SLVRCA Comment Letter On Tessera 1041 Application

San Luis Valley  
Renewable Communities Alliance

November 19, 2010
Saguache County Commissioners
P.O. Box 326
Saguache, CO 81149
Sent via email to: wmaez@saguachecounty-co.gov
RE: Comment Letter on Tessera Solar 1041 Permit Application
Dear Saguache County Commissioners,
Dear Commissioners,
Saguache County Resolution No. 90 LU-15, commonly called the “1041 Regulations”, empower
you, as the sole permitting body, to investigate, assess, and determine the outcome of the first
industrial solar proposal submitted under these regulations. That this is the first time our county
government has entered into the 1041 permitting process for the purposes of evaluating an
industrial solar facility is precedent setting.
The implications of the Tessera Solar 1041 application resonate well beyond our county. If
approved, this would be the first industrial-scale solar development in the State of Colorado, its
impacts, known and unknown, enormous. Quite literally, the future of Saguache County is at
your discretion and the welfare of its Citizens in your hands.
A national consensus is emerging on how to do solar right (see http://solardoneright.org). The

high cost to communities, the environment and ratepayers of remotely sited industrial scale
solar generation renders it an option only of last resort.
The mission of the San Luis Valley Renewable Communities Alliance is to promote local energy,
food and community self-reliance while sustaining our unique sense of place, intact landscapes,
ecosystems and rural, agrarian way of life. To this end, we have worked to inform and engage
the people of Saguache County in the Tessera Solar 1041 process in the context of the long-
term resilience and sustainability of our communities, because this proposal and others to follow
have enormous consequences for our shared future.
P.O. Box 447 Saguache, CO 81149 Tel: (719) 256-5780 contact@slvrenewablecommunities.org http://slvrenewablecommunities.blogspot.com/
San Luis Valley Renewable Community Alliance Comment on Tessera Solar 1041 App 
After considerable review and discussion, we agree that the Tessera Solar Application fails to
meet important standards required for approval. Tessera and its contractor Ecosphere have
consistently attempted to circumvent the 1041 process in order to gain approval while avoiding
or minimizing compliance with county, state and federal regulations. Your decision to accept
Tesseraʼs application as complete despite your 1041 consultant and advisor Nancy Lauroʼs
opinion that it was not complete and despite the failure of Tessera to provide many important
details critical to making informed decisions and despite, sets a dangerous precedence that
threatens to undermine the intent, purpose and legal requirements of the 1041 process.
In the end however, the process must be followed. Approval of Tesseraʼs Application can be
granted only if the proposed project complies with all 19 of the Criteria for Decision under
Section 13-306 of the 1041 regulations. Our members have reviewed Tesseraʼs application
materials carefully, conducted research and solicited expert review where needed. In
conclusion, we found that Tessera Solar fails to meet the following Criteria for Decision:
ALTERNATIVES
CRITERIA FOR DECISION - C: All reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, including
use of rights–of‐way wherever uses are compatible, have been adequately assessed and the
proposed action represents the best interests of the people of this County and represents the
best interests of the people of this county resources in the impact area.
Alternative sites considered
In the final application, Tessera Solar North America (TSNA) analyzed 10 alternative sites in the
San Luis Valley based on 5 criteria: (1) Contiguous land area of at least 1500 acres, (2)
proximity to transmission, (3) access to surface water rights, (4) availability of land for lease or
purchase, (5) minimization of impacts, exclusion areas and sensitive receptors. At the request
of the Commissioners, three “wasteland” sites (Alternatives H, I, and J) were also included in the
alternatives analysis.
Alternative A.
The site avoids wetlands, major drainages and other exclusion areas and is well away from
“sensitive receptors” such as conservation areas and residents. Although it met all of Tesseraʼs
criteria, the site was rejected from further consideration because “site control could be difficult
with three different land owners including private land owners, BLM and the State of Colorado”.
  2 
Other solar power developments are being implemented under multiple land ownership and
legislation has been passed at both the state and federal level in support of using BLM and
State lands for solar energy development. Tessera provides no evidence for why land
ownership issues would be irresolvable on this site.
Alternative D (proposed project site).

The comparison of the preferred site relative to the other alternatives did not include analysis of
several “sensitive receptors” that, if assessed equally, would have resulted in an unsuitable
finding. The site is located in a primary drainage (the Ball Arroyo branch of Saguache Creek)
subject to periodic flooding that potentially supports 800-acres or more of National Inventory
Wetlands. While the report states that only 11 residences occur within 1 mile of the preferred
site, the Public Participation Report acknowledges 28 landowners, many of who live and work
within 300-feet of the proposed site including a large certified organic beef operation
immediately adjacent to the proposed site. The sites close proximity to Russell Lakes and
Mishak Wildlife areas that serve as important refugia for migrant birds and other wildlife, was
also not considered. Based on Tesseraʼs own criteria, the proposed site could just as easily be
considered unsuitable.
Alternative E (De Tilla Gulch/BLM Solar Study Area)

Although the site met all of Tesseraʼs other criteria, this alternative was rejected for lacking
sufficient contiguous land, being a mix of private (84.3 %) and public BLM (15.7%) ownership
and visual impacts to US Hwy 285. The report makes no mention of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) designation of the 1,520-acre De Tilla Gulch Solar Study Area in this
vicinity. In 2009, the BLM approved a 1,500-acre solar PV project on the site although the
company pulled out due to lack of financing. With federal prescreening, permit clearances are
almost assured, conferring a unique advantage of the De Tilla Gulch site.
Alternative F
This site is Tessera Solarʼs proposed expansion area that Tessera presumably deems suitable.
Alternative G
This site was found to be suitable except for active agricultural operations. Other industrial
solar facility proposals are moving forward on cultivated land in the San Luis Valley. Cultivated
lands that lack surface water rights will likely be withdrawn from production when the new water
rules go into effect in 2012 and are thus considered most suitable for solar development by local
water user and environmental groups (see: http://www.slvec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10&Itemid=10).
  3 
Alternative H
This site was deemed unsuitable because of its east-flowing drainage, proximity to Russell
Lakes Wildlife Area and extensive wet meadows – traits very similar to the proposed/preferred
site. The Ball Arroyo and Werner Arroyo run roughly parallel in an east-flowing direction and
form the southern branches of the larger Saguache Creek drainage. The proposed site is close
to the Russell Lakes and Mishak Lakes Wildlife Areas (see Biological Review below).
Alternative I
This site is on classified “wasteland”, which Saguache County Commissioners directed TSNA to
consider as alternatives to the proposed/preferred site. In addition, the 9,100-acre site is within
the Closed Basin – a remote part of the Valley already impacted by irrigation canals, wells and
other project infrastructure. The site was rejected because of an existing, but undefined
conservation easement, significant visual impacts to Hwy 17 and the absence of “visable
surface water” on the site, despite it being part of the Closed Basin irrigation canal project.
Tessera does not explain why proximity to Hwy 17 is problematic. The SunEdison and Sun
Power utility scale solar facilities are both sited adjacent to Hwy 17. The San Luis Valley Water
Conservancy District has supported Tessera and other solar developers efforts to secure
augmentation and other necessary water rights. There is no reason to believe Tessera would
have trouble securing water necessary to develop this site. Given the counties preference to
site industrial solar development on impacted wastelands, Tessera doesnʼt demonstrate an
attempt to resolve these potential constraints.
Alternatives not considered
To meet the objectives of the Tessera Solar proposal to (1) provide clean, renewable, solar-
powered electricity, (2) assist Colorado energy companies in meeting their legislatively
mandated obligations under Coloradoʼs Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, and (3)
assist energy companies in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in the production of
electrical power, the 1041 regulations also require analysis of (1) alternative types of facilities,
(2) non-structural alternatives, (3) a no development alternative, and (4) design alternatives.
Alternative types of facilities
Although the Application states that other alternative types of facilities were evaluated, including
other solar technologies and distributed generation, insufficient details were provided to assess
the merit of these alternatives.
  4 
Nonstructural alternatives not considered
The county has a number of options for helping Colorado meet its 30% by 2020 Renewable
Energy Standard goals and reducing C02 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) including, but not
limited to:
1. Improving energy efficiency and increasing local energy generation. Policy

incentives such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing and Feed-in
Tariffs are proven and cost-effective ways to incentivize energy improvements and point
of use clean energy generation. Colorado passed legislation this year for a state-funded
PACE program that has unfortunately been stalled by Federal mortgage institutions.
Nonetheless, numerous efforts are underway to resolve the dispute and itʼs expected
that these innovative and popular programs will be back on track in the very near future
(http://ase.org/efficiencynews/legislation-legal-action-aim-safeguard-pace). Interest in
PACE in Saguache County is high and the Commissioners have received a great deal of
encouragement to move ahead on this important front.
2. Reducing atmospheric carbon through improved land management practices.

Saguache Counties agricultural sector has enormous potential to contribute to carbon
emission reductions. Improvements in agricultural practices could potentially increase
soil and plant carbon and GHG sequestration up to 40% above current levels at the
same time improve water retention, crop and animal quality, production and health,
reduce costs and increase natural capital and land values. The resulting offsets could
well compensate for the loss of revenue from the proposed 145 MW solar generation
plant. The removal of vegetation and disturbance of a 1,525-acre, 2.3-mile2 area will
release significant, but unknown, amounts of C02 and dust into the atmosphere. Until
this contribution is factored into the C02 equation, an accurate accounting of the avoided
carbon emissions from the TSNA proposal cannot be made.
Tessera did not provide a no development alternative.
Tessera did not provide air and water pollution control alternatives.
Tessera did not provide design alternatives, however below we provide a discussion of potential
alternatives for the Countiesʼ consideration.
  5 
Phased development based on 9MW increments
In learning that the SunCatcher technology was assembled in 9 MW units, the commissioners
expressed interest that TSNA provide a 9 MW phased alternative in their final application. Such
a phased approach would allow TSNA and the county to review operations, require adjustments
in design weaknesses and mitigate undesirable impacts before proceeding with each
subsequent 9 MW facility. While TSNA led the Commissioners to believe this was forthcoming,
only a “full build-out” alternative was submitted.
Alternatives that would avoid the significant visual, noise, drainage/wetland and adjacent
landowner impacts of the preferred alternative were not considered. For example the use of
alternative technologies, particularly the low profile, solar photovoltaic (PV) technology that
would not incur the huge visual and noise impacts from the SunCatcher technology. TSNAʼs
parent company, Stirling Energy Systems (SES), recently formed a strategic partnership with
the Boeing Company (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/04/stirling-
energy-systems-reaches-cpv-deal-with-boeing) to acquire exclusive rights to Boeingʼs XR700
high-concentrated photovoltaic (HCPV) solar power technology. Tessera Solar will be
responsible for development, construction and operation of the solar power facilities. The quiet,
low-profile XR700 PV technology aimed at smaller scale projects of 50 MW and below, was not
included as an alternative in the TSNA Application.
Distributed generation
The Saguache County Solar Guidelines (Section 3.1.3.) state that “Saguache County
encourages the use of solar technologies and solar energy development models that: minimize
surface, wildlife and visual impacts; result in minimal consumptive use of water resources; do
not rely on fossil fuel burning cogeneration methods; provide net positive benefits to County and
other affected local residents; demonstrate and encourage energy conservation; and reflect
appropriate scale”.
The unique nature of solar energy is its availability virtually everywhere that the sun shines.
Therefore, developers are not constrained by location or available contiguous land like they are
with conventional energy resources. The built environment provides many locations for solar
and wind energy generation including rooftops, parking lots and garages, road and utility right-
of-ways, vacant lots, brownfields, highway strips and more. The possibilities are endless.
  6 
In 2005, the Energy Foundation released a study prepared by Navigant Consulting and Clean
Energy Research (http://www.newrules.org/energy/news/assessment-solar-power-rooftops).
The study was the first of its kind to do an assessment of the rooftop solar photovoltaic market
potential on a state-by-state basis. This study identified more than 38,000-acres of suitable
commercial rooftop space in Colorado, enough to generate more than 3,000 MW of solar
electricity. The potential for point of use distributed energy generation is very great but was not
considered in the TSNA Application.
Bill Powers presented compelling testimony to the California Public Utility Commission on the
Tessera Solar Imperial Valley project that should be given serious consideration by the
Commissioners (www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solartwo/.../2010-07-26_Transcript.PDF).
During a 2010 visit to the San Luis Valley, Mr. Powers toured the 8.2 MW SunEdison and 17
MW SunPower distributed solar development sites and learned the history of solar innovators in
the SLV. In his expert opinion the “San Luis Valley is doing everything right to become the
nations first grid-supported microgrid”.
The evidence is growing that distributed renewable energy generation is, indeed, the faster,
cheaper, smarter and greener path to a renewable energy future. A new report, Community
Power: Decentralized Renewable Energy in California (http://www.scribd.com/doc/43054149)
provides an excellent overview of the many advantages of distributed generation. More
information is available at Solar Done Right: http://solardoneright.org/.
Remote Industrial Solar Not Cost Effective
Bill Powers most recent publication, Federal Government Betting on the Wrong Solar House
(http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/105559587) uses the Tessera Solar project in
Marfa, Texas as a case study in cost-based solar energy project selection:
CPS Energy was developing a 27-megawatt Tessera Solar dish engine project in West Texas.
The power-purchase agreement (PPA) between CPS Energy and Tessera was recently cancelled
due to Tesseraʼs inability to get project financing at the agreed-upon PPA terms. The cancelled
Tessera project was subsequently replaced with three 10-megawatt distributed PV projects to be
built around San Antonio. The PPA rate for the CPS distributed PV projects is $150 a megawatt-
hour. There will be no transmission cost, as these projects will be built within the San Antonio
demand center itself.
What is true for San Antonio is also true for the San Luis Valley. Current cost-of-energy data
  7 
disclosed in the recent Colorado Public Utility Commission hearings

(http://www.smartvalleyenergy.com/index.php/get-informed/puc-documents) reveal that solar
thermal cost of energy is significantly higher than the cost of energy from the distributed PV
projects being developed in California at costs similar to that in Colorado.
Distributed solar technology (DG) can be located on existing structures or disturbed areas so
little to no new ground disturbance would be required; there would be few associated impacts to
biological and cultural resources. Additionally, impacts to soils and waters as well as visual
resources would be reduced. Numerous DG examples are emerging throughout the US.
Rooftop PV systems and parking lot systems exist in small areas throughout the San Luis Valley
but even more potential exists on the tens of thousands of corner sections of crop circles. The
Monte Vista Farmers Cooperative identified more than 120,000-acres of unused corner pivot
circles that would be ideal for distributed solar PV.
According the Solar Energy Research Institute (now the National Renewable Energy Lab), the
San Luis Valley has more per capita solar installations than any other place in the US. We will
soon generate 100% of our average daytime electricity demand through local solar. The SLV is
an example of how communities throughout Colorado can become energy self-reliant through
distributed renewable energy generation.
And last, consideration needs to be made to available transmission. The proposed new
transmission line into the San Luis Valley is currently facing a strong legal challenge that could
take years to resolve. Given the uncertainty of a new powerline, there is no guarantee that
TSNA will ever be awarded a Power Purchase Agreement.
  8 
MITIGATION AND MINIMIZATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS - Dawn Anderson, Environmental

Protection Specialist and Julie Sullivan, Blue Range Ranch, adjacent landowner.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION – D: A satisfactory program to mitigate and minimize adverse

impacts has been presented.
Comparison of Tessera's Maricopa, AZ Plant with the Proposed Tessera SLV Project
Maricopa, AZ Proposed SLV Why This Is Important 1041
Plant Project applicability
60 Suncatchers 5,728 Suncatchers 95 times bigger than AZ plant which is Does not
total currently the largest facility in the US meet criteria
using this technology. More noise for 1041
potential. Permit (a,b,d)
Located in an Located in The urban area is better suited for this Does not
urban, industrial agricultural area technology since background noise is meet criteria
area already present from busy roads and for 1041
highways. No residential adjacent to the Permit (b,e)
Maricopa property.
Hydrogen gas is Hydrogen gas will See Hydrogen Facts Chart
delivered to site be generated
onsite
Air temperature Winter air Suncatcher technology not rated for Does not
rarely falls to or temperature temperatures this low. Suncatcher meet criteria
below 32 degrees commonly below technology not tested at these for 1041
F. freezing and not temperatures. Permit (i)
uncommon to fall
below zero
degrees F.
Temperatures can
fall to 40 degrees
below zero.
No fuel storage Proposing 2,500- No mention in application of state Does not
gallon diesel and regulatory agency that regulates meet criteria
2,500-gallon petroleum storage tanks (OPS). for 1041
gasoline ASTs Reporting authority for spills not Permit (a,d)
accurately stated. Potential for spills
exists. No SPCC plan.
Paved roads to the Gravel road to the Puts burden on the county to improve the Does not
facility facility road. If road is paved, puts burden on meet criteria
ranchers for driving cattle. for 1041
Permit (c,f,g)
~1,125 ft above sea ~7,500 ft above Technology not proven at this elevation.
level sea level
Some Located in largest Sound effects not studied in our alpine Does not
hills/mountains, but alpine valley in the valley setting. meet criteria
not surrounded world and for 1041
  9 
surrounded by Permit (a,b,d)

mountains
Uses water for dust Proposing Soiltac From Soiltec MSDS: HAZARDOUS Does not
control for dust control DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS meet criteria
Thermal decomposition may form: Acetic for 1041
acid and Acrolein. Thermal Permit (a,d)
decomposition may produce various
hydrocarbons and irritating, acrid vapors
(at what temperature???)
Maricopa site Purpose not stated Technology not proven. Maintenance costs likely be
purpose is not to for SLV project, higher at the SLV site. Investors have pulled out of
make money and it but assume it is to smaller project in Marfa, TX. Profitablility is questionable.
is not making make money. Risky for the county.
money.
Wind typically not Wind gusts in Technology not proven in these Does not
strong excess of 75 mph conditions. meet criteria
common in the for 1041
spring Permit (i)
Cattle feed lots Certified Organic Threatens Certified Organic status of Does not
nearby, but no working cattle neighboring rancher. No mention of meet criteria
known Certified ranch on adjacent contacting entity that grants certified for 1041
Organic working property. organic status with an approvable Permit (d,f)
cattle ranch. monitoring plan. Need, at a minimum, a
map showing where monitoring wells will
be located, depth and screen intervals of
monitoring wells, sample plan including
what the groundwater will be tested for
and frequency of testing. Use of Soiltac a
possible threat to organic certified status
of adjacent ranch operation. Plan should
be pre-approved by certified status
appointing agency.
Power Purchase No Power Profitability is questionable and certain to fail without a
Agreement in place Purchase buyer. Investors pulled out of a smaller project in Marfa,
Agreement TX. Risky for the county.
Depth to Depth to Shallow groundwater table makes it Does not
groundwater is groundwater is easier to contaminate groundwater (less meet criteria
deep shallow vertical distance to travel), which can for 1041
(~5 ft bgs) mobilize contaminates, making cleanup Permit (a,d)
more costly and difficult.
TABLE A: Comparison of Tessera's Maricopa, AZ Plant with the Proposed Tessera SLV Project
  10 
CRITERIA FOR DECISION – D: a satisfactory program to mitigate and minimize adverse

impacts has been presented, Julie Sullivan
After TSNA presented their preliminary application, the BoCC and Nancy Lauro responded with
a significant and detailed list of missing information that was critical to determining the scope of
the projectʼs impact on the county. Without adequate and essential studies regarding key
elements of the project, it is impossible to estimate the impact to surrounding land, water,
households, groundwater, wildlife, agricultural operations, etc.
The final application, when submitted, addressed few of these points, and left most
unaddressed. While some of these points were later addressed in some form in an addendum,
TSNA has stated that they were unwilling to do further studies or more detailed plans prior to
approval by the county, and that studies and plans would be developed as the project
proceeded. In a number of instances, TSNAʼs response to the request for further detail is to
note that they will us Best Practices. Given that there are no solar sites of this size or scope in
TSNAʼs history or anywhere in the USA, there are no Best Practices for this type of site.
As stated above, without detailed studies and plans required by the 1041 process, which the
BoCC is ON RECORD as having stated are necessary for thorough review of the project, the
application is incomplete and concerns regarding mitigation cannot be addressed. The BoCC
has acted unwisely and perhaps illegally in backing away from the extremely clear requirements
of the 1041 process, as well as backing away from its own requirement, stated publicly, that
TSNA needed to provide key studies, maps of road, power lines, hydrogen lines, wastewater
treatment, culverts, and other particulars of site design, hazards, and mitigation.
In particular, the following areas of the application are incomplete as far as impact and
mitigation is concerned:
NOISE:
Setbacks in revised plan do not adequately mitigate for dBA levels at property line. DBA level
will exceed county limit of 10 dBA above current ambient levels. The noise analyses done for
TSNA and noted in “Response to BOCC Comments on the Final 1041 Application”, Sept. 2010,
indicates baseline ambient noise level at 34 dBA. This ambient dBA level is far higher than that
recorded by independent noise study—these studies indicate (ambient dBA levels at whisper
level). Therefore, project noise levels both during construction and post-construction operation
of facility will be FAR in excess of current dBA level. The document states that “TSNA will
mitigate construction noise levels” but offers no information on HOW mitigation will be done.
  11 
This same document states that TSNA will likely pursue a variance for non-compliance for
operational noise levels. This document also states “to meet the 45 dBA level at the property
boundary would required removing most of the SunCatchers.” TSNAʼs own analysis therefore
indicates that the project will not adequately mitigate noise impact.
In addition, the BoCC stated in their meeting of October 5, 2010 that they would pursue an
additional noise study, when citizens reported discrepancies between dBA levels in TSNA
studies and the dBA levels recorded by citizens at the Maricopa site. To our knowledge, this
study has either not been done or the results have not been released to the public.
VISUAL IMPACT
Nancy Lauroʼs analysis of the preliminary application noted “the visual impact of the project is an
issue identified by area residents that will be very difficult to mitigate and will result in a change
to the existing character of the area.” Final application was to include “a map of the areas
within view of the project and a map of access and travel routes, public areas, and the
residential areas that will have a view of the project.” These maps were not included in the final
application. Nor, despite repeated request, did TSNA provided visual simulation of the project
when SunCatchers are in full face-on position in relation to viewpoint. All visual simulations
offered in both preliminary and final application are of SunCatchers in profile position.
Table ES-1 Impacts Summary Table, submitted with the final application, notes “Significant
modifications to view sheds within 1 mile of the SLVSP for the entire life of the project. Adverse
but not significant effects to view sheds between 2 to 5 miles. …Viewers may experience glint
… and glare (during normal operations).”
The only mitigation measure proposed is a setback from the property boundary. TSNAʼs own
analysis indicates that this mitigation is not sufficient to offset impact to businesses and
residences within 1 mile of project.
WATER USE/RIGHT
TSNAʼs final application offers little to no mitigation related to water use/rights. Nor has TSNA
done studies to determine how the SLVSP will be affected by the recharging of the aquifer, to
begin in 2012 that will restore surface and subsurface hydrology to the site.
The addendum to TSNAʼs final application indicates that the preferred water supply option is to
use the on-site 10-acre ft. of water, and augment via water purchased from the SLV Water
Conservancy District. TSNA states that there is no irrigation season for this water. That is not
  12 
true: as of this year the State Engineer has determined an irrigation season for this water. Use
of the on-site water will require a change of use filing with Water Court, which may or may not
be approved, given that local hydrology indicates that this change of use WILL impact sub-
irrigation water levels on adjacent property, which will provide injury to surrounding landownersʼ
property, and businesses. The change of use will also impact historic seasonal surface flows,
which will begin to return to pre-1990 levels as of 2012 and will restore historic wetlands, which
Ecosphere has chosen to disregard despite clear evidence from the hydrological study done by
Davis Engineering. Current TNSA plans to avoid impact to wetlands will NOT be adequate, as
the footprint of the revised site will impact the return of historic wetlands.
In addition, neither the addendum nor the final application includes a detailed plan regarding
storage, treatment and disposal of on-site water, which was requested by the BoCC and Nancy
Lauro. TSNA erroneously states that there is no irrigation season for this water; the State
Engineer determined an irrigation season for the entire SLV Basin including the Saguache
Creek drainage, as of this year. Therefore seasonal storage may be necessary and no plan for
this has been submitted.
TSNAʼs final application addendum states that on-site water may be treated. No detail of what
will be used to treat water has been submitted, therefore impact and mitigation cannot be
assessed.
TSNA did not submit detail related to culverts and road crossings that impact surface hydrology
and wetlands as these factors change with the recharge of the aquifer-again, this will occur
beginning in 2012. With no adequate detail of these elements, it is impossible to assess what
mitigation is needed to offset impacts, as these impacts have not been adequately studied and
reported.
STORMWATER/GRADING
Nancy Lauroʼs analysis of TSNAʼs preliminary application noted, “the proposed project will
required re-grading and site disruption of the majority of the 1525 acre parcel.” She also noted
that the preliminary site plan offered inadequate detail to determine the impacts of this
disturbance. The final application also failed to provide this detail, and Ms. Lauroʼs response
notes several significant concerns that need further study and mitigation proposed. In response
to these concerns, TSNAʼs addendum of Sept. 2010 states that TSNA is not going to provide
such detail until the project is approved, as it is unwilling to commit funds to such studies. They
also make vague statements that they will comply with all federal and state regulations
regarding storm water management. They offer NO details as to how they will do this, if it will
  13 
be adequate, if they have actually studied the flood capacity of the site, etc. Clearly, TSNA has
not adequately studied these issues and analyzed the impacts; therefore they have not provided
adequate mitigation plans.
Her comments on the final application state “The final application failed to provide a more
detailed site plan. This failure makes it difficult to review and assess many impacts in addition
to storm water.” She goes on to note that water treatment, culvert location and size, run-off onto
adjacent property, and many other items need to be addressed in detail prior to final review.
These details were not included of the addendum.
IRRIGATION/RECLAMATION
Ms. Lauroʼs comments on the preliminary application indicated that the application was
“somewhat confusing as to how interim reclamation will be provided and how it will be irrigated.”
She goes on to state that “In one location, the site states that the site does not have enough
irrigation water to be productive and only for a portion of the year,” and she questions if there is
sufficient water to establish vegetation and for other dust control measures.
Section 2.6, “Interim Reclamation”, of the addendum to the final application does not address
this issue. There is no mention of how TSNA will provide water sufficient to revegetate the site
during operation. Cross-ripping to relieve soil compaction will likely increase dust/air pollution in
the immediate and adjacent areas. Weed control may include chemical controls, which will
impact the adjacent certified organic cattle ranch via drift as well as runoff. This ranch has
consulted with their organic inspector, who believes there is serious risk to maintaining organic
status of the ranch—which will result in significant and serious loss of business. No mitigation is
noted regarding possible contamination from weed spraying.
While dust control is discussed in other areas of the application and these comments, we note
that this addendum makes no mention of how dust will be controlled during the years it will take
to restore vegetation on the site. Soiltac has been discussed as a dust control method; Randy
Arredondo has stated in public meeting that this substance is toxic. No mention is made as to
how TSNA will mitigate for possible off-site contamination from this substance.
Ms. Lauroʼs comments on the preliminary application stated that the final application must note:
“Modifications in drainage in particular should also be addressed in this plan.”
There appears to be no further clarity on these modifications or on how reclamation will restore
drainages.
  14 
TRANSMISSION/SUBSTATION
The location of the substation cannot be moved, according to Richard Knox, and its planned
location is a significant visual and probable auditory impact to adjacent landowners. No
mitigation for visual impact has been offered or is likely to be possible. Auditory impact will be
lessened due to the building itself. Details as to the actual footprint and structure are not
available, nor are details regarding the equipment. TSNA does not plan to offer these details
until after approval, therefore it is impossible to ascertain actual impact of visual, auditory, or
electromagnetic or other aspects of the substation. It is impossible to determine necessary or
adequate mitigation for unknown impacts.
AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS
The final application only notes the impact of removing the acres of the SLVSP site from active
agricultural use. It offers no analysis of impact or possible mitigation to surrounding agricultural
operations. Ms. Lauroʼs comments on the preliminary application stated that the final
application needed to “ proposed adequate mitigation for the neighboring properties engaged in
active agriculture. Possible impacts to consider include weed mitigation, fencing, protection of
adjacent organic operation, and use of pesticides, herbicides and protection from any overspray
or offsite drainage, among others.” The addendum to the final application does not offer
specifics as to the impacts to adjacent agricultural operations, or how these will be mitigated.
It is well known that invasive species increase when native groundcover is disturbed. The
SLVSP will disturb 1500 + acres, increasing the likelihood of invasive species spreading
throughout the site and onto adjacent agricultural operations, including a certified organic ranch
which cannot use chemical controls should such infestation occur. The addendum to the final
application notes weed control measures that include chemical controls, irrigation,
establishment of competitive species, burning, and insects. Herbicides of any kind could
negatively impact soil health and soil microbes, livestock health, water quality in both runoff and
groundwater, not to mention potential health hazards to the ranchers who work immediately
adjacent to the SLVSP site. Introduction of insects for control could inadvertently introduce a
species for which there are no natural predators, which could compete for food with beneficial
insects already part of the SLV ecosystem, or harm adjacent hay meadows and crops. Burning
on an industrial site full of hydrogen lines and chemicals seems unwise, especially given SLV
winds. And introducing competitive plant species will prove challenging with no water. No
mention of mitigation necessary due to increase in weeds or problems associated with the
control measures SLVSP undertakes, other than a slim buffer around the perimeter, is offered.
  15 
In addition, table ES-1 Impacts Summary states “The overall quality of the land as range will
increase after the site is restored.” This is an unsupported and unsupportable statement, given
the evidence in numerous sites in the Intermountain West in which millions of dollars have been
spent to reclaim sites that have not been successfully reclaimed. TSNA has not demonstrated
that they will be more successful than any other effort to reclaim rangeland after industrial use.
Basic soil science and grassland ecology indicate that TSNAʼs claim that the site will improve in
quality is under-researched.
WILDLIFE
In response to the preliminary application, Ms. Lauro states that the application should include a
“monitoring and mitigation plan so that the Commissioners can determine whether or not the
impacts to wildlife are being adequately mitigated.” Table ES-1 Impacts Summary submitted by
TSNA states that incidental mortality, habitat fragmentation and behavior changes due to the
construction period and operational noise are all impacts to wildlife. They recommend a
comprehensive monitoring and mitigation plan, and Richard Knox stated that similar plans are
being developed for the CA solar projects planned by Tessera. In a letter dated August 19, 2010
from Ecosphere Environmental Services to the Colorado DOW, Ecosphere states that they are
developing a monitoring program for the site, and that they intend to gather 2 years of data to
understand how wildlife may be impacted. How will they gather baseline data if the project is
already under construction? Adequate study and baselines need to be complete prior to the
beginning of construction. The BoCC will be unable to assess potential impact and necessary
mitigation prior to baselines.
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE IMPACTS
Ms. Lauroʼs response to the preliminary application stated that the final application should
address impact of workforce on “schools, social services and local housing”. It appears that this
analysis has not been done, therefore impact and mitigation cannot be determined.
Ms. Lauro also indicated that impacts to roads, noise, vibration must be addressed. As already
noted, TSNA indicates that the construction phase will have numerous impacts that exceed
county and state parameters and that they will likely pursue variances. A variance is not
mitigation. Areas of impact that will exceed parameters include air quality, noise, and wildlife,
with possible impacts of concern with water drainage, water quality, emergency and hazardous
waste.
  16 
ROADS/ACCESS
The main mitigation proposed for impact on County Road T is to pave the road. It appears that
the County will be required to pay for this, the cost of which will be passed along to county
residents in some form. During tough economic times, this is an impact the County and its
residents cannot afford. TSNA states that the projected revenue to the County will offset this
cost. However, revenues will not be generated until well after the cost of paving has occurred,
and the revenue projections are based on power generation estimates that have not taken into
account specifics of climate and standard estimates for down-time for any equipment of such
complexity. Cost to the County and its residents will not be mitigated by revenue for years, if
ever. TSNA has not provided adequate timelines as to the length of time it will take for cost to
be recovered.
Impact to surrounding residences and Impact cattle operations that use County Road T for
moving cattle on foot has not been assessed or mitigated. Triple the number of current trips on
County Road T (the projected increase during construction phase) will create an extreme and
potentially insurmountable challenge for ranchers who use the road for livestock
The addendum and final application has no detailed plan of roads within the site, therefore
impact and mitigation cannot be assessed. No detail as to how dust will be controlled on roads
within the SLVSP is included. Nor is any detail offered regarding road construction,
maintenance, etc. The Maricopa site uses water for dust control; this will likely not be an option
for the SLVSP due to water limitations. Soiltac is not allowed in the county in which the
Maricopa site is located; without thorough analysis of this substance it is impossible to know the
potential toxic impact of this substance and how it can be mitigated.
AIR/DUST POLLUTION
See above for concerns related to dust control. In addition, Ms. Lauroʼs response to the
preliminary application stated that TSNA needed to provide details as to enforcement of the
SLVSP site mph limits, covering of trucks, erosion control, etc. The addendum to the final
application has vague statements that monitoring will be done, speed limits will be monitored,
and a complete plan will be done in the future. This is an inadequate response and makes it
impossible to adequately determine air and dust pollution impacts of the SLVSP and how these
can be mitigated.
  17 
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
TSNA was to include full analysis of sedimentation, hazardous waste storage, and impacts to
water table and groundwater quality. Analysis of impact of pylon driving and impact of alkaline
water on pylons was to be included. Table ES-1 Impacts Summary indicates that there will be
no impact to groundwater from pylons being driven into ground, but no detail of this study is
offered. No mention of sedimentation is made in this table. No mention of potential reaction
between alkaline water and pylons in mentioned. No mention is made of hazardous materials
on ground water. TSNA and Ecosphere Environmental Services chose to ignore observations
made by the Davis Engineering study as this relates to presence of a high water table at
present, and how this water table will rise after 2012. TSNAʼs analysis of groundwater impacts
is insufficient and erroneous; therefore their analysis of necessary mitigation is inadequate.
As per the Army Corp of Engineerʼs 404 responsibility, careful review of documents submitted
by TSNA indicate that they have downplayed or dismissed findings made by Davis Engineering,
and have made no effort to determine how the recovering aquifer will restore historic
groundwater levels—all of which potentially increase the possibility of groundwater
contamination issues that must be analyzed in order to protect the aquifer and groundwater
quality on adjacent sites.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATBILITY
There is NO compatibility between an industrial-sized solar facility and the surrounding

business, residences, and open space and agricultural character of the land. A small buffer
along the perimeter fence is the only mitigation offered. This is inadequate. The 1041 Criteria
for Decision makes clear that the unmitigated-able nature of this project makes it inappropriate
in the extreme.
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER APPLICABLE REGIONAL, STATE AND NATIONAL PLANS
CRITERIA FOR DECISION – E: The nature and location of the facility complies with all
applicable provisions of the master plan of this County, and other applicable regional,
metropolitan, state, and national plans.
Saguache County Solar Guidelines/Noise Analysis
Noise is probably the most controversial aspect of Tessera Solar North America's (TSNA)
application for development of its San Luis Valley Solar Project (SLVSP). The noise that will be
  18 
generated by 5,760 SunCatchers (SCs) is an egregious issue that promises to be very

disruptive to the social and environmental ecology of Saguache County. One would think that
TSNA would be more forthcoming with information, data, and modeling parameters, presented
in a clear, unambiguous format about the real affects the noise that 5,760 SCs will generate.
They have, however, not done this. Instead, their presentations have included misleading
metrics, no verifiable information, and have obfuscated the real and theoretical effects their
project will have.
I. Metrics
In their final 1041 application, noise data was characterized using the same Ldn metric that was
used in the preliminary application. Published articles and public comments pointed out the
deceptiveness of this method of representing the data. So to meet these objections, TSNA
changed the final application and re-analyzed the sound data using the Leq metric. The results
are presented in their Addendum to the Noise Report (AdditionalInfoA-Noise.pdf). TSNA
doesn't define its calculation of Leq. However, based on the same ANSI Standard referenced
by TSNA, the Dixon Montana wind ordinance defines Leq as “the frequency-weighted equivalent
sound level. It is defined to be the steady sound level that contains the same amount of
acoustical energy as the corresponding time-varying sound.” This would imply an averaging of
the sound level over a period of time. Once again, this method inflates the existing background
noise level by 7dBA over recordings and analysis conducted by local resident experts.
Furthermore, if the analysis has been frequency weighted, that would have the effect of
reducing modeled projections of the sound level of the finished project. That information is not
supplied, but in their discussion of frequency distribution of SC noise, they only list frequencies
up the 12,500 Hz. The audible range for humans is up to 20,000Hz. Removing frequencies
over 12,500Hz from the analysis could have significant effects on the Leq value for SC noise
The term “ambient” is used in the Saguache County Solar Guidelines (SCSG) to describe
existing noise levels. However, as discussed in SunCatcher Noise Analysis (Tidd, Crestone
Eagle, Sept. 2010), other references in the same guidelines make it clear that the intent is to
limit the noise produced by new solar projects to 10dBA over the background noise, not the
ambient noise. For that analysis, the L90 metric is more appropriate, particularly for rural areas,
because it provides a representation of the true background noise level and is more
characteristic of rural noise rather than residential/city noise. This metric defines the quietest
10% of the overall noise experienced in an area, and since SC noise will become the new,
constant level, background sound whenever the sun is shining, L90 is more appropriate.
II. Weather effects
  19 
Based on the discussion of the modeling procedures used in the CadnaA sound modeling
software, it does not appear that the effect of weather is included the baseline projections.
Instead, TSNA has included this discussion in the noise addendum. They identify four weather
effects that could change the intensity of the sound generated by the SC field.
Cloud cover reduces the efficiency of an SC, so the sound produced is decreased according to
the density of the cover. Otherwise, cloud cover seems to have no effect on noise propagation.
Temperatures on the other hand can increase sound up to 8dBA under inversion conditions and
reduces sound under lapse conditions. Wind can have an effect on sound, producing a 1-2dBA
decrease for upwind receivers, and a 5-dBA increase for downwind receivers. Low humidity,
the norm in the SLV, adds up to 5dBA to the sound levels of some receptors, presumably those
that are closest to the field. Thus, low humidity, by itself has the potential to raise the predicted
noise level at 25' from the property boundary to over 60 dBA. On a cold, sunny, winter day, a
down wind observer could experience an increase in sound levels of 18dBA – almost a
quadrupling of the sound level and at 25' from the property line the sound could increase to as
much as 73dBA.
III. Noise Frequency

Table 3.5.1 of Appendix E: Noise of the TSNA's final 1041 application shows a frequency
distribution of the sound generated by a single SC. It is remarked that the peak frequency of
1000 Hz is similar to as human speech. To subtly imply that the sound of a SC is anything like
that of human speech is absurd. While having a strong peak at about 1000 Hz, human speech
varies in frequency from about 250Hz to 5000Hz. The distribution of SC noise does show a
peak around 1000 dBA, but it also shows relatively consistent amplitudes at frequencies from
125Hz to 12,500Hz, the maximum displayed. The variation between levels within this range is
less than 35%. This is type of frequency distribution is more consistent with static noise.
Furthermore, eliminating frequencies above 12,500Hz, in addition to reducing the Leq value
obtained, can have a strong effect on harmonics heard at lower frequency levels. Anyone who
has heard a SC will describe the sound as shrill, grating, industrial, and incessant. So when
discussing sound levels, the quality of the sound is very important.
IV. Public health and welfare

At one of the public meetings it was expressed that the effect of noise on public health was only
an opinion that could not be substantiated. To the contrary, innumerable studies have verified
that unpleasant sound can have detrimental health effects. The World Health Organization has
identified 7 effects of noise on health (search on “health effects of noise” and click on
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554566_3, among many others, for review and citations)
  20 
1. Hearing impairment
2. Interference with spoken communication
3. Sleep disturbances
4. Cardio-vascular disturbances
5. Disturbances in mental health
6. Impaired task performance
7. Negative social behavior and annoyance reactions
The US Center for Disease Control recognizes the detrimental effects of noise on health
(http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/noise/). The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission have established
stringent limits on sound produced by oil and gas drilling because of the public outcry over such
noise (http://earthworksaction.org/noiseresources.cfm#FOOTNOTE7). Municipalities
throughout the US have established strong controls on the noise emanating from wind turbine
fields because of the reported health effects.
Public welfare will also be threatened by the effect objectionable noise will have on property
values. Within an audible range of up to 10dBA over background noise (27dBA) property values
will probably decrease 20-30% based on studies looking at the effect of wind turbine projects on
surrounding property values. Above the 10dBA threshold, it's safe to say property values will go
to 0 because there will be no market for properties on which the sunrise to sunset noise of SCʼs
is loud enough to be objectionable. TSNA states that some receptor positions used in the
CadnaA model are located in positions that would represent future residences, but there will be
no future residences on those parcels because no one with any sense would intentionally build
a house there.
V. Noise Rules
In accordance with CRS 25-12-103, TSNA has reduced the original project design of 8000 SCʼs
to a mere 5,670 in the hope of achieving a 55dBA sound level at 25' from their property line,
according to their modeling projections. However, the very first sentence of CRS 25-12-103
states, “Every activity to which this article is applicable shall be conducted in a manner so that
any noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency, or shrillness.”
(http://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/states/colorado/colorado.htm) Thus, the 55dBA sound level
cannot apply in this case. The COGCC rules state that after January 1, 2007 new oil and gas
projects will be limited to 50dBA in residential/agricultural/rural areas between the hours of 7am
and 7pm, and that “The allowable noise level for periodic, impulsive or shrill noises is reduced
  21 
by five (5) db (A) from the levels shown.” i.e. 45 dBA. (http://www.oil-
gas.state.co.us/RR_Docs/Policies/Noise%20Rules1220.pdf).
To create this 55dBA sound level at 25' from their property line, TSNA proposes an approximate
200-foot buffer around the SC field. According to the CadnaA model predictions, such a buffer
will produce the required noise reduction. But how can this possibly be, when TSNA's own
sound measurements around their Maricopa Solar facility record a sound level of 66dBA at 200'
from a field of only 60 SCs. This fact from their own analysis brings into question the entire
validity of their model projections. To be in compliance with state rules regarding community
noise, the maximum size of SLVSP must be limited to the 1,080 SunCatcher, 27 MW size
shown in Figure 1 of the noise addendum.
Conclusion
TSNA has continually tried to mask and minimize the effects of noise. The metrics they use for
analyzing sound are dubious and ill defined. The entire sound projections of their modeling
software have been shown to be questionable. In point of fact, their entire sound analysis must
be considered suspect.
TSNA is asking the BOCC for permission to conduct operations that will increase the sound
levels in the surrounding area by a minimum 21dBA, and potentially as more than 39dBA, above
their own calculations of the “ambient” noise level. If you consider current “background” noise
levels, the increase will be 28-46dBA or more above current levels based on theoretical model
calculations.
Such noise levels would be intolerable to anyone living in the area. TSNA is asking the BOCC
for permission to endanger the health and welfare of the community with noise pollution that will
have far-reaching effects and will establish an industrial park in the heart of Saguache County.
Based on these facts, and since alternatives for solar development in Saguache County exist
that do not create noise pollution, the TSNA SLVSP 1041 permit must be denied. If, however,
the Saguache Board of County Commissioners approves the SLVSP 1041, at minimum the
development should be staged at 9MW intervals until the real world sound levels being
generated can be established. Continual independent sound monitoring and reporting should
be maintained until the 44dBA maximum allowable sound level is achieved. There, in
accordance with the SCSG's and Colorado State regulations, the growth of the project must not
be allowed to continue.
  22 
SAGUACHE COUNTY SOLAR GUIDELINES – Other provisions
The 1041 regulations apply generically to major facilities of a public utility but were developed
prior to the market emergence of industrial solar technologies. Therefore, the Saguache County
Solar Energy Facilities Guidelines provide important “gap” oversight specific to solar
development. The Guidelines define the standards for development review of the surface
impacts, natural resource protection requirements, and cost-benefit assessment issues for solar
energy facility construction and operation. In cases where Solar Guidelines are more
comprehensive or stringent, the 1041 regulations stipulate that the more rigorous requirement
will take precedence.
The TSNA Application makes only two references to the Solar Guidelines. It directly addresses
the noise requirements of the Solar Guidelines (see above) and makes a second passing
reference to the solar guideline requirements to “demonstrate that the benefits of the proposed
developments outweigh the losses of any productivity of agricultural lands” (pg. 46). TSNA
offers no data to support its presumed conclusion that the proposed project benefits will
outweigh the agricultural losses and fails to give an accurate accounting of the relative value of
the proposed project site with respect to beef production. Rancher George Whitten estimates
the potential of the 1,500-acre site, “based on its current carrying capacity of 281 head of cattle
per year is approximately $730,600/year. Multiplied by the 20-year expected lifetime of the solar
project, according to Whitten, “you get $14.6 million income to the area while maintaining or
improving a native grassland ecosystem that is perfect, 100% efficient, needs no roads, no
powerlines, nothing from the County except recognition and protection” (see “Cattle Ranching
as the soul & economy of Saguache County”, Crestone Eagle, Nov. 2010). How this compares
to the projected (but unproven) benefit to the County of the proposed project is not assessed in
the Application.
With the exception of noise and a brief discussion of costs and benefits of the proposed project,
the Tessera Application does not address the following requirements of the Solar Guidelines:
Operations
The Solar Guidelines require a Site Plan (Section 6.2.8) that shows the specific location of roads
and facilities, a Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development Plan (section 6.2.13), a Noxious
Weed and Introduced Species Prevention Plan and Water Quality Non-Point Source Impacts
and Mitigation and Avoidance plan (6.2.2.1), these Plans are absent from the TSNA Application.
  23 
Biological Assessment
Section 6.2.22 of the Guidelines require a site-specific Biological Assessment that identifies
presence of habitat for sensitive species and plant communities, wildlife corridors and migration
routes, critical wintering habitat, calving or other significant wildlife habitat and include an
analysis and evaluation of the impacts of the construction and operation of the Facility on any
biological resources identified, and proposed mitigation that, at a minimum, must meet the
requirements of the Saguache County Land Development Code.
In its letter to Tessera, the Colorado Division of Wildlife recommends a 2-year site study to
ensure an accurate assessment of wildlife values on the site.
If more wetlands are determined to be present on the site, the presence of Sensitive Species
could be significantly higher than what Ecosphere has estimated. In particular, ephemeral
mudflat, salt flat and alkali flat wetland types provide suitable habitat for many migrant birds.
Flood Hazards
Section 6.2.26, Flood Hazards requires a map showing the boundaries of a 100-year flood,
delineating the extent of flood waters on the proposed site and certification by a professional
engineer. The proposed site is located in Ball Arroyo, the southeastern branch of Saguache
Creek. Tesseraʼs Application (pg. 44, Section 2.7.3.) Extent of 100- Year Floodplain provides
no map or engineer certified delineation. Tesseraʼs preliminary site map and biological
discussion acknowledge the Ball Arroyo and historical flooding on the site, yet it erroneously
concludes that, “the site is not in the flood plain of any river or stream, and the potential for
stream flooding is negligible at the site”. One wonders if Tessera knows where it is – Ball
Arroyo and surrounding lands are well known to be subject to frequent flooding sometimes for
months at a time. In addition, the expected recharge of the Saguache Creek drainage, including
Ball Arroyo, starting in 2012 (see Whitten statement below), increases the probability that flows
will return to historical levels very rapidly.
Section 7.6.6.4, Site Characteristics, require a full description of natural hazards (including
flooding and wildfire) and other special designations under various provisions of the Land
  24 
Development Code, including significant recharge areas that are also not included in the
Application.
Compatibility with Existing Uses
Section 7.6.6.5, requires analysis of project compatibility with existing uses and those which can
reasonably be anticipated, based upon the present land use of properties located within the
surrounding affected area. Industrial solar development marks a radical departure from the
current and historical agricultural land use of the surrounding area. Industrialization threatens
property values, organic certification, water rights and numerous other values of adjacent
property owners and triggers a process of industrial sprawl that could undermine the unique
natural and cultural values of the entire region. The Tessera Application addresses none of
these compatibility issues.
Section 8.1, Rights and Responsibilities, recognizes the right of property owners to preserve the
value of their property, and the right of the county to regulate land uses to protect and promote
the health, safety and wellbeing of the public and environment. In this section the Solar
Guidelines set out specific criteria for siting solar energy facilities and mitigating negative
impacts of installations and operations. In order of importance, facilities must be located to
minimize negative impacts to: wildlife habitats, corridors and flyways, view shed, impacts to
adjacent residences and ongoing agricultural operations. In addition, they must avoid
wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; areas within a floodway of
a stream or river as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) or as determined by a
state licensed professional engineer. Facilities that cannot comply with these criteria may be
denied.
CLEAN WATER ACT – SECTION 404/WETLANDS
As noted elsewhere, the proposed site is located in Ball Arroyo, a south branch of the Saguache
Creek drainage. The site was historically dominated by wetlands included in the National
Wetland Inventory system. Ecosphere Environmental Services conducted the biological studies
for the TSNA Application. While their report acknowledges the historical presence of more than
880-acres of wetlands on the site, they conclude that all but 48-acres have “dried out”, are no
longer wetlands and are now “herbaceous meadows” as described below (pg. 48):
Herbaceous meadows are the largest vegetation community with 754 acres or 49% of the
project area. They usually occupied low-lying areas that were mapped as wetlands in the NWI
  25 
maps that have since dried out. These areas are characterized by high cover of kochia (Kochia
scoparia), with patches of Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) where the soils contain more moisture
(Photo 2-1). There are also some scattered, dense patches of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata).
Ecosphereʼs conclusion; that historical wetlands “have since dried out” is not supported by the
evidence. While irrigation pumping from the nearby North Star Farm has undoubtedly drawn
down the water table significantly, there are current soil and vegetation indicators that much of
the site is periodically covered in water. What has likely changed is the duration of inundation.
According to local ranchers (Virginia Sutherland, pers.con.), before North Star Farm went into
operation, the site and surrounding area was flooded for most of the summer season and into
the fall, whereas now it dries up more quickly, but much of the area is still under water for some
portion of most years.
“Herbaceous meadows” is a generic term not commonly used in the scientific community to
describe San Luis Valley plant communities. As described more fully in the Biological Review
below, Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) are commonly recognized
wetland plant associates that would not be present if the site were permanently dry, as
Ecosphere claims.
The hydrogeology study prepared for Ecosphere/Tessera Solar by AMEC provides additional
evidence that groundwater levels on the proposed site are "near or just above ground surface"
due to artesian pressure. The report states that "greener wetlands type vegetation was
observed in topographic low areas, indicating the water table is consistently very near
the surface in these areas" (pg 4-5/Prelim Site Eval). And "it should also be noted that the
water table was observed at the surface in numerous areas during a recent site visit
conducted by AMEC" (pg 6).
Our review indicates that what Tessera/Ecosphere defines as “herbaceous meadow” is in fact a
seasonal wetlands plant community. If this turns out to be the case, the potential impact to
wetlands (and associated wildlife) on the site could be significantly greater than what Tessera
has indicated. Adequate mitigation as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will
likely result in significant changes that affect the projects feasibility. This may explain why
Tessera has gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid compliance with the Clean Water Act.
The Army Corp of Engineers has not conducted a delineation of the site and until Tessera files
for the required 404 permit the extent of wetlands on the site is in serious dispute. Given the
  26 
uncertainty and potential for significant changes to the project design and mitigation
requirements, the County should proceed with great caution.
State Regulations - Dawn Anderson, Environmental Protection Specialist
Hydrogen production
The TSNA Final application does not include important information concerning hydrogen
production. Hydrogen is extremely flammable and explosive. The Department of Energy (DOE)
and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) have numerous regulations for
safety of storing, producing and transporting (including piping) of hydrogen. The Tessera
Application fails to reference either agency or the required regulations in the section discussing
hydrogen.
Additionally, the application completely discounts the risks of hydrogen:

“The potential fire or explosion risks for hydrogen storage and use at the SLVSP site is
not significant. Hydrogen gas will only be used outdoors in well-ventilated open areas,
which will allow the gas to dissipate to the atmosphere, thus mitigating the potential fire
and explosion risk.”
Incidents involving hydrogen explosions in outdoor conditions have been documented, due to
the “spontaneous ignition” trait that hydrogen has shown. To further complicate responding to a
hydrogen release/explosion, hydrogen burns with a flame that is nearly invisible to the eye,
putting fire responders at risk. Additional training of fire personnel puts an unnecessary burden
on the County and on taxpayers and the lack of such training increases risk to the public and fire
personnel.
Evaluation of the hydrogen system cannot be conducted, as details were not submitted.
Leakage of hydrogen is known to occur at piping joints and due to hydrogen embrittlement.
Hydrogen embrittlement can cause some materials it comes in contact with to become brittle
and prone to fracturing, which can lead to serious leaks when those materials are piping. The
leak rates are important because if they are significant, the amount of hydrogen required could
greatly increase. Since hydrogen will be generated onsite using electrolysis of water, a larger
demand for hydrogen increases demand for water and energy used to generate the hydrogen.
See Table B for additional details.
  27 
Hydrogen facts Why this is important Where to 1041

find it applicability
Very flammable and explosive Emergency personnel any chemistry Does not meet
in County must book criteria for 1041
respond in the event of Permit (a,h)
an explosion. Potential
loss of life and
structures. Burden to
county services and
taxpayers who pay for
the services.
Hydrogen embrittlement may occur Hydrogen piping and http://www.uni Does not meet
in some materials used for storing or storage material - criteria for 1041
transporting (such as piping) information not saarland.de/fa Permit (k)
hydrogen. This is where material included in application. k8/wwm/rese
becomes brittle and fracture If hydrogen arch/phd_bar
following hydrogen exposure. embrittlement occurs, noush/hydrog
leaks will be more en.pdf
common and more
hydrogen will need to
be generated, using
more water.
There are several hazards Hazardous, unsafe. http://www.ge Does not meet
associated with hydrogen, ranging Strains resources. neralmonitors. criteria for 1041
from respiratory ailment, component com/downloa Permit (a,f,h)
failure, ignition, and burning. ds/application
Although a combination of hazards _guides/HYD
occurs in most instances, the ROGEN_GAS
primary hazard with hydrogen is the _DETECTION
production of a flammable mixture, .PDF
which can lead to a fire or explosion.
Because its minimum ignition energy
in air at atmospheric pressure is
about 0.2 mJ, hydrogen is easily
ignited. In addition to these hazards,
hydrogen can produce mechanical
failures of containment vessels,
piping, and other components due to
hydrogen embrittlement. Upon long-
term exposure to the gas, many
metals and plastics can lose ductility
and strength, which leads to the
formation of cracks and can
eventually cause ruptures. A form of
hydrogen embrittlement takes place
by chemical reaction. At high
temperatures, for instance, hydrogen
reacts with one or more components
of metal walls to form hydrides,
  28 
which weaken the lattice structure of

the material.
Hydrogen leaks are typically caused Hazardous, unsafe. http://www.ge Does not meet
by defective seals or gaskets, valve Strains resources. neralmonitors. criteria for 1041
misalignment or failure of flanges or com/downloa Permit (a,f,h)
other equipment. Once released, ds/application
hydrogen diffuses rapidly. If the leak _guides/HYD
takes place outdoors, the dispersion ROGEN_GAS
of the cloud is affected by wind _DETECTION
speed and direction and can be .PDF
influenced by atmospheric
turbulence and nearby structures.
With the gas dispersed in a plume, a
detonation can occur if the hydrogen
and air mixture is within its explosion
range and an appropriate ignition
source is available. Such flammable
mixture can form at a considerable
distance from the leak source.
Incident example: During a standard Hazardous, unsafe. http://h2incide Does not meet
testing procedure, a 3,000-psig relief Strains resources. nts.org/incide criteria for 1041
valve actuated at normal line nt.asp?inc=15 Permit (a,f,h)
pressure, releasing gaseous H2. The 4
gaseous H2 combined with air,
resulting in an explosion that
damaged the test facility. Cause
The relief valve was improperly set
to open at line pressure, and the
inspection was inadequate in that it
didn't identify this error. Contributing
cause was poor design of the
venting system, which was installed
in a horizontal position, causing
inadequate venting and buildup of
static electricity.
  29 
Incident Example #2: A H2 air Hazardous, unsafe http://h2incide Does not meet
explosion occurred near a H2 (even in outdoor nts.org/incide criteria for 1041
compressor, located outside. conditions). Strains nt.asp?inc=14 Permit (a,f,h)
Gaseous H2 had been released from resources. 8
a vent stack when a relief valve was
actuated. The source of ignition was
not known, but considerable damage
was inflicted onto the system by the
ensuing fire and explosion.
Following the explosion, the shut-off
valves were closed and the system
was vented. Cause
Two relief valves were located in the
3,000 psig system downstream of a
5,000/3,000 regulator. The relief
valves were sized to handle
substantially different flows. (One
was designed for another program.)
The relief valve was believed to
have opened when the pressure
setting was being increased from
2,700 to 2,900 psig. The accuracy of
the 5,000 psig gauge used to control
the dome of the 5,000/3,000
regulator control combined with the
tolerance of the relief valve settings
(+-3 percent) was sufficient to open
the valve. Large flows were vented
due to the large relief valve. In
addition, the vent stack cap was
designed so that the vented gases
were released in a horizontal rather
than vertical direction.
This paper demonstrates the Safety under- http://www.pri Does not meet
ʻʻspontaneous ignitionʼʼ addressed in nceton.edu/~c criteria for 1041
(autoignition=inflammation and application and may ombust/resea Permit (a,f,h)
sustained diffusive combustion) from not be fully understood rch/h2_safety/
sudden compressed hydrogen yet for hydrogen gas. Dryer_et_al_
releases that is not well documented Many documented CST_179_20
in the present literature, for which cases of hydrogen fires 07.pdf
little fundamental explanation, where there was no
discussion or research foundation clear ignition source.
exists, and which is apparently not
encompassed in recent formulations
of safety codes and standards for
piping, storage, and use of high
pressure compressed gas systems
handling hydrogen.
  30 
a hydrogen flame is almost invisible Firefighters potentially http://www.pri Does not meet
even though the adiabatic flame need additional training nceton.edu/~c criteria for 1041
temperature is higher. to handle hydrogen ombust/resea Permit (a,f,h)
fires. rch/h2_safety/
Dryer_et_al_
CST_179_20
07.pdf
Hydrogen generator uses water to Since Tessera has not released any Does not meet
produce hydrogen. data from the experimental Maricopa the crieteria for
site to the public, leak rates of hydrogen 1041 Permit (g)
have not been disclosed. Application
may underestimate the amount of water
needed.
The Hydrogen generator will make Other than housing the generator in a Does not meet
noise. structure, there is no plan for noise criteria for 1041
control (soundproofing) for the noise Permit (a,b,d)
made to generate hydrogen.
Department of Energy codes not The Department of http://www.hy Does not meet
referenced. Energy has safety drogen.energ criteria for 1041
codes for hydrogen y.gov/codes_ Permit (a,f,h)
production and is not standards.htm
referenced in the l
Tessera application.
Who will check that
these codes are
adhered to?
Hydrogen generator uses electolysis Electrolysis is a process where an electrical current is used
for hydrogen generating. to break apart water (H2O) into hydrogen and oxygen. This
process uses both energy and water.
Table B: Hydrogen Facts
Other applicable state regulations not disclosed in the TSNA application:
Activity Regulatory Authority Permits obtained/

Process completed?
Hazardous waste generation EPA, CDPHE No information given
Fuel tanks OPS No information given

Wastewater Treatment Pond CDPHE, Water Quality No information given
Control Commission
Septic System installation CDPHE, Water Quality No information given
Control Commission
  31 
Hydrogen Gas Generation DOE, OSHA No information given
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

CDPHE: Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
OPS: Division of Oil and Public Safety

DOE: Department of Energy
TABLE C: State Regulations not addressed in Tesseraʼs Application
OPERATIONS AND CLIMATE – Keno Menechino, National Weather Service Cooperative

Observer and Weather Spotter
CRITERIA FOR DECISION – I: The facility site is not in an area with general meteorological
and climatological conditions that would unreasonably interfere with or obstruct normal
operations and maintenance.
Tessera Solar is basing its claims of survivability for its equipment on weather data that doesnʼt
apply to the proposed site. They are using weather stats from a weather station in Saguache,
Colorado, a location that experiences different weather conditions than the proposed site. They
should instead use data from the two weather stations in Center, Colorado. Anybody who has
lived here knows that the weather conditions in the foothills are very different from the weather
conditions out in the Valley floor. The Saguache weather data comes from a foothills weather
station; whereas the location for this plant is out in the valley floor. Although Saguache might be
a bit closer to the proposed site, the two official weather stations in nearby Center better reflect
the weather conditions that occur off of CR-T; and their stats would apply more to the conditions
experienced at T Road, than the stats from the Saguache station. Any meteorologist from our
main weather office in Pueblo, Colorado, will tell you this.
According to Tesseraʼs own specifications, -22° (F) is the limit of Suncatcher survivability.
During the lifetime of this equipment, there will be many days when that temperature reading will
be reached and surpassed, based on data from both of Centerʼs weather stations. The
proposed site can expect to see such temperatures, at the least, for several nights in the dead
of winter, every 3 years on average. On days when the nights are this cold, you can expect to
see high temperatures rise very slowly in the morning hours. The equipment may not operate
for more than an hourʼs time on such days. Then there is the question as to what will happen to
this equipment on the nights when the temperatures drops to below -22°, even if the equipment
is turned off. It should be noted that the second coldest temperature reading ever recorded in
  32 
Colorado (-50°F) took place in the SLV at Alamosa, Colorado, just 37 miles south of this
location.
In regard to wind speeds, all valley locations see much more wind than the foothill communities.
According to Tesseraʼs specs, this plant cannot operate when winds reach 35 MPH. This would
mean that for several days or weeks per year, the plant will not be able to operate, since wind
gusts of 35 MPH are common at the proposed site. An estimated 95 MPH wind gust hit this
location in 2005 during a dust storm.
According to testimony from the Sandia engineer, made to Saguache County residents who
visited the Maricopa site, Suncatchers are designed to withstand only up to 6” of snow.
Snowfall of two feet or more is not unusual in the SLV and will certainly effect operations. Why is
this important? The annual revenue projections that Tessera is giving the County are not likely
to be met when all the down time due to high winds, snow, and below survivability temperatures
are realistically factored in.
  33 
WATER AND WETLAND ISSUES
CRITERIA FOR DECISION – B: The natural and socio‐economic environment of this County
will be protected and enhanced and DECISION CRITERIA – J: The nature and location of the
facility or expansion will not adversely affect the water rights of any upstream, downstream, or
adjacent communities or other water users.
George Whitten, Jr. Affidavit on Tessera Solar proposed site ground water*
This is a statement regarding my opposition of the placement of the proposed Tessera Solar
facility. This is based on my experience as a lifelong resident of the immediate area, as well as
my experience for the past 25+ years studying and helping to manage the ground water
hydrology of the Rio Grande Basin. As the Saguache County representative for the Rio Grande
Water Conservation District (RGWCD) I have had a great deal of time to study in detail the local
hydrology of the basin as a whole, as well as this immediate area where I happen live and work.
The severe drought of 2003 culminated in the realization by nearly everyone in this basin that
we could no longer ignore the impacts of ground water withdrawals that are in excess of the
annual inflows to the basin. It has long been recognized that pumping by wells had lowered the
ground water and was affecting surface diversions, but without more information it was hard to
determine the extent of this impact.
The drought of 2003 brought to light just how much impact the pumping has had on
groundwater. As a result Senate Bill 04-222 was passed, in order to allow the RGWCD to form
ground water management sub-districts in an attempt to manage the basin using ground water
management plans that would, as their first charge, return the aquifer to the levels found
between 1989 and 2002. The first such sub-district, Sub-district #1, was consequently formed
and a plan devised which would, in the opinion of the Board of Managers and their advisors,
accomplish this task. That plan was called into question by various entities in the basin,
resulting in a trial in Alamosa water court, 07CW52. After a yearlong process the judge ruled on
Sub-district #1ʼs plan and modified it in several ways, which made clear among other things the
fact that the effort to return the aquifer to historic levels was not an option but a mandate. That
ruling has been challenged by the original opponents and is currently before the Colorado State
Supreme Court.
However this case is resolved in court, the return of the aquifer is not in question. If a similar
sub-district is formed in the Saguache Creek drainage its charge will be the same: to balance
  34 
inflows with pumping until such a level is reached. If those effort fail the State Engineer will
promulgate rules on these well and all pumping will cease until a full replacement supply is
found. The question is not if this is going to happen but when. The ruling by Judge Kuenhold
called for the plan to be enacted by 2012; the Sub-district #1 is collecting fees in 2011.
The history of the basin and the associated ground water levels is well known. What I wish to
point out is that the artificial lowering of the ground water by agricultural pumping is at a juncture
that will, by judicial mandate, be in balance with the inflows and groundwater levels will be
returned to historic levels. Those levels, according to the data collected by the RGWCD well
NA04300907BBB2 RG10 (located on the fence line in the Southwest corner of Tesseraʼs
proposed site) shows a steady water level since 1972 at only 2.5 to 6 feet in depth from the
surface. Heavy agricultural pumping with no augmentation effort has occurred all during this
time period. During the 1987-88-time period I personally saw water flooding the entire area other
than the highest knolls. That happens to some extent every time there are flows down the Ball
Arroyo through the property.
Drainage under County Road T is not adequate and exacerbates the flooding. The areas that
are nearly bare soil just north of County road T are a result of that intermittent flood water
standing for a prolonged period, killing the native grass. The amount of drainage and storm
water runoff work that will be required by this project has been greatly underestimated by the
consultants for Tessera. This point has been noted by Nancy Lauro, the consultant for
Saguache County, but ignored by the BOCC. Future efforts to divert such flows away from the
site would further compound damage to neighboring properties. The question is no longer if but
rather when those levels might be reached.
As an example of how quickly things are changing in this basin, consider the following. In the
time since Tessera first proposed its SLV Solar Project, the State Engineer has determined an
irrigation season on Saguache Creek (April 1 – Oct. 31), which requires further water
management by irrigators in the basin. Winter recharge filings (Nov. 1 thru March 31) have been
made that have as their purpose to refill depleted aquifers in the area. Several decreed sites are
both upslope and below the Tessera site.
With this as a framework I want to advise the BOCC and any other interested parties that the
site that Tessera has chosen has in recent history not always been as dry as they find it today,
and that it in fact has a very good chance of becoming a true wetland relatively soon. There are
roughly 80 large irrigation wells in the Saguache Creek basin. With an estimated average of 200
acre-feet of annual consumption for each well, that equals 16,000 acre-feet. Either under a sub-
  35 
district or under State rules those withdrawals have to be augmented with surface water. The
average annual flows of Saguache Creek are about 30,000 acre-feet; the 16,000 acre-feet that
will soon return to the system is at least a 53% net gain to the aquifer the first year. An above
average runoff year could change that equation even more.
As a concerned citizen who knows something of the circumstances of the current conditions and
also something about how those conditions could change I think it is imperative that for the
benefit of the local community as well as the investors in Tessera, many more questions should
be answered and at least have the Army Corps do a full 404 analysis of the site prior to any
approval of this project.
* Legal affidavit filed separately with Saguache County on November 19, 2010
WETLANDS AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES – Jenny Nehring, Nehring Consulting
CRITERIA FOR DECISION – B: The natural and socio‐economic environment of this County
will be protected and enhanced, and CRITERIA FOR DECISION - O: and the nature and
location for expansion of the facility will not interfere with any significant wildlife habitat or
adversely affect any endangered wildlife species, unique natural resource or historic landmark
within the impact area.
Review of the Biological Analysis for the Tessera San Luis Valley Solar Project
The Saguache County goal for renewable energy states in part that projects: “be sited to ensure
minimal negative impacts to wildlife habitat”.
The Tessera San Luis Valley Solar Project (SLVSP) site is problematic for wildlife because of
the extensive wetland habitat on the development site, because of the siteʼs close proximity to
important wildlife habitats and because the noise the project will generate will have a greater,
broader impact on wildlife in the surrounding area.
The vegetative communities of the SLVSP site are common across the San Luis Valley. The
site is characterized by a mosaic of greasewood, alkali sacaton and rabbitbrush uplands
interspersed with seasonally saturated salt meadows, salt flats, emergent wetlands near wells
and ditches and cottonwood galleries. In the SLVSP application the seasonally saturated salt
meadows and salt flat habitats account for 49% of the project area and are referred to as
“herbaceous meadow”.
  36 
The “herbaceous meadow” described in the application is actually a seasonally saturated

wetland type or salt meadow commonly found across the San Luis Valley. This seasonal
wetland type is found at Russell Lakes State Wildlife Area, Mishak Lakes, Baca National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR), Monte Vista NWR, Alamosa NWR, San Luis Lakes, Blanca Wetlands as well as
privately owned agricultural land throughout the valley floor. This seasonally flooded habitat is
important to wildlife, especially for foraging waterfowl, shorebirds and other water birds such as
Ibis, cranes, heron and egrets during spring and fall migration. This habitat is typically saturated
from ground water during spring and often these saturated conditions return in the late
summer/early fall with rain events.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (Cowardin,
1979), the SLVSP Site is considered a PEMA wetland.
• P = Palustrine (all non tidal wetlands).
• EM = Emergent (Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding

mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in
most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants).
• A = Temporary Flooded (Surface water is present for brief periods during growing
season, but the water table usually lies well below the soil surface for most of the
growing season. Plants that grow both in uplands and wetlands may be
characteristic of this water regime).
The soils report in the application (Appendix G) also confirms the hydric conditions of the site.
All of the soils mapped at the site are defined as hydric soils according to the NRCS National
Hydric Soils List (NRCS 2010).
The herbaceous meadows described in the application meet the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) criteria for wetland delineation on vegetation, soil and hydrology (USACE
1987):
1. Many of the plants observed in the herbaceous meadow are facultative wetland species
(likely to occur in wetlands 67% - 99% of the time) as defined by the NRCS Plants
Database, Wetland Indicator Status for the Intermountain West:
• Baltic rush (Juncus balticus)
• milkvetch (Astragalus agrestis)
• curly dock (Rumex crispus)
  37 
Furthermore, salt grass (Distichlis spicata) is classified in the NRCS plant database as
equally likely to occur in wetland and non-wetland habitat types. Milkvetch, curly dock
and salt grass are all erroneously listed in the SLVSP application as “non-wetland
plants”.
2. All soil types mapped in the project area are considered hydric soils (NRCS Soil Site).
3. The closed basin and arroyo hydrology of the area is indicative of seasonally flooded
habitat.
The SLVSP significantly dismisses the wetland communities on the site specifically the
“herbaceous meadow” which represents nearly half (49%) of the project area. The habitat
assessment in the application makes reference to an “altered hydrologic regime” to explain how
habitat once considered a wetland is now an “herbaceous meadow”. In the Valley, drought and
ground water pumping have absolutely altered the hydrologic regime. The hydrology has been
altered in a way that not only decreases the volume of water in the system but also the duration
that wet areas are saturated. Major hydrologic changes are in the immediate future with new
water conservation districts and new rules and regulations from the Colorado Division of Water
Resources on the pumping of wells. The SLVSP site is directly downstream of the North Star
Farm, one of the largest consumers of water in Saguache County. North Star Farmʼs 30+ wells
and several others in the Werner Arroyo, Ball Arroyo, and Saguache Creek drainage will be shut
down in 2012. Shutting down these wells will raise ground water levels in the drainage which
will have a direct effect on both the volume of water in seasonally flooded habitats as well as the
length of time these areas will remain wet across the Saguache Creek landscape. The SLVSP
will likely see significant and immediate changes with seasonal flooding as early as 2012.
The “herbaceous meadow” or more accurately seasonally saturated salt meadow represents
almost half of the project area. This habitat meets the USACE definition of a wetland and
should require complete wetland delineation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (USACE
1987).
Russell Lakes and Mishak Lakes are two, nearby wetland complexes conserved and managed
for wildlife by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
Both of these protected wetlands lie within 6 miles of the SLVSP. Mishak Lakes and Russell
Lakes provide critical breeding habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds and colonial nesting water birds.
The agricultural lands surrounding the SLVSP, Russell Lakes, and Mishak Lakes employ flood
irrigation and create seasonal wetland habitat used extensively by these water birds. From a
landscape perspective, the hydrology of the Saguache Creek drainage has created a large and
  38 
varied wetland complex of ground water, surface water, and irrigated agricultural land. All of the
wetlands found across this landscape contribute to the health of these bird species especially
during migration and breeding. The SLVSP will displace and redistribute wildlife in a critical
wetland landscape.
The noise created by this project will have a significant effect on wildlife. It is reasonable to
expect that because Russell Lakes and Mishak Lakes are within 6 miles of the SLVSP these
wildlife areas will be directly affected by noise created by this project. This noise is highly likely
to be disruptive to wildlife vocalizations important to breeding success. Noise associated with
this project will likely result in the redistribution of wildlife, especially wetland species. This
redistribution is especially difficult because water and wetlands are a limiting factor for wildlife in
the San Luis Valley
Like most industrial projects this solar facility will result in a near 100% alteration of the biotic
community on the land it is proposed to occupy. The biological assessment of the habitat on the
project site woefully under represents the impact the project will have on wetlands and should
require a 404 permit so that destruction of wetlands is properly mitigated. Unlike other solar
projects, the noise that this facility will generate will have greater, broader reaching impacts on
wildlife that use the area. This is especially true because of the proximity of the SLVSP to
critical wildlife breeding and migration habitat on Russell Lakes and Mishak Lakes.
Literature Cited for the Review of Biological Analysis
Cowardin, L.M., Carter, V. Golet, F.C., and LaRoe, E.T. 1979. Classification of wetland and
deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual,Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
USDA, NRCS. 2010. National Hydric Soils List by state (February 2010).
http://soils.usda.gov/use/hydric/lists/state.html
USDA, NRCS. 2010. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 16 November 2010).

National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.
  39 
AFFECTED STATE WATERS - Ann Maest, PhD, Buka Environmental, Boulder, CO
CRITERIA FOR DECISION – R: The existing water quality of affected state waters will not be
degraded below state and federal standards or established baseline levels.
Review of Water Quality and Other Environmental Issues for the SLV Solar Project
Introduction
This memorandum provides a summary of some of the environmental issues associated with
the application for the San Luis Valley Solar Project (SLVPP). The topics discussed include: the
project need and alternatives; baseline information; and potential environmental effects and
mitigation measures. The evaluation concludes that the application is substantially incomplete
because of shortcomings in these topic areas.
Need for the Project and Project Alternatives
The need for the project in the proposed location has not been established. Section 1.4.1 of the
Final Application (Tessera Solar North America, 2010; “the Application”) is titled Public
Convenience and Necessity, but it discusses neither. The alternatives evaluated were all within
the San Luis Valley. Additional information should include the percent of the required renewable
sources that the SLVSP will provide in different years toward the Colorado Renewable Portfolio
Standard goals, and the rationale for siting the facility in the San Luis Valley rather than other
locations across the State.
The source of the hydrogen for the Solar Stirling engines run by the SunCatchers will be water
rather than natural gas, and the hydrogen will be generated on-site. The alternatives evaluation
should include alternatives for the generation of hydrogen, such as algae, and an estimate of
the amount of energy and water required to generate hydrogen from the electrolysis of water.
Although the Application states that hydrogen is a flammable hazardous material, no specific
scenarios are presented for the generation of a fire caused by ignition of the hydrogen gas.
Protocols for preventing and stopping fires on the site should be fully evaluated and included in
a separate Health and Safety appendix.
  40 
Alternatives to open-air evaporation of the treatment plant brines should be considered. The
proposed approach for brine disposal is to evaporate the brine in lined ponds, but as an
alternative, some of the power generated by the facility could be used to heat the brines and
speed up the evaporation process; this approach would likely require smaller storage reservoirs.
The storage of the brines is one of the biggest threats to groundwater quality. Groundwater
levels in the upper unconfined aquifer are near the ground surface, and if the brine ponds leak,
they will certainly contaminate the shallow groundwater. Alternatives to solar evaporation should
be considered in the Application.
Baseline Information
According to the Application, over 58% of the site was covered in emergent wetlands in the
1980s. Today only 3% of the site contains this type of wetlands, and they are fed by upgradient
irrigation flows. The project proposes to convert irrigated farm and ranch lands to industrial use.
It is therefore possible that the percent cover of wetlands will change as the land use changes.
This issue should be addressed as part of the baseline discussion.
A water balance study is not included in the Application. According to AMEC (2010), the majority
of water in unconfined aquifer derives from irrigation flows. Other sources of recharge to the
unconfined aquifer include infiltration from irrigation ditches, irrigation return flows from fields
near the site, and precipitation. A water balance study is needed to estimate the proportion and
amounts of each component as part of the baseline environmental evaluation for the site. This
type of information might be available in a report cited in AMEC (2010) by Davis Engineering
Services (2009), but the report was not available as part of the Application.
More information is needed on groundwater elevations, flow directions, and groundwater quality
in the unconfined aquifer on the site. Additional monitoring wells may be needed to establish
seasonal changes in water level and water quality. More information is also needed on surface
water quality and flows as part of the baseline analysis for the site.
Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures
Increased rates of soil erosion can be expected during construction, as noted in the Imperial
Valley Solar Project Environmental Impact Statement (Bureau of Land Management, 2010). The
stormwater management plan for the SLVPP (Ecosphere Environmental Services, 2010)
appears to rely largely on placement of hay bales to prevent sedimentation and erosion during
  41 
construction activities. Contaminants that could be present during construction include: excess
sediment, trash, oils, grease, coolants, vehicle fluids, solvents, paints, cleaners, asphaltic
emulsions, mortar mix, spilled fuel, vehicle fluids and other construction-related contaminants
(Bureau of Land Management, 2010). At the Imperial Valley Solar Project improved best
management practices are proposed, including: scheduling activities to minimize land
disturbance during the rainy season; marking areas not to be disturbed; using geotextiles, mats,
plastic covers, or erosion blankets to stabilize disturbed areas; the use of soil binders, earth
dikes, drainage swales, lined ditches, flow velocity protection measures, silt fences, straw bales,
fiber rolls, and dust palliatives; tracking control at site entry/exit points; and stabilized
construction roads. Similar measures, as appropriate, should also be included in the stormwater
management plan for SLVPP.
A reverse osmosis (RO) system will be needed for reducing the solute load in well water that
would be used for mirror washing. The RO system will generate a brine as part of its normal
operation. The SLVPP application does not contain any information on the quality of water that
would be treated by the RO system, the technical specifications of the treatment system, or
even an estimate of the concentrations of constituents in the brine. This information should be
included in the Application before it is considered complete.
The reverse osmosis brine would be stored in two polyvinyl-chloride-lined evaporation

impoundment. One impoundment would be in use while the other was undergoing evaporation,
which would take one year (Tessera Solar North America, 2010; Ecosphere Environmental
Services, 2010). The ponds would be sized to contain one yearʼs worth of brine. I did not see
any mention of additional overflow tanks for higher-than-expected amounts of brine, and I could
find no information on liners under the ponds or leachate collection systems. These mitigation
measures should be included in the facility design.
After the brine has evaporated, the Application states that it will be disposed of as either
hazardous or non-hazardous waste, depending on whether it is characteristically hazardous. A
leach test called the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2010) is typically used to determine whether a brine is a characteristic hazardous
waste. The Application simply states that based on the sample results, the material will be
handled and disposed of as either hazardous or non-hazardous and disposed of in a permitted
facility. No tests were performed using actual evaporated site water. This type of testing should
be completed as part of the application process.
  42 
Summary
The Application is deficient in terms of its analysis of baseline groundwater and surface water
quality and elevation/flow conditions and water balance, the evaluation of alternatives, the best
management practices for stormwater runoff, and the mitigation measures to prevent or
minimize adverse impacts to groundwater and surface water quality. A more detailed evaluation
of the current site conditions, and a more substantial analysis of potential effects during
operation, as well as alternatives to the location of the facility should be included in a revised
application. The largest threat to groundwater quality is the potential leaking of water treatment
brine that would be stored on site. The high concentrations in the brine, the fact that liners leak,
the presence of shallow groundwater, and the lack of adequate mitigation measures make it
likely that groundwater quality at the site would be degraded below current baseline levels at
some point during the operation of the facility.
References on water quality
AMEC. 2010. Preliminary Site Evaluation. Tessera Solar Project, Saguache County, Colorado.
June 11. Available: http://www.saguachecounty.net/depts/landuse/tesserasolar.php
Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Imperial Valley
Solar Project. El Centro field office. July. Available:
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/nepa/stirling.html
Davis Engineering Services, Inc. 2009. Description of Surface and Groundwater Resources on
the Potential Tessera Solar Site, July-September. (cited in AMEC, 2010)
Ecosphere Environmental Services. 2010. Stormwater Management Plan, San Luis Valley Solar
Project. Prepared for Tessera Solar North America. September 12.
Tessera Solar North America. 2010. San Luis Valley Solar Project. 1041 Final Application to
Saguache County, Colorado. June 24. Available:
http://www.saguachecounty.net/depts/landuse/tesserasolar.php
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure,

Method 1311. Available: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/testmethods/sw846/pdfs/1311.pdf
  43 
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Commissioner Recusal Due to Lack of Impartiality, Ex Parte Contacts,
Premature Decision-making and Failure to Comply with the Open Records Act
SLVRCA respectfully requests and indeed demands that Commissioner Mike Spearman recuse
himself from all further decision-making pertaining to the Tessara project. The record in this
matter reflects an extensive series of ex parte contacts by the commissioner with many
members of the community and opinions voiced by Commissioner Spearman that reflect a lack
of impartiality and decision-making on his part that occurred prior to the hearing and evidence in
this matter.
On August 24, 2010 and September 6, 2010, Spearman initiated meetings with adjacent
landowners to discuss the Tessera project proposal. During both meetings Commissioner
Spearman attempted, unsuccessfully, to get landowners to agree to mitigation for the Tessara
project. In a September 20, 2010 meeting with community members, Spearman spoke openly
of his support of the project.
Further, Commissioner Spearman has failed to produce his communications concerning the
project including his email communication in response to a lawful Open Records Request
submitted by SLVCA on November 3, 2010. No explanation for this surprising omission has
been given. Given Mr. Spearmanʼs strong views that he has voiced repeatedly, any claim that
he has no such emails or communications would be void of credibility.
In a quasi-judicial matter such as this, under the well-established law of due process,
commissioners must behave as if they are judges, acting impartially and making their decision
based on the evidence in the records. Commissioner Spearmanʼs conduct has been so far from
that benchmark that in the interest of due process as well as community confidence in the
commissionʼs decision-making demand that he recuse himself entirely from any further decision-
making pertaining to the Tessara project.
  44 
SLVRCA believes the County and Commissioner Spearman are in violation of the Open
Records Act and these comments should serve as the notice required by C.R.S. §24-72-204(5).
Until all responsive documents are produced by the County and Commissioner Spearman, and
SLVRCA and other community members have an opportunity to base meaningful comments to
the Commissioners on these documents, all decision-making on this project must be postponed.
Project Viability
The Tessera Solar Marfa, Texas example described above is a cautionary tale for Saguache
County on why financing guarantees, federal clearances and a power purchase agreement
should be secured before the county devotes scarce resources towards processing a major
development application such as Tesseraʼs. Given the reluctance of TSNA to develop a real
plan of operations or file for important regulatory clearances, the project appears to be highly
speculative. Should this project go the way of the Marfa, Texas proposal, the Commissioners
will have wasted considerable county resources, in addition to imposing an enormous burden on
the community in having to actively oppose a poorly conceived project.
Conclusion
In their attempt to expedite the 1041 application process, we have shown Tessera Solar to be
less than transparent and forthcoming. This comment letter to the BoCC is meant to support and
verify our premise that by omission and avoidance, Tessera has attempted to circumvent and
manipulate facts meant to enable the BoCC in its decision-making process. The lack of
specifically requested details pertinent to determining the efficacy of this project must lead us to
encourage the Commissioners to question the fiscal benefits promoted by Tessera to the
county.
We ask that you review the information provided in this comment letter as a means of better
understanding the complex issues that have not been adequately addressed by Tessera in their
  45 
permit application. Our conclusion is that the Tessera Solar Saguache project is not in the best
interest of the residents of Saguache County. We sincerely urge you to deny this permit
application.
Sincerely,
Ceal Smith, Coordinator

On behalf of the following SLVRCA members and affected stakeholders:
1. Julie Sullivan, Saguache 16. Mark Akerley, Saguache
2. George Whitten, Saguache 17. Judy Akerley, Saguache
3. Virginia Sutherland, Saguache 18. Thad Englert, Saguache
4. Lynn Sutherland, Saguache 19. Sue Englert, Saguache
5. Rick Randall, Saguache 20. Carol Ward, Saguache
6. Dawn Anderson, Saguache 21. Dennis Ward, Saguache
7. Joan Wilfong, Saguache 22. Suzanne Ewy, Orient Land Trust,
8. Gary Wilfong, Saguache Villa Grove, CO
9. John Werner, Saguache 23. Gary Hill, Saguache
10. Larry Ewing, Saguache 24. Christie Hill Staudt, Saguache
11. Jeanne Ewing, Saguache 25. Corey Hill, Saguache
12. Chuck Tidd, Villa Grove 26. Tate Scanga, Saguache
13. June Savage, Saguache 27. Matt Barnes, Shining Horizons Land
14. Michael Goodhart, Saguache Management, Kremming, CO
15. Jane Goodhart, Saguache
Cc:
Governor Elect, John Hickenlooper Saguache County Emergency Services
Senator Gail Schwartz Great Sand Dunes National Park
Representative Ed Vigil
Senator Michael Bennett
Senator Mark Udall
Representative John Salazar
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Environmental Protection Agency
Army Corp of Engineers
  46 

SLVRCA Comment Letter On Tessera 1041 Application

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SLVRCA Comment Letter On Tessera 1041 Application

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

San Luis Valley

Renewable Communities Alliance

RE: Comment Letter on Tessera Solar 1041 Permit Application

Dear Saguache County Commissioners,

A national consensus is emerging on how to do solar right (see http://solardoneright.org). The

Alternative sites considered

Alternative D (proposed project site).

Alternative E (De Tilla Gulch/BLM Solar Study Area)

Alternatives not considered

Alternative types of facilities

Nonstructural alternatives not considered

1. Improving energy efficiency and increasing local energy generation. Policy

2. Reducing atmospheric carbon through improved land management practices.

Tessera did not provide a no development alternative.

Phased development based on 9MW increments

Remote Industrial Solar Not Cost Effective

disclosed in the recent Colorado Public Utility Commission hearings

MITIGATION AND MINIMIZATION OF ADVERSE IMPACTS - Dawn Anderson, Environmental

CRITERIA FOR DECISION – D: A satisfactory program to mitigate and minimize adverse

surrounded by Permit (a,b,d)

CRITERIA FOR DECISION – D: a satisfactory program to mitigate and minimize adverse

CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE IMPACTS

There is NO compatibility between an industrial-sized solar facility and the surrounding

COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER APPLICABLE REGIONAL, STATE AND NATIONAL PLANS

Saguache County Solar Guidelines/Noise Analysis

generated by 5,760 SunCatchers (SCs) is an egregious issue that promises to be very

II. Weather effects

III. Noise Frequency

IV. Public health and welfare

SAGUACHE COUNTY SOLAR GUIDELINES – Other provisions

Compatibility with Existing Uses

CLEAN WATER ACT – SECTION 404/WETLANDS

State Regulations - Dawn Anderson, Environmental Protection Specialist

Additionally, the application completely discounts the risks of hydrogen:

Hydrogen facts Why this is important Where to 1041

which weaken the lattice structure of

Other applicable state regulations not disclosed in the TSNA application:

Activity Regulatory Authority Permits obtained/

Fuel tanks OPS No information given

Hydrogen Gas Generation DOE, OSHA No information given

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

OPS: Division of Oil and Public Safety

OPERATIONS AND CLIMATE – Keno Menechino, National Weather Service Cooperative

WATER AND WETLAND ISSUES

WETLANDS AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES – Jenny Nehring, Nehring Consulting

The “herbaceous meadow” described in the application is actually a seasonally saturated

• P = Palustrine (all non tidal wetlands).

• EM = Emergent (Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding

Literature Cited for the Review of Biological Analysis

USDA, NRCS. 2010. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 16 November 2010).

AFFECTED STATE WATERS - Ann Maest, PhD, Buka Environmental, Boulder, CO

Need for the Project and Project Alternatives

Potential Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures

The reverse osmosis brine would be stored in two polyvinyl-chloride-lined evaporation

References on water quality

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure,

Commissioner Recusal Due to Lack of Impartiality, Ex Parte Contacts,

Ceal Smith, Coordinator

You might also like

San Luis Valley  