The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20062082 1 S5.:177PA,Pi P United States Department of the Interior = e $ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE \iX s, ke° Ecological Services Weld P.O.Cooxr2548 Field Office County planning De Denver, Colorado 80225-0486FC GREELEY OFFICE IN REPLY REFER TO: JUL ES/CO: Wind Energy/Cedar Creek I ' 2006 Mail Stop 65412 JUL 12 2006 RECEIVED Mr. Chris Gathman Weld County Planning Department Greeley Office 918 10`h Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 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. Gathman: 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 I 6b 2006-2082 • 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. 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 '/4 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 'h 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; '/2 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 (6th Meridian, TION, 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. Linner Colorado Field Supervisor cc: FWSR6/ES, C Young-Dubovsky FWSR6/LE, J. Hampton FWSR6/ES/LK, S. Vana-Miller CDOW/Fort Collins, Troy Florian To: Weld County Planning Commission Date: July 17, 2006 From: Gerald Craig Subject: Comments on meeting of July 18, 2004 regarding Greenlight Energy wind farm project. First, a bit about my background; in 2004, I retired from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) after 32 years as the State's Raptor biologist. Over the years I acquired a fair amount of knowledge about raptors and special problems they face. In recent years, I was frequently consulted about possible impacts of the emerging field of wind farms upon raptors. At the request of the then Public Service Co. of Colorado (now Excel Energy) I surveyed potential areas in northeastern Colorado and recommended the Ponnequin wind farm location to minimize potential conflicts with raptors. I subsequently participated on the group overseeing a 2 year study to document possible avian mortality at the Ponnequin site. Raptor collisions were frequent at the Altamont wind farm site in California in the mid 1980's and gave the new generating approach a black eye. In the past 5 years, recent changes in structure design and placement offer promise that the collision problem will be reduced or even abated. However, the location of the wind farm proposed by Greenlight is unique for the region given the presence of escarpments in the immediate area that are occupied by nesting raptors (primarily golden eagles and prairie falcons). The area of the cliffs are patrolled by territorial birds and they hunt the grasslands and crops scattered throughout the project. After they leave the nest, inexperienced young eagles, falcons and hawks will ride the updrafts as westerly winds strike the cliffs. The often blundering youngsters may be drawn into the rotors of the closest wind generators. Inattentive adult raptors may also be struck when they are focused on courtship and territorial pursuit. I was recently informed that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service documented deaths of 4 golden eagles several of which were adult, that were nesting on an escarpment below a recently constructed wind generator in Arizona. This is a unique situation and we have no experience with generators of this magnitude and density situated immediately adjacent to nesting raptors, so I advise that you proceed with caution on locating structures too close to the rims. When asked to comment on the proposal, I recommended that a buffer of/4 mile be set back from the cliff edge. However, the CDOW has elected to reduce the buffer to 200 meters which I feel is too close. Placing structures 1/4 mile away is prudent. If time and experience elsewhere shows there is no risk when structures are closer, they can be constructed within the '/4 mile buffer at a later date. Loss of structures within the proposed '/4 mile buffer should be a minimal impact to the overall power generated by the wind farm. The exact reduction should be easily provided to you by the project proponent so that you can weigh the risks to the operator if federal enforcement action occurs when raptors are killed. Greenlight Energy will not be responsible for raptor deaths, the problem will be inherited by whoever finally purchases and operates the facility. If you decide to reduce the proposed buffer to 200 meters, several conditions must be incorporated into the operating agreement: EXHIBIT I lO • For a 5 year period after construction, all structures along the rim (within the '/ mile of the escarpments) must be inventoried by an independent contractor (supervised by the CDOW) bi weekly throughout nesting seasons and migration periods. • All dead raptors encountered below the structures will be noted and immediately reported to the appropriate District Wildlife Manager for the Division of Wildlife. Citations may be issued. • Upon documentation of mortality, the offending structure will be taken off line throughout the general period in which the mortality occurred. During the nesting season, the structure would be inoperative from March through August. If the death occurred during migration, the structure would be off line either September through November or March through April. Shut downs will continue throughout the life of the wind farm or until the problem with the offending structure is eliminated. • It is critical these conditions apply to whoever ends up operating the wind farm. Weld County Plahning Department SOUTHWEST BUILDING WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES JUL 1 3 2006 4209 CR 24.5 LONGMONT, COLORADO 80504 RECEIVED JULY 12, 2006 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: AS AN INHERITOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARIE KROEGER(WIDOW OF LEO KROEGER), I WISH TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN AND VOICE MY OBJECTION TO THE PLANNED CEDAR CREEK WIND ENERGY PROJECT WHICH MAY HAVE AN EFFECT UPON THE MINERAL RIGHTS BELONGING TO MY FAMILY. (CASE NUMBER: USR-1563) DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS PROJECT COULD INTERFERE WITH ANY FUTURE OPTIONS TO LEASE MINERAL RIGHTS ON THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION,I MUST STATE MY OBJECTION TO THE PROJECT. THIS PROJECT WOULD BASICALLY HAMPER, AND POSSIBLY DESTROY, ANY OIL OR GAS COMPANY INTEREST IN THE EXISTING MINERALS ON THAT PROPERTY. I SPOKE BY PHONE TO MR. CHRIS GATHMAN AND TO KEVIN DAVIS (THE PLANNER AND THE PROJECT MANAGER). THEY WERE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I HAD CONCERNING THE PROJECT, AND I APPRECIATED THEIR INFORMATION. HOWEVER, AFTER DISCUSSING THIS WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY,WE HAVE AGREED TO STATE OUR OBJECTION TO THE PROJECT SINCE WE SEE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE GAINED BY US AND POSSIBLY SOMETHING TO BE LOST. IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD APPRECIATE A RESPONSE TO LET ME KNOW WHAT DECISION IS MADE. I CAN BE REACHED AT 304-372-8694. SINCERELY MILDRED MCKEE 105 WINTERS DRIVE RIPLEY,WEST VIRGINIA 25271 r� EXHIBIT 6D rAUDUBON J SOCIETY of GREAT I R DI NVI 12 July 18, 2006 Weld County Planning Commission 4209 County Road 24.5 Longmont,CO 80504 Re: USR 1563—Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Wind Facility—Greenlight Wind Energy Facility and USR 1562, Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC Transmission Line Gentlemen: The National Audubon Society thanks you for the opportunity to speak on the above wind energy facility and transmission line. We only regret that we were informed of the project so late in the process and will try to make our comments cogent and succinct. Our concerns stem from the fact that the Pawnee National Grassland, on which this project technically occurs,has been designated by National Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area. The criteria for this designation include 1) sites important to endangered or threatened species in Colorado—e.g. Plains sharp-tailed grouse—and species of special concern such as the Ferruginous hawk,Mountain plover, and Long-billed curlew; 2) sites important to species of high conservation priority in Colorado, such as Prairie falcon, Swainson's hawk,Cassin's sparrow and McCown's longspur; 3) sites that contain rare or unique habitat within the state/region and that hold important species or species assemblages restricted to a distinctive habitat type; and 4) sites where significant numbers of birds concentrate for breeding, during migration or in the winter. The species in criterion#2 have been identified by Colorado Partners in Flight. All of these criteria are met in the project areas. Therefore it behooves us all to work very energetically with the proponents of this project to ensure that it is designed in a manner that protects all the unique resources of this area. In addition the Pawnee National Grasslands and South Platte River riparian areas are important wildlife watching sites, not only for our members but for members of the national and international birdwatching communities. The Denver Audubon Society ran week-long Grasslands Institute here for 18 years and still takes field trips to the area every year. The Pawnee is featured in Peter Dunne's book The Feather Quest as one of the top birdwatching sites in America. The wildlife watching opportunities generate considerable revenue for the county and it's important to guarantee that the resources on which they are based are protected. The Audubon Society fully supports the recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife for avoiding impacts to wildlife species and to the unique habitat provided by the "Chalk Cliffs" escarpment and other habitats in the project areas. Specifically we feel that avoidance of impacts 9308 Scx-ni Wnnsv,{)].ni B<ouir 0&[) Lrrii ' i•o . Ccuoi<noo 80128 303.07.i-9530 PAS 303-'173-1038 should take priority over mitigation,that pre-project surveys and post-project monitoring are crucial,and that construction activity should be avoided during the nesting period of the mountain plover and of affected raptors(generally April I to August 15). We would prefer that a 2mile buffer be used around sharp-tailed grouse leks,based on presentations and data we have seen concerning other grouse species. Also, where prairie dog towns lie in the path of construction,we suggest that relocation of prairie dogs,rather than eradication,be the management tactic of first choice. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Pauline P. Reetz Audubon Society of Greater Denver Board Member { ' � • III N �V p f. t[" ft d , A I S'P 1 A A fi • • 07/ 14/2006 • awesome glitto Land and eaWe Company. 50001 we*122 quint,Unxa&80729 970-895-2209 From: Charles J (Jim) Sturrock Aka Don Quixote of the Pawnee Bluffs Manager, Lonesome Pines Land and Cattle Company Pawnee National Grasslands Grover, Colorado To: Don Quixote was a half blind old man who fought windmills on top of a broken down old horse. In his blind haze, he thought that the windmills were dragons. He wanted to make the world safe by fighting these dragons. The dragons that I am fighting appear to me to be arrogant, dictatorial and single minded in their lack of respect for the eco-system and property rights .The thinking is that there is nothing out there to protect. "It's just cattle country". I fully realize that I live in a society that will spend millions of dollars and gallons of water to raise fairway oysters. What is a "Fairway Oyster"? You are aware of Rocky Mountain Oysters! At this time let me give you a recipe for preparation of"Fairway Oysters". The best are found in fairway water trapss. The longer they are in the water tap the better, Retrieve, air dry, wrap with mozzarella cheese, roll in julienne truffles and serve with lemon butter flamb€and Glenlevit Scotch, neat. My peers are or have retired and chase golf balls. I am on my third career studying the inter relationship of herbivores in the redevelopment and sustainability of the eco-system along the Pawnee Bluffs. While making a living, I am trying to practice keeping 6 I • t Ale re se ms's �gg R�+ • y� -ri'e' r - ..r; fL, a4F4� .• i. " Ah Hx `. t • n4 • 06/ 10/2006 • 2 this in harmony with the environment while maintaining a limited human impact. I am not, repeat NOT, here today requesting that you deny a permit to Green Light Energy. I am here requesting that you minimize their seeming single-minded assault on the extremely fragile and unique eco system along the Pawnee Bluffs. These are not my words, but those of others in describing the Bluffs as a "fragile eco-system". My environmental consultants are NCRS, Colorado Preservation, the Forest Service, Colorado DOW, the Grass Land Research Center and Allen Savory, the founder of Holistic Resource Management. Also over the past 15 years, various CSU graduate students have researched the Limber Pine escarpment along the Bluffs. Pack rat nests in the escarpment have been carbon dated to 350 AD. The first "Land Man" on the scene offered $500.00 for a signed option. I did not sign. Along came Kevin Davis from Green Light with a similar offer. We spent a good portion of a day viewing the eco-system along the Bluffs. My concern then, as it is today is "HUMAN IMPACT UPON A VERY BRITTLE AND UNIQUE ECO- SYSTEM" My question then to Kevin was how close will the turbines be to the Bluffs habitat? His reply--- "We will stay back a ways". As of Tuesday July 11th "a ways back" equated to 50 meters (54.87 yards) for towers 42, 43, and 44. This will require moving a portion of my 2 1/s mile water line (single-mindedness). My definition of"a ways back" is 1/4 mile for any and all towers located on my deeded property. This will place them along my eastern property line causing the least human impact on the eco-system and still allowing the wind farm to proceed. After spending $8500 on legal council and a consultant, I refused to sign the lease. Why? It is not a good deal financially, based on the present net value of money, inflation dollar payment and returns on *02.1;;;rt-. a rai t'yy� }N 9Y r v. 3 } L 6 3 equity, and besides the negative impact the turbines would place upon the landscape- a very diversified and unique eco-system. A week to ten days later (with out a signed option or lease) representatives from Green Light were core drilling on my land and traipsing across it to get to a neighbors land to do the same. With the single-mindedness of Green Light, along with the worry of Eminent Domain (whether actual or preconceived) council advised me that I should have a war chest of 50 to 75 thousand for the legal battle. After a strong cup of coffee, I sobered up and decided against being a mighty Oak, blown over by the wind and decided to become a Limber Pine and flex. By the way, the Limber Pines that are flexing in the wind along the Pawnee Bluffs are new growth. They are about a century old or younger. Their ancestors became BTU's during the construction of the transcontinental Railroad north of the Colorado- Wyoming border. Back to the subject at hand: Society revolves around money and the making of it. That's fine! When in Rome you live like the Romans. Therefore, I reopened the negotiations around money. I make an offer and they countered. I signed. I received a $1,000.00 signing bonus, which is cooling its heels in a savings account waiting to be returned if need be. I stand before you today not discussing money, for where I go next, there are no ATM machines. I am not against progress. If there is no progress there is regression because for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction.) Let's minimize the reaction. 6a,-.as -T s:'" . n. 'tl . '".ab EF b i t� !! :,.+aeir' ss---: w '"' ,w,.",,. iiiiiii " - , �e >, � +fie"^ ”: & Kam^-' +VP TTY± a 106/ 10/2006 . �m r ffi,T.r a� 'a -ii, ,,, { ,, a! K }5 'Xi l � ',,,„,411,,•-• 'Ai f . Sya Y i e a s 1° L b ,� :i4 kt ' i- r � fa r °,*.tit,,,-,,ti lop ri � r 'v �s1'1�5 ,a 7-r yid f�'�ef fn� "Y s � �'�` �fr r, f r3z3 f 1 a 1 ' '`:i I i i ra � $ a €�t #of �� ° b « , } tiff^t.l r r a � ,, �L ,4-'- vq'" +7 ,3� Iil uq hAA 'fin i 1 ,, t i + i .t'Y�S R ram e 1 " 4.'7'4,7'6, ApmE Tk' ./,'1,c'-'.-,1,1,;.*, ;, ,� d.��b""s ]s 1� ' rat4 r :4,14----,; P 1,,;,;;:„3,' y sP, 4P k 5j '11.1:14111,4.-,;;,, I. . ? 2 k yt >< a R+w ` 1 1' 4 , ,,t,-,1-4.,,J14.: k f ,. i- 2 r j g; : t t 1. I, k r 4 If the experts at DOW request that the turbines be held back from the Bluffs to the east side of my property so be it! I will not miss the royalties, for there is more to life than the alt mighty dollar, when it comes to the diminishing landscape. When you make your decisions and recommendations, please think beyond money. Think of the eco-system and what it entails- not only the seen, but the "no see ums" the microbes. They are the foundation of life. "The soil rhizoshpere around perennial grass roots in the zone where a symbiotic relationship occurs between the roots of plants and microorganism living in the soil. The rhizoshpere organisms are bacteria, protozoa, nematodes, mites, small insects and fungi. These organisms interact in a complex trophic web that is critical for energy and nutrient flow in grassland ecosystems. (Manske and Caesar-Ton That 2002). Defoliation (grazing) beneficially stimulates soil organism activity in the rhizosphere by increasing the amount of carbon compounds released from grass roots into the rhizosphere. The activity of microbes in the rhizosphere increases the amount of nutrients available for plant growth. (Allen and Allen 1990) This brings us to the second impact on the ranch brought on by Green light. Transmission lines are to be constructed approximately 1/2 section south of WCR 122. Once again, I am not opposing the granting of the permit, although I have as yet to sign the lease option for $1,000.00. I offered to sign a letter of intent based on negotiation following the hearing today. I am willing to make a sacrifice to lessen the impact upon the raptors that the other optional route would have. I also wish to minimize the impact on the pastures. I have studied and worked on advancing my pastures to the late serial stage of development (Climax plant community referred to by NCRS). Now these (hold up a twig of Fourwing Salt Bush and Winter Fat) plants were not a part of the plant community ten years ago. Only in the last three to four years have the pastures had this added diversity. These plants are signs of the land returning to its state prior to the arrival of the white men. For further reference, I have enclosed a copy of my grazing plan. i r�"YS i• "� r. ® YW t . � aii4 t Y' Ny • qa Y t l k' rY .w{ r ,,, itViiiii . ;44" eir,,t.i1"-. . "-4 t.„ . ,?..' '',..C.7.7. -' „,)"-r -' .4 #� F w ( 1 . S4 ,Q '!ti t.t .1 ..f r `+' ''� :: je; ` - '* . ' 1. •�'4M, 3,;.,_ 'b` +`isa" "For.;./. aY - ; 0. r'' a `" >�'f^WAYS R a .::.:% 1rite lr. e i A. ` „P ...a .a." .far.. �": ft. ..:.. 5 Before Ill enter into negotiation with Green Light for the transmission lines, the path way has to be more specific than a description of 1/2 section south of road 122 and 150 feet wide. It will need to be a preliminary staking of the visible pathway with corresponding legal description so that there is no misunderstanding on either of our parts. I still do not understand why the transmission line can't be constructed on the north side of 122 running parallel with the existing transmission lines. It may require some negotiating with the Air Force concerning the location of the silo, but so be it. Why aam I so hyper? Past experience! During the surveying and avian studies, gates on my property have been left open. A set of gates below and above the Bluffs were left open allowing a portion of 115 replacement heifers to leave their pasture and adventure four to five miles east to Knuppel's house. Mr. Pixley is the one who inquired if I was missing any cattle. By the time I had arrived at Knuppel's house, they had attempted to return, but found themselves on the wrong side of the fence in the school section. Four to five hours later, I was able to return 18 to their herd mates. After a squeeze shoot audit, I am five short. Mr. Davis did give his sympathy, but yet I am still out $5,000.00. I swore to Kevin Davis that I was going to lock all my gates. He informed me that there would only be one more visitation. My response was CALL ME!! I did not follow through with the locks. I released the "Devil's Brigade" from the corrals. Let me tell you, these cows resemble the marines during WWI who met the retreating French and advanced forward engaging the Germans, who gave them the title of"Devil's Brigade". These cows of mine are misfits that others have culled from their herds because of their attitude. There is Psycho and Maggot (the Dirty Dozen) etc. They will pasture calf, giving birth and keeping the coyotes at bay at the same time. r,. +i+..*et,- .4"4"• • 07/ 14/2006 6 On Tuesday July 11th while touring the proposed turbine sites at # 47,we drove into the middle of the herd. Disembarking from the SUV, Troy Florien of DOW paced off the distance from the stake into the herd. A black cow moved keeping her distance. He stopped and came about face. She lowered her ears. I shouted watch Psycho. He turned facing her and replying "I thought she was in the corral". This stopped her attack. If this occurrence had taken place the day prior when the stakes were being placed who knows what would have happened. I had not been told that the staking was going to take place, so I did not have the cow in the corral. The outcome could have been totally different. My question is who is liable? The "Devil's Brigade" is part of my business plan to co-exist with coyotes and other predators. Another occurrence during the tour has kept me agitated. I was riding in an SUV with the representative from the US Fish and Wildlife and one of the consultants from Green Light. The discussion was about the timing of the construction vs. the nesting season of the songbirds in the area. The consultant questioned whether the US Fish and Wildlife would stop a 100 million dollar project for one little bird. His arrogance of the value of one little bird really bothered me. My request of the Zoning Board: Include in your recommendation to the commissioners that turbines 42, 43,44, 45, 46, 47, 2, 38, 36, and 35 be no closer than 1/4 mile-44o yards-402 meters from the agreed upon bluff escarpment. These towers are only on my land. Whether the request comes from the Colorado DOW, the US Fish and Wildlife or me is immaterial. The dragon in this case is the seeming arrogant dictatorial single- minded attitude with a lack of respect for the ecosystem and property rights. Page 1of1 James Sturrock From: "James Sturrock"<jimsturrockl l @ncolcomm.com> To: john realph"<jrealph©train.rnissouri.org> Sent: Sunday,July 16,2006 11:59 AM Subject: wind turbins —Original Message— From: To: Sent: Monday,July 10,2006 2:39 PM Subject: Re: they say we are over 14 inches behind I heard in Missouri they are paying $5000 per windmill. that would not be too bad. I think I could live with that on the Bent county ground. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394/Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 -Release Date: 7/7/2006 Yes $5000 per unit sounds good. But, as Paul Harvey would say,"now for the rest of the story".It's not a good deal financially, based on the net present value of money,inflation dollar payment and return on equity. Contracts with power companies are usually written for 20 years at a set rate. So if you receive 50 the first year then in 20yrs it's still 50. Of course, purchase power will be less based upon inflation rate. Land surface value decreases and appreciation is limited to one use. In January I parched 440ac for$200 per without the wind rights. The normal value for agland at the same auction was $575 to$710 per AC.Yet if the air rights had stayed with the land along with,what I call electricity of an auctioneer song, greed. The price could have climbed to $1,000 per AC or maybe even higher. Presently it looks like their will be 3 turbines on the 440. Another fact,they only guarantee$1500 per year if the unit doesn't produce for various reasons.The wind farm along the Wyo/Colo boarder presently has a 1/3 of the units out of order. Some with missing blades probably form lighting sticks, ice build up during one of the storms last winter. It takes about 8 months for a replacement to be manufactured and installed.All that glitters isn't gold! Hope all is well. Have a good day 7/16/2006 Lonesome Pines Land and Cattle Company 50001 WCR 122 Grover, Colorado 80729 970-895-2209 To which Editor who wrote"Look closely at Excel's Wind Energy Proposal" should I send cheese to go with his wining on price structure? Yes air is free--but at what cost to capture this free source. Up to 90%of the cost of electricity from wind turbines is in the cost of manufacturing, construction and connection to the power grids. Sure, the modern generators are more sophisticated because they are taller-300 feet with a 150 foot blade making them as tall as a 45 story building. The footer will go four to five stories below grade and ALL of this for a machine that is only 40% efficient. If you like this so much, I challenge the Editor to live for one year on only wind generated power. He had better have a good supply of candles and old fashioned pencils. As far as I am concerned, wind turbines are no more than economic exploitation of the land that they are placed upon. Great! The Land Owner received royalties, but as Paul Harvey says "Now for the rest of the story": .If you receive $50,000.00 the first year there is no inflation clause for turbines. On a normal contract, the royalty in 20 years is the same $50,000.00. Property taxes will probably be the same if based on revenue generated and equipment depreciation. To receive the $50,000.00 will require 11 towers with connecting roads 15 to 20 feet in width that are able to handle heavy equipment-in total degrading 160 acres. On the eastern plains of Colorado reclamation of the native grasses and plants takes a century. That free power comes at what cost to avian life. Will raptors soaring have a flight controller informing them that between the altitudes of 150 to 450 feet (15 to 45 story building)that it is a no fly zone. Editor-come out and observe the proposed Cedar Creek Wind Farm along the Pawnee Bluffs before, during and after construction. Evaluate the effects of tax credits(1.9 cents per kilowatt hour)and Amendment #37. Then convince this 39 year old (with three decades of anniversaries) it is not economic exploitation of Mother Earth within one-half mile of the Pawnee Bluffs edge. In this environment exist many plant species that are rare to the grasslands. C.J. Sturrock Don Quixote of Grover Colorado Lonesome Pines Land and Cattle Company P>S> If you think that Excel Energy has a cash cow-review the annual report from Babcock and Brown, partners in Cedar Creek Wind Farm. They posted a 28%ROE for 2005, which is including construction costs. www.babcockbrown.com. r,. .b • THE X05 NET f�RQFIT AFTER TAX ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE 1 A"BCOCK & BROWN GROUP OF $251.6 MILLION WAS A. 85%AHEAD OF THE PROSPECTUS FORECAST. THE 2005 RESULT WAS 184%AHEAD OF THE 2004 PRO FORMA OPERATING PROFIT BEFORE TAX OF $117.3 MILLION THE GROWTH N EARNINGS WAS GENERATED WHILE .:MAINTAI #ING•• A TIGHT CONTROL OVER COST GROWTH. COST TO INCOME RATIO PRE-BONUS REDUCED FR..,....!!4 35%` ': IN 2004 TO 28% IN 005. RETURN ON EQUITY FOR THE YEAR INCREASED FROM 22.5% IN 2x04 !O 28.8% IN 2005 THE_BUSINESS PIPELINE IS WELL POSITIONED TO DELIVER , : : ,Y. ::~. 20% EPSGROWTH ON THE HIGHER THAN FORECAST 2005 • REP BUSIN f 3 T, Ste fdex �; M r bar. :.1nQ_ 3FaQ �S:0o'' : 5b _ • Stiloc.,: - :2dQ s too '------,- t..s O. SO • • 1 f 0" .-. OcI0. Nov04:_OecO _, no5:: ,:M O5'A :O5 ldji O5..'JuvO5 • `s f, digs-qu :sa .:'°'�tOs::Ko�as::n�:.os ii. Lonesome Pines Land and Cattle Co 50001 WCit 122 Grover, Colorado 80729 970-895-2209 July 2006 Grazing Plan Goal for the Bluffs-Arrow is to take the plant community to its historic climax. The methods to be used (PG)-prescribed grazing with adequate rest recovery period and (VLTPG) very long term prescribed grazing. The estimated time frame is 80 years. The 80 years may be reduced by using a shock treatment. The plants to be grazed for are the key shrubs: Fourwing Salt Bush and Winter Fat. Once these have been established in the native grass area, then phase two can begin. This phase is to bring in the cool season Western Wheat grass. Eventually Western Wheat will be left as the dominate plant. (In order: Western Wheat, Blue Gramma, Green Needle, Winter Fat and then Fourwing Salt Bush) For the go-back area the first step is to set back the NeedleandThread which is presently the dominate plant, thereby encouraging Blue Gramma which is a low- canopy plant. This will be followed by Winter Fat, Fourwing Salt Bush, and lastly Western Wheat. Grazing for Fourwing Salt Bush and Winter Fat requires controlling the canopy and allowing the sun to reach the seedlings. "Tolerance to shading is only fair"' by Fourwing Salt Bush seedlings, and as far as Winter Fat, the same may apply, based on my observations. Grazing for Western Wheat is to encourage rhizomes and tillering from the crown of the plant. "Western Wheat grass, an important prairie grass, spreads by underground stems called rhizomes. But, Western Wheat also has the ability to tiller from the crown of the same plant."2 For the next ten years grazing permit, I propose the following for your consideration: 2 1st: Manage the Arrow by attaching it to the wild life set aside. The way I see it, this is no more than a policy discussion. For the fence which separates the two is suffering from old age. Cleaning it out may be the best safety measure for all. Grazing it along with the Bluff would have a trailing effect. Water is at the Northwest corner and Arrow southeast corner of the Bluffs allotment. The Bluff has distinctive areas from west to east. The first being the go-back area, then native grasses inclosing in a small square go back, wildlife set aside and last on top of the Bluffs, which is a different eco system. Bluffs grazeable area breakdown of soils: (Reference Ranch Map) 15% # 29 Haverson Loam 0 to 3% slopes 70% # 31 Kim-Mitchell 0 to 6% slopes 15% # 32 Kim Mitchell 0 to 9% slopes I Go Back Area Historical Plant Community by soil types and dry matter poundage # 29 Haverson Loam # 29 1000 to 3000 Western Wheat Grass Fourwing Salt Bush Switch grass Green Needle Grass Blue Gramma Plants are ranked by dry matter poundage for a historical community. Description of the go-back area today: The majority of the Haverson Loan # 29 eroded away with the cultivation at the beginning of the 20th century under the homestead development requirements. Today's plant community by dry matter estimates in ratio: NeedleandThread 95% Fourwing Salt Bush none Switch Grass trace Green Needle trace Blue Gramma 3% Indian Rice Grass trace The objective will be to move this area from go-back to Historic Climax by prescribed grazing with adequate recovery periods. 3 II Native grass area is Kim Mitchell Kim is Loamy Plans # 31 500 to 1500 (HCPC) Blue Gramma Western Wheat grass Sedge Buffalo Grass Mitchell is Siltstone # 31 500 to 1600 (HCPC) Blue Gramma Western Wheat grass Fourwing Salt Bush Present plant community: Blue Gramma 60% Western Wheat grass 15% Fourwing Salt Bush 3 individual newcomers Winter Fat 10% all increaser the past 3 to 4 years. Sedge trace Buffalo Grass trace The objective of this area is to improve the quantity of historical plant communities by prescribed grazing with adequate recovery periods. III Set aside. Historical plant community is the same at II. Present Plant Community: Western Wheat grass Blue Gramma Green Needle Grass ? Fourwing Salt Bush none The objective is to maintain and improve the quantity and quality of the historical plant community and not let it deteriorate to low plant density with excessive litter because of non use or no fires. This will be accomplished by prescribed grazing with adequate recovery period. This area has been gazed during the non-growth period in 2003 and 2005. The drought combined with prescribed grazing with adequate recovery has resulted in an explosion of Winter Fat plants. This phenomenon is not isolated just to the wild life area of the Bluffs permit, but is also across the entire ranch, Lonesome Pines Land and Cattle Co, LLC., below 4 the bluffs. Yet, the wild life area's Winter Fat is of the highest quality and vigor, which I attribute to two factors, non growing season grazing and lengthy recovery period. I have presented the following questions: Why have the Winter Fat and Fourwing Salt Bush become such an increasers during the past three to four years on the ranch? Where I had previously had none of either, they have both become increasers. Reply from Tanezen Stringham Assistant Professor Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management Oregon State University Corvalis, Oregon 97331 6-11-06 10:39 a.m. "The literature indicates that spring grazing is most detrimental to Winterfat with fall being the second most sensitive season as the plant scatters seed in October to November. Western Wheat has also been shown to be a strong competitor with Winterfat seedlings. Therefore, if grazing is reducing the competition with Western Wheat, then that might explain some of what has been happening". With this in mind, I wish to be granted the privilege of continuing with intense rotational grazing of the Bluffs/Arrow along with the other 14 pastures in Lonesome Pines. The tilled area (go-back) which has dominant Needleandthread should be subject to very intense grazing to control allelopathy. When Western Wheat shows dominance, then graze for Winter Fat followed by Fourwing Salt Bush. Then graze for Western Wheat grass. When the fourth stage is achieved, then the Forest Service should use fire to start the process all over again. The second area, native grasses, continue with grazing to encourage population growth of Winterfat and Fourwing Salt Bush. The spring of 2006 revealed three new Fourwing bushes where there had been none in the Bluffs prior to that time. When a healthy community of Fourwing Salt Bush has been established and or this drought cycle ends modify grazing to encourage Western Wheat to increase between the Fourwing Salt Bush plants. M.B. Dodd-W.K. Lauenroth-J.M. Welker 12/23/97-9/16/98. "Differential water resources used by herbaceous and woody plant life-forms in a short grass community In environments where water availability is an important control in ecosystem structure, it has been suggested that the exploitation of spatially and/or temporally distinct zones of soil moisture by plants allows the co- 5 existence of different life-forms No-Mier 1973). Distinct soil water resources can be created by climatic patterns and texture effect on deep percolation and evaporative losses (Sala et al, 1997)—grasses are more opportunistic, utilizing short-term availability of water in upper soil layers, while shrubs rely on a deeper soil water resource that is more stable in the long term (Soriano and Sala 1983). The goal for these two areas is to encourage early serial stage of diverse plant communities using livestock, rotational grazing and rotational seasonal usage. Third Area- Wildlife set-a side Maintain the mid plant serial community by grazing during the non growth winter season and give a complete seasonal cycle of recover. Animal impact assists the mineral cycle ,compacts the soil around seeds and seedlings, removes excessive plant litter, disturbs caped soil crust, by product returns nitrates/phosphorous to the soil. • Fourth Area-Top of the Bluffs. Before any grazing plan consideration, will need prior planning for fencing and water. Below bluffs is all that I am able to manage and plan for presently. Western Wheat grass and the end of drought grazing. On the historical climax, Western Wheat grass should be number one. Not only does Western Wheat reproduce by rhizomes, but has the phenomenal ability to tiller from the crown of the same plant. (Wayne Burleson-Western Livestock Journal-27 February 2006.) Begin with high concentrated stocking density when the soils are completely dry and no plant growth is possible in as short a time period as possible. Remove livestock and pray for rain. Soil fertility should increase from concentrated animal impact. (hoof action) organic material being pounded into the surface along with manure completing a mineral cycle then add water with rest; once again, I will be grazing for Western Wheat grass. Protocol for rotational grazing-twice over the season • Quantity of pastures-minimum of 8-Lonesome Pines has 14 • Goals for Plant Communities and Transitional pathways Maintain or sustain Advance towards Climax Community • Target plant grazed for Must understand its behavior and cycle- example Western Wheat vs. Fourwing Salt Bush 6 • Rest between grazing-for goal must be adequate for sustainability during growing season Spring fast growth-minimum of 30 tO 45 days rest Summer slow growth-minimum of 60 to 90 days rest • Stocking rate: Sufficient numbers to harvest desired amount in the shortest time possible so as not allowing any plant to be visited and bitten a second time during the growth. Ideally if a pasture is rated for 3000 AUD's then the first time 1000 units for one day during fast growth. 45 days later two days equaling 3000 AUD's for the growing season. • Vary the first time usage per season of each pasture from year to year during the growing season. Example: 1St year early spring 2nd year mid summer 3rd year late summer 4th year late spring etc. • Attempt to have a rotating pasture a year not visited anytime during the four seasons of the year or at least during the growing season. • Destocking or as I like to say reducing animal impact if need be. Examples: • Add ioninfor to mineral making ruminant 10% more efficient • Crib feeding calves-15% reduction of forage demand and intake • Wean calves at 4 to 5 months of age. A 5 month old calf consumes approximately 60% of mother's consumption. • Cull older cows leaving calves. Hello