eagle use of the project area is
inadequate for determining measures to avoid/minimize project impacts to golden eagles. My
• staff has encouraged BP Wind Energy to propose steps such as collecting additional data so
avoidance/mitigation measures can be developed for BP to implement for golden eagles
nesting in or near the project area.
13. Appendix I—Cedar Creek II Environmental and Resource Study Executive Summaries,
Avian Baseline Studies; maps and other data providing specifics (e.g., on raptor species and
nest locations) were not provided here, elsewhere in the Application or separately to the
Service. Therefore,the Service is unable to comment fully on the Project's effects on raptors
as well as other migratory birds.
14. Exhibit 2: Evidence of Adequate Water Supply; see comment#3 above.
The following are recommendations from the Service's Mountain-Prairie Region - Migratory
Bird Program:
1. Take of any birds protected under MBTA that would result from construction of the Cedar
Creek II Wind Project in Weld County is a concern. Of special concern are any birds on the
Service's Birds of Conservation Concern list (USFWS 2008)that are known or likely to occur
on the proposed project area. The company developing this wind energy facility should
comply with MBTA and take all steps possible to prevent take of migratory birds protected
under MBTA.
•
• •
Page 5
• 2. With regard to migratory birds we are especially concerned about any intact native habitat
types for migratory birds present on the proposed project site that could be impacted by
development. The highest priority (relative to habitat conservation) should be to avoid and
minimize all types of impacts to these intact native habitats (primary concern for this project
site would be intact native grasslands and any cliff or rock features).
3. The project proponents should follow all applicable guidelines from the Service's 2003
Interim Guidance on Avoiding and Minimizing Impacts to Wildlife from Wind Turbines
(Guidance) (http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/wind.html). This would include things
like not placing wind turbines along ridge lines, mountains, or buttes that raptors use for flight
corridors.
4. We encourage the project proponents for this wind energy development to do both pre-
project and post construction studies on migratory birds to examine the effects the
development has on migratory bird populations. These should be done using appropriate
scientific methodology.
5. For Golden Eagles we recommend that the project proponents put radio tags on this
species before development and collect information on home range, foraging area use, flight
paths, etc. This information would then serve as a basis for what the appropriate buffers
should be for existing Golden Eagle nesting territories on the proposed project area.
• 6. Or, if telemetry cannot be done on Golden Eagles, then at a minimum project proponents
should have a qualified biologist make visual observations on nesting Golden Eagles. This
method should be used to attempt to define key use areas including nesting areas, foraging
areas, perches, roost, etc.
7. Survey the proposed project area for prairie dogs, ground squirrels, etc. that form the
predominant raptor prey base for this area. Turbines should not be placed in areas with the
highest densities of mammalian prey species that are receiving the greatest extent of use by
raptors for foraging. Emphasis is on Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Prairie Falcon, Short-
eared Owl, and Burrowing Owl (assuming all occur on the proposed project area) but take of
all raptor species is a concern.
8. If power lines are going to be constructed as part of the proposed development they should
be buried. If they are not buried then the proponents should follow all guidelines in the
APLIC 2006 and APLIC 1994 publications to minimize bird electrocutions and bird strikes.
9. Bald and Golden Eagles are also a concern given the new definition of disturb published
by the Service relative to the BGEPA. Project proponents should not take any actions that
would disturb Bald or Golden Eagles.
•
• •
Page 6
• 10. Invasive plant species are a concern from the standpoint of maintaining intact native
habitats present in the proposed project area. All appropriate measures should be undertaken
by project proponents to prevent introduction and spread of invasive plant species.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Cedar Creek II, LLC Wind
Energy Project. Should you have questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please
contact Sandy Vana-Miller in this office at(303) 236-4748.
Sincerely,
yatencer
Susan C. Linner
Colorado Field Supervisor
cc: FWSR6/MB, K. ICritz
FWSR6/LE, C. Graves
FWSR6/ES/LK, P. Plage, S. Vana-Miller
•
•
• • Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
0 nFC 17?MP
• & RECEIVED
Cou
nty Cou y Referral
C. October 30, 2009
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Cedar Creek II (BP Wind Case Number USR-1723
Energy North America Inc.)
Please Reply By December 2, 2009 Planner Chris Gathman
Project A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility(A wind energy facility with a generating capacity up to 300
megawatts (MW)along with a 230-kilovolt(kV)electric transmission line, 1-3
permanent 80-meter meteorological towers, along with three(3)temporary batch
plant and construction facilities) in the A(Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Wind Energy Facility
T10N R57W Section 6
• T10N R58W Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
T11N R56W, Sections 5, 6, 8, 17
T11N R57W Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
T11N R58W Sections 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 27, 34, 36
T12N R56W Sections 28, 32, 33
T12N R57W Sections 25, 27, 32, 33, 35
Transmission Line
T10N R58W Sections 1, 2, 3(on section lines)
T10N R58W Section 4
T10N R58W Sections 5, 6 (on section lines)
T10N R59W Sections 1, 2, 3(on section lines)
T10N R59W Section 4
T10N R59W Sections 5, 6 (on section lines)
T10N R60W Section 2
T11N R57W Sections 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16
T11N R58W Sections 12, 13, 24, 25, 36
T11N R59W Sections 31, 32 (on section lines)
T11N R60W Sections 35, 36
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Wind Generator facility is generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of
and adjacent to CR 138; North of and adjacent to CR 120 and west of CR 153. The
section of transmission line lying outside of the boundaries of the Wind Generator
Facility is located north of CR 118 and west of and adjacent to CR 382.
• Parcel Number Various
• •
•
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that
new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you
desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning
Services.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Commission date once the date is determined.
We have reviewed the request and find tat it doe /does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
because ✓✓P 4uJ ✓a /�u Llyvu u/u �l� . ?lyv2,7 c<
❑ We have reviewed the*best and find no conflicts with our interest/
❑ See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature Date 1a -/s O9
• Agency CI L/.l„vr l -!/Z �1 >. k , /LLer'
•
Weld County Planning Dept. _918 10th Street,Greeley,CO.80631 (970)353-6100 ext.3540 (970)304-6498 fax
_ a
—
_ to
Vag }O S
j g . g 5Ci
c
LEI CZ 11- al 1
et Q. C P. 2 I11h
F G a a F l F a° i t =f SI �R 67 f0 cc g SE I 12 ii a a o o hQ F = 45 = LL $$ Q4y toil _ E CJ11. Q Li- td
Vi g I M1 M1, .- q? i3 G, O Li!!
� W l C O
W O E Y a axx8 , 1111111i; ath zr° ;
r
do
scol is I 0 Ill I °! • i ! 1111
S tilt iliii Ali
�f! A. I cv I
9 1ph
i •
\411 •1
A �, ' ' Lnth Y T ' r t I: \ ',t.i t i-.2 , �,;. •;
-; - - .. - •
._ •
._ _ - - - - - -. - •f jl.ly - Ste'
•h.....".• 1 '• nel+ - .........;... •r--; * • ,
•
Ia C. D - f•.• •
4' ' '� :C1 ally.
J
. _ A 'A. +.• , l
_ r-.lea r ,
t '/
I~
•
w
1 ._
u
t.•+;•2! • tiA •• -1
fll. ` '� '1
1
•
• 2 WILLI! . -,.
•
IAA .__ 1. I.:- .k•
Si
• •
ll
I f • a? (13
•. y ir I, r l' -.44 T t
Z ' ' r
Cic i - .zk;A] O
7CjP
Y rt. : O
• O 1 � U
Lip aT'! o
•
N h
m
3
U
r
O) `` o
C CM
c
OSi
d o
p
J
r.
ii d
7
QI
C U
0
N
-E— a
CY o
t
Ec
as , I . .__.
_sc
v) a . i .
..
•
o I
L
V)
Q_.
C
o I I
(J'�) I
V , .
• D �it
E . .
• _ I
,I
o , .
o .
E , ._
„... , ,
C3 .
.1 Is IT
-C3 Icr'� t �, j ,_Y..
is
]r 0 .
• . ..
n�
W
W .I
U VI
• Slis o
13 i
U -0 .
N LI .
Q -
X
0 • • J -
U W
.
Gel co
o CU
a) r
hliljC t. rdr
y., 7
CO
i2 .
. . t, a;
t .• O
CL
CD
ths 1 ' t co
aii
•
in
O
J r4 Z
I;
Ir '1 ,
N 3 r 1 n i 00
o1 1
ill !� 1 d
r , ,y il, ( , .
ll\ ,;v f ) +E ,F = .�•
_ ''' 1 ''I `i . ray
. . 7 I .
i
E , , i . 1 ‘,.
,,
D CL
o — ti ! , II SI 1 �}� '.Ili ,it ,
1 i ‘ :in ' iii Milktit It
Cr)
r,' 1 , ,fil ,
• O
64
11
E 1 . ,,,
. , k
1 = ' Pr' I . �� ,
j
. 0,. . i ,
1 , f , ' ?
•
-�-- r .it 1 , 4 {
. tiS:. ' II(
1 'I — I ( • t
t_ I
'4ff •' f - i
,. •I
E
si
i ;
'+ '�' ... ,L. i 1 Y I
r �. ,
lb
LL 4r ,t :. .
I C fr 1
ii
non •
' t r y 'i !F,
Jti •
. I
C , , ti iisif , : ,. I)
' ed
.
r c
3, # ?'' ,
dic
ofi
1'j. ` 1 : . :
�1 • , 'F
1 h ' '�: 1
^ ` Iln ' ;ti
It
C a. In •
1 P 'Ys, w i ti te: •1
o i. C
U = ; .,1
1t b. .) > y
0 " C
U p v'l
1 i—
'4
Cta
O �f Iii
.
VI I
t o Se :IA
W — .J
U 0 I
• • Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
a NV 1 O7f1f1Q
• itotsti
RECEIV/ C
Weld County Referral
October 30, 2009
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Cedar Creek II (BP Wind Case Number USR-1723
Energy North America Inc.)
Please Reply By December 2, 2009 Planner Chris Gathman
Project A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Major
Facility of a Public Utility (A wind energy facility with a generating capacity up to 300
megawatts (MW) along with a 230-kilovolt(kV) electric transmission line, 1-3
permanent 80-meter meteorological towers, along with three (3) temporary batch
plant and construction facilities) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
Legal Wind Energy Facility
T10N R57W Section 6
T10N R58W Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
• T11N R56W, Sections 5, 6, 8, 17
T11N R57W Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
T11N R58W Sections 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 24, 25, 27, 34, 36
T12N R56W Sections 28, 32, 33
T12N R57W Sections 25, 27, 32, 33, 35
Transmission Line
T10N R58W Sections 1, 2, 3 (on section lines)
T10N R58W Section 4
1 T10N R58W Sections 5, 6 (on section lines)
T10N R59W Sections 1, 2, 3 (on section lines)
T10N R59W Section 4
1 T10N R59W Sections 5, 6 (on section lines)
T10N R60W Section 2
T11N R57W Sections 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16
J T11N R58W Sections 12, 13, 24, 25, 36
T11N R59W Sections 31, 32 (on section lines)
T11N R60W Sections 35, 36
of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Wind Generator facility is generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of
and adjacent to CR 138; North of and adjacent to CR 120 and west of CR 153. The
section of transmission line lying outside of the boundaries of the Wind Generator
Facility is located north of CR 118 and west of and adjacent to CR 382.
• Parcel Number Various
J • •
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date
may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further
questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that
new information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you
desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning
Services.
You will be notified in writing of the Planning Commission date once the date is determined.
We have reviewed the request and find that it does /does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
because
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
X Seems;—er. w•wewtc
Comments:
The Applicant proposes to haul water purchased from landowners in Wyoming to the site to supply water
for the concrete batch plant, dust control, and drinking water during the construction phase. This office
has no objection to the use of this source of water.
Once the construction phase is completed, the Applicant intends to install a well for operations use. The
Applicant will need to obtain a commercial well permit prior to the construction of a well to be used as a
permanent water source for this site. The applicant may be eligible for a commercial exempt well permit.
• It is advised that the applicant contact this office at (303) 866-3581 for additional information regarding the
permitting process.
Signature VegI .D� Date November 5, 2009
Agency Division of Water Resources
•
Weld County Planning Dept. _:918 10th Street, Greeley, CO.80631 '.(970)353-6100 ext.3540 (970)304-6498 fax
Hello