>>>Submitted Comments<<<

I am strongly in favor of the proposed Hesperus solar project. Please note that most of claims on the
https://stophesperussolar.com/ website appear to be highly exaggerated or flat out not true. E.g. The electrical
power from the proposed solar farm will feed into the Hesperus substation which in turn feeds eastward to
Durango, Bayfield, and Pagosa Springs. (I have a map (which I can provide) of the electrical transmission lines.)
The additional provider of local electricity provides increased competition for generation of electricity which
should lower electric rates for everyone involved.

Please approve this project and move on. This land has been overgrazed for generations, has no mineral values, and there's no reason to prevent it from being converted to its best and most productive use for the benefit of its property owner. If neighbors don't like it, they can ask the County for a more restrictive land use code.

This Comment rebuts Bill Butler’s 11.28.2022 Comment. The truth about Primergy’s Hesperus Solar, whose 500,000 panels would cover an area larger than Lake Nighthorse, is: 

The four claims on stophesperussolar.com are accurate.

No energy generated by Hesperus Solar will be utilized by local residents. Mr. Butler obviously does not know how electricity is distributed to Durango, Bayfield, and Ignacio. After being transmitted to the Tri-State substation, the power will be transmitted out of the area. Tri-State transmits electricity to distribution coops for home delivery. The distribution coop for Durango, Bayfield, and Pagosa Springs is LPEA. LPEA has publicly stated it has no interest in Hesperus Solar. This is not an issue of competition between local providers, but an issue of a massive utility project whose negative impacts far outweigh any positive impacts for the county and should be sited elsewhere.

For additional information about Primery’s proposed project, and that isn’t limited to a comment box, please see my webpage at http://www.durangobill.com/DoNotStopHesperusSolar/DoNotStopHesperusSolar.html . The webpage also includes an electrical distribution map that “perhaps” refutes Mr. Spear’s assertion that "Mr. Butler obviously does not know how electricity is distributed to Durango, Bayfield, and Ignacio." Note: Mr. Spear was incorrect to state "Ignacio". As noted in the comment and on the webpage, the community is Pagosa Springs.

We are writing to express our DISAPPROVAL OF and to PROTEST AGAINST the proposed 1900 acre Primergy INDUSTRIAL SOLAR complex on La Plata County route 141 (Wildcat).   The proposal indicates that the complex would stretch for 3 miles from county road 136 to state highway 140.  There are many reasons NOT to build along this corridor, as follows:

·        Much of this corridor is heavily wooded and is a high priority habitat and wildlife migration corridor for deer, coyotes, bears, and mountain lions.

·        This corridor is an elk winter range.

·        An estimated 344 acre feet of water would be used during the construction of this proposed solar complex.  Water is already scarce as this area is known as the “dry side”.

·        As all the trees would be cut down, the solar complex would create a heat island effect causing temperatures in this area to increase by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees.  As those of us living on cattle/former cattle range land just south of this proposal can attest, summer temperatures are already unbearable sometimes ranging into the mid-90’s.  Combined with the intensity of the sun at this altitude, this would create untenable heat for residents of the area.

·        This area was a former hunting ground for the Southern Ute tribe and a travel corridor for cavalry soldiers, including a buffalo regiment and, as such, is an area of many archaeological deposits.  We know this personally as we have found arrowheads and cavalry uniform buttons on our land just south of this proposed solar complex.

·        The 500,000 proposed solar panels would create intense daytime glare and light pollution on moonlit nights.

·        There would be no benefit to county residents as the California solar company would be selling the generated power to Denver area power companies.  No permanent jobs for county residents would be created.

·        Increased fire danger due to the solar panels, as exhibited by incidents at other solar complexes, including in California.  An area firefighter has stated that there are often lightening strikes on this higher ground which would also contribute to fire danger.

·        Herbicides would be used to destroy vegetation around the solar panels thus creating ground pollution which would seep down to we homeowners that live south of this proposed complex at a higher altitude than we southern neighbors.

·        Periodic washing of the panels would use precious water resources and again, the waste water would flow downhill to neighbors.  The application for this complex states that 5 acre feet of water would be used twice a year to clean the panels.

·        The solar complex would result in reduced area property values of 5 to 25%, depending on the proximity to the solar farm.

·        The breathtaking views of the San Juan mountains would be destroyed by the 14 foot high solar panels and the proposed 8 foot high metal fence surrounding the solar complex.

·        The life expectancy for this solar complex is 45 years.  What will become of the solar panels no longer in use and the destroyed environment when the solar complex is no longer utilized?

To create this solar complex, the land, which is gently rolling will be graded, gravel will be laid, then the 14 foot high panels would be constructed.  This sounds like a horrible use of pristine rural land as it would destroy forest, grazing and farm lands.

 The Director of Development for Primergy stated in correspondence to CPW on September 16, 2022.  “We acknowledge that our project would be a significant loss of range for big game wildlife and other animals that can’t travel through our fence openings.  We hope that these modifications will promote big game movement permeability and minimize impact to wildlife.”  This is a false statement as deforestation will not minimize the impact to wildlife nor will this proposed complex minimize the numerous negative effects to the environment and the homeowners.

 We have nothing against solar and, in fact, have 24 solar panels on our house roof which provide much of our electricity.  However, this proposed solar complex has too many negative implications for our area and the environment.  If Primergy, a California firm, wishes to supply electric to the Denver area, perhaps a better location would be on the eastern plains of Colorado closer to its intended customers.

Sincerely,

Mr. and Mrs. John W. Marcum, Jr.

Highway 140

Hesperus, CO  

The practical value of having a backup local source of electricity should not be ignored - by society or local authorities. In Feb. 2021 large parts of Texas ended up freezing in the dark for days after the "grid went down". "How Long Would Society Last During a Total Grid Collapse" (Video).

Electricity is not just a luxury. It is a necessity of modern life

Conversely, Hurricane Ian devastated Florida in late Sept. 2022, but the "Babcock Ranch" subdivision ( "America's first solar-powered town.") escaped without loosing electricity. (CBS News video)

"The storm obliterated the nearby Fort Myers and Naples areas with record-breaking surge and winds over 100 mph. It knocked out power to more than 2.6 million customers in the state, including 90% of Charlotte County.But the lights stayed on in Babcock Ranch." Full text and video links at my webpage at:http://www.durangobill.com/DoNotStopHesperusSolar/DoNotStopHesperusSolar.html 

Do not allow this solar project.  Little pristine is left and a solar field will fill it.  I support the comments of the lawyer, Barry, who wrote a letter to the paper.  His points were excellent and well thought out.

La Plata County staff and Commissioners, 

Please protect Critical Wildlife Habitats and deny Hesperus Solar a permit to build its solar project and destroy wild lands. 

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot". Change parking lot to 500,000 solar panels - once built, the land can never be restored to its original beauty and ecology. 

Please deny this permit. 

Thank you, Susan Hicks

To whom it may concern, my primary concerns with the development of a solar project of this magnitude is the removal of agricultural land from production and habitat for multiple species, including elk. I have seen many changes in the county over the past 12 years and have witnessed first hand the increasing challenges that development and habitat loss have on wildlife movement and their mortality. In the wake of COVID and the disastrous impact on food distribution and transportation, it seems irresponsible to remove any type of agricultural land from production. In my opinion, there will be no long lasting goodwill for the community or jobs but there will be a long lasting visual scar on a landscape that is becoming more and more important to protect.

I've spent 35 of my 41 years here in La Plata County and am very invested in our community. At first blink the idea of solar is appealing in the sense of renewable energy, but upon further research, it seems curious and strange that Primergy chose wildlife habitat at the foot of the La Plata peaks for this project. Truly, this doesn't make sense. Please thoroughly review this proposal - as of now, it doesn't seem to make sense for our county. Full disclosure, my father and stepmother, along with other folks I grew up with, live in Hesperus and created Stop Hesperia Solar.

Electricity is not just a luxury. It is a necessity of modern life Conversely, Hurricane Ian devastated Florida in late Sept. 2022, but the "Babcock Ranch" subdivision ( "America's first solar-powered town.") escaped without loosing electricity. (CBS News video) "The storm obliterated the nearby Fort Myers and Naples areas with record-breaking surge and winds over 100 mph. It knocked out power to more than 2.6 million customers in the state, including 90% of Charlotte County.But the lights stayed on in Babcock Ranch." Full text and video links at my webpage at:http://www.durangobill.com/DoNotStopHesperusSolar/DoNotStopHesperusSolar.html

I am against this project. This is agricultural land and wildlife habitat. There is absolutely no benefit to La Plata County and the local residents. Please build it somewhere that is already desecrated like decommisioned coal-burning plants or gravel pits. Thank you for your time. Donell Deane

A agree with Barry Spear's comments in the Herald on 1/15/23.  This is not the place for such a project.

The “No benefit for La Plata county” statement by the obstructionists is emotionalism that is not consistent withreality. The location for the proposed Solar energy project is financially optimal for providing low cost electricityto the Durango, Bayfield, Pagosa Springs (dead end) branch of the grid. All are supplied by the Hesperussubstation.

On June 8, 2022 Jessica Matlock (CEO of La Plata Electric) was one of the authors of a statement that said:

“Much is written and said about the clean energy transition. While it looks a little bit different for every utility, atits core the transition is about finding a flexible, reliable power supply that takes advantage of local clean energysources, manages rates, and ensures a sustainable future.”

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/clean-energy-tri-state-la-plata-poudre-valley-san-miguel-power-association/625084/

Details at: http://www.durangobill.com/DoNotStopHesperusSolar/DoNotStopHesperusSolar.html

View the article here

Dear Mr. Grigg,
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Draft Elk Herd Management Plan for Data Analysis Unit E-30, the Hermosa Elk Herd. My focus in this letter will be directly related to the proposed 500,000 panel Primergy Hesperus Solar Project, located on 1920 acres, and its impacts on the E-30 Hermosa Herd. Unfortunately, the DEHMP SW Region does not even address how CPW should respond to impacts presented by industrial scale solar plants such as the Primergy project. Having reviewed the DEHMP SW Region, and the HEHMPE DAU E-30, topics I will cover include:
I. Declining Calf/Cow Ratios and General Herd Decline
II. Cumulative Loss of Habitat
III. Need for Further Study
IV. No Specific Plan for Industrial Solar
V. Loss of Revenues to County & State
VI. Closing Suggestions
I. Declining Calf/Cow Ratios and General Herd Decline
CPW’s Mission: The mission of Colorado Parks and Wildlife is to perpetuate the wildlife
resources of the state, to provide a quality state parks system, and to provide enjoyable and sustainable outdoor recreation opportunities that educate and inspire current and future generations to serve as active stewards of Colorado's natural resources. (See https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/ )
CPW’s Priorities: “Conservation of Colorado’s big game herds and overall wildlife habitat
protection are among CPW’s highest priorities”. (SW DEHMP Pg i)
“… we work to manage and conserve elk populations, other wildlife species, minimally
fragmented and secure wildlife habitats, and naturally functioning ecosystems for generations to come.” (SW DEHMP Pg i):
Problem:
With the above statements in mind, I would like to begin with the data in your plan analysis showing a steady 20 year decline in calf/cow ratios along with general herd decline. In Figure 3 of the SW Region DRAFT plan, the E-30 calf/cow ratio is shown to be at the most critical level, with a 5 year average of 28 calves to 100 cows (HEHMP E-30 Pg 102). Furthermore, current post-hunt herd population estimates for 2021 were 6,100 elk, despite the population objective of 7,500-9000 set in 2020 (SW DEHMP Pg 102).
I agree with CPW when they state, “The most significant issue that the Hermosa Elk Herd faces is the lack of calf recruitment. Calf to cow ratios have steadily decreased since 2006 and have been below 30 calves per 100 cows three of the past four years.” CPW HEHMPE E-30 Pg 102
II. Cumulative Loss of Habitat
Based on CPW’s own research, the steady decrease in the E-30 Elk Herd, and the decreasing calf/cow ratio can be traced to the cumulative loss of habitat and fragmentation caused by:
Development on Public and Private Lands; Traditional and Renewable Energy Development & Production; Migration and Travel corridors are restricted or blocked; Decline in Habitat Quality (Winter Range); Increasing Recreation Pressure; Increased Highway Traffic; Population growth (CO Western slope to increase by another 67% between 2020-2050,CPW SW DEHMP pg. 2) CPW’s statements concerning habitat loss and fragmentation:
…”habitat loss and fragmentation stemming from residential, recreational, and industrial
development compounded by the long-term effects of human population growth and climate change present the greatest risks to Colorado’s elk population. CPW, SW DEHMP Pg 3 
“Habitat fragmentation and reduced connectivity is of increasing concern as Colorado elk
attempt to navigate through their annual cycles between seasonal ranges. The connectivity between the available habitat that is left is fractured, impacting the quality of habitat elk use through their life cycle from summer to winter ranges. Ultimately, these impacts and ongoing habitat loss will reduce Colorado’s carrying capacity for the renowned elk population we presently support.” CPW SW DEHMP Pg 3
Comment Letters on Draft Plan (2020), Appendix E30-A.
I concur with SJBHPP and USDA, Forest Service in their below comments suggesting that loss of habitat, particularly winter range, is directly related to the health of the E-30 Elk Herd.
“Adequate habitat, particularly on winter range, is critical to meeting game management
objectives.” San Juan Basin Habitat Partnership Program, George Malaise, Chairman 2020
“All three Draft HMP’s describe winter range being a limiting factor for elk herds in the San Juan Basin. The HMP’s also state that winter range is continually being lost due to development (residential, energy, and recreational), and will be lost at a greater rate with the expected human population growth.” United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
“Loss of habitat from development influences both carrying capacity and harvest management, and CPW research shows that undeveloped lands have decreased from… 32% to 21% in E-30.
The draft plans then state “With a shrinkage of winter habitat we can expect to see a reduction in the elk population.” United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
“The SJNF shares CPW’s concerns with respect to population growth and habitat loss,
particularly the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to elk winter range.” “E-30 populations have declined overall from 1998….” United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service “…managers and the public are increasingly concerned over cumulative and prolonged impacts disrupting migration and decreasing quality and quantity of habitat.” United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
III. Need for Further Study:
Currently, there is an elk collar study being conducted in the E-30 Hermosa Elk Herd Area by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, which will not be completed for at least another season.
The SW DEHMP notes that CPW is instituting elk monitoring areas in several herds across the state in an effort to learn more about elk survival, habitat use, movement, and migration patterns, “with monitoring to begin in the winter of 2022/2023 and be conducted annually.” (SW
EHMP Pg i) Based on the fragile state of the E-30 herd, it is assumed this herd is part of this study?
Around 2005-06, a map was created for the La Plata County Board of County Commissioners and Planning department in collaboration with DOW. The purpose was for the planning department to keep development away from Critical Wildlife Habitat, and prevent funneling wildlife towards highways and county roads. The land parcels designated for the Primergy Hesperus Solar Project show as HIGH and MED/HIGH “Critical Wildlife Habitat”. (To see the map. Go to the county GIS website - https://gis.laplata.co.us/laplatajs/ Under search, enter parcel number: 590910200009. Click Map layers button - (+) scroll down, choose planning and land use layers - +, scroll down, select critical wildlife habitat.)
CPW’s own Elk Concentration and Range map, highlights the Primergy Hesperus Solar Project to be located in an Elk Winter Concentration area and an Elk Production Area directly north of the proposed project. In correspondence with Primergy, the project area is listed as “High Priority Habitat.”
CPW notes, “Altering habitat quality and quantity through land use activities can have significant and long-term impacts” (CPW SW DEHMP Pg 3)
With the inundation of massive utility scale energy development sweeping the west (please see article Industrial Solar Disrupts Big Game Movements, Christine Peterson, 2022, wyofile.com), and in particular western Colorado, it is my recommendation that CPW conduct a new study to provide guidance for the county regarding these massive projects. Included in this study should be new mapping, completed in coordination with the LPCBOCC and County Planning Department to site high priority wildlife habitat which should be avoided for large scale development. Along with this, I suggest that all current studies, including the SUIT Study, be completed prior to CPW making any recommendations regarding the Primergy Hesperus Solar Project (other than to “avoid”) to the County. In addition to further study, I suggest that a major portion of CPW’s DEHMP be directed at land use conservation. Without the proper study, planning and conservation efforts, it appears not only unlikely that the E-30 15% population
increase goal set by CPW will be realized, but that calf/cow ratios and elk herd health will
continue to decline.
Comment Letters on Draft Plan (2020), Appendix E30-A.
I support the LPCBCC, the USDI, BLM, and the DAC, FS, in their recommendations below for further study by the CPW, with the focus being to increase elk herd health by protecting high priority habitat, particularly winter range, and avoiding development in these areas.
“CPW’s mapped activity areas and species ranges (specifically winter range and production areas) are critical for herd population and require management actions to reduce conflicts.
Management actions in these areas are essential to serve as protection of the fundamental and distinctive habitat areas necessary for elk reproductive success and recruitment. It is understood that elk herds across the southwest landscape are facing declining calf recruitment. Additional research is needed and supported by La Plata County in order to understand the source of this decline as well as management actions that can be put into place to aid calf recruitment. La Plata County continues to support seasonal closures and area access restrictions in order to protect winter ranges and production areas and would consider supporting an extension in these timelines if CPW can provide scientific evidence that it will directly benefit the Hermosa elk herd.” “Supporting CPW’s capacity to manage and plan for priority elk habitat within and surrounding recreational areas, both existing and proposed, benefits our local community and creates extensive economic value to our area.”
La Plata County Board of County Commissioners: Clyde Church, Chair, Gwen Lachett
ViceChair, Julie Westendorff Commissioner.
“Prior to selecting an alternative that may increase objectives, CPW should demonstrate that utilization in winter concentration areas are acceptable and can support an identified
increase.” United States Department of Interior, BLM, Connie Clementson, Field Manager:
“E-30 populations have declined overall from 1998….” “ Based on this information, the SJNF would like to encourage CPW to collect additional utilization data in elk winter range areas.” “Based on the Forest’s winter range habitat analysis and anticipated loss of elk habitat in the DAU’s we recommend CPW establish herd management objectives compatible with current and projected habitat resources and capabilities in winter range.” United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
No Specific Plan for Industrial Scale Solar:
With lucrative federal renewable energy incentives, the west is being overwhelmed with
industrial scale solar and land intensive green energy projects. Private land makes up 33% of the E-30 Hermosa Herd. (HEHMPE E-30 Pg 102). Currently, there is no effective utility site management placement plan in place in Colorado, at the county level, nor at the CPW level.
On page 103, paragraph one of the HEHMPE E-30, CPW sites cumulative impacts to critical habitat, including winter range, migration corridors, and production areas, caused by population growth, energy well development, and outdoor recreation. Industrial scale solar and land intensive green energy are not listed in this paragraph, though their potential negative impacts could be as great or greater than any of the impacts listed in the report.
In the SW DEHMP report, the US Department of Interior Secreterial Order 3356 and SO 3362 were listed as offering protection to big game species and their habitat. Of particular interest was SO 3362, directing “DOI agencies to improve habitat quality to ensure the long-term viability of big game and other wildlife populations, particularly migration corridors and sensitive winter ranges for elk, deer, and pronghorn.” ( SW DEHMP Pg 4)
I suggest that CPW reach out to USDI to see how SO’s 3356 and 3362 might offer some
protection for the fragile E-30 Elk Herd, in particular, with regards to the Primergy Hesperus Solar Project. With declining elk herd numbers over a 20 year period in the Hermosa Herd, I suggest further study is warranted on the impacts of industrial scale energy development on large game species, prior to making any recommendations at the county level. I also recommend that industrial scale energy projects be placed on hold until the county and state can get guidelines in place for proper citing of these facilities. It makes sense for industrial scale utility project impacts to be part of the CPW Elk Herd Management Plans.
I agree wholeheartedly with CPW’s Best Management Practice for Solar Energy
Development 2021 statements below, and feel these important protocols should go
beyond looking good on paper, but actually be implemented by CPW and the county.
“Big Game Species: It is recommended that developers work with CPW to identify high priority habitat for ungulate species within the proposed project area. CPW recommends avoiding development in big game winter range, parturition areas, and migration pathways or pinch points.” (Pg 3)
“Protection of core wildlife areas, quality fisheries and habitat, big game production and winter range, and other sensitive wildlife habitats are of highest importance….Projects that are large in scale, expand development into remote or previously undisturbed areas, displace wildlife from crucial habitat, or cause a significant loss of habitat are of greater concern. Due to the large land requirements and the project rate of development utility-scale solar has the potential to significantly impact wildlife populations in Colorado.” (Pg 1)
Comment Letters on Draft Plan (2020), Appendix E30-A.
In their below comments, LPCBOCC make it clear that they are looking for guidance from CPW to restrict and avoid projects which are proposed in critical elk habitats. I suggest that CPW actually take the lead as suggested by the LPCBOCC and follow their own guidelines, recommending avoidance as the only viable option for the proposed Primergy Hesperus Solar Project.
“Development in Critical Elk Habitats- “It is recommended that CPW prioritize winter range and production area mitigation measures or restrictions when responding to required permit notices
for development activities within La Plata County.” La Plata County Board of County
Commissioners: Clyde Church, Chair, Gwen Lachelt ViceChair, Julie Westendorff
Commissioner
Loss of Revenues to County & State:
According to CPW, hunting, angling and other wildlife related recreation contribute over $5 billion annually to the Colorado economy. (CPW SW DEHMP Pg 1)
With consistent and continued elk herd decline in the the SW region, including DAU E-30, fewer
hunting licenses are being issued. This loss not only affects direct revenues generated by
license fees, but impacts all local businesses who rely on hunters to support them.
Like the oil and gas industry, renewable energy development should be regulated at the state and local levels with regards to the permitting process, especially around communities and with respect to wildlife. If the proposed Primergy Hesperus Solar Project was an oil and gas project, they would have to look at wildlife maps provided by Parks and Wildlife and site the facility outside of those sensitive habitats. If oil and gas wanted to move forward with siting in sensitive wildlife habitats, there would be a strenuous permitting process. Taking out 1920 acres of winter concentration area for elk, oil and gas would have to compensate the state to offset the impact. As an example, oil and gas would pay approximately $1375 an acre, for direct habitat impact . There would also be indirect impact losses/costs figured in to the total at the discretion of CPW. This would total out to $5-10 million if this was an oil and gas project. Of course, if the wrongly sited Primergy Project moves forward, they will have to pay nothing, even if they do not perform any promised mitigation.
Comment Letters on Draft Plan (2020), Appendix E30-A.
I agree with Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, SW Chapter when they state:
“CPW should identify compensatory mitigation strategies for energy development in critical winter range, recreation impacts in summer parturition areas and close coordination with local governments in planning and zoning urban and exurban development.“ “CPW should seek similar authority through the Governor to protect big game herds.” Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, SW Chapter.
Closing Suggestions:
The sad truth of what is happening to the great elk herds of SW Colorado is a slow death by 1000 cuts. With the development of the Hermosa Valley, Three Springs, and Lake Nighthorse, these herds have been under increasing pressure due to fragmented and lost habitat. Now with the proposed Primergy Hesperus Solar Project essentially removing an additional 1920 acres of critical wildlife habitat for winter range, parturition, and migration, time will tell if the cumulative effects on elk and other wildlife populations reach a critical tipping point where these species can no longer adapt. Without proactive and robust intervention and protection, the E-30 herd will likely continue to decline only to be eventually lost forever.
Is CPW willing to decrease elk herd size in order to accommodate more development?
Colorado’s elk, deer, wildlife and pristine environment are an irreplaceable resource. There are many developed and degraded lands suitable for utility scale solar energy development.
According to The Nature Conservancy, there are enough degraded and contaminated lands in the United States which could be used for solar siting, to power the US well beyond 2050. As many of us know, there are not many lands suitable for elk and wildlife. I suggest that CPW expand beyond management of the E-30 elk herd and its population objectives simply by limiting hunting tags, and takes the proactive step of making the conservation and protection of high priority habitat a major part of its herd management plans.
Avoid, minimize, mitigate. These are the guidelines CPW uses to help protect our states most valuable resource; its wildlife and environment. Based on Primergy’s unfortunate project siting in a critical elk winter range and migration corridor as evidenced by your own maps, shouldn’t there be only one recommendation - to avoid? I suggest a strong recommendation to “avoid.”
This appears critical to CPW achieving the 15% elk population increase for DAU E-30
recommended in its management plan, as evidenced by their own statement:
“Managers and the public are concerned over the cumulative and prolonged impacts of
development and recreation, which is distracting migration and decreasing the quality and
quantity of habitat. Actions to enhance and protect critical elk habitat will be essential to
increase the elk population. (HEHMPE E-30 Pg 103)
I would like to close with CPW’s own true words:
“Colorado would not be the same without its iconic elk herds, and it is incumbent upon
the citizens of Colorado to altruistically work together to promote the continued
existence of elk and other wildlife. By protecting and enhancing elk country, we ensure a
future for may other wildlife species, and maintain some of the wild places and spaces
that make Colorado special.” (SW DEHMP Pg 6)

Best Regards, 

Holly Hagan (970) 769-2525,
424 Miramonte Drive, Hesperus, CO 81326
PS - On a related note, I find it troubling that Peter Foote, Land Use Coordinator, CPW, in his July 5, 2022 email to Primergy staff, closed his letter with the statement:
“I look forward to working with you as this project progresses with the goal of finding
solutions that will benefit wildlife and Primergy.” Peter Foote, CPW July 5, 22 to Garrett
Parker & Kathryn Meyer Primergy
Not only does Peter veer from CPW’s neutral “recommendation only” position, he actually
acknowledges that his goal is to find solutions to benefit Primergy.

Annala comment letter

No solar farm!

I live near the proposed site. We are a high elk migratory area including the proposed site. Not with standing, the potential noise pollution from the build, toxic chemical run offs, high traffic during the build, and the ugliness of the site! We don’t want you here!

Say no to solar project in Hesperus, Colorado

This project is a California based greedy project that will not benefit the surrounding area in any way. The area proposed is right through the heart of an already struggling elk migration corridor. There are many options east of I-25 where this project could make sense, but the Hesperus area is not an area where a large scale solar panel project like this should take place. The damage caused to the local agriculture and wildlife of the area will be considerable. Please deny this!!!

Primergy Comments - Mark Hutson 030623

155 MWs of Solar Panels would be better sited around the now decommissioned San Juan Plant, west of Farmington, NM. This decommissioned plant already has industrial equipment in the vicinity, has a lower snow load, and has existing high-voltage electrical infrastructure that has spare capacity available.If the Hesperus Solar Project goes further Tristate G&T will have to upgrade facilities located at their Hesperus Substation Facility, located on CR 136. This will add to vehicular traffic in the vicinity. The road to the substation is unpaved and will add dust in the area for existing property owners.The San Juan Plant also location is advantageous because of the proximity to the existing synchronous generation located at Four Corners Plant. A large solar plant, such as Hesperus Solar at 155 MWs, is an inverter-based resource. Inverter-based resources are better served in proximity to synchronous generation for grid support in the event of a fault or transient condition.

Absolute rubbish. The noise, glare, pestisides, peace and quiet, well water, no local jobs, kids health, fire risk, risk of cancer, cost to decommission. Has every elected official and government worker in the planning department lost their ever loving minds? We do not need or want this distructive CALIFORNIA company coming into our State and County to make money off of our backs. VOTE NO! The land owners wanting to sell for profit should not be a consideration when the risk to our community is immeasurable.

Please do not permit the proposed, over-sized solar project in Hesperus. While renewable energies are critically needed, this development is too big, and in the wrong place. Valuable open space should not be sacrificed when more effective use can be made of already degraded areas, and the number of red flags on this particular proposal are alarming.As a long-term resident of Hesperus, I appreciate your consideration of my comments.

Absolutely insane. Developing critical wildlife habitat, on this scale, in a county that is already experiencing a large increase in population and development, what a terrible idea. Where are our priorities? Is it to protect an already diminishing elk herd that’s seen a steady decline in available habitat for decades? It seems not. And for what, perhaps a little tax revenue? Meanwhile, out of state companies/investors profit, wildlife suffers and the local residents deal with the consequences of a project this size. While utility scale solar is an important part of our energy transition, this is simply not a good location for a project of this size. A better location, the coal fired power plants in NW New Mexico, locations that will forever be burdened by years of mining and coal ash disposal.

Annala Comment 2/28/23

Butler Comment 2.28.23

article re: national opposition to industrial scale solar facilities

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2023/02/23/across-the-country-a-big-backlash-to-new-renewables-is-mounting/