The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20233172.tiff USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW ( USR) APPLICATION FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE : DATE RECEIVED : AMOUNT $ CASE # ASSIGNED : APPLICATION RECEIVED BY PLANNER ASSIGNED : P ROPERTY INFORMATION Is the property currently in violation ? No / [ Yes Violation Case Number: Parcel Number: 0 8 0 5 2 4 _ 0 _ 0 0 _ 0 2 4 S ite Address : NEAR 32501 COUNTY ROAD 37 , Greeley, CO 80631 Legal Description : A portion of 17885 E2NE4 24 6 66 EXC COMM E4 COR W30 TO POB N 104 .5 W 209 S 104 .5 E 209 TO POB Section : 24 , Township 6 N , Range 66 W Zoning District : A Acreage : 79 . 124 Within subdivision or townsite? No / Yes Name : Water (well permit # or water district tap #) : N/A Sewer (On -site wastewater treatment system permit # or sewer account #) : N/A Floodplain No / Yes Geological Hazard No / Yes Airport Overlay No / n Yes P ROJECT U SR Use being applied for: Solar Facilities Name of proposed business : CBEP Solar 16 , LLC P ROPERTY OWNER(S) (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Name : Company: McKee Ranch LLLP Phone # : (307) 399-3925 Email : countrycam16@gmail .com Street Address : P . O . Box 125 City/State/Zip Code : Lucerne , CO 80646 APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT (Authorization Form must be included if there is an Authorized Agent) Name : Zach Brammer Company: CBEP Solar 16 , LLC Phone # : (970) 580-5652 Email : zach@cloudbreakenergy. com Street Address : P . O . Box 1255 City/State/Zip Code : Sterling , CO 80751 I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals , and/or plans submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge . All fee owners of the property must sign this application . If an Authorized Agent signs , an Authorization Form signed by all fee owners must be included with the application . If the fee owner is a corporation , evidence must be included indicating the signatory has the legal authority to sign for the corporation . 04/29/23 S ign ure Date Signature Date Zach Brammer P rint Print 07/22 9 - - DEPARTMENTS OF PNNING BUILEING , DEVELO ' MENT REVIEW AND eat � � 1 r ite � ENVIRONMFNTAL HEALTH 1402 NOLTH #17111#171117 � AAVENUE PD BOX 758 . ii ?t ,57-747E -Tiorfr � - , _ m\--111) GFtEELE `Y , CO 80632 � 01111$01 �� I AUTHORIZATION FARM Cr V r \II tik,4 II ( We ) , . At give permission to _ FL ar ( Owner — please print ) (Authorized Agent !Applicant—pk : ase pint ) to apply for any Planning , Building , Access , Grading sr OWTS * ermi one our behalf , for the property located a# ( address or parcel numbe. r ) below : 1005° 0000IS _ L - sal Description : / 70471 62APJE T 22 (9 of Section Township f � Ni Range 406 1N SubdMStofl Name ? _ IV/ A Lot Pro * edy Owners I niormatiort Address : _ PIO ety izec � etvnt cpa 00 4(7 ahline : (507 el 425 Emal : wilt 1;1 Al COP1 _ Authorized Agent/Applicant Contact Iflfb (That10fl . Address : PO : s � . 4 It phone : 0 _ � 3 E - Mail �[�1� I_ OV / _ _ Cif' • „Iasi Correspondence to be sent to . Owner MU orhized AgenUApplicant by : Mail E n 3 i Additional Info : (iNe ) hereby certify, under penalty of perjury any after carefully reading the entire contents of this docume t , ghat tie information stated above is true and correct to the best of my ( our ) knowledge . (Care nentil paitate �447 ate `�o7 �� t , inet. _ � ` ` Date __ _ r ' 114211 ; 3 I 4 a anitett'L ciwn: cr SigflatUreOwner Signature _ (21Sik Subscribed and sw . rn �o before methis _ day of �Ai k , 20 ( ItAr ONLttit Xraii Le el iritiseS? Mycommisslonexpires _ / Jib Aihris winfinuh „vninfiaixmuuirn„ iunifiunithmithmuMuunumnbunwwn , ne N o taf]/ Pu bh c CHRISTOPHER MINWEGEN _ NO tA ' PUBLIC - STATE OF COLORAD • NOTA ID T0224047574 = Fp:, MY Cow - iSSION EXJIRU DEC 20 , 2o26 � ntlomilaulliniolfoififlllprfrlmluBlimollrllllll111111h1m11ibIU1m411i5 4954013 Pages : 1 of 1 i 1123/2 413 : 32 PM N Fite : $13 . 00 $13 . X10 _ _ Carly Kowa , Clerk and Recorder . Weld County , CO . .. in 'i ' gi " £11III '" �4 ii STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY 1 . This Statement of Authority relates to an entity named McKee Ranch, LLLP and is executed on behalf of the entity pursuant to the provisions of Section 84 o-172 , C . R . S . 2 . The type of entity is a_ 0 corporation 0 registered limited liability partnership ® nonprofit corporation 0 registered limited liability limited partnership O limited liability company 0 limited partnership association Q general partnership O govern m.ent or governmental subdivision or agency O limited partnership O trust (Section 38-30- 108 . 5 , C . R . Q . ) ci limited liability limited partnership II . The entity is formed under the laws of Colorado , 4 . The mailing address for the entity is P . O . Box 125 , Lucerne , Colorado 80646, . The name and position of each person authorized to execute instruments conveying , encumbering , or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of the entity is Clara A. McKee, General Partner. 6. ' The authority of the foregoing person (s) to bind the entity is not limited . 7 . Other matters concerning the manner in which the entitydeals with interests in real property: n&a Executed this 13th day of November, 2020 . - )61:46W10 ISP41 -% Clara A. McKee STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss, County of Weld ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 13th day of November, 2020 by Clara A. McKee . Witness my hand and official seal . t .4 III My cc m m i ' al • . I►. . i - - Njease-4 p SALLY PIEDAUSE Notary l is Notary Public t_cOlso_ r_atio 1 NI : '�A 005\OC ► ° ta+terreet i 73 9 icy cornn1iss or 'Expir ► s 10-24-2022 III III iI III Ili ,.-- - ;� Colorado Secretary of State Date and Time : 11 / 11 /2020 09 : 26 AM Document must be filed electronically. ID Number: 20201970337 Paper documents are not accepted. Fees & forms are subject to change . Document number : 20201970337 For more information or to print copies Amount Paid : $50 . 00 of filed documents, visit www. sos . state.co .us . ABOVE SPACE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Certificate of Limited Partnership and Statement of Registration to Register as a Limited Liability Limited Partnership filed pursuant to § 7-62-201 and § 7-60- 144 or § 7-64- 1002 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C. R. S . ) 1 . The name that has been the true name of the domestic limited partnership is McKee Ranch , LP (The name of a limited partnership must contain the term or abbreviation "limited partnership ", "limited", "company ", "l.p. ", "lp ", "ltd. " or "co. ". See §7-90-601, C.R.S.) 2 . The domestic entity name of the limited liability limited partnership is McKee Ranch , LLLP (The name of a limited liability limited partnership must contain the term or abbreviation "limited partnership ", "limited ", "company ", "limited liability limited partnership ", "registered limited liability limited partnership ", "l.p. ", "lp ", "co. ", "lllp ", "LTD. ", "r.l.l.l.p. " or "rlllp ". See §7-90-601, C.R.S.) (Caution : The use of certain terms or abbreviations are restricted by law. Read instructions for more information.) 3 . The principal office address of the limited liability limited partnership 's principal office is Street address 32363 WCR 37 (Street number and name) Greeley CO 80631 (City) (State) (ZIP/Postal Code) United States (Province — if applicable) (Country) Mailing address P . O. Box 125 (leave blank if same as street address) (Street number and name or Post Office Box information) Lucerne CO 80646 (City) (State) (ZIP/Postal Code) United States . (Province — if applicable) (Country) 4. The registered agent name and registered agent address of the limited liability limited partnership ' s registered agent are Name (if an individual) McKee Clara A. (Last) (First) (Middle) (Suffix) or (if an entity) (Caution: Do not provide both an individual and an entity name.) Street address 32363 WCR 37 (Street number and name) COMBO Page 1 of 3 Rev. 12/01/2012 Greeley CO 80631 (City) (State) (ZIP/Postal Code) Mailing address P . O . Box 125 (leave blank if same as street address) (Street number• and name or Post Office Box information) Lucerne CO 80646 (City) (State) (ZIP/Postal Code) (The following statement is adopted by marking the box.) FA The person appointed as registered agent has consented to being so appointed. 5 . The true name and mailing address of the general partner are Name (if an individual) McKee Clara A. (Last) (First) (Middle) (Suffix) or (if an entity) (Caution: Do not provide both an individual and an entity name.) Address 32363 WCR 37 (Street number and name or Post Office Box information) Greeley CO 80631 (City) (State) (ZIP/Postal. Code) United States (Province — if applicable) (Country) (If the following statement applies, adopt the statement by marking the box and include an attachment.) ❑ The limited partnership has one or more additional general partners and the name and mailing address of each additional general partner are stated in an attachment. 6. (The following statement is adopted by marking the box.) VA There are at least two partners in the partnership, at least one of whom is a limited partner. 7. (If the following statement applies, adopt the statement by marking the box and include an attachment.) This document contains additional information as provided by law. 8 . (Caution: Leave blank if the document does not have a delayed effective date. Stating a delayed effective date has sign f cant legal consequences. Read instructions before entering a date.) (If the following statement applies, adopt the statement by entering a date and, if applicable, time using the required format. ) The delayed effective date and, if applicable, time of this document is/are (mm/dd/yyyy hour:minute am/pm) Notice : Causing this document to be delivered to the Secretary of State for filing shall constitute the affirmation or acknowledgment of each individual causing such delivery, under penalties of perjury, that the document is the individual's act and deed, or that the individual in good faith believes the document is the act and deed of the person on whose behalf the individual is causing the document to be delivered for filing, taken in conformity with the requirements of part 3 of article 90 of title 7, C.R. S . , the constituent documents, and the organic COMBO Page 2 of 3 Rev. 12/01/2012 statutes, and that the individual in good faith believes the facts stated in the document are true and the document complies with the requirements of that Part, the constituent documents, and the organic statutes . This perjury notice applies to each individual who causes this document to be delivered to the Secretary of State, whether or not such individual is named in the document as one who has caused it to be delivered . 9 . The true name and mailing address of the individual causing the document to be delivered for filing are Hughes William W. (Last) (First) (Middle) (Suffix) 5587 W. 19th Street, Suite 101 (Street number and name or Post Office Box information) Greeley CO 80634 (City) (State) (ZIP/Postal Code) United States . (Province — if applicable) (County y) (If the following statement applies, adopt the statement by marking the box and include an attachment) This document contains the true name and mailing address of one or more additional individuals causing the document to be delivered for filing. Disclaimer: This form/cover sheet, and any related instructions, are not intended to provide legal, business or tax advice, and are furnished without representation or warranty. While this form/cover sheet is believed to satisfy minimum legal requirements as of its revision date, compliance with applicable law, as the same may be amended from time to time, remains the responsibility of the user of this form/cover sheet. Questions should be addressed to the user' s legal, business or tax advisor(s). COMBO Page 3 of 3 Rev. 12/01/2012 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT OF McKEE RANCH, LLLP, A Colorado Limited Liability Limited Partnership THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into effective as of November 13 , 2020 , by and among Clara A. McKee and Linda A . McKee . Recitals : A . McKee Ranch, LLLP (the " Partnership " ) was formed by Clara A . McKee and Linda A . McKee on November 11 , 2020 . B . On November 13 , 202 , Linda A . McKee assigned 9 ,495 . 25 units of her limited partnership units to Clara A . McKee . The parties now desire to amend the Partnership Agreement as stated herein . By signing this First Amendment, the parties agree to be bound by the original Partnership Agreement dated November 13 , 2020 . THEREFORE, the Partnership Agreement is hereby amended as stated above, and as follows : Adjustment of Ownership of Partnership Units . The Partners ' ownership of units in the Partnership Agreement are hereby adjusted to the following : General Partners : Units : Percentage : Clara A . McKee 5 units . 05 % Limited Partners : Clara A . McKee 9 ,495 . 25 units 94 . 9525 % Linda A . McKee 499 . 75 units 4 . 9975 % Total 10 , 000 . 00 units 100 . 00 % Signed effective as of November 13 , 2020 . Signature page ,for partners GENERAL PARTNERS : ��f�/l�-cD � � � ' ` C�C�' � � �" ) L3 � 2vZ0 Dated effective as of November 13 , 2020 Clara A . McKee 4 � ,e4 a , 1W kAA--- Dated effective as of November 13 , 2020 Linda A. McKee 4872215 12/14/2022 04 : 22 PM Total Pages: 7 Rec Fee : $43 . 00 Carly Koppes - Clerk and Recorder, Weld County , CO MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AND EASEMENT OPTION AGREEMENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AND EASEMENT OPTION AGREEMENT ("Memorandum") is entered into as of eri ; by and between McKee Ranch, LLLP, a Colorado limited liability limited partnership ("Owner"), and Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and its successors and assigns (`Operator") . RECITALS A . Owner and Operator have entered into that certain Lease and Easement Option Agreement (the "Lease Agreement"), dated bezeitytf, sfr, , 2022 (the "Effective Date"), whereby Owner has granted Operator the right to conduct due diligence on the Owner' s Property and an option to lease and develop a portion of the Owner' s Property (the "Option"), together with easement rights on, over, under, across, and through said Owner' s Property, in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, and being more particularly described in Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Owner's Property") . B . This Memorandum is being executed and recorded to evidence the Lease Agreement and shall not be construed to limit, amend or modify the provisions of the Lease Agreement in any respect. MEMORANDUM 1 . OWNER. The name of the Owner is McKee Ranch, LLLP, a Colorado limited liability limited partnership with an address of 32363 WCR 37, Greeley, CO 80631 . 2 . OPERATOR. The name of the Operator is Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, having an address of 4845 Pearl East Circle, Suite 118 #53242, Boulder, Colorado 80301 , and its successors and assigns. 3 . LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The specific legal description of the Owner' s Property is described on Schedule A and is incorporated herein by this reference. 4. OPTION TERM. Owner has granted Operator the . right to conduct due diligence on the Owner' s Property to determine if the Operator would like to enter into a lease. The initial term of the Option Agreement is a period which commenced on leafy\ tree etyl 2022 and ends on liZterryibeye Xi 34 . The term of the Option may be extended, at Operator' s discretion, for one ( 1 ) calendar year, as provided in the Lease Agreement. 5 . LEASE TERM . In the event the Option is exercised under the Lease Agreement, the term of the lease will commence on the Commencement Date (as defined in the Lease Agreement) and shall expire on the twentieth (20t}') anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date (as defined in the Lease Agreement). 55 4811 -7089-4018.9 4872215 12/ 14/2022 04 : 22 PM Paget of7 6. EXTENTION TERMS . Operator has the option to extend the term of the lease for three (3 ) additional extension terns of five (5) years each on the terms and conditions more particularly set forth in the Lease Agreement. 7 . EASEMENTS . In connection with the Lease Agreement, Owner has granted or has agreed to grant Operator a number of easements on, over, under, across and through Owner' s Property, which are fully described in the Lease Agreement. 8 g OTHER TERMS . In addition to those terms referenced herein, the Lease Agreement contains numerous other terms, covenants and conditions, and notice is hereby given that reference should be made to the Lease Agreement directly with respect to the details of such terms, covenants, and conditions. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this instument and the Lease Agreement, the provisions of the Lease Agreement shall control. 9 . AGREEMENT TO COOPERATE . At the request of Owner after expiration of the termination of the Lease Agreement, Operator shall reasonably cooperate with Owner in all respects with obtaining the removal of the Memorandum from title, including without limitation executing a termination of Memorandum in form reasonably required by Owner. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this instrument to be executed as of the date first written above . OWNER McKee Ranch, LLLP , a Colorado limited liability limited partnership By : a Y c II1ame: CLRR - ker - Title: Crentruj fa ( 1-ner, *Er RoncL L ui STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY/CITY OF sol this � day ofC,QCtNMr acknowled ed before me The foregoing instrument was g LLLP, a the dal PO, of McKee Ranch 2022 , by Pc � f, ,Colorado limited partnership,liability limited on behalf of the limited liability limited partnership. Witness my hand and official seal Notary Public ion expires: nSUScoznmiss pres: �(� l S My MEUSSA PINON NOTARY PUBLIC 56 STATE OF COLORADO 4811 -7089-4018 .9 NOTARY ID 20154018525 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 11 , 2023 4872215 12/ 14/2022 04 : 22 PM Page3of7 t • 57 r ... ta. . 3=� 4811-7089-4018.9 :. eg . r•r{ i i " • p .• 4872215 12/ 14/2022 04 : 22 PM Page 4of7 OWNER McKee Ranch, LLLP, a Colorado limited liability limited partnership By: ;;,,L,-4,_ 7a,cr Name : / OA' F Title: STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY/CITY O f ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me ' s da o kir . � y fOfetina , 2022, by Ranch LLLP, , the ,�i�m sfrtic McKee limited liability limited partnershi a Colorado limited liability limited art of partnership, on behalf of the p Witness my hand and official seal pIr11 commission My commission Public � expires: IV ow IL 2023 MEUSSA PINON NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20154018525 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 11 , 2023 [Remainder of page intentionally blank. Signatures continue on following pages. ] p g ] 58 4811 -7089-4018 . 9 4872215 12/ 14/2022 04 : 22 PM Page 5of7 OPERATOR Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By : Ge Name : . e..)400 go§ ry cCD \ kC4 Title: Mg-t1/4c. ) % .- i et-irk-L.\ er STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF Vst06 ) The foregoing instwment was acknowledged b fore me this day of C L thy , 2022, byk9tccL1PEjattIL) , the A • /At, £ cAftfltfof Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability Olomparty, disi behalf of the limited liability company. (-2r{{ / } � J Witness my hand and official se icor Notary Public My commission expires : )1/47091 2023 MELISSA PINC�N p 1 NOTARY PUaUC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20154018525 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 11 , 2023 59 4811 -7089-4018.9 4872215 12/ 14/2022 04 : 22 PM Page 6of7 SCHEDULE A to EXHIBIT E Legal Description of Owner ' s Property A portion of the following real property located in the County of Weld, State of Colorado : Parcel number : 080524000024 Legal : THE NE 'A OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 66 WEST OF THE 6111 .P.M ., COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, EXCEPTING THEREFROM A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 28, 1955 IN BOOK 60 AT PAGE 468 ; ALSO EXCPETING THEREFROM A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 30, 1955 IN BOOK 1428 AT PAGE 189 AND ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PART LYING NORTH OF THE CANAL OF THE CACHE LA POUDRE IRRIGATING COMPANY Also known by street number as : VACANT LAND, GREELEY CO 80631 Depiction on fbi/owing page 60 4811 -7089-4018 .9 .y.:{.n.�F ' .. i`. //� 4..:.' ' � i � , , � � � � � � � 1 � � � a �� .. �� : ; � � . � � �F�x . , . s,� � �, S Y�� . .a $ � . i .q+ / . � �yr�.. � m/ kf1 / i �. ! �Y��' J A F a. �'i.`Y� F�.�`1 MiVT�� a % •��Y,��'^Vh�� :. �, . /. � •� y . � . .rz ( � � rz y . i . 4p. . . . . �� ' � �.. fY .L iq . . .. . f.. C '�� f hR {� { l � l { Y n S'. x� �[ � � F�pF . �' a ,. ^v. � � ti\ # � . � . . . T � '�.�pS p 4 i �� R� [ / '. 1 •� l� � I : � �t "I '�{ S 'Aq � N 1.� � . ' { Af ♦ i .. x }�'� 1 � . l} . �1 �� F .v y f l A.i f v� r Yy I�a i � ! f ' !. ., � f IF ^ N'4� � At ^�� `R � 1"S d a+ II + � u�`i]4'��i "i R��t� �S `f ''�e�� .3''� ' ^ i� VIIIN� II� II II I I� .. . `� * f } g �n `I � s � ♦ra,x . � '� 'Rz '` '�^°#. � e, �'�' �p�," �3Ae`2j `S �� b9 � ��Y[ . e. S ��!� IaFi."�x� � �:7a��'�' P��`. � 'p T � , „ ' � '�& �r�` Eas � R{ `xn x � '1 a � v� �E � I 1e5.� � � kn.inxx`v �t 2 . �. � . � �v� � � a c �R x ��3 �'�' �+g �4�."t� 'a2�� _ . � � � � � �� y ��u�� . u q �� ; ,�•��, . ? . � L � Ts4�.t! yG � �{ � n{ ,`.� ` �l� �� • .d r . a �r^I`�k '�hrE11FA'*� '?�� tr,� f ' / � � y <.ya,� r i � i 4��y S �4��e"453 �}±'� t x S -•'#� .u� � 4 ♦ {K 'en R rP1 A e .n + � 4 �St C 4x " Y . . . ��.3��(��+ , .,� � ` Ye� '' ,: � F � e ., � s , r,�q 3 �, E � � rtrt ��4+IIF t T.1 l t ( A F . � IDrt F • < . .. � �� K ✓ �% � � .� . f F � � 4' � 4+2 t q SI ♦F� � 'aA � � � !� ��r/ 1 �� : E :. v n . .Y 'li 'M {' � f F � y � 'iJ �+✓ t l � f p 7�.J([ Yt /,� s R ? , r � v f f F •++? n l p q F�n `4 � � x � „ , Ar',..r::9 k ,: . �._ ; � ,. E . � s ,�i.'E., r . ,,,i. .:��.: F � 5 �` f � Y i. r� . A F � .. � { l F/�F. . q N t l .pv � � �:?.� cV' . ?.+4 a �. , � [ � � py �M� � v J }! j { �� .ii�� $4 .y�� // FA N Y'A:'�� F ( fi � f d�� TN. Ff.r {� �. . �y a � F � a /r �,. ` ' F ` � . �+1� �� ' ��'i` .:�1�31{ �� '� . o'!� r ��' p � G F.� A + l( ? . / f ' n Y��j.t�p e^h' �Ygx li l G�� f, yti..�� tl � M� < eF Ax 3 4�,�.` '�2� ' -. .` u � � b � ��,y+�i i ��i� T'*+�3S yx x P m� Y �i ��t�c „ �� i � : � A v� 'rt T . # ix �:Flr 9 r - vJ'�• n� �. !i . l4 �. 1 , q � { iii " +� g� nv F � 3 �± P hJ�?i r7 ; � `/ e nF�r Ary / . y.�q } M �� F .1 gf f4� IA4 ��.�f1�4 ♦ c rvl } � .� � l . . 'a�i�� ' 5 "f� • F,^'f° aa�� y: x e� �[ �x.ir'F f ! ` ny i/ > r �wskw �> �,. F t *�N • 1 �°i �Ci [��` �T F �� K � S � 'ey ] }l � � n � i ( . y k. e d �SY�'Y.4 n�*�e � '�� n ��4.�Y { � F . 4�� q�a}�Hq?c:� F u � f � {f � �*.` '" x� �`^'�� f�. .�2�y.'��f x �r "�`�,h.c � �i ^ ;1,� � \ s .p�, v x�A 'iXl3 $! "�¢. d.'� vf x ; x �e � s>`2 � � � � l u a .�� , Ye4 SE � �� sF � e "�e � y. x ° �'�+� 'L'f`Y✓� � � . � Ffn +��h�d 'raf 4° �,�'y � vAv fv F r xT `� '�"f��"� u .; F - , ♦ Y4y y� � � l J # � M t� ��c �Y4y�lS� FY l" fki f �� fF�� . .. . n � � fa n � [en �e � $�� Y 3 `�� ! � F xT. r x F . a y k v � ✓ � �T n '^A M c X 4 i ' f �a v,r4..}n ^. r x y r/e � � y , t , �� yY �F � S ��6� i,t px ^xM}` e r � f y � ��$. 4 Y' f `f[L i MnfR / A • ! 'F f # } d ' � *�;�r ? o-� d..� Y - s }' y^`�'{,p,, F � A ' f � < ` � a * I S . � �'/�f;" T. �S�''e%aU'F .. " e � u' y ' pF d 'F L T.f' 4 T n ` A �' � �� +- i�/F ..lA"f��}� T � � et� . F h „�"3. �^' ` �.� ' � S�.' , "`r R.a' r � S� ' + a i � �� ♦ j} . �# � .x �n�; :n^ �` �xa� � 9"��A>� �}�` � �r��^$^ <�.i ^ r a1e_� �N{ax4 £ !t "� s i�' � ir; � ) �{¢ [� Y ' F �i /' � Y1 � �5 ! �t � ! � �"f� � fn N1aU F � �ir Y ? ! a ♦ e l r ' � vs y �£ +��kl f � i ' II � n '� � !� �A a i an f 'l i'1 {i n e . � �� : �' i , � # ! `u f r x � i f �� i .t �!.> ) �s +^Y .` e1 ^ � 4 r '� ; . F �� , , .,�f 1 �•f ,$ l�' ' < nF F . ? ^ F� .ea..w `z , � R � ^L a r .« rn . F . ^ � .t � a r �� r � r . .' � p . FF., 6+ '+i � i , s/ /F� � F y � Y }F '�A R4T . � � ��. , i. y � i [ �{ Y •. / . � . r '� i � � f iF `4 � 7 � � e. �! i .' § f r.� . / •• �� 6 o � t � . ' � o o- � .. • e t S ��. 1 .. Fi ` . � � ' f � 4 r e `i e4sxn! F . !�� ' � �r F a � ryjj�� . (�: ] 1. � . ..� < F 6 % �F . r .��'�Y� � F . , � , � , . .... � `.� ' �� , „ .�. . A .{ , ,. , ., , , , , . . ^ , y . . e `R ! n� .�� r ::.' FF F � � F Fe : `5 � � v . e . 'e i F.l. . q. � . • . . � � � e .. ' � � n. . �� . . � 1 � .. . . . . . . ..b " ,. :. .'. � . � .. .. „ ri P - . . . , .. L ,� �r 1 " a � � � w , • � ,,,. �� . . ;. „ ',. ;, . �, . : . ..; . n " . �w 9`; rgb„` w .u..+ L � . . � . .., . � �-`� F � 1 "I � � F ' v 2, e n / �� fl ! / � � .: F i . �. . Y !� . F .. � � FF�F . . f... y .. � ..� .... � � %%/ .. '.p e l FF �� 4 . .. i ! . ' � � / F F� ( .. pp n 4� r � . / � � /p %F >' e. � t ii ii . � � P. p q ! � y . f ..3 / •q / � �e . e / F /F.i �I % � .. � y.. . u a �i l Ai. ! ii� � . ♦ . �L . . . ' :y -N /. P /nv v ^ � •..•' . f f 'x'F /l u / � ,. i ! . . � i ° e N `� l!!F k�� .. �q l.� f . F�. 1 � vp �� i� F//4 ��•• Ui F i�... � f� 1 � � � /ip� � � d.. �. : ... . .! � / F. ��A::.. y . . l . . . F 1 /. • .q f ..p.. .pi ' y f ..v �e }� . .6. d �... 0 y .v . / Y .. Fi.?F� � . %. v.l? ...vi. � 1 / � � , � , � Y " 1 1 + . I • ' � � • ' • � , .. • • • n' i= p v t L- 4 � :[ ��p., }P� 4 A i � a43 Y R s n a.�.� +?ta a i4 . SaA�y 3 � :� �i� "i :n r� p � s yn �i '; �ixx n 6'� t> i ' . r� a r4 d � a ^ 3 S�rt ' E+ x�: II . x 1 �: + ' s . a ♦ � y „�� G P �. . . � v .� .c y' �-.. '- v__ m___ i iG nr. ' rc:. ! �' `Yh^ . n...: a, � s-i..:: . '?:(°� y n �F.. .:. . .. . . . . CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Planning Questionnaire 1 . Explain the proposed use and business name : o CBEP Solar 16 , LLC is proposing to construct and operate the McKee Ranch Solar Project (" Project " ) in unincorporated Weld County on Parcel ID number 080524000024 . The Project will be a 7 . 5MWac community solar garden and will be constructed on approximately 54 . 19 acres of privately owned land . It will consist of solar modules mounted about 5 feet above the existing grade on single- axis trackers, which allow the panels to track the sun from east to west over the course of the day. The project will also include inverters mounted on steel posts or beams, concrete-pad mounted transformers, other electrical equipment, an access road , and a perimeter game fence with gates . 2 . Explain the need for the proposed use : o Ensuring long -term energy security for the United States requires a mixture of all different types of energy production , including community solar projects like the McKee Ranch Solar Project. 3 . Describe the current and previous use of the land . o The land is currently vacant (no existing water rights to be used for crop production ) and has historically been used for oil and gas production . 4 . Describe the proximity of the proposed use to residences. o The nearest residence is approximately 500 feet to the north of the Project ' s proposed fenceline . 5 . Describe the surrounding land uses of the site and how the proposed use is compatible with them . o The surrounding land use includes residential , oil and gas production , and agricultural land use . 6 . Describe the hours and days of operation (i . e . Monday thru Friday 8 : 00 a . m . to 5 : 00 . m . . (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 o Construction activities will take place Monday through Saturday from 7 : 00 a . m . to 6 : 00 p . m . After construction is completed , occasional maintenance will occur between 7 : 00 a . m . and 7 : 00 p . m . as needed . 7 . Describe the number of employees including full -time, part-time and contractors. If shift work is proposed , detail number of employees., schedule and duration of shifts .. o Construction may require up to 50 workers to be on site at one time during the peak of construction , all contractors during the day shift. Construction employees may include up to 15 civil workers, 15 electricians, 15 racking builders , and an additional 5 employees. During operations , two to four employees may be needed for maintenance , as needed , approximately twice a year. 8 . Describe the maximum number of users, patrons, members, buyers or other visitors that the site will accommodate at any one time . o No users , patrons , members , buyers , or other visitors are expected to be on the site at any time . 9 . List the types and maximum numbers of animals to be on the site at any one time (for dairies , livestock confinement operations, kennels, etc. ) . o Up to 500 sheep . 10 . List the types and number of operating and processing equipment. o The Project will consist of approximately 18 , 252 solar modules mounted about 5 feet above the existing grade on single-axis trackers , which allow the panels to track the sun from east to west over the course of the day . The project will also include 75 inverters mounted on steel posts or beams, 3 concrete pad mounted transformers, and other electrical equipment. 11 . List the types, number and uses of the existing and proposed structures. o There are no existing structures on the Project's site . o The proposed structures for the Project will include : i . Approximately 18 , 252 solar modules mounted about 5 feet above the existing grade on single-axis trackers, which allow the panels to track the sun from east to west over the course of the day . ii . 75 inverters mounted on steel posts or beams iii . 3 concrete pad mounted transformers iv. Approximately 5 utility poles that will connect the project to the existing Xcel Energy distribution line located on the east side of the property . v. One temporary construction trailer vi . Two 10' x 40' storage containers that will store parts, tools , and equipment on site during construction and operations (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKEICIEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE3 12 . Describe the size of any stockpile, storage or waste areas . o During construction , a laydown area located within the limits of the Project area will be used to store Project facility items while facilities are installed . During operations , there will be no open stockpiling , uncovered storage , or waste areas . Up to two storage containers approximately 40-feet in length , 10 feet in width , and 10 feet in height to store spare parts , tools, and equipment on site during construction and operations . 13 . Describe the method and time schedule of removal or disposal of debris, junk and other wastes associated with the proposed use . o Debris , junk, and other wastes will be stored in appropriate waste receptacles such as dumpsters during construction . CBEP Solar 16 , LLC or its contractors will hire a waste management provider to regularly remove wastes associated with construction of the Project from the receptacles and bring the waste to an approved landfill or disposal site . Maintenance contractors will properly dispose of any wastes generated during operation of the Project by bringing the wastes to an approved landfill or disposal site . 14 . Include a timetable showing the periods of time required for the construction of the operation . o Project construction is expected to begin in Q1 2024 and is expected to be completed in Q2 2024 . Construction activities would follow the estimated timetable below : Construction Phase Season/Duration Construction Begins O1 2024 Site preparation 1 -2 months Structural work 3-5 months Electrical work 2-4 months Utility work 2-4 months Construction Completion Q2 2024 15 . Describe the proposed and existing lot surface type and the square footage of each type (i . e . asphalt , gravel , landscaping , dirt, grass, buildings) . o The existing lot surface type is all vegetated land . The proposed surface types and square footage of each type are listed below : i . Concrete : 8 , 247 sq ft (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM I CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE4- ii . Gravel : 31 , 570 sq ft iii . Swales: 0 sq ft iv. Grass/Vacant: 1 , 810, 037 sq ft v. Solar Racking : 506 ,360 sq ft 16 . How many parking spaces are proposed ? How many handicap-accessible parking spaces are proposed ? o No parking spaces or handicap-accessible parking spaces are proposed . 17 . Describe the existing and proposed fencing and screening for the site including all parking and outdoor storage areas. o There is no existing fencing or screening on the site . The Project will be surrounded by a game fence that is at least 7 feet tall . 18 . Describe the existing and proposed landscaping for the site . o There is no existing landscaping on the site and there is no proposed landscaping . 19 . Describe reclamation procedures to be employed as stages of the operation are phased out or upon cessation of the Use by Special Review activity. o Decommissioning of the Project will commence within 12 months after power production has permanently ceased and be completed within 12 months of the decommissioning work commencing . Decommissioning will include the removal of: i . All non -utility owned equipment, conduits, structures, fencing , and foundations to a depth of at least three (3) feet below grade ii . All fences , graveled areas and access roads unless the property owner agrees for this to remain o The property will be restored to a condition reasonably similar to its condition prior to the development of the Project 20 . Describe the proposed fire protection measures . o The Project is located within the Eaton Fire Protection District . The Project will comply with all Colorado Public Utilities Commission requirements as well as national codes and standards for construction , electrical , and fire . A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system will remotely monitor and control the Project 24 hours per day . The SCADA system will transmit Project data and control signals over the internet. 21 . Explain how this proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan per Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code . o The Project is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan because it: (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGES i . Does not interfere with any existing agricultural operations within the vicinity . ii . Respects private property rights by allowing the owner of the property to do what is in their best interest while complying with local regulations and not interfering with or infringing upon the rights of others . iii . Promotes economic growth and stability by providing a diversified source of income for the landowner, the shepherd , and the County while also offering local residents the opportunity to save money on their electricity bills through Xcel 's Solar* Rewards Community Program . iv. Protects the health , safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the County by providing an emission -free source of energy . v. Is harmonious with surrounding agricultural and industrial uses . vi . Supports future mineral development by reserving space on the landowner's property where minerals can be extracted in the future . 22 . Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the zone district in which it is located . ( Intent statements can be found at the be inning of each zone district section in Article III of Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code . ) o There are n0 water rights associated with the property, so crop production has become increasingly more challenging for this parcel . The new solar development will also not interfere with any of the surrounding agricultural land uses . The Project's array will protect the land underneath and in turn allow the soil to revitalize over time , therefore preserving the land to be used for agricultural purposes in the future , if desired . We will be planting a native seed mixture on the property that will not require irrigation . 23 . Explain how this proposal will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area or adopted master plans of affected municipalities. o The Project will not be located within any Intergovernmental Agreement areas. o This Project will fit in well with the rural community as it will have minimal visual impacts as well as minimal sound , odor, noise , and traffic impacts. This Project will benefit the community with improved electrical infrastructure , increased energy independence , and help reduce the burden on the energy grid as the community continues to grow and expand . (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM I CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PSG E 6 24 . Explain how this proposal impacts the protection of the health , safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neichborhood and the Count v . o The Project is not anticipated to impact the health , safety , and welfare of Weld County citizens . Designs will comply with Colorado Public Utilities Commission requirements as well as national codes and standards for construction , electrical , and fire . A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system will remotely monitor and control the Project 24 hours per day . The SCADA system will transmit Project data and control signals over the Internet . 25 . Describe any irrigation features . If the proposed use is to be located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, explain your efforts to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use . o There is no irrigation system on the property and there are no existing water rights. Due to this land being identified as non - irrigated dry farmland , it will not be taking prime agricultural land out of production . We will be planting a native seed mixture on the property and grazing sheep to maintain the vegetation at a height of no more than 18-22 inches. 26 . Explain how this proposal complies with Article V and Article XI of Chapter 23 if the proposal is located within any Overlay Zoning District (Airport, Geologic Hazard , or Historic Townsites Overlay Districts) or a Special Flood Hazard Area identified by maps officially adopted by the County . The Project site is not located within any Overlay Zoning District or Special Flood Hazard Area . 27 . Detail known State or Federal permits required for your proposed use (s) and the status of each permit . Provide a copy of any application or permit. o There are no Federal permits required for the Project. o There are two State permits that may be required - the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Permit. No applications for State permits have been submitted . (970) 425-3175 I INFO@CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Development Review Questionnaire 1 . Describe the access location and applicable use types (i . e . , agricultural , residential , commercial/industrial , and/or oil and gas) of all existing and proposed accesses to the parcel . Include the approximate distance each access is (or will be if proposed) from an intersecting county road . State that no existing access is present or that no new access is proposed , if applicable : o The Project parcel has 3 accesses . o Access 1 , the proposed access for the McKee Ranch Solar Project, is located on the eastern side of the parcel on County Road 37 , approximately 640 feet to the south of CO-392/Weld County Road 68 and 4, 610 feet to the north of AA Street/Weld County Road 66 . This is an existing agricultural access that will serve as the Project access . o Access 2 is an existing access located on the eastern side of the parcel on County Road 37 , approximately 1 , 920 feet to the south of CO-392/Weld County Road 68 and 3 , 330 feet to the north of AA Street/Weld County Road 66 . This is an existing agricultural access . o Access 3 is an existing access located on the eastern side of the parcel on County Road 37 , approximately 2 ,490 feet to the south of CO-392/Weld County Road 68 and 2 , 765 feet to the north of AA Street/Weld County Road 66 . This is an existing agricultural access . 2 . Describe any anticipated change(s) to an existing access, if applicable : o No accesses will be relocated , but Access 1 (above) will be improved for the project. 3 . Describe in detail any existing or proposed access gate including its location : o There will be a 7 -foot tall perimeter fence around the Project. The access gate will be located on the eastern side of the Project area . 4 . Describe the location of all existing accesses on adjacent parcels and on parcels located on the opposite side of the road . Include the approximate distance each access is from an intersecting county road : (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 o There are 8 parcels adjacent to the Project parcel . o The parcel to the west has 1 access on the parcel and shares 1 access with the Project parcel (access 3 on the Project parcel) . The access on this property is located on the north side of the parcel on CO-392 , approximately 1 , 685 feet to the west of County Road 37 and 3 , 520 feet east of County Road 35 . There are 3 parcels across the CO-392 north of the Project parcel . o The westernmost parcel across the CO -392 to the north of the Project parcel has 1 access located on the southern side of the parcel , approximately 1 , 180 feet to the west of County Road 37 and 4 , 020 feet to the east of County Road 35 . o The middle parcel across the CO-392 to the north of the Project parcel has 1 access located on the southern side of the parcel , approximately 190 feet to the west of County Road 37 and 5 ,020 feet to the east of County Road 35 . This parcel also has an access that runs through an adjacent property to the southwest. This access connects with CO-392 approximately 1 , 705 feet to the west of County Road 37 and 3 , 500 feet to the east of County Road 35 . o The easternmost parcel across the CO-392 to the north of the Project parcel has 2 accesses. - Access 1 is located on the south side of the parcel on CO-392 , approximately 120 feet to the west of County Road 37 and 5 , 100 feet to the east of County Road 35 . - Access 2 is located on the east side of the parcel on County Road 37 , approximately 550 feet to the north of CO-392 and 4, 710 feet to the south of County Road 70 . There are 2 parcels across County Road 37 to the east of the Project parcel . o The northern parcel across County Road 37 to the east of the Project parcel has 3 accesses. - Access 1 is located on the west side of the parcel on County Road 37 , approximately 650 feet to the south of CO-392 and 4, 570 feet to the north of County Road 66/AA Street. - Access 2 is located on the west side of the parcel on County Road 37 , approximately 1 , 910 feet to the south of CO-392 and 3 ,335 feet to the north of County Road 66/AA Street. - Access 3 is located on the north side of the parcel on CO-392 , approximately 385 feet to the east of County Road 37and 3 , 880 feet to the south of CO- 85 . (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE3 o The southern parcel across County Road 37 to the east of the Project parcel has 1 access located on the west side of the parcel , approximately 2 , 075 feet to the south of CO-392 and 3 , 155 feet to the north of County Road 66/AA Street. There are 2 parcels to the north of the Project parcel . o The eastern parcel to the south of the Project parcel is a residential parcel with 1 access located on the east side of the parcel , approximately 2 , 600 feet to the south of CO-392 and 2 , 650 feet to the north of County Road 66/AA Street. o The western parcel to the south of the Project parcel is an agricultural parcel with 2 accesses . - Access 1 is located on the east side of the parcel on County Road 37 , approximately 3 , 350 feet to the south of CO-392 and 1 , 720 feet to the north of County Road 66/AA Street. - Access 2 is located on the south side of the parcel on County Road 66/AA Street, approximately 1 , 270 feet to the west of County Road 37 and 2 , 630 feet to the east of N 35th Ave . 5 . Describe any difficulties seeing oncoming traffic from an existing access and any anticipated difficulties seeing oncoming traffic from a proposed access : o The existing access should not have any difficulties seeing oncoming traffic . 6 . Describe any horizontal curve (using terms like mild curve , sharp curve , reverse curve , etc . in the vicinity of an existing or proposed access: o The existing access does not have any horizontal curves in the vicinity . 7 . Describe the topography (using terms like flat, slight hills, steep hills, etc . ) of the road in the vicinity of an existing or proposed access: o The topography of the road in the vicinity of the existing access is flat. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Environmental Health Questionnaire 1 . Discuss the existing and .proposed potable water source . If utilizing a drinking water well , include either the well permit or well permit application that was submitted to the State Division of Water Resources. If utilizing a public water tap , include a letter from the Water District, a tap or meter number, or a copy of the water bill . : o The Project area does not have an existing potable water source . There is no proposed potable water source for the Project. Bottled water will be provided for the construction team . Any water used for dust mitigation will be brought to the property from an external source . 2 . Discuss the existing and proposed sewage disposal system . What type of sewage disposal system is on the property? If utilizing an existing on -site wastewater treatment system , provide the on -site wastewater treatment permit number. (If there is no on -site wastewater treatment permit due to the age of the existing on -site wastewater treatment system , apply for a on -site wastewater treatment permit through the Department of Public Health and Environment prior to submitting this application .) If a new on -site wastewater treatment system will be installed , please state " a new on -site wastewater treatment system is proposed . " (Only propose portable toilets if the use is consistent with the Department of Public Health and Environment's portable toilet policy.) : o There is no existing on -site sewage disposal system . The operation of the Project is not anticipated to require a sewage disposal system . CBEP Solar 16 , LLC or its contractors will provide portable toilets during construction . 3 . If storage or warehousing is proposed , what type of items will be stored : o The Project will include up to two 10 ' x 40 ' storage containers that will store parts , tools, and equipment on site during construction and operations. 4 . Describe where and how storage and/or stockpile of wastes , chemicals , and/or petroleum will occur on this site : o During construction wastes will be stored in appropriate waste receptacles such as dumpsters. CBEP Solar 16 , LLC and its contractors will hire a waste management provider to regularly remove wastes associated with construction of the Project from the receptacles and bring the waste to an approved landfill (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 or disposal site . Maintenance contractors will properly dispose of any wastes generated during operation of the Project by bringing the wastes to an approved landfill or disposal site . During construction , up to 1 ,000 gallons of fuel will be stored on -site in appropriate containers. No fuel will be stored on site for operations. No other chemicals are anticipated to be stored during construction or operation of the Project. 5 . If there will be fuel storage on site , indicate the gallons and the secondary containment. State the number of tanks and gallons per tank: o Up to 1 ,000 gallons of fuel are anticipated to be stored on one site at one time during construction . Storage of fuel will follow applicable secondary containment requirements , as applicable . There will not be fuel storage during operation of the Project. 6 . If there will be washing of vehicles or equipment on site , indicate how the wash water will be contained : o There will not be vehicle washing/equipment on site during the construction and operation of the Project. 7 . If there will be floor drains , indicate how the fluids will be contained : o None of the facilities constructed for the Project will contain floor drains or require wastewater treatment. 8 . Indicate if there will be any air emissions (e . g . painting , oil storage, etc. ) : o Traffic volume , primarily in the form of passenger vehicles , would increase in and around the Project area during construction . The increased traffic would temporarily increase odors and exhaust from vehicle emissions . Odors are anticipated from the operation of heavy machinery during grading , pile driving , and other installation activities at specific time periods throughout construction . Impacts from odors during Project operation would be minimal , likely restricted to emissions from the vehicles of maintenance personnel . 9 . Provide a design and operations plan if applicable (e . g . composting , landfills, etc .) : o A design and operations plan is not applicable to the Project. 10 . Provide a nuisance management plan if applicable (e . g . dairies, feedlots, etc . ) : o A nuisance management plan is not applicable to the Project. 11 . Additional information may be requested depending_ on type of land use requested : o If any additional information is required , please don 't hesitate to contact Zach Brammeratzach@cloudbreakenergy. com - (970) 425 -3175 . (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Alternatives Statement Cloudbreak Energy Partners performed a rigorous search for ideal solar project locations across the State of Colorado . This search included hundreds , if not thousands, of properties within Weld County . The McKee Ranch LLLP ' s property was chosen due to several factors including , but not limited to : • Close proximity to high quality Xcel Energy distribution infrastructure that has the capacity for a project of this size • Close proximity to Xcel Energy's Greeley & Eaton substation • Outside of floodplains and wetlands • Relatively flat • No geotechnical constraints • Landowner participation • Limited disturbance to nearby properties and property owners Alternatives to the McKee Ranch LLLP ' s property were thoroughly evaluated but were ultimately dismissed due to at least one of the above factors . The proposed Project presents the most viable design and location with the least adverse impacts of all the alternatives . (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Decommissioning Plan Approach CBEP Solar 16 , LLC has developed this decommissioning plan for the McKee Ranch Solar Project, to be implemented after the contracted lease term has ended . CBEP Solar 16 , LLC, the owner of the 7 . 5MW AC Solar Energy Facility (SEF) will be responsible for the decommissioning . Decommissioning of the Project will include removal of all above and below-ground infrastructure , including the arrays , inverter structures , concrete foundations and pads , and electrical infrastructure . All fences, graveled areas and access roads shall be removed unless landowner agreement to retain is presented , in writing , in which the property owner agrees for this to remain . The property shall be restored to a condition reasonably similar to its condition prior to development of the 7 . 5MW AC SEE Grading and re-vegetation will comply with all applicable rules and regulations. Exclusions from the decommissioning plan include planting trees , removing internal site roads , and re-grading to previous conditions. All non -utility owned equipment, conduits, structures, fencing , and foundations to a depth of at least 3 ' below grade shall be removed . Decommissioning activities will follow the CDOT best management practices ( BMPs) for erosion and sediment control and stormwater management that are applied during project construction , or any new BMPs relevant at the time . CBEP Solar 16 , LLC will decommission the Project once the contracted lease term is over, if the lease term is not extended or renewed . Decommissioning may also be initiated if the project is no longer viable , or in the case of a force majeure event (described below) . CBEP Solar 16 , LLC will provide notice to Weld County prior to commencement of decommissioning the Project. Estimated Timeline and Cost Decommissioning/reclamation shall commence within 12 months after power production has permanently ceased and be completed within 12 months from the start date of the decommissioning/reclamation work. Decommissioning/reclamation cost estimates, which shall be updated every five years from the establishment and submittal of the Security, shall include all costs associated with the dismantlement, recycling , and safe disposal of facility components and site reclamation activities, including the following elements : (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 • All labor, equipment, transportation , and disposal costs associated with the removal all facility components from the facility site • All costs associated with full reclamation of the facility site , including removal of non -native soils, fences, and constructed access roads • All costs associated with reclamation of any primary agricultural soils at the facility site to ensure each area of direct impact shall be materially similar to the condition it was before construction • All decommissioning/reclamation activity management, site supervision , and site safety costs • All other costs , including administration costs, associated with the decommissioning and reclamation of the facility site • The established date of submission of the financial assurance mechanism to Weld County Prior to construction , CBEP Solar 16 , LLC will provide the County with an irrevocable standby letter of credit, bond , or alternate form of financial assurance mechanism in an amount sufficient to fund the estimated decommissioning costs required by the Code . The Security shall : • Name the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County as the sole beneficiary of the letter of credit • Be issued by an A- rated financial institution based upon a rating provided by S & P, Moody's, Fitch , AM Best, or other rating agency with similar credentials • Include an automatic extension provision or " evergreen clause " • Be " bankruptcy remote " , meaning the financial assurance mechanism will be unaffected by the bankruptcy of the SEF operator Weld County, in its sole discretion , may approve alternative forms of a financial assurance mechanism such as , but not limited to bonds , letters of credit, or other securities , if it finds that such alternative forms will provide an assurance of the availability of financial resources for decommissioning/reclamation that equals or exceeds that provided by the form required herein . Furthermore , Weld County shall have the right to draw upon the irrevocable standby letter of credit, or other form of financial assurance mechanism , to pay for decommissioning in the event that the holder has not commenced decommissioning/reclamation activities within 90 days of the Board of County Commissioners order or resolution directing decommissioning/reclamation . Continued Beneficial Use If prior to decommissioning the Project, the landowner determines that any of the Project components can be beneficially used on the land after disassembly , such items would be (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE3 exempt from the requirements for decommissioning . If a third party acquires the Project or a portion of the Project, such third party would be responsible for providing evidence of a plan of continued beneficial use for their relevant Project components . Force Majeure An exception to these requirements will be allowed for a force majeure event, which is defined as any event or circumstance that wholly or partly prevents or delays the performance of any material obligation arising under the Project permits , but only t0 the extent: • Such event is not within the reasonable control , directly or indirectly, of CBEP Solar 16 , LLC (including without limitation events such as fire , earthquake , flood , tornado , hurricane , acts of God and natural disasters; war, civil strife or other similar violence) ; • CBEP Solar 16 , LLC has taken all reasonable precautions and measures to prevent or avoid such event or mitigate the effect of such event on CBEP Solar 16 , LLC's ability to perform its obligations under the Project permits and which , by the exercise of due diligence , it has been unable to overcome ; and • Such event is not the direct or indirect result of the fault or negligence of CBEP Solar 16 , LLC . In the event of a force majeure event, which results in the absence of electrical generation by the Project for 12 months, CBEP Solar 16 , LLC must demonstrate to Weld County by the end of the 12 months of non -operation that the Project will be substantially operational and producing electricity within 24 months of the force majeure event. If such a demonstration is not made to Weld County's satisfaction , then decommissioning of the Project must be initiated 18 months after the force majeure event. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Development Standards Statement 1 . Height limitation . Ground -mounted solar collectors shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, measured from the highest grade below each solar panel to the highest extent of the solar panel rotation . : o The ground -mounted solar collectors will not exceed 25 ' in height, as measured from the highest grade below each solar panel to the highest extent of the solar panel rotation . 2 . Glare . Concentrated solar glare from solar collectors shall not be directed toward or onto nearby properties or roadways at any time of the day : o A glare study for the Project is included in the application materials . The risk of glare being directed toward or onto nearby properties or roadways will be mitigated with screening as described in the Landscape and Screening Plan . 3 . Setbacks . The improved area shall conform to the setback requirements of the underlying zone . Additionally, the improved area must be at least five hundred (500) feet from existing residential buildings and residential lots of a platted subdivision or planned unit development. The residential setback requirement may be reduced if appropriate screening through landscape or an opaque fence is installed , or upon submittal to Weld County of a waiver or informed consent signed by the residence owner agreeing to the lesser setback . If landscaping or opaque fencing is substituted for setback, a landsca Bing plan or fencing .plan shall first be submitted to and approved by the Department of Planning Services : o The Project conforms to the setback requirements of the Agricultural zone and will be seeking waivers for neighbors within 500 feet of the project or using screening around the project near residences. 4 . Dust mitigation . The operators of the SEF shall continuously employ the practices for control of fugitive dust detailed in their dust mitigation plan submitted as required by Subsection B . 2 . , above : o The Project will continuously employ the practices for control of fugitive dust detailed in the submitted Dust Mitigation Plan . (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE2 5 . Underground cables . All electrical cables on the improved area shall be buried , except for direct current string wires that connect between solar collectors, direct current collection circuits between rows of solar arrays that are no more than four (4) feet above grade crossings, substations, switchyards, and circuit voltages greater than 34 . 5 kilovolts (where necessary) : o All electrical cables on the improved area shall be buried , except for direct current string wires that connect between solar collectors, direct current collection circuits between rows of solar arrays that are no more than four (4) feet above grade crossings , substations, switchyards , and circuit voltages greater than 34 . 5 kilovolts (where necessary) . 6 . Fencing . The SEF shall be enclosed with a security fence as approved pursuant to a fencing plan submitted to the Department of Planning Services. Appropriate signage shall be placed upon such fencing that warns the public of the high voltage therein : o The Project will be enclosed by a 7 -foot tall game fence . Additional details are provided in the Landscape and Screening Plan as well as the USR Map . 7 . Stormwater management. The Operator of the SEF shall submit a drainage report to comply with required Storm Drainage Criteria pursuant to Chapter 8 , Article XI of this Code . Additional requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System ( M54) areas may be applicable pursuant to Chapter 8 , Article IX of this Code . Ground -mounted solar collector systems shall be exempt from impervious surface calculations if the soil . under the collectors is designated hydrologic A or B soil groups by the Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS) : o A drainage report has been submitted as part of the Project's application . 8 . Access permit. Prior to construction of the SEF, the applicant shall apply for and obtain an approved Access Permit from the Weld County Department of Public Works, pursuant to the provisions of Article XIV of Chapter 8 of this Code : o Prior to construction of the Project, CBEP Solar 16 , LLC or its contractors shall apply for and obtain an approved Access Permit from the Weld County Department of Public Works pursuant to the provisions of Article XIV of Chapter 8 of this Code . 9 . Existing irrigation systems. The nature and location or expansion of the SEF must not unreasonably interfere with any irrigation systems on or adjacent to the solar facility . o The Project will not interfere with any irrigation systems on or adjacent to the solar facility. (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a C LO U D B FR EAK E N E PGY.CO M I C LO U D B P EAK E N E PGY.CO M Kimley >>) Horn PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT Mckee Ranch Solar Weld County Case # TBD Southwest of the Intersection of Weld County Rd 68/Highway 392 & Weld County Rd 37 Weld County , CO Prepared by: Kimley- Horn Inc. 1125 17th Street , Suite 1400 Denver , CO 80202 Contact : Adam Harrison , P . E . Phone : ( 303 ) 228 -2311 Prepared on : July 6 , 2023 Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO July 2023 Page 1 Kimley >>) Horn TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK 3 1 . 1 . Project Location 3 1 . 2. Nearby Water Features & Ownership 4 1 . 3. Report & Analysis Methodologies 4 1 . 4. Stormwater Management 5 2. CONCLUSION 5 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - FEMA Firm Map Exhibit 2 - NRCS Report Exhibit 3 — NOAA Rainfall Data Exhibit 4 — Pre-Development Drainage Area Map Exhibit 5 — Post-Development Drainage Area Map Exhibit 6 — Hydrologic Calculations Exhibit 7 — Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO July 2023 Page 2 Kimley >) Horn 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK The development is a proposed 7 . 5- MWac Solar power generating facility located in Weld County , CO. The solar power generating facility will consist of rows of Photovoltaic Solar Modules , gravel access driveways , associated electrical equipment , underground utilities , and a substation ( by others) . Solar modules will be mounted on piles and elevated above the ground as to preserve the existing underlying soil and allow for revegetation and infiltration . The project will be surrounded by a perimeter fence . Ground area within the limits of development that is not occupied by gravel roads or foundations will be seeded to establish permanent vegetation . This drainage narrative is intended to provide Weld County with preliminary information regarding the drainage and land disturbance activities related to the proposed Mckee Ranch Solar, small scale solar facility ( Project) . The project will be designed and will be constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes storm water related impacts , in accordance with Weld County drainage criteria. Project name , Property Address and Weld County Parcel No . Mckee Ranch , 32001 - 32999 WCR 37 , Weld 80631 , Parcel No . 080524000024 Developer/Owner CloudBreak Energy Partners , LLC , 218 S . 3rd Street Sterling , CO 80751 Urbanizing/ Non - Urbanizing This site is located more than a quarter mile away from the nearest Weld County municipal boundary and is classified as " Non- Urbanizing " . Therefore , detention ponds designed for this site would be sized using 10-year runoff rates . 1 . 1 . Project Location The existing site subject property is a parcel of 78 . 06 acres . The project is located on approximately 54 . 09 acres of agricultural and undeveloped , lightly vegetated land . The project is located north of Greeley , within Weld County . The site is bounded to the north by Highway 392 , to the west by Mckee Ranch property parcel number 080524100002 , to the east by Weld County Road 37 and south by Mckee Ranch property parcel number 080524000021 . Section Township Range Property is located within a portion of the east half of the Northeast quarter of Section 24 , Township 6 North , Range 66 West of the 6th P . M . , Weld County , Colorado . Per FEMA Map Panels 08123C1530E effective 01 /20/2016 , none of the development area is within a flood hazard area . ( Refer to Exhibit 1 for FEMA Map) . The NRCS Report dated 02/01 /2023 , concludes that onsite soils consist mostly of Kim loam , Aquolls and Aquepts , Nelson fine sandy loam and Olney fine sandy loam that classify as hydrologic soil group ( HSG) type A , D , B and B respectively . The site was modeled using type B and D soils for conservative runoff calculations . For additional detail , refer to Exhibit 2 for the NRCS Report . Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO July 2023 Page 3 Kimley o)> rn 1 . 2 . Nearby Water Features & Ownership In the existing condition , a majority of the site drains to the east to Graham Seep . The nearest water feature is the Graham seep which bounds the project site on the east . From the Graham seep the water flows to Greeley Canal Number 2 as the receiving waters of the project site . The existing drainage patterns will be maintained in the proposed condition . Refer to Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 for the Pre and Post- Development Drainage Area Maps . 1 . 3 . Report & Analysis Methodologies This report evaluates the pre and post development runoff characteristics of the development ( including solar facility footprint and access drive) and addresses the stormwater requirements of Weld County and the state of Colorado . Hydrologic Design Criteria The table below notes the hydrologic design criteria used in the analysis . Parameter Value Unit Reference Time of Concentration , Tc - min . Exhibit 6 Runoff Coefficient, C - - MHFD Criteria Manual, Chapter 6 , Table 6-4 1 -hr Point Rainfall , P1 ( 100-Year) 2 . 74 Inches NOAA Rainfall Data ( Exhibit 3 ) Storm Runoff, Q - cfs Q = CIA Basin Conditions The drainage areas of the site are shown for the site as Pre- construction ( Exhibit 4) and Post- construction ( Exhibit 5) . Pre-construction drainage basins were analyzed to calculate the peak existing runoff for the design storm . Post-construction drainage basins were analyzed to calculate the peak runoff for the design storm in the proposed site conditions . The Weld County Construction and Design Criteria requires areas of proposed solar arrays over a Type D soil classification to utilize an imperviousness of 25 % and type B soil classification to utilize 2 % . The total imperviousness for the proposed site was calculated to be 3 . 2 % ( see Exhibit 6 for the imperviousness summary) . The area under the solar panels will be planted with a low- maintenance grass seed mix, in order to mimic natural processes to manage stormwater, which follows the Low- Impact Development ( LID) approach . The existing site use is agricultural row crops most similar to tillage/agricultural land classification , which does not exhibit the characteristics of a low- impact development . By utilizing the native grass seed mix below the panels , the existing tillage/agricultural land areas will be changed to a heavy meadow land classification that reduces peak flow rates and manages stormwater in line with the historic conditions of the site . The site design promotes conservation design at both the watershed and site levels , with the goal of replicating the native hydrologic characteristics of the sub-watersheds , creating natural ground coverage , and minimizing proposed grading and compaction . The site will not receive offsite drainage and offsite drainage patterns will remain the same as historic conditions . Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO July 2023 Page 4 Kimley >) Horn Stormwater Runoff The stormwater runoff for the existing and proposed conditions is calculated utilizing the Rational Method . The 100-year, 1 - hour storm event was analyzed for pre and post-construction drainage basins . The flow path for the basins can be seen in Exhibits 4 & 5 . The time of concentration to the point of accumulation was calculated using MHFD equations and can be found in Exhibit 6 . The Runoff Coefficients are also included in Exhibit 6 . The precipitation data used for the 100- year, 1 -hour storm event is based on NOAA rainfall data from the project site ( Exhibit 3) . A summary of the rational calculation findings is shown in the table below. Existing Proposed Area 54 . 09 ac 54 . 09 ac Imperviousness 2 . 0 % 3 . 2 Q1oo 48 . 13 cfs 47 . 77 cfs 1 . 4 . Stormwater Management A study published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering researched the hydrologic impacts of utility scale solar generating facilities . The study utilized a model to simulate runoff from pre- and post-solar panel conditions . The study concluded that the solar panels themselves have little to no impact on runoff volumes or rates . Rainfall losses , most notably infiltration , are not impacted by the solar panels . Rainfall that falls directly on a solar panel runs to the pervious areas around and under the surrounding panels . Refer to Exhibit 7 for the study published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering . Under developed conditions , runoff will follow existing drainage patterns and will reduce peak flows (decreases from 48 . 13 cfs to 47 . 77 cfs in the 100-year, 1 - hour storm event) . 2 . CONCLUSION The following list summarizes key components of the Project and findings related to land disturbance and storm water impacts . • Installation of the solar facility will temporarily disturb the ground surface within the 54 . 09 acre Project area , but won ' t require clearing and grubbing of vegetation or grading , except for concrete equipment pads and gravel access drive installations . • The areas considered impervious or semi -impervious are a large portion of the project area , however the semi - impervious areas under the solar panels over type D soil classification ( modeled as 25 % impervious) represent 1 . 64 % , and semi -impervious areas under the solar panels over type B soil classification ( modeled as 2 % imperviousness) represent 18 % of the total site area , and by implementing low- maintenance grass seed mix underneath , the site will reduce peak flow rates from existing conditions • Under existing conditions , the peak flow from the site area for the 100 yr - lhr storm event is 48 . 13 cfs . • Under developed conditions , the peak flow from the site area for the 100 yr — 1 hr storm event is 47 . 77 cfs . • Installation of the solar facility is not expected to impact existing drainage patterns or flow rates on or around the project site . Runoff water quality will not be impacted by the solar facility components . Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO July 2023 Page 5 Kimley >) Horn • The project design will adequately protect public health , safety and general welfare and have no adverse effects on Weld County right- of-way or offsite properties . As noted above , a study published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering ( Exhibit 7) researched the hydrologic impacts of utility scale solar generating facilities . The study utilized a model to simulate runoff from pre- development and post-development solar panel conditions . The study concluded that the solar panels themselves have little to no impact on runoff volumes or rates . Rainfall losses , most notably infiltration , are not impacted by the solar panels . Rainfall that falls directly on a solar panel runs to the pervious areas around and under the surrounding panels . Grading is proposed with minimal changes to the existing site drainage patterns and onsite access roads will be made of gravel . Based on the proposed improvements on the project site , the findings of the above referenced study , and the calculations included within this report, the site will reduce peak flows from the existing rates . Therefore , permanent stormwater detention and water quality facilities are not proposed with the project . We trust that the information provided is acceptable and complete for preliminary site plan review drainage report requirements . Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information . KIMLEY- HORN AND ASSOCIATES , INC . 117 qii:Shenk. Adam Harrison , PE Project Manager Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO July 2023 Page 6 Exhibit 1 — FEMA Firm Map National F FIRMette g• tFEMA end \. Legend N _ 104°43'24"W 40°28'55"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT ■ Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) s 4, , ' 4 Zone A, V. 499 T F 6 518 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AN, VE. AR _ ** HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway - T6N 8.6181N S131 T6N R66IN S13 3 1s T tN R6 1 S I - _ - r _ .. -- - .. 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas - of 1% annual chance flood with average - depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile _ I Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF I Levee. See Notes. zone x FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D llii _ Project Area NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x Effective LOM Rs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D doGENERAL - - - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer WELD ,, COUNTY - _ - STRUCTURES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Levee, Dike, or Floodwall solleasgir = 0 0 6 B 20. Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance : 1 17.5 Water Surface Elevation L7 RD al sectWE 1!_.=Ilk , �dT „, � 1 : .`j# - y 511 wk BasetFloord `Elevation Line (BFE)A,,, .. -S _ R _ --- Limit of Study . IFRA41 ', ~'` . Jurisdiction Boundary �,_ - t - - - Coastal Transect Baseline r OTHER . c a E. Profile Baseline 4 FEATURES .2. I __ Hydrographic Feature T6N R660,4' S24 T6N P66W S24 ett 1/20/2016 T6N 54'x+' 519 is w _ 1 Oak I T6N RESIN $19 „ Digital Data Available 4. : - No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS y Unmapped • r O The pin displayed on the map is an approximate i ' point selected by the user and does not represent ! : - - an authoritative property location. i ii This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of - 1 , digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap f accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the ' - I authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2/1/2023 at 3:06 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or O r become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map e \ wilf elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,i :1167- illk i legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, G .' - - _- - - a _ yi 104°42'46"W 40°28'28"N FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for Feet 1 .• 6 X 000 unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for 0 250 500 1 , 000 1 , 500 2 , 000 regulatory purposes. Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Exhibit 2 — NRCS Report Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part In 1,, N 523620 523700 523780 523860 523940 524020 524100 40° 28' 53" N I11.15 j 40° 28' 53" N a - - e - . . 4 • �„ Y 4� SCI.........limilmillSiminadThltil(iN1/4 is '.V_ .1...sei .4. , ..ilbetzsineasz_._ .4. i _ _.__ \Ns_ / I --4 92 - __392 - - - - _ �--- Highwa }3 - - . - -- - - , i 1 mks i i I • 1 � I I - • 47 I lik. . � . ' 4 ••, ..• e. . _ ..._ • t i ,. Ir, - I 0 Nigcc:\, 1 , ,.% "C">e. 4 •_ I u 'Y- r ' _ ,-.1 : i I I ri It 4 � . . 1 by M J ! a8 I i • V - il -I • - 1 t - . - I i ti i j - W I • • - - . - - _ I Soil Ma ay not be valid at this scale. . ' z __ -� 40° 28' 31" N I I I I - - 40° 28' 31" N 523620 523700 523780 523860 523940 524020 524100 _. in Map Scale: 1 :3,400 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. N Meters N 0 50 100 200 300 ci Feet 0 150 300 600 900 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 .,, ` M Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/5/2023 all Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AO!) ® C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI ) 1 : 24 ,000 . 0 C/D Soils0 D Warning : Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Rating Polygons A O Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil A/D Water Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Streams and Canals contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed B scale . Transportation B/D Rails Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map C Interstate Highways measurements. C/D US Routes Source of Map : Natural Resources Conservation Service D Web Soil Survey URL : Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG :3857) Not rated or not available Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Soil Rating Lines Background projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts * A distance and area . A projection that preserves area , such as the mew Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection , should be used if more A/D accurate calculations of distance or area are required . kaws B This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as BID of the version date(s) listed below. HoeC Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data : Version 21 , Sep 1 , 2022 C/D Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales kipii D 1 : 50 ,000 or larger. ise Not rated or not available Date(s) aerial images were photographed : Jun 8, 2021 —Jun 12, 2021 Soil Rating Points A The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background ® A/D imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor B shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 0 B/D Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/5/2023 aa Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, D 7. 0 11 .6% flooded 32 Kim loam , 1 to 3 percent A 4. 7 7 .9% slopes 38 Nelson fine sandy loam , B 10. 8 17 .9% 3 to 9 percent slopes 47 Olney fine sandy loam , B 37. 9 62 .7% 1 to 3 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 60.4 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential . Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation , are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms . The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B , C , and D ) and three dual classes (A/D , B/D , and C/D ) . The groups are defined as follows : Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential ) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep , well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands . These soils have a high rate of water transmission . Group B . Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep , moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture . These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission . Group C . Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture . These soils have a slow rate of water transmission . Group D . Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential ) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential , soils that have a high water table , soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface , and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material . These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission . If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D , B/D , or C/D ) , the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas . Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes . Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/5/2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/5/2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Exhibit 3 — NOAA Rainfall Data NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Qc °Fe" , Location name : Greeley, Colorado, USA* 0,.......oset. 41 V 9 Latitude : 40.4782 Longitude : 104.718 7411 ` t` irElevation : 4735.7 ft** I 1. Nt, c,.._ I 1 0.`�� * source: ESRI Maps Ircs '" S ** source: USGS .4" �`' POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh , Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring , Maryland PF_tabular I PF_graphical I Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDS -based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals ( in inches) 1 Average recurrence interval (years) Duration - - 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 200 1 500 Li000 5-min 0.242 0.292 0.388 0.482 0.631 0.762 0.907 1 .07 1 .30 li 1 .50 j (0. 199-0.295) (0.240-0.357) (0.318-0.476) (0.392-0.594) (0.500-0.835) (0.582-1 .02) (0.662- 1 .24) (0.739-1 .51 ) (0.857- 1 .89) (0.947-2. 19) 1 0.354 0.427 0.569 0.706 0.924 1 . 12 1 .33 1 .56 1 .91 2. 19 10-min 0 352-0.523 0 466-0.698 0 574-0.870� (0.292-0.432) ( ) ( ) ( ) (0.732-1 .22) (0.852-1 .49) (0.969-1 .82) (1 .08-2.21 ) ( 1 .26-2.77) (1 .39-3.20) i 1 0.432 0.521 0.694 0.861 1 . 13 1 .36 I 1 .62 1 .91 2.33 2.67 15-min 0 429-0.637 0 568-0.851� (0.356-0.527) ( } ( ) (0.700-1 .06) (0.893- 1 .49) ( 1 .04- 1 .82). ( 1 . 18-2.22) ( 1 .32-2.69) ( 1 .53-3.38) ( 1 .69-3.90) 0.582 0.701 0.931 1 . 16 1 .52 1 .83 2. 19 2.58 3. 15 3.63 30-min ) ( )_ ft .40-2.45) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (0.480-0.711 ) (0.577-0.857) (0.763- 1 . 14) (0.940- 1 .43 1 .20-2.01 1 .60-3.00 1 .78-3.64 2.08-4.58 2.30-5.30 60-min 0.723 0.861 1 . 14 1 .42 1 .87 2.28 I 2.74 I 3.25 4.01 4.65 (0.596-0.883) (0.708- 1 .05) (0.932- 1 .40) ( 1 . 15- 1 .75) (1 .49-2.49) ( 1 .75-3.06) I (2.00-3.77: (2.26-4.61 ) (2.65-5.85) (2.94-6.79) 2-hr 0.864 1 .02 1 .35 1 .68 2.23 2.73 3.29 3.93 1 4.88 5.67 (0.716- 1 .05) (0.845- 1 .24) ( 1 . 11 - 1 .64) ( 1 .37-2.05) (1 .79-2.95) L2. 11 -3.64) . (2.43-4.50) (2.75-5.53) (3.25-7.05) (3.63-8.20) 3-hr 0.945 1 . 11 1 .45 1 .81 2.41 2.96 3.58 4.29 5.35 6.23 (0.786- 1 . 14) (0.920- 1 .34) ( 1 .20- 1 . 76) ( 1 .49-2.21 ) (1 .95-3. 19) (2.30-3 .93) (2.66-4.88) (3.02-6.01 ) (3.59-7.69) ` (4.01 -8.97) 6-hr 1 .08 1 .28 1 .69 2. 10 2.76 3.35 4.01 i 4.75 5.84 6.75 (0.903- 1 .29) ( 1 . 07- 1 .54) ( 1 .41 -2. 04) ( 1 .74-2.54) (2 .24-3.59) (2.62-4 .39) (3.00-5.39) (3.37-6.57) (3.95-8.31 ) (4.39-9.62) 12-hr 1 .26 1 .51 1 .98 1 2.42 3. 11 3.70 4.35 5.07 i 6. 11 6.96 ( 1 .06- 1 .50) ( 1 . 27- 1 .80) ( 1 .66-2. 36) (2.01 -2.90) (2 .52-3.96) (2.90-4 .77) (3.27-5.76) (3.62-6.91 ) (4 . 16-8.57) (4.57-9.82) 24-hr 1 .51 1 .77 2.26 2.72 3.43 4.03 4.70 5.42 1 6.47 7.33 ( 1 .28- 1 .78) ( 1 . 50-2.09) ( 1 .91 -2. 68) , (2.28-3.23) (2 .79-4.32) (3. 18-5 . 14) {3.56-6. 15) (3.91 -7.31 ) (4.45-8.97) (4.86- 10 .2) 2-day 1 .75 2.05 2.59 3.08 L3.82 4.43 5.09 5.80 6.81 7.62 ( 1 .49-2.04) ( 1 . 75-2.40) (2.20-3. 04) (2.60-3.63) L3 . 12-4.74__) (3.52-5 .57) (3.88-6.57) (4.21 -7.71 ) (4 .72-9.32 ) (5. 11 - 10.5) 3-da 1 .91 2.22 2.76 3.25 4.00 4.62 5.28 6.00 7.02 7.84 y ( 1 .64-2.23) ( 1 . 90-2.58) (2.35-3. 23) (2.75-3.82) (3 .28-4.93) (3.68-5 .77) (4.05-6.78) (4.38-7.94) (4 .90-9.56) (5.30- 10 .8) 4-da 2.04 2.35 2.91 3.41 4. 17 4.79 5.46 6. 18 7.20 8.02 y ( 1 .75-2.36) (2. 02-2.73) (2.49-3. 39) (2.90-4.00) (3 .43-5. 12 ) (3.83-5 .96) (4.20-6.98) (4.53-8. 13) (5 .05-9.75) (5.44- 11 .0) 7-day 2.30 2.69 3.35 3.91 4.72 5.37 6.03 6.72 7.67 8.41 ( 1 .99-2.65) (2.32-3. 11 ) (2.88-3. 88) (3.34-4.55) (3 .89-5.71 ) (4.30-6 .59) (4.65-7.60) (4.95-8.73) (5 .41 - 10.3 ) (5.76- 11 .4) 10-da 2.54 2.98 3.72 4.33 5. 18 5.84 6.50 7. 18 8.08 8.77 y (2.20-2.91 ) (2. 58-3.43) (3.20-4. 29) (3.71 -5.02) (4 .27-6.21 ) (4.69-7. 11 ) (5.03-8. 13) (5.30-9.24 (5.72- 10.7) (6.03- 11 .8) 20-day 3.25 3.78 4.63 5.32 6.25 6.95 7.64 8.32 9.21 9.86 (2.84-3.71 ) (3. 29-4.31 ) (4.01 -5. 29) (4. 58-6. 11 ) (5 . 17-7.38) (5.62-8.35) (5.95-9.42) (6.20- 10.6) (6 .58- 12. 1 ) (6.86- 13.2) 3.83 4.41 5.34 6. 10 i 7. 10 7.85 8.58 9.30 10.2 10.9 I 30-day (3.35-4.34) (3. 85-5.01 ) (4.65-6.08) (5.27-6.97) (5 .90-8.34) 6.38-9 .37 6.72- 10.5( ) ( ) (6 .96- 11 .7) (7 .34- 13.3 ) (7.63- 14.5) 45-da 4.51 5. 19 6.26 7. 11 8.24 9.07 9.87 10.6 11 .6 12.3 y (3.96-5.09) (4. 55-5.86) (5.47-7. 09) (6. 18-8.09) (6 .87-9.61 )_ (7.40- 10.8) (7.76- 12.0) (8.01 - 13.3) (8 .39- 15.0) (8.68- 16 .3) 5.05 5.83 7.05 1 8.01 9.27 10.2 11 .0 11 .9 12.9 13.6 60-day (4.45-5.68) (5. 13-6.56) (6. 18-7. 96) (6.98-9.09) _ (8.32- 12.0) (8.71 - 13.4) (8.96- 14.8) (9 .35- 16.6) (9.63- 17 .9) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval . The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical PDS- based depth-duration -frequency ( DD ,F) curves Latitude: 40 .4782 Or r Longitude : - 104 . 7180° 1 1 r 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i i. i 1 k 1 I I Y I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I • t 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i t / • 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 / 1 1 a / a Average recurrence r•1. 1 1 / • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / y r� ry1, 1 1 I Y Y 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I a I le 12 . . . . . - . - .- . - . - . • . . _ . . J _ . _ . - J .. . . J . . - . . J . - . - ..I. . . . . .. S. .. . - . . L . .. .2.. . • • • . • J y-- Il t rvS YY • . • • Yi • . • • • ! ! • • • • • • • ! P ! P ! • • kl ear t� ) I 1 I 1 I I I { 1 I 1 I 1 1 I J1'� V e 1 r 1 e e e e e e e e I e r . I 1 a i t a / a . I t as a i _ • • 10 _ e t _ • _ • 1 I 1 _ . 1 r 1 1 • r _ • a yy��ll i i • i • Y i i i i i a • — %1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 = • • ! ! r • • • If I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 as II ,ti+• •�-�/ I e e e e ! • e e e • ! • t �y J i 1 1 1 1 t t t t 1 1 1 'a 1 41� _ _ _ e e e r e e r r r r • ' - _ _ ! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ le _ — 1Y' i i t t I i t I I t i I I Y� , i ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • I • t • es a a Y Y I 1 I I . . . • +..• ,a � C e e I 1 1 1 I • e e e e Y a J 7 0 • • de • Y 7 • • • • • • J • • ,YJY 1a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 Iy+'Y .6•1 • • • • • I ♦ . • • • {Jr 25 - iv _ _ _ _ re e tir Y Y _ _ 'Y _ 7 k�'— 1 _ i. Y I �r _ Y. I .'--f • • • • I V I 1 I • . • • ..Q. . I • 1 • I I I I I I a •i : .^ • I I 50• 1 1 I e 1 1 t I e e r J.-* H - "H1/ 100 • •• • l • e e • • + e earargrrer_}-_ • . 1 a t I 4-.- I -T I as a . + r r t r err 1 r 1 1 --1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 -- • r • r • r e 1 r --` I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 0 I I I I I _ fa F iIC IC i I -a Duration 14 1 1 i i 1 1 1 Y { 1 I . Y 1 Iii r e 1 e e a • I 1 t a . I 1 t 1 1 r r • : . 1 . • . Y yare12 i . . . _ . .. ..1 J . . - • _ • _ _ J . . .. L , 1. . . . . .. . . .I . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 1. • • I I I I a I I 1 • • I I • • • • I I I I I ' 1 a I • 1 I I I • I . I 1 I ` a a a I C _ v J . . . . . . . J _ - 4 . . _ .. . . . _ .+ _ . . . . _ 0 . . . . - . I- _� 1 Duration • e 1 I • r H e 1 • • • 2 il 1 I I Y I I 1 not54n —d ay I . I k . 6 s ila 10-aIf 3 -d ay 1 / 1 I law : 2 . t < T1 r_4 _ • . .....a..-ta-e-- 1 .i _ _ - -- ��r . .. . _� 2 f 20-day 3 an r ay a 5-clad'' 1 241 i 60-clay -r" Y ir_ ,_ 1 1 I I j t - 24...11 r 0 12 51025 0 loo X00 500 1000 Average recurrence interval (years) No4A Atlas 3.41, Volume 8, Version 2 Created ( GMT) : Mon Feb 6 20: 03 : 00 2023 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain 'II� IIl� IIt I II I II I\ III- II:f1-7-j___. .r...-.„e_ ____ _ ____ — illhlh'bt----se" riI , I iik:\It Ii li in ll SE- 3kmlig -- :"."`-"N t1 . Ill ' P I E A s aisaaj(ittil %,ill Large scale terrain , . . A rr-- O7z .- . _ . rr i. — i -. • ' ral `'' ,� c_Iie enn !e■ e I y - L.s +ng: Peak ,� . _ ., Lcon �(Irnori 1t 4. B Oil Ider ± I P .r3r4.i' ,ri. ' . : ' f Denver i 100km • • ;1_fir_' fj 60mi - Large scale map - ,� 'Ch enrl .� �� : 4 1 . .Fort Collin :_ i" 1- . _ . . i I � $ . L0:,W' r >>':_:Int iaorareassr ;.., ,,. Opal l r: b 1.. - + 100km ` 61111 - i ' ', 60mi Large scale aerial -n1 _ • I, r h ' !'enn ` �; - - z • • ac Sigilatillialli _ 1 • - I 41 4 II - - - . -eit - - - - - - Fort C� eraI t1 n _ '� r t :: 4 - - f 1 YT Lin c mon t r ,Ntr. 1 _ NcIL , ,. j _ _ t 100km ,--- - _ ___ � 60mi i3- Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring , MD 20910 Questions? : HDSC . Questions@noaa .gov Disclaimer Exhibit 4 — Pre - Development Drainage Area Map 12' O_ Q w I- I \ • EXISTING CULVERT NORTH < ___ _ _ _ ____ __ _ _ _ ____ _ ____ ____ _ \ O r - - • • • • • • a • SD • S / \m — — — — __ — - ----- _ _ HIGHWAY 397 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET __ - �� .� 0_ - - - - iii. — 0 75 150 300 =mama _ amite _ simp._cumas.........: , , ‘ \...,, --N , _ I - /----- . • ..... • SP • SO • SP • IS • i \ ! ' N ' \N \ \ Ls iir N M I ctillz I . .-rr- N I1 ZI o SOIL TYPE 3 Ni I `tl ' a \\5:, . o I_ •1 \ O I IL LEGEND 01 z 1 ; I z i f I I j zo { / I \ DA-01 I m I Y t - - PROPERTY BOUNDARY \� • ii, < E >- 20. 9 2 . o�4 i AreQD \ O 1 PRE CONDITIONS SUB - BASIN m Q \ ,l I . p \CC) 41 \ I EX . EASEMENT O w I O J z w r„ I V w \ \m I d-- • I EX . SITE SETBACK I r • • ---- `' \ \ I EX . UNDERGROUND GAS LINE Z o \ ` I , I Q o \ . W EX . UNDERGROUND WATER LINE Q GREELEY CANAL Z NUMBER 2 EXISTING 25 ' P & A WELL HEAD N I Q SETBACK PER WELD COUNTY II X EX . BARB WIRE FENCE ce oOEM CODE 23 - 3 - 70 — E \� �' = �-g 1 w QI - OH EX . OVERHEAD WIRE _ \ sr._I 1 \ I >- 110%. - \\CD - FO EX . FIBER OPTIC LINE Z o P \ CL I EX . UTILITY POLEci CD z <7afr _ , I o z \ , in > . . EX . FLOW PATH Z Q0 p O EX . CONTOURS Q I.11\ii. -or ATI -56( C.) N 700 (� 00 o rti '` ,II\ 1/) N ›- ,i\ U' O Q . _ _ ,,,,X XX EX . SLOPE LABEL < O P 7 \ \ �, / o o - —) I lir EX . ASPHALT ROAD Q w N zoo > � NNNNN % I CU 6A-02) = - o0 Z _ IWco SUB BASIN w o � � 1 . 4 2 XX IDENTIFICATION w •N \ 7c IMPERVIOUSNESS a ro u' \ _ X X X X 1 DRAINAGE AREA ( ACRES ) o © Z \ \ �' Q \�� - - - - -ciN \ N 1 I s tN RI c T 49IIIP . 4 _I I et I 1 oc / Sor • SOIL TYPE D I o --------). . . A DESIGN POINT ci 0 / •0 cc • DESIGNED BY: JCH m Alli4p I DRAWN BY: JCH �� — / 7 co z I CHECKED BY: AJH z o ' a8 DATE : 07 /05 /23 w , __./ . . w wQ ..„----- I ii i FL „---------- ..--------- . . ----- • ------ . . NOTES _____-- ____--- ______--- I i- _______-- • • ----:__\ ___ ______- I = • i i . t ____ _______ 1 . THIS DRAINAGE MAP AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN IN WU , , c� I ASSOCIATION WITH CLOUDBREAK ENERGY PARTNERS , LLC . DRAINAGE LLI 0 NARRATIVE AND USE BY THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLANS . Q z _ • 68 Q ,! .� • I 2 ct E., 1 \ I 2 . WITH REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CO 0 W o DA-03 : Y I AGENCY ( FEMA ) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ( FIRM ) , MAP NUMBER C (9 x Q ` 08123C1530E , THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAINS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF in io _ � g . � 2 . 0% THE PROJECT SITE . D eL — z u) a. ___________ \ 4\ \ 1 > — 0 °.„_____ .„- • .1 ci r: W Q 1 —I 0 N � .1 ° ci_ � � 1 I‘ 2 U w , ' /_ _ h z -____ \ I— - - i — 1 Z " H /z ___________ _ ____ I I I ›— 0 0 - 41 I -- — 0 ri W D O - _ 1 I 00 H Y La % >- fr Et C III GO 0 . 66 --- _ -- - _ J Z w \ ________ �_ I WD 0 ___________ ___________ _ ______ 0 , -- _ __ ____________ _________ LJJD ° z_i_i La -7 SOIL TYPE A0 -___------ . W IL b 3 • • ,..____ . . . ____ CL ii I > • ,._____ >1K ----„, . ---->' . • / / I C.0) CL I I o Q U N / / 2 Z � � 0 . 41 TDz / 1 / \ ,, .� , / 47 . � � 1 n a c� Z ( la% \ I EXISTING CULVERT PRELIMINARY LO 0 CO o t_____________________________„ \ / / 1 r i1 1 FOR REVIEW ONLY X �, Q c I NOT FOR co lc: NN , • 1 GRAHAM SEEP CONSTRUCTION r O 1 KimIeyHorn U O w I — / ) r 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. U \ EXISTING 150 ' WELL HEAD �- SETBACK PER WELD COUNTY PROJECT NO . a CODE 23 - 3 - 70 — E 196664000 _____- O it I I /wcr) Ig DRAWING NAME I / / \ _t , I z 5 I— I T , - wI tin, 1- - c\c” • rak PI Will Z / / . L.. 4 i:_,--.7-- . -,..„..- -_. ., ,.._____, _, __....i ,_ ___, '' - ' — O 0 i• p ji• yy 1 a+ _I i i l .-, r i I II nil /,, EX-4 Exhibit 5 — Post- Development Drainage Area Map CC Q • w I— 1 I \ NORTH o EXISTING CULVERT J-_ _- — \ _____ _ • •. •_ • - GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 75 1 • -V-S----- - - - - _ ____ ___Q _Lr.ic , :cwot _ _____, .... , _ - - T I _ - HIGHWAY 392 0 5 50 300 -- _ __ _ .... , , „ . W ` t r spi..........._ auma. issimassimara miishoriorismie.......m..„ ‘ , ' , \ --=:-.4I-NN `\ \ o/ N �`\ \ ,� 11 I I \ X X X X\C‘3 X X X X � wz IEt 1 Is' ` Nx‘Ni‘ N-9\T:\,\N„:1`l \l'i n n n n n n n O x SOIL TYPE 30 \I \ < I \ LEGEND . I DA—01 \_ z cc Z 2�. 9 2 . 5% I 0 2 1 1 1 1 ;: ::≥ , • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i >- I 1 II X \ 0 I oLLI `6g X I - - PROPERTY BOUNDARY Q I I ' I W w ' I z , s ft Er Ea PRE CONDITIONS SUB — BASIN /A Z j) � � � � it I I 44iik I 0 � EX . EASEMENT � i J m \ \ x \ X I 0 w I ' EX . SITE SETBACK I To< \ I I I Z ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • -� I , EX . UNDERGROUND GAS LINE Q � I , 1 U 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' W EX , UNDERGROUND WATER LINE 0 a X X o Q GREELEY CANAL _ _ _ I X EX . BARB WIRE FENCE Z NUMBER 2 EXISTING 25 ' P & A WELL HEAD N I 0 „a. 7 ....„, _ ,0 � '�' SETBACK PER WELD COUNTY I I Lth CODE 23 - 3 - 70 - E \� ,� I I - OH EX . OVERHEAD WIRE C >-, \ 4141#t \ LIM ;►�i /in,/__ \CD3e\ 4•100 I '1/4-? I I ' 1 I - FO EX . FIBER OPTIC LINE \ . . [I li li li li li li [I li li li a � � � � � ., �� ci i EX . UTILITY POLE __.Airitaidir \ .-4 , . I � �< 1 36 i I i CD Fi o < ‘ . \\F ° : . -�� : . -� > - • - EX . FLOW PATH w o 1' N �� _ I X . CONTOURS - N x ( - Q I 70o E - 1-) = 1. .C N o X o0 E I Q N I ,_ ♦ l� ,°\,\ O C'\1 a _ _ �� „ _ „ i/ „, 1 >_ 71- x. XX% ► EX . SLOPE LABEL Q o .-. 0 0 P_ ,,•\ \ Lii , . , , N ,, I-- , c ro ' Ni �� III 7 EX . ASPHALT ROAD Q w ~' ,_ 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 i\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �I $ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 �1 I Z N o v �� I .OJ � � O Q i x �� X i I OLlar CUO o w 1 i 1 • I . _ - ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT I w m � i I L - . - � PADS w ° �i w 00 3 �i _I I_ O 0V) 0 _ o N = - UTILITY POLE N o ° IE = U N z N. .�oco w - �♦ \z x — — — — — — �_ -- -LEI _ — — — — - — -_ — — — _ — - -- ill\ x- 1 I �� PROPOSED PERMANENT �c TEMPORARY o N. nis' _ I TRAILERS in C j'et _ �$ 0 1 li m — v °' / _' - - n ri li- - tZnZkMkMkZkZ4 PROPOSED 20 ' GRAVEL c o rl n S O I L TYPE I ACCESS DRIVEWAY 00 `` I DESIGNED BY: JCH PROPOSED SUB - BASIN � o DRAWN BY: JCH XX IDENTIFICATION 0Z 1 CHECKED BY: AJH `` IMPERVIOUSNESS w - IA-0 lmir ffN\ I xx xx DRAINAGE AREA ( ACRES ) DATE : 07 /05 /23 �� I / 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 / 1 1 1 / 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 __________exII I w - \� aA o2 '�' I Po f II II II lII Ul tx _ I 13. 4 5. 4% ill'0 Q �- _ -- 0 0 �- ' 'l.�, _ �i�� ,I DESIGN POINT Q a i li ..1 -- 1 _-... U _ • J I '`1 ICI -i ♦�'� iI LL LLI 0 i -- __ _____--- --- ,, __ �' I I / I I I I I I I I I I I ICI ♦�I I-< cc _______— _,, zNOTES c , ______-- � 1 I 12 2 0 •any )1.Z7_ �..�� ` 1] _ _ _ _ —:_ c„iii � / �� . # 1 00 0 W 7 s I UCif! N O in 2 x 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ems 1 / 1 L V i I 1 . THIS DRAINAGE MAP AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN IN 0xQ Q w w - ASSOCIATION WITH CLOUDBREAK ENERGY PARTNERS , LLC . DRAINAGED Q W �, _ z %b NARRATIVE AND USE BY THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLANS . E 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 0 W Q --_________ A o N . 2 . WITH REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT J11, 11. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 O 1 1 AGENCY ( FEMA ) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FIRM , MAP NUMBER I 08123C1530E , THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAINS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF J Z o � x � I i I I THE PROJECT SITE . I ›— — O oc, M--- j : II W I— , Z ri O u >-, - -\ - - ----- /Z ODU a w D II:INZ a - �.c 1st 0 Ct N 0- u) � u x CO X Yw �-_ W K ! 1 I I LLI W 0 o �. IL TI I W c� •az, i_o \. - -------- _ II I w _ w -� -\ SOL TYPE A Lu o CL EL ,) 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ' 7 • 56 Qi (a) CL X ;A-037 I 1 2 oQ I U 19 . 7 2 . 3% j I z / / 1 D 75 w 0i - / / i I X X � k ow X X X X / eh OE 0. Sgt. lc . PRELIMINARY LOLD(1) w ` , H I EXISTING CULVERT FOR REVIEW ONLY a� o \ 3 72 ` ii r ! NOT FOR ezt \ ° � ` >< V I CONSTRUCTION m � : .�4 GRAHAM SEEP Z \ \ I > D o :.{ KimIey ) Horn U Ow _ 4 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1 U � \ / / / /I t Va \ EXISTING 150 WELL HEAD PROJECT NO . o w �- = SETBACK PER WELD COUNTY 196664000 /W CODE 23 - 3 - 70 - E DRAWING NAME / / I - U Z I ne I � 1 / / GRAD Cik 811 w � 1 \ , C 01 x N �HTW �i i ,tr ' c 6fLO '/ CAL „QFl � YOU UIG EX- 5 Exhibit 6 — Hydrologic Calculations Kimley >>) Horn _ STANDARD FORM SF 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch 7/5/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH TYPE D SOIL VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE PAVED GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL LAND USE : AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA 2 -YEAR COEFF . 0 . 83 0 . 30 0 . 01 0 . 74 0 . 69 5 -YEAR COEFF . 0 . 84 0 . 36 0 . 05 0 . 76 0 . 72 100 -YEAR COEFF. 0 . 89 0 . 65 0 . 49 0 . 85 0 . 83 IMPERVIOUS % 100% 40% 2% 90% 85% VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE PAVED GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) Cc(2) Cc(5 ) Cc( 100) Imp % On-Site Basins PRE-DA-01 1 20 . 95 20 .95 0 . 01 0 . 05 0 . 49 2 . 0% PRE-DA-02 2 13 . 45 13 .45 0 . 01 0 . 05 0 . 49 2 . 0% PRE-DA-03 3 19 . 69 19 .69 0 . 01 0 . 05 0 . 49 2 . 0% BASIN 0 .00 0 .00 54.09 0 .00 0 .00 54.09 0 . 01 0 . 05 0 . 49 2 . 0% SUBTOTAL 0 % 0 % 100 % 0 % 0 % 100 % Kimley *) H o r n STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - PRE -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch DATE : 7/5/2023 PROJECT NUMBER : 196664000 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Te CHECK FINAL DATA TIME (Ti) (Ti) (URBANIZED BASINS) Te DESIGN AREA CS LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE C,, Land Surface VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Te C2 C5 C100 BASIN Ac Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min. to LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) On-Site Basins PRE-DA-01 20 . 955 0 . 05 500 0 . 8% 46 . 7 1 ,009 0 . 1 % 5 .0 Tillage/Field 0 . 2 106 . 7 153 . 4 1509 0 . 3 % 2% NA 153 . 4 0 . 01 0 . 05 0 . 49 PRE-DA-02 13 .445 0 . 05 500 1 .2% 40 . 5 1 , 138 0 . 5 % 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0 .4 51 . 5 92 .0 1638 0 .7% 2% NA 92 . 0 0 . 01 0 . 05 0 . 49 PRE-DA-03 19 . 692 0 . 05 500 0 . 9% 44 . 8 1 ,045 0 . 5 % 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0 . 4 48 . 0 92 . 8 1545 0 . 6% 2% NA 92 . 8 0 . 01 0 . 05 0 . 49 _ 0. 3950A1 - C , _ L'° ',fit �-L� S. ( 26 t 4 - r , mot" 601C VS 601 i 1 �" *� STANDARD FORM SF-3 Kimley >>) Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch DATE : 7/5/2023 PROJECT NUMBER : 196664000 P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) = 2 .74 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME REMARKS w �4Emi 44 ate, wrw L w w � 4 w _ Z _ ,.i., FBI 0 • ~ .-.F S4 '771 AI_ t Al ,1 W ,.N C i�M ct Op--I v� O � � � � � pU E Olt, E V d " O4 _ Op _ � � a af z 1 w = w a � ( 1 ) (2) (3) (4) I (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ( 10) ( 11 ) ( 12) ( 13) ( 14) ( 15) ( 16) ( 17) ( 18) ( 19) (20) (21 ) (22) On-Site Basins 1 PRE-DA-01 20 . 95 0 . 49 153 . 45 10 . 31 1 . 42 14 . 67 2 PRE-DA-02 13 . 45 0 . 49 92 . 01 6 . 62 2 . 06 13 .63 3 PRE-DA-03 19 . 69 0 . 49 92 . 82 9 . 69 2 . 05 19 . 84 Total 54 . 09 48 . 13 Kimley >>> Horn STANDARD FORM SF- 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch 7/5/2023 PROJECT NUMBER : 196664000 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH TYPE B SOIL TYPED SOIL VEGETATED SOLAR FUTURE PAVED GRAVEL OPEN SPACE PANEL SOLAR PANEL COMMERCIAL LAND USE: AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA 2 -YEAR COEFF. 0 . 83 0 . 30 0 . 01 0 . 01 0 . 18 0 .69 5 -YEAR COEFF. 0 . 84 0 . 36 0 . 05 0 . 02 0 .24 0 .72 100 -YEAR COEFF. 0 . 89 0 .65 0 . 49 0 . 44 0 . 58 0 . 83 IMPERVIOUS % 100% 40% 2% 2% 25% 85% VEGETATED SOLAR FUTURE PAVED GRAVEL OPEN SPACE PANEL SOLAR PANEL COMMERCIAL TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN SUBTOTAL POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) Cc(2) Cc(5 ) Cc( 100) Imp % On-Site Basins POST-DA-01 1 0 . 06 0 . 04 16 . 23 4 . 11 0 . 51 20 .95 0 . 02 0 . 05 0 . 48 2 . 5% POST-DA-02 2 0 . 06 0 . 56 9 . 54 2 . 27 1 . 01 13.44 0 . 04 0 .08 0 . 50 5 . 4% POST-DA-03 3 0 . 06 0 . 13 15 . 78 3 . 60 0 . 12 19 .69 0 . 02 0 . 05 0 . 48 2 . 3 % BASIN 0 . 19 0 .72 41 .55 9 .98 1 .64 0 .00 54.09 0 . 02 0 . 06 0 . 49 3 . 2% SUBTOTAL 0 % 1 % 77 % 18 % 3 % 0 % 100 % Kimley >>> H o r n STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch DATE : 7/5/2023 PROJECT NUMBER : 196664000 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Te CHECK FINAL DATA TIME (Ti) (Ti) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN AREA Cs LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE C , Land Surface VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc C2 C5 C100 BASIN Ac Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min, tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) On-Site Basins POST-DA-01 20 . 950 0 . 05 500 0 . 8% 46 . 7 1 ,009 0 . 1 % 2 . 5 Heavy Meadow 0 . 1 213 . 5 260 . 1 1509 0 . 3 % 3 % NA 260 . 1 0 . 02 0 .05 0 . 48 POST-DA-02 13 . 444 0 . 08 500 1 . 2% 39 . 5 1 . 138 0 . 5% 2 . 5 Heavy Meadow 0 . 2 103 . 1 142 . 6 1638 0 . 7% 5 % NA 142 .6 0 .04 0 . 08 0 . 50 POST-DA-03 19 . 692 0 . 05 500 0 . 9% 44 . 9 1 ,045 0 . 5% 2 . 5 Heavy Meadow 0 . 2 96 . 0 140 . 8 1545 0 . 6% 2% NA 140 . 8 0 . 02 0 .05 0 . 48 _ 0395( 1 . 1 - c5 Z�. t i . - '1+ - 1, STANDARD FORM SF-3 Kimley >>> Hc� rn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch DA'1E : 7/5/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) = 2 .74 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME REMARKS W Z [. 4 ww ^ _ ^ wE. w _ .S 5 ~' oN. a �, � a : oo w oo � w � �, . � E• .4 wo w � � � Gov , ,� �, � pwp `� ,� p-' � w a up A � A gV ,� rnwAw a i ( 1 ) (2) (3) (4) 1 (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 1 ( 10) ( 11 ) ( 12) ( 13) ( 14) ( 15) ( 16) ( 17) ( 18) ( 19) (20) (21 ) (22) On-Site Basins I 1 POST-DA-01I 20 . 95 0 . 48 153 . 45 10 . 16 1 . 42 14 .44 2 POST-DA-02 13 .45 0 . 50 92 . 01 6 . 69 2 . 06 13 .79 3 POST-DA-03 19 . 69 0 . 48 92 . 82 9 . 55 2 . 05 19 . 54 Total 54 . 09 47 .77 Exhibit 7 — Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Lauren M . Cook, S . M .ASCE1 ; and Richard H . McCuen , M .ASCE2 Abstract: Because of the benefits of solar energy, the number of solar farms is increasing; however, their hydrologic impacts have not been studied. The goal of this study was to determine the hydrologic effects of solar farms and examine whether or not storm-water management is I needed to control runoff volumes and rates. A model of a solar farm was used to simulate runoff for two conditions : the pre- and postpaneled t. conditions. Using sensitivity analyses, modeling showed that the solar panels themselves did not have a significant effect on the runoff fit volumes, peaks, or times to peak. However, if the ground cover under the panels is gravel or bare ground, owing to design decisions or lack of maintenance, the peak discharge may increase significantly with storm-water management needed. In addition, the kinetic energy O; of the flow that drains from the panels was found to be greater than that of the rainfall, which could cause erosion at the base of the panels. o Thus, it is recommended that the grass beneath the panels be well maintained or that a buffer strip be placed after the most downgradient row of panels. This study, along with design recommendations, can be used as a guide for the future design of solar farms. DOE 10.1061/(ASCE) o HE.1943-5584.0000530. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers. L 0, CE Database subject headings : Hydrology; Land use; Solar power; Floods; Surface water; Runoff; Stormwater management. 5 Author keywords: Hydrology; Land use change; Solar energy; Flooding; Surface water runoff; Storm-water management. Ygyp g g c.) to Introduction draining from the edge of the panels is sufficient to cause erosion O of the soil below the panels, especially where the maintenance c5 Storm-water management practices are generally implemented to roadways are bare ground. lei reverse the effects of land-cover changes that cause increases in The outcome of this study provides guidance for assessing the Ovolumes and rates of runoff. This is a concern posed for new types hydrologic effects of solar farms, which is important to those who 0 of land-cover change such as the solar farm. Solar energy is a re- plan, design, and install arrays of solar panels. Those who design O newable energy source that is expected to increase in importance in p p solar farms may need to provide for storm-water management. This jthe near future. Because solar farms require considerable land, it is study investigated the hydrologic effects of solar farms, assessed 1 necessary to understand the design of solar farms and their potential whether or not storm-water management might be needed, and c4 effect on erosion rates and storm runoff, especially the impact on if the velocity of the runoff from the panels could be sufficient offsite properties and receiving streams. These farms can vary in to cause erosion of the soil below the panels. C) size from 8 ha (20 acres) in residential areas to 250 ha (600 acres) o in areas where land is abundant. The solar panels are impervious to rain water; however, they are Model Development o mounted on metal rods and placed over pervious land. In some 4-1 cases, the area below the panel is paved or covered with gravel. Solar farms are generally designed to maximize the amount of en- g Y g Service roads are generally located between rows of panels. Altl- ergy produced per unit of land area, while still allowing space for hough some panels are stationary, others are designed to move so maintenance. The hydrologic response of solar farms is not usually - that the angle of the panel varies with the angle of the sun. The considered in design. Typically, the panels will be arrayed in long Po 5 angle can range, depending on the latitude, from 22° during the rows with separations between the rows to allow for maintenance csummer months to 74° during the winter months. In addition, vehicles. To model a typical layout, a unit width of one panel was re 7)1 the angle and direction can also change throughout the day. The assumed, with the length of the downgradient strip depending on issue posed is whether or not these rows of impervious panels will the size of the farm. For example, a solar farm with 30 rows of 200 o change the runoff characteristics of the site, specifically increase panels each could be modeled as a strip of 30 panels with space runoff volumes or peak discharge rates. If the increases are hydro- between the panels for maintenance vehicles. Rainwater that drains logically significant, storm-water management facilities may be from the upper panel onto the ground will flow over the land under O needed. Additionally, it is possible that the velocity of water the 29 panels on the downgradient strip. Depending on the land Qcover, infiltration losses would be expected as the runoff flows Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, to the bottom of the slope. Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 . To determine the effects that the solar panels have on runoff 2The Ben Dyer Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer- characteristics, a model of a solar farm was developed. Runoff ing, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 (corresponding in the form of sheet flow without the addition of the solar panels author). E-mail: rhmccuen@ eng.umd.edu served as the prepaneled condition. The paneled condition assumed Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 12, 2010; approved on a downgradient series of cells with one solar panel per ground cell. October 20, 2011 ; published online on October 24, 2011 . Discussion period open until October 1 , 2013 ; separate discussions must be submitted for Each cell was separated into three sections: wet, dry, and spacer. individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi- The dry section is that portion directly underneath the solar neering, Vol. 18, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/2013/5- panel, unexposed directly to the rainfall. As the angle of the panel 536-541/$25.00. from the horizontal increases, more of the rain will fall directly onto 536 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . the ground; this section of the cell is referred to as the wet section. equal to the length of one horizontal solar panel, which was as- The spacer section is the area between the rows of panels used by sumed to be 3 .5 m. When a solar panel is horizontal, the dry section maintenance vehicles. Fig. 1 is an image of two solar panels and the length would equal 3 .5 m and the wet section length would be zero. spacer section allotted for maintenance vehicles. Fig. 2 is a sche- In the paneled condition, the dry section does not receive direct matic of the wet, dry, and spacer sections with their respective di- rainfall because the rain first falls onto the solar panel then drains mensions. In Fig. 1 , tracks from the vehicles are visible on what is onto the spacer section. However, the dry section does infiltrate modeled within as the spacer section. When the solar panel is hori- some of the runoff that comes from the upgradient wet section. zontal, then the length longitudinal to the direction that runoff will The wet section was modeled similar to the spacer section with rain occur is the length of the dry and wet sections combined. Runoff falling directly onto the section and assuming a constant loss rate. from a dry section drains onto the downgradient spacer section. For the presolar panel condition, the spacer and wet sections are Runoff from the spacer section flows to the wet section of the next modeled the same as in the paneled condition; however, the cell downgradient cell. Water that drains from a solar panel falls directly does not include a dry section. In the prepaneled condition, rain ell4 onto the spacer section of that cell. falls directly onto the entire cell. When modeling the prepaneled en The length of the spacer section is constant. During a storm condition, all cells receive rainfall at the same rate and are subject -a event, the loss rate was assumed constant for the 24-h storm be- to losses. All other conditions were assumed to remain the same cause a wet antecedent condition was assumed. The lengths of such that the prepaneled and paneled conditions can be compared. the wet and dry sections changed depending on the angle of the Rainfall was modeled after an natural resources conservation t service (NRCS) Type II Storm (McCuen 2005) because it is an ac- t solar panel. The total length of the wet and dry sections was set a) curate representation of actual storms of varying characteristics that are imbedded in intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves. For iof interest, dimensionless 0 t. n EA: _: .. _ each duration a hyetograph was devel- �" ��"�`� oped using a time increment of 12 s over the duration of the storm o (see Fig. 3)• The depth of rainfall that corresponds to each storm w -- _-__,--„-----%,,,------------_,-----r- - iTT"e7 ma nitude was then multi lied b the��o : :R - . - - _ : g p by vi e _ For a 2-h storm duration, depths of 40.6, 76 2, and 101 .6 mm were -c 4111 Illir---1 � ; r{ , j i • \�� `' used for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year events. The 2- and 6-h duration .� \ r y Y �� ` ��, 'a _ = hyetographs were developed using the center portion of the 24-h li o storm, with the rainfall depths established with the Baltimore _,A. v {. f 4. s; ` "` i ' F '' ° . IDF curve. The corresponding depths for a 6-h duration were 53.3 , 4, ITt ` Pin�r 'C ",} /tr. = r ) 106.7, and 132. 1 mm, respectively. These magnitudes were chosen , . c to give a range of storm conditions. O N ' N r 'r. •:•.--- { •• - '' • ' During each time increment, the depth of rain is multiplied by '0 . .1/214,74 -c,, 4 1 ' " ,w_ L I it i)' ' 1 ° r ,z ). , ; t`r • '` '}' E " ; ' the cell area to determine the volume of rain added to each section y :1\ ( , ) r t “iii. - ' r of each cell. This volume becomes the storage in each cell. Depend- ,.c , '., ♦ .i '� r )fi ';`mil y" Cs�ti • I •, y1 g r �1i , � � � , , rPt :�'i ,, p; ' ^'' ; • �. ,&,. 4 ��,`��1 ,f , _� '� � ' • : king on the soil group, a constant volume of losses was subtracted ` ` � % : t, ,r 1/4: 5 •' is .._;.k. . y`'r1',i" • M F N r' . ,V�('`c i�> ';` "t , , from the storage. The runoff velocity from a solar panel was calcu- >.'r �f -- . :14,:;);I,,,, j .•n.,----r. .- f t \1 - , t } ,r ti� Tr*� L2��: i. .'! ♦ i y. � � e 1 . Y k"1�� jLJ �1 1st � � 711 r � �Sr �x „ � t 'et, .-ice rI� � } � /, � . . . • . • • -`f , ' tiA`4 r.y •� 4' ' I - ?1r laced using Manning's equation, with the hydraulic radius for sheet Fig. 1 . Maintenance or "spacer" section between two rows of solar et flow assumed to equal the depth of the storage on the panel et panels (photo by John E. Showier, reprinted with permission) {Bedient and Huber 2002). Similar assumptions were made to com- pute the velocities in each section of the surface sections. 0 Direction of Flow ' riz to 0 cc:1 Lw Wet section et E 3.5 m - -' 0 A Dry section -ti 0 3 Ls Spacer section 4 m 5 m 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (min) Fig. 2. Wet, dry, and spacer sections of a single cell with lengths Lw, Ls, and Ld with the solar panel covering the dry section Fig. 3. Dimensionless hyetograph of 2-h Type II storm JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 537 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . Runoff from one section to the next and then to the next and the time to peak did not change. Therefore, the greater ground downgradient cell was routed using the continuity of mass. The slope did not significantly influence the response of the solar farm. routing coefficient depended on the depth of flow in storage and the velocity of runoff. Flow was routed from the wet section to the Soil Type dry section to the spacer section, with flow from the spacer section draining to the wet section of the next cell. Flow from the most The effect of soil type on the runoff was also examined. The soil downgradient cell was assumed to be the outflow. Discharge rates group was changed from B soil to C soil by varying the loss rate. As and volumes from the most downgradient cell were used for com- expected, owing to the higher loss rate for the C soil, the depths of parisons between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. runoff increased by approximately 7.5% with the C soil when com- pared with the volume for B soils. However, the runoff volume for the C soil condition only increased by 0. 17% from the prepaneled -6 Alternative Model Scenarios condition to the paneled condition. In comparison with the B soil, a I difference of 0.35 % in volume resulted between the two conditions. t. To assess the effects of the different variables, a section of 30 cells, Therefore, the soil group influenced the actual volumes and rates, fit each with a solar panel, was assumed for the base model. Each cell but not the relative effect of the paneled condition when compared was separated individually into wet, dry, and spacer sections. The to the prepaneled condition. — area had a total ground length of 225 m with a ground slope of 1 % and width of 5 m, which was the width of an average solar panel. Panel Angle 0 The roughness coefficient (Engman 1986) for the silicon solar panel was assumed to be that of glass, 0.01 . Roughness coefficients Because runoff velocities increase with slope, the effect of the angle 0 of 0. 15 for grass and 0.02 for bare ground were also assumed. Loss of the solar panel on the hydrologic response was examined. Analy- L rates of 0.5715 cm/h (0.225 in. /h) and 0.254 cm/h (0. 1 in. /h) for ses were made for angles of 30° and 70° to test an average range �O.4B and C soils, respectively, were assumed. from winter to summer. The hydrologic response for these angles 0 The prepaneled condition using the 2-h, 25-year rainfall was was compared to that of the base condition angle of 45°. The other o assumed for the base condition, with each cell assumed to have site conditions remained the same. The analyses showed that the a good grass cover condition. All other analyses were made assum- angle of the panel had only a slight effect on runoff volumes and to ing a paneled condition. For most scenarios, the runoff volumes and discharge rates. The lower angle of 30° was associated with an in- peak discharge rates from the paneled model were not significantly creased runoff volume, whereas the runoff volume decreased for Q. co greater than those for the prepaneled condition. Over a total length the steeper angle of 70° when compared with the base condition of lei of 225 m with 30 solar panels, the runoff increased by 0.26 m3, 45°. However, the differences (~0.5%) were very slight. Never- O which was a difference of only 0.35%. The slight increase in runoff theless, these results indicate that, when the solar panel was closer o volume reflects the slightly higher velocities for the paneled con- to horizontal, i.e., at a lower angle, a larger difference in runoff o dition. The peak discharge increased by 0.0013 m3, a change of volume occurred between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. only 0.31 %. The time to peak was delayed by one time increment, These differences in the response result are from differences in 1 i.e., 12 s. Inclusion of the panels did not have a significant hydro- loss rates. logic impact. The peak discharge was also lower at the lower angle. At an 0 angle of 30°, the peak discharge was slightly lower than at the Storm Magnitude higher angle of 70°. For the 2-h storm duration, the time to peak of the 30 angle was 2 min delayed from the time to peak of when ch The effect of storm magnitude was investigated by changing the the panel was positioned at a 70° angle, which reflects the longer o magnitude from a 25-year storm to a 2-year storm. For the 2-year travel times across the solar panels. 4' storm, the rainfall and runoff volumes decreased by approximately 0 50%. However, the runoff from the paneled watershed condition Storm Duration .,.• increased compared to the prepaneled condition by approximately › the same volume as for the 25-year analysis, 0.26 m3 . This increase To assess the effect of storm duration, analyses were made for 6-h Po represents only a 0.78% increase in volume. The peak discharge storms, testing magnitudes for 2-, 25-, and 100-year return periods, cc:1 and the time to peak did not change significantly. These results re- with the results compared with those for the 2-h rainfall events. The re flect runoff from a good grass cover condition and indicated that the longer storm duration was tested to determine whether a longer du- 7)1 U general conclusion of very minimal impacts was the same for dif- ration storm would produce a different ratio of increase in runoff o ferent storm magnitudes. between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. When compared to orunoff volumes from the 2-h storm, those for the 6-h storm were Ground Slope 34% greater in both the paneled and prepaneled cases. However, O when comparing the prepaneled to the paneled condition, the in- 0 The effect of the downgradient ground slope of the solar farm was crease in the runoff volume with the 6-h storm was less than Qalso examined. The angle of the solar panels would influence the 1 % regardless of the return period. The peak discharge and the velocity of flows from the panels. As the ground slope was in- time-to-peak did not differ significantly between the two condi- creased, the velocity of flow over the ground surface would be tions. The trends in the hydrologic response of the solar farm closer to that on the panels. This could cause an overall increase did not vary with storm duration. in discharge rates. The ground slope was changed from 1 to 5%, with all other conditions remaining the same as the base conditions. With the steeper incline, the volume of losses decreased from Ground Cover that for the 1 % slope, which is to be expected because the faster The ground cover under the panels was assumed to be a native grass velocity of the runoff would provide less opportunity for infiltra- that received little maintenance. For some solar farms, the area be- tion. However, between the prepaneled and paneled conditions, the neath the panel is covered in gravel or partially paved because the increase in runoff volume was less than 1 %. The peak discharge panels prevent the grass from receiving sunlight. Depending on the 538 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . volume of traffic, the spacer cell could be grass, patches of grass, or increased by 7% from the grass-covered scenario to the scenario bare ground. Thus, it was necessary to determine whether or not with gravel under the panel. The peak discharge increased by these alternative ground-cover conditions would affect the runoff 73 % for the gravel ground cover when compared with the grass characteristics. This was accomplished by changing the Manning's cover without the panels. The time to peak was 10 min less with n for the ground beneath the panels. The value of n under the pan- the gravel than with the grass, which reflects the effect of differ- els, i.e., the dry section, was set to 0.015 for gravel, with the value ences in surface roughness and the resulting velocities. for the spacer or maintenance section set to 0.02, i.e., bare ground. If maintenance vehicles used the spacer section regularly and the These can be compared to the base condition of a native grass grass cover was not adequately maintained, the soil in the spacer (n = 0. 15). A good cover should promote losses and delay the section would be compacted and potentially the runoff volumes and runoff. rates would increase. Grass that is not maintained has the potential For the smoother surfaces, the velocity of the runoff increased to become patchy and turn to bare ground. The grass under the and the losses decreased, which resulted in increasing runoff vol- panel may not get enough sunlight and die. Fig. 1 shows the result IE: umes. This occurred both when the ground cover under the panels of the maintenance trucks frequently driving in the spacer section, t. was changed to gravel and when the cover in the spacer section was which diminished the grass cover. f, changed to bare ground. Owing to the higher velocities of the flow, The effect of the lack of solar farm maintenance on runoff char- runoff rates from the cells increased significantly such that it was acteristics was modeled by changing the Manning's n to a value of (74; necessary to reduce the computational time increment. Fig. 4(a) 0.02 for bare ground. In this scenario, the roughness coefficient o shows the hydrograph from a 30-panel area with a time incre- for the ground under the panels, i.e., the dry section, as well as in ment of 12 s. With a time increment of 12 s, the water in each cell the spacer cell was changed from grass covered to bare ground is discharged at the end of every time increment, which results in no (n = 0.02).The effects were nearly identical to that of the gravel. o attenuation of the flow; thus, the undulations shown in Fig. 4(a) The runoff volume increased by 7% from the grass-covered to the a, result. The time increment was reduced to 3 s for the 2-h storm, bare-ground condition. The peak discharge increased by 72% when o' o which resulted in watershed smoothing and a rational hydrograph compared with the grass-covered condition. The runoff for the bare- c.) shape [Fig. 4(b)] . The results showed that the storm runoff ground condition also resulted in an earlier time to peak by approx- imately 10 min. Two other conditions were also modeled, showing to 0 1 - similar results. In the first scenario, gravel was placed directly Paneled under the panel, and healthy grass was placed in the spacer section, ✓ 0.09 - Pre-paneled , which mimics a possible design decision. Under these conditions, lei 0.08 - the peak discharge increased by 42%, and the volume of runoff c) increased by 4%, which suggests that storm-water management 0 0.07 - - would be necessary if gravel is placed anywhere. ' 0 06 - - Fig. 5 shows two solar panels from a solar farm in New Jersey. - The bare ground between the panels can cause increased runoff N w .4 0 0.05 - - rates and reductions in time of concentration, both of which could 0 0.04 - - necessitate storm-water management. The final condition modeled i involved the assumption of healthy grass beneath the panels and 0.03 - bare ground in the spacer section, which would simulate the con- et 0.02 - p 1 - dition of unmaintained grass resulting from vehicles that drive over ` the spacer section. Because the spacer section is 53 % of the cell, the p 0.01 - change in land cover to bare ground would reduce losses and de- ,,,, crease runoff travel times, which would cause runoff to amass as it 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 t (a) Time (min) 0.07 i az ?o Paneled Pre-paneled _ _�, 4.44 :0 :.�^ .-sr 4 H I, , t 0cic:1 .06 - - s- . \_ .. 1 '�:=" I_ , r U 1� _ ff''''' -4" \y ( t ! 4 1 O E 0.04 - - pr. . 1 f` . . ,. - ii-ci I. -.' _ --cs k•_ f o 03 Y i 1 003 1 / `! 0.02 '• ` �' . �� + •S f ♦ y ~ .,. ,- _. �`� .� 1. -- ----„-: , .,--,- . --2 ' , _ , , ` _ r ' 0.01 - - :K . ) i % , :. , �/yr .-5• ;:v, // r � It :f,IK a. r 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 - ' - (b) Time (min) Fig. 5. Site showing the initiation of bare ground below the panels, Fig. 4. Hydrograph with time increment of (a) 12 s ; (b) 3 s with which increases the potential for erosion (photo by John Showler, Manning's n for bare ground reprinted with permission) JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 539 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . moves downgradient. With the spacer section as bare ground, the runoff was calculated using Manning's equation, and the velocity peak discharge increased by 100%, which reflected the increases in of falling rainwater was calculated using the following: volume and decrease in timing. These results illustrate the need for maintenance of the grass below and between the panels. V t = 120 435 ( 1 ) where d,. = diameter of a raindrop, assumed to be 1 mm. The re- Design Suggestions lationship between kinetic energy and rainfall intensity is With well-maintained grass underneath the panels, the solar panels IC, = 916 -I- 3301og10 i (2) themselves do not have much effect on total volumes of the runoff where i = rainfall intensity (in./h) and Ke = kinetic energy (ft-tons or peak discharge rates. Although the panels are impervious, the per ac-in. of rain) of rain falling onto the wet section and the panel, rainwater that drains from the panels appears as runoff over the as well as the water flowing off of the end of the panel (Wischmeier il4 downgradient cells. Some of the runoff infiltrates. If the grass cover and Smith 1978). The kinetic energy (Salles et al. 2002) of the rain- of a solar farm is not maintained, it can deteriorate either because of fall was greater than that coming off the panel, but the area under fit a lack of sunlight or maintenance vehicle traffic. In this case, the the panel (i.e., the product of the length, width, and cosine of the runoff characteristics can change significantly with both runoff panel angle) is greater than the area under the edge of the panel 0 rates and volumes increasing by significant amounts. In addition,if gravel or pavement is placed underneath the panels, this can also where the water drains from the panel onto the ground. Thus, contribute to a significant increase in the hydrologic response. dividing the kinetic energy by the respective areas gives a more accurate representation of the kinetic energy experienced by the If bare ground is foreseen to be a problem or gravel is to be soil. The energy of the water draining from thepanel onto the placed under the panels to prevent erosion, it is necessary to . ground can be nearly 10 tunes greater than the rain itself falling co, counteract the excess runoff using some form of storm-water man- onto the ground area. If the solar panel runoff falls onto an un- w agement. A simple practice that can be implemented is a buffer strip sealed soil, considerable detachment can result (Motha et al. (Dabney et al. 2006) at the downgradient end of the solar farm. The 2004). Thus, because of the increased kinetic energy, it is pos- buffer strip length must be sufficient to return the runoff character- sible that the soil is much more prone to erosion with the panels istics with the panels to those of runoff experienced before the wialthan without. Where panels are installed, methods of erosion togravel and panels were installed. Alternatively, a detention basin control should be included in the design. Q.o can be installed. v A buffer strip was modeled along with the panels. For approxi- lei mately every 200 m of panels, or 29 cells, the buffer must be 5 cells O long (or 35 m) to reduce the runoff volume to that which occurred Conclusions o before the panels were added. Even if a gravel base is not placed Solar farms are the energy generators of the future; thus, it is im- under the panels, the inclusion of a buffer strip may be a good prac-o tice when grass maintenance is not a top funding priority. Fig. 6 portant to determine the environmental and hydrologic effects of these farms, both existing and proposed. A model was created 1 shows the peak discharge from the graveled surface versus the length to simulate storm-water runoff over a land surface without panels c4 of the buffer needed to keep the discharge to prepaneled peak rate. and then with solar panels added. Various sensitivity analyses were Water draining from a solar panel can increase the potential for conducted including changing the storm duration and volume, soil oo erosion of the spacer section. If the spacer section is bare ground, type, ground slope, panel angle, and ground cover to determine the Ch the high kinetic energy of water draining from the panel can cause ± effect that each of these factors would have on the volumes and o soil detachment and transport (Garde and Raju 1977 ; Beuselinck peak discharge rates of the runoff. et al. 2002). The amount and risk of erosion was modeled using The addition of solar panels over a grassy field does not have the velocity of water coming off a solar panel compared with much of an effect on the volume of runoff, the peak discharge, nor the velocity and intensity of the rainwater. The velocity of panel the time to peak. With each analysis, the runoff volume increased ›, slightly but not enough to require storm-water management facili- 0.07 r I ties. However, when the land-cover type was changed under the o Pre-paneled peak Q panels, the hydrologic response changed significantly. When gravel cc:1 0.06 - Peak Q vs. buffer length or avement was laced under the anels with the s acer section p P p p left as patchy grass or bare ground, the volume of the runoff in- U o 0.06 - - creased significantly and the peak discharge increased by approx- oimately 100%. This was also the result when the entire cell was M 0.04 - assumed to be bare ground. �_ _� _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - The potential for erosion of the soil at the base of the solar pan- 0 els was also studied. It was determined that the kinetic energy of the o 1 0.03 - - water draining from the solar panel could be as much as 10 times Q greater than that of rainfall. Thus, because the energy of the water 0.02 - -- draining from the panels is much higher, it is very possible that soil below the base of the solar panel could erode owing to the concen- 0 m - _ trated flow of water off the panel, especially if there is bare ground in the spacer section of the cell. If necessary, erosion control meth- ods should be used. o 0 6 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Bare ground beneath the panels and in the spacer section is Length of buffer (m) a realistic possibility (see Figs. 1 and 5). Thus, a good, well- maintained grass cover beneath the panels and in the spacer section Fig. 6. Peak discharge over gravel compared with buffer length is highly recommended. If gravel, pavement, or bare ground is 540 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . deemed unavoidable below the panels or in the spacer section, it Beuselinck, L., Govers, G., Hairsince, P. B ., Sander, G. C., and may necessary to add a buffer section to control the excess runoff Breynaert, M. (2002). "The influence of rainfall on sediment transport volume and ensure adequate losses. If these simple measures are by overland flow over areas of net deposition." J. Hydrol. , 257( 1-4), taken, solar farms will not have an adverse hydrologic impact from 145-163. excess runoff or contribute eroded soil particles to receiving Dabney, S. M., Moore, M. T., and Locke, M. A. (2006). "Integrated man- agement of in-field, edge-of-field, and after-field buffers." J. Amer. streams and waterways. Water Resour. Assoc. , 42( 1), 15-24. Engman, E. T. (1986). "Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff." J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. , 112( 1), 39-53. Acknowledgments Garde, R. J., and Raju, K. G. (1977). Mechanics of sediment transportation and alluvial stream problems, Wiley, New York. The authors appreciate the photographs (Figs. 1 and 5) of Ortho McCuen, R. H. (2005). Hydrologic analysis and design, 3rd Ed., Pearson/ Clinical Diagnostics, 1001 Route 202, North Raritan, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 08869, provided by John E. Showler, Environmental Scientist, Motha, J. A., Wallbrink, P. J., Hairsine, P. B., and Grayson, R. B . (2004). New Jersey Department of Agriculture. The extensive comments "Unsealed roads as suspended sediment sources in agricultural catch- c of reviewers resulted in an improved paper. ment in south-eastern Australia." J. Hydrol. , 286( 1-4), 1-18. Salles, C., Poesen, J., and Sempere-Torres, D. (2002). "Kinetic energy of rain and its functional relationship with intensity." J. Hydrol. , 257(1-4), References 256-270. o Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion Bedient, P. B ., and Huber, W. C. (2002). Hydrology and,floodplain analy- losses: A guide to conservation planning, USDA Handbook 537, U.S. sis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. � PP g O rn a) 0.4 U C4 trn O tri 0 0 0 O a) a) 2 U Ct ct 4-i -C O N Ste" O ct :1 a) U Ct E O a) "CS ct O O JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 541 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . Kimley >>) Horn PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT Mckee Ranch Solar Weld County Case # TBD Southwest of the Intersection of Weld County Rd 68/Highway 392 & Weld County Rd 37 Weld County , CO Prepared by: Kimley- Horn Inc. 1125 17th Street , Suite 1400 Denver , CO 80202 Contact : Adam Harrison , P . E . Phone : ( 303 ) 228 -2311 Prepared on : April 27 , 2023 Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 1 Kimley >>) Horn TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK 3 1 . 1 . Project Location 3 1 . 2. Nearby Water Features & Ownership 4 1 . 3. Report & Analysis Methodologies 4 1 . 4. Stormwater Management 5 2. CONCLUSION 5 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - FEMA Firm Map Exhibit 2 - NRCS Report Exhibit 3 — NOAA Rainfall Data Exhibit 4 — Pre-Development Drainage Area Map Exhibit 5 — Post-Development Drainage Area Map Exhibit 6 — Hydrologic Calculations Exhibit 7 — Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 2 Kimley >) Horn 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK The development is a proposed 7 . 5- MWac Solar power generating facility located in Weld County , CO. The solar power generating facility will consist of rows of Photovoltaic Solar Modules , gravel access driveways , associated electrical equipment , underground utilities , and a substation ( by others) . Solar modules will be mounted on piles and elevated above the ground as to preserve the existing underlying soil and allow for revegetation and infiltration . The project will be surrounded by a perimeter fence . Ground area within the limits of development that is not occupied by gravel roads or foundations will be seeded to establish permanent vegetation . This drainage narrative is intended to provide Weld County with preliminary information regarding the drainage and land disturbance activities related to the proposed Mckee Ranch Solar, small scale solar facility ( Project) . The project will be designed and will be constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes storm water related impacts , in accordance with Weld County drainage criteria. Project name , Property Address and Weld County Parcel No . Mckee Ranch , 32001 - 32999 WCR 37 , Weld 80631 , Parcel No . 080524000024 Developer/Owner CloudBreak Energy Partners , LLC , 218 S . 3rd Street Sterling , CO 80751 Urbanizing/ Non - Urbanizing This site is located more than a quarter mile away from the nearest Weld County municipal boundary and is classified as " Non- Urbanizing " . Therefore , detention ponds designed for this site would be sized using 10-year runoff rates . 1 . 1 . Project Location The existing site subject property is a parcel of 78 . 06 acres . The project is located on approximately 54 . 09 acres of agricultural and undeveloped , lightly vegetated land . The project is located north of Greeley , within Weld County . The site is bounded to the north by Highway 392 , to the west by Mckee Ranch property parcel number 080524100002 , to the east by Weld County Road 37 and south by Mckee Ranch property parcel number 080524000021 . Section Township Range Property is located within a portion of the east half of the Northeast quarter of Section 24 , Township 6 North , Range 66 West of the 6th P . M . , Weld County , Colorado . Per FEMA Map Panels 08123C1530E effective 01 /20/2016 , none of the development area is within a flood hazard area . ( Refer to Exhibit 1 for FEMA Map) . The NRCS Report dated 02/01 /2023 , concludes that onsite soils consist mostly of Kim loam , Aquolls and Aquepts , Nelson fine sandy loam and Olney fine sandy loam that classify as hydrologic soil group ( HSG) type A , D , B and B respectively . The site was modeled using all type D soils for conservative runoff calculations . For additional detail , refer to Exhibit 2 for the NRCS Report. Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 3 Kimley o)> rn 1 . 2 . Nearby Water Features & Ownership In the existing condition , a majority of the site drains to the east to Graham Seep . The nearest water feature is the Graham seep which bounds the project site on the east . From the Graham seep the water flows to Greeley Canal Number 2 as the receiving waters of the project site . The existing drainage patterns will be maintained in the proposed condition . Refer to Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 for the Pre and Post- Development Drainage Area Maps . 1 . 3 . Report & Analysis Methodologies This report evaluates the pre and post development runoff characteristics of the development ( including solar facility footprint and access drive) and addresses the stormwater requirements of Weld County and the state of Colorado . Hydrologic Design Criteria The table below notes the hydrologic design criteria used in the analysis . Parameter Value Unit Reference Time of Concentration , Tc - min . Exhibit 6 Runoff Coefficient, C - - MHFD Criteria Manual, Chapter 6 , Table 6-4 1 -hr Point Rainfall , P1 ( 100-Year) 2 . 74 Inches NOAA Rainfall Data ( Exhibit 3 ) Storm Runoff, Q - cfs Q = CIA Basin Conditions The drainage areas of the site are shown for the site as Pre- construction ( Exhibit 4) and Post- construction ( Exhibit 5) . Pre-construction drainage basins were analyzed to calculate the peak historic runoff for the design storm . Proposed post construction drainage basins were analyzed to calculate the peak runoff for the design storm using an impervious percentage of 2 . 9% (see Exhibit 6 for the imperviousness summary) . The tracking solar panels are not classified as an impervious surface because precipitation falling on the solar panels will shed onto the vegetated surface below. Stormwater Runoff The stormwater runoff for the existing and proposed conditions is calculated utilizing the Rational Method . The 100-year, 1 - hour storm event was analyzed for pre and post-construction drainage basins . The flow path for the basins can be seen in Exhibits 4 & 5 . The time of concentration to the point of accumulation was calculated using MHFD equations and can be found in Exhibit 6 . The Runoff Coefficients are also included in Exhibit 6 . The precipitation data used for the 100- year, 1 -hour storm event is based on NOAA rainfall data from the project site (Exhibit 3) . A summary of the rational calculation findings is shown in the table below. Existing Proposed Area 54 . 09 ac 54 . 09 ac Imperviousness 2 . 0 % 2 . 9 Q1oo 70 . 05 cfs 70 . 57 cfs Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 4 Kimley >) Horn 1 . 4 . Stormwater Management A study published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering researched the hydrologic impacts of utility scale solar generating facilities . The study utilized a model to simulate runoff from pre- and post-solar panel conditions . The study concluded that the solar panels themselves have little to no impact on runoff volumes or rates . Rainfall losses , most notably infiltration , are not impacted by the solar panels . Rainfall that falls directly on a solar panel runs to the pervious areas around and under the surrounding panels . Refer to Exhibit 7 for the study published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering . Under developed conditions , runoff will follow existing drainage patterns and will not significantly increase peak flows (increases from 70 . 05 cfs to 70 . 57 cfs in the 100-year , 1 - hour storm event) . 2 . CONCLUSION The following list summarizes key components of the Project and findings related to land disturbance and storm water impacts . • Installation of the solar facility will temporarily disturb the ground surface within the 54 . 09 acre Project area , but won ' t require clearing and grubbing of vegetation or grading , except for concrete equipment pads and gravel access drive installations . • The areas considered impervious ( 100 percent impervious 8 , 238 sq ft concrete pads) or semi- impervious (40 percent impervious 31 , 570 sf gravel access drive) total 0 . 72 acres or 1 . 33 % of the project area . This increase in imperviousness is negligible as it relates to total stormwater runoff for the planned solar development . • Under existing conditions , the peak flow from the site area for the 100 yr - lhr storm event is 70 . 05 cfs . • Under developed conditions , the peak flow from the site area for the 100 yr — 1 hr storm event is 70 . 57 cfs . • Installation of the solar facility is not expected to impact existing drainage patterns or flow rates on or around the project site . Runoff water quality will not be impacted by the solar facility components . • The project design will adequately protect public health , safety and general welfare and have no adverse effects on Weld County right- of-way or offsite properties . As noted above , a study published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering ( Exhibit 7) researched the hydrologic impacts of utility scale solar generating facilities . The study utilized a model to simulate runoff from pre- development and post-development solar panel conditions . The study concluded that the solar panels themselves have little to no impact on runoff volumes or rates . Rainfall losses , most notably infiltration , are not impacted by the solar panels . Rainfall that falls directly on a solar panel runs to the pervious areas around and under the surrounding panels . Grading is proposed with minimal changes to the existing site drainage patterns and onsite access roads will be made of gravel . Based on the proposed improvements on the project site , the findings of the above referenced study , and the calculations included within this report , increases in runoff will be negligible . Therefore , permanent stormwater detention and water quality facilities are not proposed with the project . Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 5 Kimley >>) Horn We trust that the information provided is acceptable and complete for preliminary site plan review drainage report requirements . Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information . KIMLEY- HORN AND ASSOCIATES , INC . Adam Harrison , PE Project Manager Mckee Ranch — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 6 Exhibit 1 — FEMA Firm Map National F FIRMette g• tFEMA end \. Legend N _ 104°43'24"W 40°28'55"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT ■ Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) s 4, , ' 4 Zone A, V. 499 T F 6 518 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AN, VE. AR _ ** HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway - T6N 8.6181N S131 T6N R66IN S13 3 1s T tN R6 1 S I - _ - r _ .. -- - .. 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas - of 1% annual chance flood with average - depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile _ I Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF I Levee. See Notes. zone x FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D llii _ Project Area NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x Effective LOM Rs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D doGENERAL - - - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer WELD ,, COUNTY - _ - STRUCTURES 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Levee, Dike, or Floodwall solleasgir = 0 0 6 B 20. Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance : 1 17.5 Water Surface Elevation L7 RD al sectWE 1!_.=Ilk , �dT „, � 1 : .`j# - y 511 wk BasetFloord `Elevation Line (BFE)A,,, .. -S _ R _ --- Limit of Study . IFRA41 ', ~'` . Jurisdiction Boundary �,_ - t - - - Coastal Transect Baseline r OTHER . c a E. Profile Baseline 4 FEATURES .2. I __ Hydrographic Feature T6N R660,4' S24 T6N P66W S24 ett 1/20/2016 T6N 54'x+' 519 is w _ 1 Oak I T6N RESIN $19 „ Digital Data Available 4. : - No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS y Unmapped • r O The pin displayed on the map is an approximate i ' point selected by the user and does not represent ! : - - an authoritative property location. i ii This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of - 1 , digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap f accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the ' - I authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2/1/2023 at 3:06 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or O r become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map e \ wilf elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,i :1167- illk i legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, G .' - - _- - - a _ yi 104°42'46"W 40°28'28"N FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for Feet 1 .• 6 X 000 unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for 0 250 500 1 , 000 1 , 500 2 , 000 regulatory purposes. Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Exhibit 2 — NRCS Report Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld CountyIn , Colorado, Southern Part I i- 523640 523720 523800 523880 523960 524040 524120 40° 28' 53" N a . I- - I _ ■�� I I. 40° 28' 53" N fir Ili . _ , -__ - = 3.92 = _ = _ _ : . , Highway 392 _ ' _ �I 32' • • 8 I . O ' . a c rt '1G I- X O U U w 7 Y • a i' t p. _ i .1 • 1 1 % '...4 . I ( o U .11Villeigirter u . . si, ii.4 . i 4 I I 6r ' � � It- _- - v- ,...__ ,I t 'i S S W ' L_ i _ . -, .. . I W - H. 110 7 . C1L5 J U I - U N..g ti • t I ,. oil Map may not be valid at this scale. --ti,glill • R 40° 28' 32" N = __-�..— i 40° 28' 32" N 523640 523720 523800 523880 523960 524040 524120 j to fn ri Map Scale: 1 :3,220 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. N • Meters N 0 45 90 180 270 ci Feet 0 150 300 600 900 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 „,,• M Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 all Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AO!) ® C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI ) 1 : 24 ,000 . 0 C/D Soils0 D Warning : Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Rating Polygons A O Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil A/D Water Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Streams and Canals contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed B scale . Transportation B/D Rails Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map C Interstate Highways measurements. C/D US Routes Source of Map : Natural Resources Conservation Service D Web Soil Survey URL : Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG :3857) Not rated or not available Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Soil Rating Lines Background projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts * A distance and area . A projection that preserves area , such as the mew Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection , should be used if more A/D accurate calculations of distance or area are required . kaws B This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as BID of the version date(s) listed below. HoeC Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data : Version 21 , Sep 1 , 2022 C/D Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales kipii D 1 : 50 ,000 or larger. ise Not rated or not available Date(s) aerial images were photographed : Jun 8, 2021 —Jun 12, 2021 Soil Rating Points A The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background ® A/D imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor B shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 0 B/D Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 aa Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 4 Aquolls and Aquepts, D 7. 1 13 .4% flooded 32 Kim loam , 1 to 3 percent A 4. 0 7 .5% slopes 38 Nelson fine sandy loam , B 9. 1 17 .2% 3 to 9 percent slopes 47 Olney fine sandy loam , B 33. 0 62 .0% 1 to 3 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 53.2 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential . Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation , are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms . The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B , C , and D ) and three dual classes (A/D , B/D , and C/D ) . The groups are defined as follows : Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential ) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep , well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands . These soils have a high rate of water transmission . Group B . Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep , moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture . These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission . Group C . Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture . These soils have a slow rate of water transmission . Group D . Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential ) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential , soils that have a high water table , soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface , and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material . These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission . If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D , B/D , or C/D ) , the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas . Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes . Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff. None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Exhibit 3 — NOAA Rainfall Data NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Qc °Fe" , Location name : Greeley, Colorado, USA* 0,.......oset. 41 V 9 Latitude : 40.4782 Longitude : 104.718 7411 ` t` irElevation : 4735.7 ft** I 1. Nt, c,.._ I 1 0.`�� * source: ESRI Maps Ircs '" S ** source: USGS .4" �`' POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh , Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring , Maryland PF_tabular I PF_graphical I Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDS -based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals ( in inches) 1 Average recurrence interval (years) Duration - - 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 1 200 1 500 Li000 5-min 0.242 0.292 0.388 0.482 0.631 0.762 0.907 1 .07 1 .30 li 1 .50 j (0. 199-0.295) (0.240-0.357) (0.318-0.476) (0.392-0.594) (0.500-0.835) (0.582-1 .02) (0.662- 1 .24) (0.739-1 .51 ) (0.857- 1 .89) (0.947-2. 19) 1 0.354 0.427 0.569 0.706 0.924 1 . 12 1 .33 1 .56 1 .91 2. 19 10-min 0 352-0.523 0 466-0.698 0 574-0.870� (0.292-0.432) ( ) ( ) ( ) (0.732-1 .22) (0.852-1 .49) (0.969-1 .82) (1 .08-2.21 ) ( 1 .26-2.77) (1 .39-3.20) i 1 0.432 0.521 0.694 0.861 1 . 13 1 .36 I 1 .62 1 .91 2.33 2.67 15-min 0 429-0.637 0 568-0.851� (0.356-0.527) ( } ( ) (0.700-1 .06) (0.893- 1 .49) ( 1 .04- 1 .82). ( 1 . 18-2.22) ( 1 .32-2.69) ( 1 .53-3.38) ( 1 .69-3.90) 0.582 0.701 0.931 1 . 16 1 .52 1 .83 2. 19 2.58 3. 15 3.63 30-min ) ( )_ ft .40-2.45) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (0.480-0.711 ) (0.577-0.857) (0.763- 1 . 14) (0.940- 1 .43 1 .20-2.01 1 .60-3.00 1 .78-3.64 2.08-4.58 2.30-5.30 60-min 0.723 0.861 1 . 14 1 .42 1 .87 2.28 I 2.74 I 3.25 4.01 4.65 (0.596-0.883) (0.708- 1 .05) (0.932- 1 .40) ( 1 . 15- 1 .75) (1 .49-2.49) ( 1 .75-3.06) I (2.00-3.77: (2.26-4.61 ) (2.65-5.85) (2.94-6.79) 2-hr 0.864 1 .02 1 .35 1 .68 2.23 2.73 3.29 3.93 1 4.88 5.67 (0.716- 1 .05) (0.845- 1 .24) ( 1 . 11 - 1 .64) ( 1 .37-2.05) (1 .79-2.95) L2. 11 -3.64) . (2.43-4.50) (2.75-5.53) (3.25-7.05) (3.63-8.20) 3-hr 0.945 1 . 11 1 .45 1 .81 2.41 2.96 3.58 4.29 5.35 6.23 (0.786- 1 . 14) (0.920- 1 .34) ( 1 .20- 1 . 76) ( 1 .49-2.21 ) (1 .95-3. 19) (2.30-3 .93) (2.66-4.88) (3.02-6.01 ) (3.59-7.69) ` (4.01 -8.97) 6-hr 1 .08 1 .28 1 .69 2. 10 2.76 3.35 4.01 i 4.75 5.84 6.75 (0.903- 1 .29) ( 1 . 07- 1 .54) ( 1 .41 -2. 04) ( 1 .74-2.54) (2 .24-3.59) (2.62-4 .39) (3.00-5.39) (3.37-6.57) (3.95-8.31 ) (4.39-9.62) 12-hr 1 .26 1 .51 1 .98 1 2.42 3. 11 3.70 4.35 5.07 i 6. 11 6.96 ( 1 .06- 1 .50) ( 1 . 27- 1 .80) ( 1 .66-2. 36) (2.01 -2.90) (2 .52-3.96) (2.90-4 .77) (3.27-5.76) (3.62-6.91 ) (4 . 16-8.57) (4.57-9.82) 24-hr 1 .51 1 .77 2.26 2.72 3.43 4.03 4.70 5.42 1 6.47 7.33 ( 1 .28- 1 .78) ( 1 . 50-2.09) ( 1 .91 -2. 68) , (2.28-3.23) (2 .79-4.32) (3. 18-5 . 14) {3.56-6. 15) (3.91 -7.31 ) (4.45-8.97) (4.86- 10 .2) 2-day 1 .75 2.05 2.59 3.08 L3.82 4.43 5.09 5.80 6.81 7.62 ( 1 .49-2.04) ( 1 . 75-2.40) (2.20-3. 04) (2.60-3.63) L3 . 12-4.74__) (3.52-5 .57) (3.88-6.57) (4.21 -7.71 ) (4 .72-9.32 ) (5. 11 - 10.5) 3-da 1 .91 2.22 2.76 3.25 4.00 4.62 5.28 6.00 7.02 7.84 y ( 1 .64-2.23) ( 1 . 90-2.58) (2.35-3. 23) (2.75-3.82) (3 .28-4.93) (3.68-5 .77) (4.05-6.78) (4.38-7.94) (4 .90-9.56) (5.30- 10 .8) 4-da 2.04 2.35 2.91 3.41 4. 17 4.79 5.46 6. 18 7.20 8.02 y ( 1 .75-2.36) (2. 02-2.73) (2.49-3. 39) (2.90-4.00) (3 .43-5. 12 ) (3.83-5 .96) (4.20-6.98) (4.53-8. 13) (5 .05-9.75) (5.44- 11 .0) 7-day 2.30 2.69 3.35 3.91 4.72 5.37 6.03 6.72 7.67 8.41 ( 1 .99-2.65) (2.32-3. 11 ) (2.88-3. 88) (3.34-4.55) (3 .89-5.71 ) (4.30-6 .59) (4.65-7.60) (4.95-8.73) (5 .41 - 10.3 ) (5.76- 11 .4) 10-da 2.54 2.98 3.72 4.33 5. 18 5.84 6.50 7. 18 8.08 8.77 y (2.20-2.91 ) (2. 58-3.43) (3.20-4. 29) (3.71 -5.02) (4 .27-6.21 ) (4.69-7. 11 ) (5.03-8. 13) (5.30-9.24 (5.72- 10.7) (6.03- 11 .8) 20-day 3.25 3.78 4.63 5.32 6.25 6.95 7.64 8.32 9.21 9.86 (2.84-3.71 ) (3. 29-4.31 ) (4.01 -5. 29) (4. 58-6. 11 ) (5 . 17-7.38) (5.62-8.35) (5.95-9.42) (6.20- 10.6) (6 .58- 12. 1 ) (6.86- 13.2) 3.83 4.41 5.34 6. 10 i 7. 10 7.85 8.58 9.30 10.2 10.9 I 30-day (3.35-4.34) (3. 85-5.01 ) (4.65-6.08) (5.27-6.97) (5 .90-8.34) 6.38-9 .37 6.72- 10.5( ) ( ) (6 .96- 11 .7) (7 .34- 13.3 ) (7.63- 14.5) 45-da 4.51 5. 19 6.26 7. 11 8.24 9.07 9.87 10.6 11 .6 12.3 y (3.96-5.09) (4. 55-5.86) (5.47-7. 09) (6. 18-8.09) (6 .87-9.61 )_ (7.40- 10.8) (7.76- 12.0) (8.01 - 13.3) (8 .39- 15.0) (8.68- 16 .3) 5.05 5.83 7.05 1 8.01 9.27 10.2 11 .0 11 .9 12.9 13.6 60-day (4.45-5.68) (5. 13-6.56) (6. 18-7. 96) (6.98-9.09) _ (8.32- 12.0) (8.71 - 13.4) (8.96- 14.8) (9 .35- 16.6) (9.63- 17 .9) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval . The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical PDS- based depth-duration -frequency ( DD ,F) curves Latitude: 40 .4782 Or r Longitude : - 104 . 7180° 1 1 r 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 i 1 i i i. i 1 k 1 I I Y I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I • t 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i t / • 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 / 1 1 a / a Average recurrence r•1. 1 1 / • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / y r� ry1, 1 1 I Y Y 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I a I le 12 . . . . . - . - .- . - . - . • . . _ . . J _ . _ . - J .. . . J . . - . . J . - . - ..I. . . . . .. S. .. . - . . L . .. .2.. . • • • . • J y-- Il t rvS YY • . • • Yi • . • • • ! ! • • • • • • • ! P ! P ! • • kl ear t� ) I 1 I 1 I I I { 1 I 1 I 1 1 I J1'� V e 1 r 1 e e e e e e e e I e r . I 1 a i t a / a . I t as a i _ • • 10 _ e t _ • _ • 1 I 1 _ . 1 r 1 1 • r _ • a yy��ll i i • i • Y i i i i i a • — %1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 = • • ! ! r • • • If I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 as II ,ti+• •�-�/ I e e e e ! • e e e • ! • t �y J i 1 1 1 1 t t t t 1 1 1 'a 1 41� _ _ _ e e e r e e r r r r • ' - _ _ ! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ le _ — 1Y' i i t t I i t I I t i I I Y� , i ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • I • t • es a a Y Y I 1 I I . . . • +..• ,a � C e e I 1 1 1 I • e e e e Y a J 7 0 • • de • Y 7 • • • • • • J • • ,YJY 1a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 Iy+'Y .6•1 • • • • • I ♦ . • • • {Jr 25 - iv _ _ _ _ re e tir Y Y _ _ 'Y _ 7 k�'— 1 _ i. Y I �r _ Y. I .'--f • • • • I V I 1 I • . • • ..Q. . I • 1 • I I I I I I a •i : .^ • I I 50• 1 1 I e 1 1 t I e e r J.-* H - "H1/ 100 • •• • l • e e • • + e earargrrer_}-_ • . 1 a t I 4-.- I -T I as a . + r r t r err 1 r 1 1 --1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 -- • r • r • r e 1 r --` I I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 0 I I I I I _ fa F iIC IC i I -a Duration 14 1 1 i i 1 1 1 Y { 1 I . Y 1 Iii r e 1 e e a • I 1 t a . I 1 t 1 1 r r • : . 1 . • . Y yare12 i . . . _ . .. ..1 J . . - • _ • _ _ J . . .. L , 1. . . . . .. . . .I . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 1. • • I I I I a I I 1 • • I I • • • • I I I I I ' 1 a I • 1 I I I • I . I 1 I ` a a a I C _ v J . . . . . . . J _ - 4 . . _ .. . . . _ .+ _ . . . . _ 0 . . . . - . I- _� 1 Duration • e 1 I • r H e 1 • • • 2 il 1 I I Y I I 1 not54n —d ay I . I k . 6 s ila 10-aIf 3 -d ay 1 / 1 I law : 2 . t < T1 r_4 _ • . .....a..-ta-e-- 1 .i _ _ - -- ��r . .. . _� 2 f 20-day 3 an r ay a 5-clad'' 1 241 i 60-clay -r" Y ir_ ,_ 1 1 I I j t - 24...11 r 0 12 51025 0 loo X00 500 1000 Average recurrence interval (years) No4A Atlas 3.41, Volume 8, Version 2 Created ( GMT) : Mon Feb 6 20: 03 : 00 2023 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain 'II� IIl� IIt I II I II I\ III- II:f1-7-j___. .r...-.„e_ ____ _ ____ — illhlh'bt----se" riI , I iik:\It Ii li in ll SE- 3kmlig -- :"."`-"N t1 . Ill ' P I E A s aisaaj(ittil %,ill Large scale terrain , . . A rr-- O7z .- . _ . rr i. — i -. • ' ral `'' ,� c_Iie enn !e■ e I y - L.s +ng: Peak ,� . _ ., Lcon �(Irnori 1t 4. B Oil Ider ± I P .r3r4.i' ,ri. ' . : ' f Denver i 100km • • ;1_fir_' fj 60mi - Large scale map - ,� 'Ch enrl .� �� : 4 1 . .Fort Collin :_ i" 1- . _ . . i I � $ . L0:,W' r >>':_:Int iaorareassr ;.., ,,. Opal l r: b 1.. - + 100km ` 61111 - i ' ', 60mi Large scale aerial -n1 _ • I, r h ' !'enn ` �; - - z • • ac Sigilatillialli _ 1 • - I 41 4 II - - - . -eit - - - - - - Fort C� eraI t1 n _ '� r t :: 4 - - f 1 YT Lin c mon t r ,Ntr. 1 _ NcIL , ,. j _ _ t 100km ,--- - _ ___ � 60mi i3- Back to Top US Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service National Water Center 1325 East West Highway Silver Spring , MD 20910 Questions? : HDSC . Questions@noaa .gov Disclaimer Exhibit 4 — Pre - Development Drainage Area Map C ' 0_ I 0_ \ < NORTH o \ 1 m __ __ - ---._ _ _ - - HIGHWAY 392 _ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET I - - - - _ �� - ■� _ - C�- — — _ — _ 0 75 150 300, T I _,_____ ___ -,, . "..... il ..,,,,,,.....„,....z __ .,,,,....-\ ___ momme A. i �k 1 • • \ ..,, f' L� lam / J , O - --\ \ \ \. I o I , \ . (1)/ : . - - 1 _ / \ > _ �*� w Ls -I\\ 1-y ZI / / zz ( ‘ •\\ ', h I I i \1/4.51±as / : \ ' I I V) i I w / 1 / / I III ,I LEGEND a z , I 0 Z / / i\ Z 0 I, ,,I sr I I I \ , , Y Ij DA-01 ; f ` i I o �� • — — PROPERTY BOUNDARY 1-- >- /f , 20.9 2.0% // I �I w il I- 7fr ' W z mD \ f� \� • i' _ ¢ _ o / II I PRE CONDITIONS SUB BASIN m a \ail*D \ \ \ ! --------... I 7 illil , I I \ , EX . EASEMENT �� \ Akie z w ` r I w CD \ \ N y ' ,11 I U d- �' I EX . SITE SETBACK ¢ a I I\ • . ----- Jill hii Ii ` II \ V \ \ z v ll , EX . UNDERGROUND GAS LINE PI 1 1 � EX , UNDERGROUND WATER LINE U W 0 • ¢ \ � , ,, I z v EXISTING 25 ' P & A WELL HEAD \ ¢ \ I X EX . BARB WIRE FENCE z SETBACK PER WELD COUNTY I ! o v / CODE 23\ WIEN . - 3 - 70 - E a I I / %, .; Hii , - OH EX . OVERHEAD WIRE } \ \ \ OS. / \ / 'X l - / / • I N I ) FCC EX . FIBER OPTIC LINE oLIM 1 / / \ / 0 - I __ • / I 10 / / f II , IP / / 4%// ' / ,, (,) i .., ‘ I EX . UTILITY POLE a / \ , �- o / \ / / / , i LAY us. 0 1 / , ► 'i - - - - EX . FLOW PATH Li O \ / I r� z / - I IL I N o % - 00 ¢ �,�, \ \\ / r 11 700 _ EX . CONTOURS c� I ------ \ , / < I ,1.\,\ (f) / 1 � 1 0 U") O C\I ¢ / / ':-- 7 ! IIII� x. xx� EX . SLOPE LABELQieTh 1 i It Z c V) P_ i0 isti \ , .\':/ \.\\\ • . ' 0 -5.� , i 1 ! ,I\ �- / �r. ` ` ill z EX . ASPHALT ROAD Q w '�• ; \ j Ai- 0 1cji z _ N 1_ >ftl \ jI U � � o Q / N.. I 0 0 / I ill i• - 00 10 ! i SUB - BASIN w . . �� I XX IDENTIFICATIONE w c 00 \ DA-o2 ! QQ3X I IMPERVIOUSNESS 13.4 2.09. > (n o a N D CD , , \ it) li I XX XX DRAINAGE AREA ( ACRES ) = 67) N \\/. \ N z \ / I I \Qsil _ �� - - - I 1 I s N L 00w \ _ cJ — n `J I iI RI v) N z \ c�.� i ICI I I w / i , I 0 , a) _ 1 I Q w / % 1. ' 1 ' ° I DESIGN POINT D / / ..-;-.,, / I ec ; • , III DESIGNED BY: LDS • 1 H 1 DRAWN BY: LDS a Q co z \ I >�¢ ;_/ il _\ I I ' CHECKED BY: AJH = a �\ • a8� II Ih ' DATE : 03 /28 /23 w / .� I cnw �- � I \ I �- II I , / / / III XI i , wW �� 4_\ I I I � w � I III 0_ CIE' . . ( 1 it I NOTES > t - -_ � � __ . . _ ICI . wl � II .; 1 . THIS DRAINAGE MAP AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN IN c� i I ASSOCIATION WITH CLOUDBREAK ENERGY PARTNERS , LLC . DRAINAGE 0_ 0i ; I I LLI HI, NARRATIVE AND USE BY THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLANS . Q I 12 2 z o _ i . �� / x I Q Z I I I I ll o J I LIIIII , I I 2 . WITH REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 0 w/ , . AGENCY ( FEMA ) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ( FIRM ) , MAP NUMBER2 DA-03 1 0 X ¢ 1 08123C1530E , THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAINS WITHIN THE LIMITS OFW w / j ‘NI z.ax • ' III THE PROJECT SITE . W. z 0 I in < UDC ((s-) ___ > _ __________ U) a. ___________ \ I 1 0 1 —I 0 X U `� -� / / I III I w aw ~� 1 j (; � '` 2 !� J 0 N � � I I I U Q w , �� ;, r �_ �� I ;! i 1 I `� � ` �� I III o � 11 o I I� _ < 2 ` .7 / III I - -� IIWH /21 . 0_ b _________ ___________ 1 I il I _c 0 , 1 Z Ct z �—, x,,,, III 0 ,...,D w D 0 0 1 _________ / / _________ _______ , Gr__________ __ _ mr il ' k....) C 1st — d _, � I I I I CO H • I 0 III 7 \ dll 1 I —I Go Z Y w 0 . 66 % i / � W �� ---�_ I D 0 0 �. - U L z ---� 0 41 I LLI c UJ L_ m --_______ . . ___> . . . . n_ / \ , hi U, L i IL\ . ' ---- • . li / / 0 „...., ______) . - -------- ,, • • ----> 4\ \ Iln , ( ' 1 i I I O ¢ I � / . \ I ,, 2 . < „ , N 11 z _� I II! 0 \ \ C / 0 . 41 % / x II 1 cm LIJ r j / . - N. r ' 1 . �� ~}nI ' I. QI , -7T-f- /z - w / I (I ow `J% I I o � r \It cl- II II co Z i ( MN% IIMIS\ I PRELIMINARY 1% \ \ 1 �, oLO 0 ' \ / / FOR REVIEW ONLY I 72 ,, . NOT FOR , -. T. ,.. e A a) 0 . \ \ , / / \ . .. . . . ... , CONSTRUCTION .... � o I KimIey ) Horn I I O w I — w jI Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. U EXISTING 150 ' WELL HEAD f / \ SETBACK PER WELD COUNTY PROJECT NO . TD it \ CODE 23 - 3 - 70 — E 196664000 cr) Lj / / /w DRAWING NAME > h- I / / I {_ I w I 11- -� �• � wrosh , ., .. ' -- a, , z I Et \�` 811 . w � I a U �� n r n • la p lJiJ y ' 1 u; ; -1 i i l - .-, I I l e i, �- -U, EX-4 Exhibit 5 — Post- Development Drainage Area Map a_ I I . \\ • 0_ 1 I \ I\iiNORTH o EXISTI \ G CULVERT T J- — • — • — • — • — • — • — • —" • — GRAPHIC SCALE I N FEE T300 ajc __ ___ ___ ____ _ _ I __ 1 7 1 1 _ e___ __i — -- -V-S--- — - _ IHCIIWAY392 0 5 50 300 1 __ __ _ 1 I r T J /---7 ii. - . , —mail _ _ _ __ _ _LEG__ V T!` \ Llil �� , A:1 A-r2: _ f\. _, Inille- • X X 4 7 7' z '1 o N > \ N ' I 7--- • • • a • a • a • a • a • .... Z Cli \ X X , \ 1 \3 v --/- \ .• . N Et X XLJ I— w 1 I I _a ULEGEND X . O �' ' ul \ [ I — o DA o1 Z occ i Z 20. 9 2 . 4% I It II z o � � 1 I . . . . . He . / I . . . . . . I . . . . I . . I . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . I . . . I I \ccL, I 1w Ii \ 0 YX �6 X '� � — — PR P RTY RY o g 1 O E BOUNDA>- ` Ii ( I4w' zI— di, LI, I1 Q \ ,, , aaaa PRE CONDITIONS SUB — BASIN Q- - - - II IIIII I D \ \ . `� t1 EX . EASEMENT (� wiau J z LiJ \ \ \ �� _ ' I o w CD X ' II I � X c ,, _ i I EX . SITE SETBACK J C I < \ ' II Z \ , ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' �, EX . UNDERGROUND GAS LINE \ ,,,, �` N OQ 0 \ \ \ I • I I . . I • . • . . . . I • . . . I . . I . . I . I . . I • . I . I . . I • . • . I . I W EX , UNDERGROUND WATER LINE Q \ \ X _ _ _ Z \ VIII ► a GREELEY CA \ AL a a a , � I X EX . BARB WIRE FENCE z \ _ EXISTING 25 ' P & A WELL HEAD N 141 I I \ UV3F 2 \ � � '� ; i SETBACK PER WELD COUNTY �X � , , ,� /Kb I i I I ►�:` 'T' CODE 23 - 3 - 70 - E 0 Ian ,� - OH EX . OVERHEAD WIRE _I \ \ ' II,* \CP3\Sa i 1 '-, I �� - � � - EX . FIBER OPTIC LINE �Z \ 11100 I .;, A a aUlili lilililjUlilita I I �I \ I l t I F c� LIM " ' "' " z EX . UTILITY POLE IIIIIII6 cc __ Irldr 1,0 , ' ' • S "J. � / ��= - - _ �\\\\\\\\7. 36 �� I f 9 CD Z / �. .: .1. Mill [ - , \ I EX . FLOW PATH-- hr) = w 0 Q j . ♦� > Z I ; �� 0 \\ ' , �� n \ , '( ' I Q (N . � - EX . CONTOURS N � � ( � ♦� I ` , Q I 700 00 x �� X I , I a N z o \ i' 1 _ N I- , D I o C ;�\ = 1 ,_ _ ,� ( x. x�► EX . SLOPE LABEL Q o Iz \ W ♦I I >_ d- I / ! ` N \ \ � I o 0 ) - �� ` �' I Z EX . ASPHALT ROAD Q w ~' ♦ l i- I . I i . . I I . . I . . . I I I . I . . . � IIIIIIIIII I I I I I I P 1 . . . . / D I Z N ` , / 0 IDm Cli0 (f) N ♦ i ` 0 X ♦� X IU r) w N \ III • • • l ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT I w � � I L - . - ] PADS HI L '-j -a r,,� o i I a / N ♦I > u p 0 = / �,`s �i % 0 I , UTILITY POLE Y 0 N ~ / \_, �� I i _ U \Z , �i i 1 ro NQ � � / �� li S o z a a a - - - - - - _ �� - ' - - -- _x \ il ; 1 I ��N PROPOSED PERMANENT & TEMPORARY RI c T • J X / � 'I I TRAILERS N C ,„ O , CD ♦ I0 o \� ♦e I I tZnZkMkMkZkZ4 PROPOSED 0 P O S E D 2 0 ' GRAVEL o �� / I ACCESS DRIVEWAY �, ‘‘. ♦III DESIGNED BY: LDS „ m j , I,, PROPOSED SUB - BASIN DRAWN BY: LDS (f) ! �i �- xx IDENTIFICATION 0a / / I I 1 CHECKED BY: AJH 144, IMPERVIOUSNESS = a �� DATE : 04 /27 /23 ww X ✓ ♦� I I xx xx DRAINAGE AREA ( ACRES )___________ x°�� — ♦' DA..02 . I • . . IIIIIIIIIIIIIII . II II . IIIIIIIIIIIII / IIIIII / I . ♦j o ,------ - _ -� �,, �� 1 1 1 1 1 ii ' I , d Cj c _ / \ 13. 4 4. 0% III I I I Q f- ♦j �I I tip i 1 iDESIGN POINT < ------- • "---> • - ----- - . . ____i_ Ik7 I VJ II < LL ��♦I♦I I IIi II ? IIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ♦ ♦ I I I I I I I♦�♦�♦�♦��Ii► I` Ir I LLI < _____—_ _ I1 I ' iil 0 - __ l ' zp12 2 I is ii. .t.-ael iHI o � %______-- 0 c• IGDc , ______-- NOTES = I in 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I X I II\ 1 I 1 . THIS DRAINAGE MAP AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN IN 0XQ (94- I w w X I ASSOCIATION WITH CLOUDBREAK ENERGY PARTNERS , LLC . DRAINAGE Q W �� I � 1 DeL _ z �, I \ I k �J', NARRATIVE AND USE BY THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLANS .I I 0 2 L _I - 1Shfr 11, - _,_, IE 2 \ 7. --_________ \ \ \ I I 2 . WITH REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT U I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AGENCY ( FEMA ) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FIRM , MAP NUMBER 0 ❑ w w -, 2 , I I N 08123C1530E , THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAINS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF J , , Z �_ _� N 98199191 h ` THE PROJECT SITE . — o X ► , ` I 1 i 0 Q p `~ X • I` W I- Ut _ _ T-- ----G -_______ I i I I Z 0. O ) - V _c 00 D (/) D U lm • G----_-_--- C T� �� —~ >ci:r; I I ' z ° ›- i: 1 / 0 co H . • 0 / 7 I ow < 0 U) '\� _ -- X II ' W YU Ill 1 I J Z U > X 1 i: -le: • I W O W 0 I WD a IT) I! \ I ' I 'i ( _ __________ _____ I_i_i w . ...._____ • ___> • • ----____ _ I Iikt LIJ IL ________ G 1 . \ il I t i La / 0. 56" �1 ' 0 o_ • . . I . • I I • . I / I I I I I _ I I I I >,Z _ -----> - . X I' 0 a_ Cz k. DA-03 y II D2 Q H . . I U ' , 19 . 7 2 . 6 % \ I ,� I Z ' `� / / / . ' I LIJ • Q) _ o \ / / I \ ': I I X X X X )C \ XXXX _ � O w )\ I X 0 w O. j 40 j '� t�' ! I I0 ce ---------"4413 / t-' / Fri c1PRELIMINARY (.O - - - - - - - - -- - - - ---- - 0 _ , 1CDw I , EXISTI \ G CULVERT cy) 3 ' Hi I� FOR REVIEII� ONLY ,E 72 I � I NOT FOR C \ X �-G O (n,_ co 0_ \ _ I CONSTRUCTION =4 CPAHAV SEEPKimIey ) Horn�' :{ I Z - _ ;. . .� Do DO I \ , \ �\ / / \\O w '. � / 4 � Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. U 1N V t5EXISTING 150 ' WELL HEAD PROJECT NO . O w SETBACK PER WELD COUNTY 196664000 jW CODE 23 - 3 - 70 — E DRAWING NAME o / / I _ U Z I • / W D1E, I / I I C0iOüJJQ48h1 / O0 .in EX- 5 Exhibit 6 — Hydrologic Calculations Kimley >>> Horn _ STANDARD FORM SF 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch 3/27/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH TYPED SOIL VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE PAVED GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL LAND USE: AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF. 0. 83 0. 30 0. 01 0. 74 0 .69 5 -YEAR COEFF. 0. 84 0. 36 0. 05 0. 76 0 .72 100-YEAR COEFF. 0. 89 0. 65 0 .49 0. 85 0. 83 IMPERVIOUS % 100% 40% 2% 90% 85% VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE PAVED GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) Cc(2) Cc(5 ) Cc( 100) Imp % On-Site Basins PRE-DA-01 1 20. 95 20.95 0 .01 0.05 0.49 2 .0% PRE-DA-02 2 13 .45 13.45 0 .01 0.05 0.49 2 .0% PRE-DA-03 3 19. 69 19.69 0 .01 0.05 0.49 2 .0% BASIN 0.00 0.00 54.09 0.00 0.00 54.09 0 .01 0.05 0.49 2 .0% SUBTOTAL 0 % 0% 100% 0% 0 % 100% Kimley >>) H am STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch DATE : 3/27/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME (T) at) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN AREA C5 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE C, Land Surface VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc C2 C5 C100 BASIN Ac Ft % min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) On-Site Basins PRE-DA-01 20.955 0. 05 500 0. 8% 46.7 1 ,009 0. 1 % 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0.2 106.7 153 .4 1509 0. 3% 2% 73 .2 73 .2 0. 01 0. 05 0.49 PRE-DA-02 13 .445 0. 05 500 1 .2% 40. 5 1 , 138 0. 5 % 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0.4 51 . 5 92 . 0 1638 0. 7% 2% 59 . 8 59 . 8 0. 01 0. 05 0.49 PRE-DA-03 19 .692 0. 05 500 0.9% 44. 8 1 ,045 0. 5% 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0.4 48 . 0 92 . 8 1545 0. 6% 2% 60.3 60. 3 0. 01 0. 05 0.49 - 0 ..39501 . 1 - Cj WE I ' `i i . = - l Fin * STANDARD FORM SF-3 Kimley >>> Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch DATE : 3/27/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 P1 (1 -Hour Rainfall) = 2.74 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME REMARKS w ^ E_ ^ x N 4 N Z PIN c� _ ^ W c� c, w i--i .^'ti W i.r' cd ``•••1 •ter �! : g ii s •-•5_ 44 g * .40 IF-5.OEsi a wO w � C zOC cad •z a � � �. •z � " � e g0w0 � t - N 4 � a � +4 E (1) (2) (3) (4) i (5) 1 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) 1 (22) On-Site Basins 1 PRE-DA-01 20. 95 0.49 73 .20 10.31 2 .42 24.93 2 PRE-DA-02 13 .45 0.49 59 . 80 6. 62 2.78 18 .37 3 PRE-DA-03 19. 69 0.49 60.29 9 . 69 2.76 26.75 Total 54. 09 70.05 Kimley >>> Horn _ STANDARD FORM SF 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch 4/27/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH TYPE D SOIL VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE PAVED GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL LAND USE : AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA 2 -YEAR COEFF . 0 . 83 i 0 . 30 i 0 . 01 0 . 74 0 . 69 5 -YEAR COEFF . 0 . 84 0 . 36 0 . 05 0 . 76 0 . 72 100 -YEAR COEFF. 0 . 89 0 . 65 0 . 49 0 . 85 0 . 83 IMPERVIOUS % 100% 40% 2% 90% 85 % VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE PAVED GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN SUBTOTAL POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) Cc(2) Cc(5) Cc( 100) Imp % On-Site Basins POST-DA-01 1 0 . 06 0 . 04 20 . 86 20 .95 0 . 01 - 0 . 05 - 0 . 49 2 . 4% _ POST-DA-02 2 0 . 06 0 . 56 12 . 83 a 13 .45 _ 0 . 03 — 0 . 07 — 0 . 50 4 . 0% POST—DA—03 3 0 . 06 0 . 13 19 . 50 19 .69 0 .01 0 . 06 0 .49 2 . 6% BASIN 0 . 19 0.72 53 . 18 0 .00 0 .00 54 .09 0 . 02 0 . 06 0 . 50 2 . 9% SUBTOTAL 0 % 1 % 98 % 0 % 0 % 100 % Kimley >>> H o r n STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch DATE : 4/27/2023 PROJECT NUMBER : 196664000 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Te CHECK FINAL DATA TIME (Ti) (Ti) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN AREA Cs LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE C, Land Surface VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc C2 C5 C100 BASIN Ac Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min, tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) On-Site Basins POST-DA-01 20 . 955 0 . 05 500 0 . 8% 46 .6 1 ,009 0 . 1 % 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0 . 2 106 . 7 153 . 3 1509 0 . 3 % 2% 72 . 9 72 . 9 0 . 01 0 .05 0 . 49 POST-DA-02 13 . 445 0 . 07 500 1 . 2% 39 . 8 1 . 138 0 . 5% 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0 . 4 51 . 5 91 . 4 1638 0 . 7% 4% 58 . 4 58 . 4 0 .03 0 . 07 0 . 50 POST-DA-03 19 . 692 0 . 06 500 0 . 9% 44 .6 1 ,045 0 . 5% 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0 . 4 48 . 0 92 . 6 1545 0 . 6% 3 % 59 . 9 59 . 9 0 . 01 0 .06 0 . 49 -n- 0. 39511 . 1 - C5W.T. tt i� _I - [ p _ 1� / P STANDARD FORM SF-3 Kimley >>> Hc� rnSTORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Mckee Ranch DATE : 4/27/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) = 2 .74 CALCULATED BY : JCH CHECKED BY : AJH DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME REMARKS W •Z [. Zz ww ^ _ ^ w •I4 tm , .S ~' pN. a �, � co O , w 7 po w � �, . � Na wp w � � � � pv �, ,� �, � p w p 5,4 --• w a al Pa A gV ,� U U A i . a i ( 1 ) (2) (3) (4) 1 (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 1 ( 10) ( 11 ) ( 12) ( 13) ( 14) ( 15) ( 16) ( 17) ( 18) ( 19) (20) (21 ) (22) On-Site Basins I 1 POST-DA-01 20 . 95 0 . 49 73 . 20 10 . 34 2 . 42 25 .01 2 POST-DA-02 13 .45 0 . 50 59 . 80 6 . 73 2 . 78 18 .68 3 POST-DA-03 19 . 69 0 . 49 60 . 29 9 . 74 2 . 76 26 . 88 Total 54 . 09 70 . 57 Exhibit 7 — Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Lauren M . Cook, S . M .ASCE1 ; and Richard H . McCuen , M .ASCE2 Abstract: Because of the benefits of solar energy, the number of solar farms is increasing; however, their hydrologic impacts have not been studied. The goal of this study was to determine the hydrologic effects of solar farms and examine whether or not storm-water management is I needed to control runoff volumes and rates. A model of a solar farm was used to simulate runoff for two conditions : the pre- and postpaneled t. conditions. Using sensitivity analyses, modeling showed that the solar panels themselves did not have a significant effect on the runoff fit volumes, peaks, or times to peak. However, if the ground cover under the panels is gravel or bare ground, owing to design decisions or lack of maintenance, the peak discharge may increase significantly with storm-water management needed. In addition, the kinetic energy O; of the flow that drains from the panels was found to be greater than that of the rainfall, which could cause erosion at the base of the panels. o Thus, it is recommended that the grass beneath the panels be well maintained or that a buffer strip be placed after the most downgradient row of panels. This study, along with design recommendations, can be used as a guide for the future design of solar farms. DOE 10.1061/(ASCE) o HE.1943-5584.0000530. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers. L 0, CE Database subject headings : Hydrology; Land use; Solar power; Floods; Surface water; Runoff; Stormwater management. 5 Author keywords: Hydrology; Land use change; Solar energy; Flooding; Surface water runoff; Storm-water management. Ygyp g g c.) to Introduction draining from the edge of the panels is sufficient to cause erosion O of the soil below the panels, especially where the maintenance c5 Storm-water management practices are generally implemented to roadways are bare ground. lei reverse the effects of land-cover changes that cause increases in The outcome of this study provides guidance for assessing the Ovolumes and rates of runoff. This is a concern posed for new types hydrologic effects of solar farms, which is important to those who 0 of land-cover change such as the solar farm. Solar energy is a re- plan, design, and install arrays of solar panels. Those who design O newable energy source that is expected to increase in importance in p p solar farms may need to provide for storm-water management. This jthe near future. Because solar farms require considerable land, it is study investigated the hydrologic effects of solar farms, assessed 1 necessary to understand the design of solar farms and their potential whether or not storm-water management might be needed, and c4 effect on erosion rates and storm runoff, especially the impact on if the velocity of the runoff from the panels could be sufficient offsite properties and receiving streams. These farms can vary in to cause erosion of the soil below the panels. C) size from 8 ha (20 acres) in residential areas to 250 ha (600 acres) o in areas where land is abundant. The solar panels are impervious to rain water; however, they are Model Development o mounted on metal rods and placed over pervious land. In some 4-1 cases, the area below the panel is paved or covered with gravel. Solar farms are generally designed to maximize the amount of en- g Y g Service roads are generally located between rows of panels. Altl- ergy produced per unit of land area, while still allowing space for hough some panels are stationary, others are designed to move so maintenance. The hydrologic response of solar farms is not usually - that the angle of the panel varies with the angle of the sun. The considered in design. Typically, the panels will be arrayed in long Po 5 angle can range, depending on the latitude, from 22° during the rows with separations between the rows to allow for maintenance csummer months to 74° during the winter months. In addition, vehicles. To model a typical layout, a unit width of one panel was re 7)1 the angle and direction can also change throughout the day. The assumed, with the length of the downgradient strip depending on issue posed is whether or not these rows of impervious panels will the size of the farm. For example, a solar farm with 30 rows of 200 o change the runoff characteristics of the site, specifically increase panels each could be modeled as a strip of 30 panels with space runoff volumes or peak discharge rates. If the increases are hydro- between the panels for maintenance vehicles. Rainwater that drains logically significant, storm-water management facilities may be from the upper panel onto the ground will flow over the land under O needed. Additionally, it is possible that the velocity of water the 29 panels on the downgradient strip. Depending on the land Qcover, infiltration losses would be expected as the runoff flows Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, to the bottom of the slope. Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 . To determine the effects that the solar panels have on runoff 2The Ben Dyer Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer- characteristics, a model of a solar farm was developed. Runoff ing, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 (corresponding in the form of sheet flow without the addition of the solar panels author). E-mail: rhmccuen@ eng.umd.edu served as the prepaneled condition. The paneled condition assumed Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 12, 2010; approved on a downgradient series of cells with one solar panel per ground cell. October 20, 2011 ; published online on October 24, 2011 . Discussion period open until October 1 , 2013 ; separate discussions must be submitted for Each cell was separated into three sections: wet, dry, and spacer. individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi- The dry section is that portion directly underneath the solar neering, Vol. 18, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/2013/5- panel, unexposed directly to the rainfall. As the angle of the panel 536-541/$25.00. from the horizontal increases, more of the rain will fall directly onto 536 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . the ground; this section of the cell is referred to as the wet section. equal to the length of one horizontal solar panel, which was as- The spacer section is the area between the rows of panels used by sumed to be 3 .5 m. When a solar panel is horizontal, the dry section maintenance vehicles. Fig. 1 is an image of two solar panels and the length would equal 3 .5 m and the wet section length would be zero. spacer section allotted for maintenance vehicles. Fig. 2 is a sche- In the paneled condition, the dry section does not receive direct matic of the wet, dry, and spacer sections with their respective di- rainfall because the rain first falls onto the solar panel then drains mensions. In Fig. 1 , tracks from the vehicles are visible on what is onto the spacer section. However, the dry section does infiltrate modeled within as the spacer section. When the solar panel is hori- some of the runoff that comes from the upgradient wet section. zontal, then the length longitudinal to the direction that runoff will The wet section was modeled similar to the spacer section with rain occur is the length of the dry and wet sections combined. Runoff falling directly onto the section and assuming a constant loss rate. from a dry section drains onto the downgradient spacer section. For the presolar panel condition, the spacer and wet sections are Runoff from the spacer section flows to the wet section of the next modeled the same as in the paneled condition; however, the cell downgradient cell. Water that drains from a solar panel falls directly does not include a dry section. In the prepaneled condition, rain ell4 onto the spacer section of that cell. falls directly onto the entire cell. When modeling the prepaneled en The length of the spacer section is constant. During a storm condition, all cells receive rainfall at the same rate and are subject -a event, the loss rate was assumed constant for the 24-h storm be- to losses. All other conditions were assumed to remain the same cause a wet antecedent condition was assumed. The lengths of such that the prepaneled and paneled conditions can be compared. the wet and dry sections changed depending on the angle of the Rainfall was modeled after an natural resources conservation t service (NRCS) Type II Storm (McCuen 2005) because it is an ac- t solar panel. The total length of the wet and dry sections was set a) curate representation of actual storms of varying characteristics that are imbedded in intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves. For iof interest, dimensionless 0 t. n EA: _: .. _ each duration a hyetograph was devel- �" ��"�`� oped using a time increment of 12 s over the duration of the storm o (see Fig. 3)• The depth of rainfall that corresponds to each storm w -- _-__,--„-----%,,,------------_,-----r- - iTT"e7 ma nitude was then multi lied b the��o : :R - . - - _ : g p by vi e _ For a 2-h storm duration, depths of 40.6, 76 2, and 101 .6 mm were -c 4111 Illir---1 � ; r{ , j i • \�� `' used for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year events. The 2- and 6-h duration .� \ r y Y �� ` ��, 'a _ = hyetographs were developed using the center portion of the 24-h li o storm, with the rainfall depths established with the Baltimore _,A. v {. f 4. s; ` "` i ' F '' ° . IDF curve. The corresponding depths for a 6-h duration were 53.3 , 4, ITt ` Pin�r 'C ",} /tr. = r ) 106.7, and 132. 1 mm, respectively. These magnitudes were chosen , . c to give a range of storm conditions. O N ' N r 'r. •:•.--- { •• - '' • ' During each time increment, the depth of rain is multiplied by '0 . .1/214,74 -c,, 4 1 ' " ,w_ L I it i)' ' 1 ° r ,z ). , ; t`r • '` '}' E " ; ' the cell area to determine the volume of rain added to each section y :1\ ( , ) r t “iii. - ' r of each cell. This volume becomes the storage in each cell. Depend- ,.c , '., ♦ .i '� r )fi ';`mil y" Cs�ti • I •, y1 g r �1i , � � � , , rPt :�'i ,, p; ' ^'' ; • �. ,&,. 4 ��,`��1 ,f , _� '� � ' • : king on the soil group, a constant volume of losses was subtracted ` ` � % : t, ,r 1/4: 5 •' is .._;.k. . y`'r1',i" • M F N r' . ,V�('`c i�> ';` "t , , from the storage. The runoff velocity from a solar panel was calcu- >.'r �f -- . :14,:;);I,,,, j .•n.,----r. .- f t \1 - , t } ,r ti� Tr*� L2��: i. .'! ♦ i y. � � e 1 . Y k"1�� jLJ �1 1st � � 711 r � �Sr �x „ � t 'et, .-ice rI� � } � /, � . . . • . • • -`f , ' tiA`4 r.y •� 4' ' I - ?1r laced using Manning's equation, with the hydraulic radius for sheet Fig. 1 . Maintenance or "spacer" section between two rows of solar et flow assumed to equal the depth of the storage on the panel et panels (photo by John E. Showier, reprinted with permission) {Bedient and Huber 2002). Similar assumptions were made to com- pute the velocities in each section of the surface sections. 0 Direction of Flow ' riz to 0 cc:1 Lw Wet section et E 3.5 m - -' 0 A Dry section -ti 0 3 Ls Spacer section 4 m 5 m 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (min) Fig. 2. Wet, dry, and spacer sections of a single cell with lengths Lw, Ls, and Ld with the solar panel covering the dry section Fig. 3. Dimensionless hyetograph of 2-h Type II storm JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 537 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . Runoff from one section to the next and then to the next and the time to peak did not change. Therefore, the greater ground downgradient cell was routed using the continuity of mass. The slope did not significantly influence the response of the solar farm. routing coefficient depended on the depth of flow in storage and the velocity of runoff. Flow was routed from the wet section to the Soil Type dry section to the spacer section, with flow from the spacer section draining to the wet section of the next cell. Flow from the most The effect of soil type on the runoff was also examined. The soil downgradient cell was assumed to be the outflow. Discharge rates group was changed from B soil to C soil by varying the loss rate. As and volumes from the most downgradient cell were used for com- expected, owing to the higher loss rate for the C soil, the depths of parisons between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. runoff increased by approximately 7.5% with the C soil when com- pared with the volume for B soils. However, the runoff volume for the C soil condition only increased by 0. 17% from the prepaneled -6 Alternative Model Scenarios condition to the paneled condition. In comparison with the B soil, a I difference of 0.35 % in volume resulted between the two conditions. t. To assess the effects of the different variables, a section of 30 cells, Therefore, the soil group influenced the actual volumes and rates, fit each with a solar panel, was assumed for the base model. Each cell but not the relative effect of the paneled condition when compared was separated individually into wet, dry, and spacer sections. The to the prepaneled condition. — area had a total ground length of 225 m with a ground slope of 1 % and width of 5 m, which was the width of an average solar panel. Panel Angle 0 The roughness coefficient (Engman 1986) for the silicon solar panel was assumed to be that of glass, 0.01 . Roughness coefficients Because runoff velocities increase with slope, the effect of the angle 0 of 0. 15 for grass and 0.02 for bare ground were also assumed. Loss of the solar panel on the hydrologic response was examined. Analy- L rates of 0.5715 cm/h (0.225 in. /h) and 0.254 cm/h (0. 1 in. /h) for ses were made for angles of 30° and 70° to test an average range �O.4B and C soils, respectively, were assumed. from winter to summer. The hydrologic response for these angles 0 The prepaneled condition using the 2-h, 25-year rainfall was was compared to that of the base condition angle of 45°. The other o assumed for the base condition, with each cell assumed to have site conditions remained the same. The analyses showed that the a good grass cover condition. All other analyses were made assum- angle of the panel had only a slight effect on runoff volumes and to ing a paneled condition. For most scenarios, the runoff volumes and discharge rates. The lower angle of 30° was associated with an in- peak discharge rates from the paneled model were not significantly creased runoff volume, whereas the runoff volume decreased for Q. co greater than those for the prepaneled condition. Over a total length the steeper angle of 70° when compared with the base condition of lei of 225 m with 30 solar panels, the runoff increased by 0.26 m3, 45°. However, the differences (~0.5%) were very slight. Never- O which was a difference of only 0.35%. The slight increase in runoff theless, these results indicate that, when the solar panel was closer o volume reflects the slightly higher velocities for the paneled con- to horizontal, i.e., at a lower angle, a larger difference in runoff o dition. The peak discharge increased by 0.0013 m3, a change of volume occurred between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. only 0.31 %. The time to peak was delayed by one time increment, These differences in the response result are from differences in 1 i.e., 12 s. Inclusion of the panels did not have a significant hydro- loss rates. logic impact. The peak discharge was also lower at the lower angle. At an 0 angle of 30°, the peak discharge was slightly lower than at the Storm Magnitude higher angle of 70°. For the 2-h storm duration, the time to peak of the 30 angle was 2 min delayed from the time to peak of when ch The effect of storm magnitude was investigated by changing the the panel was positioned at a 70° angle, which reflects the longer o magnitude from a 25-year storm to a 2-year storm. For the 2-year travel times across the solar panels. 4' storm, the rainfall and runoff volumes decreased by approximately 0 50%. However, the runoff from the paneled watershed condition Storm Duration .,.• increased compared to the prepaneled condition by approximately › the same volume as for the 25-year analysis, 0.26 m3 . This increase To assess the effect of storm duration, analyses were made for 6-h Po represents only a 0.78% increase in volume. The peak discharge storms, testing magnitudes for 2-, 25-, and 100-year return periods, cc:1 and the time to peak did not change significantly. These results re- with the results compared with those for the 2-h rainfall events. The re flect runoff from a good grass cover condition and indicated that the longer storm duration was tested to determine whether a longer du- 7)1 U general conclusion of very minimal impacts was the same for dif- ration storm would produce a different ratio of increase in runoff o ferent storm magnitudes. between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. When compared to orunoff volumes from the 2-h storm, those for the 6-h storm were Ground Slope 34% greater in both the paneled and prepaneled cases. However, O when comparing the prepaneled to the paneled condition, the in- 0 The effect of the downgradient ground slope of the solar farm was crease in the runoff volume with the 6-h storm was less than Qalso examined. The angle of the solar panels would influence the 1 % regardless of the return period. The peak discharge and the velocity of flows from the panels. As the ground slope was in- time-to-peak did not differ significantly between the two condi- creased, the velocity of flow over the ground surface would be tions. The trends in the hydrologic response of the solar farm closer to that on the panels. This could cause an overall increase did not vary with storm duration. in discharge rates. The ground slope was changed from 1 to 5%, with all other conditions remaining the same as the base conditions. With the steeper incline, the volume of losses decreased from Ground Cover that for the 1 % slope, which is to be expected because the faster The ground cover under the panels was assumed to be a native grass velocity of the runoff would provide less opportunity for infiltra- that received little maintenance. For some solar farms, the area be- tion. However, between the prepaneled and paneled conditions, the neath the panel is covered in gravel or partially paved because the increase in runoff volume was less than 1 %. The peak discharge panels prevent the grass from receiving sunlight. Depending on the 538 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . volume of traffic, the spacer cell could be grass, patches of grass, or increased by 7% from the grass-covered scenario to the scenario bare ground. Thus, it was necessary to determine whether or not with gravel under the panel. The peak discharge increased by these alternative ground-cover conditions would affect the runoff 73 % for the gravel ground cover when compared with the grass characteristics. This was accomplished by changing the Manning's cover without the panels. The time to peak was 10 min less with n for the ground beneath the panels. The value of n under the pan- the gravel than with the grass, which reflects the effect of differ- els, i.e., the dry section, was set to 0.015 for gravel, with the value ences in surface roughness and the resulting velocities. for the spacer or maintenance section set to 0.02, i.e., bare ground. If maintenance vehicles used the spacer section regularly and the These can be compared to the base condition of a native grass grass cover was not adequately maintained, the soil in the spacer (n = 0. 15). A good cover should promote losses and delay the section would be compacted and potentially the runoff volumes and runoff. rates would increase. Grass that is not maintained has the potential For the smoother surfaces, the velocity of the runoff increased to become patchy and turn to bare ground. The grass under the and the losses decreased, which resulted in increasing runoff vol- panel may not get enough sunlight and die. Fig. 1 shows the result IE: umes. This occurred both when the ground cover under the panels of the maintenance trucks frequently driving in the spacer section, t. was changed to gravel and when the cover in the spacer section was which diminished the grass cover. f, changed to bare ground. Owing to the higher velocities of the flow, The effect of the lack of solar farm maintenance on runoff char- runoff rates from the cells increased significantly such that it was acteristics was modeled by changing the Manning's n to a value of (74; necessary to reduce the computational time increment. Fig. 4(a) 0.02 for bare ground. In this scenario, the roughness coefficient o shows the hydrograph from a 30-panel area with a time incre- for the ground under the panels, i.e., the dry section, as well as in ment of 12 s. With a time increment of 12 s, the water in each cell the spacer cell was changed from grass covered to bare ground is discharged at the end of every time increment, which results in no (n = 0.02).The effects were nearly identical to that of the gravel. o attenuation of the flow; thus, the undulations shown in Fig. 4(a) The runoff volume increased by 7% from the grass-covered to the a, result. The time increment was reduced to 3 s for the 2-h storm, bare-ground condition. The peak discharge increased by 72% when o' o which resulted in watershed smoothing and a rational hydrograph compared with the grass-covered condition. The runoff for the bare- c.) shape [Fig. 4(b)] . The results showed that the storm runoff ground condition also resulted in an earlier time to peak by approx- imately 10 min. Two other conditions were also modeled, showing to 0 1 - similar results. In the first scenario, gravel was placed directly Paneled under the panel, and healthy grass was placed in the spacer section, ✓ 0.09 - Pre-paneled , which mimics a possible design decision. Under these conditions, lei 0.08 - the peak discharge increased by 42%, and the volume of runoff c) increased by 4%, which suggests that storm-water management 0 0.07 - - would be necessary if gravel is placed anywhere. ' 0 06 - - Fig. 5 shows two solar panels from a solar farm in New Jersey. - The bare ground between the panels can cause increased runoff N w .4 0 0.05 - - rates and reductions in time of concentration, both of which could 0 0.04 - - necessitate storm-water management. The final condition modeled i involved the assumption of healthy grass beneath the panels and 0.03 - bare ground in the spacer section, which would simulate the con- et 0.02 - p 1 - dition of unmaintained grass resulting from vehicles that drive over ` the spacer section. Because the spacer section is 53 % of the cell, the p 0.01 - change in land cover to bare ground would reduce losses and de- ,,,, crease runoff travel times, which would cause runoff to amass as it 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 t (a) Time (min) 0.07 i az ?o Paneled Pre-paneled _ _�, 4.44 :0 :.�^ .-sr 4 H I, , t 0cic:1 .06 - - s- . \_ .. 1 '�:=" I_ , r U 1� _ ff''''' -4" \y ( t ! 4 1 O E 0.04 - - pr. . 1 f` . . ,. - ii-ci I. -.' _ --cs k•_ f o 03 Y i 1 003 1 / `! 0.02 '• ` �' . �� + •S f ♦ y ~ .,. ,- _. �`� .� 1. -- ----„-: , .,--,- . --2 ' , _ , , ` _ r ' 0.01 - - :K . ) i % , :. , �/yr .-5• ;:v, // r � It :f,IK a. r 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 - ' - (b) Time (min) Fig. 5. Site showing the initiation of bare ground below the panels, Fig. 4. Hydrograph with time increment of (a) 12 s ; (b) 3 s with which increases the potential for erosion (photo by John Showler, Manning's n for bare ground reprinted with permission) JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 539 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . moves downgradient. With the spacer section as bare ground, the runoff was calculated using Manning's equation, and the velocity peak discharge increased by 100%, which reflected the increases in of falling rainwater was calculated using the following: volume and decrease in timing. These results illustrate the need for maintenance of the grass below and between the panels. V t = 120 435 ( 1 ) where d,. = diameter of a raindrop, assumed to be 1 mm. The re- Design Suggestions lationship between kinetic energy and rainfall intensity is With well-maintained grass underneath the panels, the solar panels IC, = 916 -I- 3301og10 i (2) themselves do not have much effect on total volumes of the runoff where i = rainfall intensity (in./h) and Ke = kinetic energy (ft-tons or peak discharge rates. Although the panels are impervious, the per ac-in. of rain) of rain falling onto the wet section and the panel, rainwater that drains from the panels appears as runoff over the as well as the water flowing off of the end of the panel (Wischmeier il4 downgradient cells. Some of the runoff infiltrates. If the grass cover and Smith 1978). The kinetic energy (Salles et al. 2002) of the rain- of a solar farm is not maintained, it can deteriorate either because of fall was greater than that coming off the panel, but the area under fit a lack of sunlight or maintenance vehicle traffic. In this case, the the panel (i.e., the product of the length, width, and cosine of the runoff characteristics can change significantly with both runoff panel angle) is greater than the area under the edge of the panel 0 rates and volumes increasing by significant amounts. In addition,if gravel or pavement is placed underneath the panels, this can also where the water drains from the panel onto the ground. Thus, contribute to a significant increase in the hydrologic response. dividing the kinetic energy by the respective areas gives a more accurate representation of the kinetic energy experienced by the If bare ground is foreseen to be a problem or gravel is to be soil. The energy of the water draining from thepanel onto the placed under the panels to prevent erosion, it is necessary to . ground can be nearly 10 tunes greater than the rain itself falling co, counteract the excess runoff using some form of storm-water man- onto the ground area. If the solar panel runoff falls onto an un- w agement. A simple practice that can be implemented is a buffer strip sealed soil, considerable detachment can result (Motha et al. (Dabney et al. 2006) at the downgradient end of the solar farm. The 2004). Thus, because of the increased kinetic energy, it is pos- buffer strip length must be sufficient to return the runoff character- sible that the soil is much more prone to erosion with the panels istics with the panels to those of runoff experienced before the wialthan without. Where panels are installed, methods of erosion togravel and panels were installed. Alternatively, a detention basin control should be included in the design. Q.o can be installed. v A buffer strip was modeled along with the panels. For approxi- lei mately every 200 m of panels, or 29 cells, the buffer must be 5 cells O long (or 35 m) to reduce the runoff volume to that which occurred Conclusions o before the panels were added. Even if a gravel base is not placed Solar farms are the energy generators of the future; thus, it is im- under the panels, the inclusion of a buffer strip may be a good prac-o tice when grass maintenance is not a top funding priority. Fig. 6 portant to determine the environmental and hydrologic effects of these farms, both existing and proposed. A model was created 1 shows the peak discharge from the graveled surface versus the length to simulate storm-water runoff over a land surface without panels c4 of the buffer needed to keep the discharge to prepaneled peak rate. and then with solar panels added. Various sensitivity analyses were Water draining from a solar panel can increase the potential for conducted including changing the storm duration and volume, soil oo erosion of the spacer section. If the spacer section is bare ground, type, ground slope, panel angle, and ground cover to determine the Ch the high kinetic energy of water draining from the panel can cause ± effect that each of these factors would have on the volumes and o soil detachment and transport (Garde and Raju 1977 ; Beuselinck peak discharge rates of the runoff. et al. 2002). The amount and risk of erosion was modeled using The addition of solar panels over a grassy field does not have the velocity of water coming off a solar panel compared with much of an effect on the volume of runoff, the peak discharge, nor the velocity and intensity of the rainwater. The velocity of panel the time to peak. With each analysis, the runoff volume increased ›, slightly but not enough to require storm-water management facili- 0.07 r I ties. However, when the land-cover type was changed under the o Pre-paneled peak Q panels, the hydrologic response changed significantly. When gravel cc:1 0.06 - Peak Q vs. buffer length or avement was laced under the anels with the s acer section p P p p left as patchy grass or bare ground, the volume of the runoff in- U o 0.06 - - creased significantly and the peak discharge increased by approx- oimately 100%. This was also the result when the entire cell was M 0.04 - assumed to be bare ground. �_ _� _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - The potential for erosion of the soil at the base of the solar pan- 0 els was also studied. It was determined that the kinetic energy of the o 1 0.03 - - water draining from the solar panel could be as much as 10 times Q greater than that of rainfall. Thus, because the energy of the water 0.02 - -- draining from the panels is much higher, it is very possible that soil below the base of the solar panel could erode owing to the concen- 0 m - _ trated flow of water off the panel, especially if there is bare ground in the spacer section of the cell. If necessary, erosion control meth- ods should be used. o 0 6 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Bare ground beneath the panels and in the spacer section is Length of buffer (m) a realistic possibility (see Figs. 1 and 5). Thus, a good, well- maintained grass cover beneath the panels and in the spacer section Fig. 6. Peak discharge over gravel compared with buffer length is highly recommended. If gravel, pavement, or bare ground is 540 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . deemed unavoidable below the panels or in the spacer section, it Beuselinck, L., Govers, G., Hairsince, P. B ., Sander, G. C., and may necessary to add a buffer section to control the excess runoff Breynaert, M. (2002). "The influence of rainfall on sediment transport volume and ensure adequate losses. If these simple measures are by overland flow over areas of net deposition." J. Hydrol. , 257( 1-4), taken, solar farms will not have an adverse hydrologic impact from 145-163. excess runoff or contribute eroded soil particles to receiving Dabney, S. M., Moore, M. T., and Locke, M. A. (2006). "Integrated man- agement of in-field, edge-of-field, and after-field buffers." J. Amer. streams and waterways. Water Resour. Assoc. , 42( 1), 15-24. Engman, E. T. (1986). "Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff." J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. , 112( 1), 39-53. Acknowledgments Garde, R. J., and Raju, K. G. (1977). Mechanics of sediment transportation and alluvial stream problems, Wiley, New York. The authors appreciate the photographs (Figs. 1 and 5) of Ortho McCuen, R. H. (2005). Hydrologic analysis and design, 3rd Ed., Pearson/ Clinical Diagnostics, 1001 Route 202, North Raritan, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 08869, provided by John E. Showler, Environmental Scientist, Motha, J. A., Wallbrink, P. J., Hairsine, P. B., and Grayson, R. B . (2004). New Jersey Department of Agriculture. The extensive comments "Unsealed roads as suspended sediment sources in agricultural catch- c of reviewers resulted in an improved paper. ment in south-eastern Australia." J. Hydrol. , 286( 1-4), 1-18. Salles, C., Poesen, J., and Sempere-Torres, D. (2002). "Kinetic energy of rain and its functional relationship with intensity." J. Hydrol. , 257(1-4), References 256-270. o Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion Bedient, P. B ., and Huber, W. C. (2002). Hydrology and,floodplain analy- losses: A guide to conservation planning, USDA Handbook 537, U.S. sis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. � PP g O rn a) 0.4 U C4 trn O tri 0 0 0 O a) a) 2 U Ct ct 4-i -C O N Ste" O ct :1 a) U Ct E O a) "CS ct O O JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 541 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Dust Abatement Plan The purpose and intent of this Dust Abatement Plan is to ensure that the Project complies with applicable state and federal air quality standards. The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) sets forth the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQs) pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Air quality impacts associated with construction projects generally arise from fugitive dust generation during the operation of heavy equipment. Colorado administers the NAAQS through issuance of the Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN ) . The Project will not exceed the NAAQS and will follow best management practices to ensure that the production of dust will be controlled by the regular application of water to the Project. The Project will obtain an APEN permit prior to construction . Minimal dust is expected to be generated during construction and operations due to the planned use of dust suppression best management practices and soil stabilization following construction and throughout operations. During construction , CBEP Solar 16 , LLC and its contractors will control dust by applying water to disturbed soils and soil piles to control fugitive dust from blowing and impairing air quality. Once the construction phase is completed , the site will be visited 1 -2 times per year for routine maintenance and as needed for emergency maintenance . Disturbed areas not covered with gravel as part of the Project design will be reseeded with native seed to revegetate disturbed areas and hold soil in place , minimizing fugitive dust impacts during operations . CBEP Solar 16 , LLC would employ native revegetation methods or chemical control methods for infestations of weeds during regular maintenance if necessary. (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Dust and Weed Mitigation Plan Dust Control : • Minimal dust is expected to be generated during construction and operations due to the planned use of dust suppression best management practices and soil stabilization following construction and throughout operations. During construction , CBEP Solar 16 , LLC and its contractors will control dust by applying water to disturbed soils and soil piles to control fugitive dust from blowing and impairing air quality . • During the operations of the Project, the land under and around the Project will be seeded with a native grass seed mixture , which will mitigate dust. Weed Control : • The site will be inspected annually by CBEP Solar 16 , LLC or its contractors for the presence of invasive species . Minor presences will be managed by cutting and pulling in a manner to not disburse or promote spreading of weed seeds . If a major presence occurs, mowing and the potential application of herbicides will be deployed . Herbicide selection may vary depending on the time of year, the life cycle of the noxious weed species . (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM fr\ CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOVDBREAK INFO c, CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: June 12 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project ( PRE23 -0134) SUBJECT: Completeness Review Re-Submittal 1 . Need articles of organization for CBEP Solar 16 , LLC o See Exhibit 1 . 2 . Planning Questionnaire indicates no junipers are proposed (Question 18) — Junipers are indicated to be installed per the Landscaping and Screening Plan o CBEP Solar 16 , LLC intends to plant Rocky Mountain Juniper trees on the north side of the Project area to act as screening for the neighbor located at 17765 Highway 392 . Additionally, CBEP Solar 16 , LLC will plant Rocky Mountain Junipers on the south side of the Project area if the neighbor located at 32501 CR 37 declines to sign a waiver for the vegetative screening . 3 . Landscaping & Screening Plan — identify the height of the proposed tree , provide an irrigation plan o Rocky Mountain Junipers are a Colorado native tree species that are heat and draught- resistant. The junipers will be approximately 5 feet tall when we plant them . o Irrigation Plan : For the first year, we will use a water truck to water the junipers weekly with 10- 15 gallons of water per tree . After the first year, the trees will be established enough to survive on rainfall alone and will only require water when there has been a significant period of time with high heat and no water. 4 . Provide a copy of a Surface Use Agreement (if there is one on the site) . o CBEP Solar 16 , LLC does not have a Surface Use Agreement with any oil and gas companies for the McKee Ranch Solar Project site , yet . Cloudbreak typically completes Surface Use Agreements on its projects prior to starting construction and plans to promptly commence negotiations with the relevant companies . (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 ifriK (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Landscape and Screening Plan There is currently no landscaping on the Project's site . The Project will be surrounded by a 7 -foot tall game fence . Rocky Mountain Junipers will be planted along a portion of the outside of the northwestern fence line to provide natural screening for nearby residences . The Project will seek waivers from the neighboring parcel to the south , but will plant Rocky Mountain Junipers on this border as well if it is unsuccessful . Example photos as well as a map depicting the proposed location for tree placement are provided below . Please refer to sheet 3 . 0 of the USR Map for additional detail on the proposed security fence . CBEP Solar 16 , LLC plans to work with Pawnee Buttes/Greencover to create a unique diversified seed mixture to be seeded within the Project Area and will utilize sheep grazing to maintain the land . EXAMPLE PHOTOS: I / .•h'_' i , 4. i tit. Y I � n •. t'� Y{ rat P, . ay,e Jr , , JY !ilkY 44 te4 0, /r ! f taw as e" ^ ''J'r}•{p JxtVI- Jr 1r' '. ti Vii YY' l'' /et �,f1 rl nv r},,t ,nrT • `f d' ltt .. , r C"- / �� lS}r I • r ?,% 4f. x, < r 1 r• C' k.9 •r t} r 1 > yr II -t., •'r $� [ -f . JY M 'sS ,,y-14..1v.v.`'l, - ,; k•I{, '.t �:•'i�'"9'� .f"F6 r/v*., ..,f se, 1 Y lV' t•.' • ,�Z •`�•`-, r� — ,F'7 Y' '-A I• _ '> s r .. tir ,..c., ll� tnh I Lei let:�YY -,Y,.`r , , - „ 01I1 A r.T f�[�., + .r.• .t./ �. /nl. .' rr''�.il-j"*^ 4 Y1)� M L•. ` IF I I , ' _ .. yy . ,. . .f • _ }� r Y'.4r:4`;. ir. �)3\; "5t.i _./• s",� •e, ,'. . r_ .�-. a.w�� A2cr.'' r Y �' Ftil 4 \ t t d• t , f I% .•x 4.,[` .`',. i •e rs/:y r{ L.- irld.'�.r>- •i'. ,. .� - - 1 r` J .�.�.� t..� r r "11�•rtI •' t , E '' 4I rl••JtA �'. �Gtl>�I��'�7G"d V t r r �� _ S, •. .S 414 1 • - - �4w ) Y 1 _ r , Ti...... •^r ` r .0 k •• !f tom` ,..s 71'1, .:(�ati t r t lit Se: ; f c. t 1 ,•, I}({rr Ji• °/ y,i,v _yr" S� Sty „ , • /. t • Atli" Y ..,* J r- 7 n r; , 7 '' �� K T 1�f�,,t•', Mo }k�,.hSt�N'�f-"+�r 1✓yt �•, t 4. ha. _ P Y- 4 , ' 'r„ , '-. � - �� , , t. . t• •v} ; . l /"' t �� Fq�i r� l - Mai � - $w4 . _ , I r _ 4[A 1 J r - r. r l.. r - t 1' / r f S r Tti•)l ` ,/ .r1',7{ ,J�• .'*u••1 • :. .� 1 .�.j . 1;. ✓. � •� t.. ty.. ... T��(„ty,j L.,r .;ruci 5.4 l 'Pt' t' -.: 1 r . . - 4 ' "7.'I 'rf .„ c,. Y. "�r `l• l\r '� . '11°w~h" ;11 h �.Y Y:i•1"'1,'IR:..-�i'i - t �'� y•!74 L.-' t,�t.. ;' - r .1.• \ _ „, , , .!•jim ..n.t, •' • „4,:c.:•:. 1, ,�.71,t' ••gc ..'a.•3.4', . _ _ >, r • q N. 4' 1 / ' _:�.�♦ '!` ,1_� J `•'Y+7,...f 1, Vi > '•Y�. .•}J_ y,, Th4f ,✓ r,rr)' �, - r Y , •I - ` ♦ ' J I °.• • •... , t- _ - 1'1 ♦ fr:;� CF.Y . 7 :f? ,t ,i',hhp`Y" .,If = L a • V c♦ 'r •- •a-t A t' '•yY �. _ :t ,y T(�. ri'L ti. C�'"�Y'4'. ..' • �•- r!• .✓ �' T�ff M1 tttle 7!_ F „ I'r - . ,-et' _it is - . its i Ins . . ! Sp +. ,yyfj�� 1y r • • ti "ra• 1 le f>t...a.F t +. .' y/%� 'VI •4' .41/44 �'r'f-,' :" 14,p. re4y.� � -A1 . . ••" r .. f . . .i fyQ•_ ,- ♦`r - d :Y >�? 7 w� p I t .t4 t „ ' rrlif ./ r +' ' a iiPV4 ' ',` .. '$Y;'lill'SYYY t r1_^, r 14-7. L. r^ ! . .f C• _ _ y: 'In , .. - _' rY 'Y llf '. t..Hi' • {r • At .: r`'i t . •• • ..,' w7r" L �S� �' 4 � � a r - ( • ^..,,,,� > y' f ti + .l o r.` r, t. .': ^. 1 .a, a ' • 1a••. y? 6F w }{, `{c' f'•Y . tJ ,:1 • , ^.� .. ".� .a �. ':• t _ J ,4 '4 ,1: . 4_ • { - `. 1 •' • i y. • Y � uf/1 r. Ab-Lf. .�,'; ./) ' .t. •" �_ 'I , Gy,u•'' NY;4.;,,.-'ymv5 • Y ^ '' 1'rt i6%•2z . .O"1� _ _ L - 44,.� �' • , r �7 • -or' _ • p r �.r_ t • -�q/�Jl _ • ..Y.i t• r.r-,. .i.1.( }` .i'i' • !t trjr. 4 C.9'1' ^ �_ `'l .A �f •♦e •- • - ., .'c '�r d{'. 3 - • r1 �S"", .'lri � � t rY . •Wq�;4.1 y r � • _ / 1 - � ♦ . >• a ..'4' 'Yy rNF ,�.• Y , Pe�S ._ �- `_ ` ` T 1 •1 r : r g ie 7 tK.. _ f` . � rl�f.rts- •\ 1.1 a ,^,.�1' l ,s 1 J. .} , 41'R . � .. R ', : -. - �.t. ll• `I _ , �.I • • \+ 4'..y F ` ♦ ty 4 N .i i'ny • ilr 11,i4Lt 4,p,0.ifr:4„ ��. \ L' _ a y _.a •y�y�l7 :e �i .r ?. N- 'f! l J ' t�'t.•�. r +Y h '! •J..�- , hy'-."�/• .��1~ btA 1 - �tt�� •K111..›.41t.4". '}7. i ' it , 1.1 !.I 'r1.. �f.. < ' 1°F7 _ i Tar r'{i �" 'ac .J,,,.a ! r ,Y Crv.�, . - 1r. �' _ K, - Y • a;'1 •2t;r.a .� A 1._' > ,G > . � • •• " 4 n 6. — l:. f !. ' .r. t '�tits e s •- ti F �s1 4 cfY a3 ' zs� , F r. - 4 • -' *.- 1 ~•• �t t r', ri` 'ly�?G •�M."�.y r'Yj.r "„�.� �•If^ i '_' ''i: • L. r,T ' _ • ✓ t. 1 S . _ '•^r. r> il,}i. 'j r. �h H - -Whin.-^ 't7 .�' - 'lc?. y w ?. 'f°' a • .1..A- %, '� Is S-tct. -�� t ,. l '• An,* " .t.•i° 1 " ` 231O•Y<< i •±_ C xFt/ `rt.1 ti' .. _ '` G 1 r, 1 Y l �i .t y M\ rvl �. t ,fir t., �1 , a. • �, y 7 _ __ < G. } t., t' fT l- it 4 ` ?- ..n 4., X. y., 1 '�;v• ! }, . r4.. �'.xi ; _.,. •'st 9. `j;� 1�. ' - .' lA 4 y, :t,�,� 1 ��Y . t .. it 4•is r.-- ,- ^ � � 1..,1 ry. �t., -!� ±` fi ,'fir ` hh1, '.4 `Y. A 4 11/4 :'tr f..9•v A7: Y /UJ�a, f • f ra. dY'>; ! •r . c .f�,• r. f � • • V-: J ! �� Y 7 •!5.- /I/Il /e.'_�1.+1C•.JJ S.AI, 1'. . S �Yn.; �+ 'fit` , ..1 �. f I.; d r, n � .4 r •,I 'ffy'.`t, 3 r . , ' v , y' L - i`i. w F .{.. -r •'-� J �• !' : I "�'t•'- 1 Tri o c • `F i' l # I . ''7 II" !. TYI 'Y Il t, y f r ' ! � �b i — i 1 ! M .--! ' . itl Ii '' .. 1 `F a J 4d JN /_ ,.� �� a k‘'.I, . n. r Y,:. ...•} n� 1 . '� I '.1 • ♦ 1 1 -4 '�'� l. VV l h�^ 1 •. r, a f� •yCf S.• ^i� ,tr �t ..• ,t • . I,I 1 i• rti 1. .� Y I Y •'. N •adJa ,rti.' s +r, . 4 �f:� t -.a : . pill Y V. {,, a - 1 T ` �. i.l' �:.....•, '�6 ,/M .i t4t 71 ' .L" Ir _,� ,p 3'-�.r ' �. �9'A .Y':r,'„4"„ 3�i - �411/4% .. S. _ •. 1, I ` 1 : 4 i t ; T �\_ rp. '•tl' .t. IN • •J•,.' Nr N. : ` Sr1 I•r ...�. k n f., •• 4Il15le •,. •.'s a,`h q • t,I y I e Y % ♦ ! . ' f .l„ •7,:ra .' s ,stb t..tr r.[ ,'d` I "t4eh rIvor"' `,., ��r'n '• 'I••l' ktiell• ar,jO!J`• r ail.' rli , 1 }, � . ti f Y� �Il' �� V iM 1 - , 1 rt- y . r 05ct�t4`W evAN— t _ . J ... AVM r ,r i ' Y •$t :iy q `•'•�,, r1 yt '• N\•1� '� �t r^�•'�..�`,r1.. ,`,...../NkY.l `1.• .• •r1 `A ♦ h ! Vr r /1C ' , y l ` !- Y\ ' Y I 1V " •+r44 . I•••• • , v 'C-,'�: if i' r pt ' ,. _ ';)y*.'y St , ';',..4•W,, '^Ar. Y —r•' lµ y . ! d"' ��Jj '. L _ '�77 ': r Atli L.r'� �-•. t. fit' � r 1 '-Y,.' •i ^ L • .nT .:,l' .Y S :n /'r• j, `)Y •.. U• • rr. /Y ..) 1 : ., -. I •,, •r ' % rw�. ," , , YI f. i�'d,l Xl/•f'�c1 y� .� �fuf`r . c r' a `" Fr ' 1 {# 'tE?r tl, 4 jai• _ r zr `�YJ�p 4 4,•,•4I/J'�I�. • t l /' '. 1.. • •_ ^y7 ,wf~� •'Lt• ,( r•.. `/ `yT + 7 -.J. C t-h. ,1{,�1 ;e:�", . ..•�.(.11.y I��'y . !x 1t� 7 h / , J • p ,� F . l . 4.5....,f -- I _ �Ft 4.. ' SY,� r • 1 • 1 t y e ''� ° t Y !Y. t).o• t A , b fr tr y '� `4 f.il - !i •? _ -� 1 a ice' ! :1 1 t• _ • { ' , ' , l Yf .�1 .� . 1 �. l Writ 1 ' '4F' p y -1,' 1 + •' T)YZ ., -) L II i, rt, `' , , t- •• l `1 •• 1 a L' . 'Sr�k, I ► '. r 1..1", 1 1 M ' A `S 7 ' 'a/(.�tr+I�, 1 �>.l►af�.(t .` ' Ai ►- „k t i,'•ed/c J'• t:Is •• f !• • ..4`f •1 tlad� >. : 1 r{a ,1 a .r lti: • }� :. 4` w .L �+ .1 1 .�Y; a• id 4 ~'/ a �• a A 11<'1 .J -t _ �� Ik i 1R.--•` /YyY I• i'' �gtj:-T', .X�i.:. .yi , r k' I.... �•� t1,•lr. > w1•r Y> » tl f, l �� . .I v� .rj�1^ y 4`• {�f .•�1 ,I`�r�a ti r �. L 1 t\-t YxY.SRa�° ..'ti+ ' :VA: I � �r •C .. ��:14a 3; :7'A....t :�' �n t ,' .. 'C v�ar ., i.♦ I]`1 1 i �; .Y,.. s - "'F!•YFFF I(f1 • [i f,Fs€a�+ S i!'l r ('' i` _ t, (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 PROPOSED LOCATION FOR TREE PLACEMENT: „.... _ _ Iii4HiNt .- � . - ,t N ):0) , A _. 74*, 1 2Rocky Mountain Juniprs ' le' iC 0 U,, tyAR.Q a-S. 3 9 2 - "Aril) I 37 i I fttr ., a r Ai ft . - - .1 1 .4 Potential Rocky Mountain Junipers I < C' oe- _ 37 c0 4 ACS M **Iv _ ` 0 (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Lighting Plan CBEP Solar 16 , LLC is proposing to construct and operate the McKee Ranch Solar Project in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado . The Project includes construction of 7 . 5MW of solar electric generation on a 79 . 124 acre parcel . This Lighting Plan describes lighting during the construction and operations phases of the Project . Temporary Construction Lighting : The need for lighting during construction is expected to be limited because the majority of construction activities will occur during daylight hours. If lighting is needed during construction , lights will be positioned and/or shielded from oncoming traffic and residences in the vicinity of the project site , as necessary . Cutoff-type luminaires would be used where practicable . Individual light sources would not exceed 150 , 000 lumens per light source (typical of a 1250W metal halide light) and would project 0 . 1 lumen or less at property lines. Unnecessary lighting will not be used . Lights would not exceed 24 feet in height. Any lighting needed for construction is not shown in the dimensioned elevation drawing of the USR Map due to its temporary nature . Project Operations Lighting : There will be no lighting on the Project after construction is completed . (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Manure Management Plan CBEP Solar 16 , LLC is proposing to construct and operate the McKee Ranch Solar Project in unincorporated Weld County , Colorado . The Project includes the construction of 7 . 5 Megawatts ( MW) of solar electric generation on a portion of a 79 . 12-acre parcel . In addition to the solar array, the Project site will continue to contribute to the agricultural economy of Weld County by using the pasture land underneath the solar array for sheep grazing . This Manure Management Plan describes CBEP Solar 16 , LLC's plan to maintain and minimize the impacts of the manure on the Project parcel and neighboring community . Background : CBEP Solar 16 , LLC intends to partner with a local shepherd that will be grazing no more than 500 sheep on the McKee Ranch Solar Project site for periods during the grazing season . The McKee Ranch Solar Project is one of many fields the flock of sheep will rotate between . These sheep will be processed in Weld County at Innovative Foods . Manure Load Management: Through rotational grazing and harrowing , the manure load will be evenly distributed across the parcel and have minimal impact on the neighboring community . Rotational Grazing : The shepherd will section off portions of the Project and graze the herd in the subsections, rotating the sheep to new subsections regularly . The shepherd will also rotate the herd between several Cloudbreak solar projects to manage the manure load and forage materials on the land . This will make the overall manure load very manageable and reduce the impact to surrounding properties. The herd will not stay permanently at the McKee Ranch Solar Project. The Project site will not serve as a feedlot for sheep . Harrowing : If necessary, a harrowing machine will be used on the McKee Ranch Solar Project site to spread out and break up the manure once the sheep move on to the next subsection or pasture . This machine will disturb the topsoil to help break down and bury the manure . Composting : If the manure load ever becomes problematic, CBEP Solar 16 , LLC will physically remove the manure and compost it offsite . (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM Kimley > Horn March 27 , 2023 Mr. Zach Brammer CloudBreak Energy Partners 218 S . 3rd Street Sterling , CO 80751 Re : CloudBreak — McKee Ranch Sound Study Weld County , Colorado Dear Mr. Brammer: Executive Summary The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the evaluated sound levels associated with the operational equipment located at the proposed McKee Ranch Solar Site in Weld County , CO . The proposed solar photovoltaic project site is approximately 1 mile west of Lucerne , approximately 3 miles north of Greeley , and approximately 3 miles south of Eaton . The site is generally located south of County Road 68 , west of County Road 37 , and north of County Road 66 . The solar site will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses located north , south , east , and west of the project area . The location of the proposed McKee Ranch Solar Site is shown in Figure 1 . Analysis Findings • The solar photovoltaic project will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses surrounding the project area. A noise goal of 55 dB(A) during daytime hours was established for this project. Unmitigated hourly equivalent operational noise levels are estimated to be below approximately 37 dB(A) during daytime hours at the closest noise-sensitive land uses around the site. Additionally, the operational noise levels are anticipated to remain below the Weld County Charter and County Code maximum permissible noise level at residential property boundaries during daytime hours; therefore, noise mitigation is not recommended at this time. Project Description The proposed McKee Ranch Solar Site will be developed on approximately 55 acres of agricultural land in an unincorporated portion of Weld County , CO . The solar power generating facility will consist of rows of Photovoltaic Solar Modules , a gravel access driveway , and underground utilities . Six (6) substations with an associated transformer and inverters will be located near the center of the site . Four (4) of the substations are located towards the northern portion of the site and the remaining two (2) are nearer to the southern portion . kimley- horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley : >>) o r n McKee Ranch Solar Site Sound Study March 27, 2023 - Page 2 Figure 1 : Site Location and Vicinity County Road 68 13 ") ; - Ranch Solar Project arita w J rramT Weld County J 0 250 500 Feet kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street , Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley : >> o r n McKee Ranch Solar Site Sound Study March 27, 2023 - Page 3 Characteristics of Noise Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound . It is emitted from many natural and man - made sources . Sound pressure levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) . The decibel scale is logarithmic and expresses the ratio of the sound pressure unit being measured to a standard reference level . Most sounds occurring in the environment do not consist of a single frequency , but rather a broad band of differing frequencies . The intensities of each frequency add together to generate sound . Because the human ear does not respond to all frequencies equally , the method commonly used to quantify environmental noise consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound according to a weighting system . It has been found that the A-weighted decibel [dB (A) ] filter on a sound level meter, which includes circuits to differentially measure selected audible frequencies , best approximates the frequency response of the human ear. The degree of disturbance from exposure to unwanted sound — noise — depends upon three factors : 1 . The amount , nature , and duration of the intruding noise 2 . The relationship between the intruding noise and the existing sound environment ; and 3 . The situation in which the disturbing noise is heard In considering the first of these factors , it is important to note that individuals have varying sensitivity to noise . Loud noises bother some people more than other people , and some individuals become increasingly upset if an unwanted noise persists . The time patterns and durations of noise (s) also affect perception as to whether or not it is offensive . For example , noises that occur during nighttime (sleeping) hours are typically considered to be more offensive than the same noises in the daytime . With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background noise) . A car horn blowing at night when background noise levels are low would generally be more objectionable than one blowing in the afternoon when background noise levels are typically higher. The response to noise stimulus is analogous to the response to turning on an interior light . During the daytime an illuminated bulb simply adds to the ambient light , but when eyes are conditioned to the dark of night , a suddenly illuminated bulb can be temporarily blinding . The third factor — situational noise — is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals . In a 60 dB (A) environment such as is commonly found in a large business office , normal conversation would be possible , while sleep might be difficult . Loud noises may easily interrupt activities that require a quiet setting for greater mental concentration or rest ; however, the same loud noises may not interrupt activities requiring less mental focus or tranquility . As shown in Figure 2 , most individuals are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources on a regular basis . To perceive sounds of greatly varying pressure levels , human hearing has a non - linear sensitivity to sound pressure exposure . Doubling the sound pressure results in a three decibel change in the noise level ; however, variations of three decibels [3 dB (A) ] or less are commonly considered "barely perceptible" to normal human hearing . A five decibel [5 dB (A)] change is more readily noticeable . A ten -fold increase in the sound pressure level correlates to a 10 decibel [ 10 dB (A)] noise level increase ; however, it is judged by most people as only sounding "twice as loud" . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street , Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 , , .. rn ) or fl McKee Ranch Solar Site Sound Study _ March 27, 2023 - Page 4 Figure 2 : Common Noise Levels Kim1ey * Horn Common Environmental Noise Levels dB(Ar Noise Source Noise Level Response As Loud Jet Engine r�x �AAar i P —i Harmfully loud 128 135 130 64 _POLICE Police Siren 1 —I Painfully loud 121 , 32 .• 4 115 I Regular exposer L over 1 minute Rock Band r 110 risks permanent 16 - _ ■05 hearing loss i ii‘ '' �. Garbage Truck Sic!) - r;. 100 Very loud 8 a 95 ,f kr - 'ff: Motorcycle 90' • ' Annoying • • • • • • • • • 4 85 •- 1 a Annoying - interferes • • • 2 Drilling _ ,� with conversation call T5 Vacuum Cleaner 70 Moderately loud 1 _ - R f: t-i., _, I 65 Air Conditioner c- ` �- 60 Comfortable 1/2 i - 5© • 1/4 Refrigerator at 45 Quiet -1j • + 1/8 ' rt-5i, tr II 35 Whisper 30 Very quiet 25 4110 20 4 Rustling Leaves 15 Just audible . , 10 5 Threshold of hearing _, 14 Normal Breathing 0 typical A-weighted sound levels in decihels. "A" weighting approximates the frequency response 01 the human ear. Over time , individuals tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives on a regular basis . However, exposure to prolonged and/or extremely loud noise (s) can prevent use of exterior and interior spaces and has been theorized to pose health risks . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street , Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley : >> o r n McKee Ranch Solar Site Sound Study March 27, 2023 - Page 5 Local Regulations The McKee Ranch Solar Site is in Weld County , CO . Chapter 21 , Article VII , Division 3 of the Weld County Charter and County Code describes the requirements for a permit for site selection of a solar energy facility and states that noise impacts must be analyzed . Chapter 14 , Article IX of the Weld County Charter and County Code describes the noise regulations in Weld County , and Section 14-9-30 of this article states that a violation of this ordinance includes knowingly making , causing , or permitting to be made any excess noise or exceeding the sound levels provided in Section 14- 9-40 of the Weld County Charter and County Code . The maximum permissible noise levels at different land uses are shown in Table 1 . Table 1 : Maximum Permissible Noise Levels Land Use Maximum Noise [dB(A)] Maximum Noise [dB(A)] 7 : 00 am 9 : 00 pm 9 : 00 pm - 7 : 00 am Residential Property or Commercial Area 55 dB (A) 50 dB (A) Industrial Area or Construction Activities 80 dB (A) 75 dB (A) Nonspecified Areas 55 dB (A) 50 dB (A) The closest noise-sensitive receptors around the McKee Ranch Solar site are either residential or non-specified land uses . It should be noted that on-site operations are not anticipated to occur during nighttime hours and minimal operational noise will be produced ; therefore , the daytime maximum permissible operational noise level of 55 dB (A) will be used . Noise Analysis Sound levels from the proposed McKee Ranch Solar Site were evaluated using SoundPLAN . This program computes predicted sound levels at noise-sensitive areas through a series of adjustments to reference sound levels . SoundPLAN can also account for topography , groundcover type , and intervening structures . Sound levels generated from inverters are anticipated to be the main source of sound from the proposed solar photovoltaic project site . It should be noted that noise from surrounding roadways was not modeled in this analysis , although County Road 68 , County Road 66 , County Road 37 , and other rural roadways are anticipated to contribute to the ambient noise environment throughout the entire day . Inverters Photovoltaic (PV) inverter equipment generates steady , unvarying sound that can create issues when located near noise-sensitive areas . It was assumed that forty-four (44) PV inverters would be located near the center of the site towards the north , and twenty-two (22) PV inverters would be located near the center of the site towards the south . Based on design specifications for the CPS SCH100/ 125KTL- DO/US-600 inverter, a reference sound level of 65 dB (A) at 1 meter for each PV inverter was used . The sound from the simultaneous operation of the PV inverter equipment was calculated at the closest noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project area using SoundPLAN . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street , Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley : >> o r n McKee Ranch Solar Site Sound Study March 27, 2023 - Page 6 Sound generated by the inverters is not anticipated to significantly contribute to the existing environmental sound levels surrounding the site . Also , sound generated by the inverters is expected to be mitigated by providing sufficient offsets between the inverters and surrounding noise-sensitive land uses as well as by the physical presence of the solar arrays , which are anticipated to shield and disperse some of the sound generated by the inverters . Transformers Transformers also generate steady , unvarying noise that can create issues when located near noise- sensitive uses . It was assumed that 4 transformers would be located at the proposed substations towards the north of the site , just north of the inverters , and 2 transformers would be located at the proposed substations towards the south of the site , just north of inverters . A reference sound level for a transformer of 79 dB (A) at 1 meter was used . The noise from the transformer operation at the substation was calculated at the at the noise-sensitive receptors in the area near the proposed substation using SoundPLAN . Noise generated from the transformer is not anticipated to significantly contribute to the operational project noise and is expected to be kept in control by distance to noise-sensitive receptors . Results The SoundPLAN- predicted maximum operational sound levels at the surrounding noise-sensitive land uses are anticipated to be below the Weld County Charter and County Code noise level limits . The anticipated operational sound contours are shown in Figure 3 . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street , Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley : >> o r n McKee Ranch Solar Site Sound Study March 27, 2023 - Page 7 Figure 3 : Operational Sound Contours ,,, a i Signs and symbols . ‘.., 401,1, i Project Boundary 1.11111101SAN ', -r.- OPIONSISPONIME r it _wpm i C •A I\ , n_Z_, ,‘ roily .'A? ,� -• • - J 1 . ai i; lea 07 ell4ati: - 7 ' y Y \ . K` LeveindB (A)in < 45 46 50 ! _ 50 - 5 66 60 ,L _ 11100 ' 3* 60 a 65 .. > = 65 1 Conclusions The site is generally located south of County Road 68 , west of County Road 37 , and north of County Road 66 . The solar site will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses located north , south , east , and west of the project area . After modeling and analyzing the anticipated operational sound levels throughout the proposed solar site , it was determined that noise mitigation measures are not needed at this time since the anticipated operational sound levels will remain below the Weld County Charter and County Code allowable noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors around the site during daytime hours . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street , Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 KimIey *) o rn April 14 , 2023 P repared For : Mr. Zach Brammer Cloudbreak Energy Partners P repared By : Jesse Carlson , Wildlife Biologist Kimley- Horn S ubject : Sensitive Species Memorandum Cloudbreak- McKee Ranch Solar Site (55 acres) Weld County, Colorado Biological Resources Review Summary The purpose of this technical memorandum is to summarize the federal and state listed sensitive plant species , sensitive wildlife species , and other natural resources of concern associated with the proposed McKee Ranch Solar Site in Weld County, Colorado . The sensitive species desktop review conducted by Kimley- Horn resulted in the following key takeaways : • Based on aerial imagery , there is a low likelihood of suitable habitat for United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ) Endangered Species Act ( ESA) listed species . Kimley- Horn recommends a habitat suitability site survey for listed species prior to development activities . • There are no federally designated critical habitats for ESA listed species within the project area . • There are no CPW seasonal closures , restrictions , or limitations for big game or other wildlife species mapped within the project area . • The project area is mapped as intersecting black-tailed prairie dog ( Cynomys ludovicianus) "colony potential occurrence" and "overall range" . If live prairie dogs n eed to be relocated away from the project area , a Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) application is required . No permit is required to transport dead prairie dogs to a wildlife rehabilitator for donation . • There is a moderate likelihood of suitable habitat for migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ( MBTA) . Pre-construction migratory bird nest surveys are recommended if disturbance activities are to occur during the nesting season (April 1 — August 31 ) . • There is one mapped "active" Swainson 's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) nest located approximately 0 . 16 mile south of the project area . For Swainson 's hawks , CPW recommends " no surface occupancy ( beyond that which historically occurred in the area ) within % mile radius of active nests . No permitted , authorized , or human encroachment activities within 1/4 mile radius of active nests" . Pre-construction raptor n est surveys are recommended if disturbance activities are to occur during the raptor n esting season ( November 15 — October 31 ) . kimley-horn.com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, Co 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum io McKee Ranch Solar Site mley )> rn• The project is located approximately 0 . 75 mile northeast of a mapped bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) winter concentration and a winter forage area . For winter night roosts and communal roosts , CPW recommends " No permitted , authorized , or human encroachment activities within 1/4 mile ( 1320 feet , 400 meters) radius of an active night and/or communal roost from November 15 through March 15 if there is no direct line of sight between the roost and the activity . No permitted , authorized , or human encroachment activities within 1/2 mile (2640 feet , 800 meters) radius of an active night or communal roost from November 15 through March 15 if there is a direct line of sight between the roost and the activity" . Though the project area is outside of the CPW protected buffer, Kimley- Horn still recommends a pre-construction bald eagle survey if disturbance activities are to occur during the bald eagle winter roost and communal roost season ( November 15 — March 15 ) . Project Description The proposed solar photovoltaic project site is approximately 1 mile west of Lucerne , approximately 3 miles north of Greeley , and approximately 3 miles south of Eaton . The site is generally located south of County Road 68 , west of County Road 37 , and north of County Road 66 . The solar site will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses north , southeast , and west of the project area . The location of the proposed McKee Ranch Solar Site is shown in Figure 1 . The proposed McKee Ranch Solar Site will be developed on approximately 55 acres of private land in an unincorporated portion of Weld County , CO . The solar power generating facility will consist of rows of Photovoltaic Solar Modules , a gravel access driveway, and underground utilities . Six (6 ) substations with an associated transformer and inverters will be located near the center of the site . Four (4 ) of the substations are located towards the northern portion of the site and the remaining two (2 ) are nearer to the southern portion . Project Setting The project lies within the Flat to Rolling Plains (25d ) Sub- Region of the High Plains Ecoregion . Based on aerial imagery (June 2021 ), the project is situated in an agricultural setting . The project is bound to the north County Road 68 , to the south by County Road 37 , to the south and west by agricultural activity . Based on the National Land Cover Database ( NLCD ) , the project area consists of a majority cultivated crops land cover type with smaller portions of developed — open space , developed — medium intensity, and developed — low intensity ( Figure 2 ) . kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum io McKee Ranch Solar Site mley )> rn Figure 1 . Vicinity Map Imagery Date/ Source: Esri, 2023; Land Characterizations: BLM1 2023; Hydrology/ NWI: USFWS( 2022; Critical Habitat: USFWS, 2023 G3 Q' U 0 0� 0) 04%se I ,,) 392 _ Co thy`_Road-68 392 I� r) Dcw o t ,,i ,�1 f - Legend USFWS Critical Habitat NWI Mapped Wetlands & Streams Private Land I l Project Limits Mckee Ranch Property N Weld County, Colorado W __ _ E 0 0 .06 0 . 13 0 . 25 Miles s fr '® CLOUDBREAK Vicinity Map Kimley >>> Horn Fxpe More F',.,iuI,.: Rdlm kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, Co 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum io McKee Ranch Solar Site mley )> rn Figure 2. National Land Cover Database Map Land Cover ( N LCD 2016 ) E5irren Land rCultivated Crops Deciduous Forest i _ Developed, High Intensity Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity • Developed, Open Space Emergent Herbaceous Wetla nds Evergreen Forest Hay/Pasture IHerbaceous Mixed Forest Open Water .. Perennial Snow/Ice Shrub/Scrub Woody Wetlands Natural Resources Several geospatial databases were reviewed for federal and state natural resources of concern . These databases include : • Colorado Conservation Data Center ( CODEX) o CODEX database includes information from : • Bird Conservancy of the Rockies • Colorado Natural Heritage Program • CPW • NLCD • NatureServe • USFWS • CPW Mapped Raptor Nest Database ( Public Access Restricted ) • CPW Preble ' s Meadow Jumping Mouse Trapping Database ( Public Access Restricted ) • CPW Species Activity Mapping (SAM ) • USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation ( IPaC) • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Database kimley-horn.com 4 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum io McKee Ranch Solar Site mley )> rn Federally Listed Species Kimley- Horn obtained an official species list from the USFWS IPaC system on April 4 , 2023 . The list includes nine (9 ) threatened , endangered , or candidate species as potentially occurring within the project area . There are no federally designated critical habitats within the project area . Based on aerial imagery, there is a low likelihood of suitable habitat for USFWS IPaC listed species . Kimley- Horn recommends a habitat suitability site survey for USFWS IPaC listed species prior to development activities . State Listed Species Kimley- Horn consulted the CPW SAM database for documented wildlife species and their seasonal uses within the project area on April 11 , 2023 . There are no CPW seasonal closures , restrictions , or limitations for big game or other wildlife species mapped within the project area . Black-tailed prairie dog "colony potential occurrence" and "overall range" are mapped as intersecting the project area . If live prairie dogs need to be relocated away from the project area , a CPW application is required . No permit is required to transport dead prairie dogs to a wildlife rehabilitator for donation . Migratory Birds and Raptors There have been several hundred documented species of migratory birds in Colorado , and they are well-adapted to a variety of habitats . Migratory birds may nest on the ground , on structures , or in trees , shrubs , or other vegetation within the project area . All birds in Colorado are protected under the MBTA, except for nonnative species such as house sparrows (Passer domesticus) and rock doves ( Columba livia ) ( USFWS 2020 ) . Based on aerial imagery, there is a moderate likelihood of suitable migratory bird habitat within the project area . Pre- construction migratory bird nest surveys are recommended if disturbance activities are to occur during the nesting season (April 1 — August 31 ) . All raptor species are protected in Colorado . There are various CPW development buffers for raptor nests depending on the type of raptor species and disturbance activity . CPW publishes a mapped raptor nest geospatial database . One raptor nest was mapped approximately 0 . 16 mile south of the project area . This nest was classified as an "active" Swainson 's hawk nest last surveyed in May of 2021 . For Swainson 's hawks , CPW recommends " no surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area ) within 1 mile radius of active nests . No permitted , authorized , or human encroachment activities within 1/4 mile radius of active nests" . The CPW raptor nest database is typically accurate at representing the location of historic raptor nests ; however, it is often not up-to-date or all-encompassing . Pre- construction raptor nest surveys are recommended if disturbance activities are to occur during the nesting season ( November 15 — October 31 ) . The CPW SAM database mapped a bald eagle winter concentration and a winter forage area as being approximately 0 . 75 mile southwest of the project area . For winter night roosts and communal roosts , CPW recommends " No permitted , authorized , or human encroachment activities within 1 mile ( 1320 feet , 400 meters) radius of an active night and/or communal roost from November 15 through March 15 if there is no direct line of sight between the roost kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum McKee Ranch Solar Site Kimley )>> Horn and the activity. No permitted , authorized , or human encroachment activities within 1/2 mile (2640 feet, 800 meters) radius of an active night or communal roost from November 15 through March 15 if there is a direct line of sight between the roost and the activity" . Though the project area is outside of the CPW protected buffer, Kimley- Horn still recommends a pre- construction bald eagle survey if disturbance activities are to occur during the bald eagle winter roost and communal roost season ( November 15 — March 15 ) . Environmental Permitting Summary Federally regulated resource concerns on site are limited to a potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U . S . feature intersecting the project area , potentially suitable nesting habitat for migratory bird species, and a potentially active raptor nest. Impacts to these resources are anticipated to be avoidable through appropriate pre-construction surveys and site planning . N o associated permitting is anticipated to be needed with U . S . Army Corps of Engineers , U SFWS , or CPW. There is no federal nexus for the project (e . g . no federal funding , no federal lands and no federal permits) ; accordingly, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act is not applicable . The site lies within Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zone X and is in panel #08123C1530E (effective 1 /20/2016 ) . Flood Zone X consists of areas with a 0 . 2 % annual chance of flooding and areas with otherwise minimal risk of flooding . Floodplain permitting is not applicable to the project. The project will not require a point source water discharge permit. It is expected that a Stormwater Management Plan will be required to protect affected drainage systems and to ensure stormwater runoff meets the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment ( CDPHE ) Water Quality Control Division (WQCD ) standards . A general permit number C0G080000 with the CDPHE WQCD may also be required during application to the county. The new general permit number C0G080000 has been developed to authorize short-term discharges of source water that comes in contact with short-term construction activities to waters of the state . The project location in Weld County is in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for NO2 , PM2 . 5 , PM10 , SO2 , Pb , and 1 -hour Ozone (O3 ) . The Proposed Project location is considered non -attainment for the 8-hour O3 standard and a maintenance area for the CO standard according to the EPA's current Green Book and the CDPHE ( USEPA 2023 ) . Best practices during construction activities should be followed to minimize combustion of gas and emissions of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere . Air quality permitting is limited to a Land Development Air Pollution Emissions Notice (APEN ) with CDPHE . Best Management P ractices associated with the APEN will be incorporated into project design . kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum McKee Ranch Solar Site Kimley )>> Horn P lease contact me at (720 ) 295-6923 orjesse . carlson@kimley-horn . com should you have any questions . S incerely, drolje50/4D Jesse Carlson Wildlife Biologist Attachments: • Federal and State Listed Species Mapped within the Project Area • USFWS IPaC Report References U nited States Environmental Protection Agency . 2023 . Green Book . Available at: https ://www3 . epa . gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo co . html U nited States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ) . 2020 . List of Bird Species to Which the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Apply. Accessed at: https : //www .federalreg ister. gov/documents/2020/04/ 16/2020-06782/list-of-bird -species-to- which-the-migratory-bird -treaty-act-does- not-apply kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley >>> Horn FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED SPECIES MAPPED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Al Kimley >>> Horn United States Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation Listed Species Mapped within the Project Area Species Conservation Potential to Occur in Status Project Area Eastern Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. Threatened Low jamaicensis) Gray Wolf Endangered Low ( Canis lupus) Monarch Butterfly Candidate Low (Danaus plexippus) Pallid Sturgeon Endangered Low ( Scaphirhynchus albus) Piping Plover Threatened Low ( Charadrius melodus) Preble 's Meadow Jumping Mouse Threatened Low (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Ute Ladies'-tresses Threatened Low (Spiranthes diluvialis) Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Threatened Low (Platanthera praeclara) Whooping Crane Endangered Low ( Grus americanus) Eastern Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis spp. jamaicensis) Eastern black rail , a threatened bird species, is found in both coastal and interior areas of the eastern United States , but the majority of detections are from coastal sites. Rails that reside in Colorado are known to migrate to Texas to overwinter and , as such , are typically only encountered in Colorado during the spring and summer. These birds are wetland dependent, requiring dense overhead cover and soils that are moist to saturated (occasionally dry) and interspersed with or adjacent to very shallow water (typically ≤ 3 cm ) to support their resource needs . Critical habitat has not been designated for this species ( USFWS 2019 ) . This species is known to occur in Weld County, Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based on aerial imagery. No impacts to this species are anticipated . Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus) Gray wolf, an endangered mammal species , is an adaptive species that can thrive in a variety of habitats . The historical range for this species covered much of the continental United States , including Colorado ( USFWS 2023a ) . However, this species was eradicated from Colorado in the 1940 's due to shooting , trapping , and poisoning . The United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ) has restored gray wolf populations in Colorado 's neighboring states over the past decade and there have been occasional wolf migrants observed in Colorado . The current range is limited to a few individual animals located in north-central Colorado counties that share a border with Wyoming (CPW 2022 ) . Gray wolves should be considered in the effect analysis only if the project in question has a predator management program . The proposed project does not include a predator management program ; therefore , no impacts to this species are anticipated . A-2 Kimley >>> a rn Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Monarch butterfly , a candidate insect species , is a migratory species that is found in North America . Monarchs breed throughout most of the United States and southern Canada and overwinters in central Mexico . The monarch butterfly requires milkweed (Asclepias sp. ) for survival . Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of flowering milkweed , and larvae require milkweed as a host plant ( USFWS 2023b ) . Consultation with USFWS under section 7 of the Endangered S pecies Act ( ESA) is not required for candidate species , like the monarch butterfly . No impacts to this species are anticipated . P reble 's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) The Preble 's meadow jumping mouse is a nocturnal mouse that occupies the eastern edges of the Front Range in Colorado . Habitat for Preble 's is typically comprised of well-developed riparian vegetation with adjacent , relatively undisturbed grassland communities and a nearby water source ( USFWS 2023c) . Preble 's riparian habitats are close to creeks , typically within the 100- year floodplain , and feature dense , multi-story horizontal cover of shrubs and trees with an u nderstory of forbs and grasses . Upland habitats are usually immediately adjacent to the riparian habitats or within 300 feet of the 100-year floodplain . The USFWS has designated critical habitat , as well as block clearance area for this species . Block clearance areas are portions of land where P reble 's meadow jumping mouse ESA precautions are no longer necessary. The project area is o utside of critical habitat and is not within a block clearance area for this species . Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) publishes a Preble 's meadow jumping mouse trapping location database . There are no trapping events in or near the project area . The closest trapping event is located approximately 1 . 8 miles south of the project area . No mice were trapped at this location . This species is known to occur in Weld County, Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based o n aerial imagery . No impacts to this species are anticipated . Ute Ladies ' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Ute ladies'-tresses , a threatened orchid species , occurs near the base of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains in southeastern Wyoming and Nebraska and north -central and central Colorado . The species prefers habitat dominated by low vegetative cover associated with floodplains , perennial stream terraces , and oxbows . Critical habitat has not been designated for the species ( USFWS 2023d ) . The flowering period for this species is between July and September. This species is known to occur in Weld County , Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based on aerial imagery. No impacts to this species are anticipated . Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) The Western prairie fringed orchid , a federally threatened orchid species , is mapped by the U SFWS as occurring in Colorado east of the Continental Divide , from south of Colorado Springs to the northern border with Wyoming . The orchid species occurs in mesic to wet unplowed tallgrass prairies and meadows but has been found in old fallow fields and roadside ditches . This species flowers from mid -June through early July. Based on aerial imagery , the project area is comprised of disturbed uplands and lacks the wetland component required for this species . The project is also surrounded by human disturbance . Critical habitat has not been designated for the species ( USFWS 2023e ) . This species is known to occur in Weld County, Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based on aerial imagery . No impacts to this species are anticipated . A-3 Kimley *> Horn Whooping Crane ( Grus americanus) The whooping crane breeds , migrates , winters , and forages in a variety of wetland and other habitats , including coastal marshes and estuaries , inland marshes , lakes , ponds, wet meadows and rivers , and agricultural fields. Whooping cranes breed and nest in wetland habitat in Wood - Buffalo National Park , Canada . Bulrush is the dominant vegetation type in the potholes used for nesting , although cattail , sedge , musk-grass, and other aquatic plants are common . Nest sites are primarily located in shallow diatom ponds that contain bulrush . During migration , whooping cranes use a variety of habitats ; however, wetland mosaics appear to be the most suitable . For feeding , whooping cranes primarily use shallow, seasonally and semi permanently flooded palustrine wetlands for roosting , and various cropland and emergent wetlands . In Nebraska , whooping cranes also often use riverine habitats . Wintering habitat in the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge , Texas , includes salt marshes and tidal flats on the mainland and barrier islands , dominated by salt grass , saltwort, smooth cordgrass , glasswort, and sea ox-eye ( USFWS 2023f) . This species is known to occur in Weld County, Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based on aerial imagery. No impacts to this species are anticipated . An additional two (2 ) listed species identified in the IPaC documentation should be considered in the effect analysis if water-related activities or use occur in the North and South Platte and Laramie River Basins as they may affect listed species in Nebraska ( USFWS 2023g and USFWS 2023h ) . These species include the piping plover ( Charadrius melodus) and pallid sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus albus) . Colorado Parks and Wildlife Species Activity Map Listed Species within the Project Area Species Seasonal Use Black-tailed Prairie Dog Colony Potential Occurrence ( Cynomys ludovicianus) Overall Range Big Brown Bat Overall Range (Eptesicus fuscus) Bull Snake Overall Range (Pituophis catenifer sayi) Canada Geese Foraging Area (Branta canadensis) Winter Range Common Garter Snake Overall Range ( Thamnophis sirtalis) Common Lesser Earless Lizard Overall Range (Holbrookia maculate) Hernandez's Short-horned Lizard Overall Range (Phrynosoma hernandesi) Hoary Bat Overall Range (Lasiurus cinereus) Iowa Dater HUC 12 Presence (Etheostoma exile) Little Brown Myotis Overall Range (Myotis lucifungus) Many-lined Skink Overall Range (Plestiodon multivirgatus) Milk Snake Overall Range (Lam propeltis triangulum) A-4 Kimley >>> Horn Species Seasonal Use Mule Deer Overall Range ( Odocoileus hemionus) North American Racer Overall Range ( Coluber constrictor) N orthern Watersnake Overall Range (Nerodia sipedon) Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Overall Range (Perognathus fasciatus) Orange-spotted Sunfish HUC 12 Presence (Lepomis humilis) Ornate Box Turtle Overall Range ( Terrapene ornata ornata) Painted Turtle Overall Range ( Chrysemys picta) Plains Black-headed Snake Overall Range ( Tantilla nigriceps) P lains Gartner Snake Overall Range ( Thamnophis radix) Plains Hog -nosed Snake Overall Range ( Heterodon nasicus) P lateau Fence Lizard Overall Range (Sceloporus tristichus) Prairie Lizard Overall Range (Sceloporus undulatus) Prairie Rattlesnake Overall Range ( Crotalus viridi) Preble 's Meadow Jumping Mouse Overall Range (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Red Bat Overall Range (Lasiurus borealis) Ring-necked Pheasant Overall Range (Phasianus colchicus) Silver-haired Bat Overall Range (Lasionycteris noctivagans) S ix-lined Racerunner Overall Range (Aspidoscelis sexlineata) Snapping Turtle Overall Range ( Chelydra serpentine) Terrestrial Garter Snake Overall Range ( Thamnophis elegans) Tri-colored Bat Overall Range (Perimyotis subflavus) Variable Skink Overall Range (Plestiodon multivirgatus epipleurotus) Western Rattlesnake Overall Range ( Crotalus atrox) White-tailed Deer Overall Range ( Odocoileus virginianus) White-tailed Jackrabbit Overall Range A-5 Kimley >>> Horn Species Seasonal Use (Lepus townsendii) References Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) . 2022 . Wolf Management. Available at: https : //cpw. state . co . us/learn/Pages/CON -Wolf- Management . aspx U nited States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ) . 2019 . Species status assessment report for the eastern black rail (Laterallusjamaicensisjamaicensis) , Version 1 . 3 August 2019 . Atlanta , GA U SFWS . 2023a . Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus) . Available at: https ://ecos . fws . gov/ecp/species/4488 U SFWS . 2023b . Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) . Available at: https : //ecos . fws . gov/ecp/species/9743 U SFWS . 2023c. Preble 's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) . Available at: https : //ecos .fws . gov/ecp/species/4090 U SFWS . 2023d . Ute Ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) . Available at: https : //ecos . fws . gov/ecp/species/2159 U SFWS . 2023e . Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara) . Available at: https ://ecos .fws . gov/ecp/species/1 669 U SFWS . 2023f. Whooping crane ( Grus americanus) . Available at: https : //ecos . fws . gov/ecp/species/758 U SFWS . 2023g . Pallid Sturgeon ( Scaphirhychus albus) . Available at: https : //ecos . fws . gov/ecp/species/7162 U SFWS . 2023h . Piping Plover ( Chardarius melodus) . Available at: https : //ecos . fws . gov/ecp/species/6039 A-6 r �a;r. X1 1:1 ark LIJLII bL, red —as United States Department of the Interior alate FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE - '119 1i a• 4'91 Colorado Ecological Services Field Office -Air �i' ° Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25486 Denver, CO 80225-0486 Phone: (303) 236-4773 Fax: (303) 236-4005 In Reply Refer To : April 04, 2023 Project Code : 2023-0064603 Project Name : McKee Ranch Subject : List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended ( 16 U. S . C . 1531 et seq. ) . New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402 . 12 (e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days . This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS -IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)( 1 ) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq. ), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U. S . C . 4332 (2) 04/04/2023 2 (c)) . For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402 . 12 . If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402 . In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http ://www. fws. gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS . PDF Migratory Birds : In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project-related impacts . Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U . S . Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C .F. R. Sec. 10 . 12 and 16 U. S . C . Sec. 668(a)) . For more information regarding these Acts see https : //www.fws. gov/birds/policies-and-regulations .php . The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities . It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus) . Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project-related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project-related stressors . For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https ://www. fws. gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to- birds .php . In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186 : Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations . Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https ://www. fws. gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0- 13186 .php . php . We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species . The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office . 04/04/2023 3 Attachment(s) : ■ Official Species List 04/04/2023 1 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to " request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action " . This species list is provided by: Colorado Ecological Services Field Office Denver Federal Center P. O. Box 25486 Denver, CO 80225-0486 (303) 236-4773 04/04/2023 2 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code : 2023-0064603 Project Name : McKee Ranch Project Type : New Constr - Above Ground Project Description : Site analysis Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps : https : // www. google .com/maps/@40 .4785403,- 104. 71813368397248, 14z 1 P 3 Y N T.. r Counties : Weld County, Colorado 04/04/2023 3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 3 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions . IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats " section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1 . NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME STATUS Gray Wolf Canis lupus Endangered Population: U.S.A. : All of AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, and WV; and portions of AZ, NM, OR, UT, and WA. Mexico. There is final critical habitat for this species. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ■ Lone, dispersing gray wolves may be present throughout the state of Colorado. If your activity includes a predator management program, please consider this species in your environmental review. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4488 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4090 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/WZSWOCVWJFGSBG6P6KPYRR63EE/ documents/generated/6861.pdf 04/04/2023 4 BIRDS NAME STATUS Eastern Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. jamaicensis Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10477 Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Population: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations] - Wherever found, except those areas where listed as endangered. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ■ Project includes water-related activities and/or use in the N. Platte, S. Platte, and Laramie River Basins which may affect listed species in Nebraska. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039 Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: hops://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758 FISHES NAME STATUS Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: • Project includes water-related activities and/or use in the N. Platte, S. Platte, and Laramie River Basins which may affect listed species in Nebraska. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7162 INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 FLOWERING PLANTS NAME STATUS Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159 Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1669 04/04/2023 5 CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. 04/04/2023 6 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Kimley-Horn Name : Jesse Carlson Address : 380 Interlocken Crescent Suite 100 City: Broomfield State : CO Zip : 80021 Email jesse .carlsonkimley-horn. com Phone : 2532982432 CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Sewage Disposal Documentation No sewage disposal will be required for the operation of the Project . CBEP Solar 16 , LLC or its contractor will provide portable toilets during construction . (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 frik (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Traffic Narrative 1 . Describe how many roundtrips/day are expected for each vehicle type : Passenger Cars/ Pickups , Tandem Trucks, Semi -Truck/Trailer/ RV ( Roundtrip = One ( 1 ) trip in and One ( 1 ) trip out of site) . • Maximum anticipated number of daily trips during peak period of construction : 10 - 15 vehicles per day during peak construction 7am - 3 : 30pm general hours Monday - Friday . • % of heavy vehicles during peak period of construction : 5 - 10% During first few months of construction . • Typical anticipated number of daily trips after construction is complete : 2 - 4 trips per year depending on O& M contract details . 2 . Describe the expected travel routes or haul routes for site traffic . • The primary haul/travel route will be North on US-85 , West on CO-392 , South on County Road 37 , and then arriving at the Western access point for the Project. 3 . Describe the travel distribution along the routes (e . g . 50% of traffic will come from the north , 20% from the south , 30% from the east, etc . ) . • 100% of the expected travel will follow the primary travel/haul route detailed above . 4 . Describe the time of day that you expect the highest traffic volumes. • 7 : 00am - 3 : 30pm MAID OF PRIMARY ROUTE: i - __a 1 y - II hi 1 11si t I I , ll. r_ �-_�' •- 4 ' Ir � _!, i Oil \ii hone ree e i 411. li i ti tlat i 4 1 i. 0 a Irr2 II Ililii 1 4 — "tO r ft ii....I.I icir - , I 0 , I ! i f ,`, a 17• K`i 6 1 111 itig ht I R r ' IF 1 II litIc ti ■ el New - p - ree1 �1 w , _ �.� 2 __ _ _ _ I ft I at I' en" pi 4f I'its,. .I I III t' t' r I _ I I if x i• W 1- realIFP I\ piA t II 4 I % .-S, ir I h Illivi 11it . Ai Ito WO 4 lik IP ate _ _ r , 1� ; 404t 4 . h li ♦ aid al r bil ••• 4 i Iciiii she as hi .. __ I pi . it" r 1i illirn W > ° fer 'rte - - ps11 a ! Y I. i • as- P . R , , ,„ , • w I. I AP i fr-F - .: 1 , r.,..,.: t, i ,i_,,, 4 il L kir z,„ • i, i L1,-. o - .. , , I . 40. a 7', �� ,,; ,• = s• r - I Ian 9 ° � o 1 ° ;_ . _ �� r - i1 4 -',1 'g Ion aI Park: I . • i II .,K _ I!+ { A -• p I ' tae,' - - al 1. _ „ �� r.mitt ,. vi ir ii I i ' > li _ 4 1. .I _ H 1 __ _. . ___ N ! . . y 1l .r 'ail ! !' z _ I. -. ' e+ °! _ Z + ( f I ill ait 1 I i _ 740 • A 1 tel. a 41111/4. i ( r. lit i . 1 4711;11 I � ; s, I,i wl ' D' 9 b I CITrec by 'Hilton ''-Y 1 u I -Iv r 71;41 1 II ilt , 4' Pr i- il cost 4S01 4 11 t I N $ illf a k strAi I I >1 Harbor Freight Tools, le , ,I ( k 4 , • ,i I. I , — —� 1. a �!_ 1 I. F.ll ' it fit :. �ra ,� 11 - : _� �' a:fBUS r� y • ;Gee1 .. ,2 _ - I , .� 4 . a • , � r �, Greeley' fir: ' 'a �M ' , ' �i �,� n , � i II!' s 4 = KimIey ) o rn March 7 , 2023 Mr. Zach Brammer CloudBreak Energy Partners , LLC 218 S . 3rd Street Sterling , Colorado 80751 Re : CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar Traffic Study Letter Weld County , Colorado Dear Mr. Brammer: This traffic study letter has been prepared for the proposed CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar project located in Weld County , Colorado . The purpose of this letter is to provide trip generation , trip distribution , and project traffic assignment for the construction phase of the proposed solar project to determine the anticipated increase in traffic attributable to the proposed project. The proposed development is located on the southwest corner of the State Highway 392 (SH - 392 ) and Weld County Road 37 (WCR- 37) intersection . A vicinity map illustrating the location of CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar is attached as Figure 1 . The project will consist of a 7 . 5 MW solar facility with supporting infrastructure . A site plan for the proposed development is attached . This traffic study identifies the amount of traffic associated with this proposed development during both construction and operational phases , and the expected trip distribution and traffic assignment . CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND ACCESS Construction activity to assemble the entire solar facility is anticipated to commence Quarter 1 of 2024 . The construction activities each month may vary based on phasing and the size of the phase . This traffic study was prepared analyzing the peak construction traffic during the highest months of activity . Construction will generally follow these steps : • Mobilization • Civil/site preparation • Cable plow/foundations construction • Post install • Racking install • Substation construction • Set major equipment • Module installation • Testing , commissioning , and energization • Demobilization Regional access to CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar will be provided by US- 85 . Primary access will be provided by SH - 392 while direct access is proposed from one full movement access on the west side of WCR- 37 . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 CloudBreak — McKee Ranch Kimley >>> o r n Traffic Study Letter Page 2 The anticipated truck routes to CloudBreak — McKee Ranch Solar is via US-85 if traveling from the north , south , or east and along SH -392 if traveling from the west . The anticipated truck route to the site from US-85 is to travel west on SH - 392 , south along WCR-37 , then west into the project site access . The anticipated vehicle route to the site from the west is to travel east on SH - 392 , south along WCR-37 , then west into the project site access . Figure 2 illustrates the truck routes to and from the site . TRIP GENERATION Site- generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation . The number of trips for the CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar facility was based on anticipated construction activity and operations . In order to study the effect of construction traffic created by the solar facility , the expected trips during the peak period of construction were used as the basis for this study . The peak construction traffic activity is anticipated to occur in 2024 . Construction Traffic Generation The typical construction peak season workday will see workers arriving during a four- hour window between 6 : 00 am and 10 : 00 am and departing during a three- hour window between 1 : 00 pm and 4 : 00 pm . The standard construction hours are anticipated to be 6 : 30 am to 3 : 30 pm . The highest proportion of workers will arrive to the site between 6 : 00 and 7 : 00 am ( half) and depart between 3 : 00 pm to 4 : 00 pm (one-third) , although the volume will be fairly uniform during the arrival and departure hours . It is anticipated that construction of the facility will include a maximum of 20 construction workers . It is important to note the truck trip generation also includes the volume adjusted for the three ( 3) passenger car equivalents ( PCE) per truck. The following Table 1 identifies the peak construction activity trip generation for the construction of CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar facility . Table 1 — Trip Generation : CloudBreak — McKee Ranch Solar Development la Weekday Vehicles Trips Daily Round Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour User Trips Trips In Out Total In Out Total Heavy Duty Trucks ( 5) 5 10 3 0 3 0 2 2 PCE Trips 15 30 9 0 9 0 6 6 Passenger Vehicles (20) 20 40 10 0 10 0 7 7 Total Vehicles 25 50 13 0 13 0 9 9 Total PCE 35 70 19 0 19 0 13 13 As shown in the table above , CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar is expected to generate approximately 50 daily trips (25 round trips) with 13 of these trips occurring in the morning peak hour and nine (9) of these trips occurring in the afternoon peak hour during the peak construction activities . This volume of daily traffic of 50 trips is expected to be the highest volume generated during solar facility construction . Solar Facility Operational Phase Traffic Generation After the CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar project has been constructed , the number of trips generated by the solar plant is expected to be significantly less than during the construction period , approximately one vehicle per week (2 weekly trips) . Therefore , traffic impacts related to the operation of the solar plant facility will be negligible and insignificant . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 CloudBreak — McKee Ranch Kimley >>> o r n Traffic Study Letter Page 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution is based on the anticipated arrival location of employees along with the delivery route to be used for truck traffic. It is anticipated that truck traffic from the east will utilize the intersection of US-85 and SH -392 and use SH -392 to head west, then travel south along WCR- 37 , and head west into the site . Truck traffic from the west will travel east along SH -392 , then travel south along WCR- 37 , and head west into the site . Construction worker trips will be based on the arrival location from place of residence ( permanent or temporary) . The distribution for construction worker trips was derived based on distances to nearby cities and populations . The City of Greeley is located approximately 6 miles southeast of the site and the Town of Windsor is located approximately 9 . 5 miles west of the project site . Further west , approximately 25 miles northwest of the site is the City of Fort Collins . The City of Loveland is approximately 23 . 5 miles to the southwest . Based on these factors , it is anticipated that 50 percent of the traffic will be to and from the west and 50 percent of the traffic will be to and from the east. Attached Figure 3 illustrates the anticipated project trip distribution while the project traffic assignment volumes for construction activities is shown in attached Figure 4 . CDOT ACCESS PERMIT Indirect access for the site will be provided from SH - 392 at WCR- 37 . Since WCR-37 runs parallel to SH -85 and only has two single family residences and an oil wall between SH -392 and AA Street, a temporary CDOT access permit is anticipated to be needed for the south leg of WCR-37 at SH -392 due to construction project volumes increasing existing traffic volumes by more than 20 percent. CONCLUSION In summary , the CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar construction activity project traffic shows a very low traffic volume assigned to the surrounding street network. Further, trips are negligible during the operational phase of the solar facility . Based on these results , CloudBreak - McKee Ranch Solar will have a minimal traffic impact. The public street roadways and adjacent intersections are anticipated to successfully accommodate this project traffic volume . A temporary CDOT access permit is anticipated to be needed for the south leg of WCR-37 at SH -392 due to construction project volumes increasing existing traffic volumes by more than 20 percent . If you have any questions or require anything further, please feel free to call . Sincerely , _ P Ci T ei • KIMLEY- HORN AND ASSOCIATES , �" to T'O INC .C F ntt. ,� py 0 \ erivisinck onis • 53OO6 9 : + �,� 03/07/2023 e'' Jeffrey R . Planck , P . E . tei , ' *� �•� Project Traffic Engineer i �,7X:fl 0 14NI p � cc� kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Figures Kinnl • * Horn IV a RTH NTS 196664000 �� int = . ,+ ft� irk ,. ,ts�. li,,,,.. 'itiR Fit C T11Y1171 1 ' itr • ,„ 1/41. Ili II 03 s:4„,.. lc . ., I elf al I Atli.' a mint 41 1 ;I I 4� ] } • ipir1 811 • IA v. ... • . Is,` }c'_ _ Is ±-_ 4. .. A • 4 . , % 4, .• ri L. ` I ro Ili' I ii , 1 0 l' ki LL1. 3 _la i. • ._ , „a, , ...„1 f , v a la t�s at L. _ '' 11 �+ I. SH 39, 2 ' zits h jgi_lit— I; , , Ill • t1 • iiiltitil : _ r _PI 4 i liI it ii , A I I • 4 POJHC T " ,, . ‘ „,i.„,or r--104,-,11i, tt 44 II ! �' ail .�,, . a I /ice Y ‘1 — — 1 1� - -- .�Ilk S TI : 1 • fin,. s: w .• Y lw• N R x,A Vii. — { - �-r ,yl: .Y� 1 i 'lt = Is + I-. .t — `� aim ! 1 rior Mk .,:ij it'a atele tat,: 1� i stn w 4 » 1 M p f'„ '. • •Y�.A .� •I lift 'v ' — Per Y VI 7 • f 1 ? r- �: ir V r 1 �a � .0,-..,; iA it -1 Al (�� a. 1'IR— »r. • 'R� M�!� Ir- �, J II 1 ^' -��^,. �, � n p 1'r +/1} '� ,).t 1,6r)s,v t'�- r�1� , ill ' A. ss Ili . • I'' 1 ,• el ss _ f Tl yi}•- '�(;,_� •rte- _.. N r a. a Ls i . , ilit I 64 r le!cy isi I �.�'a It i I V .'.. .'N' 1 - rr1 �f '�.--zit t , j� ~�'. w. G L I 'a r,' I�, � � �' 1 a M1 T . . rElar,: `. - BUSINESS U S- 3 4 . -^� ,_• �: + ,�. i 1 • ir .1 3 °'` j. ' .-=i ...4,--n, `ark `�( / g / > At :MD , I. . s. T ti !• - 1 el i.--3, a y. C k . i './ lef r iii t4.41; 1 ). - - la 4, max S/ 1 ,� Kr F. . �. 34 - b a '�1. . - - lit D. rg I ii `.: , • .'rr. V. - 11 `` -� g ii iii Op if FIGURE 1 C . OUDRREAK - MCKEE RAP I CH WELD COUNTY , COLORADO [ K. 1 ) H VICINITY MAP 4.4\ Kim * Horn N a etTI-1 NTS 196664000 rillVaal se - ... AA „,- - -1? - i - .. s- R.- a1>pw s ;AID• Mai i I ' ' 'i. �-` it _ti}- _ .. T� - , ` lit"/ 4 ,ni 1 T I •• r « 7@ II" L - • a I• I r = ii. - 011 i. •i, _ _ • 'f I gii I 1 , c Ili yoligii: r Mt k , 4 le ,,,,,, , .... . ... . , , , , J__ 71/4‘,, nI I jr. •\ f. 1 1 II•` 1 �pa /p *r Apt I'- (J� l^ 1 I Ii 1 - ‘1 ` ' li. I I1� _ � r LI - t II w w +4 lc 1 .; --- •ZI �,j .: SH - 392 r , ,L 1 i Ilir • ki'iliti \ ill, 14 l!, , __} \ et 7 ilk-7 i mime -.7i• _. -4,5 ''' 11; 0, , •I: ,:ir . . _ _ _ 4 it ily 1 i • 41 j a : - r III I et, I 1 Illri , ,,w14,4\ 1 sg, ,Iii - id I ilk I. • 4 _ ii I . _t r• tir lim 1 1 ---) RojE ci r _F . 944 I ., , , 4 SITE r 1 a Jr fAct . i I 1� ter' 1' ap ._ Z v, 1/4 , *, . 5:P• Iles FIGURE 2 LEGEND CLOUDRREAK I 1CKRANCH Proposed Truck Routes WEED COUNTY , COLORADO TRUCK ROUTE I- Kimi • 4 Horn N O ITT I-1 NTS 196664000 I .,. ] ° r SH-392 Q ,I , r: a .- ,r _vsie‘ , M 1' 1 • e a, � i -- 50°/ U / ..yr. r� 6 o 3 .ff0 11 t, 1� (1( ACCESS a'' /40, 'f o a spli• Is 'p ' .`sy.. • • .. ' 4 ,: : - - P ROJECT SH-392 & WCR-37 )--/ r Iii: WI SITE 2 c ,/_ i,l, , `_ - _ .2 o o. ' i l •Wiet . .., _ [100%1 ---7I c I T ' -tom." t" -j - i' WCR-37 ACCESS ) C LEGEND X Study Area Key Intersection FCURE 3 XX% External Trip Distribution Percentage CLOUDRREAK - HcKEE PAl I CH xx7. xx % Entering [ Exiting ] [ ] WEED COUN I Y , COLOPAD0 Trip Distribution Percentage PROJECT TRIP DSlPHUHOlI c N ml *Horn N O RTH NTS 196664000 ...„._ ..., _4, _1, ' j ` SH-392 _ i• (1 ' 25 r - � _ •��e `I I' '3 N � to 4 1 1 ''// f '_ t 3 .4- r.• r.E. , 7-.4 , . I ..„..... is. a, ACCESS0 �4 f a a_ , . Ri,,, r , 6(0) "- __ _ " 1 . . , . ., \ w . 1 • ' P 0 J E C T SH-392 & WCR-37 r ' � _ SITE 2 n �� 1,I'• f - hArDi `l 0 \ ---"' ..-- I r 0(9) —71 y \� , , - - - _ . — l ,: i tponiass :, 1F--. . `---_ - -- _ _ ` " `�„ _i _- • WCR-37 ACCESS ) 4 - -- ._- -,-, . .7* - t..__.,, _ _ ..... LEGEND (x) FIGURE 4 Study Area Key Intersection CLOUDBREAK - MCKEE RANCH XXX ( XXX ) Weekday AI 1 ( PI 1 ) WELD COUNTY COLORADO Peak Hour Traffic Volumes , PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT : xxx Estimated Daily Traffic Volume CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY [ K. 1 ) ii I Conceptual Site Plan rY 0_ 0_ Q USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW USR XX XXXX W I- 0 MCKEE RANCH SOLAR PROJECT >_ \ I WELD COUNTY 1 1 • 0 (7) - _ LEGEND I21-1-1> U I �� Z • • ., • i a a la a. - _ HIGHWAY 392 - • • - • - • - • - • - • • _ EASEMENT Q •�� -0 11*--- "'"'"------------v- 60 ' HIGHWAY — — — - — - PROPERTY LINE < I 1 - -,- ' _ __. _., mt.- -- RIGHT- OF - WAY --= _-= EXISTING RIGHT— OF — WAY - - - \ o 0 X X X X X X X X CC \ I • _ _ EXISTING ROAD Ld z N n I 1 X PROPOSED FENCE A 2 I Z � r►-, EXISTING NWI WETLAND X EXISTING FENCE Q W �- �, I Aw z F Li G EXISTING GAS LINE a m Q i- — - LEASE AREA D 1 a (-51 N O z9 1 9 1 0 1 9 9 1 11 1 1 1 1 9 9 1 9 9 9 1 1 9 9 11 1 9 1 1 1 9 9 1 9 1 9 1 1 9 0 11 9 9 1 1 1 I E PROPOSED ELECTRIC z 1 J w I PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE w CD U D x I FO EXISTING FIBER LINE = x I c U OH PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC Z F v) \ 0 LLI I z OH EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC c0 — — — 1 U • 0 \ \ ril ) 1 PROPOSED SETBACK C Z \ \ X o I - PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL CQ o I - — X X . X - X EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR = \>-LLI50I ' GRAHAM SEEPAGE & o r m DRAINAGE CANAL II z - XXX EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR 2 D I >- RIGHT— OF — WAY, DEVELOPER N PROPOSED EQUIPMENT PLATFORMS . EXISTING 25 ' P & A O Z IS NEGOTIATING CROSSINGN ' S ' ' ' ' ' ' U 1 ►�� rNr1 �• SEE SHEET 3 . 0 DETAIL 4 WELL HEAD SETBACKQ AGREEMENT x �, PROPOSED ROAD X PER WELD COUNTY I I I I I I U ct_ \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I0 C NN. ►�� Q PROPOSED PERMANENT STORAGE --N . CODE 23 - 3 - 70 — E I z I H I I o Z N TRAILERS I w 0 C 0II PROPOSED PV PANELS I PROPOSED POWER POLE I- N N M I ao0 _ l PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD N DX �� ,/- xI ^AWM cn 0 Z SEE TURN AROUND DETAIL 60 ' ROAD ,II\ 7 '� KPROPOSED PERMANENT 8c TEMPORARY \ SHEET 3 . 0 DETAIL 3 RIGHT— OF— WAY TRAILERS dc — �� A L E R Sdc :I r:2-' II\ r .... .... .D \ [1 11 [1 [1 H H [1 [1 H 11 a::: : i. e. \ ,__ 1 a) § p) o Y N PROPOSED TEMPORARY I _ 0 1 < < 1 w CONSTRUCTION TRAILER x I I w PROPOSED UNDERGROUND >_ w O oD ELECTRIC H l 0 O N > � (g _ \ o Y _ 0 Z NO I— U i s s I 6 I I I § 6 s I I See § § s I § e \— PROPOSED EQUIPMENT "SI 0 Z Y PLATFORMS . SEE SHEET I N _ NO Q N w N 3 . 0 DETAIL 4 x 1 cp , 0 X o N w 30 ' AMENDMENT OF GRANT ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' i•' n I CI_ OF EASEMENT DEVELOPER N PROPOSED OVERHEAD 'O E ELECTRIC CONNECTION DESIGNED BY: JCH No m IS NEGOTIATING CROSSING DRAWN BY: JCH N 2 AGREEMENT i SITE STATISTICS .cc CHECKED BY: AJH N 2 AGREEMENT iNLL I DATE : 04 /27 /23 \ial Y _ _ COVERAGE TYPE AREA ( SQUARE FEET) .tW X 1 IX \ Vo U , — / — z I CONCRETE 8 , 247 I EK /� I PROPOSED VEHICULAR ACCESS GRAVEL 31 , 570 > < ci., .. _,, rni� � II >- _ / / I LANDSCAPING NA I— _= _U x / Ii z 9 9 9 1 1 1 11 9 9 9 1 9 1 1 11 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 11 9 11 9 ,I 9 9 9 1 11 9 9 9 9 9 11 9 1 9 9 9 9 / 9 9 9 9 1 SWALES NA -Oo — I D ou- -- U � ________- I I GRASS /VACANT 1 810 0370 I J '� I f f II I SOLAR RACKING 0 506 360 � Z¢ � 1 � W _ /' V 0 4) 'Y I EXISTING FENCE in Co - 0c - ] LU 0 U J �� ' ' J EXISTING FIBER LINE Q i= I Q Q J el- ° I- II -cctIII I U / 11 / / 1 / 9 11 9 / / 9 9 1 9 1 ;� < 2 Li W W 0 )- � Y x - PROPOSED EQUIPMENT PLATFORMS . Ii J /Z :I)/ EXISTING GRAHAM Z 0_ 1- EXISTING GAS LINE SEE SHEET 3 . 0 DETAIL 4 w SEEPAGE AND W IDRAINAGE CANAL \as/ O c 20 ' PIPELINE RIGHT- OF - WAY co Z z a� -_ GRANT. DEVELOPER IS ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' o0 °' NEGOTIATING CROSSING I I < W iiiime AGREEMENT x I W 1 I D i-eo __________ --- LIJ _________ LLI w �— � b 3 -------- ---------- — — SITEPLAN 0_ Fc5 I 1 " = 100' 0 ________ ,_ 1 __________ ___ .-b________i_,_,, z x • I I (n ____ _ -. < II �� _ 2 O < il x ______ _________ _________ 1 O _______ Z --- 1111 1 0 ---- w _ -- - -` - o II I ow \ I . Olt ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' PROPOSED ± 52 . 19 I NORTH II X PRELIMINARY al � . , , , ACRE LEASE AREA I U x EXISTING 150' WELL Log] FOR REVIEW ONLY 1 I /Z HEAD SETBACK / /123 . 9 '2NOT FOR PER WELD COUNTY / \ I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET o i-D CODE 23 - 3 - 70 — E 0 50 100 200 CONSTRUCTION I -0 o x X x X X X / / / / KimIey '* Horn U X X 0 = II Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. cm O • D I ,< I Lc) / / - -_ 1 PROJECT NO . 196664000 oW \ i / / . I DRAWING NAME - r.... U F IZ ' • 111 z 3 I i �.. Q Q -"U) 2 . 0 McKee Ranch - CBEP Solar 16 Neighborhood Meeting Minutes Greeley Recreation Center Thursday, Aug 10 , 2023 Start Time : 6 : 16pm Speaker: Brysen Daughton , Zach Brammer In Attendance : 1 . Kelvin Kerst 2 . Sherri Kerst Neighbor Correspondence : Kelvin : So here 's what it comes down to . . . we acknowledged when we moved into a rural area that rural activities could take place there , they could put a dairy to the north of me . So there are certain options that would be even less desirable than a solar farm . But ultimately what it comes down to is its impact on property values . And I know you have studies showing that there is no impact, but I can find you studies that show that there is . Brysen : What we reference is showing either no impact or a positive impact because there could be something worse going in there like a feedlot or oil and gas . There 's quite a bit of oil and gas on this property already. With our studies it shows that with proper vegetative screening or proper visual screening , it doesn 't impact home values , but yes you ' re right. You can always find studies that find the opposite . Kelvin : I am a stats freak . It was the only course I had 4 . 0s in all courses in college . What I got out of that? Liars figure and figures lie , tell me what you want to say and I can model it. From our perspective , honestly it's not that I ' m worried about solar panels , solar panels themselves aren 't the problem . I ' m not scared of solar panels , the only thing we ' re scared of is that at my age , we are not going to be there as long as those solar panels . And someone is going to come in and buy my property. And when they do . . .well , buyers are always looking for excuses to lower the price , and sellers are always looking for reasons to raise the price . Now, this solar farm is going to be the first thing that comes up . If it's not visible to them , it kind of cancels it out. When we talk about screening , what are your guys' spots or intentions right now? I won 't bother with what I like , but just in general . Brysen : Let's bother with what you like , though . Currently, we' re doing rocky mountain junipers . We are kind of limited , we need to have drought tolerant trees , water is precious in Colorado so we' re trying to plant something that will survive Kelvin : You want water, come to my place . Brysen : This year's been nuts . Kelvin : On the screening side , the type of trees . Yes , please use drought tolerant trees , but are you going to have a method to water them ? Brysen : Yeah , we ' re going to establish them with a water truck the first few years . If there's heavy drought conditions , if they don 't actually establish , we will be out there with a water truck and keep watering them . Kelvin : For how long ? Brysen : Until they take hold . And if there's ever a dry season or excessive heat , we ' ll be out watering again . Weld County is going to require us to maintain a vegetative screening . Kelvin : Well whether they require it or whether they follow through is different . The next thing is , planting a tree there when I ' m 60 years old , it will take 20 years so ill be about 80 to reach maturity. Brysen : Yeah , we plant them to be 5-6 feet tall , so it's going to be a while for them to be fully grown and fully screened . Kelvin : Are there any berming considerations? Brysen : No , we don 't do berms . I think we' re open to it, but it's one of those things that when we' re changing the floodplains , that can get sticky with the county. We could consider it but haven 't dug too deeply into it . Kelvin : Sorry but I ' m not buying the floodplain issue with a berm in one area running the same direction . Brysen : Yeah we can look into it . Do you prefer a berm ? Kelvin : Well if the site line from my porch is 5 feet up , it's not like it's a 20 foot berm . That becomes pretty much effective from the start . But waiting 20 years isn 't . . . 1 don 't plan on being there for 20 years , I guess . Brysen : Fair enough ! Kelvin : So that' d be my big concern there . And just quite honestly, purely selfish on my part , I ' m only concerned about my view from my porch . If that means you only have to do a berm halfway down there , I don 't care . Now, others might have different opinions on where they want to be screened . Brysen : We will look into it, if that's a solution that would make you happy, I think that's something we could do if Weld County would approve it. Kelvin : Wait a minute , you said " making us happy, " is that really your objective? Brysen : Of course , we want to be good neighbors and get this project built , and if that means making y'all happy, we want to do that. S herri : Can you convince the county to give us an exemption for our car lot? Brysen : Are you guys trying to build a car lot there? S herri : I do used cars , right now I don 't have a building . But we do have a building at home . Kelvin : We' re looking at applying for an exemption . It's not like it's a car lot . We have to meet certain criteria to get the license . Brysen : Interesting , I haven 't looked into that with cars . S herri : In Colorado it's illegal to flip one with the means of making profit . Brysen : Really? Wow, I didn 't know that . Kelvin : Yeah if you 've got a buddy that has a vehicle and you intentionally buy it with the intent to sell it for more , you ' re breaking the law. Brysen : Really? That's interesting . I ' m always looking for Tacomas , I don 't flip them , I just use them . S herri : So what is the advantage of electrical costs for neighbors? Is there anyway to tie into it? Brysen : Yeah , you can subscribe to Xcel Energy's Community Rewards program if you ' re an Xcel electricity customers . It's totally free to sign up , you ' d just reach out to us . There are no up front costs , no cancellation fee . So that's unique for most solar programs , you can save 10% on your electricity bill for the program . So yeah if you want to subscribe to that , happy to give you more information . S herri : But it's not free , it's just 10% ? Brysen : Yeah it's a 10 % discount . Kelvin : I ' ll take that. And besides that , I 'd rather have 20 , 30 , 40% off, but I ' ll take the 10 . I ' m greedy. S herri : It's a big field Brysen : It is a big field , I can talk you through our plan for the design . S herri : Well I 'd hate for you to say it over and over again , if you want to wait . . . Kelvin : They' re not expecting anyone else . Brysen : We get a mixed bag . Some of these nights, quite a few people show up . S herri : Well I don 't see a lot of people showing up tonight . Kelvin : So give us the rundown . Brysen : * Ran through presentation slides* Kelvin : Are there any other bonds in place as far as ensuring that the screening takes effect? Brysen : No , but the county will enforce it and if we don 't comply, we could lose our license there . Zach : So the way our permit's set up , if we don 't follow all of the conditions of the permit , which one of them would be the landscaping , they could pull our permit. So if you call into the county and complain to the county planning department - Kelvin : She is good at that. She's a professional at it . Zach : Yeah , you can just call into the county. I think we have 90 days to solve the issue . . . within reason , you know, I mean if you called in December, I don 't know if we could fix the screening by March . Kelvin : So that's not enforceable by bond ? Zach : Right , just by the county. The Use by Special Review permit has criteria , if we don 't meet it , they could decommission the project . S herri : Is there noise pollution to this? Zach : Yeah we have a good chart that shows that . *Shows slide on noise analysis* Brysen : The only part of the solar farm that produces noise is the inverters . * Explaining noise analysis slide from the presentation * Only part of the project making noise is inverters , which are set in the center of our project . Kelvin : Because I ' m not a decibel fanatic, how far does 50 dB travel ? So if I ' m standing outside of that circle , I won 't hear it? By the time it hits 392 , could I hear it at all ? Zach : Probably not, if you ' re interested we could do noise measurements to make sure you won 't be able to . But typically background noise levels in neighborhoods or county roads are 40 decibels . 40 dB would be about 250 feet from the center of the inverters . If it doesn 't reach your property line , you should be good . Kelvin : I understand there's noise . We ' re on the bottom of a hill approaching the intersection of a busy highway that has trucks running down it. We have noise , ifs not like we don 't . The difference is a momentary noise and a consistent drone are two different things . And I will tell you , a consistent drone will be a problem . Brysen : Yeah , you won 't hear these at night . When the sun 's down , there's no noise coming off of our solar field . Zach : Yeah , so each of those pads are about as loud as an air conditioner, air compressor that you 'd see in your background . Kelvin : When you ' re standing next to it . Zach : Right , so you shouldn 't be able to hear that from where you are , unless there 's really weird wind . Kelvin : I get it , sound travels based on wind , moisture . . . Zach : Yeah , under 99 % of conditions , you shouldn 't be able to hear it . S herri : I have an autoimmune disease . What about the health risks of being so close? Zach : Great questions . All panels have heavy metals but in volumes below Colorado Health and Environment requirements . None of it would be at toxic levels . The electromagnetic frequencies also have no danger associated with them . There shouldn 't be any health risks . S herri : What about interference with our TV and cell phones? We've had terrible issues even without this there . Zach : You ' re further away, so that shouldn 't be an issue . S herri : What if you ' re wrong ? Zach : Our numbers will be on the gate . Kelvin : She doesn 't hesitate to pick up the phone ! Brysen : You can always give us a call , we' re based locally and are more than happy to talk . Kelvin : Where is your most recent project? Zach : Miliken , it's on the very southeast of Miliken down by the railroad . Brysen : *Shows pictures from slides* S herri : How high do the panels sit? Brysen : About 5 . 5 feet when they' re flat , they rotate and follow the sun throughout the day and sit at 11 feet at their tallest . We stowe them at a 5 degree angle so they' re not reflecting or giving you any glare . Kelvin : What about birds? Zach : We work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife , most of the projects where birds are an issue are different from what we do . Kelvin : I 've heard of birds thinking the panels are water. Brysen : Ah yes , the Lake Effect. Zach : I don 't think we have any issues with that on our existing projects . We make sure Colorado Parks and Wildlife are happy with our designs . S herri : What's the biggest benefit for neighbors around these farms? Zach : Discounted electricity, comfort of knowing that's not going to be a feedlot . . . Brysen : Also not a residential complex coming in . We also hire a local construction crew to come out and do the work . We hire a local shepherd to do all the grazing and keep the vegetation below 22 inches . On another site , we've built a pollinator habitat, these projects let the soils rejuvenate . . . We also will provide a full ride scholarship to a local student interested in renewable energy. And generate significant tax revenue for the county. Zach : And all of the taxes we pay are just additive , it's really just a net benefit. Brysen : We also improve the local electricity grid , we have to upgrade all Xcel 's nearby power lines . Kelvin : Who handles that , Xcel ? Zach : We handle everything from the inverters to the poles . From there all the way back to the substation , Xcel takes it from there . Kelvin : Who is your electrician ? Zach : We typically contract with a company in Wheat Ridge , Circuitous Energy Solutions . Kelvin : What is your skin in the game? Zach : We ' re the developer, we' re getting permits in place and agreements and revenue contracts with Xcel , we work with landowners to design the system . There are a lot of solar tax credits , a lot of big companies buying up solar projects to get breaks on their taxes . So we essentially - S herri : Then you walk away and you ' re done? Zach : We don 't have any ownership stake but are still involved , you can give us a call anytime . Kelvin : If you ' re not really involved when ifs done , who administers this? Zach : A mix of us and whoever buys the projects' local team . We' re still involved and want to maintain a good reputation . S herri : I wonder why you 'd pick that area . I mean 392 is , I don 't know, I don 't want to say I 'd rather see a grocery store , because that's not really it. It just seems like a waste of land . Kelvin : Well I can answer that for you . These systems take a load off of Xcel . So this works as an in line generating facility for them . Zach : Yeah , it reduces Xcel 's needs for big transmission lines . Not sure if you guys are familiar with the new transmission project they' re putting in . Brysen : As far as how we pick properties , we are limited by Xcel 's infrastructure . That alone eliminates a lot of the potential project properties . We have to be close to substations that can actually handle projects of this size . Also , a lot of geotechnical issues and not building on any important habitats . But also just finding a landowner that is interested and happy to have their property leased for a while . Kelvin : Hmm . . . so what else? S herri : For some reason I don 't like it . And I don 't know why I don 't like it, but I just don 't . They' re ugly. Kelvin : Yeah , I 'd rather have it go across the highway or up east . Zach : Yeah so we actually do have a project going there . S herri : Oh my god . . . so the whole thing 's going to be solar. That doesn 't make it better, Zach . Kelvin : Now I do have a problem . Zach : We can also discuss vegetative screening there . Kelvin : At the end of the day, when you go to sell it , you better hope you find someone else that loves to look at that. Losing potential buyers for something that . . . 2 % , 5% , 25% , I don 't know what the number is . But I can assure you it won 't have a positive price effect. I can 't see it having a positive price effect on the value of my property. Now it doesn 't have to be negative like if you put a feedlot . S herri : It's close . Kelvin : Well not really, if it's a feedlot , I can guarantee it'd be negative . You have to sign documents that say you recognize agricultural activities could be there when you buy properties here , we did sign those . . . S herri : But is solar agricultural ? No . Kelvin : Right , we went in with the knowledge that it'd be agricultural , not solar. This corner won 't be developed in our lifetime . Not with a solar farm on both sides . S herri : Did you have to notify Faith Estates? Brysen : We have to notify people within 500 feet of the parcel . Zach : We can check the list and see if we notified Faith Estates , more than happy to reach out and hear from everyone if we didn 't need to notify them . S herri : So you notified 4 people? Brysen : We notified 10 . S herri : I mean honestly we need to sell . That's what it comes down to . I ' m not happy at all . Kelvin : What size is the other project? Zach : About 20 acres . Kelvin : We can have our personal opinions but professionally, that ground is worthless . It's hard to graze anything on there . Costs of irrigation out there , I mean that pivot . . . those other guys spent a fortune and will never see a return on that . If I owned that farm ground , I 'd be miserable . I don 't necessarily judge the idea of solar panels or warehouses there . Ifs just a rough piece of ground . Alright , well I guess I know what I know now. Brysen : If you ever have any more questions , happy to chat . Kelvin : At the end of the day, I ' m not trying to make anyone miserable , I mean I ' m not the City of Evans . Zach : We ' re happy to work with you guys S herri : I just don 't know how you ' re going to work with us . Zach : We can look into berming , or landscaping , bushes , trees . . . S herri : Just find me a buyer for the house . Zach : We could do both , as in berming and giving you money to plant trees on your own property. Kelvin : At the end of the day, people will gripe about anything . S herri : But we didn 't buy next to a solar farm . Kelvin : But you have to do something with that land . If anything , as long as we have the screening in there and can keep visual or sound from us , it's probably the best way to keep it. Now she's going to think about this all day. S herri : We were offered $ 1 . 2 million , I mean this was during the pandemic . We have 2 lots . You ' re not going to want million dollar properties across this . Our first bid was $960 , 000 without the land . So the transformer is in , electricity is in , we have a well permit in , I think at this point we could still get $ 1 .2 million , but when this solar farm happens I doubt that will happen . Kelvin : Well , let's chew on this . Of all the rest of what goes in , you have to recognize that it's property, someone is going to do something with it. And the question is , what are they going to do with it? The next deal might be someone that doesn 't even check with you or want to work with you . S herri : We've tried so hard to bring our property value up , it just sucks . Kelvin : Like i said , if you had all the authority in the world , would you say no? S herri : Yes ! It's ugly and it sits 11 feet in the air. How do you hide that? Kelvin : It's not 11 feet , only once a day. Brysen : Well feel free to keep thinking on it, you ' re the closest neighbors and we want to make sure you ' re happy. We ' re happy to come out in person as well to meet on your property. S herri : Yeah , I 'd actually like you guys to come out. Kelvin : I second that . S herri : I do believe we will be the most exposed to the view. Zach : We can be creative with the screening to make sure it accounts for both projects . Kelvin : Well if sound 's not going to be an issue . . .And I ' m not concerned about construction , I understand it's the shortest part of the project . Zach : Right , it takes about 3-4 months . S herri : Are you having another meeting about this project or is this it? Brysen : For this one , it's just this until the county hearing . Zach : But I ' m happy to come out and meet with you on your property if you 'd like to . S herri : If ifs going to affect our property values by 20 , 25% ? I don 't know. Kelvin : I don 't think you ' re going to see a 20-25% devaluation in your property. I ' m not even going to take the Google challenge of trying to find evidence of that. 5 % , I don 't know. S herri : But if you ' re even talking 10 % , on what , $ 1 . 2 million ? Is that not a lot? Kelvin : Yes . Well just remember, ever since you met me , I 've never moved . So if we' re moving , that's on you . I just need a shop . S herri : Alright , when can you guys come out? Zach : Whenever. Brysen : We' ll be out Wednesday, if that works for you . We ' ll be out at 1 , so if you ' re around before 1 or after 2 , happy to swing by. Otherwise , any other day than Monday. We ' ll be back here presenting another project. S herri : Why don 't I write down your number and then I ' ll give you back your card with my number on it. Brysen : Happy to come out and check things out whenever it works for y'all . S herri : Alright well give me a call when you ' re out there , the night before . I ' ll talk to some people and see if they want to make it . Zach : Happy to come out whenever. S herri : It'd be easier if you found us a buyer for the house . Kelvin : Thanks for your time . 7 : 37 PM : End of meeting _ _ _ anmeni CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 t,\ STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO@CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM MCKEE RANCH COMMUNITY MEETING SIGN -IN SHEET NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE EMAIL , Ktkv %era ifr StsaarvA M (g, s- Hi-in, 3 4 L. Sntrr t Vier %A. e , k�vs�' Crr� �.c.lt co go b 3 / �M o o . W 'ti►L� atA: KEG a 3� � 3 mac.. A.d 31 G�+�.e`tE y y � da..5avo • AL apt RD eeR I ' ask Co ei.44, . . _ CBEP SOLAR 16, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: McKee Ranch Solar Project SUBJECT: Utility and Other Infrastructure Owners Infrastructure Owner Name Address Gas pipeline Chevron / Noble Energy 1625 Broadway St. , Denver, CO 80202 Graham Seepage and Graham Drainage Ditch 2313 17th St. , Drainage Canal Company Greeley, CO 80634 Oil and gas pipeline/well PDC Energy Inc 1775 Sherman St. Suite 3000, Denver, CO 80203 Oil and gas line DCP Midsteam , LP 6900 E . Layton Ave , Ste . 900 Denver CO 80237 Fiber optic cable Century Link 3009 49th Ave , Greeley, CO 80634 (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS , PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION : Business Name : CBEP Solar 16 , LLC Phone : (970) 425-3175 Address : PO Box 1255 City, state , zip : Sterling , CO 80751 Business Owner: Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC Phone : (970) 425-3175 Home Address : PO Box 1255 City, state , zip : Sterling , CO 80751 List up to three persons in the order to be called in the event of an emergency: NAME TITLE PHONE ADDRESS Zachary Brammer COO (970) 425-3175 PO Box 1255 , Sterling , CO 80751 Becca Gallery Partner (970) 573-6440 PO Box 1255 , Sterling , CO 80751 James Cleland CEO (970) 425-3175 PO Box 1255, Sterling , CO 80751 Business Hours : 8-5 Days : M-F UTILITY SHUT OFF LOCATIONS : Main Electrical : Depicted on USR Map Gas Shut Off: N/A Exterior Water Shutoff: N/A Interior Water Shutoff: N/A 07/22 12 Weld County Treasurer Statement of Taxes Due Account Number R1341086 Parcel 080524000024 Assessed To MCKEE RANCH LLLP PO BOX 125 LUCERNE, CO 80646-0125 Legal Description Situs Address 17885 E2NE4 24 6 66 EXC COMM E4 COR W30 TO POB N 104. 5 W 209 S 104.5 E 209 TO POB Year Tax Interest Fees Payments Balance Tax Charge 2022 $ 1 ,265.14 $0.00 $0.00 $ 1 ,265 . 14) $0.00 Total Tax Charge $0.00 Grand Total Due as of 04/24/2023 $0.00 Tax Billed at 2022 Rates for Tax Area 3885 - 3885 Authority Mill Levy Amount Values Actual Assessed WELD COUNTY 15 ,0380000* $272 20 AG-FLOOD $68,519 $ 18,090 SCHOOL DIST RE2 34 :9570000* $632. 73 IRRR[GATED LAND NORTHERN COLORADO WATER 1 .0000000 $ 18 10 AG-WASTE LAND $42 $10 (NC Total $68,561 $ 18, 100 EATON FIRE 9.0000000 $ 162 . 90 AIMS JUNIOR COLLEGE 6.3070000 $ 1 14. 15 HIGH PLAINS LIBRARY 3 . 1810000 $57 . 57 WEST GREELEY CONSERVATION 0.4140000 $7 .49 Taxes Billed 2022 69 . 8970000 $ 1 ,265 . 14 * Credit Levy ALL TAX LIEN SALE AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT TAXES BY THE LIENHOLDER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES . CHANGES MAY OCCUR AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE WILL NEED TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO REMITTANCE AFTER THE FOLLOWING DATES : PERSONAL PROPERTY, REAL PROPERTY, AND MOBILE HOMES - AUGUST 1 . TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION AMOUNTS MUST BE PAID BY CASH OR CASHIER'S CHECK. POSTMARKS ARE NOT ACCEPTED ON TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION PAYMENTS PAYMENTS MUST BE IN OUR OFFICE AND PROCESSED BY THE LAST BUSINESS DAY OF THE MONTH . son5gc4 noao9-Nt-d Weld County Treasurer's Office - �-.-. 1 erj 1400 N 17th Avenue PO Box 458 � Greeley , CO 80632 ` � r . Phone : 970-400-3290 Pursuant to the Weld County Subdivision Ordinance , the attached Statement of Taxes Due issued by the Weld County Treasurer are evidence that as of this date , al ! current and prior year taxes related to this parcel have been paid in full . - ) 4. ----='•-_ signed : _ _T -�_ _ Date : , ,a_ Hello