The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20232825.tiffUSE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE: AMOUNT $ APPLICATION RECEIVED BY DATE RECEIVED: CASE # ASSIGNED: PLANNER ASSIGNED: P ROPERTY INFORMATION Is the property currently in violation? Parcel Number: 0 No / [ Yes Violation Case Number: 9 5 9 _ 3 0 _ 1 _ 0 0 _ 0 4 6 S ite Address: NEAR 12742 COUNTY ROAD 54, GREELEY, CO 80634 Legal Description: A portion of NE4 30-5-66 (1.82R) Section: 30 , Township 5 N, Range 66 W Zoning District: A Within subdivision or townsite? No / Yes Name: Water (well permit # or water district tap #): N/A Acreage: 159.4464 Sewer (On -site wastewater treatment system permit # or sewer account #): N/A Floodplain No/ Yes Geological Hazard P ROJECT U SR Use being applied for: Solar facilities Name of proposed business: CBEP Solar 15, LLC No/ Yes Airport Overlay PROPERTY OWNER(S) (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Name: Michael Morgan No/ Yes Company: Phone #: (970) 369-1745 Email: morgan12742@gmail.com Street Address: 12742 County Road 54 City/State/Zip Code: Greeley, CO 80634 APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT (Authorization Form must be included if there is an Authorized Agent) Name: Zach Brammer Company: CBEP Solar 15, LLC Phone #: (970) 425-3175 Email: zach@cloudbreakenergy.com Street Address: PO 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. ig natu re Zachary Brammer 04/29/2023 Date Signature Date Print Print 07/22 9 CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw Solar Project SUBJECT: Planning Questionnaire 1. Explain the proposed use and business name: o CBEP Solar 15, LLC is proposing to construct and operate the Sheep Draw Solar Project ("Project") in unincorporated Weld County on Parcel ID number 095930100046. The Project will be a 10 MWac community solar garden and will be constructed on approximately 78.6 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 Sheep Draw 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 220 feet to the west of the Project's 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 (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CLOUDBREAK 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 24,596 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 100 inverters mounted on steel posts or beams, 4 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 24,596 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. 100 inverters mounted on steel posts or beams iii. 4 concrete pad mounted transformers iv. Approximately 5 utility poles that will connect the project to the existing Xcel Energy distribution line on the eastern 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©aCLOUDB!REAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKEICIEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE 3 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 15, 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: 10,992 sq ft (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDB!REAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE4- ii. Gravel: 44,979 sq ft iii. Swales: 0 sq ft iv. Grass/Vacant: 2,668,024 sq ft v. Solar Racking: 703,459 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 Front Range Fire Rescue 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©aCLOUDB!REAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK 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 The water rights the landowner currently owns and uses on the Project parcel will be redistributed to the remaining 50-60 acres that will continue serving as prime agricultural land. 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 and maintain the grass by grazing sheep. 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 be located within the Evans and Milliken Intergovernmental Agreement areas. O The Project's area is included in the Future Land Use maps in the 2022 City of Evans Master Community Plan which identifies the land as "Residential - Urban" and "Mixed Use". The document includes "energy production facilities" as a (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM I CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE6 one of the secondary intended uses of the land earmarked for urban residential and mixed use. Therefore, the proposed solar development will not go against any future plans that the city has established. This project will fit in well with a future urban residential and mixed use development due to the minimal noise, odor, traffic, and visibility impacts of a solar array. Additionally, this solar array will help reduce the energy burden on the local energy grid as local energy increases due to the city's growth. The Project's area is also included in the Town of Milliken's 2016 Comprehensive Plan, which identifies the land's future use as "agricultural". Since this Project intends to have sheep grazing on the land beneath the solar array, this land will be used for both agricultural and energy production. The Sheep Draw Solar Project will fit in well with both an agricultural and urban/mixed use community as it will have minimal visual, sound, odor, noise, and traffic impacts. This Project will benefit the community with improved electrical infrastructure, increased energy independence, and will help reduce the burden on the energy grid as the community continues to grow and expand. 24. Explain how this proposal impacts the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. 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 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. The landowner of the Project parcel will redistribute the water rights associated with the Project parcel to the adjacent parcels that the landowner will continue farming. 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. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDB!REAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE 7 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©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw 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 2 existing accesses and 1 proposed access. - Access 1, the proposed access for the Sheep Draw Solar Project, is connected with Access 1 and is located on the eastern side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 800 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 4,525 feet to the north of 49th street. This will be a new access on the parcel and will serve as the access for the Project. - Access 2 is located on the eastern side of the Project parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 25 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 5,230 feet to the north of 49th Street. This is an existing Agricultural access. - Access 3 is an existing Residential and Agricultural access located on the northern side of the Project parcel off of Weld County Road 54, approximately 1,240 feet to the west of 83rd Ave and 4,025 feet to the east of 95th Ave. 2. Describe any anticipated change(s) to an existing access, if applicable: o No access will be relocated or improved. 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: o There are 5 parcels adjacent to the Project parcel. o The parcel to the west of the Project parcel has 3 accesses. (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE 2 - Access 1 is located on the north side of the parcel on Weld County Road 54, approximately 1,805 feet to the east of 95th Ave and 3,450 feet to the west of 83rd Ave. - Access 2 is located on the west side of the parcel on 95th Ave, approximately 90 feet south of Weld County Road 54 and 5,120 feet north of Weld County Road 52. - Access 3 is located on the west side of the parcel on 95th Ave, approximately 2,535 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 2,695 feet to the north of Weld County Road 52. There are 2 parcels across Weld County Road 54 to the north of the Project parcel. o The western parcel across Weld County Road 54 to the north of the Project parcel has 5 accesses. - Access 1 is located on the south side of the parcel on Weld County Road 54, approximately 3,310 feet to the east of 95th Ave/Weld County Road 25 and 1,230 feet to the west of 83rd Ave/Weld County Road 27. - Access 2 s located on the south side of the parcel on Weld County Road 54, approximately 2,280 feet to the east of 95th Ave/Weld County Road 25 and 2,960 feet to the west of 83rd Ave/Weld County Road 27. - Access 3 is located on the south side of the parcel on Weld County Road 54, approximately 710 feet to the east of 95th Ave/Weld County Road 25 and 4,525 feet to the west of 83rd Ave/Weld County Road 27. - Access 4 is located on the west side of the parcel on 95th Ave/Weld County Road 25, approximately 550 feet to the north of Weld County Road 54 and 4,640 feet to the south of Weld County Road 56. - Access 5 is located on the west side of the parcel on 95th Ave/Weld County Road 25, approximately 3,225 feet to the north of Weld County Road 54 and 1,960 feet to the south of Weld County Road 56. o The eastern parcel across Weld County Road 54 to the north of the Proejct parcel has 1 access located on the southern side of the parcel on Weld County Road 54, approximately 825 feet to the west of Weld County Road 27/83rd Ave and 4,455 feet east of Weld County Road 25/95th Ave. o The parcel across 83rd Ave east of the Project parcel has 12 accesses. - Access 1 is located on the west side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 1,815 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 3,320 feet to the north of W 49th Street. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE 3 - Access 2 is located on the west side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 3,020 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 2,215 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 3 is located on the west side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 3,105 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 2,110 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 4 is located on the west side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 3,252 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 1,995 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 5 is located on the east side of the parcel on 77th Ave, approximately 3,275 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 1,985 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 6 is located on the east side of the parcel on 77th Ave, approximately 2,935 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 2,315 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 7 is located on the east side of the parcel on 77th Ave, approximately 2,715 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 2,520 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 8 is located on the east side of the parcel on 77th Ave, approximately 1,865 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 3,400 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 9 is located on the east side of the parcel on 77th Ave, approximately 985 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 4,270 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 10 is located on the east side of the parcel on 77th Ave, approximately 400 feet south of Weld County Road 54 and 4,860 feet north of W 49th Street. - Access 11 is located on the north side of the parcel on Weld County Road 54, approximately 450 feet to the west of 77th Ave and 2,190 feet to the east of 83rd Ave. - Access 12 is located on the north side of the parcel on Weld County Road 54, approximately 1,400 feet to the west of 77th Ave and 1,220 feet to the east of 83rd Ave. - Access 13 is located on the north side of the parcel on Weld County Road 54, approximately 1,510 feet to the west of 77th Ave and 1,070 feet to the east of 83rd Ave. o The Parcel to the south of the Project parcel has 6 accesses. - Access 1 is located on the east side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 2,640 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 2,605 feet to the north of W 49th Street. (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM I CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE 4 - Access 2 is located on the east side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 4,120 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 1,105 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 3 is located on the east side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 4,200 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 1,055 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 4 is located on the east side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 4,345 feet south of Weld County Road 54 and 900 feet north of W 49th Street. - Access 5 is located on the east side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 4,395 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 845 feet to the north of W 49th Street. - Access 5 is located on the east side of the parcel on 83rd Ave, approximately 4,830 feet to the south of Weld County Road 54 and 415 feet to the north of W 49th Street. 5. Describe any difficulties seeing oncoming traffic from an existing access and any anticipated difficulties seeing oncoming traffic from a proposed access: a 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: a 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: a The topography of the road in the vicinity of the existing access is flat. (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM I CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw 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 p olicy.) 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 15, 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 15, 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 CLOUDBREAK 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©aCLOUDB!REAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Business Name: Address: Business Owner: Home Address: CBEP Solar 15, LLC PO Box 1255 Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC PO Box 1255 Phone: City, state, zip: Phone: City, state, zip: List up to three persons in the order to be called in the event of an emergency: NAME Zachary Brammer TITLE COO PHONE (970) 425-3175 (970) 425-3175 Sterling, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 Sterling, CO 80751 ADDRESS 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 UTILITY SHUT OFF LOCATIONS: Main Electrical: Gas Shut Off: Depicted on USR Map Days: M -F N/A Exterior Water Shutoff: N/A Interior Water Shutoff: N/A 07/22 12 4881346 02/13/2023 08:02 AM Total Pages: 4 Rec Fee: $28.00 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 2 /10 (2. % by and between Michael W Morgan ("Owner"), and CBEP Solar 15, 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 celoysvaleutt 0 , 2023 (the "Effective Date"), whereby Owner has granted Operator the right to conauct 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 Michael W Morgan with an address of 12 742 CR 54, Greeley, CO 80634. 2. OPERATOR. The name of the Operator is CBEP Solar 15, 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 ikgreeinent is a period which commenced on crt1,�•-A..• 1O , 2023 and ends on O2. ho /2015 . The term of the Option m - 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 (20th) anniversary of the Commercial Operation Date (as defined in the Lease Agreement). 6. EXTENSION TERMS. Operator has the option to extend the term of the lease for four (4) additionalextension terms of five (5) years each on the terms and conditions more particularly set forth in the Lease Agreement. 1 4874-6488-7887.3 4881346 02/13/2023 08:02 AM Page 2 of4 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. 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 instrument 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 Michael W Morgan STATE OF RADO COUNTY/CITY OF uotteS, ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 202 by O'1eka Witness my hand and official seal: My commission expires: faola6 Notary Public [Remainder of page intentionally blank. Signatures continue on following pages.] 2 4874-6488-7887.3 litlllillllll#IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111IMIIillliIII IIIIiiliilllli1111111ilIIIHIIl9hIS CHRISTOPHER MINWEGEN NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF COLORADO g NOTARY ID 20224047579 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC 20, 2026 1III811111$111111110IHI11IIIlllIHIIII$11Il lIIIlIIilIlIlII11111Ill11111111111111111)lMr. 4881346 02/13/2023 08:02 AM Page 3 of 4 IN WITLESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this instrument to be executed as of the date first written above. OPERATOR CBEP Solar 15, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Eakit".... Name: ft1cca GAUcvt1Title: STATE OF COLORADO e r COUNTY OF rff : ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this re \ I, F' ? it c s , 2 0 by L�- l� , the lf-� 1 cal l f.1 of CBEP Solar 15, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal My commission expires: giI II1JI III III II II III IIfII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIMIII IIIIIMIIIIIII IIMIIIIIIIfie CHRISWIPHER MINWEGEN _ NOTARY PUBLIC m STATE OF COLORADO I NOTARY ID 20224047579 r . MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC 20, 2026 NIIIIJIIIIIMI►11B1f11iif11fH Ilillilliflllfllfllillilfillllllllllll#lifflfll 4874-6488-7887.3 Ada y T of Notary Public 4 4881346 02/13/2023 08:02 AM Page 4of4 SCHEDULE A Legal Description of Owner's Property A portion of the following real property located in the County of Weld, State of Colorado: Parcel number: 095930100046 Legal: The NE 1/4 of Section 30, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P_M. , Weld County, Colorado. Also known by street and number as TBD, Greeley, Co 80634 Depiction: tf)it^".Ay≥):%? . vh ri. r ._.'/'. %a� i•., k Y Rr. •{:;^%u'r i ,r,,: .t:z e o.:::.Y;�', )ri e'r/i'".r.o•..r, •r^,.,,,ter „.f ARC y. .� "` ^< .: ax ^ , •.. ? yltity yO;t Ka Iff ;4 1?...<7:*.'A. Yi•.:••..,F "?! f�o�i(iiyri: r` a#t'#i¢ .r• x', brF.^'7iA/�($Y �lliiT,.. 4?J.Wr,,�izi S .2. , "•ykr,A" 'hx ..}� ....sr. P.S^.{.}Gi' I1/41:Y{:yy%z2� :%Y',....0 `rY^ • •, 1. v*•: ; o-4/frn Al alfr%ryJ�'^•�'1•Mn E# faZ: S'<h^ 'y�,3'f 44(.0 "Y°",'lh+•.n xa it. •Y�!F^r ads a ...24.-41.4:),.. `" ^x�"=r 0H i::.>:�•jYry:./%&% • �y' :y µ"`,f "••l.;" r'^r'$ira f.., Wee ,y%"/r'r4 s1��!?•i,T "r e'to.''FS S9 udAFYi7i ....:{,/Sr'AFar.".c • v die S:ctL v��v.s .y44x44 CZ1 neSLkr+..`.�a -Fx Gvd a°`r r'i.,4v1 .. .. et Available for Leased Premises 5 4874-6488-7887.3 • ',tr. y. •i,. CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw Solar Project SUBJECT: Decommissioning Plan Approach CBEP Solar 15, LLC has developed this decommissioning plan for the Sheep Draw Solar Project, to be implemented after the contracted lease term has ended. CBEP Solar 15, LLC, the owner of the 10 MW 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 10 MW 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 15, 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 15, 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 CLOUDBREAK PAGE 2 • 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 15, 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©aCLOUDB!REAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBF EAKENElRGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE 3 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 15, 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 15, LLC has taken all reasonable precautions and measures to prevent or avoid such event or mitigate the effect of such event on CBEP Solar 15, 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 15, 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 15, 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 KimIey> Horn PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT Sheep Draw Solar Weld County Case # TBD Southwest of the intersection of Weld County Rd 54/W 37'h Stand 83'a Ave/Weld County Road 27 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 20, 2023 Sheep Draw Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 1 KimIey> 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 Sheep Draw — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 2 KimIey> Horn 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK The development is a proposed 10-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 Sheep Draw S olar, 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. S heep Draw, 12742 WCR 54 Greeley, CO 80634, Parcel No. 095930100046 Developer/Owner CloudBreak Energy Partners, LLC, 218 S. 3rd Street Sterling, CO 80751 Urbanizing/Non-Urbanizing This site is located less than a quarter mile away from the nearest Weld County municipal boundary and is classified as "Urbanizing". Therefore, detention ponds designed for this site would be sized using 1 -hour 5 -year runoff rates. 1.1. Project Location The existing site subject property is a parcel of 160.95 acres. The project is located on approximately 78.7 acres of agricultural land. The project is located southwest of Greeley within Weld County. The site is bounded to the north by Weld County Road 54, to the west by the rest of the Sheep Draw property of the same parcel ID and then by Public Service Company of Colorado right of way (Parcel 095930000002), to the east by property owned by Kammerzell Farm LLC (Parcel 095929200002) and to the south by property owned by Mossberg Farm LLC (Parcel 095930000038). S ection Township Range Property is located within a portion of the northeast quarter of Section 30, Township 5 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Per FEMA Map Panel 08123C1702E 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, Olney fine sandy loam, Otero sandy loam and Weld loam that vary in classification as hydrologic Sheep Draw Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 3 KimIey> Horn soil groups (HSG) type A to C. The site was modeled using all type C soils. For additional detail, refer to Exhibit 2 for the NRCS Report. 1.2. Nearby Water Features & Ownership In the existing condition, a majority of the site drains to the east to a pre-existing drainage ditch along 83rd Ave. The nearest water feature is the Loveland Greeley Canal located approximately 0.1 miles east of the site and approximately 0.2 miles south of the site. The Loveland Greeley Canal is the receiving waters of the project site (receives water from site via ditch along 83rd Ave). 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) 2.76 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 historic peak 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 3.0% (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). Existing Proposed Area 78.68 ac 78.68 ac Imperviousness 2.2 % 2.8 % Q1oo 118.09cfs 119.31cfs Sheep Draw Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 4 KimIey> Horn 1.4. Stormwater Management A study published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering researched the hydrologic impacts of u tility 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 n o 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 118.09 cfs to 119.31 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 78.68 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 new areas considered impervious (100 percent impervious 11,730 sq ft concrete pads) or semi -impervious (40 percent impervious 44,980 sf gravel access drive) total 1.29 acres or 1.0% 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 —1 hr storm event is 118.09 cfs. • Under developed conditions, the peak flow from the site area for the 100 yr — 1 hr storm event is 119.31 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. Sheep Draw Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 5 KimIey> 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 Sheep Draw Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 6 Exhibit 1 — FEMA Firm Map National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette FEMA Legend 104°49'15"W 40°22'40"N 104°48'38"W 40°22'13"N AREA F MINI MAL FLOOD. HARD. 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Feet 1:6,000 SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone 4, V. 499 With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AN, VF, AR Regulatory Floodway OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS O.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 Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone x Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes. Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x Effective LOM Rs Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer i i i i i i i Levee, Dike, or Floodwall 20.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 1765 Water Surface Elevation 8 - - - - Coastal Transect .� ,1 n Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary - - - - Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2/1/2023 at 4:23 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Exhibit 2 — NRCS Report 10-40 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AO!) Area of Interest (A01) ) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D kipii D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points O O O A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background ,; Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 21, Sep 1, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 8, 2021 Jun 12, 2021 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. ,b Natural Resources lain Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/1/2023 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 33 Kim loam, slopes 3 to 5 percent A 15.9 19.8% 47 Olney fine 1 to 3 sandy loam, percent slopes B 24.4 30.2% 48 Olney fine 3 to 5 sandy percent loam, slopes B 22.8 28.3% 53 Otero sandy percent slopes loam, 5 to 9 A 10.6 13.1% 79 Weld percent loam, 1 slopes to 3 C 5.7 7.1% 80 Weld loam, 3 percent slopes to 5 C 1.2 1.5% Totals for Area of Interest 80.6 100.0% e Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/1/2023 Page 3of4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 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 CID). 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, BID, or CID), 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. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher e Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/1/2023 Page 4of4 Exhibit 3 — NOAA Rainfall Data NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Location name: Milliken, Colorado, USA* Latitude: 40.374°, Longitude: -104.8157° Elevation: 4949.36 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS 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 Duration 5 -min J 10 -min J 15 -min 30 -min 60 -min 2 -hr 3 -hr 6 -hr 12 -hr 24 -hr 2 -day 3 -day 4 -day 7 -day 10 -day 20 -day 30 -day 45 -day 60 -day Average recurrence interval (years) 0.241 (0.192-0.304) 0.353 (0.281-0.4467)1 0.430 (0.343-0.544) 0.576 (0.459-0.727) (0.569-0.902) 2 0.290 0.231-0.367) 0.425 (0.338-0.537) 0.518 (0.412-0.655) 0.691 (0.550-0.874) 0.846 (0.674-1.07) 0.853 1.00 (0.803-1.25) 0.936 (0.755-1.16) 1.09 (0.884-1.34) 1.27 (1.05-1.56) 1.53 (1.26-1.84) 1.76 (1.47-2.11) 1.92 (1.61-2.29) 2.05 (1.72-2.42) 2.32 (1.97-2.73) 2.57 (2.18-3.00) 3.28 (2.81-3.79) 3.85 (3.31-4.42) 4.52 (3.91-5.16) 5.06 (4.39-5.75) L1.09 0.877-1.36 1.27 (1.03-1.57) 1.52 (1.24-1.85) 1.80 (1.48-2.17) 2.08 (1.73-2.49) 2.25 (1.88-2.68) 2.38 2.00-2.82) 2.72 (2.30-3.20) 3.01 (2.56-3.52 3.80 (3.26-4.40) 4.43 (3.81-5.10) 5.20 (4.50-5.94) 5.84 (5.07-6.64) 5 0.387 (0.307-0.491) 0.566 (0.449-0.718) 0.691 (0.548-0.876) 0.921 (0.730-1.17) 1.12 (0.887-1.42) 10 0.483 (0.380-0.615) 0.707 (0.557-0.901) 0.862 (0.679-1.10) 1.15 (0.905-1.47) 25 0.637 (0.494-0.876) 0.933 (0.723-1.28) 1.14 (0.882-1.56) 1.52 (1.18-2.09) 1.40 1.10-1.78) 1.32 1.65 (1.05-1.66) (1.31-2.08) 1.42 I 1.78 (1.14-1.78) IL (1.42-2.23) 1.66 (1.34-2.05) 1.98 (1.61-2.42) 2.30 (1.89-2.79) r 2.65 (2.20-3.19) r 2.83 (2.36-3.37) 2.97 (2.48-3.53) 3.39 (2.85-3.99) 3.75 (3.17-4.39) 4.65 (3.97-5.40) 5.37 (4.61-6.20) r 6.29 (5.42-7.20) 7.07 (6.12-8.07) 2.06 (1.65-2.56) 2.42 (1.96-2.98) 2.77 (2.27-3.38) 3.17 (2.61-3.82) 3.35 (2.77-4.01) 3.50 (2.91-4.18) 3.97 (3.32-4.70) 4.37 (3.67-5.14) 5.35 (4.54-6.24) 6.14 (5.24-7.11) 7.16 (6.14-8.24) 1.86 (1.45-2.58) 2.21 1.74-3.03) 2.38 (1.89-3.26) 2.73 (2.17-3.67) 50 0.775 (0.580-1.07) 1.13 0.850-1.57) 1.38 (1.04-1.92) 2.72 2.06-3.75) 2.94 (2.25-4.04) 3.33 2.56-4.51) 3.12 (2.49-4.10) 3.51 (2.81-4.53) 3.94 (3.16-4.99) 4.12 (3.33-5.19) 4.28 3.47-5.36) 4.80 3.90-5.91) 5.24 4.26-6.38) 6.30 5.16-7.56) 7.17 5.89-8.52) 8.32 (6.87-9.81) 8.06 (6.93-9.23) 9.35 (7.74-11.0) 3.74 2.88-4.95) 4.14 3.21-5.40) 100 0.928 0.668-1.32)' 1.36 (0.978-1.93) 1.66 (1.19-2.36) 3.30 (2.40-4.67) 3.58 (2.63-5.04) [ 4.02 (2.97-5.59) 4.41 (3.28-6.01) 4.82 (3.61-6.46) 200 1.10 (0.755-1.61) 1.61 (1.11-2.36) 1.96 (1.35-2.88) 2.63 (1.81-3.86) 3.29 2.27-4.84) 3.96 (2.75-5.76) 4.31 (3.02-6.25) 4.81 3.39-6.86) 5.17 3.67-7.23) 5.57 (3.99-7.68) 4.58 5.26 5.99 (3.58-5.87) (3.96-6.92) (4.32-8.12) 4.77 [(4.14-7.14)11(4.50-8.34) 5.46 6.20 (3.75-6.08) L4.94 5.63 (3.89-6.25) ., (4.28-7.32) 5.47 (4.33-6.83) 6.16 (4.71-7.89) 5.92 �r 6.61 (4.70-7.32) � (5.07-8.39) 7.03 5.62-8.55) 7.74 (5.99-9.67) 7.95 8.71 (6.39-9.59)1[16.77-10.8) 9.18 10.0 7.42-11.0) (7.83-12.3) 10.3 la 11.2 (8.35-12.3) (8.79-13.7) 6.38 (4.64-8.53) 6.89 (5.05-9.08) 7.32 (5.39-9.56) 8.46 (6.28-10.9) 9.46 (7.06-12.0) 10.8 (8.12-13.7)J 12.1 (9.10-15.1) 500 1000 1.35 (0.888-2.04) 1.98 (1.30-2.99) 2.41 (1.59-3.64) 3.24 2.13-4.89) 1.56 (0.988-2.37) 2.29 (1.45-3.46) 2.79 (1.76-4.22) 3.74 (2.37-5.67) 4.09 (2.69-6.19) 4.94 (3.29-7.40) 5.41 (3.62-8.04) 5.97 [(4.03-8.76) 6.26 (4.26-9.02) 6.66 (4.57-9.44) 7.03 (4.87-9.81) 7.25 (5.05-10.0) 7.43 (5.20-10.2) 7.89 (5.55-10.7) C8.28 (5.86-11.1) I. 9.40 (6.71-12.4) 10.4 (7.49-13.7) 11.9 (8.57-15.4) 13.2 (9.55-17.0) 4.76 (3.01-7.20) 5.77 (3.69-8.63) 6.33 (4.07-9.40) 6.95 (4.52-10.2) 7.17 (4.71-10.4) 7.54 (5.01-10.8) 7.86 (5.28-11.1) 8.09 (5.47-11.3) 8.27 (5.61-11.5) 8.67 (5.94-11.9) 9.02 (6.21-12.3) 10.1 (7.04-13.6) 11.1 (7.82-14.9) 12.6 (8.90-16.7) 14.0 (9.90-18.4) 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 (DOH curves Latitude: 403740°. Longitude: -104.8157° Precipitation depth (in) I EMI a di a to cu a- 14 12 10 14 12 10 C ,c , o 5 10 25 50 100 200. NOM Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 SID J R"1 Duration I ca - N ro 1 i3 r13 1 .A i to I I N !") ° t Average recurrence interval (years) >I>I II IT fp IV V V P U 0 6 LA 6 c1/24 rel 500 1000 Created {GMT) : Mon Feb 6 20:21:37 2023 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain Average recurrence interval (years) 1 2 5' 10 25 50 100 200 500 1 000 Duration 5 -min — 2 -day — 10-mon — 3 -day 15 -min — 4 -day 7 -day 60 -min — 10 -day 2 -hr — 2.0 -day 34',r - 30 -day. 5 -hr — 45 -day 1 2 -hr — 60 -day 24 -hr is • S 3km I I 2mi i • i t 04 r' _r •h - "gor ._ tee,---a,-'may 012, - - .�� + :n.>. •- a rig' -;-� M.C .C ..;:t 1:1-4, :je 4 .'::,sic_, _ ':� • , ;,.r, r 1 r F__ 5, • •rY. Yy . *Virg .,L. p1 Large scale terrain It I 1- : ••., iG:4 (1 100km I 1 60mi i dh Y S GFeeIe Loi moat en er f Large scale map -J4 Large scale aerial j-cinclnont B ou Icier 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 Exhibit 5 — Post -Development Drainage Area Map Exhibit 6 — Hydrologic Calculations Kimley>>>Horn_ STANDARD FORM SF 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - PRE -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Sheep Draw 3/10/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY: LDS CHECKED BY: AJH TYPE C SOIL VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE IMPERVIOUS 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% DESIGN VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE Cc(2) Cc(5) Cc(100) Imp % DESIGN IMPERVIOUS AREA GRAVEL AREA OPEN AREA SPACE ROOF AREA COMMERCIAL AREA TOTAL AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) On -Site Basins PRE -DA -01 1 0.35 41.96 42.31 0.01 0.05 0.49 2.3% PRE -DA -02 2 0.02 36.36 36.38 0.01 0.05 0.49 2.0% BASIN 0.00 0.37 78.32 0.00 0.00 78.68 0.01 0.05 0.49 2.2% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% SUBTOTAL K. om STANDARD FORM SF -2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - PRE -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT PROJECT CALCULATED NAME: NUMBER: BY: Weld 196664000 LDS County - Cloudbreak - Sheep Draw DATE: 3/10/2023 CHECKED BY: AJH SUB -BASIN INITIAL Tc CHECK FINAL TRAVEL TIME TIME (T) at) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DATA DESIGN BASIN AREA C5 (3) SLOPE % (5) SLOPE C, (9) Land Surface VEL COMP. (13) tc Tc Min. (17) - Min. C2 C5 C100 LENGTH Ti min. (6) LENGTH Tt Min. (12) TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL IMP. Ac (2) Ft (4) Ft. (7) % (8) (10) fps (11) SLOPE LENGTH (1) (14) (15) (16) On -Site Basins I , PRE -DA -01 42.306 0.05 500 2.9% 30.1 1,640 2.1% 5.0 Tillage/Field 0.7 37.8 67.9 2140 2.3% 2% 50.9 50.9 0.01 0.05 0.49 PRE -DA -02 36.378 0.05 500 4.2% 26.7 1,729 1.2% 5.0 Tillage/Field 0.6 51.7 78.4 2229 1.9% 2% 54.7 54.7 0.01 0.05 0.49 Li L, 4 0.395(1 --- C.., ,1. � - 3 O i,, 60(1 44+ 9) S°33 � 0 t i`J STANDARD FORM SF -3 Kimley>>> Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - PRE -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Sheep Draw DATE: 3/10/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 P1 (1 -Hour Rainfall) . 2.76 CALCULATED CHECKED BY: BY: LDS AJH C4 o Emi c4;'' 4 TRAVEL TIME i REMARKS STREET DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF PIPE MIS MDI tc(max) 9 it o�'� •5 _ )W(c 5 a� cI] °w � a� of d, o o _ 41 1 _ (1) (2) (3) (4) (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 42.31 0.49 50.95 20.88 3.11 64.93 2 PRE -DA -02 36.38 0.49 54.67 17.91 2.97 53.16 78.68 118.09 Total Kimlev>>> Horn STANDARD FORM SF -1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - POST -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 Weld County - Cloudbreak - Sheep Draw 4/20/2023 CALCULATED BY: LDS CHECKED BY: AJH TYPE C SOIL VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE LAND PAVED GRAVEL OPEN USE: AREA AREA AREA SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL 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% DESIGN BASIN Cc(2) Cc(5) Cc(100) Imp % VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE PAVED GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL TOTAL DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) On -Site Basins POST -DA -01 1 0.19 0.73 41.39 42.31 0.02 0.06 0.50 3.1% 2 0.08 0.30 36.00 36.38 0.01 0.06 0.49 2.5% POST -DA -02 BASIN 0.27 1.03 77.38 0.00 0.00 78.68 0.02 0.06 0.50 2.8% SUBTOTAL 0% 1% 98% 0% 0% 100% Kimley>>) Horn STANDARD FORM SF -2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - POST -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NUMBER: Weld County 196664000 - Cloudbreak - Sheep Draw DATE: 4/20/2023 CALCULATED BY: LDS CHECKED BY: AJH FINAL SUB -BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Te CHECK DATA (Ti) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc TIME (T1) DESIGN AREA C5 (3) SLOPE Ti Min. (6) C,, (9) Land Surface TOTAL TOTAL IMP. (16) Min. (17) Te Min. C2 C5 C100 LENGTH LENGTH SLOPE VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL BASIN Ac Ft (4) % (5) Ft. (7) % (8) (10) fps Min. tt LENGTH SLOPE (1) (2) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) On -Site Basins POST -DA -01 42.306 0.06 500 2.9% 29.9 1,640 2.1% 5.0 0.7 37.8 67.7 2140 2.3% 3% 50.5 50.5 0.02 0.06 0.50 Tillage/Field POST -DA -02 36.378 0.06 500 4.2% 26.6 1,729 1.2% 5.0 Tillage/Field 0.6 51.7 78.2 2229 1.9% 3% 54.4 54.4 0.01 0.06 0.49 t sr 60K Sa, 601 60(14i + 9) J STANDARD FORM SF -3 Kimle >>> Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - POST -CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Sheep Draw DATE: 4/20/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 P1 (1 -Hour Rainfall) = 2.76 CALCULATED BY: LDS CHECKED BY: AJH DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET TRAVEL TIME REMARKS PIPE tc (min) C*A(ac) Am c �• �� ° w tc(ma: �� oo �� wvaN � z � a a )` oa °�, - " w° :4 ?-I rj° w� �� ,�•-, w X (1) I (2) I (3) I (4) I (5) 1 (6) I (7) 1 (8) I (9) 1(10)1(11) 1(12)1 (13) 1(14)1(15)1 (16) (17) I (18) 1 (19) 1(20)1(21) (22) On -Site Basins 1 POST -DA -01 42.31 0.50 50.52 21.01 3.13 65.72 2 POST -DA -02 36.38 0.49 54.36 17.98 2.98 53.59 Total 78.68 119.31 Exhibit 7 — Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Lauren M. Cook, S.M.ASCE1; and Richard H. McCuen, M.ASCE2 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Massachusetts Amherst on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. 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 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 conditions. Using sensitivity analyses, modeling showed that the solar panels themselves did not have a significant effect on the runoff 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 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. 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) HE.1943-5584.0000530. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers. CE Database subject headings: Hydrology; Land use; Solar power; Floods; Surface water; Runoff; Stormwater management. Author keywords: Hydrology; Land use change; Solar energy; Flooding; Surface water runoff; Storm -water management. Introduction Storm -water management practices are generally implemented to reverse the effects of land -cover changes that cause increases in volumes and rates of runoff. This is a concern posed for new types of land -cover change such as the solar farm. Solar energy is a re- newable energy source that is expected to increase in importance in the near future. Because solar farms require considerable land, it is necessary to understand the design of solar farms and their potential effect on erosion rates and storm runoff, especially the impact on offsite properties and receiving streams. These farms can vary in size from 8 ha (20 acres) in residential areas to 250 ha (600 acres) in areas where land is abundant. The solar panels are impervious to rain water; however, they are mounted on metal rods and placed over pervious land. In some cases, the area below the panel is paved or covered with gravel. Service roads are generally located between rows of panels. Altl- hough some panels are stationary, others are designed to move so that the angle of the panel varies with the angle of the sun. The angle can range, depending on the latitude, from 22° during the summer months to 74° during the winter months. In addition, the angle and direction can also change throughout the day. The issue posed is whether or not these rows of impervious panels will change the runoff characteristics of the site, specifically increase runoff volumes or peak discharge rates. If the increases are hydro- logically significant, storm -water management facilities may be needed. Additionally, it is possible that the velocity of water 1Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021. 2The Ben Dyer Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer- ing, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 (corresponding author). E-mail: rhmccuen@eng.umd.edu Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 12, 2010; approved on October 20, 2011; published online on October 24, 2011. Discussion period open until October 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi- neering, Vol. 18, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1084-069912013/5- 536-541/$25.00. draining from the edge of the panels is sufficient to cause erosion of the soil below the panels, especially where the maintenance roadways are bare ground. The outcome of this study provides guidance for assessing the hydrologic effects of solar farms, which is important to those who plan, design, and install arrays of solar panels. Those who design solar farms may need to provide for storm -water management. This study investigated the hydrologic effects of solar farms, assessed whether or not storm -water management might be needed, and if the velocity of the runoff from the panels could be sufficient to cause erosion of the soil below the panels. Model Development Solar farms are generally designed to maximize the amount of en- ergy produced per unit of land area, while still allowing space for maintenance. The hydrologic response of solar farms is not usually considered in design. Typically, the panels will be arrayed in long rows with separations between the rows to allow for maintenance vehicles. To model a typical layout, a unit width of one panel was assumed, with the length of the downgradient strip depending on the size of the farm. For example, a solar farm with 30 rows of 200 panels each could be modeled as a strip of 30 panels with space between the panels for maintenance vehicles. Rainwater that drains from the upper panel onto the ground will flow over the land under the 29 panels on the downgradient strip. Depending on the land cover, infiltration losses would be expected as the runoff flows to the bottom of the slope. To determine the effects that the solar panels have on runoff characteristics, a model of a solar farm was developed. Runoff in the form of sheet flow without the addition of the solar panels served as the prepaneled condition. The paneled condition assumed a downgradient series of cells with one solar panel per ground cell. Each cell was separated into three sections: wet, dry, and spacer. The dry section is that portion directly underneath the solar panel, unexposed directly to the rainfall. As the angle of the panel 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. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Massachusetts Amherst on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. the ground; this section of the cell is referred to as the wet section. The spacer section is the area between the rows of panels used by maintenance vehicles. Fig. 1 is an image of two solar panels and the spacer section allotted for maintenance vehicles. Fig. 2 is a sche- matic of the wet, dry, and spacer sections with their respective di- mensions. In Fig. 1, tracks from the vehicles are visible on what is modeled within as the spacer section. When the solar panel is hori- zontal, then the length longitudinal to the direction that runoff will occur is the length of the dry and wet sections combined. Runoff from a dry section drains onto the downgradient spacer section. Runoff from the spacer section flows to the wet section of the next downgradient cell. Water that drains from a solar panel falls directly onto the spacer section of that cell. The length of the spacer section is constant. During a storm event, the loss rate was assumed constant for the 24-h storm be- cause a wet antecedent condition was assumed. The lengths of the wet and dry sections changed depending on the angle of the solar panel. The total length of the wet and dry sections was set Fig. 1. Maintenance or "spacer" section between two rows of solar panels (photo by John E. Showler, reprinted with permission) Ld Direction of Flow Wet section Dry section Spacer section 5 m 3.5 m 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 equal to the length of one horizontal solar panel, which was as- sumed to be 3.5 m. When a solar panel is horizontal, the dry section length would equal 3.5 m and the wet section length would be zero. In the paneled condition, the dry section does not receive direct rainfall because the rain first falls onto the solar panel then drains onto the spacer section. However, the dry section does infiltrate some of the runoff that comes from the upgradient wet section. The wet section was modeled similar to the spacer section with rain falling directly onto the section and assuming a constant loss rate. For the presolar panel condition, the spacer and wet sections are modeled the same as in the paneled condition; however, the cell does not include a dry section. In the prepaneled condition, rain falls directly onto the entire cell. When modeling the prepaneled condition, all cells receive rainfall at the same rate and are subject to losses. All other conditions were assumed to remain the same such that the prepaneled and paneled conditions can be compared. Rainfall was modeled after an natural resources conservation service (NRCS) Type II Storm (McCuen 2005) because it is an ac- curate representation of actual storms of varying characteristics that are imbedded in intensity -duration -frequency (IDF) curves. For each duration of interest, a dimensionless hyetograph was devel- oped using a time increment of 12 s over the duration of the storm (see Fig. 3). The depth of rainfall that corresponds to each storm magnitude was then multiplied by the dimensionless hyetograph. For a 2-h storm duration, depths of 40.6, 76.2, and 101.6 mm were used for the 2-, 25-, and 100 -year events. The 2- and 6-h duration hyetographs were developed using the center portion of the 24-h storm, with the rainfall depths established with the Baltimore IDF curve. The corresponding depths for a 6-h duration were 53.3, 106.7, and 132.1 mm, respectively. These magnitudes were chosen to give a range of storm conditions. During each time increment, the depth of rain is multiplied by the cell area to determine the volume of rain added to each section of each cell. This volume becomes the storage in each cell. Depend- ing on the soil group, a constant volume of losses was subtracted from the storage. The runoff velocity from a solar panel was calcu- lated using Manning's equation, with the hydraulic radius for sheet flow assumed to equal the depth of the storage on the panel (Bedient and Huber 2002). Similar assumptions were made to com- pute the velocities in each section of the surface sections. 20 40 60 Time (min) 80 100 120 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. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Massachusetts Amherst on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. Runoff from one section to the next and then to the next downgradient cell was routed using the continuity of mass. The routing coefficient depended on the depth of flow in storage and the velocity of runoff. Flow was routed from the wet section to the 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 downgradient cell was assumed to be the outflow. Discharge rates and volumes from the most downgradient cell were used for com- parisons between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. Alternative Model Scenarios To assess the effects of the different variables, a section of 30 cells, each with a solar panel, was assumed for the base model. Each cell was separated individually into wet, dry, and spacer sections. The 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. The roughness coefficient (Engman 1986) for the silicon solar panel was assumed to be that of glass, 0.01. Roughness coefficients of 0.15 for grass and 0.02 for bare ground were also assumed. Loss rates of 0.5715 cm/h (0.225 in./h) and 0.254 cm/h (0.1 in./h) for B and C soils, respectively, were assumed. The prepaneled condition using the 2-h, 25 -year rainfall was assumed for the base condition, with each cell assumed to have a good grass cover condition. All other analyses were made assum- ing a paneled condition. For most scenarios, the runoff volumes and peak discharge rates from the paneled model were not significantly greater than those for the prepaneled condition. Over a total length of 225 m with 30 solar panels, the runoff increased by 0.26 m3, which was a difference of only 0.35%. The slight increase in runoff volume reflects the slightly higher velocities for the paneled con- dition. The peak discharge increased by 0.0013 m3, a change of only 0.31%. The time to peak was delayed by one time increment, i.e., 12 s. Inclusion of the panels did not have a significant hydro- logic impact. Storm Magnitude The effect of storm magnitude was investigated by changing the magnitude from a 25 -year storm to a 2 -year storm. For the 2 -year storm, the rainfall and runoff volumes decreased by approximately 50%. However, the runoff from the paneled watershed condition increased compared to the prepaneled condition by approximately the same volume as for the 25 -year analysis, 0.26 m3. This increase represents only a 0.78% increase in volume. The peak discharge and the time to peak did not change significantly. These results re- flect runoff from a good grass cover condition and indicated that the general conclusion of very minimal impacts was the same for dif- ferent storm magnitudes. Ground Slope The effect of the downgradient ground slope of the solar farm was also examined. The angle of the solar panels would influence the velocity of flows from the panels. As the ground slope was in- creased, the velocity of flow over the ground surface would be closer to that on the panels. This could cause an overall increase 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 that for the 1% slope, which is to be expected because the faster velocity of the runoff would provide less opportunity for infiltra- tion. However, between the prepaneled and paneled conditions, the increase in runoff volume was less than 1%. The peak discharge and the time to peak did not change. Therefore, the greater ground slope did not significantly influence the response of the solar farm. Soil Type The effect of soil type on the runoff was also examined. The soil group was changed from B soil to C soil by varying the loss rate. As expected, owing to the higher loss rate for the C soil, the depths of 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 condition to the paneled condition. In comparison with the B soil, a difference of 0.35% in volume resulted between the two conditions. Therefore, the soil group influenced the actual volumes and rates, but not the relative effect of the paneled condition when compared to the prepaneled condition. Panel Angle Because runoff velocities increase with slope, the effect of the angle of the solar panel on the hydrologic response was examined. Analy- ses were made for angles of 30° and 70° to test an average range from winter to summer. The hydrologic response for these angles was compared to that of the base condition angle of 45°. The other site conditions remained the same. The analyses showed that the angle of the panel had only a slight effect on runoff volumes and discharge rates. The lower angle of 30° was associated with an in- creased runoff volume, whereas the runoff volume decreased for the steeper angle of 70° when compared with the base condition of 45°. However, the differences (-0.5%) were very slight. Never- theless, these results indicate that, when the solar panel was closer to horizontal, i.e., at a lower angle, a larger difference in runoff volume occurred between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. These differences in the response result are from differences in loss rates. The peak discharge was also lower at the lower angle. At an angle of 30°, the peak discharge was slightly lower than at the 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 the panel was positioned at a 70° angle, which reflects the longer travel times across the solar panels. Storm Duration To assess the effect of storm duration, analyses were made for 6-h storms, testing magnitudes for 2-, 25-, and 100 -year return periods, with the results compared with those for the 2-h rainfall events. The longer storm duration was tested to determine whether a longer du- ration storm would produce a different ratio of increase in runoff between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. When compared to runoff volumes from the 2-h storm, those for the 6-h storm were 34% greater in both the paneled and prepaneled cases. However, when comparing the prepaneled to the paneled condition, the in- crease in the runoff volume with the 6-h storm was less than 1% regardless of the return period. The peak discharge and the time -to -peak did not differ significantly between the two condi- tions. The trends in the hydrologic response of the solar farm did not vary with storm duration. Ground Cover The ground cover under the panels was assumed to be a native grass that received little maintenance. For some solar farms, the area be- neath the panel is covered in gravel or partially paved because the 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. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Massachusetts Amherst on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. volume of traffic, the spacer cell could be grass, patches of grass, or bare ground. Thus, it was necessary to determine whether or not these alternative ground -cover conditions would affect the runoff characteristics. This was accomplished by changing the Manning's n for the ground beneath the panels. The value of n under the pan- els, i.e., the dry section, was set to 0.015 for gravel, with the value for the spacer or maintenance section set to 0.02, i.e., bare ground. These can be compared to the base condition of a native grass (n = 0.15). A good cover should promote losses and delay the runoff. For the smoother surfaces, the velocity of the runoff increased and the losses decreased, which resulted in increasing runoff vol- umes. This occurred both when the ground cover under the panels was changed to gravel and when the cover in the spacer section was changed to bare ground. Owing to the higher velocities of the flow, runoff rates from the cells increased significantly such that it was necessary to reduce the computational time increment. Fig. 4(a) shows the hydrograph from a 30 -panel area with a time incre- ment of 12 s. With a time increment of 12 s, the water in each cell is discharged at the end of every time increment, which results in no attenuation of the flow; thus, the undulations shown in Fig. 4(a) result. The time increment was reduced to 3 s for the 2-h storm, which resulted in watershed smoothing and a rational hydrograph shape [Fig. 4(b)]. The results showed that the storm runoff 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 coE 0.06 0 0.05 co 0 0.04 0.03 (a) 0.02 0.01 0 0.07 0.06 0.05 U) 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Time (min) 0 _ 0 (b) I Paneled Pre -paneled 4 - alb l Net 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Time (min) 180 200 Fig. 4. Hydrograph with time increment of (a) 12 s; (b) 3 s with Manning's n for bare ground increased by 7% from the grass -covered scenario to the scenario with gravel under the panel. The peak discharge increased by 73% for the gravel ground cover when compared with the grass cover without the panels. The time to peak was 10 min less with the gravel than with the grass, which reflects the effect of differ- ences in surface roughness and the resulting velocities. If maintenance vehicles used the spacer section regularly and the grass cover was not adequately maintained, the soil in the spacer section would be compacted and potentially the runoff volumes and rates would increase. Grass that is not maintained has the potential to become patchy and turn to bare ground. The grass under the panel may not get enough sunlight and die. Fig. 1 shows the result of the maintenance trucks frequently driving in the spacer section, which diminished the grass cover. The effect of the lack of solar farm maintenance on runoff char- acteristics was modeled by changing the Manning's n to a value of 0.02 for bare ground. In this scenario, the roughness coefficient for the ground under the panels, i.e., the dry section, as well as in the spacer cell was changed from grass covered to bare ground (n = 0.02).The effects were nearly identical to that of the gravel. The runoff volume increased by 7% from the grass -covered to the bare -ground condition. The peak discharge increased by 72% when compared with the grass -covered condition. The runoff for the bare - ground condition also resulted in an earlier time to peak by approx- imately 10 min. Two other conditions were also modeled, showing similar results. In the first scenario, gravel was placed directly under the panel, and healthy grass was placed in the spacer section, which mimics a possible design decision. Under these conditions, the peak discharge increased by 42%, and the volume of runoff increased by 4%, which suggests that storm -water management would be necessary if gravel is placed anywhere. Fig. 5 shows two solar panels from a solar farm in New Jersey. The bare ground between the panels can cause increased runoff rates and reductions in time of concentration, both of which could necessitate storm -water management. The final condition modeled involved the assumption of healthy grass beneath the panels and bare ground in the spacer section, which would simulate the con- dition of unmaintained grass resulting from vehicles that drive over the spacer section. Because the spacer section is 53% of the cell, the change in land cover to bare ground would reduce losses and de- crease runoff travel times, which would cause runoff to amass as it Fig. 5. Site showing the initiation of bare ground below the panels, which increases the potential for erosion (photo by John Showler, reprinted with permission) JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 539 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:536-541. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Massachusetts Amherst on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. moves downgradient. With the spacer section as bare ground, the peak discharge increased by 100%, which reflected the increases in volume and decrease in timing. These results illustrate the need for maintenance of the grass below and between the panels. Design Suggestions With well -maintained grass underneath the panels, the solar panels themselves do not have much effect on total volumes of the runoff or peak discharge rates. Although the panels are impervious, the rainwater that drains from the panels appears as runoff over the downgradient cells. Some of the runoff infiltrates. If the grass cover of a solar farm is not maintained, it can deteriorate either because of a lack of sunlight or maintenance vehicle traffic. In this case, the runoff characteristics can change significantly with both runoff rates and volumes increasing by significant amounts. In addition, if gravel or pavement is placed underneath the panels, this can also contribute to a significant increase in the hydrologic response. If bare ground is foreseen to be a problem or gravel is to be placed under the panels to prevent erosion, it is necessary to counteract the excess runoff using some form of storm -water man- agement. A simple practice that can be implemented is a buffer strip (Dabney et al. 2006) at the downgradient end of the solar farm. The buffer strip length must be sufficient to return the runoff character- istics with the panels to those of runoff experienced before the gravel and panels were installed. Alternatively, a detention basin can be installed. A buffer strip was modeled along with the panels. For approxi- mately every 200 m of panels, or 29 cells, the buffer must be 5 cells long (or 35 m) to reduce the runoff volume to that which occurred before the panels were added. Even if a gravel base is not placed under the panels, the inclusion of a buffer strip may be a good prac- tice when grass maintenance is not a top funding priority. Fig. 6 shows the peak discharge from the graveled surface versus the length of the buffer needed to keep the discharge to prepaneled peak rate. Water draining from a solar panel can increase the potential for erosion of the spacer section. If the spacer section is bare ground, the high kinetic energy of water draining from the panel can cause soil detachment and transport (Garde and Raju 1977; Beuselinck et al. 2002). The amount and risk of erosion was modeled using the velocity of water coming off a solar panel compared with the velocity and intensity of the rainwater. The velocity of panel 0.07 0.06 0.05 M 0.04 0 11 0.03 o_ 0.02 0.01 5 10 15 20 25 Length of buffer (m) Pre -paneled peak Q Peak Q vs. buffer length - 30 35 40 Fig. 6. Peak discharge over gravel compared with buffer length runoff was calculated using Manning's equation, and the velocity of falling rainwater was calculated using the following: Vt = 120 d).35 (1) where d,. = diameter of a raindrop, assumed to be 1 mm. The re- lationship between kinetic energy and rainfall intensity is Ke = 916 + 3301og10 i (2) where i = rainfall intensity (in./h) and Ke = kinetic energy (ft -tons per ac -in. of rain) of rain falling onto the wet section and the panel, as well as the water flowing off of the end of the panel (Wischmeier and Smith 1978). The kinetic energy (Salles et al. 2002) of the rain- fall was greater than that coming off the panel, but the area under the panel (i.e., the product of the length, width, and cosine of the panel angle) is greater than the area under the edge of the panel where the water drains from the panel onto the ground. Thus, dividing the kinetic energy by the respective areas gives a more accurate representation of the kinetic energy experienced by the soil. The energy of the water draining from the panel onto the ground can be nearly 10 times greater than the rain itself falling onto the ground area. If the solar panel runoff falls onto an un- sealed soil, considerable detachment can result (Motha et al. 2004). Thus, because of the increased kinetic energy, it is pos- sible that the soil is much more prone to erosion with the panels than without. Where panels are installed, methods of erosion control should be included in the design. Conclusions Solar farms are the energy generators of the future; thus, it is im- portant to determine the environmental and hydrologic effects of these farms, both existing and proposed. A model was created to simulate storm -water runoff over a land surface without panels and then with solar panels added. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted including changing the storm duration and volume, soil type, ground slope, panel angle, and ground cover to determine the effect that each of these factors would have on the volumes and peak discharge rates of the runoff. The addition of solar panels over a grassy field does not have much of an effect on the volume of runoff, the peak discharge, nor the time to peak. With each analysis, the runoff volume increased slightly but not enough to require storm -water management facili- ties. However, when the land -cover type was changed under the panels, the hydrologic response changed significantly. When gravel or pavement was placed under the panels, with the spacer section left as patchy grass or bare ground, the volume of the runoff in- creased significantly and the peak discharge increased by approx- imately 100%. This was also the result when the entire cell was assumed to be bare ground. The potential for erosion of the soil at the base of the solar pan- els was also studied. It was determined that the kinetic energy of the water draining from the solar panel could be as much as 10 times greater than that of rainfall. Thus, because the energy of the water 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- 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. Bare ground beneath the panels and in the spacer section is a realistic possibility (see Figs. 1 and 5). Thus, a good, well - maintained grass cover beneath the panels and in the spacer section 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. Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Massachusetts Amherst on 05/10/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved. deemed unavoidable below the panels or in the spacer section, it may necessary to add a buffer section to control the excess runoff volume and ensure adequate losses. If these simple measures are taken, solar farms will not have an adverse hydrologic impact from excess runoff or contribute eroded soil particles to receiving streams and waterways. Acknowledgments The authors appreciate the photographs (Figs. 1 and 5) of Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, 1001 Route 202, North Raritan, New Jersey, 08869, provided by John E. Showler, Environmental Scientist, New Jersey Department of Agriculture. The extensive comments of reviewers resulted in an improved paper. References Bedient, P. B., and Huber, W. C. (2002). Hydrology and,floodplain analy- sis, Prentice -Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Beuselinck, L., Govers, G., Hairsince, P. B., Sander, G. C., and Breynaert, M. (2002). "The influence of rainfall on sediment transport by overland flow over areas of net deposition." J. Hydrol., 257(1-4), 145-163. 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. 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. Garde, R. J., and Raju, K. G. (1977). Mechanics of sediment transportation and alluvial stream problems, Wiley, New York. McCuen, R. H. (2005). Hydrologic analysis and design, 3rd Ed., Pearson/ Prentice -Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Motha, J. A., Wallbrink, P. J., Hairsine, P. B., and Grayson, R. B. (2004). "Unsealed roads as suspended sediment sources in agricultural catch- 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), 256-270. Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion losses: A guide to conservation planning, USDA Handbook 537, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 541 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013.18:536-541. CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw 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 15, 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 15, 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 CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw 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 15, 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 15, 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 CLOUDBREAK CBEP E P SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO©CLOD DBREAKEN ERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw 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. Please refer to sheet 4.0 of the USR Map for additional detail on the proposed security fence. In addition to this, there will be a view protection screen to shield the house from the array. This will be comprised of a row of trees that are a minimum of 8 feet tall, spaced at roughly 15 foot intervals, all planted 10+ feet to the west of the existing fence line. Cloudbreak will be responsible for the initial planting, and the landowner has agreed to assume all other costs and obligations related to long-term maintenance and watering. PROPOSED LOCATION FOR TREE PLACEMENT: (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw Solar Project SUBJECT: Lighting Plan CBEP Solar 15, LLC is proposing to construct and operate the Sheep Draw Solar Project in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado. The Project includes construction of 10 MW of solar electric generation on a 160 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 CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 IN FO©CLOD DBREAKEN ERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw Solar Project SUBJECT: Manure Management Plan CBEP Solar 15, LLC is proposing to construct and operate the Sheep Draw Solar Project in u nincorporated Weld County, Colorado. The Project includes the construction of 10 Megawatts (MW) of solar electric generation on a portion of a 159.45 -acre parcel. In addition to the solar array, the Project site will continue to contribute to the agricultural economy of Weld County by u sing the pasture land underneath the solar array for sheep grazing. This Manure Management Plan describes CBEP Solar 15, LLC's plan to maintain and minimize the impacts of the manure o n the Project parcel and neighboring community. Background: CBEP Solar 15, LLC intends to partner with a local shepherd that will be grazing no more than 500 sheep on the Sheep Draw Solar Project site for periods during the grazing season. The Sheep Draw 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 Sheep Draw Solar Project. The Project site will not serve as a feedlot for sheep. Harrowing: If necessary, a harrowing machine will be used on the Sheep Draw 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 15, 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 — Sheep Draw 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 Sheep Draw Solar Site in Weld County, CO. The proposed solar photovoltaic project site is approximately 7 miles southwest of Greeley, approximately 2 miles northeast of Milliken, and approximately 6 miles northwest of La Salle. The site is generally located south of County Road 54, west of County Road 27 (831d Avenue), and east of County Road 25 (95th Avenue). The solar site will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses located west and south of the project area. The location of the proposed Sheep Draw Solar Site is shown in Figure 1. Analysis Findings • The solar photovoltaic project will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses west and south of 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 42 dB(A) during daytime hours at the closest noise -sensitive land uses north and south of 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 Sheep Draw Solar Site will be developed on approximately 80 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. Eight (8) substations with an associated transformer and inverters will be located on site. Four (4) of the substations are located towards the northern portion of the site, two (2) substations will be located near the center of the site, and the remaining two (2) are near the southern portion of the site. kimley-horn.com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Figure 1: Site Location and Vicinity Sheep Draw Solar Site Sound Study March 27, 2023 - Page 2 e County Road 54 ►i Michael Project co kimley-horn. corn 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Sheep Draw 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. corn 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>) Horn Figure 2: Common Noise Levels Sheep Draw Solar Site Sound Study March 27, 2023 - Page 4 Kimley*) Horn Noise Source Jet Engine Police Siren Garbage Truck Motorcycle Drilling Vacuum Cleaner Air Conditioner Refrigerator Whisper Rustling Leaves Normal Breathing typical A -weighted sound levels in decibels. "A" weighting approximates the frequency response o1 the human ear. Common Environmental Noise Levels dB(A)* Noise Level Response Times As Loud Harmfully loud 128 —I Painfully loud v Regular exposer 7 A over 1 minute risks permanent hearing loss 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 Very loud Annoying - i nterferes • with conversation Moderately loud Comfortable 1/2 • 1/4 Quiet • 1/8 Very quiet Just audible Threshold of hearing 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. corn 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Sheep Draw Solar Site Sound Study March 27, 2023 - Page 5 Local Regulations The Sheep Draw 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 7:00 am Noise — 9:00 [dB(A)] pm Maximum 9:00 pm Noise — 7:00 [dB(A) 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 Sheep Draw 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 Sheep Draw 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 54, County Road 27, County Road 25, 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 northern portion of the site, twenty-two (22) PV inverters would be located near the center of the site, and twenty-two (22) PV inverters would be located near the southern portion of the site. 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. corn 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Sheep Draw 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 four (4) transformers would be located at the proposed substations towards the northern portion of the site, two (2) transformers would be located at the proposed substations towards the center of the site, and two (2) transformers would be located at the proposed substations towards the southern portion of the site. Each transformer was assumed to be located just north of their respective set of eleven (11) 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. corn 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Figure 3: Operational Sound Contours Sheep Draw Solar Site Sound Study March 27, 2023 - Page 7 Signs and symbds Project Boundary < 45 45 - 59 50 - 55 55 - 59 60 65 >=55 Conclusions The site is generally located south of County Road 54, west of County Road 27 (83rd Avenue), and east of County Road 25 (95th Avenue). The solar site will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses located west and south 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. corn 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 KimIey*) Horn 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- Sheep Draw Solar Site (80 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 Sheep Draw 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 need 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 no mapped raptor nests within the project area; however, one mapped "active" raptor nest is located approximately 0.82 -mile east of the project area. Pre - construction raptor nest surveys are recommended if disturbance activities are to occur during the nesting season (November 15 — October 31). • 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). kimley-horn.corn 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, Co 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Sensitive Species Memorandum Sheep Draw Solar Site Project Description The proposed solar photovoltaic project site is approximately 7 miles southwest of Greeley, approximately 2 miles northeast of Milliken, and approximately 6 miles northwest of La Salle. The site is generally located south of County Road 54, west of County Road 27 (83rd Avenue), and east of County Road 25 (95th Avenue). The solar site will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses located west and south of the project area. The location of the proposed Sheep Draw Solar Site is shown in Figure 1. The proposed Sheep Draw Solar Site will be developed on approximately 80 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. Eight (8) substations with an associated transformer and inverters will be located on site. Four (4) of the substations are located towards the northern portion of the site, two (2) substations will be located near the center of the site, and the remaining two (2) are near the southern portion of the site. 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 amongst agriculture fields in a disturbed setting. The project is bound to the north by County Road 54, to the east by 83rd Avenue, and to the south and west by agriculture, disturbed rangeland, and rural residences. Based on the National Land Cover Database (NLCD), the project area consists of mostly cultivated crops with small portions of developed — open space and developed — low intensity land cover types (Figure 2). kimley-horn.corn 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Figure 1. Vicinity Map Sensitive Species Memorandum Sheep Draw Solar Site kimley-horn.corn 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Figure 2. National Land Cover Database Map Sensitive Species Memorandum Sheep Draw Solar Site 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.corn 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Sensitive Species Memorandum Sheep Draw Solar Site 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 9, 2023. There are no CPW seasonal closures, restrictions, or limitations for big game or other wildlife species mapped within the project limits. 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. No raptor nests were mapped within the project area or within the vicinity. The nearest mapped raptor nest is located 0.82 mile east of the project. This nest was classified as an "active" nest of unknown species last surveyed in January of 2021. 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). Environmental Permitting Summary Federally regulated resource concerns on site are limited potentially suitable nesting habitat for migratory bird species. Impacts to this resource is anticipated to be avoidable through appropriate pre -construction surveys. No associated permitting is anticipated to be needed with USFWS 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. kimley-horn.corn 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Sensitive Species Memorandum Sheep Draw Solar Site The site lies within Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zone X and is in panels #08123C1514E and #08123C1702E (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 NAAQS for NO2, PM2.5, SO2, and Pb. The Proposed Project location is considered non -attainment for the 8 -hour ozone (O3) standard and a maintenance area for the CO, PM10 and the 1 -hour O3 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 Practices associated with the APEN will be incorporated into project design. P lease contact me at (720) 295-6923 orjesse.carlson@kimley-horn.com should you have any questions. S incerely, Jesse Carlson Wildlife Biologist Attachments: • Federal and State Listed Species Mapped within the Project Area • USFWS IPaC Report kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn Sensitive Species Memorandum Sheep Draw Solar Site References United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2023. Green Book. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo co.html United 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.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/16/2020-06782/list-of-bird-species-to- wh ich-the-m ig ratory-bird-treaty-act-does-not-apply kimley-horn.corn 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED SPECIES MAPPED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Kimley>>>Horn United States Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation Listed Species Mapped within the Project Area Species Conservation Status Potential Project to Occur Area in (Laterallus jamaicensis) jamaicensis Black Rail ssp. Low Eastern Threatened Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) Endangered Low (Danaus Monarch plexippus) Butterfly Candidate Low (Scaphirhynchus Pallid Sturgeon albus) Endangered Low (Charadrius Piping Plover melodus) Low Threatened Preble's (Zapus Meadow Jumping hudsonius preblei) Mouse Threatened Low Ute (Spiranthes Ladies' -tresses diluvialis) Low Threatened Western (Platanthera Prairie Fringed praeclara) Orchid Threatened Low Whooping (Grus Crane americanus) Endangered Low 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 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. Kimley>>> Horn 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 1.66 miles northeast 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. 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 (Cynomys -tailed ludovicianus) Prairie Dog Colony Potential Overall Range Occurrence (Eptesicus Big Brown fuscus) Bat Overall Range (Pituophis Bull Snake catenifer sayi) Overall Range Canada Geese (Branta canadensis) Foraging Winter Area Range Common Garter (Thamnophis Snake sirtalis) Overall Range Common (Holbrookia Lesser Earless Lizard Overall Range maculate) Hernandez's Short (Phrynosoma -horned hernandesi) Lizard Overall Range (Lasiurus Hoary cinereus) Bat Overall Range Little (Myotis Brown lucifungus) Myotis Overall Range (Plestiodon Many -lined multivirgatus Skink multivirgatus) Overall Range (Lam propeitis Milk Snake triangulum) Overall Range (Odocoileus Mule Deer hemionus) Overall Range A-4 Kimley>>> Horn Species Seasonal Use North (Coluber American constrictor) Racer Overall Range Northern (Nerodia Watersnake sipedon) Overall Range Olive -backed (Perognathus Pocket fasciatus) Mouse Overall Range Ornate (Terrapene Box ornata ornata) Overall Range Turtle (Chrysemys Painted Turtle picta) Overall Range Plains (Tantilla Black -headed Snake nigriceps) Overall Range Plains Gartner Snake (Thamnophis radix) Overall Range Plains (Heterodon Hog -nosed Snake nasicus) Overall Range (Sceloporus Plateau Fence tristichus) Lizard Overall Range (Sceloporus Prairie Lizard undulatus) Overall Range Prairie (Crotalus Rattlesnake viridi) Overall Range Preble's (Zapus Meadow hudsonius Jumping preblei) Mouse Overall Range (Lasiurus Red Bat borealis) Overall Range Ring-necked (Phasianus colchicus) Pheasant Overall Range (Lasionycteris Silver -haired noctivagans) Bat Overall Range Six -lined (Aspidoscelis Racerunner sexlineata) Overall Range Snapping (Chelydra serpentine) Overall Range Turtle Spiny (Apalone Softshell spinifera) Overall Range Turtle (Thamnophis Garter Snake elegans) Overall Range Terrestrial (Perimyotis subflavus) Bat Overall Range Tri-colored Variable (Plestiodon multivirgatus Skink epipleurotus) Overall Range Western (Crotalus Rattlesnake atrox) Overall Range White-tailed (Odocoileus virginianus) Deer Overall Range White-tailed (Lepus townsendii) Jackrabbit Overall Range Kimley>>> Horn 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 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Colorado Ecological Services Field Office Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25486 Denver, CO 80225-0486 Phone: (303) 236-4773 Fax: (303) 236-4005 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2023-0064431 Project Name: Sheep Draw 1F M.'.. F1si:1 ao WILIJL1If sr-in's t April 04, 2023 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: 2023-0064431 Project Name: Sheep Draw 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/@40.37419985,-104.8177021343887,14z 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 Fisheriesl, 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 Gray Wolf Canis lupus 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 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/53WY6TXERJCETCYPXP6DV7HITQ/documents/ generated/6861.pdf STATUS Endangered Threatened 04/04/2023 4 BIRDS NAME Eastern Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. jamaicensis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10477 Piping Plover Charadrius melodus 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 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 Threatened Threatened Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus 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 Endangered STATUS Endangered Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 FLOWERING PLANTS NAME Ute Ladies' -tresses Spiranthes diluvialis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159 Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1669 STATUS Candidate STATUS Threatened Threatened 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: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Email Phone: Kimley-Horn Jesse Carlson 380 Interlocken Crescent Suite 100 Broomfield CO 80021 jesse .carlsonkimley-horn. com 2532982432 CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw Solar Project SUBJECT: Sewage Disposal Documentation No sewage disposal will be required for the operation of the Project. CBEP Solar 15, 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 CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 IN FO c©CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw 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 West on CO -34, South on Milliken Road, West on W 37th Street, South on 83rd Ave, and then arriving at the Project's eastern access. 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 MAP OF PRIMARY ROUTE: r School District 6 yr IF 9 Gienrnere Park • S a i 11 D ung: R d.;56f _ -_�, KimIey) Horn March 7, 2023 Mr. Zach Brammer CloudBreak Energy Partners, LLC 218 S. 3rd Street Sterling, Colorado 80751 Re: CloudBreak - Sheep Draw Solar Traffic Study Letter Weld County, Colorado Dear Mr. Brammer: This traffic study letter has been prepared for the proposed CloudBreak - Sheep Draw 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 Weld County Road 54 (WCR-54) and 83rd Avenue intersection. A vicinity map illustrating the location of CloudBreak - Sheep Draw Solar is attached as Figure 1. The project will consist of a 10 MW solar facility with supporting infrastructure. A site plan for the proposed development is attached. This traffic study identifies the amount of and the expected trip distribution and traffic assignment.g both construction and operational phases, 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 - Sheep Draw Solar will be provided by US -34, US -85, and 1-25. Primary access will be provided by WCR-54 while direct access is proposed from one full movement access on the west side of 83rd Avenue. kimley-horn.com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn CloudBreak - Sheep Draw Traffic Study Letter Page 2 The anticipated truck routes to CloudBreak — Sheep Draw Solar is via US -34 Business and US -34 if traveling from the north and northeast and the anticipated truck route from the east and west is along WCR-54. The anticipated truck route to the site from the north and northeast is to travel west on US -34 or US -34 Business, south along 59th Avenue from US -34 Business or south on 65th Avenue from US -34, west along 37th Street, south along 83rd Avenue, then west into the project site access. The anticipated truck route to the site from the east is to travel west on 37th Street, south along 83rd Avenue, then west into the project site access. The anticipated vehicle route to the site from the west is to travel east on WCR-54, south along 83rd Avenue, 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 - Sheep Draw 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 - Sheep Draw Solar facility. Table 1 Trip Generation: CloudBreak Sheep Draw Solar Development fse Weekday Vehicles Trips Daily Round Daily AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Trips Trips In Out Total, In Out Total 5 15 10 30 3 9 0 0 3 9 0 0 2 6 2 6 Heavy PCE Trips Duty Trucks (5) Passenger Vehicles (20) 20 40 10 0 10 0 7 7 Total Vehicles 25 35 50 70 13 19 0 0 13 19 0 0 9 13 9 13 Total PCE As shown in the table above, CloudBreak - Sheep Draw 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. kimley-horn.com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley>>> Horn CloudBreak - Sheep Draw Traffic Study Letter Page 3 Solar Facility Operational Phase Traffic Generation After the CloudBreak - Sheep Draw 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. 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 north and northeast will utilize the intersection of US -34 Business/59th Avenue or US-34/65th Avenue to gain access to 37th Street. Truck traffic from the east will travel west along 37111 Street, then travel south along 83rd Avenue, and head west into the site. Truck traffic from the west will travel east along WCR-54, then travel south along 83rd Avenue, 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 Town of Evans is located approximately seven (7) miles east of the site and the City of Greeley is located approximately nine (9) miles northeast of the project site. Further west, approximately 15 miles west of the site is the City of Loveland. The City of Fort Collins is approximately 28 miles to the northwest. Based on these factors, it is anticipated that 70 percent of traffic will be to and from the east along WCR-54/37th Street and 30 percent of the traffic will be to and from the west along WCR-54/37th Street. Attached Figure 3 illustrates the anticipated project trip distribution while the project traffic assignment volumes for construction activities is shown in attached Figure 4. CONCLUSION In summary, the CloudBreak - Sheep Draw 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 - Sheep Draw Solar will have a minimal traffic impact. The public street roadways and adjacent intersections are anticipated to successfully accommodate Siisqamejkict traffic volume. If you have any questions , r re i .wig further, please feel free to call. KIMLEY-HORN LEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Jeffrey R. Planck, P.E. Project Traffic Engineer • •6• • `• 03/07/2023 ,' rA. iti'� dir— I I kimley-horn.com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Figures AmIqslioNs NTS 196664000 FIGURE 1 CLOUDBREAK SHEEP DRAW WELD COUNTY, COLORADO VICINITY MAP Km1ey* Hornj—' NORTH NTS 196664000 US -34 BUSINESS FIGURE 2 CLOUDBREAK - SHEEP DRAW WELD COUNTY, COLORADO hvh, TRUCK ROUTE LEGEND 9ro9osec Truck Route i ■t uu ■ ■ ■r' V f// ■ ■t P• ■ ■ NORTH NTS 196664000 FIGURE 3 CLOUDBREAK SHEEP DRAW WELD COUN I Y, COLORADO PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION L/ 70% (_ _ i 30% 0 H/7 0 WCR-54 & 83RD AVE 2) 0 0 0 T [ 100%] B3RD AVE ACCESS XX% LEGEND Study Area Key Intersection External Trip Distribution Percentage Entering[Exiting] XX%[XX7O] Trip Distribution Percentage I _ I _ Milan a I KJIPV)))flOfl � Thk Kiml • 4 Horn NORTH NTS 196664000 FIGURE 4 CLOUDBREAK SHEEP DRAW WELD COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT C0NSTUCT0N ACTIVITY 9(0) C _ 2) _ 4(0) - rr M 0 0 WCR-54 & 83RD AVE 0(9) CB3RD AVE ACCESS LEGEND Study Area Key Intersection XXX(XXX) Weekday AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes XXX Estimated Daily Traffic Volume I KimIvHnrn I-� Conceptual Site Plan CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw 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 Morgan'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 Arrowhead Lake substation • Outside of floodplains and wetlands • Relatively flat • No geotechnical constraints • Landowner participation • Limited disturbance to nearby properties and property owners Alternatives to the Morgan'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 I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw 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 Ding 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 PAGE 2 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 t0 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 (MS4) 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 15, 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 INFO©aCLOUDB!REAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK CBEP SOLAR 15, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24, 2023 PROJECT: Sheep Draw Solar Project SUBJECT: Utility and Other Infrastructure Owners Infrastructure Owner Name Address Oil and gas pipeline Snyder Oil Corpooration 1625 Denver, Broadway Colorado # 2200 80202 Oil and gas pipeline Midstream LLC 555 17th Denver, Street, CO 80202, Suite US 3700, XTR Overhead utilities and underground Public Colorado Service DBA Company Xcel of Energy 1800 80202 Larimer St, Denver, CO (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM Weld County Treasurer Statement of Taxes Due Account Number R2931804 Assessed To Parcel 095930100046 MORGAN MICHAEL W 12742 COUNTY ROAD 54 GREELEY, CO 80634-9044 Legal Description NE4 30-5-66 (1.82R) S itus Address 12742 COUNTY ROAD 54 WELD Year Tax Charge 2022 Tax $18,084.50 interest Fees Payments Balance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Tax Charge Grand Total Due as of 04/24/2023 Tax Billed at 2022 Rates for Tax Area 5728 - 5728 Authori ty WELD COUNTY SCHOOL DIST #6 NORTHERN COLORADO WATER (NC FRONT RANGE FIRE RESCUE (JO AIMS JUNIOR COLLEGE HIGH PLAINS LIBRARY WEST GREELEY CONSERVATION Taxes Billed 2022 * Credit Levy Mill Levy 15.0380000* 50.3990000 1.0000000 11.6420000 6.3070000 3.1810000 0.4140000 87.9810000 Amount $3,091 06 $10359 52 $205 55 $2393.02 $1,296.40 $653.85 $85.10 $18,084.50 Values AG -SPRINKLER IRRIGATED LAND $18,084.50 $18.084.50 $18,084.50 Actual Assessed $78,890 $20,830 AG -DRY FARM LAND $6,239 FARM/RANCI I $2,456,135 RESIDENCE -IMPS OTHER BLDGS.- AGRICULTURAL $1,650 $170,700 $46,848 $12,370 Total $2,588,112 $205,550 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. S13oIcXX'&& Weld County Treasurer's Office 1400 N 17th Avenue PG Box 458 Greeley, CO 80632 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 of the status as of this date of all property taxes, special assessments, and prior tax liens attached to this account. 181 bt4 .0 �1- Signed: e---; Current year's taxes are due but not delinquent. Date: Hello