HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062079 REFERRAL LIST
APPLICANT: Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC;Green Light Energy, Inc. CASE It: USR-1563
Cow tv Towns&Cities Fire Districts
_ ttorney Ault Ault F-1
c Health Department _Berthoud Berthoud F-2
_Extension Office Brighton _Briggsdale F-24
Z Emergency Mgt Office- Ed Herring Dacono Brighton F-3
Z Sheriffs Office _Eaton Eaton F-4
Z Public Works Erie Fort Lupton F-5
_Housing Authority _Evans Galeton F-6
Z Airport Authority _Firestone Hudson F-7
Z Building Inspection - Fort Lupton Johnstown F-8
Z Code Compliance- Ann& Bethy Frederick _LaSalle F-9
Kim Ogle (Landscape Plans) Garden City _Mountain View F-10
Lin (Addressing Change of Zone) Gilcrest _Milliken F-11
Ambulance Services Greeley _Nunn F-12
Z Grover Z Pawnee F-22
State Hudson _Platteville F-13
_Div. of Water Resources _Johnstown _Platte Valley F-14
_Geological Survey _Keenesburg Poudre Valley F-15
Department of Health _Kersey Raymer F-2
_Department of Transportation _LaSalle Southeast Weld F-16
Historical Society Lochbuie Union Colony F-20
_Water Conservation Board Longmont _Wiggins F-18
_Oil &Gas Conservation Commission Mead Windsor/Severance F-17
Milliken
Division of Wildlife _New Raymer Legal
South Hwy 66 (Loveland) _Northglenn Parcel ID#
forth Hwy 66 (Greeley) _Nunn Zone Acres?
_Division of Minerals/Geology _Pierce USDA
_Platteville Airport
Soil Conservation Districts _Severance Geo Haz
Big Thompson/FTC Thornton FP? Panel#
_Boulder Valley/Longmont _Windsor IGA? ORD#
Brighton/SE Weld MUD?
Centennial Counties
Greeley/West Greeley _Adams
_Platte Valley _Boulder
West Adams Broomfield
Little Thompson _Larimer
Federal Government Agencies Other
US Army Corps of Engrs Z Nat'l Park Service-Nat'l Register
USDA-APHIS Vet Service Information System (NRIS)
_Z Federal Aviation Admin (Structures Z US Fish&Wildlife
over 200 ft or w/in 20000 ft of Pub _BN &SF RR
Airport Z Public Service of Colorado
Federal Communications Comm _Art Elmquist(MUD Area)
_Z State Land Board
Z Pawnee National Grassland
Commissioner
Z Ehrlich,
2006-2079
EXHIBIT
1 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Ogle, Planning Services DATE: June 15, 2006
FROM: Donald Carroll, Engineering Administrator
SUBJECT: USR-1562 and USR-1563
Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC, Green Light Energy Inc.
The Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal. This project falls primarily under the
purview of the Use by Special Review Standards, Weld County Code, Chapter 23, Article II, Division 4, Section
23. Our comments and requirements are as follows:
COMMENTS:
Section Line Access: (right-of-way)
To determine if a road right-of-way exists along your section line, determine the land patent date. Weld County
may, if approved by the BOCC, grant a Nonexclusive License Agreement for the upgrade and maintenance of
private improvement within this right-of-way.
ie applicant shall complete a Nonexclusive License Agreement for the Upgrade and Maintenance of Weld
County Right-of-Way.
The site specific development plan and use by special review (USR) questionnaire was not a part of the
applications. In the questionnaire document, it states the following questions are to be answered and
submitted as a part of the USR application. Many of these items play a key role in my referral for conditions
and standards as a part of the application.
This site has been reviewed for a Major Facility of a Public Utility. There are approximately 72 miles of 230 KV
transmission line and one new switching station. 300 individual three-blade wind turbine generators and three
substation locations associated with the USRs
Many of the major roads within the Cedar Creek Wind Energy USR area are also shared by Warren Air Force
Base for transporting and access their facilities in the area.
REQUIREMENTS:
The applicant shall complete the USR questionnaire and submit it as a part of the USR packet.
'Utility/Right-of-Way Permit: Any time the applicant would utilize the right-of-way or cross the right-of-way, a
Weld County right-of-way permit shall be required. Contact Ted Eyl, Weld County Public Works Department,
P. O. Box 758, Greeley, Colorado, 80632, at 970-381-3779. This permit shall be in place prior to any work
being done within the right-of-way.
?ecial Transport Permit: This permit shall be obtained also from the Weld County Public Works
Department for transporting the overweight or overwidth items utilizing county roads or rights-of-way. Contact
Ted Eyl, Weld County Public Works Department, P. O. Box 758, Greeley, Colorado, 80632, at 970-381-3779.
im Ogle, Planning Services
3R-1662 and USR-1563
June 15, 2006
Page 2
-Office/Concrete Batch Plant: If Weld County roads are damaged beyond normal wear and tear by importing
' or delivering concrete material due to heavy hauling, the applicant or the applicant's contractor will repair the
road damage to the satisfaction to the Public Work Department (Motor Grader Division Supervisor). The Weld
County Public Works Department will determine when this is warranted.
The applicant needs to provide a plat drawing of the concrete batch plant layout showing access, circulation,
and stockpiling of material.
In the questionnaire, Item 5f, the applicant needs to provide an approximate number of semi-tractor trailer trips
large trucks usages on a daily or weekly basis to the site. The number of concrete trucks, material-type trucks
delivering products to make concrete is identifying a water source for storing on site for a location so the water
trucks could access.
'The applicant needs to identify a designated haul route from nearest paved road to the office, concrete batch
plant, and substations.
There shall be no staging or parking of vehicles or equipment on maintained county roads. Utilize on-site
locations and private rights-of-way.
Jpon notice by Weld County, the applicant will cease hauling operations or direct the contractor to cease
ruling operations until the roads are repaired to the satisfaction of the Weld County Public Works
Department. Hauling operations will not be allowed to resume until the condition of the road allows heavy
hauling without damage being done to the road.
Dust Suppressant: If excessive heavy truck hauling of concrete or materials cause dust problems to the
adjacent property owners, the applicant shall be required to provide an adequate dust suppressant chemical
(calcium chloride or magnesium chloride) for approximately 300 feet at any residence. Determination on
application shall be determined by the Weld County Public Works Department (Motor Grader Division
Supervisor) based on complaints, average daily traffic counts, and increase of heavy truck hauling associated
with this operation.
Access Improvements: At all three substations and the switching station, construction drawings were
provided in the packet. These plans have been reviewed and approved for construction.
,If a drain culvert is required, a 15-inch corrugated metal pipe is the County's minimum size requirement. If the
applicant chooses to place a larger culvert, please contact the Weld County Publics Department to adequately
size the culvert.
The access shall be placed in such a location to have adequate sight distance in both directions and not below
the crest of a hill or where physical obstructions are present.
Adequate Turning Radiuses shall be installed at all entrances to accommodate large truck movement.
The off-street parking and loading zones shall be surfaced with gravel or the equivalent and shall be graded to
~prevent drainage problems.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services
SR-1562 and USR-1563, Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC, Green Light Energy Inc
.tune 8, 2006
Page 3
Access Width Requirements: The access width requirements for emergency equipment (fire department)
are a minimum of 20 feet. The applicant indicated that it has been cleared with the fire department and
emergency services that the width and weight capacity of the access lane shall be adequate for emergency
purposes. The applicant shall provide documentation to that effect.
Pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II of the Weld County Code, if noxious weeds exist on the property or
become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for
controlling the noxious weeds.
County Right-of-Way: (Section line) In reviewing the section line existing land use of right-of-way, Figure 9
section drawings identify that the transmission line will not be in the county right-of-way (section line access)
that it will be parallel and be 150-foot wide private right-of-way. Usually, the right-of-way on section line is 60
feet. This needs to be determined through the land patent date. If the applicant is utilizing county right-of-way
for the transmission line, a license agreement shall be required.
The right-of-way or easement shall be a graded and drained road to provide an all-weather access.
Signing: Utilize the (MUTCD) Traffic Manual appropriately sign construction zones and crossing adjacent to
county roads.
ie Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has jurisdiction over all accesses to the state highways.
rlease contact Gloria Hice-Idler at the Greeley office to verify the access permit or for any additional
requirements that may be needed to obtain or upgrade the permit. (1-76 East Frontage Road, a switching
station)
Storm Water Drainage: The applicant has provided storm water drainage plans for the three substations and
the switching station.
The historical flow patterns and run-off amounts will be maintained on site in such a manner that it will
reasonably preserve the natural character of the area and prevent property damage of the type generally
attributed to run-off rate and velocity increases, diversions, concentration and/or unplanned ponding of storm
run-off.
-The applicant must take into consideration storm water capture/quantity and provide accordingly for best
management practices.
Utilize erosion control plan for all four sites until vegetation are established in the area.
Set Backs: Generally, the county road right-of-way is 60 feet. Pursuant to the definition of set back in Weld
County zoning (23-1-90), the required set back is measured from the right-of-way line or future right-of-way
line. It appears that all county roads being maintained in the area appear to have 60 feet of right-of-way. The
section line access usually has 60 feet of right-of-way, 30 feet on either side of the section line. I have not
researched the status of any of the section line right-of-way adjacent to the proposed transmission line
sections.
Kim Ogle, Planning Services
3R-1562 and USR-1563, Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC, Green Light Energy Inc
June 8, 2006
Page 4
_A-racking Pad: Tracking pads are required at all measure construction locations where there is heavy traffic
coming from the site on to the county road. The purpose of the tracking pads is to keep mud and debris from
leaving the site and being tracking on the county road contaminating the existing gravel road with mud and
debris.
pc: Ted Eyl, Engineering Tech II
USR-1562
USR-1563
M:\PLANNING-DEVELOPMENT REVIEW\USR-Use by Special Review\USR-1562 and USR-1563.doc
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
_ MEMORANDUM JuL 1 0 2006
(Ii:t a
TO: CHRIS GATHMAN, PLANNING SERVICES RECEIVED
FROM: CHARLOTTE DAVIS, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH V
11 C• SGREEN LIGHT ENERGY INC REEK WIND ENERGY LLC;
COLORADO CC:
Environmental Health Services has reviewed this proposal for a Major Facility of a
Public Utility-up to 300 individual three-bladed wind turbine generators. We have no
objections to the proposal, however, we do recommend that the following conditions be
part of any approval:
We recommend that the following requirements be met prior to allowing the plat to be
recorded:
1. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for periods of dry weather for
roadways, parking areas and in areas where soil has been disturbed during
construction. The plan shall be submitted for review and approval, to the
Environmental Health Services, Weld County Department of Public Health &
Environment.
2. The applicant shall submit evidence of an Air Pollution Emission Notice
(A.P.E.N.) and Emissions Permit application from the Air Pollution Control
Division, Colorado Department of Health and Environment for the concrete batch
plant.
3. The applicant shall provide current evidence that the facility has an adequate
water supply (i.e., well or community water system).
4. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the
Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public
Health & Environment. The plan shall include at a minimum, the following:
1) A list of wastes which are expected to be generated on site (this should
include expected volumes and types of waste generated).
2) A list of the type and volume of chemicals expected to be stored on site.
3) The waste handler and facility where the waste will be disposed (including
the facility name, address, and phone number).
We recommend that the following requirements be incorporated into the permit as
conditions that must be met one month prior to construction activities:
1. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a
development/redevelopment /construction site where a contiguous or non-
contiguous land disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area. Contact
the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health
and the Environment at www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/PermitsUnit for more
information.
We recommend that the following requirements be incorporated into the permit as
conditions that must be met prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy:
1. An individual sewage disposal system is required for the proposed temporary
office trailer complex and the permanent O & M Building and shall be installed
according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal Regulations.
2. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered
Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Individual Sewage Disposal
Regulations.
We recommend that the following requirements be incorporated into the permit as
development standards:
1. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and
Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for
final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater
contamination.
2. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not
meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid
waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S.,
as amended.
3. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls
fugitive dust, fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential
nuisance conditions.
2
4. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved "waste handling
plan".
5. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site.
The facility shall be operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement
plan at all times.
6. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the
Industrial Zone as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S., as amended.
7. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary
purposes.
8. Adequate handwashing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and
visitors of the facility.
9. Sewage disposal for the facility shall be by septic system. Any septic system
located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code,
pertaining to Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.
10.Adequate toilet facilities (port-a-potty) shall be provided during the construction of
the project.
11.Bottled water shall be utilized for drinking and hand washing during construction
of the project.
12.If applicable, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater discharge permit from the
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control
Division.
13.The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the State
and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code.
3
Yo
Weld County Referral
May 23, 2006
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Cedar Creek Wind Energy Case Number USR-1563
LLC; Green Light Energy Inc
P/ease Reply By June 20, 2006 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of
a Public Utility(Up to 300 individual three-bladed wind turbine generators) in the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal • Parts of Sections 19, 30, 31, 34 Township 11 North, Range 58 West; Parts of
Sections 6, 7, Township 10 North, Range 59 West; Parts of Sections 16, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36 Township 11 North, Range 59 West;
Parts of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29,
Township 10 North, Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14,15,
16, 17,20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36 Township 11 North,
Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 25, 36, Township 12 North, Range 60 West of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of and adjacent to CR 138;
North of and adjacent to CR 114, East of and adjacent to CR 99 and west of CR
123.
Parcel Number Various
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new
information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to
examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) July 18, 2006
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ .[Ve have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
O' See attached letter.
Comments:
Signature Date / -O76-e‘
Agency �! �� ��4 1/P�_�/off CCCJJ!
{{JJ ��
+Weld County Planning Dept. +4209 CR 24.5, Longmont,CO. 80504 +(720)652-4210 ext.8730 c•(720)652-4211 fax
0 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
rs
BUILDING INSPECTION
NORTH OFFICE OFFICE
918 10`"Street
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
I PHONE (970)353-6100, EXT.3540
FAX (970) 304-6498
C. SOUTHWEST OFFICE
4209 CR 24.5
LONGMONT CO 80504
COLORADO PHONE (720)652-4210 ext. 8730
FAX (720)652-4211
June 20, 2006
Cedar Creek Wind Energy
Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility (Up to 300
individual three-bladed wind turbine generators) in the A (Agricultural )Zone) District.
USR-1562
1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to the construction of the wind turbines and any other
buildings or structures on site.
2. A plan review is required for each building for which a building permit is required. Plans shall bear the wet
stamp of a Colorado registered architect or engineer.Two complete sets of plans are required when applying
for each permit. Building plans shall also be submitted to the Pawnee Fire Protection District.
3. Buildings shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit application.
Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2003 International Building Code; 2003
International Mechanical Code; 2003 International Plumbing Code; 2003 International Fuel Gas Code; and
the 2005 National Electrical Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code.
4. Each turbine will require an engineered foundation based on a site-specific geotechnical report or an
open hole inspection performed by a Colorado registered engineer. Engineered foundations shall be
designed by a Colorado registered engineer.
5. The structure will probably be classified as U (Turbine) 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 Zoning Ordinance.
6. Building height shall be measured in accordance with the 2003 International 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. When measuring buildings to determine offset and setback requirements,buildings are
measured to the farthest projection from the building. Property lines shall be clearly identified and all property pins
shall be staked prior to the first site inspection.
Please contact me for any further information regarding this project.
Sincer /7
6j ,
Ro er Vig
Building Official
•
!UN-20-2006 TUE 09:09 AM SOUTHWEST WELD PLANNING FAX NO. 720 652 4211 P. 03
Jun. 20 2006 09'07RM P3
.FROM 'EBI..� FRX NO. :97013952406
Weld County Referral
' May 23, 2006
COLORADO
"he Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following Item for review:
Applicant Cedar Creek Wind Energy Case Number USR-1563
LW;Green Light Energy Inc
Please Reply By June 20, 2006 Planner. Kim Ogle
Pro/ect Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of
a Public Utility(Up to 300 individual three-bladed wind turbine generators)In the A
(Agricultural)Zone District.
Legal Parts of Sections 19,30, 31, 34 Township 11 North, Range 68 West Parts of
Sections 6, 7, Township 10.North, Range 59 West; Parts of Sections 16, 21, 22,
23, 24,25,26, 27,28, 29,30, 31, 32,34, 36 Township 11 North, Range 59 West;
Parts of Sections 1,2, 3, 4, 8,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. 21. 22, 23,28,29,
Township 10 North, Range 60 West; Parts of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 14,15,
16, 17,20,21, 22,23, 24, 25,26,27, 25,29,33, 34, 35, 38 Township 11 North,
Range 60 West; Pans of Sections 25,36,Township 12 North, Range 60 West of
the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location Generally located in an irregularly shaped area south of and adjacent to CR 138;
North of and adjacent to CR 114, East of and adjacent to CR 99 and west of CR
123. •
Parcel Number Various
-I he application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
1:mneider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
f;ive full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
earned to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
I :warding the application, please call thu Planner ea000lotod with the roquoot, Please note that new
Information may be added to applications under review during the review process, if you desire to
r¢amine or obtain this additional Information, please call the Department of Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing Of applicable) July 18,2006
�C„I We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
l['WW havo rovlowed the request end And no conflicts with our interests.
C I See attached letter.
JUN-20-2006 TUE 09:09 AM SOUTHWEST WELD PLANNING FAX NO. 720 652 4211 P. 04
FROM :Fal FOX NO. :9708952408 Sun. 20 2006 09:08AM P4
Neld County Planning Commisalon Nearing(if applicable) July 1$.2006
We have reviewed the request and find that It dose/does not comply with oar Comprehensive Plan
, We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
•
See attached latter.
)mmen s:
rain crrf 1P n Peto '4 LAU_ Ct a ,L�.J atd at/LA
"; 4$7-44.040.,
i)gnature Date 6-f-44
reenay #4aag 4 aA f .,,
i Noe Carty Planning Dept. •4209 CR 24.5.Longmont,CO.80504 4(720)0624210 et8730 4(720)eel-421 t tax
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens,Governor GPt0VPo
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
4 5
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE N
Ar
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER �rO OF V. 1'O
Bruce McCloskey, Director �-
6060 Broadway For Wildlife-
Denver, Colorado 80216 For People
Telephone: (303)297-1192
June 25, 2006
Weld County Planning and Zoning
Attention:Chris Gathman—Planner
Greeley Office
918 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
RE: USR 1563 —Cedar Creek Wind Energy LLC; Wind Facility-Greenlight Energy Wind Energy Facility— 1041
permitting process.
Dear Mr. Gathman,
The Colorado Division of Wildlife(CDOW)would like to thank Weld County Planning Department for the
opportunity to provide recommendations on the proposed 300-330 Megawatt wind energy development in northern
Weld County. Division staff has reviewed the information provided, and has consulted with biologists and
enforcement personnel for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS),personnel of the Colorado State
Land Board and biologists for the Colorado Natural Heritage Program of Colorado State Parks. Over the last several
months we have also met on numerous occasions with Green light Energy Inc. staff and their consultants to discuss
potential natural resource issues arising from this development. We are continuing our dialog with the applicant in an
effort to resolve outstanding concerns,and are optimistic towards their willingness to work cooperatively in
minimizing risk to wildlife. However it should be made clear that as of the posting of this letter there are still
significant issues to be resolved. CDOW is providing the following 10 recommendation in brief form on pages 1
through 3. Appendix A provides rationale,details and discussion explaining each of our recommendations further.
Also included as Attachment B is a copy of the 2003 US Fish and Wildlife Service Interim Guidance on Avoiding and
Minimizing Impacts From Wind Turbines
1. Location of turbines near key habitat features. The uniquely vegetated and cliffed escarpments of this
short grass prairie landscape is a one-of-a-kind feature in this region and provides some of the best nesting,foraging
and cover habitat features for numerous bird,bat and terrestrial wildlife species including; Golden Eagles, Falcons,
Hawks and Owls. The edge of this short grass prairie escarpment not only has a high density of raptor nests(nearly
60 nests along the cliffed edges),but also has a diversity of unique and rare plant communities that are seen in less
than 20 other similar areas in Colorado(CNHP 2006). To this end, CDOW recommends that turbines should be
placed at least ''A mile away from escarpment edges. In discussions with the proponent, it was agreed that in order
both protect wildlife resources as well as to meet the financial model required to make the project financially feasible,
the CDOW agreed to reduce the previous recommendation of a %3 mile escarpment upper-edge buffer to a ''A mile.
— Field staff from USFWS, United States Forest Service(USFS)and Colorado State Parks Natural Heritage Program
(CNHP)agree that a Y mile buffer from the escarpment edge is advisable.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,Russell George, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Jeffrey Crawford,Chair•Tom Burke,Vice Chair•Claire O'Neal,Secretary
Momharc Rnhor Pray•Rrart Rnnrc•Rirk rnctrnm•Rirhar`1 Pay•.lama MrAnally•Kan Tnrroc
2. Avoiding/Minimizing Impacts. In selecting sites for construction,the developer should focus on options
that avoid critical wildlife habitats,over the use of mitigation strategies.
3. Study Protocols. The developer of the proposed wind energy facility should allow the Division to review
and comment on wildlife and habitat survey protocol.
4. Access/Research/Monitoring. The developer is encouraged to provide on-going support for wildlife and
habitat impact research as well as provide CDOW with all forms of raw data collected at onset, during and post
construction surveys. CDOW staff should be allowed wide access to the project site before and after the project is
operational for monitoring wildlife impacts. Agreements between the developer/operator and the landowner should
include a clause recognizing the access provision for CDOW personnel for monitoring purposes.
5. Operational Considerations. Service personnel should be required to limit their vehicle speed and on-site
visit frequency and duration. Staff should be properly trained in documenting wildlife mortalities and notifying local
wildlife officials of such mortalities in a timely manner
6. Viewshed. Recreational wildlife viewing is a key attraction to the Pawnee Buttes area of northern Weld
County. As such,the developer is encouraged to construct and maintain facilities in a manner that will preserve scenic
qualities and viewshed in this area.
7. Weed Management. A noxious weed and re-vegetation management plan should be developed and
implemented in areas where there will be disturbance due to construction activities. Noxious weed management
should continue throughout the useful life of the wind facility,and for five years after operation ceases. Construction
and maintenance equipment should be cleaned when moved from site to site to prevent the spread of noxious weeds.
All areas disturbed by construction should be photographed prior to construction and returned to natural contours and
reclaimed with native vegetation. A re-vegetation standard used by the USFS requires an 80%coverage of native
vegetation as a measure of successful reclamation.
8. Hunting. At the landowner's discretion, hunting should be allowed to continue within and adjacent to the
project area.
9. Livestock fencing required for the project should be of a wildlife friendly design, incorporating three or four
strand fencing with a bottom strand height of 17 inches and a maximum top strand height of 42 inches,along with
installation of double stays between posts. Chain link and mesh fencing should be kept to a minimum and used only
to protect facilities where security is required.
10. Wildlife Protection.The developer should conduct wildlife and wildlife habitat inventories/surveys,based
on the most current and sound biological methodologies,to obtain local species information,as well as attempt to
assess direct and indirect impacts. We recommend that sensitive wildlife species and critical habitat features should
be identified and buffered when considering infrastructure placement and operation, especially during critical nesting
periods. To this end we recommend that:
• Raptor nests should be identified within the project area and given a'/ mile buffer from wind turbine
placement, except for Prairie Falcon and Golden Eagle nests,which should be given a %z mile buffer from
turbine placement. Construction activities %2 mile from nest sites should occur outside of critical nesting
periods.
• Mountain Plover(a recently proposed species for Federal Endangered listing)habitat should be identified
within the project area and construction activity should be sequenced outside of critical nesting periods,
April 1st through August 15. If construction processes can't be completed outside of critical nesting
periods, we recommend that the developer employ nest clearance surveys before site specific
infrastructure construction begins. In a cooperative program,the CDOW and Rocky Mountain Bird
Observatory(RMBO)provides the free services of biologists trained to detect plover activity on farm
lands.
• Plains Sharp-tailed grouse(a Colorado listed endangered species)habitat and courtship sites (leks)
should be identified along turbine strings (as well as CDOW's county road route)and leks should be
given a 1.2 mile buffer from wind turbine placement. During discussions with the proponent, it was
agreed that a reduced lek buffer of'V2 mile would be used if the developer works with CDOW to design
and perform an in-depth study on negative impacts of wind farms on Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse as well
as to develop and implement mitigation efforts in the form of habitat improvements and/or population
supplementation..
• Construction activity should be scheduled outside of critical nesting periods, April 1 through August 15,
for neo-tropical songbirds including Lark Buntings,the Colorado State Bird. USFWS staff recommends
this as well as a way of avoiding violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
• The developer should employ seasonal shutdowns on turbines that cause significant bat and bird
mortalities collisions with turbine blades. This measure of protection has been cited by the developer's
consultants as a possible measure that could minimize impacts to bats during peak migration periods
(August to September).
• All maternal swift fox den sites should be identified and avoided during pre and post construction
processes.
• All prairie dog towns within and adjacent to the proposed project should be located prior to construction.
if a prairie dog town falls within an unavoidable construction site and needs to be removed,the town
should be surveyed for other species such as burrowing owls and mountain plover prior to eradication
efforts. After burrowing holes are surveyed,necessary eradication efforts should occur from October 31
to March 15.
• Critical reptile and amphibian habitat, including escarpments, ephemeral ponds and wetlands should be
identified and avoided by construction and infrastructure.
Finally it must be mentioned that migratory species,songbirds,raptors and most wildlife are protected by Federal
and/or State law. Through proper design and intelligent placement of facilities much can be done to minimize the risk
of negligent take. The aim of all involved should be to absolutely minimize the unfortunate take of wildlife as a result
of this facility. On behalf of the Division of Wildlife, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on this proposal. If you or the applicant has any further questions,please feel free to call Troy Florian at
(970)443-1993.
Sincere]
gave Clarkson
Area Wildlife Manager
Cc:John Bredehoft—Assistant Director David Klute—Avian Research
Kathi Green—Assistant Regional Wildlife Manager Brent Bibles—Raptor Biologist
Scott Hoover—Northeast Regional Manager Ed Gorman—Small Game Manager
Troy Florian—District Wildlife Manager DOW Kirk Navo—Bat Biologist
Larry Rogstad—District Wildlife Manager Tina Jackson—Reptile and Amphibian Researcher
Chad Morgan—District Wildlife Manger file
Mark Vieira—Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist
Francie Pusateri—Senior Species Conservation Biologist
Mike Sherman—Species Conservation Biologist
Paul Lukacs—Avian Research
Vicky Drietz—Avian Research
Appendix A
CDOW staff has coordinated with several biologists,managers and natural resource experts within and outside of the
agency to review and comment on this project. Over the last several months,numerous meetings and site visits have
been attended by CDOW staff and representatives, Greenlight Energy, USFWS, State Land Board, and Colorado
Natural Heritage Program staff to delineate potential impacts to wildlife and natural resources, and determine options
that may alleviate and/or mitigate losses to the resource. CDOW staff and the applicant have worked arduously and
sincerely in an attempt to minimize conflict and resolve issues. The large footprint,of approximately 100 square
miles, for this project,the rich and diverse habitat types found on site, and the many wildlife species potentially
impacted have made the task challenging. It is our hope that by carefully considering potential impacts to wildlife
and plant communities, we will assist Weld County as it fulfills its mission.
Wind farms,although an exciting form of renewable energy, may still have negative impacts on wildlife,especially
bats and birds. As the industry grows,cumulative impacts may result in or contribute to declines in some wildlife
populations. Potential negative impacts to wildlife from injury,direct mortality, nest abandonment, and site
avoidance due to landscape alteration necessitates careful evaluation of proposed wind facilities, each based on
analysis of local topography and species use. Mapping of significant wildlife habitat,completed as a joint venture
between the CDOW and the Weld County Department of Planning in 1997, indicates that the site for the proposed
project includes; overall range and production habitat for Plains Sharp-tailed grouse, winter range and concentration
habitat for Mule and White-tail deer,general use habitat for Swift fox and Pronghorn,and winter concentration and
production habitat for miscellaneous raptors. Overall the site is rated as moderate impact habitat for wildlife. Had
this study not favored riparian species,the escarpment and short-grass habitat possessing unique and rare montane
plant communities of this area would in all likelihood have rated as high impact habitat.
I. Location of Turbines near key habitat features. The unique features of this partially agricultural (cultivated and
Conservation Reserve Program-CRP-fields)and short-grass prairie landscape includes shrubby and forested
escarpments, varying degrees of rolling hills and drainages, and limited ephemeral ponds(playas)and riparian areas.
The topographically unique and vegetated components as mentioned especially lend themselves to provide essential
wildlife habitat. The shrubby and forested escarpments of this short grass prairie landscape is a one-of-a-kind feature
in this region and provides some of the best nesting, foraging and cover habitat features for numerous bird, bat and
terrestrial wildlife species including; Golden Eagles,Falcons,Hawks and Owls. The edge of this short grass prairie
escarpment not only has a high density of raptor nests (nearly 60 nests along the cliffed edges), but also has a
diversity of unique and rare plant communities that are seen in less than 20 other similar areas in Colorado(CNHP
2006). As stated in the Colorado Natural Heritage Program(CNHP)description of the Chalk Bluffs Natural Area(a
designated section of the escarpments in the area), the cliffs are protected from fire by their barrenness,and thus
support outlying populations of foothills plant species such as ponderosa pine, Rocky Mountain juniper, limber pine,
and mountain mahogany. These montane plants combine with prairie grasses to form communities geographically
and genetically unique to the escarpment. Clay lenses within the sandstone layers support a different type of barrens
community, one dominated by hard cushion plants such as Stenotus acaulis, Phlox,Hymenoxys acaulis and the rare
plants Cryptantha cana and Parthenium(Bolophyta)alpinum. The rocks are rich in Miocene, Eocene and Paleocene
vertebrate fossils, as well as paleontological artifacts,and the bluffs support a high concentration of nesting raptors.
CNHP staff agrees that, although the focus of their survey only included the Chalk Bluff Natural Area,the escarpment
edges should be preserved and protected to ensure the unique wildlife habitat and unique plant community of this
landscape. The short-grass prairie provides essential habitat for a variety of ground nesting neo-tropical bird species
such as the McCowans Longspur, Rocky Mountain Plover,as well as numerous terrestrial mammal species. The CRP
component of this area is also very important for species such as the Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse and various raptors
species for nesting and foraging habitat. The ephemeral ponds(playas)that are located in this landscape are a critical
component for essentially all wildlife in the area, and should be protected in a way to avoid any negative impacts. To
this end, CDOW recommends that turbines should be placed at least '/a mile away from escarpment edges. In
discussions with the proponent, it was agreed that in order both protect wildlife resources as well as to meet the
financial model required to make the project financially feasible,the CDOW agreed to reduce the previous
recommendation of a '/,mile escarpment upper-edge buffer to a''/d mile. Field staff from USFWS, United States
Forest Service(USFS) and Colorado State Parks Natural Heritage Program agree that a ''/< mile buffer from the
escarpment edge is advisable.
2. Avoiding/Minimizing Impacts. In considering factors that may negatively impact wildlife, CDOW evaluates a
variety of steps that could be taken to minimize such impacts. The preferred option is to avoid negative impacts
altogether: Areas that exhibit high levels of wildlife use like the escarpments and playas found within or along this
project area would benefit greatly by not placing facility infrastructure adjacent to or over such areas. If there is no
option in avoiding placement of infrastructure on or adjacent to areas of high wildlife value, options should be
evaluated on buffering placement,altering structure design,and sequencing construction in a manner that minimizes
losses to habitat and wildlife. As a last resort, if all options for avoiding impacts are taken and prove insufficient,
then mitigation strategies should be identified and implemented. CDOW encourages mitigation options such as
developer support directed to entities that are actively involved in research,education,management, preservation and
recovery efforts for the benefit of wildlife,as well as potential options like land acquisition and/or conservation
easements.
3. Study Protocols. CDOW recommends that the developer facilitate the opportunity for agency personnel to review
and comment on habitat and wildlife survey protocols that will be implemented in and around the project area.
Because of the unique habitat and wildlife diversity, as well as the proposed wind energy infrastructure and projects
size and potential for negative impacts, CDOW recommends that all wildlife and habitat surveys make use of
protocols that are best suited to assess population level impacts,and assess direct and indirect impacts based on the
most current sound biological methodologies.
4. Access/Research/Monitoring. CDOW recommends that the developer provide adequate access and support for
ongoing research to study and monitor wildlife,wildlife habitat and wind energy development impacts for the life of
— the project. It is conceivable that wind turbines will increase scavenging opportunity for and concentration of
predators in areas where ground nesting species are found. CDOW recommends that on-going monitoring efforts are
made to detect, document and remove carcasses caused by blade strikes to minimize the potential of concentrated
increases of predator occupation. All research data(observed,written, recorded, GPS files,etc.)collected should be
accessible and provided to CDOW's District Wildlife Managers and Biologists in a timely manner.
In the event that there are additions,amendments or changes to infrastructure placement, routing,or permitting,
CDOW should be given the opportunity to provide comments on future issues as they arise. We encourage wind
energy developers to be forthcoming with plans of additional project phases and other proposed projects to
proactively identify key wildlife and habitat components prior to establishing infrastructure placement and routing,as
well as working with landowners on lease negotiations.
5. Operational Considerations. Service personnel should be required to limit their on-site visit frequency and
duration, especially during critical nesting time,to minimize impacts to wildlife. It is also recommended that facility
maintenance staff keep service vehicle speeds to a minimum to avoid vehicle collisions with wildlife. During the
operational phase,staff should be properly trained in documenting wildlife mortalities and notifying local wildlife
officials in a timely manner.
Long-term decommissioning plans should also be developed in the event that it is decided to decommission any
infrastructure of the facility. Decommissioning plans should include(but not limited to)timing of decommissioning
individual or project wide infrastructure and plans to reclaim areas back to pre-construction conditions.
6. Viewshed: The Pawnee Buttes and surrounding areas of USFS lands are a highly visited and prized location in
Weld County for numerous recreational and aesthetic reasons.As a result,the buttes are showcased as one of the
icons on the Weld County logo. The proposed wind energy development will have a noticeable impact on the
landscape's viewshed. In addition to the Pawnee Buttes,the unique and diverse wildlife and plant community in this
area attracts visitors from throughout the world. In an effort to work with the community,the CDOW encourages the
applicant to do everything in their power to minimize negative impacts to the panorama and character of northern
Weld County. This may be facilitated by routing power lines with existing line corridors, as well as working with the
USFS in planning options to their access roads,trail routes and other frequently used amenities.
7. Weed Management and Native Vegetation Reclamation. With new construction taking place and machinery being
transported from unknown off-site locations, as well as from one site to another, it is important to help prevent the
spread of noxious weeds. Noxious weeds reduce property value and negatively impacts short-grass ecosystems. Care
should be taken to avoid introducing and spreading noxious weeds. Equipment should be cleaned periodically to
remove weed seeds even if no weeds are recognized. The area should be promptly contoured and re-vegetated to pre-
construction conditions using native species to prevent erosion and invasion by weeds. It is also recommended that
noxious weeds are actively eradicated and a working weed management and disturbed area reclamation plan be
developed and implemented during construction and for a period of at least 5 years beyond the life of the project. The
applicant may want to contact the Weld County Weed Inspector to facilitate development of reclamation and weed
management plans for the facility.
8. Hunting. As this area develops in wind energy, it is important to maintain the legacy of traditional agricultural
land uses. Hunting is one such activity that is essential in managing wildlife populations, and in providing recreation
and income opportunities for landowners as well as the local community. Deer,Antelope,pheasants, dove,coyote,and
rabbit are a few of the wildlife species that are hunted in this area. In fact, surveys indicate that Weld County is the
most important in Colorado in the popularity of small game and waterfowl hunting activities. Hunting is not only a
recreational activity and economic asset, but also an important management tool used by the Colorado Division of
Wildlife to manage wildlife populations. Hunting is used as the primary tool to balance wildlife populations with
available habitat. The Game Damage Program of the CDOW requires that the landowner has allowed hunting on
their property to be eligible for compensation due to losses caused by big game. Landowners often allow friends and
family to hunt coyotes as a method of reducing depredation on their livestock. For the above reasons,CDOW
--- recommends that hunting and depredating animal control should be allowed to continue on areas developed for wind
energy at the landowner/lessee's discretion. The developer has stated that they have no objections to allow hunting
within the project area at the landowner's discretion.
9. Livestock Fencing. Poorly designed fencing can be dangerous and even fatal to wildlife. Therefore, we
recommend that if any fencing is to be used within or around development sites,either during or after the project, it
should be the type that would allow the free passage of wildlife. If possible,fencing plans should avoid the use of
woven wire type fences that will trap or prevent movement of wildlife. For livestock fencing the CDOW prefers the
use of three or four strand fencing with a bottom strand height of 17 inches and a maximum top strand height of 42
inches,along with installation of double stays between posts. Substation fencing should be built according to and
meet APLIC standards. Chain link and woven fencing should only be incorporated surrounding structures needing
additional security
10. Wildlife protection. Although the infrastructure footprint is not finalized at this time,the proposed area of the
wind energy project will be in an area that is very rich in wildlife diversity and will span a variety of regionally unique
habitat types. We recommend that sensitive wildlife species and critical habitat features should be identified and
buffered when considering infrastructure placement and operation, especially during critical nesting periods. To this
end we recommend that:
• Raptors. As noted in the USFWS interim guidance,as well as the developers permit application, impacts
from collisions can be minimized by avoiding migratory pathways and habitats where birds concentrate when
siting wind energy facilities. The unique habitat features, especially the forested and cliffed escarpments, in
and around the proposed site, provide excellent shelter, feeding and nesting habitat for numerous resident
and migratory raptors including; Golden Eagles, Falcons, Hawks and Owls. Although each raptor species
nests at different times,the general nesting period for raptor in this area occurs between mid February
through mid July,with exception of Golden Eagles, which start nesting in mid December. The USFS uses a
500 meter disturbance buffer from raptor nest and is listed as a standard in their current forest wide
management plan. CDOW raptor experts advise that due to the propensity for raptor species such as Prairie
Falcons to relocate nest sites, sometimes up to %2 mile along cliff faces, it is more appropriate to designate
"Nesting Areas"that encompass the cliff system and place a 'A mile buffer around the cliff complex.
Although there are exceptions,these buffer distances and seasonal restrictions suggested here reflect an
informed opinion that if implemented,should assure the majority of individuals within a species will
continue to occupy the area. CDOW raptor experts caution that when sub-adult prairie falcons become
members of breeding pairs (observed during preconstruction raptor surveys)it suggests that there are few
members of the floating population,and loss of any breeding individuals may lead to unused territories and
loss of reproduction. Based on documented high levels of raptor occupancy and usage(by CDOW as well as
Colorado State Parks Natural Heritage Program), as well as potentially limited floating prairie falcon
population members, CDOW recommends that turbines be placed at least '/ mile from the regionally unique
forested escarpments to minimize nesting disturbances, as well as any raptor mortality that may occur. This
Y mile recommended buffer distance differs from the developers recommended 50 meter rim set-back based
on studies at the Foote Creek Rim facility(Arlington Wyoming—elevation 7800 feet). This area differs
from Foote Creek Rim because of the regionally unique and highly used forested and cliffed escarpment that
provides shelter, feeding and nesting habitat for a variety of raptor and wildlife species. The nesting and
concentration area of the Foote Creek Rim project is along the Rock Creek riparian area that is situated
below where the turbines are placed. As mentioned in the USFWS Interim Guidance and further agreed to
by CDOW, 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 an effort
to reduce a reasonable amount of financial hardship to the developer while maintaining a reasonable amount
of accommodation to the unique and highly used escarpment,the CDOW agreed to reduce the previous
recommendation of a %mile escarpment edge buffer to a '/ mile escarpment edge buffer during our June 13,
2006 meeting. CDOW maintains a '/ mile raptor buffer to all raptor nests, except Falcon and Eagle nests,
which should have a'A mile buffer.
• In regards to ground nesting raptors such as the Burrowing Owl, CDOW raptor experts advise that no
human encroachment or disturbance within 75 yards of the nest site from April 1 through August 15. This
period is necessary to avoid disturbing nesting owls. However,owls may be present at burrows up to a
month before laying eggs and several months after young have fledged. Therefore it is recommended that
efforts to eradicate prairie dogs or destroy abandoned towns not occur during critical nesting periods, which
is typically from March 1 and October 31. Females tend to raise one brood per year. Nesting owls will
return to the same prairie dog town to nest year after year unless the town is destroyed. When confronted
with human disturbance near nest sites,Burrowing Owls will abandon the nest. Efforts to relocate nesting
owls have generally proven to be ineffective. Although owls may occur throughout a prairie dog colony,they
have a propensity to frequent the colony margins and buffer zones should be applied to the colony perimeter.
If possible, construction in and around prairie dog colonies should be sequenced to avoid critical nesting
periods for Burrowing Owls. If it should be necessary to break ground during the critical nesting periods for
Burrowing owls, impacted prairie dog towns should be surveyed for Burrowing Owls by a biologist certified
for such work prior to construction. If owls are found to occupy prairie dog towns,the active burrows should
be protected as specified by accepted guidelines.
• Mountain Plovers are a rare species that were recently proposed for listing to the federal Endangered Species
list. Mountain Plovers were not listed for various reasons. However, Colorado continues conservation
efforts on Mountain Plovers given that 60-80%of the continental population is believed to breed in the state.
In an effort to ensure that there will be no need for listing the species in the future,the State of Colorado and
the Division of Wildlife along with other agencies is committed to work diligently to ensure that Mountain
Plovers are protected. To this end, very close attention should be given to the presence of Mountain Plovers
and to the protection of their habitat. We are concerned that the proposed project may significantly impact
nesting mountain plovers if surface disturbance to the site occurs during the breeding season. Suitable
habitat exists along the route of the proposed facility and there are records of breeding occurrences from this
area(Colorado Natural Diversity Information Source,Colorado Division of Wildlife). Mountain plovers are
found primarily in the arid grasslands of the Great Plains and nesting plovers choose short-grass prairie
grazed by prairie dogs, bison, or cattle, and fallow fields on fragmented prairie(Knopf 1996). Since nest site
specific fidelity has not been documented in breeding mountain plovers in Colorado, we feel that
construction of the proposed facility will have fewer negative effects on this bird species if disturbance to the
ground surface takes place outside of the breeding season. In regards to Mountain Plover, CDOW
recommend that construction take place between September 1 and April 15 to assure no negative impacts to
the mountain plover during any of its breeding activity from courtship through fledged young. CDOW also
recommends that qualified and experienced individuals should conduct surveys for nests before any
construction begins and such construction should be done in a manner that will not impact the Mountain
Plover. After making a general site visit with Fritz Knopf(recently retired USGS Mountain Plover expert)
on March 31,2006, he indicated that the winter wheat fields and heavily grazed blue gramma grass pastures
in the area were prime habitat for nesting mountain plovers. Knopf stated that the project may have little
impact to mountain plovers in the area as long as construction occurred outside of critical nesting periods. If
construction activity is unavoidable during critical nesting-brooding periods, Knopf stated that construction
areas should be pre surveyed for mountain plover nests prior to breaking ground.
• Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse are listed as a Colorado Endangered species. Plains sharp-tailed grouse's habitat
consists of Conservation Reserve Program lands(CRP),cultivated crop stubble, forested escarpment
uplands,and grassy pasture ground areas of the proposed location during the majority of the year.This
general area of northern Weld County is one of two areas in the state of Colorado where naturally occurring
plains sharp-tailed grouse occur. CRP is of particular importance to plains sharp-tailed grouse in the project
area, as they are dependent on large blocks of mid-grass systems for year round habitat.Not including
previous years of lek surveys, approximately 13 different leks were located in April of 06,with the majority
found in the central to north central section of the western half of the proposed project area. Even though
there were only 13 leks found during this one season survey,we suspect that there are numerous other
unidentified lek areas that were not observed from the completed county road and turbine string survey
routes. In the Great Plains,CRP has provided key habitat to several avian species, including sharp-tailed
grouse, experiencing long-term population declines(Johnson and Schwartz 1993). Plains sharp-tailed
grouse tend to be widely distributed through available habitat throughout the summer and autumn months,
but concentrate in winter(around food sources)and in spring,when the breeding season approaches. Sharp-
tailed grouse breeding areas,otherwise known as `Ieks', are generally used March through May and are
typically at an elevated site with wide-viewing horizons and low or sparse vegetation(Baydack 1988).
According to CDOW grouse experts, studies have shown that 80 to 90 percent of female grouse nest within
2 kilometers from known leks,and successful females subsequently raise their broods in close proximity
(<1.4 km)to where they nested, suggesting they select nest sites within or near suitable brood-rearing habitat
(Boisvert,Hoffman,Reese 2005). Sharp-tailed grouse exhibit strong attachment to leks not only during
spring mating but throughout the year(Twedt 1974). A study of tolerance of sharp-tailed grouse to lek
disturbance(Baydack and Hein 1987)found that the response of grouse to disturbance differed between
sexes. Their study found that male grouse are more sensitive to human disturbances than other types of
disturbances (i.e.: snow fencing, parked vehicles,scarecrows,taped voices, radio sounds,etc.), but generally
remained within 400 m of the traditional lek....and returned to the lek immediately upon cessation of
disturbance. Conversely,Baydack and Hein found that female sharp-tail grouse were not observed at leks
during test disturbances. They suggest that although grouse may be observed at disturbed leks,the site may
be reproductively inactive since female grouse avoid it consistently. Baydack and Hein suggest that
consequences may include not only a loss of lek population,but also a decrease in a regional population of
sharp-tail grouse. The USFWS's Interim Guidelines recommends avoiding turbine placement in habitats
known to be occupied by prairie grouse or other species that exhibit extreme avoidance of vertical features
and/or structural habitat fragmentation. The USFWS's Interim Guidelines state,that in known prairie
grouse habitat, it is recommended to avoid placing turbines within 5 miles of known leks. Based on research
suggesting that 80-90 %of hens nest and raise their brood within 3.4 km from lek sites, CDOW previously
recommended that no turbines be placed within 3.4 kilometers of known plains sharp-tail grouse leks to
avoid disturbance,displacement and destruction of such areas. The CDOW is only willing to reduce the
recommended lek buffer distance to '/3 mile from turbine sitings in an effort to align the goals of the
developer with the goals of the Division, as well as working with the developer to formulate an in-depth
study on the effects of wind development on Plains Sharp-tailed Grouse to obtain insight to be used on future
wind energy development. In addition,this final accepted lek buffer is based on agreements made with the
developer to provide mitigation efforts in the form of habitat improvements and/or population
supplementation.
• Songbirds:The short grass prairie is a desirable nesting habitat and contains a large number of different
species of small birds. Most species of small birds are primarily ground nesting birds, although some species
nest in trees or bushes. Some of these species are permanent residents while others are migrants or summer
(breeding)residents. Many of these small birds are categorized as neo-tropical. Neo-tropical species are
experiencing drastic population declines and the CDOW is concerned about any activities that could
negatively impact them. Some of the species found in this area(including all SLB parcels) include the Lark
Bunting, McCowan's Longspur, Chestnut Collared Longspur, Horned Lark, Meadow Lark, Swallows,
Cassin's sparrow, Brewer's sparrow, Lark Sparrows,Rock and Canyon Wrens, Loggerhead Shrike, Brown
Thrasher, Swifts and the Green-tailed Towhee. All of these birds could be subject to habitat loss,
displacement and disturbance from construction of the facility or mortalities caused by strikes from turbine
blades. On page 48 of the developers permit application, it is stated that the proposed site for the wind
energy facility is not within a migratory flyway. This statement concerns us because there is no definitive
evidence that this area is not a migratory flyway. We understand that there are ways to use Doppler Radar
systems in the region(that have been recording information for over 10 years at a 15 minute interval)to
separate biological data(migration) from weather patterns,however,filtering biological data from this
database is a labor intensive process and may provide insight in identifying whether or not this is in fact is
used as a migratory flyway. It is possible that Human activities around these nests can have significant
negative impacts. In regards to ground-nesting small birds in the area, it is recommended that any
construction that takes place on the proposed area occurs before April 1 and after August 15 to minimize any
impacts that human activity may have on these ground nesting birds. Turbine types,construction timing, and
consideration of how construction is completed could do much to reduce impacts on these species.
• Bats: Possibly 6 -10 species of bats also use the area. Species distribution and documentation for the area in
question is limited,but all of the migratory tree bats have been documented in the County, and it is
anticipated that they would make use of the project area to some extent. These species include the Hoary
bat, Silver-haired bat, Red bat, all highly migratory and suspected of using the eastern plains of Colorado for
migration flyways. Bats experts agree that bats may be found roosting in trees and rocky outcropped areas
along the canyons and ridges, and can travel long distances from roost sites to foraging areas. On page 52 of
the developers permit application, it is stated that bats are not known to roost in the area. The statement that
bats are not"known"to roost in the area does not mean that bats do not roost in the area, and there is no
definitive information that we are aware of to suggest this.At the western edge of the proposed wind project,
carcasses of 45 Small-footed Myotis and one Big Brown Bat have recently been discovered in the water of
nearby stock tanks. Although the causes of death are not known at this time,this information suggests an
occupancy measure that had not been previously documented in this area. An expert necropsy analysis
performed by USGS bat experts suggested that a large majority of the bats apparently died during the fall of
2005,and the rest apparently died sometime during early spring of 2006. Another bat found in this area
during pre-construction surveys includes the Fringed Myotis. A bat found and described by a resident of the
area may be that of a Pipistrelle. Without season-long study results, it is impossible to conclude that bats
don't use this area for roosting, raising young or as a migratory pathway. It has been documented that bats
are routinely killed by wind turbines in other states. Information from the 68 MW Summerview Wind Farm,
outside Pincher Creek, Alberta, reports an overall bat mortality of 532 bats killed last year. This information
is significant because of its similarity in topography,land use practices, regional precipitation and distance
from the Rocky Mountains. Data on bat fatality at wind turbine sites,excluding Eastern Regions,suggest a
national average of 1.4 bats have been killed per turbine per year. Data on bat fatality at wind turbine sites
in all regions across the United States suggests a national average of 3.4 bats have been killed per turbine per
year. If these trends hold for the proposed Cedar Creek facility(with an estimated 250 turbines at phase 1
stages of development), we can estimate that approximately 350 to 850 bats per year may be lost due to this
wind development. Various species appear to have differential fatality rates, and locations of turbines and
seasons of use also enter into the fatality rate. We recommend that season long pre and post construction
studies be implemented and continued to evaluate potential impacts of wind turbines on bats in northern
Colorado. Studies should utilize appropriate designs,techniques,and protocols currently available. In
addition to monitoring methods such as acoustic recordings,post-construction assessments should also
incorporate fatality searches and scavenger/decomposition assessment(WDFW 2003; Kunz 2004). Such
studies should include ANABAT and mist netting surveys(from mid may to the end of August),as well as
marine grade sonar surveys that the developers has access to,to document;the level of bat activity in the
project areas,species present, seasonal patterns of bat activity in the project area,and mortality rates of bats
in the project area when turbines are operational. ANABAT vocalization recorder units should be placed at
heights similar to turbine blade swept levels. CDOW recommends that the developer has expert analysis
completed on all bat call information collected(bat use and species ID),and that copies of call information
be given to CDOW for separate analysis. Because numbers of bats in an area will vary seasonally,within a
season, and according to weather conditions, it is recommended to monitor prospective wind facility sites
numerous times at numerous locations during spring,summer,and fall (Keeley and others 2001). These
studies should be conducted by trained and expert personnel,with previous experience working with bats
and with required equipment and techniques. All information from these studies should be made available to
the Division of Wildlife. Lastly,CDOW recommends that the proponent contact agencies and organizations
that are currently working on developing guidelines and protocols for surveys at wind farms for use on this
project. Where possible, it is recommended to shut down wind turbines during periods when bats are highly
concentrated in the area, such as during migration,primarily in August and September(Keeley and others
2001; Erickson and others 2002; USFWS 2003; Kunz 2004).
• Deer:The proposed project area encompasses critical spatially isolated Mule Deer habitat. The area
provides year long food and cover, and has been documented by mapping for CDOW and Weld County as
crucial winter concentration habitat. The topography,tree and shrub components make this area extremely
attractive to Mule Deer. It is unknown what effects the placement of wind turbines will have on Mule Deer,
but studies suggest there is noticeable displacement from wintering areas where there have been construction
of roadways and increased service vehicle traffic. Displacement disturbance caused during the installation
process could have impacts that aren't measurable in direct mortality, but could have lasting affects
including expenditure of extra energy during sensitive periods including winter and spring. Increased
energetic demands caused by movement as a result of displacement can manifest in reduced over-winter
survival in bucks and does, slower weight gain on fetuses,smaller birth weights in fawns,reduced fawn
survival,etc. It is possible that even after the installation phase is over,the presence of the turbines could
render some of the critically important wildlife habitat value of the 'pine bluffs' country less meaningful. In
2005,the escarpment areas of this region were classified as critical mule deer habitat by CDOW field staff.
• Pronghorn: The proposed project area also encompasses Pronghorn Antelope habitat. Pronghorn Antelope
inhabit this entire area. While individuals or small groups have been shown feeding under towers with blades
turning,there is some evidence that larger concentrations may be dispersed. It is not known what impacts
will occur in the near and distant future. It is a fair speculation that pronghorn with ample available habitat
surrounding the area being developed may better adjust to the displacement during the installation phase as
opposed to some of the 'pine bluffs' mule deer who are in a much more spatially isolated habitat. A wind
energy development with the associated infrastructure,construction and roads could have major impacts on
the Pronghorn population in this area.
• Swift Fox: is a species of state and federal concern that lives in and around the proposed area. Swift Fox live
here year round,breeds during December and raises its young into the next fall. Any disturbance or
destruction of dens from December 15th through August 15th would be detrimental to this species. CDOW
recommends that Swift Fox maternal dens be identified and avoided by construction activities. It is
recommended Swift Fox surveys include daylight searches for den areas and nighttime spotlight searches
during August and September.
• Black-tailed Prairie dog: We are also concerned about impacts of construction to Black-tailed Prairie Dog
colonies.The presence of Black-tailed Prairie Dogs that may be in the proposed area gives rise to several
potential concerns from an ecological view as well as the public relations/public policy arena. This species,
more than any other, seems to inculcate strong emotions in people on both sides of the issue. Efforts to
remove the animals from a parcel may be met with strong resistance from individuals and/or organized
groups. From a biological standpoint,prairie dogs may be considered a key species in shortgrass-midgrass
prairie ecosystems. The heavily browsed grasses typical of prairie dog towns, is the type of habitat that are
preferred by nesting bird species such as the mountain plover. Prairie dogs are also a prey base for a variety
of raptors and terrestrial predators. Studies indicate that the burrow system created by prairie dogs provide
essential habitat for literally dozens of other vertebrate groups. The relationship between prairie dogs and
native grass stands is well documented. The National Wildlife Federation petitioned the USFWS to list
Black-tailed Prairie Dogs,the species found in Weld County, as a threatened or endangered species on the
federal roster. Prairie dog eradication needed for development purposes on this site should be performed
prior to development or construction work begins, and should be kept to the minimum number of burrows
possible. Eradication of prairie dogs and their burrows necessitated by construction activity shall be
performed using only approved methods and approved toxicants. Eradication of prairie dogs should occur
outside the potential season of use by Burrowing owls (a state and federally listed threatened species),March
15 through October 31, and it is determined that there will be no negative impact on owls or Mountain
Plover. If it is unavoidable, eradication efforts during the potential season of use by Burrowing owls should
be performed only after the site is surveyed by a biologist certified for such efforts, and holes used by
Burrowing owls are adequately protected. Trapping/transplant efforts or euthanasia are legal options for
prairie dog removal. Trapping/transplant efforts require an application process,review and approval by
CDOW.
• Amphibians and Reptiles:There are several types of amphibians and reptiles that may be present in and
around the proposed area. CDOW recommends that site surveys for amphibians occur from April 15 to June
30 and that reptile surveys occur from March to October during dawn,dusk and especially night surveys
after significant rains,to insure that the proposed project has minimal impact to critical use areas.
• General Considerations. The recommendations found in this document are directed toward current proposed
infrastructure placement information supplied by the developer. CDOW requests the opportunity to
comment on future issues derived from baseline or impact surveys,as well as amendments made to
infrastructure/facility placement, county permit requirements or recommendations. CDOW strongly
encourages current and future developers to be proactive in bringing plans for additional phases or
developments to our attention as soon as possible.This is requested in the hope that proactive, cooperative
efforts will identify concerns early on so that they may be addressed for the best possible solution for people
as well as wildlife.
United States Department of the Interior
_
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington. D.C. 20240
IN REPLY REFER TO;
MAY 13 2003
FWS/DFPA/BFA
Memorandum
To: Regional Directors, ' ans 1-7
From: D11- or
Subject: Service Interim Guidance on voiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from
Wind Turbines
Wind-generated electrical energy is renewable, produces no emissions, and is considered to be
generally environmentally friendly technology. Development of wind energy is strongly
endorsed by the Secretary of the Interior, as tApressed in the Secretary's Renewable Energy on
Public Lands Initiative(May 2002). However, wind energy facilities can adversely impact
wildlife, especially birds and bats, and their habitats. As more facilities with larger turbines are
built, the cumulative effects of this rapidly growing industry may initiate or contribute to the
decline of some wildlife populations. The potential harm to these populations from an additional
source of mortality makes careful evaluation of proposed facilities essential. Due to local
differences in wildlife concentration and movement patterns, habitats, area topography, facility
design, and weather, each proposed development site is unique and requires detailed, individual
evaluation.
Service personnel may become involved in the review of potential wind energy developments on
public lands through National Environmental Policy Act review(sections 1501.6, opportunity as
a cooperating agency, and section 1503.4,duty to comment on federally-licensed activities for
agencies with jurisdiction by law, i.e.,the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act); or because of special expertise. The National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act requires that any activity on Refuge lands be determined to be compatible with
the Refuge system mission and Refuge purpose(s). In addition, the Service is required by the
Endangered Species Act to assist other Federal agencies in ensuring that any action they
authorize, implement, or fund will not jeopardize the continued existence of any federally
endangered or threatened species. Service biologists have also received requests from industry
for consultation on wildlife impacts of proposed wind energy developments on private lands.
The following guidance was prepared by the Service's Wmd Turbine Siting Working Group. It
is intended to assist Service staff in providing technical assistance to the wind energy industry to
avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitats through: (1)proper evaluation of
potential wind energy development sites; (2)proper location and design of turbines and
2
associated structures within sites selected for development; and (3)pre- and post-construction
research and monitoring to identify and/or assess impacts to wildlife. This guidance is intended
for terrestrial applications only; guidelines for wind energy developments in marine
environments and the Great Lakes will be provided at a future date. The interim guidelines are
based on current science and will be updated as new information becomes available. They will
be evaluated over a two-year period, and then modified as necessary based on their performance
in the field and on the latest scientific and technical discoveries developed in coordination with
industry, states, academic researchers, and other Federal agencies. A Notice of Availability and
request for comments will be published in the Federal Register simultaneously with the release
of this guidance to Service personnel. We encourage industry use of this guidance and solicit
their feedback on its efficacy.
These guidelines are not intended nor shall they be construed to limit or preclude the Service
from exercising its authority under any law, statute, or regulation, and to take enforcement action
against any individual, company, industry or agency or to relieve any individual, company,
industry, or agency of its obligations to comply with any applicable Federal, State, or local laws,
statutes, or regulations.
Implementation of Service recommendations provided in accordance with these guidelines by
the wind energy industry is voluntary. Field offices have discretion in the use of these guidelines
on a case-by-case basis, and may also have additional recommendations to add which are
r specific to their geographic area.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-7I2)prohibits the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when
specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. While the Act has no provision for
allowing an unauthorized take, it must be recognized that some birds may be killed at structures
such as wind turbines even if all reasonable measures to avoid it are implemented. The Service's
Office of Law Enforcement caries out its mission to protect migratory birds not only through
investigations and enforcement, but also through fostering relationships with individuals and
industries that proactively seek to eliminate their impacts on migratory birds. While it is not
possible under the Act to absolve individuals, companies, or agencies from liability if they
follow these recommended guidelines,the Office of Law Enforcement and Department of Justice
have used enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in the past regarding individuals, companies,
or agencies who have made good faith efforts to avoid the take of migratory birds.
Please ensure that all field personnel involved in review of wind energy development proposals
receive copies of this memorandum. Questions regarding this issue should be directed to Dr.
Benjamin N. Tuggle, Chief Division of Federal Program Activities, at(703) 358-2161, or Brian
Millsap, Chief,Division ofMrgratory Bird Management, at (703) 358-1714.
Attachment
INTERIM GUIDELINES TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE WILDLIFE IMPACTS
FROM WIND TURBINES
Introduction
Wind-generated electrical energy is renewable,produces no emissions,and is generally considered to be an
environmentally friendly technology. Development of wind energy is strongly endorsed by the Secretary
of the Interior,as expressed in the Secretary's Renewable Energy on Public Lands Initiative(May 2002).
However,wind energy facilities can adversely impact wildlife,especially birds(e.g.,Orloff and Flannery
1992,Leddy et al. 1999,Woodward et al.2001,Braun et al.2002,Hunt 2002)and bats(Keeley et al.2001,
Johnson et al. 2002,Johnson et al. 2003). As more facilities with larger turbines are built,the cumulative
effects of this rapidly growing industry may initiate or contribute to the decline of some wildlife
populations(Manes et al 2002,Johnson et al 2002,Manville 2003). The potential harm to these
populations from an additional source of mortality or adverse habitat impacts makes careful evaluation of
proposed facilities essential. Due to local differences in wildlife concentration and movement patterns,
habitats,area topography,facility design,and weather,each proposed development site is unique and
requires detailed,individual evaluation.
The following guidance was prepared by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(Service). Like the Service's
voluntary guidance addressing the siting,construction,operation,and decommissioning of communication
towers(http://migratorvbirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/comtow.html)and the voluntary guidance developed in
cooperation with the electric utility industry to minimize bird strikes and electrocutions(APLIC 1994,
APLIC 1996),this guidance is intended to assist the wind energy industry in avoiding or minimizing
impacts to wildlife and their habitats. This is accomplished through: (I)proper evaluation of potential
Wind Resource Areas(WRAs),(2)proper location and design of turbines and associated structures within
WRAs selected for development,and(3)pre-and post-construction research and monitoring to identify
and/or assess impacts to wildlife. These guidelines are based on current science and will be updated as new
information becomes available. They are voluntary,and interim in nature. They will be evaluated over a
two-year period,and then modified as necessary based on their performance in the field,on comments from
the public,and on the latest scientific and technical discoveries developed in coordination with industry,
states,academic researchers,and other Federal agencies. After this period,the Service plans to develop a
complete operations manual for evaluation,site selection,design,construction,operation,and monitoring
of wind energy facilities in both terrestrial and aquatic environments.
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 suggests a precautionary approach to site selection and development,and will employ this
approach in making recommendations and assessing impacts of wind energy developments. We encourage
the wind energy industry to follow these guidelines and,in cooperation with the Service,to conduct
scientific research to provide additional information on the impacts of wind energy development on
wildlife. We further encourage the industry to look for opportunities to promote bird and other wildlife
conservation when planning wind energy facilities(e.g.,voluntary habitat acquisition or conservation
easements).
The Service is guided by the Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy(Federal Register 46(15),January
1981)in evaluating modifications to or loss of habitat caused by development This policy follows the
sequence of steps recommended in the Council on Environmental Quality's Regulations for Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)in seeking to avoid,minimize,
or compensate for negative impacts. Mitigation can involve(1)avoiding the impact of an activity by
taking no action;(2)minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of activity;(3)rectifying an impact by
repairing,rehabilitating,or restoring an affected environment;(4)reducing or eliminating an impact by
conducting activities that preserve and maintain the resources;or(5)compensating for an impact by
replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Any mitigation recommended by the Service
1
for wind energy development would be voluntary on the part of the developer unless made a condition of a
Federal license or permit. Mitigation does not apply to"take"of species under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act,Bald and Golden Fag e Protection Act,or Endangered Species Act. The goal of the Service under
these laws is the elimination of loss of migratory birds and endangered and threatened species due to wind
energy development. The Service will actively expand partnerships with regional,national,and
international organizations, States,tribes,industry,and environmental groups to meet this goal.
Projects with Federal involvement may require additional analysis under the National Environmental
Policy Act(http://www.fws.pov/r9esnepa),Endangered Species Act(hitp://endangered.fws.eos'),or
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
(http://www.fws.pov/policvMakcrs/mandates/indeX Intml#adminact). This includes projects on federally-
owned lands(e.g.,National Wildlife Refuges,National Forests),lands where a Federal permit is required
for development(e.g.,ELM-administered lands),or lands where Federal funds were used for purchase or
improvement(some State Wildlife Management Areas).
These guidelines are not intended nor shall they be construed to limit or preclude the Service from
exercising its authority under any law,statute,or regulation,and to take enforcement action against any
individual,company,or agency,or to relieve any individual,company,or agency of its obligations to
comply with any applicable Federal,State,or local laws,statutes,or regulations.
The guidelines contain a site evaluation process with checklists for pre-development evaluations of
potential terrestrial wind energy development sites(Appendix 1). Use of this process allows comparison of
one site with another with respect to the impacts that would occur to wildlife if the area were developed.
The evaluation area for a potential development site should include the"footprint"encompassing all of the
turbines and associated structures planned for that proposed facility,and the adjacent wildlife habitats
which may be affected by the proximity of the structures,but excluding transmission lines extending
outside the footprint. All potential development sites within a geographic area should be evaluated before a
site is selected for development.
Pre-development evaluations should be conducted by a team that includes Federal and/or State agency
wildlife professionals with no vested interest(e.g., monetary or personal business gain)in the sites selected.
Teams may also include academic and industry wildlife professionals as available. Any site evaluations
conducted by teams that do not include Federal and/or State agency wildlife professionals will not be
considered valid evaluations by the Service.
The pre-development evaluation may also identify additional studies needed prior to and after
development. Post-construction monitoring to identify any wildlife impacts is recommended at all
developed sites. Pre-and post-development studies and monitoring may be conducted by any qualified
wildlife biologist without regard to his/her affiliation or interest in the site.
Additional information relevant to these guidelines is appended as follows:
Appendix 2—Definitions Related to Wind Energy Development and Evaluation
Appendix 3—Wildlife Laws Relevant to Wind Power Development Projects
Appendix 4 -Research Needs on the Impacts of Wind Power Development on Wildlife
Appendix 5—Procedures for Endangered Species Evaluations and Consultations
Appendix 6—Guidelines for Considering Wind Turbine Siting on Fasement Ianrhs Administered
as Part of the National Wildlife Refuge System in Region 6(CO,KS,MT,NE,ND, SD,UT,WY)
Appendix 7—Known and Suspected Impacts of Wind Turbines on Wildlife
Appendix 8—Literature Cited
Site Evaluation
The site evaluation protocol presented in Appendix I was developed by a team of Federal,State,university,
and wind energy industry biologists to rank potential terrestrial wind energy development sites by their
potential impacts on wildlife. There are two steps to follow:
2
1. Identify and evaluate reference sites,preferably within the general geographic area of the proposed
facility. Reference sites are high-quality wildlife areas where wind development would result in
the maximum negative impact on wildlife(i.e.,sites selected to have the highest possible rank
using the protocol). Reference sites are used to determine the comparative risks of developing
other potential sites.
2. Evaluate potential development sites to determine risk to wildlife and rank sites against each other
using the highest-ranking reference site as a standard. Although high-ranking sites are generally
less desirable for wind energy development,a high rank does not necessarily preclude
development of a site,nor does a low rank automatically eliminate the need to conduct pre-
development assessments of wildlife resources or post-development assessments of impacts.
Studies to Assess and Monitor Wildlife Impacts
While ranking potential development sites,the site evaluation team referenced above may identify pre-
development studies that are needed to better assess potential negative impacts to wildlife. Ranking may
also suggest the extent and duration of study required. Developers are encouraged to conduct any studies
suggested by the team in coordination with Service and other agency wildlife biologists.
Post-development mortality studies should be a part of any site development plan in order to determine if or
to what extent mortality occurs. As with pre-development studies,ranking may suggest the extent and
duration of study needed. Studies should be designed in coordination with Federal and other agency
biologists.
Site Development Recommendations
The following recommendations apply to locating turbines and associated structures within WRAs selected
for development of wind energy facilities:
1. Avoid placing turbines in documented locations of any species of wildlife,fish or plant protected
under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
2. Avoid locating turbines in known local bird migration pathways or in areas where birds are highly
concentrated,unless mortality risk is low(e.g.,birds present rarely enter the rotor-swept area).
Examples of high concentration areas for birds are wetlands,State or Federal refuges,private duck
clubs,cr grog areas,rookeries,leks,roosts,riparian areas along streams,and landfills. Avoid
known daily movement flyways(e.g.,between roosting and feeding areas)and areas with a high
incidence of fog,mist,low cloud ceilings,and low visibility.
3. Avoid placing turbines near known bat h hibernation,breeding and maternity/nursery colonies,in
migration corridors,or in flight paths between colonies and feeding areas.
4. Configure turbine locations to avoid areas or features of the landscape known to attract raptors
(hawks,falcons,eagles,owls). For example,Golden Eagles,hawks,and falcons use cliff/rim
edges extensively;setbacks from these edges may reduce mortality. Other examples include not
locating turbines in a dip or pass in a ridge,or in or near prairie dog colonies.
5. Configure turbine arrays to avoid potential avian mortality where feasible. For example,group
turbines rather than spreading them widely,and orient rows of turbines parallel to known bird
movements,thereby decreasing the potential for bird strikes. Implement appropriate storm water
management practices that do not create attractions for birds,and maintain contiguous habitat for
area-sensitive species(e.g., Sage Grouse).
3
6. Avoid fragmenting large,contiguous tracts of wildlife habitat. Where practical,place turbines on
lands already altered or cultivated,and away from areas of intact and healthy native habitats. If
not practical,select fragmented or degraded habitats over relatively intact areas.
7. Avoid placing turbines in habitat known to be occupied by prairie grouse or other species that
exhibit extreme avoidance of vertical features and/or structural habitat fragmentation. hi known
prairie grouse habitat,avoid placing turbines within 5 miles of known leks(communal pair
formation grounds).
8. Minimize roads,fences,and other infrastructure. All infrastructure should be capable of
withstanding periodic burning of vegetation,as natural fires or controlled burns are necessary for
maintaining most prairie habitats.
9. Develop a habitat restoration plan for the proposed site that avoids or minimizes negative impacts
on vulnerable wildlife while maintaining or enhancing habitat values for other species. For
example,avoid attracting high densities of prey animals(rodents,rabbits,etc.)used by raptors.
10. Reduce availability of carrion by practicing responsible animal husbandry(removing carcasses,
fencing out cattle,etc.)to avoid attracting Golden Eagles and other raptors.
Turbine Design and Operation Recommendations
1. Use tubular supports with pointed tops rather than lattice supports to minimize bird perching and
nesting opportunities. Avoid placing external ladders and platforms on tubular towers to minimize
perching and nesting. Avoid use of guy wires for turbine or meteorological tower supports. All
existing guy wires should be marked with recommended bird deterrent devices(Avian Power Lire
Interaction Committee 1994).
2. If taller turbines(top of the rotor-swept area is>199 feet above ground level)require lights for
aviation safety,the minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting
specified by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)should be used(FAA 2000). Unless
otherwise requested by the FAA,only white strobe lights should be used at night,and these should
be the minimum number,minimum intensity,and minimum number of flashes per minute(longest
duration between flashes)allowable by the FAA. Solid red or pulsating red incandescent lights
should not be used,as they appear to attract night-migrating birds at a much higher rate than white
strobe lights.
3. Where the height of the rotor-swept area produces a high risk for wildlife,adjust tower height
where feasible to reduce the risk of strikes.
4. Where feasible,place electric power lines underground or on the surface as insulated,shielded
wire to avoid electrocution of birds. Use recommendations of the Avian Power Line Interaction
Committee(1994, 1996)for any required above-ground lines,transformers,or conductors.
5. High seasonal con ccmations of birds may cause problems in some areas. If,however,power
generation is critical in these areas,an average of three years monitoring data(e.g.,acoustic,radar,
infrared,or observational)should be collected and used to determine peak use dates for specific
sites. Where feasible,turbines should be shut clown during periods when birds are highly
concentrated at those sites.
6. When upgrading or retrofitting turbines,follow the above guidelines as closely as possible. If
studies indicate high mortality at specific older turbines,retrofitting or relocating is highly
recommended.
4
0itr//2006 13: 30 9702955186 USDA OLIO NITC PAGE 01
Fax
To: Chris Gathman—Planner From: Matthew Ososky
Fax: 970-3O4-6498 Pages: 2 •
Phone: 970-895-2497 Rate: 7/7/2006
4
Re: Letter of support for Greenlight Energy CC: Weld County Planning and Zoning
• Comments:
Mr. Gathman, the following is a letter of support for the proposed Greenlight Energy Windmill
project in northern Weld County. The letter is a formal show of support from the Town of Grover for the
project in the coming planning meeting. If you have any questions concerning the letter of the town of
Grover, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Matthew Ososky
303-547-7862
Mayor, Grover Colorado
07, '12006 13: 30 9702955186 USDA OLIO NITC PAGE 02
July 7, 2006
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter is to express the Town of Grover's support for the envisioned Wind Mill
project undertaking by Greenlight Energy Corporation. The Town Board and I see the
project as a positive development for the town and the regional community. Town residents
have also expressed support for the project. The scale of the project and it's proximity to the
Town will be have a positive impact on the Town,its businesses, and its residents. With very
little industry in the area, most community members see the development in an extremely
positive light.
The most important factor in maintaining support from the Town of Grover and its
residents will be the accountability that Greenlight Energy takes in maintaining and servicing
any roads that handle additional traffic to support the construction phase of the project.
Grover's roads are mostly dirt and current handle a very limited amount of traffic. Heavy
construction. equipment constantly put on the roads my require them to need additional
maintenance. At this time Greenlight Energy has expressed a firm commitment to
maintaining and servicing construction route roads as necessary.
Sin e ,
Mat hew D Ososky
Mayor, Grover Colorado
I STREET ADDRESS] • [CITY/STATE] • ]ZIP/POSTAr. CODE(
PHONE: fPHUNE NUMBER] • FAR: [PAX N11MTAR)
Hello