HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062071 I 2006-2071 '7- 7.- 4
Get u s R /-s d =z
0c T ?
b.= W / /j/J f
b.= ca t -
� � � �
; Loa im
LLs
ed U N , r
c,%-t,„ 4 g-'7 72 .mot
7st >d ,�: . X%
3 re-;-, or—t_
o - .mow 1
09- ; ems - �- � �, Q
QED e% iQ_ W4/-C ��� _t �l- a A ✓ �v
, 62, Htire-ge
/ pe - -0 , GPI a--2-,
A4., -, ;t-ate. sai 24- . -tt.V
e at-2-6
.kg, a" c -JZ O-4Jj.a�t�
/gird(' . I ' �f
7206i-5 e _ Rec2 yd
go6// - 7 , -ZU
EXHIBIT
July 5, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
I live at 43001 WCR 76, approx. 12 miles southeast of Briggsdale. I am writing this letter in
regards to Cedar Creek wind energy wanting to cross a section on or near my property. I and
both of my neighbors, Mary Speaker to the North of me, and Kevin and Stacie Malovich that live
in the house west of me that is owned in partnership with her mother Ellen Griffis, have all met
with Andy Horvat and told him we are strongly against them running their lines in the location
that they have chosen. Our 3 houses sit at the intersection of WCR 76 and 87. Both of these
roads dead end into each other on this corner and mine and Mary's driveway comes off of that
corner. They are wanting to come straight up road 87 and cross right between these three houses.
There is only approx 400 feet between these houses where they are wanting to run these high
voltage lines through. Right now where they are wanting to cross,the large easement that they
require would totally encompass Mary's house, and or put the lines right over the house. And to
avoid mine and Mary's place it would then end up almost doing the same thing to Griffis'
(AKA)Malovich's house. There are thousands of acres all around us that is either field, CRP,
pasture, etc. and yet they are pushing us the hardest to give in. Andy was saying that most of the
people that are opposing it going on there land on the previously chosen routs say that it will
decrease their values if they were to ever sell their property. I Asked Andy why though that the
slight possibility that they may develop the land somewhere in the future outweighs the rights of
existing development,and he told us that this is the cheapest route for the company was why
they were pushing us three so hard. This is insane to push us to put it on our houses or in our
yards when there is so much unused land all around us. Between roads 80 and 74 there is no
houses for 3miles to the east of me, and once you get a half a mile west of me there are no
houses for 2 plus miles. From what I have heard we are at least the 3n°route that they have
chosen and they didn't push any of them people for their open land, so I sure don't think it is
right to push us to have it this close to our houses. Any where you drive you see twists and turns
of power lines, gas lines, etc. where most companies tried to take the most minimally invasive
routes to accommodate people,but this company only seems to see dollar signs and how to save
the most money regardless of who they step on. I think that wind power is a good idea I just
think they need to try harder to find amicable places to run these lines. An abandoned house
south of me, Mary's, and Griffis' houses are over 100 years old. These houses have been here for
a very long time, and it's a sad day when mere mention of house development outweighs the
rights of existing structures. I also have concerns about health issues if these large lines were this
close to my house. They are also insulting land owners by only offering them$500.00 per acre.
Land hasn't been that cheap out here in years. I also don't understand why on earth when these
transmission lines and most of the people it affects are in Weld County, why this meeting on the
18th is in Longmont. It's almost as if the companies involved are hoping that not many people
will show up at that meeting due to not being able to get off work,or travel that far etc. Greeley
would have been a center point for all people to be able to attend. I am enclosing some pictures
and a small map to give an idea as to where these three houses are, and to give an idea of where
exactly,they are wanting to run these lines, so close to these houses. I appreciate your time in
reading this.
Sincerely,
Weld County ES BUIgLDING
DINGDepartment
SOUTHWEST BUILDING
J U L 1 0 2006 Fawnda and Randy Statley
e-. C A S e 43001 WCR 76
U S P. /S�o� RECEIVED Briggsdale, CO. 80611 EXHIBIT
,e9
O0n
C--
--
v44
tr
r.
V Q
Y
.. .. » _ _I.::::::: --Zip
Li il, O Fi i C
t -_____
cct
-....e'./bd cgs,
V
<C, _
eN)
rt v4 a' x .. 0
+ g
i Li I
$fiit *1St ilk
e 4.
'i �'4 : t7 +aaY S
$ 4 L �a _
ti
c.
Y,1.
Yyy, '� I_
.
k
it 4 f%�`�, .>- � y �. �
j}} yyy V
y I '•pY y)Y°i`y L: yy �k \� �yi
d iv
'�F r,, ! _ iii b^ ( 2 6 •.
r. . _ _ 1
• i
' Ax .•
{Y(( • a •i wni## iY • �I
to h
�1 t t 1y Zs y. r .
t i `-� /.o i Y �# 'F i
1A44yIr � A_ S .
• e Z :_,1.
h y j
LA
4` t 1 ‘t,.. f - tr v >>ar < , y -
it F" 1 J.:4, Z r ai h.
1 tf• < i` tr 'Lti
t. 4 Qty* a
4 v
p
N.
,
k
a
r 4v_1
GR
r
ti
E '
C.i
4-3 - ".. ic.... ., , ,
1 >r'. r, 4 e b+ a
e-J 'by A- t 1 1:. .
j s '
Q, ?i1.
}\ \ r
c_f..;
i.
w"._ ,„,,
cA v 1 . F i.. . .
, .
%\ : i2.;‘,..'
F • 1 -
+\� .. ..
17:yx:., .- r
aka .fie `3! ,
f..t.- t
a'
:
t
L _
' u\
may.
� ,
1j_ U
�t v .4 ,
r.
4 xi
1
s � r
i
t
: i •F 1 k j l•
'•FF iR
# ,
s
f I '!
µ
., .
g '.F y ' S. mt f d
y[, .,# ANa
? .. b s'yi 3`"
n 1i `
' .2 4 ! _
'
1.x Y444 4-7 "t, ..,,,,,,,, ,,,,... ,,,,, .. -4-. -, wr
v r Ja: "rte .. 4 ft, ,,�,,
pf ' ' _. _tea r IF
iE; / t.l.
f
' ar . C s +. s
le# µ'� [c . i #
i • 'i f i }ti f •'
1 fi 1IfJ / ..d -)
g sf g �� �� `#.s c 1v� ,
R x +
1 ₹ - ��
F }gam P ay
N i4 Fes, xr §` �t yYa at-41'k 1F .i
4
�i .14 . fartiTi i n..
F K$i} T0 •
r � ?1,441"t kM ,,, 1.
a.. 'yp^ 6 i i Y J w
-r -- • , - J tY " '/
— Weld County Planning Department
SOUTHWEST BUILDING
.00,TOFT
"r'�- - JUL 1 7 2006
United States Department of the Interior
�$ RECEIVED
• ?• FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
4,'I :°"° 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
Mail Stop 65412
JUL 1 2 2006
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
4209 County Road 24.5
Longmont, Colorado 80504
RE: USR-1563 & USR-1562, Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Green Light Energy, Inc. -
Wind Facility, Transmission Line, and Switching Station— 1041 permitting process
Dear Mr. Ogle:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received your letter dated May 23, 2006 with
enclosures, requesting our comments on Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC's proposed 330
megawatt (MW) Wind Energy Project (Project) in northern Weld County, Colorado. Mr.
Troy Florian, District Wildlife Manager for the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW),
informed Sandy Vana-Miller of my staff that you had extended the June 20, 2006, deadline
for comments on the subject Project. 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 the information included with your May 23, 2006, letter, the subject Project
would involve construction, operation, and maintenance of a 330 MW wind energy facility
with turbines, up to three substations, and an operations and maintenance facility. The
proposed Project would also include approximately 72 miles of 230 kV electric transmission
line and a new switching station, which would allow the facility to interconnect with the
existing transmission system owned and operated by Public Service Company of Colorado
near Keenesburg, Colorado.
Data on wildlife use and mortality collected at one wind energy facility are not necessarily
applicable to others; each site poses its own set of possibilities for negative effects on wildlife.
In addition, the wind industry is rapidly expanding into habitats and regions that have not
been well studied. The Service therefore recommends a precautionary approach to site
EXHIBIT
Page 2
selection and development and employs this approach in making recommendations and
assessing impacts of wind energy developments such as the proposed Project. We encourage
the project proponent to follow the Service's 2003 Interim Guidance on Avoiding and
Minimizing Impacts to Wildlife from Wind Turbines (Guidance) and, in cooperation with the
CDOW and Service, to conduct scientific research to provide additional information on the
impacts of wind energy development on wildlife. We encourage the wind energy industry as
a whole to look for opportunities to promote bird and other wildlife conservation when
planning wind energy facilities (e.g., voluntary habitat acquisition or conservation easements).
In addition to the ESA, the BGEPA and MBTA are also potentially applicable for wind
energy projects involving transmission lines such as the proposed Project. Under the MBTA
and the BGEPA, the project proponent has an obligation to protect the many species of
migratory birds, including eagles and other raptors which may occur on lands under their
jurisdiction. The two primary causes of raptor (including bald eagles) mortality are
electrocutions and collisions with power lines; therefore, the Service recommends that the
project proponent take strong precautionary measures to protect raptors and other migratory
birds. For example, 7CFR § 1724.52 allows for deviations from construction standards to
enable raptor protection, provided that structures are designed and constructed in accordance
with Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996,
published by the Edison Electric Institute/Raptor Research Foundation. The regulation
requires that such structures be in accordance with the National Electrical Safety Code and
applicable State and local regulations.
r
In general, 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. Although absolution from liability under the ESA,
BGEPA, and MBTA is not possible, the Service Division of Law Enforcement and the
Department of Justice have used enforcement and prosecutorial discretion when companies/
individuals have made efforts to avoid the unauthorized take of eagles and other migratory
birds.
In a letter dated March 23, 2006, to Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST), we
provided comments on Greenlight Energy's draft Protocol and Potential Impact Index (PII)
evaluation that WEST prepared for the proposed Project. In the early stages of the Project
and after an initial visit to the project site on February 22, 2006, our letter acknowledged
Greenlight Energy's use of the Guidance in completing the PII evaluation process for the
Project. We also emphasized conducting pre- and post-development studies and monitoring
to identify and avoid/minimize project impacts to wildlife and other sensitive natural
resources. However, since that time we have participated in additional meetings with
Green Light Energy Inc., WEST, and the CDOW, regarding significant and, as yet,
Page 3
unresolved issues that were enumerated in a letter dated June 25, 2006, from the CDOW to
your office on their review of the proposed Project. The Service shares many of CDOW's
specific concerns and recommendations, including but not limited to the following:
• Implementation of appropriate buffers when locating turbines near key habitat
features- turbine placement at least 'A mile back from the escarpment edge; '/4 mile
buffer from turbines for raptor nests, except for prairie falcon and golden eagle nests,
which should be given a '/z mile buffer with construction activities occurring outside
of critical nesting periods; identification and avoidance of mountain plover and other
migratory bird nests during their respective critical nesting periods; %z mile buffer
from turbines for Plains sharp-tailed grouse leks (courtship sites), provided the project
proponent works with CDOW to design and conduct studies on the Project's effects to
the species, including developing and implementing mitigation efforts in the form of
habitat improvements and/or population enhancement; and, avoidance of nesting
burrowing owls, which often occur in association with prairie dog colonies (especially
from late March to September 1).
• Seasonal shutdown of any turbines identified during post-development monitoring as
causing significant bat and bird mortalities from collisions with turbines; e.g., during a
peak bat migration period from August to September.
The Service also shares the Colorado Natural Areas Program's (CNAP) concerns regarding
potential Project effects on the Chalk Bluffs State Land Board (SLB) parcel near Pawnee
Buttes. This one section area (6`h Meridian, T10N, R60W section 16) is both a designated
Colorado Natural Area and a Stewardship Trust parcel. According to the CNAP, this area
was selected for the Stewardship Trust and designated as a Colorado Natural Area due to
several significant resources including a rare plant and community type, paleontological
resources, as well as significant raptor use. We agree with the CNAP's recommendations in
order to protect the values of this section area from the proposed Project; their
recommendations that follow are consistent with CDOW and Service guidelines:
• Significant setback of turbines from the escarpment edge; implementation of
appropriate buffers for rare plants (1/4 mile) and falcons/eagles (1/2 mile) from
turbine placement.
• Avoid placing the proposed transmission line through the Natural Area by, preferably,
placing along Road 122 and burying the line where possible.
• Schedule construction activities outside of the breeding season to avoid impacts to
ground-nesting and other birds.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed Cedar Creek Wind Energy
Project and your efforts to ensure the conservation of endangered, threatened and
Page 4
candidate species, and migratory birds. Should you have questions, or if we can be of
any further assistance, please contact Sandy Vana-Miller in this office at (303) 236-
4773.
Sincerely,
Susan C. Limier
Colorado Field Supervisor
cc: FWSR6/ES, C Young-Dubovsky
FWSR6/LE, J. Hampton
FWSR6/ES/LK, S. Vana-Miller
CDOW/Fort Collins, Troy Florian
JUL-14-2896 11 :31 AM MCINTOSH 303 655 8403 P. 02
July 12,2006 8335 WCR 55
ICeenesburg,CO 80643
Department of Planning Svcs.
Weld County Colorado
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, CO 80504
Re: Case Number: USR-1562
Name: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Green Light Energy Inc.
We own property along WCR 55,which appears to be in the last leg of the proposed 72-mile 230
kV transmission line ending at a new switching station south of I76. It is our understanding that
this transmission line will turn south at Road 24 and go along road 55 which means it will be
constructed on our property the entire length of our faun.
Seventy-two miles of property that does not belong to the Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC,but
don belong to the landowners along the way who have built their homes right in the path of this
high-powered transmission line,will be encroached upon. Public Service erected a high-
powered transmission line across the road from us,which also is the entire length of our farm.
When we built our home,we built it back from the road and this transmission line far enough
that we are not within the radiation field put off by these transmission lines. However,now that
this new transmission line is going in,and from what I've been told, on our side of CR 55,our
home will be considerably closer and probably will be in the radiation field of this new line.
My question is this: they will have a substation within the boundary of the proposed Cedar
Creek Wind Farm. Why can't the electricity generated from this wind farm be sold at the point
of origin,namely the substation on their site at the wind farm. Public Service,Xcel Energy,and
United Power(to name a few)surely have lines already existing close to this point of origin,so
why can't the electricity be dispersed there and travel along lines already existing? Why does
this company have to bring it 72 miles to a new Switching Station before selling it to one of the
utility companies?
Also,why does Public Service have the right to say"No,you cannot put your lines on our
already existing poles",but we do not have the right to say"No,you cannot put your poles on
ow pul,vriy"?
We are completely opposed to yet another encroachment upon our property. It has become a
constant battle to keep what little property we have. If it's not the oil companies, it's the Super
Slab,and if it's not the Super Slab,it's a 10,000-house development; and if it's not the
EXHIBIT
s. a
JUL-14-2896 11 :33 AM MCINTOSH 303 655 8403 P. 01
development, it's an 800-bed prison for women. Surely the rights of the citizens of Weld County
count for something,but at this point I'm not sure what that is,
Sincerely,
Bonnie&Robin McIntosh
r
07/13/06
fir—
Department of Planning Services
Southwest Office
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, Co. 80504
Case number USR-1562
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Green Light Energy
To Weld County Planning,
I am expressing concerns of referenced project as a home and landowner within proposed
development area.
My first concern is with Weld County. What is the reasoning for having a meeting in
Longmont; over an hour travel from majority of affected residences on a Tuesday
afternoon at 1:30 pm. is this an intentional move to inconvenience as many people as
possible?
My main concern is the affect this project has on my family. The proposed power line
and easement will run within a couple hundred feet of my home according to reps from
Green Light Energy. This project will negatively affect the value of my home an option
my family and I are not willing to accept, nor are we willing to accept the minimal offers
GreenLight has made for restitution for our property which in no way begins to recover
the loss we would incur if I wish to sell my property at a future date. Did you purchase
your home with the intent of losing money on your investment? Greenlight Energy
explained how this project would benefit Colorado with new energy, my family and I are
third generation Coloradans this does not benefit my family one bit. Rural Weld County
has miles of open space, why does stuffing a power line between two homes within a few
hundred feet of each other seem to be a good option to anyone. My only belief is that
Weld County planning is not familiar with all the areas being affected,have any of you
been to my property to get an idea of what this might look like next to my house? Or do
does everything look fine on a big blueprint from your office.
Kevin and Stacie Malovich
42949 WCR 76
Briggsdale, Colorado 80611
970-656-3809
970-639-0703
EXHIBIT
ISAR
Page 1 of I
Kim Ogle
From: Cheryl Jesser[cjesser@rtebb.net]
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:13 PM
To: Kim Ogle
Subject: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC: Green Light Energy LLC (USR-1562)
Kim,
If the Public Utility route is WCR 24 West to WCR 55 South the Town of Keenesburg has no conflict with the
development plan and the special review permit for this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please let us know.
Thanks!
Cheryl Jesser
Town Clerk
Town of Keenesburg, Colorado
EXHIBIT
07/17/2006 -'
Weld County Planning Department
SOUTHWEST BUILDING
July 18, 2006 JUL 2 0 2006
RECEIVED
Weld County, Department of Planning Services via fax 720.652.4211
c/o Kim Ogle, Planner & kogle@co.weld.co.us
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, CO 80504
Re: Case USR-1562 — Cedar Creek Wind Energy Site Specific Development Plan —
Owner Comment - Rears
Dear Planning Commission:
I represent the owners of the Parcel No. 1303-0200-0002, Account No. R5049386
abutting the proposed site specific project referenced above.
Let this letter serve as their official objection to this proposal, because of the direct and
long term negative impacts that this project will have on their property. The causes of this
objection include the following:
• The roadway to the west was never adjudicated and they question the right the
county, and especially a private entity, has to use this part of their land for this
purpose.
• Visible impact of equipment utilized to transport the electric power generated.
The terrain in this area would make the transportation lines visible over great
distances. Views toward the west would be dramatically infringed upon by the
100 ft. high towers used to transport the electricity generated. This direct impact
would negatively affect and infringe on their everyday and long term use of this
property.
• The use of the land would be equal to an industrial use in an agricultural zone,
which is inconsistent with the existing use of the land in this area. A larger
comprehensive review of the Weld County Master Plan and zoning designation of
these sites should be considered prior the site specific development plan. The
extent of this project, given the large area affected, should preclude a site specific
plan.
• Property values in this area would be negatively affected due to the close
proximity of the electric generation and transportation lines.
• The electro magnetic fields generated by such transportation lines are a known
public hazard. A comprehensive environmental impact report (EIR) should be
prepared to ensure maximum protection of not only their site, but all affected
sites.
Clear and tangible benefits to adjacent land owners should exist in order to offset the
direct negative effects briefly described above. They suggest that the proposed
transmission lines be moved further west, therefore not directly next to their property.
Thank you for taking our comments into consideration before this case is reviewed by the
Board of County Commissioners.
Si ly,
R y W--1(7.
EXHIBIT
lDG
To: Weld County Department of Planning Services
From: Susan Fleischmann Krcmarik
Date: July 18, 2006
RE: Case#USR-1562
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; GreenLight Energy Inc.
Background: The Fleischmann farm has been in our family since Reverend Walter Fleischman
purchased it well over 50 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. My husband and I met with Kevin on January 26 to
learn more about the project. The following steps were taken to research his initial suggested offer
to purchase 80 acres at$3,000 per acre.
• The other 3 property owners were notified by me because Mr. Davis was unaware of their
share in ownership
• Claudia Craig, 1/4 interest flew in from North Carolina ' to assist 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 Brad Mueller of Weld County county planning staff
After a great deal of time ad research, we determined that:
• The need for 80 acres was misleading,unnecessary, and requested specifically todavoid
steps necessary to acquire a smaller segment of property, and increasing our riskidevaluation
of property and potential for future use of the remaining eligible land
• The proposed placement of the transmission facility would be located next to the frontage
road creating a major eye-sore for the town of Keensburg, and a clear impediment to
accessing the most valuable property 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. This was for both the town of Keensburg, and for us as owners. Our
intent has always been to maintain property value until a time we are able to develop the property in
a way that benefits both Keensburg and our families.
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?
EXHIBIT
I (o14
Current concerns: Greenlight has gone forward with their plans to locate an interconnection
substation by working with the land owner adjacent to our property. While we ore: not privy to
their negotiations with Mr. Bemak on the land to the west of ours, our concerns that led to declining
Greenlighth offer remain the same.
We do not disagree with the need for the substation, and appreciate that it is consistent with
environmentally friendly power generation. With this said,we respectfully request that you
consider the following:
• Consider a 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 other than agriculture
• Require strict guidelines for landscaping the perimeter of the substation that will mitigate the
eyesore it creates, and minimizes its potential to devalue surrounding property
Thank you for considering our concerns, and approaching the construction of this substation in a
thoughtful, responsible way
On behalf of the Fleischmann farm owners,
Susan Krcmarik
3316 Sagewater Ct.
Fort Collins, CO 80528
H (970)224-2274
C (970)222-8779)
Page 1 of 2
Esther Gesick
From: Kim Ogle
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 10:10 AM
To: Kevin Davis; Nelson Teague
Cc: Esther Gesick; Chris Gathman; Kim Ogle
Subject: FW: Case USR-1562 & USR 1563
This electronic mail came in during the course of the hearing day.. Will make part of record for Board hearing.
From: KATHY SAMPLES [mailto:bijouirrig@twol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:25 PM
To: Kim Ogle
Subject: Case USR-1562 &USR 1563
Kim Ogle,
Please submit this letter on the behalf of the Bijou Irrigation District, at the meeting of the Weld County
Commission being held today.
Thanks,
Denice M. Wagner Admin. Asst.
THE BIJOU IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Bijou Irrigation District
229 Prospect Street
Fort Morgan, Colorado 80701
(970) 867-2222
July 18, 2006
Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, Colorado 80504
RE: Case USR-1562 & USR 1563/Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Green Light Energy Inc.
Dear Mr. Ogle:
The Bijou Irrigation District, owner and operator of the Empire Reservoir Inlet Canal, is submitting to
this letter of concern to the Request of a Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit
for a Major Facility of a Public Utility in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
The Bijou Irrigation District has concerns with the following issues, which they feel have not been
adequately addressed in the submitted plan.
EXHIBIT
1 ‘a-
7/20/2006 7/20/2006
Page 2 of 2
1. Informational Data:
The Notice document mailed to the Bijou Irrigation District from the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado for the proposed meeting on August 2, 2006 regarding this
proposed project and the Agenda from the website of the Weld County Planning Commission for the
meeting for today July 18, 2006, have miss leading legal description for the proposed project. The Bijou
Irrigation District would need further clarification of data to directly determine the exact location of this
project would be crossing the Empire Reservoir Inlet Canal.
2. Map:
The map of the project that depicts by a "purple" line the route of the transmission line does not
identify the Empire Reservoir Inlet Canal. As clear as can be determined from this map this project will
definitely at some point have to cross our canal.
3. Easement:
The Bijou Irrigation District has concerns regarding the easement of the Empire Reservoir Inlet
Canal, which we hold documentation protecting this easement dating back to the early 1900's. The
District also has policies regarding crossing agreements for any of our easements and would like to have
noted in record that Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC and Green Light Energy, Inc. would need to
contact the Bijou Irrigation Office at(970) 867-2222 to discuss the possibility of such an agreement
being transacted.
At this point in time, these are the concerns the Bijou Irrigation District has with the proposed project of
the Cedar Creek Wind Energy, LLC and Green Light Energy, Inc., but please note these concerns and
the need for further opportunity to address our right to protect the easements that the Bijou Irrigation
District holds for the Empire Reservoir Inlet Canal.
Sincerely,
Kathy J. Samples, Secy./Treas.
THE BIJOU IRRIGATION DISTRICT
r
7/20/2006
a IC It 0 R64W U ROW oR63W U R61W 0 ROW p R$6W u RNW
I - _
CR 131 — / .•J ' •
I . j__ '
-�_—
F \• - __ _ 'y -I �.! - Proposed Cedar Creek z
✓ \ - _
_
\ — 90.. h— � . —Wind Farm
•
.\ Pryer...Pionstrans GROVER •, i CR 122
CR 122 5LL Sank Brow!e _ 0
\
•
• . 8
z • v 'PA NEE J - ,
✓ -
\ S�I ,, __.—
•• .. 'T PAW N EE i I—� Scenic SYnY
CR 110 "'n — CR 110
A __ — `
\\ ' r- - u
\ NATIONAL - Iii;>.
• •-- - `_ — 1�-_-. d LZONAL_ AT
I
•
r NEOTA -- -
CR 61 — N y,
• GRASSLANDS = _
..-- \t —' A° GRASSLANDS
F --_ Pwn..Plam.rti`nlh � F •---... _ - - ''1 ' ~� ' ( —J 1 _
Scmm 6'ryry \\ IGGSOALE �_a,BR - '' 11"'• • '•,hQ BUCKINGHAM . •,
\ ..� e RHYMER
CR 66 ' • - LIIM
1—, • ' ' I r a L -1I
1
: - ,e •••••e.�WELD y..COUNTY CR Tl
CR74 • •• .
•. GALETGM MORGAN COUNTY
I `{ - _
I i I . 0O
i I .. �V—rte 10+— c rt — _ _ . _
T
CR62 :88 La i I 1 •W.{ s—•y'g.n —...r1 • CR 62
MIT0ITGA rf., I ] _1,3• JACKSON(AKE....
t
„ rI
M
t Li-I' KERSEY l( ,114 _ JICASM LIAFSW ,
61. ••IR'1 Jr,. �_ JALK A1K¢aRA• �`
� • Imo• [ T[ , _. 1 • '� .. IN
. .••• I..RAN( AVA _ W . 1
CR M T4' 'TTTNFYT ' 1 • CR M
y• , • l • le d ORCHA
RD
L I
1( I �l . • •. ._. i III •—
{ -�__ -_— Imo_
.
moo. T�
t i. is.,-
'1' vr_ 1 \pCR3a rn 1I a { I t•j • 1�y /• `M cR 3a
'tl.b E .. tF _ , 1. i ' ii
0
j p 0
₹ w w
ii
V
z r,.. ; I -r - W3UG2NSa I r I. ti-
I
•11'.."•:,:.: i ` • t 1
• e`111
.ie � . Env Substation . � 1
CR 26 • a • • ' • —t� CR 36
si �n3 V i G •VaIIeY 2JPW r 1 • 8 .1 -ROGGEN RLUPM Pamaa210kVV `-s. i , ---�_ l
..... ..\ inc. . • PSCo I1P 36I 17 \, 4-
20
I
1M r .- h _� I — OIZ •• _ _ v.. - cc
••.HwYon r. KEENESBURG la - \ 3 O 1I .
i
Ioerwer
•
HUDSON / A eI ta.eonvaEon ,j I I •\ -
CR 14 r— f w PSL Mwa a ... 1 —�' —� —'� '
.., /!' Rocky Man Sara ' ' I \
/ Q) 2
♦ /a Enemy Confer e..NNFRLAKFSSw 1 • 1cm.IeY..q•
CEDAR CREEK Ems,,,,,,End..lPrep Proposal Project FeaturesM F( N wens• Ea R.... „a.. Source
WIND ENERGY PROJECT AF 0 DI Gas e. — .... .w,L_Ra. �a w
E.�,YV T''''''''''''Lre ---. 4.affiry a..S.'*.swsum Sr.Fmle eta Gin stc
Transmission Line Vicinity Map - E;,,•„„6,,,.,:=„,.. ---- <N......._.,.,,.,,,,..o.LT Ron
Pubic Land Owners ___• RPo..e T.c...e.Lm.R.w `^^'u a*xw... rn.. c...=u...e.....
Minot Sm...Sacco row. ... . ..L MD Path •
USFS R.Po.m T......o.,Lnac.w. 0 I 2 a 0 PO,Pc. z ^A•-•ermr I)r\W _ . .,n[.n a. ..n L...,�..,., one ^ Mw. R.W..: _, .,....,+
Formayo.N8,.,.esnl.Lacac Gnb \I I inch=zm,k:
,Ize FZL
rn n a, Nuna ei
JOUR Map cp car x,15(_ # 166a- 4* (56,3Figure 3 Vicinity Map
i G S .5
. .Y. 3 ”. E Rs.. 5 ,.. 3 ,.. 3 ... E ..
I
.
r
..— I tJ I U - ..,n
•
e I PAD F,1'
zn..
—_ PAW am
[am -_.
I
�, NATIONAL z
,• 1- -- f NATIONAL
Y '•, �
aY
GRASSLANDS
ccYnssl.n\o\
•
nal
— le, .
/
.
1
f— I-:1 _1. ___.. .
am
^•• I YpOAN cowry I
I I'
1
anl I ynu
N :c...... ..\.
— I ¢ .f' IW...
".. I, ^I i
I
—f
II ! i $
fi i i , I -- ,-- -
1
a.-.. , _. L
14. -- _ '_ _
t r
CEDAR CREEK ""^•^" y
... ...._ - ..._,.......
WIND ENERGY PROJECT .,."..,....7::::T.,„„;_"
TrYaalglon L/M Wclxlty Oxv ..... -.. �..--�
Weld County Planning Department
SOUTHWEST BUILDING
Richard Smith JUL 1 7 2006
6708 W20thStRd. RECEIVED
Greeley, Colo. 80634
Weld Dept. of Planning
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, CO. 80504
Concerning case#USR1562, docket#2006-45
As you have requested my comments, I shall offer them.
I realize that wind energy need be located in high-steady wind areas and that transmission lines
need be a consideration when siting.
Given that, it seems there are a lot of small companies building gas and wind units creating a
willy-nilly system of production, transmission and substations.
I would think that there should be a state and federal oversight, verifying the need for this line as
well as the quality of its construction-should it go ahead.
The taking of private land for the so called public good or need, should be undertaken with more
regard for private right. It is my opinion that we do not give this enough thought and when we
trample these rights,the compensation is not enough.
Lastly, is this line really needed or is it just"good business"? Could not the produced electricity
be better used locally with less transmission lines?
Thank you for this consideration.
Signed.
EXHIBIT
I Co K.
Hello