The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.00 General Application Materials_Part 7Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022 495288.0000.0000 Appendix D: Other Reference Information Gareld County, CO View Map EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC LLC PO BOX 351 RIFLE CO 81650 Assessed Year 2022 2021 2020 Land Actual $10,800.00 $10,800.00 $15,100.00 Improvement Actual $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Actual $10,800.00 $10,800.00 $15,100.00 Assessed Year 2022 2021 2020 Land Assessed $2,850.00 $3,130.00 $4,380.00 Improvement Assessed $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Assessed $2,850.00 $3,130.00 $4,380.00 Tax Year 2021 2020 2019 2018 Taxes Billed $231.28 $293.88 $276.68 $429.28 Click here to view the tax information for this parcel on the Gareld County Treasurer's website. Sale Date Deed Type Reception Number Book - Page Sale Price 11/17/2012 Right Of Way Easement 828871 $0 3/25/2011 Warranty Deed 800705 $168,000 Grantor:SZCZELINA, STANISLAW; SZCZELINA, MARIE Grantee:EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC LLC 6/27/2007 EASEMENT 726646 1942-657 $0 6/18/2007 RIGHT OF WAY 726036 1940-0200 $0 4/3/2006 EASEMENT 695573 1787-334 $0 5/9/2003 EASEMENT 627540 1470-789 $0 5/9/2003 DEED 627168 1468-802 $0 Grantor:WEINREIS, JOSEPH & VELMA Grantee:OBROCHTA, ANDRZEJ J & BERNEICE 9/20/2002 WARRANTY DEED 611153 1388-917 $530,000 Grantor:WEINREIS, JOSEPH & VELMA Grantee:OBROCHTA, ANDRZEJ J & BERNEICE 8/15/2002 QUIT CLAIM DEED 616289 1415-310 $0 Summary Account R040850 Parcel 217918100691 Property Address , SILT, CO 81652 Legal Description Section: 18 Township: 6 Range: 92 A TR OF LAND SITUATED IN SEC 18 Acres 35.149 Land SqFt 0 Tax Area 23 Mill Levy 73.8920 Subdivision Owner Land Unit Type IRRIGATED LAND-AGRICLTRL. - 4117 (AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY) Square Feet 0 Unit Type GRAZING LAND-AGRICULTURAL - 4147 (AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY) Square Feet 0 Actual Values Assessed Values Tax History Transfers Grantor:OBROCHTA, ANDRZEJ J & BERNEICE Grantee:WEINREIS, JOSEPH & VELMA 2/8/2001 WARRANTY DEED 575901 1231-38 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 5/26/1994 Deeds 0903-0802 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 4/18/1990 QUIT CLAIM DEED 0781-0150 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 1/1/1900 Deeds 961-207 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 1/1/1900 Deeds 903-150 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 1/1/1900 Deeds 850-652 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 1/1/1900 Deeds 781-150 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 643-671 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 642-484 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 538-524 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 487-495 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 443-291 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 443-192 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 440-469 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 438-532 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 401-45 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 280-108 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 221-149 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 1531-391 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 1441-16 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 1434-279 $0 1/1/1900 Deeds 1432-61 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 1/1/1900 Deeds 1391-251 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 1/1/1900 Deeds 1362-291 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 1/1/1900 Deeds 1357-351 $0 Grantor: Grantee: 1/1/1900 Deeds 1340-103 $0 Grantor: Grantee: Click here to view Property Related Public Documents No data available for the following modules: Buildings, Photos, Sketches. Property Related Public Documents Version 2.3.225 The Gareld County Assessor's Ofce makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use or interpretation. Data is subject to constant change and its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. User Privacy Policy GDPR Privacy Notice Last Data Upload: 10/12/2022, 10:05:15 PM Developed by Gareld County, CO View Map EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC LLC PO BOX 351 RIFLE CO 81650 Assessed Year 2022 2021 2020 Land Actual $10,790.00 $10,790.00 $15,080.00 Improvement Actual $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Actual $10,790.00 $10,790.00 $15,080.00 Assessed Year 2022 2021 2020 Land Assessed $2,850.00 $3,130.00 $4,370.00 Improvement Assessed $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Assessed $2,850.00 $3,130.00 $4,370.00 Tax Year 2021 2020 2019 2018 Taxes Billed $231.28 $293.20 $276.04 $428.64 Click here to view the tax information for this parcel on the Gareld County Treasurer's website. Sale Date Deed Type Reception Number Book - Page Sale Price 1/10/2016 AGREEMENT 892256 $0 3/2/2015 EASEMENT 859925 $0 12/16/2014 EASEMENT 857779 $0 6/6/2013 Right Of Way Easement 837118 $0 3/25/2011 WARRANTY DEED 800706 $218,000 4/21/2009 EASEMENT 767040 $0 4/15/2004 WARRANTY DEED 651634 1585-331 $0 4/15/2004 WARRANTY DEED 650306 1578-334 $139,000 4/15/2004 EASEMENT 650305 1578-332 $0 10/21/2003 WARRANTY DEED 639143 1531-391 $0 5/9/2003 EASEMENT 627540 1470-789 $0 5/9/2003 DEED 627168 1468-802 $0 4/29/2003 WARRANTY DEED 626358 1464-279 $0 2/26/2003 Death Certicate 621750 1441-16 $0 1/29/2003 WARRANTY DEED 619734 1432-61 $0 9/24/2002 POWER OF ATTORNEY 611644 1391-251 $0 9/20/2002 WARRANTY DEED 611153 1388-917 $530,000 6/11/2002 CORRECTION WARRANTY DEED 605125 1362-291 $0 5/21/2002 WARRANTY DEED 604020 1357-351 $0 3/25/2002 RESOLUTION 599798 1340-103 $0 Summary Account R041534 Parcel 217917200710 Property Address , SILT, CO 81652 Legal Description Section: 17 Township: 6 Range: 92 A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN SECTION 17 AND 18 CONTAINING 35.11 ACRES Acres 35.11 Land SqFt 0 Tax Area 23 Mill Levy 73.8920 Subdivision Owner Land Unit Type IRRIGATED LAND-AGRICLTRL. - 4117 (AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY) Square Feet 0 Actual Values Assessed Values Tax History Transfers 2/8/2001 WARRANTY DEED 575901 1231-38 $0 5/26/1994 WARRANTY DEED 463774 0903-0802 $94,800 4/19/1994 EASEMENT 463476 903-150 $0 12/9/1992 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED 442483 850-652 $0 4/18/1990 QUIT CLAIM DEED 413443 0781-0150 $89,700 4/13/1990 QUIT CLAIM DEED 413443 781-150 $0 9/7/1982 WARRANTY DEED 349475 643-671 $0 9/7/1982 WARRANTY DEED 349042 642-484 $0 10/24/1979 WARRANTY DEED 298981 538-532 $0 10/24/1979 WARRANTY DEED 298979 538-524 $0 8/5/1976 EASEMENT 273845 487-495 $0 4/12/1973 Right Of Way Easement 257845 443-192 $0 4/9/1973 WARRANTY DEED 257905 443-291 $0 1/30/1973 WARRANTY DEED 256985 440-469 $0 4/7/1969 WARRANTY DEED 243127 401-45 $0 9/21/1954 Mineral Deed (1)187295 280-108 $0 12/30/1943 WARRANTY DEED 158700 221-149 $0 Click here to view Property Related Public Documents No data available for the following modules: Buildings, Photos, Sketches. Property Related Public Documents Version 2.3.226 The Gareld County Assessor's Ofce makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use or interpretation. Data is subject to constant change and its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. User Privacy Policy GDPR Privacy Notice Last Data Upload: 10/12/2022, 10:05:15 PM Developed by Gareld County, CO View Map EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC, LLC PO BOX 351 RIFLE CO 81650 Assessed Year 2022 2021 2020 Land Actual $59,900.00 $59,900.00 $82,700.00 Improvement Actual $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Actual $59,900.00 $59,900.00 $82,700.00 Assessed Year 2022 2021 2020 Land Assessed $15,810.00 $17,370.00 $23,990.00 Improvement Assessed $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Assessed $15,810.00 $17,370.00 $23,990.00 Tax Year 2021 2020 2019 2018 Taxes Billed $1,283.52 $1,609.52 $1,515.36 $2,327.80 Click here to view the tax information for this parcel on the Gareld County Treasurer's website. Sale Date Deed Type Reception Number Book - Page Sale Price 2/17/2017 RIGHT OF WAY 889359 $0 1/10/2016 AGREEMENT 892256 $0 12/16/2014 EASEMENT 857779 $0 Summary Account R082688 Parcel 217917300732 Property Address , SILT, CO 81652 Legal Description Quarter: SW Section: 17 Township: 6 Range: 92 A TR OF LAND IN THE SW & NWSE & S2SE Section: 18 Township: 6 Range: 92 A TR OF LAND IN THE NESE Section: 20 Township: 6 Range: 92 A TR OF LAND IN THE SENE & NESE Acres 230.24 Land SqFt 0 Tax Area 23 Mill Levy 73.8920 Subdivision Owner Land Unit Type IRRIGATED LAND-AGRICLTRL. - 4117 (AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY) Square Feet 0 Unit Type SPRINKLER IRRIGATED LAND-AG - 4107 (AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY) Square Feet 0 Unit Type GRAZING LAND-AGRICULTURAL - 4147 (AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY) Square Feet 0 Actual Values Assessed Values Tax History Transfers 6/28/2010 WARRANTY DEED 787615 $856,000 6/14/2010 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT 787614 $0 4/19/2010 Pipeline Right Of Way Easement 787550 $0 3/23/2010 QUIT CLAIM DEED 784049 $0 3/23/2010 QUIT CLAIM DEED 784047 $0 3/16/2010 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT 784048 $0 3/16/2010 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT 784046 $0 6/11/2008 EASEMENT 754441 $0 3/28/2006 QUIT CLAIM DEED 694982 1784-439 $0 3/28/2006 WARRANTY DEED 694981 1784-431 $1,300,000 3/22/2006 QUIT CLAIM DEED 694644 1782-837 $0 3/22/2005 AGREEMENT 673039 1682-607 $0 2/27/2004 EASEMENT 648862 1571-311 $0 10/21/2003 WARRANTY DEED 639143 1531-391 $0 5/9/2003 EASEMENT 627540 1470-789 $0 5/9/2003 DEED 627168 1468-802 $0 2/26/2003 WARRANTY DEED 621750 1441-16 $0 1/29/2003 WARRANTY DEED 619734 1432-61 $0 12/31/2002 NOTICE 620219 1434-279 $0 9/24/2002 POWER OF ATTORNEY 611644 1391-251 $0 9/20/2002 WARRANTY DEED 611153 1388-917 $530,000 8/15/2002 QUIT CLAIM DEED 616289 1415-310 $0 6/11/2002 CORRECTION WARRANTY DEED 605125 1362-291 $0 5/21/2002 WARRANTY DEED 604020 1357-351 $0 3/25/2002 RESOLUTION 599798 1340-103 $0 2/8/2001 WARRANTY DEED 575901 1231-38 $0 12/15/1995 Plat 486469 961-207 $0 5/26/1994 WARRANTY DEED 463774 0903-0802 $94,800 4/19/1994 EASEMENT 463476 903-150 $0 12/9/1992 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED 442483 850-652 $0 4/13/1990 QUIT CLAIM DEED 413443 781-150 $0 4/13/1990 QUIT CLAIM DEED 413443 0781-0150 $89,700 9/7/1982 WARRANTY DEED 349475 643-671 $0 9/7/1982 WARRANTY DEED 349042 642-484 $0 10/24/1979 WARRANTY DEED 298979 538-524 $0 7/7/1976 EASEMENT 273845 487-495 $0 4/20/1973 WARRANTY DEED 257905 443-291 $0 4/18/1973 EASEMENT 257845 443-192 $0 1/30/1973 WARRANTY DEED 256985 440-469 $0 12/7/1972 Trustee's Deed 256345 438-532 $0 4/7/1969 WARRANTY DEED 243127 401-45 $0 9/21/1954 Mineral Deed (1)187295 280-108 $0 12/30/1943 WARRANTY DEED 158700 221-149 $0 Click here to view Property Related Public Documents No data available for the following modules: Buildings, Sketches. Property Related Public Documents Photos Version 2.3.226 The Gareld County Assessor's Ofce makes every effort to produce the most accurate information possible. No warranties, expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use or interpretation. Data is subject to constant change and its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. User Privacy Policy GDPR Privacy Notice Last Data Upload: 10/12/2022, 10:05:15 PM Developed by Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022 495288.0000.0000 Appendix E: Photograph Log Appendix E Phase I ESA Photograph Log TRC Job No. Photographs Taken By: Page No. Client: Site Name & Address: 495288.0000 .0000 Blake Robinson October 12, 2022 1 of 3 AES Clean Energy Eagle Springs Organics Silt, Colorado Photo 1: Typical view facing northeast of the Site layout. Photo 2: Typical view facing north of the Site layout. Photo 3: Typical view facing east of the Site layout. Photo 4: Typical view facing north of the Site layout and dried low area. Photo 5: Typical view facing north of the Site layout and dried low area. Photo 6: Typical view facing north of the Site. Appendix E Phase I ESA Photograph Log TRC Job No. Photographs Taken By: Page No. Client: Site Name & Address: 495288.0000 .0000 Blake Robinson October 12, 2022 2 of 3 AES Clean Energy Eagle Springs Organics Silt, Colorado Photo 7: Typical view facing east of the Site. Photo 8: View facing South of an irrigation ditch which runs from north to south in the central portion of the Site. Photo 9: View facing south of debris pile located in the adjoining property. Photo 10: View facing east of the adjoining property solar field. Photo 11: View facing northwest of the adjoining Site well pad. Appendix E Phase I ESA Photograph Log TRC Job No. Photographs Taken By: Page No. Client: Site Name & Address: 495288.0000 .0000 Blake Robinson October 12, 2022 3 of 3 AES Clean Energy Eagle Springs Organics Silt, Colorado Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022 495288.0000.0000 Appendix F: TRC Staff and Environmental Professional Qualifications/Resumes TRCcompanies.com KIANA ELDREDGE EDUCATION Currently Pursuing M.S., Organization and Management Emphasis in Sustainability, Colorado University, Denver, Expected graduation date 2023 B.S., Environmental Science, 2017, University of Nevada PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS FAA, Remote Pilot, Small Unmanned Aircraft System, 12/9/2019 AREAS OF EXPERTISE Ms. Kiana Eldredge, has environmental and technical experience in the following general areas:  Drone pilot  Environmental Assessments and Audits  Phase I/ Phase II work  Groundwater sampling  Soil sampling  Stormwater compliance and monitoring  Regulatory compliance  Environmental remediation projects REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Ms. Eldredge is an Environmental Scientist in TRCs Environmental group. Her experience includes environmental compliance consulting in the development, oil and gas, mining, municipal and governmental, and energy markets. She collaborates on environmental projects, including Phase I and II ESAs, remediation projects, and other environmental and regulatory compliance tasks. She has managed projects related to compliance with fire regulations to ensure public safety for projects in the utility market. Ms. Eldredge has expertise executing leak detection and repair programs with optical imagery thermography. 1010 Hamilton Street Development, City Center Lehigh Valley, Lehigh County, PA. Served as Geoscientist for conducting a Phase I ESA, including vapor encroachment screening on a 1-acre developed commercial property in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527. The Phase I ESA included a government database search, site visit, and review of historical topographical maps and aerial photos. Used information obtained to determine if past and current issues resulted in identifying a recognized environmental condition at the subject property. 932 Hamilton Apartments, City Center Lehigh Valley, Lehigh County, PA. Served as Geoscientist for conducting a Phase I ESA, including vapor encroachment screening on a commercial property in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527. The Phase I ESA included a government database search, site visit, and review of historical topographical maps and aerial photos. Used information obtained to determine if past and current issues resulted in identifying a recognized environmental condition at the subject property. 2 Kiana Eldredge Former Refinery Phase I and Phase II ESAs, ACM Surveys, and Subsurface Utility Engineering Survey, WDEQ, Lincoln County, WY. Served as Field Geologist for conducting a passive soil gas assessment for preliminary environmental site characterization to evaluate the extent of subsurface environmental impacts. Used the information to develop a shallow soil gas and groundwater characterization work plan for additional site characterization. Specific tasks included preparing, installing, and retrieving more than 100 soil gas samplers evaluated for VOCs, including TCE, to better define contaminated areas. Tasks also included data evaluation and work plan preparation for supplemental site characterization activities as well as groundwater sampling. Wyoming Phase I ESAs, Hull & Associates, LLC, Platte County, WY. Served as Geoscientist for conducting a Phase I ESA, including vapor encroachment screening of two fabrication facilities in Colorado Springs consisting of approximately 160,000 SF of developed commercial property in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527. The Phase I ESA included a government database search, site visit, and review of historical topographical maps and aerial photos. Used information obtained to determine if past and current issues resulted in identifying a recognized environmental condition at the subject property. Commercial Hotel Property Phase I ESA, Confidential Commercial Client, LaBella Associates, Logan County, CO. Served as Geoscientist for conducting a Phase I ESA, including vapor encroachment screening on a 3.07-acre developed commercial property in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527. The Phase I ESA included a government database search, site visit, and review of historical topographical maps and aerial photos. Used information obtained to determine if past and current issues resulted in identifying a recognized environmental condition at the subject property. Two Creeks Lakewood Development Phase I ESA, Remediation Planning, and Area-Wide Redevelopment, 2 Creeks, LLC, Lakewood County, CO. Served as Geoscientist for conducting a Phase I ESA, including vapor encroachment screening on a 5-acre developed commercial property in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527. The Phase I ESA included a government database search, site visit, and review of historical topographical maps and aerial photos. Used information obtained to determine if past and current issues resulted in identifying a recognized environmental condition at the subject property. Speer Boulevard Phase I and II ESA, PMG Acquisitions, LLC (formerly) Property Markets Group, Denver County, CO. Served as Geoscientist for conducting a Phase I ESA, including vapor encroachment screening for a five-story developed commercial property in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527. The Phase I ESA included a government database search, site visit, and review of historical topographical maps and aerial photos. Used information obtained to determine if past and current issues resulted in identifying a recognized environmental condition at the subject property. Also served as Field Geologist for conducting a groundwater and soil assessment for preliminary environmental site characterization to evaluate the extent of subsurface environmental impacts, including TCE, associated with a former dry- cleaning facility. Used the information to develop a soil and groundwater characterization work plan for additional site characterization. Specific tasks included drilling oversite, collection of groundwater samples from temporary monitoring wells, soil characterization, and collection of soil samples. Tasks also included evaluating data and preparing a work plan for supplemental site characterization activities. 123 N. College Ave, Suite 206, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 80524 Tel: 970.484.3263 Email: JJayroe@trccompanies.com TRCcompanies.com Jason Jayroe Senior Geologist How will your expertise solve client challenges? I have gained a tremendous amount of experience in my 20 years working all over the country for a wide variety of clients under a wide variety of regulatory environments successfully solving complex groundwater and surface water problems. I’m excited for the opportunity to use those honed skills right here at home. TRC understands that the safety of our employees and subcontractors is paramount to the success of our company. I am committed to providing superior safety performance and are confident that our safety culture, management, and oversight will allow for a working environment that identifies and eliminates unsafe conditions and allows each employee to return home safe every day. Jason Jayroe has 20 years of experience as a geologist in environmental consulting. Jason specializes in planning and conducting site hydrogeologic investigations. He has extensive experience in managing site investigation and remediation projects. In addition, he is proficient generating technical reports, and in sampling and analysis procedures for groundwater, surface water, soil, sediment, soil gas and indoor air. Many of Jason’s projects have been completed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and a variety of voluntary state cleanup programs, including several project closures under the Colorado Voluntary Clean-Up (VCUP) Program CREDENTIALS Education: • B.S., Geology, Adams State University, Alamosa, CO EXPERIENCE Professional Summary: • 20 years of experience directly working and managing investigation and remediation projects in nearly every one of the 50 states and some international locations • Experience includes work with municipalities, public agencies, and private industry, with over 15 years based on the Colorado Front Range Areas of Expertise: • Design and review of work plans and sampling and analysis programs for groundwater surface water, and soil • Federal, state, and local regulatory interface and negotiations • Site and facility characterization and assessments • Subsurface exploration and investigation • Risk Assessment to achieve site closure PROJECT EXPERIENCE Bottled Spring Water (FDA) – Nathrop, Colorado (Project Geologist, and Task Manager) Project Geologist / Project Manager. Designed and implemented long-term aquifer and spring surface water monitoring program. Planned and supervised installation of pumping wells and upgradient monitoring wells. Designed and conducted multiple 72-hour pumping tests, as well as installed and maintained spring surface water monitoring stations, including water quality instrumentation and flumes to monitor flow. Project required remote access to monitoring stations year-round in the Colorado high country across multiple land owner properties. Project was successful and provides bottled spring water to the mountain west region. Brownfield Assessment Grant (USEPA Region 8) – Fort Collins, Colorado (Project Manager) Project Manager for Brownfield Assessment Grant implementation. Assisted the city in developing their Brownfield Assessment Program, including prioritizing target properties, recruiting property owners, submitting properties for eligibility, and successfully implementing Phase I and Phase II investigations. Manufactured Gas Plant, (USEPA Region 8) – Fort Collins, Colorado (Project Geologist, and Project Manager) Project Geologist / Treatment System Project Manager. Responsibilities included team member responsible for construction oversight of USEPA Removal Order. Project highlights included damming the Poudre River, excavating 40,000 cubic yards of impacted riverbed material, installing a 700 ft. PVC barrier wall with recovery system into bedrock and the construction oversight and operation of a fully automated groundwater recovery treatment system, final system operations, and automated data management. “I enjoy solving groundwater and surface water problems, I enjoy being an advocate for my client and I enjoy exceeding client expectations.” Jason Jayroe Privileged and Confidential Prepared at the Request of Counsel Phase I Environmental Site Assessment October 21, 2022 495288.0000.0000 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 DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL AND RELEVANT EXPERIENCE THERETO PURSUANT TO 40 CFR 312 (1) a person who possesses sufficient specific education, training, and experience necessary to exercise professional judgment to develop opinions and conclusions regarding conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases (see §312.1 [c]) on, at, in, or to a property, sufficient to meet the objectives and performance factors in §312.20(e) and (f). (2) Such a person must: (i) hold a current Professional Engineer’s or Professional Geologist’s license or registration from a state, tribe, or U.S. territ ory (or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and have the equivalent of 3 years of full -time relevant experience; or (ii) be licensed or certified by the federal government, a state, tribe, or U.S. territory (or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) to perform environmental inquiries as defined in §312.21 and have the equivalent of 3 years of full-time relevant experience; or (iii) have a Baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited institution of higher education in a discipline of engineering or science and the equivalent of 5 years of full-time relevant experience; or (iv) have the equivalent of 10 years of full-time relevant experience. (3) An environmental pro fessional should remain current in his or her field through participation in continuing education or other activities. (4) The definition of environmental professional provided above does not preempt state professional licensing or registration requirement s such as those for a professional geologist, engineer, or site remed iation professional. Before commencing work, a person should determine the applicability of state professional licensing or registration laws to the activities to be undertaken as part of the inquiry identified in §312.21(b). (5) A person who does not qualify as an environmental professional under the foregoing definition may assist in the conduct of all appropriate inquiries in accordance with this part if such person is under the supervision or responsible charge of a person meeting the definition of an environmental professional provided above when conducting such activities. Relevant experience, as used in the definition of environmental professional in this section, means: participation in the performance of all appropriate inquiries investigations, environmental site assessments, or other site investigations that may include environmental analyses, investigations, and remediation which involve the understanding of surface and subsurf ace environmental conditions and the processes used to evaluate these conditions and for which professional judgment was used to develop opinions regarding conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases (see §312.1[c]) to the Site. TRC personnel resume(s) are included in Appendix F. I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, tr aining, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. Signature of Environmental Professional: Date: October 21, 2022 AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar – Land Use Change – Major Impact permit application (4/6/2023) AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar – Garfield County 53 Please see the following pages for the Critical Issues Analysis including Permitting Assessment for AES Eagle Springs Organic Solar published in September 2022. CRITICAL ISSUES ANALYSIS AND PERMITTING ASSESSMENT Appendix C4 Critical Issues Analysis September 2022 Eagle Springs Organic Solar Prepared For: ACE DevCo NC, LLC Salt Lake City, UT Prepared By: TRC 123 N. College Ave., Suite 370, Fort Collins, CO 80524 ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis i Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Land Use and Zoning .......................................................................................................... 1 2.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 1 2.1.2 Zoning and Development Plans ............................................................................. 1 2.2 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... 2 2.2.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies .................................................................................... 2 2.2.2 Floodplains ............................................................................................................. 2 2.2.3 Special Status Species .......................................................................................... 2 2.2.4 Migratory Birds and Eagles .................................................................................... 2 2.2.5 Conservation Areas, Recreation Areas, and Parks ............................................... 3 2.3 Soil and Geological Resources ........................................................................................... 3 2.4 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................. 3 3.0 DESKTOP RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Land Use and Zoning .......................................................................................................... 3 3.1.1 Land Use ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1.2 Zoning and Development Plans ............................................................................. 4 3.2 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies .................................................................................... 5 3.2.2 Floodplains ............................................................................................................. 5 3.2.3 Special Status Species .......................................................................................... 5 3.2.4 Migratory Birds and Eagles .................................................................................... 7 3.2.5 Conservation Areas, Recreation Areas, and Parks ............................................... 8 3.3 Soil and Geological Resources ........................................................................................... 9 3.4 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................................. 9 3.4.1 Geoarchaeology ..................................................................................................... 9 3.4.2 Archaeological Data Search ................................................................................ 10 3.4.3 Federally Recognized Tribes ............................................................................... 11 4.0 PRELIMINARY PERMITTING ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 11 4.1 Federal Permits and Approvals ......................................................................................... 21 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 22 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 23 ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis ii Tables Table 3-1. Land Cover Mapped within the Project Area ............................................................................... 4 Table 3-2. Federally Listed Species Identified as Potentially Occurring in Project Area .............................. 6 Table 3-3. Soils Identified within the Project Area ........................................................................................ 9 Table 3-4. Cultural Resources Adjacent to the Project Area ...................................................................... 11 Table 4-1. Preliminary List of Potential Permits, Approvals or Agency Reviews Applicable to the Project 12 Appendices Appendix A. Figures Figure 1. Project Overview Figure 2. Land Use Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrology Data Figure 4. Watershed Map Figure 5. FEMA Floodplain Figure 6. Soil Resources Figure 5. FEMA Floodplain Figure 6. Soil Resources Figure 7. Rextag Map Figure 8. Airport Map Appendix B. USFWS IPaC Report and Colorado Parks and Wildlife Species List Appendix C. NRCS Soils Report Appendix D. FEMA Preliminary FIRM maps ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis iii Acronyms and Abbreviations Notation Definition AES AES Clean Energy, ACE DevCo NC, LLC APCD Air Pollution Control Division APEN Air Pollutant Emission Notice BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission CPUC Colorado Public Utilities Commission CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife CSLB Colorado State Land Board CWA Clean Water Act ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FC Federal Candidate FE Federally Endangered FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GLO General Land Office IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NHD National Hydrography Dataset NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NLCD National Land Cover Database NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Project Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project Project Area the Project’s 140-acre tract of land SHPO State Historic Preservation Office TRC TRC Companies, Inc. USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation User AES Clean Energy, ACE DevCo NC, LLC USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WQC Water Quality Certification ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Site Description ACE DevCo NC, LLC (“AES” and “Client” and “User”) is seeking assistance in conducting studies to support early-stage development of the Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project in Garfield County, Colorado. Currently, the Project is proposed to provide approximately 16 MW DC/10 MW AC generation with 20 MWh storage. The Project Area is a 140-acre tract of land, 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). Figures 1 and 2 (Appendix A) illustrate the Project location. 1.2 Objectives TRC Companies Inc. (TRC) was contracted by AES to identify areas of critical environmental or regulatory concern that could impact project development, provide recommendations for natural and cultural resources impact avoidance or minimization, and provide recommendations for additional surveys or studies to meet development objectives. This Critical Issues Analysis presents the results of the desktop review of publicly available databases and literature to identify potential issues related to land use, biological and natural resources, and cultural resources, and applicable anticipated permits, approvals, and authorizations required for Project development. 2.0 Methods TRC used publicly available resources for this desktop analysis as described in the following subsections. 2.1 Land Use and Zoning 2.1.1 Land Use TRC reviewed the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and publicly available aerial photography to characterize existing land use/land cover within and adjacent to the Project Area (Google Earth Pro 2016; MRLC Consortium 2022). TRC also reviewed Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data for nearby FAA-obligated airports, data from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), National Pipeline Mapping System, Rextag Global Energy Mapping, and information available from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), and data available from Garfield County for existing infrastructure within or nearby the Project Area that could affect Project development (FAA 2022a,b, COGCC 2022; Garfield County 2022; Rextag 2022; USDOT 2021). 2.1.2 Zoning and Development Plans TRC reviewed available Garfield County maps, regulations, and plans relevant to Project implementation (Garfield County 2022). TRC also contacted Garfield County to inquire about applicable permits and authorizations that could be required for the development of the Project. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 2 2.2 Biological Resources 2.2.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies TRC reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) to determine the presence and spatial extent of previously recorded and classified wetland features within the Project Area (USFWS 2022a). Additionally, TRC screened aerial imagery for indicators of hydrologic activity and saturation (wetness signatures) and quantified hydric soils based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey which could indicate the presence of unmapped wetlands (Google Earth Pro 2016; USDA NRCS 2022). TRC reviewed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map for Silt, Colorado, USGS National Hydrography Dataset, USFWS NWI, and aerial imagery mapping to determine the presence and spatial extent of previously recorded and classified surface water features (e.g., rivers, streams, channels, drainages, and ponds) within the Project Area (Google Earth Pro 2016; USFWS 2022a) (Appendix A; Figure 3). The publicly available information on wetlands and waterbodies was used to estimate the expected level of effort that may be needed to obtain regulatory approval for Project development. 2.2.2 Floodplains TRC reviewed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center publicly available floodplain hazard maps to determine whether the Project Area lies within the limits of mapped floodplains (FEMA 2021, 2012). 2.2.3 Special Status Species TRC obtained the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report (Appendix B) to determine the potential for federally listed threatened and endangered species and federally designated critical habitat to occur within and adjacent to the Project Area (USFWS 2022b). In addition, TRC obtained the state-wide Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Threatened and Endangered Species List (Appendix B) to determine the potential for state- listed threatened and endangered species to occur within and adjacent to the Project Area (CPW 2022). TRC reviewed aerial imagery, existing land use/cover data, species-specific literature, and the Colorado State Wildlife Action Plan to evaluate the presence/absence of potentially suitable habitat within the Project Area (Google Earth Pro 2016; MRLC Consortium 2022; CPW 2015). 2.2.4 Migratory Birds and Eagles TRC reviewed the USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern list, eBird sightings data, and Audubon’s Important Bird Areas database to identify migratory birds (including raptors and eagles) that have the potential to occur within and adjacent to the Project Area (Audubon 2019; eBird 2022; USFWS 2021, 2022b). TRC reviewed aerial imagery, existing land use/cover data, and species-specific literature to evaluate the presence/absence of potentially suitable habitat within the Project Area (Google Earth Pro 2016; MRLC Consortium 2022). ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 3 2.2.5 Conservation Areas, Recreation Areas, and Parks TRC reviewed the National Conservation Easement Database, National Audubon Society’s Important Bird Areas, Colorado State Land Board Geographic Information System planning web application, Google Earth Pro parks and recreation areas layer for locations and boundaries of public lands, Garfield County data, and areas of scenic value within the vicinity of the Project Area (Audubon 2022; Colorado State Land Board 2022; National Conservation Easement Database 2022; Google Earth Pro 2016; Garfield County 2022). 2.3 Soil and Geological Resources TRC reviewed USGS seismic and karst maps, and USDA NRCS soil maps to determine soil types and potential geological hazards within the Project Area (USDA NRCS 2022; USGS 2020). 2.4 Cultural Resources The Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) online database was consulted to determine what previous surveys have been conducted within the Project Area and identify previously recorded cultural resources within 1 mile. TRC archaeologists supplemented the Colorado OAHP records with publicly available information, such as geological maps, soil surveys, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), original General Land Office (GLO) surveys, and other historical maps (GLO 1888; USGS Topographical Maps 1962). 3.0 Desktop Results 3.1 Land Use and Zoning 3.1.1 Land Use The Project Area is located within the privately-owned property of Eagle Springs Organic LLC and is primarily used as pasture and farmland, as indicated by plow lines. Land surrounding the Project Area is also primarily used for commercial and agricultural production, interspersed with roadways, rural residences, solar, oil and gas development, and undeveloped natural areas adjacent to streams. The Garfield County Airport is less than 0.5-mile to the west (Google Earth Pro 2016). Based on review of historic aerial imagery, these land uses have not substantially changed since 1993 (Google Earth Pro 1993 and 2016). The NLCD shows that about 91 percent of the Project Area is classified as Pasture/Hay, followed by Shrub/Scrub (6.22 percent), and evergreen forest (2.24 percent). The remaining smaller portion of the project makes up less than 1 percent of cover and includes developed, low-intensity cover type (Appendix A, Figure 2) (MRLC Consortium 2022). Table 3-1 includes the cover types mapped within the Project Area, their respective acreages, and a brief description of each cover type identified. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 4 Table 3-1. Land Cover Mapped within the Project Area Cover Type Cover Type Description Acreage within Project Area Percent of Project Area Shrub/Scrub Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions. 8.70 6.22 Pasture / Hay Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops. Pasture or hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total land cover. 127.86 91.38 Evergreen Forest Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. 3.14 2.24 Developed, Low intensity Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20% to 49% percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. 0.22 0.16 Source: MRLC Consortium 2022. Two oil and gas well pads are within the Project Area, and two additional pads are immediately adjacent to the Project Area Boundary. These pads include producing and abandoned wells owned by TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC (COGCC 2022; Rextag 2022; USDOT 2021). An electrical transmission line runs north of the Project Area near Interstate-70. Natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines cross the Mamm Creek Road to the south of the Project; the transmission lines also transect portions of the Project access road. A site survey is recommended to provide more detailed information regarding easements that could limit the potential buildable area within the Project Area. The Garfield County Airport is approximately 0.5-mile west of the Project Area and is within the 2-mile radius of a federally obligated airport (Appendix A Figure 8) (FAA 2022a). The proposed Project therefore would be required to file notice of construction in accordance with FAA rule 77.9 (FAA 2022b). Due to its distance from the Project Area, a glare study is likely required to obtain a determination of no hazard to air navigation. 3.1.2 Zoning and Development Plans Per the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, site selection and construction of major facilities near an airport are designated as Matters of State Interest and will require a 1041 Permit from Garfield County. The Board of County Commissioners will determine if a permit will be granted or if there is a “Finding of No Significant Impact”. Based on the size of the Project (larger than 15 kW), a planning inquiry form is required prior to submittal of a Land Use Change application form. A meeting a County Planner is required to determine the level of review, studies, and mitigation required for approval of the 1041 and Land Use Change Permits on a project-specific and impact-specific basis. Studies may include, but are not limited to, ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 5 wetlands, wildlife, noxious weeds, air and land traffic, visual resources, and/or drainage and erosion control (Garfield County 2022). 3.2 Biological Resources 3.2.1 Wetlands and Waterbodies Two mapped waterbodies intersect the Project Area and one continues adjacent to the proposed access road (Appendix A, Figure 3) (USGS 2021). TRC recommends a wetland and waterbody survey be conducted on the site to assess NWI features and any related water features on site. TRC will assess the potential for identified features to be considered jurisdictional; however, final determination would be confirmed by the USACE Albuquerque District (Grand Junction Regulatory Office). TRC recommends that Project facilities be sited to avoid jurisdictional resources and subsequent permitting. If the Project is unable to avoid direct impacts to identified jurisdictional wetland or waterbodies, a Nationwide Permit (NWP) would be required. This would constitute a federal nexus and necessitate additional consultation and approvals with the USFWS and Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 3.2.2 Floodplains Online floodplain mapping for the majority of the Project Area is not available (FEMA 2021; Appendix A, Figure 5). Based on FEMA Preliminary FIRM maps (FEMA, 2012) (Appendix D) indicate the Project Area and access road is in an area outside of the floodplain. 3.2.3 Special Status Species Federally Listed Species Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), activities that may result in the “take” of a species federally listed as threatened or endangered are prohibited. 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. According to the USFWS IPaC Trust Resources Report (Appendix B), nine federally listed species were identified as having the potential to occur within the Project Area. Table 3-2 summarizes each federally listed species, its listing status, and its potential to occur within the Project Area. The Project Area is outside of designated and proposed critical habitats (USFWS 2022b). ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 6 Table 3-2. Federally Listed Species Identified as Potentially Occurring in Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Status1 Preliminary Analysis within the Project Area2 Mammals Gray wolf Canis lupus FE No effect. This species only needs to be considered under the following conditions according to the IPaC: 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. Birds Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida FT No effect. Well documented critical habitat areas are not present within or near the Project Area. Suitable old- growth or mature forests that possess complex structural components nor canyons with riparian or conifer communities are present within the Project Area. Yellow- billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus FT No effect. Densely wooded areas along the Colorado River are not found in the Project Area. eBird records indicate no sightings within 5-miles of the Project Area. Fish Bonytail Gila elegans FE No effect. This species has been presumed extirpated from Colorado River Basin, possible restricted populations in the warm water reaches of Mesa and Moffat County. Therefore, no suitable habitat is present in the Project area. Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius FE No effect. This species is documented as endemic to warm water large rivers of the Colorado River Basin but occurs further west in Moffat County. Therefore, no suitable habitat is present in the Project area. Humpback chub Gila cypha FT No effect. Suitable swift canyon-bound deep-water reach and river habitat does not exist in the Project Area. The nearest critical habitat is found west on the Yampa River in Moffat County. Therefore, no suitable habitat is present in the Project area. Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus FE No effect. Critical habitat and known distribution are documented in the upper and lower Colorado River basins, but the largest population is documented in the Green River Basin and its tributaries in Utah and Colorado. Therefore, no suitable habitat is present in the Project area. Insects Monarch butterfly Danus plexippus FC May affect. Suitable habitat (i.e., obligate milkweed species) has the potential to occur within the Project Area. Plants Ute Ladies’- Tresses Spiranthes diluvialis FT No effect. 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. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 7 Based on USFWS (2022b) and a species requirement review (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019; eBird 2022; NatureServe 2022), one federal candidate species (Monarch butterfly) has potential to be affected by the Project. Candidate species are actively being considered for listing as endangered or threatened, but are not currently federally protected under the ESA. If the Monarch butterfly were designated as threatened or endangered prior to Project construction, consultation with the USFWS Colorado Ecological Services Field Office would be recommended to determine if impacts are anticipated, and if mitigation would be required. Formal consultation with USFWS would be initiated if a federal nexus (e.g. impacts to waterbodies under USACE jurisdiction) is triggered by the Project. 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, one state threatened species (burrowing owl) has the potential to occur within the Project Area. TRC recommends that a habitat suitability assessment be conducted within the Project Area to determine if suitable habitat for state-listed species occurs within the Project Area. If AES plans to sell the Project to a PUC-regulated entity, the Project would fall under CPUC Rule 3668, and the bid package may be required to include documentation of consultation with CPW to obtain recommendations regarding the minimization of impacts on wildlife. In this case, TRC recommends consultation with CPW. Based on records obtained from the Nature Serve Biodiversity Report, five species (DeBeque Milkvetch, Harrington’s Beardtongue, Wetherill’s Milkvetch, Lewis’s Woodpecker, and the Western Rattlesnake) were identified within the topographic hexagon that intersects the Project Area (Nature Serve 2022). TRC recommends submittal of a fee-based request for element occurrence records with the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) to obtain a Project- specific species occurrence records list. 3.2.4 Migratory Birds and Eagles 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, which prohibits the take, kill, possession, and transportation of migratory birds, their eggs, and parts except when specifically permitted. In addition, bald and golden eagles are protected pursuant to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) under 16 U.S. Code 668-668(d), which prohibits the take and disturbance of individual eagles, their nests, eggs, or parts. 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 FR 1134). However, as of December 3, 2021, the USFWS has revoked the January 7 rule and has returned to implementing the MBTA as prohibiting intentional “take” as enforced prior to 2017. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 8 According to the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, 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 Birds of Conservation Concern list (USFWS 2021) to include only the Bald eagle, Cassin's Finch, Clarks Grebe, Evening Grosbeak, and Pinyon Jay within the Project Area (USFWS 2022b). Based on review of aerial imagery and identified NLCD land cover type (i.e., agriculture, Section 3.1.1), suitable ground-nesting and/or foraging habitat for migratory birds exists within the Project Area. In addition, suitable nesting habitat for raptors (i.e., large woodland areas along the Colorado River) is present adjacent to the Project Area (Google Earth Pro 2016; MRLC Consortium 2022). TRC recommends the implementation of avoidance measures such as conducting pre-construction surveys for nesting birds or scheduling construction to occur outside the primary nesting season (April 1 through August 31) to minimize impacts on breeding and foraging species. Both breeding and nonbreeding populations of bald eagle 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). In Colorado, bald eagles are typically found near large rivers and lakes, with nests in large trees near water. 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). The Project Area is located within a designated Bald Eagle winter foraging area and winter range (CPW 2022). Nesting activity by bald eagles is not expected to occur within or near the Project Area as preferred substrate is not present; therefore, it is unlikely that bald eagle nesting would be affected by Project implementation. However, use of the Project Area for hunting/foraging and transit is possible. The golden eagle is known to occur in northwest Colorado during breeding and nonbreeding periods (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019). According to eBird, no golden eagles have been observed in a 2-mile radius of the Project Area (eBird 2022). Nesting activity by golden eagles is not expected to occur within or near the Project Area as preferred substrate is not present; therefore, it is unlikely that golden eagle nesting would be affected by Project implementation. However, use of the Project Area for hunting/foraging and transit is possible. 3.2.5 Conservation Areas, Recreation Areas, and Parks State recreation and resource management areas managed by the CPW are found northeast of the Project Area boundary. Wheeler State Wildlife Area is located approximately 2 miles to the northeast along the Colorado River, along with the Colorado River Preserve 1 mile to the north, and Silt River Preserve conservation easements 2 miles to the northeast of the Project. The northern border of the Project Area is adjacent to a CNHP Potential Conservation Area of outstanding biodiversity significance (CNHP 2022). CPW designated High Priority Habitat does occur within the Project Area as Mule Deer Severe Winter Range, Mule Deer Winter Concentration Area, Elk Winter Concentration Area, Elk Severe Winter Range, and Aquatic ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 9 Native Species Conservation Waters (COGCC 2022). TRC recommends consultation with CPW to obtain recommendations regarding minimization of impacts to high-priority habitats. 3.3 Soil and Geological Resources The Project Area is primarily underlain by alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale (USDA NRCS 2022). Table 3-3 summarizes the mapped soil types and their properties within the Project Area. Figure 6 (Appendix A) illustrates soil resources within the Project Area. The USDA NRCS Soil Report for the Project Area is included in Appendix C. Table 3-3. Soils Identified within the Project Area Map Unit Symbol Soil Type Drainage Class Hydric Soil Rating Farmland Classification Percent of Project Area 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Well drained Yes Not prime farmland 0 50 Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes Well drained 0 Prime farmland if irrigated 0.4 54 Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Well drained 0 Prime farmland if irrigated 0.1 55 Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes well drained 0 prime farmland if irrigated 94.2 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Well drained 0 Not prime farmland 5.2 Source: USDA NRCS 2022. With the exception of Ildefonso stony loam (5.2% of the Project Area), soil types identified within the Project Area are classified as prime farmland if irrigated. As the majority of the Project Area is classified as prime farmland, the USDA NRCS Land Evaluation and Site Assessment tool is recommended pursuant to the Farmland Protection Act. Additionally, geotechnical investigations are recommended to determine the suitability of the soils and geology within the Project Area for construction of a solar facility. According to the USGS, the Project Area is located in a region with carbonate rocks at or near the land surface (USGS 2019). According to the 2018 Long-term National Seismic Hazard Map, the Project Area occurs in a region with moderate seismicity and fault-slip rates (USGS 2018). 3.4 Cultural Resources 3.4.1 Geoarchaeology The proposed Project Area is in the mountains of central Colorado approximately 1-mile south of the Colorado River, a major water resource in the state. It is situated on the tread of a terrace or bench above the floodplain of the Colorado River. Mamm Creek, a primary tributary of the Colorado River, is about 0.25-mile west of the Project Area. The soil in the Project Area is primarily the Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slope (USDA NRCS 2022). This soil forms on mesas, ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 10 benches, and valley sides in alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale. The typical profile consists of a loam overlying a clay loam the overlies a loam. It is typically 152.4 cm (60 inches) thick (USDA NRCS 2022). A secondary soil in the Project Area along its northern and southern border is the Ildefonso Stoney loam, 25-45 percent slopes. This soil forms on landform breaks, valley sides, and alluvial fans. It forms in mixed alluvium derived from basalt. The profile consists of a very stony loam throughout. It is typically 152.4 cm (60 inches) thick (USDA NRCS 2022). The proximity of the Project Area to water and the thick, loamy soils present over a majority of the Project Area are positive factors for the presence of cultural resources and their preservation in an intact condition. The Project Area has, however, been intensively farmed for many years which has likely disturbed the soil to a depth of 30-40 cm (12-16 inches). Intensive farming is a negative factor for archaeological site preservation at and near the surface. 3.4.2 Archaeological Data Search No historic properties were identified within the Project Area based on the NRHP database. According to the Colorado OAHP file search results, no previous surveys for cultural resources have been conducted within the Project Area and no cultural resources have been documented within it. Four surveys have been conducted adjacent to the Project Area, most notably along the Shoshone-Palisade transmission line immediately to the north. The Shoshone-Palisade transmission line directly north of the Eagle Springs Organic Project Area at the edge of the terrace was surveyed in 2011 by ERO Resources Corporation. Five cultural resources (5GF245, 5GF3555.4, 5GF3555.5, 5GF4554.9 and 5GF4603.1) were documented adjacent to the current Project Area during that survey. Other surveys have yielded two fossil localities and one historic bridge (Table 3-4). The Shoshone-Palisade Transmission Line (5GF4554) has been recommended as eligible for the NRHP because of its association with the electrification of the rural western slope in Colorado. The portion of the transmission line adjacent to the current Project Area (5GF4554.9) has been determined to support the NRHP eligibility of the resource as a whole by the Colorado OAHP. The proposed Project will not physically impact the historic transmission line as it is currently scoped and visual effects are unlikely. Two segments of the Last Chance Ditch (3555.4 and 5GF3555.5), an NRHP eligible ditch because of its association with the development of agriculture on the western slope in Colorado, are located adjacent to the Project Area at the base of the terrace. Both segments have been determined to not support the NRHP eligibility of the resource as a whole and would not be affected by the proposed Project. The remaining resources consist of a historic bridge (5GF2727) and an unnamed historic ditch (5GF4603.1) and two fossil localities (5GF119 and 5GF120). The historic bridge and unnamed ditch are not eligible for the NRHP and would not be affected by the proposed Project. Both fossil localities are unevaluated for the NRHP but are a sufficient distance away to not be affected by the proposed Project. The GLO platform 1888 (GLO 1888) shows no buildings or structures within the Project Area. The house of Jake Leesch is shown in the NW 1/4 of Section 18 near the junction of Mamm Creek and the Colorado (Grand) River. The historic USGS 7.5’ topographic map (USGS 1962) does not show any structures or buildings in the Project Area. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 11 Table 3-4. Cultural Resources within one mile of the Project Area Site Number Site Name Site Type NRHP Eligibility Distance from Project Area 5GF119 Paleontological Locality Unevaluated 1.0 miles 5GF120 Paleontological Locality Unevaluated 0 feet 5GF245 Prehistoric/Historic Site Eligible 1037 feet 5GF2727 Historic Bridge Not Eligible 0.38 miles 5GF3555.4 Last Chance Ditch Historic Ditch Segment Eligible/Non- Supporting 787 feet 5GF3555.5 Last Chance Ditch Historic Ditch Segment Eligible/Non- Supporting 390 feet 5GF4554.9 Shoshone-Palisade Transmission Line Historic Transmission Line Segment Eligible/Supporting 100 feet 5GF4603.1 Unnamed Linear Resource Historic Ditch Segment Not Eligible 0.4 miles 3.4.3 Federally Recognized Tribes Northwestern Colorado was primarily the homeland of the Northern Ute tribes but other tribes are thought to have had at least a transitory occupation of the area. These tribes include the Eastern Shoshone, Northern Arapaho, Comanche, and the Hopi (Reed and Metcalf 1999). These tribes with ties to northwestern Colorado are located on reservations outside the state of Colorado with the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone on Wind River Reservation of Wyoming; the Northern Utes on the Uintah-Ouray Reservation of Utah; the Comanche on a reservation in Oklahoma; and the Hopi on a reservation in Arizona. After the forced removal of Native Americans by the federal government, the only Federally recognized Tribes to remain in Colorado on reservations in the southwest corner of the state are the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. If the Project triggers a federal nexus, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), government-to-government consultation between federal agencies and Indian Tribes should be initiated by the federal agency early in project planning to identify what historic properties may be of traditional religious and cultural significance. 4.0 Preliminary Permitting Assessment The following sections provide an overview of anticipated federal, state, and local permits and approvals required for development of the Project. Table 4-1 provides a preliminary list of the permits, approvals, and agency reviews necessary to authorize the Project. The subsequent sections provide additional details of each permit, approval, and reviews. As the final site plan is developed, other permits or approvals may be identified. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 12 Table 4-1. Preliminary List of Potential Permits, Approvals or Agency Reviews Applicable to the Project Agency Permit, Approval, or Review Regulatory Trigger Recommended Assessments or Surveys Estimated Timeline Expected Applicability for Project Federal FAA – Denver Flight Standards District Office Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation Project Area is 0.5-miles east of the Garfield County Airport. Projects in the vicinity to FAA-obligated airports may be required to notify FAA of construction. A glare analysis may be requested by FAA for projects in the line of sight for landing aircraft. These requirements do not typically apply to private airstrips. The Project will be in proximity to a navigation facility and may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception. FAA Notification Glare study If required, must notify FAA at least 45 days prior to construction. Likely to be required by FAA based on FAA Notice Criteria Tool results. Glare study could be requested by Garfield County or FAA. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 13 Agency Permit, Approval, or Review Regulatory Trigger Recommended Assessments or Surveys Estimated Timeline Expected Applicability for Project USACE - Albuquerque District (Grand Junction Regulatory Office) Clean Water Act (CWA) – Section 404 NWP 51 (Note: If impacts are only associated with access roads, NWP 14 may be applicable) Before commencing activities required for theconstruction, expansion, or modification of land-based renewable energy production facilities, including attendant features in Waters of the U.S., provided the activity does not result in the permanent loss of greater than one-half acre of Waters of the U.S. Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Submittal of Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report and Approved Jurisdictional Determination submittal NWP 51 or No Permit Required Fee: None ($100 for Individual Permit, if required) 2-6 months for delineation and USACE consultation for Approved Jurisdictional Determination with acquisition of NWP or No Permit Required. If there are impacts to Waters of the US, then a NWP may be needed. Assumes that an Individual Permit will not be needed. USACE- Albuquerque District NHPA-Section 106 requiring consultation with stakeholders on effects to historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect as determined by the federal agency. Project is determined to be a federal undertaking involving the use of federal funding or the issuance of a federal license or permit. Cultural resources survey and assessment of project effects to all historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect as determined by the lead federal agency. 3-6 months to complete the necessary consultations under Section 106 If there is a federal nexus (e.g. NWP or federal funds) Section 106 would be triggered. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 14 Agency Permit, Approval, or Review Regulatory Trigger Recommended Assessments or Surveys Estimated Timeline Expected Applicability for Project USFWS – Colorado Ecological Services Field Office MBTA and BGEPA compliance When construction or operation of a proposed facility could impact migratory birds, or bald or golden eagles. Implementation of voluntary avoidance measures such as conducting pre-construction surveys for nesting birds or scheduling construction to occur outside the primary nesting season (mid-January through mid-September). Pre-construction surveys ~1 week prior to construction. Yes. Project Area contains suitable migratory bird habitat. Two active bald eagle nest sites were identified approximately three 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 of the Project Area. ESA – Federally threatened and endangered species consultation Required when an activity may affect federally listed threatened and endangered species or critical habitats. Biological Assessment (if required due to species impacts) Formal consultation may last up to 90 days, after which the Service will prepare a biological opinion. The Service has 45 days after completion of formal consultation to write the biological opinion. No. Consultation will not be required if habitat surveys confirm habitat for Monarch butterfly (Federal Candidate) in the Project Area. It is recommended in the event the species becomes listed during the permitting process. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 15 Agency Permit, Approval, or Review Regulatory Trigger Recommended Assessments or Surveys Estimated Timeline Expected Applicability for Project State Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division Construction General Permit – Colorado Discharge Permit System – COR-400000 Generally required for all projects disturbing one or more acres of land. Site-Specific Stormwater Management Plan, which includes:  Identification of a Qualified Stormwater Manager;  Erosion and Sediment Control Plan;  Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan, if applicable;  Materials handling information and potential sources of pollution; and  Inspection reports, site description and map. Inspections required once per week, or once per two weeks and within 24 hours of precipitation or snowmelt event. Must be obtained at least 10 days prior to ground disturbance. Yes ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 16 Agency Permit, Approval, or Review Regulatory Trigger Recommended Assessments or Surveys Estimated Timeline Expected Applicability for Project CWA Section 401 – Water Quality Certification (WQC) Required for discharges into navigable Waters of the U.S. Generally, Section 404 NWPs in Colorado are certified by statute to not require WQC. However, Section 404 IPs will require state WQC.  A completed copy of theDivision’s CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification request form; signed Section 404 Permit Application, Site Plan, Project location map, List/Description of Best Management Practices.  Impact Analysis  Antidegradation Review  Development of conditions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate identified water quality impacts. Timing coincides with USACE Section 404 Permit. Concurrent with Section 404 if triggered. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 17 Agency Permit, Approval, or Review Regulatory Trigger Recommended Assessments or Surveys Estimated Timeline Expected Applicability for Project Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) – Air Permit (Construction or General) – APEN is required for projects that are ≥25 contiguous acres and/or 6 months in construction duration; these projects typically require and Air Permit (General Permit or Initial Construction Permit, size-dependent) Projects ≤1,850 acres can use the General Permit The Buildable Area for the Project is currently 140 acres; If additional the Project will exceed 1,850 acres, then a Construction Permit must be obtained. Submittal of an APEN and Application for Construction/General Permit  APEN includes a Fugitive Dust Control Plan  The Permit (if required) will include the type of dust control measures APCD will have 90 days (General permit only) to issue permit once APEN is received. General Permit is active once the APCD receives the APEN, a response from APCD is not required to begin work. Note that work prior to response is at permittee risk if the APEN is not approved. Construction Permit has a 30-day completeness timeframe and then agency has 180-day review. Once review is complete and comments addressed, then a 30-day public comment period occurs. Yes, a General Air Permit may be required based on APEN submitted. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 18 Agency Permit, Approval, or Review Regulatory Trigger Recommended Assessments or Surveys Estimated Timeline Expected Applicability for Project CPW State Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation State-listed species are not provided statutory protection unless otherwise protected under federal law (such as ESA or BGEPA). Consultation with CPW is a requirement of certain local land use permits. Under CPUC Rule 3668, utilities must require renewable energy project developers to conduct site-specific wildlife surveys and consult with CPW to obtain recommendations regarding minimization of impacts to wildlife. Applies to most renewable energy projects with an estimated capacity of over two megawatts.  Habitat suitability assessment for state-listed species  Consultation with CPW o CPW may request species-specific surveys be conducted prior to construction. o CPW may request implementation of mitigation or avoidance measures, such as construction scheduling restrictions, or construction biological monitoring. o Site-specific element occurrence records for special status species and natural communities can be obtained from the CNHP. 30-90 days CNHP Data Request: Typically, less than 14 days. Yes, Garfield County may require consultation and surveys for the Land Use Change Permit and 1041 process prior to construction. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 19 Agency Permit, Approval, or Review Regulatory Trigger Recommended Assessments or Surveys Estimated Timeline Expected Applicability for Project OAHP/ Colorado SHPO NHPA Section 106 Consultation with USACE For projects involving federal funding or permitting, the lead federal agency involved must consult with the SHPO regarding the Project’s potential impacts to historic properties.  Desktop cultural resources review.  Formal/Informal consultation with OAHP.  If federal nexus: o Cultural Resources Survey o Visual Impact Assessment/Viewshed Analysis o Tribal Consultation SHPO has 30 days to respond to lead federal agency upon initiation of Section 106 consultations. Additional consultation time may be required depending on expected impacts. If a federal nexus is triggered, agency consultation with SHPO would be required, and as such a cultural resources survey may be requested. Local – Routt County Garfield County Community Development Department Planning Inquiry Form Land Use Change Permit 1041 Permit if the Project is deemed an Area of State Interest Site selection and construction of major facilities of a public utility in Garfield County is considered a land use change and required to submit a Land Use Change Permit Application for any solar project over 15 kW. Matters of State Interest require a permit from Garfield County. A Pre-submittal Planning Inquiry Form with Garfield County Planning Staff is encouraged. The applicant shall submit the following prior to the pre-submittal meeting for Level of Permit Review:  A Planning Inquiry Form  A map and/or sketch prepared at an easily readable scale showing: o Boundary of the proposed activity. o Proposed building, improvements, and infrastructure.  A written summary of the project that describes the impacts of the proposed project as it relates to land use. To be determined during pre-application meeting Yes. Land Use Change Permit required for projects over 15 kW. Planning Inquiry form is required prior to a pre-application conference with a Garfield County planner. Note that portions of this site were included in a 2012 Land Use Change Permit application for solar development (Solar Power Generating System); consultation with the planner is recommended to determine extent of additional steps in Land Use Change Permit needed for the Project. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 20 Agency Permit, Approval, or Review Regulatory Trigger Recommended Assessments or Surveys Estimated Timeline Expected Applicability for Project Land Use Change Permit Application:  Involved Parties  Project Name and Location  Project Description  Request for Waivers ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 21 4.1 Federal Permits and Approvals Based on the wetland and waterbody desktop analysis, multiple water features are found within the Project Area in the form of streams connected to the adjacent creek to the west. Mamm Creek is considered a jurisdictional waterway and subject to regulation pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waterbodies with continuous ordinary high-water mark that connect to the Mamma Creek would be considered jurisdictional under the current Water of the U.S. rules in place. In the event the Project would affect aquatic resources determined to be jurisdictional, a Section 404 permit (likely NWP 51, however, NWP 14 may be applicable) would be required, which would constitute a federal nexus. In the event of a federal nexus, consultation with the USFWS and Colorado SHPO would be required under Section 7 of the ESA and Section 106 of the NHPA, respectively. If a federal nexus is triggered, agency consultation with the Colorado SHPO would be required, and as such a cultural resources survey may be requested. One federal candidate for listing (Monarch butterfly) has potential to be affected based on the guidance provided in the USFWS IPaC report (USFWS 2022b) and from a species requirement review (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019; eBird 2022; NatureServe 2022). Candidate species are not federally protected under the ESA. Currently, one NRHP-eligible site is identified adjacent to the Project Area, the Shoshone- Palisade Transmission Line. Any changes to the aspects of integrity that would affect its eligibility for the NRHP would be considered an adverse effect under Section 106 (Church et al. 2007). Any federal nexus to this project, such as federal funding or a federal permit, may require a Class III cultural resources survey of the Project Area, or portions thereof (depending on the jurisdictional area of the agency), and a visual impact assessment on the Shoshone-Palisade Transmission Line to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. State Permits and Approvals Suitable habitat for state-listed species, burrowing owl, was identified within the Project Area (CPW 2022). Consultation with CPW is required by the CPUC to obtain recommendations regarding minimization or avoidance of impacts on wildlife. The CPW may request species- specific surveys and implementation of avoidance or mitigation measures, such as construction scheduling restrictions or biological monitoring during construction. The APCD in the state of Colorado requires that all construction projects 25 acres or larger and/or having a duration of 6 months or longer submit an APEN. The APCD will review the information provided in the APEN to determine if an air permit is required for the Project. For Projects smaller than 1,850 acres, General Permits can apply, which do not require engineering analysis and are less expensive; however, control measures to be used at the Project are predetermined under a General Permit and are not controlled by the applicant. Once the APCD receives the applicant's APEN, the Project is covered under the General Permit and a response from APCD is not required for the Project to begin. If the buildable area exceeds 1,850 acres, a Construction Permit would be required. Construction Permits are required for projects larger than 1,850 acres and are more costly and time-consuming than general permits, as they are much more specific to the Project. Construction Permits require a 30-day public comment period (APCD 2019) after submittal. The buildable area of the Project is currently 139.9 acres and is eligible for the General Permit process. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 22 Local Permits and Approvals The Project Area is located within Garfield County (Garfield County 2022). A Land Use Change Application Form must be submitted and reviewed by the Garfield County Community Development Department. Prior to the solar permit submission, applicants are required to contact the Planning Department for clarification on potential additional Planning Department applications that may be required, such as a Planning Inquiry Form and a pre-application conference with a county planner. The Project is considered an Activity of State Interest and will therefore require a 1041 Permit and Site Plan Review. Studies and/or mitigation plans that could be required for this Project may include those relating to wetlands, wildlife, paleontological, historic, or architectural resources, drainage and erosion control, dust control, traffic, noise, and/or visual impacts. A meeting with Garfield County may conclude that solar projects would have a finding of no significant impact (Garfield County 2022) as long as the pre-application consultation is successful. 5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Based on this desktop review, the following critical issues were identified that could result in the need for consultation, approval, or permit:  Existing overhead transmission lines are mapped within the Project Area. A site survey is recommended to determine the boundary of existing easements within the Project Area.  One NRHP-eligible site occurs adjacent to the Project Area, the Shoshone-Palisade Transmission Line. If there is a federal nexus for the Project, the visual impacts to this site would need to be evaluated.  If a federal nexus is triggered, a Class III cultural resources survey of the Project Area would be required to comply with Section 106 of the NHPA.  Based on NWI data there are multiple streams within the Project Area. TRC recommends conducting a wetland delineation within the buildable areas of the Project Area as well as consultation with the USACE Albuquerque District to determine jurisdictional status of waterbodies within the Project Area. If the Project will affect jurisdictional waters, a Section 404 permit (likely NWP 51, however, an NWP 14 may suffice) would be required, which would constitute a federal nexus. In the event of a federal nexus, consultation with the USFWS and Colorado SHPO would be required under Section 7 of the ESA and Section 106 of the NHPA, respectively, and a cultural resources assessment could be requested.  Based on FEMA Preliminary FIRM maps (FEMA, 2012) (Attachment D) indicate the Project Area and access road is in an area outside of the floodplain. While unlikely, if a portion of the area is determined to be within a floodplain, a County Floodplain Development Permit would necessitate additional studies to demonstrate that proposed activities will not result in an increase to base flood elevations.  One federal candidate for listing species (Monarch butterfly) may be affected based on the guidance provided in the USFWS IPaC report (USFWS 2022b) and from a species requirement review (Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2019; eBird 2022; NatureServe 2022). Candidate species are not federally protected under the ESA. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 23  Two active Bald Eagle nests were identified approximately 3-miles from the Project Area during the desktop review. Colorado Parks and Wildlife states “No Surface Occupancy beyond that which historically occurred, within 0.25-mile (1,320 feet, 400 meters) radius of active nests. No permitted, authorized, or human encroachment activities within 0.5- mile (2,640 feet, 800 meters) radius of active nest sites from December 1 through July 31.” (CPW 2020). No nests have been identified within these distances, and suitable nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the Project Area are limited. We recommend a survey to confirm no nests are within the 0.25-mile of the Project Area to comply with the No Surface Occupancy recommendation. If construction activities are conducted within the breeding season (December 1 through July 31), a pre-construction survey is suggested to confirm the absence of nesting individuals within 0.5 mile of the Project Area.  Suitable habitat for one state-listed species (burrowing owl) was identified within the Project Area. If AES plans to sell the Project to a PUC-regulated entity, the Project would fall under CPUC Rule 3668, and the bid package may be required to include documentation of consultation with CPW to obtain recommendations regarding the minimization of impacts on wildlife.  TRC recommends submittal of a fee-based request for element occurrence records with the CNHP to obtain a Project-specific species occurrence records list to ensure no other rare species or communities exist within the Project Area.  Migratory birds of concern are known to utilize the Project Area. TRC recommends pre- construction surveys for nesting birds or scheduling construction to occur outside the primary nesting season (April 1 through August 31) to minimize impacts on breeding and foraging species.  A Land Use Change Permit and 1041 Permit are anticipated to be required pending the pre-application meeting with Garfield County as part of the permitting process for the Project. Because required studies will be determined on a project-specific basis, early coordination with the County Planning Department is recommended.  A glare analysis may be requested by FAA for projects in the line of sight for landing aircraft. TRC recommends completing a glare analysis as soon as possible because of the close proximity to the Garfield County airport.  TRC recommends the completion of an Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) General Air Permit. APEN is required for projects that are ≥25 contiguous acres and/or 6 months in construction duration. 6.0 References Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). (2019). An Overview of Colorado Air Regulations for Land Development. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Church, Minette C., Steven G. Baker, Bonnie J. Clark, Richard F. Carrillo, Jonathon C. Horn, Carl D. Spath, David R. Guilfoyle, and E. Steve Cassells. (2007). Colorado History: A Context for Historical Archaeology. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). (2022). CNHP Spatial Layers – Statewide Elements by Quad. Accessed June 7, 2022, at: https://cnhp.colostate.edu/maps/cnhp- spatial-layers/ ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 24 Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). (2022). GISOnline Mapping. Accessed May 2022 at: https://cogccmap.state.co.us/cogcc_gis_online/ Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). (2015). State Wildlife Action Plan. Accessed July 18, 2022, at: https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.aspx CPW. (2022). Wildlife Species Map Application. Accessed July 18, 2022, at: Colorado Parks & Wildlife - Wildlife Species Map Application (arcgis.com) CPW. (2020). Recommended Buffer Zones and Season Restrictions for Colorado Raptors. Available online at: https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/LivingWithWildlife/Raptor-Buffer- Guidelines.pdf CPW. (2022). Threatened and Endangered Species List. Accessed July 14, 2022, at: https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/SOC-ThreatenedEndangeredList.aspx Colorado State Land Board. (2022). State Trust Lands Online Map Server. Accessed May 15, 2022, at: https://gis.colorado.gov/trustlands/ 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. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2022a). Circle Search for Airports. Accessed May 05, 2022, at: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=showCircleSearchAirports Form FAA. (2022b). Notice Criteria Tool. Accessed May 05, 2022, at: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2021). FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Flood Map 08107C0800D (effective date 02/04/2005). Accessed May 2022, at: https://msc.fema./portal/search?AddressQuery=timnath%2C%20co#searchresultsanchor FEMA. (2012). FEMA Preliminary FIRM maps – 2012. Accessed September 2022 at: https://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/fema-floodplain-mapping/ Garfield County. (2022a). Solar Permitting Requirements in Garfield County, Colorado. Garfield County Community Development. Accessed July 2022 at: solar-permitting-requirement- checklist-2020.pdf (garfield-county.com). General Land Office. (1888). Township No. 6 South, Range No. 92 West, 6th Principal Meridian [map], Original Survey Plat, Denver, Colorado. Available online at https://glorecords.blm.gov/. ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 25 Google Earth Pro. (2016). Aerial imagery of 39°31'38.73"N, 107°41'50.26"W. Accessed May 2022. Google Earth Pro. (1993 - 2016). Aerial imagery of 39°31'38.73"N, 107°41'50.26"W. Accessed May 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/ National Audubon Society (Audubon). (2019). Important Bird Areas, Colorado. Accessed June 9, 2022, at: https://www.audubon.org/important-bird-areas/state/colorado National Audubon Society (Audubon). (2022). Important Bird Areas Database, Boundary Digital Data Set. Colorado. Accessed May 2022 at: https://www.audubon.org/important-bird- areas/state/colorado National Conservation Easement Database. (2022). Interactive Map. Accessed May 2022 at: https://www.conservationeasement.us/ Nature Serve. (2022). NatureServe Explorer tool. Accessed May 2022 at https://explorer.natureserve.org/ Reed, Alan D., and Michael D. Metcalf. (1999). Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado River Basin. Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver. Rextag. (2022). Rextag Global Energy GIS Data. Accessed May 2022 at: https://rextag.com/gis U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). (2022). Web Soil Survey. Accessed July 13, 2022, at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). (2021). National Pipeline Mapping System. Accessed April 2, 2021, at: https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2007). National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. Accessed April 8, 2021, at: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/ecologicalservices/pdf/NationalBaldEagleManagementGui delines.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 USFWS. (2022a). National Wetlands Inventory – Wetlands Mapper. Accessed May 5, 2022, at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html USFWS. (2022b). Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report. Accessed May 10, 2022, at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ ACE DevCo NC, LLC Eagle Springs Organic Solar Project September 2022 Critical Issues Analysis 26 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (1962). Silt, Colorado [Map], 1:24000, Topographic Quadrangle Map, Reston, VA. USGS. (2018). 2018 Long-term National Seismic Hazard Map. Accessed April 5, 2021, at: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/2018-long-term-national-seismic-hazard-map USGS. (2019). Karst in the United States: A Digital Map Compilation and Database. Accessed April 5, 2021, at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1156/pdf/of2014-1156.pdf USGS. (2020). Gap Analysis Project (GAP), Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) 2.1: U.S. Geological Survey data release, Accessed May 2022 at: https://doi.org/10.5066/P92QM3NT. USGS. (2021). National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Accessed May 13, 2022, at: https://www.usgs.gov/core-science-systems/ngp/national-hydrography/ Appendix A. Figures Figure 1. Project Overview Figure 2. Land Use Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory and National Hydrology Data Figure 4. Watershed Map Figure 5. FEMA Floodplain Figure 6. Soil Resources Figure 5. FEMA Floodplain Figure 6. Soil Resources Figure 7. Rextag Map Figure 8. Airport Map 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 SERIES SILT (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 S-109 S-105 S-106 S-108 S-103 S-101 S-104 S-102 S-107 W-01 EAGLE SPRINGS PROJECT AREA 22 DEVELOPED, LOW INTENSITY 42 EVERGREEN FOREST 52 SHRUB/SCRUB 81 HAY/PASTURE STREAM WETLAND BLM COLORADO PLSS TOWNSHIP & RANGE 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_2_LAND OWNERSHIPJULY 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 SERIES SILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC J. SCHLANGEN B. WALKER R. BLAKE FIGURE 2 496375 LAND USE ACE DEVCO NC, LLC EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO COLORADO EAGLE SPRINGS PROJECT AREA EAGLE SPRINGS ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA WETLAND_TYPE 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, 07:49:26 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 MAPJULY 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 SERIES SILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC 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 EAGLE SPRINGS STUDY AREA EAGLE SPRINGS ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA DRY CREEK-COLORADO RIVER (HUC 12) OUTLET MAMM CREEK (HUC 12) 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, 07:49:26 AM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_4 WATERSHED MAPJULY 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 SERIES SILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC J. SCHLANGEN B. WALKER R. BLAKE FIGURE 4 496375 WATERSHED ACE DEVCO NC, LLC EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO COLORADO EAGLE SPRINGS STUDY AREA EAGLE SPRINGS ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD 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, 07:49:26 AM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_5 FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPJULY 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 SERIES SILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC J. SCHLANGEN B. WALKER R. BLAKE FIGURE 5 496375 FEMA FLOODPLAIN 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 ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA EAGLE SPRINGS STUDY AREA HYDRIC CLASSIFICATION - PRESENCE HYDRIC SOILS HYDRIC CLASSIFICATION - PRESENCE USDA-NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY 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, 07:49:26 AM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_6 SOILS MAPJULY 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 SERIES SILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC J. SCHLANGEN B. WALKER R. BLAKE FIGURE 6 496375 SOILS ACE DEVCO NC, LLC EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO COLORADO M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MMMMMMM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MMMM MMMM M M MM MM M M MM M MM M M M M M MMM M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(EAGLE SPRINGS STUDY AREA EAGLE SPRINGS MAIN SOLAR AREA EAGLE SPRINGS ADDITIONAL SOLAR AREA !(OIL AND GAS WELL NATURAL GAS PIPELINE M ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINE 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, 07:49:26 AM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_7 REXTAG MAPJULY 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 SERIES SILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC J. SCHLANGEN B. WALKER R. BLAKE FIGURE 7 496375 INFRASTRUCTURE MAP (REXTAG) ACE DEVCO NC, LLC EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO COLORADO DBS Air Rifle Garfield Co. Rifle Junction. West Divide EAGLE SPRINGS STUDY AREA AIRPORTS 2-MI BUFFER 10-MI BUFFER 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, 08:14:19 AM; FILE PATH: T:\1-PROJECTS\AES\496375_EAGLE_SPRINGS\2-APRX\EAGLE SPRINGS.APRX; LAYOUT NAME: AES EAGLE SPRINGS_FIG_8 AIRPORTS MAPJULY 2022 123 N. COLLEGE AVE.SUITE 370FORT COLLINS, CO 80524PHONE: 970.484.3263 F 1:240,000 1" = 20,000' 0 10,000 20,000 FEET BASE MAP: USGS 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE SERIES SILT (1983) , COLORADO, DATA SOURCES: TRC J. SCHLANGEN B. WALKER R. BLAKE FIGURE 8 496375 AIRPORT LOCATIONS ACE DEVCO NC, LLC EAGLE SPRINGS ORGANIC SOLAR PROJECT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO COLORADO Appendix B. USFWS IPaC Report and Colorado Parks and Wildlife Species List 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 aected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (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 oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened 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 Gareld County, Colorado Local oce Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Oce  (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 inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected 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 eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic 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 oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an ocial 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 oce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially aected 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 eects 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 (=squawsh) 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 Buttery 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 oshore 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 eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort 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 Eort () 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 eort 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 eort 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 oshore 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 specied 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 identied 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 oshore 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 specied 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 specied. 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 Pacic 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 oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts 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 aected by oshore 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 oers 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 specied 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 eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort 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 conrm 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 conrmed. 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 Oce 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 ocial 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 Buer 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 ocial 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 oshore areas of units (e.g., dredging, breakwaters, oshore 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 identied 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 classication 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 verication 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 dierences in polygon boundaries or classications 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 tubercid 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 dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene 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 modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such activities. RIVERINE Riverine A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website 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. NRCS Soils Report United States Department of Agriculture A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Natural Resources Conservation Service July 14, 2022 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nrcs142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 Soil Map..................................................................................................................8 Soil Map................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12 Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties............................14 3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes.......................................................14 34—Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes....................................15 50—Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes.......................................................16 54—Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes........................................................17 55—Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes........................................................18 References............................................................................................................19 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and Custom Soil Resource Report 6 identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. Custom Soil Resource Report 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 8 9 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 437780043780004378200437840043786004378800437900043792004377800437800043782004378400437860043788004379000267200 267400 267600 267800 268000 268200 268400 268600 268800 269000 269200 267200 267400 267600 267800 268000 268200 268400 268600 268800 269000 269200 39° 31' 52'' N 107° 42' 34'' W39° 31' 52'' N107° 41' 1'' W39° 31' 5'' N 107° 42' 34'' W39° 31' 5'' N 107° 41' 1'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WGS84 0 450 900 1800 2700Feet 0 100 200 400 600Meters Map Scale: 1:10,100 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties Survey Area Data: Version 14, Sep 2, 2021 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 25, 2021—Sep 5, 2021 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Custom Soil Resource Report 10 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Custom Soil Resource Report 11 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 3 Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 0.0 0.0% 34 Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes 7.3 5.2% 50 Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 0.6 0.4% 54 Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 0.2 0.1% 55 Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes 131.8 94.2% Totals for Area of Interest 139.9 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. Custom Soil Resource Report 12 The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. Custom Soil Resource Report 13 Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties 3—Arvada loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnxv Elevation: 5,100 to 6,200 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Arvada and similar soils:80 percent Minor components:5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Arvada Setting Landform:Fans, terraces Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Highly saline alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 3 inches: loam H2 - 3 to 17 inches: silty clay loam H3 - 17 to 60 inches: silty clay loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately low to moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:10 percent Gypsum, maximum content:2 percent Maximum salinity:Slightly saline to strongly saline (4.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm) Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:30.0 Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 7s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R034BY006UT - Alkali Flat (Greasewood) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Wann Percent of map unit:5 percent Landform:Terraces Custom Soil Resource Report 14 Landform position (three-dimensional):Tread Hydric soil rating: Yes 34—Ildefonso stony loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jny0 Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Ildefonso and similar soils:90 percent Minor components:10 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Ildefonso Setting Landform:Breaks, valley sides, alluvial fans Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear Parent material:Mixed alluvium derived from basalt Typical profile H1 - 0 to 8 inches: stony loam H2 - 8 to 60 inches: very stony loam Properties and qualities Slope:25 to 45 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 6.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:35 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Ecological site: R034BY330UT - Upland Stony Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 15 Minor Components Potts Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Ascalon Percent of map unit:5 percent Hydric soil rating: No 50—Olney loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnyl Elevation: 5,000 to 6,500 feet Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Olney and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Olney Setting Landform:Alluvial fans, valley sides Down-slope shape:Linear, convex Across-slope shape:Linear, convex Parent material:Alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 12 inches: loam H2 - 12 to 33 inches: sandy clay loam H3 - 33 to 43 inches: gravelly sandy clay loam H4 - 43 to 60 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope:3 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high (0.60 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Custom Soil Resource Report 16 Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ecological site: R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Hydric soil rating: No 54—Potts loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnyq Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Potts and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Potts Setting Landform:Mesas, benches, valley sides Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear Parent material:Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:1 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 17 55—Potts loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: jnyr Elevation: 5,000 to 7,000 feet Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Potts and similar soils:85 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Potts Setting Landform:Mesas, benches, valley sides Down-slope shape:Convex, linear Across-slope shape:Convex, linear Parent material:Alluvium derived from basalt and/or alluvium derived from sandstone and shale Typical profile H1 - 0 to 4 inches: loam H2 - 4 to 28 inches: clay loam H3 - 28 to 60 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope:3 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches Drainage class:Well drained Runoff class: High Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20 to 0.60 in/hr) Depth to water table:More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding:None Frequency of ponding:None Calcium carbonate, maximum content:15 percent Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3c Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R048AY306UT - Upland Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) Hydric soil rating: No Custom Soil Resource Report 18 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 19 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/? cid=nrcs142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf Custom Soil Resource Report 20