HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.00 General Application Materials_Part 5AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar – Land Use Change – Major Impact permit application (4/6/2023)
AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar – Garfield County 50
Please see the following pages for the Delineation and Proposed Jurisdictional Determination of Waters
of the US – AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar wetland report conducted in August 2022 and published in September 2022.
DELINEATION & PROPOSED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
OF WATERS OF THE US
Appendix C1
Wetland and
Waterbody
Delineation Report
September 9, 2022
Eagle Springs Organic Solar
Project
Prepared for:
ACE DevCo NC, LLC
Salt Lake City, UT Prepared by:
TRC Companies, Inc. Fort Collins, CO
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report i
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... II
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 1
3.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGIES .......................................................................................... 2
3.1 Desktop Review .................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 2
3.3 Waterbodies ........................................................................................................................ 3
4.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Precipitation ........................................................................................................................ 3
4.2 Land Use and Vegetation ................................................................................................... 4
4.3 Hydric Soils ......................................................................................................................... 5
4.4 Wetlands and Waterbodies ................................................................................................. 5
4.4.1 Desktop Analysis.................................................................................................... 5
4.4.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 6
4.4.3 Waterbodies ........................................................................................................... 6
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 7
6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 8
Tables
Table 1. Rainfall Summary for Garfield County, Colorado ............................................................................ 4 Table 2. Mapped Hydric Soils in the Project Area ........................................................................................ 5 Table 3. Wetlands Identified in the Project Area ........................................................................................... 6 Table 4. Waterbodies Identified in the Project Area ..................................................................................... 6
Appendices
Appendix A. Figures Appendix B. Data Sheets Appendix C. Representative Photographs
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Notation Definition
CDPHE Colorado Department of Health and Environment
CWA Clean Water Act
I-70 Interstate 70
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OHWM Ordinary high-water mark
PEM Palustrine emergent
Project Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project
R5UBFx Riverine Unknown Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Semipermanently
Flooded Excavated
R4SBC Riverine Intermittent Streambed Seasonally Flooded
TRC TRC Environmental Corporation
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WETS Wetlands Climate Table
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 1
1.0 Introduction
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) conducted a wetland and waterbody delineation for ACE DevCo NC, LLC of the Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project (Project) in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The objective of the wetland and waterbody delineation was to identify the spatial extent and location of wetlands, streams, and other aquatic resources within the Project Area. Aquatic resources that are considered Waters of the U.S. are subject to regulation under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). The jurisdictional regulatory authority of these resources is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Albuquerque District (Grand Junction Regulatory Office). The wetland and waterbody delineation survey was conducted on August 9th, 2022, by Erin
Bergquist (Certified wetland delineator), Abigail Arfman (Biologist), and Becks Walker (Biologist).
This report is intended to summarize the desktop analyses performed prior to the field survey and results of the wetland and waterbody delineation and provide TRC’s professional opinion on the expected jurisdictional status of any delineated features.
1.1 Project Location
The Project is located on a 140-acre tract of land and is located about 0.25-mile south of Interstate 70 (I-70), adjacent to 5454 County Road 346, Silt, Colorado 81652 (Township 6 South, Range 92 West, Section 18) (Figure 1, Appendix A). The Project Area encompassed the
entire 140 acres which included the main solar area, an additional solar area, and the access route to access the Project.
2.0 Regulatory Background
Wetlands and other Waters of the U.S. are protected under Section 404 of the CWA. Any
activity that involves the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S. is subject to regulation by the USACE. Waters of the U.S. are defined to encompass navigable waterways; interstate waters; all other waters where their use, degradation, or destruction could affect
interstate or foreign commerce; tributaries of any of these waters; and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries. As of August 30, 2021, the 2015 Navigable Waters Protection Rule has been remanded. Until further direction is provided, TRC will utilize the 2008 Rapanos Waters of the U.S. guidance to evaluate the jurisdiction of wetlands and waterbodies.
Section 404 or Section 10 permits issued by the USACE under the authority of the CWA, as well as all wetlands and waters identified as “waters of the State”, are subject to the Section 401 permitting program administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE). A separate application to the CDPHE is required if water quality impacts are anticipated and no corresponding Section 404 permit is issued.
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 2
3.0 Survey Methodologies
3.1 Desktop Review
Prior to conducting the wetland and waterbody delineation and the habitat assessment, TRC reviewed maps and data from the following sources:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) digital wetland mapping (USFWS 2022);
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) digital waterway mapping (USGS 2022); and
USGS digital 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map for Silt, Colorado (USGS).
TRC screened aerial imagery and historic imagery, ranging from 1985-2016, for indicators of hydrologic activity and saturation (wetness signatures) which could indicate the presence of
unmapped wetlands (Google Earth Pro 1985-2016). In addition, TRC reviewed precipitation data from approximately 90 days prior to the field investigations using data obtained from a nearby weather station (Rifle Garfield County Airport, Colorado). Antecedent precipitation data
were compared with the 30-year average precipitation data from the same location to determine if hydrologic conditions at the time of the survey were normal, wetter, or drier than normal (NOAA 2022). Digital soil survey mapping of the Project Area was also reviewed (USDA NRCS 2022).
3.2 Wetlands
The wetland delineation and determination was conducted in accordance with the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region Version 2.0 (USACE 2008), United States Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87-1 (USACE 1987), and subsequent guidance documents (USACE 1991a, b; 1992).
On-site wetland determinations were made using the three criteria (vegetation, soil, and hydrology) and the technical approach defined in the Regional Supplement. According to procedures described therein, areas that, under normal circumstances, reflect a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology (e.g., inundated or saturated soils) are considered wetlands. The geospatial boundary of each wetland was captured utilizing
a GPS-enabled tablet. Each wetland feature was assigned a unique feature identification number with a “W” prefix. A Wetland Determination Data Form was completed for each wetland and its associated upland data point. Upland data points were assigned a unique feature ID
number with a “U” prefix. Representative photos were taken of all identified features.
The USACE criteria to identify jurisdictional determinations for wetlands include its physical proximity to a jurisdictional stream or a significant nexus to a jurisdictional stream, which is
either physical, biological, or chemical. Wetlands identified as having no downstream connection, are not in physical proximity to a stream, or do not appear to have a significant nexus with a stream are deemed non-jurisdictional. Aerial imagery was used to supplement field
observations for the determination of downstream connectivity where land access was not available outside the Project Area.
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 3
3.3 Waterbodies
Based on recent USACE guidance and the USACE’s 2008 A Field Guide to the Identification of
the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States
(Lichvar and McColley 2008), delineated waterbodies were identified by the presence of bed and bank or other OHWM indicators. Common identifiable indicators of an OHWM include open water or evidence of a clear, natural line visible on the bank; shelving; changes in soil
characteristics; disturbance to, or lack of, terrestrial vegetation; presence of litter and debris; and watermarks indicative of inundation during high water conditions. The OHWM typically represents the potential limits of USACE jurisdiction.
The geospatial boundary of each waterbody was captured utilizing a GPS-enabled tablet. Each waterbody feature was assigned a unique feature identification number with an “S” prefix. An Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Stream OHWM Datasheet was completed for each
feature. Representative photos were taken of all identified features.
For NWI- and NHD-identified stream features where OHWM indicators were absent, photo points and representative photos were taken. These areas are classified as uplands.
The USACE criteria to identify jurisdictional determinations for waterbodies includes the continuous presence of OHWM indicators and downstream connectivity to jurisdictional waterbodies. Downstream connectivity for delineated waterbodies in the field was determined based on the continuous presence of an OHWM and connection to downstream waterbodies. Outside the Project Area where land access was not available, aerial imagery was used to
supplement field observations in determining downstream connectivity. For delineated features that did not have continuous bed and bank or continuous evidence of an OHWM, these features were determined not to have downstream connectivity. For features with periodic OHWM
indicators but no downstream connectivity, the geospatial boundary of the waterbody was mapped where the OHWM indicators were present.
4.0 Results
Desktop and field survey results are presented in the following discussion.
4.1 Precipitation
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Agricultural Applied Climate Information System was used to obtain historical and antecedent rainfall data for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Climate Analyst for Wetlands (WETS) Tables and NOAA Regional Climate Centers. Historical rainfall records from the Rifle Garfield County Airport, Colorado weather station were used to determine the normality of rainfall using the Direct Antecedent Rainfall Evaluation Method (NOAA 2022). Precipitation data from the Rifle Garfield County Airport, Colorado weather station was used to determine the measured rainfall for the three months prior to and during the survey (Table 1). Based on these calculations, the
region of Garfield County was determined to be normal for precipitation this time of year.
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 4
Table 1. Rainfall Summary for Garfield County, Colorado
Prior Month
WETS Rainfall Percentile (inches) Evaluation Month: August 2022
30th 70th Measured Rainfall (inches) Conditiona Month Weightb Scorec
Three months prior to August 9th, 2022, Survey Date
1st July 0.47 1.07 0.78 2 3 6
2nd June 0.19 0.76 0.90 3 2 6
3rd May 0.52 1.22 1.20 2 1 2
Sum 2.88 14
Descriptiond Normal
a Condition values are 1 for < 30th percentile, 2 for between 30th and 70th percentiles, and 3 for > 70th percentile. b Month Weight is 3 for the most recent month, 2 for the prior month, and so on. c Score is the product of the Condition and Month Weight values. d Drier than normal (sum of score = 6-9), normal (sum of score = 10-14), wetter than normal (sum of score = 15-18). Source: NOAA 2022
4.2 Land Use and Vegetation
The Project Area is located on top of a hill located on the south side of the Colorado River
Valley. An existing private access road off of County Road 315 will be used to access the Project Area. The private access road has an over 10 percent slope. The topography of the majority of the Project Area on the top of the hill is characterized as relatively flat with very slight
to steeper gradients in sections. The elevation of Project Area is approximately 5,621 feet above mean sea level. The Project Area is located within the Colorado Plateaus Level III Ecoregion and shale desert and sedimentary basins Level IV ecoregion (Chapman et al. 2006). The shale
desert and sedimentary basins Level IV ecoregion consists of basins and valleys, benches, low rounded hills, and badlands.
The Project Area has two natural gas well facilities, located north central and southeast areas of the Project Area. A solar field is located on the east central side of the main solar area. The surrounding landscape consists of agricultural fields, open range land, oil and natural gas pads, and commercial and residential areas (Figure 1, Appendix A). Based on a review of aerial imagery, the Project Area was primarily agricultural fields until 2010 when oil and natural gas well pads were constructed on the property (Google Earth Pro 1985-2016).
Along the private access road, the vegetation is sagebrush steppe consisting predominantly of greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), and sagebrush (Artmesia tridentata). The majority of the Project Area consists of previously farmed
fields with dominant vegetation including cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), kochia (Bassia
scoparia), and tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). Patches of noxious weed species were observed in most of the Project Area, including russian knapweed (Rhaponticum repens),
flixweed (Descurainia sophia), and bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis).
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 5
4.3 Hydric Soils
According to the NRCS Soil Survey map (Figure 2, Appendix A), five mapped soil units are located within the Project Area (Table 2). The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
defines hydric soils as “a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.” The major and minor components of a soil map unit are classified as to how likely they are to be
hydric and are rated on a range from hydric to nonhydric. There are no mapped hydric soils within the Project Area. Based on field observations, it is unlikely that hydric soils are present within the Project Area.
Table 2. Mapped Hydric Soils in the Project Area
Map Unit Symbol Soil Series Name Drainage Class Hydric Soil
Rating
Prime Farmland Percent of
Project Area
55 Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes Well drained No Prime farmland if irrigated 94.2
34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent
slopes
Well drained No Not prime farmland 5.2
50 Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes Well drained No Prime farmland if irrigated 0.4
54 Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Well drained No Prime farmland if irrigated 0.1
3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Well drained No Not prime farmland <0.1
Source: USDA NRCS 2022
Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes, Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes, Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent are described as Prime farmland if irrigated. Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes and Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes are not mapped as prime farmland.
4.4 Wetlands and Waterbodies
4.4.1 Desktop Analysis
According to the NWI and NHD, one unconsolidated bottom, named perennial riverine channel (Riverine Unknown Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom Semipermanently Flooded Excavated [R5UBFx])) was identified within the Project Area. This feature is labeled as the Multa Trina
Ditch. It runs east to west across the southernmost agricultural field within the Project Area and runs north and south close to the access road (Figure 3). A seasonally flooded, intermittent riverine streambed (R4SBC) located at the northern boundary of the southernmost agriculture
field was also identified within the Project Area (USFWS 2022). The NHD datasets identifies both these features as canal/ditch features (USGS 2022a). Based on aerial imagery review, a wetness signature that may hold water for agricultural purposes is noted in the northwest corner
of the Project Area and a series of drainage canals/ditches may be present in multiple locations within the Project Area (Google Earth Pro 1985-2016).
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 6
Based on field observations, eight ephemeral ditches and one intermittent ditch were identified within the Project Area (Table 3, Figure 4, Appendix A). Representative photos locations are shown in Figure 4 and representative photos are included in Appendix B. Data forms are
included in Appendix C.
4.4.2 Wetlands
Field surveys identified one fringing wetland (W-01) along S-103. W-01 is characterized as a
freshwater palustrine emergent wetland (PEM) dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris
arundinacea) and common milkweed (Asclepias speciosa). The percent cover of bare ground is 30 percent. Dominant upland vegetation adjacent to W-01 includes cheatgrass (Bromus
tectorum), tall hedge mustard (Sisymbrium altissimun), and Mexican-fireweed (Bassia scoparia).
Table 3. Wetlands Identified in the Project Area
Feature ID Type Acres Downstream Connection
W-01 PEM 0.15 No
4.4.3 Waterbodies
Field surveys identified 5 roadside ditches and 4 irrigation ditches in the Project Area. One of these corresponds with one NWI feature. Table 4 includes average width, length in Project Area, downstream connectivity, and descriptions related to the identified features. Features are
shown in Figure 4. A stream form with representative photos are in Appendix C.
The other mapped NWI features did not have OHWM indicators observed in the field. An abandoned cattle pond filled with oats (Avena sativa) is present in the northwest corner of the
Project Area. Photo points and representative photos for these areas are shown on Figure 4 and in Appendix B, respectively.
Table 4. Waterbodies Identified in the Project Area
ID Name Classification Average Width OHWM (Feet)/ OHWM Indicators
Length in Project Area (Feet)
Downstream Connectiona Description
S-101 NA Ephemeral 0.5 84 Yes, roadside ditch along Mamm Creek Road to Mamm Creek to Colorado River
Unnamed, earthen, culverted roadside drainage ditch
S-102 NA Ephemeral 0.5 102 Yes, roadside ditch along Mamm Creek Road to Mamm Creek to Colorado River
Unnamed, earthen, culverted roadside drainage ditch
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 7
S-103 Multa Trina Ditch
Ephemeral 1.5 218 No Earthen, culverted irrigation ditch S-104 NA Ephemeral 0.5 296 No Unnamed, earthen, culverted roadside drainage ditch S-105 NA Ephemeral 0.5 1,273 No Unnamed, earthen, culverted roadside drainage ditch S-106 NA Ephemeral 0.5 1,070 No Unnamed, earthen drainage ditches S-107 NA Ephemeral 0.5 37 No Unnamed, earthen drainage ditches S-108 NA Ephemeral 0.5 602 No Unnamed, earthen drainage ditches S-109 NA Intermittent 0.5 1,767 No Unnamed, earthen, culverted roadside drainage ditch a The USACE has the final authority on the jurisdictional status and connectivity of a wetland or waterbody.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
A wetland and waterbody delineation survey was conducted on August 9, 2022, within the proposed Project Area. Based on field observations, eight ephemeral ditches, one intermittent ditch, and one PEM wetland were identified within the Project Area.
Based on a review of desktop resources, on-site determination, and aerial interpretation, TRC determines that only the roadside ditch crossing under the existing private access road has a
downstream connection. Although certain historic irrigation ditches (>50 years old) may be considered jurisdictional and subject to regulation pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the ditches mapped in the Project Area are likely non-jurisdictional. As such, the Project is not
anticipated to be subject to regulation pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. Likewise, Water Quality Certification in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA also is not expected to be required for the Project.
The ultimate authority to determine federal wetland and waterway boundaries and jurisdiction rests with the USACE Albuquerque District (Grand Junction Regulatory Office). Decisions made by the USACE may result in modifications to the conclusions stated in this report.
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report 8
6.0 References
Chapman, S.S., Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Price, A.B., Freeouf, J., and Schrupp, D.L. (2006). Ecoregions of Colorado (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,200,000).
Google Earth Pro. (1985-2016). Historic aerial imagery of 39°31’32.97”N, 107°41’37.69”W. Accessed August 5, 2022.
Lichvar, Robert W. and S. M. McColley. (2008). A Field Guide to the Identification of the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Regulatory Assistance Program. August 2008.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2022). AgACIS for Garfield County, CO. Accessed August 11, 2022, from: http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=08045
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1987). Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS. January 1987 - Final Report. 92 pp.+ app.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1991a). "Questions & Answers on the 1987 Manual," Memorandum from John F. Studt. October 7, 1991.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1991b). "Implementation of the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual," Memorandum from John P. Elmore. August 27, 1991.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1992). "Clarification and Interpretation of the 1987
Manual," Memorandum from Major General Arthur E. Williams. March 6, 1992.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2008). Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region Version 2.0, ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
(2022). Web Soil Survey. Accessed August 5, 2022, from: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2022). National Wetlands Inventory – Wetlands Mapper. Accessed August 8, 2022, from: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2022). National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Accessed August 5, 2022, from: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/
Appendix A. Figures
6S 93W6S 92WEAGLE SPRINGS PROJECT AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:PROJ. NO.:
FILE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
EAGLE SPRINGSCOORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 STATEPLANE COLORADO CENTRAL FIPS 0502 FEET; MAP ROTATION: 0 -- SAVED BY: RBLAKE ON 9/22/2022, 13:21:58 PM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_1_PROJECT_OVERVIEW WET REPORTJULY 2022
123 N. COLLEGE AVE.SUITE 370FORT COLLINS, CO 80524PHONE: 970.484.3263
F
1:24,000 1" = 2,000'
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
BASE MAP: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE SERIESSILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC
J. SCHLANGEN
B. WALKER
R. BLAKE
FIGURE 1
496375
PROJECT OVERVIEW
ACE DEVCO NC, LLC
EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
COLORADO
55
34
34
34
34
50 54
34
3
34
34
EAGLE SPRINGS PROJECT AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA
NON-HYDRIC SOILS
HYDRIC SOILS
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:PROJ. NO.:
FILE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
EAGLE SPRINGSCOORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 STATEPLANE COLORADO CENTRAL FIPS 0502 FEET; MAP ROTATION: 0 -- SAVED BY: RBLAKE ON 10/14/2022, 07:40:23 AM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_2 SOILS MAP_WET REPORTJULY 2022
123 N. COLLEGE AVE.SUITE 370FORT COLLINS, CO 80524PHONE: 970.484.3263
F
1:12,000 1" = 1,000'
0 500 1,000
FEET
BASE MAP: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE SERIESSILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC
J. SCHLANGEN
B. WALKER
R. BLAKE
FIGURE 2
496375
HYDRIC SOILS IN THE PROJECT AREA
ACE DEVCO NC, LLC
EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
COLORADO34 SOIL MAP UNIT NUMBER
EAGLE SPRINGS PROJECT AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
FRESHWATER POND
RIVERINE
NHD TYPE : CANAL/DITCH
NHD TYPE : STREAM/RIVER
NHD TYPE : ARTIFICIAL PATH
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:PROJ. NO.:
FILE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
EAGLE SPRINGSCOORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 STATEPLANE COLORADO CENTRAL FIPS 0502 FEET; MAP ROTATION: 0 -- SAVED BY: RBLAKE ON 10/14/2022, 07:41:37 AM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_3 NWI NHD DATA MAP WET REPORTJULY 2022
123 N. COLLEGE AVE.SUITE 370FORT COLLINS, CO 80524PHONE: 970.484.3263
F
1:12,000 1" = 1,000'
0 500 1,000
FEET
NHD AND NWI “NWI WETLAND AND NHD FLOWLINE LAYERS COVER THE SAMEFOOTPRINT IN THE PROJECT AREA
J. SCHLANGEN
B. WALKER
R. BLAKE
FIGURE 3
496375
NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY/
NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATA
ACE DEVCO NC, LLC
EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
COLORADO
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
P-3
P-2
P-1
P-4
S-109
S-105
S-106
S-108
S-103
S-101
S-104
S-102
S-107
W-01-1
U-01-1
W-01
EAGLE SPRINGS PROJECT AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA
WETLAND
!(UPLAND PLOT
!(WETLAND PLOT
!(PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION
!(CULVERT
DITCH
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:PROJ. NO.:
FILE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
EAGLE SPRINGSCOORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 STATEPLANE COLORADO CENTRAL FIPS 0502 FEET; MAP ROTATION: 0 -- SAVED BY: RBLAKE ON 10/14/2022, 07:43:07 AM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_4 FIELD RESULTS MAP WET REPORTAUGUST 2022
123 N. COLLEGE AVE.SUITE 370FORT COLLINS, CO 80524PHONE: 970.484.3263
F
1:12,000 1" = 1,000'
0 500 1,000
FEET
BASE MAP: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE SERIESSILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC
J. SCHLANGEN
A. ARFMAN
R. BLAKE
FIGURE 4
496375
FIELD RESULTS
ACE DEVCO NC, LLC
EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
COLORADO
!(
!(
S-103
W-01
U-01-01
W-01_01
!(!(
!(
S-102
S-101
Appendix B. Data Forms
Project/Site:Project/Site:Eagle Springs City/County:City/County:Silt, Gareld County Sampling Date:Sampling Date:2022-08-09
Applicant/Owner:Applicant/Owner:AES State:State:Colorado Sampling Point:Sampling Point:W-01-01
Investigator(s):Investigator(s):Erin Bergquist, Abigail Arfman, Becks Walker Section, Township, Range:Section, Township, Range:Township 6 South, Range 92 West, Section 18
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Stream Channel Local relief (concave, convex, none):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave Slope (%):Slope (%):1 to 3
Subregion (LRR):Subregion (LRR):LRR D Lat:Lat:39.5197064 Long:Long:-107.687026 Datum:Datum:WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name:Soil Map Unit Name:POTTS LOAM, 3 TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES (55)NWI classication:NWI classication:PEM
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation ____, Soil ____, or Hydrology _____ signicantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Are Vegetation ____, Soil ____, or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic?
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West RegionWETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
VEGETATION -- Use scientic names of plants.VEGETATION -- Use scientic names of plants.
Tree StratumTree Stratum (Plot size: (Plot size: __________________))Absolute %Absolute %
CoverCover
DominantDominant
Species?Species?
Indicator Indicator
StatusStatus
1.
2.
3.
4.
0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub StratumSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: (Plot size: __________________))
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
Herb StratumHerb Stratum (Plot size: (Plot size: 1x11x1))
1.Phragmites australis 70 Yes FACW
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
70 = Total Cover
Woody Vine StratumWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: (Plot size: __________________))
1.
2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ____30_______30___% Cover of Biotic Crust % Cover of Biotic Crust ____0_______0___
Dominance Test worksheet:Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:11 (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:11 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:100100 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:Total % Cover of:Multiply By:Multiply By:
OBL species 0 x 1 =0
FACW species 70 x 2 = 140
FAC species 0 x 3 =0
FACU species 0 x 4 =0
UPL species 0 x 5 =0
Column Totals 70 (A)140 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = ___2___
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_____ Dominance Test is >50%
_____ Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0¹
_____ Morphological Adaptation¹ (Provide supporting data
in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Hydrophytic VegetationHydrophytic Vegetation
Present?Present?Yes _____ No _____
Yes _____ No _____ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Yes ____ No _____
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes _____ No _____
Hydric Soil Present?Yes _____ No ____
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes _____ No _____ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes __Yes _____ No ________ No _____
Remarks:Remarks:
Covertype is PEM.
Remarks:Remarks:
✓✓
✓✓
✓✓
✓
✓
✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -- Version 2.0 Adapted by TRC
_____ Histosol (A1)_____ Sandy Redox (S5)
_____ Histic Epipedon (A2)_____ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_____ Black Histic (A3)_____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
_____ Hydrogen Sulde (A4)_____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_____ Stratied Layers (A5) (LRR C)(LRR C)_____ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_____ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)(LRR D)_____ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_____ Thick Dark Surface (A12)_____ Redox Depressions (F8)
_____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)_____ Vernal Pools (F9)
_____ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
_____ Surface Water (A1)_____ Salt Crust (B11)
_____ High Water Table (A2)_____ Biotic Crust (B12)
_____ Saturation (A3)_____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
_____ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)(Nonriverine)_____ Hydrogen Sulde Odor (C1)
_____ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)(Nonriverine)_____ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_____ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)(Nonriverine)_____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)_____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_____ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _____ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9)_____ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sampling Point: W-01-01SOILSOIL
HYDROLOGYHYDROLOGY
Prole Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conrm the absence of indicators.)Prole Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conrm the absence of indicators.)
DepthDepth MatrixMatrix Redox FeaturesRedox Features
(inches)(inches)Color (moist)Color (moist)%%Color (moist)Color (moist)%%Type¹Type¹Loc²Loc²TextureTexture RemarksRemarks
0 - 8 7.5YR 4/3 100 Silt Loam
8 - 14 7.5YR 4/3 Silty Clay Loam
¹Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:
_____ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)(LRR C)
_____ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)(LRR B)
_____ Reduced Vertic (F18)
_____ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_____ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Restrictive Layer (if present):Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soil Present?Hydric Soil Present?Type:None
Depth (inches):
Remarks:Remarks:
Lack of hydric soil indicators may be due to changes in irrigation in the region due to the drought in the Upper Colorado River Basin. .
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_____ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)(Riverine)
_____ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)(Riverine)
_____ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)(Riverine)
_____ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_____ Craysh Burrows (C8)
_____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_____ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology Present?Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes _____ No _____
Surface Water Present?Yes _____ No ____ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes _____ No ____ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)Yes _____ No ____
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Remarks:
Yes _____ No __Yes _____ No ______✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -- Version 2.0 Adapted by TRC
Project/Site:Project/Site:Eagle Springs City/County:City/County:Silt, Gareld County Sampling Date:Sampling Date:2022-08-09
Applicant/Owner:Applicant/Owner:AES State:State:Colorado Sampling Point:Sampling Point:U-01-01
Investigator(s):Investigator(s):Abigail Arfman, Erin Bergquist, Becks Walker Section, Township, Range:Section, Township, Range:Township 6 South, Range 92 West, Section 18
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):Hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none):Local relief (concave, convex, none):Concave Slope (%):Slope (%):1 to 10
Subregion (LRR):Subregion (LRR):LRR D Lat:Lat:39.5198949214 Long:Long:-107.687123604 Datum:Datum:WGS84
Soil Map Unit Name:Soil Map Unit Name:POTTS LOAM, 3 TO 6 PERCENT SLOPES (55)NWI classication:NWI classication:Herbaceous Upland
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?
Are Vegetation ____, Soil ____, or Hydrology _____ signicantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present?
Are Vegetation ____, Soil ____, or Hydrology _____ naturally problematic?
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West RegionWETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
VEGETATION -- Use scientic names of plants.VEGETATION -- Use scientic names of plants.
Tree StratumTree Stratum (Plot size: (Plot size: __________________))Absolute %Absolute %
CoverCover
DominantDominant
Species?Species?
Indicator Indicator
StatusStatus
1.
2.
3.
4.
0 = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub StratumSapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: (Plot size: __________________))
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0 = Total Cover
Herb StratumHerb Stratum (Plot size: (Plot size: 1x1m1x1m))
1.Bromus tectorum 80 Yes UPL
2.Sisymbrium altissimum 3 No FACU
3.Bassia scoparia 1 No FAC
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
84 = Total Cover
Woody Vine StratumWoody Vine Stratum (Plot size: (Plot size: __________________))
1.
2.
0 = Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ____1_______1___% Cover of Biotic Crust % Cover of Biotic Crust ____0_______0___
Dominance Test worksheet:Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:00 (A)
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:11 (B)
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:00 (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:Total % Cover of:Multiply By:Multiply By:
OBL species 0 x 1 =0
FACW species 0 x 2 =0
FAC species 1 x 3 =3
FACU species 3 x 4 =12
UPL species 80 x 5 =400
Column Totals 84 (A)415 (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A = ___4.9___
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_____ Dominance Test is >50%
_____ Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.0¹
_____ Morphological Adaptation¹ (Provide supporting data
in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_____ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain)
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic
Hydrophytic VegetationHydrophytic Vegetation
Present?Present?Yes _____ No ____
Yes _____ No _____ (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Yes ____ No _____
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?Yes _____ No ____
Hydric Soil Present?Yes _____ No ____
Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes _____ No ____ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?Yes _____ No __Yes _____ No ______
Remarks:Remarks:
Covertype is UPL.
Remarks:Remarks:
✓
✓✓
✓✓
✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -- Version 2.0 Adapted by TRC
_____ Histosol (A1)_____ Sandy Redox (S5)
_____ Histic Epipedon (A2)_____ Stripped Matrix (S6)
_____ Black Histic (A3)_____ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
_____ Hydrogen Sulde (A4)_____ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_____ Stratied Layers (A5) (LRR C)(LRR C)_____ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_____ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)(LRR D)_____ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_____ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _____ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_____ Thick Dark Surface (A12)_____ Redox Depressions (F8)
_____ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)_____ Vernal Pools (F9)
_____ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
_____ Surface Water (A1)_____ Salt Crust (B11)
_____ High Water Table (A2)_____ Biotic Crust (B12)
_____ Saturation (A3)_____ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
_____ Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)(Nonriverine)_____ Hydrogen Sulde Odor (C1)
_____ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)(Nonriverine)_____ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_____ Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)(Nonriverine)_____ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_____ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)_____ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_____ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _____ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_____ Water-Stained Leaves (B9)_____ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sampling Point: U-01-01SOILSOIL
HYDROLOGYHYDROLOGY
Prole Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conrm the absence of indicators.)Prole Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or conrm the absence of indicators.)
DepthDepth MatrixMatrix Redox FeaturesRedox Features
(inches)(inches)Color (moist)Color (moist)%%Color (moist)Color (moist)%%Type¹Type¹Loc²Loc²TextureTexture RemarksRemarks
0 - 12 7.5YR 4/3 100 Silty Clay Loam
¹Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, CS = Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils³:
_____ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)(LRR C)
_____ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)(LRR B)
_____ Reduced Vertic (F18)
_____ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_____ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Restrictive Layer (if present):Restrictive Layer (if present):
Hydric Soil Present?Hydric Soil Present?Type:None
Depth (inches):
Remarks:Remarks:
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
_____ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)(Riverine)
_____ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)(Riverine)
_____ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)(Riverine)
_____ Drainage Patterns (B10)
_____ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_____ Craysh Burrows (C8)
_____ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_____ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_____ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:Field Observations:
Wetland Hydrology Present?Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes _____ No ____
Surface Water Present?Yes _____ No ____ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present?Yes _____ No ____ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present?Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)Yes _____ No ____
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:Remarks:
Yes _____ No __Yes _____ No ______✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West -- Version 2.0 Adapted by TRC
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-101 - Page 1 of 2
8/18/2022, 8:43:36 PM UTC
edcc2f85-788e-457e-9570-06bf7f7d697b
STREAM AND WATERBODY INVENTORY
CLIENT: AES PROJECT: EAGLE SPRINGS
S-EEB-101, Ditch
PLOT OVERVIEW
ID S-EEB-101 Classification Ditch
Waterbody Name Date 2022-08-09 09:59:49
Evaluators Erin Bergquist, Becks Walker
Address (Approx.)669-707 Mamm Creek Road Silt Garfield County Colorado 81652 United States
Location Description
Lat. / Long. (WGS84)39.5194543, -107.6946802
STREAM / WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS
Flow Stage Dry Flow Direction
Average Depth (in.)Probed Stream Depth
Perceptible Flow Obstruction
Channel Substrate Silt/Clay Channel Gradient < 2% (< 1 deg) Gentle
Is floodplain present?no Bankfull Width (ft)NA
Existing Water Width (ft)Top of Bank (ft)2
Water Quality Presumed Regulatory Authority
Ordinary High Water Mark (ft)0.5 Canopy Closure (Est.)0 to 10%
OHWM Indicators Scour
Water Quality Comments
Bank Substrate Cobble/Gravel,Silt/Clay
Aquatic Habitat
Observed Use roadside ditch
Observed Fauna
RTE Species & Evidence
Notes
BANK HEIGHT (ft)BANK SLOPE BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Left Bank 0.25 0 to 8% (0 to 5 deg) Nearly
Level to Gently Sloping Low
Right Bank 2 25 to 35% (14 to 20 deg)
Steep Low
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-101 - Page 2 of 2
8/18/2022, 8:43:36 PM UTC
edcc2f85-788e-457e-9570-06bf7f7d697b
PHOTOS
Upstream Photo:
Downstream Photo:
Across Stream/Waterbody Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-102 - Page 1 of 4
8/18/2022, 8:45:05 PM UTC
2c287a1d-0d38-4802-8f3f-3452b06366ae
STREAM AND WATERBODY INVENTORY
CLIENT: AES PROJECT: EAGLE SPRINGS
S-EEB-102, Ditch
01
PLOT OVERVIEW
ID S-EEB-102 Classification Ditch
Waterbody Name 01 Date 2022-08-09 10:51:27
Evaluators Erin Bergquist, Becks Walker
Address (Approx.)668-258 Mamm Creek Road Silt Garfield County Colorado 81652 United States
Location Description
Lat. / Long. (WGS84)39.5196337, -107.6950868
STREAM / WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS
Flow Stage Dry Flow Direction
Average Depth (in.)Probed Stream Depth
Perceptible Flow Obstruction
Channel Substrate Cobble/Gravel,Sand Channel Gradient < 2% (< 1 deg) Gentle
Is floodplain present?no Bankfull Width (ft)NA
Existing Water Width (ft)Top of Bank (ft)6
Water Quality Presumed Regulatory Authority
Ordinary High Water Mark (ft)0.5 Canopy Closure (Est.)
OHWM Indicators Bed and Banks,Scour
Water Quality Comments
Bank Substrate Cobble/Gravel,Silt/Clay
Aquatic Habitat
Observed Use
Observed Fauna
RTE Species & Evidence
Notes
BANK HEIGHT (ft)BANK SLOPE BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Left Bank 3.5 > 35% (> 20 deg) Very Steep Moderate
Right Bank 3 15 to 25% (9 to 14 deg)
Steeply Sloping Low
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-102 - Page 2 of 4
8/18/2022, 8:45:05 PM UTC
2c287a1d-0d38-4802-8f3f-3452b06366ae
PHOTOS
Upstream Photo:
Downstream Photo:
Across Stream/Waterbody Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-102 - Page 3 of 4
8/18/2022, 8:45:05 PM UTC
2c287a1d-0d38-4802-8f3f-3452b06366ae
Photo:
Photo:
Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-102 - Page 4 of 4
8/18/2022, 8:45:05 PM UTC
2c287a1d-0d38-4802-8f3f-3452b06366ae
Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-103 - Page 1 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:15:01 PM UTC
f8512e30-4d96-4d06-8737-9bed9be58674
STREAM AND WATERBODY INVENTORY
CLIENT: AES PROJECT: EAGLE SPRINGS
S-EEB-103, Ditch
Multa Trina Ditch
PLOT OVERVIEW
ID S-EEB-103 Classification Ditch
Waterbody Name Multa Trina Ditch Date 2022-08-09 15:39:19
Evaluators Erin Bergquist, Abigail Arfman
Address (Approx.)Unnamed Road Silt Garfield County Colorado 81652 United States
Location Description
Lat. / Long. (WGS84)39.519686, -107.6869965
STREAM / WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS
Flow Stage Dry Flow Direction
Average Depth (in.)Probed Stream Depth
Perceptible Flow Obstruction
Channel Substrate Silt/Clay Channel Gradient 2 to 4% (1 to 2 deg)
Moderate
Is floodplain present?no Bankfull Width (ft)NA
Existing Water Width (ft)Top of Bank (ft)5
Water Quality Presumed Regulatory Authority USACE
Ordinary High Water Mark (ft)1.5 Canopy Closure (Est.)
OHWM Indicators Scour
Water Quality Comments
Bank Substrate Silt/Clay
Aquatic Habitat
Observed Use Drainage
Observed Fauna
RTE Species & Evidence
Notes
BANK HEIGHT (ft)BANK SLOPE BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Left Bank 1.5 8 to 15% (5 to 9 deg)
Moderately Sloping Low
Right Bank 2 15 to 25% (9 to 14 deg)
Steeply Sloping Low
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-103 - Page 2 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:15:01 PM UTC
f8512e30-4d96-4d06-8737-9bed9be58674
PHOTOS
Upstream Photo:
Downstream Photo:
Across Stream/Waterbody Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-104 - Page 1 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:01:07 PM UTC
3fda82d2-24c8-489c-ae99-23c0e42b5014
STREAM AND WATERBODY INVENTORY
CLIENT: AES PROJECT: EAGLE SPRINGS
S-EEB-104, Ditch
PLOT OVERVIEW
ID S-EEB-104 Classification Ditch
Waterbody Name Date 2022-08-09 14:07:43
Evaluators Erin Bergquist, Abigail Arfman
Address (Approx.)Silt Colorado 81652 United States
Location Description
Lat. / Long. (WGS84)39.5252895, -107.6956589
STREAM / WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS
Flow Stage Dry Flow Direction
Average Depth (in.)Probed Stream Depth
Perceptible Flow Obstruction
Channel Substrate Silt/Clay Channel Gradient < 2% (< 1 deg) Gentle
Is floodplain present?no Bankfull Width (ft)NA
Existing Water Width (ft)Top of Bank (ft)2
Water Quality Presumed Regulatory Authority USACE
Ordinary High Water Mark (ft)0.25 Canopy Closure (Est.)
OHWM Indicators Scour
Water Quality Comments
Bank Substrate Silt/Clay
Aquatic Habitat
Observed Use Drainage
Observed Fauna
RTE Species & Evidence
Notes
BANK HEIGHT (ft)BANK SLOPE BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Left Bank 0.75 15 to 25% (9 to 14 deg)
Steeply Sloping Low
Right Bank 1.25 15 to 25% (9 to 14 deg)
Steeply Sloping Low
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-104 - Page 2 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:01:07 PM UTC
3fda82d2-24c8-489c-ae99-23c0e42b5014
PHOTOS
Upstream Photo:
Downstream Photo:
Across Stream/Waterbody Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-105 - Page 1 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:01:31 PM UTC
896e8d6c-2255-44e7-b63e-399f05f1ff00
STREAM AND WATERBODY INVENTORY
CLIENT: AES PROJECT: EAGLE SPRINGS
S-EEB-105, Ditch
PLOT OVERVIEW
ID S-EEB-105 Classification Ditch
Waterbody Name Date 2022-08-09 13:51:13
Evaluators Erin Bergquist, Abigail Arfman
Address (Approx.)Silt Colorado 81652 United States
Location Description
Lat. / Long. (WGS84)39.525415487, -107.695508525
STREAM / WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS
Flow Stage Dry Flow Direction
Average Depth (in.)Probed Stream Depth
Perceptible Flow Obstruction
Channel Substrate Silt/Clay Channel Gradient < 2% (< 1 deg) Gentle
Is floodplain present?no Bankfull Width (ft)NA
Existing Water Width (ft)Top of Bank (ft)4.5
Water Quality Presumed Regulatory Authority USACE
Ordinary High Water Mark (ft)0.5 Canopy Closure (Est.)
OHWM Indicators Scour
Water Quality Comments
Bank Substrate Silt/Clay
Aquatic Habitat
Observed Use Drainage
Observed Fauna
RTE Species & Evidence
Notes
BANK HEIGHT (ft)BANK SLOPE BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Left Bank 2.5 15 to 25% (9 to 14 deg)
Steeply Sloping Moderate
Right Bank 3 15 to 25% (9 to 14 deg)
Steeply Sloping Moderate
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-105 - Page 2 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:01:31 PM UTC
896e8d6c-2255-44e7-b63e-399f05f1ff00
PHOTOS
Upstream Photo:
Downstream Photo:
Across Stream/Waterbody Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-106 - Page 1 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:16:05 PM UTC
c7b65c55-ba99-4df0-ad14-5cb5dfe93c51
STREAM AND WATERBODY INVENTORY
CLIENT: AES PROJECT: EAGLE SPRINGS
S-EEB-106, Ditch
PLOT OVERVIEW
ID S-EEB-106 Classification Ditch
Waterbody Name Date 2022-08-09 14:20:49
Evaluators Erin Bergquist, Abigail Arfman
Address (Approx.)Silt Colorado 81652 United States
Location Description
Lat. / Long. (WGS84)39.52519, -107.6999902
STREAM / WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS
Flow Stage Dry Flow Direction
Average Depth (in.)Probed Stream Depth
Perceptible Flow Obstruction
Channel Substrate Silt/Clay Channel Gradient 4 to 10% (2 to 6 deg)
Steep
Is floodplain present?no Bankfull Width (ft)NA
Existing Water Width (ft)Top of Bank (ft)5
Water Quality Presumed Regulatory Authority USACE
Ordinary High Water Mark (ft)0.5 Canopy Closure (Est.)
OHWM Indicators Plant Community Change,Scour
Water Quality Comments
Bank Substrate Silt/Clay
Aquatic Habitat
Observed Use Drainage
Observed Fauna
RTE Species & Evidence
Notes
BANK HEIGHT (ft)BANK SLOPE BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Left Bank 3 > 35% (> 20 deg) Very Steep Low
Right Bank 2.5 25 to 35% (14 to 20 deg)
Steep Low
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-106 - Page 2 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:16:05 PM UTC
c7b65c55-ba99-4df0-ad14-5cb5dfe93c51
PHOTOS
Upstream Photo:
Downstream Photo:
Across Stream/Waterbody Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-107 - Page 1 of 3
8/18/2022, 9:08:01 PM UTC
ccbb91f7-c539-4482-a533-40564df64a5f
STREAM AND WATERBODY INVENTORY
CLIENT: AES PROJECT: EAGLE SPRINGS
S-EEB-107, Ditch
PLOT OVERVIEW
ID S-EEB-107 Classification Ditch
Waterbody Name Date 2022-08-09 12:42:04
Evaluators Erin Bergquist, Becks Walker
Address (Approx.)
Location Description
Lat. / Long. (WGS84)39.528501, -107.7039776
STREAM / WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS
Flow Stage Dry Flow Direction
Average Depth (in.)Probed Stream Depth
Perceptible Flow Obstruction
Channel Substrate Silt/Clay Channel Gradient < 2% (< 1 deg) Gentle
Is floodplain present?no Bankfull Width (ft)NA
Existing Water Width (ft)Top of Bank (ft)4
Water Quality Presumed Regulatory Authority USACE
Ordinary High Water Mark (ft)0.5 Canopy Closure (Est.)
OHWM Indicators Scour
Water Quality Comments
Bank Substrate Silt/Clay
Aquatic Habitat
Observed Use
Observed Fauna
RTE Species & Evidence
Notes
BANK HEIGHT (ft)BANK SLOPE BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Left Bank 5 > 35% (> 20 deg) Very Steep High
Right Bank 4 > 35% (> 20 deg) Very Steep High
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-107 - Page 2 of 3
8/18/2022, 9:08:01 PM UTC
ccbb91f7-c539-4482-a533-40564df64a5f
PHOTOS
Upstream Photo:
Downstream Photo:
Across Stream/Waterbody Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-107 - Page 3 of 3
8/18/2022, 9:08:01 PM UTC
ccbb91f7-c539-4482-a533-40564df64a5f
Photo:
Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-108 - Page 1 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:08:58 PM UTC
16bb3d4e-01b3-4878-a840-76d4ec4e66e0
STREAM AND WATERBODY INVENTORY
CLIENT: AES PROJECT: EAGLE SPRINGS
S-EEB-108, Ditch
PLOT OVERVIEW
ID S-EEB-108 Classification Ditch
Waterbody Name Date 2022-08-09 12:53:20
Evaluators Erin Bergquist, Becks Walker
Address (Approx.)
Location Description
Lat. / Long. (WGS84)39.5289387, -107.7051529
STREAM / WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS
Flow Stage Dry Flow Direction
Average Depth (in.)Probed Stream Depth
Perceptible Flow Obstruction
Channel Substrate Silt/Clay Channel Gradient < 2% (< 1 deg) Gentle
Is floodplain present?no Bankfull Width (ft)NA
Existing Water Width (ft)Top of Bank (ft)2
Water Quality Presumed Regulatory Authority USACE
Ordinary High Water Mark (ft)0.3 Canopy Closure (Est.)
OHWM Indicators Scour
Water Quality Comments
Bank Substrate Silt/Clay
Aquatic Habitat
Observed Use
Observed Fauna
RTE Species & Evidence
Notes
BANK HEIGHT (ft)BANK SLOPE BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Left Bank 1 8 to 15% (5 to 9 deg)
Moderately Sloping Low
Right Bank 1 8 to 15% (5 to 9 deg)
Moderately Sloping Low
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-108 - Page 2 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:08:58 PM UTC
16bb3d4e-01b3-4878-a840-76d4ec4e66e0
PHOTOS
Upstream Photo:
Downstream Photo:
Across Stream/Waterbody Photo:
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-109 - Page 1 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:10:40 PM UTC
b3027c71-da64-4bb1-84bd-a1bb8f882376
STREAM AND WATERBODY INVENTORY
CLIENT: AES PROJECT: EAGLE SPRINGS
S-EEB-109, Ditch
PLOT OVERVIEW
ID S-EEB-109 Classification Ditch
Waterbody Name Date 2022-08-09 12:32:19
Evaluators Erin Bergquist, Becks Walker
Address (Approx.)
Location Description
Lat. / Long. (WGS84)39.5293229, -107.7032345
STREAM / WATERBODY CHARACTERISTICS
Flow Stage Dry Flow Direction
Average Depth (in.)Probed Stream Depth
Perceptible Flow Obstruction
Channel Substrate Silt/Clay Channel Gradient < 2% (< 1 deg) Gentle
Is floodplain present?no Bankfull Width (ft)NA
Existing Water Width (ft)Top of Bank (ft)5
Water Quality Presumed Regulatory Authority
Ordinary High Water Mark (ft)0.5 Canopy Closure (Est.)
OHWM Indicators Scour
Water Quality Comments
Bank Substrate Silt/Clay
Aquatic Habitat
Observed Use
Observed Fauna
RTE Species & Evidence
Notes
BANK HEIGHT (ft)BANK SLOPE BANK EROSION POTENTIAL
Left Bank 1 8 to 15% (5 to 9 deg)
Moderately Sloping Low
Right Bank 3 25 to 35% (14 to 20 deg)
Steep Low
TRC
123 N. College Ave., Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO 80524
S-EEB-109 - Page 2 of 2
8/18/2022, 9:10:40 PM UTC
b3027c71-da64-4bb1-84bd-a1bb8f882376
PHOTOS
Upstream Photo:
Downstream Photo:
Across Stream/Waterbody Photo:
Appendix C. Representative Photographs
Appendix C
Photo Log
Project No. Photographs Taken By: Page No. Client: Project Name
495288 Abigail Arfman and Becks
Walker 1 of 2 ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar
Project
Photo 1: Potential Channel from Aerial Review – No bed and bank observed looking West
Photo 2: NWI Riverine Feature – No bed and bank observed looking West
Appendix C
Photo Log
Project No. Photographs Taken By: Page No. Client: Project Name
495288 Abigail Arfman and Becks
Walker 2 of 2 ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar
Project
Photo 3: Site Overview –looking North
Photo 4: Dry cattle pond – looking West
Appendix C
Photo Log
Project No. Photographs Taken By: Page No. Client: Project Name
495288 Abigail Arfman and Becks
Walker 3 of 2 ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar
Project
Photo 5: Overview photo of the wetland site (W‐01) ‐ looking east
Photo 6: Overview Photo of the upland site (U‐01) ‐ looking north
AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar – Land Use Change – Major Impact permit application (4/6/2023)
AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar – Garfield County 51
Please see the following pages for the Biological Resource Report – AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar, LLC published in September 2022.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
Appendix C2
Project Date
Document Title i
Biological
Resource Survey
Report
September 27, 2022
Eagle Springs Organic Solar
Project
Prepared for:
ACE DevCo NC, LLC
Prepared by:
TRC
Fort Collins, CO
Prepared by: Reviewed and Approved by:
Becks Walker Erin Bergquist, Senior Environmental Planner
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Biological Resource Report i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................... 1
2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................... 1
2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................................................... 1
2.3 The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ........................................................................ 1
2.4 State Endangered and Threatened Species ....................................................................... 3
3.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 3
3.1 Desktop Review .................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Biological Survey ................................................................................................................. 3
4.0 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Topography and Land Use ................................................................................................. 3
4.2 Vegetation Communities ..................................................................................................... 4
4.3 Special Status Species ....................................................................................................... 4
4.3.1 Federally listed species .......................................................................................... 4
4.3.2 State Listed Species .............................................................................................. 6
4.3.3 Migratory Birds and Eagles .................................................................................... 6
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 7
6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 8
TABLES
Table 1. Federally Listed Species Identified as Potentially Occurring in Project Area ................................. 5
APPENDICES
Appendix A: USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Appendix B: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Threatened and Endangered Species List Appendix C: Representative Photographs
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Biological Resource Report ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Notation Definition
BCC Birds of Conservation Concern
BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
C.R.S. Colorado Revised Statutes
CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife
ESA Endangered Species Act
FR Federal Register
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
MBTA Migratory Birds Treaty Act
Project Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project
TRC TRC Companies, Inc.
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Biological Resource Report 1
1.0 Introduction
ACE DevCo NC, LLC contracted with TRC Companies, LLC (TRC) to conduct an on-site habitat assessment for special status species for the Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project (Project) in Garfield County, Colorado. The Project Area consists of a 140-acres located about 0.25-mile
south of Interstate 70, adjacent to 5454 Co Rd 346, Silt, CO 81652 (Township 6 South, Range 92 West, Section 18) (Figure 1). The purpose of the biological resource field survey was to confirm the presence or absence of suitable habitat for special status species within the Project
Area.
2.0 Regulatory Requirements
2.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) protects plants and animals that are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Section 9 of ESA prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where “take” is defined as the harassment, harm, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping,
capture, or collection, as well as modification or degradation of habitat that results in death or injury of these species (50- Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]-17.3).
Under Section 7 of ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS if their
actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect a listed (or proposed) species (including plants) or its critical habitat.
2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory birds nest in the U.S. and Canada during the summer months and migrate south to the southern U.S., tropical regions of Mexico, Central or South America, and the Caribbean for the non-breeding season. These species are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) under U.S. Code 703-711. The MBTA prohibits the take, kill, possession, and transportation of migratory birds, their eggs, and parts except when specifically permitted. The 2017 U.S. Department of the Interior (Memorandum M-37050) interpretation of the MBTA
indicated that the take of birds resulting from an activity is not prohibited by the MBTA when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds. On January 8, 2021, USFWS issued a final rule codifying the 2017 Department of Interior Solicitor’s Office Opinion M-37050 to provide
a uniform approach that incidental take of birds resulting from an activity is not prohibited when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds (86 Federal Register [FR] 1134). However, as of December 3, 2021, the USFWS has reverted to the 2017 interpretation of the
MBTA which prohibits intentional “take” (DOI 2017).
2.3 The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) prohibits the taking or possession of and
commerce in bald and golden eagles with very limited exceptions. Under the BGEPA, it is a violation to “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, transport, export or import, at any
6S 93W6S 92WEAGLE SPRINGS PROJECT AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA
EAGLE SPRINGS ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:PROJ. NO.:
FILE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
EAGLE SPRINGSCOORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 STATEPLANE COLORADO CENTRAL FIPS 0502 FEET; MAP ROTATION: 0 -- SAVED BY: RBLAKE ON 10/14/2022, 07:46:50 AM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_1_PROJECT_OVERVIEWJULY 2022
123 N. COLLEGE AVE.SUITE 370FORT COLLINS, CO 80524PHONE: 970.484.3263
F
1:24,000 1" = 2,000'
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
BASE MAP: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE SERIESSILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC
J. SCHLANGEN
B. WALKER
R. BLAKE
FIGURE 1
496375
PROJECT OVERVIEW
ACE DEVCO NC, LLC
EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
COLORADO
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Biological Resource Report 3
time or any manner, any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle, or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg, thereof.” Take is defined to include pursue.
2.4 State Endangered and Threatened Species
Within the State of Colorado, the Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) has the regulatory authority to manage and conserve wildlife resources within state borders. State-listed threatened and endangered species are protected pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) 33-2-105,
C.R.S. 33-6-105, C.R.S. 33-6-109, and CPW Final Regulations Chapter 10, Article I, #1000 – Protected Species, wherein harassment, take, or possession of state-listed threatened and endangered species is prohibited.
3.0 Methods
3.1 Desktop Review
Prior to conducting the biological field survey, TRC biologists performed a desktop review to determine the special-status species and habitats that have been documented near the Project Area. The desktop review used the following publicly available data sources, reviewed maps, and data:
USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report
(USFWS 2022).
CPW Threatened and Endangered List (CPW 2022a).
CPW Wildlife Species Map Application (CPW 2022b)
The USFWS IPaC report was reviewed for federally listed threatened and endangered species
that may occur in the project vicinity (USFWS 2022, Appendix A). A list of State threatened and endangered species with the potential to occur within the Project Area was obtained from the CPW Threatened and Endangered List (CPW 2022a, Appendix B) and the CPW Wildlife Species Map Application (CPW 2022b).
3.2 Biological Survey
TRC biologists Erin Bergquist, Abigail Arfman, and Becks Walker conducted the biological field
survey on August 9, 2022. The biological field survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the Project Area to characterize habitat/vegetation communities present and determine the potential for special status species identified during the desktop review to occur. The dominant species in
each vegetation community and any incidental wildlife observations were recorded and representative photographs were taken (Appendix C).
4.0 Results
4.1 Topography and Land Use
The Project Area is located on top of a hill located on the south side of the Colorado River Valley with an elevation range of 5,560 to 5,620 above mean sea level (USGS 1983). An existing private access road off of County Road 315 will be used to access the Project Area.
The private access road has an over 10 percent slope. The topography of the majority of the
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Biological Resource Report 4
Project Area on the top of the hill is characterized as relatively flat with very slight to steeper gradients in sections.
Land use in the Project Area is primarily pasture and farmland. Land use surrounding the
Project Area is primarily used for commercial and agricultural production. Rural residences, solar, oil and gas development, and undeveloped natural areas are located in the immediate vicinity of the Project Area. Interstate 70 is located to the north of the Project Area. The Garfield County Airport is less than 0.5-mile to the west (Google Earth Pro 1985-2020). Two oil and gas well sites containing several wells are within the Project Area. An electrical transmission line runs north of the Project Area near Interstate 70. A natural gas pipeline and electric transmission line transect a small portion of the southernmost area of the Project transecting the proposed road (COGCC 2022; Rextag 2022).
4.2 Vegetation Communities
There are three vegetation communities (Shrub steppe, hay/fallow fields, and invaded grassland) and one land use (Developed) in the Project Area. Representative photographs of each are included in Appendix C. Shrub steppe is found along the access road on the steeper
slopes. Dominant species include Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), sagebrush (Artmesia tridentata), and Russian knapweed (Rhaponticum repens).
The majority of the Project Area is hay/fallow fields. Most of the Project Area has been plowed at some point in time. At the time of the survey, most of the fields were mowed. Species present
in and along the edges of the fields included oats (Avena sativa), tumblemustard (Sisymbrium
altissimum), flixweed (Descurainia sophia), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum), and kochia (Bassia scoparia).
Along the roads in the Project Area around is invaded grassland dominated by cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), field bindweed, bluebunch wheatgrass, Russian knapweed, and yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis). Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) is present in large patches
along the road and in some of the hay/fallow fields. Douglas rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus
viscidiflorus) is scattered along the road. The developed open space is dispersed throughout the Project Area and consists of farming structures, a residential house, and oil wells.
There are several irrigation ditches in the Project Area. Most are overgrown with upland species. There is a fringing wetland located on the Multa Trina Ditch which is located on the east edge of the access road survey area. The fringing wetland was composed of canary reed grass (Phalaris arundinacea). North and outside the Project Area on the same irrigation ditch, is located a patch of showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa).
4.3 Special Status Species
4.3.1 Federally listed species
The USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report (Appendix A) identified eight federally listed species and one candidate for federal listing under the ESA as having the potential to occur within the
Project Area. Of the nine species identified by the IPaC Report, only one species, the monarch butterfly, has the potential to occur based on the habitat conditions within the Project Area. Table 1 summarizes each federally listed species, its listing status, and its potential to occur
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Biological Resource Report 5
within the Project Area. Additionally, the Project Area is outside of all designated and proposed critical habitats (USFWS 2022). No federally listed species or their associated habitat were observed within the Project Area. As described above under Section 4.2, Vegetation
Communities, a patch of showy milkweed is located outside and to the North of the Project Area along an irrigation ditch that is suitable habitat for the monarch butterfly. Therefore, the species may be transient through the Project Area.
Table 1. Federally Listed Species Identified as Potentially Occurring in Project Area
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Potential for Occurrence within the Project Area2
Mammals
Gray wolf Canis lupus
FE None. Current known range is outside the Project
Area. As such, no impacts on this species or its associated habitat are anticipated.
Birds
Mexican spotted
owl
Strix occidentalis
lucida
FT None. Suitable old-growth or mature forests that
possess complex structural components or canyons with riparian or conifer communities are not found within the Project Area.
Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus
americanus
FT None. Densely wooded areas are not found in the Project Area. eBird records indicate no sightings
within 5 miles of the Project Area.
Fish
Bonytail Gila elegans FE None. There are no intermittent or perennial streams present in the Project Area
Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FE None. There are no intermittent or perennial streams present in the Project Area
Humpback chub Gila cypha FT None. There are no intermittent or perennial
streams present in the Project Area
Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus FE None. There are no intermittent or perennial streams present in the Project Area
Insects
Monarch
butterfly
Danus plexippus FC Low. Suitable habitat (i.e., obligate milkweed species) is not located within the Project Area. A small area of suitable habitat for this species was
observed outside the Project Area. Therefore, the species may occur as a transient through the
Project Area.
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Biological Resource Report 6
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Potential for Occurrence within the Project Area2
Plants
Ute Ladies’-Tresses Spiranthes diluvialis FT None. Suitable habitat (i.e., moist meadows
associated with perennial stream terraces,
floodplains, and oxbows at elevations between
4300-6850 feet) has no potential to occur within
the Project Area.
Source: USFWS 2022b; Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019; eBird 2022; NatureServe 2022. 1 FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; FC = Federal Candidate for listing. 2 Potential for occurrence based on desktop analyses. Informal consultation with the USFWS Colorado Ecological Services Field Office will be required to confirm these preliminary findings.
4.3.2 State Listed Species
The CPW Threatened and Endangered Species List (Appendix B) identifies 31 state-listed threatened and endangered species including 1 amphibian species, 8 bird species, 14 fish species, and 8 mammal species. State-listed threatened and endangered species are protected
pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes 33-2-105 and 33-6-109, and CPW Final Regulations Chapter 10, Article I, #1000-Protected Species, wherein harassment, take, or possession of state-listed threatened and endangered species is prohibited. Based on a desktop assessment
of each species’ habitat requirements, range, and distribution, and the results of the field survey, one state threatened species (burrowing owl) has the potential to occur within the Project Area. At the time of the survey, one mammal burrow with the potential to be utilized by burrowing owls
for nesting was observed in the Project Area (Appendix C). No prairie dog burrows were observed in the Project Area.
4.3.3 Migratory Birds and Eagles
According to the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), 25 bird species (western grebe, Clark’s grebe, black swift, broad-tailed hummingbird, mountain plover, snowy plover (interior/gulf coast), pectoral sandpiper, lesser yellow-legs, California gull, flammulated owl,
short-eared owl, long-eared owl, Lewis’s woodpecker, olive-sided flycatcher, pinyon jay, Clark’s nutcracker, Bendire’s thrasher, evening grosbeak, black rosy-finch, brown-capped rosy-finch, Cassin’s finch, black-chinned sparrow, yellow-headed blackbird, Virginia’s warbler, and Grace’s warbler) have the potential to occur as migratory species in Bird Conservation Region 16, which intersects the Project Area (USFWS 2021). The USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report further refined the region-wide BCC list (USFWS 2021) to include only the bald eagle, Cassin's finch, Clark’s grebe, evening grosbeak, and pinyon jay within the Project Area (USFWS 2022).
Species observed during the field survey included the western meadowlark, horned lark, and
western kingbird. No nests were observed within the Project Area during the field survey. Suitable nesting habitat was not observed within the Project Area for the BCC species listed in the IPaC Trust Resources Report. Suitable nesting and/or foraging habitat for other migratory
bird species exists within the Project Area. In addition, suitable nesting habitat for raptors, including eagles, is present within 0.5-mile of the Study Area the Project Area (Google Earth Pro 2016; MRLC Consortium 2022).
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Biological Resource Report 7
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
The Project Area is located on former agricultural land with an existing solar farm on the eastern border and abandoned and active oil wells adjacent to the northwest and northeast of the Project Area. Wildlife species observed or detected during the field survey included the black-
tailed jackrabbit, red fox, western meadowlark, horned lark, and western kingbird. A large burrow was also observed in the Project Area that appeared to be used by rabbits currently. Rabbits were also observed using buried irrigation pipes for burrows.
Habitat for federally listed species is not found within the Project Area, however suitable habitat for the monarch butterfly, a candidate for federal listing under the ESA, was observed adjacent to the Project Area. Candidate species are those petitioned species that are actively being
considered for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA, as well as those species for which agencies have initiated an ESA status review that it has announced in the Federal Regulation. Candidate species are not federally protected under the ESA.
No migratory bird nests were observed within the Project Area during the field survey. However, suitable nesting habitat exists for the state-threatened burrowing owl and other migratory birds, including raptors, within and immediately adjacent to the Project Area. Based on this, TRC recommends conducting pre-construction surveys for nesting birds to minimize impacts on breeding migratory bird species if ground-disturbing activities are planned for the primary
nesting season (April 1 through August 31). Additionally, CPW recommended seasonal restrictions (CPW 2020) including the avoidance of disturbance to burrows between March 15 and October 31 when burrowing owls may be present.
Both breeding and nonbreeding populations of bald and golden eagles occur in northwest Colorado (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019). Numerous incidental bald eagle observations have been recorded within a 2-mile radius of the Project Area, particularly along the Colorado River,
Silt River Preserve, and Ponds near Rifle Garfield Airport (eBird 2022). Two active bald eagle nest sites were identified approximately 3 miles to the northeast, one active nest about 5.5-miles northwest, and one inactive nest 4 miles southwest of the Project. Multiple roosting sites are
located about 1.5-miles northwest and northeast of the Project Area along the Colorado River (COGCC 2022). According to eBird, no golden eagles have been observed in a 2-mile radius of the Project Area (eBird 2022).
To minimize impacts on breeding eagles, TRC recommends conducting pre-construction surveys for active eagle nests within 0.5-mile of the Project Area and scheduling construction to occur outside the primary nesting season for eagles (December 1 through July 31) to avoid any disturbances (CPW 2020). CPW recommends No Surface Occupancy beyond that which historically occurred, within a 0.25-mile radius of active nests.
ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Biological Resource Report 8
6.0 References
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). (2022). GIS Online Mapping. Accessed May 2022 at: https://cogccmap.state.co.us/cogcc_gis_online/ GISOnline Mapping. Accessed May 2022 at: https://cogccmap.state.co.us/cogcc_gis_online/
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). (2020). Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors (2020).
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). (2022a). Threatened and Endangered Species List.
Accessed July 14, 2022, at: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx
Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). (2022b). Wildlife Species Map Application. Accessed July
18, 2022, at: https://cpw.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/interactivelegend/index.html?appid=b3e1f4c17e98481c85f9683b02e91250
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (2019). All About Birds. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Accessed May 2022 at: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/
eBird. (2022). eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. Accessed May 2022. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Available: http://www.ebird.org.
Google Earth Pro. (1985-2020). Historic aerial imagery of 39°31'40.62"N 107°41'50.13"W Accessed July 15, 2022.
Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. (2022). MRLC Viewer – All National
Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2016 Contiguous United States Land Cover courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed May 2022 at: https://www.mrlc.gov/viewer/
Rextag. (2022). Rextag Global Energy GIS Data. Accessed May 2022 at: https://rextag.com/gis
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). (2017). M-37050 Memorandum: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-37050.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2021). Birds of Conservation Concern 2021. United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Birds, Falls Church, Virginia. Accessed May 2022 at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2022). Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report. Accessed June 29, 2022, at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (1983). Silt, Colorado [Map], 1:24000, Topographic
Quadrangle Map, Silt, CO.
Appendix A: USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical
habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced
below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but
that could potentially be directly or indirectly a ected by activities in the project area.
However, determining the likelihood and extent of e ects a project may have on trust
resources typically requires gathering additional site-speci c (e.g., vegetation/species
surveys) and project-speci c (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the
USFWS o ce(s) with jurisdiction in the de ned project area. Please read the introduction to
each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI
Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that
section.
Location
Gar eld County, Colorado
Local o ce
Western Colorado Ecological Services Field O ce
(970) 628-7180
(970) 245-6933
445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240
U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC
Grand Junction, CO 81501-5711
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis
of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each
species. Additional areas of in uence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes
areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly a ected by activities in
that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at
the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow
downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this
list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any
potential e ects to species, additional site-speci c and project-speci c information is often
required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the
Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be
present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted,
funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local o ce and a species list
which ful lls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an o cial species list from
either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld
o ce directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC
website and request an o cial species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown
on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also
shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for
more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
1
2
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an o ce
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
The following species are potentially a ected by activities in this location:
Mammals
Birds
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Gray Wolf Canis lupus
This species only needs to be considered if the following
condition applies:
Lone, dispersing gray wolves may be present throughout
the state of Colorado. If your activity includes a predator
management program, please consider this species in your
environmental review.
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4488
Endangered
NAME STATUS
Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8196
Threatened
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened
NAME STATUS
Bonytail Gila elegans
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1377
Endangered
Insects
Flowering Plants
Critical habitats
Potential e ects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the
endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Colorado Pikeminnow (=squaw sh) Ptychocheilus lucius
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3531
Endangered
Humpback Chub Gila cypha
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3930
Threatened
Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus
Wherever found
There is nal critical habitat for this species.The location of the
critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/530
Endangered
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butter y Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
NAME STATUS
Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159
Threatened
Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how
this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this
location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see
exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around
your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date
range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional
maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your
list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other
important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF
PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be
present and breeding in your project area.
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and
consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-
migratory-birds
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/ les/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-
measures.pdf
1
2
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A
BREEDING SEASON IS
INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON
YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely
to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your
project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and
understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before
using or attempting to interpret this report.
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA
SOMETIME WITHIN THE
TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH
IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE
OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH
THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS
ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS
ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT
THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT
AREA.)
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential
susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of
development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Dec 1 to Aug 31
Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9462
Breeds May 15 to Jul 15
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 15 to Aug 10
Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9420
Breeds Feb 15 to Jul 15
Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-
week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey
e ort (see below) can be used to establish a level of con dence in the presence score. One
can have higher con dence in the presence score if the corresponding survey e ort is also
high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events
for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted
Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in
week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of
presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence
at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of
presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds
across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your
project area.
Survey E ort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of
surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The
number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey e ort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are
based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
no data survey e ort breeding season probability of presence
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
(This is not a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
in this area, but
warrants
attention
because of the
Eagle Act or for
potential
susceptibilities
in o shore
areas from
certain types of
development
or activities.)
Cassin's Finch
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental
USA and
Alaska.)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental
USA and
Alaska.)
Evening
Grosbeak
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental
USA and
Alaska.)
Pinyon Jay
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental
USA and
Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all
birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds
are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the
locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.
To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of
Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity
you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identi ed as warranting special attention because
they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a
particular vulnerability to o shore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.
It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially
present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my speci ed location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by
the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and
citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes
available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret
them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering,
migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All
About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season
associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point
within the timeframe speci ed. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in
your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their
range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Paci c Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in
the continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either
because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in
o shore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. o shore energy development or
longline shing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, e orts should be made, in
particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of
rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and
minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially a ected by o shore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and
groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data
Portal. The Portal also o ers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to
you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal
maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird
Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the
year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional
information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact
Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating
the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of
priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what
other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory
birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability
of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project
footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey e ort (indicated by the black
vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey e ort is
the key component. If the survey e ort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as
more dependable. In contrast, a low survey e ort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a
lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there,
and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look
for to con rm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to
avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be con rmed. To learn
more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement
to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources
page.
Coastal Barrier Resources System
Projects within the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) may be subject
to the restrictions on federal expenditures and nancial assistance and the consultation
requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). For more
information, please contact the local Ecological Services Field O ce or visit the CBRA
Consultations website. The CBRA website provides tools such as a ow chart to help
determine whether consultation is required and a template to facilitate the consultation
process.
THERE ARE NO KNOWN COASTAL BARRIERS AT THIS LOCATION.
Data limitations
The CBRS boundaries used in IPaC are representations of the controlling boundaries, which are depicted
on the o cial CBRS maps. The boundaries depicted in this layer are not to be considered authoritative for
in/out determinations close to a CBRS boundary (i.e., within the "CBRS Bu er Zone" that appears as a
hatched area on either side of the boundary). For projects that are very close to a CBRS boundary but do
not clearly intersect a unit, you may contact the Service for an o cial determination by following the
instructions here: https://www.fws.gov/service/coastal-barrier-resources-system-property-documentation
Data exclusions
CBRS units extend seaward out to either the 20- or 30-foot bathymetric contour (depending on the location
of the unit). The true seaward extent of the units is not shown in the CBRS data, therefore projects in the
o shore areas of units (e.g., dredging, breakwaters, o shore wind energy or oil and gas projects) may be
subject to CBRA even if they do not intersect the CBRS data. For additional information, please contact
CBRA@fws.gov.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must
undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the
individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to
update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to
determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetlands:
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of
high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identi ed based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A
margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular
site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classi cation established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image
analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veri cation work
conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any
mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There
may be occasional di erences in polygon boundaries or classi cations between the information depicted
on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of
aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or
submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and
nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuber cid worm reefs) have also
been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial
imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may de ne and describe
wetlands in a di erent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or
products of this inventory, to de ne the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local
government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.
Persons intending to engage in activities involving modi cations within or adjacent to wetland areas should
seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning speci ed agency regulatory
programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may a ect such activities.
RIVERINE
Riverine
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory
website
Appendix B: Colorado Parks and Wildlife Threatened and Endangered Species List
3/25/2021 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List
https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 1/5
COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS*
AMPHIBIANS
Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas SE
Couch's Spadefoot Scaphiopus couchii SC
Great Plains Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophryne olivacea SC
Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans SC
Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens SC
Plains Leopard Frog Rana blairi SC
Wood Frog Rana sylvatica SC
BIRDS
American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum SC
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SC
Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia ST
Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus SC
Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis SC
Greater Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus SC
Threatened and Endangered List
3/25/2021 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List
https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 2/5
Greater Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis tabida SC
Gunnison Sage-Grouse Centrocercus minimus FT, SC
Least Tern Sterna antillarum SE
Lesser Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ST
Long-Billed Curlew Numenius americanus SC
Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida FT, ST
Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus SC
Plains Sharp-Tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus jamesii SE
Piping Plover Charadrius melodus circumcinctus FT, ST
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, SE
Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus SC
Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus SC
Whooping Crane Grus americana FE, SE
FISH
Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini ST
Bonytail Gila elegans FE, SE
Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni ST
Colorado Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FE, ST
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus SC
Colorado Roundtail Chub Gila robusta SC
Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus ST
Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis SC
3/25/2021 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List
https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 3/5
Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias FT, ST
Humpback Chub Gila cypha FE, ST
Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile SC
Lake Chub Couesius plumbeus SE
Mountain Sucker Catostomus playtrhynchus SC
Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos SE
Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus SE
Plains Orangethroat Darter Etheostoma spectabile SC
Rio Grande Chub Gila pandora SC
Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis SC
Rio Grande Sucker Catostomus plebeius SE
Razorback Sucker Xyrauchen texanus FE, SE
Southern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus erythrogaster SE
Stonecat Noturus flavus SC
Suckermouth Minnow Phenacobius mirabilis SE
MAMMALS
Black-Footed Ferret Mustela nigripes FE, SE
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus SC
Botta's Pocket Gopher Thomomy bottae rubidus SC
Gray Wolf Canis lupus SE
Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos FT, SE
Kit Fox Vulpes macrotis SE
3/25/2021 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List
https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 4/5
Lynx Lynx canadensis FT, SE
Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides macrotis SC
Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei FT, ST
River Otter Lontra canadensis ST
Swift fox Vulpes velox SC
Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens SC
Wolverine Gulo gulo SE
REPTILES
Triploid Checkered Whiptail Cnemidophorus neotesselatus SC
Midget Faded Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis concolor SC
Longnose Leopard Lizard Gambelia wislizenii SC
Yellow Mud Turtle Kinosternon flavescens SC
Common King Snake Lampropeltis getula SC
Texas Blind Snake Leptotyphlops dulcis SC
Texas Horned Lizard Phrynosoma cornutum SC
Roundtail Horned Lizard Phrynosoma modestum SC
Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus SC
Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis SC
MOLLUSKS
Rocky Mountain Capshell Acroloxus coloradensis SC
Cylindrical Papershell Anodontoides ferussacianus SC
3/25/2021 Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered List
https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx 5/5
*Status Codes
FE = Federally Endangered
FT = Federally Threatened
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SC = State Special Concern (not a statutory category)
Resources
Species Profiles
Colorado's State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP)
The approved State Wildlife A ction Plan identifies priority species & habitats that need conservation efforts in
the state, & potential conservation actions that can address threats these species & habitats face.
>> Read More
Appendix C: Representative Photographs
Page 1 of 5
Photo ID: 1
Date Taken: 8/9/2022
Photo Direction: E
Description:
Shrub steppe
community along the private access road
Photo ID: 2
Date Taken: 8/9/2022
Photo Direction: NW
Description:
Hay/fallow field
Page 2 of 5
Photo ID: 3
Date Taken: 8/9/2022
Photo Direction: S
Description:
Invaded grassland along edge of fields. Musk thistle and Russian knapweed present.
Photo ID: 4
Date Taken: 8/9/2022
Photo Direction: S
Description:
Active mammal burrow. Looking South from the
ditch mapped south of the existing solar facility. A rabbit was
observed nearby
Page 3 of 5
Photo ID:5
Date Taken: 8/9/2022
Photo Direction: W
Description:
Rabbit observed
entering this abandoned water pipe left in a ditch south of the existing
solar facility.
Photo ID:6
Date Taken: 8/9/2022
Photo Direction: NW
Description:
Abandoned cattle pond. Filled with oats
Page 4 of 5
Photo ID:7
Date Taken: 8/9/2022
Photo Direction: NW
Description:
One of many overgrown irrigation ditches in the Project Area
Photo ID:8
Date Taken: 8/9/2022
Photo Direction: E
Description:
Showy milkweed patch outside of the Project
Area
Page 5 of 5
Photo ID:9
Date Taken: 8/9/2022
Photo Direction: W
Description:
Rabbit observed
entering this abandoned water pipe left in a ditch south of the existing
solar facility.
AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar – Land Use Change – Major Impact permit application (4/6/2023)
AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar – Garfield County 52
Please see the following pages for the Phase I ESA – AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar, LLC published
in October 2022.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
Appendix C3
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE ASSESSMENT
Eagle Springs Solar Site Northwestern corner of County Road
346
Silt, Garfield County, Colorado
81652
October 2022
Project Number: 495288.0000.0000
Prepared For: AES Clean Energy 2180 South 1300 East, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
Prepared By: TRC 1526 Cole Boulevard Building 3 Suite 150
Lakewood, Colorado, 80401
Prepared by: Kiana Eldredge, Environmental Scientist Reviewed and Approved by: Jason Jayroe, Senior Geologist
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 i
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services .......................................................................................... 2
1.2 Additional Services .............................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Deviations to ASTM E 1527-13 Standard ........................................................................... 3
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Site Location and Legal Description .................................................................................... 4
2.2 Site Improvements ............................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Current and Historic Site Use .............................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 Current Site Use(s) ................................................................................................. 4
2.3.2 Previous Owner and Operator Information............................................................. 4
2.4 Physical Setting ................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION ................................................................................... 6
3.1 Title and Judicial Records for Environmental Liens or AULs .............................................. 6
3.2 Specialized Knowledge........................................................................................................ 6
3.3 Property Value Reduction Issues ........................................................................................ 6
3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information ............................................. 6
3.5 Reason for Conducting a Phase I ESA ............................................................................... 6
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Historic Use Information ...................................................................................................... 8
4.1.1 Site History.............................................................................................................. 8
4.1.2 Adjoining Property History ...................................................................................... 8
4.1.3 Surrounding Property History ................................................................................. 9
4.2 Database Report and Environmental Record Review ......................................................... 9
4.2.1 Subject Site ........................................................................................................... 10
4.2.2 Adjoining and Surrounding Property Record Review ........................................... 10
4.2.2.1 Adjoining Properties .............................................................................. 10
4.2.2.2 Surrounding Properties ......................................................................... 11
4.3 Vapor Encroachment Evaluation ....................................................................................... 11
4.4 Title and Judicial Records for Environmental Liens or AULs ............................................ 11
4.5 Previous Reports ............................................................................................................... 12
4.6 Other Environmental Record Sources ............................................................................... 12
5.0 INTERVIEWS .................................................................................................................... 13
6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE............................................................................................... 14
6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions................................................................................ 14
6.2 Interior and Exterior Site Observations.............................................................................. 14
6.2.1 Hazardous Substances ........................................................................................ 15
6.2.2 Solid and Liquid Wastes ....................................................................................... 15
6.2.3 USTs ..................................................................................................................... 15
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 ii
6.2.4 ASTs ..................................................................................................................... 15
6.2.5 Adjoining Properties.............................................................................................. 15
6.2.6 Surrounding Properties ......................................................................................... 16
7.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 17
7.1 RECs .................................................................................................................................. 17
7.2 CRECs ............................................................................................................................... 17
7.3 HRECs ............................................................................................................................... 17
7.4 De Minimis Conditions ....................................................................................................... 17
7.5 Business Environmental Risks (BERs).............................................................................. 18
7.6 Data Gaps .......................................................................................................................... 18
7.7 Limiting Conditions and Deviations ................................................................................... 18
7.7.1 Accuracy and Completeness ................................................................................ 18
7.7.2 Warranties and Representations .......................................................................... 19
7.7.3 Continued Validity/User Reliance ......................................................................... 20
7.7.4 Significant Assumptions ....................................................................................... 20
8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 21
9.0 NON-SCOPE ITEMS ........................................................................................................ 22
Tables Table 2.1 - Site Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2.2 - Previous Owner Information ........................................................................................................ 5 Table 4.1 - Site History .................................................................................................................................. 8 Table 4.2 - Adjoining Property History ........................................................................................................... 8 Table 4.3 - Surrounding Property History ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 4.4 - Other Environmental Record Sources....................................................................................... 12 Table 6.1 - Interior and Exterior Site Observations ..................................................................................... 14 Table 6.6 - Adjoining Properties Reconnaissance....................................................................................... 15 Table 8.1 - Reference Information ............................................................................................................... 21 Figures
Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Site Layout Plan
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 iii
Appendices Appendix A: Database Radius Report Appendix B: User Questionnaire(s) Appendix C: Historical Research Documentation Appendix D: Other Reference Information Appendix E: Photograph Log Appendix F: TRC Staff and Environmental Professional Qualifications/Resumes Appendix G: Environmental Professional Statement
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) was retained by AES Clean Energy (AES) (also known as “Client” or “User”) to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Eagle Springs Solar Site located at the northwest corner of County Road 346 in Silt, Garfield County, Colorado, 81652 (herein referred to as the “Site”). TRC conducted the Phase I ESA in connection with the Client’s planned business transaction involving the Site. The Phase I ESA described in this report was performed in accordance with the scope and limitations of the American Society for Testing and Materials Practice E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E 1527-13). Limiting conditions and/or deviations from the ASTM E 1527-13 standard are described in Sections 1.3 and 7.7 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), or historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs) in connection with the Site. The following BERs, which do not fall within the definition of a REC, have been identified during the course of this Phase I ESA and could potentially have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of the Site: 1. The Site is located in an area of natural gas, oil production including on-Site and off-Site production wells within a mile of the Site in addition to the presence of natural gas, oil gathering, and transmission pipelines on-Site and within close proximity to the Site.
2. The Site was used for agricultural purposes prior to 1937, during which herbicides and pesticides may have been used. No structures or orchards were identified on the Site during this time through the review of historical sources and interviews with the Site contacts and prior owners. Given that no storage structures or spills were historically identified on the Site related to herbicides and pesticides, TRC presumes that the amount of these substances administered on the Site would have been at “application” concentrations, if any. TRC cannot rule out the possibility of historic herbicide and pesticide use but given the information provided to TRC for this assessment, the Site does not appear likely to have been impacted by releases of herbicides and pesticides. Additional information that varies significantly from the sources provided to TRC may affect the conclusions of this assessment.
This Executive Summary is part of this complete report; the findings, opinions, or conclusions in this Executive Summary are made in context with the complete report. TRC recommends that the User read the entire report for supporting information related to findings, opinions, and conclusions.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) has prepared this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for AES Clean Energy (hereinafter, “AES,” “Client,” or “User”). This report was prepared for and may be relied upon by Client and User for the purposes set forth herein; it may not be relied on by any party other than the Client and User. TRC will consider authorization for third-party reliance on this report if requested by the Client. TRC reserves the right to deny reliance on this report by third parties.
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services
The following Phase I ESA was performed for the property located at the northwestern corner of County Road 346 in Silt, Garfield County, Colorado, 81652 (hereinafter the “Site”). A Site location map is included as Figure 1. TRC prepared this Phase I ESA in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I ESA Process (ASTM E 1527-13) and is intended for the sole use of AES per TRC’s June 1, 2022 Proposal for Early Environmental and Permitting Support for Solar Site near Silt, Colorado authorized on June 21, 2022. The purpose of this assessment is to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) at the Site, as defined by the ASTM E 1527-13 standard. The completion of this Phase I ESA report may be used to satisfy one of the requirements for the User to qualify for the innocent landowner,
contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser liability protections pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), thereby constituting all appropriate inquiries into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice as defined by 42 United States Code §9601(35)(B) of CERCLA. TRC understands that this assessment is not funded with a federal grant awarded under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Brownfields Assessment and Characterization program or for Small Business Association financing. The Scope of Services for this Phase I ESA included the following tasks:
• Site and vicinity reconnaissance;
• Site and vicinity description and physical setting;
• Historical sources review and a description of historic Site conditions;
• Interviews with owners, operators, and/or occupants of the Site, and/or local officials;
• Review of environmental databases and regulatory agency records;
• Review of previous environmental reports/documentation, as applicable;
• Review of environmental liens, if provided or authorized to obtain by the User; and
• Preparation of a report summarizing findings, opinions, and conclusions.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 3
1.2 Additional Services
Items outside the scope of the ASTM E 1527-13 standard include but are not limited to the following:
• Asbestos-containing building materials
• Radon
• Lead-based paint
• Lead in drinking water
• Wetlands
• Regulatory compliance
• Cultural and historic resources
• Industrial hygiene
• Health and safety
• Ecological resources
• Endangered species
• Indoor air quality unrelated to releases of hazardous substances or petroleum
products into the environment
• Biological agents
• Mold
No additional services were performed outside the scope of the ASTM E 1527-13 standard.
1.3 Deviations to ASTM E 1527-13 Standard
No significant deviations or deletions to the ASTM standard were made during this Phase I ESA.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 4
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location and Legal Description
The approximately 95-acre Site is located at the northwestern corner of County Road 346 in Silt, Garfield County, Colorado, 81652, in a rural agricultural use area. The Site is described by the Garfield tax assessor as consisting of three partial parcels numbered 217918100691, 217917200710, and 217917300732, is zoned as agricultural, and is currently owned by Eagle Springs Organics, LLC. A Site location map is included as Figure 1.
2.2 Site Improvements
Current on-Site improvements are listed in the following table. A Site layout plan is included as Figure 2. Table 2.1 - Site Improvements
Site Feature Description
Buildings (stories) N/A
Construction date(s) N/A
Exterior areas Vegetated
On-Site roads/rail lines N/A
Other large equipment N/A
Potable water supply Water is supplied by on-site water wells
Sewage disposal system(s) N/A
Stormwater system Stormwater was observed to be collected in a series of ducts located throughout the Site. Heating/cooling system fuel source(s) N/A
Back-up fuel source(s) N/A
Electricity supplier(s) N/A
2.3 Current and Historic Site Use
2.3.1 Current Site Use(s)
The Site is currently operated by Eagle Organics LLC for agricultural purposes.
2.3.2 Previous Owner and Operator Information
Based on information provided by the User (Section 3.0), the historical record review (Section 4.0), and/or interviews conducted during this Phase I ESA (Section 5.0), historic Site ownership and operator information are provided in the tables below.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 5
Table 2.2 - Previous Owner Information
Site Owner From To
Eagle Springs Organics, LLC 3/25/2011 Present Szczelina Stanislaw Unknown 3/25/2011 Andrze J Obrochta 5/9/2003 Unknown Joseph Weinreis 8/15/2002 9/20/2002 Andrze J Obrochta Unknown 8/15/2002
2.4 Physical Setting
According to the United States Geological Survey, 2016, 7.5-Minute Topographic Map for Gibson
Gulch, Colorado (refer to Figure 1), the Site is located approximately 250 feet to the South from Last Chance Ditch, the Site topographic elevation is approximately 5,602 feet above mean sea level, and local topography slopes to the North Northwest. The topographic downward slope observed at the Site during the Site reconnaissance is generally toward the Northwest. Based on local topography and historical environmental reports provided to TRC, as applicable, the assumed direction of shallow groundwater flow is to the northwest, toward the Colorado River. However, a subsurface investigation would be required to determine actual groundwater flow direction. The database radius report, supplied by Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) of Toronto, Onterio was reviewed to obtain information regarding the dominant soil composition in the Site vicinity. This information is summarized below: Drainage Status: Well drained Soil Surface Texture: Loam Soil Component Name: Potts Loam Deeper Soil Types: Loam, clay loam, and loam Please refer to the Geocheck Physical Setting Source Summary of the ERIS report presented in Appendix A for further information regarding the soil composition in the Site vicinity. According to ERIS, the Site is not located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency Special Flood Hazard Area (1% a.k.a 100-year flood zone).
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 6
3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
According to the ASTM E 1527-13 standard, certain tasks that may help identify the presence of RECs associated with the Site are generally conducted by the Phase I ESA User. These tasks include providing or authorizing the environmental professional to obtain recorded land title records for environmental liens or activity and use limitations (AULs); providing specialized knowledge related to RECs at the Site (e.g., information about previous ownership or environmental litigation); providing commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information within the local community about the property that is material to RECs in connection with the property; and informing the environmental professional if, as believed by the User, the purchase price of the property is lower than the fair market value due to contamination. Information provided by the User is listed below. A copy of the User questionnaire is included in Appendix B.
• The user was not aware of any environmental liens or activity use limitations (AULs) in
relation to the SIte.
• The user identified that the purchase price reasonably reflected the fair market value of
the property.
• The user was not aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information
regarding the SIte.
• The user was not aware of any contamination in relation to the Site.
• The user identified a previous geotechnical study and risk assessment had been
conducted. Copies were not provided.
3.1 Title and Judicial Records for Environmental Liens or AULs
The User has not provided TRC with information associated with a review of title and judicial records for environmental liens or AULs associated with the Site and may remain as a User requirement to satisfy All Appropriate Inquiries.
3.2 Specialized Knowledge
The User was not aware of specialized knowledge related to RECs at the Site.
3.3 Property Value Reduction Issues
The User was not aware of property valuation reduction issues regarding the Site.
3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information
The User did not provide commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information to TRC.
3.5 Reason for Conducting a Phase I ESA
TRC understands the User requires a Phase I ESA for their planned business transaction involving the Site/updating the environmental condition of the Site.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 7
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 8
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
4.1 Historic Use Information
Information regarding Site and vicinity historic uses was obtained from various publicly available and practically reviewable sources including:
• Aerial photographs (scale: 1 inch = 500 feet) dated 1937, 1948, 1957, 1960, 1968, 1979, 1982, 1993, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2021;
• Topographic maps dated 1962, 1982, 1987, 2013, 2016, and 2019;
• Local municipal records;
• An environmental database report; and
• Interviews with Site representatives and regulatory agency officials, as necessary. Historical research documentation is included in Appendix C. Sanborn Maps were originally produced for assessing fire insurance liability in urban areas in the United States. The maps provide detailed information (e.g., building construction, facility occupants, storage tank locations, and hazardous material storage areas), which can be used as a resource to document land use and structural change over time. ERIS researched the availability of Sanborn Maps in the vicinity of the Site; however, ERIS stated that Sanborn Map coverage does not exist for the Site or nearby surrounding area.
4.1.1 Site History
Operational History Table 4.1 - Site History
Year Site History
From at least 1937 to at least 2009
According to the 1937 aerial photograph, the Site is depicted as open, vacant land the Site appeared to be utilized for agricultural purposes with scattered unpaved roads throughout the Site.
From at least 2009 to Present
In the 2009 aerial photograph, a small structure was observed in the central portion of the Site and increased roadways are depicted throughout the Site. The Site appears to be at or near its current construction/configuration.
It does not appear that topographic contours in the Site area have significantly changed during the time period reviewed. If significant changes had been noted, it could indicate significant filling or excavation activity.
4.1.2 Adjoining Property History
Table 4.2 - Adjoining Property History
Direction from Site Adjoining Property History
North From at least 1937, the north adjacent property was depicted as vacant, open land with no structures present. By 1948, the property had established roadways with a large bare ground area and scattered dwellings observed. By 2005, increased residential buildings
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 9
Table 4.2 - Adjoining Property History
Direction from Site Adjoining Property History
were observed and in 2009 a large structure with materials as well as oil and gas operations were observed. The property appeared primarily unchanged through the present.
East
From at least 1937, the east adjacent property was depicted as open, vacant land utilized for agricultural purposes. By 2009, a well pad associated with oil and gas operations was observed. By 2013 a solar field was observed along with an additional well pad along the northern portion of the adjoining property. The property appeared primarily unchanged through the present.
South From at least 1937, the south adjacent property was depicted as open, vacant land with an established roadway and creek was observed. By 2015, scattered dwellings was observed, the property appeared primarily unchanged through the present.
West
From at least 1937, the west adjacent property is depicted as open, vacant land with unpaved access roads. By 1993, scattered structures were observed. By 2009, a well pad associated with oil and gas operations was observed in addition to a large structure located in the southern portion of the adjoining property. Increased development surrounding the large structure continued through the present with the addition of smaller structures and access roadways. The property appeared primarily unchanged through the present.
4.1.3 Surrounding Property History
Table 4.3 - Surrounding Property History
Direction from Site Surrounding Property History
North
From at least 1937, the north surrounding area is depicted as vacant, open land with scattered roads and dwellings. By 1979, an established three lane highway was observed residential development had increased, and agricultural land was present. The area appeared primarily unchanged through 2021, the date of the most recent aerial photograph provided.
East From at least 1937, the east surrounding area is depicted as vacant, open land with scattered roads, and dwellings utilized for agricultural purposes. The area appeared primarily unchanged through 2021, the date of the most recent aerial photograph provided.
South From at least 1937, the south surrounding area is depicted as vacant, open land with scattered roads, creeks and dwellings. The area appeared primarily unchanged through 2021, the date of the most recent aerial photograph provided.
West
From at least 1937, the west surrounding area is depicted as vacant, open land with scattered roads, creeks and dwellings. By 1982, the area appeared to be an airport with established runways. The area appeared primarily unchanged through 2021, the date of the most recent aerial.
4.2 Database Report and Environmental Record Review
A database search report that identifies properties listed on state and federal databases within the ASTM-required radii of the Site was obtained from ERIS and is included in Appendix A. The environmental database report identified no records/listings for the Site and two records/listings for other properties within the search radii of the Site. These properties included those that could be mapped and those that could not (i.e., orphan properties).
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 10
4.2.1 Subject Site
No Site information was included in the database search report. TRC notes that four water wells were identified on the Site based on information provided by ERIS.
4.2.2 Adjoining and Surrounding Property Record Review
TRC evaluated the following factors to determine whether additional environmental records should be reviewed with respect to the potential for contaminant migration from the adjoining and surrounding properties: (1) Whether the property is upgradient or downgradient of the Site related to potential groundwater migration based on the local topography, and the assumed (or known) groundwater depth and northwest shallow groundwater flow direction; (2) Whether the property is upgradient or downgradient of the Site related to potential vapor migration based on readily available information pursuant to the ASTM E 1527-13 standard including soil and geological characteristics; contaminant characteristics; contaminated plume migration data; and significant conduits that might provide preferential pathways for vapor migration such as major utility corridors, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and significant natural conduits such as Karst terrain (vapor migration may also be influenced by the age and design of infrastructure features associated with these conduits); (3) Property case status (i.e., whether the state environmental agency or applicable regulatory authority has issued a No Further Action letter or other similar closure document); (4) Type of database and whether the presence of contamination is known; and (5) The distance between the listed property and the Site. Based on this evaluation, TRC limited the review of additional environmental records to the properties listed below because these properties are considered to have low potential for contamination to migrate to the Site.
4.2.2.1 Adjoining Properties
Information regarding adjoining properties (those which share a common property boundary with the Site) included in the database search report is summarized in the following tables:
Facility Name(s) and/or Listed Address(es) Eagle Springs Solar LLC, 5454 County Road 346
Map No(s). 1
Approximate Location Relative to Site 75 feet, North Northeast
Presumed Hydrogeologic Setting Downgradient
Database(s) FINDS, FRS, ICIS
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 11
Description/ID No(s) 110070397909
Database Review Summary This facility has a registered electric generator associated with this facility. No compliance violations were found.
Facility Name(s) and/or Listed Address(es) 4845 County Road 346
Map No(s). 2
Approximate Location Relative to Site 600 feet, North
Presumed Hydrogeologic Setting Downgradient
Database(s) SPILLS
Description/ID No(s) 2010-0385
Database Review Summary Approximately 25-gallons of paraffin wax was found to have been released in a gravel pit no further information was provided.
Based on the above listing(s), no information regarding a significant release at the adjoining properties was noted. Therefore, no subsequent file review of these properties was conducted.
4.2.2.2 Surrounding Properties
No information regarding surrounding properties (those within the general vicinity of the Site) were included in the database search.
4.3 Vapor Encroachment Evaluation
In addition to the ERIS-provided database and Site reconnaissance observations, TRC conducted a vapor encroachment screening as part of this Phase I ESA to evaluate the setting of the Site. Potential vapor encroachment conditions were not identified for the Site including the Site itself and the adjacent properties described above. The database report is included in Appendix A.
4.4 Title and Judicial Records for Environmental Liens or AULs
User-provided information regarding potential environmental concerns associated with title or judicial records, or the existence of environmental liens or AULs for the Site is discussed in Section 3.0. Completion of an additional title and judicial record search was beyond the scope of this Phase I ESA, was not requested by the User, and remains a User requirement.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 12
4.5 Previous Reports
TRC was not provided previous environmental reports for the Site to review.
4.6 Other Environmental Record Sources
Per the ASTM standard, local or additional state records were reviewed to enhance and supplement the ASTM-required federal and state records reviewed and discussed earlier in this report. These additional records include state agency lists of waste disposal facilities, Brownfield properties, hazardous waste/contaminated facilities, registered storage tanks, records of emergency release reports, and records of contaminated public wells. Local sources that were contacted to obtain this information include the Department of Health/Environmental Division; Fire Department, and county clerk recorder’s office; Information from these sources is discussed below: Table 4.4 - Other Environmental Record Sources
Regulatory Agency/ Department Available Information
Colorado department of Public Health and Environment- Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division (CDPHE-HMWMD)
No records were found associated with the Site.
Colorado department of Labor and Employment- Oil and Public Safety (CDLE-OPS) No records were found associated with the Site.
Station 43 Fire Department A response was not received within the timeframe of this report.
Garfield County Assessor’s Office General parcel data was obtained including owner and deed information
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 13
5.0 INTERVIEWS
The following persons were interviewed to obtain historically and/or environmentally pertinent information regarding RECs associated with the Site. The information provided by each is discussed and referenced throughout this report. Interview documentation is included in Appendix D.
• Ken Sack, Owner of the Site – Key Site Manager (as defined by the ASTM standard and identified by the property owner/User), was interviewed on October 19, 2022;
The information provided by each is discussed and is provided below. Other references and sources of information are included in Appendix D. Mr. Sack identified the primary use of the Site as agricultural. Mr. Sack identified a previous environmental investigation had been completed approximately ten years ago with no findings associated with the Site. Copies were unavailable. Mr. Sack did not have a need and was not required to maintain air permits, stormwater permits, or waste treatment permits for the SIte. No ASTs, USTs, or pipelines containing petroleum were identified as being located on Site.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 14
6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
6.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
Blake Robinson, Junior Geologist with TRC conducted a Site reconnaissance of accessible areas on and around the Site on 10/12/2022 for the purpose of identifying potential RECs and was not accompanied by a Site representative. Photographs taken during the Site reconnaissance are provided in Appendix E. A Site layout plan is included as Figure 2. No limiting conditions were encountered during the Site visit.
6.2 Interior and Exterior Site Observations
Unless otherwise noted, the items listed in the table below appeared in good condition with no visual evidence of staining, deterioration, or a discharge of hazardous materials; and there are no records of a release in these areas. Items where further description is warranted are discussed in the section(s) following the table. Table 6.1 - Interior and Exterior Site Observations
Item
Present (Current/ Historic/ Not Observed)
Description
Hazardous material storage or handling areas Not Observed See Section 6.2.1.
Solid and liquid wastes including municipal wastes Not Observed See Section 6.2.2.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and associated piping Not Observed See Section 6.2.3.
Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) and associated piping Not Observed See Section 6.2.4.
Unlabeled Drums and containers (≥5 gallons) Not Observed
Odors Not Observed Pools of liquid, including surface water bodies and sumps (handling hazardous substances or substances likely to be hazardous only)
Not Observed
PCBs/transformers Not Observed Hydraulic equipment Not Observed Stains or corrosion Not Observed
Drains and sumps Not Observed Oil water separator Not Observed Pits, ponds, and lagoons Not Observed
Stressed vegetation Not Observed Historic fill or other fill material Not Observed Wastewater (including stormwater or discharge into a drain, ditch, underground injection system, or stream on or adjacent to the Site)
Not Observed
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 15
Table 6.1 - Interior and Exterior Site Observations
Item
Present (Current/ Historic/ Not Observed)
Description
Wells (including dry wells, irrigation wells, injection wells, abandoned wells, oil and gas wells, or other wells)
Not Observed
Septic systems or cesspools Not Observed Debris piles Not Observed
6.2.1 Hazardous Substances
No hazardous substances including raw materials, finished products and formulations, hazardous wastes, hazardous constituents and pollutants including intermediates and byproducts were found to be currently present at the Site.
6.2.2 Solid and Liquid Wastes
No solid and liquid wastes were observed during the Site reconnaissance. According to facility representatives, the Site does not generate any hazardous waste.
6.2.3 USTs
No USTs were identified by the Key Site Manager or observed during the Site visit.
6.2.4 ASTs
No ASTs were identified by the Key Site Manager or observed during the Site visit.
6.2.5 Adjoining Properties
During the Site reconnaissance, TRC viewed the adjoining properties from the Site and publicly accessible areas (e.g., public roadways, etc.). Table 6.2 - Adjoining Properties Reconnaissance
Direction from Site Current Land Use Description
North Three (3) separate Oil and Gas well pads with storage tanks. East One (1) Oil and Gas well pad with storage tanks and Agricultural fields
South Native landscape West Native landscape / Airport
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 16
6.2.6 Surrounding Properties
Surrounding properties generally include open vacant land utilized for agricultural purposes and scattered residential properties.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 17
7.0 FINDINGS, OPINIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS
Potential findings can include RECs, controlled RECs (CRECs), historical RECs (HRECs), and
de minimis conditions, pursuant to the ASTM E 1527-13 standard. RECs are defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. CRECs are defined as RECs resulting from past releases of hazardous substances or petroleum products that have been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum
products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (e.g., property use restrictions, AULs, institutional controls, or engineering controls). HRECs are defined as past releases of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that have occurred in connection with the property and have been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, AULs, institutional controls, or engineering controls). De minimis conditions are defined as conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis conditions are not RECs nor CRECs. TRC has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM E 1527-13 at the property located at the northwestern corner of County Road 346 in Silt, Garfield County, Colorado, 81652 (Site). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Sections 1.3 and 7.7 of this report. The following conditions were noted during the preparation of this report. TRC has provided the Environmental Professional’s rationale for concluding that a condition is or is not currently a REC.
7.1 RECs
This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the Site.
7.2 CRECs
This assessment has revealed no evidence of CRECs in connection with the Site.
7.3 HRECs
This assessment has revealed no evidence of HRECs in connection with the Site.
7.4 De Minimis Conditions
This assessment has revealed no evidence of de minimis conditions in connection with the Site.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 18
7.5 Business Environmental Risks (BERs)
The following BERs, which do not fall within the definition of a REC, have been identified during the course of this Phase I ESA and could potentially have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of the Site: 3. The Site is located in an area of natural gas, oil production including on-Site and off-Site production wells within a mile of the Site in addition to the presence of natural gas, oil gathering, and transmission pipelines on-Site and within close proximity to the Site.
4. The Site was used for agricultural purposes prior to 1937, during which herbicides and pesticides may have been used. No structures or orchards were identified on the Site during this time through the review of historical sources and interviews with the Site contacts and prior owners. Given that no storage structures or spills were historically identified on the Site related to herbicides and pesticides, TRC presumes that the amount of these substances administered on the Site would have been at “application” concentrations, if any. TRC cannot rule out the possibility of historic herbicide and pesticide use but given the information provided to TRC for this assessment, the Site does not appear likely to have been impacted by releases of herbicides and pesticides. Additional information that varies significantly from the sources provided to TRC may affect the conclusions of this assessment.
7.6 Data Gaps
TRC has made an appropriate inquiry into the commonly known and reasonably ascertainable resources concerning the historic ownership and use of the Site back to the first development per 40 CFR Part 312.24 (Reviews of Historical Sources of Information). No data gaps were identified during this assessment.
7.7 Limiting Conditions and Deviations
7.7.1 Accuracy and Completeness
The ASTM E 1527-13 standard recognizes inherent limitations for Phase I ESAs that apply to this report, including:
• Uncertainty Not Eliminated – No Phase I ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs in connection with a property. Data gaps identified during this Phase I ESA are listed in Section 7.6.
• Not Exhaustive – A Phase I ESA is not an exhaustive investigation.
• Past Uses of the Property – A review of standard historical sources at intervals less than 5 years is not required. The Client is advised that the Phase I ESA conducted at the Site is a limited inquiry into a property’s environmental status, cannot wholly eliminate uncertainty, and is not an exhaustive assessment to discover every potential source of environmental liability at the Site. Therefore, TRC does not make a statement i) of warranty or guarantee, express or implied for any specific
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 19
use; ii) that the Site is free of RECs or environmental impairment; iii) that the Site is “clean;” or iv) that impairments, if any, are limited to those that were discovered while TRC was performing the Phase I ESA. This limiting statement is not meant to compromise the findings of this report; rather, it is meant as a statement of limitations within the ASTM standard and intended scope of this assessment. Specific limiting conditions identified during the Site reconnaissance are described in Section 6.1. Subsurface conditions may differ from the conditions implied by surface observations and can be evaluated more thoroughly through intrusive techniques that are beyond the scope of this assessment. Information in this report is not intended to be used as a construction document and should not be used for demolition, renovation, or other construction purposes. This report presents TRC’s Site reconnaissance observations, findings, and conclusions as they existed at the time of the Site reconnaissance. TRC makes no representation or warranty that the past or current operations at the property are or have been in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and codes. TRC makes no guarantees as to the accuracy or completeness of information obtained from others during the course of this Phase I ESA report. It is possible that information exists beyond the scope of this assessment, or that information was not provided to TRC. Additional information subsequently provided, discovered, or produced may alter findings or conclusions made in this Phase I ESA report. TRC is under no obligation to update this report to reflect such subsequent information. The findings presented in this report are based upon reasonably ascertainable information and observed Site conditions at the time of the assessment. This report does not warrant against future operations or conditions, nor does it warrant against operations or conditions present of a type or at a location not assessed. Regardless of the findings stated in this report, TRC is not responsible for consequences or conditions arising from facts that were not fully disclosed to TRC during the assessment. An independent data research company provided the government agency database referenced in this report. Information regarding surrounding area properties was requested for approximate minimum search distances and was assumed to be correct and complete unless obviously contradicted by TRC’s observations or other credible referenced sources reviewed during the assessment. TRC is not a professional title insurance or land surveyor firm and makes no guarantee, explicit or implied, that any land title records acquired or reviewed, or any physical descriptions or depictions of the property in this report, represent a comprehensive definition or precise delineation of property ownership or boundaries.
7.7.2 Warranties and Representations
TRC prepared this document solely for the benefit of the Client and the User. With regard to third-party recipients of this document, neither TRC, nor the Client, nor the User, nor any of their respective parents, affiliates, or subsidiaries, nor any person acting on their behalf: (a) makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the use of any information or methods disclosed in this document; or (b) assumes any liability with respect to the use of any information or methods disclosed in this document. Any third-party recipient of this document, by its acceptance or use of
this document, releases TRC, the Client, the User, and their parents, affiliates, and subsidiaries from any liability for direct, indirect, economic, incidental, consequential, or special loss or damage whether arising in contract, warranty, express or implied, tort, or otherwise, and irrespective of fault, negligence, and strict liability.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 20
This report does not warrant against: (1) operations or conditions which were not evident from visual observations or historical information provided; (2) conditions which could only be determined by physical sampling or other intrusive investigation techniques; (3) locations other than the client-provided addresses and/or legal parcel description; or (4) information regarding off-Site location(s) (with possible impact to the Site) not published in publicly available records.
7.7.3 Continued Validity/User Reliance
This report is presumed to be valid, in accordance with, and subject to, the limitations specified in the ASTM E 1527-13 standard, for a period of 180 days from completion, or until the Client obtains specific information that may materially alter a finding, opinion, or conclusion in this report, or until the Client is notified by TRC that it has obtained specific information that may materially alter a finding, opinion, or conclusion in this report. Additionally, pursuant to the ASTM E 1527-13 standard, this report is presumed valid if completed fewer than 180 days prior to the date of acquisition of the property or (for transactions not involving an acquisition) the date of the intended transaction.
7.7.4 Significant Assumptions
During this Phase I ESA, TRC relied on database information; interviews with Site representatives, regulatory officials, and other individuals having knowledge of Site operations; and User-provided information as requested in our authorized Scope of Work. TRC has assumed that the information provided is true and accurate. Reliance on electronic database search reports is subject to the limitations set forth in those reports. TRC did not independently verify the information provided. TRC found no reason to question the validity of the information received unless explicitly noted elsewhere in this report. If other information is discovered and/or if previous reports exist that were not provided to TRC, our conclusions may not be valid.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 21
8.0 REFERENCES
Table 8.1 - Reference Information
Description/Title of Document(s) Received or Agency Contacted
Date Information Request Filled/Date of Agency Contact
Information Updated Reference Source
Regulatory database search and historical sources discussed herein
October 14, 2022 N/A ERIS Inquiry Number: 22101200513
Interview with User October 18, 2022 N/A Requested
Station 43 Fire Department October 13, 2022 N/A https://crfr.colorado.gov/
CDPHE-HMWMD October 13, 2022 N/A Online Database CDPHE-HMWMD
CDLE-OPS October 13, 2022 N/A Online Database CDLE-OPS Garfield County Assessors Office October 13, 2022 N/A Garfield County Database
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022
495288.0000.0000 22
9.0 NON-SCOPE ITEMS
This Phase I ESA report was limited to those items in the ASTM E 1527-13 standard. No ASTM E 1527-13 non-scope services were performed as part of this Phase I ESA.
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022 495288.0000.0000
FIGURES
COLORADO
WY NE
UT
NM
KS
TXAZ
SITE LOCATION
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:PROJ. NO.:
FILE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
AES_CLEAN_ENERGYCOORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 2011 STATEPLANE COLORADO NORTH FIPS 0501 FT US; MAP ROTATION: 0 -- SAVED BY: JBYRD ON 10/19/2022, 15:24:50 PM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\495288_AES_CLEAN_ENERGY_SILT_CO\2-APRX\AES_CLEAN_ENERGY.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: SITE LOCATIONOCTOBER 2022
1526 COLE BOULEVARDBUILDING 3, SUITE 150LAKEWOOD, CO 80401PHONE: 303.792.0122
F
1:500,000 1" = 41,667'
01,0002,000
FEET
BASE MAP: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE SERIESDATA SOURCES: TRC
K. ELDREDGE
B. LEE
J. BYRD
FIGURE 1
495288.0000.0000
SITE LOCATION MAP
EAGLE SPRINGS SOLAR SITE
AES CLEAN ENERGY
SILT, CO
COLORADO
NM
WY
UT
NE
KS
TXAZ
Co
u
nty
Road
346
County Road 346
94
Mamm
C
re
e
k
R
d
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
ad352La st Ch an c eDitch70
County Road
3
4
6
County R oad
3
4
6
Mu lta Tr inaDitchE agle
S
prings Ranch
R
d
Mam
m
C
r
e
e
k
R
d
SITE LOCATION
DATE:
APPROVED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DRAWN BY:PROJ. NO.:
FILE:
TITLE:
PROJECT:
AES_CLEAN_ENERGYCOORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 2011 STATEPLANE COLORADO NORTH FIPS 0501 FT US; MAP ROTATION: 0 -- SAVED BY: JBYRD ON 10/19/2022, 15:24:50 PM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\495288_AES_CLEAN_ENERGY_SILT_CO\2-APRX\AES_CLEAN_ENERGY.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: SITE LAYOUTOCTOBER 2022
1526 COLE BOULEVARDBUILDING 3, SUITE 150LAKEWOOD, CO 80401PHONE: 303.792.0122
F
1:8,400 1" = 700'
0 300 600
FEET
BASE MAP: WORLD IMAGERYDATA SOURCES: TRC
K. ELDREDGE
B. LEE
J. BYRD
FIGURE 2
495288.0000.0000
SITE LAYOUT MAP
EAGLE SPRINGS SOLAR SITE
AES CLEAN ENERGY
SILT, CO
Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022 495288.0000.0000
Appendix A: Database Radius Report