Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Mitigation Horse Heaven topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
FSEC adopts Resolution 3‑57 setting nest buffers for Horse Heaven Wind project
Summary
The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on Oct. 15 adopted Resolution 3‑57, partly approving and partly denying requests to place primary infrastructure within 0.6 to 2 miles of documented ferruginous hawk nests for the Horse Heaven Wind Farm application.
The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council on Oct. 15 adopted Resolution 3‑57, partly approving and partly denying requests to place primary infrastructure within 0.6 to 2 miles of documented ferruginous hawk nests for the Horse Heaven Wind Farm application.
The resolution implements mitigation measure “SPEC 5” in the project’s site certification agreement, which establishes conditional setbacks to protect ferruginous hawk nests. Council members voted in favor after staff explained that the Preoperational Technical Advisory Group (PTAG) provided site‑by‑site technical advice and that the council’s action applies the mitigation measures already analyzed in the project’s final environmental impact statement and SCA.
FSEC staff said draft Resolution 3‑57 approves the certificate holder’s request to site primary components within 0.6 to 2 miles of 38 nest locations, denies siting of primary components for four nest locations where the PTAG advised greater protection was required, and declines to decide on two nest locations pending additional authorization or requests.
Staff reported a public comment period that ran from Sept. 30 to Oct. 13 and said it received 56 comments, many raising issues outside the narrow scope of Resolution 3‑57. Several commenters argued the PTAG should have followed the Open Public Meetings Act or that county representation should continue; FSAC legal counsel told the council that the PTAG provides technical advice and is not an OPMA meeting body, and explained why a previously appointed county representative was not required to remain on the council for this implementation decision.
Legal counsel also advised the council that the PTAG’s review is technical and intended to implement existing mitigation in the SCA and final EIS, not to develop new mitigation. SEPA staff told the council the PTAG work does not meet the criteria for a supplemental EIS under Washington Administrative Code because there are no substantive changes to the proposal and no significant new information showing likely significant adverse impacts.
After amendments for clarity and minor clerical corrections, Council member Pamplin moved to adopt Resolution 3‑57 as amended; the motion was seconded and the council adopted the resolution without recorded opposition.
Staff also told the council they are reviewing multiple wildlife survey plans required by the SCA for other mitigation measures — including plans for striped whipsnake, burrowing owl, prairie falcon, jackrabbits, Townsend's ground squirrel and a pre‑construction bat monitoring plan — and that further PTAG reviews are anticipated.
The council’s action implements mitigations already analyzed in the project’s site certification agreement and final EIS; staff said the outcome will not change the project’s layout beyond what the EIS and SCA anticipated.
The council scheduled no additional action on Resolution 3‑57 in the meeting record; staff will continue regulatory coordination and PTAG work tied to SCA mitigation requirements.
