Showing posts with label industrial wind turbines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label industrial wind turbines. Show all posts

26 January 2019

Wind Turbine Regulations Approved by Planning and Zoning Board at Valentine Meeting

January 24, 2019. Wind turbine regulations approved by Planning and Zoning Board at Valentine meeting. Grant County News 134(26): 1, 4, 7.

Requests to ban industrial wind turbines in Cherry County and to reclassify massive wind turbine structure as industrial from their current commercial/utility classification in applicable regulations were approved by the members of the Planning and Zoning board at their meeting on January 15th at Valentine.

A public comment period allowed further details to be given for the requests by Messrs. Wayne Eatinger and William Weller.

Eatinger was the first to speak while presenting a map graphic that showed the potential impact that wind turbine developments could have upon the Cherry County landscape. Circles with a diameter of 24 miles were centered on land spaces where turbine developments might occur because the land owners are associated with legally filed easements. The vast majority of the county was within one circle or another. Especially indicative were the four circles originating on the periphery of the McKelvie Division, Nebraska National Forest. There would be one place or another within this grassland and forest plantings expanse – with some of the best dark skies of the central Great Plains – where 600 foot-tall wind turbines could always be seen from a prominent vantage.

The 12-mile radius represented by the map was a conservative estimation. This distance is now known to be inadequate. A tall wind turbine 15 miles away can be readily seen from the right point of view. One turbine west of Valentine can be seen from near Kilgore, a distance of 24 miles, according to west Kilgore resident Carolyn Semin.

There are apparently plans to revise this map to indicate a distance of 15 miles.

The next map graphic was personally presented. It had a title of “Map Graphic Indicating Property Owner Perspectives Regarding Placement of Industrial Wind Turbines Within Cherry County” based upon individual considerations a vast amount of land parcels.

This evaluation indicated what is known for vast swaths of the county. Thanks to Brock Moreland and Rick Weber for their help in getting the map steadily placed on an easel so the P&Z board could get a suitable view.

These are the indicative color-codes on the map graphic, and they are indicative, as derived from known facts:

  • Red: property owners opposed to industrial wind turbines. Derived from comments at public hearings, public records and most recently, direct personal communications (i.e., phone calls and conversations) as a result of ongoing efforts by many concerned residents that want a range and ranch land setting. Red is the most prominent color on the map graphic, readily indicating the expansive opposition by ranch families, individuals, ranch corporations, and others to industrial wind turbines. Many neighbors stand together in their solidarity of opposition to industrial wind turbine development in Cherry County country. Nearly every proposed wind turbine locality is surrounded by red because the neighbors do not want any turbines among the hills.

    A multitude of parcels for owners of some of the largest tracts of land in the county are included in this category.
    Green: public property including Valentine NWR and Fort Niobrara NWR, Niobrara Valley Preserve owned by The Nature Conservancy, wildlife management areas owned by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Nebraska National Forest - McKelvie Division, Niobrara National Scenic River, Bowring Ranch State Historical Park. There are also sites where conservation easements conserve the range land setting (i.e., Vanderploeg place along the Niobrara River south of Valentine, Horse Creek Ranch, and Jumbo and Pullman Valley Fen, etc.). There are also a few USA owned tracts where turbines could not be placed on these small, publicly owned and isolated land parcels. Some of these parcels are managed as part of Valentine NWR.

  • Yellow: spaces where turbines could or would not be placed based upon location or public sentiment. There will be no industrial wind turbine facilities placed within Valentine, nor amidst any housing tracts or local to Miller Airport. There will be no industrial wind turbines placed within county villages. There are also land tracts where a land-owner has not indicated whether they are for or against wind turbines but will not have wind turbines on their property. This coloration also includes a few sections owned by the State of Nebraska, without a BELF ownership designation, and where the citizens of Nebraska need to be able to voice their opinion on any and all drastic land management decisions.
  • Brown: enrolled members of Cherry County Wind LLC or people that have expressed support for wind turbines being placed upon their property. The extent of land enrolled by “forwindees” is readily available in Cherry county public records.
  • Black: isolated parcels where the Board of Educational Lands and Funds colluded with Cherry County Wind LLC to enroll publicly-owned parcels for involvement in potential wind-turbine development. There was no public involvement in any decision by the agency board. There had to have been some collusion as the parcels indicated by county records of agreement match so well with associated private property included for potential, future industrial wind turbine development.

  • Purple: land owned by R.E. “Ted” Turner and former state senator Al Davis. Both have been involved in efforts to promote wind turbines but have not indicated whether they would allow turbines on their property. Turner has replied to inquiries on whether industrial wind turbines would be placed on any of the Sandhills Ranch Properties in Cherry, Sheridan and Garden counties. There has been no definitive answer provided.
  • Blue: wetlands including so many special lakes, including at Valentine NWR where millions of dollars are being spent to improve the quality of the waters for subsequent values for people fishing and bird-watching. There are also prominent sections of rivers where industrial wind turbines will never be built.
  • White: representing property owners that are neutral in regards to the placement of industrial wind turbines or land-owners whose view is not yet known. There are multiple blank parcels included in this category because they are owned by members of the planning board as well as a county commissioner or two.

Efforts will continue to determine landowner positions and further convey perspectives on the map graphic until the day when the commissioners have their required public hearing.

During the meeting, several people vividly expressed their views. Others were present to convey their support for the two amendments.

There is “overwhelming support for not having wind turbines in Cherry County,” said Craig Andresen of Wood Lake.

Mr. Rick Weber indicated that the people he deals with in his real estate business want to come to the sandhills because of the great grass resources and since it is such a unique place. The “wind turbine gold rush is over,” he said.

When William “Billy” Weller stood and spoke in support of his amendment request, his poignant point was that current residents are “stewards of our heirs.” His request is another piece of the puzzle that fits together in the discussion regarding wind turbines, and received great support.

From the Brownlee village country, there came additional voices.

“There is a lot of wisdom in both amendments,” said Craig Miles, while he came to town from his legacy ranch way to the south of the Heart City. He has spoken to again and again and once more in opposition to wind turbines. On the 15th he expressed the importance of dialog and the value of listening.

Barb Welch of the Brush Creek Ranch with its north unit west of Brownlee added other indicative comments. “There is a time and place for everything,” she said. “Stop and think of what you are doing,” she said while continuing to speak to the Planning and Zoning Board. There are important places where there should not be industrial wind turbines. She conveyed once again the views from a woman against wind, that no one wants wind turbines to be seen from Mount Rushmore and other important national monuments citizens know to be are important. “Don’t put turbines in a place we treasure,” while she spoke about the Great American Sandhills.

Gary and Glenda Phipps residing in the north Whitman country also drove a bunch of miles to be present. Wind turbines are a “little bit of money for some people,” he said.

When Bob Stetter stood to speak, there was complete silence in respect as there had been throughout the public comment period. Bob got his notes together and then expressed a local radio station comment spoken on the local radio station: “welcome to paradise.” “Keep the sandhills a paradise,” Stetter said in agreement, adding other expressions indicating that industrial wind turbines should be kept out of the Sand Hills.

A complete slate of P&Z board members was not present on the 15th. At least newly appointed member Duane Kime was there. The newly appointed woman from the Cody was not seen anywhere near the Valentine meeting room. She was appointed and could not even attend the first meeting of her tenure.

About 50 people attended the meeting and when the crowd was asked to stand if they supported the two amendments, everyone stood. This included stalwarts that have once and again stood with their neighbors in opposing wind, including personal time, travelling to pertinent meetings, doing research and otherwise being involved in the process for the past few years. They included these neighbors, as representative: Semin, Weber, Moreland, Welch, MacLeod, Trimble, Witt, Young, Wolfenden, McCormick, Rhoades, Mundorf, Gallinol, Warren and Hanna, et al.

Both amendments will henceforth by submitted to the county commissioners. A public hearing will then be scheduled. The three commissioners will then decide on whether these amendments would be enacted, and thus the fate of Cherry County in regards to industrial wind turbines.

23 January 2019

Request Filed to Classify Wind Turbines as an Industrial Feature in Cherry County

William Weller. July 19, 2018. Request filed to classify wind turbines as an industrial feature in Cherry County. Document filed at county zoning office.

A request to amend the Cherry County, Nebraska, zoning regulations was filed July 19, 2018 to revise the designation associated with wind turbines. The request was to change the regulations so wind turbines are an industrial feature, rather than the currently classification as “commercial/utility”. An additional request was to have industrial wind turbines specifically indicated as an industrial use as referenced by section 303 of the county regulations.

The request was filed by Cherry County landowner William R. Weller – whose property adjoins many parcels owned by a land-owner who has signed an agreement to allow wind turbine placement on their property. Mr. Weller also paid the $50 filing fee early in the morning on July 19 at the county offices. A two-page attachment was included in the filing, indicating where changes in the regulatory text were being requested, mostly associated with section 613 of the zoning regulations.

When the wassubmitted to the county zoning administrator, a request was made that the item be placed on the agenda for the August 7th Planning and Zoning Board meeting to indicate a specific date and time for a public hearing and an active public consideration of this proposal.

This is the request filed with the zoning administrator by Mr. Weller.

Request for Revisions to the Cherry County Zoning Regulations

July 19, 2018; changes are indicated by bold text. This online document has been slightly changed for formatting purposes, but there were no substantive changes in content.

303.42 INDUSTRIAL USE: Of, relating to, concerning, or arising from the assembling, fabrication, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, or processing of goods, or mineral extraction.

Revise to:

303.42 INDUSTRIAL USE: Of, relating to, concerning, or arising from the assembling, fabrication, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, or processing of goods, mineral extraction or any WECS with a wind turbine(s) height above ground exceeding 100 feet.

SECTION 613 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION FACILITIES

613.03 Commercial/Utility Grade Wind Energy Systems

Revise to: 613.03 Industrial Grade Wind Energy Systems

Purpose: It is the purpose of this regulation to promote the safe, effective and efficient use of commercial/utility grade wind energy systems within Cherry County.

Revise to:

It is the purpose of this regulation to promote the safe, effective and efficient use of industrial grade wind energy systems within Cherry County.

Definitions

2. Commercial/Utility WECS shall mean a wind energy conversion system of equal to or greater than 100 kilowatts in total name plate generating capacity.

Revise to:

2. Industrial WECS shall mean a wind energy conversion system of equal to or greater than 100 kilowatts in total name plate generating capacity.

Requirements

Commercial/Utility Grade wind energy systems shall be permitted as a Conditional Use within any district where...

Revise to:

Industrial Grade wind energy systems shall be permitted as a Conditional Use within any district where...

Table on Setbacks; column title

WE-CS Wind Turbine Commercial/Utility WECS

Revise to: Wind Turbine Industrial WECS

Special Safety and Design Standards

All towers shall adhere to the following safety and design standards:

Section 1. The Commercial/Utility WECS owner(s) and/or operator(s) shall conduct an analysis on potential shadow flicker at any occupied...

Revise to:

The industrial WECS owner(s) and/or operator(s) shall conduct an analysis on potential shadow flicker at any occupied...

Section 3. All Commercial/Utility WECS shall have a sign or signs posted on the tower, transformer and substation

Revise to:

3. All industrial WECS shall have a sign or signs posted on the tower, transformer and substation...

4. All wind turbines, which are a part of a commercial/utility WECS, shall be installed with a tubular, monopole type tower.

Revise to:

All wind turbines, which are a part of an industrial WECS, shall be installed with a tubular, monopole type tower.

6. Color and finish:

All wind turbines and towers that are part of a commercial/utility WECS shall be white, grey, or another non-obtrusive color. Blade finishes shall be matte or non-reflective.

Revise to:

6. Color and finish:

All wind turbines and towers that are part of an industrial WECS shall be white, grey, or another non-obtrusive color. Blade finishes shall be matte or non-reflective.

12. ... each Commercial/Utility WECS shall have a Decommissioning plan...

Revise to: 12. ... each industrial WECS shall have a Decommissioning plan...

13. Noise:

No Commercial/Utility WECS shall exceed 50 dBA at the nearest structure occupied by humans.

Exception: a Commercial/Utility WECS may exceed 50 dBA during periods of severe weather as defined by the US Weather Service.

Revise to:

No industrial WECS shall exceed 50 dBA at the nearest structure occupied by humans.

Exception: an industrial WECS may exceed 50 dBA during periods of severe weather as defined by the US Weather Service.

18 December 2018

Requests to Revise Wind Turbine Regulations Tabled

December 13, 2018. Grant County News 134(20): 1, 4.

Two indicative requests to revise wind turbine regulations in Cherry County were tabled on December 4th by the Planning and Zoning Board so their language can be reviewed by the county attorney. Board members Michael McLeod and John Wheeler volunteered to attend the review session.

The first one was a continuation of a request by rancher Wayne Eatinger to repeal and replace regulations so only wind turbines with a height of 80 feet or less would be allowed in the county. The initial public hearing was at the November 6th meeting, but was then tabled to December when it was tabled again to January. This request was originally submitted in February 2018.

Though the public hearing had already occurred, additional comments by a few people present were still allowed by board chairman Herb Pabst. This was initiated by the presentation of a Stahr letter referring to the Eatinger request. The point was: if his letter is read, other people should also be allowed to present testimony.

Prior to any comments regarding the Weller request, board chairman indicated that any discussion associated with property rights would not be acceptable. “No one has property rights,” he said, including how government would take any property it would want. It has become obvious that when it comes to private property rights, some people say they have the right to place turbines on their land while others say this sort of action diminishes their property.

William Weller then introduced his request that a classification as industrial be indicated for wind turbines in clauses of the zoning regulations that now refer to commercial/utility wind turbines. This request was submitted in July by this young Cherry County rancher.
A common and shared reasoning was that wind turbines are not an agricultural use of land while Cherry county is predominantly involved with raising livestock and crop production. These points were initially raised by Craig Andresen and supported by others.

There is a common sentiment that a wind turbine facility is not a “turbine farm.”

Brent and Janet Steffen, of Thedford and Kearney, shared a perspective that wind turbines would change the Sand Hill region, visually and functionality. “We shouldn’t let greed and money take over what we are blessed with,” she said, also referring to how “wind turbines have ruined Oklahoma state,” where she grew up.

Turbines facilities planned for the county are industrial because of the planned height and extent of power produced, said Mike Young, expressing how any turbines would ruin features so important to the county residents and visitor business places such as Valentine.

One point of view expressed was whether “Cherry County will continue to be a special place,” as conveyed by Craig Miles, Brownlee. His son Caleb read supportive comments from scribbles in his small pocket notebook.

Tom Witt, Steve Moreland, Wayne Eatinger and Bob Stetter were supportive of Billy Weller’s request.

“What is done needs to make Cherry County better,” Moreland of Merriman said. His son Brock was also present and supportive. These men know sandhill country and its so essential grasslands of importance to them every year.

“What do citizens of Cherry County prefer to be done,” said Stetter, Valentine. His perspective is based upon a long-time heritage of family ranching in central Cherry county.

The stellar features of the region’s skyscape were indicated as a distinctive feature. Eve Millar referred to the annual star party at Merritt Reservoir – indicated by a just recent NET television feature – as occurring at a finest site in our nation to look at stars and a setting realized and enjoyed for many years. She indicated that despite an initial, past reluctance to speak about the future of the county viewscape, she has decided that “we cannot leave the views out” of any decision regarding wind turbines, as conveyed during her testimony at the public hearing.

Cleve Trimble has often indicated that this very same feature is a prominent reason visiting golfers so much enjoy the Sand Hills Golf Club and the Prairie Club course.

Twice during the meeting – for each zoning change request - reference was made to letters from Orvil Stahr, of Stahr and Associates of Kearney, NE. Neither letter had an indicated date when written. It was also questioned as to whether or not he has a valid contract, even though a draft, though not finalized contract was approved December 27th by the county commissioners, via a motion made by Tanya Storer, according to known details. Another point was why any comments by this consultant could/should be accepted in a county when he may not have even been officially hired. In one letter, he referred to a citizens comments as “beliefs” and then continued in his letter with berating points how they were erroneous and unacceptable.

A few very current news reports indicate there is an impeachment effort underway by voters to remove Stahr as mayor of York, NE.
And personally, anyone that refers to raptors as raptures – as Stahr did in one of his missives – has made a huge mistake. I’ve might have had a near rapture experience while watching a golden eagle soar over the land, but this misuse of language is simply wrong and indicative of something missing when it comes time for some consultant to opine their faux reality.

Cherry County residents obviously are expressing their views on what they want, yet a trio of county commissioners has instead decided to spend at least $50,000 based upon commissioner meeting minutes. They hired someone who has already written government documents which have repeatedly been heard to not be acceptable.

About 45 people attended the December meeting, many of them area ranchers. Some drove along lengths of icy country roads to be present. There were 13 people that presented testimony on the Weller request during the public hearing from 4:30 p.m. to 5:05 p.m. No one spoke in opposition to either the Eatinger or Weller request at this meeting.

There were six zoning board members present, with one absent and two ongoing vacancies since the commissioners have been unable to find any suitable candidate(s). The current zoning administrator was also absent, which is the second time she was not present for her job, as personally known in the past two weeks. A fill-in transcriptionist was required.

This meeting was video-taped, as many others have been in recent months to make certain what was said, that being their veracity.
Once the two requests are reviewed by the county attorney, they will have to be presented at another zoning board meeting, with the public being allowed to review any changes. Another public hearing will be required.

The next zoning meeting will be January 15th at county facilities at Valentine.

In January there will be a different mix of Cherry County commissioners that will make final decisions on any recommendations forwarded by planning and zoning. James B. Ward will replace Jim Van Winkle, a known investor in Cherry County Wind L.L.C.

25 May 2018

Evaluation of Known Memoranda of Agreement for Wind Turbine Facilities, Cherry County

Prepared by James E. Ducey, Valentine, initially in May 8, 2016; revised and updated November-December, 2017. Version 2.1. This is a draft document and subject to change as it is a paradox to determine the actuality of the records, despite a reliance on official government records since expressed details by the wind turbine proponents do not match the official county records.

This is an evaluation of land owners who have knowingly signed an agreement with Cherry County Wind LLC to allow development of wind turbine facilities on their property. The agreements officially filed within a Cherry county office would allow the development of wind turbines and have been reestablished by the controlling entity, Bluestem Sandhills LLC.

Details were derived from documents in Book 50 and Book 52 of Miscellaneous Agreements, kept in the Cherry county deed office. For those entities that had agreements filed in 2015, an “Amended and Restated Abstract/Memorandum of Agreement” was filed in late October, 2017.

The overall acreage for these entities is a sum of 352,010+ acres for the known agreements filed and available for public review at the county deed records office. There are fewer than fifty individual parties indicated by these documents.

It should be noted that for a couple of the ranch properties, the parcels indicated by the agreement are less than the overall extent of acreage indicated by the county GIS records, as available online in late November. In one instance, a parcel properties indicated with the agreement differs actual extent of acreage as denoted in county assessor records. There is one instance where the acreage parcels indicated in 2015 differ from those indicated in 2017 in the amended agreement. Note the examples where the enrolled acreage is less than 640 acres. Also indicated in this comparison is the enrollment of property owners that have an indicated address outside of Nebraska, obviously showing the involvement of absentee landowners.

Any consideration of these details is limited by the lack of legal records. It is obvious from comments presented in recent months during hearings in Cherry county meetings, that additional parties are associated with Cherry County Wind, LLC. There is an example to consider as associated with the Adamson family and their corporate entities.

It needs to be indicated that it is nearly impossible to derive any sort of accurate figure. There are sources
of errors which prevent an accurate tally. While reconsidering records associated with publicly-owned Board of Educational Lands and Funds, there were errors. Some of the parcels listed in the agreement were not indicated in the tally of parcels given in a legal document filed in December 2015. Another parcel is not indicated as a BELF parcel in the online county GIS details, though a legally filed agreement indicates it as such. Another parcel is shown by two versions of plat maps as being privately owned, though the section is listed as being owned by the BELF, according to documentation filed as associated with Cherry County Wind, LLC.

It also needs to be realized that changes in this information may occur, based upon details given with any amended and restated details of agreement as filed near the end of October, 2017. These documents have not been reviewed.

The reality is that it is nearly impossible to actually determine an accurate figure for land ownership. There are too many errors associated with the sources used to evaluate the details. This is problematic, as errors occur in the online record-base as provided by Cherry county, as well as the documents filed in the county courthouse. The base records may be accurate, but it would require an extensive evaluation to be completely accurate. Therefore this evaluation is an approximation.

Some of the areas indicated may not be suitable for development of a turbine facility. Based upon their small extent and configuration the property lines or distance from an occupied dwelling may not comply with zoning regulations. This can be determined further once the changes to the Cherry county zoning regulations are approved by the county commissioners.

There has to be other land owners involved with Cherry County Wind LLC, based upon the claims of the business entity. All of the following locales are within Cherry county.

Abbott Cattle Company Gordon (ranch in western Cherry county) 48,676 acres1 ( B
Taylor G. and Kerri Adamson Bluejacket, OK 1240 ( B
Todd M. Adamson Cody 2706 ( A
Jeanne K. Ang and Wayne R. Wright Spring Grove, IL 1431 ( C
William D. Barner and Donalee A. Berner Mullen (ranch in Cherry county) 1104 ( C
Board of Educational Lands and Funds Lincoln (prominent locale along Highway 83 in southern Cherry County, north of Thedford) 26,491 ( C
Bow & Arrow, LLC Auburn, AL 20,224 ( C
Broken Box Company (Rex Adamson) Cody 37,002 ( B
Glen Coble and Sons, Inc. (Matt G. Coble) Mullen 19,922 ( A
Don Cox Ranch Company Mullen 6167 ( B
Donald B. and Deborah S. Cox Mullen 640 ( B
Curtis Ranch, Inc. (Marie Wiese) Whitman (ranch west of the headwaters of the North Loup River) 6120 ( B
Donald D. and Jolene M. Grunhaupt Crookston 760 ( B
Reed Hamilton Ranch, Inc. (David W. Hamilton) Thedford 5733 ( B
Henderson Land and Livestock Company (Michael Henderson) Whitman (ranch to north in Cherry county) 11,372 ( B
Casey L. Henderson Hyannis (parcel in Cherry county) 640 ( B
Elmus M. and Tonya J. Henderson Whitman 7142 ( A
Larry and Carolynn T. Henderson Whitman 15,698 ( B
Mark E. Johnson Kilgore 447 ( C
Mark and Janelle Johnson Kilgore 615 2 ( C
Krajeski and Johnson, Inc. (John Johnson) Cody 2598 ( B
Krajeski and Johnson, Inc. Cody 2440 ( B
Robert B. Lord; Robert B. and Donna Mae Lord Lamar, CO 9001 ( C
Robert B. Lord, Wendy Fritzler and Phy Lord Lamar, CO 2454 ( C
Dean R. and Jennifer A. Marsh Kearney 1259 ( C
Robert J. Marsh; Robert J. and Peggy L. Marsh Mullen 1393 ( C
Wade W. Marsh and Kelly M. Marsh Minden 320 ( C
Lyn J. (DeNaeyer) Messersmith Alliance 8080 ( A
Matthew A. Miles and Carmen V. Miles Brownlee 1465 ( B
North LLC (Marian L. Nutter) Thedford 4683 ( C
Daniel W. and Shirley E. Osborn Mullen (ranch in Cherry county) 2836 ( C
Michael Don Peterson and Tammy J. Peterson Kilgore 399 ( C
Ivan R. and Phyllis M. Phillips Whitman 1829 ( B
Lyle D. and Twila F. Phillips Mullen 1888 ( C
John N. and Patsy L. Phipps Whitman 1680 ( B
Duane R. and Carolyn J. Porath Valentine 631 ( A
Powderhorn Ranch, Inc. (William W. Fischer) Nenzel 12,281 ( A
Ridenour Land and Cattle, Ltd. (Larry Ridenour) Mullen 7493 ( C
Rocking J Taylor Company (Taylor Adamson) Cody 3712 ( C
Rocking J Todd Company (Todd Adamson) Cody 16,140 ( B
S.K.K.B. Carpenter Ranch, LLC (Larry Ridenour) Mullen 5560 ( C
Fink-Sheer Inc. (Kevin Sheer) Elsmere 2989 ( C
Nancy and Robert Sinnett Valentine 2684 ( C
South LLC (Marian L. Nutter) Thedford 2863 ( B
Sunny Slope Ranch, Inc. (Adam Fischer) Valentine 9730 ( B
Three Bar Cattle Company (John W. Ravenscroft, a former county commissioner) Nenzel 26,694 ( C
James L. and Michalene R. Van Winkle (he has been a county commissioner for years with his tenure ending December, 2018) Wood Lake 657 ( A
Yeager Ranch Land, Inc. (Rex Adamson) Cody 4121 ( B

( 1 Acreage totals have been rounded to the nearest whole number
( A – total given with document
( B – summation of parcel acres given with document
( C – parcel acreage as derived from county GIS and other assessor records
( 2 Acreage total 615 with 2015 agreement and 447 acres in 2017 amended document

Known investors in Cherry County Wind LLC


March 2018 image courtesy of Tyler Rath, who developed the may based upon details indicated by this report.

It should be noted that this summary information does not conform to the acreage and membership details indicated by Cherry County Wind LLC, with additional unknown details that would be indicative.