Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy Wildlife topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wildlife staff urges relocation or $6.4M mitigation for Drunkard's Wash solar; company tax offer disputed
Summary
Division of Wildlife staff told the council that relocation of the Drunkard's Wash solar project is their preferred alternative and that mitigation funding sought for wildlife impacts totals about $6,400,000; staff said a new solar tax does not substitute for mitigation.
Colton Taylor, filling in for the wildlife lead, updated the council on wildlife concerns related to the proposed Drunkard's Wash solar project.
Taylor said the division's top alternative is relocation of the project because the development would remove crucial winter range and could not be fully restored: "our number on all alternative is still to relocate the project," he said. He added that if relocation is not feasible, the agency's second alternative is mitigation funding, which the wildlife division set at approximately $6,400,000. Taylor cautioned that a new state tax on solar and wind — which the developer has referenced — is not equivalent to mitigation and should not be counted as such.
Council members asked about recent county conversations and a reported county figure; Taylor said he had not seen documentation of a county agreement and that the division had not concluded a mitigation deal. Staff said they would notify the council if formal offers or written mitigation proposals arrived.
