The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20062072 Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Larry Croissant [Iroissant@ncolcomm.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:59 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: cedar creek docket#2006-45 I am a landowner with an easement option agreement with the applicant. The legals listed in your notice does not agree with my option agreement thru our property. Our option agreement lists; R61 T 9 S31 and R61 T8 S6 not sections 13, 24,25, and 36. We have ownership in all those sections plus ownership in the sections under option. Larry Croissant Red Angus 970-656-3545 EICHENT C 2006-2072 (SR # t,Z 7/19/2006 Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle —Cent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:31 AM o: Esther Gesick Cc: Chris Gathman Subject: FW: revised transmission map Attachments: Transmission_Line_Vicinity_Map_8.5x11.jpg; USR1562 TO CTB.wpd iransmission_Line_ USR1562 TO Vicinity_Map... CTB.wpd(201 KB) Esther Staff Comments for 1562 - Transmission Line and Switching Station Graphic of proposed transmission line alignment Additional electronic version of graphics to come. Thanks, kim Original Message From: Jennifer Chester [mailto:Jenni£er.Chester@edaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 11:10 AM To: Kim Ogle Cc: Nelson@glnrg.com Subject: revised transmission map noticed an error. Please use the attached if possible. (hanks, Jenn Jennifer Chester GIS Coordinator EDAW Inc. 1809 Blake Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 chesterj@edaw.com www.edaw.com 303-595-4522 EXHIBIT 1 (SS2 #I51oz 8 s r $ 5 i `! _ Reiff I NUM 5 NUN 5 1161Ww 5 Reiff Reiff y .Mw I - -is1-•yam<% 'r ! a+a -.fir- ,�.f.. i' ' . • i .. ll .� 1111 . a I I ' , ' • • \ • 1 11 _L j ry a+w I \ I ., 1 `� • _ — _. . I _ _ _ AM I • • •• ..' ___. l • _. •„ ...._:‘ _ _a . \` . NATONA I: \ .. ...... L,S i_ i ; \ _ -- _^ . ., . r • ' T \ -- :-- I aw •.� .. , ... ti'GRA%%LANY•S • .1; . . . . _ f ' -'.• I. Is: al la %_, G ASSLArna _ i . ,..2,...•,...- '2".`,-\--......—- -t- -,1--1:---•-4.-;--'- -'s •. . • .. . .�■■■.• . a " I _•limpot,a ii . ..i f • .�.. 1_� . . . ,�. f I a • Y I-. I nu .r K:,' I,.i 1i1i, sIf.I �� i I • Me I{ 1 • • . .. ..• '. fL• . i -,w\.f w d,.. �s,:.,.,..�� _ _.... I... 4{{ �\s l a cuff L•w • /I� • . e. 1. — } I f • •' j Icy, i _.4._)-7-• --- I l i - iac ••-:,-- '3a,- i r. i i .� 1 -'- - ------ --._-� .1".- -. •-1- -.. Y !T.5 f . Y .. 1\\ 1 w�J ell w Mpi/' I rwY.n.r. l • ; [ I. \ 1 -• - ----01::1-1 p+. I°"t„M"Y_"1 _. •�z_4—A • ' 4- '4 . , - ; ,i--k• ' r --�-� _ : CEDAR CREEK 61110111.1•111•11 •__4...w,......- Y-■..-••1.awrr..••14... ,r 4 _...f,�... WIND ENERGY PROJECT ri --_ _ - . _ •••••••...••••••••••••201.O _.S.. • _ ... _ _ ,,. "' �� ,.., _ :`--� •wr.mo.. . Tr+■..fwisa/on Lin.Vlckdfy Nap —1•"'1'Y'1"^'^+— �.•..•Ar • —,.......r..........,...r....-�.r- a.,..w�.wa..i..w.wc.,.. 7.:.7.-..........,1,............• . • r _ .. 11M11�/O■w. .I.....r�..� Esther Gesick From: Kim Ogle --Bent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:33 AM o: Esther Gesick Cc: Kim Ogle; Chris Gathman Subject: FW: Greenlight Map request Attachments: 060508_Turbine_Vicinity_Map.jpg; 060510_Transmission_Line_Vicinity_Map.jpg; P roj ect_v i c i n ity.j p g 060508_Turbine_Vi060510_Transmissi Project_vicinity.jpg cinity_Map.jp... on_Line_Vicin... (202 KB) Original Message From: Jennifer Chester [mailto:Jennifer.Chester@edaw.com] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 1:39 PM To: Kim Ogle Subject: Fwd: Greenlight Map request Map 1, 2, and 4 are attached. Jenn .->>> "Kim Ogle" <kogle@co.weld.co.us> 07/15/06 2:39 PM >>> Hello Nicole Planning would like to request four electroic site maps. Map one is the Wind Farm Vicinity Map Map two is the Transmission Line Vicinity Map Map three is the established alignment based on mitigation and discussion with surrounding property owners. Alternative routes may be included in this map as this serves as the current "Best Guess Alignment" This map may need to be created Map four is an enlargement of the project location map graphically delineated in the corner of the Transmission Line Vicinity Map, for example. We would like to include these maps in our July 18 PC Hearing presentation. Please notifiy us if this request may be accommodated. Thanks go to you and Jennifer for any assistance you are able to provide to this request and to all of your earlier efforts. Kim Original Message From: Nicole Korbe [mailto:Nicole.Korbe@edaw.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 9:25 AM To: Nicole Korbe Subject: Email Address Change lease note that my email (and others at edaw) is now in the format of firstname. lastname@edaw.com My new email is nicole.korbe@edaw.com EXHIBIT 1 — ;i f • j y11t 1 "• . ... .... ..•. .. �.. • .*r. i s V 1 ...... 1 ff 35•• ...� A3, 91 ,, . • • ' ..�.. .,.•_,*•• .••. ,. ._._. .,._.T. Yom.". • •...- - • I ." -f.....•• I i,.w,.e we.a i..•.ew.rar t. R I ' .ii:•... •,-, i — n .... . 0- ' .._. .• • •.•• is °�. �. �' I , . .i'1y R • � ,'rY. . 7. Z P x_..-' •. I is j :� ) -.-.,,....114r...1.1. . y •7-I .7 ..`.. .i''.:• •'it :^ •i• -; i t _;.,_. 1 ..ice - 11 • • 1 ...,. ,.. ' ,.. • • •{•-•; ••�••• • •� .µ ms } -•(:' f I 1 1.. 1 • 4 • • ;• •• • Ir...• 1 1 �a .�*tea F- ...._._ • ._ - 1 .,....!„:711(..,,,. ...„..../: .t. ..:- f 36 .. .1V .IIIII. 9� 1 • • • j;_,;j3.!!;_.__ :.:•- • w . . - ;'.• �� - 1 • • .. .. .. ..A_. 1F-r,._._ ...••_ 'r M .._ •- ... i 1 I a c $ i ! z 3 ...VI 0 ROW 5 RE 5 •,,w 5 •NW S •Nw II Row 1 I :Jib.. :` - •'-i . 1! _.._ ' , ' i ! z 1 • i • 1 •_. _. • ,-1 • l • i SS L.. I i .. ._. r yeti,- i \� I i . ..L_ :-..• :. I._ ` 1` I n • '• . I. . • *t:AWN ' ..L 1;--__�• wow: pm • i I : _ . ..� • 4 N TIONA e s 1 I -_ _ '�' _'. .._. - nw---- - \• G[ASSLANDS ' _� _._.. i . G� • .• • '? i --ISSLA74 DS E_.. ... —. A L• 1•%t ti. i _1_I • : • - ....,.••n z . t • • . \ _ I aw I • • " _.. t ••... . -• : • : I. ... I 1 i -- I • _ - j �_. ?. f.. ._ , I 7. • • WELD a jq �1~ i . Owown 1 • a.. f • • • • • ••••..- r "i,2a.'."'. . :.v, 1 ..1 �. i . •.. I I _ .I . .. .L.: .".• "�•.. ' 1°i•` • ,^'•t ate.— • ._. ..- _ �'�" ' • Y � I r. • •� .'.dam ._._y' .. T . `q, . •..., �I'�: . )11: • i • ..g • L • '• F N. - •,. ... •.. . I • • i . 4N. 1 n w N JI 1 JI11, ( , I _ • ., , --_ • . f MN•*i ' • i -' I --I I ,. " ..• — l—.__. CM■ NIN i : I A L 1 . a.• - Tr_w�ry�ti-+- TI _.`-._•_ �• . .y.L'_..1 --- -•- ?_L-r• 'i • s _r - CEDAR CREEK YINw Aw•i nor o.,w. Mood r•..w..*...•r• 44•80•44*T.,4144.144 Omar _ w. n„r.•+a iS LM.mob•Yap 1 WYOM\N'G � � NEBRASKA : 1 25 Itt.! Ft. Collins 7 1 a s. Ic - - la Boulder — NS(-Area of Detail) I IS _ -Denver • I \._ _ 70 I C a r Colorado Springs 1 r The Moore Law Firm PC 3665 Cherry Creek Drive North Suite 100 Denver, Colorado 80209 303.329.5900 fax 303.329.3291 tmoore@tmmpc.com July 24, 2006 Clerk to the Board Weld County Commissioners P.O. Box758 Re: Mail being sent to me re property owner: "Carole A. Horton" Dear Clerk: I am an attorney in Denver who represented John T. Horton with regard to property in Weld County describes as"155A, or less, at SE corner 1-76 and CR 53." His property was sold this Winter to Roy N. Enter. I have been receiving mail from the County addressed to "Carole A. Horton"c/o Theresa M. Moore (enclosed). I do not and never have represented a Carole A. Horton. Can you please check your records and determine the proper address for County mail to Carole A. Horton? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, The Moore Law Firm PC C __ / By: t Theresa M. Moore End. c: John T. Horton EXHIBIT ig Use. #i5dz , NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the hearing will be held in the Chambers of I Colorado, Weld County Centennial Cente time specified. M If a court reporter is desired, plea: i N il days prior to the hearing. The cost of eng ,� ; O o party. In accordance with the American ' - OH o required in order for you to participate in ti-, �I1 k t ' N at (970) 336-7215, Extension 4226, prio. cs' t , The complete case file maybe ex �tt m & Commissioners,Weld CountyCentennia I� !, u, o r. E-Mail messages sent to an individual C rs ` -,7. 0-11 wo —, ensure inclusion of your E-Mail corret "n = egesick@co.weld.co.us. �'" -- _ DOCKET NUMBER: #2006-45 ",r' DATE: August 2, 2006 _ o-1 TIME: 10:00 a.m. _ SSV13 SHIA C _ APPLICANT: 031210 •21d C Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC H =_ and Green Light Energy, Inc. — -^ 310 4th Street O Charlotesville, Virginia 22902 Z El4 p4 O Q REQUEST: A Site SpecificDevelopment fir' w t Facility of a Public Utility(a 72-mile 230 k z W o (."! A (Agricultural) Zone District x c4 o LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Parts of Sectioi Q w x UO 00 t�! Range 60 West; parts of Sections 2, 3, x WW C4 C'• ri Range 61 West; parts of Sections 24, ; .W-1 x x m Section 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, and 36, Towns a E' In Z �r 24, 25, 36, Township 7 North, Range 62 .< 0 W Township 6 North, Range 62 West;parts cc M U U r q w t West;parts of Sections 12, 13, 14, 15,an i 1 c 2, 3, 11, 14,23,26, 34,and 35,Townshii co °D 27, and 34, Township 3 North, Range 6 w 03 e Range 63 West;parts of Sections 1,2,3, IT part of Section 7, Township 4 North, Ra p X L Range 63 West of the 6th P.M., Weld ( I— O w C m � LOCATION: Commencing at a point e¢ w Q O Road 120,at a proposed substation with V a traversing in a southwesterly direction tc ra 8 and 87, then traversing in a southerly di, d� I in a southwesterly direction to a point one ��g 3.8 JUL. 27. 2006 9:39AM LF&S NO. 0913 P. 2 L J7 G EV&J ttESxOGG,LLC 370 SEv5NieENrx Stun,SUITE 4900 DENvm3,COLonnno80202 LOWS FELLBOG ?HONE 720.359.8200 .MAx720.359.8201 KAaea L flonr kbmdyeauw.com DUtECTDIAL (720)937.2619 July 27,2006 VrA FACsnmx(970)352-0242 AND U.S.MAIL Weld County Board of County Commissioners Attention: Esther Gesick,Office Manager P.O.Box 758 Greeley,Colorado 80632 Re: Weld County Section 1041 Application; Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LW and The TH Ranch Property To the Board of County Commissioners: This firm represents The TH Ranch, LLC ("TH Ranch"). TH Ranch has been advised that at their August 2, 2006, the Weld County Board of County Commissioners will consider a 1041 Application submitted by Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC, which includes the construction of a wind farm and 230 kilovolt tr£msmiacion line to be constructed in Weld County. The plan for the transmission line originally submitted to Weld County included a request that the County permit an area that included a significant portion of the TH Ranch property. In the application,Cedar Creek specifically identified several potential mutes for the transmission line, including a route identified as "Segment 15;" that crossed the TH Ranch property. After evaluating in detail the proposed routes for the transmission line, Cedar Creek has advised TH Ranch that it no longer intends to pursue Segment 15 as an alternative and does not intend to cross any portion of the TH Ranch property with its project. By letter dated July 11, 2006, Nelson Teague of Greenlight Energy, Inc., of which Cedar Creek is a subsidiary, memorialized the decision not to cross the TH Ranch property with its transmission line. A copy of this letter, indicating that the Cedar Creek wind farm and transmission line project will not impact the TH Ranch property,is attached. At the July 18, 2006 Weld County Planning Commission meeting, Cedar Creek advised the Commissioners that it will not cross the TH Ranch property with its project and that it will prepare a revised map for submission W.th its 1041 Application that reflects this change. TH Ranch does not oppose Cedar Creek's 1041 Application as long as the submission to the Board of County Commissioners is consistent with its representations to the Planning Commission and the attached letter. However, if the Commissioners are asked in any way to consider Segment 15 or any other alternative that would in any way cross or otherwise impact r (M00746531.120009-00017262006 07:02 PM) s': JUL. 27. 2006 9:39AM LF&S NO. 0913 P. 3 Esther Oesick July 27,2006 Page 2 the TH Ranch property, TIT Ranch objects acd would request notice and an opportunity to be heard on such issue. Thank you. V trulyyo , Karen L.Brody An3 for LowE FELL&SKoG6,LLC KLB/cao Attachment cc: Brad Petersen Kenneth K. Skogg {800746531.170009-00017/262006 0650 PM} NO. 0913 P. 4 JUL. 27. 2006 9:39AM LF&S ^ Low,FELL &SxOcw,tLC L 370 y!?',Count/ago F.F 802 90200 808118 4900 II FN 5?A. UEFNT* S 2 P ion 720 359 8200 LowE,FELL• 'Si OGG FLAX 720 359 8201 YAWN I.MOT kbrud5aWeeo' DiaECT DIAL. (720)932-2619 July 11,2006 VIADianWLE(4.34)220-1420 AND ELICIRONIC MAIL Nelson S. Teague, Jr. • Greenlight Energy,Inc. 310 4m Street,14 Charlottesville,Vilgtnia 22902 Re: Weld County Section 1041 Application; Cedar Crock Wind Energy, LLC and The TH Ranch Property Dear Nelson: I would like to confirm your discussions with Ken Skogg ovseveral weAcs regarding the Cedar Creek Wind Energy project and impacts to The Ranch property. In May 2006,Cedar Creek Wind Energy,LW,a subsidiary of Greenlight Energy, Inc. (collectively"Greenlight")submitted a Section 1041 application to Weld County requesting approval to proceed with the construction, o-,7eration and maintenance of a 230 kilovolt transmission line within a project conido r that included a substantial portion of the land owned by Ibc TT! Ranch, LLC in Weld County (the "Property"). Greenlight's 1041 application specifically identified a proposed route fix the transmission line labeled as "Segment 15" running through several sections of the Property. After evaluating the various options available fox the transmission line route,Greenlight no longer intends to locate any portion of the proposed transmission line or any related facilities on the Property and will pursue other route options. 741,rt;> SW; Greenlight discussed its intent to remove any portion o the project corridor that crosses the Property from its 1041 application with the Weld Coun Weld County has advised Greenlight that the proposed amendment does not constitute a substantial change to the pending 1041 application and does not require amendment of the application. Consequently, at the July 18 Planning Commission meeting, Greenlight will formally withdraw from its 1041 application that portion of the project corridor that crosses the Property and will no longer pursue any route for its transmission line o1•related facilities that impacts the Property in any manner. Please confirm that I have prop* summarised Greenlight's position and intentions by countersigning this letter below and retuning an executed copy to me no later than (/00147818120009.00017)10/2006 11:55 AM) JUL. 27. 2006 9:39AM LF&S NO. 0913 P. 5 Nelson S. Teague, Jr. July 11,2006 Page 2 Friday,July 14,2006 In reliance upon°reenl'ght's agreement to remove the Property flora its project corridor, and in exchange for receiving Orecnlight's confirmation of this agreement by execution of this letter, The IH Ranch, LLC will not oppose Greenlight's 1041 application by submitting materials to the Planning Commission in advance of the July 18 hearing or by offering testimony at the hearing Thank you for working with The TH Ranch,LLC and I look forward to receiving your signature. Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions. 'e'er y yotus, /Ka L.Brody for LOWE,FELL&SKOOO,LLC KLB cc: Brad Petersen Kenneth K. Skogg 'it 2 180 Nelson Teague,Jr_for a Wind Ever,LLC a subs of°recolight Energy,Inc_ r- 0007450671 12190-0006 6222006 03:19 FM) 07/20/2006 16:50 9703363030 GREELEYWELD CTV ARPT PAGE 04 Weld County Referral May 23, 2006 COLORADO • The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review: Applicant Cedar Creek Wind Energy Case Number USR-1562 LLC; Green Lignt Energy Inc Please Reply et June 20, 2006 Planner Kim Ogle Project A Site Specific Development Plan and aSpecial Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility(a 72 mile 230 KV transmission line and one new switching station)in the A.(Agricultural)Zone District. Legal Parts of Sections 2, 3, 9,10, 16,17, 19,20, 30 Township 10 North Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 25,35, 36 Township 10 North Range 61 West; Parts of Sections 24,25, 36 Township 9 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 1,12, 13,24,25, 36 Township 8 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 1, 12, 13,24,25,36 Township 7 North Range 62 West;Parts of Sections 1, 12, 13, 24,25, 34, 35, :36 Township 6 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 1, 3, 4, 7,8 Township 5 North Range 62 West; Parts of Sections 12, 13, 14, 15,22 Township 5 North Range 83 West; Parts of Sections 2,3, 11, 14,23, 26, 34,35 Township 4 North Range 63 West; Parts of Sections 3,10, 15,22,27,34 Township 3 North Range 63 West;Parts of Sections 3,5, 6 Township 2 North Range 63 West; Parts of Sections 1,2,3,4, 10,15, 22,27 Township 2 North Range 64 West; Part of Section 7 Township 4 North Range 62 West; and Part of Section 13 Township 4 North Range 62;West of the 6th P.M.,Weld County, Colorado, Location Commencing at a point east of.CR 105 and Norm of CR'120 at a proposed substation within the boundary of the Proposed Ceder Creek Wind Farm, traversing in a southwesterly direction to a point In the general vicinity of CR 106 and CR 87,then traversing in a southerly direction to CR 98 and CR 87, then traversing in a southwesterly direction to a point one-half mile west of CR 85.5 then traversing In a southerly direction to CR 62 and CR 85.5 turning west onto CR 62 to CR 79.5 then traversing to a point near the intersection of CR 73 and CR 58; turning to head south onto CR 73 to a point near CR 44 then westerly along CR 58 to CR 69, then south to the northerly right-of-way of Interstate 76,then turning west to CR 65.5 to a point south of Interstate 76 then westerly on CR 24 to CR 55 then south on CR 55 to the proposed Keenesburg Switching Station. Parcel Number Various The application Is submitted to you for review end 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. My 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. 07/20/2006 16:50 9703363030 GREELEYWELD CTV ARPT PAGE 05 Weld County Planning Commission Hearing(If applicable) July 18, 2006 ❑ ibre1iiave reviewed the request end find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests. o See attached letter. Comments: Signature /4CA ! 1✓t a1 iCr ,l r, Date /2y/bt Agency 6;45Lf/.cia/ Oc, 7 y N11- f +Weld County Planning "Dept. ?4209 CR 24.5,Long/monk CO.80504 O(720)6524210 ext.8730 4(720)552-4211 fax Weld County Planning Department SOUTHWEST BUILDING JUL 2 1 2006 Robin Swope 42769 CR 76 P.O. Box 200136 RECEIVED Briggsdale, CO 80611 Evans, CO 80620 Weld County Department of Planning Services 4209 CR 24.5 Longmont, CO 80504 To Whom It May Concern: I was just notified of the plans to erect a wind tower near my home case #USR-1562. I am very upset that the county did not notify me of this development; I had to find out from my neighbor. This is an irresponsible location to place something as dangerous as high voltage power lines. There are several homes with children under 5 years of age in this location, including mine. High voltage power lines have been linked to cancer in children under 5 years of age. If you would like to see your children get cancer then put the power lines on your property not ours. There are thousands of acres that are empty with no homes nearby to place these high voltage power lines. It is completely unacceptable to strong arm a hardworking family into selling off some of their property with threats and intimidation when the family clearly does not want the power lines on their property. As homeowners in this area we have rights and big business should never come before a childs health. This permit should never be allowed it is dangerous and irresponsible. Thank you, Robin Swope EXHIBIT 4.' a te7r, Weld County Planning Department ENT OF SQ'!T'""PEST BUILDING �.. United States Department of the Interior JUL 2 6 Zoos /a K4 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE I�EC,EIVED -0 FISH Office of Law Enforcement 9297 S. Wadsworth Blvd. IN REPLY REFER TO Littleton, Colorado 80128 Phone: (720) 981-2777 Fax: (720) 981-2727 July 24, 2006 Greenlight Energy David A Stoner Director of Development Court Square Building 310 4t Street,NE Charlottesville, VA 22902 Mr. Stoner: I was recently contacted by Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) District Wildlife Manager(DWM) Troy Florian and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biologist Sandy Vana-Miller regarding the wind energy project in Weld County, Colorado. Both parties have concerns regarding the distance of ten of the turbines from the escarpment edge. At the meeting on May 26, 2006, I was made aware of the CDOW's initial recommendation of having all the turbines at least Y= mile from the escarpment edge. Later I was advised that after further negotiations, the CDOW acquiesced to the distance of 1/4 of a mile from the escarpment. Finally, making the concession of 200 meters from the escarpment edge. However, they are very concerned with the ten turbines your project proposes to place within 50 meters of the escarpment edge. As per our discussion at the meeting on May 26, 2006, the USFWS is charged with enforcing me Migratory Bird Treaty Act,the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act. At the meeting, I emphasized Greenlight Energy's possible exposure to violating these acts and the maximum penalties. In addition, I provided you with a copy of the Moon Lake Electrical Association judgement, wherein, U.S. District Judge Babcock pronounced, "I do not regard the following language as vague or ambiguous: 'it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to ....kill.... any migratory bird."" By means of this letter, I am furthermore advising you of a recent ruling regarding prosecution of a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in U.S. v Ray Westall Operating, Inc., CR -05-1516KBM. Wherein, U.S. Magistrate Judge Molzen found the defendant, an oil company, guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Above and beyond the criminal and financial aspects of prosecution, Greenlight Energy's public image would undoubtedly suffer from the negative impact. The USFWS and the people of Colorado place a high value their wildlife. It is the USFWS's sincere request that Greenlight Energy give further consideration to the recommendations of the CDOW, especially regarding the ten turbines which are proposed to be within 50 meters of the escarpment edge and that ground breaking construction respect critical nesting periods. Sincerely, / J.. e am n Sp-cial Agent, USFWS cc: oy Florian, Colorado Division of Wildlife im Ogle, Weld County Planning Department Chris Latham, Weld County Planning Department . en:ns,r;;7, t Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: akrcmarik@comcast.net Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:09 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: Docket Number#2006-45 Attachments: Commissioners.doc Re: Applicant Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC and Green Light Energy, LLC Please find attached, a memo that describes our concerns about the proposed transfer sub-station in Keensburg, CO. We are the neighbors directly to the east of the proposed site. We would like this memo oncluded into the case file. If you have questions, I may be reached at (C) 970-222-8779 or(H) 970-224-2274. Respectfully submitted, Susan Krcmarik usac40-Not 8/2/2006 To: Weld County Commissioners From: Susan Fleischmann Krcmarik Date: July 20, 2006 RE: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; GreenLight Energy Inc. Background: The Fleischman farm has been in our family since Reverend Walter Fleischmann purchased it well over 60 years ago. We have been blessed to have Norlin Cavendar, and previously his father Jack, farm our land for all this time. On January 4, 2006 I received a letter from Kevin Davis with Greenlight Energy. He requested a meeting concerning the purchase of 80 acres of Section 27 Township 2N Range 64 W (our farm near Keensburg) for a substation. My husband and I met with Mr. Davis on January 26 to learn more about the project. The following steps were taken to research his offer: • The other 3 property owners were notified by me • Claudia Craig(1/4 interest) flew in from North Carolina to assist me with research. We: o studied all county records of mineral, highway, and railroad right-of-way o met with Jim Martell, our attorney who has guided us through previous right-of-way purchases for power lines o met with the Mayor of Keensburg o studied Keensburg's 2005 comprehensive plan including proposed zoning and 208 boundary o met with planning staff from Weld County to discuss the project After a great deal of time and research, we determined that: • The need for 80 acres was misleading, unnecessary, and requested specifically to avoid steps necessary to subdivide and rezone a smaller segment of property. • The proposed placement of the transfer substation would be located next to the frontage road, creating a major eye-sore for the town of Keensburg, and a clear impediment to using the most valuable portion of our property(frontage access) for commercial development • The price offered was not sufficient to compensate for the resulting devaluation of the land and our plans for future development Outcome: Collectively, all four owners agreed that the proposed land use had more negative impacts than positive ones, and we declined the Greenlight Energy offer based on • The substation if placed next to the frontage road, would reduce our options for commercial development • The substation would obstruct and negatively impact our view to the west • The substation would result in an eyesore from I-76 in the approach to Keensburg • There are other, more appropriate options for placement of the facility This conclusion was reached with both the town of Keensburg, and our own considerations as owners in mind. Our intent has always been to maintain property value until a time when we are able to develop the property in a way that benefits both Keensburg and ourselves. Given this conclusion, we approached Mr. Davis with the question: Doesn't it make more sense to locate the transfer station on the land to the south of the railroad tracks given its direct access to the intersection of power lines coming from the West, and the North? At this point negotiations stopped, and our neighbor directly to the west was contacted. Current concerns: Please understand that we do not disagree with the need for the substation, and appreciate that it is consistent with environmentally friendly power generation. The overall project is exciting, and needed. Greenlight has gone forward with their plans to locate their interconnection substation by working with the land owner adjacent and to the west of our property. While we have not privy to their negotiations with Mr. Bernak, our concerns that led to declining Greenlights offer remain the same. Requests: With this said, we respectfully request that you consider the following: • Require a sub-station location further away from Interstate 76, and to the south of the railroad tracks • Consider allowing only the amount of property actually necessary for the substation to be zoned non-agriculture i.e. 20 acres versus 80 acres • Require strict guidelines for landscaping and shielding the negative visual impact of the sub- station. By doing so, this will mitigate the eyesore it creates, and minimizes its potential to further devaluation of the surrounding property Thank you in advance for taking our concerns into consideration as you make decisions on this project. We appreciate that you will approach granting the necessary permits for construction of this substation in a thoughtful, responsible way that ensures the least negative impact to our property and its value. On behalf of the Fleischmann farm owners directly to the east of the proposed substation, Susan ICrcmarik 3316 Sagewater Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80528 H (970) 224-2274 C (970) 222-8779) Page 1 of 1 Esther Gesick From: Glenn Vaad Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:12 AM To: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Greenlight Energy transmission line near Crow Creek Attachments: Commissioner letter alternative routes transmission line July 2006.pdf; Exhibit A Ownership of Property.pdf; Exhibit B Alternative Routes.pdf Please place in the file for this case. Thanks, Glenn From: BCKross@aol.com [mailto:BCKross@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 4:29 PM To: Dave Long; Glenn Vaad; Rob Masden; Bill Jerke; Mike Geile Cc: mark.kross@fortcollinscommercebank.com Subject: Greenlight Energy transmission line near Crow Creek Dear Commissioners: Please review the attached letter and exhibits regarding alternative routes for the Greenlight Energy transmission line in the vicinity of Crow Creek. We have sent a more detailed proposal to Greenlight directly, and would hope to negotiate with them in good faith to reach a reasonable compromise route across our property. If you have any questions, please contact us. Thank you for reviewing our concerns and our proposed resolution to this matter. Regards, Landowners in Crow Creek vicinity As defined in the attachments EXHIBIT 1 A1 U52 #/54Z 8/2/2006 July 31, 2006 Weld County Commissioners PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Alternative routes for proposed Greenlight Energy transmission line near Crow Creek Dear Commissioner: This letter is being submitted to each Weld County Commissioner to demonstrate our willingness to compromise and to outline our positive actions to address significant environmental and property value damages associated with the proposed Greenlight Energy transmission line near Crow Creek, in Weld County, Colorado. This letter summarizes three alternative route options that the landowners are willing to consider granting easements to Greenlight Energy for their transmission line. A more detailed proposal was submitted to Greenlight Energy for their consideration earlier this week. Owners of adjoining properties in the Crow Creek vicinity have met to discuss options regarding the Greenlight Energy proposed transmission line in the vicinity of Crow Creek. For convenience, the Owners prepared a joint response and proposal to Greenlight Energy in an effort to reach a reasonable compromise for the transmission line route across our property. For the record, the following individuals and LLCs will be impacted by the proposed transmission line: Crow Creek Colorado, LLC (CCC, LLC), Robert Sanderson(Sanderson), JGMAC Investments Group, LLC (JGMAC), Joseph McCarthy(McCarthy), and House at Crow Creek, LLC (HCC, LLC), collectively referred to as "the Owners." Exhibit A provides a map showing the property owned by each of the above. Also for convenience,the Owners have appointed AgCon Easements, LLC through its managers Burton Kross and Mark Kross, to negotiate the terms of an agreement with Greenlight Energy regarding the proposed transmission line easements. If you have any further questions regarding this matter,please contact us as follows: AgCon Easements, LLC 6933 Sedgwick Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 TE: 970-988-2753 for Mark Kross TE: 970-231-1430 for Burton Kross Email: bckross@aol.com FAX: 970-206-4458 As you know from comments at the Planning Meeting at the Weld County Offices on July 18, 2006, the Owners are interested in seeing the Crow Creek Wetlands area protected. We echo the verbal comments from Larry Ragstad, Colorado Division of Wildlife and the written letter from Dave Clarkson, Area Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1 "Open canopied deciduous woodlands along Crow Creek, as it runs through shortgrass steppe,play a pivotal role in providing nesting, perching,hunting roosts and night roosts for raptors,migratory songbirds, and resident songbirds. These shaded areas also provide essential shelter and resting habitat for deer, raccoon and many other species. The importance of this site as significant wildlife habitat is indicated by its inclusion as High Impact Habitat in the Weld County mapping. Mitigation by planting replacement trees for trees removed due to power line routing in this area has a high probability for failure, and under best of circumstances replacement trees would take decades to establish themselves. Therefore the better option is to avoid the riparian bottom by adequate setback to the east." "Should the Proposed Transmission Line Route,designated by#7 on Plot plan Map 2,be selected as the final route, CDOW would recommend that the transmission line between Weld Roads 106 and 98 be located as far east in the corridor as possible to avoid the Crow Creek drainage. Setback from Crow Creek in this vicinity is recommended to be no less than 1/2 mile. This reach of Crow Creek has been designated as High Impact Wildlife Habitat in the Significant Wildlife Habitat Maps, adopted by Weld County Department of Planning Services in 1996." Like many land owners we are not really excited about having the proposed 100-foot high transmission line go through our property. In an effort to save the fragile Crow Creek habitat and in the interest of wind energy project, the Owners are willing to compromise. However, any compromise solution is conditioned on a written commitment of Greenlight Energy, Inc. to keep the proposed transmission line further than 1/2 mile away from the Crow Creek drainage, as recommended by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The Owners are willing to have the transmission line go across their property as long as they are adequately compensated for the loss in property value related to the placement of the transmission line. Our preference would be to place the transmission line as far east as possible to avoid the Crow Creek and to minimize economic damage to our property. Proposal I Proposed Route: East Boundary of Property See Exhibit B Description: From SE corner of Section 20, Range 61 W, Township 9N, the transmission line would enter Section 28 going across the north-side of this section (property owned by Sanderson) for 1 mile. Then the line would turn south for %mile(owned by Sanderson). Then back to the West % mile(Sanderson property). Then south 1.25 miles (JGMAC property for 1/2 mile, CCC, LLC for %z mile and McCarthy property for 1/4 mile). Then West 1/2 mile across WCR 89 (McCarthy property). Then South 1/4 of a mile (McCarthy property). Then West %z mile until the line exists the property(McCarthy property). The Owners are not willing to participate in a plan that would have the 2 transmission line go within %2 mile of the Crow Creek. So the transmission line after leaving McCarthy property must take a diagonal turn as it enters Croissant's property to remain %2 mile away from the Crow Creek. A written commitment from Greenlight Energy Inc. to stay further than 1/2 mile away from the Crow Creek is not negotiable. The transmission line easement would start 425 feet from the property line and end 575 feet from the property line in areas where the neighboring property owner was not notified in the prior notification process. In all other areas the transmission line easement would be 150 feet on our side of the property line. Loss of Property Value from Proposal I: This route would result in the transmission line being on our property for approximately 4 miles. The transmission line easement would be 575 feet from the property line for 4 miles. The 575 feet include the 150-foot transmission line easement plus the 425 feet for the buffer to allow Greenlight Energy Inc. to avoid the notification of Prairie Flower Ranch Group Trust, John Realph, and W & B Knight. In areas not effected by additional notification requirements the easement will be 150 feet with a 400-foot setback from the centerline of the easement or a total of 475 feet. The 400-foot set back is taken from guidelines from Greenlight Energy Inc. on the distance that the transmission line would be from any residence. So it would follow that 400 feet would be the minimum distance that future development houses could occur from the transmission line. Thus the impacted land would be 575 feet multiplied by 2 miles resulting in a land area of 6,072,000 square feet and 475 feet times 2 miles for a total of 5,016,000 square feet for an impacted acreage of 254.54 acres. The setback from the transmission line is less on this alternative route proposal because the transmission line runs on the east property line. The reasons for the smaller impact to a conservation easement is that house sites are generally close to the road, in this case WCR 89 and WCR 100. With the transmission line on the east property boundary the impact to the remaining property is diminished because some of the property is up to 2 miles away from the transmission line. In addition, since the transmission line runs on the property line our property only absorbs '/z of the setback for conservation easements. Proposal II Proposed Route: East Boundary of Property cutting south in the middle of section 28(See Exhibit B) Description: From SE corner of Section 20, Range 61W, Township 9N, the transmission line would enter Section 28 going across the north-side of this section(property owned by Sanderson) for 1/2 mile. Then the line would turn south for 1 mile (owned by Sanderson for '''e mile and then JGMAC for '' mile). The transmission line would then cross WCR 100 and continue south for'A of a mile (CCC, LLC property for ''/z mile and McCarthy for %mile). Then the line would go back to the West 'V2 mile(McCarthy property) crossing WCR 89. Then south 1/4 mile (McCarthy property). Then West 1/2 mile until the line exits the property(McCarthy property). The Owners are not willing to participate in a plan that would have the transmission line go within ''/z mile of the Crow Creek. So the transmission line after leaving McCarthy property must take a diagonal 3 turn as it enters Croissant's property to remain 1/2 mile away from the Crow Creek. A written commitment from Greenlight Energy Inc. to stay further than 'h mile away from the Crow Creek is not negotiable. The transmission line easement would start 425 feet from the property line and end 575 feet from the property line in areas where the neighboring property owner has not been notified with the prior notification process. In all other, areas the transmission line easement would be 150 feet on our side of the property line. Loss of Property Value from Proposal II: This route would result in the transmission line being on our property for approximately 3.5 miles. The transmission line easement would cover be 575 feet from the property line for 1 mile. The 575 feet include the 150- foot transmission line easement plus the 425 feet for the buffer to allow Greenlight Energy Inc. to avoid the notification of John Realph, and W& B Knight. In areas not effected by additional notification requirements the easement will be 150 feet with a 400- foot setback from the centerline of the easement or a total of 475 feet. The 400-foot set back is taken from guidelines from Greenlight Energy Inc. on the distance from which the transmission line would be from any residence. So it would follow that 400 feet would be the minimum distance for which future development buildings could occur from the transmission line. Thus the impacted land would be 575 feet multiplied by 1 mile resulting in a land area of 3,036,000 square feet and 475 feet times 2.5 miles for a total of 6,270,000 square feet for an impacted acreage of 213.64 acres. Also the NE '/a of Section 28, Range 61W, Township 9N would be completely cut off with its value for conservation easement purposes completely removed. This would add 160 acres to the prior total of 213.64 acres for a grand total of 373.64 acres. Proposal III Proposed Route: East of WCR 89 Route see Exhibit B Description: Run along the east side of Weld County Road 89 (as close to the road as possible)until WCR 100 (first '/ mile would be Sanderson property, remaining N mile would be JGMAC property). At WCR 100 the transmission line would take a diagonal to the east of the house so that the transmission line passes ''/a mile east of house and out buildings (property owned by HCC, LLC). Then diagonal back toward WCR 89 until the line is running along WCR 89 (HCC, LLC and CCC, LLC property). At the south edge of section 33 the transmission line would cross to the west side of Weld County Road 89 into section 32 and follow on the property along the WCR 89 to the south boundary of section 32 (McCarthy property). Then the transmission line would turn west for 1/2 a mile along the south boarder of section 32 (McCarthy property). The Owners are not willing to participate in a plan that would have the transmission line go within '/z mile of the Crow Creek. So the transmission line after leaving McCarthy property must take a diagonal turn as it enters Croissant's property to remain '/z mile away from the Crow Creek. A written commitment from Greenlight Energy Inc. to stay further than %2 mile away from the Crow Creek is not negotiable. r^. 4 Since the transmission line is going down the middle of our property we absorb the entire loss of value on both sides of the transmission line. It appears that the loss of easement potential will be at least 400 feet on each side of the transmission line easement in areas where the transmission line cuts through the middle of our property. The 150-foot easement plus the 400 feet on either side of the easement would be considered land that could not be developed and therefore is not eligible for a conservation easement. In areas where the transmission line is against the property line the loss of conservation easement eligible property will only be 550 feet. Thus this route would cause a lose of conservation easement value equal to 950 feet multiplied by about 1.75 miles - ignoring the diagonal distance(8,778,000 SF) and 550 feet times .75 miles (2,178,000 SF). The total acreage lost would be 251.52 acres. The Owners are not excited about this route because the route splits the collective property down the middle. Route Proposed by Greenlight Energy Based on conversations with(Kevin Davis), Greenlight Energy prefers a route going west of WCR 89 through the middle of our collective property,because of favorable economic reasons for the company. However, please note that a route paralleling and running along the west edge of WCR 89 is the least desirable route for the Owners. This route would cause definable property damage based on lost conservation easement values on the collective property. Moreover,this route would significantly devalue (likely 30%or more)an existing home on 40 acres (owned by HCC, LLC),which will not be placed in a conservation easement. Placing the transmission line though the middle of our collective property blocks the views to the west (mountain views) on all of our property east of WCR 89. The Owners would be willing to consider this route (especially if located '''A mile west of WCR 89), if Greenlight will share part of its cost savings with the Owners in addition to funding the loss of economic value of our property. Please review these alternatives, and respond at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention to this mutually important matter. Regards, The Owners: Sanderson CCC, LLC by its Manager McCarthy JGMAC by its Manager HCC, LLC by its Manager AgCon Easements, LLC by its Manager 5 14 t �, C Gw,ier5 A i C . . CIRCLE DC .)7' „c,- ., cirri , << � P Ea D.L. ST MCKINLEY ,. RANCHES etal INC BO t X 20 eta RICHARD H. & i CLYDE ROSEMARY 1 BASH- SHIVELY bR r � -.- I - .,� ' t, 4 ,1; gym: 1}ile Y -I :.5 Fa I97.-71: PRA 0LP' F L C s ,- F. RAr COCH ` _ TR L 0 2 " 1 2 : r 1—P. & � -� J O H k 9 R . REAL LAS i • We e\ too a . � • .e • . .'ill . • . r F R r co -- eit.csig . . m U + � , i t • ;ANT r•� MARION E . -1-- [FRANKS coPPE c, re. , 1 c < ,c.....4.1Ex hit,t b; . 4 ife, ke.Li , L, ,, e I li - 1 1 CIRCLE DC McKI LE RANCHES S T x etat INC. 6O 2b 2 r eta 7 RICHARD H. &ROSEMARY CLYDE SHIVELY BASH- ' ciAcels‘ a. ic. ir RALPH . & P R) c91 E .. , r' - Zr CAROB. ANN FLC • Y, ..., „,,, t h COCHRAN RAr 30 a 29 2t„ , „., 7R1, 1---P. & ' J0HI ,it 1 R. M' ' REAL LAS , vice too RALPH E . -' thl 5 RC CAROL ANN " ot-- o _ 8 F 9 COCHRAN is, Y v• m TH 32 3t, ;ANT , A , 1. MARION E . Lf RANKS coRRE 87 (� _ ,, . , 5.--- EXHIBIT 41 MEMORANDUM W��P�. TO: Board of County Commissioners COLORADO DATE: August 1 2006 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Amendments to Staff Comments - Cedar Creek Energy/ Greenlight Energy USR-1562 USR-1562 is a 1041 for a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (a 72 mile 230 kV transmission line and one new switching station) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. The applicants representative has indicated that the powerline will be under one ownership and the switching station under a different ownership. Therefore the applicant is requesting that USR-1562A be associated with the Transmission Line (Babcock& Brown) and USR-1562B be associated with the Switching Station (Xcel Energy). Page 1'5t Item K. K. The applicant shall demonstrate attempted compliance with the Colorado Division of Wildlife as stated in their referral dated June 18, 2006. Further, if applicable, the applicant shall delineate the Crow Creek alignment, the playas or ephemeral or vernal ponds and identify sensitive areas for black tailed prairie dog and burrowing owls. Also the applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of CDOW specific to wildlife relative to the towers and transmission alignment. Add the word "attempt to"to the last line of this paragraph. See redline text Page 1 . Number 4. 4. Prior to the release of building permits: A. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the switching station and any other buildings or structures on site. B. A plan review is required for each building. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of floor plans and plot plans are required when applying for the permit. Building plans shall also be submitted to the Pawnee Fire Protection District. Strike items A and B from Resolution Development Standards 28 through and including number 33. 28. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the switching station and any other buildings or structures on site. 29. A plan review is required for each building. Plans shall bear the wet stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer. Two complete sets of floor plans and plot plans are required when applying for the permit. Building plans shall also be submitted to the Pawnee Fire Protection District. 30. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted by weld County: 2003 International Building Code; 2003 International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code; 2005 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. 31. Each building will require an engineered foundation based on site-specific geo-technical report or an open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be designed by a Colorado registered engineer. 32. The structure (switching station) will probably be classified as B occupancy. Fire resistance of walls and openings, construction requirements, maximum building height and allowable areas will be reviewed at the plan review. Setback and offset distances shall be determined by the Weld County Code. 33. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the Building Code for the purpose of determining the maximum building size and height for various uses and types of construction and to determine compliance with the Bulk Requirements from Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. Building height shall be measured in accordance with Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code in order to determine compliance with offset and setback requirements. Offset and setback requirements are measured to the farthest projection from the building. Remove Development Standards 28 through 33 from the resolution. New Text to be added to staff comment: The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Bijou Irrigation District specific to transmission alignment and identifying the inlet canal on all recorded plat maps. Add as condition of approval 3.N. E 0 P g P a rn z > N c m o_'ot al w. m v v .' °i b t v . . ' in vQ a �/� a� o ry P Nj N J O N P ; 1.- 1:1) L. U n U v 3 W 41 4 J o JLi) Lin W >- E A °` ° U Iii V W U o 4 Eml Z to 70 w � cOfp ti Z o C o a �' H U = Ni. U s 1�1 O •U 4J IVE W w � � � �, w h�l W O a Q v te DO U U '^ O V N a124 � G o a O W U " 4111 U -o A W V EXHIBIT LI O..s 4c/i illa i`L111 i1 111111 f, q _' �� ;r ii _ • 1II ll I� !I ' J4a.i iii1j ili, liIiIIIiiI� ( Z lit... . Q� ll I �. ii i i! I , I 1rl. . rte:. .., i 71., r it ..1`1'!' ,• • :'I• . E ' ,,,,;1141- ;:6? IA; _ I,, • .,•._......,_ ..,..-•r_i!,.4 •„d`' ;�`q-.ro. .:. -..„..„.,...„...„._........,„,_.,:.—_47—,.! , L , .., ll!Is .'IT. S r s _.._ tr..; it ` 6I ' w J, �.w..s,c . I I, '[, • ,Y•I r t.- 11,1Ii,.,�. Y- " ?1,„''....,.F I .:. .. .. :1 . -C�c, li;ill '"Ii. i4:1 '!' •:'i ;,,i!li!,!. i , .4,4 .. f.", I ' el. : ',,,,--,,,j., , , . . • ra M i i'r,j I l i... • . . :—::. — -:,'1------ *- •,-.` r.47.. i , r I.i.. �. 1 J--ç .* Lt , •,,,,.,ii,,.,,,,,, y, I•j�II iI�I I{I ,,. 1 4 ^a° f It. { F•� N '`- `� f !i'I' ViI r.'4 1 jti" y\ I '•.t C i, ,1 '1,,:‘,i,.. i � E• �4 , „II<< I, w i .1L �.�.sf II :r L t ill ii I;' ,11 1 ,. I 'Ili,." .l.. 1 i t m, �. !) . 'H{{~ •'UK ,• pp �:, l i ....I �V I I. • 1�•r. O • ii `•. Ii ,I\`•F,O' YtII` .`' I5 oI^ I • .� �t Q , ., .i ......,...„ . ,. , :,. , , ... .,, -',-,--z'7rzr-',-;:--, lr's!7.- -.-1 ''''''"it4'-i--' .,..:., ---. . '7 i c.> r • I _ 'll.' .Ii. . �I S i ii ' , ' ,• i ' 4 n • •t ^r^ l 9I .• ` I ) ;t I.. ? 111{,,, ~M ''IU.1 :K'I , I.^ *•,'.i I II 1 I i t ,t 0 I.• J. • i i _ ''''''':,,r•"”7"):". w.:., I: , III:l ,I•tu.......1.'I, . 'it'r �_,� t. I ... .j , II ." I I 1.:. I. 1FF i i { 5 I:I : �. ,tom !F�`' !�r !"i� Y L J'!• : 'i :v 0 CNA 1+ .9ZZ Y / ' `' ,` i 1 I Y OW I A r1 / �/ ., IA C*4 00 ,179Z 4 713 J,as-^�-..,� v \ iir /! o VII �,f' c4 ! r tco .. o ai „ y 1 . C a. T A 4 C f�✓ w L m w � ny v 4 rf9Z in Y�`r.y O rn �,,""""� II '%.. N IV /#4e. t m // I jf'JI �� \` Q Jf I f ♦ o 1.1 f i i Oar I ,, i i % r r \ // rn • / _ t (73 C ), v13 1 w C / O \ .,/ v Ot .., 01 0J� rM,.r`.rti I: el i A i i �f 1p Q a .-. ++ `.- O 6 i M C 1 01 t�O 'I, T. fCn v � is CU 4.0 . i \ +CLI l,4* to a J.A o ¢m \ 6 i r o o CV CO c a V 1 k , f Q ,j piaill g 14_cou.igz6Pill. __I it z EX i. iiti) c)E26i .) 0 trIe: !i. ' ' 1 ;ii 1 k LT- I "ilr . �N2iil gi VNi; pl 1 a 11 I M R I *.M C Q) 13 C o U oi$ M N f L 1 Q a. j �I ER , ti W CIM: .. ICI is r1 i'!�t ''. I / 1 i ' L }II laMr�f�L'{IWT--...-.s.---"-'44-4-........s.....7, N �r�.A7ir1�M0��tyyyy� `� / ol ----'-----N/ // ''e 11 ,�; 1 O. - 'yp f.- � ,,,/.../ r___ _ __ _ -- - s._._ _ _ , _,_ / / May' ".''""". Ill'.«•Mu''''vti'rrn.!'."'"'Yi'Y.n._...''.y. -T::: ..rww..-PJ�Lrt1M!S:ii.w'ise.4 I r k0 Q 11 I i . J I . c x t. 1 1 ! i ��. u.nw..n o. • \` �rraoa t .. S unnwv'¢w LT: • eaw i 0 • • [ 'w i r t 1 l [ �:.� r ilk 1 ... ' ......_. l'° 4 M SIR !' i. .If • v .I .. r t • O y1i11 .0 n i� I :;it. ' 1 < .III x ill;: tF .....� .....�._.... �.• • t 7.. : : �.: ill s I : jilt : • + ! 4 : r t 1 r.... ID . 6 •��. 6 rn. E ... 6 .., p .r. E r.. E r.. 6 -.. 6 ... 0 ... 6 II . t r L_1_ I / . .. -1 i ( rI. h lIlli E, , I�/ I — 4_ t ?iii, si to I 1 ■ i ,,;I! I I el ... M E ■ ,� 'I 111 1 [Jill', '. Pt' LT } w rt . ? �, I j..� ST_ i I ( _ ' Ill III Ih 1 -1 ' ■ � , ' » _,__I I ' :II,: ' _. I:I}I E �� ii.I 'still] . , I i _ ,i �. ; i ,r—r— II -- .. II r 111 II �.: .i- I- Dial[ II � ! �� sIi .I '+ E I ! III it s Ya 1I 14 ji e ®`�0 ..S '■WI F I x � . _ .... ... I ) 'l .Yif 1 [ ��! £.1 N TAN ctS v 0 ` T Ot a) C W L C' krY� C N W L 0 0 0 C) 01 V co ` yW1 W x>41 u41 F 6.. . 1:7-1----rt. __ -_- t" yi Q. 4 ¢a YYy Uw � � -�-...; ggb U in fi gg .I cc o b �04 � ' ' ° l,,, i a ' 1 e mma � J o w gj n!t I g ., 5 l'ej Yr ,!:F4 �` sad - . /I e 111 6 4E1 b rlit 1 IT ''• b.. • lJ L t �! aPf�e11 U ♦ rtK �!Nei i� �t.� * 1a rf//,! ��f t f,/// i/:. r, i * • .6u f'_ lel `i' k r ¢ s'1. 2 I ! i .: '/�jff Ji f/ s--'' - I• , , r r:...J 8)lkb>�.i. ,.%gi p i+ t..i r 1411` pi , i o 1f 7yJ / !J� 4 1 /�� { q 1 C k' tM ;oz., .r'' y -,t,.� ' 1�i a !i{. • !�;� � $�S 0 ,p 1 • wu.�u.,iluln ,3I@ b ! r '.* 2 �rr�ricroter�ra�rr j :dBff R X ° i �1�ilti^ x u ti ed M ,a 'l•,`t � l��- I \', - . k' 1* ! #ill d lfgt Ei : a e ,l. ♦♦p ;' t ,\ 7., ..31': h g6. Pi ti g W gt,Oi I"'""'—— p. ; O, �y p 1 1 ♦ N qL5 ! wc b.� a P s,i L t3 r yt Sep1. �. le 1 M -..+ .._- -y ��' • i !/ t� Yi �Q �•S �N !ill IN to +' •// €�vua$ :qK W 1.-q 9i8 a 4,', O i, ///, 4 >.',1 05*I "i2 w III ie l I • L d bit � gt il T xR sH c s K X O Ut nit/. @E1 pq 9.....,( K '`a a ail, (p�y(j g K ii!! �,� yx� yg�garI {••--/ tl 6 iC rt�' Ld l 0. d. is v., 4 e' 1�j • i i! ' �iTy �+��y1'jlj 4 E •1-y jq�;_•QQP `\\\ `�,�� <�3ri^_P' tq / Tt �G .Ca, v M₹ 5'g'YL\ .l 1 F % i. J R i I yy add 1_....._ I;l:...r . \ ..... �s � ----'--'- - '- . ..---y 4 V ....3181.!N K t", Hello