The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.05 General Application Materials_Part6Laboratory Test Report Client: Project: 01-000L - Lab Testing Granite Engineering Lab Testing 20233581.001A Report No.: Sampled by: Submitted by: Field ID: 222-156 Comp 1 Granite Engineering Date: 10/18/2022 Granite Engineering Date: 11/14/2022 Issued: 11/28/202222-TUL-01120 Rev. 0Granite Engineering Group, Inc. Limitations: Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided. This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of Kleinfelder. Reviewed on 11/28/2022 by Steve Symsack, Lab Supervisor Kleinfelder Tulsa Lab | 12727 East 61st Street, Suite A | Tulsa, OK 74146 | (918) 627-6161 Page 1 of 1 Laboratory Test Report Client: Project: 01-000L - Lab Testing Granite Engineering Lab Testing 20233581.001A Report No.: Sampled by: Submitted by: Field ID: 222-156 Comp 2 Granite Engineering Date: 10/18/2022 Granite Engineering Date: 11/14/2022 Issued: 11/28/202222-TUL-01121 Rev. 0Granite Engineering Group, Inc. Limitations: Pursuant to applicable building codes, the results presented in this report are for the exclusive use of the client and the registered design professional in responsible charge. The results apply only to the samples tested. If changes to the specifications were made and not communicated to Kleinfelder, Kleinfelder assumes no responsibility for pass/fail statements (meets/did not meet), if provided. This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of Kleinfelder. Reviewed on 11/28/2022 by Steve Symsack, Lab Supervisor Kleinfelder Tulsa Lab | 12727 East 61st Street, Suite A | Tulsa, OK 74146 | (918) 627-6161 Page 1 of 1 Proposed Solar Farm GEG Project No. 222-156 Parachute, Colorado December 17, 2022 Appendix D FIELD ELETRICAL RESISTIVITY TEST RESULTS 4-Point Wenner Test Results Project No. 222-156 Date 10/18/2022 Project Name Parachute Solar Farm Test Location B-2 Latitude 39.48199 Longitude -108.10465 Test Performed By J SHEKOSKI ER Test No. Testing Direction Pin Spacing (ft) Resistance Reading, ohm Resistivity,  (ohm-cm) Surface Soils Weather/ Temp B-2 NE-SW 1 94.8 18155 Lean Clays, Sandy Sunny / Cool 2 26.9 10303 5 6.20 5937 10 3.00 5745 15 1.80 5171 20 1.24 4750 25 0.96 4596 Remarks: 4-Point Wenner Test Results Project No. 222-156 Date 10/18/2022 Project Name Parachute Solar Farm Test Location B-4 Latitude 39.47900 Longitude -108.10219 Test Performed By J SHEKOSKI ER Test No. Testing Direction Pin Spacing (ft) Resistance Reading, ohm Resistivity,  (ohm-cm) Surface Soils Weather/ Temp B-4 N-S 1 57.8 11069 Lean Clays, Shale Gravel Sunny / Cool 2 21.3 8158 5 2.63 2518 10 0.25 479 15 0.11 316 20 0.07 268 25 0.06 287 Remarks: Wheeler Gulch Solar Project This page intentionally left blank. Wheeler Gulch Solar Project E Impervious Surface Memo Wheeler Gulch Solar Project This page intentionally left blank. Caerus Oil and Gas Wheeler Gulch Solar Fusion Industries, LLC PO Box 16340 Oklahoma City, OK 73113 Date: January 3, 2023 Project Name: Project No.: Subject: Wheeler Gulch Solar 100810 Impervious Surface Memo Wheeler Gulch Solar is a proposed solar facility located west of the intersection of County Road 215 and Garden Gulch Road, approximately 3.5 miles northwest of Parachute, Colorado in Garfield County. Constructi on of this project wi ll be limited to approximately 44 acres of the 88.7-acre lot. The project is expected to change approximately 1,363 sf (0.03 ac; 0.036% lot coverage) of pervious area into impervious area. The impervious area will consist of six (6) concrete equipment pads, one (1) substation control building concrete pad, seventeen (17) drilled pier concrete substation structure pads, and foundations for solar arrays. Onsite drainage patterns will be maintained with exception to minor grading related to proposed gravel roads; therefore a Drainage Report is not required per county standards. This memo is intended to provide Garfield County with drainage and land disturbance information with respect to this project. Existing Conditions The project site is currently vacant generally covered with grass and bush -type vegetation with some dirt or gravel roads . The topography consists of rolling hills, plains and mesas. The existing soils on site are primarily classified as type C. The site appears to be sloping gently towards the west and south and collects in Parachute Creek. Caerus Oil and Gas Wheeler Gulch Solar The creek flows southeast and discharges to the Colorado River approximately 4 miles southwest of the project site. Proposed Conditions Construction activities associated with the proposed solar facility will affect approximately 44 acres onsite. However, much of the disturbed area will involve construction of support structures for solar panel arrays, leaving the surface beneath the panels undeveloped and pervious. These solar arrays are not expected to result in a significant creation of impervious area. The project also proposes six (6) concrete equipment pads, a control building pad, and concrete structure support piers In total, the project will result in the generation of approximately 1,363 sf of impervious area which covers 0.036% of the project site. Grading activities will be localized around the gravel access and perimeter roads and existing drainage patterns will be maintained. Impervious Area Calculations Quantity Area Impervious Factor Impervious Area Units Inverter Pads 3 10 1.0 30 sf Transformer pad 1 80 1.0 80 sf HV Breaker Pad 1 64 1.0 64 sf LV Breaker Pad 1 36 1.0 36 sf Building Pad 1 800 1.0 800 sf DE Piers 6 39.3 1.0 235.8 sf Support Piers 11 10.6 1.0 116.6 sf Total Area 1362.4 sf Total LOO 3,833,295.33 sf I Coverage Ratio 0.036% I Respectively, Gary W. Coons Wheeler Gulch Solar Project F Wetlands Delineation Report Wheeler Gulch Solar Project This page intentionally left blank. Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Caerus Operating, LLC Garfield County, Colorado December 2022 Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report TOC-i CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 1 3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 WETLANDS ................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 STREAMS ...................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 OPEN WATER HABITAT ............................................................................................... 4 4.0 PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ........................................................... 4 5.0 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 5 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 6 Appendices Appendix A. Figures Appendix B. Antecendent Precipitation Tool Results Appendix C. Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix D. Site Photographs Appendix E. Soil report Tables Table 1. Wetlands Identified Within the Study Area ................................................................... 3 Table 2. Streams Identified Within the Study Area..................................................................... 4 Table 3. Open Waters Identified Within the Study Area ............................................................. 4 Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Page 1 1.0 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Caerus Operating, LLC (Caerus) is proposing a solar project on an 88-acre parcel within Garfield County, Colorado. The proposed study area is located along the valley of Parachute Creek adjacent to County Road 215 (Appendix A). The study area is situated immediately upstream from the confluence of Wheeler Gulch and Riley Gulch with Parachute Creek. From Parachute Creek the terrain rises sharply to the Roan Plateau. Elevation within the study area is approximately 5,400 feet. The study area is in the following sections: • Township 6 South, Range 96 West, Sections 33 and 34 The study area is in the Colorado Plateaus level lll ecoregion which consists of canyons, mesas, plateaus, and mountains and the level IV ecoregion the Escarapments which is characterized by extensive, deeply dissected, cliff-bench complexes that ascend dramatically from surrounding ecoregions to the forested mountain rim. (Chapman et al., 2006) The purpose of this delineation report is to document the type, size, and location of aquatic resources, including wetlands and streams within the study area, and propose jurisdiction under Section 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (i.e., determination of waters of the U.S). Based on a desktop analysis and field delineation conducted on November 2nd, 2022, 12 wetland features were found, totaling 2.804 acres, 1 open water habitat, totaling 0.155 acre, and 3 streams, totaling 1507 linear feet and 0.548 acre, within the study area. 2.0 METHODOLOGY HDR, Inc. (HDR) conducted an on-site routine wetland delineation in the study area on November 2nd, 2022, in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), the Great Plains Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 2010), and Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 05-05 for Ordinary High Water Mark Identification (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers [USACE], 2005). According to the USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool, normal conditions and moderate drought were present at the time of the delineation (USACE, 2021). The WebWIMP H2O Balance documented a wet season for the time of delineation. Results of the Antecedent Precipitation Tool can be found in Appendix B. Prior to the field delineation, a desktop analysis was conducted using National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2021), the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], 2021), Natural Resources Conservation Survey (NRCS) Soil Survey (NRCS 2021), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) NRCS color aerial photographs (USDA, 2022) to identify possible wetlands and other aquatic resources (see Appendix A, Figure 2 – Hydric Soils, NHD, and NWI). Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Page 2 Wetland Determination Data Form locations and aquatic feature boundaries were mapped in the field using sub-foot geographic positioning system (GPS) technology using an EOSTM Arrow 100 antennae and receiver, accompanied by ESRITM Collector software. Wetlands and open water habitats were classified according to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Federal Geographic Data Committee [FGDC], 2013). Vegetation for wetland and upland data forms were classified according to the National Wetland Plant List (USACE, 2020). Streams were classified in the following categories: • Ephemeral Stream: This feature carries only storm water in direct response to precipitation, with water flowing only during and shortly after large precipitation events. An ephemeral stream has a somewhat-defined channel, the aquatic bed is always above the water table, and storm water runoff is the primary source of water. • Intermittent Stream: This feature has a well-defined channel that contains water for only part of the year, typically during winter and spring when the aquatic bed is below the water table. The flow may be heavily supplemented by storm water runoff. • Perennial Stream: This feature has a well-defined channel that contains water year- round during a year of normal precipitation, with the aquatic bed located below the water table for most of the year. Groundwater is the primary source of water for a perennial stream, but it also carries storm water runoff. In general, and according to RGL 05-05, the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) of stream and open water features is delineated by two or more of the following physical characteristics: • Natural line impressed on the bank • Sediment sorting • Shelving • Leaf litter disturbed or washed away • Changes in the character of soil • Scour • Destruction of terrestrial vegetation • Deposition • Presence of litter and debris • Multiple observed flow events • Wracking • Water staining • Vegetation matted down, bent, or absent • Change in plant community 3.0 RESULTS The results are presented in three sub-sections: wetlands, streams, and open water features. The locations of delineated features are shown in Appendix A, Figure 3 — Aquatic Resources Overview. The Wetland Determination Data Forms are provided in Appendix C, and Site Photographs in Appendix D. 3.1 WETLANDS Ten palustrine scrub-shrub and four palustrine emergent wetlands, totaling 2.838 acres were delineated within the study area. Delineated wetlands are summarized in Table 1. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Page 3 Table 1. Wetlands Identified Within the Study Area Wetland ID Wetland / Upland Data Form Wetland Classification1 Area (acres) W-1 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.434 W-2 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.948 W-3 DP-6 / DP-4 PEM 0.107 W-4 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.125 W-5 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.136 W-6 DP-7 / DP- 4 PEM 0.075 W-7 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.044 W-8 DP- 5 / DP-4 PEM 0.033 W-9 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.311 W-10 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.547 W-11 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.014 W-12 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.031 W-13 DP-6 / DP-4 PEM 0.004 W-14 DP-8 / DP-4 PSS 0.029 Total: 2.838 1 PEM = Palustrine Emergent Wetland (FGDC 2013) PSS = Palustrine Scrub Shrub (FGDC 2013) Wetlands W-1, W-2, W-4, W-5, W-7, W-9, W-10, W-11, W-12, and W-14 are all located along Parachute Creek. These scrub shrub wetlands are dominated by coyote willow (Salix exigua) (see Appendix A and data form DP-8 in Appendix B). Wetlands W-1, W-2, W-4, W-5, and W-7 are abutting perennial stream S-1a, wetland W-9 and W-14 is abutting stream S-1b, and Wetlands W-10, W-11, W-12 and W-13 are the furthest south wetlands and are abutting stream S-1b and S-1c. These ten wetlands have a surface hydrologic connection during flood events, as well as an immediate ground water connection to perennial stream S-1 (Parachute Creek). Soil map units within the study area are documented as moderately to strongly saline, providing the potential for problematic alkaline soils wherein iron may not go into solution to then exhibit redoximorphic features when exposed to oxygen (i.e., hydric soil indicators) in the soil profile (see Appendix E Soil Report). Wetlands W-3, W-6, and W-8 are emergent wetlands located in the western portion of the study area abutting stream S-1a. Wetland W-3 was dominated by rabbits’ foot (Polypogon monspeliensis) and some coyote willow, wetland W-6 was dominated by cattails (Typha sp.), and wetland W-8 by common reed (Phragmites australis). Wetland W-13 similar to wetland W-3 was dominated by rabbits’ foot and is abutting perennial stream S-1b. These four wetlands all have a surface hydrologic connection during flood events and immediate groundwater connection to stream S-1a and S-1b. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Page 4 3.2 STREAMS The study area contains one perennial stream. The three perennial stream segments, S-1a, S- b, and S-1c, are segments of Parachute Creek totaling 937, 320, and 250 feet in length, respectively. The summary of streams identified can be found in Table 2. Table 2. Streams Identified Within the Study Area Stream ID Type Stream Channel Length (ft) Average OHWM (Ordinary High-Water Mark) Width (ft) Area (acres) S-1a Perennial 937 15 0.374 S-1b Perennial 320 15 0.085 S-1c Perennial 250 15 0.082 Total: 1507 - 0.541 S-1a, S-1b, and S-1c are part of Parachute Creek and had moderate flow at the time of the delineation. Erosion occurred sporadically on the banks, mostly on the outside bank of bends, averaging approximately six feet in height. The banks of stream S-1 is vegetated with both emergent and scrub shrub wetlands, and uplands dominated by smooth brome (Bromus inermis), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), and Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsii). 3.3 OPEN WATER HABITAT One open water feature was identified during field delineation and comprise 0.155 acre of the study area. Table 3 summarizes all open water habitat found within the study area, including size (acre) and FGDC classification. Table 3. Open Waters Identified Within the Study Area Open Water Habitat ID Wetland Classification1 Area (acre) OW-1 PUB 0.155 Total: 0.155 1 PUB = Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom (FGDC 2013) Open water OW-1 occurs within the central region of the study area. The feature is a result of past excavation within the study area. An industrial operation was in place until 2005, according to Google Earth imagery (Google Earth, 2005). OW-1 is primarily charged by precipitation and overland runoff and has no surface hydrologic connection to Parachute Creek or any of the delineated wetlands. 4.0 PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION Due to the recent court order vacating the Navigable Water Protection Rule revisions to the definition of waters to be regulated by the Clean Water Act (i.e., waters of the U.S.), HDR Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Page 5 evaluated jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act based on the pre-2015 regulatory regime. The most recently approved guidance for jurisdictional determinations from the USACE and Environmental Protection Agency prior to 2015 was published December 2, 2008 (USACE and EPA 2008), referred to as the Rapanos Guidance. Future rulemaking and guidance could change the definition of waters of the U.S. As a result, further evaluation of potential jurisdiction may be necessary when additional guidance or further rulemaking is available from the USACE. Under the pre-2015 regulatory regime, the study area contains nine scrub-shrub wetlands, four emergent wetlands, and one perennial stream, all considered to be waters of the U.S. Open water OW-1 is a result of excavation in dry land and does not drain to a relatively permanent water or traditional navigable water (i.e., isolated with no significant nexus). Therefore, open water OW-1 would not be considered a water of the U.S. under the current regulatory regime (51 Fed Reg 41217 [November 13, 1986]; USACE and EPA., 2008). 5.0 DISCUSSION Fourteen wetlands and one stream, are considered waters of the U.S. based on this delineation and proposed jurisdictional determination. In total, waters of the U.S. comprise 3.379 acres within the study area including, 2.838 acres of wetland and 0.541 acres (1507 linear feet) of stream. These features would be considered waters of the U.S. under the pre-2015 regulatory regime and are summarized in Tables 2, and 3. Open water OW-1, described in Table 4, would not be considered a water of the U.S. under the current regulatory regime. This delineation and proposed jurisdictional determination of waters of the U.S. within the study area is based on the best professional judgement of HDR’s team of wetland delineators with extensive experience with delineation and permitting of wetlands and other aquatic resources in the Great Plains region of the United States. However, it does not constitute an Approved Jurisdictional Determination, which can only be officially rendered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch through the formal review process. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Page 6 6.0 REFERENCES Chapman, S.S., Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Price, A.B., Freeouf, J., and Schrupp, D.L., 2006, Ecoregions of Colorado (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,200,000). Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Adapted from Cowardin, Carter, Golet and LaRoe (1979). https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/wetlands/nwcs-2013. Accessed August 2021. Google Earth. 2005. Parachute, Colorado. 39° 28’ 53.06”N, 108° 06’ 07.31”W, Eye alt 10662 feet, Imagery June 16, 2005 . Version 6.9285. Accessed December 2022. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Web Soil Survey and Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Adams, Arapahoe, and Morgan Counties, Colorado. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed August 2021. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. December 2008. USACE. 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 Subject: Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. 7 December 2005. USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Great Plains Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. USACE. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. https://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/. Accessed August 2021. USACE. 2021. Antecedent Precipitation Tool, version 1.0. https://github.com/jDeters- USACE/Antecedent-Precipitation-Tool/releases/tag/v1.0.3. Accessed August 2021. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022. National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) County Mosaic, Colorado [2005, 2009, 2011, 2021]. NRCS. https://nrcs.app.box.com/v/naip/folder/17936490251. Accessed November 2022. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Page 7 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) on National Map download Viewer. https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/. November August 2022. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed November 2022. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Appendix A. FIGURES \\DEN-GISSRV1\GISDATA\PROJECTS\10356023 - CAERUS SOLAR WHEELER GULCH\7.2_WIP\MAP_DOCS\APRX\CAERUS_SOLAR_WHEELER_GULCH_20221206.APRX DATE: 12/12/2022 DECEMBER 2022 L o w C o s tDitch P a rach u t e C r e e k R d Parac h u t e Creek Cabin Water ParachuteCre e k R d Par ac h u t e D itch P a r a c h u t e C r e e k R d PROJECT LOCATION WHEELER GULCH SOLAR PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Source: ESRI Topographic AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT FIGURE 1 Project Location Garfield County Mesa County Rio Blanco County 0 1,000 Feet Study Area Wh e e l e r G u l c h Ri p l e y G u l c h \\DEN-GISSRV1\GISDATA\PROJECTS\10356023 - CAERUS SOLAR WHEELER GULCH\7.2_WIP\MAP_DOCS\APRX\CAERUS_SOLAR_WHEELER_GULCH_20221206.APRX DATE: 12/6/2022 DECEMBER 2022 FIGURE 2 66 66 50 71 27 47 50 4 47 46 27 50 66 72 72 65 3 ParachuteCreek P a r a c h u t e D i t c h Low C ost Ditch C abin W a ter Project Location Garfield County Mesa County Rio Blanco County NWI, NHD, & NRCS SOILS WHEELER GULCH SOLAR PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Source: USGS NAIP 2021 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT Watercourse (NHD) Wetland (NWI) Soil Map Unit Study Area Soil Map Unit (NRCS) 27,Halaquepts, nearly level 3,Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 4,Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes 46,Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 47,Nihill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes 50,Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 65,Torrifluvents, nearly level 66,Torriorthents-Camborthids-Rock outcrop complex, steep 71,Villa Grove-Zoltay loams, 15 to 30 percent slopes 72,Wann sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0 200 Feet 0 100 Feet \\DEN-GISSRV1\GISDATA\PROJECTS\10356023 - CAERUS SOLAR WHEELER GULCH\7.2_WIP\MAP_DOCS\APRX\CAERUS_SOLAR_WHEELER_GULCH_20221206.APRX DATE: 12/14/2022 FIGURE 3-1 NOVEMBER 2022 P-9 P-11 P-8 P-10 P-12 P-13 P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 DP-4 DP-5 DP-6 DP-7 DP-8 DP-1 S-1a 0.374 ac, 937 linear ft W-7 0.044 ac W-6 0.075 ac W-5 0.136 ac W-3 0.107 ac W-1 0.434 ac W-2 0.948 ac W-4 0.125 ac W-8 0.033 ac AQUATIC RESOURCES OVERVIEW WHEELER GULCH GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Source: USGS NAIP 2021 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT Emergent Wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland Perennial Stream Open Water (PUB) Photo Point Upland Data Point Wetland Data Point Study Area 0 100 Feet \\DEN-GISSRV1\GISDATA\PROJECTS\10356023 - CAERUS SOLAR WHEELER GULCH\7.2_WIP\MAP_DOCS\APRX\CAERUS_SOLAR_WHEELER_GULCH_20221206.APRX DATE: 12/14/2022 FIGURE 3-2 NOVEMBER 2022 P-14 P-16 P-15 DP-2 DP-3 OW-1 0.155 ac AQUATIC RESOURCES OVERVIEW WHEELER GULCH GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Source: USGS NAIP 2021 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT Emergent Wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland Perennial Stream Open Water (PUB) Photo Point Upland Data Point Wetland Data Point Study Area 0 100 Feet \\DEN-GISSRV1\GISDATA\PROJECTS\10356023 - CAERUS SOLAR WHEELER GULCH\7.2_WIP\MAP_DOCS\APRX\CAERUS_SOLAR_WHEELER_GULCH_20221206.APRX DATE: 12/14/2022 FIGURE 3-3 NOVEMBER 2022 P-17 P-18 P-19 P-20 P-21 P-22 S-1b 0.092 ac, 320 linear ft S-1c 0.082 ac, 250 linear ft W-9 0.311 ac W-10 0.547 ac W-11 0.014 ac W-12 0.031 ac W-14 0.029 ac W-13 0.004 ac AQUATIC RESOURCES OVERVIEW WHEELER GULCH GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Source: USGS NAIP 2021 AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT Emergent Wetland Scrub Shrub Wetland Perennial Stream Open Water (PUB) Photo Point Upland Data Point Wetland Data Point Study Area Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Appendix B. ANTECENDENT PRECIPATION TOOL RESULTS Apr 2022 May 2022 Jun 2022 Jul 2022 Aug 2022 Sep 2022 Oct 2022 Nov 2022 Dec 2022 Jan 2023 Feb 2023 Mar 2023 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Ra i n f a l l ( I n c h e s ) 2022-11-02 2022-10-03 2022-09-03 Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range 30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in)70th %ile (in)Observed (in)Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2022-11-02 0.95748 2.101181 1.125984 Normal 2 3 6 2022-10-03 0.966535 2.58937 3.314961 Wet 3 2 6 2022-09-03 0.810236 1.714173 1.397638 Normal 2 1 2 Result Normal Conditions - 14 Coordinates 39.4779421, -108.1038905 Observation Date 2022-11-02 Elevation (ft)5361.14 Drought Index (PDSI)Moderate drought (2022-10) WebWIMP H2O Balance Wet Season Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft)Distance (mi)Elevation Weighted Days (Normal)Days (Antecedent) ALTENBERN 39.4992, -108.3808 5637.139 14.838 275.999 10.773 11253 90 BATTLEMENT MESA 0.8 WSW 39.4368, -108.0383 5363.845 4.508 2.705 2.041 2 0 PARACHUTE 3.5 E 39.4537, -107.9869 6040.026 6.461 678.886 7.294 4 0 RIFLE 0.5 WSW 39.5376, -107.7878 5361.877 17.347 0.737 7.819 2 0 RIFLE 0.8 SW 39.5313, -107.7889 5396.982 17.192 35.842 8.353 2 0 RIFLE 0.8 S 39.5224, -107.7801 5325.131 17.534 36.009 8.522 28 0 RIFLE .96 NNW 39.5483, -107.7873 5425.853 17.562 64.713 9.039 32 0 RIFLE GARFIELD CO AP 39.5264, -107.7264 5529.856 20.402 168.716 12.623 30 0 Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Appendix C. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORMS US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Wheeler Gulch Parachute, Garfield 11/02/2022 Caerus Solar CO DP-1 Natalie Moreno, Erin Bailey T6S R96W Section 33 Plain None 0 - 1 Western Range and Irrigated Region 39.481017 -108.104743 NAD83 Halaquepts, nearly level Upland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30' 0 15' Halogeton glomeratus 10 Yes UPL 10 5' Agropyron cristatum 35 Yes UPL 35 15' 0 Upland area, this area may have been previously disturbed. 65 0 2 0 00 00 00 00 22545 45 225 5 ✔ In this general vicinity there is also greasewood (FAC) US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-1 0 - 6 10YR 4/2 100 Clay Compact soil 6 inches Soil is soft on top layer but could not dig past 6 inches. No redox present. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Salt crust among upland vegetation throughout this area, this must of been an old man made retention pond area. There are berms and lower areas with over grown vegetation. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Wheeler Gulch Parachute, Garfield 11/02/2022 Caerus Solar CO DP-2 Natalie Moreno, Erin Bailey T6S R96W Section 34 Toe Slope Concave 0 - 1 Western Range and Irrigated Region 39.481224 -108.102572 NAD83 Halaquepts, nearly level Upland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30' 0 15' 0 5' 0 15' 0 Sparsely vegetated area with soil cracks and dense salt layer. Bare ground upland area. Historic retention pond visible in this area in NAIP imagery from 1996. 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 ✔ No veg within soil pit area, Tamarix chinensis surrounds this area. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-2 0 - 6 10YR 4/2 100 Clay Compact soil 6 inches No indicators present. Soil has no redox. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Thick layer of salt in this area. Surface soil cracks are larger than DP-1 and are in unvegetated area. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Wheeler Gulch Parachute, Garfield 11/02/2022 Caerus Solar CO DP-3 Natalie Moreno, Erin Bailey T6S R96W Section 34 Toe Slope Concave 5 Western Range and Irrigated Region 39.481289 -108.102709 NAD83 Halaquepts, nearly level Uplands ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30' 0 15' Tamarix chinensis 45 Yes FACW Ericameria nauseosa 20 Yes UPL 65 5' Bromus tectorum 20 Yes UPL Grindelia hirsutula 3 No UPL 23 15' 0 Upland sloped area with tamarix 15 1 3 0.33 00 45 90 00 00 21543 88 305 3.46 ✔ Wetland vegetation criteria is not met. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-3 0 - 12 10YR 4/4 100 Clay loam n/a n/a No indicators present. Soil has no redox. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ No hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Wheeler Gulch Parachute, Garfield 11/02/2022 Caerus Solar CO DP-4 Natalie Moreno, Erin Bailey T6S R96W Section 33 Toe Slope Concave 0 - 1 Western Range and Irrigated Region 39.481077 -108.108034 NAD83 Torrifluvents, nearly level Upland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30' 0 15' Salix exigua 40 Yes FACW Tamarix chinensis 10 No FACW Rosa woodsii 4 No FACU 54 5' Bromus inermis 85 Yes FACU Cirsium arvense 10 No FACU 95 15' 0 Adjacent to cattail and willow wetland areas. Dominated by willow but has smooth brome understudy. 0 1 2 50 00 50 100 00 396 99 0 0 149 496 3.32 ✔ This area has dense wetland species but the under story is upland. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-4 0 - 7 10YR 3/2 100 SCL SCL = Sandy Clay Loam 7 - 12 10YR 4/3 100 SCL SCL = Sandy Clay Loam n/a n/a No indicators present. Soil has no redox. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ No wetland hydrology indicators present. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Wheeler Gulch Parachute, Garfield 11/02/2022 Caerus Solar CO DP-5 Natalie Moreno, Erin Bailey T6S R96W Section 33 Toe Slope Concave 0 - 1 Western Range and Irrigated Region 39.480696 -108.108527 NAD83 Torrifluvents, nearly level Upland ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30' 0 15' 0 5' Phragmites australis 90 Yes FACW 15' 0 Very dense Phragmites australis 5 1 1 100 00 90 180 00 00 00 90 180 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ Area completely dominated by Phragmites australis. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-5 0 - 12 10YR 3/2 100 SL SL = Sandy loam n/a n/a Remarks: Soils within the area identified as moderately to strongly saline, salt content is a common cause of high pH. identifiable iron or manganese features do not readily form in saturated soils with high pH. Therefore, soils are potentially problematic, and considered hydric based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Dry area no wetland primary hydrology indicators present but two secondary are present which trigger wetland hydrology. ✔ US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A)(B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Wheeler Gulch Parachute, Garfield 11/02/2022 Caerus Solar CO DP-6 Natalie Moreno, Erin Bailey T6S R96W Section 33 Toe Slope Concave 0 - 1 Western Range and Irrigated Region 39.481282 -108.107912 NAD83 Torrifluvents, nearly level PEMA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30' 0 15' Salix exigua 25 Yes FACW 25 5' Polypo gon monspeliensis 60 Yes FACW Bromus inermis 10 No FACU Typha sp.5No OBL 75 15' 0 Fringe on side of creek. Area is inundated. 100 2 2 100 55 85 170 00 40 10 0 0 100 215 217.15 ✔ ✔ ✔ Carex in other areas of this PEMA wetland but this area is dominated by rabbit foot grass US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-6 0 - 12 10YR 4/2405YR 3/3 8 C M SCL SCL=Sandy clay loam 10YR 5/1407.5YR 4/6 8 C M SCL SCL=Sandy clay loam 2.5 5 PB 4 D M SCL SCL=Sandy clay loam n/a n/a Gleyed present some shale present; Mixed matrix present. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 1 1 Wetland hydrology present; algal mat also present US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Wheeler Gulch Parachute, Garfield 11/02/2022 Caerus Solar CO DP-7 Natalie Moreno, Erin Bailey T6S R96W Section 33 Toe Slope Concave 0 - 1 Western Range and Irrigated Region 39.481 -108.108106 NAD83 Torrifluvents, nearly level PEMA ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30' 0 15' 0 5' Typha sp.60 Yes OBL 60 15' 0 Wetland dominated with cattails completely inundated 100 1 1 100 60 60 00 00 00 00 60 60 1 ✔ Some carex mixed in with the typha throughout the wetland US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-7 Hydric soils are assumed, area is inundated. Unable to retrieve slab. ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 12 Water reaches just below my muck boot in some areas. US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.01 Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: Wheeler Gulch Parachute, Garfield 11/02/2022 Caerus Solar DP-8 Natalie Moreno, Erin Bailey T6S R96W Section 33 Toe Slope Concave 0 - 1 Western Range and Irrigated Region 39.481465 -108.107827 NAD83 Torrifluvents, nearly level PSS ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 30' 0 15' Salix exigua 80 Yes FACW 80 5' 0 15' 0 20 1 1 100 00 80 160 00 00 00 80 160 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ Area dominated by dense willows US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: DP-8 0 - 6 10YR 3/2 100 Clay Compact soil 6 inches Remarks: Soils are problematic due to high salinity and potential problematic alkaline levels and are assumed hydric based on hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 3 Wetland hydrology present. Inundation with surface water visible in aerial imagery. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Appendix D. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Photo 1: Facing west wetland W-8 (SP-5) dominated by dense common reed. Photo 2: Facing north showing coyote willow dominating wetland W-7 brodering perennial stream S-1a. Photo 3: Facing southwest showing boarder of sucrub-shrub wetland W-6 which is dominated by cattails. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Photo 4: Facing north showing an upland area (DP-4) between a PSS and PEM wetland. Note wetland in the background and upland in the foreground. Photo 5: Facing west showing narrow strip of emergent wetland W-3 associated with DP-6 with scrub- shrub wetlands on each side Photo 6: Facing southwest showing emergent wetland fringe W-3 and perennial stream S-1a Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Photo 7: Facing southwest showing stream S-1a and weltand W-2 dominated by coyote willow on opposite side of stream. Photo 8: Facing west showing wetland W-1 dominated by coyote willow. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Photo 9: Facing north showing upland area in central region within the study area dominated by crested wheat grass (Agropyron cristatum). Photo 10: Facing northeast showing upland area similar to DP-1. Photo 11: Facing west showing upland area within central region of the study area. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Photo 12: Facing north showing man made berm within the central region of the study area. Photo 13: Facing north showing DP-1 an upland area within the central region of the study area. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Photo 14: Facing south showing upland area with a gradual uphill to a manmade berm. Photo 15: Facing southeast showing DP-3 which is adjacent to OW-1. Photo 16: Facing north showing DP-2 and OW-1. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Photo 17: Facing east showing upland area on the southeastern portion of the study area. Photo 18: Facing west showing upland area on the border of the study area in the southeastern portion. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Photo 19: Facing southwest showing smooth brome dominated area. Photo 20: Facing north along stream S-1b and showing scrub-shrub wetland W-9 on the left side of the bank and emergent wetland W-13 on the right. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Photo 21: Facing north along fenceline showing upland area. Photo 22: In dense coyote willow and common reed in wetland W-10. Xcel Energy | Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Aquatic Resource Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters of the U.S. Report Appendix E. SOIL REPORT United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service November 17, 2022 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties............................15 3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes.......................................................15 4—Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes.....................................................16 27—Halaquepts, nearly level......................................................................17 46—Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes.........................................18 47—Nihill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes.......................................19 50—Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes.......................................................20 62—Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very steep.................................21 65—Torrifluvents, nearly level.....................................................................22 66—Torriorthents-Camborthids-Rock outcrop complex, steep....................23 71—Villa Grove-Zoltay loams, 15 to 30 percent slopes..............................26 72—Wann sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes.............................................27 References............................................................................................................29 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 43 7 3 1 0 0 43 7 3 3 0 0 43 7 3 5 0 0 43 7 3 7 0 0 43 7 3 9 0 0 43 7 4 1 0 0 43 7 4 3 0 0 43 7 4 5 0 0 43 7 4 7 0 0 43 7 3 1 0 0 43 7 3 3 0 0 43 7 3 5 0 0 43 7 3 7 0 0 43 7 3 9 0 0 43 7 4 1 0 0 43 7 4 3 0 0 43 7 4 5 0 0 43 7 4 7 0 0 43 7 4 9 0 0 748500 748700 748900 749100 749300 749500 749700 748500 748700 748900 749100 749300 749500 749700 39° 29' 15'' N 10 8 ° 6 ' 4 4 ' ' W 39° 29' 15'' N 10 8 ° 5 ' 4 7 ' ' W 39° 28' 16'' N 10 8 ° 6 ' 4 4 ' ' W 39° 28' 16'' N 10 8 ° 5 ' 4 7 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84 0 400 800 1600 2400Feet 0 100 200 400 600Meters Map Scale: 1:8,810 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography 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: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 6, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 24, 2020—Jul 8, 2020 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 89.3 22.6% 4 Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes 23.3 5.9% 27 Halaquepts, nearly level 31.0 7.8% 46 Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 32.2 8.2% 47 Nihill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes 34.5 8.7% 50 Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 18.1 4.6% 62 Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very steep 1.5 0.4% 65 Torrifluvents, nearly level 50.1 12.7% 66 Torriorthents-Camborthids-Rock outcrop complex, steep 40.6 10.3% 71 Villa Grove-Zoltay loams, 15 to 30 percent slopes 58.3 14.8% 72 Wann sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 15.8 4.0% Totals for Area of Interest 394.7 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties Custom Soil Resource Report 12 and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnxv Elevation: 5,100 to 6,200 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Arvada and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Arvada Setting Landform:Fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: loam H2 - 3 to 17 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 17 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Gypsum, maximum content:2 percent Maximum salinity:Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:30.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R034BY006UT - Alkali Flat (Greasewood) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wann Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Terraces Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Hydric soil rating: Yes 4—Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jny6 Elevation: 5,100 to 6,200 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Arvada and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Arvada Setting Landform:Fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: loam H2 - 3 to 17 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 17 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:6 to 20 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Gypsum, maximum content:2 percent Maximum salinity:Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:30.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R034BY006UT - Alkali Flat (Greasewood) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 16 27—Halaquepts, nearly level Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnxr Elevation: 5,400 to 7,400 feet Frost-free period: 101 to 135 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Halaquepts, nearly level, and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Halaquepts, Nearly Level Setting Landform:Valleys, fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: clay loam H2 - 8 to 24 inches: loam H3 - 24 to 60 inches: stratified very gravelly cobbly sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 inches Frequency of flooding:OccasionalNone Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Gypsum, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:30.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: C/D Hydric soil rating: Yes Custom Soil Resource Report 17 46—Nihill channery loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnyf Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Nihill and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nihill Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, valley sides Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 11 inches: channery loam H2 - 11 to 18 inches: very channery loam H3 - 18 to 60 inches: stratified extremely channery sandy loam to extremely channery loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Gypsum, maximum content:1 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 18 47—Nihill channery loam, 6 to 25 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnyg Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Nihill and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nihill Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, valley sides Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 11 inches: channery loam H2 - 11 to 18 inches: very channery loam H3 - 18 to 60 inches: stratified extremely channery sandy loam to extremely channery loam Properties and qualities Slope:6 to 25 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Gypsum, maximum content:1 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 3.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 19 50—Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnyl Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Olney and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Olney Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, valley sides Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 33 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 33 to 43 inches: gravelly sandy clay loam H4 - 43 to 60 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:3 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 20 62—Rock outcrop-Torriorthents complex, very steep Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnz0 Elevation: 5,800 to 8,500 feet Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 105 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Rock outcrop:65 percent Torriorthents and similar soils:30 percent Minor components:5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Rock Outcrop Setting Landform:Plateaus, escarpments, hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional):Free face Down-slope shape:Convex, concave Across-slope shape:Convex, concave Parent material:Very stony colluvium derived from calcareous shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 60 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:50 to 80 percent Depth to restrictive feature:0 inches to paralithic bedrock Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 0.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydric soil rating: No Description of Torriorthents Setting Landform:Plateaus, hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional):Free face Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Alluvium derived from calcareous shale Custom Soil Resource Report 21 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: variable H2 - 4 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:50 to 80 percent Depth to restrictive feature:4 to 30 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Nihill Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Plateaus, hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional):Shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional):Free face Hydric soil rating: No 65—Torrifluvents, nearly level Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnz3 Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 90 to 120 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Torrifluvents and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 22 Description of Torrifluvents Setting Landform:Flood plains, rivers, distributaries Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear Parent material:Alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 36 inches: loam H2 - 36 to 60 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope:0 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Moderately well drained Runoff class: Low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 12 to 36 inches Frequency of flooding:OccasionalNone Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Gypsum, maximum content:1 percent Maximum salinity:Very slightly saline to moderately saline (2.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:2.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7w Hydrologic Soil Group: C Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wann Percent of map unit:10 percent Landform:Terraces Hydric soil rating: Yes Fluvaquents Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Marshes Hydric soil rating: Yes 66—Torriorthents-Camborthids-Rock outcrop complex, steep Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnz4 Elevation: 5,000 to 8,500 feet Custom Soil Resource Report 23 Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 15 inches Mean annual air temperature: 39 to 46 degrees F Frost-free period: 80 to 105 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Torriorthents, steep, and similar soils:45 percent Camborthids, steep, and similar soils:20 percent Rock outcrop, steep:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Torriorthents, Steep Setting Landform:Mountainsides Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainflank, base slope Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Stony, basaltic alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: variable H2 - 4 to 30 inches: fine sandy loam H3 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 70 percent Depth to restrictive feature:4 to 30 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:5 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 2.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: D Hydric soil rating: No Description of Camborthids, Steep Setting Landform:Mountainsides Landform position (two-dimensional):Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional):Mountainflank, base slope Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Stony, basaltic alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Custom Soil Resource Report 24 Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: variable H2 - 4 to 30 inches: clay loam H3 - 30 to 34 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 65 percent Depth to restrictive feature:15 to 60 inches to lithic bedrock Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Gypsum, maximum content:2 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Hydric soil rating: No Description of Rock Outcrop, Steep Setting Landform:Mountainsides Landform position (three-dimensional):Free face Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Typical profile H1 - 0 to 60 inches: unweathered bedrock Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 70 percent Depth to restrictive feature:0 inches to paralithic bedrock Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Very low to moderately high (0.00 to 0.20 in/hr) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Very low (about 0.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8s Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 25 71—Villa Grove-Zoltay loams, 15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnzb Elevation: 7,500 to 7,600 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Villa grove and similar soils:50 percent Zoltay and similar soils:40 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Villa Grove Setting Landform:Mountainsides, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam H2 - 4 to 15 inches: clay loam H3 - 15 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Very slightly saline to moderately saline (2.0 to 8.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R048AY238CO - Brushy Loam Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 26 Description of Zoltay Setting Landform:Mountainsides, alluvial fans Landform position (three-dimensional):Lower third of mountainflank Down-slope shape:Convex Across-slope shape:Convex Parent material:Mixed alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 19 inches: loam H2 - 19 to 23 inches: cobbly clay loam H3 - 23 to 36 inches: cobbly clay H4 - 36 to 60 inches: cobbly clay Properties and qualities Slope:15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Very high Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.5 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R048AY238CO - Brushy Loam Hydric soil rating: No 72—Wann sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnzc Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium Map Unit Composition Wann and similar soils:85 percent Minor components:15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Custom Soil Resource Report 27 Description of Wann Setting Landform:Valley floors, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear Parent material:Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: sandy loam H2 - 8 to 60 inches: fine sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Poorly drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):High (2.00 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:About 0 inches Frequency of flooding:OccasionalNone Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 9.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4w Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6w Hydrologic Soil Group: A/D Ecological site: R034BY024UT - Wet Saline Meadow (Inland saltgrass) Hydric soil rating: Yes Minor Components Torrifluvents Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Kim Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Arvada Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 28 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 29 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 30 Wheeler Gulch Solar Project This page intentionally left blank. Wheeler Gulch Solar Project G Vegetation Management Plan Wheeler Gulch Solar Project This page intentionally left blank. Vegetation Management Plan Caerus Operating, LLC Wheeler Gulch Solar Project Prepared for: Prepared by: D January 2023 Caerus Operating, LLC | Garfield County, Colorado Wheeler Gulch Solar Project VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN This page intentionally left blank. Caerus Operating, LLC | Garfield County, Colorado Wheeler Gulch Solar Project VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Abbreviations and Acronyms Caerus Caerus Operating, LLC C.R.S. Colorado Revised Statutes CDA Colorado Department of Agriculture GCVM Garfield County Vegetation Management GPS Global Positioning System lbs pounds MW megawatt NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service PLS Pure Live Seed Project Wheeler Gulch Solar Field ft2 square feet VMP Vegetation Management Plan vns variety not stated Caerus Operating, LLC | Garfield County, Colorado Wheeler Gulch Solar Project VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Contents 1. Introduction and Project Description .................................................................................... 3 2. Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Project Responsibilities ................................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1. Caerus (Project Proponent) .................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2. Construction Contractor ........................................................................................................ 5 2.1.3. Reclamation Contractor ........................................................................................................ 5 2.1.4. Garfield County (Regulatory) ................................................................................................ 5 3. Reclamation and Revegetation Measures ............................................................................. 5 3.1. Proposed Native Seed Mix ............................................................................................................ 5 3.2. Seeding Approach ......................................................................................................................... 6 3.3. Reclamation Success Criteria ....................................................................................................... 7 4. Noxious Weed Management ................................................................................................. 8 4.1. Recorded Noxious Weed Occurrences ......................................................................................... 8 4.2. Integrated Noxious Weed Management ..................................................................................... 10 4.3. Chemical Control ......................................................................................................................... 11 4.4. Mechanic Control ........................................................................................................................ 12 4.5. Cultural Control ........................................................................................................................... 13 4.6. Wash Stations ............................................................................................................................. 13 5. Monitoring, Reporting, and Remedial Action .......................................................................13 5.1. Revegetation ............................................................................................................................... 13 5.2. Noxious Weeds Management ..................................................................................................... 14 5.3. Reporting and Remedial Actions ................................................................................................. 14 6. References .........................................................................................................................15 Appendices Appendix A: Control Methods for Project Noxious Weed Species Figures Figure 1. Project Area Location..................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2. Project Area Habitat ....................................................................................................................... 9 Tables Table 1. Seed Mix and Application Rates (Upland Mix) ............................................................................... 6 Table 2. Colorado State-Listed Noxious Weed Species Detected in the Project Area ................................ 8 Table 3. Integrated Noxious Weed and Vegetation Management Technique ............................................ 11 Table 4. Project Contacts ............................................................................................................................ 15 Caerus Operating, LLC | Garfield County, Colorado Wheeler Gulch Solar Project VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3 1. Introduction and Project Description Caerus Operating, LLC (Caerus) is proposing the construction of a 10 megawatt (MW) solar facility (project) located approximately three miles northwest of Parachute, Colorado between Parachute Creek and County Road 215 (Figure 1). The project area is an approximately 88-acre parcel in Garfield County, Colorado and within the Public Land Survey System Township 6 South Range 96 West Sections 33 and 34. The most recent proposed layout indicates that the solar array will be constructed on up to approximately 45 acres of upland habitat within the project area. The proposed layout avoids the riparian habitat along Parachute Creek. The upland habitat within the project area is primarily scrub shrub dominated by greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), and halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus). 2. Purpose and Need This document serves as the Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) for the project. This VMP comprises three main sections: (1) reclamation and revegetation measures; (2) noxious weed management; and (3) monitoring, reporting, and remedial action. For the purposes of this VMP, noxious weeds are defined as those plants listed under the Colorado Noxious Weed Act, Colorado Revised Statue (C.R.S) 35-5.5-101-119. The Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) is responsible for the monitoring and control of noxious weeds in the state. The species of concern are categorized as A-, B-, or C-rated plants according to their current level of infestation and threat, with A-rated being of highest concern. Generally, the categories are defined as follows. • A-Rated: Species in Colorado are designated for eradication wherever they are found. • B-Rated: Those species for which management is designed to eradicate, contain, or suppress in portions of the state designated by the commissioner in order to stop their continued spread. • C-Rated: Widespread and well-established noxious weed species for which control is recommended but not required, although local governing bodies may require management. The purpose of this VMP is also to identify and detail the necessary measures to achieve project site reclamation and revegetation. The following procedures and standards would be implemented and upheld toward the successful reclamation of construction-related disturbances. • Reclamation performance standards as defined by Garfield County and the State of Colorado • Environmental conditions pertinent to reclamation activities and success • Vegetation and soil management techniques • Reclamation procedures, including site preparation, mulching, and seeding Caerus Operating, LLC | Garfield County, Colorado Wheeler Gulch Solar Project VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 4 • Reclamation measures for disturbance on wetland (avoidance) and upland habitats (revegetation) • Monitoring and reporting requirements Figure 1. Project Area Location Caerus Operating, LLC | Garfield County, Colorado Wheeler Gulch Solar Project VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 5 2.1. Project Responsibilities Compliance with this VMP is contingent upon project planning and execution of the following roles and responsibilities. 2.1.1. Caerus (Project Proponent) Caerus would be responsible for the following. • Ensure the appropriate reviews, approvals, and implementation of this VMP • Appoint and manage a qualified, licensed reclamation contractor • Coordinate with the reclamation contractor and Garfield County regarding scheduled vegetation management activities 2.1.2. Construction Contractor The construction contractor would be responsible for the following. • Project construction-related activities • Oversee the various subcontracted construction companies working on the project • Implement applicable pre-construction and construction phase restoration (e.g., recontouring and stabilization) and impact minimization measures (e.g., stormwater control measures) • Identify and maintain noxious weed wash stations • Ensure that vehicles and materials are clean prior to project site entry or exit 2.1.3. Reclamation Contractor The reclamation contractor would be responsible for the following. • Implement and monitor revegetation of project disturbances • Noxious weed management planning, implementation, and monitoring • Conduct noxious weed treatments and manage herbicide application records • Implement and monitor the efficacy of noxious weed treatments • Annual mowing in late June or early July • Coordinate with Garfield County to document noxious weed treatments 2.1.4. Garfield County (Regulatory) Garfield County would be responsible for the following. • Approve this VMP and other project management plans • Attend annual meetings (as necessary) with Caerus and the reclamation contractor • Approve seed mixes and herbicides used on the project site • Inspect the project site for compliance and provide regulatory guidance 3. Reclamation and Revegetation Measures 3.1. Proposed Native Seed Mix Caerus is responsible for controlling soil erosion and gullying in the project area during construction and operation. The project design would avoid the accumulation of excessive Caerus Operating, LLC | Garfield County, Colorado Wheeler Gulch Solar Project VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 6 heads of water and encroachment on streams. Caerus would revegetate or otherwise stabilize all ground where the soil has been exposed as a result of construction activities, maintenance, and operation. Caerus will also construct and maintain necessary preventive measures to supplement the vegetation. A native seed mix appropriate for the upland portions of the project area is provided in Table 1 below. This seed mix was identified in coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Seeds used for revegetation would be certified noxious weed-free. This would be accomplished by purchasing seed mixes from county-approved vendors or testing seed lots through an independent laboratory. The results of the seed testing would be presented to the Garfield County vegetation manager prior to use on the project. Approved seed mixes would be free of noxious weeds, common weeds, and crop weeds. Unless purchased from a trusted vendor, manufacturer labels on seed bags are insufficient proof of certified noxious weed-free seed. Table 1. Seed Mix and Application Rates (Upland Mix) Seed Mix Species Cultivar Percent of Seed Mix Total PLS pounds (lbs)* PLS (lbs/acre) PLS (seeds/ft2) Bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides) Toe Jam Creek 10% 40.94 0.91 4.00 Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) Rimrock 15% 50.05 1.11 6.00 Western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) Arriba 15% 108.00 2.40 6.00 Inland saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) vns 10% 15.08 0.34 4.00 Sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus) Western 15% 3.38 0.08 6.00 Alkali sacaton (Sporoblous airoides) vns 10% 6.75 0.15 4.00 Scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea) vns 10% 15.68 0.35 4.00 Hairy false goldenaster (Heterotheca villosa) vns 10% 12.25 0.27 4.00 Western yarrow (Achillea millefolium) vns 5% 1.41 0.03 2.00 TOTAL 100% 253.53 5.63 40 Source: NRCS 2022; vns = variety not stated; PLS = Pure Live Seed * Assuming 45 acres will be seeded 3.2. Seeding Approach The reclamation contractor would identify areas requiring seeding and would determine the necessary level of effort and approach based on surface disturbance, soil compaction, and the condition of underlying root systems after construction. A drill seed approach will be used, as applicable to the particular area(s), to reseed after disturbed soils are recontoured and/or roughened for seeding. Sites where soils are not physically displaced during construction would typically retain the root systems and native seed bank, which would permit natural regrowth of existing vegetation. Therefore, areas such as access roads and staging areas would be assessed on a site-specific basis for prescribed soil preparation and reseeding efforts. Soil preparation would occur prior to reseeding to promote maximum seed germination. All soil ripping, soil harrowing, and seeding operations would be performed as close to parallel to the Caerus Operating, LLC | Garfield County, Colorado Wheeler Gulch Solar Project VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 7 topographic contours as possible. Following seeding, the surface would be dragged, harrowed, and/or hand raked as needed based on site conditions. After seeding, cleared vegetation would be spread throughout reclaimed areas to imitate natural colors and textures in the landscape, preserve carbon and other soil nutrients, increase water retention, and to create microclimates that promote vegetation establishment and plant diversity. Seeding success is influenced by temperature, precipitation, wind, aspect/slope, soil type, and other environmental factors. The best germination occurs when temperatures are above freezing and during high precipitation seasons. In Colorado, optimal seeding conditions for cool- season species usually occur in the late fall and early spring. Therefore, seeding should be conducted between October 25 and April 30. However, seeding would not be conducted during windy conditions or when the ground is excessively wet, frozen, snow covered, extremely dry, cloddy, hard, or otherwise untillable. The reclamation contractor would consider the collective environmental factors when seeding application is conducted across the project site. Site reclamation is anticipated to be achieved within four growing seasons or when the project area has reached around 70 percent of pre-construction vegetation density. The reclamation contractor would monitor revegetation progress until such time that reclamation success is approved by the Garfield County vegetation manager. The revegetated site would be mowed annually between June 15 and July 15 for the duration of the solar facility's operational lifespan. Annual mowing in early summer would help to mechanically control noxious weeds while minimizing damage to native plants. Most native plants would mature in mid- or late summer. This is expected to support the native plant community and promote natural competition of the native community with noxious weed species. 3.3. Reclamation Success Criteria The goal of post-construction reclamation is to return the land to a state approximating pre-construction conditions. This includes reclamation of the landform and natural vegetative communities, hydrologic systems, visual resources, and wildlife habitats. Successful reclamation would meet the following reclamation success criteria. • Erosional features are equal to or less than those in the surrounding area. Water infiltrates the soil rather than running off the surface. • Noxious weed species' cover is equal or less than that present before construction. • Temporary soil disturbances are recontoured to the original topography and grade. • Disturbances to soils and vegetation are not obvious to the untrained eye, with the exception of permanently disturbed areas, such as access roads. • Revegetated plant densities (not including noxious weed species) are at least 70 percent of representative pre-construction plant cover. The percentage threshold would be compared to representative vegetation communities of grasses, forbs, and sub-shrubs. Shrubs and trees are not a component of the seed mix. • Grasses, forbs, and sub-shrubs must be resilient, as demonstrated by vigor with well- developed root systems and the ability to produce viable seed. Caerus Operating, LLC | Garfield County, Colorado Wheeler Gulch Solar Project VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 8 4. Noxious Weed Management 4.1. Recorded Noxious Weed Occurrences A noxious and invasive weed survey was conducted within and adjacent to the project area boundary. During the survey conducted on November 2, 2022, five noxious weed species were documented in the project area. The survey was conducted outside of the growing season, but the remnants of several species of noxious weeds were still visible. List A noxious weed species were not observed within or near the project area. The recorded noxious weeds were distributed among three general areas – riparian habitat along Parachute Creek, upland habitat, and the open water feature on the east-central side of the project area (see Table 2 and Figure 2). There are both native and noxious subspecies of common reed (Phragmites australis) in Colorado. The dense monocultures of common reed observed within the project area indicate that it is likely the noxious subspecies, but its identification should be confirmed during the growing season prior to any treatments (CDA 2016). Table 2. Colorado State-Listed Noxious Weed Species Detected in the Project Area Species Name CDA Noxious Weed Listing Population Size in Project Area Occurrence Pattern and Location Salt cedar (Tamarix chinensis) B Small – A few dozen plants Around the open water feature on the east-central side of project area Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) B Medium – Hundreds of plants Throughout riparian habitat along Parachute Creek Common burdock (Arctium minus) C Small – A few dozen plants Scattered throughout southeastern riparian habitat Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) C Medium – Hundreds of plants Scattered throughout upland habitat Common reed (Phragmites australis) Watch List Large – Thousands of plants Throughout riparian habitat along Parachute Creek Source: CDA 2022