peabody trout creek reservoir project routt county ...€¦ · peabody trout creek reservoir...
TRANSCRIPT
1
PEABODY TROUT CREEK RESERVOIR PROJECTROUTT COUNTY, COLORADO
(FERC PROJECT NO. P-14446)
June 24, 2014
2
Peabody Trout CreekReservoir Project
Brian Yansen, Peabody Trout Creek Reservoir, LLC (PTCR)
3
3
PTCR plans to file an application for an original license for the Peabody Trout Creek Reservoir Project (Project), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Project Number P-14446, and associated facilities on Trout Creek.
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
Based on preliminary hydraulic analyses, the average monthly generating capacity will be on the order of 63,000 kilowatt hours (KWHs) with annual production of 756,000 KWH. The minimum dependable generating
capacity will be 50 kilowatts (KWs). The Project will be located on private
and Bureau of Land Management lands.
9
9
At a normal pool elevation of 6,669 feet, the capacity of the reservoir will be 11,720 acre-feet with a surface area of approximately 400 acres. The minimum pool elevation will be
6,640 feet and the corresponding area and capacity will be 195 acres and 3,520 acre-feet, respectively.
10
10
The crossflow turbine will have a hydraulic capacity of 30 cubic feet per second (cfs). The synchronous generator will be rated
for a 125-KW turbine/generator unit. The maximum practical drawdown for
power production will be about 25 feet, or 35 percent of maximum available head.
11
Trout Creek Reservoir Offers Long-Term Benefits Creates approximate 400-acre
lake with enhanced wildlife habitat
Provides long-term supply of water for Peabody’s future Colorado mining activities
Includes micro-hydroelectric power plant producing electricity to upload to grid
Potential lakeside residential development with fishing and boating opportunities
11
12
12
Environmental studies and baseline analysis under way
Surveying and field assessments continuing
Engineering for preliminary dam classification and facility layout
Analysis of electrical transmission lines and relationship to proposed site layouts
13
13
David Merritt, URS Corporation, Peabody Trout Creek Reservoir, LLC’s Environmental Consultant Shana Murray, Small Hydropower
Coordinator, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects Project website: http://peabodytroutcreekreservoir.com/
14
14
http://www.peabodytroutcreekreservoir.com/
15
15
FERC’s Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is being utilized for the Project.
16
16
17
17
PTCR Licensing Schedule – Major Milestones
Licensing Milestone Responsible Party Due Date
File Initial Study Report with FERC PTCR June 11, 2014
Initial Study Results Meeting PTCR June 24, 2014
File Study Results Meeting Summary PTCR July 9, 2014
Study Disputes/Requests to Modify Study Plans Filed with FERC (if necessary) Stakeholders August 8, 2014
File Study Progress Report #3 PTCR August 29, 2014
Responses to Disputes/Study Requests (if necessary) PTCR September 5, 2014
Director’s Study Plan Determination FERC October 6, 2014
Second Study Year PTCR Spring through winter 2014
File Study Progress Report #4 PTCR February 27, 2015
File Updated Study Report PTCR June 5, 2015
Second Study Results Meeting PTCR June 19, 2015
File Study Results Meeting Summary PTCR July 3, 2015
Study Disputes/Requests to Modify Study Plans Filed with FERC (if necessary) Stakeholders/FERC August 3, 2015
File Study Progress Report #5 PTCR August 31, 2015
File Responses to Disputes (if necessary) PTCR/Stakeholders September 2, 2015
Director’s Study Plan Determination FERC October 2, 2015
File Preliminary Licensing Proposal with FERC and Distribute to Stakeholders PTCR October 5, 2015
Comments on PTCR Preliminary Licensing Proposal, Additional Information Request (if necessary) FERC/Stakeholders January 5, 2016
File License Application PTCR March 5, 2016
18
18
PTCR filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Pre-Application Document with the Commission to commence the Commission’s ILP in August 2012.
On October 5, 2012 the Commission released its NOI and Scoping Document 1.
A Proposed Study Plan was filed with the Commission on January 18, 2013.
A Proposed Study Plan meeting was held at URS Corporation, 8181 East Tufts Avenue, Denver, CO 80237, on February 12, 2013.
A Revised Study Plan was prepared and filed with the Commission on May 17, 2013.
19
19
List of Approved Resource Studies
StudyApproved as Proposed by
PTCR
Geotechnical Investigation X
Existing Channel Conditions and Sediment Supply Study X
Channel Morphology X
Review and Analysis of the Results from Ground Water Monitoring Wells Study Report X
Hydrology and Stream Flow Assessment X
Hydrologic Effects Analysis of the Proposed Trout Creek Reservoir and Related Diversions on Flows in the Yampa River X
Ongoing Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring of Trout Creek X
Stream and Reservoir Water Quality Modeling X
Flow/Habitat Effects Evaluation on Existing Fishery Resources in Trout Creek and the Yampa River X
Fish Species and Longitudinal Habitat Utilization Study X
Fish Entrainment Study X
Whirling Disease Study X
Noxious Weed Survey X
Wildlife, Migratory Bird, and Raptor Surveys X
Downstream Riparian, Wetlands, and Littoral Habitat Study X
Wetland Delineation for Entire Project X
Transportation System Assessment X
Recreation Use Study X
Class III Intensive Pedestrian Cultural Resources Survey X
20
20
There have been no significant study variances from the Revised Study Plan that was approved (as filed) by the Commission’s Study Plan Determination issued June 11, 2013.
There have been fieldwork schedule delays that impacted the study team’s ability to access the field prior to September 2013. The fieldwork schedule delays were a result of land acquisition
negotiations which took longer than expected to complete.
The study team was not able to capture 2013 peak flow data. Additionally, it took longer than expected to install stream
gauges and to begin capturing monitoring data.
21
21
The study plan updates here describe the study objectives, methods, study results to date, upcoming activities and schedules, and any variances from the Commission-approved Revised Study Plan dated May 17, 2013.
For consistency, each study plan update is presented with the same study name as listed in Appendix A of the Commission’s Determination on the Revised Study Plan (dated June 11, 2013). Study updates for 3.5 and 3.6 (the hydrologic studies) are
presented out of order today, following 3.1, due to a scheduling conflict.
22
22
Brian LenNorthwest Colorado Consultants, Inc.
23
23
The goal of this study was to collect information through literature research of existing geologic mapping and data, subsurface investigation, and laboratory testing regarding soils, bedrock, and ground water conditions for the Project at the proposed dam, spillway, and reservoir sites. This study evaluated potential effects of dam and reservoir construction, operation, and maintenance on site geology and soils.
The objective of this study was to better understand geologic conditions at the dam, spillway, and shoreline areas and provide preliminary analysis and recommendations regarding engineering design for structures and implementation plans to minimize potential effects of facility operation and maintenance.
24
24
For this study, various means to collect data regarding Project area soils, bedrock, and geologic conditions were utilized, including: Review of previous geologic studies and mapping, including regional
stratigraphy, geologic structures, and seismic activity. Subsurface investigations at the proposed reservoir perimeter, dam, and
emergency spillway locations to evaluate soil, bedrock, and ground water conditions. Subsurface investigations were conducted using standard geotechnical methodologies, including drilling and sampling via an all-terrain-vehicle-mounted drill rig using four-inch-diameter continuous-flight and six-inch-diameter hollow-stem augers, and standard penetration test sampling techniques. Further sampling of bedrock materials was conducted using 3.75-inch-diameter HX Wireline coring equipment. Downhole bedrock permeability testing was conducted using various pumping and gaging equipment.
25
25
Laboratory investigations on material samples obtained during the subsurface investigations was performed to evaluate engineering properties of construction materials and slopes. In-house testing was conducted by Northwest Colorado Consultants, Inc. (NWCC) technicians and laboratory facilities. Additional laboratory testing services were provided by Knight Piesold Laboratories of Denver, Colorado. Testing was conducted in accordance with applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures.
26
26
Subsurface soil conditions encountered across the Project site were variable and generally consisted of a layer of topsoil and organic materials overlying natural clays, sands, and gravels. Bedrock conditions across the Project site were also variable with sandstone and interbedded shale and thin coal beds of the Cretaceous Iles Formation underlying the dam and reservoir sites; whereas, claystone-siltstone-sandstone bedrock of the Tertiary Browns Park Formation is deposited in an unconformable fashion over Mesaverde Group rock east of the proposed dam and reservoir sites.
Based on the results of the field and laboratory investigations, it appears the natural soils and bedrock materials at the site should provide suitable support for the proposed dam embankment, as well as be suitable for use as embankment fill materials.
Based on proposed spillway elevations, it appears the spillway will most likely be excavated into the overburden soils or near surface bedrock materials. These materials should be stable at the proposed cut slopes; however, channel armoring will most likely be required to control erosion.
27
27
Construction of the proposed dam and reservoir will inundate existing natural slopes along the reservoir shoreline. Slope movement including landslides, slumps, and creep may result from water level fluctuations, depending on local topography and subsurface conditions. Several locations in the southern half of the reservoir have been determined to be marginally stable and exhibit a greater risk of slope movement associated with the fluctuating water levels. Feasible alternatives for mitigating the unstable slopes may include the following: Re-grading slopes to a flatter configuration; Buttressing slopes using rock fills; and/or Installation of subsurface drainage systems to intercept perched
ground water.
28
28
No additional activities are planned for this study at this time; the Geotechnical Investigation Study Report was included as Appendix A in the Initial Study Report.
29
29
Heather ThompsonEcological Resource Consultants, Inc. (ERC)
30
30
The goal of this study is to evaluate and, if necessary, refine the methodology used in the Colorado Decision Support System (CDSS) Yampa Model to predict natural flows in Trout Creek.
Hydrologic information generated using the Yampa Model will be used to predict pre-and post-Project stream flow conditions on Trout Creek and the Yampa River.
31
31
Stream flows will be measured at the gage on Trout Creek, which is located at the proposed dam site, over the course of one year.
Measured and simulated stream flow data will be compared to evaluate the methodology used in the Yampa Model to predict natural flows in Trout Creek.
The Yampa Model will be revised if necessary, to incorporate changes to Trout Creek natural flow estimates.
32
32
Continuous stream flow data have been collected since October 2, 2013.
A site visit was conducted in September 2013 to observe flow and channel conditions upstream and downstream of the proposed dam site.
The most recent version of the CDSS Yampa River Model was obtained from CDM.
CDM refined the CDSS Yampa River Model for the Projects and Methods Study that was completed for the Yampa Basin Roundtable.
33
33
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
10/1/2013 11/1/2013 12/1/2013 1/1/2014 2/1/2014 3/1/2014 4/1/2014
Flow
cub
ic fe
et per secon
d (cfs)
Date
2013‐ 2014 Measured Flows in Trout Creek at the Proposed Dam Site
Measured Data
Stream gage inoperable due to ice
34
34
ERC will review changes made to the CDSS Yampa River Model by CDM to confirm that version of the model is appropriate for this study.
ERC will convert the Yampa Model from a monthly to a daily time step model.
Evaluation of the methodology used to estimated natural flows in Trout Creek will be initiated in the fall of 2014 after several additional months of stream flow data are collected.
This study may extend into 2015 depending on the availability of stream flow and diversion data required to complete the study.
35
35
Heather ThompsonERC
36
36
The goal of this study is to simulate the proposed Project using the CDSS Yampa Model and evaluate how it will affect flows downstream on Trout Creek and the Yampa River.
Pre- and post-Project stream flow data will be used to inform flow-dependent studies and analyses, including how the depletion of flows may impact aquatic habitat, specifically for the four federally-listed endangered species.
37
37
Operations of the proposed Trout Creek Reservoir will be simulated using the Yampa Model to estimate stream flows in Trout Creek and the Yampa River downstream of the reservoir.
Pre- and post-Project stream flows will be analyzed to determine Project-related depletions.
ERC will produce monthly flow duration curves and tables showing the simulated percentage flow reduction on a monthly basis at various locations.
Pre- and post-Project daily stream flows on Trout Creek and the Yampa River will be provided to other resource specialists to inform other flow-dependent studies and analyses.
38
38
Modeling of the proposed Trout Creek Reservoir will be completed after the methodology that is used to predict natural flows on Trout Creek in the Yampa Model is verified.
ERC does not anticipate upcoming work on this study until later in 2014. This study may extend into 2015 depending on the availability of stream flow and diversion data that is required to complete the Hydrology and Streamflow Assessment Study.
39
39
ERC will coordinate with resource specialists involved in flow-dependent studies to determine the format and locations on Trout Creek and the Yampa River that hydrologic output from the Yampa Model is needed.
40
40
Troy ThompsonERC
41
41
Develop a baseline for existing channel conditionsQuantify the flux of sediment (suspended
and bedload) carried in Trout Creek at the Project site Estimate the effect of the proposed dam
on sediment storage and downstream sediment loading
42
42
Complete a Level 1 stream classification analysis
Evaluate existing channel conditions and bankfull channel widths from site observations and recent changes from historic aerial photos
Use United States Geological Survey (USGS) published data to estimate suspended and bedload
Quantify soil types and erosive-ness for the basin
43
43
Stream classifies as a Type C channel (Rosgen system) for lower basin, including from the dam to the Yampa River
Bankfull widths are on the order of 30 feet Channel has been heavily impacted due to land use practices, but no recent
patterns of lateral migration or other significant planform deviations have been identified
Soils generally exhibit low to moderate erosion potential Suspended sediment data was collected by the USGS on Foidel Creek, a tributary to
Trout Creek southwest of the proposed dam site Suspended load is expressed as a function of flow and generally takes the form Qs = 0.0325
Q2.16
Bedload sediment data was collected by the USGS on several tributaries to the Yampa River. Elk Creek was selected to be representative of Trout Creek due to proximity, basin size, and elevation similarities Initial estimates of bedload place it at 2.25 times greater than suspended load, but this
value needs to be verified from site data collection
Sediment estimates have not been completed yet as they are dependent on streamflows
44
44
When flow estimates with and without the Project are complete (Study Plans 3.5 and 3.6) total sediment loads will be estimated
Revisions to bedload sediment may occur based on results of Study Plan 3.3
Sediment loading into the reservoir and estimated loads downstream of the dam will be determined
Upcoming work scheduled for 2015
45
45
Troy ThompsonERC
46
46
Collect physical site data needed to model sediment loads and the stream’s response to the dam
Obtain suspended and bedload sediment samples to verify/modify results obtained in Study 3.2
Develop numeric tools to estimate impacts of flow regime changes on sediment transport and potential downcutting below the planned dam
47
47
Physical surveys were conducted at five locations downstream of the dam including two locations where sufficient information was set up to create a backwater model
Substrate material was sampled and evaluated to quantify bed gradations
Suspended and bedload sediment was sampled at a range of flow conditions
Bedload Assessment in Gravel-bedded Streams (BAGS) models (USFS) were set up to evaluate incipient motion of various particle sizes
Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) model was set up to evaluate sediment fluxes
48
Sediment is generally fine with D50 ranging from 10 millimeters (mm) to 28 mm (fine to medium gravels)
Significant amount of material less than 2 mm observed (3 – 18%)
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
1 10 100 1000
% F
iner
by
Cou
nt
Grain Size (mm)
Trout Creek Gradation Curves
TC1 UpstreamTC2TC3TC4TC5
49
49
Observed stream in the vicinity of the proposed dam and downstream of the dam has been significantly impacted by historic land use practices including grazing and irrigation modifications
Sediment loads follow the predicted pattern of increasing with flow but need to be quantified when full flow data is available
Sediment modeling work dependent on flow analysis, so yet to be completed
50
50
Analyze flow data
Incorporate flow data into both BAGS and HEC-RAS models
Quantify size and amount of sediment that will be mobilized with and without the proposed dam
Complete sediment flux assessment to predict extent and magnitude of any downcutting downstream of the dam
Work to be completed in 2015
51
51
Leigh RouseERO Resources Corporation (ERO)
52
52
To determine if supportive wetland hydrology is present for previously irrigated wetlands within the Trout Creek study area To determine depth to ground water for
multiple growing seasons
53
53
34 ground water wells with automated dataloggers were installed in October 2011
Data are collected and analyzed annually Wetland hydrology (per the 2005 U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers [Corps] Technical Standard) is considered to be present if: The site is inundated (flooded or ponded) or the water
table is less than or equal to (≤)12 inches below the soil surface for greater than or equal to (≥) 14 consecutive days during the growing season at a minimum frequency of 5 in 10 years
54
55
55
After multiple years of monitoring, wetland hydrology can be evaluated by applying the following procedures:
For each year, determine the max number of consecutive days that the site was either inundated or the water table was ≤12 inches from the ground surface during the growing season. Wetland hydrology occurs in a given year if the number of consecutive days of inundation or shallow water table was ≥14 days.
The Technical Standard for Wetland Hydrology is met if wetland hydrology occurs in at least 50 percent of years.
56
Two years of growing season data have been collected and analyzed Per the Corps Technical Standard, one
well in 2012 and five wells in 2013 met the Technical Standard for wetland hydrology 2012 and 2013 were years with below
average precipitation
57
57
Data will be downloaded from dataloggers in May and October 2014 Results will be analyzed and presented in
an annual reportGround water monitoring will continue in
the near term (up to a total of 10 years)
58
58
David MerrittURS Corporation
59
59
To install a recording temperature monitor at the existing Orton site that is being operated from May through October. The objectives of this installation and
monitoring are to extend the existing data set at this site, which has been operated intermittently since 1995, and obtain dissolved oxygen measurements on a weekly basis for the same period.
60
60
Three “Hobo” stream temperature data loggers will be deployed from: Trout Creek, just above the confluence with the Yampa River Middle Creek, below Foidel Creek and upstream of the
confluence with Trout Creek Fish Creek, just above the confluence with Trout Creek
Data will be recorded at 15-minute intervals and retrieved at monthly intervals. Dissolved oxygen measurements will be taken at the same site on a weekly basis utilizing a Yellow Springs Instruments Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature Probe.
61
61
A recording temperature and dissolved oxygen monitor was installed at the existing Orton site and is being operated from April through November, weather permitting. The objectives of this installation and monitoring are to extend the
existing data set at this site, which has been operated intermittently since 1995.
Additionally, new stream gages were installed on Foidel Creek, Middle Creek, and Trout Creek above the proposed reservoir, and Trout Creek below Middle Creek, and a recording temperature sensor will be installed soon. Data will be retrieved at monthly intervals. Dissolved oxygen measurements are being taken at the same site on a weekly basis utilizing a Yellow Springs Instruments Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature Probe.
62
62
Study is anticipated to be continued in 2014, and the associated study report is expected to be issued in early 2015.
63
63
Ed Buchak, Carol Young, & Oliver ObregonEnvironmental Resources Management
(ERM)
64
64
Assess and assemble sufficient water quality, flow, and physiographic data (historical and ongoing);
Develop a hydrodynamic and water quality model for the proposed reservoir and downstream reach of Trout Creek; and
Predict (vertically, seasonally and longitudinally) temperature, dissolved oxygen, and nutrients in the proposed Trout Creek Reservoir and downstream to the Yampa River confluence
65
65
Data compilation and analysis during 2013-2014 Meteorology (i.e., air temperature, relative humidity (RH), wind, cloud
cover) Water quality/quantity (i.e., streamflow, nutrients, dissolved oxygen (DO),
water temperature Topography and designs (i.e., digital terrain map (DTM), storage-elevation-
area)
Models set up CE-QUAL-W2: A 2-Dimensional (2-D) hydrodynamic and WQ model BATHUB: A steady-state water and nutrient empirical model
Application of models for management considerations Simulate scenarios (3-5) for the proposed Trout Creek Reservoir Simulate scenarios along Trout Creek from the proposed reservoir to the
confluence with the Yampa River Refine final scenarios and report findings
66
66
Data compilation and analysis is underway; Meteorological data are being retrieved
from online sources (e.g., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]); and
Other data components (e.g., geographic, water quality) have been requested from other members of the Project team.
67
67
Tasks to be completed in 2014: CE-QUAL-W2 model set up; BATHTUB model set up; and Preliminary simulations for management
considerations (3-5 scenarios) Tasks to be completed in 2015:
Review and refine final operation scenarios; Prepare the Stream and Reservoir Water Quality
Modeling Study Report (final model and animations)
68
68
Don ConklinGEI Consultants, Inc. (GEI)
69
69
Identify mesohabitats Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) in Trout Creek, from the proposed reservoir footprint to the Yampa River
Identify fish species and life stages of interest Describe potential Project effects on flow and habitat in the
study reach of Trout Creek for the selected species Describe the potential Project effects of changes in water
quality, temperature, species interactions, non-native species introductions, and sedimentation on the fish and macroinvertebrates in Trout Creek and the Yampa River
70
70
Evaluate effects to fish habitat availability using PHABSIM Collect site-specific data on Trout Creek Coordinate with agencies on modeling details Compare fish habitat availability between baseline and Project
Collect additional macroinvertebrate data in lower Trout Creek Better define baseline conditions in lower sections of the stream Evaluate attainment of aquatic life use with Macroinvertebrate Multimetric Index
(MMI)
Evaluate potential effects of introducing/sustaining non-native fish in the reservoir on upstream and downstream fish communities, including Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)-listed species in the Yampa River Primarily northern pike and white suckers, others
Incorporate information from other studies (e.g., water quality, stream morphology, etc.) to assess secondary effects of flow alteration to aquatic resources
71
71
Mesohabitat (PHABSIM) data collection completed for upper study reach Low flows in 2012 prevented collection of
high-flow data High flow data collected in April 2014 Preliminary modeling results in 2012
PHABSIM transects established in lower study reach in 2014 High-flow data collected at these sites
72
72
Macroinvertebrates sampled in lower Trout Creek in fall 2013 Results similar to 2011 samples in upper
Trout Creek MMI indicates attainment and non-
attainment at different sites
73
73
High-flow data in the upper reach from spring 2014 will be used to fine-tune the PHABSIM model
PHABSIM data in the lower reach will be collected at mid and low flows in summer or fall 2014 and habitat availability will be simulated
The model will be used to evaluate effects to habitat availability under baseline and proposed flow regimes along with effects to other components of the aquatic environment with consideration of all relevant information from other resource areas
74
74
Don ConklinGEI
75
75
Further refine species composition and relative abundance in the study area Further describe seasonal or spatial
variation in species composition or relative abundance Further refine fish population information
at sites in lower Trout Creek
76
76
Qualitative fish sampling Single-pass electrofishing in spring and fall over long sites in
lower Trout Creek Species composition and relative abundance in lower sections
compared to other sites in watershed and to local habitat conditions
Assess use by spawning fish moving upstream from the Yampa River
Quantitative fish sampling Two-pass electrofishing in late summer/fall Species composition, density, and length-frequency
Evaluate potential migration barriers in Trout Creek
77
77
Qualitative sampling data available for fall 2013 Species composition similar to upstream sites, some new
non-native species found, maybe use by spawning brown trout and mountain whitefish
Access approval in fall prevented spring sampling in 2013 Early onset of snowmelt runoff in 2014 prevented spring
sampling
Access approval in fall prevented quantitative sampling in 2013
Potential barriers visually surveyed and don’t appear to block upstream movements at mid to high flows
78
78
Spring 2014 survey may be conducted as flows begin to recede Many native species spawn on the descending limb of the
hydrograph and may still be present in Trout Creek
Quantitative electrofishing of three lower study sites will be performed in fall 2014 Will provide quantitative data that is comparable to data
collected near the proposed reservoir in 2011
Include information on qualitative and quantitative sampling and barriers in report as appropriate
79
79
Don ConklinGEI
80
80
Identify fish species and life stages that occur in the vicinity of the Project, as well as introduced species, especially non-native predators such as northern pike
Identify the swimming speed capabilities of those species and their relevant life stages and the potential velocity pattern at Project intakes
Describe the potential entrainment-related survival rates of those identified species and life stages, with a focus on the potential for non-native species to move from the reservoir downstream into the Yampa River
81
81
Identify fish species and life stages that occur or are likely to be introduced Species that may populate reservoir Look at nearby reservoirs Fisheries Management Plan
Identify swimming performances of these species and life stages and describe velocity patterns at project intakes Will fish move downstream?
Report findings on entrainment-related survival rates of the relevant species and life stages
82
82
Relevant fish species and life stages are being identified Swimming performances have not been
described, but data are available Hydraulic conditions at intake are
currently not available
83
83
Swimming performance of the relevant species will be determined with a literature review in 2014
Data will be compared to information about hydraulic conditions at Project intakes
A determination of entrainment rates and survival rates of entrained fish will be made once estimated hydraulic conditions at Project intakes are available
84
84
Don ConklinGEI
85
85
Survey the baseline conditions of whirling disease infectivity within Trout Creek and Middle Creek near and upstream of the Project area Predict the potential effects of the
disease on the reservoir fisheries and the effects of the reservoir on whirling disease infectivity in Trout Creek
86
86
Sample trout and tubifex worms from sites near the proposed reservoir footprint and test for whirling disease Test for presence of the parasite Determine the lineage of tubifex worms to determine whether
they would produce high numbers of the infective stage of whirling disease
Use study results to assess probability of infection with proposed reservoir Use information about whirling disease infectivity elsewhere in
the drainage, and in regards to sedimentation in the proposed reservoir, and fish species in the proposed reservoir
87
87
Sufficient numbers/sizes of trout were not available in Trout Creek
Tubifex worms were collected and tested Lack of whirling disease spores indicates low or no infectivity,
likely due to the lack of trout, incomplete life cycle of parasite High whirling disease infectivity upstream in Trout Creek where
more trout are present The two tubifex worm lineages present are susceptible to
whirling disease Tubifex worms are present in Trout Creek and changes in
amounts of fine sediment could change available habitat
88
88
The potential for high infectivity exists in Trout Creek. When information about sedimentation rates (and therefore changes in tubifex worm habitat) become available, determinations of potential whirling disease effects on the proposed reservoir fishery and Project effects on whirling disease infectivity upstream and downstream of the proposed reservoir will be made.
89
89
David MerrittURS Corporation
90
90
To determine which species from the Colorado State A and B lists and the Routt County List are present within the Project area and to determine densities and distribution. The objective is to compile a complete list of
noxious weeds present in the Project area with distributions and approximate densities that will assist in determining potential effects on noxious weeds from Project construction and assist in developing a Noxious Weed Management Plan.
91
91
Within the Project area, a reconnaissance-level noxious weed survey will be conducted. The noxious weed survey will follow the guidelines of the Colorado
Department of Agriculture – Noxious Weed Management Program as required under Federal Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species,” the Federal Noxious Weeds Act, and the Colorado Noxious Weed Act (Colorado Revised Statute Title 35, Article 5.5).
Two surveys will be conducted in spring/early summer and late summer to document species with different flowering periods.
• Species of noxious weeds will be documented on aerial maps and the density of weed populations will be categorized as scattered individuals (greater than 10 feet apart), small populations (less than 100 individuals), large populations (greater than 100 individuals), mixed individuals, or mixed populations.
• A weed distribution map will be produced using Geographic Information System (GIS) software.
92
92
The Noxious Weed Survey Study was completely deferred to 2014 due to availability of resource personnel within PTCR’s Environmental Department.
93
93
The Noxious Weed Survey and the associated study report are anticipated to be completed in 2014.
94
94
Leigh RouseERO
95
95
To determine location of existing active raptor nests To determine migratory bird breeding
activity To assess potential effects on migratory
birds, including raptors To determine Northern leopard frog
breeding locations
96
96
Raptor Survey Survey trees and shrubs for active raptor
nests using binoculars and/or a spotting scope before trees are fully leafed out Identify raptor speciesBreeding Bird Survey Conduct surveys following methods of the
Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas in late May and mid-July
97
97
Northern Leopard Frog Breeding Survey Survey wetland habitat for egg masses,
tadpoles, and adult frogs Establish night call stations to listen for
frog calls (an indicator of breeding)Map locations of egg masses, tadpoles,
and adult frogs
98
98
During surveys conducted May 6, 7, 27, and 28: One active red-tailed hawk nest was observed Five species of migratory birds were confirmed to
be breeding Fifteen species were probable breeding species Ten species were possible breeding species Northern leopard frog egg masses and tadpoles
not seen; adult leopard frogs observed in many wetlands
99
99
Amphibian survey will be conducted in June Breeding bird survey, including raptors,
will be conducted in mid-July
100
100
Leigh RouseERO
101
101
To determine potential wetland and riparian habitat on Trout Creek downstream of the proposed dam To determine potential indirect effects
from changes in hydrology
102
102
Map wetland and riparian vegetation using aerial photography interpretation and ground-truthing from publicly accessible locationsQualitatively assess effects based on
changes in river stage and frequency of flooding
103
103
Palustrine emergent wetland 205 acres Palustrine scrub-shrub wetland 17 acresWetland meadow in tilled field 170 acres Riparian shrubland 3 acres Riparian woodland 3 acres
104
104
Assess potential effects on wetland and riparian vegetation once Project hydrologic modeling is complete, likely 2014
105
105
Leigh RouseERO
106
106
Complete wetland delineations within the expanded study area following the Corps’ 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement Determine Project impacts on wetlands
107
108
108
Delineate wetlands using the routine methods described in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual for areas greater than five acres
Map boundaries of wetlands and other waters using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit or map onto aerial photography
Assess impacts using GIS analysis Determine functions of wetlands using the
Functional Assessment of Colorado Wetlands (FACWet) method
109
109
No new results to report at this time
110
110
Delineate wetlands and conduct functional assessments in August 2014 Review delineation with Corps in late
summer
111
111
David MerrittURS Corporation
112
112
Assess the existing transportation system conditions and forecast conditions of the transportation system surrounding the Project. The assessment will include the evaluation of existing roadway
structures to determine the ability of those structures to convey Project construction and operations activities and identify any special design requirements to protect existing structures.
A traffic impact study will be included to analyze the impact of the Project construction and operations traffic and related development traffic on area roadways.
Roadway design alternatives and standards will accompany the study to address any proposed roadway relocations.
113
113
Data Collection Daily volume counts on County Roads (CRs) 29, 33, and
179 in the vicinity of the Project as well as counts along construction access/haul routes.
The existing assessment of structural condition of roadway bridges and structures on CRs 29, 33, and 179, including two Trout Creek crossings and two Middle Creek crossings in the vicinity of the Project.
Proposed development plans and access points associated with the Project.
Estimates of anticipated construction and operations traffic volumes and equipment.
114
114
Roadway Impact Analysis An on-site assessment will be conducted to determine the
existing condition of roadway structures.
Traffic Impact Analysis The traffic impact analysis will use existing traffic count
data and forecast traffic volumes to assess the ability of the existing roadway network to serve existing and proposed traffic demands.
Roadway Design Alternatives Design alternatives will be provided to address locations
where existing roadways are modified or realigned to accommodate the Project.
115
115
This study has been completely deferred to 2015 following PTCR’s 2014 financial resource prioritization.
116
116
The Transportation System Assessment Study and the associated study report are anticipated to be completed in 2015.
117
117
Kevin YoungYoung Energy Services, LLC
118
118
Evaluate national and state recreation trends noting the extent of the projected use demands on the Project area Document existing recreational uses and
opportunities in the region/Project area Present effects of Project existence and
operations on recreational activity in the Project area
119
119
Use of scientifically accepted approaches for designing a recreation study including facility, access, and existing use inventories; use trends and future demand; trip and user characteristics; and regional recreation context
Data acquisition associated with how the Project could affect recreation and how recreation could affect other resources including flows and reservoir levels, and assessments to identify appropriate management actions to consider
Future recreation use was estimated by summarizing current use and applying national or regional recreation trend information
120
120
Current recreational demands in the Project region appear to be satisfied with existing facilities
On certain heavy-use days, the reservoirs, in particular, are pushed to their ecological, spatial, facility, and social limits
Estimates from the 2014 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) identify the Northwest Region as the third most populated SCORP region and predict continuing population growth over the next two decades with the potential to negatively impact the ecological character of resources
A direct Project-related effect would be the inundation of approximately 6.5 linear miles of Trout Creek and Middle Creek creating an approximate 400-acre reservoir that could provide recreational opportunities similar to those offered at the private Lake Catamount Reservoir
121
121
Promote the connection between outdoor recreation and the economic and financial viability of communities and the state
Seek commonalities within outdoor recreation stakeholder groups and create a unified community built around those common interests
Build on shared interests among the outdoor recreation community to promote a conservation ethic that includes land and habitat conservation and sustainable multiple-use recreation
122
122
The Recreation Use Study was completed in 2013 The Recreation Use Study Report was updated in
May 2014 to include 2014 Colorado SCORP data and findings
The Recreation Management Planning and Shoreline Management Planning contracts were novated to Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. (still under the direction of Kevin Young)
123
123
Marcia MeierURS Corporation
124
124
Goal: To identify and evaluate cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (i.e., historic properties) within the area of potential effects (APE) for direct and indirect Project effects
Objectives: Document cultural resources within the APE Evaluate NRHP eligibility of each resource Assess Project effects on historic properties Recommend ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any
adverse effects to historic properties
125
125
Define APE APE for direct Project effects – includes footprint of proposed reservoir
plus 100-foot buffer around construction activities APE for indirect Project effects - extends to tops of adjacent ridges and
hills, encompassing approximately 14,000 acres, within which atmospheric, auditory, and visual effects to historic properties may occur
Conduct Background Research (file and literature search) Complete a Class III (intensive pedestrian) survey of the APE for
direct Project effects, augmented by systematic shovel testing to identify buried cultural materials, and reconnoiter the APE for indirect Project effects
Document extant cultural resources, 50 years or older Prepare comprehensive report, which summarizes background,
methods, and results of the investigations; assesses NRHP eligibility and effects; and provides recommendations
126
126
Class III survey documented 10 cultural resources in the APE for direct and indirect Project effects: 1 prehistoric isolated find 2 prehistoric open campsites 7 historic sites (2 barns, 1 coal mine, 1 loafing shed, 1 ranch complex, 1 industrial
building, and 1 residence)
1 of the historic barns recommended eligible for the NRHP 2 prehistoric open campsites recommended as Need Data and additional
evaluative testing was conducted at each site Evaluative testing was negative at 1 site/recommended not eligible for
NRHP; significant buried cultural materials were recovered from second campsite/recommended eligible for NRHP
The 2 eligible sites will not be adversely affected: they are outside the APE for direct Project effects, and indirect Project effects are negligible
127
127
The Class III Intensive Pedestrian Cultural Resources Survey Study Report is being reviewed by the PTCR Cultural Resources Working Group only now due to privileged and confidential nature of report Comments requested by June 30, 2014 Report will be finalized
Pending State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Review of Class III Report, necessity of preparing Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) will be determined
128
128
Construction Stormwater Management Plan Fishery Management Plan Reclamation Management Plan Noxious Weed Management Plan Conceptual Wetlands Mitigation Plan Recreation Management Plan Shoreline Management Plan Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP)
Determination of whether this is required will follow the SHPO’s review of the testing results presented in the May 2014 Class III Intensive Pedestrian Cultural Resources Survey Study Report
129
129
Fieldwork for the majority of the studies got underway again in the spring of 2014 following PTCR issuing notices to proceed.
Flow data continues to be recorded and analyzed. 2014 has proven to be an especially high runoff year, with some areas of the
Colorado River and Yampa River basins seeing yields as high as 150 percent of average.
There will be challenges in the next 12 to 18 months in pulling all of the disciplines together, but at this point in the ILP, there does not appear to be any significant impediment to continuing moving ahead on the Project.
130
130
PTCR ILP Schedule, Shana Murray, Small Hydropower Coordinator, FERC
6/11/14 Initial Study Report Filed by PTCR 6/24/14 Initial Study Report Meeting7/9/14 PTCR Files Meeting Summary8/8/14 Stakeholder Comments Due on Meeting Summary, Studies,
and/or New Studies9/7/14* PTCR Files Responses to Stakeholders Comments
10/8/14 Director Resolves Disagreements on Studies and Amends Study Plan as Appropriate, If Necessary
*Due date falls on a Sunday so comments are due by close of business (i.e., 5 p.m. EST) on Monday, September 8, 2014.
131
131
PTCR ILP Schedule, Shana Murray, Small Hydropower Coordinator, FERC
Resource studies will be continuing into 2015 with all resource study reports expected to be completed in mid- to late-2015.
132
132