No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 11/27/2018 - ROUND HOUSE RENEWABLE PROJECT - TRANSMISSION LINEDATE: STAFF: November 27, 2018 Jason Graham, Water Reclamation/Biosolids Manager Carol Webb, Deputy Directory, Utilities Daylan Figgs, Senior Environmental Planner WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Round House Renewable Project - Transmission Line on Meadow Springs Ranch EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this item is to provide a project overview of the Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project including a review of the draft mitigation package related to impacts associated with the requested easement on Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR). Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) plans to deliver 150 megawatts (MW) of new wind power to its owner-cities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont and Estes Park. The Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project will include an above-ground 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line from wind turbines in Wyoming to Platte River’s Rawhide Energy Station. Approximately nine miles of the transmission line is proposed to be located on City-owned Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR). GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED What additional information does Council need to determine whether or not to grant a transmission line easement on MSR as part of the Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION MSR is a nearly unfragmented, intact shortgrass prairie that supports a diverse assemblage of native plant and wildlife species that are considered rare or imperiled. Among these are species listed as either threatened or endangered at both the State and Federal level. MSR also plays a critical role in the City’s resource recovery program and effectively balances the regulatory requirements of resource recovery with the equally important goal of protecting the cultural and environmental qualities of the Laramie Foothills. Last, MSR is an active cattle ranch; again, carefully managed to avoid conflicts with the other important functions. Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) purchased wind energy from a wind farm located in Wyoming. PRPA and the four communities it serves are committed to delivering a diversified energy portfolio to its rate payers. This project will add 150 MW of wind energy to this portfolio. The City of Fort Collins has established Climate Action Plan goals to reduce our carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2030. This project has the potential of reducing the community’s carbon emission by 10% and will increase our non-fossil electricity resources to nearly 50%. One key component to successfully delivering this wind energy to PRPA’s Rawhide Facility is approval of 9.7 miles of transmission line on City-owned Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR). MSR is owned by the Wastewater Utility and serves as the primary location for regulatory compliant land application of biosolids generated from the City’s wastewater facilities. MSR is also rich in cultural and environmental resources including the reintroduced federally endangered black footed ferret, archeological artifacts, and water rights. MSR also serves as a working cattle ranch. The project team has been working diligently to evaluate possible routes and their potential impacts to MSR. The team has engaged the Water, Energy, and Land Conservation and Stewardship Boards (Attachments 7, 8 and 9) as well as potentially impacted land owners and the general public. The project team utilized a systems November 27, 2018 Page 2 approach (Energy by Design, Siting Study, and Appraisal Study) to evaluate and determine a preferred route and mitigation strategy to present to City Council for consideration of approval. City Boards and Public Outreach The project team has attended several board meetings, workshops, and hosted open houses to provide updates and gather feedback on the proposal. Outreach included presentations to the Water, Energy, Natural Resources, and Land Conservation and Stewardship Boards. Two open houses, August 15 and September 26 (Attachment 11) and a joint advisory board meeting (Attachment 10) were also held to gather additional feedback. Comments have been generally in support of the City granting the easement on MSR for the Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line. At the August 15 Open House (Attachment 11), the project team sought feedback on the following two questions: 1. Would you support City Council granting an easement across MSR for the above-ground transmission lines? 91% of respondents support this statement. 2. Would you support City Council issuing a cooperation agency letter of support to Larimer and Weld County’s 1041 permit process? 94% of respondents support this statement. Feedback from the Water, Energy, Natural Areas, and Land Conservation/Stewardship boards have been in support as well. The project team is scheduled to meet with the Water Board on December 20 to obtain their official recommendation, as Meadow Springs Ranch is managed and operated by the Wastewater Utility. Compensation Mitigation Package Granting an easement on MSR for the transmission line will impact the surface area and the ecology of the area. The easement itself has a monetary value that will be recovered by the City for granting surface area access rights. In addition, there will be impacts to the land and surrounding area as a result of the activities associated with granting the easement. These impacts can be difficult to determine and manage however, the team decided early in the process to apply a mitigation hierarchy concept when evaluating possible transmission line routes and other potential impacts. Mitigation hierarchy uses the concept to first avoid impacts, minimize the impacts that occur and finally to mitigate unavoidable impacts associated with a project. This concept aligns with the Mountain to Plains Energy by Design (EBD), a previously used management plan for potential oil and gas development at Soapstone Natural Area and MSR. In addition to utilizing EBD, a Land Appraisal Report, Siting Study, and Triple Bottom Line scan were completed. Finally, to determine the value for the impacts to the ecosystem as a result of an easement being approved, the team applied an ecosystem goods and services equation to quantify the monetary value of impacts. Energy by Design (EBD) The EBD management strategy was developed in 2013 in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, Colorado State Land Board, Larimer County, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, and the City of Fort Collins. The plan developed a process to work with potential oil and gas development on Red Mountain Open Space, Soapstone Prairie Natural Area, and Meadow Springs Ranch that would allow for reasonable energy development while achieving the biological, cultural, scenic and recreational resource conservation goals of property owners. The plan is a scientific approach that identifies strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any potential impacts from energy development to biological, cultural, and scenic values. A second goal of EBD was to achieve a no-net change in conservation value following the energy development or in this case, from siting and construction of the transmission line. The approach to meet the second goal is to apply concepts of ecological goods and service values associated with the transmission line and determine how to mitigate loss in value caused by the transmission line project. November 27, 2018 Page 3 Ecosystem Goods and Services Ecosystem goods and services are provided by the ecosystem processes that either directly sustain or enhance human life or maintain the quality of ecosystem goods (Brown etal. 2007). Ecoservices maintain biodiversity or improve the condition or location of valued natural items (carbon storage, water filtration etc.). Ecosystem goods are generally defined products that have tangible value (forage, timber, biomass fuels, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Others have categorized ecosystem services into provisioning services, regulatory services, supporting services and cultural services (Holzman 2012). Provisioning services provide natural products: food, fiber, fuels etc. Regulatory services include things such as water and air filtration, carbon sequestration and storage and organic recycling. Supporting services maintain provisioning and regulatory services and include things like soil formation, photosynthesis and maintenance of healthy habitats. Finally, cultural services describe the intangible benefits that result from contact with nature; hiking, bird watching, fishing, hunting, etc. Given the broad definition of ecological goods and services, it can be assumed that some portion of the value will remain following the transmission line construction. While valid estimates of ecosystem services have been developed, the loss of values associated with the transmission line can only be estimated at this time. The cost of long-term studies needed to quantify the change are likely to exceed the value lost. Also, the lost value will change over time. For example, areas directly disturbed by construction activities will have a relatively high loss of ecosystem services until restored. Areas converted to roads will have a permanent loss of some ecosystem values and minor effects on others. Last, some areas within the easement that remain undisturbed during the project will have little if any reduction in value. Recent studies in Colorado have worked to place monetary value on ecosystem goods and services and are used for this analysis (Sargent-Michaud 2009, Seidl et al. 2017.) The equation and agreed upon variables are still being discussed between the City and NextEra. Preliminary discussions have produced a potential loss in goods and services as a result from the transmission line easement in the range of $300K to $400K. In addition to protecting important biological and cultural attributes, MSR also serves as the City’s biosolids application facility and considerations must be considered for this operation. It was with the EBD mindset that the Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project framed the subsequent work evaluating the potential transmission line routes and easement on MSR. Land Appraisal Report The Land Appraisal Report (Attachment 4) was completed by CBRE to determine land value of MSR and easement area. CBRE conducted the site visit with project team members including City staff. The land valuation is based on a highest and best use of Agriculture, External Market and Location Influences, and Comparable Land Sales. The appraisal determined that MSR land has a value of $1200.00 / acre with a total value of $31,920,000.00. The easement compensation for the 176.4 acres needed is still being discussed. The Land Appraisal Report is attached for reference. Project Siting Study The Project Siting Study (Attachment 5) was completed by Logan Simpson for the Roundhouse Renewable Energy project in August 2018. The Siting Study provided an analysis of possible transmission line routes on MSR. The analysis used the City’s Energy by Design methodology focused on a triple bottom line approach to select a preferred transmission line route. Six potential routes were initially identified for consideration. Criteria utilized to evaluate and select the preferred route include the following: • Vegetation and Surface Water; • Wildlife, including grassland birds and raptors; • Visual Resources; • Land Uses; • Cultural Resources; • Engineering factors; • Existing Linear Infrastructure. November 27, 2018 Page 4 The preferred route was identified as Route 2B (Attachment 2) because it has the lowest or equal conflicts with Vegetation and Surface Water, Wildlife, Birds - Raptor, Visual Resources, Land Uses, Cultural Resources, and Engineering criteria. It is the shortest route evaluated and has the fewest angle structures and parallels existing linear infrastructure for most of its length. The preferred alternative route will be carried forward into the Weld County 1041 permit and Use by Special Review applications and the Larimer County 1041 permit application. Route 2B parallels the existing railroad for the first six miles from Wyoming to MSR prior to heading south and west to the Rawhide Substation. Triple Bottom Line Evaluation The Triple Bottom Line (Attachment 6) was completed with City staff from Utilities, Natural Areas, and Environmental Services. The project description used for the scan was The Installation of transmission lines on MSR, which is adjacent to Soapstone Natural Area. Utilities owns MSR. This scan considers impacts of the transmission lines and impacts of approving the easement which will lead to the construction of the transmission line and enable a 150MW wind project. The proposed transmission lines have been requested by a 3rd party on behalf of PRPA purchase contract. The overall results of the scan generated a level of high confidence that the project would have a positive impact towards supporting the environment, economy, social, and organization priorities. Mitigation Package The total monetary value of the mitigation package has not been determined. The components used to finalize an agreed upon value will be the easement land value plus the determined value loss from the goods and services methodology. The project team will work to have these numbers finalized in time to present to Council at the work session. This item is scheduled for City Council consideration on January 15, 2019. ATTACHMENTS 1. Initial Potential 6 Route Map (PDF) 2. Preferred Route Map (PDF) 3. Project Overview Portrait Map (PDF) 4. Land Appraisal Report (PDF) 5. Project Siting Study (PDF) 6. TBL One Pager (PDF) 7. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Minutes June 13, 2018 (PDF) 8. Energy Board Minutes November 8, 2018 Abridged (Draft) (PDF) 9. Joint Energy Water Board Minutes from April 19 2018 (Excerpts) (PDF) 10. Joint Advisory Board Meeting Minutes and Table Notes August 22, 2018 (PDF) 11. Roundhouse Renewable Energy OpenHouse Comment Summary without names (PDF) 12. PowerPoint Presentation (PDF) RHeasmerilvtooinr § ¦¨25 Rawhide C W O Y L O O M R I A N D G O !. !. !. !. !. !] !] CO WY NE LPORCOAJTEIOCNT L A R I M E R A D A M S M O R G A N G R A N D W E L D A R A P A H O E ¦¨§25 ¦¨§80 ¦¨§76 ¦¨§70 Denver Cheyenne Fort Collins Greeley Loveland Wellington 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Mile 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Kilometer ROUNDHOUSE ENERGYRENEWABLE PROJECT Environmental Comparison 1:74,146 º O:\Projects\2018\185095 Enyo Renewable Energy\06GIS\6.3Layout\Siting Study Layouts\Environmental_Comparison_8_5x11.mxd Exported On: 11/14/18 RenReowuanbdlheouse Energy Route 2B 2C 3B 4 5A 5B Siting Area Existing Substation Old US Highway 87 Railroad Water Body Riparian Areas (100ft buffer) Streams and Wetlands (100ft buffer) CO Butterfly Plant (300ft buffer) Other Raptors (.25 mile buffer) MountainPlover and repeat detections staging areas, nests, Chestnut buffer)300ft Collared Longspur ( Prairie Dog Colonies Active in Conserved PrairieActive Dog or Colonies Managed 2004-YearsActive 2017) Prairie Dog Colonies ( Lark Bunting (450ft buffer) McCowns Longspur (450ft buffer) Mule AreaConcentration Deer Winter !( !( !( ( ! ( ! ( ! !( ( ! !( ( ! ( !( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! !( !( !( !( !( ( ! ( ! ( !( ! !( !( !( ( ! !( !( ( !( ! !( ! ( !( !( ( !( !( ! ( ! ( !( ! ( !( !( ! !( !( !( ( !( !( ! ( ! !( !( ! ( !( !( ( !( ! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( ! ( Hamilton Reservoir WELD COUNTY LARIMER COUNTY ¦¨§25 SOPARPASIRTOIENE NATURAL AREA C o RHeasmerilvtooinr W EL D C O U N T Y LARIMER COUNTY ¦¨§25 SOPARPASIRTOIENE NATURAL AREA I ndian Cre e k Spr i n g C re e k S pot t lew o od C ree k C oal Cree k G r a ve s C r e e k Ranchland Ln E Co Rd 92 N Co Rd 7 Co Rd 92 E Co Rd 82 Buckeye Rd Mars Hill Ln Romar Ranch MEADOW SPRINGS RANCH PROPERTY LARIMER COUNTY ROAD 92 LARIMER AND WELD COUNTIES, COLORADO 80549 CBRE GROUP, INC. FILE NO. 18-271PH-2524-1 PARCEL NOS.: ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION EASEMENT OWNER: CITY OF FORT COLLINS APPRAISER: JON VAUGHAN DATE OF VALUE: SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 DATE OF REPORT: OCTOBER 15, 2018 APPRAISAL REPORT CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES ATTACHMENT 4 i VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES 2850 McClelland Drive, Suite 3500 Fort Collins, CO 80525 T 970-223-4347 F 970-223-4393 www.cbre.com October 15, 2018 Mr. Ryan Fitzpatrick Project Director NEXTERA ENERGY RESOURCES 700 Universe Blvd Juno Beach, Florida 33408 RE: Project: 230kV Overhead Electric Transmission Line Location: Larimer County Road 92 Larimer and Weld Counties, Colorado Owner: City of Fort Collins CBRE, Inc. File No.: 18-271PH-2524-1 Dear Mr. Fitzpatrick: At your request and authorization, CBRE, Inc. has prepared an appraisal report of the referenced property. The purpose of this appraisal is to provide a compensation estimate for the reasonable market value of the property actually taken; compensable damages, if any, to the residue; and special benefits, if any, to the residue. Only the underlying land/site value and affected improvements acquired in the acquisition area have been valued in this appraisal. My analysis is presented in the following Appraisal Report. I understand that this appraisal report may be used in connection with the acquisition of an easement for the referenced project to be constructed by NextEra Energy Resources. The subject is a 26,600-acre parcel of dry agricultural land located north of the Town of Wellington in unincorporated Larimer and Weld Counties, Colorado. Although the property is improved with a biosolids processing facility, the improvements are not being impacted by the easement acquisition. Therefore, no building improvements will be valued. The reasonable market value and compensation estimate are subject to certain definitions, assumptions and limiting conditions, and certification of appraiser set forth in the attached appraisal report. Based upon my independent appraisal and exercise of my professional judgment, my compensation estimate for the acquisition is concluded as follows: MARKET VALUE CONCLUSION Appraisal Premise Interest Appraised Date of Value Value Conclusion Land Value - As Is Fee Simple Estate September 27, 2018 $31,920,000 Compensation Estimate September 27, 2018 $105,850 Compiled by CBRE ii The report, in its entirety, including all assumptions and limiting conditions, is an integral part of, and inseparable from, this letter. The following appraisal sets forth the most pertinent data gathered, the techniques employed, and the reasoning leading to the opinion of value. The analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed based on, and this report has been prepared in conformance with, the guidelines and recommendations set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act. It also conforms to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the appropriate compensation for a partial acquisition of the subject property. As a result, it is being analyzed before and after the acquisition. For the analysis after the acquisition, the property is being analyzed as though the project has been completed on the date of value, which is a hypothetical condition. This hypothetical condition is common to all partial acquisition appraisals because it is necessary to develop a compensation estimate. The intended use and user of my report are specifically identified in my report as agreed upon in my contract for services and/or reliance language found in the report. As a condition to being granted the status of an intended user, any intended user who has not entered into a written agreement with CBRE in connection with its use of my report agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement between CBRE and the client who ordered the report. No other use or user of the report is permitted by any other party for any other purpose. Dissemination of this report by any party to any non-intended users does not extend reliance to any such party, and CBRE will not be responsible for any unauthorized use of or reliance upon the report, its conclusions or contents (or any portion thereof). iii It has been a pleasure to assist you in this assignment. If you have any questions concerning the analysis, or if CBRE can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, CBRE - VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES Jon Vaughan, MAI, SR/WA Director CG# 100000631 www.cbre.com/jon.vaughan Phone: 970 223 4378 Mobile: 970 310 1339 Email: jon.vaughan@cbre.com Table of Contents iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Part 1 - Scope of Work ........................................................................................................ 1 Part 2 - Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take ................................................................ 8 Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation – Larger Parcel Before Take ............................................... 22 Part 4 – Factual Data – Part Acquired ................................................................................. 35 Part 5 – Analysis and Valuation – Part Acquired ................................................................. 37 Part 6 – Residue Value Before Take .................................................................................... 39 Part 7 – Factual Data – Residue After Take ......................................................................... 40 Part 8 – Analysis and Valuation – Residue After Take ......................................................... 41 Part 9 – Analysis of Damages or Benefits ........................................................................... 42 Part 10 – Temporary Easement Rental Value ...................................................................... 43 Part 11 – Compensation Summary .................................................................................... 44 Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda ......................................................................................... 46 A Colorado 7-Step Partial Acquisition Appraisal Process B Acronyms and Definitions C Qualifications Executive Summary v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Parcel Number Property Name Name of Owner Property Address or Location Project Location Owner Present at Inspection Client Property Rights Appraised Date of Report Date of Inspection Larger Parcel Land Area 26,600 AC Zoning Owner and/or Tenant Occupancy Affected Owner Improvements Subject 5-year Sales History External Market Influences Highest and Best Use Before Take After Take Purpose of Easement Purpose of Temporary Easement Affect of Take on Residue Parcel Damage Considerations Cost to Cure Special Benefits Considerations None None 230 kV Electric Transmission Line None being acquired No significant affect None Agriculture Agriculture The subject property has been held by the current owner for more than 5 years Ranch land extending for miles between the Cities of Fort Collins and Cheyenne NextEra Energy Resources City of Fort Collins Electric transmission line extending from a wind farm near Cheyenne, Wyoming to the Rawhide Power Plant Substation in Larimer County Tawnya Ernst, Mark Sears, and several other officials with the City of Fort Collins Meadow Springs Ranch Larimer County Road 92, Larimer & Weld Counties, CO 80549 Electric Transmission Easement Fee Simple Estate October 15, 2018 September 27, 2018 O (Open) by Larimer County None Owner-occupied VALUE AND COMPENSATION CONCLUSIONS Larger Parcel Value Before Acquisition Total Value Before Acquisition Total Value Executive Summary vi Value of the Part Acquired Land/Site Acquisitions Parcel Area $/Unit Value Value Total Value None $0 $0 Easement Acquisitions Parcel Area $/Unit Value % of Fee Value Total Value Electric Transmission Easement 176.364 AC $1,200 50% $105,818 $105,818 Owner Affected Improvements Acquired (Contributory Value) Contributory Value Total Value $0 $0 Tenant Affected Improvements Acquired (Contributory Value) Contributory Value Total Value $0 $105,818 Description None Total Tenant Affected Improvements Contributory Value of Part Acquired Total Value of Part Acquired (land + affected improvements) Total Owner Affected Improvements Contributory Value of Part Acquired Total Land/Site Value of Part Acquired Total Land/Site Value of Part Acquired None Description Parcel Area $/Unit Value Rate (%) Term (Mos.) Value Total Value None $0 Total Rental Value of Temporary Easements $0 Value of Part Acquired Land/Site Value $0 Easement Value $105,818 Contributory Value of Improvements $0 Total Value of Part Acquired $105,818 Compensible Damages and/or Offsetting Benefits Compensible Damages - Curable (Net Cost to Cure) $0 Compensible Damages - Incurable (No Cost to Cure) $0.00 <Less> Special Benefits (Offset Up To 100% of Incurable Damages) $0.00 =Remaining Special Benefits (Offset Up To 50% of Value of Part Acquired) $0.00 Total Rental Value of Temporary Easements $0 Compensation Estimate $105,818 Rounded $105,850 Compiled by CBRE Executive Summary vii SUBJECT PROPERTY Aerial View (Boundary lines are approximate) Part 1: Scope of Work 1 Part 1 - Scope of Work This Appraisal Report is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2 of USPAP. The scope of the assignment relates to the extent and manner in which research is conducted, data is gathered and analysis is applied. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS An extraordinary assumption is defined as “an assignment-specific assumption as of the effective date regarding uncertain information used in an analysis which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions.” 1 1. No draft of the proposed permanent easement was available for review. Therefore, the analysis of the value of the part taken is based on conversations with the acquisition agent regarding the terms of the easement. Specifically, the acquisition agent indicated that this will be a non-exclusive easement for an overhead electric transmission line. Any site improvements and landscaping impacted by the project will be repaired or replaced by the condemnor. The appraiser reserves the right to revise the report and value conclusions if the final terms of the easement are significantly different than the terms disclosed during the appraisal process. 2. No legal description of the larger parcel or title policy was available for review. Furthermore, no legal description of the easement area being acquired was available. Therefore, the precise land area of the larger parcel and the easement area, as well as all descriptions and sketches of the larger parcel are approximate, based on information provided by the property owner and the client. The appraiser reserves the right to revise the report if the land area of the larger parcel or the easement area are significantly different than what was estimated. HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS A hypothetical condition is defined as “a condition, directly related to a specific assignment, which is contrary to what is known by the appraiser to exist on the effective date of the assignment results, but is used for the purposes of analysis.” 2 1. The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the appropriate compensation for a partial acquisition of the subject property. As a result, it is being analyzed before and after the acquisition. For the analysis after the acquisition, the property is being analyzed as though the project has been completed on the date of value, which is a hypothetical condition. This hypothetical condition is common to all partial acquisition appraisals because it is necessary to develop a compensation estimate. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. CBRE, Inc. through its appraiser (collectively, “CBRE”) has inspected through reasonable observation the subject property. However, it is not possible or reasonably practicable to personally inspect conditions beneath the soil and the entire interior and exterior of the improvements on the subject property. Therefore, no representation is made as to such matters. 1 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2018-2019 2 The Appraisal Foundation, USPAP, 2018-2019 Part 1: Scope of Work 2 2. The report, including its conclusions and any portion of such report (the “Report”), is as of the date set forth in the letter of transmittal and based upon the information, market, economic, and property conditions and projected levels of operation existing as of such date. The dollar amount of any conclusion as to value in the Report is based upon the purchasing power of the U.S. Dollar on such date. The Report is subject to change as a result of fluctuations in any of the foregoing. CBRE has no obligation to revise the Report to reflect any such fluctuations or other events or conditions which occur subsequent to such date. 3. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, CBRE has assumed that: (i) Title to the subject property is clear and marketable and that there are no recorded or unrecorded matters or exceptions to title that would adversely affect marketability or value. CBRE has not examined title records (including without limitation liens, encumbrances, easements, deed restrictions, and other conditions that may affect the title or use of the subject property) and makes no representations regarding title or its limitations on the use of the subject property. Insurance against financial loss that may arise out of defects in title should be sought from a qualified title insurance company. (ii) Existing improvements on the subject property conform to applicable local, state, and federal building codes and ordinances, are structurally sound and seismically safe, and have been built and repaired in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices; all building systems (mechanical/electrical, HVAC, elevator, plumbing, etc.) are in good working order with no major deferred maintenance or repair required; and the roof and exterior are in good condition and free from intrusion by the elements. CBRE has not retained independent structural, mechanical, electrical, or civil engineers in connection with this appraisal and, therefore, makes no representations relative to the condition of improvements. CBRE appraisers are not engineers and are not qualified to judge matters of an engineering nature, and furthermore structural problems or building system problems may not be visible. It is expressly assumed that any purchaser would, as a precondition to closing a sale, obtain a satisfactory engineering report relative to the structural integrity of the property and the integrity of building systems. (iii) Any proposed improvements, on or off-site, as well as any alterations or repairs considered will be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. (iv) Hazardous materials are not present on the subject property. CBRE is not qualified to detect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, contaminated groundwater, mold, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. (v) No mineral deposit or subsurface rights of value exist with respect to the subject property, whether gas, liquid, or solid, and no air or development rights of value may be transferred. CBRE has not considered any rights associated with extraction or exploration of any resources, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. (vi) There are no contemplated public initiatives, governmental development controls, rent controls, or changes in the present zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density, or shape that would significantly affect the value of the subject property. (vii) All required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, nor national government or private entity or organization have been or can be readily obtained or renewed for any use on which the Report is based. (viii) The subject property is managed and operated in a prudent and competent manner, neither inefficiently or super-efficiently. (ix) The subject property and its use, management, and operation are in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, laws, and restrictions, including without limitation environmental laws, seismic hazards, flight patterns, decibel levels/noise envelopes, fire hazards, hillside ordinances, density, allowable uses, building codes, permits, and licenses. (x) The subject property is in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). CBRE is not qualified to assess the subject property’s compliance with the ADA, notwithstanding any discussion of possible readily achievable barrier removal construction items in the Report. (xi) All information regarding the areas and dimensions of the subject property furnished to CBRE are correct, and no encroachments exist. CBRE has neither undertaken any survey of the boundaries of the subject property nor reviewed or confirmed the accuracy of any legal description of the subject property. Unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report, no issues regarding the foregoing were brought to CBRE’s attention, and CBRE has no knowledge of any such facts affecting the subject property. If any information inconsistent with any of the foregoing assumptions is discovered, such information could have a substantial negative impact on the Report. Accordingly, if any such information is subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. CBRE assumes no Part 1: Scope of Work 3 responsibility for any conditions regarding the foregoing, or for any expertise or knowledge required to discover them. Any user of the Report is urged to retain an expert in the applicable field(s) for information regarding such conditions. 4. CBRE has assumed that all documents, data and information furnished by or behalf of the client, property owner, or owner’s representative are accurate and correct, unless otherwise expressly noted in the Report. Such data and information include, without limitation, numerical street addresses, lot and block numbers, Assessor’s Parcel Numbers, land dimensions, square footage area of the land, dimensions of the improvements, gross building areas, net rentable areas, usable areas, unit count, room count, rent schedules, income data, historical operating expenses, budgets, and related data. Any error in any of the above could have a substantial impact on the Report. Accordingly, if any such errors are subsequently made known to CBRE, CBRE reserves the right to amend the Report, which may include the conclusions of the Report. The client and intended user should carefully review all assumptions, data, relevant calculations, and conclusions of the Report and should immediately notify CBRE of any questions or errors within 30 days after the date of delivery of the Report. 5. CBRE assumes no responsibility (including any obligation to procure the same) for any documents, data or information not provided to CBRE, including without limitation any termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit. 6. All furnishings, equipment and business operations have been disregarded with only real property being considered in the Report, except as otherwise expressly stated and typically considered part of real property. 7. Any cash flows included in the analysis are forecasts of estimated future operating characteristics based upon the information and assumptions contained within the Report. Any projections of income, expenses and economic conditions utilized in the Report, including such cash flows, should be considered as only estimates of the expectations of future income and expenses as of the date of the Report and not predictions of the future. Actual results are affected by a number of factors outside the control of CBRE, including without limitation fluctuating economic, market, and property conditions. Actual results may ultimately differ from these projections, and CBRE does not warrant any such projections. 8. The Report contains professional opinions and is expressly not intended to serve as any warranty, assurance or guarantee of any particular value of the subject property. Other appraisers may reach different conclusions as to the value of the subject property. Furthermore, market value is highly related to exposure time, promotion effort, terms, motivation, and conclusions surrounding the offering of the subject property. The Report is for the sole purpose of providing the intended user with CBRE’s independent professional opinion of the value of the subject property as of the date of the Report. Accordingly, CBRE shall not be liable for any losses that arise from any investment or lending decisions based upon the Report that the client, intended user, or any buyer, seller, investor, or lending institution may undertake related to the subject property, and CBRE has not been compensated to assume any of these risks. Nothing contained in the Report shall be construed as any direct or indirect recommendation of CBRE to buy, sell, hold, or finance the subject property. 9. No opinion is expressed on matters which may require legal expertise or specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that customarily employed by real estate appraisers. Any user of the Report is advised to retain experts in areas that fall outside the scope of the real estate appraisal profession for such matters. 10. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need, for flood hazard insurance. An agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance. 11. Acceptance or use of the Report constitutes full acceptance of these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and any special assumptions set forth in the Report. It is the responsibility of the user of the Report to read in full, comprehend and thus become aware of all such assumptions and limiting conditions. CBRE assumes no responsibility for any situation arising out of the user’s failure to become familiar with and understand the same. 12. The allocations of the total value estimate in the Report between land and improvements apply only to the existing use of the subject property. The allocations of values for each of the land and improvements are not intended to be used with any other property or appraisal and are not valid for any such use. 13. The maps, plats, sketches, graphs, photographs, and exhibits included in this Report are for illustration purposes only and shall be utilized only to assist in visualizing matters discussed in the Report. No such items shall be removed, reproduced, or used apart from the Report. 14. The Report shall not be duplicated or provided to any unintended users in whole or in part without the written consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Exempt from this restriction is duplication for the internal use of the intended user and its attorneys, accountants, or advisors for the sole benefit of the intended user. Also exempt from this restriction is transmission of the Report pursuant to any requirement of any court, governmental authority, or regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the intended user, provided that the Report and its contents shall not be published, in whole or in part, in any public document without the written Part 1: Scope of Work 4 consent of CBRE, which consent CBRE may withhold in its sole discretion. Finally, the Report shall not be made available to the public or otherwise used in any offering of the property or any security, as defined by applicable law. Any unintended user who may possess the Report is advised that it shall not rely upon the Report or its conclusions and that it should rely on its own appraisers, advisors and other consultants for any decision in connection with the subject property. CBRE shall have no liability or responsibility to any such unintended user. 15. Property utilities will be protected and/or restored by the project. 16. This report is as of the date set out and is not intended to reflect subsequent fluctuations in market conditions, up or down. As an assignment condition, no specific exposure time is linked to the value and compensation conclusions in this appraisal report, however, reasonable exposure time is presumed. This is in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, which is a guiding document in many partial acquisition appraisal procedures and policies followed by agencies, organizations and appraisal professionals. 17. It is assumed there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structures that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them. 18. The property is appraised assuming responsible ownership and competent property management. PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL This appraisal is subject to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the federal Uniform Act appraisal requirements, Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.), and Colorado Jury Instructions (CJI). Real property appraisal development and reporting is subject to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The purpose of this appraisal is to develop a compensation estimate for the reasonable market value of the property actually acquired; compensable damages, if any, to the residue after acquisition; and specific benefits, if any, to the residue after acquisition. Referred to as the modified state before-and-after rule, steps to develop a compensation estimate for the acquisition of real property are: 1. Larger Parcel Value Before Acquisition 2. Value of Part Acquired (including easements acquired) 3. Residue Value Before Acquisition (= Value of Larger Parcel Before Acquisition <Less> Value of Part Acquired) 4. Residue Value After Acquisition (including encumbered easement areas acquired) 5. Analysis of Damages and/or Benefits 6. Rental Value of Temporary Easements 7. Compensation Estimate Summary Further details about the steps outlined above are included in the Addenda. CLIENT The client is NextEra Energy Resources. INTENDED USER OF REPORT Intended users of this appraisal report include but are not limited to the property owner or the owner’s personal representative, property owner’s attorney, NextEra Energy Resources officials, and attorneys for NextEra Energy Resources. No other user may rely on my report unless as specifically indicated in the report. Part 1: Scope of Work 5 Intended Users - the intended user is the person (or entity) who the appraiser intends will use the results of the appraisal. The client may provide the appraiser with information about other potential users of the appraisal, but the appraiser ultimately determines who the appropriate users are given the appraisal problem to be solved. Identifying the intended users is necessary so that the appraiser can report the opinions and conclusions developed in the appraisal in a manner that is clear and understandable to the intended users. Parties who receive or might receive a copy of the appraisal are not necessarily intended users. The appraiser’s responsibility is to the intended users identified in the report, not to all readers of the appraisal report. 3 INTENDED USE OF REPORT The intended use of the appraisal is in connection with the acquisition of an easement for the referenced project to be constructed by NextEra Energy Resources. INTEREST APPRAISED The value estimated represents Fee Simple Estate as defined below: Fee Simple Estate - Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power and escheat. 4 The property is appraised “as if free and clear” of all liens, bond assessments, and indebtedness, but subject to existing easements, covenants, deed restrictions, rights-of-way of record, and excepting therefrom all rights to oil, natural gas, or other mineral resources beneath such real property. This mineral interest exception is an assignment condition. DEFINITION OF REASONABLE MARKET VALUE Colorado eminent domain proceedings use the following jurisdictional definition of reasonable market value: “The value you are to determine for the property actually acquired is the reasonable market value for such property on September 27, 2018. ‘Reasonable market value’ means the fair, actual, cash market value of the property. It is the price the property could have been sold for on the open market under the usual and ordinary circumstances, that is, under those circumstances where the owner was willing to sell and the purchaser was willing to buy, but neither was under an obligation to do so.” In determining the market value of the property actually acquired, you are not to take into account any increase or decrease in value caused by the proposed public improvement.” (CJI-Civil 4th, 36:3) Colorado Revised Statutes also address Project Influence: “Any decrease or increase in the fair market value of real property prior to the date of valuation caused by the public improvement for which such property is acquired, or by the 3 Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2013), 50. 4 Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 6th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2015), 90. Part 1: Scope of Work 6 likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, shall be disregarded in determining the compensation for the property.” (§24-56-117(1)(c), C.R.S.) The Jurisdictional Exception Rule of USPAP applies to Standards Rule 1-4(f). In Standards Rule 1-4(f), anticipated public or private improvements must be analyzed for their affect on value as reflected in market actions. This is contrary to law for eminent domain appraisal. Jurisdictional exception authorities are Uniform Act, Title III, § 301(3); 49 CFR § 24.103(b); § 24-56-117(1)(c), C.R.S.; and CJI – Civ. 4th, 36:3. Please refer to definitions of other terms and pertinent acronyms listed in the Addenda. EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPRAISAL The effective date of appraisal, reasonable market value opinions, and compensation estimate for the proposed acquisition is as of September 27, 2018. DATE OF APPRAISAL REPORT The date of the appraisal report is October 15, 2018. DATE OF PROPERTY INSPECTION AND OWNER ACCOMPANIMENT Tawnya Ernst, Mark Sears, and several other officials with the City of Fort Collins inspected the subject property with the appraiser, on September 27, 2018. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION The project will install a 230kV Overhead Electric Transmission Line extending from a wind farm in Wyoming to the Rawhide substation. PROJECT PLANS RELIED ON FOR VALUATION PURPOSES This appraisal was made under the assumption the acquisition for the proposed project will occur as shown on the plans included in the addenda to this report. If any modifications are made to the plans, the appraiser reserves the right to revise the appraisal and appraisal report to reflect the change. SCOPE OF RESEARCH AND ANALYSES Extent to Which the Property is Identified The property is identified through the following sources:  property owner’s records Type and Extent of the Data Researched CBRE reviewed the following:  applicable tax data Part 1: Scope of Work 7  zoning requirements  flood zone status  demographics  comparable data Type and Extent of Analysis Applied CBRE, Inc. analyzed the data gathered through the use of appropriate and accepted appraisal methodology to arrive at a probable value indication via each applicable approach to value. For vacant land, the sales comparison approach has been employed for this assignment. Data Resources Utilized in the Analysis DATA SOURCES Item: Source(s): Site Data Size City of Fort Collins Other Right of Way Plans NextEra Energy Compiled by CBRE SUMMARY OF APPRAISAL PROBLEMS No legal description of the larger parcel or title policy was available for review. Furthermore, no legal description of the easement area being acquired was available. Therefore, the precise land area of the larger parcel and the easement area, as well as all descriptions and sketches of the larger parcel are approximate, based on information provided by the property owner and the client. The appraiser reserves the right to revise the report if the land area of the larger parcel or the easement area are significantly different than what was estimated. Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 8 Part 2 - Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take IDENTIFICATION OF THE LARGER PARCEL BEFORE TAKE Appraisal for partial acquisitions is unique in that it requires consideration of damages and/or benefits to the residue property after the acquisition when a partial acquisition occurs, thus the larger parcel from which an acquisition will be made must be determined. Three conditions establish the larger parcel for the consideration of compensable damages and/or special benefits. The three conditions include the portion of a property that has:  Unity of Ownership  Contiguity  Unity of Use The larger parcel identified in this assignment is the 26,600 -acre property located at Larimer County Road 92, in unincorporated Larimer and Weld Counties, Colorado, that is owned by the City of Fort Collins. EXTERNAL MARKET AND LOCATION INFLUENCES US and Colorado Market Conditions U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an annualized rate of 4.1% in Q2 2018, which was its strongest pace since the third quarter of 2014. Underlying domestic fundamentals are stong, despite a flattening yield curve. On an annual basis, the economy grew 2.8%. Employment The labor market continues to offer a mixed picture of the economy, and the ongoing trade tensions could potentially dampen hiring activity in the coming quarters. On the other, a shortage of workers suggests that the labor market is reaching its limit, thus making an acceleration in wages imminent. Wage growth itself continues to puzzle, however, growing only slightly faster than inflation despite a shrinking labor pool. A key metric to watch for in the coming months is the underemployment rate, which declined in July to 7.5% from 7.8% in June. The still-high underemployment rate is often viewed as a sign that the labor market hasn’t yet reached capacity, and may be the reason wages haven’t increased significantly. Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 9 Forecast Our baseline forecasts remain largely unchanged from last quarter. We expect the government’s fiscal stimulus to boost growth, though gains are modest given that the economy is operating at near-capacity. Inflation in 2018 is stronger than 2017’s 2.1%. The 10- year Treasury hovers around 3% for the rest of the year, with the possibility of rising higher, due in part to the Fed’s balance sheet reduction and the increasing government debt issuance. We expect a relatively mild slowdown to begin in late 2019—5 quarters with GDP growth between slightly negative and 0.8%. The slowing causes the Fed to lower interest rates, and the 10-year drops from 3.0% in 2018 to 2.2% in 2019. Inflation also declines with the slowing economy. We see a quick rebound only toward the beginning of 2021 as the economy recovers. Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 10 Regional Economy and Market Conditions POPULATION The subject is located in the northeastern portion of Larimer County and the northwestern portion of Weld County, in proximity to Carr, Colorado. Key information about the area is provided in the following tables. Theareahasapopulationof504anda median age of 45, with the largest population group in the 50-59 age range and the smallest population in 80+ age range. Population has increased by 88 since 2010, reflecting an annual increase of 2.4%. Population is projected to increase by 37 by an additional 2023, reflecting 1.4% annual population growth. 416 504 541 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 201020182023 POPULATION BY YEAR 0 20 40 60 80 100 0‐9 10‐19 20‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59 60‐69 70‐79 80+ AREA POPULATION BY AGE Source: Esri Source: Esri Subject Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 11 INCOME EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT The area includes a total of 280 employees and has a 4.4% unemployment rate. The top three industries within the area are Health Care/Social Assistance, Construction and Retail Trade, which represent a combined total of 43% of the population. The area features an average household income of $86,084 and a median household income of $71,849. Over the next five years, median household income is expected to increase by 10.4%, or $1,499 per annum. A total of 31.9% of individuals over the age of 24 have a college degree, with 22.1% holding a bachelor's degree and 9.8% holding a graduate degree. $71,849 $79,345 $68,000 $70,000 $72,000 $74,000 $76,000 $78,000 $80,000 2018 2023 MEDIAN INCOME BY YEAR 22.1% 9.8% 68.1% POPULATION BY DEGREE Bachelor's Degree Graduate Degree Other 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% Transportation/Warehousing Public Administration Accommodation/Food Services #N/A Agric/Forestry/Fishing/Hunting Prof/Scientific/Tech Services Educational Services Retail Trade Construction Health Care/Social Assistance Source: Esri Source: Esri Source: Esri CONCLUSION The subject property is situated on the northern edge of the Northern Colorado Front Range, extending from the plains to the continental divide. Although Larimer and Weld Counties feature a growing populations and expanding employment bases, the area surrounding Carr is relatively remote, and its growth is on a much smaller scale. Nevertheless, the long term prospects for this area are for continued growth. Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 12 Neighborhood Analysis – Local Market Influences Location The subject is situated on the northeastern edge of Larimer County and the northwestern corner of Weld County, between the Cities of Fort Collins and Cheyenne. This area is primarily comprised of dry grazing land due to a lack of irrigation water, undulating topography, and frequent wind. Boundaries The neighborhood boundaries are detailed as follows: Subject Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 13 North: Colorado – Wyoming State Line South: Owl Canyon Road East: US Highway 85 West: US Highway 287 Land Use Land uses within the subject neighborhood consist of agricultural properties and some rural residential estates. In addition to private lands, this neighborhood includes thousands of acres of publicly-owned open space, including the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area, Red Mountain Open Space, and Meadow Springs Ranch. One of the most prominent landmarks in the area is the Rawhide Energy Station, which is just north of Buckeye Road. The power plant, which is visible from miles away, includes coal-fired generators, natural gas turbines, and a 185-acre, 30 megawatt solar array. Unlike many other parts of Larimer County, this neighborhood has not experienced significant residential development because it is further removed from urban amenities. Growth Patterns Nearly all of the population growth in Larimer County has taken place to the south of the subject neighborhood. Properties within the neighborhood are generally sought for ranching and outdoor recreation. Access Primary access to the subject neighborhood is provided by Interstate 25 and US Highway 287. Interstate 25 is the primary north-south route through the Colorado front range, as well as the surrounding region. US Highway 287 is a secondary north-south route through the region. Owl Canyon Road is one of the only east-west roads that connects Interstate 25 to U.S. Highway 287. Demographics Selected demographics from the neighborhood surrounding the subject are shown in the following table: Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 14 Larimer County Road 92 Larimer, CO 80549 Population 2023 Total Population 165 937 20,040 386,432 2018 Total Population 154 877 18,769 351,860 2010 Total Population 122 780 16,624 299,630 2000 Total Population 85 631 13,344 251,494 Annual Growth 2018 - 2023 1.39% 1.33% 1.32% 1.89% Annual Growth 2010 - 2018 2.95% 1.48% 1.53% 2.03% Annual Growth 2000 - 2010 3.68% 2.14% 2.22% 1.77% Households 2023 Total Households 73 364 7,795 153,124 2018 Total Households 68 342 7,303 139,765 2010 Total Households 55 306 6,552 120,295 2000 Total Households 36 233 5,015 97,164 Annual Growth 2018 - 2023 1.43% 1.25% 1.31% 1.84% Annual Growth 2010 - 2018 2.69% 1.40% 1.37% 1.89% Annual Growth 2000 - 2010 4.33% 2.76% 2.71% 2.16% Income 2018 Median Household Income $72,616 $74,539 $53,136 $66,513 2018 Average Household Income $85,943 $94,233 $65,862 $90,291 2018 Per Capita Income $32,870 $36,375 $25,660 $36,406 2018 Pop 25+ College Graduates 25 157 1,569 67,080 Age 25+ Percent College Graduates - 2018 16.2% 17.9% 8.4% 19.1% Source: ESRI SELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD DEMOGRAPHICS Larimer County 5 Mile Radius 10 Mile Radius 15 Mile Radius Conclusions – External Market and Location Influences The neighborhood is primarily sought for agriculture and outdoor recreation uses. Growth in the surrounding region has fueled demand for recreational properties in this area. This exerts a positive influence on the subject property. Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 15 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION – LARGER PARCEL BEFORE TAKE The following chart summarizes the salient characteristics of the subject site. SITE SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Physical Description Gross Site Area 26,600 Acres 1,158,696,000 Sq. Ft. Shape Topography Zoning District Flood Map Panel No. & Date 08069C 0275F & 08069C 0250F 19-Dec-06 Flood Zone Zone X (Unshaded) Adjacent Land Uses Comparative Analysis Visibility Functional Utility Traffic Volume Adequacy of Utilities Landscaping Drainage Utilities Availability Water Yes Sewer Yes Natural Gas Yes Electricity Yes Telephone Yes Other Yes No Unknown Detrimental Easements x Encroachments x Deed Restrictions x Reciprocal Parking Rights x Source: Various sources compiled by CBRE Septic Propoane Poudre Valley REA CenturyLink Assumed adequate Average Provider Well Assumed adequate Rating Average Average Average Irregular Varies O (Open) by Larimer County & A (Agriculture) by Weld County Agriculture, Residential, and River Recreation Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 16 PROPERTY MAP Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 17 FLOOD PLAIN The subject not situated in a floodplain. The map panels that encompass this area are non- printed. LOCATION The subject straddles Interstate 25 just south of the Wyoming border in the north edges of Larimer and Weld Counties. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The larger parcel comprises numerous sections and aliquot parts in Township 12 North, Range 68 West, Township 12 North, Range 67 West, Township 11 North, Range 68 West, Township 11 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Township 10 North, Range 68 West, and Township 10 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. in Larimer and Weld Counties, Colorado. SHAPE AND FRONTAGE The site features an irregular shape with more than eleven miles of frontage on Interstate 25. ACCESS Ingress and egress is available from Larimer County Road 92/Weld County Road 126. This road is asphalt-paved in Weld County, but gravel-surfaced in Larimer County. TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE The larger parcel features varied topography, ranging from relatively level meadows to rugged hills. Overall, the topography is appropriate for livestock grazing and recreational uses. During my inspection of the site, I observed no drainage problems and assume that none exist. SOILS A soils analysis for the site has not been provided for the preparation of this appraisal. In the absence of a soils report, the USDA web soil survey indicates that the subject property is comprised of a wide variety of soils, including Altvan and Fort Collins loams, Larim gravelly sandy loam, Otero-nelson sandy loam, as well as Bainville-Keith and Larimer Stoneham complex, among others. These soils are typical in this area, and are appropriate for ranching. Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 18 SOIL MAP Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 19 EASEMENTS, ENCROACHMENTS, AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS No title policy or recorded plat was available for review. Interstate 25, the Burlington Northern Railroad, and some county roads transect the property. However, this does not affect the marketability or highest and best use. It is recommended that the client/reader obtain a current title policy outlining all easements and encroachments on the property, if any, prior to making a business decision. UTILITIES AND SERVICES Municipal utilities are limited in this area. Poudre Valley REA provides electricity in the area. Individual well and septic systems are used in lieu of municipal water and sewer services. Propane is used in lieu of natural gas. The utilities available to the site are in adequate quality and quantity to service the highest and best use. SITE IMPROVEMENTS No site improvements are being impacted by the easement acquisition. FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY OF THE SITE The site is large enough to accommodate a variety of potential uses with terrain that does not prohibit efficient land utilization. Overall, the site is functionally adequate to accommodate numerous uses. ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT The larger parcel is surrounded by dry agricultural parcels an rural residential acreages. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The appraiser is not qualified to detect the existence of potentially hazardous material or underground storage tanks which may be present on or near the site. The existence of hazardous materials or underground storage tanks may affect the value of the property. For this appraisal, CBRE, Inc. has specifically assumed that the property is not affected by any hazardous materials that may be present on or near the property. OWNER IMPROVEMENTS DATA The building improvements on the larger parcel are not being affected by the easement acquisition. Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 20 ZONING MAP ZONING Larimer County has zoned the property O (Open), while Weld County has zoned the property A (Agricultural) district. Both of these districts support continued livestock grazing and rural density residential acreages. USE HISTORY The property has been used for land application of biosolids and livestock grazing for many years. SALES HISTORY Title to the property is currently vested in the name of the City of Fort Collins. The parcels have been assembled through multiple transactions over a few decades. One of the most recent transfers of ownership interest involved the purchase of the East Half of the East Half of Section 6, T11N, R67W of the 6th P.M. in Weld County. This parcel includes 134.910 acres that were purchased on January 12, 2015 at a price of $202,000, or $1,497 per acre. The warranty deed conveying title from the Warner and Pamela Rogers Living Trust was recorded in Weld County Records at Reception No. 4075743. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no ownership transfer that has a bearing on the market value of the subject property during the previous five years. Part 2: Factual Data – Larger Parcel Before Take 21 LISTING/CONTRACT HISTORY The property is not currently offered for sale. TAX AND ASSESSMENT DATA The property is held by the City of Fort Collins, and is not assessed by the Larimer or Weld county assessors. SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS Photos taken in August of 2018 by Jon Vaughan Easterly view of the Lost Creek basin Northeasterly view in the northern portion of the property Southeasterly view from the northern portion of the property Southwesterly view of a creekbed in the central portion of the property Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 22 Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation – Larger Parcel Before Take HIGHEST AND BEST USE Highest and best use is the most profitable and competitive use of a property. Colorado Jury Instructions - Civil 4th, 36:6 views highest and best use as follows: "In determining the market value of the property actually taken (and the damages, if any, and benefits, if any, to the residue) you should consider the use, conditions and surroundings of the property as of the date of valuation. In addition, you should consider the most advantageous use or uses to which the property might reasonably and lawfully be put in the future by persons of ordinary prudence and judgment. Such evidence may be considered, however, only insofar as it assists you in determining the reasonable market value of the property as of the date of valuation (or the damages, if any, or the benefits, if any, to the residue). It may not be considered for the purposes of allowing any speculative damages or values." The Appraisal Institute in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Sixth Edition, Chicago, © 2015, p. 109, defines highest and best use as: "The reasonably probable use of property that results in the highest value. The four criteria that the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity." First, in this analysis, the subject site is considered as if the subject ownership is vacant land or a vacant site. Then, if the site is improved, the property is analyzed considering the existing improvements. The building improvements on the subject larger parcel contribute a relatively small amount to the value of the whole, and do not occupy a large portion of the site. Therefore, it is only necessary to analyze the highest and best use as though vacant. AS VACANT Legal Permissibility The legally permissible uses of the site currently include agricultural production and rural residential estates, as detailed in the Zoning section of this report. Physical Possibility The site has an adequate shape and size to allow efficient land utilization. The terrain features include gently sloping meadows and some rugged hills and ravines. The Lost Creek flows through the eastern portion of the ranch, and several seasonal streams transect the ranch. There are also some livestock wells and springs, though the distance between water features appears to be further than ideal for livestock production. The property features good regional accessibility. Overall, numerous uses would be physically possible for the larger parcel. Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 23 Financial Feasibility The property is primarily used for land application of the City of Fort Collins biosolids, which fertilizes the soils to enhance livestock grazing on the property. With respect to financial feasibility, the site appears to function well for biosolid land application and ranching operations. However, the primary difference between the subject property and other ranches in the region are the building improvements and processes used to safely apply biosolids to fertilize the ranch. Since the project will not affect the building improvements or the biosolid applications, only the land is being analyzed. Continued agricultural production is financially feasible for the property. Maximum Productivity - Conclusion The final test of highest and best use of the site as if vacant is that the use be maximally productive, yielding the highest return to the land. Based on the information presented above and upon information contained in the market and neighborhood analysis, the highest and best use of the subject is for continued ranching. APPRAISAL VALUATION METHODOLOGY In appraisal practice, an approach to value is included or omitted based on its applicability to the property type being valued and the quality and quantity of information available. Depending on a specific appraisal assignment, any of the following four methods may be used to determine the market value of the fee simple interest of land:  Sales Comparison Approach  Income Capitalization Procedures  Allocation  Extraction The following summaries of each method are paraphrased from the text. The first is the sales comparison approach. This is a process of analyzing sales of similar, recently sold parcels in order to derive an indication of the most probable sales price (or value) of the property being appraised. The reliability of this approach is dependent upon (a) the availability of comparable sales data, (b) the verification of the sales data regarding size, price, terms of sale, etc., (c) the degree of comparability or extent of adjustment necessary for differences between the subject and the comparables, and (d) the absence of nontypical conditions affecting the sales price. This is the primary and most reliable method used to value land (if adequate data exists). The income capitalization procedures include three methods: land residual technique, ground rent capitalization, and Subdivision Development Analysis. A discussion of each of these three techniques is presented in the following paragraphs. The land residual method may be used to estimate land value when sales data on similar parcels of vacant land are lacking. This technique is based on the principle of balance and the related concept of contribution, which are concerned with equilibrium Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 24 among the agents of production--i.e. labor, capital, coordination, and land. The land residual technique can be used to estimate land value when: 1) building value is known or can be accurately estimated, 2) stabilized, annual net operating income to the property is known or estimable, and 3) both building and land capitalization rates can be extracted from the market. Building value can be estimated for new or proposed buildings that represent the highest and best use of the property and have not yet incurred physical deterioration or functional obsolescence. The subdivision development method is used to value land when subdivision and development represent the highest and best use of the appraised parcel. In this method, an appraiser determines the number and size of lots that can be created from the appraised land physically, legally, and economically. The value of the underlying land is then estimated through a discounted cash flow analysis with revenues based on the achievable sale price of the finished product and expenses based on all costs required to complete and sell the finished product. The ground rent capitalization procedure is predicated upon the assumption that ground rents can be capitalized at an appropriate rate to indicate the market value of a site. Ground rent is paid for the right to use and occupy the land according to the terms of the ground lease; it corresponds to the value of the landowner's interest in the land. Market-derived capitalization rates are used to convert ground rent into market value. This procedure is useful when an analysis of comparable sales of leased land indicates a range of rents and reasonable support for capitalization rates can be obtained. The allocation method is typically used when sales are so rare that the value cannot be estimated by direct comparison. This method is based on the principle of balance and the related concept of contribution, which affirm that there is a normal or typical ratio of land value to property value for specific categories of real estate in specific locations. This ratio is generally more reliable when the subject property includes relatively new improvements. The allocation method does not produce conclusive value indications, but it can be used to establish land value when the number of vacant land sales is inadequate. The extraction method is a variant of the allocation method in which land value is extracted from the sale price of an improved property by deducting the contribution of the improvements, which is estimated from their depreciated costs. The remaining value represents the value of the land. Value indications derived in this way are generally unpersuasive because the assessment ratios may be unreliable and the extraction method does not reflect market considerations. The sales comparison approach is the only method being applied to estimate the land value. LAND VALUE The following map and table summarize the comparable data used in the valuation of the subject site. A detailed description of each transaction follows the table. Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 25 Land Sales Location Map Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 26 Land Sales Summary Table SUMMARY OF COMPARABLE LAND SALES Actual Sale Adjusted Sale Size Price Per No. Property Location Type Date Proposed Use Price Price 1 (Acres) Acre 1 US Highway 287 Part of Sections 24, 34, 35 T11N R71W et al Sale Apr-16 Agriculture and Recreation $3,950,000 $3,950,000 3,973.00 $994 2 2298 Diamond Peak Rd Livermore, CO 80534 Sale Mar-17 Agriculture and Recreation $1,220,000 $920,000 640.00 $1,438 3 237 Shimmerhorn Road Laramie, WY 82052 Sale Apr-17 Agriculture and Recreation $12,000,000 $11,900,000 11,845.00 $1,005 4 29781 Larimer County Road 103 Jelm, CO 82063 Sale Jul-18 Agriculture and Recreation $4,900,000 $4,900,000 2,640.00 $1,856 5 22950 Larimer County Road 23 Wellington, CO 80549 Sale Aug-18 Agriculture and Recreation $2,225,000 $2,225,000 800.00 $2,781 Subject Larimer County Road 92, Larimer, Colorado --- --- Agriculture --- --- 26,600.00 --- 1 Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs (where applicable) Compiled by CBRE Transaction Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 27 Land Sale Detail Sheets Land Sale 1 View: Date Inspected/Photo by: Location/Address Tax Schedule No.: Legal Description: Grantor: Grantee: Sale Confirmed with/Date: Appraiser Confirming: Recordation/Sale Deed: Property Rights Conveyed: Conditions of Sale: Financing and Terms: Cash to Seller Date of Sale: April 27, 2016 Post Sale Expense: None Selling Price: $3,950,000 Project Influence: None Unit Price: $994 per AC Land Area: 3,973 AC Access: Paved street Shape: Irregular Utilities: Electricity nearby, Well and Septic Required Topography: Hilly Zoning: O (Open) by Larimer County Drainage/Flood Plain: Zone X Platted: No Surrounding Properties: Agricultural and Rural Residential Stage of Development: Raw Use at Time of Sale: Highest and Best Use: Remarks: Jon Vaughan Reception #20160025999, Larimer County / Special Warranty Deed Physical Characteristics - Legal Aspects This property is situated west of U.S. Highway 287, adjacent to the Phantom Canyon Preserve near Livermore. This parcel is subject to a conservation easement held by The Nature Conservancy (Reception # 19960091081), which limits construction of residential improvements on the property to six homes in designated building envelopes with the remainder of the property restricted to livestock grazing and non-motorized recreational uses. The purchaser indicated that the easement didn't impact them since they only intended to graze cattle on the property and use it for limited outdoor recreation. However, they also noted that the price they paid for this property was significantly less than nearby land values. Agriculture and Recreation Agriculture and Recreation Southwesterly view from US Highway 287 along the northeast edge of the property September 27, 2018/Jon Vaughan 0006000015 (one of numerous parcel numbers) US Highway 287, Livermore, Larimer County, CO Fee Simple Estate Arms-Length Sections 6, 7, and 35; and parts of Sections 1, 2, 12, 25, and 34, T11N, R71W of the 6th P.M. T.J. Mac Ltd. Liability Co. Geo. A. Henderson Co. Inc. and Chris Vandemoer Buyer, 9/25/18 Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 28 Land Sale 2 View: Date Inspected/Photo by: Location/Address Tax Schedule No.: Legal Description: Grantor: Grantee: Sale Confirmed with/Date: Appraiser Confirming: Recordation/Sale Deed: Property Rights Conveyed: Conditions of Sale: Financing and Terms: Cash to Seller Date of Sale: March 29, 2017 Post Sale Expense: None Selling Price: $1,220,000; $920,000 (Land Only) Project Influence: None Unit Price: $1,438 per AC Land Area: 640 AC Access: Paved street Shape: Irregular Utilities: Electricity, well and septic Topography: Hilly Zoning: O (Open) by Larimer County Drainage/Flood Plain: Zone X Platted: No Surrounding Properties: Agricultural and Rural Residential Stage of Development: Raw Use at Time of Sale: Highest and Best Use: Remarks: Arms-Length Physical Characteristics - Legal Aspects Agriculture and Recreation Southwesterly view toward the subject property (which could not be reached due to private road restrictions) September 27, 2018/Jon Vaughan 3235000014 Agriculture and Recreation This parcel is situated along Trail Creek, north of Livermore, in an area surrounded by national forest on three sides. It features roughly one mile of creek frontage, which provides good fishing. The property is improved with a cabin and some outbuildings that were in reasonably good condition on the date of sale. In addition to the improvements, the sale included two adjudicated springs, which could be used for irrigating the meadows or to develop a reservoir on the property. The contributory value of the building improvements and water rights is estimated to be $300,000. The property was on the market for roughly 8 months, at a final asking price of $1,472,000, which calculates to a list-to-sale discount of 17%. Portions of Section 6, T6N, R67W and Section 31, T7N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO Diamond Peak Properties, LLC A&H Ranch LLC Listing Broker, 9/20/18 Jon Vaughan Reception #20170020973, Larimer County / Special Warranty Deed 2298 Diamond Peak Rd, Livermore, Larimer County, CO Fee Simple Estate Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 29 Land Sale 3 View: Date Inspected/Photo by: Location/Address Tax Schedule No.: Legal Description: Grantor: Grantee: Sale Confirmed with/Date: Appraiser Confirming: Recordation/Sale Deed: Property Rights Conveyed: Conditions of Sale: Financing and Terms: Cash to Seller Date of Sale: April 7, 2017 Post Sale Expense: None Selling Price: $12,000,000; $11,900,000 (Land Only) Project Influence: None Unit Price: $1,005 per AC cal Characteristics - Legal Aspects Land Area: 11,845 AC Access: Paved street Shape: Irregular Utilities: Electricity in service, Well and Septic Required Topography: Hilly Zoning: Agriculture Drainage/Flood Plain: Zone X Platted: No Surrounding Properties: Agricultural and Rural Residential Stage of Development: Raw Use at Time of Sale: Agriculture and Recreation Highest and Best Use: Agriculture and Recreation Remarks: This transaction was the first in an assemblage of several parcels in the southern portion of Albany County, Wyoming. The purchasing entity is held by Curt Richardson, the founder of Otterbox, who is an avid hunter. Wyoming is a non-disclosure state, which means that sale prices are not public information, and are only available through voluntary disclosure from a party to the transaction. The seller reported a sale price of $12,000,000. The property was improved with a 2,800-square-foot, 3-bed, 2.5-bath house, as well as a 1,000-square foot guest home. Additionally, the property features good outbuildings to support the ranching operation. As a result, the contributory value of the improvements is estimated to be $500,000. The ranch includes territorial water rights along the Dale Creek and Texas Creek to irrigate hay meadows that produce 200 tons of hay. In addition to the irrigation water, the ranch features several ponds and springs that provide livestock water, as well as wildlife habitat. September 27, 2018/Jon Vaughan Looking southwesterly from Monument Road in the central portion of the property The Hansen Spring Gulch Limited Partnership Old Elk Ranch Ax, LLC Seller, 9/26/18 Jon Vaughan Reception #2017,1556, Albany County / Special Warranty Deed Fee Simple Estate Arms-Length 237 Shimmerhorn Road, City of Laramie, Albany County, WY 13711430003000 (one of numerous parcel numbers) NW¼ of Section 3, SW¼NE¼ and E ½NE¼ of Section 4, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 30 Land Sale 4 View: Date Inspected/Photo by: Location/Address Tax Schedule No.: Legal Description: Grantor: Grantee: Sale Confirmed with/Date: Appraiser Confirming: Recordation/Sale Deed: Property Rights Conveyed: Conditions of Sale: Financing and Terms: Cash to Seller Date of Sale: July 18, 2018 Post Sale Expense: None Selling Price: $4,900,000 Project Influence: None Unit Price: $1,856 per AC cal Characteristics - Legal Aspects Land Area: 2,640 AC Access: Paved street Shape: Irregular Utilities: Electricity nearby, Well and Septic Required Topography: Hilly Zoning: O (Open) by Larimer County Drainage/Flood Plain: Zone X Platted: Yes Surrounding Properties: Agricultural and Rural Residential Stage of Development: Recorded Exemption lot Use at Time of Sale: Agriculture and Recreation Highest and Best Use: Agriculture and Recreation Remarks: This property straddles the Laramie River, just south of the Wyoming border. The property had been designated a centennial ranch in 2017 after being held by the Hohnholz family for 100 years. The ranch included some water rights in the Mansfield and Mansfield No. 2 Ditches and the Hance Ditch, which were used to irrigate a 400-acre hay meadow. The 40-acre parcel that contains the building improvements and a 40-acre tract was conveyed in a separate transaction to the same buyer at a price of $360,000. The improvements included three houses that were built between 1890 and 1978, as well as several agricultural outbuildings. The transaction had to be structured this way to continue a national forest grazing lease as well as permit the remainder to be used in a reverse 1031 exchange. September 27, 2018/Jon Vaughan Arms-Length Jon Vaughan Reception #20180044130, Larimer County / Warranty Deed Fee Simple Estate Looking westerly from Laramie River Road 29781 Larimer County Road 103, Jelm, Larimer County, CO 7102000002 (one of numerous parcel numbers) Lot B, Recorded Exemption No. 0963-09-3 RECX-0033, Weld County, Colorado Hohnholz Ranch, Inc. H Ranch 1031, LLC Seller, 9/26/18 Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 31 Land Sale 5 View: Date Inspected/Photo by: Location/Address Tax Schedule No.: Legal Description: Grantor: Grantee: Sale Confirmed with/Date: Appraiser Confirming: Recordation/Sale Deed: Property Rights Conveyed: Conditions of Sale: Financing and Terms: Cash to Seller Date of Sale: August 1, 2018 Post Sale Expense: None Selling Price: $2,225,000 Project Influence: No influence on sale price Unit Price: $2,781 per AC Land Area: 800 AC Access: Paved street Shape: Irregular Utilities: Electricity nearby, Well and Septic Required Topography: Hilly Zoning: O (Open) by Larimer County Drainage/Flood Plain: Zone X Platted: No Surrounding Properties: Agricultural and Open Space Stage of Development: Raw Use at Time of Sale: Highest and Best Use: Remarks: 9118000916, 9107000931, 0112000918 22950 Larimer County Road 23, Wellington, Larimer County, CO Southwesterly view from Larimer County Road 23 September 27, 2018/Jon Vaughan This parcel represents one of the only in-holdings surrounded by thousands of acres of open space owned by Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Larimer County had been trying to acquire the property for many years, and an assemblage premium is evident. Although there was a residence and agricultural outbuildings on the property, the structures were in poor condition on the date of sale, and will be razed. No usable water rights were included in the transaction. Part of Sections 18 and 19, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, CO Mike Gallegos and Rick Gallegos Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County Buyer, 9/25/18 Jon Vaughan Reception #20180047568, Larimer County / Special Warranty Deed Fee Simple Estate Arms-Length Physical Characteristics - Legal Aspects Agriculture and Recreation Agriculture and Recreation Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 32 Land Sales Adjustment Table LAND SALES ADJUSTMENT GRID Comparable Number12345Subject Transaction Type Sale Sale Sale Sale Sale --- Transaction Date Apr-16 Mar-17 Apr-17 Jul-18 Aug-18 --- Proposed Use Agriculture and Recreation Agriculture and Recreation Agriculture and Recreation Agriculture and Recreation Agriculture and Recreation Agriculture Actual Sale Price $3,950,000 $1,220,000 $12,500,000 $4,900,000 $2,225,000 --- Adjusted Sale Price 1 $3,950,000 $920,000 $11,900,000 $4,900,000 $2,225,000 --- Size (Acres) 3,973 640 11,845 2,640 800 26,600 Price Per Acre $994 $1,438 $1,005 $1,856 $2,781 --- Price ($ Per AC) $994 $1,438 $1,005 $1,856 $2,781 Property Rights Conveyed 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% Financing Terms 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Conditions of Sale 0% 0% 0% 0% -20% Market Conditions (Time) 7% 4% 4% 1% 0% Subtotal $1,277 $1,495 $1,045 $1,875 $2,225 Size -10% -20% 0% -10% -20% Shape 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Access 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Frontage 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Topography 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Location 0% 0% 20% -25% 0% Zoning/Density 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Utilities 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Functional Utility 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total Other Adjustments -10% -20% 20% -35% -20% Value Indication for Subject $1,149 $1,196 $1,254 $1,219 $1,780 Absolute Adjustment 37% 24% 24% 36% 40% 1 Adjusted sale price for cash equivalency and/or development costs (where applicable) Compiled by CBRE Discussion/Analysis of Land Sales The sales have been compared to the subject and, where necessary, have been adjusted for differences between the sale properties and the subject larger parcel. Characteristics that are similar between the comparable property and the subject do not require adjustment. Therefore, the following discussion focuses exclusively on the elements that require adjustment. PROPERTY RIGHTS CONVEYED This adjustment accounts for various legal characteristics of a property, such as the inclusion of mineral rights, or other interests.  Comparable One is subject to a conservation easement that restricts the use of the property to agricultural production and six homes. This is inferior to the subject property and a positive adjustment is appropriate. CONDITIONS OF SALE This adjustment accounts for disproportionate negotiating power between the buyer and the seller. Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 33  Comparable Five was an assemblage of an infill parcel within the purchaser’s Red Mountain Open Space. The purchaser had reportedly been trying to buy this property for several years while the seller held out with excessive asking prices. Overall, this transaction exhibits a premium related to the assemblage, and a negative adjustment is being applied. MARKET CONDITIONS Economic conditions may change between the sale date of the comparables and the effective date of value provided. These changes in supply and demand characteristics tend to exert some impact on real estate prices. The adjustment for this factor is not a function of time, but of differences in economic conditions, if any, between time periods. Thus, it is possible a period of time could elapse with no material change in market conditions having occurred.  There is limited transaction data available, which required the use of sales from 2016 to 2018. Market participants report a scarcity of land offered for sale, and relatively high listing prices. Beef prices have been gradually rising from their multi-year low in early 2016. Overall, a positive adjustment of 3% per year is being applied for market conditions. SIZE An adjustment for size typically recognizes the concept of economies of scale, in that all other things being equal, a larger property will sell for less per measurable unit than a smaller property, and vice versa.  Comparables One, Two, Four, and Five are considerably smaller than the subject property. Therefore, negative adjustments are being applied, in varying degrees.  Although Comparable Three is also less than half the size of the subject, it is large enough to be attract a similar category of investor. Therefore, no adjustment is being applied. LOCATION An analysis of location takes into account differences in the comparables relative to their surrounding environs. Linkages to complementary land uses exert positive influences on value, while proximity to undesirable land uses exert negative influences.  Comparable Three is situated in the southern portion of Wyoming, which typically features lower land values than properties in Colorado due to its low population density and the distance from urban amenities. This location is inferior and a positive adjustment is warranted.  Comparable Four extends along the Laramie River, which enhances the recreational and aesthetic appeal of the ranch. This is superior to the subject property, and a negative adjustment is necessary. Part 3 – Analysis and Valuation - Larger Parcel Before Take 34 LAND VALUE CONCLUSION Based on the preceding analysis, Comparables Four and Five are the most representative of the subject larger parcel, and warrant greatest consideration because they required the least amounts of overall adjustment. The following table presents the valuation conclusion: CONCLUDED LAND VALUE $ Per AC Subject Acs. Total $1,200 x 26,600.00 = $31,920,000 Indicated Value: $31,920,000 (Rounded $ Per AC) $1,200 Compiled by CBRE LARGER PARCEL VALUE BEFORE TAKE Larger Parcel Value Before Acquisition Total Value Before Acquisition Total Value Land/Site Value $31,920,000 Affected Improvement Contributory Value $0 Total Larger Parcel Value Before Acquisition (land + affected improvements) $31,920,000 Part 4 – Factual Data – Part Taken 35 Part 4 – Factual Data – Part Acquired IDENTIFICATION OF PART ACQUIRED R.O.W. MAP Part 4 – Factual Data – Part Taken 36 PROPERTY DATA – PART ACQUIRED Land/Site Data No land area is being acquired in fee simple estate. Easement Data The permanent easement is situated just west of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The 150-foot- wide, non-exclusive 230 kV electric transmission line easement extends a total distance of 9.7 miles across the larger parcel. The easement parcel contains a land area of 176.364 AC. Owner Affected Improvements Data No owner improvements will be impacted by the easement acquisition. Partial Acquisition Photographs Northerly view along the proposed easement route on west side of the Burlington Northern Railroad Southerly view along the proposed easement route on west side of the Burlington Northern Railroad Part 5 – Analysis and Valuation – Part Taken 37 Part 5 – Analysis and Valuation – Part Acquired VALUE OF PART ACQUIRED AS PART OF LARGER PARCEL Land/Site Value of Part Acquired No land area is being acquired in fee simple estate. Easement Value of Part Acquired The permanent non-exclusive easement being acquired is for a 230 kV overhead electric transmission line that will be supported by rust-colored monopoles to minimize the visual impact. Although the easement document was not available for review, the primary terms of the easement were discussed with the acquisition agent. If the final terms of the easement are different than what was disclosed, the appraiser reserves the right to revise the report. The easement entitles NextEra Energy Resources to construct, reconstruct, inspect, upgrade, operate, repair, and maintain the overhead electric transmission. It will also permit the easement holder to control trees, bushes, and shrubs within the encumbered area. The easement also will require the property owner to keep this area clear of buildings, structures, and other materials. However, the owner can use the easement area for continued livestock grazing and land application of biosolids, as long as it does not interfere with the function of the powerline. As a result, the functional utility of the encumbered area is estimated to be diminished by 50 percent. Therefore, the compensation due the property owner for the permanent easement being acquired is estimated to be as follows: Parcel Area $/Unit Value % of Fee Value Total Value Electric Transmission Easement 176.364 AC $1,200 50% $105,818 $105,818 Owner Affected Improvements Acquired (Contributory Value) Total Land/Site Value of Part Acquired Owner Improvements Contributory Value of Part Acquired No owner improvements are being affected by the project. Part 5 – Analysis and Valuation – Part Taken 38 SUMMARY OF VALUE OF PART ACQUIRED Value of the Part Acquired Land/Site Acquisitions Parcel Area $/Unit Value Value Total Value None $0 $0 Easement Acquisitions Parcel Area $/Unit Value % of Fee Value Total Value Electric Transmission Easement 176.364 AC $1,200 50% $105,818 $105,818 Owner Affected Improvements Acquired (Contributory Value) Contributory Value Total Value $0 $0 Tenant Affected Improvements Acquired (Contributory Value) Contributory Value Total Value $0 $105,818 Description None Total Tenant Affected Improvements Contributory Value of Part Acquired Total Value of Part Acquired (land + affected improvements) Total Owner Affected Improvements Contributory Value of Part Acquired Total Land/Site Value of Part Acquired Total Land/Site Value of Part Acquired None Description Part 6 – Residue Value Before Take 39 Part 6 – Residue Value Before Take Calculating the residue value before acquisition is a mathematical step that is simply the value of the larger parcel (land + affected improvements) minus the value of the part acquired, including fee acquisitions, easements and affected improvements, but excluding any temporary construction easements. The calculation is shown below: Larger Parcel Value Before Take (Land + Affected Improvements) $31,920,000 <Less> Value of Part Acquired (Land + Easements + Affected Improvements) $105,818 Residue Value Before Take $31,814,182 This is the value that should be reflected in the remainder parcel, if there are no damages or benefits resulting from the acquisition. If the remainder value is less than this sum, the remainder has been damaged to that extent. If the remainder value is greater than this amount, the remainder has benefited. The value of the remainder property after the acquisition is addressed in a following section. Part 7 – Factual Data – Residue After Take 40 Part 7 – Factual Data – Residue After Take NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION – PROJECT INFLUENCES The neighborhood information is unchanged after the acquisition. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION – RESIDUE AFTER TAKE Land/Site Data After the take, the land area of the larger parcel remains 26,600 AC, though 176.364 AC will be encumbered by a permanent easement. This does not impact the utility of the unencumbered portions of the property significantly. Overall, it appears that the remainder parcel can continue to function in a similar manner in the "after" condition. Owner Affected Improvements Data Any fencing or other site improvements impacted by the project will be repaired or replaced by the NextEra Energy Resources construction crew as part of the project. Assessed Value – Real Estate Taxes – Special Taxing Districts The property will remain under the ownership of a municipal entity, which is not assessed by the local counties. Zoning and Other Land Use Regulations Zoning is the same as before. Part 8 – Analysis and Valuation – Residue After Take 41 Part 8 – Analysis and Valuation – Residue After Take HIGHEST AND BEST USE – RESIDUE AFTER TAKE It was determined that the maximally productive use of the property before the acquisition is for agricultural and recreation uses. Please refer to Part 3. The highest and best use has not been affected by the easement acquisition. LAND/SITE VALUATION – RESIDUE AFTER TAKE Land Sale Transaction Data The land sales utilized before the acquisition remain applicable after the acquisition. Land/Site Value The residue parcel after the acquisition will contain a total land area of 26,600.000 AC, of which 176.364 AC will be encumbered by a permanent easement. As a result, after the easement acquisition, the unencumbered land area of the larger parcel will be reduced to 26,423.636 AC (26,600.000 AC - 176.364 AC). Therefore, the market value of the remainder parcel after the acquisition is estimated to be as follows: Parcel Area $/Unit Value % of Fee Value Total Value Unencumbered Land Value 26,423.636 AC $1,200.00 $31,708,363 Plus: Residue Value of Easement Encumbered Land 176 SF $1,200.00 50% $105,818 Residue Value After Take $31,814,182 Part 9 – Analysis of Damages or Benefits 42 Part 9 – Analysis of Damages or Benefits Damages are a loss in value to the remainder property as a result of a partial acquisition. Conversely, benefits to the remainder property represent the increase in value to the remainder property as a result of a partial acquisition, as defined by the International Right of Way Association. RESIDUE LAND VALUE – BEFORE VS. AFTER After the acquisition, the functional utility of the remainder parcel is not significantly changed, nor is its highest and best use. The residue property after the project can still be put to similar use as before the easement acquisition, and the residue land value after the acquisition as compared to the residue land value before the acquisition has not changed. Additionally, any damage to vegetation will be negotiated separately, based on the specific impact. COMPENSIBLE DAMAGES – RESIDUE VALUE AFTER TAKE There are no compensable damages to the remainder after the acquisition. RESTORATION COST (COST TO CURE) There is no restoration necessary. SPECIFIC BENEFITS – RESIDUE VALUE AFTER TAKE There are no specific benefits to the residue as a result of the project. Part 10 – Temporary Easement Rental Value 43 Part 10 – Temporary Easement Rental Value TEMPORARY EASEMENT DATA NextEra Energy Resources currently intends to complete all construction from within the easement area being acquired. There are no temporary construction easements planned at this time. Part 11 – Compensation Summary 44 Part 11 – Compensation Summary EXPLANATION OF COMPENSATION Compensation applies to the right of way, easements, and owner improvements being acquired. There are no incurable damages to the remainder parcel. COMPENSATION ESTIMATE SUMMARY Value of Part Acquired Land/Site Value $0 Easement Value $105,818 Contributory Value of Improvements $0 Total Value of Part Acquired $105,818 Compensible Damages and/or Offsetting Benefits Compensible Damages - Curable (Net Cost to Cure) $0 Compensible Damages - Incurable (No Cost to Cure) $0.00 <Less> Special Benefits (Offset Up To 100% of Incurable Damages) $0.00 =Remaining Special Benefits (Offset Up To 50% of Value of Part Acquired) $0.00 Total Rental Value of Temporary Easements $0 Compensation Estimate $105,818 Rounded $105,850 Compiled by CBRE Part 11 – Compensation Summary 45 CERTIFICATION I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief: 1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. 2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. 3. I have no present or prospective interest in or bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest in or bias with respect to the parties involved with this assignment. 4. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. 5. My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal. 6. This appraisal assignment was not based upon a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. 7. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as well as the requirements of the State of Colorado. 8. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 9. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. 10. As of the date of this report, Jon Vaughan has completed the continuing education program for Designated Members of the Appraisal Institute. 11. Jon Vaughan has made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. 12. No one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report. 13. Valuation & Advisory Services operates as an independent economic entity within CBRE, Inc. Although employees of other CBRE, Inc. divisions may be contacted as a part of my routine market research investigations, absolute client confidentiality and privacy were maintained at all times with regard to this assignment without conflict of interest. 14. Jon Vaughan has not provided any services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment. Jon Vaughan CO Certification #CG 100000631 Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda 46 Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda 47 Addendum A COLORADO 7-STEP PARTIAL ACQUISITION APPRAISAL PROCESS Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda 48 The purpose of this appraisal is to develop a compensation estimate for the reasonable market value of the property actually acquired; compensable damages, if any, to the residue after take; and special benefits, if any, to the residue after the acquisition. Referred to as the modified state before-and-after rule, steps to develop a compensation estimate for the acquisition of real property are: STEP 1: LARGER PARCEL VALUE BEFORE TAKE The first step in the appraisal process is to develop the reasonable market value of the subject larger parcel had there been no acquisition or any effect on value due to the proposed transportation project. The Jurisdictional Exception Rule of USPAP applies to Standards Rule 1-4(f) in this step. In Standards Rule 1-4(f), anticipated public or private improvements must be analyzed for their effect on value as reflected in market actions. This is contrary to law for eminent domain appraisal. Jurisdictional exception authorities are Uniform Act, Title III, § 301(3); 49 CFR § 24.103(b); § 24-56- 117(1)(c), C.R.S.; and CJI – Civ. 4th, 36:3. “Any decrease or increase in the fair market value of real property prior to the date of valuation caused by the public improvement for which such property is acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired for such improvement, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, shall be disregarded in determining the compensation for the property.” (§24-56-117(1)(c), C.R.S.) STEP 2: VALUE OF PART ACQUIRED (INCLUDING EASEMENTS ACQUIRED) The second step involves the same USPAP Jurisdictional Exception Rule as in step 1. In this step, the reasonable market value of the land or property actually acquired is developed. The value of land acquired is based on its value as part of the whole or the larger parcel. Value of improvements acquired is based on their contributory value to the larger parcel. (49 CFR § 24.103(a)(2)(iv), §§ 38- 1-114(2) and 115(b), C.R.S., and CJI-Civil 4th, 36:3) STEP 3: RESIDUE VALUE BEFORE TAKE The third step is the reasonable market value of the residue before the property actually acquired has been acquired. This step sets the initial basis for the ascertainment of damages and/or special benefits to the residue. The reasonable market value of the residue before the acquisition is the mathematical difference of step 1 (larger parcel value before take) minus step 2 (value of part acquired). STEP 4: RESIDUE VALUE AFTER ACQUISITION (INCLUDING ENCUMBERED EASEMENT AREAS ACQUIRED) The fourth step is to develop the reasonable market value of the residue after the real property actually acquired has been acquired and proposed project improvements have been constructed. In this step, the reasonable market value of the residue after the acquisition is no longer subject to the Jurisdictional Exception Rule to USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(f). Any decrease or increase in the reasonable market value, if any, of the residue after the acquisition due to the proposed public project needs analyses. The influence of the proposed public improvement is considered except for any damages or benefits shared in common with the community at large. The market value of the residue after the acquisition is predicated on the “as is” or “uncured” condition of the residue after the acquisition. Any decrease or increase in value of the residue after the acquisition is based on market evidence. Damage to the residue must be established before a Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda 49 cost to cure can be considered to mitigate some or all damage. Special benefits may accrue to the residue after the acquisition as a result of the project. STEP 5: ANALYSIS OF DAMAGES AND/OR BENEFITS Fifth step in the process involves analysis of damages and benefits to the residue after the acquisition. Depending upon the extent of damages and cost to cure, performance of another appraisal of the “cured” residue after the acquisition may be required (see Feasibility of Cost to Cure below). The damages and benefits analyses might include the following elements: Indicated Damages and/or Benefits Compensable Damages and/or Offsetting Special Benefits Compensable Damages – Incurable Compensable Damages – Curable (Net Cost to Cure) including: Cost to Cure Feasibility of Cost to Cure Damages (Possible Re-appraisal of Residue After Cure*) Net Cost to Cure Indicated Offsetting Special Benefits – Residue Value As Cured *If damage to the residue is substantial and the cost to cure is not minor, an appraisal of the residue as cured might be necessary to analyze the feasibility of the cure. If the cost to cure is minor, an analysis of the feasibility of the cost to cure damages might not be required. STEP 6: RENTAL VALUE OF TEMPORARY EASEMENTS Sixth step in the process is the estimate of reasonable rental value for the time the temporary easement is used. A temporary (construction) easement is used for a limited time period and is terminated after the construction of the highway improvements. The unencumbered fee interest in the land reverts to the owner at the time of termination. STEP 7: ESTIMATE OF COMPENSATION SUMMARY The final step is a compensation summary. The compensation summary includes the following: • Reasonable Market Value – Land and/or Real Property Acquired • Compensable Damages – Curable – Net Cost to Cure (residue after take/as is) • Compensable Damages – Incurable (residue after take/as is) • Offsetting Special Benefits (residue after take/“as is” or “as cured”) • Temporary Easements Rental Value • Total Compensation Estimate As stated in § 38-1-114(2)(d), C.R.S., “In determining the amount of compensation to be paid for such a partial acquisition, the compensation for the property acquired and damages to the residue of said property shall be reduced by the amount of any special benefits which result from the improvement or project, but not to exceed fifty percent of the total amount of compensation to be paid for the property actually acquired.” Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda 50 Addendum B ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda 51 Following are certain acronyms and definitions of significant terms used in this appraisal report. Sources and authorities for the following definitions are shown as text-notes. AC – acre CDOT – Colorado Department of Transportation PSF or SF – per square foot; square foot ROW or R.O.W. – Right of Way Benefits (Specific Benefits) – “...any benefits to the residue are to be measured by the increase, if any, in the reasonable market value of the residue due to the (construction) (improvement) of the (...proposed improvement). For anything to constitute a specific benefit, however, it must result directly in a benefit to the residue and be peculiar to it. Any benefits which may result to the residue but which are shared in common with the community at large are not to be considered.” (CJI-Civ. 4th, 36:4) Compensation – “...ascertain the reasonable market value of the property actually taken and the amount of compensable damages, if any, and amount and value of any specific benefit, if any, to the residue of any land not taken.” (CJI-Civ. 4th, 36:1) “(a) For highway acquisition, the right to compensation and the amount thereof, including damages and benefits, if any, shall be determined as of the date the petitioner is authorized by agreement, stipulation, or court order to take possession or the date of trial or hearing to assess compensation, whichever is earlier, but any amount of compensation determined initially shall remain subject to adjustment for one year after the date of the initial determination to provide for additional damages or benefits not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the initial determination. (b) If an entire tract or parcel of property is condemned, the amount of compensation to be awarded is the reasonable market value of the said property on the date of valuation. (c) If only a portion of a tract or parcel of land is taken, the damages and special benefits, if any, to the residue of said property shall be determined. When determining damages and special benefits, the appraiser shall take into account a proper discount when the damages and special benefits are forecast beyond one year from the date of appraisal. (d) In determining the amount of compensation to be paid for such a partial acquisition, the compensation for the property taken and damages to the residue of said property shall be reduced by the amount of any special benefits which result from the improvement or project, but not to exceed fifty percent of the total amount of compensation to be paid for the property actually taken.” (§ 38-1-114(2), C.R.S.) Damages – “…Any damages are to be measured by the decrease, if any, in the reasonable market value of the residue, that is, the difference between the reasonable market value of the residue before the property actually taken is acquired and the reasonable market value of the residue after the property actually taken has been acquired. Any damages which may result to the residue from what is expected to be done on land other than the land actually taken from the respondent and any damages to the residue which are shared in common with the community at large are not to be considered.” (CJI-Civ. 4th, 36:4) Easement – “An easement is a limited right to use or control land owned by another for specified purposes. An easement is a property interest less than the fee estate, with the owner of the underlying fee retaining full dominion over the realty, subject only to the easement; the fee owner may make any use of the realty that does not interfere with the easement holder’s reasonable use of the easement and is not specifically excluded by the terms of the easement.” (Interagency Land Acquisition Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda 52 Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, Washington, D.C., 2016, p.168) Fee Simple Estate (Title) – “Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power and escheat.” (Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Sixth Edition, Chicago, 2015, p. 78) Note: as an assignment condition all mineral rights are excepted from any fee simple property interest appraised in this report. Larger Parcel – “That tract, or tracts, of land that possess a unity of ownership and have the same, or an integrated, highest and best use." The larger parcel may or may not have the same boundaries as the parcel being acquired. As a result, the appraiser must determine the larger parcel based on the unity of use, unity of ownership and proximity or contiguity. (Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, Washington, D.C., 2016, p. 110) Part Taken (Partial Taking) – “The taking of part of any real property interest for public use under the power of eminent domain; requires the payment of compensation.” (Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Sixth Edition, Chicago, 2015, p. 143) Residue (Remainder) – “‘Residue’ means that portion of any property which is not taken but which belongs to the respondent, ..., and which has been used by, or is capable of being used by, the respondent, together with the property actually taken, as one economic unit.” (CJI-Civ. 4th, 36:4) Restoration Cost to Cure (Cost to Cure) – “In certain circumstances, damage to the remainder may be cured by remedial action. The cost to cure is a proper measure of damage only when it is no greater in amount than the decrease in the market value of the remainder if left as it stood. When the cost to cure is less than the compensable damages if the cure were undertaken, the cost to cure is the proper measure of damage, and the government is not obligated to pay in excess of that amount.” (Interagency Land Acquisition Conference, Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, Washington, D.C., 2016, p. 38) Slope Easement – “A ‘slope easement’ is an easement reserved to the condemnor to use whatever portion of the property is needed to provide lateral support for a roadbed, and those surface rights to property which are not required for lateral support are retained by landowner for any usage which does not interfere with condemnor’s slope easement.” (State Dept. of Highways v. Woolley, 696 P.2d 828, Colo. App. 1984) Temporary Easement – “An easement granted for a specific purpose and applicable for a specific time period. A construction easement, for example, is terminated after the construction of the improvement and the unencumbered fee interest in the land reverts to the owner.” (Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Sixth Edition, Chicago, 2015, p. 195) Compensation due for a temporary easement is the reasonable rental value for the time the easement is used. (State Dept. of Highways v. Woolley, 696 P.2d 828, Colo. App. 1984) Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda 53 Addendum C QUALIFICATIONS Jon Vaughan Director, Fort Collins, CO ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶ Experience ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶ Jon brings 15 years of experience preparing real estate appraisals, feasibility studies and consulting. His expertise covers a broad spectrum of property types, including commercial and residential development land, mixed-use projects, as well as farm and ranch properties. His background in improved properties includes office, retail and industrial facilities, as well as special purpose facilities, such as automobile dealerships, breweries, churches and schools. Prior to joining CBRE, Mr. Vaughan worked as an appraiser with Foster Valuation in Greeley, where he honed his focus on eminent domain. He has worked on property valuations related to some of Colorado’s most-notable infrastructure projects including the I-25 widening and the addition of express lanes from north Denver to Northern Colorado. ̶̶̶̶̶̶ Professional Affiliations / Accreditations ̶̶̶̶̶̶ • Appraisal Institute: Designated Member (MAI) – 2017 Colorado Chapter President – 2015-2016 Colorado Chapter Officer – 2013-2014 Colorado Chapter Board of Directors • International Right of Way Association: Senior Right of Way Professional (SR/WA) – 2018-Present Colorado Chapter Professional Development Committee Chair – 2014-Present IR/WA Instructor – Appraisal Courses – 2015-2018 Colorado Chapter Education Chair • Certified General Real Estate Appraiser: State of Colorado, #CG100000631 • Accepted Expert Witness, District Courts in Larimer and Weld Counties ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶ Education ̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶̶ • Colorado State University, Bachelor of Science; Business Administration • Appraisal Institute – General Courses Covering Highest and Best Use, Market Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Income Capitalization, Sales Comparison, and Cost Approach, Business Practices and Ethics – Valuation of Conservation Easements – Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions • International Right of Way Association – General: Principles, Uniform Relocation Act, Ethics and the Right of Way Profession – Negotiations: Principles, Bargaining Negotiations, and Conflict Management – Appraisal: Principles, Easement Valuation, Appraisal Review, and Valuation of Environmentally Contaminated Real Estate – Environmental: Understanding Environmental Contamination in Real Estate – Property Management: Leasing – Real Estate Law: Principles, Legal Aspects of Easements, Eminent Domain Law Basics – Engineering: Engineering Plan Development, Property Descriptions • American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers – Appraising Conservation Easements and Case Studies • Colorado Division of Real Estate: Conservation Easement Appraiser Update Course T + 970 223 4378 M +970 310 1339 Jon.Vaughan@cbre.com 2850 McClelland Drive Suite 3500 Fort Collins, CO 80525 • City of Fort Collins • City of Greeley • City of Loveland • City of Aurora • City of Thornton • Weld County • Town of Milliken • University of Northern Colorado • Xcel Energy • Western States Land Services Part 12 – Exhibits and Addenda 54 JON VAUGHAN Valuation & Advisory Services +1 9702234378 Jon.Vaughan@cbre.com www.cbre.com CBRE VALUATION & ADVISORY SERVICES Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Project Siting Study FINAL August 2018 Prepared for Roundhouse Renewable Energy, LLC Prepared by Logan Simpson 213 Linden Street, Suite 300 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 ATTACHMENT 5 ii This page left intentionally blank Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study iii Contents 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Project Overview.................................................................................................................... 1-1 Project Components .............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.1.1 Structure Type ................................................................................................ 1-3 1.1.2 Right-of-Way Requirements ........................................................................... 1-3 2.0 Siting Study Process ........................................................................................................... 2-1 Step 1: Establish the Siting Area .......................................................................................... 2-1 Step 2: Analyze Existing Policy Framework and Guidance .................................................. 2-1 Step 3: Collect Relevant Land Use and Environmental Data ............................................... 2-2 Step 4: Develop Opportunities and Constraints .................................................................... 2-3 Step 5: Define Preliminary Alternative Transmission Routes ............................................... 2-3 Step 6: Gather Agency, Landowner, and Public Input (To be revised after public meetings)2-11 Step 7: Collect Additional Data and Refine Transmission Line Route ................................ 2-12 Step 8: Rank and Document Results ................................................................................. 2-12 3.0 Overview of the Project Siting Area Resources and Criteria ........................................... 3-1 Vegetation and Surface Water............................................................................................... 3-1 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................... 3-2 Birds – Raptor ........................................................................................................................ 3-4 Birds – Non-raptor ................................................................................................................. 3-6 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................... 3-8 Land Uses ............................................................................................................................. 3-8 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 3-9 Engineering Factors .............................................................................................................. 3-9 Existing Linear Infrastructure ................................................................................................. 3-9 4.0 Development and Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes ................................ 4-1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1 Vegetation and Surface Water ....................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 4-1 Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study iv 4.1.3 Birds – Raptor ................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.4 Birds – Non-raptor .......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.5 Visual Resources............................................................................................ 4-1 4.1.6 Land Uses ...................................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.7 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.8 Engineering Factors ....................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.9 Existing Linear Infrastructure .......................................................................... 4-2 Alternative Transmission Route Ranking and Results ........................................................... 4-3 4.1.10 Route 2B (Preferred) ...................................................................................... 4-7 4.1.11 Route 2C ........................................................................................................ 4-8 4.1.12 Route 3B ........................................................................................................ 4-9 4.1.13 Route 4 ......................................................................................................... 4-10 4.1.14 Route 5A ...................................................................................................... 4-11 4.1.15 Route 5B ...................................................................................................... 4-12 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 4-13 5.0 References ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study v List of Tables Table 3-1 Wetland/Waterbody Features in the Siting Area ..................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2 Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Siting Area ........................... 3-2 Table 3-3 Raptor Species with Potential to Occur in the Siting Study Area............................. 3-5 Table 4-2 Alternative Route Comparison................................................................................. 4-1 List of Figures Figure 1 Project Overview ..................................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2 Photograph of Typical Transmission Structure – 230kV Single Circuit Tangent ..... 1-3 Figure 3 Opportunities and Constraints ................................................................................. 2-9 Figure 4 Preliminary Alternative Corridors ........................................................................... 2-10 Figure 5 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Categories ............................................................... 4-2 Figure 6 Route Alternatives ................................................................................................... 4-4 Figure 7 Environmental Route Evaluation Results ................................................................ 4-4 Figure 8 Social Route Evaluation Results ............................................................................. 4-5 Figure 9 Economic Route Evaluation Results ....................................................................... 4-6 Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study vi List of Acronyms APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee APP Avian Protection Plan BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMPs Best Management Practices CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife CR County Road EBD Energy by Design EXPN Experimental Population, Non-essential GAP Gap Analysis Project GIS Geographic Information Systems I-25 Interstate 25 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NA Not Applicable NESC National Electrical Safety Code NHD National Hydrography Dataset NWI National Wetlands Inventory OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Project Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project PRPA Platte River Power Authority Rawhide Rawhide Energy Station RHRE Roundhouse Renewable Energy ROW Right-of-Way SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SLB Colorado State Land Board USDA-NAIP U.S. Department of Agriculture - National Agriculture Imagery Program USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 1-1 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this Siting Study is to present the alternative development and selection process for the Colorado portion of the Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Project (Project), an approximately 13-mile transmission line from the proposed Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project (Project) southwest of Cheyenne, Wyoming to the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA) Rawhide Energy Station (Rawhide) in northern Colorado. The overall purpose of the Siting Study is to select a preferred transmission line route based on a careful triple bottom line analysis of the environmental, economic, and social impact following the Larimer County and City of Fort Collins Energy by Design model (The Nature Conservancy 2013). Further, this study will demonstrate to applicable municipal and county jurisdictions and to the public that reasonable alternative routes for the transmission line were considered. The Siting Study begins with a Project overview that includes the purpose, need, and the Project design criteria. The Siting Study process is then described, including an analysis of the existing policy framework and guidance; data collection; development of evaluation criteria, development of alternatives, and evaluation of alternatives based on the evaluation criteria. Finally, the results of the evaluation are presented in Chapter 4 with detailed mapping for the alternative transmission routes. The Siting Study concludes with recommendations for a preferred transmission route. The Siting Study will serve as an appendix to the Larimer County and Weld County 1041 permits that are required for project construction and operation. Public input will be solicited and considered in Project planning. A summary of the open house will be included in Section 2 of this report. Project Overview The Project delivers renewable electrical power from the Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project southwest of Cheyenne, Wyoming to Rawhide. The Siting Study area was defined from the Wyoming/Colorado state line to Rawhide to allow a reasonable range of transmission line alternatives to be developed (Figure 1). Potential routes for the Project were identified based on consideration of a variety of criteria including, but not limited to, the following: • Vegetation and Surface Water; • Wildlife, including grassland birds and raptors; • Visual Resources; • Land Uses; • Cultural Resources; • Engineering factors; • Existing Linear Infrastructure; and • Public input. Tables in Chapter 4 present the results of the evaluation process for the alternative routes considered. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 1-2 Figure 1 Project Overview Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 1-3 Project Components 1.1.1 Structure Type The transmission line will consist of single-pole, self-supporting steel monopole structures, angle structures, and dead end structures. Monopole structures will range in height from 80 to 130 feet, depending on length of span. The typical span length between transmission structures is 800 feet, but longer spans of 1,000 feet can be achieved to span environmental or sensitive resources. The type of pole to be used for the transmission line will be determined prior to submittal of the 1041 application. Figure 2 includes a photograph of a typical 230kV single circuit tangent transmission structure. Steel monopole structures are planned for the Project because steel has a longer lifespan than wood and requires less maintenance. Monopole structures also generally have a smaller footprint than other types of transmission structures. All angle and corner structures will be placed on drilled pier foundations while tangent structures will be directly buried. All design criteria will comply with applicable statutes and codes, including the appropriate edition of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and RHRE’s design standards. 1.1.2 Right-of-Way Requirements The Project will be constructed almost entirely within an anticipated successfully negotiated right-of-way (ROW) easement with the City of Fort Collins and other private properties. A 150-foot-wide easement is necessary for the 230kV transmission line. Trees and vegetation within the proposed easement will be removed only if they impede safe construction and operation of the Project. Brush and vegetation cleared from the ROW are typically mulched and salvaged, if possible. Trees and shrubs removed for this Project will be replaced in other suitable locations outside of the ROW. The easement would be used for access during the construction phase, as well as for long-term maintenance. Ingress and egress to the easement would be accomplished from adjacent public roads, or where necessary, through procurement of easements through City of Fort Collins or other private property. Figure 2 Photograph of Typical Transmission Structure – 230kV Single Circuit Tangent Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-1 2.0 Siting Study Process A comprehensive siting process was applied. The process considers electric system planning, economics, the natural, cultural, and visual environment, public involvement, regulatory issues, land rights, land use, and engineering criteria. The overall siting process used to define and analyze alternatives is summarized below. The process is ongoing, fluid, and refinements are incorporated at all stages of Project development. The Siting Study process followed these iterative steps: • Step 1: Develop utility engineering requirements and establish the siting area; • Step 2: Analyze existing policy framework and guidance; • Step 3: Collect relevant land use and environmental data; • Step 4: Develop opportunities and constraints; • Step 5: Define preliminary alternative transmission routes; • Step 6: Gather agency, landowner, and public input; • Step 7: Collect additional data and refine transmission line route; and • Step 8: Rank and document results. Step 1: Develop Utility Engineering Requirements and Establish the Siting Area A siting area was defined with sufficient size to accomplish electrical system objectives and encompass a reasonable range of routing alternatives. The overall siting area extends north-south from the Wyoming/Colorado border to the interconnection point at the Rawhide substation. It extends west-east from approximately 0.5 mile east of the Soapstone Prairie Natural Area to a point approximately one mile east of Interstate 25 (I-25), an area of over 40 square miles or nearly 26,000 acres. The siting area includes portions of Larimer and Weld counties, in northern Colorado. Most of the siting area is owned by the City of Fort Collins Utilities and is managed as Meadow Springs Ranch. This 26,600 acre ranch was purchased and serves as an integral part of the wastewater treatment process for regulatory compliant biosolids application. The ranch is also managed for livestock grazing, wildlife, and a range of natural resource values. Small areas of private land are interspersed within and around the boundaries of Meadow Springs Ranch. None of the properties within the siting area are open to the public. Step 2: Analyze Existing Policy Framework and Guidance The Larimer County Master Plan and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan (County Code, Chapter 22) were reviewed, along with the guidance in the Larimer County and Weld County adopted 1041 Areas and Activities of State Interest regulations and Weld County Use by Special Review permit criteria. Key points from these land use policies and regulations include consideration of and minimizing effects on key natural, cultural, and visual resources and land uses through an evaluation of alternative transmission routes. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-2 In 2013, the Colorado State Land Board (SLB), Larimer County, and the City of Fort Collins partnered to produce the Energy by Design Report (The Nature Conservancy 2013), which provides a methodology and recommendations to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the potential impacts of oil and gas development within a 60,000 acre area that includes the Meadow Springs Ranch and environs. The report identifies priority biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational resource values and recommends areas for avoidance, minimization of impacts, and preferred areas for oil and gas development. In addition, the report identifies timing limitations for biological resources; restoration standards; and other mitigation. While not developed for electrical transmission facilities, the Energy by Design Report offers a useful framework and comprehensive background data to guide the siting process. The City of Fort Collins’ management plan for Meadow Springs Ranch (prepared in 2012 and currently under revision) was also consulted for guidance. Key points from the County Comprehensive Plans, adopted regulations, Energy by Design Report, and Meadow Springs Ranch Management Plan include minimizing effects to the following resources and uses: • Vegetation (including special status plants); • Surface water, riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains; • Wildlife, avian (including raptors), and special status wildlife species’ habitats; • Visual resources; • Land uses, specifically residences and conserved properties; • Cultural resources; and • The Energy by Design Report further emphasizes co-locating development near previous and existing linear disturbances such as along roads and the railroad. Step 3: Collect Relevant Land Use and Environmental Data Relevant information on land use, natural resources, and other criteria was collected within an overall siting area including jurisdictional boundaries, land uses, oil and gas facilities, existing transmission lines, natural resources, and cultural data. This information provided an overall characterization of the siting area and informed the initial siting criteria and opportunities. Data representing agency and landowner guidance (Step 2 and Table 4-1) was critical to the siting process. Significant effort was made to gather relevant and current data to accurately depict areas of concern and areas of opportunity for the transmission route alternatives. Accordingly, collaboration with involved parties was integral for the collection of accurate and complete GIS data for the siting area. Baseline GIS data was collected from a number of sources, including, but not limited to: • City of Fort Collins (Natural Areas, Utilities); • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT); • Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP); • Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC); Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-3 • Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW); • Digitized data from aerial imagery (ESRI, USDA-NAIP, Google); • Larimer County; • Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP); • Roundhouse Renewable Energy and consultant team (Logan Simpson and AECOM) • State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); • U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and • Weld County. Field data were also utilized. Quality control and assessment was performed on the data to identify discrepancies and supplement existing sources. The data was then organized into criteria categories that were used to evaluate transmission route alternatives. Step 4: Develop Opportunities and Constraints Consistent with the Energy by Design process, the resource constraint and opportunity values were organized across four types of surface occupancy guidelines: Preferred Surface Occupancy, Controlled Surface Occupancy (Seasonal Restrictions), Limited Surface Occupancy, and No Surface Occupancy (Table 2-1). Figure 3, Opportunities and Constraints, is the result of an intensive process of identifying and prioritizing criteria and opportunities. The intent of the opportunities and criteria step is to demonstrate that conserving sensitive land uses and resources are priorities when identifying a reasonable range of transmission route alternatives, per the Energy by Design Report. Step 5: Define Preliminary Alternative Transmission Routes During this step, a comprehensive range of alternative transmission routes was identified. The opportunity and constraint criteria presented in Table 2-1 were considered to the extent possible. The alternatives were mapped and iteratively refined against the opportunities and constraints and engineering considerations, such as the number of angle structures, transmission line length, and length adjacent to existing linear infrastructure (Figure 4). Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-4 Table 2-1 Opportunity and Constraint Criteria Preferred Surface Occupancy Controlled Surface Occupancy (Seasonal Restrictions) Limited Surface Occupancy No Surface Occupancy Data Sources Vegetation and Surface Water Creeks and Streams N/A N/A N/A 100 feet from high water mark of perennial and ephemeral creeks and streams Buffer derived from: - USGS- NHD Flowline dataset. Seeps and Springs N/A N/A 300 to 600 feet 0 to 300 feet - No data, currently, for this criterion. Wetlands N/A N/A N/A 100 feet from wetland edge Buffer derived from: - National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2008) Riparian Woodlands and Shrublands N/A N/A N/A 100 feet from vegetation cover boundary Buffer derived from: - National GAP Analysis Program (USGS 2016) and digitzed aerials Rare Plant Species:Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana var. coloradensis N/A N/A 300 to 600 feet from mapped occurrences 0 to 300 feet from mapped occurrences Buffers derive from: - RarePlantLocations dataset developed by the CNHP (CNHP 2017). Wildlife Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) Winter Concentration Area N/A No human disturbance or construction activity within winter concentration areas west of I-25 from January 1 through March 31 Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-5 (Mustela nigripes) prairie dog colonies where BFF occur from Feb 1 through July 31 within a designated prairie dog management zone or conservation zone. and Meadow Springs Ranch (City of Fort Collins 2017). Black-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) N/A No construction activity within and over colonies from Feb 1 through July 31 (see Resource Protection Standards for details) N/A N/A - Black-tailed prairie dog colony data for Soapstone Prairie Natural Area and Meadow Springs Ranch (City of Fort Collins 2017). Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) N/A N/A 300 to 600 feet from the legal edge of wetlands 0 to 300 foot buffer from the legal edge of wetlands - No known occurrences within siting area. To be determined pending verification of wetland data source Colorado Blue Butterfly Hops blue butterfly (Celastrina humulus) N/A N/A N/A 0 to 300 feet from mapped occurrences - No known occurrences within siting area Birds - Raptor Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Nest N/A No human disturbance or construction activity within 0.5 mile buffer around active nest from November 15 through July 31 N/A 0.25 mile from active nests and historic nests Buffers derived from: - ENYO Spring 2018 aerial survey data (ENYO, 2018). - CPW raptor nest site dataset (CPW 2018) Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-6 Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) Nest N/A No human disturbance within 0.5 mile from active nests from March 15 through July 15 N/A 0.25 mile from active nests Buffers derived from: - Prairie falcon data from the Energy by Design report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins 2013). - City of Fort Collins raptor nest survey data (2018). - CPW raptor nest site dataset (CPW 2018) Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Nest N/A No human disturbance within 0.25 mile from active nests from April 1 through July 15 N/A N/A Buffer derived from: - Swainson’s hawk data from the Energy by Design report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins 2013). - City of Fort Collins raptor nest survey data (2018). - CPW raptor nest site dataset (CPW 2018) Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Nest N/A No construction activity within 300 feet of active nests from March 1 through August 15 N/A N/A Buffer derived from: - Burrowing owl data from the Energy by Design report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins, 2013). - CPW raptor nest site dataset (CPW 2018) Owls and Other Raptor Nest N/A Varies by species 0.25 mile from active nests Buffers derived from: - Other raptor data from the Energy by Design report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins 2013). - City of Fort Collins raptor nest survey data (2018). Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-7 (Georeferenced Map). Lark Bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys) Core Areas N/A Core area plus a 450 foot buffer N/A N/A - Buffer derived from lark bunting data from the Energy by Design report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins 2013). McCown’s Longspur (Rhynchophanes mccownii) Core Areas N/A Core area plus a 450 foot buffer N/A N/A - Buffer derived from McCown’s longspur data from the Energy by Design report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins 2013). Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) Staging Area N/A N/A N/A Staging area plus a 600 foot buffer Buffer derived from: - Digitized staging areas, from Map 5. - Biological Values of Energy by Design Report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins 2013). (Georeferenced Map). Mountain Plover Nest/Repeat Detection Areas N/A No construction activity within 0.25 mile from occupied nests from April 1 through May 15 0.25 mile buffer Buffers derived from: - Digitized nest/repeat detections, from Map 5. - Biological Values of Energy by Design Report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins 2013). (Georeferenced Map). Visual Resources Visibility from Recreational Trails N/A N/A Visible in background (1.5 to 3.5 miles) Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-8 Imagery-2018). Communication Facilities / Towers N/A N/A N/A Within 200 feet of facility - Communication facility locations digitized using multiple imagery sources (ESRI World Imagery, USDA 2017- NAIP Imagery, Google Imagery- 2018). Conserved Properties N/A N/A N/A Crosses parcel with existing encumbrance -CoMAP version 9 (CNHP, 2012) Oil and Gas Wells N/A N/A Within 0.25 mile Within 200 feet - No known oil and gas wells in siting area (based on satellite imagery and COGCC data 2018). Oil and Gas Tanks/Batteries N/A N/A N/A Within 200 feet - No known oil and gas tank/batteries in siting area (based on satellite imagery and COGCC data 2018). Cultural Resources Proximity to Known Cultural Sites N/A N/A Within 75 feet of cultural sites. Within 3 miles of Lindenmeier Site Cultural sites. Buffers derived from: - Colorado OAHP cultural sites dataset (OAHP 2018). Existing Linear Infrastructure Active Railroad Between 300 feet and 1,000 feet of tracks N/A N/A Within 300 feet of center of tracks Buffers derived using: - U.S. National Transportation Atlas Railroads Dataset (Federal Railroad Administration 2012). Other Utilities/Pipelines/Fiber Optic Parallel and between 200 and 1,000 feet of ROW N/A N/A Parallel and within 200 feet of existing ROW for oil and Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-9 Figure 3 Opportunities and Constraints Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-10 Figure 4 Preliminary Alternative Corridors Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-11 Some key siting guidelines were applied to the route evaluation, including the following: • Minimize habitat fragmentation by collocating with existing disturbances to the extent possible; • Avoid impacts to cultural sites; • Avoid and minimize impacts on wetlands, waterbodies, and other sensitive habitats; • Avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive wildlife species and habitats, including unfragmented grassland habitat; • Avoid impacts to existing infrastructure, paralleling visible features to the maximum extent feasible; • Minimize proximity to residences; and • Minimize the length and number of angle structures, which not only increase Project costs but also result in increased land use impacts and increased visual effects due to taller and/or bulkier structures and higher visibility. Ultimately, three viable alternatives were carried forward for further evaluation and comparison. Step 6: Gather Agency, Landowner, and Public Input (To be revised after public meetings) A comparative analysis of the alternative transmission routes resulted in selection of a preliminary preferred alternative, which will be refined to respond to agency, landowner, and public input, as appropriate. The preliminary preferred route and two alternatives were presented at a public meeting on August 15 for the following purposes: • To introduce the community to the Project; • To refine transmission line alternatives through community input; • To identify additional issues that the 1041 Permit Applications and Siting Study should address; and • To satisfy Weld County 1041 Permit and Use by Special Review Questionnaire and Larimer County 1041 Permit requirements. [Eventually include meeting summary] Ongoing coordination with agencies and the City of Fort Collins also informs the refinement of the preferred alternative. The Weld and Larimer County 1041 Permit application processes require notification of landowners within 500 feet of the property boundary or corridor under development review for public hearings. RHRE expanded upon this requirement and notified landowners within 0.5 mile of the alternative corridors about the meetings via a direct mailed flyer. The meeting was also publicized via a newspaper advertisement in the Fort Collins Coloradoan, the Greeley Tribune, and via at least three Project and partner websites: http://roundhouse-renewable.com/, Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 2-12 https://www.prpa.org/roundhouse-renewable-energy/, and https://www.fcgov.com/roundhouse- renewable. In addition, a number of interested individuals and entities, including local governments, were contacted directly by RHRE by email and phone prior to the meetings. Step 7: Collect Additional Data and Refine Transmission Line Route Once the preliminary alternative routes were developed, additional information was collected through field visits, review of aerial imagery, and agency, landowner, and public input. This information was then used to refine the route alternatives, resulting in the adjustment of alignments where practical, and in some cases elimination of segments when a conflict couldn’t be adequately mitigated. Figure 6 provides an overview of the route alternatives. More detailed mapping of the transmission route alternatives carried forward for detailed analysis is presented in Chapter 4. Step 8: Rank and Document Results A systematic and thorough analysis of alternatives was conducted to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative alignment. The results of this analysis are documented in Chapter 4. A preferred route and two feasible alternatives have been selected to carry forward in permit and easement applications and other required approvals. Based on best siting practices, existing policy framework and guidance, agency and landowner requirements, a set of evaluation criteria was developed. The evaluation criteria are discussed further in Chapter 3 in the following categories: • Vegetation and Surface Water; • Wildlife; • Birds – Raptor; • Birds – Non-raptor; • Visual Resources; • Land Uses; • Cultural Resources; • Engineering Factors; and • Existing Linear Infrastructure. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 3-1 3.0 Overview of the Project Siting Area Resources and Criteria Section 2.3 presented data sources and collection methods. Data collected during this step were initially used to inform the route development process. As described in Chapter 2, the data were then used to evaluate each of the route alternatives. Figures 7-9 present the alternative routes and their relationship to evaluation criteria. Chapter 3 presents an overview of the criteria present in the siting area. In 2013, The Nature Conservancy in conjunction with the City of Fort Collins, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State Land Board, and Larimer County, completed the Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Report. This report covered 60,000 acres in northeastern Colorado, including the siting area. The Energy by Design Report provides a comprehensive inventory and evaluation of priority biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational resource values. The report is incorporated in this Siting Study by reference. Since the report is five years old, every attempt was made to acquire updated wildlife occurrence data, particularly for black-tailed prairie dog colonies and raptor nests. This acquisition included field reconnaissance site visits and coordination with CPW and the City of Fort Collins. Vegetation and Surface Water The siting area is predominately mixed grass prairie. Little surface water is present and most streams and wetlands shown on Figure 7 are ephemeral. Lone Tree Creek is a perennial stream in the vicinity of the Project area and riparian vegetation exists, primarily in the northern portion of the siting area. The Energy by Design Report presents vegetation and surface water features in the siting area in greater detail and is incorporated by reference. The siting area is in the mixed grass prairie ecosystem of northern Colorado. It is characterized by rolling grasslands with numerous swales, small drainages, bluffs, and buttes. Elevations range from 5,600 to 6,000 feet. Much of the grassland is dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) with some needle and thread grass (Stipa comota). Large trees in the area are typically associated with human habitation, located along roads, near homes and farms, and near wet areas. Large tree species naturally growing in the siting area are primarily plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia). Small bluffs or buttes are often covered with shrublands dominated by mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus) (Kettler et al. 1996). Populations of the Colorado butterfly plant are known to occur in areas adjacent to the siting area, both east and west and one population exists within the southeast corner of the siting area (Nature Conservancy 2013). Table 4-1 presents the evaluation criteria for this species. Although the Colorado butterfly plant was recently delisted by the USFWS (June 7, 2018), ongoing monitoring for the species will be required in accordance with the delisting monitoring plan. If this species is identified during pre-construction surveys, appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented in conjunction with USFWS and the City of Fort Collins. The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) dataset identifies five types of wetland/waterbody features within the siting area (Table 3-1). Surface water, riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains are present throughout the siting area, as shown on Figure 7. These wetland and waterbody Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 3-2 features include perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams and drainages, emergent wetlands and riparian areas, and small ponds. In addition to a series of unnamed streams the siting area contains several named streams which include Sand Creek, Spottlewood Creek, Lone Tree Creek, Spring Creek, Rawhide Creek, Coal Creek and Wire Draw. Additionally, a small portion of Graves Creek also traverses the siting area. No large waterbodies are located within the siting area. Table 3-1 Wetland/Waterbody Features in the Siting Area Feature Type Total Area Wetlands 66 acres Ponds 13 acres Ephemeral Streams/Drainages 62 miles Intermittent Streams 13 miles Perennial Streams 17 miles Wildlife A full suite of grassland wildlife species inhabits the siting area. The Energy by Design Report presents comprehensive data and descriptions of wildlife species and habitat in, and adjacent to, the siting area. Species of particular focus include black-footed ferret, black-tailed prairie dog, swift fox, pronghorn, mule deer, northern leopard frog, Iowa darter, and Colorado blue butterfly. There are no known occurrences of the northern leopard frog or Colorado blue butterfly in the siting area. Table 3-2 presents special status species with potential to occur within the siting area. Table 3-2 Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Siting Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status1 State Status2 Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGEPA, MBTA SGCN Tier 2 (resident) Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia MBTA Threatened (migrant) Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis MBTA SGCN Tier 2 (resident) Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, MBTA SGCN Tier I (resident) Greater sandhill crane Grus canadensis tabida MBTA SGCN Tier 1(migrant) Mountain plover Charadrius montanus MBTA SGCN Tier 1(migrant) Mammals Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus SGCN Tier 2 Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes EXPN3 Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Threatened Threatened Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 3-3 Table 3-2 Special Status Species with Potential to Occur in the Siting Area Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status1 State Status2 Swift Fox Vulpes velox SGCN Tier 2 Sources: USFWS 2017b, CPW 2015, Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership 2016 1 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA); Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) 3 Experimental Population, Non-essential Aquatic species documented in Lone Tree Creek and Spottlewood Creek include Iowa darter, northern redbelly dace, brassy minnow and northern leopard frog (CPW 2018). These species are not evaluated specifically in this siting study due to their aquatic habitat requirements. There are no known occurrences of the northern leopard frog in the siting area. The Project will span all wetlands and waterbodies with an appropriate buffer in order to avoid potential impacts to aquatic species. The Colorado blue butterfly has historically been present in the general area, including at Soapstone Prairie Natural Area (Nature Conservancy 2013). There are no known occurrence for this species in the siting area. Avoidance and mitigation measures will be handled on a case-by- case basis if the species is documented during construction. The black-tailed prairie dog is an integral part of prairie ecosystems and many other wildlife species are dependent on prairie dogs and their colonies. These include common species (e.g., rattlesnakes, badgers, weasels, and raptors) and special status species (black-footed ferret, bald and golden eagles, ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, and mountain plover). Black-tailed prairie dogs are susceptible to a variety of diseases, including sylvatic plague. Colonies can die out from sylvatic plague and require several years to repopulate. The best available data has been used to evaluate black-tailed prairie dog colonies in the siting area. This includes data from the Energy by Design Report and the City of Fort Collins. A total of thirty-six black-tailed prairie dog colonies have been recorded between the years 2007 and 2017 within the siting area. As of the year 2017, thirteen of the thirty-six black-tailed prairie dog colonies are active. Four of these currently active colonies are within a City of Fort Collins designated management or conservation zone. Windshield site reconnaissance surveys in June 2018 failed to confirm activity at five of the seven mapped colonies, but identified a new colony that was not previously delineated. Comprehensive surveys for black-tailed prairie dog colonies will be conducted prior to construction and CPW and the City of Fort Collins will be consulted for avoidance recommendations. The siting area is within the overall range for swift fox. The species inhabits shortgrass prairie, particularly on the Pawnee National Grassland east of the siting area (CPW 2017), however den sites occur within the siting area. If present, swift fox could be temporarily displaced during construction of the transmission line. As with other terrestrial mammal species in the area, impacts to swift fox are expected to be minimal and primarily consist of temporary disturbance from construction activities. If a swift fox den is encountered during construction, the CPW and the City of Fort Collins will be consulted for avoidance recommendations. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 3-4 Black-footed ferrets are bred in a captive breeding facility that is partially within the siting area. Since 2014, several reintroductions of ferrets have occurred in the black-tailed prairie dog colonies at Meadow Springs Ranch and Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. The City of Fort Collins has a Safe Harbor Agreement in place to guide management and protection of the black-footed ferret (USFWS 2015). All mapped black-tailed prairie dog colonies in the siting area are considered potential black-footed ferret habitat. There are two colonies within the siting area where black- footed ferrets have been observed as of 2017 (colonies MSR 13 and MSR 2). All six alternative routes are concurrent around black-tailed prairie dog colony MSR 13 in the southern portion of the siting area therefore the presence of black-footed ferrets is not a differentiating criterion between alternatives at this location. However, only routes 5A and 5B occur within black-tailed prairie dog colony MSR 2, which differentiates them from all other siting route alternatives. Pronghorn are common in the siting area and mule deer are also present in suitable habitat. The siting area encompasses sensitive winter habitat for both species and this criteria is included in route alternative evaluation. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has been documented historically in the siting area. Suitable habitat for this species exists in wet meadows, particularly along Lone Tree Creek. This type of habitat is very limited in the siting area. No critical habitat has been designated in the siting area and no occurrence information exists to indicate that this species is currently present in the siting area. The Project would span any wetland and waterbody features by an appropriate distance and no impacts to this species are anticipated. Birds – Raptor Raptor and other migratory bird nesting, foraging, migration, and winter habitat is present throughout the siting area. Raptor species with potential to occur in the siting area include both resident and migrant species. Raptor species observed during two reconnaissance surveys on June 7 and 13, 2018 include red-tailed hawk, burrowing owl, northern harrier, and ferruginous hawk. Table 3-3 presents raptor species with potential to occur in the siting area. One metric commonly used to evaluate raptor habitat and occurrence is the number and location of documented nests. The best available raptor nest data has been incorporated in this analysis using data from the City of Fort Collins, the Energy by Design Report, CPW, and another consultant. A total of twenty-two raptor nests are documented in the siting area between 2010 and 2018. However, seventeen of these nests were reported as inactive or destroyed over the corresponding time period. Raptor nests are accorded protections in the form of distance and timing stipulations. For this Project, the guidelines set forth in the 2008 Colorado Division of Wildlife Recommended Buffer Zones and Seasonal Restrictions for Colorado Raptors will be implemented. Distance stipulations are commonly referred to as buffers. Nests within the siting area that cannot be associated with a particular species are provided a 0.25 mile buffer for the analysis. This distance buffer is commonly applied to buteo species, which are the most likely type of raptor to use this type of nest and habitat. It is common for raptor nests to be used by different species, including common ravens, in different years. Raptors are known to use nests for multiple years. The species using a particular nest may vary annually. For example, most owls do not construct their own nests; they use previously constructed nests or burrows. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 3-5 Table 3-3 Raptor Species with Potential to Occur in the Siting Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Nesting Habitat Season of Occurrence American kestrel Falco sparverius Cavities in trees and human-made structures Resident Barn owl Tyto alba Variety of habitats including old buildings and burrows in walls of dry washes Resident Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Mammalian burrows Breeding season Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi Stick nest in trees Resident Eastern screech-owl Megascops asio Tree cavities Breeding season Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Stick nest in trees, on rock outcrops Resident Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Variety of habitats including trees and on human-made structures Resident Long-eared owl Asio otus Edge habitat in tree stands or dense shrubs Resident Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Ground nest in grassland and agricultural land Resident Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Stick nest in trees Resident Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus Breeds elsewhere Winter Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Nests on the ground in grassland and agricultural land Resident Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni Nests in trees in grassland and agricultural land Breeding season Prior to construction, Roundhouse will conduct surveys for migratory birds and nests, including raptors. If any nests are found, appropriate construction timing limitations or distance buffers will be enforced according to the City, CPW and USFWS recommendations. Where timing limitations or setbacks cannot be applied due to timing constraints, other alternative mitigation measures would be considered and vetted with the City, CPW and USFWS. If any federally-listed species are found, Roundhouse will consult with the USFWS regarding avoidance and mitigation. To preclude avian electrocutions and minimize collision risk, Roundhouse would incorporate Avian Protection Plan (APP) standards developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC 2012) and the APP guidelines (APLIC and USFWS 2005) to protect birds on power lines, as well as NESC specified electric conductor clearances. Although bald and golden eagles are not listed under the Endangered Species Act, they have federal protections under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). In northeastern Colorado, bald eagles typically nest in mature trees in riparian areas (Wickersham 2016). In winter, bald eagles often congregate in riparian areas near open water, which are called winter roost or concentration areas. Pre-construction surveys will be conducted to identify any winter concentration areas and appropriate timing or distance restrictions Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 3-6 would be implemented to avoid impacts to the species. Winter roost areas also are protected from disturbance. No winter roost areas are documented in the siting area. Golden eagles typically nest on cliffs, in large trees, and sometimes on large transmission towers (Wickersham 2016). No golden eagle nests are documented within or near the siting area. One adult golden eagle was observed foraging during June 2018 surveys. The burrowing owl is a state-threatened species that is known to occur and nest in the siting area. In northeastern Colorado, burrowing owls are typically associated with black-tailed prairie dog colonies. Burrowing owls can excavate their own burrows, but they usually depend on burrows that have been started by colonially burrowing mammals, especially ground squirrels and prairie dogs (Jones 2016). A total of 17 burrowing owl nests are documented in black-tailed prairie dog colonies in the siting area. The ferruginous hawk is a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in Colorado and is protected under the MBTA. The species is considered a year-round resident in Colorado and is common in winter on the eastern plains in open grasslands and shrub steppe communities. Ferruginous hawks nest in a variety of open terrain on cliffs or rock outcrops or isolated trees in grasslands (Keeley 2016). Three ferruginous hawk nests are documented within the siting area. Birds – Non-raptor The habitats present in the siting area support a diversity of non-raptor bird species, both migratory and resident. A total of 18 non-raptor species were observed in June 2018, during site reconnaissance surveys. These species are presented in Table 3-2. Also presented in this table are three grassland bird species of special focus that were not observed during the reconnaissance surveys but documented within the siting area by the City: mountain plover, chestnut-collared longspur, and McCown’s longspur. As a guild, grassland bird species are declining in numbers at an alarming rate (source). One-third of all North American grassland bird species are on the Watch List due to steeply declining populations and threats to habitat (NABCI 2016). Table 3-2 Non-Raptor Species with Potential to Occur in the Siting Area Common Name Scientific Name Nesting Habitat Season of Occurrence Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Mud nest on human-made structures Breeding season Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum Twig nest in trees and shrubs This bird was observed using a large nest box on the back of a traffic sign. Breeding season Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Ground nest in grassland Breeding season Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Mud nest on cliffs, banks, and man- made structures Breeding season Common raven Corvus corax Large stick nest on a variety of structures, including cliffs, trees, and transmission structures Resident Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 3-7 Table 3-2 Non-Raptor Species with Potential to Occur in the Siting Area Common Name Scientific Name Nesting Habitat Season of Occurrence Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Ground nest in grassland Breeding season Horned lark Eremophila alpestris Ground nest in grassland and agricultural land Resident Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Ground nest in variety of habitats Breeding season Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Ground nest in grassland Breeding season Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Ground nest in variety of habitats Breeding season McCown’s longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii Ground nest in grassland Breeding season Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Ground nest Breeding season Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Twig nest in trees and shrubs Resident Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Twig nest in trees and shrubs Breeding season Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Wetland and cattail habitat Resident Rock dove Columba livia Nest on rock or human-made ledge Resident Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya Nest on natural or human-made ledges with shelter over them Breeding season Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Nest in dark recesses in a variety of substrates, including cliffs Breeding season Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Ground nest in grassland Breeding season Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Trees in a variety of habitat types Breeding season Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Shrubs in grassland and agricultural land Resident Sources: Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership 2016, Birds of North America online 2017 Four grassland bird species were identified for special focus in the Energy by Design Report: Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 3-8 • Mountain plover staging areas; and • Mountain plover nest/repeat detection areas. No mountain plover breeding areas are documented in the siting area. Lark bunting core areas and McCown’s and chestnut-collared longspur breeding areas are partially within the siting area and are used as evaluation criteria. The greater sandhill crane is a SGCN in Colorado and is protected under the MBTA. The species is considered a migrant through Weld and Larimer Counties. No sandhill crane nests were reported in the siting area in the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas (Ortega 2016). Visual Resources The term “visual resources” refers to the composite of basic terrain, geologic, and hydrologic features, vegetative patterns, and built features that influence the visual appeal of a landscape. The siting area is located in the mixed grass prairie ecosystem of northern Colorado. It is characterized by rolling grasslands with numerous swales, small drainages, bluffs, and buttes. Visual impacts from the Project could result from the presence of tall structures and conductors on the relatively flat and open landscape. The proposed transmission line would primarily be visible to humans from residences, roads, trails, and prominent landforms. Thus, it is desirable to make the transmission line less visible to humans and to make the conductors more visible to birds. The following criteria were used to evaluate potential routes: • Distance of the transmission route through a 0 to 1.5 mile viewshed from recreational trails; • Distance of the transmission route through a 1.5 to 3.5 mile viewshed from recreational trails; • Distance of the transmission route through a 0 to 0.5 mile viewshed from I-25; and • Distance of the transmission route crossing prominent landforms. Additionally, APLIC guidelines would be followed to minimize collision risk for birds, in cooperation with the USFWS, CPW, and City of Fort Collins. Land Uses A variety of commercial, residential and special land uses occur in the siting area. The siting area is predominately owned by the City of Fort Collins. Meadow Springs Ranch is owned by the City of Fort Collins Wastewater Utility and is used for regulatory compliant biosolids application, livestock grazing, and conservation of natural and cultural resource values. There are no conservation easements within the siting area. Other land uses within the siting area include a scattering of rural and residences and secondary agricultural buildings. Thus, a key siting goal was to minimize proximity to private residences, primarily to minimize visual impacts. The following land use criteria were used to evaluate potential routes: • Number of residences within 200 feet of the potential centerline; • Number of residences within 0.25 mile of the potential centerline; Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 3-9 • Number of secondary agricultural/industrial buildings within 100 feet of the potential centerline; • Number of communication facilities/towers within 200 feet of the potential centerline; • Number of properties owned by various landowners crossed by a potential centerline, including the City of Fort Collins; and • The Owl Canyon Gliderport airstrip is 3 miles south of the siting area. Cultural Resources Cultural resources are defined as specific locations of human activity, occupation, or traditional use identifiable through field inventory, historical documentation, or oral evidence. The term includes archaeological, historic, and architectural sites and structures, as well as places with traditional cultural or religious importance within a social or cultural group. Information on cultural resources was gathered using the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office cultural sites dataset (SHPO, 2018). Most of the siting area has not been surveyed for cultural sites. However, the Energy by Design report identified two open camps, one farming/ranching site, one historic road (old Highway 87), and three sites associated with the railroad within the proposed siting area. Additionally, the Lindenmeier Archaeological Site, a National Historic Landmark, is located near the siting area on Soapstone Prairie Natural Area. Cultural artifacts have been documented throughout the general area and Class III cultural surveys will be conducted prior to construction. Proximity to known cultural sites within 75 feet of the potential centerline was used as an evaluation criterion. Engineering Factors The length and design of the transmission line are integral factors that influence visual resources, wildlife habitat, and Project feasibility. The following engineering criteria were used to evaluate potential routes: • Total length (miles); • Total number of angle structures greater than 45 degrees; • Number of Federal Highway crossings (I-25); • Number of other transmission line crossings; and • Number of active railroad crossings. Existing Linear Infrastructure Colocation with existing linear infrastructure is a key goal for siting the transmission line. Colocation is preferable because it minimizes the amount of habitat fragmentation and visual impacts from multiple disturbances on the landscape. The following criteria were used to evaluate potential routes: • Distance of parallel route in miles adjacent to an existing linear feature (railroad tracks, existing pipeline ROW/corridor, old Highway 87, CR 5, I-25, or existing native surface roads). • Distance of parallel route in miles that can be accessed by old Highway 87, CR 5, I- 25 Frontage Road, or existing native surface roads. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-1 4.0 Development and Evaluation of Alternative Transmission Routes As described in Chapter 2, the siting study process is comprised of the following steps: • Step 1: Develop utility engineering requirements and establish the siting area; • Step 2: Analyze existing policy framework and guidance; • Step 3: Collect relevant land use and environmental data; • Step 4: Develop opportunity and constraint criteria; • Step 5: Define preliminary alternative transmission routes; • Step 6: Gather agency, landowner, and public input; • Step 7: Collect additional data and refine transmission line route; and • Step 8: Rank and document results. A variety of route segments were considered in the alternative development step (Step 5). After consideration of the evaluation criteria and key siting guidelines, one preferred alternative and two alternate routes were carried forward for further analysis and public input. The evaluation criteria and results of the ranking of alternative transmission line routes are presented in this chapter. [Note to reviewers: This contains includes draft findings which will be revised following the public meeting and landowner feedback.] Evaluation Criteria The resources discussed in Chapter 3 were used to highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each route alternative. The evaluation criteria were organized around their social, economic and environmental impacts (the triple bottom line). Rather than make decisions on the basis of lowest cost (the economic bottom line), three bottom lines (social, economic, and environmental) are considered. The triple bottom line approach meant creating an optimal mix of environmental resource efficiency, cost effectiveness and human wellbeing in Project construction and operations. The evaluation criteria categories are shown in Figure 5 and defined further in Table 4-1. Figure 6 and Table 4-2 present the route evaluation results. It should be noted that the evaluation criteria represent a basis for comparing potential impacts across alternatives. Actual impacts would be reduced through application of standard environmental protection measures and Best Management Practices. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-2 Figure 5 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Categories Table 4-1 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Category Criteria Category Transmission Route Evaluation Criteria Environmental Vegetation and Surface Water Number of transmission structures located within a 100-foot buffer of the high water mark of perennial and ephemeral creeks and streams, seeps, springs, and wetlands. Number of transmission structures located within a 100-foot buffer of identified riparian vegetation communities. Number of crossings over/through identified riparian vegetation communities. Number of transmission structures located within a 300-foot buffer of Colorado butterfly plant mapped occurrences. Wildlife Length of route in feet within mapped black-tailed prairie dog colonies (corresponds to suitable black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, and mountain plover habitat). Length of route in feet within active black-tailed prairie dog colonies that occur within a designated prairie dog management or conservation zone. Length of route in feet within black-tailed prairie dog colonies that were active as of 2017. Routes within 1,000 feet of National Black-footed Ferret Conservation Center Number of known swift fox den sites within 0.25 mile of the potential centerline Acres of route (with a 150 foot buffer) that occur within pronghorn Environmental Vegetation and Surface Water; Wildlife; (incl. avian species) Economic Engineering Factors Existing linear Infrastructure Social Visual Resources; Land Uses; Cultural Resources; Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-3 Table 4-1 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Category Criteria Category Transmission Route Evaluation Criteria winter concentration areas Length of route in feet that occur within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas. Length of route in feet that occur within Mule Deer Severe Winter Range. Birds - Raptor Length of route in feet within 0.25 mile of known raptor nests Birds – Non-raptor Length of route in feet within 300 feet of chestnut-collared longspur breeding area. Length of route in feet within 450 feet of lark bunting core areas. Length of route in feet within 450 feet of McCown's longspur core areas. Number of mountain plover staging areas and/or nest/repeat detection buffers crossed by the potential centerline. Social Visual Resources Distance (miles) of transmission route through a 0 to 1.5 mile viewshed from recreational trails. Distance (miles) of transmission route through a 1.5 to 3.5 mile viewshed from recreational trails. Distance (miles) of transmission route through a 0 to 0.5 mile viewshed from I-25. Land Uses Number of residences within 200 feet of potential centerline. Number of residences within 0.25 mile of potential centerline. Number of secondary agricultural/industrial buildings within 100 feet of potential centerline. Number of communication facilities/towers within 200 feet of potential centerline. Number of properties owned by various landowners crossed by a potential centerline (including the City of Fort Collins). Cultural Resources Number of cultural sites within 75 feet of potential centerline. Economic Engineering Total Length (miles) Total number of angle structures greater than 45 degrees. Number of Federal Highway crossings (I-25). Number of other transmission line crossings. Number of active railroad crossings. Existing Linear Infrastructure Distance of parallel route in miles adjacent to an existing linear feature (railroad tracks, existing pipeline ROW/corridor, old Highway 87, CR 5, I-25, or existing native surface roads). Distance of parallel route in miles that can be accessed by old Highway 87, CR 5, I-25 Frontage Road, or existing native surface roads. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-4 Figure 6 Route Alternatives Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-1 Table 4-1 Alternative Route Comparison Siting Criteria 2B 2C 3B 4 5A 5B Alternative colors shown on maps (Preferred) Yellow Blue Purple Orange Green Red Vegetation and Surface Water Criteria Number of transmission structures located within a 100-foot buffer of the high water mark of perennial and ephemeral creeks and streams, seeps, springs, and wetlands. 0 0 0 0 1 1 Number of transmission structures located within a 100-foot buffer of identified riparian vegetation communities. 0 0 0 1 4 4 Number of crossings over/through identified riparian vegetation communities. 1 1 5 5 4 4 Number of transmission structures located within a 300-foot buffer of Colorado butterfly plant mapped occurrences. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number of Lowest Score 4 4 3 2 1 1 Wildlife Criteria Length of route in feet within mapped black-tailed prairie dog colonies (corresponds to suitable black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, and mountain plover habitat). 1,060 1,495 2,844 1,495 12,957 12,957 Length of route in feet within active black-tailed prairie dog colonies that occur within a designated prairie dog management or conservation zone. 0 0 0 0 7,259 7,259 Length of route in feet within black-tailed prairie dog colonies that were active as of 2017. 327 863 863 863 7,219 7,219 Routes within 1000 feet of the National Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center. 0 0 0 0 1 1 Number of known swift fox den sites within 0.25 mile of the potential center line. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Length of route in feet that occur within Pronghorn Winter Concentration Areas. 66,864 68,971 69,074 73,492 74,871 76,504 Length of route in feet that occur within Mule Deer Winter Concentration Areas. 0 0 0 24,496 32,079 33,773 Length of route in feet that occur within Mule Deer Severe 5,128 24,626 25,434 24,496 32,027 33,660 Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-2 Table 4-1 Alternative Route Comparison Siting Criteria 2B 2C 3B 4 5A 5B Alternative colors shown on maps (Preferred) Yellow Blue Purple Orange Green Red Winter Range. Total Number of Lowest Score 8 4 4 3 1 1 Birds – Raptor Criteria Length of route in feet within 0.25 mile of known raptor nests 2,534 2,498 5,340 7,602 5,095 1,149 Total Number of Lowest Score 1 1 0 0 0 1 Birds – Non-raptor Criteria Length of route in feet within 300 feet of chestnut-collared longspur breeding areas. 0 0 0 0 2,084 2,084 Length of route in feet within 450 feet of lark bunting core areas. 11,896 13,128 11,373 7,242 4,709 4,709 Length of route in feet within 450 feet of McCown's longspur core areas. 2,701 658 17,757 19,829 13,562 13,562 Number of mountain plover staging areas and/or nest/repeat detection buffers crossed by the potential center line. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Number of Lowest Score 3 3 2 3 2 2 Visual Resources Criteria Distance (miles) of transmission route through a 0 to 1.5 mile viewshed from recreational trails. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Distance (miles) of transmission route through a 1.5 to 3.5 mile viewshed from recreational trails. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Distance (miles) of transmission route through a 0 to 0.5 mile viewshed from I-25. 0 1.21 2.09 11.02 11.28 8.23 Distance (miles) of transmission route crossing prominent landforms within siting area. 0 0 0 0 0.55 0.60 Total Number of Lowest Score 4 3 3 3 2 2 Land Use Criteria Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-3 Table 4-1 Alternative Route Comparison Siting Criteria 2B 2C 3B 4 5A 5B Alternative colors shown on maps (Preferred) Yellow Blue Purple Orange Green Red Number of residences within 200 feet of potential center line. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number of residences within 0.25 mile of potential center line. 1 1 4 3 3 1 Number of secondary agricultural/industrial buildings within 100 feet of potential center line. 0 0 1 0 1 1 Number of communication facilities/towers within 200 feet of potential center line. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number of properties owned by various landowners crossed by a potential center line (including the City of Fort Collins). 6 7 7 5 6 6 Total Number of Lowest Score 4 4 2 4 2 3 Cultural Resources Criteria Number of cultural sites within 75 feet of potential center line. 1 3 3 6 4 2 Total Number of Lowest Score 1 0 0 0 0 0 Engineering Criteria Total Length (miles) 12.7 13.1 13.1 13.9 14.2 14.5 Total number of angle structures greater than 45 degrees. 3 7 5 5 5 7 Number of Federal Highway crossings (I-25). 0 0 0 0 2 2 Number of other transmission line crossings. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Number of active railroad crossings. 0 2 2 2 2 2 Total Number of Lowest Score 5 2 2 2 1 1 Linear Infrastructure Criteria (Higher Value = Best) Distance of parallel route in miles adjacent to an existing linear feature (railroad tracks, existing pipeline ROW/corridor, Old State Hwy 87, CR 5, I-25, or existing native surface roads). 12.0 12.4 12.5 13.3 4.4 4.3 Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-4 Table 4-1 Alternative Route Comparison Siting Criteria 2B 2C 3B 4 5A 5B Alternative colors shown on maps (Preferred) Yellow Blue Purple Orange Green Red Distance of parallel route in miles that can be accessed by old Highway 87, CR 5, I-25 Frontage Road, or existing native surface roads. 6.3 2.5 10.0 3.4 10.3 5.7 Total Number of Lowest (Highest) Score 0 0 1 1 1 0 Grand Total Number of Lowest Score 30 21 17 18 10 11 Lowest Effect Moderate Effect Highest Effect N/A: Not Applicable Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-1 4.1.1 Vegetation and Surface Water Impacts to vegetation can reduce foraging habitat for wildlife and livestock from direct disturbance as well as indirectly from increases in noxious weeds. However, the potential for the introduction and/or spread of noxious weeds will be minimized by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as ensuring construction equipment is cleaned, using weed free seed mixes and controlling noxious weeds within the ROW. The potential for the introduction and/or spread of invasive non-native species (including noxious weeds) will be minimized by the implementation of BMPs during the construction period and reclamation efforts. 4.1.2 Wildlife The majority of impacts to wildlife will be localized and short-term, related to the removal of vegetation, compaction of soils, noise disturbance, and human presence associated with construction activities. Direct impacts to wildlife during construction will be minimal. Adhering to BMP’s designed to protect wildlife during construction (speed limits for example) will help ensure direct impacts are minimal. Most wildlife will be avoided through timing stipulations or will be able to disperse into adjacent habitat. The Project will incrementally increase habitat fragmentation in the area. To minimize this affect, a key goal in siting the Project is to collocate with existing linear disturbance. Impacts to wildlife during maintenance activities will be minimal due to the selection and type of durable materials used for construction of the transmission line. Most of the maintenance monitoring will be performed through aerial observations (helicopter, drone, etc.) thereby minimizing ground disturbance. 4.1.3 Birds – Raptor Raptor breeding, foraging, migration, and winter habitat is present throughout the siting area (Chapter 3). Raptor nest data are used as criteria to evaluate alternatives (Table 4-1). Pre- construction nest surveys will identify raptor nests in the siting area. Appropriate timing and distance buffers will be applied in coordination with the City, CPW and USFWS. 4.1.4 Birds – Non-raptor The siting area encompasses habitat for a diversity of grassland obligate and other avian species. Species of particular concern include lark bunting, chestnut-collared longspur, McCown’s longspur, and mountain plover. Habitat data for these species was used as route evaluation criteria (Table 4-1). Pre-construction nest surveys will be used to identify migratory bird nests. Appropriate timing and distance buffers will be applied in coordination with the City, CPW and USFWS. 4.1.5 Visual Resources Potential visual impacts from the Project are a concern voiced by the public. Visual impacts from the Project would result from the addition of approximately 13 miles of large transmission structures and conductors on a relatively flat and open landscape. Transmission structures can be seen for more than one mile. Many other transmission lines also exist at the north and south of the siting area. Intestate 25, the old Highway, and an active railroad run north-south throughout the project area. Individual residences are scattered throughout the southern portion of the siting area. The Project would add to these cumulative visual impacts. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-2 The siting criteria below have been developed in part to minimize visual impacts from the Project. Visual concerns are accounted for in several criteria, such as: • Number of residences within 200 feet of the potential centerline and within 0.25 mile of the Project; • The number of cultural sites within 75 feet of the potential centerline; • Visibility of the Project from residences, recreational trails, I-25, and prominent landforms; • Number of angle structures greater than 45 degrees (angle structures are typically bulkier than other structures and result in both greater visual impacts and higher construction costs); • Number of Federal highway crossings; and • The total length, as the above visual impacts generally increase proportionally as length increases. 4.1.6 Land Uses Criteria used to evaluate potential impacts on land uses include the number of residences within 200 feet of the potential centerline and within 0.25 mile of the Project; the number of secondary agricultural/industrial buildings within 100 feet of the potential centerlines, the number of communication facilities/towers within 200 feet of the potential centerlines; and land ownership (Table 4-1). 4.1.7 Cultural Resources Known cultural sites were included as evaluation criteria in Table 4-1. These sites are primarily associated with the railroad. The old Highway 87 is also recorded as a historic feature. Most of the siting area has not been surveyed for cultural resources. A Class III cultural resources survey will be conducted on the potential easement on Meadow Springs Ranch. Appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures will be implemented for cultural resources on other properties, as necessary. 4.1.8 Engineering Factors Engineering criteria account for the feasibility of construction and operations, compatibility with and crossings of existing linear infrastructure (railroads, pipelines, transmission lines), and cost. Engineering factors relative to the length and design of the transmission line were considered in the route evaluation (Table 4-1). 4.1.9 Existing Linear Infrastructure The distance of the transmission line that parallels the railroad, roads, and other utilities and transmission lines was considered in route evaluation (Table 4-1). For these criteria, a higher value is better than a lower value. This is an indicator of the extent the transmission line is collocated with existing linear infrastructure. Colocation is preferable because it minimizes the amount of habitat fragmentation and visual impacts from multiple disturbances on the landscape. Colocation with existing roads also reduces the miles of new roads necessary to construct and operate the Project. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-3 Alternative Transmission Route Ranking and Results The six alternatives carried forward for analysis are identified as Route 2B, Route 2C, Route 3B, 4, 5A, and 5B (Figures 7 - 9). All of the route alternatives enter the siting area from Wyoming at the same point and follow the same route for 0.5 miles. Upon reaching the railroad, the three alternative routes diverge and continue south. South of the railroad spur into Rawhide, the three alternative routes converge again and proceed east for 1.5 miles to the Rawhide substation. Results of the analysis are found in Table 4-2. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-4 Figure 7 Environmental Route Evaluation Results Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-5 Figure 8 Social Route Evaluation Results Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-6 Figure 9 Economic Route Evaluation Results Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-7 4.1.10 Route 2B (Preferred) Route 2B generally parallels the railroad on the west for six miles until it reaches CR 5, then the route proceeds due south along CR 5 for 2.5 miles. Shortly after crossing the rail spur line that serves Rawhide, the route turns 90 degrees to the west and continues to the Rawhide Substation, following the alignment of an existing transmission line for most of the remaining distance. Route 2B is the shortest route and the furthest west. This route compares favorably to or equals the other alternative routes in nearly all of the route evaluation criteria (Table 4-2). Vegetation and Surface Water Criteria Route 2B avoids siting within a 100-foot buffer of perennial and ephemeral surface water features, wetlands, and riparian vegetation communities. It requires one crossing of a riparian area, the lowest of any alternative route except Route 2C, which also has one crossing. Wildlife Criteria Route 2B has the shortest distance through the following wildlife habitats than any of the other routes: • Mapped black-tailed prairie dog colonies; • Pronghorn winter concentration areas; and • Mule deer winter concentration areas and severe winter range. Birds – Raptor Criteria Route 2B has a lower distance (0.47 mile) through a 0.25 mile buffer around known raptor nests, similar to Route 2C and slightly higher than Route 5B. Birds – Non-raptor Criteria 2B does not cross chestnut-collared longspur or mountain plover mapped habitats. Route 2B also has one of the lowest distances through McCown’s longspur mapped core areas. Visual Resources Criteria Route 2B has the lowest level of visual impacts from recreational trails or I-25 than any of the routes. Land Use Criteria Route 2B is not located within 200 feet of any residences and has only one residence located within 0.25 mile. Route 2B also crosses the fewest number of properties. Cultural Resources Criteria Route 2B has the least number of cultural sites within 75 feet of the potential centerline (one). Engineering Criteria Route 2B does not cross I-25, the railroad or other transmission lines. Route 2B is the shortest route (12.7 miles) and has the fewest angles greater than 45 degrees (angle structures are typically bulkier than other structures and result in greater visual impacts). Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-8 Linear Infrastructure Criteria Route 2B is mid-range compared to the other routes with respect to linear infrastructure criteria. Approximately 12 miles of its total length of 12.7 miles is adjacent to existing linear infrastructure. 4.1.11 Route 2C Route 2C generally parallels the railroad on the east for 6.5 miles with a slight divergence to avoid the Biosolids Facility. The route proceeds south along the railroad until it reaches Section 11,10N 68W where it makes a 90 degree turn to the west and continues to the connection at the Rawhide Substation, following the alignment of an existing transmission line for most of the remaining distance. Vegetation and Surface Water Criteria Route 2C avoids siting within a 100-foot buffer of perennial and ephemeral surface water features, wetlands, and riparian vegetation communities. Route 2C would involve one crossing over or through an identified riparian/wetland vegetation community. Wildlife Criteria Route 2C has lower impacts on the following wildlife habitats: • Mapped black-tailed prairie dog colonies (slightly more than Route 2B) Route 2C has greater distance through pronghorn winter concentration areas than Route 2B and substantially greater distance through mule deer severe winter range. Birds – Raptor Criteria Similar to Route 2B, Route 2C has the lowest distance (0.47 mile) through a 0.25 mile buffer around known raptor nests. Birds – Non-raptor Criteria Route 2C does not cross chestnut-collared longspur or mountain plover mapped habitats. Route 2C also has the lowest distances through McCown’s longspur mapped core areas. However, Route 2C has the greatest distance of any route through lark bunting core areas. Visual Resources Criteria Results for Route 2C are similar to those described for Route 2B; however, 1.2 miles are located within 0.5 mile of I-25. Land Use Criteria None of the routes impact residences within 200 feet of the potential centerline or communication facilities/towers. Route 2C has one residence within 0.25 mile and a slightly higher number of properties crossed than Route 2B. Cultural Resources Criteria Route 2C has more cultural sites (three) within 75 feet of the alignment than Route 2B. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-9 Engineering Criteria Route 2C crosses an active railroad at two locations, and has the most angles (7) greater than 45 degrees. Linear Infrastructure Criteria Route 2C is mid-range compared to the other routes with respect to linear infrastructure criteria. Approximately 12.4 miles of its total length of 13.1 miles is adjacent to existing linear infrastructure. Route 2C has the least distance that can be accessed by a local use road system. 4.1.12 Route 3B Route 3B generally parallels the old Highway 87 until reaching Section 11,10N 68W, then follows the other routes to the Rawhide Substation. Vegetation and Surface Water Criteria Route 3B avoids siting within a 100-foot buffer of perennial and ephemeral surface water features, wetlands, and riparian vegetation communities. However, this route would cross more identified riparian/wetland vegetation communities (five) than most of the other routes. Wildlife Criteria Route 3B has lower impacts on the following wildlife habitats: • Mule deer winter concentration areas. Although slightly higher than Alternative 2B, this route would cross a lower amount of black-tailed prairie dog colonies than most of the other alternative routes. In addition, it has a mid-range rating for the following wildlife habitats: • Pronghorn winter concentration areas; and • Mule deer severe winter range. Birds – Raptor Criteria Route 3B would have a greater distance through a 0.25 mile buffer around known raptor nests than Alternatives 2B and 2C. Birds – Non-raptor Criteria Route 3B does not cross chestnut-collared longspur or mountain plover mapped habitats. Route 2C has a mid-range rating for distances through lark bunting core areas and one of the highest distances through McCown’s longspur core areas. Visual Resources Criteria Route 3B would have a higher visibility from I-25 than Route 2B. Just over a mile would be within 0.5 mile of the highway. Land Use Criteria Route 3B has the highest number of residences within 0.25 mile of the alignment. This route also has the greatest number of properties crossed. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-10 Cultural Resources Criteria Route 3B has three cultural sites within 75 feet of the alignment. Engineering Criteria Route 3B does not cross I-25 or other transmission lines, but crosses an active railroad at two locations. It has five angles greater than 45 degrees. Linear Infrastructure Criteria Route 3B is mid-range compared to the other routes with respect to linear infrastructure criteria. Approximately 12.5 miles of its total length of 13.1 miles is adjacent to existing linear infrastructure. Route 3B also has good access from existing surface roads. 4.1.13 Route 4 Route 4 generally parallels the existing 345 kV transmission line for approximately one mile and then turns south and follows along the west side of I-25 for most of the distance to the Rawhide Substation. At a point near the northeast corner of Section 11, 10N 68W the route makes a 90 degree turn to the west and continues to the connection at the Rawhide Substation, following the alignment of an existing transmission line for a portion of the remaining distance to the substation. Vegetation and Surface Water Criteria Route 4 avoids siting within the 100-foot buffer of perennial and ephemeral surface water features but would result in one structure located in the 100-foot buffer of a riparian area. It would also require five crossings over an identified riparian/wetland vegetation community, more than any other alternative route except Route 3B. Wildlife Criteria Route 4 is similar to the alternatives previously discussed with respect to distance through mapped black-tailed prairie dog colonies but has a greater distance through pronghorn winter concentration area and a substantially greater distance through mule deer winter concentration area. Birds – Raptor Criteria Route 4 has the greatest distance within 0.25 mile of known raptor nest sites, approximately three times the distance of Route 2B. Birds – Non-raptor Criteria Route 4 has one of the lower distances through lark bunting core area but the highest distance through McCown’s longspur core area. Visual Resources Criteria This route would be highly visible from I-25 in views to the west. More than 11 miles of the route is located within the foreground viewing distance of the highway (0.5 mile). Land Use Criteria Three residences would be located within 0.25 mile of Route 4, one of the higher numbers of the six alternatives considered. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-11 Cultural Resources Criteria Route 4 has the highest number (six) of cultural resource sites within 75 feet of the alignment. Engineering Criteria Route 4 is more than a mile longer than Route 2B (13.9 miles) and would require two railroad crossings as well as five angle turns greater than 45 degrees. Linear Infrastructure Criteria Despite its proximity to I-25, Route 4 has limited access via existing surface roads – a frontage road does not exist along the west side of I-25 for most of the distance south of the state line. 4.1.14 Route 5A Route 5A is also parallel to I-25 for most of its length but crosses over to the east side of the highway and parallels the highway at a distance of 0.25 mile. The 0.25 mile separation is needed in order to avoid being too close to or crossing through several features near the highway, including the Natural Fort site, a residence, a playa lake and an industrial complex just south of the state line. Vegetation and Surface Water Criteria Route 5A has higher level of effect on these criteria, including one structure within the 100-foot buffer of a drainage and four structures within a riparian area. In addition, Route 5A requires four crossings of riparian areas. Wildlife Criteria Route 5A has the greatest distance through mapped black-tailed prairie dog colonies (2.4 miles), a substantially higher distance than Route 2B and the other routes previously discussed. In addition, the route is located in proximity to the National Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center and has greater distances through pronghorn and mule deer winter habitat. Birds – Raptor Criteria Compared to the other alternative routes, Route 5A has one of the higher distances (nearly one mile) through a 0.25 mile buffer around known raptor nests. Birds – Non-raptor Criteria Route 5A crosses chestnut-collared longspur breeding area (2,084 feet) and has a substantial distance (over 2.5 miles) through McCown’s longspur mapped core areas. Visual Resources Criteria This route would be highly visible from I-25 in views to the east. More than 11 miles of the route is located within the foreground viewing distance of the highway (0.5 mile). In addition, the route would be highly visible as it crosses a prominent landform just south of the state line. Land Use Criteria Three residences are located within 0.25 mile of the alignment. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-12 Cultural Resources Criteria In addition to being highly visible from the Natural Fort site, four known cultural resource sites are located within 75 feet of the alignment. Engineering Criteria Route 5A is one of the longest routes at 14.2 miles, approximately 1.5 miles longer than Route 2B. In addition, this route requires two crossings of I-25 as well as two crossings of an active railroad. Linear Infrastructure Criteria Route 5A has nearly the lowest distance adjacent to an existing linear disturbance. Although parallel to I-25 for most of its distance, Route 5A is separated from the highway by approximately 0.25 mile in order to avoid conflicts with existing land uses and other features. 4.1.15 Route 5B Route 5B is parallel to I-25 for most of its length but is located further east of the highway in its northern most segment in order to avoid proximity to the Natural Fort site. Vegetation and Surface Water Criteria Similar to Route 5A, Route 5B has a higher level of effect on these criteria, including one structure within the 100-foot buffer of a drainage and four structures within a riparian area. In addition, Route 5A requires four crossings of riparian areas. Wildlife Criteria Similar to Route 5A, Route 5B has the greatest distance through mapped black-tailed prairie dog colonies (2.4 miles). In addition, the route is located in proximity to the National Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center and had has the highest distances through pronghorn and mule deer winter habitat. Birds – Raptor Criteria Route 5B has the lowest distance through a 0.25 mile buffer around known raptor nests. Birds – Non-raptor Criteria As with Route 5A, Route 5B crosses chestnut-collared longspur breeding area (2,084 feet) and has a substantial distance (over 2.5 miles) through McCown’s longspur mapped core areas. Visual Resources Criteria A large portion (8.23 miles) of Route 5B would be highly visible from I-25. In addition, the route would be highly visible as it crosses a prominent landform just south of the state line. Land Use Criteria Only one residence would be located within 0.25 mile of the alignment. Cultural Resources Criteria Two cultural resource sites are located within 75 feet of the alignment, one of the lower numbers of any alternative route. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 4-13 Engineering Criteria Route 5A is the longest routes at 14.5 miles, nearly two miles longer than Route 2B. In addition, this route requires two crossings of I-25, two crossings of an active railroad, and the highest number of angles (seven) greater than 45 degrees. Linear Infrastructure Criteria Similar to Route 5A, Route 5B has the lowest distance adjacent to an existing linear disturbance. Conclusions Route 2B is the preferred alternative because it has the lowest or equal conflicts with Vegetation and Surface Water, Wildlife, Birds – Raptor, Visual Resources, Land Uses, Cultural Resources, and Engineering criteria. It is the shortest route with the fewest angle structures and parallels existing linear infrastructure for most of its length. The preferred alternative route will be carried forward into the Weld County 1041 permit and Use by Special Review applications and the Larimer County 1041 permit application. Upon approval of these permits, a utilities easement will be negotiated with the City of Fort Collins. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 5-1 5.0 References Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines. The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C. APLIC and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Avian protection Plan (APP) Guidelines. A joint Document Prepared by The Edison Electric Institute’s Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). April 2005. 88 pp. Baud, K. and Carter, M.F. 2016. Northern Harrier. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 174-175. Beane, R.D. 2016. Turkey Vulture. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 164-165. Beane, R.D. and Preston, C. 2016. Red-tailed Hawk. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 184-185. Birds of North America online. 2017. Various Species Profiles. Available online at: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/home. Accessed January 1, 2018. City of Fort Collins. 2013. Energy by Design Report to Colorado State Land Board. Non-Raptor Bird Range and Observation data, GIS data. Raptor Nest Sites and Observation data, GIS data. Mammal Range and Observation data, GIS data. Received, April 13, 2018 and May 16, 2018. City of Fort Collins. 2017. Mammal Range and Observations dataset, GIS data. Received April 13, 2018 and May 16, 2018. City of Fort Collins. 2018a. Raptor Nest Sites and Observation dataset, GIS data. Received June 12, 2018. City of Fort Collins. 2018b. Soapstone Prairie and Meadow Springs Ranch Roads dataset, GIS data. Received April 13, 2018. Clawges, R. 2016. Mourning Dove. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 240-241. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. 2016. The Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. 727 pp. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2017. Potential Conservation Area and Network of Conservation GIS data. Available online at: http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/gis.asp. Accessed January 24, 2018. Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 2012. Colorado Ownership Management and Protection (COMaP) dataset, GIS data. Available online at: https://comap.cnhp.colostate.edu/comap-downloads/. Accessed August 27, 2017. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2018. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Aquatic Species database, GIS data. Received July 16, 2018. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 5-2 Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2017. CPW All Species Activity Mapping Data. Available online at: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=190573c5aba643a0bc058e6f7f0510b7. Accessed January 1, 2018. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2016. CPW All Species Activity Mapping Data. Available online at: http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=190573c5aba643a0bc058e6f7f0510b7. Accessed December 13, 2017. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2015. State Wildlife Action Plan. Chapter 2: Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Available online at: http://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/WildlifeSpecies/SWAP/ CO_SWAP_Chapter2.pdf. Accessed January 1, 2018. Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). 2018. Compass Cultural Resources GIS dataset, GIS data. Available online at: https://gis.co.gov/compass/. Accessed May 14, 2018. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 2018. Oil and Gas Facilities dataset, GIS data. Available online at: https://cogcc.state.co.us/data.html#/cogis. Accessed May 1, 2018. Dawson, J. 2016. Lark Sparrow. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 508-509. Dwyer, A.M. 2016. McCown’s Longspur. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 464-465. Dwyer, J.F. 2016. Common Raven. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 378-379. ENYO. 2018. Raptor nest Aerial Survey Data, GIS data. Survey conducted May 23, 2018. Data received May 31, 2018. Esri. 2010. U.S. Major Roads dataset, GIS data. Available online: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=871852b13b53426dabdf875f80c04261. Accessed May 1, 2018. Federal Road Administration (FRA). 2012. U.S. National Transportation Atlas Railroads, GIS data. Available online at: https://osav-usdot.opendata.arcgis.com. Accessed April 4, 2018. Freeman, W. 2016a. Cooper’s Hawk. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 178-179. Freeman, W. 2016b. Northern Mockingbird. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 454-455. Google Maps. 2018. Available online at: https://www.google.com/maps. Accessed various dates. Holmes, B. 2016. Killdeer. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 206-207. Jones, S.R. 2016a. Burrowing Owl. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 260-261. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 5-3 Jones, S.R. 2016b. Eastern Screech-Owl. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 254-255. Jones, S.R. 2016c. Say’s Phoebe. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 334-335. Keeley, W.H. 2016a. Ferruginous Hawk. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 186-187. Keeley, W.H. 2016b. Swainson’s Hawk. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 182-183. Kettler, S. et al. 1996. Significant Plant, Animal, and Wetland Resources of Larimer County and their Conservation. December 1996. Kibbe, D.P. 2016a. Barn Owl. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 248-249. Kibbe, D.P. 2016b. Chestnut-collared Longspur. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 462-463. Kingery, H.E. 2016a. Grasshopper Sparrow. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 518-519. Kingery, H.E. 2016b. Lark Bunting. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 514-515. Kingery, H.E. and Dwyer, A. M. 2016. Mountain Plover. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 208-209. Larimer County. 2018. Larimer County GIS Digital Data. Assessor’s Parcel Data, GIS data. Available online at: https://www.larimer.org/it/services/gis/digital-data. Accessed June 1, 2018. Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR). 2014. Meadows Springs Ranch Utility Easements dataset, GIS data. Data received April 20, 2018. Mitchell, C. and Pantle, D. 2016. Cliff Swallow. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 392-393. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2016. The State of North America’s Birds 2016. Environment and Climate Change Canada: Ottawa, Ontario. 8 pages. www.stateofthebirds.org. Ortega, C.P. 2016a. Long-eared Owl. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 264-265. Ortega, C.P. 2016b. Red-winged Blackbird. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 550-551. Ortega, C.P. 2016c. Sandhill Crane. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 196-197. Ortega, C.P. 2016d. Short-eared Owl. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 266-267. Roundhouse Renewable Energy Transmission Line Project Siting Study 5-4 Rashid, S. 2016. Great Horned-Owl. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 256-257. Roundhouse Renewably Energy (RHRE). 2018. Existing Transmission Base dataset, GIS data. Data received April 5, 2018. Siebert, R. and Baker, B.K. 2016. Western Meadowlark. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 554-555. Siebert, R. and Dillon, B.M. 2016. Brown Thrasher. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 450-451. Siebert, R. and Jones, S.R. 2016. Western Kingbird. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 342-343. Siebert, R. and Lambeth, R. 2016. Vesper Sparrow. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 506-507. Siebert, R. and Ryder, R.A. 2016. Horned Lark. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 380-381. Siebert, R. and Winn, R. 2016. American Kestrel. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 308-309. The Nature Conservancy. 2013. Mountains to Plains Energy by Design Report to the Colorado State Land Board. January 2013. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2017. National Agriculture Imaging Program, aerial imagery. Available online at: https://gis.apfo.usda.gov/arcgis/rest/services/NAIP. Accessed May 1, 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. National Wetlands Inventory Dataset. Available online at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/data-download.html. Accessed May 1, 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/ D2SXVZIZ7FA37MDQV67HMKUZZQ/resources#migratory-birds. Accessed: June 25, 2018. U.S. Geological Survey Gap Analysis Program. 2016. 20160513, GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0. Accessed November 3, 2017. Wickersham, L.E. 2016a. Barn Swallow. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 394-395. Wickersham, L.E. 2016b. Rock Pigeon. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. 232-233. Wickersham, J.L. 2016a. Bald Eagle. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 172-173. Wickersham, J.L. 2016c. Golden Eagle. As presented in the Second Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas. Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas Partnership. Pages 168-169. 1 Building Energy Scoring Installation of transmission lines on utility owned Meadow Springs Ranch, which is adjacent to Soapstone Natural Area. This scan considers impacts of the transmission lines and impacts of approving the easement which will lead to the construction of the transmission line and enable a 150 mega watt (MW) wind project. The proposed transmission lines have been requested by a 3rd party on behalf of the PRPA purchase contract. Positive  To what extent could this project impact eh community’s efforts to meet the CAP goals (20% reduction below 2005 by 2020 and beyond)? This project will have significant impact to 2021 emissions.  To what extent could this project impact the community’s preparedness and resiliency for climate change risks and other natural disasters? This project will add energy diversity to the City’s portfolio and reduce the need for further fossil fuel use. Negative  To some degree this project (with/without) the mitigation package in place, this project would negatively impact the natural environment including land, plant, and animal communities. The mitigation package attempts to minimize as much as possible. Positive  To what extent could this project impact the economic health of the Fort Collins business community, including the ability to retain or attract talent or ability for a business to stay or expand? This project is expected to be neutral in this area with no rate or reliability impacts.  To what extent could this project impact regional economic partnerships and participation? This project has a positive impact as a result of the shared interests of the community owned PRPA. Approval of the easement will allow all four communities to benefit and achieve shared goals. Negative  Nothing negative Positive  This project scored as an overall neutral project in the social leg of the TBL. Negative  Nothing negative. Tradeoffs Transmission Line Easement on MSR for Roundhouse Renewable Project Overall, the Transmission Line Easement project for the Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project scored favorably with the Triple Bottom Line Scan. A team of cross functional city staff completed the scan and a robust discussion on all aspects of the project were discussed. The potentially negative impacts identified in the environmental scan will be mitigated as much as possible through the mitigation discussions and ultimate package presented to council at time of easement approval is requested. ATTACHMENT 7 Energy Board Minutes DRAFT – ABRIDGED – November 8, 2018 Energy Board Minutes DRAFT – ABRIDGED – November 8, 2018 Fort Collins Utilities Energy Board Minutes DRAFT – ABRIDGED – Thursday, November 8, 2018 Energy Board Chairperson Nick Michell, 970‐215‐9235 City Council Liaison Ross Cunniff, 970‐420‐7398 Energy Board Vice Chairperson Amanda Shores, 408‐391‐0062 Staff Liaison Tim McCollough, 970‐305‐1069 Roll Call Board Present: Chairperson Nick Michell, Vice Chairperson Amanda Shores, Alan Braslau, Bill Becker, Jeremy Giovando, Greg Behm, John Fassler Late Arrivals: Stacey Baumgarn, Krishna Karnamadakala Board Absent: Others Present Staff: Tim McCollough, Christie Fredrickson, John Phelan, Adam Bromley, Kirk Longstein, Pablo Bauleo, Jason Graham, Rhonda Gatzke, Cyril Vidergar, Daylan Figgs Platte River Power Authority: Paul Davis, Brad Decker, Joel Danforth, Alyssa Clemson Roberts Members of the Public: Rich Maroncelli, Rick Coen Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project Update Jason Graham, Director, Plant Operations Daylan Figgs, Planning and Special Projects Program Manager, Natural Areas (attachments available upon request) The Energy Board is familiar with this project, but Mr. Graham said he would provide an update and make time for the Board to ask any questions they may have. Mr. Graham said staff is not asking the board for any action or recommendation, but if the board would like to act, the City Council work session deadline is Wednesday, November 14. The Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project is a wind farm in Wyoming to generate power, and the power will be delivered by transmission line to Platte River Power Authority’s Rawhide Facility. The planned project includes 75 wind turbines with 150 MW of energy capacity. The transmission line will be self‐supporting steel monopole structures with a height in range of 80 feet to 130 feet. The transmission line will go across 9.7 miles of Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR), a City‐owned property. City Staff partnered with NextEra Energy, Logan Simpson, and Platte River to determine the “preferred” route on MSR using Energy by Design criteria and a Siting Study. Staff has received feedback from various stakeholders such as City Boards and Commissions, workshops, and open houses. There were three total proposed routes, and the Siting Study ranked each route by criteria in the following categories: vegetation and surface water, wildlife, raptor (birds), non‐raptor, visual resources, land use, ATTACHMENT 8 Energy Board Minutes DRAFT – ABRIDGED – November 8, 2018 Energy Board Minutes DRAFT – ABRIDGED – November 8, 2018 cultural resources, engineering, and linear infrastructure. The highest score on the Siting Study was selected as the preferred route, because it had the least environmental impact. Vice Chairperson Shores said there is one area on the map (colored in dark purple) that goes through a densely populated area for birds, and regardless of the route it does not seem to be mitigated well. Mr. Figgs said the problem is mostly related to the timing of construction; staff is addressing the issue by a seasonal construction closure, so construction is only allowed to happen outside the time when the birds are present on the property. Chairperson Michell asked which of the three routes are most cost effective, or if there is a significant difference in construction cost. Mr. Graham said the preferred route has the least amount of infrastructure impact and a lower construction cost because of that. Vice Chairperson Shores asked what feedback Staff has received from other boards, and Mr. Graham said the feedback staff has received so far has generally been supportive. Mr. Figgs added that most boards are concerned with the environmental impact and are pleased with the mitigation plans so far. Mr. Graham said over the course of a year, this project will generate the equivalent energy needs for 70,500 homes annually and completion of the project will be a significant step in achieving Platte River’s and community energy goals, including the City’s CAP goals. The project is also estimated to decrease Fort Collins emissions by about 10%. City Council has a request to approve the easement on MSR in January 2019, and construction is slated to complete in 2020. Board member Baumgarn moved the Energy Board Chair to write a memo in support of the Roundhouse Renewable Energy project by November 14, 2018. Board member Braslau seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously, 9‐0 Joint Water Energy Board Meeting excerpts April 19, 2018 Roundhouse Renewable Energy’s Transmission Line over Meadow Springs Ranch Jason Graham, Water Reclamation and Biosolids Manager Christine Mikell, Founder and President Enyo Renewable Energy (Enyo), LLC Jason Graham manages the Mulberry Water Reclamation Facility, the Drake Water Reclamation Facility, and the Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) Water Reclamation Facility. MSR is a 26,000-acre ranch on the boarder of Wyoming. Christine Mikell shared that her company, Enyo Renewable Energy (Enyo), was formed in 2016. Between Enyo and MAP Renewable Energy there is a shared interest of 12 percent of all operating wind projects in the United States. Enyo began developing the Roundhouse Wind Project in 2016, about the same time the City was finalizing the Climate Action Plan. Platte River in August of 2016 released its request for proposal (RFP) for wind of 50-75 megawatts. Enyo submitted a proposal to Platte River and was short listed. Through those negotiations and given the value of the project, Platte River saw fit to increase the size to 150 megawatts. The Roundhouse Renewable Energy is a 150-megawatt project. 150 megawatts can power 80 percent of the homes in Fort Collins and 40 percent of the homes in Larimer County with clean energy. The commercial operation date (COD) that the project would start generating power is by the end of 2020. It is a 21.5-year contract. The location of the project is both on private and state land in Wyoming. The delivery point is to Platte River’s Rawhide Substation. The output will be delivered directly into Platte River’s transmission system through a high voltage transmission line. To build that transmission line in addition to getting an easement from the City, Enyo will also need to go through Larimer County’s 1041permitting process. A benefit of the project includes decreasing Fort Collins’ emissions by 10 percent. Ms. Mikell presented a map of where the project would be located. Enyo chose this location because of the nodal value for wind power. Enyo, in collaboration with the City, has been working on narrowing down possible transmission routes that would be least impactful. Ideally, Enyo wants to look at routes where there is already land fragmentation. MSR is already fragmented with infrastructure. Enyo needs to determine three proposed routes and identify them with the City and use the Energy by Design process to see which is least impactful. Board Member Karnamadakala asked what Ms. Mikell meant by the term fragmented. Ms. Mikell said what she terms as fragmented is open space that has infrastructure crossing through it (i.e. transmission lines, railroads, and the old highways). Enyo has looked at areas that have been impacted already to see what features and species are there and try to find a route that would limit impacts to natural species. Ms. Mikell showed a proposed schedule of the project. In the Spring of 2018, they will conduct a site study and map route possibilities. In the Summer of 2018, Enyo will choose one route and begin resource surveys with biologists walking the route to determine where the natural and cultural resources are located. During the summer there will also be public outreach and preparation of the 1041 application. Enyo plans to return in the Fall of 2018 to share results with the boards of the City. Enyo will go before Larimer County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners in the Winter of 2019. At that point Enyo will come before the Water Board for a recommendation of easement. The 1041 and easement is for the transmission line, but the wind farm will be in Wyoming. That is subject to a separate set of regulations requiring an Industrial Siting Permit from the State of Wyoming and collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services on surveys related to sensitive species. The input from all agencies will inform Laramie County of its progress. Board Member Braslau asked if the timeline run concurrently for the transmission line easement and wind farm construction. Ms. Mikell verified it would. Board Member Brunswig asked why the Water Board would oversee recommending easement. Carol Webb, Deputy Director of Utilities and Water Board Liaison, answered that the Water Board will have a formal role in the process since the easement will cross property owned by the Waste Water Fund. Board Member Giovando wondered if 21.5 years was a short term for a contract. Mr. Giovando did not know if ATTACHMENT 9 this was standard or an adequate time frame. Pat Connors, Vice President of Power Supply with Platte River, said the typical term is 20 years for a Wind Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). It is necessary to go out 20 years to get the economy to scale and to spread the cost over many years. Platte River does have the ability to extend the contract at some point, but they want to make sure the price is attractive enough to avoid a significant rate impact on Platte River customers. Mr. Connors explained that the reason there is half a year included is because Platte River wanted the contract to end on the first of June; it is the standard contract year-end-date for energy markets. Mr. Giovando then asked if the contract already included an option to extend. Mr. Connors said they have a right to first offer on the contract, but there is not a right of first refusal to automatically extend because of the tax credits associated with the project. Mr. Connor shared an option that was negotiated was to own the transmission line. The transmission line will carry the 150 megawatts of wind, but could be capable of up to 500 megawatts of power transmission. Before the project goes commercial in December 2020, Platte River has the option to own the transmission line. The next option to purchase the transmission line is five years later. Board Member Becker asked if Enyo owns the transmission line assets. Mr. Connor responded that Enyo will own it if Platte River does not exercise the option to own. Turbines are also owned by Enyo, so Platte River is paying a price to Enyo per megawatt hour. Mr. Becker wondered what the service life of a wind turbine is. Ms. Mikell said it is anywhere from 25- 30-year life span. Mr. Becker said if the life of the turbine is 25-30 years why not make that the contract term. Mr. Connor answered that sometimes there is maintenance or turbines being replaced before reaching the end of the 25-30 years life span. There is a hope that the price will continue to drop, so they did not want to lock in the contract for the remaining years. Mr. Becker asked where Platte River’s cost was to get this project in place versus the joint venture. Mr. Connor answered that Platte River’s only obligation is to pay the PPA price. Enyo will build the transmission line and connect the turbines. Mr. Michell asked who gets to decide which route the transmission line takes and the building costs. Mr. Connors said it is a balance between Enyo and the City, but if certain restrictions are put on the transmission line Enyo can choose to not go forward with the project. Daylan Figgs, Senior Environmental Planner of the Natural Areas Department, said there is a process called Energy by Design that uses biological, cultural, scenic, and recreational value to make thoughtful decisions about where impacts are placed or avoided for the region including Meadow Springs Ranch, Soapstone Prairie, and Red Mountain Open Space. It helps choose the least impacted route and builds in mitigation to offset the impacts. The goal is to avoid highly sensitive areas. The route selection is based on what is least ecologically and socially impactful. Board Member Bruxvoort asked if all reasonable routes go through MSR. Mr. Figgs confirmed they did, as other routes that are available fall into a cost point. Mr. Bruxvoort then asked how many entities involved in the easement process, outside of the City. Mr. Figgs answered that Fort Collins is alone in granting the easement of the property. Energy by Design includes entities such as state and local governments, non-profit organizations, Fish and Wildlife Services, Parks and Wildlife Services. For the Roundhouse project the transmission line will cross MSR and a few private land owners. Mr. McCollough added that between Council, the County, the state of Wyoming, and the Wyoming industrial siting process all decision makers must agree for the project to go through. Board Member Braslau asked what the future is for the use MSR for biosolids. Mr. Graham said the current plan is to continue MSR production of biosolid applications. MSR produces a Class B biosolids, so it is only good for land application. With the acreage of MSR it is a cost-effective way to utilize the space. Mr. Graham said for the next 10 years that will be the direction for biosolids. Board Member Primsky asked who may object to this project. Mr. Figgs said if the route is carefully picked out and includes a mitigation offset approach that makes sense hopefully not a lot of people would object. Mr. Primsky wondered since much of this depends on federal tax credits, if there was a forecast on the continuation of federal tax credits considering the $22 trillion national debt. Mr. Connors replied that the tax credits are a big part of the project. When the federal government last extended the tax credit it was the first time they planned to phase them out (from 100 percent, 80 percent, 60 percent, eventually to 0 percent). Due to that phase-out, the tax credits are unlikely to be extended, and if it is extended it will be at a much lower level. Platte River thought this was the last good opportunity to receive tax credits with the Roundhouse project coming in service in 2020, which is also the last year of full tax credit at full value. Board Member Ortman asked if the easement permission can be negotiated for a price. Ms. Webb said she did not believe so, but she did add that there are opportunities to negotiate the easement to mitigate and restore for the impacts of the easement itself. Board Member Bovee asked why they are looking to approve the easement before starting in Wyoming. Ms. Mikell said it was good to go to the entity that will permit the wind project, Wyoming, with the necessary easements and a PPA in place to show the matter is being taken seriously. Mr. Michell shared that the Energy Board is thrilled with the Roundhouse project proposal and are on board to support it. Board Member Terry asked how aggressive the schedule is, especially if there are major hiccups. Ms. Mikell said on the wind project side there are two years of wildlife surveys that need to be completed. One is almost complete and the other should be done by the end 2019. Construction would ideally begin in 2020. There is some flexibility with the schedule regarding easement, industrial siting, and the 1041 application. Ms. Mikell estimated about six months of wiggle room, if the project hits a bump in road. A 150-megawatt project can be built within six-seven months, and the transmission line may take a month. Enyo will take the risk if they miss the date, the PPA price remains the same for Platte River. Mr. Primsky asked if the entire transmission line will be above ground. Ms. Mikell said that where the wind project is located the turbine to turbine line will be underground, but from the substation to Rawhide it will be above ground. Mr. McCollough added that building an underground high voltage transmission line is about ten times the cost to building overhead. It is furthermore less reliable to go underground at a transmission level. A fault that may happen underground takes more time, effort, and money to repair. DRAFT DRAFT Joint Work Session Minutes – August 22, 2018 Page 1 City of Fort Collins – JOINT WORK SESSION Water Board, Energy Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, and Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Wednesday, August 22, 2018 DRAFT Meeting Notes Staff Liaisons Water Board: Carol Webb, 970-221-6231 Energy Board: Tim McCollough, 970-416-2622 Natural Resources Advisory Board: Lindsay Ex, 970-224-6143 Land Conservation and Stewardship Board: Daylan Figgs, 970-416-2814 BOARD MEMBERS Water Board Present: Brett Bovee, John Primsky, Lori Brunswig, Phyllis Ortman, Rebecca Hill, Steve Malers, Michael Brown, Jim Kuiken. Absent: Andrew McKinley, Kent Bruxvoort, Jason Tarry Energy Board Present: Amanda Shores, Stacey Baumgarn, Nick Michell, John Fassler, Jeremy Giovando. Absent: Greg Behm, Alan Braslau, Bill Becker, Krishna Karnamadakala Natural Resources Advisory Board Present: Nancy DuTeau, Elizabeth Hudetz, Jay Adams, Luke Caldwell, Robert Mann, Drew Derderian. Absent: Danielle Buttke, Ling Wang, Barry Noon Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Present: Andrea Elson, Marcia Patton-Mallory, Mike Weber, Raymond Watts, David Tweedale, Vicky McLane, Jan Rossi. Absent: Joe Piesman, Ed Reifsnyder, Kelly Ohlson OTHERS PRESENT Staff: Ginny Sawyer, Jen Shanahan, Carol Webb, Katherine Martinez, Michelle Vattano, Kevin Gertig, Jeff Mihelich, Jason Graham, Daylan Figgs, Eric Potyondy, John Stokes, Adam Jokerst, Wendy Williams, Mark Sears, Jill Oropeza, Tim McCollough, Ken Sampley, Dan Evans Members of the Public: Steve Roalstal, Andy Butcher/Platte River Power Authority, Gary Wockner/Friends of the Poudre River, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Karen Artell, Rich Stave, Christina Mikell, Tom Keith, Gina C. Janett Meeting Convened Jen Shanahan called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. ATTACHMENT 10 DRAFT DRAFT Joint Work Session Minutes – August 22, 2018 Page 2 Welcome, Meeting Structure, and Context for Joint Meeting Senior Project Manager Ginny Sawyer and Natural Areas Department Watershed Planner Jen Shanahan summarized the Joint Work Session purpose and format. Ms. Sawyer stated this was an opportunity for board interaction; board members will hear presentations on each topic, followed by questions and answers, small table conversations for 10 to 15 minutes, then each table will summarize and report out their comments to the larger group. Ms. Shanahan reported that the public comment period for the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been extended from 45 to 75 days; deadline is September 4 (visit https://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/ ). Public Comment Gary Wockner of Save The Poudre stated he’s been fighting this project for 15 years. His staff and attorneys are combing through the FEIS and believe the document violates federal law (i.e. they believe impacts to the river are incorrectly analyzed, reports are inadequate, science is indefensible, etc.). The organization has hired a Washington, D.C. law firm, plans to take the case to federal court, and invites the City to join the lawsuit. Roundhouse Renewable Transmission Line Request (Attachments available upon request) Natural Areas Department Planning Program Manager Daylan Figgs summarized the Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project and status. He and Water Reclamation and Biosolids Division Manager Jason Graham will follow up with presentations to the boards in October and November. The proposed Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project consists of 150-megawatt wind energy facility to be constructed in Wyoming per the state’s permitting process with a transmission line constructed in Colorado for energy delivery to Platte River’s Rawhide Energy Station (Rawhide). As part of the project, Roundhouse has requested the City of Fort Collins grant an easement for an above-ground transmission line approximately 12 miles across the City of Fort Collins Utilities-owned Meadow Springs Ranch (MSR) in northern Larimer County to Rawhide’s transmission interconnection. Staff provided boards an opportunity to learn about the project and the process used to select the preferred and alternate alignments, and next steps. Discussion Highlights Board members inquired about various related topics including transmission lines and the permitting process. Small Table Conversations: Questions and Comments  12 miles that goes from transmission plant, is there any mixed-use zoning? No.  What is the infrastructure required to maintain this on what is essentially an old railroad bed, requires access road, what is the impact of that infrastructure?  Broadband easements; can we get compensation?  Show us all the lines that were considered DRAFT DRAFT Joint Work Session Minutes – August 22, 2018 Page 3  Why not build on somebody else’s transmission towers instead of building new towers  Do each of the items have the same impacts, do we weight the value of the criteria?  How much cooperation exists between Colorado and Wyoming, regarding raptors and wind turbines, and possibility of connecting to other transmission lines running east- west?  Why not build it underground? Cost-benefit analysis needed. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m. ________________________________________ ________ Water Board Secretary Katherine Martinez Date City of Fort Collins – JOINT WORK SESSION Water Board, Energy Board, Natural Resources Advisory Board, and Land Conservation and Stewardship Board Wednesday, August 22, 2018 Table Notes Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project Notes A  Visual aspect from Soapstone Prairie  Does City lose leverage to mitigate/influence impacts of wind farm as soon as the easement is issued?  Cooperation between Colorado and Wyoming and at the state and federal level to mitigate effects.  Fragmentation of landscape  Can we connect to other transmission line? Notes B  Ending transmission line: more info on why it’s not viable, completely explore before touching Meadow Springs Ranch.  1041 process: what is it?  Fencing: No. Managed vegetation  Existing roads / relic roadbed / railroad easement  Construction impacts/equipment Support Easement? Comments Support letter of support for Larimer County & Weld County 1041 permit Comments Additional Comments yes yes yes This seems like a wonderful additional to the City of FC Utilities yes yes Parallel to BNSF Train Tracks is ideal route, preferred alternate 1 route, keep powerline along already disturbed land yes The City should support this, for increasing renewable power and to meet Climate Plan goals. yes This is in line with the city/citizens goals and we are fortunate to own the land to make granting the easement possible yes keep pushing towards the renewable energy goals! yes yes yes yes yes This project is huge win for PRPS its customers and their customers, IE citizens and the environment yes Again we can not afford to pass up this opportunity. Our environment depends on our actions and this is a major win for the environment. I fully support the Climate Action Plan and this project yes We cannot meet our CAP goals without this transmission plan yes We need the full 225 MW and combine this with more solar yes please! yes please! I appreciate seeing the alternative route (following the RR), that is great. yes yes yes yes seems well researched and planned. Good to move toward renewables. yes yes yes Absolutely! This project is critical to NoCo's future. This transmission line will be a valuable resource & enable large amounts of RE yes Yes, the city could work closely with the counties to expedite the permitting process ????? yes yes sounds like a great project yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes somewhat somewhat yes yes neutral yes Alternative energy projects are important to the community. Hoping this one is sited well to reduce impacts to the environment yes we need t have clean air & 2050 is too long to wait yes somewhat somewhat would like to see the City have storage batteries??? yes yes yes yes I appreciate the effort & thought that the City, Utilities and PRPA have put into the project. I agree with the preferred route for the transmission line. More wind power is great! yes yes fully support this project yes yes yes yes yes yes De-commissioning what happens if Nextera is no longer in business when the turbines are no longer useful? yes yes There seems to be more advantages than disadvantages yes yes 11/27/2018 Roundhouse Renewable Energy Project Jason Graham & Daylan Figgs ATTACHMENT 12 Role of Council Does Council support granting the transmission line easement on Meadow Springs Ranch as recommended by City Staff? 2 Partnership and Collaboration 3 Project Area Map • Wind Farm in Wyoming • Meadow Springs Ranch • Rawhide Energy Station 4 Meadow Springs Ranch 5 Project Summary 6 What • Wind Energy Transmission Line Easement • MSR Transmission Line Easement – 230 kV line Where • Wyoming to PRPA Rawhide Substation • 9.7 miles of Transmission Line on MSR Why • Diversify Energy Portfolio • Triple PRPA’s Wind Capacity • ~ 10% decrease Fort Collins Emissions When • Construction 2020 with completion no later than December 2020 • Contract Term is 21.5 years Strategic Plan Alignment Environmental Health • 4.1 Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals and continue Progress toward the 2030 goals • 4.3 Achieve 2020 Energy Policy goals and work towards Climate Action goals for carbon neutrality • 4.8 Protect and enhance natural resources on City-owned properties and throughout the community 7 Three Final Routes 8 Possible Routes • 6 routes initially evaluated • Siting Criteria • Vegetation and Water • Wildlife • Birds • Visual Resources • Land Use • Cultural Resources • Engineering Criteria • Linear Infrastructure 9 Route Comparison Siting Criteria Transmission Route Evaluation Criteria Preferred 2C 3B Vegetation and Surface Water 4 4 3 Wildlife Criteria 8 4 4 Raptor Criteria 1 1 0 Grassland Bird Criteria 332 Visual Resources 433 Route Comparison Siting Criteria Transmission Route Evaluation Criteria Preferred 2C 3B Land Use 4 4 2 Cultural Resources 1 0 0 Engineering Criteria 1 1 0 Linear Infrastructure Criteria (Higher Value = Best) Grand Total Number of Lowest Score 30 21 17 Viewshed Analysis • Steel Monopole • Height 125’ • Approximately 0.9 miles to nearest pole 12 Viewshed Analysis • 3.5+ miles from Plover Trail • Observable but not noticeable • 6.5 miles is outer bounds of visibility • Not skylined 13 City Boards & Public Outreach • City Board Meetings, Joint Workshops, and Open Houses • Comments have generally been in support of the City granting an easement on MSR for the Transmission Line 14 Question Yes Somewhat support / neutral No Total Respondents % in Support Would you support an easement? 31 3 0 34 91% Would you support a letter of support from Council to Larimer and Weld County? 32 2 0 34 94% Mitigation Aspects • Alignment selection (4.3M) • Pole Design, Perch Deterrents, Line Markers ($TBD) • Continue to avoid impacts (TBD) • Compensatory Mitigation (approximately $350,000) • Easement Value ( $105,850) 15 Triple Bottom Line Scan 16 CROSS FUNCTIONAL TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE SCAN COMPLETED ADD DIVERSITY OF ENERGY PORTFOLIO NEUTRAL IMPACT TO RATES AND RELIABILITY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO ACHIEVING CAP GOALS Preferred Route Validated • After all the evaluation, the preferred route offers the least amount of impact as a result of planned transmission line and required easement. 17 Final Questions 1. Does Council support granting the transmission line easement on Meadow Springs Ranch as recommended by City Staff? 2. Does Council support this item coming to Council on January 15, 2019 for approval? 18 yes yes yes yes great project. Benefits far outweigh minimal impacts yes We need to get 100% clean energy for this are as quickly as possible 2050 is too late yes ATTACHMENT 11  Conversation of balancing the many facets of environmental stewardship priorities such as land management ecology and climate action goals. Mitigations  Yet to be determined financial payment for transmission line easement that considers both surface area appraisal value and value of the ecological goods and services provided by the easement area.  Draft mitigation concepts have been developed and are being discussed that address potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of the project. ATTACHMENT 6 chestnut-collared longspur, lark bunting, McCown’s longspur, and mountain plover. The following habitats were digitized from the report and used for this analysis: • Chestnut-collared longspur breeding areas; • Lark bunting core areas; • McCown’s longspur breeding areas; gas facilities Buffers derived using: - Meadow Springs Ranch utilities easements dataset (2014). State and Federal Highways Parallel and within 1,000 feet of ROW N/A N/A Within ROW Buffers derived using: - USA major roads dataset (ESRI 2010). Existing Electric Transmission Lines Between 75 feet and 1,000 feet N/A N/A N/A Buffer derived using: - Transmission base dataset from Roundhouse Renewable Energy (2018, last updated). - Digitized linear transmission features using multiple imagery sources (ESRI World Imagery, USDA 2017- NAIP Imagery, Google Imagery-2018). Visible within distance of 0 – 1.5 miles - Visibility layers created using ArcGIS software, viewshed analysis using a height of 75-120 feet / Object height 120 feet, Viewer height 5 feet. Land Uses Proximity to Residences N/A N/A Within 0.25 mile of occupied residence Within 200 feet of an occupied residence - Residence locations digitized using multiple imagery sources (ESRI World Imagery, USDA 2017- NAIP Imagery, and Google Imagery-2018). Industrial/Commercial Buildings N/A N/A N/A Within 100 feet of potential centerline - Commercial building locations digitized using multiple imagery sources (ESRI World Imagery, USDA 2017- NAIP Imagery, and Google - ENYO Spring 2018 aerial survey data (ENYO 2018) - CPW raptor nest site dataset (CPW 2018). Birds – Non-Raptor Chestnut-collared Longspur (Calcarius ornatus) Breeding Areas N/A N/A N/A Breeding area plus a 300 foot buffer Buffer derived from: - Digitized breeding areas, from Map 5. - Biological Values of Energy by Design Report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins 2013). - City of Fort Collins raptor nest survey data (2018). Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) Nest N/A No human disturbance or construction activity within 0.5 mile from active or alternate nests from February 1 through July 15 N/A N/A Buffer derived from: - City of Fort Collins raptor nest survey data (2018). - CPW raptor nest site dataset (CPW 2018) - ENYO Spring 2018 aerial survey data (ENYO 2018). Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Nest N/A No human disturbance or construction activity within 0.5 mile from active nests from December 15 through July 15 N/A 0.25 mile from active and alternate nests Buffers derived from: - Golden eagle data from the Energy by Design report to the Colorado State Land Board (City of Fort Collins 2013) - City of Fort Collins raptor nest survey data (2018). - ENYO Spring 2018 aerial survey data (ENYO, 2018). - CPW raptor nest site dataset (CPW 2018) N/A N/A - CPWPronghorn Winter Concentration dataset (CPW 2016). Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Severe and Critical Winter Range N/A No human activity from 3:00 pm to 10:00 am From December 1 through April 15 N/A N/A - CPW Mule Deer Severe Winter Range dataset (CPW 2016). Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) Den Sites N/A No construction activity while young are den-dependent 0.25 mile from active den sites from March 15 through June 15 N/A N/A - Swift fox data from the Energy by Design report (City of Fort Collins 2013). Black-footed Ferret N/A No construction activity within and over black-tailed N/A Active black-tailed prairie dog colonies occurring - Black-tailed prairie dog colony data for Soapstone Prairie Natural Area • Tri-State Generation and Transmission • Atkins Global • CDOT • TRS Corp. • HC Peck and Associates • Otis, Bedingfield, & Peters, Attorneys at Law • First National Bank • Farmers and Merchants Bank • Numerous Private Property Owners Clients Served Land/Site Value $31,920,000 Affected Improvement Contributory Value $0 Total Larger Parcel Value Before Acquisition (land + affected improvements) $31,920,000 Rd N Co Rd 9 Co Rd 5 S p otw o o d Cre e k 12N 68W 12N 67W 12N 67W 12N 68W 12N 67W 11N 67W 12N 68W 11N 68W 10N 67W 10N 68W 10N 67W 11N 67W 10N 68W 11N 68W 1 1 N 6 7 W 11N 68W Rawhide C O L O R A D O W Y O M I N G 06 05 04 07 08 09 18 17 16 05 04 03 02 01 08 09 10 11 12 17 16 15 14 13 06 05 04 07 08 09 18 17 16 19 20 21 30 29 28 31 32 33 05 04 03 02 01 08 09 10 11 12 17 16 15 14 13 20 21 22 23 24 29 28 27 26 25 32 33 34 35 36 19 20 21 30 29 28 31 32 33 20 21 22 23 24 29 28 27 26 25 32 33 34 35 36 21 23 24 19 13 16 20 22 15 14 18 17 !. !. !. !. !. !] !] CO WY NE LPORCOAJTEIOCNT L A R I M E R A D A M S M O R G A N G R A N D W E L D A R A P A H O E ¦¨§25 ¦¨§80 ¦¨§76 ¦¨§70 Denver Cheyenne Fort Collins Greeley Loveland Wellington 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Mile 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Kilometer ROUNDHOUSE ENERGYRENEWABLE PROJECT Project Overview 1:74,146 º O:\Projects\2018\185095 Enyo Renewable Energy\06GIS\6.3Layout\ProjectOverview_8_5x11_Portrait.mxd Exported On: 11/14/18 RenReowuanbdlheouse Energy Route 2B 2C 3B Existing Substation !( Existing 230kV Transmission !( Existing 345kV Transmission Old US Highway 87 Local Roads Railroad Stream Water Body Siting Area County Boundary Meadow Springs Ranch City of Fort Collins Natural Area Roundhouse Lease Area PRPA Owned Property pg. 3 ATTACHMENT 3 a l Cr e ek I n dian Cre e k S pri n g C r eek S pottlewo o d Cr e ek G r a ve s C r e e k Linton Ln Aldridge Rd Ranchland Ln E Co Rd 92 N Co Rd 7 Co Rd 92 E Co Rd 82 Buckeye Rd Romar Ranch Rd Mars Hill Ln N Co Rd 9 Co Rd 5 L o n e T r e e Cre e k S p o t w o o d C r e e k 12N 67W 12N 68W 12N 67W 11N 67W 12N 68W 11N 68W 10N 67W 10N 68W 10N 67W 11N 67W 10N 68W 11N 68W 1 1 N 6 7 W 11N 68W 36 21 Rawhide 20 21 22 23 24 19 06 05 04 07 08 09 18 17 16 19 20 21 05 04 03 02 01 08 09 10 11 12 17 16 15 14 13 20 21 22 23 24 06 05 04 07 08 09 18 17 16 19 20 21 30 29 28 31 32 33 05 04 03 02 01 08 09 10 11 12 17 16 15 14 13 20 21 22 23 24 29 28 27 26 25 32 33 34 35 19 20 30 29 28 31 32 33 20 21 22 23 24 29 28 27 26 25 32 33 34 35 36 !. !. !. !. !. !] !] CO WY NE LPORCOAJTEIOCNT L A R I M E R A D A M S M O R G A N G R A N D W E L D A R A P A H O E ¦¨§25 ¦¨§80 ¦¨§76 ¦¨§70 Denver Cheyenne Fort Collins Greeley Loveland Wellington 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Mile 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 Kilometer ROUNDHOUSE ENERGYRENEWABLE PROJECT Project Overview 1:75,000 º O:\Projects\2018\185095 Enyo Renewable Energy\06GIS\6.3Layout\Miscellaneous_Maps\ProjectOverview_8_5x11_with_Preferred.mxd Exported On: 11/14/18 RenReowuanbdlheouse Energy Transmission Centerline Siting Area !( Existing 230kV Transmission !( Existing 345kV Transmission Old US Highway 87 Local Roads Railroad Stream Water Body Meadow Springs Ranch City of Fort Collins Natural Area Roundhouse Lease Area PRPA Owned Property Existing Substation pg. 2 ATTACHMENT 2 Mule Deer Severe Winter Range Pronghorn Winter Concentration pg. 1 ATTACHMENT 1