Another set of meteorological towers will be installed in Coconino County -- this time near the county line just north of Seligman.
The eight members of the Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-1 to approve the request for a conditional use permit (CUP) during its Jan. 29 meeting, following similar approvals for towers聽near Meteor Crater and on Babbitt Ranches in the past six months.
The Big Bo MET Tower Project, named for the Big Boquillas Ranch where the project is located, includes four towers that will be used to study the meteorological conditions in the area and determine if the location is suitable for a wind farm in the future. Approval of the CUP allows for the towers to be operated for up to five years, with another CUP request required for wind turbines should the data collected prove the area is suitable for a wind farm.
The two applicants, the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority and Pacific Wind Development LLC, will place the four towers just to the east of the Aubrey Cliffs and Aubrey Valley on parcels of land owned by the Navajo Nation.
The project originally called for six towers before being reduced to four due to its proximity to the Conservation Opportunity Area (COA) from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) and the Audubon Society鈥檚 Important Bird Area (IBA). Coconino County senior planner Zach Schwartz explained to the commission that the applicants ended up removing the two additional towers, which were planned to be built inside of the COA and IBA.
Measuring at a total of 199 feet in height, the towers will not be required to have lights, because they come in just below the Federal Aviation Administration鈥檚 200-foot limit for unlit structures. Additionally, the towers will have guy wires, a tension-cable system designed to keep the towers upright, affixed with bird diverters and aircraft marker balls.
Though the towers are expected not to be visible from Seligman -- as they are located primarily within ranchland and undeveloped areas -- one or two of the towers were considered to be visible聽possibly聽from some homesites of the Hualapai. The thin profile of the towers and their distance from populated areas, however, were considered to be in accordance with the necessary findings of fact to approve the CUP by county staff, according to Schwartz.
Having visited the site with county staff in November, Planning and Zoning Commissioner John Ruggles agreed that the impact to the viewshed in the area should be minimal.
鈥淰ery simply, met towers have a very, very low impact in the area in which they are situated,鈥� Ruggles said. 鈥淗aving looked at a number of them in the past for cases similar to this, the visibility, considering the diameter of the actual tubing used to construct the tower at the distances we鈥檙e talking about 鈥� the visual impact is going to be quite minimal.鈥�
The lone vote from the commission in opposition came from Sat Best, who argued that the project conflicted with a critical wildlife habitat.
In addition to the COA and IBA to the west of the planned towers, AZGFD and Coconino County designated a wildlife corridor in the area. Though the two towers in the COA and IBA were removed, a 2011 study detailed that some of the birds of prey fly outside the protected area, and AZGFD did not modify its letter to the county as the remaining towers could still pose a similar risk.
The area is considered a sensitive wildlife location due to the presence of golden eagles, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, prairie falcons, multiple hawk species and bats.
鈥淥ver the years I have voted for approval of many a met tower,鈥� Best said. 鈥淲e need renewable energy and the structures that report it -- which these towers do. At the same time, there鈥檚 a balance of its effect on wildlife, and I think in this case, simply reading the staff report, staff analysis with the comprehensive plan, I just don鈥檛 think it complies.鈥�
Given the hunting tendencies of the various raptor species, further discussions by the AZGFD and the county鈥檚 urban wildlife planner led to an additional request for the towers to be built 500 meters away from a prairie dog colony. Through the planning process, no colonies were noted and members of the commission expressed doubt at the presence in the project area given the terrain not being conducive to prairie dog鈥檚 typical habitat.