Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1.00 General Application Materials
Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.garfield-county.com LAND USE CHANGE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM TYPE OF APPLICATION Administrative Review Development in 100-Year Floodplain Limited Impact Review Development in 100-Year Floodplain Variance Major Impact Review Code Text Amendment Amendments to an Approved LUCP LIR MIR SUP Rezoning Zone District PUD PUD Amendment Minor Temporary Housing Facility Administrative Interpretation Vacation of a County Road/Public ROW Appeal of Administrative Interpretation Location and Extent Review Areas and Activities of State Interest Comprehensive Plan Amendment Accommodation Pursuant to Fair Housing Act Pipeline Development Variance Time Extension (also check type of original application) INVOLVED PARTIES Owner/Applicant Name: ________________________________________________ Phone: (______)_________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________ City: _______________________________________ State: _______ Zip Code: ____________________ E-mail:_______________________________________________________________________________ Representative (Authorization Required) Name: ________________________________________________ Phone: (______)_________________ Mailing Address: ______________________________________________________________________ City: _______________________________________ State: _______ Zip Code: ____________________ E-mail:_______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Assessor’s Parcel Number: ___ ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ - ___ ___ - ___ ___ ___ Physical/Street Address: ________________________________________________________________ Legal Description: ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: ___________________________________ Property Size (acres): __________________ 2 1 7 9 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 Rew Ranch Project LLC 714 279-6143 150 Paularino Ave, Building C Costa Mesa CA 92626 thutcheson@srcmail.com Pivot Energy Inc 415 306-6332 1601 Wewatta St #700 Denver CO 80202 bradley.thomas@pivotenergy.net Pivot Solar 61 LLC, Pivot Solar 62 LLC, and Pivot Solar 72 LLC 35445 US-6, Silt, CO 81652 THAT PT OF NENW AND NWNW OF SEC 12 LYING N OF THE NLY ROW LINE OF ST HWY 6&24. ALSO A TR AS DESC IN BK 918, PG 037. Rural 70.639 ✔ PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUEST FOR WAIVERS Submission Requirements The Applicant requesting a Waiver of Submission Requirements per Section 4-202. List: Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ Waiver of Standards The Applicant is requesting a Waiver of Standards per Section 4-118. List: Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ Section: ______________________________ Section: _________________________________ I have read the statements above and have provided the required attached information which is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge. ______________________________________________________ __________________________ Signature of Property Owner or Authorized Representative, Title Date OFFICIAL USE ONLY File Number: __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ Fee Paid: $_____________________________ Existing Use: ____________________________________________________________________________________. Proposed Use (From Use Table 3-403): ____________________________________________________ Description of Project: __________________________________________________________________ ϭ͘dŚĞ ĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ LJŽƵ ĂƌĞ ĂƉƉĞĂůŝŶŐ͘ Ϯ͘dŚĞ ĚĂƚĞ ƚŚĞ ĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ǁĂƐ ƐĞŶƚ ĂƐ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ŶŽƚŝĐĞ ;ĚĂƚĞ ŵĂŝůĞĚͿ͘ ϯ͘dŚĞ ŶĂƚƵƌĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ƚŚĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĞĚ ŐƌŽƵŶĚ ĨŽƌ ĂƉƉĞĂů͘ WůĞĂƐĞ ĐŝƚĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐ ĐŽĚĞ ƐĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ ĂŶĚͬŽƌ ƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ LJŽƵƌ ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚ͘ ϰ͘dŚĞ ĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĂƉƉĞĂů ĨĞĞ ŽĨ ΨϮϱϬ͘ϬϬ͘ ϱ͘WůĞĂƐĞ ŶŽƚĞ Ă ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚ ƉƉĞĂů ƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ĂŶĚ ĨĞĞƐ ŵƵƐƚ ďĞ ƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ϯϬ ĐĂůĞŶĚĂƌ ĚĂLJƐ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĚĂƚĞ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĨŝŶĂů ǁƌŝƚƚĞŶ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞ /ŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘ &Žƌ ƉƉĞĂů ŽĨ ĚŵŝŶŝƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞ /ŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ ƉůĞĂƐĞ ŝŶĐůƵĚĞ͗ Residential Solar Energy System, Large Application for an approximately 7.5-megawatt solar facility. ■ 4-203.M (Water Supply/Dist. Plan)4-203.N (Wastewater Mgmt./System Plan) 4-203.L (Traffic Study) Authorized Representative 08/27/2024 PAYMENT AGREEMENT FORM GARFIELD COUNTY (“COUNTY”) and Property Owner (“APPLICANT”) ______ ____ ______________________________________________________________________ agree as follows: 1. The Applicant has submitted to the County an application for the following Project: __________________. 2. The Applicant understands and agrees that Garfield County Resolution No. 2014-60, as amended, establishes a fee schedule for each type application, and the guidelines for the administration of the fee structure. 3. The Applicant and the County agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. The Applicant agrees to make payment of the Base Fee, established for the Project, and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to the Applicant. The Applicant agrees to make additional payments upon notification by the County, when they are necessary, as costs are incurred. 4. The Base Fee shall be in addition to and exclusive of any cost for publication or cost of consulting service determined necessary by the Board of County Commissioners for the consideration of an application or additional County staff time or expense not covered by the Base Fee. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial Base Fee, the Applicant shall pay additional billings to the County to reimburse the County for the processing of the Project. The Applicant acknowledges that all billing shall be paid prior to the final consideration by the County of any Land Use Change or Division of Land. I hereby agree to pay all fees related to this application: Billing Contact Person:_____________________________________ Phone: (_____)___________________ Billing Contact Address: ___________________________________________________________________ City: ______________________________________________ State: _______ Zip Code: ________________ Billing Contact Email: _____________________________________________________________________ Printed Name of Person Authorized to Sign: ___________________________________________________ ______ ________________________________ (Signature) (Date) Bradley Thomas 415 306-6332 1601 Wewatta St #700 Denver CO 80202 bradley.thomas@pivotenergy.net Kyle Sundman, Authorized Representative Rew Ranch Project LLC Pivot Solar 61 LLC, Pivot Solar 62 LLC, and Pivot Solar 72 LLC 08/28/2024 Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Project Narrative 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net Narrative for Major Impact Review – Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs August 2024 Public Service Company of Colorado (“Xcel Energy”) has contracted with Pivot Energy to design, permit, and build three co-located solar projects totaling 7.5 megawatts (“MW”) AC on a parcel of land owned by Rew Ranch Project, LLC (“landowner”), located at 35445 US-6, Silt, CO 81652. The three proposed projects are known as Pivot Solar 61 LLC (“PS61”) - 5MW, Pivot Solar 62 LLC (“PS62”) - 2MW, and Pivot Solar 72 LLC (“PS72”) - 0.5MW. Pivot has three active ground leases in place with the landowner totalling approximately 48.5 acres of the larger 70.6-acre parcel. All 48.5 acres under lease are currently vacant. The parcel is zoned Rural and is primarily undeveloped open land. Approximately 2 months in advance of this application’s submission, Pivot Energy began working directly with neighbors of the project to ensure their feedback was incorporated into the application. This is discussed in the community outreach and engagement section below. The three projects are contracted for 20 years of power production through Xcel Solar*Rewards programs with options to extend production beyond for the full term of the lease, and are currently being studied for interconnection to the utility grid. The facilities will produce enough emission-free electricity to power the equivalent of approximately 1,780 homes. PS61, PS62, and PS72 are being evaluated as part of a new and innovative “agrivoltaics” (agriculture + photovoltaics) initiative at Pivot Energy, going above and beyond industry standard practices and Garfield County requirements. If determined to be feasible at the site, Pivot will work with a local tenant farmer to cultivate low-growth herbs or vegetables underneath the rows of solar panels using water already available onsite via the Ware and Hinds Ditch. Notably, cultivation of low-growth crops will not require the solar racking to be increased in height as has been required at other agrivoltaics sites – this comes with the same benefits of increasing the agricultural productivity of the land without the additional visual impact of taller rows of solar panels. If crop production is not feasible, Pivot plans to utilize sheep grazing as a means of vegetation management. A mix of forbs, fescues, and clovers will be planted on site. Pivot works with professional ecologists and civil firms to specify the seed mixes in order to ensure that the chosen plants will provide the right balance of biodiversity and high forage content to support the herd and improve soil quality over time. Pivot also aims to include a mixture of some nitrogen fixing and some nitrogen feeding varietals, which eliminates the need for using chemical fertilizers onsite. Sheep grazing helps to further establish plants via animal hooves integrating seeds into the soil, and their waste acts as a natural and low-odor fertilizer to enrich the soil. Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Project Narrative 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net The project will use industry-standard solar equipment including photovoltaic (PV) solar modules and single axis tracking racks. The racks follow the angle of the sun during the day, maximizing the amount of energy produced by the solar modules. Pivot Energy has completed a review of any potential impacts to air traffic and has received a generated conclusion that no additional FAA review is required. During construction, crews of 10-30 people will access the site via two accesses along US-6 – one on each side of the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch, as shown in the site plan. Pivot will work with the Colorado Department of Transportation to ensure access points meet all applicable requirements. The bulk of the construction period will last approximately 5-7 months. Once construction is complete, the solar array will operate with no on-site personnel. Periodic site visits with a standard-sized pickup truck are required to ensure mechanical and electrical connections and communications equipment are operating as expected. These operation and maintenance visits typically occur 4-8 times annually with a crew of up to four people. If crop production is determined to be feasible onsite, tenant farmer operations may require additional visits. In either case, crop production or not, site visits during operations will not impact area roads and traffic, as the total number of annual visits will be less than that of even a typical single-family residence. The solar equipment will operate with minimal noise and, importantly, only during daylight hours. The racks follow the sun during the day and are powered by electric motors that advance the racks at small increments. Located on the equipment pad, inverters and a transformer work together to convert the direct current electricity (“DC”) produced by the solar panels to alternating current electricity (“AC”) at a suitable voltage for injection to the local electrical grid. This process creates roughly as much noise as a residential air conditioner unit during daylight hours. At a distance of 150 feet from the inverters, noise levels generally approach background levels, per a study conducted by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. The nearest residential home to this project is roughly 650 feet away from the equipment pad. The proposed project will not generate any odors, and the site will have no lighting. The proposed project will not require potable water, septic system, public water, or sewer because the site will be mostly unmanned once construction is complete. During construction and any maintenance visits, appropriate on-site services will be maintained to ensure work crews have adequate access to portable toilets and potable water for drinking and washing hands. Because the site will generally not be staffed, a minimal level of emergency service will be required. Emergency services will have full access to the site off of US-6. While the proposed projects are not considered “Industrial” uses in the land use code, PS61, PS62, and PS72 will voluntarily comply with the 100’ setback contemplated in Garfield County Land Use Code article 7-1001.B for the Rural-zoned properties to the north and east of the project to mitigate any visual impacts. Though not required, Pivot is also proposing vegetative screening along the northern border of the projects to further break up the view into the project area, which will be located within the distance between Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Project Narrative 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net the project’s fence line and the property boundaries to the north. The minimum distance from the solar panels to the nearest residence will be approximately 215 feet. Underneath the panels, crop production is currently being evaluated as a secondary use. Areas not being cultivated will have locally appropriate, pollinator-friendly, and low-growth vegetation that will help the array blend into the natural surroundings and act as screening from adjacent landowners. Included in Figure 1 below are photos of past projects as an example. Figure 1: Vegetation before and after construction at Front Range site Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Project Narrative 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net Community Outreach and Engagement Community engagement is a critical part of the way Pivot Energy develops solar projects. In fact, we even have a dedicated community engagement team that works alongside our developers to facilitate this process. Unlike many other developers, we aim to proactively address questions and incorporate feedback from neighbors well in advance of permit application submission. Pivot is committed to thoughtfully developing projects to suit the unique needs of the neighborhoods in which we work. In preparation for application submission, all adjacent residential property owners and the full Peach Valley Acres subdivision were sent USPS Priority mail flat envelopes on June 25, 2024, including information about the project, contact information, a request to provide feedback and questions, and an invitation to a community meeting on 7/10/24 at the Silt Branch Library. A total of 30 letters were sent to adjacent neighbors (as indicated in the aerial image above). There was a strong turnout of roughly 20 people to the community meeting, where Pivot staff gave a presentation about the project. After the presentation, roughly 1 hour was allotted for questions, during which community members had a chance to voice concerns and get answers to them directly. After the meeting, a copy of the presentation, environmental study, threatened and endangered species study, and site plan were sent out, along with some additional photos of the fencing proposed. Pivot has proactively chosen to include vegetative screening with this application and will continue to work with neighbors to incorporate any feedback that can be reasonably implemented. Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Project Narrative 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net Waiver Requests for Submittal Requirements 4-203.M. Water Supply and Distribution Plan Pivot Solar 61 LLC, Pivot Solar 62 LLC, and Pivot Solar 72 LLC are requesting a waiver of the submittal requirement for a Water Supply and Distribution Plan, as defined in Garfield County Land Use Code Chapter 4-203.M. Solar facilities are unmanned and as such do not require water supplies to operate. Potable water in water bottles will be supplied during the construction phase and during maintenance operations, but no other potable water source is required to operate the solar facilities. 4-203.N. Wastewater Management and System Plan Pivot Solar 61 LLC, Pivot Solar 62 LLC, and Pivot Solar 72 LLC are requesting a waiver of the submittal requirement for a Wastewater Management and System Plan, as defined in Garfield County Land Use Code Chapter 4-203.N. Solar facilities are unmanned and do not produce any wastewater through their operations. Portable toilets will be provided during the project's construction phase, but no permanent wastewater management is proposed. 4-203.L. Traffic Study Pivot Solar 61 LLC, Pivot Solar 62 LLC, and Pivot Solar 72 LLC are requesting a waiver of the submittal requirement for a full Traffic Study, as defined in Garfield County Land Use Code Chapter 4-203.L. Solar facilities are unmanned and as such generate an extremely limited number of trips (4-8 per year with one pickup truck) during their normal operations. A Traffic Letter has been supplied with this application that discusses traffic volumes during construction and operations in more detail. Customer Distribution Prevent fraud - Please call a member of our closing team for wire transfer instructions or to initiate a wire transfer. Note that our wiring instructions will never change. Order Number: RND63020896-4 Date: 08/21/2024 Property Address: PS 61 REW RANCHES 1, SILT, CO 81652 For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance GEORGE RIETSCH 5975 GREENWOOD PLAZA BLVD GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80111 (303) 850-4141 (Work) grietsch@ltgc.com Buyer/Borrower PIVOT ENERGY Attention: Thomas Bradley 1601 WEWATTA ST., #700 DENVER, CO 80202 bradley.thomas@pivotenergy.net ksundman@pivotenergy.net Delivered via: Electronic Mail Agent for Seller PIVOT ENERGY Attention: CAIT O'MARA 1750 15TH ST SUITE 400 DENVER, CO 80202 (631) 513-2147 (Cell) comara@pivotenergy.net Delivered via: Electronic Mail Agent for Seller PIVOT ENERGY Attention: KYLE SUNDMAN 1750 15TH ST SUITE 400 DENVER, CO 80202 (719) 233-4322 (Cell) ksundman@pivotenergy.net Delivered via: Electronic Mail SALES REP FOR SOLAR PROJECTS LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY Attention: TOM KIMBALL 3033 EAST FIRST AVENUE SUITE 600 DENVER, CO 80206 (303) 877-2127 (Cell) (303) 877-2127 (Work) tkimball@ltgc.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail Estimate of Title Fees Order Number: RND63020896-4 Date: 08/21/2024 Property Address: PS 61 REW RANCHES 1, SILT, CO 81652 Seller(s): PIVOT SOLAR 61, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Buyer(s): PIVOT SOLAR 61 LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Thank you for putting your trust in Land Title. Below is the estimate of title fees for the transaction. The final fees will be collected at closing. Visit ltgc.com to learn more about Land Title. Estimate of Title Insurance Fees "TBD" Commitment $1,210.00 TBD - TBD Income $1,210.00 TOTAL $2,420.00 Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the documents on your property. Chain of Title Documents: Garfield county recorded 09/29/2023 under reception no. 990030 Garfield county recorded 05/24/2024 under reception no. 996410 Property Address: PS 61 REW RANCHES 1, SILT, CO 81652 1. Effective Date: 07/26/2024 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: PIVOT SOLAR 61 LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY $0.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A LEASEHOLD AS CREATED BY THAT CERTAIN LEASE DATED SEPTEMBER 1, 2023, EXECUTED BY REW RANCH PROJECT LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS OWNER AND PIVOT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS COMPANY AS REFERNECED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED, "MEMORANDUM OF LEASE", WHICH WAS RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 2023 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 990030, AND THE ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN PIVOT ENERGY DEVELOPMENT LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS ASSIGNOR AND PIVOT SOLAR 61 LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS ASSIGNEE, RECORDED MAY 24, 2024 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 996410, FOR THE TERM AND UPON AND SUBJECT TO ALL PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SAID DOCUMENT AND IN SAID LEASE. 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: PIVOT SOLAR 61, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:RND63020896-4 Copyright 2006-2024 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. *************************************************************** NOTE: THE FOLLOWING LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS PRELIMINARY AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SCHEDULE B-1, HEREIN. *************************************************************** SECTION 1: SE1/4SW1/4; SECTION 12: THAT PART OF THE NE1/4NW1/4 AND THE NW1/4NW1/4 LYING NORTH OF THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 6 & 24; TOGETHER WITH: THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN QUITCLAIM DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 4, 1994 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 469282; ALL IN TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 92 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 89 ° 34' 22" EAST 1313.67 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SE1/4SW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE NORTH 00 ° 05' 58" WEST 1331.95 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SE1/4SW1/4; THENCE SOUTH 89 ° 58' 19" EAST 1309.94 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SE1/4SW1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00 ° 15' 37" EAST 1321.53 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SE1/4SW1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00 ° 12' 24" EAST 215.80 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NE1/4NW1/4 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY 6 & 24; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH 77 ° 33' 03" WEST 883.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH 13 ° 42' 28" WEST 8.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77 ° 35' 39" WEST 1702.52 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12 ° 24' 21" WEST 20.00 FEET THENCE SOUTH 76 ° 55' 33" WEST 223.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO. 469282; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL NORTH 32 ° 12' 17" EAST 41.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23 ° 21' 18" EAST 81.44 FEET; THENCE NORTH 19 ° 07' 42" EAST 212.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 00 ° 19' 42" WEST 464.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:RND63020896-4 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: RND63020896-4 All of the following Requirements must be met: This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. (THIS ITEM WAS INTENTIONALLY DELETED) The following will be required should the Company be requested to issue a future commitment to insure: 1. (THIS ITEM WAS INTENTIONALLY DELETED) 2. (THIS ITEM WAS INTENTIONALLY DELETED) 3. (THIS ITEM WAS INTENTIONALLY DELETED) 4. (THIS ITEM WAS INTENTIONALLY DELETED) 5. LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY REQUIRES AN ACCURATE LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO BE PROVIDED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. UPON FURTHER REVIEW THE COMPANY HEREBY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO INSERT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY. 6. A FULL COPY OF THE FULLY EXECUTED OPERATING AGREEMENT AND ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO FOR PIVOT SOLAR 61 LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MUST BE FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY. SAID AGREEMENT MUST DISCLOSE WHO MAY CONVEY, ACQUIRE, ENCUMBER, LEASE OR OTHERWISE DEAL WITH INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY FOR SAID ENTITY. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MAY BE NECESSARY UPON REVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENTATION. 7. DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE NAME OF PIVOT SOLAR 61 LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE ENTITY, AND THE NAME AND POSITION OF THE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-30-172, CRS. NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER. 8. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR REW RANCH PROJECT, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RECORDED AUGUST 02, 2024 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 998588 IS CURRENT. NOTE: SAID INSTRUMENT DISCLOSES JOHN TALLICHET AS THE MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF SAID ENTITY. IF THIS INFORMATION IS NOT ACCURATE, A CURRENT STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED. NOTE: THE ISSUANCE OF THE POLICIES AND/OR ENDORSEMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS COMMITMENT ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE UNDERWRITER OF SAID POLICIES AND/OR ENDORSEMENTS. THIS COMMITMENT MAY BE REVISED AS REQUIRED BY THE UNDERWRITER TO ISSUE THE POLICIES AND/OR ENDORSEMENTS REQUESTED. THIS NOTE WILL BE DELETED UPON THE RECEIPT OF SAID APPROVAL. This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction, or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8. EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCIES 9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 26, 1896, IN BOOK 12 AT PAGE 410. 10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 04, 1941, IN BOOK 73 AT PAGE 212 . 11. EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 17, 1940 IN BOOK 196 AT PAGE 537. 12. UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF INTEREST IN ALL OIL RIGHTS AS TO AN UNDIVIDED RESERVED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 9, 1951 IN BOOK 260 AT PAGE 606, ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 13. UNDIVIDED THREE-FOURTHS INTEREST IN ALL OIL, GAS, PETROLEUM AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS RESERVED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 28, 1959 IN BOOK 319 AT PAGE 248, ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 14. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF OIL AND GAS LEASE RECORDED FEBRUARY 17, 2005 IN BOOK 1663 AT PAGE 704, ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 15. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF OIL AND GAS LEASE RECORDED NOVEMBER 28, 2005 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 687181, ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: RND63020896-4 16. ANY OIL, GAS AND MINERALS AS RESERVED IN DEED RECORDED JUNE 30, 2005 AT RECEPTION NO. 677258, ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN 17. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF OIL AND GAS LEASE RECORDED NOVEMBER 24, 2009 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 778237, ANY AND ALL ASSIGNMENTS THEREOF OR INTERESTS THEREIN. 18. (THIS ITEM WAS INTENTIONALLY DELETED) 19. THE EFFECT OF ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS OF LEASE OR LEASES DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO IN SCHEDULE A. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: RND63020896-4 Land Title Guarantee Company Disclosure Statements Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (B) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. (C) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (A) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. (B) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. (C) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. (E) This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. Note: Pursuant to CRS 24-21-514.5, Colorado notaries may remotely notarize real estate deeds and other documents using real-time audio-video communication technology. You may choose not to use remote notarization for any document. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (A) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. (B) Joint Notice of Privacy Policy of Land Title Guarantee Company Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurancy Company This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based transaction management system; your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non-affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Commitment For Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. . COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (b) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (d) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (g) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h) the Notice;(a) the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b) the Commitment Conditions;(c) Schedule A;(d) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (a) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (b) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (c) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (d) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (f) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (c) 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II —Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (d) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f) Garfield County Land Explorer Parcel Physical Address Owner Account Num Mailing Address 217901300009 421 235 COUNTY RD SILT SOVERN, BARRY M & PATRICIA J R200245 421 COUNTY ROAD 235 SILT, CO 81652 217901300012 35445 6 & 24 HWY SILT REW RANCH PROJECT LLC R200344 150 PAULARINO AVENUE, BUILDING C COSTA MESA, CA 92626 217901300329 3556 214 COUNTY RD SILT VITTUM, DELORES C R200278 1605 NW 80TH AVENUE APT A MARGATE, FL 33063-2914 217901300678 Not available NEW CASTLE REW RANCH PROJECT LLC R008232 150 PAULARINO AVENUE, BUILDING C COSTA MESA, CA 92626 217901304007 3716 214 COUNTY RD SILT ROBERTS, JON ALLEN & FARRAH MELANIE R200539 3716 PEACH VALLEY ROAD SILT, CO 81652 217901304008 3718 214 COUNTY RD SILT DOLAN, CHRISTINE S & ROBERT E R200540 3718 COUNTY ROAD 214 SILT, CO 81652 217901400645 35797 6 & 24 HWY SILT WESSON, KIMBERLY D & CORY R005390 PO BOX 3038 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 217911100546 34775 6 & 24 HWY SILT WANZER, DAVID A & DEBRA L R200736 34775 HIGHWAY 6 & 24 SILT, CO 81652-9529 217911100547 34651 6 & 24 HWY SILT KNABLE, JEFFREY & RACHAEL R200737 34651 HIGHWAY 6, SILT SILT, CO 81652 ROW Not available null ROW Not available null ROW Not available null ROW Not available null CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL OWNER RESEARCH This form is to be completed and submitted with any application for a Land Use Change Permit. Mineral interests may be severed from surface right interests in real property. C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101, et seq, requires notification to mineral owners when a landowner applies for an application for development from a local government. As such, the landowner must research the current owners of mineral interests for the property. The Garfield County Land Use and Development Code of 2013 (“LUDC”) Section 4-101(E)(1)(b)(4) requires written notice to owners of mineral interests in the subject property in accordance with C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101, et seq, “as such owners can be identified through the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means.” This form is proof of applicant’s compliance with the Colorado Revised Statutes and the LUDC. The undersigned applicant certifies that mineral owners have been researched for the subject property as required pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101, et seq, and Section 4-101 (E)(1)(b)(4) of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. As a result of that research, the undersigned applicant certifies the following (Please initial on the blank line next to the statement that accurately reflects the result of research): I own the entire mineral estate relative to the subject property; or Minerals are owned by the parties listed below The names and addresses of any and all mineral owners identified are provided below (attach additional pages as necessary): Name of Mineral Owner Mailing Address of Mineral Owner I acknowledge I reviewed C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101, et seq, and I am in compliance with said statue and the LUDC. _____________________________________________ _________________________________ Applicant’s Signature Date None entitled to notice per C.R.S. § 24-65.5-101. Please see attached letter from Zeren Land Services. 08/28/2024 1 Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 www.garfield-county.com PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 217901300012 DATE: 1/23/2024 PROJECT: Rew Ranch Pivot Energy Major Solar Energy System OWNERS: Rew Ranch Project LLC CONTACT/REPRESENTATIVE: Bradley Thomas – Pivot Energy PRACTICAL LOCATION: 35445 US 6 Silt, Co TYPE OF APPLICATION: Major Impact Review ZONING: Rural COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Res Medium High; Silt Urban Growth Area I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION Garfield County’s land use and development code may be found here: https://www.garfield- county.com/community-development/land-use-code/ This preapplication conference covered another proposed system on parcel 217912200350. The applicant is proposing a 7.5-megawatt large scale solar energy facility that will occupy approximately 47 acres of the 70.639 acre parcel. The parcel currently has a single-family home and pasture/open space. Based on aerial photography, several irrigation ditches or streams traverse the property. Current access is taken from Hwy 6, 24. CR 235 runs along/through the southern portion of the parcel’s western boundary. Large solar energy systems require a major impact land use change permit in the Rural zone district. Public hearings will be held before both the planning commission and board of county commissioners. The PC provides a recommendation to the BOCC, who is the decision maker. Each hearing will be noticed individually. The process and submittal requirements are outlined in the following sections, which may be used as checklists as the application is prepared. Large solar energy systems consume significant acreage of land. The application should address loss of habitat, agricultural land, and impacts to neighboring properties, including the Town of Silt. Staff recommends the applicant work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 2 to identify any recommended habitat loss mitigation. Staff also recommends the applicant reach out to the Town of Silt and the Colorado River Fire Protection District. The application should provide a clear chain of authority from the property owner to their representative. Managers of LLC’s (or similar entities) need to be identified by recorded statements of authority; while letters of authorization naming the applicant’s representative do not need to be recorded. A memo on this topic is included as a separate file. The application will need to provide a list of property owners within 200 feet of the parcel’s boundaries as well as the mineral rights owners of the subject site itself. These individuals will receive notice by mail after the application goes to technical completeness and a hearing is scheduled. The application’s narrative should call out any waiver of submittal requirements being requested as part of the application. The application’s response to Article 7 should include any waivers of standards being requested. These waiver requests should address the review criteria found in the relevant sections 4-118 and 4-202. The site plan should clearly show the layout of the facility and address all major topics of the section. This document should be extensive and clearly show compliance with all setbacks, access roadways, and other site features. This includes the existing residential structure and accessory structures. The grading and drainage plan should provide all necessary calculations to determine changes to runoff and necessary detention/retention. The applicant should reference these sections and reach out to staff with any questions. This section of the application should provide information on erosion control, wash stations, and other construction and engineering topics as necessary. Information and illustrations of the proposed solar array systems should be provided, including height of the systems, ground clearance, and wind rating. Typically, landscape plans for large solar facilities have focused on revegetation questions, including seed mixture, security, and maintenance. The application should respond to each item in the Impact Analysis, 4-203.G. A glare analysis should be provided as part of this section. While staff anticipates a waiver request from full traffic study requirements, the application should provide information on the number of and types of trips that will be generated during construction, adequacy of roadways for those trips, and information on the location and reclamation of temporary parking/laydown areas for construction. These last items may be included in other parts of the application and then referenced as necessary. Staff anticipates the applicant will request waivers from both water supply and wastewater management plans. The application should address how these services will be provided during construction and provide will-serve letters as necessary. The application’s response to Article 7 should address every item found in Divisions 1-3. Included in these Divisions are waterbody setbacks, agriculture protections, roadway and parking requirements. Typically, 100-foot setbacks found in Section 7-1001.B have been applied to large solar facilities. The application should provide mitigation for impacts if a waiver is requested to reduce this setback. Section 7-1101 addresses Solar Facilities and should also be included in the applications response to this article. 3 Once the application is received, staff will conduct a technical completeness review to determine if all submittal requirements have been adequately met. Input from some referral agencies (such as the Attorney’s Office or consulting engineer) may be requested by staff. Once the application is determined to be technically complete, staff will work with the applicant to determine the Planning Commission hearing date. This may be delayed until after referral agencies have provided comments. II. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The area is considered Residential Medium High in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. It is also within the Town of Silt’s Urban Growth Area, which means the County will consider the towns comprehensive plan and utilize them as a referral on this application. Silt’s comprehensive plan has indicated that this area may grow into a mixed use/neighborhood center. Staff recommends the applicant reach out to the Town on this issue. III. REGULATORY PROVISIONS APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS The following Sections of the Garfield Land Use and Development Code as amended apply to the Application: • Section 4-105 Major Impact Review and Section 4-101 Common Review Procedures • Table 4-201 Submission Requirements and Section 4-203 Description of Submittal Requirements. • Section 4-118 and Section 4-202, as applicable. 4 • Article 7 Standards, as applicable IV. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS As a convenience outlined below is a list of information typically required for this type of application. Table 4-201 outlines the specific application submittal criteria. The following list can function as a checklist for your submittal. General Application Materials including the Application Form (signed), payment of Fees and signed Payment Agreement Form (see attached). o A narrative describing the request and related information. o Proof of ownership. o Title Commitment. o A Statement of Authority is required if the property is owned by an LLC or similar entity. o A Letter of Authorization is required if an owner intends to have a representative complete the Application and processing. o Names and mailing addresses of property owners within 200 ft. of the subject property from Assessor’s Office Records. o Mineral rights ownership for the subject property including mailing address and/or statement on mineral rights research (see attached). o Copy of the Preapplication Summary needs to be submitted with the Application. Vicinity Map. Site Plan. Grading and Drainage Plan. Landscape Plan. Impact Analysis. Development agreement, if applicable. Improvement agreement, if applicable. Traffic Study. Water Supply/Distribution Plan. Wastewater Management/Treatment Plan. The Application should demonstrate compliance with Article 7 Standards, as applicable. The Application should include a waiver request from submittals, as applicable. The Application should include any waivers from Article 7 Standards that the applicant wishes to pursue Three hard copies and one digital copy (on a USB drive, for example) of the application are required. Both versions should be split into individual sections. Community Development Staff is available to meet with the Applicant to provide additional information and clarification on any of the submittal requirements and waiver requests. 5 V. REVIEW PROCESS Staff will review the application for completeness, and when complete, refer it to appropriate agencies for technical review. Staff will create a report reviewing the application to be presented before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing. The Planning Commission’s recommendation, along with the staff report, will be presented at a separate public hearing to the Board of County Commissioners for their decision. The Applicant is expected to attend and present at both hearings. Public Hearing(s): No Public Hearing, Directors Decision (with notice per code) X Planning Commission 6 X Board of County Commissioners Board of Adjustment Referral Agencies: May include but is not limited to: Garfield County Attorney, Garfield County Building Department, Garfield County Road and Bridge, Garfield County Consulting Engineer, Garfield County Environmental Health, Garfield County Assessor’s Office, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Division of Water Resources, Garfield County Sheriff’s Office, Garfield County Emergency Management, Colorado River Fire Protection District. VI. APPLICATION REVIEW FEES Planning Review Fees: $525 Referral Agency Fees: $TBD (Will be invoiced as the County is billed) Total Deposit: $525(additional hours are billed at hourly rate of $40.50) VII. GENERAL APPLICATION PROCESSING The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the County. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. This summary does not create a legal or vested right. The summary is valid for a six-month period, after which an update should be requested. The Applicant is advised that the Application submittal once accepted by the County becomes public information and will be available (including electronically) for review by the public. Proprietary information can be redacted from documents prior to submittal. Pre-application Summary Prepared by: 1/23/2023 Philip Berry, Planner III Date 7 8 9 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net Vicinity Map Pivot Solar 61 LLC, Pivot Solar 62 LLC, and Pivot Solar 72 LLC COCO T T OH FO US HWY 6 US INTERST A T E 7 0 LOWER CACTUS VALLEY DITCH DA V I S P O I N T R D , C R 2 3 5 SHEET JOB NO. CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: OF BY D A T E # R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N 8/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 1 0 P M ; X : \ 2 3 - 1 6 0 P S 6 1 _ 6 2 R e w R a n c h e s 1 _ 2 \ C i v i l \ C A D \ P l a n s \ C i v i l S i t e P l a n s C O V E R . d w g PS 6 1 - 6 2 & P S 7 2 R E W R A N C H E S SI L T , C O CI V I L S I T E P L A N S 23-160 6 1S T S U B M I T T A L MH 1 BG MH TW 8/ 2 3 / 2 4 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N Kn o w w h a t ' s be l o w . C a l l be f o r e y o u d i g . CO R E C O N S U L T A N T S . I N C . 34 7 3 S . B R O A D W A Y EN G L E W O O D , C O 8 0 1 1 3 30 3 . 7 0 3 . 4 4 4 4 LI V E Y O U R C O R E . C O M LA N D D E V E L O P M E N T EN E R G Y PU B L I C I N F R A S T R U C T U R E PS 61-62 & PS 72 REW RANCHES SOLAR FARM CIVIL SITE PLANS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST 14 OF THE SOUTHWEST 14 OF SECTION 1, AND THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST 14 OF THE NORTHWEST 14 OF THE NORTHWEST 14 SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 92 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TOWN OF SILT, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO. SITE BENCHMARK BASIS OF COORDINATES: PROJECT COORDINATES (GROUND) ARE DERIVED FROM A MODIFIED NAD83 (2011) COLORADO STATE PLANE CENTRAL ZONE (0502) IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. COMBINED SCALE FACTOR = 1.0002924130 AND IS SCALED TO GROUND FROM THE SITE BENCHMARK. SITE BENCHMARK BEING A SET #5 REBAR WITH A 1-1/4" DIAMETER YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "CORE CONTROL POINT" (N: 39°32'52.77116", W: 107°37'05.2656" ELLIP HT=5426.910 / STATE PLANE CENTRAL COORDINATES: N:1,631,447.6340' E:2,402,759.3370' ELEV= 5478.102' ). PROJECT BENCHMARK ELEVATION = 5452.85 FEET BASIS OF BEARING THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, BEARING S00°35'27"W (ASSUMED), A DISTANCE OF 1319.83 FEET, MONUMENTED AS SHOWN. LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTION 1: SE1/4SW1/4 SECTION 12: THAT PART OF THE NE1/4NW1/4 AND THE NW1/4NW1/4 LYING NORTH OF THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 6 & 24 TOGETHER WITH: THAT PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN BOOK 918 AT PAGE 037 AT RECEPTION NO. 469282 ALL IN TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 92 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 89° 34' 22" EAST 1313.67 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SE1/4SW1/4 OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE NORTH 00° 05' 58" WEST 1331.95 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SE1/4SW1/4; THENCE SOUTH 89° 58' 19" EAST 1309.94 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SE1/4SW1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00°15' 37" EAST 1321.53 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SE1/4SW1/4; THENCE SOUTH 00° 12' 24" EAST 215.80 ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NE1/4NW1/4 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY OF STATE HIGHWAY 6 & 24; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH 77 ° 33' 03" WEST 883.03 FEET; THENCE NORTH 13 ° 42' 28" WEST 8.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 77 ° 35' 39" WEST 1702.52 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12 ° 24' 21" WEST 20.00 FEET THENCE SOUTH 76 ° 55' 33" WEST 223.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED AT RECEPTION NO. 469282; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL NORTH 32 ° 12' 17" EAST 41.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 23 ° 21' 18" EAST 81.44 FEET; THENCE NORTH 19 ° 07' 42" EAST 212.47 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12; THENCE NORTH 00 ° 19' 42" WEST 464.40 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO 1 inch = 500 ft. 1,000'500'0 ENGINEER'S STATEMENT PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION DATETODD C. WOLMA P.E. COLORADO NO. 59513 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CORE CONSULTANTS INC. CORE ENGINEERING NOTES IN ADDITION TO CITY STANDARD NOTES, THE FOLLOWING SHALL APPLY: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL THE MOST RECENT APPLICABLE CODES, LICENSES, STANDARDS, SPECIFICATIONS, PERMITS, BONDS WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE PROPOSED WORK. 2. ALL REFERENCES TO ANY PUBLISHED STANDARDS SHALL REFER TO THE LATEST REVISION OF SAID STANDARD, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE. 3. WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND THE SPECIFICATIONS, OR ANY APPLICABLE STANDARDS, THE HIGHER QUALITY STANDARDS SHALL APPLY. 4. TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) (LATEST EDITION). 5. ALL TRENCHES SHALL BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED AND THE SAFETY OF THE WORKERS PROVIDED FOR AS REQUIRED BY THE MOST RECENT OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA) "SAFETY AND HEALTH REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION." THESE REGULATIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN SUBPART P, PART 1926 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. SHEETING AND SHORING SHALL BE UTILIZED WHERE NECESSARY TO PREVENT ANY EXCESSIVE WIDENING OR SLOUGHING OF THE TRENCH WHICH MAY BE DETRIMENTAL TO HUMAN SAFETY, TO THE PIPE BEING PLACED, TO TREES OR TO ANY EXISTING STRUCTURE WHERE EXCAVATIONS ARE MADE UNDER SEVER WATER CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR MAY BE REQUIRED TO USE AN APPROVED PILING INSTEAD OF SHEETING AND SHORING. 6. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND MAINTAINING EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE PLAN MAY BE MODIFIED WITH APPROPRIATE APPROVALS FROM THE MUNICIPALITY'S ENGINEERING DIVISION AS FIELD CONDITIONS WARRANT. 7. REPAIR OF ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS OR LANDSCAPING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 8. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MUST COMPLY WITH THE STATE OF COLORADO PERMITTING PROCESS FOR "STORM WATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY." FOR INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION, WQCD-P-B2, 4300 CHERRY CREEK DRIVE SOUTH, DENVER, COLORADO 80246-1530. ATTENTION: PERMITS UNIT. PHONE (303) 692-3590. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REGULARLY PATROL THE PUBLIC LANDS ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT, REMOVE CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND KEEP THE SITE CLEAN AND SAFE. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR THIS PROJECT FOR PAVEMENT DESIGN AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING EXCAVATION, COMPACTION, EMBANKMENT, AND TOPSOIL REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT. FINAL PAVEMENT DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE THIS WORK. THE CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR EXCAVATION/EMBANKMENT, COMPACTION AND SUBGRADE PREPARATION SHALL BE IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THESE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 11. EXISTING GRADES AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION AND ARE SHOWN TO THE EXTENT KNOWN. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING GRADE CONDITIONS AT THE LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION AND AT LOCATIONS THAT INTERFACE WITH EXISTING OR PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND NOTIFY THE CIVIL ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES THAT CONTRADICT THE CIVIL ENGINEER'S INTENT FOR DRAINAGE PATTERNS, MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM SLOPES, AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 12. NOTICE TO BIDDERS - UNLESS APPROVAL BLOCKS ARE SIGNED AND THE PLANS ARE STAMPED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, THESE DOCUMENTS ARE PENDING JURISDICTIONAL APPROVAL AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. 13. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES, AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED UPON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE LOCAL UTILITY LOCATION CENTER AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATIONS OF THE UTILITIES. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PERTINENT LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS, ESPECIALLY AT CONNECTION POINTS AND AT POTENTIAL UTILITY CONFLICTS. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES THAT CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS 14. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES FROM DAMAGE THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL THE UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS 2 WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. 15. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE AND UTILIZING WATER TIGHT JOINTS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 16. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BEYOND CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE RESEEDED/MULCHED AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. 17. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RECORDING AS-BUILT INFORMATION ON A SET OF RECORD DRAWINGS KEPT ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR AT ALL TIMES. 18. DIMENSIONS FOR LAYOUT AND CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT TO BE SCALED FROM ANY DRAWINGS. IF PERTINENT DIMENSIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, CONTACT THE CONSULTANT ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION, AND ANNOTATE THE DIMENSION ON THE AS-BUILT RECORD DRAWINGS. 19. THE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCEPTED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PLAN. 20. THE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCEPTED LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PLAN. 21. THE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCEPTED LIGHTING PLAN. 22. THE FACILITY IS UNMANNED AND WILL OPERATE YEAR-ROUND, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION MATERIALS. LIMITED MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL MAY VISIT THE SITE ONCE OPERATIONAL. VICINITY MAP PROPERTY OWNER'S CERTIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNER(S) DO(ES) HEREBY AGREE TO THE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS DESCRIBED HEREON THIS ______ DAY OF ______________, 20__. ________________________________________________ REW RANCHES PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HAS CERTIFIED AND DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, FOR ITS CONFIRMATION, APPROVAL AND ADOPTION THIS SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON THIS ______ DAY OF ___________________, 20__. ___________________________________________ CHAIR, GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CERTIFICATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE BOARD OF COUNRT COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO DOES HEREBY CONFIRM AND ADOPT THIS SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON THIS ______ DAY OF ______________, 20__. ___________________________________________ CHAIR, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: ___________________________________________ DATED:__________________________ DEPUTY CLERK TO THE BOARD SITE DATA CASE #: R200344 PARCEL #: 217901300012 ZONE DISTRICT: AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AREA: 48 ACRES SOILS: ARVADA LOAM, HELDT CLAY LOAM, POTTS-ILDEFONSO COMPLEX, NRCS TYPE: C, A, C/D, A/D OWNER PIVOT ENERGY 1601 WEWATTA ST., SUITE 700 DENVER, CO 80202 CONTACT: KYLE HOCKSTAD (888) 734-3033 EMAIL: KHOCKSTAD@PIVOTENERGY.NET ENGINEER CORE CONSULTANTS, INC. 3473 S. BROADWAY ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113 (303) 703-4444 CONTACT: TODD WOLMA EMAIL: TWOLMA@LIVEYOURCORE.COM SURVEYOR CORE CONSULTANTS, INC. 3473 S. BROADWAY ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113 (303) 703-4444 CONTACT: JEFF ANTON EMAIL: JANTON@LIVEYOURCORE.COM PERMITTING AGENCY GARFIELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION & COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 108 8TH ST #401 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 CONTACT: FRED JARMAN (970) 945-5004 UTILITY PROVIDERS XCEL ENERGY 1800 LARIMER ST. DENVER, CO 80202 CONTACT: BRAD MCCLOUD (970) 244-2611 CO V E R 1 SHEET INDEX NO. SHEET TITLE 1 COVER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN 3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS PLAN 4 LANDSCAPE PLAN 5 LIGHTING PLAN 6 DETAILS COCO T T OH OH OH OH OH O H OH FO FO FO OWNER: REW RANCH PROJECT LLCAPN: 217901300012 OWNER: REW RANCH PROJECT LLC ADDRESS: 0, NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 APN: 217901300678 (NOT A PART) OWNER: CHRISTINE & ROBERT DOLAN ADDRESS: 3718, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901304008 (NOT A PART) OWNER: DELORES VITTUM ADDRESS: 3556, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901300329 (NOT A PART) OWNER: KIMBERLY & CORY WESSON ADDRESS: 35797 HWY 6 & 24 SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901400645 (NOT A PART) UNPLATTED L O W E R C A C T U S V A L L E Y D I T C H LOWER C A C T U S V A L L E Y D I T C H OWNER: JON ALLEN ROBERTS & MELANIE FARRAH ADDRESS: 3716, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901304007 (NOT A PART) X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING DITCH TO REMAIN EXISTING BUILDING AND DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING DITCH TO REMAIN EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE TO REMAIN EXISTING SIGN TO REMAIN EXISTING DITCH TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING DITCH TO REMAIN EXISTING TELEPHONE TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC TO REMAIN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXISING GRAVEL DRIVE TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED 5490 5500 5510 54 8 4 548 6 5488 5492 5494 5496 5498 5498549854985498 5502 55 0 4 5506 55085508550855085508 5512 5514 EXISTING FENCE EXISTING CULVERT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING 24" CULVERT TO REMAIN EXISTING FIBER OPTIC STRUCTURE EXISTING GARAGE TO REMAIN US HWY 6 G R A N D A R M Y O F T H E R E P U B L I C H I G H W A Y 89.21' R.O.W. EXISTING CULVERTS TO REMAIN EX. 33' EASEMENT BK. 62, PG 454 DA V I S P O I N T R D , C R 2 3 5 54 8 2 54 7 8 5 4 8 0 5 4 7 6 5 4 7 4 5 4 7 2 5 4 7 0 5 4 6 8 54 6 6 54 6 4 5 4 6 2 5 4 6 0 5 4 5 8 SHEET JOB NO. CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: OF BY D A T E # R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N 8/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 1 0 P M ; X : \ 2 3 - 1 6 0 P S 6 1 _ 6 2 R e w R a n c h e s 1 _ 2 \ C i v i l \ C A D \ P l a n s \ C i v i l S i t e P l a n s E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S . d w g PS 6 1 - 6 2 & P S 7 2 R E W R A N C H E S SI L T , C O CI V I L S I T E P L A N S 23-160 6 1S T S U B M I T T A L MH 1 BG MH TW 8/ 2 3 / 2 4 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N Kn o w w h a t ' s be l o w . C a l l be f o r e y o u d i g . CO R E C O N S U L T A N T S . I N C . 34 7 3 S . B R O A D W A Y EN G L E W O O D , C O 8 0 1 1 3 30 3 . 7 0 3 . 4 4 4 4 LI V E Y O U R C O R E . C O M LA N D D E V E L O P M E N T EN E R G Y PU B L I C I N F R A S T R U C T U R E 1 inch = 100 ft. 200'100'0 LEGEND EXISTING CURB & GUTTER DEMO CURB & GUTTER EXISTING STORM & STUB OUT DEMO STORM & STUB OUT CONCRETE DEMO EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD EXISTING ASPHALT ROAD SD EXISTING STORM & STUB OUT IRR EXISTING IRRIGATION & STUB OUT SS EXISTING SANITARY & STUB OUT W EXISTING WATER & STUB OUT E EXISTING ELECTRIC FO EXISTING FIBER OPTIC G EXISTING GAS OH EXISTING OVER HEAD ELECTRIC RETAINING WALL IRR DEMO IRRIGATION & STUB OUT SD DEMO STORM & STUB OUT W DEMO WATER & STUB OUT SD FUTURE STORM & STUB OUT EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD I IRRIGATION SERVICE S SANITARY SERVICE W WATER SERVICE DEMO FENCE - CHAIN LINK DEMO FENCE - WOOD POST EXISTING FENCE - CHAIN LINK EXISTING FENCE - WOOD POST EXISTING FLOW ARROW EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S P L A N 2 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OWNER: REW RANCH PROJECT LLC ADDRESS: 0, NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 APN: 217901300678 (NOT A PART) OWNER: CHRISTINE & ROBERT DOLAN ADDRESS: 3718, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901304008 (NOT A PART) OWNER: DELORES VITTUM ADDRESS: 3556, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901300329 (NOT A PART) OWNER: KIMBERLY & CORY WESSON ADDRESS: 35797 HWY 6 & 24 SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901400645 (NOT A PART) OWNER: JON ALLEN ROBERTS & MELANIE FARRAH ADDRESS: 3716, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901304007 (NOT A PART) X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X COCO T T OH OH OH OH OH O H OH FO FO FO PROPOSED FENCE 5490 550 0 5510 5486 5488 5492 5494 5496 5498 5502 5504 5506 5508 5512 5514 55165516 5516 PROPOSED ELECTRIC STRUCTURE PROPOSED MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROAD PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PROPOSED SOLAR PANELS TYP. R35' R35' R35' R35' 16' 16' PROPOSED FENCE PROPOSED ELECTRIC STRUCTURE PROPOSED ELECTRIC STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE ROAD TURNAROUND (TYP.) MAINTENANCE ROAD TURNAROUND (TYP.) MAINTENANCE ROAD TURNAROUND (TYP.) PROPOSED FENCE R35' R35' R35' R35' 66' 16' 46' 90' 153' EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC PROPOSED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC STRUCTURES PROPOSED SOLAR PANELS TYP. PROPOSED SOLAR PANELS TYP. REMOVE AND REPLACE ACCESS DRIVE WIDEN EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE TO 16' BEGIN NEW MAINTENANCE ACCESS ROADS CONNECT TO EXISTING ROAD EXISTING DITCH TO REMAIN EXISTING DITCH TO REMAIN EXISITNG BUILDING, DRIVEWAY AND FENCE TO REMAIN 80' EXISTING DITCH TO REMAIN 104' 80' 100' 81'102' 47'26' 25' EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN PROPOSED 18" RCP CULVERT 22.7 LF WITH CONCRETE FES SOLAR PROJECT BOUNDARY SOLAR PROJECT BOUNDARY SOLAR PROJECT BOUNDARY US HWY 6 G R A N D A R M Y O F T H E R E P U B L I C H I G H W A Y DA V I S P O I N T R D , C R 2 3 5 37' 20' SOLAR PANEL SUPPORTS TO BE OUTSIDE DITCH TYP. SOLAR PANEL SUPPORTS TO BE OUTSIDE DITCH TYP. SOLAR PANEL SUPPORTS TO BE OUTSIDE DITCH TYP. 25' 18' BERM OVER PROPOSED CULVERT FOR 1' OF COVER PROPOSED 18" RCP CULVERT 17.8 LF WITH CONCRETE FES BERM OVER PROPOSED CULVERT FOR 1' OF COVER 16' 16' R25' 5484 5 4 8 0 5482 54 7 8 5 4 7 0 5 4 6 6 5 4 6 8 5 4 7 2 54 7 4 5 4 7 6 5460 54 5 8 5 4 6 2 54 6 4 16' 16' 16' R35' R35' R259' R43' 64' 42' R20' R20' R20' R35' R35' R20' 20' 24' 10.75' PRPOSED ELECTRIC MAIN SHEET JOB NO. CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: OF BY D A T E # R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N 8/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 1 1 P M ; X : \ 2 3 - 1 6 0 P S 6 1 _ 6 2 R e w R a n c h e s 1 _ 2 \ C i v i l \ C A D \ P l a n s \ C i v i l S i t e P l a n s P R O P O S E D C O N D I T I O N S . d w g PS 6 1 - 6 2 & P S 7 2 R E W R A N C H E S SI L T , C O CI V I L S I T E P L A N S 23-160 6 1S T S U B M I T T A L MH 1 BG MH TW 8/ 2 3 / 2 4 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N Kn o w w h a t ' s be l o w . C a l l be f o r e y o u d i g . CO R E C O N S U L T A N T S . I N C . 34 7 3 S . B R O A D W A Y EN G L E W O O D , C O 8 0 1 1 3 30 3 . 7 0 3 . 4 4 4 4 LI V E Y O U R C O R E . C O M LA N D D E V E L O P M E N T EN E R G Y PU B L I C I N F R A S T R U C T U R E 1 inch = 100 ft. 200'100'0 LEGEND SIGHT TRIANGLE EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) CENTERLINE PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER EXISTING CURB & GUTTER PROPOSEDEXISTING STREET LIGHT POLES STREET SIGNS RAMPS RETAINING WALL EXISTING FENCE - CHAIN LINK EXISTING FENCE - WOOD POST NOTES: 1. EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCHES TO REMAIN. ALL SOLAR SUPPORTS SHALL BE FIELD FIT TO REMAIN OUTSIDE OF DITCHES. 2. SOLAR PANEL LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY. RIPRAP CONCRETE APPROXIMATE SAWCUT LIMITS EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD BLOCK NUMBER3 41 2 CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE ACCESS SOLAR PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED FENCE PROPOSED VEGETATIVE SCREENING PR O P O S E D C O N D I T I O N S P L A N 3 18' PROPOSED VEGETATIVE SCREENING OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X COCO T T OH OH OH OH OH O H OH FO FO FO 5 4 6 0 5 4 7 0 5480 5490 5500 5510 545 8 5462 5 4 6 4 5 4 6 6 546 8 5 4 7 2 5 4 7 4 5 4 7 6 54 7 8 548254 8 2 5482 548 4 548 6 5488 5492 549 4 5496 5498 5502 5504 5506 5508 5512 5514 55165516 5516 PROPOSED VEGETATIVE SCREENING APPROXIMATELY 2.45 ACRES DESIGNED BY OTHERS, SEE ALTERNATE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET JOB NO. CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: OF BY D A T E # R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N 8/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 1 1 P M ; X : \ 2 3 - 1 6 0 P S 6 1 _ 6 2 R e w R a n c h e s 1 _ 2 \ C i v i l \ C A D \ P l a n s \ C i v i l S i t e P l a n s L A N D S C A P E P L A N . d w g PS 6 1 - 6 2 & P S 7 2 R E W R A N C H E S SI L T , C O CI V I L S I T E P L A N S 23-160 6 1S T S U B M I T T A L MH 1 BG MH TW 8/ 2 3 / 2 4 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N Kn o w w h a t ' s be l o w . C a l l be f o r e y o u d i g . CO R E C O N S U L T A N T S . I N C . 34 7 3 S . B R O A D W A Y EN G L E W O O D , C O 8 0 1 1 3 30 3 . 7 0 3 . 4 4 4 4 LI V E Y O U R C O R E . C O M LA N D D E V E L O P M E N T EN E R G Y PU B L I C I N F R A S T R U C T U R E 1 inch = 100 ft. 200'100'0 LEGEND SIGHT TRIANGLE EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) CENTERLINE PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER EXISTING CURB & GUTTER PROPOSEDEXISTING STREET LIGHT POLES STREET SIGNS RAMPS RETAINING WALL EXISTING FENCE - CHAIN LINK EXISTING FENCE - WOOD POST NOTES: 1. EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCHES TO REMAIN. ALL SOLAR SUPPORTS SHALL BE FIELD FIT TO REMAIN OUTSIDE OF DITCHES. 2. SOLAR PANEL LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY. RIPRAP CONCRETE APPROXIMATE SAWCUT LIMITS EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD BLOCK NUMBER3 41 2 CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE ACCESS SOLAR PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED FENCE PROPOSED VEGETATIVE SCREENING LA N D S C A P E P L A N 4 OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X COCO T T OH OH OH OH OH O H OH FO FO FO 5 4 6 0 5 4 7 0 5480 5490 5500 5510 545 8 5462 5 4 6 4 5 4 6 6 546 8 5 4 7 2 5 4 7 4 5 4 7 6 54 7 8 548254 8 2 5482 548 4 548 6 5488 5492 549 4 5496 5498 5502 5504 5506 5508 5512 5514 55165516 5516 SHEET JOB NO. CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: OF BY D A T E # R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N 8/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 1 2 P M ; X : \ 2 3 - 1 6 0 P S 6 1 _ 6 2 R e w R a n c h e s 1 _ 2 \ C i v i l \ C A D \ P l a n s \ C i v i l S i t e P l a n s L I G H T I N G P L A N . d w g PS 6 1 - 6 2 & P S 7 2 R E W R A N C H E S SI L T , C O CI V I L S I T E P L A N S 23-160 6 1S T S U B M I T T A L MH 1 BG MH TW 8/ 2 3 / 2 4 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N Kn o w w h a t ' s be l o w . C a l l be f o r e y o u d i g . CO R E C O N S U L T A N T S . I N C . 34 7 3 S . B R O A D W A Y EN G L E W O O D , C O 8 0 1 1 3 30 3 . 7 0 3 . 4 4 4 4 LI V E Y O U R C O R E . C O M LA N D D E V E L O P M E N T EN E R G Y PU B L I C I N F R A S T R U C T U R E 1 inch = 100 ft. 200'100'0 LEGEND SIGHT TRIANGLE EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) CENTERLINE PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER EXISTING CURB & GUTTER PROPOSEDEXISTING STREET LIGHT POLES STREET SIGNS RAMPS RETAINING WALL EXISTING FENCE - CHAIN LINK EXISTING FENCE - WOOD POST NOTES: 1. EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCHES TO REMAIN. ALL SOLAR SUPPORTS SHALL BE FIELD FIT TO REMAIN OUTSIDE OF DITCHES. 2. SOLAR PANEL LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN ARE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY. RIPRAP CONCRETE APPROXIMATE SAWCUT LIMITS EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT EXISTING GRAVEL ROAD BLOCK NUMBER3 41 2 CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE ACCESS SOLAR PROJECT BOUNDARY PROPOSED FENCE PROPOSED VEGETATIVE SCREENING NO P R O P O S E D L I G H T I N G O N S I T E NOTES: 1. CONCRETE ANCHOR/BASE SHALL BE MIN. 3000 PSI. CAST-IN-PLACE FOR ALL CORNERS, PULL, TERMINAL AND GATE POSTS. ALL OTHER POST CAN BE DIRECT PUSH/BURIAL IF POST IS EMBEDDED MIN. 3 FEET. 2. ALL POSTS SHALL EXTEND A MIN. 8 FEET ABOVE GROUND SURFACE. 3. PROVIDE HORIZONTAL AND DIAGONAL BRACING AT ALL CORNERS, PULL, TERMINAL AND GATE POSTS. 4. POST SHALL BE SPACE AT A MAXIMUM OF 15'-0' ON CENTER. 5. POST SHALL BE 6" DIAMETER TREATED SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE OR EQUIVALENT. 6. HORIZONTAL WOOD BRACES SHALL BE PINNED OR DOWELED. 7. GATE SHALL BE PT WOOD (4" MIN. SQUARE STOCK),METAL (2"Ø BLACK COATED) OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. 8. MESH SHALL BE GALVANIZED HIGH TENSILE STEEL 4"X4" FIXED-KNOT 12.5 GAUGE WIRE. 9. CUT A 8" WIDE BY 12" TALL FOX PASSAGE OPENING IN BOTTOM OF MESH EVERY 50 FEET. 10. FENCE SHALL INCLUDE SIGNAGE AT ALL GATES WITH SYSTEM OWNER EMERGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION. 11. FENCE SHALL INCLUDE DANGER / HIGH VOLTAGE / NO TRESPASSING SIGNAGE EVERY 100 FT. CONCRETE POST ANCHOR/BASE (TYP.) 36" (D) X 12" DIA. DIAGONAL BRACE DOUBLE WRAP 12.5 GAUGE CLASS 3 HIGH TENSILE WIRE WITH RATCHET TYPE IN-LINE WIRE STRAINER 1' 2' 6"-12" TYP. 10' MAX. CENTER TO CENTER 15' MAX. CENTER TO CENTER 12' MIN. BI-PARTING OR SLIDING VEHICLE GATE 10' MAX CENTER TO CENTER 8' 10' LOCK TRUSS RODS (TYP.) HINGE (TYP.) R35' 17' R35'R35' 16' 16' 16' 161.13' 66' MIN. 89.97' R35' 7' 8'8' 8'8' 6" CLASS VI BASE COURSE 6" CLASS VI BASE COURSE SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% SPMDD SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% SPMDD AS REQ'DVARIES 6" CLASS VI BASE COURSE SUBGRADE COMPACTED TO 95% SPMDD 16' EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE 2% MIN . T O 1 0 % M A X . 2% MIN . T O 1 0 % M A X . 2% MIN . T O 1 0 % M A X . 2% MIN . T O 1 0 % M A X . 2% MIN . T O 1 0 % M A X . 2% M I N . T O 1 0 % M A X . 1% MIN. TO 3% MAX. 1% MIN. TO 3% MAX. EXISTING SLOPE 1% MIN. TO 3% MAX. 1% MIN. TO 3% MAX. MATCH EXIST. UTILITY POLE WITH METER UTILITY POLE WITH RECLOSER ELECTRICAL HAZARD SIGN (TYP) HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND DETAIL N.T.S. FENCE GATE DETAIL (TYP.) CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE TRAIL MAINTENACE ACCESS ROAD CROSS SECTION N.T.S. SHEET JOB NO. CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: OF BY D A T E # R E V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N 8/ 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 1 2 P M ; X : \ 2 3 - 1 6 0 P S 6 1 _ 6 2 R e w R a n c h e s 1 _ 2 \ C i v i l \ C A D \ P l a n s \ C i v i l S i t e P l a n s D E T A I L S . d w g PS 6 1 - 6 2 & P S 7 2 R E W R A N C H E S SI L T , C O CI V I L S I T E P L A N S 23-160 6 1S T S U B M I T T A L MH 1 BG MH TW 8/ 2 3 / 2 4 NO T F O R CO N S T R U C T I O N Kn o w w h a t ' s be l o w . C a l l be f o r e y o u d i g . CO R E C O N S U L T A N T S . I N C . 34 7 3 S . B R O A D W A Y EN G L E W O O D , C O 8 0 1 1 3 30 3 . 7 0 3 . 4 4 4 4 LI V E Y O U R C O R E . C O M LA N D D E V E L O P M E N T EN E R G Y PU B L I C I N F R A S T R U C T U R E DE T A I L S 6 Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 1 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT FOR REW RANCHES PS 61, 62 &72 SOLAR PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Prepared for: Pivot Energy 1601 Wewatta Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202 Contact: Bradley Thomas Phone: 888-734-3033 Prepared by: CORE Consultants, Inc. 3473 South Broadway Englewood, CO 80113 Contact: Todd Wolma, PE Phone: 303-703-4444 CORE Project Number: 23-160 August 23, 2024 Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 2 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 3 A. Site Location and Conditions ............................................................................................................. 3 B. Site Information .................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Floodplains ........................................................................................................................................... 4 D. Irrigation ................................................................................................................................................ 4 II. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 5 A. Regulations ........................................................................................................................................... 5 B. Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................. 5 C. Hydraulics ............................................................................................................................................. 6 III. RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 6 A. Basin Descriptions ................................................................................................................................ 6 B. Runoff Coefficients ............................................................................................................................... 8 C. Offsite Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 8 D. Proposed Drainage Improvements ................................................................................................. 10 IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 10 V. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 10 Appendices Appendix A FEMA FIRM, NRCS Soils Map, NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Frequency Estimates Appendix B Hydrologic Computations Appendix C References Appendix D Drainage Maps Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 3 I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This Preliminary Drainage Report has been prepared for the proposed construction of the PS 61, 62 & 72 Rew Ranches Solar Project (Project). Project includes construction of solar facilities on existing agricultural land. The existing property is approximately 69.771+/- acres of predominantly agricultural land with one single family home with detached garage in the center of the site. In the proposed condition, approximately 44.5 acres of the property are used for solar development, including access roads and equipment pads. As the only site disturbance from the solar panels is from the mounting posts, the only measurable land disturbance consists of work to construct the maintenance road, equipment pads, and trenches for underground utilities. Below is a summary of the total land disturbance from development. ITEM DISTURBED AREA (SF) DISTURBED AREA (AC) Maintenance Roads 30,530.69 0.70 Equipment Pads 1,506.19 0.03 Utility Trenches (Assumed 2' Trench) 3,011.49 0.07 Total Land Disturbance 35,048.37 0.80 Table 1: Total Land Disturbance Area A. Site Location and Conditions The property is located within the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 1, and that part of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 12, lying north of the north right-of-way of State Highway No. 6 and 24, Township 6 South, Rage 92 West of the 6th Principal Meridian in Garfield County, Colorado. The existing property is 59.9 acres of predominantly agricultural land with one single family home with detached garage in the center of the site, which will remain. The Lower Cactus Valley Ditch runs through the site within a 33’ easement. The site is bordered to the northwest by another property owned by Rew Ranches; all other properties surrounding the Site are owned by owners not affiliated with the Project. Peach Valley Acres, a residential subdivision, lies to the north of the property. The land to the east is assumed to be used for primarily agricultural purposes, with a small farm on the property. The site is bordered by U.S. Highway 6, to the south, and County Road 235 (Davis Point Road), to the west. A vicinity map is provided below in Figure 1: Vicinity Map of Rew Ranches 1, 2, & 3 PS 61_62 & 72. Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 4 B. Site Information A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey was performed to assist in developing hydrologic parameters. The site is predominantly C and D soils, indicating the soils in the area have low infiltration rates. Soil types include Arvada loam, Halaquepts, Heldt clay loam, Ildefonso stony loam, and Potts- Ildefonso complex soils. Please refer to Appendix A for soil maps. The existing ground cover is primarily natural grasses and vegetation with a stone aggregate road accessed from U.S. Highway 6. There are few existing trees on the site. The site is relatively flat, with slopes primarily ranging between 1.5% to 3.5%. C. Floodplains Based on FEMA Firm maps 082051111C and 0802051092C revised August 2, 2016, there are no regulatory floodplains or special flood hazard areas within the project site or study reach. The full FEMA Firm maps can be found in Appendix A. D. Irrigation A major irrigation ditch runs through the existing property and will remain undisturbed in its current location. The Lower Cactus Valley Ditch begins near the southeast corner of the property. The ditch then runs northwest for approximately 900 feet, where it exits the property. The ditch then runs west offsite for approximately 1,165 feet on the adjacent property where it turns south and enters back on to the property near CR 235. At this point the ditch goes underground and runs southwest along the western property line parallel to CR 235, where it exits the property at the southwest corner. No impacts to the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch are anticipated, as no work will be performed within its boundaries. Figure 1: Vicinity Map of Rew Ranches 1, 2, & 3 PS 61_62 Lower Cactus Valley Ditch Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 5 Numerous private, unplatted irrigation ditches run through the site and along the site boundaries. Culverts will be installed where necessary to maintain current irrigation patterns below the proposed maintenance access road. No other disturbance to these existing irrigation ditches is anticipated. II. METHODOLOGY A. Regulations Where applicable, the drainage design follows guidelines given in the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. In the absence of guidance from the Garfield County code, standard calculations presented below were used. B. Hydrology The Rational Method was used to determine peak runoffs for the proposed site. The 5-year recurrence interval was used for the minor scenario and the 100-year recurrence interval was used for the major scenario. Rainfall values were sourced from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14. A summary of rainfall values is included in Table 2 below for reference. Refer to Appendix A for the full Atlas 14 report. Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 6 tt ≡ channelized travel time (minutes) Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 7 Table 3: Sub-Basin Historic vs. Proposed Flows Sub-basin E1 Sub-basin E1 consists of the western half of the site. The basin is approximately 18.77 acres and consists of predominantly agricultural land with a small portion of CR 235 cutting through the basin and a narrow packed gravel maintenance path. The historic percent impervious is 5.8%. The basin conveys flows towards a low point at design point 1. Sub-basin P1 Sub-basin P1 is the historic basin E1. The basin is approximately 18.77 acres and consists of predominantly agricultural land with a small portion of CR 235 cutting through the basin, a narrow packed gravel maintenance path, and solar panels. The proposed percent impervious is 5.9%. The basin conveys flows towards a low point at design point 1. Sub-basin E2 Sub-basin E2 consists of the western third of the eastern half of the site. The basin is approximately 22.92 acres and consists of agricultural land, a single family residence with a detached garage, and packed gravel driveways and maintenance paths. The historic percent impervious is 6.5%. The basin conveys flow towards a low point at design point 2. Sub-basin P2 Sub-basin P2 is the historic basin E2. The basin is approximately 22.92 acres and consists of agricultural land, a single family residence with a detached garage, packed gravel driveways, maintenance paths, equipment pads, and solar panels. The proposed percent impervious is 7.8%. The basin conveys flow towards a low point at design point 2. Sub-basin E3 Sub-basin E3 consists of the middle third of the east half of the site. The basin is approximately 14.14 acres and consists of predominantly agricultural land. The historic percent impervious is 5.7%. The basin conveys flows towards design point 3 and continues downstream through an existing 12” CMP culvert. Sub-basin P3 Sub-basin P3 is the historic basin E3. The basin is approximately 14.14 acres and consists of predominantly agricultural land and solar panels. The proposed percent DESIGN POINT BASIN AREA (AC) 5-Year RUNOFF (CFS) 100-Year RUNOFF (CFS) DESIGN POINT BASIN AREA (AC) 5-Year RUNOFF (CFS) 100-Year RUNOFF (CFS) 1 E1 18.77 1.00 12.61 1 P1 18.77 1.02 12.64 2 E2 22.92 1.24 14.65 2 P2 22.92 1.53 15.02 3 E3 14.14 0.67 8.51 3 P3 14.14 0.70 8.55 4 E4 13.95 0.63 8.60 4 P4 13.95 0.66 8.64 RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 8 impervious is 6.0%. The basin conveys flows towards design point 3 and continues downstream through an existing 12” CMP culvert. Sub-basin E4 Sub-basin E4 consists of the eastern third of the east half of the site. The basin is approximately 13.95 acres and consists of predominantly agricultural land. The historic percent impervious is 5.0%. The basin conveys flows towards design point 4 and continues downstream through an existing 24” CMP culvert. Sub-basin P4 Sub-basin P4 is the historic basin E4. The basin is approximately 13.95 acres and consists of predominantly agricultural land and solar panels. The proposed percent impervious is 5.4%. The basin conveys flows towards design point 4 and continues downstream to an existing 24” CMP culvert. B. Runoff Coefficients The determination of imperviousness for the proposed solar panels was determined using the “Determination of Solar Panel Field Runoff Coefficients” technical memorandum from Mile High Flood District. The memorandum states coefficients can be as low as 2%, based on the slope of the panels in relation to the slope of the overall grade. Because 5% imperviousness was used for natural vegetation in this report, 5% was used for the solar panels as well instead of 2%. This shows no change in runoff is anticipated from installation of the solar panels. This is consistent with ASCE’s Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms study in the May 2013 Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, which concludes that solar farms do not have adverse hydrologic impacts from excess runoff or contribute to erosion (Cook and McCuen). C. Offsite Hydrology Eleven offsite basins have been identified. These basins have been identified as OS1 through OS11 and drain onto the site as described below and shown in the drainage maps. Offsite basins 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 ultimately flow to Design Point E1; offsite basins 6 and 8 ultimately flow to Design Point E4; and offsite basins 9, 10, and 11 ultimately flow to Design Point E5. Offsite basins will not be disturbed, therefore it is assumed the basins and the flow from those basins will remain the same in the existing and proposed conditions. Refer to Appendix B for detailed hydrologic calculations. Offsite Basin OS1 Offsite basin OS1 is in the western edge of the site. The basin is approximately 3.74 acres and consists of predominately agricultural land and a portion of CR 235. The historic percent impervious is 9.8%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS1 where it enters Sub-basin E1. Offsite Basin OS2 Offsite basin OS2 is on the western edge of the site. The basin is approximately 7.88 acres and consists of predominately agricultural land and a portion of CR 235. The historic percent impervious is 6.2%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS2 where it enters Offsite Basin OS1. Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 9 Offsite Basin OS3 Offsite basin OS3 is on the western edge of the site. The basin is approximately 24.92 acres and consists of predominately agricultural land, a portion of CR 235, and a gravel maintenance path. The historic percent impervious is 6.0%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS3 where it enters Sub-basin E1. Offsite Basin OS4 Offsite basin OS4 is on the southwestern corner of the site. The basin is approximately 0.95 acres and consists of natural vegetation and U.S. Hwy 6. The historic percent impervious is 50%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS4 where it enters Sub-basin E1. Offsite Basin OS5 Offsite basin OS5 is on the southern edge of the site. The basin is approximately 0.75 acres and consists of natural vegetation and U.S. Hwy 6. The historic percent impervious is 50%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS5 where it enters Sub-basin E2. Offsite Basin OS6 Offsite basin OS6 is on the southeastern corner of the site. The basin is approximately 0.22 acres and consists of natural vegetation and U.S. Hwy 6. The historic percent impervious is 50%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS6 where it enters Sub-basin E3. Offsite Basin OS7 Offsite basin OS7 is in along the northwestern edge of the site. The basin is approximately 11.68 acres and consists of predominately agricultural land and a portion of CR 235. The historic percent impervious is 5.4%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS7 where it enters Sub-basin E2. Offsite Basin OS8 Offsite basin OS8 is to the north of the site. The basin is approximately 20.87 acres and consists of agricultural land and single family homes with lots 2.0 – 2.5 acres in size. The historic percent impervious is 22.2%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS8 where it enters Sub-basin E3. Offsite Basin OS9 Offsite basin OS9 is to the north of the site. The basin is approximately 46.28 acres and consists of agricultural land and single family homes with lots 2.0 – 2.5 acres in size. The historic percent impervious is 23.2%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS9 where it enters Sub-basin E4. Offsite Basin OS10 Offsite basin OS10 is to the east of the site. The basin is approximately 82.45 acres and consists of predominately agricultural land with a small farm. The historic percent impervious is 7.6%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS10 where it enters Sub-basin E4. Offsite Basin OS11 Offsite basin OS11 is in the southeast corner of the site. The basin is approximately 0.18 acres and consists of natural vegetation and U.S. Hwy 6. The historic percent Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61, 62 & 72 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado 10 impervious is 50%. The basin conveys flow towards DP OS11 where it enters Sub- basin E4. D. Proposed Drainage Improvements Based on the hydrologic calculations, the proposed solar facilities will have no impact to percent impervious and peak runoff flows within the site. Disturbance is limited to installation of ground mounted piers and typical solar facilities that create negligible changes to existing hydrologic and hydraulic patterns. With limited disturbance on site, there are no anticipated impacts from the proposed solar site. Because there are no anticipated impacts from the proposed solar facilities, no drainage improvements are proposed. IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the proposed improvements will not increase the flows or alter storm drainage patterns on site. The proposed design does not have any negative impact to existing conditions and will maintain the health and safety of all surrounding public right-of-way and existing offsite properties. V. REFERENCES A. Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, June 2023. B. Mile High Flood District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, March 2024. C. Web Soil Survey, Soil Survey Staff (Natural Resources Conservation Service), United States Department of Agriculture. Available online at the following link: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed June 24, 2024. D. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 0802051111C and No. 0802051092C, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Revised August 2, 2006. Available online at the following link: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Accessed June 24, 2024. E. NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2, Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available online at the following link: https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/ , Accessed June 24, 2024. F. Determination of Solar Panel Field Runoff Coefficients, Wright Water Engineers for Mile High Flood District, October 13, 2023. https://mhfd.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/01/TECHNICAL-MEMORANDUM-DETERMINATION-OF-SOLAR- PANEL-FIELD-RUNOFF-COEFFICIENTS-2023.pdf G. Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering ASCE, May 2013 Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61_62 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX A FEMA FIRM, NRCS SOIL MAP, NOAA ATLAS 14 PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBJECT PROPERTY 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 June 24, 2024 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 Soil Information for All Uses.................................................................................5 Soil Properties and Qualities................................................................................5 Soil Qualities and Features...............................................................................5 Hydrologic Soil Group...................................................................................5 4 Soil Information for All Uses Soil Properties and Qualities The Soil Properties and Qualities section includes various soil properties and qualities displayed as thematic maps with a summary table for the soil map units in the selected area of interest. A single value or rating for each map unit is generated by aggregating the interpretive ratings of individual map unit components. This aggregation process is defined for each property or quality. Soil Qualities and Features Soil qualities are behavior and performance attributes that are not directly measured, but are inferred from observations of dynamic conditions and from soil properties. Example soil qualities include natural drainage, and frost action. Soil features are attributes that are not directly part of the soil. Example soil features include slope and depth to restrictive layer. These features can greatly impact the use and management of the soil. Hydrologic Soil Group Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. 5 Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Custom Soil Resource Report 6 7 Custom Soil Resource Report Map—Hydrologic Soil Group 43 8 0 7 0 0 43 8 0 8 0 0 43 8 0 9 0 0 43 8 1 0 0 0 43 8 1 1 0 0 43 8 1 2 0 0 43 8 1 3 0 0 43 8 1 4 0 0 43 8 0 7 0 0 43 8 0 8 0 0 43 8 0 9 0 0 43 8 1 0 0 0 43 8 1 1 0 0 43 8 1 2 0 0 43 8 1 3 0 0 43 8 1 4 0 0 274300 274400 274500 274600 274700 274800 274900 275000 275100 275200 275300 275400 274200 274300 274400 274500 274600 274700 274800 274900 275000 275100 275200 275300 275400 39° 33' 11'' N 10 7 ° 3 7 ' 4 0 ' ' W 39° 33' 11'' N 10 7 ° 3 6 ' 4 9 ' ' W 39° 32' 45'' N 10 7 ° 3 7 ' 4 0 ' ' W 39° 32' 45'' N 10 7 ° 3 6 ' 4 9 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 250 500 1000 1500Feet 0 50 100 200 300Meters Map Scale: 1:5,650 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography 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 16, Aug 22, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 25, 2021—Sep 5, 2021 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 8 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 9 Table—Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes C 30.3 42.1% 4 Arvada loam, 6 to 20 percent slopes C 2.3 3.1% 27 Halaquepts, nearly level C/D 22.1 30.7% 28 Heldt clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes C 1.1 1.5% 29 Heldt clay loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes C 7.4 10.3% 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes A 3.4 4.7% 59 Potts-Ildefonso complex, 25 to 45 percent slopes C 5.5 7.6% Totals for Area of Interest 72.1 100.0% Rating Options—Hydrologic Soil Group Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher Custom Soil Resource Report 10 Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61_62 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS 7/16/2024 Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - EXISTING CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 RUNOFF Table 6-3 Residential Single Family Landscape Area Soil Type Low Density 0 - 3 du/ac Medium Density 3 - 5 du/ac High Density 5 - 20 du/ac Solar Panels Roof/ Concrete Asphalt/ Ponded Water Packed Gravel 2-7% Slope >7% Slope Historic Soil Type A Area Soil Type B Area Soil Type C/D Area % Imperv.35.00%55.00%65.00%5.00%95.00%95.00%60.00%5.00%5.00%2.00% Design Total Percent BASIN Point Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Impervious Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac) E1 1 -----0.12 0.07 18.58 --18.77 5.8%--18.77 E2 2 ----0.11 -0.46 22.35 --22.92 6.5%--22.92 E3 3 ------0.19 13.95 --14.14 5.7%--14.14 E4 4 -------13.95 --13.95 5.0%--13.95 OS1 OS1 -----0.20 -3.55 --3.75 9.8%--3.74 OS2 OS2 -----0.10 --7.78 -7.88 6.2%--7.88 OS3 OS3 -----0.20 0.14 24.58 --24.92 6.0%--24.92 OS4 OS4 -----0.48 -0.48 --0.95 50.0%--0.95 OS5 OS5 -----0.38 -0.38 --0.75 50.0%--0.75 OS6 OS6 -----0.11 -0.11 --0.22 50.0%--0.22 OS7 OS7 -----0.05 -11.63 --11.68 5.4%--11.68 OS8 OS8 11.75 ----0.08 -9.05 --20.87 22.2%--20.87 OS9 OS9 28.05 ------18.23 --46.28 23.2%--46.28 OS10 OS10 ----0.10 -3.68 78.67 --82.45 7.6%--82.45 OS11 OS11 -----0.09 -0.09 --0.18 50.0%--0.18 -------------- E1+E2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 1 ----0.11 1.52 0.67 81.53 7.78 -91.61 7.0%--91.61 E3+OS6+ OS8 3 11.75 ----0.19 0.19 23.11 --35.24 15.8%--35.23 E4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 4 28.05 ---0.10 0.09 3.68 110.94 --142.86 12.4%--142.86 CORE Consultants, Inc. Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - EXISTING CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants COMPOSITE DEVELOPED BASIN WEIGHTED "C" CALCULATIONS -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 RUNOFF Table 6-4 i = % imperviousness/100 expressed as a decimal CA = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG A soils CB = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG B soils CCD = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG C and D soils. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Basin ID % Imperv.i Soil Type Runoff Coefficients, C Basin Total Weighted Runoff Coefficients, C 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year Area Area 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.15 E1 5.8%0.06 B 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.45 18.77 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 C or D 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 18.77 A 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.16 E2 6.5%0.07 B 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.46 22.92 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.51 C or D 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.51 22.92 A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.15 E3 5.7%0.06 B 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.45 14.14 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 C or D 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 14.14 A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 E4 5.0%0.05 B 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.45 13.95 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.50 C or D 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.50 13.95 A 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.19 OS1 9.8%0.10 B 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.47 3.74 0.06 0.12 0.20 0.52 C or D 0.06 0.12 0.20 0.52 3.74 A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.16 OS2 6.2%0.06 B 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.45 7.88 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.51 C or D 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.51 7.88 A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.16 OS3 6.0%0.06 B 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.45 24.92 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.51 C or D 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.51 24.92 A 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.50 OS4 50.0%0.50 B 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.66 0.95 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 C or D 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 0.95 A 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.50 OS5 50.0%0.50 B 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.66 0.75 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 C or D 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 0.75 A 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.50 OS6 50.0%0.50 B 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.66 0.22 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 C or D 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 0.22 A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 OS7 5.4%0.05 B 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.45 11.68 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 C or D 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 11.68 A 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.28 OS8 22.2%0.22 B 0.14 0.17 0.24 0.53 20.87 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.58 C or D 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.58 20.87 A 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.29 OS9 23.2%0.23 B 0.15 0.18 0.24 0.53 46.28 0.16 0.23 0.30 0.58 C or D 0.16 0.23 0.30 0.58 46.28 A 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.17 OS10 7.6%0.08 B 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.46 82.45 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.52 C or D 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.52 82.45 A 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.50 OS11 50.0%0.50 B 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.66 0.18 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 C or D 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 0.18 - - - - A 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.16 E1+E2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 7.0%0.07 B 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.46 91.61 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.51 C or D 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.51 91.61 Basin ID % Imperv.i Soil Type Runoff Coefficients, C Basin Total Weighted Runoff Coefficients, C 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year Area Area 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year A 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.23 E3+OS6+ OS8 15.8%0.16 B 0.10 0.12 0.18 0.50 35.23 0.10 0.16 0.25 0.55 C or D 0.10 0.16 0.25 0.55 35.23 A 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.21 E4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 12.4%0.12 B 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.48 142.86 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.53 C or D 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.53 142.86 Basin ID % Imperv.i Soil Type Runoff Coefficients, C Basin Total Weighted Runoff Coefficients, C 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year Area Area 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - EXISTING CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS | BASIN A -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 Section 2.4 NRCS Conveyance factors, K -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 RUNOFF Table 6-2 SF-2 Heavy Meadow 3 Short Grass Pasture & Lawns 7 Grassed Waterway 15 Tillage/field 5 Nearly Bare Ground 10 Paved Area & Shallow Gutter 20 SUB-BASIN INITIAL / OVERLAND CHANNEL / TRAVEL TIME T(c) CHECK FINAL DATA TIME T(t)(URBANIZED BASINS)T(c) DRAIN AREA C(5)Length Slope T(i)Length Slope Coeff.Velocity T(t)COMP.% IMPER- VIOUS USDCM BASIN ac.ft.%min ft.%fps min.T(c)Eq . 6-5 min. E1 18.77 0.08 500 2.0 32.7 697 1.1 5 0.5 21.9 54.6 5.8%54.6 E2 22.92 0.09 500 4.0 25.9 1584 2.5 5 0.8 33.5 59.4 6.5%59.4 E3 14.14 0.08 500 2.5 30.3 1375 1.8 5 0.7 34.1 64.4 5.7%64.4 E4 13.95 0.08 500 2.4 31.1 1262 1.9 5 0.7 30.4 61.5 5.0%61.5 OS1 3.75 0.12 500 11.3 17.9 282 3.5 5 0.9 5.0 22.9 9.8%22.9 OS2 7.88 0.09 220 25.2 9.4 764 3.2 15 2.7 4.7 14.1 6.2%14.1 OS3 24.92 0.08 500 6.3 22.3 1984 3.2 5 0.9 36.9 59.2 6.0%59.2 OS4 0.95 0.45 300 1.2 19.2 508 1.0 15 1.5 5.5 24.7 50.0%22.7 22.7 OS5 0.75 0.45 300 2.1 16.0 432 1.8 15 2.0 3.6 19.6 50.0%20.9 19.6 OS6 0.22 0.45 109 0.7 14.0 107 1.8 15 2.0 0.9 14.9 50.0%18.3 14.9 OS7 11.68 0.08 500 6.0 22.8 2094 3.1 5 0.9 39.5 62.3 5.4%62.3 OS8 20.87 0.22 500 3.6 23.5 1258 2.4 5 0.8 27.3 50.7 22.2%33.5 33.5 OS9 46.28 0.23 500 3.7 22.9 1415 2.6 5 0.8 29.4 52.3 23.2%34.1 34.1 OS10 82.45 0.10 500 3.0 28.2 3812 2.0 5 0.7 90.0 118.2 7.6%118.2 OS11 0.18 0.45 94 1.3 10.5 93 2.7 15 2.5 0.6 11.1 50.0%18.1 11.1 E1+E2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 91.61 0.09 500 5.6 23.1 3537 2.4 5 0.8 76.2 99.2 7.0%99.2 E3+OS6+ OS8 35.24 0.16 500 3.6 24.9 3105 2.2 5 0.7 70.0 94.9 15.8%94.9 E4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 142.86 0.14 500 3.0 27.1 4015 1.9 5 0.7 95.9 123.0 12.4%123.0 SUB-BASIN INITIAL / OVERLAND CHANNEL / TRAVEL TIME T(c) CHECK FINAL DATA TIME T(t)(URBANIZED BASINS)T(c) DRAIN AREA C(5)Length Slope T(i)Length Slope Coeff.Velocity T(t)COMP.% IMPER- VIOUS USDCM BASIN ac.ft.%min ft.%fps min.T(c)Eq . 6-5 min. Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - EXISTING CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF 5-Year STORM Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency (1-hr) =0.6 SF-3 -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 EQ 5-1 & EQ 6-1 BASIN INFORMATON DIRECT RUNOFF DESIGN DRAIN AREA 5yr Runoff T(c)C x A I Q POINT BASIN ac.COEFF min in/hr cfs 1 E1 18.77 0.08 54.6 1.54 0.65 1.00 2 E2 22.92 0.09 59.4 2.03 0.61 1.24 3 E3 14.14 0.08 64.4 1.16 0.58 0.67 4 E4 13.95 0.08 61.5 1.06 0.60 0.63 OS1 OS1 3.75 0.12 22.9 0.43 1.10 0.47 OS2 OS2 7.88 0.09 14.1 0.67 1.40 0.94 OS3 OS3 24.92 0.08 59.2 2.11 0.61 1.29 OS4 OS4 0.95 0.45 22.7 0.42 1.10 0.47 OS5 OS5 0.75 0.45 19.6 0.33 1.19 0.40 OS6 OS6 0.22 0.45 14.9 0.10 1.37 0.14 OS7 OS7 11.68 0.08 62.3 0.92 0.59 0.55 OS8 OS8 20.87 0.22 33.5 4.53 0.88 3.99 OS9 OS9 46.28 0.23 34.1 10.42 0.87 9.09 OS10 OS10 82.45 0.10 118.2 8.00 0.38 3.01 OS11 OS11 0.18 0.45 11.1 0.08 1.56 0.13 1 E1+E2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 91.61 0.09 99.2 8.47 0.43 3.62 3 E3+OS6+ OS8 35.24 0.16 94.9 5.79 0.44 2.56 4 E4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 142.86 0.14 123.0 19.56 0.37 7.16 Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - EXISTING CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF 100-YR STORM SF-3 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency (1-hr) =1.23 -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 EQ 5-1 & EQ 6-1 BASIN INFORMATON DIRECT RUNOFF DESIGN DRAIN AREA 100YR RUNNOFF T(c)C x A I Q POINT BASIN ac.COEFF min in/hr cfs 1 E1 18.77 0.51 54.6 9.53 1.32 12.61 2 E2 22.92 0.51 59.4 11.71 1.25 14.65 3 E3 14.14 0.51 64.4 7.18 1.19 8.51 4 E4 13.95 0.50 61.5 7.04 1.22 8.60 OS1 OS1 3.75 0.52 22.9 1.96 2.25 4.42 OS2 OS2 7.88 0.51 14.1 4.01 2.87 11.53 OS3 OS3 24.92 0.51 59.2 12.68 1.25 15.91 OS4 OS4 0.95 0.69 22.7 0.66 2.26 1.48 OS5 OS5 0.75 0.69 19.6 0.52 2.44 1.26 OS6 OS6 0.22 0.69 14.9 0.15 2.80 0.43 OS7 OS7 11.68 0.51 62.3 5.91 1.21 7.17 OS8 OS8 20.87 0.58 33.5 12.00 1.81 21.69 OS9 OS9 46.28 0.58 34.1 26.80 1.79 47.92 OS10 OS10 82.45 0.52 118.2 42.46 0.77 32.80 OS11 OS11 0.18 0.69 11.1 0.13 3.19 0.40 1 E1+E2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 91.61 0.51 99.2 46.97 0.88 41.15 3 E3+OS6+ OS8 35.24 0.55 94.9 19.33 0.90 17.49 4 E4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 142.86 0.53 123.0 76.42 0.75 57.36 RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE DIRECT RUNOFF DESIGN POINT BASIN AREA (AC) 5-Year RUNOFF (CFS) 100-Year RUNOFF (CFS) 1 E1 18.77 1.00 12.61 2 E2 22.92 1.24 14.65 3 E3 14.14 0.67 8.51 4 E4 13.95 0.63 8.60 OS1 OS1 3.75 0.47 4.42 OS2 OS2 7.88 0.94 11.53 OS3 OS3 24.92 1.29 15.91 OS4 OS4 0.95 0.47 1.48 OS5 OS5 0.75 0.40 1.26 OS6 OS6 0.22 0.14 0.43 OS7 OS7 11.68 0.55 7.17 OS8 OS8 20.87 3.99 21.69 OS9 OS9 46.28 9.09 47.92 OS10 OS10 82.45 3.01 32.80 OS11 OS11 0.18 0.13 0.40 1 E1+E2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 91.61 3.62 41.15 3 E3+OS6+ OS8 35.24 2.56 17.49 4 E4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 142.86 7.16 57.36 7/16/2024 Page 9 of 9 7/16/2024 Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - PROPOSED CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 RUNOFF Table 6-3 Residential Single Family Landscape Area Soil Type Low Density 0 - 3 du/ac Medium Density 3 - 5 du/ac High Density 5 - 20 du/ac Solar Panels Roof/ Concrete Asphalt/ Ponded Water Packed Gravel 2-7% Slope >7% Slope Historic Soil Type A Area Soil Type B Area Soil Type C/D Area % Imperv.35.00%55.00%65.00%5.00%95.00%95.00%60.00%5.00%5.00%2.00% Design Total Percent BASIN Point Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac)Impervious Area (ac)Area (ac)Area (ac) P1 1 ---1.97 -0.12 0.07 16.61 --18.77 5.8%--18.77 P2 2 ---3.44 0.14 -1.29 18.04 --22.92 8.7%--22.92 P3 3 ---3.52 --0.18 10.44 --14.14 5.7%--14.14 P4 4 ---2.65 ---11.30 --13.95 5.0%--13.95 OS1 OS1 -----0.20 -3.55 --3.75 9.8%--3.74 OS2 OS2 -----0.10 --7.78 -7.88 6.2%--7.88 OS3 OS3 -----0.20 0.14 24.58 --24.92 6.0%--24.92 OS4 OS4 -----0.48 -0.48 --0.95 50.0%--0.95 OS5 OS5 -----0.38 -0.38 --0.75 50.0%--0.75 OS6 OS6 -----0.11 -0.11 --0.22 50.0%--0.22 OS7 OS7 -----0.05 -11.63 --11.68 5.4%--11.68 OS8 OS8 11.75 ----0.08 -9.05 --20.87 22.2%--20.87 OS9 OS9 28.05 ------18.23 --46.28 23.2%--46.28 OS10 OS10 ----0.10 -3.68 78.67 --82.45 7.6%--82.45 OS11 OS11 -----0.09 -0.09 --0.18 50.0%--0.18 -------------- P1+P2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 1 ---5.40 0.14 1.52 1.50 75.26 7.78 -91.61 7.5%--91.61 P3+OS6+ OS8 3 11.75 --3.52 -0.19 0.18 19.60 --35.24 15.8%--35.23 P4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 4 28.05 --2.65 0.10 0.09 3.68 108.29 --0 142.86 12.4%--142.86 CORE Consultants, Inc. Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - PROPOSED CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants COMPOSITE DEVELOPED BASIN WEIGHTED "C" CALCULATIONS -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 RUNOFF Table 6-4 i = % imperviousness/100 expressed as a decimal CA = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG A soils CB = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG B soils CCD = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG C and D soils. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Basin ID % Imperv.i Soil Type Runoff Coefficients, C Basin Total Weighted Runoff Coefficients, C 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year Area Area 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.15 P1 5.8%0.06 B 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.45 18.77 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 C or D 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 18.77 A 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.18 P2 8.7%0.09 B 0.05 0.06 0.13 0.47 22.92 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.52 C or D 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.52 22.92 A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.15 P3 5.7%0.06 B 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.45 14.14 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 C or D 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 14.14 A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 P4 5.0%0.05 B 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.45 13.95 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.50 C or D 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.50 13.95 A 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.19 OS1 9.8%0.10 B 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.47 3.74 0.06 0.12 0.20 0.52 C or D 0.06 0.12 0.20 0.52 3.74 A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.16 OS2 6.2%0.06 B 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.45 7.88 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.51 C or D 0.04 0.09 0.18 0.51 7.88 A 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.16 OS3 6.0%0.06 B 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.45 24.92 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.51 C or D 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.51 24.92 A 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.50 OS4 50.0%0.50 B 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.66 0.95 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 C or D 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 0.95 A 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.50 OS5 50.0%0.50 B 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.66 0.75 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 C or D 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 0.75 A 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.50 OS6 50.0%0.50 B 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.66 0.22 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 C or D 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 0.22 A 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 OS7 5.4%0.05 B 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.45 11.68 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 C or D 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.51 11.68 A 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.28 OS8 22.2%0.22 B 0.14 0.17 0.24 0.53 20.87 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.58 C or D 0.15 0.22 0.30 0.58 20.87 A 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.29 OS9 23.2%0.23 B 0.15 0.18 0.24 0.53 46.28 0.16 0.23 0.30 0.58 C or D 0.16 0.23 0.30 0.58 46.28 A 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.17 OS10 7.6%0.08 B 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.46 82.45 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.52 C or D 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.52 82.45 A 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.50 OS11 50.0%0.50 B 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.66 0.18 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 C or D 0.38 0.45 0.50 0.69 0.18 - - - - A 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.17 P1+P2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 7.5%0.08 B 0.04 0.05 0.12 0.46 91.61 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.51 C or D 0.05 0.10 0.19 0.51 91.61 Basin ID % Imperv.i Soil Type Runoff Coefficients, C Basin Total Weighted Runoff Coefficients, C 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year Area Area 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year A 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.23 P3+OS6+ OS8 15.8%0.16 B 0.10 0.12 0.18 0.50 35.23 0.10 0.16 0.25 0.55 C or D 0.10 0.16 0.25 0.55 35.23 A 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.21 P4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 12.4%0.12 B 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.48 142.86 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.53 C or D 0.08 0.14 0.22 0.53 142.86 Basin ID % Imperv.i Soil Type Runoff Coefficients, C Basin Total Weighted Runoff Coefficients, C 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year Area Area 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - PROPOSED CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants TIME OF CONCENTRATION CALCULATIONS | BASIN A -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 Section 2.4 NRCS Conveyance factors, K -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 RUNOFF Table 6-2 SF-2 Heavy Meadow 3 Short Grass Pasture & Lawns 7 Grassed Waterway 15 Tillage/field 5 Nearly Bare Ground 10 Paved Area & Shallow Gutter 20 SUB-BASIN INITIAL / OVERLAND CHANNEL / TRAVEL TIME T(c) CHECK FINAL DATA TIME T(t)(URBANIZED BASINS)T(c) DRAIN AREA C(5)Length Slope T(i)Length Slope Coeff.Velocity T(t)COMP.% IMPER- VIOUS USDCM BASIN ac.ft.%min ft.%fps min.T(c)Eq . 6-5 min. P1 18.77 0.08 500 2.0 32.7 697 1.1 5 0.5 21.9 54.6 5.8%54.6 P2 22.92 0.11 500 4.0 25.5 1584 2.5 5 0.8 33.5 59.0 8.7%59.0 P3 14.14 0.08 500 2.5 30.3 1375 1.8 5 0.7 34.1 64.4 5.7%64.4 P4 13.95 0.08 500 2.4 31.1 1262 1.9 5 0.7 30.4 61.5 5.0%61.5 OS1 3.75 0.12 500 11.3 17.9 282 3.5 5 0.9 5.0 22.9 9.8%22.9 OS2 7.88 0.09 220 25.2 9.4 764 3.2 15 2.7 4.7 14.1 6.2%14.1 OS3 24.92 0.08 500 6.3 22.3 1984 3.2 5 0.9 36.9 59.2 6.0%59.2 OS4 0.95 0.45 300 1.2 19.2 508 1.0 15 1.5 5.5 24.7 50.0%22.7 22.7 OS5 0.75 0.45 300 2.1 16.0 432 1.8 15 2.0 3.6 19.6 50.0%20.9 19.6 OS6 0.22 0.45 109 0.7 14.0 107 1.8 15 2.0 0.9 14.9 50.0%18.3 14.9 OS7 11.68 0.08 500 6.0 22.8 2094 3.1 5 0.9 39.5 62.3 5.4%62.3 OS8 20.87 0.22 500 3.6 23.5 1258 2.4 5 0.8 27.3 50.7 22.2%33.5 33.5 OS9 46.28 0.23 500 3.7 22.9 1415 2.6 5 0.8 29.4 52.3 23.2%34.1 34.1 OS10 82.45 0.10 500 3.0 28.2 3812 2.0 5 0.7 90.0 118.2 7.6%118.2 OS11 0.18 0.45 94 1.3 10.5 93 2.7 15 2.5 0.6 11.1 50.0%18.1 11.1 P1+P2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 91.61 0.10 500 5.6 23.0 3537 2.4 5 0.8 76.2 99.1 7.5%99.1 P3+OS6+ OS8 35.24 0.16 500 3.6 24.9 3105 2.2 5 0.7 70.0 94.9 15.8%94.9 P4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 142.86 0.14 500 3.0 27.1 4015 1.9 5 0.7 95.9 123.0 12.4%123.0 SUB-BASIN INITIAL / OVERLAND CHANNEL / TRAVEL TIME T(c) CHECK FINAL DATA TIME T(t)(URBANIZED BASINS)T(c) DRAIN AREA C(5)Length Slope T(i)Length Slope Coeff.Velocity T(t)COMP.% IMPER- VIOUS USDCM BASIN ac.ft.%min ft.%fps min.T(c)Eq . 6-5 min. Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - PROPOSED CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF 5-Year STORM Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency (1-hr) =0.6 SF-3 -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 EQ 5-1 & EQ 6-1 BASIN INFORMATON DIRECT RUNOFF DESIGN DRAIN AREA 5yr Runoff T(c)C x A I Q POINT BASIN ac.COEFF min in/hr cfs 1 P1 18.77 0.08 54.6 1.54 0.65 1.00 2 P2 22.92 0.11 59.0 2.43 0.61 1.49 3 P3 14.14 0.08 64.4 1.16 0.58 0.67 4 P4 13.95 0.08 61.5 1.06 0.60 0.63 OS1 OS1 3.75 0.12 22.9 0.43 1.10 0.47 OS2 OS2 7.88 0.09 14.1 0.67 1.40 0.94 OS3 OS3 24.92 0.08 59.2 2.11 0.61 1.29 OS4 OS4 0.95 0.45 22.7 0.42 1.10 0.47 OS5 OS5 0.75 0.45 19.6 0.33 1.19 0.40 OS6 OS6 0.22 0.45 14.9 0.10 1.37 0.14 OS7 OS7 11.68 0.08 62.3 0.92 0.59 0.55 OS8 OS8 20.87 0.22 33.5 4.53 0.88 3.99 OS9 OS9 46.28 0.23 34.1 10.42 0.87 9.09 OS10 OS10 82.45 0.10 118.2 8.00 0.38 3.01 OS11 OS11 0.18 0.45 11.1 0.08 1.56 0.13 1 P1+P2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 91.61 0.10 99.1 8.87 0.43 3.79 3 P3+OS6+ OS8 35.24 0.16 94.9 5.79 0.44 2.55 4 P4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 142.86 0.14 123.0 19.56 0.37 7.16 Rew Ranches PS 61_62 - PROPOSED CONDITIONS CORE Project #:23-160 Prepared By:CORE Consultants RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF 100-YR STORM SF-3 Rainfall Depth-Duration-Frequency (1-hr) =1.23 -REFERENCE UDFCD Vol.1 EQ 5-1 & EQ 6-1 BASIN INFORMATON DIRECT RUNOFF DESIGN DRAIN AREA 100YR RUNNOFF T(c)C x A I Q POINT BASIN ac.COEFF min in/hr cfs 1 P1 18.77 0.51 54.6 9.53 1.32 12.61 2 P2 22.92 0.52 59.0 11.91 1.26 14.97 3 P3 14.14 0.51 64.4 7.18 1.19 8.50 4 P4 13.95 0.50 61.5 7.04 1.22 8.60 OS1 OS1 3.75 0.52 22.9 1.96 2.25 4.42 OS2 OS2 7.88 0.51 14.1 4.01 2.87 11.53 OS3 OS3 24.92 0.51 59.2 12.68 1.25 15.91 OS4 OS4 0.95 0.69 22.7 0.66 2.26 1.48 OS5 OS5 0.75 0.69 19.6 0.52 2.44 1.26 OS6 OS6 0.22 0.69 14.9 0.15 2.80 0.43 OS7 OS7 11.68 0.51 62.3 5.91 1.21 7.17 OS8 OS8 20.87 0.58 33.5 12.00 1.81 21.69 OS9 OS9 46.28 0.58 34.1 26.80 1.79 47.92 OS10 OS10 82.45 0.52 118.2 42.46 0.77 32.80 OS11 OS11 0.18 0.69 11.1 0.13 3.19 0.40 1 P1+P2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 91.61 0.51 99.1 47.17 0.88 41.36 3 P3+OS6+ OS8 35.24 0.55 94.9 19.33 0.90 17.49 4 P4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 142.86 0.53 123.0 76.42 0.75 57.36 RUNOFF SUMMARY TABLE DIRECT RUNOFF DESIGN POINT BASIN AREA (AC) 5-Year RUNOFF (CFS) 100-Year RUNOFF (CFS) 1 P1 18.77 1.00 12.61 2 P2 22.92 1.49 14.97 3 P3 14.14 0.67 8.50 4 P4 13.95 0.63 8.60 OS1 OS1 3.75 0.47 4.42 OS2 OS2 7.88 0.94 11.53 OS3 OS3 24.92 1.29 15.91 OS4 OS4 0.95 0.47 1.48 OS5 OS5 0.75 0.40 1.26 OS6 OS6 0.22 0.14 0.43 OS7 OS7 11.68 0.55 7.17 OS8 OS8 20.87 3.99 21.69 OS9 OS9 46.28 9.09 47.92 OS10 OS10 82.45 3.01 32.80 OS11 OS11 0.18 0.13 0.40 1 P1+P2+ OS1+OS2+ OS3+OS4+ OS5+OS7 91.61 3.79 41.36 3 P3+OS6+ OS8 35.24 2.55 17.49 4 P4+OS9+ OS10+ OS11 142.86 7.16 57.36 7/16/2024 Page 9 of 9 Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61_62 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX C REFERENCES Hydrologic Response of Solar Farms Lauren M. Cook, S.M.ASCE 1; and Richard H. McCuen, M.ASCE 2 Abstract:Because of the benefits of solar energy, the number of solar farms is increasing; however, their hydrologic impacts have not been studied. The goal of this study was to determine the hydrologic effects of solar farms and examinewhether or not storm-water management is needed to control runoff volumes and rates. A model of a solar farm was used to simulate runoff for two conditions: the pre- and postpaneled conditions. Using sensitivity analyses, modeling showed that the solar panels themselves did not have a significant effect on the runoff volumes, peaks, or times to peak. However, if the ground cover under the panels is gravel or bare ground, owing to design decisions or lack of maintenance, the peak discharge may increase significantly with storm-water management needed. In addition, the kinetic energy of the flow that drains from the panels was found to be greater than that of the rainfall, which could cause erosion at the base of the panels. Thus, it is recommended that the grass beneath the panels be well maintained or that a buffer strip be placed after the most downgradient row of panels. This study, along with design recommendations, can be used as a guide for the future design of solar farms.DOI:10.1061/(ASCE) HE.1943-5584.0000530.© 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers. CE Database subject headings:Hydrology; Land use; Solar power; Floods; Surface water; Runoff; Stormwater management. Author keywords:Hydrology; Land use change; Solar energy; Flooding; Surface water runoff; Storm-water management. Introduction Storm-water management practices are generally implemented to reverse the effects of land-cover changes that cause increases in volumes and rates of runoff. This is a concern posed for new types of land-cover change such as the solar farm. Solar energy is a re- newable energy source that is expected to increase in importance in the near future. Because solar farms require considerable land, it is necessary to understand the design of solar farms and their potential effect on erosion rates and storm runoff, especially the impact on offsite properties and receiving streams. These farms can vary in size from 8 ha (20 acres) in residential areas to 250 ha (600 acres) in areas where land is abundant. The solar panels are impervious to rain water; however, they are mounted on metal rods and placed over pervious land. In some cases, the area below the panel is paved or covered with gravel. Service roads are generally located between rows of panels. Altl- hough some panels are stationary, others are designed to move so that the angle of the panel varies with the angle of the sun. The angle can range, depending on the latitude, from 22° during the summer months to 74° during the winter months. In addition, the angle and direction can also change throughout the day. The issue posed is whether or not these rows of impervious panels will change the runoff characteristics of the site, specifically increase runoff volumes or peak discharge rates. If the increases are hydro- logically significant, storm-water management facilities may be needed. Additionally, it is possible that the velocity of water draining from the edge of the panels is sufficient to cause erosion of the soil below the panels, especially where the maintenance roadways are bare ground. The outcome of this study provides guidance for assessing the hydrologic effects of solar farms, which is important to those who plan, design, and install arrays of solar panels. Those who design solar farms may need to provide for storm-water management. This study investigated the hydrologic effects of solar farms, assessed whether or not storm-water management might be needed, and if the velocity of the runoff from the panels could be sufficient to cause erosion of the soil below the panels. Model Development Solar farms are generally designed to maximize the amount of en- ergy produced per unit of land area, while still allowing space for maintenance. The hydrologic response of solar farms is not usually considered in design. Typically, the panels will be arrayed in long rows with separations between the rows to allow for maintenance vehicles. To model a typical layout, a unit width of one panel was assumed, with the length of the downgradient strip depending on the size of the farm. For example, a solar farm with 30 rows of 200 panels each could be modeled as a strip of 30 panels with space between the panels for maintenance vehicles. Rainwater that drains from the upper panel onto the ground will flow over the land under the 29 panels on the downgradient strip. Depending on the land cover, infiltration losses would be expected as the runoff flows to the bottom of the slope. To determine the effects that the solar panels have on runoff characteristics, a model of a solar farm was developed. Runoff in the form of sheet flow without the addition of the solar panels served as the prepaneled condition. The paneled condition assumed a downgradient series of cells with one solar panel per ground cell. Each cell was separated into three sections: wet, dry, and spacer. The dry section is that portion directly underneath the solar panel, unexposed directly to the rainfall. As the angle of the panel from the horizontal increases, more of the rain will fall directly onto 1Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021. 2The Ben Dyer Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineer- ing, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-3021 (corresponding author). E-mail: rhmccuen@eng.umd.edu Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 12, 2010; approved on October 20,2011; published online on October 24,2011. Discussion period open until October 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engi- neering, Vol. 18, No. 5, May 1, 2013. © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/2013/5- 536-541/$25.00. 536 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Do w n l o a d e d f r o m a s c e l i b r a r y . o r g b y E l i J o h n s o n o n 1 2 / 0 3 / 1 8 . C o p y r i g h t A S C E . F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y ; a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . the ground; this section of the cell is referred to as the wet section. The spacer section is the area between the rows of panels used by maintenancevehicles. Fig.1 is an image of two solar panels and the spacer section allotted for maintenance vehicles. Fig.2 is a sche- matic of the wet, dry, and spacer sections with their respective di- mensions. In Fig.1, tracks from the vehicles are visible on what is modeled within as the spacer section. When the solar panel is hori- zontal, then the length longitudinal to the direction that runoff will occur is the length of the dry and wet sections combined. Runoff from a dry section drains onto the downgradient spacer section. Runoff from the spacer section flows to the wet section of the next downgradient cell. Water that drains from a solar panel falls directly onto the spacer section of that cell. The length of the spacer section is constant. During a storm event, the loss rate was assumed constant for the 24-h storm be- cause a wet antecedent condition was assumed. The lengths of the wet and dry sections changed depending on the angle of the solar panel. The total length of the wet and dry sections was set equal to the length of one horizontal solar panel, which was as- sumed to be 3.5 m. When a solar panel is horizontal, the dry section length would equal 3.5 m and the wet section length would be zero. In the paneled condition, the dry section does not receive direct rainfall because the rain first falls onto the solar panel then drains onto the spacer section. However, the dry section does infiltrate some of the runoff that comes from the upgradient wet section. The wet section was modeled similar to the spacer section with rain falling directly onto the section and assuming a constant loss rate. For the presolar panel condition, the spacer and wet sections are modeled the same as in the paneled condition; however, the cell does not include a dry section. In the prepaneled condition, rain falls directly onto the entire cell. When modeling the prepaneled condition, all cells receive rainfall at the same rate and are subject to losses. All other conditions were assumed to remain the same such that the prepaneled and paneled conditions can be compared. Rainfall was modeled after an natural resources conservation service (NRCS) Type II Storm (McCuen 2005) because it is an ac- curate representation of actual storms of varying characteristics that are imbedded in intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves. For each duration of interest, a dimensionless hyetograph was devel- oped using a time increment of 12 s over the duration of the storm (see Fig.3). The depth of rainfall that corresponds to each storm magnitude was then multiplied by the dimensionless hyetograph. For a 2-h storm duration, depths of 40.6, 76.2, and 101.6 mm were used for the 2-, 25-, and 100-year events. The 2- and 6-h duration hyetographs were developed using the center portion of the 24-h storm, with the rainfall depths established with the Baltimore IDF curve. The corresponding depths for a 6-h duration were 53.3, 106.7, and 132.1 mm, respectively. These magnitudes were chosen to give a range of storm conditions. During each time increment, the depth of rain is multiplied by the cell area to determine the volume of rain added to each section of each cell. This volume becomes the storage in each cell. Depend- ing on the soil group, a constant volume of losses was subtracted from the storage. The runoff velocity from a solar panel was calcu- lated using Manning’s equation, with the hydraulic radius for sheet flow assumed to equal the depth of the storage on the panel (Bedient and Huber 2002). Similar assumptions were made to com- pute the velocities in each section of the surface sections. Fig. 1.Maintenance or “spacer”section between two rows of solar panels (photo by John E. Showler, reprinted with permission) Fig. 2.Wet, dry, and spacer sections of a single cell with lengths Lw, Ls, and Ld with the solar panel covering the dry section Fig. 3.Dimensionless hyetograph of 2-h Type II storm JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 /537 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Do w n l o a d e d f r o m a s c e l i b r a r y . o r g b y E l i J o h n s o n o n 1 2 / 0 3 / 1 8 . C o p y r i g h t A S C E . F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y ; a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . Runoff from one section to the next and then to the next downgradient cell was routed using the continuity of mass. The routing coefficient depended on the depth of flow in storage and the velocity of runoff. Flow was routed from the wet section to the dry section to the spacer section, with flow from the spacer section draining to the wet section of the next cell. Flow from the most downgradient cell was assumed to be the outflow. Discharge rates and volumes from the most downgradient cell were used for com- parisons between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. Alternative Model Scenarios To assess the effects of the different variables, a section of 30 cells, each with a solar panel, was assumed for the base model. Each cell was separated individually into wet, dry, and spacer sections. The area had a total ground length of 225 m with a ground slope of 1% and width of 5 m, which was the width of an average solar panel. The roughness coefficient (Engman 1986) for the silicon solar panel was assumed to be that of glass, 0.01. Roughness coefficients of 0.15 for grass and 0.02 for bare ground were also assumed. Loss rates of 0.5715 cm=h(0.225 in:=h) and 0.254 cm=h(0.1 in:=h) for B and C soils, respectively, were assumed. The prepaneled condition using the 2-h, 25-year rainfall was assumed for the base condition, with each cell assumed to have a good grass cover condition. All other analyses were made assum- ing a paneled condition. Formost scenarios, the runoff volumes and peak discharge rates from the paneled model were not significantly greater than those for the prepaneled condition. Over a total length of 225 m with 30 solar panels, the runoff increased by 0.26 m3, which was a difference of only 0.35%. The slight increase in runoff volume reflects the slightly higher velocities for the paneled con- dition. The peak discharge increased by 0.0013 m3, a change of only 0.31%. The time to peak was delayed by one time increment, i.e., 12 s. Inclusion of the panels did not have a significant hydro- logic impact. Storm Magnitude The effect of storm magnitude was investigated by changing the magnitude from a 25-year storm to a 2-year storm. For the 2-year storm, the rainfall and runoff volumes decreased by approximately 50%. However, the runoff from the paneled watershed condition increased compared to the prepaneled condition by approximately the samevolume as for the 25-year analysis,0.26 m3 . This increase represents only a 0.78% increase in volume. The peak discharge and the time to peak did not change significantly. These results re- flect runofffrom a good grass cover condition and indicated that the general conclusion of very minimal impacts was the same for dif- ferent storm magnitudes. Ground Slope The effect of the downgradient ground slope of the solar farm was also examined. The angle of the solar panels would influence the velocity of flows from the panels. As the ground slope was in- creased, the velocity of flow over the ground surface would be closer to that on the panels. This could cause an overall increase in discharge rates. The ground slope was changed from 1 to 5%, with all other conditions remaining the same as the base conditions. With the steeper incline, the volume of losses decreased from that for the 1% slope, which is to be expected because the faster velocity of the runoff would provide less opportunity for infiltra- tion. However, between the prepaneled and paneled conditions, the increase in runoff volume was less than 1%. The peak discharge and the time to peak did not change. Therefore, the greater ground slope did not significantly influence the response of the solar farm. Soil Type The effect of soil type on the runoff was also examined. The soil group was changed from B soil to C soil by varying the loss rate. As expected, owing to the higher loss rate for the C soil, the depths of runoff increased by approximately 7.5% with the C soil when com- pared with the volume for B soils. However, the runoff volume for the C soil condition only increased by 0.17% from the prepaneled condition to the paneled condition. In comparison with the B soil, a difference of 0.35% involume resulted between the two conditions. Therefore, the soil group influenced the actual volumes and rates, but not the relative effect of the paneled condition when compared to the prepaneled condition. Panel Angle Because runoff velocities increasewith slope, the effect of the angle of the solar panel on the hydrologic responsewas examined. Analy- ses were made for angles of 30° and 70° to test an average range from winter to summer. The hydrologic response for these angles was compared to that of the base condition angle of 45°. The other site conditions remained the same. The analyses showed that the angle of the panel had only a slight effect on runoff volumes and discharge rates. The lower angle of 30° was associated with an in- creased runoff volume, whereas the runoff volume decreased for the steeper angle of 70° when compared with the base condition of 45°. However, the differences (~0.5%) were very slight. Never- theless, these results indicate that, when the solar panel was closer to horizontal, i.e., at a lower angle, a larger difference in runoff volume occurred between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. These differences in the response result are from differences in loss rates. The peak discharge was also lower at the lower angle. At an angle of 30°, the peak discharge was slightly lower than at the higher angle of 70°. For the 2-h storm duration, the time to peak of the 30° angle was 2 min delayed from the time to peak of when the panel was positioned at a 70° angle, which reflects the longer travel times across the solar panels. Storm Duration To assess the effect of storm duration, analyses were made for 6-h storms, testing magnitudes for 2-, 25-, and 100-year return periods, with the results compared with those for the 2-h rainfall events. The longer storm duration was tested to determine whether a longer du- ration storm would produce a different ratio of increase in runoff between the prepaneled and paneled conditions. When compared to runoff volumes from the 2-h storm, those for the 6-h storm were 34% greater in both the paneled and prepaneled cases. However, when comparing the prepaneled to the paneled condition, the in- crease in the runoff volume with the 6-h storm was less than 1% regardless of the return period. The peak discharge and the time-to-peak did not differ significantly between the two condi- tions. The trends in the hydrologic response of the solar farm did not vary with storm duration. Ground Cover Theground coverunder the panels was assumed to be a nativegrass that received little maintenance. For some solar farms, the area be- neath the panel is covered in gravel or partially paved because the panels prevent the grass from receiving sunlight. Depending on the 538 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Do w n l o a d e d f r o m a s c e l i b r a r y . o r g b y E l i J o h n s o n o n 1 2 / 0 3 / 1 8 . C o p y r i g h t A S C E . F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y ; a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . volume of traffic, the spacer cell could be grass, patches of grass, or bare ground. Thus, it was necessary to determine whether or not these alternative ground-cover conditions would affect the runoff characteristics. This was accomplished by changing the Manning’s n for the ground beneath the panels. The value of n under the pan- els, i.e., the dry section, was set to 0.015 for gravel, with the value for the spacer or maintenance section set to 0.02, i.e., bare ground. These can be compared to the base condition of a native grass (n ¼0.15). A good cover should promote losses and delay the runoff. For the smoother surfaces, the velocity of the runoff increased and the losses decreased, which resulted in increasing runoff vol- umes. This occurred both when the ground cover under the panels was changed to gravel and when the cover in the spacer section was changed to bare ground. Owing to the higher velocities of the flow, runoff rates from the cells increased significantly such that it was necessary to reduce the computational time increment. Fig.4(a) shows the hydrograph from a 30-panel area with a time incre- ment of 12 s. With a time increment of 12 s, the water in each cell is discharged at the end of every time increment, which results in no attenuation of the flow; thus, the undulations shown in Fig.4(a) result. The time increment was reduced to 3 s for the 2-h storm, which resulted in watershed smoothing and a rational hydrograph shape [Fig.4(b)]. The results showed that the storm runoff increased by 7% from the grass-covered scenario to the scenario with gravel under the panel. The peak discharge increased by 73% for the gravel ground cover when compared with the grass cover without the panels. The time to peak was 10 min less with the gravel than with the grass, which reflects the effect of differ- ences in surface roughness and the resulting velocities. If maintenancevehicles used the spacer section regularly and the grass cover was not adequately maintained, the soil in the spacer section would be compacted and potentially the runoff volumes and rates would increase. Grass that is not maintained has the potential to become patchy and turn to bare ground. The grass under the panel may not get enough sunlight and die. Fig.1 shows the result of the maintenance trucks frequently driving in the spacer section, which diminished the grass cover. The effect of the lack of solar farm maintenance on runoff char- acteristics was modeled by changing the Manning’s n to a value of 0.02 for bare ground. In this scenario, the roughness coefficient for the ground under the panels, i.e., the dry section, as well as in the spacer cell was changed from grass covered to bare ground (n ¼0.02).The effects were nearly identical to that of the gravel. The runoff volume increased by 7% from the grass-covered to the bare-ground condition. The peak discharge increased by 72% when compared with thegrass-covered condition. The runofffor the bare- ground condition also resulted in an earlier time to peak by approx- imately 10 min. Two other conditions were also modeled, showing similar results. In the first scenario, gravel was placed directly under the panel, and healthy grass was placed in the spacer section, which mimics a possible design decision. Under these conditions, the peak discharge increased by 42%, and the volume of runoff increased by 4%, which suggests that storm-water management would be necessary if gravel is placed anywhere. Fig.5 shows two solar panels from a solar farm in New Jersey. The bare ground between the panels can cause increased runoff rates and reductions in time of concentration, both of which could necessitate storm-water management. The final condition modeled involved the assumption of healthy grass beneath the panels and bare ground in the spacer section, which would simulate the con- dition of unmaintained grass resulting from vehicles that drive over the spacer section. Because the spacer section is 53% of the cell, the change in land cover to bare ground would reduce losses and de- crease runoff travel times, which would cause runoff to amass as it Fig. 4.Hydrograph with time increment of (a) 12 s; (b) 3 s with Manning’s n for bare ground Fig. 5.Site showing the initiation of bare ground below the panels, which increases the potential for erosion (photo by John Showler, reprinted with permission) JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 /539 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Do w n l o a d e d f r o m a s c e l i b r a r y . o r g b y E l i J o h n s o n o n 1 2 / 0 3 / 1 8 . C o p y r i g h t A S C E . F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y ; a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . moves downgradient. With the spacer section as bare ground, the peak discharge increased by 100%, which reflected the increases in volume and decrease in timing. These results illustrate the need for maintenance of the grass below and between the panels. Design Suggestions With well-maintained grass underneath the panels, the solar panels themselves do not have much effect on total volumes of the runoff or peak discharge rates. Although the panels are impervious, the rainwater that drains from the panels appears as runoff over the downgradient cells. Some of the runoff infiltrates. If the grass cover of a solar farm is not maintained, it can deteriorate either because of a lack of sunlight or maintenance vehicle traffic. In this case, the runoff characteristics can change significantly with both runoff rates and volumes increasing by significant amounts. In addition, if gravel or pavement is placed underneath the panels, this can also contribute to a significant increase in the hydrologic response. If bare ground is foreseen to be a problem or gravel is to be placed under the panels to prevent erosion, it is necessary to counteract the excess runoff using some form of storm-water man- agement. A simple practice that can be implemented is a buffer strip (Dabney et al. 2006) at the downgradient end of the solar farm. The buffer strip length must be sufficient to return the runoff character- istics with the panels to those of runoff experienced before the gravel and panels were installed. Alternatively, a detention basin can be installed. A buffer strip was modeled along with the panels. For approxi- mately every 200 m of panels, or 29 cells, the buffer must be 5 cells long (or 35 m) to reduce the runoff volume to that which occurred before the panels were added. Even if a gravel base is not placed under the panels, the inclusion of a buffer strip may be a good prac- tice when grass maintenance is not a top funding priority. Fig.6 shows the peak discharge from thegraveled surfaceversus the length of the buffer needed to keep the discharge to prepaneled peak rate. Water draining from a solar panel can increase the potential for erosion of the spacer section. If the spacer section is bare ground, the high kinetic energy of water draining from the panel can cause soil detachment and transport (Garde and Raju 1977;Beuselinck et al. 2002). The amount and risk of erosion was modeled using the velocity of water coming off a solar panel compared with the velocity and intensity of the rainwater. The velocity of panel runoff was calculated using Manning’s equation, and the velocity of falling rainwater was calculated using the following: V t ¼120 d 0.35 r ð1Þ where dr =diameter of a raindrop, assumed to be 1 mm. The re- lationship between kinetic energy and rainfall intensity is K e ¼916 þ 330 log10 i ð2Þ where i =rainfall intensity (in:=h) and K e =kinetic energy (ft-tons per ac-in. of rain) of rain falling onto the wet section and the panel, as well as the water flowing off of the end of the panel (Wischmeier and Smith 1978). The kinetic energy (Salles et al. 2002) of the rain- fall was greater than that coming off the panel, but the area under the panel (i.e., the product of the length, width, and cosine of the panel angle) is greater than the area under the edge of the panel where the water drains from the panel onto the ground. Thus, dividing the kinetic energy by the respective areas gives a more accurate representation of the kinetic energy experienced by the soil. The energy of the water draining from the panel onto the ground can be nearly 10 times greater than the rain itself falling onto the ground area. If the solar panel runoff falls onto an un- sealed soil, considerable detachment can result (Motha et al. 2004). Thus, because of the increased kinetic energy, it is pos- sible that the soil is much more prone to erosion with the panels than without. Where panels are installed, methods of erosion control should be included in the design. Conclusions Solar farms are the energy generators of the future; thus, it is im- portant to determine the environmental and hydrologic effects of these farms, both existing and proposed. A model was created to simulate storm-water runoff over a land surface without panels and then with solar panels added. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted including changing the storm duration and volume, soil type, ground slope, panel angle, and ground cover to determine the effect that each of these factors would have on the volumes and peak discharge rates of the runoff. The addition of solar panels over a grassy field does not have much of an effect on the volume of runoff, the peak discharge, nor the time to peak. With each analysis, the runoff volume increased slightly but not enough to require storm-water management facili- ties. However, when the land-cover type was changed under the panels, the hydrologic response changed significantly. When gravel or pavement was placed under the panels, with the spacer section left as patchy grass or bare ground, the volume of the runoff in- creased significantly and the peak discharge increased by approx- imately 100%. This was also the result when the entire cell was assumed to be bare ground. The potential for erosion of the soil at the base of the solar pan- els was also studied. It was determined that the kinetic energyof the water draining from the solar panel could be as much as 10 times greater than that of rainfall. Thus, because the energy of the water draining from the panels is much higher, it is very possible that soil below the base of the solar panel could erode owing to the concen- trated flow of water off the panel, especially if there is bare ground in the spacer section of the cell. If necessary, erosion control meth- ods should be used. Bare ground beneath the panels and in the spacer section is a realistic possibility (see Figs.1 and 5). Thus, a good, well- maintained grass cover beneath the panels and in the spacer section is highly recommended. If gravel, pavement, or bare ground is Fig. 6.Peak discharge over gravel compared with buffer length 540 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Do w n l o a d e d f r o m a s c e l i b r a r y . o r g b y E l i J o h n s o n o n 1 2 / 0 3 / 1 8 . C o p y r i g h t A S C E . F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y ; a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . deemed unavoidable below the panels or in the spacer section, it may necessary to add a buffer section to control the excess runoff volume and ensure adequate losses. If these simple measures are taken, solar farms will not have an adverse hydrologic impact from excess runoff or contribute eroded soil particles to receiving streams and waterways. Acknowledgments The authors appreciate the photographs (Figs.1 and 5) of Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, 1001 Route 202, North Raritan, New Jersey, 08869, provided by John E. Showler, Environmental Scientist, New Jersey Department of Agriculture. The extensive comments of reviewers resulted in an improved paper. References Bedient, P. B., and Huber, W. C. (2002).Hydrology and floodplain analy- sis, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Beuselinck, L., Govers, G., Hairsince, P. B., Sander, G. C., and Breynaert, M. (2002).“The influence of rainfall on sediment transport by overland flow over areas of net deposition.”J. Hydrol., 257(1–4), 145–163. Dabney, S. M., Moore, M. T., and Locke, M. A. (2006).“Integrated man- agement of in-field, edge-of-field, and after-field buffers.”J. Amer. Water Resour. Assoc., 42(1), 15–24. Engman, E. T. (1986).“Roughness coefficients for routing surface runoff.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 112(1), 39–53. Garde, R. J., and Raju, K. G. (1977).Mechanics of sediment transportation and alluvial stream problems, Wiley, New York. McCuen, R. H. (2005).Hydrologic analysis and design, 3rd Ed., Pearson/ Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Motha, J. A., Wallbrink, P. J., Hairsine, P. B., and Grayson, R. B. (2004). “Unsealed roads as suspended sediment sources in agricultural catch- ment in south-eastern Australia.”J. Hydrol., 286(1–4), 1–18. Salles, C., Poesen, J., and Sempere-Torres, D. (2002).“Kinetic energy of rain and its functional relationship with intensity.”J. Hydrol., 257(1–4), 256–270. Wischmeier, W. H., and Smith, D. D. (1978).Predicting rainfall erosion losses: A guide to conservation planning, USDA Handbook 537, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2013 /541 J. Hydrol. Eng., 2013, 18(5): 536-541 Do w n l o a d e d f r o m a s c e l i b r a r y . o r g b y E l i J o h n s o n o n 1 2 / 0 3 / 1 8 . C o p y r i g h t A S C E . F o r p e r s o n a l u s e o n l y ; a l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . Wright Water Engineers, Inc., 2490 W. 26th Avenue, Ste. 100A, Denver, CO 80211 Tel. (303) 480-1700; Fax. (303) 480-1020, e-mail: aearles@wrightwater.com MEMORANDUM To: Holly Piza, P.E., CFM, Brik Zivkovich, P.E, CFM Mile High Flood District Via email: hpiza@mhfd.org, bzivkovich@mhfd.org, From: Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Andrew Earles, Ph.D., P.E., P.H., D.WRE, Chris Olson, Ph.D., P.E., and Matthew Howard, EIT Date: October 13, 2023 Re: Determination of Solar Panel Field Runoff Coefficients This memorandum documents the methods and results of hydrologic modeling analysis to estimate runoff coefficients and imperviousness values for solar panel fields under two different situations. The first scenario addresses solar installations that involve minimal land disturbances in areas that are or will be vegetated using native grasses. This approach assumes that soils are not significantly compacted during construction and that where disturbance (cut and fill) is required, proper measures are taken to manage topsoil (see the Topsoil Management Guide) and all land disturbed is revegetated to an approximate uniform density of at least 80%. The second scenario addresses solar installations that use gravel for the areas between and beneath the panels. 1.0 Methodology The EPA Stormwater Management Model (SWMM) was used to simulate runoff from typical solar panel field installations. The SWMM model was used because it has the computational and workflow capabilities of being able to “cascade” runoff from one type of surface (e.g., solar panel) onto another type of surface (e.g., ground), with each surface having different runoff-generating characteristics. For this analysis, we simulated three different surfaces under three different configurations of solar panel alignments. The surfaces were: • The Solar Panel surface is impervious, receives direct rainfall and directs runoff onto the Inter- Panel surface. • The Inter-Panel ground surface represents the ground surface between the solar panels. It receives both direct rainfall and runoff from the Solar Panel surface and directs runoff to either the Rain Shadow surface or adjacent Inter-Panel surfaces depending on configuration. The perviousness of the Inter-Panel is dependent upon the surface type. • The Rain Shadow ground surface represents the ground surface underneath the solar panels. It does not receive any direct rainfall and only receives direct runoff from the Inter-Panel surface under certain configurations. The perviousness of the Rain Shadow is dependent upon the surface type. Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 2 This analysis only addressed the areas of the site where panels are installed. Typically, a solar field will also include additional impervious area such as access roads and pads for electrical appurtenances. These areas must be included in the overall imperviousness by area-weighting appropriate imperviousness values for the solar panel areas and the other impervious surfaces on the project site. An example is provided at the end of this memorandum that illustrates this process. The three different configurations (parallel, perpendicular, and diagonal) represent different alignments of the solar panels with the contours of the ground surface. These alignments affect how runoff from the solar panels cascades across the ground surface in the downhill direction. These three configurations were evaluated for native grass cover and for gravel cover. Parallel Configuration - Due to the solar panels being aligned parallel to the ground contours, runoff from the Solar Panel surface is distributed evenly across both the Inter-Panel and Rain Shadow surfaces. This configuration maximizes runoff reduction potential because runoff from the solar panels has the opportunity to attenuate and infiltrate across all available pervious area. Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 3 Perpendicular Configuration - Due to the solar panels being aligned perpendicular to the ground contours, runoff from the solar panels becomes channelized quickly after reaching the Inter-Panel surface and does not continue to runoff into the Rain Shadow surface. The Inter-Panel surface is only partially effective for runoff reduction and the Rain Shadow surface is not effective at all for runoff reduction. This configuration represents the minimum runoff reduction opportunity. Diagonal Configuration - Runoff from the solar panels is distributed evenly across the Inter-Panel surface but becomes mostly channelized by the time it reaches the Rain Shadow surface. Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 4 In addition to analysis using SWMM, WWE performed comparisons with results from the University of Minnesota’s PV-SMaRT Solar Runoff Calculator Version 3.01 (referred to as “Solar Runoff Calculator”). This is a spreadsheet calculator that implements Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Curve Number (CN) volumetric runoff calculations. The solar calculator is based on a 24- hour storm instead of the 2-hour storm that is used in the Mile High Flood District (MHFD) region. WWE corresponded with the author of the Solar Runoff Calculator, Dr. David Mulla, to confirm that 2-hour storms, with greater intensity, would be expected to have fewer losses (e.g., less infiltration) than represented by a CN for a 24-hour storm. Dr. Mulla provided WWE with a reference that he recommended for adjustment of results for a 2-hour storm duration2. Although the CN method, even with adjustments, was expected to generate different results than SWMM due to fundamental differences in infiltration methods, WWE performed calculations using the Solar Runoff Calculator, adjusted for a 2-hour storm duration as a point of comparison with SWMM results. 2.0 SWMM Model Parameterization The surfaces described above were represented as a series of individual subcatchments. Runoff from each subcatchment was either “cascaded” to downhill subcatchments or directed to the model “outlet,” depending on the solar panel configuration. Table 1 summarizes the names, areas and description of the subcatchments used for each configuration. 1 Mulla, D. 2023. PV-SMaRT Solar Runoff Calculator Version 3.0. University of Minnesota, Technology No. 2023-053, https://license.umn.edu/product/pv-smart-solar-runoff-calculator-version-30. 2 Meadows, M. 2016. Adjusting NRCS Curve Number for Rainfall Durations Less Than 24 Hours. Journal of South Carolina Water Resources, Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 43-47. Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 5 Table 1. Summary of SWMM Subcatchments Used to Represent each Solar Panel Farm Configuration Configuration Subcatchment Name and Area Description Parallel Solar Panel: 1 acre Inter-Panel: 1 acre Rain Shadow: 1 acre Runoff from the Solar Panel is directed to the Inter-Panel. Inter-Panel runoff is directed to the Rain Shadow. The ratio of Receiving Pervious Area to Unconnected Impervious area is 2:1 Perpendicular Solar Panel: 1 acre Inter-Panel_1: 0.5 acres Inter-Panel_2: 0.5 acres Rain Shadow: 1 acre Runoff from the Solar Panel is directed to Inter-Panel_1. Inter-Panel_1 and Inter- Panel_2 runoff is directed to the outlet (downhill). The ratio of Receiving Pervious Area to Unconnected Impervious area is 0.5:1 Diagonal Solar Panel: 1 acre Inter-Panel: 1 acre Rain Shadow_1: 0.5 acre Rain Shadow_2: 0.5 acre Runoff from the Solar Panel is directed to the Inter-Panel. Inter-Panel runoff is directed to the Rain Shadow_1 surface. The ratio of Receiving Pervious Area to Unconnected Impervious area is 1.5:1 Rainfall for the 2-, 5-, and 100-year design storms was applied only to the Solar Panel and Inter-Panel surfaces. The 2-hour design storms were generated using CUHP and NOAA Atlas 14 60-minute rainfall depths for Aurora, Colorado. All simulations used Horton’s infiltration parameters for Type C/D soils and slopes of 5%. Typical Manning’s N and depression storage values for impervious and pervious surfaces were applied based on the MHFD’s Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. For the Solar Runoff Calculator, WWE used the same geometric parameters and soil types represented in SWMM. WWE implemented an adjustment procedure for CN values based on Meadows’ work in 2016 to reflect CN losses for a 2-hour storm duration. 3.0 Results and Discussion 3.1 Solar Fields with Native Vegetation 3.1.1 SWMM Analysis The results of the SWMM simulations were used to calculate volumetric runoff coefficients. Volumetric runoff coefficients were computed by dividing the total runoff volume by the total precipitation volume. Table 2 and Figure 1 present the runoff coefficient results from SWMM. As expected, the parallel configuration has the lowest runoff coefficients, the perpendicular configuration has the largest and the diagonal configuration is in between the others. Imperviousness percentages were assigned based on Table 6-5 in the MHFD’s Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (MHFD Manual) which is provided in Appendix A. WWE calculated imperviousness from SWMM results Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 6 for the 2-, 5-, and 100-year events. WWE presents results of the SWMM simulations in Table 2 and Figure 1. Table 2. Volumetric Coefficients and Percent Imperviousness from SWMM Modeling – Solar Fields with Native Vegetation Return Period Parallel Diagonal Perpendicular Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious 2-year 0.01 2% 0.01 2% 0.37 48% 5-year 0.02 <2% 0.16 15% 0.45 52% 100- year 0.47 <2% 0.58 23% 0.72 58% Average ---- 2% ---- 13% ---- 52% Figure 1. Volumetric Runoff Coefficients from SWMM Modeling – Solar Fields with Native Vegetation Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 7 Percentage imperviousness values back-calculated from Table 6-5 varied only slightly for parallel solar orientations, despite the volumetric runoff coefficient increasing from 0.01 to 0.47 from the 2- to the 100-year event. This is due to the low infiltration rate of hydrologic soil group (HSG) C soils once saturated, which is modeled by SWMM and accounted for in the intercepts of the relationships summarized by Table 6-5. For the simulated 2- and 5-year events with solar panels oriented parallel to surface contours, the pervious native vegetation surface type in the Rain Shadow and Inter-Panel infiltrated most of the runoff from the Solar Panel without saturating the HSG C soils. However, during the simulated 100-year event the underlying soils were fully saturated and runoff was produced which was less than but similar to values expected for low-imperviousness watersheds with HSG C soils. The relationship between calculated volumetric runoff coefficients and event return periods varied according to an approximately log-linear relationship for each panel configuration which is expected for watersheds with HSG C soils. 3.1.2 Solar Runoff Calculator Using similar input parameters and the adjustments from a 24-hour to 2-hour storm recommended by the developer of the Solar Runoff Calculator, the Solar Runoff Calculator produced the results shown in Table 3. As noted above, imperviousness values that were back-calculated from SWMM using Table 6-5 in the MHFD Manual are averaged in Table 3 due to variability in calculated imperviousness values. Table 3. Volumetric Coefficients and Percent Imperviousness from Solar Runoff Calculator Adjusted for 2-hour Storm – Solar Fields with Native Vegetation Return Period Parallel Diagonal Perpendicular Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious 2-year 0.01 2% 0.07 12% 0.14 20% 5-year 0.24 25% 0.29 31% 0.33 37% 100- year 0.63 35% 0.65 40% 0.67 45% Average ---- 21% ---- 28% ---- 34% While there are differences between the Solar Runoff Calculator and SWMM results (as expected), the Solar Runoff Calculator results clearly show that solar fields have the potential to increase runoff relative to undeveloped conditions. The Solar Runoff Calculator results show higher estimated percent imperviousness for the parallel and diagonal installations relative to SWMM, while the results for perpendicular conditions are slightly lower than the SWMM results, but of a similar magnitude. Table 4 presents averaged and rounded percent imperviousness results from SWMM and the Solar Runoff Calculator with the range of results. This averaging was performed since there is uncertainty associated with both methods, and the two methods yield generally similar results, with some differences. Since SWMM is commonly used for hydrology in the MHFD region and because the Solar Runoff Calculator has been widely applied by the solar industry elsewhere, WWE averaged values from the two methods and then rounded results to the nearest 5% for the recommended values. Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 8 Table 4. Averages and Ranges of Percent Imperviousness Values from SWMM and Solar Runoff Calculator for Solar Fields with Native Vegetation Parameter Parallel Percent Impervious Diagonal Percent Impervious Perpendicular Percent Impervious Avg of SWMM and Solar Runoff Calculator 10% 20% 45% Low Range <2% 2% 20% High Range 35% 40% 58% 3.2 Solar Fields with Gravel Cover 3.2.1 SWMM Analysis SWMM simulations were repeated with input parameters appropriate to reflect increased roughness and imperviousness in the rain shadow and inter-panel areas when gravel is selected for solar field installations. Table 5 and Figure 2 present the runoff coefficient results from SWMM modeling of solar fields with gravel ground cover. The runoff coefficients calculated from SWMM modeling results for solar fields with gravel ground cover followed the same trend as the simulations performed for solar fields with native vegetation, but the increased magnitude of calculated runoff coefficients reflects the impact of the increased imperviousness of gravel ground cover. As expected, the parallel configuration has the lowest runoff coefficients, the perpendicular configuration has the largest, and the diagonal configuration is in between the others. Imperviousness percentages were assigned based on Table 6-5 in the MHFD Manual. WWE calculated imperviousness from SWMM results for the 2- , 5-, and 100-year events. WWE presents averages in Table 5 since there is some variability in the imperviousness values when they are back-calculated from SWMM runoff results using Table 6-5 in the MHFD Manual. Table 5. Volumetric Coefficients and Percent Imperviousness from SWMM Modeling – Solar Fields with Gravel Ground Cover Return Period Parallel Diagonal Perpendicular Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious 2-year 0.28 37% 0.39 51% 0.65 80% 5-year 0.38 43% 0.51 59% 0.70 81% 100- year 0.69 50% 0.76 68% 0.85 90% Average - 43% - 59% - 84% Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 9 Figure 2. Volumetric Runoff Coefficients from SWMM Modeling – Solar Fields with Gravel Ground Cover 3.2.2 Solar Runoff Calculator Solar Runoff Calculator analyses repeated for solar fields with gravel ground cover produce the results shown in Table 6. As described above, imperviousness values that were back-calculated from the Solar Runoff Calculator using Table 6-5 in the MHFD Manual are averaged in Table 6 due to variability in calculated imperviousness values. due to variability in calculated imperviousness values. 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 10 100 Ru n o f f C o e f f i c i e n t Return Period (years) Runoff Coefficients for Solar Panel Farms Parallel Configuration Perpendicular Configuration Diagonal Configuration Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 10 Table 6. Volumetric Coefficients and Percent Imperviousness from Solar Runoff Calculator Adjusted for 2-hour Storm – Solar Fields with Gravel Ground Cover Return Period Parallel Diagonal Perpendicular Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious 2-year 0.32 43% 0.38 50% 0.43 55% 5-year 0.47 54% 0.52 60% 0.56 65% 100- year 0.74 63% 0.76 68% 0.78 73% Average ---- 53% ---- 59% ---- 64% The differences between runoff coefficients calculated with the Solar Runoff Calculator and SWMM results show the same relationship observed when analyses were performed for solar panel fields with native vegetation. The Solar Runoff Calculator results show higher estimated percent imperviousness for the parallel and diagonal installations relative to SWMM, while the results for perpendicular conditions are similar to, but slightly lower than, the SWMM results. Table 7 presents averages of percent imperviousness from SWMM and the Solar Runoff Calculator with the range of results. As previously noted, we have averaged and rounded results from the SWMM and Solar Runoff Calculator analysis in Table 7. Averaging was performed because there is uncertainty associated with both methods, and the two methods yield generally similar results, with some differences. WWE averaged values from the two methods and then rounded results to the nearest 5% for the recommended values. Table 7. Averages and Ranges of Percent Imperviousness Values from SWMM and Solar Runoff Calculator for Solar Fields with Gravel Ground Cover Parameter Parallel Percent Impervious Diagonal Percent Impervious Perpendicular Percent Impervious Avg of SWMM and Solar Runoff Calculator 50% 60% 75% Low Range 37% 50% 55% High Range 63% 68% 90% 3.3 Adjustments for Variable Panel and Aisle Widths WWE performed SWMM modeling and Solar Runoff Calculator analyses assuming equal widths for solar panels and inter-panel areas. To apply these analyses to solar fields with variable panel spacing, Equation 1 through Equation 4 were developed. Equation 1 accounts for the relative impact of panel and aisle width on runoff coefficients calculated for solar fields, while Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 11 Equation 2 through Equation 4 are evaluated to solve Equation 1. Because our analyses indicate that solar arrays parallel to ground contours provide minimal increases in site imperviousness, standard recommended impervious values remain constant for all combinations of solar panel and inter-panel aisle widths. 𝐼∗=2𝐼+𝐼𝑎𝐶𝑎+𝐼𝑜𝐶𝑜 2 +𝐶𝑎+𝐶𝑜 Equation 1. 𝑰∗= The calculated impervious proportion of solar fields with variable aisle/panel widths, 𝑰= Standard imperviousness for solar panel orientation/ground cover type, 𝑰𝒂= Aisle ground cover imperviousness, 𝑰𝒐= Solar panel orientation imperviousness, 𝑪𝒂= Aisle width adjustment factor, 𝑪𝒐= Panel width adjustment factor 𝐼𝑜=2𝐼−𝐼𝑎; 𝐼𝑎= {0.10 𝑖𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑟 0.50 𝑖𝑒 𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 Equation 2. NOTE: For solar array configurations oriented parallel to surface contours, 𝑰𝒂=𝑰𝒐=𝑰=𝑰∗ 𝐶𝑎=𝑣𝑎,𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑗 10 −1 Equation 3. 𝒘𝒂,𝒐𝒓𝒐𝒋= Width of aisles from project site plans 𝐶𝑜=𝑣𝑜,𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑗 10 −1 Equation 4. 𝒘𝒐,𝒐𝒓𝒐𝒋= Width of solar panels from project site plans Equation 1 through Equation 4 have been solved for each solar array orientation and ground cover type with a variety of panel and aisle width combinations in Table 8 through Table 11 presented below. Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 12 Table 8. Runoff Coefficients Calculated for Variable Widths for Solar Fields Oriented Diagonal to Ground Surface Contours with Native Grass Ground Cover Width of Aisle, wa,proj (feet) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Wi d t h o f P a n e l s , w p, p r o j (f e e t ) 10 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 15 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 20 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 25 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 30 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 Table 9. Runoff Coefficients Calculated for Variable Widths for Solar Fields Oriented Perpendicular to Ground Surface Contours with Native Grass Ground Cover Width of Aisle, wa,proj (feet) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Wi d t h o f P a n e l s , w p, p r o j (f e e t ) 10 0.45 0.38 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.22 15 0.52 0.45 0.40 0.36 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.26 20 0.57 0.50 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.30 25 0.60 0.54 0.49 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.33 30 0.63 0.57 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.40 0.38 0.36 Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 13 Table 10. Runoff Coefficients Calculated for Variable Widths for Solar Fields Oriented Diagonal to Ground Surface Contours with Gravel Ground Cover Width of Aisle, wa,proj (feet) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Wi d t h o f P a n e l s , w p, p r o j (f e e t ) 10 0.60 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 15 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 20 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 25 0.64 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 30 0.65 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 Table 11. Runoff Coefficients Calculated for Variable Widths for Solar Fields Oriented Perpendicular to Ground Surface Contours with Gravel Ground Cover Width of Aisle, wa,proj (feet) 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Wi d t h o f P a n e l s , w p, p r o j (f e e t ) 10 0.75 0.70 0.67 0.64 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.58 15 0.80 0.75 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.62 20 0.83 0.79 0.75 0.72 0.70 0.68 0.67 0.65 0.64 25 0.86 0.81 0.78 0.75 0.73 0.71 0.69 0.68 0.67 30 0.88 0.83 0.80 0.77 0.75 0.73 0.71 0.70 0.69 Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 14 4.0 Recommendations In Table 12 and Table 13, WWE presents recommended values for runoff coefficients and percent imperviousness based on rounding of average values calculated from SWMM and the Solar Runoff Calculator. Table 12. Recommended Runoff Coefficients and Imperviousness to Use for Evaluation of Solar Installations with Native Grass Cover* Return Period Parallel Diagonal Perpendicular Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious 2-year 0.06 10% 0.14 20% 0.34 45% 5-year 0.12 10% 0.20 20% 0.40 45% 100- year 0.52 10% 0.57 20% 0.67 45% * These values of runoff coefficients and imperviousness percentages are based on assumptions of HSG C soils and equal widths of Panels and Inter-Panel aisles. If site conditions differ from these assumptions, the engineer can follow the SWMM procedures described in the memorandum to perform site-specific analysis. Table 13. Recommended Runoff Coefficients and Imperviousness to Use for Evaluation of Solar Installations with Gravel Cover* Return Period Parallel Diagonal Perpendicular Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious Volumetric Runoff Coefficient Percent Impervious 2-year 0.38 50% 0.47 60% 0.60 75% 5-year 0.44 50% 0.52 60% 0.65 75% 100- year 0.69 50% 0.73 60% 0.79 75% * These values of runoff coefficients and imperviousness percentages are based on assumptions of HSG C soils and equal widths of Panels and Inter-Panel aisles. If site conditions differ from these assumptions, the engineer can follow the SWMM procedures described in the memorandum to perform site-specific analysis. WWE recommends basing imperviousness values for determining runoff coefficients on the imperviousness values and runoff coefficients presented in Table 12 and Table 13. At the master planning level, before the layout of a solar site is known, the imperviousness values and runoff coefficients for perpendicular installations should be used. Once the layout is known, the engineer can conduct site-specific analysis to assign runoff coefficients based on the alignment of panels relative to contours, interpolating between values in Table 12 and Table 13, as illustrated in the following example. Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 15 5.0 Example The following example illustrates how to determine runoff coefficients and imperviousness percentages for a project site. There are many ways to perform this analysis and achieve the same results, but a simple and effective method for obtaining runoff coefficients can be performed using the Spatial Analyst extension in ArcGIS Pro. Step 1. Delineate drainage sub-basins based on best available survey data. The example solar field is approximately 1 square mile in area and is located in Aurora, Colorado. A gravel access road, gravel parking areas, and concrete pads for energy transmission equipment are included in the example site plan. Due to the extent of the project, it is assumed that grading will be limited to the access road, parking areas, and concrete pads. A total of 8 sub-basins and 7 direct run- off areas were delineated for the site. For brevity of this example, only Sub-basin 5 (highlighted in the figures below) will be analyzed here. Refer to the site map provided in Appendix B for locations of all design points, sub-basins, and non-site-specific drainage basins. Figure EX-1. Hypothetical Solar Field Site with Sub-basins Delineated: Sub-basin 5 (Used in this Example) is Highlighted in Teal Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 16 Figure EX-2. Sub-basin 5 Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 17 Step 2. Determine the percent of each relevant land use within each sub-basin including open space, solar panels, gravel road, gravel pads, and other pervious and impervious land uses. Land cover in Sub-basin 5 includes a portion of the gravel access road, undeveloped open space, and solar panels in various orientations relative to the natural ground contours. Create sub-basin-specific shapefiles to represent the geometry of each land use within the sub-basin. Figure EX-3. Land Cover Categories in Sub-basin 5 Include Open-space (Green), Solar Panels (Orange), and Gravel (Yellow) Once the shapefiles are created, calculate the area of each land use in the sub-basin by adding a field to the shapefile attribute table and using the Calculate Geometry function. Once calculated, areas for each component of the shapefile are either be summed manually or calculated using the Summary Statistics function. Access the Summary Statistics function by right clicking on the attribute table and selecting Summarize. Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 18 Figure EX-4. Example Area Calculation Workflow in ArcGIS Pro: Figure Shows Calculation of Solar Panel Area within Sub-basin 5 (Orange Area in Figure EX-3) After calculating the area of all land cover in the sub-basin, tabulate results to determine composite areal percentages for each category. Table EX-1. Sub-basin 5 Land Cover Summary Land Cover Area (acres) Area (% of Total) Solar Field 27.82 68% Gravel 0.41 1% Open Space 12.95 31% Total 41.17 100% Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 19 Step 3. Determine representative angle of panels relative to ground contours for each sub- basin and calculate the composite imperviousness of the solar fields on site. Use the Surface Parameters tool to calculate the aspect of the natural surface where solar fields are proposed. Aspect is essentially the flow direction of the natural surface measured in degrees clockwise from north. The output cell size is specified by the user and cannot be smaller than the cell size of the input raster. The selected cell size is used to calculated area later in this example. Figure EX-5. Surface Parameters Tool Input and Output Example NOTE: 1.) A digital elevation model (DEM) must be specified for the “Input surface raster” parameter. 2.) A polygon shapefile can be specified for the “Input analysis mask” option to restrict the tool to only analyze the area within the mask. In this case, the analysis mask is the polygon representing the portions of the solar field within the sub-basin of interest. Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 20 Figure EX-6. Surface Aspect Definition Once the aspect raster is developed, use the Reclassify tool to count the number of cells in the aspect raster within user-specified bins. The start and end values chosen should be selected to define cells in the aspect raster as parallel, perpendicular, or diagonal. Figure EX-7. Reclassify Tool Input and Output Example Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 21 NOTE: For this example, solar panels were considered parallel to contours if the aspect was within 20 degrees of north or south and perpendicular if the aspect was within 20 degrees of east or west. Reference aspect definition in Figure EX-6 above. The output shapefile from the Reclassify tool will contain an attribute table with the total number of raster cells which meet each bin definition. Once tabulated, sum the counts for each Solar Field Orientation and multiply by the aspect raster cell size to obtain the total area of each panel orientation. Then, calculate composite imperviousness percentages for each sub-basin using total area for each solar field orientation. Analysis results for Sub-basin 5 are presented in Tables EX-2 and EX-3 below. Value Representative Aspect (degrees) Category Count 1 0 - 20 Parallel 2191 2 20 - 70 Diagonal 541 3 70 - 110 Perpendicular 47 4 110 - 160 Diagonal 39 5 160 - 200 Parallel 79 6 200 - 250 Diagonal 12573 7 250 - 290 Perpendicular 31323 8 290 - 340 Diagonal 53687 9 340 - 360 Parallel 12453 Table EX-3. Composite Imperviousness Calculation for Solar Field within Sub- basin 5 with Native Grass or Gravel Ground Cover Category Count Area (ac) Imperviousness (%) Impervious Area (ac) Grass Gravel Grass Gravel Parallel 14723 3.64 10% 50% 0.36 1.82 Diagonal 66840 16.5 20% 60% 3.30 9.90 Perpendicular 31370 7.75 45% 75% 3.49 5.81 Total IA: 7.15 17.53 Composite IA (%): 26% 63% Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 22 Step 4. Calculate composite imperviousness percentages for each sub-basin. Once the imperviousness of the solar field portion of the basin is known, calculate sub-basin composite imperviousness using the land cover areas evaluated in step 3 and imperviousness percentages for surface types in the MHFD Manual. Composite areas were calculated for solar fields with native vegetation and gravel ground cover. Results of analysis for Sub-basin 5 are presented in Table EX-4 and Table EX-5 below. Table EX-4. Composite Imperviousness Calculation for Sub-basin 5 with Native Grass Ground Cover in Solar Field Land Cover Imperviousness (%) Area (acres) Impervious Area (acres) Solar Field 26% 27.82 7.15 Gravel (access roads and parking lots) 80% 0.41 0.33 Open Space 5% 12.95 0.65 Total 41.18 8.13 Composite IA (%): 20% Table EX-5. Composite Imperviousness Calculation for Sub-basin 5 with Gravel Ground Cover in Solar Field Land Cover Imperviousness (%) Area (acres) Impervious Area (acres) Solar Field 63% 27.82 17.53 Gravel (access roads and parking lots) 80% 0.41 0.33 Open Space 5% 12.95 0.65 Total 41.18 18.51 Composite IA (%): 45% Memorandum to MHFD October 13, 2023 Page 23 Step 5. Evaluate runoff coefficients. Evaluate runoff coefficients using the calculated composite imperviousness values and Table 6-5 in the MHFD Manual. Runoff coefficients for the 2-year, 5-year, and 100-year storms are presented for Sub-basin 5 in Table EX-6 below. Table EX-6. Runoff Coefficients Evaluated from Composite Imperviousness Values Recurrence Interval Solar Field Runoff Coefficient Native Grass Gravel 2-year 0.14 0.34 5-year 0.20 0.40 100-year 0.57 0.67 6.0 Attachments • Appendix A. MHFD Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume Chapter 6: Runoff– Table 6-5 • Appendix B. Example Solar Field Site Map Z:\Project Files\22\221-009\221-009.000\Deliverables\Impervious Recommendations Memos\Solar Panel Runoff Coefficients Memo\Memo - Solar Panel Runoff Coefficients_20231013.docx Appendix A. MHFD Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume Chapter 6: Runoff – Table 6-5 6-10 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District August 2018 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1 Table 6-5. Runoff coefficients, c 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year 2%0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.27 5% 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.15 0.29 10% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.11 0.19 0.32 15% 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.1 0.15 0.23 0.35 20% 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.2 0.27 0.38 25% 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.24 0.3 0.42 30% 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.23 0.28 0.34 0.45 35% 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.32 0.38 0.48 40% 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.32 0.37 0.42 0.51 45% 0.3 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.41 0.46 0.54 50% 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.5 0.58 55% 0.39 0.4 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.61 60% 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.5 0.54 0.58 0.64 65% 0.48 0.5 0.51 0.54 0.58 0.62 0.67 70% 0.53 0.55 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.71 75% 0.58 0.6 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.74 80% 0.63 0.65 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.77 85% 0.68 0.7 0.71 0.74 0.75 0.77 0.8 90% 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.81 0.84 95% 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.87 100% 0.84 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.9 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year 2% 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.26 0.34 0.44 0.54 5% 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.28 0.36 0.45 0.55 10% 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.31 0.38 0.47 0.57 15% 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.34 0.41 0.5 0.59 20% 0.13 0.15 0.22 0.38 0.44 0.52 0.61 25% 0.17 0.19 0.26 0.41 0.47 0.54 0.63 30% 0.2 0.23 0.3 0.44 0.49 0.57 0.65 35% 0.24 0.27 0.34 0.47 0.52 0.59 0.66 40% 0.29 0.32 0.38 0.5 0.55 0.61 0.68 45% 0.33 0.36 0.42 0.53 0.58 0.64 0.7 50% 0.37 0.4 0.46 0.56 0.61 0.66 0.72 55% 0.42 0.45 0.5 0.6 0.63 0.68 0.74 60% 0.46 0.49 0.54 0.63 0.66 0.71 0.76 65% 0.5 0.54 0.58 0.66 0.69 0.73 0.77 70% 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.69 0.72 0.75 0.79 75% 0.6 0.63 0.66 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.81 80% 0.64 0.67 0.7 0.75 0.77 0.8 0.83 85% 0.69 0.72 0.74 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.85 90% 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.87 95% 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 100% 0.84 0.86 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.9 Total or Effective % Impervious NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group A Total or Effective % Impervious NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group B August 2018 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-11 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1 Table 6-5. Runoff coefficients, c (continued) Figure 6-1. Runoff coefficient vs. watershed imperviousness NRCS HSG A 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year 500-Year 2%0.01 0.05 0.15 0.33 0.40 0.49 0.59 5% 0.03 0.08 0.17 0.35 0.42 0.5 0.6 10% 0.06 0.12 0.21 0.37 0.44 0.52 0.62 15% 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.4 0.47 0.55 0.64 20% 0.14 0.2 0.28 0.43 0.49 0.57 0.65 25% 0.18 0.24 0.32 0.46 0.52 0.59 0.67 30% 0.22 0.28 0.35 0.49 0.54 0.61 0.68 35% 0.26 0.32 0.39 0.51 0.57 0.63 0.7 40% 0.3 0.36 0.43 0.54 0.59 0.65 0.71 45% 0.34 0.4 0.46 0.57 0.62 0.67 0.73 50% 0.38 0.44 0.5 0.6 0.64 0.69 0.75 55% 0.43 0.48 0.54 0.63 0.66 0.71 0.76 60% 0.47 0.52 0.57 0.65 0.69 0.73 0.78 65% 0.51 0.56 0.61 0.68 0.71 0.75 0.79 70% 0.56 0.61 0.65 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.81 75% 0.6 0.65 0.68 0.74 0.76 0.79 0.82 80% 0.65 0.69 0.72 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.84 85% 0.7 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.86 90% 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 95% 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.89 100% 0.83 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.9 Total or Effective % Impervious NRCS Hydrologic Soil Group C Appendix B. Example Solar Field Site Map Preliminary Drainage Report Rew Ranches PS 61_62 Solar Project Garfield County, Colorado APPENDIX D DRAINAGE MAPS COCO T T OH OH O H FO FO X X X X X XX XX X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X OS1 3.74 9.8% 1 2 3 OS2 E1 18.77 5.8% OS2 7.88 6.2%E2 22.92 6.5% OS10 82.45 7.6% OS4 0.95 50% OS5 0.75 50% OS8 20.87 22.2% E4 13.95 5.0% OS3 24.92 6.0% OS7 11.68 5.4% OS6 0.22 50% OS3 OS7 OS8 OS11 OS5 OS4 OS6 4 E3 14.14 5.7% OS9 46.28 23.2% OS10 OS11 0.18 50% OS9 OS1 54 7 5 55 0 0 55 2 5 55 5 0 55 7 5 56 0 0 56 2 5 5 6 5 0 5 6 7 5 57 0 0 5500 5525 55 5 0 5495 5505 5 5 1 0 5515 5520 55 3 0 5535 5540 5545 5555 55 6 0 556 5 5475 5500 55 2 5 55 5 0 5460 5465 5470 5480 5485 5490 54 9 5 5505 5510 55 1 5 55 2 0 55 3 0 55 3 5 55 4 0 55 4 5 5 5 7 5 56005 6 2 5 56 5 0 56 7 5 57 0 0 57 2 5 57 5 0 57 7 5 58 0 0 58 2 55850OWNER: REW RANCHPROJECT LLCAPN: 217901300012 OWNER: REW RANCH PROJECT LLC ADDRESS: 0, NEW CASTLE, CO 81647APN: 217901300678 (NOT A PART) OWNER: CHRISTINE & ROBERT DOLAN ADDRESS: 3718, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652APN: 217901304008 (NOT A PART) OWNER: DELORES VITTUMADDRESS: 3556, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652APN: 217901300329 (NOT A PART) OWNER: KIMBERLY & CORY WESSON ADDRESS: 35797 HWY 6 & 24 SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901400645 (NOT A PART) OWNER: DAVID & DEBRA WANZER ADDRESS: 34775, HWY 6 & 24,SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217911100546 (NOT A PART) OWNER: JEFFREY & RACHELKNABLEADDRESS: 34651, HWY 6 & 24, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217911100547 (NOT A PART) OWNER: BARRY & PATRICIA SOVERNADDRESS: 421 COUNTY ROAD 235, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901300009 (NOT A PART) UNPLATTED LO W E R C A C T U S V A L L E Y D I T C H LOWER C A C T U S V A L L E Y D I T C H OWNER: JON ALLEN ROBERTS & MELANIE FARRAH ADDRESS: 3716, COUNTY ROAD 214,SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901304007 (NOT A PART) EX. 12" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5478.94 INV. OUT: 5478.75 EX. 24" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5478.12 INV. OUT: 5477.27 EX. 24" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5479.53 INV. OUT: 5478.74 EX. 36" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5472.86 INV. OUT: 5468.02 EX. 24" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5479.13 INV. OUT: 5475.78 EX. PRIVATE IRRIGATION DITCH EX. PRIVATE IRRIGATION DITCH EX. PRIVATE IRRIGATION DITCH U.S. HWY 6 DA V I S P O I N T R D ( C R 2 3 5 ) SHEET JOB NO. CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: OF BY D A T E # RE V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N 8/ 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 2 6 P M ; X : \ 2 3 - 1 6 0 P S 6 1 _ 6 2 R e w R a n c h e s 1 _ 2 \ C i v i l \ R e p o r t s \ D r a i n a g e \ P r e l i m i n a r y - P S 6 1 _ 6 2 \ 1 2 - D r a i n a g e M a p s E x i s t i n g D r a i n a g e M a p . d w g PS 6 1 , 6 2 & 7 2 R E W R A N C H E S SI L T , C O PR E L I M I N A R Y D R A I N A G E M A P S 23-160 2 1S T S U B M I T T A L TV 1 BG TV TW 8/ 2 0 / 2 4 NO T F O R CON S T R U C T I O N Kn o w w h a t ' s be l o w . C a l l be f o r e y o u d i g . CO R E C O N S U L T A N T S . I N C . 34 7 3 S . B R O A D W A Y EN G L E W O O D , C O 8 0 1 1 3 30 3 . 7 0 3 . 4 4 4 4 LI V E Y O U R C O R E . C O M LA N D D E V E L O P M E N T EN E R G Y PU B L I C I N F R A S T R U C T U R E EX I S T I N G D R A I N A G E M A P 1 200' 1 inch = 200 ft. 0 400' LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR5280 5279 EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING STORM & STUB OUT DESIGN POINTXX DIRECTIONAL FLOW ARROW EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) PROJECT BOUNDARY EXISTING DRAINAGE BASIN PROPOSEDEXISTING NOTES: 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, BEARING S00°35'27"W (ASSUMED), A DISTANCE OF 1319.83 FEET. 2. PROJECT BENCHMARK: NGS "TAMBURELLO" - PID: AF8672 - STANDARD NGS BENCHMARK DISK SET ON TOP OF CONCRETE COLLAR. ELEV = 5452.85'(NAVD88-GEOID18) PUBLISHED LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE ACCESS X 00.0 00.0% X 00.0 00.0% BASIN DESIGNATION AREA (AC) / IMPERVIOUSNESS OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH X X X X X XX XX X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X COCO T T OH OH O H FO FO 1 2 3 OS2 OS3 OS7 OS8 OS11 OS5 OS4 OS6 4 OS10 OS9 OS1 OS10 82.45 7.6% OS4 0.95 50% OS5 0.75 50% OS8 20.87 22.2% P4 13.95 5.0% OS3 24.92 6.0% OS7 11.68 5.4% OS6 0.22 50% P3 14.14 5.7% OS9 46.28 23.2% OS11 .18 50% P1 18.77 5.8% P2 22.92 8.7% OS1 3.74 9.8% OS2 7.88 6.2% 5500 5525 55 5 0 55 7 5 5 4 8 5 5 4 9 0 5495 5 5 0 5 5 5 1 0 5515 5520 5530 5535 5540 5545 5555 5560 556 5 557 0 54 7 5 5500 55 2 5 55 5 0 5460 5465 5 4 7 0 5480 5485 5490 5495 5505 5510 55 1 5 55 2 0 55 3 0 55 3 5 55 4 0 55 4 5 5 5 7 5 560056 2 5 56 5 0 56 7 5 57 0 0 57 2 5 57 5 0 57 7 5 58 0 0 58 2 5 58 5 0 5475 5500552555505575560056255650 5675 5700 OWNER: REW RANCHPROJECT LLCAPN: 217901300012 OWNER: REW RANCH PROJECT LLC ADDRESS: 0, NEW CASTLE, CO 81647APN: 217901300678 (NOT A PART) OWNER: CHRISTINE & ROBERT DOLAN ADDRESS: 3718, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652APN: 217901304008 (NOT A PART) OWNER: DELORES VITTUMADDRESS: 3556, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652APN: 217901300329 (NOT A PART) OWNER: KIMBERLY & CORY WESSON ADDRESS: 35797 HWY 6 & 24 SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901400645 (NOT A PART) OWNER: DAVID & DEBRA WANZER ADDRESS: 34775, HWY 6 & 24,SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217911100546 (NOT A PART) OWNER: JEFFREY & RACHELKNABLEADDRESS: 34651, HWY 6 & 24, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217911100547 (NOT A PART) OWNER: BARRY & PATRICIA SOVERNADDRESS: 421 COUNTY ROAD 235, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901300009 (NOT A PART) UNPLATTED LO W E R C A C T U S V A L L E Y D I T C H LOWER C A C T U S V A L L E Y D I T C H OWNER: JON ALLEN ROBERTS & MELANIE FARRAH ADDRESS: 3716, COUNTY ROAD 214,SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901304007 (NOT A PART) EX. 12" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5478.94 INV. OUT: 5478.75 EX. 24" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5478.12 INV. OUT: 5477.27 EX. 24" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5479.53 INV. OUT: 5478.74 EX. 36" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5472.86 INV. OUT: 5468.02 EX. 24" CMP CULVERT INV. IN: 5479.13 INV. OUT: 5475.78 EX. PRIVATE IRRIGATION DITCH EX. PRIVATE IRRIGATION DITCH EX. PRIVATE IRRIGATION DITCH U.S. HWY 6 DA V I S P O I N T R D ( C R 2 3 5 ) SHEET JOB NO. CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: OF BY D A T E # RE V I S I O N D E S C R I P T I O N 8/ 1 9 / 2 0 2 4 4 : 3 1 P M ; X : \ 2 3 - 1 6 0 P S 6 1 _ 6 2 R e w R a n c h e s 1 _ 2 \ C i v i l \ R e p o r t s \ D r a i n a g e \ P r e l i m i n a r y - P S 6 1 _ 6 2 \ 1 2 - D r a i n a g e M a p s P r o p o s e d D r a i n a g e M a p . d w g PS 6 1 , 6 2 & 7 2 R E W R A N C H E S SI L T , C O PR E L I M I N A R Y D R A I N A G E M A P S 23-160 2 1S T S U B M I T T A L TV 1 BG TV TW 8/ 2 0 / 2 4 NO T F O R CON S T R U C T I O N Kn o w w h a t ' s be l o w . C a l l be f o r e y o u d i g . CO R E C O N S U L T A N T S . I N C . 34 7 3 S . B R O A D W A Y EN G L E W O O D , C O 8 0 1 1 3 30 3 . 7 0 3 . 4 4 4 4 LI V E Y O U R C O R E . C O M LA N D D E V E L O P M E N T EN E R G Y PU B L I C I N F R A S T R U C T U R E LEGEND EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR5280 5279 EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR EXISTING STORM & STUB OUT DESIGN POINTXX DIRECTIONAL FLOW ARROW EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY (R.O.W.) PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASIN PROPOSEDEXISTING LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION CRUSHER FINES MAINTENANCE ACCESS X 00.0 00.0% X 00.0 00.0% BASIN DESIGNATION AREA (AC) / IMPERVIOUSNESS PR O P O S E D D R A I N A G E M A P 2 NOTES: 1. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 1, BEARING S00°35'27"W (ASSUMED), A DISTANCE OF 1319.83 FEET. 2. PROJECT BENCHMARK: NGS "TAMBURELLO" - PID: AF8672 - STANDARD NGS BENCHMARK DISK SET ON TOP OF CONCRETE COLLAR. ELEV = 5452.85'(NAVD88-GEOID18) PUBLISHED 200' 1 inch = 200 ft. 0 400' Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs – Impact Analysis 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs – Impact Analysis August 2024 “Where the proposed development will impact specific features of the site, the Applicant shall describe both the existing conditions and the potential changes created by the project. The Impact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the Applicant will ensure that impacts will be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the Impact Analysis:” 1. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within 1,500-foot radius. Applicant Response: • Immediately to the east of the subject property, there is an alpaca farm (currently listed for sale) that borders the full length of the subject property. The proposed project is not expected to impact the operations of the alpaca farm, as it produces no noise, odors, or light. Furthermore, the proposed project will be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the property boundary, and the nearest building on that property is located approximately 950 feet from the proposed project. • Immediately to the north, there are three rural residential properties owned by the Dolan family, Roberts family, and Delores Vittum, respectively. The proposed project will be set back a minimum of 100 feet from these property lines, and, though not required, will incorporate additional vegetative screening to further mitigate any visual impacts. The minimum expected distance from the proposed project to these residences is approximately 215 feet, 230 feet, and 400 feet, respectively. The only impact expected from the proposed project is minor visual impacts. • Immediately to the West, the subject property borders a vacant parcel also owned by Rew Ranch Project LLC, and a rural residential property owned by the Knables. No impacts are expected to the Rew Ranch Project property. The residence on the Knable property is located approximately 1000 feet west of the project boundary. As with the other properties in this list, the only impact expected from the proposed project is minor visual impacts. • To the south, the proposed project borders US-6, the railroad, and I-70. No impacts are expected. 2. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding, lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development. Applicant Response: The subject property is relatively flat with a slight general slope to the south. No areas of flood concern, permanent streams, or permanent Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs – Impact Analysis 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net bodies of water are present on the site. However, some wetlands do exist on the southwest side of the subject property, and the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch flows through a portion of the property. The wetlands are located west of the proposed solar facility boundary and the facility respects a minimum 35-foot setback from the typical and ordinary high water mark of the ditch. The property is primarily vacant grazing land with limited tree cover. 3. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site that have a significant influence on the proposed use of the land. Applicant Response: Per a custom soils report prepared from the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the subject property is mostly made up of Arvada loam, Halaquepts, and Heldt Clay loam. The arrangement of these soil types on the property is such that approximately 88% of the site area is considered “not prime farmland” by the NRCS. Pivot Energy contracted with CTL Thompson to perform a geotechnical investigation on the subject property. Strata encountered in the exploratory borings generally consisted of sandy clay and clayley sand. Groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 9-19 feet below the existing ground surface. CTL Thompson determined that the subsurface soil conditions will allow pile installation to depths of 20 feet or more in most locations, which will be more than adequate for the proposed racking system. Support piles for solar racking are typically driven into the ground to a depth of approximately 8 feet. 4. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including any potential natural or manmade hazards, and a determination of what effect such factors would have on the proposed use of the land. Applicant Response: The Garfield County Hazard Map indicates that there is a septic constraint due to high water table in a portion of the proposed site. This will not be an issue since the proposed solar facility will be unmanned and will not require a septic system. 5. Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of the subject parcel to Floodplains, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to adequately support waste disposal, the Slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents, and the pollution of surface Runoff, stream flow, and groundwater. Applicant Response: There are no floodplains on site. Since the proposed facility is unmanned, there will be no on-site waste disposal or sewage effluents. Since the facility will be constructed of glass (panels) and steel (racking system), surface runoff will not be polluted. Further information on drainage can be found in this application’s drainage report. Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs – Impact Analysis 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net 6. Environmental Impacts. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including: a. Determination of the long-term and short-term effect on flora and fauna; Applicant Response: There will be some short-term impact to the native vegetation during the construction phase. After the construction phase, re-seeding of areas damaged during the construction will occur. Minimal to no grading will be necessary to install the solar facility and Pivot will utilize best management practices to ensure that vegetation disturbance is kept to a minimum during the construction of the project. Any areas of native vegetation that may be damaged during construction will be re-seeded with native grasses or a mix recommended by the County. Vegetation will fill in after the construction phase and the long-term effect on flora and fauna will be minimal. b. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical wildlife habitat; Applicant Response: Pivot commissioned a threatened and endangered species (T&E) report, which surveyed the subject property for 14 threatened and endangered species known to occur or historically occur in Garfield County. The study determined that no habitat for these species was seen on site. The Garfield County Wildlife habitat indicates that the subject parcel contains some land within the winter ranges for Elk and Mule Deer. There does not appear to be any critical wildlife habitat designation on the subject property. The proposed solar facility will be enclosed within a fence, which will restrict the movement of larger wildlife over the lease area. However, wildlife will still have the ability to traverse around the proposed facility within the 100-foot setbacks to the east and north of the project and the adjacent undeveloped property. The overall effect to wildlife will be minimal as a result of this proposed facility. c. Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns, or other disruptions; and Applicant Response: There will be no hazardous attractions to wildlife because the entire facility will be enclosed in a fence which will keep wildlife out of the facility. As mentioned above, the existing native vegetation will be minimally impacted and any damage that occurs to vegetation will be corrected through a re-seeding effort after the construction phase. Migration routes may be slightly affected by the perimeter fencing. d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the State or County Health Departments. Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs – Impact Analysis 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net Applicant Response: No potential radiation hazard has been identified on the subject property. 7. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare or vibration, or other emanations. Applicant Response: During normal operations, there will be no vapors, smoke, noise, or vibrations created by the proposed facility. During the construction phase, there may be a potential for dust to be created by vehicles on the site. If dust becomes an issue, the construction crew will use water the site on a regular basis to minimize the impact of fugitive dust. The proposed project utilizes solar panels coated with an anti-reflective surface to minimize the potential for glare on adjacent properties. A supplemental glare study from ForgeSolar, the industry-standard glare study tool for solar projects, has been attached to this impact analysis as appendix A. 8. Hours of Operation. The Applicant shall submit information on the hours of operation of the proposed use. Applicant Response: During the construction phase, the hours of operation will generally be 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Once construction has been completed, the facility will operate passively during daylight hours, and will be unmanned. Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs – Impact Analysis 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net Appendix A: ForgeSolar Glare Analysis Misc. Analysis Settings Summary of Results No glare predicted! PV Name Tilt Orientation "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare Energy Produced deg deg min min kWh PS61 and PS72 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0 - PS62 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0 - Rew Ranches Expected Configuration Created Feb 29, 2024 Updated Jul 24, 2024 Time-step 1 minute Timezone offset UTC-7 Minimum sun altitude 0.0 deg Site ID 113700.19518 Project type Advanced Project status: active Category 5 MW to 10 MW DNI: varies (1,000.0 W/m^2 peak) Ocular transmission coefficient: 0.5 Pupil diameter: 0.002 m Eye focal length: 0.017 m Sun subtended angle: 9.3 mrad PV Analysis Methodology: Version 2 Enhanced subtended angle calculation: On ForgeSolar Component Data PV Array(s) Total PV footprint area: 45.3 acres Name: PS61 and PS72 Footprint area: 31.8 acres Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Backtracking: None Tracking axis orientation: 180.0 deg Tracking axis tilt: 0.0 deg Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0 deg Maximum tracking angle: 60.0 deg Rated power: - Panel material: Light textured glass with AR coating Vary reflectivity with sun position? Yes Correlate slope error with surface type? Yes Slope error: 9.16 mrad Vertex Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total elevation deg deg ft ft ft 1 39.552184 -107.620539 5510.39 6.00 5516.39 2 39.550191 -107.620550 5491.84 6.00 5497.84 3 39.550215 -107.619026 5489.99 6.00 5495.99 4 39.548925 -107.619037 5479.07 6.00 5485.07 5 39.548131 -107.617621 5472.19 6.00 5478.19 6 39.548362 -107.617631 5474.22 6.00 5480.22 7 39.548387 -107.616215 5477.82 6.00 5483.82 8 39.552217 -107.616269 5501.41 6.00 5507.41 Name: PS62 Footprint area: 13.5 acres Axis tracking: Single-axis rotation Backtracking: None Tracking axis orientation: 180.0 deg Tracking axis tilt: 0.0 deg Tracking axis panel offset: 0.0 deg Maximum tracking angle: 60.0 deg Rated power: - Panel material: Light textured glass with AR coating Vary reflectivity with sun position? Yes Correlate slope error with surface type? Yes Slope error: 9.16 mrad Vertex Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total elevation deg deg ft ft ft 1 39.548651 -107.623287 5463.82 6.00 5469.82 2 39.547054 -107.623373 5452.16 6.00 5458.16 3 39.547820 -107.618706 5468.81 6.00 5474.81 4 39.548374 -107.618717 5473.25 6.00 5479.25 5 39.548717 -107.619280 5472.42 6.00 5478.42 6 39.548825 -107.619849 5470.60 6.00 5476.60 7 39.548560 -107.621372 5465.10 6.00 5471.10 8 39.548771 -107.622053 5462.29 6.00 5468.29 Route Receptor(s) Name: Davis Point Rd Route type Two-way View angle: 50.0 deg Vertex Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total elevation deg deg ft ft ft 1 39.546442 -107.626104 5477.36 4.50 5481.86 2 39.546752 -107.625862 5481.56 4.50 5486.06 3 39.547410 -107.625519 5491.92 4.50 5496.42 4 39.548907 -107.624934 5517.41 4.50 5521.91 5 39.549692 -107.624629 5526.75 4.50 5531.25 6 39.550164 -107.624500 5530.63 4.50 5535.13 7 39.550582 -107.624446 5538.54 4.50 5543.04 8 39.551045 -107.624430 5543.73 4.50 5548.23 9 39.552158 -107.624226 5560.68 4.50 5565.18 10 39.554129 -107.623820 5562.55 4.50 5567.05 11 39.555135 -107.623621 5565.81 4.50 5570.31 12 39.555615 -107.623348 5558.27 4.50 5562.77 13 39.556078 -107.623004 5559.68 4.50 5564.18 Name: I70 EB Route type One-way View angle: 50.0 deg Vertex Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total elevation deg deg ft ft ft 1 39.545491 -107.626884 5449.37 4.50 5453.87 2 39.545720 -107.625384 5451.82 4.50 5456.32 3 39.545877 -107.624456 5452.44 4.50 5456.94 4 39.546020 -107.623668 5452.22 4.50 5456.72 5 39.546710 -107.619823 5461.53 4.50 5466.03 6 39.547122 -107.617452 5472.92 4.50 5477.42 7 39.547436 -107.615692 5476.01 4.50 5480.51 8 39.547684 -107.614326 5483.77 4.50 5488.27 9 39.547994 -107.612559 5488.58 4.50 5493.08 10 39.548307 -107.610789 5492.69 4.50 5497.19 11 39.548512 -107.609652 5490.23 4.50 5494.73 12 39.548981 -107.607038 5490.52 4.50 5495.02 13 39.549538 -107.603881 5494.34 4.50 5498.84 Name: I70 WB Route type One-way View angle: 50.0 deg Vertex Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total elevation deg deg ft ft ft 1 39.549870 -107.603393 5494.92 4.50 5499.42 2 39.549370 -107.606204 5496.30 4.50 5500.80 3 39.548989 -107.608307 5493.66 4.50 5498.16 4 39.548406 -107.611600 5493.43 4.50 5497.93 5 39.547971 -107.614057 5486.55 4.50 5491.05 6 39.547039 -107.619325 5463.13 4.50 5467.63 7 39.546441 -107.622598 5453.57 4.50 5458.07 8 39.546176 -107.624121 5451.28 4.50 5455.78 9 39.545796 -107.626235 5450.48 4.50 5454.98 10 39.545676 -107.626932 5448.10 4.50 5452.60 11 39.545467 -107.628327 5449.01 4.50 5453.51 Discrete Observation Receptors Number Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total Elevation deg deg ft ft ft OP 1 39.553333 -107.620342 5519.32 5.00 5524.32 OP 2 39.552812 -107.617250 5506.85 5.00 5511.85 OP 3 39.549364 -107.619703 5488.57 5.00 5493.57 OP 4 39.550276 -107.610839 5507.02 5.00 5512.02 OP 5 39.552720 -107.618534 5519.89 5.00 5524.89 OP 6 39.552199 -107.610594 5516.63 5.00 5521.63 OP 7 39.551214 -107.610326 5510.72 5.00 5515.72 OP 8 39.551735 -107.610476 5509.43 5.00 5514.43 OP 9 39.552422 -107.609478 5517.14 5.00 5522.14 Name: River Frontage Rd Route type Two-way View angle: 50.0 deg Vertex Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total elevation deg deg ft ft ft 1 39.545316 -107.627001 5449.42 4.50 5453.92 2 39.545560 -107.625225 5451.33 4.50 5455.83 3 39.545854 -107.623434 5452.50 4.50 5457.00 4 39.546370 -107.620593 5457.05 4.50 5461.55 5 39.546576 -107.619354 5461.49 4.50 5465.99 6 39.546870 -107.617760 5468.05 4.50 5472.55 7 39.547346 -107.615019 5481.28 4.50 5485.78 8 39.547929 -107.611709 5486.74 4.50 5491.24 9 39.548489 -107.608585 5487.66 4.50 5492.16 10 39.548862 -107.606493 5488.66 4.50 5493.16 11 39.549475 -107.603053 5493.46 4.50 5497.96 Name: US 6 Route type Two-way View angle: 50.0 deg Vertex Latitude Longitude Ground elevation Height above ground Total elevation deg deg ft ft ft 1 39.549865 -107.606727 5498.20 4.50 5502.70 2 39.549654 -107.607897 5498.86 4.50 5503.36 3 39.548980 -107.611668 5495.91 4.50 5500.41 4 39.548385 -107.615005 5484.92 4.50 5489.42 5 39.547802 -107.618267 5473.99 4.50 5478.49 6 39.546653 -107.624730 5462.57 4.50 5467.07 7 39.546260 -107.626978 5483.43 4.50 5487.93 Summary of PV Glare Analysis PV configuration and total predicted glare PV Name Tilt Orientation "Green" Glare "Yellow" Glare Energy Produced Data File deg deg min min kWh PS61 and PS72 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0 -- PS62 SA tracking SA tracking 0 0 -- PV & Receptor Analysis Results Results for each PV array and receptor PS61 and PS72 no glare found PS62 no glare found Component Green glare (min)Yellow glare (min) OP: OP 1 0 0 OP: OP 2 0 0 OP: OP 3 0 0 OP: OP 4 0 0 OP: OP 5 0 0 OP: OP 6 0 0 OP: OP 7 0 0 OP: OP 8 0 0 OP: OP 9 0 0 Route: Davis Point Rd 0 0 Route: I70 EB 0 0 Route: I70 WB 0 0 Route: River Frontage Rd 0 0 Route: US 6 0 0 No glare found Assumptions Component Green glare (min)Yellow glare (min) OP: OP 1 0 0 OP: OP 2 0 0 OP: OP 3 0 0 OP: OP 4 0 0 OP: OP 5 0 0 OP: OP 6 0 0 OP: OP 7 0 0 OP: OP 8 0 0 OP: OP 9 0 0 Route: Davis Point Rd 0 0 Route: I70 EB 0 0 Route: I70 WB 0 0 Route: River Frontage Rd 0 0 Route: US 6 0 0 No glare found Times associated with glare are denoted in Standard time. For Daylight Savings, add one hour. Glare analyses do not automatically account for physical obstructions between reflectors and receptors. This includes buildings, tree cover and geographic obstructions. Detailed system geometry is not rigorously simulated. The glare hazard determination relies on several approximations including observer eye characteristics, angle of view, and typical blink response time. Actual values and results may vary. The system output calculation is a DNI-based approximation that assumes clear, sunny skies year-round. It should not be used in place of more rigorous modeling methods. Several V1 calculations utilize the PV array centroid, rather than the actual glare spot location, due to algorithm limitations. This may affect results for large PV footprints. Additional analyses of array sub-sections can provide additional information on expected glare. The subtended source angle (glare spot size) is constrained by the PV array footprint size. Partitioning large arrays into smaller sections will reduce the maximum potential subtended angle, potentially impacting results if actual glare spots are larger than the sub-array size. Additional analyses of the combined area of adjacent sub-arrays can provide more information on potential glare hazards. (See previous point on related limitations.) Hazard zone boundaries shown in the Glare Hazard plot are an approximation and visual aid. Actual ocular impact outcomes encompass a continuous, not discrete, spectrum. Glare locations displayed on receptor plots are approximate. Actual glare-spot locations may differ. Refer to the Help page for detailed assumptions and limitations not listed here. Page 1 of 2 July 22, 2024 Fred Jarman Garfield County Administration & County Commissioners 108 8th St. #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Construction Traffic Impact Memorandum PS61-62 REW Ranches 1, 2, & 3, Solar Farm Dear Fred Jarman: In support of the proposed Solar Energy Facility, SEF, for PS 61-62 REW Ranches 1, 2, and 3, we are providing this Construction Traffic Impact Memorandum. PS 61-62 REW Ranches 1, 2, and 3, The Project, is bordered by County Road 235 to the West, US Highway 6 to the South, with Lower Cactus Valley Ditch stretching east and west through the area. The Project consists of the construction of approximately 7MWAC of photovoltaic panels between the two phases of the facility. CORE anticipates minimal construction traffic impacts to the site and surrounding area. Construction of the facility is not expected to require major earthwork operations and therefore will require very minimal hauling of earthwork to the site. Access to The Project is provided at the south side on US Highway 6, approximately 0.4-mile haul route as shown on the attached exhibit. There are two access points for The Project. Construction of The Project is anticipated to take approximately 9 months, generally split into three phases, Site Preparation, Material and Equipment Delivery, and Installation. Site preparation is anticipated to take between one and three weeks with minimal anticipated daily traffic of passenger vehicles, equipment hauling trucks and fuel delivery vehicles. Material and Equipment Delivery is anticipated to take approximately four to five weeks, with moderate daily traffic consisting of Conex Container and delivery trucks as well as other equipment hauling trucks. Solar facility installation is anticipated to take approximately six to seven months with moderate passenger vehicle traffic and minimal fuel and material delivery truck traffic occurring on a daily basis. Ongoing operations and maintenance are generally handled remotely with infrequent trips on a monthly basis typically required by a utility vehicle. Decomissioning is generally anticipated to follow a similar schedule and traffic demand as construction. The final condition of the proposed SEF would have a minimal effect on the number of vehicular trips on the adjacent roadways that are currently being generated to and from The Project. Construction Traffic Impact Memo July 24, 2024 PS 61-62 RES Ranches 1, 2, & 3 SEF Page 2 of 2 Sincerely, CORE Consultants, Inc. Todd Wolma, PE Project Manager Attachments Haul Route Map Estimated Construction Traffic OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OWNER: REW RANCH PROJECT LLCAPN: 217901300012 OWNER: REW RANCH PROJECT LLC ADDRESS: 0, NEW CASTLE, CO 81647 APN: 217901300678 (NOT A PART) OWNER: CHRISTINE & ROBERT DOLAN ADDRESS: 3718, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901304008 (NOT A PART) OWNER: DELORES VITTUM ADDRESS: 3556, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901300329 (NOT A PART) OWNER: KIMBERLY & CORY WESSON ADDRESS: 35797 HWY 6 & 24 SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901400645 (NOT A PART) OWNER: BARRY & PATRICIA SOVERN ADDRESS: 421 COUNTY ROAD 235, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901300009 (NOT A PART) UNPLATTED LO W E R C A C T U S V A L L E Y D I T C H LOWER C A C T U S V A L L E Y D I T C H OWNER: JON ALLEN ROBERTS & MELANIE FARRAH ADDRESS: 3716, COUNTY ROAD 214, SILT, CO 81652 APN: 217901304007 (NOT A PART) X X X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X COCO T T OH OH OH OH OH FO FO DAILY CONSTRUCTION ROUTE CONNECTION TO US HWY 6 CR 235 US HWY 6 I70 150' 1 inch = 150 ft. 300'0 20 2 1 - 0 9 - 1 1 ( 4 : 3 6 P M ) T o d d W o l m a X : \ 2 3 - 1 6 0 P S 6 1 _ 6 2 R e w R a n c h e s 1 _ 2 \ C i v i l \ C A D \ E x h i b i t s \ _ O v e r a l l \ C o n s t r u c t i o n H a u l R o u t e H a u l R o u t e . d w g CREATED BY: DATE: MH 7/24/24 JOB NO.23-163 SHEET 1 HAUL ROUTEPIVOT REW RANCHESCORE CONSULTANTS. INC. 3473 S. BROADWAY ENGLEWOOD, CO 80113 303.703.4444 LIVEYOURCORE.COM LAND DEVELOPMENT ENERGY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Project Phase (Time Period) Vehicle Type Estimate Gross Vehicle Weight Number of Vehicles Per Day Maximum and Average Vehicle Trips Per Day Site Preparation (Approx 1 - 3 weeks) Equipment Hauling Trucks 15 to 33 Tons 0-3 0-6 Passenger Vehices 1 to 5 Tons 3-7 6-14 Fuel Delivery 10 to 15 Tons 1 3 Max-23/Avg-16 Material and Equipment Delivery (Approx. 4 - 5 weeks) Conex Container and Delivery Trucks 15 to 25 Tons 14-42 28-84 Equipment Hauling Trucks 10 to 20 Tons 0-11 0-22 Max-106/Avg-67 Solar Facility Installation (6-7 Months) Passenger Vehicles 1 to 5 Tons 28-42 56-84 Fuel Truck 10 to 15 Tons 1 3 Material Delivery Truck 10 to 15 Tons 1 3 Max-90/Avg-76 Operations (Post Construction) Utility Vehicle 1 to 5 Tons 1 Per Month Max-3/Avg-0 PS61-62 REW Ranches Phases 1, 2 and 3 - Estimated Construction Traffic Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Article 7 Standards Response 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net Garfield County Land Use and Development Code Article 7: Standards Response DIVISION 1: GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS 7-101. ZONE DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS The subject property is zoned “Rural”. All requirements of Article 3, Zoning, will be met with this proposal, through the Major Impact Review - Land Use Change Permit process. 7-102. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 addresses renewable energy in Chapter 3, Section 10. The first goal states that Garfield County should “promote and encourage the development of renewable energy resources within the county”. The Plan further states that the county should “Ensure that renewable energy activities mitigate their effects on the natural environment, including air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat, and visual quality”. There will be no negative impacts on air quality because there are no fumes or odors associated with the proposed solar facility. Appropriate BMPs will be used during the construction phase to help ensure that water quality will be protected. There will be a slight impediment to larger wildlife moving through the immediate project area due to the fence enclosure that is required for power generation facilities. However, due to the 100-foot setbacks along the east and north of the project, there will be a significant corridor for larger animals to move around the project. The land to the east and west of the project boundaries is also presently vacant and can provide an alternative path around the project for wildlife. Visual impacts: Due to the proposed project’s location along the I-70 frontage road, there should be minimal visual impacts along the south side of the project. To the north, the proposed project is set back a minimum of 100 feet from adjacent properties. Though not required, Pivot is proposing locally appropriate vegetative screening measures to further mitigate visual impacts for the residences to the north. To the east and west, the proposed project has approximately 1000 feet of open land buffer from the nearest buildings. The proposed lease area is approximately 49 acres in size and Rew Ranch Project LLC owns approximately 70.76 acres in Parcel No. 217901300012. 7-103. COMPATIBILITY The nature, scale, and intensity of the proposed solar facility will be compatible with adjacent land uses. The surrounding land uses are agricultural and residential in nature. Solar facilities produce no fumes, noise, or environmentally hazardous materials. The facility is unmanned and will have very little vehicular traffic, other than routine maintenance, which is performed 4-8 times per year in a standard size pick-up truck. 7-104. SOURCE OF WATER Since the proposed facility is to be unmanned, there will be no need for a potable water supply. During construction, a water truck will be on site to help control dust. Water for construction crews will be provided by the general contractor or by the individual crew members. For potential farming operations, water is available via shares owned by the landowner from the Ware & Hinds Ditch. Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Article 7 Standards Response 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net 7-105. CENTRAL WATER DISTRIBUTION AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS The proposed use does not require a potable water supply or a wastewater system. While the proposed facility is being constructed, drinking water will be provided by the general contractor and the individual crew members. During the 6-8 week construction period, portable toilets will be on site. Once construction has been completed, the portable toilet will be removed from the site. 7-106. PUBLIC UTILITIES The proposed projects are contracted with Xcel Energy for 20 years of power production and have options to extend beyond the 20-year contract to the full term of the land lease. The projects are currently being studied by Xcel Energy for interconnection to the utility grid, and will interconnect through an existing power line on the property. 7-107. ACCESS AND ROADWAYS The proposed project will take two individual accesses off of US-6, as shown in the site plan. One access is an existing driveway which provides access to the northeast portion of the site. The second access is also existing and will provide access to the southern portion of the site, west of the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch. Because the southern portion of the property is islanded from the rest of the property, the secondary access is the only way to access the Pivot Solar 62 LLC project, as approximately illustrated in the map below: Both accesses will be built to adequate surface quality to support construction traffic and emergency vehicles, and will be coordinated appropriately with CDOT. Since the proposed facility will be unmanned, there will be very limited traffic impact to surrounding roads. After the construction phase, there will be between 4-8 visits to the site annually by a standard-sized pickup truck. Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Article 7 Standards Response 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net 7-108. USE OF LAND SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS The subject property is relatively flat and is located outside any natural hazard areas. 7-109. FIRE PROTECTION Solar facilities are constructed of nonflammable materials (mostly steel, glass, and silicon) and pose very little threat to start a fire. Pivot will work with the Colorado River Fire Protection District to ensure access is acceptable and all other fire district requirements are met. DIVISION 2: GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS 7-201. AGRICULTURAL LANDS Pivot Energy is proud to be committed to a 100% “dual-use” – projects that combine solar with a secondary agricultural use – portfolio, and has made farming crops underneath the solar panels a priority for all projects where possible. In fact, Pivot is currently constructing the largest solar array with crop production in the country, which is expected to begin operations later this year. In cases where there is not enough water to produce crops, Pivot employs other secondary agricultural uses, which include planting native plants/pollinator habitat as ground cover and agriculturally friendly vegetation management practices, such as sheep grazing. This has the additional benefit of improving soil quality over time. The entire site will be enclosed with eight- foot-tall decorative game fencing, similar to that used by CDOT. Pivot is currently evaluating whether the secondary agricultural use will take the form of crop production or sheep grazing. If enough water is available to feasibly produce crops onsite, Pivot will install a drip irrigation system onsite, vastly improving water efficiency over traditional irrigation methods. In either case, the proposed project will not adversely affect nearby agricultural lands, and will not limit the opportunity for agricultural production in the area. It should be further noted that approximately 88% of the site area has a soil makeup that is considered “not prime farmland” by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 7-202. WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS The impact on wildlife in the area should be minimal as a result of this proposal. An 8-foot-tall wildlife fence will be constructed around the perimeter of the site. This type of fencing will allow smaller animals to pass in and out of the proposed facility. Larger animals, such as deer, may experience a slight change in traveled corridors to maneuver around the facility. However, due to the 100-foot setbacks along the east and north of the project, there will be a significant corridor for larger animals to move around the project. The land to the east and west of the project boundaries is also presently vacant and can provide an alternative path around the project for wildlife. Pivot will work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife to address any concerns they have regarding area wildlife and animal habitat. Regarding preservation of native vegetation, Pivot’s racking system is essentially a steel frame that is “pile driven” into the soil 8-10 feet in depth. This results Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Article 7 Standards Response 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net in minimal disturbance to the native vegetation and topsoil. Pivot will utilize best management practices to ensure that vegetation disturbance is kept to a minimum during the construction of the project. Any areas of native vegetation that may be damaged during construction will be re- seeded with native grasses or a mix recommended by the County. 7-203. PROTECTION OF WATERBODIES The proposed project is not located within 35 feet of a water body. During the construction phase, stormwater best management practices such as waddles and silt fencing will be used to prevent erosion and negative impacts to local drainages and the Colorado River. 7-204. DRAINAGE AND EROSION Our consulting engineering firm, CORE Consultants, has calculated that approximately 0.8 acres of soil will be disturbed installing the access drive, foundations, pile driving the I-beams into the ground, and equipment pads. The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment does not require a stormwater management permit when the total area of grading and disturbance is less than one acre. Once construction is completed, areas of disturbance will be re-seeded with native grass mix. 7-205. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The proposed solar facility will not cause the air quality to be reduced below acceptable levels as established by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. Solar power generation facilities reduce the need to burn traditional fuels for electricity and therefore, improve the air quality over methods of power generation. There will be no hazardous material stored or used at the proposed solar facility. 7-206. WILDFIRE HAZARDS The Garfield County Community Wildfire Protection Plan indicates the site is in a “lowest risk to low risk” area. Solar photovoltaic facilities are constructed almost entirely of nonflammable materials such as steel, glass, and silicon and cannot self-sustain a fire. All electronic components of the solar facility are designed to meet all applicable codes, including the national electric code. The existing drive will provide adequate access for the fire department. 7-207. NATURAL AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The subject property is relatively flat. The solar facility will be supported by piles driven into the ground, which can be adjusted in depth to accommodate any slope conditions. Minimal to no grading will be required to install the solar arrays. Solar facilities are unique in that they can generally conform to the existing topography of the land without the need for grading. Grading adds additional cost and complexity to a project’s construction and is therefore avoided unless absolutely necessary. The area proposed for the solar facility is not a known natural or geologic hazard area. 7-208. RECLAMATION Pivot will re-vegetate any areas that sustain damage during construction. A native seed mixture will be applied to any areas where grass damage occurs. Pivot Solar 61, 62, and 72 LLCs: Article 7 Standards Response 888.734.3033 | 1601 Wewatta St #700, Denver, CO 80202 | pivotenergy.net DIVISION 3. SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 7-301. COMPATIBLE DESIGN The surrounding properties are all zoned Rural, and are a mixture of agricultural and larger acreage residential uses. The proposed project is bordered to the south by US-6 and I-70, and is buffered by open land to the east and west. To the north, the project will be set back a minimum of 100 feet from the property lines, and, though not required, Pivot will incorporate additional vegetative screening to further buffer the project from the residences to the north. 7-302. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS There will be adequate on-site parking for construction activity within the lease area. There are also adequate parking areas within the proposed solar facility for the routine maintenance crew, who will normally visit the site 4 to 8 times per year and drive a standard-sized pick-up truck. 7-303. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS Where possible, Pivot will work with the existing vegetation on the site, and if additional landscaping materials are needed, the native vegetation found onsite will be mimicked to ensure successful plantings. 7-304. LIGHTING STANDARDS As this is an unmanned facility that operates only during daylight hours, no lighting is proposed onsite. 7-305. SNOW STORAGE STANDARDS There will be adequate area for snow removal and storage within the lease area, though snow removal is not necessary for the operation of the solar facility. 7-306. TRAIL AND WALKWAY STANDARDS Should a trail or walkway be required, a discussion will be held between the property owners, Pivot, and Garfield County staff. OTHER PERTIENT STANDARDS 7-1001.B INDUSTRIAL USE - SETBACKS Though a Solar Energy System is not considered an “Industrial” use in the Garfield County Land Use Code, Pivot has chosen to respect the 100’ setback mentioned in 7-1001.B for the properties to the north and east of the site. Since the proposed project borders US-6 and I-70 to the south (i.e., not a residential property) and a non-residential parcel under common ownership to the west, standard property line setbacks will be used on those sides of the project. 7-1101. SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS The proposed project will incorporate appropriate signage around the facility. 5458.000 5459.000 5459.000 5461.000 5461.000 5462.000 5462.000 5462.000 5463.000 5463.000 5463.000 5464.000 5464.000 5464.000 5466.000 5466.000 5466.000 5466.000 5467.000 5467.000 5467.000 5467.000 5468.000 5468.000 5468.000 5468.000 5468.000 5469.000 5469.000 5469.000 5469.000 5469.000 5471.000 5471.000 5471.0005471.000 5471.000 5472.000 5472.000 5472.000 5472.000 5472.000 5473.000 5473.000 5473.000 5473.000 5473.000 5474.000 5474.000 5474.000 5474.000 5474.000 5474.000 5476.000 5476.000 5476.000 5476.000 5476.000 5476.000 5477.000 5477.000 5477.000 5477.000 5477.000 5477.000 5478.000 5478.000 5478.000 5478.000 5478.000 5478.000 5478.000 5479.000 5479.000 5479.000 5479.000 5479.000 5479.000 5479.000 5479.0005479.000 5479.000 5479.000 5479.000 5481.000 5481.000 5481.0005481.000 5481.000 5481.000 5481.000 5481.000 5481.000 5482.000 5482.000 5482.000 5482.000 5482.000 5482.000 5482.000 5482.000 5482.000 5482.000 5482.000 5483.000 5483.000 5483.000 5483.000 5483.000 5483.000 5483.000 5483.000 5483.000 5484.000 5484.000 5484.000 5484.000 5484.000 5484.000 5484.000 5484.000 5486.000 5486.000 5486.000 5486.000 5486.0005486.0005486.000 5487.000 5487.0005487.000 5487.000 5487.000 5487.000 5487.000 5488.000 5488.000 5488.000 5488.0005488.000 5488.000 5488.000 5489.000 5489.000 5489.000 5489.000 5489.000 5489.000 5491.000 5491.000 5491.000 5491.000 5491.000 5491.000 5492.000 5492.0005492.000 5492.000 5492.000 5492.000 5493.000 5493.000 5493.000 5493.000 5493.000 5493.000 5494.000 5494.000 5494.000 5494.000 5494.000 5494.000 5494.000 5496.000 5496.000 5496.000 5496.000 5496.000 5496.000 5496.000 5496.0005496.000 5496.000 5496.000 5497.000 5497.000 5497.000 5497.000 5497.0005497.000 5497.000 5497.000 5497.000 5497.000 5497.000 5497.000 5497.000 5498.000 5498.000 5498.000 5498.000 5498.000 5498.000 5498.000 5498.000 5498.000 5498.000 5498.000 5499.000 5499.000 5499.000 5499.000 5499.000 5499.0005499.000 5499.000 5501.000 5501.000 5501.000 5501.000 5501.000 5501.000 5501.000 5502.000 5502.000 5502.000 5502.000 5502.000 5502.000 5502.000 5503.000 5503.000 5503.000 5503.000 5503.0005503.000 5503.000 5504.000 5504.000 5504.000 5504.000 5504.000 5504.000 5504.000 5504.000 5506.000 5506.000 5506.000 5506.000 5506.000 5506.0005506.000 5506.000 5506.000 5506.000 5506.000 5507.000 5507.000 5507.000 5507.000 5507.000 5507.000 5507.0005507.000 5507.000 5507.000 5508.000 5508.000 5508.000 5508.000 5508.000 5508.000 5508.000 5508.000 5508.000 5508.000 5509.000 5509.000 5509.000 5509.000 5509.000 5509.000 5509.000 5509.000 5509.000 5511.000 5511.000 5511.000 5511.000 5511.000 5511.000 5512.000 5512.000 5512.000 5512.000 5512.000 5513.000 5513.000 5513.000 5513.000 5513.000 5514.000 5514.000 5514.000 5514.000 5514.000 5516.000 5516.000 5516.000 5516.000 5516.000 5516.000 5517.000 5517.000 5517.0005517.000 5517.000 5518.000 5518.000 5518.0005518.000 5519.000 5519.000 5519.000 5460.000 5460.000 5465.000 5465.000 5470.000 5470.000 5470.000 5475.000 5475.000 5475.000 5475.000 5480.000 5480.000 5480.000 5480.000 5480.000 5480.000 5480.000 5485.000 5485.000 5485.000 5485.000 5485.000 5490.000 5490.000 5490.000 5490.000 5495.000 5495.000 5495.000 5495.000 5495.000 5500.000 5500.000 5500.000 5500.000 5500.000 5505.000 5505.000 5505.000 5505.000 5505.000 5505.000 5505.000 5505.000 5510.000 5510.000 5510.000 5510.000 5510.000 5515.000 5515.000 5515.000 5512.000 5513.000 5514.000 5514.000 5516.000 5516.000 5516.000 5516.000 5516.000 5517.000 5517.0005517.000 5517.000 5518.000 5518.000 5518.0005518.000 5519.000 5519.000 5519.000 5515.000 5515.000 XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X OH OH OH 5507.000 5508.000 5508.000 5508.000 5509.000 5509.000 5509.000 5509.000 5511.000 5511.000 5512.000 5512.000 5513.000 5513.000 5514.000 5514.000 5516.0005517.000 5510.000 5510.000 5515.000 X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXTT N N Feet 200 400 8000 N Feet 15 30 600 S T E V E N E. LOHID E L I C E NSED LANDSC A P E A RCHITECT 08/19/2014 L A 1082 STATE OF C O L O RADO Original Date of Licensure Section 1: General Guidelines A. Submittals 1.Product Data: Submit manufacturer product data and literature describing all products required by this section to the Owner for approval. 2. Plant Growers Certificates: Submit Plant Growers certificates for all plants indicating that each plant meets the requirements, including the requirements for root system quality, to the Owner for approval. B. Quality Assurance 1. Plant Acceptance a. The Owner will inspect all work for Plant Acceptance upon written request of the Contractor. b. Plant Acceptance by the Owner shall be for general conformance to specified size, character and quality and not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for full conformance to the contract documents, including correct species. c. Any plant that is deemed defective as defined under the warranty provisions below shall not be accepted. d. The Contractor is responsible for the condition and quality of work and materials during construction, and until Plant Acceptance. Contractor shall bear the total cost of replacing any and all plants until this time. 2. Warranty a. The contractor agrees to replace defective work and plants as defined below. b. Plants warranty shall begin on the date of Plant Acceptance and continue for one year. c. All plants shall be warranted to be healthy, reasonably free of defects, in flourishing condition, and shall bear foliage of normal density, size, and color for the species at the end of the warranty period. d. Defective Plants: Plants shall be deemed defective that are dead, diseased, insect infested, or not in a vigorous, thriving condition, during or at the end of the warranty period. The following conditions shall be deemed as indicating a defective plant. 1) Any plant that has a canopy or root system with 25 percent or more of its volume dead, diseased, insect infested, or not in a vigorous, thriving condition. 2) Evidence of damage to plants, which diminishes the aesthetic character and form or structural integrity of the plant or group of plants. 3) Plants that have had more than 25 percent of the canopy reduced by removed limbs that were not removed under the direction of the Owner. 4) Plants that do not meet the requirements for stem girdling and kinked roots and proper depth of the root crown. 5) Plants packaged with non-biodegradable fabrics or twine that have not been removed during the planting process. 6) Any tree that has open wounds (not completely healed) that penetrates the cambium into the wood on trunks or major limbs, the removal of which would result in the loss of 25 percent or more of the structure and form of the tree. 7) Properly-made pruning wounds that are not yet fully healed over can be considered as satisfactory if callus tissue has formed around the entire circumference of the wound. 8) The Owner shall make the final determination that plants are defective. e. Plants determined to be defective shall be replaced without cost to the Owner, as soon as weather conditions permit and within the specified planting period. f. Any work required by the Quality Assurance document or the Owner during the progress of the work to remediate plant defects, including the removal of roots or branches, or planting plants that have been bare rooted during installation to inspect for or correct root defect, shall not be considered as grounds to void any conditions of the warranty. In the event the contractor feels that such remediation work may compromise the future health of the plant, the plant or plants in question shall be rejected and replaced with plants that do not contain defects that require remediation. g. The Contractor is exempt from replacing plants, after Plant Acceptance and during the warranty period, that are removed by others or lost or damaged due to occupancy of project, by a third party, through vandalism, or as a result of any natural disaster. h. The warranty of all replacement plants shall extend for an additional one-year period from the date of their acceptance after replacement. In the event that a replacement plant is not acceptable during or at the end of the said extended warranty period, the Owner may elect one more replacement items or credit for each item. These tertiary replacement items are not protected under a warranty period. i. During and by the end of the warranty period, remove all tree wrap, ties, and guying unless agreed to by the Owner to remain in place. All trees that have leaned shall be straightened. 3. Plant Final Acceptance a. At the end of the warranty period, the Owner shall inspect all warranted work, upon written request of the Contractor. The request shall be received at least 10 calendar days before the anticipated date of final inspection. C. Selection and inspection of plants 1. Purchasing trees from the growing nursery is preferred over re-wholesale suppliers. When re-wholesale suppliers are utilized, the contractor shall submit the name and location of the growing nursery from where the trees were obtained by the re-wholesale seller. The re-wholesale nursery shall be responsible for any required plant quality certifications. 2. The contractor shall require the grower or re-wholesale supplier to permit the Owner to inspect the root system of all plants including random removal of soil around the base of the plant. Inspections may be as frequent and as extensive as needed to verify that plants conform to the grower's root quality certifications. For field grown plants, viewing of plants by the Owner may be at the growing nursery prior to the harvesting of the plant. 3. The Owner may choose to attach their seal to each plant, or a representative sample. Viewing and/or sealing of plants by the Owner at the nursery does not preclude the Owner's right to reject material while on site. 4. Where requested by the Owner, submit photographs of plants or representative samples of plants. Photographs shall be legible and clearly depict the plant specimen. Each submitted image shall contain a height reference, such as a measuring stick. The approval of plants by the Owner via photograph does not preclude the Owner's right to reject material while on site. 5. Unless approved by the landscape architect, plants shall have been grown at a latitude not more than 325 km (200 miles) north or south of the latitude of the project unless the provenance of the plant can be documented to be compatible with the latitude and cold hardiness zone of the planting location. Many tree species are sensitive to the photoperiod of their native provenance. For example, red maple stock from native southern stock will not harden off in time for northern winters. D. Substitutions for plants not available 1. Submit all requests for substitutions of plant species, or size to the Owner, for approval, prior to purchasing the proposed substitution. E. Site conditions 1. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to be aware of all surface and sub-surface conditions, and to notify the Owner, in writing, of any circumstances that would negatively impact the health of plantings. Do not proceed with work until unsatisfactory conditions have been corrected. 2. Do not install plants into saturated or frozen soils. Do not install plants during inclement weather, such as heavy rain or snow or during extremely hot, cold or windy conditions. F. Planting around utilities 1. Contractor shall carefully examine the civil, record, and survey drawings to become familiar with the existing underground conditions before digging. 2. Determine location of underground utilities and perform work in a manner that will avoid possible damage. Hand excavate, as required. Maintain grade stakes set by others until parties concerned mutually agree upon removal. 3. Notification of Local Utility Locator Service, is required 72 hours prior to digging. The Contractor is responsible for knowing the location of and avoiding utilities that are not covered by the Local Utility Locator Service. Section 2: Product Guidelines A. Standards and measurement 1. Provide plants of quantity, size, genus, species, and variety or Cultivars as shown and scheduled in contract documents. 2. Tree stock shall conform to ANSI Z60.1, American Standard for Nursery Stock, and all state requirements for nursery stock except where they are modified by this specification. Where there is a conflict between this specification and the above specifications, this specification will apply. 3. Plants larger than specified may be used if acceptable to the Owner. Use of such plants shall not increase the contract price. If larger plants are accepted the root ball size shall be increased in proportion to the size of the plant. Larger plants may not be acceptable if the resulting root ball cannot be fit into the required planting space. B. Plant Quality 1. General a. Provide healthy, vigorous stock, grown in a recognized nursery and reasonably free of disease, insects, eggs, bores, and larvae. At the time of planting all plants shall have root system, stem, and branch form that will not restrict normal growth, stability and vigor for the expected life of the plant. 2. Plant quality above the soil line a. Plants shall be of exceptional quality with the color, shape, size and distribution of trunk, stems, branches, buds and leaves normal to the plant type specified. b. There should be one dominant leader to the top of the tree with the largest branches spaced at least 6 inches apart. All trees are assumed to be single leader plants unless a different form is specified in the plant list or drawings. c. Tree shall have no significant branch unions with included bark between stems. d. Tree trunks shall be reasonably straight with lateral limbs reasonably symmetrical, free of large voids, and evenly distributed along the trunk. Clear trunk should be no more than 40 percent of tree height unless otherwise specified in the planting specifications. e. Branches should be less than ½ the trunk diameter at the attachment point unless otherwise approved by Project Landscape Architect or Arborist. f. Trees greater than 1.5 inches caliper should be able to stand erect without a supporting stake. g. The trunk and branches shall be reasonably free of knots, scrapes, broken or split wood, fresh limb cuts, sunscald, injuries, and abrasions. All graft unions, where applicable, shall be completely healed without visible sign of graft rejection. All grafts shall be visible above the soil line. h. Open trunk and branch wounds shall be less than 10 percent of the circumference at the wound and no more than 2 inches tall. Pruning shall not encroach on the branch collar. Properly made pruning cuts are not considered open trunk wounds. Pruning cuts in accordance with ANSI standards are considered properly made pruning cuts. 3. Plant quality at or below the soil line a. The roots shall be reasonably free of scrapes, broken or split wood. b. A minimum of three structural roots reasonably distributed around the trunk shall be found in each plant. c. Plants with structural roots on only one side of the trunk (J roots) shall be rejected. d. The root crown must not be more than 2 inches below the soil line. e. The root system shall be reasonably free of stem girdling roots above the root collar, vertical roots and or kinked roots from nursery production practices. Stem girdling roots, vertical and kinked roots include roots on the interior of the root ball. There shall be no roots greater than 1/10 the diameter of the trunk circling more than one-third the way around in the top half of the root ball. Roots larger than this may be cut provided they are smaller than one-third the trunk diameter. There shall be no kinked roots greater than 1/5 the trunk diameter. Roots larger than this can be cut provided they are less than one-third the trunk diameter. f. Trees may be rejected if the extent of root cutting required to remedy girdling, kinked, and vertical roots renders the tree unlikely to thrive by the end of the warranty period. g. The final plant grower shall be responsible for determining that the plants have been root pruned at each step in the plant production process to remove stem girdling roots and kinked roots, or practices that produce a root system throughout the root ball that meets these requirements. Regardless of the work of previous growers, the plant's root system shall be modified at the final production stage to produce the required plant root quality. The final grower shall certify in writing that all plants are reasonably free of stem girdling and kinked roots. h. Except for bare root trees, all trees should be rooted into the root ball so that soil or media remains intact and trunk and root ball move as one when lifted, but not root bound. The trunk should bend when gently pushed and should not be loose so it pivots at or below the soil line. 5. Submittals a. Submit for approval the required plant quality certifications from the grower where plants are to be purchased, for each plant type. The certification must state that each plant meets all the above plant quality requirements. The grower's certification of plant quality does not prohibit the Owner from inspecting any plant or rejecting the plant if it is found to not meet the requirements. C. Root ball 1. Balled and burlapped plants a. All Balled and Burlapped Plants shall be field grown, and the root ball packaged in a burlapped-and-twine or burlap-and-wire basket package. b. Plants shall be harvested with the following modifications to standard nursery practices. 1) Prior to digging any tree, using hand tools or an air spade, carefully remove the soil from the top of the root ball of each plant to locate the root crown. Care must be exercised not to damage the surface of the root crown and the top of the structural roots. 2) Balled and burlapped trees shall be dug prior to leafing out (bud break) in the spring or during the fall planting period except for plants known to be considered as fall planting hazards. Plants that are fall planting hazards shall only be dug prior to leafing out in the spring. Plants to be shipped or installed when in leaf shall be pre-dug prior to bud break and stored appropriately in protected storage yards with adequate water. 3) Twine and burlap used for wrapping the root ball package shall be natural, biodegradable material that has not been treated with preservatives to retard decomposition. If the burlap decomposes during the storage period the root ball shall be re-wrapped prior to shipping. c. Trees greater than 5 inches in caliper shall be root-pruned a minimum of 12 months before transplanting. All root pruning shall be accomplished utilizing accepted horticultural practices for root pruning including staking and watering. D. Anti-desicant 2. Anti-Desiccant shall be emulsion type, film-forming agent similar to Dowax by Dow Chemical Company, or Wilt-Pruf by Nursery Specialty Products, Inc., Croton Falls, New York, designed to permit transpiration but retard excessive loss of moisture from plants. Deliver in manufacturer's fully identified containers and use in accordance with manufacturer's instructions. 3. Submit manufacturer's product data for approval. E. Tree staking and guying material 1. Tree guying is to be flat woven polypropylene material, 3/4 inch wide, with 900 pound break strength. Product to be ArborTie, manufactured by Deep Root Partners, L.P., or approved equal. 2. Stakes shall be as identified in the project details. 3. Submit manufacturer's product data for approval. F. Chemical or biological additives 1. Chemical or biological additives are designed to increase soil fertility. All material shall be delivered to the site in unopened containers and stored in a dry enclosed space suitable for the material and meeting all environmental regulations. Biological additives shall be protected from extreme cold and heat. All products shall be freshly manufactured and dated for the year in which the products are to be used. 2. A soil test shall determine existing soil fertility and fertilizer rates shall be adjusted per the soil test. Section 3: Execution Guidelines A. Site examination 1. Examine the surface grades and soil conditions to confirm that the soil and drainage modifications indicated on the Plans and Details have been completed. Notify the Owner in writing of any unsatisfactory conditions. B. Delivery, storage and handling 1. Protect materials from deterioration during delivery and storage. Adequately protect plants from drying out, exposure of roots to sun, wind, and extremes of heat and cold temperatures. 2. Branches shall be tied with rope or twine only, in a manner that will not damage any part of the tree. 3. If planting is delayed more than 24 hours after delivery, set plants in a location protected from sun and wind. 4. Provide adequate water to the root ball during the shipping and storage period. Using a soil moisture meter, periodically check the soil moisture in the root balls of all plants to assure that the plants are being adequately watered. 5. Do not deliver more plants to the site than can be adequately stored. Provide a suitable remote staging area for plants and other supplies. 6. The Owner shall approve the duration, method and location of storage of plants. 7. Protective covering is required over all plants during delivery. 8. Before shipping, apply 1/8 inch thick, wax sealed, corrugated cardboard trunk protection, or approved equal, around the trunk of all trees from the top of the root ball package to the first branch or up to four feet high, whichever is lower. Secure the cardboard with plastic tape. 9. If trees are moved when in full-leaf, spray with anti-desiccant per manufacturer's recommendations at nursery no greater than 48 hours prior to digging, and again two weeks after transplanting. Spraying should take place in early morning hours with foliage at maximum turgidity. C. Planting season 1. Planting shall only be performed when weather and soil conditions are suitable for planting the specified materials in accordance with locally accepted practices. Install plants during the planting time as described below unless otherwise approved in writing by the Owner. In the event that the Contractor requests planting outside the dates of the planting season, approval of the request does not change the requirements of the warranty. a. Planting shall be completed within the following dates: 1) Coniferous trees: between April 15 and July 15, or between September 1 and November 14 D. Coordination with project work 1. Coordinate the relocation of any underground obstructions, utility lines, etc. that are in conflict with tree locations. Root balls shall not be altered to fit around lines. Notify the Owner of any conflicts encountered. E. Layout and planting sequence 1. When applicable, plant trees before other plants are installed. F. Soil protection during plant delivery and installation 1. Protect soil from compaction during the delivery of plants to the planting locations, digging of planting holes and installing plants. a. Where possible deliver and plant trees requiring the use of heavy mechanized equipment prior to final soil preparation and tilling. b. Till and restore grades to all soil that has been driven over or compacted during the installation of plants. G. General installation of plants 1. Inspect each plant after delivery and prior to installation for damage or other characteristics that may cause rejection of the plant. Notify the Owner of any such conditions. 2. The root system of each plant, regardless of root ball package type, shall be inspected by the Contractor at the time of planting to confirm that the roots meet the requirements for tree quality. The Contractor shall undertake, at the time of planting, all modifications to the root system required by the Owner to meet these quality standards. 3. Exposed Stem Tissue after Modification: The required root ball modifications may result in stem tissue that has not formed trunk bark being exposed above the soil line. If such condition occurs, wrap the exposed portion of the stem in a protective wrapping such as Dewitt Tree Wrap fabric. Secure the fabric with biodegradable tape such as 3M Scotch 234 or 232 masking tape or approved equal. DO NOT USE string, twine or any other material that may girdle the trunk if not removed. 4. Using hand tools, back hoe or mini-excavator, excavate the planting hole into the planting soil to the depth of the root ball, as measured after any root ball modification to correct root problems, and wide enough for working room around the root ball or to the size indicated on the drawing. a. The measuring point for root ball depth shall be the average height of the outer edge of the root ball after any required root ball modification. b. Scarify sides and bottom of planting hole. 6. Trees are to be planted on unexcavated subgrade. Do not over excavate depth of planting pit. 7. Set top outer edge of the root ball 1 to 3 inches above the average elevation of the proposed finish. Set the plant plumb. The tree graft, if applicable, shall be visible above the grade. Do not place soil on top of the root ball. 8. Brace root ball by tamping planting soil around the lower portion of the root ball. Place additional planting soil around base and sides of ball in six-inch (6 inch) lifts. Lightly tamp each lift using hand tools to settle backfill and eliminate voids. 9. Where indicated on the drawings, build a 3 inch high, level saucer of planting soil around the outside of the root ball to retain water. Tamp the saucer to reduce erosion of the saucer. 10.Thoroughly water the planting soil and root ball immediately after planting. 11.Remove corrugated cardboard trunk protection after planting. 12.Follow additional requirements for the permitted root ball packages. H. Permitted root ball packages and special planting requirements 1. Balled and burlapped plants a. Remove burlap or cloth wrapping and wire baskets from full depth of root ball (remove all wire and burlap except burlap and wire under root ball). Completely remove and properly dispose all strings, nails, burlap, baskets, and wrappings from the root ball and trunk before backfilling. I. Tree staking and guying 1. Stake or guy only if necessary for the tree to be stable in unusual circumstances, for example, in strong winds and if approved by Project Landscape Architect. 2. The Owner shall have the authority to require that trees are staked or to reject staking as an alternative way to stabilize the tree. 3. Poor-quality trees with cracked, wet, or loose root balls, poorly developed trunk-to-crown ratios, or undersized root balls shall be rejected if they require staking, unless written approval to permit staking or guying as a remedial treatment is obtained from the landscape architect. Trees that settle out of plumb due to inadequate soil compaction either under or adjacent to the root ball shall be excavated and reset. In no case shall trees that have settled out of plumb be pulled upright using guy wires. 4. If a tree needs to be staked, use a method that minimizes the chance of girdling the tree. Many such systems are available on the market. Allow for some trunk movement with whatever method is used. Do not use wires or cables to guy trees. 5. Trees that are guyed shall have their guys and stakes removed after one full growing season or at other times as required by the Owner. J. Straightening plants 1. Maintain all plants in a plumb position throughout the warranty period. Straighten all trees that move out of plumb including those not staked. Plants to be straightened shall be excavated and the root ball moved to a plumb position, and then re-backfilled. 2. Do not straighten plants by pulling the trunk with guys. K. Installation of fertilizer and other chemical additives 1. Do not apply any fertilizer to plantings during the first year after transplanting unless soil testing demonstrates that fertilizer or other chemical additives is required. Apply chemical additives only upon the approval of the Owner. 2. Fertilizers shall be applied according to the manufacturer's instructions and standard horticultural practices. L. Pruning of trees and shrubs 1. Trees need as many leaves as possible to recover from transplant shock, so prune as little as possible at the time of planting. Prune only broken or dead branches, if present, as well as co-dominant leaders, limbs that rub against each other, and poorly angled branches if these have not been pruned out by the nursery. 2. In general, preserve the natural character of the plant and follow recommendations in An Illustrated Guide to Pruning, Third Edition (Gilman 2011). 3. All pruning shall be performed by a person experienced in landscape pruning. 4. Wherever possible and appropriate to the species, preserve or create a central leader. 5. Pruning of large trees shall be done using pole pruners or if needed, from a ladder or hydraulic man lift to gain access to the top of the tree. Do not climb in newly planted trees 6. Remove and replace excessively pruned or malformed stock resulting from improper pruning. 7. Pruning shall be done with clean, sharp tools. 8. No tree paint or sealants shall be used. M. Watering 1. The Contractor shall be fully responsible to ensure that adequate water is provided to all plants from the point of installation until the date of Plant Acceptance. 2. Hand water root balls of all plants to assure that the root balls have adequate moisture. Test the moisture content in each root ball and the soil outside the root ball to determine the water content. N. Cleanup 1. During installation, keep the site free of trash and the work area in an orderly condition at the end of each day. 2. Once installation is complete, wash all soil from pavements and other structures. Ensure that all tags and flagging tape are removed from the site. The Owner seals are to remain on the trees and removed at the end of the warranty period. O. Protection during construction 1. The Contractor shall protect landscape work and materials from damage due to planting operations or operations by other Contractors or trespassers. Maintain protection during installation until Plant Acceptance. Treat, repair or replace damaged planting work immediately. 2. Damage done by the Contractor, or any of their sub-contractors, to plants or any other parts of the work shall be replaced by the Contractor at no expense to the Owner. P. Plant maintenance prior to plant acceptance 1. During the project work period and prior to Plant Acceptance, the Contractor shall maintain all plants. 2. Maintenance during the period prior to Plant Acceptance shall consist of pruning, watering, cultivating, weeding, removal of dead material, repairing and replacing of tree stakes, tightening and repairing of guys, repairing and replacing of damaged tree wrap material, resetting plants to proper grades and upright position, and furnishing and applying such sprays as are necessary to keep plantings reasonably free of insects and disease and in healthy growing condition. The threshold for applying insecticides and herbicide shall follow established Integrated Pest Management (IPM) procedures. S T E V E N E. LOHID E L I C E NSED LANDSC A P E A RCHITECT 08/19/2014 L A 1 082 STATE OF C O L O RADO Original Date of Licensure PLANTING PIT TO BE 2X BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOIL BALLED & BURLAPPED STOCK PLANTING 1. SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE. 2. PROCEED WITH CORRECTIVE PRUNING. 3. SET TREE ON UNEXCAVATED SUBGRADE. PLACE TREE SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2" ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED), INTACT. 4. SLIT REMAINING TREATED BURLAP AT 6" INTERVALS. 5. BACKFILL TO WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12" OF THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL, THEN WATER TREE. 6. REMOVE THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL. REMOVE ALL TWINE. REMOVE OR CORRECT STEM GIRDLING ROOTS. 7. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOIL. 8. PROVIDE 3" DEPTH LEVEL SAUCER AROUND OUTSIDE OF PLANTING PIT TO RETAIN WATER. 9. WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO SETTLE TREE AND FILL VOIDS. 10. BACK FILL VOIDS AND WATER A SECOND TIME. 1 3" SAUCER RING THE WIDTH OF THE ROOTBALL PROPOSED SITE FENCE SEE PLANS Q.Maintenance during the warranty period 1. During the warranty period, provide all maintenance for all plantings to keep the plants in a healthy state and the planting areas clean and neat. 2. General requirements: a. All chemical and fertilizer applications shall be made by licensed applicators. All work and chemical use shall comply with applicable local, provincial and federal requirements. b. Meet with the Owner a minimum of three times during the year to review the progress and discuss any changes that are needed in the maintenance program. At the end of the warranty period attend a hand over meeting to formally transfer the responsibilities of maintenance to the Owner. 3. Provide the following maintenance tasks: a. Watering: provide all water required to keep soil within and around the root balls at optimum moisture content for plant growth. 1) Maintain all watering systems and equipment and keep them operational. Monitor soil moisture to provide sufficient water. Check soil moisture and root ball moisture with a soil moisture meter on a regular basis and record moisture readings. Do not over water. b. Soil nutrient levels: apply fertilizers at rates recommended by soil testing. c. Plant pruning: remove cross over branching, developing co-dominant leaders, dead wood and winter-damaged branches. Do not over prune or shear plants. d. Restore plants: reset any plants that have settled or are leaning as soon as the condition is noticed. e. Guying: remove tree guys and staking after the first full growing season. f. Weed control: Mow seeding as needed during establishment period for weed control. Mow height to be set between 4 and 12 inches. g. Disease and insect control: Provide an Integrated Plant Management (IPM) program to maintain disease and insects at acceptable and manageable levels. Manageable levels shall be defined as minimum damage to plants. Use least invasive methods to control plant disease and insect outbreaks. The Owner must approve in advance the use of all chemical pesticide applications. h.Plant replacement: replace all plants that are defective as defined in the warranty provisions, as soon as the plant decline is obvious and in suitable weather and season for planting. S T E V E N E. LOHID E L I C ENSED LANDSC A P E A RCHITECT 08/19/2014 L A 1 082 STATE OF CO L O RADO Original Date of Licensure