The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20233002.tiff USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW ( USR) APPLICATION FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE : DATE RECEIVED : AMOUNT $ CASE # ASSIGNED : APPLICATION RECEIVED BY PLANNER ASSIGNED : P ROPERTY INFORMATION Is the property currently in violation ? No / [ Yes Violation Case Number: Parcel Number: 0 7 0 9 _ 0 8 _ 1 0 0 0 0 3 S ite Address : NEAR 40022 CO RD 39 AULT, CO 80610 Legal Description : A part of PT E2 8-7-65 PT LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-4980 DESC AS THE SOUTHERLY PT OF LOT B Section : 8 , Township 7 N , Range 65 W Zoning District : A Acreage : 69 . 1646 Within subdivision or townsite? No / Yes Name : Water (well permit # or water district tap #) : N/A Sewer (On -site wastewater treatment system permit # or sewer account #) : N/A Floodplain No / Yes Geological Hazard No / Yes Airport Overlay No / n Yes P ROJECT U SR Use being applied for: Solar Facilities Name of proposed business : CBEP Solar 30 , LLC P ROPERTY OWNER(S) (Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Name : Louis & Gina Fabrizius Company: N/A Phone # : (970) 371 -7501 Email : fab4farm@aol .com Street Address : PO Box 428 City/State/Zip Code : Eaton , CO 80615 APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT (Authorization Form must be included if there is an Authorized Agent) Name : Zach Brammer Company: CBEP Solar 30 , 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 . At— 04/29/2023 igna re Date Signature Date Zachary Brammer Print Print 07/22 9 DEPARTMENTS OF PLANNING BUILD +F . . G1 DEVT : LOMENT REVIEVV AND � � � s � Sf� l - �'� ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1402 NORTH 17T " AVENUE PO BOX 758 I 1 ,, ir ; GRE ELEY , CO 80632 _ . onmi 1 I 4.4111 ri ' ffi% 11. AUTHORIAUTHORIL TICH FORM Y l' ( We ) 1 • J p � and cin regbYfzt�►.1 _ , give permission to � � � � Ler - � _ocr _ � ("owner — please print ) ( Authorized Agent/Applicantplease pant ) to apply for any Planning , Building , Access , Hradint or OWIS permits on our behalf, for the property located at ( address or ,parcel nu mbHer ) :ueiow : it / OQ 410 (3 3 Pt 6i 0 - 7046 Pr (for 8 5 deg - 1 Gtescription : g�`,� 6K6I1Prts gli.i . _ of Section 00 TownshIp_ 0 ? N , Range__�`_ _ W r Eric • ' S iovrHEgL fl oPWT 8" Subdivision Name : /�� Lot Block _ " roperty OW fl € tS in orm 1ion ' Address : PO hig Llite3 _ CalVfl 60615 Phone : te.170) 0 "9l1/49 E - mail : foil g�1 Yom , !�INI: [ 1'1` I"Y7 _ Authorized Agent/Applicant Con tact Information : Addrtss, : Po * 0x jzsrig : 44; ) _ " hone : EMaU : Correspondence to 4m- sent to : Ciner , Authortze. d AgenUA. ppiIc .: nt ! by : Mail Email Additional Inca ; • I (We ) hereby certifyr , under • enatty of perjury and after carefully readiH ": tie entire contents � �fi this document , that the information stated above is true . ; _ nd correct # a th - best of my ( our ) knowledge . Y- �� _ _ Date91404F: _L� date O"wne - ' _ azure ignatu Subscribed and swain to before me this ID*" say of Ng n � _ _- - _e , 20 -2H by I _ _ . • - ) Iang' • My commission expiresma_ C�� - otary PublEc : , :illllllflii1hii1iIu ' $ HHJIIJIIIIIIHJII'IIiiJiIJJiUIHhIIfluIiII 11111 1111111101 PIIII CHRISTOPPER MIMW ' EGEJ :H tiOTARY PUPLIC a STATE OF COLORADO NOTA ID 20224047 § 79 OWJMSISION EXPIRFS DEC 20 , 2026 )0.7 ifiViSriOliithifilommoumotoonmomotmommommonsimmlia CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 25 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project SUBJECT: Planning Questionnaire 1 . Explain the proposed use and business name : o CBEP Solar 30, LLC is proposing to construct and operate the Lone Tree Creek Solar Project (" Project " ) in unincorporated Weld County on Parcel ID number 070908100003 . The Project will be a 3 . 6MWac community solar garden and will be constructed on approximately 44 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 Lone Tree Creek 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 800 feet to the east of the Project ' s proposed fenceline . 5 . Describe the surrounding land uses of the site and how the proposed use is compatible with them . o The surrounding land use includes residential , oil and gas production , and agricultural land use . 6 . Describe the hours and days of operation (i . e . Monday thru Friday 8 : 00 a . m . to 5 : 00 . m . . (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 o Construction activities will take place Monday through Saturday from 7 : 00 a . m . to 6 : 00 p . m . After construction is completed , occasional maintenance will occur between 7 : 00 a . m . and 7 : 00 p . m . as needed . 7 . Describe the number of employees including full -time, part-time and contractors. If shift work is proposed , detail number of employees., schedule and duration of shifts .. o Construction may require up to 50 workers to be on site at one time during the peak of construction , all contractors during the day shift. Construction employees may include up to 15 civil workers, 15 electricians, 15 racking builders , and an additional 5 employees. During operations , two to four employees may be needed for maintenance , as needed , approximately twice a year. 8 . Describe the maximum number of users, patrons, members, buyers or other visitors that the site will accommodate at any one time . o No users , patrons , members , buyers , or other visitors are expected to be on the site at any time . 9 . List the types and maximum numbers of animals to be on the site at any one time (for dairies , livestock confinement operations, kennels, etc. ) . o Up to 500 sheep . 10 . List the types and number of operating and processing equipment. o The Project will consist of approximately 9 , 126 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 36 inverters mounted on steel posts or beams, 2 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 9 , 126 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 . 36 inverters mounted on steel posts or beams iii . 2 concrete pad mounted transformers iv. Approximately 5 utility poles that will connect the project to the existing Xcel Energy distribution line located on the west side of the property . v. One temporary construction trailer vi . Two 10' x 40' storage containers that will store parts, tools , and equipment on site during construction and operations (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKEICIEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE3 12 . Describe the size of any stockpile, storage or waste areas . o During construction , a laydown area located within the limits of the Project area will be used to store Project facility items while facilities are installed . During operations , there will be no open stockpiling , uncovered storage , or waste areas . Up to two storage containers approximately 40-feet in length , 10 feet in width , and 10 feet in height to store spare parts , tools, and equipment on site during construction and operations . 13 . Describe the method and time schedule of removal or disposal of debris, junk and other wastes associated with the proposed use . o Debris , junk, and other wastes will be stored in appropriate waste receptacles such as dumpsters during construction . CBEP Solar 30 , 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 : 4 , 124 sq ft (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM I CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE4- ii . Gravel : 29 , 880 sq ft iii . Swales: 0 sq ft iv. Grass/Vacant: 1 , 493 , 631 sq ft v. Solar Racking : 261 ,430 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 Ault Fire Protection District. The Project will comply with all Colorado Public Utilities Commission requirements as well as national codes and standards for construction , electrical , and fire . A supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system will remotely monitor and control the Project 24 hours per day . The SCADA system will transmit Project data and control signals over the internet. 21 . Explain how this proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan per Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code . o The Project is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan because it: (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGES i . Does not interfere with any existing agricultural operations within the vicinity . ii . Respects private property rights by allowing the owner of the property to do what is in their best interest while complying with local regulations and not interfering with or infringing upon the rights of others . iii . Promotes economic growth and stability by providing a diversified source of income for the landowner, the shepherd , and the County while also offering local residents the opportunity to save money on their electricity bills through Xcel 's Solar* Rewards Community Program . iv. Protects the health , safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the County by providing an emission -free source of energy . v. Is harmonious with surrounding agricultural and industrial uses . vi . Supports future mineral development by reserving space on the landowner's property where minerals can be extracted in the future . 22 . Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the zone district in which it is located . ( Intent statements can be found at the be inning of each zone district section in Article III of Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code . ) o The water rights associated with the property are limited , so crop production has become increasingly more challenging for this parcel . By allocating a portion of this land to the solar development, the property will be able to better allocate water to the remaining agricultural land that the landowne owns. The new solar development will also not interfere with any of the surrounding agricultural land uses . The Project's array will protect the land underneath and in turn allow the soil to revitalize over time , therefore preserving the land to be used for agricultural purposes in the future , if desired . We will be planting a native seed mixture on the property that will not require irrigation . 23 . Explain how this proposal will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area or adopted master plans of affected municipalities. o The Project will be located within the Ault's Intergovernmental Agreement area . o The Project ' s area is not included on the Future Land Use Map in the 2007 Town of Ault Comprehensive Plan which assumes that the land currently falls under " Undetermined Use " . Therefore , the proposed solar development will not go against any established future plans . This project would support the Town of (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM I CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE6 Ault ' s Economic Development strategy (Strategy 7 . 2 . 2) " to recruit clean energy and green industries to Ault " . This Project will fit in well with the rural community as it will have minimal visual impacts as well as minimal sound , odor, noise , and traffic impacts. This Project will benefit the community with improved electrical infrastructure , increased energy independence , and help reduce the burden on the energy grid as the community continues to grow and expand . 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 , x lain your efforts to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use . o The property currently has limited irrigation and water rights . Due to this , any land allocated to the solar array will help improve the remaining farmland as the property will be able to better redistribute the water to support the prime agricultural land . Additionally, we will be planting a native seed mixture on the property and grazing sheep to maintain the vegetation at a height of no more than 18-22 inches. 26 . Explain how this proposal complies with Article V and Article XI of Chapter 23 if the proposal is located within any Overlay Zoning District (Airport, Geologic Hazard , or Historic Townsites Overlay Districts) or a Special Flood Hazard Area identified by maps officially adopted by the County . The Project site is not located within any Overlay Zoning District or Special Flood Hazard Area . The Project Parcel does have a small area inside the 100 Year Zone A Floodplain but the Project area will be located approximately 850 feet to the south of this zone and will not be impacted . 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 (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAK pp, G E 7 the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Permit. No applications for State permits have been submitted . (970) 425-3175 I INFO@CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek 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 1 proposed and 3 existing accesses . o Access 1 , the proposed access for the Lone Tree Creek Solar Project, is located on the eastern side of the parcel on County Road 41 , approximately 2 , 215 feet to the north of CO- 14 . This will be the access for the solar project. o Access 2 is located on the eastern side of the parcel on County Road 41 , approximately 2 , 615 feet to the north of CO- 14 . This is an existing Agricultural and Ditch Easement access. o Access 3 is located on the eastern side of the parcel on County Road 41 , approximately 3 , 745 feet to the north of CO- 14 . This is an existing Agricultural and Oil and Ditch Easement access. o Access 4 is located on the southern side of the parcel , running through the adjacent southern parcels and connecting with CO - 14 . This access off of CO- 14 is approximately 3 , 160 feet west of County Road 41 and 2 , 070 feet east of County Road 39 . This is an existing Agricultural and Ditch Easement access. 2 . Describe any anticipated change(s) to an existing access, if applicable : o No accesses will be relocated or updated for the project. 1 new access will be added to the parcel to access the Project. 3 . Describe in detail any existing or proposed access gate including its location : o There will be a 7 -foot tall perimeter fence around the Project. The access gate for this Project will be located on the east side of the Project area . 4 . Describe the location of all existing accesses on adjacent parcels and on parcels located on the opposite side of the road . Include the approximate distance each access is from an intersecting. county road : (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 There are 9 parcels adjacent to the Project parcel . There are three parcels to the north of the Project parcel , which have numbered " Northern parcel 1 -3 , " going from west to east, below: o Northern parcel 1 , the westernmost parcel , has 1 access that it shares with the Project parcel and the parcels to the south . This ditch access runs along the Eaton Ditch and connects CO- 14 and County Road 43 . Where this access connects with CO- 14 is approximately 3 , 160 feet to the west of County Road 41 and 2 , 070 feet east of County Road 39 . Where this access connects with County Road 43 is approximately 5 ,220 feet north of CO- 14 and 1 . 01 miles to the south of County Road 86 . o Northern parcel 2 , the middle parcel , has 1 access that it shares with the Project parcel . This access is located on the eastern side of the Project parcel on County Road 41 , approximately 3 , 745 feet to the north of CO- 14 . o Northern parcel 3 , the easternmost parcel , has 1 access which County Road 41 terminates into . This access is located on the southern side of the parcel , approximately 3 , 890 feet north of CO- 14 . There are two parcels across County Road 41 to the east of the Project parcel : o The northern parcel across County Road 41 to the east of the Project parcel , has 5 accesses. - Access 1 is located on the northern side of the parcel on County Road 84 , approximately 2 , 860 feet to the west of County Road 41 and 1 . 41 miles to the east of County Road 39 . - Access 2 is located on the northern side of the parcel on County Road 84 , approximately 3 , 220 feet west of County Road 41 and 1 . 34 miles east of County Road 39 . - Access 3 is located on the northern side of the parcel on County Road 84 , approximately 3 , 795 feet west of County Road 41 and 1 . 26 miles east of County Road 39 . - Access 4 is located on the northern side of the parcel on County Road 84 , approximately 5 , 025 feet west of County Road 41 and 1 . 03 miles east of County Road 39 . - Access 5 is the ditch access which is shared with the properties to the north and south (see Northern Parcel 1 access description) . o The southern parcel across County Road 41 to the east of the Project parcel has 2 accesses. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE3 - Access 1 is located on the west side of the parcel off of County Road 41 , approximately 1 , 660 feet north of CO- 14 . - Access 2 is located on the southern side of the parcel on CO- 14 , approximately 2 , 600 feet to the east of County Road 41 and 2 , 610 feet to the West of County Road 43 . The parcel to the south of the Project parcel has 3 accesses. - Access 1 is located on the southern side of the parcel on CO - 14 , approximately 1 , 305 feet to the west of County Road 41 and 3 , 895 feet to the east of County Road 39 . - Access 2 is located on the southern side of the parcel on CO- 14 , approximately 2 , 320 feet to the west of County Road 41 and 2 , 840 feet to the east of County Road 39 . - Access 3 is located on the southern side of the parcel on CO- 14 , approximately 2 , 655 feet to the west of County Road 41 and 2 , 540 feet to the east of County Road 39 . There are 2 parcels to the west of the Project parcel : o The southernmost parcel to the west of the Project parcel has 2 accesses . - Access 1 is the ditch access which is shared with the properties to the north and south (see Northern Parcel 1 access description) . - Access 2 is located on the northern side of the parcel on County Road 84 , approximately 1 . 50 miles to the west of County Road 41 and 2 , 600 feet to the east of County Road 39 . o The northernmost parcel to the west of the Project parcel shares 1 access with the parcels to the north and south . See Northern Parcel 1 access description . 5 . Describe any difficulties seeing, oncoming traffic from an existing access and any anticipated difficulties seeing oncoming traffic from a proposed access : o The existing access should not have any difficulties seeing oncoming traffic. 6 . Describe any horizontal curve (using terms like mild curve, sharp curve , reverse curve , etc.) in the vicinity of an existing or proposed access: o The existing access does not have any horizontal curves in the vicinity . 7 . Describe the topography (using terms like flat, slight hills, steep hills, etc . ) of the road in the vicinity of an existing or proposed access: o The topography of the road in the vicinity of the existing access is flat. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKEICIEPGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project SUBJECT: Environmental Health Questionnaire 1 . Discuss the existing and .proposed potable water source . If utilizing a drinking water well , include either the well permit or well permit application that was submitted to the State Division of Water Resources. If utilizing a public water tap , include a letter from the Water District, a tap or meter number, or a copy of the water bill . : o The Project area does not have an existing potable water source . There is no proposed potable water source for the Project. Bottled water will be provided for the construction team . Any water used for dust mitigation will be brought to the property from an external source . 2 . Discuss the existing and proposed sewage disposal system . What type of sewage disposal system is on the property? If utilizing an existing on -site wastewater treatment system , provide the on -site wastewater treatment permit number. (If there is no on -site wastewater treatment permit due to the age of the existing on -site wastewater treatment system , apply for a on -site wastewater treatment permit through the Department of Public Health and Environment prior to submitting this application .) If a new on -site wastewater treatment system will be installed , please state " a new on -site wastewater treatment system is proposed . " (Only propose portable toilets if the use is consistent with the Department of Public Health and Environment's portable toilet policy.) : o There is no existing on -site sewage disposal system . The operation of the Project is not anticipated to require a sewage disposal system . CBEP Solar 30 , 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 30, LLC and its contractors will hire a waste management provider to regularly remove wastes associated with construction of the Project from the receptacles and bring the waste to an approved landfill (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 or disposal site . Maintenance contractors will properly dispose of any wastes generated during operation of the Project by bringing the wastes to an approved landfill or disposal site . During construction , up to 1 ,000 gallons of fuel will be stored on -site in appropriate containers. No fuel will be stored on site for operations. No other chemicals are anticipated to be stored during construction or operation of the Project. 5 . If there will be fuel storage on site , indicate the gallons and the secondary containment. State the number of tanks and gallons per tank: o Up to 1 ,000 gallons of fuel are anticipated to be stored on one site at one time during construction . Storage of fuel will follow applicable secondary containment requirements , as applicable . There will not be fuel storage during operation of the Project. 6 . If there will be washing of vehicles or equipment on site , indicate how the wash water will be contained : o There will not be vehicle washing/equipment on site during the construction and operation of the Project. 7 . If there will be floor drains , indicate how the fluids will be contained : o None of the facilities constructed for the Project will contain floor drains or require wastewater treatment. 8 . Indicate if there will be any air emissions (e . g . painting , oil storage, etc. ) : o Traffic volume , primarily in the form of passenger vehicles , would increase in and around the Project area during construction . The increased traffic would temporarily increase odors and exhaust from vehicle emissions . Odors are anticipated from the operation of heavy machinery during grading , pile driving , and other installation activities at specific time periods throughout construction . Impacts from odors during Project operation would be minimal , likely restricted to emissions from the vehicles of maintenance personnel . 9 . Provide a design and operations plan if applicable (e . g . composting , landfills, etc .) : o A design and operations plan is not applicable to the Project. 10 . Provide a nuisance management plan if applicable (e . g . dairies, feedlots, etc . ) : o A nuisance management plan is not applicable to the Project. 11 . Additional information may be requested depending_ on type of land use requested : o If any additional information is required , please don 't hesitate to contact Zach Brammeratzach@cloudbreakenergy. com - (970) 425 -3175 . (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM 4878594 01 /25/2023 01 : 30 PM Total Pages: 4 Rec Fee : $28 . 99 Carly Koppes - Clerk and Recorder, Weld County , CO MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AND EASEMENT OPTION AGREEMENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF LEASE AND EASEMENT OPTION AGREEMENT is entered into as of I It'?, ( by and between Louis S Fabrizius, and Gina D Fabrizius (together, "Owner"), and Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and its successors and assigns ("Operator") . RECITALS A. Owner and Operator have entered into that certain Lease and Easement Option Agreement (the "Lease Agreement"), dated ( / 23, , 2023 (the "Effective Date"), whereby Owner has granted Operator the right to conduct due diligence on the Owner' s Property and an option to lease and develop a portion of the Owner' s Property (the "Option"), together with easement rights on, over, under, across, and through said Owner' s Property, in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, and being more particularly described in Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Owner's Property"). B . This Memorandum is being executed and recorded to evidence the Lease Agreement and shall not be construed to limit, amend or modify the provisions of the Lease Agreement in any respect. MEMORANDUM 1 . OWNER. The name(s) of the Owner(s) are Louis S . Fabrizius and Gina D. Fabrizius with an address of P.O . Box 429, Eaton, CO 80615 . 2 . OPERATOR. The name of the Operator is Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, having an address of 4845 Pearl East Circle, Suite 118 #53242, Boulder, Colorado 80301 , and its successors and assigns. 3 . LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The specific legal description of the Owner' s Property is described on Schedule A and is incorporated herein by this reference. 4. OPTION TERM. Owner has granted Operator the right to conduct due diligence on the Owner' s Property to determine if the Operator would like to enter into a lease. The initial term of the Option Agreement is a period which commenced on .w1 2., ' , 2023 and ends on .„\4.01/4 wAtobu% '" ..1 aL 2- 5 . The of the Option may be extended, at Operator' s discretion) for onef 1 calendaryear(s), as term p ( ) 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). 53 4811 -7089-4018 .9 4878594 01 /25/2023 01 : 30 PM Page 2 of 4 6 . EXTENSION TERMS . Operator has the option to extend the term of the lease for three (3 ) additional extension terms of five (5) years each on the terms and conditions more particularly set forth in the Lease Agreement. 7. EASEMENTS . In connection with the Lease Agreement, Owner has granted or has agreed to grant Operator a number of easements on, over, under, across and through Owner' s Property, which are fully described in the Lease Agreement. 8 . 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 Louis S Fabrizius e......."1 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY/CITY OF P _ ) .-- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23 day of C/in, 52023by .. - I I. 7- ,_ u, . 54 Witness my hand and official seal �M R c, ,,- .. , 1 ... Notary Public C0 • ♦ ♦ Novitt SAS . LYNNVERS My commission expires: . 470c,„-t5.. NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF COLORADO My Notary number is : O I H sIC; NOTARY ID 20214O46316 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV 29, 2025 . 54 4811 -7089-4018.9 I 4878594 01 /25/2023 01 : 30 PM Page 3 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this instrument to be executed as of the date first written, above. OWNER Gina D Fabrizius s STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY/CITY OF :tee } The foregoing instrument was acknowled ed before me this c 1 day of ms!µ A^� �,��' T � d. � !vie, Thi M� � ° `1 PC , 202 3 byLqchid) i L • my hand and official seal : ` . Witness �.. � - Notary Public ij - R I t ,01 e LYNN EV R My commission expires. J� Le c--te, -; a �,. �. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My Notary number is : t .. NOTARY ID 20214046316 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV 29 : 2025 [Remainder of page intentionally blank. Signatures continue on following pages.] €a' i[ i[R 55 4811 -7089-4018.9 .. ...n.n n n'R.9ff.M1ti^:f.M1ti^:f.M1tia..n...n^..:M..:R:?:^..O.:i'�^..'n:�i1:�.n.n.m.n.n...........n.....nf....................q....n..n..m.n..n..n..n..n..n..n..n..n 4878594 01 /25/2023 01 : 30 PM Page 4 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this instrument to be executed as of the date first written above. OPERATOR Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: giss. G sishl Name: t,1 t.ceo, (0 se k‘Title: eitip,ertv4� - /5 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF e ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ..:b day of us o ' , 2023 , by Ss, j `a the 6 it of Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. Witness my hand and official seal -F t`'. ito `tf " p" Notary Public ZiI commission e fires: qc - g.p . NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF COLORADO ) NOTARY ID 20214046316 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV 29, 2025 if 56 4811 -7089-4018.9 CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek 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 Fabrizius ' 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 Ault substation • Outside of floodplains and wetlands • Relatively flat • No geotechnical constraints • Landowner participation • Limited disturbance to nearby properties and property owners Alternatives to the Fabrizius ' s property were thoroughly evaluated but were ultimately dismissed due to at least one of the above factors . The proposed Project presents the most viable design and location with the least adverse impacts of all the alternatives. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project SUBJECT: Decommissioning Plan Approach CBEP Solar 30 , LLC has developed this decommissioning plan for the Lone Tree Creek Solar Project, to be implemented after the contracted lease term has ended . CBEP Solar 30, LLC, the owner of the 3 . 6MW 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 3 . 6MW 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 30 , 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 30 , LLC will provide notice to Weld County prior to commencement of decommissioning the Project. Estimated Timeline and Cost Decommissioning/reclamation shall commence within 12 months after power production has permanently ceased and be completed within 12 months from the start date of the decommissioning/reclamation work. Decommissioning/reclamation cost estimates, which shall be updated every five years from the establishment and submittal of the Security, shall include all costs associated with the dismantlement, recycling , and safe disposal of facility components and site reclamation activities, including the following elements : (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 • All labor, equipment, transportation , and disposal costs associated with the removal all facility components from the facility site • All costs associated with full reclamation of the facility site , including removal of non -native soils, fences, and constructed access roads • All costs associated with reclamation of any primary agricultural soils at the facility site to ensure each area of direct impact shall be materially similar to the condition it was before construction • All decommissioning/reclamation activity management, site supervision , and site safety costs • All other costs , including administration costs, associated with the decommissioning and reclamation of the facility site • The established date of submission of the financial assurance mechanism to Weld County Prior to construction , CBEP Solar 30 , LLC will provide the County with an irrevocable standby letter of credit, bond , or alternate form of financial assurance mechanism in an amount sufficient to fund the estimated decommissioning costs required by the Code . The Security shall : • Name the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County as the sole beneficiary of the letter of credit • Be issued by an A- rated financial institution based upon a rating provided by S & P, Moody's, Fitch , AM Best, or other rating agency with similar credentials • Include an automatic extension provision or " evergreen clause " • Be " bankruptcy remote " , meaning the financial assurance mechanism will be unaffected by the bankruptcy of the SEF operator Weld County, in its sole discretion , may approve alternative forms of a financial assurance mechanism such as , but not limited to bonds , letters of credit, or other securities , if it finds that such alternative forms will provide an assurance of the availability of financial resources for decommissioning/reclamation that equals or exceeds that provided by the form required herein . Furthermore , Weld County shall have the right to draw upon the irrevocable standby letter of credit, or other form of financial assurance mechanism , to pay for decommissioning in the event that the holder has not commenced decommissioning/reclamation activities within 90 days of the Board of County Commissioners order or resolution directing decommissioning/reclamation . Continued Beneficial Use If prior to decommissioning the Project, the landowner determines that any of the Project components can be beneficially used on the land after disassembly , such items would be (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBFREAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE3 exempt from the requirements for decommissioning . If a third party acquires the Project or a portion of the Project, such third party would be responsible for providing evidence of a plan of continued beneficial use for their relevant Project components . Force Majeure An exception to these requirements will be allowed for a force majeure event, which is defined as any event or circumstance that wholly or partly prevents or delays the performance of any material obligation arising under the Project permits , but only t0 the extent: • Such event is not within the reasonable control , directly or indirectly, of CBEP Solar 30 , 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 30, LLC has taken all reasonable precautions and measures to prevent or avoid such event or mitigate the effect of such event on CBEP Solar 30 , 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 30 , 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 30, 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 I N FO©a CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM I CLOU DBPEAKEN EPGY.COM Kimley >>) Horn PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT Lone Tree Creek Weld County Case # TBD West side of Weld County Rd 41 & Midway Between Weld County Rd 84 and Weld County Rd 82/ Highway 14 Weld County , CO Prepared by: Kimley- Horn Inc. 6200 South Syracuse Way , Suite 300 Greenwood Village , CO 80111 Contact : Adam Harrison , P . E . Phone : ( 303 ) 228 -2311 Prepared on : June 29 , 2023 Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO June 2023 Page 1 Kimley >>) Horn TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK 3 1 . 1 . Project Location 3 1 . 2. Nearby Water Features & Ownership 4 1 . 3. Report & Analysis Methodologies 4 1 . 4. Stormwater Management 5 2. CONCLUSION 5 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - FEMA Firm Map Exhibit 2 - NRCS Report Exhibit 3 — NOAA Rainfall Data Exhibit 4 — Pre-Development Drainage Area Map Exhibit 5 — Post-Development Drainage Area Map Exhibit 6 — Hydrologic Calculations Exhibit 7 — Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO June 2023 Page 2 Kimley >) Horn 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK The development is a proposed 3 . 6- 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 Fabrizius Solar, small scale solar facility ( Project) . The project will be designed and will be constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes storm water related impacts , in accordance with Weld County drainage criteria . Project name , Property Address and Weld County Parcel No . Fabrizius , No Address on Weld County GIS or assessor map , Parcel No . 070908100003 Developer/Owner CloudBreak Energy Partners , LLC , 218 S . 3rd Street Sterling , CO 80751 Urbanizing/ Non - Urbanizing This site is located more than a quarter mile away from the nearest Weld County municipal boundary and is classified as " Non- Urbanizing " . Therefore , detention ponds designed for this site would be sized using 10-year runoff rates . 1 . 1 . Project Location The existing site subject property is a parcel of 75 . 00 acres . The project is located on approximately 44 . 1 acres of agricultural land . The project is located east of Ault, within Weld County . The site is bounded to the north by the rest of the Fabrizius property , to the west by the Eaton Ditch Creek , to the east by Weld County Road 41 and to the south by another Fabrizius owned agricultural property ( Parcel 070908000043) . Section Township Range Property is located within a portion of the east half of Section 8 , Township 7 North , Range 65 West of the 6th P . M . , Weld County , Colorado . Per FEMA Map Panels 08123C1250E 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 Dacono clay loam and Nunn clay loam that classify as hydrologic soil group ( HSG) type C . The site was modeled using all type C soils . For additional detail , refer to Exhibit 2 for the NRCS Report . Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO June 2023 Page 3 Kimley o)> rn 1 . 2 . Nearby Water Features & Ownership In the existing condition , a majority of the site drains to the east to a pre- existing drainage ditch along Weld County Road 41 . The nearest water features are Eaton Ditch Creek which bounds the site area on the west side and another unnamed drainage creek on the property to the east of the project site approximately 0 . 2 miles away . The unnamed drainage creek collects the water to the southeast and then the Eaton Ditch Creek collects the water further along to the south as the receiving waters of the project site . The existing drainage patterns will be maintained in the proposed condition . Refer to Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 for the Pre and Post- Development Drainage Area Maps . 1 . 3 . Report & Analysis Methodologies This report evaluates the pre and post development runoff characteristics of the development ( including solar facility footprint and access drive) and addresses the stormwater requirements of Weld County and the State of Colorado . Hydrologic Design Criteria The table below notes the hydrologic design criteria used in the analysis . Parameter Value Unit Reference Time of Concentration , Tc - min . Exhibit 6 Runoff Coefficient, C - - MHFD Criteria Manual , Chapter 6 , Table 6-4 1 -hr Point Rainfall , P1 ( 100-Year) 2 . 73 Inches NOAA Rainfall Data ( Exhibit 3 ) Storm Runoff, Q - cfs Q = CIA Basin Conditions The drainage areas of the site are shown for the site as Pre- construction ( Exhibit 4) and Post- construction ( Exhibit 5) . Pre-construction drainage basins were analyzed to calculate the peak existing runoff for the design storm . Post-construction drainage basins were analyzed to calculate the peak runoff for the design storm in the proposed site conditions . The Weld County Construction and Design Criteria requires areas of proposed solar arrays over a Type C soil classification to utilize an imperviousness of 25 % . The total imperviousness for the proposed site was calculated to be 12 . 4 % ( see Exhibit 6 for the imperviousness summary) . The area under the solar panels will be planted with a low- maintenance grass seed mix , in order to mimic natural processes to manage stormwater, which follows the Low- Impact Development ( LID) approach . The existing site use is agricultural row crops most similar to tillage/agricultural land classification , which does not exhibit the characteristics of a low- impact development . By utilizing the native grass seed mix below the panels , the existing tillage/agricultural land areas will be changed to a heavy meadow land classification that reduces peak flow rates and manages stormwater in line with the historic conditions of the site . The site design promotes conservation design at both the watershed and site levels , with the goal of replicating the native hydrologic characteristics of the sub-watersheds , creating natural ground coverage , and minimizing proposed grading and Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO June 2023 Page 4 Kimley >) Horn compaction . The site will not receive offsite drainage and offsite drainage patterns will remain the same as historic conditions . Stormwater Runoff The stormwater runoff for the existing and proposed conditions is calculated utilizing the Rational Method . The 100-year, 1 - hour storm event was analyzed for pre and post-construction drainage basins . The flow path for the basins can be seen in Exhibits 4 & 5 . The time of concentration to the point of accumulation was calculated using MHFD equations and can be found in Exhibit 6 . The Runoff Coefficients are also included in Exhibit 6 . The precipitation data used for the 100- year, 1 -hour storm event is based on NOAA rainfall data from the project site (Exhibit 3) . A summary of the rational calculation findings is shown in the table below . Existing Proposed Area 44 . 09 ac 44 . 09 ac Imperviousness 3 . 2 % 12 . 4 amo 36 . 69 cfs 27 . 51 cfs 1 . 4 . Stormwater Management A study published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering researched the hydrologic impacts of utility scale solar generating facilities . The study utilized a model to simulate runoff from pre- and post-solar panel conditions . The study concluded that the solar panels themselves have little to no impact on runoff volumes or rates . Rainfall losses , most notably infiltration , are not impacted by the solar panels . Rainfall that falls directly on a solar panel runs to the pervious areas around and under the surrounding panels . Refer to Exhibit 7 for the study published in the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering . Under developed conditions , runoff will follow existing drainage patterns and will reduce peak flows (decreases from 36 . 69 cfs to 27 . 51 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 44 acre Project area , but won ' t require clearing and grubbing of vegetation or grading , except for concrete equipment pads and gravel access drive installations . • The areas considered impervious or semi -impervious are a large portion of the project area , however the semi -impervious areas under the solar panels ( modeled as 25 % impervious) represent 58 % of the total site area , and by implementing low- maintenance grass seed mix underneath , the site will reduce peak flow rates from existing conditions . • Under existing conditions , the peak flow from the site area for the 100 yr - lhr storm event is 36 . 69 cfs . • Under developed conditions , the peak flow from the site area for the 100 yr — 1 hr storm event is 52 . 74 cfs . Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO June 2023 Page 5 Kimley >) Horn • 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, the site will reduce peak flows from the existing rates . Therefore , permanent stormwater detention and water quality facilities are not proposed with the project . We trust that the information provided is acceptable and complete for preliminary site plan review drainage report requirements . Please let us know if you have any questions or need additional information . KIMLEY- HORN AND ASSOCIATES , INC . 44 4,7 Adam Harrison , PE Project Manager Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO June 2023 Page 6 Exhibit 1 — FEMA Firm Map National Hazard Layer FlRMette F g A Legend nd 104°41'9"W 40°35'31"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT JO I _ _ . = ' .. -sr` Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) . • Zone A, V. A99 _ SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AK VE, AR - i ► Ass HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway I ir 'di Zone A 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average Zone A depth less than one foot or with drainage --- areas of less than one square mile I Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. Zone X r!` FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D r i Project Area NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x ,riiiikhist>4 i 1 I Effective LOM Rs AL ------...s-- OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D GENERAL - - - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES milli Levee, Dike, or Floodwall - at WEED- Cia4 4 • °' B 20.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance i 17.5 Water Surface Elevation _ - - - .. - ---" - - - — -- 8 - - - - Coastal Transect AREA OF MINIM a * FL 0 0 D HAZARD ii � 57in Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) il ZC.I I` P',nK: — Limit of Study T711 R65W ' T tr ::� . TIN R65W Ski Jurisdiction Boundary - Coastal Transect Baseline T7N 5W S9 OTHER ��,�� , - - - - Profile Baseline FEATURES i eft 1/20/2016 I Hydrographic Feature I / „ Digital Data Available - - No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS y Unmapped 1 J C._ ) The pin displayed on the map is an approximate i I 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. ws The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap ii accuracy standards ii n The flood hazard information is derived directly from the I' authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map I was exported on 2/1/2023 at 9:52 AM 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. _ . i This map image is void if the one or more of the following map I elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, L - FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for Feet 1 : 6 , 000 104°40'31"W 40°35'4"N unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for 0 250 500 1 , 000 1 , 500 2 , 000 regulatory purposes. Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Exhibit 2 — NRCS Report Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part zo ff M O 526640 526710 526780 526850 526920 526990 527060 527130 527200 527270 527340 40° 35' 25" N I --. �s„ I — — — I 40° 35' 25" N N • ... -f' . . " rte~ _ - MM 4 . 1 - I, .1 4IV:�h pit, f 8 I err --4:„.- 1st / 'I" ell c SR 3 'i ir e . l 4 i / ,p..,;„: " - _ A 3 if #. 7. N. Mal ' -- t §:i - / . i St r--- • 4\ * , It I10 ri -- •I - -- il 1111 1fµ' N I —'IIII • N / t`\ ,ems i 4 :il_',iI I 7•11 :9`r I I n I-u`I', I I I %.'i(:`II I I •lit. I -� J .R�`II N t 1 40° 35' 10" N I I 40° 35' 10" N 526640 526710 526780 526850 526920 526990 527060 527130 527200 527270 527340 to Map Scale: 1 :3,350 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet Meters N 0 45 90 180 270 A Feet 0 150 300 600 900 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 ,i Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AO!) ® C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI ) 1 : 24 ,000 . 0 C/D Soils0 D Warning : Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Rating Polygons A O Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil A/D Water Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Streams and Canals contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed B scale . Transportation B/D Rails Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map C Interstate Highways measurements. C/D US Routes Source of Map : Natural Resources Conservation Service D Web Soil Survey URL : Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG :3857) Not rated or not available Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Soil Rating Lines Background projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts * A distance and area . A projection that preserves area , such as the mew Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection , should be used if more A/D accurate calculations of distance or area are required . kaws B This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as BID of the version date(s) listed below. HoeC Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data : Version 21 , Sep 1 , 2022 C/D Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales kipii D 1 : 50 ,000 or larger. ise Not rated or not available Date(s) aerial images were photographed : Jun 8, 2021 —Jun 12, 2021 Soil Rating Points A The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background ® A/D imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor B shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 0 B/D Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 aa Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 21 Dacono clay loam , 0 to C 18. 8 53 .9% 1 percent slopes 41 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 C 16. 1 46 . 1 % percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 34.9 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential . Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation , are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms . The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B , C , and D ) and three dual classes (A/D , B/D , and C/D ) . The groups are defined as follows : Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential ) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep , well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands . These soils have a high rate of water transmission . Group B . Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep , moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture . These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission . Group C . Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture . These soils have a slow rate of water transmission . Group D . Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential ) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential , soils that have a high water table , soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface , and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material . These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission . If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D , B/D , or 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 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Exhibit 3 — NOAA Rainfall Data NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 i 110fIll N. Ile �9 Location name : Ault, Colorado, USA* . .h V.w Latitude : 40.5882 , Longitude : -104.6806° } � Elevation : 4892.93 ft** ililli. 0 �� " 0. * source: ESRI Maps ''c '" S ** source: USGS .4" t POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh , Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring , Maryland PF_tabular I PF_graphical I Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDS -based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals ( in inches) 1 Average recurrence interval (years) Duration - - - I f 1 � [ 2 L5 I 10 25 [ 50 JI 100 200 11 500 J 1000 1 5-min 0.241 0.292 0.387 0.479 0.623 0.749 0.886 1 .04 1 .26 1 .44 (0. 195-0.297) (0.236-0.360) (0.312-0.479) (0.384-0.595) (0.487-0.820) (0.565-0.991 ) (0.642-1 .20) (0.715-1 .44) (0.828-1 .79) (0.913-2.05) 0.353 1 0.427 0.567 0.701 0.913 1 . 10 1 .30 1 .52 1 .85 I 2. 11 10-min (0.286-0 .435) (0.345-0.527) (0.457-0.702) (0.562-0.871 ) (0.713-1 .20) (0.828- 1 .45) (0.939-1 .76) (1 .05-2. 11 ) ( 1 .21 -2.62) 1 ( 1 .34-3.00) 1 0.430 0.521 0.692 0.855 1 . 11 1 .34 1 .58 1 .86 2 .25 2.58 15-min (0.348-0.530 (0.421 -0.642)0.421 -0.642 (0.685- 1 .06) ( ) ) ( 1 . 15-2. 14) i ( 1 .28-2.57) ( 1 .48-3. 19) ) (0.558-0.856) 0.870- 1 .47 ( 1 .01 - 1 . 77 1 .28-2.57 ( 1 .63-3.66 [ 30-mmn 0.586 0.708 0.939 1 . 16 1 .51 1 .82 2. 15 2.53 3 .07 3.52 (0.475-0 .723) (0.573-0.873) (0 .757- 1 . 16) (0.930A .44) (1 . 18- 1 .99) ( 1 .37-2.41 ) ( 1 .56-2.92) a ( 1 .74-3.50) (2 .02-4.35) (2.23-5.00) [ 60-mm 0.723 0.873 1 . 16 1 .44 1 .89 2.29 il 2.73 3.21 3 .93 4.51 (0.586-0 .891 ) (0.706- 1 .08) (0.936- 1 .44) ( 1 . 16- 1 .79) ( 1 .48-2.50) ( 1 .73-3. 04) ( 1 .98-3.69) ; (2.21 -4.46) (2 .58-5.57) (2.86-6.41 ) 2-hr 0.859 1 .04 1 .38 1 .73 2.27 2.76 3.30 3.90 4.78 5.51 (0.701 - 1 .05) (0.845- 1 .27) ( 1 . 12- 1 .70) ( 1 .39-2. 13) ( 1 .80-2.99) (2. 10-3.64) (2.41 -4.44) i (2.71 -5.37) (3. 17-6.73) (3.52-7.76) 0.931 1 . 12 1 .50 1 .87 2.47 3.00 3.59 ° 4.26 5 .23[__ 6.05 3-hr (0.762- 1 . 13) (0.917- 1 .37) [ ( 1 .22- 1 .83) ( 1 .51 -2.29) ( 1 .96-3.23) (2.30-3.94) (2.64-4.82) (2.98-5.84) (3 .50-7.34) (3.89-8.48) [ 6-hr 1 .05 1 .29 1 .73 2. 14 2.80 3.37 4.00 4.69 5 .69 6.52 (0.868- 1 .27) ( 1 .06- 1 .56) ( 1 .41 -2.09) ( 1 .75-2.61 ) (2 .23-3.61 ) (2.60-4. 37) (2.96-5.29) (3.31 -6.35) (3.83-7.89) (4.24-9.06) 12-hr 1 .24 1 .50 1 .96 2.39 3.06 3.64 4.26 4.94 5 .92 6.72 ( 1 .03-1 .49) ( 1 .24- 1 .79) ( 1 .62-2.36) ( 1 .96-2.89) (2 .45-3.90) (2.82-4. 66) I (3. 17-5.57) (3.51 -6.62) (4 .02-8. 12 ) (4.41 -9.26) 24-hr 1 .49 1 .74 2.20 2.64 3.31 3.90 I 4.53 5.23 6 .24 IF 7.07 ( 1 .24-1 .77) ( 1 .45-2.07) ( 1 .83-2.63) (2. 18-3. 16) (2 .67-4. 18) (3.05-4. 95) I (3.41 -5.89) (3.76-6.96) (4 .29-8.50) (4.69-9.66). 2-day 1 .71 1 2.00 2.52 2.99 3.70 4.29 4.92 5.601 [ 6 .57 7.35 ( 1 .44-2.02) ( 1 .68-2.36) (2. 11 -2.98) (2.49-3.55) (2 .99-4.59) (3.37-5. 37) I (3.72-6.30) (4.05-7.35) (4 .55-8.84) (4.93-9.96). 1 .88 i 2. 17 I 2.69 1 3. 17 3.88 4.48 5. 11 5.80 6 .78 7 7.57 3-day 1 83-2.55 2 26-3. 17 _ 2 64-3.75( 1 .58-2 .21 ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (3 . 15-4.79) (3.53-5. 58) (3.89-6.52) (4.22-7.58).1(4 .73-9.07) i (5. 11 - 10.2) 4-da 2.00 2.31 2.84 3.33 4.05 4.66 5.30 5.99 6 .97 7.75 y ( 1 .70-2 .35) ( 1 .95-2.70) (2.40-3.34) (2.79-3.92) (3 .30-4.98) (3.69-5. 78) (4.04-6.72) (4.37-7.79) (4 .88-9.28) (5.26- 10 .4) 7-day 2.26 2.65 3.29 3.85 4.64 I 5.26 5.91 6.58 7 .49 8.21 ( 1 .92-2 .63) (2.25-3.08) (2.79-3.84) (3.24-4.51 ) (3 .77-5.61 ) (4. 18-6.44) I (4.52-7.40) (4.82-8.44) (5 .27-9.86) (5.62- 10 .9) 2.49 2.94 3.67 4.27 5. 11 5.75 I 6.40 7.06 _1 [ 7 .93 8.59 1 10-day (2. 13-2 .89) (2.51 -3.41 ) (3. 12-4.26 (3.61 -4.98) (4 . 16-6. 13) (4.58-6. 99) I (4.91 -7.95) (5. 19-8.99) (5 .60- 10.4) (5.91 -11 .4) 20-day 3.22 3.74 4.57 5.24 6. 16 6.84 I 7.52 8. 19 9 .06 9.70 (2.77-3.70) (3.21 -4.30) [ (3.91s.26) I (4.466.o7) (5.04-7.29) (5.48-8. 22) (5.82-9.24) (6.08- 10.3) (6.46- 11 .7) (6.75- 12 .8) 30-day 3.82 4.38 5.28 6.01 6.99 7.73 8.44 9. 15 10.0 10.7 (3.29-4 .36) (3.78-5.01 ) I [ (4.54-6.06i. (5. 14-6.92) (5.75-8.23) (6.22-9. 22) (6.56- 10.3)] _(6 .82- 11 .4) (7 .21 - 12.9) (7.50- 14 .0) 4.52 1 5. 17 1 6.21 7.03 8.13 8.93 I 9.71 1 10.5 11 .4 12. 1 45-day (3.91 -5 . 14) (4.47-5.89) (5.35-7.08) (6.03-8.06) (6 .71 -9.50) (7.22- 10 .6) (7.58- 11 .8) (7.84- 13.0) (8 .23- 14.6) (8.52- 15 .7) 5.08 5.83 7.02 7.95 9.17 10.0 I 10.9 11 .7 12.6 13.3 [ 60-day (4.41 -5 .76) (5.06-6.62) (6.07-7.98) (6.84-9.08) (7 .58- 10.7) (8. 14- 11 . 9) I (8.53- 13. 1 ) (8.78- 14.4) (9 . 16- 16. 1 ) (9.44- 17 .3) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS) . Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval . The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information . Back to Top PF graphical PDS- based depth-duration -frequency ( DD F ) curves Latitude: 403882 Cr . Longitude . - 104 . 6806 ° 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I T I T" 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I Y I 1 I 1 e. I • 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I . . Average ��y I1.I_; ■1.1 I , : 1 1 t t 1 , , , , , , , , rage.. recurrence Fic�e 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 LL��TT I / I a a a Y Y I I 1 I 1 1 Y I 11 �.Y■■�/��+��.Yi••��1111 12 . . . . a . . ... .. . . . . • . . . . . a.. . . .1 . . . . . . . J . . . . .. . . .2 . . . . . .. . . . t. . . . . . L . . .I. . t 1 • I . I J • ..— interval ■ al Y e • • . Y Y • 1 • , • • • • • 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e e ! e e! ! (years) 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 V / e / I e e e e e e e I e e , .a. A 1 a I { a / a i I 1 I I , a 1 o • - • - I I _ _ 1 1 1 _ I 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 1 e • • • • • + • LA Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I e e e • • ! I e ! • ! • , ! •! I I t t 1 1 t Y t , 1 , 1 , j.. at- . / ! ! 1 / 1 / I t 1 I aro t t t 1 t / t II , i i i. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e I I C • • a Y 1 1 1 Y Y a a t { { • Y e 1• i 0 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t I ) 'Iy�r O , 1 l i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 a t t 1 1 t 1 1 f . SO • 1 1 , t 1 1 1 t t ! . 11 • 1 / 1 1 + • 1 • • i • y •t'' Lai 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 I t 1 1 I 1 1 00 1. 11 1 � ��1 1 1 a I 1 }i a I 200 t t t • • e • . . 1� ! • '� T t t 4, 1 I I I I f a { . . • a I f - I a I ! e I . f t re • - • _ 1 000 .L—��r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 • — . • I ! I ! • • a I 1 —j-- •-•ti— 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 o _ I I I I I I I I I I I I L I --. L., I I I I I I I I I i—i NI e--i - rrl LLD r-I n It tel Duration 14 I I I I I I i I , 1 i t 1 I 1 I 1 e • • I I 1 1 t . • • I i • 12 _ . — . _ . . . . . . . .. . J . . — . .. . .. . •• • - . . . . . . . • L , I { n1 a a _ .. I 1 1 1 1 t G ! • 1 I ! I 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 _a, 1 e I I I 1 e e "dry o { 1 da .. I a. J . . _ L . . . 1• - i .1 r- - a • . - 1I . Duration 1 t 1 ! 1 1 t 1 1 . 1 1 i 1 { \ . 1 lit -mIII z. -day rr t t ! I rya 1 0I 1 1R,' 1 day 1 . I • 11® [/�•7, 1 1 1 I 1 I - 1 � 5-min 7 _d ay 30-rnin 7-day I O ,.... I - Lee. ►� - t _ -� ��_ — 6 in 10-clay _ , _____,I, . . . _ .. . . _ . . . ._ — 2-li r — 20-day • e I " -� 1 r 30-day \ 1 I t 2 i ~- • I i I I I I I 24-hr 5 2 101 ` 0 1 500 1000 Average recurrence interval (years) NOMMAtlas 14, Volume 8 , Version 2 Created (GMT) : Wed Feb 1 15 : 03 :02 2023 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain t%04 i \ a • 1 p� u U Y ■ \ I 1. . e ufI -Thy) 82 r ki-M-4\THIali 1 - ii _____ (< r tiI ritaatrA I , )1 I, 3km Ii `/mi IA Large scale terrain _ l 1 ate ♦ _ tar ar r-At ;-r, ter - r 'Yi M 71, '4-4 Cheyenne CI J L ,tin Fortco'll ins I � . tit 'dr . _ :F: jGreeley L�c!i-�;�t Peci fr 45 i7_i - 0 r.,-a, • - . B (Ail cl et- ± �L -fly.. r l la d P' -et kata , • ID envier 1. — I kJ ., '100km - t„�_ I 1 n ; T ' 014. 60mi r ' Large scale map l - heyenn� e Fort CollinsI J; reeley ailieleseteters liar ir.Lonptianiont — E C .e.. her a 100km mai, I I ' 60mii \ Large scale aerial - . r r I - 1•'I , i +r 1 • ' 2 *4 . .. • P47 1r I • F • t. Pert •Gatti n i 1 s l ‘. L, ;I-r m ont le t E oullie r - 100km ,. 60mi rI 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 '^ a / \\ I il I 1 I CL # \ I \\ I NORTH o i I >- / 1 m 1 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 200 z 1 I I o I I I w z 1 m V) I - V 0 (!) (n Q i LEGEND I o Z 1 z ixI 1 O = 1 Iw J o PROPERTY BOUNDARY >- A Cif' z J I.V `�' PRE CONDITIONS SUB - BASINC0 illift, 441LA 0g J � ,c> 1INMI it 1 EX . EASEMENT J w Isl e r j SMI -�` `� --_ EX . SITE SETBACK co o� EX . UNDERGROUND GAS LINE 1Q '/ /! o o I EX . UNDERGROUND WATER LINE < ; \ \IT\ , cr Q ai o . / %. I EX . BARB WIRE FENCE cb , K ! ' `' \\A EX . OVERHEAD WIRE / \` / L) 2 } CO41%:- i EX . UTILITY POLE N% \ :(1/4___ Q \� ):1 / / / z U I .., EX . FLOW PATH1 00 0 / SEMI < / \\A 2 -c- > CD z0 4 )o .. EX . CONTOURS v 0 z �.� / / I I 0 NO yre i= / /// ' -_______ i t E -� � .. EX . POND 000 x i "4,0\o a ---) 7 1,>' Z _ /�%j' / r�, ; �\ -�!� EX . GRAVEL ROAD ,I\ d_ r� __ __ __ _ _ rcr► 1►� 1 O O ic cl_LI r%j — — — x. xx% EX . SLOPE LABEL z N / / ri / -I i., , 0 (n N l/DA-01 00 ��; SUB - BASIN IIME I W XX IDENTIFICATION ri 3 /`' f / 27. 7 3. 2 � " , W W C -18 O0 / ( / ►� IMPERVIOUSNESS � � 0 / , , � � . > O . . co / / / ; i xx xx DRAINAGE AREA ( ACRES ) — � \� , Nu, 4 , RI z ` ,i / �`' Q) . I I \� 6j 24 ,V\A % DESIGN POINT `�' 111. _ DESIGNED BY: LDS �' �� / 410MIL----e ' � - l � DRAWN BY: LDS ma ��-'� _- �- i1 CHECKED BY: AJH If ,- % l 06 /29 /23 .c w EXISTING SEASONAL , ,� 0, 3 ► i �/ s c, o IRRIGATION POND �, %� / ��o i NOTES - ce / / /�/ ice66 11:),( `'� ) � i LIJCC \N � ' II 1 . THIS DRAINAGE MAP AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN IN Eh / ��!! `b � � ASSOCIATION WITH CLOUDBREAK ENERGY PARTNERS , LLC . DRAINAGE / allims ) � NARRATIVE AND USE BY THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLANS . r Q , JZ 4 . EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH ' I `o_ de � 0 ) I 2 . WITH REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT )/ I I AGENCY ( FEMA ) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ( FIRM ) , MAP NUMBER `\ I , I 08123C1250E , THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAINS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF I � CL Wfe_ 0DA-02Q W2 o / / i M .41/4,?. THE PROJECT SITE . Qw /(1I_ / LLI ^ z _ K.:16 . 4 3. 1 / LI Ill a /y / ) . rm OC 11/4 N58)0 : flt 0 0 a // 7 7 „. ._. ._. , cL Q / , ; /c_ r , I co 5, w <i (8 ,/,,, c4.50) N:s-eg-,-) -) rn' r; / ____-- 'Ci- CL --> , i ;W � ) 0 LL R Z 0 — /7 I . I . . am& eaDJW <_I C) WO I 0 6 -I 0 are ammiamiss O .,.. , , - - v) \ft, / ) wx isi allar mammmmis is .1 ff- < Z , • ce / \ ) 00 ° iiima.......,_ . _____> o _J Ste ** i ii H o 6 allallmjamaseas • ai ...... _ . . , o ,— ` ____\ D w 1/4-d � o 7 )\vaiwa I : W 0 D ..-----z cni,±1 iNIMMils I >- ct Z malls D O i o I._ co H " ---> . N ° Isi w _ow ) 2. _i 05 � r,`�1 I 1 Go E D 0 i-oi asaftwaftiommis • ,t, . cfic I 0 , MN - a- 0 0 o � Salesselliiiiiiiiiiiiiii. IS lial a CO � iiiiiii w alliLb o � et Z 1 1 LL ri c 2 Do I I o Q C3 I Dec — TD _ 0 11-2 ow ow ow coca PRELIMINARY LOO (Ow C, N I I FOR REVIEW ONLY 72 NOT FOR c:c I Ow� w ,_ CONSTRUCTION m � Do Kumley ) Horn . . o = G Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. owo I PROJECT NO . 196664000 /w I DRAWING NAME _ 5 , sof Iw - COLO RADC5111 W 0 0 KNOW tiHHt� T ' z 5F LCS'IL' ,nLl. RiFr4dR F 1' OU q1 dir � ,/' („ r EX-4 Exhibit 5 — Post- Development Drainage Area Map '^ a 1 ll/ \\ I I I I- \ 1 I NORTH I- < ' I I 1 m 1 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 200 / z 0 1 �' Z 1 w V) I-- V 0 (n U1 i LEGEND Z I o Z 1 z et 1 Iw 2 o PROPERTY BOUNDARY }- / W z 440# < ' L) a is --Li ApAgisurep, _ �I PRE CONDITIONS SUB - BASIN m 441LAI~ ew 1 EX . EASEMENT ..jai ,lam r - _ - w --sm. . lit* -...., ...., ---ANNut _w --III E CD 4:/ r�/ / -aria � ® �AIL*�� EX . SITE SETBACK V) '�• EX . UNDERGROUND GAS LINE o c / C� EX . UNDERGROUND WATER LINE --fikka, , Q �`�r - .*:. EX . BARB WIRE FENCE z �� K \� � - H EX . OVERHEAD WIRE 1 0 Y I DA-01 op CD EX . UTILITY POLE Te / S' 6 27 . 7 11 . 97 / . co X SOLAR GARDEN PERIMETER FENCE v Q • / �� I z / X I ( CHAIN LINK ) - Q \ '`rte,, ^ / e. SOLAR PANEL ARRAY Fl Q -:1;_ - - �_ �� til PR . FLOW PATH C� Ow 0 co/ / _N o rI — — _ `, / ' c\I 4 a �� EX . CONTOURS cn r\ ,I\ I's° // - „� _ / r 700 0 DO Wist \\\\ 41 I 71- 0 0 P_ __ __ __ _ _ _ 00 -1.- 41/-_- _ _ •. �u� x. xx%_ . _ 7 •-• _ . EX . SLOPE LABEL z-\- \ — — 1M 1 i D 0 o ' 1 1 J` EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH r to : , I! ° � \ � -zi EX . POND O cn �IIIIIIII/' 1 1 1 � i 1 � ' II %110 = -. 00 0- w 1 , 1 , — 1 I7I LLI o t EX . GRAVEL ROAD w CL 7:1 . . S A ' 1 1 _ — — - �a .�-► . > cn �, If1 I . _ _ Iv11" Orr EN o _ • \ �,,� ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT rr� 0 La I PADS sA/ • -----> . I. . . . . : : : 3 ...A.‘„, I i „Pi ^ Sp „ I 0 . 5 ,E0 CN C z - / # . : 01 I I:: 0 lb •(O 4 ' 6' % a ea a - _ a _ — - _ 1FL ' UTILITY POLE g isimp,_ __ _ - - _a _ X � � '� DESIGNED BY: LDS coso. -' - a - _ a a ; .� PROPOSED PERMANENT & DRAWN BY: LDS m Z _ - = I-—I — — - a a a TEMPORARY TRAILERS •, Q I: { - _ a a i 1 CHECKED BY: AJH a a a i pt i Dznz•nnnnnnw sL,, / PROPOSED 20 ' GRAVEL DATE : 06 29 23 ' - - ' I a I ACCESS DRIVEWAY E w EXISTING SEASONAL X 141% — — — Cu:I Pt w % IRRIGATION POND / / ' �� ' 1 - — — c� w / e i 1 a"Noe _ 1 ' PROPOSED SUB - BASIN Qel_ /j � 1 1 1 - - „ melee X ott XX - \ IDENTIFICATION O — i liallfte I � IMPERVIOUSNESS o Q II . � r� Ili k � \\XX xx DRAINAGE AREA ( ACRES ) I a 3/4 I I I I , HP4 I a_ cs)Q X O O g I I 44%%ir, tv i I I < IC 0 <t wAQx/ i M a a a - _ - . ; i♦�; — —' Ca I 0 a = . I „ 8 8 X ‘ I*P I 4 1 A DESIGN POINT W w Z J 00 - — .isle o 1 •�► (� rrrr O X Ali 9� 1 . I 0 Cmj o sa4it J w..1/4 4."*.ivIreriV4s04" CO < in CC i • ----) . 6 c\4 ---____________________ x teSS44444$4•3%.. — Z 0 w \0 4t._ ° \ _a----—-- ___________.Att*Ittat4444.4?4,Ses•-•- . E til i r, /7/. .0 K N-u ' . . ____ . . ___> • . ---•-------—--Sea tsts$•••••••••••esy.,-- .. a in a. / / / N ___________AtttStlaPAnniierve --a a IAT ° 0 > < X Ix 0) ----------- teat-I*14444.IVAI'vre - //, / / I1J D y co I iti VLJ o_ .��j�j�j��♦�♦�♦I♦I��I�i -• t % % % IIID -1 ci latiesIs.."4.#4rsier is:\e‘e a a 0 0 / / / I I Pill l ' III O O —I LiJ � �. ,Sr,ve 'sr_. ° "14s --1 i < Z saus \u) E allaillThallia"rnittaSIMMOsseannm.,_ • / C)) �,� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ vr - am. , \--?i imimmi . ,I_ • 16. 4 13. 1 % '��♦�♦�♦�♦�♦�♦�♦��-ontimosimarissimmimas \105 N.••••••••••••••••tere .• I r pill w g'i ems , � , , - � / �•�s�1•�I�I�I♦I♦I♦I♦I♦I♦I�I�I-� -- . - - \. � � � 1 �' I • >- O �.:.� ♦ i ♦ i � . 1 . THIS DRAINAGE MAP AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN IN i Z ii (3 MW atmaissaamisammes . . _____> 6 0 _1W H Zalt �' -�� :��!�;�!�� i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦i♦ ►i♦i♦i♦iii♦i♦: -. o o ; f�o �i.�i��i�i�444t��i 44frsiVibe,44pi �1i, ASSOCIATION WITH CL0UDBREAK ENERGY PARTNERS , LLC DRAINAGE w ��♦�• '��.;� ' NARRATIVE AND USE BY THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLANS*44 1 . 0 >_ f: w I— cn ~ r ' lilt� I j � -—N $ I lipril 2 . WITH REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT _ m L_ atAGENCY ( FEMA ) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FIRM , MAP NUMBERO 6,,,ilN_c, w ILI o O Illialli."411.1.1 I . I 08123C1250E , THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAINS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF _ J {o ICl/)j ��.-I OS0 I � I THE PROJECT SITE . D 0 o ~ \iii m I Ph. IICO I— ,Z,_, o � III \ < W v) z pr 1 0Oa I I . Q oQ (3Z CC ri) _ 0 II-2 ow ow ose � � I PRELIMINARY coo cow o-) o I I FOR REVIEW0NLY iQ NOTFOR 0 v) CONSTRUCTION � w m ° � a Kimley ) Horn o = � Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. a PROJECT NO . oI 196664000 /w/ ^ I _ DRAWING NAME — v .> o I I A c -. _al alar I wv `. 0 KNOW VIHAT ' s 5FLChli CALL AFTORF YOU Diir /' 0 cicn COLGRAD0713,01. EX- 5 Exhibit 6 — Hydrologic Calculations Kimley ) Horn _ STANDARD FORM SF 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Fabrizius 6/29/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : BMD CHECKED BY : AJH TYPE C SOIL PAVED/ 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. 86 0. 36 0.05 0. 77 0. 73 100-YEAR COEFF. 0. 88 0.64 0.49 0. 84 0. 82 IMPERVIOUS % 100% 40% 2 % 90% 85% PAVED/ VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE IMPERVIOUS GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) Cc(2) Cc(5) Cc( 100) Imp % On-Site Basins PRE-DA-01 1 0. 87 26. 87 27.74 0.02 0 .06 0.50 3 .2% PRE-DA-02 2 0. 18 16. 16 16.35 0.02 0 .06 0. 50 3 . 1 % BASIN 0.18 0.87 43.03 0.00 0.00 44.09 0.02 0 .06 0. 50 3 .2% SUBTOTAL 0 % 2 % 98% 0 % 0% 100% Kimley >>) H am STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Fabrizius DATE : 6/29/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : BMD CHECKED BY : AJH I SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME (T) at) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN AREA C5 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE C, Land Surface VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc C2 C5 C100 BASIN Ac Ft % min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) On-Site Basins PRE-DA-01 27 .741 0. 06 500 1 .2% 40.6 1 ,722 0.4% 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0. 3 87 .4 128 . 1 2222 0. 6% 3% NA 128. 1 0 .02 0. 06 0. 50 PRE-DA-02 16.347 0. 06 500 0.9% 43 .9 1 ,452 0. 5% 5 . 0 Tillage/Field 0.4 68 . 9 112. 8 1952 0. 6% 3% NA 112. 8 0 .02 0. 06 0. 50 0 . 3 950 I . 1 — 'c .r — La, — r I. = — l + 4 STANDARD FORM SF-3 Kimley >>> Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Fabrizius DATE : 6/29/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 P1 (1 -Hour Rainfall) . 2.73 CALCULATED BY : BMD CHECKED BY : AJH DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME REMARKS Cm! ^ ^ x N 4N Z _ c; _ ^ r. W c� 6 c, w IC O Chi N: © Cw: Ol ÷s i Esi a wO w C z _ i a � � � .4t 060 .4 t. aN 4t a 'meE (1) (2) (3) (4) i (5) 1 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) 1 (22) On-Site Basins 1 PRE-DA-01 27 . 74 0. 50 128 .06 13 .78 1 .62 22.29 2 PRE-DA-02 16. 35 0. 50 112. 83 8 . 11 1 .77 14.39 Total 44. 09 36.69 Kimley >>) Horn STANDARD FORM SF- 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Fabrizius 6/29/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : BMD CHECKED BY : AJH TYPE C SOIL PAVED/ VEGETATED FUTURE IMPERVIOUS GRAVEL OPEN SPACE SOLAR PANEL COMMERCIAL LAND USE: AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA 2-YEAR COEFF. 0 . 83 0. 30 0. 01 0. 18 0. 69 5 -YEAR COEFF. 0 . 86 0. 36 0. 05 0.24 0. 73 100-YEAR COEFF. 0. 88 0.64 0.49 0. 58 0 . 82 IMPERVIOUS % 100% 40% 2% 25% 85% PAVED/ VEGETATED FUTURE IMPERVIOUS GRAVEL OPEN SPACE SOLAR PANEL COMMERCIAL TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) Cc(2) Cc(5 ) Cc( 100) Imp % On-Site Basins POST-DA-01 1 0.03 1 . 03 16. 57 10. 11 27.74 0 .08 0. 13 0. 53 11 . 9% POST-DA-02 2 0.06 0. 52 8 .97 6. 80 16.35 0 .09 0. 14 0. 54 13 . 1 % BASIN 0.09 1.55 25.54 16.91 0.00 44.09 0 .09 0. 14 0. 53 12 .4% SUBTOTAL 0 % 4% 58% 38% 0 % 100% Kimley >>) H am STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Fabrizius DATE : 6/29/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : BMD CHECKED BY : AJH I SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME (T) at) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN AREA C5 LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE C, Land Surface VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc C2 C5 C100 BASIN Ac Ft % min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) On-Site Basins POST-DA-01 27 .742 0. 13 500 1 .2% 37 . 8 1 ,722 0.4% 2. 5 Heavy Meadow 0.2 174 .9 212. 7 2222 0. 6% 12% NA 212 .7 0. 08 0. 13 0. 53 POST-DA-02 16.349 0. 14 500 0.9% 40 . 5 1 ,452 0. 5% 2. 5 Heavy Meadow 0.2 137 . 8 178.2 1952 0. 6% 13 % NA 178 .2 0. 09 0. 14 0. 54 1. i , ' u33 r O j 01 60( 14i + 9) , STANDARD FORM SF-3 Kimley > > Horn STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Fabrizius DATE : 6/29/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 P1 (1 -Hour Rainfall) = 2 .73 CALCULATED BY : BMD CHECKED BY : AJH DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME REMARKS`61W i v) o 4 <C the- '8 4,, "uc .cft aRbi ztj E Zei .may w , rWl 16 ~' ,w „_ WW �EF-�+ `� C":, g sO % i—i PI coi ot,4 ww w (1) (2) (3) I (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) 1 (19) I (20) (21) (22) On-Site Basins 1 POST-DA-01 27. 74 0. 53 212. 71 14.75 1 . 11 16 .38 2 POST-DA-02 16. 35 0. 54 178.24 8 . 77 1 .27 11 . 12 Total 44. 09 27 .51 Exhibit 7 — Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Lauren M . Cook, S . M .ASCE1 ; and Richard H . McCuen , M .ASCE2 Abstract: Because of the benefits of solar energy, the number of solar farms is increasing; however, their hydrologic impacts have not been studied. The goal of this study was to determine the hydrologic effects of solar farms and examine whether or not storm-water management is I needed to control runoff volumes and rates. A model of a solar farm was used to simulate runoff for two conditions : the pre- and postpaneled t. conditions. Using sensitivity analyses, modeling showed that the solar panels themselves did not have a significant effect on the runoff fit volumes, peaks, or times to peak. However, if the ground cover under the panels is gravel or bare ground, owing to design decisions or lack of maintenance, the peak discharge may increase significantly with storm-water management needed. In addition, the kinetic energy O; of the flow that drains from the panels was found to be greater than that of the rainfall, which could cause erosion at the base of the panels. o Thus, it is recommended that the grass beneath the panels be well maintained or that a buffer strip be placed after the most downgradient row of panels. This study, along with design recommendations, can be used as a guide for the future design of solar farms. DOE 10.1061/(ASCE) o HE.1943-5584.0000530. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers. L 0, CE Database subject headings : Hydrology; Land use; Solar power; Floods; Surface water; Runoff; Stormwater management. 5 Author keywords: Hydrology; Land use change; Solar energy; Flooding; Surface water runoff; Storm-water management. Ygyp g g c.) to Introduction draining from the edge of the panels is sufficient to cause erosion O of the soil below the panels, especially where the maintenance c5 Storm-water management practices are generally implemented to roadways are bare ground. lei reverse the effects of land-cover changes that cause increases in The outcome of this study provides guidance for assessing the Ovolumes and rates of runoff. This is a concern posed for new types hydrologic effects of solar farms, which is important to those who 0 of land-cover change such as the solar farm. Solar energy is a re- plan, design, and install arrays of solar panels. Those who design O newable energy source that is expected to increase in importance in p p solar farms may need to provide for storm-water management. This jthe near future. Because solar farms require considerable land, it is study investigated the hydrologic effects of solar farms, assessed 1 necessary to understand the design of solar farms and their potential whether or not storm-water management might be needed, and c4 effect on erosion rates and storm runoff, especially the impact on if the velocity of the runoff from the panels could be sufficient offsite properties and receiving streams. These farms can vary in to cause erosion of the soil below the panels. C) size from 8 ha (20 acres) in residential areas to 250 ha (600 acres) o in areas where land is abundant. The solar panels are impervious to rain water; however, they are Model Development o mounted on metal rods and placed over pervious land. In some 4-1 cases, the area below the panel is paved or covered with gravel. Solar farms are generally designed to maximize the amount of en- g Y g Service roads are generally located between rows of panels. Altl- ergy produced per unit of land area, while still allowing space for hough some panels are stationary, others are designed to move so maintenance. The hydrologic response of solar farms is not usually - that the angle of the panel varies with the angle of the sun. The considered in design. Typically, the panels will be arrayed in long Po 5 angle can range, depending on the latitude, from 22° during the rows with separations between the rows to allow for maintenance csummer months to 74° during the winter months. In addition, vehicles. To model a typical layout, a unit width of one panel was re 7)1 the angle and direction can also change throughout the day. The assumed, with the length of the downgradient strip depending on issue posed is whether or not these rows of impervious panels will the size of the farm. For example, a solar farm with 30 rows of 200 o change the runoff characteristics of the site, specifically increase panels each could be modeled as a strip of 30 panels with space runoff volumes or peak discharge rates. If the increases are hydro- between the panels for maintenance vehicles. Rainwater that drains logically significant, storm-water management facilities may be from the upper panel onto the ground will flow over the land under O needed. Additionally, it is possible that the velocity of water the 29 panels on the downgradient strip. Depending on the land Qcover, infiltration losses would be expected as the runoff flows Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, to the bottom of the slope. Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 . To determine the effects that the solar panels have on runoff 2The Ben Dyer Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer- characteristics, a model of a solar farm was developed. Runoff ing, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 (corresponding in the form of sheet flow without the addition of the solar panels author). E-mail: rhmccuen@ eng.umd.edu served as the prepaneled condition. The paneled condition assumed Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 12, 2010; approved on a downgradient series of cells with one solar panel per ground cell. October 20, 2011 ; published online on October 24, 2011 . Discussion period open until October 1 , 2013 ; separate discussions must be submitted for Each cell was separated into three sections: wet, dry, and spacer. individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi- The dry section is that portion directly underneath the solar neering, Vol. 18, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/2013/5- panel, unexposed directly to the rainfall. As the angle of the panel 536-541/$25.00. from the horizontal increases, more of the rain will fall directly onto 536 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . the ground; this section of the cell is referred to as the wet section. equal to the length of one horizontal solar panel, which was as- The spacer section is the area between the rows of panels used by sumed to be 3 .5 m. When a solar panel is horizontal, the dry section maintenance vehicles. Fig. 1 is an image of two solar panels and the length would equal 3 .5 m and the wet section length would be zero. spacer section allotted for maintenance vehicles. Fig. 2 is a sche- In the paneled condition, the dry section does not receive direct matic of the wet, dry, and spacer sections with their respective di- rainfall because the rain first falls onto the solar panel then drains mensions. In Fig. 1 , tracks from the vehicles are visible on what is onto the spacer section. However, the dry section does infiltrate modeled within as the spacer section. When the solar panel is hori- some of the runoff that comes from the upgradient wet section. zontal, then the length longitudinal to the direction that runoff will The wet section was modeled similar to the spacer section with rain occur is the length of the dry and wet sections combined. Runoff falling directly onto the section and assuming a constant loss rate. from a dry section drains onto the downgradient spacer section. For the presolar panel condition, the spacer and wet sections are Runoff from the spacer section flows to the wet section of the next modeled the same as in the paneled condition; however, the cell downgradient cell. Water that drains from a solar panel falls directly does not include a dry section. In the prepaneled condition, rain ell4 onto the spacer section of that cell. falls directly onto the entire cell. When modeling the prepaneled en The length of the spacer section is constant. During a storm condition, all cells receive rainfall at the same rate and are subject -a event, the loss rate was assumed constant for the 24-h storm be- to losses. All other conditions were assumed to remain the same cause a wet antecedent condition was assumed. The lengths of such that the prepaneled and paneled conditions can be compared. the wet and dry sections changed depending on the angle of the Rainfall was modeled after an natural resources conservation t service (NRCS) Type II Storm (McCuen 2005) because it is an ac- t solar panel. The total length of the wet and dry sections was set a) curate representation of actual storms of varying characteristics that are imbedded in intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves. For iof interest, dimensionless 0 t. n EA: _: .. _ each duration a hyetograph was devel- �" ��"�`� oped using a time increment of 12 s over the duration of the storm o (see Fig. 3)• The depth of rainfall that corresponds to each storm w -- _-__,--„-----%,,,------------_,-----r- - iTT"e7 ma nitude was then multi lied b the��o : :R - . - - _ : g p by vi e _ For a 2-h storm duration, depths of 40.6, 76 2, and 101 .6 mm were -c 4111 Illir---1 � ; r{ , j i • \�� `' used for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year events. The 2- and 6-h duration .� \ r y Y �� ` ��, 'a _ = hyetographs were developed using the center portion of the 24-h li o storm, with the rainfall depths established with the Baltimore _,A. v {. f 4. s; ` "` i ' F '' ° . IDF curve. The corresponding depths for a 6-h duration were 53.3 , 4, ITt ` Pin�r 'C ",} /tr. = r ) 106.7, and 132. 1 mm, respectively. These magnitudes were chosen , . c to give a range of storm conditions. O N ' N r 'r. •:•.--- { •• - '' • ' During each time increment, the depth of rain is multiplied by '0 . .1/214,74 -c,, 4 1 ' " ,w_ L I it i)' ' 1 ° r ,z ). , ; t`r • '` '}' E " ; ' the cell area to determine the volume of rain added to each section y :1\ ( , ) r t “iii. - ' r of each cell. This volume becomes the storage in each cell. Depend- ,.c , '., ♦ .i '� r )fi ';`mil y" Cs�ti • I •, y1 g r �1i , � � � , , rPt :�'i ,, p; ' ^'' ; • �. ,&,. 4 ��,`��1 ,f , _� '� � ' • : king on the soil group, a constant volume of losses was subtracted ` ` � % : t, ,r 1/4: 5 •' is .._;.k. . y`'r1',i" • M F N r' . ,V�('`c i�> ';` "t , , from the storage. The runoff velocity from a solar panel was calcu- >.'r �f -- . :14,:;);I,,,, j .•n.,----r. .- f t \1 - , t } ,r ti� Tr*� L2��: i. .'! ♦ i y. � � e 1 . Y k"1�� jLJ �1 1st � � 711 r � �Sr �x „ � t 'et, .-ice rI� � } � /, � . . . • . • • -`f , ' tiA`4 r.y •� 4' ' I - ?1r laced using Manning's equation, with the hydraulic radius for sheet Fig. 1 . Maintenance or "spacer" section between two rows of solar et flow assumed to equal the depth of the storage on the panel et panels (photo by John E. Showier, reprinted with permission) {Bedient and Huber 2002). Similar assumptions were made to com- pute the velocities in each section of the surface sections. 0 Direction of Flow ' riz to 0 cc:1 Lw Wet section et E 3.5 m - -' 0 A Dry section -ti 0 3 Ls Spacer section 4 m 5 m 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (min) Fig. 2. Wet, dry, and spacer sections of a single cell with lengths Lw, Ls, and Ld with the solar panel covering the dry section Fig. 3. Dimensionless hyetograph of 2-h Type II storm JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 537 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . Runoff from one section to the next and then to the next and the time to peak did not change. Therefore, the greater ground downgradient cell was routed using the continuity of mass. The slope did not significantly influence the response of the solar farm. routing coefficient depended on the depth of flow in storage and the velocity of runoff. Flow was routed from the wet section to the Soil Type dry section to the spacer section, with flow from the spacer section draining to the wet section of the next cell. Flow from the most The effect of soil type on the runoff was also examined. The soil downgradient cell was assumed to be the outflow. Discharge rates group was changed from B soil to C soil by varying the loss rate. As and volumes from the most downgradient cell were used for com- expected, owing to the higher loss rate for the C soil, the depths of parisons between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. runoff increased by approximately 7.5% with the C soil when com- pared with the volume for B soils. However, the runoff volume for the C soil condition only increased by 0. 17% from the prepaneled -6 Alternative Model Scenarios condition to the paneled condition. In comparison with the B soil, a I difference of 0.35 % in volume resulted between the two conditions. t. To assess the effects of the different variables, a section of 30 cells, Therefore, the soil group influenced the actual volumes and rates, fit each with a solar panel, was assumed for the base model. Each cell but not the relative effect of the paneled condition when compared was separated individually into wet, dry, and spacer sections. The to the prepaneled condition. — area had a total ground length of 225 m with a ground slope of 1 % and width of 5 m, which was the width of an average solar panel. Panel Angle 0 The roughness coefficient (Engman 1986) for the silicon solar panel was assumed to be that of glass, 0.01 . Roughness coefficients Because runoff velocities increase with slope, the effect of the angle 0 of 0. 15 for grass and 0.02 for bare ground were also assumed. Loss of the solar panel on the hydrologic response was examined. Analy- L rates of 0.5715 cm/h (0.225 in. /h) and 0.254 cm/h (0. 1 in. /h) for ses were made for angles of 30° and 70° to test an average range �O.4B and C soils, respectively, were assumed. from winter to summer. The hydrologic response for these angles 0 The prepaneled condition using the 2-h, 25-year rainfall was was compared to that of the base condition angle of 45°. The other o assumed for the base condition, with each cell assumed to have site conditions remained the same. The analyses showed that the a good grass cover condition. All other analyses were made assum- angle of the panel had only a slight effect on runoff volumes and to ing a paneled condition. For most scenarios, the runoff volumes and discharge rates. The lower angle of 30° was associated with an in- peak discharge rates from the paneled model were not significantly creased runoff volume, whereas the runoff volume decreased for Q. co greater than those for the prepaneled condition. Over a total length the steeper angle of 70° when compared with the base condition of lei of 225 m with 30 solar panels, the runoff increased by 0.26 m3, 45°. However, the differences (~0.5%) were very slight. Never- O which was a difference of only 0.35%. The slight increase in runoff theless, these results indicate that, when the solar panel was closer o volume reflects the slightly higher velocities for the paneled con- to horizontal, i.e., at a lower angle, a larger difference in runoff o dition. The peak discharge increased by 0.0013 m3, a change of volume occurred between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. only 0.31 %. The time to peak was delayed by one time increment, These differences in the response result are from differences in 1 i.e., 12 s. Inclusion of the panels did not have a significant hydro- loss rates. logic impact. The peak discharge was also lower at the lower angle. At an 0 angle of 30°, the peak discharge was slightly lower than at the Storm Magnitude higher angle of 70°. For the 2-h storm duration, the time to peak of the 30 angle was 2 min delayed from the time to peak of when ch The effect of storm magnitude was investigated by changing the the panel was positioned at a 70° angle, which reflects the longer o magnitude from a 25-year storm to a 2-year storm. For the 2-year travel times across the solar panels. 4' storm, the rainfall and runoff volumes decreased by approximately 0 50%. However, the runoff from the paneled watershed condition Storm Duration .,.• increased compared to the prepaneled condition by approximately › the same volume as for the 25-year analysis, 0.26 m3 . This increase To assess the effect of storm duration, analyses were made for 6-h Po represents only a 0.78% increase in volume. The peak discharge storms, testing magnitudes for 2-, 25-, and 100-year return periods, cc:1 and the time to peak did not change significantly. These results re- with the results compared with those for the 2-h rainfall events. The re flect runoff from a good grass cover condition and indicated that the longer storm duration was tested to determine whether a longer du- 7)1 U general conclusion of very minimal impacts was the same for dif- ration storm would produce a different ratio of increase in runoff o ferent storm magnitudes. between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. When compared to orunoff volumes from the 2-h storm, those for the 6-h storm were Ground Slope 34% greater in both the paneled and prepaneled cases. However, O when comparing the prepaneled to the paneled condition, the in- 0 The effect of the downgradient ground slope of the solar farm was crease in the runoff volume with the 6-h storm was less than Qalso examined. The angle of the solar panels would influence the 1 % regardless of the return period. The peak discharge and the velocity of flows from the panels. As the ground slope was in- time-to-peak did not differ significantly between the two condi- creased, the velocity of flow over the ground surface would be tions. The trends in the hydrologic response of the solar farm closer to that on the panels. This could cause an overall increase did not vary with storm duration. in discharge rates. The ground slope was changed from 1 to 5%, with all other conditions remaining the same as the base conditions. With the steeper incline, the volume of losses decreased from Ground Cover that for the 1 % slope, which is to be expected because the faster The ground cover under the panels was assumed to be a native grass velocity of the runoff would provide less opportunity for infiltra- that received little maintenance. For some solar farms, the area be- tion. However, between the prepaneled and paneled conditions, the neath the panel is covered in gravel or partially paved because the increase in runoff volume was less than 1 %. The peak discharge panels prevent the grass from receiving sunlight. Depending on the 538 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . volume of traffic, the spacer cell could be grass, patches of grass, or increased by 7% from the grass-covered scenario to the scenario bare ground. Thus, it was necessary to determine whether or not with gravel under the panel. The peak discharge increased by these alternative ground-cover conditions would affect the runoff 73 % for the gravel ground cover when compared with the grass characteristics. This was accomplished by changing the Manning's cover without the panels. The time to peak was 10 min less with n for the ground beneath the panels. The value of n under the pan- the gravel than with the grass, which reflects the effect of differ- els, i.e., the dry section, was set to 0.015 for gravel, with the value ences in surface roughness and the resulting velocities. for the spacer or maintenance section set to 0.02, i.e., bare ground. If maintenance vehicles used the spacer section regularly and the These can be compared to the base condition of a native grass grass cover was not adequately maintained, the soil in the spacer (n = 0. 15). A good cover should promote losses and delay the section would be compacted and potentially the runoff volumes and runoff. rates would increase. Grass that is not maintained has the potential For the smoother surfaces, the velocity of the runoff increased to become patchy and turn to bare ground. The grass under the and the losses decreased, which resulted in increasing runoff vol- panel may not get enough sunlight and die. Fig. 1 shows the result IE: umes. This occurred both when the ground cover under the panels of the maintenance trucks frequently driving in the spacer section, t. was changed to gravel and when the cover in the spacer section was which diminished the grass cover. f, changed to bare ground. Owing to the higher velocities of the flow, The effect of the lack of solar farm maintenance on runoff char- runoff rates from the cells increased significantly such that it was acteristics was modeled by changing the Manning's n to a value of (74; necessary to reduce the computational time increment. Fig. 4(a) 0.02 for bare ground. In this scenario, the roughness coefficient o shows the hydrograph from a 30-panel area with a time incre- for the ground under the panels, i.e., the dry section, as well as in ment of 12 s. With a time increment of 12 s, the water in each cell the spacer cell was changed from grass covered to bare ground is discharged at the end of every time increment, which results in no (n = 0.02).The effects were nearly identical to that of the gravel. o attenuation of the flow; thus, the undulations shown in Fig. 4(a) The runoff volume increased by 7% from the grass-covered to the a, result. The time increment was reduced to 3 s for the 2-h storm, bare-ground condition. The peak discharge increased by 72% when o' o which resulted in watershed smoothing and a rational hydrograph compared with the grass-covered condition. The runoff for the bare- c.) shape [Fig. 4(b)] . The results showed that the storm runoff ground condition also resulted in an earlier time to peak by approx- imately 10 min. Two other conditions were also modeled, showing to 0 1 - similar results. In the first scenario, gravel was placed directly Paneled under the panel, and healthy grass was placed in the spacer section, ✓ 0.09 - Pre-paneled , which mimics a possible design decision. Under these conditions, lei 0.08 - the peak discharge increased by 42%, and the volume of runoff c) increased by 4%, which suggests that storm-water management 0 0.07 - - would be necessary if gravel is placed anywhere. ' 0 06 - - Fig. 5 shows two solar panels from a solar farm in New Jersey. - The bare ground between the panels can cause increased runoff N w .4 0 0.05 - - rates and reductions in time of concentration, both of which could 0 0.04 - - necessitate storm-water management. The final condition modeled i involved the assumption of healthy grass beneath the panels and 0.03 - bare ground in the spacer section, which would simulate the con- et 0.02 - p 1 - dition of unmaintained grass resulting from vehicles that drive over ` the spacer section. Because the spacer section is 53 % of the cell, the p 0.01 - change in land cover to bare ground would reduce losses and de- ,,,, crease runoff travel times, which would cause runoff to amass as it 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 t (a) Time (min) 0.07 i az ?o Paneled Pre-paneled _ _�, 4.44 :0 :.�^ .-sr 4 H I, , t 0cic:1 .06 - - s- . \_ .. 1 '�:=" I_ , r U 1� _ ff''''' -4" \y ( t ! 4 1 O E 0.04 - - pr. . 1 f` . . ,. - ii-ci I. -.' _ --cs k•_ f o 03 Y i 1 003 1 / `! 0.02 '• ` �' . �� + •S f ♦ y ~ .,. ,- _. �`� .� 1. -- ----„-: , .,--,- . --2 ' , _ , , ` _ r ' 0.01 - - :K . ) i % , :. , �/yr .-5• ;:v, // r � It :f,IK a. r 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 - ' - (b) Time (min) Fig. 5. Site showing the initiation of bare ground below the panels, Fig. 4. Hydrograph with time increment of (a) 12 s ; (b) 3 s with which increases the potential for erosion (photo by John Showler, Manning's n for bare ground reprinted with permission) JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 539 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . moves downgradient. With the spacer section as bare ground, the runoff was calculated using Manning's equation, and the velocity peak discharge increased by 100%, which reflected the increases in of falling rainwater was calculated using the following: volume and decrease in timing. These results illustrate the need for maintenance of the grass below and between the panels. V t = 120 435 ( 1 ) where d,. = diameter of a raindrop, assumed to be 1 mm. The re- Design Suggestions lationship between kinetic energy and rainfall intensity is With well-maintained grass underneath the panels, the solar panels IC, = 916 -I- 3301og10 i (2) themselves do not have much effect on total volumes of the runoff where i = rainfall intensity (in./h) and Ke = kinetic energy (ft-tons or peak discharge rates. Although the panels are impervious, the per ac-in. of rain) of rain falling onto the wet section and the panel, rainwater that drains from the panels appears as runoff over the as well as the water flowing off of the end of the panel (Wischmeier il4 downgradient cells. Some of the runoff infiltrates. If the grass cover and Smith 1978). The kinetic energy (Salles et al. 2002) of the rain- of a solar farm is not maintained, it can deteriorate either because of fall was greater than that coming off the panel, but the area under fit a lack of sunlight or maintenance vehicle traffic. In this case, the the panel (i.e., the product of the length, width, and cosine of the runoff characteristics can change significantly with both runoff panel angle) is greater than the area under the edge of the panel 0 rates and volumes increasing by significant amounts. In addition,if gravel or pavement is placed underneath the panels, this can also where the water drains from the panel onto the ground. Thus, contribute to a significant increase in the hydrologic response. dividing the kinetic energy by the respective areas gives a more accurate representation of the kinetic energy experienced by the If bare ground is foreseen to be a problem or gravel is to be soil. The energy of the water draining from thepanel onto the placed under the panels to prevent erosion, it is necessary to . ground can be nearly 10 tunes greater than the rain itself falling co, counteract the excess runoff using some form of storm-water man- onto the ground area. If the solar panel runoff falls onto an un- w agement. A simple practice that can be implemented is a buffer strip sealed soil, considerable detachment can result (Motha et al. (Dabney et al. 2006) at the downgradient end of the solar farm. The 2004). Thus, because of the increased kinetic energy, it is pos- buffer strip length must be sufficient to return the runoff character- sible that the soil is much more prone to erosion with the panels istics with the panels to those of runoff experienced before the wialthan without. Where panels are installed, methods of erosion togravel and panels were installed. Alternatively, a detention basin control should be included in the design. Q.o can be installed. v A buffer strip was modeled along with the panels. For approxi- lei mately every 200 m of panels, or 29 cells, the buffer must be 5 cells O long (or 35 m) to reduce the runoff volume to that which occurred Conclusions o before the panels were added. Even if a gravel base is not placed Solar farms are the energy generators of the future; thus, it is im- under the panels, the inclusion of a buffer strip may be a good prac-o tice when grass maintenance is not a top funding priority. Fig. 6 portant to determine the environmental and hydrologic effects of these farms, both existing and proposed. A model was created 1 shows the peak discharge from the graveled surface versus the length to simulate storm-water runoff over a land surface without panels c4 of the buffer needed to keep the discharge to prepaneled peak rate. and then with solar panels added. Various sensitivity analyses were Water draining from a solar panel can increase the potential for conducted including changing the storm duration and volume, soil oo erosion of the spacer section. If the spacer section is bare ground, type, ground slope, panel angle, and ground cover to determine the Ch the high kinetic energy of water draining from the panel can cause ± effect that each of these factors would have on the volumes and o soil detachment and transport (Garde and Raju 1977 ; Beuselinck peak discharge rates of the runoff. et al. 2002). The amount and risk of erosion was modeled using The addition of solar panels over a grassy field does not have the velocity of water coming off a solar panel compared with much of an effect on the volume of runoff, the peak discharge, nor the velocity and intensity of the rainwater. The velocity of panel the time to peak. With each analysis, the runoff volume increased ›, slightly but not enough to require storm-water management facili- 0.07 r I ties. However, when the land-cover type was changed under the o Pre-paneled peak Q panels, the hydrologic response changed significantly. When gravel cc:1 0.06 - Peak Q vs. buffer length or avement was laced under the anels with the s acer section p P p p left as patchy grass or bare ground, the volume of the runoff in- U o 0.06 - - creased significantly and the peak discharge increased by approx- oimately 100%. This was also the result when the entire cell was M 0.04 - assumed to be bare ground. �_ _� _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - The potential for erosion of the soil at the base of the solar pan- 0 els was also studied. It was determined that the kinetic energy of the o 1 0.03 - - water draining from the solar panel could be as much as 10 times Q greater than that of rainfall. Thus, because the energy of the water 0.02 - -- draining from the panels is much higher, it is very possible that soil below the base of the solar panel could erode owing to the concen- 0 m - _ trated flow of water off the panel, especially if there is bare ground in the spacer section of the cell. If necessary, erosion control meth- ods should be used. o 0 6 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Bare ground beneath the panels and in the spacer section is Length of buffer (m) a realistic possibility (see Figs. 1 and 5). Thus, a good, well- maintained grass cover beneath the panels and in the spacer section Fig. 6. Peak discharge over gravel compared with buffer length is highly recommended. If gravel, pavement, or bare ground is 540 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . deemed unavoidable below the panels or in the spacer section, it Beuselinck, L., Govers, G., Hairsince, P. B ., Sander, G. C., and may necessary to add a buffer section to control the excess runoff Breynaert, M. (2002). "The influence of rainfall on sediment transport volume and ensure adequate losses. If these simple measures are by overland flow over areas of net deposition." J. Hydrol. , 257( 1-4), taken, solar farms will not have an adverse hydrologic impact from 145-163. excess runoff or contribute eroded soil particles to receiving Dabney, S. M., Moore, M. T., and Locke, M. A. (2006). "Integrated man- agement of in-field, edge-of-field, and after-field buffers." J. Amer. streams and waterways. Water Resour. Assoc. , 42( 1), 15-24. Engman, E. T. (1986). "Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff." J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. , 112( 1), 39-53. Acknowledgments Garde, R. J., and Raju, K. G. (1977). Mechanics of sediment transportation and alluvial stream problems, Wiley, New York. The authors appreciate the photographs (Figs. 1 and 5) of Ortho McCuen, R. H. (2005). Hydrologic analysis and design, 3rd Ed., Pearson/ Clinical Diagnostics, 1001 Route 202, North Raritan, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 08869, provided by John E. Showler, Environmental Scientist, Motha, J. A., Wallbrink, P. J., Hairsine, P. B., and Grayson, R. B . (2004). New Jersey Department of Agriculture. The extensive comments "Unsealed roads as suspended sediment sources in agricultural catch- c of reviewers resulted in an improved paper. ment in south-eastern Australia." J. Hydrol. , 286( 1-4), 1-18. Salles, C., Poesen, J., and Sempere-Torres, D. (2002). "Kinetic energy of rain and its functional relationship with intensity." J. Hydrol. , 257(1-4), References 256-270. o Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion Bedient, P. B ., and Huber, W. C. (2002). Hydrology and,floodplain analy- losses: A guide to conservation planning, USDA Handbook 537, U.S. sis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. � PP g O rn a) 0.4 U C4 trn O tri 0 0 0 O a) a) 2 U Ct ct 4-i -C O N Ste" O ct :1 a) U Ct E O a) "CS ct O O JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 541 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . KimIey > Horn PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT Lone Tree Creek Solar Weld County Case # TBD West side of Weld County Rd 41 & Midway Between Weld County Rd 84 and Weld County Rd 82/ Highway 14 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 19 , 2023 Lone Tree Creek — 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 Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 2 KimIey > Horn 1 . PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SCOPE OF WORK The development is a proposed 3 . 6- 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 Lone Tree Creek Solar, small scale solar facility ( Project) . The project will be designed and will be constructed and maintained in a manner that minimizes storm water related impacts , in accordance with Weld County drainage criteria . Project name , Property Address and Weld County Parcel No . Lone Tree Creek , No Address on Weld County GIS or assessor map , Parcel No . 070908100003 Developer/Owner CloudBreak Energy Partners , LLC , 218 S . 3 'd Street Sterling , CO 80751 Urbanizing/ Non - Urbanizing This site is located more than a quarter mile away from the nearest Weld County municipal boundary and is classified as " Non - Urbanizing " . Therefore , detention ponds designed for this site would be sized using 10-year runoff rates . 1 . 1 . Project Location The existing site subject property is a parcel of 75 . 00 acres . The project is located on approximately 44 . 1 acres of agricultural land . The project is located east of Ault , within Weld County . The site is bounded to the north by the rest of the Fabrizius property , to the west by the Eaton Ditch Creek , to the east by Weld County Road 41 and to the south by another Fabrizius owned agricultural property ( Parcel 070908000043) . Section Township Range Property is located within a portion of the east half of Section 8 , Township 7 North , Range 65 West of the 6111 P . M . , Weld County , Colorado . Per FEMA Map Panels 08123C1250E 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 Dacono clay loam and Nunn clay loam that classify as hydrologic soil group ( HSG ) type C . The site was modeled using all type C soils . For additional detail , refer to Exhibit 2 for the NRCS Report . Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 3 • ley ))) Horn 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 Weld County Road 41 . The nearest water features are Eaton Ditch Creek which bounds the site area on the west side and another unnamed drainage creek on the property to the east of the project site approximately 0 . 2 miles away . The unnamed drainage creek collects the water to the southeast and then the Eaton Ditch Creek collects the water further along to the south as the receiving waters of the project site . The existing drainage patterns will be maintained in the proposed condition . Refer to Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5 for the Pre and Post- Development Drainage Area Maps . 1 . 3 . Report & Analysis Methodologies This report evaluates the pre and post development runoff characteristics of the development ( including solar facility footprint and access drive) and addresses the stormwater requirements of Weld County and the State of Colorado . Hydrologic Design Criteria The table below notes the hydrologic design criteria used in the analysis . Parameter Value Unit Reference Time of Concentration , Tc - min . Exhibit 6 Runoff Coefficient, C - - MHFD Criteria Manual, Chapter 6 , Table 6-4 1 - hr Point Rainfall , P1 ( 100-Year) 2 . 73 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 . 2 % (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 44 . 09 ac 44 . 09 ac Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 4 KimIey > Horn Imperviousness 3 . 2 % 3 . 6 Qloo 52 . 41 cfs 52 . 74 cfs 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 52 . 41 cfs to 52 . 74 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 44 acre Project area , but won 't require clearing and grubbing of vegetation or grading , except for concrete equipment pads and gravel access drive installations . • The areas considered impervious ( 100 percent impervious 4 , 123 sq ft concrete pads) or semi- impervious (40 percent impervious 29 , 880 sf gravel access drive) total 1 . 65 acres or 3 . 7 % 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 52 . 41 cfs . • Under developed conditions , the peak flow from the site area for the 100 yr — 1 hr storm event is 52 . 74 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 . Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 5 KirnIey > 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 . 4014ert.:1 I 41-1;4711: Adam Harrison , PE Project Manager Lone Tree Creek — Weld County, CO April 2023 Page 6 Exhibit 1 — FEMA Firm Map National Hazard Layer FlRMette F g A Legend nd 104°41'9"W 40°35'31"N SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT JO I _ _ . = ' .. -sr` Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) . • Zone A, V. A99 _ SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AK VE, AR - i ► Ass HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway I ir 'di Zone A 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average Zone A depth less than one foot or with drainage --- areas of less than one square mile I Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. Zone X r!` FLOOD HAZARD Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D r i Project Area NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x ,riiiikhist>4 i 1 I Effective LOM Rs AL ------...s-- OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D GENERAL - - - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES milli Levee, Dike, or Floodwall - at WEED- Cia4 4 • °' B 20.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance i 17.5 Water Surface Elevation _ - - - .. - ---" - - - — -- 8 - - - - Coastal Transect AREA OF MINIM a * FL 0 0 D HAZARD ii � 57in Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) il ZC.I I` P',nK: — Limit of Study T711 R65W ' T tr ::� . TIN R65W Ski Jurisdiction Boundary - Coastal Transect Baseline T7N 5W S9 OTHER ��,�� , - - - - Profile Baseline FEATURES i eft 1/20/2016 I Hydrographic Feature I / „ Digital Data Available - - No Digital Data Available MAP PANELS y Unmapped 1 J C._ ) The pin displayed on the map is an approximate i I 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. ws The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap ii accuracy standards ii n The flood hazard information is derived directly from the I' authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map I was exported on 2/1/2023 at 9:52 AM 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. _ . i This map image is void if the one or more of the following map I elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, L - FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for Feet 1 : 6 , 000 104°40'31"W 40°35'4"N unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for 0 250 500 1 , 000 1 , 500 2 , 000 regulatory purposes. Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Exhibit 2 — NRCS Report Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part zo ff M O 526640 526710 526780 526850 526920 526990 527060 527130 527200 527270 527340 40° 35' 25" N I --. �s„ I — — — I 40° 35' 25" N N • ... -f' . . " rte~ _ - MM 4 . 1 - I, .1 4IV:�h pit, f 8 I err --4:„.- 1st / 'I" ell c SR 3 'i ir e . l 4 i / ,p..,;„: " - _ A 3 if #. 7. N. Mal ' -- t §:i - / . i St r--- • 4\ * , It I10 ri -- •I - -- il 1111 1fµ' N I —'IIII • N / t`\ ,ems i 4 :il_',iI I 7•11 :9`r I I n I-u`I', I I I %.'i(:`II I I •lit. I -� J .R�`II N t 1 40° 35' 10" N I I 40° 35' 10" N 526640 526710 526780 526850 526920 526990 527060 527130 527200 527270 527340 to Map Scale: 1 :3,350 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet Meters N 0 45 90 180 270 A Feet 0 150 300 600 900 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 ,i Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AO!) ® C The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at Area of Interest (AOI ) 1 : 24 ,000 . 0 C/D Soils0 D Warning : Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Rating Polygons A O Not rated or not available Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil A/D Water Features line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of Streams and Canals contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed B scale . Transportation B/D Rails Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map C Interstate Highways measurements. C/D US Routes Source of Map : Natural Resources Conservation Service D Web Soil Survey URL : Major Roads Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG :3857) Not rated or not available Local Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Soil Rating Lines Background projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts * A distance and area . A projection that preserves area , such as the mew Aerial Photography Albers equal-area conic projection , should be used if more A/D accurate calculations of distance or area are required . kaws B This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as BID of the version date(s) listed below. HoeC Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data : Version 21 , Sep 1 , 2022 C/D Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales kipii D 1 : 50 ,000 or larger. ise Not rated or not available Date(s) aerial images were photographed : Jun 8, 2021 —Jun 12, 2021 Soil Rating Points A The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background ® A/D imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor B shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 0 B/D Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 aa Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 21 Dacono clay loam , 0 to C 18. 8 53 .9% 1 percent slopes 41 Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 C 16. 1 46 . 1 % percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 34.9 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential . Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation , are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms . The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B , C , and D ) and three dual classes (A/D , B/D , and C/D ) . The groups are defined as follows : Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential ) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep , well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands . These soils have a high rate of water transmission . Group B . Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep , moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture . These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission . Group C . Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture . These soils have a slow rate of water transmission . Group D . Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential ) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential , soils that have a high water table , soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface , and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material . These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission . If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D , B/D , or 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 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/1 /2023 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Exhibit 3 — NOAA Rainfall Data NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 i 110fIll N. Ile �9 Location name : Ault, Colorado, USA* . .h V.w Latitude : 40.5882 , Longitude : -104.6806° } � Elevation : 4892.93 ft** ililli. 0 �� " 0. * source: ESRI Maps ''c '" S ** source: USGS .4" t POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh , Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring , Maryland PF_tabular I PF_graphical I Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDS -based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals ( in inches) 1 Average recurrence interval (years) Duration - - - I f 1 � [ 2 L5 I 10 25 [ 50 JI 100 200 11 500 J 1000 1 5-min 0.241 0.292 0.387 0.479 0.623 0.749 0.886 1 .04 1 .26 1 .44 (0. 195-0.297) (0.236-0.360) (0.312-0.479) (0.384-0.595) (0.487-0.820) (0.565-0.991 ) (0.642-1 .20) (0.715-1 .44) (0.828-1 .79) (0.913-2.05) 0.353 1 0.427 0.567 0.701 0.913 1 . 10 1 .30 1 .52 1 .85 I 2. 11 10-min (0.286-0 .435) (0.345-0.527) (0.457-0.702) (0.562-0.871 ) (0.713-1 .20) (0.828- 1 .45) (0.939-1 .76) (1 .05-2. 11 ) ( 1 .21 -2.62) 1 ( 1 .34-3.00) 1 0.430 0.521 0.692 0.855 1 . 11 1 .34 1 .58 1 .86 2 .25 2.58 15-min (0.348-0.530 (0.421 -0.642)0.421 -0.642 (0.685- 1 .06) ( ) ) ( 1 . 15-2. 14) i ( 1 .28-2.57) ( 1 .48-3. 19) ) (0.558-0.856) 0.870- 1 .47 ( 1 .01 - 1 . 77 1 .28-2.57 ( 1 .63-3.66 [ 30-mmn 0.586 0.708 0.939 1 . 16 1 .51 1 .82 2. 15 2.53 3 .07 3.52 (0.475-0 .723) (0.573-0.873) (0 .757- 1 . 16) (0.930A .44) (1 . 18- 1 .99) ( 1 .37-2.41 ) ( 1 .56-2.92) a ( 1 .74-3.50) (2 .02-4.35) (2.23-5.00) [ 60-mm 0.723 0.873 1 . 16 1 .44 1 .89 2.29 il 2.73 3.21 3 .93 4.51 (0.586-0 .891 ) (0.706- 1 .08) (0.936- 1 .44) ( 1 . 16- 1 .79) ( 1 .48-2.50) ( 1 .73-3. 04) ( 1 .98-3.69) ; (2.21 -4.46) (2 .58-5.57) (2.86-6.41 ) 2-hr 0.859 1 .04 1 .38 1 .73 2.27 2.76 3.30 3.90 4.78 5.51 (0.701 - 1 .05) (0.845- 1 .27) ( 1 . 12- 1 .70) ( 1 .39-2. 13) ( 1 .80-2.99) (2. 10-3.64) (2.41 -4.44) i (2.71 -5.37) (3. 17-6.73) (3.52-7.76) 0.931 1 . 12 1 .50 1 .87 2.47 3.00 3.59 ° 4.26 5 .23[__ 6.05 3-hr (0.762- 1 . 13) (0.917- 1 .37) [ ( 1 .22- 1 .83) ( 1 .51 -2.29) ( 1 .96-3.23) (2.30-3.94) (2.64-4.82) (2.98-5.84) (3 .50-7.34) (3.89-8.48) [ 6-hr 1 .05 1 .29 1 .73 2. 14 2.80 3.37 4.00 4.69 5 .69 6.52 (0.868- 1 .27) ( 1 .06- 1 .56) ( 1 .41 -2.09) ( 1 .75-2.61 ) (2 .23-3.61 ) (2.60-4. 37) (2.96-5.29) (3.31 -6.35) (3.83-7.89) (4.24-9.06) 12-hr 1 .24 1 .50 1 .96 2.39 3.06 3.64 4.26 4.94 5 .92 6.72 ( 1 .03-1 .49) ( 1 .24- 1 .79) ( 1 .62-2.36) ( 1 .96-2.89) (2 .45-3.90) (2.82-4. 66) I (3. 17-5.57) (3.51 -6.62) (4 .02-8. 12 ) (4.41 -9.26) 24-hr 1 .49 1 .74 2.20 2.64 3.31 3.90 I 4.53 5.23 6 .24 IF 7.07 ( 1 .24-1 .77) ( 1 .45-2.07) ( 1 .83-2.63) (2. 18-3. 16) (2 .67-4. 18) (3.05-4. 95) I (3.41 -5.89) (3.76-6.96) (4 .29-8.50) (4.69-9.66). 2-day 1 .71 1 2.00 2.52 2.99 3.70 4.29 4.92 5.601 [ 6 .57 7.35 ( 1 .44-2.02) ( 1 .68-2.36) (2. 11 -2.98) (2.49-3.55) (2 .99-4.59) (3.37-5. 37) I (3.72-6.30) (4.05-7.35) (4 .55-8.84) (4.93-9.96). 1 .88 i 2. 17 I 2.69 1 3. 17 3.88 4.48 5. 11 5.80 6 .78 7 7.57 3-day 1 83-2.55 2 26-3. 17 _ 2 64-3.75( 1 .58-2 .21 ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (3 . 15-4.79) (3.53-5. 58) (3.89-6.52) (4.22-7.58).1(4 .73-9.07) i (5. 11 - 10.2) 4-da 2.00 2.31 2.84 3.33 4.05 4.66 5.30 5.99 6 .97 7.75 y ( 1 .70-2 .35) ( 1 .95-2.70) (2.40-3.34) (2.79-3.92) (3 .30-4.98) (3.69-5. 78) (4.04-6.72) (4.37-7.79) (4 .88-9.28) (5.26- 10 .4) 7-day 2.26 2.65 3.29 3.85 4.64 I 5.26 5.91 6.58 7 .49 8.21 ( 1 .92-2 .63) (2.25-3.08) (2.79-3.84) (3.24-4.51 ) (3 .77-5.61 ) (4. 18-6.44) I (4.52-7.40) (4.82-8.44) (5 .27-9.86) (5.62- 10 .9) 2.49 2.94 3.67 4.27 5. 11 5.75 I 6.40 7.06 _1 [ 7 .93 8.59 1 10-day (2. 13-2 .89) (2.51 -3.41 ) (3. 12-4.26 (3.61 -4.98) (4 . 16-6. 13) (4.58-6. 99) I (4.91 -7.95) (5. 19-8.99) (5 .60- 10.4) (5.91 -11 .4) 20-day 3.22 3.74 4.57 5.24 6. 16 6.84 I 7.52 8. 19 9 .06 9.70 (2.77-3.70) (3.21 -4.30) [ (3.91s.26) I (4.466.o7) (5.04-7.29) (5.48-8. 22) (5.82-9.24) (6.08- 10.3) (6.46- 11 .7) (6.75- 12 .8) 30-day 3.82 4.38 5.28 6.01 6.99 7.73 8.44 9. 15 10.0 10.7 (3.29-4 .36) (3.78-5.01 ) I [ (4.54-6.06i. (5. 14-6.92) (5.75-8.23) (6.22-9. 22) (6.56- 10.3)] _(6 .82- 11 .4) (7 .21 - 12.9) (7.50- 14 .0) 4.52 1 5. 17 1 6.21 7.03 8.13 8.93 I 9.71 1 10.5 11 .4 12. 1 45-day (3.91 -5 . 14) (4.47-5.89) (5.35-7.08) (6.03-8.06) (6 .71 -9.50) (7.22- 10 .6) (7.58- 11 .8) (7.84- 13.0) (8 .23- 14.6) (8.52- 15 .7) 5.08 5.83 7.02 7.95 9.17 10.0 I 10.9 11 .7 12.6 13.3 [ 60-day (4.41 -5 .76) (5.06-6.62) (6.07-7.98) (6.84-9.08) (7 .58- 10.7) (8. 14- 11 . 9) I (8.53- 13. 1 ) (8.78- 14.4) (9 . 16- 16. 1 ) (9.44- 17 .3) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS) . Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval . The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information . Back to Top PF graphical PDS- based depth-duration -frequency ( DD F ) curves Latitude: 403882 Cr . Longitude . - 104 . 6806 ° 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I T I T" 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I Y I 1 I 1 e. I • 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I I . . Average ��y I1.I_; ■1.1 I , : 1 1 t t 1 , , , , , , , , rage.. recurrence Fic�e 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 LL��TT I / I a a a Y Y I I 1 I 1 1 Y I 11 �.Y■■�/��+��.Yi••��1111 12 . . . . a . . ... .. . . . . • . . . . . a.. . . .1 . . . . . . . J . . . . .. . . .2 . . . . . .. . . . t. . . . . . L . . .I. . t 1 • I . I J • ..— interval ■ al Y e • • . Y Y • 1 • , • • • • • 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e e ! e e! ! (years) 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 V / e / I e e e e e e e I e e , .a. A 1 a I { a / a i I 1 I I , a 1 o • - • - I I _ _ 1 1 1 _ I 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 1 e • • • • • + • LA Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I e e e • • ! I e ! • ! • , ! •! I I t t 1 1 t Y t , 1 , 1 , j.. at- . / ! ! 1 / 1 / I t 1 I aro t t t 1 t / t II , i i i. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 e I I C • • a Y 1 1 1 Y Y a a t { { • Y e 1• i 0 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t I ) 'Iy�r O , 1 l i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 a t t 1 1 t 1 1 f . SO • 1 1 , t 1 1 1 t t ! . 11 • 1 / 1 1 + • 1 • • i • y •t'' Lai 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 I t 1 1 I 1 1 00 1. 11 1 � ��1 1 1 a I 1 }i a I 200 t t t • • e • . . 1� ! • '� T t t 4, 1 I I I I f a { . . • a I f - I a I ! e I . f t re • - • _ 1 000 .L—��r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 1 1 • — . • I ! I ! • • a I 1 —j-- •-•ti— 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 o _ I I I I I I I I I I I I L I --. L., I I I I I I I I I i—i NI e--i - rrl LLD r-I n It tel Duration 14 I I I I I I i I , 1 i t 1 I 1 I 1 e • • I I 1 1 t . • • I i • 12 _ . — . _ . . . . . . . .. . J . . — . .. . .. . •• • - . . . . . . . • L , I { n1 a a _ .. I 1 1 1 1 t G ! • 1 I ! I 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 _a, 1 e I I I 1 e e "dry o { 1 da .. I a. J . . _ L . . . 1• - i .1 r- - a • . - 1I . Duration 1 t 1 ! 1 1 t 1 1 . 1 1 i 1 { \ . 1 lit -mIII z. -day rr t t ! I rya 1 0I 1 1R,' 1 day 1 . I • 11® [/�•7, 1 1 1 I 1 I - 1 � 5-min 7 _d ay 30-rnin 7-day I O ,.... I - Lee. ►� - t _ -� ��_ — 6 in 10-clay _ , _____,I, . . . _ .. . . _ . . . ._ — 2-li r — 20-day • e I " -� 1 r 30-day \ 1 I t 2 i ~- • I i I I I I I 24-hr 5 2 101 ` 0 1 500 1000 Average recurrence interval (years) NOMMAtlas 14, Volume 8 , Version 2 Created (GMT) : Wed Feb 1 15 : 03 :02 2023 Back to Top Maps & aerials Small scale terrain t%04 i \ a • 1 p� u U Y ■ \ I 1. . e ufI -Thy) 82 r ki-M-4\THIali 1 - ii _____ (< r tiI ritaatrA I , )1 I, 3km Ii `/mi IA Large scale terrain _ l 1 ate ♦ _ tar ar r-At ;-r, ter - r 'Yi M 71, '4-4 Cheyenne CI J L ,tin Fortco'll ins I � . tit 'dr . _ :F: jGreeley L�c!i-�;�t Peci fr 45 i7_i - 0 r.,-a, • - . B (Ail cl et- ± �L -fly.. r l la d P' -et kata , • ID envier 1. — I kJ ., '100km - t„�_ I 1 n ; T ' 014. 60mi r ' Large scale map l - heyenn� e Fort CollinsI J; reeley ailieleseteters liar ir.Lonptianiont — E C .e.. her a 100km mai, I I ' 60mii \ Large scale aerial - . r r I - 1•'I , i +r 1 • ' 2 *4 . .. • P47 1r I • F • t. Pert •Gatti n i 1 s l ‘. L, ;I-r m ont le t E oullie r - 100km ,. 60mi rI 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 a 1' / , I I I l- , `' I NORTH o / I I >- I I GRAPH C SCALE \ FEET 0 50 100 200 I I I z I I I 0 w z I cL w I-- V 0 (n (n Q I LEGEND Ji o Z z e 0 I Iw J I Y o _ _ _ PROPERTY BOUNDARY i W z d ' ,,r• alMaw I 441PRE CONDITIONS SUB - BASIN CrpEct < aft. iftftft DC2( I O � �►-. �� ,` I EX . EASEMENT o w li hI _._ I I z Is' i / r i aloft► EX . SITE SETBACK con / OT 0 co (.3 o = L7 EX . UNDERGROUND GAS LINE P it / 4% I / C". I o I I - UV EX . UNDERGROUND WATER LINE Q / \ \IT\ , 2 Q /` ( a� ' � ,. EX . BARB WIRE FENCE I o / th / r / / ; ' ® - Oh EX . OVERHEAD WIRE _J I L/ L3 CD 7 4%-- i EX . UTILITY POLE z / Ds... \ ,1(1/4_, / O2 I *' > EX . FLOW PATH CD z I I J ` / � � � i - : ::: / / oa��vL . 00 E // • �' �p 0 N,\,#\ V;c(f) 0 N ---) - 7 N \ a il _ / r \`\ EX . GRAVEL ROAD 0 , / / - — — — — — _ x. x—� EX . SLOPE LABELclrIZDO D O r > , 4 DA-01 jam _ " CO z v �►�, , SUB - BASIN I W w ulim. / IIxx IDENTIFICATION ° '� 3.27E I �� OC No / ( i� IMPERVIOUSNESS H �> 0 a o / � ,_ 0 Nn / / � I xx xx DRAINAGE AREA ( ACRES ) - I o , I � I _ \ /N z , // ----- - �.� I � < ii i N -RNQ I . LI I N et D / r H--- ► _ o Isl \51,:s. , % - < A DESIGN POINT / D 0 _ � DESIGNED BY: LDS p _WWI Ls - ta-, 1" —\% /1 40111110-� � � % DRAWN BY: LDS Na , / .% -- �- ( ' i CHECKED BY: AJH I NOTES w �/ �s 0 3 � DATE : 02 /24 /23_cp�, i �6 mot,a I N U w / / �� w C �� ; 1 I 1 . THIS DRAINAGE MAP AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN IN on<Pa / / �� !! `b� ASSOCIATION WITH CLOUDBREAK ENERGY PARTNERS , LLC . DRAINAGE . - J / III ) NARRATIVE AND USE BY THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLANS . I ' N C, " � 4 ,Q WITH REFERENCE R Y T I - 1 \\°,2Oa. / O\c5),,__ 2 . TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT I \dII AGENCY ( FEMA ) FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ( FIRM ) , MAP NUMBER < 0_ > i WCo/ - D `\ I I 08123C1250E , THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAINS WITHIN THE LIMITS OFLIJ Q W I Lt os% 2 0 i_ � . �� DA-02 THE PROJECT SITE . Z 16.4 3i% / / Z ) kJ in -6/ CO Z � - 0 O C!) CL t I \ ) ° < W < 0 w / -- - ---- . • ---) • I r) \ -- ‘ . D 5 z -,,- ... / , (--,„ , . . ___ . _____> . . , , c, ,, ,,-_, , , ,, , ,„ / , ,, ...„, . \\„. 2 . 1 0 °_i ctill LC L.T. _ass , /77H I .1 0 Via. � V.,_, � k9:s...- � ji r .1'�I I 0 < 7 / _ ITTA r. W � — 11a \ThelalleSsase 1\--? V r ) I (N) 0 o ---->---77------ -- / • CJ� \ ) Z IL-I ITN o z � o .. Li 4., �' III R CD a o a.arn — .., las--------- - • --------------- ___ \ 7 I 2.. lii III x >- I 'N "' I -1 ll N...., 0:1 H _ II Q C/) � w =� W� U .ihiram. _ - II c. I J Z o L. liimmor I. seal . LLI › ce) t- I ni)-11,q D 0..... Lb IT) ,_ asimisam5alearna als 7 ------ -- imi: LIJ � w ' 14:117! O D >0_ r: v) CL ? I 1 I H Q I o W C3 -Oec z — w TD _ o 0 Iw J ow ow Oce coo I PRELIMINARY � s cow CD o I I FOR REVIEW ONLY 72 NOT FOR 0 w a, < I I CONSTRUCTION m- l -c) a Kimley ) Horn o = G Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. t5 I I PROJECT NO . o w 196664000 /w I _ DRAWING NAME `/ 5 I I � % A -. _, b , sof Iw W 01 0 . - CO 0 0 �� KNOW tiHHt� T ' z BE L () RiFd� 4dR F 1' �1' U q � � /' E ) LJ. Exhibit 5 — Post- Development Drainage Area Map / \\ I \\ I \ W l- o 1 , I NORTH 1 I I >- M I 1 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 50 100 200 i I I I z i I I a 1 (.7) Z 1 ct V) I- a _ U 0 Q i LEGEND I o 1 z w ct Y I Y o PROPERTY BOUNDARY < a Li., / 4/11 W z ?`�.+ - I ED p i OP sr _ i�� -- PRE CONDITIONS SUB — BASIN410 CO Q D i 1I/ft, a I I ail I I pa liSjt • � - _ - I I � 0 / /4 �►:�� 1 EX . EASEMENT O Lu lr, t I ----woke 0 op imp .-.... J w _111 _ U CD r r �� SITE a - ��- �0 _ � _ EX . co CO ,Adj i Z S. o EX . UNDERGROUND GAS LINE oc/ •a, � \ 1 P / .►it o ,i, 4.,,F•1►` 1 �, ` �� I I EX . UNDERGROUND WATER LINE a \5\1 i z .o / - Q / / �,� , � _` EX . BARB WIRE FENCE • / 0 /� ,V \/ / �\�_ / , ��' I - '•�� / ` EX . OVERHEAD WIRE Lai .C_ IIIMP*pr Nip __I / gootsib ,, i I --- DA-01 O) / or X x ( 1 Iga / %; �_� I EX . UTILITY POLE LIM F a b / \ 27 . 7 3. 5�CD Z / ICO ,` I I J9 I SOLAR GARDEN PERIMETER FENCE U c \ I oa. w\ I I ( CHAIN LINKCD - X us. o Z ' / ' � ` ~ I I SOLAR PANEL ARRAY w o j coct; \._.‘ --is... Oa - - _ - 00 �te. > PR . FLOW PATH E / - - - a - • -' - _ c\I I / '<WI 41. N.� _ EX . CONTOURS can // - - / �� 700 Q P_ - _ — . . - h. ,I\ 0 'Thr,) _ _ . . —� EX . SLOPE LABEL Q w fl:141*-IPIP.:111:0:mii014:41:,tot:1011:44::: - . EX . POND � can �' J EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH %NW O ^ o 00 § wzA i I ‘; () O4 �1 I _ 6 > 0 O 4 % '► 18 I — - - — _ EX . GRAVEL ROAD limmmE W �'-J -p i_cL_ ...... o 1To 1 - - I Orr ro zN / X I — — _ Yte ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTE UNQ Now PADS s o C Q 11 0 . 58 % I N cc3) w _.2. — — c CD 1U� w � � _ aa ' , - UTILITY POLE cc 9 _ - - - / 1 di 1 DESIGNED BY: LDS / lie : EL _ — —' — _ _ _ ' �� PROPOSED PERMANENT & DRAWN BY: LDS Oz - - 1 _ - - - � � • TEMPORARY TRAILERSQ . : . --�"� ( f - - - - - �~ I CHECKED BY. AJH co 0 �� _ _ — — _ ,' rit- or - - - PROPOSED 20' GRAVEL DATE : 04 /19 /23 a X , — — — _ - wstwststststs ACCESS DRIVEWAY _ ' r EXISTING SEASONAL - � I — _ _ _ — � , 7 IRRIGATION POND 1 1 / Aloft) — — — _ , �rds. �' ., Th: � I Q,6 / I 1 — _ _ Xi4 PROPOSED SUB — BASIN Q % 1 — — — '= 1 XX IDENTIFICATION 1 I MS.Er.. / O — 1 1 1 1 �� IMPERVIOUSNESS LIJ 0 Q 1 1101. x I _________ 7 DRAINAGE AREA ACRES ) 0_ cg / ' a ' I 1 • I - 17 / X -- - IMP ' ' I 1 41414P I Sr , U lie eLl / . 0 1 Q �Q rrrrrrrrr VO , 1 9 1 1 it � � '444111 to � ;> i , , 1 x I i 4: CC l' il 0 LL1 • DESIGN POINT • < 6 /4(1 n " a a a iss0 0 a.7c 0 rrrr X 4 ��,!1r- x sosk 9� I 1 1 AI D o 0 CC i r\C-• / . ______> • . \\OP -----_____________________ *yr?vIvivi443/4-4-st -- --- --4Sf+St_,______ ____________.%*44tItattSt$StAnsitirentnAb.scn, a a a j = 0 n5 ill ci w / 'Di') NV') --I \ ,----- ,:\ X t•esittetstst•••••••••••••Sersr. , _ E � I- ,-J — Z I CD ' % • • --- --) • \, -(57% a a in 2. c.c /77 • IN S tH OA , 4 ll LI J x ix c O . 4•••••••••teiiiors- -.. V \ ICI5 �, � ii D A—° 2 at -. _ vr ye. - iii I LL Sr . -�is IO 0 ' " astsaattl-O ct? -------„___ _at a- aatt••••••••••••Vvvr.- a a , II O < Z w �- 4111 I • NOTES xis, 16 . 4 3. 6 IfstkilaraiteinKvs-sevj ♦ - \ >. O O 15 - o .� I ♦ IIIII ♦ ♦ . _ ISI tx ar I � ♦`att$1•4$t••i • -- -. :tae ar 1 . THIS DRAINAGE MAP AND THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN INIIIZ /�, agar rajco � U aream...... ....--s.... ........a. . % t 4♦ estsissysi ystsivssy is ��►4A4 ASSOCIATION WITH CLOUDBREAK ENERGY PARTNERS LLC . DRAINAGE D W D ♦ ♦� 7 I fljUflI l ›- o / .i,��4 '•�� • NNARRATIVE AND USE BY THE SPECIAL REVIEW PLANS . O aIMNIIIr-"ahar\Z0 O co et mtm:a----- LO co ` � / ) �= °I 2 . WITH REFERENCE TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT -- AGENCY FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP FIRM , MAP NUMBER W o } � !' I 08123C1250E , THERE ARE NO FLOODPLAINS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF J E • . ---> • . . \ AA Lt zi , ilift. ) 4pi ill il O LIJ n_ Ai CL I- 2 Z c ¢ I oQI 0 U z I I -O w Q) s 0 I o w o w o PRELIMINARY ici- Los (Ow o I I FOR REVIEW ONLY iQ N0TF0R 0 v) CONSTRUCTION � w m U � o PimIey ) Horn U o = U Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. PROJECT NO . a ow 196664000 /w I DRAWING NAME .— o > I I �: _ _ ;r _ Iw COiObJJOW y ib 44 L4HitT ' S 6h117 �I L ^ 1 „ ? FIB YOU DIG . �` 00 , EX- 5 Exhibit 6 — Hydrologic Calculations Kimley >>) Horn STANDARD FORM SF- 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Lone Tree Creek 2/24/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : LDS CHECKED BY : AJH TYPE C SOIL PAVED/ 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. 86 0.36 0.05 0.77 0. 73 100-YEAR COEFF. 0. 88 0.64 0.49 0. 84 0. 82 IMPERVIOUS % 100% 40% 2% 90% 85 % PAVED/ VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE IMPERVIOUS GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) Cc(2) Cc(5) Cc( 100) Imp % On-Site Basins PRE-DA-01 1 0. 87 26. 87 27.74 0.02 0.06 0.50 3 .2% PRE-DA-02 2 0. 18 16. 16 16.35 0.02 0.06 0. 50 3 . 1 % BASIN 0.18 0.87 43.03 0.00 0.00 44.09 0.02 0.06 0.50 3 .2% SUBTOTAL 0% 2 % 4 98% 0% 0% 100% Kimley >>> H o r n STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Lone Tree Creek DATE: 2/24/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : LDS CHECKED BY : AJH SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Tc CHECK FINAL DATA TIME (T1) (Ti) (URBANIZED BASINS) Tc DESIGN AREA C5 LENGTH SLOPE T1 LENGTH SLOPE C, Land Surface VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Tc C2 C5 C100 BASIN Ac Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min. tc LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) On-Site Basins PRE-DA-01 27 .741 0. 06 500 1 .2% 40. 6 1 ,722 0.4% 5 .0 Tillage/Field 0. 3 87 .4 128 . 1 2222 0.6% 3 % 76.4 76.4 0.02 0.06 0.50 PRE-DA-02 16.347 0. 06 500 0. 9% 43 . 9 1 ,452 0. 5% 5 .0 Tillage/Field 0.4 68 .9 112 . 8 1952 0.6% 3 % 70.0 70.0 0.02 0.06 0.50 .= 039 , 1 . 1 - c- .) Er 0.33 r 60 .E .� ��, O1' r 0( 1 41 f ` ,, a STANDARD FORM SF-3 Kimle >>> Hvrn l STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - PRE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Lone Tree Creek DATE: 2/24/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 P1 (1 -Hour Rainfall) . 2 .73 CALCULATED BY : LDS CHECKED BY : AJH DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME REMARKS w 4I �-. A. •� 40 s ,Zy Lit Ft C,f] t , w `-, 6 t ,.., w N /'-. .q OD,-,4 'al � �1-1 ct xS v E C' ,� � � ° _ Qw © o _ w 4 � SE �' E '� w � w � !C `"' � � .� '�0 �, zi zi �, owo a' ,N w W .... A A v) _ pa, t a (1) (2) (3) 1 (4) (5) (6) I (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) 1 (18) (19) (20) ` (21) (22) On-Site Basins 1 PRE-DA-01 27 . 74 0. 50 76. 35 13 . 78 2 . 34 32 . 24 2 PRE-DA-02 16. 35 0. 50 69. 96 8 . 11 2.49 20. 17 Total 44. 09 52 .41 Kimley >>> Horn STANDARD FORM SF- 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS - IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME: Weld County - Cloudbreak - Lone Tree Creek 4/ 19/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: 196664000 CALCULATED BY : LDS CHECKED BY : AJH TYPE C SOIL PAVED/ 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 . 86 0 . 36 0 . 05 0 . 77 0 . 73 100 -YEAR COEFF. 0 . 88 0 . 64 0 . 49 0 . 84 0 . 82 IMPERVIOUS % 100% 40% 2% 90% 85 % PAVED/ VEGETATED BUILDING FUTURE IMPERVIOUS GRAVEL OPEN SPACE ROOF COMMERCIAL TOTAL DESIGN DESIGN AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA BASIN POINT (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) (AC) Cc(2) Cc(5 ) Cc( 100) Imp % On-Site Basins POST-DA-01 1 0 . 03 1 . 04 26 . 67 27.74 0 . 02 0 .06 0 . 50 3 . 5% POST-DA-02 2 0 . 06 0 . 52 15 . 77 16.35 0 . 02 0 .06 0 . 50 3 . 6% BASIN 0 .09 1 .56 42 .44 0 .00 0 .00 44.09 0 . 02 0 . 06 0 . 50 3 . 6% SUBTOTAL 0 % 4 % 96 % 0 % 0 % 100 % Kimley *) H o r n STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Lone Tree Creek DATE : 4/ 19/2023 PROJECT NUMBER : 196664000 CALCULATED BY: LDS CHECKED BY : AJH SUB-BASIN INITIAL TRAVEL TIME Te CHECK FINAL DATA TIME (T1) (Ti) (URBANIZED BASINS) Te DESIGN AREA CS LENGTH SLOPE Ti LENGTH SLOPE C,, Land Surface VEL Tt COMP. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Te C2 C5 C100 BASIN Ac Ft % Min. Ft. % fps Min. to LENGTH SLOPE IMP. Min. Min. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) On-Site Basins POST-DA-01 27 . 741 0 . 06 500 1 .2% 40 . 5 1 ,722 0 . 4% 5 .0 Tillage/Field 0 . 3 87 . 4 128 . 0 2222 0 .6% 4% 76 . 0 76 . 0 0 . 02 0 . 06 0 . 50 POST-DA-02 16 . 347 0 . 06 500 0 . 9% 43 . 8 1 ,452 0 . 5 % 5 .0 Tillage/Field 0 . 4 68 . 9 112 . 7 1952 0 .6% 4% 69 . 6 69 . 6 0 . 02 0 . 06 0 . 50 0, 3950 . 1 - C# t a = _ if: = ( 26 - 171 ) -i- ( 26 — 171 ) i- Li STANDARD FORM SF-3 Kimle >>) Horn } STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN - RATIONAL METHOD 100 YEAR EVENT - POST-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NAME : Weld County - Cloudbreak - Lone Tree Creek DATE : 4/ 19/2023 PROJECT NUMBER : 196664000 P1 (1-Hour Rainfall) = 2 .73 CALCULATED BY : LDS CHECKED BY : AJH DIRECT RUNOFF TOTAL RUNOFF STREET PIPE TRAVEL TIME REMARKS E� ^ H Z �, Z ww ^ ^ ^ ^ W . 4 tm _w © 4 ^ ni w g IL ,-. p4 ,—, W `-, V `� ,-. W • m P ,-, U o � cE ° w �; 5 °"-: g � � ~ a i oo _ ii oo flw zi off"' •g Na w w AAo-, A �4 c- g ,V U E� _ AOa a _ W ct ( 1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1 (7) (8) (9) ( 10) ( 11 ) ( 12) ( 13) ( 14) ( 15) ( 16) ( 17) ( 18) 1 ( 19) I (20) (21 ) (22) On-Site Basins 1 POST-DA-01 ' 27 .74 0 . 50 76 . 04 13 . 82 2 . 35 32 .42 2 POST-DA-02 16 . 35 0 . 50 69 . 57 8 . 15 2 . 49 20 . 32 Total 44 . 09 52 . 74 Exhibit 7 — Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Lauren M . Cook, S . M .ASCE1 ; and Richard H . McCuen , M .ASCE2 Abstract: Because of the benefits of solar energy, the number of solar farms is increasing; however, their hydrologic impacts have not been studied. The goal of this study was to determine the hydrologic effects of solar farms and examine whether or not storm-water management is I needed to control runoff volumes and rates. A model of a solar farm was used to simulate runoff for two conditions : the pre- and postpaneled t. conditions. Using sensitivity analyses, modeling showed that the solar panels themselves did not have a significant effect on the runoff fit volumes, peaks, or times to peak. However, if the ground cover under the panels is gravel or bare ground, owing to design decisions or lack of maintenance, the peak discharge may increase significantly with storm-water management needed. In addition, the kinetic energy O; of the flow that drains from the panels was found to be greater than that of the rainfall, which could cause erosion at the base of the panels. o Thus, it is recommended that the grass beneath the panels be well maintained or that a buffer strip be placed after the most downgradient row of panels. This study, along with design recommendations, can be used as a guide for the future design of solar farms. DOE 10.1061/(ASCE) o HE.1943-5584.0000530. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers. L 0, CE Database subject headings : Hydrology; Land use; Solar power; Floods; Surface water; Runoff; Stormwater management. 5 Author keywords: Hydrology; Land use change; Solar energy; Flooding; Surface water runoff; Storm-water management. Ygyp g g c.) to Introduction draining from the edge of the panels is sufficient to cause erosion O of the soil below the panels, especially where the maintenance c5 Storm-water management practices are generally implemented to roadways are bare ground. lei reverse the effects of land-cover changes that cause increases in The outcome of this study provides guidance for assessing the Ovolumes and rates of runoff. This is a concern posed for new types hydrologic effects of solar farms, which is important to those who 0 of land-cover change such as the solar farm. Solar energy is a re- plan, design, and install arrays of solar panels. Those who design O newable energy source that is expected to increase in importance in p p solar farms may need to provide for storm-water management. This jthe near future. Because solar farms require considerable land, it is study investigated the hydrologic effects of solar farms, assessed 1 necessary to understand the design of solar farms and their potential whether or not storm-water management might be needed, and c4 effect on erosion rates and storm runoff, especially the impact on if the velocity of the runoff from the panels could be sufficient offsite properties and receiving streams. These farms can vary in to cause erosion of the soil below the panels. C) size from 8 ha (20 acres) in residential areas to 250 ha (600 acres) o in areas where land is abundant. The solar panels are impervious to rain water; however, they are Model Development o mounted on metal rods and placed over pervious land. In some 4-1 cases, the area below the panel is paved or covered with gravel. Solar farms are generally designed to maximize the amount of en- g Y g Service roads are generally located between rows of panels. Altl- ergy produced per unit of land area, while still allowing space for hough some panels are stationary, others are designed to move so maintenance. The hydrologic response of solar farms is not usually - that the angle of the panel varies with the angle of the sun. The considered in design. Typically, the panels will be arrayed in long Po 5 angle can range, depending on the latitude, from 22° during the rows with separations between the rows to allow for maintenance csummer months to 74° during the winter months. In addition, vehicles. To model a typical layout, a unit width of one panel was re 7)1 the angle and direction can also change throughout the day. The assumed, with the length of the downgradient strip depending on issue posed is whether or not these rows of impervious panels will the size of the farm. For example, a solar farm with 30 rows of 200 o change the runoff characteristics of the site, specifically increase panels each could be modeled as a strip of 30 panels with space runoff volumes or peak discharge rates. If the increases are hydro- between the panels for maintenance vehicles. Rainwater that drains logically significant, storm-water management facilities may be from the upper panel onto the ground will flow over the land under O needed. Additionally, it is possible that the velocity of water the 29 panels on the downgradient strip. Depending on the land Qcover, infiltration losses would be expected as the runoff flows Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, to the bottom of the slope. Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 . To determine the effects that the solar panels have on runoff 2The Ben Dyer Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer- characteristics, a model of a solar farm was developed. Runoff ing, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 (corresponding in the form of sheet flow without the addition of the solar panels author). E-mail: rhmccuen@ eng.umd.edu served as the prepaneled condition. The paneled condition assumed Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 12, 2010; approved on a downgradient series of cells with one solar panel per ground cell. October 20, 2011 ; published online on October 24, 2011 . Discussion period open until October 1 , 2013 ; separate discussions must be submitted for Each cell was separated into three sections: wet, dry, and spacer. individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi- The dry section is that portion directly underneath the solar neering, Vol. 18, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/2013/5- panel, unexposed directly to the rainfall. As the angle of the panel 536-541/$25.00. from the horizontal increases, more of the rain will fall directly onto 536 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . the ground; this section of the cell is referred to as the wet section. equal to the length of one horizontal solar panel, which was as- The spacer section is the area between the rows of panels used by sumed to be 3 .5 m. When a solar panel is horizontal, the dry section maintenance vehicles. Fig. 1 is an image of two solar panels and the length would equal 3 .5 m and the wet section length would be zero. spacer section allotted for maintenance vehicles. Fig. 2 is a sche- In the paneled condition, the dry section does not receive direct matic of the wet, dry, and spacer sections with their respective di- rainfall because the rain first falls onto the solar panel then drains mensions. In Fig. 1 , tracks from the vehicles are visible on what is onto the spacer section. However, the dry section does infiltrate modeled within as the spacer section. When the solar panel is hori- some of the runoff that comes from the upgradient wet section. zontal, then the length longitudinal to the direction that runoff will The wet section was modeled similar to the spacer section with rain occur is the length of the dry and wet sections combined. Runoff falling directly onto the section and assuming a constant loss rate. from a dry section drains onto the downgradient spacer section. For the presolar panel condition, the spacer and wet sections are Runoff from the spacer section flows to the wet section of the next modeled the same as in the paneled condition; however, the cell downgradient cell. Water that drains from a solar panel falls directly does not include a dry section. In the prepaneled condition, rain ell4 onto the spacer section of that cell. falls directly onto the entire cell. When modeling the prepaneled en The length of the spacer section is constant. During a storm condition, all cells receive rainfall at the same rate and are subject -a event, the loss rate was assumed constant for the 24-h storm be- to losses. All other conditions were assumed to remain the same cause a wet antecedent condition was assumed. The lengths of such that the prepaneled and paneled conditions can be compared. the wet and dry sections changed depending on the angle of the Rainfall was modeled after an natural resources conservation t service (NRCS) Type II Storm (McCuen 2005) because it is an ac- t solar panel. The total length of the wet and dry sections was set a) curate representation of actual storms of varying characteristics that are imbedded in intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves. For iof interest, dimensionless 0 t. n EA: _: .. _ each duration a hyetograph was devel- �" ��"�`� oped using a time increment of 12 s over the duration of the storm o (see Fig. 3)• The depth of rainfall that corresponds to each storm w -- _-__,--„-----%,,,------------_,-----r- - iTT"e7 ma nitude was then multi lied b the��o : :R - . - - _ : g p by vi e _ For a 2-h storm duration, depths of 40.6, 76 2, and 101 .6 mm were -c 4111 Illir---1 � ; r{ , j i • \�� `' used for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year events. The 2- and 6-h duration .� \ r y Y �� ` ��, 'a _ = hyetographs were developed using the center portion of the 24-h li o storm, with the rainfall depths established with the Baltimore _,A. v {. f 4. s; ` "` i ' F '' ° . IDF curve. The corresponding depths for a 6-h duration were 53.3 , 4, ITt ` Pin�r 'C ",} /tr. = r ) 106.7, and 132. 1 mm, respectively. These magnitudes were chosen , . c to give a range of storm conditions. O N ' N r 'r. •:•.--- { •• - '' • ' During each time increment, the depth of rain is multiplied by '0 . .1/214,74 -c,, 4 1 ' " ,w_ L I it i)' ' 1 ° r ,z ). , ; t`r • '` '}' E " ; ' the cell area to determine the volume of rain added to each section y :1\ ( , ) r t “iii. - ' r of each cell. This volume becomes the storage in each cell. Depend- ,.c , '., ♦ .i '� r )fi ';`mil y" Cs�ti • I •, y1 g r �1i , � � � , , rPt :�'i ,, p; ' ^'' ; • �. ,&,. 4 ��,`��1 ,f , _� '� � ' • : king on the soil group, a constant volume of losses was subtracted ` ` � % : t, ,r 1/4: 5 •' is .._;.k. . y`'r1',i" • M F N r' . ,V�('`c i�> ';` "t , , from the storage. The runoff velocity from a solar panel was calcu- >.'r �f -- . :14,:;);I,,,, j .•n.,----r. .- f t \1 - , t } ,r ti� Tr*� L2��: i. .'! ♦ i y. � � e 1 . Y k"1�� jLJ �1 1st � � 711 r � �Sr �x „ � t 'et, .-ice rI� � } � /, � . . . • . • • -`f , ' tiA`4 r.y •� 4' ' I - ?1r laced using Manning's equation, with the hydraulic radius for sheet Fig. 1 . Maintenance or "spacer" section between two rows of solar et flow assumed to equal the depth of the storage on the panel et panels (photo by John E. Showier, reprinted with permission) {Bedient and Huber 2002). Similar assumptions were made to com- pute the velocities in each section of the surface sections. 0 Direction of Flow ' riz to 0 cc:1 Lw Wet section et E 3.5 m - -' 0 A Dry section -ti 0 3 Ls Spacer section 4 m 5 m 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time (min) Fig. 2. Wet, dry, and spacer sections of a single cell with lengths Lw, Ls, and Ld with the solar panel covering the dry section Fig. 3. Dimensionless hyetograph of 2-h Type II storm JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 537 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . Runoff from one section to the next and then to the next and the time to peak did not change. Therefore, the greater ground downgradient cell was routed using the continuity of mass. The slope did not significantly influence the response of the solar farm. routing coefficient depended on the depth of flow in storage and the velocity of runoff. Flow was routed from the wet section to the Soil Type dry section to the spacer section, with flow from the spacer section draining to the wet section of the next cell. Flow from the most The effect of soil type on the runoff was also examined. The soil downgradient cell was assumed to be the outflow. Discharge rates group was changed from B soil to C soil by varying the loss rate. As and volumes from the most downgradient cell were used for com- expected, owing to the higher loss rate for the C soil, the depths of parisons between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. runoff increased by approximately 7.5% with the C soil when com- pared with the volume for B soils. However, the runoff volume for the C soil condition only increased by 0. 17% from the prepaneled -6 Alternative Model Scenarios condition to the paneled condition. In comparison with the B soil, a I difference of 0.35 % in volume resulted between the two conditions. t. To assess the effects of the different variables, a section of 30 cells, Therefore, the soil group influenced the actual volumes and rates, fit each with a solar panel, was assumed for the base model. Each cell but not the relative effect of the paneled condition when compared was separated individually into wet, dry, and spacer sections. The to the prepaneled condition. — area had a total ground length of 225 m with a ground slope of 1 % and width of 5 m, which was the width of an average solar panel. Panel Angle 0 The roughness coefficient (Engman 1986) for the silicon solar panel was assumed to be that of glass, 0.01 . Roughness coefficients Because runoff velocities increase with slope, the effect of the angle 0 of 0. 15 for grass and 0.02 for bare ground were also assumed. Loss of the solar panel on the hydrologic response was examined. Analy- L rates of 0.5715 cm/h (0.225 in. /h) and 0.254 cm/h (0. 1 in. /h) for ses were made for angles of 30° and 70° to test an average range �O.4B and C soils, respectively, were assumed. from winter to summer. The hydrologic response for these angles 0 The prepaneled condition using the 2-h, 25-year rainfall was was compared to that of the base condition angle of 45°. The other o assumed for the base condition, with each cell assumed to have site conditions remained the same. The analyses showed that the a good grass cover condition. All other analyses were made assum- angle of the panel had only a slight effect on runoff volumes and to ing a paneled condition. For most scenarios, the runoff volumes and discharge rates. The lower angle of 30° was associated with an in- peak discharge rates from the paneled model were not significantly creased runoff volume, whereas the runoff volume decreased for Q. co greater than those for the prepaneled condition. Over a total length the steeper angle of 70° when compared with the base condition of lei of 225 m with 30 solar panels, the runoff increased by 0.26 m3, 45°. However, the differences (~0.5%) were very slight. Never- O which was a difference of only 0.35%. The slight increase in runoff theless, these results indicate that, when the solar panel was closer o volume reflects the slightly higher velocities for the paneled con- to horizontal, i.e., at a lower angle, a larger difference in runoff o dition. The peak discharge increased by 0.0013 m3, a change of volume occurred between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. only 0.31 %. The time to peak was delayed by one time increment, These differences in the response result are from differences in 1 i.e., 12 s. Inclusion of the panels did not have a significant hydro- loss rates. logic impact. The peak discharge was also lower at the lower angle. At an 0 angle of 30°, the peak discharge was slightly lower than at the Storm Magnitude higher angle of 70°. For the 2-h storm duration, the time to peak of the 30 angle was 2 min delayed from the time to peak of when ch The effect of storm magnitude was investigated by changing the the panel was positioned at a 70° angle, which reflects the longer o magnitude from a 25-year storm to a 2-year storm. For the 2-year travel times across the solar panels. 4' storm, the rainfall and runoff volumes decreased by approximately 0 50%. However, the runoff from the paneled watershed condition Storm Duration .,.• increased compared to the prepaneled condition by approximately › the same volume as for the 25-year analysis, 0.26 m3 . This increase To assess the effect of storm duration, analyses were made for 6-h Po represents only a 0.78% increase in volume. The peak discharge storms, testing magnitudes for 2-, 25-, and 100-year return periods, cc:1 and the time to peak did not change significantly. These results re- with the results compared with those for the 2-h rainfall events. The re flect runoff from a good grass cover condition and indicated that the longer storm duration was tested to determine whether a longer du- 7)1 U general conclusion of very minimal impacts was the same for dif- ration storm would produce a different ratio of increase in runoff o ferent storm magnitudes. between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. When compared to orunoff volumes from the 2-h storm, those for the 6-h storm were Ground Slope 34% greater in both the paneled and prepaneled cases. However, O when comparing the prepaneled to the paneled condition, the in- 0 The effect of the downgradient ground slope of the solar farm was crease in the runoff volume with the 6-h storm was less than Qalso examined. The angle of the solar panels would influence the 1 % regardless of the return period. The peak discharge and the velocity of flows from the panels. As the ground slope was in- time-to-peak did not differ significantly between the two condi- creased, the velocity of flow over the ground surface would be tions. The trends in the hydrologic response of the solar farm closer to that on the panels. This could cause an overall increase did not vary with storm duration. in discharge rates. The ground slope was changed from 1 to 5%, with all other conditions remaining the same as the base conditions. With the steeper incline, the volume of losses decreased from Ground Cover that for the 1 % slope, which is to be expected because the faster The ground cover under the panels was assumed to be a native grass velocity of the runoff would provide less opportunity for infiltra- that received little maintenance. For some solar farms, the area be- tion. However, between the prepaneled and paneled conditions, the neath the panel is covered in gravel or partially paved because the increase in runoff volume was less than 1 %. The peak discharge panels prevent the grass from receiving sunlight. Depending on the 538 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . volume of traffic, the spacer cell could be grass, patches of grass, or increased by 7% from the grass-covered scenario to the scenario bare ground. Thus, it was necessary to determine whether or not with gravel under the panel. The peak discharge increased by these alternative ground-cover conditions would affect the runoff 73 % for the gravel ground cover when compared with the grass characteristics. This was accomplished by changing the Manning's cover without the panels. The time to peak was 10 min less with n for the ground beneath the panels. The value of n under the pan- the gravel than with the grass, which reflects the effect of differ- els, i.e., the dry section, was set to 0.015 for gravel, with the value ences in surface roughness and the resulting velocities. for the spacer or maintenance section set to 0.02, i.e., bare ground. If maintenance vehicles used the spacer section regularly and the These can be compared to the base condition of a native grass grass cover was not adequately maintained, the soil in the spacer (n = 0. 15). A good cover should promote losses and delay the section would be compacted and potentially the runoff volumes and runoff. rates would increase. Grass that is not maintained has the potential For the smoother surfaces, the velocity of the runoff increased to become patchy and turn to bare ground. The grass under the and the losses decreased, which resulted in increasing runoff vol- panel may not get enough sunlight and die. Fig. 1 shows the result IE: umes. This occurred both when the ground cover under the panels of the maintenance trucks frequently driving in the spacer section, t. was changed to gravel and when the cover in the spacer section was which diminished the grass cover. f, changed to bare ground. Owing to the higher velocities of the flow, The effect of the lack of solar farm maintenance on runoff char- runoff rates from the cells increased significantly such that it was acteristics was modeled by changing the Manning's n to a value of (74; necessary to reduce the computational time increment. Fig. 4(a) 0.02 for bare ground. In this scenario, the roughness coefficient o shows the hydrograph from a 30-panel area with a time incre- for the ground under the panels, i.e., the dry section, as well as in ment of 12 s. With a time increment of 12 s, the water in each cell the spacer cell was changed from grass covered to bare ground is discharged at the end of every time increment, which results in no (n = 0.02).The effects were nearly identical to that of the gravel. o attenuation of the flow; thus, the undulations shown in Fig. 4(a) The runoff volume increased by 7% from the grass-covered to the a, result. The time increment was reduced to 3 s for the 2-h storm, bare-ground condition. The peak discharge increased by 72% when o' o which resulted in watershed smoothing and a rational hydrograph compared with the grass-covered condition. The runoff for the bare- c.) shape [Fig. 4(b)] . The results showed that the storm runoff ground condition also resulted in an earlier time to peak by approx- imately 10 min. Two other conditions were also modeled, showing to 0 1 - similar results. In the first scenario, gravel was placed directly Paneled under the panel, and healthy grass was placed in the spacer section, ✓ 0.09 - Pre-paneled , which mimics a possible design decision. Under these conditions, lei 0.08 - the peak discharge increased by 42%, and the volume of runoff c) increased by 4%, which suggests that storm-water management 0 0.07 - - would be necessary if gravel is placed anywhere. ' 0 06 - - Fig. 5 shows two solar panels from a solar farm in New Jersey. - The bare ground between the panels can cause increased runoff N w .4 0 0.05 - - rates and reductions in time of concentration, both of which could 0 0.04 - - necessitate storm-water management. The final condition modeled i involved the assumption of healthy grass beneath the panels and 0.03 - bare ground in the spacer section, which would simulate the con- et 0.02 - p 1 - dition of unmaintained grass resulting from vehicles that drive over ` the spacer section. Because the spacer section is 53 % of the cell, the p 0.01 - change in land cover to bare ground would reduce losses and de- ,,,, crease runoff travel times, which would cause runoff to amass as it 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 t (a) Time (min) 0.07 i az ?o Paneled Pre-paneled _ _�, 4.44 :0 :.�^ .-sr 4 H I, , t 0cic:1 .06 - - s- . \_ .. 1 '�:=" I_ , r U 1� _ ff''''' -4" \y ( t ! 4 1 O E 0.04 - - pr. . 1 f` . . ,. - ii-ci I. -.' _ --cs k•_ f o 03 Y i 1 003 1 / `! 0.02 '• ` �' . �� + •S f ♦ y ~ .,. ,- _. �`� .� 1. -- ----„-: , .,--,- . --2 ' , _ , , ` _ r ' 0.01 - - :K . ) i % , :. , �/yr .-5• ;:v, // r � It :f,IK a. r 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 - ' - (b) Time (min) Fig. 5. Site showing the initiation of bare ground below the panels, Fig. 4. Hydrograph with time increment of (a) 12 s ; (b) 3 s with which increases the potential for erosion (photo by John Showler, Manning's n for bare ground reprinted with permission) JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 539 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . moves downgradient. With the spacer section as bare ground, the runoff was calculated using Manning's equation, and the velocity peak discharge increased by 100%, which reflected the increases in of falling rainwater was calculated using the following: volume and decrease in timing. These results illustrate the need for maintenance of the grass below and between the panels. V t = 120 435 ( 1 ) where d,. = diameter of a raindrop, assumed to be 1 mm. The re- Design Suggestions lationship between kinetic energy and rainfall intensity is With well-maintained grass underneath the panels, the solar panels IC, = 916 -I- 3301og10 i (2) themselves do not have much effect on total volumes of the runoff where i = rainfall intensity (in./h) and Ke = kinetic energy (ft-tons or peak discharge rates. Although the panels are impervious, the per ac-in. of rain) of rain falling onto the wet section and the panel, rainwater that drains from the panels appears as runoff over the as well as the water flowing off of the end of the panel (Wischmeier il4 downgradient cells. Some of the runoff infiltrates. If the grass cover and Smith 1978). The kinetic energy (Salles et al. 2002) of the rain- of a solar farm is not maintained, it can deteriorate either because of fall was greater than that coming off the panel, but the area under fit a lack of sunlight or maintenance vehicle traffic. In this case, the the panel (i.e., the product of the length, width, and cosine of the runoff characteristics can change significantly with both runoff panel angle) is greater than the area under the edge of the panel 0 rates and volumes increasing by significant amounts. In addition,if gravel or pavement is placed underneath the panels, this can also where the water drains from the panel onto the ground. Thus, contribute to a significant increase in the hydrologic response. dividing the kinetic energy by the respective areas gives a more accurate representation of the kinetic energy experienced by the If bare ground is foreseen to be a problem or gravel is to be soil. The energy of the water draining from thepanel onto the placed under the panels to prevent erosion, it is necessary to . ground can be nearly 10 tunes greater than the rain itself falling co, counteract the excess runoff using some form of storm-water man- onto the ground area. If the solar panel runoff falls onto an un- w agement. A simple practice that can be implemented is a buffer strip sealed soil, considerable detachment can result (Motha et al. (Dabney et al. 2006) at the downgradient end of the solar farm. The 2004). Thus, because of the increased kinetic energy, it is pos- buffer strip length must be sufficient to return the runoff character- sible that the soil is much more prone to erosion with the panels istics with the panels to those of runoff experienced before the wialthan without. Where panels are installed, methods of erosion togravel and panels were installed. Alternatively, a detention basin control should be included in the design. Q.o can be installed. v A buffer strip was modeled along with the panels. For approxi- lei mately every 200 m of panels, or 29 cells, the buffer must be 5 cells O long (or 35 m) to reduce the runoff volume to that which occurred Conclusions o before the panels were added. Even if a gravel base is not placed Solar farms are the energy generators of the future; thus, it is im- under the panels, the inclusion of a buffer strip may be a good prac-o tice when grass maintenance is not a top funding priority. Fig. 6 portant to determine the environmental and hydrologic effects of these farms, both existing and proposed. A model was created 1 shows the peak discharge from the graveled surface versus the length to simulate storm-water runoff over a land surface without panels c4 of the buffer needed to keep the discharge to prepaneled peak rate. and then with solar panels added. Various sensitivity analyses were Water draining from a solar panel can increase the potential for conducted including changing the storm duration and volume, soil oo erosion of the spacer section. If the spacer section is bare ground, type, ground slope, panel angle, and ground cover to determine the Ch the high kinetic energy of water draining from the panel can cause ± effect that each of these factors would have on the volumes and o soil detachment and transport (Garde and Raju 1977 ; Beuselinck peak discharge rates of the runoff. et al. 2002). The amount and risk of erosion was modeled using The addition of solar panels over a grassy field does not have the velocity of water coming off a solar panel compared with much of an effect on the volume of runoff, the peak discharge, nor the velocity and intensity of the rainwater. The velocity of panel the time to peak. With each analysis, the runoff volume increased ›, slightly but not enough to require storm-water management facili- 0.07 r I ties. However, when the land-cover type was changed under the o Pre-paneled peak Q panels, the hydrologic response changed significantly. When gravel cc:1 0.06 - Peak Q vs. buffer length or avement was laced under the anels with the s acer section p P p p left as patchy grass or bare ground, the volume of the runoff in- U o 0.06 - - creased significantly and the peak discharge increased by approx- oimately 100%. This was also the result when the entire cell was M 0.04 - assumed to be bare ground. �_ _� _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - The potential for erosion of the soil at the base of the solar pan- 0 els was also studied. It was determined that the kinetic energy of the o 1 0.03 - - water draining from the solar panel could be as much as 10 times Q greater than that of rainfall. Thus, because the energy of the water 0.02 - -- draining from the panels is much higher, it is very possible that soil below the base of the solar panel could erode owing to the concen- 0 m - _ trated flow of water off the panel, especially if there is bare ground in the spacer section of the cell. If necessary, erosion control meth- ods should be used. o 0 6 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Bare ground beneath the panels and in the spacer section is Length of buffer (m) a realistic possibility (see Figs. 1 and 5). Thus, a good, well- maintained grass cover beneath the panels and in the spacer section Fig. 6. Peak discharge over gravel compared with buffer length is highly recommended. If gravel, pavement, or bare ground is 540 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . deemed unavoidable below the panels or in the spacer section, it Beuselinck, L., Govers, G., Hairsince, P. B ., Sander, G. C., and may necessary to add a buffer section to control the excess runoff Breynaert, M. (2002). "The influence of rainfall on sediment transport volume and ensure adequate losses. If these simple measures are by overland flow over areas of net deposition." J. Hydrol. , 257( 1-4), taken, solar farms will not have an adverse hydrologic impact from 145-163. excess runoff or contribute eroded soil particles to receiving Dabney, S. M., Moore, M. T., and Locke, M. A. (2006). "Integrated man- agement of in-field, edge-of-field, and after-field buffers." J. Amer. streams and waterways. Water Resour. Assoc. , 42( 1), 15-24. Engman, E. T. (1986). "Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff." J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. , 112( 1), 39-53. Acknowledgments Garde, R. J., and Raju, K. G. (1977). Mechanics of sediment transportation and alluvial stream problems, Wiley, New York. The authors appreciate the photographs (Figs. 1 and 5) of Ortho McCuen, R. H. (2005). Hydrologic analysis and design, 3rd Ed., Pearson/ Clinical Diagnostics, 1001 Route 202, North Raritan, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 08869, provided by John E. Showler, Environmental Scientist, Motha, J. A., Wallbrink, P. J., Hairsine, P. B., and Grayson, R. B . (2004). New Jersey Department of Agriculture. The extensive comments "Unsealed roads as suspended sediment sources in agricultural catch- c of reviewers resulted in an improved paper. ment in south-eastern Australia." J. Hydrol. , 286( 1-4), 1-18. Salles, C., Poesen, J., and Sempere-Torres, D. (2002). "Kinetic energy of rain and its functional relationship with intensity." J. Hydrol. , 257(1-4), References 256-270. o Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. (1978). Predicting rainfall erosion Bedient, P. B ., and Huber, W. C. (2002). Hydrology and,floodplain analy- losses: A guide to conservation planning, USDA Handbook 537, U.S. sis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. � PP g O rn a) 0.4 U C4 trn O tri 0 0 0 O a) a) 2 U Ct ct 4-i -C O N Ste" O ct :1 a) U Ct E O a) "CS ct O O JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 / 541 J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013 . 18: 536-541 . CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek 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 30 , 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 30 , LLC would employ native revegetation methods or chemical control methods for infestations of weeds during regular maintenance if necessary. (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 4-25-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek 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 30 , 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 30 , 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 CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 ifriK (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 / 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project SUBJECT: Landscape and Screening Plan There is currently no landscaping on the Project's site . The Project will be surrounded by a 7 foot tall game fence . Rocky Mountain Junipers will be planted along the outside of the corner southeastern fence line and a portion of the eastern fence line to provide natural screening for nearby residences . Example photos as well as a map depicting the proposed location for tree placement are provided below. Please refer to sheet 3 . 0 of the USR Map for additional detail on the proposed security fence . CBEP Solar 30, LLC plans to work with Pawnee Buttes/Greencover to create a unique diversified seed mixture to be seeded within the Project Area and will utilize sheep grazing to maintain the land . EXAMPLE PHOTOS: -• 1 ••... • .r 1'.11,:.i• , r Sal I ti Y ii' 411' 4 Of a t- •esYa •4 r•, . {� 1 Y{1 ffll y� 1L -+ -1. 5r rP�' •d''' I .1T 4 G tItt * ••q Pi . • rF[ 1 .,r;;,.14•••---,n t r . -,k- c.74,41.?T.k%�i try. . t.l r?P i.-a (TA, S•'�`. /IV --.� '.) •* - "4 • ._ 4 r E • it ". t t .l;`�frr i•`��c,:t9� t, J J i• •s.. t � • ,712..p.. 'r.T-nl �1P�1.J�Jn 1 Yr 1 _'4 : 1 �s , �� e' ,. /t) :1.t' .'r u ii3<+-t J '/ * ro {{1K11 li_.::.��1{f ; • " !I!!!!! ** • �� - 1•,r� s' I a _ .t 1 fti d♦� ' :/ �rt^r L �, sar 7ld .O lt'�r17; f) a ''•fit` Fr . .• -M,,. M >t .r 1 • ,�' wi.s>>.W "•N 1 < l 'I .4 2t tr�ON' .. Y+ 1 !Y.. rfC � r C Yyl A'.� c ° E^if P 1 Vyy1 , a 44 [ { t 5 ! h• • • • 11!! :it• • • ko di• • � I. . • - 'Y' ' `` .� . Go- r W_�y>t I+ - n k :,♦ .r. SKPJ�IF1 1 ..• "i ' �/ 4�y ,:if V\p�.rj rni �!: i. taa •' �'., _ .�r •� - v • s7, nS. 4 �'• �3 `, r)y�t 1. x..a' r` F' 1 s^ ' :ft) 1 • i 1 Lice... .• . .,y. W?,`. _ •`t'"�t ' S'._ �1>r ' y l '. •- ti 4 '`•:U. -i�4' 1 . .!u' r ,1,••r, X Ii ,, '/. f �1 ( r'Jr.,„ 'f''!: f7%e 7+`{i.Y! «.. . r...':. �=r +X .�; .P., A' �• ,•1 �I I Y1_ . 1 sr 1 r } �i 3` 0 ' ' rat - Ys r. �Y spa • ' f.: 1 /' 1 •. CL '+} T.sr C i- -" Mlw'-" l t. ♦'.�`-.. �� y A I , s mt. 1 it ` > °♦_� ., .S '0. y i '. 7.,, ,,. 1_ .t4. �yr. Y �• _ - X4 :�,.+ � . ''►� ! Y :-� -� r " -s " .� •i Ir ./" 1 t' �, M'.. j Z;.,. 4- . Y,•. J� � \11` N Yi•1 }} r�' .r `1 7�:rPAk ' f n•� I! 'Z ':Y. (_% '1. ...r ., =sST7 •` •• r r: Y :'.1 wd - ' --r \ . • '1, ••�,,, .r..�111_ XY-yten ' rsJj �. Lt - .;.,' r," .. 1 • µ U�.V 1'W'.4:. ... It.' :re(' .:]'A/.. r.1 4T 'f Yt'f �. .,4 \I ♦y 1 1. ♦ �� • .y Of j - �... w \,t ✓ _/!•. . } A1 . ,p1) 1 •y 2;i. . t.Ait t! .b;IN 7 - - _ f'. ' •� .. l ./F'. 1 .. 4 S. '^ �x - &i. a�.ow ,a„`J• 1,; 1 :r WY'.E„:`� r 1, ki • r ref - 1 • '•`'• 11. , �4 i4, � ' •,1 •i _ �sVl:'_ i '�'};`�':1 1 •."! <'` ` ' 1 - t f. �. r.."l , ...• IC, 1 1 ` - . I \' '•t 4 \1(, 'T. f .0. +,.Ir'J• rY t. .+� fl ' • . ) �yq} 1' l . .. � ' 1'' • .r �. r +i♦ v 1. / ' 1 l 1' .� !a•' 1 ', ... ;1 y{7by(j.� k ' .fi.'�1.' r t r> sTq••� "1fi1• �1�` -4..Tp • _ ., .t} A. i p �1 •jj; / '. R� w ' }1r p' l � ° r . .ate . I' .J, Y IS la r' ,,44•C • .k"� r:.Y, +j. r r r 4!ih y.,, f.. w r' ,J ay. .7I '>a (1 , r 1 ' r � ' ri '.t�' E i IJ•` ,II.) �, f y r if 3 S:x11,7.414" I 'w.Tr i f ,1.. 'YY._4.a .4. - I \ .tiM� .). A 'V n. `f'f 11, r � 1 r • I } 1 74.- .] •a Y • lr _ e ✓ fir• �' ei�n _ I 77+1. •. i • 2 ./�f W • y 1 ' a 1 r:441.')' a' r e t 'r ) 4 . : 1 ! , '1 L'a'-; ♦. .!: :!` !r.r 1 1 lf r4,.N 1 .•p 1 _ r r -�.. ♦+ ♦�1,. Y c� 1 >f . tA.+tY.a ..`I^ �. ` YYI 1,�•> y- i7 •. •_^.. ' . r ` . r.rte... I - �3 .• ..J 1. 4 ell I n 1', T. ` ..�, •y.l7W'�'.-'r ' �a ,�,4 't:. l fi A`CP' ^•. 4v'`t i* ,e,,,,,,,,,„..„ , `�IP(,py,ILY' °`y` v 4 {� ' 1. -:�� ♦ ' 1�'... lit v _ ; • 1: - \ *, �' "n�y 1 7 1, �i 1 !*. _� '�•. � ya..:5 '.a,P AIL.1 se .>fy'Y . r r( �! . �f�'SO.•" F > - �- li ti'�"'C'y.'T.M„et_1 •.Y• Rw' -t�l. s '' _ 1 • i :1.1 _ r 11'5 , - t 11 "r '! .s 1 # '11, ,./`�1 •��! •t ,F;14./.1.g.7-c7-!4.-� ' ! t 1.,_ =� v.:. • .4•••., r rt>r.L.i'/ \ •:i ' 1 ^ `•,l' • ,♦I Pj• - r`�1'�ytit ,q it tt . 1 ( ■ T+. �' �1 y,� _ .• ,11 ijb 'ri"J i.1=� 3 ,.,: '�. �, !. S a rl' -,'if- . 1�.:'} P Ar Ii • . 4. a {{ . {'il 19 1 1 i i T 1' r _ • '�� tlr• 1 [ •11� 1'._ .i1c 7 r r . '� /, Y , 1 .l ♦ {. ) •1 111f1 tP v y.TJ •��. a Arjor 4tt•Zs " " _ - 1:' j t < .i v � } 4• 1 1 IFJ�';J�,/.^ �' J' 1. • !-? \ f .Y/.1,h.rH r.' 7. 1• I 1 .'+ i qw ' - It 1 . , a- I Y ' _ ), .•irY •� ai '•�.,.•• f 1 i. al .}� .. 'i Y lM'�rl 'yl,. l.f �. •r ;Itt1 IS" I/7 t !. '. ��/yy? 1 t~ JI �. , _• .. ` �- • '"4 Y111..• ',� ll r�/` 1 \ \/ ♦ fi r1+M Ft, ii , y ,e +. �ti: i II �! - I .• . 1. •- ti - i. . , 1 ��.^• ' • 4 • r1 F. a r r /, al� At' jt.� ' Ill`. 'F fJ• . tf >.I 1'1 .' 44 A •4, •... ♦ . .( " v I'1 t. . I , f •� ) r F • t llb w f -;.,tit' Z ; i �,'1 , . „r y �.p -M �,,� ,y,��.- 4 , '4r�; S e _ 4 1 , l :Y .1. 1¢it„... 4 :!_ tf.. ..1+ 4,- ti v n - . .3,44. :0-6-,‘", 44 r1 �'-7r-,1 r. 1 i. I , �•' 'r ' .Y' 1 i.;.y_ W i f • ) j r 1 r. . r% a r y lyd r.i_a, 1�}w l4.) ! 1 . 1fg• ry >, 1 ° Pii w .-[:. Y 11•1:-v t •'Vial' ..' .:t i.nrt'1 :js sr ♦ { •`v i _ !• .1 t .. . h - .. �� . . �. +� - 1 T• ' M- �` ..d' �. i� _. Nu..,'�.- •'iCl t 11 "• .1� ;.4t,4` 414.;•"1 0-i., 1,.%,t ,,,, sq {-f..lM•2IJ N. 1 1 r• .'..c,• _ .' d 11 (Y 1, 1 II�y ) r I`a V.s✓ j .1 x a 'r•. • " ^lt y 1 ,i •ti a '• ;1} 4no 1t 1r.it."Y-r of , t - I r, •.I' 7 / 1 R ` :14 J:v�'le 4a1, 1'1�T hf a' Y.*^l. i 1e., . 1+� 1 a '• • '(A j.%nr, Vs, r- "l7l.�}g�.1 \ 't'�} )' - 1� •� .� �t' y 1 �` ) Y.Aj 1ti�„. ;.'w`�. w':}i{'.'f. ..=�. .X •f1 1 v,� ¢ '• t ! 5 `' l . . _ - 1�' r ^SY y w4. , y r ,w . n a -� r >•_. t 1' f 1.C ' p r . !, . 1 pa) gs��fM r M ‘),'4 _ _ y k>.}�" y it • rr:nj �i♦ •�` 1, 1 f 71 •��• a z 2 -:O 1M re,''rr--Oka- .1� , r 1 {r'l' 0.1,♦♦f 3.. "1a •px.i^ ♦I:r ' 1 \ t4: . ' I- _ ` r �� A '1 �y1( 17 1 X �. 'r�7 yJY r t . r Al'j• _ 1 ♦ t 1 l A s• w • (fix`r' r r . 11 P. f' 1 •• +.C•" ,� pa-Z"4,, '9't • (,y `i- 3 �1 , :�, . r•p}�i' E 1� 1 ••N y. _ •7� v. • N ' •1 i. .4 ?!y vim. y'� n r'. ` • E'j • r r I ' 44, .• .1{: ry^� .� a, .r , rre a, l yh.`A'5lUw .li. •Iv •:y ' k•-.1k • ' A L ' '`t "rf 1_. '1 ' ! C . T � 1 ` 4YV �l ��yy�' it13 7 t a ,� .f "y 1�' 1,y` 1. ;`..,ti " 7� Q.J . .1 -In Y•r �a,'.,{�/ II, .± -lit _'',2• t r�1�y1�' • �• a ' '� • . •i � •1 1 - �S !- " rkit' ' s ft. •," •: • 4 ♦ /. T- ITYY:�(] •yt/ ,�^� lF.D �.,a « �1 ly. YrJ r+.Y) l •�. 1 i1 �r�.'�i �a� .17 1 y � 'I... �� ' t r' „�rr,/'iF •:. h, �,�)Y� lj 'S�I ..f .3•.y7''i �¢` �1 .. _1. I V �a-�.� . • S A .� �I i • .i _• .I 1 • ' < x^ 1 . 1 !K .. 111 A v` s; _ :, _ • r_ ,` ' J _ •'�.irf r '•� ;.!„ 4i•' �' q ., , . \{ t• ,4t (r; �� 7i- 1'1' li, . '.P, "•S•. ,` , .�4' ,, i. I 4 11 ' .. �41 1 ....... K.� . . • API 1 1 It l! 1` r. . r ' - .` $ f :'r I ... Y C M _ _ w ( _ 1 1 1 - r' ° _ 1 3= ?,tat .it, ..1.4. )41 1' : .t n/'1Z PfS'�,- ri_ _•a` •: � - -. '1 1 • \ P 1_ :J 1. . 1 _ ,. IL - 1 _ (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CLOUDBREAI< PAGE2 PROPOSED LOCATION FOR TREE PLACEMENT: ,� - --_, n u c PS .r ,P.V. p , ' _. --Or .7. ill 1 •- , . . . , . f 0 aa . : . 1.1\ 1 I I ,s - 717 i 1 4 .. . - . .e, 4.9- • le. I --\\ _ 1 . cc11J 4` y: ri I �� f it AP 101 (i it l(I • y • i S , (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDB !PEAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c, CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: June 12 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project (PRE23-0132) SUBJECT: Completeness Review Re-Submittal 1 . Updated Planning Questionnaire #3 : Describe the current and previous use of the land . o The land is currently and has historically been used for crop production . 2 . Articles of organization for CBEP 32 Solar LLC . o See Exhibit 1 : Certificate of Formation . 3 . Irrigation plan . o Rocky Mountain Junipers are a Colorado native tree species that are heat and drought- resistant. The junipers will be approximately 5 feet tall when we plant them . For the first year, we will use a water truck to water the junipers weekly with 10- 15 gallons of water per tree . After the first year, the trees will be established enough to survive on rainfall alone and will only require water when there has been a significant period of time with high heat and no water. 4 . Proof of water rights. o See Exhibit 3 : Water Rights Inquiry . (970) 425-3175 I IN FO c©CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CLOUDBREAF( PAGE 3 EXHIBIT 2: WATER RIGHTS INQUIRY DocuSign Envelope ID: A38A99D5-A208-4813-8991 -BF54365A651 D Louis Fabrizius & Gina Fabrizius PO BOX 429 EATON , CO, 80615 Dear Weld County Planning Department, The water rights associated with the property are limited , so croo production has become increasingly more challenging for this parcel (ID#: 070908100003). Landowners have had to rent water to have enough for agricultural purposes . By allocating a portion of this land to the solar development, the property will be able to better allocate water to the remaining agricultural land that the landowner owns. 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. Additionally, 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. Name (printed) : Louis Fabrizius l 6/8/2023 Signature : s F(1-17r.aiu.i Date : Name (printed): Gina Fabrizius Qcr,.5,gncd h,: 6/8/2023 Signature : , . Date : (970) 425-3175 I INFO c©CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBIEAKENEPGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project SUBJECT: Lighting Plan CBEP Solar 30 , LLC is proposing to construct and operate the Lone Tree Creek Solar Project in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado . The Project includes construction of 3 . 6MW of solar electric generation on a 69 . 1646 acre parcel . This Lighting Plan describes lighting during the construction and operations phases of the Project . Temporary Construction Lighting : The need for lighting during construction is expected to be limited because the majority of construction activities will occur during daylight hours. If lighting is needed during construction , lights will be positioned and/or shielded from oncoming traffic and residences in the vicinity of the project site , as necessary . Cutoff-type luminaires would be used where practicable . Individual light sources would not exceed 150 , 000 lumens per light source (typical of a 1250W metal halide light) and would project 0 . 1 lumen or less at property lines. Unnecessary lighting will not be used . Lights would not exceed 24 feet in height. Any lighting needed for construction is not shown in the dimensioned elevation drawing of the USR Map due to its temporary nature . Project Operations Lighting : There will be no lighting on the Project after construction is completed . (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project SUBJECT: Manure Management Plan CBEP Solar 30 , LLC is proposing to construct and operate the Lone Tree Creek Solar Project in unincorporated Weld County , Colorado . The Project includes the construction of 3 . 6 Megawatts ( MW) of solar electric generation on a portion of a 69 . 16-acre parcel . In addition to the solar array, the Project site will continue to contribute to the agricultural economy of Weld County by using the pasture land underneath the solar array for sheep grazing . This Manure Management Plan describes CBEP Solar 30 , LLC's plan to maintain and minimize the impacts of the manure on the Project parcel and neighboring community . Background : CBEP Solar 30 , LLC intends to partner with a local shepherd that will be grazing no more than 500 sheep on the Lone Tree Creek Solar Project site for periods during the grazing season . The Lone Tree Creek 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 Lone Tree Creek Solar Project. The Project site will not serve as a feedlot for sheep . Harrowing : If necessary, a harrowing machine will be used on the Lone Tree Creek 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 30 , LLC will physically remove the manure and compost it offsite . (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM Kimley Horn February 23 , 2023 Mr. Zach Brammer CloudBreak Energy Partners 218 S . 3rd Street Sterling , CO 80751 Re : CloudBreak — Lone Tree Creek 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 Lone Tree Creek Solar Site in Weld County , CO. The proposed solar photovoltaic project site is approximately 2 . 5 miles east of Ault , approximately 4 miles southeast of Pierce , and approximately 4 miles northeast of Eaton . The site is generally located south of County Road 84 , east of County Road 39 , west of County Road 41 , and north of County Road 82/CO- 14 . The solar site will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses located southeast and north of the project area . The location of the proposed Lone Tree Creek Solar Site is shown in Figure 1 . AralyNitWdo dilpnotovoltaic project will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses southeast and north 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 36 dB (A) during daytime hours at the closest noise-sensitive land uses southeast and north 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 Lone Tree Creek Solar Site will be developed on approximately 34 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 . Three (3) substations with an associated transformer and inverters will be located near the south edge of the site . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kir fl>rnoLone Tree Creek Solar Site Sound Study February 23, 2023 - Page 2 Figure 1 : Site Location and Vicinity Fab izius Solar Project Site a I, O a Weld County nor ow d 400 800 Feet kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley : >> o r n Lone Tree Creek Solar Site Sound Study February 23, 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 du ring nighttime (sleeping ) hours are typically considered to be more offensive than the same noises in the daytime . With regard to the second factor, individuals tend to judge the annoyance of an unwanted noise in terms of its relationship to noise from other sources (background noise) . A car horn blowing at night when background noise levels are low would generally be more objectionable than one blowing in the afternoon when background noise levels are typically higher. The response to noise stimulus is analogous to the response to turning on an interior light . During the daytime an illuminated bulb simply adds to the ambient light , but when eyes are conditioned to the dark of night, a suddenly illuminated bulb can be temporarily blinding . The third factor — situational noise — is related to the interference of noise with activities of individuals . In a 60 dB (A) environment such as is commonly found in a large business office , normal conversation would be possible , while sleep might be difficult . Loud noises may easily interrupt activities that require a quiet setting for greater mental concentration or rest ; however, the same loud noises may not interrupt activities requiring less mental focus or tranquility . As shown in Figure 2 , most individuals are exposed to fairly high noise levels from many sources on a regular basis . To perceive sounds of greatly varying pressure levels , human hearing has a non - linear sensitivity to sound pressure exposure . Doubling the sound pressure results in a three decibel change in the noise level ; however, variations of three decibels [3 dB (A) ] or less are commonly considered "barely perceptible" to normal human hearing . A five decibel [5 dB (A)] change is more readily noticeable . A ten -fold increase in the sound pressure level correlates to a 10 decibel [10 dB (A)] noise level increase ; however, it is judged by most people as only sounding "twice as loud ". kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 , .. rnor fl) Lone Tree Creek Solar Site Sound Study _ February 23, 2023 - Page 4 Figure 2 : Common Noise Levels Kim1ey * Horn Common Environmental Noise Levels (18(Ar Times Noise Source Noise Level Response As Loud Jet Engine r�x P —I Harmfully loud 128 144ar 14 135 130 64 _P0LICE Police Siren 1 —I Painfully loud 121 , 32 .• 4 115 I Regular exposer L over 1 minute Rock Band r 110 risks permanent 16 i - _ ■05 hearing loss i ii‘ '' �. Garbage Truck -,., :, - - r;. 100 Very loud a a 95 ==-,f kr ` , ', f Motorcycle 90' Annoying • • • • • • • • • • + 4 \ �1._ 11. °L-) f 85 S •- Annoying - interferes • • • 2 Drilling with conversation all 75 Vacuum Cleaner 70 Moderately loud 1 65 Air Conditioner I ` �- 60 Comfortable 1/2 r ,, I . 55 i - 50 • 1/4 Refrigerator s 45 Quiet -1j • + 1/8 -. r1-5i1 tr II 35 Whisper 30 Very quiet 25 4110 20 4 Rustling Leaves 1 Just audible . , 115 0 5 Threshold of hearing .., itil Normal Breathing 4 typical A-weighted sound levels in decihels. "A" weighting approximates the frequency response 01 the human ear. Over time , individuals tend to accept the noises that intrude into their lives on a regular basis . However, exposure to prolonged and/or extremely loud noise (s) can prevent use of exterior and interior spaces and has been theorized to pose health risks . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley : >> o r n Lone Tree Creek Solar Site Sound Study February 23, 2023 - Page 5 Local Regulations The Lone Tree Creek Solar Site is in Weld County , CO . Chapter 21 , Article VII , Division 3 of the Weld County Charter and County Code describes the requirements for a permit for site selection of a solar energy facility and states that noise impacts must be analyzed . Chapter 14 , Article IX of the Weld County Charter and County Code describes the noise regulations in Weld County , and Section 14 -9-30 of this article states that a violation of this ordinance includes knowingly making , causing , or permitting to be made any excess noise or exceeding the sound levels provided in Section 14 -9-40 of the Weld County Charter and County Code . The maximum permissible noise levels at different land uses are shown in Table 1 . Table 1 : Maximum Permissible Noise Levels Land Use Maximum Noise [dB (A)] Maximum Noise [dB (A)] 7 : 00 am 9 :00 pm 9 : 00 pm - 7 : 00 am Residential Property or Commercial Area 55 dB (A) 50 dB (A) Industrial Area or Construction Activities 80 dB (A) 75 dB (A) Nonspecified Areas 55 dB (A) 50 dB (A) The closest noise-sensitive receptors around the Lone Tree Creek 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 Lone Tree Creek 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 84 , County Road 39 , County Road 41 , County Road 82/CO- 14 , 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 thirty-three (33) PV inverters would be located near the south edge of the site , with each of the 3 substations/transformers having eleven ( 11 ) associated PV inverters located nearby . Based on design specifications for the CPS SCH100/125KTL-DO/US-600 inverter, a reference sound level of 65 dB (A) at 1 meter for each PV inverter was used . The sound from the simultaneous operation of the PV inverter equipment was calculated at the closest noise -sensitive receptors surrounding the project area using SoundPLAN . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley : >> o r n Lone Tree Creek Solar Site Sound Study February 23, 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 one transformer would be located at each of the 3 proposed substations near the south edge of the site , just south of the inverter banks . 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 . Figure 3 : Operational Sound Contours Signs and symbds Project Boundary ° 1 I' .\) " Levels indB (A) 45 45 - 50 O - 5 55 - 60 69 - 65 > = 65 kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley : >> o r n Lone Tree Creek Solar Site Sound Study February 23, 2023 - Page 7 Conclusions The site is generally located south of County Road 84 , east of County Road 39 , west of County Road 41 , and north of County Road 82/CO - 14 . The solar site will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses located southeast and north of the project area . After modeling and analyzing the anticipated operational sound levels throughout the proposed solar site , it was determined that noise mitigation measures are not needed at this time since the anticipated operational sound levels will remain below the Weld County Charter and County Code allowable noise levels at the nearest noise -sensitive receptors around the site during daytime hours . kimley-horn . com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400 , Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 KimIey *) o rn April 14 , 2023 P repared For : Mr. Zach Brammer Cloudbreak Energy Partners P repared By : Jesse Carlson , Wildlife Biologist Kimley- Horn S ubject : Sensitive Species Memorandum Cloudbreak- Lone Tree Creek Solar Site (34 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 Lone Tree Creek 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 are two mapped raptor nests 0 . 4 mile away from the project area . One raptor nest is classified as having a "destroyed " status and the other as "unknown " status . 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.com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum Lone Tree Creek Solar Site Kimley >>> Horn Project Description The proposed solar photovoltaic project area is approximately 2 . 5 miles east of Ault, approximately 4 miles southeast of Pierce , and approximately 4 miles northeast of Eaton . The site is generally located south of County Road 84 , east of County Road 39 , west of County Road 41 , and north of County Road 82/CO- 14 . The solar site will be located on agricultural land with rural residential land uses located southeast and north of the project area . The location of the proposed Lone Tree Creek Solar Site is shown in Figure 1 . The proposed Lone Tree Creek Solar Site will be developed on approximately 34 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 . Three (3) substations with an associated transformer and inverters will be located near the southern edge 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 and south by agriculture , to the east by County Road 41 , and to the west by Eaton Ditch . Based on the National Land Cover Database ( NLCD ) , the project area consists entirely of the cultivated crops land cover type (Figure 2 ) . kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum Kimley >>> Lone Tree Creek Solar Site o rn Figure 1 . Vicinity Map Imagery Date/ Source: Esri, 2023; Land Characterizations: BLM, 2023; Hydrology/ NWI: USFWS, 2022; Critical Habitat: USFWS, 2023 .00/I/ ,moo o� N O ro Ro4- 0 Legend 0 Private Land County Road 82 . 14 14 NWI Mapped Wetlands & astals\e% Streams USFWS Critical Habitat IS Project Limits Fabrizius Property N Weld County, Colorado W ,, E 0 0 .06 0 . 13 0 . 25 Miles S CLOUDBREAK,fri41 Vicinity Map Kimley >>> Horn [•:pc' ".;> e. Exper•ence 3ener. kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum Kimley >>> Lone Tree Creek Solar Site o rn Figure 2. National Land Cover Database Map [_ and Cc- er ( r LCu 201 € ) Barren Land culttvaied Crops Deciduous Forest fr NevpGoped. High Intensity _ Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Mes ivm Intensity Devel-oped. Open Space J mergent Herbaceotus. Wetlands Evergreen forest "4,0y/Pasture Herb...O.s Mixed Forest ■ Open Water — ■ Perennial Snow/Ic-e - Shrub/Scrub EWoody Wetlanids 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 lnventoey Database 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 kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum Kimley >>> Lone Tree Creek Solar Site o rn 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 5 , 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 . Two raptor nests were mapped 0 .4 mile away from the project area . One nest was classified as a "destroyed " Swainson 's hawk (Buteo swasoni) nest last surveyed in April of 2016 . The second nest was classified as a nest of unknown species with an unknown status and last surveyed in April of 2016 . 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 to potentially suitable nesting habitat for migratory bird species . Impacts to migratory birds 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 . The site lies within Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Zone X and is in panel #08123C1250E (effective 1 /20/2016 ) . Flood Zone X consists of areas with a 0 . 2 % annual kimley-horn.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Sensitive Species Memorandum Lone Tree Creek Solar Site Kimley >>> Horn chance of flooding and areas with otherwise minimal risk of flooding . Floodplain permitting is not applicable to the project. The project is adjacent to a potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U . S . feature , Eaton Ditch ( Figure 1 ) . Construction and impacts will remain within the proposed footprint and this feature will not be impacted . No associated coordination or permitting is anticipated to be needed with the United States Army Corps of Engineers . 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 shod-term discharges of source water that comes in contact with short-term construction activities to waters of the state . The project location in Weld County is in attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for NO2 , PM2 . 5 , PM10 , SO2 , Pb , and 1 -hour Ozone (O3 ) . The Proposed Project location is considered non-attainment for the 8-hour O3 standard and a maintenance area for the CO standard according to the Environmental Protection Agency'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, d_____A:e___________5:01 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 Sensitive Species Memorandum Lone Tree Creek Solar Site Kimley >>> Horn 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.com 1125 17th St, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Kimley >>> Horn FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED SPECIES MAPPED WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Al Kimley >>> Horn United States Fish and Wildlife Information for Planning and Consultation Listed Species Mapped within the Project Area Species Conservation Potential to Occur in Status Project Area Eastern Black Rail Threatened Low (Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. jamaicensis) Gray Wolf Endangered Low ( Canis lupus) Monarch Butterfly Candidate Low (Danaus plexippus) Pallid Sturgeon Endangered Low ( Scaphirhynchus albus) Piping Plover Threatened Low ( Charadrius melodus) Preble 's Meadow Jumping Mouse Threatened Low (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Ute Ladies'-tresses Threatened Low ( Spiranthes diluvialis) Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Threatened Low (Platanthera praeclara) Whooping Crane Endangered Low ( Grus americanus) Eastern Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis spp. jamaicensis) Eastern black rail , a threatened bird species, is found in both coastal and interior areas of the eastern United States , but the majority of detections are from coastal sites. Rails that reside in Colorado are known to migrate to Texas to overwinter and , as such , are typically only encountered in Colorado during the spring and summer. These birds are wetland dependent, requiring dense overhead cover and soils that are moist to saturated (occasionally dry) and interspersed with or adjacent to very shallow water (typically ≤ 3 cm ) to support their resource needs . Critical habitat has not been designated for this species ( USFWS 2019 ) . This species is known to occur in Weld County, Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based on aerial imagery. No impacts to this species are anticipated . Gray Wolf ( Canis lupus) Gray wolf, an endangered mammal species , is an adaptive species that can thrive in a variety of habitats. The historical range for this species covered much of the continental United States , including Colorado ( USFWS 2023a ) . However, this species was eradicated from Colorado in the 1940 's due to shooting , trapping , and poisoning . The United Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ) has restored gray wolf populations in Colorado 's neighboring states over the past decade and there have been occasional wolf migrants observed in Colorado . The current range is limited to a few individual animals located in north -central Colorado counties that share a border with Wyoming ( CPW 2022 ) . Gray wolves should be considered in the effect analysis only if the project in question has a predator management program . The proposed project does not include a predator management program ; therefore , no impacts to this species are anticipated . A-2 Kimley >>> a rn Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Monarch butterfly , a candidate insect species , is a migratory species that is found in North America . Monarchs breed throughout most of the United States and southern Canada and overwinters in central Mexico . The monarch butterfly requires milkweed (Asclepias sp. ) for survival . Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of flowering milkweed , and larvae require milkweed as a host plant ( USFWS 2023b ) . Consultation with USFWS under section 7 of the Endangered S pecies Act ( ESA) is not required for candidate species , like the monarch butterfly . No impacts to this species are anticipated . P reble 's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) The Preble 's meadow jumping mouse is a nocturnal mouse that occupies the eastern edges of the Front Range in Colorado . Habitat for Preble 's is typically comprised of well-developed riparian vegetation with adjacent , relatively undisturbed grassland communities and a nearby water source ( USFWS 2023c) . Preble 's riparian habitats are close to creeks , typically within the 100- year floodplain , and feature dense , multi-story horizontal cover of shrubs and trees with an u nderstory of forbs and grasses . Upland habitats are usually immediately adjacent to the riparian habitats or within 300 feet of the 100-year floodplain . The USFWS has designated critical habitat , as well as block clearance area for this species . Block clearance areas are portions of land where P reble 's meadow jumping mouse ESA precautions are no longer necessary. The project area is o utside of critical habitat and is not within a block clearance area for this species . Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) publishes a Preble 's meadow jumping mouse trapping location database . There are no trapping events in or near the project area . The closest trapping event is located approximately 2 . 0 miles northwest of the project area . No mice were trapped at this location . This species is known to occur in Weld County, Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based o n aerial imagery . No impacts to this species are anticipated . Ute Ladies ' -tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Ute ladies'-tresses , a threatened orchid species , occurs near the base of the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains in southeastern Wyoming and Nebraska and north -central and central Colorado . The species prefers habitat dominated by low vegetative cover associated with floodplains , perennial stream terraces , and oxbows . Critical habitat has not been designated for the species ( USFWS 2023d ) . The flowering period for this species is between July and September. This species is known to occur in Weld County , Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based on aerial imagery. No impacts to this species are anticipated . Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) The Western prairie fringed orchid , a federally threatened orchid species , is mapped by the U SFWS as occurring in Colorado east of the Continental Divide , from south of Colorado Springs to the northern border with Wyoming . The orchid species occurs in mesic to wet unplowed tallgrass prairies and meadows but has been found in old fallow fields and roadside ditches . This species flowers from mid -June through early July. Based on aerial imagery , the project area is comprised of disturbed uplands and lacks the wetland component required for this species . The project is also surrounded by human disturbance . Critical habitat has not been designated for the species ( USFWS 2023e ) . This species is known to occur in Weld County, Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based on aerial imagery . No impacts to this species are anticipated . A-3 Kimley *> Horn Whooping Crane ( Grus americanus) The whooping crane breeds , migrates , winters , and forages in a variety of wetland and other habitats , including coastal marshes and estuaries , inland marshes , lakes , ponds, wet meadows and rivers , and agricultural fields. Whooping cranes breed and nest in wetland habitat in Wood - Buffalo National Park , Canada . Bulrush is the dominant vegetation type in the potholes used for nesting , although cattail , sedge , musk-grass, and other aquatic plants are common . Nest sites are primarily located in shallow diatom ponds that contain bulrush . During migration , whooping cranes use a variety of habitats ; however, wetland mosaics appear to be the most suitable . For feeding , whooping cranes primarily use shallow, seasonally and semi permanently flooded palustrine wetlands for roosting , and various cropland and emergent wetlands . In Nebraska , whooping cranes also often use riverine habitats . Wintering habitat in the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge , Texas , includes salt marshes and tidal flats on the mainland and barrier islands , dominated by salt grass , saltwort, smooth cordgrass , glasswort, and sea ox-eye ( USFWS 2023f) . This species is known to occur in Weld County, Colorado ; however, there is no suitable habitat based on aerial imagery. No impacts to this species are anticipated . An additional two (2 ) listed species identified in the IPaC documentation should be considered in the effect analysis if water-related activities or use occur in the North and South Platte and Laramie River Basins as they may affect listed species in Nebraska ( USFWS 2023g and USFWS 2023h ) . These species include the piping plover ( Charadrius melodus) and pallid sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus albus) . Colorado Parks and Wildlife Species Activity Map Listed Species within the Project Area Species Seasonal Use Black-tailed Prairie Dog Colony Potential Occurrence ( Cynomys ludovicianus) Overall Range Big Brown Bat Overall Range (Eptesicus fuscus) Brassy Minnow HUC 12 Presence (Hybognathus hankinsoni) Bull Snake Overall Range (Pituophis catenifer sayi) Canada Geese Foraging Area (Branta canadensis) Winter Range Common Garter Snake Overall Range ( Thamnophis sirtalis) Common Lesser Earless Lizard Overall Range (Holbrookia maculate) Hernandez's Short-horned Lizard Overall Range (Phrynosoma hernandesi) Hoary Bat Overall Range (Lasiurus cinereus) Little Brown Myotis Overall Range (Myotis lucifungus) Many-lined Skink Overall Range (Plestiodon multivirgatus multivirgatus) Milk Snake Overall Range (Lam propeltis triangulum) A-4 Kimley >>> Horn Species Seasonal Use Mule Deer Concentration Area ( Odocoileus hemionus) Overall Range North American Racer Overall Range ( Coluber constrictor) N orthern Watersnake Overall Range (Nerodia sipedon) Olive-backed Pocket Mouse Overall Range (Perognathus fasciatus) Painted Turtle Overall Range ( Chrysemys picta) P lains Gartner Snake Overall Range ( Thamnophis radix) Plains Hog -nosed Snake Overall Range (Heterodon nasicus) P lateau Fence Lizard Overall Range ( Sceloporus tristichus) Prairie Lizard Overall Range (Sceloporus undulatus) Prairie Rattlesnake Overall Range ( Crotalus viridi) Preble 's Meadow Jumping Mouse Overall Range (Zapus hudsonius preblei) Pronghorn Overall Range (Antilocapra americana ) Red Bat Overall Range (Lasiurus borealis) Ring-necked Pheasant Overall Range ( Phasianus colchicus) Silver-haired Bat Overall Range (Lasionycteris noctivagans) S ix-lined Racerunner Overall Range (Aspidoscelis sexlineata) Terrestrial Garter Snake Overall Range ( Thamnophis elegans) Tri-colored Bat Overall Range (Perimyotis subflavus) Variable Skink Overall Range (Plestiodon multivirgatus epipleurotus) Western Rattlesnake Overall Range ( Crotalus atrox) White-tailed Deer Overall Range ( Odocoileus virginianus) White-tailed Jackrabbit Overall Range (Lepus townsendii) A-5 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 A-6 r �a;r. X1 1:1 ark LIJLII bL, red —as United States Department of the Interior alate FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE '119 1i a• 4'91 Colorado Ecological Services Field Office -Air �i' ° Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25486 Denver, CO 80225-0486 Phone: (303) 236-4773 Fax: (303) 236-4005 In Reply Refer To : April 04, 2023 Project Code : 2023-0064401 Project Name : Lone Tree Creek 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 : 2023-0064401 Project Name : Lone Tree Creek 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 . 588807,- 104. 6805423071417, 14z rtio 6 � Counties : Weld County, Colorado 04/04/2023 3 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES There is a total of 9 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 3 of these species should be considered only under certain conditions . IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats " section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1 . NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. MAMMALS NAME STATUS Gray Wolf Canis lupus Endangered Population: U.S.A. : All of AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, IA, IN, IL, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, VT, WI, and WV; and portions of AZ, NM, OR, UT, and WA. Mexico. There is final critical habitat for this species. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ■ Lone, dispersing gray wolves may be present throughout the state of Colorado. If your activity includes a predator management program, please consider this species in your environmental review. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4488 Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4090 General project design guidelines: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/GXUFUWL3K5FDXE7XLDP GSSUJD4/documents/ generated/6861.pdf 04/04/2023 4 BIRDS NAME STATUS Eastern Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. jamaicensis Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10477 Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Threatened Population: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations] - Wherever found, except those areas where listed as endangered. There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: ■ Project includes water-related activities and/or use in the N. Platte, S. Platte, and Laramie River Basins which may affect listed species in Nebraska. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039 Whooping Crane Grus americana Endangered Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat. Species profile: hops://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758 FISHES NAME STATUS Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Endangered No critical habitat has been designated for this species. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions: • Project includes water-related activities and/or use in the N. Platte, S. Platte, and Laramie River Basins which may affect listed species in Nebraska. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7162 INSECTS NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 FLOWERING PLANTS NAME STATUS Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159 Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara Threatened No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1669 04/04/2023 5 CRITICAL HABITATS THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. 04/04/2023 6 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Kimley-Horn Name : Jesse Carlson Address : 380 Interlocken Crescent Suite 100 City: Broomfield State : CO Zip : 80021 Email jesse .carlsonkimley-horn. com Phone : 2532982432 CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project SUBJECT: Sewage Disposal Documentation No sewage disposal will be required for the operation of the Project . CBEP Solar 30 , LLC or its contractor will provide portable toilets during construction . (970) 425-3175 I I N FO©a CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM ERGY.COM CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 frik (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project SUBJECT: Traffic Narrative 1 . Describe how many roundtrips/day are expected for each vehicle type : Passenger Cars/ Pickups , Tandem Trucks, Semi -Truck/Trailer/ RV ( Roundtrip = One ( 1 ) trip in and One ( 1 ) trip out of site) . • Maximum anticipated number of daily trips during peak period of construction : 10 - 15 vehicles per day during peak construction 7am - 3 : 30pm general hours Monday - Friday . • % of heavy vehicles during peak period of construction : 5 - 10% During first few months of construction . • Typical anticipated number of daily trips after construction is complete : 2 - 4 trips per year depending on O& M contract details . 2 . Describe the expected travel routes or haul routes for site traffic . • The primary haul/travel route will be North on US-85 , East on CO- 14 , North on County Road 41 , and then arriving at the Eastern access point for the parcel . 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• - ors. a 85 40000- 40056 We - , : County Road 41 (1) 7— e I II --•r- • 0 0 1 •a se • l 4Nviint4 r . ' ill -t It i:k. 4 g II as ' lie IS I is - - - - _ _"WI it 111 - . 1 ' !� t I do is 1 _ 44- 4 - � ► Shooting Range 1# ths_ a a i 40 I61IIII:• ri All* r Eaton Prairie �- - . Ranch Petting Zoo and . .. Ea�ton'Count ► G ub _ _ let: - k ' D. ildi iiiiiii. 1 .. 4 1/411 it Double Check Arena lii, „h._ . gir'"Ilic 0 II' at Ili ,„L , ... i 4 . _ . r fp • I I r ire,„- is" „ t i + r w�,f a� •el lif It i • r.'V�I VII Yr 7tr7 s^' i • 141 • �■ r �� j 'r IV ? ei _nwa - - Galeton it Eaton rt h- _ ._ A _ -#I - I, - aill Al t ) Al al ki al , gr. . . 20 min . 4 5.6 miles 961 k' _. t II ountain State !� T- ' _ . i mo Kg �ca�erny , , . _ �. - I ucerne 0 IP tp ' 392 a 4, 392 y ,----- - _�„ 39:' �n ...1 • �, 1 •L * Jil1L11. '0 � , . 1 * + It ) _. ‘id I tail! . I , Jet �.. _ , k 11 , . r. t%rltit Alden w �-� r �. 1 •r lis,, „....,.... . ,- 1, f• - L. a , •11 40 iii ... tit . ,s. ; t %.3„, . . , ,„.. , I4 st *ow ' lim:rilh:elr 41 it ill'+�'' �, Greeley-Weld . a 4 Isla, roo County =� a r irtsts . �w e i �nal Park r g _ Airport44 4116 . •r . _ • --y dl ' 4 r• a T _� A _ are, Ir . in 4 ' .' • s e a G lYI . la At% it. :Ai i ia ce • Vi • • i• , - C rye I ey, • • r• - - . r , .jai s ll itI ��_ h - � Glenmere Park: , I KimIey ) o rn February 16 , 2023 Mr. Zach Brammer CloudBreak Energy Partners , LLC 1120 Pearl Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 Re : CloudBreak - Lone Tree Creek Solar Traffic Study Letter Weld County , Colorado Dear Mr. Brammer: This traffic study letter has been prepared for the proposed CloudBreak - Lone Tree Creek 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 west side of Weld County Road 41 (WCR-41 ) between WCR-84 and State Highway 14 ( SH - 14 )/WCR-82 . A vicinity map illustrating the location of CloudBreak - Lone Tree Creek Solar is attached as Figure 1 . The project will consist of a 3 . 6 MW solar facility with supporting infrastructure . A conceptual site plan for the proposed development is attached . This traffic study phases , and the expected trip distribution and traffic assignment .) development during both construction and operational 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 - Lone Tree Creek Solar will be provided by US-85 . Primary access will be provided by SH- 14/WCR-82 while direct access is proposed from one full movement access on the west side of WCR-41 . kimley-horn.com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 CloudBreak - Lone Tree Creek Ki ni ley >>> Horn Traffic Study Letter Page 2 The preferred access route to CloudBreak - Lone Tree Creek Solar is via US-85 . The anticipated vehicle route to the site from US-85 is to travel east on SH - 14/WCR-82 then north along WCR-41 , and then west into the project site access . Figure 2 illustrates the vehicle route 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 - Lone Tree Creek 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 12 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 - Lone Tree Creek Solar facility. Weekday Vehicles Trips Daily Round Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use e_ Trips Trips In Out Total In Out Total Heavy Duty Trucks ( 3) 3 6 2 0 2 0 2 2 PCE Trips 9 18 6 0 6 0 6 6 Passenger Vehicles ( 12 ) 12 24 6 0 6 0 4 4 Total Vehicles 15 30 8 0 8 0 6 6 Total PCE 21 42 12 0 12 0 10 10 As shown in the table above , CloudBreak - Lone Tree Creek Solar is expected to generate approximately 15 daily round trips (30 daily trips ) with eight ( 8 ) of these trips occurring in the morning peak hour and six (6 ) of these trips occurring in the afternoon peak hour during the peak construction activities . This volume of daily traffic of 30 trips is expected to be the highest volume generated during solar facility construction . Solar Facility Operational Phase Traffic Generation After the CloudBreak - Lone Tree Creek Solar project has been constructed , the number of trips generated by the solar plant is expected to be significantly less than during the construction period , approximately one vehicle per week ( 2 weekly trips) . Therefore , traffic impacts related to the operation of the solar plant facility will be negligible and insignificant. kimley-horn.com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 CloudBreak - Lone Tree Creek ni le >> o r n Traffic Study Letter Page 3 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Trip distribution is based on the anticipated arrival location of employees along with the delivery route to be used for truck traffic. It is anticipated that truck traffic will utilize the intersection of US-85 and SH- 14/WCR-82 and use SH- 14/WCR-82 to head east to WCR-41 and travel north along WCR-41 to head west to 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 Ault is located approximately 3 . 5 miles west of the site , the Town of Eaton is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the project site , the Town of Pierce is located approximately 7 . 5 miles northwest of the site . Further south , approximately 14 miles southwest of the site is the City of Greeley . The City of Fort Collins is approximately 22 miles to the west . Based on these factors , it is anticipated that 100 percent of the traffic will be to and from the west . This traffic was factored for the amount expected to arrive from US-85 . Attached Figure 3 illustrates the anticipated trip distribution . The project traffic assignment for vehicles is shown in attached Figure 4 . CDOT ACCESS PERMIT Indirect access for the site will be provided from State Highway 14 at WCR-41 . Since WCR- 41 terminates approximately a quarter mile north of SH- 14 and only serves two single family residences in this segment , a temporary CDOT access permit is anticipated to be needed for the north leg of WCR-41 at SH- 14 due to construction project volumes increasing existing traffic volumes by more than 20 percent . CONCLUSION In summary , the CloudBreak - Lone Tree Creek Solar construction project traffic assignment 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 - Lone Tree Creek Solar will have a minimal traffic impact . The public street roadways and adjacent intersections are anticipated to successfully accommodate this project traffic volume . a temporary CDOT access permit is anticipated to be needed for the north leg of WCR-41 at SH- 14 due to construction project volumes increasing existing traffic volumes by more than 20 percent . If you have any questions or require anything further, please feel free to call . Sincerely, _jcsiccn t [f' o di . J' KIMLEY- HORN AND ASSOCIATES , INC . • : ' . % t • \ tta"44k • 4-401 I: 53006 ■ 02/16/2023 : /t: Jeffrey R . Planck , P . E . %i * cc.. .Jai- Project Traffic Engineercsingeo se ' 'f diONPL kimley-horn.com 1125 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, CO 80202 303 228 2300 Figures ier N Amity*K0-TAN -1s1-oi-R-in=i- NTS 196664000 a sr �;46-e abet.s ars 1 a • ' fla • - • + 4. , , r ir • . _ ..q .Y,` 9 .. • __ II I ____ 1 1_ _. # . . ..__ . .. , , 1 • ; illir 1 . r i 1 3 I" r - - -Ha'' WCR-84 1 . 1 . et - - -... • •• * 4 AV-. Nit I gr Nit I .. • i a • - 4411 4. i lilit - _ k ,_ , . isi •.•_h,_ ..., ili .,,,....iiiiiiii , . . . _ . , . . .- • . 4• 1.r% ' 4,0 is. a) 'NW ‘....--) _. 4 .14 • . , 1( igvt. 144_, P CJECT ro NI- IX r SH - 14/wCR-82• _ - . 0 .3," ,� o Y . • imaieme:s..„, I, x 4;J -4\ 1.7klio1/44 0) -i-e, ' • S,, . \ to i liN y . N ?. a T±r :it _ liti, .rnip . . I\ . • 1 .... }pp i ( 1 Ti— . , . le .4 i gni Ili -44- . A. ilk. 41. - , k I lirwCR-8o_ i\ , 441 _ _ ...44 \it tta ..- Willia -. i &Ilea- fir a - )IS aill. •-' 'alib. -i.t. 1 • . _—_,. FIGURE 1 CLOUDBREAK - LONE TREE CREEK WE LD COUNTY , COLORADO VICINITY MAP No m NTS 196664000 *'` ' R J F T yj • -: 1441- / S I TV v r' II _ --1 ' ` '1 a _ - ice_ Imo` tJ) IL • �) 4 e. . ,, I ,I, 1 ix S'•, CC 'I - I 1 . I II. _ la SH - 14/WCR - 82 A U � it .. ..�j , , i iii-III s„ s A-4\1\ I _ , 4 ' 1 F , .... t . . . . ‘. , e ,‘, •. 4. i 1 . . , •?,. . t - t A.- v COF ♦ 1 k , ,P Ii.'," c 4 OF i A - �' • I. ; :RAll 0 ' Alli\> 1 f,.....e.. I, 1 41:t 1 s 1 a ".•! 4 '\eh: ,I I ias_____...__ ., .,......,:f i ,, _ _ II It\\* ` I .. 1 • r i.....\kk ' ilk • WCR - 8�] _ ; ' '! w. "`►.vi.:. • l P _ , ' tealin • Ili ' . . -a-•.. , _�.� `Y i Oil \ . .. . a ell . ,l — - FIGURE 2 LEGEND bLOUDBREAK - LOBE TREE CR I K Proposed Truck Route WELD COUNTY , COLORADO TRUCK ROUTE ml *Horn N O RTH NTS 196664000 -... / a . , r riti Sallir e tif/ . ritroppo. , I lair' - - -(/ _ e _ .i PROJECT SITEle I 1 e ACCESS f i I / if - 4 SOP- : . 1O 11 :„ a.fr , , ) t - U 12 t T 0 [100%J Q CWCR-41 ACCESS LEGEND X Study Area Key Intersection FIGURE 3 XX% External Trip Distribution Percentage CLOUDBRFAK - LONE TREE CREEK Entering [ Exiting ] XX � XX � WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Trip Distribution Percentage PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Kim' • 4 Horn NORTH NTS 196664000 ---11, ----, lit, T - _ -If Act i i - . - _ ., r , .A „._ ,, , ,, ., ,._ . , ./ ,, ..., c __ . t — - _ i 4 * if7 , t � s � f PROJECT -, SITE .: �,• t i. , . , � 2 , ACCESS ` Pi 0. as 4% , .. T • 2 i � I Ii • U 1 i ---- WI 1 I I 1 imi ,i + • (:L: r 'r a - V 6- 0 0(6) , 00 i CWCR- 41 ACCESS ) LEGEND \X, Study Area Bey Intersection FIGURE 4 ACLOUDBREAK - LONE TREE CREEK xxx ( xxx ) Weekday AM ( PV ) WELDCOUNTY , OLORADO Peak Hour Traffi VolumesC c Volumes PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT :• X X Est' rnatec ° G ' ' '' Traffic Volume CONSTUCTON ACTVTY Conceptual Site Plan 0_ o_ Q USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW USR XX XXXX W I_ LONE TREE CREEK SOLAR PROJECT >_ WELD COUNTY EXISTING CONCRETE z PROPOSED ± 44 PAD OF PIVOT FIELD � ACRE LEASE AREA EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SPRINKLER / ON POWER POLES LiJ z / I U I O '/ I Z '/ Q 0 Z z a - 0 > EXISTING DIRT L., m ACCESS ROAD i 2 I 1 u, p Q EL ,_ LEGEND,_ I 4(1 LILT] ro ao r • EASEMENT — — PROPERTY LINE c ) cso w �� N J w CO . 9 ) m bEXISTING RIGHT— OF — WAY U sia, - co Q Q / k EXISTING ROAD U 4 Z X - I I X PROPOSED FENCE u, EXISTING SECTION LINE t / w • Q EXISTING FENCE Es aa X C EATON DITCH �' — a a a c�0 C a a _ N F EXISTING GAS LINE O z — Z a — — o0' EXISTING 24" CMP EXISTING WATER LINE i // — — _ 1. --_____,...„,„____,....._______,.... oo 0 // — _ — — k EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR — — PROPOSED PV PANELS — a 2 CO EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR co m EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT -�- — __ -H _ 1 - - LEASE AREA 161•11 I F- ' ' ZS E PROPOSED ELECTRIC EXISTING 2 — TRACK ACCESS ROAD ' I a _ a CD - I EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC 12i o a - IskO OSED a X 1 a �. OH H a O a Q ' , a I Ii / -\-- I _ _ ' EXISTING FENCE N 0EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC _ X I I OH Q N a o0 PROPOSED SETBACK c�1 o / a _ X 30 PIPELINE EASEMENT ,\, c� (l cn D a a — _ a -a a _ - I - PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL QO � EXISTING WATER LINE _ _ 8 O OSED A ELO - a ,i\ w a - ' a C O a a - a _ - _ _ a a a - a _ - - PROPOSED PERMANENT & TEMPORARY Q - - - - = TRAILERSc�1 DEXISTING WATER PUMP _ a .- a _ a a a ' ' _, 80 . 0 .. II EXISTING 45 ' TEMPORARY § p) O/ _ - - - - - - _a - WORKSPACE EASEMENT �� `�' �� Naa .- IM � � OO gatcatum PROPOSED ROAD EXISTING TRANSFORMER / - a - _ _ Os)>1111 _ o0 a a -w a n ' O a a D X 1 a W EXISTING UNDERGROUND ' .O , ' I . a _ a a ,� ! JE ° acn O (g W LIN , • a a a x PROPOSED POWER POLE _ o PROPOSED EQUIPMENT PADS . a ' 1 i_ U 0 EXISTING SEASONAL "k EXISTING 14 CMP SEE SHEET 3 . 0 DETAIL 4 • I' 8 , II N ■ RIro° IRRIGATION POND ' • II ' ' 1 , PROPOSED PERMANENT 2 Q X 1 ( STORAGE TRAILERS . c o w i PROPOSED EQUIPMENT PADS . SEE SHEET 3 . 0 DETAIL 4 SITE STATISTICS fl_ a - . I I PROPOSED TEMPORARY DESIGNED BY: JCH o / '' ' . , I � � CONSTRUCTION TRAILER . DRAWN BY: JCH INO Q X _ ' ' r COVERAGE TYPE AREA ( SQUARE FEET) CHECKED BY: AJH No L,_ X ' ' I 60 ' RIGHT- OF - WAY w N II DATE : 04 /27 /23 MI=O', X W X CONCRETE 4 , 124 N C) �L N÷ GRAVEL 29 , 880 LL, = _ J\ VEHICULAR ENTRANCE GATE �' PROPOSED o �� I OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LANDSCAPING NA II �. / 1 P ` _ EXISTING WATER WELL N LI��i.��i��i�y�i�i��`_ _ 7 I_ AD , PERMIT #52340 - F `!'�♦��!��♦�♦�♦�♦i♦i�i�i PROPOSED POWER SWALES L E S H )9'C vt x POLE TYP . NA w _ _ �� 1i1�1�1.� °a 1 ��; GRASS /VACANT 1 493 631 0 PROPOSED 25 ' SETBACK cfl •.♦��♦��,��,�,��, D �`��♦��%� �i�i� %��!:►iii Z c �' ��♦�♦�♦�• :♦� SOLAR RACKING 0 � � P� _ _ �- �� O � �i 261 , 430 ii ..:,„:„ „. AD 0 O9 cga 1 . il ' ,< I I W up o 2 11 - SEE TURNAROUND DETAIL _ _ 7 J � o- _ W (D � LI � D PROPOSED GRAVEL ROAD PROPOSED SECURITY FENCE _ 0 Z w U)) l _ oJ <-I < C I SEE TURNAROUND DETAIL. ow �� Q Q J PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC a 6, SHEET 3. 0 DETAIL 3 i r0 e_ � `�'� EXISTING GAS LINE OWw CZ 7 I I ii H I wow0 (f) — o L G I ° >- /zC(f) < 0z m z �i Nw II O W w OU 5 \ L0 (.0 _ W (n D w •— 0 0 , GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET w Z SITE PLAN 0 50 100 200 II w b � >,Z NORTH H CC O w oQ 0z O z 7) cc w � _ o 0 I6 O w o c (Ow PRELIMINARY coo (.02 0) . FOR REVIEW ONLY %9 NOT FOR Ow Lw CONSTRUCTION 85-,, o Kimley >> Horn U ° = Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. U I - /F PROJECT NO . O § oW 196664000 /W DRAWING NAME _ 0 1w z 3 �. OQ M. N [1V .4W AT " '; (: Fi17Y'1 _ C b- L #i. FWE Y' ElU IC CBEP SOLAR 30, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING , CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 CLOUDBREAK INFO c©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM DATE: April 24 , 2023 PROJECT: Lone Tree Creek Solar Project SUBJECT: Utility and Other Infrastructure Owners Infrastructure Owner Name Address Oil pipelines and easement NWC Development, LLC 5956 Sherry Lane , Suite 825 , Dallas , TX 75225 (970) 425-3175 I INFO©aCLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM Lone Tree Creek - CBEP Solar 30 Neighborhood Meeting Minutes Greeley Recreation Center Monday, Aug 14 , 2023 Start Time : 6 : 30 PM End Time : 7 : 30 PM Speaker: Becca Gallery In Attendance : There were no attendees for this neighborhood meeting . Neighbor Correspondence : None recorded . 7/7/23 , 11 :37 AM Cloudbreak Mail - Notice of Inquiry I PRE23-0132 (parcel #070908100003) C Ltd U D B R EA IC Brysen Daughton < brysen@cloudbreakenergy.com > Notice of Inquiry I PRE23-0132 ( parcel #070908100003) 1 message Brysen Daughton < brysen@cloudbreakenergy. com > Fri , Jun 9 , 2023 at 2 : 11 PM To : matt@aultcolorado .gov Cc: Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakenergy. com > Hi Matt, Our company, Cloudbreak Energy Partners , is working with the Weld County Department of Planning Services to develop a community solar garden within the Town of Ault's Cooperative Planning Agreement boundary. Our project will be a 3 . 6 MW Solar Energy Facility located on Louis and Gina Fabrizius's property (parcel #070908100003 ). The County has sent the Town of Ault a notice of inquiry (please see the attachment). We'd love to coordinate with the town of Ault and answer any questions that you have about our project. Please let me know if you'd like to hop on a call and discuss further. Otherwise , we'd appreciate it if you could complete the attached form and send it back to the Weld County Department of Planning Services . Thanks , -Brysen Brysen Daughton (970) 425-3501 Project Developer brysen@cloudbreakenergy.com Cloudbreak Energy cloudbreakenergy. com CLOUDBREAKTM PRE23-0132 Ault CPA Notice of Inquiry. pdf 186K https://mail .google .com/mail/u/0/?ik=6e71fcb3f0&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-7085163712629017149&simpl=msg-a:r1384709799912762487 1 /1 FOR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS , PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION : Business Name : CBEP Solar 30 , LLC Phone : (970) 425-3175 Address : PO Box 1255 City, state , zip : Sterling , CO 80751 Business Owner: Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC Phone : (970) 425-3175 Home Address : PO Box 1255 City, state , zip : Sterling , CO 80751 List up to three persons in the order to be called in the event of an emergency: NAME TITLE PHONE ADDRESS Zachary Brammer COO (970) 425-3175 PO Box 1255 , Sterling , CO 80751 Becca Gallery Partner (970) 573-6440 PO Box 1255 , Sterling , CO 80751 James Cleland CEO (970) 425-3175 PO Box 1255, Sterling , CO 80751 Business Hours : 8-5 Days : M-F UTILITY SHUT OFF LOCATIONS : Main Electrical : Depicted on USR Map Gas Shut Off: N/A Exterior Water Shutoff: N/A Interior Water Shutoff: N/A 07/22 12 Weld County Treasurer Statement of Taxes Due Account Number R6778494 Parcel 070908100003 Assessed To FABRIZIUS LOUIS S PO BOX 429 EATON, CO 80615 -0429 Legal Description Situs Address PT E2 8-7-65 PT LOT B REC EXEMPT RE-4980 DESC AS THE SOUTHERLY PT OF LOT B WELD Year Tax Interest Fees Payments Balance Tax Charge 2022 S970.90 $0.00 $0.00 ($485.45) $485.45 Total Tax Charge $485.45 First Half Due as of 04/24/2023 $0.00 Second Half Due as of 04/24/2023 $485.45 Tax Billed at 2022 Rates for Tax Area 3883 - 3883 Authority Mill Levy Amount Values Actual Assessed WELD COUNTY 15 .0380000* $213 . 83 AG-SPRINKLER $39,724 $ 10,490 SCHOOL DIST RE2 34 9570000* $497. 09 IRRIGATED LAND NORTHERN COLORADO WATER 1 0000000 $ 14.22 AG-FLOOD $ 14,098 $3 ,720 (NC IRRRIGATED LAND AULT FIRE 7.3800000 $ 104 95 AG-WASTE LAND $26 $ 10 AIMS JUNIOR COLLEGE 6.3070000 $89 68 Total $53,848 $ 14,220 HIGH PLAINS LIBRARY 3. 1810000 $45 24 WEST GREELEY CONSERVATION 0.4140000 $5 . 89 Taxes Billed 2022 68.2770000 $970.90 * Credit Levy ALL TAX LIEN SALE AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT TAXES BY THE LIENHOLDER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES . CHANGES MAY OCCUR AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE WILL NEED TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO REMITTANCE AFTER THE FOLLOWING DATES : PERSONAL PROPERTY, REAL PROPERTY, AND MOBILE HOMES - AUGUST 1 . TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION AMOUNTS MUST BE PAID BY CASH OR CASHIER'S CHECK. POSTMARKS ARE NOT ACCEPTED ON TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION PAYMENTS PAYMENTS MUST BE IN OUR OFFICE AND PROCESSED BY THE LAST BUSINESS DAY OF THE MONTH . cfleFos \ ocOu3 Weld County Treasurer' s Office $e " 1400 N 17th Avenue ► \'i PO Box 458 r ` �� f Greeley , CO 80632 i' - F 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 . Current year' s taxes are due but not delinquent. yi. � je ,a siThe- 2 • Signed . - �- Date : ilr Hello