Exhibit AAA Page 1 of 1 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Bakich - DNR, Kendall William Miller William Dolan Re: Draft Monitoring report for Castle and Maroon creeks Monday, July 15, 2013 11:45:50 AM Maroon and Castle Creeks 2012 Draft Monitoring Report 4-26-13_CPW Comments.pdf Okay, FINALLY had time to comb through the report . . . SORRY it has taken so long! I hope my comments and edits help - and I hope they are constructive and not too nit-picky. Let me know if you have any questions or if the comments did not come through in Acrobat. -k- --Kendall Bakich ><{{('> Kendall Bakich | Aquatic Biologist, Area 8 | Colorado Parks & Wildlife 0088 Wildlife Way | Glenwood Springs CO 81601 | P. 970.947.2924 | F. 970.947.2936 On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM, William Miller wrote: Hi Kendall, I hope your summer is going well. Do you have any comments on the 2012 monitoring report for Castle and Maroon Creeks? I would like to complete the final report in the next couple of weeks but didn't want to do that without checking on any comments that you might have. Contact me if you have questions. Regards, Bill William J Miller, PhD Senior Aquatic Ecologist Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2111 S. College Ave., Unit D Fort Collins, CO 80525 Voice: 970-224-4505 email: wjmiller@millereco.com web: www.millereco.com 2013 Analysis of Renewable Energy Alternatives - Overview THE Cm' or ASPEN UTILITIES Exhibit Page 2 of 39 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit BBB Page 3 of 39 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 5 A. PURPOSE AND INTENT ................................................................................................................. 5 B. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 5 i. Overview of Past Studies ................................................................................................. 7 ii. Canary Initiative Goals .................................................................................................... 8 C. PAST AND CURRENT ACTIONS ..................................................................................................... 9 i. Demand-side Management ........................................................................................... 10 ii. Supply-side Management ............................................................................................. 11 D. CONTRACTUAL CONSTRAINTS (MEAN PPA) .............................................................................. 11 II. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES .......................................................................................................... 14 A. HYDROPOWER ........................................................................................................................... 14 i. Conventional Hydro ....................................................................................................... 15 b. New Partnership(s) ......................................................................................... 15 a. Ridgway ............................................................................................................ 16 ii. Micro Hydro ................................................................................................................. 17 a. Run-of-River (ROR) Model ............................................................................... 17 b. Low Head ......................................................................................................... 19 c. Inline ................................................................................................................. 21 iii. Improvements to Existing Hydro Facilities ................................................................... 22 B. WIND ......................................................................................................................................... 25 i. Additional MEAN Purchases .......................................................................................... 25 C. SOLAR ......................................................................................................................................... 26 i. Ownership Model........................................................................................................... 27 iii. “Solar Garden” Model .................................................................................................. 28 D. GEOTHERMAL ............................................................................................................................ 29 i. Ground Source Heating and Cooling .............................................................................. 29 E. BIOMASS .................................................................................................................................... 30 i. Wood.............................................................................................................................. 30 ii. Landfill Gas (MEAN) ...................................................................................................... 31 III. RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECs).......................................................................................... 31 A. CONFORMANCE TO CANARY GOALS ......................................................................................... 32 V. GENERIC COST COMPARISON ................................................................................................................ 32 VI. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 33 A. DIRECTION AND NEXT STEPS ..................................................................................................... 33 3 Exhibit Page 4 of 39 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit BBB Page 5 of 39 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE AND ASSUMPTIONS The purpose of this overview is to outline the various renewable energy technologies available to the City of Aspen, as well as to provide staff’s preliminary take on the potential of each. Accordingly, the intention here is to provide Council with the knowledge necessary to continue to move us towards the City of Aspen’s Canary Initiative goal of 100% renewable energy by 2015. This report assumes that a continued emphasis on energy conservation and efficiency programs is essential to reaching this goal. The fact that this report focuses on “new renewable energy sources” in no way implies that efficiency and conservation measures are less important or impactful. To the contrary, if buttressed by a supportive policy framework, conservation and efficiency can go a long way towards closing our remaining fossil-fuel energy gap. Reaching our renewable energy goal will require both new renewable sources and new conservation and efficiency gains. Lastly, this report makes no assumptions regarding Council’s future decisions on the fate of the Castle Creek Energy Center (CCEC). Due to ballot initiative 2C’s advisory status, Council alone reserves the right to make those decisions—whatever they may be. B. BACKGROUND Aspen Electric is a municipally owned electric utility serving 991 commercial and 1,899 residential accounts in a four-square-mile service area. Figure 1: Aspen Electric’s Service Territory 1 Aspen Electric generates electricity through two municipally-owned hydroelectric power plants—one at Reudi Reservoir and one on Maroon Creek—as well as a 92kW solar array at the water plant. The utility purchases the balance of its power wholesale from the Municipal Energy Association of Nebraska (MEAN), along with a small amount of hydropower purchased from the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). Figure 2: Aspen’s 2014 Energy Portfolio by Source2 1 The Aspen Recreation Center (ARC) and the Burlingame affordable housing development are also covered by Aspen Electric, despite not being on this map. The water plant is also scheduled to be added within the year. 2 Actual wind percentage is higher, due to the 4% wind component of “MEAN” Exhibit BBB Page 6 of 39 Aspen Energy Mix (2014) MEAN 15% Support 3% Ridgway 14% Ruedi 26% WAPA 10% Wind 29% Maroon Creek 3% The orange “MEAN” and turquoise “Support” slices are dominantly (>87%) carbon-based, and are thus the sources we aim to replace with renewable energy. 3 The following pie chart is a breakdown of the orange “MEAN” slice: Figure 3: Current MEAN Resource Mix MEAN’s resource mix does change from year to year, but the proportion of renewable energy does not fluctuate greatly. 4 The total power consumption for Aspen Electric grew from 63,663,922 kWh in 2001 to 71,704,818 kWh in 2011. This represents annualized consumption growth of around 1.1%/yr. Over the same period, the total greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) attributable to Aspen Electric fell from 59,918,005 lbs to 3 “Support” energy is nearly 100% fossil-fuel based. Nuclear is not considered a renewable resource due to the finite nature of radioactive fuel sources 4 6 Exhibit 34,834,403 lbs, or about -4.7%/yr. These inverse trends are due to the marked reduction Aspen BBB Page 7 of 39 Electric’s carbon factor during this time—from 0.94 lbs CO2/kWh to 0.47 lbs CO2/kWh—which was caused by marginal increases in hydro production and purchases, 5 as well as dramatic increases in wind energy purchases between 2001 to 2011. 6 Over the past decade, renewable energy has grown at a ~3.6% annualized rate. Figure 4: Tracking the 10-Year Trends in Consumption, Renewables, and GHG Emissions Renewables, Consumption and Emissions 80,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 [~8,500,000 kWh/yr] 10,000,000 0 Renewables (kWh) Consumption (kWh) CO2 Emissions (lbs) i. Overview of Past Studies Since 1974, the City of Aspen has been actively researching and pursuing renewable alternatives to reduce the proportion of fossil fuels in Aspen Electric’s energy portfolio, increase energy security, and stabilize electricity rates. The following is a list of renewable energy studies commissioned and/or used by the City: Year 1974 1974 1984 1995 1995 1996 1997 1997-98 1998 Figure 5: Past Renewable Energy Feasibility Studies Consulting Party Renewable Energy Type Merrick & Co. Hydroelectric Rea, Cassens & Assoc. Hydroelectric MEAN 7 Hydroelectric CORE 8 Hydroelectric Enartech, Inc. Hydroelectric Fuller Consulting Hydroelectric RWAPA 9 Hydroelectric NCWCD 10 Hydroelectric CORE Wind 5 Ruedi production increased by ~2.8 million kWh/yr., and WAPA purchases increased by ~2 million kWh/yr. compared to 2001. 6 Wind purchases increased from ~2.0 million kWh/yr. in 2001 to ~20.3 million kWh/yr. in 2011 7 Municipal Energy Association of Nebraska 8 Community Office for Resource Efficiency 9 Ruedi Water And Power Authority 10 Northern Colorado Water Conservation District 7 2002-03 2004-05 2007 2007 2007-09 2008 2009 2010 2001-11 2011 2012 MEAN CRWCD 11 Canyon Engineering, Inc. Integra Engineering McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd. SAIC 12 Sopris Engineering, LLC CEC 13 TCWCD 14 RFBC 15 Zancanella & Associates Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Hydroelectric Efficiency Micro-Hydro Exhibit BBB Page 8 of 39 Geothermal Micro-Hydro Solar Hydroelectric Biomass Hydroelectric During this decades-long process, there has been an overarching goal to prioritize local, ownership-model renewable energy development over non-local, leased/purchased energy. The advantages of locally owned renewable energy projects are manifold, the obvious two being long-term rate stability and enhanced long-term energy security. The prevalence of hydroelectric studies is a product of Aspen’s comparative advantages when it comes to hydropower (i.e., topography, hydrology, etc.). In other words, it has proven to be Aspen’s most reliable and available source of local renewable energy. ii. Canary Initiative Goals “In 2005, the City adopted the ambitious Canary Initiative that identifies Aspen and other mountain communities as the canary in the coal mine for global warming. The goal is to aggressively reduce Aspen’s carbon footprint…and to contribute to global reduction of global warming pollution.” 16 In May 2007, Aspen’s City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan, which calls for a reduction in community-wide greenhouse gas emissions of 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, below the 2004 community-wide baseline. A central component of the Climate Action Plan is to “Meet all growth in electricity demand since 2004 with new, zero-carbon dioxide sources of electricity with an end goal of 100% renewable energy by 2015.” 17 Quantitatively, this means that Aspen’s electric utility must replace ~8.5 million kWh of fossilfuel energy with new renewable energy in the next 2 years. 18 This number will increase (or possibly decrease) based on the future growth rate (or rate of decline) in consumption. C. PAST/CURRENT ACTIONS Aspen Electric has adopted a two-pronged approach to achieving 100% renewable energy by 2015: 1) Demand-side management: efficiency and conservation approaches; and 11 Colorado River Water Conservation District Science Application International Corporation 13 Community Energy Collective 14 Tri-County Water Conservancy District 15 The Roaring Fork Biomass Consortium 16 City of Aspen Canary Initiative, Climate Action Plan, 2007, Introduction 17 Id., p. 28 18 This number is based on 2012 consumption, and includes the ~9.8 million kWh/yr. of Ridgway energy that will come online at the end of 2013; it does not include the ~5.5 million kWh/yr. that would be provided by the CCEC. 12 8 Exhibit BBB 2) Supply-side management: increasing renewable energy through increased local generation Page 9 of 39 and wholesale electricity purchases. This overview offers as a basic premise that the best way to reach 100% is through a simultaneous pursuit of both demand- and supply-side approaches. When achieved, this goal is only sustainable if long-term demand growth is managed concurrently. As of 2012, Aspen Electric generated or purchased about 75% of its power from renewable, non-carbon sources. However, there’s more to it than just adding more kWhs of renewable energy. Any tenable solution to this challenge must also conform to the consumption curve, shown here: Figure 6: Aspen Monthly Consumption Curve (2015) 9,000,000 kWh 8,000,000 kWh Aspen Energy Consumption (2015) 7,000,000 kWh 6,000,000 kWh 5,000,000 kWh 4,000,000 kWh 3,000,000 kWh 2,000,000 kWh 1,000,000 kWh 0 kWh As you can see, peak load occurs in January, whereas lowest load is during the month of May. Any new sources added to Aspen Electric’s existing portfolio should conform to this general pattern, lest the City—and its ratepayers—foot the bill for unusable, excess energy. Non-base load sources of energy, such as wind and solar, often do not conform to this demand curve because their production can fluctuate so dramatically. For example, since wind energy is purchased in blocks and spread across each month of the year, additional wind purchases would result in excess, unusable energy during most months of the year. i. Demand-Side Management Aspen Electric is undertaking a host of measures to reduce consumer demand including: Economic disincentives applied via expanded tiered electric rates, ensuring that the consumers who use the most electricity pay the highest marginal rates per kilowatt hour; Rebates for free energy audits when the customer undertakes residential energy efficiency improvements; 19 Affordable housing retrofits and efficiency programs; 20 19 Including lighting, air-sealing and insulation, HVAC, controls, smart technology, pumps and motors. 9 Exhibit BBB Hotel efficiency competition; Page 10 of 39 Free CFL light bulb giveaways; Rebates and incentives for energy efficient appliances; Solar thermal and PV incentives Equipment rental program for energy audits Collaborative partnership with CORE, Energy Smart Colorado, HCE, and SourceGas As you can see from the below graphic, education and conservation/efficiency measures offer the highest return on investment in the energy realm. This “low hanging fruit” is the target of demand-side management: Figure 7: ROI Pyramid In November, 2000, the Aspen and Pitkin County Building Departments worked with Aspen City Council to create REMP (Renewable Energy Mitigation Program). The REMP program gives owners of new homes over 5,000 square feet the following choice: either the home must include a renewable energy system (solar thermal or electric) or the owner must pay a mitigation fee that increases based on the number of energy-using amenities. That money goes into a fund that pays for rebates and incentives for other customers to install solar or make efficiency improvements. In 2011, REMP gave 467 rebates, totaling $64,940. These rebates reduced consumption by 205,240 kWh/yr and reduced CO2e emissions by 337,698 lbs/yr. In 2009, the City Council adopted a REMP program for commercial buildings, and also adopted the 2009 IECC. 21 That same year, The City of Aspen’s City Council approved the program of tiered electrical rates which by design encourage energy efficiency. ii. Supply-Side Management 20 A complete portfolio of residential and commercial energy and water efficiency (EE) programs and projects from professional energy assessments to EE upgrades and retro fits. 21 IECC stands for the International Energy Conservation Code. The City is currently considering adoption of the updated 2012 IECC and complimentary 2012 IgCC “green” building codes, which purport to increase new building efficiency by 15%. 10 Exhibit BBB Aspen Electric is adding renewable energy generation on both sides of the meter, 22 with the Page 11 of 39 following programs and projects: 92 kW PV array to power water treatment plant 5.4 MW of locally owned and operated hydroelectric production (Ruedi and Maroon Creek) 4.5 MW Ridgway hydroelectric contract (beginning January, 2014) Rebates for installation of customer-sited solar photovoltaics (PV) Rebates for customer-sited ground-source heat pumps Research into community solar garden Feasibility studies of micro hydro Working with MEAN to increase non-carbon electricity generation D. CONTRACTUAL CONSTRAINTS (MEAN PPA) The City’s contract with its wholesale power provider, MEAN, only allows Aspen’s utility to produce ~8.2 million kWh/yr. in new renewable energy not purchased through MEAN. The allowance is designed as follows: 6.7 million kWh/yr. for new hydro; 23 and 1.5 million kWh/yr. (or 2% of annual consumption) in other “behind the meter” sources. TOTAL: 8.2 million kWh/yr. 24 As such, even if the City is to fully take advantage of this allowance, it will still face a renewable energy shortfall, and come just short of meeting the Canary Goals. Supplemental purchases of renewable energy through MEAN will remain a necessity regardless. Moreover, this shortfall will continue to grow unless consumption growth is neutralized or made negative. Below is the operative exhibit of the City’s current contract, showing all future hydroelectric energy allowances: Figure 8: Exhibit B of Second Supplemental Agreement to the MEAN PPA 22 Basically, “behind the meter” refers to power sources on the Aspen-side of the AABC substation, whereas “in front of the meter” refers to all power sources that are wheeled to us from the down valley-side of the substation. For example, Maroon Creek hydro is “behind the meter” source, while Ridgway is “in front of the meter”. 23 This allowance is for sources on both sides of the meter, providing they are amenable to MEAN 24 Based on projected 2015 demand 11 Exhibit BBB Page 12 of 39 Historically, MEAN has been extremely accommodating to the City of Aspen. Of their 60+ municipal subscribers, MEAN granted Aspen the sole exception to their traditional “All Requirements” power purchase agreement (PPA), meaning that we are the only participating municipality allowed to develop or participate in renewable energy resources outside of MEAN’s resource pool (see “Exhibit B”, below). Over time, this has allowed the City of Aspen to complete the Maroon Creek and Ruedi hydroelectric plants, the Ridgway hydro PPA, as well as pursue the CCEC. That said, many have suggested that Aspen abandon its contract with MEAN. This would be disadvantageous for a number of reasons: The City is effectively a cooperative owner of MEAN, and would thus lose its existing investment in the net asset value of MEAN’s energy portfolio (the City’s interest constitutes roughly 3.5% or MEAN’s $58 Million in net assets); Aspen would continue to have financial liability (through access to its tax base) on projects already financed under the agreement until all such debt is retired; 12 Exhibit BBB Dispatching and scheduling and transmission services offered by MEAN provide much higher Page 13 of 39 efficiencies and access to the utility grid not available to Aspen for instance, 24-7 dispatching would require more than a doubling of Aspens’ electric staff); MEAN’s contract with Aspen is very flexible in allowing the City to achieve its renewable energy goals, whereas the previous agreement with Excel Energy (in effect for 20 years from 1963-1983) allowed no such flexibility; MEAN expanded its choice of energy sources to include greatly expanded access to wind resources at the request of Aspen and others allowing Aspen to be a nati9onal leader in purchases of wind energy on a percentage basis; Leaving MEAN would eliminate access to the existing wind contracts (as well as firming services) that allowed Aspen to reach nearly a third of its energy through wind; Excel and MEAN are the only 2 entities providing all requirements energy service statewide in Colorado; and Summarily, leaving MEAN would make our 2015 renewable energy goals virtually unattainable. In light of that, the City has three general options going forward: OPTION 1: Develop 8.2 million kWh/yr. of new renewable energy not purchased through MEAN, limited to: 6.7 million kWh of new hydro energy (either locally, with micro and conventional hydro, or nonlocally through a Ridgway-like partnership); and ~1.5 million kWh “behind the meter” new renewable energy (solar, biomass, etc.) 25 Total: 8.2 million kWh Any resulting shortfall would need to be met with more supplemental purchases of renewable energy from MEAN. OPTION 2: Purchase all additional renewable energy through MEAN, but at a significant added cost (see Figure 6, above). OPTION 3: Pursue a combination of the two—partially using the contractual allowance, and supplementing with MEAN purchases. With regard to the City’s existing contract with MEAN, this report assumes no additional flexibility beyond Exhibit B and the 2% “behind the meter” allowance. Accordingly, several of the alternatives covered in this report are limited in their implementable size, and therefore disadvantaged from an economic feasibility perspective. 26 II. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES In order to meet the City’saggressive Canary Goals, and in the absence of the CCEC, it is likely that several of the following alternatives must be used in concert with other categories of renewable energy (rather than a single “silver bullet” approach). This section will look at each of the five renewable energy technologies available to Aspen, giving a general overview of the technology and a preliminary impression of feasibility. 25 This 2% allowance is based on 2011 consumption, and will rise with future consumption growth (presuming it continues to rise). 26 Most renewable energy technologies benefit from economies of scale, and thus require certain installed capacities to be economically viable. 13 Exhibit BBB Page 14 of 39 A. HYDROPOWER All hydropower projects are governed by the same physical equation: P=p*g*H*Q Where: P = power; p = water density; g = acceleration (from gravity); H = head; and Q = flow rate. Of these factors, H (head) and Q (flow rate) are the only variables which increase P (power) (the others are constants). 27 Accordingly, developers of utility-scale hydropower projects aim to maximize head and flow rates in order to maximize and stabilize power output. This usually involves using reservoirs and penstocks, which artificially increase head and enable the control of flow rates, both of which optimize power production. The following graph shows the universal relationship between power (kW), head (m), and flow (m3/sec) (plotted logarithmically): Figure 9: Universal Flow/Head/Power Relationship i. Conventional Hydro (“High Head”) Whether or not the CCEC comes to fruition, the City owns valuable hydroelectric equipment—a turbine, generator, and related controls. Purchased for ~$1.6 million, this equipment could be used locally or in a new hydro partnership. Or, alternatively, it could be sold (preliminary estimates show a sales price of about 35% of the original purchase price). Several opportunities exist for new hydro partnerships in other parts of the state, but it remains to be seen how feasible any of these alternatives are—both from a cost standpoint, and a power provider standpoint (i.e., amenable to MEAN). There is also a possibility that the City would be able to 27 The other variable is turbine efficiency, which tends to hover between 88% and 92% for most modern Pelton designs. 14 purchase some or all of the summer Ridgway output from Tri-State, but there haveExhibit BBB been no Page 15 of 39 discussions to confirm this. a. New Partnership(s) There exists the potential to co-develop a new or nascent hydroelectric project in another part of the state. Several prospective sites and partners have been identified for this approach. However, their respective feasibilities are unknown without further discussions and analysis with potential partners. Ideally, the project site would use an existing dam and reservoir, require no changes in release flow schedules, be sited near existing transmission infrastructure, 28 and fit the turbine and generator’s technical specifications in hopes of using the equipment in lieu of up-front capital outlays or, alternatively, to secure a more desirable long-term rate agreement. Figure 10: The 1.17MW Turbine and Generator Intended for the CCEC The existing turbine and generator was built to the CCEC’s specifications, so the goal would be to find a partnership involving an existing reservoir with comparable effective head and available flow to that of the CCEC project (325ft and 10-52 cfs, respectively). Even small discrepancies in design can result in huge long-term losses for the project owner(s). a. Ridgway The City of Aspen has contracted with Tri-County Water Conservation District (TCWCD) to purchase the winter output (Oct-May) of the new Ridgway hydroelectric plant (expected to come online in October 2013), or about 9.8 million kWh/yr. The City contracted for this energy because it was clean, renewable, base-load energy that fit 28 Many reservoirs in the state would be attractive prospective project sites if not for the extremely high interconnection costs associated with building out the transmission infrastructure. 15 Exhibit BBB Aspen’s winter-peaking consumption curve. The price of energy in the City’s 20-year Page 16 of 39 PPA with Tri-County is $0.059/kWh, with a 2% annual inflation factor. The other buyer, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, has a 10-year PPA with TCWCD for the summer output from Ridgway (roughly the same output), at a significantly lower cost (~$0.039/kWh). Based on the wide gap between contracted rates, this leaves a lot of room for a win-win rate negotiation, as well as a significant cost savings over MEAN Schedule M ($0.062/ kWh, including transmission costs). An “All Ridgway” solution would look something like this: Figure 11: Fit of “All Ridgway” Scenario 8,000,000 kWh 7,000,000 kWh 6,000,000 kWh 5,000,000 kWh 4,000,000 kWh 3,000,000 kWh 2,000,000 kWh 1,000,000 kWh 0 kWh -1,000,000 kWh -2,000,000 kWh WAPA RUEDI MAROON CR WIND RIDGWAY EXCESS RIDGWAY SWAPPED ENERGY PURCHASES TO BALANCE As you can see by from the above graph, this scenario would result in considerable overages during the summer months. Preliminary discussions with MEAN show a willingness on their part to apply summer excesses to winter shortfalls (shown as “swapped energy” in the graph above). ii. Micro Hydro For the purposes of this report, “micro hydro” will be used as an umbrella term to describe hydroelectric projects <100kW installed capacity. Run-of-River (ROR), low head, and inline turbine projects all fall under this category, and each will be covered in this subsection. Like conventional hydro, the kinetic energy of the stream is converted to mechanical energy, which creates electricity. However, unlike conventional hydro—which artificially increases hydraulic head and allows for controlled flows (via elevated reservoir and penstock)—micro hydro generally uses the stream/water distribution system’s “natural” hydraulic gradient and flow regime. 16 Exhibit BBB Page 17 of 39 It is important to emphasize up front that even if the City were to spend millions of dollars constructing dozens of local micro-hydro installations, the maximum aggregated output of these facilities would not even begin to approach the output of a single conventional hydro project, as represented by Ruedi, Maroon Creek, or the proposed CCEC. The primary advantage of micro hydro technology in Aspen is its potential to protect portions of the City’s senior water rights. Accordingly, a traditional financial analysis of this technology isn’t all that useful. On its face, micro hydro appears to be incredibly expensive both on an installed $/kW basis, and a lifecycle cost basis. However, if one incorporates the value of the water right into the calculation, the cost/benefit becomes very desirable in most cases. a. Run-of-River (RoR) This alternative is defined by its lack of water storage. RoR is “a power station utilizing the run of the river flows for generation of power [whereby] the normal course of the river is not materially altered”. 29 Due to its lack of storage, head is usually limited, and so is the power production potential. Natel Energy, a leading provider of RoR technology and services, is a firm endorsed by the Low Impact Hydropower Institute and its Chairman, Richard Roos-Collins (also of the Water and Power Law Group, PC). Natel’s first commercial application of RoR technology was installed on an irrigation ditch in Arizona in 2009. The installation’s capacity was <20kW, and it required minimum flows of 22cfs with 12ft of head. Natel’s largest RoR unit has a capacity of 988kW, and requires 1,106cfs of continuous flow. In Aspen’s case, RoR would involve the installation of turbines on existing dam spillways or diversions of water through a very short (<50ft.) penstock. As explained above, compared to conventional dam-and-penstock hydroelectric developments, this method produces far less energy due to lack of head. In 2010, the City of Aspen commissioned a feasibility study from McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd., detailing the potential for RoR using Aspen’s existing infrastructure. The study proposed using a 12kW vertical-axis turbine and generator at the existing Maroon Creek diversion facility: Figure 12: Diagram of RoR Turbine and Generator at Maroon Creek Diversion Site 29 http://www.conflicts.indiawaterportal.org/sites/conflicts.indiawaterportal.org/files/Damming%20Northeast%20I ndia,%20Single%20page%20format.pdf 17 Exhibit BBB Page 18 of 39 While the financials of this project appear extremely unattractive on paper ($29,166/kW installed, with a 38-year payback), the 12-16 cfs of water rights this installation could preserve—if monetized—would likely make the cost/benefit analysis highly desirable. Figure 13: Financial Summary of Maroon Creek RoR Feasibility Study 18 Exhibit BBB Page 19 of 39 Assuming an identical RoR project would work at the Castle Creek diversion structure, the City could produce a combined total of ~184,000kWh/yr. at an up-front cost of ~$700,000, potentially protecting 24-32 cfs worth of Aspen’s senior water rights. b. Low Head The City has also commissioned a feasibility study examining the possibility of low head, or “short penstock” micro hydro, on both creeks. This model requires the installation of new diversion structures (upstream of the existing diversion points), power houses (downstream of the exiting diversion points), and a 150ft and 300ft penstock at Castle and Maroon Creeks, respectively. T he primary reason this option has not been pursued was that it involved a bypass reach, which—although relatively short—has proven unpalatable to some in the Aspen community, and would likely be fought in ways similar to the CCEC. The short penstock micro hydro proposed for Maroon Creek has the following characteristics: 19 Exhibit BBB Page 20 of 39 The layout of the proposed Maroon Creek installation is shown below: Figure 14: Proposed Short Penstock Micro Hydro on Maroon Creek This installation would produce ~124,000 kWh/yr. according to the study, or about 30% more than the associated RoR installation. The exact costs of this project are unknown at this time. The short penstock micro hydro proposed for Castle Creek has the following characteristics: 20 Exhibit BBB Page 21 of 39 The layout of the proposed Castle Creek installation is shown below: Figure 15: Proposed Short Penstock Micro Hydro on Castle Creek The output of this installation is estimated to be ~74,000 kWh/yr. Like the Maroon project, the exact costs are unknown at this time. c. Inline Hydro Inline hydro harnesses the kinetic energy of water running through the City’s existing distribution system. The most attractive installation site for inline hydro is at the system’s pressure reduction valves (PRVs). Basically, the inline turbine would perform a similar function to the PRV, dissipating the energy (pressure) of the water within the City’s predominantly gravity-fed delivery system, and making it safe for customer use. 21 Exhibit in A feasibility study was commissioned in 2007 to study the potential for inline hydroBBB Page 22 ofin the City’s water distribution system. Three of the most attractive PRVs were studied 39 greater detail, shown below in Figure 16: Figure 16: Financial Analysis of Three Inline Hydro Sites Castle Creek Airport Business West Bridge Center Buttermilk Rd. Capacity (kW) 30 2 1.5 0.85 Output (kWh/yr.) 12,000 8,400 4,800 Project Cost 31 62,445 45,195 26,220 Revenue ($/yr.) 32 720 504 288 O&M Cost ($/yr.) 33 84 59 37 Net Income ($/yr.) 636 445 251 Simple Payback (yrs.) 98 102 105 Total 4.35 25,200 133,860 1,512 180 1,332 102 (Avg.) Based on almost every financial metric, inline hydro makes no sense. Using the 3 “most desirable sites” analyzed in the feasibility study: The average installed cost is $30,772/kW (Aspen’s solar PV at the water plant was $4,909/kW) The aggregated unit cost of the energy is $0.19/kWh The average payback time is 102 years—far longer than the expected life of the equipment The total output is 25,200kWh/yr.—about the energy use of 3 average homes iii. Improvements to Existing Hydro Facilities At current, the hydro facility at Ruedi is not able to operate at its designed capacity (5.02MW at 300cfs). According to a 2007 study by Canyon Engineering: “[W]hen the plant was commissioned, it was observed that at flows above about 250cfs (4.3MW), noise and vibration level increased dramatically. It was determined that turbulence in the tailwater area directly under the turbine was affecting free rotation of the impulse turbine runner.” 34 The losses associated with this design flaw amount to ~543,470kWh/yr., or ~$20,652/yr. 35 Therefore, any cost recovery projections for Ruedi improvements would be based on this number (e.g., a $500,000 solution would have a payback period of 24 years, based on current uninflated energy costs). Figure 17: Aerial View of the Ruedi Dam, Hydroelectric Facility, and Exit Channel 30 Based on turbine mechanical efficiency of 70% and generator efficiency of 75%-80% Based on construction cost of $2,300/kW of capacity, as well as 25% contingency and 20% engineering fees 32 Based on $0.06/kWh 33 Based on national average of $0.007/kWh 34 Canyon Engineering, Inc., “Ruedi Hydroelectric Project – Backwater Review” May 29, 2007. 35 The financial loss is calculated by taking the difference between Ruedi and MEAN unit costs ($0.038/kWh) and multiplying by the loss in energy output. 31 22 Exhibit BBB Page 23 of 39 Simply put, this loss is caused by two things: 1) The exit channel is not steep enough (or, similarly, the powerhouse floor is not high enough); and 2) The turbine and powerhouse lack adequate aspiration and ventilation, respectively. There are three ways to fix this: 1) Raise the entire power plant by several vertical feet The most obvious, but least cost effective way would be to raise the whole powerplant about four vertical feet. Possibly only the turbine and generator could be raised, but modifications would still need to be made to the building to change the tailrace outlet. [This] would obviously be quite expensive, especially since the turbine and generator is essentially cast (in concrete) into its own reinforced concrete foundation, which is in turn founded on the bedrock under the site. The upper part of this system would need to be removed and then reconstructed at a higher level. The building would also have to be modified to accommodate changes. 2) Lower the water surface elevation in the tailwater pit and exit channel This would involve dredging up to 8,500 yds3 of streambed material to achieve streambed elevation profile described by “proposed grade of channel bottom” in Figure 17, above. The slope from the base of the old cofferdam to the lowest 23 Exhibit part of the concrete USGS weir is 0.0024 vertical foot per horizontal foot, or less BBB Page 24 of 39 than one quarter of a foot drop in 100 feet of channel. For comparison, the average drop in the next few miles of river, from the weir to just above the CapK Ranch, is 1.4%, or 1.4 feet of drop in 100 feet of channel. That is nearly six times steeper. Figure 18: Profile View of Frying Pan River and Powerhouse with Proposed Channel Grade 3) Increase the powerhouse ventilation and/or enlarge the turbine aspiration apparatus The turbine case could be vented even more to allow the pressure inside the case to more closely approach atmospheric pressure. [This] option…appears to be the most likely way to improve power output without expending great amounts of time and money. 36 To summarize: considering the amount of energy and money to be gained, option (1) is not cost-effective; option (2) is also not cost effective and is also environmentally hazardous; and option (3) is possibly cost effective, depending on the energy gains it can achieve. A cost benefit analysis of option (3) needs to be conducted in order to make a fully informed decision. B. WIND 36 Excerpts taken from Zancanella & Associates, “Ruedi Hydroelectric Frying Pan River HEC-RAS Analysis” (November, 2012) 24 Exhibit BBB Aspen Electric already has one of the highest proportions of wind energy in the State of Colorado. As Page has of 39 stated in the Introduction, the dramatic increase in wind purchases between 2001 and present 25 been a big driver of our progress towards our renewable energy goals. However, it has come at a cost. In calendar year 2011, Aspen purchased 20.3million kWh of wind energy (29% of total consumption 37) at ~$0.069/kWh (including all transport and capacity charges), at a total cost of ~$1,620,000.00. The following is a breakdown of wind costs for 2011: Standard wind charges: $1,023,002.00 ($0.051/kWh) Wind attribute charges: $44,800.00 ($0.016/kWh) Capacity charges: $438,416.00 ($0.019/kWh) Transport charges: $115,373.00 ($0.005/kWh) TOTAL: $1,621,590.00 i. Additional MEAN Purchases So, why doesn’t the City buy more wind to reach its renewable goals? Every year, the City purchases a share of MEAN’s annual wind resources’ output. That share is divided into each month to roughly represent demand for the energy. At current, additional wind purchases would exceed the demand for the energy in several months during the year. In order to accommodate more wind in its portfolio, the City would be required to pay ~$0.10/kWh for all excess wind energy. Add this to the already comparatively expensive unit cost of wind energy, and wind looks very unattractive from a financial standpoint. Fulfilling Aspen’s energy demand with more wind purchase from MEAN would be extremely expensive. In addition, upcoming replacement costs will force wind energy prices up going forward. The following roughly outlines MEAN’s fulfillment of the 100% renewable with more wind: Figure 19: 100% Renewable with Wind 37 More, when Schedule M wind is added. This percentage just describes voluntary wind purchases by Aspen. 25 9,000,000 kWh All Wind (2015) 8,000,000 kWh Exhibit BBB Page 26 of 39 7,000,000 kWh 6,000,000 kWh 5,000,000 kWh 4,000,000 kWh 3,000,000 kWh 2,000,000 kWh 1,000,000 kWh 0 kWh -1,000,000 kWh -2,000,000 kWh -3,000,000 kWh -4,000,000 kWh WAPA RUEDI MAROON CR WIND RIDGWAY NEW WIND EXCESS WIND C. SOLAR Solar PV technology is extremely expensive per installed kW, with a relatively short lifespan of ~20-25 years, and steady production decay. What’s more, it has a very low capacity factor seeing as solar technology can only produce energy during times—and in locations—of adequate sun exposure. Despite Aspen’s generally sunny climate, Aspen’s steep mountain valleys, heavily treed neighborhoods, and periodic snowfall lower the community’s overall productive capacity. The national average for capacity factor is 25%; the PV installation at the water plant has a 19% capacity factor, despite its optimal siting at that location. 38 However, pursuing additional solar installations in Aspen remains attractive for a variety of reasons, among them: Offers local renewable energy production Variety of financing and operations models The City of Aspen has experience with construction and operations of Solar installations It’s worth mentioning that customer-sited solar installations (i.e., residential PV) remain a great option for demand reduction in Aspen. 39 CORE offers significant incentives to encourage residential solar projects--$0.50/kWh for annual production up to $3,000 for customer-owned systems, and $0.25/kWh for annual production up to $2,000 for leased systems. These incentives make on-site residential solar much more competitive and attractive for broader adoption. 40 Further promotion of these—and other demand-side—incentives is an important component of achieving the renewable energy goals. i. Ownership Model 38 “Capacity factor” refers to the percentage of maximum designed output achieved during a given year. CORE also offers solar thermal incentives ($1,500 per panel, up to $6,000), and solar maintenance incentives (50% of tune-up and repair costs). 40 Average capacity of residential solar is growing every year. As of 2012, it stood at ~6kW (~10,000kWh/yr., assuming a 20% capacity factor). 39 26 Exhibit The two primary barriers to utility-scale 41 solar projects in Aspen are: 1) the high cost of theBBB Page 27 of a technology; and 2) the high cost of land in the upper Roaring Fork Valley (solar arrays require 39 lot of space). Accordingly, the most attractive prospective projects are those using City-owned property (land or rooftop). However, even with land cost stripped out, solar is still expensive relative to other renewable technologies—the City’s 92kW solar array at the water plant cost $451,653 to build, which equates to an installed cost of $4909/kW. 42 Additional solar installations on City rooftops are feasible, but their aggregated production potential is very limited (~300 kW).43 Non City-owned sites, such as Obermeyer Place, have been studied as well; however, they require leasing of the roof space at a high cost, which makes these projects non-starters. What’s more, the City does not qualify for one of the primary solar incentives—the 30% solar capital investment credit from the federal government—due to the City’s non-profit status. Thus, to make utility-scale solar tenable in Aspen, it would likely require the use, acquisition, or lease, of vacant land for free or at a very low cost. It is likely that many of the good sites would require us to wheel the power briefly through Holy Cross’s distribution system to get it onto Aspen’s grid, adding slightly to the unit cost of the energy, and potentially disqualifying these projects due to MEAN’s “behind the meter” requirement. Partnerships with area landowners are nonetheless a possibility worth considering, whereby the City finances 100% of the installation of the system on non-City land (in lieu of lease payments), and the landowner gets credited for a portion of the power created at the solar installation. 44 The Burlingame affordable housing development currently has plans to install a two-phase, 134 kW solar system. 45 Based on a 25% capacity factor, this installation would provide ~293,000 kWh/yr. Below is a mock-up of the proposed system design: Figure 20: Burlingame Phase II Carport Solar PV System Illustration 41 “Utility scale” generally refers to projects that produce enough energy to sell to a customer base Compared to $1500-$3000/kW for wind, $1500-$1800 for biomass, and $2000 for hydro. You can see the realtime output of the water plant array here: http://view2.fatspaniel.net/PV2Web/merge?&view=PV/standard/HostedDetail&eid=171944 43 Sites include: Red and Yellow Brick buildings (45kW each), the Golf Course cart shack (25kW), City Hall (6kW), and Burlingame Phase II (134 kW). 44 The Aspen Sanitation District has voiced interest in installing a PV array on their campus, but the energy was to be used for powering the wastewater treatment plant, which is on the Holy Cross grid. 45 MV Consulting completed a preliminary solar installation design in February, 2011 42 27 Exhibit BBB Page 28 of 39 ii. Solar Garden Model The “solar garden” model” is a centralized solar project whereby residents of Aspen would buy into a share of the project (in lieu of installing a small solar array on their roof, in their yard, etc.), and receive credit for that energy on their monthly utility bill. The Clean Energy Collective model is “an agreement that would enable Aspen electric customers who purchase an interest in the solar panels to receive direct credit on their electric bills for the energy produced through a “virtual net metering” arrangement.” This approach has several advantages: Increased capacity factor (solar garden projects are intentionally sited to maximize productivity) Economy of scale (lower $/installed kW than multiple small projects) Centralized system monitoring (monitoring of one large system as opposed to dozens of small, scattered ones; also leads to simplified billing) Community ownership Ongoing facilities maintenance provided Aspen is in many ways an ideal candidate for this model, due to the strict building codes, heavily shaded residential neighborhoods, and generally environmentally-minded populace (high potential uptake). However, the high cost of land is again a serious limitation to the viability of this model. The most likely participants in a cooperative solar model are upper-tier and ecoconscious customers. In the case of the former, cannibalization of revenue stream could occur. 46 E. GEOTHERMAL 46 The utility relies on these high energy users financially, so their independent energy production potential would represent a reduction—possibly significant—in department revenues. This would likely put upward pressure on the current rate structure. 28 Exhibit BBB Page 29 of 39 There are two potential uses of geothermal energy in Aspen—heat exchange, and electricity production. The former has been studied in Aspen, and is considered the more feasible option. The latter generally requires drilling to much deeper depths (~4km), at significant added cost, and requires much hotter ground temperatures (>180 F). While geothermal power plant in Aspen might be possible based on the geothermal resources in the area (see map below), it would likely come at a very high cost. If test well results from the current drilling project yield high temperatures, it might nonetheless be worthy of consideration. 47 Figure 21: Geothermal Heat Map of the United States i. Ground Source Heating and Cooling Based on current information, the most cost-effective application of geothermal technology in Aspen is for ground source heating, used to reduce the energy consumption related to the heating and cooling of commercial buildings in the City’s south core. Most of this heating energy exists as natural gas, rather than electrical heat (ie., geothermal would not measurably reduce electricity use, nor would it produce new renewable electricity in this case). According to a 2008 feasibility study conducted by SAIC, ample geothermal potential might exist for the installation of a groundwater heat pump system to supply most of the heating needs for the hotels and lodges in the southern section of the City’s commercial core: ~167 billion of the ~231 billion Btu/yr consumption—the electrical equivalent of ~49 million kWh/yr. According to SAIC: “The yield of the bedrock aquifer system beneath Aspen is not precisely known and needs to be determined. The bedrock aquifer system may be capable of yielding 1,000 to 5,000 gpm of warm ground water through one or more highcapacity wells constructed to a depth ranging from 2,500 to 3,500 feet. Provided 47 The prospect of having a geothermal power plant in the middle of Aspen will most likely be controversial from an aesthetic standpoint. 29 Exhibit BBB access is available, the ground water temperature is sufficiently high (about Page 30 of 39 100º F), and the yield is adequate (at least 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm)).” 48 In addition, widespread buy-in and investment from south core businesses will be required to finance the build-out of a district heat exchange system. Further analysis of geothermal resources is required. F. BIOMASS Biomass energy generation consists of several different technologies, applications, and fuel sources. For this report, we’ll focus on wood and landfill waste as the primary biomass fuel sources 49-- the former because wood products are abundant in this region of Colorado, and the latter because of MEAN’s existing investments in landfill gas energy. i. Wood 50 Today, much woody biomass waste is disposed of either by burning or by allowing it to decompose. Either way, its stored carbon is released into the atmosphere. Using biomass for energy doesn’t prevent this emission, but it does enable the production of energy that can offset carbon emissions from fossil fuel sources elsewhere. Some advantages of biomass energy, if it is planned carefully: Reduced fossil fuel use Reduced carbon emissions A step toward energy independence for the nation Local economic benefits Financial support for forest health and restoration efforts Careful planning includes ensuring that the biomass supply is sustainable and that – after fuel transportation and other operating requirements – a biomass energy project both produces more energy than it consumes and offers net negative CO2 emissions. The biggest challenge to biomass energy in the U.S. is low energy prices. In areas where energy costs more, such as Europe, biomass energy is often commonplace. This [Roaring Fork Valley] supply analysis was geared toward relatively small community-scale biomass energy production. It looked at the existing supply today and did not take into account the significant amount of additional woody biomass that would become available if a market existed for wood from forest management projects. If such a market existed, the Forest Service would be able to undertake a variety of forest restoration projects that are precluded today by a lack of funding. Approximately 6,000 tons/year (bone dry) are available today from the following sources: USFS timber harvest residuals 1,600 tons/yr USFS fuel reduction projects 750 Wildlife Habitat Improvement Projects 535 Private forest management projects 200 Urban wood waste (construction debris, etc.) 2,600 Utility line maintenance 175 48 SAIC Technical Memorandum: “Reconnaissance Study of Aspen Geothermal Resources” (2008) Other biomass fuel sources include agricultural products such as: corn stover, sugarcane, and hemp, among others. 50 This subsection is excerpted entirely from the Roaring Fork Biomass Consortium’s 2011 “Biomass Feasibility Study for the Roaring Fork Valley” 49 30 TOTAL: 5,860 tons/yr Exhibit BBB Page 31 of 39 Approximately 50% of the above 5,860 tons comes from USFS lands. (This is equivalent to around 200 wooded acres/year.) No new logging or roads would be necessary. Urban wood waste is likely to increase if the U.S. housing market recovers in future years. Given the relatively small wood biomass supply assumed for this study, the most successful local project(s) would likely for the production of heat, not electricity. According to the Technology Review, if several small direct combustion or gasification heat-only facilities were built with no long-term debt, the projected simple payback for each would be 8.8 or 7.2 years, respectively. This is based on biomass facilities with a 1 million BTU/hour heat load, approximately the annual average heating needs of the Glenwood Springs Community Center. The “sweet spot” in community-scale biomass energy: A heat-only (gasification or direct combustion) facility Using a ~3 million BTU/hour wood chip boiler Heating around 100,000 square feet of building space ii. Landfill Gas MEAN has a landfill gas power plant in the pipeline, set for production in the 2014-2015 timeframe. At this point, it is unclear whether or not they will offer this energy source a la carte, on a per-subscriber basis, or if it will be incorporated into their broader energy portfolio and sold to all subscribers. It is possible that if Aspen commits to a large enough portion of the plant’s output, then MEAN will offer it to us as a separate renewable energy source. III. RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECs) According to the EPA, “A REC represents the property rights to the environmental, social, and other nonpower qualities of renewable electricity generation. A REC, and its associated attributes and benefits, can be sold separately from the underlying physical electricity associated with a renewable-based generation source.” There is currently no national oversight or regulation of the REC market. Thus, it currently relies upon self-reporting and accounting of buyers and sellers of the product. However, REC tracking and market standardization is maturing in the Unites States, with several regional groups issuing unique ID numbers to RECs in order to prevent double counting. The City of Aspen’s general policy is to keep all the RECs associated with its renewable energy. Often times, utilities will buy the RECs from a renewable project in order to meet state energy standards, without buying the associated energy. The seller of those RECs must ensure that the receiver of the associated energy does not count it as renewable. In addition, there are occasions where REC multipliers are offered (e.g., Ridgway), where the buyer of the energy receives bonus RECs (e.g., 1.5:1 ratio of RECs to energy). In these cases, Aspen does not market or sell the extra RECs. A. CONFORMANCE TO CANARY GOALS The following statement represents Canary Initiative’s position on REC use and accounting: “The Canary Initiative supports Aspen Electric’s commitment to meet its 100% renewable energy goal through the purchase and production of actual renewable energy. While Canary staff recognizes that Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) may provide some benefits, we do not believe RECs should be used to reach the utility’s 100% renewable goal. In instances where Aspen Electric is awarded RECs that exceed the actual energy purchased (such as the 1.5 to 1 incentive through the Ridgeway project), Canary staff thinks these promotional REC units should neither be counted 31 Exhibit BBB toward the renewable goal, nor sold. Similarly, if the RECs from one of Aspen’s future Page 32 of 39 renewable projects are sold for any reason, the City should be disallowed from counting that energy as renewable. Per the ICLEI U.S. Community-wide Inventory Protocol (see below), RECs will not reduce the Aspen Electric carbon factor nor will they be applied to Aspen’s community-wide greenhouse gas emission reductions. Canary values the integrity of Aspen Electric’s renewable energy efforts thus far and believes direct purchase of renewable energy and investment in tangible renewable projects are the most appropriate and credible ways to reach the 100% goal.” In a word, purchased RECs cannot be used to advance the City towards its renewable energy goals unless it also receives the associated renewable energy (at a 1:1 ratio), despite its “legality” and despite other communities and utilities willingness to do so. V. Generic Cost Comparison This overview report will not go into project-specific cost analyses. With Council’s direction based on this report, staff will spend the time and resources necessary to offer feasibility studies of specific projects, and their related financial impacts. For the purposes of this report, the table below shows average levelized cost to bring the various energy sources online: 51 Figure 22: Levelized Cost Estimates for New Generation Sources ($/MWh) 52 51 According to NREL, “Levelized Cost…compares the combination of capital costs, operations and maintenance (O&M), performance, and fuel costs. Note that this does not include financing issues, discount issues, future replacement, or degradation costs. Each of these would need to be included for a thorough analysis.” 52 Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA) – Levelized Costs AEO 2012. This table does not include targeted subsidies available for many of the renewables listed here. 32 Exhibit BBB Page 33 of 39 VI. CONCLUSION A. DIRECTION AND NEXT STEPS Staff is requesting Council’s direction to further analyze new renewable alternatives, with the goal of presenting them to Council at a later date. Ideally, specific direction will be given to staff with regard to which projects and alternatives are to be pursued. A more in-depth follow-up report will be presented to Council at a later date. 33 Exhibit Page 34 of 39 Exhibit Page 35 of 39 Exhibit Page 36 of 39 Exhibit Page 37 of 39 Exhibit Page 38 of 39 Exhibit Page 39 of 39 Exhibit CCC Page 1 of 84 CASTLE CREEK ENERGY CENTER Assessment of Project Operation, Stream Flow, and Power Generation Prepared for City of Aspen March 26, 2013 UPDATE 718 Cooper Ave. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 945 2237 Exhibit CCC Page 2 of 84 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND 2.0 OPERATIONAL MODEL 2.1 Water Supply System 2.1.1 Treated (Potable) Municipal Water Supplies 2.1.2 Untreated (Non Potable) Municipal Water Supplies 2.1.3 Castle Creek Energy Center 2.1.4 Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant 2.1.5 Diversions by Non City Water Users 2.2 Stream Flow and Hydrology 2.2.1 Climate Change 2.3 Municipal Demands and Other Water Uses 2.3.1 Municipal Water Demands 2.3.2 Water Depletions of Non City Users 2.4 CCEC Operational Scenarios and Stream Flow Bypass Requirements 2.4.1 Scenario A – Maximum Power Production 2.4.2 Scenario B1 – Proposed Operation 2.4.3 Scenario B2 – Proposed Operation with Slow Start (25th Percentile Restriction) 2.5 Primary Operating Priorities and Assumptions 2.6 Power Generation Page 1 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 3.0 STREAM FLOW 3.1 Castle Creek 3.2 Maroon Creek 15 15 15 4.0 POTENTIAL POWER GENERATION 23 Exhibit CCC Page 3 of 84 FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map Figure 2.1 Schematic Diagram of CCEC Operational Model 3 5 Table 2.1 9 City of Aspen, Treated and Untreated Municipal Water Demands Castle Creek Average Monthly Stream Flow, Representative Dry, Average and Wet Year Types Table 3.1 Scenario A (Maximum Production) Table 3.2 Scenario B1 (Proposed Operation) Table 3.3 Scenario B2 (Slow Start) 17 18 19 Maroon Creek Average Monthly Stream Flow, Representative Dry, Average and Wet Year Types Table 3.4 Scenario A (Maximum Production) 20 Table 3.5 Scenario B1 (Proposed Operation) 21 Table 3.6 Scenario B2 (Slow Start) 22 Table 4.1 Potential Power Generation, Slow Start and Full Production 24 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Attachment 9 Attachment 10 Attachment 11 Summary of Paired Stream Flow Measurements Maroon Creek Pipeline Capacity Relationship between Turbine Flow and Power Production, CCEC Relationship between Turbine Flow and Power Production, Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant Castle Creek below City Intake, Daily Hydrographs for Dry, Average and Wet Years Castle Creek below Marolt Ditch, Daily Hydrographs for Dry, Average and Wet Years Castle Creek below CCEC, Daily Hydrographs for Dry, Average and Wet Years Maroon Creek below City Intake, Daily Hydrographs for Dry, Average and Wet Years Maroon Creek below Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant, Daily Hydrographs for Dry, Average and Wet Years Maroon Creek below Stapleton Brothers Ditch, Daily Hydrographs for Dry, Average and Wet Years Potential Power Production for a Single Representative Average Year 1980 Exhibit CCC Page 4 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation 1.0 BACKGROUND This report revises and supersedes the “Assessment of Project Operations” report previously prepared by Grand River Consulting, dated April 4, 2012. The City of Aspen (City) operates the Maroon Creek hydroelectric plant with water from Maroon Creek. This operation began in the 1980’s. The City proposes to expand hydroelectric generation with development of the Castle Creek Energy Center (CCEC). Water supplied to the CCEC will be from Castle Creek and from Maroon Creek through existing delivery pipelines of the City (Figure 1.1). Water used to generate power at the CCEC returns to Castle Creek. The project will not consume water; however stream flow of lower Castle Creek and lower Maroon Creek will be altered. In addition, a portion of the water that is currently producing renewable energy at the existing Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant (MCHP) will instead generate electricity at the CCEC. Grand River Consulting has evaluated the proposed operation of the CCEC, and has assessed changes in stream flow that are anticipated with the project. Daily project operation has been simulated for a long term period of record that is representative of current hydrologic conditions. This report summarizes the results of our investigation. The report outlines the potential operation of the hydroelectric facility and summarizes the projected changes in stream flow of Maroon Creek and Castle Creek. Planning level estimates of potential future power generation at both the CCEC and at the existing MCHP are also provided. Three revised operational scenarios for the CCEC were analyzed and evaluated. These operational scenarios are: Scenario A – Maximum Power Production. The Maximum Power Production scenario will optimize the combined production of power from the MCHP and the CCEC. During low flow periods, water in Maroon Creek above the instream flow level will be delivered to the CCEC where a higher level of electric energy is produced per cubic feet per second (cfs) due to an increased hydraulic head. A minimum bypass of 14 cfs or more will occur at the Maroon Creek diversion structure. A minimum bypass of 13.3 cfs or more will occur at the Castle Creek diversion structure. This scenario differs from the “Full Production Scenario” described in the April 4, 2012 report since additional water will be diverted from Maroon Creek to the CCEC during low flow periods. Scenario B1 – Proposed Operation. The Proposed Operation scenario will increase Maroon Creek stream flow bypasses from the bypasses that will be associated with Scenario A. The Proposed Operation will maintain Maroon Creek stream flow at 20 cfs during the winter and 23 cfs during the summer, at a location downstream of the Stapleton Brothers Ditch. The amount of available water in excess of these stream flow requirements will be diverted to the MCHP and March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 1 Exhibit CCC Page 5 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation to the CCEC (up to the capacity of existing infrastructure) in a balanced manner that will optimize power production. Please note that Scenario B1 is referenced as “Full Operation” in the draft City’s Draft Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City and Pitkin County. Scenario B2 – Proposed Operation with Slow Start. The Proposed Operation with Slow Start scenario is similar to Scenario B1, although stream flow bypasses will initially be increased (and power production decreased), concurrent with the monitoring of aquatic habitat of Maroon Creek and Castle Creek. In addition to the stream flow bypasses associated with Scenario B1, either the 25th percentile of average historical weekly stream flow or 40 cfs, whichever is less, will initially be maintained for both Castle Creek and Maroon Creek from August 1st through April 30th. Providing the established baseline ecological conditions are preserved during initial operation, the stream flow bypass requirements will incrementally be reduced over a multi year period. Bypasses will decline from the 25th percentile bypass requirements to those bypass requirements that are associated with Scenario B1. In addition to the revised operational scenarios, the following information has been considered in this update: An updated power production curve for the CCEC was developed by McLaughlin Water Engineers (April 2012), based upon final CCEC generation specifications. This curve replaces the preliminary information developed by Smart, Mahoney, and Associates prior to design of the CCEC. Combined power production at the CCEC and the MCHP has been optimized by balancing Castle Creek and Maroon Creek resources during varying stream flow conditions. Optimization will deliver a portion of the water currently used at the MCHP to the CCEC. “Net Energy Production” for the purposes of this technical assessment report, shall mean the overall increase in renewable energy production in (kWh) resulting from the addition of the CCEC, considering simultaneous changes that would occur in the operation of the existing Maroon Creek hydroelectric plant production. March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 2 Exhibit CCC Page 6 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center March 26, 2013 Assessment of Project Operation Grand River Consulting Page 3 Exhibit CCC Page 7 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation 2.0 OPERATIONAL MODEL Numerous water users, including the City (for municipal water supplies and other uses), divert water from Castle Creek and from Maroon Creek. An operational model of these two streams has been developed in order to evaluate the effects of these diversions on stream flow. The model assesses mean daily stream flow of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek for the recent 25 year period (1970 through 1994) during which the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) continuously monitored stream flow of these two streams. The model evaluates diversions by the City for municipal and hydroelectric purposes, and also assesses stream flow at important locations on both streams. Power generation is evaluated at both the existing MCHP, and at the CCEC. The operational model was first developed in the 1990’s and has been recently updated with contemporary stream flow and diversion information. 2.1 Water Supply System A schematic diagram of the water supply and distribution system used in the operational model is illustrated in Figure 2.1. An overview of this system is provided below. 2.1.1 Treated (Potable) Municipal Water Supplies Castle Creek and Maroon Creek are the primary sources of treated municipal water supply for the City. The City diverts water from both streams for municipal purposes. Municipal water is initially diverted from each stream and flows via gravity through pipelines into Thomas Reservoir. This small reservoir (approximately 10 acre feet in capacity) is located next to the City’s water treatment plant. Water from Thomas Reservoir is delivered to the treatment plant, and following treatment the water is distributed throughout the City’s service area for potable use. The ability to supply municipal water demands from both Castle Creek and Maroon Creek provides reliability to City customers in the event of drought conditions, system maintenance, and other situations when water may not be available from one of the two streams. Castle Creek currently provides the primary water supply for the City’s treatment plant. The capacity of the existing Castle Creek diversion pipeline is approximately 25 cfs. Under typical operation, a lesser amount of Maroon Creek water is delivered to the treatment plant to supplement water diverted from Castle Creek. The maximum existing capacity of the pipeline from the MCHP to Thomas Reservoir is approximately 27 cfs. Groundwater wells located within the City also provide a relatively minor amount of water for potable uses. During critically dry periods, water supplies from the groundwater wells can reduce surface water diversions and facilitate the maintenance of instream flow in Castle Creek and Maroon Creek. March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 4 Exhibit CCC Page 8 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center March 26, 2013 Assessment of Project Operation Grand River Consulting Page 5 Exhibit CCC Page 9 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation 2.1.2 Untreated (Non potable) Municipal Water Supplies The City also diverts water from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek for non potable water supplies. Untreated water is delivered from Thomas Reservoir for non potable irrigation, aesthetic and snowmaking uses. In addition, the City diverts non potable irrigation water from three primary ditches located on Castle Creek; the Si Johnson Ditch, the Holden Ditch, and Marolt Ditch. These ditches are used to irrigate open space and golf course areas within and around the City. 2.1.3 Castle Creek Energy Center The CCEC will utilize water diverted from both Maroon Creek and Castle Creek that exceeds the instream flow requirements. Water from Thomas Reservoir that is not required for either treated or untreated municipal water supplies, will flow through the CCEC to Castle Creek. The capacity of the turbines at the CCEC will be approximately 52 cfs, as this is the maximum flow rate that can be delivered with existing pipeline capacity from both Castle Creek and Maroon Creek to Thomas Reservoir. 2.1.4 Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant The existing MCHP is supplied by the Maroon Creek diversion pipeline. The capacity of this existing pipeline from the City intake to the MCHP is approximately 59 cfs. Water from Maroon Creek, not delivered to Thomas Reservoir for treated and untreated municipal needs, and above instream flow requirements, currently produces renewable energy at MCHP. Although the capacity of the pipeline to the MCHP is estimated to be 59 cfs, in practice, maximum diversions to this existing facility have historically been about 52 cfs. For the purposes of this study we have modeled maximum MCHP diversions to equal 52 cfs, which is consistent with historical operations (Figure 2.1). 2.1.5 Diversions by Non City Water Users The operational model considers diversions by entities other than the City. It has been assumed that diversions and consumptive use by other parties that divert water from Maroon and Castle Creek will continue as they have historically. In addition, the model allows for the consideration of a future increase in diversions by non City interests. 2.2 Stream Flow and Hydrology A continuous record of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek stream flow has been developed for a 25 year period by the USGS. USGS gage stations operated from 1970 through 1994 on both Maroon Creek and Castle Creek, at locations upstream of the City’s intakes. We have reviewed this period of record and have determined that it is representative of long term hydrologic conditions in the upper Colorado River watershed. This period contains one of the driest years within recorded history (1977), and also contains one of the wettest years in recorded history (1984). Further, the 1970 through 1994 average annual natural undepleted runoff in the upper March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 6 Exhibit CCC Page 10 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation Colorado River basin, as calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, was equal to 101.1 % of the average annual undepleted runoff for the 106 year period extending from 1906 through 2011. Stream flow at the upstream USGS stream gages on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek is less than the stream flow that occurs at the sites of the two City intakes that are situated lower in the watersheds. In order to simulate operation of the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek water supply system, it is necessary to estimate the amount of stream flow gain that occurs between the gage stations and the diversion sites. We initially considered the use of regional, desktop watershed based procedures to extrapolate the USGS gage data to the downstream intake sites. These techniques utilize watershed area, elevation, slope aspect, and local stream flow data, to estimate stream flow at ungaged sites. These approaches are commonly used to estimate stream flow at ungaged locations. Our experience has been that these regional tools can estimate the annual amount of flow at a given location reasonably well (i.e. the annual amount of snowmelt that would flow from a watershed). However, it is also our experience that these tools are often not reliable predictors of the daily timing or temporal distribution of stream flow, particularly during the baseflow period when stream flow is primarily related to local geologic and ground water conditions. During the original development of the operational model, and after considering the limitations of these desktop tools, it was recommended that the City actually measure stream flow at their diversion sites and at the original USGS gage sites, in order to accurately quantify the gain that occurs between these locations. In response to this recommendation, a series of paired stream flow measurements were made at each USGS gage site and at each intake. These measurements provided a basis to calculate the gain in stream flow that occurs between the USGS gage sites and the diversion intakes. The collected stream flow data are presented in Attachment 1. The data substantiate that stream flow estimates made with the use of a regional desktop watershed tool are not reliable indicators of stream flow at the two intakes. In 2011, the stream flow data originally used in the simulation model was updated in response to comments from AMEC, a consultant to Pitkin County. Additional stream flow measurements by the Forest Service, the Aspen Skiing Company, the City, and others were utilized to update and strengthen the statistical relationships between stream flow at the USGS gage sites and flow at the City intakes. This additional monitoring data is also presented in Attachment 1. The updated assessment resulted in a “consensus hydrology” that was supported by both the City and AMEC. In conjunction with the consensus hydrology, the following equations have been used to simulated stream flow (Q) of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek based on historical 1970 – 1994 USGS gage data (x): Q at Castle Creek Intake = 1.9237x + 9.5822 Q at Maroon Intake = 1.153x + 5.247 Q at Maroon Creek near Roaring Fork River confluence = 1.6564x 4.8024 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 7 Exhibit CCC Page 11 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation As shown on Figure 2.1, the operational model calculates mean daily stream flow at the following seven locations: A. Castle Creek above City Intake B. Castle Creek below City Intake C. Castle Creek below Si Johnson, Holden and Marolt ditches D. Castle Creek below CCEC E. Maroon Creek above City Intake F. Maroon Creek below City Intake G. Maroon Creek below MCHP H. Maroon Creek below Stapleton Brothers Ditch 2.2.1 Climate Change Stream flow conditions of Maroon Creek and Castle Creek will likely vary in the future in response to changing climatic conditions. The potential influence of a changing climate has been evaluated qualitatively for the CCEC. The Colorado River Water Availability Study was completed in March of 2012, funded by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). This study evaluated the potential change in future stream flow for numerous watersheds throughout the western portion of Colorado. In the Aspen area, potential changes in stream flow were evaluated for the Roaring Fork River near Aspen. A total of 112 global climate change projections were considered in the CWCB assessment, and a representative sampling of these projections were modeled in detail. Some of the model results suggest a drying climate in the Roaring Fork watershed, while other model results suggest a wetter climate in the future. For the Roaring Fork River near Aspen, the projected average annual future stream flow in the year 2040 was projected to range from 90 % of current conditions to about 120 % of current conditions (depending upon the climate change projection that was used). For the year 2070, the projected average annual future stream flow was projected to range from 98 % of current conditions to about 139 % of current conditions. The variation in the climate change modeling results reflects a lack of consensus regarding future climate and stream flow conditions. Accordingly, it was not deemed to be appropriate to conduct a quantitative assessment of climate change affects to the operation of the CCEC. The CWCB study can be reviewed at: http://cwcb.state.co.us/technical resources/colorado river water availability study March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 8 Exhibit CCC Page 12 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation 2.3 Municipal Demands and Other Water Uses Water uses by the City and other users of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek are considered in the model. 2.3.1 Municipal Water Demands Municipal water demands of the City affect the amount of water available for hydroelectric use. The first priority of the City is to satisfy treated and untreated municipal water demands for municipal uses before hydroelectric production. We have assumed that only the amount of water in excess of these uses, and in excess of instream flow bypass requirements will be available for hydroelectric production. Please note that all diversions from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek are limited to existing pipeline capacities. Current municipal water demands of the City were calculated from historical daily diversion data provided by the City. This data was generally available between the years 2001 and 2011. Based on this assessment, the municipal demands outlined in Table 2.1 were used in the operational model. Table 2.1 City of Aspen – Treated and Untreated Municipal Water Demands (cfs) January February March April May June July August September October November December From Thomas Reservoir Treated Untreated Water Water 2.9 0.1 3.0 0.1 3.0 0.1 2.3 0.1 3.7 0.5 6.6 1.3 7.3 0.7 6.4 0.8 5.3 1.3 2.8 0.3 3.4 2.0 3.7 3.2 Ground Water Wells 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Non Potable Irrigation(1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 (1) Primarily from Si Johnson, Holden and Marolt Ditches In addition to the demands outlined in Table 2.1, the City diverts additional municipal water from Castle Creek and/or Maroon Creek for operational uses. For modeling purposes we have assumed that the City diverts an additional 4.5 cfs into Thomas Reservoir year round to assure that ample supplies are available to meet peak daily water demands, potential instantaneous fire protection demands, and to provide a margin of safety in the event that either the Castle Creek pipeline or the Maroon Creek pipeline are inoperable. March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 9 Exhibit CCC Page 13 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation It is important to note that future treated and untreated water demands of the City will vary in response to many factors including climatic conditions, changes in service area population, and housing occupancy rates. The demands outlined in Table 2.1 are reasonable planning level estimates of typical current water uses, but actual future water demands will likely vary from these estimates. 2.3.2 Water Depletions of Non City Users Many water users other than the City divert water from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek. We have estimated depletions for the larger non City diversion facilities, and have also estimated diversions and consumptive water use for a collective group of smaller non City water users including domestic wells. These estimates were completed at a planning level only, and are deemed reasonable for the purposes of this study. Instantaneous diversions and depletions by non City users likely vary from these planning level estimates. The depletion assumptions used in the operational model are summarized below. Please note that these estimates represent the amount of water depleted from the stream, not the amount of water that may be diverted and subsequently returned to the stream. Castle Creek Depletions and Consumptive Use Users between City Intake and USGS Gage Site: 2 cfs from May 15th to October 15th; 0.5 cfs remainder of year Maroon Creek Depletions and Consumptive Use Herrick Ditch (above intake): Operation from May 15th to October 15th with diversion of 9.3 cfs from early June through mid September Stapleton Brothers Ditch (below intake): 1 cfs to 6.1 cfs from May 15th to October 31st with peak depletions of 6.1 cfs in June and July; approximately 1 cfs in November and December (snowmaking) Willow Creek Irrigation Users (above MCHP): Depletions range from 3 cfs to 12 cfs from May 15th to October 31st; with peak depletions of up to 12 cfs in June 2.4 CCEC Operational Scenarios and Stream Flow Bypass Requirements Three different operations of the CCEC have been assessed. Stream flow bypasses equal to or greater than the instream flow water rights (ISF) decreed to the CWCB are maintained in each scenario. Scenario A is the Maximum Power Production alternative. In the Maximum Power Production scenario, the MCHP will not be operated during low stream flow periods (primarily in the winter months), and water available for diversion from Maroon Creek will be utilized at the CCEC. Scenario B1 represents the Proposed Operation of the CCEC. In addition to the bypasses of 13.3 cfs for Castle Creek and 14 cfs for Maroon Creek, a winter flow of 20 cfs and a summer stream flow of 23 cfs will be maintained below the Stapleton Brothers Ditch diversion structure on Maroon Creek. This is a higher level of stream flow March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 10 Exhibit CCC Page 14 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation than that required to maintain the instream flow water rights of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Scenario B2 (Slow Start) has the same elements as the proposed operation of the CCEC (Scenario B1) except that during the initial operation of the CCEC, stream flow bypasses will be substantially increased. The operation of these three scenarios is described in detail below. 2.4.1 Scenario A – Maximum Power Production The Maximum Power Production scenario will optimize the combined production of power from the MCHP and the CCEC. During low flow periods, all available water from Maroon Creek will be routed to the CCEC, additional production of electricity will occur in response to the greater power head at the CCEC. The stream flow bypass requirements associated with the Maximum Power Production scenario are: Minimum Maroon Creek flow below the City Intake and MCHP: 14 cfs (CWCB ISF) Minimum Castle Creek flow below the City Intake: 13.3 cfs (modified from CWCB ISF of 12 cfs) The coordinated operations of the MCHP and the CCEC will occur to maximize power production. For modeling purposes, the coordinated operations are: When the stream flow of Maroon Creek at the City intake is equal to or less than 41 cfs, all stream flow in excess of the 14 cfs CWCB ISF will be delivered to the CCEC When the stream flow of Maroon Creek is equal to or greater than 62 cfs, 30 cfs will be delivered to the MCHP, 18 cfs will be delivered to the CCEC, and the remaining flow will be bypassed to Maroon Creek When the stream flow of Maroon Creek is between 41 cfs and 62 cfs, the allocation of water to the MCHP and the CCEC will be balanced to optimize power production During the late summer of drier than average years (August – October), the City will voluntarily reduce non potable irrigation diversions through the Si Johnson, Holden and Marolt Ditches by one third, in order to maximize power production Under the Maximum Power Production scenario, the MCHP will typically be operated from May through September only. In wetter than average years, the MCHP may operate in portions of October and November. 2.4.2 Scenario B1 – Proposed Operation In this scenario, the following stream flows must be maintained before any water will be diverted for use at the CCEC: Castle Creek below City Intake: 13.3 cfs (modified from actual CWCB ISF of 12 cfs) Castle Creek below Marolt Ditch Intake: 13.3 cfs (modified from actual CWCB ISF of 12 cfs) Maroon Creek below City Intake: 14 cfs (CWCB ISF) Maroon Creek below Stapleton Brothers Ditch: 23 cfs summer, 20 cfs winter March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 11 Exhibit CCC Page 15 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation The bypass requirements described above will be maintained below all diversion locations on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek before any water will be diverted for purposes of the CCEC. On Castle Creek, this operation will typically require a bypass of more than 13.3 cfs during the irrigation season, in order to maintain 13.3 cfs downstream of City irrigation diversions, primarily the Si Johnson, Holden and Marolt ditches. The coordinated operations of the MCHP and the CCEC will also occur to maximize power production. 2.4.3 Scenario B2 – Proposed Operation with Slow Start (25th Percentile Restriction) This Slow Start scenario is similar to Scenario B1, however the CCEC will initially operate with greater stream flow bypass requirements during the Slow Start scenario. During the initial Slow Start operation of the CCEC the aquatic habitat of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek will be monitored by an interagency group including the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. Provided the established baseline ecological conditions are shown to be preserved, the instream flow bypass requirements will incrementally be reduced over a several year period, to an amount equal to the bypass requirements described above for Scenario B1. During the initial year of a Slow Start operation, water will not be diverted for use by the CCEC unless the following stream flow conditions are maintained: Castle Creek below City Intake: The lesser of 40 cfs or the 25th percentile of average weekly stream flow must be maintained between August 1st and April 30th, and a stream flow bypass of 13.3 cfs must be maintained at all other times (modified from actual CWCB ISF of 12 cfs) Maroon Creek below City Intake: 14 cfs (CWCB ISF) Maroon Creek below MCHP: The lesser of 40 cfs or the 25th percentile of average weekly stream flow must be maintained between August 1st and April 30th, and the CWCB ISF of 14 cfs must be maintained at all other times Bypass flows used in the operational model for Scenario B2 (Slow Start) vary throughout the year and are between 1.5 and 3 times greater than the CWCB ISF water rights. The analysis of the Slow Start scenario in this report is associated with the initial three years of Slow Start operations. During the initial operation, stream flow bypasses may be the greatest. It is expected that this method of operation will be short term and will not represent long term operating conditions, as bypasses will be incrementally modified over time in response to monitoring results. The coordinated operations of the MCHP and the CCEC will also occur to maximize power production. March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 12 Exhibit CCC Page 16 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation 2.5 Primary Operating Priorities and Assumptions The operational model utilizes the primary operating priorities and criteria summarized below: The first operational priority is to meet the City’s municipal potable water requirements. The second operational priority is to maintain the instream flow requirement for Castle Creek and Maroon Creek. The third operational priority is to supply the non potable irrigation demands at the Si Johnson, Holden and Marolt Ditches, and through Thomas Reservoir. The minimum operating flow of the CCEC is 5 cfs. The capacity of the Castle Creek to Thomas Reservoir pipeline is 25 cfs. The modeled capacity of the Maroon Creek City intake to the MCHP pipeline is 52 cfs. The maximum diversions through the Maroon Creek pipeline from the City intake to the MCHP is 52 cfs (reference Attachment 2 for variable flow rates). The minimum diversion through the MCHP is 4 cfs (Attachment 2). The maximum capacity of the Maroon Creek pipeline from the MCHP to Thomas Reservoir is 27 cfs (reference Attachment 2 for variable flow rates). The maximum available flow from Thomas Reservoir to the CCEC is about 52 cfs. No diversions occur from Maroon Creek between the City intake and the MCHP. The Maroon Creek “Slow Start” 25th percentile stream flow bypass requirement is calculated for the location below the MCHP outlet. The Castle Creek “Slow Start” 25th percentile stream flow bypass requirement is calculated for the location at the City intake. The stream flow of Castle Creek increases by 3.5 % between the City intake and the Marolt Ditch intake. The stream flow of Maroon Creek increases by a minimum of 17 % between the City intake and the Stapleton Brothers Ditch. When stream flow bypass requirements associated with the “Slow Start” curtail Maroon Creek diversions to the CCEC, the MCHP is operated as it has historically (maintain 14 cfs CWCB ISF below City intake). All treated and untreated water routed through Thomas Reservoir are supplied from Castle Creek first. Maroon Creek supplies water through Thomas Reservoir when water availability in Castle Creek is limited or water quality constrains its use. Municipal diversions include a 4.5 cfs operational delivery in addition to historical municipal demands. If excess water supplies at Thomas Reservoir equal or exceed 5 cfs, the CCEC may also generate power with the 4.5 cfs operational delivery. If available CCEC water supplies are less than 5 cfs, the operational delivery of 4.5 cfs is returned to Castle Creek. During the late summer of drier than average years (August – October), the City will voluntarily reduce non potable irrigation diversions through the Si Johnson, Holden and Marolt Ditches by one third, in order to maximize power production. 2.6 Power Generation The operational model calculates mean daily power generation for both the existing MCHP and for the CCEC. The relationship between the amount of flow delivered to the power plants and power production was initially developed by Smart, Mahoney & Associates, and was integrated into the operational model. March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 13 Exhibit CCC Page 17 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation For this updated report, the relationship between turbine flow and power production at the CCEC was calculated by McLaughlin Water Engineers (April 2012). This relationship is illustrated in Attachment 3. The relationship between turbine flow and power production at the MCHP is based upon historical data provided by the City (Attachment 4). The relationship between power production and turbine flow at the MCHP has varied historically, and a regression analysis was used to calculate the average relationship between these variables. March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 14 Exhibit CCC Page 18 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation 3.0 STREAM FLOW Changes in mean daily stream flow associated with operation of the CCEC have been estimated for the 25 year continuous USGS monitoring period (1970 through 1994). The projected changes in stream flow are summarized below for three scenarios of CCEC operations. Stream flow is summarized for a range of hydrologic conditions including a representative dry year, an average year, and a wet year. The representative dry year is 1977. This year was an exceptionally dry year; it was the driest year in the study period, and was also one of the driest years in the upper Colorado River basin within the last 100 years. The representative average year is 1980. Mean annual stream flow in 1980 was the median condition for the 25 year study period. The representative wet year is 1984. This year was an exceptionally wet year; it was the wettest year in the study period, and was also one of the wettest years in the upper Colorado River basin within the last 100 years. Long term changes in stream flow are displayed for bypass conditions associated with the initial year of the Slow Start scenario (Scenario B1), although it is anticipated that this operating scenario will be modified in the short term, in response to the results of the aquatic habitat monitoring. 3.1 Castle Creek Changes in the estimated average monthly stream flow of Castle Creek are summarized in Tables 3.1 through 3.3 for the representative dry, average, and wet years. Stream flow is summarized for four locations on Castle Creek, for the three operational scenarios. As noted in Tables 3.1 through 3.3, the largest changes in stream flow occur in wet years when the most water is available for use by the CCEC. Conversely, the smallest changes in flow occur during dry years. Stream flow is decreased at sites upstream of the CCEC in response to diversions to the CCEC. Stream flow is increased below the CCEC in response to the delivery of Maroon Creek water through the CCEC. The largest changes in stream flow occur during high flow periods, with lesser changes occurring during low flow periods. Simulated daily changes in Castle Creek stream flow for Scenarios B1 and B2 are illustrated in Attachments 5, 6 and 7. 3.2 Maroon Creek Changes in average monthly stream flow of Maroon Creek are summarized in Tables 3.4 through 3.6 for the representative dry, average, and wet years. Stream flow is summarized for three locations on Maroon Creek, for the three operational scenarios. March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 15 Exhibit CCC Page 19 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation Tables 3.4 through 3.6 show average monthly stream flow generally unchanged from existing conditions in the reach between the City intake and the MCHP. Minor periodic increases in flow occur in this reach in response to hydraulic properties of the Maroon Creek pipeline. When water is diverted to Thomas Reservoir and to the CCEC, the effective capacity of the pipeline to the MCHP is decreased and diversions will periodically decrease. Stream flow is decreased below the MCHP, as some of the water previously delivered to this facility is now routed to Castle Creek via the CCEC. Table 3.4 illustrates average monthly stream flow under the Maximum Power Production scenario. The Full Production scenario assessed in our April 4, 2012 report results in a lesser change in stream flow than the Maximum Power Production scenario. Simulated daily changes in Maroon Creek stream are illustrated in Attachments 8, 9 and 10. March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 16 Exhibit CCC Page 20 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center March 26, 2013 Assessment of Project Operation Grand River Consulting Page 17 Exhibit CCC Page 21 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center March 26, 2013 Assessment of Project Operation Grand River Consulting Page 18 Exhibit CCC Page 22 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center March 26, 2013 Assessment of Project Operation Grand River Consulting Page 19 Exhibit CCC Page 23 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center March 26, 2013 Assessment of Project Operation Grand River Consulting Page 20 Exhibit CCC Page 24 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center March 26, 2013 Assessment of Project Operation Grand River Consulting Page 21 Exhibit CCC Page 25 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center March 26, 2013 Assessment of Project Operation Grand River Consulting Page 22 Exhibit CCC Page 26 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation 4.0 POTENTIAL POWER GENERATION Potential power generation for each study year is summarized for Scenarios A and B1 in Table 4.1. These estimates of potential power production have been updated from the April 4, 2012 assessment and are based upon the updated relationship between turbine flow and power production for the CCEC (Attachment 3) and in response to the updates in the operating assumptions for the MCHP. The estimates are reasonable planning level projections of potential power production. Actual power production in the future will vary in response to many factors including, but not limited to, future climatic conditions, municipal water demands, the ability to operate the CCEC in accordance with the operating criteria and assumptions outlined herein, and the amount of water diverted by other users of Maroon Creek and Castle Creek. Potential power production at the CCEC is estimated to average about 7.0 million kilowatt hours (kWh) per year for Scenario A (Maximum Power Production) and is estimated to average about 6.7 million kWh per year for Scenario B1 (Proposed Operation). The potential power production at the MCHP averages about 2.1 million kWh per year under current conditions (without CCEC), and declines to approximately 0.8 million kWh per year under the Maximum Power Production scenario (Scenario A). Under the Proposed Operation scenario (Scenario B1), the MCHP may generate about 0.9 million kWh per year. The potential increase in net power production (CCEC minus reduction at MCHP) averages approximately 5.7 million kWh per year for Scenario A, and 5.5 million kWh per year for Scenario B1. The potential power production at MCHP and CCEC for Scenario B1 is shown monthly for the representative average year 1980 in Attachment 11. It is difficult to assess the long term power production associated with Scenario B2 (Proposed Operation with Slow Start), because stream flow bypasses and other operating criteria will be modified over time in response to aquatic habitat monitoring results. If first year bypasses associated with Scenario B2 were continued permanently (which is not anticipated), the net increase in potential power production is simulated to average about 3.6 million kWh per year. With favorable results from the aquatic habitat monitoring program, the potential increase in net power production for this scenario will increase to the 5.5 million kWh associated with Scenario B1. March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Page 23 Exhibit CCC Page 27 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center March 26, 2013 Assessment of Project Operation Grand River Consulting Page 24 Exhibit Page 28 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 29 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 1 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 30 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 31 of 84 ATTACHMENT 1 Summary of Paired Stream Flow Measurements (cfs) Castle Creek Date January 26, 1994 February 6, 1994 February 11, 1994 February 18, 1994 February 25, 1994 March 4, 1994 March 11, 1994 March 17, 1994 April 3, 1994 July 30, 1994 October 4, 1994 October 5, 1994 October 10, 1994 February 19, 1995 March 10, 1995 March 13, 1995 March 23, 1995 October 10, 1996 October 29, 1996 November 14, 1996 November 26, 1996 December 12, 1996 January 2, 1997 January 21, 1997 February 4, 1997 February 19, 1998 March 2, 1998 March 25, 1998 February 17, 1999 March 8, 1999 March 16, 1999 October 15, 1999 August 30, 2002 September 20, 2002 October 18, 2002 November 22, 2002 At USGS Stream Gage Site 12.4 11.8 13.9 Above City Intake 11.2 13.5 14.4 11.7 13.5 41.5 21.6 49.4 29.7 37.7 10.3 At USGS Above Stream Gage Herrick Ditch Holden Ditch Site Diversions 35.9 38.6 33.5 35.7 32.5 35.7 33.4 30.6 35.7 90.5 49.5 20.2 13.3 11.9 Below City Intake Maroon Creek Measured Flow Above City Intake 27.0 32.8 28.3 31.1 24.3 31.0 28.5 26.7 31.0 105 est. 29.5 20.8 32.9 46.2 45.7 42.5 39.0 33.9 30.0 24.7 21.2 20.5 17.9 33.4 48.5 36.9 34.1 Below City Intake Below Hydroplant Tailrace Below Stapleton Brothers Ditch Return Flow 24.1 26.9 34.7 37.6 48.4 61.2 66.3 57.0 45.7 42.9 41.0 32.1 28.7 30.7 34.1 35.3 31.0 29.1 29.5 30.6 61.4 52.0 46.7 45.7 41.7 32.4 31.5 Source Near Mouth 52.9 12.5 13.4 20.1 14.8 13.0 Native Flow Above City Intake 27.8 31.5 28.4 6.0 49.9 46.2 38.5 38.3 32.2 29.5 28.5 26.4 26.3 26.7 25.0 24.3 22.4 23.0 20.4 55.9 46.2 38.5 38.3 32.2 29.5 28.5 26.4 > 56 41.2 40.1 38.8 28.3 67.9 53.8 41.8 43.1 37.1 32.2 28.2 24.9 36.1 36.9 31.9 27.8 25.5 35.2 34.1 39.3 29.2 Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River & Resource Eng, Grand River Resource Engineering Resource Engineering Grand River U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Forest Service Grand River Grand River Grand River Grand River Grand River Grand River Grand River Grand River Grand River Grand River Grand River Exhibit Page 32 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 33 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 2 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 34 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 35 of 84 ATTACHMENT 2 Maroon Creek Pipeline Capacity (cfs) Thomas Reservoir Delivery Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant Delivery Total Delivery 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 59 58 57 56 55 53 52 50 48 47 45 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 27 24 21 18 15 10 8 4 0 59 59 59 59 59 58 58 57 56 56 55 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 46 44 42 40 38 34 33 30 27 Exhibit Page 36 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 37 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 3 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 38 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 39 of 84 ATTACHMENT 3 CCEC OUTPUT Flow (cfs) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 52 HL/100 ft. (ft) 0.004 0.016 0.035 0.06 0.09 0.135 0.18 0.228 0.285 0.35 0.38 Total HL (ft) 0.17 0.67 1.46 2.50 3.74 5.62 7.49 9.48 11.86 14.56 15.81 Available H, (ft) 343.0 342.5 341.7 340.7 339.4 337.6 335.7 333.7 331.3 328.6 327.4 Gen Eff 90.5% 91.9% 92.3% 93.8% 94.8% 95.0% 95.2% 95.4% 95.7% 95.8% 95.8% Turb Eff 87.7% 88.4% 89.6% 89.4% 89.5% 89.8% 89.9% 90.0% 89.9% 89.0% 89.0% Output KW 115.4 235.8 359.2 484.2 610.1 732.1 852.1 971.2 1087.0 1187.2 1230.0 CCEC OUTPUT 1400.0 1200.0 Output, KW 1000.0 800.0 600.0 400.0 200.0 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Flow, (cfs) Notes: Reservoir Normal Operating Elevation Turbine Invert Elevation Pipeline - 42" DIP Length 8180.00 ft. 7836.83 ft. 3910 ft. APRIL, 2012 Exhibit Page 40 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 41 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 4 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 42 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 43 of 84 ATTACHMENT 4 Historical Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant Power Production 60 50 Hydroelectric Plant Outflow (cfs) 40 30 20 CCEC Hydro Model Power Curve MCHP Data 2001 MCHP Data 1999 MCHP Data 2002 MCHP Data 2003 MCHP Data 2004 MCHP Data 2005 10 MCHP Data 2012 0 0 100 200 300 kW 400 500 600 Exhibit Page 44 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 45 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 5 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 46 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 47 of 84 ATTACHMENT 5.1 Castle Creek Below City Intake (Node B) Representative Dry Year (1977) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (13.3 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 48 of 84 ATTACHMENT 5.2 Castle Creek Below City Intake (Node B) Representative Average Year (1980) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) 500 ISF (13.3 cfs) 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 49 of 84 ATTACHMENT 5.3 Castle Creek Below City Intake (Node B) Representative Wet Year (1984) 900 800 700 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 500 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (13.3 cfs) 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit Page 50 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 51 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 6 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 52 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 53 of 84 ATTACHMENT 6.1 Castle Creek Below Marolt Ditch (Node C) Representative Dry Year (1977) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) C t Conditions ( / CCEC) Current C diti (w/o Stream Flow (cfs) 600 ISF (13.3 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 54 of 84 ATTACHMENT 6.2 Castle Creek Below Marolt Ditch (Node C) Representative Average Year (1980) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (13.3 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 55 of 84 ATTACHMENT 6.3 Castle Creek Below Marolt Ditch (Node C) Representative Wet Year (1984) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 ISF (13.3 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit Page 56 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 57 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 7 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 58 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 59 of 84 ATTACHMENT 7.1 Castle Creek Below CCEC (Node D) Representative Dry Year (1977) 900 800 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) 700 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Slow Start (Scenario B2) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) 500 ISF (13.3 cfs) 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 60 of 84 ATTACHMENT 7.2 Castle Creek Below CCEC (Node D) Representative Average Year (1980) 900 800 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) 700 Stream Flow (cfs) 600 500 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Slow Start (Scenario B2) Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (13.3 cfs) 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 61 of 84 ATTACHMENT 7.3 Castle Creek Below CCEC (Node D) Representative Wet Year (1984) 900 800 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Additional Stream Flow Associated with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 600 Stream Flow (cfs) 700 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (13.3 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit Page 62 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 63 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 8 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 64 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 65 of 84 ATTACHMENT 8.1 Maroon Creek Below City Intake (Node F) Representative Dry Year (1977) 900 800 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Additional Stream Flow Associated with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 600 Stream Flow (cfs) 700 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (14.0 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 66 of 84 ATTACHMENT 8.2 Maroon Creek Below City Intake (Node F) Representative Average Year (1980) 900 800 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) 700 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Slow Start (Scenario B2) Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) 600 Stream Flow (cfs) ISF (14.0 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 67 of 84 ATTACHMENT 8.3 Maroon Creek Below City Intake (Node F) Representative Wet Year (1984) 900 800 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) 700 Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Additional Stream Flow Associated with Slow Start (Scenario B2) Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (14.0 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit Page 68 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 69 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 9 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 70 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 71 of 84 ATTACHMENT 9.1 Maroon Creek Below Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant (Node G) Representative Dry Year (1977) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) 700 600 Stream Flow (cfs) ISF (14.0 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 72 of 84 ATTACHMENT 9.2 Maroon Creek Below Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant (Node G) Representative Average Year (1980) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (14.0 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 73 of 84 ATTACHMENT 9.3 Maroon Creek Below Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant (Node G) Representative Wet Year (1984) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (14.0 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit Page 74 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 75 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 10 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 76 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 77 of 84 ATTACHMENT 10.1 Maroon Creek Below Stapleton Brothers Ditch (Node H) Representative Average Year (1977) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (14.0 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 78 of 84 ATTACHMENT 10.2 Maroon Creek Below Stapleton Brothers Ditch (Node H) Representative Average Year (1980) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (14.0 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit CCC Page 79 of 84 ATTACHMENT 10.3 Maroon Creek Below Stapleton Brothers Ditch (Node H) Representative Wet Year (1984) 900 800 Water Diverted with Slow Start (Scenario B2) 700 Additional Water Diverted with Proposed Operation (Scenario B1) Stream Flow (cfs) 600 Current Conditions (w/o CCEC) ISF (14.0 cfs) 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep Exhibit Page 80 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 81 of 84 Castle Creek Energy Center Assessment of Project Operation ATTACHMENT 11 March 26, 2013 Grand River Consulting Attachments Exhibit Page 82 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit CCC Page 83 of 84 ATTACHMENT 11 Potential Power Production (kWh) For a Single Representative Average Year 19801 Modeled Scenario Scenario B1 (Maintain Maroon Ck Stream Flow at 20/23 cfs blw Stapleton Bros. D) Current Operation (Modeled Production) Net Change in Potential Power (Modeled Increase) Oct 2 MCHP 3 CCEC Total MCHP 2 CCEC3 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,021 185,128 191,299 191,299 170,088 842,011 606,612 369,425 362,897 325,997 335,185 363,340 722,283 613,540 633,992 651,088 622,052 842,011 606,612 369,425 362,897 325,997 335,185 363,340 787,304 798,669 825,291 842,387 792,140 Annual 802,835 6,448,423 7,251,258 170,944 111,366 77,752 211,359 297,956 307,888 307,888 267,331 2,030,518 671,067 495,246 290,302 295,331 263,305 266,531 285,588 575,945 500,713 517,403 534,499 524,809 5,220,740 79,124 67,566 62,693 68,653 1 Represents estimated net change in potential power for one year. Please note for the 1970 - 1994 modeled period, net potential power averages 5,475,989 kWh 2 MCHP - Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Plant 3 CCEC - Castle Creek Energy Center Exhibit Page 84 of 84 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Exhibit DDD Page 1 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report DRAFT Castle and Maroon Creeks 2012 Aquatic Monitoring Report Prepared For: City of Aspen Water Utilities Prepared By: William J. Miller And Kristin M. Swaim Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2111 S. College Ave., Unit D Fort Collins, CO 80525 April 26, 2013 Apr 26, 2013 Exhibit Page 2 of 172 This page intentionally blank Exhibit DDD Page 3 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report March 26, 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the 2012 monitoring in Castle Creek and Maroon Creek. The report also summarizes monitoring efforts from 2010 to 2012. This Executive Summary focuses on the combined results from 2010-2012. The monitoring was conducted as part of the monitoring plan developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) (formerly Colorado Division of Wildlife) to address possible impacts to fisheries and stream habitat related to the proposed increased water diversions associated with the City of Aspen’s (Aspen) Castle Creek Energy Center located in Pitkin County, Colorado. The Monitoring Program is intended to build sufficient information regarding the fish population and stream habitat in Castle and Maroon creeks to determine impacts to the streams from the Castle Creek Energy Center operations. The monitoring program includes fish surveys, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling, and stream habitat inventory. In addition the City of Aspen collected data on stream flows and water temperature in Castle and Maroon creeks. CPW recommended continuing the fish monitoring station located downstream of the existing diversion point on Castle Creek, as established by MEC in 2010. In addition, two stations on Castle Creek were established: one upstream of the existing diversion point and one downstream of the proposed tailrace location for the Castle Creek Energy Center. CPW recommended three stations be established on Maroon Creek, including the MEC site (located in the lower reach of Maroon Creek approximately one-half mile upstream of the Roaring Fork River) and two additional sites: one located above the Maroon Creek hydroelectric diversion point and one located in the bypass reach downstream of the hydroelectric diversion and upstream of the point of return. The permanent monitoring stations are approximately 500 feet long and contain representative habitat conditions in the area. Evaluation of stream habitat was conducted in the same six locations as the fish monitoring stations. To determine changes in aquatic habitat, the U.S. Forest Service has provided a standard habitat monitoring protocol that is used locally to monitor stream habitat and is appropriate for this monitoring program. A similar methodology from the Pike and San Isabel National Forests includes a computer spreadsheet for analysis. A combined approach using the quantification from the Pike and San Isabel National Forests with the White River National Forest components for stream substrate and woody debris was used for this monitoring. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from riffle habitat at each permanent monitoring station concurrently with the fish sampling. Three replicate samples were taken at each station using a modified Hess stream bottom sampler. Samples were preserved in ethanol and returned to the laboratory where specimens were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level. Fishery sampling was conducted at each site using standard electrofishing techniques by multiple-pass depletion sampling using the appropriate population estimation technique based on the number of passes. Water temperature was monitored using constant recording thermographs at four monitoring stations. The thermographs have the capability to record water temperatures at hourly intervals or less. Data were downloaded monthly and transferred to computer spreadsheets for analysis. Aspen has implemented the Monitoring Program with a goal of further understanding and maintaining stream health in Maroon and Castle creeks as determined by the following criteria: Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. ii Exhibit DDD Page 4 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report 1. Apr 26, 2013 Maintenance of steady or increased macroinvertebrate population from downstream of the hydroelectric diversion(s) to the Roaring Fork River. The metrics used for the analysis will be: Density (#/m2) Biomass (g/m2) Diversity Evenness Taxa Richness EPT taxa A mean and 95% confidence interval will be calculated for each of the above metrics. The population trend will be determined by comparing the values for the above metrics of the sites downstream of the diversions with reference sites (upstream of diversions) using an appropriate statistical technique (e.g. Tukey’s comparisons of means, Student’s t-test, etc.). 2. Maintenance of steady or increased fish population and biomass from downstream of the hydroelectric diversion(s) to the Roaring Fork River. The primary metrics will be: Density (#/acre) for each individual species (larger than 150 mm total length) Density (#/acre) for all trout combined (larger than 150 mm total length) Biomass (pounds/acre) for each individual species (larger than 150 mm total length) Biomass (pounds/acre) for all trout combined (larger than 150 mm total length) The population trend will be determined by comparing the population estimate and 95% confidence limit at the downstream sites with the population estimate and 95% confidence limit at the upstream reference site. The secondary metrics will be: Condition factor (k) Size class distribution by species Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. iii Exhibit DDD Page 5 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report 3. Apr 26, 2013 Maintenance of habitat as determined by the U.S. Forest Service habitat protocol for the White River National Forest and the Pike and San Isabel National Forests. Habitat maintenance will be determined by comparing the annual values for the following habitat characteristics against the baseline habitat conditions. The metrics used for the analysis will be: Pool depth Substrate composition Percent pool area Decreasing trends in pool depth and percent pool area as well as a trend to finer stream substrate material would indicate a decrease in habitat conditions. Habitat characteristics for the three years of baseline data will be used to compute mean and 95% confidence limits for key habitat characteristics. The 2012 survey results, along with surveys in 2010 and 2011, were used to establish baseline conditions before the proposed Castle Creek Energy Center begins operations. Future monitoring efforts should be compared to these baseline conditions. The past three years were quite variable in hydrologic terms. 2010 was considered an average water year, 2011 a wet year, and 2012 a dry year. This was a fortunate coincidence and suggests that the data collected over the past three years potentially estimate the true range of conditions that would be expected to be seen in Castle and Maroon creeks. In the fall of 2010, the sampling sites (“monitoring stations”) were identified by CPW in consultation with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)1 and the City of Aspen Utilities Department (collectively, “interested governmental entities”) and Aspen’s consultant, MEC. Three sites were chosen for sampling on Maroon Creek and three on Castle Creek (Table ES-1, Figure E-1). Table ES-1. Site lengths, average widths, length of site in terms of stream width, and UTM coordinates. Site MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 Length (ft) 540 500 500 500 500 500 Avg. width (ft) Length (m) Avg. width (m) 27 165 8 22 152 7 28 152 9 26 152 8 29 152 9 27 152 8 Stream Lengths 20 23 18 19 17 19 UTM Northing (m)* 4340939.1 4336762.8 4336306.3 4340813.6 4339836.2 4334479.8 UTM Easting (m)* 340339.2 337655.6 337436.8 341718.3 341689.3 340276.8 *Coordinates are for the downstream end of the site. 1 The USFS is not a party to this Monitoring Plan, and although its input as an “interested governmental entity” will be solicited, such input will not be a prerequisite to collection or analysis of data or any decision-making process described in this plan. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. iv Exhibit DDD Page 6 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 The hydrologic regimes for 2010 through 2012 covered a wide range of conditions. We used the USGS gage 09073400 Roaring Fork River near Aspen, Colorado as a reference for long term hydrologic year type. The gage has data from water year 1965 to present. 2010 was an average water year (annual flow greater than approximately 50% of the years), 2011 was a wet water year (annual flow greater than approximately 70 % of the years), and 2012 was a very dry year (annual flow dryer than all years of record at the gage since 1965). These years types provided a wide range of hydrologic conditions for potential changes to stream habitat and biota in the three year monitoring period. The biological results show the effect of these differing hydrologic conditions. The macroinvertebrate data varied by year for each metric on both Maroon Creek (Table ES-2) and Castle Creek (Table ES-3). The individual year results show there is no difference within a year between sites on the same stream, however, there are difference between years. This would be expected given the wide range of hydrologic conditions monitored over the three year period. The fish population data also varied for Maroon Creek (Table ES-4) and Castle Creek (Table ES5). There were difference between sites in the same year and differences between years. This likely reflects the mobility of the species within connected reaches of the stream. It also may reflect the difference in the reproductive success and recruitment for the various hydrologic years. The range of data observed during the baseline monitoring period provides the basis for determining impacts from the proposed Castle Creek Energy Center operation if that facility were to be built and operated. The physical habitat and biological data for both streams show good ecological function on both streams. While there is variability in the data, functioning stream ecosystems should vary with naturally varing hydrologic conditions. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. v Exhibit DDD Page 7 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report March 26, 2013 Figure ES-1. Overview map of the six sites on Maroon and Castle creeks that were sampled for habitat, macroinvertebrates, and fish. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. vi Exhibit DDD Page 8 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table ES-2. Maroon Creek benthic macroinvertebrate summary for selected metrics for 2010-2012. 2010 MC 1 2011 2012 Density (#/m ) 4771 ± 3915 5771 ± 3145 5415 ± 2878 Biomass (g/m2) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa 1.352 ± 1.438 1.245 ± 0.822 1.602 ± 1.511 0.887 ± 0.254 0.856 ± 0.507 0.955 ± 0.402 0.937 ± 0.141 0.753 ± 0.714 0.779 ± 0.389 3.83 ± 0.85 3.33 ± 1.22 3.91 ± 0.46 3.65 ± 0.5 3.05 ± 1.28 3.84 ± 0.45 3.31 ± 2.01 3.28 ± 1.75 3.75 ± 0.09 0.795 ± 0.136 0.694 ± 0.216 0.795 ± 0.054 0.794 ± 0.099 0.682 ± 0.26 0.793 ± 0.078 0.714 ± 0.349 0.72 ± 0.369 0.772 ± 0.037 28 ± 5 28 ± 6 30 ± 6 24 ± 1 22 ± 6 29 ± 6 25 ± 12 23 ± 1 29 ± 2 19 ± 6 16 ± 7 18 ± 2 14 ± 6 15 ± 7 17 ± 5 15 ± 2 14 ± 3 17 ± 2 Metric 2 2010 MC 2 2011 2012 4620 ± 2530 4806 ± 4084 5151 ± 852 2010 MC 3 2011 2012 5709 ± 305 3713 ± 4015 4752 ± 3667 Table ES-3. Castle Creek benthic macroinvertebrate summary for selected metrics for 2010-2012. Metric Density (#/m2) 2 Biomass (g/m ) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa 2012 3298 ± 1141 2010 5368 ± 628 CC 3 2011 5047 ± 2549 0.772 ± 1.055 0.358 ± 0.396 1.462 ± 1.267 1.065 ± 0.415 1.418 ± 1.277 1.226 ± 2.26 3.44 ± 0.51 3.3 ± 0.7 3.55 ± 0.37 2.96 ± 0.65 3.36 ± 1.22 3.32 ± 0.42 0.784 ± 0.112 0.804 ± 0.068 0.764 ± 0.122 0.651 ± 0.163 0.721 ± 0.23 0.748 ± 0.097 21 ± 5 18 ± 13 25 ± 7 23 ± 3 25 ± 7 22 ± 2 13 ± 4 9 ± 10 15 ± 4 17 ± 2 13 ± 7 11 ± 2 1.13 ± 0.707 3.54 ± 0.5 0.76 ± 0.099 25 ± 1 17 ± 2 0.78 ± 0.362 1.225 ± 1.453 3.23 ± 0.08 3.55 ± 0.49 0.719 ± 0.076 0.739 ± 0.138 23 ± 7 28 ± 4 14 ± 4 15 ± 3 2010 3473 ± 4787 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. CC 1 2011 2066 ± 2876 2012 4112 ± 4941 2010 5671 ± 463 CC 2 2011 5574 ± 2819 2012 5360 ± 5262 vii Exhibit DDD Page 9 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table ES-4. Fish metrics for sites on Maroon Creek, 2010-2012. Density, biomass, and population estimates are for fish >150 mm total length. Other metrics are for all fish captured, regardless of size. Species Rainbow trout Brown trout Brook trout All trout >150 mm Sculpin Data Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Count Density (# / acre) 2010 10 ± 0 5±0 4±0 0.98 6 228 156 203 ± 15 174 ± 13 78 ± 6 1.03 77 319 379 216 ± 14 181 ± 11 83 ± 5 80 10 ± 8 Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate <1 1 4±3 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) 1 All confidence intervals are 95%. 2 0.88 4 96 MC 1 2011 23 ± 17 10 ± 7 8±6 1.88 13 175 123 117 ± 28 107 ± 26 39 ± 9 1.24 43 281 344 3±0 0±0 1±0 0.96 1 165 43 144 ± 31 118 ± 25 48 ± 10 43 2012 27 ± 3 8±1 9±1 1.08 18 149 126 496 ± 28 527 ± 29 166 ± 9 1.08 295 221 463 3±0 1±0 1±0 0.94 4 121 80 531 ± 28 538 ± 29 178 ± 10 169 0.97 2 223 103 116 ± 12 125 ± 13 32 ± 3 1.07 34 330 447 189 ± 41 40 ± 9 52 ± 11 0.96 53 194 85 313 ± 38 173 ± 21 86 ± 10 79 142 ± 57 2 2 4±2 2 2 47 ± 19 2 2 1.06 38 101 4 36 95 4 0.82 37 92 MC 2 2011 3±0 0±0 1±0 1.01 5 113 19 54 ± 2 59 ± 2 16 ± 1 1.09 16 354 502 116 ± 30 31 ± 8 35 ± 9 1.28 62 167 73 169 ± 18 92 ± 10 50 ± 5 48 2012 12 ± 0 2±0 3±0 1.19 3 177 71 102 ± 11 103 ± 11 26 ± 3 1.11 28 304 428 155 ± 5 28 ± 1 39 ± 1 1.10 63 163 74 268 ± 9 132 ± 5 68 ± 2 67 988 ± 1956 427 ± 112 20 ± 39 295 ± 584 0.99 90 94 4 108 ± 28 4 86 89 1.21 2 188 123 MC 3 2011 3±0 3±0 1±0 1.34 3 185 151 2012 3±0 2±0 1±0 1.13 2 188 148 97 ± 133 17 ± 63 30 ± 43 1.05 63 150 46 100 ± 103 18 ± 63 31 ± 33 30 164 ± 34 31 ± 6 57 ± 12 1.06 147 139 40 166 ± 32 34 ± 7 57 ± 11 51 209 ± 46 30 ± 7 67 ± 15 1.04 141 134 44 211 ± 44 32 ± 7 68 ± 14 59 2010 2 441 ± 766 2 2 10 ± 17 2 2 152 ± 264 2 0.99 59 94 4 1.17 25 94 4 8 12 9 9 11 11 One Snake River cutthroat trout was captured at MC 1 in 2010; one cutbow was captured at MC 1 in 2012. More fish captured in second pass than in first pass. these accurately. Estimates come from MicroFish software. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2010 4 3 56 101 4 Since 3 passes were made at this site, JakeOmatic could not calculate Sculpin weights were not recorded. viii Exhibit DDD Page 10 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table ES-5. Fish metrics for sites on Castle Creek, 2010-2012. Density, biomass, and population estimates are for fish >150 mm total length. Other metrics are for all fish captured, regardless of size. Species Rainbow trout Brown trout Brook trout All trout >150 mm Sculpin Data Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Count Density (# / acre) CC 1 2011 36 ± 6 11 ± 2 12 ± 2 1.13 18 187 97 38 ± 2 20 ± 1 13 ± 1 1.14 25 180 131 2010 34 ± 7 9±2 11 ± 2 1.37 21 175 77 26 ± 12 20 ± 10 9±4 1.00 9 298 323 9 ± 20 2±4 3±7 1.06 3 188 81 71 ± 16 32 ± 7 24 ± 5 22 40 ± 6 Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate 1 0.84 3 133 20 74 ± 5 31 ± 2 25 ± 2 25 0.93 4 114 15 105 ± 4 49 ± 2 36 ± 1 36 2010 44 ± 5 17 ± 2 15 ± 2 1.28 21 204 132 9 ± 20 6 ± 14 3±7 1.07 3 297 313 3±0 0±0 1±0 1.00 1 165 45 58 ± 12 25 ± 5 20 ± 4 22 264 ± 2233 95 ± 13 33 ± 7 3 3 3 <1 3 3 3 4 ± 35 13 ± 2 91 ± 769 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) 1.08 13 97 1.00 19 87 Average Weight (g) 1 9 7 All confidence intervals are 95%. 2 2012 38 ± 15 11 ± 4 13 ± 5 1.00 15 191 105 70 ± 0 38 ± 0 24 ± 0 1.05 61 156 105 4 33 ± 5 4 31 77 <1 CC 2 2011 30 ± 3 10 ± 1 10 ± 1 1.08 14 190 108 3 ± 20 2 ± 11 1±7 0.68 6 182 125 3±0 0±0 1±0 0.51 2 138 10 44 ± 11 15 ± 4 15 ± 4 14 2012 44 ± 11 12 ± 3 15 ± 4 1.02 58 107 90 3 ± 20 2 ± 13 1±7 0.82 48 84 147 12 ± 0 2±0 4±0 0.89 6 167 62 69 ± 18 21 ± 5 23 ± 6 21 2010 57 ± 16 19 ± 5 18 ± 5 1.26 20 208 131 CC 3 2011 65 ± 32 2 18 ± 6 25 ± 12 1.12 29 197 110 2012 26 ± 3 7±1 8±1 1.33 63 90 89 25 ± 0 4±0 8±0 1.01 12 164 51 80 ± 9 22 ± 2 26 ± 3 22 36 ± 82 2 6±3 14 ± 32 1.03 20 168 60 104 ± 82 2 25 ± 7 40 ± 32 39 43 ± 6 5±1 13 ± 2 0.96 44 127 32 69 ± 7 12 ± 1 21 ± 2 21 91 ± 25 192 ± 122 40 ± 16 349 ± 1002 565 ± 145 4 0±0 11 ± 2 30 ± 8 0.73 11 91 0.01 27 87 5 4 4 64 ± 40 4 44 83 4 <1 13 ± 5 0.78 12 96 8 4 134 ± 39 4 99 95 4 4 2 175 ± 45 4 132 81 4 Since 3 passes were made at this site, JakeOmatic could not calculate these accurately. Estimates come from MicroFish software. 3 No brook trout >150mm captured. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 4 Sculpin weights were not recorded. ix Exhibit DDD Page 11 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report March 26, 2013 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 Monitoring Program Components .............................................................................................. 1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 5 METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 10 Habitat Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 10 Macroinvertebrates ................................................................................................................... 10 Fish............................................................................................................................................ 13 Water Temperature Monitoring ................................................................................................ 13 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Habitat Inventory ...................................................................................................................... 14 Macroinvertebrates ................................................................................................................... 22 Fish............................................................................................................................................ 38 Water Temperature Monitoring ................................................................................................ 58 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 61 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. x Exhibit DDD Page 12 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Site lengths, average widths, length of site in terms of stream width, and UTM coordinates. ................................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2. Summary of habitat characteristics of study sites on Maroon and Castle creeks, October 2012............................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 3. Percentages of substrate types in pools, riffles, and glides at each site, October 2012. 16 Table 4. Additional habitat characteristics of study sites on Maroon and Castle creeks, October 2012............................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 5. Z-Walk pebble count particle sizes and cumulative frequencies, October 2012. .......... 17 Table 6. Metrics and comparative values for macroinvertebrate samples collected from Maroon Creek in October 2012. ................................................................................................................. 23 Table 7. Metrics and comparative values for macroinvertebrate samples collected from Castle Creek in October 2012. ................................................................................................................. 24 Table 8. P-values for t-tests between sites on Maroon Creek, October 2012. Variable values are averages for each site. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. ............................... 29 Table 9. P-values for t-tests between sites on Castle Creek, October 2012. Variable values are averages for each site. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. ............................... 29 Table 10. P-values for t-tests between Maroon and Castle creeks, October 2012. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. ....................................................................................... 30 Table 11. P-values for t-tests between sites on Castle Creek, 2010-2012. Variable values are averages for each site. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. ............................... 32 Table 12. P-values for t-tests between sites on Maroon Creek, 2010-2012. Variable values are averages for each site. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. ............................... 33 Table 13. P-values for t-tests between Maroon and Castle creeks, 2010-2012. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. .................................................................................................. 36 Table 14. Maroon Creek benthic macroinvertebrate summary for selected metrics for 20102012............................................................................................................................................... 37 Table 15. Castle Creek benthic macroinvertebrate summary for selected metrics for 2010-2012. ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 Table 16. Fish metrics for sites on Maroon Creek, 2010-2012. Density, biomass, and population estimates are for fish >150 mm total length. Other metrics are for all fish captured, regardless of size. ............................................................................................................................................... 41 Table 17. Fish metrics for sites on Castle Creek, 2010-2012. Density, biomass, and population estimates are for fish >150 mm total length. Other metrics are for all fish captured, regardless of size. ............................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 18. Ranges in population estimates, density, and biomass at the six monitoring locations on Maroon and Castle creeks, 2010-2012. Ranges are for trout >150 mm. ................................ 48 Table 19. Minimum, maximum, and average daily water temperatures recorded from temperature loggers, January 10, 2012 to December 6, 2012. ...................................................... 60 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. xi Exhibit DDD Page 13 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Overview map of the six sites on Maroon and Castle creeks that were sampled for habitat, macroinvertebrates, and fish. ............................................................................................. 6 Figure 2. Site MC-1 on Maroon Creek. ......................................................................................... 7 Figure 3. Site MC-2 on Maroon Creek. ......................................................................................... 7 Figure 4. Site MC-3 on Maroon Creek. ......................................................................................... 8 Figure 5. Site CC-1 on Castle Creek. ............................................................................................. 8 Figure 6. Site CC-2 on Castle Creek. ............................................................................................. 9 Figure 7. Site CC-3 on Castle Creek. ............................................................................................. 9 Figure 8. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for average pool depth, 2010-2012. Only two years of data were available for MC-2 because it did not contain any pool habitat in 2011. ....... 18 Figure 9. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent pool area, 2010-2012. ............... 18 Figure 10. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at MC-1, 2010-2012. .................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 11. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at MC-2, 2010-2012. .................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 12. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at MC-3, 2010-2012. .................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 13. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at CC-1, 2010-2012. .................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 14. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at CC-2, 2010-2012. .................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 15. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at CC-3, 2010-2012. .................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 16. Mean density and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. ..................................... 25 Figure 17. Mean biomass and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012..................................... 25 Figure 18. Mean Shannon-Weaver diversity and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. ...... 26 Figure 19. Mean Shannon-Weaver evenness and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. ..... 26 Figure 20. Mean taxa richness and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. ............................ 27 Figure 21. Mean EPT index and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. ................................ 27 Figure 22. Mean HBI and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. .......................................... 28 Figure 23. Macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups, October 2012..................................... 28 Figure 24. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate density, 2010-2012. 32 Figure 25. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate biomass, 2010-2012. ....................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 26. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate diversity, 2010-2012. ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 27. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate evenness, 2010-2012. ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 28. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate taxa richness, 20102012............................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 29. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for EPT index, 2010-2012. ........................ 35 Figure 30. Population estimates and 95% confidence limits for rainbow trout. .......................... 43 Figure 31. Rainbow trout length frequencies, Castle Creek, October 2012. ............................... 43 Figure 32. Rainbow trout length frequencies, Maroon Creek, October 2012.............................. 44 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. xii Exhibit DDD Page 14 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 33. Population estimates and 95% confidence limits for brown trout. ............................. 44 Figure 34. Brown trout length frequencies, Maroon Creek, October 2012. ................................ 45 Figure 35. Brown trout length frequencies, Castle Creek, October 2012. ................................... 45 Figure 36. Population estimates and 95% confidence limits for brook trout............................... 46 Figure 37. Brook trout length frequencies, Maroon Creek, October 2012. ................................. 46 Figure 38. Brook trout length frequencies, Castle Creek, October 2012. .................................... 47 Figure 39. Population estimates and 95% confidence limits for all trout species combined....... 47 Figure 40. Density estimates of trout species at MC-1, 2010-2012............................................. 49 Figure 41. Biomass estimates of trout species at MC-1, 2010-2012. .......................................... 49 Figure 42. Population estimates of trout species at MC-1, 2010-2012. ....................................... 50 Figure 43. Density estimates of trout species at MC-2, 2010-2012............................................. 50 Figure 44. Population estimates of trout species at MC-2, 2010-2012. ....................................... 51 Figure 45. Biomass estimates of trout species at MC-2, 2010-2012. .......................................... 51 Figure 46. Density estimates of trout species at MC-3, 2010-2012............................................. 52 Figure 47. Population estimates of trout species at MC-3, 2010-2012. ....................................... 52 Figure 48. Biomass estimates of trout species at MC-3, 2010-2012. .......................................... 53 Figure 49. Density estimates of trout species at CC-1, 2010-2012. ............................................ 53 Figure 50. Population estimates of trout species at CC-1, 2010-2012......................................... 54 Figure 51. Biomass estimates of trout species at CC-1, 2010-2012. ........................................... 54 Figure 52. Density estimates of trout species at CC-2, 2010-2012. ............................................ 55 Figure 53. Population estimates of trout species at CC-2, 2010-2012......................................... 55 Figure 54. Biomass estimates for trout species at CC-2, 2010-2012. .......................................... 56 Figure 55. Density estimates for trout species at CC-3, 2010-2012. ........................................... 56 Figure 56. Population estimates for trout species at CC-3, 2010-2012. ...................................... 57 Figure 57. Biomass estimates for trout species at CC-3, 2010-2012. .......................................... 57 Figure 58. Average daily water temperature, MC-2. Data are missing from 2-7 to 2-9-12. ...... 58 Figure 59. Average daily water temperature, CC-1. Data are missing from 2-7 to 2-9-12. ....... 59 Figure 60. Average daily water temperature, CC-2. Data are missing from 2-7 to 2-9-12. ....... 59 Figure 61. Average daily water temperature, Castle Creek below the City of Aspen’s diversion. Data are missing from 2-7 to 2-9-12. ............................................................................................ 60 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. xiii Exhibit DDD Page 15 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the 2012 monitoring in Castle Creek and Maroon Creek. The report also summarizes monitoring efforts from 2010 to 2012. The monitoring was conducted as part of the monitoring plan developed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) (formerly Colorado Division of Wildlife) to address possible impacts to fisheries and stream habitat related to the proposed increased water diversions associated with the City of Aspen’s (Aspen) proposed Castle Creek Energy Center located in Pitkin County, Colorado. Aspen conducted public meetings and engaged Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. (MEC) to undertake studies requested by CPW in order to obtain current information about fisheries, stream habitat, and appropriate flow rates for instream flows on Castle Creek. The results of those studies are found in MEC’s report, “Castle Creek Hydroelectric Plant Environmental Report” (June 11, 2010) and include a recommendation that stream flows in Castle Creek in the amount of 13.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the existing point of diversion for the proposed Castle Creek Energy Center, and 17.2 cfs in lower Castle Creek would be appropriate to provide habitat to protect aquatic biota and provide refuge habitat in the winter. CPW recommended that Aspen engage in a long-term monitoring study of the effects of its future Castle Creek hydroelectric diversion operations on the fishery and stream habitat in Maroon and Castle creeks. Although CPW is responsible for fisheries statewide, a lengthy and specialized monitoring program would require resources and personnel beyond the scope of CPW’s regional resources. However, CPW does provide support and expertise to a monitoring program funded and executed by Aspen and its consultants. The Monitoring Program is intended to build sufficient information regarding the fish population and stream habitat in Castle and Maroon creeks to determine impacts to the streams from the proposed Castle Creek Energy Center operations. CPW and Aspen agreed to participate in the selection of representative sampling sites and regular collection of data based upon an agreed schedule. Should the parties observe degradation of the fishery or stream habitat due to Castle Creek Energy Center operations, or determine that the recommended instream flows should be adjusted, a cooperative effort will be used to address the modification of future Castle Creek hydroelectric diversion and return flow operations. Monitoring Program Components The monitoring program includes fish surveys, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling, and stream habitat inventory. In addition the City of Aspen collected data on stream flows and water temperature in Castle and Maroon creeks. The following is an overview of each of the components except for stream flows. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1 Exhibit DDD Page 16 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Sampling Locations On Castle Creek, CPW recommended continuing the fish monitoring station located downstream of the existing diversion point on Castle Creek, as established by MEC in 2010. In addition, two stations on Castle Creek were established: one upstream of the existing diversion point and one downstream of the proposed Castle Creek Energy Center tailrace. On Maroon Creek, CPW recommended at least three stations be established, including the MEC site (located in the lower reach of Maroon Creek approximately one-half mile upstream of the Roaring Fork River) and two additional sites: one located above the existing Maroon Creek hydroelectric diversion point and one located in the bypass reach downstream of the hydroelectric diversion and upstream of the point of return. The permanent monitoring stations are approximately 500 feet long and contain representative habitat conditions in the area. The number and location of the monitoring stations may be adjusted if conditions warrant. MEC has included a map showing the locations and size of the permanent monitoring stations, including GPS descriptions. The monitoring station map is attached to this Monitoring Program Report. The map may be revised as necessary to show the location and GPS description of any additional or relocated permanent monitoring stations. Stream Habitat Monitoring Evaluation of stream habitat was conducted in the same six locations as the fish monitoring stations. To determine changes in aquatic habitat, the U.S. Forest Service has provided a standard habitat monitoring protocol that is used locally to monitor stream habitat and is appropriate for this monitoring program. A similar methodology from the Pike and San Isabel National Forests includes a computer spreadsheet for analysis. A combined approach using the quantification from the Pike and San Isabel National Forests with the White River National Forest components for stream substrate and woody debris was used for this monitoring. Habitat evaluation includes description and quantification of channel form, habitat units, depth, wetted width, vegetation, bank stability, riparian characterization, and presence of debris/wood/beaver. The stream habitat evaluation was conducted in conjunction with the fisheries surveys. If substantial changes to the stream habitat units within a monitoring station have occurred since the previous data collection effort the exact reach of the monitoring station may need to be adjusted, upstream or downstream, to maintain similar habitat quantity and quality characteristics. Macroinvertebrate Collection and Analysis Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected from riffle habitat at each permanent monitoring station concurrently with the fish sampling. Three replicate samples were taken at Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2 Exhibit DDD Page 17 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 each station using a modified Hess stream bottom sampler. Samples were preserved in ethanol and returned to the laboratory where specimens were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level. These data are used, in addition to the fish data, to characterize general aquatic conditions. Fishery Monitoring MEC and CPW conducted the 2012 fishery surveys at each of the selected monitoring stations2. Future sampling collection efforts should occur during the month of October to provide data for monitoring overall stream health. CPW routinely samples fisheries in the fall and a fall sampling schedule would allow for comparison of results from comparable streams. CPW recommended that annual sampling should be completed within two weeks of the original sample date to maintain data consistency. Fishery sampling was conducted using standard electrofishing techniques by multiple-pass depletion sampling using the appropriate population estimation technique based on the number of passes. Water Temperature Monitoring Water temperature was monitored using constant recording thermographs at four monitoring stations. The thermographs have the capability to record water temperatures at hourly intervals or less. Data were downloaded monthly and transferred to computer spreadsheets for analysis. Adaptive Management Aspen has implemented the Monitoring Program with a goal to further understanding and maintaining stream health in Maroon and Castle creeks as determined by the following criteria: 1 Maintenance of steady or increased macroinvertebrate population from downstream of the hydroelectric diversion(s) to the Roaring Fork River. The metrics used for the analysis will be: Density (#/m2) Biomass (g/m2) Diversity Evenness Taxa Richness EPT taxa A mean and 95% confidence interval will be calculated for each of the above metrics. The population trend will be determined by comparing the 2 The 2012 fishery surveys were conducted on October 10th and 11th by CPW with assistance from Miller Ecological Consultants and the City of Aspen. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 3 Exhibit DDD Page 18 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 values for the above metrics of the sites downstream of the diversions with reference sites (upstream of diversions) using an appropriate statistical technique (e.g. Tukey’s comparisons of means, Student’s t-test, etc.). 2 Maintenance of steady or increased fish population and biomass from downstream of the hydroelectric diversion(s) to the Roaring Fork River. The primary metrics will be: Density (#/acre) for each individual species (larger than 150 mm total length) Density (#/acre) for all trout combined (larger than 150 mm total length) Biomass (pounds/acre) for each individual species (larger than 150 mm total length) Biomass (pounds/acre) for all trout combined (larger than 150 mm total length) The population trend will be determined by comparing the population estimate and 95% confidence limit at the downstream sites with the population estimate and 95% confidence limit at the upstream reference site. The secondary metrics will be: Condition factor (k) Size class distribution by species 3 Maintenance of habitat as determined by the U.S. Forest Service habitat protocol for the White River National Forest and the Pike and San Isabel National Forests. Habitat maintenance will be determined by comparing the annual values for the following habitat characteristics against the baseline habitat conditions. The metrics used for the analysis will be: Pool depth Substrate composition Percent pool area Decreasing trends in pool depth and percent pool area as well as a trend to finer stream substrate material would indicate a decrease in habitat conditions. Habitat characteristics for the three years of baseline data will be used to compute mean and 95% confidence limits for key habitat characteristics. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 4 Exhibit DDD Page 19 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 The 2012 survey results, along with surveys in 2010 and 2011, were used to establish baseline conditions before the Castle Creek Energy Center begins operations. Future monitoring efforts should be compared to these baseline conditions. The past three years were quite variable in hydrologic terms. 2010 was considered an average water year, 2011 a wet year, and 2012 a dry year. This was a fortunate coincidence and suggests that the data collected over the past three years potentially estimate the true range of conditions that would be expected to be seen in Castle and Maroon creeks. Study Area In the fall of 2010, the sampling sites (“monitoring stations”) were identified by CPW in consultation with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)3 and the City of Aspen Utilities Department collectively, (“interested governmental entities”) and Aspen’s consultant, MEC. Three sites were chosen for sampling on Maroon Creek and three on Castle Creek (Figure 1). Site MC-1 is the downstream-most site on Maroon Creek and is just downstream of the Hwy. 82 bridge (Figure 2). MC-2 is located just downstream of Aspen’s existing diversion (Figure 3). MC-3 is approximately 0.25 miles upstream of Aspen’s existing diversion (Figure 4). Site CC-1 is the downstream-most site on Castle Creek and is located at the Aspen Institute (Figure 5), approximately 0.25 miles upstream of its confluence with the Roaring Fork River. CC-2 is located just downstream of the Marolt Bridge (a pedestrian bridge) (Figure 6). CC-3 is approximately 1.5 miles upstream of Aspen’s existing diversion (Figure 7). All sites were 500 feet in length with the exception of MC-1, which was 540 feet long (Table 1). 3 The USFS is not a party to this Monitoring Plan, and although its input as an “interested governmental entity” will be solicited, such input will not be a prerequisite to collection or analysis of data or any decision-making process described in this plan. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 5 Exhibit DDD Page 20 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 1. Overview map of the six sites on Maroon and Castle creeks that were sampled for habitat, macroinvertebrates, and fish. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 6 Exhibit DDD Page 21 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 2. Site MC-1 on Maroon Creek. Figure 3. Site MC-2 on Maroon Creek. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 7 Exhibit DDD Page 22 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 4. Site MC-3 on Maroon Creek. Figure 5. Site CC-1 on Castle Creek. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 8 Exhibit DDD Page 23 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 6. Site CC-2 on Castle Creek. Figure 7. Site CC-3 on Castle Creek. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 9 Exhibit DDD Page 24 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 1. Site lengths, average widths, length of site in terms of stream width, and UTM coordinates. Site MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 Length (ft) 540 500 500 500 500 500 Avg. width (ft) Length (m) Avg. width (m) 27 165 8 22 152 7 28 152 9 26 152 8 29 152 9 27 152 8 Stream Lengths 20 23 18 19 17 19 UTM Northing (m)* 4340939.1 4336762.8 4336306.3 4340813.6 4339836.2 4334479.8 UTM Easting (m)* 340339.2 337655.6 337436.8 341718.3 341689.3 340276.8 *Coordinates are for the downstream end of the site. METHODS Habitat Inventory A quantified description of aquatic habitat is useful in determining the general condition of habitats affecting fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Intensive habitat inventory was conducted at each site using a USFS Basin-Wide Protocol (Winters and Gallagher 1997). The length of each inventoried reach was selected to ensure repeatability and representation of habitat types. Each inventoried reach overlapped the reach surveyed for fish. The data collected included habitat type (riffles, pools, and glides), length, width, depth, structural association (cause of formation), cover, substrate type as a percentage of stream bottom, bank stability, bank rock content, and presence of large organic debris. A computer spreadsheet program was used to quantify the habitat. In addition to providing a method to quantify habitat, this protocol can help determine the factors that can limit fish quality, growth, and reproduction (Winters and Gallagher 1997). A Z-Walk pebble count and description of woody debris and beaver dams were also conducted as per White River National Forest protocol. For the pebble count, 100 particles were measured with a gravelometer and median particle size (D50) was calculated. Macroinvertebrates The benthic macroinvertebrate community was sampled for two reasons: 1) Macroinvertebrates are a major food source for many fish species. Estimates of density and biomass can indicate the availability of food for fish. 2) Certain macroinvertebrate metrics are indicators of water quality and stream health. Benthic macroinvertebrates are particularly valuable in biomonitoring for several reasons (Rosenberg and Resh 1993). The first reason is that benthic macroinvertebrates are abundant and can therefore be affected by environmental perturbations in many types of aquatic systems and habitats within those systems. Second, macroinvertebrate samples typically contain a large number of taxa and so there is a wide array of responses to environmental perturbations. Third, benthic macroinvertebrates are essentially sedentary and it is therefore Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 10 Exhibit DDD Page 25 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 possible to evaluate how pollution or other disturbances are spatially distributed. Finally, benthic macroinvertebrates have fairly long life cycles and this allows for analyses of the effects of perturbation over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected with a modified Hess sampler. Three replicate samples were collected at each site. Selection of specific sampling locations was based on similarity of habitat characteristics. An effort was made to take all samples in areas of similar-sized substrate and similar depth in order to avoid bias that may be associated with these variables. Substrate within the sampler was thoroughly agitated and individual rocks were scrubbed by hand to dislodge all benthic organisms. All macroinvertebrates were rinsed into sample jars and preserved in a 70% ethanol solution. Each sample jar contained labels (with date, location and sample ID number) on the inside and outside of the jar. Samples were transported to the lab where specimens were sorted using a 600-count subsample in a gridded sorting tray using a random selection process for selecting the sorting grids. All sorted macroinvertebrates were identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level (Merritt and Cummins 1996; Ward et al. 2002) and then dried and weighed for biomass estimates. Identification to the “lowest practical taxonomic level” means that all specimens are identified down to the level that is permitted by the available morphological characteristics. Early life stages of many species sometimes lack certain anatomical characteristics that allow the specimen to be identified to the genus or species level. In these cases the “lowest practical taxonomic level” may mean only the family level; however, if the available characteristics are consistent with a species that has been previously confirmed during this study then the individual may be included as a member of that taxon. As a means of quality assurance, qualified personnel inspected each sample after sorting to ensure that less than 5% of total sorted invertebrates remained in the sample. Any samples with more than 5% were resorted and individual specimens removed to the appropriate container for identification. Macroinvertebrate species lists were developed for all six sites. Data were used in various indices recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Barbour et al. 1999) and the White River National Forest to provide information regarding macroinvertebrate community structure, function, and general aquatic conditions. The following paragraphs provide descriptions of each index (metric) that was used in this study. A measure of macroinvertebrate standing crop at each site was determined using density and biomass. Macroinvertebrate density was reported as the mean number of macroinvertebrates per square meter found at each location. Biomass was reported as the mean dry weight of macroinvertebrates per square meter at each site location. Biomass values were obtained by drying macroinvertebrates from each sample in an oven at 100 C for 24 hours or until all water content had evaporated (no decrease in weight could be detected). Biomass values offer production-related information in terms of quantitative weight of macroinvertebrates produced at each site. Density Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 11 Exhibit DDD Page 26 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 and biomass provide a means of measuring and comparing standing crop and provide an indication of productivity for the macroinvertebrate portion of the food web at each sampling location. Shannon-Weaver diversity (diversity) and evenness (evenness) values were used to detect changes in macroinvertebrate community structure. In pristine waters, diversity values typically range from near 3.0 to 4.0. In polluted waters this value is generally less than 1.0. The overall evenness value ranges between 0.0 and 1.0, with values lower than 0.3 indicative of organic pollution (Ward et al. 2002). Diversity and evenness are similar measurements because they both rely heavily on the numerical distribution of taxa (although taxa richness also influences diversity). Both indices are designed to detect unbalance in communities (where a few species are represented by a large number of individuals). These situations are usually the result of pollution/disturbance-induced changes to the aquatic community. Diversity and evenness were used in this study as a surrogate for water quality monitoring. They are not necessarily sensitive indicators of sediment-related problems; however, some sediment-induced changes related to microhabitat availability might influence these values. The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) index was employed to assist in the analysis of data. The EPT index is reported as the total number of distinguishable taxa in the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera found at each site. It is a direct measure of taxa richness among species that are generally considered to be sensitive to disturbances (Barbour et al. 1999). Most macroinvertebrate species have specific habitat requirements. The value produced by this metric will indicate locations with preferred habitat as well as areas of disturbance or habitat modification. This value may vary spatially if a change in location results in a change in physical habitat features. Results provided by this metric will naturally vary among river systems, but are valuable when comparing samples taken from the same stream reach. The EPT index was used in analysis of this data to monitor the distribution of disturbance-sensitive species. Taxa richness was also reported for each location in the study area. This measurement is simply reported as the total number of identifiable taxa collected from each site. It is similar to the EPT index, except that it includes all aquatic macroinvertebrate species (including those that are thought to be tolerant to disturbance). Taxa richness is useful when describing differences in habitat complexity or aquatic conditions between rivers or site locations. Taxa richness values also provide an indication of habitat preference and complexity. Increasing richness correlates with increasing health of the macroinvertebrate community. The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) is often used in macroinvertebrate studies as a means of detecting organic enrichment. Organic pollution includes such factors as sewage runoff, feedlot or grazing area runoff, and other types of contaminants that deplete dissolved oxygen from the water. Because the HBI requires modification for use in many areas, the number indicating a Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 12 Exhibit DDD Page 27 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 certain water quality rating will vary among regions. Comparison of the values produced within a given system should, however, provide information regarding differences in sites based on nutrient enrichment. Values for the HBI range from 0 to 10 and increase as water quality decreases (Barbour et al. 1999). An analysis of macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups was also conducted. This metric provides a measurement of macroinvertebrate community function as opposed to other metrics that measure community structure. Aquatic macroinvertebrates were categorized according to feeding strategy to determine the relative proportion of various groups. Taxa were placed into functional feeding groups based on acquisition of nutritional resources (Merritt and Cummins 1996; Ward et al. 2002). The proportion of certain functional feeding groups in the macroinvertebrate community can provide insight to various types of stress in river systems (Ward et al. 2002). River ecosystems that provide a variety of feeding opportunities usually maintain good representation of each corresponding functional feeding group. Numerous variables (including habitat quality) may affect the proportions of certain functional feeding groups. A measure of functional feeding groups is often recommended as part of benthic macroinvertebrate analysis and evaluation (Ward et al. 2002). Typically the collector-gatherer group is dominant in western streams, but other groups should be well represented. Other indices that were calculated (such as percent dominant taxon and number of Diptera taxa) are fairly self-explanatory and will not be described further. Many of these indices were calculated because they are part of the White River National Forest protocol and therefore it will be possible to compare the sites on Maroon and Castle creeks with other sites within the national forest. Statistical differences in macroinvertebrate indices between the sites were tested via the t-test, even though sample sizes were small. Fish Fish were surveyed in Maroon and Castle creeks by means of multiple-pass depletion electrofishing. Two Smith-Root backpack electrofishers with three electrodes were used to collect fish. The entire length of each site was sampled and two passes were made at each site. All captured fish were identified by species, weighed, measured, and returned to the stream. Population parameters were calculated using standard depletion estimates with JakeOmatic software from CPW. Water Temperature Monitoring Submersible continuous recording temperature loggers were deployed by City of Aspen personnel at MC-2, CC-1, CC-2, and just downstream of Aspen’s diversion on Castle Creek. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 13 Exhibit DDD Page 28 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Onset TidbiT® temperature loggers were placed in PVC housings and anchored to the stream bed. Most loggers were set to record temperature data every 15 minutes; in some instances temperatures were recorded every minute or hourly. Data were downloaded on a monthly basis. Data were imported into a spreadsheet program and checked for accuracy. Daily maximum, minimum, and average temperatures were calculated. RESULTS Habitat Inventory 2012 Results Complete results of the habitat inventory are provided in Appendix A and photographs of each site are provided in Appendix D. Riffle was the dominant habitat type at all six sites (Table 2). The largest amount of pool habitat was at CC-1, which was 12% of the total area of the site. Pool depth was greatest at MC-1. Riffle substrates were primarily boulder and cobble but some gravel was also present (Table 3). In general, boulder was the dominant substrate type. Pool types were plunge, lateral scour, and trench. Little cover was available and was typically in the form of pool depth. CC-3 had the most cover (2.1%) (Table 4). Banks at all sites were mostly vegetated and stable, although there was a short section of unstable and unvegetated bank at MC1. Bank rock content consisted of boulders and cobbles. Results from the pebble counts indicate that large cobble is the median particle size (Table 5). In general, while woody debris was found at all sites, it contributes little to habitat complexity and does not create much cover or alter flow patterns. Beaver dams were not present at any of the sites. Baseline Conditions (2010-2012) Maintenance of habitat within Maroon and Castle creeks after the proposed Castle Creek Energy Center begins operation would be evaluated by comparing the following three metrics to baseline conditions: pool depth, percent pool area, and substrate composition. Figure 8 shows mean pool depths with 95% confidence limits. Pool depth is the most variable at MC-1, where average pool depth ranges from 0.2 to 4.2 feet. For all other sites, average pool depth should be at least 1.0 feet and ranges from about 1.2 feet to 2.5 feet. Pool depth has been the most consistent at MC-2 and CC-2. Figure 9 shows mean percent pool area (percentage of the habitat that is classified as pool) with 95% confidence limits. Again, MC-1 was the most variable, followed by MC-2. In a given year, MC-1, MC-2, and CC-1 may have little or no pool habitat, although this seems unlikely at MC-1. For all sites, mean values range from 5 to 15 percent. In general, pool habitat is not abundant at any of the sites. Figure 10 shows the ranges in substrate percentages at MC-1. This site predominantly consists of cobble, with smaller percentages of boulder, gravel, and sand/silt. This is the only site that has contained any sand/silt substrate. Figure 11 shows the ranges in substrate percentages at MC-2. This site contains mostly boulder and cobble substrate, Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 14 Exhibit DDD Page 29 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 although the percentage of boulders is quite variable. Figure 12 shows the ranges in substrate percentages at MC-3. This site is dominated by cobble and will likely contain more gravels than boulders. Figure 13 shows the ranges in substrate percentages at CC-1. This site contains approximately equal percentages of cobble and boulder substrate with smaller amounts of gravel. Figure 14 shows the ranges in substrate percentages at CC-2. This site contains a good mixture of gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate. Finally, Figure 15 shows the ranges in substrate percentages at CC-3. Here, cobbles and boulders will likely dominate the substrate, yet can vary considerably. Gravels should range from 22 to 33%. A trend toward finer substrate would indicate a decrease in habitat conditions. For all sites except MC-1, sand/silt substrate has not been present so any increases could warrant further study. At MC-1, sand/silt percentages would have to increase above 20% before the habitat could be considered to be declining. Table 2. Summary of habitat characteristics of study sites on Maroon and Castle creeks, October 2012. Site MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 Total Length (ft) 631 521 582 462 510 525 Percent of Total Area Pool Riffle Glide 10 66 24 4 90 6 7 84 9 12 78 10 6 74 20 7 78 15 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Average Depth (ft) Pool Riffle Glide 2.8 0.7 1.2 1.3 0.6 1.0 1.8 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.0 1.2 2.0 0.9 0.9 2.4 0.9 1.1 Average Width (ft) Pool Riffle Glide 27.0 25.8 28.3 17.0 26.0 19.5 26.0 29.3 14.5 23.7 26.6 28.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 18.0 34.7 26.3 Average Residual Pool Depth (ft) 4.0 1.1 1.7 1.9 3.0 2.4 15 Exhibit DDD Page 30 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 3. Percentages of substrate types in pools, riffles, and glides at each site, October 2012. Site MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 Habitat Type Pool Riffle Glide Overall Site Pool Riffle Glide Overall Site Pool Riffle Glide Overall Site Pool Riffle Glide Overall Site Pool Riffle Glide Overall Site Pool Riffle Glide Overall Site Sand/Silt 25 0 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. % of Substrate Gravel Cobble Boulder 0 75 0 13 63 25 0 75 17 4 71 14 0 25 75 8 33 58 0 25 75 3 28 69 38 50 13 21 46 33 38 50 13 32 49 19 17 42 42 20 25 55 25 25 50 21 31 49 25 25 50 17 25 58 25 25 50 22 25 53 38 25 38 25 25 50 25 42 33 29 31 40 Bedrock 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Exhibit DDD Page 31 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 4. Additional habitat characteristics of study sites on Maroon and Castle creeks, October 2012. Site MC 1 Percent Cover 1.1 MC 2 MC 3 CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 0 0.9 0.3 0.4 2.1 Cover Type Pool depth Combination and pool depth Pool depth Pool depth and instream Pool depth, instream, and overhead Bank Stability Vegetated and stable with a small section of no vegetation and instability on the left bank Vegetated and stable Vegetated and stable Vegetated and stable Vegetated and stable Vegetated and stable Bank Rock Content Small boulders to cobbles Boulders Boulders Boulders Boulders Boulders Table 5. Z-Walk pebble count particle sizes and cumulative frequencies, October 2012. Class Name Sand Very fine gravel Fine gravel Fine gravel Medium gravel Medium gravel Coarse gravel Coarse gravel Very coarse gravel Very coarse gravel Small cobble Small cobble Large cobble Large cobble Small boulder Medium boulder Large boulder Total count D50 Particle Size Class (mm) Count <2 0 <4 0 < 5.6 0 <8 0 < 11.3 0 < 16 1 < 22.6 1 < 32 0 < 45 0 < 64 5 < 90 6 < 128 9 < 180 18 < 256 30 < 352 22 < 512 7 < 1024 1 100 MC 1 Cum. Frequency (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 13.0 22.0 40.0 70.0 92.0 99.0 100.0 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 256 Count 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 9 12 15 19 19 16 5 100 MC 2 Cum. Frequency (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 14.0 26.0 41.0 60.0 79.0 95.0 100.0 256 Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 8 10 20 37 15 3 1 100 MC 3 Cum. Frequency (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 6.0 14.0 24.0 44.0 81.0 96.0 99.0 100.0 256 Count 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 7 12 10 19 18 13 12 2 103 CC 1 Cum. Frequency (%) 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.9 9.7 16.5 28.2 37.9 56.3 73.8 86.4 98.1 100.0 180 Count 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 7 8 13 15 25 17 10 1 100 CC 2 Cum. Frequency (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 11.0 19.0 32.0 47.0 72.0 89.0 99.0 100.0 256 Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 4 5 9 21 21 17 14 3 100 CC 3 Cum. Frequency (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 6.0 10.0 15.0 24.0 45.0 66.0 83.0 97.0 100.0 256 17 Exhibit DDD Page 32 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 8. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for average pool depth, 2010-2012. Only two years of data were available for MC-2 because it did not contain any pool habitat in 2011. Figure 9. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent pool area, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 18 Exhibit DDD Page 33 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 10. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at MC-1, 2010-2012. Figure 11. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at MC-2, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 19 Exhibit DDD Page 34 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 12. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at MC-3, 2010-2012. Figure 13. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at CC-1, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 20 Exhibit DDD Page 35 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 14. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at CC-2, 2010-2012. Figure 15. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for percent substrate composition at CC-3, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 21 Exhibit DDD Page 36 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Macroinvertebrates 2012 Results Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted at all six sites on October 9, 2012, prior to fish surveys and aquatic habitat mapping. Results from each of the metrics used are provided in Table 6 and Table 7. Complete species lists are provided in Appendix B. At MC-1, 21% of the sample (by number of organisms) consisted of chironomid midges from the subfamily Orthocladiinae. Other abundant taxa at MC-1 were oligochaete worms (13%) and the mayfly Rhithrogena sp. (11%). At MC-2, 17% of the sample consisted of the mayfly Baetis bicaudatus. MC-2 was also dominated by the stonefly Taenionema sp. (13%) and oligochaete worms (12%). At MC-3, 16% of the sample consisted of Baetis bicaudatus and another 16% consisted of Taenionema sp. 12% of the sample consisted of the mayfly Drunella doddsi. The most abundant macroinvertebrate taxa were generally similar in Castle Creek. Samples from CC-1 primarily consisted of oligochaete worms (23% of the sample). Other dominant taxa were the mayfly Rhithrogena sp. (18%) and the caddisfly Brachycentrus sp. (10%). These same three taxa were the dominant taxa at CC-2. CC-3 was dominated by oligochaete worms (26%), Orthocladiinae (16%), and Taenionema sp. (10%). Oligochaete worms have been collected from several sites within the Roaring Fork River drainage and appear to be fairly common (Ptacek et al. 2003, Miller 2008). Macroinvertebrate density ranged from 3298 individuals/m2 at CC-2 to 5415 individuals/m2 at MC-1 (Figure 16). Biomass ranged from 0.779 g/m2 at MC-3 to 1.602 g/m2 at MC-1 (Figure 17). Diversity was highest at MC-1, although all sites had high diversities ( 3.0) (Figure 18). Evenness was highest at MC-2 and MC-1 (Figure 19), yet again all sites had high evenness values, an indication that none of the sites experience organic pollution. High diversity and evenness values at all sites suggests that these waters are fairly pristine. Taxa richness, combined from all three replicates per site, was highest at MC-1 and CC-3 and lowest at CC-2. Averaged over each site, taxa richness was highest at MC-1 and lowest at CC-2 (Figure 20). The EPT index, combined from all three replicates per site, was highest at MC-1 and lowest at CC-2. Averaged over each site, EPT was highest at MC-1 and lowest at CC-2 (Figure 21). The percentage of macroinvertebrates that were from the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera ranged from 35 to 71%. HBI values ranged from 2.68 at MC-3 to 3.56 at CC-3 (Figure 22). These are fairly low values and suggest that organic enrichment is not a problem. Collector-gatherer was the dominant functional feeding group at all six sites (Figure 23). On average, shredder was the least abundant feeding group. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 22 Exhibit DDD Page 37 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 6. Metrics and comparative values for macroinvertebrate samples collected from Maroon Creek in October 2012. Metric 2 Density (#/m ) Biomass (g/m2) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa Other metrics that were calculated: HBI % Filterers % Gatherers % Scrapers % Predators % Shredders # Ephem. Taxa # Plec. Taxa # Trich. Taxa % EPT % Ephem. # Intolerant Taxa % Tolerant Organisms % Dominant Taxon BCI* # Clinger Taxa # Shredder Taxa # Predator Taxa % Clingers # Diptera Taxa # Chironomidae Taxa % Diptera % Chironomidae % Tribe Tanytarsini Rep 1 5012 1.303 3.97 0.810 30 18 Rep 2 4512 1.200 3.70 0.770 28 17 MC 1 Rep 3 6721 2.301 4.06 0.804 33 18 Avg. 5415 1.602 3.91 0.795 30 18 Composite 3.10 8.6 51.0 25.8 12.1 2.6 7 6 5 58.0 34.3 10 0 16.7 3.86 2.1 70.6 11.6 9.0 2.3 5 6 6 33.5 20.1 11 0 31.2 3.42 9.5 58.8 10.4 15.6 1.7 7 6 5 39.3 20.4 11 0 18.5 3.46 6.7 60.2 15.9 12.2 2.2 6 6 5 43.6 25.0 11 0 22.1 3.44 16 2 9 41.3 7 4 26.2 22.3 0.2 14 3 8 24.0 6 3 45.6 41.0 0.0 16 2 11 39.8 8 4 30.1 24.4 0.2 15 2 9 35.0 7 4 34.0 29.2 0.1 18 3 12 4.07 0.781 37 21 7 7 7 13 8 4 Rep 1 4756 0.787 3.73 0.761 30 19 Rep 2 5326 0.967 3.73 0.794 26 15 MC 2 Rep 3 5372 1.110 4.04 0.824 30 18 Avg. 5151 0.955 3.84 0.793 29 17 Composite 2.95 0.7 50.4 24.4 19.3 4.2 8 6 5 75.8 46.2 11 0 21.0 3.15 1.1 56.8 18.8 20.5 2.0 6 5 4 57.9 32.1 9 0 16.2 2.88 1.1 47.0 18.6 20.3 11.3 7 6 5 69.7 38.1 10 0 13.9 2.99 1.0 51.4 20.6 20.1 5.8 7 6 5 67.8 38.8 10 0 17.0 2.99 14 3 8 41.6 5 3 3.2 2.0 0.0 14 1 9 44.3 5 3 7.2 4.6 0.0 12 3 8 40.7 5 3 6.3 5.4 0.0 13 2 8 42.2 5 3 5.6 4.0 0.0 15 3 9 3.95 0.783 33 20 8 7 5 11 6 3 Rep 1 6151 0.957 3.71 0.756 30 16 Rep 2 3209 0.662 3.78 0.786 28 17 MC 3 Rep 3 4895 0.719 3.76 0.774 29 17 Avg. 4752 0.779 3.75 0.772 29 17 Composite 2.78 0.2 47.4 31.2 16.4 3.4 7 6 3 68.4 38.0 10 0 19.3 2.55 0.7 46.7 17.4 30.4 4.0 6 6 5 75.7 54.7 11 0 19.9 2.65 1.0 44.7 28.3 20.7 4.3 7 5 5 70.8 41.6 10 0 17.3 2.66 0.6 46.3 25.6 22.5 3.9 7 6 4 71.6 44.8 10 0 18.8 2.68 12 2 11 34.2 8 4 15.7 2.8 0.2 15 2 8 51.8 6 3 12.7 10.5 0.0 15 2 8 43.5 6 2 15.9 2.6 0.0 14 2 9 43.2 7 3 14.8 5.3 0.1 18 2 11 3.88 0.750 36 20 8 6 6 12 10 4 * BCI is typically calculated according to White River National Forest protocol, but was not calculated here. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 23 Exhibit DDD Page 38 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 7. Metrics and comparative values for macroinvertebrate samples collected from Castle Creek in October 2012. Metric 2 Density (#/m ) Biomass (g/m2) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa Other metrics that were calculated: HBI % Filterers % Gatherers % Scrapers % Predators % Shredders # Ephem. Taxa # Plec. Taxa # Trich. Taxa % EPT % Ephem. # Intolerant Taxa % Tolerant Organisms % Dominant Taxon BCI* # Clinger Taxa # Shredder Taxa # Predator Taxa % Clingers # Diptera Taxa # Chironomidae Taxa % Diptera % Chironomidae % Tribe Tanytarsini Rep 1 2035 1.990 3.55 0.796 22 13 Rep 2 6000 0.971 3.40 0.707 28 15 CC 1 Rep 3 4302 1.427 3.70 0.787 26 16 Avg. 4112 1.462 3.55 0.764 25 15 Composite 2.70 29.1 41.1 22.9 5.7 1.1 4 4 5 67.4 32.0 7 0 18.3 3.04 7.0 55.0 26.7 4.3 6.4 8 3 4 54.5 35.9 9 0 23.4 3.41 18.4 58.6 11.6 5.9 4.9 7 5 4 50.3 23.2 9 0 27.8 3.05 18.2 51.6 20.4 5.3 4.1 6 4 4 57.4 30.4 8 0 23.2 3.11 13 1 7 57.1 7 3 15.4 8.6 0.0 12 1 7 40.1 8 4 17.8 16.3 0.4 12 3 6 38.9 6 3 15.4 11.1 0.0 12 2 7 45.4 7 3 16.2 12.0 0.1 14 3 8 3.67 0.734 32 19 8 6 5 10 8 4 Rep 1 3465 0.914 3.47 0.779 22 10 Rep 2 2779 0.514 3.14 0.704 22 11 CC 2 Rep 3 3651 2.251 3.34 0.760 21 12 Avg. 3298 1.226 3.32 0.748 22 11 Composite 2.79 26.8 41.9 22.5 5.7 0.0 4 3 3 62.8 27.9 7 0 19.8 3.52 8.4 59.0 20.5 7.9 2.9 4 4 3 38.5 20.1 6 0 40.2 2.61 18.2 40.8 33.8 3.5 0.6 5 4 3 65.0 36.6 6 0 23.6 2.97 17.8 47.2 25.6 5.7 1.2 4 4 3 55.4 28.2 6 0 27.8 2.93 11 0 7 51.7 7 2 10.1 4.4 0.0 9 2 5 33.5 5 2 11.3 9.2 0.0 12 1 4 49.0 6 2 8.9 5.4 0.0 11 1 5 44.7 6 2 10.1 6.3 0.0 14 2 8 3.48 0.717 29 15 6 4 5 9 8 3 Rep 1 6709 1.487 3.47 0.713 29 15 Rep 2 2919 0.555 3.77 0.803 26 17 CC 3 Rep 3 6453 1.633 3.41 0.701 29 14 Avg. 5360 1.225 3.55 0.739 28 15 Composite 3.67 1.6 69.2 9.7 13.3 0.7 6 5 4 28.8 11.6 8 0 37.3 2.58 2.0 37.1 42.6 14.3 1.2 8 5 4 65.7 34.7 10 0 19.9 3.89 1.1 69.9 12.3 15.0 0.4 6 5 3 27.9 13.2 8 0 31.0 3.38 1.5 58.7 21.5 14.2 0.7 7 5 4 40.8 19.8 9 0 29.4 3.56 13 2 9 29.8 8 3 16.3 10.6 0.0 13 3 6 46.2 4 2 10.0 8.4 0.0 13 1 11 25.2 9 4 43.6 39.3 0.5 13 2 9 33.7 7 3 23.3 19.4 0.2 17 3 11 3.74 0.718 37 19 8 7 4 11 11 4 * BCI is typically calculated according to White River National Forest protocol, but was not calculated here. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 24 Exhibit DDD Page 39 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 16. Mean density and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. Figure 17. Mean biomass and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 25 Exhibit DDD Page 40 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 18. Mean Shannon-Weaver diversity and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. Figure 19. Mean Shannon-Weaver evenness and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 26 Exhibit DDD Page 41 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 20. Mean taxa richness and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. Figure 21. Mean EPT index and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 27 Exhibit DDD Page 42 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 22. Mean HBI and 95% confidence intervals, October 2012. Macroinvertebrate Functional Feeding Groups October 2012 70 60 Percent Composition 50 40 30 20 10 0 MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 Site Collector Filterer Collector Gatherer Predator Scraper Shredder Figure 23. Macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups, October 2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 28 Exhibit DDD Page 43 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Overall, MC-1 could be considered the site with the “best” water quality because it had the highest values for all of the six primary metrics. Site CC-2 had the lowest values for density, diversity, evenness, taxa richness, and EPT index. Paired t-tests between sites for several metrics indicated that longitudinal (i.e., upstream to downstream) patterns in water quality were not present in Maroon Creek (Table 8). For Castle Creek, taxa richness was significantly greater at CC-3 than CC-2 (Table 9). The EPT index was significantly less at CC-2 compared to CC-1 and CC-3. Paired t-tests between Maroon and Castle creeks indicated that diversity, evenness, taxa richness, and the EPT index are significantly greater in Maroon Creek than Castle Creek (Table 10). Overall, the macroinvertebrates indicate very good stream conditions both upstream and downstream of the diversions on each stream. Table 8. P-values for t-tests between sites on Maroon Creek, October 2012. Variable values are averages for each site. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. MC 1 and MC 2: MC 2 and MC 3: MC 1 and MC 3: MC 1 MC 2 p value MC 2 MC 3 p value MC 1 MC 3 p value Metric Density (#/m2) 2 Biomass (g/m ) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa 5415 5151 0.7248 5151 4752 0.6719 5415 4752 0.5738 1.602 0.955 0.1498 0.955 0.779 0.2476 1.602 0.779 0.0859 3.91 3.84 0.6452 3.84 3.75 0.4560 3.91 3.75 0.2159 0.795 0.793 0.9445 0.793 0.772 0.3585 0.795 0.772 0.2122 30 29 0.4456 29 29 0.8298 30 29 0.4418 18 17 0.8025 17 17 0.6213 18 17 0.1012 Table 9. P-values for t-tests between sites on Castle Creek, October 2012. Variable values are averages for each site. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. Density (#/m2) CC 1 and CC 2: CC 2 and CC 3: CC 1 and CC 3: CC 1 CC 2 p value CC 2 CC 3 p value CC 1 CC 3 p value 4112 3298 0.5279 3298 5360 0.1748 4112 5360 0.4983 Biomass (g/m2) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa 1.462 1.226 0.7151 1.226 1.225 0.9981 1.462 1.225 0.6240 3.55 3.32 0.1476 3.32 3.55 0.1971 3.55 3.55 0.9924 0.764 0.748 0.6852 0.748 0.739 0.8358 0.764 0.739 0.5987 25 22 0.1106 22 28 0.0039 25 28 0.2588 15 11 0.0254 11 15 0.0147 15 15 0.6213 Metric Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 29 Exhibit DDD Page 44 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 10. P-values for t-tests between Maroon and Castle creeks, October 2012. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. Metric 2 Density (#/m ) Average for Maroon Creek 5106 Average for Castle Creek 4257 p value 0.2193 1.112 1.305 0.4727 3.83 0.787 29 17 3.47 0.750 25 14 0.0004 0.0403 0.0036 0.0009 Biomass (g/m2) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa Baseline Conditions (2010-2012) Maintenance of the macroinvertebrate population within Maroon and Castle creeks will be evaluated by comparing the following six metrics to baseline conditions: macroinvertebrate density, biomass, diversity, evenness, taxa richness, and number of EPT taxa. We compiled data from the three years of initial monitoring to calculate means and 95% confidence limits for each of the metrics at each site in order to establish baseline conditions. Figure 24 shows mean macroinvertebrate density with 95% confidence limits. Density is fairly similar across all sites with the exception of CC-1, where it is lower. Indeed, results from t-tests indicate that density at CC-1 is significantly less than at CC-2 and CC-3 (Table 11). This is worth noting because future monitoring efforts will focus on whether hydroelectric operations are having an effect on the macroinvertebrate community. Since density appears to be naturally lower at CC-1 compared to the upstream sites, it will be important to carefully consider whether any decreases in density at CC-1 are due to hydroelectric operations or are natural fluctuations. Figure 25 shows mean macroinvertebrate biomass with 95% confidence limits. In a given year, biomass at MC-1 will likely be greater than at MC-2 or MC-3 and t-tests indicate that biomass is significantly greater at MC-1 compared to MC-2 and MC-3 (Table 12). Biomass at CC-1 will likely be less than at CC-2 or CC-3. Figure 26 shows mean Shannon-Weaver diversity scores with 95% confidence limits. Diversity scores were similar across all sites. Figure 27 show mean Shannon-Weaver evenness scores with 95% confidence limits. Evenness scores were similar across all sites. Although CC-1 had significantly higher evenness scores than CC-2 and CC-3 (Table 11), it is debatable whether these differences are biologically meaningful. Figure 28 shows mean macroinvertebrate taxa richness with 95% confidence limits. In a given year, taxa richness at MC-1 will likely be greater than at MC-2 or MC-3 and t-tests indicate that Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 30 Exhibit DDD Page 45 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 richness is significantly greater at MC-1 compared to MC-2 and MC-3 (Table 12). On Castle Creek, taxa richness is significantly greater at CC-3 compared to CC-1 (Table 11). As with density, it will be important to carefully consider whether any future decreases in taxa richness at CC-1 are due to hydroelectric operations or are natural fluctuations. Figure 29 shows mean EPT index scores with 95% confidence limits. In a given year, MC-1 will likely have a higher EPT score than MC-2 or MC-3. Results from t-tests indicate that EPT scores at MC-1 are significantly higher than those at MC-3 but not at MC-2, even though MC-3 and MC-2 have the same mean EPT score (Table 12). This is due to the narrower confidence limits for MC-3. Ultimately, this statistical difference may not be biologically meaningful and EPT scores may be similar across sites in Maroon Creek in a given year. For Castle Creek, the EPT score is significantly higher at CC-3 compared to CC-1 (Table 11). As with density and taxa richness, it will be important to consider whether any future decreases in EPT index at CC-1 are due to hydroelectric operations or are natural fluctuations. Finally, although future monitoring efforts will focus on changes within Maroon Creek and within Castle Creek separately, it is perhaps important to note some differences between the two creeks. Maroon Creek has significantly more taxa and more EPT taxa than Castle Creek (Table 13). Maroon Creek also has higher macroinvertebrate densities and diversity scores, although these were not significantly different from Castle Creek. Biomass and evenness scores are nearly equal. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 31 Exhibit DDD Page 46 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 24. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate density, 20102012. Table 11. P-values for t-tests between sites on Castle Creek, 2010-2012. Variable values are averages for each site. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. Density (#/m2) CC 1 and CC 2: CC 1 CC 2 p value 3217 4848 0.0404 CC 2 and CC 3: CC 2 CC 3 p value 4848 5258 0.4981 CC 1 and CC 3: CC 1 CC 3 p value 3217 5258 0.0107 Biomass (g/m2) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa 0.864 3.43 0.784 21 12 1.237 3.21 0.707 23 14 0.864 3.43 0.784 21 12 Metric 1.237 3.21 0.707 23 14 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 0.1858 0.1276 0.0141 0.2548 0.4160 1.045 3.44 0.739 25 15 0.4073 0.1121 0.2660 0.1360 0.1150 1.045 3.44 0.739 25 15 0.4547 0.9340 0.0333 0.0434 0.0251 32 Exhibit DDD Page 47 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 25. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate biomass, 20102012. Table 12. P-values for t-tests between sites on Maroon Creek, 2010-2012. Variable values are averages for each site. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. MC 1 and MC 2: MC 1 MC 2 p value MC 2 and MC 3: MC 2 MC 3 p value MC 1 and MC 3: MC 1 MC 3 p value Density (#/m2) 5319 4859 0.4020 4859 4725 0.8180 5319 4725 0.3547 Biomass (g/m2) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa 1.399 3.69 0.761 29 17 0.899 3.52 0.756 25 15 0.0085 0.4139 0.8886 0.0172 0.0806 0.899 3.52 0.756 25 15 0.823 3.45 0.735 26 15 0.3505 0.7858 0.6486 0.7320 1.0000 1.399 3.69 0.761 29 17 0.823 3.45 0.735 26 15 0.0039 0.3267 0.5566 0.0457 0.0247 Metric Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 33 Exhibit DDD Page 48 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 26. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate diversity, 20102012. Figure 27. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate evenness, 20102012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 34 Exhibit DDD Page 49 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 28. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for macroinvertebrate taxa richness, 2010-2012. Figure 29. Mean values and 95% confidence limits for EPT index, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 35 Exhibit DDD Page 50 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 13. P-values for t-tests between Maroon and Castle creeks, 2010-2012. Significant results (p < 0.05) are highlighted in red. Metric 2 Density (#/m ) Average for Maroon Creek 4968 Average for Castle Creek 4441 p value 0.1867 1.041 1.049 0.9500 3.55 0.751 26 16 3.36 0.743 23 14 0.0844 0.7028 0.0020 0.0026 Biomass (g/m2) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 36 Exhibit DDD Page 51 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 14. Maroon Creek benthic macroinvertebrate summary for selected metrics for 2010-2012. 2010 Metric 2 Density (#/m ) 2 Biomass (g/m ) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa MC 1 2011 2012 4771 ± 3915 5771 ± 3145 5415 ± 2878 2010 MC 2 2011 2012 4620 ± 2530 4806 ± 4084 5151 ± 852 2010 MC 3 2011 2012 5709 ± 305 3713 ± 4015 4752 ± 3667 1.352 ± 1.438 1.245 ± 0.822 1.602 ± 1.511 0.887 ± 0.254 0.856 ± 0.507 0.955 ± 0.402 0.937 ± 0.141 0.753 ± 0.714 0.779 ± 0.389 3.83 ± 0.85 3.33 ± 1.22 3.91 ± 0.46 3.65 ± 0.5 3.05 ± 1.28 3.84 ± 0.45 3.31 ± 2.01 3.28 ± 1.75 3.75 ± 0.09 0.795 ± 0.136 0.694 ± 0.216 0.795 ± 0.054 0.794 ± 0.099 0.682 ± 0.26 0.793 ± 0.078 0.714 ± 0.349 0.72 ± 0.369 0.772 ± 0.037 28 ± 5 28 ± 6 30 ± 6 24 ± 1 22 ± 6 29 ± 6 25 ± 12 23 ± 1 29 ± 2 19 ± 6 16 ± 7 18 ± 2 14 ± 6 15 ± 7 17 ± 5 15 ± 2 14 ± 3 17 ± 2 Table 15. Castle Creek benthic macroinvertebrate summary for selected metrics for 2010-2012. Metric Density (#/m2) 2 Biomass (g/m ) S W Diversity S W Evenness Taxa Richness # EPT Taxa 2012 3298 ± 1141 2010 5368 ± 628 CC 3 2011 5047 ± 2549 0.772 ± 1.055 0.358 ± 0.396 1.462 ± 1.267 1.065 ± 0.415 1.418 ± 1.277 1.226 ± 2.26 3.44 ± 0.51 3.3 ± 0.7 3.55 ± 0.37 2.96 ± 0.65 3.36 ± 1.22 3.32 ± 0.42 0.784 ± 0.112 0.804 ± 0.068 0.764 ± 0.122 0.651 ± 0.163 0.721 ± 0.23 0.748 ± 0.097 21 ± 5 18 ± 13 25 ± 7 23 ± 3 25 ± 7 22 ± 2 13 ± 4 9 ± 10 15 ± 4 17 ± 2 13 ± 7 11 ± 2 1.13 ± 0.707 3.54 ± 0.5 0.76 ± 0.099 25 ± 1 17 ± 2 0.78 ± 0.362 1.225 ± 1.453 3.23 ± 0.08 3.55 ± 0.49 0.719 ± 0.076 0.739 ± 0.138 23 ± 7 28 ± 4 14 ± 4 15 ± 3 2010 3473 ± 4787 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. CC 1 2011 2066 ± 2876 2012 4112 ± 4941 2010 5671 ± 463 CC 2 2011 5574 ± 2819 2012 5360 ± 5262 37 Exhibit DDD Page 52 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Fish 2012 Results Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) were captured from all six sites and were more numerous in Castle Creek (Table 16, Table 17). Population estimates of rainbow trout were highest at CC2 and lowest at MC-3 (Figure 30). Within Castle Creek, population estimates were fairly similar between sites. Density ranged from 3 to 44 fish per acre and biomass ranged from 2 to 12 pounds per acre. Rainbow trout captured in Castle Creek were a range of sizes but mostly consisted of younger fish, especially at CC-2 and CC-3 (Figure 31). Rainbow trout were also a range of sizes in Maroon Creek (Figure 32). Average condition factor was highest at CC-3 and was greater than or equal to 1 at all sites. On average, rainbow trout captured at MC-1, CC-2, and CC-3 were smaller than in the previous two years. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) were more numerous in Maroon Creek than Castle Creek (Table 16, Table 17). Brown trout were not captured at the two sites on the creeks that were upstream of Aspen’s existing diversions. Population estimates ranged from 1 fish at CC-2 to 166 fish at MC1 (Figure 33). Density ranged from 3 to 496 fish per acre and biomass ranged from 2 to 527 pounds per acre. Brown trout captured in Maroon Creek ranged from 40 mm to 510 mm long and were primarily either young fish <100 mm or adult fish >300 mm (Figure 34). Brown trout captured in Castle Creek were mostly younger fish, especially at CC-2 (Figure 35). Average condition factor was highest at MC-2 but was similar at MC-1 and CC-1. On average, brown trout were smaller compared to the previous two years at all sites. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) were more numerous in Maroon Creek than Castle Creek (Table 16, Table 17). Population estimates ranged from 1 fish at MC-1 to 67 fish at MC-3 (Figure 36). A few trout were captured at CC-1 but they were smaller than 150 mm and so were not part of the population estimate. Density ranged from 3 to 209 fish per acre and biomass ranged from 1 to 30 pounds per acre. Brook trout captured in Maroon Creek were a range of sizes and were not dominated by either young fish or adults (Figure 37). None of the brook trout captured in Castle Creek were larger than 250 mm total length (Figure 38). Average condition factor was highest at MC-2. From 2010 to 2012, the brook trout population was nearly constant at MC-1, CC-1, CC-2, and CC-3, with few fish captured. At MC-3, the population has increased over the three years. Sculpin (Cottus sp.) were captured at all six sites. Electrofishing is more effective on large fish such as juvenile and adult trout and not as effective on small fish such as sculpin, so the counts listed for sculpin may not be representative of the true population. Sculpin are either mottled sculpin or Paiute sculpin; identification by CPW is pending. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 38 Exhibit DDD Page 53 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 MC-1 contained the largest population of trout (all species combined) by a wide margin, followed by MC-2 and MC-3 (Figure 39). For Castle Creek, CC-1 contained the most trout. Overall, Maroon Creek had a larger estimated trout population than Castle Creek in 2012 and this was also the case in 2010 and 2011. Baseline Conditions (2010-2012) Table 18 shows the ranges in the metrics of density, biomass, and population estimates for each trout species at each site as well as all trout combined. Keep in mind that these results are for fish >150 mm total length. Each site will be discussed below and graphs are provided that summarize each metric. All species are shown on the same graph for purposes of simplicity. Individual species graphs are provided in Appendix C. MC-1: the majority of trout captured at this site are brown trout, which also make up the bulk of the biomass (Figure 40 and Figure 41). Catch rates may vary from year to year though and the estimated brown trout population can range from 30 to 175 (Figure 42). In a given year, one would expect to capture about a dozen rainbow trout and a couple of brook trout. This site will likely catch the greatest number of fish. MC-2: at this site brook trout are likely to be the most abundant species, followed by brown trout. Estimates for brook trout are more variable than for brown trout though, so in a given year it may be possible to capture equal numbers of both species (Figure 43 and Figure 44). Brown trout make up most of the biomass at this site (Figure 45), indicating that brown trout captured here are larger than brook trout in both length and weight. Only a few rainbow trout would likely be captured in a given year. MC-3: at this site one would expect to capture mostly brook trout. Few rainbow trout are present and no brown trout are found here (Figure 46 and Figure 47). Accordingly, fish biomass at this site comes mostly from brook trout (Figure 48). This site will potentially capture the most brook trout compared to the other five sites. CC-1: at this site rainbow trout estimates have remained steady over the past three years, with density averaging approximately 36 fish per acre and a population estimate of about 12 fish (Figure 49 and Figure 50). Brown trout estimates are the most variable and in a given year it may be the most abundant species. A few brook trout would likely be captured but would be smaller than 150 mm. A majority of the biomass will likely come from brown trout (Figure 51). CC-2: the majority of trout captured at this site are rainbow trout, with a population estimate ranging from 9 to 19 fish (Figure 52 and Figure 53). Similarly, the majority of biomass comes from rainbow trout (Figure 54). Low numbers of brook trout should be expected and will Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 39 Exhibit DDD Page 54 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 contribute little to biomass. Brown trout estimates varied considerably and are somewhat unreliable because confidence limits extended into the negative range. In a given year one would expect to catch some brown trout: our total counts (all sizes) for 2010 to 2012 were 3, 6, and 48, respectively. This site will likely contain the fewest number of trout compared to the other five sites. CC-3: at this site one could potentially capture similar numbers of rainbow trout and brook trout in any given year, although there is a greater potential to capture more rainbow trout (Figure 55 and Figure 56). Brown trout are not found here. A majority of the biomass will likely come from rainbow trout (Figure 57), which suggests that, on average, rainbow trout are larger than brook trout at this site. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 40 Exhibit DDD Page 55 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 16. Fish metrics for sites on Maroon Creek, 2010-2012. Density, biomass, and population estimates are for fish >150 mm total length. Other metrics are for all fish captured, regardless of size. Species Rainbow trout Brown trout Brook trout All trout >150 mm Sculpin Data Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Count Density (# / acre) 2010 10 ± 0 5±0 4±0 0.98 6 228 156 203 ± 15 174 ± 13 78 ± 6 1.03 77 319 379 216 ± 14 181 ± 11 83 ± 5 80 10 ± 8 Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate <1 1 4±3 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) 1 All confidence intervals are 95%. 2 0.88 4 96 MC 1 2011 23 ± 17 10 ± 7 8±6 1.88 13 175 123 117 ± 28 107 ± 26 39 ± 9 1.24 43 281 344 3±0 0±0 1±0 0.96 1 165 43 144 ± 31 118 ± 25 48 ± 10 43 2012 27 ± 3 8±1 9±1 1.08 18 149 126 496 ± 28 527 ± 29 166 ± 9 1.08 295 221 463 3±0 1±0 1±0 0.94 4 121 80 531 ± 28 538 ± 29 178 ± 10 169 0.97 2 223 103 116 ± 12 125 ± 13 32 ± 3 1.07 34 330 447 189 ± 41 40 ± 9 52 ± 11 0.96 53 194 85 313 ± 38 173 ± 21 86 ± 10 79 142 ± 57 2 2 4±2 2 2 47 ± 19 2 2 1.06 38 101 4 36 95 4 0.82 37 92 MC 2 2011 3±0 0±0 1±0 1.01 5 113 19 54 ± 2 59 ± 2 16 ± 1 1.09 16 354 502 116 ± 30 31 ± 8 35 ± 9 1.28 62 167 73 169 ± 18 92 ± 10 50 ± 5 48 2012 12 ± 0 2±0 3±0 1.19 3 177 71 102 ± 11 103 ± 11 26 ± 3 1.11 28 304 428 155 ± 5 28 ± 1 39 ± 1 1.10 63 163 74 268 ± 9 132 ± 5 68 ± 2 67 988 ± 1956 427 ± 112 20 ± 39 295 ± 584 0.99 90 94 4 108 ± 28 4 86 89 1.21 2 188 123 MC 3 2011 3±0 3±0 1±0 1.34 3 185 151 2012 3±0 2±0 1±0 1.13 2 188 148 97 ± 133 17 ± 63 30 ± 43 1.05 63 150 46 100 ± 103 18 ± 63 31 ± 33 30 164 ± 34 31 ± 6 57 ± 12 1.06 147 139 40 166 ± 32 34 ± 7 57 ± 11 51 209 ± 46 30 ± 7 67 ± 15 1.04 141 134 44 211 ± 44 32 ± 7 68 ± 14 59 2010 2 441 ± 766 2 2 10 ± 17 2 2 152 ± 264 2 0.99 59 94 4 1.17 25 94 4 8 12 9 9 11 11 One Snake River cutthroat trout was captured at MC 1 in 2010; one cutbow was captured at MC 1 in 2012. More fish captured in second pass than in first pass. these accurately. Estimates come from MicroFish software. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2010 4 3 56 101 4 Since 3 passes were made at this site, JakeOmatic could not calculate Sculpin weights were not recorded. 41 Exhibit DDD Page 56 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 17. Fish metrics for sites on Castle Creek, 2010-2012. Density, biomass, and population estimates are for fish >150 mm total length. Other metrics are for all fish captured, regardless of size. Species Rainbow trout Brown trout Brook trout All trout >150 mm Sculpin Data Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) Average Weight (g) Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate1 Count Density (# / acre) CC 1 2011 36 ± 6 11 ± 2 12 ± 2 1.13 18 187 97 38 ± 2 20 ± 1 13 ± 1 1.14 25 180 131 2010 34 ± 7 9±2 11 ± 2 1.37 21 175 77 26 ± 12 20 ± 10 9±4 1.00 9 298 323 9 ± 20 2±4 3±7 1.06 3 188 81 71 ± 16 32 ± 7 24 ± 5 22 40 ± 6 Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate 1 0.84 3 133 20 74 ± 5 31 ± 2 25 ± 2 25 0.93 4 114 15 105 ± 4 49 ± 2 36 ± 1 36 2010 44 ± 5 17 ± 2 15 ± 2 1.28 21 204 132 9 ± 20 6 ± 14 3±7 1.07 3 297 313 3±0 0±0 1±0 1.00 1 165 45 58 ± 12 25 ± 5 20 ± 4 22 264 ± 2233 95 ± 13 33 ± 7 3 3 3 <1 3 3 3 4 ± 35 13 ± 2 91 ± 769 Avg. Condition Factor Count Avg. Total Length (mm) 1.08 13 97 1.00 19 87 Average Weight (g) 1 9 7 All confidence intervals are 95%. 2 2012 38 ± 15 11 ± 4 13 ± 5 1.00 15 191 105 70 ± 0 38 ± 0 24 ± 0 1.05 61 156 105 4 33 ± 5 4 31 77 <1 CC 2 2011 30 ± 3 10 ± 1 10 ± 1 1.08 14 190 108 3 ± 20 2 ± 11 1±7 0.68 6 182 125 3±0 0±0 1±0 0.51 2 138 10 44 ± 11 15 ± 4 15 ± 4 14 2012 44 ± 11 12 ± 3 15 ± 4 1.02 58 107 90 3 ± 20 2 ± 13 1±7 0.82 48 84 147 12 ± 0 2±0 4±0 0.89 6 167 62 69 ± 18 21 ± 5 23 ± 6 21 2010 57 ± 16 19 ± 5 18 ± 5 1.26 20 208 131 CC 3 2011 65 ± 32 2 18 ± 6 25 ± 12 1.12 29 197 110 2012 26 ± 3 7±1 8±1 1.33 63 90 89 25 ± 0 4±0 8±0 1.01 12 164 51 80 ± 9 22 ± 2 26 ± 3 22 36 ± 82 2 6±3 14 ± 32 1.03 20 168 60 104 ± 82 2 25 ± 7 40 ± 32 39 43 ± 6 5±1 13 ± 2 0.96 44 127 32 69 ± 7 12 ± 1 21 ± 2 21 91 ± 25 192 ± 122 40 ± 16 349 ± 1002 565 ± 145 4 0±0 11 ± 2 30 ± 8 0.73 11 91 0.01 27 87 5 4 4 64 ± 40 4 44 83 4 <1 13 ± 5 0.78 12 96 8 4 134 ± 39 4 99 95 4 4 2 175 ± 45 4 132 81 4 Since 3 passes were made at this site, JakeOmatic could not calculate these accurately. Estimates come from MicroFish software. 3 No brook trout >150mm captured. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 4 Sculpin weights were not recorded. 42 Exhibit DDD Page 57 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 30. Population estimates and 95% confidence limits for rainbow trout. Figure 31. Rainbow trout length frequencies, Castle Creek, October 2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 43 Exhibit DDD Page 58 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 32. Rainbow trout length frequencies, Maroon Creek, October 2012. Figure 33. Population estimates and 95% confidence limits for brown trout. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 44 Exhibit DDD Page 59 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 34. Brown trout length frequencies, Maroon Creek, October 2012. Figure 35. Brown trout length frequencies, Castle Creek, October 2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 45 Exhibit DDD Page 60 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 36. Population estimates and 95% confidence limits for brook trout. Figure 37. Brook trout length frequencies, Maroon Creek, October 2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 46 Exhibit DDD Page 61 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure 38. Brook trout length frequencies, Castle Creek, October 2012. Figure 39. Population estimates and 95% confidence limits for all trout species combined. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 47 Exhibit DDD Page 62 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table 18. Ranges in population estimates, density, and biomass at the six monitoring locations on Maroon and Castle creeks, 2010-2012. Ranges are for trout >150 mm. Site Brown trout Species Rainbow trout Brook trout All trout MC 1 Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate 89 524 81 556 30 175 6 40 3 17 2 14 3 1 1 113 559 93 567 38 188 Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate 52 128 57 138 15 35 3 12 0 2 1 3 86 230 23 49 26 63 151 351 82 194 45 96 3 2 3 1 84 255 11 37 26 82 90 255 12 41 28 82 MC 2 MC 3 Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate CC 1 Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate 14 70 10 38 5 24 23 53 7 15 8 18 0 29 0 6 0 10 55 109 25 51 19 37 Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate 0 29 0 20 0 10 27 55 9 19 9 19 3 12 0 2 1 4 33 87 11 30 11 29 23 73 6 24 7 26 25 49 3 9 8 17 62 112 11 32 19 43 CC 2 CC 3 Density (# / acre) Biomass (lbs. / acre) Population Estimate Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 48 Exhibit DDD Page 63 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Fish Density Apr 26, 2013 MC 1 600 550 500 450 Density (# / acre) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 2011 2012 All trout Figure 40. Density estimates of trout species at MC-1, 2010-2012. Fish Biomass MC 1 600 550 500 450 Biomass (pounds / acre) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 All trout Figure 41. Biomass estimates of trout species at MC-1, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 49 Exhibit DDD Page 64 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Fish Population Estimates Apr 26, 2013 MC 1 200 175 150 Number of Fish 125 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 42. Population estimates of trout species at MC-1, 2010-2012. Fish Density MC 2 400 350 300 Density (# / acre) 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 43. Density estimates of trout species at MC-2, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 50 Exhibit DDD Page 65 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Fish Population Estimates Apr 26, 2013 MC 2 100 90 80 70 Number of Fish 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 44. Population estimates of trout species at MC-2, 2010-2012. Fish Biomass MC 2 200 175 Biomass (pounds / acre) 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 45. Biomass estimates of trout species at MC-2, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 51 Exhibit DDD Page 66 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Fish Density Apr 26, 2013 MC 3 275 250 225 200 Density (# / acre) 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 2011 2012 All trout Figure 46. Density estimates of trout species at MC-3, 2010-2012. Fish Population Estimates MC 3 90 80 70 Number of Fish 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 All trout Figure 47. Population estimates of trout species at MC-3, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 52 Exhibit DDD Page 67 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Fish Biomass Apr 26, 2013 MC 3 45 40 35 Biomass (pounds / acre) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 2011 2012 All trout Figure 48. Biomass estimates of trout species at MC-3, 2010-2012. Fish Density CC 1 125 100 Density (# / acre) 75 50 25 0 25 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 All trout Figure 49. Density estimates of trout species at CC-1, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 53 Exhibit DDD Page 68 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Fish Population Estimates Apr 26, 2013 CC 1 40 35 30 Number of Fish 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 50. Population estimates of trout species at CC-1, 2010-2012. Fish Biomass CC 1 2011 2010 55 50 45 40 Biomass (pounds / acre) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2012 Rainbow trout 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 51. Biomass estimates of trout species at CC-1, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 54 Exhibit DDD Page 69 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Fish Density Apr 26, 2013 CC 2 90 80 70 60 Density (# / acre) 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 2011 2012 All trout Figure 52. Density estimates of trout species at CC-2, 2010-2012. Fish Population Estimates CC 2 30 25 20 Number of Fish 15 10 5 0 5 10 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 All trout Figure 53. Population estimates of trout species at CC-2, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 55 Exhibit DDD Page 70 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Fish Biomass CC 2 2011 2010 Apr 26, 2013 35 30 25 Biomass (pounds / acre) 20 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2012 Rainbow trout 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 54. Biomass estimates for trout species at CC-2, 2010-2012. Fish Density CC 3 120 110 100 90 Density (# / acre) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 55. Density estimates for trout species at CC-3, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 56 Exhibit DDD Page 71 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Fish Population Estimates Apr 26, 2013 CC 3 45 40 35 Number of Fish 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2011 2012 Rainbow trout 2010 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 56. Population estimates for trout species at CC-3, 2010-2012. Fish Biomass CC 3 2011 2010 35 30 Biomass (pounds / acre) 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2010 Brown trout 2012 Rainbow trout 2011 Brook trout 2012 2010 2011 2012 All trout Figure 57. Biomass estimates for trout species at CC-3, 2010-2012. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 57 Exhibit DDD Page 72 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Water Temperature Monitoring Water temperature patterns were similar across all four sites (Figure 58 - Figure 61) and overall average temperatures were similar between the sites as well (Table 19). The logger in Castle Creek below Aspen’s diversion had numerous days where the minimum temperature went below 0°C and it is likely the logger was encased in ice. Maximum water temperature occurred on July 26, 2012 at CC-1 and CC-2 and August 7, 2012 at MC-2 and Castle Creek below the existing diversion. The water temperature monitor at the existing diversion is just downstream of Castle Creek site CC-3. At all sites, average temperatures were approximately 2-3°C warmer than in 2011. Maximum temperatures were approximately 2-4°C warmer than in 2011. These results are not surprising since 2012 was a warmer year than 2011 and flows were lower as well. Average Daily Water Temperature MC 2 11 10 9 8 Temperature (°C) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 58. Average daily water temperature, MC-2. Data are missing from 2-7 to 2-9-12. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 58 Exhibit DDD Page 73 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Average Daily Water Temperature Apr 26, 2013 CC 1 13 12 11 10 9 Temperature (°C) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 59. Average daily water temperature, CC-1. Data are missing from 2-7 to 2-9-12. Average Daily Water Temperature CC 2 13 12 11 10 9 Temperature (°C) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 60. Average daily water temperature, CC-2. Data are missing from 2-7 to 2-9-12. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 59 Exhibit DDD Page 74 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Average Daily Water Temperature Apr 26, 2013 Castle Creek Below the City of Aspen's Diversion 12 11 10 9 Temperature (°C) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 61. Average daily water temperature, Castle Creek below the City of Aspen’s diversion. Data are missing from 2-7 to 2-9-12. Table 19. Minimum, maximum, and average daily water temperatures recorded from temperature loggers, January 10, 2012 to December 6, 2012. Site Minimum Temp. (°C) Date of Minimum Temp. MC-2 CC-1 0.05 -0.004 CC-2 -0.004 CC below diversion -0.004 2-26-12 & 3-2-12 1-28-12 6 days in Nov. and Dec. 25 days in Jan., Feb., and March Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Maximum Temp. (°C) Date of Maximum Temp. Average Temp. (°C) 14.70 15.87 8-7-12 7-26-12 5.89 6.19 16.39 7-26-12 6.14 15.44 8-7-12 5.79 60 Exhibit DDD Page 75 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 LITERATURE CITED Barbour MT, Gerritsen J, Snyder BD, Stribling JB. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. 2nd ed. Washington (D.C.): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA 841B-99-002. Merritt RW, Cummins KW. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 3rd ed. Dubuque (IA): Kendall/Hunt. Miller WJ. 2008. Evaluation of Seven Castles Creek sediment inflow on the Fryingpan River. Prepared for the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Fort Collins (CO): Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Ptacek JA, Rees DE, Miller WJ. 2003. A study of the ecological processes on the Fryingpan and Roaring Fork rivers related to operation of Ruedi Reservoir. Prepared for the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Fort Collins (CO): Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Rosenberg DM, Resh VH. 1993. Introduction to freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. In: Rosenberg D, Resh V, editors. Freshwater biomonitoring and benthic macroinvertebrates. New York: Chapman & Hall. p. 1-9. Ward JV, Kondratieff BC, Zuellig RE. 2002. An illustrated guide to the mountain stream insects of Colorado. 2nd ed. Boulder (CO): University Press of Colorado. Winters DS, Gallagher JP. 1997. Basin-wide stream habitat inventory. A protocol for the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands. Pueblo (CO): U. S. Forest Service. 31 pp. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 61 Exhibit Page 76 of 172 This page intentionally blank Exhibit DDD Page 77 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 APPENDIX A: HABITAT DATA Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 62 Exhibit Page 78 of 172 This page intentionally blank Exhibit DDD Page 79 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 BASIN-WIDE STREAM HABITAT INVENTORY CHARACTER DEFINITIONS 1 Number, either Glide = G (1,2,3…) Pool = P (1,2,3…) 2 Type: Glide = 1 Pool = 2. secondary channel 3. backwater 4. trench 5. plunge 6. lateral scour 7. dammed 3 Structural Association A - bar B - boulder C - culvert D - beaver dam E - bedrock Riffle = R (1,2,3…) Riffle = 8. secondary channel 9. bedrock 10. boulder 11. cobble 12. gravel 13. sand/silt 14. rapids 15. cascades F - falls R - rootwad L - LOD (4"dia.-3 ft long) S - structure M - meander W - debris dam/large wood O - other, (riffles low gradient) P - pocket water (riffles high gradient) 4 Length 5 Width 6 Residual Pool Depth (High-low=RPD) 7 Depth 8 Cover Types - record in sq ft of cover as visually determined: 1 - No cover - depth <0.5 ft, velocity >0.5/sec in riffle; pools <1.5 ft deep. No Security Cover 2 - Instream Objects - water level 1 ft deep behind objects 1 ft in width, reducing velocities to <0.5 cfs, LOD (tree trunks, root wads), boulders. 3 - Overhead - within 2 ft of water surface, vegetation like shrubs above glide or pool, undercut banks, protruding banks providing min. 1 ft of cover, H2O min. 0.5 ft depth, velocity < 0.5 cfs, and offers no Velocity Shelter. 4 - Combination - water >0.5 ft, fallen trees, debris dams w/branches and/or root mass, overhanging banks w/roots, rubble or boulder piles within the stream channel; reduced velocities and overhead cover. 5 - Pool Depth - plunge pools over debris jam, lateral scour pools in undercut banks, any area of pool >1.5 ft deep after codes #2, 3, & 4 above have been measured; the remainder is considered pool cover. 9 Bank Stability 1 - Vegetated and Stable >50% vegetated, does not show stress 2 - Vegetated and Unstable >50% vegetated, does show stress 3 - Unvegetated and Stable <50% vegetated, does not show stress 4 - Unvegetated and Unstable <50% vegetated, does show stress Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 63 Exhibit DDD Page 80 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 10 Bank Rock Content 2 - >65%, with large angular boulders, 12" diameter 4 - 40-65%, mostly small boulders to cobbles, 6-12" diameter 6 - 20-40%, with most in 3-6" diameter class 8 - <20%, rock fragments of gravel size, 1/8-3" diameter or less 11 Eroding Banks - measure amounts in linear feet of erosion on each bank and total 12 LOD - large organic debris, diameter > 4", length > 3.3', record total number of objects 13 Substrate BLD - boulders, assess to 5% of the % of the streambed covered by size >12" R - rubble (cobble) G - gravel S - sand/silt/mud BRK – bedrock Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 64 Exhibit DDD Page 81 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-1. MC-1 habitat data. STREAMNAME Maroon Creek CHANNEL TYPE REACH NO. MC-1 MIN. TEMP. DATE 9-Oct-12 MAX. TEMP PERSONNEL WJM DESCRIPTION Downstream of the Hwy. 82 bridge DISTRICT BANK HABITAT RESIDUAL UNIT TYPE NO. TYPE G1 AVE. MAX. LENGTH 1 DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) 43.00 SA WIDTH 32.00 BANK COVER TYPES 3 4 5 LEFT RIGHT BANKS (FT.) 1 4 4 SUBSTRATE 20.00 LOD PD SL G 25 R BLD BRK COMMENTS 75 6 M/R 73.00 27.00 1 1 4 4 14 P 31.00 19.00 0.75 1 1 4 4 3 25 50 25 R2 11 O 301.00 35.00 0.60 1 1 4 4 3 25 50 25 G2 1 51.00 29.00 1.20 1 1 4 4 2 75 25 R3 11 16.00 29.00 0.60 1 1 4 4 75 25 G3 1 68.00 24.00 1.20 1 1 4 4 75 25 R4 11 48.00 20.00 0.80 1 1 4 4 75 25 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 200 RIGHT P1 O 4.50 LEFT 4 2 CONTENT R1 O 2.80 ERODING STABILITY 1.10 4.00 ROCK 25 1 75 65 Exhibit DDD Page 82 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-2. MC-1 habitat results. Maroon Creek - MC-1 REACH POOL RIFFLE GLIDE REACH TOTAL POOL TOTAL LENGTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 73.00 396.00 162.00 631.00 AVERAGE WIDTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 27.00 25.75 28.33 27.03 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 GLIDE TOTAL 1971.00 12548.00 4487.00 19006.00 % OF TOTAL NUM. OF HABITATS 12.50 50.00 37.50 100.00 HABITAT TYPE 10.37 66.02 23.61 100.00 10.15 0.00 0.00 1.05 % OF CVR 2 TO TOTAL AREA AVERAGE RESIDUAL DEPTH (ft.) TOTAL AREA OF HABITAT ( sq. ft. ) RIFFLE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 3 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 4 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 5 TO TOTAL AREA 10.15 0.00 0.00 1.05 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AS A % OF TOTAL AREA AVERAGE DEPTH (ft.) 2.80 0.69 1.17 2.80 TOTAL COVER TYPE 2 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 2 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF TOTAL COVERS 2 - 5 TOTAL COVER TYPE 3 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 3 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 TO TOTAL HABITAT 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 4 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 4 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 5 (sq. ft.) 200.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 AVE. TYPE 5 COVER PER UNIT 200.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 % BANK ROCK CONTENT % BANK STABILITY TYPE 1 TYPE 2 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 66.67 87.50 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 33.33 12.50 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 2 TYPE 3 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 3 TYPE 4 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 LEFT BANK TOTAL OF ERODING BANKS ( ft. ) 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 TYPE 7 LEFT BANK TOTAL LRG. ORGANIC DEBRIS 0.00 6.00 3.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TYPE 8 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVERAGE OF SUBSTRATA TYPE FOR HABITAT ON THIS REACH PLANT DEBRIS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAND\SILT 25.00 0.00 8.33 11.11 GRAVEL 0.00 12.50 0.00 4.17 RUBBLE 75.00 62.50 75.00 70.83 BOULDER 0.00 25.00 16.67 13.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. BEDROCK 66 Exhibit DDD Page 83 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-2 continued. HABITAT TYPE ANALYSIS TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER OF TYPE 2 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 9 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 3 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 10 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 4 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 11 HABITAT 0.00 3.00 0 3.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 95.31 0 37.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11959.00 0 0.63 NUMBER OF TYPE 5 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 12 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 6 HABITAT 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 12.50 1971.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 NUMBER OF TYPE 7 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 8 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITAT 1.00 4.00 3.00 8.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 14 HABITAT 0.00 1.00 0 1.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 4.69 0 12.50 0.00 589.00 0 0.03 NUMBER OF TYPE 15 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 100.00 % OF REACH NUMBER OF GLIDES 0.00 0.00 3 3.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 37.50 0.00 TOTAL % OF HABITAT 100.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 13 HABITAT % OF HABITAT 0.00 4487.00 0.24 BREAKDOWN OF HABITAT TYPES 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 HABITAT TYPE Frequency of distribution Percent of total area Figure A-1. MC-1 habitat types. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 67 Exhibit DDD Page 84 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-2. MC-1 total area by habitat type. Figure A-3. MC-1 percent cover. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 68 Exhibit DDD Page 85 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-4. MC-1 cover types. Figure A-5. MC-1 bank stability. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 69 Exhibit DDD Page 86 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-6. MC-1 bank rock content. Table A-3. MC-2 habitat data. STREAMNAME Maroon Creek CHANNEL TYPE REACH NO. MC-2 MIN. TEMP. DATE 16-Oct-12 MAX. TEMP PERSONNEL WJM, KMS DESCRIPTION Downstream of the city's diversion DISTRICT HABITAT RESIDUAL AVE. MAX. BANK UNIT TYPE LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) BANK COVER TYPES LEFT RIGHT BANKS (FT.) R1 11 O 48.00 23.00 0.50 1 1 2 2 1 26.00 22.00 0.90 1 1 2 2 1 P 230.00 29.00 0.60 1 1 2 2 15.00 17.00 1.10 1 1 2 2 25 75 16.00 16.00 1.10 1 1 2 2 25 75 1.00 G2 1 P1 5 B P2 5 B 17.00 18.00 R3 10 P 169.00 26.00 1.40 2.00 1.20 1.90 0.80 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1 1 2 1 2 2 LOD PD SL G R BLD 25 50 25 25 75 25 2 1 (FT.) SUBSTRATE (FT.) 1 5 RIGHT SA 10 4 LEFT TYPE R2 3 ERODING CONTENT NO. G1 2 ROCK STABILITY 75 25 2 COMMENTS 75 25 BRK 75 70 Exhibit DDD Page 87 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-4. MC-2 habitat results. Maroon Creek - MC-2 REACH POOL RIFFLE GLIDE REACH TOTAL POOL TOTAL LENGTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 33.00 447.00 41.00 521.00 AVERAGE WIDTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 17.00 26.00 19.50 20.83 1.05 0.00 0.00 1.05 GLIDE TOTAL 562.00 12168.00 827.00 13557.00 28.57 42.86 28.57 100.00 4.15 89.75 6.10 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 2 TO TOTAL AREA AVERAGE RESIDUAL DEPTH (ft.) TOTAL AREA OF HABITAT ( sq. ft. ) RIFFLE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 3 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 4 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 5 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF TOTAL NUM. OF HABITATS HABITAT TYPE AS A % OF TOTAL AREA AVERAGE DEPTH (ft.) 1.30 0.63 1.00 1.30 TOTAL COVER TYPE 2 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 2 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF TOTAL COVERS 2 - 5 TOTAL COVER TYPE 3 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 3 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 4 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 4 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 5 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 5 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 TO TOTAL HABITAT 0.00 % BANK ROCK CONTENT % BANK STABILITY TYPE 1 TYPE 2 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 33.33 25.00 27.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 2 TYPE 3 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 3 TYPE 4 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 TOTAL OF ERODING BANKS ( ft. ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TYPE 7 TOTAL LRG. ORGANIC DEBRIS 0.00 3.00 1.00 4 TYPE 8 AVERAGE OF SUBSTRATA TYPE FOR HABITAT ON THIS REACH PLANT DEBRIS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAND\SILT GRAVEL 0.00 8.33 0.00 2.78 RUBBLE 75.00 58.33 75.00 69.44 BOULDER Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. BEDROCK 71 Exhibit DDD Page 88 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-4 continued. HABITAT TYPE ANALYSIS TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER OF TYPE 2 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 9 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 3 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 10 HABITAT 0.00 2.00 0 2.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 90.93 0 28.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11064.00 0 0.82 NUMBER OF TYPE 4 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 11 HABITAT 0.00 1.00 0 1.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 9.07 0 14.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1104.00 0 0.08 NUMBER OF TYPE 12 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 5 HABITAT 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 28.57 562.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 NUMBER OF TYPE 6 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 13 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 7 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 14 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 8 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 15 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITAT 2.00 3.00 2.00 7.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 NUMBER OF GLIDES 0.00 0.00 2 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 28.57 0.00 TOTAL % OF HABITAT 0.00 827.00 0.06 BREAKDOWN OF HABITAT TYPES % OF REACH 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 HABITAT TYPE Frequency of distribution Percent of total area Figure A-7. MC-2 habitat types. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 72 Exhibit DDD Page 89 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-8. MC-2 total area by habitat type. Figure A-9. MC-2 percent cover. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 73 Exhibit DDD Page 90 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A.10. MC-2 bank stability. A-11. MC-2 bank rock content. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 74 Exhibit DDD Page 91 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-5. MC-3 habitat data. STREAMNAME Maroon Creek REACH NO. CHANNEL TYPE MC-3 DATE MIN. TEMP. 16-Oct-12 MAX. TEMP PERSONNEL WJM, KMS DESCRIPTION 0.25 miles upstream of the city's diversion DISTRICT BANK HABITAT RESIDUAL UNIT TYPE AVE. MAX. LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) BANK NO. TYPE SA (FT.) (FT.) R1 11 O 88.00 22.00 COVER TYPES 3 4 5 LEFT RIGHT BANKS 1 2 2 5 B 17.00 24.00 1 1 2 O 135.00 25.00 0.80 1 1 2 2 G1 1 40.00 6.00 0.80 1 1 2 14 P 60.00 25.00 1.00 1 1 2 11 O 60.00 42.00 P2 5 L 24.00 28.00 O 70.00 44.00 49.00 23.00 39.00 18.00 PD SL G R BLD 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 50 50 2 R4 SUBSTRATE LOD 2 R3 (FT.) 2 11 11 1 R6 10 P 10 RIGHT P1 R5 2.50 LEFT 1 2 CONTENT R2 G2 1.50 ERODING STABILITY 0.80 1.50 ROCK 0.80 1.90 4 BRK COMMENTS 2nd channel on right looking upstream 50 50 25 Channel splits Logjam/splits 1 1 2 2 2 25 50 1 1 2 2 6 50 50 0.70 1 1 2 2 20 25 50 25 0.90 1 1 2 2 25 50 25 1.00 1 1 2 2 25 25 50 2.00 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2.70 50 75 75 Exhibit DDD Page 92 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-6. MC-3 habitat results. Maroon Creek - MC-3 REACH POOL RIFFLE GLIDE REACH TOTAL POOL TOTAL LENGTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 41.00 452.00 89.00 582.00 AVERAGE WIDTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 26.00 29.33 14.50 23.28 1.70 0.00 0.00 1.70 GLIDE TOTAL 1080.00 13113.00 1367.00 15560.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 100.00 6.94 84.27 8.79 100.00 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.87 % OF CVR 2 TO TOTAL AREA AVERAGE RESIDUAL DEPTH (ft.) TOTAL AREA OF HABITAT ( sq. ft. ) RIFFLE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 3 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 4 TO TOTAL AREA 4.63 0.00 0.00 0.32 % OF CVR 5 TO TOTAL AREA 7.87 0.00 0.00 0.55 % OF TOTAL NUM. OF HABITATS HABITAT TYPE AS A % OF TOTAL AREA AVERAGE DEPTH (ft.) 1.75 0.85 0.85 1.75 TOTAL COVER TYPE 2 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 2 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF TOTAL COVERS 2 - 5 TOTAL COVER TYPE 3 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 3 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 4 (sq. ft.) 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 AVE. TYPE 4 COVER PER UNIT 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 TOTAL COVER TYPE 5 (sq. ft.) 85.00 0.00 0.00 85.00 AVE. TYPE 5 COVER PER UNIT 42.50 0.00 0.00 TO TOTAL HABITAT 0.55 % BANK ROCK CONTENT % BANK STABILITY TYPE 1 TYPE 2 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 45.83 50.00 48.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 2 TYPE 3 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 3 TYPE 4 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 TOTAL OF ERODING BANKS ( ft. ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TYPE 7 TOTAL LRG. ORGANIC DEBRIS 6.00 26.00 0.00 32 TYPE 8 AVERAGE OF SUBSTRATA TYPE FOR HABITAT ON THIS REACH PLANT DEBRIS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRAVEL 37.50 20.83 37.50 31.94 RUBBLE BOULDER 12.50 33.33 12.50 19.44 BEDROCK Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. SAND\SILT 76 Exhibit DDD Page 93 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-6 continued. HABITAT TYPE ANALYSIS TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER OF TYPE 2 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 9 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 3 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 10 HABITAT 0.00 1.00 0 1.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 5.35 0 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 702.00 0 0.05 NUMBER OF TYPE 4 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 11 HABITAT 0.00 4.00 0 4.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 83.21 0 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10911.00 0 0.70 NUMBER OF TYPE 12 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 5 HABITAT 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 1080.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 NUMBER OF TYPE 6 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 13 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 7 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 14 HABITAT 0.00 1.00 0 1.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 11.44 0 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500.00 0 0.10 NUMBER OF TYPE 8 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 15 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITAT 2.00 6.00 2.00 10.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 % OF REACH NUMBER OF GLIDES 0.00 0.00 2 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 20.00 0.00 TOTAL % OF HABITAT 0.00 1367.00 0.09 BREAKDOWN OF HABITAT TYPES 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 HABITAT TYPE Frequency of distribution Percent of total area Figure A-12. MC-3 habitat types. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 77 Exhibit DDD Page 94 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-13. MC-3 total area by habitat type. Figure A-14. MC-3 percent cover. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 78 Exhibit DDD Page 95 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-15. MC-3 cover types. Figure A-16. MC-3 bank stability. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 79 Exhibit DDD Page 96 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-17. MC-3 bank rock content. Table A-7. CC-1 habitat data. STREAMNAME Castle Creek REACH NO. CHANNEL TYPE CC-1 DATE MIN. TEMP. 16-Oct-12 MAX. TEMP PERSONNEL WJM, KMS DESCRIPTION At the Aspen Institute DISTRICT BANK HABITAT RESIDUAL UNIT TYPE AVE. MAX. LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) NO. TYPE SA (FT.) (FT.) R1 10 P 68.00 35.00 R2 15 P 31.00 23.00 P1 5 B 17.00 23.00 P 21.00 23.00 48.00 28.00 27.00 22.00 R3 15 G1 1 R4 10 P BANK P2 5 B 20.00 23.00 R5 10 P 200.00 5 L 30.00 25.00 ERODING 3 4 5 1.20 CONTENT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT 1 2 STABILITY 0.80 BANKS 1 2 2 (FT.) SUBSTRATE LOD PD SL G R BLD 25 25 50 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1.20 1 1 2 2 25 25 1 1 2 2 25 25 1 1 2 2 25 25 50 1 1 2 2 5 25 25 50 1 1 2 2 2 75 25 2.00 2.40 3.30 10 10 1.00 1.80 1.50 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2.50 20 25 25 50 50 25 2 25 COMMENTS 50 1.80 25 BRK 50 0.80 2.30 1 1 1.00 1.60 30.00 P3 COVER TYPES ROCK 75 80 Exhibit DDD Page 97 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-8. CC-1 habitat results. Castle Creek - CC-1 REACH POOL RIFFLE GLIDE REACH TOTAL POOL TOTAL LENGTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 67.00 347.00 48.00 462.00 TOTAL AREA OF HABITAT ( sq. ft. ) AVERAGE WIDTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 23.67 26.60 28.00 26.09 1.90 0.00 0.00 1.90 RIFFLE GLIDE TOTAL 10170.00 1344.00 13115.00 % OF TOTAL NUM. OF HABITATS 33.33 55.56 11.11 100.00 HABITAT TYPE 12.21 77.54 10.25 100.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.30 % OF CVR 2 TO TOTAL AREA AVERAGE RESIDUAL DEPTH (ft.) 1601.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 3 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 4 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 5 TO TOTAL AREA 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.30 AS A % OF TOTAL AREA AVERAGE DEPTH (ft.) 1.77 0.96 1.20 1.77 TOTAL COVER TYPE 2 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 2 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF TOTAL COVERS 2 - 5 TOTAL COVER TYPE 3 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 3 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 TO TOTAL HABITAT 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 4 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 4 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 5 (sq. ft.) 40.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 AVE. TYPE 5 COVER PER UNIT 13.33 0.00 0.00 0.30 % BANK ROCK CONTENT % BANK STABILITY TYPE 1 TYPE 2 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 2 TYPE 3 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 3 TYPE 4 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 LEFT BANK TOTAL OF ERODING BANKS ( ft. ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TYPE 7 LEFT BANK TOTAL LRG. ORGANIC DEBRIS 4.00 5.00 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TYPE 8 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.67 25.00 25.00 30.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVERAGE OF SUBSTRATA TYPE FOR HABITAT ON THIS REACH PLANT DEBRIS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRAVEL 16.67 20.00 25.00 20.56 RUBBLE BOULDER 41.67 55.00 50.00 48.89 BEDROCK Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. SAND\SILT 81 Exhibit DDD Page 98 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-8 continued. HABITAT TYPE ANALYSIS TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER OF TYPE 2 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 9 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 3 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 10 HABITAT 0.00 3.00 0 3.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 88.24 0 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8974.00 0 0.68 NUMBER OF TYPE 4 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 11 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 5 HABITAT 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 1601.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 NUMBER OF TYPE 6 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 7 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 8 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 15 HABITAT % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITAT TOTAL % OF HABITAT 3.00 5.00 1.00 9.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 12 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 13 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 14 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2.00 0 2.00 0.00 11.76 0 22.22 0.00 1196.00 0 0.09 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 11.11 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 1344.00 0.10 100.00 NUMBER OF GLIDES BREAKDOWN OF HABITAT TYPES % OF REACH 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 HABITAT TYPE Frequency of distribution Percent of total area Figure A-18. CC-1 habitat types. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 82 Exhibit DDD Page 99 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-19. CC-1 total area by habitat type. Figure A-20. CC-1 percent cover. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 83 Exhibit DDD Page 100 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-21. CC-1 cover types. Figure A-22. CC-1 bank stability. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 84 Exhibit DDD Page 101 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-23. CC-1 bank rock content. Table A-9. CC-2 habitat data. STREAMNAME Castle Creek REACH NO. CHANNEL TYPE CC-2 DATE MIN. TEMP. 16-Oct-12 MAX. TEMP PERSONNEL WJM, KMS DESCRIPTION Near the Marolt bridge DISTRICT BANK HABITAT RESIDUAL UNIT TYPE AVE. MAX. LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) BANK COVER TYPES SA (FT.) (FT.) R1 10 9 161.00 36.00 0.60 101.00 30.00 0.90 1 1 107.00 24.00 1.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 P P1 4 E 39.00 25.00 R3 15 P 102.00 30.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 10 5 BANKS 50 (FT.) SUBSTRATE LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT 1 4.00 4 ERODING CONTENT TYPE R2 3 STABILITY NO. G1 2 ROCK LOD PD 1 2 2 2 SL G R BLD 25 25 50 2 2 1 25 25 50 2 2 25 25 50 2 2 25 25 50 2 2 25 BRK COMMENTS 75 85 Exhibit DDD Page 102 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-10. CC-2 habitat results. Castle Creek - CC-2 REACH POOL RIFFLE GLIDE REACH TOTAL POOL TOTAL LENGTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 39.00 370.00 101.00 510.00 AVERAGE WIDTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 25.00 30.00 30.00 28.33 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 GLIDE TOTAL 975.00 11424.00 3030.00 15429.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 100.00 6.32 74.04 19.64 100.00 6.15 0.00 0.00 0.39 % OF CVR 2 TO TOTAL AREA AVERAGE RESIDUAL DEPTH (ft.) TOTAL AREA OF HABITAT ( sq. ft. ) RIFFLE 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 % OF CVR 3 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 4 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 5 TO TOTAL AREA 5.13 0.00 0.00 0.32 % OF TOTAL NUM. OF HABITATS HABITAT TYPE AS A % OF TOTAL AREA AVERAGE DEPTH (ft.) 2.00 0.87 0.90 2.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 2 (sq. ft.) 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 AVE. TYPE 2 COVER PER UNIT 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 % OF TOTAL COVERS 2 - 5 TOTAL COVER TYPE 3 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 3 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 4 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 4 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 5 (sq. ft.) 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 AVE. TYPE 5 COVER PER UNIT 50.00 0.00 0.00 TO TOTAL HABITAT 0.32 % BANK ROCK CONTENT % BANK STABILITY TYPE 1 TYPE 2 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 2 TYPE 3 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 3 TYPE 4 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 LEFT BANK TOTAL OF ERODING BANKS ( ft. ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TYPE 7 LEFT BANK TOTAL LRG. ORGANIC DEBRIS 0.00 2.00 1.00 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TYPE 8 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVERAGE OF SUBSTRATA TYPE FOR HABITAT ON THIS REACH PLANT DEBRIS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRAVEL 25.00 16.67 25.00 22.22 RUBBLE BOULDER 50.00 58.33 50.00 52.78 BEDROCK Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. SAND\SILT 86 Exhibit DDD Page 103 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-10 continued. HABITAT TYPE ANALYSIS TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER OF TYPE 2 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 9 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 3 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 10 HABITAT 0.00 1.00 0 1.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 50.74 0 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5796.00 0 0.38 NUMBER OF TYPE 4 HABITAT 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 975.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 11 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 5 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 12 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 6 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 13 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 7 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 14 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 8 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 15 HABITAT 0.00 2.00 0 2.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 49.26 0 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5628.00 0 0.36 TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITAT 1.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 NUMBER OF GLIDES 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 20.00 0.00 TOTAL % OF HABITAT 0.00 3030.00 0.20 BREAKDOWN OF HABITAT TYPES % OF REACH 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 HABITAT TYPE Frequency of distribution Percent of total area Figure A-24. CC-2 habitat types. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 87 Exhibit DDD Page 104 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-25. CC-2 total area by habitat type. Figure A-26. CC-2 percent cover. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 88 Exhibit DDD Page 105 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-27. CC-2 cover types. Figure A-28. CC-2 bank stability. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 89 Exhibit DDD Page 106 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-29. CC-2 bank rock content. Table A-11. CC-3 habitat data. STREAMNAME Castle Creek REACH NO. CHANNEL TYPE CC-3 DATE MIN. TEMP. 16-Oct-12 MAX. TEMP PERSONNEL WJM, KMS DESCRIPTION 1.5 miles upstream of the city's diversion DISTRICT BANK HABITAT RESIDUAL UNIT TYPE AVE. MAX. LENGTH WIDTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH (FT.) (FT.) (FT.) BANK COVER TYPES ERODING LEFT RIGHT BANKS 1 2 2 (FT.) (FT.) R1 10 P 77.00 33.00 34.00 31.00 1.00 1 1 2 2 25 50 25 P 150.00 33.00 1.00 1 1 2 2 25 25 50 1 15 G2 1 29.00 23.00 P1 6 R 29.00 15.00 P 144.00 38.00 30.00 25.00 32.00 21.00 R3 10 G3 1 P2 5 B 50 1.20 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 LOD 1 2 1 1.20 2.80 1 1 0.80 2.00 (FT.) SUBSTRATE SA R2 5 RIGHT TYPE G1 4 LEFT 1 3 CONTENT NO. 0.90 2 ROCK STABILITY 2.50 2.20 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 3.00 3.80 100 200 PD SL G R BLD 25 25 50 25 25 25 50 2 25 25 50 2 25 50 25 2 50 25 COMMENTS 50 25 BRK 25 1 90 Exhibit DDD Page 107 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-12. CC-3 habitat results. Castle Creek - CC-3 REACH POOL RIFFLE GLIDE REACH TOTAL POOL TOTAL LENGTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 61.00 371.00 93.00 525.00 AVERAGE WIDTH OF HABITAT (ft.) 18.00 34.67 26.33 26.33 2.40 0.00 0.00 2.40 GLIDE TOTAL 1107.00 12963.00 2471.00 16541.00 25.00 37.50 37.50 100.00 6.69 78.37 14.94 100.00 27.10 0.39 0.00 2.12 % OF CVR 2 TO TOTAL AREA AVERAGE RESIDUAL DEPTH (ft.) TOTAL AREA OF HABITAT ( sq. ft. ) RIFFLE 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.30 % OF CVR 3 TO TOTAL AREA 9.03 0.00 0.00 0.60 % OF CVR 4 TO TOTAL AREA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF CVR 5 TO TOTAL AREA 18.07 0.00 0.00 1.21 % OF TOTAL NUM. OF HABITATS HABITAT TYPE AS A % OF TOTAL AREA AVERAGE DEPTH (ft.) 2.35 0.90 1.13 2.35 TOTAL COVER TYPE 2 (sq. ft.) 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 AVE. TYPE 2 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 16.67 0.00 0.30 % OF TOTAL COVERS 2 - 5 TOTAL COVER TYPE 3 (sq. ft.) 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 TOTAL COVER TYPE 4 (sq. ft.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AVE. TYPE 4 COVER PER UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COVER TYPE 5 (sq. ft.) 200.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 AVE. TYPE 5 COVER PER UNIT 100.00 0.00 0.00 TO TOTAL HABITAT 1.21 AVE. TYPE 3 COVER PER UNIT % BANK ROCK CONTENT % BANK STABILITY TYPE 1 TYPE 2 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 RIGHT BANK 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LEFT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RIGHT BANK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 25.00 41.67 30.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 2 TYPE 3 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 3 TYPE 4 % BANK STABILITY TYPE 4 TYPE 5 TYPE 6 TOTAL OF ERODING BANKS ( ft. ) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TYPE 7 TOTAL LRG. ORGANIC DEBRIS 1.00 1.00 0.00 2 TYPE 8 AVERAGE OF SUBSTRATA TYPE FOR HABITAT ON THIS REACH PLANT DEBRIS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GRAVEL 37.50 25.00 25.00 29.17 RUBBLE BOULDER 37.50 50.00 33.33 40.28 BEDROCK Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. SAND\SILT 91 Exhibit DDD Page 108 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table A-12 continued. HABITAT TYPE ANALYSIS TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER OF TYPE 2 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 9 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 3 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 10 HABITAT 0.00 2.00 0 2.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 61.81 0 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8013.00 0 0.48 NUMBER OF TYPE 4 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 11 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 5 HABITAT NUMBER OF TYPE 6 HABITAT 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 60.70 0.00 0.00 12.50 672.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 12 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 39.30 0.00 0.00 12.50 435.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 NUMBER OF TYPE 7 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 8 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 15 HABITAT 0.00 1.00 0 1.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 38.19 0 12.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4950.00 0 0.30 % OF HABITAT TOTAL NUMBER OF HABITAT 2.00 3.00 3.00 8.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 14 HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 % OF HABITAT 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 100.00 NUMBER OF GLIDES 0.00 0.00 3 3.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 37.50 0.00 TOTAL % OF HABITAT 100.00 NUMBER OF TYPE 13 HABITAT % OF HABITAT 0.00 2471.00 0.15 BREAKDOWN OF HABITAT TYPES % OF REACH 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 HABITAT TYPE Frequency of distribution Percent of total area Figure A-30. CC-3 habitat types. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 92 Exhibit DDD Page 109 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-31. CC-3 total area by habitat type. Figure A-32. CC-3 percent cover. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 93 Exhibit DDD Page 110 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-33. CC-3 cover types. Figure A-34. CC-3 bank stability. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 94 Exhibit DDD Page 111 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure A-35. CC-3 bank rock content. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 95 Exhibit Page 112 of 172 This page intentionally blank Exhibit DDD Page 113 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 APPENDIX B: MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 96 Exhibit Page 114 of 172 This page intentionally blank Exhibit DDD Page 115 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-1. Macroinvertebrate species list, MC-1, October 2012. MAROON CREEK MC 1 10/9/2012 Rep 1 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Baetidae Ephemerellidae Heptageniidae Leptophlebiidae Plecoptera Capniidae Chloroperlidae Leuctridae Nemouridae Perlodidae Pteronarcyidae Taeniopterygidae Trichoptera Brachycentridae Glossosomatidae Hydropsychidae Lepidostomatidae Limnephilidae Rhyacophilidae Uenoidae Coleoptera Elmidae Chironomidae Chironomidae Ameletus Acentrella Baetis Baetis Drunella Drunella Ephemerella/Serratella Cinygmula Epeorus Rhithrogena Paraleptophlebia sp. sp. bicaudatus tricaudatus doddsi grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Capnia Sweltsa Paraleuctra Zapada Zapada Cultus Isoperla Megarcys Pteronarcella Taenionema sp. sp. sp. cinctipes sp. sp. sp. sp. badia sp. Brachycentrus Glossosoma Arctopsyche Hydropsyche Lepidostoma Ecclisomyia Rhyacophila Rhyacophila Neothremma Oligophlebodes Heterlimnius Heterlimnius Tanypodinae Chironominae Diamesinae Orthocladiinae pupae Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 45 4 20 5 3 Sample Rep 2 35 3 8 5 Total Rep 3 29 4 19 11 3 109 11 47 21 6 1 70 27 1 51 2 148 1 6 1 8 1 18 3 32 10 6 9 25 7 6 1 2 3 2 13 2 6 36 16 6 58 sp. sp. grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. 2 no gills sp. 1 gills sp. sp. 19 4 12 3 1 4 34 2 16 56 7 32 corpulentus (A) corpulentus (L) 2 11 Tanytarsini Chironomini 1 2 2 5 5 2 7 7 1 11 72 12 5 18 14 12 1 9 72 1 13 121 25 2 43 2 4 107 29 28 300 66 97 Exhibit DDD Page 116 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-1 continued. Other Diptera Blephariceridae Ceratopogonidae Empididae Muscidae Psychodidae Simulidae Tipulidae Agathon Bibiocephala Bezzia/Palpomyia Chelifera Clinocera Lispoides Pericoma Simulium Antocha Dicranota Hexatoma sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. aequifrons sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. 6 5 6 15 1 2 23 4 3 44 10 11 3 3 37 17 93 22 1 176 39 1 2 4 1 3 3 7 1 8 12 1 14 431 388 578 1397 Other Oligochaeta Tricladida Nematoda Ostracoda Sphaeriidae Sperchonidae Protziidae Lebertiidae Torrenticolidae Haplotaxida Planariidae 46 2 Pisidium Sperchon Protzia Lebertia Torrenticola Totals Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. 98 Exhibit DDD Page 117 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-2. Macroinvertebrate species list, MC-2, October 2012. MAROON CREEK MC 2 10/9/2012 Rep 1 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Baetidae Ephemerellidae Heptageniidae Leptophlebiidae Plecoptera Capniidae Chloroperlidae Leuctridae Nemouridae Perlodidae Pteronarcyidae Taeniopterygidae Trichoptera Brachycentridae Glossosomatidae Hydropsychidae Lepidostomatidae Limnephilidae Rhyacophilidae Uenoidae Coleoptera Elmidae Chironomidae Chironomidae Ameletus Acentrella Baetis Baetis Drunella Drunella Ephemerella/Serratella Cinygmula Epeorus Rhithrogena Paraleptophlebia sp. sp. bicaudatus tricaudatus doddsi grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Capnia Sweltsa Paraleuctra Zapada Zapada Cultus Isoperla Megarcys Pteronarcella Taenionema sp. sp. sp. cinctipes sp. sp. sp. sp. badia sp. Brachycentrus Glossosoma Arctopsyche Hydropsyche Lepidostoma Ecclisomyia Rhyacophila Neothremma Oligophlebodes sp. sp. grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. 2 no gills sp. 1 gills sp. sp. Heterlimnius Heterlimnius corpulentus (A) corpulentus (L) Tanypodinae Chironominae Diamesinae Orthocladiinae pupae Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1 86 2 39 3 36 Sample Rep 2 Total Rep 3 31 8 9 1 64 2 41 7 36 2 222 4 111 18 81 1 21 1 26 25 2 72 2 2 10 2 4 4 16 49 1 72 2 12 2 3 5 71 53 43 167 1 3 5 5 4 6 12 8 5 24 5 18 4 50 14 6 6 13 25 35 71 1 27 1 133 1 5 2 2 17 2 6 16 3 9 38 7 14 1 8 72 9 4 Tanytarsini Chironomini 99 Exhibit DDD Page 118 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-2 continued. Other Diptera Blephariceridae Ceratopogonidae Empididae Muscidae Psychodidae Simulidae Tipulidae Other Oligochaeta Tricladida Nematoda Ostracoda Sphaeriidae Sperchonidae Protziidae Lebertiidae Torrenticolidae Totals Agathon Bibiocephala Bezzia/Palpomyia Chelifera Clinocera Lispoides Pericoma Simulium Antocha Dicranota Hexatoma sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. aequifrons sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. 1 1 3 17 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. 2 1 74 4 56 8 161 16 2 Pisidium Sperchon Protzia Lebertia Torrenticola 11 31 4 Haplotaxida Planariidae 3 1 9 8 1 1 11 4 1 28 5 2 6 13 409 458 462 1329 3 100 Exhibit DDD Page 119 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-3. Macroinvertebrate species list, MC-3, October 2012. MAROON CREEK MC 3 10/9/2012 Sample Total Rep 1 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Baetidae Ephemerellidae Heptageniidae Leptophlebiidae Plecoptera Capniidae Chloroperlidae Leuctridae Nemouridae Perlodidae Pteronarcyidae Taeniopterygidae Trichoptera Brachycentridae Glossosomatidae Hydropsychidae Lepidostomatidae Limnephilidae Rhyacophilidae Uenoidae Coleoptera Elmidae Chironomidae Chironomidae Rep 2 Rep 3 86 4 40 1 11 53 4 55 4 10 59 1 49 1 26 1 5 54 25 38 198 9 144 6 47 1 5 117 2 3 1 5 1 1 4 9 16 10 17 43 4 2 3 9 1 3 102 20 73 195 1 1 1 2 1 16 4 4 11 3 1 1 6 50 13 1 11 19 3 29 5 75 Ameletus Acentrella Baetis Baetis Drunella Drunella Ephemerella/Serratella Cinygmula Epeorus Rhithrogena Paraleptophlebia sp. sp. bicaudatus tricaudatus doddsi grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Capnia Sweltsa Paraleuctra Zapada Zapada Cultus Isoperla Megarcys Pteronarcella Taenionema sp. sp. sp. cinctipes sp. sp. sp. sp. badia sp. Brachycentrus Glossosoma Arctopsyche Hydropsyche Lepidostoma Ecclisomyia Rhyacophila Neothremma Oligophlebodes sp. sp. grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. 2 no gills sp. 1 gills sp. sp. Heterlimnius Heterlimnius corpulentus (A) corpulentus (L) 2 27 Tanytarsini Chironomini 1 Tanypodinae Chironominae Diamesinae Orthocladiinae pupae Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 23 6 2 10 2 4 1 5 22 2 2 9 9 41 4 101 Exhibit DDD Page 120 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-3 continued. Other Diptera Blephariceridae Ceratopogonidae Empididae Muscidae Psychodidae Simulidae Tipulidae Other Oligochaeta Tricladida Nematoda Ostracoda Sphaeriidae Sperchonidae Protziidae Lebertiidae Torrenticolidae Totals Agathon Bibiocephala Bezzia/Palpomyia Chelifera Clinocera Lispoides Pericoma Simulium Antocha Dicranota Hexatoma sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. aequifrons sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Haplotaxida Planariidae 1 1 65 1 3 2 1 1 2 51 3 1 119 5 2 1 1 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. 8 2 3 5 50 14 2 Pisidium Sperchon Protzia Lebertia Torrenticola 39 7 2 3 7 3 4 1 6 1 10 17 529 276 421 1226 102 Exhibit DDD Page 121 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-4. Macroinvertebrate species list, CC-1, October 2012. CASTLE CREEK CC 1 10/9/2012 Sample Rep 1 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Baetidae Ephemerellidae Heptageniidae Leptophlebiidae Plecoptera Capniidae Chloroperlidae Leuctridae Nemouridae Perlodidae Pteronarcyidae Taeniopterygidae Trichoptera Brachycentridae Glossosomatidae Hydropsychidae Lepidostomatidae Limnephilidae Rhyacophilidae Uenoidae Coleoptera Elmidae Chironomidae Chironomidae Ameletus Acentrella Baetis Baetis Drunella Drunella Ephemerella/Serratella Cinygmula Epeorus Rhithrogena Paraleptophlebia sp. sp. bicaudatus tricaudatus doddsi grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Capnia Sweltsa Paraleuctra Zapada Zapada Cultus Isoperla Megarcys Pteronarcella Taenionema sp. sp. sp. cinctipes sp. sp. sp. sp. badia sp. Brachycentrus Glossosoma Arctopsyche Hydropsyche Lepidostoma Ecclisomyia Rhyacophila Total Rep 2 Rep 3 4 49 5 1 2 5 32 8 2 4 9 102 13 5 7 2 2 4 32 121 1 33 186 1 1 14 3 2 3 17 1 1 6 9 21 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 15 8 31 29 31 49 109 16 1 2 1 13 33 14 30 1 49 2 1 4 7 Neothremma Oligophlebodes sp. sp. grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. 2 no gills sp. 1 gills sp. sp. Heterlimnius Heterlimnius corpulentus (A) corpulentus (L) 1 2 1 27 18 2 47 Tanypodinae Chironominae Diamesinae Orthocladiinae pupae Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Tanytarsini Chironomini 2 3 10 2 14 62 6 2 5 28 8 22 100 16 103 Exhibit DDD Page 122 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-4 continued. Other Diptera Blephariceridae Ceratopogonidae Empididae Muscidae Psychodidae Simulidae Tipulidae Other Oligochaeta Tricladida Nematoda Ostracoda Sphaeriidae Sperchonidae Protziidae Lebertiidae Torrenticolidae Totals Agathon Bibiocephala Bezzia/Palpomyia Chelifera Clinocera Lispoides Pericoma Simulium Antocha Dicranota Hexatoma sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. aequifrons sp. sp sp sp sp. Pisidium Sperchon Protzia Lebertia Torrenticola Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2 2 3 1 1 27 Haplotaxida Planariidae 1 5 5 110 1 2 103 2 240 3 2 2 4 6 516 370 1061 sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. 175 5 6 5 8 13 13 2 104 Exhibit DDD Page 123 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-5. Macroinvertebrate species list, CC-2, October 2012. CASTLE CREEK CC 2 10/9/2012 Sample Total Rep 1 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Baetidae Ephemerellidae Heptageniidae Leptophlebiidae Plecoptera Capniidae Chloroperlidae Leuctridae Nemouridae Perlodidae Pteronarcyidae Taeniopterygidae Trichoptera Brachycentridae Glossosomatidae Hydropsychidae Lepidostomatidae Limnephilidae Rhyacophilidae Uenoidae Coleoptera Elmidae Chironomidae Chironomidae Ameletus Acentrella Baetis Baetis Drunella Drunella Ephemerella/Serratella Cinygmula Epeorus Rhithrogena Paraleptophlebia sp. sp. bicaudatus tricaudatus doddsi grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Capnia Sweltsa Paraleuctra Zapada Zapada Cultus Isoperla Megarcys Pteronarcella Taenionema sp. sp. sp. cinctipes sp. sp. sp. sp. badia sp. Brachycentrus Glossosoma Arctopsyche Hydropsyche Lepidostoma Ecclisomyia Rhyacophila Neothremma Oligophlebodes sp. sp. grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. 2 no gills sp. 1 gills sp. sp. Heterlimnius Heterlimnius corpulentus (A) corpulentus (L) Tanypodinae Chironominae Diamesinae Orthocladiinae pupae Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Rep 2 Rep 3 31 6 2 5 2 33 3 3 2 69 11 5 3 2 3 44 38 74 156 8 5 5 18 3 6 2 2 2 8 7 21 11 29 61 59 18 34 111 12 1 16 1 29 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 10 1 12 4 18 7 1 29 15 2 5 45 2 Tanytarsini Chironomini 105 Exhibit DDD Page 124 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-5 continued. Other Diptera Blephariceridae Ceratopogonidae Empididae Muscidae Psychodidae Simulidae Tipulidae Other Oligochaeta Tricladida Nematoda Ostracoda Sphaeriidae Sperchonidae Protziidae Lebertiidae Torrenticolidae Totals Agathon Bibiocephala Bezzia/Palpomyia Chelifera Clinocera Lispoides Pericoma Simulium Antocha Dicranota Hexatoma sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. aequifrons sp. sp sp sp sp. 2 1 3 1 5 2 3 1 1 6 1 6 16 4 58 9 Haplotaxida Planariidae 3 9 2 96 3 65 10 219 22 1 Pisidium Sperchon Protzia Lebertia Torrenticola Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. 1 1 5 6 1 4 5 298 239 314 851 106 Exhibit DDD Page 125 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-6. Macroinvertebrate species list, CC-3, October 2012. CASTLE CREEK CC 3 10/9/2012 Sample Total Rep 1 Ephemeroptera Ameletidae Baetidae Ephemerellidae Heptageniidae Leptophlebiidae Plecoptera Capniidae Chloroperlidae Leuctridae Nemouridae Perlodidae Pteronarcyidae Taeniopterygidae Trichoptera Brachycentridae Glossosomatidae Hydropsychidae Lepidostomatidae Limnephilidae Rhyacophilidae Uenoidae Coleoptera Elmidae Chironomidae Chironomidae Ameletus Acentrella Baetis Baetis Drunella Drunella Ephemerella/Serratella Cinygmula Epeorus Rhithrogena Paraleptophlebia sp. sp. bicaudatus tricaudatus doddsi grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Capnia Sweltsa Paraleuctra Zapada Zapada Cultus Isoperla Megarcys Pteronarcella Taenionema sp. sp. sp. cinctipes sp. sp. sp. sp. badia sp. Brachycentrus Glossosoma Arctopsyche Hydropsyche Lepidostoma Ecclisomyia Rhyacophila Neothremma Oligophlebodes sp. sp. grandis sp. sp. sp. sp. 2 no gills sp. 1 gills sp. sp. Heterlimnius Heterlimnius corpulentus (A) corpulentus (L) Tanypodinae Chironominae Diamesinae Orthocladiinae pupae Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Rep 2 Rep 3 17 6 1 26 5 8 2 1 38 12 9 6 7 6 2 12 1 44 12 1 10 3 1 4 1 1 22 34 14 9 70 7 14 1 78 22 1 44 2 2 2 6 2 6 2 2 43 137 44 50 2 1 6 4 3 13 18 9 8 2 3 5 29 16 65 17 1 29 1 111 3 3 31 172 12 43 228 26 Tanytarsini Chironomini 9 38 14 3 18 3 107 Exhibit DDD Page 126 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-6 continued. Other Diptera Blephariceridae Ceratopogonidae Empididae Muscidae Psychodidae Simulidae Tipulidae Other Oligochaeta Tricladida Nematoda Ostracoda Sphaeriidae Sperchonidae Protziidae Lebertiidae Torrenticolidae Totals Agathon Bibiocephala Bezzia/Palpomyia Chelifera Clinocera Lispoides Pericoma Simulium Antocha Dicranota Hexatoma sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. aequifrons sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. Pisidium Sperchon Protzia Lebertia Torrenticola 2 10 2 9 30 1 22 1 3 32 7 112 8 2 359 46 1 4 3 4 9 2 5 555 1383 1 18 1 11 2 215 31 1 sp. sp. sp. sp. sp. 1 3 1 2 Haplotaxida Planariidae 1 3 2 3 577 251 Table B-7. Macroinvertebrate biomass analyses, October 2012. Individual Weights Oct 12 Site MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 Rep 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 Weight (g) Weight (g/m ) 0.112 1.303 0.103 1.200 0.198 2.301 0.068 0.787 0.083 0.967 0.095 1.110 0.082 0.957 0.057 0.662 0.062 0.719 0.171 1.990 0.084 0.971 0.123 1.427 0.079 0.914 0.044 0.514 0.194 2.251 0.128 1.487 0.048 0.555 0.140 1.633 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Mean Weights Oct 12 Site MC 1 Weight (g) 0.138 Weight (g/m2) 1.602 MC 2 0.082 0.955 MC 3 0.067 0.779 CC 1 0.126 1.462 CC 2 0.105 1.226 CC 3 0.105 1.225 108 Exhibit DDD Page 127 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Table B-8. Macroinvertebrate density analyses, October 2012. Individual Density Oct 12 Site MC 1 MC 2 MC 3 CC 1 CC 2 CC 3 Rep 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Number 431 388 578 409 458 462 529 276 421 175 516 370 298 239 314 577 251 555 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. Mean Density Oct 12 # per m2 5012 4512 6721 4756 5326 5372 6151 3209 4895 2035 6000 4302 3465 2779 3651 6709 2919 6453 Site MC 1 Number 466 # per m2 5415 MC 2 443 5151 MC 3 409 4752 CC 1 354 4112 CC 2 284 3298 CC 3 461 5360 109 Exhibit Page 128 of 172 This page intentionally blank Exhibit DDD Page 129 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 APPENDIX C: FISH DATA Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 110 Exhibit Page 130 of 172 This page intentionally blank Exhibit DDD Page 131 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Brown Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 MC 1 550 500 450 400 Density (# / acre) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-1. Brown trout density, MC-1. Rainbow Trout Density MC 1 45 40 35 Density (# / acre) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-2. Rainbow trout density, MC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 111 Exhibit DDD Page 132 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Brook Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 MC 1 10 9 8 7 Density (# / acre) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-3. Brook trout density, MC-1. All Trout Density MC 1 600 550 500 450 Density (# / acre) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-4. All trout combined density, MC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 112 Exhibit DDD Page 133 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Brown Trout Biomass Apr 26, 2013 MC 1 600 550 500 450 Biomass (pounds / acre) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-5. Brown trout biomass, MC-1. Rainbow Trout Biomass MC 1 18 16 14 Biomass (pounds / acre) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-6. Rainbow trout biomass, MC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 113 Exhibit DDD Page 134 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Brook Trout Biomass MC 1 5 Biomass (pounds / acre) 4 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-7. Brook trout biomass, MC-1. All Trout Biomass MC 1 600 550 500 450 Biomass (pounds / acre) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-8. All trout combined biomass, MC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 114 Exhibit DDD Page 135 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Brown Trout Population Estimate Apr 26, 2013 MC 1 200 175 150 Number of Fish 125 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-9. Brown trout population estimate, MC-1. Rainbow Trout Population Estimate MC 1 16 14 12 Number of Fish 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-10. Rainbow trout population estimate, MC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 115 Exhibit DDD Page 136 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Brook Trout Population Estimate MC 1 5 4 Number of Fish 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-11. Brook trout population estimate, MC-1. All Trout Population Estimate MC 1 200 175 150 Number of Fish 125 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-12. All trout combined population estimate, MC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 116 Exhibit DDD Page 137 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Brown Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 MC 2 150 125 Density (# / acre) 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-13. Brown trout density, MC-2. Rainbow Trout Density MC 2 16 14 12 Density (# / acre) 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-14. Rainbow trout density, MC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 117 Exhibit DDD Page 138 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Brook Trout Density MC 2 250 225 200 175 Density (# / acre) 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-15. Brook trout density, MC-2. All Trout Density MC 2 400 350 300 Density (# / acre) 250 200 150 100 50 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-16. All trout combined density, MC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 118 Exhibit DDD Page 139 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Brown Trout Biomass Apr 26, 2013 MC 2 150 125 Biomass (pounds / acre) 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-17. Brown trout biomass, MC-2. Rainbow Trout Biomass MC 2 5 Biomass (pounds / acre) 4 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-18. Rainbow trout biomass, MC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 119 Exhibit DDD Page 140 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Brook Trout Biomass MC 2 50 45 40 Biomass (pounds / acre) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-19. Brook trout biomass, MC-2. All Trout Biomass MC 2 200 175 Biomass (pounds / acre) 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-20. All trout combined biomass, MC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 120 Exhibit DDD Page 141 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Brown Trout Population Estimate Apr 26, 2013 MC 2 40 35 30 Number of Fish 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-21. Brown trout population estimate, MC-2. Rainbow Trout Population Estimate MC 2 5 4 Number of Fish 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-22. Rainbow trout population estimate, MC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 121 Exhibit DDD Page 142 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Brook Trout Population Estimate MC 2 65 60 55 50 45 Number of Fish 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-23. Brook trout population estimate, MC-2. All Trout Population Estimate MC 2 100 90 80 70 Number of Fish 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-24. All trout combined population estimate, MC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 122 Exhibit DDD Page 143 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Rainbow Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 MC 3 5 4 Density (# / acre) 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-25. Rainbow trout density, MC-3. Brook Trout Density MC 3 275 250 225 200 Density (# / acre) 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-26. Brook trout density, MC-3. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 123 Exhibit DDD Page 144 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report All Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 MC 3 275 250 225 200 Density (# / acre) 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-27. All trout combined density, MC-3. Rainbow Trout Biomass MC 3 5 Biomass (pounds / acre) 4 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-28. Rainbow trout biomass, MC-3. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 124 Exhibit DDD Page 145 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Brook Trout Biomass MC 3 40 35 Biomass (pounds / acre) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-29. Brook trout biomass, MC-3. All Trout Biomass MC 3 45 40 35 Biomass (pounds / acre) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-30. All trout combined biomass, MC-3. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 125 Exhibit DDD Page 146 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Rainbow Trout Population Estimate Apr 26, 2013 MC 3 5 4 Number of Fish 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-31. Rainbow trout population estimate, MC-3. Brook Trout Population Estimate MC 3 90 80 70 Number of Fish 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-32. Brook trout population estimate, MC-3. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 126 Exhibit DDD Page 147 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 All Trout Population Estimate MC 3 90 80 70 Number of Fish 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-33. All trout combined population estimate, MC-3. Brown Trout Density CC 1 80 70 60 Density (# / acre) 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-34. Brown trout density, CC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 127 Exhibit DDD Page 148 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Rainbow Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 CC 1 55 50 45 40 Density (# / acre) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-35. Rainbow trout density, CC-1. Brook Trout Density CC 1 30 25 20 Density (# / acre) 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-36. Brook trout density, CC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 128 Exhibit DDD Page 149 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report All Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 CC 1 110 100 90 80 Density (# / acre) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-37. All trout combined density, CC-1. Brown Trout Biomass CC 1 40 35 Biomass (pounds / acre) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-38. Brown trout biomass, CC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 129 Exhibit DDD Page 150 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Rainbow Trout Biomass Apr 26, 2013 CC 1 16 14 Biomass (pounds / acre) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-39. Rainbow trout biomass, CC-1. Brook Trout Biomass CC 1 7 6 5 Biomass (pounds / acre) 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-40. Brook trout biomass, CC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 130 Exhibit DDD Page 151 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report All Trout Biomass Apr 26, 2013 CC 1 55 50 45 Biomass (pounds / acre) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-41. All trout combined biomass, CC-1. Brown Trout Population Estimate CC 1 25 20 Number of Fish 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-42. Brown trout population estimate, CC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 131 Exhibit DDD Page 152 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Rainbow Trout Population Estimate CC 1 20 18 16 14 Number of Fish 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-43. Rainbow trout population estimate, CC-1. Brook Trout Population Estimate CC 1 12 10 8 Number of Fish 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-44. Brook trout population estimate, CC-1. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 132 Exhibit DDD Page 153 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 All Trout Population Estimate CC 1 40 35 30 Number of Fish 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-45. All trout combined population estimate, CC-1. Brown Trout Density CC 2 30 25 20 15 Density (# / acre) 10 5 0 5 10 15 20 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-46. Brown trout density, CC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 133 Exhibit DDD Page 154 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Rainbow Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 CC 2 60 55 50 45 Density (# / acre) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-47. Rainbow trout density, CC-2. Brook Trout Density CC 2 13 12 11 10 9 Density (# / acre) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-48. Brook trout density, CC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 134 Exhibit DDD Page 155 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report All Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 CC 2 90 80 70 Density (# / acre) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-49. All trout combined density, CC-2. Brown Trout Biomass CC 2 25 20 Biomass (pounds / acre) 15 10 5 0 5 10 15 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-50. Brown trout biomass, CC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 135 Exhibit DDD Page 156 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Rainbow Trout Biomass Apr 26, 2013 CC 2 20 18 16 Biomass (pounds / acre) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-51. Rainbow trout biomass, CC-2. Brook Trout Biomass CC 2 5 Biomass (pounds / acre) 4 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-52. Brook trout biomass, CC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 136 Exhibit DDD Page 157 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report All Trout Biomass Apr 26, 2013 CC 2 35 30 Biomass (pounds / acre) 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-53. All trout combined biomass, CC-2. Brown Trout Population Estimate CC 2 12 10 8 6 Number of Fish 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-54. Brown trout population estimate, CC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 137 Exhibit DDD Page 158 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Rainbow Trout Population Estimate CC 2 20 18 16 14 Number of Fish 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-55. Rainbow trout population estimate, CC-2. Brook Trout Population Estimate CC 2 5 4 Number of Fish 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-56. Brook trout population estimate, CC-2. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 138 Exhibit DDD Page 159 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 All Trout Population Estimate CC 2 30 25 Number of Fish 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-57. All trout combined population estimate, CC-2. Rainbow Trout Density CC 3 80 70 60 Density (# / acre) 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-58. Rainbow trout density, CC-3. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 139 Exhibit DDD Page 160 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Brook Trout Density Apr 26, 2013 CC 3 50 45 40 35 Density (# / acre) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-59. Brook trout density, CC-3. All Trout Density CC 3 120 110 100 90 Density (# / acre) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-60. All trout combined density, CC-3. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 140 Exhibit DDD Page 161 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Rainbow Trout Biomass Apr 26, 2013 CC 3 25 Biomass (pounds / acre) 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-61. Rainbow trout biomass, CC-3. Brook Trout Biomass CC 3 10 9 8 Biomass (pounds / acre) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-62. Brook trout biomass, CC-3. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 141 Exhibit DDD Page 162 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report All Trout Biomass Apr 26, 2013 CC 3 35 30 Biomass (pounds / acre) 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-63. All trout combined biomass, CC-3. Rainbow Trout Population Estimate CC 3 30 25 Number of Fish 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-64. Rainbow trout population estimate, CC-3. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 142 Exhibit DDD Page 163 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Brook Trout Population Estimate Apr 26, 2013 CC 3 18 16 14 Number of Fish 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-65. Brook trout population estimate, CC-3. All Trout Population Estimate CC 3 45 40 35 Number of Fish 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 Figure C-66. All trout combined population estimate, CC-3. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 143 Exhibit Page 164 of 172 This page intentionally blank Exhibit DDD Page 165 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 APPENDIX D: PHOTOGRAPHS Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 144 Exhibit Page 166 of 172 This page intentionally blank Exhibit DDD Page 167 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 *Note: there are no photos of site MC-1 for 2012. Figure D-1. MC-2, lower terminus of site, upstream view. Figure D-2. MC-2, upper terminus of site, downstream view. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 145 Exhibit DDD Page 168 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure D-3. MC-3, lower terminus of site, upstream view. Figure D-4. MC-3, upper terminus of site, downstream view. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 146 Exhibit DDD Page 169 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure D-5. CC-1, lower terminus of site, upstream view. Figure D-6. CC-1, upper terminus of site, downstream view. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 147 Exhibit DDD Page 170 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure D-7. CC-2, lower terminus of site, upstream view. Figure D-8. CC-2, upper terminus of site, downstream view. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 148 Exhibit DDD Page 171 of 172 2012 Draft Castle and Maroon Creeks Monitoring Report Apr 26, 2013 Figure D-9. CC-3, lower terminus of site, upstream view. Figure D-10. CC-3, upper terminus of site, downstream view. Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 149 Exhibit DDD Page 172 of 172 Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 2111 S. College Avenue, Unit D Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 970-224-4505