The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20230776.tiffEXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET CASE USR23-0005 - KENNETH HARRING, C/O CBEP SOLAR 6, LLC Tyler Exhibit Submitted By Page # Description Planning A. Commission Resolution of Recommendation Planning B. Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes dated 3/7/2023) C. Planning Services 2 PowerPoint Presentation D. Planning Services 19 Additional authorization form (received 3/20/2023) Memo regarding request for continuance E. Planning Services 20 (received 3/20/2023) Sheilah Engel, surrounding F property owner 22 Letter of opposition (received 3/20/2023) Glenn and Gayle Cunningham, surrounding G. property owners 23 Letter of opposition (received 3/20/2023) Memorandum from Attorney, Moye White H. Applicant 24 (received 4/28/2023) I. Applicant J. Applicant Surrounding K. Property Owners 410 Petition of those in opposition (received 5/2/2023) 322 PowerPoint Presentation (received 5/2/2023) 409 Ramirez letter of support (received 5/2/2023) L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. V. 2023-0776 USR23 0005 Applicant: Kenneth Harring, c/o CBEP Solar 6, LLC Planner: Kim Ogle Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Legal Description: Part of the NW1/4 of Section 32, Township 7 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Location: Approximately 980 -feet south of County Road 76; approximately 1300 -feet east of County Road 39. WELD COUNTY, CO se ell 99999 IN ■� no 1 .•II•1. — .. I IUIl•I. II•I III • illeret_sliIII shin es }.' T'. 'I u1tilaiti -Mu, _ ... WCR 80 USR 23-D005 Harrun g Cloudbreak SEF :4 1861 / WELD COUNTY, CO 1„ ■ � It` ■■ l ... s5 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ir t�. -� O Q.le �� Urban Growth ��, �'� ,� Area cs,� ti _ i� April 2018 I�� WCRTB = Comprehensive Land Use Plan c _ SR SR Suburban Residential (2.5 Units per Acre) c/i P NT New Town Residential (4.5 Units per Acre) Sc/I "" r ■ Pr= r ,� SR OT Original Town Residential Units Acre) L (6.5 per :............. �• Mlrl diRrarirR/ir!�rr�■ �*lN�s i. .> SR fl sp ginnip, a:x....J •�: +a4 i1 r. c: ■::: ♦� �mii*<� ;Alia i sR ma-= gib iQf i + ALL! ., ♦ Mixed Use (Residential/Commercial/Public) ::: �0.. III :it ti oT 1; s 4 USFt23i!00O5Harring - Fe■ .ey,r �r SR _ SR SR REF■FVI 4IE2break Commercial / Industrial :.::,...., her *� PU Schools and Other Public Uses iplik ��' TExisting +.`.`«` �;..___°..... NT Town III P Parks and Other recreation NT SR �4 Boundary •s. SUS 6� �� ;:' ;: ; ; ` ;•`.. Eaton Draw and Other Open Space OT , ir- OT _ % C/I :; r r l � !. E- :,_ : i� MU • % NT i-d- t r -•` Migl•uo�r i� u i7 �� fllurariirrru�ss• 11 in i 1 ■ �ry1 ■. -- W .-_ .� - �_ mom I rs"min zn .=_ Ilig op. r: \ tag -�C 1�4��1i ii:� Um a� \•IIn1111 11 If _ .7p r � III' . Viii ... II ■■ E. -.'- �■a�>.err�.or ra a■ �� Ti .� .r. •- = ��l _... — M �"Q C�wrrnn -- — — y. i�111w N1:J�17��17.1 I: 1:141.71:17;17.1:1 ` 'L.� ?� n111 st EATON P cE �Y OT awl � SR �, c/I u nm n - ir P`r - �� G,r NT �' r � �A Dion ��EffNT \ _ `'1 _ oionmg - - 0 �I I'- OS S a ►�'ri11�� I� '-'T , .rI:: OT .E Er-. PU PU figl= _ _ , ` w F" *rte �IuN.r' OT � o ... ' WCRT4 * ' �* ., PIT v, urr, ■ pu • �v lOM It ;r :� aI: .■ s -- mina�� WIZ .1111 ` 41/s. c mu ..Af ) SR ' � l oT •*��*tea �� f _ hi - f:r1U MO ' — {l��j € r , �.nlr E� PA mu r 22 O n ,, cm'�■ A� �� — F'I I, s• ilk S� Existing Town t�•�• •�• OS ...::. _ .NT n Boundary`-. �•�•';•�:�,;•�► ;r ••.•.•� .............. _J i ,` CT ! ••••�4/I :;.....,............ C,•� ►••••••� -p ►••• ►•••0 •i ^� cn ,. 1 �••�•� `�i ilrilliiiL THE TF �. 1 - Urban Growth Area WCR72 Ins :.... ≤.<;.;, _IIII 85 I 44%4 14 er3 R \ ,_ ...., - SCALE: 1 2000'± WELD COUNTY, CO Ise 1 . ks- I� SR -57 1 " IATERTANK • I'"r t.. r r k1' t 4 gs 4 �r r I EATON r r a - S k I', I • II 1 1 U N 1� • 5ti •ti s• '.r a swr / INI- I= 11.6'%N. "a r7. WCR USR23-0005 Hawing C oudb reak SEF I MI MI it DWI CFA 74 • CCM eir �1R61/,ter_:=_ WELD COUNTY, CO EX OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE 10' UTILITY EASEMENT RECEPTION NO. 335453, OPRWCC EX 12" CMP CULVERT (NEEDS REPAIR) 60' ROW (TOTAL) 30' COUNTY ROAD ROW BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WELD COUNTY a a m U DEED TO JOEL A. BU RK ES AND MARY L. BURKES, RECORDED _ ON 3/1/1970 AT RECEPTION M. NO. 1543539, OPRWCC • DELBERT AND BEVERLY SULLIVAN PARCEL NO. 070932000018 I CHERYL A_ KENDROT RECEPTION NO. 4589655, OPRVVCC STEPHEN C. AND LINDA M. HART RECEPTION NO. 02165919, OPRWcC DIMAS AND JANI NE MEDEROS RECEPTION NO. 3562102, OPRWCC DEBORAH R. VELTRI RECEPTION NO. 4093500, OPRWCC RANDY AND TRACY PFEIFF RECEPTION NO. 3852187, OPRWCC LOTA, EXE. 0/09 - 32 - 02 RE 4163 VARIABLE WIDTH WATER LINE ROW NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECEPTION NO. 2926652 SOLAR LEASE 7 BOUNDARY rflin -- J-- 18' ACCESS EASEMENT RECEPTION NO. 335453, OPRWCC 30' COUNTY ROAD ROW BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WELD COUNTY GLENN AND GAYLE CUNNINGHAM PARCEL NO. O7O932200O61 30' ACCESS EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE HEIRS OF DON E. ENGEL RECEPTION NO. 4225997, OPRWCC EX FIELD ROAD 25' NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT RECEPTION NO. 3034905, OPRWCC all= a ES -•- I I i EX ABOVE GROUND PVC IRRIG PIPE EX16" CMP / CULVERT PROP GRASS SWALE A PROP 15 ACCESS ROAD VARIABLE WIDTH WATER LINE ROW NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECEPTION NO. 2926652 KENNETH L. HARKING RECEPTION NO. 4031664, OPRWCC (R1) LOT B, EXEMPTION NO. 0709 -3202 -RE -4163 (SURVEYED PARCEL) 70.20 ACRES +/- 36"" CMP CULVERT IN CONCRETE NON SPECIFIC WIDTH IRRIG DITCH ROW RECEPTION NO. 47515 EX FIELD ROAD est ost 46. oco EX FIELD ROAD SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY E}( CONCRETE IRRIGATION STRUCTURE MINIS _ JAMES L. AND CHERIEL M. GIES RECEPTION NO.4303019, OPRWCC .. a'!•mmo• •—•• �•♦ WAHHAN I Y DEED 1O DUU(LAS L. MORROW AND TAMELA K. MORROW, RECORDED ON 6/27/1985 AT RECEPTION NO. O2014938, OPRWCC C≥ 111 • ti I • V N r DANIEL AND CELESTIAL MFSTAS _ PARCEL ND_ O7O9322OOOO5 r r • EX 24" CMP CULVERTS I I WELD COUNTY ROAD 76 (60' ROW) PHYLLIS MURRANT PARCEL NO. 070932000045 NO VESTING DOCUMENT FOUND. INFORMATION SHOWN WAS - OBTAINED FROM THE TAX ASSESSOR'S WEBSITE FOR WELD COUNTY, COLORADO WARRANTY DEED TO TRACY HARMS, RECORDED ON 07/09/2018 AT RECEPTION NO. 4413679, OPRWCC WARRANTY DEED TO FRANCISCO (7OTELLO, JR., RECORDED ON 12/2O/2017 AT RECEPTION NO. �3b11%JC, t1PRWCC • EX ABOVE GROUND PVC IRRIG PIPE EX CONCRETE IRRIGATION STRUCTURE EX 24" CMP CULVERT EX 24" CMP CULVERT EX 30" CLIP CULVERT 1 M w PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES DEED TO PARKVIEW APARTMENTS, LLC, RECORDED ON I 4/20/2020 AT RECEPTION NO_ 4584076, OPRWCC a tD MILLER LAND & LIVESTOCK OF NO COLO LLC PARCEL NO. 070932000046 SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY EX 42" WIDE CONCRETE IRRIGATION DITCH cc p iet tin f c EX FENCE EX CONCRETE IRRIGATION STRUCTURE 20' IRRIG PIPELINE EASEMENT RECEPTION NO. 3852187, OPRWCC PROP GRASS S,AIALE B JAVAN D. AND JULIE A. OTTOSON RECEPTION - NO. 3034905. OPRWCC JAMES L. AND CHERIEL M. GIES RECEPTION NO. 4303019, OPRWCC \1861/ WELD COUNTY, CO eir �1R61/,ter_:=_ WELD COUNTY, CO EX OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE 10' UTILITY EASEMENT RECEPTION NO. 335453, OPRWCC EX 12" CMP CULVERT (NEEDS REPAIR) 60' ROW (TOTAL) 30' COUNTY ROAD ROW BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WELD COUNTY a a m U DEED TO JOEL A. BU RK ES AND MARY L. BURKES, RECORDED _ ON 3/1/1970 AT RECEPTION M. NO. 1543539, OPRWCC • DELBERT AND BEVERLY SULLIVAN PARCEL NO. 070932000018 I CHERYL A_ KENDROT RECEPTION NO. 4589655, OPRVVCC STEPHEN C. AND LINDA M. HART RECEPTION NO. 02165919, OPRWcC DIMAS AND JANI NE MEDEROS RECEPTION NO. 3562102, OPRWCC DEBORAH R. VELTRI RECEPTION NO. 4093500, OPRWCC RANDY AND TRACY PFEIFF RECEPTION NO. 3852187, OPRWCC LOTA, EXE. 0/09 - 32 - 02 RE 4163 VARIABLE WIDTH WATER LINE ROW NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECEPTION NO. 2926652 SOLAR LEASE 7 BOUNDARY WAHHAN I Y DEED 1O DUU(LAS L. MORROW AND TAMELA K. -MORROW, RECORDED ON 6/27/1985 AT RECEPTION NO. O2014938, OPRWCC rflin -- J-- 18' ACCESS EASEMENT RECEPTION NO. 335453, OPRWCC 30' COUNTY ROAD ROW BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WELD COUNTY GLENN AND GAYLE CUNNINGHAM PARCEL NO. O7O932200O61 30' ACCESS EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE HEIRS OF DON E. ENGEL RECEPTION NO. 4225997, OPRWCC EX FIELD ROAD 25' NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT RECEPTION NO. 3034905, OPRWCC all= a ES -•- I I i EX ABOVE GROUND PVC IRRIG PIPE EX16" CMP / CULVERT PROP GRASS SWALE A PROP 15 ACCESS ROAD VARIABLE WIDTH WATER LINE ROW NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECEPTION NO. 2926652 KENNETH L. HARKING RECEPTION NO. 4031664, OPRWCC (R1) LOT B, EXEMPTION NO. 0709 -3202 -RE -4163 (SURVEYED PARCEL) 70.20 ACRES +/- 36"" CMP CULVERT IN CONCRETE NON SPECIFIC WIDTH IRRIG DITCH ROW RECEPTION NO. 47515 EX FIELD ROAD est ost 46. oco EX FIELD ROAD SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY E}( CONCRETE IRRIGATION STRUCTURE MINIS _ JAMES L. AND CHERIEL M. GIES RECEPTION NO.4303019, OPRWCC .. a'!•mmo• •—•• �•♦ C≥ 111 • ti I • V N r DANIEL AND CELESTIAL MFSTAS _ PARCEL ND_ O7O9322OOOO5 r r • EX 24" CMP CULVERTS I I WELD COUNTY ROAD 76 (60' ROW) PHYLLIS MURRANT PARCEL NO. 070932000045 NO VESTING DOCUMENT FOUND. INFORMATION SHOWN WAS - OBTAINED FROM THE TAX ASSESSOR'S WEBSITE FOR WELD COUNTY, COLORADO WARRANTY DEED TO TRACY HARMS, RECORDED ON 07/09/2018 AT RECEPTION NO. 4413679, OPRWCC WARRANTY DEED TO FRANCISCO (7OTELLO, JR., RECORDED ON 12/2O/2017 AT RECEPTION NO. �3b11%JC, t1PRWCC • EX ABOVE GROUND PVC IRRIG PIPE EX CONCRETE IRRIGATION STRUCTURE EX 24" CMP CULVERT EX 24" CMP CULVERT EX 30" CLIP CULVERT 1 M w PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES DEED TO PARKVIEW APARTMENTS, LLC, RECORDED ON I 4/20/2020 AT RECEPTION NO_ 4584076, OPRWCC a tD MILLER LAND & LIVESTOCK OF NO COLO LLC PARCEL NO. 070932000046 SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY EX 42" WIDE CONCRETE IRRIGATION DITCH cc p iet tin f c EX FENCE EX CONCRETE IRRIGATION STRUCTURE 20' IRRIG PIPELINE EASEMENT RECEPTION NO. 3852187, OPRWCC PROP GRASS S,AIALE B JAVAN D. AND JULIE A. OTTOSON RECEPTION - NO. 3034905. OPRWCC JAMES L. AND CHERIEL M. GIES RECEPTION NO. 4303019, OPRWCC End of USR23 0005 EXHIBIT .0 .D S r\ Address: I, (We), Kenneth Harring (Owner — please print) 2:Q3 - $005 DEPARTMENTS OF BUILDING, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1555 NORTH 17T'AVENUE GREELEY, CO 80631 AUTHORIZATION FORM give permission to Moys White LLP (Authorized Agent/Applicant—please print) to apply for any Planning, Building, Access or OWTS permits on our behalf, for the property located at (address or parcel number) below: 070932200064 Legal Description: LX No. 0709- 32 -02 RE4196 of Section , Township N, Range ` W 9 Subdivision Name: N/A Lot N/A Block �N Property Owners Information: 5820 E County Road 1000 S. Cloverdale, IN 46120 Phone: 910-518-9047 E-mail klharringP- live.com Authorized Agent/Applicant Contact Information: Address: 1400 16th Street. 6th Floor, Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303 - 291-1531 E -Mail: bobby.dishell@moyewhite.com Correspondence to be sent to: Owner Authorized Agent/Applicant >' by: Mail Email ' Additional Info: Send all correspondence to Owner, this Authorized Agent, and Zach Brammer (7ach@cloudbreakenergy.com) who is authorized pursuant to a separate Authorized Agent form. I (We) hereby certify, under penalty of perjury and after carefully reading the entire contents of this document,,at the information stated above is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. 1 /7 6-2192a � Date Date Owner Signature " / Owner Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this02 q day of t% n , 20 by *R&D n VA r tk no). My commission expires � �-� 9tLR � (knit° � ` 41`(1/1 N ary Public *I psk r SEAL* ; JEANETTA D FULLER Commission Number NP0730209 My Commission Expires 11/29/2023 EXHIBIT b is a a u,Se _ - 0005 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 22, 2023 FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Services SUBJECT: USR23-0005 Kenneth Harring Request for Continuance to a date specific The Department of Planning Services in consultation with the applicant's representative are requesting a continuance of case number USR23-0005 for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District until May 10, 2023 to allow the applicant to address the concerns raised at the Planning Commissioner hearing. Subject: Request for Continuance - Weld County Board of Commissioners Docket #2023-21 Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Ms. Reid: I hope your day is going well. My name is Bobby Dishell and I'm an authorized agent on PL2862 and represent CBEP Solar 6, LLC. I just spoke with Mariah at Weld County who let me know that you are likely the one doing scheduling for Docket #2023-21, Kenneth Harring, C/O CBEP Solar 6. LLC regarding PL2862. This is currently scheduled for a hearing on March 22, 2023. After consulting with the Planning Department, CBEP Solar 6, LLC respectfully requests a continuance of this docket item to the May 10, 2023 Commissioner hearing in order to allow CBEP Solar 6, LLC to work with members of the community to address concerns raised at the Planning Commission Hearing. Please let us know what else you may need from us in order to accomplish this. Thank you, Bobby EXHIBIT in to .D S F To: Weld County Commissioners Date: March 19, 2023 Re: Solar Energy Project (USR23-OOO5) u.SRa3 - COOS Please refer to my letter to you dated 2/16/23. In it I gave many reasons for not approving a solar energy project at this site. They all included the negative effects it would have on citizens who have called this area home for many years, sometimes generations. I just have a few questions: 1. Who will clean the project up at some future time? 2. What will happen when development moves slowly toward this project? Would you want to live across the street from a solar farm? 3. How will area wildlife be affected? 4. Why can't the project be moved further east where there is a lot more open space and there would be less impact on the people, irrigation companies and animals? I read the Greeley Tribune often and follow your actions. You usually seem to consider what is best for the most people. I am hoping you'll continue this trend and vote NO on allowing a solar energy project at this site. Thank you, Sheilah Engel To: Weld County Commissioners Date: March 19, 2023 Re: Solar Energy Project (US R23-0005) We are property owners directly west of the proposed Solar Energy Project on Kenny Harring's property. We are asking this project does NOT pass due to the following concerns: 1. Solar Farms are ugly. Not something we want to look at on a daily basis nor would our neighbors. This would incur an added cost to us as we would have to invest in a large amount of trees to block the view. 2. Decreased property value for us, our neighbors and those in surrounding subdivisions. Our property has been an investment for our future as well as for our children. We have lived here 28 years. A solar farm will negatively affect our investment in our property. 3. Disruption to wildlife such as the birds, geese, foxes, rabbits, coyotes, raccoons, and skunks all of which live in this area. 4. The glare from the solar panels. Do not want to have this reflecting on our home or having to look into the glare when outside. 5. Traffic as well as wear and tear on the field roads used to get to this property. Farmers share these field roads. What is the Solar Energy companies responsibility in maintaining and repairing the roads with their heavy equipment and trucks? This should not fall on the neighboring land owners. These roads are primarily used for agricultural use. Please take our concerns into consideration as well as our neighbors when voting for this project and vote N O . Thank you, Glenn and Gayle Cunningham Jessica Reid From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Please add to file Thank you Kim Ogle Principal Planner Weld County Planning Services 1402 N. 17th Avenue I Greeley 970.400.6100 Office 970.400.3549 Direct kogle@weld.gov Kim Ogle Friday, April 28, 2023 1:38 PM CTB Jessica Reid; Esther Gesick FW: USR23-0005 Memorandum Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakenergy.com> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 1:21 PM To: Kim Ogle <kogle@weld.gov> Cc: Bobby W. Dishell <Bobby.Dishell@moyewhite.com>; Brysen Daughton <brysen@cloudbreakenergy.com>; Karla Ford <kford@weld.gov> Subject: Re: USR23-0005 Memorandum Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Sorry, Karla! Meant to say Kim and Karla. On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 1:18 PM Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakenergy.com>wrote: Hi Kim and Kim, Hope you're both having a great week! Here is a link to a memorandum, drafted by our attorney, for USR23-0005. As seen on page 69, we did receive a couple of votes of support from neighboring property owners after the neighborhood meeting that was held yesterday. If either of you have any questions, or need any additional information from us, please let me know. Have a great weekend! Best, Zach 1 CLOUDBREAK CLOUDBREAK Zach Brammer Co -Founder COO Cloudbreak Energy Partners Zach Brammer Co -Founder COO Cloudbreak Energy Partners c u 0 0: (970) 425-3175 I C: (970) 580-5652 zachcloudbreakenergy.com cloudbreakenergy.com 218 S 3rd Street, Sterling. CO 80751 0: (970) 425-3175 I C: (970) 580-5652 zachcloudbreakenergy.com cloudbreakenergy.com 9 218 S 3rd Street, Sterling. CO 80751 Moye White 16 Market Square, 6th Floor 1400 16th Street Denver, CO 80202-1486 tel 303 292 2900 fax 303 292 4510 www.moyew ite.coln MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: April 28, 2023 Weld County, Board of County Commissioners Bobby Dishell, Esq. USR23-0005 — Kenneth Harring, c/o CBEP Solar 6, LLC Moye White LLP represents CBEP Solar 6, LLC ("Cloudbreak") and is an authorized agent on the USR23-0005 application for a solar energy facility ("SEF"). We appreciate the Board's willingness to grant a continuance hearing to allow Cloudbreak to better address community concerns. As part of Cloudbreak's efforts to address these concerns, on April 27, 2023, Cloudbreak hosted a community meeting on the SEF which was attended by 25 community members. As you consider the SEF, we are providing you herein more information on (i) the Cloudbreak team, (ii) Cloudbreak's ongoing commitment to community, (iii) Cloudbreak's compliance with the Weld County Code requirements for approval of a SEF, and (iv) Cloudbreak's response to the community concerns that were raised at the Weld County Planning Commission meeting on March 7, 2023, the Planning Resolution (defined below), and the continuance hearing on March 22, 2023. This Memorandum contains the following attachments for your reference: A. Property Report for Account: R4004106, made available by the Weld County Tax Assessor's Office ("Property and Tax Report"). B. Land Use Application Summary dated March 7, 2023 ("Staff Memorandum"). C. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners dated March 7, 2023 ("Planning Resolution"). D. Property Value Studies ("ACP Study"). E. Seed Mixture report dated April 26, 2023 ("Seed Mix"). F. Cloudbreak Community Meeting Presentation dated April 27, 2023. G. 2023 Renewable Template for Estimating Property Taxes for Qualified State Assessed Renewables ("Tax Projection"). H. Traffic Study prepared by Kellar Engineering. ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 2 I. Noise Study prepared by TRC Companies ("Noise Study"). J. Manure Management Plan dated Apil 26, 2023. K. Glare Study. L. Stormwater Drainage Study dated September 28, 2022 prepared by TRC Companies. ("Drainage Study") M. Decommissioning Plan. N. Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company Correspondence. O. Staff Budget Briefing FY 2023-24 State of Colorado Joint Budget Committee, Department of Natural Resources (Executive Director's Office, Division of Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the Division of Water Resources). P. Affidavit of Kenneth Harring. This memorandum is intended supplement the existing records, the materials Cloudbreak will present on May 3, 2023 and the Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Staff Memorandum, and Planning Resolution. Where the Staff Memorandum and Planning Resolution are in harmony, additional detail is only added where relevant. I. Cloudbreak Team The team behind a project can have a significant impact on its ability to continue to work with community and honor its commitments. In this regard, we want to stress to you that the Cloudbreak team is not being run by outsiders. Zach Brammer, co-founder and Chief Operating Officer of Colorado is from Sterling. Zach went to Sterling High School, Northeastern Junior College, and the University of Colorado Boulder. Zach has never lived more than a 90 -minute drive from Eaton and has no plans to change this. The Cloudbreak team is made of farmers, ranchers, former bull riders, native Coloradans, and experienced solar professionals. The Cloudbreak Team is committed to Colorado and has a comprehensive understanding itself of farm culture and the priorities of rural communities. The Cloudbreak Team prides itself on being good land stewards and working with community to bring projects that benefit the community. II. Cloudbreak's Ongoing Commitment to Community Cloudbreak's commitment to Weld County does not end with approval from the County. Cloudbreak is committed to: • utilizing a local construction team to help generate activity for local businesses during construction. • utilizing a local shepherd for land maintenance. ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 3 • improving the local pollinator habitat by using a pollinator friendly seed mixture on the property.1 • providing a full -ride scholarship to a student at a local institution that is interested in pursuing a career in renewable energy. • saving local Xcel Energy 10%2 on their electricity bills through Xcel's Solar*Rewards Community Program by subscribing as many local Xcel customers as possible. III. Compliance with Weld County Code and Planned Uses Under Weld County Code ("WCC"), SEFs must go through the Use by Special Review process. The Land (defined below) is eligible for the Use by Special Review process for a SEF. Cloudbreak must demonstrate that it has complied with the requirements, standards, or conditions stated in WCC Sections 23-2-230.B, 23-2-240, 23-2-250, 23-2-260, and 23-4-1030 ("Approval Requirements") in order for the Board of County Commissioners to be able to approve the SEF application. The Planning Commission, Weld County Planning staff, and Cloudbreak agree that Cloudbreak meets all the Approval Requirements except for two. As evidenced by the record, the Staff Memorandum, the Planning Resolution, and the presentation Cloudbreak will make at the May 3, 2023 Board of County Commissioner's meeting, Cloudbreak's SEF meets the Approval Requirements. While Cloudbreak does not currently own the Land (defined below), Cloudbreak will proceed to purchase the land pursuant to its rights under that certain Memorandum of Rights recorded at Reception No. 4743373 after receiving approval for the SEF. A. The SEF is located on land which allows for SEF. The SEF will be located on Tract I of that Boundary Survey recorded at reception No. 4877198 in a portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 7 North, Range 65 West of the 6th Principal Meridian ("Land"). The Land is in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.3 Pursuant to Weld County Code ("WCC") Sec. 23-2-60.W, SEFs are permitted under a Use by Special Review and must also comply with the requirements of WCC 23-4-1030. B. The SEF complies with the Approval Requirements The Planning Commission is governed by 23-2-220.A, which has requirements that are materially the same as 23-2-230.B.4 1 See Seed Mix 2 This number is an estimate. 3 See Property and Tax Report ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 4 i. The SEF meets WCC Requirements in Section 23-4-1030 The Planning Commission found the SEF fulfills the Approval Requirements (Section 23-4- 1030.B).5 11. The SEF meets WCC Requirements for Sections 23-2-220.A.1 and 23-2- 230.B.1 The Planning Commission found the SEF meets the Approval Requirements (23-2-220.A.1 and 23- 2-230.B.1). The Approval Requirements addressed in this subsection require the SEF is consistent with WCC Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provision or ordinance in effect. In the Planning Resolution, the Planning Commission found, "The proposal meets the intent of A (Agricultural Zone District), including the Principles, Goals and Objectives as outlined in Chapter 22 and permitted under Chatper 23 as the facility will produce energy harvested from the sun and will not interfere with adjacent agricultural operations. Once operational, the proposed SEF makes no noise, odor, light or flickering, vibration, vermin, dust, or other nuisances. The operation of the SEF is almost entirely unnoticeable to neighboring properties and it will not impact surround property's right to quiet enjoyment." (emphasis added)6 In addition, the SEF meets the intent of WCC Section 22-2-10.C to support Weld County's economy and promotes fiscally responsible growth, which was not addressed in the Planning Resolution. As noted in this memorandum, Cloudbreak's SEF will utilize a local construction team providing to help support local businesses and the economy. In addition, the SEF will generate additional tax revenue for the County. As noted in the ACP Study, "most assessors who responded to the survey believe that `proximity to a solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values.' The study found that the respondents believe that some features of solar facilities may be associated with positive impacts, such as a location on land that previously had an unappealing use, or the presence of trees or other visual barriers around the array. Furthermore, as the expected lifetime of a solar facility is at least thirty years, residents have assurance the nearby land will not be redeveloped for an unfavorable use."7 4 WCC 23-2-230.B.4 adds the requirement that the Board of County Commissioners must also find that the SEF meets "any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted master plans or municipalities. As detailed in Section 3.B.v of this Memorandum, the Planning Commission found Cloudbreak satisfied this requirement. 5 See Staff Memorandum, Page 2, Para. 1 and Planning Resolution Page 1, Para. 1. 6 See Planning Resolution, Page 1 7 See ACP Study, Page 1. ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 5 According to the Tax Projection, the SEF will produce an annual levelized equivalent of $22,749.00 in property taxes each year for the County. 8 By comparison, the Land currently produces just over $1,000 in tax benefits to the county.9 While this Section was not included in the Staff Memorandum or Planning Resolution, we believe a 22x increase in property tax revenue for the County that will not impact neighboring properties supports Weld County's economy, which is aligned with WCC 22-2-10.C. iii. The SEF meets WCC Requirements for Sections 23-2-220.A.2 and 23-2- 230.B.2 The Planning Resolution states the proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the A (Agriculture) Zone District in Section 2.B of the Planning Resolution. This is inconsistent with the Planning Commission's finding in Section 2.A. of the Planning Resolution, which notes in relevant part, "The proposal meets the intent of A (Agricultural) Zone District, including the Principles, Goals and Objectives as outlined in Chapter 22 and permitted under Chapter 23 as the facility will produce energy harvested from the sun and will not interfere with adjacent agricultural operations." This is also inconsistent with the Planning Commission's finding that, "the uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities." The intent of A (Agricultural) Zone District is found in WCC 23-3-10 et seq., which is an applicable code provision in effect. The Planning Resolution's only explanation for inconsistency was that, "[i] ssues raised addressed the use of the land for a solar farm and not an agricultural farm, when there is water for this property from the For Far Lateral."1° ° However, contrary to this assertion, there is not water for this property from the For Far Lateral. The For Far Lateral only owns the physical ditch infrastructure and affiliated easement rights. As noted by the Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies, "[s]hares owned in the following companies constitute the ability to run water in the system or carrying rights only. No actual water is owned by the shareholders of these entities unless they own shares in those companies noted above... . For Far Lateral Ditch Company." 11 With respect to Mr. Harring's shares of capital stock, Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies, who specified in email "the 2 shares of For Far Lateral are running rights only." 12 In order for the Land and Cloudbreak to have water rights that could be used as part of the rights in the For Far Lateral Ditch Company, Cloudbreak would need to own shares in Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company, Larimer & Weld Reservoir Company, WRCC, Inc., Divide Canal & Reservoir Company, or Colorado Big Thompson. Neither Cloudbreak nor Mr. Harring own any such shares in the aforementioned companies which would grant Cloudbreak the right to use the water. 8 See Tax Projection 9 See Weld County Treasurer Tax Assessment 10 Planning Resolution, Page 2 11 See About Us, Larimer & Weld Irrigation, Available at: https://eatonditch.com/lwi/about-us/ 12 [Becky Email] ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 6 The one issue noted in the Planning Resolution under this subsection of Approval Requirements is inapplicable as there are no water rights affiliated with the property. In addition, the Planning Commission found in two separate places that the SEF is compatible with surrounding land uses. The SEF meets the requirements for these Approval Requirements. iv. The SEF meets WCC Requirements for Sections 23-2-220.A.3 and 23-2- 230.B.3 The Staff Memorandum found the SEF meets the Approval Requirements (23-2-220.A.3 and 23-2- 230.B.3). The Planning Commission stated the SEF would not be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, noting neighbor testimony related to noise from inverters, impacts on site drainage patterns, impacts on farm culture (specifically environmental degradation from leaching), and wildlife impacts. However, neighbor testimony is not the standard required for SEF approval. Notwithstanding this, Cloudbreak highly values community input and has worked to address neighbor comments as noted in Section IV of this Memorandum. The Planning Commission found that "the SEF is almost entirely unnoticeable to neighboring properties and it will not impact surrounding property's right to quiet enjoyment" (emphasis added) and "the uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities." 13 We will address each of these in turn. Noise - According to a noise analysis completed by Cloudbreak based on the ambient noise level analysis by TRC, the noise created by the solar facility will raise the ambient noise levels by 0.1 dB at the eastern border of the property, and 0.01 dB at the western border of the property, as shown below. According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, studies have shown that changes in noise levels of 3dB or fewer are not normally detectable by the average human ear.14 So, a 1.0 dB or a 0.1 dB increase should not be noticeable. Additionally, according to the Noise Study, "Based on the typical sound levels from Project operation and the distance to the boundary, the Project will adhere to Weld County and State of Colorado permissible noise levels." 15 According to WCC 14-9-40, in a residential or commercial area, the maximum noise is 55 dB during the day and 50 dB during the evening. This is also consistent with the state noise requirements stated in C.R.S. 25-12-103. As detailed below, the SEF will be below the required noise levels. 13 Planning Resolution, Page 1 14 Colorado Department of Transportation, Noise FAQs. Available at: https://www. codot.gov/programs/environmental/noise/noise-faqs.html 15 Noise study, Page 4 White April 28, 2023 Page 7 NOISE EXHIBIT a ti vr"1:.a, tnt, )a1T " !tp.111t, tIcaaorN.._ uar. uLlit : stir. 14!21ir1.:. t (W4t ILRrMs i�:t!elk •7..v: 3 s 1 iili rr (L. I. as M=. i. .rtre ratty.. +. (YJM.PY.. POINT 41 NOISE: 37.2 DECIBELS IA) 40' 32 16.a?"N 10' 4]' 34.&6"W SUE lac M,al F1 11.14 131/1.. lA 1V.:(.. RM.i IC7IiIL4-5 NOISE. 39.2 DECIBELS (A) Oar 32' 10162"N 104'41' 41.8rW Rahn: CS WI 1 tL'rhlit.C. v 11 iA'.i{ .pR, f.r".1Hm1 GtE..IC. watt ttittiEt IOU awr. au rem Nolan. lct, .., *eve $ r YI Dii iit • I' I,. r -':Lb. Page 1 POINT 41.2 NOISE: N/A 40` 32' 15.44"N 104` 41' 34.98"W we•'w aVai bt.?r Virg r .nY• rtY •J W MW r).VL cMn:r. CM Tr c:wu n.:..r }Y!.Wu POINT $6 NOISE 49 DECIBELS(A) 4D` 32' 1,93"N 104' 41' 42.29"W /.SILL 0121. 1 Orlon I CfiVU. a'M:t WA; :d l ODfR)tMl Ole. Iktfill It Gi•rA'pr.4Xt. omit tut. WC.V Ma n'IA/teenrJ drIw4 .w.tyar. t. NM Jill -Bea r, f4:vLi Car OLI dN POINT #2 NOISE: 34,6 DECIBELS(A) 4D 32' 12.83"N 104' 41' 30.58"W a.W tr•rtlf Teary:. r�•i nn tO• t•Aw:v oa!Inn. r.!7/,1 4 r Itute.Ir1. set 0‘41161.: to•rtnro .Ki a.:c J 4Y{lil al -tall •O.wUtlitliti PO INT 43 NOISE: 45S DECIBELS (A) 40` 32' 10.32'N 104`41' 26.78"W t.ti:..v +e rrn u.tt: nun, 1 T Zitirersti, J. y' ir' ST Mr a All IW,1. �IwK POINT#4 NOISE: 39.6 DECIBELS4A) 4 A) 40" 32' 616"N 104' 41' 22 59''W OR so fl MIS 5Ca1e r - on. LEGENDS EXISTING FEATURES y11'.•1.•C ks . J•a• L•. Aster at �.1yiylyllll. '1•.•✓a .•� r .. arI FACET PROPERFI &14ENrIootinY trafm.LEA% NiEA- U &Ptb1VuuMEEt LASE?AENT EXIST ItO ft+D IPPfraDi UMW P.M,IE7!rl U)mNG Ot1CH CEN1EPu4t tnsmo] CLLVEPT 111511110 Matte [INTOUki OFF MI5 MINOR CONTOJIS SCRS PAINCIPPr LINE Wet OASSIFICA11CT1 aMNNE'D ELECTRICAL UNE NNDEFYit1:UND GMLINE Willa; LOW/IA, U Rtlt'r PD.E EnI511N.S KOLE E)1S1IMIi ROMEO* E11511N0 ITUCEW'IE UI 11MGvu11A KEW DJS1Iw6 Y{T1.V$ GRiS'rEE. RCVs0 !1&AR AQUA' NERHEACl ELECINIC LINE UPLERGHOUNG ELEC1cu':UNE UTILfTY POLE EI&IIPMENT PhD iitAff1=fLON ARRCISI NOISE LEVELS WERE MEASURED ON 04/07/2023, THIS EXHIBIT IS TO SHOW A REPRESENTATIVE READING OF AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS AT ONE POINT IN TIME AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A. FULL NOISE STUDY. THIS PROJECT WILL ADHERE ICI WELD COUNTY AND STATE OF COLORADO PERMISSIBLE NOISE LEVELS. _rate _1 Cc:..ae:_,+;I:f.urndn AIl^;.7h;e t-.I:c Seca! Presa..re Lt.t-.i^Ira t: -.:..;'!c a P�-�ioImise is Za Tim to aria1Qpm IIVidigA bil;INAS SSI NI.) ufltln;uc.r:a :0OW4 USdBIh} Induatrie. tlOdE4A} 7SdP{A} Watt Etimtt PLhtfrol:Mnat.hin Wimp inn! Prn.iurn I nob (n- crdfntt**nniun ., - ... Oval arti•IPmatfrt?er [creme. win O'ma SS aisi AI SOersIA) I OUST.]! Area crcOnslNmen ASiir4ttl t BD. (t4 TS OBIO1 .rat -S. pea f.cAral COE{AI bOSINN% a% „Arr 'MC TR.C ENGLNEERS, INC. TN HIP -HANGER ODD., SUITE 210. ARI.1NGTply TEXAS '6015 T_EI P.L FIRM P.EGISTRA.TIOti Al F-BI53! ($1') 522 - 1004 HARRING AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL EXHIBIT • tileittOrr 4.7rx f f� IL White April 28, 2023 Page 8 NOISE EXHIBIT — Page 2 t Mat Cornbined•.Noise - 49.1 dB warn I. r.trtea NKr MOM MO IOW{ CMIN:R 1.07 IS KWIFT f10 0709)1. WX414 (14U*YtA4 Skit) t1 IG+055 „0-1. `*1 t2,Lc.:1IIIO Fri F'➢ I.CIWi nCS+:'Z7f WL u anal MINICTO Wtm wnu vast cent at r Saar -Noise - 31.27 dB- 696 ft lu1RBt !MUM nnia 113'4 i*a QMOAICC**Ij la t.bittrIles Itt 0.1004 Qt. 41 60P'1TIV 1AK1li sa:410113.0. faun P A7RCTGN Cal wu lent10130Il: iT ant t9Gr11: an PtiP xlrtlantn a.r .abbLVu RIP aalaar%II Dl$D rai•ck.tx ..vfla.W iC aCatOnP•1Y..1141nw .• 444neMY7. H9�ID7Y ^Y/ilE t Combin'ed•Noise - 40.5 dII dual I ..s:. mr, I *According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, studies have shown that changes in noise levels of 3 dB or less aru of normally detectable by the average human ear. So, a 1.0 dB or a 0.1 dB increase should not be noticeable. 55 dB Weld County Maximum Allowable Noise for Residential Properties from 7am to 9pm. These are the only hours the solar project will be generating noise. 50 dB Weld County Maximum Allowable Noise for Residential Properties from 9pm to 7am 40 dB Approximately the ambient noise level in the neighborhood based on TRC's noise readings Point #4 Noise The ambient noise is 39.6 dB. Adding the noise from the solar project raises the dB level to 40.6 dB, an increase of 1.0 dB* Point #6 Noise The ambient noise is 49.0 dB. Adding the noise from the solar project raises the dB level to 49.1 dB, an increase of 0.1 dB* Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 9 • Site Drainage — According to the drainage study completed by TRC which meets the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria Manual, "[t]he existing stormwater flow characteristics are expected to remain unchanged and increases in peak flow rates have been proven negligible. A basin type of stormwater detention would not be necessary. Improvements proposed with the project site are limited to a gravel paved drive and a small concrete distribution transformer pad. No public access or utility infrastructure improvements are anticipated at this time. The proposed development will not alter historic drainage patterns or adjacent and downstream property owners." 16 As the drainage patterns will remain unchanged, the SEF will be compatible with the current existing use and the surrounding uses. • Farm Culture and Environmental Degradation - The Planning Resolution notes potential environmental degradation from leaching. According to a study prepared by TUV Rheinland, the following metals are not detectable: cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, and silver.17 There are trace concentrations of arsenic (0.001 mg/L to 0.0014 mg/L), mercury (0.00008 mg/L), and barium (0.03 mg/L). The threshold for these materials being toxic, and therefore harmful, is 5.0 mg/L for arsenic, 0.2 mg/L for mercury, and 100.0 mg/L for barium.18 The arsenic toxicity concentration limit is up to 3,571x to 5,000x the concentration that can be found in the solar panels, the mercury toxicity concentration toxicity limit is 2,500x the concentration that can be found in the solar panels, and the barium toxicity concentration is approximately 3,333x the concentration that can be found in the solar panels. In order for the metals to be released into the environment, the panel would need to entirely break apart, which is only likely to happen in an intentional attack. The solar modules are designed to meet IEC 61215 and IEC 61646 standards, both of which test the resistance to laboratory produced 25mm hail. Even if a larger sized hail was able to penetrate the panel, it is highly unlikely this would result in the solar panel entirely breaking apart. The project can be remotely monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days per week and the Cloudbreak team has staff available to be at the site within 120 minutes and will check on the system within 24 hours of a severe weather event. In addition, the racking that Cloudbreak plans to use can withstand 140 mph winds and potentially higher. This is in excess of the requirements in Weld County's building code, which require residential structures to be able to withstand 115 mph winds and commercial structures to withstand 110 mph wind.19 According to WCC Section 23-1-90, an SEF is considered a Structure. 16 Drainage Study, Page 3. 17 Panel Study, Page 7. The threshold levels for detection are noted in the parenthetical. 18 6 CCR 1007-3 Part 261, Table 1. 19 Weld County Building Codes Enforced and Design Criteria, available at" https://www.weld.gov/files/sharedassets/public/departments/building/documents/design-criteria.pdf. ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 10 While studies exist showing that solar panels can cause leaching at the end of their useful life as they are being broken down, there is no evidence to suggest that heavy metal leaching can or does occur while the solar panels are in use. Cloudbreak has a detailed decommissioning plan to remove and safely dispose of the solar panels, mitigating leaching risk. 20 Even if a panel can be broken apart and destroyed, the panel would still be below the toxicity levels set by the State of Colorado and the Code of Colorado Regulations Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division. • Wildlife - The Planning Resolution notes possible impacts to wildlife. As detailed below, Cloudbreak has worked with and will continue to work with Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) to address wildlife concerns related to the SEF. CPW states "the Solar Project is located outside of HPHs," which are High Priority Habitats. CPW has asked that its recommendations are taken into consideration, which has been accomplished. Cloudbreak plans to comply with CPW's document entitled "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind" and will have 24 hours a day 7 days a week remote monitoring to address any wildlife who may find their way into the solar site. Neighbors have stated the wild turkeys primarily utilize the ditches, which will not be fenced in by the SEF. The wild turkeys are not currently a protected species. Cloudbreak will comply with federal requirements and CPW recommendations with respect to the raptors and will conduct pre -construction nesting surveys for songbirds, Burrowing Owls, and ground or tree nesting raptors as required and will address any wildlife impacts that may arise based on the survey. The Planning Resolution notes this as one of the most important factors and Cloudbreak is working with the State of Colorado's agency and experts in order to avoid adverse impacts to wildlife. Further details on Cloudbreak's plans to comply with and consider CPW's recommendations is further detailed in Section IV of this Memorandum. Finally, the standard Cloudbreak must meet is one of compatibility. As defined by Merriam - Webster, "compatible" means "capable of existing together in harmony."21 The surrounding land uses are residential and agricultural. The Planning Resolution found the SEF meets the intent of the A (Agricultural) Zone District, including the Principles, Goals and Objectives as outlined in Chapter 22 and permitted under Chapter 23. In addition, the Planning Resolution found "the operation of the SEF is almost entirely unnoticeable to neighboring properties and it will not impact surrounding property's right to quiet enjoyment," and, "once operational, the proposed SEF creates no noise, odor, light or flickering, vibration, vermin, dust, or other nuisances."22 v. The SEF meets WCC Requirements for 23-2-220.A.4 and 23-2-230.B.4 The Planning Commission found the SEF meets the Approval Requirements (23-2-220.A.4 and 23- 2-230.B.4). 20 See generally, Decommissioning Plan 21 Merriam -Webster. Available at: https://www.merriam- webster. com/dictionary/compatible?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source jsonld 22 Planning Resolution, Page 1 ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 11 vi. The SEF meets WCC Requirements for 23-2-220.A.5 and 23-2-230.B.5 The Planning Commission found the SEF meets the Approval Requirements (23-2-220.A.5 and 23- 2-230.B.5). vii. The SEF meets WCC Requirements for 23-2-220.A.6 and 23-2-230.B.6 The Planning Commission found the SEF meets the Approval Requirements (23-2-220.A.6 and 23- 2-230.B.6), specifically stating "the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use."23 While the Planning Commission notes that it feels the project is taking the agricultural farmland out of production, this is inconsistent with its other findings in the Planning Resolution and the definitions given to the terms applicable to this requirement. On the whole, the Planning Commission still found Cloudbreak fulfilled its obligation to make a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land. As defined WCC 23-1-90, PRIME FARMLAND means "The availability of a consistent supply of clean water must exist to have prime FARMLAND. Prime FARMLAND is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops, and is also available for these USES.... It has the soil quality, growing season and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable FARMING methods. In general, FARMLANDS have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, salt and sodium content and few or no rocks. Prime FARMLANDS are permeable to water and air. Prime FARMLANDS are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not FLOOD frequently or are protected from FLOODING." Separately, per WCC 23-1-90 FARMLAND — WELD COUNTY PRIME means "The availability of a consistent supply of quality water must exist in order to have PRIME FARMLANDS." As defined by Merriam-Webster's dictionary, "conserve" means "to keep in a safe or sound state."24 Irrigation water has been severed from the Land. As noted above, there are two shares of rights in the For Far Lateral Ditch Company, however, these shares do not provide the right to receive water that can be used for irrigation. By definition, the Land is not Prime Farmland as it does not have a "consistent supply of clean water." While the Soil Report notes that the land would be "Prime farmland if irrigated" the land is not irrigated nor does Cloudbreak have an ability to irrigate the 23 Planning Resolution, Page 2 24 Webster ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 12 Land. As the Land is not Prime Farmland, one cannot conserve the Prime Farmland here as it does not exist. Neither Cloudbreak nor Mr. Harring have any water rights. Requiring Cloudbreak to procure water to irrigate the land to create prime farmland where prime farmland does not exist would create an unjust result and run against the County's principles of freedom by creating a government mandate to avoid building an SEF which meets the Approval Requirements and instead provide a government mandate go procure water to create prime farmland. This would also be contrary to the WCC requirements, which requires a diligent effort to conserve prime farmland, not the creation of prime farmland. As noted above, if there is no prime farmland as a starting point, one cannot conserve it. Accordingly, Cloudbreak has satisfied this requirement. viii. The SEF meets WCC Requirements for 23-2-220.A.7, 23-2-230.B.7, 23-2- 240, and 23-2-250. The Planning Commission found the SEF, subject to meeting the conditions of approval, will satisfy the Approval Requirements (23-2-220.A.7, 23-230.B.7, 23-2-240, and 23-2-250). Cloudbreak has already begun working to address the conditions of approval. IV. Addressing Community Concerns While Cloudbreak has satisfied the Approval Requirements, as a strong community citizen and long-term neighbor, Cloudbreak has also worked to go above and beyond the Approval Requirements to address concerns that have been raised by community members during the application process. The table below details the concerns raised, the number of community members who raised them, and how Cloudbreak plans to address the concerns. The concerns have generally been placed into categories below. After the table, Cloudbreak specifically details its plans to address the concerns raised by Public Service Company of Colorado and the Gale Lateral and For Far Lateral Ditch Companies. Concern Community Members Mitigation Randy Miller While there been water have been may rights, severed and have the historically water the only rights water There and prime is water as a result, farmland for this the land is available irrigation is for up from a well to that one acre of is being permitted and will be used to water the screening trees. The only water rights affiliated with the For Far Lateral that pertain to this property are carrying rights provide or running the right rights, to take which water do not from the ditch. As a result, by definition, this is not prime farmland. ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 13 Noise Randy Miller, Mary Burks As created state for studied a statutory residential by and the shown SEF and above, will WCC area. The the be below requirements Land noise is the not zoned residential, however the sound emitted will still be below this requirement standard. which is the strictest Wildlife Concerns Randy Miller, Jim Gies, Cloudbreak is working with address any environmental CPW concerns to Sharon Miller, Brenda Fisher, Engel, Cunningham with CPW respect recommends to the wildlife. and Cloudbreak plans to implement 1. Security fencing that complies with Wildlife 2. Weekly CPW's in Mind. check -in Fencing for with trapped wildlife. The SEF will be able to be monitored via cameras. 3. Security lighting is kept to a minimum. There will be no permanent lighting affiliated with the SEF. Some lighting 4. may construction. If construction be used during will occur from March preconstruction 15 or July 15, complete nesting surveys. This will occur prior to construction as applicable. 5. Transmission installed lines should according to be the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee standards and outside the raptor nesting season. Xcel Energy is in 6. control Install of this bird requirement. diverters within 1 mile of any lake, drainage, or riparian raptor area, nesting and within buffer the for occupied will requirement. comply nests. Xcel Cloudbreak with Energy is this in control of this requirement. ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 14 In the concern addition, area. underfunded. year's will improving Cloudbreak friendly was raised CPW's over a budget 17% wildlife that year.25 native will outcomes CPW budget approved, use If seed may has over a the pollinator mixture, in year proposed receive budget.26 is increase A be increased 2023-24 CPW last Negative impact on Randy Miller, Jim Gies, As noted in the ACP Study, quoting to property Sharon Miller, Cunningham and summarizing studies completed at values or by the University of — Texas Austin, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of Rhode Island, Georgia Institute of Chisago County Technology, (Minnesota) Assessor' s Office, CohnReznik, LLP, Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, Christian P. Kaila & Associates, and the Chair of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, solar projects do not adversely impact neighboring property values. Some studies show that there can even be a small increase to neighboring property values, contrary to the concern stated. Eye Sore Jim Gies, Sharon Miller, While an eye sore is not a WCC or Cunningham statutory protected concern, Engel, Cloudbreak still works to address neighbor concerns through view screening with Rocky Mountain Juniper trees. impact to views can The be seen in the attached View Study. Additional water rights do not exist to have additional vegetative view screening. Another option would be to 25 CPW Budget. 26 Id. ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 15 use decorative would run recommendations. contrary fencing, however, to CPW's fencing this Impact on Farm Culture Jim Gies, Brenda Fisher, Engel The SEF is use and will the SEF. a permitted also have agricultural sheep grazing Drainage Impacts Jim Gies, Janine Medero As noted in the drainage study, there will not be an impact on drainage from the current use. Contamination from solar Jim Gies As not, noted by their above, existence, the solar panels create will any panels contamination. Contamination can only occur from the panels being broken down, which is only likely to occur through intentional attack. Even if contamination does occur, it will not be toxic as defined in 6 CCR 1007-3 Part 261, Table 1 Fire Jim Gies The SEF will comply with all building and permitting requirements. Eaton Fire had the opportunity to comment with any. access any First to concerns but responders the SEF and did not will have a knox padlock have easy or knox key switch will be installed to provide this access. The SEF has a rapid According shutdown system. to a study of over 2 million solar panels in Germany, only 0.006% of serious While electrical them there damage. caused is system, a a risk fire resulting of fire with the risk is largely in any mitigated by using high quality solar equipment and installers. Jim Gies, Mary Burks, Engel, Cunningham According to the Kellar Engineering Increased Traffic traffic analysis, the SEF will not create a negative and regional traffic impact traffic system on the local and the existing roadway improvements are sufficient project's traffic. to accommodate the Sheep Manure Sharon Miller Cloudbreak has prepared a sheep manure mitigation plan. Through ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 16 rotational manage forage will needed, not be to the materials grazing, harrowing will down compost Memorandum manure as the disturb the on a out and Planning feedlot sheep or the the and shepherd load land. for machine and The sheep. will up SEF to will will subsection no serve a spread once the the If be used manure next machine help needed, manure Finally, and will bury will it the off break move Resolution manure. pasture. topsoil remove -site. found This there and If the break Staff Cloudbreak and both odor impact. Project Clean Up Engel project cleaning owner up a bond. which and will the plans project, be be responsible which is a good is will The for secured requirement comply stewards. by WCC land This Cloudbreak to with Glare from solar panels Cunningham As have approximately according reduce minutes noted a above, to resting the risk year. the solar 5 degrees, glare of panels position study glare will of which will to zero the per Wear and tare roads and field Cunningham Cloudbreak maintenance addition, that will the stronger agreement Cloudbreak field enter roads roads into with will it than a road Weld uses, the be in County. In exist. upgrading resulting ones currently In addition to community concerns, Xcel Energy had filed a letter in opposition concerning their facilities. Xcel Energy withdrew this letter of concern on April 25, 2023. Finally, legal counsel for the Gale Lateral and For Far Lateral presented the following concerns. • Impact on water quality and drainage plans — as noted above, there will not be any drainage impact from the current state and the solar panels, by their mere existence, will not impact the water quality. ''c el hite April 28, 2023 Page 17 • The need to enter into an agreement to cross over or under the ditch or use ditch roads — Cloudbreak initially reached out in July of 2022 to discuss the ditch crossing.27 In September 2022, the ditch company noted they wanted to wait until Cloudbreak was further along in the permitting process. After receiving the ditch company's letter with respect to the SEF, Cloudbreak quickly reached out. Cloudbreak has reached out nine times since February 17, 2023 to counsel for the ditch companies to request a meeting to discuss the concerns raised in the letter. This outreach is often met with no response or a response which states they are unavailable.28 Cloudbreak respects the rights of the ditch companies and will not violate the same. While there may be some movement to have a meeting after the hearing, Cloudbreak cannot force the ditch companies to come to the table to negotiate an agreement. Cloudbreak remains a committed and willing partner whenever the ditch companies are ready to enter into an agreement. • Setbacks to allow the ditch companies to operate, maintain, repair, replace, and rehabilitate the ditch, including ditch burning — Cloudbreak currently has a twenty foot (20') setback included in its plans to allow for sufficient space for the ditch company to accomplish the business it needs to. • Grazing of sheep will not result in overgrazing — Cloudbreak's shepherd will leverage rotational grazing plans to avoid overgrazing. • Dust, erosion, and weed management — Cloudbreak has submitted a dust, erosion, and weed management plan to the County and has not received any comments noting a need for change or improvement • Property recovery, remediation, and rehabilitation — Cloudbreak will have a decommissioning bond and plan on file with the County to rehabilitate the land. Cloudbreak will also own the land and has a strong interest in restoring the land in a responsible manner. V. Conclusion In conclusion, Cloudbreak has satisfied the requirements necessary for approval of an SEF in Weld County, by meeting the Approval Requirements. In addition, Cloudbreak remains committed to community and has worked to address concerns raised by the community, going above and beyond the requirements imposed by law as it is able to do so. Cloudbreak looks forward to being a long- term community partner, reducing energy costs for neighbors, increasing the tax base for Weld County, and employing local individuals to help with the project. The Cloudbreak team is available to answer or address any questions or comments should they arise. 27 Ditch Company Correspondence. 28 Id. Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 18 See attached. EXHIBIT A PROPERTY AND TAX REPORT 4/28/23, 12:13 PM Property Report Weld County PROPERTY PORTAL Property Information (970) 400-3650 Technical Support (970) 400-4357 Account: R4004106 April 28, 2023 Account Information Account Parcel Space Type Account Tax Year Buildings Actual Value Assessed Value R4004106 070932200064 Agricultural 2023 54,248 14,320 Legal PT NW4 32-7-65 COMM NW COR S88D05E 806.96 TPOB S88D05E 71.26 S15D06E 156.03 S30D06E 307.8 S46D52E 136.25 S50D59E 325.14 S54D55E 332.71 S24D18E 121.14 S87D02E 140.04 S19D08E 1761.02 N88D12E 1816.19 N00D53E 631.62 N04D22E 73.69 N00D24E 1047.49 N87D58W 209.39 N00D22E 464.05 S88D17E 542.18 N32D20W 250.45 N17D25W 223.72 TPOB (FKA LOT B REC EXEMPT RE 4163) (.05R) Subdivision Block Lot Land Economic Area EATON RURAL Property Address Property City Zip Section Township Range 32 07 65 Owner(s) Account Owner Name Address 84004106 HARRING KENNETH L 5820 CLOVERDALE, E COUNTY IN ROAD 461209029 1000 S https://propertyreporLweld.gov/?account=84004106 1/2 Weld County Treasurer Account R4004106 Parcel Number 070932200064 HARRING KENNETH L 5820E COUNTY ROAD 1000 S CLOVERDALE, IN 46120-9029 Situs Address Legal Description PT NW4 32-7-65 LOT B REC EXEMPT RE 4163 (.05R) Property Code AG -FLOOD IRRRIGA'1'ED LAND - 4117 Payments Received E -Check Payments Applied Year Charges 2022 Tax Receipt Date Mar 20, 2023 Payor Kenneth L Harring Actual Assessed 56,917 15,030 Billed Prior Payments $1,050.56 $0.00 Receipt Number WEB -2023-03-20-8422 Year 2022 $1,050.56 New Payments $1,050.56 Area 3885 Mill Levy 69.897 Balance $0.00 $1,050.56 Balance Due as of Mar 20, 2023 Thank you for your payment. All payments made by check are subject to final bank clearance. $0.00 $0.00 Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 19 See attached. EXHIBIT B STAFF MEMORANDUM LAND USE APPLICATION SUMMARY Planner: Kim Ogle Hearing Date: March 7, 2023 Case Number: USR23-0005 Property Owner: Kenneth Harring, 5820 E. County Road 1000S, Cloverdale, Indiana, 46120 Applicant: CBEP Solar 6, LLC c/o Zach Brammer, P.O. Box 1255, Sterling, CO 80751 Request: Legal Description: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Parcel 1, being part of the NW4 of Section 32, T7N, R65W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado Location: Approximately 980 -feet south of County Road 76 and approximately 1300 -feet east of County Road 39 Size of Parcel: ± 35 acres Parcel No. 0709-32-2-00-064 The criteria for review of this Use by Special Review Permit are listed in Section 23-2-220 and Section 23-4- 1030 of the Weld County Code. The Department of Planning Services' staff has received referral responses with comments from the following agencies: Weld County Department of Planning Services — Development Review, referral dated January 23, 2023 Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, referral dated January 23, 2023 Public Service of Colorado (Xcel Energy), referral dated February 6, 2023 Gale Lateral and For Far Lateral, referral dated February 16, 2033 The Department of Planning Services' staff has received referral responses without comments from the following agencies: Weld County Sheriff's Office, referral dated January 19, 2023 Weld County Oil and Gas Energy Department, referral dated January 25, 2023 The Department of Planning Services' staff has not received responses from the following agencies: Town of Eaton Eaton Fire Department Colorado Parks and Wildlife West Greeley Conservation District Larimer & Weld Irrigation Company Larimer & Weld Reservoir Company Colorado Division of Water Resources USR23-0005 Page 1 of 11 Weld County Office of Emergency Management Weld County Department of Planning Services — Code Compliance Weld County Department of Planning Services — Building Inspection Case Summary: The applicant, CBEP Solar 6, LLC is proposing to construct and operate the Harring Solar Energy Facility. The facility will be a 4.625 -megawatt ac community solar garden that is part of the Xcel Energy Solar*Rewards Community program. The facility footprint is on approximately 28.75 acres of a 35 acre parcel. The facility will consist of solar modules mounted about five (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, new internal access road, and a perimeter game fence with gates. The site will be visited for bi-annually for routine maintenance of both equipment and vegetation. The facility is remotely monitored 24/7 by full time staff. The site will be re -vegetated using a native habitat mix, which will decrease erosion, prevent noxious weed growth and establishment. The native habitat mix will be maintained by vegetation experts to facilitate establishment. The property is currently vacant land, with no irrigated agriculture or water rights, and was previously used for production agriculture. Area lighting is not proposed for the facility. The Decommission and Reclamation Plan submitted with the application indicates that the site will be decommissioned and reclaimed at the end of the lease term of twenty (20) years with an option of four (4) additional five (5) year terms, operational life, or if the site is non -operational for twelve (12) months. Much of the equipment is recyclable. In the event the application is approved, the applicant will work with staff to ensure the surety for the Decommission Plan meets Weld County standards DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED BASED ON THE FOLLOWING APPROVAL CRITERIA: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 and Section 23-4-1030.B of the Weld County Code. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services' staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 23-2-220 of the Weld County Code as follows: A. Section 23-2-220.A.1 -- The proposed use is consistent with Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provisions or ordinance in effect. Section 22-2-10 state the Guiding Principles that serve as the foundation for land use policy in the County. Section 22-2-10.B states "One of the basic principles upon which the United States was founded is the right of citizens to own and utilize property so long as that use complies with local regulations and does not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of others." The proposal meets the intent of A (Agricultural) Zone District, including the Principles, Goals and Objectives as outlined in Chapter 22 and permitted under Chapter 23 as the facility will produce energy harvested from the sun and will not interfere with adjacent agricultural operations. The applicant and property owner has made a business decision on the highest and best use of his property without irrigation water. Of the thirty-five (+/- 35) acre parcel twenty-eight (+/- 28) acres will be utilized for the proposed solar energy facility. The land under the solar panels will be planted with a dry -land native grass seed that has been generally accepted for re -vegetation purposes for the entire parcel and will be maintained with no allowance for noxious weed growth. USR23-0005 Page 2 of 11 Section 22-2-30 C. states Harmonize development with surrounding land uses." The adjacent land will experience minimal nuisance from the SEFs, which is an unmanned energy development facility with limited traffic generation once operational. The applicant has proposed screening and landscaping options for residences within five hundred (500) feet of the facility. Screening is required from the adjacent property owners and will include a double row of triangulated Rocky Mountain Juniper along the adjacent property owners fence line. Rocky Mountain Juniper trees have historically performed very well on sites with these soil conditions, location and elevation, and local plant community composition. In addition to providing a visual buffer from neighboring residences, the landscape screening is designed to fit with the neighborhood and benefit the local environment. The applicant will provide waivers from the property owners with residences closer than five hundred (500) feet who requested to not be screened from the facilities. Section 22-2-60.B "Support responsible energy and mineral development" According to the application materials, the Solar Energy Facility will connect into the Xcel Energy power grid. The application states that efforts will be made to protect the soil and minimize the impacts to the area. Further, once operational, the proposed SEF creates no noise, odor, light or flickering, vibration, vermin, dust, or other nuisances. The operation of the SEF is almost entirely unnoticeable to neighboring properties and it will not impact surrounding property's right to quiet enjoyment. Section 22-2-60.B.2 states "Ensure that infrastructure, such as adequate roads and utilities, exists or can be made available prior to development of energy and mineral resource production facilities." County Roads 76 and 39 are local paved roads. There is an existing overhead electric service located east of County Road 39 that serves as the interconnection point to the proposed facility. B. Section 23-2-220.A.2 -- The proposed use is consistent with the intent of the A (Agricultural) Zone District. Section 23-3-10. — Intent, of the Weld County Code states, "Agriculture in the County is considered a valuable resource which must be protected from adverse impacts resulting from uncontrolled and undirected business, industrial and residential land uses. The A (Agricultural) Zone District is established to maintain and promote agriculture as an essential feature of the County. The A (Agricultural) Zone District is intended to provide areas for the conduct of agricultural activities and activities related to agriculture and agricultural production, and for areas for natural resource extraction and energy development, without the interference of other, incompatible land uses." The proposed use, Solar Energy Facility, is permittable under Section 23-3-40.FF of the Weld County Code as defined here, Solar Energy Facilities (SEF's), being more than five (5) acres in size but less than one hundred sixty (160) acres in the Near/Urban Area or being more than five (5) acres but less than three hundred twenty (320) acres in the Ag/Rural Area. This proposed facility footprint is in the near -urban area. The A (Agricultural) Zone District is intended to provide areas for the conduct of agricultural activities and activities related to agriculture and agricultural production, and for areas for natural resource extraction and energy development, without the interference of other, incompatible land uses. The applicant and property owner has made a business decision on the highest and best us of the thirty-five (35) acre area for the solar energy facility. The proposed compact solar energy resource development will conserve lands and minimize the impact on surrounding land and the existing surrounding land uses. USR23-0005 Page 3 of 11 C. Section 23-2-220.A.3 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. The property is within five hundred (500) feet of fourteen (14) parcels, with fourteen (14) homes, with the solar facility footprint located within five hundred feet of nine (9) homes, specifically north and east of the SEF footprint. As part of the application process, Weld County provided notice to these property owners, and no responses were received. The proposed visual mitigation, Development Standards, and Conditions of Approval will assist in mitigating the impacts of the facility on adjacent properties and ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses and region. D. Section 23-2-220.A.4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities. The site is located within the (3) mile referral area and the Coordinated Planning Agreement area for the Town of Eaton. The 2020 Town of Eaton Comprehensive Plan delineates lands within the Town boundary, lands within the Urban Core Area (UCA) and lands within the Urban Growth Area. This property is located south of County Road 76 and is located within the Urban Core Area Boundary and Urban Growth Boundary. The Future Land Use Plan within the Urban Growth Area map states more intensive land uses are only appropriate with the Urban Core Area. The Land Use Plan allocates various general land uses throughout the UCA. The land uses include residential (at various maximum densities), mixed use areas of retail, office and residential and non-residential uses including commercial, industrial and public uses. This property holds a designation of Suburban Residential (2.5 units per acre). The Town of Eaton did not return comments on the Notice of Inquiry form and did not provide a referral response for this application. E. Section 23-2-220.A.5 -- The application complies with Chapter 23, Articles V and XI, of the Weld County Code. The property is not within the Airport Overlay District, 1-25 Overlay District, Geologic Hazard Overlay District, MS4 - Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System area, Historic Townsites Overlay District, or Agricultural Heritage Overlay District. Building Permits issued on the property will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the County -Wide Road Impact Fee Program, County Facility Fee, and Drainage Impact Fee Programs. F. Section 23-2-220.A.6 -- The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use. Per the application materials the irrigation water has been severed from the property. Per the Natural Resources Conservation Service map, no Prime agricultural land is being taken out of production. G. Section 23-2-220.A.7 — There is adequate provisions for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County. The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code), Operation Standards (Section 23-2- 250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and Development Standards can ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County. This proposal has been reviewed by the appropriate referral agencies and it has been determined that the attached conditions of approval and development standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood USR23-0005 Page 4 of 11 and county and will address and mitigate impacts on the surrounding area with the installation of this SEF This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities. The Department of Planning Services' staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. Prior to recording the map: A. The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Public Service of Colorado (Xcel Energy) as stated in their referral dated February 6, 2023. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services (Public Service of Colorado) B. The applicant shall address the concerns of the Gale Lateral and For Far Lateral ditch companies as stated in their referral dated February 16, 2023. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services (Department of Planning Services) C. The applicant shall submit recorded evidence that the eighteen (18) foot wide access easement across Lot A of RE -1634 recorded under reception no. 2419897 dated December 21, 1994 and Lot A RE - 4163 recorded under reception no. 3335453 dated October 28, 2005 may be utilized for access to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, formerly part of Lot B RE -4163 and now part of Vacation Plat recorded under reception no. 4867393 dated November 16, 2022. Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services (Department of Planning Services) D. The applicant shall submit a fencing plan for review and acceptance if not utilizing the perimeter game fence with gates as stated in the application materials. (Department of Planning Services) E. The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services any screening waivers from residents within five hundred (500) feet. If waivers are not obtained opaque screening is required per the accepted Department of Planning Services Landscape and Screening plan (Department of Planning Services) F. If utilizing a vegetative material for visual mitigation to screen the facility from adjoining properties to the west and north, the applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to the Department of Planning Services for review and acceptance. (Department of Planning Services) G. A Road Maintenance Agreement (Construction) is required at this location. Road maintenance includes, but is not limited to, dust control and damage repair to specified haul routes during construction. (Development Review) H. The map shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. All sheets of the map shall be labeled USR23-0005 (Department of Planning Services) 2. The attached Development Standards. (Department of Planning Services) 3. The map shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 4. Any existing and proposed solar facility installations and electrical equipment, power lines, structures, temporary work trailers, storage containers (limited to two (2) per Section 23-3-30.B of the Weld County Code), storage areas and miscellaneous improvements, as applicable. Clearly USR23-0005 Page 5 of 11 indicate which items are temporary for use during construction and which items are permanent. (Department of Planning Services) 5. Required fencing, gates and any emergency and site identification signage, in accordance with Section 23-2-240.A.12 and Section 23-4-1030.C.6 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 6. On -site lighting, if applicable. All lighting shall be downcast and shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties. Include lighting specification details on the USR map. Refer to Section 23-2-250.D. of the Weld County Code for design criteria. (Department of Planning Services) 7. Trash collection areas, if applicable. Section 23-2-240.A.13 of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of trash collection areas. (Department of Planning Services) 8. Setback radiuses for existing oil and gas tank batteries, wellheads, and encumbrances, if applicable. Setback requirements are located in Section 23-3-70.E. of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 9. Planned oil and gas surface development areas, corridors, access roadways, etc. as part of any executed Surface Use Agreement, if applicable. (Department of Planning Services) 10. Screening plan for residences within five hundred (500) feet, unless a waiver from the resident has been supplied to the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) 11. CR 39 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate and label on the site map the future and existing right-of-way (along with the documents creating the existing right-of-way) and the physical location of the road. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Development Review) 12. CR 76 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate and label on the site map the future and existing right-of-way (along with the documents creating the existing right-of-way) and the physical location of the road. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Development Review) 13. Show and label the existing proposed access point onto CR 39 and the usage type (Agriculture, Residential, Commercial/Industrial, or Oil and Gas). Development Review will review the access location as a part of the plan submittal. (Development Review) 14. Show and label the drainage flow arrows. (Development Review) 15. All recorded easements and rights -of -way shall be delineated on the plat by book and page number or reception number. (Department of Planning Services) 2. Upon completion of Condition of Approval #1 above, the applicant shall submit one (1) electronic copy (.pdf) of the map for preliminary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. Upon approval of the map the applicant shall submit a Mylar map along with all other documentation required as Conditions of Approval. The Mylar map shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by the Department of Planning Services. The map shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar map and additional requirements shall be submitted within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. (Department of Planning Services) USR23-0005 Page 6 of 11 3. In accordance with Appendix 5-J of the Weld County Code, should the map not be recorded within the specified timeline from the date of the Board of County Commissioners Resolution, a $50.00 recording continuance fee shall be added for each additional 3 -month period. (Department of Planning Services) 4. Prior to Construction: A. The approved access and tracking control shall be constructed prior to on -site construction. (Development Review) B. If more than 1 acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County grading permit will be required prior to the start of construction. (Development Review) C. A Construction Stormwater Permit is also required with the State for disturbing more than 1 acre. Contact: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division. (Development Review) D. The applicant shall submit an irrevocable standby letter of credit, bond, or alternate form of security in an amount sufficient to fund the estimated decommissioning/reclamation costs required by Section 23-4-1030.B.4 of the Weld County Code, for acceptance and approval by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners. Once approved, the Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan shall be updated to include the approved security information. (Department of Planning Services) 5. The Use by Special Review Permit is not perfected until the Conditions of Approval are completed and the map is recorded. Activity shall not occur, nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property, until the Use by Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder or the applicant has been approved for an early release agreement (Department of Planning Services) USR23-0005 Page 7 of 11 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Kenneth Harring USR23-0005 1. Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, subject to the Development Standards stated hereon. (Department of Planning Services) 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 3. Any future structures or uses on site must obtain the appropriate zoning and building permits. (Department of Planning Services) 4. The facility is unmanned and will operate year-round. Limited maintenance personnel may visit the site once operational. (Department of Planning Services) 5. Height limitation. Ground -mounted solar collectors shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, measured from the highest natural grade below each solar panel to the highest extent of the solar panel rotation. (Department of Planning Services) 6. Glare. The SEF shall be placed so that concentrated solar glare from its solar collectors will not be directed toward or onto nearby properties or roadways at any time of the day. (Department of Planning Services) 7. Dust mitigation. The operators of the SEF shall continuously employ the practices for control of fugitive dust detailed in their accepted Dust Mitigation Plan per Section 23-4-1030.C.4 of the Weld County Code, as amended. (Department of Planning Services) 8. Underground cables. All electrical cables on the improved area shall be buried, except for direct current string wires that connect between solar collectors, direct current collection circuits between rows of solar arrays that are no more than four (4) feet above grade crossings, substations, switchyards, and circuit voltages greater than 34.5 kilovolts (where necessary). (Department of Planning Services) 9. Fencing. The SEF shall be enclosed with a security fence as accepted pursuant to the Fencing Plan as presented in the application materials. Appropriate signage shall be placed upon such fencing that warns the public of the high voltage therein. (Department of Planning Services) 10. Stormwater management. The Operator of the SEF shall comply with the approved Final Drainage Report and the required Storm Drainage Criteria pursuant to Chapter 8, Article XI of this Code. Ground- mounted solar collector systems shall be exempt from impervious surface calculations if the soil under the collectors is designated hydrologic A or B soil groups by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (Department of Planning Services) 11. Decommissioning. The site shall adhere to the accepted Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan. Weld County shall have the right to draw upon the irrevocable standby letter of credit, or other form of financial security, to pay for decommissioning in the event that the holder has not commenced decommissioning and reclamation activities within ninety (90) days of the Board of County Commissioners' order or resolution directing decommissioning and reclamation. (Department of Planning Services) 12. The site shall be maintained in accordance with accepted Property Maintenance Plan (Department of Planning Services) USR23-0005 Page 8 of 11 13. During construction, all liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S.) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 14. During construction, no permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 15. During construction, waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The facility shall operate in accordance with Chapter 14, Article 1 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 16. During construction, adequate toilet facilities and handwashing units shall be provided. Portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner licensed in Weld County, contain hand sanitizers, be screened from public view, and removed when construction is completed. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 17. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled throughout the duration of construction of the facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 18. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 19. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for controlling noxious weeds on the site, pursuant to Chapter 15, Article I and II, of the Weld County Code. (Development Review) 20. The access to the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road, including damages and/or off -site tracking. (Development Review) 21. Any work that may occupy and or encroach upon any County rights -of -way or easement shall acquire an approved Right -of -Way Use Permit prior to commencement. (Development Review) 22. The Property Owner shall comply with all requirements provided in the executed Road Maintenance Agreement (Development Review) 23. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts on the site will be maintained. (Development Review) 24. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design and Operation Standards of Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code. 25. Necessary personnel from the Weld County Departments of Planning Services, Public Works, and Public Health and Environment shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. 26. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or Development Standards, as shown or stated, shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. USR23-0005 Page 9 of 11 27. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. 28. Construction or use pursuant to approval of a Use by Special Review Permit shall be commenced within three (3) years from the date of approval, unless otherwise specified by the Board of County Commissioners when issuing the original Permit, or the Permit shall be vacated. The Director of Planning Services may grant an extension of time, for good cause shown, upon a written request by the landowner. 29. A Use by Special Review shall terminate when the use is discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years, the use of the land changes or the time period established by the Board of County Commissioners through the approval process expires. The landowner may notify the Department of Planning Services of a termination of the use or Planning Services staff may observe that the use has been terminated. When either the Department of Planning Services is notified by the landowner, or when the Department of Planning Services observes that the use may have been terminated, the Planner shall send certified written notice to the landowner asking that the landowner request to vacate the Use by Special Review Permit 30. RIGHT TO EXTRACT MINERAL RESOURCES STATEMENT: Weld County has some of the most abundant mineral resources, including, but not limited to, sand and gravel, oil, natural gas, and coal. Under title 34 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, minerals are vital resources because (a) the state's commercial mineral deposits are essential to the state's economy; (b) the populous counties of the state face a critical shortage of such deposits; and (c) such deposits should be extracted according to a rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such deposits and cause the least practicable disruption of the ecology and quality of life of the citizens of the populous counties of the state. Mineral resource locations are widespread throughout the County and people moving into these areas must recognize the various impacts associated with this development. Often, mineral resource sites are fixed to their geographical and geophysical locations. Moreover, these resources are protected property rights and mineral owners should be afforded the opportunity to extract the mineral resource. 31. WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM STATEMENT: Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural counties in the United States, typically ranking in the top ten counties in the country in total market value of agricultural products sold. The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious, but they are intensively used for agriculture. Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and accept there are drawbacks, including conflicts with long-standing agricultural practices and a lower level of services than in town. Along with the drawbacks come the incentives which attract urban dwellers to relocate to rural areas: open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life. Without neighboring farms, those features which attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County would quickly be gone forever. Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area. Well -run agricultural activities will generate off -site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment; slow -moving farm vehicles on rural roads; dust from animal pens, field work, harvest, and gravel roads; odor from animal confinement, silage, and manure; smoke from ditch burning; flies and mosquitoes; hunting and trapping activities; shooting sports, legal hazing of nuisance wildlife; and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying. It is common practice for agricultural producers to utilize an accumulation of agricultural machinery and supplies to assist in their agricultural operations. A concentration of miscellaneous agricultural materials often produces a visual disparity between rural and urban areas of the County. Section 35-3.5-102, C.R.S., provides that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production. Water has been, and continues to be, the lifeline for the agricultural community. It is unrealistic to assume that ditches and reservoirs may simply be moved "out of the way" of residential development. USR23-0005 Page 10 of 11 When moving to the County, property owners and residents must realize they cannot take water from irrigation ditches, lakes, or other structures, unless they have an adjudicated right to the water. Weld County covers a land area of approximately four thousand (4,000) square miles in size (twice the size of the State of Delaware) with more than three thousand seven hundred (3,700) miles of state and county roads outside of municipalities. The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches available resources. Law enforcement is based on responses to complaints more than on patrols of the County, and the distances which must be traveled may delay all emergency responses, including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire. Fire protection is usually provided by volunteers who must leave their jobs and families to respond to emergencies. County gravel roads, no matter how often they are bladed, will not provide the same kind of surface expected from a paved road. Snow removal priorities mean that roads from subdivisions to arterials may not be cleared for several days after a major snowstorm. Services in rural areas, in many cases, will not be equivalent to municipal services. Rural dwellers must, by necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers. People are exposed to different hazards in the County than in an urban or suburban setting. Farm equipment and oil field equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrical power for pumps and center pivot operations, high speed traffic, sand burs, puncture vines, territorial farm dogs and livestock, and open burning present real threats. Controlling children's activities is important, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of the farmer's livelihood. USR23-0005 Page 11 of11 le February 1, 2023 BRAMMER ZACH PO Box 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1555 N 17th AVE GREELEY, CO 80631 WEBSITE: www.weldgov.com E-MAIL: kogle@weldgov.com PHONE: (970) 400-3549 FAX: (970) 304-6498 Subject: USR23-0005 - Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District. On parcel(s) of land described as: Part of the NW1/4 of Section 32, Township 7 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. Dear Applicants: I have scheduled a meeting with the Weld County Planning Commission on March 7, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. A subsequent hearing with the Board of County Commissioners will be held on March 22, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. Both hearings will be held in the Hearing Room, Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. The property owner and/or authorized agent must be in attendance to answer any questions the Planning Commission members or Board of County Commissioners may have. Colorado Revised Statute, C.R.S.24-65.5-103 (adopted as part of H.B.01-1088) requires notification of all mineral estate owners 30 days prior to any public hearing. The applicant needs to provide the Weld County Planning Department with written certification indicating the above requirement has been met. A representative from the Department of Planning Services will be out to the property a minimum of ten days prior to the hearing to post a sign, adjacent to and visible from a publicly maintained road right-of-way which identifies the hearing time, date, and location. In the event the property is not adjacent to a publicly maintained road right-of-way, one sign will be posted in the most prominent place on the property and a second sign posted at the point at which the driveway (access drive) intersects a publicly maintained road right-of-way. The Department of Planning Services' staff will make a recommendation concerning this application to the Weld County Planning Commission and will be included in the staff report one week prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. You may view the staff report at https://accela- aca.co.weld.co.us/CitizenAccess Respectfully, Kim O Planner Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 20 See attached. EXHIBIT C PLANNING RESOLUTION Before the Weld County,. Colorado. Planning Commission Resolution or Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners Moved by Butch Whitt that the fdlownng resolution be Introduced for denial by the Wed County Mannino Cr;>`nsrnigleri Be tit resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the appltcabon for Case Number USR23-000S Act cant Kenneth Harm%, CIO COEP Sour 6. LLC P'iatteeir Keln Ogle Request A Sao Speck Davetopment Plan VW USG tsy Speeet Review Peoria for a Saar Energy Fatty (SEF I outside of subdivisions and historic topwnsttes in the A (Agricultural)! Zone District Legal Description Pan or the NW1/4 of Section 32_ TaimIShip I North. Range 65 West at the kith P.M Weld County,Cadorado Location App +ernatetely 980 -feet scum of County Road 70: epproximatety 1300~tert east of Courtly Reed 39 be recommended unfavorably to the Beare) of County Commissioners fir the following reasons t The submitted materials are m compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 and Section 23-4-1030.8 of the Weld County Code. 2 it is the opinion of the Planning Coarmotssion that the applicant has shown compliance wrlh Seciton 23-2.220 Or the Weld County Code es follows A Section 23-2-220 A 1 — The proposed use as consistent with Chapter 22 and any oilier applicable lode provisions or ordinance in effect_ Section 22-240 slate the Guiding Principles that serve as the fOundefion for kind use policy er► the County. Section 22-2-108 states flee of the basic princrpt s up[wi When the tJrittecd Slates was 'rounded iks the right or cl'ens to awn and 4,414e pruper4y so *19 as Char use complies with ibcal regvlattons and does not interfere with or infringe upon the fights or others The proposal meets the intent of A (Agricultural) Zone Dsstrict including the Pnnciptes. Goals and Oo)ecbvees as Outlined in Chapter 22 and permitted under Chapter 23 as the facility will produce energy harvested from the sun and will not interfere well adtacent agricultural operations The applicant and property owner has made a business decision on the highest and best use of his propeiiy without '4'1.02860n water Of the thirty-five (+1- 35) acre parcel twenty-eight (+,t- 28) acres will be utilized for the proposed solar energy facility. The land under the solar panels will be planted with a dry -land native grass seed that has been generally accepted for re -vegetation purposes for the entire parcel and wilt be maintained veth no allowance for noxious weed growth Section 22-2-60.13 'Si poi► resportsthle energy and mineral development` According to the application nnate!ials, the Solar Energy Facility vAil connect into the Xcel Energy power gnd The application states that efforts will be made to protect the soil and minimize the impacts to the area. Further. once operational the proposed SEF creates no ncpise, odor light or flickering. vibration, vermin. dust, or other nuisances The operation of the SEF tb almost entirely unnoticeable to neighboring properties and +t will not impact surrounding property's right to quiet enjoyment Section 22-2.60 8.2 states -Ensure that infrastructure. such as adequate roads and utilities. exists or caul be made available prier to development of energy and mineral resource production realities . County Roads 76 and 39 are local paved roads. There is an existing overhead electric service Donated east of County Road 39 that serves as the interconnection punt to the proposed (acuity Resolution USR23-0005 Kenneth Herring, do CBEP Solar 6, LLC Page 2 B Section 23-2-220 A 2 — The proposed use is not consistent with the intent of the A (Agricultural) Zone District Section 23-3-10 — Intent, of the Weld County Code states, "Agriculture in the County is considered a valuable resource which must be protected from adverse impacts resulting from uncontrolled and undirected business, industrial and residential land uses TheA (Agricultural) Zone District is established to maintain and promote agriculture as an essential feature of the County issues raised addressed the use of the land for a solar farm and not an agricultural farm, when there is water for this property from the For Far Lateral C Section 23-2-220 A 3 -- The uses which will be permitted will not be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses The property is within five hundred (500) feet of fourteen (14) parcels, with fourteen (14) homes, with the solar facility footprint located within five hundred feet of nine (9) homes, specifically north and east of the SEF footprint Six (6) surrounding property owners testified at the hearing that they were opposed to this project Several impacts outside of generally recognized farming practices including the humming noise from the inverters, impacts on site drainage patterns and conveyance of irrigation water, impacts on farm culture including the potential for environmental degradation due to leaching of aluminum, lead and cadmium from the solar panels and most importantly not addressing the impacts to area wildlife including the flock of wild turkeys and nesting raptors D Section 23-2-220 A 4 -- The uses which will be permitted will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zoning and with the future development as projected by Chapter 22 of the Weld County Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted Master Plans of affected municipalities The site is located within the (3) mile referral area and the Coordinated Planning Agreement area for the Town of Eaton The 2020 Town of Eaton Comprehensive Plan delineates lands within the Town boundary, lands within the Urban Core Area (UCA) and lands within the Urban Growth Area This property is located south of County Road 76 and is located within the Urban Core Area Boundary and Urban Growth Boundary The Future Land Use Plan within the Urban Growth Area map states more intensive land uses are only appropriate with the Urban Core Area The Land Use Plan allocates various general land uses throughout the UCA The land uses include residential (at various maximum densities), mixed use areas of retail, office and residential and non-residential uses including commercial, industrial and public uses This property holds a designation of Suburban Residential (2 5 units per acre) The Town of Eaton did not return comments on the Notice of Inquiry form and did not provide a referral response for this application E Section 23-2-220 A 5 -- The application complies with Chapter 23, Articles V and Xl, of the Weld County Code The property is not within the Airport Overlay District, 1-25 Overlay District, Geologic Hazard Overlay District, MS4 - Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System area, Historic Townsites Overlay District, or Agricultural Heritage Overlay District Building Permits issued on the property will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the County -Wide Road Impact Fee Program, County Facility Fee, and Drainage Impact Fee Programs F Section 23-2-220 A 6 -- The applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use Per the application materials the irrigation water has been severed from the property Although the Natural Resources Conservation Service map shows that no Prime agricultural land is being taken out of production, the Planning Commission felt that this project IS taking the agricultural farmland out of production, when historically the farmer has irrigated with water from the For Far Lateral Resolution USR23-0005 Kenneth Harnng, cto CBEP Solar 6, LLC Page 3 G Section 23-2-220 A 7 —There is adequate provisions for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County The Design Standards (Section 23-2-240, Weld County Code), Operation Standards (Section 23-2-250, Weld County Code), Conditions of Approval and Development Standards can ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and County This proposal has been reviewed by the appropriate referral agencies and it has been determined that the attached conditions of approval and development standards ensure that there are adequate provisions for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and county and will address and mitigate impacts on the surrounding area with the installation of this SEF This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request, and responses from referral entities Should the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposal, the Planning Commission recommends the following conditions 1 Prior to recording the map A The applicant shall attempt to address the concerns of the Public Service of Colorado (Xcel Energy) as stated in their referral dated February 6, 2023 Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services (Public Service of Colorado) B The applicant shall address the concerns of the Gale Lateral and For Far Lateral ditch companies as stated in their referral dated February 16, 2023 Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services (Department of Planning Services) C The applicant shall submit recorded evidence that the eighteen (18) foot wide access easement across Lot A of RE -1634 recorded under reception no 2419897 dated December 21, 1994 and Lot A RE -4163 recorded under reception no 3335453 dated October 28, 2005 may be utilized for access to Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, formerly part of Lot B RE -4163 and now part of Vacation Plat recorded under reception no 4867393 dated November 16, 2022 Evidence of such shall be submitted to the Department of Planning Services (Department of Planning Services) D The applicant shall submit a fencing plan for review and acceptance if not utilizing the perimeter game fence with gates as stated in the application materials (Department of Planning Services) E The applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning Services any screening waivers from residents within five hundred (500) feet If waivers are not obtained opaque screening is required per the accepted Department of Planning Services Landscape and Screening plan (Department of Planning Services) F If utilizing a vegetative material for visual mitigation to screen the facility from adjoining properties to the west and north, the applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to the Department of Planning Services for review and acceptance (Department of Planning Services) G A Road Maintenance Agreement (Construction) is required at this location Road maintenance includes, but is not limited to, dust control and damage repair to specified haul routes during construction (Development Review) H The map shall be amended to delineate the following 1 All sheets of the map shall be labeled USR23-0005 (Department of Planning Services) Resolution USR23-0005 Kenneth Harnng, c/v CBEP Solar 6) LLC Page 4 2 The attached Development Standards (Department of Planning Services) 3 The map shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-260 D of the Weld County Code (Department of Planning Services) 4 Any existing and proposed solar facility installations and electrical equipment, power lines, structures, temporary work trailers, storage containers (limited to two (2) per Section 23-3-30 B of the Weld County Code), storage areas and miscellaneous improvements, as applicable Clearly indicate which items are temporary for use during construction and which items are permanent (Department of Planning Services) 5 Required fencing, gates and any emergency and site identification signage, in accordance with Section 23-2-240 A 12 and Section 23-4-1030 C 6 of the Weld County Code (Department of Planning Seances) 6 On -site lighting, if applicable All lighting shall be downcast and shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties Include lighting specification details on the USR map Refer to Section 23-2-250 D of the Weld County Code for design criteria (Department of Planning Services) 7 Trash collection areas, if applicable Section 23-2-240 A 13 of the Weld County Code addresses the issue of trash collection areas (Department of Planning Services) 8 Setback radiuses for existing oil and gas tank batteries, wellheads, and encumbrances, if applicable Setback requirements are located in Section 23-3-70 E of the Weld County Code (Department of Planning Services) 9 Planned oil and gas surface development areas, corridors, access roadways, etc as part of any executed Surface Use Agreement, if applicable (Department of Planning Services) 10 Screening plan for residences within five hundred (500) feet, unless a waiver from the resident has been supplied to the Department of Planning Services (Department of Planning Services) 11 CR 39 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout The applicant shall delineate and label on the site map the future and existing right-of-way (along with the documents creating the existing right-of-way) and the physical location of the road All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way This road is maintained by Weld County (Development Review) 12 CR 76 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Functional Classification Map as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout The applicant shall delineate and label on the site map the future and existing right-of-way (along with the documents creating the existing right-of-way) and the physical location of the road All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of-way This road is maintained by Weld County (Development Review) 13 Show and label the existing proposed access point onto CR 39 and the usage type (Agriculture, Residential, Commercial/Industrial, or Oil and Gas) Development Review will review the access location as a part of the plan submittal (Development Review) 14 Show and label the drainage flow arrows (Development Review) 15 All recorded easements and rights -of -way shall be delineated on the plat by book and page number or reception number (Department of Planning Services) 2 Upon completion of Condition of Approval #1 above, the applicant shall submit one (1) electronic copy ( pdf) of the map for preliminaryapproval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services Upon approval of Resclitwn USR23-0CC5 Kenneth Hamrg, do CBEP Solar 6, L..C Page 5 the map the applicant sha:I submit a Myer map aiorg with alother documentabcn required as Conditions of Approval The Mylar map shall be recorded in the office of he Weld County Cierk and Recorder by the Department cf Piannirg Services The map shall be prepared it accordance with the requirements of Secticn 23-2-260 D of the Weld County Code The Myiar map and add.t oral requirements shall be submitted within one hundred twenty (120) days fro— The date of the Board of County Comm:ssicners Resolution Tne applicant shat: be respors:ble for paying the recording fee (Department of Planning Services) 3 h accordance wth Append x 5-J of tine Weld County Code, should the map not be recorded with:n the specified t.:meline from the date of the Board of. County Comr^issioners Resolution, a $50 00 recording contnuarce fee shat be added for each addtboral 3-rr orth per:od (Departmert of Plarring Services) 4 Pror to Constructor A Tne approved access and track.ng control shat: be corstructed pr:or to on-s:te const-ucton (Development Rev:ew) B If more than 1 acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County grading permit will be required pror to the start of constructon (Development Review) C The appl:cart shall submit an irrevocable standby letter of cred.t, bond, or alter -ate for- of security in an amount sufficient to fund the esbr^ated decor^miss:oning/recta—ration costs required oy Sector 23-4- 1030 B 4 of the Weld County Ccde, for accep:arce and approva: by the Weld County Board of County Commiss.oners Once approved, the Decomm:ssionirg and Redamat:or. Plar shat: be updated to include the approved security infor-ation (Department of Planning Services) 5 -The Use by Special Review Permit .s not cer`ected untl the Conditions of Approval are completed and the map is recorded Actvrty shal not occur, nor shal! arty but ding or electrica: permits be issued on te property, r til the Use oy Specal Review plat :s ready to be recorded in the of ce of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder or the applicant has been approved for an early re:ease agreement (Department of Planning Services) Resolution USR23-0005 Kenneth Harring, do CBEP Solar 6, LLC Page 6 Motion seconded by Sam Gluck VOTE For Denial Elijah Hatch Skip Holland Sam Gluck Butch White Pamela Edens Against Denial Absent Michael Wailes Michael Palizzi Shang Morgan The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certtfed copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings Certification of Copy I, Kristine Ranslem, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, Colorado, adopted on March 7, 2023 Dated the 7i" of March, 2023 43 t raat4Lun Kristine Ranslem Secretary Resolution USR23-0005 Kenneth Herring, do CBEP Solar 6, LLC Page 7 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Kenneth Harring USR23-0005 1 Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF) outside of subdivisions and historic townsites in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, subject to the Development Standards stated hereon (Department.of Planning Services) 2 Approval of this plan may create a vested property nght pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County Code (Department of Planning Services) 3 Any future structures or uses on site must obtain the appropriate zoning and building permits (Department of Planning Services) 4 The facility is unmanned and will operate year-round Limited maintenance personnel may visit the site once operational (Department of Planning Services) 5 Height limitation Ground -mounted solar collectors shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, measured from the highest natural grade below each solar panel to the highest extent of the solar panel rotation (Department of Planning Services) 6 Glare The SEF shall be placed so that concentrated solar glare from its solar collectors will not be directed toward or onto nearby properties or roadways at any time of the day (Department of Planning Services) 7 Dust mitigation The operators of the SEF shall continuously employ the practices for control of fugitive dust detailed in their accepted Dust Mitigation Plan per Section 23-4-1030 C 4 of the Weld County Code, as amended (Department of Planning Services) 8 Underground cables All electrical cables on the improved area shall be buried, except for directcurrent string wires that connect between solar collectors, direct current collection circuits between rows of solar arrays that are no more than four (4) feet above grade crossings, substations, switchyards, and circuit voltages greater than 34 5 kilovolts (where necessary) (Department of Planning Services) 9 Fencing The SEF shall be enclosed with a security fence as accepted pursuant to the Fencing Han as presented in the application materials Appropriate signage shall be placed upon such fencing thatwams the public of the high voltage therein (Department of Planning Services) 10 Stonnwater management The Operator of the SEF shall comply with the approved Final Drainage Report and the required Storm Drainage Criteria pursuantto Chapter 8, Article XI ofthis Code Ground- mounted solar collector systems shall be exempt from impervious surface calculations if the soil under the collectors is designated hydrologic A or B soil groups by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) (Department of Planning Services) 11 Decommissioning The site shall adhere to the accepted Decommissioning and Reclamation Plan Weld County shall have the right to draw upon the irrevocable standby letter of credit, or other form of financial secunty, to pay for decommissioning in the event that the holder has not commenced decommissioning and reclamation activities within ninety (90) days of the Board of County Commissioners' order or resolution directing decommissioning and reclamation (Department of Planning Services) 12 The site shall be maintained in accordance with accepted Property Maintenance Plan (Department of Planning Services) Resolution USR23-0005 Kenneth Harnng, do CBEP Solar 6, LLC Page B 13 During construction, all liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100 5, C R S ) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination (Department of Public Health and Environment) 14 During construction, no permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100 5, C R S (Department of Public Health and Environment) 15 During construction, waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions The facility shall operate in accordance with Chapter 14, Article 1 of the Weld County Code (Department of Public Health and Environment) 16 During construction, adequate toilet facilities and handwashing units shall be provided Portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner licensed in Weld County, contain hand sanitizers, be screened from public view, and removed when construction is completed (Department of Public Health and Environment) 17 Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled throughout the duration of construction of the facility (Department of Public Health and Environment) 18 The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code (Department of Public Health and Environment) 19 The property owner or operator shall be responsible for controlling noxious weeds on the site, pursuant to Chapter 15, Article I and II, of the Weld County Code (Development Review) 20 The access to the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road, including damages and/or off -site tracking (Development Review) 21 Any work that may occupy and or encroach upon any County rights -of -way or easement shall acquire an approved Right -of -Way Use Permit prior to commencement (Development Review) 22 The Property Owner shall comply with all requirements provided in the executed Road Maintenance Agreement (Development Review) 23 The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts on the site will be maintained (Development Review) 24 The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design and Operation Standards of Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code 25 Necessary personnel from the Weld County Departments of Planning Services, Public Works, and Public Health and Environment shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activates carried out on the property comply with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations 26 The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations Substantial changes from the plans or Development Standards, as shown or stated, shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services Resolution USR23-0005 Kenneth Haring, do CBEP Solar 6, LLC Page 9 27 The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners 28 Construction or use pursuant to approval of a Use by Special Review Permit shall be commenced within three (3) years from the date of approval, unless otherwise specified by the Board of County Commissioners when issuing the original Permit, or the Permit shall be vacated The Director of Planning Services may grant an extension of time, for good cause shown, upon a wntten request by the landowner 29 A Use by Special Review shall terminate when the use is discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive years, the use of the land changes or the time period established by the Board of County Commissioners through the approval process expires The landowner may notify the Department of Planning Services of a termination of the use or Planning Services staff may observe that the use has been terminated When either the Department of Planning Services is notified by the landowner, or when the Department of Planning Services observes that the use may have been terminated, the Planner shall send certified written notice to the landowner asking that the landowner request to vacate the Use by Special Review Permit 30 RIGHT TO EXTRACT MINERAL RESOURCES STATEMENT Weld County has some of the most abundant mineral resources, including, but not limited to, sand and gravel, oil, natural gas, and coal Under title 34 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, minerals are vital resources because (a) the state's commercial mineral deposits are essential to the state's economy, (b) the populous counties of the state face a critical shortage of such deposits, and (c) such deposits should be extracted according to a rational plan, calculated to avoid waste of such deposits and cause the least practicable disruption of the ecology and quality of life of the citizens of the populous counties of the state Mineral resource locations are widespread throughout the County and people moving into these areas must recognize the various impacts associated with this development Often, mineral resource sites are fixed to their geographical and geophysical locations Moreover, these resources are protected property rights and mineral owners should be afforded the opportunity to extract the mineral resource 31 WELD COUNTY'S RIGHT TO FARM STATEMENT Weld County is one of the most productive agricultural counties in the United States, typically ranking in the top ten counties in the country in total market value of agricultural products sold The rural areas of Weld County may be open and spacious, but they are intensively used for agriculture Persons moving into a rural area must recognize and accept there are drawbacks, including conflicts with long-standing agricultural practices and a lower level of services than in town Along with the drawbacks come the incentives which attract urban dwellers to relocate to rural areas open views, spaciousness, wildlife, lack of city noise and congestion, and the rural atmosphere and way of life Without neighboring farms, those featureswhich attract urban dwellers to rural Weld County would quickly be gone forever Agricultural users of the land should not be expected to change their long-established agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusions of urban users into a rural area Well -run agricultural activities will generate off -site impacts, including noise from tractors and equipment, slow -moving farm vehicles on rural roads, dust from animal pens, field work, harvest, and gravel roads, odor from animal confinement, silage, and manure, smoke from ditch burning, flies and mosquitoes, hunting and trapping activities, shooting sports, legal hazing of nuisance wildlife, and the use of pesticides and fertilizers in the fields, including the use of aerial spraying It is common practice for agricultural producers to utilize an accumulation of agricultural machinery and supplies to assist in their agricultural operations A concentration of miscellaneous agricultural materials often produces a visual disparity between rural and urban areas of the County Section 35-3 5-102, C R S , provides that an agricultural operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the agricultural operation alleged to be a nuisance employs methods or practices that are commonly or reasonably associated with agricultural production Water has been, and continues to be, the lifeline for the agricultural community It is unrealistic to assume that ditches and reservoirs may simply be moved "out of the way" of residential development Resolution USR23-0005 Kenneth Harting. do C3EP Solar 6. LLC Page 10 Wien moving to the County, property owners ara resiaents must rea:ize they cannot taKe water from :rngation ditches, takes, or other structures, unless they have an adjudicated right to the water Weld County covers a land area of approximately four thousand (4,000) square miles in size (twice the sae cf t"e State of Ce:aware) wit more than tree thousand seven hundred (3,700) mies cf state and county reads cuts:de of municipalities The sheer magnitude of the area to be served stretches available resources Law enforcement is based on responses to compia:nts more tar or patrc:s of the County, and the distances wl-:ch must be traveled may delay a:l emergency responses, including law enforcement, ambulance, and fire F:re protection :s usually provided by volunteers vino must leave their jobs and fam:I:es to respond to ernergenc:es County gravel roads, no :ratter how often they are bladed, will not provide to same kind of surface expected from a paved road Snow removal priorities mean that rcaas fror- subdivisions to arterials may not :le c:eared for severa: days after a ma,or snowstorm Serv:ces in Tura: areas, r many cases, wit rot be equivalent to muricipa: services Rura: dwellers must. by necessity, be more self-sufficient than urban dwellers people are exposed tc different, hazards :r. the County tar in an urban or suburban setting Farm equ:pment and oil geld equipment, ponds and irrigation ditches, electrca! power for pumps and center pivot operations. high speed traffic, sandbars, puncture vines, temtona! farm dogs and livestock, and open burning present real treats Cortrcll:ng chi:drerfs activities is in-portantt, not only for their safety, but also for the protection of the farmer's live:ihccd Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 21 See attached. EXHIBIT D Property Value Studies Property Values and Utility -Scale Solar F. Research shows that there is no evidence that solar projects have adversely impacted neighboring properties. Background The utility -scale solar industry has seen significant growth over the past decade and demand for clean energy continues to grow as utility companies increase their investment in solar energy to meet customer demand, keep electricity prices affordable, and diversify their energy portfolio. The solar industry drives economic development, especially in rural communities, and can benefit all property owners through tax payments for roads, schools, and community services. In 2020, utility -scale solar projects contributed $750 million in state and local taxes and land -lease payments to property owners and have invested nearly $116 billion total in projects nationwide) The industry also supports 120,000 jobs across all 50 states. Utility -scale solar is the fastest growing source of renewable energy in the United States with 12 gigawatts (GW) of capacity added to the grid in 2020 and 15.5 GW of capacity added in 2021.2 According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022 with an expected growth by 21.5 GW in 2022.3 There is generally broad support across the United States to increase solar capacity. However, as utility -scale solar installations require large tracts of land, some communities have raised concerns a nearby solar facility may impact local property values. Real world experience has demonstrated this to not be true. HOME VALUE A S S F S S M E N T In 2018, graduate students at the University of Texas at Austin explored the impacts of property values near 956 utility -scale solar installations completed in 2016 or earlier across the United States. The researchers, in partnership with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory4, surveyed approximately 400 property value assessors nationwide, asking if the assessor believed there was an impact on home prices near these sites, the scale and direction of those impacts, and the source of those impacts. The results indicate that most assessors who responded to the survey believe that "proximity to a solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values:' The study found that the respondents believe that some features of solar facilities may be associated with positive impacts, such as a location on land that previously had an unappealing use, or the presence of trees or other visual barriers around the array.5 Furthermore, as the expected lifetime of a solar facility is at least thirty years, residents have assurance the nearby land will not be redeveloped for an unfavorable use. 1 American Clean Power Association. 2021. Utility -scale Solar Power Facts. Accessed at https://cleanpower.org/facts/solar-power/ 2 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2022. Accessed at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 3 Ibid. 4 Al-Hamoodah, Leila; Koppa, Kavita; Schieve, Eugenie; Reeves, D. Cale; Hoen, Ben; Seel, Joachim; and Rai, Varun. 2018. An Exploration of Property -Value Impacts Near Utility -Scale Solar Installations. Policy Research Project (PRP), LBJ School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2018. of Texas at Austin, May 2018. Accessed at https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/property-value impacts near utility -scale solar installations.pdf. 5 Al-Hamoodah et al. 2018. For more information, email Hilary Clark at hclark@cleanpower.org and David Murray at dmurray@cleanpower.org_ AMERICAN 1 Property Values and Utility -Scale Solar Facilities cleanpower.org RURAL H O M L ,: In September 2020, the University of Rhode Island published a study6 that found no negative impact to residential home values near solar arrays in rural areas. The study sought to quantify the effect of proximity to solar on property values by examining existing solar installations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The study evaluated 208 solar facilities, 71,373 housing sales occurring within one -mile of solar facilities (Test Group), and 343,921 sales between one -to -three miles of a solar facility (Control Group). The authors were able to isolate specific variables that could impact value, including isolating rural and non -rural locations, by using a regression analysis model commonly used in real estate pricing and quality adjustment for price indexes to estimate the impact that various factors have on the price or demand for property. The study defines "Rural;' as an area having a "population density of 850 people per square mile or fewer:' According to the study, the results "suggest that [the impacts on home sales in the Test Area] in rural areas is effectively zero (a statistically insignificant 01%), and that the negative externalities of solar arrays are only occurring in non -rural areas."' Further, the study tested to determine if the size of the solar installation impacted nearby property values, and found no evidence of differential property values impacts by the solar installation's size. AG R I C U LT U RA l LAND Similar results were found in a 2020 study on the effect of solar farms on agricultural land values in North Carolina, while also finding evidence that a solar farm may increase those agricultural land values. Published by Dr. Nino Abashidze at the School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology, and titled "Utility Scale Solar Farms and Agricultural Land Values;" the study examined 451 solar farms in North Carolina. The study found "no direct negative or positive spillover effect of a solar farm construction on nearby agricultural land values. Although there are no direct effects of solar farms on nearby agricultural land values, we do find evidence that suggests construction of a solar farm may create a small, positive, option -value for landowners that is capitalized into land prices. Specifically, after construction of a nearby solar farm, we find that agricultural land that is also located near transmission infrastructure may increase modestly in value:' Other property value studies that find no evidence of decreased property values after construction of a solar farm: • MINNESOTA: In 2017, the Chisago County (Minnesota) Assessor's Office conducted their own study on property pricesadjaceni to and in the close vicinity of a 1,000 acre North Star solar farm in Minnesota. John Keefe, the Chisago County Assessor, concluded that the North Star solar farm had "no adverse impact" on property values. Almost all of the [Test Area] properties sold were at a price above the assessed value. He further stated that, "It seems conclusive that valuation has not suffered." • NORTH CAROLINA: In 2018, Kirkland Appraisals, LLC studied the value of properties adjacent to solar farms in North Carolina.` Kirkland's analyses strongly support the compatibility of solar farms with adjoining agriculture and residential uses and conclude that there was no negative or positive impact in home values due to proximity of a solar farm. • VIRGINIA: Christian P. Kaila & Associates studied the value of properties adjacent to solar farms in Virginia1° The analysis concluded that adjacent property value (for both residential and agricultural property), was not adversely affected by construction and operation of solar facilities. Donald Fisher, ARA who has served six years as Chair of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, and has prepared several market studies examining the impact of solar on residential values was quoted in a press release dated February 15, 2021 stating, "Most of the locations were in either suburban or rural areas, and all of these studies found either a neutral impact or, ironically, a positive impact, where values on properties after the installation of solar farms went up higher than time trends:' CohnReznick, LLP has studied sale prices of single-family homes and agricultural land properties adjacent to solar farms in over 15 states, using appropriate Paired Sales methodology11, as well as Before/After resale (appreciation rate) analysis, and concluded that the solar farms did not adversely affect property values in either the short or long term. Ej Their research also includes reviewing published studies prepared by academia, as well as other appraisers, and conducting interviews with county assessors and local real estate professionals, who have experience with properties transacting near existing solar facilities in their respective communities. The consensus is that solar farms in their areas had not impacted property values. The utility -scale solar industry recognizes the importance of engaging with the host community to balance economic, environmental. safety, and social concerns when developing and operating their projects. In their siting and application process, successful solar developers have prioritized being a good neighbor and a long-termpartner with host communities. 6 Gaur, V. and C. Lang. (2020). Property Value Impacts of Commercial -Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Submitted to University of Rhode Island Cooperative. Extension on September 29, 2020. Accessed at https://web.uri.edu/coopext/valuing-sitingoptions-for-commercial-scale-solar- energy-in-rhode-island/. 7 The University of Rhode Island study's conclusion that there may be an impact to non -rural communities is surmised is that "land is abundant in rural areas, so the development of some land into solar does little to impact scarcity, whereas in non -rural areas it makes a noticeable impact. 8 Chisago County Press: County Board Real Estate Update Shows No "Solar Effects" (11/03/2017). 9 Kirkland, Richard C. 2018. Culpeper Solar Impact Study. Kirkland Appraisals, March 7, 2018. 10 Christian P. Kaila & Associates. 2020. Property Impact Analysis of Round Hill Solar, Proposed Solar Power Plant Augusta County, Virginia. June 2020. 11 Bell, Randall, PhD, MAI. Real Estate Damages. Third ed. Chicago, IL: Appraisal Institute, 2016. (Page 33). For more information, email Hilary Clark at hclark@cleanpower.org and David Murray at dmurray@cleanpower.org_ AMERICAN 2 Property Values and Utility -Scale Solar Facilities cleanpower.org rt j` o;est • ELSE ,TER Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol Shedding light on large-scale solar impacts: An analysis of property values and proximity to photovoltaics across six U.S. states Salma Elmallah a, Ben Hoen 'A, K. Sydny Fujita a, Dana Robson Eric Brunner b a Energy Analysis and Environmental Impacts Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA b Department of Public Policy, University of Connecticut; 10 Prospect Street, Hartford, CT, 06103, USA ENERGY POLICY ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Solar energy Property values Renewable energy Economic impacts Difference -in -difference ABSTRACT We examine the impact of large-scale photovoltaic projects (LSPVPs) on residential home prices in six U.S. states that account for over 50% of the installed MW capacity of large-scale solar in the U.S. Our analysis of over 1,500 LSPVPs and over 1.8 million home transactions answers two questions: (1) what effect do LSPVPs have on home prices and (2) does the effect of LSPVP on home prices differ based on the prior land use on which LSPVPs are located, LSPVP size, or a home's urbanicity? We find that homes within 0.5 mi of a LSPVP experience an average home price reduction of 1.5% compared to homes 2-4 mi away; statistically significant effects are not measurable over 1 mi from a LSPVP. These effects are only measurable in certain states, for LSPVPs constructed on agricultural land, for larger LSPVPs, and for rural homes. Our results have two implications for policymakers: (1) measures that ameliorate possible negative impacts of LSPVP development, including compensation for neighbors, vegetative shading, and land use co -location are relevant especially to rural, large, or agricultural LSPVPs, and (2) place- and project -specific assessments of LSPVP development and policy practices are needed to understand the heterogeneous impacts of LSPVPs. 1. Introduction Large-scale photovoltaic projects (LSPVP), defined here as ground - mounted photovoltaic generation facilities with at least 1 MW of DC generation capacity, are an increasingly prevalent source of renewable energy. LSPVPs accounted for over 60% of all new solar capacity in the United States in 2021, and, as the largest resource by capacity in interconnection queues, are projected to continue growing (Bolinger et al., 2021). However, the local economic impacts of LSPVPs are poorly understood (Mai et al., 2014), despite surveys showing that local public support for large-scale solar is strongly related to perceived economic impacts, including the impact on property values (Carlisle et al., 2014). Concerns surrounding the property value impacts of solar power are reflected in solar industry and environmental advocacy communication that challenge the conception that solar power reduces property values (Center for Energy Education, n.d.; Solar Energy Industries Association, 2019), and in attempts by neighbors of solar plants to claim solar panels as a private nuisance (Westgate, 2017). The purpose of this paper is to provide some of the first compre- hensive evidence on the impact of LSPVPs on residential home values. Specifically, we seek to answer two related research questions: (1) what * Corresponding author. E-mail address: bhoen@lbl.gov (B. Hoen). effect, if any, do LSPVPs have on residential home prices and (2) does the effect of LSPVPs on home prices differ based on the prior land use on which a LSPVP is located, the size of the LSPVP, or the urbanicity of a home's location? To address these questions we use data from CoreLogic on over 1.8 million residential property transactions that occurred within six years before and after a LSPVP was constructed in the five U.S. states with the highest concentration of LSPVPs as measured by number of installations: California (CA), Massachusetts (MA), Minnesota (MN), North Carolina (NC), and New Jersey (NJ), as well as in Connecticut (CT), chosen for its relatively high population density (i.e., urbanicity) near LSPVPs. We then combine the transaction data with other geo- spatial datasets including an original dataset of LSPVP footprints developed by the project team for this research, a suite of environmental amenities and dis-amenities, urban, rural, and suburban classifications, and historic land cover data. We identify the arguably causal impact of LSPVPs on residential property values using a difference -in -differences identification strategy that compares the sale price of residential homes located in close proximity to a LSPVP (e.g. 0-0.5 miles away) both before and after a LSPVP is constructed to the sale price of homes located farther away from a LSPVP (e.g. 2-4 miles away). Our paper makes several important contributions. First, we examine the impacts of LSPVPs in a large set of U.S. states that account for the https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113425 Received 14 June 2022; Received in revised form 13 December 2022; Accepted 9 January 2023 S. Elmallah et at Abbreviations A/D API CA CT DC dB DiD EIA FE GHG LSPVP MA amenities and dis-amenities Application Programming Interface California Connecticut direct current decibel difference -in -difference Energy Information Administration fixed effects greenhouse gas large-scale photovoltaic project Massachusetts MN MW NJ NLCD NY NC PV RI RPS SB U.K. U.S. USDA Minnesota megawatt New Jersey National Land Cover Database New York North Carolina photovoltaic Rhode Island Renewable Portfolio Standard Senate Bill United Kingdom United States United States Depat talent of Agriculture majority of U.S. LSPVP capacity, most of which, to our knowledge, have not previously been studied with respect to the impact of LSPVPs on property values. Existing research on the property value impacts of LSPVPs provides mixed results from a limited set of geographies. Where researchers do find an adverse impact of LSPVPs on property values, as in studies from the Netherlands and from the U.S. states of RI, MA, and NC, they theorize a change in property values due to visual intrusion from panels (Abashidze, 2019; Drees and Koster, 2021; Gaur and Lang, 2020) and land use change (Gaur and Lang, 2020). Conversely, one study based in the U.K. finds no statistically significant effect of LSPVPs on property values (Jarvis, 2021). Expanding the geographic scope of the literature, then, facilitates both generalization (Brinkley and Leach, 2019) and more location -specific policy insights. Second, we investigate whether the effect of LSPVPs on home prices is heterogenous with respect to LSPVP area, prior LSPVP land use, and home urbanicity. One of the major concerns surrounding LSPVPs, as well as one of the major opportunities to explore the co -benefits of LSPVP development, are its land use requirements (Hernandez et al., 2014a; Hernandez et al., 2014b; Katkar et al., 2021). In particular, more adverse home price impacts might be found where LSPVPs displace green space (consistent with results that show higher property values near green space (Crompton, 2001)) or where LSPVPs are larger in area, and thus more visually intrusive. While some previous studies (Gaur and Lang, 2020) find that greenfield solar development is primarily responsible for their observed decrease in home prices when compared to brownfield development, our constructed dataset of LSPVP footprints allows us to more precisely identify the prior land use of a LSPVP (for instance, breaking up the "greenfield" category into agricultural and non-agricultural land uses). Our dataset of LSPVP footprints additionally allows us to accurately characterize the area of each LSPVP. In section 2, we introduce the policy context for LSPVP development in the study area and review the existing literature on property value impacts of LSPVPs. In section 3, we detail the data used in this study, the geospatial methods used to combine datasets, and the difference -in- differences approach to assessing property value impacts of LSPVPs. In section 4, we present our base model, event study, and heterogeneity analysis results. In section 5, we summarize and discuss our findings. In section 6, we note the limitations of our study and describe avenues for future work. Finally, in section 7, we review the key conclusions and policy implications of our study. 2. Background and relevant literature 2.1. Policy context The study area is defined as the six states of CA, CT, MA, MN, NC, and NJ. The states in the study area were chosen based on number of in- stallations: CA, NC, MA, MN, and NJ represent the top five states in terms of number of >1 MW DC solar installations through 2019. Together, these states contain over 2,000 solar projects, or approxi- mately 53% of the total MW DC capacity in the United States through 2019. We additionally include CT because of its relatively high popu- lation density near solar projects (U.S. Energy Information Administra- tion, 2021a). All six states face increasing demands for large-scale solar along with intensifying land use and permitting constraints on solar development. Both CA and CT have ambitious Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPSs), aiming for 100% of electricity retail sales to be supplied by renewable sources by 2045 and 2040, respectively (Schwartz and Brueske, 2020; U. S. Energy Information Administration, 2021a). In CA, this necessitates, by some estimates, a tripling of California's renewable energy produc- tion; of those possible renewable resources, solar PV is both the least expensive and has the largest technical potential in the state (Schwartz and Brueske, 2020). Though MA, MN, and NJ have less ambitious renewable energy development goals, state reports still estimate that building solar PV is a key strategy to meeting both MA and MN's GHG reduction and renewable electricity sourcing targets (Jones et al., 2020; Putnam and Perez, 2018), and NJ introduced legislation in 2021 that aims to double existing solar installations through incentives (NJ Department of Environmental Protection, 2021). NC's solar future is less definite: although the state has, historically, been a leader in solar in- stallations, the dominant electric utility in the state, Duke Energy, has proposed an integrated resource plan that largely privileges fossil gen- eration over renewables. This plan is currently under review by the NC Utility Commission, with challenges from multiple environmental groups (Southern Environmental Law Center, 2021). State reports identify persistent LSPVP land use and permitting challenges. In CA, for instance, San Bernardino county voted to ban utility -scale solar farms on over a million acres of private land (Schwartz and Brueske, 2020), citing concerns about the industrializing impact of solar projects on rural or desert landscapes (Roth, 2019). Tradeoffs be- tween land use and LSPVP development are also observed at the state level in CT, MN, and NJ. In CT, Public Act 17-218, enacted in 2017, limits PV development on forest and prime farmland 1; this has resulted in a reduced number of approved commercial PV projects per year (CT Council on Environmental Quality, 2020). Before the passage of this act, in 2016, the CT Council on Environmental Quality reported that solar PV was the single largest type of development displacing agricultural and forest land (CT Council on Environmental Quality, 2017). MN, too, prohibits solar development on prime farmland: the state's Prime 1 Both CT Public Act 17-218 and the MA Prime Farmland Rule cite 7 CFR 657 for the definition of "prime farmland"; 7 CFR 657 is a periodically updated set of federal regulations, administered by the Department of Agriculture, that defines prime and important farmlands (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). S. Elniallah et at Farmland Rule includes solar development as one of the prohibited in- dustrial uses of select agricultural land (Bergan, 2021). The MN Prime Farmland Rule is currently being contested: legislation that allows more PV development on farmland is now under consideration in the MN legislature (Bergan, 2021), and the MN Department of Commerce has, in the past, issued guidance for developers on how to make their case for an exception to the rule (Birkholz et al., 2020). In NJ and NC, too, concerns about farmland preservation and LSPVPs have appeared in discussions among agricultural stakeholders, although neither state has adopted prime farmland legislation like CT or MN (American Farmland Trust, 2021; Cleveland and Sarkisian, 2019). In MA, state reports refer to siting difficulties due to high population densities, expensive land for devel- opment that is disconnected from transmission, and opposition to disturbance of natural land (Jones et al., 2020). In summary, while LSPVP installations are prevalent in the six states analyzed in this, these states also represent regions where an increasing need for LSPVP is met with restrictions, opposition, and land -use tradeoffs. These restrictions are often specific to farmland, although concerns do extend to other landscapes (like high density areas, deserts, and forests). Investigating property value impacts of LSPVPs, both overall and by prior land use and installation size, can potentially pro- vide policymakers, practitioners, and developers with valuable infor- mation on how LSPVPs affect residents' willingness to pay for properties located near LSPVPs. To the extent that these concerns represent possible burdens of LSPVP development, investigating property value impacts of LSPVPs also helps us understand how these burdens are distributed. These insights, in turn, can guide policy or best practices that seek to mitigate adverse impacts of LSPVP development to enable build -out that meets climate and clean energy goals. 2.2. Relevant literature The property value impacts of LSPVPs have received only recent, limited attention (Abashidze, 2019; Al-Hamoodah et al., 2018; Droes and Koster, 2021; Gaur and Lang, 2020; Jarvis, 2021). Studies on LSPVPs and property values employing difference -in -differences (DiD) analyses find mixed results. Studies based in the U.S., specifically, MA and RI (Gaur and Lang, 2020) and NC (Abashidze, 2019), and the Netherlands (Droes and Koster, 2021), find a statistically significant negative effect for homes near solar projects compared to homes further away. One study, based in the U.K., finds no statistically significant ef- fect of LSPVP proximity on home property values (Jarvis, 2021). Although none of the existing studies find evidence of an increase in sales prices for homes near solar projects, Abashidze (2019) finds an increase in agricultural land value for land in close proximity to trans- mission lines after a solar farm is built in the area. To our knowledge, only Gaur and Lang (2020) investigate the impact of prior land use using a DiD framework, finding that greenfield solar construction is associated with a statistically significant reduction in sale prices in both rural and non -rural areas, with greater reductions observed in rural areas. One study using a contingent valuation survey finds that respondent will- ingness to pay for large-scale solar developments is a function of prior land use, where brownfield solar developments are more desirable than greenfield developments (Lang et al., 2021). Both Jarvis (2021) and Abashidze (2019) find no evidence of heterogeneity in home price im- pacts by income or other socio-economic indicators. The mixed results to date in the LSPVP and property value literature motivates studies that look at previously understudied geographies to develop a more comprehensive view of the possible property value impacts of LSPVPs. The existing literature also orients us to relevant heterogeneity analyses, including heterogeneity by prior land use. We extend this literature by looking at a more specific set of prior land uses beyond greenfield and brownfield, as well as by looking at heterogeneity of effects by LSPVP size and urbanicity. 3. Methods 3.1. Data This project utilized five major sources of data, shown on the left- most side of Fig. 1. First, to characterize and locate LSPVPs, we uti- lized the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Form 860 (U.S. En- ergy Information Administration, 2021b), which provides latitude -longitude data on solar plants, their installed capacities (in megawatts, MW), and their operation start date. We kept only solar plants within the study area with an installed capacity over 1 MW and eliminated rooftop installations, leaving us with 1,630 solar plants. Second, to understand the impact of prior LSPVP land use on property values, we used land use data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS)'s Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium's National Land Cover Database (NLCD) from 2006 (Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2006). Third, for information about home sales, we used transaction data from CoreLogic (CoreLogic, n. d. ), which provided information on location, property characteristics and transaction characteristics. We filtered this dataset for only relevant, complete records; the criteria used to screen data are outlined in Table A.1. Fourth, to identify amenities or disamenities (herein referred to as A/D), or landscape characteristics that could positively or nega- tively impact the price of a home, we used the data sources summarized in Table A.2. Finally, to understand the impact of urbanicity on property value impacts, we used the U.S. Census Bureau's (U.S. Census Bureau, n. d.) urban -urban cluster -rural classification (a metric based on popula- tion density, where urban areas are the most dense, followed by urban clusters, then rural areas). These data sources were validated and combined to produce a final analytic dataset. Fig. 1 graphically depicts the data preparation steps, which we describe below. Step 1: To obtain a polygon representation of each LSPVP from the EIA point data, we first verified installation locations using satellite imagery from Esri and DigitalGlobe and revised project centroid co- ordinates where necessary. We manually drew polygons around the boundaries of each LSPVP based on satellite imagery; for projects that consisted of multiple, non-contiguous groups of panels, we drew a multipart polygon around the boundaries of each group of panels. We calculated a construction start year for each LSPVP, assuming con- struction begins one year before the EIA-provided operation start date. Fig. A.1 shows an example of two LSPVPs and their corresponding polygons; Fig. 2 shows the location of LSPVP sites as well as the density of transacted homes for the six states in the study area. Additionally, in this step we determined the predominant prior land use type of each LSPVP. We first determined the distribution of prior land cover types by area for each LSPVP; each LSPVP polygon is composed of some proportion of the NLCD land cover classes shown in the right -most column of Table 1 (15 of the 16 possible NLCD classes showed up in our sample). Each LSPVP's distribution of NLCD classes was grouped and summed as per the left -most column of Table 1, and each LSPVP was assigned the predominant prior land use type that constituted 50% or more of its land cover. If no single predominant prior land use type accounted for 50% or more of an LSPVP's prior land cover by area, that LSPVP was assigned a predominant prior land use type of "mixed".2 Fig. 3 shows (a) the proportion of displaced LSPVP area and 2 For instance, a solar installation on land that was, in 2006, 15% barren land, 25% cultivated crops, 25% herbaceous, and 35% hay/pasture, would be generalized as 60% agriculture and 40% greenfield, and would be given the predominant prior land use type of "agriculture". A solar installation on land that was, in 2006, 15% barren land, 25% developed, high intensity, 25% her- baceous, and 35% hay/pasture, would be generalized as 35% agriculture, 40% greenfield, and 25% brownfield, a would be assigned the predominant prior land use type of "mixed", because no single category amounted to greater than 50%. S. Elmallah et at DATA SOURCES Y _ LSPVP (>1 MW) point locations and properties (DA Form 86o) D-] • • • LS.PVP ID ecentroid latitude and longitude *capacity (MW) * year of operator start aoo6 land cover data (USGS NLCD) [a] Paster data for conterminous LISat;orri resolution, where each pixel can take one of iS land cover classes Screened home transaction data (CoreLogk) [31 * property ID * transaction ID • e • *property latitude • • and longitude 'property address, • • census block group 'property characteristics leg total living area,, number of bedrooms) *transaction characteristics (�` cj sale price, sale year)• AID geographic data (sources in Table A.2) (4] • • 7� Point, line, polygon, and raster data Urban, rural, or urban cluster designation (US Census Bureau) [51 Polygon data for US, where polygon can indicate an urban (high - density), urban cluster (medium, density) or rural area Step Ir Step COMBINED DATASETS LSPVP polygons and properties 161 Ity i.Step Same fields as dataset 1, with additional field; *polygon geometry *year of construction start *LSPVP area 0-n-') *predominant prior land use type Home transaction — LSPVP —AID distances 171 • • • • Same fields as dataset *3, with additional fields: *distance between each property and all LSPVP5 within 4 mi *construction, operation start years of all LSPVP5 wMthin 4 mi *predominant prior land use type and area of nearest LSPVP * distance between each property and nearest AID *ADD characteristics of each property ■ metropolltanlnon.rnetropo'litan designation of property county Step 3 Validated home transaction — LSPVP A/D distances [8] • • • • • • Same fields as dataset #7, with updated property latitude -longitude and distances where coordinates were validated Fig. 1. Data sources and data preparation steps. Table 1 Grouping of NLCD classes into predominant land use types; LSPVPs are assigned a predominant prior land use of "mixed" if their area does not contain 50% or more of the NLCD classes within a single predominant prior land use type. Predominant prior land NLCD classes use type Agriculture Brownfield Greenfield Cultivated Crops; Hay/Pasture Developed, High Intensity; Developed, Low Intensity; Developed, Medium Intensity Barren land; Deciduous forest; Developed, Open Space; Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands; Evergreen Forest; Herbaceous; Mixed Forest; Open Water; Shrub/Scrub; Woody Wetlands ANALYTIC DATASET Step 4 Each record represents one home sale transaction_ • • • * unique transaction iD * sale price and in(salep.rice) * sale year and quarter *property characteristics • LSPVP cohort ' distance and distance bin to LSPVP * predominant prior land use type of nearest LSPVP 'years since LSPVP construction - sale year - LSPVP construction year * A/D distances and values; A/D distance and value bins *census block group * home's rural, urban, or urban :luster classification Table 2 Transaction count by state in final analytic dataset. State Number of transactions CA CT MA MN NC NJ 6 state total 933,037 34,313 291,325 75,394 204,134 297,756 1,835,961 (b) the proportion of transactions near LSPVPs by predominant prior land use type. Step 2: For each home we calculated the geodesic distance to the polygon boundary of the nearest LSPVP and to all A/D locations. We also S. Eimallah et al. (d) MN (a) CA (b) CT (c) MA n 0 O 10 0 a a 0 a m.} 9 O 0 0 20 0 200 Mies 4 0 0 O.. c33,� p % S q,0 00O l'3? ae • a o fb` �Qb'G co 0 n • 40 Miles. Transactions per sq km �a 100 100 - 200 Lai 200 - 300 1111 >300 o LSPV sites 0 4141 CA Ct 't O • e Q90° 8 % 0 °0 8 a e 0 O 4h G na n p 0 % o a 0 0 8 0 ° 0 gel o eo 0 CI 43:3 Transactions per sq km V<50 50 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 >300 ° LSPV sites a ° 4 pCti Ci es4 B 00 0 rd fe 124 0 Transactions per sq km EH c50 O 50 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 >300 LSPV sites ,OG cob 0 tip: 0 `)Mlit. a 0 (e) NC -00 -- 0 0 37.5 0 8co nfri 0 LSPV sites 0 o ti cso-a 0 te0 0 Transactions per sq km l '<so I-1 so -100 100 -200 �. 200-300 >300 009 0 •, co G a 0 aco Transactions per sq km ;0 50-100 io0-200 all 200 -300 >300 0 LSPV sites (f) NJ O 0 6 O O O O° a Q O a ?CD e%* 80 ale "pc& szteii c tbowo -0- A u O 0 00 0 cc, ocy MflC ea O OO a Q 0,0 O . 9 U 0 O O O 180 hiseti; Transactions per sq kin Imo e 50-100 100-200 200-300 >300 LSPV sites 50 Males Fig. 2. Heat map of transacted home density within 5 miles of LSPVP sites in individual states. S. Elmallah et at 1.0 o.8 (a) Proportion of LSPVP o.6 area by predominant 0.4 prior land use 0.2 0.0 1.0 (b) Proportion0.g of home transactions o.6 by predominant prior land 0.4 use of nearest LSPVP 0.2 0.0 All 6 states CA CT All 6 states CA CT greenfield MA MN NC. NJ. MA State MN Predominant prior land use type agricultural brownfield NC NJ mixed Fig. 3. Distribution of predominant prior land use by (a) LSPVP area and (b) number of homes near LSPVPs. determined underlying A/D characteristics, where appropriate, such as flood zone status and road/airport sound levels. Finally, we determined the urbanicity of each home's location. Fig. 4 shows the distribution of homes by state and urban, urban cluster, or rural designation. Step 3: We validated the coordinates of select homes'] that were sited near LSPVPs or A/D using the Google Geocoding API (Google Maps Platform, n.d.), which takes as input an address and returns a set of coordinates as well as a precision indicator. We dropped from our analysis any home transactions where there was inconsistency in the coordinates between CoreLogic and the Google Geocoding API. For some homes, we replaced the CoreLogic coordinates with coordinates from the Google Geocoding API where Google returned a high precision indicator.4 Step 4: Given validated coordinates and distances, we retained only the home transactions that were suitable for use in the final analysis. Specifically, we eliminated (1) properties that host a LSPVP (i.e. their coordinates fall within the boundaries of a LSPVP polygon), (2) prop- erties that are over four miles away from a LSPVP, and (3) properties that transacted over 6 years before or after the operation start date of a LSPVP. We also calculated three sets of key values used in the analysis: the transaction's project cohort, LSPVP distance bin, and years since LSPVP construction. 3 We selected properties that were <0.5 miles from an LSPVP or A/D; within a flood zone with at least 1% chance of flooding, or within an area with road or aviation noise exceeding 55 dB. Of the properties that satisfied these conditions, only those with an area greater than 1 acre or those with missing or non -unique coordinates were validated. 4 We dropped home transactions from our analysis if the difference between the coordinates provided by the Google Geocoding API and CoreLogic was greater than 2 times the distance between that home and its nearest PV plant or A/D. We additionally dropped any duplicate coordinates within 0.5 mi of a PV plant. Where the Google Geocoding API returned a "rooftop" precision indi- cator, we replaced the CoreLogic coordinates with Google coordinates; for those homes, we recalculated distances to LSPVP and A/D using the process described in Step 2. The project cohort refers to the unique ID of the LSPVP that is nearest to a home transaction within 4 miles, and for which the operation start date occurred up to 6 years before or after a LSPVP began construction. If a given transaction belonged to more than one cohort, we retained only the nearest project cohort for that transaction.' The distance be- tween the transacted home and the nearest LSPVP was binned into 4 categories: [0 mi, 0.5 mi), [0.5 mi, 1 mi), [1 mi, 2 mi), and [2 mi, 4 mi]. To calculate the number of years since LSPVP construction, we sub- tracted the LSPVP year of construction start from the sale year (recall that the construction start year is assumed to be the operation start year minus 1 year). The years since LSPVP construction were categorized into 1 -year bins (i.e. a sale occurred [-5 years, -4 years), [-4 years, —3 years), ..., [5 years, 6 years), [6 years, 7 years] since LSPVP construc- tion). Our final analytic dataset consists of 1,836,053 transactions near 1,522 different LSPVPs. Table 2 and Fig. 5 summarize the number of transactions, and the number and size of LSPVPs, respectively, by state. The final dataset contains a number of continuous and categorical property and trans- action characteristics (e.g. sale price, sale year, number of bathrooms). Summary statistics for those continuous variables are shown in Table 3 for all six states; summary statistics for individual states are shown in Table A.3 to Table A.8. The categorical property characteristic variables are listed in Table A.9. Finally, Fig. 6 shows the total number of trans- actions within each distance bin by years since LSPVP construction and indicates that the sample has a robust set of transactions in all distance bins throughout the full sample period. While the home -level trans- action data used in this study is protected by a non -disclosure agreement and cannot be made publicly available, our dataset of LSPVP locations and associated sizes and prior land uses is available on Github (Elmallah et al., 2022). 5 In other words, if transaction Ti is 0.5 miles from LSPVPZ and 2 miles from LSPVPZ, and transacted within 6 years of the operation start date of both LSPVPZ and LSPVPZ, we consider transaction T1 to belong to the LSPVPZ project cohort. S. Elmallah et at 10 a.8 Proportion of home o.6 transactions by area classification O.4 0.2 0.0 All 6 states urban MA State Area classification urban cluster MN rural Fig. 4. Distribution of urban, urban cluster, and rural classifications by number of home transactions. 1O3 102 (a) Distribution of LSPVP capacity in analysis dataset (MW AC) 1O1 1O° 1O8 ao7 (b) Distribution of LSPVP 1O6 area in analysis dataset (m2) 1o' 104 • I 1 I I L • I • 2 • er. • _J_ • I I • • i I T All 6 states CA CT • I • MA MN NC NJ The _ • All 6 states CA CT MA MN State NC NJ Fig. 5. Distribution of (a) capacity in MW AC and (b) ground -mount area in m2 of unique LSPVPs in analysis dataset by state. Line represents median value; box limits represent 1st to 3rd quartiles; whiskers represent 4x the inter -quartile range. 3.2. Model specifications 3.2.1. Base difference -in -difference model To examine the relationship between LSPVPs and residential prop- erty values we utilized a difference -in -differences (DiD) identification strategy that relates the timing of treatment (being close to an LSPVP post construction) to home prices for homes located [0 mi, 0.5 mi), [0.5 mi, 1 mi), and [1 mi, 2 mi) away from a LSPVP. Specifically, we first created 1,522 unique datasets, each representing a unique LSPVP and the residential home transactions that occurred within four miles of the LSPVP and transacted within 6 years before or after the first year of operation of the LSPVP. We call each of these unique datasets a "project cohort." We then stacked the 1,522 project cohorts to create our final analytic dataset and specify a stacked difference -in -differences specifi- cation of the following form: InfP;cski\ _/3 T;4,c +Xia+S4/c +itic+Pgc+Qj + 8ic4rgr (1) The dependent variable in (1) is the natural log of sales price P for S. Elmallah et at Table 3 Summary of dependent variables and property and transaction characteristics in full analysis dataset. Variable Description Mean Std. dev. Min. Med. Max. Sp Lsp Lsf acres Age agesq salesqtr salesyr Sale price ($) log of sale price Living area (ft2) Land area (acres) Age of home at time of sale (years) Age of home at time of sale, squared (years2) Quarter of sale Year of sale $406,552.22 12.65 1936.53 0.455 44.08 2895.66 2.27 2015 $340,123.75 0.74 1002.05 0.873 30.86 3708.86 0.87 3 $5050.00 8.53 102 0.006 0 0 1 2003 $321,000.00 12.68 1720.00 0.19 40 1600.00 2 2015 $3,998,000.00 15.2 120,215.00 14.14 212 44,944.00 4 2020 Count of transactions 1O5 104 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 O 1 2 3 Sale date - LSPVP construction date (years) Distance between home and nearest LSPVP o-o.5mi o.5-1mi I 1-2mi 2-4mi 7 Fig. 6. Count of transactions in final analysis dataset by distance between transacted home and nearest LSPVP. residential home transaction i that belongs to a project cohort c within distance bin d and census block group j, that transacted in quarter q of year L Tidt is a vector consisting of 3 distance bin indicators for homes located [0 mi, 0.5 mi), [0.5 mi, 1 mi), [1 mi, 2 mi) from a LSPVP, where each distance bin is interacted with an indicator for whether the home sale occurred after LSPVP construction. The omitted category for the distance bin indicators is homes located 2 to 4 miles from a LSPVP. Sdc, Arc and pqc are, respectively, distance bin -by -project cohort fixed effects (FEs), transaction year -by -project cohort FEs and transaction quarter - by -project cohort FEs. (pp is a vector of census block group FEs, and eicdjgt is a random disturbance term. Finally, Xi is a vector of individual home characteristics including living square footage, land area, the age of the home at the time of sale, age squared, the number of full bath- rooms and stories, the type of air conditioning (AC) and heating, the construction type and exterior wall type of the home, indicators for fireplaces and new construction, the type of garage, and the type of view a home has. The standard errors in (1) are clustered at the project cohort level. The coefficients of primary interest in (1) are the /3 s which represent the DiD estimates of the effect of treatment (being close to an LSPVP post construction) on home prices for homes located [0 mi, 0.5 mi), [0.5 mi, 1 mi), and [1 mi, 2 mi) away from an LSPVP, respectively. Our DiD identification strategy is both transparent and intuitive. Specifically, each of the 1,522 project cohorts represents a unique quasi -experiment where the treatment group is homes located within [0 mi, 0.5 mi), [0.5 mi, 1 mi), and [1 mi, 2 mi) from a LSPVP and the control group is homes located 2 to 4 miles from a LSPVP. For each of these 1,522 quasi - experiments, our DiD framework then compares the sale price of homes located close to a LSPVP to the sale price of homes located farther away before and after LSPVP construction. The inclusion of distance bin - by -project cohort FEs, 5dc, transaction year -by -project cohort FEs, Arc, and transaction quarter -by -project cohort FEs, pqc, imply that our estimates are identified based only on within -project cohort variation in sale prices and distance from a LSPVP. Our coefficients of primary in- terest, /3 s, therefore represent the average treatment effect over the 1,522 quasi -experiments for homes located within each of our specified distance bins. Another advantage of our stacked DiD framework is that it avoids the potential biases that can arise in standard DiD and event study models in the presence of staggered timing of treatment with heterogeneous treatment effects. Specifically, several recent studies have shown that DiD specifications relying on the staggered timing of treatment for identification may be biased in the presence of heterogeneous treatment effects due to the contamination of treatment effects from early versus later adopters from other relative time periods (Callaway and San- t' Anna, 2021; Goodman -Bacon, 2021; Sun and Abraham, 2021). As discussed by Cengiz et al. (2019) and Goodman -Bacon (2021), our stacked DiD model avoids this potential source of bias by ensuring that treatment effects are based only on within -project cohort comparisons. 3.2.2. Robustness checks We investigated the robustness of the base model given by (1) to the choice of spatial FEs, time FEs, and treatment and control categories with three alternative specifications. Our first robustness check added a distance bin for homes located within 0.25 miles of a LSPVP. Specif- ically, we augmented the distance bins in (1) to include four (rather than three) indicators for homes located in the [0 mi, 0.25 mi),6 [0.25 mi, 0.5 mi), [0.5 mi, 1 mi), and [1 mi, 2 mi) distance bins; the indicator equals 1 if a transaction occurred within that distance bin in the same year or after LSPVP construction started, and 0 otherwise. This specification allows us to investigate the presence of a home price effect at even 6 A total of 6,252 transactions occurred both within 0.25 mi of an LSPVP and after that LSPVP was constructed. S. Elmallah et at smaller distances. In our second robustness check we replaced the year - by -project cohort and quarter -by -project cohort FEs in the base model by a single vector of quarter -by -year -by -project cohort FEs to allow for more granular trending of home values across quarters and years. In our third robustness check we added the vector of A/D variables, consisting of distance and value bins described in section 3.1 to account for any potential correlation between the A/D variables and the timing and location of a LSPVP that may bias our base model estimates. 3.2.3. Event study model In addition to the base model specification in (1), we specified an event -study model, which allowed us to test the parallel trends assumption underlying the difference -in -differences model and to allow treatment effects to evolve non -parametrically post -construction. Spe- cifically, we estimated a model of the following form: i In Piccljgtk 7 Ti,idllk + Xix + Sdc + Ale + Pqc l icdjgtk k=-5 (2) where Tk,idt represents a series of lead and lag indicators for when a LSPVP began construction for each of the three distance bins defined in (1). We re -centered Tk,idt so that To,idt always equals one in the year the I SPVP began construction. We included a series of indicators from 1 to 5 years prior to a LSPVP being constructed (T_5,idt to T_1,idt), and a series of indicators for 1-7 years after construction (T1,idt to T7,1 ). The omitted category for our treatment indicators (i.e. the reference year for all es- timates) is the year of construction start for a LSPVP (To,idt). 1icdjgtk is a random disturbance term and all other terms are as defined in (1). The coefficients of primary interest in (2) are the yks. The estimated coefficients on the lead treatment indicators (Y-5, ..., y_i) indicate whether the parallel trends assumption, which underlies all causal claims based on DiD models, appears to hold. Specifically, if LSPVP installation induces exogenous changes in home values, these lead treatment indicators should be small in magnitude and statistically insignificant, implying that the price of homes located close to a LSPVP (within 2 miles) were trending in a similar way to homes located farther away (2 to 4 miles) prior to LSPVP construction. The lagged treatment indicators (Ti i ...,17) allow the effect of distance to a LPSVP on home prices to evolve over time in the post treatment period in a non - parametric way. 3.2.4. Heterogeneity analyses We conduct four heterogeneity analyses using the baseline model given by (1). First, we examined potential heterogeneity across states by estimating (1) separately for each of the six states in our sample. Second, we investigated the relationship between prior LSPVP land use and property value impacts by dividing our sample into four groups: home transactions near LSPVPs that were predominantly agricultural, green - field, brownfield, or mixed land use prior to LSPVP construction. Third, we investigated the relationship between urbanicity and property value impacts by dividing our sample into one of the following U.S. Census Bureau designations: urban, urban clusters, or rural. Finally, we inves- tigated the relationship between project size (area in square meters) and property values by applying the base model (1) to two subsets of the data: home transactions near LSPVPs below the 50th percentile of LSPVP areas and above the 50th percentile of LSPVP areas, where the 50th percentile is calculated from the set of unique LSPVPs in our sample. 7 For A/D distance bins, the omitted category is [2 mi, 4 mi) from a home; for noise levels, the omitted category is the <45 dB category; for flood zone, the omitted category is the missing category. 4. Results 4.1. Base model and robustness check results Table 4 shows results for the base model given by (1) and the robustness checks described above. As shown in column 1, we find an average 1.5% reduction in house prices for homes within 0.5 miles of a LSPVP that transacted post-LSPVP construction, and an average 0.82% reduction in home prices for homes 0.5-1 mi away from a LSPVP. Both estimates are statistically significant at the 5 percent level or better. As shown in column 2, we additionally find an average 2.3% reduction in home prices within 0.25 mi of a LSPVP. In both models, the estimated treatment effects for homes located 1 to 2 miles from a LSPVP are quite small in magnitude and statistically insignificant, suggesting that the impact of LSPVPs on home values fades relatively quickly with distance from a LSPVP. Further, all effects are monotonically ordered from closest distances to further away, which meets a priori expectations and provides us additional confidence in the model. As shown in columns 3 and 4 of Table 4, altering the time FEs by including quarter -by -year -by - project cohort FEs or controlling for other A/D does not notably alter the estimates from the base model. 4.2. Event study results In Fig. 7 we present results from our event study specification given by (2), with coefficient estimates of our three distance bins shown as lines, and 95% confidence intervals shaded in similar colors. Homes located 2-4 miles from a LSPVP are once again the omitted category. Despite some noise in the estimates based on sales that occurred four or five years prior to LSPVP construction, in general there is very little evidence that home values were trending lower prior to the construction of a LSPVP: all of the estimated pre-treatment effects are small in magnitude and statistically insignificant. The lack of differential trend- ing prior to the installation of a LSPVP provides evidence that our main identification assumption —the parallel trends assumption —holds. Fig. 7 also shows a relatively clear decline in home values that starts shortly after the beginning of LSPVP construction and continues up to six years post construction. The negative impact of LSPVPs on home values is particularly pronounced for homes located 0 to 0.5 miles from a LSPVP where we see home values declining by 4 percent six years after LSPVP construction.`' 4.3. Heterogeneity analyses results Fig. 8 shows results from all the heterogeneity analyses alongside the base model results; for ease of visualization, only the coefficients and 95% confidence interval for the 0-0.5 distance bin are shown, while `fable 5 through Table 8 show more detailed results for each heteroge- neity analysis. As shown in Table 5, which shows base model results for individual states, changes in sales price are not statistically significant for CA, CT, and MA. However, MN, NC, and NJ, show a statistically significant negative effect of 4%-5.6%, more than double that of the average across all states in the base model. In Table 6, where we examine potential heterogeneity by predominant prior land use of the nearest LSPVP,we find that statistically significant home value reductions are only observed for homes nearest to LSPVPs that are sited on previously 8 When investigating results for individual states, both for the event study (section 3.2.3) and the heterogeneity analyses (section 3.2.4), our results largely agreed with the results for the full 6 state sample. However, our indi- vidual state estimates suffer from small sample sizes in individual time and distance categories for the event study and in individual subcategories for the heterogeneity analyses, so results are less reliable. Therefore, we do not present them in this paper. Results for individual states are available upon request from the authors. S. Elmallah et at Table 4 Average effect of LSPVP construction and proximity on home prices for all six states. Standard errors are clustered at the project cohort level and are in parentheses. Significance levels: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1 Dependent variable: the logarithm of house prices Base model (1) Including 0-0.25 mi distance Including quarter -year -project bin cohort FEs Including amenities and disamenities vector Distance between home and LSPVP: [0 mi, 0.25 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [0.25 mi, 0.5 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [0 mi, 0.5 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [0.5 mi, 1 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [1 mi, 2 mi) Home characteristics Distance -project cohort FEs Sale year -project cohort FEs Sale quarter -project cohort FEs Census block group FEs Sale year -sale quarter -project cohort FEs Amenities and disamenities Observations R2 —0.0154** (0.00630) -0.00820** (0.00413) -0.000841 (0.00226) 1,832,888 0.835 -0.0226*** (0.00767) -0.0133** (0.00641) -0.00820** (0.00413) -0.000841 (0.00226) 1,832,888 0.835 -0.0171*** (0.00642) -0.00941** (0.00424) -0.00179 (0.00234) 1,826,915 0.839 -0.0170*** (0.00589) -0.00987** (0.00403) -0.00131 (0.00225) 1,778,533 0.835 Change in price compared to sales that occurred 2-4 mi away from the nearest LSPVP (%) 6 4 2 0 - 2 - 4 - 6 -5 -4 -3 o-o.5mi -2 -1 0 1 2 Sale date - LSPVP construction date (years) Distance between home and nearest LSPVP o.5-zmi r2 = 0.835, observations =1,832,888 3 4 5 1- 2 mi r indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05) 6 Fig. 7. Average effect of proximity to LSPVP by year of sale relative to year of LSPVP construction; shaded area represents 95% confidence interval; x-axis label represents lower bound of year range (e.g. —5 refers to all transactions that occurred [-5, —4) years before the construction date of the nearest LSPVP). agricultural land.9 These findings are consistent with the results in Table 7, which shows that statistically significant effects were only observed for homes located in rural areas. Finally, in Table 8 we examine 9 We also tested the base model for a sample of only homes nearest to LSPVPs on previously forested land (NLCD classes of Deciduous Forest, Evergreen Forest, or Mixed Forest) and found no statistically significant results with p < 0.1. potential heterogeneity in property value impacts by the size of a LSPVP project. Specifically, we split the sample based on LSPVP areas and es- timate separate models for homes located near LSPVPs that are above or below the median LSPVP area in our sample. Adverse effects are only observed for LSPVPs with an area larger than the median area of all S. Elmallah et at 6 state base model Heterogeneity by state Heterogeneity by predominant prior land use of LSPVP Heterogeneity by urbanicity Heterogeneity by LSPVP area I f ' I I I I ' CA I . NC NJ MA 4N greenfield I O CT agnicultural I I I I I I -s- urban I p brownfield rural LSPVP area < 5oth percentile I:.SPVP area ≥ 5oth percentile urban cluster —10 —5 0 5 Change in price for sales that occured 0-0.5 mi away from the nearest LSPVP post-LSPVP construction, compared to sales that occurred 2-4 mi away (%) • indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05) 10 Fig. 8. Results from base model as well as each heterogeneity analysis, showing average effect of LSPVP construction and proximity for homes 0-0.5 mi away from nearest LSPVP. Range of change in price represents the 95th percent confidence interval. Table 5 Effect of LSPVP construction and proximity on home prices in individual states, using base model specification. Standard errors are clustered at the project cohort level and are in parentheses. Significance levels: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1 Dependent variable: the logarithm of house prices CA CT MA MN NC NJ Distance between home and LSPVP: [0 mi, 0.5 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [0.5 mi, 1 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [1 mi, 2 mi) Observations R2 0.00899 (0.0106) 0.000849 (0.00696) 0.00296 (0.00384) 931,735 0.881 0.0161 (0.0314) 0.0234 (0.0150) 0.0186** (0.00786) 34,135 0.774 -0.0144 (0.00892) -0.00933** (0.00469) -0.00190 (0.00319) 291,403 0.777 -0.0395** (0.0174) -0.0209** (0.00932) -0.0108* (0.00625) 74,905 0.708 -0.0576*** (0.0148) -0.0473*** (0.0118) -0.0117** (0.00570) 203,005 0.735 -0.0559*** (0.0114) -O0135* (0.00698) -0.00487 (0.00331) 297,677 0.751 Table 6 Average effect of LSPVP construction and proximity on home prices by pre- dominant prior land use of nearest LSPVP to home, using base model specifi- cation. Standard errors are clustered at the project cohort level and are in parentheses. Significance levels: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1 Dependent variable: Greenfield Agricultural Brownfield Mixed the logarithm of house prices Distance between home and LSPVP: [0 mi, 0.5 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [0.5 mi, 1 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [1mi, 2mi) Observations R2 — 0.00646 (0.00960) - 0.000991 (0.00480) 0.000836 (0.00248) 1,074,492 0.843 - 0.0302*** (0.0107) -0.0202*** (0.00629) - 0.00408 (0.00498) 577,769 0.833 0.0122 (0.0159) -0.00909 (0.0170) -0.00483 (0.00739) 147,951 0.860 - 0.0439 (0.0445) - 0.00679 (0.0342) - 0.000377 (0.0191) 12,987 0.828 Table 7 Average effect of LSPVP construction and proximity on home prices by home urban, urban cluster, or rural designation, using base model specification. Standard errors are clustered at the project cohort level and are in parentheses. Significance levels: ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1 Dependent variable: the logarithm of Rural house prices Urban cluster Urban Distance between home and LSPVP: [0 -0.0418*** 0.0324 mi, 0.5 mi) (0.0156) (0.0524) Distance between home and LSPVP: [0.5 mi, 1 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [1 mi, 2 mi) Observations R2 —0.0201* (0.0119) 0.00775 (0.00613) 151,792 0.803 0.0221 (0.0316) -0.00597 (0.00896) -0.00350 (0.00619) -0.00342 (0.00437) 0.00137 (0.00222) 79,279 1,592,715 0.785 0.845 S. Elmallah et at Table 8 Average effect of LSPVP construction and proximity on home prices by area of LSPVP, using base model specification. Standard errors are clustered at the project cohort level and are in parentheses. Significance levels: ***p < 0.01, **p <0.05,*p<0.1 Dependent variable: the logarithm of house prices LSPVP area < 50th percentile of area (75,138 m2) LSPVP area ≥ 50th percentile of area (75,138 m2) Distance between home and LSPVP: [0 mi, 0.5 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [0.5 mi, 1 mi) Distance between home and LSPVP: [ 1 mi, 2 mi) Observations R2 —0.00737 (0.00694) —0.00483 (0.00521) 0.00225 (0.00287) 1,291,762 0.841 —0.0305** (0.0138) —0.0166** (0.00684) —0.00841** (0.00344) 537,189 0.833 unique LSPVPs in our sample1°. 5. Discussion In this paper, we add to the growing body of research on the impact of LSPVPs on residential home values. By assembling an analysis dataset consisting of transaction data, an original dataset of LSPVP footprints, a suite of environmental amenities and dis-amenities, urbanicity classifi- cations, and historic land cover data, we answer two related research questions. First, we ask: what effect, if any, do LSPVPs have on residential home prices? Across the six states in the study area, we observe that homes within 0-0.5 mi of an LSPVP that transact after a LSPVP is constructed decline in sale price by an average of 1.5% compared to homes 2-4 mi away. At closer distances of 0-0.25 mi, the average decline in property values is 2.3%. This effect fades at further distances from a LSPVP; we observe a small adverse effect for homes 0.5-1 mi away of 0.8%, and no evidence of an effect at distances beyond 1 mi. Our estimates are robust to choices of time FEs and we control for other landscape characteristics that could impact property values. Our results are consistent with some prior literature (Drees and Koster, 2021; Gaur and Lang, 2020) that find an overall adverse impact of LSPVP construction on property values. Second, we ask: does the effect of LSPVPs on home prices differ based on the state, the prior land use on which a LSPVP is located, the size of the LSPVP, or the urbanicity of a home? When looking at individual states in our sample, we observe no effect on sales prices in CA, CT, and MA, but find sale price reductions for homes 0-0.5 mi away from a LSPVP of 4%, 5.8%, and 5.6% in MN, NC, and NJ, respectively. In those states where we do observe sale price reductions, the effect fades as distances from an LSPVP increases, as with the full 6 state model. When separating transactions by the prior land use and the area of the LSPVP to which they are closest, as well as by the urbanicity of the home, we observe statistically significant effects only for transactions near LSPVPs sited on previously agricultural land, transactions in rural areas, and transactions near larger LSPVPs by area. We observe decreases of 3%, 4.2%, and 3.1% for homes within 0-0.5 mi of LSPVPs on previously agricultural land, in rural areas, or near large LSPVPs, respectively, compared to homes 2-4 mi away. In all three cases, these effects fade with distance from a LSPVP. We observe no statistically significant effect 10 We also tested the base model for two additional samples: homes near very large LSPVPs (areas greater than the 75th percentile of areas of unique LSPVPs in our sample) and near very small LSPVPs (areas below the 25th percentile of areas of unique LSPVPs in our sample). For both subsets of our data, we found no statistically significant results with p < 0.1. of LSPVP construction and proximity on home prices in other categories for land use (greenfield, brownfield, or mixed land use sites), urbanicity (urban or urban cluster regions), or LSPVP area (where areas fall below the median LSPVP area in our dataset). Looking at the heterogeneity results by land use and urbanicity may help us understand the hetero- geneity we observe by state: the states where we observe no statistically significant difference in sales price (in CA, CT, and MA) are also the states with lower proportions of LSPVP development on agricultural land (Fig. 3). CA additionally has very few transactions in rural areas (Fig. 4). Our heterogeneity analyses show that the property value impacts of LSPVP development are highly contextual, and reinforce scholarly ar- guments that research on public support for solar energy should consider both project scale and proposed locations (Nilson and Stedman, 2022). Specifically, our results point to the importance of understanding the perceptions, economic impacts, and social dynamics of larger solar de- velopments, rural developments, and developments built on previously agricultural land. Broader social science scholarship can contextualize these results: for instance, researchers have theorized that the siting of renewable energy in rural areas can counter personal, cultural, and political representations and understandings of rural landscapes (Batel et al., 2015). Our observed heterogeneity may reflect how large, agri- cultural, or rural developments potentially conflict more directly with those representations than smaller, non-agricultural, or urban de- velopments. Furthermore, our results with respect to land use connect to an emerging literature on the co -location of solar and agriculture: sur- veys show that residents in agricultural communities are more likely to support solar development that integrates agricultural production (Pascaris et al., 2022), though scholarly reviews note that our under- standing of perceptions of solar -agricultural systems remains limited (Mamun et al., 2022). 6. Limitations and future work A key limitation of our research approach is that we consider only one aspect of the economic impacts of LSPVPs: property values. The impacts of local energy development are also shaped by local tax reve- nue and employment impacts, which have consistently been found to result in positive benefits (Brunner et al., 2021; Brunner and Schweg- man, 2022a, 2022b), as well as by LSPVP ownership structures. This implies that homeowners can and do capitalize the positive impacts of renewable energy into home prices. Because this analysis compared home prices between homes around the same projects, any differences in value as compared to homes not near any LSPVP, and thus not subject to local tax or employment impacts, would have remained undiscovered. Furthermore, to the extent that property value changes reflect the revealed preferences of residents, they only reflect the preferences of the subset of residents who are homeowners. Where homeownership rates are lower — largely in urban areas, but in an increasing portion of rural areas as well (Pendall et al., 2016) — property value changes may not reflect the preferences of neighbors to the extent that they do where homeownership rates are higher. Considering these varied economic impacts would necessitate methodologies and data collection beyond the hedonic DiD analysis used in this paper. These limitations suggest two major avenues for future work. First, more research attention is needed on the economic impacts of LSPVPs, broadly understood to encompass dimensions such as tax revenue, ownership structures, or employment. Added research on the local economic impacts of LSPVPs can position our findings on the average adverse impact of LSPVP development on home prices in a broader context of economic benefits and burdens due to LSPVP development. Second, more research is needed to understand the heterogeneity that we observe with respect to larger, agricultural, and rural LSPVPs. Here, surveys, qualitative research, mixed -methods, and case study -based approaches may indicate how neighbors of LSPVPs engage differently with their nearby solar installation based on its size, land use, or the S. Elmallah et al. urbanicity of their home. 7. Conclusion and policy implications This paper provides some of the first comprehensive evidence on the impact of LSPVPs on residential home values. Specifically, we ask: (1) what effect, if any, do LSPVPs have on residential home prices and (2) does the effect of LSPVPs on home prices differ based on the prior land use on which an LSPVP is located, the size of the LSPVP, or the urban- icity of a home? In our six -state study area (CA, CT, MA, MN, NC, NJ), we find that homes within 0.5 mi of LSPVP experience an average home price reduction of 1.5% compared to homes 2-4 mi away; statistically significant effects are not measurable over 1 mi from a LSPVP. These effects are only measurable in certain states (MN, NC, and NJ), for LSPVPs constructed on agricultural land, for larger LSPVPs, and for rural homes. Our study extends the existing literature in three ways. First, we consider a larger sample, both in terms of transactions and LSPVPs, than prior studies. Our six -state study area encompasses 53% of the total MW nameplate capacity of PV generators in the U.S., and our analysis included evidence from over 1,500 LSPVPs and over 1.8 million home transactions. The scope of our dataset allows us to provide average impact estimates for a much larger set of LSPVP projects within the United States. Second, to our knowledge, our study is the first study on LSPVP property values impacts to use a dataset of LSPVP footprints (as opposed to point locations or approximations of LSPVP area using cir- cular buffers). By constructing and using footprint data, we can more precisely assess the land area and prior land use of LSPVPs, as well as reduce measurement error when calculating distances between homes and a LSPVP. Finally, we employ a stacked DiD specification with bin - by -project cohort FEs, which not only advances the methodology used for this type of analysis but also addresses recent concerns over DiD specifications that rely on staggered timing of treatment. Our findings have two main policy implications. First, they point to the need for policy and development measures to ameliorate possible negative impacts of LSPVP development in some contexts. Our results suggest that there are adverse property value impacts of LSPVP con- struction for homes very close to a LSPVP and those predominantly in rural agricultural settings around larger projects. But we find that most impacts fade at distances greater than 1 mile from a LSPVP. In some cases - for homes near large LSPVPs, and in the states of MN and NC - negative effects persist at distances greater than 1 mile but are smaller than they are at nearer distances to a LSPVP. These results suggest that care should be taken in siting LSPVPs near homes in some contexts. Developers or policymakers considering siting LSPVPs very close to homes have several tools to employ, such as compensation schemes with neighbors and landscape measures like vegetative screening. Second, the heterogeneity analyses reveal the importance of place and project -specific assessments of LSPVP development practices. Although we find adverse impacts of LSPVP construction on property values overall, we notably find no evidence of impacts in three states in our study area - including in CA, which alone accounts for over half of the transactions in our dataset. On the other hand, we do see evidence of adverse property value impacts of LSPVPs in the other three states in our dataset — including in MN, despite MN having arguably the most restrictive state-wide laws on LSPVP development in high -value agri- cultural areas of the states in our study area (Bergan, 2021). While our sample for individual states was too small to conclusively explore het- erogeneity within states, our overall heterogeneity analysis suggests that adverse impacts of LSPVP development are present specifically in rural areas, where LSPVP displaces agricultural land uses, and where LSPVP installations are larger. For policy -makers, this heterogeneity may point to the importance of carefully considering siting strategies for rural, large, or agricultural installations — for instance, by exploring ways to co -locate agricultural land uses and solar development. However, this heterogeneity does not mean that economic impacts are negligible where property value impacts were insignificant (CA, CT, MN, as well as urban, non-agricultural, and smaller developments): as discussed in section , many economic impacts remain undiscovered by our meth- odology, some of which might increase home values, and future policy -relevant research is needed to understand the economic impacts of LSPVPs, broadly construed. By combining a novel dataset of LSPVP footprints with home trans- action data, our analysis provides comprehensive evidence that LSPVPs have an average adverse effect on home prices, but notably shows that these impacts are not uniform across geographies, land uses, or LSPVP size. In doing so, we contribute to the emerging literature on the eco- nomic impacts of LSPVPs and point to important avenues for future policy discussions and research. CRediT authorship contribution statement Salma Elmallah: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing. Ben Hoen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing, Project administration, Supervision, Funding acquisition. K. Sydny Fujita: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing. Dana Robson: Data curation, Writing. Eric Brunner: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Data availability Datasets related to this article that can be shared can be found at haps://zenodo.org/record/7415662. Acknowledgements We thank several LBNL colleagues including Joseph Rand and Grace Brittan for collaborating on code writing and data cleaning, Mark Bolinger and Greta Bolinger for assistance with PV polygon drawing, Terry Chan for his information technology assistance and expertise, Nairn Darghouth for assistance with geocoding validation, and Sydney Forrester for help identifying datasets. We are grateful to Corey Lang, Ryan Wiser, and David Schwegman for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of this work. We are especially grateful to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Energy Technologies Office, specif- ically Ammar Qusaibaty, Dave Rench-McCauley, and Michele Boyd for their patient support of this work as it slowly made its way from conception to the final analysis with many iterations in between. This work is funded under DOE Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. We are also grateful to the two anonymous reviewers, whose suggestions strengthened this paper. For our figures, we used color palettes from the collection "Wes Anderson Palettes" developed by Karthik Ram (https: //github. com/karthik/wesanderson). S. Elmallah et at Appendix Table A.1 Retention criteria for transactions Condition for retention Rationale Coordinate values are populated Land area, year built, and home square footage are populated Coordinates appear 20 times or less Property type is residential (including single family residence, condominium, duplex, apartment) Transaction is categorized as arms length Year of sale between 2000 and 2021 Sale amount is greater than $5000 or the 1st percentile of sale price (whichever value is higher) and less than the 99th percentile of sale amount values within a given state Sale amount per unit area of living space is greater than the 1st percentile and less than the 99th percentile of sale amount per unit area of living space values within a given state Land area is greater than the 1st percentile and less than the 99th percentile of land area values within a given state Property was built before 2020, and after the 1st percentile of values for year built within a given state Sale amount is greater than the mortgage amount, or mortgage amount is missing Land area is greater than living space area Age of property (sale year minus year built) is non -negative Both variables representing land area converge within 0.01 acres Deed is not categorized as foreclosure Sale occurred over one year after last recorded sale for that property Property address was not determined from mail Coordinates are needed to obtain distances between homes and LSPVP, amenities, and dis- amenities Land area, year built, and home square footage are essential property characteristics to control for in analysis Repeated, identical coordinates for multiple properties may indicate data quality issue Analysis only considers homes (i.e. residential properties) sold in arms length transactions after the year 2000 Removing outliers from analysis Any other relationship (between sale amount & mortgage amount, land area & living space area, sale year & year built, set of variables representing land area) may indicate data quality issues Sale amount in a foreclosure may not accurately represent the value of a home Removes potentially "flipped" homes, or homes that undergo a rapid renovation and are re -sold, from dataset; for those homes, characteristics in CoreLogic dataset may not be representative of characteristics after renovation Address determined from mail may reflect the address of an absentee owner, not of the physical property location Table A.2 Amenity and dis-amenity data sources Amenity/dis-amenity Data source Data description Reference Aviation noise Road noise Flood zones Municipal, industrial, and transfer landfills State and national parks Nuclear power generation facilities Coal power generation facilities Coastline Lakes High -voltage lines U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Department of Homeland Security Esri National Institute of Health U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ABB Group Raster representing approximate average noise energy due to transportation noise sources over a 24-h period at the receptor locations where noise is computed, expressed in decibels (dB) Categorizes areas by likelihood of flood, ranging from minimal risk to 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30 -year mortgage Provides locations of active permitted municipal solid waste facilities and construction and demolition debris facilities. Provides boundaries of parks and forests in the United States at the national, state, regional, and local level Provides locations of U.S. commercial nuclear power plants Facility data (as of 2017) where primary or secondary fuel type is coal -related (e.g., Coal, Coal Refuse, and Petroleum Coke). Locations of U.S. coastline, including bays, river outlets, and Great Lakes Locations of U.S. lakes, represented as polygons Transmission and distribution lines with a voltage of 100 V or greater, represented as polylines (U.SDepartment of Transportation, 2020) Federal Emergency Management Agency (2021) Department of Homeland Security (2020) Esri (2021) Hochstein and Szczur (2006) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2021) ABB Group (2020) S. Elmallah et at Fig. A.1. Satellite imagery showing examples of LSPVP centroids (blue dots) and polygons (yellow shaded areas) near homes including homes that transacted during our study period (pink dots): (a) McGraw-Hill Solar Farm, NJ and (b) Intel Folsom, CA Table A.3 Summary of dependent variables and property characteristics, CA Variable Description Mean Std. dev. Min. Med. Max. Sp Lsp Lsf Acres Age Agesq Salesqtr Salesyr Sale price ($) log of sale price Living area (ft2) Land area (acres) Age of home at time of sale (years) Age of home at time of sale, squared (years2) Quarter of sale Year of sale $457,797.53 12.75 1868.69 0.336 36.94 1979.42 2.23 2014 $403,489.03 0.75 1026.22 0.7 24.79 2233.94 0.88 3 $35,500.00 10.48 102 0.018 0 0 1 2003 $350,000.00 12.77 1654.00 0.165 34 1156.00 2 2015 $3,998,000.00 15.2 98,694.00 7.231 112 12,544.00 4 2020 Table A.4 Summary of dependent variables and property characteristics, CI' Variable Description Mean Std. dev. Min. Med. Max. Sp Lsp Lsf Acres Age Agesq Salesqtr Salesyr Sale price ($) log of sale price Living area (ft2) Land area (acres) Age of home at time of sale (years) Age of home at time of sale, squared (years2) Quarter of sale Year of sale $283,251.18 12.4 1916.21 0.818 59.74 4700.55 2.32 2017 $184,202.97 0.56 951.46 1.114 33.65 5311.95 0.83 2 $36,000.00 10.49 196 0.07 0 0 1 2011 $239,900.00 12.39 1669.00 0.41 58 3364.00 2 2018 $1,640,000.00 14.31 35,170.00 9.51 212 44,944.00 4 2020 Table A.5 Summary of dependent variables and property characteristics, MA Variable Description Mean Std. dev. Min. Med. Max. Sp Lsp Lsf Acres Age Agesq Salesqtr Salesyr Sale price ($) log of sale price Living area (ft2) Land area (acres) Age of home at time of sale (years) Age of home at time of sale, squared (years2) Quarter of sale Year of sale $428,122.04 12.78 2019.36 0.584 62.74 5399.73 2.35 2015 $284,039.71 0.63 961.96 0.764 38.25 5906.47 0.84 3 $5100.00 8.54 173 0.03 0 0 1 2005 $360,000.00 12.79 1802.00 0.315 58 3364.00 2 2016 $2,199,000.00 14.6 35,721.00 6.6 209 43,681.00 4 2020 S. Elmallah et aI. Table A.6 Summary of dependent variables and property characteristics, MN Variable Description Mean Std. dev. Min. Med. Max. Sp Lsp Lsf Acres Age Agesq Salesqtr Salesyr Sale price ($) log of sale price Living area (ft2) Land area (acres) Age of home at time of sale (years) Age of home at time of sale, squared (years2) Quarter of sale Year of sale $274,027.53 12.38 1956.58 0.612 42.03 2739.86 2.31 2016 $152,774.95 0.56 978.6 1.316 31.21 3587.53 0.82 2 $5500.00 8.61 155 0.02 0 0 1 2010 $240,000.00 12.39 1740.50 0.26 35 1225.00 2 2016 $1,299,000.00 14.08 42,840.00 11.87 134 17,956.00 4 2020 Table A.7 Summary of dependent variables and property characteristics, NC Variable Description Mean Std. dev. Min. Med. Max. Sp Lsp Lsf Acres Age Agesq Salesqtr Salesyr Sale price ($) log of sale price Living area (ft2) Land area (acres) Age of home at time of sale (years) Age of home at time of sale, squared (years2) Quarter of sale Year of sale $233,970.66 12.12 2091.02 0.788 29.48 1448.56 2.26 2016 $169,170.45 0.75 1110.70 1.437 24.08 2083.56 0.86 3 $5050.00 8.53 150 0.021 0 0 1 2004 $194,000.00 12.18 1852.00 0.36 22 484 2 2016 $1,499,500.00 14.22 120,215.00 14.14 114 12,996.00 4 2020 Table A.8 Summary of dependent variables and property characteristics, NJ Variable Description Mean Std. dev. Min. Med. Max. Sp Lsp Lsf Acres Age Agesq Salesqtr Salesyr Sale price ($) log of sale price Living area (ft2) Land area (acres) Age of home at time of sale (years) Age of home at time of sale, squared (years2) Quarter of sale Year of sale $390,953.28 12.68 1959.42 0.393 56.92 4140.35 2.31 2014 $243,373.52 0.66 868.99 0.656 30.02 3664.38 0.86 4 $5143.00 8.55 160 0.006 0 0 1 2004 $340,000.00 12.74 1786.00 0.185 57 3249.00 2 2014 $1,599,999.00 14.29 19,176.00 6.167 139 19,321.00 4 2020 Table A.9 Categorical variables representing property characteristics (* = omitted category in regressions) Variable Category Fullbaths Actype Constrtype Heattype Number of full bathrooms missing* 1 full bathroom 2 full bathrooms 3 full bathrooms 4 full bathrooms ≥ 5 full bathrooms Mr conditioning code missing* Central AC AC type unknown Refrigeration AC Separate AC system No AC Evaporative AC All other types of AC Construction type missing* Wood construction type Frame construction type Wood metal/frame construction type All other construction types Heating type missing* Central heat Forced air Unknown heating type Forced hot water (continued on next page) S. Elmallah et aI. Table AS (continued) Variable Category Extwalltype Fireplace Garagecode Stories View newconstruction Heat pump Hot air Floor/wall furnace No heat Steam All other heating types Exterior wall type missing* Stucco Frame Vinyl Aluminum/vinyl Wood siding/shingle Brick Aluminum siding Wood siding Wood All other wall codes No fireplace indicated* Fireplace present Garage type missing* Undefined garage type Attached Attached frame Undefined type - 2 car Detached Finished Basement Carport Undefined type - 1 car Frame Attached finished Attached garage/carport All other garage codes Number of stories missing* 0 to 1 stories 1 to 2 stories 2 to 3 stories >3 stories View category missing* Average view All other view categories New construction not indicated* New construction References Abashidze, N., 2019. Essays on Economic and Health Effects of Land Use Externalities. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. ABB Group, 2020. Velocity suite [WWW document]. https://www.hitachiabb-powergri ds.com/us/en/offering/product-and-system/energy-planning-trading/market-intelli gence-services/velocity-suite, 10.Apri1.21. Al-Hamoodah, L., Koppa, K., Schieve, E., Reeves, D.C., Hoen, B., Seel, J., Rai, V., 2018. An Exploration of Property -Value Impacts Near Utility -Scale Solar Installations (PRP). In: Policy Research Project. LBJ School of Public Affairs (The University of Texas at Austin). American Farmland Trust, 2021. New Jersey dual use solar & utility solar (SREC-II) bills [WWW document]. https://www.maine.gov/future/sites/maine.gov.energy/files/in line-files/Dual%20Use%20Solar%20and%20SREC%20II%20update%20%207.22.2 1%20ME%20Ag%20Solar%20Stakeholders.Final_.%20v2.pdf. Apri1.27.22. Batel, S., Devine -Wright, P., Wold, L., Egeland, H., Jacobsen, G., Aas, O., 2015. The role of (de-)essentialisation within siting conflicts: an interdisciplinary approach. J. Environ. Psychol. 44, 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.004. Bergan, S., 2021. Minnesota is primed to turn a page on the conflict between solar growth and farmland preservation [WWW Document]. pv magazine USA. https ://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021 /05/14/minnesota-is-primed-to-turn-a-page-on-the-c onflict-between-solar-growth-and-farmland-preservation/. Apri1.27.22. Birkholz, D., Miltich, L., Wachtler, J., Roos, S., Patton, R., Bucholtz, J., 2020. Solar Energy Production and Prime Farmland. Bolinger, M., Seel, J., Warner, C., Robson, D., 2021. Utility -Scale Solar, 2021 Edition. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Brinkley, C., Leach, A., 2019. Energy next door: a meta -analysis of energy infrastructure impact on housing value. Energy Res. Social Sci. 50, 51-65. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j. errs. 2018.11.014. Brunner, E.J., Schwegman, D.J., 2022a. Commercial wind energy installations and local economic development: evidence from U.S. counties. Energy Pol. 165 (112993) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112993. Brunner, E.J., Schwegman, D.J., 2022b. Windfall revenues from windfarms: how do county governments respond to increases in the local tax base induced by wind energy installations? Public Budgeting & Finance pbaf.12318. https://doi.org /10.1111 /pbaf.12318. Brunner, E.J., Hoen, B., Hyman, J., 2021. School district revenue shocks, resource allocations, and student achievement: evidence from the universe of U.S. Wind energy installations. SSRN journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3965311. Callaway, B., Sant'Anna, P.H.C., 2021. Difference -in -Differences with multiple time periods. J. Econom. 225, 200-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jeconom.2020.12.001. Carlisle, J.E., Kane, S.L., Solari, D., Joe, J.C., 2014. Support for solar energy: examining sense of place and utility -scale development in California. Energy Res. Social Sci. 3, 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.006. Cengiz, D., Dube, A., Lindner, A., Zipperer, B., 2019. The effect of minimum wages on low -wage jobs. Q. J. Econ. 134, 1405-1454. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/gjz014. Center for Energy Education. n.d. Myths and facts about solar energy. Center for energy education. https://center4ee.org/debunking-solar-myths/. April.17.21. Cleveland, T., Sarkisian, D., 2019. Balancing agricultural productivity with ground -based solar photovoltaic (PV) development [WWW document]. https://nccleantech.ncsu. edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Balancing-Agricultural-Productivity-with-Gro und-Based-Solar-Photovoltaic-PV-Development-l.pdf. Apri1.27.22. CoreLogic, n.d. Real estate & property data solutions [WWW document]. https://www. corelogic.com/find/property-data-solutions/. December.1.21. Crompton, J.L., 2001. The impact of parks on property values: a review of the empirical evidence. J. Leisure Res. 33, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00222216.2001.11949928. CT Council on Environmental Quality, 2017. Energy sprawl in Connecticut [WWW document]. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CFQ/EnergySprawlinConnecticutpdfpdf. Apri1.27.22. S. Elmallah et at CT Council on Environmental Quality, 2020. Solar photovoltaics [WWW document]. CT. gov - Connecticut's official state website, 2020. https://portal.ct.gov/CEQ/AR-20- Gold/2020-CEQ-Annual-Report-eBook/Personal-Impact -Waste-Diversion/Solar-Ph otovoltaics. Apri1.27.22. Department of Homeland Security, 2020. Solid waste landfill facilities [WWW document]. https://hifld-geoplatform. opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/solid-waste- landfill-facilities, 10.Apri1.21. Droes, M.I., Koster, H.R.A., 2021. Wind turbines, solar farms, and house prices. Energy Pol. 155 (112327) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112327. Elmallah, S., Hoen, B., Fujita, S., 2022. 2022. Large scale PV locations, attributes and ground cover for energy policy. Versiones: lspvp_locations v1.0. Uploaded. https:// doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7415662. GitHub Depository. Esri, 2021. USA parks [WWW document]. https://www.arcgis.com/sharing/rest/conte nt/items/578968f975774d3fab79fe56c8c90941, 10.July.21. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2021. National flood hazard layer [WWW document]. Flood maps. https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/national-flood-hazard-1 ayer, 10.Apri1.21. Gaur, V., Lang, C., 2020. Property Value Impacts of Commercial -Scale Solar Energy in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension. Goodman -Bacon, A., 2021. Difference -in -differences with variation in treatment timing. J. Econom. 225, 254-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.03.014. Google Maps Platform. n.d. Geocoding API [WWW Document]. Google Developers. Imps ://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geocoding/overview, 10.Apri1.21. Hernandez, R.R., Easter, S.B., Murphy-Mariscal, M.L., Maestre, F.T., Tavassoli, M., Allen, E.B., Barrows, C.W., Belnap, J., Ochoa-Hueso, R., Ravi, S., Allen, M.F., 2014. Environmental impacts of utility -scale solar energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 766-779. haps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.041. Hernandez, Rebecca R., Hoffacker, M.K., Field, C.B., 2014. Land -use efficiency of big solar. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 1315-1323. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4043726. Hochstein, C., Szczur, M., 2006. TOXMAP: a GIS-based gateway to environmental health resources. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 25, 13-31. https://doi.org/10.1300/J115v25n03_02. Jarvis, S., 2021. The Economic Costs of NIMBYism: Evidence from Renewable Energy Projects. University of Mannheim. Jones, R., Haley, B., Williams, J., Farbes, J., Kwok, G., Hargreaves, J., 2020. Energy Pathways to Deep Decarbonization: A Technical Report of the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap Study. Katkar, V.V., Sward, J.A., Worsley, A., Zhang, K.M., 2021. Strategic land use analysis for solar energy development in New York State. Renew. Energy 173, 861-875. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.03.128. Lang, C., Gaur, V., Howard, G., Quainoo, R., 2021. Incorporating Resident Preferences into Policy Recommendations for Utility -Scale Solar Siting in Rhode Island. Legal Information Institute, n.d. 7 CFR Part 657 -PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS [WWW Document]. LIT / Legal Information Institute. URL https://www.law.cornell. edu/cfr/text/7/part-657 (accessed 4.27.22). Mai, T., Hand, M.M., Baldwin, S.F., Wiser, R.H., Brinkman, G.L., Denholm, P., Arent, D. J., Porro, G., Sandor, D., Hostick, D.J., Milligan, M., DeMeo, E.A., Bazilian, M., 2014. Renewable Electricity Futures for the United States. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 5, 372-378. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSTE.2013.2290472. Mamun, M.A.A., Dargusch, P., Wadley, D., Zulkarnain, N.A., Aziz, A.A., 2022. A review of research on agrivoltaic systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 161 (112351) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112351. Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium, 2006. Data [WWW document]. https://www.mrlc.gov/data, 10.Apri1.21. Nilson, R.S., Stedman, R.C., 2022. Are big and small solar separate things?: the importance of scale in public support for solar energy development in upstate New York. Energy Res. Social Sci. 86 (102449) https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2021.102449. NJ Department of Environmental Protection, 2021. Solar in New Jersey [WWW document]. https://www.nj.gov/dep/ages/opea-solrr.html. Apri1.27.22. Pascaris, A.S., Schelly, C., Rouleau, M., Pearce, J.M., 2022. Do agrivoltaics improve public support for solar? A survey on perceptions, preferences, and priorities. GRN TECH RES SUSTAIN 2 (8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44173-022-00007-x. Pendall, R., Goodman, L., Zhu, J., Gold, A., 2016. The Future of Rural Housing. Urban Institute. Putnam, M., Perez, M., 2018. Solar Potential Analysis Report. Minnesota Department of Commerce. Roth, S., 2019. California's San Bernardino County slams the brakes on big solar projects [WWW Document]. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-s an-bernardino-solar-renewable-energy-20190228-story.html, 4.FebruaryJuly.22. Schwartz, H., Brueske, S., 2020. Utility -Scale Renewable Energy Generation Roadmap (No. CEC-500-2020-062). California Energy Commission. Solar Energy Industries Association, 2019. Solar & property value [WWW document]. SETA. https://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-property-value. May.17.21. Southern Environmental Law Center, 2021. Expert analysis reveals a cleaner pathway for Duke energy's future [WWW document]. Southern environmental law center. http s://www.southernenvironment.org/press-release/expert-analysis-reveals-a-clean er-pathway-for-duke-energys-future/. Apri1.27.22. Sun, L., Abraham, S., 2021. Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects. J. Econom. 225, 175-199. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.09.006. U.S. Census Bureau. n.d. Urban and Rural [WWW Document]. Census.gov. https://www. census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural.html. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2020. National Transportation Noise Map Documentation. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2021a. Connecticut: state profile and energy estimate [WWW document]. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis. ph p?sid=CT. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2021b. Form ETA -860 detailed data with previous form data (EIA-860A/860B) [WWW Document]. https: //www.eia. gov/electricity/data/eia860/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2021. Air markets program data [WWW document]. https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. Westgate, V., 2017. Vermont supreme court rejects argument for visual nuisance of solar project [WWW document]. Dunkiel saunders. https://dunkielsaunders.com/ver mont-supreme-court-rejects-argument-for-visual-nuisance-of-solar-project/. May.17.21. Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 22 See attached. EXHIBIT E SEED MIX CBEP SOLAR 6, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO©CLOD DBREAKEN ERGY.COM DATE: April 26, 2023 PROJECT: USR23-0005 - Harring Solar Project - CBEP Solar 6, LLC SUBJECT: Seed Mixture The dryland seed mixture that CBEP Solar 6, LLC will use for revegetation beneath the Project is Pawnee Buttes Seed, Inc's (PBSI) Native Prairie mix. The composition of this mixture is as follows: o Blue Grama 1.5 PLS/Ac o Buffalograss 2.4 PLS/Ac o Sideoats Grama 2.7 PLS/Ac o Western Wheatgrass 5.2 PLS/Ac o Green Needlegrass 3 PLS/Ac a Sand Dropseed .18 PLS/Ac This mix is both cool and warm season species and is very drought tolerant. This mix works well on sites from clay to loam, and even on some sandy loam sites. This site includes 100% Dacono clay loam, so this mixture is well -suited for the property. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 23 See attached. EXHIBIT F CLOUDBREAK COMMUNITY PRESENTATION C L O U D B R E A K Iw CBEP SOLAR 6, LLC PCB BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO@ CLOUDBREAKENEROY.CDM Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 Attn: Karla Ford, BoCC Office Manager RE: Letter of Support for USR23-0005 Dear Board of County Commissioners: On April 27, 2023, we the undersigned neighbors and residents of Weld County, attended a presentation by Cloudbreak Energy Partners to better understand their planned solar energy facility. After listening to and understanding their plans to screen the solar facility from view for many neighbors and to use sheep to graze the property, we believe that this use does not infringe on any other property owners' rights, does not take prime farmland out of use, and would be compatible with our surrounding land use. We look forward to welcoming Cloudbreak Energy Partners and the solar energy facility into our community. Sincerely, Address Name cer /Vein JEctilrAi , , zities-do e ra aaft(iti 141V, ce -no fort-rm CO 4885-4824-5342.1 p CBEP SOLAR 6, LLC HARR NG SOLAR PROJECT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING - APRIL 27, 2023 s• i - -we. a.v. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE:OCTOBER 19, 202 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: LOGAN CC 315 MAIN STREET ®c,li iron,_ f.n.i..j WHO AM i • • From Sterling, CO • Family has been in Colorado since at least 1861 • Mom's family were pioneers in Denver and Sedalia • Dad's family were pioneers in Stoneham, Sterling, and Niwot • Went to Sterling High School, NJC, and CU Boulder • Started my career at Wunder Capital, a solar financing company, where I spent years lending money to projects just like this one • In January of 2020, I left the finance industry to move home to Sterling and start Cloudbreak Energy Partners. • I have never lived more than a 90 -minute drive away from Eaton, and I have no plans to change that. I am typically in Colorado at least 50 weeks per year, and you all will have my personal cell phone number if issues arise. STERLING NORTHEASTERN ly IUNIOR COLLEGE Leeds School of Business UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER 000 WUNDER WHO IS CLOUDBREAK? O ur team is made up of farmers, ranchers, former bull riders, native Coloradans, and, of course, experienced solar professionals Founded in Sterling O ffices in Sterling and Boulder The entire Cloudbreak team lives in Colorado within a 90 -minute drive of the project's location O ne of the fastest growing energy companies in Colorado More than 80% of our projects are located in Colorado Projects range from 5 acres to 2,000 acres The projects in Colorado that we are working on right now would generate enough electricity to power about 120,000 Colorado homes. According to the Census, there are 111,222 households in Weld County. Have projects with Xcel, Black Hills Energy, Mountain Parks Electric, and the City of Ames (Iowa) We will be the owners of the land underneath the solar project, so we'll be your neighbors for the foreseeable future OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED • TRC — Engineering and Consulting • Circuitus Energy Solutions — Construction and System Maintenance • SkyPilot Farm — Land Maintenance and Sheep Grazing AY tileffirArAMPIr Faltrall/ Ar ir SAW/ Ar. erns a . a Sep • S 0 • • it it0 Se • 0• Oa le energy so r _kva f 1' = L SI��-PII� I T FARM TUS Iu'tions COMMUN I TY BENEFITS As a local Colorado company, it is very important to us that this project provides significant benefits to the community. The Harring Solar Project will: CLOU REA ' LOCAL IMPACT • Utilize a local construction team that will generate significant activity for local businesses during the construction of the system. • Use a local shepherd for land maintenance. • Improve local pollinator habitat and diversity by including a pollinator - friendly native seed mixture on the property. • Purchase seed from Pawnee Buttes Seed • Process Sheep at Innovative Foods • Buy sheep feed from Weld County producers SCHOLARSHIPS • Provide a full -ride scholarship to a student at a local institution that is interested in pursuing a career in renewable energy. TAX INCOME • Generate significant property tax revenue for the county. The property tax generated by the solar project is estimated to be over $0.5 million over the life of the system. • Generate additional sales tax revenue during the construction of the system. CHEAPER ELECTRICITY • Save local Xcel Energy customers about 10% on their electricity bills through Xcel's Solar*Rewards Community Program. Our goal is to subscribe as many local Xcel customers as we can. We will need about 1,500 subscribers for this project. BASIC PROJECT INFORMATION • Property Ownership: The property is currently owned by Kenneth Harring, but the area where the solar project is located will be purchased by us prior to the commencement of construction. CL 'u _ .E K'M • Timeline: • Construction: 4 -month construction period, anticipated to begin in Q3 2023 • Operations: 20+ years • Electricity Production: Will produce the equivalent of the annual electricity consumption of about 1,500 homes. According to the Census, there are 2,088 households in Eaton. • Electricity Savings: Folks that subscribe to the project through Xcel Energy's Solar*Rewards Community Program should expect to save 10% on their electricity bills. CLOUDBREAW BASIC PROJECT INFORMATION • Construction Hours: 7:00 am — 3:00 pm with some overtime, as needed, as late as 6:00 pm. M F and Saturdays as needed. • Workers: There will be about 25 workers on the property throughout the entire duration of the construction process. • Lighting: Temporary lighting may be used during construction if the team needs to continue working after sunset. No permanent lighting will be used during operation of the project. • Emissions/Odors: The solar array will not produce any emissions or odors. We will cover manure from the sheep in a future slide. Lifespan: The system will be on the property for a minimum of 20 years based on our contracts with Xcel. • Recycling: Solar panels can be recycled. They are typically made of about 76% glass, 10% plastic, 8% aluminum, 5% silicon, and 1% other metals. The panels that we are using contain no lead. • CLOUDBREAKm Lk_ .. lme • - • i -, • L r, • • I_ .(.' -A-' • _ o- ry _♦' r_z .fie _�d_rs- [ - I. . ..' y ._ -✓ Y.. --, - -• - . •- -4f .._ i 1 -. •-_ ,: -•.. - . - -.. .• - - 'i I �- �-i ti_I _m AM._- _1/�•�- - \ +. - uL s . -]f . !• ... _ • • " - , _ ._ —_I` __•',-cam - �' -.r �- J yr a - •1•s } •,t --'r-' -ArA .I�• - 1_ I Y_. rs- \mss a _ -117 • r •l • u _-� .-II • f L• 1. -' _ � \ -_ • a rlv - c r M1 V - •• - • •t - - .•� - �., .., - •_ a . •.f_.. .•�. n - ..Sara•' _ c • �." _ • r • rr,• - _ • ,• -•11 I j„I •, S' _O - _ - _ • _ .. - _ • ' _:. . I. 14 ..•.-- " . - - • _f . - - - -- - -' f- • ••' I- - .. t - w • LOCATION ANALYSIS Why did we choose this location? • Proximity to high quality Xcel Energy distribution infrastructure that has the capacity for a project of this size • Proximity to Xcel Energy's substation • Outside of floodplains and wetlands • Relatively flat • No geotechnical constraints • Landowner enthusiasm • Economic viability of the land • Avoids critical habitats with minimal to no impact on surrounding wildlife GLARE '744 CLOU _ E K'M t 5 4 t 1`_,g1.�`._1II nyy .1, r1,Y,. ip TIP •'" r -Y. 4e • ir , •j_ t 4 `. • Glare: The panels are treated with an anti -reflective coating and reflect as little as two percent of incoming sunlight (less than water and windows). • Glare Study: To ensure we aren't impacting the neighboring properties or roads with any amount of glare, we had TRC perform an in-depth glare study for this project. The glare study also included analyzing glare from the second floor of surrounding homes. Based on their findings, there was potential for "yellow glare" which is a moderate level of glare with some potential to cause temporary after image and no potential to cause retinal burn during certain periods of the year near sunrise and sunset. Please note, this study did not take the trees into consideration. • Solution: To remove the risk of glare to neighboring properties, we will be stowing the panels at a 5 - degree angle rather than at 0 -degrees. According to the glare study, this will remove the risk of glare to the neighbors. At a resting angle of approximately 5 degrees, the modeled glare is expected to be reduced to zero minutes a year. This is because the resting angle of a tracking system, and at the end of the backtracking range, can have a large impact on glare produced near sunrise and sunset. When the sun is low on the horizon, an angle (even a slight angle) is needed to reflect light in a more upward trajectory, minimizing the light reflected to observers. CLOUDBREAFC NOISE • Noise: Each inverter produces a maximum of 65 decibels (dB) from 1 meter (3.28 feet) away according to the manufacturer. The inverters will be grouped together in two locations near the center of the project. One group will contain 18 inverters and one group will contain 19 inverters. For simplicity's sake, we assumed each group contained 19 inverters. A group of 19 inverters, each producing 65 dB from 1 meter away, will create a noise level of 77.8 dB from 1 meter away. • Noise Study: To ensure we aren't impacting the neighboring properties with noise, we analyzed current ambient noise levels at various nearby locations and compared those noise levels with what the noise levels will be after the solar project is operational. The largest increase in noise to the neighboring properties was 1 dB. According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, studies have shown that changes in noise levels of 3 dB or less are not normally detectable by the average human ear. So, a 1 dB increase should not be noticeable. • Noise Exhibit: See next page. NOISE EXHIBIT POINT 46 NOISE: 49 DECIBELS (A) 40° 32' 1.93"N 104541' 4229'W Combined Nos 49.1 dB I� NNETh L. H #R'!I MG RECEPTION NO. 4S +G,OPRIACC ii LOTS, €7G€l' lft lel070432-02-I E.-41 3 OUR P 1tBPl ef Li PQf'P ERGROLIOND MORE LR t - PROPEL 'MaliTPA[6 *According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, studies have shown that changes in noise levels of 3 dB or less are not normally detectable by the average human ear. So, a 1.0 dB or a 0.1 dB increase should not be noticeable. 55 dB Weld County Maximum Allowable Noise for Residential Properties from 7am to 9pm. These are the only hours the solar project will be generating noise. 50 dB Weld County Maximum Allowable Noise for Residential Properties from 9pm to 7am Point #4 Noise The ambient noise is 39.6 dB. Adding the noise from the solar project raises the dB level to 40.6 dB, an increase of 1.0 dB* Point #6 Noise The ambient noise is 49.0 dB. Adding the noise from the solar project raises the dB level to 49.1 dB, an increase of 0.1 dB* CL 0 UDBREAKIm ELECTRO MAGNETIC INTERFERENCE • According to the U.S. Department of the Navy: • "The only component of a PV array that may be capable of emitting EMI is the inverter. Inverters, however, produce extremely low frequency EMI similar to electrical appliances and at a distance of 150 feet from the inverters the EM field is at or below background levels." • All residences are located further than 150 feet away from the inverters. GRID RELIABILITY • Our project went through a rigorous study with Xcel Energy's engineering team, which was split into three parts, as described below. As part of this process, we are required to pay Xcel to upgrade and replace existing electrical equipment, allowing this project to interconnect safely to the grid. The cost of this equipment for this project alone was several hundreds of thousands of dollars, which we've already paid to Xcel so that they could order the equipment. • Feasibility Study • According to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Code of Colorado Regulations, "The feasibility study shall identify any potential adverse system impacts that would result from the interconnection of the interconnection resource." • Impact Study • According to the PUC, "A system impact study shall identify and detail the electric system impacts that would result if the proposed interconnection resource were interconnected without project modifications or electric system modifications, focusing on the adverse system impacts identified in the feasibility study, or to study potential impacts, including but not limited to those identified in the scoping meeting. A system impact study shall evaluate the impact of the proposed interconnection on the reliability of the electric system." • Facilities Study • According to the PUC, "The facilities study shall include a detailed list of necessary system upgrades and an overall cost estimate, with the detailed list to indicate types of equipment, labor, operation and maintenance and other evaluated item costs, within the estimate for completing such upgrades, and identify which itemized cost estimates are uncertain and could be exceed by 125 percent if actual upgrades are completed." • We submitted our interconnection application to Xcel on August 18th, 2021, and didn't receive our interconnection agreement (which arrives at the end of the facilities study) until September 8t", 2022. So, Xcel was evaluating this project for over a year and determined that, after the upgrades are complete, it would not create an adverse impact on the electrical grid. FIRE RISK MITIGATION • Just like all electrical equipment, there is a risk of fire at a solar project. • One 2021 study by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems found that, of the more than 2 million solar plants in Germany, only 0.006% of them caused a fire resulting in serious damage. • Should a ground fault be detected by the project's software, inverters will automatically shutdown and disconnect the DC module strings from the AC electric system. The inverters also do this when sensing any fluctuations out of limit within the electric grid the system is tied to. An automatic shutdown will be located within each inverter. Our team will also have remote capabilities to disconnect the system and shut down each electrical component in case of emergency. • As a contingency, there are also manual disconnects as follows: • Inverters: each inverter will have a DC and AC disconnect switch • Inverters and Main Equipment Pad: each AC panelboard will have a break serving as a disconnect switch • Main equipment pad: The main system disconnect switch will be located within the switchgear • As a note, all of the equipment listed above is located in the same area of the project, right next to the access road, providing easy access to the Eaton Fire Department in case of emergency. • A Knox Padlock or a Knox Key Switch will be located on the gate of the access road to allow first responders to access the property in case of emergency. HEAT ISLAND • According to research from North Carolina State University: • "One study found that an air temperature increase of 1.9 degrees Celsius directly over a solar farm dissipated to 0.5 degrees Celsius at 100 meters in horizontal distance from the solar farm, and less than a 0.3 degree increase at 300 meters. Another study found that a temperature difference of 3-4 degrees Celsius directly above a solar farm was dissipated to the point that it could not be measured at a distance of 100 feet from the solar farm's edge. Meteorological factors can affect the range and size o f any temperature effect on land nearby a solar facility, but even under very conducive circumstances the possible temperature increase for nearby land would be o n the order of tenths of degrees." • Note: a difference in 0.5 degrees Celsius is 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit and 100 meters is e qual to 328.084 feet. • A 2016 study from Mitchell A. Pavao-Zuckerman, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, and Greg Barron -Gafford of the University of Arizona (which is often the most referenced study on this topic), found that solar does create a heat island; however, the Harring Solar Project is different than the solar project analyzed in this study because the property will be revegetated after the completion of construction and a pasture will be e stablished. The project used in the study had no vegetation underneath of it and it was located in a desert environment outside of Tuscon, Arizona. The study posited that the heating e ffect can be "reduced through targeted revegetation under the solar panels, which would reduce heat island effects through the heat -dissipating effect of transpiration from ✓ egetation." WATER • Carrying Rights: The property that we are purchasing from Mr. Harring has two shares of The For Far Lateral Company, but no water rights. The For Far Lateral Company owns the ditch and the easements associated with the ditch, but shares of The For Far Lateral Company do not include water. Water must be owned or leased separately from Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies. This property does not have water. • Well: A well for this property was recently approved by the State of Colorado • Well will be drilled prior to the completion of the solar project. • Can be used for livestock and 1 acre of landscaping • Water will be used to water the trees around the perimeter of the fence and will be used as supplemental drinking water for the sheep • Water Trucks and/or Trailer: Water from other sources will be used to establish the pasture and mitigate dust during construction • Email from Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies: Hi Bobby... Just to confirm our conversation, the 2 shares of For Far Lateral are running rights only. Thanks - Becky Wiedeman n Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies 106 Elm Avenue • Eaton, CO 80615 970 A54.3377 (office) • 970.454.0154 (fax) AGRICULTURE C L U _ E !M • According to Weld County Code Chapter 23, Article 1, Section 23-1-90, "The availability of a consistent supply of quality water must exist in order to have PRIME FARMLANDS." • The property has no water. It does not have a consistent supply of irrigation water available, and therefore, is not considered to be Prime Farmland. • Water trucks and trailers will be used to bring water to the property to establish the pasture as well as provide drinking water for the sheep • Unlike most forms of development, once the solar project is removed, the land could return to agricultural land. CLOU _ E K'M AGRICULTURE (continued) • We will be grazing sheep on the property to keep the property agriculturally productive during the life of the solar project. • The sheep are typically fed feed grown in Weld County during the winter. Over $100,000 of feed is expected to be purchased from Weld County producers each year for the sheep. • The seed for the pasture will be purchased from Pawnee Buttes Seed in Greeley. • The sheep will be processed at Innovative Foods in Evans. • The meat will be sold directly to consumers. • The sheep are expected to be grazing on the property a few times per year to maintain the vegetation at a height of 18-22 inches or less. CLOUDBREAKm MANURE MANAGEMENT • 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 vegetation on the land. Through the use of rotational grazing, the manure will be evenly distributed across the property and will have minimal impact to the neighboring community. The herd will not stay permanently at the Project and the Project's site will not serve as a feedlot for the sheep. • Harrowing: If needed, a harrow machine will be used to spread out and break up the manure. It will disturb the topsoil to help break down and bury the manure. • Composting: If the manure load ever becomes problematic, CBEP Solar 6, LLC or its contractors will physically remove the manure and compost it offsite. C L D B R E A 'M 1 77v �.�.� y DJ p SH FARAOT, P' SkyPilot sheep grazing on a solar project in Weld County SHEEP GRAZING — Page 2 C L D B R E A 'M 77v 1� 7r SH IhOT Rotationally grazed SkyPilot pasture in Weld County SHEEP GRAZING — Page 3 C L D B R E A 'M SH IhOT Rotationally grazed SkyPilot pasture in Weld County CLOUDBREAW WILDLIFE • As part of the project, we consulted with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). • CPW stated that "...this Solar Project is located outside of HPHs." HPHs are High Priority Habitats. • CPW encouraged that we take their recommendations into consideration. All of their recommendations have been taken into consideration. Their recommendations are listed below: 1. CPW is aware that the Project area will include security fencing. For specific wildlife exclusion fencing specifications, CPW recommends that any installed fencing should be eight feet in height, have round - capped posts (e.g., so wildlife isn't impaled), smooth top wire to the fence (e.g., no top barbed wire) (or if two top strands are needed, ensure they are at least six inches apart). The bottom wire can be barbed but should be four inches or less from the ground. • Our fencing is 7 feet tall instead of eight, but CPW's document entitled "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind" says that "exclusion fence for deer and elk should be seven to eight feet high" so our fence is still compliant with CPW's recommendations in that document. 2. CPW recommends that other non -security fencing is kept to a minimum. Where such fencing is required, please use wildlife -friendly fencing specifications as described in CPW's document entitled "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind ". • This project includes no non -security fencing. 3. CPW recommends that the solar facility is checked weekly (or escape structures are installed inside the fenced area) to allow deer to escape if one becomes trapped within the facility. • Cameras will be installed at the project to monitor wildlife. The cameras will be checked on at least a weekly basis. CLOUDBREAW WILDLIFE (continued) 4. CPW requests that security lighting is kept to a minimum and ideally motion sensor lights are installed. It is important to avoid lighting the riparian corridors along the sides of the project. • No security lighting will be used on this project. 5. If construction is slated from March 15 to July 15, please complete pre -construction nesting surveys for songbirds, Burrowing Owls, and ground- or tree -nesting raptors within the Project area or in the immediate vicinity (e.g., their buffers may extend into the Project area) within a couple of weeks of construction. • If constructed is slated from March 15 to July 15, we will complete pre -construction nesting surveys. 6. For the eventual consultation regarding transmission lines to this Solar Project, CPW recommends they are installed according to Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards and outside the raptor nesting season. Also, please install bird diverters within 1/4 -mile of any lake, drainage, or riparian area, and within the raptor nesting buffer for occupied nests. Only 220 feet of new distribution lines will be required to connect the project to Xcel's existing infrastructure. Xcel will be constructing this portion of the project. Ensuring that Xcel complies with APLIC standards on this 220 feet of line is something that is out of our control. DRAINAGE • TRC completed a drainage study in accordance with requirements from the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria Manual, updated January 2021. • According to the drainage study: • "The existing stormwater flow characteristics are expected to remain unchanged and increases in peak flow rates have been proven to be negligible. A basin type of stormwater detention would not be necessary. Improvements proposed with the project site are limited to a gravel paved drive and a small concrete distribution transformer pad. No public access or utility infrastructure improvements are anticipated at this time. The proposed development will not alter historic drainage patterns of adjacent and downstream property owners. " ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS • Lead: • According to the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test from September 2022 that was commissioned by ZNSHINE, the manufacturer of the panels that we will be using on this project, no lead was detected in the panels. • Cadmium: • Cadmium is only contained in a special type of solar cell called thin-film. This project will not be utilizing thin- film solar panels. • Arsenic: • According to the TCLP test, 1.0 mg/L of arsenic was found in the laminate, 1.4 mg/L was found in the frame, and 1.0 mg/L was found in the J -box. For arsenic to be considered toxic in Colorado according to the Code of Colorado Regulations Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, it must be present at a level greater than 5.0 mg/L. • Barium: • According to the TCLP test, 0.03 mg/L of barium was found in the frame of the panel. For barium to be considered toxic in Colorado according to the Code of Colorado Regulations Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, it must be present at a level greater than 100.0 mg/L. • Mercury: • According to the TCLP test, 0.08 mg/L of barium was found in the J -box of the panel. For mercury to be considered toxic in Colorado according to the Code of Colorado Regulations Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, it must be present at a level greater than 0.2 mg/L. • Other elements: • No other elements were found in the TCLP test. CL U D EAK`TM EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS • Hail Damage: • Solar panels are designed to meet IEC 61215 and IEC 61646 standards, both of which test a panel's resistance to lab -produced, 25 mm hail • The project will be closely monitored to ensure it is producing the amount of electricity that it is projected to produce, so damage will be instantly noticed. In the case of a very severe storm, our team will check on the system within 24 hours or less to ensure everything is okay. In our team's e xperience, hail damage is rare. Our phone number will also be posted on the project's gates so the neighbors can call in case they have concerns after a storm. • Wind Damage: • The racking we are planning to use (Array Technologies DuraTrack) has been tested to withstand 140 mph winds, and potentially higher depending on other project conditions. • The project will be closely monitored to ensure it is producing the amount of electricity that it is projected to produce, so damage will be instantly noticed. In the case of a very severe storm, our team will check on the system within 24 hours or less to ensure everything is okay. In our team's e xperience, wind damage is rare. Our phone number will also be posted on the project's gates so the neighbors can call in case they have concerns after a storm. DECOMMISSIONING • Plan: • Timeline: • Security: • The Decommissioning Plan that we submitted to Weld County as part of the USR application commits us to Li ...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 4.625 MW AC SEF." • 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. • Prior to construction, CBEP Solar 6, 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 CLOUDBRE F TRAFFIC AND ROADS • Construction Traffic: During construction, the traffic will include about 10-15 pickups and 1-2 heavy vehicles per day. • Operations Traffic: Once the system is built, our solar maintenance team will only stop by about 4 to 8 times per year for system maintenance. Our shepherd and land maintenance team will stop by more frequently on an as -needed basis, but the project will not generate consistent or significant traffic. • Traffic Analysis: Kellar Engineering, a contractor of TRC's, completed a traffic analysis and found the following: • "Due to the project's low site generated traffic, the proposed project will not create a negative traffic impact upon the local and regional traffic system and the existing roadway improvements are sufficient to accommodate the project's traffic." • Road Upgrades: We will be upgrading the field roads that connect the project to WCR 39 and installing a new culvert across the ditch to ensure the infrastructure can handle the weight of our equipment. • Road Maintenance Agreement: We will be signing a Road Maintenance Agreement with Weld County which makes us financially responsible for our proportional share of the associated costs for maintaining and/or improving designated public haul/travel routes during the construction of the project. PROPERTY VALUES • Studies from Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory and the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Rhode Island, Dr. Nino Abashidze at the School of Economics at Georgia Institute of Technology, the Chisago County (Minnesota) Assessor's Office, CohnReznik, LLP, Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, Christian P. Kaila & Associates, and the Chair of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers have shown that solar projects do not adversely impact neighboring property values. • The study from Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory and the University of Texas at Austin found the following: "The researchers, in partnership with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, surveyed approximately 400 property value assessors nationwide, asking if the assessor believed there was an impact on home prices near these sites, the scale and direction of those impacts, and the source of those impacts. The results indicate that most assessors who responded to the survey believe that "proximity to a solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values." The study found that the respondents believe that some features of solar facilities may be associated with positive impacts, such as a location on land that previously had an unappealing use, or the presence of trees or other visual barriers around the array. Furthermore, as the expected lifetime of a solar facility is at least thirty years, residents have assurance the nearby land will not be redeveloped for an unfavorable use." (emphasis added) PROPERTY VALUES (continued) • A recent study from Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory studied solar projects in six states (CA, CT, MA, MN, NC, NJ), and found that, on average, property values decrease by 1.5% compared to homes 2-4 mi away. Statistically significant effects were not measurable over 1 mile. • This study, which showed a 1.5% impact to nearby property values, has been criticized since its release earlier this year because: 1. There was a lack of statistically significant effects when comparing properties right next to solar projects to properties within 1 mile of the project, leading many to believe that the solar projects are not sufficient to explain the differences in price. 2. According to the American Clean Power Association, "There is nothing revelatory in this study the results are not definitive and only cover a narrow data set. The report, which found no evidence of adverse impacts on property values in half the states studied, is largely consistent with many prior studies finding that solar projects don't adversely affect property values. Appraisal data from across the country also show similar conclusions." 3. The study found no evidence of any adverse impacts on property values in half the states studied, including California, which accounted for more than half of the properties studied in the analysis. 4. The study was not able to explain the "why" of the 1.5% difference, whereas other studies by the same organization (Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory) found that vegetative screening and assurance to nearby residents that nearby land won't be developed as a more unfavorable use would mitigate risk to decreased property values. 5. In Chisago County, Minnesota, which has more solar projects than any other county in the state, officials have been monitoring real-estate transactions to try to detect any changes in resale prices as a result of solar development. They haven't found any negative effects, either in 2017 after the construction of the state's largest solar array, or as recently as December, according to the county assessor's office. This is not consistent with the study's findings in the state of Minnesota. • CL`IUDB REA SCREENING Per Weld County Code Sec. 23-4- 1030, the solar facility will be shielded from view of all residences within 500 feet using vegetative screening. Proposed Rocky Mountain Juniper Placement DB if r404 I i I I. t CL DB REA TM SCREENING Proposed Rocky Mountain Juniper Placement EX OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE 10' UTILITY EASEMENT RECEPTION NO, 33.5453, OPRWCC EX 12" CMP CULVERT (NEEDS REPAIR) 6O' ROW (TOTAL) 51 inn CC Li I STEPHEN C. AND LINDA M. HART RECEPTION NO. O2165919, OPRWCC DEBORAH R. VELTRI RECEPTION NO. 4093500; OPRWCC RANDY AND TRACY PFEIFF RECEPTION NO. 3852187, OPRWCC LOT Al EXE. O709 -32-O2 RE 4163 18' ACCESS EASEMENT RECEPTION NO, 335453, OPRWCC 3O' ACCESS EASEMENT 3O' COUNTY ROAD ROW BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR WELD COUNTY GLENN AND GAYLE CUNNINGHAM PARCEL NO. O7O932200O61 • PROPERTY LINE HEIRS O.F DON E. ENGEL RECEPTION NO. 4225O97, OPRWCC 25' NATURAL GAS PIPELINE EASEMENT RECEPTION NO. 30349O5, OPRWCC a DIMAS AND JANINE MEDEROS RECEPTION NO.. 35621O2, OPRWCC NIP VARIABLE WIDTH WATER , LINE ROW NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECEPTION NO. 2926652 EX FIELD ROAD W. SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY EX ABOVE GROUND PVC IRRIG PIPE EX 16" CMP CULVERT PROP GRASS SWALE A PROP 15' ACCESS ROAD VARIABLE WIDTH WATER LINE ROW ' NORTH WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICTk RECEPTION NO. 2925652 KENNETH L. HARRING RECEPTION NO. 4O31664, OPRWCC (R1) LOT B, EXEMPTION NO. 07O9 -32 -O2 -RE -4163 (SURVEYED PARCEL) 70.20 ACRES +/- 36" CMP CULVERT IN CONCRETE NON SPECIFIC WIDTH IRRIG DITCH ROW RECEPTION NO. 47515 let EX FIELD ROAD a ••are9 a. EX FIELD ROAD SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY EX CONCRETE IRRIGATION STRUCTURE a a Fllaii Da imp ■ I I EX 24" CMP C U LV E RTS V a ftier I a NO VESTING DOCUMENT FOUND. INFORMATION SHOWN WAS OBTAINED FROM THE TAX ASSESSOR'S WEBSITE FOR WELD COUNTY, COLORADO WARRANTY DEED TO TRACY HARMS, RECORDED ON 07/09/2O18 AT RECEPTION NO. 4413679, OPRWCC WARRANTY DEED TO FRANCISCO BOTELLO, JR., RECORDED ON 12/2O/2017 AT RECEPTION NO. i , 20' IRRIG PIPELINE EASEMENT nrrrra-rIA ii tin PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES DEED TO PARKVIEW APARTMENTS, LLC, RECORDED ON 4/20/202O AT RECEPTION NO, EX ABOVE GROUND 4584076, OPRWCC PVC IRRIG PIPE EX CONCRETE IRRIGATION STRUCTURE EX 24" CMP CULVERT EX 24" CIVMP CULVERT EX 3Q" CMP CULVERT r MILLER LAND & LIVESTOCK OF NO COLO LLC PARCEL NO. O70932OO0O46 SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY cc Lin che EX 42" WIDE CONCRETE IRRIGATION DITCH m 1� sir_ \ PROP GRASS SWALE B EX FENCE EX CONCRETE IRRIGATION STRUCTURE VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS — View p oint 2 1 A• - L- i I • •T.".. :..- -41.- .4 W � '•4m-tri >1 fM1}i air �yr-�:�". r'�y -��; r�. .: ♦ � �•w2 4 •� czA AI(Tr cr•trk . L-2 ` + +.r a �', - •,y l Y - .� - .: I, . l.. ` _ 1 yill :. M - .i = Fr•iYf� Yt..d I Iflr i ij[A :A r j 6ras�- i I'. • • I _ �.Y l/ . L. /.n J.,..•.• rvi.aa�_Am.: i c.d.,/ n 1 a � -i�a4A -.' ...49.---e4;. 4L FY�ur: r iT9 #a Et l_r ♦.�Y' [rvn � ~• _•• -..17'-..7-- \a..- irvk _ rY .•SIR ? ri}.!�Y/iri r.�6r r� _ Vi`. ie }a#J rF an.,'Si as R1+lu r�'r h/y I. �}ySB.e '0" Jy ..G`w - � �' � '•. Ly F! - Syr .4. Al-7:•-t'I., V .J <'r- ..:E...."21.‘ /VV a. .�.�•l yV-LFA YrJ.: AJ II V ir�j a Ya �. Y 1 1JI S Fy ti� --6-C •-.� ... r X a''1*lr� re -.S i lr. r.-. yy v _ VSUAL MPACTANALYSIS — View I I p o1nt4 Vewpoint 4 — Today's Vew I I .:' la.H\ Foy 11 Look'ng Towards View i p oint 4 in 10 Years VISUAL IMPACTANALYSIS — View i i p o1nt6 al. r _ '1_ VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS — View p oint 1 Vi ew p oint 1 View in 10 Years CL U REAK' CONTACT I NFORMATION Zach Brammer Co Founder Chief Operating Officer Email: zachcIoudbreakenergy.com Office: (970) 425-3175 Cell: (970) 580-5652 Mailing Address: PO Box 1255, Sterling, CO 80751 Website: cloudbreakenergy.com Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 24 See attached. EXHIBIT G TAX PROJECTION 4858-1139-9006.3 COLORADO Department of Local Affairs Division of Property Taxation 2023 Renewable Template for Estimating Property Taxes for Qualified State Assessed Renewables FOR PROJECTS PLACED IN SERVICE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2021 State of Colorado - State Assessed Properties instructions: (the form is pre -populated to indicate continued integrity of the formulas) Please complete what is highlighted in Yellow Annual Factors Rated Plant Capacity (incld. storage) Annual Production Annual Capacity Factor Energy Price (PPA) Energy Price Escalation Factor (PPA) Projected Gross Revenue 2022 Mill Levy (decimal) Capital Cost Threshold Non-renewable Equiv. Capital Cost Intertie Line Included in the Unit? Intertie Line 4.6 12,155 30% $85 2.00% $1,033,133 0.069897 $600 $2,775,000 yes $70,000 MW (AC) MWh ok $/MWh % per year MWh x price 69.8970 $/kW w/o intertie line new = yes fixed cost 2023 Colorado Capital Cost Thresholds The capital cost thresholds are the non-renewable equivalent costs developed each year in accordance with §39-4-102, C.R.S. The cost thresholds are contained in the table to the right. The full history of the cost thresholds is available on the Division's website. 2023 Delivery Capital Cost Threshold Intertie lines are not part of the capital cost threshold table. Projects in service after 1/1/2012 have the Division's non-renewable equivalent cost of $70,000 added to the capital cost threshold each year. Other Important Information The projected property tax is estimated as levelized, but will fluctuate each year with the comparable non-renewable energy cost and other variables. The nameplate of on -site battery storage connected to the grid should be added to the total nameplate for the facility and valued together. Have questions? Call Michael Krueger at 303-864-7792. Capacity Factor = (Annual Production) = (Capacity x 8,760 hours per year). Annual Production = (Capacity Factor) x (Capacity x 8,760 hours per year). Unhide the missing rows (25-55) to see the depreciating cost basis annual estimated property tax payments, which are converted into level payments below. Benchmark Calculations 30 Year Projected Property Tax Based on Depreciating Non -Renewable Cost Basis: Total Tax Paid Over Annual Levelized Thirty Year Assessed Value Total Estimate $2,353,301 30 -years $682,457 I Equivalent $22,749 Annual Energy Production (MWh) Energy Price Gross Energy Assumption Revenue Tax Factor* Actual Value Assessment Rate Assessed Value Prior Mill Year's Levy % Projected Property Payment Tax Year 1 12,155 $85.00 $1,033,133 0.81 $834,907 26.40% $220,415 6.9897% $15,406 Year 2 12,155 $86.70 $1,053,795 0.81 $851,605 26.40% $224,824 6.9897% $15,715 Year 3 12,155 $88.43 $1,074,871 0.81 $868,637 29.00% $251,905 6.9897% $17,607 Year 4 12,155 $90.20 $1,096,368 0.81 $886,010 29.00% $256,943 6.9897% $17,960 Year 5 12,155 $92.01 $1,118,296 0.81 $903,730 29.00% $262,082 6.9897% $18,319 Year 6 12,155 $93.85 $1,140,662 0.81 $921,805 29.00% $267,323 6.9897% $18,685 Year 7 12,155 $95.72 $1,163,475 0.81 $940,241 29.00% $272,670 6.9897% $19,059 Year 8 12,155 $97.64 $1,186,744 0.81 $959,046 29.00% $278,123 6.9897% $19,440 Year 9 12,155 $99.59 $1,210,479 0.81 $978,226 29.00% $283,686 6.9897% $19,829 Year 10 12,155 $101.58 $1,234,689 0.81 $997,791 29.00% $289,359 6.9897% $20,225 Year 11 12,155 $103.61 $1,259,383 0.81 $1,017,747 29.00% $295,147 6.9897% $20,630 Year 12 12,155 $105.69 $1,284,570 0.81 $1,038,102 29.00% $301,050 6.9897% $21,042 Year 13 12,155 $107.80 $1,310,262 0.81 $1,058,864 29.00% $307,070 6.9897% $21,463 Year 14 12,155 $109.96 $1,336,467 0.81 $1,080,041 29.00% $313,212 6.9897% $21,893 Year 15 12,155 $112.16 $1,363,196 0.81 $1,101,642 29.00% $319,476 6.9897% $22,330 Year 16 12,155 $114.40 $1,390,460 0.81 $1,123,675 29.00% $325,866 6.9897% $22,777 Year 17 12,155 $116.69 $1,418,270 0.81 $1,146,148 29.00% $332,383 6.9897% $23,233 Year 18 12,155 $119.02 $1,446,635 0.81 $1,169,071 29.00% $339,031 6.9897% $23,697 Year 19 12,155 $121.40 $1,475,568 0.81 $1,192,453 29.00% $345,811 6.9897% $24,171 Year20 12,155 $123.83 $1,505,079 0.81 $1,216,302 29.00% $352,727 6.9897% $24,655 Year 21 12,155 $126.31 $1,535,181 0.81 $1,240,628 29.00% $359,782 6.9897% $25,148 Year 22 12,155 $128.83 $1,565,884 0.81 $1,265,440 29.00% $366,978 6.9897% $25,651 Year 23 12,155 $131.41 $1,597,202 0.81 $1,290,749 29.00% $374,317 6.9897% $26,164 Year 24 12,155 $134.04 $1,629,146 0.81 $1,316,564 29.00% $381,804 6.9897% $26,687 Year 25 12,155 $136.72 $1,661,729 0.81 $1,342,895 29.00% $389,440 6.9897% $27,221 Year 26 12,155 $139.45 $1,694,963 0.81 $1,369,753 29.00% $397,228 6.9897% $27,765 Year 27 12,155 $142.24 $1,728,863 0.81 $1,397,148 29.00% $405,173 6.9897% $28,320 Year28 12,155 $145.09 $1,763,440 0.81 $1,425,091 29.00% $413,276 6.9897% $28,887 Year 29 12,155 $147.99 $1,798,709 0.81 $1,453,593 29.00% $421,542 6.9897% $29,465 Year 30 12,155 $150.95 $1,834,683 0.81 $1,482,665 29.00% $429,973 6.9897% $30,054 PROJECTED 30 -YEAR PROPERTY TAX REVENUE (income basis)I $683,496 * Tax Factor Equivalent to a gross income multiplier without income from renewable energy income tax credits. Nameplate MWac Colorado For State Nameplate kWac Assessed Threshold 2015 Qualified 2016 Rate 2017 Renewable History 2018 2015-2023 Energy 2019 2020 Facilities 2021 2022 2023 0.000 - 2.000 0 - 2,000 $1,098 $1,128 $1,182 $1,227 $1,248 $1,267 $511 $560 $600 2.001 - 5.000 2,001 - 5,000 $1,103 $560 $845 $916 $986 $1,048 $1,146 $511 $600 $740 $799 $859 $912 $1,001 $511 $600 5.001 - 10.000 5,001 - 10,000 $964 $560 10.001 - 50.000 10,001 - 50,000 $635 $640 $553 $577 $600 $621 $645 $638 $647 $436 $547 $479 $499 $518 $514 $502 50.001 - 100.000 50,001 - 100,000 $511 $506 100.001-200.000 100,001-200,000 $376 $371 $368 $354 $342 $334 $328 $319 $324 >200.001 >200,001 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $307 Note: For tax years 2022-2024, the assessment rate for renewable energy facilities is 26.4% rather than 29%. Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 25 See attached. EXHIBIT H TRAFFIC STUDY 4858-1139-9006.3 Harring Solar Site Southeast Quadrant of CR 39 and CR 76 Weld County, Colorado Traffic Letter KE Job #2022-082 Prepared for: TRC Companies, Inc. 123 N. College Avenue, Suite 206 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Prepared by: KELLAR ENGINEERING skellar(cjkellarengineering. corn www.kellarengineering.com 970.219.1602 phone October 31, 2022 Sean K. Kellar, PE, PTOE This document, together with the concepts and recommendations presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization from Kellar Engineering LLC shall be without liability to Kellar Engineering LLC. 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this Traffic Letter is to evaluate the proposed traffic generated by the proposed Harring Solar Site project located at the southeast quadrant of Weld County Road 39 (CR 39) and Weld County Road 76 (CR 76) in Weld County, CO. 2.0 Proposed Development The proposed project consists of a solar field land use on the property. Access to the site is proposed from an existing low traffic volume access road off of CR 39 on the west side of the property. See Figure 1: Vicinity Map and Figure 2: Site Plan. Figure 1: Vicinity Map Harring Solar Site Traffic Letter -Page 2 li KELLAR ENGINEERING 3.0 Trip Generation Site generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates and equations are applied to the proposed land use to estimate traffic generated by the development during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the Trip Generation Report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual does not provide detailed data on solar field facilities. As such, KE was able to estimate the weekday peak hour trip generation for the AM and PM peak hours based upon information provided by the client and project team. The project team provided the following trip generation data: Trip Generation Data: • Maximum anticipated number of daily trips per day during peak period of construction = 10 — 15 vehicles per day during peak construction 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM 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 • Approximately 50% of the traffic will come from the west on SH 60 and approximately 50% of the traffic will come from the east on SH 60. Based upon the above data, the project is conservatively anticipated to generate a maximum of approximately 48 daily trips, 24 total (14 entering, 10 exiting) AM peak hour trips, and 20 total (6 entering, 14 exiting) PM peak hour trips. See Table 1: Trip Generation. Harring Solar Site Traffic Letter -Page 3 li KELLAR ENGINEERING Figure 2: Site Plan AS- DIVElitiLAC 'tY 6YZii^l� p]IHII- YAMMER Iii AIM If14 OM craws pings !END) Dr POW r1LRTALI. Cafti r ROSE FOAM SCAM tlP'.r.�.Elllf[i' EZIal1sai0L18s ItOq liM.D GOLFTY 11 It rThilIF .7. MD - Icoir I 4 >�CCAIPITt ROAD atlif fDAM Of MJlri ' cfaacarnt a Pat 'illilFii mown' T 9N'3I'F kb +JLO ICON 1►4TClcla I`TiirrrIN't3 £ILT7 QOFRdC rw h -7 can 1 *Ga+las .. LiSF1Ui Ake GAMMA IA ° BaFf, A6f.:Yall tail. -t acztfaX9 AT RED Ala. r. i1,7il1?+D.�?IPA0tM9fY !, WM TO a ati& &AME6M L.kittn. Mara a rziATMP* 10 Ala Sa lierfirt CgifErAND M EM'' Salk Kbpmai. HG I .f frlait i ITL1W I3irRY7ti k: Ufa Mt IntAinl PTT•R'T 1E013711:41 tip ICS, A4 Di EEO -fl.IL'tl'd15.1 Sat mint A.IfIYN1rG F CVflQd a�CFMIC Oiilk am LAilitis 4inr 71•C'':" 1"C/it: s'AtiAln,L'M nu*Aww a WA' tla!lifl NPIIJSIDLINIY - *AM EiSTRICT gIWiiCN i C.1'C um • RIXERT*o PRR1iaA - PLSum Nita: MO Sit 8f t:YCi2tl.Fl5"1. I Y191Y sr A!( UMW, K. tiltiltart iliteraladaCM teG- ." r` II Atik � 4v 11r +wc sp3. c f`- . I�Af_:�5 I nowt Jr—IC=GRIY IL51ai ENT yank ITT] WISCa, OW" r EALWINEHT IV IF - GM* AO asra CLANIIUGNAtiCPAC NO. lH U it P-IPISair DOILY AJIrx. III—ruCtiNed 42259fw •'JPthlt'GC I Zr411 1INLGNS PIPTIANT GViENIE T ITINNEES6 s a- _ ear TX r-3 n �! akLnr CAA= 2:510 & PRCsa 1S. a i r R0.40 s vnalaz Ma7I H WM UK ROW awl APCt^ caiiRTr ws,r1L Wart - F WTI Olt NO. ]F3SS1 Milan!.- ml+iia4 LFTYACE tare, print 4C tEllitictnPAtal.I 233 kr+f. le OD a.1.1177 COVir _se"- NONSWCPCEV��Ti• Him arm Cs --icr I 9TT ai Ht'..03:15 CC MID &lila InAit IOC Arit P] 1Tr f1ll:'�TER41 --� LA MD CAC LAWS A AMEtOitlint Al Gila liCirPTEVI as .lamas is AIY r r' i 1 li 1 Ti WAX GiI tAlTai.5M1 WILLEM . 4i uisiso i MWP 1. MG. Dtalt1300006 Mint MC Casa hILS10S J PAI'EtL r. wJilr Miss" moo is In In*� WALT 4trate ;Arai leAt. EtaVp71tG-DXLLUnit Walk Witt-althilltell cik 1i SIPA rSlat.OM WSJ Ed 1A,: AfialgaR5 taltri 6 Wars Milk awn, CaLOWLm WsAMiltla Mb ttuT AO OISNNWIL ilaMTEN Nti War* orPaAti ans ri OM TES Wail h1Trlu': 3c Ittainin ddY :ifJiAi1d_?JIT Wands Na. I xaraa; _ Ii a IIP'HS:NTATMffi Mina *AMES U4 it chill - iItallatattATPSOYTION ' AiD1SGuam Affil I Ft Reg PITC TX CORCIIIII a" iign'.nald rat cu MIT 14" 4UP miMJ'Ir it reit Par Jet—__ - - Et NC atit` atifirir R •S 'Mutt _Mu a. i CIEF CIE RIG GOO la it ha. liTW; 'x1AAL LrAs: lit -MAW rills* Vet ca!Ci5.Z, AIRIZATCdi ILl'1 ! tiaallArr -• XI Pala Trait Vrai in-*tl'. ISOM, lrr - TS imi[a rp :w'tr Wilke ME Atilt ,. o'T ra9a., PIT ir'rni ND. r3d.fi.• rta ittAiMl. AND OEM tat •ZU rinripamMa •CIEWM4 OPCNNIT R•" tar ITAIDLIa aaidlt�v 5 i5 inn "r iil 1' - 41311' L'1 /I; Yi •lti' ''.'I COw Dart !.an trAiit f ali lIea*IM Gh uit+ ?RLI Cci.' nt ix A NM 114.6anir Wed TiC IS. 210 Anal, 11C MI! t --at ill742.1, UM Wel - :tab T:$P.Ke . I ,1E I,: riEt'1EY. i;a I•il.iE_NT. DOT itTi 4t P3 anirriiTl101_ 41pack Ir � n*ralM KD.Xt '%#4- I, pt al um + woe sir' F. -+I IC ✓e Q 11= 9. 44 ID I �' I kip LIJ ..._E._'AEE^:. 434718 -iEri 7111E.pp� "�?-s.O ERfr & DISTANCE I CIFORMATI ON HF 7: L --! 1-1 . I - :' -' ' . Iiiii .I,y-7, I I-... 3 .s 1ij ISSUED FOR FERMI I F Sly 4017 MR interm-ic t 4:47 �'r.. iifi ,,'1 4+.1 :_;FS if;;2.1i: 'alciirl EY. TR': ErIC-P EB: ER &PPFJ]'atb Err: 7.,7irDJEC PHASE: L'1R. PJt15 .ra,LE 1.4•_+7C1 .-4Fr F-, :1 Harring Solar Site Traffic Letter -Page 4 KELLAR ENGINEERING Figure 2b: Site Plan 6 I 1 I 1 e 7M CM •_ A24n uC LI +WIT RSs3['Tt' 1 Kai =M. -BrRLtiit 'dv t E 4Fi.T'tl R-aviLMcCPcVdC. B Ufa We . [ter FITTY PICT=*Y1tt ND ILT7Ilirr, ,ZNIVACC 4RRp3CIP nog !4t Gr 110311113bircirrnv,:-`c-k- :Lary'.!. 0-T421601- CIA71LL[.ryG 4!f:& 0i0VYL' caw IIM1 t,li P iirirAt CTIDLI ila Mr= +SPri riaT L ICI PROPCS S L6 EPATIT wan, I+P NC L:16 L I4ATD61A lama TIGLI IKL f1117A3 4I7RIa4= NCO 1.1.1 Uri A.01itatuiCl SOP Iran, trilada P6Ar raYS nag NO ,Rii«i Ctbeet T+Dab 715Lam,. sa rtiul Wad rtia* itur -iii JWAXJ. AT tda:liT1W is ILTe IL IS*Sx #hlitlaaTn7r1Y 75'1t} —sums L •a4C47a3s ra'tTS ltfusK. t4+tfo+ttitiF, axonal (n isramme.ATPLCWTICtMb -ti — -" its R - 3 i+00-�73►7C l..R- ^- a-. 1malar aw tli it IlAltttr irdaM IAI MYL CM& t3 cfACC iLIT G ti rnOIt '.r' 132-ItAW farVIDCD FAnp.I ?am •i• ar .: P+F:ir-LIFT.II_!! aLCSSI MOIL rr crztotkffr7 li rI CATOdn 017CI I COW PAW TICS is hen % ROAD --I' rdi ✓ ✓' ! a7 ASTON: ?van *wr I an& l I 40:02itMPAW SICS }Att aiTvi acwMMTHrTiis ASital.ttLYATWrrTPCf.i>1TiTD r. 'Y_'titTP, Gees*^ { �' Ia1Ait RUCS9ff.am woman* tab ci MAU MareillaCidliT)fjJPilr,it it t mar P9RT i$ IlYMICtT NWCIef.'tMt r ,r Trw orpirmi i Idl MALI" le IIII HNC &MEC moan RO[• ij18aEJGRd11i6. Atn-r+'a. tIMr fi•gialaSI5'Di5bM 4th warmth tiL; LZtt0(2EJ3 U diLFrTi st'U. "thank, SAVICC, Pffds1w1 ilPfdibliraTP/tS m D TA 4lAbletla iswrl&wr.. W- ELLS= arc 'y`Akt'" `AT ItLLLRlTl a 01411 10114711 Z -'2I MCP FEia RP ai1•=ROI t. / ii `\ `•4 \ CLoucrieefl IffiaVrIDLIMIialflaitehl T 7TIC C Inc " Ric 21;cts10 Mkt dair■ '"X woe `r2 t'IT .7-idib ar. �a:ao STAMP: raga FrilEVi MDT i u.cc P+3I taaiTb 1tTrsa, 4tSt.:. a Ptflnw nmen KELSEY, M.M--', ' C al us. 0 421 PEI t Dficl/2r2 ,L, W' LaJ cl zOCC z CZ m 144 1 • S �0. y i Lin flOJECf WU MREt 434718 SHEET `ITI.E. SITE PLAN 1 _MEET SIZE ARCH 13` 0 'V - -PING iSSUED FOR PERM 110 -'r -R ioc4en-z_•r :_4i RD. 7CYMICIN = r' ^ t 71 DATE: DRAWN BY. TR T. E NGKEElt B, APPRfr& ti Bit: P.i:ADIEU PHASE: URA. PUNS real F. I SHEET HO_ Harring Solar Site Traffic Letter -Page 5 KELLAR ENGINEERING Table 1: Trip Generation AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Average Daily Trips Code ITE Land Use Size Rate Total Rate In Rate Out Total Rate In Rate Out Total N/A Solar Field * * 48 * 14 * 10 24 * 6 * 14 20 N/A = Not Available * The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition does not provide detailed data related to the proposed use. Therefore, trip generation is based upon information obtained from the client and project team. See Section 3.0 Trip Generation for more information Harring Solar Site Traffic Letter Page 6 KELLAR ENGINEERING 4.0 Conclusions: The findings of the Traffic Letter are summarized below: • The proposed project is conservatively anticipated to generate a maximum of approximately 48 daily total weekday trips, 24 AM total peak hour trips, and 20 PM total peak hour trips. See Table 1: Trip Generation • The project's trip generation and site generated traffic is low. See Table 1: Trip Generation. • Due to the project's low site generated traffic, the proposed project will not create a negative traffic impact upon the local and regional traffic system and the existing roadway improvements are sufficient to accommodate the project's traffic. See Section 3.0. • The anticipated number of daily trips after construction is complete is only 2 — 4 trips per year. See Section 3.0. KELLAR ENGINEERING Harring Solar Site Traffic Letter -Page 7 APPENDIX Harring Solar Site Traffic Letter -Page 8 li KELLAR ENGINEERING Aerial Image KELLAR ENGINEERING Harring Solar Site Traffic Letter -Page 9 KELLAR ENGINEERING Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE Principal Engineer Education B.S., Civil Engineering, Arizona State University — Tempe, AZ Registration Colorado, Professional Engineer (PE) Wyoming, Professional Engineer (PE) Idaho, Professional Engineer (PE) Arizona, Professional Engineer (PE) Kansas, Professional Engineer (PE) Missouri, Professional Engineer (PE) Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE) Professional Memberships Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Industry Tenure 23 Years WORK EXPERIENCE: Sean's wide range of expertise includes: transportation plan- ning, traffic modeling roadway design, bike and pedestrian facili- ties, traffic impact studies, traffic signal warrant analysis, parking studies, corridor planning and access management. Sean's experience in both the private and public sectors; passion for safety and ex- cellence; and strong communication and collaboration skills can bring great value to any project. Prior to starting Kellar Engineering, Sean was employed at the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) as the District Traffic Engineer for the Kansas City District. Sean also worked for the City of Loveland, CO for over 10 years as a Senior Civil Engineer supervising a division of transportation/traffic engineers. While at the City of Loveland, Sean managed several capital improvement projects, presented several projects to the City Council and Planning Commission in public hearings, and managed the revisions to the City's Street Standards. Sean is also proficient in Highway Capacity Software, Synchro, PT Vissim, Rodel, GIS, and AutoCAD. Kellar Engineering, Principal Engineer/President — January 2016 — Present Missouri Department of Transportation, District Traffic Engineer, Kansas City District — June 2015 — January 2016 City of Loveland, Colorado, Senior Civil Engineer, Public Works Department — February 2005 June 2015 Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers, Project Manager - February 2004 — February 2005 Dibble and Associates Consulting Engineers, Project Engineer - August 1999 - February 2004 Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 26 See attached. EXHIBIT I NOISE STUDY 4858-1139-9006.3 'TRC Noise Study Report March 2022 Harring Site Solar Project Prepared For: Cloudbreak EnergyPartners, LLC 4845 Pearl East Circle,Suite 118 Boulder, Colorado 80301 Prepared By: TRC Companies, Inc. 123 North College Avenue, Suite 206 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 =i TRC Noise Study Harring Solar Project Weld County, Colorado NOISE STUDY Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC (Cloudbreak) is proposing to construct and operate the Harring Solar Project (Project) in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado. The Project includes construction of 5 Megawatts (MW) of solar electric generation on a 32.5 -acre parcel. The purpose of this noise study was to determine the level of noise impact the Project at nearby residences and to ensure that the Project complies with state and county regulations. The level of impact has been determined based on The State of Colorado Noise Law and WCC Chapter 14 Article 9 (Noise). Fundamentals of Noise Noise can be defined as unwanted sound. When a noise is distinctly louder than the ambient noise environment and reaches a certain level, it can disrupt normal activities. The magnitude of noise or the deviation from the ambient noise level is usually described by sound pressure. The magnitude of noise is usually described by a ratio of its sound pressure to a reference sound pressure, which is usually 20 micro - Pascals. A logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressure to a common reference pressure, yielding the sound pressure level (SPL). SPL is measured in dimensionless units of decibels (dB) and are modified by frequency response of human hearing or weighting. The commonly accepted limits of human hearing to detect sound are between the threshold of hearing at 0 dB and the threshold of pain at 140 dB. Sound frequencies are represented in units of Hertz (Hz), which correspond to the number of vibrations per second of a given tone. Sound occurs over a wide range of frequencies. Three weightings have been established for measuring sound pressure: Al B, and C. The commonly accepted audible frequency is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz, and human hearing is most sensitive to the frequencies between 1,000 Hz and 6,000 Hz. The A -weighted scale is adjusted to frequencies most sensitive to human ears. Sound levels that are measured using the A -weighted scale are often expressed as dB(A). All noise levels in this noise impact analysis report will be expressed in dB(A). A key concept in evaluating potential noise impacts is the perceived effect of incremental increases in existing noise levels. Changes in dB(A) are exponential; therefore, an increase of 3 dB(A) is barely perceptible, an increase of 5 dB(A) is readily perceptible, and a 10 dB(A) increase would be perceived by someone to be a doubling of the noise level (loudness). Existing Noise Environment: The subject site is located southeast of the intersection of County Road 76 and County Road 39 in an unincorporated area of Weld County, Colorado. The Project Area is surrounded by existing agricultural fields to the west, south, and east; and a residential area to the north. The applicable setbacks from adjacent property lines, and roadways, will be required and much of the existing vegetation (if present) within the setbacks will be retained. Existing noise sources at the site occur mainly from infrequent vehicular traffic traveling on nearby roadways. 1 A TRC Noise Study Harring Solar Project Weld County, Colorado State of Colorado Noise Law Colorado Revised Statutes 25-12-103: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels. 1. Every activity to which this article is applicable shall be conducted in a manner so that any noise produced is not objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequency, or shrillness. Sound levels of noise radiating from a property line at a distance of twenty-five feet or more there from in excess of the dB(A) established for the following time periods and zones shall constitute prima facie evidence that such noise is a public nuisance. 2. In the hours between 7:00 a.m. and the next 7:00 p.m., the noise levels permitted in subsection (1) of this section may be increased by ten dB(A) for a period of not to exceed fifteen minutes in any one -hour period. 3. Periodic, impulsive, or shrill noises shall be considered a public nuisance when such noises are at a sound level of five dB(A) less than those listed in subsection (1) of this section. Table 1. State of Colorado Maximum Allowable Noise Sound Pressure Levels for Specified Premises Zone 7am to next 10pm 10pm to next 7am Residential 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Commercial 60 dB(A) 55 dB(A) Light Industrial 70 dB(A) 65 dB(A) Industrial 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) Weld County Code Noise Ordinance Weld County Code (WCC) 14-9-40: Maximum Permissible Noise Levels. A. Sound levels are hereby established for each type of property during specific hours of the day. Any sound level which exceeds the level set for a type of property at any time of day is prohibited 2 TRC Noise Study Harring Solar Project Weld County, Colorado B. Between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., the noise levels set forth above may be exceeded by up to ten (10) decibels for up to fifteen (15) minutes in a one -hour period. Table 2. Weld County Maximum Permissible Noise Levels Land Use 7am to 9pm 9pm to 7am Residential property or Commercial Area 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) Industrial area or Construction activities 80 dB(A) 75 dB(A) Non -specified areas 55 dB(A) 50 dB(A) C. Vehicles operating in the public right-of-way are subject to the following maximum noise levels. Table 3. Maximum Vehicular Sound Levels Vehicle Class (GVWR) Maximum noise 35 mph or in Speed less zone Limit Maximum noise over 35 mph in Speed zone Limit Over 10,000 lbs. 86 dB(A) 90 dB(A) Any other vehicle 80 dB(A) 84 dB(A) Project Noise Construction Construction noise represents a short-term (temporary) impact on ambient noise levels. Temporary noise impacts during construction would occur during daylight hours while construction equipment is being operated including, but not limited to, passenger vehicles, earthmoving equipment, concrete mixers, water trucks, and semi-tractor/trailer trucks. The spatial distribution of construction noise emissions would vary during the day and depend upon the type of activity. Construction traffic will generate noise along the haul route. This noise would be temporary during commuting hours and when supplies are delivered over the course of construction. Operations Sources of noise during operation would only include temporary vehicle noise from maintenance personnel access and typical noise emissions from the solar array, inverters (which convert electricity from AC -to -DC, and DC -to -AC), transformers (which "step up" and "step down" the system voltage), and overhead transmission. Project facilities that emit sound during operation include inverters. Noise emission from inverters depends on the inverter model and number of inverters, which will be determined based on detailed engineering to be completed during final design and approval of the site, but typical emissions from industrial PV inverters and associated supporting equipment utilized in previous solar projects within the region range from 48 to 72 dB(A) at a distance of 10 feet (Tech Environmental 2012). Within this range, inverter sound levels are generally 3 =i TRC Noise Study Harring Solar Project Weld County, Colorado indistinguishable from background noise levels at a distance of 150 feet from the inverter (Tech Environmental 2012). Typical equipment that is expected to be utilized for this Project includes Module Model LONGi LR4- 72NHD-435M or similar and Inverter Model CPS SCH125KTL-DO/US-600 or similar. For comparison, a gas lawnmower can produce around 90 dB(A), a vacuum cleaner around 70 dB(A), and a dishwasher in the next room around 50 dB(A) (FAA 2022). Based on the typical sound levels from Project operation and the distance to the boundary, the Project will adhere to Weld County and State of Colorado permissible noise levels. Conclusion The purpose of this noise study was to determine the level of noise impact the Project will produce and ensure that the Project will comply with state and county regulations. This level of impact has been determined based on the Weld County noise regulations. Based on typical solar energy facility equipment, it is expected that the noise levels from Project facilities will meet the Weld County Noise Ordinance and state statute requirements. References FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2022. Fundamentals of Noise and Sound. Available https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_ guidance/noise/basics/. Accessed March 23, 2022. Tech Environmental, Inc. 2012. Study of Acoustic and EMF Levels from Solar Photovoltaic Projects. Prepared by Tech Environmental, Inc., Waltham, MA. Prepared for Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, Boston, MA. December 2012. Power Electronics. 2019. Technical Report. Sound Pressure Level in Freesun PSCK/HEMK Inverters. April 2019. 4 Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 27 See attached. EXHIBIT J MANURE MANAGEMENT PLAN CBEP SOLAR 6 PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO©CLOD DBREAKEN ERGY.COM DATE: April 26, 2023 PROJECT: Harring Solar Project SUBJECT: Manure Management Plan CBEP Solar 6, LLC is proposing to construct and operate the Harring Solar Project in unincorporated Weld County, Colorado. The Project includes the construction of 4.625 Megawatts (MW) of solar electric generation on a 35.10 -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 6, LLC's plan to maintain and minimize the impacts of the manure on the Project parcel and neighboring community. Background• CBEP Solar 6, LLC intends to partner with a local shepherd that will be grazing no more than 500 sheep on the Harring Solar Project site for periods during the grazing season. The Harring 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 Harring Solar Project. The Project site will not serve as a feedlot for sheep. Harrowing: A harrowing machine will be used on the Harring 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 6, LLC will physically remove the manure and compost it offsite. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE 2 Community Feedback: In addition to the above Manure Management Plan, CBEP Solar 6, LLC has provided the County with a signed letter from community members that currently live near other fields that the shepherd grazes. These individuals have had a positive experience with the shepherd and haven't been impacted by the manure load. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLODDBPEAKENEPGY.COM I CLOUDBPEAKENEPGY.COM Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 28 See attached. EXHIBIT K GLARE STUDY i Try TRC 708 Heartland Trl, Suite 3000 Madison, WI 53717 Technical Memorandum Date: March 16, 2022 To: Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC From: BreAnne Kahnk — Project Engineer Reference No.: TRC Project No. 434718.0000 Subject: Harring — Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Working Copy Introduction Cloudbreak Energy Partners, LLC (Cloudbreak) is proposing to develop an approximately 5 -megawatt (MW) alternating current (AC) solar photovoltaic (PV) project identified as Harring Solar (Project). The Project is located near Eaton, Weld County, Colorado. Figure 1 demonstrates the proposed PV array location for the Project. Solar Glare Analysis Methodology TRC conducted a solar glare analysis using methodology developed by Sandia National Laboratories and described in the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) User's Manual (Ho et al, 2013). The SGHAT-compliant software used in this analysis is under license to TRC by ForgeSolar. Under certain conditions, solar panel surfaces reflect sunlight and produce glint (a momentary flash of bright light) or glare (a continuous source of bright light). Magnitude of glint and glare depends on several factors such as sun position, location of observer, and characteristics of the solar PV array including the tilt, orientation, location, and optical properties of the modules. Glare visibility from the observer's location is analyzed once glare characteristics are determined. Ocular hazard potential is estimated based on retinal irradiance and subtended angle (size/distance) of the glare (Ho et al., 2010). Potential ocular hazards range from temporary after -image to retinal burn depending on the retinal irradiance and subtended angle as shown in Figure 2. The SGHAT classifies solar glare into three categories, denoted as either `green', `yellow', or 'red' glare. • Green glare is the mildest of the three glare classifications and refers to a level of glare that has a low potential to cause after -image and no potential to cause retinal burn. • Yellow glare is a moderate level of glare with some potential to cause temporary after- image and no potential to cause retinal burn. • Red glare is a serious and significant form of glare with potential to cause retinal burn and/or permanent eye damage. \\madison-vfp\Records\-\WPMSN\PJT2\434718\0000\000024\M4347180000PH24-003.docx Technical Memorandum Page 2 of 5 Limitations of the SGHAT applicable to this Project are as follows: • The SGHAT does not rigorously represent the detailed geometry of a solar panel array; detailed features such as gaps between modules, variable height of the PV array, and support structures may impact actual glare results. However, accuracy of the current approach is validated by several test cases. • The model does not consider obstacles (either man-made or natural, existing, or proposed) and mitigation measures between the observation points and prescribed solar installation that may obstruct predicted glare. • The ocular hazard predicted by the tool depends on a number of environmental, optical, and human factors, which can be uncertain. In general, default values given by the SGHAT in this analysis reflect the worst -case scenario. As such, the actual glare created by the proposed Project will likely be less than that predicted by this model. Project Description Preliminary layout and panel configuration have been developed by Cloudbreak. As the Project is further designed, it is likely that the actual Project footprint will be smaller than that used for this analysis. Figure 1 depicts the proposed array area, observation points (OPs) and route receptors evaluated. Project Specifications The PV panels for the Project are proposed to be mounted on a single axis tracking racking system with axes that are oriented to the south (180° azimuth), and an east -west tilt angle of 52° to - 52°. The resting angle, which is defined as the angle of rotation of the panels when the sun is outside the panels' tracking range, is proposed to be 0°. Single -axis tracking systems are programmed for the panels to remain perpendicular to the sun's location as the sun moves across the sky throughout the day via solar data from ephemeris tables, which predict the sun's path across the sky. The tracking system begins when the sun's location is perpendicular with the maximum tracking angle (52°) of the system and continues until the sun enters a range where the panel can no longer remain perpendicular with the sun. When the sun is outside the tracking range of the system (when the panels no longer can remain perpendicular with the sun), the trackers remain at their resting angle or utilize backtracking. The Project will utilize backtracking at the site to reduce the impacts from shading during the morning and evening hours of the day. ForgeSolar utilizes four methods to model backtracking which include "shade -slope," "shade," "interval," and "instant." Because the site is not located on flat ground and the primary goal of the backtracking is to minimize impacts to the system from shading, a "shade -slope" method was utilized in this model. "Shade -slope" is a slope aware method design to accommodate the modules placed on arbitrarily -oriented slopes and reduce shading. For the backtracking analysis, a ground coverage ratio of 40.1 percent was assumed. The panels are proposed to be mounted to the racking at approximately 4.5 -feet (54 inches) above ground level (AGL). The glare analysis will be evaluated at the mounting height. No significant grading is currently proposed for the Project. The panels are designed to absorb \\madison-vfp\Records\-\WPMSN\PJT2\434718\0000\000024\M4347180000PH24-003.docx Technical Memorandum Page 3 of 5 sunlight. The panels were modeled as smooth glass. The panels will be treated with anti - reflective coatings (ARC), which assists to absorb and transmit light rather than reflecting it. Observation Point Parameters Solar glare hazard analyses were conducted for selected residences located in vicinity of the Project using ForgeSolar's OP tool to estimate potential glare. Unoccupied structures, such as garages, sheds, barns, etc., were not analyzed. The OPs analyzed were selected by TRC. A height of 6 feet was used to represent observers located at one-story residences/buildings. A height of 16 feet was used to represent observes located on the second floor of two-story residences/buildings. For bi-level residences, heights of 3 feet at 12 feet are assumed for the lower and upper floors, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the modelled characteristics of the selected OPs and their corresponding labels. Figure 1 shows the locations of the selected OPs in relation to the Project. Table 1: Observation Points Observation Point Label Number of Floors in Residence Height (ft) OP1 One-story residence at 19188 County Road 76 6 OP2 Two-story residence at 19186 County Road 76 6 OP3 16 OP4 One-story residence at 19184 County Road 76 6 OP5 Bi-Level residence at 19180 County Road 76 3 O P6 12 OP7 Two-story residence at 19442 County Road 76 6 OP 8 16 OP9 Two-story residence at 36648 County Road 39 6 ()PI 0 16 OP11 Two-story residence at 36788 County Road 39 6 OP12 16 OP13 One-story residence at 19154 County Road 76 6 Route Receptors TRC also analyzed the adjacent roadways, County Road 39 and County Road 76, utilizing the Route Receptor in ForgeSolar (Figure 1). The Route Receptor provides a multi -line representation that simulates observers traveling along continuous paths such as roads, railways, helicopter paths, and multi -segment flight tracks. The viewing angle for observers traveling within passenger vehicles along the roadways was presumed to be a 180° field of view, which represents that the observer can view glare in all directions. A viewing angle of 50° was used for commercial vehicles to account for the restricted field of view of larger commercial vehicles. A height of 5 feet was assumed for passenger vehicles and 11 feet for commercial vehicles. It was assumed that only passenger vehicles used the residential section of County Road 76. \\madison-vfp\Records\-\WPMSN\PJT2\434718\0000\000024\M4347180000PH24-003.docx Technical Memorandum Page 4 of 5 Additional Assumptions The following assumptions have been utilized for the analyses: • Time zone for the Project was set at UTC — 7 hours (Mountain Standard Time). • Subtended angle of the sun of 9.3 milliradian (mrad) is assumed as recommended by SGHAT. This is the average angle of the sun as viewed from earth as it moves throughout the day. • The time interval for the analysis was set to run at 1 -minute increments. Inputs, outputs, and other assumptions used in the analysis are documented in Attachment 1. Results, Recommendations, and Conclusions TRC conducted the solar glare hazard analysis using the FAA -approved SGHAT tool to evaluate potential impact of the Project on the evaluated OPs and Route Receptors. TRC evaluated the potential solar glare impact of the PV panels using the project specifications detailed above. Table 2 summarizes the estimated total number of minutes per year that glare may be visible from the proposed Project at each OP and Route Receptor evaluated. These results are detailed in Attachment 1. Table 2 Receptor Green Glare (min/yr) Yellow Glare (min/yr) Red Glare (min/yr) OP1 0 0 0 OP2 0 0 0 O P3 0 0 0 OP4 0 0 0 O P5 0 0 0 O P6 0 0 0 O1°7 0 838 0 O1°8 0 2,110 0 OP9 0 2,327 0 OP 10 0 2,686 0 O P 11 0 687 0 OP12 0 892 0 OP13 0 0 0 County Road 39 — Passenger 0 2,254 0 County Road 39 — Commercial 0 0 0 County Road 76 Passenger 0 0 0 — County Road 76 — Commercial 0 0 0 County Road 76 Residential 0 0 0 — \\madison-vfp\Records\-\WPMSN\PJT2\434718\0000\000024\M4347180000PH24-003.docx Technical Memorandum Page 5 of 5 Based on the glare hazard analysis performed for the Project with the project specifications provided above, no green or red glare is expected to be visible at the OPs and along the Route Receptors evaluated. However, yellow glare is modelled to be observed at OP7, OP8, OP10, and OP12 and along County Road 39 and County Road 76. It should be noted that the modeled backtracking in ForgeSolar is not exactly the same as the backtracking that may be used on -site during operations. The estimated glare that may be visible at the evaluated receptors is described below. • OP7 and OP8 are located approximately 150 feet east of the array area. OP7 was modelled on the first floor and OP8 was modelled on the second floor of the evaluated residence. Yellow glare may be visible at both observation points for less than 10 minutes per day from approximately 4:30 pm to 5:00 pm from early February to early November at OP7 and from 4:00 pm to 10:00 pm throughout the year at OP8. • OP9 and OP10 are located approximately 1,250 feet west of the array area. OP9 was modelled on the first floor and OP10 was on the second floor of the evaluated residence. Yellow glare may be visible at both receptor locations for less than 10 minutes per day from approximately 4:00 am to 8:00 am throughout the year. • OP11 and OP12 are located approximately 1,290 feet northwest of the array area. OP11 was modelled on the first floor and OP12 was on the second floor of the evaluated residence. Yellow glare may be visible at both receptor locations for less than 10 minutes per day from approximately 6:00 am to 8:00 am from October to early March. • County Road 39 is located west of the array area. Yellow glare may be visible for less than 10 minutes a day from approximately 4:30 am to 8:00 am throughout the year from a passenger car traveling along the evaluated section of County Road 39. Cloudbreak is evaluating several methods to mitigate the glare estimated to be visible at the above receptors. These methods include the use of vegetative screening or changes in the project specifications. Due to the amount of glare observed from upper floors of the adjacent properties, vegetative screening may not be as applicable to the site. Adjusting the resting angle of the system would also mitigate the modelled glare. At a resting angle of approximately 5 degrees, the modelled glare is expected to be reduced to zero minutes a year. This is because the resting angle of a tracking system, and at the end of the backtracking range, can have a large impact on glare produced near sunrise and sunset. When the sun is low on the horizon, an angle (even a slight angle) is needed to reflect light in a more upward trajectory, minimizing the light reflected to observers close to the ground. It should be noted that changes to the Project specifications may affect the results of this analysis. References Ho, C.K., C.M. Ghanbari, and R.B. Driver. 2010. Methodology to Assess Potential Glare Hazards from Concentrating Solar Power Plants: Analytical Models and Experimental Validation, SAND2010-2581 C, in proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Energy Sustainability, Phoenix, AZ, May 17-22. Ho, C.K., and C.A. Sims. 2013. Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT) User's Manual v 3.0. \\madison-vfp\Records\-\WPMSN\PJT2\434718\0000\000024\M4347180000PH24-003.docx Figures 1\madison-vfp\Records\-\WPMSN\PJT2\43471810000\000024\M4347180000PH24-003.docx C F co C 1.E+03 1.E+02 1.E+01 1.E+oo 1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 Potential for Permanent Eye Damage (retinal burn) direct viewing, of sun Potential for _ After -Image Low Potential for After -Image -subtended angle of sun I I III IIIIIJ f 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 10 100 1000 Subtended Source Angle (mrad) Brun levee (1977) [1] Sliney and F�reasii►er J (1973. Table III) [3] Delerl et al. (2007) ANSI 2000 111] • rye e t cr a It and Here (19 58) [12] • Severin et al. (1962) [13] Saur and Dobrash (1969) [141 Airport Feature FAA Acceptable Glare Limit Color Code Runways No Glare None Low potential for after image Green ATCT No Glare None Note: After image (flash blindness) is an internal picture that appears on the retina after looking at an object reflecting light or at a source of light itself. Figure 2. Glare Hazard Analysis Plot and FAA Acceptable Glare Limits (Ho et al., 2011 and FAA, 2013) Glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between reflectors and receptors. This includes buildings, tree cover and geographic obstructions. Several calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub -sections can provide additional information on expected glare. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub -array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub -arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare -spot locations may differ. Glare vector plots are simplified representations of analysis data. Actual glare emanations and results may differ. The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of view, and typical blink response time. Actual results and glare occurrence may differ. Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. 2016-2019 © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. \\madison-vfp\Records\-\WPMSN\PJT2\434718\0000\000024\M4347180000PH24-003.docx Attachment 1 Harring Solar Project Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Reports 1\madison-vfp\Records\-\WPMSN\PJT2\43471810000\000024\M4347180000PH24-003.docx lian --,n A fl F, PV planning glare analysis FORGESOLAR GLARE ANALYSIS Project: Harring Solar An approximately 5 MW solar project located outside of Eaton, Colorado. Site con guration: Harring Solar Analysis conducted by BreAnne Kahnk (bkahnk@trccompanies.com) at 21:29 on 02 Mar, 2022. U.S. FAA 2013 Policy Adherence The following table summarizes the policy adherence of the glare analysis based on the 2013 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration Interim Policy 78 FR 63276. This policy requires the following criteria be met for solar energy systems on airport property: • No "yellow" glare (potential for after -image) for any ight path from threshold to 2 miles • No glare of any kind for Air Tra c Control Tower(s) ("ATCT") at cab height. • Default analysis and observer characteristics (see list below) ForgeSolar does not represent or speak o cially for the FAA and cannot approve or deny projects. Results are informational only. COMPONENT STATUS DESCRIPTION Analysis parameters PASS Analysis time interval and eye characteristics used are acceptable 2 -mile ight path(s) N/A No ight paths analyzed ATCT(s) N/A No ATCT receptors designated Default glare analysis parameters and observer eye characteristics (for reference only): • Analysis time interval: 1 minute • Ocular transmission coe cient: 0.5 • Pupil diameter: 0.002 meters • Eye focal length: 0.017 meters • Sun subtended angle: 9.3 milliradians FAA Policy 78 FR 63276 can be read at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-24729 SITE CONFIGURATION Analysis Parameters DNI: peaks at 1,000.0 W/m^2 Time interval: 1 min Ocular transmission coe cient0.5 Pupil diameter: 0.002 m Eye focal length: 0.017 m Sun subtended angle: 9.3 mrad Site Con g ID: 65306.11580 Methodology: V2 Imagery ©2v« hliaxar Technol.cgi s, USDA Farm Service Agency PV Array(s) Name: Array Area 1 Axis tracking: Single -axis rotation Backtracking: Shade -slope Tracking axis orientation: 180.0° Max tracking angle: 52.0° Resting angle: 0.0° Ground Coverage Ratio: 0.401 Rated power: - Panel material: Smooth glass with AR coating Reflectivity: Vary with sun i r- ' o" r Slope error: correlate with material Goo l Imagery ©2022 hhaxaEr Technologies, USDA Farms Service Agency . _._� ., Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 40.535727 -104.691801 4869.29 4.50 4873.79 2 40.535661 -104.690038 4876.90 4.50 4881.40 3 40.532271 -104.688431 4858.75 4.50 4863.25 4 40.531555 -104.688408 4852.60 4.50 4857.10 5 40.531589 -104.691735 4854.63 4.50 4859.14 Discrete Observation Receptors Name ID Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Elevation (ft) Height (ft) OP 1 1 40.536449 -104.690554 4887.48 6.00 OP 2 2 40.536701 -104.690738 4884.25 6.00 OP 3 3 40.536701 -104.690738 4884.25 16.00 OP 4 4 40.536834 -104.691230 4886.24 6.00 OP 5 5 40.537175 -104.691801 4884.25 3.00 OP 6 6 40.537175 -104.691801 4884.25 12.00 OP 7 7 40.535201 -104.689066 4875.54 6.00 OP 8 8 40.535201 -104.689066 4875.54 16.00 OP 9 9 40.533848 -104.696402 4852.66 6.00 OP 10 10 40.533848 -104.696402 4852.66 16.00 OP 11 11 40.536612 -104.696318 4867.72 6.00 OP 12 12 40.536612 -104.696318 4867.72 16.00 OP 13 13 40.537794 -104.693779 4879.38 6.00 Route Receptor(s) Name: County Road 39 - Commercial Path type: Two-way Observer 50.0° - f ' rW r ;= L' '. view angle: _� ,� - , ._ 41 Note: FAA Route policy receptors review. Use are the excluded 2 -mile ight from this path ' 1, receptor FAA guidelines. to simulate ight paths according to - ._ , y--. . . _ i tgy�, iii 11 3 3 i:.1 i- VII T g . " I tli w i eWE dar I _ . 'T _ Qvpgl 2022 Landsat I Copernicus, biaxar Technologies, USDA Farm Service Agency Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 40.538810 -104.696685 4871.73 11.00 4882.73 2 40.538186 -104.696715 4868.01 11.00 4879.01 3 40.537562 -104.696729 4868.17 11.00 4879.18 4 40.536313 -104.696734 4863.20 11.00 4874.20 5 40.533817 -104.696751 4849.24 11.00 4860.24 6 40.528775 -104.696774 4829.85 11.00 4840.85 Name: County Road 39 - Passenger Path type: Two-way - ,►' ilt „ y , 4 Observer view angle: 180.0° 1 s, i;IJIIr ., , .�, Note: FAA Route policy receptors review. Use are the excluded 2 -mile ight from this path .d ' ,, .• H I ( . ' ,/ - • .. it receptor FAA guidelines. to simulate ight paths according to .-, .- ll +.f,,.. I, . • ' w.r qY 1 r.P C9Ic.5.i20fl Landsat ! Copernicus, Maxar Technologies, USDA Farm Service Agcy Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 40.538808 -104.696682 4871.73 5.00 4876.73 2 40.538184 -104.696712 4867.91 5.00 4872.91 3 40.537559 -104.696721 4868.18 5.00 4873.18 4 40.536311 -104.696732 4863.20 5.00 4868.20 5 40.533815 -104.696749 4849.24 5.00 4854.24 6 40.528791 -104.696773 4829.97 5.00 4834.97 Name: County Path type: Two-way Observer view Road 76 - Commerical angle: 50.0° _ - tir t 4�4. � 1 . i - _ - I . ' t - 1 '' Note: Route receptors are excluded from this ltke •j= -Y, a + FAA receptor FAA policy guidelines. to review. simulate Use ight the 2 paths -mile ight according path to y 14"'1 ..` .. a ,!% +, , I! ,Sti ,, I% C' o ogle z: Imagery @2og s 22 Nfaxar Technol,.USDA Farm Service Agency Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 40.538754 -104.696726 4871.30 11.00 4882.30 2 40.538486 -104.686483 4855.93 11.00 4866.93 Name: County Road 76 - Passenger Irl�� k. • Path type: Two-way Observer view angle: 180.0° ,ti • 4• yy it it; :67, i . P 134 1i,e.4.t* k t:04 .�. , Ilk -'4 ; -_s Note: Route receptors are excluded from this I ;a+ ;, •..c FAA receptor policy to review. simulate Use ight the 2 paths -mile ight according path to � .i, e k, 1 • . c" A FAA guidelines. • '3oog I Inialgery @2022 Maxar Technologies, USDA Farm Service Agency _ , Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 40.538752 -104.696723 4871.19 5.00 4876.20 2 40.538485 -104.686482 4855.85 5.00 4860.85 I' - - _ — Name: County Road 76_Residential -" .� .,,;��,, ::e::vT:ze. : 180.0° ' . .• , 4f.r,lI Note: Route from receptors are excluded this FAA receptor ecepto policy to review. simulate I s u ate Use ight g the t 2 paths -mile according acco ight d path n g to t. _4_ - ��-./ � Al .. At FAA guidelines. , P o o le � imagery @121022 NE.axa� Teclinobgiea, USDA r Service Agency _ rim ------ Vertex Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Ground elevation (ft) Height above ground (ft) Total elevation (ft) 1 40.538645 -104.693482 4882.00 5.00 4887.00 2 40.538131 -104.693284 4881.44 5.00 4886.44 3 40.537438 -104.692689 4881.73 5.00 4886.73 4 40.537287 -104.692447 4882.76 5.00 4887.76 5 40.536883 -104.691680 4883.73 5.00 4888.73 6 40.536288 -104.690709 4880.63 5.00 4885.63 GLARE ANALYSIS RESULTS Summary of Glare PV Array Name Array Area 1 Tilt Orient "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare Energy (O) SA tracking (°) min min kWh SA 0 11,794 tracking Total annual glare received by each receptor Receptor Annual Green Glare (min) Annual Yellow Glare (min) OP 1 0 0 OP 2 0 0 OP 3 0 0 OP 4 0 0 OP 5 0 0 OP 6 0 0 OP 7 0 838 OP 8 0 2110 OP 9 0 2327 OP 10 0 2686 OP 11 0 687 OP 12 0 892 OP 13 0 0 County Road 39 - Commercial 0 0 County Road 39 - Passenger 0 2254 County Road 76 - Commerical 0 0 County Road 76 - Passenger 0 0 County Road 76_Residential 0 0 Results for: Array Area 1 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) OP 1 0 0 OP 2 0 0 OP 3 0 0 OP 4 0 0 OP 5 0 0 OP 6 0 0 OP 7 0 838 OP 8 0 2110 OP 9 0 2327 OP 10 0 2686 OP 11 0 687 OP 12 0 892 OP 13 0 0 County Road 39 - Commercial 0 0 County Road 39 - Passenger 0 2254 County Road 76 - Commerical 0 0 County Road 76 - Passenger 0 0 Receptor Green Glare (min) Yellow Glare (min) County Road 76_Residential 0 0 Point Receptor: OP 1 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 2 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 3 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 4 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 5 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 6 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Point Receptor: OP 7 838 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare 0 24:00 23:00 22:00 21:00 20:0D 19-00 18:00 17:00 16:00 15-00 14:00 13:00 12.00 11:00 10 00 09:00 08:00 07-00 06:00 05:00 04:00 03.04 02:00 01:00 00.00 Annual Predicted Glare Occurrence 1 I I I I t I 1 I kW ozs Day of year cpc oct Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image Point Receptor: OP 8 2110 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare 24:00 - 23:00 - 22:00 - 21:00 - Annual Predicted Glare Occurrence O 19:00 - 18:00 17:00 - 16:00 - 15-00 14:00 - 13:00 - 12.00 11:00 - 10 00 - 09 00 - 08:00 - 07:00 - 06:00 05:00 - 04:00 - 03:04 02:00 - 01:00 00:00 _ 1 I I I I I 1 'ls`2,s 12,21, , o, 9 'is' 0 Day of year um Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image I I cps? act �.0 clec Point Receptor: OP 9 2327 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare 60 - 50 �40- to O1 j30- 220- 10-' 0 - Daily Duratlon of Glare 1 I 1 S: 0 mar PO 1 I 1`S{' ``� ?\ r7eQ Day of year I• Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image 1 I oec 60 50 L! 40 O .5 20 - 10- 0 Daily Duration of Glare 7 \2K' veto PQS I 1 7 I I 1 7 1 K3M 9 '0 c.a9 sep 0O4 Day of year la Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image 0 24.00 - 23:00 - 22:00 21:00 - 20:0D - 19-00 - 18:00 - 17:00 16:00 - 15-00 14:00 - 13:00 - 12.00 - 11:00 - 10 00 09:O0 - 08:00 - 07-00 - 06:00 05:00 - 04.00 - 03.04 02:00 - 01:00 00.00 _ Annual Predicted Glare Occurrence I I I 7 t Day of year I cpc oPt do's Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image Point Receptor: OP 10 2686 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare O 24:00 - 23:00 - 22:00 - 21:00 20:00 - 19:00 - 18:00 17:00 - 16:00 - 15-00 14:00 - 13:00 - 12.00 11:00 - 10 00 - 09 00 - 08:00 - 07:00 - 06:00 05:00 - 04:00 - 03:04 02:00 - 01:00 00:00 Annual Predicted Glare Occurrence t I 02,s 12,21, oad 9 'is' 0 Day of year um Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image GPact clec Point Receptor: OP 11 687 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare 60 - 50 �40- to O1 j30- 220- 10- 0-i 1\ ft'° fat Daily Duratlon of Glare I i �,a't �� 5U P`)g c5ep 00- Day of year MI Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image I 7 oec 60 50 L! 40 0 .5 20 - 10 0 Daily Duration of Glare \a"p fat p1/4t nazi 9 '0\ c.,AA cpp of Day of year la Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image O 24:00 - 23:00 - 22:00 21:00 - 20:0D - 19-00 - 18:00 - 17:00 16:00 - 15-00 14:00 - 13:00 - 12.00 - 11:00 - 10 00 09:00 - 08:00 - 07-00 - 06:00 05:00 - 04:00 - 03.04 02:00 - 01:00 00.00 Annual Predicted Glare Occurrence I I I I I Day of year Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image I I N4Oa Qec Point Receptor: OP 12 892 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare O 24:00 - 23:00 - 22:00 - 21:00 20:00 - 19:00 - 18:00 17:00 - 16:00 - 15-00 14:00 - 13:00 - 12.00 11:00 - 10 00 - 09 00 - 08:00 - 07:00 - 06:00 05:00 - 04:00 - 03:04 02:00 - 01:00 00:00 Annual Predicted Glare Occurrence I ,a" Fea V0t SINCC 0281 I I Day of year I I cpc eft ZaflJ qec NM Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image Point Receptor: OP 13 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: County Road 39 - Commercial 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: County Road 39 - Passenger 2254 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare 60 - 50 �J 40 - to en O 30 - u 2 20 10, 0 - Daily Duration of Glare I I I I I \\c‘ ties tnat Pt O2S \\P yv.‘ Ps)4 ‘70Q cOr Day of year I• Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image 60 50 L! 40 O .5 20 - 10- 0 Daily Duration of Glare I I \a veto fat �t I I K3M 1�O \\)\ PEA seP act Day of year la Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image Annual Predicted Glare Occurrence 24.00 - 23:00 - 22:00 21:00 - 20:0D 14-00 - 18:00 - 17:00 16:00 - 15-00 14:00 - 13:00 - Q 12.00 - = 11:00 - 10 00 09:00 - 08:00 - 07-00 - 06:00 05:00 - 04.00 - 03.04 02:00 - 01:00 00.00 *io pat oa`l •\J(\ \u\ ;oi c c o0` .0ocs Day of year IMO Low potential for temporary after -image Potential for temporary after -image Route: County Road 76 - Commerical 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: County Road 76 - Passenger 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Route: County Road 76_Residential 0 minutes of yellow glare 0 minutes of green glare Assumptions "Green" glare is glare with low potential to cause an after -image ( ash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. "Yellow" glare is glare with potential to cause an after -image ( ash blindness) when observed prior to a typical blink response time. Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. Glare analyses do not account for physical obstructions between re ectors and receptors. This includes buildings, tree cover and geographic obstructions. Several calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to V1 algorithm limitations. This may a ect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub -sections can provide additional information on expected glare. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub -array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub -arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare -spot locations may di er. Glare vector plots are simpli ed representations of analysis data. Actual glare emanations and results may di er. The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of view, and typical blink response time. Actual results and glare occurrence may di er. Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid based on aggregated research data. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. Refer to the Help page at www.forgesolar.com/help/ for assumptions and limitations not listed here. 2016 © Sims Industries d/b/a ForgeSolar, All Rights Reserved. Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 29 See attached. EXHIBIT L DRAINAGE STUDY Stormwater Drainage Study CLOUDBREAK ENERGY PARTNERS Date: 09/28/2022 To: Cloudbreak Energy From: Kelsey Blaisdell, TRC Companies 799 E 3rd St Suite 4, Durango, CO 81301 Project: Harring Solar Project Subject: On -Site Drainage Study PRELIMINARY FOR INTERIM REVIEW ONLY. NOT FOR PERMITTING, BIDDING, NOR CONSTRUCTION. Prepared by or under the Direct Supervision of: Kelsey Blaisdell, P.E. 49698 "9/28/2022" Cloudbreak Energy is pursuing the development of the Harring project, a photovoltaic energy generation facility at a 36.25 -acre site located approximately 11 miles north of Garden City, Colorado, alongside County Road 76 (See Appendix A -Site Plans C-301, C-302, C-303 & C-304). The existing site is currently used for agricultural purposes with approximately 2.5% slopes. This drainage study was prepared to summarize findings from performing a hydrologic analysis of the project site to identify the potential stormwater impact from the proposed solar project and develop appropriate drainage best management practices (BMPs) to address the impact. This drainage study was prepared to comply with the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria (WCECC) Manual Requirements, updated January 2021. Proposed Project The proposed solar project will consist of pole mounted photovoltaic (PV) arrays. Ground disturbance under the panels will be minimal; thus, the existing perviousness of the soil will be maintained under the solar cells allowing infiltration. Rainfall runoff from the panels will not be concentrated and flow under the pole mounted PV panels matching the pre - development flow patterns. Additional improvements associated with this project are limited to gravel drives for vehicle access and concrete pads for distribution transformers (see Appendix A — Site Plans C-301, C-302, C-303 & C-304). No public access or utility infrastructure improvements are anticipated at this time. Site Drainage Currently, the existing site does not have any regional retention or water quality features. The soils in the area consist of hydrologic soil groups (HSG) A and C soils given by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS — Appendix B). Two drainage basins Labeled Drainage Area A and Drainage Area B have been identified for the site, with approximate areas of 6.89 acres and 26.17 acres respectively. Any offsite flows appear to follow the existing ditches and streams and are not expected to affect the project site. See Appendix A for the drainage area maps and details. A hydrologic analysis was prepared using the Rational Method based on requirements from the WCECC Manual. The analysis provided estimated peak flow rates for the 100 -year storm under both pre -and post -development conditions. The design rainfall depth for a 1 -hour, Stormwater Drainage Study 100 -year storm is 2.73 inches based upon NOAA Atlas 14: Precipitation -Frequency Atlas. The Rational Method equation shown below was used to determine the peak flow rates from Drainage Area A, Drainage Area B, Drainage Area C, and Drainage Area D. Existing conditions were determined to be "Greenbelt, Agriculture" which correlated to a 2% impervious value according to Table 5-2, Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria. In Table 5-3 —Table 5-5, based on the soil type and impervious percentage, the runoff calculation for Drainage Area A is 0.49 and Drainage Area B is 0.30. Proposed conditions were determined to be the weighted average of "Greenbelt, Agriculture" (2% impervious), "Solar Facilities A&B" (2% impervious), and "Solar Facilities C&D Soils" (25% impervious). Using the same process as before, the runoff coefficients were weighted to be 0.53 and 0.32, for Drainage Area A and Drainage Area B, respectively. The drainage area imperviousness and resulting peak flow rates from pre -and post -development conditions are summarized below. See Appendix C for the runoff coefficient calculations. Q Q=C*I*A Where: — Runoff flow rate, in cubic feet per second (cfs) I — Rainfall Intensity, in inches per hour (in/hr) A — Area of the basin, in acres (ac) Pre -development Runoff Calculation Parameters Drainage Area Area, A (ac) Weighted Coefficient, Runoff C Intensity, Rainfall (in/hr) A 6.89 0.49 6.17 B 26.17 0.30 5.47 Post -development Runoff Calculation Parameters Drainage Area Area, A (ac) Weighted Coefficient, Runoff C Intensity, Rainfall (in/hr) I % Added area ac/total (impervious Impervious ac) A 6.89 0.53 6.17 4.64 B 26.17 0.32 5.47 0.26 100 -year Runoff Calculation Results Drainage Area Pre -development Peak Flow (cfs) Rate Post Peak -development Flow (cfs) Rate DIFFERENCE (cfs) A 20.95 22.74 1.79 B 43.38 45.65 2.27 Stormwater Drainage Study Based on the above results, the increase of impervious area would produce little increase (4.9%) in the peak flow rate. Because of this, a detention basin facility will not be proposed. Instead, two grass swales will be introduced, one near the southwest site boundary of Drainage Area A and another near the south site boundary of Drainage Area B, to dissipate energy and attenuate any potential flow increase from gravel roads and concrete pads. Erosion Control/Stormwater Management Plan Erosion control features such as silt fences and grass swales (also mentioned above) will be installed on the site prior to construction activities. Such measures will be included in the erosion control plan and detail sheets within the final construction documents. Grass swale sizing calculations are summarized in Appendix D. Conclusion The drainage study and attached drainage maps were produced in accordance with requirements from Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria Manual, updated January 2021. The existing stormwater flow characteristics are expected to remain unchanged and increases in peak flow rates have been proven to be negligible. A basin type of stormwater detention would not be necessary. Improvements proposed with the project site are limited to a gravel paved drive and a small concrete distribution transformer pad. No public access or utility infrastructure improvements are anticipated at this time. The proposed development will not alter historic drainage patterns or adjacent and downstream property owners. Stormwater Drainage Study References 1. Weld County, Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria Manual, January 2021. 2. Web Soil Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Online at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed January 2022. 3. NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 11, Version 2. ESRI Maps. USGS. Sanja Perica, Sandra Pavlovic, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Orlan Wilhite. Appendix A. Site Plans C-301, C-302, C-303 & C-304 B. NRCS Soil Layer Map C. Rational Method Calculations D. Grass Swale Calculations Stormwater Drainage Study Appendix A: SITE PLANS C-301, C-302, C-303 & C-304 Stormwater Drainage Study Appendix B: NRCS SOIL LAYER MAP 40° 32' 11" N 40° 31' 59" N c) 0 C 8 104° 41` 32" W 526060 526100 526140 526180 526220 526260 526300 N M 526060 526100 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (HARRI NG_DA_C_SOILREPORT) 526140 Map may not be valid at this scale. Map Scale: 1:1,740 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. 0 25 50 100 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 526180 526220 Meters 150 526260 526300 104° 41' 21" W w 1 40° 32' 11" N 40° 31' 59" N Natural Resources Web Soil Survey ale Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/3/2022 Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (HARRI NG_DA_C_SOILREPORT) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (A01) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines off 10-44# A A/D B B/D C 0 C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points 0 O O A A/D B B/D a 0 C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Vd. Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 20, Aug 31, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 -Aug 10, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. .\ Natural Resources alal Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/3/2022 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part HARRI NG_DA_C_SOILREPORT Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 32 Kim loam, slopes 1 to 3 percent A 0.1 1.6% 33 Kim loam, slopes 3 to 5 percent A 0.3 4.5% 64 Thedalund loam, 1 percent slopes to 3 C 5.7 83.3% 65 Thedalund percent loam, slopes 3 to 9 C 0.7 10.6% Totals for Area of Interest 6.9 100.0% 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. __ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/3/2022 Page 3of4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part HARRING_DA_C_SOILREPORT Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutof• None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher __ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/3/2022 Page 4of4 40° 31' 51" N C) re) rt 526120 526120 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (HARRI NG_DA_D_SOILREPORT) 526190 Map Scale: 1:2,850 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. 0 40 80 0 100 200 400 160 526260 526260 Feet 600 526330 526330 Meters 240 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 526400 104° 41' 14" W 526470 526470 40° 32' 10" N ti 40° 31'51"N Natural Resources Web Soil Survey ale Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/3/2022 Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part (HARRI NG_DA_D_SOILREPORT) MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (A01) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines off 10-44# A A/D B B/D C 0 C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points 0 O O A A/D B B/D a 0 C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Vd. Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part Survey Area Data: Version 20, Aug 31, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 19, 2018 -Aug 10, 2018 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. .\ Natural Resources alal Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/3/2022 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part HARRI NG_DA_D_SOILREPORT Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 32 Kim loam, slopes 1 to 3 percent A 18.6 70.9% 33 Kim loam, slopes 3 to 5 percent A 0.1 0.5% 64 Thedalund loam, 1 percent slopes to 3 C 5.0 19.0% 65 Thedalund percent loam, slopes 3 to 9 C 2.5 9.6% Totals for Area of Interest 26.2 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or 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. __ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/3/2022 Page 3of4 Hydrologic Soil Group —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part HARRING_DA_D_SOILREPORT Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutof• None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher __ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 3/3/2022 Page 4of4 Stormwater Drainage Study Appendix C: RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS Area -Weighting for Runoff Coefficient Calculation Project Title: Catchment ID: Cloudbreak Harring A Existing Illustration Instructions: For each catchment subarea, enter values for A and C. LE IGEND: Fl my D irecti on Caichm ent Subarea Area Runoff Product ID acres Coeff. A C* CA input input input output SOIL A, HISTORICAL 0.42 0.22 0.09 SOIL C, HISTORICAL 6.47 0.51 3.30 sum: 6.89 sum: 3.39 Area -Weighted Runoff Coefficient (sum CA/sum A) = 0.4923 *See sheet "Design Info" for inperviousness-based runoff coefficient values. HARRING_C_RATIONAL_CALCS_EX 100 Yrs_220512 .xls, Weighted C 5/12/2022, 2:36 PM CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD Project Title: Catchment ID: Cloudbreak Harring A Existing I. Catchment Hydrologic Data Catchment ID = A Area = Percent Imperviousness = NRCS Soil Type = 6.89 2.00 C II. Rainfall Information Design Storm Return Period, Tr = O1= C2= C3= P1= Acres o/a A,B,C,orD I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)AC3 100 28.50 10.00 0.786 years 2.73 inches (input return period for design storm) (input the value of C1) (input the value of C2) (input the value of C3) (input one -hr precipitation --see Sheet "Design Info") III. Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment Runoff Coefficient, C = Overide Runoff Coefficient, C = 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.51 0.49 0.16 0.08 Reach 3 (enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.) (enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.) Illustration Reach 2 Reach 1 flow overland LEGEND 4 WSJ Begirrning ,J Flow Direr don Cairhntent Bound.- NRCS Land Type Conveyance Heavy Meadow 2.5 Tillage! Field 5 Short Pasture! Lawns 7 Nearly Bare Ground 10 Grassed Swales! Waterways 15 Paved Areas & Shallow Paved Swales (Sheet Flow) 20 Calculations: Reach ID Overland IV. Peak Runoff Prediction Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I = Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I = Rainfall Intensity at User -Defined Tc, I = Slope S ft/ft input Length L ft input 5-yr Runoff Coeff C-5 output NRCS Convey- ance input Flow Velocity V fps output Flow Time Tf minutes output 0.0180 3.48 6.17 6.17 300 185 0.08 N/A 0.19 26.27 5.00 5.00 5.00 0.67 4.60 0.65 11.22 Computed Tc = Regional Tc = User -Entered Tc = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = Calculated values for Tc & Qp are based on overide values entered for C & C-5. 42.09 15.13 15.13 11.81 cfs 20.95 cfs 20.95 cfs HARRING C RATIONAL CALCS EX 100 Yrs_220512 .xls, Tc and PeakQ 5/12/2022, 2:38 PM Area -Weighting for Runoff Coefficient Calculation Project Title: Catchment ID: Cloudbreak Harring A Proposed Illustration Instructions: For each catchment subarea, enter values for A and C. LE IGEND: Fl my D irecti on Caichm ent Subarea Area Runoff Product ID acres Coeff. A C* CA input input input output SOIL A, SOLAR 0.27 0.22 0.06 SOIL C, SOLAR 4.13 0.56 2.31 SOIL C, CONCRETE 0.18 0.96 0.17 SOIL A, HISTORICAL 0.14 0.22 0.03 SOIL C, HISTORICAL 2.17 0.51 1.11 sum: 6.89 sum: 3.68 Area -Weighted Runoff Coefficient (sum CA/sum A) = 0.5345 *See sheet "Design Info" for inperviousness-based runoff coefficient values. HARRING_C_RATIONAL_CALCS_PR 100_220512 Yrs.xls, Weighted C 5/12/2022, 2:52 PM CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD Project Title: Catchment ID: Cloudbreak Harring A Proposed I. Catchment Hydrologic Data Catchment ID = A Area = Percent Imperviousness = NRCS Soil Type = 6.89 2.00 C II. Rainfall Information Design Storm Return Period, Tr = O1= C2= C3= P1= Acres o/a A,B,C,orD I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)AC3 100 28.50 10.00 0.786 years 2.73 inches (input return period for design storm) (input the value of C1) (input the value of C2) (input the value of C3) (input one -hr precipitation --see Sheet "Design Info") III. Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment Runoff Coefficient, C = Overide Runoff Coefficient, C = 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.51 0.53 (enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.) 0.16 0.08 Reach 3 (enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.) Illustration Reach 2 Reach 1 flow overland LEGEND 4 WSJ Begirrning ,J Flow Direr don Cairhntent Bound.- NRCS Land Type Conveyance Heavy Meadow 2.5 Tillage! Field 5 Short Pasture! Lawns 7 Nearly Bare Ground 10 Grassed Swales! Waterways 15 Paved Areas & Shallow Paved Swales (Sheet Flow) 20 Calculations: Reach ID Overland IV. Peak Runoff Prediction Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I = Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I = Rainfall Intensity at User -Defined Tc, I = Slope S ft/ft input Length L ft input 5-yr Runoff Coeff C-5 output 0.0180 3.48 6.17 6.17 300 185 0.08 NRCS Convey- ance input N/A 5.00 5.00 Flow Velocity V fps output Flow Time Tf minutes output 0.19 0.67 0.65 Computed Tc = Regional Tc = User -Entered Tc = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = Calculated values for Tc & Qp are based on overide values entered for C & C-5. 26.27 4.60 11.22 42.09 15.13 15.13 12.82 cfs 22.74 cfs 22.74 cfs HARRING C RATIONAL CALCS PR 100_220512 Yrs.xls, Tc and PeakQ 5/12/2022, 2:39 PM Area -Weighting for Runoff Coefficient Calculation Project Title: Catchment ID: Cloudbreak Harring B Existing Illustration Instructions: For each catchment subarea, enter values for A and C. LE IGEND: Fl my D irecti on Caichm ent Subarea Area Runoff Product ID acres Coeff. A C* CA input input input output SOIL A , HISTORICAL 18.68 0.22 4.11 SOIL C, HISTORICAL 7.48 0.51 3.82 sum: 26.17 sum: 7.93 Area -Weighted Runoff Coefficient (sum CA/sum A) = 0.3029 *See sheet "Design Info" for inperviousness-based runoff coefficient values. HARRING_D_RATIONAL_CALCS_EX 100 Yrs_220512 .xls, Weighted C 5/12/2022, 2:40 PM CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD Project Title: Catchment ID: Cloudbreak Harring B Existing I. Catchment Hydrologic Data Catchment ID = A Area = Percent Imperviousness = NRCS Soil Type = 26.17 2.00 A II. Rainfall Information Acres o/a A,B,C,orD I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)AC3 Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 100 years C1 = 28.50 C2= 10.00 C3= 0.786 P1= 2.73 inches (input return period for design storm) (input the value of C1) (input the value of C2) (input the value of C3) (input one -hr precipitation --see Sheet "Design Info") III. Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment Runoff Coefficient, C = Overide Runoff Coefficient, C = 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.51 0.30 0.16 0.08 =' Reach :l (enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.) (enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.) Illustration Reach 2 Reach 1 flow overland LEGEND 4 WSJ Begirrning ,J Flow Direr don Cairhntent Bound.- NRCS Land Type Conveyance Heavy Meadow 2.5 Tillage! Field 5 Short Pasture! Lawns 7 Nearly Bare Ground 10 Grassed Swales! Waterways 15 Paved Areas & Shallow Paved Swales (Sheet Flow) 20 Calculations: Reach ID Overland IV. Peak Runoff Prediction Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I = Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I = Rainfall Intensity at User -Defined Tc, I = Slope S ft/ft input Length L ft input 5-yr Runoff Coeff C-5 output 0.0100 2.36 5.47 5.47 300 284 353 339 0.08 NRCS Convey- ance input Flow Velocity V fps output N/A 0.16 5.00 5.00 0.50 Flow Time Tf minutes output 31.90 9.46 0.65 9.03 5.00 5.00 0.47 0.50 Computed Tc = Regional Tc = User -Entered Tc = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = Calculated values for Tc & Qp are based on overide values entered for C & C-5. 11.92 13.11 75.42 19.28 19.28 18.70 43.38 43.38 cfs cfs cfs HARRING_D_RATIONAL_CALCS_EX RATIONAL CALCS EX 100 Yrs_220512 .xls, Tc and PeakQ 5/12/2022, 2:53 PM Area -Weighting for Runoff Coefficient Calculation Project Title: Catchment ID: Cloudbreak Harring B Proposed Illustration Instructions: For each catchment subarea, enter values for A and C. LE IGEND: Fl my D irecti on Caichm ent Subarea Area Runoff Product ID acres Coeff. A C* CA input input input output SOIL A, SOLAR 13.42 0.22 2.95 SOIL C, SOLAR 5.37 0.56 3.01 SOIL A, CONCRETE 0.22 0.96 0.21 SOIL A, HISTORICAL 5.11 0.22 1.12 SOIL C, HISTORICAL 2.05 0.51 1.05 sum: 26.17 Sum: 8.34 Area -Weighted Runoff Coefficient (sum CA/sum A) = 0.3187 *See sheet "Design Info" for inperviousness-based runoff coefficient values. HARRING_D_RATIONAL_CALCS_PR_PEAK 100 Yrs_220512 ..xls, Weighted C 5/12/2022, 2:40 PM CALCULATION OF A PEAK RUNOFF USING RATIONAL METHOD Project Title: Catchment ID: Cloudbreak Harring B Proposed I. Catchment Hydrologic Data Catchment ID = B Area = Percent Imperviousness = NRCS Soil Type = 26.17 2.00 A II. Rainfall Information Design Storm Return Period, Tr = 01= C2= C3= P1= Acres o/a A,B,C,orD I (inch/hr) = C1 * P1 /(C2 + Td)AC3 100 years 28.50 10.00 0.786 2.73 inches (input return period for design storm) (input the value of C1) (input the value of C2) (input the value of C3) (input one -hr precipitation --see Sheet "Design Info") III. Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment Runoff Coefficient, C = Overide Runoff Coefficient, C = 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C-5 = Overide 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C = 0.51 0.32 0.16 0.08 =' Reach :l (enter an overide C value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C.) (enter an overide C-5 value if desired, or leave blank to accept calculated C-5.) Illustration Reach 2 Reach 1 flow overland LEGEND 4 WSJ Begirrning ,J Flow Direr don Cairhntent Bound.- NRCS Land Type Conveyance Heavy Meadow 2.5 Tillage! Field 5 Short Pasture! Lawns 7 Nearly Bare Ground 10 Grassed Swales! Waterways 15 Paved Areas & Shallow Paved Swales (Sheet Flow) 20 Calculations: Reach ID Overland IV. Peak Runoff Prediction Rainfall Intensity at Computed Tc, I = Rainfall Intensity at Regional Tc, I = Rainfall Intensity at User -Defined Tc, I = Slope S ft/ft input Length L ft input 5-yr Runoff Coeff C-5 output 0.0100 2.36 5.47 5.47 300 284 353 339 0.08 NRCS Convey- ance input Flow Velocity V fps output N/A 0.16 5.00 5.00 0.50 Flow Time Tf minutes output 31.90 9.46 0.65 9.03 5.00 5.00 0.47 0.50 Computed Tc = Regional Tc = User -Entered Tc = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = inch/hr Peak Flowrate, Qp = Calculated values for Tc & Qp are based on overide values entered for C & C-5. 11.92 13.11 75.42 19.28 19.28 19.68 cfs 45.65 cfs 45.65 cfs HARRING_D_RATIONAL_CALCS_PR_PEAK RATIONAL CALCS PR PEAK 100 Yrs_220512 ..xls, Tc and PeakQ 5/12/2022, 2:53 PM Stormwater Drainage Study Appendix D: GRASS SWALE CALCULATIONS T-2 Grass Swale 4" (MIN) SANDY LOAM RESIDUAL CAPACITY FOR LARGER FLOODS 2-YR WSE V (2-YR)≤1 .C FPS ' 4 1a i MIN 12" MIN 80TTOM WIDTH (W) TRAPEZOIDAL SWALE SECTION RESIDUAL CAPACITY FOR I LARGER FLOODS 6" M I N 4n MIN. SANDY LOAM " Sri V (2-YR) 1.0 FPS NTS MIN. TRIANGULAR SWALE SECTION NTS CONCRETE COLLAR ENERGY DISSIPATION PROVIDE DOUBLE CLEANOUTS WITH WATER TIGHT CAPS @I 50 ° C.C. USE 9O' SWEEP OR (2) 45' BENDS (OFFSET FROM SWALE CENTERLINE TO AVOID IMPEDING FLOW WHEN USING A TRIANGULAR SECTION Design Example GRADE CONTROL 5TRUGiURE j f 4.1 4 MIN. GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE BEYOND GRADE CONTROL STRUCTURE BEYOND UNDERDRAIN AND SANDY LOAM RECOMMENDED FOR LONGITUDINAL SLOPES C 2.0%. 4" SLOTTED PIPE MEETING TABLE GS -3 WITH CDOT CLASS C FILTER MATERIAL ALL AROUND OR PERFORATED HOPE PIPE WITH AASHTO #67 ALL AROUND CONTAINED WITHIN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC. ASTM D4751 —ADS US STD. SIEVE #50 TO #7a, ASTM D4533 MIN. TRAPEZOIDAL TEAR STRENGTH 100 )< 60 LBS, MINIMUM COE SPECIFIED OPEN AREA OF 4%. EXTEND GRADE CONTROL SIRUCTURES RUCTURES INTO THE BANK A MIN. 0.5' ABOVE THE 2—YR WSE • 5,41- U NDERDRAIN 4. ENSURE ACCESS TO DUTI FT BY CLEAN OUT OR OTHER ACCESSIBLE STRUCTURE SWALE PROFILE NTS Figure GS -1. Grass Swale Profile and Sections The UD-BMP workbook, designed as a tool for both designer and reviewing agency is available at www.udfcd.org. This section provides a completed design form from this workbook as an example. GS -6 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District November 2010 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3 Hydraulic Analysis Report Project Data Project Title: Harring Solar Project Project Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 Project Units: U.S. Customary Units Channel Analysis: Drainage Area A Grass Swale Calcs Input Parameters Channel Type: Trapezoidal Side Slope 1 (Z1): 4.0000 ft/ft Side Slope 2 (Z2): 4.0000 ft/ft Channel Width 2.00 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0050 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0350 Depth 1.0000 ft Result Parameters Flow 12.6080 cfs Area of Flow 6.0000 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 10.2462 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.5856 ft Average Velocity 2.1013 ft/s Top Width 10.0000 ft Froude Number: 0.4781 Critical Depth 0.6981 ft Critical Velocity 3.7687 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0242 ft/ft Critical Top Width 7.58 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 0.3120 ]b/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.1827 lb/ft^2 Channel Analysis: Drainage Area B Grass Swale Calcs Unput Parameters Channel Type: Trapezoidal Side Slope 1 (Z1): 4.0000 ft/ft Side Slope 2 (Z2): 4.0000 ft/ft Channel Width 2.00 ft Longitudinal Slope: 0.0050 ft/ft Manning's n: 0.0350 Depth 1.0000 ft Result Parameters Flow 12.6080 cfs Area of Flow 6.0000 ft^2 Wetted Perimeter 10.2462 ft Hydraulic Radius 0.5856 ft Average Velocity 2.1013 ft/s Top Width 10.0000 ft Froude Number: 0.4781 Critical Depth 0.6981 ft Critical Velocity 3.7687 ft/s Critical Slope: 0.0242 ft/ft Critical Top Width 7.58 ft Calculated Max Shear Stress 0.31201b/ft^2 Calculated Avg Shear Stress 0.18271b/ft^2 Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 30 See attached. EXHIBIT M DECOMISSIONING PLAN A CLOUDBREAK DATE: November 1, 2022 PROJECT: Harring Solar Project SUBJECT: Decommissioning Plan Approach CBEP SOLAR 6, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 IN FO©CLOU DBREAKEN ERGY.COM CBEP Solar 6, LLC has developed this decommissioning plan for the Harring Solar Project, to be implemented after the contracted lease term has ended. CBEP Solar 6, LLC, the owner of the 4.625 MW AC Solar Energy Facility (SEF) will be responsible for the decommissioning. Decommissioning of the Project will include removal of all above and below -ground infrastructure, including the arrays, inverter structures, concrete foundations and pads, and electrical infrastructure. All fences, graveled areas and access roads shall be removed unless landowner agreement to retain is presented, in writing, in which the property owner agrees for this to remain. The property shall be restored to a condition reasonably similar to its condition prior to development of the 4.625 MW AC SEE Grading and re -vegetation will comply with all applicable rules and regulations. Exclusions from the decommissioning plan include planting trees, removing internal site roads, and re -grading to previous conditions. All non -utility owned equipment, conduits, structures, fencing, and foundations to a depth of at least 3' below grade shall be removed. Decommissioning activities will follow the CDOT best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sediment control and stormwater management that are applied during project construction, or any new BMPs relevant at the time. CBEP Solar 6, 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 6, 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 INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE 2 • All labor, equipment, transportation, and disposal costs associated with the removal all facility components from the facility site • All costs associated with full reclamation of the facility site, including removal of non-native soils, fences, and constructed access roads • All costs associated with reclamation of any primary agricultural soils at the facility site to ensure each area of direct impact shall be materially similar to the condition it was before construction • All decommissioning/reclamation activity management, site supervision, and site safety costs • All other costs, including administration costs, associated with the decommissioning and reclamation of the facility site • The established date of submission of the financial assurance mechanism to Weld County Prior to construction, CBEP Solar 6, 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 t0 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©CLOUDBREAKENERCY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERCY.COM CLOUDBREAK PAGE 3 exempt from the requirements for decommissioning. If a third party acquires the Project or a portion of the Project, such third party would be responsible for providing evidence of a plan of continued beneficial use for their relevant Project components. Force Majeure An exception to these requirements will be allowed for a force majeure event, which is defined as any event or circumstance that wholly or partly prevents or delays the performance of any material obligation arising under the Project permits, but only to the extent: • Such event is not within the reasonable control, directly or indirectly, of CBEP Solar 6, 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 6, LLC has taken all reasonable precautions and measures to prevent or avoid such event or mitigate the effect of such event on CBEP Solar 6, 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 6, 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 6, LLC must demonstrate to Weld County by the end of the 12 months of non -operation that the Project will be substantially operational and producing electricity within 24 months of the force majeure event. If such a demonstration is not made to Weld County's satisfaction, then decommissioning of the Project must be initiated 18 months after the force majeure event. (970) 425-3175 I INFO©CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM I CLOUDBREAKENERGY.COM Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 31 EXHIBIT N LARIMER AND WELD IRRIGATION COMPANY CORRESPONDENCE See attached. Bobby W. Dishell From: Sent: To: Subject: Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakenergy.com> Friday, April 28, 2023 10:17 AM Bobby W. Dishell Fwd: [EXTERNAL] RE: TRC Engineers - Unnamed Ditch Caution: External E -Mail Forwarded message From: Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakenergy.com> Date: Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: TRC Engineers - Unnamed Ditch To: Autumn Penfold <apenfold@eatonditch.com> Cc: Huynh, Tyler <Tyler.Huynh@trccompanies.com>, Kim Nelson <knelson@eatonditch.com>, Geremew, Dagmawi <DGeremew@trccompanies.com>, Ditch Info <ditchinfo@eatonditch.com> Hi Autumn, Unfortunately, due to timing constraints, our construction and engineering contracts, and Weld County's preferences, we will need to figure out the crossing before we finalize our permits. Happy to copy you on anything we submit to the County, but we do need to keep the ball rolling on the crossing. Let us know what all you need from us to continue your evaluation. Thanks, Zach On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 4:33 PM Autumn Penfold <apenfold@eatonditch.com>wrote: Zach, the ditch company's preference is to wait until you are further along with the County's permitting process before discussing any potential crossings. We would appreciate being copied on the permit application and any documentation you submit to the County. Thank you, Autumn Penfold Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies 106 Film Avenue • Faton, CO 80615 970.454.3377 (office) • 970.454.0154 (fax) www.eatonditch.com 1 Privileged & Confidential: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies. From: Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakenergy.com> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 11:39 AM To: Autumn Penfold <apenfold@eatonditch.com> Cc: Huynh, Tyler <Tyler.Huynh@trccompanies.com>; Kim Nelson <knelson@eatonditch.com>; Geremew, Dagmawi <DGeremew@trccompanies.com>; Ditch Info <ditchinfo@eatonditch.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: TRC Engineers - Unnamed Ditch Hi Autumn, We have easements to access the Harring property from County Road 39, but we have not yet completed the access permit with Weld County. We will apply for that permit closer to the start of construction. Let us know if you have any additional questions! Thanks, Zach On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 9:09 AM Autumn Penfold <apenfold@eatonditch.com>wrote: Tyler, we're reviewing plans. On another front, has your client obtained the necessary permissions/requirements with Weld County and landowners to access the Harring property from County Road 39 as shown on the figures you provided? 2 Autumn Penfold Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies 106 Elm Avenue • Eaton, CO 80615 970.454.3377 (office) • 970.454.0154 (fax) www.eatonditch.com Privileged & Confidential: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies. From: Huynh, Tyler <Tyler.Huynh@trccompanies.com> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 1:37 PM To: Autumn Penfold <apenfold@eatonditch.com> Cc: Kim Nelson <knelson@eatonditch.com>; Geremew, Dagmawi <DGeremew@trccompanies.com>; zach@cloudbreakenergy.com Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: TRC Engineers - Unnamed Ditch Good Afternoon Autumn, Attached are our Site plans — In addition, I overlayed google aerial in the background in the second attachment for visual aid. I have cc'ed the email of my project manager and client (Cloudbreak Energy Partners). Thanks for all the help, Tyler Huynh, EIT, CFM Associate Engineer 700 Highlander Blvd., Suite 210, Arlington, TX 76015 3 T 214.609.7424 LinkedIn Twitter Blog TRCcompanies.com TRC Engineers, Inc. T.B.P.E.L.S. # F-8632 From: Autumn Penfold <apenfold@eatonditch.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 1:28 PM To: Huynh, Tyler <Tyler.Huynh@trccompanies.com> Cc: Kim Nelson <knelson@eatonditch.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: TRC Engineers - Unnamed Ditch This is an EXTERNAL email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you validate the sender and know the content is safe. ALWAYS hover over the link to •review the actual U RL/site and confirm its le • itimac . Tyler, I spoke with the ditch company Board President as well as my general manager about your crossing proposal on the Gale Lateral. We need to see concrete plans before we're able to further entertain a crossing. Has your client obtained the necessary permissions/requirements with Weld County and landowners to access the Harring property from County Road 39 as shown on the figures you provided? Also, we have statutory easements along both sides of the ditch for operation and maintenance which may not be encroached upon. Do you have any documentation for the solar field showing the proposed locations of any structures, roads, etc.? Option 2 shown on your figure is an existing crossing, but it is not stable in its current condition and needs to be replaced. It would require the same regulations and agreement. To be clear, any crossing of the Gale Lateral will require at the very least an agreement, engineering (and our approval thereof) and crossing fees — and may potentially have additional requirements depending on the details of the proposal. Please note, if the Company were to agree to a crossing, construction would be limited to our non -irrigation season — when there's no water in the ditch. I've attached a crossing application for your client. Please feel free to complete and return with the information I've requested above. 4 Thank you, Autumn Penfold Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies 106 Elm Avenue • Eaton, CO 80615 970.454.3377 (office) • 970.454.0154 (fax) www.eatonditch.com Privileged & Confidential: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies. From: Huynh, Tyler <Tyler.Huynh@trccompanies.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 8:34 AM To: Autumn Penfold <apenfold@eatonditch.com> Subject: RE: TRC Engineers - Unnamed Ditch Good Morning, We are going to verify with the client to go through with that plan that was discussed yesterday. Please send any documents that you talked about yesterday because it might help us decide. We were thinking of another option using an existing crossing (option 2). Do you think we would have to follow under the same regulations and agreement with your company if we went with option 2? 5 Best wishes, 6 Tyler Huynh, EIT, CFM Associate Engineer TC700 Highlander Blvd., Suite 210, Arlington, TX 76015 R- T 214.609.7424 LinkedIn Twitter Blog TRCcompanies.com TRC Engineers, Inc. T.B.P.E.L.S. # F-8632 From: Huynh, Tyler Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 4:26 PM To: apenfold@eatonditch.com Subject: TRC Engineers - Unnamed Ditch Good Afternoon, I wanted to ask you details about a certain unnamed ditch , east of the City of Eaton (see figure below). It runs north to south and feeds into Eaton and McClellan Ditch and Cozzens Lake. One of our projects consist of a gravel roadway over the ditch (40.536046, -104.691898 // see figure 2 below), and we are just in the design stage of things thinking of a culvert or conspan bridge to allow water. A few of our questions are: 1.Do you know which company owns this ditch? 2.Do you have any plans details for this ditch? Cross section plans? 3.Are there any special requirements or regulations putting a gravel roadway over a ditch? 4.Do you have flow capacity values at certain parts of the ditch that developers use to design culvert crossings? Free to give me a call or we can set up a Microsoft Teams meeting and to go over our Project - Thanks! Figure 1: Unnamed Ditch 4 i - 4 p ±10TH ST tii If cc it y Rr-_ � 4 sal repot I' - I 4.e \ fr kidill 1/4\1% 17 I Iii vet , lift ibt I Nioil r el 14 VICI 4 I CO RD 37 Figure 2: 40.53 6046, -104.691898 I 41 C o z e ii' s .Lake C4Tin ',fan ifirl 'Plrerdt 8 Search Googie Maps Tyler Huynh, EIT, CFM Associate Engineer TRC700 Highlander Blvd., Suite 210, Arlington, TX 76015 T 214.609.7424 Linkedln I Twitter TRC Engineers, Inc. T.B.P.E.L.S. # F-8632 Bloc I TRCcompanies.com 9 Bobb W. Dishell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Bobby W. Dishell Wednesday, April 26, 2023 7:34 AM Jessica Green Brad Grasmick; Zach Brammer; Alec Shobe RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 For Far Lateral Stock.jpg Hi Jessica, Thanks for letting us know. Can we look to after May 3 to get a meeting on the calendar if before May 3 won't work? Brad — best of luck at trial. Separately, it appears as though the client we're purchasing property from has two shares of capital stock of The For Far Lateral Company. However, the copy we have is not executed by the Secretary. Do you have a fully executed copy? Can you provide information on the rights of capital stock holders? I have the Articles of Incorporation `that are on file with the Secretary of State, but if there's more information that can be provided it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Bobby From: Jessica Green <Jessica@lcwaterlaw.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:58 PM To: Bobby W. Dishell <Bobby.Dishell@moyewhite.com> Cc: Brad Grasmick <Brad@Icwateriaw.com>; Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakenergy.com>; Alec Shobe <a lec@cloud brea kenergy.co m> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Caution: External E -Mail Bobby, Brad has been in trial since April 10th and is scheduled to continue through the end of this week. It's unlikely we will be able to schedule a meeting prior to the hearing on May 3rd, but if that changes and a last minute meeting can be held, 1 will let you know. Thank you, Jessica Green From: Bobby W. Dishell <Bobby.Dish ll@moyewhite.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 2:54 PM To: Jessica Green <_Jessica_ l .yvdt riaw.cos- > Cc: Brad Grasmick <Brad@Icwaterlaw,corri>; Zach Brammer <zijciiir(c1oudii r-ea1kerielgytom>; Alec Shobe <alec@cloudreakener corr> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Hello, 1 Will we be able to meet with you all before or after the hearing to walk through your concerns and how we hope to address them? Thanks, Bobby From: Bobby W. Dishell Sent: Monday, April 17, 2023 1:36 PM To: Jessica Green <Jessica@Icwaterlawiicom> Cc: Brad Grasmick <Brad@'Ic raterlaw.eom>; Zach Brammer <zaekenergv.Cor >; Alec Shobe < Iec@cioudbreakenergy.com> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Hi All, As you may know, our hearing date is on May 3, 2023, and we have to submit final materials to the Board of County Commissioners by April 27, 2023. Our hope continues to be that we can work with you all to address the concerns raised in your letter and we also know that we will be asked to provide evidence of our efforts to collaborate to date. Please let us know if you can arrange to have a meeting before the hearing on May 3, 2023. Thanks, Bobby From: Bobby W. Dishell Sent: Friday, March 24, 2023 8:55 AM To: Jessica Green <Jessica@lcwaterlaw.com> Cc: Brad Grasmick <Brad@lcwaterlaw.com>; Zach Brammer <zach cloudbreakenergy,corn>; Alec Shobe <alec@cioudbreakenerg com> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Hi Jessica, Sorry for all the emails. However, we do want to make sure we're able to meet with Brad and the team to discuss the letter and ways we can work together. How are we doing on scheduling? Thanks, Bobby From: Jessica Green <Je sic @ Ingtvater.iavw.co i> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2023 10:00 AM To: Bobby W. Dishell <w..R.obb.PisheIlmgewhiteacom> Cc: Brad Grasmick <Br -ad lcwaterlawv.cort >; Zach Brammer <zach @@clou breal er er w►.c n�>; Alec Shobe 2 <alec@cloudbreakenergy.corn> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Caution: External E -Mail Good morning, Bobby, Brad and his client are trying to connect before they confirm a meeting time with you. Apologies, but we haven't been able to find mutual availability in their schedules yet. We will keep working on it and be in touch with you as soon as possible. Thank you, Jessica Green From: Bobby W. Dishell <Bobby.Dishel I @ i noyewh ite.com> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 8:07 AM To: Jessica Green <Jessiicalcwaterlaw.com> Cc: Brad Grasmick <Brad Icwaterlaw.com>; Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakener,Ry..onn>; Alec Shobe <a lec@ clo udbrea ke ne rgy.co m> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Hi Jessica, Just checking in to see if we've been able to find a time for everyone to meet. Thanks, Bobby From: Bobby W. Dishell Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:34 AM To: Jessica Green <JesO a _Icwaterla .co > Cc: Brad Grasmick <Brad@lcwaterlaw.corn>; Zach Brammer <zach cloudbreakenergy.co►m>; Alec Shobe Ca) Iidi)rcakener Icon > Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Thanks! Confirmed that we have these times held on our end, From: Jessica Green <Jessicalcwaterlaw.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 8, 2023 11:27 AM To: Bobby W. Dishell <Bobby.Dishell@moyewhite.com> Cc: Brad Grasmick <Brad@Ic rateriaw.coni>; Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakenergy.com>; Alec Shobe <d, lecOic-loLlddlbr edkenerg com> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Caution: External E -Mail Please hold: 3/16 at 3pm and 3/17 at 9am and at 11am. I've left a message with Brad's client to confirm either of these times for this meeting. Hoping to hear back from him soon. Thank you, Jessica Green 3 From: Bobby W. Dishell <Bohby.Dis.hell@moyewhite.coni> Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 1:25 PM To: Jessica Green <Jessica cwaterlaw,com> Cc: Brad Grasmick <Brad@lcwaterla►.com>; Zach Brammer <zacn cloudbreakenergy,corrm>; Alec Shobe <alec@cloudbreakeneratv.com> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Hi Jessica, Checking in on availability. If this afternoon doesn't work (we have a call at 2 but can be available at 3), please send along Brad's availability for the 13th. That week, we have ALL TIMES MT 3/13: outside 2-3 3/14: 7-9:30, after 1 3/15: 7-10:30 3/16: 12-4 3/17: 7-10, 11-12, after 1 Thanks, Bobby From: Jessica Green <Jessica@IcwaterIa.w.com> Sent: Wednesday/ March 1, 2023 9:19 AM To: Bobby W. Dishell <Bo.bbv.Disheli@moyewhitetcom> Cc: Brad Grasmick <Bracatcwaterlaw.c m>; Zach Brammer <1,1c114 --pc lou dbr'eakenerg .corn>; Alec Shobe < ilec@c1ouudbrcakenarg;y..com> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Caution: External E -Mail I haven't heard from Brad's clients still. I just reached out to them again and let them know that you're proposing a meeting before 3/7. I do know that Brad only has availability on 3/6 between 2pm-4pm. Otherwise, his next availability isn't until the week of the 13tH I'll get back to you as soon as I hear from them. Thanks, Jessica From: Bobby W. Dishell <Bolths , Disheuu@moyewh te.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 7:18 AM To: Jessica Green <.1esa is 4fuJlcwaterlaw,com> Cc: Brad Grasmick <RI add @Icwaterlaw.cor >; Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakenergv,com>; Alec Shobe <alec@cloudbreakenergv.com> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Hi Jessica, Given the hearing is coming up pretty quickly, it'd be great to get our first call on the books before then. Do you think we can get something arranged before 3/7? 4 Thanks, Bobby From: Jessica Green <iess ca@Icwaterla .corn> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 12:25 PM To: Bobby W. Dishell <Bobb .Dishell ewhite.con.>> Cc: Brad Grasmick <Rrac@lc ateriaw.corn> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Caution: External E -Mail I've reached out to Brad's clients for their availability. I will share some proposed dates/times with you soon, Bobby. Thank you, Jessica Green From: Bobby W. Dishell <Pobbv.Dishel I @ moyewh ite.com> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:40 AM To: Brad Grasmick <Brad@lcwateriaw.ccrn> Cc: Jessica Green Cessica@lcwaterlaw.com> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 IRONSCALES couldn't recognize this email as this is the first time you received an email from this sender BobbyeDishell@moyewhite.com Hi Brad, Thanks, I appreciate it. Jessica — please let us know some times that work well and I'll work with my client as well to setup some time. If it's easier for you, I can also ask them for times that work. Thanks, Bobby From: Brad Grasmick <Br ?Icwaterlaw.com> Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:37 AM To: Bobby W. Dishell <Bobbv.DisheIimoyewhite.cnm> Cc: Jessica Green <_lessica@lcwateriaw.corn> Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Caution: External E -Mail Hello Bobby, I will have my assistant Jessica contact my client on this and get time scheduled for us to discuss the ditch companies' comments. Thanks, Brad Bradley C. Grasmick, Esq. Lawrence Custer Grasmick Jones & Donovan, LLP 5245 Ronald Reagan Blvd, Suite 1 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 Phone: (970) 622-8181 Fax: (970) 660-4612 Website: www.lcwaterlaw.com Email: brad@lcwaterlaw.com From: Bobby W. Dishell <Bobb .Dishell mo ewhite.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 5:30 PM To: Brad Grasmick <Brad@Icwaterlaw.com> Cc: Arthur K. Griffin <Ar thur.Griffin moyewhite.com>; Zach Brammer <zach@cloudbreakener y.com>; Alec Shobe <a leOtocIoLJ Ibmal energ .corer > Subject: RE: [External] Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Hi Brad, I hope you had a good weekend. I'm following up on my email below. We'd love to be able to setup a meeting to see if we can work through some of the issues you identified in your letter. Please let us know if you have any availability this week or next week. Thanks, Bobby From: Bobby W. Dishell Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 3:28 PM To: bract Icwaterlaw.com Cc: Arthur K. Griffin<Arthur.Griffin@moyewhite.com>; Zach Brammer <each©cloudbreakenerg .com>; Alec Shobe CdFeco ciou dhreakenergy.com> Subject: Time to Discuss Comments on USR 23-0005 Brad, We represent Cloudbreak Energy Partners and CBEP Solar 6, LLC and have reviewed your comments dated February 16, 2023 with respect to our client's application. We'd welcome the opportunity to work with you all to address the concerns you raised in your letter. Do you have any time to discuss next week? We look forward to working with you, Bobby Bobby Dishell [he/him/his] Attorney (303)291-1531 7 ► Profile j ► vCard I ► Linkedin 140016th Street, 6th Floor Denver, Colorado 80202-1486 Office: 303 292 2900 Fax: 303 292 4510 WWW.11loyewhitesconi The information contained in this communication is confidential, may constitute inside information, is intended only for the use of the addressee, and is the property of Moye White LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return email and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Bobby Dishell [he/him/his] Attorney 303-291-1531 ► Profile I vCard j ► Linkedin • 1400 16th Street, 6th Floor Denver, Colorado 80202-1486 Office: 303 292 2900 Fax: 303 292 4510 \ wv..1114_P/C vv. h ite.coi1 The information contained in this communication is confidential, may constitute inside information, is intended only for the use of the addressee, and is the property of Moye White LLP. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return email and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 32 See attached. EXHIBIT O STAFF BUDGET BRIEFING JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE STAFF BUDGFIT BRWFING FY 2023-24 DFPARTMFNT OF NATURAL RFSOURC _ hiS (Executive Director's Office, Division of Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the Division of Water Resources) JBC WORKING DOCUMENT - SUBJECT TO CHANGE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DOES NOT REPRESENT COMMITTEE DECISION PREPARED By: JUSTIN BRAKKE, JBC STAFF NOVEMBER 15, 2022 JOINT BUDGET COMMITTEE STAFF 200 E. 14TH AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR • DENVER • COLORADO • 80203 TELEPHONE: (303) 866-2061 • TDD: (303) 866-3472 hcs://leg.colorado.gov/ agencies/joint-budget-committee CONTENTS -11 Department Overview 1 Department Budget: Recent Appropriations 2 Department Budget: Graphic Overview 3 General Factors Driving the Budget 5 Summary: FY 2022-23 Appropriation & FY 2023-24 Request 9 Informational Issue: One-time Funding authorized in Recent Legislative Sessions 16 Informational Issue 2: R2 Colorado River Policy & technical support 18 Issue 3: R4 Severance Tax for Wildfire Mitigation 22 Appendix A Numbers Pages (Digital Only) A-1 Appendix B Footnotes and Information Requests B-1 Appendix C Department Annual Performance Report C-1 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Brief summaries of all bills that passed during the 2022 legislative sessions that had a fiscal impact on this department are available in Appendix A of the annual Appropriations Report: https: / /leg.colorado.gov/publications/appropriations-report-fiscal-year-2022-23 The online version of the briefing document, which includes the Numbers Pages, may be found by searching the budget documents on the General Assembly's website by visiting leg.colorado.gov/content/budget/budget-documents. Once on the budget documents page, select the name of this department's Department! Topic, "Briefing" under Type, and ensure that Start date and End date encompass the date a document was presented to the JBC. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for developing, protecting, and enhancing Colorado's natural resources for the use and enjoyment of present and future residents and visitors. This briefing focuses on the following divisions: • The Executive Director's Office (EDO) develops department -wide policies and provides administrative and technical support for Department divisions including: budgeting, accounting, financial management, human resources services, and the coordination of public information and environmental education. The EDO also contains the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC), which provides avalanche information and education. • The Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) provides recreational opportunities state parks, manages game and non -game wildlife species, issues hunting and fishing licenses, enforces wildlife regulations, and administers state wildlife areas. • The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) works to conserve, develop, and protect the state's water resources to ensure adequate water supply, maximize beneficial use, and reduce the impact of flooding and drought. 0 The Division of Water Resources (DWR, State Engineer's Office) administers and enforces water rights, issues well permits, monitors streamflow and water use, regulates dam construction and safety, and represents Colorado in interstate water compact proceedings. The three remaining divisions (the Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety, the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, and the State Board of Land Commissioners) will be discussed in a separate staff briefing on December 2, 2022. 15 -Nov -2022 1 NAT1-brf DEPARTMENT BUDGET: RECENT APPROPRIATIONS FULL DEPARTMENT: RECENT APPROPRIATIONS I General FUNDING SOURCE FY Fund $32,699,083 2020-21 FY $37,335,479 2021-22 FY $38,689,351 2022-23 FY 2023-24 $42,227,434 * Cash Funds 337,059,811 262,417,746 369,228,832 321,836,276 Reappropriated Funds 7,170,362 7,540,179 67,884,875 8,209,115 Federal Funds 26,658,934 26,881,264 26,026,979 26,343,150 TOTAL FUNDS $403,588,190 $334,174,668 $501,830,037 $398,615,975 Full Time Equiv. Staff 1,528.9 1,522.7 1,557.1 1,649.9 *Requested appropriation EDO, CPW, CWCB, DWR: RECENT APPROPRIATIONS FUNDING SOURCE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds FY 2020-21 $32,699,083 307,282,101 6,945,362 23,204,149 FY 2021-22 $37,335,479 232,549,344 7,315,179 23,371,303 FY 2022-23 $38,689,351 338,595,852 67,659,875 22,3 85,045 FY 2023-24 * $42,227,434 287,416,928 7,984,115 22,650,546 TOTAL FUNDS $370,130,695 $300,571,305 $467,330,123 $360,279,023 Full Time Equiv. Staff *Requested appropriation 15 -Nov -2022 1,274.8 1,268.1 1,302.0 1,361.6 2 NAT1-brf D NPARTM _ NNT BUD G _ NT: GRAPHIC OV _ ERVI _ KW 7 Department's Share of Statewide General Fund 0.3% Based on the FY 2022-23 appropriation. Department Funding Sources Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds General Fund Federal Funds 15 -Nov -2022 73.6% 13.5% 7.7% 5.2% Based on the FY 2022-23 appropriation. 3 NAT1-brf Distribution of General Fund by Division Water Resources Executive Director's Office Parks and Wildlife 33.1% I 6.0% Based on the FY 2022-23 appropriation. Distribution of Total Funds by Division Parks and Wildlife Water Conservation Board Executive Director's Office Water Resources 5.2% Oil & Gas Conservation 4.1% Reclamation, Mining, & Safety 1.6% Land Commissioners 1.1% 15 -Nov -2022 17.4% Based on the FY 2022-23 appropriation. n u; 37.8% 60.9% 4 NAT1-brf GENERAL FACTORS DRIVING THE BUDGET DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE (CPW) The CPW budget is driven by the range of services provided the public, use of those services and CPW-operated lands and facilities, wildlife management tasks, available cash fund revenue, and the authority to spend that revenue provided by the General Assembly. As a state enterprise, the Division is mostly cash funded through hunting and fishing license sales, state parks passes, and related fees. Non -appropriated sources like lottery proceeds, Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grants, and federal funding also provide a significant source of funding. WILDLIFE OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES & REVENUE The Wildlife Operations line item is the largest line in the Department's budget $95.1 million in FY 2022 -23 —making up 27.4 percent of all Long Bill appropriations and about 41.7 percent of the Department's FTE. Most expenditures in this line item go to compensation for both full- and part- time personnel, with the largest share going to wildlife manager and technician job classes. Wildlife managers are informally known as "game wardens;" they manage wildlife populations, deal with hunting or fishing violations, and respond to human/animal conflicts. Technician tasks vary; they may do everything from biological research to boat inspections to fish hatchery maintenance. Available cash fund revenue also drives expenditures. The main funding source for Wildlife Operations is the Wildlife Cash Fund (WCF). The WCF receives most of its revenue from hunting and fishing license sales. Nonresident elk hunting licenses make up the largest share of revenue for the WCF, but a very small share of sales volume. This occurs because nonresidents pay substantially more for licenses than residents. Nonresident elk licenses made up 43.1 perent of total license revenue ( in FY 2021-22 • Total Revenue ($ millions) Share of licenses sold (%) 113.7 million) Nonresident elk hunting $49.1 licenses 4.4 Fishing licenses Small game hunting licenses* Deer hunting licenses Resident elk hunting licenses $21.7 5.6 $7.0 7.7 Small game and fishing $6.5 combo 8.0 Other big game licenses** $4.3 3.4 $13.7 14.3 $11.4 * Includes falconry, furbearer, prairie chicken, small game, and turkey licenses and waterfowl stamps. ** Includes pronghorn, mountain lion, bighorn sheep, desert sheep, mountain goat, moose, and bear licenses. 56.5 15 -Nov -2022 5 NAT1-brf STATE PARK OPERATIONS EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE State Park Operations is the second largest line item in the Department's budget $43.0 million in FY 2022 -23 —making up 12.4 percent of total Long Bill appropriations and 17.3 percent of total FTE. Like Wildlife Operations, most expenditures go toward compensation for full- and part-time personnel. The largest share of personal services spending goes to park managers. The Division also spends about $4.0-5.0 million annually on part-time temporary employees. Operating expenses make up a smaller but still significant share of spending. Contributing expenses include the cost and volume of supplies and materials, maintenance needs, and the cost and use of utilities like electricity. Visitation and usage of parks facilities are the primary drivers behind these expenses; more visitation requires more cleaning, landscape restoration, equipment repairs, toilet paper, garbage bags, etc. The main funding source for State Park Operations is the Parks Cash Fund (PCF). The PCF receives most of its revenue from campsite fees, annual parks pass, and parks day passes. The primary driver behind a recent increase in revenue is an increase in sales volume and visitation. Vistation to state parks in FY 2021-22 was up by 44.6 percent compared to FY 2015-16, but only 2.2 percent as compared to FY 2020-21 13,635,112 ......... ........ FY 15-16 19,313,911 r r r r~ r~+ r r r. r r r r r r_ r w r .• r r .. r w r.. r r FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 19,718,024 r r r r M r r r r FY 20-21 FY 21-22 NON -APPROPRIATED FUNDS: LOTTERY PROCEEDS, GOCO GRANTS, FEDERAL FUNDS CPW receives 10.0 percent of net lottery proceeds to develop, maintain, and improve state park properties and facilities. Another 50.0 percent of net lottery proceeds are allocated to the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, which is split between grants for State Parks and Wildlife.' Grants for State Parks are used for developing new parks and enhancing and maintaining existing parks. Wildlife grants are used for species protection, habitat management, and wildlife education. GOCO funds are earmarked for specific topics, projects, and programs based on an investment plan submitted by CPW. If or when GOCO funding expires, CPW may turn to appropriated cash fund sources to continue operating and maintaining those projects. 1 The remaining 40.0 percent of net lottery proceeds goes to the Conservation Trust Fund administered by the Department of Local Affairs. 15 -Nov -2022 6 NAT1-brf GREAT OUTDOORS COLORADO (GOCO) BOARD GRANTS FY 2019-20 AWARD FY 2020-21 AWARD FY 2021-22 AWARD FY 2022-23 AWARD Parks Wildlife $28,186,852 22,160,500 $17,624,959 20,189,089 $15,913,269 13,999,923 $17,389,550 11,963,588 Total $50,347,352 $37,814,048 $29,913,192 $29,353,138 The Wildlife Cash Fund also receives approximately $25.0-30.0 million annually in federal funding, which mostly comes from federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, archery equipment, and fishing equipment. Distribution of these funds is based on the size of the state and the number of licensed hunters and anglers. Pursuant to a plan approved by the Secretary of the Interior, federal funds will provide up to 75.0 percent of the cost of a project on a reimbursement basis. DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (DWR) The Division of Water Resources almost entirely supported by the General Fund. The main factor driving appropriations to DWR is the number of personnel supported by the budget to manage water resources in the State. On average, 80.0 percent of DWR's appropriated budget goes to wages for full - and part-time personnel. Wages drive actual expenditures in DWR's Water Administration line item ($ millions) $16.3 $20.0 • Wages Appropriations $18.1 $23.1 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD (CWCB) The Long Bill budget for the CWCB is mostly cash -funded through the CWCB Construction Fund, which gets most of its revenue from federal mineral lease distributions and interest on loans for water projects .2 The largest changes in annual appropriations for the CWCB occur outside of the budget process, primarily in the annual CWCB Projects Bill, which authorizes funding for specific purposes and projects based on available cash funds. The biggest changes to Long Bill appropriations occur when non -Project bills are annualized into the CWCB budget, though these are relatively rare. 2 The CWCB Construction Fund provides loans and grants for projects that will increase the beneficial consumptive use of Colorado's waters. Statute limits participation to projects that can repay the CWCB's investment, unless specifically authorized by the legislature, and authorizes the CWCB to approve loans of less than $10.0 million without legislative approval. 15 -Nov -2022 7 NAT1-brf Smaller changes include FTE additions (9.8 between FY 2014-15 and FY 2022-23) and compensation increases pursuant to common policy decision. The following graph demonstrates the impact of non -Long Bill legislation on the CWCB budget. The CWCB's base Long Bill budget changes very little year over year, with the biggest swings in annual appropriations driven by the CWCB Projects Bill and other legislation. $200,000,000 Other Bills $160,000,000 $120,000,000 $80,000,000 $40,000,000 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 22-23 The disproportionately lame appropriation for FY 2022-23 stems primarily from S.B. 22-028 (Groundwater Compact Compliance Fund), which included a cash funds appropriation of $60.0 million and $60.0 million reappropriated funds. WATER PROJECT CASH FUNDS: CWCB CONSTRUCTION FUND, SEVERANCE TAX PERPETUAL BASE FUND, WATER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CASH FUND The CWCB manages the two primary cash funds that support water project loans and grants in the State: the CWCB Construction Fund and the Severance Tax Perpetual Base Fund. The latter fund receives 50.0 percent of money credited to the Severance Tax Trust Fund (25.0 percent of total severance tax revenues). Statute authorizes the CWCB to approve loans of less than $10.0 million from either fund without legislative approval.3 Statute also limits loan participation to projects that can repay the CWCB's investment, while grants must be specifically authorized by the General Assembly. 4 The table below shows the balance of each fund, less loan and grant obligations. CWCB CONSTRUCTION FUND AND SEVERANCE TAX PERPETUAL BASE FUND NET CASH ASSETS (LESS LOAN AND GRANT OBLIGATIONS) FY 20-21 FY 21-22 FY 2022-23 FY 23-24 ACI UAL ACTUAL APPROPRIATED ESTIMATED FY 24 25 ESTIMATED CWCB Construction Fund $86,474,615 Severance Tax Perpetual Base Fund ($14,453,957) $73,229,211 84,078,654 $76,054,913 143,659,765 $72,837,881 167,225,564 69,704,126 196,539,450 Total $72,020,658 $157,307,865 $219,714,678 $240,063,445 266,243,576 The CWCB also manages the Water Plan Implementation Cash Fund, which receives revenue from sports betting. This relatively new fund supports the Water Plan Grant Program', though statute allows expenditures to "ensure compliance with interstate water allocation compacts, equitable apportionment decrees, international treaties, and federal laws ..."6 That same statute also permits expenditures related to "temporary and voluntary reductions in consumptive use..." 3 Section 37-60-122 (1) (b), C.R.S. 4 Section 37-60-121 (1) (b) (IV), C.R.S. 5 https://cwcb.colorado.gov/funding/colorado-water-plan-grants 6 Section 37-60-123.3 (2) (b), C.R.S. 15 -Nov -2022 8 NAT1 -brf SUMMARY: FY 2022-23 APPROPRIATION & FY 2023-24 REQUEST DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TOTAL GENERAL CASH I REAPPROPRIAI'ED FUNDS FUND FUNDS FUNDS FEDERAL FUNDS FTE FY 2022-23 APPROPRIATION: HB 22-1329 (Long Bill) 346,673,795 38,428,154 274,317,373 7,894,474 26,033,794 1,554.8 Other legislation 155,156,242 261,197 94,911,459 59,990,401 (6,815) 2.3 TOTAL $501,830,037 $38,689,351 $369,228,832 $67,884,875 $26,026,979 1,557.1 FY 2023-24 REQUESTED APPROPRIATION: FY 2022-23 Appropriation $501,830,037 38,689,351 $369,228,832 $67,884,875 $26,026,979 1,557.1 R01 COGCC mission change 3,325,126 0 3,325,126 0 0 29.0 R02 CO River policy and technical support 1,868,315 982,752 885,563 0 0 13.9 R03 Wildfire mitigation package 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 R04 Severance Tax for wildfire mitigation 5,000,000 0 5,000,000 0 0 0.0 R05 Inclusive recruitment & retention 399,876 20,315 204,458 175,103 0 2.0 R06 Keep CO Wild support 2,353,138 0 2,353,138 0 0 1.0 R07 Winter recreation and safety 1,108,178 0 1,108,178 0 0 5.5 R08 Resources for state parks 1,821,114 0 1,821,114 0 0 19.0 R09 Resources for wildlife management 715,807 0 715,807 0 0 6.0 R10 CPW business tech staff 464,835 0 464,835 0 0 5.0 R11 Wildlife water & research projects 511,260 0 511,260 0 0 4.0 R12 Financial administration & support 310,467 0 0 310,467 0 2.0 R13 Water plan data & mapping specialist 149,838 0 149,838 0 0 1.0 R14 SLB field ops capacity 101,895 0 101,895 0 0 1.0 R15 Vehicles for water admin staff 34,063 34,063 0 0 0 0.0 R16 True -up CWCB FEMA funding 105,000 0 0 0 105,000 1.0 R17 Water plan legislative placeholder 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Technical adjustments 19,017,466 0 19,017,466 0 0 0.0 Centrally appropriated line items 11,862,678 1,640,160 9,402,893 670,690 148,935 0.0 Impacts driven by other agencies 764,721 112,671 614,115 23,032 14,903 0.0 Annualize prior year budget actions 668,868 43,644 619,622 1,144 4,458 0.2 Indirect cost assessment 391,290 856,196 348,415 (856,196) 42,875 0.0 Annualize prior year legislation (154,187,997) (151,718) (94,036,279) (60,000,000) 0 2.2 TOTAL $398,615,975 $42,227,434 $321,836,276 $8,209,115 $26,343,150 1,649.9 INCREASE/ (DECREASE) Percentage Change ($103,214,062) (20.6%) $3,538,083 9.1% ($47,392,556) (12.8%) ($59,675,760) (87.9%) $316,171 1.2% 92.8 6.0% R01 COGCC MISSION CHANGE: This decision item will be covered in a separate staff briefing on December 2, 2022. R02 CO RIVER POLICY & TECHNICAL SUPPORT: The Department requests an increase of $1.9 million total funds and 13.9 FTE starting in FY 2023-24. Of this amount, $982,752 would come from the General Fund and $885,563 would come from the CWCB Construction Fund. The team consists of 2.0 FTE for the Executive Director's Office, 4.0 FTE for the CWCB, and 7.9 FTE for Division of Water Resources. The request assumes that all positions would be hired at the base of the second quartile of the relevant salary range. 15 -Nov -2022 9 NATI -brf The Department describes the requested FTE as an "interdisciplinary team of technical, policy, and water administration experts focused on the Colorado River system." The purpose of the team is to "meet Colorado's interstate [water] obligations while advancing its position on the Colorado River." For more detail, see Briefing Issue #2 on page 18. RO3 WILDFIRE MITIGATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE [LEGISLATION REQUIRED] : The Department requests that the JBC sponsor legislation for a one-time transfer of $9.0 million General Fund to multiple cash funds as shown in the table below. This request aims to "reduce overall wildfire risk in Colorado through effective mitigation projects combined with community outreach, education, and incentive efforts that advance the mission of wildfire risk reduction and home hardening." The Department describes this request as "theory -informed." R03 WILDFIRE MITIGATION INVESTMENT PACKAGE PROPOSED TRANSFERS DEPAR'TMEN'T FUND Natural Wildfire Mitigation Capacity Resources Development Fund Higher Education Higher Education AMOuN T $2,000,000 FUND TYPE Continuously - appropriated Healthy Forests Vibrant Communities Fund Forest Restoration and Wildfire Risk Mitigation Fund Public Safety 4,000,000 1,000,000 Continuously - appropriated Continuously - appropriated PURPOSE Support up to two large-scale, high -priority wildfire mitigation projects through the Colorado Strategic Wildfire Action Program (COSWAP) $2.0 million would support the hiring of 11 positions for four years in various Colorado State Forest Service office. These positions would develop and implement wildfire mitigation projects on federal lands (leveraging federal funding), possibly facilitating 5,000-15,000 acres of mitigation work per year. $2.0 million would go to public education and outreach efforts, building off efforts developed in response to S.B. 22- 007 (Increase Wildfire Mitigation Outreach Efforts). Wildland Urban Interface Home Hardening Fund 2,000,000 New fund Local and state agency planning & management Provide funds to make homes more fire-resistant. Priority for existing homes in areas deemed to be moderate or higher risk in wildland-urban interface areas. R04 SEVERANCE TAX FOR WILDFIRE MITIGATION [LEGISLATION REQUIRED] : The Department requests that the JBC sponsor legislation to authorize an annual, on -going $5.0 million appropriation from the Severance Tax Operational Fund to the Wildfire Mitigation Development Capacity Development Fund. This cash fund supports the Colorado Strategic Wildfire Action Program (COSWAP). For more detail, see Briefing Issue #3 on page 22. The Department describes this request as "theory -informed." R05 INCLUSIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION: The Department requests an increase of $399,876 total funds, including $20,315 General Fund, and 2.0 FTE starting in FY 2023-24. The request assumes that both FTE would be hired in the second quartile of the salary range. The purpose of these funds and FTE is to "facilitate an engaged and diverse workforce within the department, and to cultivate an inclusive environment for its employees." They would do this by, among other things, expanding efforts related to skills -based hiring and retention. The Department describes skills -based hiring and retention as: (1) Broadening job qualification requirements, and (2) 15 -Nov -2022 10 NAT1-brf "Upskilling" the current workforce for promotional opportunities. The request also describes a desire for a "more coordinated presence within the community college system." The request also includes $119,500 total funds for a new online learning & performance management system. This system would replace a decentralized system of Microsoft Word and PDF files. The Department also aims to use it to provide continuous formal performance feedback, as opposed to the current process of an annual performance review. R06 KEEP CO WILD SUPPORT: The Department requests an increase of $2.35 million from the Parks and Outdoor Recreation Cash Fund and 1.0 FTE starting in FY 2023-24. These funds would support the implementation of the Keep Colorado Wild Pass (KCW) on January 1, 2023.' Most of the requested funds ($1.7 million) would support the development, purchase, and distribution of public outreach materials. The table below provides a detailed breakdown of estimated costs related to the outreach effort. Keep Colorado Wild Pass Fee Outreach Materials Row Item Annual Cost Source/Calculation A Materials offices in County Clerk and Recorder $145,185 2022-23 Cost Estimate FY B Materials households mailed to Colorado $827,566 FY 2022-23 Cost Estimate C Purchased announcements, media, public web service content $576,000 FY 2022-23 Cost Estimate D Contract agency with multicultural marketing $120,000 . FY 2022-23 Cost Estimate E Spanish translation $10,000 FY 2022-23 Cost Estimate F & $1,678,751 Sum of Rows Total Source:FY 23-24 R06 Keep CO Wild Support The Department expects to submit an FY 2022-23 supplemental budget request related to this decision item. R07 WINTER RECREATION AND SAFETY [LEGISLATION REQUIRED]: The Department requests an increase of $1.1 million cash funds and 5.5 FTE for the Colorado Avalanche Information Center (CAIC) in FY 2023-24. The request annualizes to $1.0 million and 7.5 FTE in FY 2024-25. Funding for FY 2023-24 would come from the Severance Tax Operational Fund via a one-time transfer to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center Fund. This transfer requires legislation. Funding for FY 2024-25 and future years would come from KCW Pass revenues deposited into the Colorado Avalanche Information Center Cash Fund. 7 The KCW Pass is an annual state parks pass that can be purchased for process beginning January 1, 2023. 15 -Nov -2022 29.00 through the annual vehicle registration 11 NAT1-brf The Department is attempting to bridge a funding gap between $750,000 received through H.B. 21- 1326 (General Fund Support DNR Programs) and $1.0 million from the Keep CO Wild Pass that the CAIC Fund expects to receive in FY 2024-25. The CAIC has been using the X750,000 from H.B. 21- 1326 to: (1) Replace outdated IT infrastructure, (2) Improve forecast methodologies and public communication tools, and (3) Implement a new staffing model. The Department describes this request as "theory -informed." R08 RESOURCES FOR STATE PARKS: The Department requests an increase of $1.8 million from the Parks Cash Fund and 19.0 FTE in FY 2023-24. Of these 19.0 FTE, fourteen are a continuation of staff funded through H.B. 21-1326 (General Fund Support DNR Programs). The five new FTE consists of two park rangers and three park resource technicians. The two park rangers would be located at Lory State Park and Crawford State Park. The technicians would be located at Jackson Lake State Park and Elkhead Reservoir State Park, with the third technician split between Eleven Mile and Spinney Mountain State Parks. The request also includes funding for 17 additional vehicles. It also assumes salaries at the average in each job classification. R09 RESOURCES FOR WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT: The Department requests an increase of $715,807 from the Wildlife Cash Fund and 6.0 FTE in FY 2023-24. The request includes 3.0 wildlife managers, 2.0 biologists, and a property maintenance technician with salaries at the average for each job classification. It also includes funding for fourteen additional vehicles. R10 CPW BUSINESS TECH STAFF: The Department requests an increase of $464,835 from the Wildlife Cash Fund and 5.0 FTE in FY 2023-24. This includes two technicians to support daily activities, including hardware, software, applications, stakeholder meetings, and an increasing workload supporting a hybrid workspace. The request also includes a business analyst and project manager to support business technology changes, improvements, new development, and ongoing maintenance. Finally, the request includes a capital asset data technician responsible for tracking and maintaining updated records required for all of CPW's facilities and infrastructure projects, including underground utilities. The request assumes salaries at the average for each job classification. R11 WILDLIFE WATER & RESEARCH PROJECTS: The Department requests an increase of $511,260 from the Wildlife Cash Fund and 4.0 FTE in FY 2023-24. Two FTE will focus on wildlife research, one will focus primarily on research related to public involvement in CPW's work, and another will focus on Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plans used in the federal water project permitting process. The request assumes salaries at the average for each job classification. R12 FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGET SUPPORT: The Department requests an increase of $310,467 reappropriated funds and 2.0 FTE for FY 2023-24. The request includes funds for a new Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and a Budget and Policy Analyst III position. The CFO would oversee DNR's accounting, procurement, and budget offices with a salary in the third quartile. The new Budget 15 -Nov -2022 12 NAT1-brf and Policy Analyst would bring DNR's budget staff up to 4.0 FTE with a salary at the base of the second quartile. R13 WATER PLAN DATA & MAPPING SPECIALIST: The Department requests an increase of $149,838 from the CWCB Construction Fund and 1.0 FTE for FY 2023-24. This specialist would work in the CWCB's Water Supply Planning Section and "perform technical Geographic Information System (GIS) data analysis and watershed mapping related to conservation, agriculture, and equity." R14 SLB FIELD OPS CAPACITY: This decision item will be covered in a separate staff briefing on December 2, 2022. R15 VEHICLES FOR WATER ADMIN STAFF: The Department requests an increase of $34,063 General Fund to lease 24 new electric vehicles that will be phased in over three fiscal years. Costs will rise to X88,332 General Fund in FY 2024-25 and $136,643 General Fund in FY 2025-26. Full-time field staff will utilize these vehicles rather than their own personal vehicles. The request includes funds for all - wheel or four-wheel drive vehicles, plus the costs of home charging stations. R16 TRUE UP CWCB FEMA FUNDING: The Department requests an increase of $105,000 federal funds and 1.0 FTE in FY 2023-24 to reflect updated federal funding levels. The request also includes a net -zero transfer of $70,000 cash funds from the Severance Tax Operation Fund between line items. R17 WATER PLAN LEGISLATIVE PLACEHOLDER: The Department requests that the JBC approve a one-time $5.0 million General Fund placeholder for the Water Plan Grant Program in FY 2023-24. The Department proposes that the transfer occur in the annual CWCB Projects Bill, so the JBC does not have to sponsor legislation related to this placeholder. TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS: The request includes an increase X19.0 million cash funds related to informational fund adjustments in line items for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. CENTRALLY APPROPRIATED LINE ITEMS: The request includes an increase of funds for centrally appropriated line items. 11.9 million total CENTRALLY APPROPRIATED LINE ITEMS TO'T'AL GENERAL CASH REAPPROPRIA'rED FEDERAL Salary FUNDS survey $7,824,733 FUND $1,124,437 FUNDS $6,252,440 FUNDS $275,313 FUNDS $172,543 FTE 0.0 Payments to OIT 1,754,038 74,158 1,818,492 (82,086) (56,526) 0.0 Health, life, and dental 1,669,002 (154,890) 1,135,843 672,026 16,023 0.0 Legal services 1,582,632 540,954 1,054,494 (22,908) 10,092 0.0 Digital trunk radio payments 686,838 0 686,838 0 0 0.0 AED 391,664 8,432 334,680 39,850 8,702 0.0 SAED 391,664 8,432 334,680 39,850 8,702 0.0 Vehicle lease payments 112,479 (1,778) 95,048 (4,820) 24,029 0.0 Risk management and property funds 37,250 (5,425) 42,896 492 (713) 0.0 PERA Direct Distribution (1,999,288) 79,467 (1,996,970) (81,785) 0 0.0 Workers' compensation (243,403) 0 (228,332) 1,148 (16,219) 0.0 15 -Nov -2022 13 NATI -brf Capitol Complex leased space CORE adjustment Leased space Short-term disability Shift differential CENTRALLY APPROPRIATED LINE ITEMS TOTAL GENERAL CAST FUNDS FUND FUNDS (242,401) (18,492) (44,949) (75,044) (2,582) (68,294) (24,255) (10,777) (11,938) (2,630) (1,776) (1,434) (601) 0 (601) REAPPROPRIATED FUNDS (166,600) (578) 151 637 0 FEDERAL FUNDS (12,360) (3,590) (1,691) (57) 0 FTE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL $11,862,678 $1,640,160 $9,402,893 $670,690 $148,935 0.0 IMPACTS DRIVEN BY OTHER AGENCIES: The request includes a net increase of $764,721 total funds for non -prioritized decision items driven by other agencies. OIT Budget package DPA Capitol complex staffing DPA COE common policy DPA Transfer perf. budgeting to DPA IMPACTS DRIVEN BY OTHER AGENCIES TOTAL FUNDS $701,249 28,576 28,267 6,629 GENERAL FUND $98,627 9,064 4,480 500 CAS1� FUNDS $575,411 10,000 22,907 5,797 REAPPROPRIAI'ED FUNDS $17,687 4,307 880 158 FEDERAL FUNDS $9,524 5,205 0 174 FTE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL $764,721 $112,671 $614,115 $23,032 $14,903 0.0 ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR BUDGET ACTIONS: The request includes a net increase of funds for prior year budget actions. Minimum wage adjustment FY23 R07 Internet protocol phones FY23 BA03 Sweetwater Lake FY23 R10 Records access system FY23 R01 Outdoor rec. and conservation FY23 BA02 Big game policy report FY23 R02 Staff for water plan FY23 R04 Water accounting staff FY22 R01 Fishers Peak funding FY23 R06 Assistant director energy inno. FY23 BA01 Tribal liaison FY23 R5 SLB water res FY23 R03 Outdoor regional partnerships Annualize prior year salary survey TOTAL ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR BUDGET ACTIONS TOTAL FUNDS $436,908 402,653 108,297 8,483 (132,750) (56,000) (42,000) (15,255) (8,203) (7,000) (7,000) (7,000) (7,000) (5,265) $668,868 GENERAL FUND $3,155 57,541 0 0 0 0 0 (15,255) 0 0 0 0 0 (1,797) $43,644 CASH FUNDS $422,272 336,203 108,297 8,483 (132,750) (56,000) (42,000) 0 (8,203) 0 0 (7,000) (7,000) (2,680) $619,622 REAPPROPRIAI'ED FUNDS $6,235 8,909 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (7,000) (7,000) 0 0 0 231,960 total $1,144 FEDERAL FUNDS $5,246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (788) FTE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $4,458 0.2 INDIRECT COST ASSESSMENT: The request includes a net increase in the Department's indirect cost assessment. ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR LEGISLATION: The request includes a net decrease of $154.2 million total funds for the impact of prior year legislation. HB21-1318 Outdoor equity program HB22-1348 Oversight chem oil gas 15 -Nov -2022 ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR LEGISLATION TOTAL FUNDS $750,000 232,221 GENERAL FUN D CAS1 FUNDS $0 $750,000 0 232,221 REAPPROPRIAPI'ED FUNDS $0 0 FEDERAL FUNDS $0 0 FTE 0.0 3.2 14 NAT1 -brf HB22-1361 Oil & gas reporting SB22-206 Disaster prep and recovery SB22-028 Groundwater compact HB22-1316 CWCB projects HB22-1379 Wildfire prevention HB22-1151 Turf replacement SB22-168 Search & rescue SB22-199 Native pollinating insects SB22-114 Fire suppression ponds ANNUALIZE PRIOR YEAR LEGISLATION TOTAL FUNDS 61,500 2,868 (120,000,000) (17,080,000) (15,000,000) (2,000,000) (1,000,000) (148,304) (6,282) GENERAL FUND 0 2,868 0 0 0 0 0 (148,304) (6,282) CAS} i REAPPROPRIA'1'ED FUNDS FUNDS 61,500 0 0 0 (60,000,000) (60,000,000) (17,080,000) 0 (15,000,000) 0 (2,000,000) 0 (1,000,000) 0 0 0 0 0 FEDERAL FUNDS FTE 0 0.0 0 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 (0.8) 0 0.0 0 (0.3) 0 0.0 TOTAL ($154,187,997) ($151,718) 15 -Nov -2022 15 ($94,036,279) ($60,000,000) $0 2.2 NAT1 -brf INFORMATIONAL ISSUE: ONE-TIME FUNDING AUTHORIZED IN RECENT LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS During the 2021 and 2022 legislative sessions, the General Assembly allocated one-time funding to the Department of Natural Resources that included $118,250,000 originating as state General Fund and $77,000,000 originating as federal Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery funds (ARPA funds). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Committee seek updates from all departments during their budget hearings on the use of significant one-time allocations of federal and state funding. DISCUSSION During the 2021 and 2022 legislative sessions, the General Assembly allocated $118,250,000 in one- time funding to the Department of Natural Resources. For many programs, authority was provided to expend the funds through FY 2023-24 or beyond. To assist the Committee in tracking the use of these funds, the tables below show the sum of allocations provided for FY 2020-21, FY 2021-22, and FY 2022-23 and expenditures through FY 2021-22 by the original source of the funds (General Fund, federal Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds, and other funds) . ALLOCATION AND EXPENDITURE OF ONE-TIME GENERAL FUND BILL NUMBER AND SI IOW!' TI'1'LE H.B. 21-1260 State Water Plan Projects DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES- ONE-TIME GENERAL FUND AC'T'UAL APPROPRIATION/ EXPENDITURES/ENCUMBRANCES BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM AND ANTICIPATED USE OF '1'1IE TRANSFER TI IROUGI i FY 2022 FUNDS $20,000,000 $15,500,000 H.B. 21-1326 General Fund Transfer Support DNR S.B. 21-054 Wildfire Mitigation S.B. 21-112 State Parks Capital Construction S.B. 21-240 Watershed Restoration S.B. 21-258 Wildfire Recovery & Risk Mitigation H.B. 22-1012 Healthy Forests H.B. 22-1151 Turf Replacement Total 22,750,000 4,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 17,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 $118,250,000 7,450,000 4,000,000* 6,410,000 28,330,000 17,500,000* Transferred $15.0 million to the Water Plan Implementation Cash Fund and $5.0 million to the Water Supply Reserve Fund. Transferred $17.5 million to the Parks and Outdoor Recreation Cash Fund, $3.5 million to the Wildlife Cash Fund, $1.0 million to the Outdoor Equity Fund, and $750,000 to the Colorado Avalanche Information Center Cash Fund. Transferred $4.0 million to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Construction Fund Transferred $20.0 million to the Capital Construction Fund for state parks $0 Transferred $30.0 million to the CWCB Construction Fund Transferred $17.5 million to the Wildfire Mitigation Capacity Development Fund Transferred $2.0 million to the Wildfire Mitigation Capacity Development Fund $0 Transferred $2.0 million to the Turf Replacement Fund $79,190,000 15 -Nov -2022 16 *Estimated NAT1-brf ALLOCATION AND EXPENDITURE OF ONE-TIME FEDERAL CORONAVIRUS STATE FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS (ARPA FUNDS) BILL NUMBER AND SITOR'1' TITLE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ONE-TIME FEDERAL ARPA FUNDS ACTUAL APPROPRIATION/ EXPENDITURE OF BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM AND ANTICIPATED USE OF'1'IlE TRANSFER OF FUNDS FUNDS 'j1} TROUGH FUNDS FY 2022 H.B. 22-1379 Wildfire Prevention Watershed Restoration $17,000,000 S.B. 22-028 Groundwater Compact Com-Dliance Fund 60,000,000 Transfers $15.0 million to the CWCB Construction Fund and $2.0 $0 million to the Wildfire Mitigation Capacity Development Fund. Appropriates $60.0 million to the Groundwater Compact Compliance and Sustainability Fund for use in the Rio Grande Water Conservancy 0 District and the Re -Publican River Water Conservation District. TOTAL $77,000,000 $0 15 -Nov -2022 17 NAT1-brf INFORMATIONAL ISSUE 2: R2 COLORADO RIVER 1 POLICY & TECHNICAL SUPPORT The purpose of this informational issue is to explain the request and provide the Committee with an opportunity to pose questions to the Department. SUMMARY • The Department requests 13.9 FTE at a cost of $1,868,315 total funds, including $982,752 General Fund and $885,563 from the CWCB Construction Fund. The following table provides a breakdown of these FTE and costs. R2 COLORADO RIVER TEAM SUMMARY DIVISION Executive Director's Office (CWCB Construction Fund) CO Water Cons. Board (CWCB Construction Fund) Division of Water Resources (General Fund) Total POSITION Upper Colorado River Commissioner Communications specialist Technical modeling scientists Federal policy and legal matters specialist Administrative program support River operations coordinators Hydrographers Geographical information systems (GIS) specialist Program management support FTE 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 4.3 0.9 0.9 13.9 COST CATEGORIES Salaries, PERA, Medicare Centrally appropriated costs One-time operating expenses Ongoing operating expenses Total POSITION All All All All AMOUNT $1,350,156 274,364 146,780 97,015 $1,868,315 • The team's purpose is to "navigate the state's negotiating position and implementation of its interstate commitments in support of agricultural, municipal, recreational, and environmental needs." The request is motivated by: o water scarcity in the Colorado River system; o upcoming negotiations to develop new operating guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead; federal calls for 2.0-4.0 million acre-feet of water conservation beyond the scope of current agreements; and expected federal funding to better measure water use and availability in Colorado. DISCUSSION Lake Powell (Utah and Arizona) and Lake Mead (Nevada and Arizona) supply water to California, Arizona, and Nevada and power to those states and others. 15 -Nov -2022 18 NAT1-brf Both reservoirs are nearing water levels that threaten the supply of each. If Lake Powell drops below 3,490 feet above sea level, it will no longer be able to generate power. If it drops below 3,370 feet, it will no longer be able to release water through the usual channels. Lake Mead's thresholds are 1,000 feet for power generation and 895 for water release. Lake Powell reached 3,522 feet in April 2022 and Lake Mead reached 1,041 feet in July 2022. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (BOR) most recent study projects that Lake Powell will hit 3,509 feet in March 2023 and Lake Mead will hit 1,021 feet in September 2023.8 These conditions prompted the BOR Commissioner to ask Colorado River basin states to develop plans by August 2022 to conserve 2-4 million acre feet of water in the Colorado River System.`' The Upper Basin states (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New Mexico) responded with a "5 -point Plan."10 The five points of that plan are as follows: 1 Seek reauthorization of a pilot program to explore temporary, voluntary, and compensated water conservation measures. Commence 2023 Drought Response Operations planning in August 2022. Consider the feasibility of a potential water demand management program.12 - Implement federal funding to improve measurement, monitoring, and reporting infrastructure. 5 Continue strict water management and administration and consider intrastate conservation measures. R02 Colorado River Policy & Technical Support relates to this 5 -point plan, though not exclusively. The request also considers upcoming negotiations related to the December 2025 expiration of current operating guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.13 These guidelines divide water shortage scenarios into "tiers" and lay out predetermined reductions in water allocations to Lower Basin states (primarily Nevada and Arizona) should shortages occur. The remainder of this briefing issue will focus on the requested funds for the Upper Colorado River Commissioner, the river operations coordinators, the hydrographers, and the GIS specialist. UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSIONER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE) The request includes funding to separate the Upper Colorado River (LCR) Commissioner position from the CWCB Director position; both job functions are currently performed by one person. The UCR Commissioner works with commissioners from Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming on interstate water issues. The CWCB Director's duties include operational and policy guidance for the CWCB, implementation of the Colorado Water Plan, and support for the agency's fifteen -member governing 8 https://www.usbr.gov/ucJwater/crsp/studies/24Month 10.pdf 9 Colorado River basin states are Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Nevada. 1() https:/ /cwcb.colorado.gov/colorado-river-commissioners-corner 11 http://www.ucrcommission.com/system-conservation-pilot-program/ 12 https://cwcb.colorado.gov/focus-areas/supply/demand-management 13 Current guidelines were developed in 2007 and are often referred to as the 2007 Interim Guidelines. https: //vww.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/ strategies /RecordofDecision.pdf 15 -Nov -2022 19 NAT1-brf board. With Colorado River issues growing more technically, legally, and politically challenging, the request asserts that UCR Commissioner duties are occupying the majority of the CWCB Director's time. By creating a separate UCR Commissioner position, the request aims to allow the UCR Commissioner to focus exclusively on Colorado River issues while allowing the CWCB Director to focus on running the agency. Per the request, the Commissioner would focus on the following things: ® Implementing the 5 -Point Plan ® Evaluating options for "voluntary and compensated water conservation, otherwise known as "demand management" (assuming Congress reauthorizes the System Conservation Pilot Program) ® Negotiate updated Lake Powell and Lake Mead operating guidelines with the other CO River Basin States and the federal government ® Continued Drought Contingency Plan implementation ® Protecting Colorado's legal interests ® Responding to growth and climate change pressures The position appointed by the Governor —would be paid for out of the CWCB Construction Fund with a proposed salary of $175,000. The request notes that the Department will need to acquire a Senior Executive Service designation from the Department of Personnel. RIVER OPERATIONS COORDINATORS (DIvISIoN OF WATER RESOURCES) DWR administers seven water divisions, as shown in the map below. Each of these divisions is broken into smaller districts, with water commissioners serving specific areas within those districts. These commissioners regulate water distribution according to state laws and decreed water rights. Source: Division r f Water _Resources CulunnEurie Fort Collins a Yarnpa.White Rivers Division 6 61, Colorado Rover Division 5 r of or • i •Mont vf.,.,,:.—Cur-ni thil] Gunnison River Division 4 t San Juap'Dolores Rivers Division 7 - 0% Fort M otgars South Platte River Division 1 Ark:a nsas Rider Divasi n 2 15 -Nov -2022 20 NAT1-brf Per the request, water commissioners have historically administered water rights in their district with little coordination with neighboring districts. The request asserts that greater coordination between districts and divisions is necessary to "optimize our use of water in the Colorado River Basin," hence the request for two River Operations Coordinators. These coordinators would "oversee all of the water moving through multiple districts within the river basins... to determine how much water is in the river at any one time, the legal character of that water, and how it is being used." The request notes that River Operations Coordinators have been useful in the South Platte (Division 1) and Arkansas (Division 2) River basins. HYDROGRAPHERS DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES) DWR hydrographers measure the flow of water, service and operate the stream gages that allow measurement, and compile and analyze streamflow data. Of the 4.5 requested hydrographers, 2.0 would be located in the Colorado River Basin (Division 5), one would be located in the Gunnison River Basin (Division 4), and 0.5 would be located in the Yampa/White River Basin (Division 6). One additional FTE would be an electronics specialist to help DWR install and maintain new gages. Growth in the number of stream gages both past and future is the main driver of this portion of the request. The table below, taken from the request, shows growth in the number of stream gages in Divisions 4, 5, and 6 since 2002. DWR is also expecting federal funding from the Bureau of Reclamation to install, operate, and maintain 12 to 20 new gages in Divisions 4, 5, and 6. These new gages are not included in the table. Table 1: DWR Gages per Hydrographer2 Water Division 2002 Gages 2017 Gages 2022 Gages Current # Hydros 2002 Gages/ Hydro 2017 Gages/ Hydro Gages/ 2022 Hydro Square Mites 5 year % increase 20 year ;ti increase 4 22 39 51 1 22 39 51 101791 31% 132% 5 37 50 55 1 37 50 55 9,841 10% 49% 6 13 18 20 0.5 26 36 40 12,154 11% 54% GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS SPECIALIST (DrvisioN OF WATER RESOURCES) This new position will map irrigated lands in the Colorado River Basin on an annual basis to improve the DWR's ability to determine water consumption in the basin. Per the request, DWR has traditionally updated GIS maps of irrigated lands at 5 -year intervals. The request asserts that five years is not sufficient because "lands can come in and out of production and crop types can change every year." With that being the case, water consumption estimates in the four years after the initial measurement may not be accurate. Per the request, accurate data will be necessary to accurately and fairly determine Colorado's obligations in a "Compact compliance administration scenario." 15 -Nov -2022 21 NAT1-brf ISSUE 3: R4 SEVERANCE TAX FOR WILDFIRE MITIGATION The Department requests that the JBC sponsor legislation to authorize an annual appropriation of up to $5.0 million from the Severance Tax Operational Fund (STOF) to the continuously -appropriated Wildfire Mitigation Capacity Development Fund. This fund supports the Colorado Strategic Wildfire Action Program (COSWAP).14 This brief provides additional detail about the request and the proposed funding source. SUMMARY • Severance tax revenues are typically volatile, but recent legislation has aimed to reduce the impact of this volatility on programs supported by the STOF • Recent legislation reduced the number of programs supported by the STOF and changed reserve allocations to reduce the impact of dramatic year -over -year declines in severance tax revenues • Reserve allocations are twice as much as the appropriation, so a $5.0 million appropriation has a $15.0 million impact ($5.0 million for the appropriation, $10.0 million for the reserve) The September 2022 forecast from Legislative Council Staff for FY 2023-24 suggests ample revenue to cover the initial appropriation and the STOF reserve set -aside. However, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting forecast suggests insufficient revenue to cover the full $15.0 million impact, leaving the STOF reserve about 85.0 percent full. Staffs recommendation during figure setting will take updated forecasts into account, a factor that is also noted in the request. DISCUSSION COSWAP BACKGROUND COSWAP and the Wildfire Mitigation Capacity Development Fund (the Fund) were created by S.B. 21-258 (Wildfire Risk Mitigation). A total of X21.5 million has been transferred to the Fund thus far: • $17.5 million General Fund through S.B. 21-258 • $2.0 million General Fund through H.B. 22-1012 (Wildfire Mitigation and Recovery) • $2.0 million American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds through H.B. 22-1379 (Wildfire Prevention Watershed Restoration Funding) The FY 2023-24 budget request proposes to transfer an additional $7.0 million to the Fund: $2.0 million one-time General Fund in R3 Wildfire Mitigation Investment Package and $5.0 million ongoing from the Severance Tax Operational Fund in R4. 14 Wildfire mitigation is the implementation of measures to minimize the effects of wildfires on people, property, and infrastructure. Some measures center around vegetation management, such as mechanical removal of trees and shrubs or controlled burns designed to clear fuel from the forest floor. Other measures focus on the construction, alteration, or location of structures to make them less vulnerable to wildfires. COSWAP projects focus on vegetation management. 15 -Nov -2022 22 NAT1-brf COSWAP funds two categories of wildfire mitigation projects. The first is "landscape scale strategic wildfire mitigation projects."' The Department refers to this subprogram as a "Landscape Resilience Investment" that prioritizes projects with the greatest potential to protect life, property, and infrastructure. The Department has awarded $8.4 million thus far to ten projects.16 The second category of COSWAP funding is wildfire mitigation workforce development. In the context of COSWAP, "workforce development" means: (1) the work is done by youth conservation corps and the Department of Corrections (DOC) State Wildland Inmate Fire Teams (SWIFI), and/or (2) wildfire mitigation workforce development training. Funding also supports chainsaw and prescribed fire training. The Department has awarded $6.1 million thus far to dozens of projects. SEVERANCE TAX OPERATIONAL FUND SEVERANCE TAX OVERVIEW AND FORECAST The State's severance tax is levied on the production or extraction of metallic minerals, molybdenum, oil and gas, oil shale, and coal.17 Pursuant to statute, 50.0 percent of severance tax revenues are credited to the Severance Tax Trust Fund and 50.0 percent to the Department of Local Affairs for grants and distributions to local governments impacted by mining activities. Of the revenue credited to the Severance Tax Trust Fund, 50.0 percent is allocated to the Perpetual Base Account of the Severance Tax Trust Fund (or 25.0 percent of total severance tax revenues), which is used by the Colorado Water Conservation Board for water projects. The other 50.0 percent of Severance Tax Trust Fund revenues (or 25.0 percent of total severance tax revenues) is allocated to the Severance Tax Operational Fund. 50% 50% Department of Natural Resources Department of Local Affairs Severance Tax Trust Fund Local Government Severance Tax Fund 50% Perpetual Base Fund 70% Local impact grantloan funds for water loans/projects 50% Operational Fund for DNR programs and other natural resource and energy -related program's 30% Direct distribution to local governments based on factors measuring oil, gas, and, mining activities Source: Legislative lative Council Staff (Link) The Department of Natural Resources' FY 2022-23 annual performance plan describes severance tax revenue as "an unusually volatile revenue stream." The graph on the following page demonstrates this volatility over the past two decades. https://dnr.colorado.gov/divisions/forestry/co-strategic-wildfire-action-program 16 Projects can be viewed at the link above. 17 http s: //leg. colorado.gov/agencies/legislative-council-staff/severance-tax 15 -Nov -2022 23 NAT1-brf Severance Tax Revenue Dollars in Millions $300.0 $200.0 $100,0 on FY 1999-00 FY 2000-01 Ft' 2001-02 cam. 0 p 0 C iN r LL PY 2003-04 0 I M 1 to CD CD 0 O (',J >- L. LPL iLL FY 2007-08 0 0O a FY 2009-10 • Pr' 2010-11 FY 2011-12 MI al icr in r r r kn ct C O O O •,l Cl (JN L,. i L FY O17 -1B r - r O (N FY 2019-20 FY 2020 -21 Source: Legislative Council Staff ff (Link) Forecasts over the next couple of fiscal years suggest robust revenue collections. According to the Legislative Council Staff's (LCS) September 2022 Economic Forecast, severance tax revenue is expected to be $328.3 million through FY 2022-23 and $250.6 million in FY 2023-24. However, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) forecast is over $100.0 million lower than the LCS forecast. The following table demonstrates these differences and the revenue effects for the Severance Tax Operational Fund. September 2022 Severance Tax Forecasts Statewide Collections (S millions) Legislative Council Staff OSPB Difference (LCS - OSPB) FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 $328.3 $250.6 $181.4 $223.6 $132.2 $140.3 $104.7 $118.4 $41.1 Severance Tax Operational Fund Share of Statewide Collections (25%) LCS - 25% OSPB - 25% 15 -Nov -2022 FY 2022-23 $82.1 $55.9 FY 2023-24 $62.7 $33.1 FY 2024-25 $45.4 $35.1 Source: D.1'\TR R04 Continue Wildfire ldfire Mitigation and Workforce Grants 24 NAT1-brt CURRENT SEVERANCE TAX OPERATIONAL FUND (STOF) OBLIGATIONS The STOP provides approximately $18.0 million in base funding for the Department's divisions, known as "core departmental programs." When the STOP balance exceeds the amount needed for those core programs, statute allows the General Assembly to appropriate money from the STOP to three other funds. These funds are the Species Conservation Trust Fund, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Fund, and the Conservation District Grant Fund. This brief refers to these programs as "discretionary programs." Statute also notes the General Assembly's intent that the STOF maintain a reserve equal to twice the current fiscal year's appropriation. If revenues sufficiently cover core programs, discretionary programs, and the reserve requirement, the remainder goes to the Severance Tax Perpetual Base Fund. SEVERANCE TAX OPERATIONAL FUND CORE DEPARTMEN'T'AL PROGRAMS Oil & Gas Conservation Commission CO Geological Survey Avalanche Information Center Reclamation, Mining, & Safety CO Water Conservation Board Parks & Wildlife - Wildlife Parks & Wildlife - Parks FY22 ACTUAL $6,148,067 1,627,932 971,778 4,455,261 1,263,272 24,246 2,467,303 FY 23 APPROPRIATION $6,148,067 1,660,491 1,215,365 5,349,348 1,319,250 29,057 2,302,040 FY 24 PROJECTED $6,148,067 1,660,491 1,251,826 5,509,828 1,319,250 29,057 2,302,040 FY 25 PROJECTED $6,148,067 1,660,491 1,289,381 5,675,123 1,319,250 29,057 2,302,040 Subtotal $16,957,859 $18,023,618 $18,220,559 $18,423,409 DISCRETIONARY PROGRAMS DNR Species Conservation Trust Fund $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 CPW Aquatic Nuisance Species Fund 4,006,005 4,006,005 4,006,005 4,006,005 Agriculture Soil Conservation Grant Fund 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 Subtotal 9,456,005 9,456,005 9,456,005 9,456,005 Total $26,413,864 $27,479,623 $27,676,564 27,879,414 200% reserve requirement LCS September 2022 revenue forecast: Overflow to Severance Tax Perpetual Base Fund OSPB September 2022 revenue forecast: Overflow to Severance Tax Perpetual Base Fund $53,956,140 17,970,864 17,970,864 $54,959,246 63,307,956 37,135,161 $55,353,128 36,157,406 6,557,963 $55,758,828 18,289,041 8,010,782 SENA"1 _ E BILL 21-281(STA'1 _ E SEVERANCE TAX TRUST FUND ALLOCATION) Existing obligations reflect recent statutory changes. In FY 2020-21, a steep decline in severance tax revenue jeopardized the solvency of the STOF and, consequently, jeopardized annual appropriations to core departmental programs. This led the Department to request JBC-sponsored legislation in February 2021 to reverse transfers to various grant programs that occurred August 2020. The General Assembly later passed Senate Bill 21-281 to alter severance tax allocations. The bill did not reverse the transfers as requested, but it made many other changes. The changes most relevant to this briefing are: 15 -Nov -2022 NAT1-brf • Repeal of the requirement to appropriate funds to the following funds and grant programs if 100.0 percent of the funds were not appropriated to core programs: O Soil Conservation District Grant Fund (Department of Agriculture) ® Now a discretionary STOF program up to $450,000 O Species Conservation Trust Fund ® Now a discretionary STOF program up to $5.0 million 0 Aquatic Nuisance Species Fund ® Now a discretionary STOF program up to $4,006,005 0 Interbasin Compact Committee Operation Fund O Water Supply Reserve Fund O Water Efficiency Grant Program ■ All three now supported by the Severance Tax Perpetual Base Fund at the discretion of the CWCB O Low-income Energy Assistance Programs O Forest Restoration and Wildfire Risk Mitigation Grant Program Cash Fund O Healthy Forests and Vibrant Communities Fund O Wildfire Preparedness Fund States the General Assembly's intent that the Severance Tax Operational Fund maintain a reserve equal to two times the current fiscal year's appropriation, and allows the reserve to be used for expenditures authorized by appropriations if severance tax revenues are less than expected. * Transfers a total of 22). 18,912,010 General Fund to the STOF (half in FY 2020-21, half in FY 2021 - THE REQUEST'S' JUSTIFICATION FOR USING THE STOF Funding for COSWAP has thus far been limited to one-time transfers via multiple bills. This request aims to change that, saying "A stable and significant investment will be required in order for COSWAP to continue to make meaningful progress..." The request also makes multiple references to "sustained" or "sustainable" funding. The STOF emerged as the requested funding source for multiple reasons, as quoted below with JBC staff's comments in brackets. `Limited options for alternative sources of funds. DNR is not aware of an acceptable alternative source of cash funding for this important program. Although COSWAP addresses issues of statewide interest and importance, General Fund resources are often scarce with competing priorities for limited funds. Over the next several years, General Fund availability will be further constrained by the TABOR Referendum C cap, which also precludes any new or increased fees that could theoretically be assessed to support the program." 15 -Nov -2022 26 NAT1-brf [JBC staff comment: The scarcity argument historically applies to severance tax revenue. Adding this $5.0 million appropriation would bring total STOF appropriations to about $32.0 million. A $32.0 million distribution to the STOP would require about $128.0 million in annual severance tax revenue. From FY 2011-12 to FY 2020-21, severance tax revenues undershot $128.0 million four times and barely exceeded it on two other occasions. However, the 200.0 percent reserve is designed mitigate abrupt revenue shortfalls by providing a two-year expenditure buffer.] `Precedent for Operational Fund support of forestry initiatives. The Operational Fund has supported complimentary forestry- and wildfire -related programs at the Colorado State Forest Service and the Department of Public Safety as recently as FY 2020- 21. The wildfire mitigation projects and workforce development initiatives that COSWAP supports are an appropriate and accepted use of funds." JBC staff comment: Senate Bill 21-281 removed forestry- and wildfire -related programs from the STOF because they acquired General Fund support in the FY 2021-22 budget (S.B. 21-205). The General Fund appropriation for the Forest Restoration and Wildfire Risk Mitigation (FRWRM) Program increased from $1.0 million to $8.0 million. The budget also established a new annual $2.0 General Fund appropriation to the Health Forests and Vibrant Communities Cash (HFVC) Fund. General Fund appropriations in the Long Bill for FRWRM and HFVC aimed to provide a consistent baseline level of non -severance tax funding for these programs because severance tax was historically inconsistent. The graph below demonstrates that inconsistency.] FRWRM Grant Revenue ($ miffions) ■ Severance Tax General Fund 9 10.2 7.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 «cam FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 Revenue prior to FY 2017-18 includes revenue for the two programs later consolidated into the FRIVRA1 Grant Program: the Wildfire Risk Reduction grant and the Colorado Forest Restoration grant. "The potential and rare opportunity to meet the recently increased 200% statutory reserve requirement. Ideally, funding for COSWAP can be implemented and fully protected by the Operational Fund reserve in the first year without adverse impacts to other programs. The magnitude of severance tax revenue collections that the state is currently experiencing is precisely what this requires and it is unlikely to be seen again in the near future." 15 -Nov -2022 77 NAT1-brf J BC staff comment: This comment summarizes information contained in the request. The 200.0 percent reserve goal means that a $5.0 million STOF appropriation would require a $10.0 million addition to the reserve, bringing the total impact to $15.0 million in the first year of the appropriation. It is not clear at this time whether severance tax revenues will permit a $15.0 million impact. As the Department notes in the request, the LCS and OSPB forecasts are "unusually far apart." The LCS forecast shows more than enough revenue to absorb a $15.0 million impact and still support a spillover into the Severance Tax Perpetual Base Fund. However, revenue in line with the OSPB forecast would not support the full $15.0 million and would leave the reserve about 85.0 percent full. The request notes that there are two forecasts left before FY 2023-24 budget decisions are finalized, so these figures are subject to change.] 4 "COSWAP funding largely supports grants and projects, which are discretionary spending and flexible compared to funding needed for permanent staff and ongoing base operational needs. Senate Bill 21-281 eliminated automatic proportional reductions that were formerly required for a subset of Operational Fund grant programs if revenue was insufficient to meet all obligations. The bill reprioritized those programs so they would be funded before the reserve and included in the reserve requirement, instead of funded with whatever revenue was left over after the reserve requirement was met. COSWAP would have the same level of priority and protection as the CPW Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, the Species Conservation Trust Fund, and the Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Grant Program. However, if the Operational Fund were in dire straits, DNR and COSWAP could, and are prepared to scale the program down accordingly to protect core departmental programs and permanent staff." J BC staff comment: If such a scenario comes to pass, statute does not dictate how discretionary programs are scaled down. It is possible that all discretionary programs could be scaled down in equal proportions, but statute does not require it.] CONCLUSION Per the request, the Department believes $5.0 million is a "sustainable amount to obligate within the Operational Fund on an annual basis..." They may be correct. Recent changes to severance tax allocations and reserves would help STOF programs weather a short-term decline in severance tax revenues (1-2 years). If LCS' more optimistic severance tax revenue forecast proves accurate, the General Assembly will be able to appropriate the $5.0 million for COSWAP, set aside $10.0 million for the reserve, and still have some left over for a transfer to the Perpetual Base Fund. However, staff urges caution when considering the addition of ongoing discretionary programs to the STOP portfolio. In staffs view, this request is possible because S.B. 21-281 unburdened the STOF by reducing the number of "discretionary" programs relying on it. In FY 2019-20, those programs received a total allocation of $36.4 million; in FY 2022-23, they received just $9.5 million. Approving this request would bring annual discretionary program appropriations up to $14.5 million. 15 -Nov -2022 NAT1-brf APPENDIX A NUMB1HRS PAGFS (DIGITAL ONLY) Appendix A details actual expenditures for the last two fiscal years, the appropriation for the current fiscal year, and the requested appropriation for next fiscal year. This information is listed by line item and fund source. Appendix A is only available in the online version of this document. 15 -Nov -2022 A-1 NAT1-brf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Dan Gibbs, Executive Director (1) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE (A) Administration Personal Services FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Health, Life, and Dental General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Short-term Disability General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 4,297,148 38.8 0 0 4,297,148 0 16,712,961 2,151,198 13,963,072 598,691 0 178,267 31,080 141,472 5,715 0 4,423,247 42.7 0 73,147 4,350,100 0 18,366,109 3,587,245 14,554,675 224,189 0 174,443 31,485 136,753 6,205 0 4,918,185 49.6 177,493 58,916 4,681,776 0 19,700,550 3,638,034 15,548,071 120,928 393,517 187,448 31,903 144,218 6,720 4,607 5,383,143 * 52.3 157,237 58,916 5,166,990 0 22,245,131 * 4,045,924 17,439,675 349,992 409,540 194,534 * 31,125 150,997 7,862 4,550 *Line item includes a decision item A-2 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation S.B. 04-257 Amortization Equalization Disbursement General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds S.B. 06-235 Supplemental Amortization Equaization Disbursement General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds PERA Direct Distribution General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 5,881,194 919,279 4,784,922 176,993 0 5,881,194 919,279 4,784,922 176,993 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,113,311 988,697 4,921,127 203,487 0 6,113,311 988,697 4,921,127 203,487 0 3,098,784 567,764 2,430,519 100,501 0 6,558,946 1,009,173 5,185,030 213,304 151,439 6,558,946 1,009,173 5,185,030 213,304 151,439 2,468,271 0 2,369,405 98,866 0 7,254,138 * 1,048,794 5,776,271 268,932 160,141 7,254,138 * 1,048,794 5,776,271 268,932 160,141 468,983 79,467 372,435 17,081 0 *Line item includes a decision item A-3 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Salary Survey General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Shift Differential General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Workers' Compensation General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Operating Expenses General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Legal Services General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0 38,953 0 38,953 0 0 1,367,677 107,726 1,245,205 10,218 4,528 91.400 0 0 91,400 0 5,482,947 1,432,746 3,963,212 0 86,989 3,808,687 614,722 3,065,584 128,381 0 48,117 0 48,117 0 0 1,210,150 175,209 1,027,989 3,679 3,273 168.282 0 0 168,282 0 5,134,607 1,329,757 3,727,750 33,837 43,263 5,006,060 659,952 4,106,365 140,213 99,530 54,831 0 54,831 0 0 1,336,669 0 1,301,229 0 35,440 351,701 130,630 7,950 213,121 0 5,645,596 1,464,539 4,029,721 137,628 13,708 7,824,733 1,124,437 6,252,440 275,313 172,543 54,230 0 54,230 0 0 1,093,266 0 1,072,897 1,148 19,221 258,616 * 5,340 950 252,326 0 7,216,400 1,993,665 5,084,215 114,720 23,800 *Line item includes a decision item A-4 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Statewide training General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Payment to Risk Management and Property Funds General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Vehicle Lease Payments General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Capital Outlay General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0 982,886 64,406 902,570 8,735 7,175 4,043,946 283,220 3,663,507 45,175 52,044 667.486 0 667,486 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,551,672 100,414 1,426,273 14,497 10,488 4,243,323 330,872 3,833,241 17,186 62,024 129.674 0 129,674 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,567,049 140,186 1,388,639 22,532 15,692 5,097,079 369,671 4,668,788 18,834 39,786 1,062,343 0 1,057,006 0 5,337 28267 * 4,480 22,907 880 0 1,604,299 134,761 1,431,535 23,024 14,979 5,319,091 * 406,730 4,834,532 14,014 63,815 1,062,343 0 1,057,006 0 5,337 *Line item includes a decision item A-5 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Information Technology Asset Maintenance General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Leased Space General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Temporary Employees Related to Authorized Leave General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Capitol Complex Leased Space General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds CORE Operations General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 151,179 0 84,835 66,344 0 1,779,487 673,446 1,076,928 5,058 24,055 0 0 0 0 0 1,408,234 264,631 715,290 274,718 153,595 616,928 45,698 539,620 12,692 18,918 90,208 28,065 28,282 33,861 0 1,779,628 685,152 1,066,428 5,130 22,918 0 0 0 0 0 1,551,708 291,590 788,166 302,707 169,245 541,043 37,899 473,728 12,469 16,947 343,667 43,136 208,211 92,320 0 2,012,084 741,748 1,241,076 5,205 24,055 111,198 3,427 107,227 544 0 1,067,890 280,328 333,837 291,016 162,709 624,718 44,019 549,036 13,699 17,964 871,821 * 120,992 638,820 112,009 0 1,992,479 * 730,971 1,233,788 5,356 22,364 111,198 3,427 107,227 544 0 854,065 * 270,900 298,888 128,723 155,554 556,303 * 41,937 486,539 13,279 14,548 *Line item includes a decision item A-6 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Digital Trunk Radio Payments General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Species Conservation Trust Fund General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Payments to OIT General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Appropriation to Wildfire Mitigation Capacity Development Fund General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0 5,139,461 0 5,139,461 0 0 14,741,085 3,011,333 11,280,143 320,532 129,077 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,513,848 0 8,513,848 0 0 13,035,332 1,907,668 10,478,065 482,515 167,084 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000,000 0 5,000,000 0 0 16,228,769 3,055,353 12,218,569 629,869 324,978 0 0 0 0 0 1,943,878 0 1,943,878 0 0 5,000,000 0 5,000,000 0 0 17,408,016 * 3,600,673 13,344,032 185,335 277,976 5,000,000 * 0 5,000,000 0 0 SUBTOTAL - (A) Administration FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 69,462,433 38.8 9,904,042 52,991,598 6,090,412 476,381 80,095,484 42.7 11,665,236 61,644,493 6,290,513 495,242 85,902,000 49.6 12,798,765 64,763,155 6,899,879 1,440,201 100,999,072 52.3 14,849,654 77,438,449 7,206,460 1,504,509 17.6% 5.4% 16.0% 19.6% 4.4% 4.5% *Line item includes a decision item A-7 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation (B) Special Programs Colorado Avalanche Information Center FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Colorado River Program General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Indirect Cost Assessment General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 1,406,475 13.0 0 692,307 665,671 48,497 0 0 0 0 0 1,503 0 0 0 1,503 1,763,716 14.7 0 968,707 745,009 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 58.249 0 58,249 0 0 1,533,549 15.2 0 754,582 759,996 18,971 0 0 0 0 0 70,33 6 0 70,336 0 0 2,585,979 * 20.7 0 1,789,353 777,655 18,971 323,900 2.0 * 0 323,900 0 0 96.465 0 96,465 0 0 SUBTOTAL - (B) Special Programs FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 1,407,978 13.0 0 692,307 665,671 50,000 1,821,965 14.7 0 1,026,956 745,009 50,000 1,603,885 15.2 0 824,918 759,996 18,971 3,006,344 22.7 0 2,209,718 777,655 18,971 87.4% 49.3% 0.0% 167.9% 2.3% 0.0% TOTAL - (1) Executive Director's Office FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 70,870,411 51.8 9,904,042 53,683,905 6,756,083 526,381 81,917,449 57.4 11,665,236 62,671,449 7,035,522 545,242 87,505,885 64.8 12,798,765 65,588,073 7,659,875 1,459,172 104,005,416 75.0 14,849,654 79,648,167 7,984,115 1,523,480 18.9% 15.7% 16.0% 21.4% 4.2% 4.4% *Line item includes a decision item A-8 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation (5) DIVISION OF PARKS AND WILDLIFE (A) Colorado Parks and Wildlife Operations State Park Operations FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Wildlife Operations FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Vendor commissions, fulfillment fees, and credit card fees General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 36,662,606 282.5 125,001 36,401,009 0 136,596 79,725,632 608.4 0 57,126,189 0 22,599,443 10,677,423 0 10,677,423 0 0 38,997,182 290.7 200,625 38,762,427 0 34,130 84,794,401 596.9 1,240,445 59,349,015 0 24,204,941 10,056,487 0 10,056,487 0 0 42,963,752 269.6 125,000 42,393,946 0 444,806 96,238,832 649.5 2,207,307 74,856,842 0 19,174,683 14,555,758 0 14,555,758 0 0 53,094,302 * 289.9 125,000 52,524,496 0 444,806 113,210,253 * 665.3 2,210,175 91,825,395 0 19,174,683 14,555,758 0 14,555,758 0 0 SUBTOTAL - (A) Colorado Parks and Wildlife Operations FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 127,065,661 890.9 125,001 104,204,621 0 22,736,039 133,848,070 887.6 1,441,070 108,167,929 0 24,239,071 153,758,342 919.1 2,332,307 131,806,546 0 19,619,489 180,860,313 955.2 2,335,175 158,905,649 0 19,619,489 17.6% 3.9% 0.1% 20.6% 0.0% 0.0% *Line item includes a decision item A-9 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation (B) Special Purpose Snowmobile Program FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds River Outfitters Regulation FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Off -highway Vehicle Program FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Off -highway Vehicle Grants General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Federal Grants General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 883,844 1.6 0 883,844 0 0 61,855 0.0 0 61,855 0 0 354,833 0.0 0 354,833 0 0 3,760,444 0 3,760,444 0 0 784,511 2.0 0 0 0 784,511 920,511 1.6 0 920,511 0 0 92,967 0.5 0 92,967 0 0 377,920 3.0 0 377,920 0 0 4,211,608 0 4,211,608 0 0 1,306,718 0 0 0 1,306,718 1,025,055 1.3 0 1,025,055 0 0 150,754 0.5 0 150,754 0 0 591,548 3.0 0 591,548 0 0 6,000,000 0 6,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,029,520 1.3 0 1,029,520 0 0 150,863 0.5 0 150,863 0 0 600,084 3.0 0 600,084 0 0 6,000,000 0 6,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A-10 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Stores Revolving Fund General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Information Technology General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Trails Grants General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Appropriation to Aquatic Nuisance Species Fund General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Game Damage Claims and Prevention General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 1,037,012 0 1,037,012 0 0 1,726,779 0 1,726,779 0 0 4,837,651 0 3,087,243 0 1,750,408 0 0 0 0 0 912,735 0 912,735 0 0 1,446,990 0 1,446,990 0 0 1,951,458 0 1,951,458 0 0 6,696,462 0 3,379,855 0 3,316,607 4,006,005 0 4,006,005 0 0 1,157,561 0 1,157,561 0 0 200.000 0 200,000 0 0 2,605,016 0 2,605,016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,006,005 0 4,006,005 0 0 1,282,500 0 1,282,500 0 0 200.000 0 200,000 0 0 2,605,016 0 2,605,016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,006,005 0 4,006,005 0 0 1,282,500 0 1,282,500 0 0 A-11 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Habitat Partnership Program FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Grants and Habitat Partnerships General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Outdoor Equity Grant Program FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Asset Maintenance and Repairs General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 2,676,171 4.7 0 2,676,171 0 0 785,986 0 785,986 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 3,804,427 0 3,804,427 0 0 2,556,231 5.5 0 2,556,231 0 0 940,848 0 940,848 0 0 14.047 0.0 0 14,047 0 0 4,799,704 0 4,799,704 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 0 0 2,032,482 1.0 0 2,032,482 0 0 10,100,000 0 10,100,000 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 2,375,000 0 2,375,000 0 0 2,782,482 1.0 0 2,782,482 0 0 10,100,000 0 10,100,000 0 0 A-12 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Annual Depreciation -lease Equivalent Payment General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Beaver Park Dam Repayment General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Chatfield Reallocation Project Loan Repayment General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Indirect Cost Assessment General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 194,797 0 194,797 0 0 333,333 0 333,333 0 0 276.699 0 276,699 0 0 7,926,662 0 3,388,097 0 4,538,565 431,051 0 431,051 0 0 333,333 0 333,333 0 0 276.699 0 276,699 0 0 8,350,107 0 3,819,721 0 4,530,386 375,116 0 375,116 0 0 333,334 0 333,334 0 0 276.700 0 276,700 0 0 4,675,095 0 4,066,425 0 608,670 402,265 0 402,265 0 0 333,334 0 333,334 0 0 276.700 0 276,700 0 0 4,958,128 0 4,250,940 0 707,188 A-13 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Aquatic Nuisance Species Program FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 1,662,125 4.3 0 1,662,125 0 0 2,554,395 4.0 0 2,554,395 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL - (B) Special Purpose PIE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 32,019,864 12.6 0 24,946,380 0 7,073,484 42,424,615 14.6 0 33,270,904 0 9,153,711 36,028,605 5.8 0 35,419,935 0 608,670 37,101,897 5.8 0 36,394,709 0 707,188 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% 16.2% TOTAL - (5) Division of Parks and Wildlife 1-41E General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 159,085,525 903.5 125,001 129,151,001 0 29,809,523 176,272,685 902.2 1,441,070 141,438,833 0 33,392,782 189,786,947 924.9 2,332,307 167,226,481 0 20,228,159 217,962,210 961.0 2,335,175 195,300,358 0 20,326,677 14.8% 3.9% 0.1% 16.8% 0.0% 0.5% A-14 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation (6) COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD (A) Administration Personal Services FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Operating Expenses General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds River Decision Support Systems FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 3,497,016 30.7 0 3,497,016 0 0 496.404 0 496,404 0 0 468,121 4.0 0 468,121 0 0 3,435,027 29.9 0 3,435,027 0 0 532.891 0 532,891 0 0 498,431 4.0 0 498,431 0 0 4,067,789 37.0 0 4,067,789 0 0 616.322 0 616,322 0 0 520,707 4.0 0 520,707 0 0 4,625,118 * 42.0 0 4,625,118 0 0 683.632 * 0 683,632 0 0 532,770 4.0 0 532,770 0 0 SUBTOTAL - (A) Administration Fm General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 4,461,541 34.7 0 4,461,541 0 0 4,466,349 33.9 0 4,466,349 0 0 5,204,818 41.0 0 5,204,818 0 0 5,841,520 46.0 0 5,841,520 0 0 12.2% 12.2% 0.0% 12.2% 0.0% 0.0% *Line item includes a decision item A-15 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation (B) Special Purpose Intrastate Water Management and Development FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Federal Emergency Management Assistance FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 192.201 0.0 0 192,201 0 0 4,244,381 2.7 0 7,096 0 4,237,285 256.429 0.0 0 256,429 0 0 4,909,073 3.0 0 10,840 0 4,898,233 361,821 0.0 0 361,821 0 0 331,936 3.0 0 13,732 0 318,204 361.821 0.0 0 361,821 0 0 515,418 * 4.0 0 83,732 0 431,686 *Line item includes a decision item A-16 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Water Conservation Program FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Water Efficiency Grant Program FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Severance Tax Fund General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Interbasin Compacts FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 351,670 4.0 0 351,670 0 0 263,027 1.0 0 263,027 0 0 73.029 0 73,029 0 0 423.550 3.2 0 423,550 0 0 370,310 4.4 0 370,310 0 0 190,054 1.0 0 190,054 0 0 1,219,522 0 1,219,522 0 0 478.730 3.4 0 478,730 0 0 515,793 5.0 0 515,793 0 0 611,747 1.0 0 611,747 0 0 1,275,500 0 1,275,500 0 0 1,193,197 3.7 0 1,193,197 0 0 536,475 5.0 0 536,475 0 0 615,575 1.0 0 615,575 0 0 1,205,500 * 0 1,205,500 0 0 1,204,392 3.7 0 1,204,392 0 0 *Line item includes a decision item A-17 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Platte River Basin Cooperative Agreement FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds CWCB Projects Bill General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds SB22-028 Groundwater compact compliance General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds HB22-1151 Turf replacement General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 241,367 1.0 0 241,367 0 0 17,477,427 0 17,477,427 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131,934 0.7 0 131,934 0 0 10,454,399 0 10,454,399 0 0 253,494 1.0 0 253,494 0 0 16,450,000 0 16,450,000 0 0 0 120,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 60,000,000 60,000,000 0 0 1,988,600 0.8 0 0 0 1,988,600 0 0 0 0 255,712 1.0 0 255,712 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 A-18 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation HB22-1379 Wildfire Prevention and Watershed Restoration General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Weather Modification General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Colorado Watershed Protection Fund General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Finance grant making General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Watershed Restoration Stimulus General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63,250 0 63,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.800 0 6,800 0 0 127,802 0 127,802 0 0 6,536,821 6,536,821 0 0 0 10,119,319 0 10,119,319 0 0 15,000,000 0 15,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A-19 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation H.B. 21-1260 General Fund State Water Plan General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Demand Management General Fund Finance Grant Making General Fund Indirect Cost Assessment General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0 540,236 540,236 522,103 522,103 760,526 0 589,722 0 170,804 654.985 0 654,985 0 0 0 0 0 0 650,416 0 546,680 0 103,736 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 615,439 0 471,891 0 143,548 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 668,530 0 531,260 0 137,270 SUBTOTAL - (B) Special Purpose FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 25,152,767 11.9 1,062,339 19,682,339 0 4,408,089 36,106,594 12.5 6,536,821 24,567,804 0 5,001,969 158,597,527 14.5 0 98,135,775 60,000,000 461,752 5,363,423 14.7 0 4,794,467 0 568,956 (96.6%) 1.4% 0.0% (95.1%) (100.0%) 23.2% TOTAL - (6) Colorado Water Conservation Board FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 29,614,308 46.6 1,062,339 24,143,880 0 4,408,089 40,572,943 46.4 6,536,821 29,034,153 0 5,001,969 163,802,345 55.5 0 103,340,593 60,000,000 461,752 11,204,943 60.7 0 10,635,987 0 568,956 (93.2%) 9.4% 0.0% (89.7%) (100.0%) 23.2% A-20 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation (7) DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES (A) Division Operations Water Administration FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Well Inspection FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds Satellite Monitoring System FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 21,848,343 228.0 22,011,822 (83,378) (80,101) 0 297.720 3.0 0 297,720 0 0 424893 1.0 132,527 292,366 0 0 21,355,303 225.6 21,417,260 (61,957) 0 0 337.820 0.0 0 337,820 0 0 503,488 1.0 164,802 338,686 0 0 24,125,946 249.8 23,363,311 762,635 0 0 379.038 3.0 0 379,038 0 0 575,204 2.0 194,968 380,236 0 0 25,625,860 * 257.9 24,847,637 778,223 0 0 379.038 3.0 0 379,038 0 0 575,204 2.0 194,968 3 80,23 6 0 0 *Line item includes a decision item A-21 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Federal Grants FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds River Decision Support Systems FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 297,485 0.0 0 0 0 297,485 212,467 2.0 0 212,467 0 0 147,081 0.0 0 0 0 147,081 212,409 0.0 0 212,409 0 0 230,000 0.0 0 0 0 230,000 212,467 2.0 0 212,467 0 0 230,000 0.0 0 0 0 230,000 212,467 2.0 0 212,467 0 0 SUBTOTAL - (A) Division Operations FTE General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 23,080,908 234.0 22,144,349 719,175 (80,101) 297,485 22,556,101 226.6 21,582,062 826,958 0 147,081 25,522,655 256.8 23,558,279 1,734,376 0 230,000 27,022,569 264.9 25,042,605 1,749,964 0 230,000 5.9% 3.2% 6.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% (B) Special Purpose Dam Emergency Repair General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.000 0 50,000 0 0 50.000 0 50,000 0 0 A-22 NAT 1-b rf Appendix A: Numbers Pages FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 Request vs. Actual Actual Appropriation Request Appropriation Indirect Cost Assessment General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds CWCB Projects Bill General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 48,845 0 42,074 0 6,771 59,125 0 59,125 0 0 27,871 0 26,059 0 1,812 545,559 0 545,559 0 0 32,291 0 26,329 0 5,962 630,000 0 630,000 0 0 33,885 0 32,452 0 1,433 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL - (B) Special Purpose FTF General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 107,970 0.0 0 101,199 0 6,771 573,430 0.0 0 571,618 0 1,812 712,291 0.0 0 706,329 0 5,962 83,885 0.0 0 82,452 0 1,433 (88.2%) 0.0% 0.0% (88.3%) 0.0% (76.0%) TOTAL - (7) Division of Water Resources F1E General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 23,188,878 234.0 22,144,349 820,374 (80,101) 304,256 23,129,531 226.6 21,582,062 1,398,576 0 148,893 26,234,946 256.8 23,558,279 2,440,705 0 235,962 27,106,454 264.9 25,042,605 1,832,416 0 231,433 3.3% 3.2% 6.3% (24.9%) 0.0% (1.9%) TOTAL - Department of Natural Resources FTF General Fund Cash Funds Reappropriated Funds Federal Funds 282,759,122 1,235.9 33,235,731 207,799,160 6,675,982 35,048,249 321,892,608 1,232.6 41,225,189 234,543,011 7,035,522 39,088,886 467,330,123 1,302.0 38,689,351 338,595,852 67,659,875 22,385,045 360,279,023 1,361.6 42,227,434 287,416,928 7,984,115 22,650,546 (22.9%) 4.6% 9.1% (15.1%) (88.2%) 1.2% A-23 NAT 1-b rf APPENDIX B FOOTNOTES AND INFORMATION REQUESTS UPDATE ON LONG BILL FOOTNOTES The General Assembly includes footnotes in the annual Long Bill to: (a) set forth purposes, conditions, or limitations on an item of appropriation; (b) explain assumptions used in determining a specific amount of an appropriation; or (c) express legislative intent relating to any appropriation. Footnotes to the 2022 Long Bill (H.B. 22-1329) can be found at the end of each departmental section of the bill at http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1329. The Long Bill footnotes relevant to this document are listed below. 84 Department of Natural Resources, Executive Director's Office, Administration -- In addition to the transfer authority provided in Section 24-75-108, C.R.S., the Department may transfer up to 5.0 percent of the total appropriation between the line items for Personal Services and Operating Expenses. COMMENT: This footnote authorizes the Department to use appropriations from either EDO's Personal Services or Operating Expenses line item to cover over expenditures in the two line items. 88 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Parks and Wildlife Operations, Wildlife Operations -- It is the General Assembly's intent that $2,100,000 General Fund appropriated for this line item be used for the implementation of Proposition 114 for the reintroduction and management of gray wolves. COMMENT: This footnote provides legislative intent for the spending of General Fund related to the reintroduction and management of gray wolves in Colorado. 89 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife, Special Purpose, Off - highway Vehicle Direct Services - This appropriation remains available for expenditure until the completion of the project or the close of the 2024-25 state fiscal year, whichever comes first. COMMENT: This footnote authorizes three years of spending authority in order to allow the Division enough time to select grant recipients and to account for weather events that may extend the project completion time to more than a year. 90 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife, Special Purpose, Grants and Habitat Partnerships - This appropriation remains available for expenditure until the completion of the project or the close of the 2024-25 state fiscal year, whichever comes first. COMMENT: This footnote authorizes three years of spending authority in order to allow the Division enough time to select grant recipients and to account for weather events that may extend the project completion time to more than a year. 15 -Nov -2022 B- I NAT1-brf 91 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife, Special Purpose, Outdoor Equity Grant Program -- Of this appropriation, $551,808 remains available for expenditure until the close of the 2023-24 state fiscal year, and $750,000 remains available for expenditure until the close of the 2024-25 state fiscal year. COMMENT: This footnote authorizes three years of spending authority in order to allow the Division enough time to select grant recipients and to account for weather events that may extend the project completion time to more than a year. 92 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife, Special Purpose, Asset Maintenance and Repairs - This appropriation remains available for expenditure until the completion of the project or the close of the 2024-25 state fiscal year, whichever comes first. COMMENT: This footnote authorizes three years of spending authority in order to allow the Division enough time to select grant recipients and to account for weather events that may extend the project completion time to more than a year. UPDATE ON LONG BILL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION he Joint Budget Committee annually submits requests for information to executive departments and the judicial branch via letters to the Governor, the Chief Justice, and other elected officials. Each request is associated with one or more specific Long Bill line item(s), and the requests have been prioritized by the Joint Budget Committee as required by Section 2-3-203 (3), C.R.S. Copies of these letters are included as Appendix H of the FY 2022-23 Appropriations Report. The requests for information relevant to this document are listed below. All Departments -- The Departments are requested to provide by November 1 of each fiscal year responses to the following: Based on the Department's most recent available record, what is the FTE vacancy and turnover rate: (1) by department; (2) by division; (3) by program for programs with at least 20 FTE, and (4) by occupational class for classes that are located within a larger occupational group containing at least 20 FTE? ® To what does the Department attribute this turnover/vacancy experience? 0 Do the statewide compensation policies or practices administered by the Department of Personnel help or hinder the department in addressing vacancy or turnover issues? 0 How much in vacancy savings has the Department had in each of the past five fiscal years? How has the Department utilized these funds (i.e. increasing salaries within the salary range, providing bonuses or additional pay for certain positions, hiring additional staff, etc.)? Please provide a breakdown of the expenditures from vacancy savings, including the amount and purpose, for the past five fiscal years. 15 -Nov -2022 B-2 NAT1-brf All Departments -- The Departments are requested to provide by November 1 of each fiscal year data concerning utilization of the paid family and medical leave benefit established by the State Personnel Director, including: a. The number of employees utilizing the benefit each fiscal year and the total number of hours utilized by employees of the Department; b. The job classes of employees utilizing the benefit in each fiscal year; c. The number of temporary employees hired to fill essential positions vacated by employees on paid family and medical leave; and d. The total fiscal impact of the utilization of the paid family and medical leave benefit by the Department's employees, including but not limited to the cost salaries for and training of temporary employees. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1 Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Wildlife -- The Division of Parks and Wildlife is requested to provide the Joint Budget Committee with actual expenditures for the prior fiscal year and estimated expenditures and awards/distributions expected in the next budget year for informational -only sources included in the State Park Operations line item and the Wildlife Operations line item. The Division is also requested to include a technical adjustment in its annual November 1 budget request that represents its best estimate for informational -only expenditures in the State Park Operations line item and the Wildlife Operations line item. The report is requested to be submitted by November 1, 2022. COMMENT: The Department provided a response to all three requests for information, which are attached on the following pages. 15 -Nov -2022 B-3 NAT1-brf Department of Natural Resources FY 2022-23 Request for Information Requests Affecting Multiple Departments - RFI #1 All Departments — The Departments are requested to provide by November 1 of each fiscal year responses to the following: • Based on the Department's most recent available record, what is the FTE vacancy and turnover rate: (1) by department; (2) by division; (3) by program for programs with at least 20 FTE; and (4) by occupational class for classes that are located within a larger occupational group containing at least 20 FTE? • To what does the Department attribute this turnover/vacancy experience? • Do the statewide compensation policies or practices administered by the Department of Personnel help or hinder the department in addressing vacancy or turnover issues? • How much in vacancy savings has the Department had in each of the past five fiscal years? How has the Department utilized these funds (i.e. increasing salaries within the salary range, providing bonuses or additional pay for certain positions, hiring additional staff, etc.)? Please provide a breakdown of the expenditures from vacancy savings, including the amount and purpose, for the past five fiscal years. Response: According to the FY 2021-22 State Workforce Report published by the Department of Personnel and Administration (DPA), the Department of Natural Resources (the Department or DNR) had an 8.5 percent department -wide turnover rate, which is the second lowest of all state departments in FY 2021-22 and 12.9 percentage points lower than the statewide average turnover rate of 21.4 percent. Based on the annual burned FTE report provided by DPA, the Department's calculated vacancy rate was 6.0 percent in FY 2021-22. The following table (Table 1) shows vacancy and turnover rates by division: Table 1. FY 2021-22 Vacancy and Turnover Rates by Division Division Appropriation FY 2021-22 Burned DPA FTE Vacancies Vacancy Rate Separations Turnover Rate Executive Director's Office 63.7 57.4 6.3 9.9% 8 12.6% Reclamation Mining and Safety 64.8 51.2 13.6 21.0% 5 7.7% Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 147.8 126.3 21.5 14.5% 3 2.0% State Land Board 42.0 39.3 2.7 6.4% 8 19.0% Colorado Parks and Wildlife 917.4 902.3 15.1 1.6% 76 8.3% Colorado Water Conservation Board 49.7 46.4 3.3 6.6% 7 14.1% Division of Water Resources 254.0 231.6 22.4 8.8% 17 6.7% Department Total: 1,539.4 1,446.5 92.9 6.0% 124 8.5% DNR - FY23 Multiple Departments RFI #1 1 Consistent with past years, DNR's turnover/vacancy experience is largely attributable to the cumulative effect of normal staff turnover and personnel processes, e.g. short periods of time (1-3 months on average) when positions are unoccupied while the hiring process is taking place. There are also known factors that affect the calculated rates for some divisions, including: high employee tenure, prevalence of professional scientific job classes, and ongoing recovery from pandemic -driven fiscal conservation measures. DNR's turnover rates by occupational group with at least 20 FTE are shown in the following table (Table 2): Table 2. FY 2021-22 Turnover Rate by Occupational Group with > 20 FTE Job Class Class Code (FY Positions 2021-22) Separations Turnover Rate Accountant H8A* 26 1 3.8% Admin Assistant G3A* 81 18 22.2% Administrator H1 B* 42 4 9.5% Engr/Phys Sci Tech I5D* 138 7 5.1% Environ Protect Spec 13A* 76 3 3.9% Lif/Soc Sci Rsrch H6E* 27 1 3.7% Park Manager H6P* 116 12 10.3% Phy Sci Res/Scientist 13B* 129 9 7.0% Professional Engineer I2C* 100 5 5.0% Program Assistant H4R* 59 8 13.6% Program Management H1A* A* 34 1 2.9% Technician H4M* 213 19 8.9% Wildlife Manager H6U* 260 6 2.3% Vacancy savings is considered as the difference between the cost to fully fund all approved positions and what is spent for personal services because positions were not filled for the duration of the year. Vacancy savings are one-time in nature, and information regarding vacancy savings is not available on a systematic basis and cannot be quantified in available record as stipulated in the first bullet of this question. Bonuses or additional pay such as overtime are mechanisms that are often used to reallocate work on a temporary basis to existing staff. This information can be found in the annual burn report as well as the Schedule 14. Vacancy savings cannot be used to hire additional permanent staff, only temporary staff. This information can be found in the Schedule 14. DNR - FY23 Multiple Departments RFI #1 2 Please note that Article 10 of the partnership agreement also states that "The State is committed to filling positions quickly and, when it proceeds to fill a vacant covered position through a competitive process...will normally strive to post a position within 15 days of becoming vacant." Certain necessary exceptions exist for budget management, and vacancy savings are also a tool used by State agencies to manage cash flow deficits in cash and reappropriated funds or downturns in federal funding. While this is considered vacancy savings, use of this mechanism does not result in an expenditure that can be quantified within available record on a systematic basis. DNR - FY23 Multiple Departments RFI #1 3 Department of Natural Resources FY 2022-23 Request for Information Requests Affecting Multiple Departments - RFI #2 All Departments — The Departments are requested to provide by November 1 of each fiscal year data concerning utilization of the paid family and medical leave benefit established by the State Personnel Director, including: • The number of employees utilizing the benefit each fiscal year and the total number of hours utilized by employees of the Department [of Natural Resources (DNR)]; Response: According to data from DNR's timekeeping system (KRONOS) and the Colorado Personnel and Payroll System, 136 DNR employees utilized the Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) benefit in FY 2021-22, with a total of 9,191 hours used. • The job classes of employees utilizing the benefit in each fiscal year; Response: DNR employees in the following job classes utilized the PFML benefit in FY 2021-22. ADMINISTRATOR III AIRCRAFT PILOT ANALYST IV AUDITOR II BUDGET POLICY ANALYST III CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR IV CONTROLLER II CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR II DEPT LEGISLATIVE LIAISON ELECTRONICS SPEC IV ENGINEER -IN -TRAINING II ENGR/PHYS SCI ASST II ENGR/PHYS SCI ASST III ENGR/PHYS SCI TECH I ENGR/PHYS SCI TECH II ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC II ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC III ENVIRON PROTECT SPEC IV GRANTS SPECIALIST V HUMAN RESOURCES SPEC III HUMAN RESOURCES SPEC IV LIF/SOC SCI RSRCH/SCI IV LIF/SOC SCI RSRCH/SCI V MANAGEMENT OFFICE MANAGER I PARK MANAGER II PARK MANAGER III PARK MANAGER V PHY SCI RES/SCIENTIST I PHY SCI RES/SCIENTIST II PHY SCI RES/SCIENTIST III PHY SCI RES/SCIENTIST V PLANNING SPECIALIST III POLICY ADVISOR VI PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER II PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER III PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IV PROGRAM ASSISTANT I PROGRAM ASSISTANT II PROGRAM MANAGEMENT I PROGRAM MANAGEMENT II PROGRAM MANAGEMENT III REAL ESTATE SPEC IV REAL ESTATE SPEC V RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR I SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE TECHNICIAN III TECHNICIAN IV VETERINARIAN I WILDLIFE MANAGER II WILDLIFE MANAGER III WILDLIFE MANAGER V DNR - FY23 Multiple Departments RFI #2 1 • The number of temporary employees hired to fill essential positions vacated by employees on paid family and medical leave; and Response: DNR did not hire temporary employees to fill essential positions vacated by employees on paid family and medical leave in FY 2021-22. The Department is developing a plan to implement temporary staffing when employees in essential positions utilize PFML. • The total fiscal impact of the utilization of the paid family and medical leave benefit by the Department's employees, including but not limited to the cost salaries for and training of temporary employees. Response: During FY 2021-22, the Department's estimated cost for Paid Family Medical Leave was $324,935 in salary expenses. No additional costs for temporary staff were incurred. DNR - FY23 Multiple Departments RFI #2 2 Department of Natural Resources FY 2022-23 Request for Information RFI #1 Division of Parks and Wildlife - The Division of Parks and Wildlife is requested to provide the Joint Budget Committee with actual expenditures for the prior fiscal year and estimated expenditures and awards/distributions expected in the next budget year for informational -only sources included in the State Park Operations tine item and the Wildlife Operations tine item. The Division is also requested to include a technical adjustment in its annual November 1 budget request that represents its best estimate for informational -only expenditures in the State Park Operations line item and the Wildlife Operations tine item. The report is requested to be submitted by November 1, 2022. Response: The following tables (Table 1 and Table 2) show FY 2021-22 actual expenditures, and estimated expenditures and awards/distributions expected in the FY 2022-23 year for informational -only sources included in the State Park Operations tine item and the Wildlife Operations line item. Table 1. CPW State Park Operations Informational -only Expenditures and Estimated Awards Item GOCO Lottery Federal Funds FY 21-22 Actual Expenditure $7,472,537 $2,464,858 $34,130 FY 22-23 Estimated Award/Expenditure $9,100,000 $2,459,306 $444,806 FY 23-24 Estimated Award/Expenditure $9,100,000 $2,459,306 $444, 806 Table 2. CPW Wildlife Operations Informational -only Expenditures and Estimated Awards Item GOCO Federal Funds FY 21-22 Actual Expenditure $8,297,186 $241225,216 FY 22-23 Estimated Award/Expenditure $9,600,000 $30,0001000 FY 23-24 Estimated Award /Expenditure $9,600,000 $30,0001000 DNR included a technical adjustment in the annual November 1 budget request that represents the best estimate for informational -only expenditures (DNR - FY24 TA -30 CPW RFI Technical Adjustment). The following table (Table 3) shows the requested incremental adjustments for FY 2023-24: DNR - FY23 RFI #1 State Park and Wildlife Operations Line Items 1 Table 3. FY 2023-24 Technical Adjustment to State Park Operations and Wildlife Operations State Parks Operations Adjustments DNR FY24 TA -30 Parks - Great Outdoors Colorado $4,765,000 Parks - Lottery $0 Parks - Federal $0 Parks - Total $4,765,000 Wildlife Operations Adjustments Wildlife - Great Outdoors Colorado $3,400,000 Wildlife - Federal $10,825,317 Wildlife - Total $14,225,317 -30 CPW RFI Adjustment $18,990,317 TA Technical Total DNR - FY23 RFI #1 State Park and Wildlife Operations Line Items 2 APPENDIX C DEPARTMENT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 1 Pursuant to Section 2-7-205 (1)(a)(I), C.R.S., by November 1 of each year, the Office of State Planning and Budgeting is required to publish an Annual Performance Report for the previous fircalyear for the Department of Natural Resources. This report is to include a summary of the Department's performance plan and most recent performance evaluation for the designated fiscal year. In addition, pursuant to Section 2-7-204 (3)(a)(I), C.R.S., the Department of Natural Resources is required to develop a Performance Plan and submit the plan for the current fiscal year to the Joint Budget Committee and appropriate Joint Committee of Reference by July 1 of each year. For consideration by the Joint Budget Committee in prioritizing the Department's FY 2022-23 budget request, the FY 2021-22 Annual Performance Report and the FY 2022-23 Annual Performance Plan can be found at the following link: https: / /www.colorado.gov/pacific/p erformancemanagement/natural-resources 15 -Nov -2022 C-1 NAT1-brf Moye White April 28, 2023 Page 33 EXHIBIT P AFFIDAVIT OF KENNETH HARRING DocuSign Envelope ID: 2C144921 -6858 -4723 -905E -CI 87C592A998 April 28, 2023 AFFIDAVIT WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY USE The undersigned, being of lawful age, being first duly sworn , upon oath deposes and says: 1. I am the fee simple owner of the real property underlying USR 23-0005 ("Property") and the adjacent land ("Neighboring Property") as noted in that certain Quitclaim Deed, recorded at Reception No. 4878042. 2. I sold the water rights affiliated with the Property. 3. I or those working on my Property have regularly utilized the ditch crossing between Property and Neighboring Property since 1994. This use has been open, continuous, and uninterrupted for at least 18 years. r—DocuSigned by: 4QYULt44S &vvtvLcaa, `— D1AA53A1 EAAD4BB... Kenneth Harring 4895-4411-4528.1 PUBLIC LOGAf PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE:OCTOBER 19, 202' TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: LOGAN CC 315 MAIN STREET nen] irn-r nn.....1 • WHO AM i • • From Sterling, CO • Family has been in Colorado since at least 1861 • Mom's family were pioneers in Denver and Sedalia • Dad's family were pioneers in Stoneham and Niwot, then quickly found their way to Sterling. • Went to Sterling High School, NJC, and CU Boulder • Started my career at Wunder Capital, a solar financing company, where I spent years lending money to projects just like this one • In January of 2020, I left the finance industry to move home to Sterling and start Cloudbreak Energy Partners. • I have never lived more than a 90 -minute drive away from Eaton, and I have no plans to change that. I am typically in Colorado at least 50 weeks per year, and all the neighbors will have my personal cell phone number if issues arise. STERLING NORTHEASTERN JUNIOR COLLEGE Leeds School of Business UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER 000 WUNDER WHO IS CLOUDBREAK? • Our team is made up of farmers, ranchers, former bull riders, native Coloradans, and, of course, experienced solar professionals • Founded in Sterling • Offices in Sterling and Boulder • The entire Cloudbreak team lives in Colorado within a 90 minute drive of the project's location • One of the fastest growing energy companies in Colorado • More than 80% of our projects are located in Colorado • Projects range from 5 acres to 2,000 acres • The projects in Colorado that we are working on right now would generate enough electricity to power about 120,000 Colorado homes. According to the Census, there are 111,222 households in Weld County. • Have projects in process with Xcel, Black Hills Energy, Mountain Parks Electric, and the City of Ames (Iowa) • We will be the owners of the land underneath the solar project, so we'll be neighbors and part of this community for the foreseeable future • Air nMS Pr tiara% SS SFr Air OTHER PARTIES INVOLVED • TRC — Engineering and Consulting • Circuitus Energy Solutions — Construction and System Maintenance • SkyPilot Farm — Land Maintenance and Sheep Grazing •• •• A e. OS iike SO 00 se . 4 • • 0. 0 so •• a. 01 SHY`-PIIjk I T �ti FARM r, C RCU TUS energy solutions COMMUNITY BENEFITS As a local Colorado company, it is very important to us that this project provides significant benefits to the community. The Harring Solar Project will: CL U _ EI •K • • LOCAL IMPACT Utilize a Colorado -based construction team, bolstered with local labor, that will generate significant activity for local businesses during the construction of the system. Use a local shepherd for land maintenance. • Improve local pollinator habitat and diversity by including a pollinator - friendly native seed mixture on the property. • Purchase seed from Pawnee Buttes Seed • Process Sheep at Innovative Foods • Buy sheep feed from Weld County producers SCHOLARSHIPS • Provide a full -ride scholarship to a student at a local institution that is interested in pursuing a career in renewable energy. TAX INCOME • Generate significant property tax revenue for the county. The property tax generated by the solar project is estimated to be over $0.5 million over the life of the system. • Generate additional sales tax revenue during the construction of the system. CHEAPER ELECTRICITY • Save local Xcel Energy customers about 10% on their electricity bills through Xcel's Solar*Rewards Community Program. Our goal is to subscribe as many local Xcel customers as we can. We will need about 1,200 subscribers for this project. BASIC PROJECT INFORMATION • Property Ownership: The property is currently owned by Kenneth Harring, but the area where the solar project is located will be purchased by us prior to the commencement of construction. Timeline: • Construction: 4 -month construction period, anticipated to begin in Q3 2023 • Operations: 20+ years • Electricity Production: Will produce the equivalent of the annual electricity consumption of about 1,200 homes. According to the Census, there are 2,088 households in Eaton. • Electricity Savings: Folks that subscribe to the project through Xcel Energy's Solar*Rewards Community Program should expect to save 10% on their electricity bills. CLOUDBREAK BASIC PROJECT INFORMATION • Construction Hours: 7:00 am — 3:00 pm with some overtime, as needed, as late as 6:00 pm. M F and Saturdays as needed. • Workers: There will be about 25 workers on the property during construction hours. • Lighting: Temporary lighting may be used during construction if the team needs to continue working after sunset. No permanent lighting will be used during operation of the project. • Emissions/Odors: The solar array will not produce any emissions or odors. We will cover manure from the sheep in a future slide. • Lifespan: The system will be on the property for a minimum of 20 years based on our contracts with Xcel. • Recycling: Solar panels can be recycled. They are typically made of about 76% glass, 10% plastic, 8% aluminum, 5% silicon, and 1% other metals. The panels that we are planning to use contain no lead. CLOUDBREAK CHANGE IN SYSTEM FOOTPRINT • Based on feedback we received from the community, we have decided to significantly decrease the size of the Harring Solar Project. • The project will now have a footprint that is about 25% smaller. • It will cover about 21.5 acres rather than the originally planned 28.74 acres. • With this new footprint, our fence line will be within 500 feet of only four residences. • Of the four residences within 500 feet of the project's fence, two of them have signed letters of support. • The new layout can be seen on the following slides: CLOUDBREAK ORIG i NAL SYSTEM FOOTPR i NT =INT! !MD . 3iP RUN OrIYINMI T OP!!II MAO GRANITIC -1,3- 17 SOCK 3, P AOiE a s I'I �V,L�'r�LI C to twr II#y �. - I1!Qi A !DP it@ HE!PEJ! rt Cr Lot 0 kinitrnomP4CLJ3Y5453 LIN OMER LAD D '- c Lt CI PAL LINE LA C2 'OM Pearl IMitt? l.E7AlI tit mow s0 MT Carr AMMO MOW IAgr:L: V. Ara I :Oil IRAlO1Ed k_.1r I: t PC. 4 :11 it&1 F: WAARAMY WT CCh,+iC MC API aJ CdLTREEPIE YN S .!JI, RECORDED Ch L Vifil3CO5 lECEPTIONRPM 3L'J'2124 CPPI CC TEECI ADO. RAMS AND WM' L WEKO, OM I$12+7O AT Itifl L34300, OP IliNC r�[L,rtkP ai4DElIITFAL? 3LCLL'I{aJI�'�S�.IM��(L NO. I I" [34in L IIL Pzhce1^ta r 1E:PFt_rit RYE. caw rota S1 t Pht..'4 C. IkNt unAkPt. swi el -Err ON NO. Lcu inn u. ut 1'Mrzc Edit +ti VL Lim i! Lt PT LPPI I4D. witch Dritwoe RAMP AM ttM—y PIItr PtrrO4 PL .9lz,I�'Jwl. PiYMA LOi ar Ur. CPLE9- 4Z- az Al 3'083 e.,.n hN APittGkrLEll mJPtw-II'�'i!.4a ?JIY_PLNO. !MIDIS: A. 1 2 'ACC= JP5CYAtrif Act= LEr Aron MN Parr EP Ln E RL sa. DL.1-R.t-14 2 4 FIETILTHITI 1 I 11 Ci►iW Pit4b ANT& buttt Abe; RtQPt4Jh j J I fl7G', _9"rg Mitt YARLPSELE rid Li r F. YYP.stiMER L1h t RC}Y!1 RDRTm wk1Ca E]LIim RATER .11L i74c naPTION NCI. =Ca a 3.x. ACC= E142Pt ri Ant= LET t4.a.24 ircei Etrert Ei LET SRE PIE_ —IT -3 PPE I 4 j' MHO! stftt!Qt P°Rir'tNS.ure'IrecEr s14 NO... 241?T therm 12 r04 tAselhatis MCI LIME lib Sc4 LO Y L that 11 -YPlC I Pa. 1 A", OPIRPiILr I Li% t3 CAD ji I I k.4.YECCAT.�al010C iC NG tic 1tY tilt OJLYY'.l11 1 arts mCIAD teal PleLlx wAAMEIh WIDTH wAttR urn ka t NORTH MAUD COUN minx EISTetl Iortua !P' MC..SIMI IY?:JII1oti ri 6. a1Pf k4 4t'^tin'K3N PlLw. 4ciis it&, c*ww I!J 1 Lia, 6 UMW, P,2N FCI. artW.X2-a dat-i 1St I aIPVEVEDI ! IRro1 IQ- t. C:-. n.LYTJIT �1 ri'1 Mitat Pa runic wM. Li�tPa DIt4 -i i I;Air P *DAD EX* ILO rT1a4Lb IOU MAP"' MILAN L.LALL I ILJit+'I AN' tlEFCA Eel.; P. PANCP. u 7F a.1 ini7' i } f 1YieI{Rle4PPri r' } TCDOLU SL GrAl LoA�'. A' ME 142 Mb CifFY &X 1 " r' } 3CL.i11k I Pink, ILPJM bat III I I I • I • I I I me - I I • I • . I • I • I • IIYkM U ikAttifiA O i ,tbsaidIlitifalakly I�V�JtL" Nt). nit lama . EL,nIs1 _ !US lPci.lbti Pt rt. CVlr3it ablict jL.CICallet kW& tfi EMUS MIJ MOM Pt ,nliksilmobbet P#CI lucT 43 EICCL7LE'1T rLIMD imr 743 a green%'W445 orriumtt mom TYif TAK AMMO'S 'Man F Mi61A misrrt CIGL 5 WAILRAWri CC TO TkAre NANA R6 CCiiDCn ct irTheants Aar iravTi i w:. WAR EMPTY D D r3 MI Somata Al RLMOP= +}IY 3 J.? AT Fita!FTICid Pia. a I 1 i PPJI&EhYIL NWEISPITATIhi on= . lIPAIMrwl 4/abPS31a AT marnE44. Pitt LP. Malt C DUN L 47i+ILPJfi1; a R wl�z I I— loiLiC WAG MN! t!J COMMmimrpr uL IIINKLAIJh luau Ira ex pram r aka • 1.II I • I • • I I • I • I I I I oI I. • I • I I • • I, • • S1LI. PC L Mcl JQt3TD I L'i, NCI UJICI LIZ MtL.'.L ria. uriuncirOdt t15Ic Lint gaol ow ix Ca WEE rrwilPt P1LnraTgli @.JTDI °lit LA .34 OA i iter riEU'T PIPELINE RICE- TtaI I4CL '�iarT. COMIC MET, C OSS IM'alt 1. - . -'I . t4MA1LJLE A. Ju] 41S`r€8. ti]P kw DC " PJiL! Lu comfit! T1 IAIGA r CPh 51' SLIChJ ie CLOUDBREAK NEW SYSTEM FOOTPR i NT =unify ROAD 2to m Itrk *Mom I J"a?Di ROAM {iC IUD 3.cr LTLJ'TY manger' AcodtG' L•Lat a FOR tire. IlatiFir CV LOT L1 earl -I'M ma 33540 r Iii ER-wthHtaJ • tLEac L lt. _ kripu J L HIM let' ELL kta corm a.#T+a17l=+ ,-tc ALl PRAP illlrr'm' fCE4 m ISR1` L. MOO Mt CI_ITICZME M. WORM. Pr{DU:CD Cot L Omni 14T r MITT Ch NO. 11.1a= DPI ova a• TO at A- ILL . , k43 MAINLIURKLIS, RI mrsre }II !IjI,I`1>I'7a AT ISCOMON FIi . L541all UAW= L} n' NMbarYZRLT 31.m M a r• ikkILLLL +4u. LIY 2l2J1XILI L FLrmt A- Man Ittaprckiirh Atialaze, tablet aT eFl*L SI L AJ1Li Li hla4'fd. •i'r Rffljtt rJu, 1tC.% n].aag cir' 4WD 1 'I' LE it OAPc�LJL'M*.�.t 8 Inett I I tiom id* 'turn) I I onotriti 1.til IkkCERT1011+11 }. Sidi DAMP& RAN 121 A 'MAC out r Pea +?ION f L€ • Uri Al. UM. WM31'.7 writ 4L`-. NI axon SOAP) a GUNN ti.CiYU2. ill Yd ..A.�., fl otters trattoria btrU1r13=IRE NC. --.1% rED-32 J— Ltat4 Linn- I I I LAICd,NCi f4Pt MEDIC litL krllu*PtZL X587 Lw3.^, cl!ILw'LC 14LixsS'1 it LIZEWIthrl F WiRIY UNE MI lei 3 DUN E twai l 0=6.r fr.174 . 215SFil!, ?_MA C C. a' IiATUR'L CM 11911.L1 NI kAMMErr P]13 P11174 IND. 30149M 01'! MI t�_ r wane WI Er to I A TI N LINI PXJW COMM Yaw bairn —.0 Wait! n cr iFtaPT10ll mei =NMI Mt-1i1t i4 Kw ur.m_r'1r ti Lt in Na aSfl-2 RI 1624 W EITHER MI Of Safe, Mt II*MIME,h !4C' 241.1Per DATED la -MAMA I I EE Air#LYit C.J$Ci.F C DI i-. a c44D PJMI FIRE I 1 1 versa ri %atm Lit era' ram wenn 13'iLJ trf cnia DISTIC Moron,' NO. ZEMZ5 2 J. Ex it Os'r turn i rant awl 31M ii I A. a a'.]5i + Cob Mastro L wham Comer niou 1 Itat tr, ItYL M" PTaIt!C. Ot 12-ateflit-i.us 02.-PY'R'Y1?La Ra fttj i11M A13.fai ie Oat culler& LB'under! NMI runt wGfl film, birth *tin —r' uk NO. 4P315 tat 1 !LAD LL.ASIt EDLIKELOPI tic (D it I NINA 'oh 6 y� 5`RL'CI IIHL Iii JiPJO31HEiii{}.A elk Pa al. Ll�sl illill WJNiL4MTY Oa TO COUGLI r L I KR:4INDIN owl S IC IIFJ #tc y, UMW ON DMILS4I5 AT FO21913 II I. . 3ti it 14WW X I EMI • N _a SStJLWA aka ROAN DART iH • • • • • • • • • • • • • tr a RYAN CIALLAiIHARO twiJJIAN r crLcJc'- wF14JANN roli1 FIi➢t CAEStwm f�aJ17EL .'Iicl e•r• I YEN -Nu vest r6g j moan,. t FKJ. L9MS32 ? • • • *rWLLe3 PAUMunI Ma r,FJ, akraiSie i KID WISTIi1G flier P3U1fl 1 FWI MflDM MIOulat WAS LI ICI FrIi11w ED MORI TN r Tal{ I -darlaSaiti Mr FOR IC Lir COLDL DO M1rakFFJYFdT'� CaliTLI "Pie NAP %C.• RECORDED ON O7AZI,O01U AT Minim FIG. x+473 rT1i 13RRWCC WAR JVtt LlEfl1 Ffh lCrrr. I j,.JA., Rr =CC ON 3.1412OOCIL7 AT MaTTON IC. a!e2 -- 1 PiZRSO NAL PSPMagi ATMS .1I I r • • LI • CEO TO FARM FIN APAMAINTS, LLC 1111:04131D L�Fi Lk MOIL '1rr�LML 4.1= laR1;e=iPT1{ tt Pi 1l:'i+4137T. cpriyja PWI: MVO ri Pi tY =malt r Ifl'UGAIAION P�=JtIFC: • a- • Li 14` ='MR OJLALI4i 24I`CMP MC'JL4fli set CiJLAM • • • • • • • AY1IStR Lfl4L FL uvizzioc L' co rti CtILCJ LI.C FtilAit Ff1. untaabtroot Nan I *SF liOJRCAAu4T Ex 42SWIZI Work Altra411m r i ITi ai mei i�- Li! Ll'_ J+I • 1-bol I. IllaXL Anti NE 3-Vi1tP r1 LIMKrict RECernono. salami IC'' moitt 1.F:P DiCL. L iaMC}F" Ea.A.3 LomitaVie JA6Yali Li. Axt J LiLlt aL aseti Ca IMF 3113 4205, . JP *MCC I 'I. I ibt CDP40111 INxi rrm 17 7 s • 4a• 'Ta�� . !O�' . 4 iii • ��s•.:r - �!r•�. • -' ,"-•,• . J . "Petra' T •♦� .max � p�R•L Yom• i •• r Sr a" • i • a • rr • • r ti V •ifi•i .i � z . s.•f 7A— •i;s•% Y r *.••••-•°- _ 3 •! ♦ t -f- S. Y •iC - '.�./ "t O.•_ wl _ _ G• • a +J • • a •�f • < . .�[•• • Y.. 0••••it .2LJaillikrfr••r• - _ • E- .. :I •e cr �'' / .rr W..si♦ • 4 -� 1�t- . r. L .... ♦ 4t A�Y•!i•I\w -1 ` r •. �'- rw �-! s i r i j r .� a w' ; y ! � f • • a •ate '� a ••� a. a . r . 1 r c• T •�•I . • ! �w •� } iyY �• ♦ S Saar - _ • arm/ 4`.'t •.-_.• , ♦ • i • *Is • a a. • AI -e aJ {. a.► •_e•.fa"- ��. y. •• ''r z• as -L :: i / � •I i V• r G' l r /l� _ _ a _ •_ -_.! . • -C• it4144. • le "_- •. •r naT� 1 fi.V - to _I `!'-•. • ♦ . • _L .••••- 1 •-- i ~yam to '7Iti� - •r 1 aci.1» mare is • f ! ! s r _•-. •r• ea. ts+ 41 s I _ • Aire —t• a ala 1 cif ' •S•• • a r•1-�pr�ly�a 'r` .� _ • a."6' -g; _ f•• .tri J-[ .•e't r ]i 3. ` ry f T -r - as le • • Sr r •t a �' ✓ (•'f 1 rM • +3 1 •• r 4••.‘• w _ • 1��y��....�SS • s t • s a - — .• - _i v ,"7-7alt �1S' r -' e • - 4 i !A ST l-! _y� vp ~i a`Ii • I •� R r R • _ _ a' Of •. R r _ • f - • _ _ � 114,....6_ JirA -.; -y[� V► ,a• ! F_ J•a i..., -• r� I. w .• _..�1 a e .y ' i'-CTs s •at _ __4 r '' - : _a_ ` �• •L i '• „ a l-i_•wl'r�' .--. a`•� • a w .9�..)r• r •� 1 ' < Y_ _ w - r'€ - w ._e.-. - "4;7 •••• -'t ik -.a ....--0....,TC ii(�� i.- _ya •, _ S' _ .J'' c• � Ca.. a"iyiI• • w' - _ _ _ - M . A __ r •S(♦iI i/ _ Se�� i _ ear- de _ S i _L�iw••-L• \ I ^-�''+ a 1 • • • :ay- . . _ i E :A _ ' • as m .r • or..F_'1!_'.?�•ays�` .::•- L = _ ,T..(' �j "� - . Cdr Wit.: - �f -i•ir ••••••-•- ♦ ra► �+I • f f�• • 1 �_. r•! L�, .. i-♦sJ♦�76 Y.�.. / ,r L11 mil'_ _-i. •SJ _. Y' salt •• Jf r . • • w't -...f - i - ' - - Z• •. r v � w a 'l • -Gj�'a` •Jr • ,•�f • t • _r vim s. 4_ - • 1. • -•.f-• "a • -• iI la I110 1 fi if -at Z•i- •%;041.'tr <. 1'r•.�J •y- I. ♦fa*'I ."-`r �'r;_v- 's a !:iTK«,�_<• _ Lr •r{�.ar• •i1' 1!� ♦ e` ^J•�". IS '• �. i) 1 _ra'�IItISt _ - Y_ '- 4- -fi - •a ~ v _ v �} • w w • • • i♦ • • •Jr- • !. • • •- M •I': •.i•• -•rl i - �• _ • 1-: • •I ♦ a•16 -- .a -sr:: - - fr• w 4 _ _ Ital. • • Z� 1 • ; a". vim- - _ r • ` s1; �• •gi'••i - F. / r- --• i fY 9- a• _• -. - _ r _ n / ( i � Y Yom• L •• l f F •� Z - _ .a+. _jar L __ - s••ri •a a '•v� =q7 _ is )• cv 1 a...• - .i : Sri •I n~ -n r ^•_ r•1• �/'J .r _ :• �� J f i4" _ - y L s e p ti p - I -at as. aC' a a:4•Z t'1' - _, • - ►-'�.YLifi.a .� _ __ .a_ T' G ` a , .� G--•!_ R.•i� + G••' 1i_ ♦ • •••••!, •-< • •i r �i 1(t~ I.i �. �.• • .abIFY/`' 'V _ .•Y� mod' Y_{.. Y. • .!•- a- i a•d r • t .7". a • I _ $ i - . li H •_ _ • t 4 ] �i� _Yb -1 .r1 '. T";' a :.s 'yip >�1 fir t•�Si J'-sE _ •s' - t .f• 's rs r" * • _ . •e- . - ._•. Lam 1- •_ !1 • • �-•tS'-I<I ant !•mil - 5, dr i •. ri •• /. • - ♦!' •�'. i •'' r • i . .`r I y' •';e!'"lr•• 1R • i • - 1 i • rt. C. aa t� • •- mkt �_ } . •^ic - •• • LS\.•• _ a .- i • L,i. =fi -• .Y` t•: _ •r-^' 7 �� 1 T� a ae a• a•f, _ -1.141.74..r- •1• .• ••I/ 11- • 4V L• f. Tll •:••. _ r�-a•1 r_ - •4a -[1• _ '1a n w • -i•. •!. ,T_'xL�� • - .� '-> • 4 i - i .•_•-ff ice.-..•i -_ ♦•l ��Ll ff x _ r • 6 -a' -a •s t iy.Ir ••••••• ••••• J -�- i _r'. / 1 _ �' •�_ • r Y • • • -R E.. r - •. ♦ d- -a y�_fY-�_ -•1 - .I• . •_a• r �• s••.1• ♦ 1 rI_I _• •• YL • -1' l• air• • K"a _ r. • •. • �r •i a. .A ♦ _r ••�u G a s _ - •- •�A�� r J.. P• " ♦ .i Y- • At 11 •' •Iiia M1 1 L N' a J -f • • Y.•L • c "' -•Sida` • ` + ♦ • • 11 Y `. r • l a • _ • r • :1 =•V •' ' 1 'Iy •`-- iI '• �J� • • rm •d-aSii- ` + .. a. • • . 1-f a-1/4te•1 i, -3' a •%i S1••ti_� • a < • f s _ ' �'` w 4l. • r 16- • ' ••� ••,fir .7•.Y -1 - •• ♦i - • • • eree /i a re are a a !- Oak. 46.- ! • f • a •• �'1v f(•_ T/-•{.�•. . L _ .•_lam •-• • Ina • f •aay- y+II + I ar t.sai1/4 es "a- et ` _ _ CIE J. _ '� a r . •„• • • '. - a - e : -••• \ T -f • - . - }` - • AIL r • ir•• a i -"/any a- �.� •� . •g �• - _ • i� � y ar . • • !• -d ,a r i SyI - _ • _a ••• • I g, •� . J 7• • - YL •�. • • - •. •yam ♦. • • • • •. • 1 i J 4e«.,fly,•. -". +s.-• • -•te • a _• _ a rs - J i• -1 ' /i rF .S. .� -f 1•a • _�• �.-rr)•� • fT"�- A) - •+• r .�_ - t-•i. -• r.• �1• 'F "• Via- • :�.r j } s .,y/1 nT♦�f��j �.,�•-y7 •a--• • - a •t .i r-ii_a ••�-_• •�1 a r Tl _ - •1 • V __1 - . • `-�lr� _ • • _ 11 _ _4i� _ • r- '�-iI •. > •�• it • • •u° t • i •_ . - tf~�-�•rl' � a_ 4' -r• Li .'T.• . =7- • .•t • • - xi• •. . �` • r r- • f FA �•-• . - •a YYYss•� .r if %i • "C-9:j 'f a�14 •` _a _� •• .t- Lam• yp a•••�i ._.L�J..i YLb_•�•j- •. 1� ^ Jb "tl. _ 't - ' S NY./ -�•. `1- "11..!••••• `(�.� ;v �.-•••••„.4 •': a • If-�._� • '' • _• :-_, r...♦y s,4 . .. --L- •_ - • _ _3 S. '{ _ _ T`i"t .� 11, L :••:_• r!fi� ,♦ - . _ - • J'. F-ra•�' . s..• .�1► - _ spa f� f1 • -•• t • ..i c� t_J' • e. - r _ • ; elA ti� .�' • •! w �i • a• T • CyL_ - �- 4ilww. _ •. w•i' _ • _ _ •:i' • ..Ff .._i s' •+ a-'� f�l'� v)� ♦ 7.-. .air. �� s]l �i7G1 •lF. •�s %•. •- d•a IT. ••fi • - a _ �l V ' • "• Y -n - f\ 1i • �•, sS." '4 - •�. �•• .• i �-�•y� \•1•A - _ �` •V • r —J y •ti_ •T- ">i• i \ -e at • • _ j. •• _ Ln •.• : _ lr• -♦•.- 'J�\• l f' ••_ LS.1• -i' , r i� .Zy•e �.'�•�—J r, - •�• _ • _�. ^• • • ' w • - •s _Arla- Shr • ♦ � li�S•.� • - '__ . _ _ _ �.•!�• >2- '__ • __r4 _ - to - �r. _ _ `- -z_. ' ':to7a` � �• LOCATION ANALYSIS Why did we choose this location? • • • • • • • • Proximity to high quality Xcel Energy distribution infrastructure that has the capacity for a project of this size Proximity to Xcel Energy's substation Outside of floodplains and wetlands Relatively flat No geotechnical constraints Landowner enthusiasm Economic viability of the land Avoids critical habitats with minimal to no impact on surrounding wildlife CLOUDBREAK We d County Code Requirements "The Board of County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing to consider the application and to take final action thereon. In making a decision on the proposed Use by Special Review, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and from the facts presented at the public hearing and the information contained in the official record which includes the Department of Planning Services case file, the Board of County Commissioners shall approve the request for the Special Review Permit only if it finds that the applicant has met the standards or conditions of this Subsection B and Sections 23-2-240 and 23-2-250 of this Division. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that the standards and conditions of this Subsection B and Sections 23-2-240 and 23-2-250 of this Division are met." Weld County Code Section 23-2-40 I We d County Code Requirements — 23-2-230 B Requiremen. Planning Staff Analysis • lanning Commission Analysis "That the proposal is consistent with in Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provisions or these requirements, noting ordinances in effect." 23-2-23.B.1 Staff found the Solar Energy Facility (SEF) meets "The proposal meets the intent of A (Agricultural Zone District), including the Principles, Goals and Objectives as outlined in Chapter 22 and permitted under Chapter 23 as the facility will produce energy harvested from the sun and will not interfere with adjacent agricultural operations." Planning Commission found the Solar Energy Facility meets these requirements, noting "Once operational, the proposed SEF makes no noise, odor, light or flickering, vibration, vermin, dust, or other nuisances. The operation of the SEF is almost entirely unnoticeable to neighboring properties and it will not impact surround property's right to quiet enjoyment." "That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the USE is located." 23-2- 23.B.2 "That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES." 23-2-23.B.3 Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. The Planning Commission noted an inconsistency, "[i]ssues raised addressed the use of the land for a solar farm and not an agricultural farm, when there is water for this property from the For Far Lateral." Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. The Planning Commission noted an inconsistency, noting neighbor testimony related to noise from inverters, impact on site drainage patterns, environmental degradation from leaching, and wildlife impacts "That the USES which would be permitted will be Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. compatible with the future DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with future DEVELOPMENT as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities." 23-2-23.6.4 "That the application complies with Articles V and Staff found the SEF meets this requirement XI of this Chapter if the proposal is located within any OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT or a SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA identified by maps officially adopted by the County." 23-2-23.6.5 Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement. Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement. "That if the USE is proposed to be located in the A Staff found the SEF meets this requirement (Agricultural) Zone District, the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve PRIME FARMLAND in the locational decision for the proposed USE." "That there is adequate provision for the Staff found the SEF meets this requirement protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY." Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement, specifically stating, "the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use." Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement. i i CLOUDBREikk We d County Code Requirements - Other Planning Staff Analysis 7 Planning Commission Analysis ii Meet the requirements of 23-4-1030 Meet the Design Standards, 23-2-240 Meet the Operations Standards, 23-2-250 Staff found the SEF meets these requirements. Planning Commission found the SEF meets these requirements. Staff found the SEF meets these requirements. Planning Commission found the SEF meets these requirements. Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. Planning Commission found the SEF meets these requirements. I i Addressin g ii Planning Reso ution Concerns — B.2 Requirement: "That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the USE is located." 23-2-23. B.2 Planning Commission Analysis: The Planning Commission noted an inconsistency, "[i]ssues raised addressed the use of the land for a solar farm and not an agricultural farm, when there is water for this property from the For Far Lateral." "Ca kze 41 . •... IPr.• ... �^ • ' t'rl k' WATE R • Carrying Rights: The property that we are purchasing from Mr. Harring has two shares of The For Far Lateral Company, but no water rights. The For Far Lateral Company owns the ditch and the easements associated with the ditch, but shares of The For Far Lateral Company do not include water. Water must be owned or leased separately from Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies. This property does not have water. • Well: A well for this property was recently approved by the State of Colorado • Well will be drilled prior to the completion of the solar project. • Can be used for livestock and 1 acre of landscaping • Water will be used to water the trees around the perimeter of the fence and will be used as drinking water for the sheep. • Water Trucks and/or Trailer: Water from other sources will be used to establish the pasture and mitigate dust during construction • Email from Larimer & Weld Irrigation Companies: Hi Bobby... Just to confirm our conversation, the 2 shares of For Far Lateral are running rights only. Thanks - Becky Wiedeman n Larimer St WeldIrrigation Companies 106 Elm Avenue • Eaton, CO80615 970.454.3377 (office) • 970.454.0154 (fax) Addressing Planning Resolution Concerns — B.2 Li Water CL BREA I i We d County Code Requirements - 23-2-230 B Requirement ■ Planning Staff Analysis ■ Planning Commission Analysis 7 "That the proposal is consistent with in Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect." 23-2-23.B.1 "That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the USE is located." 23-2- 23.B.2 Staff found the Solar Energy Facility (SEF) meets these requirements, noting "The proposal meets the intent of A (Agricultural Zone District), including the Principles, Goals and Objectives as outlined in Chapter 22 and permitted under Chapter 23 as the facility will produce energy harvested from the sun and will not interfere with adjacent agricultural operations." Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. Planning Commission found the Solar Energy Facility meets these requirements, noting "Once operational, the proposed SEF makes no noise, odor, light or flickering, vibration, vermin, dust, or other nuisances. The operation of the SEF is almost entirely unnoticeable to neighboring properties and it will not impact surround property's right to quiet enjoyment." The Planning Commission noted an inconsistency, "[i]ssues raised addressed the use of the land for a solar farm and not an agricultural farm, when there is water for this property from the For Far Lateral." "That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES." 23-2-23.B.3 "That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the future DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with future DEVELOPMENT as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities." 23-2-23.B.4 Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. The Planning Commission noted an inconsistency, noting neighbor testimony related to noise from inverters, impact on site drainage patterns, environmental degradation from leaching, and wildlife impacts Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement. "That the application complies with Articles V and Staff found the SEF meets this requirement XI of this Chapter if the proposal is located within any OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT or a SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA identified by maps officially adopted by the County." 23-2-23.B.5 Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement. "That if the USE is proposed to be located in the A Staff found the SEF meets this requirement (Agricultural) Zone District, the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve PRIME FARMLAND in the locational decision for the proposed USE." "That there is adequate provision for the Staff found the SEF meets this requirement protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY." Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement, specifically stating, "the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use." Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement. Addressing Planning Resolution Concerns — B.3 Requirement: "That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES." 23 2 23.B.3 Planning Commission Analysis: The Planning Commission noted an inconsistency, noting neighbor testimony related to noise from inverters, impact on site drainage patterns, environmental degradation from leaching, and wildlife impacts. CLOUDBREAK Addressin g Planning Reso I U tion Concerns — B.3 Noise Drainage Environmental Degradation Wildlife CLOUDBREAK NOISE • Noise: Each inverter produces a maximum of 65 decibels (dB) from 1 meter (3.28 feet) away according to the manufacturer. The inverters will be grouped together in two locations near the center of the project. One group will contain 18 inverters and one group will contain 19 inverters. For simplicity's sake, we assumed each group contained 19 inverters. A group of 19 inverters, each producing 65 dB from 1 meter away, will create a noise level of 77.8 dB from 1 meter away. • Noise Study: To ensure we are complying with the Weld County Noise Ordinance, we had TRC perform a study of the noise, which was submitted as part of our USR application. Based on the study, "... it is expected that the noise levels from Project facilities will meet the Weld County Noise Ordinance and state statute requirements. " • Noise Analysis: Additionally, to further ensure we aren't impacting the neighboring properties with noise, we analyzed current ambient noise levels at various nearby locations and compared those noise levels with what the noise levels will be after the solar project is operational. The largest increase in noise to the neighboring properties was 1 dB. According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, studies have shown that changes in noise levels of 3 dB or less are not normally detectable by the average human ear. So, a 1 dB increase should not be noticeable. See the Noise Exhibit on the next page: NOISE EXH i BIT POINT # NOISE: 4DECIBELS A) 40' 32' 1.93"N 104` 41' 42129"W - Pq PEaaIPMfN1rPa:' • NNETIIL.H#RIIMG RECEPTION NO.41616&1,CPR4MICCIt b LOT6,fWIEN NO. 0705-32- .4,163 OUR !EVE P#RCfLI 10.20NCIES+it POINT #4 NOISE: 39,6 DECIBELS (A) 40U 32' 5.16"N 104' 41' 22.59' *According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, studies have shown that changes in noise levels of 3 dB or less are not normally detectable by the average human ear. So, a 1.0 dB or a 0.1 dB increase should not be noticeable. 55 dB Weld County Maximum Allowable Noise for Residential Properties from 7am to 9pm. These are the only hours the solar project will be generating noise. 50 dB Weld County Maximum Allowable Noise for Residential Properties from 9pm to 7am Point #4 Noise The ambient noise is 39.6 dB. Adding the noise from the solar project raises the dB level to 40.6 dB, an increase of 1.0 dB* Point #6 Noise The ambient noise is 49.0 dB. Adding the noise from the solar project raises the dB level to 49.1 dB, an increase of 0.1 dB* CL RE ' ELEC R MAGNE IC INTERFERENCE • According to the U.S. Department of the Navy: • "The only component of a PV array that may be capable of emitting EMI is the inverter. Inverters, however, produce extremely low frequency EMI similar to electrical appliances and at a distance of 150 feet from the inverters the EM field is at or below background levels." • All residences are located further than 150 feet away from the inverters. CLOUDBREAK Addressin g Planning Reso I U tion Concerns — B.3 Li Noise ■ Drainage ■ Environmental Leaching ■ Wildlife CLOUDBREAK DRAINAGE • TRC completed a drainage study in accordance with requirements from the Weld County Engineering and Construction Criteria Manual, updated January 2021. • According to the drainage study: • "The existing stormwater flow characteristics are expected to remain unchanged and increases in peak flow rates have been proven to be negligible. A basin type of stormwater detention would not be necessary. Improvements proposed with the project site are limited to a gravel paved drive and a small concrete distribution transformer pad. No public access or utility infrastructure improvements are anticipated at this time. The proposed development will not alter historic drainage patterns of adjacent and downstream property owners. " ranage Exhibit - Page 1 i i r I ii �� T L r . i.._..i._. i .• i!!i Y! Pra-devclrrpment Runoff Calculation Parameters W itht Runoff Caafficiant, C Rainfall Intensity',. gin/hill Atai a Itnnt Arra, A lac} A 6.84 DAR 6.17 2 2617 0.30 5 47 L I' ides \ a•YIM Y ini ai. Nfiai..J u L.. iqi.. SY, ioaa• a €}t ROAD ..` i { r a Oi..-....ii S. fir. .. Rl EX ROAD Soil Information Table Niap Unit 511Mbol Man Unit Name Deecrl Lion Hydriclaiical Suit Gru Up Area In Lease enundrry IlAt.j 32 Kim Loam Ito 3 percent slope A 12.7 33 Kim Loam 3 to 5 =ercent slope A 0.6 64 Thecialusn Loam Ito 3 percent slope C 1i 7 65 Thedalum Learn 3 to 5 percent slope C 3.3 } WELD COUI TY ROAD 7 • ..-r I EX SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY LEGEND DRAINAGE AREA FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE POI NT 80 40 0 80 160 SC411r - 1'. - d30' Drainage Exhibit - Page 2 Pm -development Runoff CuIculution Parameter; Prainagp Arena Aroma A lricj WsiLht RunettCostrkdsnt, E Rainfall hntansity, I(rhjhr) 4 6.89 0.49 5.17 B 2rS 17 0.3t} 5 47 D P EX SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY — —1f •R e••••e \etm•• •it• u`u-e LAMER ea •aae e• a fl a P••s el •••••• am..„ •e e_ee Yl••i••S=R••'a, i 64 I! NNN Sail Information Table Map Unit Symbol Map Urtlt Num* peecNgtlan Wydrelogka1 Ssil, Gaup Ara ;in .rate W ier lda He I Ae.M 32 Kim Laam 1 to 3 percent slope A 18.7 33 Kim Loam 3 to 5 I to 3 pettent percent slue A 0.6 St ThecalumLoarn slope Z 117 65 1 Thedalum Loam _ 3 to 5 percent slope r 3.3 D P B EX SOLAR LEASE BOUNDARY 76. LEGEND DRAINAGE AREA FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE POINT 80 40 0 80 160 SCALE . 1" - 60' Drainage Exhibit - Page 3 • 7 etil1T.R.......c. one% r'4l T4^YgYcx5Rrn..4xxl 9Yxxgax! U W3 J•nY4xx r`,14.1, ,,viva!{ Dr'ainett Area Aree,A CacM Weir Runoff Coefficient, C italnfaitl Intensity, i(I hrJ Ni Added impeMnns Area 6419 0.53 6.17 4.64 26..17 0 5.47 0.26 A nxi Pf1HIOVAIOPrnett Punk Fin* Rabe Ws. .b. N 20.95 43.38 N +1—.amIi-s •axi HeLi 'sliLT Yatlailitea11-frwming..illl� � . �s� Min." PROP 15' ACCESS ROAD PTini•dptlrioprnrnt Peak Flaw Rate iris) 77-7 r 4 5, 65 PROP PRRIGATION CROSSING WILL BE COORDINATED WITH EATON DITCH COMPANY DIFFERENCE ECF5) 3.74 2.27 R r Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Description lf1droToslcal SoIJ Gra up Ares in Lease Boundary dAM.i 32 Kim I.uiRrn I. to 3 percent slope 4 1R 7 33 Kw' t kiwi.' 310 5 ptrtent slope 7 f col 1110O4lurn I rape Ito 3 percent slope C i i 7 3 to 5 percent slope C 3.3 ES lbedalum Loam } r • } PROP PONT OF INTERCONNECTION r UTILITY PROTECTION POLE UTILITY METERING POLE eT '< CUSTONIERM - RECLCGER POLE - ;�ty� CIJSTUMER METERING POLE CUSTOMER GOAB POLE 1 x n n n n n n PROP GRASS SWALE A ROP UMD€RGROU'NQ) ELECTRIC LIN % LEGEND PROP FENCE DRAINAGE AREA FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE POINT 80 40 HO IOC SCALE : 1" = 60" Dra nage Exhibit - Page 4 • i i Onlnegs Arse A Pre -development Pee Flow Malt U c IC 20 45 S0Q_YearR rraffCaksu It Cali -vial on Res 1 Poet development Peak Flow Rats (cfOM DIFFERENCE KEEN 43.38 45.65 2.27 post-dewrloranontRunoff calculation Parameters. Drainage Area Area,A (ark Weight Runoff Coefficient, c Ftalnfali Intensity, r[In/hr) 7G A dried impeMosn Area I LI 25,1 0.32 5.47 0 lb i #rile�y;#. Proposed Grass Swale • Ps- iFiii�!•�!n. .oaf\ate#Y4Was mi T,Etl..0.a—#4 .a�a as_li— ii—Kieia.•�Y Ii X • I. o n n n n n n n Hig, PROP 15'IyV AeCCESS RO e I I r.� EMI L LJ LJ LJ'�yt_ PROP EQUIPMENTPADS Soil Inhrnnaliwn Table Map Unit Symbol l Map UnLt Name Description llyd rologita I soil GM up Area in Leese Boundary 4At.p 32 Kim Loam I l0 3 percent slope A is 33 Kim Lour[ 3l0 5 paercenl slope A 0,D f4 Srredalurn loam 71 to 3 percent slap C 13.7 65 Thedalum Loam 3x0 5 percent slope C 3 3 u�. IlI = l rIYIF IIIkdIlII�11111�i1111--Illlr-�IIIK-luul�uu uu �ul� Y•,•,•7 Lm'L ,••, 1••,,, ,u„ u, �rlrF-rlrlFti X M X % I. • 1 IIII�IIr�Iui: :1111F_IlllI Ir D P B $ ROP GRASS SWALE IS uuu III = IIr�III: liii:II111: :iu JIr17C:aJII�1 LEGEND DRAINAGE AREA FLOW ARROW DRAINAGE POINT 80 40 0 H0 113.0 SCALE 1" = SO' 91. CLOUDBREAK Addressin g I P anning Reso I U tion Concerns — B.3 Li Noise Drainage ■ Environmental Leaching ■ Wildlife ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS • Lead: • Cadmium: • Arsenic: • Barium: • Mercury: • • According to the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test from September 2022 that was commissioned by ZNSHINE, the manufacturer of the panels that we are planning to use on this project, no lead was detected in the panels. • Cadmium is only contained in a special type of solar cell called thin-film. This project will not be utilizing thin-film solar panels. • • According to the TCLP test, 1.0 mg/L of arsenic was found in the laminate, 1.4 mg/L was found in the frame, and 1.0 mg/L was found in the J -box. For arsenic to be considered toxic in Colorado according to the Code of Colorado Regulations Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, it must be present at a level greater than 5.0 mg/L. According to the TCLP test, 0.03 mg/L of barium was found in the frame of the panel. For barium to be considered toxic in Colorado according to the Code of Colorado Regulations Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, it must be present at a level greater than 100.0 mg/L. • According to the TCLP test, 0.08 mg/L of mercury was found in the J -box of the panel. For mercury to be considered toxic in Colorado according to the Code of Colorado Regulations Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, it must be present at a level greater than 0.2 mg/L. Other elements: • No other elements were found in the TCLP test. CL RE ' EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS Hail Damage: • Solar panels are designed to meet IEC 61215 and IEC 61646 standards, both of which test a panel's resistance to lab -produced, 25 mm hail • The project will be closely monitored to ensure it is producing the amount of electricity that it is projected to produce, so damage will be instantly noticed. In the case of a very severe storm, our team will check on the system within 24 hours or less to ensure everything is okay. In our team's experience, hail damage is rare. • Our phone number will also be posted on the project's gates so the neighbors can call in case they have concerns after a storm. Wind Damage: • • • The racking we are planning to use (Array Technologies DuraTrack) has been tested to withstand 140 mph winds, and potentially higher depending on other project conditions. The project will be closely monitored to ensure it is producing the amount of electricity that it is projected to produce, so damage will be instantly noticed. In the case of a very severe storm, our team will check on the system within 24 hours or less to ensure everything is okay. In our team's experience, wind damage is rare. Our phone number will also be posted on the project's gates so the neighbors can call in case they have concerns after a storm. CLOUDBREAK Addressin g I P anning Reso I U tion Concerns — B.3 Li Noise Drainage JP, Environmental Leaching ■ Wildlife WILDLIFE • • • As part of the project, we consulted with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). CPW stated that "...this Solar Project is located outside of HPHs." HPHs are High Priority Habitats. CPW encouraged that we take their recommendations into consideration. All of their recommendations have been taken into consideration. Their recommendations are listed below: 1. CPW is aware that the Project area will include security fencing. For specific wildlife exclusion fencing specifications, CPW recommends that any installed fencing should be eight feet in height, have round -capped posts (e.g., so wildlife isn't impaled), smooth top wire to the fence (e.g., no top barbed wire) (or if two top strands are needed, ensure they are at least six inches apart). The bottom wire can be barbed but should be four inches or less from the ground. • Our fencing is 7 feet tall instead of eight, but CPW's document entitled "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind" says that "exclusion fence for deer and elk should be seven to eight feet high" so our fence is still compliant with CPW's recommendations in that document. 2. CPW recommends that other non -security fencing is kept to a minimum. Where such fencing is required, please use wildlife friendly fencing specifications as described in CPW's document entitled "Fencing with Wildlife in Mind ". • This project includes no non -security fencing. 3. CPW recommends that the solar facility is checked weekly (or escape structures are installed inside the fenced area) to allow deer to escape if one becomes trapped within the facility. • Cameras will be installed at the project to monitor wildlife. The cameras will be checked on at least a weekly basis. WILDLIFE (continued) 4. CPW requests that security lighting is kept to a minimum and ideally motion sensor lights are installed. It is important to avoid lighting the riparian corridors along the sides of the • project. • No security lighting will be used on this project. 5. If construction is slated from March 15 to July 15, please complete pre construction nesting surveys for songbirds, Burrowing Owls, and ground- or tree nesting raptors within the Project area or in the immediate vicinity (e.g., their buffers may extend into the Project area) within a couple of weeks of construction. • If constructed is slated from March 15 to July 15, we will complete pre construction nesting surveys. 6. For the eventual consultation regarding transmission lines to this Solar Project, CPW recommends they are installed according to Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) standards and outside the raptor nesting season. Also, please install bird diverters within 1/4 -mile of any lake, drainage, or riparian area, and within the raptor nesting buffer for occupied nests. • Only 220 feet of new distribution lines will be required to connect the project to Xcel's existing infrastructure. Xcel will be constructing this portion of the project. Ensuring that Xcel complies with APLIC standards on this 220 feet of line is something that is out of our control. CLOUDBREAK Addressin 9 I i P anning Reso i u tion Concerns — B.3 Li Noise Drainage JP, Environmental Leaching JP. Wildlife Weld County Code Requ • i rements — 23-2-230 B Requiremen "That the proposal is consistent with in Chapter 22 and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect." 23-2-23.B.1 "That the proposal is consistent with the intent of the district in which the USE is located." 23-2- 23.B.2 "That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land USES." 23-2-23.B.3 "That the USES which would be permitted will be compatible with the future DEVELOPMENT of the surrounding area as permitted by the existing zone and with future DEVELOPMENT as projected by Chapter 22 of this Code and any other applicable code provisions or ordinances in effect, or the adopted MASTER PLANS of affected municipalities." 23-2-23.B.4 "That the application complies with Articles V and XI of this Chapter if the proposal is located within any OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT or a SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA identified by maps officially adopted by the County." 23-2-23.B.5 "That if the USE is proposed to be located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort has been made to conserve PRIME FARMLAND in the locational decision for the proposed USE." "That there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY." Planning Staff 4 nalysis Staff found the Solar Energy Facility (SEF) meets these requirements, noting "The proposal meets the intent of A (Agricultural Zone District), including the Principles, Goals and Objectives as outlined in Chapter 22 and permitted under Chapter 23 as the facility will produce energy harvested from the sun and will not interfere with adjacent agricultural operations." Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. Staff found the SEF meets this requirement. Planning Commissio nalys Planning Commission found the Solar Energy Facility meets these requirements, noting "Once operational, the proposed SEF makes no noise, odor, light or flickering, vibration, vermin, dust, or other nuisances. The operation of the SEF is almost entirely unnoticeable to neighboring properties and it will not impact surround property's right to quiet enjoyment." The Planning Commission noted an inconsistency, "[i]ssues raised addressed the use of the land for a solar farm and not an agricultural farm, when there is water for this property from the For Far Lateral." The Planning Commission noted an inconsistency, noting neighbor testimony related to noise from inverters, impact on site drainage patterns, environmental degradation from leaching, and wildlife impacts Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement. Staff found the SEF meets this requirement Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement. Staff found the SEF meets this requirement Staff found the SEF meets this requirement Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement, specifically stating, "the applicant has demonstrated a diligent effort to conserve prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use." Planning Commission found the SEF meets this requirement. CLOUDBREAK Addressing Community Concerns I LI It A LA rfr A LA Water Noise Drainage Environmental Leaching Wildlife Property Values Visual Impact Agricultural Impact Fire Heat Island Effect Traffic and Field Roads Project Clean up and Decommissioning Grid Reliability PROPERTY VALUES • Studies from Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory and the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Rhode Island, Dr. Nino Abashidze at the School of Economics at Georgia Institute of Technology, the Chisago County (Minnesota) Assessor's Office, CohnReznik, LLP, Kirkland Appraisals, LLC, Christian P. Kaila & Associates, and the Chair of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers have shown that solar projects do not adversely impact neighboring property values. • The study from Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory and the University of Texas at Austin found the following: "The researchers, in partnership with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, surveyed approximately 400 property value assessors nationwide, asking if the assessor believed there was an impact on home prices near these sites, the scale and direction of those impacts, and the source of those impacts. The results indicate that most assessors who responded to the survey believe that "proximity to a solar installation has either no impact or a positive impact on home values." The study found that the respondents believe that some features of solar facilities may be associated with positive impacts, such as a location on land that previously had an unappealing use, or the presence of trees or other visual barriers around the array. Furthermore, as the expected lifetime of a solar facility is at least thirty years, residents have assurance the nearby land will not be redeveloped for an unfavorable use." (emphasis added) CL U RE ' PROPERTY VALUES (continued) • A recent study from Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory studied solar projects in six states (CA, CT, MA, MN, NC, NJ), and found that, on average, property values decrease by 1.5% compared to homes 2-4 mi away. Statistically significant effects were not measurable over 1 mile. • This study, which showed a 1.5% impact to nearby property values, has been criticized since its release earlier this year because: 1. There was a lack of statistically significant effects when comparing properties right next to solar projects to properties within 1 mile of the project, leading many to believe that the solar projects are not sufficient to explain the differences in property values. If there was no significant difference between properties right next to a solar project and properties 1 mile away from a solar project, how can that difference in value be attributable to the solar project instead of other market factors? 2. According to the American Clean Power Association, "There is nothing revelatory in this study —the results are not definitive and only cover a narrow data set. The report, which found no evidence of adverse impacts on property values in half the states studied, is largely consistent with many prior studies finding that solar projects don't adversely affect property values. Appraisal data from across the country also show similar conclusions." 3. The study was not able to explain the "why" of the 1.5% difference, whereas other studies by the same organization (Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory), which dug into why property values may decrease near solar projects found that vegetative screening and assurance to nearby residents that nearby land won't be developed as a more unfavorable use would mitigate the risk of decreasing property values. 4. In Chisago County, Minnesota, which has more solar projects than any other county in the state, officials have been monitoring real-estate transactions to try to detect any changes in resale prices as a result of solar development. They haven't found any negative effects, either in 2017 after the construction of the state's largest solar array, or as recently as December, according to the county assessor's office. This is not consistent with the study's findings in the state of Minnesota. CLOUDBREAK Addressing Community Concerns I It A Lrfr LJ Water Noise Drainage Environmental Leaching Wildlife Property Values Visual Impact Agricultural Impact Fire Heat Island Effect Traffic and Field Roads Project Clean up and Decommissioning Grid Reliability I 141 EAKTM SETBACKS The development standards for a Solar Energy Facility (SEF) in Sec. 23- 4-1030.C state that "... the improved area must be at least five hundred (500) feet from existing residential buildings and residential lots of a platted subdivision or planned unit development. The residential setback requirement may be reduced if appropriate screening through landscape or an opaque fence is installed, or upon submittal to Weld County of a waiver or informed consent signed by the residence owner agreeing to the lesser setback." This project is located at least five hundred (500) feet away from all existing residential buildings and residential lots of a platted subdivision or planned unit development, except for four residential buildings that are located north of the project. For these four residential buildings, we are providing screening through landscaping. We are also providing screening through landscaping to a residential building located east of the project, which is not required by Code because it is located more than 500 feet away from the project. Additionally, we have signed letters of support from the owners of 2 out of the 4 residential buildings located in the SEF setback area. Per Weld County Code Sec. 23-4-1030.C, the solar facility will be shielded from view of all residential buildings within 500 feet using vegetative screening. STETNE4 C. ANC- REC3lG'N NO. ❑2199=51 I➢Y ND "MAC( PF_AF 1. 17, OMAN= ITT A, 0709 - 32-02 PE41E3 30' PflO ACC .S EASEMENT HERS CF DON E EN02_ RECEPTION NO. 422599 Y. OR W CC WARE Si—i .REDTO MCA st:a s CAFIERINE M. W.: AR, RECORDED ON W2 6/1001 ATPECEPN➢N NO. 31 NIT AR, OP MCC W'ARTMMY DEED TO DOISI AcL mama* AIM TANNLAN MJRRWY, RECORDED ON fi/IT)191ei Al RECEPTION NO.. 0001A33d, GRIMM PROP. RR€&i1CR CAC::..' RECEFT:Cb'.C-;SGEE- :TT ..CC. RENN-TH L HAPS'Mta (DECEPTION ND. 41131564, OPRW DD ERN UST P. EAEMPNON MO. -0709-32-0Z-RE-4193 'SURVEYED PARCEL) T 2DACRESRJ- [urOM ER MEMRING POLE POPSJ' MOSEISADAD NO AMINO Ci%UMEM ROUND. NIFCRSMM1ION SHOWN WAS OBTAINED FROM TIE TAA A£54SYoc'S WERSTPE POE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO AMENS? DEED TO TRACY HAMAR TECH ON 07#09/2M8AT RECEPTION N0. i4IMUS, OPRWS =ASP POINT OF ' I -ERCIS NNECTION OTECTION POLE CUSTOMER REROSER TOLE CLST➢MEP GCAR• POLE r cD E➢0IFMEIT Ps_: a LN'3' W NATURAL GA: PIPELINE EASEMENT WARRANTY DEED TO FRANCISCO BOTELLO, JR. 3ECO RDEDON 12INNIRIT AT RECEPTION NO, 4351602, CRAWL PEIdO* M PEPNESEPRATRE S DECD TO PARMIEA APARTMENTS FLC, IECOR0EDON Q102@OAT RECEPTION NO.4E&NWE, C9RVACC r 1 Il (l n nII I I i Residences within 500 feet pip4t IN hi. .59 ' 4. ar �:a. I R Tr41 SCREENING �afF iFF�.n1� '�- •4�+Y KENNETH L. NAR RING -ION NO. 4031664, OPRWCC '.fPTION NO. 0704 -32 -D2 -RE -41E3 [SURVEYED PARCEL) 70.20 ACRES +/- PROP IRRIGATION CROSSING WILL RE COORDINATED WITH EATON DITCH COMPAN y opossoppisso V I ILL I I r flV ELW I flJI fVLL CUSTOMER RECIOSER POLE CUSTOMER METERING POLE %rl Li eltlthrezelMilli eli STABIUZED STAGING AREA TEMP CO °UC.TION TRAILER X X Proposed Rocky Mountain Juniper Placement I 1 4. DB TM SCREENING r' EP1EN C. AND LJNCLIA M. HART C EF10N NO. 021919. CF WcC RANEN AND TRACY PFEIF RECEPTION NO. 32.92127. OPR W GC LOTA, EKE. OMB - 3£-02 HE ME HERS Of DON E ENGE_ REDEPTRIN NO. 4225997, C I W CC 0.0$A mLWE MEG_=OS PSEEP1nl NO.3562162. ORPARCE LHAF. _ _ .. *I NO 97EE-__ ._ RE4953 «R.q'ED PARCH 7D20ACRES+r- WARfii N'Y EEO TO 0ONA:] J. AN]RAN AND CATINRINF M. MVC&a, RECORDED ON 11+'1EIR:03 ATRSCEPNON NO. 3L3T024 OP MCC WARRANTY NEED TO DOI RI ILS L RSGRROW AND TAMELl IL MORROW. RECORDED ON Ar1TI11OG AT RECEPTCIN 1i0. OS01499B. OPRNtC FRCP ',RVGATFON CROSS NG Lv:1 EE COOL DIF1n ED WITH EA ON DPI COMPAh PROP IT ACME ROAD fVNACTH L HAR6ft3G RECEPTION MC. 4031594, O PR W CC (Nil LOT B. ECEMPIION NC. 010932 -CZ- E4 I5DRNEYED PARCEL) TD.2D ACRES 0 - NO WESTING DOCUMENT FL" W*O. NFCNNATION SNO WN WAS OBTAINED FROM TWd TAk ASSESSORS WERSRE FOR WELD COUAT', CCi4R/.CO wMMNFY DEED TO TRACY FARMS, RECORDED ON 077119121118 Al RECEPTION NO. YL3ET9. OPRWCC PROP POIRE+ OF INFERCONNEEFFIION L71 -:17Y PACTEL-DON TOLE _TLrTY METERING POLE CUSTOMER RECL JSOR POLE CUSTOMER METERING' POLE wARRAMY DEOTO FRANCISCO BOTE CO, EL. RECURDEDON 120072RIP AY RFCERION NO. PE!SONAL REPRESENTATIVES DEEE TO PARRIIEN ANEMIA ESTS, JAC, RECORDED ON 3O1010AT RECEPTION ND_ 4E9402E, OHLW CC -iCP4 L l P47-4 TY- STABA2120 STAGNG AREA ?;.1F CCRL' RA3CLIDNltAI1EE RO' ST rte E -DM-AMER -AMER VW r 1 U Ii F' n n n I I n Residences within 500 feet Proposed Rocky Mountain Juniper Placement S, J1 D B iYq . l:17 I 1 ..e.,'' . S . i' �!Nn }' Yi M �! i 'P ± IsFi„ ?Z r � r. i rsT3'1`c'i. '" F _ _ � �-� .fig V SUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS I Viewpoint 6 ST040%,"",rir°1'•!'iL%•"`"e O•�4�4�YW.�.•.w ...- .l • -. - a^vu�" �w "+'� q��y ]ti'': V SUAL MPACT ANALYSIS I I Viewpoint 1 I �--K • yr Tjk r w r1 f y \ _ ^y '� .+`•�i4r��I19�I-}�! t: r �. Sr:C. . • •e a�•1 • - .Ir�Y'.,r a yP•1 !cy._ r'14f .•! s� -•] �• ;I •�1 a%. s _ a sky a • • m • •,;" as T _ �'. . a4.•--�1.‘m♦i41S 1NwI•iv.u - ♦ i a :. .. -�ry -I�•la _ 1r v1 .. I'\III-7•I 1\Y...1 .. • f I - - • al♦ eta - -:�,• •i<r 1we J• .1� r\' • -\ \ n • • m I _ a �54a .7 -to f'a F ^ v •*4y s�[r � r I .pm '• J`. , '_ .P/.r: Y 1 :_f •—• ,_a a . .ra�.4f T; T vat 1 Cr.rW �L`f: wf ,r ?iAI-� ~�a-'_(..-z..". 5 .e‘,..)-•.2,-• H •I'lI: !VHwi`� �,.•, .• •i. •.a. A inL. ^^ ,�''4 � ��i ,tea -1-4°....•....... s. •,y -W-.... - .I .'wu.: �r�tl'�•.�Y' r 41f' _/,yii:4 �is rr _e.r.♦ • a4 „I'4 •S t" •.Tr. •l S ate • S'JA'' ii s�-- t I �.�TR a.' fa_f'`. l a4,V�1f ' - ia� l r r•= I� �e • 4' , 41 . y.1 •r.. a•r11� iI• a %,:,t' • i • is, i _f. iul a, ar♦,ia i _ v .'I• ' • 1 - / .••. r . •- � ^f�+ v' ♦ f •� rt 4 _ .� �e�dyi f4T '♦•.iM a 6 .G -.I, Y f ' aJVi ) al �'.A -4 V Ia S a lfl �`•a r✓I,� 1 C' --xi Po —06 • l 1 r TVw'M a1 •I �,� a.1 •_. ! i•,a • \ . - Y ,• 4 a•� ..a +�t I r. f'w l r Vaai�Y 4 Y arJ M • 7.,..„w1 _ .. .P .. .wl r • .• 'IL` ii . Y a•` • i- T _ lib♦.;'7l ) 1 4. �'.% .wnr� S .. r • - t1.T''f^sM w ,J "i _ r.. ,a. ♦ ... -r I _ a a �'4 • 1 • la` •. r —Y `a l ;_. I\ ��_ r • V K m ~ -- _ n 4 a• ly.!{L♦ _ m! - — - �-' , ,_ .1� ) _ SY _ F = _ • 11 •� • • 1 Viewpontli- ViewinlO Years i • •I111\LI' a IMY flit 1.\ S i 1w V� •II I i..i f r 1 I sky. 1 fi.-a., .+ • r :;1E - ..; �. 4— J F 1. CLOUDBREAKII ''.• �.. 1'r.- • .;,W � A J. cj1 . i• it a . • ur "Jr e1 r r" - y r • ti r aa GLARE • Glare: The panels are treated with an anti -reflective coating and reflect as little as two percent of incoming sunlight (less than water and windows). • Glare Study: To ensure we aren't impacting the neighboring properties or roads with any amount of glare, we had TRC perform an in-depth glare study for this project. The glare study also included analyzing glare from the second floor of surrounding homes. Based on their findings, there was potential for "yellow glare" which is a moderate level of glare with some potential to cause temporary after image and no potential to cause retinal burn during certain periods of the year near sunrise and sunset. Please note, this study did not take the trees that we are planting into consideration. • Solution: To remove the risk of glare to neighboring properties, we will be stowing the panels at a 5 -degree angle rather than at 0 -degrees. According to the glare study, this will remove the risk of glare to the neighbors. At a resting angle of approximately 5 degrees, the modeled glare is expected to be reduced to zero minutes a year. This is because the resting angle of a tracking system, and at the end of the backtracking range, can have a large impact on glare produced near sunrise and sunset. When the sun is low on the horizon, an angle (even a slight angle) is needed to reflect light in a more upward trajectory, minimizing the light reflected to observers. CLOUDBREAK Addressing Community Concerns It A Lrfr LJ It I Water Noise Drainage Environmental Leaching Wildlife Property Values Visual Impact Agricultural Impact Fire Heat Island Effect Traffic and Field Roads Project Clean up and Decommissioning Grid Reliability AGR i CULTURE According to Weld County Code Chapter 23, Article 1, Section 23-1-90, "The availability of a consistent supply of quality water must exist in order to have PRIME FARMLANDS." The property has no water. It does not have a consistent supply of irrigation water available, and therefore, is not considered to be Prime Farmland. Water trucks and trailers will be used to bring water to the property to establish the pasture. The new well will be used to irrigate the trees and provide drinking water to the shee P • Unlike most forms of development, once the solar project is removed, the land could return to agricultural land. -t _Y 'I 'Y ` I Yr,a . 4 • See Sr. N. L itt 1 r 14 4 R ��`' r' y ��w �- W i '1�� .�`.,A +sue+ irlr S, 6 .��]j a _ .. ..._ ' s •e ralt '��r A TL•.�^ r- .•nn. .� r. ''L_�2 41/4 I AGRICULTURE (continued) • We will be grazing sheep on the property to keep the property agriculturally productive during the life of the solar project. • The sheep are typically fed feed grown in Weld County during the winter. Over $100,000 of feed is expected to be purchased from Weld County producers each year for the herd. • The seed for the pasture will be purchased from Pawnee Buttes Seed in Greeley. • The sheep will be processed at Innovative Foods in Evans. • The meat will be sold directly to consumers. • The sheep are expected to be grazing on the property a few times per year to maintain the vegetation at a height of 18-22 inches or less. . as 4 yy.- .4 . °L +1 MANURE MANAGEMENT • 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 vegetation on the land. Through the use of rotational grazing, the manure will be evenly distributed across the property and will have minimal impact to the neighboring community. The herd will not stay permanently at the Project and the Project's site will not serve as a feedlot for the sheep. • Harrowing: If needed, a harrow machine will be used to spread out and break up the manure. It will disturb the topsoil to help break down and bury the manure. • Composting: If the manure load ever becomes problematic, CBEP Solar 6, LLC or its contractors will physically remove the manure and compost it offsite. CLOUDBREAK 77'y \\\ SH CLOUDBREAK 77'y \\\ SH n I p CLOUDBREAK CLOUDBREAK Addressing Community Concerns I Li Water : Noise LA Drainage Environmental Leaching LA Wildlife Property Values Visual Impact Agricultural Impact ■ Fire ■ Heat Island Effect ■ Traffic and Field Roads ■ Project Clean up and Decommissioning ■ Grid Reliability FIRE RISK MITIGATION • Just like all electrical equipment, there is a risk of fire at a solar project. • One 2021 study by the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems found that, of the more than 2 million solar plants in Germany, only 0.006% of them caused a fire resulting in serious damage. • For context, according to the National Fire Protection Association, fire departments respond to an estimated average of 172,900 home structure fires per year started by cooking activities and there are 124,010,992 households in the US according to the Census. So, 0.14% of households in the US will experience a significant cooking fire each year. • Should a ground fault be detected by the project's software, inverters will automatically shutdown and disconnect the DC module strings from the AC electric system. The inverters also do this when sensing any fluctuations out of limit within the electric grid the system is tied to. An automatic shutdown will be located within each inverter. Our team will also have remote capabilities to disconnect the system and shut down each electrical component in case of emergency. • • As a contingency, there are also manual disconnects as follows: • • • • Inverters: each inverter will have a DC and AC disconnect switch Inverters and Main Equipment Pad: each AC panelboard will have a break serving as a disconnect switch Main equipment pad: The main system disconnect switch will be located within the switchgear As a note, all of the equipment listed above is located in the same area of the project, right next to the access road, providing easy access to the Eaton Fire Department in case of emergency. A Knox Padlock or a Knox Key Switch will be located on the gate of the access road to allow first responders to access the property in case of emergency. CLOUDBREAK Addressing Community Concerns LA rfr LA LJ It A Water Noise Drainage Environmental Leaching Wildlife Property Values Visual Impact Agricultural Impact Fire Heat Island Effect Traffic and Field Roads Project Clean up and Decommissioning Grid Reliability HEAT ISLAND • According to research from North Carolina State University: • "One study found that an air temperature increase of 1.9 degrees Celsius directly over a solar farm dissipated to 0.5 degrees Celsius at 100 meters in horizontal distance from the solar farm, and less than a 0.3 degree increase at 300 meters. Another study found that a temperature difference of 3-4 degrees Celsius directly above a solar farm was dissipated to the point that it could not be measured at a distance of 100 feet from the solar farm's edge. Meteorological factors can affect the range and size of any temperature effect on land nearby a solar facility, but even under very conducive circumstances the possible temperature increase for nearby land would be on the order of tenths of degrees." • Note: a difference in 0.5 degrees Celsius is 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit and 100 meters is equal to 328.084 feet. • A 2016 study from Mitchell A. Pavao Zuckerman, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland, and Greg Barron -Gafford of the University of Arizona (which is often the most referenced study on this topic), found that solar does create a heat island; however, the Harring Solar Project is different than the solar project analyzed in this study because the property will be revegetated after the completion of construction and a pasture will be established. The project used in the study had no vegetation underneath of it and it was located in a desert environment outside of Tuscon, Arizona. The study posited that the heating effect can be "reduced through targeted revegetation under the solar panels, which would reduce heat island effects through the heat -dissipating effect of transpiration from vegetation." CLOUDBREAK Addressing Community Concerns LA rfr LA LJ It A J 'J LA Water Noise Drainage Environmental Leaching Wildlife Property Values Visual Impact Agricultural Impact rire Heat Island Effect Traffic and Field Roads Project Clean up and Decommissioning Grid Reliability CCLOLIDBREAKm TRAFFIC AND ROADS • Construction Traffic: During construction, the traffic will include about 10-15 pickups and 1-2 heavy vehicles per day. • Operations Traffic: Once the system is built, our solar maintenance team will only stop by about 2 to 4 times per year for system maintenance. Our shepherd and land maintenance team will stop by more frequently on an as -needed basis, but the project will not generate consistent or significant traffic. • Traffic Analysis: Kellar Engineering, a contractor of TRC's, completed a traffic analysis and found the following: • "Due to the project's low site generated traffic, the proposed project will not create a negative traffic impact upon the local and regional traffic system and the existing roadway improvements are sufficient to accommodate the project's traffic." • Road Upgrades: We will be upgrading the field roads that connect the project to WCR 39 and installing a new culvert across the ditch to ensure the infrastructure can handle the weight of our equipment. • Road Maintenance Agreement: We will be signing a Road Maintenance Agreement with Weld County which makes us financially responsible for our proportional share of the associated costs for maintaining and/or improving designated public haul/travel routes during the construction of the project. Addressing Community Concerns I LA rfr LA LJ It A LA Water Noise Drainage Environmental Leaching Wildlife Property Values Visual Impact Agricultural Impact rire Heat Island Effect Traffic and Field Roads Project Clean up and Decommissioning Grid Reliability DECOMMISSIONING • Plan: • Timeline: • Security: • • • The Decommissioning Plan that we submitted to Weld County as part of the USR application commits us to "...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 4.625 MW AC SEF." 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. Prior to construction, CBEP Solar 6, 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 Addressing Community Concerns I LA rfr LA LJ It A LA Lei Water Noise Drainage Environmental Leaching Wildlife Property Values Visual Impact Agricultural Impact rire Heat Island Effect Traffic and Field Roads Project Clean up and Decommissioning Grid Reliability 1 CLOUDBREAKm GRID RELIABILITY • Our project went through a rigorous study with Xcel Energy's engineering team, which was split into three parts, as described below. As part of this process, we are required to pay Xcel to upgrade and replace existing electrical equipment, allowing this project to interconnect safely to the grid. The cost of this equipment for this project alone was several hundreds of thousands of dollars, which we've already paid to Xcel so that they could order the equipment. • • Feasibility Study • According to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Code of Colorado Regulations, "The feasibility study shall identify any potential adverse system impacts that would result from the interconnection of the interconnection resource." • Impact Study • According to the PUC, "A system impact study shall identify and detail the electric system impacts that would result if the proposed interconnection resource were interconnected without project modifications or electric system modifications, focusing on the adverse system impacts identified in the feasibility study, or to study potential impacts, including but not limited to those identified in the scoping meeting. A system impact study shall evaluate the impact of the proposed interconnection on the reliability of the electric system." • Facilities Study • According to the PUC, "The facilities study shall include a detailed list of necessary system upgrades and an overall cost estimate, with the detailed list to indicate types of equipment, labor, operation and maintenance and other evaluated item costs, within the estimate for completing such upgrades, and identify which itemized cost estimates are uncertain and could be exceed by 125 percent if actual upgrades are completed." We submitted our interconnection application to Xcel on August 18th, 2021, and didn't receive our interconnection agreement (which arrives at the end of the facilities study) until September 8th, 2022. So, Xcel was evaluating this project for over a year and determined that, after the upgrades are complete, it would not create an adverse impact on the electrical grid. Addressing Community Concerns I LA rfr LA LJ It A LA Lei LA Water Noise Drainage Environmental Leaching Wildlife Property Values Visual Impact Agricultural Impact rire Heat Island Effect Traffic and Field Roads project Clean up and Decommissioning Grid Reliability C L U E 'M CONTACT INFORMATION Zach Brammer Co Founder Chief Operating Officer Email: zachcIoudbreakenergy.com Office: (970) 425-3175 Cell: (970) 580-5652 Mailing Address: PO Box 1255, Sterling, CO 80751 Website: cloudbreakenergy.com *Sinn masin .se" Frites Plitt ai [etr'e1 iimodi urniTEo aim ISE3 u fl 3,P*a2121 .]la' Loam T ! � na istr �aO�y�.�.L..7r�¢ a1 A Rays ■ tilt rilit Imierstian rim 33 EJ_if FLIC L1Ii1l !I. itOAP CIL'Cl [igit! stbrilli1 LII 1 r]'iI LLr CLU Ii iY ILIAD �= tilt t± s flF ANL•l7rM1PEHIT build AN 9 NJfL i] Ali 2'714 t be! brla V. AND LORI L find DOLL i. ' Ht. Nei 4,'. °: WAFPLINTV DEED 7: Cestiiiiia !• SCAM AHD CA hERNE M. M '^, I CDILI D C'k L a'� s ■i C6FT C 3 L X . a DM ACC X-s'a.CTL k IL°i' 1Ur _ :LF.CLJ R[D:cc' 0'4 :.:1, LZ'7 AT ErChrti CAI '40_ ] C rs', ' `' ®."a' c Di!rn it PI ti 01 Obi Prat Ff3. t% Limns= IgS 1 fte4 C MID u way. LAS inapt oft ski. �]'LCI, WINO= I i` I IV I, Ms: 'stz tai: GAIL 721114 h 'LIsM kbLI dim : I. • en filer Embalm Aututis LAM' A i ii 5t]' UIT IJ LI31 II ?1!. kLLJ, C7 Ii fl.] ar ml.b24 _J_IJ1T1� v L I I 1 < Ii11LII I VII INN EL'L rt Iti i icily' 4=5 LIC Mitt, mai lova view' ortiON MI. sans CirrIPAr 1.01 Sea GPM, S7 LU CE Al • LIkV&fl4LrMita Sett Nei!, i1LLITI t' is"• I I I ST kL:Lt i LASE E'W1 nc a ill .I h L iI. I LI '.ai' r IC t 1 '5. igfil�J RA1 GM Mr LI- I'S! LAZZAdnr K1122 1111124 L14I r4°D. 3734 f 0411$,CC • eftrm ev 'AMIABLE LE mirth 1Ii!U1L t11 LIFT! RU WHEY WI LD .I'531. C' rrn,Tr.Dii Demur l ant 1.41 Fl .3346651 aSS 1 •a it minim L'..IisTisei r itatisS Levi At -tam POP Lilian' elf LEIT S Li:! 'I LJ 0711-3l-•3 R! 1124 If Mitt t L I2 t C4 riN DPnkt'?I Lint 7 iRl r•I I La MI NO. 2 '5 L m°4T DaILTED 11- L• • 1" 7t Is ii, a Na-. •._ . • LM+�' Fa!: I I i41P-,5,LFL WILD I •I Lira r'' i4UEiH WEL.! LWPM' midi E3irICL ILAI•''IlQHhoc.nirS2 sec .1Lara alb • • tyyri c • 11-x•:�' o Mai® lb AL:- ff.% ' KOMMTH L PIAIMING lO.Ma 4 li115 •, OPPLYItt $j ) lr�+tblfing AIM' m5. anon -traL MAIM Csumproa "m $'iina &1- 35s CIS MAIM coniLr1 NUN t1.711: YP1L7 rl� I'JI IG' thrill wow Rita 9110M MD. i 751 =I''t..IX; LLtfrJ1 LI?_-t L L1 F•t3M4la •, 'Pe% IxI i,If''ICAO a. anw - alKaistimir Ii�J N3* ST R LIci Ll fit II JILT Jgf4t itttt ribit I IL rifit: rte. Sr i I I 'iPAIL Mre DUD TO COLT a iS L r PAC' PIDIiti' NC TAMA L PACTAIICW, PLIONEM"'r'' 051 D11711_913 AT FXllIO N L3� 1#2 . CFMit a HI • • • • • Lik, JAI - CAW anti 5 • I • I "WM lJ::. I!NANO MLv.11'1i-at!ilki4X511 me. CI'r'i+4.rrrti w tools Ari i SSP AL„ Qat At Na. livEun tau !err MAD ifia' *awl iTL•LEI PA LI II PANE Melli2L NC. U22391.111C4ib Ixrpthilibi7ICIN DIM WAS OFTNIPLED FROM Thor TM ASSCSOP TA Uri irOR_c COLDLADO WALRAJOre CC TO M Makitla RECC4TCB Ali o'! ,I'23ili AT Ei i M G 443.1671, OPEC WAIUANTY DOD T°3 MCI lag JimaiILDDEECE: '1 ;12ra7 At coy NG, AMATIElfrOPIMIte- • • aI I FIGNSCIMAJ, NO, Lai'I'r M4TI I 1>“ TO NAM MI APAIMMAITS,LLI LLIC1 ON I _' di1. li:}LI''IL° VIa%K'RLCVTlOItriij. I I'I M i L I' 1 11 ism' arR 5FII L4 L _iLL I L IRMAi Yrit4mm F . r' I@M r1rime rautiahrr itarrrir3. MFC1 1115411111, 1:17 ALL • Et 4" C30117 c'JL4i:Rrl iI • is a U Lt a4'`cicir CJ IMLI 1 FaX Di wart 3c • !dILLJ:R L M LW 81= rau CL J LLI F'APLIL uflis 'I MCJi1 LEIIdt iscu Piton i]C `RV C! LICtiJkL • t lOtlesikI rLI'N ,J i%I a a I, J. M M LMIC L in I I, a a b MOP MALI 1-Yi Ji Lt IJ D. Ali} DA! LE! A. iJ`I AIL° =I PltJM 1 I Li =Nail I wairnF' 5f wLTJ pg I JE RAND?' AND TRAM PFEIFF RECEPTION NO. 3ES127. C RWCC LOT A, EKE. 0709 - 32 - 3Z RE 4163 HERS CF RCN E. MOE- REDEPI'ION NO.4•',_'55&7, CAA W LC EaNNETH L HARRNG RECEPTION NO.4031.554.OPRPWDC _:-E, E tEW: IM NO, 0704-3'.-CEi1E-4163 ISUR VEVED PARCEL) ?0.30 ACRES -1-/- WARRANTY DEED TO DOlt.W31 L MORAN MID CATHERINE M. NCIRA4, RECORDED ON iipsi2rm AT RECEPTION NO. 3i fll2D, OPFMCC WARRANTY DEED TD DOI All i; L M PJCW AND TAMELA IL MORROW.. RECC7RL'ED CtI 6,77[192S AT RECEPTION HO. 02014436., OPRl,4'Ci PROP RR'SATION CROSS NG Vi' 1 EE CCORDINA—ED TTH Dfro1 COY: tlIENNETH L HARR3Ni9 REJ£RITDN NO.4031664,OPMATO L! LOT E., EICl4IPITDN ND. 0 70 -32 -0Z -RE -415.3 'SURVEYED PARS] PROP 15'ACCES ROAD NO WSTIPIG CCCUMENT FOUR : D. NFCRM*TION SHOWAI WAS OBTAINED FROM TN.f TAX ASSUSOKS WEE&JTE FOR WELD COMM, COLORADO WARRANTY DEED TO TRACY HARMS, RECORDED ON 07,A19,0D1SAT RECEPTION NC'. 44L3579, OPF CL PROP POINT OF INTERCONNECTIOiN ='ROTT ON POLE. - UTILITY Mel tK!HN5 POLE CUSTOMER. R ECLOSS. ROLE CU7OMER METERING POLE CUSTOMER. CiOAE POLE 11 11 WARRANTY DEED TO FRA4CIS03 EOTELLO, JIL, RECORDEDON 12,70/2017 AT RECEPTION NO. 43£-1602, OPRW CC PERif.*LI RET 5ENTATME5 DEED TO PARKMEWAPARTMEATTS ti, RECORDED0N 4170, i'DID AT RECEPTIDII Na 4=SAD?E, OPRW CC r HARRING PROJECT AREA TURKEY WINTER CONCENTRATION AREA TURKEY WINTER RANGE TURKEY PRODUCTION AREA BASE MAP: WORLD_IMAGERY: EARTHSTAR GEOGRAPHICS DATA SOURCES: COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE ; TRC LAYOUT NAME CLOUOBREAK_HARRING_BALD EAGLE S.5X11P OORD/NATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 STATEPLANE COLORADO NORTH F/PS 0501 FEET MAP ROTATION: U PROJECT: HARRING PROJECT AREA BALD EAGLE ROOST SITES BALD EAGLE NEST SITES BALD EAGLE WINTER CONCENTRATION BASE MAP: WORLD_IMAGERY: MAXAR DATA SOURCES: COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE ; TRC 2,100 4,200 FEET 1:50,400 1" = 4,200' CBEP SOLAR 6, LLC HARRING SOLAR PROJECT WELD COUNTY, COLORADO TITLE: HARRING BALD EAGLE DATA COLORADO N DRAWN BY: R. BLAKE PROJ. NO.: 434718 CHECKED BY: T. HIGGINS APPROVED BY: J. SCHLANGEN DATE: MAY 2023 'i TRC 123 N. COLLEGE AVE. SUITE 370 FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 PHONE: 970.484.3263 FILE: HARRING LAYOUT NAME CLOUOBREAK NA 'r-1 !1 C '? D r' 7'21 AKE ON 5/2/'2023. 14:03:04 PM: Fit r --)JEGTSlCLOUgREAKIHARP1NO12-l1PRX1NARRlNG.Ai � cx..' BASE MAP: WORLD_IMAGERY: EARTHSTAR GEOGRAPHICS DATA SOURCES: COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE ; TRC EXHIBIT CLOUDBREAK Ooo CBEP SOLAR 6, LLC PO BOX 1255 STERLING, CO 80751 (970) 425-3175 INFO@CLOUDBREA KENERGY.COM Weld County Board of County Commissioners 1150 O Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 Attn: Karla Ford, BoCC Office Manager RE: Letter of Support for USR23-0005 Dear Board of County Commissioners: We the undersigned neighbors and residents of Weld County, had the opportunity to talk with Cloudbreak Energy Partners to better understand their planned solar energy facility. As neighbors who live within five hundred feet (500') of the solar energy facility, we are happy to support this project. We look forward to welcoming Cloudbreak Energy Partners and the solar energy facility into our community. Sincerely, al/n1/xo , Cyc Ramiro Ramirez 4884-5231-5744.1 To: Weld County Commissioners Date: May 1, 2023 RE: USR23-0005 The attached 17 signatures represent the property owners that fall in the 29 parcels that buffer the above USR and urge the Weld County Commissioners to DENY USR23-0005. Not all of the neighbors are able to be present at the next meeting but want their voices heard by submitting a petition. Account Type Property Address Owner 1 Owner 2 Petition to Deny USR23-0005 Parcel Account Residential 19186 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD BOTELLO FRANCISCO JR 070932200052 R7792998 Residential 19168 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD BURKES JOEL A BURKES MARY L 070932000015 R0965086 Residential 19300 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD COLLINS-WORTMAN KOLLEEN K GALLATIN RYAN P 070932200006 R8969929 Residential 36648 COUNTY ROAD 39 WELD CUNNINGHAM GAYLE A CUNNINGHAM GLENN L 4 I 070932200061 R3722905 070932200062 R3723005 Agricultural ENGEL DONN E (HEIRS OF) ENGEL SHEILAH I , Residential 19260 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD FISHER BRENDA L FISHER ROBERT C 070932000039 R0966386 ' Z, Agricultural 19381 COUNTY ROAD 74 WELD GEIS CHERIEL M GEIS JAMES L 070932000028 R0965586 070932000059 R0517801 Agricultural 19381 COUNTY ROAD 74 WELD GIES CHERIEL M GIES JAMES L J u fY\ 1 070929000045 R0121295 Residential 19057 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD HANICK LINDA E HANICK VICTOR C 070932000038 R0025589 Residential 19184 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD HARMS TRACY 7Ar Agricultural HARRING KENNETH L 4 070932200064 R4004106 Residential 36918 COUNTY ROAD 39 WELD HART LINDA M HART STEPHEN C -1.77 070932000017 R0965286 _► ,�, , 070929300012 R6785673 Agricultural 19109 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD HATCHELL LORI L HATCHELL MICKEY M Residential 19150 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD KENDROT CHERYL A 070932000016 R0965186 Residential 19154 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD MEDEROS DIMAS MEDEROS JANINE Miaskitfr 070932000031 R0966086 Residential 19316 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD MESTAS CELESTIAL J MESTAS DANIEL J 070932200005 R8969928 Agricultural 19442 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD MILLER LAND & LIVESTOCK OF NO COLO LLC 441 ;1,n0A0 A O' N �� 070932000046 R0118791 Residential 19172 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD MORAN CATHERINE M MORAN DONALD J 070932000014 R0964986 Residential 19176 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD MORROW DOUGLAS L MORROW TAMELA K/J)L&1jJ 070932000040 R0966486 Agricultural 19372 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD MURRANT FAMILY TRUST 070932000045 R0118691 .----i Agricultural 19527 COUNTY ROAD 74 WELD OTTOSON JULIE A 070932000009 R0964486 OTTOSON JAVAN D Agricultural 19527 COUNTY ROAD 74 WELD 070932000060 R0517901 OTTOSON JULIE A OTTOSON JAVAN D Residential 19188 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD PARKVIEW APARTMENTS LLC 070932200051 R7792898 Residential 36788 COUNTY ROAD 39 WELD PFEIFF RANDY PFEIFF TRACY NOtV1 070932200063 R4003806 Residential 19180 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD RAMIREZ OLGA A RAMIREZ RAMIRO C 070932000026 R0965486 Agricultural 18734 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD SCHMUNK DUWAYNE LEE (1/2) SCHMUNK GARY EUGENE & CHARLENE K (1/2) 070931000005 R0922486 ''-``"� t�r Residential 36966 COUNTY ROAD 39 WELD SULLIVAN BEVERLY 070932000018 R0965386 SULLIVAN DELBERT L r� K"3/4"-• (.11070932000057 s 'L Z 114M— Residential 36908 COUNTY ROAD 39 WELD VELTRI DEBORAH R R0519601 Agricultural 19335 COUNTY ROAD 76 WELD WOODS BRADLEY J WOODS SHERRIE LYNN 070929300010 R6785671 • �-r f Hello