×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Colorado Dept of Agriculture | Balancing Solar and Battery Energy Storage System Template Code & Policy Guide

Review and comment on the Draft Template Code and Policy Guide

Below is the draft of the Colorado Dept of Agriculture | Balancing Solar and Battery Energy Storage System Template Code & Policy Guide. We would appreciate your feedback on the draft document to enhance the Template Code and Policy Guide. Please be sure to offer your comments by Monday, May 11.

Please note that these two documents have been lightly formatted but be further refined following review of the text. 

How to Review and Provide Feedback: 

  1. As indicated on the green bar at the top of the document, you can click anywhere on the document to comment. 
  2. On initial login you will need to register/sign in to establish the ability to see prior comments on any subsequent login.
  3. After each session log out to save your comments so you can see them in a future session. If you forget to logout, Jen can still see them on her end so comments are safe.
  4. You can view the Table of Contents in the drop-down menu below to navigate between sections or use the search function to find specific sections or topics. 
  5. You can toggle between the Model Gode, Policy Guide, Applicant Guide, and Appendixes by selecting 'next' or 'previous' at the bottom of the page.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
Previous
Next

Comments

View all Cancel

Add comment

in reply to Richard Hubler's comment

jlindaas May 11 2026 at 11:48PM on page 6

Suggest adding a bit to the definition Allison suggests:

Ecovoltaics: Ecovoltaics or conservation solar is defined as solar development that integrates ecological principles through the co-prioritization of solar energy production and ecosystem services. Ecovoltaics projects identify outcomes and metrics that determine if biodiversity and ecosystem services are improved over and above the previous land use.

Ecovoltaic Solar System: A solar photovoltaic system that is intentionally designed, constructed, and managed to support biodiversity and/or provide ecosystem services over and above the previous land use. An ecovoltaic solar system must identify one or more goals to specify how the project will move the site toward enhanced biodiversity or ecological functions specific to the landscape context, via a construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring plan.

jlindaas May 11 2026 at 11:30PM on page 9

Comment
I might be missing this but the rest of this column has definitions above, except for "accessory energy uses"
in reply to Pete Dunlaevy's comment

jlindaas May 11 2026 at 11:26PM on page 7

Seconding Peter's comment here

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:42PM on page 41

As noted above, if a project meets the definition and requirements of an 'ecovoltaic' project as outlined above, then could be designated as a 'ecovoltatic project' and could receive incentives.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:40PM on page 37

Suggest rewording to reflect mitigation hierarchy. Should only mitigate what cannot be minimized, and only minimize what cannot be avoided.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:39PM on page 37

Suggest requiring this for the large-scale solar CUP as well.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:39PM on page 36

CUP included ESA and SWAP species -- include those here, too?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:38PM on page 32

see comment in medium scale solar BESS above.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:35PM on page 29

This is well said.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:35PM on page 29

See comment on medium CUP above.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:35PM on page 28

Suggested Revision
As commented above, require a letter from the ag user if other than the applicant?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:33PM on page 26

And "Maintenance plans and timeframes"?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:32PM on page 26

Include both species of greatest conservation need and species of greatest information need, and specify that these are according to the most recent State Wildlife Action Plan.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:31PM on page 25

Question
Should it require a letter by the agricultural user if other than the applicant?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:30PM on page 23

What about a community outreach or engagement plan?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:29PM on page 23

Question
It seems like you might first require a Class 1 survey, and then based on that outcome, require a Class III? Does it make sense to require both at the same time?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:28PM on page 23

Do you mean 'desktop cultural resource survey analysis'? And since Class III is listed below, why not just say Class 1 here?
in reply to Allison Jackson's comment

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:27PM on page 22

Suggested Revision
Could refer to the mitigation hierarchy here

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:25PM on page 20

Question
Will the County make these available to applicants?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:23PM on page 20

Suggested Revision
As above, suggest removing '8 feet' requirement and just requireing wildlife-friendly fencing in consultation with CPW.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:23PM on page 20

Suggested Revision
see earlier comment -- these aren't federal standards, but national ones. Also, are these already required by state statute/rule, so don't think they need to be included here.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 9:21PM on page 18

Suggested Revision
In section (c) it's not clear if CPW's recommendations must be followed or not. i.e., what exactly does, "A description of the mitigation commitments, where deemed appropriate by CPW, to..." Does this mean they have to commit to mitigate if CPW deems appropriate?

Suggest clarifying that the Wildlife Mitigation Plan must contain CPW's recommendations and explain how the applicant will adopt the recommendations.

Also here and throughout, 'mitigate' is used quite loosely and seems like actually it's used to mean avoid, minimize, and mitigate. Perhaps replace it with the 'mitigation hierarchy' or define it more clearly in the definitions? Here, we might replace "Mitigate Adverse Impacts" with "follow the mitigation hierarchy to reduce impacts to wildlife..."

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:51PM on page 18

Suggested Revision
"...their early..."

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:51PM on page 18

Suggested Revision
Suggest change to: "Applicants shall follow the mitigation hierarchy to reduce the impact that..."

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:50PM on page 17

Suggested Revision
Suggest we not include this height requirement here, but instead require that applicants adopt CPW fencing recommendations.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:49PM on page 16

Technical Edit
Suggest clarifying that updated emergency contact info is required to be posted

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:45PM on page 17

Suggest explicitly including fencing and other barriers.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:44PM on page 15

Question
What about the option for applicants to apply as and be designated by the county as an "ecovoltaics" project? Perhaps a way to incentivize these additional environmentally-friendly practices? This is the option that we discussed during the workshop.
in reply to Allison Jackson's comment

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:41PM on page 14

Question
Agree with these points. What about vegetation restoration/maintenance plan? That was one of the things that we discussed at the workshop, and it seemed like there was broad support for it.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:38PM on page 13

Suggested Revision
Some counties may want to require greater CPW consultation and require adoption of recommendations. Suggest adding a flexible portion here so that counties might do so.

Some species vulnerable to solar development do not have High Priority Habitat designations, so suggest requiring that all projects consult with CPW.

"For all projects, documentation of early consultation with CPW shall be submitted prior to the application for a land-use permit. When the project occurs within CPW High Priority Habitats, documentation showing consultation with CPW and showing that the project adopted CPW recommendations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to wildlife."

Could also define 'early consultation' as meaning consultation prior to the decision about siting and design of the project.
in reply to hneyster's comment

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:32PM on page 12

Or perhaps fencing and design requirements should go below, in (2)?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:30PM on page 13

Suggested Revision
Suggest that we define ecovoltaics in the definitions section.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:27PM on page 12

Suggested Revision
How does CPW consultation fit into here?
One option is to add:
" Project developers shall consult with CPW about possible site locations before site is chosen, use wildlife-friendly fencing and follow CPW recommendations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to biodiversity. Projects shall be sited to avoid No Surface Occupancy..."

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:06PM on page 12

Technical Edit
Suggest making clear that this size is an area for flexibility, and isn't this definition redundant with the earlier definition? Suggest double-checking to ensure that any info in the main code isn't redundant with or inconsistent with the definitions.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:05PM on page 12

Technical Edit
Note that these aren't federal standards -- they're national standards, not part of any federal law. Suggest double checking this wording here and throughout for consistency.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 7:03PM on page 11

Question
Is this 'use-specific' or 'use specific'?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 6:40PM on page 11

Question
Could link to CPW's document as informational somewhere in this doc or elsewhere: link

hneyster May 11 2026 at 6:37PM on page 7

Question
CPW also has a good explanation of this on their website,that you might link to somewhere? link

hneyster May 11 2026 at 5:15PM on page 9

Question
Maybe this should be AA here?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 5:15PM on page 10

Maybe explicitly say "Conditional use Permit" here, to make it clear how this applies to the table?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 5:13PM on page 9

Suggested Revision
Because these small-scale solar energy systems can add up, suggest adding a note to the box above explaining that administrative reviews should include potential cumulative impacts?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 5:10PM on page 9

Question
Could these definitions be written out vertically in these cells, rather than just defined below? I think would make a lot more readable.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 5:08PM on page 8

Question
Should these come first? since some of these are used above before they are defined here?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 5:07PM on page 8

Comment
This '...includes all lands containing the solar energy facility..." should be included in the earlier size definitions, too.

hneyster May 11 2026 at 5:05PM on page 7

Question
'flowing water'?

hneyster May 11 2026 at 5:04PM on page 7

Suggested Revision
Suggest re-writing: "Mitigation Hierarchy is a framework used to manage impacts of development to wildlife and biodiversity by following a sequence of actions: first, avoid impacts where possible; second, minimize unavoidable impacts; and third, mitigate remaining impacts. Can also include onsite restoration."

hneyster May 11 2026 at 4:57PM on page 7

Technical Edit
Rather than 'species of concern' suggest writing 'Colorado's wildlife'
since some of these species are not 'of concern' (like Mule Deer).

hneyster May 11 2026 at 4:55PM on page 6

Suggested Revision
Rather than writing 8 feet in stone, suggest re-writing second sentence to: "Exclusion fences shall be wildlife friendly and adopt Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) design recommendations, such as exit points or gates, permeability to small animals, and wire type, height, and spacing to avoid harms to large wildlife. "

In a box, could link to CDOT fencing designs and CPW "fencing with wildlife in mind" document
in reply to Allison Jackson's comment

Byron Kominek May 11 2026 at 4:51PM on page 14

Comment
Conserving soil health can mean many things to different people. This could mean having a heavily vegetated field with 10% organic matter, or it could mean that during construction you didn't compact the land more than 150psi to enable grasslands to continue to exist here, or it could mean that though the ground has been beat to dirt and is now a barren wasteland, we'll sprinkle 1/4" of compost on top. These examples to share, it'd be better to have a definition of soil health. I believe our friends at CDA could provide one along with best practices.
Agreed with Allison that having this line providing guidance on soil health & compaction followed by requesting a plan would be a low-lift and likely a BMP.

Pete Dunlaevy May 11 2026 at 4:50PM on page 8

Consider adding "USR" here too -- some counties call this Use by Special Review.
View all