Cache La Poudre River at Greeley, Colorado Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER AT GREELEY, COLORADO DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT April 2014 << blank page >> CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER AT GREELEY, COLORADO DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Cache la Poudre integrated feasibility study and environmental assessment includes both flood risk management and ecosystem restoration. The project area is located along the Cache la Poudre River near Greeley, in the northeastern part of Colorado, north of Denver. Most of the land surrounding Greeley is used for agricultural purposes, and gravel mining occupies a significant portion of the floodplain. The project reach extends from the confluence of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers, 17 miles upstream along the Cache la Poudre River, through the northern corporate limits of the city of Greeley. Significant Greeley flooding is likely during events above the 5 percent annual chance of exceedance (ACE) (20-year event), depending on location. Under current conditions, approximately 450 structures, mostly residential, are damaged in the 0.2 percent ACE flood. Approximately 250 structures, over half of which are residential, are damaged in the 1 percent ACE flood event. Ongoing channel sedimentation and increased discharges will likely cause future floods to occur more frequently. This study explored opportunities for levees, flow diversions, storage, and nonstructural measures to reduce flood risks, and evaluated numerous conceptual plans in those categories. None of the structural measures were found to be economically feasible. Nonstructural measures are feasible for 64 structures, of which 44 are residential and 20 are nonresidential. The measures for residential houses would include elevating houses in place, removing at-risk basements, and one buyout of a structure which is located within the floodway. Nonstructural measures would include dry or wet flood proofing commercial structures and placing a nonstructural floodwall around a group of three county buildings. All individual structures with benefit/cost ratios (BCRs) exceeding 1.0 are included in the proposed plan. These are distributed over a 9-mile reach, with 52 of the structures concentrated in one neighborhood. The optimal level of flood risk reduction would be for the 0.2 percent ACE (500-year) flood. The total first cost would be $5.9 million, and the aggregate BCR with risk and uncertainty is 2.03. Participation during implementation would be voluntary. The Cache la Poudre River is a nationally significant ecosystem. In particular, the Cache la Poudre provides critical habitat linkages between the Rocky Mountains and plains river systems and habitats. Especially critical habitats in the Rocky Mountain Front Range are riparian corridors that provide migration, breeding, and rearing habitat for numerous bird and native species. Riparian areas account for only one to three percent of Colorado’s land area according ES-i to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife; yet they form essential habitat for over 50 percent of Colorado’s bird species. This region has experienced significant habitat losses including reductions of over 70 percent for riparian forests and over 50 percent of wetlands state-wide with even higher percentages in urban areas. Ecosystem problems include fragmentation of regionally-critical riparian migratory bird habitat; wetland loss and degradation; an incised and channelized stream; loss of river/floodplain interaction; unnatural, riprapped streambanks; and invasive species with low habitat value. Ecosystem restoration opportunities are enhanced by large areas of floodplain land available for restoration; and public ownership of some such lands. Restoration of wetland and riparian habitats can provide critical floodplain and river corridor connections, habitat for state-listed threatened and endangered species, and international migratory bird habitat. Floodplain areas covering 8,400 acres in the 17-mile study reach were assessed to identify best opportunities to restore riparian and wetland habitats benefitting migratory birds and other native species. Screening out the Greeley-Weld County Airport reach and a problematic gravel pit reach eliminated approximately seven miles. Prioritization of remaining, potentially available areas identified approximately 460 acres in nine areas spanning eight miles. In these areas, opportunities were assessed for diverting river water or stormwater onto floodplain areas, excavating to restore river connections to oxbows or to restore meanders, excavating into or near groundwater, seeding and planting, and removal of exotic vegetation. Combinations of these were evaluated in each of the nine areas. One of the nine areas was eventually screened out as well due to high real estate costs and potential for contaminated soils. Alternative plans within each of the other eight areas were evaluated and compared to one another using the cost- effectiveness/incremental cost analysis technique. The resulting proposed plan consists of an alternative at each of the eight areas, a total of approximately 446 acres. Within these total acres, ecological lift is accomplished by increasing riparian forest from 80 acres to 198 acres and wetlands from 11 acres to 179 acres. It would reduce acres of ruderal rangeland, other agricultural land, and disturbed areas an equivalent amount, approximately 286 acres. The plan calls for excavation, grading, plantings, and seeding, at a first cost of $29.1 million, including real estate interests. Recreation related to the ecosystem restoration was evaluated and was found to be justified. The proposed recreation plan involves features at five of the eight restoration areas. It would include roughly seven miles of trails, ½-mile of wetland boardwalk, two trailheads with parking lots, shelters, and signage, with a first cost of $771,000. Greeley served as the cost-share sponsor of this study, and would be the cost-share sponsor for implementation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has coordinated with Greeley throughout the study, and Greeley has endorsed the proposed plan and indicated its intent to sponsor implementation of the project. ES-ii CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER AT GREELEY, COLORADO DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Table of Contents 1. STUDY AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................. 1 2. STUDY PURPOSE AND SCOPE ........................................................................................... 1 3. LOCATION AND SPONSORSHIP ........................................................................................ 2 4. PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES (PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION) ....................................................................................................................................... 5 5. PRIOR STUDIES, REPORTS, AND EXISTING PROJECTS............................................ 5 6. EXISTING AND FUTURE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS (PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT) ................................................. 7 6.1 History of Flooding ............................................................................................................... 7 6.2 Hydrologic Conditions .......................................................................................................... 9 6.3 Hydraulic Conditions .......................................................................................................... 13 6.4 Floodplain Management ..................................................................................................... 14 6.5 Geotechnical and Soil Conditions ....................................................................................... 15 6.6 Fisheries .............................................................................................................................. 16 6.7 Riparian Habitat .................................................................................................................. 16 6.8 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 18 6.9 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 19 6.10 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 20 6.11 Federally and State-Listed Species ................................................................................... 20 6.12 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Considerations ................................ 22 6.13 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 23 6.14 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 23 6.15 Social and Economic Resources ....................................................................................... 23 6.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 27 7. PLANNING CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................... 27 8. FRM PLAN FORMULATION .............................................................................................. 27 8.1