Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Mitigation Species5 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EFSEC staff to draft resolution applying 0.6‑mile and 2‑mile buffers for Horse Heaven hawk nests
Summary
The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council directed staff to draft a resolution applying 0.6‑mile buffers for 39 nests and 2‑mile buffers for six other nests under Species 5 mitigation criteria for the Horse Heaven wind project; staff will post the draft for public comment ahead of a council vote.
Council members of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on Sept. 17 signaled support for staff recommendations on Species 5 mitigation around documented ferruginous hawk nests at the Horse Heaven wind project in Benton County and directed staff to prepare a draft resolution for public comment.
The draft resolution will implement the 0.6‑mile buffer recommended by the project’s Pre‑Operational Technical Advisory Group (pTAG) for 39 nests and apply a 2‑mile buffer for nests labeled B, C, D, E and F, while staff recommended not making a determination at this time on Nest A. "FSEC staff recommend applying the buffer unanimously recommended by the pTAG for the 39 nests," staff told the council during the meeting.
The recommendation grew from pTAG technical work and subsequent staff review. Amy Moon, FSEC project staff, said the council should decide whether to adopt the pTAG consensus buffers and asked members for initial direction so staff can draft a decisional document. Staff told the council the draft resolution and any proposed revisions to the site certification agreement would be posted for public comment and returned to the council for action at a subsequent meeting.
Council members who spoke — including Nate Pamplin and Stacy Brewster — expressed support for staff’s approach and for the pTAG’s technical work. Brewster said the 39‑nest consensus was “an easy decision” and supported using two‑mile radius buffers for the other nests. Pamplin and others thanked staff and pTAG participants for the technical analysis and deliberations.
Staff and council discussed timing for council action after public comment. Staff said they aim to post the draft resolution for public comment ahead of the council’s October meeting and indicated they could attempt a special meeting the week before the regular October meeting if the council could assemble a quorum. Council members weighed the public‑comment implications of an earlier special meeting versus leaving the matter for the regular October session.
Next steps: staff will prepare a draft resolution that (1) implements the 0.6‑mile buffer for the 39 nests where pTAG reached consensus; (2) applies a 2‑mile buffer for nests B–F; and (3) defer making a determination on Nest A. The draft will be posted for public comment and returned to the council for a future vote; staff also noted the possibility of scheduling a special meeting if the council can make itself available.
No formal vote or final decision was made at the Sept. 17 meeting; the action recorded is council direction to staff to prepare and post a draft resolution.
