Aquatic Biological Resources Technical Report

Northern Integrated Supply Project Environmental Impact Statement

Prepared for:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District

March 2008

Prepared by:

GEI Consultants, Inc. Chadwick Ecological Division 5575 South Sycamore Street, Suite 101 Littleton, CO 80120

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1. Northern Integrated Supply Project ...... 1 1.2. No Action Alternative ...... 1 1.3. Group 1—Southern Group ...... 2 1.3.1. Erie ...... 3 1.3.2. Lafayette ...... 3 1.3.3. Lefthand Water District ...... 3 1.3.4. No Action Alternative for Southern Group ...... 3 1.4. Group 2—Northern Group ...... 3 1.4.1. Eaton ...... 4 1.4.2. Severance ...... 4 1.4.3. Windsor ...... 4 1.4.4. No Action Alternative for Northern Group ...... 4 1.5. Group 3—Eastern Group ...... 4 1.5.1. Fort Morgan ...... 5 1.5.2. Morgan County Quality Water District ...... 5 1.5.3. No Action Alternative for Eastern Group ...... 5 1.6. Independent Participants ...... 6 1.6.1. CWCWD ...... 6 1.6.2. Evans ...... 6 1.6.3. Fort Collins-Loveland Water District ...... 7 1.6.4. Fort Lupton ...... 7 1.7. Action Alternatives—Activities Common to All Alternatives ...... 8 1.7.1. Bureau of Reclamation Subalternatives ...... 8 1.7.2. South Platte Water Conservation Project ...... 13 1.7.3. Diversions from the Cache la Poudre River ...... 13 1.8. Alternative 2—Proposed Action—Glade Reservoir and the SPWCP ...... 14 1.9. Alternative 3—Cactus Hill Reservoir and the SPWCP ...... 15 1.10. Alternative 4—Glade Reservoir and SPWCP with Agricultural Transfer Lands ...... 16 1.11. Objective ...... 17 1.12. Regulatory Framework ...... 18 1.13. Study Area ...... 20

2. Methods and Analysis ...... 21 2.1. Existing Environment ...... 21 2.1.1. Existing Data Sources ...... 21 2.1.2. Supplemental Data ...... 25 2.2. Effects Evaluation ...... 30 2.2.1. Approach to Analysis ...... 31 2.2.2. Hydrology ...... 33

2.2.3. Instream Flow Incremental Methodology ...... 35 2.2.4. Effects Analysis ...... 41

3. Existing Environment ...... 44 3.1. Habitat Descriptions...... 44 3.1.1. Cache la Poudre River ...... 44 3.1.2. South Platte River ...... 45 3.1.3. Reservoir Sites ...... 45 3.2. Fish Populations ...... 45 3.2.1. Cache la Poudre River ...... 45 3.2.2. South Platte River ...... 55 3.3. Macroinvertebrate Populations ...... 59 3.3.1. Cache la Poudre River ...... 59 3.3.2. South Platte River ...... 62

4. Direct Effects Evaluation ...... 63 4.1. Cache la Poudre River ...... 63 4.1.1. Upstream of Fort Collins ...... 63 4.1.2. Near Fort Collins...... 72 4.1.3. Fort Collins to Interstate 25 ...... 78 4.1.4. Interstate 25 to the Platte River ...... 84 4.2. South Platte River ...... 91 4.2.1. Cache la Poudre River to the Kersey Gage ...... 91 4.3. Proposed Reservoirs...... 97 4.3.1. Glade Reservoir ...... 97 4.3.2. Cactus Hill Reservoir ...... 98 4.3.3. Galeton Reservoir ...... 98 4.4. Munroe Canal Diversion ...... 99

5. Cumulative Effects Evaluation ...... 99

6. Mitigation ...... 99

7. References ...... 101

TABLES Table 1: Locations and Dates of Supplemental Data Collection on the Cache la Poudre River, Colorado, 2005...... 27 Table 2: Fish Population Data (Presence/Absence) for the Cache la Poudre River 1970-2005. Data from Appendix E, Native Species in Bold...... 47 Table 3: Fish Density (#/ha) and Other Population Parameters from Supplemental Data Collection Sites on the Cache la Poudre River, 2005. Data from Appendix C, Native Species in Bold...... 51 Table 4: Fish Population Data (Presence/Absence) for the South Platte River, 1980-2003. Data from Appendix F, Native Species in Bold...... 56 Table 5: Summary of Cache la Poudre River Benthic Invertebrate Parameters, 1992-2005. Data from Shieh et al. (1999), USGS (2003), and Appendix D...... 59 Table 6: Benthic Invertebrate Density (Number/m2) and Other Summary Population Parameters for Supplemental Data Collection Sites on the Cache la Poudre River, 2005. Data from Appendix D. X=Present in the Qualitative Sample Only...... 61 Table 7: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the CANGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 68 Table 8: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 3 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 68 Table 9: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 6 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 69 Table 10: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Canyon Gage on the Cache la Poudre River, 1950-1999 Water Years...... 69 Table 11: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Minimum Habitat Availability (WUA in ft2/1000 ft) Among the Action Alternatives Simulated for Brown and Rainbow Trout at the Main 3 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 70 Table 12: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the LINCGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 74 Table 13: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Lincoln Street Gage on the Cache la Poudre River, 1976-1999 Water Years...... 75

iii

Table 14: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Minimum Habitat Availability (WUA in ft2/1000 ft) Among the Action Alternatives Simulated for Brown Trout and White Suckers at the LINCGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 76 Table 15: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 12 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 81 Table 16: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 14 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 81 Table 17: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Boxelder Creek Gage on the Cache la Poudre River, 1980-1999 Water Years...... 82 Table 18: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Minimum Habitat Availability (WUA in ft2/1000 ft) Among Action Alternatives Simulated for White Sucker at the Main 12 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 83 Table 19: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 18 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 88 Table 20: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 20 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 88 Table 21: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the GRLYGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 89 Table 22: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Greeley Gage on the Cache la Poudre River, 1950-1997 Water Years...... 90 Table 23: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the KRSYGAGE Node on the South Platte River...... 93 Table 24: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Kersey Gage on the South Platte River, 1950-1999 Water Years...... 94 Table 25: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Minimum Habitat Availability (WUA in ft2/1000 ft) Among Action Alternatives Simulated for Plains Killifish, Red Shiners, Sand Shiners, and White Suckers at the KRSYGAGE Node on the South Platte River...... 95

FIGURES Figure 1: Components for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)...... 9 Figure 2: Components for Alternative 3...... 10 Figure 3: Pipeline Alignments from Horsetooth Reservoir...... 11 Figure 4: Potential Agricultural Transfer Lands...... 12 Figure 5: Study Area on the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers, Hydrologic Nodes, and 2005 Sampling Sites...... 26 Figure 6: Hydrologic Nodes and Stream Segments Used in Effects Evaluation, Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers...... 38 Figure 7: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the CANGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 65 Figure 8: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 3 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 66 Figure 9: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 6 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 67 Figure 10: Mean-monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the LINCGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 73 Figure 11: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 12 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 79 Figure 12: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 14 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 80 Figure 13: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 18 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 85 Figure 14: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 20 Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 86 Figure 15: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the GRLYGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River...... 87 Figure 16: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the KRSYGAGE Node on the South Platte River...... 92

APPENDICES Appendix A Supplemental Data Site Locations Appendix B Common and Scientific Names of Fish Species Appendix C Supplemental Fish Data, 2005 Appendix D Supplemental Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data, 2005 Appendix E Existing Cache la Poudre River Fish Data Appendix F Existing South Platte River Fish Data Appendix G Fish Habitat Availability Time Series

NORTHERN INTEGRATED SUPPLY PROJECT AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed Northern Integrated Supply Project (Project or NISP). As part of the EIS, this technical report has been prepared to describe existing conditions and potential effects of the Project alternatives on aquatic biological resources. The information gathered in this technical report will be summarized in the EIS.

1.1. Northern Integrated Supply Project The proposed Project is a collaborative effort among 12 water providers (Participants) facilitated and coordinated by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (District). The Project will provide approximately 40,000 acre-feet (AF) of new reliable water supply, which will meet a portion of the Participants’ estimated 2025 and 2050 additional water supply needs. The Participants are a group of rapidly growing communities and domestic water districts located throughout the District. The Project would be a nonfederal project constructed and owned by the District. While the District would retain ownership and operational responsibility of the Project, the Participants would own a perpetual contractual right to a defined portion of the project facilities and a defined portion of the water diverted by the Project.

1.2. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative considers what the Participants would do to meet their water supply needs in the absence of NISP. In the absence of NISP, obtaining new water supplies in the region likely would become more challenging as demand for a finite supply of sources would increase. Because it is not possible to determine the specific mix of future water development approaches that would be pursued by the individual Participants or the region as a whole (the process of acquiring water supplies would be driven by complex social, economic, environmental, and political factors), the No Action Alternative is conceptual, and is intended to represent the possible water supplies that each Participant could obtain.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

For the NISP No Action Alternative, Participants were grouped based on factors such as geographic proximity, common sources of existing supply, likely pursuit of the same new sources of supply, and obvious advantages from shared conveyance and storage facilities (HDR 2006a). Four Participants (CWCWD, Evans, FCLWD, and Fort Lupton) were not grouped because implementation of the No Action Alternative could most effectively be accomplished independently given their locations, water systems, and supplies. The Participants were grouped for development of the No Action Alternative as follows (Participant firm yield demands from NISP are identified in parentheses):

GROUPED PARTICIPANTS

Group 1– Southern Group  Erie (6,500 AF)  Lafayette (1,800 AF)  Lefthand Water District (4,900 AF) Group 2 – Northern Group  Eaton (1,300 AF)  Severance (1,300 AF)  Windsor (3,300 AF) Group 3 – Eastern Group  Fort Morgan (3,600 AF)  Morgan County Quality Water (1,300 AF)

INDEPENDENT PARTICIPANTS

 Central Weld County Water District (8,400 AF; this includes Berthoud’s prior contract right that has been obtained by Frederick, which is served by CWCWD)  Evans (1,600 AF)  Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (3,000 AF)  Fort Lupton (3,000 AF)

1.3. Group 1—Southern Group Group 1 (Southern Group) includes the Towns of Erie and Lafayette, and the Lefthand Water District.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1.3.1. Erie Erie is located in the Boulder Creek drainage, which has very limited water rights purchase and transfer potential due to prior acquisition by other municipalities. Current sources of supply include Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) units and shares in local mutual irrigation companies.

1.3.2. Lafayette Lafayette is located within the Lefthand Creek and Rock Creek drainages. Current sources of supply include C-BT units and shares in local mutual irrigation companies.

1.3.3. Lefthand Water District The Lefthand Water District (LHWD) is situated in the Lefthand Creek and St. Vrain Creek drainages. Current sources of supply include C-BT units and shares in local mutual irrigation companies.

1.3.4. No Action Alternative for Southern Group Under the No Action Alternative, the likely sources of new supply for the Southern Group would include:

 Purchase and transfer of agricultural water from ditches such as the South Boulder Canyon Ditch, the Leyner and Cottonwood #1 Ditch, the Lower Boulder Ditch, the Coal Ridge Ditch, the Leggett Ditch, the Boulder and Weld County Ditch, and the FRICO— Community Ditch. Many of the ditches in this area are to a significant extent controlled by conservation easements by Boulder County Open Space. These easements restrict the water’s use to irrigation purposes, precluding transfers to municipal use. Such arrangements must not be overlooked in identification of potential supplies.  Under the No Action Alternative, at least 10,800 AF of storage would be required for the Southern Group. The most probable means of providing storage would be through development of gravel pit lakes. The most likely scenario would be 10,800 AF of gravel pit storage along Boulder Creek downstream of Boulder or St. Vrain Creek downstream of Longmont, with 270 to 360 surface acres (assuming a depth of 30 to 40 feet) represented by 2 to 4 pits (typical pits are in the 100 to 200 acre range). To augment evaporation losses, assuming 1.5 feet of annual evaporation, an additional 405 to 540 AF of water would be required.  Purchase of C-BT units, which continue to decrease in availability and increase in cost.

1.4. Group 2—Northern Group Group 2 (Northern Group) includes the Towns of Eaton, Severance, and Windsor.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1.4.1. Eaton Eaton is located north of Greeley, and current sources of supply include C-BT units and shares in local mutual irrigation companies. Eaton currently uses Horsetooth Reservoir as storage for the water it receives from the Poudre River and Big Thompson River.

1.4.2. Severance Severance is located northwest of Greeley, and current sources of supply include wells, C-BT units, and shares in local mutual irrigation companies.

1.4.3. Windsor Windsor is located southeast of Fort Collins and northeast of Loveland, and presently receives water from Greeley, North Weld County Water District, and Fort Collins-Loveland Water District (FCLWD).

1.4.4. No Action Alternative for Northern Group Under the No Action Alternative, the likely sources of new supply for the Northern Group are as follows: Eaton and Severance would require developers to purchase the water rights to support any new development, which would likely come from purchase of agricultural water and transfer for municipal use. Priority would be placed on additional purchases of shares from irrigation companies (e.g., North Poudre Irrigation Company and Larimer Weld Irrigation Company) that are already part of the portfolios of one of the Participants.

Under the No Action Alternative, approximately 11,800 AF of storage would be required for the Northern Group. The most probable means of providing storage would be through the development of gravel pit lakes. The most likely scenario would be 11,800 AF of gravel pit storage along the Poudre River between Fort Collins and Greeley with 300 to 400 surface acres represented by 2 to 4 pits. To augment evaporation losses, an additional 450 to 600 AF of water would be required.

1.5. Group 3—Eastern Group Group 3 (Eastern Group) includes the Town of Fort Morgan and the Morgan County Quality Water District (MCQWD).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1.5.1. Fort Morgan Fort Morgan is located 80 miles northeast of Denver and participated in the Southern Water Supply Project (SWSP) to obtain new supplies of C-BT water primarily because of water quality considerations with its existing wells. Fort Morgan also has a few shares in local mutual irrigation companies. Under the No Action Alternative, Fort Morgan would likely increase reliance on ground water and implement advanced treatment to deal with the water quality issues. Because the aquifers act as storage vessels for ground water supplies, implementation of the No Action Alternative would not require Fort Morgan to construct any surface storage; however, Fort Morgan may need some storage for the necessary augmentation water obtained during the irrigation season for use year round.

1.5.2. Morgan County Quality Water District The MCQWD serves land within the South Platte River Valley in Morgan County. MCQWD currently has three well fields that are approaching maximum capacity. As the well field capacity is reached, MCQWD will start taking delivery of C-BT water. MCQWD also requires new developers to purchase water as part of the development plan. In addition, any new customer in the district is required to pay for ¾ of a C-BT unit.

1.5.3. No Action Alternative for Eastern Group Under the No Action Alternative, the likely sources of new supply for the Eastern Group would include:

 Fort Morgan would likely continue to use its existing wells, acquire new wells, and implement advanced treatment such as reverse osmosis (RO) to meet state water quality requirements. If RO were used for advanced treatment, a mechanism for brine disposal would be required. Additionally, augmentation water would need to be secured to allow for well pumping.  Purchase of agricultural water from South Platte irrigation ditches and transfer the water for municipal use. Priority would be placed on additional purchases of shares from ditches (e.g., Fort Morgan Canal) that are already part of the portfolios of one of the Participants.

Under the No Action Alternative, approximately 6,200 AF of storage would be required for the Eastern Group. The most probable means of providing this storage would be through development of 6,200 AF of gravel pit storage along the South Platte River in the general

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

vicinity of Fort Morgan with 155 to 210 surface acres, likely represented by a single pit. To augment evaporation losses, an additional 230 to 315 AF of water would be required.

1.6. Independent Participants Because of geography, infrastructure, or other constraints, implementation of the No Action Alternative could be most effectively accomplished independently for the Central Weld County Water District (which supplies water to Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono), Evans, the Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, and Fort Lupton.

1.6.1. CWCWD The CWCWD serves lands primarily in the South Platte River valley between Fort Lupton and Kersey. Because CWCWD is representing Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono in NISP, efforts under the No Action Alternative would likely concentrate in the St. Vrain Creek Basin and the South Platte River valley. CWCWD could purchase and transfer shares in St. Vrain agricultural basin ditches such as the Highland Ditch, the Supply Ditch, or the Last Chance Ditch. To provide for a reliable firm supply under the No Action Alternative, the CWCWD needs about 14,200 AF of storage. The most probable means of providing this storage would be through development of 14,200 AF of gravel pit storage along the South Platte River to the east of Firestone, Dacono, and Frederick with 355 to 475 surface acres, represented by 2 to 4 pits. To augment evaporation losses, an additional 530 to 715 AF of water would be required.

1.6.2. Evans Located just to the south of Greeley, Evans’ current supplies consist of C-BT and Windy Gap units plus shares in five local mutual irrigation companies. While owning raw water supplies, Evans receives treated water through Greeley’s water system. Under the No Action Alternative, Evans’ most likely option for securing additional water is agricultural water transfers from the Big Thompson River basin including ditches, such as the Greeley-Loveland Irrigation Canal. To provide for a reliable firm supply under the No Action Alternative, at least 3,200 AF of storage would need to be constructed. The most probable means of providing this storage would be through development of 3,200 AF of gravel pit storage along the South Platte River in the

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

vicinity of Evans with 80 to 110 surface acres, represented by 1 pit. To augment evaporation losses, an additional 120 to 165 AF of water would be required.

1.6.3. Fort Collins-Loveland Water District The FCLWD is a part of the collective known as the Tri-Districts. As participants in the Pleasant Valley Pipeline, the Tri-Districts have access to Poudre River water. Current sources of supply consist of C-BT units and shares in local mutual irrigation companies. In the absence of NISP, the FCLWD would most likely purchase additional C-BT units.

FCLWD would require approximately 6,000 C-BT units to meet its NISP firm yield demand under the No Action Alternative. Based on the assumption that FCLWD would acquire 6,000 units of C-BT water under the NISP No Action Alternative, no surface storage would be required.

1.6.4. Fort Lupton Fort Lupton is located in the South Platte River drainage in southern Weld County. In the 1990s, Fort Lupton participated in the SWSP to obtain new supplies of C-BT water primarily because of water quality considerations with its existing wells. Fort Lupton presently blends its C-BT water with well water to meet Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. Fort Lupton also derives a portion of its supply from shares in the Fulton Ditch.

Under the No Action Alternative, Fort Lupton could utilize its existing wells, acquire new wells, and implement advanced treatment, such as RO, to meet the water quality requirements. However, some mechanism for brine disposal would be required (e.g., evaporation ponds, landfilling, or deep-well injection), and Fort Lupton would have to develop new augmentation water—in addition to the reusable component of its effluent—to allow for continued well pumping.

Since Fort Lupton would use ground water wells, about 3,000 AF of temporary storage for augmentation water may be needed. The most probable means of providing this storage would be through development of 3,000 AF of gravel pit storage along the South Platte River in the vicinity of Fort Lupton with 75 to 100 surface acres, represented by 1 pit. To augment evaporation losses, an additional 110 to 150 AF of water would be required.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1.7. Action Alternatives—Activities Common to All Alternatives The action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4; Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4) have the following common components:

 Bureau of Reclamation No Contract Subalternative  Bureau of Reclamation Contract Subalternative  South Platte Water Conservation Project (SPWCP) and Galeton Reservoir (20,000 AF or 40,000 AF)  Diversions from the Cache la Poudre River

1.7.1. Bureau of Reclamation Subalternatives All of the action alternatives include a Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) no contract subalternative and a Reclamation contract subalternative. The Reclamation Contract Subalternatives involve an exchange and/or storage contract between the District and Reclamation, and would include a pipeline connection from a new proposed reservoir alternative (Glade Reservoir or Cactus Hill Reservoir) to Horsetooth Reservoir. The Reclamation No Contract Subalternative would include construction of a pipeline from a new proposed reservoir alternative to the SWSP below Carter Lake (Figure 3), and would not require an exchange or storage contract between the District and Reclamation or a connection to Horsetooth Reservoir (i.e., there would be no discretionary action by Reclamation associated with this subalternative). The Reclamation No Contract Subalternative is distinct from the NISP No Action Alternative. The Reclamation Contract and No Contract subalternatives are described or referenced under each of the action alternatives.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

EZ] ProposedRtstl'+'oirs Alternative 2 (Applicant's Proposed -- CanDis DRAFT Action) - Glade Reservoir and South fll.--.1~.>- -- MbjorRiYen Platte Water Conservotion Project MinotRiYars (SPWCP) .,.,~ .., N . 10_000 20,000 ~... ~J. , U£hyr.p.d E..,. 0 Strtom Gogt Of MOOSjM Node Locotion .... fi•1101.,1J .....~ _f,l.rrol 0~ •ERO --ExisringPipelints A bulryi6, 10'J7

Figure 1: Components for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

k!MnroeCanoiiNorth Pou~reSupplyC.nal ~ NorrhForkdPoudr1River '\..

Al tam::::~ tive 3 • DRAFT Cadus Hill Reservoir and SPWCP

MinorRiv11s N Ptepndfa:U5..1rn,{o-psaffn!jl!lMIII 0 ~nam Gage or MOOSIM NOII•lotl¥ti 011 ,_..,;•;;;o.oc::oo ::::::20:·;c.reet fd<111:AJI,._o3 FIGlm

Figure 2: Components for Alternative 3.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

f'ZJ ProposedRtstiYOirs C U:.I•Ilti

Figure 3: Pipeline Alignments from Horsetooth Reservoir.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Potential Agricultl.H"CJI Trcnsfer lends DRAFT (Portion of Alternative 4) luiga1tdlundsS.rrtd byfht NewCa!htCanal -- ~jorRiTtrs

Tran~ • from lrrigllfed londsStr'!'ld by Lori1111 and Wtl • Canal MiRarRiTtrs N .. lllln!IMfratnlnigllfedlondsS.r'!'ldbytht Naw(a(htCa nol 0 ~raamGag t orMOOSIMNodtlOI:oti Ofl 000==20"'7'~ Pr~p~~!!dfa ~ U5. 1fl11¥~uftnw __... . A F~t:211:.1~mop«i_lauil:m: d OP) fZZ'a Proposad Rml'fOin "'"'vl6,1007

Figure 4: Potential Agricultural Transfer Lands.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1.7.2. South Platte Water Conservation Project The SPWCP is a component of all three action alternatives. The SPWCP is the component that facilitates exchanges of water diverted from the South Platte River for water diverted from the Poudre River that would be delivered to the Participants. The SPWCP would include a proposed Galeton Reservoir with a capacity of about 40,000 AF for Alternatives 2 and 3, and 20,000 AF for Alternative 4 (Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 4). Construction of the proposed Galeton Reservoir would include a diversion structure on the South Platte River, a forebay, pump station, and pipelines to deliver water diverted from the South Platte River to Galeton Reservoir and ditch systems for exchange. The SPWCP would be operated to deliver water stored in Galeton Reservoir or diverted from the South Platte River to the New Cache Canal and Larimer- Weld Canal in exchange for water diverted from the Poudre River that would be delivered to the Participants.

1.7.3. Diversions from the Cache la Poudre River All three action alternatives involve the diversion of water from the Poudre River for storage in either the proposed Glade Reservoir (Alternatives 2 and Subalternative 4.1; Figure 1 and Figure 4) or the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir (Alternatives 3 and Subalternative 4.2; Figure 2 and Figure 4). The District has listed three potential points of diversion in its application to the State Water Court: Poudre Valley Canal, Munroe Canal, and the dam site associated with Grey Mountain water rights and the proposed Glade Reservoir. The District proposes to use the existing Poudre Valley Canal or Munroe Canal diversions for NISP. The Poudre Valley Canal would be the primary intake for Glade Reservoir and the only intake for Cactus Hill Reservoir. Use of these existing diversion and intake structures for NISP would require upgrading the structures. The Poudre Valley Canal diversion structure occurs near the mouth of Poudre Canyon (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

The Munroe Canal diversion (also known as the North Poudre Supply Canal) would potentially be used for Glade Reservoir as a secondary point of diversion for the Grey Mountain water right to supply water to NISP Participants associated with the Pleasant Valley Pipeline. During the late summer months, under Alternatives 2 and 4 (with Glade Reservoir), the Munroe Canal diversion could be used to fill Glade Reservoir when water quality in the North Fork of the

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Poudre River is of lesser quality than the mainstem of the Poudre River upstream of the confluence with the North Fork. The Munroe Canal diversion occurs on the mainstem of the Poudre River upstream of the confluence of the North Fork of the Poudre River and would therefore divert water about 5 miles higher on the Poudre River than the Poudre Valley Canal (Figure 1).

Using the Munroe Canal as an alternate diversion allows C-BT water that would otherwise have been diverted at the Munroe Canal headgate to be delivered from Glade Reservoir, and that portion of the river reach between the Munroe Canal headgate and the Horsetooth Reservoir delivery point into the Poudre River (Charles Hansen Supply Canal) would then have more water, compared to the baseline condition. For example, at present, if the Northern Poudre Irrigation Co. (NPIC) diverts 60 cfs of C-BT delivery at the Munroe Canal headgate, 60 cfs would be delivered to the Poudre River from Horsetooth Reservoir. With Glade Reservoir, there would be a physical capability of delivering water from the reservoir into the Munroe Canal near the Glade dam site, and the NPIC Munroe Canal C-BT deliveries could be made directly from Glade Reservoir. However, if the C-BT delivery were made via Glade Reservoir, the water that would have been diverted at the Munroe Canal by NPIC would stay in the river for a net gain to that particular river reach. Overall, if the 15,000 AF of C-BT diversions by NPIC at the Munroe Canal could be replaced with deliveries from Glade Reservoir, and 10,000 AF of NISP water were diverted at the Munroe Canal for Participants associated with the Pleasant Valley Pipeline, there could be a net gain of about 5,000 AF to about 5 miles of the Poudre River between the Munroe Canal and the Charles Hansen Supply Canal (Hansen Canal) as long as there are sufficient C-BT supplies diverted at the Munroe Canal to maintain the exchange.

1.8. Alternative 2—Proposed Action—Glade Reservoir and the SPWCP The District’s Proposed Action is a proposed Glade Reservoir with a capacity of approximately 170,000 AF (Figure 1). Associated with Glade Reservoir would be a forebay, pump station, improvements to the Poudre Valley Canal and diversion to convey water diverted from existing diversions on the Cache la Poudre River to the proposed reservoir, and temporary access roads to be used during construction. Glade Reservoir would inundate about 7 miles of U.S. 287, which would require the relocation of the inundated segment of the highway.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Additionally, Glade Reservoir would inundate a section of the Munroe Canal (also called the North Poudre Supply Canal); therefore, a portion of the canal also would need to be rerouted. Water from Glade Reservoir would be conveyed to Horsetooth Reservoir (Reclamation Contract), or to the SWSP (Reclamation No Contract) for distribution to the Participants. This alternative includes a possible connection to the Pleasant Valley Pipeline.

Two alternative alignments are being considered for the relocation of U.S. 287. Both alignments travel through the abandoned Holcim limestone mine (Holcim Mine). The District’s Proposed Action alignment (the western alignment) travels through the Holcim Mine for about 6 miles, then cuts west through the hogback to meet the existing U.S. 287 alignment near the northern end of the proposed reservoir. The second alternative alignment (the northern alignment) would travel north to follow portions of the alignment of the Owl Canyon Road.

Reclamation No Contract Subalternative. Under Reclamation’s No Contract Subalternative for the District’s Proposed Action, water would be delivered to some of the Northern Group through the Pleasant Valley Pipeline (Figure 1 and Figure 3). The Glade to Carter Pipeline would bring water from Glade Reservoir to the Southern Group through a connection with the existing SWSP southeast of Carter Reservoir.

Reclamation Contract Subalternative. Under Reclamation’s Contract Subalternative for the District’s Proposed Action, water would be delivered to NISP Participants using C-BT facilities under an exchange and/or storage contract with Reclamation, and a pipeline connection between Glade Reservoir and Horsetooth Reservoir, which is operated by Reclamation (Figure 1 and Figure 3). This proposed connection, exchange, and/or storage would require authorization from Reclamation.

1.9. Alternative 3—Cactus Hill Reservoir and the SPWCP Alternative 3 is similar to the District’s Proposed Action except that water diverted from the Poudre River would be stored in the proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir instead of the proposed Glade Reservoir (Figure 2). Cactus Hill Reservoir would have a capacity of approximately 180,000 AF. The Poudre Valley Canal would convey water diverted from the Poudre River to Cactus Hill Reservoir. Construction of Cactus Hill Reservoir would include a forebay,

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

improvements to the Poudre Valley Canal and intake headgate, and construction of temporary access roads. Construction would necessitate realignment of three Weld County roads and two power lines owned and operated by the Platte River Power Authority (PRPA). Water from Cactus Hill Reservoir would be conveyed via a pipeline to Horsetooth Reservoir or the SWSP for distribution to the Participants.

Reclamation No Contract Subalternative. Under Reclamation’s No Contract Subalternative, water would be delivered to some of the Northern Group through the Pleasant Valley Pipeline. The Carter Pipeline would bring water from Cactus Hill Reservoir to the Southern Group (Figure 2 and Figure 3) through a connection with the existing SWSP southeast of Carter Reservoir.

Reclamation Contract Subalternative. Under Reclamation’s Contract Subalternative, water would be delivered to NISP Participants using C-BT facilities under an exchange and/or storage contract between Reclamation and the District, and a pipeline connection between Cactus Hill Reservoir and Horsetooth Reservoir, which is operated by Reclamation (Figure 2 and Figure 3). A discretionary action by Reclamation would be necessary to authorize the pipeline connection to Horsetooth Reservoir and enter into a contract for storage and/or exchange with the District.

1.10. Alternative 4—Glade Reservoir and SPWCP with Agricultural Transfer Lands Alternative 4 is similar to the District’s Proposed Action except that about 12,000 AF of the Participants’ requested yield would come from the purchase and transfer of agricultural water rights to municipal and industrial (M&I) use. This alternative would likely reduce the amount of water that would need to be diverted from the South Platte River through the SPWCP when compared to the Proposed Action. The size of the proposed Glade Reservoir under the Proposed Action would be approximately 170,000 AF (as proposed under the District’s Proposed Action), and Galeton Reservoir would be constructed to store 20,000 AF of water to reflect the contribution of the transferred water (a reduction of 20,000 AF relative to the District’s Proposed Action).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

For the purposes of evaluation in the EIS, a scenario was developed (referred to as Subalternative 4.1 in this report) that involves the transfer of agricultural water from the Larimer-Weld and New Cache canals to obtain 12,000 AF of new firm yield. Prorationing results in approximately 7,400 AF (62 percent) of consumptive use (CU) water being transferred from the Larimer-Weld Canal and roughly 4,600 AF (38 percent) from the New Cache Canal. It is estimated that approximately 21,500 AF of agricultural water rights associated with about 17,376 acres of irrigated land would have to be purchased by NISP to produce the 12,000 AF of transferable CU water. Figure 4 shows one example of agricultural lands that could be involved in this scenario. Under this scenario developed for the EIS, other irrigated lands served by the Larimer-Weld and New Cache Canals could be subject to the transfer of agricultural water rights to M&I use. Other scenarios could be developed that would involve other canals and other irrigated lands in the region.

This alternative includes a subalternative where Cactus Hill Reservoir would be substituted for Glade Reservoir (referred to as Subalternative 4.2 in this report).

Reclamation No Contract Subalternative. Reclamation’s No Contract Subalternative would be identical to Reclamation’s No Contract Subalternative for the District’s Proposed Action or Alternative 3, dependent upon the reservoir.

Reclamation Contract Subalternative. Reclamation’s Contract Subalternative would be identical to Reclamation’s Contract Subalternative for the District’s Proposed Action or Alternative 3, dependent upon the reservoir.

1.11. Objective The primary purpose of this Aquatic Biological Resources Technical Report is to characterize the aquatic biological resources that could potentially be affected by NISP and the alternatives to the project and to evaluate the potential effects on these resources. The aquatic resources potentially affected by NISP include fish and invertebrate populations and their habitat within the project area. The proposed alternatives could potentially affect the water bodies and the aquatic resources within the study area through modified flow regimes, creation of new aquatic reservoir habitat, or changes in water quality. The effects evaluation for the NISP project

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

focused on changes in fish and invertebrate species composition and abundance parameters as indicators of the overall health of the aquatic resources. Therefore, the data presented in the affected environment section of this report focuses on these aspects of the aquatic communities.

Information on the aquatic resources described in the affected environment section of this report was obtained through supplemental surveys of the fish and invertebrate populations and through a review of existing data sources. The supplemental data were collected to augment and update existing data where gaps were identified during the agency scoping process. Methods used to obtain the aquatic resources data are documented in this report.

The information in the effects evaluation section of this report was intended to provide sufficient data to support the determination of potential effects in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections of the EIS. The assumption in this report was that fish, benthic invertebrates, and their habitat represent the components of the aquatic environment of interest for this evaluation. This report also included the assumption that the project and its alternatives could potentially affect aquatic resources through changes in streamflow, and/or changes to water quality and/or changes to riparian vegetation, and/or changes to channel morphology.

1.12. Regulatory Framework The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 declares that “…all federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purpose of this Act.” Under the Act, federal agencies must consult with the Secretary of the Interior, under Section 7 of the Act, whenever an action authorized by such an agency is likely to affect a species listed as threatened or endangered. None of the fish species collected in the NISP project area are federally listed as threatened or endangered, but three species are listed by the state of Colorado. The plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus) is listed as endangered, and the brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni) and common shiner (Luxilus cornutus) are listed as threatened by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). All three species have been collected within the project area in the past. Additionally, the Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile) is a Colorado state species of concern that has been collected previously in the project area.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

The CDOW has the authority to manage and conserve wildlife resources within the state of Colorado for hunted, fished, and non-game wildlife. The CDOW enforces various fishing regulations, including regulations concerning the illegal take or use of threatened and endangered species. Colorado state statute 33-2-102 states that endangered or threatened species should be protected for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing their numbers to the extent possible. Colorado’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, a document prepared in 2005 as part of the requirements of the State Wildlife Grants program (CDOW 2005), states that maintaining, creating, and managing habitat to support sustainable wildlife populations in Colorado and continuing to preserve, protect, and enhance wildlife species that are in danger of becoming endangered or threatened are two goals of the CDOW.

Additionally, Colorado Senate Bill 40 requires that any agency of the state that is planning construction that could potentially affect streams, their banks, or their tributaries must obtain a wildlife certificate issued by the CDOW as part of the effort to protect all fish and wildlife resources in Colorado. A wildlife certificate must also be obtained for any project that could potentially affect a federally or state listed threatened or endangered species, a Colorado species of concern, or the habitat of any of these species. The bill further states that all practicable effort should be expended to avoid and minimize impacts to streams, riparian areas, and wetlands (Colorado Department of Transportation 2003). The Colorado Department of Transportation is a cooperating agency for the EIS and will be involved with any realignment of U.S. 287.

On the federal level, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (U.S. Code Title 16 § 661-667e) places a similar restriction on construction projects, as it requires that the department or agency involved with the project shall first consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and with the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the state where the construction will occur. With specific regard to the impoundment or diversion of waters, the goal of the consultation should be to discuss conservation of wildlife by preventing loss of and damage to the wildlife resources, and to provide for the development and improvement of these resources in connection with water-resource development. Based on this act, adequate provisions must be made for the management of wildlife and their habitat within the project area.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

The Service is a cooperating agency for the EIS and has been actively involved in the EIS process.

1.13. Study Area For the purpose of this technical report, the spatial scope for the Project included water bodies potentially affected by the action alternatives through changes in hydrology. The altered flow regimes could potentially affect segments of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte rivers. The segment of the Cache la Poudre River that could be affected by NISP includes the section from the Poudre Valley Canal downstream to the confluence with the South Platte River. The segment of the South Platte River that could be affected extends from the confluence with the Cache la Poudre River downstream to the Kersey gage, approximately 4.0 kilometers downstream. The Kersey gage was determined to be the downstream limit for the study area due to the numerous reaches of the South Platte River that frequently dry up below the gage. The study area additionally included the proposed alternative locations of the off-channel reservoirs: Glade Reservoir, Cactus Hill Reservoir, and Galeton Reservoir. These streams and reservoir sites were collectively referred to as the study area for the purposes of this technical report.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

2. METHODS AND ANALYSIS

2.1. Existing Environment The aquatic biological resources in the Cache la Poudre and South Platte rivers were described primarily from existing data sources. During scoping for this project, the District and their EIS team met with CDOW to identify data gaps and to coordinate the effects analysis for the project. This included several meetings and a site visit in winter and spring 2005 and a scoping letter from CDOW in April 2005 (Hoover 2005). Supplemental data collection sites for fish, benthic invertebrates, and habitat simulation were identified. The supplemental data were also used to describe the existing environment and to evaluate the effects of the project and its alternatives.

2.1.1. Existing Data Sources In order to gather appropriate information to describe the existing conditions of the aquatic biological resources within the study area, an extensive literature review was conducted, and requests for available aquatic biological data were sent to the CDOW. Data were also available from various sources in project files from previous projects in Colorado conducted by Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. ([CEC], now GEI Consultants, Inc. [GEI]). Existing data were available from as far back as 1970 for some portions of the study area and as recently as 2005 for others. None of the stream segments in the study area have continuous data over this entire period.

Habitat data for the streams in the study area consists of various measurements of parameters such as width and depth for most studies and several other parameters for the more recent studies. For aquatic biological populations, some of the existing information and all of the supplemental information consists of quantitative data. Quantitative data are collected over a known area, such as a known length and width of a stream for fish sampling or a known section of the stream bottom for sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates. An attempt is made during sampling to collect all, or nearly all, of the fish or invertebrates in the sampled area. Quantitative data are comparable between different sites, dates, and studies.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

In other cases, the existing fish and invertebrate information is qualitative data, collected over an unspecified area, with varying levels of sampling effort at each site, and with only a portion of the fish and invertebrates collected in an area. Qualitative data are not comparable between sites and studies in terms of the abundance parameters, such as the density of fish collected. However, qualitative data can usually be compared in terms of relative abundance of the different species and the number and kinds of species collected, assuming that the sampling effort was sufficient to collect a representative number of the fish or invertebrate species present at a site. Some of the existing information available for this study area consists of qualitative data on species distribution and does not include relative abundance or even the number of organisms collected.

Habitat Data Some of the existing data sources make at least brief observations of habitat conditions at the sampling sites. Most of these studies report various habitat measurements, such as stream width and depth. The National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) made more detailed measurements such as substrate and bank stability ratings (USGS 2003). The existing information is summarized briefly in this report to characterize habitat conditions in the study area.

Existing habitat simulation information using PHABSIM (Bovee 1982) was available for several sections of the Cache la Poudre River in the study area. This information was used in the effects analysis.

Fish Population Data Historic fish population data for the study area were available from several different studies. Propst (1982) collected fish at sites within the study area on both the Cache la Poudre River and the South Platte River to determine fish species distribution within the South Platte River Basin from 1978 to 1980. Six sites on the Cache la Poudre River and one site on the South Platte River were sampled once using electrofishing methods during the study period to provide qualitative data on the fish populations in these rivers. The size of each stream section that was

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

electrofished varied and was not specified at each site. The fish collected were identified, counted, weighed, and measured (Propst 1982).

The fish populations on the Cache la Poudre River were also surveyed via electrofishing methods from 1970-1972 at three sites, from 1973-1975 at six sites, and from 1980-1992 at ten sites (Bestgen and Fausch 1993). The location of the sites ranged from a site upstream of Fort Collins to a site upstream of Greeley. Sites were sampled in the spring, summer, and fall in most years, with 460 fish collection efforts made over the 1970-1992 study period. Study sites were estimated to be 150 meters (m) in length. This study provided qualitative data with species lists, mean species richness, and kilograms of fish caught at each site, as well as the frequency of occurrence for each species at the sites (Bestgen and Fausch 1993). Additionally, fish populations at these sites continued to be surveyed in spring 1993, spring 1994, and fall 1994 by Bestgen as reported by CDOW (2006) and Nesler et al. (1997). The qualitative data collected in 1993 and 1994 provided a species list, as well as the frequency of occurrence, relative abundance, and total number caught for each species.

NAWQA surveyed fish populations at sites within the study area on both rivers (USGS 2003). A single site on the South Platte River near Kersey, CO, was surveyed annually in late summer or fall from 1993-1995, 1998, and 2002-2003. Two additional sites, located immediately downstream of the original site, were surveyed in 2002 only. Also, a survey in 2004 of a single site on the South Platte River at Kersey was documented by the CDOW as being conducted by NAWQA (CDOW 2006), but the results of this survey were not included with the other survey results from the USGS (2003). A site on the Cache la Poudre River was surveyed annually by NAWQA from 1993-1995, with two additional sites located immediately upstream of the original site sampled in 1994 as well. All data provided were qualitative, with site lengths estimated as being between 150-300 m, following NAWQA protocol (Moulton et al. 2002). This study provided species lists and relative abundance for these sites.

Fausch surveyed sites on the Cache la Poudre River in spring of 1995 and 1996. The results of these surveys are recorded in unpublished data from the CDOW (2006). Three sites were surveyed in 1995, and two of those sites were again surveyed in 1996. All sites were located in

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

or downstream of Fort Collins. This study provided qualitative data such as species lists and total number caught for each species by site and year. Site lengths ranged from 46 m to 72 m.

Bestgen surveyed some of the same sites as Bestgen and Fausch (1993) on the Cache la Poudre River, as well as some additional sites, in spring 1997, spring 2001, fall 2001, summer 2003, fall 2004, and winter 2005 (CDOW 2006). The number of sites surveyed each year and season varied, with four sites surveyed in 1997, seven sites surveyed in 2001 and 2003, six sites surveyed in 2004, and two sites surveyed in 2005. Site locations ranged from a site in Fort Collins to a site upstream of Greeley. Additionally, the CDOW (2006) provided data from a single site located downstream of Fort Collins surveyed in fall 2001 by Myrick and students from Colorado State University, and a single site located upstream of Fort Collins surveyed in fall 2003 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Environmental Mapping and Assessment Program (EMAP). The results from the surveys of these two sites are included with Bestgen’s results. All surveys provided qualitative data listing the species found and the total number caught per species by site and year. Site lengths were approximately 100 m where recorded. The EMAP data provided lengths and weights for the fish collected (CDOW 2006).

A single site on the South Platte River near Kersey was surveyed in fall 1994 and fall 2004, with results documented by the CDOW (2006). The names of the crew members who conducted the survey were not listed. All information provided was qualitative, and included a list of species collected and the total number of each species collected. No site lengths were provided.

Macroinvertebrate Population Data Existing benthic macroinvertebrate data were available from sampling conducted between 1992 and 1995. Macroinvertebrate populations were quantitatively sampled quarterly at eight sites on the Cache la Poudre River between Fort Collins and Greeley from 1992-1995 (Shieh et al. 1999). Three samples per site were taken with a Surber sampler. Data for all dates were combined to produce species lists and mean densities, number of taxa, Shannon-Weaver diversity values, and evenness values.

NAWQA surveyed macroinvertebrate populations at sites on the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers (USGS 2003). Macroinvertebrates were collected in August 1993 from one site on

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

the South Platte River within the study area. One site on the Cache la Poudre River within the study area was sampled for macroinvertebrates on a yearly basis from 1993-1995; another three sites were sampled once in 1993 only. The sampling methods provided qualitative data including a macroinvertebrate species list with abundance for each species at each site.

2.1.2. Supplemental Data Existing information was available for both fish and macroinvertebrates for many sections of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte rivers. However, for fish, almost all of the information was at least 10 years old and the more recent NAWQA data were collected at only a single site in the Cache la Poudre River and the South Platte River. For macroinvertebrates, all of the existing data were at least 10 years old. During agency scoping, the CDOW and the EIS team agreed that supplemental sampling of fish and macroinvertebrates was warranted to update the existing data. Therefore, CDOW and CEC jointly sampled fish at multiple sites in the Cache la Poudre River and CEC sampled invertebrates in the late summer and fall of 2005. No supplemental habitat measurements were made during fish and invertebrate collection except for the length and width of the site. Some brief descriptions of habitat conditions were noted during sampling. Existing fish information was available for the segment of the South Platte River in the study area from the last ten years. The EIS Team and CDOW agreed that no supplemental data on fish or invertebrates needed to be collected from the South Platte River. GEI collected PHABSIM habitat simulation data in 2006 at a site in the South Platte River to be used in the effects analysis.

Sampling Locations Nine sites on the Cache la Poudre River were surveyed for fish and macroinvertebrates between August and December 2005 (Figure 5, Table 1). The sites sampled in November and December were surveyed later due to high flows during the August sampling events. Some of these sites had been previously sampled by other agencies in the studies described previously, while others had no existing data available. GPS coordinates for each site were recorded at the time of sampling (Appendix A).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

/ tJ' _. . ~ ~ w, ---,-' I ~ ..... "~~ ~, ~ .. ~ .\ v "' \ ·•!*•~·~ ~Yl t~ I ' ... 71l I. ~ ' ... p,. " • ...... \ {.) : ~ ~ )~ I- l~. ~,•od re..J~.,,._..... ,..,.. ,,.. il <-; ~ « -··~ ,r; v I ? ~ 0~ I\ f> '"- ,.J. .r I "" "'::' p \ . I (V1 '-, ,_; r--.\ •?: .- 1\. 1~1. ~ ~ / "' \ '-.;7 I r'~ A:; '=- >,...... } ' " A ~' .Q...,.[' ~ ..;~:. ~ ~ ·," '" .J l•m> I f\- I'-..- ~

r~ -ftlj ..,I '\:"' ~; t. 6 ~* ~~~~... . )! • 2005 Stl.ldy Sites - b UI - ll.tj

Figure 5: Study Area on the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers, Hydrologic Nodes, and 2005 Sampling Sites.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 1: Locations and Dates of Supplemental Data Collection on the Cache la Poudre River, Colorado, 2005. Date Sampled Site Description Fish Invertebrates Near mouth of Poudre Canyon (Graves 1 11/11/2005 12/8/2005 Property) 2 At Overland Park near Laporte 11/11/2005 12/8/2005 3 At Martinez Park in Fort Collins 11/11/2005 12/8/2005 Upstream of Rest Stop on South I-25 in 4 8/31/2005 8/31/2005 Fort Collins 5 Near Frank State Wildlife Area 8/30/2005 8/30/2005 Behind Kodak Plant downstream of 6 8/30/2005 8/30/2005 Windsor Downstream of Greeley #3 Canal 7 8/30/2005 8/30/2005 Diversion Near Railroad Crossing Downstream of 8 8/29/2005 8/29/2005 59th Avenue Near Confluence with the South Platte 9 8/29/2005 8/29/2005 River at Mitani State Wildlife Area

Fish Sampling Methods Fish populations were quantitatively sampled by CEC jointly with CDOW at Sites 1 through 9 on August 29-31 and November 11, 2005, by making two sampling passes through the stream sites using bank electrofishing gear. At Site 7, a single pass was made with the electrofishing gear, as muddy, deep water and hidden rip-rap created unsafe sampling conditions. Bank electrofishing equipment consists of a 4,000 watt generator, a Coffelt voltage regulator (VVP-15), and up to five electrodes. Additionally, backpack electrofishing units were used at some sites to aid in fish collection and to search for rare species outside of the quantitative sampling site. The upstream and downstream ends of the sample sections were placed at natural barriers to fish movement to reduce the potential for fish migrating into or out of the study reach during sampling. Site lengths ranged from 79 m at Site 8 to 243 m at Site 1.

Fish captured from each pass were kept separate to allow estimates of population density of each species using the maximum likelihood estimator in the “Microfish” program developed by the U.S. Forest Service (Van Deventer and Platts 1983 and 1989). If capture efficiency is high

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

(greater than or equal to 70 percent of the fish captured on the first pass), then two passes are considered adequate for estimating population density.

For Sites 1 through 5, capture efficiency was generally high, and accurate population estimates could be calculated for most fish species. For sites downstream of Site 5, more small-bodied species (minnow species) and/or abundant young of year fish were present, and accurate population estimates could not be determined for all species. Additionally, electrofishing efficiency was hampered at several of these sites by high conductivity and muddy water, particularly at Site 7. Population estimates could not be calculated for this site as only one pass was completed, but the number of fish collected was used as the population estimate. Site 5 had a side-channel that was electrofished in addition to the main channel of the river. A single pass was made through this side-channel, with the fish kept separate from those collected in the main channel, in order to provide additional fish species distribution data for that site.

Fish were identified (see Appendix B for common and scientific names of all fish species mentioned in this report), counted, measured for total length, weighed, and released. In the case of excessive numbers of a species (i.e., greater than 50 individuals) collected at a site, a subsample (approximately 50 individuals) was measured and weighed individually; the remainder were counted and batch-weighed. This sampling provided quantitative data with species lists and estimates of density (number/ha) and biomass (kg/ha). The data collected at these sites are presented in Appendix C.

The health or condition of the older fish was evaluated using the relative weight index (Wr). With this index, the measured weight of a fish is compared to a length-specified standard weight for that particular species which is used to represent optimum management conditions for the species. Relative weight values usually fall between 70 and 130 (Murphy and Willis 1991), with values between 95 and 105 being the optimum management target for most species (Anderson 1980; Anderson and Gutreuter 1983). Relative weight is not usually calculated for most non-game fish species or for young fish less than 100-200 mm long, although this length varies with individual species.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Linear regression techniques (Snedecor and Cochran 1967) were employed to determine if any longitudinal trends in fish density, number of species, or biomass could be detected among the sites. If a significant trend ( = 0.05) was apparent, then it was determined whether the trend indicated increasing or decreasing populations longitudinally.

Macroinvertebrate Sampling Methods Benthic macroinvertebrates from the Cache la Poudre River were sampled on August 29-31 or December 8, 2005, from all study sites (Table 1). Three quantitative replicate samples were taken from riffles at each site using a modified Hess sampler, which encloses 0.086 m2 and has a mesh size of 500 μm (Canton and Chadwick 1984). Three replicate samples provide reliable density estimates for stream macroinvertebrate populations (Canton and Chadwick 1988). To provide supplemental information on species composition, a qualitative sweep sample was also collected at each site with a long-handled kick net (500 μm mesh) in habitat types other than riffles, such as pools, runs, banks, etc.

Samples were preserved in the field with 95 percent ethanol and returned to Chadwick & Associates ([C&A], now GEI), Inc. aquatic laboratory for analysis. In the laboratory, organisms were sorted from the debris, identified to the lowest taxonomic level (typically genus or species), and counted. Chironomids and oligochaetes were mounted on microscope slides and cleaned prior to identification and counting. Chironomids were sent to Dr. Leonard Ferrington (University of Minnesota) for identification, and oligochaetes were identified by C&A.

Due to very large numbers of organisms (greater than 300 individuals/sample), all Hess samples were subsampled by sorting a minimum of 300 organisms in a minimum subsample of 1/10 of the sample. A subsequent search for rare/uncommon taxa was conducted in the remaining sample (Vinson and Hawkins 1996; Carter and Resh 2001). Quality assurance for identifications and enumerations (Whittaker 1975; Stribling et al. 2003), randomly conducted on 10 percent of the samples, indicated a minimum of 96.8 percent agreement for taxonomic and count accuracy.

The analysis of the quantitative and qualitative benthic macroinvertebrate data collected provides information on species composition, number of species, and density (numbers/m2) for

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Hess samples, and relative abundance (number/sample) for sweep samples at each site (Appendix D). Further analysis included the calculation of two indices. The Shannon-Weaver diversity index (H’) is recommended by the EPA as a measure of the effects of stress on macroinvertebrate communities (Klemm et al. 1990). This index generally has values ranging from 0 to over 4, with values less than 1.0 indicative of a stream community under severe stress (Wilhm 1970; Klemm et al. 1990). The Hilsenhoff biotic index (HBI), which is used to detect organic pollution, was also calculated. The HBI assigns tolerance values to taxa of macroinvertebrates and weighs the abundance of each taxon to evaluate pollution levels. HBI values range from 0-10, with values increasing in response to perturbation (Hilsenhoff 1987; Barbour et al. 1999).

Density and number of taxa are generally good indicators of conditions at a site. Also, the presence of mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) species, collectively referred to as the EPT taxa, can be used as an indicator of water quality. These insect groups are considered to be sensitive to a wide range of pollutants (Wiederholm 1984; Plafkin et al. 1989; Klemm et al. 1990; Lenat and Penrose 1996; Wallace et al. 1996). Higher values for EPT taxa generally indicate better water quality.

Mean density, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa from each of the sites were used to assess any longitudinal trends in invertebrate populations. Using linear regression techniques (Snedecor and Cochran 1967), the data were assessed to determine whether density or number of taxa increased or decreased consistently in a downstream direction. Because benthic invertebrate population density data exhibit “clumped,” negative binomial distributions, total density data were log10 transformed to normalize distribution prior to statistical analysis (Elliot 1977). If a significant trend ( = 0.05) was present, then it was determined whether the trend indicated increasing or decreasing populations longitudinally.

2.2. Effects Evaluation The information and evaluations presented in this Technical Report concentrate on the aspects of the aquatic resources that are relevant for assessing potential effects in the EIS for fish and benthic invertebrate communities. For the purposes of evaluating effects, we compared

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

streamflow and simulated habitat availability for Alternatives 2, 3, 4.1 and 4.2 to simulated baseline hydrology and habitat availability. This comparison evaluated the changes in hydrology and habitat for fish and invertebrates that would occur for each alternative. The No Action Alternative would involve almost no changes to stream flows in the study area because this alternative relies on the transfer of agricultural water rights and assumes no change in point of diversion. The No Action Alternative would have negligible effects on aquatic biological resources along the Cache la Poudre and South Platte rivers compared to existing conditions and was not evaluated further.

The effects analysis also incorporated information from three other resource areas. Information from the Water Quality Technical Report (ERO and HDR 2008) was used to evaluate the effects of changes in water quality on communities of aquatic organisms. Information for riparian vegetation from the Vegetation Technical Report (ERO 2008a) and channel morphology from the Stream Morphology Technical Report (ERO 2008b) was used to evaluate the indirect effect on habitat to fish and invertebrates. All three of these other resource areas are conducting additional studies and when these studies are done, the resulting effects on aquatic organisms may have to be revised.

2.2.1. Approach to Analysis This analysis evaluated the potential for direct and indirect effects on fish and invertebrate communities in the study area. Fish and invertebrate communities are collectively referred to as aquatic biological resources in this report. The relevant parameters for evaluation for the fish and invertebrate communities in the study streams were the number and abundance of species. The analysis was focused on the suitability of the habitat to support higher or lower number of species and abundance of fish and invertebrates for each action alternative.

Effects could be negligible, beneficial, or adverse. A negligible effect indicates that fish and invertebrate populations would continue to fluctuate within the normal historical range and any changes, either beneficial or adverse, would be too small to be detected by someone familiar with the resource or by collecting sampling data. Beneficial and adverse effects could vary in intensity from minor, to moderate and major. A minor effect, either beneficial or adverse, would be apparent only through repeated sampling of fish or invertebrates. A minor effect would be the

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

gain or loss of a few species of fish or invertebrates and a slight long-term change in abundance. A moderate effect would be easily detected by someone familiar with the resources in a stream. This would include obvious changes in species composition and abundance that would be detectable by sampling data or by someone familiar with the resource. A major effect would be easily apparent. A major beneficial effect would represent substantial improvements to the diversity and abundance of fish or invertebrate communities. A major adverse effect would substantially compromise the functions of the aquatic community with significant reductions in diversity and abundance.

The hydrology of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers has changed substantially over the last 150 years compared to pre-settlement conditions. There have also been changes to the fish and invertebrate communities as well. The description of the existing environment includes a brief summary of the changes in aquatic resources over time. The effects analysis took into account these changes that occurred from prior to settlement to the present and further evaluated the effects of the project.

The Cache la Poudre River in the study area represents a transition from a coldwater stream to a warmwater stream. Briefly, coldwater streams have water temperatures low enough throughout the year to support trout. In the study area, this includes the Cache la Poudre River upstream of Fort Collins. From approximately the western edge of Fort Collins downstream to approximately Interstate 25, the Cache la Poudre River is a transitional stream from coldwater to warmwater habitat. Downstream of I-25, the Cache la Poudre River is a warmwater stream. The South Platte River in the study area is also a warmwater stream. Warmwater streams have water temperatures that are too high to support trout, and usually support a variety of game and non- game fish species.

This evaluation used two methods for assessing the potential effects of the action alternatives. The first method was a comparison of hydrologic parameters and the second method was the Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) portion of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM). The comparison of hydrologic parameters summarizes changes in flow that are relevant to fish and invertebrates. The PHABSIM method (Bovee 1982) simulates a relationship between habitat availability and flow in streams. The two methods are

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

described below. These methods were used, along with professional judgment, to evaluate the relative effects of the action alternatives to the number and abundance of fish and invertebrate species.

2.2.2. Hydrology The comparison of hydrologic parameters between alternatives was the primary tool in this report for evaluating the potential effects on aquatic resources in the streams in the study area. In this report, we used summaries of mean monthly flow at nine locations on the Cache la Poudre River and one location on the South Platte River (Figure 5). Hydrology was provided for wet, average, and dry years by HDR using the Poudre Basin MODSIM model network (HDR 2006a). The model study period was the 50-year period from 1950 to 1999. Average, wet, and dry years are explained in more detail in the Water Resources Technical Report (HDR 2006a). Briefly, average year hydrology includes 16 of the years in the hydrologic study period from 1950 through 1999; wet year hydrology is based on the 15 wettest years in the period and dry year hydrology is based on the 15 driest years in this period. There were two extremely wet years and two extremely dry years that were excluded from the hydrologic simulations (HDR 2006a).

Data Analysis The long-term condition of aquatic biological communities, including fish and invertebrates, are generally influenced by annual extremes in flow and habitat conditions, which can act as a bottleneck to regulate population size. Average, or more favorable conditions during the year have less effect on population size and community structure. This evaluation of effects focused on relevant hydrologic parameters that are most likely to influence fish and benthic invertebrate populations in the streams in the study area. In general, the key parameters focus on aspects of the flow regime that have the most potential to limit conditions for fish and invertebrates. The two key parameters were the maximum and minimum flows during the year, based on mean-monthly hydrology. In the study area, high flows usually occur in late spring or early summer during snowmelt runoff. Low flows usually occur in late summer during the irrigation season or in winter. During high flows, high water velocity makes habitat less suitable for fish and invertebrates, they have to expend more energy to hold their position, and risk being dislodged downstream and out of preferred habitat locations. This is especially true for

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

invertebrates and the younger life stages of fish. Although high flows have long-term benefits to channel maintenance functions, habitat availability for fish and invertebrates is generally lower at peak flows in the streams in this study area. During low flows, shallow depths and water receding away from portions of the channel may result in less habitat and lower quality habitat for fish and invertebrates. We assume that decreasing the magnitude of low flows (making them more extreme) or increasing the magnitude of high flows (more extreme) could have adverse effects on aquatic resources. Increasing low flows or decreasing high flows could have beneficial effects. However, the general effects were evaluated more fully on a case by case basis. Separate analyses were conducted for wet, average, and dry year hydrology.

A difference in maximum or minimum flows of 10 percent or greater was used to indicate that aquatic biological resources may be potentially affected and warranted further analysis. Differences of less than 10 percent are likely within the margin of error of the hydrologic and statistical data and would be unlikely to result in adverse or beneficial effects on aquatic biota. Thus, changes in maximum or minimum flows of less than 10 percent were considered to have no effect on aquatic resources and were not discussed further. A difference of more than 10 percent is reasonable for this effects analysis.

Differences in key parameters of 10 percent or greater were further evaluated in the Direct Effects Analysis section of this report. These changes may or may not result in effects on aquatic biota, depending upon the specific circumstances in each stream segment and each hydrologic scenario as discussed in our evaluation. Although we focused our analysis on the two parameters noted above, we also reviewed the complete set of hydrology for wet, average, and dry years to ensure that special circumstances did not occur that would lead to effects during other times of the year.

Fish and benthic invertebrate communities naturally fluctuate from year to year from the influences of factors such as weather and flow conditions (Hall and Knight 1981; Leland et al. 1986; Platts and Nelson 1988; Pearsons et al. 1992; Cattaneo et al. 2002; Chadwick et al. 2004). The fluctuations in population parameters for fish and invertebrates in the study area can be substantial under existing conditions. For example, several studies of invertebrates on the Cache la Poudre River indicate variability of several hundred percent for abundance and number of

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

species between sites and between years. However, the fish and invertebrates in the study area of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte rivers have not been sampled at a frequency or extent to allow a good characterization of the year to year variability. Therefore, it is unlikely that a 10 percent change in hydrology in any single year type (e.g., only wet years) would result in a detectable long-term change in fish or invertebrate communities, given the natural background variability. Finally, analysis of hydrology may suggest some effects that are contradicted by output from PHABSIM. These factors were taken into account when evaluating the effects of the alternatives on fish and invertebrates communities in the study area.

As a separate analysis of extreme flows, HDR also summarized historic data on low flows and fluctuations at gages in the study area (HDR 2006b). This information was used to evaluate flow events that may be influencing the existing fish and invertebrate communities. Data were summarized for the Canyon Gage, the Lincoln Gage, the Boxelder Gage, and the Greeley Gage on the Cache la Poudre River, and the Kersey Gage on the South Platte River. At each of these gages, daily historic data were summarized for the number of days with low flows of 0 cfs, 5 cfs, and 10 cfs in the Cache la Poudre River, low flows of 0 cfs, 100 cfs and 200 cfs in the South Platte River, and flow fluctuations of -50 percent, +100 percent, and +200 percent on consecutive days.

2.2.3. Instream Flow Incremental Methodology During coordination meetings, CDOW requested the use of PHABSIM (Bovee 1982) as the habitat evaluation tool in certain segments of the study area. GEI collected supplemental data for PHABSIM on the South Platte River just downstream of the confluence with the Cache la Poudre River. PHABSIM data were also available for the coldwater section of the Cache la Poudre River upstream of Fort Collins from a study for the Colorado Water Resource and Power Development Authority (Envirosphere 1989). The Poudre River Corridor Fishery Plan (Nelson 1987) contains fish habitat simulations for Martinez Park in Fort Collins and a section of the river downstream of Fort Collins near Riverbend Ponds Natural Area (Nelson 1987). This information was also used in this effects analysis.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

PHABSIM Data Collection and Simulation GEI collected supplemental PHABSIM data for fish habitat simulation at one location on the South Platte River for this study. The locations of PHABSIM data collection transects were discussed with CDOW and seven transects were established on the Mitani State Wildlife Area on the South Platte River just downstream of the confluence with the Cache la Poudre River. This is in the vicinity of the proposed diversion from the South Platte River for the SPWCP. Measurements were collected in December, 2006 at a low flow. Data collection followed the procedures in Trihey and Wegner (1981) and Bovee (1982) using a representative reach approach. At points across each transect, data collected included water surface elevation, cross-section profile, depth, velocity, substrate and cover. Areas of cover for fish were recorded based on procedures in Fannin and Nelson (1986) and C&A (1989).

The transect data were analyzed with the PHABSIM model (USGS 2001) of IFIM. PHABSIM simulates the relationship between flow level and hydraulic properties (i.e., depth, velocity, substrate, and cover). The link between the hydraulic portions of PHABSIM and habitat for fish is habitat suitability curves for different fish species. Suitability curves present the relative use value over a range of depth, velocity, substrate, and cover conditions that may be present in a stream as modeled by PHABSIM. This process simulates the fish habitat availability (weighted useable area, or “WUA”), producing a WUA versus discharge relationship for each modeled life stage for each fish species traditionally expressed as square feet of WUA per 1000 feet of stream (ft2/1000 ft, 0.09 m2/305 m) available over a range of flows. Combining this relationship with flow data for a section of stream, the fish habitat availability for the alternatives was calculated. These relationships were used to predict the potential effects of differences in flow resulting from the project and its alternatives to fish habitat and populations.

In the South Platte River, many non-game species of fish are present. However, there are no suitability curves available for many of these species. Suitability curves are available for white sucker (Twomey et al. 1984), a native large-bodied species. Suitability curves were available for three common, native, smaller-bodied species, plains killifish, red shiner, and sand shiner, based on relationships developed for the Platte River in Nebraska (Conklin et al. 1996).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

In the Cache la Poudre River, WUA versus discharge curves were available for brown and rainbow trout for the coldwater section of the river upstream of Fort Collins (Envirosphere 1989). For the transitional habitat in Fort Collins at Martinez Park, WUA versus discharge curves were available for brown trout and white suckers (Nelson 1987). For the transitional habitat downstream of Fort Collins, WUA versus discharge curves were available for white suckers (Nelson 1987).

Segmentation PHABSIM simulates and represents habitat for specific segments of river. Therefore, the Cache la Poudre River was divided into four separate segments for PHABSIM analysis and effects evaluation. The coldwater section of the Cache la Poudre River from the Poudre Valley Canal downstream to the western edge of Fort Collins at Shields Street represents the first segment (Figure 6). In this segment, brown and rainbow trout are self-sustaining and are the dominant species of game fish present. All life stages of trout are present and habitat was simulated for the adult, juvenile, and fry life stages of brown and rainbow trout using the WUA versus discharge relationships from Envirosphere (1989). Envirosphere (1989) also attempted to simulate habitat for the spawning life stage of trout, but habitat was apparently not present for this life stage of both brown and rainbow trout with zero habitat availability at all flows.

The second segment of the river is the transitional habitat in Fort Collins from Shields Street to College Avenue (Figure 6). In this segment, there are a variety of coldwater and warmwater species. However, WUA versus discharge curves are not available for most species. WUA curves were available for the adult, juvenile, fry, and spawning life stages of brown trout and for the adult/juvenile (combined), fry and spawning life stages of white suckers (Nelson 1987) from data collected in Martinez Park. Brown trout and white suckers are common in this segment of the river. Curves were available for rainbow trout, but few are present and this species apparently does not maintain a resident population in this segment of the river. Relationships for carp and smallmouth bass were also available, but were not used as these non-native species are rare or absent from this segment of the river based on the supplemental data collection in 2005.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Glade Reservoir 170.000 AF

•

• ~ Proposed Reservoirs -- Canals DRAFT -- Major Rivers 0 Stream Gage or MOOSIM Node Location N --- Existing Pipelines ~~...~~C== 2i.s...... 5~ s - Lakes A

Figure 6: Hydrologic Nodes and Stream Segments Used in Effects Evaluation, Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

The third segment of the Cache la Poudre River is the transitional habitat from College Avenue in Fort Collins downstream to I-25. Many non-game species of fish are present in this segment. However, appropriate habitat information is not available for most of these species. WUA versus discharge relationships were available for the adult/juvenile, fry and spawning life stages of white suckers from data collected at Riverbend Ponds Natural Area (Nelson 1987). White suckers are common in this segment of the river.

No PHABSIM simulations are available for the fourth segment of the Cache la Poudre River downstream of I-25. The EIS team and CDOW agreed that no supplemental PHABSIM data would be collected in this segment. This section of the river reflects the effects of multiple changes in hydrology, water quality, and habitat degradation and the assumption that PHABSIM- simulated habitat would be directly correlated with the aquatic communities is probably not valid. This segment contains a variety of warmwater species of fish. An evaluation of hydrology was the only method used for effects evaluation for this segment of the Cache la Poudre River.

In the South Platte River, there is only one segment in the study area. In this segment, GEI developed supplemental WUA versus discharge curves for the four life stages of white suckers, and the adult life stages of plains killifish, red shiners, and sand shiners.

Life Stages and Periodicity Fish pass through several life stages during their lives from egg to adult. Habitat simulation information is available for several of these life stages. For example, for brown trout, habitat information is available for spawning, fry, juvenile, and adults. For many of the warmwater fish, habitat information is commonly only available for the adult life stage.

Periodicity refers to the time of the year when a life stage is present, and habitat simulations are appropriate. For example, brown trout spawn in fall, and habitat simulations for the spawning life stage are only appropriate for fall; simulating habitat for spawning brown trout in spring would be inappropriate and irrelevant to the effects evaluation.

Brown and rainbow trout juveniles and adults are present throughout the year, and the periodicity for these two life stages is the entire year. Brown trout spawn in October and

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

November; rainbow trout spawn in April and May. Trout eggs hatch into fry in spring and fry are present through the summer. The periodicity for brown trout fry is March through August; for rainbow trout fry, the periodicity is May through August.

For white sucker, the periodicity is similar to rainbow trout. Suckers spawn in spring, probably March and April. Sucker fry are present from May through August. Adult and juvenile suckers are present throughout the year. However, the juvenile and adult life stages had identical habitat suitability information (Twomey, et al. 1984). Data were presented as a combined adult/juvenile life stage in this report.

In the South Platte River, sand shiner, red shiner, plains killifish and white sucker maintain self-sustaining populations. Only information for the adult life stage of sand and red shiner and plains killifish was available for habitat simulation. Simulations for these three species were run throughout the year. For white sucker, information was available for spawning, fry, and the combined adult/juvenile life stages. The periodicity for white suckers in the South Platte was the same as that for the Cache la Poudre River.

Data Analysis CEC simulated fish habitat with PHABSIM for average years, wet years, and dry years using the mean- monthly hydrology provided by HDR. Using the available hydrology, we simulated habitat for each of the species and life stage, given the segmentation and periodicity described above. However, as discussed for the analysis of hydrologic data, fish populations are generally influenced by extremes in flow and habitat conditions, which can act as a bottleneck to limit population size. We focused our effects analysis on the minimum habitat levels for each species/life stage. Therefore, we determined the minimum habitat level in a given year type (average, wet, dry).

As was the case for the hydrologic analysis, differences in minimum habitat levels of 10 percent or greater were used to indicate that fish populations may be potentially affected and warranted further analysis. Differences less than 10 percent are likely within the margin of error of the hydrologic and habitat simulation data and would be unlikely to result in adverse or beneficial effects on fish.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

2.2.4. Effects Analysis Hydrologic data were available for effects analysis for all of the stream segments in the study area. The comparison of hydrologic parameters was used as the primary method for evaluating effects on fish and invertebrates, as described above. Professional judgment was used to evaluate effects of differences in flow regimes between baseline conditions and the alternatives. In general, differences in maximum and minimum flows between baseline conditions and the alternatives were evaluated. However, we also evaluated changes to the seasonal pattern of high and low flows that may disrupt biological processes; such as changes in the high flow season from late spring to winter.

In addition, for fish, we used the PHABSIM information, in the segments where it was available, to further evaluate the differences in hydrology between alternatives. Interpretation of PHABSIM information was done with professional judgment. In some cases there were increases in habitat for some life stages and decreases in habitat for others for the same alternative and these contradictions needed to be resolved. Generally, adult fish need more habitat than the younger life stages, and spawning habitat is not simulated very well with PHABSIM. Therefore, changes in adult habitat availability were weighed more heavily than that for the younger life stages, especially spawning. However, we also evaluated all life stages to see if any life history bottlenecks would occur. For example if adult habitat availability increases, but fry habitat was eliminated, then the net effect would be adverse because the population would be unable to sustain itself.

The hydrologic information and the PHABSIM information sometimes led to contradictory tendencies concerning fish habitat and the effects of the differences in hydrology. These contradictions were evaluated by using professional judgment in the cases where they occurred. In general, the hydrologic information was given more weight than the PHABSIM information for several reasons. First, not all fish species in the community were modeled with PHABSIM. At most, habitat for only a few species in each segment was modeled, while the hydrology would affect the entire community. Second, PHABSIM simulations were not available for benthic invertebrates, and this component of the affected environment could only be evaluated with hydrology. Also, PHABSIM has been criticized for not being biologically relevant to

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

populations of fish. Few cause and effect relationships have been demonstrated between PHABSIM output and fish populations. Finally, there is no state-of-the-art for interpreting PHABSIM information; there are many different techniques that have been utilized with none that have been proven to be most useful. Contradictions between hydrology and PHABSIM are discussed in more detail in specific instances in the effects evaluation.

The exclusion of the two extremely wet and dry years from the hydrologic data is not expected to have much effect on the analysis. This evaluation focuses on the differences between baseline hydrology and hydrology for the alternatives in typical dry years and typical wet years. Extreme dry and wet years are not analyzed separately. In extremely dry years, there would be limited or no water available for diversion. Flows would tend to be lower than optimum for fish and invertebrates. The inclusion of the two extremely dry years in the 15 year hydrology data set would tend to make the baseline conditions worse and would slightly dampen the relative effects of the alternatives. In extremely wet years, flows would tend to be higher than optimum for fish and invertebrates and inclusion of the two extremely wet years would make baseline conditions worse and dampen the relative effects of the alternatives. Excluding the extremely dry and wet years focuses the analysis on conditions that would be more typical for the project and not conditions that would be skewed by years when the project would not be functioning normally.

The suitability of a stream to support aquatic resources is also influenced by water quality and channel stability. Riparian vegetation has an influence on bank and channel stability. Therefore, the results of water quality, channel stability, and riparian vegetation analyses were also incorporated into the evaluation of effects on aquatic resources. Changes in water quality between existing conditions and the alternatives were evaluated in the Water Quality Technical Report (ERO and HDR 2008). Changes to channel morphology and stability were evaluated in the Stream Morphology Technical Report (ERO 2008b). Changes to riparian vegetation were evaluated in the Vegetation Technical Report (ERO 2008a). Changes to water quality and vegetation were incorporated into our analysis using professional judgment of the effects on the suitability of the stream to support fish and invertebrates. All three of these other resource areas

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

are conducting additional studies and when these studies are done, the resulting effects on aquatic organisms may have to be revised.

The project alternatives include the construction of proposed Glade Reservoir, Galeton Reservoir, and/or Cactus Hill Reservoir. These three reservoirs would represent new, standing water habitat where there is now mostly dry sections of stream. We evaluated the suitability of these reservoirs to support fish and invertebrates. Our evaluation incorporated water quality modeling by HDR (2006c) on the conditions that would be present in these reservoirs.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

3.1. Habitat Descriptions

3.1.1. Cache la Poudre River Habitat information for the segment of the Cache la Poudre River within the project area is limited. Propst (1982) listed elevations, mean water depths, and mean widths for six sites on the Cache la Poudre River. The sites were located in the stretch of the river from approximately Laporte to Greeley. Elevations at these sites ranged from 1,554 m at the upstream site to 1,433 m at the downstream site. Depths were variable, ranging from 0.1 to 0.7 m. Widths ranged from 3.7 m at the downstream site to 24.7 m at one of the more upstream sites near Fort Collins.

Bestgen and Fausch (1993) also gave brief descriptions of the habitat in the Cache la Poudre River from 1970 to 1992. Their study sites were located in the segment of the river from Fort Collins to Greeley. Much of this stretch of the river was described as being channelized, with incised banks and limited riparian vegetation. The two upstream sites were noted as having diverse habitat, with all other sites described as having moderately diverse to homogenous habitat. Cobble, gravel, and sand were the dominant substrates. Several of the sites were also described as having high levels of silt and embeddedness.

NAWQA surveyed the habitat at a single site on the Cache la Poudre River located near the upstream end of the study area in 1993 and 1994 (USGS 2003). Various habitat parameters were measured. Channel widths recorded at various transects during those two years ranged from 20 to 39 m. Stream banks were rated as fairly stable for both years, with greater than 50 percent of the bank surface covered with vegetation or gravel. The dominant substrate types were listed as cobble, sand, and boulders, with no siltation noted in either year. Embeddedness at various transects differed between the two years of the study, with a rating of 51-75 percent and 26-50 percent of the gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate embedded by fine sediment in 1993 and 1994, respectively. The habitat at this site was described as having no woody snags or undercut banks, and little overhanging vegetation.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Habitat observations made during the collection of the supplemental data in 2005 noted that widths at survey sites on the Cache la Poudre River ranged from 4.9 m at Site 8 to 23.5 m at Site 6. Water levels were notably low at all sites downstream of Site 4. Sites 5, 6, 7, and 9 exhibited muddy water with limited visibility, with Site 9 also described as having high levels of deposited silt. Sites 4, 7, and 9 were described as having good bank habitat and cover for fish.

3.1.2. South Platte River Habitat information for the segment of the South Platte River downstream of its confluence with the Cache la Poudre River is very limited. Propst (1982) listed a survey site near Kersey as having an elevation of 1,402 m, with a water depth of 0.6 m and a width of 47 m. The habitat within a segment of the South Platte River near Kersey was surveyed by NAWQA in 1993 and 1994 (USGS 2003). The channel width of various transects within this segment ranged from 30.2 to 92.2 m. Bank stability was moderate, with 25-49 percent of the left bank and 50-79 percent of the right bank covered with vegetation or rock. The substrate was described as mainly sand and gravel. Woody snags, overhanging vegetation, and undercut banks were present, but not in significant amounts.

3.1.3. Reservoir Sites The proposed off-channel reservoir sites for Glade Reservoir, Cactus Hill Reservoir, and Galeton Reservoir do not contain permanent surface water or aquatic resources. These locations are dry or nearly dry most of the time. Therefore, these areas do not provide habitat for fish or benthic invertebrates, and are not described further in the existing environment section of this technical report.

3.2. Fish Populations

3.2.1. Cache la Poudre River In 1978-1980, Propst (1982) collected fish from six sites on the Cache la Poudre River ranging from above Fort Collins to upstream of Greeley, as part of his study of the South Platte River Basin. Each site was surveyed once during the study period, with twelve fish species collected from all sites combined (Table 2). Ten of the species collected were native to the South Platte River Basin based on Nesler (1997) (Appendix B contains a list of the native and

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

introduced fish species in the basin). When data from all sites were combined, sand shiners were the most abundant fish collected followed by longnose dace (Appendix E). The only species collected at every site on the Cache la Poudre River during this study was longnose dace. Bigmouth shiners, black bullheads, and plains killifish were rare, and were collected in low numbers at one site apiece (Appendix E). Brown trout were also listed as occurring in the river, but numbers collected were not provided (Propst 1982).

Bestgen and Fausch (1993) surveyed the fish populations at ten sites on the Cache la Poudre River ranging from Fort Collins to Greeley from 1970 to 1992 in the spring, summer, and fall. Not all sites were surveyed each year or each season, and the data were divided into two time periods, 1970-1983, and 1984-1992, in order to determine if frequency of occurrence had increased or decreased between the periods. Additionally, the same sites were again surveyed by Bestgen in 1993 and 1994 (CDOW 2006; Nesler et al. 1997).

Over the three study periods, 32 fish species were collected (Table 3, Appendix E). Species composition during all three periods was similar. Twenty of these species are native to the South Platte River Basin. Species abundances are not given by Bestgen and Fausch (1993), but are listed in Nesler et al. (1997) and in unpublished data (CDOW 2006). Based on the data from all three time periods, white suckers were collected from every site. Common carp, johnny darters, fathead minnows, longnose dace, and sand shiners were also commonly collected, occurring at 80 percent or more of the sites during each time period. Central stonerollers, channel catfish, mosquitofish, and smallmouth bass were collected infrequently at one site during one or more time periods.

Fathead minnows and sand shiners were the numerically dominant species in most years. Longnose dace, longnose suckers, and white suckers were also consistently found in high numbers. Black bullheads, black crappie, bluegills, Iowa darters, mountain whitefish, mosquitofish, pumpkinseeds, rainbow trout, smallmouth bass, white crappie, and yellow perch were found in low numbers when they were collected (Appendix E).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 2: Fish Population Data (Presence/Absence) for the Cache la Poudre River 1970- 2005. Data from Appendix E, Native Species in Bold. Bestgen and Bestgen and Propst Bestgen USGS Fausch Bestgen CEC Species/Study Fausch Fausch 1978-1980 1993-1994 1993-1995 1995-1996 1997-2005 2005 1970-1983 1984 1992 Bigmouth shiner X -- X X -- -- X -- Black bullhead X X X -- -- X X X Black crappie -- X X X -- -- X X Bluegill -- X X X -- -- X X Brassy minnow -- X X X ------Brook stickleback -- X X X -- -- X X Brown trout X X X X X -- X X Central stoneroller -- X X ------Channel catfish -- -- X ------Common carp X X X X -- -- X X Common shiner -- X X ------Creek chub -- X X X -- X X X Fathead minnow X X X X -- X X X Gizzard shad ------X X Green sunfish X X X X -- X X X Hybrid sunfish ------X -- Iowa darter ------X -- -- X -- Johnny darter X X X X -- X X X Largemouth bass -- X X X -- X X X Longnose dace X X X X X X X X Longnose sucker X X X X X X X X Mosquitofish ------X -- -- X X Mountain whitefish -- X X ------X Orangespotted -- -- X ------X X sunfish Plains killifish X X X X ------Plains minnow ------X -- -- Plains topminnow -- X X X -- X X -- Pumpkinseed -- X X ------X -- Rainbow trout -- X X X X -- X X Red shiner -- X X X -- -- X X Sand shiner X X X X -- X X X Smallmouth bass -- -- X ------X Walleye ------X White crappie -- -- X ------X X White sucker X X X X -- X X X Yellow perch -- X X X X -- X X

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

None of the species collected during these three study periods are listed as federally endangered or threatened. However, two of the species collected during these three survey periods are listed as threatened in the state of Colorado: the brassy minnow and the common shiner. Brassy minnows were last collected in the project area in 1994, when a single minnow was collected at a site near Fort Collins. Previous to that, the last brassy minnow collected was in 1988 near Greeley. A single common shiner was collected in 1989 downstream of Fort Collins. No common shiners have been collected since within the project area. Both of these species were noted as having decreased in occurrence and abundance at all sites in Bestgen and Fausch’s study (1993). They suggested that increased siltation and declining flows were likely playing a role in their decrease.

Additionally, Iowa darters are listed as a state species of concern in Colorado. They were not collected during these studies until fall 1993 (CDOW 2006), when three darters were collected from a site upstream of Greeley. They were again collected in spring and fall of 1994, when one and four darters were collected, respectively (Table 3, Appendix E).

Bestgen and Fausch (1993) included the calculation of total kilograms of fish caught at each site for the study period of 1970-1992. Total kilograms of fish caught ranged from 7.0 to 43.7 kg/site over the spring, summer, and fall sampling periods, and was highly variable among sites. The biomass was largely influenced by the number of large-bodied fish collected, such as common carp, longnose suckers, and white suckers. No seasonal trends were reported.

The fall 1994 data summarized by Nesler et al. (1997) evaluated the presence or absence of multiple size classes of each species for the Cache la Poudre sites. Most of the native species had multiple size classes present, indicating that those species were reproducing in the Cache la Poudre River. The status of brown trout and Iowa darters was listed as unknown. Black crappie, bluegills, largemouth bass, mosquitofish, plains killifish, rainbow trout, and yellow perch did not have multiple size classes present and are not likely reproducing in the river. Bestgen and Fausch (1993) did not provide data on age groups for the fish species present, but noted similar results in that many of the non-native species (black crappie, bluegills, pumpkinseeds, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

crappie, and yellow perch) were generally represented by young individuals that had likely escaped from reservoirs and ponds that maintain stocked or resident forage and game fish.

In 1993-1995, NAWQA (USGS 2003) surveyed one segment of the Cache la Poudre River located near the upstream end of the study area annually. Over the study period, five fish species were collected, two of which were native species (Table 2). Longnose dace were numerically dominant in 1993 and 1994, but brown trout were more abundant than dace in 1995. Brown trout, longnose dace, and longnose suckers were collected every year. Rainbow trout and yellow perch were only found in very low numbers and were collected in only one or two years.

Fausch surveyed fish populations at sites on the Cache la Poudre River from 1995 and 1996, as reported in unpublished data from the CDOW (2006). Three sites were surveyed in 1995, with two of the same sites surveyed again in 1996. The sites were all located near or in Fort Collins. A total of twelve species, eleven of which are native to the South Platte River basin, were collected by Fausch during his surveys in spring of 1995 and 1996. Species composition was generally similar to previous years, with fathead minnows and sand shiners being numerically dominant (Appendix E). Data on size classes were not provided for these surveys. Three plains minnows, a species listed as endangered in Colorado, were collected from two sites during the 1996 survey. Plains minnows had not been collected in any previous survey during the period of record, and none have been collected in surveys completed since 1996. The data indicate that plains minnows do not have an established population within the project area.

Bestgen continued to survey some of the same sites as Fausch, as well as some of the sites surveyed from 1970 through 1994. The results of these surveys are documented in unpublished data from the CDOW (2006). He conducted surveys of the fish populations in spring 1997, spring 2001, fall 2001, summer 2003, fall 2004, and winter 2005. Between two and eight sites were surveyed during each year and season, with sites ranging from upstream of Fort Collins to Greeley. Twenty-six species of fish, as well as one hybrid sunfish, were collected over this time, with sixteen of the species being native to the South Platte River basin (Table 2). Fathead minnows were the dominant species during most of

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

these sampling efforts, with longnose dace and white suckers being collected at the highest numbers on the remainder of the sampling occasions. Many species were collected during all surveys: common carp, fathead minnows, johnny darters, longnose dace, longnose suckers, orangespotted sunfish, red shiners, sand shiners, and white suckers. Black bullheads, Iowa darters, pumpkinseeds, and white crappie were rare, with one to three fish from each species being collected within this time period. A single Iowa darter, a state species of concern, was collected in fall 2001 from a site downstream of Fort Collins (Appendix E).

The most recent data available for the Cache la Poudre River were collected in the late summer and fall of 2005 by the CDOW and CEC (Appendix C) during supplemental data collection. Nine sites were surveyed for this study, ranging from near the mouth of the Poudre Canyon to near the confluence with the South Platte River. Twenty-five fish species were collected from the segment of the Cache la Poudre River in the study area (Table 2). Fourteen of these species are native to the South Platte River Basin. None of the species collected were listed as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the State of Colorado. None of the species were collected at all study sites, but carp, fathead minnows, johnny darters, largemouth bass, and white suckers were found at six or more of the nine sites (Table 3). Black bullheads, black crappie, mountain whitefish, smallmouth bass, walleye, and white crappie were rare, and were found at low densities at one site each.

Longnose dace was the dominant fish species found at the three upstream sites, but were rare or absent from the sites downstream of Site 3 (Table 3). At Sites 4 and 7, largemouth bass was the most abundant of the fish species, and at Sites 8 and 9, fathead minnows were numerically dominant. Site 5 had a comparatively low number of fish collected, but orangespotted sunfish were the most abundant of these. Gizzard shad were the dominant species of fish at Site 6, and were also common at most sites downstream (Table 3).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 3: Fish Density (#/ha) and Other Population Parameters from Supplemental Data Collection Sites on the Cache la Poudre River, 2005. Data from Appendix C, Native Species in Bold. Density (#/ha) Species/Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Black bullhead ------2 ------Black crappie ------3 -- -- Bluegill ------* 7 28 -- 3 Brook stickleback -- -- 4 ------3 Brown trout 376 268 262 ------Common Carp ------71 115 68 273 53 105 Creek chub ------8 ------105 7 Fathead minnow -- -- 4 8 10 7 47 3,868 372 Gizzard shad ------125 75 26 284 Green sunfish ------17 38 -- 31 -- -- Johnny darter -- -- 30 4 29 5 -- 79 3 Largemouth bass -- -- 4 437 10 61 484 237 44 Longnose dace 471 8,795 555 ------289 51 Longnose sucker 24 379 ------54 Mosquitofish ------* 12 9 789 7 Mountain whitefish -- 4 ------Orangespotted sunfish ------144 -- 19 -- 77 Rainbow trout 80 13 4 17 10 ------Red shiner ------10 -- 3 105 17 Sand shiner ------239 * 10 19 3,105 71 Smallmouth bass -- 4 ------Walleye 2 ------White crappie ------3 White sucker 4 -- 357 118 106 88 28 947 186 Yellow perch -- -- 27 -- -- 5 ------Number of Species 6 6 9 9 12 11 12 11 16 Density (#/ha) 957 9,463 1,247 919 472 390 1,019 9,603 1,217 Biomass (kg/ha) 64.1 58.7 33.9 184.3 340.2 137.0 571.7 101.8 139.7 * Indicates additional species that were collected in the side channel at Site 5.

The number of fish species collected at each site ranged from a low of six species collected at Sites 1 and 2 to a high of 16 species collected at Site 9 (Table 3). The number of species collected at each site showed a significant increasing trend (p< 0.01) in a downstream direction. Total fish densities ranged from 390 fish/ha at Site 6 to

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

9,603 fish/ha at Site 8. Fish densities were generally higher at the more upstream and downstream sites and lower at the middle sites; there was no significant longitudinal trend (p= 0.99).

Total fish biomass ranged from 33.9 kg/ha at Site 3 to 571.7 kg/ha at Site 7 (Table 3). Only a single pass was made at Site 7, due to conditions at that site. The biomass estimate likely would have been even higher had a second pass been conducted. The high biomass at Site 7 was associated with the relatively large number of carp collected at that site, while the low biomass at Site 3 was associated with a high number of small fish, mainly longnose dace, collected at this site. There were no significant longitudinal trends in biomass along the length of the Cache la Poudre River in the study area (p=0.30).

Multiple size classes of most native fish species and some introduced species were collected from the Cache la Poudre River in 2005 (Appendix C), indicating that these species are reproducing. Of the native species collected, black bullheads, brook sticklebacks, creek chubs, red shiners, and walleyes were collected in such low numbers that determining if they are reproducing in the Cache la Poudre River was not possible. All other native species had multiple size classes present. Introduced species such as bluegills, brown trout, common carp, largemouth bass, mosquitofish, and rainbow trout also had multiple size classes present at one or more sites, indicating reproduction is occurring for these species. Brown trout and rainbow trout have been stocked in this section of the Cache la Poudre River in the past, but no stocking of either species has occurred since 1992 (McKissick 2006).

The supplemental and existing data show that a total of 35 species have been collected in the Cache la Poudre River, as well as one hybrid fish (Table 2). The data suggest that fish species composition has changed over the 1978-2005 time period, with some species moving into the area and some not being collected for many years. Gizzard shad appear to be one of the species that have moved into the study area recently, as they were collected for the first time in 2001 and were again collected in 2003 and 2005. Mosquitofish also appear to be establishing populations in the study area, as a single mosquitofish was

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

collected in 1994 for the first time, with higher numbers collected in all surveys from 2001 through 2005 (Appendix E).

Several other species have not been collected in the study area for over 10 years, and are unlikely to still inhabit this section of the Cache la Poudre River. Brassy minnows, a threatened species in Colorado, have not been collected since the spring of 1994, when a single minnow was collected by Bestgen (CDOW 2006). Over the 1984 to 1992 surveys conducted by Bestgen and Fausch (1993), they collected only two brassy minnows at their most downstream site (Appendix E), and state that brassy minnows collected before 1984 were probably misidentified.

Common shiners, another species listed as threatened in Colorado, have not been collected since a single one was found at a site downstream of Fort Collins in 1989 (Bestgen and Fausch 1993; CDOW 2006). They were collected more frequently and at higher abundances up through 1981, but were only collected during a few surveys between 1981 and 1989 (Appendix E). Iowa darters, a state species of concern, have been collected from the Cache la Poudre River within the project area as recently as 2001, but only a single darter was collected at that time. They were also collected at very low abundances in fall 1993, spring 1994, and fall 1994 (CDOW 2006; Nesler et al. 1997).

Other species also have not been collected in many years. Central stonerollers, channel catfish, and plains killifish have not been collected since the early 1990’s. Black bullheads, mountain whitefish, pumpkinseeds, smallmouth bass, walleye, and white crappie have been collected more recently, but in such low numbers that viable populations of these fish are unlikely to exist in the segment of the Cache la Poudre River within the project area.

Many other species, mainly native species, have been collected consistently in relatively high abundances throughout the 1970 to 2005 time period, most notably fathead minnows and longnose dace. Brown trout were frequently collected in the upper portion of the study area as well, and common carp, longnose suckers, sand shiners, and white suckers have been found at most sites and years in relatively high numbers (Appendix E).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Historical Perspective There are no records of the fish community of the Cache la Poudre River prior to the development of the river for irrigation in the mid-nineteenth century. Some generalizations are made based on anecdotal information and hydrologic information.

The first detailed fisheries expedition to Colorado was in 1889 (Jordan 1891). This was after water development and mining had already altered many streams. Although Jordan did not sample the Cache la Poudre River, he did sample throughout Colorado and made observations of biological and hydrological conditions. He noted that many of the tributaries to the South Platte River were dry in late summer and fall. However, the Cache la Poudre River may have had permanent flow throughout the year prior to settlement and in the first decade after water development. This conclusion is based on the fact that the initial irrigation diversions were successful in sustaining agriculture (Wohl 2001) and the river did not begin to go dry until one or two decades of increasing irrigation withdrawals.

Assuming that the Cache la Poudre River in the study area had perennial flow throughout the year prior to settlement, it would have sustained a community of a variety of native fish species. Without water storage reservoirs on the river, the hydrology of the river probably was characterized by high spring flows and low flows in summer, fall and winter. The channel may have been wide and shallow. Both of these factors may have limited the abundance of fish.

The present species composition of the fish community of the Cache la Poudre River contains many native species that were probably present prior to settlement (Table 2 and Table 3). In addition, there are a few species that were collected in the past but have not been collected since the mid-1990s that may have been present prior to settlement, including brassy minnow, central stoneroller, common shiner, Iowa darter, plains killifish and plains topminnow. Two other species, the greenback cutthroat trout and the lake chub, may have also inhabited the river in the study area. A total of 18 native fish species have been collected in the river since the mid-1990s, and most of these were collected as recently as 2005. Up to 8 other native species may have been present prior to settlement. Therefore, the present species composition of native species is probably somewhat less than that of the pre-settlement fish community.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

There were 11 introduced species that were collected in 2005 that were not present prior to settlement (Table 3). Therefore, the present species composition of the Cache la Poudre River is probably more diverse than in the past, when introduced fish species are also included with the native species. However, the proportion of native to introduced species has decreased over time.

Bestgen and Fausch (1993) evaluated recent trends at 10 sites on the Cache la Poudre River. At most sites, there was substantial variability from year to year but no long-term trend in the number of species collected over this period. However, at a few sites near Windsor there appears to be a slight increasing trend in the number of species collected since the 1970s and the number of species collected in 2005 at corresponding sites was at the high end of the range. This suggests that species composition in this section of the river may have improved in the last 40 years. However, the increases in species composition were due, mainly, to introduced species. Species such as bluegill, largemouth bass, white crappie, and yellow perch are non-native species that were more common in samples from the later years of the study. These species are present in the ponds and reservoirs that drain to the river and may not maintain resident, self-sustaining populations.

There are no data on the abundance of fish in the Cache la Poudre River in the study area prior to 2005. However based on the flashy, fluctuating, hydrology of the river prior to settlement, the abundance of fish may have been low. The decreased water quality and increased input of nutrients to the river since settlement have degraded water quality but may have increased overall productivity. There may be higher abundance of more tolerant fish at present than in the past.

3.2.2. South Platte River Propst (1982) surveyed a single site on the South Platte River near Kersey in November 1980. Fourteen fish species were collected; 10 of these are native species (Table 4). Bigmouth shiners were collected in the highest numbers, followed by fathead minnows. All other species were collected in relatively low numbers (Appendix F). Brown trout were listed as occurring in this study, but numbers were not given (Propst 1982).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Approximately the same segment of the South Platte River near Kersey was surveyed by NAWQA (USGS 2003) in 1993-1995, 1998, and 2002-2004. Nineteen species were collected at this site over the 7 years of surveys; 13 of these are native to the South Platte River Basin (Table 4). Seven of these species were collected every year: common carp, fathead minnows, longnose dace, longnose suckers, red shiners, sand shiners, and white suckers. Brook stickleback, gizzard shad, largemouth bass, mosquitofish, and red shiners were also collected during most years of sampling (Appendix F). Black crappie, bluegills, Iowa darters, and yellow perch were collected in 1 or 2 years only, and in abundances less than eight fish per year. A single Iowa darter was collected in 2002, with five collected the following year. Iowa darters are a state species of concern, but there is no record of their collection in the section of the South Platte within the project area other than in these two years. Fathead minnows, sand shiners, and white suckers were numerically dominant during these surveys (Appendix F). Species composition generally changed little over this time period, but bigmouth shiners were only collected in 2002 through 2004, and western mosquitofish increased in abundance over the years (Appendix F).

Table 4: Fish Population Data (Presence/Absence) for the South Platte River, 1980-2003. Data from Appendix F, Native Species in Bold. Propst USGS CDOW USGS USGS CDOW Species/Study 1980 1993-1995 1994 1998 2002-2004 2004 Bigmouth shiner X ------X X Black crappie X X X ------Bluegill -- X X ------Brassy minnow X ------Brook stickleback X X X -- X -- Brown bullhead X ------Common carp X X X X X -- Creek chub X X X -- X X Fathead minnow X X X X X -- Gizzard shad -- X X X X X Green sunfish X X X X X X Iowa darter ------X -- Largemouth bass X X X X X -- Longnose dace -- X X X X X Longnose sucker X X X X X -- Mosquitofish -- X X X X --

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Propst USGS CDOW USGS USGS CDOW Species/Study 1980 1993-1995 1994 1998 2002-2004 2004 Plains killifish X X X X X X Red shiner -- X X X X X Sand shiner X X X X X X White sucker X X X X X -- Yellow perch -- X X X -- --

Based on unpublished data from the CDOW (2006), a site on the South Platte River near Kersey was also surveyed in 1994 and 2004. Seventeen species, including eleven which are native to the South Platte River Basin, were collected in 1994; eight species, all of which are native, were collected in 2004 (Table 4). Fathead minnows were numerically dominant in 1994, with common carp, longnose suckers, sand shiners, and white suckers collected in high numbers as well (Appendix F). Several of the species collected in 1994 were not collected in 2004, most notably fathead minnows, which had been collected in high abundances during every other survey recorded for this section of the South Platte River. Sand shiners were the most abundant species collected during this survey, with bigmouth shiners also being fairly common. Black crappie, bluegill, plains killifish, and yellow perch were collected at low abundances of less than five fish per year in both years (Appendix F).

Based on these studies, a total of 21 species have been collected in the South Platte River in the study area (Table 4). Many of the native species have been consistently present in this section of the South Platte River for the sampling period from 1980 through 2004. Carp and largemouth bass, two introduced species, have also been collected during most or all years of sampling. Two species, gizzard shad and mosquitofish, appear to have colonized this segment of the South Platte recently. Gizzard shad, a native species, and mosquitofish, an introduced species, were both first collected in 1994. They have been collected in surveys almost every year since then. Gizzard shad are common in some of the ponds and reservoirs that drain to the river and apparently this is the source for the fish recently collected in the South Platte River. Brassy minnow, a species that is threatened in the state of Colorado, has not been collected since 1980, when two were collected by Propst (1982). Based on this, they may no longer inhabit this portion of the South Platte

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

River. Iowa darter is a state species of concern in Colorado, and was collected in low numbers in 2002 and 2003. The data suggests that a small population may exist within the study area. However, as they were not collected in either of the 2004 surveys or any survey conducted prior to 2002, the darters collected in those years could have been washed downstream during a high flow event from an upstream or tributary population rather than being resident fish from this segment of the South Platte River. Brown bullheads, bluegills, and yellow perch have also not been collected in the study area since 1980, 1994, and 1998, respectively.

Historical Perspective The South Platte River was an intermittent stream and was often dry in the lower Platte Valley (Li 1968). The pre-settlement fish community of the South Platte River is not known. The South Platte River was first sampled by Jordan (1891) in 1889 at a site near Denver. However, water development and mining had already altered the river by this time. He collected 11 native species, mostly minnows and suckers. Of the species collected by Jordan, all have recently been collected in the study area of the South Platte River (Table 4) except for common shiners, plains topminnows and johnny darters.

The fish collections in the study area of the South Platte River since 1980 resulted in the collection of 14 native species (Table 4). There may be other native species that have not recently been collected that may have been present prior to settlement, including stonecat, central stoneroller, plains minnow, suckermouth minnow, common shiner, lake chub, river carpsucker, and plains topminnow. These species may be present in other sections of the South Platte River, but have not been recently collected in the study area. Therefore, the present fish species composition in the study area of the South Platte River contains most of the native species that may have been present prior to settlement.

There are no data on the abundance of fish in the South Platte River in the study area. However based on the flashy, fluctuating, hydrology and dry periods of the river prior to settlement, the abundance of fish may have been low. The more perennial flow probably has resulted in higher abundance of fish. The decreased water quality and increased input of nutrients to the river since settlement have degraded water quality but may have

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

increased overall productivity. There may be higher abundance of fish at present in the South Platte River than in the past.

3.3. Macroinvertebrate Populations

3.3.1. Cache la Poudre River Shieh et al. (1999) collected macroinvertebrate samples from the river quarterly from 1992-1995 at eight sampling sites with locations ranging from approximately Laporte to Greeley. A total of 95 macroinvertebrate taxa were identified during the 4-year period, with between 18 and 20 taxa identified at each site during the study (Table 5). The most upstream site had the highest number of total taxa, number of EPT taxa, and diversity values, but had the lowest abundance. Shannon-Weaver diversity values were greater than or equal to 2.50, indicating that healthy invertebrate communities inhabit the Cache la Poudre River within the study area. Generally, diversity decreased consistently downstream, but the other parameters did not show the same pattern. EPT taxa, which are sensitive to a wide range of pollutants, comprised between 24 percent - 90 percent of the total taxa at each site (Shieh et al. 1999).

Table 5: Summary of Cache la Poudre River Benthic Invertebrate Parameters, 1992-2005. Data from Shieh et al. (1999), USGS (2003), and Appendix D. Date 1992-1995 1993-1995 2005 Parameter Mean Range Mean Range Mean Range Abundance 3,412 1,860-5,032 7,429 1,403-13,308 30,377 13,359-73,674 (#/sample) Number of Taxa 21 18-30 58 43-87 44 34-55 Number of EPT Taxa 9 5-27 22 4-33 9 5-15 Diversity (H') 2.76 2.50-3.45 3.77 3.11-4.76 3.37 2.97-3.71

NAWQA (USGS 2003) collected macroinvertebrate samples in 1993-1995 from four sites on the Cache la Poudre River with site locations ranging from upstream of Fort Collins to Greeley. Qualitative samples were collected from the richest targeted habitat at each site, generally a riffle or woody snag (Moulton et al. 2002). A total of 185 taxa were collected over the 3-year period. The range for all parameters is higher than those seen in the study conducted by Shieh et al. (1999), as would be expected due to the differences in sampling methodology. Generally, values for all parameters were high, with diversity

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

values well above the 2.50 threshold that indicates healthy invertebrate communities. The most downstream site near Greeley had low total abundance and number of EPT taxa in comparison to the other sites, but total number of taxa and diversity remained high. From 6 percent to 60 percent of the invertebrate taxa at each site were pollution-intolerant EPT taxa.

Consistent with the previous two studies, the supplemental data collected in 2005 showed high mean macroinvertebrate density at all sites on the Cache la Poudre River, with values ranging from 13,359 organisms/m2 at Site 7 to 73,674 organisms/m2 at Site 8 (Table 5 and Table 6). A total of 131 taxa were identified. Number of taxa found at each site ranged from 34 taxa collected at Site 6 to 55 taxa collected at Site 3. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) were typically the numerically dominant invertebrate group at the upstream sites; with true flies (Diptera) generally dominating the more downstream sites (Table 6).

The number of EPT taxa collected at each site in 2005 ranged from 5 taxa at Site 4 to 15 taxa at Sites 2 and 3, and made up from 16 percent to 29 percent of the total number of taxa. Shannon-Weaver diversity values were all greater than or equal to 2.97 (Table 5 and Table 6), above the 2.50 threshold value that indicates healthy macroinvertebrate populations. HBI values ranged from 3.57 to 7.48. The HBI values greater than 5.50 that were calculated for all sites downstream of Site 3 indicate that a degree of organic pollution exists at these sites (Hilsenhoff 1987). The results of linear regression analysis showed no significant longitudinal trends in macroinvertebrate density (p= 0.43). Number of taxa and number of EPT taxa showed significant decreasing trends (p< 0.01 for both) in a downstream direction.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 6: Benthic Invertebrate Density (Number/m2 ) and Other Summary Population Parameters for Supplemental Data Collection Sites on the Cache la Poudre River, 2005. Data from Appendix D. X=Present in the Qualitative Sample Only. Density (#/m2) Taxa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 INSECTA Collembola ------X ------Ephemeroptera 18,694 22,414 9,455 7,761 10,176 4,001 3,027 8,241 1,154 Odonata ------X X -- 27 X X Plecoptera 368 935 159 ------Hemiptera ------X X 446 1,086 39 X Coleoptera 1,069 1,322 2,152 78 23 58 27 39 X Lepidoptera 167 403 450 ------Trichoptera 8,374 5,335 7,248 942 237 6,947 89 15,712 364 Diptera 1,917 8,624 2,998 5,025 4,397 4,660 7,048 47,762 13,020 HYDRACARINA -- 174 77 77 449 19 -- 39 -- CRUSTACEA Isopoda 4 X 12 264 ------Amphipoda X X -- 39 X X X X 39 Decapoda ------X 4 X X -- TURBELLARIA 128 396 787 2,314 54 194 178 834 19 NEMATODA ------1,132 62 415 112 77 X ANNELIDA Oligochaeta 686 1,810 89 18,484 3,722 969 1,749 892 2,163 Hirudinea X -- -- 78 35 70 16 -- X MOLLUSCA Gastropoda X -- -- 221 X -- X X X Pelecypoda ------39 -- Total Density (#/m2) 31,407 41,413 23,427 36,415 19,155 17,783 13,359 73,674 16,759 Total Number of 51 52 55 42 45 34 43 39 36 Taxa Total EPT Taxa 13 15 15 5 10 7 7 7 6 EPT Index (% of 25 29 27 12 22 21 16 18 17 Total Taxa) Diversity (H’) 2.97 3.40 3.63 3.06 3.64 3.26 3.53 3.11 3.71 Biotic Index (HBI) 3.57 3.95 4.39 7.48 5.95 5.50 7.22 5.92 6.95

Based on the 2005 data as well as the earlier data, abundant and diverse macroinvertebrate populations inhabit the Cache la Poudre River within the study area. However, linear regression analysis results show that while density was high at all study

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

sites, the number of sensitive species, including EPT taxa, decreased at the downstream sites. The three upstream sites are dominated by EPT taxa, particularly mayflies (Ephemeroptera), and stoneflies (Plecoptera) were only collected at these sites. The proportion of true flies (Diptera), which are usually less sensitive species, was low (less than 20%) at Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 and was 23% to 78% at Sites 5 through 9. These data indicate that the water quality in the upstream portion of the study area is suitable to support these pollution-intolerant EPT taxa. Further downstream, particularly at Sites 5 through 9, these pollution-intolerant taxa become less common as they are replaced with more pollution-tolerant taxa such as true flies. These changes in the macroinvertebrate community composition, combined with the trend towards decreasing number of total taxa in a downstream direction, suggests that water quality declines in the Cache la Poudre River downstream of Fort Collins. Higher HBI values (more tolerant species) at Sites 4 through 9 downstream of Fort Collins further support this.

Warmer water temperatures are likely a second factor influencing changes in the invertebrate community composition. While the majority of taxa collected at all the sites are adapted to warm water temperatures, the number of taxa classified as preferring cooler water temperatures (Grafe et al. 2002) decreased downstream of Fort Collins. The absence of stoneflies as well as most of the cool water mayfly taxa, such as Drunella doddsi, Epeorus sp., Ephemerella dorothea, and Paraleptophlebia sp., were mainly responsible for this decrease (Appendix D).

3.3.2. South Platte River Existing macroinvertebrate data for the segment of the South Platte River downstream of its confluence with the Cache la Poudre River was limited to a survey conducted by NAWQA at a site near Kersey in 1993 (USGS 2003). This survey targeted the richest habitat available as per NAWQA’s procedures (Moulton et al. 2002). A total of 11,392 organisms were collected, belonging to 54 different taxa. Seventeen of those taxa (31 percent) were EPT taxa. The Shannon-Weaver diversity value calculated for this site was 3.58, well above the 2.50 threshold value. While this information is limited, it indicates that a healthy and diverse macroinvertebrate population inhabits this section of the South Platte River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

4. DIRECT EFFECTS EVALUATION

4.1. Cache la Poudre River

4.1.1. Upstream of Fort Collins The coldwater section of the Cache la Poudre River upstream of Fort Collins in the study area extends nearly 16 kilometers from the Poudre Valley Canal downstream to Shields Street (Figure 6), as classified by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. However, the downstream extent of the functioning coldwater habitat is closer to Overland Trail near Laporte (Kehmeier 2007). The section from Overland Trail to Shields Street is more appropriately classified from an ecological perspective as transitional habitat. Brown and rainbow trout are resident coldwater species in the upstream sections of this segment of the river and are the most common species of game fish. Data from this segment of the river indicates that water quality and habitat conditions are sufficient to support a diverse, abundant community of benthic invertebrates with numerous sensitive species of insects.

This segment of the study area has hydrologic nodes at the Canyon Gage (CANGAGE node), the Main 3 node downstream of the Greeley diversion and the Main 6 node near Laporte (Figure 6). Habitat for brown and rainbow trout was simulated with PHABSIM with the hydrology for the Main 3 node near the middle of this segment.

Riparian vegetation is not expected to change from baseline conditions for any of the action alternatives in this segment of the river (ERO 2008a). Therefore, this component of the aquatic environment would have no effect on aquatic biological resources. Water quality is currently good in this section of the river and is not expected to change substantially with any of the alternatives (ERO and HDR 2008). Channel morphology may change slightly. There would be minor increases in channel stability and minor constriction of the channel (ERO 2008b). These minor changes in channel morphology would tend to be favorable to fish and invertebrates by providing more stable habitat and flow concentrated in a smaller channel. Despite the lowered runoff flows, sediment transport should not change and there should be no increases in sediment deposition (ERO 2008b). Therefore, there should be no effect to the suitability of the substrate as spawning and rearing habitat and to support benthic invertebrates.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Hydrology The hydrology for all action alternatives would be similar in this segment of the Cache la Poudre River (Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9). All action alternatives would reduce maximum flows during peak runoff by 33.9 percent to 44.7 percent in wet years, 25.0 percent to 34.5 percent in average years, and 15.3 percent to 23.5 percent in dry years (Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9). These substantial reductions in maximum flows would reduce velocities during a stressful period for fish and invertebrates and would tend to result in higher habitat suitability in all three year types (wet, average, and dry flow years) in this segment of the river.

During the low flow periods of the year in winter, minimum flows would be reduced, but not as much as during the peak flow months (Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9; Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9). The reductions in minimum flows would be greatest in wet years, with reductions of nearly 34 percent at the Main 3 node (Table 8). In average years at this node, the reductions would be approximately 21 percent and approximately 12 percent in dry years (Table 8). At the CANGAGE and Main 6 nodes, the reductions in average and dry years would be less than 10 percent for all action alternatives (Table 7 and Table 9). The reductions in minimum flows in wet years and in all years at the Main 3 node would tend to result in lower habitat suitability for fish and invertebrates. However, the magnitude of the differences in habitat would be less for minimum flows than it would be for maximum flows, as described above.

An analysis of extreme flow conditions of historic daily flow data was conducted for data from the Canyon Gage, the only gage in this segment of the river (HDR 2006b). This analysis indicates no days in the 50-year period of record with zero flow (Table 10). Low flows less than 10 cfs occurred in 31 of the 50 years and occurred on an average of 5 days in each year. The low flows usually occurred in the November to March period. Fluctuating flows, with flows cut in half or doubling on consecutive days, occurred in almost all years. On average, 50 percent reductions occurred on 4 days and 100 percent increases occurred on 5 days each year. Increases in flow of 200% occurred in 35 of the 50 years. These patterns of low flows and fluctuations would not change with the action alternatives compared to baseline conditions (HDR 2006a).

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

CANGAGE

2000 Wet Year 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000

Flow (cfs) Flow 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 Average Year 1800 Baseline Alt 2 Alt 3 1600 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2 1400

1200

1000

Flow (cfs) Flow 800

600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 Dry Year 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000

Flow (cfs) Flow 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 7: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the CANGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 3

2000 Wet Year 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000

Flow (cfs) Flow 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 Average Year 1800 Baseline Alt 2 Alt 3 1600 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2 1400

1200

1000

Flow (cfs) Flow 800

600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2000 Dry Year 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000

Flow (cfs) Flow 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 8: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 3 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 6

1600 Wet Year 1400

1200

1000

800

Flow (cfs) Flow 600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1600

Baseline Average Year 1400 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4.1 1200 Alt 4.2

1000

800

Flow (cfs) Flow 600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1600 Dry Year 1400

1200

1000

800

Flow (cfs) Flow 600

400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 9: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 6 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 7: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the CANGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 1,789.0 -33.9 -35.1 -33.9 -35.1 Minimum Flow 37.9 -20.2 -20.2 -20.2 -20.2

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 1,408.7 -25.0 -25.1 -25.0 -25.1 Minimum Flow 31.3 -8.4 -8.8 -8.4 -8.8

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 979.0 -15.9 -15.7 -15.9 -15.7 Minimum Flow 28.9 -4.4 -4.3 -4.4 -4.3

Table 8: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 3 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 1776.5 -34.1 -35.4 -34.1 -35.4 Minimum Flow 20.1 -33.6 -33.7 -33.6 -33.7

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 1396.2 -25.2 -25.4 -25.2 -25.4 Minimum Flow 12.8 -20.7 -21.5 -20.7 -21.5

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 999.7 -15.6 -15.3 -15.6 -15.3 Minimum Flow 10.2 -12.3 -12.1 -12.3 -12.1

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 9: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 6 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 1,407.4 -43.2 -44.7 -43.2 -44.7 Minimum Flow 22.7 -27.4 -27.1 -27.4 -27.1

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 1,029.8 -34.2 -34.5 -34.2 -34.5 Minimum Flow 11.0 -9.7 -1.6 -9.7 -1.6

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 652.6 -23.5 -23.2 -23.5 -23.2 Minimum Flow 14.3 -9.3 -9.2 -9.3 -9.2

Table 10: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Canyon Gage on the Cache la Poudre River, 1950-1999 Water Years. Extreme Flow Analysis Low Flow Parameter

Less than 10 cfs Less than 5 cfs Zero cfs Total Occurrences (Days) 247 7 0 Number Of Years with Occurrences 31 4 0 Mean Days/Year 5 <1 0 Flow Fluctuation Parameter

50 % Decrease 100% Increase 200% Increase Total Occurrences (Days) 179 232 86 Number Of Years with Occurrences 44 47 35 Mean Days/Year 4 5 2

PHABSIM Habitat Simulation The reductions in maximum flows would result in higher habitat suitability for juvenile and adult brown trout in wet years and for fry in average and dry years compared to baseline conditions (Table 11, Appendix G). The increases in habitat suitability range from 12.7 percent to 50.9 percent. However, the reductions in late winter flows would result in

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

reductions in habitat suitability for brown trout adults in average years of approximately 10 percent and for adults and juveniles in dry years of just over 12 percent. These results represent a complex mix of contradicting factors.

Table 11: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Minimum Habitat Availability (WUA in ft2 /1000 ft) Among the Action Alternatives Simulated for Brown and Rainbow Trout at the Main 3 Node on the Cache la Poudre River. Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Baseline Habitat Parameter (WUA) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Brown Trout Fry 2,500 +3.0 +5.2 +3.0 +5.2 Juvenile 6,309 +47.4 +50.9 +47.4 +50.9 Adult 6,872 +26.4 +28.4 +26.4 +28.4 Rainbow Trout Fry 2,372 +17.5 +18.6 +17.5 +18.6 Juvenile 2,372 +17.5 +18.6 +17.5 +18.6 Adult 9,745 +30.6 +32.3 +30.6 +32.3 AVERAGE YEARS Brown Trout Fry 2,500 +15.6 +15.8 +15.6 +15.8 Juvenile 7,692 +2.8 +1.7 +2.8 +1.7 Adult 7,846 -9.5 -10.5 -9.5 -10.5 Rainbow Trout Fry 2,587 +13.9 +14.0 +13.9 +14.0 Juvenile 2,587 +13.9 +14.0 +13.9 +14.0 Adult 11,846 -<0.1 -1.8 -<0.1 -1.8 DRY YEARS Brown Trout Fry 3,001 +13.0 +12.7 +13.0 +12.7 Juvenile 7,973 -12.3 -12.1 -12.3 -12.1 Adult 7,155 -12.3 -12.1 -12.3 -12.1 Rainbow Trout Fry 3,001 +26.0 +25.5 +26.0 +25.4 Juvenile 3,001 +26.0 +25.5 +26.0 +25.4 Adult 11,859 -12.3 -12.1 -12.3 -12.1

The habitat increases in wet years for brown trout adults and juveniles would be two to three times the decreases in average and dry years. Also, fry habitat increases by more than

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

10 percent in both average and dry years, possibly leading to stronger year classes of young fish in these years. These factors suggest that the net effect of the alternatives would be beneficial for the action alternatives compared to baseline conditions.

For rainbow trout, the reductions in peak runoff flows would result in greater habitat suitability for fry and juveniles in all three year types, with increases of 13.9 percent to 26.0 percent (Table 11, Appendix G). For adults, habitat suitability with the action alternatives would increase by over 30 percent in wet years, but not change appreciably in average years, and be reduced by just over 12 percent in dry years compared to baseline conditions. Most of the differences from baseline conditions are positive, and the only negative differences are in dry years when habitat availability is already relatively high compared to wet and average years. The net effect of the differences for all three life stages would probably be favorable, and would suggest a beneficial effect of all alternatives to rainbow trout populations in this segment of the Cache la Poudre River.

Effects Summary The reductions in maximum flows during runoff in May, June, and July with the action alternatives would tend to increase habitat availability for brown and rainbow trout more than the reductions in winter flows would decrease habitat availability. The analysis of extreme flows at the Canyon Gage (Table 10) indicates that very low flows (<10 cfs) do not occur very often in this segment and are probably not having a critical influence on fish and invertebrates. However, a concern of CDOW is that there are other locations in this segment with lower winter flows that are not evident from the data at the gage. The reductions in peak flows would also tend to reduce movement and scouring of the substrate leading to slightly greater channel stability without increasing sedimentation (ERO 2008b). This would tend to benefit benthic invertebrates which live in the substrate. This would also tend to benefit longnose dace, a common native minnow species in this segment which also lives in the substrate. The benthic species of invertebrates and fish would probably tolerate the reduced winter flows and benefit from the reduced runoff flows. Therefore, the information on hydrology and habitat availability for fish and invertebrates indicates that the action alternatives would result in a minor beneficial effect to fish and invertebrate communities in this segment of the Cache la Poudre River. There would be increases in

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

abundance of brown and rainbow trout and other fish such as the native suckers and longnose dace. There would be increases in abundance of invertebrates and possibly increased number of species of invertebrates as well.

4.1.2. Near Fort Collins The Cache la Poudre River segment from Shields Street downstream to College Avenue, a distance of approximately just over 1.6 kilometers, is in the transitional zone between coldwater and warmwater habitat. Brown trout maintain resident, self-sustaining populations in this segment, but rainbow trout are rare. Warmwater species, such as fathead minnow, johnny darter, and yellow perch are present in low numbers. The invertebrate data indicate that water quality and habitat conditions are suitable to support an abundant and diverse community in this segment of the river.

This segment of the study area of the Cache la Poudre River has no hydrologic modeling nodes. However, the node at the Lincoln Gage (LINCGAGE node) is just downstream of the end of this segment, just downstream of College Avenue (Figure 6) and represents the flow through this segment. PHABSIM habitat was simulated for brown trout and white sucker, two of the most common species in this segment.

Water quality is expected to be slightly degraded from baseline conditions for the action alternatives due to lower flows (ERO and HDR 2008). Both riparian vegetation and channel morphology are expected to be affected by the alternatives (ERO 2008a and 2008b). The changes in flow would result in minor changes including narrowing of the channel, encroachment of riparian vegetation, and increased sedimentation of the substrate in this segment.

Hydrology The hydrology for all action alternatives would be similar at the LINCGAGE node (Figure 10). Maximum flows during runoff would be reduced by 45.4 percent to 62.3 percent for the action alternatives in wet, average, and dry years (Table 12). These reductions would tend to result in greater habitat availability for fish and invertebrates compared to baseline conditions by reducing high velocity during runoff.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

LINC GAGE

1000 Wet Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000

Baseline Average Year Alt 2 Alt 3 800 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000 Dry Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 10: Mean-monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the LINCGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 12: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the LINCGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 908.4 -59.4 -62.3 -59.4 -62.3 Minimum Flow 17.4 -19.3 -14.1 -19.3 -14.1

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 529.4 -53.6 -56.1 -53.6 -56.1 Minimum Flow 12.9 -13.2 -13.3 -13.2 -13.3

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 215.4 -45.8 -45.4 -45.8 -45.4 Minimum Flow 9.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2

Minimum flows in late summer and winter would be reduced by 13.2 percent to 19.3 percent in wet and average years compared to baseline flows (Table 12). For dry years, the differences in minimum flow would be negligible. These reductions in minimum flows would tend to be adverse to fish and invertebrates.

The summarization of the Lincoln Gage records (HDR 2006b) reveals that low flows and fluctuations are much more common in this segment of the river compared to the segment upstream (Table 13). Flows less than 10 cfs have occurred every year over the 24-year period of record from water years 1976 to 1999. On average, flows less than 10 cfs have occurred approximately 138 days per year and flows less than 5 cfs occurred roughly 84 days per year. There were also 26 days when zero flow was recorded at the Lincoln Gage in 1988 and 1989, although flows this low did not occur in any other years over this period. Fluctuations in flows at this gage have also been common. Days with flow reduced by 50 percent or more occurred an average of 21 days per year and a doubling of the flow occurred an average of 23 days per year. Days with flow increases of over 200 percent occurred an average of 11 days per year and occurred at least once in all 24 years in the record. This fluctuating flow regime probably is an important factor influencing the fish and invertebrate communities in this segment.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 13: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Lincoln Street Gage on the Cache la Poudre River, 1976-1999 Water Years. Extreme Flow Analysis Low Flow Parameter

Less than 10 cfs Less than 5 cfs Zero cfs Total Occurrences (Days) 3300 2015 26 Number Of Years with Occurrences 24 23 2 Mean Days/Year 138 84 1 Flow Fluctuation Parameter

50 % Decrease 100% Increase 200% Increase Total Occurrences (Days) 495 544 257 Number Of Years with Occurrences 24 24 24 Mean Days/Year 21 23 11

The changes in hydrology with the action alternatives probably would not affect the fluctuations in flows in this segment (HDR 2006a). However, the reductions in flows in wet and average years may increase the occurrence of low flows. Although the action alternatives would change high flows by a greater percentage, the reductions in low flows may have a greater influence on the fish and invertebrate communities.

PHABSIM Habitat Simulation Differences in simulated minimum habitat availability for brown trout would be less than 10 percent in all year types between baseline conditions and the action alternatives (Table 14, Appendix G). This suggests that the action alternatives would have little effect on the brown trout population in this segment of the river.

Simulated habitat for most life stages of white sucker would also have differences of less than 10 percent for wet, average, and dry years from baseline conditions (Table 14, Appendix G). Habitat for the adult/juvenile (combined) life stage would increase by 13 percent for Alternative 2 and Subalternative 4.1 in average years and by approximately 25 percent for all action alternatives in dry years. Overall, the small differences in habitat availability indicate that the action alternatives would have little effect on the white sucker population in this segment.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

WET YEARS Brown Trout Spawning 14,753 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Fry 9,273 -5.4 -6.1 -5.4 -6.1 Juvenile 11,429 -3.7 -2.7 -3.7 -2.7 Adult 11,336 -3.3 -2.4 -3.3 -2.4 White Sucker Spawning 5,241 -6.7 -7.5 -6.7 -7.5 Fry 5,513 -5.2 -7.7 -5.2 -7.7 Adult/Juvenile 1,513 -8.2 -5.7 -8.2 -5.7 AVERAGE YEARS Brown Trout Spawning 17,142 -9.7 -9.5 -9.8 -9.5 Fry 7,901 -3.2 -3.2 -3.2 -3.2 Juvenile 10,861 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 -2.0 Adult 10,825 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 White Sucker Spawning 4,281 +0.1 -0.8 +0.1 -0.8 Fry 5,309 -5.0 -2.9 -5.0 -2.9 Adult/Juvenile 1,307 +13.0 +8.0 +13.0 +8.0 DRY YEARS Brown Trout Spawning 13,852 -6.2 -6.0 -6.2 -6.0 Fry 7,300 -<0.1 -<0.1 -<0.1 -<0.1 Juvenile 10,300 -<0.1 -<0.1 -<0.1 -<0.1 Adult 10,300 -<0.1 -<0.1 -<0.1 -<0.1 White Sucker Spawning 3,860 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 Fry 4,983 -2.2 -2.0 -2.2 -2.0 Adult/Juvenile 1,327 +25.6 +25.2 +25.6 +25.2

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Effects Summary The information concerning channel morphology, hydrology, and PHABSIM habitat simulation suggest contradictory effects to the fish and invertebrate communities. The reduced peak flows with the action alternatives would lead to lower velocity during runoff and less scouring of the substrate, which would tend to be beneficial. The reduced flows would also allow the channel to become narrower and for riparian vegetation to encroach. These changes could be beneficial as the channel now appears to be too wide to provide suitable habitat for fish at low flows. Also, the encroaching vegetation may provide more cover for fish near the banks, which could result in higher quality habitat for fish. However, the narrowed channel would probably reduce the quality of bank habitat as stable banks offering cover with baseline conditions would be replaced by low banks, with low depositional areas adjacent to the active channel and less stability and cover for fish. This type of bank configuration usually does not provide high quality habitat for fish. The increased sedimentation and minor degradation of water quality would be detrimental to both fish and invertebrates. The reduced winter flows may also make the occurrence of extremely low flows more common.

PHABSIM habitat simulations suggest little differences in habitat availability for brown trout and white sucker. However the use of PHABSIM assumes that channel morphology will not change. The changes to the channel render the habitat simulations less representative of future habitat conditions. The net effect of these contradictory factors would be a minor adverse effect of the action alternatives compared to baseline conditions. The changes to channel morphology, the increased sedimentation, degraded water quality, and the greater occurrence of low flows would be detrimental to both fish and invertebrates. The adverse effects would result in lower abundance and fewer species of fish and invertebrates. These minor adverse effects would not be more serious because, over time, these changes will happen gradually, and the fish and invertebrate communities would adapt to the new flow regime and channel morphology.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

4.1.3. Fort Collins to Interstate 25 The Cache la Poudre River from College Avenue downstream to Interstate 25 contains approximately 12.4 kilometers of transitional habitat between coldwater and warmwater reaches. Two coldwater species, brown and rainbow trout, are present in low numbers in this segment, but warmwater species such as minnows and sunfishes are present in greater numbers. White sucker is one of the most common resident species and maintains self-sustaining populations.

This segment of the river contains two hydrologic nodes that were used to represent the flow, the Main 12 node downstream of the Timnath Reservoir Inlet and the Main 14 node downstream of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet (Figure 6). Habitat for white sucker was simulated with PHABSIM using hydrology for the Main 12 node near the middle of this segment.

Water quality would be slightly degraded between baseline conditions and the action alternatives (ERO and HDR 2008). Water quality standards are currently exceeded for some metals with baseline conditions and there may be more exceedences for some metals and for total ammonia with the action alternatives. Both riparian vegetation and channel morphology would be affected by the action alternatives, resulting in channel narrowing, encroachment of vegetation, and increased sedimentation (ERO 2008a and ERO 2008b).

Hydrology At both the Main 12 and Main 14 nodes, maximum flows during runoff would be reduced by 39.4 percent to 61.4 percent in wet, average, and dry years for all action alternatives as compared to baseline conditions (Figure 11 and Figure 12; Table 15 and Table 16). Minimum flows would be reduced in wet years by approximately 15 percent to 16 percent in wet years at both nodes. However, in average and dry years, minimum flows in winter would be higher than baseline flows for all action alternatives. The increases in winter flows in average years would be from 15.1 percent to 21.6 percent at the two nodes. In dry years, minimum flows would increase by 32.7 percent to 46.6 percent at the Main 12 node and 59.9 percent to 80.2 percent at the Main 14 node. The net effect of the reductions in peak flows and the increases in winter flows would be favorable for fish and invertebrates in this segment of the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 12

1000 Wet Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000

Baseline Average Year Alt 2 Alt 3 800 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000 Dry Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 11: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 12 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 14

1000 Wet Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000

Baseline Average Year Alt 2 Alt 3 800 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000 Dry Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 12: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 14 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 15: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 12 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 944.0 -57.2 -59.9 -57.2 -59.9 Minimum Flow 16.2 -16.2 -15.9 -16.2 -15.9

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 564.1 -50.3 -52.7 -50.3 -52.7 Minimum Flow 11.1 +19.4 +16.5 +19.4 +16.5

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 247.5 -40.0 -39.4 -40.0 -39.4 Minimum Flow 6.6 +46.6 +32.7 +46.6 +32.7

Table 16: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 14 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 923.6 -58.5 -61.4 -58.5 -61.4 Minimum Flow 13.5 -15.2 -14.9 -15.2 -14.9

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 547.3 -51.8 -54.3 -51.8 -54.3 Minimum Flow 8.9 +21.6 +15.1 +21.6 +15.1

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 230.3 -42.8 -42.3 -42.8 -42.3 Minimum Flow 3.9 +80.2 +59.9 +80.2 +59.9

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

At the Boxelder Creek Gage in this segment of the river, the data for the period from water years 1980 through 1999 (Table 17) indicates similar low flow and fluctuating flow characteristics as in the segment upstream. Flows less than 10 cfs occurred in all years in this period, averaged 174 days per year, and were common in all months except for May, June, and July. There were no zero flow days at this gage. Fluctuations were also common, with days of flow reduced by half averaging 16 days per year and an average of 18 days per year with flow doubling. These flow statistics indicate that low flows and fluctuations have an important influence on the fish and invertebrates in this segment of the river.

Table 17: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Boxelder Creek Gage on the Cache la Poudre River, 1980-1999 Water Years. Extreme Flow Analysis Low Flow Parameter

Less than 10 cfs Less than 5 cfs Zero cfs Total Occurrences (Days) 3489 1769 0 Number Of Years with Occurrences 20 17 0 Mean Days/Year 174 88 0 Flow Fluctuation Parameter

50 % Decrease 100% Increase 200% Increase Total Occurrences (Days) 326 354 167 Number Of Years with Occurrences 20 20 20 Mean Days/Year 16 18 8

PHABSIM Habitat Simulation Habitat availability for white sucker would be more than 10 percent higher than baseline conditions for one or two life stages in each year type (Table 18). In wet years, habitat for fry would increase by 25.5 percent to 27.4 percent. In average years, habitat availability would be higher than baseline for the spawning and fry life stages by 12.6 percent to 15.1 percent. In dry years, habitat availability for fry would increase by approximately 21 percent and for the adult/juvenile (combined) life stage by 36.1 percent to 51.5 percent. These differences from baseline in all three year types would tend to be beneficial to white sucker populations in this segment of the river.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 18: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Minimum Habitat Availability (WUA in ft2 /1000 ft) Among Action Alternatives Simulated for White Sucker at the Main 12 Node on the Cache la Poudre River. Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Baseline Habitat Parameter (WUA) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS White Sucker Spawning 3,309 +7.3 +5.9 +7.3 +5.9 Fry 12,336 +25.5 +27.4 +25.5 +27.4 Adult/Juvenile 8,000 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 AVERAGE YEARS White Sucker Spawning 2,731 +13.6 +12.6 +13.6 +12.6 Fry 14,615 +14.2 +15.1 +14.2 +15.1 Adult/Juvenile 7,656 +3.9 +3.3 +3.9 +3.3 DRY YEARS White Sucker Spawning 3549 +21.9 +21.1 +21.9 +21.1 Fry 17,025 +8.8 +8.7 +8.8 +8.7 Adult/Juvenile 4,766 +51.5 +36.1 +51.5 +36.1

Effects Summary The information from both hydrology and PHABSIM simulation indicates that the action alternatives would provide substantially more habitat for fish and invertebrates than baseline flow conditions. The decrease in high flows would result in greater habitat availability for fish and invertebrates. The increases in winter flows may reduce the occurrence of extremely low flows that are common in this segment with baseline conditions. The action alternatives would have a minor to moderate beneficial effect to the fish and invertebrate communities in this segment of the river. This would result in increased abundance and number of species of fish and invertebrates. This may allow some of the native fish species that have been excluded from this section of the river since pre-settlement to return. However, the beneficial effect would be dampened by the adverse effects of slightly degraded water quality, channel narrowing and sedimentation.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

4.1.4. Interstate 25 to the Platte River The habitat in the Cache la Poudre River from I-25 downstream to the confluence with the South Platte River contains approximately 56 kilometers of warmwater habitat. A variety of native and non-native warmwater fish species are present. The benthic invertebrate community in this segment has abundance similar to the segments upstream. However, the number of species and sensitive species is lower in this segment, suggesting that water quality and habitat are not sufficient to support some sensitive species.

There are three hydrologic nodes in this segment of the river (Figure 6). The Main 18 node is downstream of Windsor, the Main 20 node is near Greeley and is downstream of most of the diversions in the lower part of the river, and the Greeley Gage (GRLYGAGE) node is downstream of Greeley. No PHABSIM habitat simulations were available for this segment of the river. The EIS team and CDOW agreed that this section of the river reflects the effects of altered hydrology, degraded water quality, and degraded habitat. The assumption that PHABSIM-simulated habitat would be directly correlated to aquatic communities is probably not valid.

Water quality would be degraded slightly from baseline conditions with all of the action alternatives (ERO and HDR 2008). Water quality standards for many constituents are occasionally exceeded in this section of the river and this would continue with the action alternatives. Riparian vegetation and channel morphology would be affected, leading to a narrowed channel, vegetative encroachment, and increased sedimentation (ERO 2008a and 2008b).

Hydrology At all three hydrologic nodes in this segment of the river, maximum flows during the runoff period would be reduced from baseline conditions in wet and average years (Figure 13, Figure 14, and Figure 15). The reductions would range from 44.4 percent to 61.2 percent at the three nodes (Table 19, Table 20, and Table 21). The differences in maximum flows in dry years would be less than 10 percent at all three nodes. Differences in minimum flows in late summer and winter would be less than 10 percent at all three nodes in all three year types compared to baseline conditions. In many cases, the differences in minimum flows would be near zero.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 18

1000 Wet Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000

Baseline Average Year Alt 2 Alt 3 800 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000 Dry Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 13: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 18 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 20

1000 Wet Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000

Baseline Average Year Alt 2 Alt 3 800 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000 Dry Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 14: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the Main 20 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

GRLY GAGE

1000 Wet Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000

Baseline Average Year Alt 2 Alt 3 800 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000 Dry Year

800

600

Flow (cfs) Flow 400

200

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 15: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the GRLYGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 19: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 18 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 791.9 -59.5 -60.6 -59.5 -60.6 Minimum Flow 52.0 +0.2 0.0 +0.2 0.0

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 406.7 -47.8 -50.6 -47.8 -50.6 Minimum Flow 47.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 98.1 +5.2 +4.5 +5.2 +4.5 Minimum Flow 40.3 0.0 -0.1 0.0 -0.1

Table 20: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the Main 20 Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 784.3 -60.0 -61.2 -60.0 -61.2 Minimum Flow 32.8 +0.6 +0.5 +0.6 +0.5

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 398.3 -49.1 -51.9 -49.1 -51.9 Minimum Flow 25.0 -1.5 -1.9 -1.5 -1.9

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 112.8 +4.5 +3.9 +4.5 +3.9 Minimum Flow 16.3 -7.7 -9.7 -7.7 -9.7

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 21: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the GRLYGAGE Node on the Cache la Poudre River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 826.0 -57.0 -58.1 -57.0 -58.1 Minimum Flow 78.8 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 438.0 -44.4 -46.9 -44.4 -46.9 Minimum Flow 62.4 +0.2 +0.1 +0.2 +0.1

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 139.8 +3.1 +3.1 +3.6 +3.1 Minimum Flow 59.0 -3.4 -4.1 -3.4 -4.1

The summary of low flows and fluctuations at the Greeley Gage (Table 22) indicates that low flows and large fluctuations in flow are less common at this gage than in the two segments upstream on the Cache la Poudre River. Flows less than 10 cfs occurred mostly from 1949 to 1966 in the 48-year period of record and were much less common after 1966. Fluctuations were also less than in the segments upstream. Days with flow reduced by half averaged only 4 days per year, and days with flows doubling averaged 7 days per year. However, the Greeley Gage is downstream of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and probably has more stable low flow conditions than some sections of this segment upstream of Greeley.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 22: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Greeley Gage on the Cache la Poudre River, 1950-1997 Water Years. Extreme Flow Analysis Low Flow Parameter

Less than 10 cfs Less than 5 cfs Zero cfs Total Occurrences (Days) 570 21 0 Number Of Years with Occurrences 27 4 0 Mean Days/Year 12 <1 0 Flow Fluctuation Parameter

50 % Decrease 100% Increase 200% Increase Total Occurrences (Days) 187 330 124 Number Of Years with Occurrences 46 50 44 Mean Days/Year 4 7 2

Effects Summary PHABSIM information is not available in this segment and the evaluation of effects is based on hydrologic information. The reductions in runoff flows in wet and average years would reduce velocity during this time of the year and would tend to result in greater habitat availability for fish and invertebrates. However, channel narrowing and increased sedimentation would probably reduce the quality of bank habitat with low banks and depositional areas adjacent to the active channel. The adverse effects of channel narrowing, increased sedimentation, and slightly degraded water quality would limit the benefits of reduced peak flows. The net result of the changes in hydrology with the action alternatives would be a minor adverse effect to fish and invertebrates compared to baseline conditions in this segment of the Cache la Poudre River. This would result in less abundance and fewer species of fish and invertebrates in this section of the river.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

4.2. South Platte River

4.2.1. Cache la Poudre River to the Kersey Gage The study area on the South Platte River extends approximately 3.7 kilometers from the confluence with the Cache la Poudre River downstream to the Kersey Gage. The South Platte River in the study area is a warmwater river and is much larger than the Cache la Poudre River. The South Platte River contains a wide variety of warmwater fish including several species of minnows, sunfishes, and white and longnose suckers. The limited benthic invertebrate data for this segment of the river indicates the presence of an abundant and diverse community with water quality suitable to support some sensitive species.

One hydrologic node at the Kersey Gage (KRSYGAGE node) represents this segment of the river (Figure 6). PHABSIM habitat was simulated for plains killifish, red shiner, sand shiner and white sucker. Sand shiner and white sucker are two of the more common fish species in this segment. Red shiners were less abundant, but were collected during most sampling episodes. Plains killifish were less abundant, but use different habitat from the shiners and the sucker and help evaluate a different habitat aspect of the river. Red and sand shiners can utilize habitat with moderate depth and velocity and are commonly found in the open channel habitat in rivers. Plains killifish prefer low velocity, shallow areas such as on the margins of the channel. White sucker fry prefer low to moderate velocities but can utilize deep portions of the channel as well. White sucker juveniles and adults utilize habitat with moderate velocity and a wide range of depths, and can be found in the deeper areas. Simulating habitat for this combination of species and life stages evaluates a wide range of habitat preferences for the fish community in the river.

Water quality, riparian vegetation, and channel morphology are not expected to change significantly with the alternatives (ERO and HDR 2008, ERO 2008a and ERO 2008b).

Hydrology The action alternatives would result in reductions in maximum flows of 11.2 percent to 13.6 percent in wet and average years (Figure 16, Table 23). In dry years, the differences would be approximately 2 percent. Minimum flows would not change substantially from baseline conditions, with differences of less than 10 percent for all action alternatives.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

KRSY GAGE

5000 Wet Year 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500

Flow (cfs) Flow 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 5000 Average Year 4500 Baseline Alt 2 Alt 3 4000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2 3500

3000

2500

Flow (cfs) Flow 2000

1500

1000

500

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 5000 Dry Year 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500

Flow (cfs) Flow 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 16: Mean-Monthly Flow Time Series for the Action Alternatives at the KRSYGAGE Node on the South Platte River.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 23: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Flow Among the Action Alternatives Based on Mean-Monthly Flow at the KRSYGAGE Node on the South Platte River.

Baseline Flow Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (cfs) 2 3 4.1 4.2

WET YEARS Maximum Flow 4,801.8 -11.2 -11.5 -11.2 -11.5 Minimum Flow 742.8 -4.0 -4.0 -4.0 -4.0

AVERAGE YEARS Maximum Flow 1,872.1 -13.0 -13.6 -13.0 -13.6 Minimum Flow 396.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0

DRY YEARS Maximum Flow 867.9 -2.2 -2.1 -2.2 -2.1 Minimum Flow 204.4 -1.7 -1.9 -1.7 -1.9

The reductions in peak flows would tend to have a favorable effect on fish and invertebrates. However, the South Platte River is wider, with different channel morphology than the Cache la Poudre River (ERO 2008b). At high flows, the river spreads laterally onto islands and sand bars that can provide additional habitat for fish. In contrast, high flows in a smaller, confined channel such as the Cache la Poudre River generally result in higher velocity within the channel. Therefore, the benefits of reductions in peak flows in the South Platte River may not be as great as in a more confined channel.

Fluctuations in flows in the South Platte River occur with much less frequency than in the Cache la Poudre River. A summary of the daily flow data for the Kersey Gage over a 50-year period (Table 24) indicates that reductions in flow of 50 percent or more occur once in 2 to 3 years. A doubling of the flow occurs on 5 days per year, on average. Low flows of 200 cfs or less occurred in most years over the period of record for an average of 40 days each year. Low flows of 100 cfs or lower occurred in less than half of the years. There were no zero flow days at the Kersey Gage.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Table 24: Extreme Flow Summary for Historical Daily Flow Data at the Kersey Gage on the South Platte River, 1950-1999 Water Years. Extreme Flow Analysis Low Flow Parameter

Less than 200 cfs Less than 100 cfs Zero cfs Total Occurrences (Days) 2012 650 0 Number Of Years with Occurrences 39 21 0 Mean Days/Year 40 13 0 Flow Fluctuation Parameter

50 % Decrease 100% Increase 200% Increase Total Occurrences (Days) 30 227 92 Number Of Years with Occurrences 18 50 45 Mean Days/Year <1 5 2

PHABSIM Habitat Simulation Habitat availability for plains killifish would be 67.8 percent to 78.5 percent higher in wet years with the action alternatives compared to baseline conditions (Table 25). This species prefers lower depth and velocity than the other species, and the reductions in spring flows result in increases in habitat availability for this species. In average and dry years, the habitat availability for plains killifish would not be very different from baseline conditions with the alternatives. The increases in habitat availability in wet years may result in more years with greater abundance for this species, but the effect would be limited without increases in habitat availability in average and dry years.

For red and sand shiners, the slight reductions in flow in winter would result in 10.1 percent to 10.6 percent less habitat availability in wet years for Alternatives 2 and 3 compared to baseline (Table 25). For Subalternatives 4.1 and 4.2, the differences in habitat availability would be only 6.6 percent. In average and dry years, habitat availability reaches a minimum in mid-summer for these two species (Appendix G), and the changes to winter flows with all action alternatives would have no effect. The differences in habitat availability for these two species would be just over the 10 percent threshold in wet years, and in average and dry years would be much less than 10 percent. Overall, the similarity in

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

habitat between all action alternatives indicates that there would be no change in populations for red and sand shiners compared to baseline conditions.

Table 25: Direct Effects Summary for Differences in Minimum Habitat Availability (WUA in ft2 /1000 ft) Among Action Alternatives Simulated for Plains Killifish, Red Shiners, Sand Shiners, and White Suckers at the KRSYGAGE Node on the South Platte River.

Baseline Habitat Alternative (% Change from Baseline) Parameter (WUA) 2 3 4.1 4.2 WET YEARS Plains Killifish Adult 5,098 +75.9 +78.5 +67.8 +70.3 Red Shiner Adult 25,367 -10.4 -10.1 -6.6 -6.6 Sand Shiner Adult 24,506 -10.6 -10.4 -6.8 -6.9 White Sucker Spawning 37,266 -2.8 -2.8 -1.6 -1.7 Fry 7688 +42.9 +44.3 +38.4 +39.7 Adult/Juvenile 1,277 -0.3 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 AVERAGE YEARS Plains Killifish Adult 3,772 -1.9 -1.9 -1.0 -1.0 Red Shiner Adult 19,264 -0.8 -0.8 +<0.1 -0.1 Sand Shiner Adult 19,056 -0.3 -0.3 +0.4 +0.3 White Sucker Spawning 40,024 -3.4 -3.5 -1.6 -1.7 Fry 5649 -1.7 -1.7 -0.9 -0.9 Adult/Juvenile 917 -17.2 -17.2 -10.0 -10.0 DRY YEARS Plains Killifish Adult 1,971 -2.5 -2.7 -1.7 -1.9 Red Shiner Adult 15,212 -2.5 -2.8 -1.7 -1.9 Sand Shiner Adult 15,698 -2.5 -2.7 -1.7 -3.5 White Sucker Spawning 28,809 -1.6 -2.0 -0.6 -0.8 Fry 3067 -2.5 -2.7 -1.7 -1.9 Adult/Juvenile 1,031 -15.8 -16.5 -6.7 -7.2

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Habitat availability for white sucker fry would be 38.4 percent to 44.3 percent higher in wet years with the reductions in maximum flows with all four alternatives (Table 25). Habitat availability for the other life stages in wet years would be very similar to baseline. In average years, there would be reductions in habitat availability for the adult/juvenile (combined) life stage of 10.0 percent to 17.2 percent compared to baseline conditions. Habitat for the other two life stages would be similar to baseline. In dry years, adult/juvenile white suckers would have 15.8 percent to 16.5 percent less habitat available for with Alternatives 2 and 3. Habitat availability for the other life stages and for the other two alternatives would not change substantially from baseline. The lower habitat availability for adult/juvenile white suckers in average and dry years is probably the more important factor in this evaluation because habitat availability in these two year types is already lower than in wet years (Table 25). The increases in habitat availability for fry in wet years would occur in years with habitat availability already higher than in average and dry years, and would have little effect. The differences in flow in average and dry years would tend to result in adverse effects to white sucker populations in this segment of the South Platte River. The effects would be worse for Alternatives 2 and 3 and would not be as severe for Subalternatives 4.1 and 4.2.

Effects Summary The reductions in maximum flows with the action alternatives would tend to be favorable for fish and invertebrates in the South Platte River. However, the wide channel would limit the benefits of lowered flows. PHABSIM habitat simulations indicate that some species, such as plains killifish, would benefit compared to baseline conditions with the differences in flow. However, plains killifish are relatively uncommon in this section of the river. Other species, such as red shiner and the more common sand shiner, have similar habitat availability with baseline conditions and all action alternatives. These species would not be affected by the differences in flow. White sucker, one of the most common, native species in this section of the river, would have lower habitat availability for the adult/juvenile life stage in average and dry years, the year types that have lower habitat availability than wet years. The reductions in habitat for Alternatives 2 and 3 would be unfavorable for this species. The net effect of the differences in flow from baseline

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

conditions would be a minor adverse effect to the fish community for Alternatives 2 and 3 as compared to baseline conditions. This would result in lower abundance of fish and possibly, fewer species. For Subalternatives 4.1 and 4.2, the reductions in habitat availability for white sucker would be less than for Alternatives 2 and 3, and would probably result in a negligible effect for these alternatives.

For invertebrates, the reduced maximum flows would probably have a greater influence on the community than the relatively small reductions in minimum flows. The net effect to the invertebrate community in this segment of the South Platte River would be a minor beneficial effect with greater abundance and number of species as compared to baseline conditions for all action alternatives.

4.3. Proposed Reservoirs The proposed reservoirs would be created where perennial aquatic habitat does not currently exist. This would create additional habitat for fish and invertebrates. This would result in major beneficial effects to aquatic habitat for all action alternatives as compared to baseline conditions.

4.3.1. Glade Reservoir The proposed Glade Reservoir would be created with Alternative 2 and Subalternative 4.1. The reservoir would have a maximum storage capacity of 170,000 AF and a maximum depth of over 200 ft (61 m) (HDR 2006a). The reservoir would have long-term filling and drawdown cycles and annual fluctuations would be less than 10 ft (3 m) in many years (HDR 2006c). At the elevation of 5517 ft (1682 m) when full and its location in the foothills, the reservoir would be likely to support a two-tiered fishery similar to Horsetooth Reservoir. The CDOW will ultimately be responsible for the management of the fishery, and they will decide on the recreationally important species that will be developed in the reservoir. However, the upper layers of the reservoir should be suitable for warmwater game fish such as bass, walleye, wiper, and yellow perch. The reservoir should also be suitable for forage species such as gizzard shad or minnows. The lower layers of the reservoir should be suitable for coldwater game fish such as brown and rainbow trout.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

4.3.2. Cactus Hill Reservoir The proposed Cactus Hill Reservoir would be created with Alternative 3 and Subalternative 4.2. The reservoir would have a maximum storage capacity of 180,000 AF and would be shallower than Glade Reservoir, with a maximum depth of over 120 ft (37 m) (HDR 2006c). This reservoir would also have long-term filling and drawdown cycles with annual fluctuations of 10 to 20 ft (3 to 6 m) in many years. This reservoir would also support a two-tiered fishery. However, its lower elevation (5236 ft [1596 m] when full) and its location on the plains indicate that it would provide better habitat for warmwater fish than for coldwater species. The CDOW will ultimately be responsible for the management of the fishery. The fishery would be suitable for establishing and sustaining warmwater fish such as bass, walleye, wiper, yellow perch, and sunfish. Coldwater fish species, such as brown and rainbow trout, could be stocked during at least the cooler part of the year. Most of the coldwater fish would support a short-term put and take fishery, although a few may hold over for one or more years, especially when the reservoir is near full and there would be more coldwater refuge in the deeper parts of the reservoir.

4.3.3. Galeton Reservoir The proposed Galeton Reservoir would have a capacity of 40,000 AF with Alternatives 2 and 3, and a capacity of 20,000 AF with Subalternatives 4.1 and 4.2 (HDR 2006c). The maximum depth of the reservoir would be approximately 54 ft (16 m) at the larger size and 43 ft (13 m) at the smaller size. The reservoir is not expected to be open for recreational fishing. However, it will probably develop a community of fish and invertebrates in spite of the lack of fishery management by CDOW. Fish may enter as water is pumped from the South Platte River. The reservoir would provide habitat for warmwater fish that may enter from the river such as largemouth bass, green sunfish, suckers, gizzard shad, and carp. Conditions in the reservoir will not be conducive to supporting a diverse or abundant fishery. The fluctuations on an annual basis would be 15 to 20 ft (5 to 6 m) or more, representing approximately one-third of its depth. Modeling by HDR (2006c) indicates that the reservoir would be reduced to a minimum pool in 3 or 4 years out of the 50-year period of simulation disrupting the establishment of a stable, productive fish community.

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

4.4. Munroe Canal Diversion An alternate point of diversion for either Glade Reservoir or Cactus Hill Reservoir is the Munroe Canal, upstream of the Poudre Valley Canal (Figure 1). The use of this diversion and its consequences are described in more detail in HDR (2006a). Briefly, this option would increase the amount of water flowing in the upper part of the first segment of the river in the study area compared to baseline conditions, especially in late summer, and decrease water in a short section of this segment during the same period. Hydrology was not provided for this option. However, the changes in flow generally would occur in late summer in this section of river, a time when flows would not be critically high or critically low. This suggests that the use of the Munroe Canal would not change our evaluation of the effects of the alternatives.

5. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS EVALUATION Cumulative effects to fish and other aquatic life are discussed in the Cumulative Effects Technical Report (ERO 2007c).

6. MITIGATION The adverse effects that would occur in the Cache la Poudre and South Platte rivers as a consequence of NISP may be mitigated by several projects. The first would be to increase winter flows by 10 cfs or more in the coldwater portion of the Cache la Poudre River upstream of the Poudre Valley Canal. Winter flows have been identified by CDOW as providing low habitat availability for trout in this section of the river and increasing winter flows may help to alleviate a habitat bottleneck for trout.

A second mitigation project would be to physically improve the habitat in sections of the Cache la Poudre River to support a higher abundance of fish. A section of approximately one half mile (0.8 km) of the river near the Watson Fish Hatchery has been tentatively identified by CDOW as a section that would be suitable for improvements. Another section of stream that may benefit from improvements and has been identified by CDOW is the North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River downstream of Seaman Reservoir.

A third project would be the reintroduction of rare fish species into the Cache la Poudre River drainage. There are several small, warmwater fish species that are being raised in the

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

CDOW hatchery in Alamosa that would be appropriate to stock in isolated locations in the Cache la Poudre drainage downstream of Fort Collins. These reintroductions would be done in isolated, off-channel habitats, such as backwater and floodplain pools that would be created as part of wetlands mitigation. The off-channel habitats would give these species protection from non-native species that would eat or out-compete the rare fish. Over time, the rare species may escape from these areas and recolonize the Cache la Poudre River.

Associated with Glade Reservoir would be a forebay pond. This pond may be suitable for sustaining fish for recreational fishing, if designed for this purpose. A fourth project would be to develop the forebay pond for recreational fishing.

Associated with Galeton Reservoir would also be a forebay pond. This pond may be suitable for sustaining warmwater fish, especially rare minnow species. This would require barriers to movements of fish from the South Platte River into the pond. This may provide another opportunity for mitigation.

100

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

7. REFERENCES

Anderson, R.O. 1980. Proportional stock density (PSD) and relative weight (Wr): Interpretive indices for fish populations and communities. Pages 27-33. IN: Gloss, S. and B. Schupp (eds.), Practical Fisheries Management: More With Less in the 1980’s. New York Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Ithaca, NY.

Anderson, R.O. and S.J. Gutreuter. 1983. Length, weight, and associated structural indices. Pages 283-300. IN: Nielsen, L.A. and D.L. Johnson (eds.). Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Synder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish. Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

Bestgen, K.R., and K.D. Fausch. 1993. Status and Trends of the Fish Community at Ten Sites in the Cache la Poudre River, From Fort Collins to Greeley, Colorado, 1970- 1992. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper: 12. FWS/OBS-82/26. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Canton, S.P., and J.W. Chadwick. 1984. A new modified Hess sampler. Progressive Fish- Culturist 46:57-59.

Canton, S.P., and J.W. Chadwick. 1988. Variability in benthic invertebrate density estimates from stream samples. Journal of Fisheries and Ecology 4:291-297.

101

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Carter, J.L., and V.H. Resh. 2001. After site selection and before data analysis: Sampling, sorting, and laboratory procedures used in stream benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring programs by USA state agencies. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 20:658-682.

Cattanéo, F., N. Lamouroux, P. Briel, and H. Capra. 2002. The influence of hydrological and biotic processes on brown trout (Salmo trutta) population dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59:12-22.

Chadwick & Associates (C&A). 1989. Habitat preferences for selected fish species in the Platte River, Nebraska. Report prepared for Nebraska Public Power District and the Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District.

Chadwick, J.W., L.C. Bergstedt, D.J. Conklin, and S.P. Canton. 2004. Drought and trout - sometimes less is more. Pages 1-13. IN: de Carvahlho Freitas, C.E., M. Petrere, Jr., A.A. F. Rivas, and D. MacKinlay (eds.). Symposium Proceedings, Fish Communities and Fisheries. VI International Congress on the Biology of Fish, Manaus, Brazil.

Colorado Department of Transportation. 2003. Guidelines for Senate Bill 40 Wildlife Certification Developed and Agreed Upon By the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Colorado Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.state.co.us/ environmental/wildlife/wb40gdlns.pdf.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2005. Colorado’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Including References to Wildlife Action Plans. Prepared for the citizens of Colorado and its visitors. http://wildlife.state.co/wildlifeSpecies/ Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 2006. Unpublished data from fish surveys conducted from 1912 to 2005. Obtained through Harry Vermillon, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO.

102

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Conklin, D. J., Jr., S.P. Canton, J.W. Chadwick, and W.J. Miller. 1996. Habitat suitability curves for selected fish species in the central Platte River, Nebraska. Rivers 5(4):250- 266.

Elliot, J.M. 1977. Some Methods for the Statistical Analysis of Benthic Invertebrates. Scientific Publications 25. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside, England.

Envirosphere Company. 1989. Aquatic resources task report for the Cache la Poudre Basin study extension. Report prepared for the Colorado Water Resource and Power Development Authority.

ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2006a. Vegetation Technical Report. NISP Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2006b. Stream Morphology Technical Report. NISP Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ERO Resources Corporation (ERO). 2006b. Cumulative Effects Technical Report. NISP Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

ERO and HDR. 2008. Northern Integrated Supply Project Water Quality Technical Report. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers.

Fannin, T.E. and P. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index curves for channel catfish, common carp, sand shiner, plains killifish, and flathead chub, developed by consensus discussion for use with the instream flow incremental methodology on the central Platte River. Final Report No. 14-16-0009-1542, Research Work Order No. 55, Modification No. 2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Unit, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

Grafe, C.S., C.A. Mebane, M.J. McIntyre, D.A. Essig, D.H. Brandt, and D.T. Mosier. 2002. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Water Body Assessment Guidance, Second Edition, Final Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, ID.

103

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Hall, J.D., and N.J. Knight. 1981 Natural variation in abundance of salmonid populations in streams and its implications for design of impact studies, a review. EPA-600/3-81-021. Oregon State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.

HDR. 2006a. Northern Integrated Supply Project Water Resources Technical Report. Prepared for the Army Corps of Engineers.

HDR. 2006b. Summary tables for low flow statistics and fluctuating flow statistics at gages on the South Platte and Poudre Rivers. Unpublished spreadsheets.

HDR. 2006c. Simulated reservoir storage plots for Glade, Cactus Hill, Galeton, Horsetooth, and Carter Reservoirs. Unpublished data.

Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1987. An improved biotic index of organic stream pollution. The Great Lakes Entomologist 20(1):31-39.

Hoover, S. 2005. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Northeast Regional Manager. Scoping letter to Chandler Peter, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. April 19, 2005.

Jordan, D.S. 1891. Report of explorations in Colorado and Utah during the summer of 1889, with an account of the fishes found in each of the river basins examined. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission. Vol. IX for 1889. Washington D.C.

Kehmeier, K. 2007. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Personal communication with D. Conklin, GEI Consultants, Inc. January 22.

Klemm, D.J., P.A. Lewis, F. Fulk, and J.M. Lazorchak. 1990. Macroinvertebrate field and laboratory methods for evaluating the biological integrity of surface waters. EPA/600/4-90/303. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.

Leland, H.V., S.V. Fend, J.L. Carter, and A.D. Mahood. 1986. Composition and abundance of periphyton and aquatic insects in a Sierra Nevada, California, stream. Great Basin Naturalist 46:595-611.

104

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Lenat, D.R., and D.L. Penrose. 1996. History of EPT taxa richness metric. Bulletin of the North American Benthological Society 13:305-307.

Li, H.W. 1968. Fishes of the South Platte River. Unpublished Master of Science Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

McKissick, J. 2006. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Personal communication with J. Lynch, Chadwick Ecological Consultants, Inc. May 25, 2006.

Moulton II, S.R., J.G. Kennen, R.M. Goldstein, and J.A. Hambrook. 2002. Revised protocols for sampling algal, invertebrate, and fish communities as part of the national water quality assessment program. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 02-150. Reston, VA.

Murphy, B.R. and D.W. Willis. 1991. Application of relative weight (Wr) to western warmwater fisheries. Pages 243-248. IN: Cooper, J.L. and R.H. Hamre (eds.) Warmwater Fisheries Symposium I. General Technical Report RM-207. U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Nelson, P. C. 1987. Physical microhabitat versus streamflow relationships in the Cache la Poudre River, Fort Collins, Colorado. Poudre River Corridor Fishery Plan. Phase I Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Rocky Mountain Flycasters Northern Colorado Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Poudre River Trust, and U.S. Forest Service.

Nesler, T. P. 1997. Native and Introduced Fish Species by Major River Basins in Colorado. Nongame & Endangered Aquatic Wildlife Program.

Nesler, T.P., R. VanBuren, J.A. Stafford, and M. Jones. 1997. Inventory and Status of South Platte River Native Fishes in Colorado. Final Report. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO.

105

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Pearsons, T.N., H.W. Li, and G.A. Lamberti. 1992. Influence of habitat complexity on resistance to flooding and resilience of stream fish assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:427-436.

Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers. EPA/444/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, D.C.

Platts, W.S. and R.L. Nelson. 1988. Fluctuations in trout populations and their implications for land-use evaluation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8:333-345.

Propst, D.L. 1982. Warmwater fishes of the Platte River Basin, Colorado; distribution, ecology, and community dynamics. Dissertation. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Shieh, S.H., B.C. Kondratieff, J.V. Ward, and D.A. Rice. 1999. The relationship of macroinvertebrate assemblages to water chemistry in a polluted Colorado plains stream. Arch. Hydrobiol. 145(4):405-432.

Snedecor, G.W., and W.C. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.

Stribling, J.B. S.R. Moulton II, and G.T. Lester. 2003. Determining the quality of taxonomic data. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22:621-631.

Trihey, E.W., and D.L. Wegner, 1981. Field data collection procedures for use with the physical habitat simulation system of the Instream Flow Group. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cooperative Instream Flow Group. 151 pp.

Twomey, K.A., K.L. Williamson, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: white sucker. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team. FWS/OBS-82/10.64. 66 pp.

106

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. PHABSIM for Windows. User’s manual and exercises. Midcontinent Ecological Sciences Center. Open File Report 01-340. 288 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. USGS NAWQA Data Retrieval- South Platte River Basin. http://www.water.gov/nawqa. Accessed May 19, 2006.

Van Deventer, J.S. and W.S. Platts. 1983. Sampling and estimating fish populations from streams. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 48:349-354.

Van Deventer, J.S., and W.S. Platts. 1989. Microcomputer software system for generating population statistics from electrofishing data- Users Guide for MicroFish 3.0. General Technical Report INT-25/1989. U.S. Forest Service.

Vinson, M.R., and C.P. Hawkins. 1996. Effects of sampling area and subsampling procedure on comparisons of taxa richness among streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15:392-399.

Wallace, J.B., J.W. Grubaugh, and M.R. Whiles. 1996. Biotic indices and stream ecosystem processes: results from an experimental study. Ecological Applications 6:140-151.

Whittaker, R.H. 1975. Communities and Ecosystems, Second Edition. MacMillan Publishing Co., New York, NY.

Wiederholm, T. 1984. Responses of aquatic insects to environmental pollution. Pages 508- 557. IN: Resh, V.H., and D.M. Rosenberg (eds.). The Ecology of Aquatic Insects. Praeger Scientific, New York, NY.

Wilhm, J.L. 1970. Range of diversity index in benthic macroinvertebrate populations. Journal of Water.

107

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Wohl, E.E. 2001. Virtual Rivers, Lessons from the Mountain Rivers of the Colorado Front Range. Yale University Press, New Haven.

108

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix A

Supplemental Data Site Locations

A-1

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix A-1. Locations of supplemental data collection sites on the Cache la Poudre River, Colorado, 2005

Site Latitude Longitude CPR-1 N 40° 39' 53.0" W105° 11' 54.0" CPR-2 N 40° 37' 09.7" W105° 08' 22.2" CPR-3 N 40° 35' 48.7" W105° 05' 01.5" CPR-4 N 40° 32' 08.6" W104° 59' 52.2" CPR-5 N 40° 28' 18.2" W104° 56' 18.9" CPR-6 N 40° 26' 29.2" W104° 51' 58.7" CPR-7 N 40° 26' 43.1" W104° 47' 45.9" CPR-8 N 40° 26' 55.4" W104° 45' 29.9" CPR-9 N 40° 25' 24.0" W104°36' 00.7"

A-2

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix B

Common and Scientific Names of Fish Species

B-1

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix B-1. Common and Scientific names of fish species mentioned in this report. Native species in bold.

Common Name Scientific Name

Bigmouth shiner Notropis dorsalis Black bullhead Ameiurus melas Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Bluegill Lepomis machrochirus Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Brook stickleback Culea inconstans Brown trout Salmo trutta Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Common carp Cyprinus carpio Common shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Greenback Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarki stomias Hybrid sunfish Lepomis cyanellus X L. machrochirus Iowa darter Ethostoma exile Johnny darter Ethostoma nigrum Lake chub Couesius plumbeus Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis Plains killifish Fundulus zebrinus Plains minnow Hybognathus placitus Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis River carpsucker Carpoides carpio Sand shiner Notropis stramineus Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Stonecat Noturus flavus Suckermouth minnow Phenocobius mirabilis

B-2

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Common Name Scientific Name

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum White crappie Pomoxis annularis White sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow perch Perca flavescens

B-3

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix C

Supplemental Fish Data, 2005

C-1

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

ABBREVIATIONS AND NAMES OF FISH SPECIES COLLECTED IN 2005

Abbreviation Common Name BBH Black bullhead BCR Black crappie BG Bluegill BST Brook stickleback BRN Brown trout CARP Common carp CC Creek chub FHM Fathead minnow GS Gizzard shad GSF Green sunfish JD Johnny darter LMB Largemouth bass LND Longnose dace LNS Longnose sucker MF Mosquitofish MWF Mountain whitefish OSF Orangespotted sunfish RBT Rainbow trout RS Red shiner SS Sand shiner SMB Smallmouth bass WAL Walleye WC White crappie WS White suckeri YP Yellow perch

C-2

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 1, Graves Property Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 BRN 490 1000 0.85 1239.8 80.7 1 BRN 482 970 0.87 1180.8 82.1 1 BRN 430 800 1.01 842.0 95.0 1 BRN 415 680 0.95 758.0 89.7 1 BRN 382 550 0.99 593.0 92.7 1 BRN 379 615 1.13 579.3 106.2 1 BRN 375 620 1.18 561.4 110.4 1 BRN 375 480 0.91 561.4 85.5 1 BRN 350 420 0.98 457.6 91.8 1 BRN 345 420 1.02 438.6 95.8 1 BRN 318 385 1.20 344.5 111.8 1 BRN 316 360 1.14 338.1 106.5 1 BRN 315 330 1.06 335.0 98.5 1 BRN 300 280 1.04 289.9 96.6 1 BRN 295 315 1.23 275.8 114.2 1 BRN 295 270 1.05 275.8 97.9 1 BRN 290 260 1.07 262.2 99.2 1 BRN 290 260 1.07 262.2 99.2 1 BRN 287 300 1.27 254.2 118.0 1 BRN 287 270 1.14 254.2 106.2 1 BRN 285 270 1.17 249.0 108.4 1 BRN 285 250 1.08 249.0 100.4 1 BRN 280 280 1.28 236.3 118.5 1 BRN 280 270 1.23 236.3 114.3 1 BRN 275 250 1.20 224.0 111.6 1 BRN 274 220 1.07 221.6 99.3 1 BRN 271 235 1.18 214.5 109.6 1 BRN 270 240 1.22 212.2 113.1 1 BRN 270 230 1.17 212.2 108.4 1 BRN 270 220 1.12 212.2 103.7 1 BRN 270 215 1.09 212.2 101.3 1 BRN 270 210 1.07 212.2 99.0 1 BRN 269 250 1.28 209.9 119.1 1 BRN 268 230 1.19 207.6 110.8 1 BRN 266 245 1.30 203.0 120.7 1 BRN 260 280 1.59 189.7 147.6 1 BRN 170 45 0.92 53.9 83.5 1 BRN 164 45 1.02 48.5 92.9 1 BRN 155 40 1.07 41.0 97.6 1 BRN 153 30 0.84 39.5 76.0 1 BRN 150 40 1.19 37.2 107.5 1 BRN 145 40 1.31 33.6 118.9 1 BRN 145 40 1.31 33.6 118.9 1 BRN 145 40 1.31 33.6 118.9 1 BRN 145 30 0.98 33.6 89.2 1 BRN 145 25 0.82 33.6 74.3

C-3

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 1, Graves Property Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 BRN 143 30 1.03 32.3 92.9 1 BRN 141 20 0.71 31.0 64.6 1 BRN 140 40 1.46 30.3 131.9 1 BRN 140 30 1.09 30.3 98.9 1 BRN 140 30 1.09 30.3 98.9 1 BRN 137 30 1.17 1 BRN 136 25 0.99 1 BRN 135 35 1.42 1 BRN 135 30 1.22 1 BRN 135 30 1.22 1 BRN 135 20 0.81 1 BRN 135 20 0.81 1 BRN 134 25 1.04 1 BRN 132 30 1.30 1 BRN 131 30 1.33 1 BRN 131 25 1.11 1 BRN 130 25 1.14 1 BRN 130 20 0.91 1 BRN 128 25 1.19 1 BRN 128 20 0.95 1 BRN 127 25 1.22 1 BRN 125 25 1.28 1 BRN 125 20 1.02 1 BRN 125 20 1.02 1 BRN 125 20 1.02 1 BRN 125 15 0.77 1 BRN 124 15 0.79 1 BRN 123 20 1.07 1 BRN 123 20 1.07 1 BRN 122 10 0.55 1 BRN 121 20 1.13 1 BRN 121 10 0.56 1 BRN 120 40 2.31 1 BRN 120 30 1.74 1 BRN 120 20 1.16 1 BRN 120 20 1.16 1 BRN 120 20 1.16 1 BRN 120 20 1.16 1 BRN 120 20 1.16 1 BRN 120 15 0.87 1 BRN 120 10 0.58 1 BRN 119 10 0.59

C-4

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 1, Graves Property Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 BRN 118 15 0.91 1 BRN 117 20 1.25 1 BRN 115 20 1.32 1 BRN 115 20 1.32 1 BRN 115 15 0.99 1 BRN 115 15 0.99 1 BRN 115 15 0.99 1 BRN 115 10 0.66 1 BRN 114 15 1.01 1 BRN 113 15 1.04 1 BRN 113 10 0.69 1 BRN 113 10 0.69 1 BRN 110 10 0.75 1 BRN 110 10 0.75 1 BRN 110 10 0.75 1 BRN 110 10 0.75 1 BRN 108 10 0.79 1 BRN 107 10 0.82 1 BRN 107 10 0.82 1 BRN 107 10 0.82 1 BRN 105 20 1.73 1 BRN 105 15 1.30 1 BRN 105 10 0.86 1 BRN 105 10 0.86 1 BRN 105 10 0.86 1 BRN 105 10 0.86 1 BRN 100 10 1.00 1 BRN 100 10 1.00 1 BRN 100 10 1.00 1 BRN 100 10 1.00 1 BRN 95 10 1.17 1 BRN 90 10 1.37 1 BRN 85 8 1.30 1 BRN 75 7 1.66 1 LND BATCH 320 COUNT = 72 1 LND 97 10 1.10 1 LND 97 8 0.88 1 LND 96 10 1.13 1 LND 95 10 1.17 1 LND 95 8 0.93 1 LND 95 7 0.82 1 LND 92 6 0.77

C-5

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 1, Graves Property Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 LND 88 6 0.88 1 LND 87 8 1.21 1 LND 86 6 0.94 1 LND 86 5 0.79 1 LND 85 6 0.98 1 LND 85 6 0.98 1 LND 84 4 0.67 1 LND 83 6 1.05 1 LND 82 5 0.91 1 LND 82 5 0.91 1 LND 82 5 0.91 1 LND 82 4 0.73 1 LND 81 6 1.13 1 LND 81 6 1.13 1 LND 81 5 0.94 1 LND 80 4 0.78 1 LND 80 4 0.78 1 LND 79 5 1.01 1 LND 78 9 1.90 1 LND 77 4 0.88 1 LND 76 5 1.14 1 LND 76 4 0.91 1 LND 76 4 0.91 1 LND 75 4 0.95 1 LND 75 3 0.71 1 LND 75 3 0.71 1 LND 75 3 0.71 1 LND 75 3 0.71 1 LND 73 3 0.77 1 LND 72 3 0.80 1 LND 72 3 0.80 1 LND 72 3 0.80 1 LND 71 4 1.12 1 LND 71 3 0.84 1 LND 71 3 0.84 1 LND 71 3 0.84 1 LND 70 3 0.87 1 LND 68 3 0.95 1 LND 65 2 0.73 1 LND 62 3 1.26 1 LND 62 3 1.26 1 LND 61 2 0.88

C-6

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 1, Graves Property Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 LND 60 2 0.93 1 LNS 174 60 1.14 1 LNS 139 30 1.12 1 LNS 114 10 0.67 1 LNS 107 11 0.90 1 LNS 97 11 1.21 1 LNS 95 10 1.17 1 LNS 92 10 1.28 1 LNS 84 8 1.35 1 RBT 445 1130 1.28 967.5 116.8 1 RBT 403 800 1.22 716.9 111.6 1 RBT 403 740 1.13 716.9 103.2 1 RBT 397 730 1.17 685.1 106.6 1 RBT 378 575 1.06 590.7 97.3 1 RBT 372 560 1.09 562.8 99.5 1 RBT 370 620 1.22 553.7 112.0 1 RBT 357 625 1.37 496.9 125.8 1 RBT 297 320 1.22 284.8 112.3 1 RBT 290 270 1.11 265.0 101.9 1 RBT 285 300 1.30 251.4 119.3 1 RBT 278 270 1.26 233.2 115.8 1 RBT 275 275 1.32 225.7 121.8 1 RBT 270 230 1.17 213.5 107.7 1 RBT 264 250 1.36 199.5 125.3 1 RBT 255 220 1.33 179.6 122.5 1 RBT 250 200 1.28 169.2 118.2 1 RBT 95 11 1.28 1 RBT 95 8 0.93 1 RBT 90 10 1.37 1 RBT 88 6 0.88 1 RBT 86 6 0.94 1 RBT 85 8 1.30 1 RBT 85 7 1.14 1 RBT 85 7 1.14 1 RBT 82 7 1.27 1 RBT 82 6 1.09 1 RBT 80 8 1.56 1 RBT 80 8 1.56 1 RBT 75 7 1.66 1 RBT 75 5 1.19 1 RBT 71 5 1.40 1 WAL 365 350 0.72 495.6 70.6

C-7

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 1, Graves Property Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 WS 260 200 1.14 208.8 95.8 1 WS 135 30 1.22 28.1 106.7 2 BRN 374 425 0.81 557.0 76.3 2 BRN 294 280 1.10 273.1 102.5 2 BRN 279 230 1.06 233.8 98.4 2 BRN 277 230 1.08 228.9 100.5 2 BRN 267 200 1.05 205.3 97.4 2 BRN 262 190 1.06 194.1 97.9 2 BRN 259 190 1.09 187.6 101.3 2 BRN 252 165 1.03 173.0 95.4 2 BRN 250 170 1.09 168.9 100.6 2 BRN 243 150 1.05 155.3 96.6 2 BRN 163 50 1.15 47.6 105.1 2 BRN 145 35 1.15 33.6 104.0 2 BRN 143 30 1.03 32.3 92.9 2 BRN 140 35 1.28 30.3 115.4 2 BRN 140 25 0.91 30.3 82.4 2 BRN 140 20 0.73 30.3 65.9 2 BRN 133 20 0.85 2 BRN 133 20 0.85 2 BRN 131 20 0.89 2 BRN 129 20 0.93 2 BRN 127 45 2.20 2 BRN 127 20 0.98 2 BRN 127 15 0.73 2 BRN 125 20 1.02 2 BRN 124 20 1.05 2 BRN 122 15 0.83 2 BRN 122 10 0.55 2 BRN 120 15 0.87 2 BRN 118 10 0.61 2 BRN 117 12 0.75 2 BRN 117 10 0.62 2 BRN 116 10 0.64 2 BRN 108 11 0.87 2 BRN 107 11 0.90 2 BRN 102 10 0.94 2 BRN 102 10 0.94 2 BRN 100 10 1.00 2 BRN 96 10 1.13 2 LND BATCH 420 COUNT = 80 2 LND BATCH 72 COUNT = 17

C-8

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 1, Graves Property Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 2 LNS 200 85 1.06 2 LNS 114 10 0.67 2 LNS 70 5 1.46 2 RBT 100 10 1.00 2 RBT 84 8 1.35 2 RBT 83 8 1.40 2 RBT 83 8 1.40 2 RBT 74 7 1.73

C-9

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY

BRN Length Weight K Wr N: 160 160 160 67 MIN: 75 7 0.55 64.6 MAX: 490 1000 2.31 147.6 MEAN: 175.8 112.5 1.05 100.9 LND Length Weight K Wr N: 50 219 50 N/A MIN: 60 2 0.67 N/A MAX: 97 10 1.90 N/A MEAN: 78.8 4.8 0.94 N/A LNS Length Weight K Wr N: 11 11 11 N/A MIN: 70 5 0.67 N/A MAX: 200 85 1.46 N/A MEAN: 116.9 22.7 1.09 N/A RBT Length Weight K Wr N: 37 37 37 17 MIN: 71 5 0.88 97.3 MAX: 445 1130 1.73 125.8 MEAN: 196.4 223.4 1.26 112.8 WAL Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 1 MIN: 365 350 0.72 70.6 MAX: 365 350 0.72 70.6 MEAN: 365.0 350.0 0.72 70.6 WS Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 2 MIN: 135 30 1.14 95.8 MAX: 260 200 1.22 106.7 MEAN: 197.5 115.0 1.18 101.3

C-10

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI (acre) (#/acre) (lbs/acre) BRN 122 38 175 ± 15.1 1.150 152 ± 13.1 37.70 LND 122 97 219 ± -- 1.150 190 ± -- 2.01 LNS 8 3 11 ± 2.5 1.150 10 ± 2.2 0.50 RBT 32 5 37 ± 1.9 1.150 32 ± 1.7 15.76 WAL 1 0 1 ± 0.0 1.150 1 ± 0.0 0.77 WS 2 0 2 ± 0.0 1.150 2 ± 0.0 0.51 Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI (ha) (#/ha) (kg/ha) BRN 122 38 175 ± 15.1 0.465 376 ± 32.5 42.30 LND 122 97 219 ± -- 0.465 471 ± -- 2.26 LNS 8 3 11 ± 2.5 0.465 24 ± 5.4 0.54 RBT 32 5 37 ± 1.9 0.465 80 ± 4.1 17.87 WAL 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.465 2 ± 0.0 0.70 WS 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.465 4 ± 0.0 0.46

C-11

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 2, Overland Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 BRN 200 90 1.13 87.2 103.2 1 BRN 199 95 1.21 85.9 110.5 1 BRN 193 90 1.25 78.5 114.7 1 BRN 193 80 1.11 78.5 101.9 1 BRN 185 90 1.42 69.2 130.0 1 BRN 185 80 1.26 69.2 115.5 1 BRN 182 90 1.49 66.0 136.4 1 BRN 175 60 1.12 58.7 102.2 1 BRN 173 60 1.16 56.8 105.7 1 BRN 171 60.0 1.20 54.8 109.4 1 BRN 165 50.0 1.11 49.3 101.3 1 BRN 158 50 1.27 43.4 115.2 1 BRN 156 50 1.32 41.8 119.7 1 BRN 156 40 1.05 41.8 95.7 1 BRN 155 40 1.07 41.0 97.6 1 BRN 154 55.0 1.51 40.2 136.7 1 BRN 152 45 1.28 38.7 116.3 1 BRN 150 40 1.19 37.2 107.5 1 BRN 147 45 1.42 35.0 128.4 1 BRN 145 35 1.15 33.6 104.0 1 BRN 145 35 1.15 33.6 104.0 1 BRN 143 40 1.37 32.3 123.9 1 BRN 143 30 1.03 32.3 92.9 1 BRN 142 35.0 1.22 31.6 110.7 1 BRN 140 30 1.09 30.3 98.9 1 BRN 131 25 1.11 1 BRN 129 25 1.16 1 BRN 129 20 0.93 1 BRN 124 20 1.05 1 BRN 120 20 1.16 1 LND BATCH 560 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 540 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 525 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 510 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 490 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 475 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 470 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 460 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 440 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 410 COUNT = 100 1 LND BATCH 300 COUNT = 50

C-12

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 2, Overland Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 LND BATCH 255 COUNT = 50 1 LND BATCH 252 COUNT = 70 1 LND BATCH 110 COUNT = 20 1 LND BATCH 110 COUNT = 20 1 LND 107 12 0.98 1 LND 104 12 1.07 1 LND 104 11 0.98 1 LND 102 11.5 1.08 1 LND 100 11 1.10 1 LND 97 8 0.88 1 LND 95 8 0.93 1 LND 92 8.7 1.12 1 LND 92 8.1 1.04 1 LND 89 7.6 1.08 1 LND 88 7.2 1.06 1 LND 87 6.4 0.97 1 LND 86 7.0 1.10 1 LND 85 6.6 1.07 1 LND 84 7.0 1.18 1 LND 84 5 0.84 1 LND 83 5.5 0.96 1 LND 82 6 1.09 1 LND 82 4.8 0.87 1 LND 81 5.2 0.98 1 LND 80 4.5 0.88 1 LND 79 5.1 1.03 1 LND 78 4.6 0.97 1 LND 78 4.1 0.86 1 LND 77 4.7 1.03 1 LND 76 4.7 1.07 1 LND 76 4.6 1.05 1 LND 76 4.4 1.00 1 LND 75 5 1.19 1 LND 75 4.0 0.95 1 LND 75 4.0 0.95 1 LND 74 4.0 0.99 1 LND 73 4.3 1.11 1 LND 73 3.0 0.77 1 LND 72 4.0 1.07 1 LND 72 3.5 0.94 1 LND 72 3.4 0.91

C-13

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 2, Overland Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 LND 71 4.0 1.12 1 LND 71 3.7 1.03 1 LND 70 3.3 0.96 1 LND 68 3.0 0.95 1 LND 66 3 1.04 1 LND 66 2.5 0.87 1 LND 65 2.3 0.84 1 LND 64 3.2 1.22 1 LND 62 2.4 1.01 1 LND 62 2.4 1.01 1 LND 61 2.7 1.19 1 LND 56 2 1.14 1 LND 56 1.7 0.97 1 LNS BATCH 20 COUNT = 5 1 LNS - 10 COUNT = 3 1 LNS - 1 COUNT = 1 1 LNS 130 20 0.91 1 LNS 115 15 0.99 1 LNS 112 13 0.93 1 LNS 110 13 0.98 1 LNS 105 15 1.30 1 LNS 105 14 1.21 1 LNS 105 12 1.04 1 LNS 105 12 1.04 1 LNS 105 11 0.95 1 LNS 101 10 0.97 1 LNS 100 10 1.00 1 LNS 100 10 1.00 1 LNS 97 9 0.99 1 LNS 97 7 0.77 1 LNS 97 7 0.77 1 LNS 96 8 0.90 1 LNS 95 9 1.05 1 LNS 95 9 1.05 1 LNS 95 9 1.05 1 LNS 95 7 0.82 1 LNS 93 9 1.12 1 LNS 92 8 1.03 1 LNS 92 8 1.03 1 LNS 91 7 0.93 1 LNS 87 7 1.06

C-14

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 2, Overland Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 LNS 86 7 1.10 1 LNS 86 7 1.10 1 LNS 86 6 0.94 1 LNS 85 7 1.14 1 LNS 85 7 1.14 1 LNS 85 6 0.98 1 LNS 85 5 0.81 1 LNS 83 6 1.05 1 LNS 80 4 0.78 1 LNS 79 5 1.01 1 LNS 76 7 1.59 1 LNS 75 5 1.19 1 LNS 75 5 1.19 1 LNS 75 5 1.19 1 LNS 72 4 1.07 1 LNS 70 5 1.46 1 LNS 70 4 1.17 1 LNS 70 4 1.17 1 LNS 67 4 1.33 1 LNS 65 2.2 0.80 1 LNS 55 2 1.20 1 LNS 54 1.7 1.08 1 LNS 45 1.2 1.32 1 LNS 45 1 1.10 1 LNS 40 1 1.56 1 MWF 125 15 0.77 1 RBT 215 115 1.16 107.2 107.3 1 RBT 152 45 1.28 1 RBT 74 4.3 1.06 1 SMB 45 1.5 1.65 2 BRN 188 85 1.28 72.6 117.0 2 BRN 185 85 1.34 69.2 122.8 2 BRN 182 60 1.00 66.0 91.0 2 BRN 175 60 1.12 58.7 102.2 2 BRN 169 60 1.24 53.0 113.3 2 BRN 161 45 1.08 45.9 98.1 2 BRN 157 45 1.16 42.6 105.7 2 BRN 153 40 1.12 39.5 101.4 2 BRN 147 30 0.94 35.0 85.6 2 BRN 142 35 1.22 31.6 110.7 2 BRN 138 45 1.71

C-15

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 2, Overland Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 2 BRN 138 20 0.76 2 BRN 134 25 1.04 2 BRN 133 30 1.28 2 BRN 118 20 1.22 2 BRN 111 10 0.73 2 LND BATCH 770 COUNT = 150 2 LND BATCH 230 COUNT = 50 2 LND BATCH 230 COUNT = 50 2 LND BATCH 225 COUNT = 55 2 LND BATCH 205 COUNT = 50 2 LND BATCH 200 COUNT = 50 2 LND BATCH 200 COUNT = 50 2 LNS BATCH 160 COUNT = 19

C-16

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY BRN Length Weight K Wr N: 46 46 46 35 MIN: 111 10 0.73 85.6 MAX: 200 95 1.71 136.7 MEAN: 155.9 48.3 1.18 109.4 LND Length Weight K Wr N: 50 1715 50 N/A MIN: 56 1.7 0.77 N/A MAX: 107 12 1.22 N/A MEAN: 78.9 4.8 1.01 N/A LNS Length Weight K Wr N: 50 78 50 N/A MIN: 40 1 0.77 N/A MAX: 130 20 1.59 N/A MEAN: 86.2 7.2 1.07 N/A MWF Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 125 15 0.77 N/A MAX: 125 15 0.77 N/A MEAN: 125.0 15.0 0.77 N/A RBT Length Weight K Wr N: 3 3 3 1 MIN: 74 4.3 1.06 107.3 MAX: 215 115 1.28 107.3 MEAN: 147.0 54.8 1.17 107.3 SMB Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 45 1.5 1.65 N/A MAX: 45 1.5 1.65 N/A MEAN: 45.0 1.5 1.65 N/A

C-17

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI (acre) (#/acre) 95% CI (lbs/acre) BRN 30 16 60 ± 25.3 0.554 108 ± 45.7 11.50 LND 1260 455 1970 ± 71.4 0.554 3556 ± 128.9 37.63 LNS 59 19 85 ± 10.5 0.554 153 ± 19.0 2.43 MWF 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.554 2 ± 0.0 0.07 RBT 3 0 3 ± 0.0 0.554 5 ± 0.0 0.60 SMB 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.554 2 ± 0.0 0.01 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est Site Area Density Biomass 95% CI 95% CI (ha) (#/ha) (kg/ha) BRN 30 16 60 ± 25.3 0.224 268 ± 112.9 12.94 LND 1260 455 1970 ± 71.4 0.224 8795 ± 318.8 42.22 LNS 59 19 85 ± 10.5 0.224 379 ± 46.9 2.73 MWF 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.224 4 ± 0.0 0.06 RBT 3 0 3 ± 0.0 0.224 13 ± 0.0 0.71 SMB 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.224 4 ± 0.0 0.01

C-18

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 3, Martinez Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 BRN 350 430 1.00 457.6 94.0 1 BRN 337 430 1.12 409.1 105.1 1 BRN 328 400 1.13 377.6 105.9 1 BRN 326 420 1.21 370.8 113.3 1 BRN 310 340 1.14 319.5 106.4 1 BRN 308 280 0.96 313.4 89.3 1 BRN 294 260 1.02 273.1 95.2 1 BRN 203 100 1.20 91.2 109.7 1 BRN 197 87 1.14 83.4 104.3 1 BRN 196 95 1.26 82.2 115.6 1 BRN 191 91 1.31 76.1 119.6 1 BRN 186 80 1.24 70.4 113.7 1 BRN 180 80 1.37 63.8 125.3 1 BRN 180 72 1.23 63.8 112.8 1 BRN 178 65 1.15 61.8 105.2 1 BRN 176 60 1.10 59.7 100.4 1 BRN 175 75 1.40 58.7 127.7 1 BRN 172 60 1.18 55.8 107.5 1 BRN 170 70 1.42 53.9 129.9 1 BRN 165 70 1.56 49.3 141.9 1 BRN 165 50 1.11 49.3 101.3 1 BRN 165 50 1.11 49.3 101.3 1 BRN 164 38 0.86 48.5 78.4 1 BRN 163 60 1.39 47.6 126.1 1 BRN 163 55 1.27 47.6 115.6 1 BRN 163 45 1.04 47.6 94.6 1 BRN 162 53 1.25 46.7 113.4 1 BRN 157 50 1.29 42.6 117.4 1 BRN 157 50 1.29 42.6 117.4 1 BRN 157 50 1.29 42.6 117.4 1 BRN 154 40 1.10 40.2 99.5 1 BRN 152 50 1.42 38.7 129.2 1 BRN 147 40 1.26 35.0 114.1 1 BRN 146 30 0.96 34.3 87.4 1 BRN 145 40 1.31 33.6 118.9 1 BRN 143 40 1.37 32.3 123.9 1 BRN 143 30 1.03 32.3 92.9 1 BRN 142 40 1.40 31.6 126.5 1 BRN 142 40 1.40 31.6 126.5 1 BRN 142 35 1.22 31.6 110.7 1 BRN 140 35 1.28 30.3 115.4

C-19

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 3, Martinez Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 BRN 139 30 1.12 1 BRN 137 30 1.17 1 BRN 136 30 1.19 1 BRN 135 30 1.22 1 BRN 132 40 1.74 1 BRN 130 25 1.14 1 BRN 130 20 0.91 1 BRN 126 20 1.00 1 BRN 121 25 1.41 1 BRN 117 20 1.25 1 FHM 47 2 1.93 1 JD 67 4 1.33 1 JD 62 4 1.68 1 JD 61 4 1.76 1 JD 60 4 1.85 1 JD 59 4 1.95 1 JD 55 4 2.40 1 LMB 44 3 3.52 1 LND BATCH 48 COUNT = 10 1 LND BATCH 30 COUNT = 5 1 LND 110 15 1.13 1 LND 104 11 0.98 1 LND 103 11 1.01 1 LND 103 11 1.01 1 LND 100 14 1.40 1 LND 100 12 1.20 1 LND 100 11 1.10 1 LND 100 10 1.00 1 LND 95 9 1.05 1 LND 95 9 1.05 1 LND 95 9 1.05 1 LND 94 8 0.96 1 LND 94 8 0.96 1 LND 91 8 1.06 1 LND 90 9 1.23 1 LND 90 8 1.10 1 LND 89 8 1.13 1 LND 88 8 1.17 1 LND 87 9 1.37 1 LND 87 8 1.21 1 LND 87 8 1.21

C-20

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 3, Martinez Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 LND 86 8 1.26 1 LND 86 8 1.26 1 LND 86 7 1.10 1 LND 85 8 1.30 1 LND 85 7 1.14 1 LND 85 6 0.98 1 LND 84 7 1.18 1 LND 84 6 1.01 1 LND 83 7 1.22 1 LND 83 7 1.22 1 LND 83 7 1.22 1 LND 82 7 1.27 1 LND 81 6 1.13 1 LND 81 6 1.13 1 LND 80 7 1.37 1 LND 80 7 1.37 1 LND 80 7 1.37 1 LND 80 6 1.17 1 LND 79 6 1.22 1 LND 78 6 1.26 1 LND 77 6 1.31 1 LND 75 6 1.42 1 LND 74 7 1.73 1 LND 74 6 1.48 1 LND 71 5 1.40 1 LND 70 5 1.46 1 LND 70 5 1.46 1 LND 67 5 1.66 1 LND 60 5 2.31 1 RBT 290 290 1.19 265.0 109.4 1 WS 91 8 1.06 1 WS 90 8 1.10 1 WS 68 5 1.59 1 WS 67 5 1.66 1 WS 67 5 1.66 1 WS 66 5 1.74 1 WS 66 5 1.74 1 WS 65 5 1.82 1 WS 63 4 1.60 1 WS 60 5 2.31 1 WS 60 4 1.85

C-21

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 3, Martinez Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 WS 59 5 2.43 1 WS 59 3 1.46 1 WS 58 4 2.05 1 WS 55 3 1.80 1 WS 55 3 1.80 1 WS 54 3 1.91 1 WS 54 3 1.91 1 WS 53 4 2.69 1 WS 52 3 2.13 1 WS 51 3 2.26 1 WS 50 3 2.40 1 WS 50 3 2.40 1 WS 50 3 2.40 1 WS 49 3 2.55 1 WS 48 2 1.81 1 WS 47 3 2.89 1 WS 47 3 2.89 1 WS 47 1 0.96 1 WS 46 3 3.08 1 WS 46 3 3.08 1 WS 46 3 3.08 1 WS 46 3 3.08 1 WS 45 5 5.49 1 WS 45 2 2.19 1 WS 45 2 2.19 1 WS 45 2 2.19 1 WS 43 3 3.77 1 WS 41 2 2.90 1 WS 41 2 2.90 1 WS 40 2 3.13 1 WS 40 2 3.13 1 WS 40 1 1.56 1 WS 40 1 1.56 1 WS 39 2 3.37 1 WS 39 2 3.37 1 WS 39 1 1.69 1 WS 38 3 5.47 1 WS 38 2 3.64 1 WS 38 1 1.82 1 WS 38 1 1.82 1 WS 36 1 2.14

C-22

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 2-Nov-05 Site 3, Martinez Park Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 WS 36 1 2.14 1 YP 65 4 1.46 1 YP 62 5 2.10 1 YP 60 4 1.85 1 YP 56 4 2.28 1 YP 51 3 2.26 2 BRN 454 950 1.02 989.0 96.1 2 BRN 334 460 1.23 398.4 115.5 2 BRN 194 95 1.30 79.7 119.2 2 BRN 191 85 1.22 76.1 111.7 2 BRN 185 90 1.42 69.2 130.0 2 BRN 177 75 1.35 60.7 123.5 2 BRN 165 59 1.31 49.3 119.6 2 BRN 163 52 1.20 47.6 109.3 2 BRN 157 50 1.29 42.6 117.4 2 BRN 150 40 1.19 37.2 107.5 2 BRN 146 45 1.45 34.3 131.0 2 BRN 136 36 1.43 2 BRN 136 34 1.35 2 BRN 135 35 1.42 2 BST 55 6 3.61 2 JD 67 5 1.66 2 JD 67 5 1.66 2 LND BATCH 535 COUNT = 78 2 LND 45 2 2.19 2 LND 44 2 2.35 2 LND 35 1 2.33 2 WS BATCH 34 COUNT = 24 2 YP 50 3 2.40 2 YP 45 3 3.29

C-23

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY BRN Length Weight K Wr N: 65 65 65 52 MIN: 117 20 0.86 78.4 MAX: 454 950 1.74 141.9 MEAN: 182.5 105.6 1.23 112.1 BST Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 55 6 3.61 N/A MAX: 55 6 3.61 N/A MEAN: 55.0 6.0 3.61 N/A FHM Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 47 2 1.93 N/A MAX: 47 2 1.93 N/A MEAN: 47.0 2.0 1.93 N/A JD Length Weight K Wr N: 8 8 8 N/A MIN: 55 4 1.33 N/A MAX: 67 5 2.40 N/A MEAN: 62.3 4.3 1.79 N/A LMB Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 44 3 3.52 N/A MAX: 44 3 3.52 N/A MEAN: 44.0 3.0 3.52 N/A LND Length Weight K Wr N: 53 146 53 N/A MIN: 35 1 0.96 N/A MAX: 110 15 2.35 N/A MEAN: 83.3 6.9 1.30 N/A RBT Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 1 MIN: 290 290 1.19 109.4 MAX: 290 290 1.19 109.4 MEAN: 290.0 290.0 1.19 109.4 WS Length Weight K Wr N: 53 77 53 N/A MIN: 36 1 0.96 N/A MAX: 91 8 5.49 N/A MEAN: 50.8 2.6 2.37 N/A

C-24

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY

Length Weight K Wr YP N: 7 7 7 N/A MIN: 45 3 1.46 N/A MAX: 65 5 3.29 N/A MEAN: 55.6 3.7 2.23 N/A

C-25

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI (acre) (#/acre) (lbs/acre) BRN 51 14 69 ± 7.3 0.651 106 ± 11.2 24.68 BST 0 1 1 ± -- 0.651 2 ± -- 0.03 FHM 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.651 2 ± 0.0 0.01 JD 6 2 8 ± 2.0 0.651 12 ± 3.1 0.11 LMB 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.651 2 ± 0.0 0.01 LND 65 81 146 ± -- 0.651 224 ± -- 3.41 RBT 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.651 2 ± 0.0 1.28 WS 53 24 94 ± 23.0 0.651 144 ± 35.3 0.83 YP 5 2 7 ± 2.3 0.651 11 ± 3.5 0.09 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est Site Area Density Biomass 95% CI 95% CI (ha) (#/ha) (kg/ha) BRN 51 14 69 ± 7.3 0.263 262 ± 27.8 27.67 BST 0 1 1 ± -- 0.263 4 ± -- 0.02 FHM 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.263 4 ± 0.0 0.01 JD 6 2 8 ± 2.0 0.263 30 ± 7.6 0.13 LMB 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.263 4 ± 0.0 0.01 LND 65 81 146 ± -- 0.263 555 ± -- 3.83 RBT 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.263 4 ± 0.0 1.16 WS 53 24 94 ± 23.0 0.263 357 ± 87.5 0.93 YP 5 2 7 ± 2.3 0.263 27 ± 8.7 0.10

C-26

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 31-Aug-05 Site 4, at I-25 Rest Stop Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 CARP 577 2540 1.32 2993.7 84.8 1 CARP 576 2530 1.32 2978.8 84.9 1 CARP 575 2725 1.43 2964.1 91.9 1 CARP 560 2700 1.54 2748.3 98.2 1 CARP 551 2120 1.27 2623.9 80.8 1 CARP 549 2520 1.52 2596.8 97.0 1 CARP 520 1725 1.23 2223.6 77.6 1 CARP 515 1800 1.32 2163.0 83.2 1 CARP 495 1550 1.28 1931.4 80.3 1 CARP 488 1800 1.55 1854.4 97.1 1 CARP 472 1450 1.38 1685.8 86.0 1 CARP 470 1350 1.30 1665.4 81.1 1 CARP 462 1400 1.42 1585.7 88.3 1 CARP 448 1500 1.67 1452.1 103.3 1 CARP 445 1300 1.48 1424.5 91.3 1 CC 142 36 1.26 1 CC 127 18 0.88 1 FHM 70 4 1.17 1 FHM 68 3 0.95 1 GSF 75 7 1.66 1 GSF 58 3 1.54 1 JD 67 3 1.00 1 LMB BATCH 22 COUNT = 6 1 LMB 160 62 1.51 48.5 127.7 1 LMB 124 29 1.52 1 LMB 115 22 1.45 1 LMB 104 15 1.33 1 LMB 102 15 1.41 1 LMB 101 18 1.75 1 LMB 101 16 1.55 1 LMB 100 16 1.60 1 LMB 96 14 1.58 1 LMB 96 13 1.47 1 LMB 93 11 1.37 1 LMB 92 12 1.54 1 LMB 90 13 1.78 1 LMB 86 9 1.41 1 LMB 85 10 1.63 1 LMB 85 10 1.63 1 LMB 85 9 1.47

C-27

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 31-Aug-05 Site 4, at I-25 Rest Stop Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 LMB 85 8 1.30 1 LMB 82 9 1.63 1 LMB 82 8 1.45 1 LMB 80 8 1.56 1 LMB 80 7 1.37 1 LMB 80 7 1.37 1 LMB 80 6 1.17 1 LMB 78 8 1.69 1 LMB 78 7 1.48 1 LMB 76 7 1.59 1 LMB 76 6 1.37 1 LMB 76 5 1.14 1 LMB 75 6 1.42 1 LMB 75 6 1.42 1 LMB 75 5 1.19 1 LMB 75 5 1.19 1 LMB 75 5 1.19 1 LMB 74 5 1.23 1 LMB 74 5 1.23 1 LMB 73 5 1.29 1 LMB 72 6 1.61 1 LMB 72 5 1.34 1 LMB 70 5 1.46 1 LMB 70 4 1.17 1 LMB 69 5 1.52 1 LMB 67 5 1.66 1 LMB 67 4 1.33 1 LMB 67 4 1.33 1 LMB 66 4 1.39 1 LMB 65 3 1.09 1 LMB 65 3 1.09 1 LMB 60 3 1.39 1 LMB 55 2 1.20 1 RBT 329 355 1.00 388.2 91.5 1 RBT 325 390 1.14 374.1 104.3 1 SS 74 3 0.74 1 SS 74 3 0.74 1 SS 72 3 0.80 1 SS 72 3 0.80 1 SS 72 3 0.80 1 SS 72 3 0.80

C-28

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 31-Aug-05 Site 4, at I-25 Rest Stop Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 SS 71 3 0.84 1 SS 71 2 0.56 1 SS 70 3 0.87 1 SS 70 3 0.87 1 SS 70 2 0.58 1 SS 70 2 0.58 1 SS 70 2 0.58 1 SS 67 3 1.00 1 SS 67 3 1.00 1 SS 67 3 1.00 1 SS 67 2 0.66 1 SS 67 2 0.66 1 SS 66 2 0.70 1 SS 66 2 0.70 1 SS 65 3 1.09 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 64 3 1.14 1 SS 64 2 0.76 1 SS 64 2 0.76 1 SS 64 2 0.76 1 SS 62 2 0.84 1 SS 61 2 0.88 1 SS 61 2 0.88 1 SS 60 2 0.93 1 SS 60 2 0.93 1 SS 60 2 0.93 1 SS 57 2 1.08 1 SS 57 1 0.54 1 SS 56 2 1.14 1 WS 400 825 1.29 780.4 105.7 1 WS 398 750 1.19 768.5 97.6 1 WS 380 670 1.22 667.0 100.4 1 WS 375 690 1.31 640.5 107.7 1 WS 359 540 1.17 560.5 96.3 1 WS 295 292 1.14 307.4 95.0 1 WS 295 262 1.02 307.4 85.2

C-29

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 31-Aug-05 Site 4, at I-25 Rest Stop Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 WS 286 280 1.20 279.6 100.2 1 WS 282 282 1.26 267.8 105.3 1 WS 276 280 1.33 250.7 111.7 1 WS 271 260 1.31 237.1 109.7 1 WS 270 220 1.12 234.4 93.9 1 WS 262 240 1.33 213.8 112.3 1 WS 260 198 1.13 208.8 94.8 1 WS 259 212 1.22 206.4 102.7 1 WS 256 219 1.31 199.2 110.0 1 WS 249 170 1.10 183.0 92.9 1 WS 208 71 0.79 105.5 67.3 1 WS 199 100 1.27 92.1 108.5 1 WS 195 92 1.24 86.6 106.2 1 WS 194 88 1.21 85.2 103.2 1 WS 179 80 1.39 66.6 120.0 1 WS 173 60 1.16 60.0 99.9 2 CARP 482 1700 1.52 1789.9 95.0 2 CARP 480 1590 1.44 1768.8 89.9 2 GSF 75 8 1.90 2 GSF 59 3 1.46 2 LMB BATCH 207 COUNT = 27 2 RBT 342 430 1.07 436.4 98.5 2 RBT 328 365 1.03 384.6 94.9 2 SS 72 4 1.07 2 SS 70 3 0.87 2 SS 70 3 0.87 2 SS 70 3 0.87 2 SS 68 2 0.64 2 SS 67 3 1.00 2 SS 66 3 1.04 2 SS 65 2 0.73 2 SS 65 2 0.73 2 SS 65 2 0.73 2 SS 63 2 0.80 2 SS 60 2 0.93 2 SS 57 2 1.08 2 WS 424 975 1.28 932.7 104.5 2 WS 415 961 1.34 873.4 110.0 2 WS 250 180 1.15 185.2 97.2 2 WS 188 79 1.19 77.4 102.0 2 WS 41 1 1.45

C-30

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY CARP Length Weight K Wr N: 17 17 17 17 MIN: 445 1300 1.23 77.6 MAX: 577 2725 1.67 103.3 MEAN: 509.7 1900.0 1.41 88.9 CC Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 N/A MIN: 127 18 0.88 N/A MAX: 142 36 1.26 N/A MEAN: 134.5 27.0 1.07 N/A FHM Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 N/A MIN: 68 3 0.95 N/A MAX: 70 4 1.17 N/A MEAN: 69.0 3.5 1.06 N/A GSF Length Weight K Wr N: 4 4 4 N/A MIN: 58 3 1.46 N/A MAX: 75 8 1.90 N/A MEAN: 66.8 5.3 1.64 N/A JD Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 67 3 1.00 N/A MAX: 67 3 1.00 N/A MEAN: 67.0 3.0 1.00 N/A LMB Length Weight K Wr N: 50 83 50 1 MIN: 55 2 1.09 127.7 MAX: 160 62 1.78 127.7 MEAN: 82.6 8.5 1.42 127.7 RBT Length Weight K Wr N: 4 4 4 4 MIN: 325 355 1.00 91.5 MAX: 342 430 1.14 104.3 MEAN: 331.0 385.0 1.06 97.3 SS Length Weight K Wr N: 53 53 53 N/A MIN: 56 1 0.54 N/A MAX: 74 4 1.14 N/A MEAN: 66.0 2.4 0.82 N/A

C-31

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY

WS Length Weight K Wr N: 28 28 28 27 MIN: 41 1 0.79 67.3 MAX: 424 975 1.45 120.0 Mean: 272.8 324.2 1.22 101.5

C-32

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI (acre) (#/acre) (lbs/acre) CARP 15 2 17 ± 1.1 0.589 29 ± 1.9 121.47 CC 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.589 3 ± 0.0 0.18 FHM 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.589 3 ± 0.0 0.02 GSF 2 2 4 ± -- 0.589 7 ± -- 0.08 JD 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.589 2 ± 0.0 0.01 LMB 56 27 104 ± 27.4 0.589 177 ± 46.5 3.32 RBT 2 2 4 ± -- 0.589 7 ± -- 5.94 SS 40 13 57 ± 8.0 0.589 97 ± 13.6 0.51 WS 23 5 28 ± 2.3 0.589 48 ± 3.9 34.31 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI Site Area Density Biomass 95% CI (ha) (#/ha) (kg/ha) CARP 15 2 17 ± 1.1 0.238 71 ± 4.6 134.90 CC 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.238 8 ± 0.0 0.22 FHM 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.238 8 ± 0.0 0.03 GSF 2 2 4 ± -- 0.238 17 ± -- 0.09 JD 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.238 4 ± 0.0 0.01 LMB 56 27 104 ± 27.4 0.238 437 ± 115.1 3.71 RBT 2 2 4 ± -- 0.238 17 ± -- 6.55 SS 40 13 57 ± 8.0 0.238 239 ± 33.6 0.57 WS 23 5 28 ± 2.3 0.238 118 ± 9.7 38.26

C-33

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 5, near Frank State Wildlife Area Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 CARP 630 3725 1.49 3848.7 96.8 1 CARP 600 2825 1.31 3347.6 84.4 1 CARP 592 3050 1.47 3221.6 94.7 1 CARP 592 2750 1.33 3221.6 85.4 1 CARP 584 2675 1.34 3098.7 86.3 1 CARP 572 2550 1.36 2920.1 87.3 1 CARP 564 2575 1.44 2804.8 91.8 1 CARP 562 2750 1.55 2776.5 99.0 1 CARP 560 2575 1.47 2748.3 93.7 1 CARP 550 2500 1.50 2610.3 95.8 1 FHM 61 3 1.32 1 GSF 100 18 1.80 19.9 90.6 1 GSF 82 8 1.45 10.8 73.9 1 GSF 48 3 2.71 1 GSF 47 3 2.89 1 JD 66 4 1.39 1 JD 64 3 1.14 1 LMB 64 4 1.53 1 OSF 86 12 1.89 1 OSF 78 10 2.11 1 OSF 73 8 2.06 1 OSF 67 5 1.66 1 OSF 67 5 1.66 1 OSF 65 7 2.55 1 OSF 62 4 1.68 1 OSF 60 4 1.85 1 OSF 58 4 2.05 1 OSF 56 4 2.28 1 OSF 54 3 1.91 1 OSF 48 3 2.71 1 OSF 41 2 2.90 1 OSF 39 2 3.37 1 OSF 36 2 4.29 1 RBT 307 350 1.21 314.9 111.2 1 WS 357 565 1.24 551.0 102.5 1 WS 323 415 1.23 405.7 102.3 1 WS 321 385 1.16 398.0 96.7 1 WS 215 115 1.16 116.8 98.5 1 WS 196 105 1.39 88.0 119.4 1 WS 181 75 1.26 68.9 108.8 1 WS 76 6 1.37

C-34

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 5, near Frank State Wildlife Area Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 WS 73 4 1.03 1 WS 60 3 1.39 2 CARP 565 2210 1.23 2819.1 78.4 2 CARP 496 1700 1.39 1942.6 87.5 2 JD 56 3 1.71 2 RS 70 5 1.46 2 WS 415 860 1.20 873.4 98.5 2 WS 365 570 1.17 589.7 96.7

C-35

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY CARP Length Weight K Wr N: 12 12 12 12 MIN: 496 1700 1.23 78.4 MAX: 630 3725 1.55 99.0 MEAN: 572.3 2657.1 1.41 90.1 FHM Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 61 3 1.32 N/A MAX: 61 3 1.32 N/A MEAN: 61.0 3.0 1.32 N/A GSF Length Weight K Wr N: 4 4 4 2 MIN: 47 3 1.45 73.9 MAX: 100 18 2.89 90.6 MEAN: 69.3 8.0 2.21 82.3 JD Length Weight K Wr N: 3 3 3 N/A MIN: 56 3 1.14 N/A MAX: 66 4 1.71 N/A MEAN: 62.0 3.3 1.41 N/A LMB Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 64 4 1.53 N/A MAX: 64 4 1.53 N/A MEAN: 64.0 4.0 1.53 N/A OSF Length Weight K Wr N: 15 15 15 N/A MIN: 36 2 1.66 N/A MAX: 86 12 4.29 N/A MEAN: 59.3 5.0 2.33 N/A RBT Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 1 MIN: 307 350 1.21 111.2 MAX: 307 350 1.21 111.2 MEAN: 307.0 350.0 1.21 111.2 RS Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 70 5 1.46 N/A MAX: 70 5 1.46 N/A MEAN: 70.0 5.0 1.46 N/A

C-36

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY

WS Length Weight K Wr N: 11 11 11 8 MIN: 60 3 1.03 96.7 MAX: 415 860 1.39 119.4 MEAN: 234.7 282.1 1.24 102.9

C-37

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1st Pop Site Area Density Biomass 2nd Pass 95% CI 95% CI Pass Est (acre) (#/acre) (lbs/acre) CARP 10 2 12 ± 1.5 0.258 47 ± 5.8 275.32 FHM 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.258 4 ± 0.0 0.03 GSF 4 0 4 ± 0.0 0.258 16 ± 0.0 0.28 JD 2 1 3 ± -- 0.258 12 ± -- 0.09 LMB 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.258 4 ± 0.0 0.04 OSF 15 0 15 ± 0.0 0.258 58 ± 0.0 0.64 RBT 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.258 4 ± 0.0 3.09 RS 0 1 1 ± -- 0.258 4 ± -- 0.04 WS 9 2 11 ± 1.6 0.258 43 ± 6.2 26.74 1st Pop Site Area Density Biomass 2nd Pass 95% CI 95% CI Pass Est (ha) (#/ha) (kg/ha) CARP 10 2 12 ± 1.5 0.104 115 ± 14.4 305.57 FHM 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.104 10 ± 0.0 0.03 GSF 4 0 4 ± 0.0 0.104 38 ± 0.0 0.30 JD 2 1 3 ± -- 0.104 29 ± -- 0.10 LMB 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.104 10 ± 0.0 0.04 OSF 15 0 15 ± 0.0 0.104 144 ± 0.0 0.72 RBT 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.104 10 ± 0.0 3.50 RS 0 1 1 ± -- 0.104 10 ± -- 0.05 WS 9 2 11 ± 1.6 0.104 106 ± 15.4 29.90

C-38

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 5, near Frank State Wildlife Area - Side Channel Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 BG 45 2 2.19 1 FHM 70 3 0.87 1 FHM 68 3 0.95 1 FHM 67 4 1.33 1 FHM 67 3 1.00 1 FHM 66 3 1.04 1 FHM 66 3 1.04 1 FHM 66 3 1.04 1 FHM 65 4 1.46 1 FHM 65 3 1.09 1 FHM 65 3 1.09 1 FHM 65 3 1.09 1 FHM 65 3 1.09 1 FHM 64 3 1.14 1 FHM 64 3 1.14 1 FHM 64 3 1.14 1 FHM 63 3 1.20 1 FHM 63 3 1.20 1 FHM 63 3 1.20 1 FHM 63 3 1.20 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 61 3 1.32 1 FHM 60 4 1.85 1 FHM 60 3 1.39 1 FHM 60 3 1.39 1 FHM 60 3 1.39 1 FHM 60 3 1.39 1 FHM 60 3 1.39 1 FHM 60 3 1.39 1 FHM 60 3 1.39 1 FHM 60 3 1.39 1 FHM 60 3 1.39 1 FHM 59 2 0.97 1 FHM 56 2 1.14

C-39

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 5, near Frank State Wildlife Area - Side Channel Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 FHM 55 2 1.20 1 FHM 55 2 1.20 1 FHM 55 2 1.20 1 FHM 54 2 1.27 1 FHM 53 2 1.34 1 FHM 52 2 1.42 1 FHM 52 2 1.42 1 FHM 52 2 1.42 1 FHM 50 2 1.60 1 FHM 50 2 1.60 1 FHM 49 2 1.70 1 FHM 47 1 0.96 1 FHM 45 2 2.19 1 FHM 45 1 1.10 1 FHM 45 1 1.10 1 FHM 37 1 1.97 1 FHM 37 1 1.97 1 GSF 90 8 1.10 14.4 55.6 1 JD 75 4 0.95 1 JD 70 3 0.87 1 JD 70 3 0.87 1 JD 65 5 1.82 1 JD 65 3 1.09 1 JD 65 3 1.09 1 JD 65 3 1.09 1 JD 57 2 1.08 1 JD 55 2 1.20 1 JD 51 2 1.51 1 MF 55 3 1.80 1 MF 55 3 1.80 1 MF 55 1 0.60 1 OSF 56 3 1.71 1 OSF 51 2 1.51 1 OSF 50 2 1.60 1 OSF 40 2 3.13 1 OSF 31 1 3.36 1 RS 86 9 1.41 1 RS 58 3 1.54 1 SS 63 3 1.20 1 SS 55 2 1.20 1 SS 40 1 1.56

C-40

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 5, near Frank State Wildlife Area - Side Channel Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 WS 235 140 1.08 153.3 91.3 1 WS 90 9 1.23 1 WS 90 8 1.10 1 WS 87 9 1.37 1 WS 85 8 1.30 1 WS 84 7 1.18 1 WS 78 7 1.48 1 WS 75 7 1.66 1 WS 75 6 1.42 1 WS 65 3 1.09 1 WS 65 3 1.09 1 WS 65 3 1.09 1 WS 64 3 1.14 1 WS 63 2 0.80 1 WS 62 3 1.26 1 WS 50 2 1.60 1 WS 48 2 1.81 1 WS 46 1 1.03

C-41

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY BG Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 45 2 2.19 N/A MAX: 45 2 2.19 N/A MEAN: 45.0 2.0 2.19 N/A FHM Length Weight K Wr N: 57 57 57 N/A MIN: 37 1 0.87 N/A MAX: 70 4 2.19 N/A MEAN: 58.7 2.6 1.30 N/A GSF Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 1 MIN: 90 8 1.10 55.6 MAX: 90 8 1.10 55.6 MEAN: 90.0 8.0 1.10 55.6 JD Length Weight K Wr N: 10 10 10 N/A MIN: 51 2 0.87 N/A MAX: 75 5 1.82 N/A MEAN: 63.8 3.0 1.16 N/A MF Length Weight K Wr N: 3 3 3 N/A MIN: 55 1 0.60 N/A MAX: 55 3 1.80 N/A MEAN: 55.0 2.3 1.40 N/A OSF Length Weight K Wr N: 5 5 5 N/A MIN: 31 1 1.51 N/A MAX: 56 3 3.36 N/A MEAN: 45.6 2.0 2.26 N/A RS Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 N/A MIN: 58 3 1.41 N/A MAX: 86 9 1.54 N/A MEAN: 72.0 6.0 1.48 N/A SS Length Weight K Wr N: 3 3 3 N/A MIN: 40 1 1.2 N/A MAX: 63 3 1.56 N/A MEAN: 52.7 2.0 1.32 N/A

C-42

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY WS Length Weight K Wr N: 18 18 18 1 MIN: 46 1 0.80 91.3 MAX: 235 140 1.81 91.3 MEAN: 79.3 12.4 1.26 91.3

C-43

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 6, adjacent to Kodak Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 BG 52 3 2.13 1 CARP 720 5000 1.34 5637.9 88.7 1 CARP 635 3300 1.29 3936.7 83.8 1 CARP 620 4000 1.68 3676.6 108.8 1 CARP 596 2725 1.29 3284.2 83.0 1 CARP 582 2500 1.27 3068.4 81.5 1 CARP 580 2800 1.44 3038.4 92.2 1 CARP 572 2800 1.50 2920.1 95.9 1 CARP 508 1800 1.37 2080.0 86.5 1 CARP 496 1975 1.62 1942.6 101.7 1 CARP 380 800 1.46 907.0 88.2 1 CARP 155 60 1.61 1 CARP 151 50 1.45 1 CARP 123 37 1.99 1 CARP 64 15 5.72 1 GS 125 30 1.54 1 GS 121 30 1.69 1 GS 118 30 1.83 1 GS 116 20 1.28 1 GS 115 30 1.97 1 GS 115 25 1.64 1 GS 115 25 1.64 1 GS 115 25 1.64 1 GS 111 25 1.83 1 GS 111 25 1.83 1 GS 110 25 1.88 1 GS 110 25 1.88 1 GS 109 25 1.93 1 GS 109 25 1.93 1 GS 107 20 1.63 1 GS 106 30 2.52 1 GS 106 20 1.68 1 GS 105 30 2.59 1 GS 105 20 1.73 1 GS 104 20 1.78 1 GS 104 20 1.78 1 GS 104 20 1.78 1 GS 102 20 1.88 1 GS 102 20 1.88 1 GS 101 25 2.43 1 GS 101 20 1.94

C-44

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 6, adjacent to Kodak Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 GS 101 20 1.94 1 GS 101 20 1.94 1 GS 101 20 1.94 1 GS 100 20 2.00 1 GS 100 20 2.00 1 GS 100 20 2.00 1 GS 99 20 2.06 1 GS 97 20 2.19 1 GS 97 20 2.19 1 GS 96 20 2.26 1 GS 96 15 1.70 1 GS 95 20 2.33 1 GS 95 20 2.33 1 GS 94 20 2.41 1 GS 94 20 2.41 1 GS 94 20 2.41 1 GS 92 15 1.93 1 GS 81 15 2.82 1 LMB 117 40 2.50 1 LMB 96 25 2.83 1 LMB 91 30 3.98 1 LMB 81 7 1.32 1 LMB 78 6 1.26 1 LMB 76 6 1.37 1 LMB 76 5 1.14 1 LMB 75 6 1.42 1 LMB 75 6 1.42 1 LMB 72 6 1.61 1 LMB 71 5 1.40 1 LMB 67 5 1.66 1 LMB 65 3 1.09 1 LMB 52 2 1.42 1 MF 45 2 2.19 1 MF 45 2 2.19 1 MF 44 2 2.35 1 MF 40 2 3.13 1 MF 35 1 2.33 1 SS 69 3 0.91 1 SS 50 2 1.60 1 WS 362 525 1.11 575.0 91.3 1 WS 329 425 1.19 429.2 99.0

C-45

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 6, adjacent to Kodak Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 WS 214 115 1.17 115.1 99.9 1 WS 183 70 1.14 71.3 98.2 1 WS 115 17 1.12 17.2 98.8 1 WS 106 13 1.09 13.4 96.9 1 WS 101 11 1.07 11.6 95.1 1 WS 92 8 1.03 1 WS 76 5 1.14 1 WS 75 4 0.95 1 WS 70 5 1.46 1 WS 70 4 1.17 1 WS 65 4 1.46 1 WS 64 3 1.14 1 WS 63 3 1.20 1 WS 61 3 1.32 1 WS 60 3 1.39 1 WS 60 2 0.93 1 YP 95 25 2.92 2 BBH 138 50 1.90 42.4 117.9 2 BG 45 2 2.19 2 BG 42 2 2.70 2 CARP 690 4100 1.25 4991.9 82.1 2 CARP 580 2625 1.35 3038.4 86.4 2 CARP 573 2500 1.33 2934.7 85.2 2 CARP 537 2050 1.32 2437.8 84.1 2 CARP 484 1500 1.32 1811.2 82.8 2 CARP 96 25 2.83 2 CARP 85 9 1.47 2 CARP 82 15 2.72 2 FHM 72 6 1.61 2 FHM 63 4 1.60 2 FHM 62 3 1.26 2 GS 113 25 1.73 2 GS 110 20 1.50 2 GS 109 25 1.93 2 GS 107 20 1.63 2 GS 105 20 1.73 2 GS 95 20 2.33 2 GS 85 15 2.44 2 JD 65 3 1.09 2 JD 57 2 1.08 2 LMB 195 140 1.89 92.7 151.0

C-46

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 6, adjacent to Kodak Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 2 LMB 93 10 1.24 2 LMB 85 8 1.30 2 LMB 82 7 1.27 2 LMB 82 7 1.27 2 LMB 80 7 1.37 2 LMB 80 5 0.98 2 LMB 71 6 1.68 2 LMB 70 5 1.46 2 LMB 63 4 1.60 2 LMB 61 4 1.76 2 SS 68 3 0.95 2 SS 65 3 1.09 2 WS 361 610 1.30 570.1 107.0 2 WS 335 460 1.22 453.6 101.4 2 WS 86 7 1.10 2 WS 85 7 1.14 2 WS 80 6 1.17 2 WS 80 6 1.17 2 WS 76 4 0.91 2 WS 74 4 0.99 2 WS 73 4 1.03 2 WS 66 4 1.39 2 YP 80 6 1.17

C-47

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY BBH Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 1 MIN: 138 50 1.90 117.9 MAX: 138 50 1.90 117.9 MEAN: 138.0 50.0 1.90 117.9 BG Length Weight K Wr N: 3 3 3 N/A MIN: 42 2 2.13 N/A MAX: 52 3 2.70 N/A MEAN: 46.3 2.3 2.34 N/A CARP Length Weight K Wr N: 22 22 22 15 MIN: 64 9 1.25 81.5 MAX: 720 5000 5.72 108.8 MEAN: 423.1 1849.4 1.76 88.7 FHM Length Weight K Wr N: 3 3 3 N/A MIN: 62 3 1.26 N/A MAX: 72 6 1.61 N/A MEAN: 65.7 4.3 1.49 N/A GS Length Weight K Wr N: 51 51 51 N/A MIN: 81 15 1.28 N/A MAX: 125 30 2.82 N/A MEAN: 104.0 22.0 1.97 N/A JD Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 N/A MIN: 57 2 1.08 N/A MAX: 65 3 1.09 N/A MEAN: 61.0 2.5 1.09 N/A LMB Length Weight K Wr N: 25 25 25 1 MIN: 52 2 0.98 151.0 MAX: 195 140 3.98 151.0 MEAN: 82.2 14.2 1.61 151.0 MF Length Weight K Wr N: 5 5 5 N/A MIN: 35 1 2.19 N/A MAX: 45 2 3.13 N/A MEAN: 41.8 1.8 2.44 N/A

C-48

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY

SS Length Weight K Wr N: 4 4 4 N/A MIN: 50 2 0.91 N/A MAX: 69 3 1.60 N/A MEAN: 63.0 2.8 1.14 N/A WS Length Weight K Wr N: 28 28 28 9 MIN: 60 2 0.91 91.3 MAX: 362 610 1.46 107.0 MEAN: 124.4 83.3 1.16 98.6 YP Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 N/A MIN: 80 6 1.17 N/A MAX: 95 25 2.92 N/A MEAN: 87.5 15.5 2.05 N/A

C-49

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

1st 2nd Site Area Density Biomass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI Pass Pass (acre) (#/acre) (lbs/acre) BBH 0 1 1 ± -- 1.011 1 ± -- 0.11 BG 1 2 3 ± -- 1.011 3 ± -- 0.02 CARP 14 8 28 ± 16.6 1.011 28 ± 16.4 114.16 FHM 0 3 3 ± -- 1.011 3 ± -- 0.03 GS 44 7 51 ± 2.2 1.011 50 ± 2.2 2.43 JD 0 2 2 ± -- 1.011 2 ± -- 0.01 LMB 14 11 25 ± -- 1.011 25 ± -- 0.78 MF 5 0 5 ± 0.0 1.011 5 ± 0.0 0.02 SS 2 2 4 ± -- 1.011 4 ± -- 0.02 WS 18 10 36 ± 19.1 1.011 36 ± 18.9 6.61 YP 1 1 2 ± -- 1.011 2 ± -- 0.07 1st 2nd Site Area Density Biomass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI Pass Pass (ha) (#/ha) (kg/ha) BBH 0 1 1 ± -- 0.409 2 ± -- 0.10 BG 1 2 3 ± -- 0.409 7 ± -- 0.02 CARP 14 8 28 ± 16.6 0.409 68 ± 40.6 125.76 FHM 0 3 3 ± -- 0.409 7 ± -- 0.03 GS 44 7 51 ± 2.2 0.409 125 ± 5.4 2.75 JD 0 2 2 ± -- 0.409 5 ± -- 0.01 LMB 14 11 25 ± -- 0.409 61 ± -- 0.87 MF 5 0 5 ± 0.0 0.409 12 ± 0.0 0.02 SS 2 2 4 ± -- 0.409 10 ± -- 0.03 WS 18 10 36 ± 19.1 0.409 88 ± 46.7 7.33 YP 1 1 2 ± -- 0.409 5 ± -- 0.08

C-50

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 7, Downstream of Greeley # 3 Diversion Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 BCR 168 85 1.79 66.9 127.0 1 BG 111 30 2.19 25.6 117.2 1 BG 88 10 1.47 11.9 84.4 1 BG 85 15 2.44 10.6 142.0 1 BG 85 15 2.44 10.6 142.0 1 BG 80 15 2.93 8.6 173.6 1 BG 64 5 1.91 1 BG 62 5 2.10 1 BG 62 4 1.68 1 BG 41 1 1.45 1 CARP 650 2950 1.07 4208.4 70.1 1 CARP 640 3450 1.32 4026.0 85.7 1 CARP 640 2950 1.13 4026.0 73.3 1 CARP 635 2100 0.82 3936.7 53.3 1 CARP 630 3250 1.30 3848.7 84.4 1 CARP 630 3175 1.27 3848.7 82.5 1 CARP 625 2900 1.19 3762.0 77.1 1 CARP 625 2675 1.10 3762.0 71.1 1 CARP 625 1900 0.78 3762.0 50.5 1 CARP 622 2550 1.06 3710.6 68.7 1 CARP 620 3450 1.45 3676.6 93.8 1 CARP 620 3300 1.38 3676.6 89.8 1 CARP 620 3200 1.34 3676.6 87.0 1 CARP 620 2950 1.24 3676.6 80.2 1 CARP 607 2450 1.10 3460.5 70.8 1 CARP 605 2450 1.11 3428.0 71.5 1 CARP 603 2930 1.34 3395.7 86.3 1 CARP 602 2350 1.08 3379.6 69.5 1 CARP 595 2525 1.20 3268.5 77.3 1 CARP 595 2500 1.19 3268.5 76.5 1 CARP 590 2750 1.34 3190.6 86.2 1 CARP 589 2900 1.42 3175.1 91.3 1 CARP 589 2850 1.39 3175.1 89.8 1 CARP 580 2250 1.15 3038.4 74.1 1 CARP 578 2400 1.24 3008.5 79.8 1 CARP 570 2050 1.11 2891.0 70.9 1 CARP 568 2025 1.11 2862.1 70.8 1 CARP 565 2550 1.41 2819.1 90.5 1 CARP 564 2400 1.34 2804.8 85.6 1 CARP 563 2600 1.46 2790.6 93.2 1 CARP 563 2150 1.20 2790.6 77.0

C-51

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 7, Downstream of Greeley # 3 Diversion Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 CARP 560 2400 1.37 2748.3 87.3 1 CARP 560 2250 1.28 2748.3 81.9 1 CARP 559 2300 1.32 2734.3 84.1 1 CARP 558 2350 1.35 2720.4 86.4 1 CARP 558 1950 1.12 2720.4 71.7 1 CARP 555 2250 1.32 2678.8 84.0 1 CARP 555 2150 1.26 2678.8 80.3 1 CARP 555 2125 1.24 2678.8 79.3 1 CARP 555 2090 1.22 2678.8 78.0 1 CARP 552 1975 1.17 2637.6 74.9 1 CARP 550 2325 1.40 2610.3 89.1 1 CARP 548 1950 1.18 2583.3 75.5 1 CARP 545 2025 1.25 2543.1 79.6 1 CARP 543 1850 1.16 2516.5 73.5 1 CARP 542 1725 1.08 2503.2 68.9 1 CARP 540 2000 1.27 2476.9 80.7 1 CARP 540 1840 1.17 2476.9 74.3 1 CARP 540 1800 1.14 2476.9 72.7 1 CARP 539 1875 1.20 2463.8 76.1 1 CARP 538 1150 0.74 2450.8 46.9 1 CARP 535 1975 1.29 2411.9 81.9 1 CARP 535 1925 1.26 2411.9 79.8 1 CARP 535 1850 1.21 2411.9 76.7 1 CARP 535 1825 1.19 2411.9 75.7 1 CARP 533 2000 1.32 2386.2 83.8 1 CARP 528 2050 1.39 2322.8 88.3 1 CARP 527 2010 1.37 2310.2 87.0 1 CARP 526 1625 1.12 2297.7 70.7 1 CARP 525 1900 1.31 2285.3 83.1 1 CARP 525 1700 1.17 2285.3 74.4 1 CARP 523 1600 1.12 2260.5 70.8 1 CARP 522 1800 1.27 2248.1 80.1 1 CARP 521 1850 1.31 2235.8 82.7 1 CARP 520 1850 1.32 2223.6 83.2 1 CARP 515 1750 1.28 2163.0 80.9 1 CARP 514 1925 1.42 2151.0 89.5 1 CARP 510 1800 1.36 2103.5 85.6 1 CARP 505 1750 1.36 2045.1 85.6 1 CARP 505 1550 1.20 2045.1 75.8 1 CARP 500 1860 1.49 1987.7 93.6 1 CARP 493 1550 1.29 1909.2 81.2

C-52

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 7, Downstream of Greeley # 3 Diversion Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 CARP 490 1700 1.44 1876.2 90.6 1 CARP 486 1475 1.28 1832.7 80.5 1 CARP 483 1550 1.38 1800.5 86.1 1 CARP 483 1500 1.33 1800.5 83.3 1 CARP 470 1400 1.35 1665.4 84.1 1 CARP 468 1325 1.29 1645.3 80.5 1 CARP 460 1400 1.44 1566.1 89.4 1 CARP 460 1275 1.31 1566.1 81.4 1 CARP 456 1150 1.21 1527.5 75.3 1 CARP 450 1100 1.21 1470.7 74.8 1 CARP 448 1150 1.28 1452.1 79.2 1 CARP 440 1125 1.32 1379.2 81.6 1 CARP 435 1150 1.40 1334.9 86.2 1 CARP 435 1050 1.28 1334.9 78.7 1 CARP 430 1000 1.26 1291.5 77.4 1 CARP 410 950 1.38 1127.1 84.3 1 FHM 70 3 0.87 1 FHM 64 2 0.76 1 FHM 62 2 0.84 1 FHM 61 2 0.88 1 FHM 60 2 0.93 1 FHM 60 2 0.93 1 FHM 59 2 0.97 1 FHM 59 2 0.97 1 FHM 58 2 1.03 1 FHM 57 2 1.08 1 FHM 56 2 1.14 1 FHM 56 2 1.14 1 FHM 56 2 1.14 1 FHM 56 2 1.14 1 FHM 54 2 1.27 1 GS 174 29 0.55 1 GS 141 33 1.18 1 GS 141 32 1.14 1 GS 138 32 1.22 1 GS 137 31 1.21 1 GS 132 35 1.52 1 GS 131 28 1.25 1 GS 130 30 1.37 1 GS 130 28 1.27 1 GS 130 28 1.27

C-53

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 7, Downstream of Greeley # 3 Diversion Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 GS 130 25 1.14 1 GS 130 25 1.14 1 GS 128 23 1.10 1 GS 126 28 1.40 1 GS 126 25 1.25 1 GS 126 24 1.20 1 GS 125 23 1.18 1 GS 123 31 1.67 1 GS 123 22 1.18 1 GS 122 21 1.16 1 GS 116 21 1.35 1 GS 115 12 0.79 1 GS 112 10 0.71 1 GS 105 15 1.30 1 GSF 126 40 2.00 40.2 99.4 1 GSF 113 28 1.94 28.9 97.0 1 GSF 112 28 1.99 28.1 99.7 1 GSF 106 21 1.76 23.7 88.5 1 GSF 94 19 2.29 16.4 115.6 1 GSF 92 17 2.18 15.4 110.4 1 GSF 91 14 1.86 14.9 94.0 1 GSF 86 11 1.73 12.5 87.8 1 GSF 86 9 1.41 12.5 71.8 1 GSF 72 6 1.61 1 LMB BATCH - COUNT = 85 1 LMB BATCH 92 COUNT = 15 1 LMB BATCH 20 COUNT = 3 1 LMB 124 31 1.63 1 LMB 114 18 1.21 1 LMB 85 8 1.30 1 LMB 82 7 1.27 1 LMB 80 8 1.56 1 LMB 80 7 1.37 1 LMB 80 6 1.17 1 LMB 78 6 1.26 1 LMB 76 6 1.37 1 LMB 76 6 1.37 1 LMB 75 7 1.66 1 LMB 75 7 1.66 1 LMB 75 6 1.42 1 LMB 75 6 1.42

C-54

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 7, Downstream of Greeley # 3 Diversion Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 LMB 75 5 1.19 1 LMB 75 5 1.19 1 LMB 75 5 1.19 1 LMB 73 6 1.54 1 LMB 73 5 1.29 1 LMB 73 5 1.29 1 LMB 73 5 1.29 1 LMB 73 5 1.29 1 LMB 72 6 1.61 1 LMB 72 5 1.34 1 LMB 72 5 1.34 1 LMB 72 5 1.34 1 LMB 72 5 1.34 1 LMB 71 6 1.68 1 LMB 71 5 1.40 1 LMB 71 5 1.40 1 LMB 71 5 1.40 1 LMB 71 5 1.40 1 LMB 70 5 1.46 1 LMB 70 5 1.46 1 LMB 70 5 1.46 1 LMB 69 5 1.52 1 LMB 68 5 1.59 1 LMB 68 4 1.27 1 LMB 68 4 1.27 1 LMB 68 4 1.27 1 LMB 66 4 1.39 1 LMB 66 4 1.39 1 LMB 65 4 1.46 1 LMB 65 4 1.46 1 LMB 64 3 1.14 1 LMB 63 3 1.20 1 LMB 62 3 1.26 1 LMB 61 3 1.32 1 LMB 61 3 1.32 1 LMB 58 3 1.54 1 LMB 57 3 1.62 1 LMB 56 2 1.14 1 LMB 55 3 1.80 1 MF 44 1 1.17 1 MF 43 1 1.26

C-55

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 30-Aug-05 Site 7, Downstream of Greeley # 3 Diversion Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 MF 42 1 1.35 1 OSF 104 4 0.36 1 OSF 85 12 1.95 1 OSF 70 6 1.75 1 OSF 65 5 1.82 1 OSF 62 4 1.68 1 OSF 59 3 1.46 1 RS 60 2 0.93 1 SS 65 3 1.09 1 SS 60 2 0.93 1 SS 59 2 0.97 1 SS 58 1 0.51 1 SS 50 2 1.60 1 SS 50 1 0.80 1 WS 274 275 1.34 245.2 112.2 1 WS 198 88 1.13 90.7 97.0 1 WS 195 72 0.97 86.6 83.1 1 WS 175 61 1.14 62.2 98.1 1 WS 150 33 0.98 38.8 85.1 1 WS 78 5 1.05 1 WS 76 5 1.14 1 WS 70 3 0.87 1 WS 69 4 1.22

C-56

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY BCR Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 1 MIN: 168 85 1.79 127.0 MAX: 168 85 1.79 127.0 MEAN: 168.0 85.0 1.79 127.0 BG Length Weight K Wr N: 9 9 9 5 MIN: 41 1 1.45 84.4 MAX: 111 173.6 MEAN: 75.3 131.8 CARP Length Wr N: 88 88 MIN: 410 46.9 MAX: 650 93.8 MEAN: 545.0 79.5 FHM Length Wr N: 15 N/A MIN: 54 N/A MAX: 70 N/A MEAN: 59.2 N/A GS Length Weight K Wr N 24 24 24 N/A MIN: 105 10 0.55 N/A MAX: 174 35 1.67 N/A MEAN: 128.8 25.5 1.19 N/A GSF Length Weight K Wr N: 10 10 10 9 MIN: 72 6 1.41 71.8 MAX: 126 40 2.29 115.6 MEAN: 97.8 19.3 1.88 96.0 LMB Length Weight K Wr N: 53 71 53 N/A MIN: 55 2 1.14 N/A MAX: 124 31 1.80 N/A MEAN: 72.3 5.8 1.39 N/A MF Length Weight K Wr N: 3 3 3 N/A MIN: 42 1 1.17 N/A MAX: 44 1 1.35 N/A MEAN: 43.0 1.0 1.26 N/A

C-57

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY

OSF Length Weight K Wr N: 6 6 6 N/A MIN: 59 3 0.36 N/A MAX: 104 12 1.95 N/A MEAN: 74.2 5.7 1.50 N/A RS Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 60 2 0.93 N/A MAX: 60 2 0.93 N/A MEAN: 60.0 2.0 0.93 N/A SS Length Weight K Wr N: 6 6 6 N/A MIN: 50 1 0.51 N/A MAX: 65 3 1.60 N/A MEAN: 57.0 1.8 0.98 N/A WS Length Weight K Wr N: 9 9 9 5 MIN: 69 3 0.87 83.1 MAX: 274 275 1. 34 112.2 MEAN: 142.8 60.7 1.09 95.1

C-58

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass Pop Est (acre) (#/acre) (lbs/acre) BCR 1 1 0.795 1 0.19 BG 9 9 0.795 11 0.27 CARP 88 88 0.795 111 505.43 FHM 15 15 0.795 19 0.09 GS 24 24 0.795 30 1.69 GSF 10 10 0.795 13 0.55 LMB 156 156 0.795 196 2.51 MF 3 3 0.795 4 0.01 OSF 6 6 0.795 8 0.10 RS 1 1 0.795 1 <0.01 SS 6 6 0.795 8 0.03 WS 9 9 0.795 11 1.47 Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass Pop Est (ha) (#/ha) (kg/ha) BCR 1 1 0.322 3 0.26 BG 9 9 0.322 28 0.31 CARP 88 88 0.322 273 563.85 FHM 15 15 0.322 47 0.10 GS 24 24 0.322 75 1.91 GSF 10 10 0.322 31 0.60 LMB 156 156 0.322 484 2.81 MF 3 3 0.322 9 0.01 OSF 6 6 0.322 19 0.11 RS 1 1 0.322 3 0.01 SS 6 6 0.322 19 0.03 WS 9 9 0.322 28 1.70

C-59

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 8, downstream of 59th Avenue Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 CARP 56 3 1.71 1 CC 156 35 0.92 1 CC 69 3 0.91 1 FHM BATCH 120 COUNT = 41 1 FHM 73 5 1.29 1 FHM 70 4 1.17 1 FHM 68 5 1.59 1 FHM 68 3 0.95 1 FHM 67 4 1.33 1 FHM 67 3 1.00 1 FHM 66 4 1.39 1 FHM 66 3 1.04 1 FHM 65 3 1.09 1 FHM 65 2 0.73 1 FHM 64 3 1.14 1 FHM 64 3 1.14 1 FHM 64 2 0.76 1 FHM 63 3 1.20 1 FHM 63 3 1.20 1 FHM 63 2 0.80 1 FHM 63 2 0.80 1 FHM 63 2 0.80 1 FHM 63 2 0.80 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 62 3 1.26 1 FHM 62 2 0.84 1 FHM 62 2 0.84 1 FHM 62 2 0.84 1 FHM 60 2 0.93 1 FHM 60 2 0.93 1 FHM 60 2 0.93 1 FHM 60 2 0.93 1 FHM 60 2 0.93 1 FHM 59 2 0.97 1 FHM 59 2 0.97 1 FHM 59 2 0.97 1 FHM 58 2 1.03 1 FHM 58 2 1.03 1 FHM 58 2 1.03 1 FHM 58 2 1.03 1 FHM 58 2 1.03

C-60

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 8, downstream of 59th Avenue Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 FHM 57 1 0.54 1 FHM 56 2 1.14 1 FHM 56 2 1.14 1 FHM 56 2 1.14 1 FHM 56 2 1.14 1 FHM 55 2 1.20 1 FHM 55 1 0.60 1 FHM 54 1 0.64 1 FHM 53 2 1.34 1 FHM 52 1 0.71 1 FHM 51 1 0.75 1 FHM 49 1 0.85 1 FHM 49 1 0.85 1 JD 66 2 0.70 1 JD 64 2 0.76 1 JD 62 2 0.84 1 LMB 129 35 1.63 1 LMB 125 35 1.79 1 LMB 123 29 1.56 1 LMB 119 31 1.84 1 LMB 107 21 1.71 1 LMB 90 11 1.51 1 LMB 78 9 1.90 1 LMB 57 2 1.08 1 LND 95 7 0.82 1 LND 93 7 0.87 1 LND 90 7 0.96 1 LND 90 6 0.82 1 LND 82 5 0.91 1 LND 81 5 0.94 1 LND 74 4 0.99 1 LND 72 3 0.80 1 LND 70 4 1.17 1 MF 64 3 1.14 1 MF 57 2 1.08 1 MF 55 2 1.20 1 MF 55 2 1.20 1 MF 54 1 0.64 1 MF 53 2 1.34 1 MF 53 1 0.67 1 MF 50 2 1.60

C-61

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 8, downstream of 59th Avenue Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 MF 48 1 0.90 1 MF 39 1 1.69 1 MF 38 2 3.64 1 MF 35 1 2.33 1 MF 35 1 2.33 1 MF 35 1 2.33 1 MF 34 1 2.54 1 MF 32 1 3.05 1 MF 30 1 3.70 1 MF 25 1 6.40 1 RS 66 2 0.70 1 RS 50 2 1.60 1 SS BATCH 45 COUNT = 18 1 SS 78 4 0.84 1 SS 71 3 0.84 1 SS 71 3 0.84 1 SS 71 3 0.84 1 SS 70 3 0.87 1 SS 70 3 0.87 1 SS 70 3 0.87 1 SS 69 3 0.91 1 SS 69 2 0.61 1 SS 69 2 0.61 1 SS 68 3 0.95 1 SS 68 2 0.64 1 SS 67 3 1.00 1 SS 67 3 1.00 1 SS 67 2 0.66 1 SS 66 2 0.70 1 SS 66 2 0.70 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 64 2 0.76 1 SS 64 2 0.76 1 SS 64 2 0.76 1 SS 64 2 0.76 1 SS 64 2 0.76 1 SS 64 2 0.76 1 SS 63 2 0.80 1 SS 63 2 0.80

C-62

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 8, downstream of 59th Avenue Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 SS 62 2 0.84 1 SS 62 2 0.84 1 SS 62 2 0.84 1 SS 62 2 0.84 1 SS 62 2 0.84 1 SS 62 2 0.84 1 SS 62 2 0.84 1 SS 61 2 0.88 1 SS 61 2 0.88 1 SS 61 2 0.88 1 SS 60 2 0.93 1 SS 60 2 0.93 1 SS 60 2 0.93 1 SS 60 2 0.93 1 SS 60 1 0.46 1 SS 59 2 0.97 1 SS 59 2 0.97 1 SS 59 2 0.97 1 SS 58 2 1.03 1 SS 58 2 1.03 1 SS 55 2 1.20 1 SS 52 1 0.71 1 SS 34 1 2.54 1 SS 32 1 3.05 1 WS 324 380 1.12 409.5 92.8 1 WS 235 130 1.00 153.3 84.8 1 WS 231 125 1.01 145.4 86.0 1 WS 229 135 1.12 141.6 95.3 1 WS 222 105 0.96 128.8 81.5 1 WS 194 75 1.03 85.2 88.0 1 WS 193 91 1.27 83.9 108.5 1 WS 185 90 1.42 73.7 122.1 1 WS 182 70 1.16 70.1 99.8 1 WS 181 65 1.10 68.9 94.3 1 WS 172 50 0.98 59.0 84.8 1 WS 170 60 1.22 56.9 105.4 1 WS 156 55 1.45 43.7 125.7 1 WS 124 15 0.79 21.7 69.2 1 WS 98 10 1.06 1 WS 87 8 1.21 1 WS 80 6 1.17

C-63

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 8, downstream of 59th Avenue Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 WS 75 5 1.19 1 WS 58 3 1.54 2 CARP 84 10 1.69 2 CC 146 38 1.22 2 CC 118 20 1.22 2 FHM BATCH 155 COUNT = 56 2 GS 74 5 1.23 2 LMB 121 28 1.58 2 LND 79 6 1.22 2 LND 60 2 0.93 2 MF 59 4 1.95 2 MF 57 4 2.16 2 MF 57 3 1.62 2 MF 56 4 2.28 2 MF 43 1 1.26 2 MF 40 2 3.13 2 MF 37 2 3.95 2 MF 28 1 4.56 2 RS 73 5 1.29 2 RS 67 4 1.33 2 SS BATCH 135 COUNT = 48 2 WS 311 355 1.18 361.3 98.3 2 WS 219 115 1.09 123.5 93.1 2 WS 200 80 1.00 93.6 85.5 2 WS 180 65 1.11 67.8 95.9 2 WS 164 51 1.16 51.0 100.0 2 WS 153 35 0.98 41.2 84.9 2 WS 83 6 1.05 2 WS 81 6 1.13 2 WS 78 5 1.05 2 WS 70 4 1.17

C-64

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY CARP Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 N/A MIN: 56 3 1.69 N/A MAX: 84 10 1.71 N/A MEAN: 70.0 6.5 1.70 N/A CC Length Weight K Wr N: 4 4 4 N/A MIN: 69 3 0.91 N/A MAX: 156 38 1.22 N/A MEAN: 122.3 24.0 1.07 N/A FHM Length Weight K Wr N: 50 147 50 N/A MIN: 49 1 0.54 N/A MAX: 73 5 1.59 N/A MEAN: 60.4 2.7 1.00 N/A GS Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 74 5 1.23 N/A MAX: 74 5 1.23 N/A MEAN: 74.0 5.0 1.23 N/A JD Length Weight K Wr N: 3 3 3 N/A MIN: 62 2 0.70 N/A MAX: 66 2 0.84 N/A MEAN: 64.0 2.0 0.77 N/A LMB Length Weight K Wr N: 9 9 9 N/A MIN: 57 2 1.08 N/A MAX: 129 35 1.90 N/A MEAN: 105.4 22.3 1.62 N/A LND Length Weight K Wr N: 11 11 11 N/A MIN: 60 2 0.80 N/A MAX: 95 7 1.22 N/A MEAN: 80.5 5.1 0.95 N/A MF Length Weight K Wr N: 26 26 26 N/A MIN: 25 1 0.64 N/A MAX: 64 4 6.40 N/A MEAN: 45.0 1.8 2.26 N/A

C-65

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY

RS Length Weight K Wr N: 4 4 4 N/A MIN: 50 2 0.70 N/A MAX: 73 5 1.60 N/A MEAN: 64.0 3.3 1.23 N/A SS Length Weight K Wr N: 52 118 52 N/A MIN: 32 1 0.46 N/A MAX: 78 4 3.05 N/A MEAN: 62.8 2.5 0.91 N/A WS Length Weight K Wr N: 29 29 29 20 MIN: 58 3 0.79 69.2 MAX: 324 380 1.54 125.7 MEAN: 163.3 75.9 1.13 94.8

C-66

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI (acre) (#/acre) (lbs/acre) CARP 1 1 2 ± -- 0.095 21 ± -- 0.30 CC 2 2 4 ± -- 0.095 42 ± -- 2.22 FHM 91 56 147 ± -- 0.095 1547 ± -- 9.21 GS 0 1 1 ± -- 0.095 11 ± -- 0.12 JD 3 0 3 ± 0.0 0.095 32 ± 0.0 0.14 LMB 8 1 9 ± 0.9 0.095 95 ± 9.5 4.67 LND 9 2 11 ± 1.6 0.095 116 ± 16.8 1.30 MF 18 8 30 ± 10.3 0.095 316 ± 108.4 1.25 RS 2 2 4 ± -- 0.095 42 ± -- 0.31 SS 70 48 118 ± -- 0.095 1242 ± -- 6.85 WS 19 10 36 ± 16.4 0.095 379 ± 172.6 63.42 Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI (ha) (#/ha) (kg/ha) CARP 1 1 2 ± -- 0.038 53 ± -- 0.34 CC 2 2 4 ± -- 0.038 105 ± -- 2.52 FHM 91 56 147 ± -- 0.038 3868 ± -- 10.44 GS 0 1 1 ± -- 0.038 26 ± -- 0.13 JD 3 0 3 ± 0.0 0.038 79 ± 0.0 0.16 LMB 8 1 9 ± 0.9 0.038 237 ± 23.7 5.29 LND 9 2 11 ± 1.6 0.038 289 ± 42.1 1.47 MF 18 8 30 ± 10.3 0.038 789 ± 271.1 1.42 RS 2 2 4 ± -- 0.038 105 ± -- 0.35 SS 70 48 118 ± -- 0.038 3105 ± -- 7.76 WS 19 10 36 ± 16.4 0.038 947 ± 431.6 71.88

C-67

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 9, near mouth at Mitani State Wildlife Area Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 CARP 652 5100 1.84 4245.5 120.1 1 CARP 635 3475 1.36 3936.7 88.3 1 CARP 626 3475 1.42 3779.3 91.9 1 CARP 588 2850 1.40 3159.7 90.2 1 CARP 577 3125 1.63 2993.7 104.4 1 CARP 567 2400 1.32 2847.7 84.3 1 CARP 550 2450 1.47 2610.3 93.9 1 CARP 486 1475 1.28 1832.7 80.5 1 CARP 484 1650 1.46 1811.2 91.1 1 CARP 108 21 1.67 1 CARP 108 21 1.67 1 CARP 95 15 1.75 1 CARP 91 14 1.86 1 CARP 91 11 1.46 1 CARP 90 9 1.23 1 CARP 86 12 1.89 1 CARP 86 11 1.73 1 CARP 85 11 1.79 1 CARP 85 10 1.63 1 CARP 74 6 1.48 1 CC 155 32 0.86 1 CC 121 14 0.79 1 FHM BATCH 105 COUNT = 37 1 FHM BATCH 22 COUNT = 12 1 GS BATCH 175 COUNT = 11 1 GS 137 31 1.21 1 GS 126 29 1.45 1 GS 126 22 1.10 1 GS 123 25 1.34 1 GS 121 26 1.47 1 GS 121 26 1.47 1 GS 121 25 1.41 1 GS 121 21 1.19 1 GS 118 24 1.46 1 GS 118 23 1.40 1 GS 118 20 1.22 1 GS 116 21 1.35 1 GS 116 20 1.28 1 GS 116 19 1.22 1 GS 115 21 1.38 1 GS 115 20 1.32

C-68

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 9, near mouth at Mitani State Wildlife Area Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 GS 115 19 1.25 1 GS 114 22 1.48 1 GS 113 19 1.32 1 GS 110 19 1.43 1 GS 109 20 1.54 1 GS 107 22 1.80 1 GS 106 19 1.60 1 GS 105 20 1.73 1 GS 105 18 1.55 1 GS 105 16 1.38 1 GS 104 19 1.69 1 GS 103 16 1.46 1 GS 102 13 1.23 1 GS 98 16 1.70 1 GS 97 21 2.30 1 GS 97 16 1.75 1 GS 92 12 1.54 1 GS 90 11 1.51 1 GS 87 11 1.67 1 GS 84 12 2.02 1 GS 84 11 1.86 1 GS 81 10 1.88 1 GS 78 10 2.11 1 GS 71 8 2.24 1 JD 65 - - 1 LMB 94 10 1.20 1 LMB 92 11 1.41 1 LMB 90 11 1.51 1 LMB 87 10 1.52 1 LMB 87 9 1.37 1 LMB 86 11 1.73 1 LMB 82 8 1.45 1 LMB 72 6 1.61 1 LMB 72 5 1.34 1 LMB 54 1 0.64 1 LND 93 7 0.87 1 LND 90 8 1.10 1 LND 90 7 0.96 1 LND 89 8 1.13 1 LND 84 8 1.35 1 LND 78 6 1.26

C-69

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 9, near mouth at Mitani State Wildlife Area Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 LND 76 4 0.91 1 LND 74 4 0.99 1 LND 69 4 1.22 1 LND 68 5 1.59 1 LND 67 3 1.00 1 LND 62 2 0.84 1 LND 54 2 1.27 1 LND 52 2 1.42 1 LNS 213 110 1.14 1 LNS 174 48 0.91 1 LNS 169 45 0.93 1 LNS 164 50 1.13 1 LNS 164 45 1.02 1 LNS 156 35 0.92 1 LNS 95 8 0.93 1 LNS 91 9 1.19 1 MF 52 3 2.13 1 MF 52 3 2.13 1 OSF 43 2 2.52 1 OSF 32 2 6.10 1 RS 64 4 1.53 1 SS 76 5 1.14 1 SS 72 4 1.07 1 SS 70 4 1.17 1 SS 69 3 0.91 1 SS 68 4 1.27 1 SS 67 3 1.00 1 SS 66 4 1.39 1 SS 66 3 1.04 1 SS 65 2 0.73 1 SS 64 3 1.14 1 SS 64 3 1.14 1 SS 61 2 0.88 1 SS 60 2 0.93 1 WS 221 115 1.07 127.0 90.5 1 WS 216 109 1.08 118.4 92.0 1 WS 210 105 1.13 108.6 96.6 1 WS 206 95 1.09 102.4 92.7 1 WS 193 71 0.99 83.9 84.6 1 WS 186 63 0.98 74.9 84.1 1 WS 184 62 1.00 72.5 85.5

C-70

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 9, near mouth at Mitani State Wildlife Area Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 1 WS 170 40 0.81 56.9 70.3 1 WS 164 40 0.91 51.0 78.5 1 WS 154 35 0.96 42.1 83.2 1 WS 145 30 0.98 35.0 85.8 1 WS 97 11 1.21 1 WS 95 12 1.40 1 WS 95 10 1.17 1 WS 92 8 1.03 1 WS 92 8 1.03 1 WS 91 8 1.06 1 WS 90 9 1.23 1 WS 89 8 1.13 1 WS 88 9 1.32 1 WS 88 8 1.17 1 WS 87 7 1.06 1 WS 87 6 0.91 1 WS 86 7 1.10 1 WS 85 6 0.98 1 WS 83 8 1.40 1 WS 83 6 1.05 1 WS 82 6 1.09 1 WS 78 6 1.26 1 WS 76 5 1.14 1 WS 76 5 1.14 1 WS 75 4 0.95 1 WS 74 5 1.23 1 WS 74 4 0.99 1 WS 73 6 1.54 1 WS 73 5 1.29 1 WS 65 3 1.09 2 BG 87 10 1.52 11.4 87.6 2 BST 48 2 1.81 2 CARP 568 2600 1.42 2862.1 90.8 2 CARP 562 2650 1.49 2776.5 95.4 2 CARP 498 1950 1.58 1965.1 99.2 2 CARP 120 21 1.22 2 CARP 93 13 1.62 2 CARP 91 11 1.46 2 CARP 85 10 1.63 2 CARP 84 12 2.02 2 FHM BATCH 13 COUNT = 11

C-71

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 9, near mouth at Mitani State Wildlife Area Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 2 FHM 75 3 - 2 FHM 74 3 - 2 FHM 73 3 - 2 FHM 73 2 - 2 FHM 72 3 - 2 FHM 71 3 - 2 FHM 70 3 - 2 FHM 68 3 - 2 FHM 67 3 - 2 FHM 66 3 - 2 FHM 66 2 - 2 FHM 66 2 - 2 FHM 65 2 - 2 FHM 64 3 - 2 FHM 64 2 - 2 FHM 64 2 - 2 FHM 64 2 - 2 FHM 63 2 - 2 FHM 63 2 - 2 FHM 63 2 - 2 FHM 62 3 - 2 FHM 62 3 - 2 FHM 62 3 - 2 FHM 62 3 - 2 FHM 62 3 - 2 FHM 62 2 - 2 FHM 62 2 - 2 FHM 61 3 - 2 FHM 61 3 - 2 FHM 61 3 - 2 FHM 61 3 - 2 FHM 60 3 - 2 FHM 60 3 - 2 FHM 58 3 - 2 FHM 58 2 - 2 FHM 58 2 - 2 FHM 57 3 - 2 FHM 57 3 - 2 FHM 56 3 - 2 FHM 56 2 - 2 FHM 56 2 -

C-72

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 9, near mouth at Mitani State Wildlife Area Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 2 FHM 55 3 - 2 FHM 55 2 - 2 FHM 54 3 - 2 FHM 54 2 - 2 FHM 53 2 - 2 FHM 52 2 - 2 FHM 51 3 - 2 FHM 51 3 - 2 FHM 51 3 - 2 GS 128 29 1.38 2 GS 128 18 0.86 2 GS 120 21 1.22 2 GS 120 20 1.16 2 GS 118 21 1.28 2 GS 117 20 1.25 2 GS 117 17 1.06 2 GS 115 16 1.05 2 GS 109 13 1.00 2 GS 108 18 1.43 2 GS 108 14 1.11 2 GS 106 14 1.18 2 GS 105 18 1.55 2 GS 103 15 1.37 2 GS 97 13 1.42 2 GS 97 13 1.42 2 GS 97 10 1.10 2 GS 96 17 1.92 2 GS 82 9 1.63 2 GS 71 3 0.84 2 GS 66 2 0.70 2 LMB 110 23 1.73 2 LMB 105 15 1.30 2 LMB 71 4 1.12 2 LND 82 4 0.73 2 LNS 227 130 1.11 2 LNS 178 65 1.15 2 LNS 168 50 1.05 2 LNS 160 47 1.15 2 LNS 155 36 0.97 2 RS 72 5 1.34 2 RS 65 3 1.09

C-73

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

NISP 29-Aug-05 Site 9, near mouth at Mitani State Wildlife Area Pass Species Length Weight K Ws Wr 2 RS 64 3 1.14 2 RS 51 2 1.51 2 SS 70 3 0.87 2 SS 64 2 0.76 2 SS 63 3 1.20 2 SS 62 3 1.26 2 SS 61 2 0.88 2 SS 60 2 0.93 2 WC 59 2 0.97 2 WS 173 45 0.87 60.0 75.0 2 WS 97 12 1.31 2 WS 96 11 1.24 2 WS 96 9 1.02 2 WS 95 9 1.05 2 WS 94 9 1.08 2 WS 92 8 1.03 2 WS 89 7 0.99 2 WS 88 8 1.17 2 WS 86 6 0.94 2 WS 74 6 1.48 2 WS 72 4 1.07 2 WS 51 2 1.51

C-74

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY BG Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 1 MIN: 87 10 1.52 87.6 MAX: 87 10 1.52 87.6 MEAN: 87.0 10.0 1.52 87.6 BST Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 48 2 1.81 N/A MAX: 48 2 1.81 N/A MEAN: 48.0 2.0 1.81 N/A CARP Length Weight K Wr N: 28 28 28 12 MIN: 74 6 1.22 80.5 MAX: 652 5100 2.02 120.1 MEAN: 295.2 1193.1 1.56 94.2 CC Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 N/A MIN: 121 14 0.79 N/A MAX: 155 32 0.86 N/A MEAN: 138.0 23.0 0.83 N/A FHM Length Weight K Wr N: 50 110 N/A N/A MIN: 51 2 N/A N/A MAX: 75 3 N/A N/A MEAN: 61.6 4.0 N/A N/A GS Length Weight K Wr N: 61 72 61 N/A MIN: 66 2 0.7 N/A MAX: 137 31 2.3 N/A MEAN: 106.4 17.3 1.43 N/A JD Length Weight K Wr N: 1 N/A N/A N/A MIN: 65 N/A N/A N/A MAX: 65 N/A N/A N/A MEAN: 65.0 N/A N/A N/A LMB Length Weight K Wr N: 13 13 13 N/A MIN: 54 1 0.64 N/A MAX: 110 23 1.73 N/A MEAN: 84.8 9.5 1.38 N/A

C-75

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

SUMMARY

LND Length Weight K Wr N: 15 15 15 N/A MIN: 52 2 0.73 N/A MAX: 93 8 1.59 N/A MEAN: 75.2 4.9 1.11 N/A LNS Length Weight K Wr N: 13 13 13 N/A MIN: 91 8 0.91 N/A MAX: 227 130 1.19 N/A MEAN: 162.6 52.2 1.05 N/A MF Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 N/A MIN: 52 3 2.13 N/A MAX: 52 3 2.13 N/A MEAN: 52.0 3.0 2.13 N/A OSF Length Weight K Wr N: 2 2 2 N/A MIN: 32 2 2.52 N/A MAX: 43 2 6.10 N/A MEAN: 37.5 2.0 4.31 N/A RS Length Weight K Wr N: 5 5 5 N/A MIN: 51 2 1.09 N/A MAX: 72 5 1.53 N/A MEAN: 63.2 3.4 1.32 N/A SS Length Weight K Wr N: 19 19 19 N/A MIN: 60 2 0.73 N/A MAX: 76 5 1.39 N/A MEAN: 65.7 3.0 1.04 N/A WC Length Weight K Wr N: 1 1 1 N/A MIN: 59 2 0.97 N/A MAX: 59 2 0.97 N/A MEAN: 59.0 2.0 0.97 N/A WS Length Weight K Wr N: 50 50 50 12 MIN: 51 2 0.81 70.3 MAX: 221 115 1.54 96.6 MEAN: 108.5 21.6 1.11 84.9

C-76

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI (acre) (#/acre) (lbs/acre) BG 0 1 1 ± -- 0.732 1 ± -- 0.02 BST 0 1 1 ± -- 0.732 1 ± -- <0.01 CARP 20 8 31 ± 8.0 0.732 42 ± 10.9 110.47 CC 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.732 3 ± 0.0 0.15 FHM 49 61 110 ± -- 0.732 150 ± -- 1.32 GS 51 21 84 ± 17.1 0.732 115 ± 23.4 4.39 JD 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.732 1 ± 0.0 N/A LMB 10 3 13 ± 2.2 0.732 18 ± 3.0 0.38 LND 14 1 15 ± 0.6 0.732 20 ± 0.8 0.22 LNS 8 5 16 ± 11.8 0.732 22 ± 16.1 2.53 MF 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.732 3 ± 0.0 0.02 OSF 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.732 3 ± 0.0 0.01 RS 1 4 5 ± -- 0.732 7 ± -- 0.05 SS 13 6 21 ± 7.2 0.732 29 ± 9.8 0.19 WC 0 1 1 ± -- 0.732 1 ± -- <0.01 WS 37 13 55 ± 9.5 0.732 75 ± 13.0 3.57 Site Area Density Biomass 1st Pass 2nd Pass Pop Est 95% CI 95% CI (ha) (#/ha) (kg/ha) BG 0 1 1 ± -- 0.296 3 ± -- 0.03 BST 0 1 1 ± -- 0.296 3 ± -- 0.01 CARP 20 8 31 ± 8.0 0.296 105 ± 27.0 125.28 CC 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.296 7 ± 0.0 0.16 FHM 49 61 110 ± -- 0.296 372 ± -- 1.49 GS 51 21 84 ± 17.1 0.296 284 ± 57.8 4.91 JD 1 0 1 ± 0.0 0.296 3 ± 0.0 N/A LMB 10 3 13 ± 2.2 0.296 44 ± 7.4 0.42 LND 14 1 15 ± 0.6 0.296 51 ± 2.0 0.25 LNS 8 5 16 ± 11.8 0.296 54 ± 39.9 2.82 MF 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.296 7 ± 0.0 0.02 OSF 2 0 2 ± 0.0 0.296 7 ± 0.0 0.01 RS 1 4 5 ± -- 0.296 17 ± -- 0.06 SS 13 6 21 ± 7.2 0.296 71 ± 24.3 0.21 WC 0 1 1 ± -- 0.296 3 ± -- 0.01 WS 37 13 55 ± 9.5 0.296 186 ± 32.1 4.02

C-77

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix D

Supplemental Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data, 2005

D-1

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 1 GRAVES PROPERTY SAMPLED: 12/08/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

INSECTA

EPHEMEROPTERA 18259 17212 20609 18694

Baetis tricaudatus 7501 5873 12095 8490 X Drunella doddsi 12 4 Ephemerella dorothea 9886 10758 7339 9328 X Paraleptophlebia sp. 814 523 1163 833 X Tricorythodes minutus 58 58 39 X

PLECOPTERA 58 349 697 368

Claassenia sabulosa 58 465 174 Cultus sp. 58 116 58 Isoperla sp. 58 233 116 136 Sweltsa sp. X

COLEOPTERA 1105 1046 1058 1069

Heterlimnius corpulentus 58 19 Optioservus castanipennis 640 872 709 740 Zaitzevia parvula 407 174 349 310 X

LEPIDOPTERA 186 291 23 167

Petrophila sp. 186 291 23 167 X

TRICHOPTERA 8722 8490 7909 8374

Brachycentrus occidentalis 116 39 X Cheumatopsyche sp. 2559 4652 3024 3412 X Hydropsyche sp. 5989 3838 4885 4904 X Lepidostoma sp. 58 19

DIPTERA 1627 2035 2093 1917

Atherix pachypus 116 39 Cardiocladius sp. 128 233 120 Conchapelopia/Thienemannimyia 233 256 163 X Cricotopus sp. 70 23 Diamesa sp. 116 58 58 X Dicranota sp. 58 58 233 116 Dicrotendipes sp. X Eukiefferiella sp. 233 186 233 217 X Lopescladius sp. 58 116 58 Micropsectra sp. 116 39 X Microtendipes sp. 58 19 X Orthocladius (Euortho.) sp. 523 314 349 395 X Orthocladius/Cricotopus gr. 58 186 116 120 X Unid. Orthocladiinae 70 116 62

D-2

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 1 GRAVES PROPERTY SAMPLED: 12/08/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3 Pagastia sp. 116 39 X Parakiefferiella sp. X Parorthocladius sp. 116 39 X Prosimulium sp. 58 116 233 136 X Saetheria sp. 58 19 Simulium sp. 233 116 116 X Tanytarsus sp. 58 19 Tipula sp. 58 19 Tvetenia sp. 116 186 101

CRUSTACEA

ISOPODA 12 4

Caecidotea communis 12 4 X

AMPHIPODA

Hyalella azteca cx. X

TURBELLARIA 128 116 140 128

Girardia sp. 128 116 140 128 X

ANNELIDA

OLIGOCHAETA 535 814 710 686

Eiseniella tetraedra 70 12 27 X Limnodrilus sp. X Nais bretscheri 174 116 97 Nais variabilis 407 582 349 446 Ophidonais serpentina 58 233 97 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/o Capilliform Chaetae 58 19 X

HIRUDINEA

Erpobdella punctata punctata X

MOLLUSCA

GASTROPODA

Physa sp. X

TOTAL (#/sq. meter) 30620 30353 33251 31407 NUMBER OF TAXA 29 30 30 51 31 SHANNON-WEAVER (H') 2.97 TOTAL EPT TAXA 9 9 9 13 EPT INDEX (% of Total Taxa) 31 30 30 25 EPHEMEROPTERA ABUNDANCE (% of Total Density) 60 57 62 60 *Includes taxa from the sweep sample

D-3

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 2 OVERLAND PARK SAMPLED: 12/08/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

INSECTA

EPHEMEROPTERA 22795 16770 27680 22414

Acentrella insignificans X Baetis tricaudatus 12793 8676 11049 10839 X Drunella doddsi 116 39 Epeorus sp. 58 19 Ephemerella dorothea 9653 7222 15933 10936 X Paraleptophlebia sp. 233 698 582 504 X Tricorythodes minutus 116 116 77 X

PLECOPTERA 826 1047 930 935

Claassenia sabulosa 128 349 159 X Cultus aestivalis 233 465 814 504 X Isoperla sp. 349 233 116 233 Sweltsa sp. 116 39

COLEOPTERA 931 1744 1291 1322

Optioservus castanipennis 582 465 826 624 X Zaitzevia parvula 349 1279 465 698 X

LEPIDOPTERA 477 372 361 403

Petrophila sp. 477 372 361 403 X

TRICHOPTERA 5001 2733 8269 5335

Cheumatopsyche sp. 582 756 1745 1028 X Glossosoma sp. 116 39 Hydropsyche sp. 4303 1919 6408 4210 X Lepidostoma sp. 116 58 58 X

DIPTERA 7105 5480 13281 8624

Cardiocladius sp. 605 407 628 547 X Cladotanytarsus sp. 116 39 Conchapelopia/Thienemannimyia X Demicryptochironomus sp. 105 35 Diamesa sp. 105 35 Dicranota sp. 58 128 62 Eukiefferiella sp. 1686 1791 5361 2946 X Hexatoma sp. 116 39 Lopescladius sp. 116 326 147 Micropsectra sp. 116 39 X Microtendipes sp. X Orthocladius (Euortho.) sp. 244 105 628 326 X

D-4

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 2 OVERLAND PARK SAMPLED: 12/08/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3 Unid. Orthocladiinae 198 628 275 Pagastia sp. 314 105 Parametriocnemus sp. 314 105 Polypedilum sp. 244 105 628 326 X Potthastia longimana gr. X Prosimulium sp. 3722 2384 3268 3125 X Synorthocladius sp. X Tanytarsus sp. 105 35 Tipula sp. 12 12 8 Tvetenia sp. 244 105 942 430

HYDRACARINA 116 58 349 174

Lebertia sp. 58 116 58 Sperchon/Sperchonopsis 116 233 116

CRUSTACEA

ISOPODA

Caecidotea communis X

AMPHIPODA

Hyalella azteca cx. X

TURBELLARIA 477 349 361 396

Girardia sp. 477 349 361 396 X

ANNELIDA

OLIGOCHAETA 3268 1221 826 1810

Eiseniella tetraedra 128 116 12 85 Enchytraeidae 116 39 Nais sp. 233 116 Nais variabilis 465 58 174 Ophidonais serpentina X Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/ Capilliform Chaetae 2442 698 582 1241 X Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/o Capilliform Chaetae 233 116 116 155

TOTAL (#/sq. meter) 40996 29774 53464 41413 NUMBER OF TAXA 30 33 32 52 28 SHANNON-WEAVER (H') 3.40 TOTAL EPT TAXA 11 11 9 15 EPT INDEX (% of Total Taxa) 37 33 28 29 EPHEMEROPTERA ABUNDANCE (% of Total Density) 56 56 52 54 *Includes taxa from the sweep sample

D-5

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 3 MARTINEZ PARK SAMPLED: 12/08/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

INSECTA

EPHEMEROPTERA 8513 13260 6594 9455

Acentrella insignificans 640 582 896 706 X Baetis tricaudatus 5524 9071 4036 6210 X Epeorus longimanus 1000 814 349 721 X Ephemerella dorothea 465 582 267 438 Heptagenia solitaria 186 233 349 256 X Paraleptophlebia sp. 582 1745 430 919 X Tricorythodes minutus 116 233 267 205 X

PLECOPTERA 116 361 159

Claassenia sabulosa 12 4 X Cultus aestivalis 116 349 155 X

COLEOPTERA 3198 1745 1512 2152

Optioservus castanipennis 1337 698 500 845 X Zaitzevia parvula 1861 1047 1012 1307 X

LEPIDOPTERA 849 267 233 450

Petrophila sp. 849 267 233 450 X

TRICHOPTERA 5419 12328 4001 7248

Brachycentrus occidentalis 12 4 Cheumatopsyche sp. 3896 9653 3105 5551 X Hydropsyche sp. 1221 2675 896 1597 X Lepidostoma sp. 58 19 Nectopsyche gracilis 58 19 Oecetis avara 174 58

DIPTERA 3488 3955 1548 2998

Brillia sp. 47 16 X Cardiocladius sp. 58 19 X Conchapelopia/Thienemannimyia 47 16 X Cricotopus sp. 47 16 X Diamesa sp. X Diplocladius sp. 233 78 Eukiefferiella sp. 582 233 209 341 X Hemerodromia sp. 233 78 Hydrobaenus sp. X Lopescladius sp. 58 19 Micropsectra sp. 116 174 97 Microtendipes sp. 116 349 174 213 X

D-6

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 3 MARTINEZ PARK SAMPLED: 12/08/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3 Orthocladius (Euortho.) sp. 116 39 X Orthocladius/Cricotopus gr. 47 16 X Unid. Orthocladiinae 58 19 Parametriocnemus sp. 116 47 54 Polypedilum sp. 174 349 174 Prosimulium sp. 1396 1047 151 865 Pseudodiamesa sp. X Rheocricotopus sp. 58 116 58 Rheotanytarsus sp. 58 19 Simulium sp. 174 81 85 X Synorthocladius sp. 47 16 Tanytarsus sp. 116 39 Thienemanniella sp. 58 19 Tipula sp. X Tvetenia sp. 582 1047 477 702 X

HYDRACARINA 232 77

Aturus/Kongsbergia sp. 58 19 Lebertia sp. 116 39 Sperchon/Sperchonopsis 58 19

CRUSTACEA

ISOPODA 35 12

Caecidotea communis 35 12

TURBELLARIA 1175 488 698 787

Girardia sp. 1175 488 698 787 X

ANNELIDA

OLIGOCHAETA 116 116 35 89

Ilyodrilus/Tubifex 35 12 X Lumbriculidae X Nais sp. 58 19 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/ Capilliform Chaetae X Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/o Capilliform Chaetae 58 116 58 X

TOTAL (#/sq. meter) 23106 32520 14656 23427 NUMBER OF TAXA 36 27 27 55 32 SHANNON-WEAVER (H') 3.63 TOTAL EPT TAXA 14 11 9 15 EPT INDEX (% of Total Taxa) 39 41 33 27 EPHEMEROPTERA ABUNDANCE (% of Total Density) 37 41 45 40 *Includes taxa from the sweep sample

D-7

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 4 I-25 REST STOP SAMPLED: 08/21/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

INSECTA

COLLEMBOLA

Unid. Collembola X

EPHEMEROPTERA 3338 7734 12212 7761

Baetis magnus 314 407 2210 977 X Callibaetis sp. X Tricorythodes minutus 3024 7327 10002 6784 X

ODONATA

Coenagrion/Enallagma X

HEMIPTERA

Saldidae X Trichocorixa sexcincta X

COLEOPTERA 233 78

Dubiraphia quadrinotata 233 78 X

TRICHOPTERA 35 2791 942

Agraylea sp. 35 12 Cheumatopsyche sp. 2791 930

DIPTERA 766 3024 11283 5025

Ablabesmyia sp. 198 66 X Chironomus sp. X Cladotanytarsus sp. 198 128 109 X Conchapelopia/Thienemannimyia X Cricotopus bicinctus 267 209 512 329 X Cricotopus sp. 81 93 384 186 X Cricotopus trifascia 35 384 140 Cryptochironomus sp. X Dicrotendipes sp. 116 2233 384 911 X Eukiefferiella sp. X Glyptotendipes sp. X Hemerodromia sp. 35 12 Orthocladius/Cricotopus gr. 81 640 240 Parametriocnemus sp. 128 43 Polypedilum sp. 35 93 896 341 X Pseudochironomus sp. X Rheotanytarsus sp. 81 128 70

D-8

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 4 I-25 REST STOP SAMPLED: 08/21/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3 Simulium sp. 7443 2481 Stictochironomus sp. X Thienemanniella sp. 35 256 97

HYDRACARINA 116 116 77

Sperchon/Sperchonopsis 116 116 77

CRUSTACEA

ISOPODA 35 174 582 264

Caecidotea communis 35 174 582 264 X

AMPHIPODA 116 39

Hyalella azteca cx. 116 39 X

TURBELLARIA 198 465 6280 2314

Girardia sp. 198 465 6280 2314 X

NEMATODA 1710 1221 465 1132

Unid. Nematoda 1710 1221 465 1132 X

ANNELIDA

OLIGOCHAETA 965 17505 36983 18484

Ilyodrilus/Tubifex 582 2326 969 X Lumbriculidae 35 2908 981 Nais sp. 1163 388 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/ Capilliform Chaetae 81 2908 996 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/o Capilliform Chaetae 849 9944 34657 15150 X

HIRUDINEA 233 78

Erpobdella punctata punctata 233 78

MOLLUSCA

GASTROPODA 81 233 349 221

Physa sp. 81 233 349 221 X

TOTAL (#/sq. meter) 7128 30588 71527 36415 NUMBER OF TAXA 19 19 23 42 28 SHANNON-WEAVER (H') 3.06 TOTAL EPT TAXA 3 2 3 5 EPT INDEX (% of Total Taxa) 16 11 13 12 EPHEMEROPTERA ABUNDANCE (% of Total Density) 47 25 17 21 *Includes taxa from the sweep sample

D-9

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 5 FRANK STATE WILDLIFE AREA SAMPLED: 08/30/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

INSECTA

EPHEMEROPTERA 5466 7025 18038 10176

Acentrella insignificans 1163 3105 7327 3865 X Baetis magnus 465 465 930 620 X Baetis notos 500 582 2442 1175 X Baetis sp. 814 814 2210 1279 X Callibaetis sp. X Tricorythodes minutus 2524 2059 5129 3237 X

ODONATA

Calopterygidae X Coenagrion/Enallagma X

HEMIPTERA

Trichocorixa sexcincta X Veliidae X

COLEOPTERA 35 35 23

Dubiraphia quadrinotata 35 35 23

TRICHOPTERA 151 197 361 237

Agraylea sp. 35 81 39 Cheumatopsyche sp. 116 116 233 155 Helicopsyche borealis 12 4 Hydropsyche sp. 116 39 X

DIPTERA 5231 2953 5010 4397

Ablabesmyia sp. X Cladotanytarsus sp. 174 302 826 434 X Cricotopus bicinctus 174 105 93 X Cricotopus sp. 523 488 488 500 X Cricotopus trifascia 174 302 488 321 X Cryptochironomus sp. 93 31 X Hemerodromia sp. X Orthocladius/Cricotopus gr. 872 105 326 434 Parakiefferiella sp. X Paratanytarsus sp. 523 186 174 294 X Polypedilum sp. 2268 1093 2000 1787 X Pseudochironomus sp. 174 58 Rheotanytarsus sp. 174 58 X Saetheria sp. X Simulium sp. 12 4 X

D-10

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 5 FRANK STATE WILDLIFE AREA SAMPLED: 08/30/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3 Stictochironomus sp. 174 186 174 178 X Thienemanniella sp. 349 93 174 205 X

HYDRACARINA 70 116 1163 449

Lebertia sp. 35 116 50 Sperchon/Sperchonopsis 35 116 1047 399

CRUSTACEA

AMPHIPODA

Hyalella azteca cx. X

DECAPODA

Orconectes virilis X

TURBELLARIA 81 81 54

Girardia sp. 81 81 54

NEMATODA 35 35 116 62

Unid. Nematoda 35 35 116 62

ANNELIDA

OLIGOCHAETA 2093 4187 4884 3722

Ilyodrilus/Tubifex 81 151 930 387 Lumbriculidae 116 39 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/ Capilliform Chaetae 267 314 194 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/o Capilliform Chaetae 1745 3722 3838 3102

HIRUDINEA 81 23 35

Erpobdella punctata punctata 23 8 Helobdella stagnalis 81 27

MOLLUSCA

GASTROPODA

Physa sp. X

TOTAL (#/sq. meter) 13243 14629 29595 19155 NUMBER OF TAXA 25 24 26 45 29 SHANNON-WEAVER (H') 3.64 TOTAL EPT TAXA 7 7 8 10 EPT INDEX (% of Total Taxa) 28 29 31 22 EPHEMEROPTERA ABUNDANCE (% of Total Density) 41 48 61 53 *Includes taxa from the sweep sample

D-11

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 6 NEAR KODAK PLANT SAMPLED: 08/30/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

INSECTA

EPHEMEROPTERA 2314 6746 2942 4001

Acentrella insignificans 233 582 930 582 X Baetis magnus 500 1570 826 965 Baetis notos 965 3722 488 1725 X Tricorythodes minutus 616 872 698 729 X

HEMIPTERA 1337 446

Trichocorixa sexcincta 1337 446 X

COLEOPTERA 58 116 58

Dubiraphia quadrinotata 58 116 58 Gyrinus sp. X

TRICHOPTERA 2686 8141 10014 6947

Agraylea sp. 81 27 Cheumatopsyche sp. 2489 7734 9537 6587 X Hydropsyche sp. 116 407 477 333 X

DIPTERA 1479 7152 5349 4660

Ablabesmyia sp. X Chironomus sp. X Cladotanytarsus sp. 47 186 78 X Conchapelopia/Thienemannimyia 128 744 442 438 X Cricotopus bicinctus 47 186 78 Cricotopus sp. 151 50 X Cricotopus trifascia 291 97 X Cryptochironomus sp. 93 186 93 X Hemerodromia sp. X Nanocladius sp. 151 50 Orthocladius/Cricotopus gr. 186 151 112 Polypedilum sp. 907 3908 3082 2632 X Procladius sp. 47 16 X Simulium sp. 163 1570 930 888 X Stictochironomus sp. X Thienemanniella sp. 47 186 151 128

HYDRACARINA 58 19

Sperchon/Sperchonopsis 58 19

D-12

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 6 NEAR KODAK PLANT SAMPLED: 08/30/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

CRUSTACEA

AMPHIPODA

Hyalella azteca cx. X

DECAPODA 12 4

Cambaridae 12 4

TURBELLARIA 116 116 349 194

Girardia sp. 116 116 349 194

NEMATODA 198 582 465 415

Unid. Nematoda 198 582 465 415 X

ANNELIDA

OLIGOCHAETA 116 465 2326 969

Lumbriculidae 58 19 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/o Capilliform Chaetae 116 407 2326 950

HIRUDINEA 35 58 116 70

Erpobdella punctata punctata 35 58 116 70 X

TOTAL (#/sq. meter) 6944 24713 21689 17783 NUMBER OF TAXA 19 22 20 34 22 SHANNON-WEAVER (H') 3.26 TOTAL EPT TAXA 7 6 6 7 EPT INDEX (% of Total Taxa) 37 27 30 21 EPHEMEROPTERA ABUNDANCE (% of Total Density) 33 27 14 22 *Includes taxa from the sweep sample

D-13

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 7 DOWNSTREAM OF GREELEY DIVERSION #3 SAMPLED: 08/30/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

INSECTA

EPHEMEROPTERA 3605 2942 2535 3027

Baetidae X Baetis notos 81 267 81 143 X Callibaetis sp. X Heptagenia elegantula X Tricorythodes minutus 3524 2675 2454 2884 X

ODONATA 81 27

Coenagrion/Enallagma 81 27 X

HEMIPTERA 233 314 2710 1086

Gerridae X Trichocorixa sexcincta 233 314 2710 1086 X

COLEOPTERA 81 27

Berosus sp. X Dubiraphia quadrinotata 81 27 X

TRICHOPTERA 267 89

Cheumatopsyche sp. 267 89 Nectopsyche diarina X

DIPTERA 6945 5629 8570 7048

Ablabesmyia sp. 558 267 275 X Chironomus sp. 2082 558 3745 2128 X Cladotanytarsus sp. 1384 744 1872 1333 X Conchapelopia/Thienemannimyia 233 570 267 357 X Cricotopus bicinctus X Cricotopus sp. 244 198 147 X Cryptochironomus sp. 454 372 275 X Dicrotendipes sp. 233 267 167 X Endochironomus sp. X Glyptotendipes sp. X Nanocladius sp. 244 81 X Orthocladius/Cricotopus gr. X Parachironomus sp. X Parakiefferiella sp. 198 535 244 Polypedilum sp. 1151 2431 1082 1555 X Procladius sp. 454 535 330 Tanypus sp. 233 78 Tanytarsus sp. 233 78

D-14

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 7 DOWNSTREAM OF GREELEY DIVERSION #3 SAMPLED: 08/30/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

CRUSTACEA

AMPHIPODA

Hyalella azteca cx. X

DECAPODA

Cambaridae X

TURBELLARIA 233 267 35 178

Girardia sp. 233 267 35 178

NEMATODA 35 151 151 112

Unid. Nematoda 35 151 151 112 X

ANNELIDA

OLIGOCHAETA 1907 1082 2256 1749

Enchytraeidae 35 12 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 81 27 Lumbriculidae 81 81 54 Nais sp. 35 12 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/ Capilliform Chaetae 35 12 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/o Capilliform Chaetae 1826 896 2175 1632

HIRUDINEA 35 12 16

Erpobdella punctata punctata 12 4 Unid. Immature Hirudinea 35 12

MOLLUSCA

GASTROPODA

Physa sp. X

TOTAL (#/sq. meter) 13074 10652 16350 13359 NUMBER OF TAXA 20 19 17 43 29 SHANNON-WEAVER (H') 3.53 TOTAL EPT TAXA 2 3 2 7 EPT INDEX (% of Total Taxa) 10 16 12 16 EPHEMEROPTERA ABUNDANCE (% of Total Density) 28 28 16 23 *Includes taxa from the sweep sample

D-15

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 8 DOWNSTREAM OF 59TH AVE. SAMPLED: 08/29/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

INSECTA

EPHEMEROPTERA 11513 6396 6815 8241

Acentrella insignificans 233 116 116 Baetis magnus 2442 209 291 981 X Baetis notos 4419 128 349 1632 X Callibaetis sp. X Tricorythodes minutus 4419 6059 6059 5512 X

ODONATA

Coenagrion/Enallagma X

HEMIPTERA 116 39

Aquarius remigis X Trichocorixa sexcincta 116 39 X Veliidae X

COLEOPTERA 116 39

Berosus sp. 116 39 Gyrinus sp. X Tropisternus sp. X

TRICHOPTERA 23388 8048 15700 15712

Agraylea sp. 930 5350 7443 4574 Cheumatopsyche sp. 22458 2698 8257 11138

DIPTERA 60242 30947 52102 47762

Chironomus sp. 1128 376 X Cladotanytarsus sp. 1861 620 Conchapelopia/Thienemannimyia 3582 1194 X Cricotopus bicinctus 5675 1861 1198 2911 X Cricotopus sp. 930 310 X Cricotopus trifascia 5675 7443 3582 5567 Cryptochironomus sp. X Dicrotendipes sp. X Glyptotendipes sp. X Nanocladius sp. 1128 930 1186 1081 Orthocladius/Cricotopus gr. 2268 1861 2373 2167 Parakiefferiella sp. 1186 395 Paratanytarsus sp. 1128 1186 771 Polypedilum sp. 40798 13026 34553 29459 X Simulium sp. 2442 3035 3256 2911

D-16

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 8 DOWNSTREAM OF 59TH AVE. SAMPLED: 08/29/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

HYDRACARINA 116 39

Sperchon/Sperchonopsis 116 39

CRUSTACEA

AMPHIPODA Hyalella azteca cx. X

DECAPODA

Orconectes virilis X

TURBELLARIA 954 372 1175 834

Girardia sp. 954 372 1175 834

NEMATODA 116 116 77

Unid. Nematoda 116 116 77

ANNELIDA

OLIGOCHAETA 232 2094 349 892

Nais sp. 116 465 233 271 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/ Capilliform Chaetae 233 78 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/o Capilliform Chaetae 116 1396 116 543 X

MOLLUSCA

GASTROPODA

Physa sp. X

PELECYPODA 116 39

Musculium sp. 116 39 TOTAL (#/sq. meter) 96677 48205 76141 73674 NUMBER OF TAXA 20 20 18 39 22 SHANNON-WEAVER (H') 3.11

TOTAL EPT TAXA 6 5 6 7 EPT INDEX (% of Total Taxa) 30 25 33 18 EPHEMEROPTERA ABUNDANCE (% of Total Density) 12 13 9 11 *Includes taxa from the sweep sample

D-17

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 9 MITANI STATE WILDLIFE AREA SAMPLED: 08/29/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3

INSECTA

EPHEMEROPTERA 849 1453 1163 1154

Acentrella insignificans 698 1337 1047 1027 X Baetidae 151 58 116 108 X Baetis magnus 58 19 Pseudocloeon dardanus X

ODONATA

Coenagrionidae X

HEMIPTERA

Corixidae X

COLEOPTERA

Tropisternus lateralis X

TRICHOPTERA 628 232 233 364

Agraylea sp. 547 116 221 X Hydropsychidae 81 116 233 143

DIPTERA 10050 14887 14130 13020

Ceratopogoninae X Chironomus sp. X Cladotanytarsus sp. 465 155 Conchapelopia/Thienemannimyia 291 454 442 396 Cricotopus bicinctus 570 1814 1756 1380 Cricotopus sp. 861 3187 3966 2671 X Cricotopus trifascia 454 884 446 Cryptochironomus sp. 570 454 341 Dicrotendipes sp. 861 1372 1326 1186 X Orthocladius/Cricotopus gr. 1151 2279 1326 1585 Parakiefferiella sp. 430 143 Polypedilum sp. 3687 3187 2640 3171 X Pseudosmittia sp. X Saetheria sp. 430 143 Simulium sp. 1477 1221 930 1209 X Stictochironomus sp. 291 97 Thienemanniella sp. 291 97 X

CRUSTACEA

AMPHIPODA 58 58 39

D-18

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITY CLIENT: NISP SITE 9 MITANI STATE WILDLIFE AREA SAMPLED: 08/29/05 TAXA REP REP REP COMPOSITE SWEEP 1 2 3 Hyalella azteca cx. 58 58 39 X

TURBELLARIA 58 19

Girardia sp. 58 19 X

NEMATODA

Unid. Nematoda X

ANNELIDA

OLIGOCHAETA 1837 2442 2209 2163

Enchytraeidae 116 39 Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 198 116 116 143 X Nais sp. 81 582 407 357 Unid. Immature Tubificidae w/ Capilliform Chaetae 81 58 46 Unid. Immature Tubificidae X w/o Capilliform Chaetae 1477 1628 1628 1578

HIRUDINEA

Glossiphonia complanata X

MOLLUSCA

GASTROPODA

Physa sp. X TOTAL (#/sq. meter) 13364 19130 17793 16759 NUMBER OF TAXA 18 21 18 36 22 SHANNON-WEAVER (H') 3.71

TOTAL EPT TAXA 4 5 3 6 EPT INDEX (% of Total Taxa) 22 24 17 17 EPHEMEROPTERA ABUNDANCE (% of Total Density) 6 8 7 7 *Includes taxa from the sweep sample

D-19

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix E

Existing Cache la Poudre River Fish Data

E-1

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix E-1: Data collected from the Cache la Poudre River in 1978-1980 as recorded in Propst (1982). X indicates that the species was noted as occurring, but the number collected was not given. Native fish species in bold.

Number of Fish Species Collected Bigmouth shiner 3 Black bullhead 1 Brown trout X Common carp 17 Fathead minnow 52 Green sunfish 16 Johnny darter 26 Longnose dace 226 Longnose sucker 87 Plains killifish 1 Sand shiner 448 White sucker 26

E-2

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix E-2: Data collected in 1970-1983 from the Cache la Poudre River and recorded in Bestgen and Fausch (1993) and unpublished CDOW data (2006). Native fish species in bold. Number of Fish Collected Species/Date 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Black -- 1 8 4 1 1 -- 9 6 8 1 bullhead Black crappie -- -- 2 2 1 1 -- -- 2 249 -- Bluegill 4 7 15 4 ------5 -- 1 Brassy 121 1 15 8 14 38 15 12 146 12 1 minnow Brook ------2 6 16 5 9 11 3 -- stickleback Brown trout ------2 5 3 4 12 31 9 Central ------3 stoneroller Common carp 208 230 200 563 584 899 176 523 1333 2518 326 Common 86 428 1438 179 249 95 59 114 2935 173 7 shiner Creek chub 61 30 55 53 79 108 23 43 241 194 6 Fathead 1755 1318 1278 1792 1472 1629 359 773 3571 14052 3770 minnow Green 133 109 203 212 232 119 31 88 238 326 171 sunfish Johnny 106 54 39 49 51 56 28 91 324 278 111 darter Largemouth 10 23 22 -- 3 3 -- 12 20 17 5 bass Longnose 340 292 757 599 590 404 123 475 2475 1951 632 dace Longnose 104 110 196 143 219 2010 255 267 1379 1550 150 sucker Mountain -- 1 ------1 ------1 whitefish Plains 31 12 25 13 6 1 -- 24 34 269 1 killifish Plains ------74 2 -- 2 20 -- topminnow Pumpkinseed 4 -- 7 -- 2 -- -- 2 12 -- 1 Rainbow trout ------1 1 4 2 6 -- -- 5 Red shiner ------1 -- 2 ------1 Sand shiner 3096 3608 2239 3785 7600 3351 484 3644 10808 22744 2922 White sucker 1167 1703 1958 5398 5713 3797 299 1031 4326 4187 222 Yellow perch -- -- 1 1 7 3 -- 83 56 38 1

E-3

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix E-3: Data collected from the Cache la Poudre River in 1984-1992 as recorded in Bestgen and Fausch (1994) and unpublished CDOW data (2006). Native fish species in bold. Number of Fish Collected Species/Date 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Bigmouth shiner 25 251 512 828 345 901 544 649 400 Black bullhead -- -- 1 1 -- 3 1 -- -- Black crappie 118 5 1 5 1 ------Bluegill 90 16 3 7 3 1 -- -- 1 Brassy minnow ------1 1 ------Brook stickleback 1 1 2 27 9 5 56 25 66 Brown trout 18 19 16 27 9 8 22 8 13 Central -- 1 -- -- 171 ------stoneroller Channel catfish ------1 -- -- Common carp 315 208 221 298 187 289 158 240 211 Common shiner -- 1 ------1 ------Creek chub 51 90 76 225 518 274 106 163 170 Fathead minnow 6076 8508 3342 3835 1728 3791 5513 5981 5328 Green sunfish 263 194 98 345 158 145 139 35 94 Johnny darter 134 264 320 631 639 623 407 407 331 Largemouth bass 6 10 2 48 224 7 6 1 45 Longnose dace 1251 4139 4585 11529 5374 2618 1710 4369 2834 Longnose sucker 580 2136 1403 5185 3518 1554 1108 532 760 Mountain whitefish 3 1 1 ------Orangespotted 1 3 5 6 10 14 8 7 -- sunfish Plains killifish 9 23 43 517 220 1437 169 89 61 Plains topminnow 3 58 12 33 36 90 84 93 93 Pumpkinseed -- 9 2 5 5 ------Rainbow trout 2 3 1 1 -- 2 4 2 2 Red shiner 85 99 121 219 109 611 1622 601 885 Sand shiner 2679 7386 6055 9356 2891 6160 3701 3838 7587 Smallmouth bass ------1 ------White crappie ------2 -- 1 -- White sucker 2543 4916 2926 6380 2404 1938 1681 2491 1840 Yellow perch 7 26 7 2 -- 2 2 2 -- Unidentified 3 ------sunfish Unidentified 1 ------1 ------warmwater sp.

E-4

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix E-4: Data collected from the Cache la Poudre River in 1993-1994 by Bestgen as recorded in Nesler et al. (1997) and unpublished CDOW data (2006). Native fish species in bold.

Number of Fish Collected Spring Fall Spring Fall Species/Date 1993 1993 1994 1994 Bigmouth shiner 37 50 19 151 Black crappie -- -- 1 2 Bluegill ------1 Brassy minnow -- -- 1 -- Brook stickleback 27 33 151 15 Brown trout 6 9 5 3 Common carp 51 105 84 318 Creek chub 46 38 55 75 Fathead minnow 1867 1823 1807 3945 Gizzard shad ------Green sunfish 47 38 15 43 Iowa darter -- 3 1 4 Johnny darter 83 126 196 198 Largemouth bass -- 2 -- 3 Longnose dace 1090 953 2206 1033 Longnose sucker 159 1113 197 518 Mosquitofish ------1 Plains killifish 16 -- 6 2 Plains topminnow 23 57 30 154 Rainbow trout 3 4 1 1 Red shiner 261 170 60 217 Sand shiner 1417 1348 2141 1990 White sucker 386 941 424 1314 Yellow perch -- 1 -- 3

E-5

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix E-5: Data collected from the Cache la Poudre River in 1993-1995 by NAWQA as recorded by USGS (2003). Native species in bold.

Number of Fish Collected Species/Date 1993 1994 1995 Brown trout 95 98 89 Longnose dace 167 250 71 Longnose sucker 33 49 9 Rainbow trout 1 2 -- Yellow perch -- -- 3

E-6

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix E-6: Data collected from the Cache la Poudre River by Fausch in 1995 and 1996 as recorded in unpublished CDOW data (2006). Native fish species in bold.

Number of Fish Collected Species/Date 1995 1996 Black bullhead 1 1 Creek chub 45 6 Fathead minnow 685 1585 Green sunfish -- 230 Johnny darter 143 285 Largemouth bass 2 -- Longnose dace 152 295 Longnose sucker 8 7 Plains minnow -- 3 Plains topminnow 25 -- Sand shiner 774 92 White sucker 112 204

E-7

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix E-7: Data collected from the Cache la Poudre River by Bestgen in 1997-2005 as recorded in unpublished CDOW data (2006). Native fish species in bold.

Number of Fish Collected Spring Fall Species/Date 1997 2001 2001 2003 2004 2005 Bigmouth shiner -- 1 29 4 34 -- Black bullhead -- -- 3 ------Black crappie 2 -- 2 2 1 -- Bluegill -- 1 5 6 -- -- Brook stickleback 5 5 2 2 7 -- Brown trout -- 68 13 138 -- 21 Common carp 21 36 95 174 25 1 Creek chub 24 27 90 20 22 -- Fathead minnow 320 432 1348 997 894 163 Gizzard shad -- -- 14 63 -- -- Green sunfish 57 23 24 46 6 -- Hybrid sunfish -- -- 3 ------Iowa darter -- -- 1 ------Johnny darter 14 55 160 171 91 47 Largemouth bass -- 2 428 94 28 -- Longnose dace 206 764 312 568 15 2 Longnose sucker 85 136 52 55 3 3 Mosquitofish -- 21 68 616 51 36 Orangespotted sunfish 41 13 115 28 7 2 Plains topminnow 2 2 1 9 -- -- Pumpkinseed ------2 -- Rainbow trout -- 11 -- 77 -- -- Red shiner 4 40 79 33 33 73 Sand shiner 121 253 627 379 168 46 White crappie -- -- 1 ------White sucker 392 304 516 203 181 1 Yellow perch -- 2 18 12 -- --

E-8

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix F

Existing South Platte River Fish Data

F-1

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix F-1: Data collected from one site on the South Platte River in 1980 as recorded by Propst (1982). Native species in bold.

Species Number of Fish Collected Bigmouth shiner 146 Black crappie 30 Brassy minnow 2 Brook stickleback 1 Brown bullhead 1 Common carp 22 Creek chub 3 Fathead minnow 133 Green sunfish 14 Largemouth bass 3 Longnose sucker 2 Plains killifish 7 Sand shiner 27 White sucker 25

F-2

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix F-2: Data collected from the South Platte River in 1993-2004 by NAWQA as recorded by USGS (2003) and unpublished CDOW data (2006). Native species in bold.

Number of Fish Collected USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS USGS Species/Date 1993 1994 1995 1998 2002 2003 2004 Bigmouth shiner ------1194 356 160 Black crappie -- -- 1 ------Bluegill 2 ------Brook stickleback 6 -- 1 -- 6 4 4 Common carp 70 30 188 59 668 50 2 Creek chub 10 16 -- -- 3 3 3 Fathead minnow 160 213 120 377 1145 485 241 Gizzard shad -- -- 7 7 26 75 -- Green sunfish -- -- 2 3 12 -- 1 Iowa darter ------1 5 -- Largemouth bass 1 -- 8 2 1 35 -- Longnose dace 3 2 10 165 55 9 2 Longnose sucker 73 122 9 133 307 12 5 Mosquitofish -- 9 3 11 52 148 142 Plains killifish 4 -- -- 5 10 8 32 Red shiner 35 13 6 31 313 10 32 Sand shiner 324 316 141 1008 3354 3121 184 White sucker 715 363 26 803 712 172 66 Yellow Perch -- 1 -- 7 ------

F-3

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix F-3: Data collected in 1994 and 2004 from the South Platte River as recorded in unpublished CDOW data (2006). Native fish species in bold.

Number of Fish Collected CDOW CDOW Species/Date 1994 2004 Bigmouth shiner -- 127 Black crappie 1 -- Bluegill 2 -- Brook stickleback 8 -- Common carp 99 -- Creek chub 26 11 Fathead minnow 104 -- Gizzard shad 7 1 Green sunfish 2 13 Largemouth bass 9 -- Longnose dace 15 14 Longnose sucker 73 -- Mosquitofish 12 -- Plains killifish 4 1 Red shiner 53 19 Sand shiner 102 173 White sucker 94 -- Yellow perch 1 --

F-4

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

Appendix G

Fish Habitat Availability Time Series

G-1

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 3 BrownTrout Fry

10000

) Wet Year 2 8000

6000

4000

2000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 35000 Average Year 30000 ) 2

25000

20000

15000

10000 Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 5000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

35000

) Dry Year 2 30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-1. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the brown trout fry life stage at the Main 3 node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-2

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 3 BrownTrout Juvenile

35000

) Wet Year 2 30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 35000 Average Year 30000 ) 2

25000

20000

15000

10000 Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 5000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

35000

) Dry Year 2 30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-2. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the brown trout juvenile life stage at the Main 3 node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-3

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 3 Brown Trout Adult

30000

) Wet Year 2 25000

20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 30000 Average Year

25000 ) 2

20000

15000

10000 Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 5000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

30000

) Dry Year 2 25000

20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-3. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the brown trout adult life stage at the Main 3 node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-4

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 3 Rainbow Trout Fry

25000

) Wet Year 2 20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 25000

Baseline Average Year Alt 2 Alt 3

) 20000 2 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

15000

10000

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 5000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

25000

) Dry Year 2 20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-4. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the rainbow trout fry life stage at the Main 3 node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-5

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 3 Rainbow Trout Juvenile

20000

) Wet Year 2 16000

12000

8000

4000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20000 Average Year

) 16000 2

12000

8000

Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 4000 Alt 3 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

20000

) Dry Year 2 16000

12000

8000

4000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-5. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the rainbow trout juvenile life stage at the Main 3 node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-6

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 3 Rainbow Trout Adult

70000

) Wet Year 2 60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 70000 Baseline Average Year Alt 2 60000 Alt 3 )

2 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2 50000

40000

30000

20000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 10000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

70000

) Dry Year 2 60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-6. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the rainbow trout adult life stage at the Main 3 node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-7

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

LINC Brown Trout Spawning

25000

) Wet Year 2 20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 25000 Average Year Baseline Alt 2

) 20000 Alt 3 2 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

15000

10000

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 5000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

25000

) Dry Year 2 20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-7. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the brown trout spawning life stage at the LINCGAGE node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-8

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

LINC Brown Trout Fry

15000

) Wet Year 2 12000

9000

6000

3000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 15000 Average Year

) 12000 2

9000

6000

Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 3000 Alt 3 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

15000

) Dry Year 2 12000

9000

6000

3000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-8. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the brown trout fry life stage at the LINCGAGE node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-9

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

LINC Brown Trout Juvenile

20000

) Wet Year 2

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20000 Average Year ) 2 15000

10000

Baseline 5000 Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

20000

) Dry Year 2

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-9. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the brown trout juvenile life stage at the LINCGAGE node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-10

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

LINC Brown Trout Adult

20000

) Wet Year 2

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20000 Average Year ) 2 15000

10000

Baseline 5000 Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

20000

) Dry Year 2

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-10. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the brown trout adult life stage at the LINCGAGE node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-11

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

LINC White Sucker Spawn

7000

) Wet Year 2 6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 7000 Average Year 6000 ) 2

5000

4000

3000

2000 Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 1000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

7000

) Dry Year 2 6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-11. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the white sucker spawning life stage at the LINCGAGE node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-12

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

LINC White Sucker Fry

15000

) Wet Year 2 12000

9000

6000

3000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 15000 Average Year

) 12000 2

9000

6000

Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 3000 Alt 3 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

15000

) Dry Year 2 12000

9000

6000

3000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-12. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the white sucker fry life stage at the LINCGAGE node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-13

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

LINC White Sucker Adult/Juvenile

6000

) Wet Year 2 5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 6000 Average Year

5000 ) 2

4000

3000

2000 Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 1000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

6000

) Dry Year 2 5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-13: Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the white sucker adult/juvenile (combined) life stage at the LINCGAGE node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-14

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 12 White Sucker Spawn

6000

) Wet Year 2 5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 6000 Average Year

5000 ) 2

4000

3000

2000 Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 1000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

6000

) Dry Year 2 5000

4000

3000

2000

1000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-14. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the white sucker spawning life stage at the Main 12 node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-15

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 12 White Sucker Fry

30000

) Wet Year 2 25000

20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 30000 Average Year

25000 ) 2

20000

15000

10000 Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 5000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

30000

) Dry Year 2 25000

20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-15. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the white sucker fry life stage at the Main 12 node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-16

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

MAIN 12 White Sucker Adult/Juvenile

15000

) Wet Year 2 12000

9000

6000

3000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 15000 Average Year

) 12000 2

9000

6000

Baseline Alt 2

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 3000 Alt 3 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

15000

) Dry Year 2 12000

9000

6000

3000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-16. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the white sucker adult/juvenile life stage at the Main 12 node on the Cache la Poudre River.

G-17

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

KERSEY Plains Killifish

25000

) Wet Year 2 20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 25000 Average Year

) 20000 2

15000

10000

Baseline Alt 2 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 5000 Alt 3 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

25000

) Dry Year 2 20000

15000

10000

5000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-17. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the plains killifish adult life stage at the KRSYGAGE node on the South Platte River.

G-18

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

KERSEY Red Shiner

70000

) Wet Year 2 60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 70000 Average Year 60000 ) 2

50000

40000

30000

20000 Baseline Alt 2 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 10000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

70000

) Dry Year 2 60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-18. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the red shiner adult life stage at the KRSYGAGE node on the South Platte River.

G-19

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

KERSEY Sand Shiner

70000

) Wet Year 2 60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 70000 Average Year 60000 ) 2

50000

40000

30000

20000 Baseline Alt 2 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted Alt 3 10000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

70000

) Dry Year 2 60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-19. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the sand shiner adult life stage at the KRSYGAGE node on the South Platte River.

G-20

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

KERSEY White Sucker Spawn

60000

) Wet Year 2 50000

40000

30000

20000

10000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 60000 Average Year

50000 ) 2

40000

30000

20000 Baseline Alt 2 Alt 3 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 10000 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

60000

) Dry Year 2 50000

40000

30000

20000

10000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-20. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the white sucker spawning life stage at the KRSYGAGE node on the South Platte River.

G-21

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

KERSEY White Sucker Fry

20000

) Wet Year 2 16000

12000

8000

4000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 20000 Average Year Baseline Alt 2

) 16000 Alt 3 2 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

12000

8000

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 4000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

20000

) Dry Year 2 16000

12000

8000

4000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-21. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the white sucker fry life stage at the KRSYGAGE node on the South Platte River.

G-22

NISP AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT

KERSEY White Sucker Adult/Juvenile

5000

) Wet Year 2 4000

3000

2000

1000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 5000

Baseline Average Year Alt 2 Alt 3

) 4000 2 Alt 4.1 Alt 4.2

3000

2000

Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 1000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

5000

) Dry Year 2 4000

3000

2000

1000 Weighted Usable Area (ft Usable Weighted 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure G-22. Habitat availability (WUA) time series for the action alternatives simulated for the white sucker adult/juvenile (combined) life stage at the KRSYGAGE node on the South Platte River.

G-23