Exhibit E: Appendices B-N by rPlusEnergies

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix B Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Report

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC FERC No. 14787 Carbon County, Wyoming

December 2022

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Contents 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1

Desktop Review ........................................................................................................................ 2

2.2

Field Investigation ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.3 Streams and Open Waters ........................................................................................... 3

Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 4 3.1

Climate ...................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2

Basin Overview ......................................................................................................................... 5

3.3

Major Land Uses ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.4

Soils ........................................................................................................................................... 5

3.5

Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 6 3.5.1 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe ............................................................. 6 3.5.2 Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub .......................................................... 6 3.5.3 Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland ........................................................ 6 3.5.4 Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland ......................................... 6 3.5.5 Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe......................................... 7

3.6

Antecedent Precipitation ........................................................................................................... 7

3.7

Aquatic Resources .................................................................................................................... 8 3.7.1 Streams ........................................................................................................................ 8 3.7.2 Wetlands .................................................................................................................... 12 3.7.3 Open Waters .............................................................................................................. 13

Non-Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................. 14

References ........................................................................................................................................ 16

December 2022 | i

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Tables Table 3-1. Antecedent Precipitation Tool Results for the Delineation .......................................................... 8 Table 3-2. Ephemeral Streams Identified within the Study Area .................................................................. 9 Table 3-3. Intermittent Streams Identified within the Study Area................................................................ 10 Table 3-4. Perennial Streams Identified within the Study Area .................................................................. 11 Table 3-5. Wetlands Identified within the Study Area ................................................................................. 12 Table 3-6. Open Water Habitat Identified within the Study Area ................................................................ 13 Table 4-1. Potential Non-Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources within the Study Area..................................... 14

Appendices Appendix A. Aquatic Resource Delineation Study Plan Appendix B. Figures Appendix C. Antecedent Precipitation Tool Results Appendix D. Wetland Determination Data Forms Appendix E. Representative Site Photographs Appendix F. Stream Ordinary High Water Mark Datasheets

December 2022 | ii

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Acronyms and Abbreviations °F

degrees Fahrenheit

amsl

above mean sea level

AgACIS

Agricultural Applied Climate Information System

APT

Antecedent Precipitation Tool

Black Canyon

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CWA

Clean Water Act

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

FGDC

Federal Geographic Data Committee

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register

GPS

Global Positioning System

NAIP

National Agriculture Imagery Program

NRCS

Natural Resources Conservation Service

OHWM

Ordinary high water mark

PDSI

Palmer Drought Severity Index

PEM

Palustrine emergent

Project

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Riverine

Reclamation

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

rPlus

rPlus Hydro, LLP

USACE

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOI

U.S. Department of Interior

USFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S.

United States

December 2022 | iv

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Introduction

This Aquatic Resources Delineation Report has been prepared for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon), a subsidiary of rPlus Hydro, LLP, in support of the licensing of the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No. 14787) (Project). This delineation report has been prepared based on the Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Plan (Appendix A).

1.1

Project Description

On April 20, 2020, Black Canyon submitted a Notice of Intent to file an Application for an Original License and the accompanying Pre-Application Document to FERC for a proposed pumped storage project at and near the existing Seminoe Reservoir, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, in Carbon County (Project). Figure 1 in Appendix B shows the general vicinity of the Project. The Project involves the construction of a new 972-megawatt pumped storage facility, including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir. The Seminoe Reservoir would be utilized as the lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); current operations of Seminoe Reservoir would not be affected by the Project’s pumped storage operations. The proposed upper reservoir would consist of a surface area of approximately 114 acres at normal maximum operating pool. The Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance would also include an underground powerhouse; a power tunnel between the upper reservoir and the powerhouse; a tailrace tunnel between the powerhouse and a new intake in the existing Seminoe Reservoir; a powerhouse access tunnel; a high-voltage transmission tunnel; and a switchyard and transmission line which will connect the existing Aeolus Substation. This report has been prepared in support of Black Canyon’s plans to pursue the required permits, licenses, and agreements needed to build and operate the Project.

1.2

Study Area

The study area consists of all lands and waters projected to be affected by Project construction and operation at the time of study initiation. Additional lands have been identified since study initiation that will be included in the Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance. Aquatic resources were originally assessed June 16 to 18 and August 24 to 26 in 2021. Slight changes in the study area resulted in a desktop delineation by HDR wetland scientists that conducted the 2021 field delineation, using U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) aerial imagery from the National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP); these areas are identified as Desktop Delineated in Figure 3 of Appendix B. Additional changes in the study area in 2022 warranted a field delineation as potential aquatic resources were further removed from areas of the 2021 field delineation than wetland scientists were comfortable providing a supervised desktop delineation. In total, the study area encompasses 3,203 acres and is located approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Carbon County, Wyoming. Elevations within the study area range from approximately 6,200 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near Seminoe Dam to approximately 7,300 feet amsl at the proposed upper

December 2022 | 1

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

reservoir; much of the elevation along the transmission line corridor is between 6,500 and 6,700 feet amsl. The study area intersects the following U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ quadrangle maps: Seminoe Dam, Seminoe Dam NE, Seminoe Dam SE, Schneider Ridge, T E Ranch, Difficulty, and Windy Hill (Appendix B, Figure 2). The study area occurs in the following sections of the Public Land Survey System: • • • • • • •

Sections 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 34, and 35 of Township 24 North, Range 80 West; Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of Township 24 North, Range 81 West; Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of Township 24 North, Range 82 West; Sections 01, 02, 03, 12, 13, and 24 of Township 24 North, Range 83 West; Sections 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 34, and 35 of Township 25 North, Range 83 West; Sections 02, 03, 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Township 25 North, Range 84 West; and Sections 34 and 35 of Township 26 North, Range 84 West.

Methodology

This section describes the methodologies HDR wetland scientists used to survey for and delineate aquatic resources, including a desktop review and field investigations.

2.1

Desktop Review

Prior to conducting fieldwork, HDR conducted a desktop review of existing site information to aid in the identification of potential aquatic resources within and near the study area. HDR used the following data sources for information on vegetation (e.g., change in vegetation signature on aerial imagery), hydrology (e.g., saturation/inundation signatures), drainage patterns, topography, and potential or known aquatic resources in the study area: •

• • • •

Aerial imagery: o Recent and historical imagery from 1985 through 2016 (Google Earth Pro 2021); and o 2009, 2017, 2019 (color infrared band), and 2020 imagery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) (USDA 2021a); USGS topographic maps (Appendix B, Figure 2); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory data (USFWS 2019) (Appendix B, Figure 4); National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2019) (Appendix B, Figure 4); and Precipitation information from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE’s) Antecedent Precipitation Tool (APT) (v1.0.19) (USACE 2021) (Appendix C).

Typically, desktop reviews also use USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil map unit data and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain data. However, this digital data is not available within or near the study area (FEMA 2021; NRCS 2021).

December 2022 | 2

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

2.2

Field Investigation

2.2.1

Aquatic Resources

Utilizing data output from the desktop review, HDR wetland scientists conducted a field delineation of aquatic resources within the study area June 16 to 18 and August 24 to 26, 2021. As mentioned in Section 1.2, a supervised desktop delineation was conducted in 2021 to account for slight changes in the study area, and following that another field delineation performed on August 3, 2022 was conducted due to additional modifications to the study area further from where the original 2021 field delineation was conducted. The delineation was conducted in support of the requirements for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). HDR conducted the field delineation in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0; USACE 2008a), A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b), and the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2010). HDR collected Global Positioning System (GPS) data using an EOS Positioning Systems Arrow 100™ global navigation satellite system receiver with sub-foot accuracy linked via Bluetooth technology to an iPad™ or iPhoneTM operating the ArcGIS™ Collector application. The field crew uploaded GPS data to ArcGISTM Online and imported the data onto ArcGISTM desktop applications. HDR finalized delineation boundaries and reference points using the field-collected GPS data in ArcMapTM 10.7.1. HDR calculated area (acres) and length (linear feet) of aquatic resources in the study area using ArcGIS 10.7.1.

2.2.2

Wetlands

HDR investigated wetland and upland areas for the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils using the USACE 1987 Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), Regional Supplement (USACE 2008a), and associated Wetland Determination Data Form (Appendix B, Figure 3; Appendix D). HDR determined the wetland indicator status of plant species using the National Wetland Plant List for the Arid West region (USACE 2020). The boundaries of wetlands were determined by a visible change in vegetation community, changes in topography, and other visible distinctions between wetlands and uplands as shown on the wetland determination data forms, including hydric soil indicators. The field crew determined soil color using a Munsell Soil Color Chart (Munsell 2013). The study area, as shown in Appendix B, represents the maximum extent of surveys conducted to document wetlands and other aquatic resources. The field crew demarcated points and boundaries of all evaluated areas, including impoundments and stock ponds located within the study area that exhibited the required parameters for a wetland feature (i.e., hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and hydrology), using the GPS. They assigned each feature a wetland cover type classification based on the USFWS Classification System for Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the U.S. (Federal Geographic Data Committee [FGDC] 2013) and collected representative photographs of each feature (Appendix B, Figure 3; Appendix E).

2.2.3

Streams and Open Waters

The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) defines the boundaries of aquatic features for a variety of federal, state, and local regulatory purposes. Federal regulations define the OHWM as “that line on December 2022 | 3

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3(e)). OHWM features were identified using Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-05 (USACE 2005) and were determined in general accordance with the Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b) and the Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2010). As mentioned above, the USACE has issued specific guidance and data sheets for delineation of streams in the Arid West region (USACE 2008b, 2010). This guidance applies to “low-gradient, alluvial, ephemeral/intermittent channel forms” that may have a broad lateral extent and are often referred to as “washes” or “dry washes.” The most commonly used physical characteristics to indicate the OHWM include a natural scour line on the bank, recent bank erosion, and the presence of debris and litter (drift). For all channels except for S-3, photographs were obtained and GPS data was collected either on the centerline if a narrow stream or along each bank for wider streams. Appendix E includes photographs of representative channel features within the study area. Appendix F provides the Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheets for ephemeral and intermittent channels within the study area. Each linear channel feature was classified as one of the following based on its origin and hydrologic regime: •

•

Ephemeral Stream: This feature carries only storm water in direct response to precipitation, with water flowing only during and shortly after large precipitation events. An ephemeral stream has a somewhat-defined channel, the aquatic bed is always above the water table, and storm water runoff is the primary source of water. Intermittent Stream: This feature has a well-defined channel that contains water for only part of the year, typically during winter and spring when the aquatic bed is below the water table. The flow may be heavily supplemented by storm water runoff. Perennial Stream: This feature has a well-defined channel that contains water year-round during a year of normal precipitation, with the aquatic bed located below the water table for most of the year. Groundwater is the primary source of water for a perennial stream, but it also carries storm water runoff.

Existing Conditions

This section describes the regional and environmental setting of the study area, including the climate, topography, hydrology, soils, vegetation, aquatic resources, and level of human or natural disturbance.

3.1

Climate

The climate within the study area is characterized by low precipitation, rapid evaporation, and a wide temperature range. Summers are usually dry and mild and winters are very cold. Summer days are occasionally hot, but wind and a low humidity make the nights relatively cool (U.S. Department of Interior [USDOI] 1960). Average temperatures range between approximately 84 degrees Fahrenheit

December 2022 | 4

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

(°F) in July to approximately 12°F in December and January. The average annual precipitation for the period of record is 9.25 inches and the average annual snowfall is 21.3 inches (WRCC 2022).

3.2

Basin Overview

The study area is located in the North Platte River Basin (Appendix B, Figure 5), which is a subbasin of the Platte River Basin, composed of the North and South Platte River Basins (Wenck Associates 2016). The North, South, and Platte Rivers are located in a semiarid to subhumid climate, and much of the river flow originates as spring snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains (USGS 1983). The North Platte River Basin drains approximately 21,907 square miles in southeast Wyoming and also extends into northern Colorado and central Nebraska (Wenck Associates 2016; Reclamation 2019). The South Platte Basin drains an additional approximately 2,000 square miles in Wyoming (Wenck Associates 2016). Together, the North, South, and Platte Rivers drain approximately 86,000 square miles (USGS 1983). Non-isolated aquatic resources within the study area drain to the North Platte River and/or Seminoe Reservoir, which is an impoundment of the North Platte River located within the study area. The North Platte River and Seminoe Reservoir are the nearest traditional navigable water (USACE 2008c). The North Platte River and Seminoe Reservoir drain to the Missouri River, approximately 576 aerial miles east; the Missouri River is the nearest navigable water of the United States.

3.3

Major Land Uses

Lands surrounding the North Platte River in the vicinity of the study area are used primarily for grazing, growing hay for livestock, oil and gas production, transmission line routing, mining, and recreation (Ostlind 2014, as cited in Black Canyon 2020). Seminoe State Park, located south of the study area on the shores of the Seminoe Reservoir, provides year-round camping, boating, and hiking (Hein 2014, as cited in Black Canyon 2020). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers more than 2 million acres of public land in Carbon County, which is available for livestock grazing, mineral production, recreation, and wildlife habitat (City of Rawlins undated, as cited in Black Canyon 2020). Land in the study area includes portions of Seminoe State Park as well as BLM-administered or private land. Within the study area, the majority of land cover includes woodland, desert scrub, or shrubland (USGS 2016, as cited in Black Canyon 2020). There is little developed land in the study area (USGS 2016, as cited in Black Canyon 2020).

3.4

Soils

The USDA NRCS Soil Survey of Carbon County has not yet been completed; therefore, there is no existing soil data for the study area. Data was still not available as of December 2022. According to Munn and Arneson (1998), in foothills and lower mountains in Wyoming, steep southfacing slopes are commonly occupied by Entisols (Torriorthents) and Inceptisols (Ustochrepts). Hillslopes under sagebrush and grasses are frequently Mollisols, most commonly without argillic (clay accumulation) horizons. Where grassland is intermingled with forest, the grassland sites are often on either warmer aspects or finer textured (less rocky) soils. Soils in riparian areas in the mountains are typically Entisols (Cryofluvents) or Inceptisols (Cryaquepts), with small areas of organic soils (Histisols).

December 2022 | 5

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.5

Vegetation

The study area is located in the northwest-southeast-trending Seminoe Mountains on the southern flank of a prominent anticline (i.e., the Sweetwater Arch) in the southern most portion of the Granite Mountains (Black Canyon 2020). The area comprises low-lying dissected plains and basins, grading upward into high, relatively rugged uplifts dominated by two habitat types: Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe and Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub. There are lesser occurrences of three sub-dominant habitat types: Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland, Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland, and Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe (Black Canyon 2020). A description of the five dominant habitat types is provided below.

3.5.1

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe in Wyoming is found on mesic landscapes in deep non-saline soils. Typically, this habitat is dominated by perennial grasses and forbs, with Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomingensis) and western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) dominating or co-dominating a shrub layer. Important and commonly found rhizomatous species in Wyoming include threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia) and needleleaf sedge (C. duriuscula). Although rare, bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata) may be found on ridge tops and rocky slopes. This habitat type maintains a patchy natural fire regime, so it generally leans towards grassland (USGS 2011).

3.5.2

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub comprise open-canopied shrublands, saline basins, alluvial slopes, and plains found throughout the western United States. A moderately dense canopy typically includes one or more saltbush (Atriplex) species, Artemisia tridentata spp., yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflourus), Ericameria spp, Ephedra spp, hop sage (Grayia spinose), or winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata). Herbaceous species may include Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), blue grama (Bouteloua gracillis), thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus), western wheatgrass, James' galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii), big galleta (P. rigida), sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), or alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides) as well as various forb species (USGS 2011).

3.5.3

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

The Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland is a habitat that is characterized by broad basins between mountain ranges or plains and foothills. Shrub species typically include Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis along with scattered Juniperus spp., greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), and Atriplex spp. Common graminoid species may include Achnatherum hymenoides, Bouteloua gracilis, Elymus lanceolatus, and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis). In Wyoming, this habitat is likely to solely contain basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) (USGS 2011).

3.5.4

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland habitat occurs in foothill and lower montane zones. The vegetation in this area is typically characterized by an open tree or patchy

December 2022 | 6

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

woodland canopy. Common species include limber pine (Pinus flixilis), Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), or Rocky Mountain juniper (J. scopulorum). Shrub layers commonly include bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), black sagebrush (Artemisia nova), big sagebrush (A. tridentata), skunkbush (Rhus triobata), woods’ rose (Rosa woodsia), russet buffaloberry (Shepherdia canadensis), or Symphoricarpos spp. There may not be an herbaceous layer; however, if one exists, common species may include Bouteloua gracilis, Festuca idahoensis, rough fescue (Festuca campenstris), timber oatgrass (Danthonia intermida), and spike fescue (Leucopa kingii) (USGS 2011).

3.5.5

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe

The Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe habitat is characterized by a patchwork of vegetation and is typically found on gently rolling hills and long, gentle slopes. One feature typical in these systems is a short shrub layer that comprises at least two-thirds of the woody canopy. Bunch grasses, cushion plants, and low growing forbs are also common in these habitats (USGS 2011).

3.6

Antecedent Precipitation

The USACE APT (v1.0.19) was used to document antecedent precipitation conditions at the time of the delineation (USACE 2021). Antecedent precipitation is defined as precipitation occurring on site prior to the field reviews. Antecedent precipitation is an important factor to consider when evaluating aquatic resource hydrology indicators. Additionally, antecedent precipitation helps to determine whether a site review is conducted during “normal environmental conditions” for that time of year. The APT was created to automate the climatological analysis USACE Regulatory Project Managers are required to perform to comply with long-standing agency guidance (GitHub Inc. 2020). The APT collects National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration precipitation data from nearby weather stations and compares precipitation from the period of interest to the past 30 years of precipitation. For example, the APT can be used to compare precipitation data from the most recent summer to the range of precipitation from the past 30 summers. The Combined Method of 30-day rolling totals and the USDA NRCS Engineering Field Handbook weighting factors (Sprecher and Warne 2000) was used to document the antecedent precipitation for the study area. This method uses 30 years and 1 month of precipitation data, then uses that data to calculate 30 years of 30-day rolling totals. From this data, the 30th and 70th percentile values for each day of the year are determined. A comparison is then used to compare the current-year 30-day rolling total to the 30-year normal, directly comparing the same type of measurement at the same resolution. Wet/dry season determination is based on U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center instructions for calculating dry season provided in the regional supplements to the 1987 Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Drought conditions are based on U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center recommendations in the regional supplements to the 1987 Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), which suggests using drought indices, specifically the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) to help inform drought conditions (GitHub Inc. 2020). Table 3-1 shows results from the USACE APT for the days of field delineation within the study area. Appendix C provides output of the APT.

December 2022 | 7

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 3-1. Antecedent Precipitation Tool Results for the Delineation Antecedent Precipitation

Season (Wet or Dry)

Drought Index (PDSI)

June 16, 2021

Drier Than Normal

Dry

Extreme Drought

June 17, 2021

Drier Than Normal

Dry

Extreme Drought

June 18, 2021

Drier Than Normal

Dry

Extreme Drought

August 24, 2021

Wetter Than Normal

Dry

Extreme Drought

August 25, 2021

Normal

Dry

Extreme Drought

August 26, 2021

Normal

Dry

Extreme Drought

August 3, 2022

Drier Than Normal

Dry

Extreme Drought

Date of Delineation

The USDA NRCS Agricultural Applied Climate Information System (AgACIS) LEO 6 SW station recorded below average total precipitation for August 2022 at 0.39 inches (USDA 2021b). The 30year average (1993-2022) of total precipitation for August is 0.63 inches with a 30 percent chance of precipitation being less than 0.27 inches and 30 percent chance of being over 0.75 inches. However, when taking into consideration the three months previous to August, conditions at the LEO 6 SW station were wetter than normal during the August 3, 2022, delineation (USDA 2021b). This discrepancy between the USACE APT and AgACIS analyses is likely due to the USACE APT utilizing data from multiple weather stations in the vicinity of the study area.

3.7

Aquatic Resources

Aquatic resources identified during the delineation include 13 freshwater emergent wetlands (totaling 9.055 acres), 13 ephemeral streams (totaling 6,414 linear feet; 0.864 acre), 2 intermittent streams (totaling approximately 5,506 linear feet; 0.363 acre), 5 perennial streams (totaling approximately 5,595 linear feet; 1.722 acres), and one open water habitat feature (27.663 acres). The characteristics of each feature are described below. Delineation maps for aquatic resources within the study area are provided in Appendix B (Figure 3). Appendix D provides representative wetland determination data forms for the study area, Appendix E provides representative photographs of identified aquatic resources in the study area, and Appendix F includes representative OHWM datasheets completed for moderate to larger, intermittent, and ephemeral streams in the study area.

3.7.1

Streams

The study area contains three categories of streams: ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial. The majority of stream features have been degraded by agricultural activities, primarily livestock grazing, as well as road and transmission line construction. Many stream features identified during the desktop review were not observed within the study area during the field investigation, particularly within the valley along the transmission line portion of the study area. Many features that appeared to be a stream on an aerial photograph were found to be a vegetated swale dominated by big sagebrush and/or upland grasses (e.g., western wheatgrass and prairie junegrass [Koeleria macrantha]), with no evidence of a bed and bank, OHWM, and/or channel development. Features identified as vegetated swales during field investigations are denoted in Appendix B (Figure 3) by Vegetated Swale Observation Points. Representative photographs of these areas are included in Appendix E.

December 2022 | 8

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Ephemeral Streams Ephemeral streams within the study area are associated with the upper reservoir access road or transmission line portion of the study area. Table 3-2 provides a summary of ephemeral streams identified within the study area. Stream locations can be found in Appendix B (Figure 3), site photographs are provided in Appendix E, and stream datasheets are provided in Appendix F.

Table 3-2. Ephemeral Streams Identified within the Study Area Resource ID1, 5

Type2

Cowardin Code3

Average OHWM Width (feet)4

Length (feet)4

Area (acres)4

S-1A

NRPW

0.002

S-2A

NRPW

534

0.17

S-4D

NRPW

498

0.023

S-8D

NRPW

506

0.023

S-9 D

NRPW

977

0.271

S-10 D

NRPW

448

0.052

S-11 D

NRPW

926

0.042

S-13 D

NRPW

297

0.041

S-15 D

NRPW

140

0.016

S-16 D

NRPW

580

0.067

S-17 D

NRPW

493

0.068

S-18 D

NRPW

463

0.053

S-20 D

NRPW

522

0.036

6,414

0.864

Total 1

See Appendix F for corresponding OHWM stream datasheets 2 NRPW = non-relatively permanent water 3 R6 = Riverine Ephemeral (FGDC 2013) 4 As measured/calculated in ArcMapTM version 10.7.1 within the study area 5 Location relative to Project features: A = Upper Reservoir Access Road; B = Upper Reservoir; C = Areas south of the upper reservoir and west of the transmission lines; D = Transmission Line

Ephemeral streams are episodic and only convey flows during and immediately after precipitation events. Historical agricultural activities within portions of the study area have disturbed natural hydrology through some ephemeral streams/ditches, often rerouting streams along roadways or to human-made impoundments. Impoundments of ephemeral streams were located throughout the study area, but the majority did not include surface water due to the existing dry conditions at the time of the field survey (i.e., extreme drought). In general, ephemeral streams can be placed into two broad categories: those that include a lowflow channel, active floodplain, and low terrace; and those with a single channel, without differentiation of stream geomorphic features. In general, those that included the aforementioned stream geomorphic features included more herbaceous vegetation along the stream banks, while those lacking stream geomorphic features mostly only included shrub species, such as big sagebrush. Ephemeral streams included some or all of the following plant species along their banks: big sagebrush, greasewood, rabbitbrush, tansyleaf tansyaster (Machaeranthera tanacentfolia), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), dandelion (Taraxacum oficianale), yellow falsify

December 2022 | 9

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

(Tragopogon dubius), Great Basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), western wheatgrass, prairie junegrass, needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), and Indian ricegrass. The substrate of ephemeral streams primarily included silt/sand, except some that included scattered cobble stones and even bedrock at higher elevations. Most ephemeral streams contained an OHWM width of 2 to 6 feet, with one outlier containing an OHWM width of 12 feet. Lengths and acreage of ephemeral streams varied throughout the study area, depending on the size and orientation of the study area.

Intermittent Streams The study area has two intermittent streams, totaling 5,506 linear feet (0.363 acre) (Table 3-3; Appendix B, Figure 3).

Table 3-3. Intermittent Streams Identified within the Study Area Resource ID1, 5

Type2

Cowardin Code3

Average OHWM Width (feet)4

Length (feet)4

Area (acres)4

S-6A D

RPW

R4UB3

669

0.061

S-6B D

RPW

R4UB3

3,160

0.201

S-6C D

RPW

R4UB3

200

0.009

S-6D D

RPW

R4UB3

0.009

S-6E D

RPW

R4UB3

1,161

0.053

S-14 D

RPW

R4UB3

221

0.03

5,506

0.363

Total 1

See Appendix F for corresponding stream datasheets 2 RPW = relatively permanent water 3 R4UB3 = Riverine, Intermittent, Unconsolidated Bottom, Mud (FGDC 2013) 4 As measured/calculated in ArcMapTM version 10.7.1 within the study area 5 Location relative to Project features: A = Upper Reservoir Access Road; B = Upper Reservoir; C = Areas south of the upper reservoir and west of the transmission lines; D = Transmission Line

These streams had relatively slow-moving or stagnant water during the field delineation due to the dry season and extreme drought conditions at the time of the delineation. Streams with no flow contained isolated pools of surface water and/or saturated or inundated emergent wetlands. Documented stream beds mainly consisted of cobble-gravel, mud, and sand, while associated riparian vegetation included upland scrub, dense upland grasses, and/or emergent wetlands.

Perennial Streams The study area has five perennial streams (Austin Creek, Difficulty Creek, North Platte River, Saylor Creek, and Troublesome Creek), totaling 5,595 linear feet (1.722 acres) (Table 3-4; Appendix B, Figure 3).

December 2022 | 10

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 3-4. Perennial Streams Identified within the Study Area Resource ID 4

Type1

Cowardin Code2

Average OHWM Width (feet)3

Length (feet)3

Area (acres)3

S-3 C

RPW

R3UB

248

0.464

S-5A D

RPW

R2UB1

1,730

0.159

S-5B D

RPW

R2UB1

201

0.019

S-5C D

RPW

R2UB1

330

0.03

S-5D D

RPW

R2UB1

0.006

S-7 D

RPW

R2UB1

1,496

0.663

S-12 D

RPW

R2UB2

879

0.284

S-19 D

RPW

R2UB1

649

0.097

5,595

1.722

Total 1

RPW = relatively permanent water R3UB = Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom; R2UB1 = Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble-Gravel; R2UB2 = Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Sand (FGDC 2013) 3 As measured/calculated in ArcMapTM version 10.7.1 within the study area 4 Location relative to Project features: A = Upper Reservoir Access Road; B = Upper Reservoir; C = Areas south of the upper reservoir and west of the transmission lines; D = Transmission Line 2

Each of these perennial streams have relatively abrupt boundaries between the stream channel and upland areas due to channel downcutting (i.e., erosion). As previously mentioned, adjacent agricultural activities have degraded riparian vegetation, compromising soil structure along the banks of the streams and increasing bank erosion. In locations along these streams, the historical floodplains have become hydrologically disconnected from the streams. During the field investigations, HDR observed flowing water within the channels of perennial streams. The beds of the channels primarily comprise coarse material (cobble, gravel, and sand), with low proportions of fines (silt and clay). Perennial stream channels within the study area are moderately to weakly entrenched and generally lack flanking of riparian scrub-shrub species. The active channels typically include immediate herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation, quickly transitioning to upland vegetation moving up the steep banks. Riparian vegetation includes willow species (Salix spp.), Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis), baltic rush (Juncus arcticus), creeping foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus), greasewood, big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, Great Basin wildrye, smooth brome (Bromus inermis), prairie junegrass, Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Maximilian sunflower (Helianthus maximiliani), and wild licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota).

December 2022 | 11

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.7.2

Wetlands

The delineation identified 13 emergent wetlands within the study area, totaling 9.055 acres (Table 3-5; Appendix B, Figure 3). HDR completed 26 wetland determination data forms, identifying vegetation, soils, and hydrology immediately within and just outside mapped wetlands in the study area; see Appendix D.

Table 3-5. Wetlands Identified within the Study Area Wetland ID 4

W-1 B

W-2 B

Wetland / Upland Data Form1

DP-1 / DP-2

Wetland Cover Type2

PEM

DP-3 / DP-4

PEM

DP-5 / DP-6

PEM

W-3A D W-3B D

Size (acres)3

Comments

0.744

Wetland runs along a drainage upstream from S-1; hydrology supplemented by a spring located within the study area at southern end of wetland

1.48

Isolated depression in the upper mountains; cattle activity/grazing is prevalent, with vegetation browsed to ground surface; appears to be a natural feature; has weak wetland hydrology indicators; visits in June and August yielded the same hydrology indicators

0.016 0.006

W-4A D

0.916

W-4B D

0.172 DP-7 / DP-8

0.044

W-4D D

0.449

W-6 D

DP-9 / DP-11

DP-10 / DP-11

PEM

W-7A D W-7B D

PEM

W-7CD W-8 D

0.307

Emergent wetland with concave landform that primarily receives hydrology from an upslope irrigation ditch

1.578

Slope and depressional wetland located at the bottom of a large, irrigated hillslope; adjacent and partially abutting an incised perennial stream; ditches are cut on a contour upslope of the wetland within hayfields; portions of the wetland were cut for hay during the delineation; NAIP imagery (USDA 2021) was used in combination with field data to identify eastern and northern boundary

1.563 DP-12 / DP-13

0.205 0.002

DP-14 / DP-15

Fringe wetland abutting Caton Creek (S-6); dominated by Nebraska sedge

PEM

W-4C D

W-5 D

Abutting an intermittent stream on each side of a road crossing; likely a result of grading for road construction

PEM

0.452

Depressional wetland located within a linear feature; heavily grazed area; some scattered areas of ponded water in lower portions of wetland Human-made ponded area with evidence of cattle disturbance; water control structure is present at the outlet of the pond, with surface water present at the time of the delineation

December 2022 | 12

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Wetland / Upland Data Form1

Wetland Cover Type2

Size (acres)3

W-9 D

DP-16 / DP-17

PEM

0.021

Isolated wetland fed by one of a few springs within the study area

W-10 D

DP-18 / DP-19

PEM

0.026

Seep wetland located on bank of stream, with a small break between the wetland and stream

0.277

Wetland associated with a spring; spring flow estimated at 5 cubic feet per second at the time of the investigation; the spring is located outside of the study area

Wetland ID 4

W-11 D

DP-20 / DP-21

W-12A D

DP-22 / DP-23

W-12B D

DP-24 / DP-23

PEM

0.427 PEM

W-13 D

DP-25 / DP-26

0.236

PEM

Total

Comments

Located in a hay field between an irrigation ditch and natural perennial stream (S-19); irrigated by the adjacent irrigation ditch

0.134

Isolated wetland located in a human-made stock pond, with a berm to the west; no control gate downstream or indications of flow out of the pond; vegetated swales with no defined bed and bank located upslope

9.055

See Appendix D for corresponding wetland determination data forms PEM = Palustrine Emergent (FGGDC 2013) 3 As calculated in ArcMapTM version 10.7.1 within the study area 4 Location relative to Project features: A = Upper Reservoir Access Road; B = Upper Reservoir; C = Areas south of the upper reservoir and west of the transmission lines; D = Transmission Line 2

All wetlands identified within the study area were dominated by emergent vegetation, primarily Nebraska sedge and baltic rush. Other dominant species included common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris), dwarf spikerush (Eleocharis parvula), white willow (Salix alba), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), common threesquare (Schoenoplectus pungens), seaside arrowgrass (Triglochin maritima), creeping foxtail, yard knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), and rough cockleburr (Xanthium strumarium).

3.7.3

Open Waters

One open water feature was identified within the study area: OW-1 (Seminoe Reservoir). Seminoe Reservoir comprises 27.663 acres of the study area primarily on the northeastern side of the reservoir. Table 3-6 summarizes all open water habitat found within the study area 1.

Table 3-6. Open Water Habitat Identified within the Study Area Resource ID 3

Resource Name

Type1

Area (acres)2

OW-1A C

Seminoe Reservoir

L1UBHh

20.989

OW-1B C

Seminoe Reservoir

L1UBHh

4.868

Note that the areas associated with OW-1C, OW-1D, and OW-1E in Table 3-6 are not required for construction of the Project and were simply part of the study area resulting from digitizing along the shoreline of Seminoe Reservoir when defining the study area for the aquatic resources delineation study.

December 2022 | 13

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Resource ID 3

Resource Name

Type1

Area (acres)2

OW-1C C

Seminoe Reservoir

L1UBHh

0.116

OW-1D C

Seminoe Reservoir

L1UBHh

0.619

OW-1E C

Seminoe Reservoir

L1UBHh

1.071

Total

27.663

L1UBHh = Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Diked/Impounded (FGDC 2013) 2 As calculated in ArcMapTM version 10.7.1 within the study area 3 Location relative to Project features: A = Upper Reservoir Access Road; B = Upper Reservoir; C = Areas south of the upper reservoir and west of the transmission lines; D = Transmission Line

Non-Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources

All aquatic resources identified during the delineation except two ephemeral streams (S-11 and S-18) and five wetlands (W-2, W-5, W-6, W-12, and W-13) were found to be potentially jurisdictional (i.e., waters of the U.S.). Ephemeral streams S-11 and S-18 and wetlands W-2, W-5, W-6, W-12, and W-13 are not considered potential waters of the U.S. (i.e., non-jurisdictional) based on the definition of waters of the U.S. and regulatory guidance in place at the time of this report. Due to the recent court order vacating the Navigable Water Protection Rule revisions to the definition of waters to be regulated by the CWA (i.e., waters of the U.S.), HDR evaluated, based on professional interpretation of the pre-2015 definition, the potential for federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA in the study area. The most recently approved guidance for jurisdictional determinations from the USACE and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prior to 2015 was published December 2, 2008 (USACE 2008c), referred to as the Rapanos Guidance. Future rulemaking and guidance could change the definition of waters of the U.S. As a result, further evaluation of potential jurisdiction may be necessary when additional guidance or further rulemaking is available from the USACE. Table 4-1 identifies aquatic resources considered potentially not waters of the U.S., the applicable pre-2015 regulatory guidance and/or regulation, and relevant notes on the resource.

Table 4-1. Potential Non-Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources within the Study Area Resource ID

Applicable Regulation / Guidance

Resource Notes

W-2

68 Federal Register (FR) 1995, 1998 (January 15, 2003) and the significant nexus evaluation as outlined in the Rapanos Guidance (USACE 2008c).

The wetland is an isolated feature, not adjacent to, nor draining to a relatively permanent water or traditional navigable water.

W-5

51 FR 41217 (November 13, 1986)

The wetland exists due to irrigation upslope. If irrigation ceased to exist, the wetland would revert to upland. The water table associated with the perennial stream is approximately 6+ feet below the lowest elevation in the wetland. Therefore, if irrigation ceased, the stream water table would not be able to sustain wetland hydrology for the area.

December 2022 | 14

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Resource ID

Applicable Regulation / Guidance

Resource Notes

W-6

51 FR 41217 (November 13, 1986)

S-11

Significant nexus evaluation as outlined in the Rapanos Guidance (USACE 2008c).

The ditch terminates within hay fields. Therefore, it does not drain to a relatively permanent water and/or traditional navigable water; it does not have a significant nexus to a downstream traditional navigable water.

S-18

Significant nexus evaluation as outlined in the Rapanos Guidance (USACE 2008c).

W-12 (A & B)

51 FR 41217 (November 13, 1986)

W-13

68 FR 1995, 1998 (January 15, 2003) and the significant nexus evaluation as outlined in the Rapanos Guidance (USACE 2008c).

The wetland is an isolated depression within an artificially impounded area. The impoundment does not include a drain pipe, and there were no indications that water ever over-tops the constructed berm. Furthermore, there is no defined stream downslope within the study area. The wetland is not a relatively permanent water and does not drain to a relatively permanent water and/or a traditional navigable water; it does not have a significant nexus to a downstream traditional navigable water.

As seen in Table 4-1, applicable regulations and regulatory guidance for potentially non-jurisdictional features include 68 Federal Register (FR) 1995, 1998 (January 15, 2003), 51 FR 41217 (November 13, 1986), and the significant nexus analysis outlined in the Rapanos Guidance (USACE 2008c). The 2003 joint legal memorandum (68 FR 1991, 1995 [January 15, 2003]) provides clarifying guidance regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (“SWANCC”). The joint legal memorandum states, regarding jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404(a) over isolated, intrastate, nonnavigable waters under 33 CFR 328.3(a)(3), based on their use as habitat for migratory birds, that “The EPA and the Corps [USACE] are now precluded from asserting CWA jurisdiction in such situations, including over waters such as isolated, non-navigable, intrastate vernal pools, playa lakes and pocosins.” Pertaining to this delineation and proposed jurisdictional determination, wetlands W-2 and W-13 are proposed non-jurisdictional since they are isolated and not adjacent to any relatively permanent water and/or traditional navigable water, and do not drain to a relatively permanent water or traditional navigable water.

December 2022 | 15

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Volume 51 FR 41217 (November 13, 1986) states that artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased are generally not considered waters of the U.S. However, the USACE reserves the right on a case-by-case basis to determine if a particular waterbody within this category is a water of the U.S. All wetlands (W-5, W-6, and W-12) that relate to this regulation are currently receiving irrigation water from adjacent irrigation ditches and would cease to exist without irrigation water. The Rapanos Guidance states that the agencies will decide jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water. A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters. For wetlands and streams noted in Table 4-1, applying to this regulatory guidance, any surface water occurring within these features does not drain to a relatively permanent water that drains to a traditional navigable water. Therefore, the features do not have a significant nexus to a downstream traditional navigable water and are typically not considered waters of the U.S. This delineation and proposed jurisdictional determination of waters of the U.S. within the study area is based on the best professional judgement of HDR’s team of wetland delineators, who have extensive experience with delineation and permitting of wetlands and other aquatic resources in the Arid West region of the United States. However, it does not constitute an Approved Jurisdictional Determination, which will be rendered by the USACE Regulatory Branch through the formal review process under the rules and guidance in place at the time.

References

Black Canyon (Black Canyon Hydro, LLC). 2020. Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Pre-Application Document. Black Canyon Hydro, LLC, FERC No. 14787. April 2020. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). 2019. North Platte River Basin: Water Supply and Utilization Report. https://www.usbr.gov/gp/lakes_reservoirs/wareprts/%20wsnpmar.pdf, accessed February 12, 2020. City of Rawlins. Undated. Carbon County Land Area. http://www.rawlins-wyoming.com/220/CarbonCounty-Land-Area, accessed February 13, 2020. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home, accessed April – December 2021. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Second Edition. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

December 2022 | 16

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

GitHub Inc. 2020. USACE Antecedent-Precipitation-Tool. https://github.com/jDetersUSACE/Antecedent-Precipitation-Tool, accessed September 15, 2021. Google Earth Pro. 2021. Aerial Imagery 1985 through 2016. Most recently accessed September 15, 2021. Hein, A. 2014. History of Seminoe and Kortes Dams. https://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/history-seminoe-and-kortes-dams, accessed February 12, 2020. Munn, L.C., and C.S. Arneson. 1998. Soils of Wyoming: A Digital Statewide Map at 1:500,000-Scale. Agricultural Experiment Station Report B-1069. University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture. Laramie, Wyoming. Munsell Soil Color Book (Munsell). 2013. Munsell Soil Color Charts: Year 2009 Revised Edition. Munsell Color/Xrite. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed April – December 2021. Ostlind, E. 2014. The North Platte River Basin: A Natural History. https://www.wyohistory.org/encyclopedia/north-platte-river-basin, accessed February 12, 2020. Sprecher, Steven W., and Andrew G. Warne. 2000. Accessing and Using Meteorological Data to Evaluate Wetland Hydrology. EDRC/EL TR-WRAP-00-1: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05-05 Ordinary High Water Mark Identification. December 7, 2005. _____. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, Editors. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi. _____. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. R.W. Lichvar and S.M. McColley, Editors. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi. _____. 2008c. Clean Water Act jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Washington, D.C. _____. 2010. Updated Datasheet for the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. K.E. Curtis and R.W. Lichvar, Editors. ERDC/CRREL TN-10-1. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi.

December 2022 | 17

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

_____. 2020. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/, accessed September 14, 2021. _____. 2021. Antecedent Precipitation Tool. https://www.epa.gov/wotus/antecedent-precipitationtool-apt, accessed June and August 2021. U.S. Congress. 1986. Definition of “Waters of the United States.” Codified at 33 CFR 328.3 (et seq.). U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021a. National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) download for Carbon County, WY in 2009, 2017, 2019, and 2020. https://nrcs.app.box.com/v/naip/folder/17936490251, accessed April 2021. _____. 2021b. Agricultural Applied Climate Information System. Natural Resources Conservation Service National Water and Climate Center. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/wcc/home/climateSupport/agAcisClimateData/. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI). 1960. Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Rawlins Area Carbon County, Wyoming. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1458. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. National Wetland Inventory. Wetlands Online Mapper. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html, accessed January 2021. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1983. Hydrologic and Geomorphic Studies of the Platte River Basin. _____. 2011. Gap Analysis Program. 20160513. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0, accessed February 12, 2020. _____. 2016. Gap Analysis Program. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0, accessed February 12, 2020. _____. 2019. National Hydrography Dataset (ver. USGS National Hydrography Dataset Best Resolution (NHD) for Hydrologic Unit (HU) 8 (published 20190822). http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html, accessed January 2021. Wenck Associates. 2016. Platte River Basin Plan 2016 Update. http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/platte/2016/finalrept/2016_Update_All_Volumes.pdf, accessed February 12, 2020.

December 2022 | 18

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix A. Aquatic Resource Delineation Study Plan

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Plan August 11, 2021

1.0

Introduction

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon Hydro) is proposing the licensing, construction, and operation of the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) (Project) in Carbon County, Wyoming, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, on the North Platte River. The proposed Project would entail the construction of a new 750 megawatt (MW) plant including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission lines, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); these operations would not be affected by the Project’s pumped storage operations. Black Canyon Hydro has initiated a licensing process for the Project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency with jurisdiction over non-federal hydropower projects in the United States. During this process, Black Canyon Hydro will engage stakeholders and implement a suite of resource studies that will inform FERC’s environmental and developmental analyses and decision regarding license issuance. This document presents Black Canyon Hydro’s proposed approach to the scoping and implementation of an Aquatic Resources Delineation Study for the Project that would be provided to FERC to assist in the licensing analyses. Black Canyon Hydro anticipates filing a Final License Application with FERC in August 2022.

2.0

Project Nexus and Study Goals

This document presents Black Canyon Hydro’s proposed Aquatic Resources Delineation Study that is designed to assess the nature and degree of the Project’s potential impacts on areas subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The USACE regulates the discharge of fill material into Waters of the United States (WOUS) under authority of Section 404 of the CWA. A consideration for constructing the Project is the presence of WOUS, including wetlands. By federal law and associated policy, it is necessary to first avoid Project impacts on these resources wherever practicable, minimize impacts that cannot be avoided and, in some cases, compensate for unavoidable impacts. WOUS, wetlands, and uplands (non-jurisdictional), as referenced in this study plan, are defined as follows: •

WOUS: In general, the CWA defines WOUS as “surface waters, including the territorial seas, streams, streambeds, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands” [33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3(a)]. The jurisdictional limits of WOUS include: o o o

In the absence of adjacent wetlands, CWA jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM); or When adjacent wetlands are present, jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits of the adjacent wetlands; and When WOUS consist only of wetlands, jurisdiction extends to the limits of the wetlands.

Page 1

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Plan

•

Wetlands: Wetlands are a subset of WOUS. The CWA defines wetlands as “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” [33 CFR Part 328.3(b)]. Note that according to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and in the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 1987, 2008a), wetlands must possess the following three characteristics: (1) a vegetation community dominated by plant species that are typically adapted for life in saturated soils, (2) permanent or periodic inundation/saturation of the soil during the growing season and (3) soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions.

•

Uplands: Non-water and non-wetland areas are called uplands.

The overall goal of this study is to identify potential WOUS in the Study Area. This mapping information eventually will be used in the license application and 404 permitting materials to assist in the assessment of potential impacts to WOUS from the proposed Project, and to develop protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures, as appropriate. This study is being conducted in 2021.

3.0

Summary of Existing Information

A full description of existing information can be found in the Seminoe Pre-Application Document (PAD) (Black Canyon Hydro 2020). For the PAD, existing geospatial information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Federal Emergency Management Agency was reviewed to identify and describe WOUS, including wetlands, surface water, and drainages. These datasets indicate that development of the Project could result in impacts to potential WOUS. As noted in the PAD, Black Canyon Hydro’s review of available data suggests that the potential WOUS mapped within the Conceptual Project Boundary consists of temporarily flooded emergent wetland, seasonally flooded emergent wetland, temporarily flooded scrub-shrub wetland, seasonally flooded scrub-shrub wetland, seasonally flooded scrub-shrub wetland, temporarily flooded pond, seasonally flooded pond, lake, lake/littoral zone, seasonally flooded riverine, and permanently flooded riverine.

4.0

Methods

4.1

Study Area

The Study Area will include lands within the Conceptual Project Boundary (Attachment 1).

4.2

Study Methods

Black Canyon Hydro proposes to conduct the following four tasks: 1. Planning, 2. Field Work, 3. Mapping, and 4. Reporting.

Page 2

August 11, 2021

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Plan

4.2.1

Planning

Black Canyon Hydro will review existing information to identify focus areas for field confirmation and confer with the USACE regarding field work locations and on-site review of field work by USACE staff. Black Canyon Hydro’s planning efforts will prepare for field data collection, including measurements of the width, depth, flow direction, channel slope, substrate, estimation of flow frequency, and photographs looking upstream, downstream, and across the channel for a representative sampling of potential WOUS within the Study Area. Additionally, the planning task includes field work preparations such as logistics, safety planning, quality control (QC) planning, mobilizing equipment, creating field maps, and installing data on handheld field computers.

4.2.2

Field Work

The goal of the field program is to delineate potential WOUS within the Study Area. A field team of wetland scientists will use a hand-held sub-meter Global Positioning System (GPS) antennae, coupled with Geographic Information System (GIS) software to delineate potential WOUS within the Study Area. Boundaries of streams will be determined using methods described in the 2008 Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b). The OHWM is defined as “the line on the shore established by fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or the presence of litter and debris” [33 CFR Part 328.3]. Soil and geomorphic indicators present below, at, or above the OHWM will be investigated across the Study Area and marked on an OHWM datasheet. Field teams will collect data in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and in the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 1987, 2008a) in locations that exhibit wetland characteristics, as necessary on a wetland determination data form. Scientists may also collect data in areas that have the potential to be identified as wetlands on aerial imagery, but do not classify as a wetland according to the USACE definition. Data collection points will include photographs of wetland boundaries, indicators of OHWM, vegetation, soils, and hydrology parameters; National Wetlands Inventory codes (NWI), and notes on the presence or absence of wetlands indicators to support a wetland determination will also be collected, as necessary.

4.2.3

Mapping

GPS locations of field-visited sites will be imported into GIS to show boundaries of potential WOUS in relation to the Study Area and Project facilities. Field investigation notes will be included in GIS feature classes. Wetlands, open water, and unvegetated areas with mud cracks, scour marks, sediment deposits, and cobble bars situated below the OHWM will be classified as potential WOUS. The mapping will be reviewed for Quality Control (QC), revised, and incorporated into a Report.

4.2.4

Reporting

The results of the field work and the mapping will be summarized in a Study Report. This Report will identify locations within the Study Area that may be subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE under authority of Section 404 of the CWA. The Study Report will follow the requirements for content using August 11, 2021

Page 3

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Plan

published guidelines for Aquatic Resources Delineations from the USACE Regulatory Division. The Report will summarize the field investigation and describe the methods and findings of the investigation. Locations of potential WOUS will be presented on a series of digital and paper maps and as digital files. Site photographs and wetland determination data forms will also be included as appendices.

5.0

Schedule

The field portion of this study will be conducted in 2021. A final report will be developed following the completion of 2021 efforts.

6.0

References

Black Canyon Hydro. 2020. Pre-Application Document Seminoe Pumped Storage Project FERC No. 14787. April 20, 2020. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. [Online] URL: http://www.cpe.rutgers.edu/Wetlands/1987-Army-Corps-Wetlands-DelineationManual.pdf. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008a Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. [Online] URL: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046489.pdf. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008b. Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. [Online] URL: https://www.spl.usace.army.mil/Portals/17/docs/regulatory/JD/FinalOHWMManual_2008.pdf.

Page 4

August 11, 2021

Attachment 1 Conceptual Project Boundary Map

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix B. Figures

Study Area

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, increment P Corp., NPS, NRCan, Ordnance Survey, © OpenStreetMap contributors, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat,

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Study Area

GENERAL LOCATION 0

FIGURE 1

20 MILES

40 Study Area

1 in = 20 miles

_ ^ NOV 2022

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 1 - GENERAL LOCATION.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 11/7/2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-1

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

USGS 7.5' QUADS: SEMINOE DAM, SEMINOE DAM NE, SEMINOEDAM SE, SCHNEIDER RIDGE, T E RANCH, DIFFICULTY, WINDY HILL PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 2 - TOPO OVERVIEW.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 11/7/2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-2

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-3

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-4

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-5

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-6

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-7

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-8

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-9

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-10

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-11

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-12

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-13

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT STUDY AREA OVERVIEW ON USGS TOPO FIGURE 2-14

Study Area 0

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET

NOV 2022

oun t

ain

(!_

tt M

! (

_!(

Be nne

S-2 534 Linear Feet 0.17 Acre

! (

S-1 30 Linear Feet 0.002 Acre

Kort

es R

" )

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" )

! (

_!(

W-1 0.744 Acre

_!(

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-1

Bennett Mountain Rd

(!_

! (

_!(

! (

S-1 30 Linear Feet 0.002 Acre

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

S-2 534 Linear Feet 0.17 Acre

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-2

DP-2

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form " ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

! (! (

W-1 0.744 Acre

Not Aquatic Resources

_ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

DP-1

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-3

_!(

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

W-1 0.744 Acre

_!(

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-4

_!( _!(

_ ! ( Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

#6 ! (! (

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated

W-1 0.744 Acre

_ ! (

Open Water (OHWM)

_ ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS W-2 User Community Acres Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, 1.48 Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-5

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

_ ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-6

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

_ ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, W-2 Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, 1.48 Acres NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

DP-3! ( DP-4! (

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-7

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

_ ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-8

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), S-3 NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the 248 LinearGIS Feet User Community 0.464 Acre Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" )

Seminoe Reservoir

OW-1A 20.989 Acres

eR ino m Se

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-9

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

S-3 248 Linear Feet 0.464 Acre

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-10

Seminoe Reservoir

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

m Se

R oe in

OW-1B 4.868 Acre

N Red Hills Rd

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-11

OW-1B 4.868 Acre

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

N Re

d N Re

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Hills

lls R d

p Ca m

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

d Hi

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-12

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" ) " ) " ) " )

_ ! (

OW-1C 0.619 Acre OW-1E 1.07 Acres

Seminoe Reservoir

OW-1D 1.071 Acres

OW-1B 4.868 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-13

OW-1C 0.619 Acre

_ ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Seminoe Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, EsriReservoir Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

OW-1D 1.071 Acres

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-14

" )

" ) " ) " ) Sources: Esri, HERE, Service Layer Credits: Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, " ) NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, " ) USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" )

_ ! ( " )

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-15

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

" ) #9

_ ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-16

" ) #9

_ ! (

" ) S-4 498 Linear Feet 0.023 Acre

_!(

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

! (

#10

" )

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-17

S-4 498 Linear Feet 0.023 Acre

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

_!(

! (

#10

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-18

" )

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, " ) HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" )

_!(

#11

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

_ ! (

#12

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-19

" )

_!(

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar #11 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-20

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

#12

_ ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-21

_!( " )

_ ! (

#12

" )

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P," ) NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User S-6A

S-5A 1730 Linear Feet 0.159 Acre

" )

S-5B 201 Linear Feet 0.019 Acre ! (

W-3A 0.016 Acre

S-5C 330 Linear Feet 0.03 Acre

#13

_ _ ! ( ! (

669 Linear Feet 0.061 Acre

! ( #14

S-5D 62 Linear Feet 0.006 Acre

W-3B 0.006 Acre S-6B 3,160 Linear Feet 0.201 Acre

W-4B 0.172 Acre

W-4A 0.916 Acre

S-6B 3,160 Linear Feet 0.201 Acre

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

W-4C 0.044 Acre

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

(!_

Field Delineated

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

(!_

! ! ( ( #15

S-6C 200 Linear Feet 0.009 Acre

Open Water (OHWM)

S-6D 95 Linear Feet 0.009 Acre

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-22

S-5A 1730 Linear Feet 0.159 Acre

_ ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

! (

#13

S-6A 669 Linear Feet 0.061 Acre

_ ! (

DP-6 DP-5 ! ( #14

S-6B 3,160 Linear Feet 0.201 Acre

! (

W-3A 0.016 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

W-3B 0.006 Acre

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-23

_ ! ( ! (

#13

S-5B 201 Linear Feet 0.019 Acre

S-5C 330 Linear Feet 0.03 Acre

_ ! (

S-6B 3,160 Linear Feet 0.201 Acre

W-3B 0.006 Acre

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

S-5D 62 Linear Feet 0.006 Acre

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-24

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

W-4A 0.916 Acre S-6B 3,160 Linear Feet 0.201 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-25

W-4A 0.916 Acre

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

DP-8 DP-7 ! (

! (

S-6B 3,160 Linear Feet 0.201 Acre

(!_ #15

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-26

S-6C 200 Linea 0.009 A

DP-8 DP-7 ! (

! (

S-6B 3,160 Linear Feet 0.201 Acre

(!_ #15

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User W-4B

S-6C 200 Linear Feet 0.009 Acre

S-6D 95 Linear Feet 0.009 Acre

0.172 Acre

W-4C 0.044 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-27

#16

W-4D 0.449 Acre ! (

o Dr

aw R d

S-6E 1161 Linear Feet 0.053 Acre

(!_

! ( ! (

S-6D 95 Linear Feet 0.009 Acre

Han

na L e

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" ) Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-28

(!_

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS,#16 Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

S-6E 1161 Linear Feet 0.053 Acre W-4D 0.449 Acre

! (

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-29

" )

#17

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, S-7 Rural Rd 1,496 Linear P, Feet Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT 0.618 Acre NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong #18 Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

! ( ! (

_ ! (

W-5 0.307 Acre

W-6 1.578 Acre

_ ! ( ! (

Hanna raw R d Leo D

" )

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-30

W-5 0.307 Acre S-7 1,496 Linear Feet 0.663 Acre

_ ! (

DP-9 ! (

! (

#17

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

W-6 1.578 Acre

DP-10! (

_ ! (

DP-11! (

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

#18

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-31

" )

Han

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User e na L

o Dr

aw R

" )

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-32

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

rs Shine

Point

" ) #19

_ ! ( ! (

a nn Ha o Le Dr aw Rd Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-33

S-8 506 Linear Feet 0.023 Acre

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" )

! ( #19

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

_ ! (

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-34

_!( ! ( #19

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS " ) " ) User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar S-8 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, 506 Linear Feet USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" )

0.023 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form " ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

_ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

na an

o Le

w ra

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-35

_!( #20

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) " ) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,raw Rd oD USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS Le User

" )

a nn Ha

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-36

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, #20 USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

_!(

" )

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-37

#23

_!(

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Han Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, na Leo Draw Rd NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) #22 #21 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community " ) ! (( ! Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User S-10 448 Linear Feet 0.052 Acre

S-9 977 Linear Feet 0.271 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-38

_!( ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) S-9 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS 977 Linear Feet User Community 0.271 Acre Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

#21

#22 S-10 448 Linear Feet 0.052 Acre

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-39

Hann a Leo

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

_!(

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Draw

#23

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-40

yM irle Sh R op Lo in nta ou d

S-11 926 Linear Feet 0.042 Acre ! (

(!_

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

na Leo

Dra wR

" )

! (

_!(

Han

_ ! (

W-7B

Service Layer Credits: 0.205 Acre Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, W-7A NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, 1.563 Acre Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS ! ( ! ( User Community " ) Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus#24 DS, USDA, W-7B 0.002User Acre USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS

#26

#25

879 0.

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-41

W-7B 0.205 Acre

W-7A 1.563 Acre

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-42

W-7A 1.563 Acre

(!_

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong DP-12 Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and GIS ! ( the#24 DP-13! ( User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

W-7C 0.002 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-43

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong S-11 Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) 926 Linear Feet OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS 0.042 Acre User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

_!(

! ( #25

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-44

S-12 879 Linear Feet 0.284 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

_ ! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

! (

#26

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-45

(!_

_ ! ( #26

_ ! (

! (

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, W-8 Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, 0.452 Acre NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri#28 China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) ( the GIS ! (! OpenStreetMap contributors, and _ ! ( ! ( User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, #29 Earthstar S-13 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, 297 Linear Feet USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User 0.041 Acre #27

" )

S-12 879 Linear Feet 0.284 Acre

e in ic d Me

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form " ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

_ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

w Bo

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-46

W-8

_ ! (

(!_

0.452 Acre Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DP-15! ( #28 ( Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, DP-14! #27 NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS ! ( User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User S-13

_ ! (

#29

297 Linear Feet 0.041 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-47

W0.277

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, Medicine Bow Rd NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

_ ! (

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM)

Perennial Stream (OHWM)

W-10 0.026 Acre

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form

Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

#32

#33

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

! ( OHWM Datasheets

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points

#30 #31

! ( ! (

S-14 221 Linear Feet 0.03 Acre

Not Aquatic Resources

_ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

_ ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

_ ! (

Field Delineated

! ( ! (

_ ! (

Open Water (OHWM)

W-9 0.021 Acre

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-48

W-11 0.277 Acre

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, DP-17METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) DP-16( ! #30 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS ! ( W-9 User Community 0.021 Acre Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

#33

_ ! (

DP-20 DP-21! ( DP-19

_ ! (

_ DP-18! #32 ! (! ( ( ! (

! (

W-10 0.026 Acre

#31

S-14 221 Linear Feet 0.03 Acre

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-49

W-11 0.277 Acre

S-16Credits: Sources: Esri, S-17 Service Layer HERE, 580 Linear Feet S-15 493 Linear Feet Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, 0.067 Acre 0.068 Acre 140 Linear Feet NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong 0.016 Acre

_ ! (

_ ! ( ! ( ! (

S-18 463 Linear Feet 0.053 Acre

Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS ! ( _!( ! User ( Community ! ( Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar #35 #36 #34 Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

! ( ! (

#33

#37

W-12B 0.236 Acre

_!(_!(

#40 _ ! (#39 ! ( ! ( ! ( !(

(!_ _!(

! (

#38 W-12A 0.427 Acre #41

S-19 649 Linear Feet 0.097 Acre

Bo wR

lty Rd Difficu

Me dic ine

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

" )

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-50

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

_ ! (

S-15 140 Linear Feet 0.016 Acre

! (

S-16 580 Linear Feet 0.067 Acre

#34

_ ! ( ! (

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

#35

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-51

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

_!( ! (

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

S-17 493 Linear Feet 0.068 Acre

#36

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-52

S-18 463 Linear Feet 0.053 Acre

#37

DP-24 ! (

#40

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Di ffic

ult y

DP-23! (

_ Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, DP-22 ! ( #39 ! ( Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, W-12A 0.427(Hong Acre NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

_!(

#38

W-12B 0.236 Acre

(!_

_!( ! (

! (

#41 S-19 649 Linear Feet 0.097 Acre

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-53

" )

" ) lty Rd Difficu

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" )

Ccr1

S-20 522 Linear Feet 0.036 Acre

_!( ! (

#42

Med icin eB

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

ow R

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-54

_!(

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P,S-20 Linear Feet NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China522 (Hong 0.036 Acre Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User ! (

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

#42

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-55

" )

"#43 ! ) (

#44

_ ! (

_!(

W-13 0.134 Acre

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

" )

Med i

Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form " ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

Bow

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

_ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

cin e

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

1,200 FEET 1 INCH = 1,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-56

" )

#43

_ ! (

Me di cin e

Bo w

" ) #44

_!(

Service Layer Credits: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, DP-26 NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong ! ( Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) DP-25! ( OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User

W-13 0.134 Acre

Rd Open Water (OHWM) Field Delineated

Ephemeral Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated Intermittent Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Perennial Stream (OHWM) Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

Emergent Wetland Field Delineated Desktop Delineated

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Not Aquatic Resources

! ( OHWM Datasheets

! ( Wetland Determination Data Form _ ! ( Photo Location and Direction with Number

" ) Vegetated Swale Observation Points Footprint of Potential Disturbance

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 3 - WATERS OF THE US_SEPT22.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 12/15/2022

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION

150 FEET 1 INCH = 125 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2020

FIGURE 3-57

Cree k L os t

Hamilton Cree k

od C o tton wo

C re

rin

W rth No

tte P la

er Ri v

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap

Dry L

ake Cr

eek

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-1

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

1 INCH = 2,000 FEET AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2018-2021 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 4 - NWI AND NHD.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 11/7/2022

NOV 2022

wS ill o

H am

Creek ilton

North

Platte

River

Mor gan Creek

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-2

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

Mor gan Creek

re nwood C C o tto

ek North

Platte

Rive t te

Rive

N ort

h Pl

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-3

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

North P

latte R i v er

Dr yL

River

tte

Pl a

a ke C reek

N o rt

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-4

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

sC re

p Si

ek re Cotton w oo d C

atte Pl rt h r N o Ri v e

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-5

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS r Jim m y Creek ve User Community Be a Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors r C OpenStreetMap Sa y lo(c) Esri, HERE, Garmin, r ee k

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-6

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

S ay lor Creek

Spri ng C

Cato

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-7

Austin

n C reek

ree k

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

ree k

s ti n

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-8

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-9

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

D ry C

re e k

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-10

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

som

Tro ub l

re e

Tr o

u b le e s o

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-11

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

m Cr e

Dry Cre e k

m e Cre

T ro

icine B ow Riv e r ed

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-12

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

Dry Cr e e

dici n

B o w R i ve

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-13

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

ficulty

ee Cr

Dif

k Sledge Cree

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT NWI AND NHD MAP FIGURE 4-14

Study Area Stream or River (NHD) Freshwater Emergent Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (NWI) Freshwater Pond (NWI) Lake (NWI) Riverine (NWI)

1,000 FEET

2,000

NOV 2022

edicine Bo

iver

ek re

India n Sp rings

Cr e e k

Sa ge C

Cave C re ek

h ut So

r eek

rk Fo

North

ge Sa Cr

Platte

k ee

River

Lost Creek

sC Sip

Saylor C re

iver e Bo w R

h Dit c

Ri v e

Dr y

k re e

rt h No

t Pl a

D dle Mid

itch

edicin Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, ServiceMLayer GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap itch Big D

B ig Ditch

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT REGIONAL HYDROLOGY MAP FIGURE 5

Study Area Waterbody River Stream or Creek

1 MILES

1 in = 4 miles

AERIAL SOURCE: DIGITAL GLOBE AERIAL DATE: 2018-2021

NOV 2022

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\JD\FIGURE 5 - REGIONAL HYDROLOGY.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 11/7/2022

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix C. Antecedent Precipitation Tool Results

Rainfall (Inches)

2.5

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network

Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range

2.0

2021-05-17 1.5

1.0

2021-04-17 0.5

2021-06-16 0.0

Nov 2020

Dec 2020

Coordinates Observation Date Elevation (ft) Drought Index (PDSI) WebWIMP H2O Balance

Jan 2021 42.063544, -106.704487 2021-06-16 6694.15 Extreme drought Dry Season

Feb 2021

Mar 2021 30 Days Ending 2021-06-16 2021-05-17 2021-04-17 Result

Apr 2021 30th %ile (in) 0.503937 1.002362 0.5

Weather Station Name MEDICINE BOW 0.2 W HANNA 0.2 E MEDICINE BOW 0.3 NE SINCLAIR 0.1 N LEO 6 SW ELK MTN MEDICINE BOW

May 2021 70th %ile (in) 1.952362 2.327165 1.332284

Jun 2021

Jul 2021

Aug 2021

Sep 2021

Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight 0.011811 Dry 1 3 1.913386 Normal 2 2 0.551181 Normal 2 1

Coordinates 41.8995, -106.2056 41.8706, -106.5544 41.8991, -106.2002 41.7788, -107.1169 42.1953, -106.8556 41.6878, -106.4136 41.8969, -106.2061

Elevation (ft) Distance (mi) Elevation Weighted 6568.898 28.018 125.252 16.117 6799.869 15.4 105.719 8.558 6564.961 28.283 129.189 16.381 6599.082 28.924 95.068 15.766 6035.105 11.951 659.045 13.254 7265.092 29.966 570.942 30.594 6634.843 28.069 59.307 14.296

Oct 2021 Product 3 4 2 Drier than Normal - 9

Days Normal 117 343 3355 1511 6007 19 1

Days Antecedent 0 0 0 63 27 0 0

Rainfall (Inches)

2.5

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network

Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range

2.0

2021-05-18 1.5

1.0

2021-04-18 0.5

2021-06-17 0.0

Nov 2020

Dec 2020

Coordinates Observation Date Elevation (ft) Drought Index (PDSI) WebWIMP H2O Balance

Jan 2021 42.063544, -106.704487 2021-06-17 6694.15 Extreme drought Dry Season

Feb 2021

Mar 2021 30 Days Ending 2021-06-17 2021-05-18 2021-04-18 Result

Apr 2021 30th %ile (in) 0.503937 1.01063 0.484646

Weather Station Name MEDICINE BOW 0.2 W HANNA 0.2 E MEDICINE BOW 0.3 NE SINCLAIR 0.1 N LEO 6 SW ELK MTN MEDICINE BOW

May 2021 70th %ile (in) 1.952362 2.313386 1.42874

Jun 2021

Jul 2021

Aug 2021

Sep 2021

Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight 0.011811 Dry 1 3 1.913386 Normal 2 2 0.551181 Normal 2 1

Coordinates 41.8995, -106.2056 41.8706, -106.5544 41.8991, -106.2002 41.7788, -107.1169 42.1953, -106.8556 41.6878, -106.4136 41.8969, -106.2061

Oct 2021 Product 3 4 2 Drier than Normal - 9

Days Normal 117 343 3355 1511 6007 19 1

Days Antecedent 0 0 0 64 26 0 0

Rainfall (Inches)

2.5

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network

Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range

2.0

2021-05-19 1.5

1.0

2021-04-19 0.5

2021-06-18 0.0

Nov 2020

Dec 2020

Coordinates Observation Date Elevation (ft) Drought Index (PDSI) WebWIMP H2O Balance

Jan 2021 42.063544, -106.704487 2021-06-18 6694.15 Extreme drought Dry Season

Feb 2021

Mar 2021 30 Days Ending 2021-06-18 2021-05-19 2021-04-19 Result

Apr 2021 30th %ile (in) 0.503937 0.909449 0.484646

Weather Station Name MEDICINE BOW 0.2 W HANNA 0.2 E MEDICINE BOW 0.3 NE SINCLAIR 0.1 N LEO 6 SW ELK MTN MEDICINE BOW

May 2021 70th %ile (in) 2.144882 2.307087 1.537402

Jun 2021

Jul 2021

Aug 2021

Sep 2021

Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight 0.011811 Dry 1 3 1.913386 Normal 2 2 0.551181 Normal 2 1

Coordinates 41.8995, -106.2056 41.8706, -106.5544 41.8991, -106.2002 41.7788, -107.1169 42.1953, -106.8556 41.6878, -106.4136 41.8969, -106.2061

Oct 2021 Product 3 4 2 Drier than Normal - 9

Days Normal 117 343 3355 1511 6007 19 1

Days Antecedent 0 0 0 65 25 0 0

Rainfall (Inches)

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network

Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range

2.5

2.0

1.5

2021-06-25 2021-07-25 2021-08-24

1.0

0.5

0.0

Feb 2021

Mar 2021

Coordinates Observation Date Elevation (ft) Drought Index (PDSI) WebWIMP H2O Balance

Apr 2021 42.063544, -106.704487 2021-08-24 6694.15 Extreme drought Dry Season

May 2021

Jun 2021 30 Days Ending 2021-08-24 2021-07-25 2021-06-25 Result

Jul 2021 30th %ile (in) 0.344094 0.414173 0.576378

SEMINOE DAM HANNA 0.2 E SEMINOE RSVR USBR LEO 6 SW MEDICINE BOW RAWLINS MUNI AP

Aug 2021 70th %ile (in) 0.661811 1.116929 2.175197

Sep 2021

Oct 2021

Nov 2021

Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight 0.826772 Wet 3 3 0.775591 Normal 2 2 1.070866 Normal 2 1

42.1569, -106.9153 41.8706, -106.5544 42.1556, -106.9139 42.1953, -106.8556 41.8969, -106.2061 41.8056, -107.1997

6837.927 6799.869 6975.066 6035.105 6634.843 6735.893

12.585 15.4 12.477 11.951 28.069 31.073

143.777 105.719 280.916 659.045 59.307 41.743

7.473 8.558 9.12 13.254 14.296 15.28

Dec 2021

Jan 2022

Product 9 4 2 Wetter than Normal - 15 3246 343 2706 4987 49 22

0 0 89 1 0 0

Rainfall (Inches)

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network

Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range

2.5

2.0

1.5

2021-06-26

1.0

2021-08-25 2021-07-26 0.5

0.0

Feb 2021

Mar 2021

Coordinates Observation Date Elevation (ft) Drought Index (PDSI) WebWIMP H2O Balance

Apr 2021 42.063544, -106.704487 2021-08-25 6694.15 Extreme drought Dry Season

May 2021

Jun 2021 30 Days Ending 2021-08-25 2021-07-26 2021-06-26 Result

Jul 2021 30th %ile (in) 0.299213 0.28622 0.349213

Weather Station Name LEO 6 SW SEMINOE DAM MEDICINE BOW RAWLINS MUNI AP

Aug 2021 70th %ile (in) 0.690551 1.016142 1.398819

Sep 2021

Oct 2021

Nov 2021

Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight 0.602362 Normal 2 3 0.433071 Normal 2 2 0.818898 Normal 2 1

Coordinates 42.1953, -106.8556 42.1569, -106.9153 41.8969, -106.2061 41.8056, -107.1997

Dec 2021

Jan 2022

Product 6 4 2 Normal Conditions - 12

Elevation (ft) Distance (mi) Elevation Weighted Days (Normal) Days (Antecedent) 6035.105 11.951 659.045 13.254 11231 90 6837.927 12.585 143.777 7.473 51 0 6634.843 28.069 59.307 14.296 49 0 6735.893 31.073 41.743 15.28 22 0

Rainfall (Inches)

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network

Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range

2.5

2.0

1.5

2021-06-27

1.0

2021-08-26 2021-07-27

0.5

0.0

Feb 2021

Mar 2021

Coordinates Observation Date Elevation (ft) Drought Index (PDSI) WebWIMP H2O Balance

Apr 2021 42.063544, -106.704487 2021-08-26 6694.15 Extreme drought Dry Season

May 2021

Jun 2021 30 Days Ending 2021-08-26 2021-07-27 2021-06-27 Result

Jul 2021 30th %ile (in) 0.299213 0.281102 0.370079

Weather Station Name LEO 6 SW SEMINOE DAM MEDICINE BOW RAWLINS MUNI AP

Aug 2021 70th %ile (in) 0.698819 1.016142 1.41811

Sep 2021

Oct 2021

Nov 2021

Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight 0.614173 Normal 2 3 0.42126 Normal 2 2 0.830709 Normal 2 1

Coordinates 42.1953, -106.8556 42.1569, -106.9153 41.8969, -106.2061 41.8056, -107.1997

Dec 2021

Jan 2022

Product 6 4 2 Normal Conditions - 12

Rainfall (Inches)

Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network

Daily Total 30-Day Rolling Total 30-Year Normal Range

2.0

1.5

1.0

2022-06-04 2022-07-04

0.5

0.0

2022-08-03

Jan 2022 Coordinates Observation Date Elevation (ft) Drought Index (PDSI) WebWIMP H2O Balance

Feb 2022

Mar 2022 42.172719, -106.863221 2022-08-03 6788.26 Extreme drought (2022-07) Dry Season

Apr 2022

May 2022 30 Days Ending 2022-08-03 2022-07-04 2022-06-04 Result

Jun 2022 30th %ile (in) 0.343307 0.290945 0.514173

Weather Station Name RAWLINS MUNI AP RAWLINS 1N SINCLAIR 0.1 N RAWLINS 4.3 W SEMINOE DAM MEDICINE BOW

Jul 2022 70th %ile (in) 0.983858 1.029528 1.787402

Aug 2022

Sep 2022

Oct 2022

Nov 2022

Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight 0.232283 Dry 1 3 0.598425 Normal 2 2 0.811024 Normal 2 1

Coordinates 41.8056, -107.1997 41.8036, -107.2411 41.7788, -107.1169 41.7787, -107.3112 42.1569, -106.9153 41.8969, -106.2061

Elevation (ft) Distance (mi) Elevation Weighted 6735.893 30.692 52.367 15.419 6908.137 2.137 172.244 1.33 6599.082 4.65 136.811 2.729 6964.895 6.037 229.002 4.099 6837.927 28.329 102.034 15.639 6634.843 51.524 101.05 28.392

Dec 2022 Product 3 4 2 Drier than Normal - 9

Days Normal 10973 362 5 2 3 8

Days Antecedent 90 0 0 0 0 0

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix D. Wetland Determination Data Forms

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Hydro Applicant/Owner: rPlus

Investigator(s):

Section, Township, Range:

Floodplain D - Western Range and Irrigated Reg

Sampling Date:

08/03/2022

Sampling Point:

DP-1

Section 34, 26N 84W Concave -106.863235

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

Ryan Hammons and Kelly Albery

Subregion (LRR):

Carbon County

Lat:

42.172783

Long:

No Data Available

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

✔

1 WGS 84

Slope (%):

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Drier than normal conditions present during delineation. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:

15 ft

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

100

5 ft

)

= Total Cover

FACU species UPL species

Agrostis gigantea Equisetum arvense Phleum pratense Epilobium ciliatum Erythranthe guttata Juncus balticus

30 20 5 5 3 3

Y Y N N N N

FACW FAC FACU FACW OBL FACW

Column Totals:

3 76 60 20 0 159

x1= x2= x3= x4= x5=

(A)

(B)

2.4

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50%

✔

Prevalence Index is 3.0

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

15 ft

)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2.

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

3 38 20 5 0

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

Multiply by:

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

DP-1

Sampling Point:

SOIL

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-8

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

100

10YR 2/1

Texture

Remarks

Silt Loam

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) ✔ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Vernal Pools (F9)

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Bedrock

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Let soil dry for 15 minutes to try and see redox, still saturated and no redox observed. Soil has a greasy feel throughout. Pine cones buried in soil. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

✔

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

✔

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 0 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Hydro Applicant/Owner: rPlus

Investigator(s):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillsope D - Western Range and Irrigated Reg

Sampling Date:

08/03/2022

Sampling Point:

DP-2

Section 34, 26N 84W Convex -106.86325

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

Ryan Hammons and Kelly Albery

Subregion (LRR):

Carbon County

Lat:

42.172789

Long:

No Data Available

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

✔

2 NAD 83

Slope (%):

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Drier than normal conditions present during delineation. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:

15 ft

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of:

2. 3.

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5 ft

)

= Total Cover

FACU species UPL species

Achillea millefolium Antennaria parvifolia Phleum pratense Artemisia ludoviciana Equisetum arvense

5 15 30 5 15

N Y Y N Y

FACU UPL FACU FACU FAC

Column Totals:

Multiply by:

0 0 15 40 15

0 0 45 160 75 280

x1= x2= x3= x4= x5=

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

15 ft

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2.

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-2

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-2

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

100

10YR 3/3

Texture

Remarks

Sandy loam

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Bedrock

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present? Yes No ✔ Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Depression

Section, Township, Range:

Lat:

42.162175

Are Vegetation

, Soil

✔

Sampling Point:

DP-3

Concave -106.872392

Long:

✔

0 NAD 83

Slope (%): Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes , Soil

8-25-21

Section 3, Township 25 N Range 84 W

No data available per Web Soil Survey

Are Vegetation

Sampling Date:

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

B.Battaglia, R. Hammons, J. Bisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

✔

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks: Wetland plot located in depression in upper mountains within proposed upper reservoir. Cattle activity/grazing is prevalent. An uncapped PVC pipe is present in the depression. No groundwater was measured in the pipe based on a 12ft. tape measure. Talked to the BLM hydrologist and he was not sure what the pipe is. Based on staining of the soils in the depression, it does appear to infrequently hold water. Majority of vegetation browsed to nearly the ground surface. APT yields normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance).

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

15 ft.

)

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2.

5 ft.

)

Multiply by:

x2=

x4=

UPL species

Eleocharis parvula Pascopyrum smithii

55 15

Y Y

OBL FAC

Column Totals:

x3=

FACU species

= Total Cover

x1=

x5=

100

(A)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

✔

Dominance Test is >50%

✔

Prevalence Index is 3.0

(B)

1.43

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

7. 8.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

100%

30 ft.

) 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Grindelia squarrosa (FACU), prevalent in other portions of the depression. Dead, matted vegetation.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-3

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

0-2

10YR 3/2

100

2-4

10YR 3/2

4-20

10YR 3/2

100

5YR 3/4

Loc

M/PL

Texture

Remarks

some gravel

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

N/A

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

✔

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Observed a "ring" of cow pies along outside edge of depression possibly suggesting they floated to the position or grazing in the area occurs on the edge of snow pack that lingers in the depression. Review of aerial photographs did not reveal inundation in the depression. US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-4

Section 3, Township 25 N Range 84 W Concave -106.872114

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

B. Battaglia, R. Hammons

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon County

Lat:

42.162097

Long:

No soil data available

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

1-3 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

✔

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Upland plot located on terrace adjacent to wetland; heavily grazed. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). Conspicuous line of dried up cow pies on the edge of the wetland, as if they floated to the edge. This sample is just outside the edge of the cow pies.

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

15 ft.

)

Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

FACU

33%

Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

x3=

FACU species

x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3.

5 ft.

)

Distichlis spicata Halogeton glomeratus Schoenoplectus pungens

= Total Cover

30 8 2

Y Y N

FAC UPL OBL

(A/B)

UPL species

x5=

Column Totals:

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. 5.

Dominance Test is >50%

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft.

)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2.

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-4

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-2

2.5Y 5/3

100

SCL

2-8

2.5Y 6/6

100

SCL

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

Rocky/hardpan 8

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Wetland hydrology and hydric soils not observed at sampling point.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Top of bank

Sampling Date:

6/16/2021

Sampling Point:

DP-5

Section 35, Township 25 N Range 83 W Convex -106.744116

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

Tara Kent and Laura Duffie

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon County

Lat:

42.092394

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

✔

1 NAD 83

Slope (%):

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Data Point DP-5 represents an emergent wetland located on both sides of an access road east of Hanna Leo Draw Road. Antecedent Precipitation Tool yields drier than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance).

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30-ft

Absolute % Cover

)

Salix alba

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

Yes

FACW

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

Ribes aureum

Yes

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

FAC

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2.

5-ft

)

= Total Cover

FACU species UPL species

Carex nebrascensis Trifolium pratense

80 15

Yes No

OBL FACU

Column Totals:

Multiply by:

80 6 10 15 0

x2= x3= x4= x5=

111

(A)

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

✔

Dominance Test is >50%

✔

Prevalence Index is 3.0

(B)

1.64

Prevalence Index = B/A =

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

7. 8.

15 ft.

)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

80 12 30 60 0 182

x1=

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

100

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Hydrophytic vegetation is present. No vegetation was observed in the woody vine stratum.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-5

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-1 1-8 8-12

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

Remarks

10YR 3/2

Sandy loam minor fill material

10YR 5/3

Sandy loam gravel present

10YR 2/1

10YR 4/1

Sandy loam

10YR 4/1

Sandy loam

10YR 2/1

Sandy loam

10YR 4/6

Sandy loam

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

N/A

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Hydric Soil Indicators were met. Minor fill material/gravel was present near the soil surface. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) ✔

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

✔

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

A sulfur odor was observed coming from the exposed soil pit.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Terrace

Sampling Date:

6/16/2021

Sampling Point:

DP-6

Section 35, Township 25 N Range 83 W None -106.744116

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

Laura Duffie and Tara Kent

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon County

Lat:

42.092394

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

✔

0 NAD 83

Slope (%):

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Data Point DP-6 represents an upland area located on both sides of an access road east of Hanna Leo Draw Road. DP-6 is the outpoint for DP-5. Antecedent tool yields drier than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance).

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size:

Absolute % Cover

30-ft diamete )

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2.

15 ft. diamete)

Artemisia tridentata Chrysanthemum X morifolium

Yes No

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

25 4

Dominance Test worksheet:

UPL UPL

Total % Cover of: OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

5-ft diameter )

= Total Cover

FACU species UPL species

Cirsium arvense Equisetum arvense Astragalus agrestis Plantago patagonica Achillea millefolium Potentilla argentea

10 5 4 4 4 4

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

FACU FAC FAC UPL FACU FACU

Column Totals:

0 0 9 18 33

0 0 27 72 165 264

x1= x2= x3= x4= x5=

(A)

(B)

4.40

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.0

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

15 ft. dia.

)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2.

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Multiply by:

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

Herb Stratum (Plot size:

28.6

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Hydrophytic vegetation was not present. No vegetation was observed in the tree or woody vine stratum.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-6

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-2

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

100

10YR 3/3

Texture

Remarks

Loamy/cla

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

sunbaked pan 2

Depth (inches):

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Hydric Soil Indicators were not observed above the restrictive layer. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

No hydrology indicators were observed.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Terrace

Sampling Date:

6/16/2021

Sampling Point:

DP-7

Section 35, Township 25 N Range 83 W None -106.736886

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

Tara Kent and Katie Krajicek

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon County

Lat:

42.087749

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

✔

0-1 NAD 83

Slope (%):

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Data Point DP-7 represents an emergent wetland fringe located adjacent to Caton Creek, an intermittent channel approximately 1-foot wide at OHWM. Antecedent tool yields drier than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance).

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

1. 2. 3. 4. = Total Cover

15 ft

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:

)

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total % Cover of:

2. 3.

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

100

= Total Cover

5 ft

)

FACU species UPL species

Juncus balticus Carex nebrascensis Potentilla argentea Equisetum arvense Plantago patagonica Ranunculus macounii

50 40 5 5 3 2

Yes Yes No No No No

FACW OBL FACU FAC UPL OBL

Column Totals:

42 100 15 20 15 192

x1= x2= x3= x4= x5=

105

(A)

(B)

1.83

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50%

✔

Prevalence Index is 3.0

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

15 ft

)

105

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

42 50 5 5 3

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

Multiply by:

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Hydrophytic vegetation iss present. No vegetation was observed in the tree, sapling/shrub, or woody vine stratum. US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-7

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

0-2

10YR 3/2

2-12

10YR 4/1

Loc

Texture

Remarks

Loamy/cla loamy clay, roots present 10YR 4/6

PL/M

Loamy/cla loamy clay

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

N/A

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Hydric Soil Indicators were met. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

✔

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Redox features were observed along the rhizospheres/root pore linings.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

6/16/2021

Sampling Point:

DP-8

Section 35, Township 25 N Range 83 W Convex -106.736852

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

Laura Duffie and Tara Kent

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon County

Lat:

42.087685

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

✔

3-4 NAD 83

Slope (%):

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Data Point DP-8 represents an upland area near Caton Creek, a perennial channel approximately 1-foot wide at OHWM. DP-8 is the outpoint for DP7. Antecedent tool yields drier normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance).

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

1. 2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

= Total Cover

15 ft

)

Artemisia tridentata

Yes

UPL

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:

2. 3.

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5 ft

)

= Total Cover

FACU species UPL species

Equisetum arvense Cirsium arvense Poa pratensis Achillea millefolium Tragopogon dubius

5 5 5 2 2

Yes Yes Yes No No

FAC FACU FAC FAC UPL

Column Totals:

Multiply by:

0 0 12 5 42

0 0 36 20 210 266

x1= x2= x3= x4= x5=

(A)

(B)

4.51

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

15 ft

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Hydrophytic vegetation is not present. No vegetation was observed in the tree or woody vine stratum.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-8

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-6

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

100

10YR 3/2

Texture

Remarks

Loamy/Cla

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

sunbaked clay/rock 6

Depth (inches):

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Hydric Soil Indicators were not observed above the restrictive layer. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

No hydrology indicators were observed.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Depression adj. to stream

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon County

Sampling Date:

8-25-21

Sampling Point:

DP-9

Section 12, Township 24 N Range 83 W Concave -106.702998

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

Lat:

42.067235

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

1 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

The site receives surface and subsurface flow from the irrigation ditch upslope, as well as catching precipitation within a concave landform. Antecedent tool yields normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2.

5 ft.

)

Multiply by:

x2=

x4=

UPL species

Hordeum jubatum Carex nebrascensis

95 5

Y N

FAC OBL

Column Totals:

285

x3=

FACU species

= Total Cover

x1=

x5=

100

290

(A)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

✔

Dominance Test is >50%

✔

Prevalence Index is 3.0

(B)

2.90

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

7. 8.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

100

30 ft.

)

100

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Vegetation is noticeably irrigated as shown with how dense it is growing compared to adjacent vegetation

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-9

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-3

10YR 4/3

2.5YR 4/6

Loam

3-20

10YR 3/2

2.5YR 4/6

M/PL

SiCL

10YR 2/2

Remarks

SiCL

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A Hydric Soil Present?

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

✔

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

The site meets the wetland hydrology parameter.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-25-21

Sampling Point:

DP-10

Section 12, Township 24 N Range 83 W Concave -106.703349

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

B. Battaglia, R. Hammons

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.066058

Long:

No data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

1-2 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

✔

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

PEM wetland located on bottom of hillslope; the wetland is adjacent to an incised perennial stream. Potential habitat for Ute Ladies’-Tresses. Ditches cut perpendicular to flow path upslope of wetland within hayfields. Areas of hayfields in/adjacent to wetland were recently cut. Antecedent tool yields normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance).

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

15 ft.

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

5 ft. Calamagrostis canadensis Carex nebrascensis Trifolium repens Schoenoplectus pungens Triglochin palustris Equisetum fluviatile

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

)

= Total Cover

FACU species

Multiply by:

40 30

Y Y Y N N N

FACW OBL FACU OBL OBL OBL

Column Totals:

40 60

x1= x2= x3=

x4=

UPL species

30 20 20 10 5 5

x5=

180

(A)

(B)

2.0

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50%

✔

Prevalence Index is 3.0

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

7. 8.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

66.7

30 ft.

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Majority of wetland not cut for hay likely due to wetness.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-10

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-4

10YR 2/1

100

4-10

7.5YR 3/2

7.5YR 5/8

M/PL

SiCL

10-16

10YR 4/2

7.5YR 5/8

M/PL

Remarks

A lot of organic matter

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A Hydric Soil Present?

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

No standing water observed in soil test pit. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

✔

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

✔

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 10 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Evidence of grazing within wetland.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-25-21

Sampling Point:

DP-11

Section 12, Township 24 N Range 83 W Concave -106.703346

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

B. Battaglia, R. Hammons

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.065987

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

1-2 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Upland plot located upslope of wetland in agricultural field. Antecedent tool yields normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

x3=

FACU species

x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

5 ft.

)

Bromus inermis Equisetum hyemale Cirsium arvense Symphyotrichum sp. Taraxacum officinale Astragalus sp. Symphyotrichum sp.

= Total Cover

60 20 10 10 5 5 5

Y N N N N N N

FACU FACW FACU FACU FACU FACU FACU

UPL species

x5=

Column Totals:

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is 3.0

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

(A/B)

30 ft.

)

115

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Symphyotrichum sp. and Astragalus sp. are assumed FACU or drier based on associated vegetation.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-11

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-12

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

100

2.5Y 4/3

Texture

SiCL

Remarks

uniform throughout

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A Hydric Soil Present?

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Evidence of grazing within wetland.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Terrace

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-12

Section 20, Township 24 N Range 81 W None -106.544343

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

B. Battaglia, R. Hammons

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.038795

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

1-3 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Wetland plot located on terrace adjacent to channel feature within wetland; heavily grazed area; some scattered areas of ponded water in lower portions of wetland. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance).

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

15 ft.

)

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

100

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

x3=

FACU species

x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2.

(A/B)

5 ft.

)

Schoenoplectus pungens Triglochin maritima

= Total Cover

50 10

Y N

OBL OBL

UPL species

x5=

Column Totals:

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft.

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2.

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-12

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-4

2.5Y 5/3

100

4-8

2.5Y 5/2

7.5YR 5/8

8-14

2.5Y 5/1

7.5YR 5/8

Remarks

SCL

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A Hydric Soil Present?

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) ✔

✔

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) ✔

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?

Yes Yes

✔

No No

Depth (inches): ✔

2-4

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 13 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Yes

✔

Remarks:

No water table observed at data point. Recent localized rainfall the day prior

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-13

Section 20, Township 24 N Range 81 W Convex -106.544481

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

B. Battaglia, R. Hammons

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.038790

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

1-3 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

✔

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Upland plot located on terrace adjacent to wetland; heavily grazed. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

15 ft.

)

Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

FACU

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2. 3.

5 ft.

)

FACU species

= Total Cover

UPL species

Distichlis spicata Halogeton glomeratus Schoenoplectus pungens

30 8 2

Y Y N

FAC UPL OBL

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

33%

Column Totals:

Multiply by:

x1= x2=

30 15 8

90 60 40 192

x3= x4= x5=

(A)

(B)

3.49

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. 5.

Dominance Test is >50%

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft.

)

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover 1

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-13

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-2

2.5Y 5/3

100

SCL

2-8

2.5Y 6/6

100

SCL

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

Rocky/hardpan 8

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present?

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Wetland hydrology and hydric soils not observed at sampling point.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Pond

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-14

Section 22, Township 24 N Range 81 W Concave -106.508989

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.039239

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

<1 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Man-made pond. Evidence of cattle disturbance. Water ponded at the time of the delineation. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

= Total Cover

15 ft.

)

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species FAC species

0 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2. 3. 4. 5.

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

.67

5 ft.

= Total Cover

)

FACU species

Multiply by:

x2=

30 15

20 10 10 5 5

Y Y Y N N

FAC FACU FAC FACU OBL

Column Totals:

90 60

x3= x4=

UPL species

Hordeum jubatum Cirsium arvense Astragalus agrestis Grindelia squarrosa Polygonum amphibium

x1=

x5=

155

(A)

(B)

3.10

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft.

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-14

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-5 5-20

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

2.5Y 4/2

2.5Y 5/3

10YR 5/4

10YR 7/4

Loc

Texture

5YR 4/6

SCL

5YR 5/8

SCL

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present):

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Type: Hydric Soil Present?

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Soils disturbed due to construction of pond. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) ✔

✔

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?

Yes Yes

✔

No No

Depth (inches): ✔

6-12

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Ponded water present at outlet of the pond. A water control structure is present at the outlet of the pond. 6-12 in. of water max.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Pond

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-15

Section 22, Township 24 N Range 81 W Concave -106.508817

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.039283

Long:

No data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

<1 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. ✔

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

Is the Sampled Area

✔ ✔

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Data point taken within depression; notable change in vegetative cover; artificial/constructed; vegetation was dominated by facultative plants. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance).

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

15 ft.

)

Chrysothamus viscidiflorus

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

UPL

.67

Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

x3=

FACU species

x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5 ft.

)

Hordeum jubatum Astragalus agrestis Grindelia squarrosa Cirsium arvense

= Total Cover

40 20 10 10

Y Y N N

FAC FAC FACU FACU

(A/B)

UPL species

x5=

Column Totals:

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft.

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2.

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Bunchgrass likely due to infrequent high water ponding.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-15

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-16

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

10YR 3/2

SCL

10YR 4/3

SCL

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Depression

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-16

Section 19, Township 24 N Range 80 W Concave -106.454919

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.039189

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

2 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Wetland plot located within grazed area. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

5 ft.

)

= Total Cover

UPL species

Carex nebrascensis Juncus balticus Poa pratensis Plantago major Xanthium strumarium Fragaria vesca

50 20 15 5 3 2

Y Y N N N N

OBL FACW FAC FAC FAC UPL

Multiply by:

50 20 23

Column Totals:

50 40 69

x1= x2= x3=

FACU species

x4=

10 169

x5=

(A)

(B)

1.78

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50%

✔

Prevalence Index is 3.0

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

7. 8.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

100

30 ft.

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-16

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-6

10YR 2/1

2.5Y 4/8

M/PL

SICL

6-18

10YR 2/1

2.5Y 4/8

M/PL

SICL

10YR 4/1

10YR 3/2

100

18-20

A lot of oraganic matter

COSL

Remarks

Gravelly

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) ✔

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

✔

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 16 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Terrace

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-17

Section 19, Township 24 N Range 80 W Convex -106.454842

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.039147

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

2 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

✔

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Upland data plot located in sagebrush upslope of wetland. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

Artemisia tridentata

Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet:

UPL

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2. 3. 4.

5 ft.

)

= Total Cover

FACU species UPL species

Plantago major Cirsium arvense Bromus inermis Thinopyrum intermedium

5 20 50 25

N Y Y Y

FAC FACU FACU FAC

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

33.33

Column Totals:

Multiply by: x1= x2=

30 70 50

90 280 250 620

x3= x4= x5=

150

(A)

(B)

4.13

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

)

100

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-17

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-6

10YR 4/4

100

SIL

6-20

10YR 5/4

100

SIL

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present):

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Type: Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Terrace

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-18

Section 19, Township 24 N Range 80 W Concave -106.453936

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.038683

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

0-1 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Seep wetland located on bank of stream; there is a small break between the wetland and the stream. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

100

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

x3=

FACU species

x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2.

(A/B)

5 ft.

)

Carex nebrascensis Eleocharis palustris

= Total Cover

85 15

Y N

OBL OBL

UPL species

x5=

Column Totals:

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

)

100

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-18

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-10

10YR 2/1

2.5YR 4/6

PL/M

SICL

10-16

10YR 3/1

2.5YR 4/6

PL/M

SICL

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present):

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Type: Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

High levels of organic soil material present. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

✔

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

✔

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

✔

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

✔

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

✔

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

0 0

Yes

✔

Remarks:

No sturation since the soil profile is inundated.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Terrace

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-19

Section 19, Township 24 N Range 80 W Concave -106.453883

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.038661

Long:

No data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

0-1 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

✔

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Upland data point taken between stream and seep wetland. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2. 3. 4. 5.

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

33.33

5 ft.

)

= Total Cover

FACU species

Multiply by: x1= x2=

40 60

x4=

UPL species

Bromus inermis Hordeum jubatum Cirsium arvense Plantago major Grindelia squarrosa

30 25 20 15 10

Y Y Y N N

FACU FAC FACU FAC FACU

Column Totals:

120 240

x3= x5=

100

360

(A)

(B)

3.6

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

)

100

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-19

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-2

10YR 3/3

100

SIL

2-10

10YR 4/4

100

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Dry hardpan

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-20

Section 19, Township 24 N Range 80 W Concave -106.452711

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.038831

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

3 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Wetland associated with spring; spring flow estimated at 5 cfs. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

100

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

x3=

FACU species

x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2.

(A/B)

5 ft.

)

Carex nebrascensis Eleocharis pachycarpa

= Total Cover

95 5

Y N

OBL OBL

UPL species

x5=

Column Totals:

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

)

100

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-20

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-8

10YR 3/1

10YR 4/6

PL/M

SIL

8-16

10YR 3/2

10YR 4/6

PL/M

SCL

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Organic soil material HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

✔

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

✔

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

✔

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Drainage Patterns (B10) ✔

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Crayfish Burrows (C8) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

✔

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

0 0

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Seep wetland system. No saturation since the soil profile is inundated.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-21

Section 19, Township 24 N Range 80 W Convex -106.452778

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.038853

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

5 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Upland data point located upslope of wetland where change in topography and vegetation occurs. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2.

)

Sarcobatus vermiculatus Chrysothamus viscidiflorus Artemisia tridentata

= Total Cover

55 40 5

Y Y N

FACU UPL UPL

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

x3=

FACU species

x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1.

5 ft.

100

)

= Total Cover

N/A

UPL species

x5=

Column Totals:

(A)

(B)

2. 3.

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-21

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

0-4

10YR 5/3

100

4-12

10YR 4/3

100

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-24-21

Sampling Point:

DP-22

Section 20, Township 24 N Range 80 W Concave -106.425028

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.0365

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

5 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Wetland plot located within area due to vegetation. Moisture in area is artificial. Site is located between natural stream and irrigation ditches. Antecedent tool yields wetter than normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance).

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

100

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

x3=

FACU species

x4=

5 ft. Alopecurus arundinaceus Trifolium pratense Plantago major Sporobolus airoides Medicago sativa

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

(A/B)

)

= Total Cover

70 15 5 5 5

Y N N N N

FAC FACU FAC FAC UPL

UPL species

x5=

Column Totals:

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

)

100

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-22

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

0-4

7.5YR 2.5/2

100

4-20

7.5YR 3/4

Loc

Texture

Remarks

L 2.5YR 4/8

M/PL

SIL

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present):

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Type: Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

✔

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Wetland Hydrology Present? Saturation Present? Yes ✔ No Depth (inches): 4 (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-25-21

Sampling Point:

DP-23

Section 20, Township 24 N Range 80 W Convex -106.424653

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.036553

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

2 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Wetland plot located upslope of wetland. Antecedent tool yields normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

15 ft.

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

Total % Cover of:

2. 3.

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3.

5 ft.

)

40 20 15

Y Y N

x1= x2=

FAC UPL FAC

Column Totals:

165

x3=

FACU species

= Total Cover

UPL species

Pascopyrum smithii Medicago sativa Astragalus argophyllus

Multiply by:

x4=

100 265

x5=

(A)

(B)

3.5

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. 5.

Dominance Test is >50%

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

2. = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-23

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-20

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

7.5YR 3/4

SiCL

7.5YR 4/6

SiCL

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-25-21

Sampling Point:

DP-24

Section 20, Township 24 N Range 80 W Convex -106.4244

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

J.Brisbois, A. Roberts

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.036706

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

2 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Wetland plot located in upslope portion of wetland. Antecedent tool yields normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4.

15 ft.

Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

)

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

= Total Cover

Total % Cover of:

OBL species

FACW species

FAC species

5 ft. Alopecurus arundinaceus Carex nebrascensis

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 2.

)

Multiply by:

x2=

x4=

UPL species

75 25

Y Y

FAC OBL

Column Totals:

225

x3=

FACU species

= Total Cover

x1=

x5=

100

250

(A)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

✔

Dominance Test is >50%

✔

Prevalence Index is 3.0

(B)

2.50

1 1

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

7. 8.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

100

30 ft.

)

100

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-24

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

0-4

7.5YR 2.5/2

100

4-20

7.5YR 3/4

Loc

Texture

Remarks

L 2.5YR 4/8

M/PL

SIL

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

✔

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

✔

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Depression

Sampling Date:

8-25-21

Sampling Point:

DP-25

Section 34, Township 24 N Range 80 W Concave -106.393594

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

B. Battaglia, R. Hammons

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.014017

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

PEM

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

1 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔ ✔ ✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Plot located in man-made stock pond with berm to the west. Erosional swales lead to the area from the north and east. Antecedent tool yields normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

15 ft.

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

x3=

FACU species

x4=

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2.

5 ft.

)

Polygonum aviculare Xanthium strumarium

= Total Cover

25 5

Y N

FAC FAC

UPL species

x5=

Column Totals:

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A =

Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✔

Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:

30 ft.

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

1. 2.

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Majority of the lowest areas of the pond are marginally vegetated. Staining of the soils indicating the area occasionally holds water. US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-25

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

Loc

Texture

Remarks

0-4

10YR 2/1

5YR 5/8

M/PL

crumbelly

4-6

5YR 3/2

5YR 3/4

fill material

6-12

7.5YR 3/1

5YR 3/4

M/PL

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Fill material HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

✔

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

✔

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Man-made stock pond dry at the time of the site investigation.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region City/County:

Project/Site:

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Applicant/Owner: Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

Investigator(s):

Subregion (LRR):

Section, Township, Range:

Hillslope

Sampling Date:

8-25-21

Sampling Point:

DP-26

Section 34, Township 24 N Range 80 W Concave -106.393592

Local relief (concave, convex, none):

LRR D

Soil Map Unit Name:

State:

B. Battaglia, R. Hammons

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):

Carbon

Lat:

42.014067

Long:

No soil data available per Web Soil Survey

Datum:

N/A

NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes

✔

1-2 NAD 83

Slope (%):

(If no, explain in Remarks.)

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

significantly disturbed?

Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes

Are Vegetation

, Soil

, or Hydrology

naturally problematic?

(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)

✔

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

Wetland Hydrology Present?

Yes

✔

Is the Sampled Area

within a Wetland?

✔

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Plot located along hillslope leading to man-made stock pond. Antecedent tool yields normal conditions, extreme drought (PDSI), and Dry Season (WebWIMP H2O Balance). VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

Absolute % Cover

)

Dominant Indicator Species? Status

N/A

2. 3. 4. Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1.

15 ft.

)

= Total Cover

Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

(A)

Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata:

(B)

Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

N/A

Total % Cover of:

Multiply by:

OBL species

x1=

FACW species

x2=

FAC species

Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

(A/B)

5 ft.

)

= Total Cover

FACU species UPL species

Elymus elymoides Chenopodium album Grindelia squarrosa Bromus tectorum Lepidium sp

20 20 4 3 3

Y Y N N N

FACU FACU FACU UPL UPL

Column Totals:

x3=

44 6

176 30 206

x4= x5=

(A)

(B)

Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: Dominance Test is >50% 1

Prevalence Index is 3.0

Morphological Adaptations (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 1.

30 ft.

)

Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

0 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum

Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)

= Total Cover

% Cover of Biotic Crust

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

SOIL

DP-26

Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth (inches)

0-12

Matrix Color (moist)

Redox Features 1 Color (moist) % Type

10YR 2/1

5YR 3/4

Loc

Texture

Remarks

Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 3 Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils : Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:

✔

1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Reduced Vertic (F18) Red Parent Material (TF2) Other (Explain in Remarks)

Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

N/A

Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present?

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Fill material, maybe water levels were higher in other years to form hydric soils, but based on vegetation, and hydrology, not in a typical year HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply)

Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)

Surface Water (A1)

Salt Crust (B11)

Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)

High Water Table (A2)

Biotic Crust (B12)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)

Saturation (A3)

Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)

Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)

Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)

Drainage Patterns (B10)

Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)

Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)

Dry-Season Water Table (C2)

Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)

Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)

Crayfish Burrows (C8)

Surface Soil Cracks (B6)

Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)

Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)

Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)

Thin Muck Surface (C7)

Shallow Aquitard (D3)

Water-Stained Leaves (B9)

Other (Explain in Remarks)

FAC-Neutral Test (D5)

Field Observations: Surface Water Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Water Table Present?

Yes

✔

Depth (inches):

Yes

✔

Remarks:

Man-made stock pond dry at the time of the site investigation.

US Army Corps of Engineers

Arid West – Version 2.0

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix E. Representative Site Photographs

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP1: Photograph of ephemeral stream S-1 with a narrow approximate 2foot wide ordinary high water mark . Two track intersects the stream directly to the south (42.1852, -106.8478)

PP2: Photograph of ephemeral stream S-2 with 3-foot-wide OHWM. Two track and irrigation system located downstream (42.18557, -106.8448)

Appendix E-1

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP3: Downstream photograph of emergent wetland W-1 dominated by Agrostis gigantea and Equisetum arvense (42.17116, -106.868)

PP4: Emergent wetland W-1 originates from a spring seep on the north side of the large rock shown in the foreground (42.16987, -106.8682)

Appendix E-2

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP5: Open grassland for cattle grazing in northern portion of the study area, facing south. (42.16516, -106.8689)

PP6: Emergent wetland W-2, a depressional wetland located within the proposed upper reservoir, looking south. Note vegetation grazed to near the soil surface by cattle, as well as cow tracks within the mud. (42.16215, -106.8724)

Appendix E-3

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP7: View from canyon wall of NHD-mapped Dry Lake Creek. No stream features observed during field observations (42.15972, -106.8757)

PP8: Open water OW-1 is at low water level due to drier than normal conditions at time of survey, looking west. (42.14299, -106.8774)

Appendix E-4

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP9: Photograph of NHD-mapped Cottonwood Creek. Vegetated swale dominated by Artemisia tridentata observed during field observations, no stream features observed (42.13197, -106.8237)

PP10: Upstream photograph of ephemeral stream S-4, facing northeast. (42.12328, -106.8081)

Appendix E-5

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP11: Site photograph showing sagebrush/greasewood scrubland community that was present throughout study area, facing northeast. (42.10258, -106.7667)

PP12: View of NHD-mapped Beaver Jimmy Creek. Vegetated swale dominated by Artemisia tridentata observed during field investigation, no stream features observed (42.1004, -106.7638)

Appendix E-6

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP13: Perennial stream S-5 facing upstream to the east. (42.09306, -106.7439)

PP14: Wetland W-3 is shown split by a culvert and access road, looking east. Note an indistinct channel near the culvert, likely due to effects of previous grading and road construction. (42.0924, -106.7441)

Appendix E-7

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP15: Example of fringe wetland W-4 along Caton Creek, dominated by jointed rush (Juncus articulatus), facing southeast. (42.08747, -106.7366)

PP16: Intermittent stream S-6, facing downstream to the northwest. Note the salt deposits in the left side of the photograph within the wetland (W-4). (42.0848, -106.7308)

Appendix E-8

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP17: Perennial stream S-7, facing downstream to the west. Note sinuosity of stream at this section, some bench formation, and a decent amount of incision due to surrounding agricultural practices. (42.06716, -106.7031)

PP18: Overview of wetland W-6, facing north. Note W-5 is very similar to W-6 by receiving irrigation water, located on the other side of perennial stream S-7 in the background of this photograph. (42.06599, -106.7033)

Appendix E-9

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP19: Ephemeral stream S-8, facing upstream to the north, with an average OHWM width of 2 feet. (42.03783, -106.6583)

PP20: Vegetated swale and/or vegetated depression dominated by upland plant species, looking southwest. (42.03798, -106.6207)

Appendix E-10

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP21: Ephemeral stream S-9, looking downstream to the southwest. Note adjacent steep slopes and wetness from recent rains. (42.03909, -106.5865)

PP22: Ephemeral stream S-10, facing northeast (upstream). Note sparse vegetation and erosion on adjacent slopes. (42.03901, -106.5863)

Appendix E-11

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP23: Plot with standing water within a low gradient swale commonly found within the study area, facing northeast. Note cattle activity likely assisted with the development of small depressions within the swale (i.e., “wallows”). A localized rain event occurred the day prior, resulting in standing water. No hydrophytic vegetation or hydric soils identified. (42.03987, -106.5712)

PP24: Wetland W-7 with heavy grazing present and located within linear depression/swale, looking southeast. Note the adjacent upland greasewood habitat on the left side of the photo. (42.03880, -106.5443)

Appendix E-12

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP25: Ephemeral stream S-11, a constructed irrigation ditch, looking northeast. (42.03858, -106.5313)

PP26: Incised channel of perennial stream S-12, looking downstream to the south. Note the lack of connection to the floodplain due to deep incision. (42.03899, -106.5218)

Appendix E-13

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP27: Wetland W-8, facing northwest. Note ponding at the time of field surveys and evidence of cattle disturbance. (42.03922, -106.5090)

PP28: The location of upland data form DP-15, looking south to the far edge of the livestock pond, dominated by Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). (42.03927, -106.5088)

Appendix E-14

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP29: Cracked stream bed of ephemeral stream S-13, looking downstream to the north. (42.03884, -106.5086)

PP30: Wetland W-9, facing south. Note seeps are prevalent in this area. (42.03917, -106.4549)

Appendix E-15

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP31: Vegetation within the OHWM of intermittent stream S-14, facing downstream to the east. Note standing water from recent rains and adjacent seep. (42.03861, -106.4540)

PP32: Wetland soil pit for emergent wetland W-10. Note heavy organic matter within the upper portion of matrix (in left portion) due to prolonged inundation. (42.03867, -106.4539)

Appendix E-16

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP33: Emergent wetland W-11 shown within swale surrounded by sagebrush habitat, looking to the south. (42.0392, -106.4527)

PP34: Ephemeral stream S-15, facing downstream to the south. The stream is associated with a seep to the northwest. Note minimal wetness after localized rain the prior day. (42.03892, -106.4463)

Appendix E-17

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP35: Ephemeral stream S-16, looking east (upstream). Note the adjacent steep slope and deep channel incision. (42.03878, -106.4462)

PP36: Ephemeral stream S-17 and its “V-shape” formation due to rock outcrop on one bank, facing upstream to the north. (42.03859, -106.4412)

Appendix E-18

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP37: Ephemeral stream S-18, a constructed irrigation ditch. Note water within the ditch for active irrigation of the adjacent hay field. (42.03678, -106.4252)

Appendix E-19

PP38: Hayfield near W-12A and W-12B, facing northeast. (42.03657, -106.4253)

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP39: Vegetation is dominated by creeping foxtail (Alopecurus arundinaceus) at wetland W-12A, looking north. (42.03647, -106.4250)

PP40: Wetland W-12B, facing northwest. (42.03663, -106.4244)

Appendix E-20

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP41: Perennial stream S-19, facing southwest (downstream). The OHWM is approximately 6 feet at this section of stream. (42.03615, -106.42400)

PP42: S-20, facing northeast (upstream). The stream has an average OHWM width of 3 feet. Note the adjacent sagebrush community and faint bed and bank due to infrequent flow. (42.02105, -106.4058)

Appendix E-21

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PP43: Emergent wetland W-13 is within a human-made stock pond, looking south. Note some sparse vegetation growing within the bottom of the stock pond to yield a wetland. (42.01422, -106.3936)

PP44: Vegetated swale draining to emergent wetland W-13 (stock pond), facing northeast. (42.01406, -106.3929)

Appendix E-22

Aquatic Resources Delineation Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix F. Stream Ordinary High Water Mark Datasheets

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Hydro Pump Project Number: Stream: S-1 Investigator(s): Ryan Hammons, Kelly Albery

Date: 08/03/2022 Town: Rawlins Photo begin file#:

Time: 09:24 State: WY Photo end file#:

Location Details: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Road crossing Projection: WGS 1984 Datum: Y /N Is the site significantly disturbed? Coordinates: 42.185204, -106.847752 Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system: Two track road intersecting Y

WGS 1984

Brief site description: Ephemeral stream with 1-foot wide wetland herbaceous fringe Checklist of resources (if available): Aerial photography Dates: Topographic maps Geologic maps Vegetation maps Soils maps Rainfall/precipitation maps Existing delineation(s) for site Global positioning system (GPS) Other studies

Stream gage data Gage number: Period of record: History of recent effective discharges Results of flood frequency analysis Most recent shift-adjusted rating Gage heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year events and the most recent event exceeding a 5-year event

Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM: 1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and vegetation present at the site. 2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units. 3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units. a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position. b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the floodplain unit. c) Identify any indicators present at the location. 4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section. 5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via: Mapping on aerial photograph GPS Digitized on computer Other:

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-1 Cross section drawing:

Date: 08/03/2022 Time: 0924

OHWM GPS point: ___________________________ Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments:

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

GPS point: ___________________________ Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Silt Average sediment texture: __________________ 25 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Agrostis gigantea, Poa cusickii, Rosa woodsii, Artemisia tridentate, Juncus arcticus, Potentilla spp., Epilobium spp.

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-4 Investigator(s): Tara Kent and Laura Duffie

Date: 6/16/2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Time: 1145 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? east of Seminoe Reservoir Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Y /N Is the site significantly disturbed? 42.123300 N; -106.808070 W Coordinates: Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system: An existing transmission line runs above the stream. Additionally, the transmission line access road intersects the stream. Cattle grazing in the area. Y

Brief site description: This stream is located within sage brush habitat perpendicular to an access road east of Seminoe Reservoir. No wetlands were delineated near this ephemeral stream. No water was observed in the stream at the time of survey. No drift deposits were present.

Checklist of resources (if available): Aerial photography Dates: Topographic maps Geologic maps Vegetation maps Soils maps Rainfall/precipitation maps Existing delineation(s) for site Global positioning system (GPS) Other studies

Project ID: Cross section ID: Cross section drawing:

S-4

Date:

6/17/2021

Time:

11:45

OHWM

OHWM 42.123300 N; -106.808070 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: The stream has an OHWM approximately 2 feet wide. The texture of the sand within the channel was fine.

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.123300 N; -106.808070 W GPS point: __________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: sand Average sediment texture: __________________ 0 10 5 5 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Vegetation included Artemisia tridentata, Bromus tectorum, Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus, Hesperostipa comata, Achnatherum hymenoides, Tragopogon dubius, Lupinus sp., and Calochortus sp. No geomorphic stream indicators present.

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-6 Investigator(s): Tara Kent and Laura Duffie Y

Date: 6/16/2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1330 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: northeast of Seminoe Reservoir, 33 miles NE of Rawlins, WY

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: 1$' Coordinates: 1 : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Cattle Grazing

Brief site description: Intermittent stream, also named Canton Creek. Flows west through the study area. Gently sloping stream with abutting emergent wetlands (W-4) in portions.

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-6 Cross section drawing:

Date: 6/16/2021

Time: 1330

OHWM 42.084403 N; -106.729101 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Definitive break in slope with well vegetated banks of herbaceous vegetation in portions.

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.084403 N; -106.729101 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: fines Average sediment texture: __________________ 10 0 0 10 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Associated vegetation: Ribes sp., Artemisia sp., Ericameria nauseosa, Carex nebrascensis

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-8 Investigator(s): Laura Duffie and Katie Krajicek Y

Date: 6/17/2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1100 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Section 20 Township 24 N Range 82 W

Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 42.037882 N; -106.658318 W Coordinates: Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system: Occurs along an unnamed mapped road. Intersects the transmission line access road downstream. Y

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Brief site description: This stream is located within sage brush habitat. An NHD line is present at this location. One corrugated metal pipe conveys the channel under the transmission line access road. No wetlands were delineated near this ephemeral stream. No water was observed in the stream at the time of survey.

Project ID: Cross section ID: 6 8 Cross section drawing: Drawing of channel on north side of access road facing north from the access road

Date:

6/17/2021

Time:

11:00

Drawing of channel on south side of access road facing south from the access road Channel diverged into one drainage south of the access road

OHWM approx. 2 feet wide on west side Swale on east side did not exhibit bed or bank bank was highly eroded

OHWM 42.037882 N; -106.658318 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: The OHWM is approximately 2 feet wide.

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.037882 N; -106.658318 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: silt Average sediment texture: __________________ 20 0 10 10 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: The surrounding vegetation was sagebrush habitat, including Artemisia tridentata.

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-9 Investigator(s): Brett Battaglia, Ryan Hammons Y

Date: 8-25-2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1045 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Site located to south of Hanna Leo Draw Road

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: Coordinates: 1 : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

1$'

Surrounding degraded rangeland with steep slopes and a lot of erosion. Areas along the banks of the channel were trampled by livestock within the survey area.

Brief site description: Stream meanders a lot. The stream is fairly deeply incised within steep topography. Several erosional features drain to stream.

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-9 Cross section drawing:

Date: 8-25-2021

Time: 1045

OHWM 42.039086 N; -106.586479 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Laid over vegetation observed from recent rain event; water measured approximately 1 in. deep in a dozen or so areas within the low-flow channel. Several areas within the low-flow channel contained mud.

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.039086 N; -106.586479 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Pebble with some silt and cobble Average sediment texture: __________________ 5 0 0 5 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches Comments:

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Project ID: Floodplain unit:

Cross section ID: S-9 Low-Flow Channel

Date: 8-25-2021 Active Floodplain

Time: 1045 Low Terrace

42.039086 N; -106.586479 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Average sediment texture: __________________ 0 5 20 25 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments:

Recent rain event; low terrace in active floodplain.

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.039086 N; -106.586479 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Average sediment texture: __________________ 35 0 10 25 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Great basin wild rye, sagebrush, prairie junegrass, golden aster, silver sage, purple Erigeron/Symphyotichum sp., western wheatgrass, small helianthus sp., rabbitbrush.

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-10 Investigator(s): B. Battaglia, R. Hammons Y

Date: 8-25-2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1030 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: South of Hanna Leo Draw Rd.

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: 1$' Coordinates: 1 : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Cattle grazing. Site has excessive erosion, thus, significantly disturbed, but does not have any other immediate anthropogenic influences.

Brief site description: S-9 is hydrologically connected to S-8. It is an incised ephemeral stream surrounded by degraded rangeland. Rangeland consists of steep areas with sparse vegetation and abundant erosion. Greasewood, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush are sparse.

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-10 Cross section drawing:

Date: 8-25-2021

Time: 1030

OHWM 42.039017 N; -106.589324 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: OHWM - average width of 5 ft. Some vegetation in parts of the OHWM. Vegetation is laid over from flows associated with recent rain event. Considering low terrace (sparse laid over vegetation from recent rains) within OHWM. Low terrace not always present (in very incised areas).

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.039017 N; -106.589324 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Silt and pebble, some cobble Average sediment texture: __________________ 10 0 0 10 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches Comments:

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Project ID: Floodplain unit:

Cross section ID: S-10 Low-Flow Channel

Date: 8-25-2021 Active Floodplain

Time: 1030 Low Terrace

42.039017 N; -106.589324 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Mostly silt Average sediment texture: __________________ 0 5 20 25 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments:

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.039017 N; -106.589324 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: silt Average sediment texture: __________________ 35 0 5 30 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Within OHWM the channel is incised with small areas of low terrace.

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-11 Investigator(s): Ryan Hammons and Brett Battaglia

Date: 08/24/2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Time: 1200 State: WY Photo end file#:

Location Details: Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Approximately 38 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming Projection: Transverse Mercator Datum: NAD 83 Y /N Is the site significantly disturbed? Coordinates: 42.038634 N; -106.531190 W Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system: One ft wide dried ditch lined with willow to the east. Y

Brief site description: The ditch appears to have ephemeral flow, through a sagebrush habitat community. Though, willow does occur along the edge in some places, indicating frequent irrigation flow. Water was not observed in the stream/ditch at the time of survey.

Project ID: Cross section ID: Cross section drawing:

6 1

Date: Time:

OHWM 42.038634 N; -106.531190 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Ephemeral stream feature with an average 1-foot OHWM flowing south through the project area.

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.038634 N; -106.531190 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: clay/mud Average sediment texture: __________________ 5 0 0 5 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: $VVRFLDWHG YHJHWDWLRQ on EDQNV DUH VDQGEDU ZLOORZ ZHVWHUQ UDJZHHG DQG GDQGHOLRQ

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-13 Investigator(s): J. Brisbois, A. Roberts Y

Date: 8-24-2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1245 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Site located approx. 0.55 miles southeast of Watkins Ranch

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: 1$' Coordinates: 1 : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Evidence of cattle grazing

Brief site description: Ephemeral stream connected to man-made cattle pond.

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-13 Cross section drawing:

Date: 8-24-2021

Time: 1245

OHWM 42.039010 N; -106.508741 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Small sediment deposition bar Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: OHWM = 4 ft. average

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.039010 N; -106.508741 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Sand Average sediment texture: __________________ 20 0 10 10 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches Comments:

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-14 Investigator(s): J. Brisbois, A. Roberts Y

Date: 8-24-2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1345 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Approximately 42 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: 1$' Coordinates: 1 : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Evidence of cattle grazing

Brief site description: Intermittent stream, beginning at seep - influenced headcut

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-14 Cross section drawing:

Date: 8-24-2021

Time: 1345

OHWM 42.038610 N; -106.453965 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Seep headcut at end of stream OHWM = 6ft. average

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.038610 N; -106.453965 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Silt Average sediment texture: __________________ 80 0 10 70 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches Comments:

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-15 Investigator(s): J. Brisbois, A. Roberts Y

Date: 8-25-2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1020 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Site located near Indian Spring (easterly of Dry Creek)

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: 1$' Coordinates: 1 : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Cattle grazing

Brief site description: Ephemeral channel with OHWM width ranging from 2 ft. to 5 ft. within study area.

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-15 Cross section drawing:

Date: 8-25-2021

Time: 1020

OHWM 42.038922; -106.446258 GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: 0-1 ft. bank height, seepage coming out of adjacent hillslope at the time of delineation. Isolated rain showers occurred the day before. OHWM ranges from 1 to 6, but would say an average of 5 feet wide.

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.038922; -106.446258 GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: fines Average sediment texture: __________________ 20 15 5 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Very small channel (1st order) with no distinctive geomorphic stream features.

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-16 Investigator(s): J. Brisbois, A. Roberts Y

Date: 8-25-2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1032 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Site located near Indian Spring (easterly of Dry Creek)

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: 1$' Coordinates: N : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Cattle grazing

Brief site description: Ephemeral channel with OHWM width ranging from 3 ft. to 8 ft. within study area.

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-16 Cross section drawing:

Date: 8-25-2021

Time: 1032

OHWM 42.038773; -106.446242 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: 1-3 ft. bank height, seep feature connects to stream within study area. Separate form not completed for seep, but GPS data and notes were made. OHWM = 6ft. average

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.038773; -106.446242 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: silt Average sediment texture: __________________ 12 2 10 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Very incised from surrounding steep topography and lack of vegetation in the uplands.

Project ID: Floodplain unit:

Cross section ID: S-16 Low-Flow Channel

Date: 8-25-2021 Active Floodplain

Time: 1032 Low Terrace

GPS point: ___________________________ Characteristics of the floodplain unit: Average sediment texture: __________________ Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments:

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-17 Investigator(s): J. Brisbois, A. Roberts Y

Date: 8-25-2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 0956 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Located north of Cty. Rd. 270 on Dry Creek

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: 1$' Coordinates: 1 : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Cattle grazing.

Brief site description: Ephemeral stream at the base of V-bottom formation. North of the study area the site has a more defined bed & bank, but V-bottom formation due to rock outcrop.

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-17 Cross section drawing:

Date: 8-25-2021

Time: 0956

OHWM 42.038585 N; -106.441200 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Gravel base OHWM = 6ft. average

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.038585 N; -106.441200 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: silt and bedrock Average sediment texture: __________________ 12 2 10 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: High gradient ephemeral stream conveys water during & immediately following rain events. No distinctive geomorphic characteristics (low-flow channel, active floodplain, or low terrace).

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-18 Investigator(s): J. Brisbois, A. Roberts Y

Date: 8-25-2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1157 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Approx. .07 miles northwest of Difficulty Creek

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: 1$' Coordinates: 1 : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Man-made feature with surrounding hay production and cattle grazing.

Brief site description: Irrigation ditch upslope of S-18. There is a hay field separating the ditch and S-18. Two wetlands located within the hay field, W-12A and W-12B

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-18 Cross section drawing:

Date: 8-25-2021

Time: 1157

OHWM 42.036778 N; -106.425219 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Ephemeral irrigation ditch, approximately 0.5 ft. deep of water in channel at the time of the investigation. OHWM = 5 ft. Banks between 2-3 ft. in height.

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.036778 N; -106.425219 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: silt Average sediment texture: __________________ 0 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches Comments: No distinctive geomorphic features.

Soil development Surface relief flowing water Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet Project: Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Project Number: Stream: S-20 Investigator(s): J. Brisbois, A. Roberts Y

Date: 8-25-2021 Town: Carbon County Photo begin file#:

Do normal circumstances exist on the site?

Time: 1330 State: Wyoming Photo end file#:

Location Details: Approximately 46 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming

Projection: 7UDQVYHUVH 0HUFDWRU Datum: 1$' Coordinates: 1 : Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:

Is the site significantly disturbed?

Cattle grazing

Brief site description: Deeply cut banks, ephemeral, vegetated slopes, some sage on slopes.

Project ID: Cross section ID: S-20 Cross section drawing:

Date: 8-25-2021

Time: 1330

OHWM 42.021045 N; -106.405776 W GPS point: ___________________________

Indicators: Change in average sediment texture Change in vegetation species Change in vegetation cover

Break in bank slope Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: Small channel observed at bottom, 2 ft. OHWM, some areas had a bench, but not typical within the study area. Bank heights were approximately 7 ft.

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

42.021045 N; -106.405776 W GPS point: ___________________________

Characteristics of the floodplain unit: silt and cobble Average sediment texture: __________________ 40 10 30 Total veg cover: _____ % Tree: _____% Shrub: _____% Herb: _____% Community successional stage: NA Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings) Early (herbaceous & seedlings) Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees) Indicators: Mudcracks Ripples Drift and/or debris Presence of bed and bank Benches

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments: No distinct geomorphic features. Is an indistinct channel in some portions.

Project ID: Floodplain unit:

Cross section ID: S-20 Low-Flow Channel

Date: 8-25-2021 Active Floodplain

Time: 1330 Low Terrace

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Comments:

Floodplain unit:

Low-Flow Channel

Active Floodplain

Low Terrace

Soil development Surface relief Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________ Other: ____________________

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix C Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Prepared for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC. FERC No. 14787 Carbon County, Wyoming

December 2022

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Contents 1

Project Introduction and Background ............................................................................................... 1 1.1

Introduction and Background .............................................................................................. 1

1.2

Study Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................ 3

Study Area ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1

Characterize the Proposed Physical and Operational Conditions at the Project ............... 6

3.2

Review of Impingement and Entrainment Potential ............................................................ 6 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4

Assessment of Impingement Risk at the Inlet/Outlet Structures ........................... 6 Fish Entrainment Rates ......................................................................................... 7 Turbine Blade Strike Evaluation............................................................................. 8 Qualitative Risk Assessment ................................................................................. 8

Study Results ................................................................................................................................... 9 4.1

Project Physical and Operational Conditions ...................................................................... 9

4.2

4.1.1 Seminoe Reservoir Hydrology ............................................................................... 9 4.1.2 Inlet/Outlet Structure Specifications and Velocities ............................................. 10 4.1.3 Project Operations and Turbine Characteristics .................................................. 10 Impingement and Entrainment Potential ........................................................................... 12 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.8

Resident Fish Community and Target Species ................................................... 12 Inlet/Outlet Avoidance .......................................................................................... 16 Impingement Assessment .................................................................................... 17 Early Life Stage Entrainment Susceptibility ......................................................... 19 Project Entrainment Length Frequency ............................................................... 20 Fish Entrainment Rates ....................................................................................... 20 Turbine Blade Strike Analysis .............................................................................. 23 Sources of Mortality or Injury Other than Blade Strike during Fish Passage ............................................................................................................... 24 4.2.9 Entrainment and Survival at Comparable Pumped Storage Projects .................. 26 4.2.10 Qualitative Assessment of Entrainment Potential ................................................ 27

Summary and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 29

References ..................................................................................................................................... 29

December 2022 | i

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Tables Table 4-1. North Platte River Flow Data Station Upstream of the Conceptual Project Boundary (Period of Record: July 1, 1939 to February 28, 2020) ............................................................... 9 Table 4-2. Pump-Turbine Characteristics of the Seminoe Pumped-Storage Project ................................. 12 Table 4-3. Total Number and Relative Abundance (%) of Fish Collected by Species and Sample Site from the Seminoe Reservoir in the 2021 Resident Fish Survey Study ............................. 14 Table 4-4. Average, Maximum and Minimum Lengths (in) of Fish Collected from the Seminoe Reservoir in the 2021 Resident Fish Survey Study .................................................................. 15 Table 4-5. Target Fish Species and Species Groups Included in the Desktop Fish Entrainment Study for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project ...................................................................... 15 Table 4-6. Average Burst Swim Speeds and Fish Sizes ............................................................................ 17 Table 4-7. Estimated Minimum Lengths (inches) of Target and Representative Species Excluded by Fish Exclusion Device at the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project ........................................ 18 Table 4-8. Spawning and Early Life Stage Periodicities for Target and Representative Fish Species in the Vicinity of the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project ............................................. 19 Table 4-9. Estimated Seasonal and Annual Entrainment Rates of Target Species by Fish Size Class from 34 Hydroelectric Developments (EPRI 1997) ......................................................... 21 Table 4-10. Seasonal and Average Entrainment Rates for Target Species at Maximum Pumping Capacity (12,000 cfs) ................................................................................................................ 22 Table 4-11. Proposed Unit Turbine Characteristics for Seminoe Pumped Storage Project ....................... 23 Table 4-12. Summary of Intake Characteristics for the Facilities Reviewed1 ............................................. 26 Table 4-13. Qualitative* Monthly Entrainment Potential for Target Species and Species Groups at the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project...................................................................................... 27

Figures Figure 1-1. Study Area for the Desktop Fish Entrainment Study .................................................................. 2 Figure 2-1. Proposed Inlet/Outlet Structure Locations .................................................................................. 5 Figure 4-1. Typical Pumped Storage Project Layout (Source: EPRI 1990)................................................ 11 Figure 4-2. Assumed Water Conveyance Profiles (Source: EPRI 1990) ................................................... 11 Figure 4-3. 2021 Resident Fish Survey Area Overview .............................................................................. 13 Figure 4-4. Length-Frequency Entrained Fish for the Target Species from 34 Hydroelectric Developments (EPRI 1997) ...................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4-5. Average Monthly Entrainment Rate and Species Composition based on EPRI (1997) Entrainment Database Selections for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project.......................... 23

December 2022 | ii

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendices Appendix A - Site Characteristics of Hydropower Facilities from the EPRI (1997) Database Appendix B - Life History Information for Target Fish Species and Species Groups Appendix C - Monthly Mean Entrainment Rates (Average Number of Fish/Hour of Unit Capacity) by Length Class for Target Species at Maximum Turbine Discharge Appendix D - USFWS Turbine Blade Strike Analysis Model Outputs by Size Class

December 2022 | iii

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Acronyms and Abbreviations °C

Degrees Celsius

acres

ac-ft

acre-feet

cfs

cubic feet per second

centimeter

EPRI

Electric Power Research Institute

FERC or Commission

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

fps

feet per second

feet/foot

hour

inches

meter

mi2

square miles

millimeter

megawatt

PAD

Pre-Application Document

Project

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PSP

Pumped Storage Project

Reclamation

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

rpm

Rotations per minute

SGCN

Species of Greatest Conservation Need

Total length

USFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

WGFD

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

YOY

Young of year

December 2022 | iv

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Project Introduction and Background

1.1

Introduction and Background

On April 20, 2020, Black Canyon submitted a Notice of Intent to file an Application for an Original License and the accompanying Pre-Application Document to FERC for a proposed pumped storage project at and near the existing Seminoe Reservoir, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, in Carbon County (Project). Figure 1-1 shows the general vicinity of the Project. The Project involves the construction of a new 972-megawatt pumped storage facility including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The proposed upper reservoir would consist of a surface area of 114 acres at normal maximum operating pool. The Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance would also include an underground powerhouse; a power tunnel between the upper reservoir and the powerhouse; a tailrace tunnel between the powerhouse and a new intake in the existing Seminoe Reservoir; a powerhouse access tunnel; a high-voltage transmission tunnel; and a switchyard and transmission line. The Project will connect to the electric grid at the existing Aeolus Substation.

December 2022 | 1

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1-1. Study Area for the Desktop Fish Entrainment Study

December 2022 | 2

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

1.2

Study Goals and Objectives

This report describes the methods and results of the Desktop Fish Entrainment Study conducted in support of preparing an original license application for the Project. This report uses recent, sitespecific fish community data collected during the summer and fall 2021, which will be provided in the Resident Fish Survey Study Report. The Desktop Fish Entrainment Study goals and objectives are couched in two important contexts: First, quantitative estimates or qualitative risk assessments of entrainment were available for some pumped-storage projects, including the Richard B. Russell Project (Georgia/South Carolina), Bad Creek Pumped Storage Project (South Carolina), Harry S. Truman Project (Missouri), Muddy Run Project (Pennsylvania), Northfield Mountain Project (Massachusetts), and the Ludington Project (Michigan). However, few of these projects used full-flow tailrace netting studies and control fish to determine accurate entrainment and mortality estimates. As such, this desktop assessment considers entrainment and mortality data from controlled field entrainment and mortality studies performed at conventional hydroelectric projects included in the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) (1997) database, which does not include pumped-storage projects. The use of the EPRI entrainment database is discussed in further detail in the methodology section. Second, the design process for the Project is still ongoing and final design parameters were not available to perform the desktop analyses and estimates of entrainment. The most recent parameters for the remaining design options and inlet/outlet structure location were reviewed. The most conservative values of each parameter were then selected such that the results of the analyses can be considered as a maximum case scenario, resulting in conservative or overestimated entrainment totals. In this context, a comprehensive desktop entrainment study was conducted to characterize and evaluate the potential for fish entrainment and mortality at the Seminoe Project by assessment of specific physical, operational, and fishery characteristics. These objectives were accomplished by: •

•

• •

Describing the proposed physical and operational characteristics of the powerhouse and inlet/outlet structures, including location, dimensions, turbine specifications, type and size of fish exclusion devices and calculating approach velocities at the inlet/outlet structure; Compiling a list of target species for the study based on known game species and any rare, threatened, and endangered species that could be present in or have access to the Seminoe Reservoir (Lower Reservoir), and two seasons of fishery data collected from the Seminoe Reservoir in 2021; Using data regarding inlet/outlet approach velocities, fish exclusion devices, target fish burst swimming speeds, and other Project specifications to assess fish avoidance, impingement, and entrainment risk during pump-back operations; Evaluating entrainment mortality from blade strikes using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Turbine Blade Strike Analysis Model (USFWS 2020); and Assessing available data from other pumped-storage facilities.

December 2022 | 3

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Study Area

The study area includes the proposed location of the Lower Reservoir inlet/outlet structure and the lower reach of the Seminoe Reservoir and the proposed Upper Reservoir and inlet/outlet structure, as shown in Figure 2-1. The exact location of the inlet/outlet structure is not finalized; the alternative locations being evaluated are within the Conceptual Project Boundary.

December 2022 | 4

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 2-1. Proposed Inlet/Outlet Structure Locations

December 2022 | 5

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Methodology

3.1

Characterize the Proposed Physical and Operational Conditions at the Project

Pursuant to the Study Plan, key conceptual physical characteristics, operational information, and inlet/outlet approach velocities associated with the Project were compiled from preliminary design documents. Because the Project is still in the design process, the values used in the calculations are conceptual and not based on existing conditions and provide a conservative assessment (highest) of potential impacts of entrainment and impingement.

3.2

Review of Impingement and Entrainment Potential

The potential for fish to become entrained or impinged at a hydroelectric facility is dependent on a variety of factors such as fish life history, size and swimming ability, water quality, operating regimes, inflow, and inlet/outlet and turbine configurations and locations (e.g., shoreline, deepwater) (Cada et al. 1997). The risk of impingement is dependent on the presence of debris or fish screening structures at the inlet/outlet structure. Impingement occurs when a fish is held against or entrapped on the exterior inlet/outlet structure screen (i.e., trashracks, fish exclusion devices) due to forces created by the approach velocities. Entrainment occurs when the fish passes through the trashrack or fish exclusion device and is drawn into the water conveyance or powerhouse structures. The potential for fish entrainment is variable throughout a given year depending on life stage and Project-specific operations. Early life stage and smaller-sized fish may be more abundant during certain portions of the year, thus increasing their susceptibility to entrainment. In addition, diurnal and seasonal movements of both small and large fish may bring them in close proximity to inlet/outlet structures. Physical and operational characteristics of a given project, including trashrack bar spacing, approach velocities, inlet/outlet depth, waterbody stratification, and proximity of inlet/outlet structures to feeding and rearing habitats also affect the potential for a fish to become entrained. Consistent with the Study Plan for this desktop analysis, these factors were used to model entrainment and impingement potential at the Seminoe Project using methods well-established in the hydroelectric industry. A targeted species list was developed based on 2021 field data from the Seminoe Reservoir Resident Fish Survey Study and available historical fish community studies (WGFD 2010). The list also includes consideration of fish community composition and abundance of the North Platte River and Seminoe Reservoir and any other species of interest due to State and/or Federal protections (Bigmouth Shiner and Iowa Darter), or angler significance. Selected species were evaluated for potential of entrainment and impingement based on swim speed, behavior, habitat preferences, life stages, and other life history characteristics. Risk assessment of impingement and entrainment potential also considered seasonal or temperature-dependent behavioral changes in fish species.

3.2.1

Assessment of Impingement Risk at the Inlet/Outlet Structures

Impingement and inlet/outlet avoidance was evaluated based on the 0.75-inch clear spacing fish exclusion screen proposed at the Project. This process involved comparing available target fish

December 2022 | 6

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

swim speeds with calculated approach velocities, as well as estimating minimum fish lengths for the target fish species that would be excluded or impinged by the 0.75-inch clear spacing fish exclusion screen. A scaling factor relating fish length to body width was used for the entrainment assessment to determine minimum sizes of the target fish species that would physically be excluded by the fish exclusion screens (Smith 1985).

3.2.2

Fish Entrainment Rates

EPRI Database and Data Selection A database developed by EPRI (1997) provides detailed results of fish entrainment and turbine passage survival studies from 43 hydroelectric projects. This database was designed specifically to facilitate the desktop analysis of available data to assess entrainment and impingement impacts at a hydroelectric facility. Although some projects used to compile the database may not match the exact specifications of the Project, using as many projects as possible from the EPRI database accounts for the variability of aquatic ecosystems and fish populations, while providing a robust database for calculating average monthly entrainment rates for a wide range of species. This is a commonly applied approach in desktop entrainment evaluations and a stated purpose of the EPRI entrainment database (FERC 1995, EPRI 1997). Site characteristics (reservoir size, usable storage, plant capacity, operating mode, average velocity at trashracks, trashrack spacing) and available data (e.g., entrainment data, collection efficiency) were reviewed for applicability to the Seminoe Project using the EPRI (1997) database. Six projects were eliminated due to their location in the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic region that has a different fish community and habitat conditions, and three projects were eliminated due to large trashrack spacing (>5 inches). Therefore, 34 facilities were used in in this study. Details on the facilities from the EPRI database that were used in this evaluation are provided in Appendix A. Entrainment Rate Calculation The EPRI (1997) entrainment database provides results from field trials conducted at hydroelectric facilities using full-flow tailrace netting. This involves the placement of a conical net in the immediate tailrace to collect the entire discharge on a seasonal or monthly basis. This results in the calculation of entrainment rates (fish/volume of water if recorded, or fish/hour [hr]/cubic feet per second [cfs] of sampled unit capacity), including the number, species, and size of entrained fish. The studies included in the 1997 EPRI entrainment database recorded number of hours sampled and hydraulic capacity of the sampled units. Using this information, data were standardized to the number of fish/hr of unit capacity, and then used to calculate fish entrainment rates (fish/hr) at the current maximum design pumping rate (12,000 cfs) expected during pump-back operations. Entrainment rates were compiled by month, season (winter = December, January, and February; spring = March, April, and May; summer = June, July, and August; and fall = September, October, and November), and annually. With consideration of entrainment rates based on the EPRI (1997) database, inlet/outlet avoidance based on swim burst speed, size exclusion, and life history characteristics (migratory behavior, spawning periodicity, habitat preferences, etc.), a qualitative assessment of entrainment risk was made for each target species/group. EPRI (1997) developed a five-tier qualitative index of

December 2022 | 7

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

entrainment abundance (i.e., an estimate of the relative number of fish to become entrained) from low to high based upon break points in relative entrainment abundance between species and sizes. These qualitative categories are utilized in this study to describe entrainment potential of the target fish species on a monthly basis. Most species showed a peaked seasonal distribution of entrainment densities in the EPRI database. The mean monthly, seasonal, and annual estimates of entrainment provide an assessment of entrainment risk for target species at the Project based on empirical data previously collected at various hydroelectric projects.

3.2.3

Turbine Blade Strike Evaluation

This evaluation uses the most recent version of the Turbine Blade Strike Analysis Model (USFWS 2020) developed by the USFWS, which is a probabilistic Excel-based Visual Basic for Applications implementation of the methods outlined by Franke et al. (1997) for evaluating fish mortalities due to turbine entrainment, as well as through non-turbine routes. This tool allows for the estimation of turbine passage and mortality (blade strikes) based on site-specific information (turbine type, number of units, bar rack spacing, etc.) and length distribution for target species used in this assessment. Using the model, fish can be subjected to up to twenty hazards, or routes, including three turbine types and bypasses or spillways, incorporating the Franke et al. (1997) equations into a Monte Carlo simulation that produces a probabilistic model result for turbine and non-turbine mortality. While the greatest opportunity for fish mortality through a facility lies in potential contact with the turbine runner blades, injuries and mortalities can result from other mechanisms including pressure changes, shear stress, water turbulence, cavitation, and grinding (Deng et al. 2005), all of which can be influenced by multiple Project features (e.g., turbines, spillways, sluices, gates, locks). The analysis was conducted for the upper limit of each of the size classes used in the entrainment analysis (i.e., 2 inches used for 0-2 inch class) as well as some additional larger sized groups. The assumed flow scenario used in this analysis evaluates passage mortality under the assumption that all fish that pass through the exclusion screen pass through one of the turbines and that the turbines are operating at full capacity. For each size class of fish, 5,000 fish were used as an input population when simulating blade strikes. The output of each model run resulted in a probability of blade strike for fish in that size class. A strike mortality coefficient value (λ) of 0.2 was used, as recommended by the USFWS, which is considered the most conservative value in the absence of more-detailed or site-specific information.

3.2.4

Qualitative Risk Assessment

The use of the EPRI database provides a means to quantitatively estimate the entrainment risk at the Project at multiple time scales (i.e., month, season, year) based on empirical data collected at comparable hydroelectric projects; however, the resulted entrainment rate estimates do not consider other potential site-specific factors likely to influence species-specific entrainment risk at the Project. As a result, an additional qualitative assessment of entrainment risk at the Project was performed. A matrix of entrainment potential for the target species at the Project was constructed using the empirical seasonal entrainment rate data from the EPRI database, maximum turbine discharge frequency (full generation), swim burst speed comparison to inlet/outlet approach velocities, size exclusion by fish exclusion device, and species periodicity, abundance, habitat utilization, migratory behavior, and expected distributions.

December 2022 | 8

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Several factors were considered in providing a qualitative entrainment potential score to target species for the Project, including: • • • • • • •

Maximum turbine discharge frequency (see Section 4.1.2); Species composition and relative abundance near the Project (see Section 4.2.1); Comparison of burst swim speed versus inlet/outlet approach velocity for likelihood of avoidance (see Section 4.2.2); Size exclusion (see Section 4.2.3). Life history characteristics, such as migratory behavior, habitat preferences, spawning behavior/requirements, and early life stage periodicity (see Section 4.2.4 and Section 4.2.5); Entrainment rates for each species and species group provided in the EPRI (1997) database (see Section 4.2.6); and Blade strike and mortality risk (see Section 4.2.7).

Study Results

4.1

Project Physical and Operational Conditions

4.1.1

Seminoe Reservoir Hydrology

Daily average inflows from two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging stations were used to estimate inflow at the Project inlet/outlet location; USGS gage Station No. 06630000 located upstream of the Seminoe Dam near Sinclair, Wyoming, with a drainage area of 4,175 mi2, and USGS gage Station No. 06635000, located to the east of Seminoe Dam at Medicine Bow near Hanna, Wyoming, with a drainage area of 2,338 mi2. These data were used to calculate mean, maximum, minimum, and percent exceedances. The combined total drainage area of both gages (6,513 mi2) represents about 90.3 percent of the total Project drainage area. Monthly average flows range from 341 cfs to 5,054 cfs (Table 4-1). The highest flow recorded during the period of record from July 1, 1939, to February 28, 2020, was 19,300 cfs and the lowest flow was 14 cfs. Table 4-1. North Platte River Flow Data Station Upstream of the Conceptual Project Boundary (Period of Record: July 1, 1939 to February 28, 2020) Minimum (cfs)

90% Exceedance (cfs)

Average (cfs)

10% Exceedance (cfs)

Maximum (cfs)

January

230

359

501

752

February

254

406

549

5,470

March

163

344

721

1,230

5,550

April

395

725

1,740

3,164

9,170

May

306

1,303

3,740

7,043

16,980

June

130

1,093

5,054

9,499

19,300

July

340

1,589

3,532

13,930

August

188

535

1,019

3,071

September

128

341

590

4,175

October

225

464

794

1,848

Period

December 2022 | 9

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Minimum (cfs)

90% Exceedance (cfs)

Average (cfs)

10% Exceedance (cfs)

Maximum (cfs)

November

290

483

732

1,148

December

256

389

544

827

Period

4.1.2

Inlet/Outlet Structure Specifications and Velocities

Water will be conveyed from the Upper to the Lower Reservoir via a submerged inlet/outlet structure consisting of a reinforced-concrete, vertical, bellmouth, hooded structure without gates, trashracks, or fish exclusion screens. The vertical inlet/outlet structure in the Upper Reservoir will connect to a vertical shaft, horizontal power tunnel, underground power station, a draft tube and surge tank, then to a 29-foot-diameter, approximately 2,600-foot-long, low-pressure tailrace tunnel that terminates at the inlet/outlet structure in the Lower Reservoir. The entrance to the inlet/outlet in the Lower Reservoir will be covered with 0.75-inch fish exclusion screens. The inlet/outlet structure in the lower reservoir will be located in approximately 200 feet of water at normal maximum high water, thus maintaining a 30-foot minimum submerged depth of the inlet/outlet opening at the Seminoe Reservoir low water elevation. Using the Lower Reservoir inlet/outlet opening structure dimensions of 128 feet wide and 48 feet high, and maximum pumping flow of 12,000 cfs, the calculated approach velocity one foot in front of the structure is approximately 2.0 feet per second (fps) (i.e., 12,000 cfs/(128 feet x 48 feet)).

4.1.3

Project Operations and Turbine Characteristics

Water will be pumped from the inlet/outlet structure on Seminoe Reservoir to the Upper Reservoir when excess energy is available on the grid. Then water stored in the Upper Reservoir will be conveyed to the Seminoe powerhouse and the Lower Reservoir. Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 present typical pumped storage layout and potential profile arrangements assumed for the Project. Pumping from the Lower Reservoir to the Upper Reservoir and power generation are expected to occur every day. The current design assumes full generation or continuous generation for ten hours. Approximately twelve or thirteen hours of pumping would be required to store the amount of water necessary for ten hours of generation (full generation).

December 2022 | 10

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 4-1. Typical Pumped Storage Project Layout (Source: EPRI 1990)

Figure 4-2. Assumed Water Conveyance Profiles (Source: EPRI 1990) As discussed in Section 1.3, the design for the Project is ongoing and details of the design are still being assessed, including the turbine characteristics. Table 4-2 presents the proposed pump-turbine characteristics assumptions for this study, including three, 300 MW Francis turbines units. Units are assumed to be single stage, variable speed, reversible pump-turbines.

December 2022 | 11

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 4-2. Pump-Turbine Characteristics of the Seminoe Pumped-Storage Project Turbine Characteristic Number & Type of Units Turbine Operating Speed (RPM) Hydraulic Capacity during Generation Number of Blades per Turbine Runner Inlet Diameter (feet)

Value 3 – Francis Pump Turbines 300 4,200 cfs per unit 9 9.27

4.2

Impingement and Entrainment Potential

4.2.1

Resident Fish Community and Target Species

The sampling efforts for the Resident Fish Survey Study were performed in 2021 with the goal to characterize the fishery of the North Platte River and Seminoe Reservoir in the vicinity of the Project. Details of the methods and preliminary results of the study are included in the Resident Fish Survey Study Report. Fish were collected using three different sampling techniques: boat electrofishing, seining, and gillnetting. Collections were conducted over two weeks, one in June and one in August. Sites were sampled from five different areas in the Seminoe Reservoir, with Area 1 being closest to the proposed Project inlet/outlet structure (Figure 4-3). A summary of the results by area are presented in Table 4-3. and the average length of each species collected is presented in Table 4-4. Emerald Shiner was the most abundant species collected in the Seminoe Reservoir in 2021 comprising 48 percent of the community, followed by White Sucker (16.5%), and unidentified minnow species (13.2%). Area 1 was dominated by White Sucker (40%), Rainbow Trout (27.4%) and Emerald Shiner (12.2%). Average lengths for these three species were 16.7 inches, 17.6 inches and 2.9 inches, respectively.

December 2022 | 12

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 4-3. 2021 Resident Fish Survey Area Overview

December 2022 | 13

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 4-3. Total Number and Relative Abundance (%) of Fish Collected by Species and Sample Site from the Seminoe Reservoir in the 2021 Resident Fish Survey Study Species Scientific

Seminoe Reservoir Sampled Area Common

Area 4 Area 5

Total RA (%)

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

108

120

114

462

17.5

0.7

Catostomidae

suckers

Catostomus catostomus

Longnose Sucker

Catostomus commersonii

White Sucker

108

115

110

444

16.8

Cyprinidae

carps and minnows

151

322

130

1046

1689

64.1

Couesius plumbeus

Lake Chub

0.0

Cyprinus carpio

Common Carp

3.0

Cyprinidae Spp.

Minnow Sp.

254

349

13.2

Notropis atherinoides

Emerald Shiner

112

1,031

1,260

47.8

Percidae

perches

191

7.2

Etheostoma nigrum

Johnny darter

0.6

Sander Vitreus

Walleye

174

6.6

Salmonidae

trouts

295

11.2

Oncorhynchus clarkia behnkei

Cutthroat Trout

0.8

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Rainbow Trout

199

7.5

Salmo trutta

Brown Trout

2.8

270

423

413

332

1,199

2,637

100

Total Captured Total Species *RA (%): Percent relative abundance Bold text indicates cumulative family totals

December 2022 | 14

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 4-4. Average, Maximum and Minimum Lengths (in) of Fish Collected from the Seminoe Reservoir in the 2021 Resident Fish Survey Study Fish Length (in) Average

Min

Max

Total Number Collected

Brown Trout

18.8

14.4

24.6

Common Carp

26.5

23.4

33.5

Common Shiner

2.4

Cutthroat Trout

18.5

14.8

19.7

Emerald Shiner

2.9

1.0

31.6

283

Johnny Darter

1.4

0.9

2.3

Lake Chub

3.6

Longnose Sucker

13.2

8.7

15.6

Rainbow Trout

17.6

9.8

20.9

199

Walleye

10.2

0.9

27.2

174

White Sucker

16.7

2.0

123.8

414

Species

The 2021 Resident Fish Survey Study data and historical fisheries distribution data (WGFD 2017) were evaluated to determine the target species list representative of those species and species groups of management (i.e., State/Federal protection), economic, and ecological interest (Table 4-5). The EPRI (1997) database was used to determine entrainment rates for the selected species using surrogate species representatives where necessary. Additionally, where appropriate, representative or surrogate species were also used when evaluating other factors, such as swim burst speed and impingement potential. Table 4-5. Target Fish Species and Species Groups Included in the Desktop Fish Entrainment Study for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Common Name1

Scientific Name

Reason for Inclusion on Target List

EPRI Database Surrogate

Bigmouth Shiner

Notropis dorsalis

SGCN2

Brook Stickleback

Culaea inconstans

Introduced Species

Brook Trout

Salvelinus fontinalis

Important Game Species

Brown Trout

Salmo trutta

Collected in 2021 survey/ Important Game Species

Common Carp

Cyprinus carpio

Collected in 2021 survey/ Common within Seminoe Reservoir and North Platte River

Emerald Shiner

Notropis atherinoides

Collected in 2021 survey/ Common in Project area

Fathead Minnow

Pimephales promelas

Common in Project area

Sand Shiner

May 2022 | 15

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Common Name1

Scientific Name

Reason for Inclusion on Target List

EPRI Database Surrogate

Iowa Darter

Etheostoma exile

SGCN

Johnny Darter

Etheostoma nigrum

Collected in 2021 survey/ Common in Project area

Lake Chub

Couesius plumbeus

Native species in Project area

Lake Trout

Salvelinus namaycush

Important Game Species

Longnose Dace

Rhinichthys cataractae

Native species in Project area

Longnose Sucker

Catostomus catostomus

Native species in Project area

Rainbow Trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss

collected in 2021 survey/ Important Game Species

Sand Shiner

Notropis stramineus

Native species in Project area

Snake River Cutthroat Trout

Oncorhynchus clarkii behnkei

Important Game Species

Walleye

Sander vitreus

Collected in 2021 survey/ Important Game Species

White Sucker

Catostomus commersonii

collected in 2021 survey/ Common in Project area

Brook Trout

Rainbow Trout

1Target

species/groups were based on species collected in the 2021 Resident Fisheries Survey Study and historical fish distribution data (WGFD 2017) in the Seminoe Reservoir or that are known to occur within the Project boundary. 2 SGCN: Species of greatest conservation need.

4.2.2

Inlet/Outlet Avoidance

Burst swim speeds for target or representative species were compared to the estimated inlet/outlet velocity to evaluate whether fish may be susceptible to approach velocities at the Project. Burst swim speed is the swim speed used to escape predation, maneuver through high flows, or in this case, escape approach velocities and avoid entrainment. Burst swim speed data were compiled from the literature Bell (1991); however, if species-specific data were unavailable, burst swim speed or darting speed was calculated as 2x critical swim speed identified in the literature. Impingement and entrainment characterizations at the Project consider velocities under maximum turbine pumping capacity of 12,000 cfs, corresponding to a maximum approach velocity of 2.0 fps. The burst speeds shown in Table 4-6 indicate that all target species and life stages evaluated, with the exception of eggs and larvae, would be able to avoid entrainment at the Project given that estimated swim burst speeds are greater than maximum approach velocities at the inlet/outlet structure. Involuntary entrainment risk is low with exception of those life stages with limited swimming abilities.

May 2022 | 16

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 4-6. Average Burst Swim Speeds and Fish Sizes Common Name Scientific Name

Age

Length1

Burst Swim Speed (fps)2

Reference Katopodis and Gervais 2016

Brook Trout

Salvelinus fontinalis

Adult

4.9

Brook Stickleback

Culaea inconstans

Adult

Bell 1991

Brown Trout

Salmo trutta

Adult

12.5

Bell 1991

Common Carp

Cyprinus carpio

Adult

Bell 1991

Emerald Shiner

Notropis atherinoides

Adult

1.6

5.3

Katopodis and Gervais 2016

Fathead Minnow

Pimephales promelas

Adult

2.2

Katopodis and Gervais 2016

Iowa Darter/ Johnny Darter

Etheostoma spp.

Adult

1.4

2.6

Katopodis and Gervais 2016

Lake Trout

Salvelinus namaycush

Adult

18-35

10.5

Dunlop et al. 2010

Lake Chub

Couesius plumbeus

Adult

3.5

Peake et al. 2000

Longnose Dace

Rhinichthys cataractae

Adult

2.6

4.8

Katopodis and Gervais 2016

Longnose Sucker/ White Sucker

Catostomus spp.

Adult

Bell 1991

Rainbow Trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss

Juvenile/ Adult

5.9-11.8

8.9

Blank et al. 2020

Sand Shiner

Notropis stramineus

Adult

1.7

4.4

Katopodis and Gervais 2016

Snake River Cutthroat Trout3

Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii

Juvenile/ Adult

5.9-11.8

11.6

Blank et al. 2020

Juvenile

3.15 (FL)

2.5

Peake et al. 2000

Juvenile

6.30 (FL)

Peake et al. 2000

Adult

13.78-22.44 (FL)

5.5-8.6

Peake et al. 2000

Walleye

Sander vitreus

1 Lengths

are Total Length (TL) unless otherwise noted (SL: standard length; FL: fork length) swim speeds were calculated as 2x critical speed (Bell 1991), unless burst speed was provided in the literature. 3 Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi used for this subspecies. 2 Burst

4.2.3

Impingement Assessment

Proportional estimates of body width to length (scaling factor) were compiled by Smith (1985) for all the target and representative species in this study. The scaling factor multiplied by the maximum recorded length for the species (Smith 1985), or maximum recorded length from field data collected

May 2022 | 17

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

during the Resident Fish Survey Study, resulted in a corresponding width which was then compared to the spacing of the fish exclusion screens at the Project (0.75-inch) (Table 4-7). Table 4-7. Estimated Minimum Lengths (inches) of Target and Representative Species Excluded by Fish Exclusion Device at the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Body Width Scaling Factor1

Maximum Reported Length (inch)2

Corresponding Body Width (inch)

Minimum Size (in) Excluded by Proposed Fish Screens (0.75 inch)

Brook Trout

0.122

2.7

6.1

Brook Stickleback

0.138

2.7

0.4

Not Excluded

Brown Trout

0.118

2.8

6.4

Common Carp

0.162

5.3

4.6

Emerald Shiner

0.108

0.4

Not Excluded

Fathead Minnow

0.156

3.5

0.5

Not Excluded

Iowa Darter/ Johnny Darter

0.118

0.2

Not Excluded

Lake Trout

0.104

5.2

7.2

Lake Chub

0.125

3.5

0.4

Not Excluded

Longnose Dace

0.139

3.3

0.5

Not Excluded

Longnose Sucker/ White Sucker

0.126

1.9

6.0

Rainbow Trout

0.114

2.4

6.6

0.126

3.5

0.4

Not Excluded

Snake River Cutthroat Trout3

0.099

2.0

7.6

Walleye

0.125

6.0

White Sucker

0.146

3.2

5.1

Common Name

Sand

Shiner4

1 Scaling

factor (Smith 1985) expresses body width as a proportion of length based on proportional measurements. length reported by Smith (1985) or as collected in the 2021 Resident Fish Survey Study. 3 Cutthroat Trout not represented in Smith (1985); used scaling factor of Coho Salmon. 4 Sand Shiner used as Bigmouth Shiner Surrogate. 2 Maximum

Brook Stickleback, Iowa and Johnny Darters, and all minnow species (Emerald Shiner, Fathead Minnow, Lake Chub, Longnose Dace, and Sand Shiner) would pass through the proposed fish exclusion screens at the Project. Young life stages, juveniles, and smaller adults of some target species could physically pass through the fish exclusion screens, but largest individuals would be excluded. A few Walleye and White Sucker individuals collected in the Resident Fish Survey Study were below the minimum size excluded by the proposed fish exclusion screens, but only comprised twenty and one percent of the catch, respectively, in the zone where the inlet/outlet is proposed. All adult trout species would be excluded from the proposed 0.75-inch fish exclusion screens. The fish that would be excluded by the fish exclusion screens would be susceptible to impingement, however, all of those species have burst speeds much greater than the expected through-screen velocities, so it is unlikely these fish would be impinged.

May 2022 | 18

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

4.2.4

Early Life Stage Entrainment Susceptibility

The early life stages of fish (eggs and larvae) cannot move volitionally (eggs) or have limited swimming ability (larvae) and, therefore, are unable to overcome currents, leaving them susceptible to entrainment at the Project if spawning and hatch out occurs near the inlet/outlet structures. An assessment of target and representative species shows that the majority of species present in the North Platte River and Seminoe Reservoir in the Project vicinity have spawning periods from April through August, with eggs developing into larvae from May to October (Table 4-8). Three of the target trout species (Brook, Brown, And Lake Trout) are fall spawners, spawning in September through December and emerging as fry in February through April. Table 4-8. Spawning and Early Life Stage Periodicities for Target and Representative Fish Species in the Vicinity of the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Common Name

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Bigmouth Shiner Brook Trout Brook Stickleback Brown Trout Common Carp Emerald Shiner Fathead Minnow Iowa Darter Johnny Darter Lake Trout Lake Chub Longnose Dace Longnose Sucker/ White Sucker Rainbow Trout Sand Shiner Snake River Cutthroat Trout Walleye Spawning Period (Stauffer et al. 1995; Jenkins and Burkhead 1993; Holland-Bartels et al. 1990, Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Joyce. M.P and Hubert, W.A 2004) Eggs and larvae (if not described in litterature, estimated to begin two-thirds of the way through the spawning period and lasting 60 days post spawn)

Note: References used to develop this table are provided in Appendix B.

Additionally, most freshwater fish species have demersal and/or adhesive eggs and larvae that remain close to areas with protective cover, further reducing their risk of entrainment.

May 2022 | 19

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Ichthyoplankton mortality from turbine passage at hydropower projects is generally expected to be low and has been estimated to be between two and five percent (Cada 1991). Most of the lotic spawning species near the Project (i.e., trout species), move upstream and spawn in the larger tributaries located approximately 20 miles upstream from the proposed Project (Raleigh et al. 1984; Bernstein and Montgomery 2008, Black Canyon 2020). The current design assumes the inlet/outlet structure opening will be located near the center of the channel, just upstream of the existing Seminoe Dam, and will be at located at a depth of at least 200 feet at Seminoe Reservoir normal maximum high-water elevation (which provides a minimum submergence of 30 feet at Seminoe Reservoir lower water elevation). As such, the likelihood of eggs and other non-motile life stages being spawned near or drifting downstream in proximity of the proposed inlet/outlet structure in Seminoe Reservoir, where they could be entrained, is low. Additional life history information for target and representative species is provided in Appendix B.

4.2.5

Project Entrainment Length Frequency

Based on the study results of the EPRI (1997) database facilities selected to represent this Project, entrainment at the Project inlet/outlet structures is likely to be dominated (82 percent) by fish measuring less than four inches in length (Figure 4-4). Fish in the 4.1-inch to 8-inch size classes represented ten percent of the entrainment collection from the database, and fish larger than 8 inches represented eight percent of the collections.

Figure 4-4. Length-Frequency Entrained Fish for the Target Species from 34 Hydroelectric Developments (EPRI 1997)

4.2.6

Fish Entrainment Rates

Findings from FERC (1995) and Winchell et al. (2000) suggest that the majority of fish size classes entrained at hydroelectric projects is much smaller than the minimum length of fish physically excluded by a certain clear spacing, and that length frequencies of entrainment compositions are similar among sites with differing trashrack or fish exclusion device spacing. This indicates that the

May 2022 | 20

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

lack of larger fish may be related to their increased swimming performance and ability to avoid approach velocities at the inlet/outlet structure. According to the EPRI (1997) database selections used for this study, fish measuring less than four inches exhibited the highest entrainment rates in the early summer and fish six to eight inches exhibited the highest entrainment rates in the late fall and early winter (Table 4-9). This suggests these species likely spawned the prior spring and recently recruited to sizes large enough to be captured in the sampling nets. Table 4-9. Estimated Seasonal and Annual Entrainment Rates of Target Species by Fish Size Class from 34 Hydroelectric Developments (EPRI 1997) Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall

Average Annual Entrainment Rate (fish/hr)

0-2"

0.05

0.09

0.45

0.04

0.16

2.1-4"

0.09

0.21

0.30

0.10

0.18

4.1-6"

0.15

0.06

0.04

0.05

0.07

6.1-8"

0.26

0.05

0.01

0.23

0.14

8.1-10"

0.09

0.03

0.01

0.17

0.08

10.1-15"

0.02

0.05

0.02

0.03

15.1-20"

0.01

0.00

0.01

20.1-25"

0.00

25.1-30"

0.00

>30"

0.00

Total

0.68

0.51

0.84

0.62

0.66

Fish Size (Total Length)

Mean Monthly Entrainment Rate (fish/hr) by Season

Note: Values represent average fish/hr entrainment from 34 sites selected from the EPRI database and adjusted for maximum pumping capacity (cfs) at the Project.

Estimated mean monthly and mean annual entrainment rates by target species based on the EPRI (1997) database and the anticipated Project design maximum pumping capacity are presented in Table 4-10. These estimates include all fish size classes combined for each of the target species. Mean monthly entrainment rates for the target species by size group are provided in Appendix C. White Sucker has the highest potential entrainment rate (32% of total) of the target species based on the EPRI database. Emerald Shiner (18% of total), Fathead Minnow (10% of total), Walleye (9% of total), and Brook Stickleback (8% of total) have the next highest potential entrainment rates of the target species. Rainbow and Snake River Cutthroat Trouts, species often sought after by anglers, have some of the lowest entrainment rates of the target species, each having less than one percent of the total entrainment rate.

May 2022 | 21

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 4-10. Seasonal and Average Entrainment Rates for Target Species at Maximum Pumping Capacity (12,000 cfs) Winter

Spring

Summer

Fall

Mean Annual Entrainment Rate (fish/hr)*

Bigmouth Shiner

0.71

1.16

0.46

0.21

0.64

Brook Trout

8.06

2.46

0.38

2.36

3.32

Brook Stickleback

3.74

9.99

2.62

1.42

4.44

Brown Trout

0.55

0.81

0.08

1.13

0.64

Common Carp

0.38

0.29

0.70

0.24

0.40

Emerald Shiner

3.27

10.67

10.88

15.25

10.01

Fathead Minnow

0.45

10.06

7.10

4.48

5.52

Iowa Darter

0.00

0.48

0.08

0.93

0.37

Johnny Darter

1.64

2.03

1.44

0.62

1.43

Lake Chub

0.00

0.04

0.00

0.01

Lake Trout

8.06

2.46

0.38

2.36

3.32

Longnose Dace

0.12

1.61

1.63

0.76

0.10

Longnose Sucker

0.18

0.91

0.81

0.59

0.62

Rainbow Trout

0.75

0.23

0.05

0.40

0.35

Sand Shiner

0.71

1.16

0.46

0.21

0.64

Snake River Cutthroat Trout

0.75

0.23

0.05

0.40

0.35

Walleye

1.80

1.96

14.23

2.84

5.21

White Sucker

20.33

10.46

21.89

19.19

17.97

Sum

51.47

57.03

63.22

53.40

55.35

Target Species

Mean Monthly Entrainment Rate (fish/hr) by Season*

* These rates were calculated based on the maximum pumping capacity based on the current proposed design. However, it is feasible that the facility would be run below the maximum load, utilizing just one or two units for certain periods of each day. As such, these entrainment rates could be viewed as conservative overestimates of the potential entrainment risk at the proposed Project.

Potential entrainment rates are projected to be highest in April, June, and July as well as November and December (Figure 4-5). Peaking months may correspond to spawning movements (April, June, and July) or recruitment to juvenile or adult life stages (November and December).

May 2022 | 22

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 4-5. Average Monthly Entrainment Rate and Species Composition based on EPRI (1997) Entrainment Database Selections for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

4.2.7

Turbine Blade Strike Analysis

A turbine blade strike analysis was performed using the most recent version available of the USFWS Turbine Blade Strike Analysis model, all fish length classes in the entrainment database and sitespecific inputs for required model parameters, as summarized in Table 4-11. The inputs and results from the Turbine Blade Strike Analysis Model (USFWS 2020) are provided in Appendix D. Table 4-11. Proposed Unit Turbine Characteristics for Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Term

Units

Description

Units (1,2 &3)

Blades

(#)

Number of blades on the turbine runner

Type

(-)

Francis, Kaplan, propeller, or bypass

Net Head

(ft)

Net head on the turbine; HW to TW, less head loss through system

955

Runner Dia. at Discharge

(ft)

Diameter at the outlet of the runner (typ. before the draft tube; see Figure 4.3.2-3 in Franke et al., 1997)

9.27

Runner Dia. at Inlet

(ft)

Diameter at the intake of the runner (typ. beyond the guide vanes; see Figure 4.3.2-3 in Franke et al., 1997)

16.37

Runner Diameter

(ft)

Nominal diameter of runner; maximum radius is assumed to be 1/2 of diameter

9.27

Runner Height

(ft)

Runner height at inlet (see Figure 4.3.2-3 in Franke et al., 1997 for clarification)

1.66

Runner revolutions per minute (model automatically converts to radians per second)

300

Speed

(rpm)

9 Francis

May 2022 | 23

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Term

Units

Description

Units (1,2 &3)

Swirl Coefficient

(-)

Ratio between Q with no exit swirl and QOPT (recommended x=1.1 for Francis turbines)

Turbine Discharge

(cfs)

Turbine discharge

3,515

Turbine Efficiency

(-)

Ratio of output shaft power to input fluid power; typ. from vendor curves or index testing

0.91

Turbine Discharge

(cfs)

Turbine discharge at optimal efficiency

3,072

Ratio of turbine discharge at best efficiency to hydraulic capacity

87.4

Discharge at Opt. Efficiency

Model Routes

1.1

Unit 1, 2, and 3

Based on the model results, calculated blade strike probabilities were estimated between 1.5 and 36.0 percent for the size classes evaluated, with the chance of blade strike increasing with fish size (Table 4-11.). The sizes of fish that would be expected to be entrained at the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project are less than eight inches in length due to the 0.75-inch fish exclusion screen that is proposed. Fish larger than six inches in length exhibited a higher probability of blade strike mortality but are not expected to be entrained at the facility. Table 4-11. Estimated Blade Strike and Survival Probabiliites by Size Class at the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Model Parameter

0-2"

Blade Strike Probability Survival Probability

4.2.8

8.110"

10.115"

15.120"

20.125"

25.130"

>30"

6.5%

8.8%

12.6%

17.5%

21.2%

24.5%

36.0%

93.9%

91.2%

87.4%

82.5%

77.8%

75.5%

64.0%

2.1-4"

4.1-6"

6.1-8"

1.5%

3.5%

4.8%

98.5%

96.5%

95.2%

Sources of Mortality or Injury Other than Blade Strike during Fish Passage

While the greatest opportunity for fish mortality through a hydropower facility typically lies in potential contact with the turbine runner blades, injuries and mortalities can result from other mechanisms including extreme pressure changes, shear stress, water turbulence, cavitation, and grinding (Deng et al. 2005); all of which can be the result of multiple Project features (e.g., turbines, conveyance structures). At high head hydroelectric projects, regardless of the type of fish passage (e.g., pumped-storage, dam spillway, powerhouse turbines, bypass, fishway), exposure to rapid pressure reduction can be a significant source of mortality (R2 Resource Consultants 1998). Positive pressures can form within free-fall (e.g., vertical shaft or shafts) type spillways with rapid changes of pressure resulting from plunges into the headrace tunnel at pumped storage projects (R2 Resource Consultants 1998). Pressure injuries would be expected to be greatest in tunnel or conduit spillways, including submerged passageways.

May 2022 | 24

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Cavitation injuries result from forces on a fish body due to vapor pockets imploding near fish tissue (Franke et. al 1997). Under certain hydraulic conditions implosions can cause formation of velocity jets, high levels of turbulence, and high-pressure shock waves associated with the collapse of a cavitation bubble. The probability of a fish encountering these fluid mechanisms depends on the distances between turbine blades, number of blades, and fish length. Injury and mortality associated with turbine passage and cavitation is difficult to determine but appears to be less than other sources such as mechanical and pressure changes (Frank et. al 1997). Operational guidelines that reduce maintenance cost by minimizing operating in conditions that lead to cavitation can also reduce cavitation-related fish injury and mortality. Cavitation zones and rapid pressure changes within a conduit or siphon spillway may cause injury and mortality of fish (R2 Resource Consultants 1998). Shear is the effect on fish of encountering hydraulic forces due to rapidly changing water velocities. The forces on the body of a fish resulting from strong velocity gradients relative to fish length are significant (Franke et. al 1997, R2 Resource Consultants 1998) and can result in shear stress (i.e., when a fish experiences significantly different velocities on either side of its body at the same time). Shear stress can damage scales, the operculum, or bruise fish tissue. This typically occurs with exposure to a transition zone between two bodies of water that are moving at different velocities such as the transition zone where spillway discharges enter into stilling basins or at outlet structures such as the one proposed to be located in the Lower Reservoir. Turbulence is generally associated with areas where large amounts of energy are dissipated through rapid mixing of flows, typical in plunge pools, stilling basins below spillways, or within draft tubes where the flow is decelerating and spreading out (Franke et. al 1997, R2 Resource Consultants 1998). However, turbulence in a draft tube is generally less than in a plunge pool. This is because energy lost to turbulence in a draft tube is not available for power production so a well-designed draft tube will minimize the turbulence to maximize the power production. Exposure to turbulent conditions can disorient fish, leaving them at greater risk to predation. Fish injuries (bloody eyes, popped eyes, air bladder rupture, and embolism) and fish mortality may occur as a result of pressure forces or shear stress placed on fish during Project generation. Rapid decompression trauma leading to fish mortality would be anticipated during power generation when flows are passed from the Upper Reservoir to the Lower Reservoir, while exposure to physical trauma or mortality from increases in pressure would be anticipated for entrained fish as they are pumped into the Upper Reservoir from the Lower Reservoir. Although the potential exists for these sources of mortality associated with Project generation and pump-back operations, the proposed Project has been designed to minimize entrainment risk and mortality through the design (location and depth) of the inlet/outlet structures, the design approach velocity (2.0 fps), and the use of 0.75-inch fish exclusion screens at the entrance to the Lower Reservoir inlet/outlet structure. Fish that are entrained into the Lower Reservoir inlet/outlet structure are expected to experience some level of mortality during pump-back operations. For those fish surviving entrainment and the forces involved in pump-back to the Upper Reservoir, the downstream conveyance during power generation is likely to result in 100 percent mortality.

May 2022 | 25

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

4.2.9

Entrainment and Survival at Comparable Pumped Storage Projects

A review of entrainment studies performed at six existing pumped storage projects found that there is considerable variability in entrainment and survival at pumped storage projects and differences in how agencies viewed entrainment impacts. A summary of the characteristics of the other pumped storage projects is presented in Table 4-12. The characteristics of the tailrace and suitability of the intake area as fish habitat influence potential entrainment. For the Northfield Mountain facility, it was assumed 100 percent loss of fish entrained during pump-back from the Connecticut River. For Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries decided that potential entrainment caused by pump-back operations would not need to be addressed since few fish were present immediately downstream of the dam (Appalachian Power Company [APC] 2008). Table 4-12. Summary of Intake Characteristics for the Facilities Reviewed1 Facility Northfield Mountain Smith Mountain Lake Mason4 Taum Sauk Wallace Bear Swamp

Bar Rack Spacing (in.)

Approach velocity (fps)2

Head (ft.)3

3.5 tailrace

745-790

5.4-6.0

2.4-3.6

185

153

5.875

6.5 intake 4.6 pump-back

775.5-861

1-3.5 intake 10.5 pump-back

4.3-4.5 intakes 3.9 pump-back

343

6.0

0.98-2.4

830-870

1Information

provided only for the pumped storage projects/units. otherwise stated, velocities are for the upper intakes. 3Head may vary over the generation/pumping cycle. Range provided when available 4Mason provided limited information regarding intake characteristics. (--) Values not provided. 2Unless

Alternatively, despite poor habitat in the tailrace area for the Taum Sauk Project, entrainment was considered unavoidable as there is potential for fish to be attracted to the pumping velocities (HDR/DTA 2011). However, a qualitative assessment of pump-back entrainment for the Taum Sauk facility indicated low risk of entrainment and, therefore, minimal effects to the fishery based on a literature review. Studies conducted at Bear Swamp found that swim speeds of most juvenile and adult fish were greater than intake velocities, indicating these fish would be capable of escaping entrainment and impingement. Similar to Seminoe, the location and lack of habitat near the intake structures minimized risk for entrainment of eggs and larvae (HDR 2017). At Wallace Pumped Storage Project, FERC determined that most fish at the Project would be susceptible to entrainment and at risk of turbine mortality based on the size of fish documented and the wide trashrack bar spacing (FERC 2019). Additionally, similar to the assessment at the Seminoe Project, only the largest fish would be at risk of impingement on the wide spacing of the trashrack bars; however, most of these fish would have burst swimming speeds that would allow them to avoid encountering the intake structures or the trashracks.

May 2022 | 26

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Sampling of pump-back entrainment at the Bad Creek Pumped Storage Project and Richard B. Russell facilities supported this statement by demonstrating the numerical dominance of small fish (FERC 2019). Annual pump-back entrainment at Richard B. Russell was calculated to be on the order of 1.7 times higher than generation entrainment. Calculated annual pump-back entrainment at Bad Creek Pumped Storage Project was about 2.7 times higher than generation entrainment. Factors likely contributing to higher entrainment rates documented at the two facilities during pumping include the shallower depth and narrower width of the tailrace area, closer proximity of shallow-water habitats, and the seasonal behavior and diurnal activity of the entrained fish species (FERC 2019). Many of the factors associated with entrainment risk at other pumped storage projects discussed above would not be applicable to the Seminoe Project. The proposed inlet/outlet structure and other Project features have been designed to minimize risk of impingement and entrainment of fish. For example, the inlet/outlet structure will be located in an open water area upstream of the existing Seminoe Dam at a depth sufficient enough to prevent most resident fish from encountering the structure. Additionally, the proposed screen size of 0.75-inches will exclude most of the Seminoe Reservoir fish species; and approach velocities will be low enough for all adult fish to overcome impingement based on burst swim speeds.

4.2.10

Qualitative Assessment of Entrainment Potential

Results of the qualitative assessment of entrainment potential during pumping operations are presented by species in Table 4-13. Table 4-13. Qualitative* Monthly Entrainment Potential for Target Species and Species Groups at the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Target Species

Qualitative Rating of Monthly Entrainment Potential* Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Bigmouth Shiner

Brook Trout

Brook Stickleback

Brown Trout

Common Carp

Emerald Shiner

L-M

Fathead Minnow

Iowa Darter

Johnny Darter

Lake Chub

Lake Trout

Longnose Dace

Longnose Sucker

Rainbow Trout

L-M L-M

May 2022 | 27

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Target Species

Qualitative Rating of Monthly Entrainment Potential* Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Sand Shiner

Snake River Cutthroat Trout

Walleye

White Sucker

L-M L-M M

Aug Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

*L (low), L-M (low-moderate), M (moderate), M-H (moderate-high), H (high).

The 0.75-inch spacing on the proposed fish exclusion screens will exclude most adult fish with the exception of the minnow species, Brook Stickleback, and some juvenile fish. However, of the adult fish that are small enough in body size to be able to pass through the fish exclusion screens, none inhabit deep water and are unlikely to encounter the inlet/outlet structure. Some of the fish species evaluated occupy benthic habitats (e.g., darters), but none are expected to occur as deep as the proposed inlet/outlet structure, near 200 feet deep at Seminoe Reservoir normal maximum highwater level. Therefore, none of the adults on the target species list would be susceptible to entrainment. In addition, juvenile and adult fish of the target species evaluated could avoid the intake entirely based on swim burst speeds compared to the proposed approach velocity. The factors contributing to species being assigned elevated qualitative rankings (M and L-M) include: •

• • • • •

Species with life history strategies (migratory behavior, spawning preferences and movements, seasonal activity) that would bring them near the Project inlet/outlet structures at vulnerable life stages. Species with habitat preferences that coincide with habitats near or within the area of influence of the inlet/outlet structures. Body length/widths that would not be excluded by the trashrack bar spacing. Swim speeds insufficient to overcome inlet/outlet approach velocities. Elevated entrainment rates based on EPRI (1997) database modeling results. Species and life stages that were abundant and widely distributed in the Resident Fish Survey Study.

Some species have higher entrainment rates in the spring or fall period, which may reflect increased activity associated with spawning (e.g., dispersal for nest site selection, increased feeding). Although spring spawning is common for many species, some species migrate upstream or to tributaries and away from the inlet/outlet structure (e.g., suckers and trout), create nests in protected areas (e.g., trout), and/or require habitat not found in the vicinity of the inlet/outlet structure (see Appendix B); therefore, most species were given a low (L) ranking unless elevated entrainment rates were noted in the smaller size classes (Table 4-13). Spawning grounds for tributary spawners are approximately 20 miles upstream of the Project, where the early life stages often remain until they reach the juvenile stage; therefore, entrainment of eggs and early life stages of these species is highly unlikely.

May 2022 | 28

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Summary and Discussion

In summary, the primary findings of the Desktop Fish Entrainment Study are: •

• •

•

• • • •

The proposed location (just upstream of the existing Seminoe Dam) and depth (over 200 feet at Seminoe Reservoir normal maximum high-water level) of the inlet/outlet structure minimizes the risk of impingement or entrainment for the resident fish species in the Seminoe Reservoir. The proposed design has low-approach velocities, thus allowing most fish to swim away from the inlet/outlet structure and not become impinged or entrained. Susceptibility to entrainment is variable depending on species and time period; however, the current design proposes 0.75-inch fish exclusion screens at the lower inlet/outlet structure, which will further reduce the risk of entrainment for fish that may encounter the deep location of the inlet/outlet structure. Entrainment of early life stage fishes (eggs and larvae) is expected to be minimal given the life history characteristics of species in the vicinity of the Project. Spawning for several species on the target list including trout most commonly occurs in tributaries. The two major tributaries, North Platte River and Medicine Bow River enter the impounded waters of the Seminoe Reservoir more than 20 miles upriver from the proposed Project; therefore, larvae and eggs of the tributary spawners, like trout, are not expected to occur near the Project. For those fish entrained into the inlet/outlet structure, the blade strike probabilities are expected to be low for size classes not excluded by the fish exclusion screens, 7.5 percent or less. The qualitative rating results of this desktop entrainment analysis indicate low monthly entrainment potential for most target species. For any fish that are entrained, survival through the turbines is expected to be relatively high. However, if fish are unable to avoid the inlet/outlet structure, are small enough to pass through the exclusion screen and be entrained and, therefore, pumped from the lower to the upper reservoir, the potential for injury or mortality is high due to the high head and high pressure in portions of the conveyance structures and potential turbulence and shear stress. Therefore, it is likely that fish that become entrained will not survive due to forces involved during pumping to the Upper Reservoir or during generation.

References

Appalachian Power Company (APC). 2008. Smith Mountain Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2210. Exhibit E Environmental Report. Appalachian Power Company. March 2008. Bell, M.C. 1991. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program, Portland, OR. Third Edition. Bernstein, Y. and W.L. Montgomery. 2008. Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; Walbaum, 1792): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Black Canyon Hydro, LLC. 2020. Pre-Application Document (PAD), Seminoe Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. 14787. Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon). 2020. Pre-Application Document for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. 14787. April 20, 2020.

May 2022 | 29

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Blank, M.D., Kappenman K.M., Plymesser K., Banner K., Cahoon J. 2020. Swimming performance of Rainbow Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout in an open-channel flume. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 11(1):217–225; e1944-687X Cada, G. F., C. C. Coutant, and R. R. Whitney. 1997. Development of Biological Criteria for the Design of Advanced Hydropower Turbines. DOE/ID-10578. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Cada, G.F. 1991. Effects of hydroelectric turbine passage on fish early life stages. CONF-910778-2. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC. Deng, Z., T.J. Carlson, G.R. Ploskey, and M.C. Richmond. 2005. Evaluation of Blade-Strike Models for Estimating the Biological Performance of Large Kaplan Hydro Turbines. U.S. Dunlop, E.S., et al. 2010. In Situ Swimming Behavior of Lake Trout Observed Using Integrated Multibeam Acoustics and Biotelemetry. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 139:420-432. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1990. Pumped-Storage Planning and Evaluation Guide, EPRI Document GS-6669, Palo Alto, CA. EPRI. 1997. Turbine Entrainment and Survival Database – Field Tests. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., Holden, Massachusetts. EPRI Report No. TR-108630. October 1997Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. PNNL-15370. Richland, VA. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) .2019. Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License. Wallace Dam Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. 2413-124. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Washington, D. C. October 2019. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 1995. Preliminary Assessment of Fish Entrainment at Hydropower Projects, A Report on Studies and Protective Measures, Volumes 1 and 2 (appendices). FERC Office of Hydropower Licensing, Washington, D.C. Paper No. DPR-10. June 1995 (Volume 1) and December 1994 (Volume 2). Franke, G. F., D. R. Webb, R. K. Fisher, Jr., D. Mathur, P. N. Hopping, P. A. March, M. R. Headrick, I. T. Laczo, Y. Ventikos, and F. Sotiropoulos. 1997. Development of Environmentally Advanced Hydropower Turbine System Design Concepts. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Contract DE-AC07-94ID13223. HDR Engineering, INC. (HDR). 2017. Fish Entrainment Evaluation Study Report. Bear Swamp Project, FERC No. 2669. Prepared for Bear Swamp Power Company, LLC. September 30, 2017. HDR Engineering, Inc./Devine Tarbell & Associates (HDR/DTA). 2011. Taum Sauk Pumped-Storage Project, FERC No. 2277. Prepared for Ameren Missouri. April 2011. Katopodis, C. and R. Gervais. 2016. Fish Swimming Performance Database and Analyses. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2016/002. Vi +550p. Peake, S., R. S. McKinley, and D. A. Scruton. 2000. Swimming performance of Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Can. J. Zool. 78:1686-1690.Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2018, May 11. Fish Rescue Data at BM Canal.

May 2022 | 30

Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

R2 Resource Consultants. 1998 Annotated bibliography of literature regarding mechanical injury with emphasis on effects from spillways and stilling basins. Report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District. Contract No. DACW57-D-007. Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: rainbow trout. USFWS-BSP, Fort Collins, CO. Smith, C.L. 1985. The Inland Fishes of New York State. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. A Desktop Tool for Estimating Mortality of Fish Entrained in Hydroelectric Turbines. Online [URL]: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/ fisheries/fishpassageengineering.html (Accessed April 12, 2021). Winchell, F., S. Amaral, and D. Dixon. 2000. Hydroelectric Turbine Entrainment and Survival Database: An Alternative to Field Studies. HydroVision Conference, August 8-11, 2000, Charlotte, North Carolina. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2010. State Wildlife Action Plan. Cheyenne, WY. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017. State Wildlife Action Plan. Cheyenne, WY.

May 2022 | 31

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix A. Site Characteristics of Hydropower Facilities from the EPRI (1997) Database

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 1. Electric Power Research Institute Entrainment Database1 Sites Used to Estimate Entrainment for the Proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project No.

Site Name

State

River

Reservoir Area (ac)

Reservoir Volume (ac-ft)

Usable Storage (ac-ft)

Fluctuation Limits (ft)

Length (mi)

Width (ft)

Total Plant Capacity (cfs)

No. Units

Operating Mode2

Average Velocity at Trashrack (ft/sec)

Trashrack Spacing (inch)

Belding

Flat

416

Bond Falls

W.B. Ontonagon

900

Brule

545

8880

530

5.2

340

1377

PK-partial

1.62

Caldron Falls

Peshtigo

1180

1300

Centralia

Wisconsin

250

1400

3640

ROR

2.3

3.5

Colton

Raquette

195

620

103

0.5

1503

Crowley

N.F. Flambeau

422

3539

2400

ROR

1.4

2.375

E. J. West

Sacandaga

25940

792000

68100

5400

4.5

Feeder Dam

Hudson

5000

2.75

Four Mile Dam

Thunder Bay

1112

2500

0.5

1500

ROR

Grand Rapids

MI/ WI

Menominee

250

0.5

3870

ROR

1.75

Herrings

Black

140

3610

ROR

4.125

High Falls Beaver River

Beaver

145

1058

290

900

0.7

1.81

Higley

Raquette

742

4446

1.5

2045

3.63

Hillman Dam

Thunder Bay

988

1600

270

ROR

3.25

Johnsonville

Hoosic

450

6430

540

6.5

1288

Kleber

Black

270

3000

0.9

400

ROR

1.41

Lake Algonquin

Sacandaga

750

Luray

S.F. Shenandoah

1477

ROR

2.75

Minetto

Oswego

350

4730

290

1.8

7500

PULSE

2.4

2.5

Appendix A-1

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

No.

Site Name

State

River

Reservoir Area (ac)

Reservoir Volume (ac-ft)

Usable Storage (ac-ft)

Fluctuation Limits (ft)

Length (mi)

Width (ft)

Total Plant Capacity (cfs)

No. Units

Operating Mode2

Average Velocity at Trashrack (ft/sec)

Trashrack Spacing (inch)

Moshier

Beaver

365

7339

680

660

1.5

Ninth Street Dam

Thunder Bay

9884

2600

0.5

1650

ROR

Norway Point Dam

Thunder Bay

10502

3800

0.5

1775

ROR

1.69

Potato Rapids

Peshtigo

288

1380

ROR

1.75

Raymondville

Raquette

264

1640

2.25

Sandstone Rapids

Peshtigo

150

1300

1.75

Schaghticoke

Hoosic

164

1150

120

6.5

1640

ROR

2.125

Sherman Island

Hudson

305

6960

1060

3.7

6600

3.125

Thornapple

Flambeau

295

1000

295

1.5

600

1400

ROR-mod

1.22

1.69

Tower

Black

102

620

0.9

404

ROR

0.82

Twin Branch

St. Joseph

1065

8.75

3200

ROR

Warrensburg

Schroon

1350

White Rapids

MI/ WI

Menominee

435

5155

415

2.3

580

3994

PK-partial

1.9

2.5

Wisconsin River Division

Wisconsin

240

1120

2.5

1000

5150

ROR

1.4

2.19

1 Electric

Power Research Institute. 1997. Turbine Entrainment and Survival Database. TR-108630. Palo Alto, CA. Mode: peaking (PK), pulse, or run-of-river (ROR). Notes: ac=acre; ac-ft=acre-feet; mi=mile; cfs=cubic feet per second; ft/sec=feet per second.

2Operating

Appendix A-2

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix B. Life History Information for Target Fish Species and Species Groups

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Life History Information for Target Fish Species and Species Groups Bigmouth Shiner (Notropis dorsalis) Native to the North Platte drainage, Bigmouth Shiner are found throughout the north-central United States north of the Missouri River (Woodling 1985). The status of Bigmouth Shiner populations is considered stable but rare as they are susceptible to habitat fragmentation (Black Canyon 2020). As a result, limited information exists regarding the life history of Bigmouth Shiner. Habitat for Bigmouth Shiner includes runs and pools of shallow open headwaters, creeks, small, low gradient streams with perennial flow, and small to medium rivers (Black Canyon 2020; NatureServe 2021a). They can be found in open water free of vegetation or other cover over sandy substrates, often overlain with silt (NatureServe 2021a). In Wyoming, however, Bigmouth Shiner have been observed in perennial streams throughout their historic range at sites with sand and gravel substrates with light to heavy aquatic vegetation (WGFD 2017a). Bigmouth Shiner are commonly found at shallow depths of one meter (McCulloch 2003). Bigmouth Shiner diet includes aquatic insect nymphs and larvae during most of the year, but during the fall they primarily consume terrestrial insects and benthic algae (Woodling 1985). Diel vertical migration has been observed among Bigmouth Shiners that typically feed at night along stream bottoms (McCulloch 2003). Bigmouth Shiner are generally considered a fast-growing species with a maximum lifespan of three years (McCulloch 2003). Young-of-year (YOY) fish range in length between 28- and 50-millimeters (mm) total length (TL) while Age-1+ fish range between 33- and 63-mm TL. Adults generally range between 50- and 75-mm TL. Maturation is suggested to occur when individuals reach at least 47 mm TL as specimens under than this size threshold have not been sexed. Although little is known about the spawning behavior of Bigmouth Shiner, they may exhibit reproductive behavior similar to other species of Notropis, which commonly spawn in open water over fine sand where fertilized eggs drifting freely in the water column (WGFD 2017a). Bigmouth Shiner have been observed to migrate upstream during fall and winter months and return downstream in summer, possibly to spawn, which takes place from mid-May through mid-August (McCulloch 2003). Eggs typically develop and hatch in one or two days so larvae and young juveniles would also be found in shallow, downstream reaches of their habitat. Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans) The Brook Stickleback is a short-lived, small size forage fish typically inhabiting river and lake environments year-round and by all life stages for all activities (Stewart et al. 2007). Habitat typically includes shallow edges of cool, clear lakes and ponds with moderate to dense vegetation, but this species may also be found in pools and backwaters of cool to cold creeks and small rivers with mild to moderate current and sand, gravel, or muddy substrate (Animal Diversity Web [ADW] 2021a). The Brook Stickleback is widely distributed throughout the north-central region of North America. The Brook Stickleback is an introduced species in the Platte River Basin but have become

Appendix B-1

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

established and widespread (including the Pathfinder-Seminoe Reservoir drainage), either through accidental bait introductions or aquaculture (WGFD 2017b; Black Canyon 2020). Brook Stickleback have specific photoperiod (14 to 16 hours of sunlight) and temperature (15-19°C) requirements to trigger spawning behavior (ADW 2021a). Adults move into warmer, shallower waters along shorelines with abundant vegetation, where males establish territories and begin nest construction. Nests are typically constructed on a vertical piece of grass or sticks using algae, plant fibers, dead leaves, or small twigs. Spawning occurs in the spring and early summer, typically from mid-April to late June or early July and is dependent upon water temperature. Females lay between 98 and 182 demersal, adhesive eggs per clutch and may spawn multiples times over a 28-day period. Egg incubation lasts between 7 and 11 days. Reproductive maturity reached at 1 year and the average lifespan is 3 years. Brook Sticklebacks are generally considered a shallow-water species and are commonly found at depths up to 1.5 meters through most of the year. During periods of cooler water temperatures, YOY and adults occur in shallow, vegetated waters over soft silt substrates typically along the shoreline. During the summer, this species may move into deeper waters to escape warming water temperatures, and post-spawning adults will return downstream into deeper, cooler waters for the rest of the summer until waters begin to cool again (Stewart et al. 2007). Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Brook Trout are native to much of northeastern North America, south through the Appalachian Mountains, and west to the Mississippi River headwaters (Ficke et al. 2009). They were intentionally introduced into western North America in the mid-19th Century and have been stocked in the Seminoe Reservoir (Ficke et al. 2009; Black Canyon 2020). Brook Trout can hybridize with Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus), which are native to the northwestern United States, but typically do not hybridize with other salmonids found in the Rocky Mountain region. Brook Trout have been described as generalists or opportunistic predators of aquatic and terrestrial insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and small fish (Ficke et al. 2009). Brook Trout in the Rocky Mountain region exhibit considerable plasticity in life history expression (Ficke et al. 2009). Two ends of this continuum are populations that are fast-growing, mature in their second year, and rarely live past age 4 or 5 versus populations that are slower growing, mature in their fourth or fifth year, and can live 10 years or more. Population growth rates of Brook Trout are sensitive to changes in annual survival for YOY and age-1 stages, and also survival from egg to age-0. Land- and water-management activities that affect these life stages (e.g., through dewatering, altered flow regimes, siltation, and decreased water quality) can affect population age-structure, abundance, and biomass of wild brook trout populations. Habitat fragmentation that limits movement of larger fish within and among streams is also expected to reduce the resiliency of local populations. Brook Trout are found in three type of aquatic environments: rivers, lakes, and marine areas (ADW 2021b). Freshwater populations occur in clear, cool, well-oxygenated streams and lakes and thrive where temperatures remain below 18.8°C and there is little to no siltation. Stream-dwelling Brook Trout require resting areas in pools, feeding sites near riffles or swiftly flowing water, and cover typically provided by undercut banks, wood debris, trees, or large rock ledges. Brook Trout that

Appendix B-2

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

reside in marine environments migrate there from freshwater tributaries and generally stay close to the river mouths. Brook Trout are generally considered to have the shortest lifespan of all char species (3 to 4 years) and reach maturity in two years (Ficke et al. 2009). Spawning occurs from September to October. (MTNHP and MTFWP 2020; Black Canyon 2020). During spawning season, females excavate redds in which eggs are deposited. Brook trout are iteroparous but do not always spawn each year (Ficke et al. 2009). In the Rocky Mountain Region, Brook Trout are commonly found in high-gradient, high-elevation streams associated with colder water temperatures. Brook Trout in this region exhibit a tendency to move upstream in both summer and fall, with fall migration likely homing natal habitats or ranging behavior to seek suitable spawning habitat (Ficke et al. 2009). Hatching begins in January and February and the greatest densities of age-0 and age-1 Brook Trout have been observed in in streams with mean July water temperatures of at least 12°C. Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) Brown Trout are native to Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia, but were introduced into the western United States in the later part of the 19th Century (ADW 2021c). The preferred habitat of Brown Trout includes deep streams with moderate to low currents, although they can also be found in lakes and reservoirs. Brown Trout are visual opportunistic feeds that consume mostly insects, crustaceans, and mollusks, but occasionally eat large prey such as other fish, crayfish, birds, mice, and frogs (National Park Service [NPS] 2020). Dominant fish feed mainly during dusk and the early part of the night as it is more beneficial for predation; smaller and younger fish will often feed at the surface or along the shoreline which is less optimal for prey as well as for predation risk by piscivorous birds, mammals, and other fish (ADW 2021c). Growth rates of Brown Trout are dependent on environmental factors such as temperature, food availability, and population density, as growth can be limited by competition for resources (ADW 2021c). The average lifespan of Brown Trout is ten years, although some have been reported over twenty years. Lifespan decreases with increasing water temperatures, such as those closer to the equator. Brown Trout become mature at three years of age, although this can be variable between resident and anadromous populations (ADW 2021c). They may move upstream into their natal streams and tributaries to spawn from October to December. (MTNHP and MTFWP 2020; Black Canyon 2020). Females lay between 300-1,500 eggs in their redds, which incubate for one to several months (ADW 2021c). Upon hatching, alevins maintain their yolk sac and remain in the gravel until they emerge from the redd as fry. Fry tend to stay near the general area of the redd as they compete for food, but eventually venture into other areas of the riverbed once they become parr. If Brown Trout have access to marine environments, they will undergo smoltification. In the Rocky Mountain region, Brown Trout have been introduced into streams, rivers, reservoirs, and lakes and have formed self-sustaining populations in all these habitat types (Belica 2007). In streams, Brown Trout prefer to spawn in areas with faster currents and gravel substrates while those inhabiting lakes or large rivers move into tributary streams to spawn. In lakes without suitable Appendix B-3

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

tributary stream habitat, Brown Trout can spawn along the shoreline. YOY spend their first year of life in their natal habitat, typically low-velocity streams. Juveniles may remain in streams and transition into deeper habitats as they grow or move into lakes and larger rivers during their second or third years where they become sexually mature. Age-0 and age-1 Brown Trout also rely on instream cover and woody debris for winter habitat while adults often use deep pools as winter refuge. Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) Common Carp are native to Europe but have been widely introduced worldwide (ADW 2021d). Approximately 7,000 carp were introduced to the State by the 1880s (WGFD 2010; Black Canyon 2020). Carp prefer larger, slower-moving water bodies with soft sediments but are tolerant of a wide variety of habitats and can easily exploit large and small reservoirs or pools in both slow and fast flowing streams (ADW 2021d). Males achieve reproductive maturity at 3-5 years and females at 4-5 years (ADW 2021d). Spawning generally occurs in the spring and early summer. Spawning habitat includes shallow waters with dense macrophyte cover. Females produce an average of 300,000 eggs although some estimates report over a million per breeding season. Egg incubation is correlated with water temperature; typically fry hatch after 3 days of temperatures between 25-32 °C. Fry average 5-5.5 mm TL with the yolk sac fully absorbed by the time the fry grow to a length of 8 mm. Carp are benthic omnivores (ADW 2021d). Fry initially feed on zooplankton while adults consume a variety of organisms including insects, crustaceans, annelids, mollusks, fish eggs, fish remains, and plant tubers and seeds. Carp are often found in small schools and the feeding style of carp is capable of decimating macrophytes and decreasing the overall water quality of an area. Young carp are preyed upon by large fish such as Northern Pike, Muskellunge, Walleye, and Largemouth Bass; adults have no natural predators. In the Rocky Mountain region, Carp primarily inhabit lakes and reservoirs where they seek moderately warm and shallow water (MTNHP and MTFWP 2021a). Carp are also found in pools and backwaters of rivers but tend to avoid cold and swift, rocky streams. Spawning typically occurs in marginal, shallow, weedy areas between May and June and YOY have demonstrated a preference for pool and backwater habitats. Emerald Shiner (Notropis atherinoides) Emerald Shiner is a non-native non-game species that was introduced to Seminoe Reservoir to reduce the impact of Walleye predation on stocked fingerling trout (Marwitz and Hubert 1997; Black Canyon 2020). Emerald Shiners are a pelagic species found in larger streams channels and their impoundments (MTNHP and MTFWP 2020; Black Canyon 2020). They prefer slow waters, deep runs, and main channel borders and typically avoid areas with aquatic vegetation (MTNHP and MTFWP 2021b). Emerald Shiners reach reproductive maturity at two years and spawn from July to August (Black Canyon 2020). Spawning occurs at night, one to two feet under the surface, over sand or firm mud substrates (University of Kentucky [UKY] 2021). Females produce 2,000-3,000 non-adhesive eggs that sink to the substrate and hatch within 24-36 hours. After hatching, fry remain on the substrate

Appendix B-4

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

for several days before forming schools. The average size of an adult Emerald Shiner is 2.5-3.5 centimeters (cm). Emerald Shiners feed primarily on zooplankton and small aquatic insects in the water column, but occasionally consume algae and terrestrial insects (Black Canyon 2020). Due to their relative abundance and schooling nature, they can be an important forage species for a variety of predatory fish and birds (UKY 2021). Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Fathead Minnow are native to the Platte River Basin (Black Canyon 2020). They are commonly found in small rivers, ponds, muddy pools of headwaters, and creek, and appear to tolerate habitat conditions that exclude many other freshwater fishes, such as high turbidity and temperature, variable pH and salinity, and low oxygen (ADW 2021e). Residing in such environments is likely to decrease their risk of predation as many predatory fish are intolerant of such conditions. In the Rocky Mountain region, Fathead Minnow are most commonly found in small turbid creeks and shallow ponds of flatlands (MTNHP and MTFWP 2021c) Fathead Minnows are opportunistic omnivorous and benthic filter feeders (ADW 2021e). Their diet primarily consists of algae and protozoans, but may also include diatoms, filamentous algae, small crustaceans, and insect larvae. They are commonly preyed upon by piscivorous fish, including Walleye. Spawning occurs between May and August (ADW 2021e). Females can spawn multiple times and may produce between 1,000-10,000 offspring per season. Males prepare nests on the underside of horizontal objects, such as rocks, wood, or vegetation. Buoyant, adhesive eggs are deposited on a single layer on the ceiling of the nest site. Males are left to tend to the nest but may be consumed by other females wanting to spawn. Egg incubation lasts for 4 to 5 days at 25 °C (ADW 2021e). Larvae absorb the yolk sac within one or two days, after which larvae become active feeders. Proto-larvae range in length from 4.0 to 5.2 mm. Reproductive maturity is reached within 4 to 5 months after hatching in optimal conditions (i.e., water temperature of 25 °C and photoperiod of 16 hours of light). Adult Fathead Minnows range in length from 5 to 8 cm. On average, Fathead Minnows live two to three years and may be limited by high levels of post-spawning mortality. Iowa Darter (Etheostoma exile) Iowa Darters are native to the Plate River Basin, with a geographic range extending from central Canada south to New York and west to Nebraska and Colorado (Woodling 1985). The distribution of Iowa Darter has been reduced due to impacts of habitat reduction through dewatering, channelization, or wetland drainage, as well as increasing turbidity and pollution (Woodling 1985, Black Canyon 2020). Populations have also been impacted by non-native species introductions (Black Canyon 2020). Little is known about the biology of the Iowa Darter in the Rocky Mountain Region (Woodling 1985). Similar to other darters, they are a predaceous species, consuming aquatic invertebrates. Spawning occurs from late April through June (MTNHP and MTFWP 2021d). Males establish and guard territories at stream margins or near a lake shore. Females are generally reproductive after their first Appendix B-5

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

year and range in length from 34-47 mm standard length. Eggs are deposited in small clusters on organic debris and fibrous mud banks. The egg incubation period ranges between 9 and 26 days, during which they receive no parental care. Iowa Darter preferred habitat includes cool, slow-moving vegetated waters with little to no turbidity and sand, gravel, or organic matter substrates (MTNHP and MTFWP 2021d). Some populations are found in lakes, over mats of rooted aquatic plants, or in streams with vegetation along the stream bank extending into the water. Local breeding migrations (i.e., several hundred meters) have been observed; they are found near lake shores and streams during breeding season and outside of breeding move to deeper waters in lakes or stream pools. Johnny Darter (Etheostoma nigrum) Johnny Darters are found from Wyoming, Colorado, and the Dakotas eat to the Atlantic seaboard, although the populations in the Rocky Mountains of Wyoming and Colorado are disjunct from other populations (ADW 2021f). They are found in shallow water (typically less than 0.5 m) in small to medium sized rivers, creeks, streams, and headwaters with sandy, muddy, or rocky substrates. They are also found along the sandy shores of lakes or large rivers. Considered pioneer species, Johnny Darters are often quick to become established in disturbed habitats. Johnny Darter diet consists of small insect larvae and crustaceans, both as juveniles and adults. Spawning occurs when water temperatures range between 11.7 and 21.1 °C, typically in April and May, but can occur through July (ADW 2021f). The egg incubation is also temperature dependent, lasting between 10 and 16 days. Larvae are 5 mm long at hatching and generally grow to between 29 and 54 mm by September. Johnny Darter become reproductively mature within their first year after hatching and can live up to 3 years. Males migrate into spawning areas before females to establish small nesting territories in shallow, protected waters (ADW 2021f). Spawning typically occurs on the underside of a stationary object such a rock, log, or trash. Females lay between 30 and 200 eggs at each spawning event, which can occur multiple times per season with different males. Lake Chub (Couesius plumbeus) Lake Chub prefer cool, shallow waters and are native to the Platte River Basin (ADW 2021g). They are often found in a variety of environments including both streams and lakes of all sizes, although they more commonly inhabit lakes in the southern portion of their range and rivers in the northern extent of their range. In lake habitat they are often located near shore over sandy substrates with occasional boulders. In streams they are commonly associated with depths of approximately 1 meter or less. Spawning occurs during the spring at lower latitudes and later in the summer at higher latitudes (ADW 2021g). Spawning can occur in a wide range of habitats and substrates, including river shallows, rocky shores, in lake shoals, and on silt, leaves, gravel, or rocks; however, Lake Chub most frequently spawn in creeks and streams, or along lakes shores. River-spawning individuals do not intermingle with lake-breeding chub. Females produce between 800-2400 demersal, nonadhesive eggs. Egg incubation lasts approximately 8-10 days. Newly hatched larvae range in length from 5.8 to 6.4 mm. Lake Chub generally reach maturation at age 3 and few live beyond 4 years.

Appendix B-6

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Juvenile Lake Chub consume small aquatic crustaceans, as do adults, who also consume insects, snails, and fish eggs (ADW 2021g). They are preyed upon by birds as well as fish, including Lake Trout and Walleye. In the Rocky Mountain region, Lake Chub are primarily found in shallow waters of lower elevation creek habitats and some mountain lakes and are rarely found in larger streams (MTNHP and MTFWP 2021e). Spawning occurs mid-May through md-June when water temperatures reach 10°C. Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) The native range of Lake Trout include cold water regions of northern Canada, Alaska, the Great Lakes, and parts of New England (ADW 2021h). They have been widely introduced outside their native range, especially into the western United States. They require relatively high concentrations of dissolved oxygen, yet Lake Trout are the only major native sport fish adapted to deep, cold water in oligotrophic lakes. At the southern end of their range, Lake Trout require deep water refugia with the required temperature and oxygen levels. Lake Trout may also inhabit large river systems with the necessary habitat requirements. Lake Trout are a slow-growing, long-lived species. Reproductive maturity is generally not achieved until 6 or 8 years, and reproductive potential is relatively low (ADW 2021h). Spawning generally occurs at night during fall or early winter over cobble, rubble, or gravel substrates. Lake Trout are broadcast spawners and release gametes over areas that males have fanned clean of finer silts. Fertilized eggs overwinter for 4-6 months before hatching due to the cold-water habitats. Larvae remain in the spawning substrate until the yolk-sac is fully absorbed, after which “fingerlings” move into deeper waters to prey on zooplankton (ADW 2021h). Juveniles also consume small invertebrates and as individuals mature, their foraging patterns shift to those of opportunistic piscivores. In the Rocky Mountain region, Lake Trout typically inhabit deep, cold lakes and reservoirs, usually with some rocky bottom and an abundance of forage fish (MTNHP and MTFWP 2021f). In these lakes, spawning occurs over rocky shoal areas from depths of 10 to 120 feet. Spawning occurs from September through December and eggs hatch the following March or April when water temperatures reach 1.1-3.3 °C. Fry move to deeper water shortly after their emergence. Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) Longnose Dace have the widest geographic distribution of any member of the Cyprinidae family, spanning much of North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific Coasts, and from northern Mexico to the Arctic Circle (ADW 2021i). They are native to the Platte River Basin. Habitat utilization is typically based on local conditions and habitat availability, as well as the presence or absence of competing species driving niche patterns. Generally, they are found over rocky or gravel substrates in fastflowing, cold water such a stream riffles or turbulent surge zones less than 10 m deep where river outflow mixes with lake water. Juveniles are found in shallow pools for the first four months after hatching. Longnose Dace reach reproductive maturity after 1 or 2 years and mature adults are approximately 75 mm TL (ADW 2021i). Adults typically only spawn in one year, but females are capable of spawning over 6 times per breeding season with multiple males. Spawning is latitude and Appendix B-7

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

temperature dependent and typically occurs from May to August with peaks in late June and early July. In both lake and stream-dwelling populations, spawning occurs in shallow riffle areas over gravel where males construct small nests in pebbles in which eggs are deposited. Total potential fecundity ranges from 870 to 9,953 eggs depending on habitat types. Egg incubation last 3-4 days following fertilization with newly hatched larvae having an average length of 5.9 mm. After 7-10 days the fry detach from the gravel and become pelagic. Longnose Dace are primarily nocturnal feeders to avoid predation and they have dark-adapted vision for night foraging (ADW 2021i). They use benthic-rooting behavior to locate prey by olfaction. Small juveniles consume primarily algae and diatoms until they are large enough to feed on bottomdwelling insects. Some larger adults also consume terrestrial insects and fish eggs of other Cyprinids. Potential predators include birds and predatory stream fishes including many species of salmonid. Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus) There are number of native suckers (family Catostomidae) present in the Platte River Basin, including Longnose Sucker (WGFD 2017b; Black Canyon 2020). Longnose Suckers are found in cold, clear streams as well as lakes (MTNHP and MTFWP 2020; Black Canyon 2020). Common in lakes and both large- and small-order streams, Longnose Suckers typically dwell in the benthic zone at an average depth of 10 m and water temperatures ranging between 0-15 °C. Longnose Suckers reach reproductive maturity in four to five years (ADW 2021j). Adults swim to small tributaries, shallow streams, or lakes with gravel substrates, starting mid-April to spawn en masse. Spawning can occur multiple times throughout their lifespan but only once per breeding season, which lasts through mid-June. The average female can produce between 16,000 and 60,000 eggs. Spawning typically occurs during daylight hours from April to early July when water temperatures reach 12.2 to 15 °C (MTNHP and MTFWP 2020; Black Canyon). Eggs hatch in 7-14 days depending on water temperatures. After hatching, sac fry remain in the gravel for 1-2 weeks until they are able to move freely and feed. Sac fry average length is 4.2 cm, and they will grow 9.1 cm within the first year Individuals that have outmigrated from a lake typically return several days after spawning (ADW 2021j). River-resident Longnose Suckers may remain on or near the spawning area for the duration of the summer. By October, all adults leave the spawning area and move downstream or to lakes to over-winter. Longnose suckers exhibit schooling behavior during breeding season to avoid predation. Outside of breeding season, Longnose Suckers are solitary. Juveniles feed primarily on zooplankton for the first year before switching to an omnivorous diet (ADW 2021j). Adults consume benthic algae, mollusks, and aquatic invertebrates. Predators include larger predatory fish (i.e., Largemouth Bass, Walleye, Brook Trout, Northern Pike, Muskellunge, Burbot and Sea Lamprey), eagles, osprey, heron, loons, river otters, and bears. Longnose Suckers are sometimes also eaten by White Suckers. Longnose Suckers are a low-value gamefish and of minor value in commercial fisheries (ADW 2021j). Their conservation status is of “least concern” with poor water quality being a consistent threat across their range.

Appendix B-8

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Rainbow Trout populations are found in small, fast flowing streams, small to large rivers, and cool lakes. In riverine settings, they prefer relative complex habitat with an array of riffles and pools, submerged wood, boulders, undercut banks, and aquatic vegetation. Rainbow trout are not native but were introduced to the Platte River Basin in the late 1800s and in the 1900s (WGFD 2010). Seminoe Reservoir has been managed as a trout fishery for decades, and Rainbow Trout are stocked by WGFD annually (Black Canyon 2020). Rainbow Trout typically become reproductively mature at two to three years of age and spawn when water temperatures exceed 5.6 to 6.7 °C (Behnke 2010; MTNHP and MTFWP 2020). They move into tributary streams from lakes and/or upstream or into tributaries of large rivers for spawning. Rainbow Trout spawn from April to July, depending on water temperature (Black Canyon 2020). Eggs are laid in depressions (redds) dug in spawning gravel by females. Egg incubation lasts 30 to 100 days depending on the location temperature (Bernstein and Montgomery 2008). Hatchlings typically remain in the gravel for 2-4 weeks depending on temperature and rely on their yolk sac for nutrition. Fry absorb their yolk sac at a length of 35 to 40 mm, 3 to 4 months after hatching. Fry emerge from the gravel and feed primarily on small invertebrates in still or low velocity waters near shore where they establish and defend territories. Once fry move from natal gravel to rearing areas, they tend to exhibit three distinct movement patterns: downstream movement to a larger river, lake or to the ocean; upstream movement from an outlet river to a lake; local dispersal from natal spawning grounds to rearing areas (Raleigh et al. 1984, Bernstein and Montgomery 2008). The size of juvenile Rainbow Trout varies depending on local conditions; juveniles in the Rocky Mountain region generally range in length from 4-20 cm. Rainbow Trout are considered adults when they reach sexual maturity at age 2 or 3 or when they attain length of approximately 20 cm. Rainbow Trout are opportunistic feeders. Fry feed on small insects and aquatic invertebrates while juveniles and adults consume a wide assortment of terrestrial and aquatic insects, other aquatic invertebrates, small fish and eggs, detritus, and algae (Bernstein and Montgomery 2008). Rainbow Trout are visual and particulate feeders and feeding activity primarily occurs during daylight or crepuscular periods. Devine Tarbell & Associates (2004) summarized entrainment risk for Rainbow and Brown Trout at 7 facilities with deep-water intakes located in California. Adult trout generally prefer the headwater portions of reservoirs, and YOY and juvenile trout prefer near-shore habitat. Adult trout were more common in the upper water column where food availability was the greatest. The preferred habitats (away from the intakes) for each life stage serve to minimize entrainment risk. The surface-oriented distribution of adult Cutthroat and Rainbow Trout along with preference for the head waters was also considered to be an important factor in minimization of entrainment risk at Spada Lake, Washington (Stable and Thomas 1992, CH2MHILL 2007, Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2008). Food availability was a major influencing factor regarding habitat preference for all life stages. Predation avoidance was also important with respect to juvenile life stage associations with shoreline, littoral habitat. Sand Shiner (Notropis stramineus) The Sand Shiner is native to the Platte River Basin although inadvertent introductions have expanded their range throughout the Rocky Mountain Region (Woodling 1985, Black Canyon 2020). Appendix B-9

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Sand Shiners are associated with large and small streams with clear water, rapid currents, and sand or gravel bottoms, as well as the shallows of lakes (MTNHP and MTFWP 2020; Black Canyon 2020). Schools of Sand Shiners are often observed in riffles, downstream of submerged sand bars, and in sandy backwaters (Woodling 1985). Occasionally, Sand Shiners are encountered in waters downstream of domestic sewage treatment facilities, demonstrating a tolerance for nutrient enrichment. Food resources of the Sand Shiner mainly consist of small aquatic insects and crustaceans taken from the substrate (Woodling 19865, Black Canyon 2020). Limited information is available on the reproductive biology of Sand Shiners in the Rocky Mountain region, but elsewhere they have been observed forming large schools in shallow water during spawning season (May through August), and returning to deeper pools in the fall (Texas State University [TSU] 2021). Sand Shiners are broadcast spawners that lay demersal, adhesive eggs. Fecundity varies from 150-1,000 eggs per female per year. Sand Shiners become reproductively mature at one to two years old, and few individuals live past 3 years (Woodling 1985, Black Canyon 2020). The average length of adult Sand Shiner is 8.1 cm (USGS 2019). Snake River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii behnkei) The Snake River Cutthroat Trout is a subspecies of Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) native to the headwaters of the Upper Snake River and connected waterways below Jackson Lake Dam and Palisades Reservoir in Wyoming, although they have become established elsewhere (NatureServe 2021b). Snake River Cutthroat Trout is considered a critical imperiled subspecies, with populations though to have declined by 80 percent from their historic occurrences. This is largely attributable to a decrease in suitable spawning habitat within their native range, which have been altered by erosion, siltation, and irrigation diversions related to agricultural practices. Populations have also declined as a result of parasites and overfishing. Limited information is available on the reproductive biology of Snake River Cutthroat Trout, but their spawning behavior is similar to that of other subspecies of Cutthroat Trout found in the Rocky Mountain region, from which they are often indistinguishable. Spawning takes place April through July (NatureServe 2021b). Snake River Cutthroat Trout are known to hybridize with Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout (O. clarkii bouvieri) and Rainbow Trout (O. mykiss). Fingerlings may move to the main river by January or February. Diet primarily includes insects, although larger individuals also consume small fishes such as sculpins and crayfish. Snake River Cutthroat Trout inhabit deep and shallow waters of lakes, riffles and pools of creeks, springs, and medium-sized rivers (NatureServe 2021b). Populations can be resident, fluvial, and adfluvial (MTNHP and MTFWP 2021g). Resident fish occupy their home ranges entirely within relatively short reaches of streams while fluvial populations migrate as adults from larger streams or river to smaller streams to spawn. Adfluvial populations also migrate between spawning and nonspawning habitat, but migrations can range from 40-100 km from lakes to inlet or outlet streams. Movement of Cutthroat Trout may also be associated with temporal habitat changes. At low water temperatures in winter, fry and juvenile move to stream bottoms during the day and emerge at night. Larger individuals may also shift habitats from fall to winter as water temperatures decline and ice shelves develop.

Appendix B-10

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Walleye (Sander vitreus) The natural range of Walley extends from the Mackenzie and Peace rivers of Canada south to Alabama, and from the Dakotas and Texas east to the Appalachians (Bozek et al. 2011b, in MCFRU 2016). Walleye are not native to the Seminoe Reservoir but were inadvertently introduced and established in the 1960s after introductions by WGFD to several downstream reservoirs (Marwitz and Hubert 1997, Black Canyon 2020). Walleye can occur in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, but are generally most abundant in moderate to large lakes or river systems characterize by cool temperatures, shallow to moderate depths, extensive littoral areas, moderate turbidities, extensive areas of clean, rocky substrates, and mesotrophic conditions (MCFRU 2016). Walleyes may also be found in oligotrophic, clear-water lakes (usually dominated by salmonids) if the lakes are sufficiently large and deep and have extensive littoral areas. Walleye are considered a cool water species and tolerate temperatures from -17.8 to 30 °C. Dissolved oxygen concentrations above 5 to 6 ppm are optimal for egg incubation. Walleyes are migratory as adults, with migrations ranging to over 150 miles. In spring, sexually mature adults move from their over-wintering areas to their spawning areas. Walleye have a variety of spawning strategies including river resident-river spawning, lake resident-lake spawning, and lake resident-river spawning (Bozek et al. 2011a in MCFRU 2016). The spawning areas may be located along rocky shores, reefs, and shoals of the lake in which Walleyes reside, or they may be found in upstream main-stem and tributary rivers. Following spawning, Walleyes move to their feeding grounds, which are generally located in moderately shallow, littoral portions of lakes (MCFRU 2016). Walleye reach reproductive maturity in two to four years and move upstream or to suitable rocky areas in lakes for spawning (MTNHP and MTFWP 2020). Spawning takes place in April to early May when water temperatures reach 4.4 to 10 °C. Walleyes can spawn in rivers, lakes, or reservoirs, and spawning usually occurs in relatively shallow (less than 3 feet) water (MCFRU 2016). Spawning habitats used by Walleyes are shallow shoreline areas, shoals, reefs, riffles, and dam faces with rock substrate and good water circulation from wave action or currents. Preferred spawning substrate appears to consist of gravel and rubble. Walleyes have high fecundity, ranging from about 18,000 eggs per pound of female body weight in northern latitudes to 36,000 eggs per pound of female body weight in middle latitudes (MCFRU 2016). Walleyes are broadcast spawners and the eggs are adhesive. Egg survival is dependent on adequate oxygen concentration (above 5 to 6 parts per million) and varies with spawning substrate. Incubation periods ranging from 10 to 27 days. Walleyes have no direct parental care, and first-year survival is low, generally less than 1% (Bozek et al. 2011a in MCFRU 2016). Walleye YOY begin to develop adult coloration when they reach a length of about 1.4 inches. The optimum temperature for growth of juvenile Walleyes is 21.7 to 22.2 °C. The prey of Walleyes changes with life stage and season. Larval Walleyes begin to feed before yolk sac absorption is complete (Engel et al. 2000), which occurs at about 0.35 inches in length. Walleye fry are pelagic (inhabit open water) and feed on plankton from shortly after hatching until they reach a length of about 0.4 to 0.8 inches (Chipps and Graeb 2011), at which time they move inshore and begin to feed on benthic (inhabiting the bottom) aquatic invertebrates. Juvenile Walleyes typically begin to eat fish when they reach lengths of 2.0 to 3.2 inches in length (Chipps and Graeb 2011). Walleyes continue to feed primarily on fish as juveniles. Appendix B-11

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Adult Walleyes are largely piscivorous, feeding on a wide variety of prey fishes (Scott and Crossman 1973, Chipps and Graeb 2011, MCFRU 2016). However, Walleyes will consume invertebrates when the abundance of prey fish is low (Chipps and Graeb 2011). They feed heavily on small fish and had caused impacts to the managed trout fishery after establishing in Seminoe Reservoir (Marwitz and Hubert 1997). In the Rocky Mountain region, Walleye commonly inhabit larger lakes and reservoirs, and, to a lesser extent, riverine habitat (MTNHP and MTFWP 2021h). Spawning occurs when water temperatures are between 4.4 and 10 °C in April and May, occurring over gravelly riffles and rocky areas in shallow waters. Generally, there is some spawning migration to upstream habitats, tributary streams, or to suitable rocky areas in lakes. White Sucker (Catostomus commersonii) There are number of native suckers (family Catostomidae) present in the Platte River Basin, including White Sucker (WGFD 2017b, Black Canyon 2020). White Suckers are highly ubiquitous with a range stretching over 2.5 million square kilometers over 40 states and Canada (ADW 2021k). White Suckers are habitat generalists as they are highly tolerant of polluted, murky, and anoxic waters, as well as a wide array of stream gradients. They can be found in streams, river, and lakes, and reach high abundances in reservoirs (ADW 2021k, Black Canyon 2020). Reproductive maturity is generally reached by 2 years old (ADW 2021k). Adults migrate upstream to spawning habitat that consists of quick running water and gravely substrate. Females will spawn with two males, and then continue upstream to find another pair of males with which to breed. A single female can produce between 20,000-50,000 eggs, which are adhesive and sink of the bottom of the spawning area. Spawning and upstream breeding runs last for six weeks in the spring or early summer (April to early May) in more northern regions. Spawning usually occurs at night. Eggs are between 2-3 mm in diameter and incubation lasts between 5 and 7 days (ADW 2021k). After hatching, larvae between 21 and 25 mm in length remain in the area for up to two weeks, after which fry begin to migrate downstream about a month after when spawning occurred. White Suckers under 51 mm in length tend to feed in shallow water approximately 15-20 cm deep and along lake shores. Juvenile suckers under 1 year form large schools consisting of several hundred fish. Adult and juvenile White Suckers are more active at night, although foraging occurs night and day (ADW 2021k). Movements are generally well coordinated, moving inshore during the evening and offshore by morning. Fry passively feed on Protozoa, diatoms, small crustaceans, and midge larvae carried to them by water currents. As they mature and their mouthparts move to their understand, White Suckers become benthic foragers, feeding on aquatic invertebrates, fish, fish eggs, mollusks, insects, rotifers, insect larvae, and algae. Small White Suckers (less than 203 mm) and eggs are an important food source for predatory fish including Brook Trout and Walleye, as well as eagles, herons, loons, osprey, and bears.

Appendix B-12

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

References Animal Diversity Web (ADW). 2021a. Culaea inconstans, Brook Stickleback. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]:https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Culaea_inconstans/. ________. 2021b. Salvelinus fontinalis, Aurora Trout. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Salvelinus_fontinalis/. ________. 2021c. Salmo trutta, Brown Trout. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Salmo_trutta/. ________. 2021d. Cyprinus carpio. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Cyprinus_carpio/. ________. 2021e. Pimephales promelas, Black-head Minnow. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Pimephales_promelas/. ________. 2021f. Etheostoma nigrum, Johnny Darter. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Etheostoma_nigrum/. ________. 2021g. Couesius plumbeus, Chub Minnow. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Couesius_plumbeus/. ________. 2021h. Salvelinus namaycush, Lake Trout. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Salvelinus_namaycush/. ________. 2021i. Rhinichthys cataractae, Great Lace Longnose Dace. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Rhinichthys_cataractae/. ________. 2021j. Catostomus. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Catostomus_catostomus/. ________. 2021k. Catostomus commersonii, Black Mullet. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Catostomus_commersonii/. Behnke, R. 2010. Trout and Salmon of North America. The Free Press, New York, NY. 384 pp. Belica, L. 2007. Brown Trout (Salmo trutta): A Technical Conservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project. Laramie, WY. Bernstein, Y. and W.L. Montgomery. 2008. Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; Walbaum, 1792): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/rainbowtrout.pdf.

Appendix B-13

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC. (Black Canyon). 2020. Pre-Application Document Seminoe Pumped Storage Project, FERC Project No. 14787. Bozek, M. A., D. A. Baccante, and N. P. Lester. 2011a. Walleye and Sauger life history. Pages 233– 301 in B. A. Barton, editor. Biology, Management, and Culture of Walleye and Sauger. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Bozek, M. A., T. J. Haxton, and J. K. Raabe. 2011b. Walleye and Sauger habitat. Pages 133–198 in B. A. Barton, editor. Biology, management, and culture of Walleye and Sauger. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Chipps, S. R., and D. S. Graeb. 2011. Feeding ecology and energetics. Pages 303–319 in B. A. Barton, editor. Biology, management, and culture of Walleye and Sauger. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. CH2MHILL. 2007. Potential for Resident Trout Entrainment in Spada lake, Washington, Phase I. Henry M. Jackson Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2157). Prepared for Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County and City of Everett, WA. CH2MHill. Belevue, WA. Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. 2004. Deepwater Entrainment Technical Report. Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Sacramento, CA. Engel, S. Hoff, M.H., Newman, S.P., 2000. Walleye Fry Hatching, Diet, Growth, and Abundance in Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin, 1985-1992. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Research Report 184, Madison. Ficke, A.D., D.P. Peterson, and W.A. Janowsky. 2009. Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis): A Technical Conservation Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/brooktrout.pdf [date of access]. Marwitz, T.D. and W.A. Hubert. 1997. Trends in Relative Weight of Walleye Stocks in Wyoming Reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 44-53. McCulloch, B.R. 2003. Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Bigmouth Shiner Notropis dorsalis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-20 pp. Meridian Environmental, Inc. 2008. Revised Entrainment Study Plan 16 Spada Lake Trout Production Phase 2 Field Studies Technical Report. Prepared for Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Everett, WA. Meridian Environmental, Inc. Seattle, WA and Shuksan Fisheries Consulting, LLC. Everson, WA. Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit (MCFRU). 2016. Ecology and Management of Montana Walleye Fisheries. Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP). 2020. Montana Field Guides. Accessed 10/08/2021. [URL]: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/displayOrders.aspx?class=Actinopterygii.

Appendix B-14

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Montana Natural Heritage Program (MTNHP) and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP). 2020. Montana Field Guides. Accessed February 25, 2020. [Online] URL: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/displayOrders.aspx?class=Actinopterygii. ________. 2021a. Common Carp – Cyprinus carpio. Montana Field Guides. Accessed 10/19/2021. [URL]: https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCJB08010. ________. 2021b. Emerald Shiner – Notropis atherinoides. Montana Field Guides. Accessed 10/20/2021. [URL]: https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCJB28120 ________. 2021c. Fathead Minnow – Pimephales promelas. Montana Field Guides. Accessed 10/19/2021. [URL]: https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCJB32020. ________. 2021d. Iowa Darter – Etheostoma exile. Montana Field Guides. Accessed 10/19/2021. [URL]: https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCQC02240 ________. 2021e. Lake Chub – Couesius plumbeus. Montana Field Guides. Accessed 10/19/2021. [URL]: https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCJB06010. ________. 2021f. Lake Trout – Salvelinus namaycush. Montana Field Guides. Accessed 10/19/2021. [URL]: https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=afcha05050. ________. 2021g. Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout – Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri. Montana Field Guides. Accessed 10/19/2021. [URL]: https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCHA02087 ________. 2021h. Walleye – Sander vitreus. Montana Field Guides. Accessed 10/19/2021. [URL]: https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=AFCQC05020. National Park Service (NPS). 2020. Brown Trout. Accessed 10/12/2021. [URL]: https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/brown-trout.htm. NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe). 2021a. Notropis dorsalis, Bigmouth Shiner. Accessed 10/19/2021. [URL]: https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.104308/Notropis_dorsalis. ________. 2021b. Oncorhynchus clarkia behnkei, Snake River Fine-Spotted Cutthroat Trout. Accessed 10/12/201. [URL]: https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.100675/Oncorhynchus_cl arkii_behnkei. Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Solomon, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: rainbow trout. USFWS-BSP, Fort Collins, CO. Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 184. Stable T.B. and G. L. Thomas. (1992). Acoustic Measurements of Trout Distributions in Spada Lake, Washington, Using Stationary Transducers. Journal of Fish Biology 40: 191-203. Stewart, D.B., Reist, J.D., Carmichael, T.J., Sawatzky, C.D., and N.J. Mochnacz. 2007. Fish life history and habitat use in the Northwest Territories: brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans). Can. Manuscript. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2799: vi + 30 p.

Appendix B-15

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Texas State University (TSU). 2021. Notropis stramineus, Sand Shiner. Fishes of Texas. Accessed 10/20/2021. [URL]: http://txstate.fishesoftexas.org/notropis%20stramineus.htm. University of Kentucky (UKY). 2021. Emerald Shiner. Office for Environmental Programs Outreach Services. Accessed 10/12/2021. [URL]: https://oepos.ca.uky.edu/content/emerald-shiner. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2019. Notropis stramineus (Sand Shiner). Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database. U.S. Department of the Interior. Accessed 10/12/2021. [URL]: https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=600. Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado’s Little Fish, A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known Fishes in the State of Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Department of Natural Resources. Denver, CO. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2010. State Wildlife Action Plan. Cheyenne, WY. ________. 2017a. Bigmouth Shiner – Notropis dorsalis. State Wildlife Action Plan. Cheyenne, WY. ________. 2017b. Platte River Basin State Wildlife Action Plan. Cheyenne, WY.

Appendix B-16

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix C. Monthly Mean Entrainment Rates (Average Number of Fish/Hour of Unit Capacity) by Length Class for Target Species at Maximum Turbine Discharge

Appendix C

Target Species Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Bigmouth Jun Shiner (Sand Jul Shiner Aug Surrogate) Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Brook Jul Stickleback Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Brook Trout Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average

Mean Monthly Entrainment Rates (No. fish/hr), by Size Class at Maximum Turbine Discharge (12,000 cfs) 0-2" 2.1-4" 4.1-6" 6.1-8" 8.1-10" 10.1-15" 15.1-20" 20.1-25" 25.1-30" >30" Sum 0.000 1.110 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.110 0.240 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.656 0.520 1.317 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.837 0.021 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.317 1.228 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.546 0.661 0.436 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.097 0.013 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.038 0.147 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.184 0.000 0.219 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.219 0.109 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.145 0.181 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.268 0.000 0.352 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.352 0.175 0.460 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.635 0.516 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.516 0.164 0.486 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.650 1.243 3.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.258 15.039 3.852 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.891 4.709 1.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.548 0.548 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.829 6.918 0.350 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.268 0.492 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.578 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.667 1.090 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.756 0.178 0.619 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.797 0.444 0.264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.709 8.221 1.827 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.048 3.299 1.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.442 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.589 2.932 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.521 0.000 0.000 0.196 0.000 2.478 0.000 2.478 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.153 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.718 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.718 0.000 0.006 0.068 1.360 1.016 0.436 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.886 0.008 0.000 0.532 0.186 0.053 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.783 0.005 0.939 0.000 0.016 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.983 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.868 0.324 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.192 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.998 0.879 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.895 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.504 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.504 0.001 0.079 0.066 1.804 1.094 0.065 0.207 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.316

Appendix C-1

Appendix C

Target Species Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Brown Trout Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Common Carp Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Emerald Shiner Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average

Mean Monthly Entrainment Rates (No. fish/hr), by Size Class at Maximum Turbine Discharge (12,000 cfs) 0-2" 2.1-4" 4.1-6" 6.1-8" 8.1-10" 10.1-15" 15.1-20" 20.1-25" 25.1-30" >30" Sum 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.179 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.179 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.153 0.000 0.769 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.922 0.000 0.006 0.089 0.578 0.115 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.847 0.006 0.009 0.103 0.271 0.227 0.043 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.665 0.009 0.000 0.009 0.078 0.000 0.022 0.009 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.199 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.285 0.127 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.437 0.000 0.667 0.039 0.043 0.008 0.031 0.014 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.808 0.000 0.354 0.000 0.000 0.998 0.794 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.147 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.185 0.256 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.474 0.001 0.090 0.044 0.120 0.134 0.246 0.002 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.643 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.144 0.000 0.000 1.144 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.094 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.162 0.000 0.071 0.133 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.292 0.000 0.223 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.077 0.119 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.419 0.842 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.894 0.187 0.306 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.286 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.779 0.011 0.325 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.413 0.000 0.096 0.077 0.041 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.236 0.070 0.058 0.073 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.235 0.000 0.141 0.072 0.023 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.092 0.110 0.038 0.008 0.004 0.006 0.038 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.403 1.684 3.797 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.481 1.748 0.672 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.503 4.489 5.985 0.381 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.856 2.308 11.178 0.197 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.683 1.617 5.738 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 7.474 0.235 10.511 0.267 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.013 0.013 4.649 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.734 2.173 14.704 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.878 3.116 4.931 0.572 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.618 7.044 9.747 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.829 8.745 11.318 0.229 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 20.292 0.050 1.763 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.813 2.768 7.083 0.163 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.014

Appendix C-2

Appendix C

Target Species Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Fathead Jul Minnow Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Iowa Darter Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Johnny Darter Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average

Mean Monthly Entrainment Rates (No. fish/hr), by Size Class at Maximum Turbine Discharge (12,000 cfs) 0-2" 2.1-4" 4.1-6" 6.1-8" 8.1-10" 10.1-15" 15.1-20" 20.1-25" 25.1-30" >30" Sum 0.000 0.586 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.586 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.297 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.297 0.120 6.269 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 6.389 0.355 15.033 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.499 0.890 1.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.929 1.703 0.792 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.495 2.173 14.704 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.878 3.116 4.931 0.572 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 8.618 0.108 0.355 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.463 0.055 4.297 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.359 0.000 0.751 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.751 0.710 4.755 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.522 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.153 0.546 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.699 0.146 0.609 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.755 0.000 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.109 0.000 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.065 0.000 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.000 1.396 1.396 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.793 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.232 0.116 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.373 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.919 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.919 0.173 0.276 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.449 0.258 1.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.380 2.159 2.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.258 2.056 0.222 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.278 1.276 0.303 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.579 0.344 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.471 0.125 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.139 0.984 0.663 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.647 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.031 0.402 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.433

Appendix C-3

Appendix C

Target Species Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Lake Chub Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Lake Trout Jun (Brook Trout Jul Surrogate) Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Longnose Dace Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average

Mean Monthly Entrainment Rates (No. fish/hr), by Size Class at Maximum Turbine Discharge (12,000 cfs) 0-2" 2.1-4" 4.1-6" 6.1-8" 8.1-10" 10.1-15" 15.1-20" 20.1-25" 25.1-30" >30" Sum 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.116 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.116 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.589 2.932 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.521 0.000 0.000 0.196 0.000 2.478 0.000 2.478 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.153 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.718 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.718 0.000 0.006 0.068 1.360 1.016 0.436 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.886 0.008 0.000 0.532 0.186 0.053 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.783 0.005 0.939 0.000 0.016 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.983 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.868 0.324 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.192 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.998 0.879 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.895 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.504 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.504 0.001 0.079 0.066 1.804 1.094 0.065 0.207 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.316 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.164 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.164 0.000 0.769 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.769 0.000 2.621 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.642 0.022 1.361 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.432 0.003 3.010 0.060 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.088 0.397 0.924 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.368 0.016 0.409 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.425 0.132 0.953 0.131 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.216 0.123 0.351 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.474 0.207 0.309 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.601 0.191 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.191 0.091 0.906 0.033 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.103

Appendix C-4

Appendix C

Target Species Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Longnose Jul Sucker Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Rainbow Trout Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Sand Shiner Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average

Mean Monthly Entrainment Rates (No. fish/hr), by Size Class at Maximum Turbine Discharge (12,000 cfs) 0-2" 2.1-4" 4.1-6" 6.1-8" 8.1-10" 10.1-15" 15.1-20" 20.1-25" 25.1-30" >30" Sum 0.000 0.000 0.345 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.345 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.210 1.194 1.264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.731 0.000 0.135 0.355 0.048 0.153 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.691 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.854 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.854 0.000 0.000 0.247 0.259 0.259 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.888 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.505 0.291 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.893 0.000 0.047 0.282 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.427 0.225 0.000 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.440 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.191 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.191 0.019 0.015 0.126 0.180 0.158 0.124 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.622 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.742 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.742 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.280 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.407 0.000 0.034 0.016 0.153 0.025 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.275 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.148 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.719 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.719 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.273 0.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.372 0.000 0.031 0.001 0.215 0.077 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.355 0.000 1.110 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.110 0.240 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.656 0.520 1.317 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.837 0.021 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.317 1.228 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.546 0.661 0.436 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.097 0.013 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.099 0.038 0.147 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.184 0.000 0.219 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.219 0.109 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.145 0.181 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.268 0.000 0.352 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.352 0.175 0.460 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.635

Appendix C-5

Appendix C

Target Species Month Jan Feb Mar Apr Snake River May Jun Cutthroat Trout Jul (Rainbow Aug Trout) Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Walleye Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun White Sucker Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average

Mean Monthly Entrainment Rates (No. fish/hr), by Size Class at Maximum Turbine Discharge (12,000 cfs) 0-2" 2.1-4" 4.1-6" 6.1-8" 8.1-10" 10.1-15" 15.1-20" 20.1-25" 25.1-30" >30" Sum 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.742 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.742 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.280 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.407 0.000 0.034 0.016 0.153 0.025 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.275 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.148 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.719 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.719 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.414 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.273 0.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.372 0.000 0.031 0.001 0.215 0.077 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.355 0.231 0.055 0.161 0.231 2.314 0.889 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.880 0.000 0.219 0.598 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.926 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.146 0.000 0.012 0.210 0.229 0.316 0.611 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.434 0.003 0.051 0.390 1.525 0.799 1.482 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.296 9.507 3.218 0.104 0.845 0.611 0.984 0.067 0.004 0.000 0.000 15.340 1.793 17.598 1.350 0.317 0.331 0.841 0.341 0.008 0.003 0.000 22.581 0.040 1.165 2.345 0.323 0.357 0.499 0.026 0.007 0.000 0.000 4.763 0.023 0.597 1.645 0.659 0.278 0.254 0.089 0.051 0.000 0.000 3.595 0.000 0.098 0.886 1.508 0.707 0.736 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.967 0.000 0.119 0.179 0.259 0.102 0.227 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.969 0.000 0.033 0.364 0.185 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.582 0.966 1.930 0.690 0.516 0.484 0.552 0.062 0.006 0.000 0.000 5.207 0.264 3.704 4.805 3.085 2.190 1.947 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.995 0.094 2.391 6.194 4.957 0.535 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.200 0.284 1.397 5.020 4.256 0.313 0.273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.543 0.629 2.968 2.424 1.549 2.157 5.800 2.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.548 0.080 0.592 0.272 0.159 0.312 0.665 0.142 0.076 0.000 0.000 2.300 23.835 2.273 0.363 0.151 0.061 0.339 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.000 27.076 30.909 3.868 0.448 0.092 0.058 0.175 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.562 2.024 0.693 0.140 0.028 0.068 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.028 0.097 1.018 0.257 0.151 0.080 0.469 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.087 0.015 2.591 2.455 6.152 9.056 1.975 0.699 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.944 0.000 0.966 1.322 18.141 11.328 0.762 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.540 0.297 0.454 4.035 20.313 5.641 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 30.794 4.877 1.910 2.311 4.919 2.650 1.047 0.247 0.006 0.000 0.000 17.968

Appendix C-6

Fish Desktop Entrainment Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix D. USFWS Turbine Blade Strike Analysis Model Outputs by Size Class

Appendix D

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L2-S98

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 2.0 0.0

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

76 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 4924 of 5000 fish

1.5% 0.0% 98.5%

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L4-S97

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 4.0 0.0

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

174 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 4826 of 5000 fish

3.5% 0.0% 96.5%

Appendix D-1

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix D

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L6-S95

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 6.0 0.0

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

240 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 4760 of 5000 fish

4.8% 0.0% 95.2%

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L8-S93

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 8.0 0.0

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

326 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 4674 of 5000 fish

6.5% 0.0% 93.5%

Appendix D-2

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix D

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L10-S91

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 10.0 0.0

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

441 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 4559 of 5000 fish

8.8% 0.0% 91.2%

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L15-S87

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 15.0 0.0

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

631 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 4369 of 5000 fish

12.6% 0.0% 87.4%

Appendix D-3

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix D

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L20-S83

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 20.0 0.0

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

873 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 4127 of 5000 fish

17.5% 0.0% 82.5%

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L25-S79

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 25.0 0.0

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

1059 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 3941 of 5000 fish

21.2% 0.0% 78.8%

Appendix D-4

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Appendix D

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L30-S76

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 30.0 0.0

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

1225 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 3775 of 5000 fish

24.5% 0.0% 75.5%

ARCHIVED RUN .N5000-L40-S64

Seminoe Proposed PS

10/13/2021

900 MW single turbine

KESTLER

Release 201209

ROUTE SELECTION

TURBINE DATA D

Route Name 1 2 3

Route Selection Prob.

Prob. Lower Bound

Calc. Type

Route Type

Runner Dia. (ft)

Blades (#)

Runner Height (ft)

0.333 0.333 0.334

0.000 0.333 0.666

1 1 1

Francis Francis Francis

9.27 9.27 9.27

9 9 9

1.66 1.66 1.66

MODEL SIMULATION INPUT PARAMETERS

nf µ σ

5,000 40.0 0.0

Number of fish Mean length (inches) SD in length (inches)

QOPT/Q

BYPASS ω

Speed (rpm)

Swirl Coeff. (-)

300.0 300.0 300.0

1.10 1.10 1.10

Discharge Turbine at Opt. Net. Head Discharge Eff. (ft) (cfs) (%) 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0 4,000 87.4% 955.0

BLADE STRIKE SIMULATION RESULTS

Turbine Strikes: Bypass Failures: Passed:

1802 of 5000 fish 0 of 5000 fish 3198 of 5000 fish

36.0% 0.0% 64.0%

Appendix D-5

Correlatio Runner Runner Turbine n Coeff. ( - Dia. at Dia. at Eff. ( - ) ) Inlet (ft) Disch. (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20

9.3 9.3 9.3

16.4 16.4 16.4

0.91 0.91 0.91

PB Estimated Mortality ( - ) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix D Resident Fish Survey Study Report

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC FERC No. 14787 Carbon County, Wyoming

December 2022

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Contents 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2.1 Area 1 – The Canyon ................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Area 2 – “State Campgrounds/Sunshine Beach” ......................................................... 4 1.2.3 Area 3- “Sand Draw” .................................................................................................... 5 1.2.4 Area 4 – “Mini Tetons” .................................................................................................. 6 1.2.5 Area 5 – “Sand Mountain” ............................................................................................ 7

1.3

Study Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 7

1.4

Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 8

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1

Literature Review/Desktop Analysis and Coordination with the WGFD ................................... 8

2.2

Conduct Field Sampling to Document Fish Assemblage, Distribution, and Abundance .......... 9 2.2.1 Boat Electrofishing ....................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2 Gillnetting ................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Seine Netting .............................................................................................................. 10 2.2.4 Supporting Data ......................................................................................................... 10

2.3

Sample Processing ................................................................................................................. 11

2.4

In-situ Water Quality Sampling ................................................................................................ 11

2.5

Data Analysis and Reporting ................................................................................................... 11

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1

WGFD Fisheries Data Review ................................................................................................ 12

3.2

Field Sampling Overview......................................................................................................... 15

3.3

Sampling Conditions ............................................................................................................... 16 3.3.1 Seminoe Reservoir Water Surface Elevations ........................................................... 16 3.3.2 Seminoe Reservoir Weather Conditions During Sampling ........................................ 17 3.3.3 Seminoe Reservoir Water Quality Data ..................................................................... 18

3.4

Area 1 - “The Canyon” ............................................................................................................. 19

3.5

Area 2 - “State Campgrounds/Sunshine Beach” ..................................................................... 22

3.6

Area 3 - “Sand Draw” .............................................................................................................. 25

3.7

Area 4 - “Mini Tetons”.............................................................................................................. 27

3.8

Area 5 - “Sand Mountain” ........................................................................................................ 30

3.9

Indices Data ............................................................................................................................ 32 3.9.1 Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H’) ......................................................................... 32 3.9.2 Length Frequency Data .............................................................................................. 33 3.9.3 PSD Graphs ............................................................................................................... 41

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 46

Variances from the Study Plan .......................................................................................................... 48

References ........................................................................................................................................ 48

December 2022 | i

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Tables Table 1-1. Study Area Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Table 3-1. WGFD Seminoe Reservoir During All 2021 Sampling .............................................................. 13 Table 3-2. WGFD Seminoe Reservoir Gillnet Sampling – Spring 2021 ..................................................... 13 Table 3-3. WGFD Seminoe Reservoir Gillnet Sampling – Fall 2021 .......................................................... 13 Table 3-4. WGFD Seminoe Reservoir Fish Stocking Program 2010-2021 ................................................ 14 Table 3-5. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Resident Fish Survey Catch Data ..................................................... 15 Table 3-6. Fish Family Total Catches and Relative Abundance (RA%) for 2021 ....................................... 16 Table 3-7. 2016 Total Effort, Catch and CPUE by Season and Gear Types .............................................. 16 Table 3-8. Seminoe Reservoir Weather and Climate Conditions During Sampling. .................................. 17 Table 3-9. In-situ Water Quality Data Collected for the Fish Assemblage Assessment Study .................. 18 Table 3-10. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 1 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations ................................................................................................................... 19 Table 3-11. Fish Species Collected in Seminoe Reservoir Area 1 ............................................................. 20 Table 3-12. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 2 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations ................................................................................................................... 22 Table 3-13. Fish Species Collected in the Project Lower Reservoir ........................................................... 22 Table 3-14. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 3 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations ................................................................................................................... 25 Table 3-15. Fish Species Collected in the Project Lower Reservoir ........................................................... 25 Table 3-16. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 3 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations ................................................................................................................... 27 Table 3-17. Fish Species Collected in the Project Lower Reservoir ........................................................... 27 Table 3-18. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 3 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations ................................................................................................................... 30 Table 3-19. Fish Species Collected in the Project Lower Reservoir ........................................................... 30 Table 3-20. Diversity Calculation of Each Project Reach ........................................................................... 32

Figures Figure 1-1. Resident Fish Survey Study Area – Overview ........................................................................... 2 Figure 1-2. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 1 – “The Canyon” ................................................................. 3 Figure 1-3. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 2 – “State Campgrounds/Sunshine Beach” ......................... 4 Figure 1-4. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 3 – “Sand Draw” ................................................................... 5 Figure 1-5. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 4 – “Mini Tetons” .................................................................. 6 Figure 1-6. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 5 – “Sand Mountain” ............................................................. 7 Figure 3-1. Seminoe Reservoir Water Surface Elevations During Sample Collection ............................... 17 Figure 3-2. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 1 .................................................... 21 Figure 3-3. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 2 .................................................... 24 Figure 3-4. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 3 .................................................... 26 Figure 3-5. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 4 .................................................... 29 Figure 3-6. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 5 .................................................... 31 Figure 3-7. 2021 Brown Trout Length Frequency Histogram ..................................................................... 33 Figure 3-8. 2021 Cutthroat Trout Length Frequency Histogram ................................................................. 34 Figure 3-9. 2021 Rainbow Trout Length Frequency Histogram.................................................................. 35

December 2022 | ii

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-10. 2021 Walleye Trout Length Frequency Histogram ................................................................. 36 Figure 3-11. 2021 Carp Length Frequency Histogram ............................................................................... 37 Figure 3-12. 2021 Emerald Shiner Length Frequency Histogram .............................................................. 38 Figure 3-13. 2021 Johnny Darter Length Frequency Histogram ................................................................ 39 Figure 3-14. 2021 Longnose Sucker Length Frequency Histogram ........................................................... 40 Figure 3-15. 2021 White Sucker Length Frequency Histogram.................................................................. 41 Figure 3-16. PSD for Walleye in the Seminoe Reservoir Study Area ......................................................... 42 Figure 3-17. PSD for Brown Trout in the Seminoe Reservoir Study Area .................................................. 43 Figure 3-18. PSD for Rainbow Trout in the Seminoe Reservoir Study Area .............................................. 44 Figure 3-19. PSD for Cutthroat Trout in the Seminoe Reservoir Study Area ............................................. 45

Appendices Appendix A. Seminoe Reservoir Resident Fish Survey Study Plan Appendix B. Wyoming Fish Collection Permit Appendix C. WGFD 2010-2021 Seminoe Reservoir Fish Stocking Data

December 2022 | iii

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Abbreviations and Acronyms °F

degrees Fahrenheit

CPUE

catch per unit effort

dissolved oxygen

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GPP

gas-powered pulsator

GPS

global positioning system

length frequencies

millimeter

Project

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

PSD

proportional stock density

relative abundance

Reclamation

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

RTE

Rare, threatened, and endangered

USDOI

U.S. Department of the Interior

WGFD

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

YOY

young of year

December 2022 | iv

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Introduction

This Resident Fish Survey Study Report has been prepared for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC, (Black Canyon) a subsidiary of rPlus Hydro, LLP, in support of the licensing of the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No. 14787) (Project). A Resident Fish Survey Study (Fish Survey) for the Project was requested by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). This report describes the results of the Resident Fish Survey that was conducted in late spring/early summer and late summer/early fall of 2021.

1.1

Project Description

On April 20, 2020, Black Canyon submitted a Notice of Intent to file an Application for an Original License and the accompanying Pre-Application Document to FERC for a proposed pumped storage project at and near the existing Seminoe Reservoir, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, in Carbon County (Project). Figure 1-1 shows the general vicinity of the Project. The Project involves the construction of a new 972-megawatt pumped storage facility including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The proposed upper reservoir would consist of a surface area of 114 acres at normal maximum operating pool. The Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance would also include an underground powerhouse; a power tunnel between the upper reservoir and the powerhouse; a tailrace tunnel between the powerhouse and a new intake in the existing Seminoe Reservoir; a powerhouse access tunnel; a high-voltage transmission tunnel; and a switchyard and transmission line. The Project will connect to the electric grid at the existing Aeolus Substation.

1.2

Study Area

The study area was defined in the Resident Fish Survey Study Plan (Study Plan), which is included in Appendix A, as consisting of all waters within Seminoe Reservoir downstream of the intersection of ID Ridge and Horseshoe Ridge at approximately 42o05’15.25” N by 106o52’40.78” W. The study area was divided into five sub-areas for ease of sampling and data processing. Each area was given a numerical identifier (i.e., 1 through 5) but was also given an informal reference name based on identifiable features within or adjacent to the area during the survey. Table 1-1 provides a summary of the sampling area characteristics and Figure 1-1 shows the entire study area divided into the five subsections. A detailed description of each study subsection is provided below.

Table 1-1. Study Area Summary

Approximate Surface Area (acres)

Approximate Shoreline Length (miles)

42.134163, -106.883694

878

12.4

Sand Draw

42.118771, -106.860005

907

7.1

Mini Tetons

42.098204, -106.840693

1,110

9.6

Sand Mountain

42.09483, -106.857945

912

8.2

3,964

42.6

Sample Area

Sample Area Nickname

The Canyon

42.150438, -106.899217

State Campgrounds/ Sunshine Beach

Totals

Approximate Center Coordinates

157

5.3

December 2022 | 1

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1-1. Resident Fish Survey Study Area – Overview December 2022 | 2

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

1.2.1

Area 1 – The Canyon

Area 1 extends from the Seminoe Dam upstream to the downstream border with Area 2 at the inlet to “The Canyon” (42o08’36.10” N 106o52’59.01” W). Area 1 has a water surface area of approximately 157 acres with approximately 5.3 miles of shoreline at the normal maximum operation pool elevation of 6,357.0 feet. Water depths in Area 1 ranged from 0 feet at the shoreline up to 125 feet in the deepest part of the thalweg. The shoreline of Area 1 is dominated by steep bedrock cliffs with occasional large boulder and bedrock shard complexes which extend deep into the canyon waters making up the dominant visible substrate within the littoral zone. Areas of sand substrate and submerged aquatic vegetation are visually absent in Area 1. Shoreline slopes ranged from vertical to near vertical and occurred along approximately 90 percent of the shoreline within the Canyon. No tributaries were observed entering this area. A representative photo depicting Area 1 is provided in Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 1 – “The Canyon”

December 2022 | 3

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

1.2.2

Area 2 – “State Campgrounds/Sunshine Beach”

Area 2 extends from the upstream end of Area 1 (42o08’36.10” N 106o52’59.01” W) to the downstream border of Area 3 (42o07’23.12” N 106o52’46.70 W). Area 2 has a surface area of approximately 878 acres and an approximate 12.4-mile-long shoreline at maximum full elevation of approximately 6,357.0 feet. The shoreline of Area 2 is dominated by steep shores with occasional vertical cliffs on the eastern shore and areas of moderate to gentle slopes on the western shore. The eastern shore is much steeper than the western shore with sandstone, red sandstone, and bedrock cliffs and occasional large boulder and bedrock shard complexes. Areas of sand substrate and submerged aquatic vegetation were also visually absent in most of this area. Three intermittent unnamed tributaries were observed to enter the reservoir from the western shore and Red Creek Spring enters on the eastern shore of Area 2. Water depths ranged from 0 to 90 feet. A representative photo depicting Area 2 is provided in Figure 1-3.

Figure 1-3. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 2 – “State Campgrounds/Sunshine Beach”

December 2022 | 4

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

1.2.3

Area 3- “Sand Draw”

Area 3 extends from the upstream border of Area 2 to the downstream border with Area 4 and Area 5 (42o06’40.79” N 106o50’59.77”) and encompasses approximately 907 acres and approximately 7.1 miles of shoreline. The eastern side of this area is dominated by moderate to steep slopes in most areas, but also has a few gradual sloped shorelines in some of the bays and fingers extending from the main reservoir. While the substrate is dominated by sand, a few areas of boulders and large bedrock shards dot the shoreline and extend into the littoral zone. The western shore is also dominated by sand substrate; however, the shoreline slopes are more gradual, with only minimal boulder outcrops extending into the littoral zone. This area includes the inlet to Cottonwood Creek on the eastern shore. Depths in Area 3 ranged from 0 to 85 feet. A representative photo depicting Area 3 is provided in Figure 1-4.

Figure 1-4. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 3 – “Sand Draw”

December 2022 | 5

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

1.2.4

Area 4 – “Mini Tetons”

Area 4 extends from the upstream border of Area 3 (42o06’40.79” N 106o50’59.77”) and shares a border with Area 5 on the western side and encompasses approximately 1,110 acres and approximately 9.6 miles of shoreline. This area also contains the inlet of Saylor Creek on the eastern shore. While most of the shoreline and littoral habitat in this area are gently sloping with sand, gravel, or cobble substrates, the littoral zone surrounding the “Mini Tetons” and portions of the southern shore (especially the western end) along Horseshoe Ridge consist of bedrock, bedrock shards, and large boulders with a much steeper slope. Substrates at the inlet of Saylor Creek were a mix of deep sand and silt. Depths in Area 4 ranged from 0 to 100 feet. A representative photo depicting Area 4 is provided in Figure 1-5.

Figure 1-5. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 4 – “Mini Tetons”

December 2022 | 6

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

1.2.5

Area 5 – “Sand Mountain”

Area 5 includes the remaining portion of Seminoe Reservoir study area to the upstream border at the intersection of Horseshoe and ID Ridges (42o05’17.94” N 106o52’39.26”) and encompasses an area of approximately 912 acres and approximately 8.2 miles of shoreline. Much of the area is dominated by sand substrate, ranging from gradual to steep slopes and included the shoreline of “Sand Mountain” and the inlet of Hurt Creek on the western shore. The western shore is also dominated by sand substrate; however, the shoreline slopes are more gradual with only minimal outcrops extending into the littoral zone. Miller Cove on the western shore also contains some steep rocky cliffs extending into the littoral zone. Depths in Area 5 ranged from 0 to 115 feet. A representative photo depicting Area 5 is provided in Figure 1-6.

Figure 1-6. Resident Fish Survey Study Area 5 – “Sand Mountain”

1.3

Study Goals and Objectives

In accordance with the Resident Fish Survey Study Plan, the goal of the Resident Fish Survey is to characterize the fish community of Seminoe Reservoir within the study area. The specific objectives of this study are as follows: • • • •

Collect and summarize existing and available fisheries data in the vicinity of the Proposed Project. Conduct field sampling and analyze data to obtain current information on fish assemblage, distribution, habitat use, and abundance in Seminoe Reservoir within the study area. Document rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) fish species collected during field sampling. Document invasive fish species collected during field sampling.

December 2022 | 7

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

1.4

Environmental Setting

Elevation within the study area ranges from approximately 6,200 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near Seminoe Dam to approximately 7,300 feet amsl at the proposed upper reservoir; much of the elevation along the transmission line corridor is between 6,500 and 6,700 feet amsl. The average ambient temperatures for the area surrounding Seminoe Reservoir range from a maximum of 84.0 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in July to an average minimum of 12°F in December and January (U.S. Climate Data 2021). The average annual precipitation for the study area is 9.25 inches, while average annual snowfall is 21.3 inches per year and average snow depth is 1 inch (U.S. Climate Data 2021). Seminoe Reservoir is a dimictic lake with isothermal conditions (i.e., vertical water mixing leading to a homogenous temperature in the lake) in both spring and fall and ice cover in the winter (USDOI 1981). Ecologically, the study area is a high desert to low mountain range dominated by sagebrush scrub in the lower elevation areas and pinyon-juniper woodland in the higher elevation areas (Black Canyon 2020). The landscape is generally arid and windy with scattered ranges of rugged mountains (USDOI 1981). The shoreline of the reservoir is largely devoid of riparian or littoral vegetation; however, some sporadic cattle grazing was observed along the shoreline within the study area.

Methods

2.1

Literature Review/Desktop Analysis and Coordination with the WGFD

A literature review and desktop analysis of the study area was conducted to obtain relevant information regarding the fisheries resources of the study area, and to assist in determining sample sites and sampling gear types. Black Canyon also reviewed relevant background literature from previous fisheries surveys, reports, and papers on Seminoe Reservoir. The WGFD was contacted for available fisheries data, recent fish stocking records, and creel survey information for Seminoe Reservoir. This data was received, analyzed, and included in the results and discussion portions of this report. To perform the sampling activities as described above (including the capture of fish), a Scientific Research/Educational/Special Purpose Wildlife Permit under the jurisdiction of the WGFD, Chapter 33, Regulations for the Issuance of Scientific Research, Educational, or Special Purpose Permits was required. HDR, on behalf of Black Canyon, applied for the Scientific Collection Permit on May 7, 2021, with the WGFD permitting office in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Subsequently, a permit was issued to Scott Jones of HDR under permit number 1351 on May 24, 2021. On June 15, 2021, a revised permit was received which included shoreline seining as an additional sampling method. See Appendix B for a copy of this permit. In addition, HDR was required to purchase a Nonresident Aquatic Invasive Motorized Decal and submit any watercraft for an AIS inspection upon entering the State of Wyoming. A 2021 Nonresident Aquatic Invasive Motorized Decal was purchased on June 15, 2021. Upon entering Wyoming on the same day, the HDR Smith-Root electrofishing boat was inspected and received a passing inspection receipt and seal (No. 362805). This documentation is provided in Appendix B.

December 2022 | 8

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

2.2

Conduct Field Sampling to Document Fish Assemblage, Distribution, and Abundance

Consistent with the Study Plan, Black Canyon employed a standard industry sampling design for the Fish Survey. As previously described, the study area included approximately the lower one third of the reservoir from the Seminoe Dam to the upstream limit at the Platte River intersection of ID Ridge and Horseshoe Ridge (Figure 1-1). The study area was divided into five overall study reaches. To the extent practicable, sampling used multiple gear types in each area that included boat electrofishing, gillnetting, and seining 1. Near-shore (littoral) and mid-channel (pelagic) habitats were sampled to characterize fish communities and life stages that may use these different habitat types. Methodologies and gear types varied by habitat type, but included a combination of the following: • • •

Boat electrofishing (shoreline and littoral habitats) Seining (wadable shoreline and shallow littoral habitats) Variable depth gillnetting (deep littoral and pelagic habitats including sinking and floating gillnets)

Sampling was conducted during daytime and nighttime hours in the late spring/early summer period (June 17-23) and the late summer/early fall period (August 24-31) of 2021 to capture temporal and seasonal variations in the resident fish assemblage. These specific sampling dates were selected primarily based on anticipated seasonal water temperatures, existing fish species life history characteristics, and seasonal fisheries sampling experience. Daytime sampling was generally conducted from 0800 hours through dusk, while night sampling generally occurred from dusk until approximately 2300 hours. The following subsections describe the methods used for fish sampling at the Project. All resident fisheries sampling methods followed standard industry methods which were included as part of the Scientific Collection Permit Application.

2.2.1

Boat Electrofishing

An 18-foot, custom-built, Smith Root® electrofishing boat equipped with a Smith-Root® 5.0 gaspowered pulsator (GPP) electrofisher was used to sample Seminoe Reservoir. The GPP unit was set at 0-500 volts, at 60 hertz direct current at the approximate 30-60 percent range, resulting in a variable 3.1-9.8 amps. The boat was equipped with two booms, each with a stainless-steel spider dropper array extended from the bow which served as the anodes. The boat hull was equipped with a horizontal cable array that served as the cathode. The three- to four-person team consisted of two bow netters, a side netter 2, and the boat captain. Fish were netted with ¼-inch Duraframe® dip nets attached to 8foot-longfiberglass handles and placed in a centralized live well on the boat for recovery. Areas were sampled primarily along the shoreline to an approximate 12-foot depth. Direction of the boat during surveys was determined by wind direction as applicable. Boat electrofishing efforts occurred during the day and at night and were recorded in seconds the unit was ‘on’ (i.e., peddle time), as tallied on a timer located on the GPP unit.

1 2

Seining did not occur in Area 1 due to the lack of suitable habitat available for this sampling method.

No side-netter was employed during the three-person team.

December 2022 | 9

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

2.2.2

Gillnetting

Monofilament experimental gillnets were used consistent with the Study Plan. Experimental gillnets are gillnets consisting of several panels of different mesh sizes to reduce the overall effects of size selectivity. Experimental gillnets are commonly used to sample lakes and reservoirs. For this study, the nets were 6 feet in height, with five, 25-foot panels (125 feet total width) of 1.0-, 1.5-, 2.0-, 2.5-, and 3.0-inch stretched mesh. Use of gillnets depended on safe and controlled water levels and the ability to safely launch a boat for deploying/retrieving nets. In accordance with the Permit requirements, Black Canyon was limited to a maximum of 200 net hours during the calendar year. Within each survey area 5-10 gillnet sets were deployed. Nets were variable regarding depth and length of soak time but included both nighttime and daytime sets. More net sampling occurred in the survey areas closer to the Project location (i.e., Areas 1, 2, and 3) with fewer nets set in areas farther away from the Project footprint (Areas 4 and 5). Nets were generally set perpendicular to the shore, parallel to the forecasted and observed wind direction, and/or along contour intervals with depths ranging from 10 to 105 feet. Nets were deployed off the lake floor (sinking net) and at varying depths within the water column (floating nets) to capture the depth and spatial stratification of the fish assemblage. Nets were generally deployed twice daily— once in the morning and once in the early evening to capture differences in diel periods. The daytime set lasted approximately 3 to 4 hours; whereupon the nets were retrieved, captured specimens were processed, and the nets were redeployed in the late afternoon/early evening for an overnight set. Efforts were recorded as soak time (amount of time fully deployed).

2.2.3

Seine Netting

Seine nets were utilized for fisheries sampling in the wadable littoral habitats in four of the five survey areas within Seminoe Reservoir. The seine net was 4 feet deep, with 1/8-inch square mesh with a weighted bottom line and floats mounted on the top line of the net. The 25-foot seine net was deployed from shore by a two-person team wading into the water. Two field biologists started together at the center position of the sample area at the farthest wadable point from shore. Each biologist dragged their respective end of the net parallel to shore until fully extended. Each of the ends were then pulled towards the shore and then brought together to encircle any fish within the net. The net was then brought to shore and fish were collected for processing.

2.2.4

Supporting Data

Supporting data was collected at each sampling site (regardless of gear type) and included: • • • • • • • •

Location or track (global positioning system [GPS]), Sampling gear type, Mesohabitat type (as applicable), Representative photographs (as applicable), Time and date, Discrete water quality parameters, General descriptions of depth and substrate3, and Weather.

Substrate in deeper areas was estimated based on anchor fouling and/or was based on the shoreline substrate in proximity to the sample site. December 2022 | 10

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

2.3

Sample Processing

All captured fish, regardless of sampling method, were immediately placed into a holding tank during boat electrofishing or gillnet retrieval until processed. Holding tank water was aerated/refreshed to minimize stress and mortality. All collected fish were identified to the lowest practicable phylogenetic taxon in the field. Photos for vouchers were taken of species in the field, and those that were unidentifiable were alphanumerically labeled and relabeled upon identified confirmation. All fish were returned alive to the sampled reach after processing or disposed of according to the permit conditions if deceased. Total species counts at each sample location and within each sampled area were recorded. All fish were identified and the length of the first 30 game fish species were measured and weighed from each sampling event. If more than 30 fish of one species were captured, the remaining individuals of these species were counted and recorded on standard field data sheets. Individual length and weight measurements were collected for all game fish, including Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Walleye (Sander vitreus), and Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki). In addition, length measurements were collected for all species. All fish were also assessed for condition 4. Total length was measured to the nearest millimeter (mm) and weight was recorded to the nearest gram using PESOLA® spring scales or a Brecknell® Model 311 electronic scale. Capture location, mesohabitat type, and gear type were also noted. Sampling date, time, duration, locations, and general observations of habitat characteristics were also recorded. GPS coordinates were collected for development of the Project sample area map. Consistent with Black Canyon’s overall approach to studies, incidental observations of previously undocumented fish or conditions, or other observations during this study were documented and their location recorded using GPS to define point locations.

2.4

In-situ Water Quality Sampling

2.5

Data Analysis and Reporting

Field data sheets were reviewed for completeness and quality control assurance prior to entering/transferring the data into a spreadsheet database for data analysis. Data was organized by sample area, gear type, season, and fish species. The data from field data sheets/iPad entries were compiled into an Excel® spreadsheet format to facilitate data summary and analysis. Fish collection data was then summarized by sample area and season for basic community indices such as total numbers collected, percent relative abundance (RA %), and catch per unit effort (CPUE) in terms of number of fish captured per hour. Length frequencies (Lf) were developed for all species. The following text provides further definition for the indices evaluated:

Fish condition is considered good unless otherwise noted on the data sheets. December 2022 | 11

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

CPUE - The CPUE was determined by dividing the number of fish collected by the total effort (time) spent collecting those individuals. Boat electrofishing effort was standardized and reported as number of fish collected per hour. Passive gear sampling (e.g., gillnets) are often deployed overnight and reported as per night set. For this study, gillnets were deployed in short sets; therefore, fish collection data is reported similar to active sampling as number of fish collected per hour. Seine effort was standardized per haul event and area was also estimated. Standardized CPUE allows for comparison of catch rates between sampling seasons, among different survey reaches and locations within the study area, or between mesohabitat types. Relative Abundance - Relative species abundance is defined as how common or rare a species is relative to other species in a defined location or community. Lf Histograms - Lf histograms (25-mm length intervals) for target fish species (i.e., all Trout species and game species) were created for each sample area regardless of the number of individuals captured. This analysis was conducted on Trout species to separate age groups (Devries and Frie 1996). Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H’) - A measure of species richness and community balance (evenness). High H’ values are associated with highly diverse, well-balanced communities while low H’ numbers indicate an unbalanced or low-diversity community. Proportional Stock Density (PSD) - A measure of species size structure. The metric is a ratio (expressed as a percentage) between the number of quality-sized individuals or larger individuals and stock sized individuals. For this index, the Gablehouse (Gablehouse 1984) length categories for length frequency cohorts were used.

Results

3.1

WGFD Fisheries Data Review

WGFD has a lengthy history of conducting fishery surveys in Seminoe Reservoir to support their fisheries management program specific to Seminoe Reservoir. These fish surveys generally occur biannually with the first occurring in late spring/early summer (generally the first week of June) and the latter occurring in late summer/early fall (generally mid-September). WGFD provided Black Canyon with Seminoe Reservoir resident fish collection data from 2010 through 2021 via email on October 26, 2021. WGFD’s most recent surveys occurred on June 1 and September 20, 2021, closely coinciding with Black Canyon’s 2021 late spring/early summer and late summer/early fall Fish Survey (June 17-23 and August 24-30). The 2021 WGFD fishery survey was conducted at 28 individual sites within Seminoe Reservoir, with 16 of them occurring within Areas 1-5 (described in Section 1.2 and illustrated in Figure 1-1 through Figure 1-6). Many of the WGFD sampling locations were in the same vicinity as the Black Canyon sampling locations, with seven of the WGFD sample locations directly overlapping the Black Canyon sample locations. Gillnetting was the sole collection method used by the WGFD during their surveys. Sinking gillnets and floating gillnets were both used for their sampling. Data provided by the WGFD and presented in Table 3-1 shows a total collection of 257 fish (N=157 during June and N=100 during September) consisting of 6 species. Walleye and Rainbow Trout dominated the WGFD fish collection consisting of 44.5 percent and 40.9 percent, respectively. The remaining catch consisted of White Sucker (Catastomus commersonii) at 5.9 percent, Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) at 5.5 percent, Longnose Sucker (C. Catostomus) at 2.8 percent and Common Carp December 2022 | 12

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

(Cyprinus carpio) at 0.40 percent of the catch for the 2021 sampling. No RTE or species of special concern were noted to have been collected by the WGFD during 2021. Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 provide the WGFD 2021 data by season and by coinciding area with the Black Canyon sampling locations.

Table 3-1. WGFD Seminoe Reservoir During All 2021 Sampling Common

Scientific

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Sucker

Catostomidae

8.7

White Sucker

Catostomus commersonii

5.9

Longnose Sucker

Catostomus catostomus

2.8

Carp and Minnow

Cyprinidae

0.4

Common Carp

Cyprinus carpio

0.4

Perch

Percidae

113

44.4

Walleye

Sander vitreus

113

44.5

Trout

Salmonidae

118

46.5

Rainbow Trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss

104

40.9

Brown Trout

Salmo trutta

5.5

157

100

Total Captured Total Species

Table 3-2. WGFD Seminoe Reservoir Gillnet Sampling – Spring 2021 2021 Spring Seminoe Reservoir Gillnet Sampling Catch

Species Common

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Longnose Sucker

1.3

White Sucker

6.4

Walleye

23.6

Rainbow Trout

63.1

Brown Trout

5.7

Total Captured

157

100

Total Species

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Table 3-3. WGFD Seminoe Reservoir Gillnet Sampling – Fall 2021 2021 Fall Seminoe Reservoir Gillnet Sampling Catch

Species Common

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Longnose Sucker

White Sucker

Common Carp

1 December 2022 | 13

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

2021 Fall Seminoe Reservoir Gillnet Sampling Catch

Species Common

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Area 1

Area 2

Area 3

Area 4

Area 5

Walleye

Rainbow Trout

Brown Trout

Total Captured

100

Total Species

WGFD currently has a robust annual stocking program whereby fish are released into Seminoe Reservoir, generally at the North Red Hills State Campground boat launch. Fish stocking data from 2010-2021 provided by WGFD is provided in Appendix C. This stocking report indicates approximately 65,000 to 196,000 Trout were stocked annually into Seminoe Reservoir from 2010-2021. Most of the Trout stocked were varieties of Rainbow Trout including Fire Hole Rainbow Trout and Fall Rainbow Trout. however, Cutthroat Trout were also stocked in 2011, 2019, and 2021 and included strains from Bear River, Colorado River, and Snake River Cutthroats (Appendix C). A summary of the annual stocking is provided in Table 3-4 below.

Table 3-4. WGFD Seminoe Reservoir Fish Stocking Program 2010-2021 Stocking Year

Number Stocked

Species/Strain

2021

65,390

BRC/FRB

2020

170,820

FRB

2019

196,732

CRC/FRB

2018

171,455

FRB

2017

84,646

FRB

2016

164,184

FRB

2015

150,533

FRB

2014

118,442

FRB/FHR

2013

144,158

FRB

2012

177,447

FRB

2011

154,187

FRB/SRC

2010

151,939

FRB

Total – 12 Years

1,749,933

Average = 145,828 fish/year

Species/Strain identification: BRC = Bear River Cutthroat, FRB = Fall Rainbow, CRC = Colorado River Cutthroat, FRH = Fire Hole Rainbow, SRC = Snake River Cutthroat.

December 2022 | 14

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.2

Field Sampling Overview

This section presents the results for the two Resident Fish Study seasonal survey events (late spring/early summer and late summer/early fall) conducted by Black Canyon in 2021. A total of 2,637 fish representing 11 species were collected from the study area during the two seasonal surveys in 2021. Table 3-5 provides a species list, an overall total and total for each sampled area, and the overall relative abundance of the fish species collected. Table 3-6 provides number of individuals by sampled areas and combines the results of both seasonal events and all gear types. Diversity was highest in Area 2, with 10 species; while the highest abundance occurred in Area 5, largely due to the abundance of Emerald Shiners and Minnow species comprising over 45 percent of the total catch. Similar to the WGFD 2021 sampling results, Walleye and Rainbow Trout were the most abundant species collected, although White Sucker and the Minnow species were more abundant in the Black Canyon sampling largely due to the different sampling gears utilized. Cyprinids were the most abundant and the most diverse group (Table 3-5), comprising over 64 percent of the total combined catch and consisting of at least 4 species. White Sucker, Walleye, and Rainbow Trout dominated most catches with Carp, Brown Trout, and Longnose Sucker rounding out most of the rest of the catch. Larger fish of the game species and suckers were more dominant in the lower areas of the reservoirs (i.e., Areas 1 and 2) while the smaller individuals of all species and Minnows were more dominant in the upper areas (Areas 4 and 5).

Table 3-5. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Resident Fish Survey Catch Data Species

Seminoe Reservoir Sampled Area

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Common Sucker

Area 1 108

Area 2 120

Area 3 58

Area 4 114

Area 5 62

462

17.5

Longnose Sucker

0.7

White Sucker

108

115

110

444

16.8

Carps and Minnow

151

322

130

1,046

1,689

64.1

Lake Chub

0.0

Common Carp

3.0

Minnow Sp.

254

349

13.2

Emerald Shiner

112

1,031

1,260

47.8

Perch

191

7.2

0.6

Walleye

174

6.6

Trout

295

11.2

Cutthroat Trout

0.8

Rainbow Trout

199

7.5

Brown Trout

2.8

270

423

413

332

1,199

2,637

100

Jonny Darter

Total Captured Total Species

Bold text indicates cumulative family totals

December 2022 | 15

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 3-6. Fish Family Total Catches and Relative Abundance (RA%) for 2021 Family

Number

Relative Abundance (%)

Cyprinids

1,689

64.1

Catostomids

462

17.5

Salmonids

295

11.2

Percids

191

7.2

As presented in Table 3-7 below, active fish sampling consisted of 21.1 hours of boat electrofishing (actual time ‘on’) and 15 seine events, (Table 3-7). Boat electrofishing was the most effective sample gear, producing a total catch of 1,994 fish (75.6%) with a CPUE of 94.65 fish per hour. Passive fish sampling involved the deployment of gillnets for a total of 196.7 hours 5 which included day and night sets as well as bottom (deep nets) and suspended (floating) net sets. Gillnets are effective in sampling deep littoral and pelagic water habitats and were used in each of the five sampled areas, resulting in a CPUE of 0.92 fish per hour. All fish appeared to be in good condition based on visual assessments unless otherwise noted. All fish were released alive back into Seminoe Reservoir near their capture location unless suffering mortality. Efforts were made to revive stressed fish and those fish that could not be revived were disposed of according to the collection permit conditions. No Federal or state-listed threatened or endangered species were collected in the 2021 survey. No invasive fish species were collected; although several introduced, nonnative, or stocked fish (e.g., Common Carp, Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout) were repetitively captured.

Table 3-7. 2016 Total Effort, Catch and CPUE by Season and Gear Types Late Spring/Early Summer Method

Hours/ Events

Boat Electrofishing

Number of CPUE Fish

Late Summer/Early Fall Hours/ Number of Events Fish

CPUE

Total Hours/ Events

Number of Fish

CPUE

8.9 (2.9)2

499

55.9

11.2 (3.3)2

1,495

133.4

21.1 (6.2)2

1994

94.7

Seining

8.0

7.0

455

651

463

20.11

Gillnet

106.8 (46.1)2

106

1.0

89.8 (24.4)2

0.8

196.7 (70.5)2

180

0.9

1 Indicates 2

per pass. Indicates Nighttime fishing or net sets.

3.3

Sampling Conditions

3.3.1

Seminoe Reservoir Water Surface Elevations

Seminoe Reservoir water surface elevations were continuously decreasing during 2021 sampling events. During 2021, Seminoe Reservoir was being drawn down for a late 2021 test of the Seminoe Dam. During the 2021 sampling of Seminoe Reservoir associated with the Resident Fisheries Survey Study, water surface elevations decreased from 6,323.1 to 6,309.0 feet over the course of sampling

Per the Chapter 33 collection permit, “the permittee shall be restricted to not more than 200 cumulative net-hours for gillnet effort within the calendar year”. December 2022 | 16

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

with the largest single day decrease of 0.35 foot occurring on June 20, 2021. Although the daily elevation decrease was relatively minor, the decrease from the beginning to the end of the 2021 Resident Fish Survey Study decreased approximately 14.1 feet.

Figure 3-1. Seminoe Reservoir Water Surface Elevations During Sample Collection

3.3.2

Seminoe Reservoir Weather Conditions During Sampling

Weather conditions during the 2021 sampling were variable with regard to temperature and wind, but very consistent regarding precipitation. Only one minor precipitation event occurred on August 26, 2021, in the form of a hailstorm causing sampling to stop for approximately 2 hours. No other precipitation occurred during sampling. Wind was often moderate, causing some navigational corrections during sampling. General weather and climate conditions during sampling are provided in Table 3-8.

Table 3-8. Seminoe Reservoir Weather and Climate Conditions During Sampling. Date

Sampled Locations

Max Air Temp (oF)

Min Air Temp (oF)

Precipitation

General Conditions

June 17

Clear, very windy

June 18

A1, A2, A3

0.00

Partly cloudy and breezy in morning, hot in afternoon

June 19

A4, A5

Partly cloudy and breezy

June 20

A2, A4, A5

0.01

Clear and breezy

June 21

A1, A2, A4, A5

0.00

Cool and clear in the morning, windy and warmer in the afternoon

June 22

None

0.01

N/A December 2022 | 17

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Sampled Locations

Max Air Temp (oF)

Min Air Temp (oF)

Precipitation

General Conditions

June 23

A2, A3, A4, A5

0.00

Partly to mostly cloudy and breezy

August 21

Clear and calm

August 25

A2, A3

0.00

Windy

August 26

A2, A3

0.00

Cloudy and breezy

August 27

A1, A2, A5

Clear, sunny, breezy, warm

August 28

A4, A5

0.00

Clear, sunny, windy

August 29

A3, A4

0.00

Cool sunny breezy

August 30

A1, A2

0.00

Cool sunny breezy

Date

3.3.3

Seminoe Reservoir Water Quality Data

Water quality data collected during each survey event and location is summarized in Table 3-9. Water temperatures ranged from approximately 54-72°F and reflect typical seasonal values for lakes in this region. DO concentrations were consistently measured in the 5-6 milligrams per liter (mg/L) range and are believed to be anomalous. During the fall sampling, areas of significant blue-green algae blooms were present in portions of the reservoir. pH values ranged from 7.17 – 8.71 standard units and likely reflect the high buffering capacity of the watershed. According to the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) (1981) bottom DO concentrations typically reach their minimum in the deepest part of Seminoe Reservoir during August, but the short-lived and weak stratification appears to prevent any significant anaerobic or reducing conditions. During the 2021 field efforts, Seminoe Reservoir was undergoing a significant drawdown for maintenance to the existing Seminoe Dam Project and drawing water from the deepest portions of the reservoir. This likely influenced the DO data value shown in Table 3-9. During fish collection events in the late summer/early fall, the development of blue-green algae (Aphanizomenon flos-aquae) blooms (USDOI 1981) were observed and were concentrated in the backwater coves and fingers of all study areas.

Table 3-9. In-situ Water Quality Data Collected for the Fish Assemblage Assessment Study Water Temperature (°F)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Dissolved Oxygen (percent saturation)

Specific Conductivity (microsiemens/ centimeter)

7.17 - 8.70

342.8 – 364.0

8.07 – 8.42

398.5 – 402.4

7.90 - 8.43

344.0 – 363.5

8.16 – 8.47

397.4 – 401.4

Area 1 – Spring 54.2 – 71.7

6.05 – 7.12

72.2 - 89.9 Area 1 – Fall

65.8 – 67.3

5.63 – 6.30

72.3 – 82.3 Area 2 – Spring

55.2 – 69.7

6.32 – 7.03

71.6 – 91.7 Area 2 – Fall

64.8 – 67.6

5.84 – 6.40

75.0 – 83.8

December 2022 | 18

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Water Temperature (°F)

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Dissolved Oxygen (percent saturation)

Specific Conductivity (microsiemens/ centimeter)

7.54 – 8.40

340.6 – 355.3

8.16 – 8.51

398.1 – 407.7

8.11 – 8.42

324.5 – 367.2

8.40 - 8.47

401.4 - 406.0

8.01 – 8.40

323.1 – 344.3

8.34 - 8.71

402.3 - 411.3

Area 3 – Spring 54.8 – 69.6

6.5 – 8.08

74.1 – 93.1 Area 3 – Fall

64.7 – 66.2

5.88 – 6.88

75.3 – 88.1 Area 4 – Spring

59.8 – 70.5

6.04 - 6.93

73.3 – 90.7 Area 4 – Fall

65.4 – 68.0

5.92 – 6.33

75.7 – 83.3 Area 5 – Spring

56.0 – 68.1

6.11 - 7.05

72.7 – 93.1 Area 5 – Fall

65.1 – 71.2

3.4

5.93 - 8.14

75.7 - 110.7

Area 1 - “The Canyon”

The dates of the Fish Survey field data collection efforts within Area 1 of Seminoe Reservoir as well as Seminoe Reservoir water surface elevations on each corresponding sampling date are provided in Table 3-10 below. Boat electrofishing was used to survey the shoreline and littoral zone habitat and gillnets were deployed to sample the pelagic or deep-water habitat. No seining occurred in Area 1 due to the lack of suitable survey habitat. Figure 3-1 provides the location of sample efforts and Table 3-11 below provides a summary of fish collection by gear type and season for Area 1.

Table 3-10. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 1 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations Date

Water Surface Elevation (feet)

June 18

6,322.82

June 19

6,322.53

June 21

6,322.04

August 27

6,309.32

August 30

6,309.00

December 2022 | 19

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 3-11. Fish Species Collected in Seminoe Reservoir Area 1 Species

Late Spring/Early Summer

Late Summer/Early Fall

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

White Sucker

51.47

28.36

Common Carp

5.22

Emerald Shiner

24.63

Walleye

7.35

11.19

Rainbow Trout

30.15

24.63

Cutthroat Trout

2.99

Brown Trout

8.82

2.99

125

136

100

129

134

100

Total 5 2 NA 5 7 3 Species Note: 1 = Littoral Zone; 2 = Deep Water was sampled using gillnets; 3 = Littoral Zone.

Common

Total Captured

2.21

The late spring/early summer survey collected generally larger fish including all three Trout species, Walleye, and White Sucker, with no young-of-year (YOY) or juvenile fish collected in Area 1 during the late spring/early summer survey. The late summer/early fall survey in Area 1 collected similar numbers of Trout and Walleye, however, the White Sucker collection was slightly greater than half of that of the late spring/early summer collection (Table 3-11). Additionally, Emerald Shiners were collected during the late summer early fall where they had not been collected during the late spring/early summer survey. Most of the fish collected in the Canyon consisted of relatively large individuals within the upper 8-10 feet of the water column. Total lengths of the Brown Trout ranged from 436-626 mm, while Cutthroat Trout ranged from 377-501 mm, and Rainbow Trout ranged from 250-487 mm with most of the Rainbows within the 401500 mm cohorts. Walleye ranged from 96-490 mm and appeared to be well distributed among the size classes. Length frequency data for each of these species per area are provided in Section 3.8.2. Areas near the proposed intake were targeted with both boat electrofishing and varying depths of gillnets.

December 2022 | 20

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-2. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 1

December 2022 | 21

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

In total, 270 fish were collected in Area 1 over the course of the study with approximately half collected during each seasonal event. Similarities occurred between the two seasonal events with the only difference being the collection of White Suckers in the late summer early fall being half of the late spring/early summer event catch and no Emerald Shiners were collected during the late spring/early summer event.

3.5

Area 2 - “State Campgrounds/Sunshine Beach”

The dates of the Fish Survey field data collection efforts within Area 2 of Seminoe Reservoir as well as Seminoe Reservoir water surface elevations on each corresponding sampling date are provided in Table 3-12 below. Boat electrofishing and seining were used to survey the littoral zone habitat and gillnets were deployed to sample deeper water habitat. Figure 3-2 provides the location of sample efforts and Table 3-13 below provides a summary of fish collection by gear type and season for Area 2.

Table 3-12. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 2 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations Date

Water Surface Elevation (feet)

June 17

6,323.1

June 18

6,322.8

June 20

6,322.2

June 21

6,322.0

June 23

6,321.7

August 25

6,309.5

August 26

6,309.4

August 27

6,309.3

August 30

6,309.0

Table 3-13. Fish Species Collected in the Project Lower Reservoir Species

Late Spring/Early Summer

Late Summer/Early Fall

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Longnose Sucker

1.9

0.5

White Sucker

46.2

8.5

Common Carp

4.3

3.3

Emerald Shiner

1.4

17.4

Minnow Species

44.6

Johnny Darter

4.2

Common

December 2022 | 22

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Species

Late Spring/Early Summer

Late Summer/Early Fall

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Walleye

30.0

8.9

Rainbow Trout

8.1

10.3

Cutthroat Trout

2.4

1.4

Brown Trout

5.7

0.9

Total Captured

158

210

100

105

213

100

Total Species

Common

Like Area 1, the late spring/early summer survey collected generally larger fish including the three Trout species, Walleye, Carp, and White Sucker, with only three Emerald Shiners collected during the late spring/early summer events. No YOY or juvenile fish were collected in Area 2 during the late spring/early summer survey. The late summer/early fall survey in Area 2 showed more differences in catch from the late spring/early summer events (Table 3-13). White Sucker and Walleye were much more abundant in the late spring/early summer than in the late summer/early fall events, while the Emerald Shiner and Minnow catch was significantly higher in the later sampling events. Like Area 1, most of the fish collected in Area 2 consisted of relatively large individuals within the upper 8-10 feet of the water column. Total lengths of the Brown Trout ranged from 395-545 mm, while Cutthroat Trout ranged from 440-505 mm, and Rainbow Trout ranged from 360-530 mm with most of the rainbows within the 426-475 mm. Walleye ranged from 91-534 mm and appeared to be well distributed among the size classes. An abundance of Walleye was well represented in the 101-150 mm size cohorts. Length frequency data for each of these species per area are provided in Section 3.8.2. Areas near the proposed laydown and construction zones were targeted with both boat electrofishing and varying depths of gillnets.

December 2022 | 23

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-3. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 2

December 2022 | 24

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.6

Area 3 - “Sand Draw”

The dates of the Fish Survey field data collection efforts within Area 3 of Seminoe Reservoir as well as Seminoe Reservoir water surface elevations on each corresponding sampling date are provided in Table 3-14 below. Boat electrofishing and seining were used to survey the littoral zone habitat and gillnets were deployed to sample deeper water habitat. Figure 3-4 provides the location of sample efforts and Table 3-15 below provides a summary of fish collection by gear type and season for Area 3.

Table 3-14. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 3 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations Date

Water Surface Elevation (feet)

June 18

6,322.8

June 21

6,322.0

June 23

6,321.7

June 24

6,321.5

August 26

6,309.4

August 29

6,309.1

Table 3-15. Fish Species Collected in the Project Lower Reservoir Species

Late Spring/Early Summer

Late Summer/Early Fall

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Longnose Sucker

1.5

0.6

White Sucker

46.2

7.2

Common Carp

24.6

2.3

Emerald Shiner

3.1

12.1

Minnow Species

254

73.0

Johnny Darter

3.1

Walleye

4.6

2.6

Rainbow Trout

15.4

0.9

Brown Trout

1.5

1.4

Total Captured

100

279

348

100

Total Species

Common

December 2022 | 25

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-4. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 3

December 2022 | 26

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

The late spring/early summer survey collected far fewer fish than the late spring/early summer than all other areas with the exception of Area 5 where overall catch was similar. Carp in Area 3 were more abundant than any of the other areas which can likely be attributed to the lack of significant cover and large areas of shallow soft bottom substrate (i.e., sand) which is often preferentially used by Carp. Trout and Walleye were weakly represented with very low abundance compared to the other surveyed areas. The late summer/early fall survey collected smaller numbers of most species except for Emerald Shiners and Minnows which together represented 85 percent of the total catch for the late summer/early fall survey event in Area 3. No Cutthroat Trout were collected from Area 3. Brown Trout ranged from 395-549 mm but were only represented by 6 individuals. Rainbow Trout ranged from 315510 mm, but also showed greater numbers in size cohorts from 401-500 mm. Walleye ranged from 23-690 mm but were only represented by 12 individuals. Length frequency graphs for these species by area are presented in Section 3.8.2.

3.7

Area 4 - “Mini Tetons”

The dates of the Fish Survey field data collection efforts within Area 4 of Seminoe Reservoir as well as Seminoe Reservoir water surface elevations on each corresponding sampling date are provided in Table 3-16 below. Similar to the other areas, boat electrofishing and seining was used to survey the littoral zone habitat and gillnets were deployed to sample deeper water habitat. Figure 3-5 provides the location of sample efforts and Table 3-17 below provides a summary of fish collection by gear type and season for Area 4.

Table 3-16. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 3 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations Date

Water Surface Elevation (feet)

June 19

6,322.53

June 20

6,322.18

June 21

6,322.04

June 23

6,321.67

August 28

6,309.20

Table 3-17. Fish Species Collected in the Project Lower Reservoir Species

Late Spring/Early Summer

Late Summer/Early Fall

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Longnose Sucker

3.2

White Sucker

47.2

24.6

Common Carp

10.4

2.4

Emerald Shiner

2.4

109

52.7

Johnny Darter

0.8

1.0

Walleye

7.2

11.1

Common

December 2022 | 27

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Species

Late Spring/Early Summer

Late Summer/Early Fall

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Rainbow Trout

7.6

6.3

Cutthroat Trout

0.8

0.00

Common

10.4

1.9

Total Captured

105

125

100

127

207

100

Total Species

Brown Trout

Both seasonal collection events produced a relatively large number of white sucker consisting of almost half the catch in the late spring/early summer and one quarter of the catch in the late summer/early fall, the latter is likely due to the abundance of emerald shiner in the catch. Area 4 had the largest size range for white sucker with lengths from 50 to 535 mm possibly indicating reproduction of white sucker within this area (Table 3-17). Emerald shiners were sparse during the late spring/early summer events, but common in the late summer/early fall events, making up over half the catch for the later events. Brown trout ranged from 393-542 mm, one cutthroat trout measured 469 mm, rainbow trout ranged from 418-505 mm, and walleye ranged from 39-528 mm. Length frequency graphs for these species by area are presented in Section 3.8.2.

December 2022 | 28

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-5. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 4

December 2022 | 29

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.8

Area 5 - “Sand Mountain”

The dates of the Fish Survey field data collection efforts within Area 5 of Seminoe Reservoir as well as Seminoe Reservoir water surface elevations on each corresponding sampling date are provided in Table 3-18 below. Similar to most other areas, boat electrofishing and seining were used to survey the littoral zone habitat and gillnets were deployed to sample deeper water habitat. Figure 3-6 provides the location of sample efforts and Table 3-19 below provides a summary of fish collection by gear type and season for Area 5.

Table 3-18. 2021 Seminoe Reservoir – Area 3 - Sampling Dates and Corresponding Water Surface Elevations Date

Water Surface Elevation (feet)

June 19

6,322.53

June 20

6,322.18

June 21

6,322.04

June 23

6,321.67

August 27

6,309.32

August 28

6,309.20

Table 3-19. Fish Species Collected in the Project Lower Reservoir Species

Late Spring/Early Summer

Late Summer/Early Fall

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Boat E-fish1

Gillnets2

Seine Net3

Total

Relative Abundance (%)

Longnose Sucker

3.90

0.27

White Sucker

29.87

1.34

Lake Chub

0.00

0.09

Common Carp

10.39

0.53

Emerald Shiner

1025

1,031

91.89

Johnny Darter

2.6

0.09

Walleye

9.09

1.43

Rainbow Trout

29.87

1.34

Cutthroat Trout

2.6

0.27

Brown Trout

11.69

1.16

Total Captured

1,000

1,096

1,122

100

Total Species

Common

December 2022 | 30

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-6. Seminoe Reservoir 2021 Fish Survey Locations for Area 5 December 2022 | 31

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Each of the seasonal surveys in Area 5 produced relatively similar results as the other Areas except for the late summer/early fall events which produced a large abundance of Emerald Shiners in the area near Sand Mountain. Emerald Shiners contributed to nearly 92 percent of the catch for the late summer/early fall sampling event in Area 5. These forage fish were collected in large schools, generally alongside a few large predators (e.g., Walleye and Rainbow Trout), likely feeding on the schooling fish. The late summer/early fall survey collected equal numbers of White Sucker, but their length frequencies tended to trend higher than the other areas and they were mostly concentrated between the 326-525 mm length cohorts. Brown Trout ranged from 366-533 mm, while Area 5 produced the largest abundance of Cutthroat Trout during the late summer/early fall sampling which ranged from 453-522 mm. Rainbow Trout were similar in abundance to Area 4 for the late summer/early fall events and ranged from 324-506 mm. Walleye ranged from 111-610 mm and were moderately represented in the sample. Length frequency graphs for these species by area are presented in Section 3.8.2.

3.9

Indices Data

3.9.1

Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H’)

The Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’) was used to calculate the diversity of species communities of each study reach of the Project. Typical H’ values are generally between 1.5 and 3.5 in most ecological studies, and the index is rarely greater than a value of 4 (Kerkhoff 2010). The Shannon index increases as both the richness and the evenness of the community increase. The H’ values for each of the five sampled areas within Seminoe Reservoir are presented in Table 3-20. Area 2 had the highest diversity score while Area 5 had the lowest diversity score. The calculated Shannon-Wiener diversity index for Seminoe Reservoir as a whole (within the study area) shows a reservoir community with relatively low to moderate diversity.

Table 3-20. Diversity Calculation of Each Project Reach Project Reach

Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H’)

Area 1

1.473

Area 2

1.896

Area 3

1.306

Area 4

1.619

Area 5

0.654

Total Sampled Area

1.609

December 2022 | 32

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.9.2

Length Frequency Data

Length frequency data is presented in two ways, first, typical length frequency histograms were developed for all measured species by study area and are provided in Figures 3-6 through 3-14. For each figure, scale was adjusted to improve visual review of the varying data between species. Additionally, this length data was used to create PSD graphs showing the size and quality of the game fish species captured and measured. PSD data is provided in Figures 3-15 through 3-18. The length histogram for Brown Trout from all study areas indicates this species consist primarily of large adult fish (Figure 3-7). Data results for Brown Trout show no YOY or juvenile Brown Trout collected in any of the areas.

Figure 3-7. 2021 Brown Trout Length Frequency Histogram

December 2022 | 33

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Cutthroat Trout were the least abundant of the three trout species sampled during the field surveys. Results of the Cutthroat Trout collected from all study areas indicated the presence of large adult fish only (Figure 3-8). Data results for Cutthroat Trout show no YOY or juveniles collected in any of the areas.

Figure 3-8. 2021 Cutthroat Trout Length Frequency Histogram

December 2022 | 34

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Rainbow Trout were the most abundant of the Trout sampled during the field surveys. Results of the Rainbow Trout collected from all study reaches indicated the presence of multiple age classes but contained only moderate and large adult fish (Figure 3-9). No YOY or juvenile Rainbow Trout were collected during the two seasonal collection events on Seminoe Reservoir. Rainbow Trout were well represented in the 401-500 mm length cohorts. These larger fish are largely derived from the robust stocking program administered by the WGFD as little to no natural reproduction of Rainbow Trout has been documented in Seminoe Reservoir (WGFD 2004).

Figure 3-9. 2021 Rainbow Trout Length Frequency Histogram

December 2022 | 35

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Walleye were the most abundant of the large predatory fish collected during the two seasonal field surveys events. Results of the Walleye collected from all study reaches indicated the presence of many year classes (Figure 3-10) from YOY to large adult fish. Many year classes of Walleye are represented in the 2021 Black Canyon data. As a result, the Walleye population is inferred to be selfsustaining and productive.

Figure 3-10. 2021 Walleye Trout Length Frequency Histogram

December 2022 | 36

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Carp were moderately represented in the field surveys and were more abundant during the late spring/early summer survey events. Results of the Carp collected from all study reaches indicated the presence of generally large individuals (Figure 3-11). Most of these individuals were within the 601725 mm size cohorts. Common Carp are a well-established introduced species in Seminoe Reservoir (WGFD 2017).

Figure 3-11. 2021 Carp Length Frequency Histogram

December 2022 | 37

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Emerald Shiners were the most abundant prey fish species collected during the field surveys, with many more being collected in the late summer/early fall than in the late spring/early summer events. Results of the Emerald Shiner collected from all study areas indicated the presence of several age classes (Figure 3-12). YOY fish were the dominant class captured. Year 1 and Year 2+ age class Emerald Shiners (Atkinson et al. 2015) were also present in Seminoe Reservoir; however, it appears that larger and older individuals were more abundant in the upper reservoir in Areas 4 and 5. Emerald Shiner likely serves as a large part of the prey base for Seminoe Reservoir based on their relative abundance. (Cochran 2017, Knight et al., 1984, Knight and Vondracek,1993)6

Figure 3-12. 2021 Emerald Shiner Length Frequency Histogram

Crayfish are also an important part of the forage base within the Seminoe Reservoir and are discussed further in Section 4 below. December 2022 | 38

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Johnny Darter were the least abundant of the prey species sampled during the field surveys. Results of the Johnny Darter collected from all study reaches indicated the likely presence of multiple age classes (Figure 3-13). The Year 1 age class was the dominant class captured and ranged in the 2550 mm cohort (Karr 1963). Year 2 and Year 3 age class Johnny Darter were also potentially present in the reservoir. It is unknown if these fish contribute significantly to the predator/prey relationship in the reservoir due to their low relative abundance; however, opportunistic predators use them as a food source (McMahon and Bennett 1996, Becker 1983).

Figure 3-13. 2021 Johnny Darter Length Frequency Histogram

December 2022 | 39

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Longnose Suckers are a native species to Seminoe Reservoir and the Platte River watershed but were collected in low numbers during the field surveys with only 18 individuals captured. Results of the Longnose Sucker collected from all study reaches show the presence of large individuals ranging from the 222-395 mm (Figure 3-14).

Figure 3-14. 2021 Longnose Sucker Length Frequency Histogram

December 2022 | 40

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

White Suckers were well represented and abundant during the field surveys. Results of the White Sucker collected from all study reaches indicated the presence of several age classes (Figure 3-15). Results of the White Sucker collected from all study reaches show the presence of several age classes with individuals ranging from large individuals ranging from 50-567 mm.

Figure 3-15. 2021 White Sucker Length Frequency Histogram

3.9.3

PSD Graphs

PSD is a measure of species size structure. The metric is a ratio (expressed as a percentage) between the number of quality-sized individuals or larger individuals and stock sized individuals. PSD measures for the three Trout species and Walleye were determined according to the length categories (based on total length) described in Gablehouse (1984). The following figures provide graphical representation of the PSDs of Walleye, Brown Trout (lentic), Rainbow Trout, and Cutthroat Trout for Seminoe Reservoir within the study area. PSD values that range from 40 to 60 indicate a structurally balanced population. Values <40 indicate too many small fish and values > 60 indicate too many large fish.

December 2022 | 41

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Walleye For Walleye minimum length categories are sub-stock (0 mm), stock (250 mm), quality (380 mm), preferred (510 mm), memorable (630 mm), and trophy (760 mm). Figure 3-16 provides the PSD for Walleye resulting in a value of 54.6 indicating that the population of Walleye are well balanced in Seminoe Reservoir and includes a variety of catchable fish in the stock size class or larger.

Figure 3-16. PSD for Walleye in the Seminoe Reservoir Study Area

December 2022 | 42

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Brown Trout For Brown Trout, minimum length categories are sub-stock (0 mm), stock (200 mm), quality (300 mm), preferred (400 mm), memorable (500 mm), and trophy (600 mm). Figure 3-17 provides the PSD for Brown Trout resulting in a value of 100 percent and shows that the population of Brown Trout contain too many large fish and no younger age classes. Brown Trout are not stocked as part of the WGFD Seminoe Reservoir stocking program.

Figure 3-17. PSD for Brown Trout in the Seminoe Reservoir Study Area

December 2022 | 43

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Rainbow Trout For Rainbow Trout, minimum length categories are sub-stock (0 mm), stock (250 mm), quality (400 mm), preferred (500 mm), memorable (650 mm), and trophy (800 mm). Figure 3-18 provides the PSD for Rainbow Trout resulting in a value of 99.5 percent and shows that the population of Rainbow Trout contain too many large fish and no smaller fish. Rainbow Trout are currently the most common species stocked in Seminoe Reservoir as part of the WGFD stocking program. Based on the stocking data provided by WGFD, maximum stocking length is approximately 250 mm with an average of 145,000+/- Rainbow Trout stocked in Seminoe Reservoir annually. Based on these stocking numbers, it would be expected that Rainbow Trout would be equal to or greater than stock size unless some natural reproduction is occurring in the tributaries to or within Seminoe Reservoir.

Figure 3-18. PSD for Rainbow Trout in the Seminoe Reservoir Study Area

December 2022 | 44

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Cutthroat Trout For Cutthroat Trout, minimum length categories are sub-stock (0 mm), stock (200 mm), quality (350 mm), preferred (450 mm), memorable (600 mm), and trophy (750 mm). Figure 3-19 provides the PSD for Cutthroat Trout resulting in a value of 99 percent and shows that the population of Cutthroat Trout contain too many large fish and no smaller fish. Cutthroat Trout are currently a species stocked in Seminoe Reservoir as part of the WGFD stocking program, although stocking numbers of Cutthroat Trout are significantly less than for Rainbow Trout and only occurred in three of the last twelve stocking years. Based on these stocking numbers and the relative size stocked by WGFD, it would be expected that Cutthroat Trout would be equal to or greater than stock size unless some natural reproduction is occurring in the tributaries to or within Seminoe Reservoir.

Figure 3-19. PSD for Cutthroat Trout in the Seminoe Reservoir Study Area

December 2022 | 45

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Discussion

Sampling of existing native fish stocks, non-native fish introductions (e.g., Carp Brown Trout, and Walleye), and sport fish stocks (Rainbow and Cutthroat Trout) in Seminoe Reservoir demonstrate a put, grow, and take fishery that has been heavily utilized, studied, and managed for many decades. The predominant cold/cool-water fishery of Seminoe Reservoir appears to host a healthy sport fish population with a variety of species targeted by anglers and bow fishers that include Walleye, Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, Cutthroat Trout, and Common Carp. Recreational anglers make use of this resource from shore, boat, and atop the ice. The Seminoe Reservoir Walleye population appears to be well established and resilient with many year classes observed during sampling, unlike the Rainbow and Cutthroat Trout, which almost exclusively showed only larger adults resulting from a successful stocking program. The Project study area extending from Seminoe Dam to the Sand Mountain narrows were sampled during late spring/early summer and late summer/early fall according to the Seminoe Resident Fish Survey Study Plan dated March 17, 2021. For both sampling events, and all gear types combined, a total of 2,637 fish representing 10 species were captured from the study area. The fish community was dominated by large predatory fish including Walleye and three species of Trout (Rainbow, Brown, and Cutthroat). Larger fish appear to be more abundant in the lower portions of the study area (Areas 1 and 2) while smaller fish dominated the catch in the upper survey areas (Areas 3-5), especially during the late summer/early fall events. Walleye were collected in all sampled areas. Analyzed fish data indicates many size classes of Walleye occur within the study area (Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-16). Walleye ranged from 23-690 mm and were distributed among the size classes with a typical bell-shaped distribution. Walleye were generally collected in gillnets located in shallow to mid-column depth from 6-60 feet. A total of six Walleye were collected from deep water nets (i.e., 70-100 feet depth), two from each in Areas 2, 3, and 4. The length-frequency data of Walleye shows a PSD value of 54.6 (Figure 3-16), indicating a healthy and well distributed population of Walleye in the Seminoe Reservoir. Walleye were most abundant (n=82), contributing to nearly 20 percent of the relative abundance in Area 2 and were least abundant (n=23) contributing to only 1.9 percent of the relative abundance in Area 5. Although Walleye were historically introduced to Seminoe Reservoir, the breadth of sizes reflects the continuation of a naturally reproducing and historically documented population (USDOI 1981). Brown Trout, also a historically introduced but naturally reproducing species, was collected from all study areas (n=75) contributing to 2.8 percent of the total relative abundance for all gear types and study areas. Brown Trout were collected from throughout the water column from 6-102 feet. Brown Trout sizes ranged from 366-626 mm with a PSD of 100 indicating that the Brown Trout population within the Seminoe Reservoir may be imbalanced and skewed towards larger/older fish. No smaller or YOY Brown Trout were collected from the survey area. Large adult Brown Trout may be lake residents that spawn in the rivers and stream tributaries to the Seminoe Reservoir or relic stocked fish that may or may not be reproducing within the reservoir. Brown Trout were most abundant, (n=22), contributing to 1.8 percent of the catch in Area 5 and were least abundant (n=3), contributing to only 1.5 percent of the relative abundance for Area 3.

December 2022 | 46

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

While Brown Trout do not show up in the most recent stocking records (i.e., the last 10 years), only large adults collected during sampling suggest that they may be remnants from previous stocking or adults that may move into the river and tributary reaches upstream of Seminoe Reservoir. Cutthroat Trout are currently stocked by the WGFD on a variable basis with recent stocking events occurring in 2011, 2019, and 2021. Cutthroat Trout were collected from all study areas (n=21) except for Area 3, contributing to only 0.8 percent of the total relative abundance for all gear types and study areas. All Cutthroat Trout except one were collected using boat electrofishing. One Cutthroat Trout was collected from a gillnet at a depth of 60-80 feet. More Cutthroat Trout were collected from Areas 1 and 2 (n=15) than the other three areas combined. Cutthroat Trout sizes ranged from 377-522 mm with a PSD value of 100 indicating that the Cutthroat Trout population within Seminoe Reservoir may be imbalanced and skewed towards larger/older fish. The skewed size reflects a reliance on stocking, as no natural reproduction of Cutthroat Trout has been documented in Seminoe Reservoir, and the population is comprised of only planted fish. Rainbow Trout are currently stocked by the WGFD on an annual basis (average of 145,828 fish/year). Rainbow Trout were the most abundant trout species collected and the most abundant game species collected. Rainbow Trout were collected from all study areas (n=199), contributing 7.5 percent of the total relative abundance for all gear types, during all seasons and in all study areas. Over 99 percent of the Rainbow Trout were collected via boat electrofishing with only two individuals collected in gillnets deeper than 60 feet, suggesting that Rainbow Trout largely inhabit the shallow littoral zone of Seminoe Reservoir. Rainbow Trout sizes ranged from 250-530 mm with a PSD value of 99 indicating that the Rainbow Trout population within Seminoe Reservoir may be imbalanced and skewed towards larger/older fish. The age-class imbalance is not surprising, as no natural reproduction of Rainbow Trout has been documented in Seminoe Reservoir, and the population is comprised of only stocked fish. Common Carp are an introduced species to Seminoe Reservoir but have been increasingly popular as a bowfishing sport. Bowfishing tournaments have been occurring over the past few years at Seminoe Reservoir (Personal communication, Kyle Lehto, 2021). Common Carp were collected from all survey areas and comprised 3 percent of the overall catch for all gear types and all seasons. They were most prominent in Area 3 making up 6 percent of the catch in that area. Carp ranged from 595850 mm. No PSD was calculated for Carp. Collection of Carp was almost exclusively via boat electrofishing; however, two individuals were collected in the gillnets, one each in of Areas 3 and 5. Fisheries data collected by Black Canyon during the 2021 sampling season shows similarities to the data collected by WGFD in 2021 regarding species composition and diversity. Rainbow Trout were the dominant game species collected, followed by Walleye, and Brown Trout and Cutthroat Trout, respectively, for both the Black Canyon and WGFD 2021 sampling events. The majority of the non-game species are comprised of the Emerald Shiners, White Sucker, and Cyprinid species contributing to 77.9 percent of the overall catch within the study area. Longnose Sucker, Johnny Darter, and Lake Chub make up the remaining portion of the non-game species. While it can be assumed that Emerald Shiners substantially contribute to the forage base of Seminoe Reservoir, a large number of Crayfish (believed to be the Virile Crayfish [Orconectes virilis]) were observed climbing the inundated walls of “The Canyon” in Area 1 during collection events. In addition, stomach analysis of collected fish (those individuals suffering mortality of expelling their stomach contents) revealed an almost exclusive diet of Crayfish. The fish population at Seminoe Reservoir represented a mix of naturally sustained fish as well as a healthy representation of stocked gamefish. While gamefish were not self-sustaining (i.e., naturally December 2022 | 47

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

reproducing at a rate that does not require stocking), they did have an excellent weight at size reflecting sufficient food base and suitable annual conditions. Conditions in Seminoe Reservoir are heavily managed and reliant on the stocking program for gamefish.

Variances from the Study Plan

The Resident Fish Survey Study was conducted in conformance with the Resident Fish Survey Study Plan dated March 21. 2021. No variances were required.

References

Atkinson, Tiffany. Scott Desrosiers, Tessa Townsend, Thomas P. Simon. 2015. Length-weight relationships of the Emerald Shiner (Notropis atherinoides – Rafinesque, 1818) in Western Basin of Lake Erie. Ohio Journal of Science. February 2, 201514(2):27-35. Becker, G. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press Black Canyon Hydro. 2020. Pre-Application Document Seminoe Pumped Storage Project FERC No. 14787. April 20, 2020. Cochran, Jacob L., 2017. Ecology of the Young-of-the-Year Emerald Shiner (Notropis Atherinoides) in the Upper Niagara River, New York: Growth, Diversity, and Importance as a Forage Species. Great Lakes Center Masters Theses. 3. DeVries, D.R. and R.V. Frie. 1996. Determination of Age and Growth. Pages 483-512 in B.R. Murphy and D.W. Willis, editors, Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Gablehouse, D. W. 1984. A length categorization system to assess fish stocks. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:273-285. Karr, James R. 1963. Age, Growth, and Food Habits of Johnny, Slenderhead and Blacksided Darters of Boon County, Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science, 70(1), 228-236. Kerkhoff. 2010. Ecology Lab – Measuring Biodiversity of Ecological Communities Online [URL]: http://biology.kenyon.edu/courses/biol229/diversity.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2017. Knight, R. L., F. J. Margraf, and R. F. Carline. 1984. Piscivory by walleyes and yellow perch in western Lake Erie. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:677-693. Knight, R. L., and B. Vondracek. 1993. Changes in prey fish populations in western Lake Erie, 196988, as related to walleye, Stizostedion vitreum, predation. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:1289-1298. Lehto, Kyle. 2021. Personal communication via in-person June 17 and June 18, 2021. McMahon, T.E., and D.H. Bennett. 1996. Walleye and Northern Pike: Boost Or Bane To Northwest Fisheries? Fisheries 21(8):6-13. Reclamation, U.S. Bureau of (Reclamation). 2021. Online at Daily Data for Water Year 2021 for Seminoe Reservoir, WY (usbr.gov) Great Plains Region Hydromet Data. Accessed November 2, 2021. U.S. Climate Data. 2021 Version 3. Online [URL]: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/ rawlins/wyoming/united-states/uswy0140. Accessed on November 2, 2021.

December 2022 | 48

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI). 1981. Limnology of the Upper North Platte Reservoir System, Wyoming. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. Engineering and Research Center. July 1981. 138 pp. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (WGFD). 2004. North Platte Angler Newsletter. 2004. Online [URL]: Wyoming Angler Facts Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017. Wyoming State Wildlife Action Plan – 2017. Aquatic Basins. Platte River Basin. Pp. III-15-1-13. Online [URL]: Platte-River-Basin.pdf (wyo.gov).

December 2022 | 49

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix A. Seminoe Reservoir Resident Fish Survey Study Plan

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix B. Wyoming Fish Collection Permit

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

Chapter 33 Permit FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, EDUCATIONAL/DISPLAY, OR SPECIAL PURPOSES Others Authorized by This Permit:

PERMIT ID: 1351

Others under the direction of the permittee

Scott Jones HDR, Inc. Resources/Hydropower 1304 Buckley Road, Suite 202 Syracuse, NY 13212 SPECIES Fish - spp.

NUMBER REGION Laramie, Casper

VALID 5/10/2021 - 12/31/2021

Purpose:

To provide baseline fisheries data for Seminoe Reservoir to support decision making processes related to the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project.

Conditions:

Amended on 6-15-2021: The permittee may conduct near-shore sampling using a beach-seine net with a mesh opening size of 0.5 cm and a length of 50 feet. The permittee SHALL coordinate with the appropriate regional fish supervisor prior to conducting any sampling activities. Failure to coordinate may result in permit non-renewal. WGFD contact information may be found at https://wgfd.wyo.gov/regional-offices. Fish may be collected via boat electrofishing and gill netting. Gill nets shall not exceed six feet in height and 150 feet in length. Permittee shall be restricted to not more than 200 cumulative net-hours of gill net effort within the calendar year. Individual representative fish may be retained for laboratory verification of fish species identification. Additionally, individual fish may be retained as directed by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Fish measurements may be taken, to include length and weight of game species and species of interest. Fish may be retained in a recirculating live well on the electrofishing boat for up to approximately 1 hour for processing before being released in the same vicinity as capture. Areas of permit authorization: downstream portions of Seminoe Reservoir as per the permit application project survey area. In the event of any unintentional capture-caused fatalities, fish shall be disposed of appropriately (e.g. any approved Wyoming landfill) or disposing of fish carcasses by rupturing their swim bladders and sinking them offshore in deep water. Methods of euthanasia shall be in accordance with the “AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition”, or, if applicable, under the methods approved by the permittee's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Sampling equipment shall be cleaned, drained, and disinfected before sampling activity and the permittee shall read and adhere to WGFD Chapter 62 AIS Regulation. All fish sampling crews engaged in electrofishing shall have or be accompanied by at least one individual who is certified by the USFWS in electrofishing techniques and consist of two members who have current cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and first aid raining. No electrofishing operation shall be conducted with a survey crew of less than two individuals. The Department recommends following WGFD safety and orientation protocols (attached with permit) and that an automated external defibrillator be on site during all electrofishing operations. An annual report summarizing permit activities, EVEN IF THE PERMIT WAS NOT UTILIZED, shall be submitted electronically to the Permitting Officer in Cheyenne no later than January 31 of the following year for which this permit is valid. Permittee shall coordinate with the fisheries supervisor(s) for report particulars. Morphometric data shall be supplied in an excel spreadsheet and shall include species, length, and width. Send report(s) to wgf.permitting@wyo.gov.

Page 1 of 2

When studies are completed, any final reports/articles/publications (e.g. peer-reviewed articles, etc.) shall be submitted.

As per state law, the data submitted as a condition of this permit may be utilized by the Department to further its management goals. This permit was issued based on the initial application and study proposal provided to and approved by the department. It does not include any changes or amendments unless provided in writing to the permitting officer and referenced in an amended permit. Unless otherwise indicated above, this permit does not include those species of wildlife defined as protected by W.S. 23-1-101 or those species of wildlife listed as threatened or endangered by federal regulation. This permit is contingent upon the permittee obtaining any necessary federal permit(s). The permit holder shall adhere to all conditions of the application and permit, as well as applicable rules and regulations such as: Wyoming statutes, Commission regulations, federal statutes, county and municipality rules or regulations, and any other laws/regulations/ordinances/covenants. Permittee shall obtain the permission of the owner of private property or the person in charge of the property before entering upon or conducting any activities within the private property; this includes crossing private property to access public lands when no public road access is available. Permittee(s) shall carry a copy of this permit when conducting the above-mentioned activities and agree(s) to the inspection of all collections, gear and materials by any authorized enforcement personnel of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Inspection shall also be allowed by any authorized enforcement personnel of the US Fish and Wildlife Service when permitted species are migratory birds or are federally protected or regulated or when activities are conducted on lands/ facilities under the control of the USFWS. If the individual designated as the permittee fails to submit the required written annual report, data or records in an approved format, no future permit shall be issued to that institution, entity, or individual until the permit report requirement is met.

Scott Edberg Deputy Chief, Wildlife Division

6/15/2021

Page 2 of 2

Resident Fish Survey Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix C. WGFD 2010-2021 Seminoe Reservoir Fish Stocking Data

Stocking Details for 1/1/2010 - 10/26/2021 Stocking Start Date

1/1/2010

Species

Stocking End Date

10/26/2021

Region

Water ID

CR4N0405CN

County

Hatchery

Casper Seminoe Reservoir BRC

CR4N0405CN Stock Date

Hatchery

10/25/2021

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/19/2021

Tank Stocking Temp 10/19/2021

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

10/18/2021

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/3/2020

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/3/2020

Tank Arrival Temp

11/3/2020

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/3/2020

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

8,580

6.00

1,300.0

N/A

1,530.0

6.60

8,184

1,240.0

9,460

2,200.0

6.60

N/A

2,190.0

4.30

N/A

2,230.0

8,888

2,020.0

Receiving Water Temp 50 pH 8.5

3.8

2002FRBC2

8,184.00

0.0

2002FRBc1

9,460.00

0.0

1902FRBC1

9,417.00

0.0

1902FRBC1

0.0

1902frbc1

0.0

1902FRB05

Special Stocking

4.30

8,888.00

Special Stocking

pH 8.5

N/A

8,109.00

Stocking Location Boat ramps

Receiving Water Temp 50

2002FRBC1

Stocking Location Boat ramps 4.30

pH 8.0 9,589

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

Stocking Location Boat ramps

pH 8.0 9,417

8,580.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

2002FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location Boat ramps

Receiving Water Temp 58

Stocking Location Boat ramps 5.30

pH 8.0

N/A

7,560.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 58

2109BRC05

Stocking Location Boat ramps

Receiving Water Temp 55

1,526.2

Lot ID

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 8,089

1,260.0

Lbs Lost

Stocking Location North Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 55

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

1,260.0

# Lost

32,977.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

102.00

Receiving Water Temp 50

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

7,560

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

323.3

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

323.3

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/18/2021

32,977

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

# Stocked Lbs Stocked Lbs Loaded # / Lb # Loaded

Stocking Location Boat ramps 4.40

8,888.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location Boat ramps

Page 1 of 20

FRB

11/2/2020

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/2/2020

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

11/2/2020

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/29/2020

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/29/2020

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/29/2020

Tank Stocking Temp 10/28/2020

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/28/2020

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/28/2020

Tank Arrival Temp

10/28/2020

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

7,828

2,240.0

2,060.0

N/A

2,250.0

4.40

N/A

2,200.0

3.80

8,398

2,210.0

7,474

2,020.0

3.80

N/A

2,040.0

3.80

N/A

2,030.0

3.70

8,177

2,210.0

Receiving Water Temp 52 pH 7.8

0.0

1902frb05

8,550.00

0.0

1902frb05

8,360.00

0.0

1902FRB05

8,398.00

0.0

1902FRB05

7,474.00

0.0

1902FRB05

0.0

1902FRB05

0.0

1902FRB05

0.0

1902FRB05

Stocking Location Boat ramps 4.20

8,568.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location Boat ramps 3.70

7,511.00

Special Stocking

pH 7.5

N/A

7,828.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

1902FRB05

Stocking Location Boat ramps

pH 8.5 7,511

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

Special Stocking

pH 8.5 8,568

9,856.00

Stocking Location Boat ramps

Receiving Water Temp 51

1902FRB05

Special Stocking

pH 8.5

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location Boat ramps

Receiving Water Temp 52

Stocking Location Boat ramps 3.80

pH 8.5

N/A

9,856.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 52

1902FRB05

Stocking Location Boat ramps

pH 8.5 8,360

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 52

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 52

2,250.0

9,900.00

Stocking Location Boat ramps

pH 8.5 8,550

1902FRB05

Stocking Location Boat ramps 4.40

Receiving Water Temp 50

2,240.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

4.50

Receiving Water Temp 50

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

9,856

Speas

2,200.0

Stocking Location Boat ramps

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,240.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,200.0

9,600.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0 9,856

Speas

4.80

Receiving Water Temp 49

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/29/2020

9,900

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,000.0

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,000.0

Receiving Water Temp 49

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

11/2/2020

9,600 N/A

Stocking Location Boat ramps 3.70

8,177.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location Boat ramps

Page 2 of 20

FRB

9/17/2020

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

9/18/2020

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

9/17/2020

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/5/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/5/2018

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/5/2018

Tank Stocking Temp 10/10/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/10/2018

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/11/2018

Tank Arrival Temp

10/11/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

7,105

1,110.0

1,910.0

N/A

2,050.0

6.80

N/A

2,010.0

3.70

7,352

1,950.0

8,112

2,080.0

3.70

N/A

2,080.0

3.70

N/A

2,030.0

3.90

2,652

680.0

Receiving Water Temp 58 pH 7.8

0.0

1702FRBC4

7,728.00

0.0

1702FRBC4

7,578.00

0.0

1702FRBC4

7,352.00

0.0

1702FRBC4

8,112.00

0.0

1702FRBC4

0.0

1702FRBC4

0.0

1702FRBC4

0.0

1702FRBC4

Stocking Location N Red Hills 3.90

8,112.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location N Red Hills 3.90

7,917.00

Special Stocking

pH 7.8

N/A

7,105.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 58

1902FRB05

Stocking Location North Red Hills

pH 7.8 7,917

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 55

Special Stocking

pH 7.8 8,112

7,548.00

Stocking Location North Red hills

Receiving Water Temp 55

1902FRBC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location North Red Hills Ramp

Receiving Water Temp 58

Stocking Location North Red Hills Ramp 3.70

pH 8.0

N/A

7,176.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 58

1902FRBC1

Stocking Location South Red Hills boat ramp

pH 8.0 7,578

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 59

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 59

2,050.0

6,864.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills boat ramp

pH 8.0 7,728

1902FRBC1

Stocking Location South Red Hills boat ramp 7.80

Receiving Water Temp 63

920.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

7.80

Receiving Water Temp 63

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

7,548

Speas

880.0

Stocking Location Boat ramps

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

920.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

880.0

7,799.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,176

Speas

7.80

Receiving Water Temp 63

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/5/2018

6,864

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

999.9

pH 7.8

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

1,000.0

Receiving Water Temp 60

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

9/17/2020

7,800 N/A

Stocking Location S Red Hills 3.90

2,652.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location S Red Hills

Page 3 of 20

FRB

10/11/2018

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/11/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/8/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/8/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/12/2018

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/12/2018

Tank Stocking Temp 10/12/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/25/2018

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/25/2018

Tank Arrival Temp

10/25/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

7,596

2,130.0

2,110.0

N/A

2,000.0

3.90

N/A

2,030.0

3.60

7,480

2,000.0

2,618

700.0

3.70

N/A

2,190.0

3.70

N/A

2,220.0

3.70

7,446

2,190.0

Receiving Water Temp 56 pH 7.8

0.0

1702FRBC4

7,480.00

0.0

1702FRBC4

7,592.00

0.0

1702FRBC4

7,480.00

0.0

1702FRBC4

2,618.00

0.0

1702FRBC4

Stocking Location South Red Hills Boat Ramp 3.40

7,446.00

0.0

1702FRBC4

0.0

1702FRBC4

0.0

1702FRBC4

Special Stocking Stocking Location S Red Hills 3.40

7,548.00

Special Stocking

pH 7.8

N/A

7,596.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 56

1702FRBC4

Stocking Location South Red Hills Boat Ramp

pH 7.8 7,548

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 55

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,446

8,307.00

Stocking Location S Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 54

1702FRBC4

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location S Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 54

Stocking Location South Red Hills Boat Ramp 3.70

pH 7.8

N/A

7,881.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 56

1702FRBC4

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 7.8 7,592

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 56

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 57

2,000.0

7,548.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills Boat Ramp

pH 8.0 7,480

1702FRBC4

Stocking Location South Red Hills Boat Ramp 3.70

Receiving Water Temp 57

2,130.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

3.70

Receiving Water Temp 54

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

8,307

Speas

2,040.0

Stocking Location S Red Hills

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,130.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,040.0

5,069.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,881

Speas

3.70

Receiving Water Temp 54

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/12/2018

7,548

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

1,370.0

pH 7.8

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

1,370.0

Receiving Water Temp 58

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/11/2018

5,069 N/A

Stocking Location S Red Hills 3.40

7,446.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location South Red Hills Ramp

Page 4 of 20

FRB

10/25/2018

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/26/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/29/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/29/2018

Tank Stocking Temp

CRC

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

CRC

6/20/2019

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/14/2019

Tank Stocking Temp 10/14/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/14/2019

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/14/2019

Tank Arrival Temp

10/17/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

2,016

2,010.0

630.0

N/A

3,180.0

3.20

N/A

3,080.0

3.20

7,560

2,160.0

7,490

2,140.0

4.80

2,180.0

3.50

N/A

7,490

2,140.0

Receiving Water Temp 56 pH 8.0

0.0

1702FRBC4

0.0

1809CRC01

14,784.00

0.0

1809CRC01

7,560.00

7,490.00

0.0

1802FRBC1

0.0

1802FRBC1

7,630.00

0.0

1802FRBC1

0.0

1802FRBC1

0.0

1802FRBC1

Special Stocking Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.50

7,770.00

Special Stocking

pH 8.5

N/A

Stocking Location 3.50

Receiving Water Temp 51

1702FRBC4

Special Stocking

pH 8.5 2,220.0

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

2,220.0

Stocking Location N Red Hills Boat Ramp

Receiving Water Temp 51

2,180.0

1702FRBC4

Special Stocking

Stocking Location

56 7,770

15,264.00

pH 8.5 2,140.0

0.0

Stocking Location N Red Hills Boat Ramp

pH 8.5

N/A

2,016.00

Special Stocking

56 7,630

6,432.00

Receiving Water Temp 51

N/A

2,160.0

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 4.80

pH 7.5

N/A

7,412.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 55

1702FRBC4

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

pH 7.5 14,784

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 55

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 55

3,180.0

7,412.00

Stocking Location North Red Hills Ramp

pH 8.0 15,264

1702FRBC4

Stocking Location North Red Hills Ramp 3.40

Receiving Water Temp 55

2,180.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

3.40

Receiving Water Temp 56

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

6,432

Speas

2,180.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills Ramp

pH 7.8

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,180.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Jones Hole Fed

Tank Stocking Temp

2,180.0

7,616.00 Special Stocking

pH 7.8 7,412

Jones Hole Fed

3.40

Receiving Water Temp 56

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

6/18/2019

7,412

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,240.0

pH 7.8

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,240.0

Receiving Water Temp 56

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/26/2018

7,616 N/A

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.50

7,490.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location North Red Hills

Page 5 of 20

FRB

10/15/2019

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/15/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/15/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/16/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/17/2019

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/18/2019

Tank Stocking Temp 10/18/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/24/2019

Tank Arrival Temp

10/24/2019

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/24/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

2,070.0

N/A

2,110.0

3.60

pH 8.5

Stocking Location

2,110.0

3.60

Receiving Water Temp 52

2,150.0

2,250.0

2,150.0

3.50

7,875

2,250.0

3.50

N/A

2,280.0

3.50

N/A

2,310.0

7,590

2,300.0

Receiving Water Temp 51 pH 8.0

0.0

1802FRBC1

7,740.00

0.0

1802FRBC1

0.0

1802FRBC1

7,875.00

7,525.00

0.0

1802FRBC1

7,875.00

0.0

1802FRBC1

7,524.00

0.0

1802FRBC1

0.0

1802FRBC1

0.0

1802FRBC1

Special Stocking Stocking Location boat ramp 3.30

7,623.00

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Stocking Location N. Red Hills 3.30

Receiving Water Temp 55

7,596.00

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,623

1802FRBC1

Stocking Location N. Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 55

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.5 7,524

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

1802FRBC1

Stocking Location North Red Hills

pH 8.5

N/A

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

Stocking Location N. Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 56

2,150.0

1802FRBC1

Stocking Location N. Red Hills 3.60

pH 8.0 7,525

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 52

N/A

7,596.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.5

N/A

7,659.00

Receiving Water Temp 51

2,110.0

1802FRBC1

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.70

Special Stocking

57 7,875

7,525.00

Stocking Location

2,110.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.5 7,740

3.50

pH 8.5

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

7,596 N/A

Speas

2,150.0

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 51

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

7,596 N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,070.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,150.0

7,665.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.5 7,659

Speas

3.50

Receiving Water Temp 51

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/16/2019

7,525

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,190.0

pH 8.5

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,190.0

Receiving Water Temp 51

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/15/2019

7,665 N/A

Stocking Location boat ramp 3.30

7,590.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location S. Red Hills

Page 6 of 20

FRB

10/24/2019

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/25/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/25/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/25/2019

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

9/28/2015

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

9/28/2015

Tank Stocking Temp 9/28/2015

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

9/29/2015

9/30/2015

3.50

2,160.0

1,920.0

7,385

2,110.0

3.50

N/A

2,060.0

3.50

N/A

1,700.0

1,440

300.0

4.20

9,888

2,060.0

4.80

2,010.0

7,385.00

8,652.00

7,140.00

1,440.00

4.80

9,888.00

9,447.00

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Special Stocking

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

2,010.0

4.70

9,447.00

Tank Arrival Temp

N/A

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Special Stocking

Tank Stocking Temp

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

9,837 N/A 55

2,020.0

Receiving Water Temp 65 pH 8.0

1802FRBC1

0.0

1402FRBC2

0.0

1402FRBC2

0.0

1402FRBC2

0.0

1402FRBC2

0.0

1402FRBC2

0.0

1402FRBC2

0.0

1402FRBC2

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 4.70

N/A

9,447

0.0

Special Stocking

Tank Arrival Temp

Speas

1802FRBC1

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

pH 8.5 9,447

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 62

Special Stocking

pH 8.5

N/A

6,720.00

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 62

1802FRBC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.5

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 62

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 4.20

pH 8.5 7,140

7,560.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 62

1802FRBC1

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

pH 8.0 8,652

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

7,630.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills Ramp

Receiving Water Temp 51

1802FRBC1

Stocking Location South Red Hills Ramp 3.50

Receiving Water Temp 52

1,920.0

0.0

Special Stocking

Tank Stocking Temp

Tank Arrival Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

6,720

Speas

2,180.0

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,160.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,180.0

7,656.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,560

Speas

3.30

Receiving Water Temp 52

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

9/28/2015

7,630

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,320.0

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,320.0

Receiving Water Temp 51

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/25/2019

7,656 N/A

4.87

9,837.00 Special Stocking

Stocking Location s red hills

Page 7 of 20

FRB

9/30/2015

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

9/30/2015

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/1/2015

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/1/2015

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/2/2015

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/2/2015

Tank Stocking Temp 10/2/2015

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/5/2015

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/5/2015

Tank Arrival Temp

10/5/2015

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

9,015

2,000.0

1,990.0

N/A

1,990.0

4.53

N/A

2,060.0

4.53

9,080

2,000.0

9,443

2,080.0

4.54

N/A

1,930.0

4.54

N/A

1,960.0

4.54

9,506

1,940.0

Receiving Water Temp 63 pH 8.0

0.0

1402FRBC2

9,015.00

0.0

1402FRBC2

9,352.00

0.0

1402FRBC2

9,080.00

0.0

1402FRBC2

9,443.00

0.0

1402FRBC2

0.0

1402FRBC2

Stocking Location 4.70

9,071.00 Special Stocking

Stocking Location North Red Hills 4.70

9,212.00

0.0

1402FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

9,015.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 63

1402FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 8.0 9,212

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 63

Special Stocking

pH 8.5 9,071

9,060.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 65

1402FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 64

Stocking Location south red hills 4.53

pH 8.0

N/A

2,561.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 64

1402FRBC2

Stocking Location south red hills

pH 8.0 9,352

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 65

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 65

1,990.0

6,864.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 8.5 9,015

1402FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills 4.40

Receiving Water Temp 65

582.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.5

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

4.80

Receiving Water Temp 65

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

9,060

Speas

1,430.0

Stocking Location s red hills

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

582.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

1,430.0

9,643.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0 2,561

Speas

4.87

Receiving Water Temp 65

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/1/2015

6,864

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

1,980.0

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

1,980.0

Receiving Water Temp 65

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

9/30/2015

9,643 N/A

Stocking Location North Red Hills 4.90

9,506.00

0.0

1402FRBC2

Special Stocking Stocking Location north red hills

Page 8 of 20

FRB

10/19/2017

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/20/2017

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/18/2017

Tank Stocking Temp 10/18/2017

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/19/2017

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/23/2017

Tank Arrival Temp

10/23/2017

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/23/2017

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/23/2017

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/23/2017

Tank Stocking Temp

2,010.0

2,030.0

N/A

3.40

6,169

3.40

6,262

3.10

Stocking Location

2,020.0

3.10

Receiving Water Temp 54

1,990.0

2,040.0

6,200

2,000.0

Receiving Water Temp 54 pH 8.3

1602FRBC1

0.0

1602FRBC1

6,262.00

0.0

1602FRBC1

0.0

1602FRBC1

0.0

1602FRBC1

0.0

1602FRBC1

6,169.00

0.0

1602FRBC1

Special Stocking

3.10

6,324.00

0.0

1602FRBC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.3

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location North Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 54

Stocking Location North Red Hills 3.10

Receiving Water Temp 54

2,040.0

1602FRBC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.3

N/A

6,169.00

pH 7.8

57 6,324

6,479.00

Special Stocking

pH 8.3

N/A

6,834.00

Receiving Water Temp 50

2,020.0

0.0

Stocking Location North Red Hills boat ramp 3.40

Special Stocking

57 6,169

6,902.00

Stocking Location

1,990.0

Special Stocking

pH 7.8 1,990.0

1602FRBC1

Stocking Location North Red Hills boat ramp

Receiving Water Temp 50

N/A

6,834.00

Special Stocking

2,090.0

0.0

Special Stocking

Stocking Location

2,090.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

6,834.00

Receiving Water Temp 54

59 6,479

2,010.0

1602FRBC1

Stocking Location south red hills

Receiving Water Temp 55

2,010.0

0.0

Stocking Location south red hills 3.40

Receiving Water Temp 55

2,030.0

7,038.00

Special Stocking

pH 8.5 6,834

3.40

Receiving Water Temp 55

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

6,902

Speas

2,070.0

pH 8.5

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,070.0

Receiving Water Temp 55

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/23/2017

6,834

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

Stocking Location

pH 8.0

N/A

7,004.00

pH 8.0

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

3.40

pH 8.0 6,834

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,060.0

Special Stocking

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

7,038 N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,060.0

Receiving Water Temp 54

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/20/2017

7,004 N/A

Stocking Location North Red Hills 3.10

6,200.00

0.0

1602FRBC1

Special Stocking Stocking Location North Red Hills

Page 9 of 20

FRB

10/25/2017

10/24/2016

Speas

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/25/2016

FRB

10/25/2016

10/26/2016

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Receiving Water Temp 58

57 6,882

2,220.0

3.10

6,540

2,180.0

3.00

2,190.0

6,944.00

6,882.00

6,540.00

6,789.00 Special Stocking

pH N/A

Stocking Location

7,037

2,270.0

3.10

7,037.00

Tank Arrival Temp

N/A

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Special Stocking

Tank Stocking Temp

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

Speas

7,006 N/A

2,260.0

3.10

Receiving Water Temp 56

Speas

2,260.0

6,913

2,230.0

3.10

2,220.0

7,006.00

6,913.00

6,882.00

Tank Arrival Temp

N/A

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Special Stocking

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

6,882

2,220.0

3.10

6,882.00

Tank Arrival Temp

N/A

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Special Stocking

Tank Stocking Temp

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

Speas

5,376

1,680.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.10

Tank Stocking Temp Speas

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.3 6,882

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 56

1502FRBC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.3

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.10

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Speas

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 6,789

1502FRBC1

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 58

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Stocking Location North Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 58

1602FRBC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location North Red Hills 3.10

N/A

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

2,240.0

N/A

Tank Arrival Temp

10/25/2016

2,240.0

6,496.00

Special Stocking

Tank Arrival Temp

Tank Stocking Temp 10/25/2016

2.90

Tank Stocking Temp

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

2,240.0

pH 8.0 6,944

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,240.0

Receiving Water Temp 58

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp 10/24/2016

6,496 N/A

Speas

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

5,597.00

Tank Stocking Temp

Tank Arrival Temp

10/24/2016

2.90

Special Stocking

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

1,930.0

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

1,930.0

N/A

Tank Arrival Temp

10/24/2016

5,597

Tank Arrival Temp

3.20

5,376.00

Tank Arrival Temp

N/A

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Special Stocking

Tank Stocking Temp

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

0.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

Page 10 of 20

FRB

10/26/2016

Speas

FRB

10/27/2016

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

Speas

N/A

Tank Stocking Temp

N/A

Speas

2,200.0

Speas

6,630 N/A

Tank Stocking Temp

N/A

Speas

6,600

2,210.0

3.20

3.00

Receiving Water Temp N/A

2,200.0

7,040.00

6,630.00

6,600.00

Tank Arrival Temp

N/A

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Special Stocking

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

6,630 N/A

6,720

2,240.0

7,200

2,250.0

N/A

2,210.0

3.20

N/A

2,200.0

7,072

2,210.0

Receiving Water Temp 50 pH 7.7

0.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

6,630.00

0.0

1502FRBC1

6,720.00

0.0

1502FRBC1

7,200.00

0.0

1502FRBC1

7,072.00

0.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

0.0

1502FRBC1

Special Stocking Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.20

7,040.00

Special Stocking

pH 7.8

N/A

1502FRBC1

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.20

Receiving Water Temp 50

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,040

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 50

1502FRBC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,072

3.00

Receiving Water Temp 50

Speas

2,250.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.3

N/A

Speas

2,240.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 56

Speas

3.00

pH 8.3

N/A

Speas

2,210.0

Receiving Water Temp 56

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,210.0

1502FRBC1

Stocking Location 3.00

Tank Stocking Temp Speas

0.0

Special Stocking

pH N/A 2,200.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Stocking Location

Tank Arrival Temp

1502FRBC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.3 7,040

6,820.00

pH N/A

Tank Arrival Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

Receiving Water Temp 56

0.0

Stocking Location 3.10

N/A

Tank Arrival Temp

10/31/2016

2,200.0

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

pH N/A 2,200.0

6,851.00

Special Stocking

Tank Arrival Temp

10/31/2016

3.10

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

2,210.0

N/A

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Arrival Temp

10/31/2016

6,820

2,210.0

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Tank Arrival Temp

Tank Stocking Temp 10/31/2016

6,851

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

1,612.00

Tank Stocking Temp

Tank Arrival Temp

10/27/2016

3.10

Special Stocking

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

520.0

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Tank Arrival Temp

10/26/2016

520.0

N/A

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

1,612

Tank Arrival Temp

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.20

7,072.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location S. Red Hills

Page 11 of 20

FRB

11/1/2016

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/1/2016

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/20/2010

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/20/2010

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/20/2010

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/20/2010

Tank Stocking Temp 10/21/2010

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/21/2010

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/21/2010

Tank Arrival Temp

10/21/2010

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

7,770

2,240.0

2,220.0

N/A

2,200.0

3.50

N/A

2,220.0

3.50

7,920

2,400.0

6,634

2,140.0

3.50

N/A

2,190.0

3.30

N/A

2,190.0

3.10

8,177

2,210.0

Receiving Water Temp 60 pH 7.8

0.0

0902FRBC2

7,700.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

7,770.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

7,920.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

6,634.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.60

7,884.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

Special Stocking Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.60

7,884.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 7.8

N/A

7,770.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 60

0902FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 7.9 7,884

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 57

Special Stocking

pH 7.9 7,884

7,840.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 57

1502FRBC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 62

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.50

pH 8.0

N/A

2,350.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 62

1502FRBC1

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 8.0 7,770

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 62

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 57

2,200.0

6,144.00

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

pH 7.9 7,700

1502FRBC1

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.20

Receiving Water Temp 57

734.4

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 7.9

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

3.20

Receiving Water Temp 50

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

7,840

Speas

1,920.0

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

734.4

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

1,920.0

4,656.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0 2,350

Speas

3.20

Receiving Water Temp 50

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/20/2010

6,144

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

1,455.0

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

1,455.0

Receiving Water Temp 50

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

11/1/2016

4,656 N/A

Stocking Location North Red Hills 3.70

8,177.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

Special Stocking Stocking Location North Red Hills

Page 12 of 20

FRB

10/21/2010

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/22/2010

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/22/2010

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/22/2010

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/25/2010

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/25/2010

Tank Stocking Temp 10/25/2010

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/25/2010

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/25/2010

Tank Arrival Temp

9/26/2011

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

7,514

2,200.0

2,210.0

N/A

2,370.0

3.40

N/A

2,220.0

3.40

7,735

2,210.0

7,805

2,230.0

3.50

N/A

1,920.0

3.50

N/A

1,860.0

3.50

7,920

2,200.0

Receiving Water Temp 65 pH 7.9

0.0

0902FRBC2

8,295.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

7,770.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

7,735.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

7,805.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.70

7,104.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

Special Stocking Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.70

6,882.00

0.0

0902FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 8.5

N/A

7,514.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 53

0902FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 8.5 6,882

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 53

Special Stocking

pH 8.5 7,104

7,480.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 53

0902FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 7.9

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 53

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.50

pH 7.9

N/A

6,240.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 53

0902FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 7.8 7,770

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 60

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 60

2,370.0

7,136.00

Stocking Location North Red Hills

pH 7.8 8,295

0902FRBC2

Stocking Location North Red Hills 3.20

Receiving Water Temp 60

1,950.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 7.8

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

3.20

Receiving Water Temp 57

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

7,480

Speas

2,230.0

Stocking Location North Red Hills

pH 7.9

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

1,950.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,230.0

8,399.00 Special Stocking

pH 7.9 6,240

Speas

3.70

Receiving Water Temp 57

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/22/2010

7,136

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,270.0

pH 7.8

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,270.0

Receiving Water Temp 60

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/22/2010

8,399 N/A

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.60

7,920.00

0.0

1002FRBC1

Special Stocking Stocking Location South Red Hills

Page 13 of 20

FRB

9/26/2011

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

9/26/2011

Tank Stocking Temp

SRC

Tank Arrival Temp

SRC

9/27/2011

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

9/28/2011

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

SRC

9/28/2011

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/31/2011

Tank Stocking Temp 10/31/2011

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/31/2011

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/31/2011

Tank Arrival Temp

11/7/2011

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

6,365

1,820.0

1,675.0

N/A

1,830.0

4.50

N/A

1,260.0

3.80

7,455

2,130.0

7,595

2,170.0

3.90

N/A

2,260.0

3.50

N/A

2,180.0

3.50

8,550

2,250.0

2,280.0

Receiving Water Temp 51 pH 8.0

0.0

1002FRBC1

6,405.00

0.0

1002FRBC1

4,914.00

0.0

1001SRCC1

7,455.00

0.0

1002FRBC2

7,595.00

0.0

1002FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills ramp 3.50

7,910.00

0.0

1002FRBC2

Special Stocking Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.60

7,848.00

0.0

1002FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

6,365.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 52

1001SRCC1

Stocking Location South Red Hill ramp

pH 8.0 7,848

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 52

Special Stocking

pH 8.1 7,910

8,190.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 47

1001SRCC1

Special Stocking

pH 8.1

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 47

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.50

pH 8.0

N/A

8,760.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 61

1002FRBC1

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 8.0 4,914

15.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 61

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 61

1,830.0

7,961.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 8.0 6,405

1002FRBC1

Stocking Location South Red Hills 4.80

Receiving Water Temp 60

1,825.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

3.80

Receiving Water Temp 60

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

8,190

Speas

2,095.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

1,825.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,080.0

8,140.00 Special Stocking

pH 7.9 8,760

Speas

3.70

Receiving Water Temp 65

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

9/28/2011

7,904

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,200.0

pH 7.9

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,200.0

Receiving Water Temp 65

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

9/27/2011

8,140 N/A

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.80

8,664.00

114

30.0

1002FRBC2

Special Stocking Stocking Location South Red Hills

Page 14 of 20

FRB

11/7/2011

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/7/2011

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

11/7/2011

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/8/2011

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/8/2011

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

11/8/2011

Tank Stocking Temp 9/25/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

9/25/2012

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/2/2012

Tank Arrival Temp

10/2/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

5,780

2,100.0

1,700.0

N/A

1,750.0

3.70

N/A

1,770.0

3.40

6,256

1,840.0

8,000

2,000.0

3.40

N/A

1,950.0

3.40

N/A

2,100.0

4.00

7,904

2,080.0

Receiving Water Temp 56 pH 8.0

0.0

1002FRBC2

5,950.00

0.0

1002FRBC2

6,018.00

0.0

1002FRBC2

6,256.00

0.0

1002FRBC2

8,000.00

0.0

1102FRBT1

Stocking Location Boat Club boat ramp 4.00

7,800.00

0.0

1102FRBT1

Special Stocking Stocking Location Boat Club boat ramp 3.80

7,980.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

5,780.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 56

1002FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 8.0 7,980

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 68

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,800

7,770.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 68

1002FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 42

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.40

pH 8.0

N/A

7,807.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 42

1002FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 7.8 6,018

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 42

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 42

1,750.0

8,100.00

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 7.8 5,950

1002FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hills 3.70

Receiving Water Temp 50

2,110.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 7.8

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

3.60

Receiving Water Temp 50

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

7,770

Boulder

2,250.0

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 7.8

N/A

Boulder Tank Arrival Temp

2,110.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,250.0

8,550.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,807

Speas

3.80

Receiving Water Temp 51

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

11/8/2011

8,100

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,250.0

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,250.0

Receiving Water Temp 51

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

11/7/2011

8,550 N/A

Stocking Location Seminoe Lower Red Hills 3.80

7,904.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

Special Stocking Stocking Location Seminoe Lower Red Hills

Page 15 of 20

FRB

10/2/2012

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/3/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/3/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/3/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/4/2012

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/4/2012

Tank Stocking Temp 10/4/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/4/2012

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/5/2012

Tank Arrival Temp

10/5/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

7,560

2,200.0

2,160.0

N/A

2,220.0

3.50

N/A

2,060.0

3.50

7,840

2,240.0

7,665

2,190.0

3.50

N/A

2,270.0

3.50

N/A

1,932.0

3.50

7,770

2,220.0

Receiving Water Temp 57 pH 8.0

0.0

1102FRBC2

7,770.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

7,210.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

7,840.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

7,665.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

Stocking Location S. Red Hills Ramp 3.50

7,945.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

Special Stocking Stocking Location S. Red Hills Ramp 3.80

7,342.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

0.0

1102FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 7.5

N/A

7,560.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 55

1102FRBC2

Stocking Location S. Red Hills Boat Ramp

pH 7.8 7,342

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 55

Special Stocking

pH 7.8 7,945

7,700.00

Stocking Location S. Red Hills Ramp

Receiving Water Temp 55

1102FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 7.8

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location S red Hills ramp

Receiving Water Temp 55

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.50

pH 7.8

N/A

7,280.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 55

1102FRBC2

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

pH 7.8 7,210

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 55

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

2,220.0

7,420.00

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

pH 8.0 7,770

1102FRBC2

Stocking Location S. Red Hills Ramp 3.50

Receiving Water Temp 51

2,080.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

3.50

Receiving Water Temp 51

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

7,700

Speas

2,120.0

Stocking Location S. Red Hills Ramp

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,080.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,120.0

8,626.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0 7,280

Speas

3.80

Receiving Water Temp 51

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/4/2012

7,420

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,270.0

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,270.0

Receiving Water Temp 56

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/3/2012

8,626 N/A

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.50

7,770.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location Red Hills Ramp

Page 16 of 20

FRB

10/5/2012

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/5/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/8/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/8/2012

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/8/2012

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

11/4/2013

Tank Stocking Temp 11/4/2013

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/4/2013

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/4/2013

Tank Arrival Temp

11/4/2013

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

7,770

2,210.0

2,220.0

N/A

2,200.0

3.50

N/A

2,200.0

3.50

8,000

1,900.0

8,000

1,900.0

3.40

N/A

2,000.0

4.21

N/A

2,050.0

4.21

8,000

1,900.0

Receiving Water Temp 49 pH 8.0

0.0

1102FRBC2

7,480.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

7,480.00

0.0

1102FRBC2

8,000.00

0.0

1202FRBC3

8,000.00

0.0

1202FRBC3

Stocking Location North Red Hills 4.00

8,000.00

0.0

1202FRBC3

Special Stocking Stocking Location North Red Hills 4.00

8,200.00

0.0

1202FRBC3

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

7,770.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 46

1102FRBC2

Stocking Location North Red Hills

pH 8.0 8,200

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 46

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 8,000

7,735.00

Stocking Location S. red hills

Receiving Water Temp 46

1102FRBC2

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location s. red hills

Receiving Water Temp 46

Stocking Location South Red Hill 3.40

pH 8.5

N/A

7,770.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 52

1102FRBC2

Stocking Location South Red Hill

pH 8.5 7,480

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 52

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 52

2,200.0

7,700.00

Stocking Location S. Red Hills Ramp

pH 8.0 7,480

1102FRBC2

Stocking Location S. Red Hills Ramp 3.50

Receiving Water Temp 52

2,220.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

3.50

Receiving Water Temp 61

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

7,735

Speas

2,200.0

Stocking Location red hills boat ramp

pH 7.8

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,220.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,200.0

7,700.00 Special Stocking

pH 7.8 7,770

Speas

3.50

Receiving Water Temp 61

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/8/2012

7,700

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

2,200.0

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

2,200.0

Receiving Water Temp 57

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/5/2012

7,700 N/A

Stocking Location North Red Hills 4.21

8,000.00

0.0

1202FRBC3

Special Stocking Stocking Location North Red Hills

Page 17 of 20

FRB

11/5/2013

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/5/2013

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

11/5/2013

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/5/2013

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/6/2013

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

11/6/2013

Tank Stocking Temp 11/6/2013

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/6/2013

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/7/2013

Tank Arrival Temp

11/7/2013

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

9,315

1,800.0

2,070.0

N/A

4.50

7,680

8,372

1,850.0

4.50

4.40

4.00

N/A

pH 8.0

Stocking Location

1,820.0

4.60

Receiving Water Temp 48

2,030.0

5,799

2,030.0

8,372.00

8,932.00 Special Stocking Stocking Location

1,270.0

4.60

5,842.00

Receiving Water Temp 44

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

Stocking Location

1,260.0

0.0

1202FRBC3

0.0

1202FRBC3

0.0

1202FRBC3

0.0

1202FRBC3

0.0

1202FRBC3

0.0

1202FRBC3

0.0

1202FRBC3

0.0

1202FRBC3

0.0

1202FRBC3

Stocking Location 4.40

pH 8.0 1,270.0

1202FRBC3

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 48

N/A

7,680.00 Special Stocking

52 5,842

8,140.00

Receiving Water Temp 48

pH 8.0

N/A

8,140.00

Special Stocking

1,820.0

0.0

Stocking Location North Red Hills 4.40

Stocking Location

52 8,932

9,315.00

pH 8.0 1,920.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 48

1,920.0

1202FRBC3

Stocking Location North Red Hills

Special Stocking

N/A

8,100.00

Stocking Location

1,850.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

8,100.00

Receiving Water Temp 48

53 8,140

1,850.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 48

1,850.0

8,190.00

Stocking Location North Red Hills

pH 8.0 8,140

1202FRBC3

Stocking Location North Red Hills 4.50

Receiving Water Temp 46

1,800.0

0.0

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

4.50

Receiving Water Temp 46

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

8,100

Speas

1,820.0

Stocking Location North Red Hills

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

1,800.0

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

1,820.0

8,190.00 Special Stocking

pH 8.0 8,100

Speas

4.50

Receiving Water Temp 48

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

11/6/2013

8,190

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

1,820.0

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

1,820.0

Receiving Water Temp 48

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

11/5/2013

8,190 N/A

4.60

5,799.00

Receiving Water Temp 44

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

Stocking Location

Page 18 of 20

FRB

11/20/2013

Speas Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/20/2013

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

10/7/2014

Tank Stocking Temp 10/8/2014

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

10/9/2014

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/4/2014

Tank Arrival Temp

11/4/2014

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/4/2014

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

11/5/2014

Tank Arrival Temp Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

11/5/2014

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

8,968

Speas

2,550.0

3.80

2,550.0

1,061.0

2,360.0

N/A

2,150.0

4.00

N/A

2,000.0

3.80

8,864

2,010.0

8,260

2,000.0

4.41

N/A

2,010.0

4.41

N/A

2,000.0

4.13

2,000.0

0.0

1302FRB07

8,170.00

0.0

1302FRB07

8,820.00

0.0

1302FRBY3

8,864.00

0.0

1302FRBY3

8,260.00

0.0

1302FRBY5

0.0

1302FRBY5

0.0

1302FRBY5

0.0

1302FRBY5

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 4.13

8,301.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location S. Red Hill 4.10

8,200.00

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 8,000

8,968.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 51

1302FRB07

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

pH 8.0 8,200

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 53

Special Stocking

pH 8.0 8,301

4,244.00

Stocking Location S. Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 53

1302FRB07

Special Stocking

pH 8.0

N/A

0.0

Stocking Location North Red Hills

Receiving Water Temp 53

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 3.80

pH 8.0

N/A

10,710.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 53

1202FRBC3

Stocking Location South Red Hills Boat Ramp

pH 8.0 8,820

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 62

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 62

2,150.0

1202FRBC3

Stocking Location South Red Hills

pH 8.0 8,170

0.0

Stocking Location 4.20

Receiving Water Temp 62

2,360.0

4,598.00

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 62

Speas

1,210.0

pH 8.0

N/A

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

1,210.0

Receiving Water Temp 45

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

11/4/2014

4,244

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

Stocking Location

pH 8.0

N/A

4,560.00

pH 8.0

Speas

Tank Stocking Temp

FRB

N/A

Dubois

3.80

pH 8.0 10,710

Dubois Tank Arrival Temp

1,200.0

Special Stocking

Dubois Tank Arrival Temp

FRB

4,598 N/A

Dubois

Tank Stocking Temp

1,200.0

Receiving Water Temp 45

Speas Tank Arrival Temp

10/7/2014

4,560 N/A

Stocking Location S. Red Hills 4.00

8,000.00

Tank Arrival Temp

N/A

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Special Stocking

Tank Stocking Temp

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

Page 19 of 20

FRB

FHR

11/5/2014

9/29/2014

Speas

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

Speas

N/A

Tank Stocking Temp

N/A

Speas

2,000.0

5.10

2,190.0

8,555.00

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Special Stocking

N/A

pH N/A

Stocking Location

2,970 N/A

3,036

1,380.0

N/A

900.0

2.20

N/A

920.0

Receiving Water Temp 58 pH 8.5

1302FRBY3

0.0

1302FRBY5

2,970.00

0.0

1210FHR06

3,036.00

0.0

1210FHR06

0.0

1210FHR06

0.0

1210FHR06

Stocking Location South Ramp 2.20

1,980.00

Special Stocking

pH 8.5 2,024

0.0

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 58

Stocking Location South Ramp

pH 8.5 1,980

1,380.0

1302FRBY5

Special Stocking

Receiving Water Temp 58

Tillett

2.20

pH 8.5

N/A

Tillett

1,350.0

Receiving Water Temp 58

Tillett

Tank Arrival Temp

1,350.0

0.0

Stocking Location 3.91

N/A

Tillett

Special Stocking

pH N/A 2,190.0

10,200.00

Tank Arrival Temp

Tank Stocking Temp

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

8,555

2,000.0

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Tank Stocking Temp

Tank Arrival Temp

10/1/2014

10,200

Tank Arrival Temp

Tank Stocking Temp

FHR

7,320.00

Tank Stocking Temp

FHR

4.00

Special Stocking

Tank Arrival Temp

10/1/2014

1,830.0

Receiving Water Temp N/A

Tank Stocking Temp 9/29/2014

1,830.0

N/A

Tank Arrival Temp

FHR

7,320

Tank Arrival Temp

Stocking Location South Ramp 2.20

2,024.00

Special Stocking Stocking Location South Ramp

Page 20 of 20

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix E Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study 2022 Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC FERC No. 14787 Carbon County, Wyoming December 2022

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Contents 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1

Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2

Environmental Setting of the Study Area .................................................................................. 3

2.3

Special-status Plant Species ..................................................................................................... 4 2.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ...................................................... 4 2.3.2 Ute ladies’-tresses Habitat Assessment....................................................................... 5 2.3.3 BLM Sensitive Species................................................................................................. 6

2.4

Noxious Weeds ......................................................................................................................... 7

Survey Results .................................................................................................................................. 10 3.1

Special-status Plant Species ................................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species .................................................... 10 3.1.2 BLM-Sensitive Species .............................................................................................. 11

3.2

Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................................... 15

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 17 4.1

Special-status Plant Species ................................................................................................... 17 4.1.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species .................................................... 17 4.1.2 BLM Sensitive Species............................................................................................... 17

4.2

Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................................... 17

References ........................................................................................................................................ 18

December 2022 | i

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Tables Table 2-1. Vegetation Communities Identified within the Study Area ........................................................... 4 Table 2-2. Federally Listed Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area .................................. 5 Table 2-3. BLM Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area ..................................... 6 Table 2-4. Noxious Weeds with Potential to Occur in the Study Area .......................................................... 8 Table 3-1. Persistent Sepal Yellowcress Occurrences in the Study Area .................................................. 14

Figures Figure 1-1. Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Area ............................................................. 2 Figure 3-1. Ute Ladies’-tresses Habitat within the Study Area ................................................................... 11 Figure 3-2. Persistent Sepal Yellowcress Locations within the Study Area ............................................... 13 Figure 3-3. Persistent Sepal Yellowcress Individual within the Study Area during the 2021 Surveys .......................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendices Appendix A. Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weed Study Plan Appendix B. USFWS IPaC Report Appendix C. Ute Ladies’-Tresses Habitat Mapbook Appendix D. Limber Pine Occurrence Map Series Appendix E. Noxious Weed Map Series Appendix F. Flora Species List

December 2022 | ii

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Acronyms and Abbreviations amsl

above mean sea level

Black Canyon

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

Reclamation

Bureau of Reclamation

°F

Degrees Fahrenheit

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GPS

Global Positioning System

IPaC

Information for Planning and Consultation

Megawatt

Project

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

RTE

Rare, threatened, and endangered

USACE

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

W.S.

Wyoming Statutes

December 2022 | iii

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Introduction

This Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report has been prepared for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon), a subsidiary of rPlus Hydro, LLLP, in support of the licensing of the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No. 14787) (Project). This report describes the results of the special-status plants and noxious weed surveys (study) conducted in 2021 and 2022. This report has been prepared in support of Black Canyon’s plans to pursue the permits, licenses, and agreements necessary to construct and operate the Project.

1.1

Project Description

On April 20, 2020, Black Canyon submitted a Notice of Intent to file an Application for an Original License and the accompanying Pre-Application Document to FERC for a proposed pumped storage project at and near the existing Seminoe Reservoir, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, in Carbon County (Project). Figure 1-1 shows the general vicinity of the Project. The Project involves the construction of a new 972-megawatt (MW) pumped storage facility including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The proposed upper reservoir would consist of a surface area of 114 acres at normal maximum operating pool. The Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance would also include an underground powerhouse; a power tunnel between the upper reservoir and the powerhouse; a tailrace tunnel between the powerhouse and a new intake in the existing Seminoe Reservoir; a powerhouse access tunnel; a high-voltage transmission tunnel; and a switchyard and transmission line. The Project will connect to the electric grid at the existing Aeolus Substation.

December 2022 | 1

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1-1. Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Area

December 2022 | 2

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Methodology

The special-status plants and noxious weeds survey was conducted in compliance with the associated 2021 Study Plan (Appendix A). An initial botanical survey was conducted June 28 through July 2, 2021. Then, in 2022, the Project study area shifted, and a subsequent field visit was required to survey the updated Footprint of Potential Disturbance. Special-status plants and noxious weeds surveys were conducted June 20 through June 22, 2022, for the updated Footprint of Potential Disturbance. This report covers the 2021 and 2022 surveys that fall within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance.

2.1

Study Area

The study area included all property that could be affected by Project construction and operation as described in the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Plan dated March 17, 2021. Since study initiation, additional lands have been identified that have been included in a Footprint of Potential Disturbance for the Project which is also known as the updated study area. The updated study area is shown in Figure 1-1. This report reflects the results of the 2022 survey for the updated study area. The study area is approximately 3,203 acres, with 1,682 acres occurring on Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-managed land and the remaining 1,232 acres on private property.

2.2

Environmental Setting of the Study Area

The study area occurs in the Foothill Shrublands and Low Mountains and the Rolling Sagebrush Steppe Ecoregions of Wyoming (Chapman 2004). Elevation within the study area ranges from approximately 6,200 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near Seminoe Dam to approximately 7,300 feet amsl at the proposed upper reservoir; much of the elevation along the transmission line corridor is between 6,500 and 6,700 feet amsl. Average temperatures range between approximately 84 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in July to approximately 13 °F in January. The average annual precipitation for the period of record (1948 – 2011) is 12.6 inches and the average annual snowfall is 21.3 inches (WRCC 2022). There are 19 vegetation communities identified within the study area (USGS 2011) which are based on the U.S. Geological Survey GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems dataset (USGS 2011). Table 2-1 provides the acreages for the mapped community types within the study area. There are two dominant vegetation communities in the study area. The Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe, which makes up 52 percent of the study area, and the Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland, which makes up 20 percent of the study area. The Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe and the Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub collectively make up 21 percent of the study area. The remaining 15 communities account for 7 percent of the study area.

December 2022 | 3

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 2-1. Vegetation Communities Identified within the Study Area Habitat Type Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe

Acreage

Percentage

1,657.31

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland

639.61

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

443.40

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe

234.92

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat

59.71

Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland

49.24

Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon

31.98

Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

29.68

Open Water (Fresh)

24.86

Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland

10.71

Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop

4.85

Developed, Open Space

3.65

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland

2.77

Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland

2.62

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie

2.55

Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest

2.54

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland Total

1.03

0.94

0.80

3,203.18

Source: USGS 2011

2.3

Special-status Plant Species

The methodology used to conduct special-status plant species surveys followed the Idaho BLM Special Status Plant Survey and Clearance Protocols for an intuitive controlled survey (BLM 2017). Field surveys were conducted when botanical resources in the study area were both evident and identifiable, during their flowering and/or fruiting period. Surveys used a random meander technique and focused additional efforts in high-quality habitats or those with a higher probability of supporting special-status plants, such as sandy shorelines, barren slopes, and wetland areas. Location coordinates of the target species were recorded using a sub-meter global positioning system (GPS) device. If a dense population of a target species was observed, a polygon of the population was mapped rather than individual plant locations.

2.3.1

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

A species list was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) website for federally threatened, endangered, or candidate species that might occur in the study area (Appendix B). The 2021 USFWS IPaC list identified three plant species that may occur within the Project vicinity. The three plant species include blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii), Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), and western prairie fringed orchid

December 2022 | 4

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

(Platanthera praeclara). Table 2-2 lists each species and provides the preferred habitat description and flowering period for each species.

Table 2-2. Federally Listed Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area Species

Status

Blowout penstemon (Penstemon haydenii)

Ute ladies’tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis)

Western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara)

Habitat Requirements Restricted to sparsely vegetated, early successional, shifting sand dunes with crater-like blowout depressions created by wind erosion. Wyoming populations are only known to occur in northwestern Carbon County between 6,680 feet to 7,440 feet in elevation. Plants are found mainly on the rim and lee slopes of blowouts or the rim and steep faces of sandy slough slopes. Flowers are light blue to pale lavender and bloom from the middle of June to early July. This white-flowered orchid is found below 7,000 feet in elevation in moist to very wet meadows, along streams, in abandoned stream meanders, and near springs, seeps, and lake shores where competition for light, space, water, and other resources is normally kept low by periodic or recent disturbance. Populations have also been observed along irrigation canals, berms, levees, irrigated meadows, excavated gravel pits, roadside barrow pits, reservoirs, and other human-modified wetlands. Flowers bloom late July through August. Occurs in moist tallgrass prairies and sedge meadows. It is presently known to occur in Manitoba, Canada, and in Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, and Kansas in the United States. It is believed to be extirpated from Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Flowers are creamy-white and bloom from midJune to late July.

Potentially Suitable Habitat in the Study Area?

Yes

Notes: E = Endangered, T = Threatened; Sources: WYNDD 2022; USFWS 2021, 2022.

2.3.2

Ute ladies’-tresses Habitat Assessment

Biologists used sub-meter GPS data and aerial wetland determinations from the 2021 and 2022 aquatic resource inventory to map potentially suitable habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses in the study area based on the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. These polygons included riparian areas as well as areas along water courses and in wet meadows where vegetation is not overly dense and below 7,000 feet in elevation. Based on the suitable habitat criteria described in the 1992 Interim Survey Requirements for Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) – Revised 2017 (USFWS 1992), habitat surveys are not required for sites above 7,000 feet in elevation. For sites below 7,000 feet, the following habitat types do not qualify as Ute ladies’-tresses habitat (USFWS 1992): • Sites that are highly disturbed or modified such as highway rights-of-way built on compacted soils or rock fill; rock or soil fills with steep back slopes; active construction sites; landscaped bluegrass lawns • Upland sites • Sites entirely inundated by standing water

December 2022 | 5

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

• • •

Sites composed entirely of heavy clay soils Very saline sites such as dense monospecific stands of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) Sites composed entirely of dense stands of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), salt cedar (Tamarix spp.), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris), or common reed (Phragmites australis)

The Ute ladies’-tresses habitat assessment for the 2022 updated study area was conducted August 3 and August 4, 2022, in concurrence with the wetland delineation effort for Aquatic Resources Inventory Study (HDR 2022a).

2.3.3

BLM Sensitive Species

The Project’s upper reservoir and portions of the proposed transmission line occur on land managed by the BLM. The BLM maintains a list of special-status plant species for Wyoming (BLM 2010). The 2021 Study Plan identified four BLM-sensitive plant species that are known to occur in Carbon County, Wyoming, and have the potential to occur in the study area: cedar rim thistle (Cirsium aridum), Rocky Mountain twinpod (Physaria saximontana var. saximontana), persistent sepal yellowcress (Rorippa calycina), and limber pine (Pinus flexilus). Table 2-3 lists each of these four species and provides the preferred habitat description and flowering period for each species.

Table 2-3. BLM Sensitive Plant Species with Potential to Occur in the Study Area Species

Cedar rim thistle (Cirsium aridum)

Limber pine (Pinus flexilis)

Persistent sepal yellowcress (Rorippa calycina)

Distribution and Habitat Requirements This species occurs on barren chalky hills, gravelly slopes, and fine-textured shaley draws and fans, often on mid to upper slopes. Soils are derived from whitish-gray sandstone, chalk, tuffaceous colluvium, or clay substrates, often associated with the Split Rock and White River formations. Recorded in the upper Green River and Granite Mountains (Carbon and Sublette Counties). Flowers bloom late June through August. This species occurs in montane forests. Wyoming populations are on a variety of wind-exposed settings on ridges, outcrops, breaks and slopes, from topographic breaks in basins, to foothills, and to timberline. It has the largest elevational range of any conifer in the Rocky Mountains. This species is found primarily along moist sandy to muddy banks of streams, stock ponds, and man-made reservoirs near the high-water line. It occurs mostly on semi-disturbed or recently flooded openings in small inlets or bays. Occasional populations can also be found in openings in grassy stream banks, and on the banks of small playa lakes. Total vegetative cover at all sites averages 5-10 percent (but can reach 25 percent in some areas). Regional endemic of the Wyoming Basins Ecoregion and historic records on the Yellowstone River in south-central Montana and western North Dakota. Flowers late May to August but can be extended into mid-October.

Suitable Habitat in the Study Area?

Yes

December 2022 | 6

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Species

Rocky Mountain twinpod (Physaria saximontana var. saximontana)

Distribution and Habitat Requirements

Suitable Habitat in the Study Area?

This species occurs on ridges and slopes on sandy, gravelly, and rocky soils of limestone, red sandstone, or clay. The vegetation is mainly sparsely vegetated cushion plant communities in sagebrush grasslands and open limber pine and Utah juniper woodlands. State endemic found in the southern Bighorn and Wind River Basins, and foothills of the Absaroka, Owl Creek and Wind River Ranges (Fremont, Hot Springs, and Park Counties). Specimens from Carbon and Natrona Counties are under review. Flowers bloom May through late June.

Sources: WYNDD 2022.

In the event a special-status species was found within the study area, surveyors collected the following data for the entire occurrence: • Each occurrence is labeled a specific name, including the initials of the surveyor, the U.S. Department of Agriculture abbreviation code, and the sequential number of occurrences (for example, KA-ROCA1) • Threats to the population • Number of individuals in the occurrence, including the number that are reproductive, nonreproductive, and dead • Phenology (i.e., vegetative, bud, flower, immature fruit, mature fruit, seed dispersed, or dormant) • Associated species in the area, including noxious weeds • Slope, aspect, and substrate • Digital photographs to depict the species and its habitat If a population was estimated to cover an area greater than 0.05 acre, surveyors delineated the occurrence boundary using a GPS, collecting polygon data. For occurrences less than 0.05 acre in size, location of the approximate center of the occurrence was recorded as point data using a GPS. If present, limber pines would likely make up a dominant or co-dominant species in the tree layer of a vegetation type, such as Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland. As such, stands of limber pine were mapped as a limber pine woodland during the vegetation mapping portion of the Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) Species Study (HDR 2022b). A population estimate for each polygon of mapped/occupied limber pine woodland, along with a detailed vegetation description for all limber pine woodland found in the study area, is provided in the RTE Species Study Report. If limber pine was observed as an isolated occurrence, and not a dominant in the vegetation community, it was marked with a GPS to depict the distribution of isolated occurrences in the study area.

2.4

Noxious Weeds

Under the Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act (Wyoming Statutes [W.S.] 11-5-105 (a)(xi) and W.S. 11-5-102 (a)(xii)), a total of 30 species of plants are designated as noxious weeds by the State of Wyoming (WWPC 2022). This list is provided in Table 2-4. The study area is located entirely within Carbon County. Carbon County has declared six plant species to be noxious or invasive (Table 2-4) (CCWP 2022).

December 2022 | 7

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

If noxious weeds were found within the study area, location coordinates of the target species were recorded using a sub-meter GPS. If the target species was observed along a linear feature, such as a road, a line was mapped with the GPS to indicate the extent of the population. Additionally, if a noxious weed population was determined to be widespread throughout more than five percent of the study area, or dominating a specific habitat of the study area, that species did not have detailed GPS data collected. Instead, a description of the distribution of that species was recorded in field notes.

Table 2-4. Noxious Weeds with Potential to Occur in the Study Area Common Name

Scientific Name

State of Wyoming Listed Noxious Weeds Black henbane

Hyoscyamus niger

Canada thistle

Cirsium arvense

Common burdock

Arctium minus

Common mullein

Verbascum thapsus

Common St. Johnswort

Hypericum perforatum

Common tansy

Tanacetum vulgare

Dalmatian toadflax

Linaria dalmatica

Diffuse knapweed

Centaurea diffusa

Dyer’s woad

Isatis tinctoria

Field bindweed

Convolvulus arvensis

Hoary cress (whitetop)

Cardaria draba and C. pubescens

Houndstongue

Cynoglossum officinale

Leafy spurge

Euphorbia esula

Medusahead rye

Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Musk thistle

Carduus nutans

Ox-eye daisy

Chrysanthemum leucanthemum

Perennial pepperweed (giant whitetop)

Lepidium latifolium

Perennial sowthistle

Sonchus arvensis

Plumeless thistle

Carduus acanthoides

Purple loosestrife

Lythrum salicaria

Quackgrass

Agropyron repens

Russian knapweed

Centaurea repens

Russian olive

Elaeagnus angustifolia

Salt cedar

Tamarix spp.

Scotch thistle

Onopordum acanthium

Skeletonleaf bursage

Franseria discolor

Spotted knapweed

Centaurea maculosa

Ventenata

Ventenata dubia

Yellow starthistle

Centaurea solstitialis

Yellow toadflax

Linaria vulgaris

December 2022 | 8

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Common Name

Scientific Name

Carbon County Noxious or Invasive Plants Species Cheatgrass

Bromus tectorum

Common cocklebur

Xanthium strumarium

Geyer larkspur

Delphinium geyeri

Halogeton

Halogeton glomeratus

Plains pricklypear

Opuntia polyacantha

Wyeth lupine

Lupinus wyethii

Source: WWPC 2022, CCWP 2022

December 2022 | 9

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Survey Results

3.1

Special-status Plant Species

3.1.1

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

No blowout penstemon or western prairie fringed orchid individuals or suitable habitat were identified within the study area in 2021 and 2022. The proposed Project would have no effect on these species or their habitat.

Ute Ladies’-tresses Habitat Assessment A total of 23.54 acres were identified as potential suitable habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. Appendix C provides maps of the Ute ladies’-tresses suitable habitat within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. As mentioned in Section 2.3.2, the data collected for the Aquatic Resources Inventory (HDR 2022a) was used to determine suitable habitat for this species. Information was gathered during the wetland delineation, as it directly correlates to Ute ladies’-tresses habitat. Environmental scientists conducted a wetland delineation within the study area on May 16–18 and August 24–26, 2021, and a spot check on August 3–4, 2022, for the updated study area. The wetland delineation was initiated with a desktop delineation, using data from the National Wetland Inventory (USFWS 2022), National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2022a), U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Imagery Program color infrared imagery (USDA 2019), and a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map of the area (USGS 2022b). A routine delineation was conducted within the study area. Wetlands were identified according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 1987 Delineation Manual and Arid West Regional Supplement (USACE 1987, 2008). Open water and stream features were identified according to Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC 2013) and the USACE definition of an ordinary high-water mark. Boundaries for wetlands, streams, and open waters were collected in the field with sub-meter GPS units and then digitized in Environmental Systems Research Institute ArcMap 10.7.1. Potential Ute ladies’-tresses habitat was mapped within ArcMap 10.7.1 using the desktop and field verification delineation. Most of the identified Ute ladies’-tresses suitable habitat has experienced some level of disturbance, including livestock grazing and trampling as well as hay production in wet meadow areas. Figure 3-1 depicts the various types of areas considered Ute ladies’-tresses habitat within the study area. Most of the suitable habitat occurs in irrigated hay pastures that were inundated during the August 2022 surveys. Of the 23.54 acres of Ute ladies’-tresses suitable habitat, 21.44 acres occur on private property, with the remaining 2.34 acres occurring on BLM-managed lands. In 2021, one potential Ute ladies’-tresses individual was observed in the study area (see Appendix C, Page 2 of 6) but was extremely desiccated, and a positive identification was not possible. In 2022, the individual was relocated and determined to not be Ute ladies’-tresses.

December 2022 | 10

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-1. Ute Ladies’-tresses Habitat within the Study Area

3.1.2

BLM-Sensitive Species

Two of the four BLM-sensitive plant species discussed in Section 2.3.3 were identified in the study area: limber pine and persistent sepal yellowcress. These species and their locations within the study area are described in the subsections below.

Limber Pine (Pinus flexilis) Limber pine is a primary constituent of Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland which is mapped in the Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Report (HDR 2022b). This habitat occupies approximately 622 acres in the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. The exact number of individual limber pine occurring within the Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland located within the upper reservoir area was not determined. Limber pine is a dominant species and therefore, according to the 2021 Study Plan, was mapped as a community. Limber pine in this vegetation community accounted for at least 30 percent of the tree cover in the upper reservoir and was observed as mature and saplings. Fifty-six occurrences of limber pine were identified in the 2022 study area. These are considered isolated occurrences of limber pines and not part of a vegetation community due to the sporadic distribution and low percent cover observed. Several of these occurrences are documented within a shrub community of rabbitbrush, gooseberry, sagebrush, and bitterbrush. The 56 occurrences are located throughout the study area, with most occurring along the western portion, especially along the two-track road leading to the edge of the Seminoe Reservoir. Occurrences range from an individual limber pine to up to 24 trees. In total, approximately 342 limber pine individuals were documented in these isolated occurrences. A map series depicting the limber pine occurrences as well the distribution

December 2022 | 11

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

of Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland in the study area is provided in Appendix D. Threats to limber pine in the study area include permanent loss of individuals from Project-related clearing of vegetation for the upper reservoir as well as along the transmission line, drought, and encroachment of invasive and noxious plant species.

Persistent Sepal Yellowcress (Rorippa calycina) Fourteen populations of persistent sepal yellowcress were observed within the study area. All 14 occurrences are located along the shorelines of Seminoe Reservoir. Figure 3-2 shows the locations of the occurrences within the study area and Table 3-1 provides a list and associated characteristics of each population. All of these populations all were within 300 feet of the water’s edge in sandy and shale substrate at 6,345 feet amsl elevation. The percent slope ranges from 0 to 5 to 10 to 15 percent. Associated species include sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum), and diffuse potentilla (Potentilla paradoxa). Six of the occurrences contain noxious weeds, including Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), but were not dominant species in the area. Figure 3-3 provides a photo of one of the persistent sepal yellowcress individuals observed within the study area in 2021.

December 2022 | 12

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-2. Persistent Sepal Yellowcress Locations within the Study Area December 2022 | 13

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 3-1. Persistent Sepal Yellowcress Occurrences in the Study Area

273

Number of Reproductive Individuals 211

Number of Nonreproductive Individuals 62

Number of Dead Individuals 2

KA-ROCA2

Mature fruit

KA-ROCA3

Mature fruit

KA-ROCA4

357

330

Mature fruit

RS-ROCA1

Mature fruit

BP-ROCA1

Mature fruit

BP-ROCA2

Mature fruit

BP-ROCA3

Mature fruit

BP-ROCA4

Mature fruit

BP-ROCA5

Mature fruit

BP-ROCA6

Mature fruit

BP-ROCA7

Mature fruit

BP-ROCA8

Flowering

BP-ROCA9

Mature fruit

Occurrence ID

Total Number of Individuals

KA-ROCA1

Phenology Mature fruit

Figure 3-3. Persistent Sepal Yellowcress Individual within the Study Area during the 2021 Surveys

December 2022 | 14

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Threats to these occurrences include herbivory from ungulates such as bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), which were observed grazing in one of the occurrences along the eastern edge of the reservoir, drought and associated low reservoir water levels, encroachment of invasive and noxious plant species, and recreation in Seminoe Reservoir. Permanent loss of individuals could occur from a Project-related pump along the shoreline of the Seminoe Reservoir. The proposed pump location is close to the RS-ROCA1 occurrence. Clearing of vegetation within the pump footprint could impact individuals and alter habitat for adjacent populations. Another potential impact on this species is the fluctuation of water levels associated with the movement of water between the upper and lower reservoir for the proposed action.

3.2

Noxious Weeds

Twelve state and county-listed noxious weeds were documented within the study area. The 12 species and their locations within the study area are provided in the subsections below. A map series showing the species and their locations within the study area is provided in Appendix E. An incidental flora species list was collected in conjunction with special-status plant and noxious weed surveys. A total of 183 species were observed, of which 29 species are considered nonnative or invasive. Appendix F provides the list of flora species from the 2021 and 2022 special-status plant surveys as well as wetland species observed during the 2022 Aquatic Resource Inventory (HDR 2022a). Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Cheatgrass is a Carbon County-listed noxious weed. It is the most

prevalent and widespread noxious weed species in the study area. A total of 235 occurrences were recorded during the 2021 and 2022 surveys. Cheatgrass is found throughout the study area, especially in disturbed areas such as along roadsides and areas of heavy livestock grazing. Cheatgrass is also prevalent within drainages and valleys. During the 2021 and 2022 surveys most of the cheatgrass observed was either desiccated or had already gone to seed. Wyeth lupine (Lupinus wyethii). Wyeth lupine a Carbon County-listed noxious weed, is the second

most prevalent species in the study area with 60 occurrences within the western portion of the study area. Most individuals were found in the upper reservoir area and along the two-track road leading to the upper reservoir. This species was fruiting and post-fruiting during the 2021 and 2022 surveys. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Canada thistle is a state-listed noxious weed. The 2021 and 2022 surveys documented 52 occurrences within the study area. This species was found along the western portion of the study area, including within a riparian woodland along the two-track road leading to the upper reservoir area, as well as along the shoreline of the Seminoe Reservoir. Canada thistle also occurs sporadically along the transmission line corridor and access road. The highest concentration of Canada thistle occurs along the shoulders of Hanna Leo Draw Road. This species was flowering during the 2021 and 2022 surveys. Halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus). Halogeton is a Carbon County-listed noxious weed that was

documented in 43 occurrences in the eastern terminus as well as along Hanna Leo Draw Road. This species was found in highly disturbed areas, such as roadsides. Most individuals observed during surveys were in the vegetative phenological stage. Hoary cress (whitetop) (Cardaria draba). Hoary cress is a state-listed noxious weed that was

documented in 27 occurrences, mostly within the western terminus along the two-track road leading to the upper reservoir as well as in the eastern terminus along Medicine Bow Road near Difficulty

December 2022 | 15

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Creek. This area of Medicine Bow Road is highly disturbed with multiple noxious weeds present. At the time of surveys most hoary cress individuals were flowering. Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Russian knapweed is a state-listed noxious weed that was

documented in the western portion of the study area in 24 occurrences. This species was mostly observed along the two-track road leading to the upper reservoir. At the time of surveys most Russian knapweed individuals were either vegetative or contained immature fruit. Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). Perennial pepperweed is a state-listed noxious weed that was documented in eight occurrences along the shoulder of Hanna Leo Draw Road in the centraleastern portion of the study area. At the time of surveys this species was flowering. Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare). Bull thistle is a state-listed noxious weed that was documented in five

occurrences in the study area. One occurrence is along the two-track road to the upper reservoir, within the riparian woodland area. The other occurrences are in the eastern portion of the study area along roadsides. Individuals were vegetative at the time of the 2021 and 2022 surveys. Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa). Diffuse knapweed is a state-listed noxious weed that was

recorded in one location in the study area. This species was observed in the western portion along a cut slope associated with the two-track access road leading to Seminoe Reservoir. At the time of the 2021 surveys this species was desiccated and had already seeded. Plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides). Plumeless thistle is a state-listed noxious weed found in

one location within the study area. The occurrence is along Medicine Bow Road near Difficulty Creek. This area is highly disturbed and contains multiple noxious weed species. At the time of surveys this species was flowering. Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia). Russian olive is a state-listed noxious weed found in one

location within the study area. The occurrence is within the riparian area associated with Difficulty Creek. Plains Pricklypear (Opuntia polyacantha). Plains pricklypear, a Carbon County noxious weed is prevalent throughout the study area. It was observed mostly along the transmission line corridor and throughout the eastern portion of the study area. Due to its high prevalence in the study area, the plains pricklypear was not mapped during surveys.

December 2022 | 16

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Discussion

4.1

Special-status Plant Species

4.1.1

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

Surveys identified 23.54 acres of suitable Ute ladies’-tresses habitat within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance (Appendix C). Because marginal to suitable habitat for this species does occur in the study area, protocol surveys for Ute ladies’-tresses will be required prior to Project construction. Surveys will occur for three consecutive years during the known Ute ladies’-tresses flowering period between late July and the end of August, in areas where impacts cannot be avoided. Survey methodology and locations will be determined in consultation with USFWS.

4.1.2

BLM Sensitive Species

Two BLM-sensitive plant species, limber pine and persistent sepal yellowcress, were documented within the study area during surveys. Limber pine was documented throughout the study area, with the highest concentration found in the western portion of the study as a dominant tree species within the Limber pine- Juniper Woodland vegetation community around the upper reservoir area. In addition to the mapped Limber pine- Juniper Woodland vegetation community, 56 isolated occurrences of limber pine were documented along the access roads and transmission line corridor. A total of 14 occurrences of persistent sepal yellowcress were recorded along the shoreline of Seminoe Reservoir, all within 300 feet of the water’s edge at an elevation of 6,348 feet amsl. Each of these occurrences have the potential to be affected by the proposed Project construction or operations; these effects will be analyzed in Black Canyon’s Draft and Final License Applications.

4.2

Noxious Weeds

Twelve noxious weeds were documented in the study area. Cheatgrass and Wyeth lupine were the most prevalent noxious species with 235 and 60 occurrences documented in the study area, respectively. Each of the species and occurrences are widespread weeds resulting from regionalscale biological invasions. Construction activities could result in the spread and introduction of additional noxious weeds into less-disturbed portions of the study area like the transmission line corridor. The potential for pre-construction treatment of noxious weeds, implementation of best management practices during construction, and post-construction, and treatment of any residual weed occurrences, if necessary, will be described in Black Canyon’s Draft and Final License Applications.

December 2022 | 17

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

References

Black Canyon Hydro. 2020. Pre-Application Document Seminoe Pumped Storage Project FERC No. 14787. April 20, 2020. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List. March 31, 2010. [Online] URL: https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/docs/2021-01/wy2010027atch2.pdf. (Accessed September 24, 2022.) ______. 2017. Idaho Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Special Status Plant Survey and Clearance Protocols. [Online] URL: https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-id-2017-011. (Accessed September 24, 2022.) Carbon County Weed and Pest (CCWP). 2022. County Declared Weeds and Pests. [Online] URL: https://www.carboncountyweed.com/?page_id=545. (Accessed October 4, 2022.) Chapman, S.S., Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., Despain, D.G., ZumBerge, J., and Conrad, M., 2004, Ecoregions of Wyoming (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey. Access online October 4, 2022. https://gaftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/wy/wy_eco_pg.pdf. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Adapted from Cowardin, Carter, Golet and LaRoe (1979). HDR, Inc. (HDR). 2021. Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Study report. Seminoe Pumped Storage Project. Black Canyon Hydro LLC. November 2021. ______. 2022. Aquatic Resources Inventory. Seminoe Pumped Storage Project. Black Canyon Hydro LLC. April 2022. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. 62 pp. ______. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2019. National Agricultural Imagery Program Color-Infrared Carbon County, Wyoming. [Online] URL: https://nrcs.app.box.com/v/naip. (Accessed August 2022). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/utahfieldoffice/Documents/Plants/SPDI_interimSurveyRequirements_19 92_revised%202017.pdf. ______. 2022. National Wetland Inventory. Wetlands Online Mapper. [Online] http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html. (Accessed January 2022).

URL:

______.2021. Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species | Ute Ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). Accessed October 15, 2021. ______. 2022. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC). Environmental Conservation Online System. [Online] URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. (Accessed January 10, 2022.)

December 2022 | 18

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Gap Analysis Program. 20160513. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey. [Online] URL: https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0. (Accessed October 4, 2022.) ______. 2022a. National Hydrography Dataset (ver. USGS National Hydrography Dataset Best Resolution (NHD) for Hydrologic Unit (HU) 8 (published 20190822). [Online] URL: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. (Accessed May 2022). ______. 2022b. USA Topo Maps. Accessed through ESRI ArcMap software. [Online] URL: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=99cd5fbd98934028802b4f797c4b1732. (Accessed May 2022). Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2022. Climate Summary for the Period of Record (1892– 2016) in McGill, Nevada (Station 264950). Available online https://wrcc.dri.edu/summary/. (Accessed October 4, 2022) Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, NV. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2022. Wyoming Species List. Available online: https://wyndd.org/species_list/. (Accessed September 28, 2022.) Wyoming Weed and Pest Council (WWPC). 2022. State Designated Noxious Weeds. [Online] URL: https://wyoweed.org/noxious-species/listed-species/state-designated-noxious-weeds/. (Accessed October 4, 2022.)

December 2022 | 19

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix A. 2021 Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weed Study Plan

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Plan March 17, 2021

1.0

Introduction

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon Hydro) is proposing the licensing, construction, and operation of the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) (Project) in Carbon County, Wyoming, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, on the North Platte River. The proposed Project would entail the construction of a new 750 megawatt (MW) plant, including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission line, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); these operations would not be affected by the Project’s pumped storage operations. Black Canyon Hydro has initiated a licensing process for the Project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency with jurisdiction over non-federal hydropower projects in the United States. During this process, Black Canyon Hydro will engage stakeholders and implement a suite of resource studies that will inform FERC’s environmental and developmental analyses and decision regarding license issuance. This document presents Black Canyon Hydro’s proposed approach to the scoping and implementation of a Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study for the Project that would be provided to FERC to assist in the licensing analyses. Black Canyon Hydro anticipates filing a Final License Application with FERC in August 2022.

2.0

Project Nexus and Study Goals

Project construction, operation, and maintenance may have the potential to affect special-status plants or noxious weeds. The goal of this study is to assess the nature and degree of the Project’s likely effects on these species. These effects may be direct (e.g., result of ground-disturbing activities, such as mechanical or chemical clearing of vegetation or trampling of plants), indirect (e.g., due to construction activity that results in erosion of adjacent land), or cumulative (i.e., caused by a Project activity in association with a non-Project activity, such as loss of habitat due to the introduction of invasive plants from a nonProject vector). The goal of this study is to provide information to determine the extent to which certain Project activities may have the potential to adversely affect special-status plants or noxious weed distributions. A Project effect may exist if both of the following occur: •

A special status plant or noxious weed occurrence is found to occur within the Study Area as defined in Section 4.1; and

•

A specific Project activity has a reasonable possibility of having an adverse effect on the special status plant or noxious weed occurrence found.

The intent of this study is to gather the information necessary to perform this analysis and evaluate the Project’s potential to adversely affect these botanical resources.

Page 1

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Plan

3.0

Summary of Existing Information

A full description of existing information can be found in the Pre-Application Document (PAD) (Black Canyon Hydro 2020). Existing and relevant information regarding known and potentially occurring botanical resources in the Project vicinity is available from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC) (USFWS 2020). A list of Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species potentially occurring within the Project vicinity was prepared using the IPaC. The resulting list of species was refined using habitat requirements, professional experience, and USFWS occurrence maps. Based on this assessment, three ESA-listed plant species may occur within the Project vicinity (USFWS 2020). The three plant species potentially occurring within the Conceptual Project Boundary are Blowout Penstemon (Penstemon haydenii) (endangered), Ute Ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) (threatened), and Western Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera praeclara) (threatened). The Project’s upper reservoir, and portions of the proposed transmission line, occur on BLM-managed public lands. The BLM maintains a list of special status species for Wyoming (BLM 2010). Cedar Rim Thistle (Cirsium aridum), Rocky Mountain Twinpod (Physaria saximontana var. saximontana), Persistent Sepal Yellowcress (Rorippa calycina), and limber pine (Pinus flexilus) are BLM specialstatus species that are known to occur in Carbon County, Wyoming, and may potentially occur in the vicinity of the Project. Under the Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act (W.S. 11-5-105 (a)(xi) and W.S. 11-5-102 (a)(xii)) a total of 30 species of plants are considered noxious weeds by the State of Wyoming (Wyoming Weed and Pest Control [WWPC] 2019) as presented in Table 1 below. The proposed Project is located entirely in Carbon County. Carbon County has declared five plant species to be noxious or invasive (see Table 2) (Carbon County Weed and Pest [CCWP] 2019). In 2012, curly pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) was first detected in the North Platte River between Seminoe Reservoir and Pathfinder Reservoir (an area referred to as the “Miracle Mile,” located just north of the Conceptual Project Boundary) (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2020). However, as of 2019, the species has not been detected in Seminoe Reservoir. Table 1. Botanical Species Considered Noxious Weeds by Wyoming Weed and Pest Council. Common Name Field Bindweed Canada Thistle Leafy Spurge Perennial Sowthistle Quackgrass Hoary Cress (whitetop) Perennial Pepperweed (giant whitetop) Ox-eye Daisy Skeletonleaf Bursage Russian Knapweed Yellow Toadflax Dalmatian Toadflax Scotch Thistle Musk Thistle

Page 2

Scientific Name Convolvulus arvensis Cirsium arvense Euphorbia esula Sonchus arvensis Agropyron repens Cardaria draba and C. pubescens Lepidium latifolium Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Franseria discolor Centaurea repens Linaria vulgaris Linaria dalmatica Onopordum acanthium Carduus nutans

March 17, 2021

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Plan

Common Name Common Burdock Plumeless Thistle Dyers Woad Houndstongue Spotted Knapweed Diffuse Knapweed Purple Loosestrife Saltcedar Common St. Johnswort Common Tansy Russian Olive Black Henbane Common Mullein Yellow Starthistle Ventenata Medusahead Rye Source: WWPC 2019.

Scientific Name Arctium minus Carduus acanthoides Isatis tinctoria Cynoglossum officinale Centaurea maculosa Centaurea diffusa Lythrum salicaria Tamarix spp. Hypericum perforatum Tanacetum vulgare Elaeagnus angustifolia Hyoscyamus Niger Verbascum thapsus Centaurea solstitialis Ventenata dubia Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Table 2. Carbon County Noxious and Invasive Plant Species. Common Name Wyeth Lupine Halogeton Geyer Larkspur Common Cocklebur Prickly Pear Source: CCWP 2019.

Scientific Name Lupinus wyethii Halogeton glomeratus Delphinium geyeri Xanthium strumarium Opuntia ficus-indica

Noxious weeds that have been recorded within the area on the Seminoe Mountains (East Side) are diffuse and Spotted knapweeds (Centaurea maculosa), Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica), and Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). Russian knapweed (Rhaponticum repens) and plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides) are present along the main road (Seminoe-Alcova Byway). On the West Side (Bennett Mountains) Russian knapweed, Whitetop (hoary cress) (Lepidium draba), Cheatgrass, and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) are present.

4.0

Methods

4.1

Study Area

The Study Area will include lands within the Conceptual Project Boundary (Attachment 1).

4.2

Study Methods

A Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study will be conducted consisting of four tasks: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Gather data and prepare for field effort; Conduct field surveys for Ute ladies’-tresses; Conduct field surveys for other special-status plants; Compile data and perform quality assure/quality control (QA/QC); and Reporting.

March 17, 2021

Page 3

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Plan

4.2.1

Gather Data and Prepare for Field Effort

Black Canyon Hydro will prepare field maps for use by survey teams. The maps will include aerial imagery and the Study Area boundary. Survey timing will be planned based on blooming periods and herbarium collection dates of species in the general area.

4.2.2

Conduct Habitat Assessment for Ute Ladies’-tresses

The surveyors will conduct a habitat assessment for Ute Ladies’-tresses following the Interim Survey Requirements for Ute Ladies’-tresses Orchid (requirements) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). This Ute Ladies’-tresses habitat assessment will also use information gathered during the Habitat Assessment and RTE Species Study, as well as the Aquatic Resources Delineation Study. As identified in the requirements, Ute Ladies’-tresses habitat consists of areas below 7,000 feet above mean sea level and fit any of the following features; • • • •

Seasonally high water table (within 18 inches of the soil surface for at least one week sometime during the growing season, growing season defined as when soil temperatures are above 41 degrees Fahrenheit), In or near wet meadows, stream channels, or flood plains, Vegetation falling into the Facultative Wet or Obligate Wet classification, including introduced pasture grasses, and/or; Jurisdictional wetlands as specified under the Clean Water Act.

Any area not found to have these habitat features during the Ute Ladies’-tresses habitat assessment, Habitat Assessment and RTE Species Study, Aquatic Resources Delineation Study, or any other presurvey site reconnaissance, would be excluded from future Ute Ladies’-tresses focused surveys. If required, surveys for Ute Ladies’-tresses will occur for three consecutive years following the requirements and will occur between July 20 and August 31 unless a nearby population of Ute Ladies’-tresses is known to be identifiable earlier or later than this timeframe. It is expected that timing the beginning of a Ute Ladies’-tresses protocol survey would be discussed in consultation with appropriate resource agencies and taking into consideration the year construction of the project is expected to commence. If any population of Ute Ladies’-tresses is found in the study area, data will be gathered in a manner consistent with the requirements, which generally follows the information gathered for any other special-status plant species described in Section 4.2.3.

4.2.3

Conduct Field Surveys for Other Special-Status Plants

The surveyors will conduct botanical resource surveys that generally follow the BLM Special Status Plant Protocol for an Intuitive Controlled Survey (BLM 2017). Field surveys will be conducted at the proper times of year when botanical resources occurring in a given survey area are both evident and identifiable, generally during their flowering and/or fruiting period. Surveys will generally use a random meander technique and focus additional efforts in high-quality habitats or those with a higher probability of supporting special-status plants, such as alkali deposits. Appropriate survey methods generally require multiple survey passes of suitable habitats based on the phenology of all target species. In the event noxious weed plants are found within the Study Area, surveyors will collect the following data to the edge of the occurrence or to the edge of the Study Area, whichever is less: •

Page 4

Digital photographs to depict the species and its habitat (one set per species).

March 17, 2021

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Plan

•

Estimated area covered by the plant population. If a plant population is estimated to cover an area greater than 0.05 acre, surveyors will delineate the occurrence boundary using a handheld GPS, collecting either polygon data, or sufficient point data that a realistic occurrence polygon can be constructed from the point data using a Geographic Information System (GIS).

•

For occurrences less than 0.05 acre in size, location of the approximate center of the occurrence taken as point data using a handheld GPS unit.

•

Estimated population size.

Additionally, if a noxious weed population is determined to be widespread throughout more than five percent the Study Area, or dominating a specific habitat of the Study Area, that species will not have detailed GPS data collected. Instead, a description of that species distribution will be recorded in field notes. Areas determined to have a high concentration of noxious weed species will be delineated on field maps or on handheld GPS units and included in the final report. In the event special-status plants, except for limber pine, are found within the Study Area, the above bulleted information will be collected, with the same caveats as stated above, along with the following: •

A list of the three to five of the most common species in the immediate vicinity.

•

A generalized soil description of the immediate area (i.e., gravelly soils, alkali sink, limestone outcrop).

•

Level of disturbance of the immediate area.

If present, limber pines would likely make up a dominant or co-dominant species in the tree layer of a vegetation type, such as Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland. As such stands of limber pine will be mapped as a limber pine woodland during the vegetation mapping portion of the Habitat Assessment and RTE Species Study. A population estimate for each polygon of mapped/occupied limber pine woodland, along with a detailed vegetation description for all limber pine woodland found in the study area as a whole, will be provided in the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study report.

4.2.4

Compile Data and Perform Quality Assure/Quality Control

Following field surveys, Black Canyon Hydro will develop a GIS map depicting occurrences of specialstatus plant and noxious weed occurrences. Field data will then be subject to QA/QC procedures, including spot-checks of transcription and comparison of GIS maps with field notes to verify locations of botanical resource occurrences.

4.2.5

Reporting

A Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Report will be prepared that will summarize the results of the study and include details of all sampling efforts, including maps of all special-status plant and noxious weed occurrences located within the Conceptual Project Boundary. Study results will be used to assess the potential for Project effects on botanical resources.

March 17, 2021

Page 5

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Plan

5.0

Schedule

The field portion of this study will be conducted in 2021. If Ute Ladies’-tresses habitat is present, coordination with responsible resource agencies will be conducted to determine appropriate timing of Ute Ladies’-tresses protocol surveys. A study report will be developed following the completion of 2021 efforts.

6.0

References

Black Canyon Hydro. 2020. Pre-Application Document Seminoe Pumped Storage Project FERC No. 14787. April 20, 2020. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2017. Idaho Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Special Status Plant Survey and Clearance Protocols. [Online] URL: https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-id-2017011. (Accessed March 3, 2021.) Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List. March 31, 2010. [Online] URL: file:///C:/Users/DHANSON/Downloads/wy2010-027atch2.pdf. (Accessed March 4, 2020.) Carbon County Weed and Pest (CCWP). 2019. County Declared Weeds and Pests. [Online] URL: https://www.carboncountyweed.com/?page_id=545. (Accessed January 2020.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Interim Survey Requirements for Ute ladies’-tresses Orchid. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/utahfieldoffice/Documents/Plants/SPDI_interimSurveyRequirements_19 92.pdf ______. 2020. IPaC: Information for Planning and Consultation. Environmental Conservation Online System. [Online] URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. (Accessed February 12, 2020.) Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2020. Migration Corridors in Wyoming Map Viewer. [Online] URL: http://wgfd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1c13ae0431934438858cc0d 7f8e4b856 (Accessed February 2020.) Wyoming Weed and Pest Council (WWPC). 2019. State Designated Noxious Weeds. [Online] URL: https://wyoweed.org/noxious-species/listed-species/state-designated-noxious-weeds/. (Accessed June 27, 2020.)

Page 6

March 17, 2021

Attachment 1 Conceptual Project Boundary Map

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix B. USFWS IPaC Report

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office 334 Parsley Boulevard Cheyenne, WY 82007-4178 Phone: (307) 772-2374 Fax: (307) 772-2358 http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/

In Reply Refer To: Consultation Code: 06E13000-2022-SLI-0094 Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327 Project Name: Seminoe Pumped Storage

January 10, 2022

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ES) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the ESA, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. We also encourage you to visit the Wyoming Ecological Services website at https://www.fws.gov/wyominges/species_endangered.php. The purpose of the ESA is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the ESA and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOCGLOS.PDF. We also recommend you consider the following information when assessing impacts to federally listed species, as well as migratory birds, and other trust resources: Colorado River and Platte River Systems: Federal agencies must consult with the Service under section 7 of the ESA for projects in Wyoming that may lead to water depletions or have the potential to impact water quality in the Colorado River system or the Platte River system, because these actions my affect threatened and endangered species inhabiting the downstream reaches of these river systems. In general, depletions include evaporative losses and/ or consumptive use of surface or groundwater within the affected basin, often characterized as diversions minus return flows. Project elements that could be associated with depletions include, but are not limited to: ponds, lakes, and reservoirs (e.g., for detention, recreating, irrigation, storage, stock watering, municipal storage, and power generation); hydrostatic testing of pipelines; wells; dust abatement; diversion structures; and water treatment facilities. For more information on consultation requirements for the Platte River species, please visit https:// www.fws.gov/platteriver/. Migratory Birds: The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; MBTA) prohibits the taking of any migratory birds, their parts, nests, or eggs except as permitted by regulations. Except for introduced species and some upland game birds, almost all birds occurring in the wild in the United States are protected (50 CFR 10.13). On December 22, 2017, the Department of the Interior Solicitor's Office issued an opinion that the MBTA's prohibitions on pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the same apply only to affirmative actions that have as their purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs. While the opinion (M-37050) states that the MBTA prohibition on the taking or killing of migratory birds applies only to deliberate acts, project activities should avoid, to the extent possible, sensitive periods and habitats to conserve healthy populations of migratory birds. See our website for more information and example conservation measures at https://www.fws.gov/

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

wyominges/species_migratory.php. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects that include communication towers can be found at https://www.fws.gov/birds/ management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/guidance-documents/communicationtowers.php. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; Eagle Act) prohibits knowingly taking, or taking with wanton disregard for the consequences of an activity, any bald or golden eagles or their body parts, nests, or eggs, which includes collection, molestation, disturbance, destruction, or killing. Eagle nests are protected whether they are active or inactive. Removal or destruction of nests, or causing abandonment of a nest could constitute a violation of the Eagle Act. Projects affecting eagles may require development of an eagle conservation plan (https:// www.fws.gov/ecological-service/es-library/pdfs/Eagle_Conservation_GuidanceModule%201.pdf). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/ecological-service/energy-develpment/wind.html) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. In addition to MBTA and the Eagle Act, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the ESA. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): ▪ Official Species List ▪ USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries ▪ Migratory Birds ▪ Wetlands

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office 334 Parsley Boulevard Cheyenne, WY 82007-4178 (307) 772-2374

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

Project Summary Consultation Code: Event Code: Project Name: Project Type: Project Description:

06E13000-2022-SLI-0094 Some(06E13000-2022-E-00327) Seminoe Pumped Storage POWER GENERATION On April 20, 2020, Black Canyon submitted to the FERC a Notice of Intent to file an Application for an Original License and the accompanying Pre-Application Document for a proposed pumped storage project at and near the existing Seminoe Reservoir, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, in Carbon County (Project). The Project involves the construction of a new 750-megawatt plant, including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission line, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); current operations would not be affected by the Project’s pumped storage operations. Project development will require authorization through the BOR’s Lease of Power Privilege Process, as well as multiple other federal, state, and local permitting processes. Black Canyon anticipates filing its license application with FERC in August 2022. The proposed upper reservoir would consist of a surface area of approximately 85 acres at normal maximum operating pool. The Project footprint would also include an underground powerhouse; a power tunnel between the upper reservoir and the powerhouse; a tailrace tunnel between the powerhouse and a new intake in the existing Seminoe Reservoir; a powerhouse access tunnel; a high-voltage transmission tunnel; and a switchyard and transmission line. Black Canyon expects to connect at either or both the Aeolus Substation and the proposed northern terminal for TransWest Express. Total water pipeline length from the upper reservoir will be approximately 7,300 feet.

Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/@42.096198000000044,-106.75394882339086,14z

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

Counties: Carbon County, Wyoming

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 6 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

Birds NAME

STATUS

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

Threatened

Population: [Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains populations] - Wherever found, except those areas where listed as endangered. There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039

Whooping Crane Grus americana

Endangered

Population: Wherever found, except where listed as an experimental population There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758

Fishes NAME

STATUS

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus

Endangered

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7162

Insects NAME

STATUS

Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus

Candidate

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

Flowering Plants NAME

STATUS

Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis

Threatened

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara

Threatened

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1669

Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish Hatcheries Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

Migratory Birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) THERE ARE NO FWS MIGRATORY BIRDS OF CONCERN WITHIN THE VICINITY OF YOUR PROJECT AREA.

Migratory Birds FAQ Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

01/10/2022

Event Code: 06E13000-2022-E-00327

Wetlands Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. WETLAND INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THIS SPECIES LIST WAS GENERATED. PLEASE VISIT HTTPS://WWW.FWS.GOV/WETLANDS/DATA/MAPPER.HTML OR CONTACT THE FIELD OFFICE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix C. Ute Ladies’-Tresses Habitat Mapbook

Saylor C reek

pri

ng C ree k

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

BLM LAND UTE LADIES'-TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) HABITAT

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

ree Caton C

2021MAPPEDAND2022SURVEYAREA FORUTELADI ES’ STRESSESHABI TAT FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

250 500 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 1 of 6 PATH:\\BI LSRV02\BI LDATA\GI S\PROJECTS\GRI DFLEX\SEMI NOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANI CAL\UTLOHAB_2022. MXD -USER:CGEESEY-DATE:11/ 30/ 2022

aw Dr Leo nna Ha Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

Rur alRd

UTE LADIES'-TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) HABITAT

reek

Ha nn aL eo Dr aw

Austin C

BLM LAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021MAPPEDAND2022SURVEYAREA FORUTELADI ES’ STRESSESHABI TAT FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

250 500 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 2 of 6 PATH:\\BI LSRV02\BI LDATA\GI S\PROJECTS\GRI DFLEX\SEMI NOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANI CAL\UTLOHAB_2022. MXD -USER:CGEESEY-DATE:11/ 30/ 2022

e l r i Sh y

Rd op Lo n

Mo un t ai

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

aw Rd HannaLeoDr

BLM LAND UTE LADIES'-TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) HABITAT

ey Mou nt r l Shi ai nLoop Rd

D ry Creek

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021MAPPEDAND2022SURVEYAREA FORUTELADI ES’STRESSESHABI TAT FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

250 500 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 3 of 6 PATH:\\BI LSRV02\BI LDATA\GI S\PROJECTS\GRI DFLEX\SEMI NOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANI CAL\UTLOHAB_2022. MXD -USER:CGEESEY-DATE:11/ 30/ 2022

re ek

ro ub le

so m e C

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

Rd p oo nL ai Shi l ey Mou nt r

BLM LAND UTE LADIES'-TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) HABITAT

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021MAPPEDAND2022SURVEYAREA FORUTELADI ES’STRESSESHABI TAT FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

Han na Leo Dr aw Rd

PATH:\\BI LSRV02\BI LDATA\GI S\PROJECTS\GRI DFLEX\SEMI NOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANI CAL\UTLOHAB_2022. MXD -USER:CGEESEY-DATE:11/ 30/ 2022

250 500 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 4 of 6

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

Dr y

Cr e

BLM LAND UTE LADIES'-TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) HABITAT

Medi ci neBow Rd

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021MAPPEDAND2022SURVEYAREA FORUTELADI ES’ STRESSESHABI TAT FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

250 500 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 5 of 6 PATH:\\BI LSRV02\BI LDATA\GI S\PROJECTS\GRI DFLEX\SEMI NOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANI CAL\UTLOHAB_2022. MXD -USER:CGEESEY-DATE:11/ 30/ 2022

yRd t cul i f f Di

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

BLM LAND UTE LADIES'-TRESSES (SPIRANTHES DILUVIALIS) HABITAT

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021MAPPEDAND2022SURVEYAREA FORUTELADI ES’ STRESSESHABI TAT FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

D iffic

u lt y

ee k Cr

250 500 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 6 of 6 PATH:\\BI LSRV02\BI LDATA\GI S\PROJECTS\GRI DFLEX\SEMI NOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANI CAL\UTLOHAB_2022. MXD -USER:CGEESEY-DATE:11/ 30/ 2022

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix D. Limber Pine Occurrence Map Series

( !

Bennett Mountain Rd

( ! ( !

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, USDA FSA Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, increment P Corp., NPS, NRCan, Ordnance Survey, © OpenStreetMap contributors, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS,

( !

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

( !

! ( ( ! ( !

( ! ( !

( !

(! ! (

( ! ( !

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 1 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 2 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 3 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

noe Rd mi

PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

Page 4 of 11

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, USDA FSA Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, increment P Corp., NPS, ( NRCan, Ordnance Survey, © ! OpenStreetMap contributors, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS,

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Sem inoe Rd PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

Page 5 of 11

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

( !

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 6 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

( !

BLM LAND

( !

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, USDA FSA Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, increment P Corp., NPS, NRCan, Ordnance Survey, © OpenStreetMap contributors, USGS, NGA, ( NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS,!

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 7 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

Rd i noe Se m

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

( !

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

S Red Hill

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

35 7

N Red Hills Rd

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Hill

Page 8 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

( !

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 9 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

( !

( ! H an n a L eo Dra w Rd

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 10 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

( !

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

na an

BLM LAND

o Le

Rd Draw

( !

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

Ha n

oD ra

Rural Rd

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 11 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

( !

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, USDA FSA Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, increment P ( ! Corp., NPS, NRCan, Ordnance Survey, © OpenStreetMap contributors, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS,

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 12 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

Hanna Leo Draw Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA BLM LAND

( !

! ( ( !

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, USDA FSA Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, increment P Corp., NPS, NRCan, Ordnance Survey, © OpenStreetMap contributors, USGS, NGA, ( ! NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS,

! LIMBER PINE (PINUS FLEXILIS) ( ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINE-JUNIPER WOODLAND

( ! ( !

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED BLMSENSITIVE SPECIES FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 400 FEET 1 inch = 500 feet

Page 13 of 11 PATH: \\BIL-SRV02\BILDATA\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\LIMBERPINE_2022.MXD - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix E. Noxious Weed Map Series

Bennett Mountain Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

Service Layer Credits: World Imagery (Firefly): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community World Topo Base: Sources: Esri, HERE,

WEED SPECIES* BULL THISTLE (CIRSIUM VULGARE) CANADA THISTLE (CIRSIUM ARVENSE) CHEATGRASS (BROMUS TECTORUM) DIFFUSE KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA DIFFUSA) HALOGETON (HALOGETON GLOMERATUS) HOARY CRESS (WHITETOP) (CARDARIA DRABA) PERENNIAL PEPPERWEED (LEPIDIUM LATIFOLIUM) PLUMELESS THISTLE (CARDUUS ACANTHOIDES) RUSSIAN KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA REPENS) RUSSIAN OLIVE (ELAEAGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA) WYETH LUPINE (LUPINUS WYETHII)

*Note: Some weed species were found growing together in varying densities. These areas are identified by alternating weed species types. DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

! ( ! ( ! ( 0

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 1 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! (

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA WEED SPECIES* BULL THISTLE (CIRSIUM VULGARE) CANADA THISTLE (CIRSIUM ARVENSE) CHEATGRASS (BROMUS TECTORUM) DIFFUSE KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA DIFFUSA) HALOGETON (HALOGETON GLOMERATUS) HOARY CRESS (WHITETOP) (CARDARIA DRABA) PERENNIAL PEPPERWEED (LEPIDIUM LATIFOLIUM) PLUMELESS THISTLE (CARDUUS ACANTHOIDES)

! (! (

RUSSIAN KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA REPENS)

! (

RUSSIAN OLIVE (ELAEAGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA)

! (

WYETH LUPINE (LUPINUS WYETHII)

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 2 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

! (

! ( ! (

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Service Layer Credits: World Imagery (Firefly): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community World Topo Base: Sources: Esri, HERE,

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 3 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

Semino e Rd

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 4 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

! ( ! (

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! (

Service Layer Credits: World Imagery (Firefly): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and ! the GIS User ( Community World Topo Base: Sources: Esri, HERE,

! (

! ( ! (! (

Service ! Layer Credits: World Imagery (Firefly): ( ! (( Source: Esri, ! DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community World Topo Base: Sources: Esri, HERE,

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 5 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND

! (

BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! (

PERENNIAL PEPPERWEED (LEPIDIUM LATIFOLIUM) PLUMELESS THISTLE (CARDUUS ACANTHOIDES) RUSSIAN KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA REPENS) RUSSIAN OLIVE (ELAEAGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA)

! (

WYETH LUPINE (LUPINUS WYETHII)

! (

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 6 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND

! (

BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! (

WEED SPECIES*

! (

BULL THISTLE (CIRSIUM VULGARE) CANADA THISTLE (CIRSIUM ARVENSE) CHEATGRASS (BROMUS TECTORUM) DIFFUSE KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA DIFFUSA) HALOGETON (HALOGETON GLOMERATUS)

! (

HOARY CRESS (WHITETOP) (CARDARIA DRABA) PERENNIAL PEPPERWEED (LEPIDIUM LATIFOLIUM) PLUMELESS THISTLE (CARDUUS ACANTHOIDES) RUSSIAN KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA REPENS) RUSSIAN OLIVE (ELAEAGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA)

! ( ! (

WYETH LUPINE (LUPINUS WYETHII)

! ( ! (

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS

! (

FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 7 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

! (

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 8 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 9 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! ( Service Layer Credits: World Imagery (Firefly): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community World Topo Base: Sources: Esri, HERE,

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 10 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

! (

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! (

PLUMELESS THISTLE (CARDUUS ACANTHOIDES) RUSSIAN KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA REPENS) RUSSIAN OLIVE (ELAEAGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA) WYETH LUPINE (LUPINUS WYETHII)

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 11 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

H a nna Leo Dra wR

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

H anna

L eo D raw

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Rural Rd

Page 12 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

Rd Ha nn aL eo Dr aw

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 13 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Han

na L

eo D

raw

Page 14 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! (

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 15 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA WEED SPECIES*

BULL THISTLE (CIRSIUM VULGARE) CANADA THISTLE (CIRSIUM ARVENSE) CHEATGRASS (BROMUS TECTORUM) DIFFUSE KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA DIFFUSA) HALOGETON (HALOGETON GLOMERATUS) HOARY CRESS (WHITETOP) (CARDARIA DRABA) PERENNIAL PEPPERWEED (LEPIDIUM LATIFOLIUM) PLUMELESS THISTLE (CARDUUS ACANTHOIDES) RUSSIAN KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA REPENS) RUSSIAN OLIVE (ELAEAGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA) WYETH LUPINE (LUPINUS WYETHII)

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

n Ha

raw oD

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 16 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

eo D na L Han

raw

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! (

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 17 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

! (

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA WEED SPECIES*

Hanna Leo Draw Rd

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 18 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

irl

Mou nt a

in R op Lo d

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! (

Service Layer Credits: World Imagery (Firefly): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar ! ( ! ( ( Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,! USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community World Topo Base: Sources: Esri, HERE,

Hanna Leo Draw Rd

Shirley M oun tai n

op Lo

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 19 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! (

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 20 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND Medicine Bow Rd

BOTANICAL STUDY AREA WEED SPECIES* BULL THISTLE (CIRSIUM VULGARE) CANADA THISTLE (CIRSIUM ARVENSE) CHEATGRASS (BROMUS TECTORUM) DIFFUSE KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA DIFFUSA) HALOGETON (HALOGETON GLOMERATUS) HOARY CRESS (WHITETOP) (CARDARIA DRABA) PERENNIAL PEPPERWEED (LEPIDIUM LATIFOLIUM) PLUMELESS THISTLE (CARDUUS ACANTHOIDES) RUSSIAN KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA REPENS) RUSSIAN OLIVE (ELAEAGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA) WYETH LUPINE (LUPINUS WYETHII)

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 21 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

Medicine B ow R

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 22 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

ficult Dif

y Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Me d

icine

Bow Rd

Page 23 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

LEGEND

Medicin e Bow Rd

BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 24 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

! ( LEGEND BOTANICAL STUDY AREA

! (

Med

icine

PERENNIAL PEPPERWEED (LEPIDIUM LATIFOLIUM)

Bow

PLUMELESS THISTLE (CARDUUS ACANTHOIDES)

RUSSIAN KNAPWEED (CENTAUREA REPENS) RUSSIAN OLIVE (ELAEAGNUS ANGUSTIFOLIA) WYETH LUPINE (LUPINUS WYETHII)

2021-2022 MAPPED NOXIOUS WEED LOCATIONS FERC PROJECT NO. 14787

200 FEET

400

1:6,000

Page 25 of 25 PATH: C:\USERS\CGEESEY\APPDATA\LOCAL\TEMP\ARCGISPROTEMP20724\3BA7CB95-51C2-4D68-ADEB-91775314B1BA\UNTITLED.APRX - USER: CGEESEY - DATE: 10/26/2022

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix F. Flora Species List

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Plant Species Observed in the Study Area Common Name

Scientific Name

Noxious

Special Status

Arid West U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Rank

Graminoids Basin wildrye

Leymus cinereus

FAC

Blue grama

Bouteloua gracilis

Cheatgrass

Bromus tectorum *

Colorado rush

Juncus confusus

FAC

Common spikerush

Eleocharis palustris

OBL

Common threesquare

Schoenoplectus pungens

OBL

Creeping meadow foxtail

Alopecurus arundinaceus*

FAC

Crested wheatgrass

Agropyron cristatum *

Cusick's bluegrass

Poa cusickii

Desert wheatgrass

Agropyron cristatum var. desertorum *

Foxtail barley

Hordeum jubatum

Green needlegrass

Nassella viridula

Idaho fescue

Festuca idahoensis

Indian ricegrass

Achnatherum hymenoides

UPL

Jointleaf rush

Juncus articulatus

OBL

Kentucky bluegrass

Poa pratensis *

FAC

Mountain rush

Juncus articus ssp. littoralis

Nebraska sedge

Carex nebrascensis

Needle and thread

Hesperostipa comata

Nuttall's alkaligrass

Puccinellia nuttalliana

Onespike danthonia

Danthonia unispicata

Orchardgrass

Dactylis glomerata *

Prairie Junegrass

Koeleria macrantha

Rocky Mountain fescue

Festuca saximontana

Carbon County Noxious Weed

FAC FACU

FACW OBL FACW FACU

Appendix F-1

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Common Name

Scientific Name

Noxious

Special Status

Arid West U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Rank FACW

Saltgrass

Distichlis spicata

Sandberg bluegrass

Poa secunda ssp. secunda

Seaside arrowgrass

Triglochin maritima

Sixweeks fescue

Vulpia octoflora

Slender sedge

Carex filifolia var. filifolia

Slender wheatgrass

Elymus trachycaulus

FAC

Smooth brome

Bromus inermis *

FAC

Squirreltail

Elymus elymoides

FACU

Water foxtail

Alopecurus geniculatus *

Western wheatgrass

Pascopyrum smithii

FACU

Alfalfa

Medicago sativa *

FACU

Alpine golden buckwheat

Eriogonum flavum

American licorice

Glycyrrhiza lepidota

Arrowleaf balsamroot

Balsamorhiza sagittata

Bastard toadflax

Comandra umbellata

UPL

Bigbract verbena

Verbena bracteata

FAC

Bitter root

Lewisia rediviva

Black medick

Medicago lupulina *

Bluebell bellflower

Campanula rotundifolia

Bull thistle

Cirsium vulgare*

Wyoming Noxious Weed

FACU

Canada thistle

Cirsium arvense *

Wyoming Noxious Weed

FAC

Clustered broomrape

Orobanche fasciculata

Coyote tobacco

Nicotiana attenuata

FACU

Common dandelion

Taraxacum officinale *

FACU

Curlycup gumweed

Grindelia squarrosa

FACU

Curly dock

Rumex crispus *

FACU OBL

OBL

Forbs

FAC

FAC FACU

FAC

Appendix F-2

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Common Name

Scientific Name

Noxious

Special Status

Arid West U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Rank

Desert madwort

Alyssum desertorum *

Desert princesplume

Stanleya pinnata

Desert wirelettuce

Stephanomeria runcinata

Diffuse knapweed

Centaurea diffusa *

Douglas’ dustymaiden

Chaenactis douglasii

Engelmann's fleabane

Erigeron engelmannii

Feathery false lily of the valley

Maianthemum racemosum

Field chickweed

Cerastium arvense

FACU

Field horsetail

Equisetum arvense

FAC

Field locoweed

Oxytropis campestris

Field pennycress

Thlaspi arvense *

Flatspine stickseed

Lappula occidentalis

Fuzzytongue penstemon

Penstemon eriantherus

Green princesplume

Stanleya viridiflora

Gunnison's mariposa lily

Calochortus gunnisonii var. gunnisonii

Hairy evening primrose

Oenothera villosa

Hairy false goldenaster

Heterotheca villosa var. villosa

Halogeton

Halogeton glomeratus*

Wyoming Noxious Weed

Hardheads

Centaurea repens *

Wyoming Noxious Weed

Heartleaf arnica

Arnica cordifolia

Hoary cress

Cardaria draba*

Horned spurge

Euphorbia brachycera

Idaho blue-eyed grass

Sisyrinchium idahoense

Lambsquarters

Chenopodium album*

Larchleaf beardtongue

Penstemon laricifolius

Lesser rushy milkvetch

Astragalus convallarius var. convallarius

Lewis flax

Linum lewisii

Wyoming Noxious Weed

FAC

UPL

FAC

Wyoming Noxious Weed

FACU FAC

Appendix F-3

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Common Name

Scientific Name

Noxious

Special Status

Arid West U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Rank

Littleleaf alumroot

Heuchera parvifolia

Macdougal's biscuitroot

Lomatium foeniculaceum

Manyflower stickseed

Hackelia floribunda

Meadow deathcamas

Zigadenus venenosus var. venenosus

Meadow lousewort

Pedicularis crenulata

Miner’s candle

Cryptantha virgata

Northwestern Indian paintbrush

Castilleja angustifolia var. dubia

Oblongleaf bluebells

Mertensia oblongifolia

Old man's whiskers

Geum triflorum

Openwoods ragwort

Senecio rapifolius

Pale bastard toadflax

Comandra umbellata

FACU

Paradox cinquefoil

Potentilla paradoxa

FACW

Parsnipflower buckwheat

Eriogonum heracleoides var. heracleoides

Perennial pepperweed

Lepidium latifolium*

Persistent sepal yellowcress

Rorippa calycina

Plains pricklypear

Opuntia polyacantha

Carbon County Noxious

Plumeless thistle

Carduus acanthoides*

Wyoming Noxious Weed

Pony beebalm

Monarda pectinata

Prickly Russian thistle

Salsola tragus *

Prostrate knotweed

Polygonum aviculare *

Purple milkvetch

Astragalus agrestis

Rayless tansyaster Red clover

Machaeranthera grindelioides var. grindelioides Trifolium pratense *

FAC

Rough cocklebur

Xanthium strumarium

FAC

Rush skeletonplant

Lygodesmia juncea

Salt spring checkerbloom

Sidalcea neomexicana

FACW

FACU

Wyoming Noxious Weed BLMS

FACW

FACU FAC

FACW

Appendix F-4

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Common Name

Scientific Name

Scarlet beeblossom

Oenothera suffrutescens

Scarlet gilia

Ipomopsis aggregata

Scarlet globemallow

Sphaeralcea coccinea

Scouringrush horsetail

Equisetum hyemale var. affine

Scrambled eggs

Corydalis aurea

Seep monkeyflower Sego lily Sharpleaf twinpod

Mimulus guttatus Calochortus nuttallii Physaria acutifolia

Silky lupine

Lupinus sericeus

Silverweed cinquefoil

Potentilla anserina ssp. anserina

Silvery lupine

Lupinus argenteus

Slender cinquefoil

Potentilla gracilis

Small-leaf pussytoes

Antennaria parvifolia

Smoothstem blazingstar

Mentzelia laevicaulis

Spearleaf stonecrop

Sedum lanceolatum var. lanceolatum

Spiny phlox

Phlox hoodii

Spreading yellowcress

Rorippa sinuata

Standley's spikemoss

Selaginella densa

Stemless four-nerve daisy

Tetraneuris acaulis var. epunctata

Sticky purple geranium

Geranium viscosissimum

Sulphur-flower buckwheat

Eriogonum umbellatum

Tapertip hawksbeard

Crepis acuminata

Thrift mock goldenweed

Stenotus armerioides var. armerioides

Tiny trumpet

Collomia linearis

Trailing fleabane

Erigeron flagellaris

Tufted fleabane

Erigeron caespitosus

Two-grooved milkvetch

Astragalus bisulcatus

Noxious

Special Status

Arid West U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Rank

FACW OBL

FACU OBL FAC

FAC

FACU

Appendix F-5

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Common Name

Scientific Name

Noxious

Special Status

Arid West U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Rank FAC

Twolobe larkspur

Delphinium nuttallianum

Water horsetail

Equisetum fluviatile

OBL

Water speedwell

Veronica anagallis-aquatica

OBL

Wavyleaf thistle

Cirsium undulatum

Western stoneseed

Lithospermum ruderale

Western yarrow

Achillea millefolium

White clover

Trifolium repens *

Woolly groundsel

Packera cana

Woolly plantain

Plantago patagonica

Wyeth lupine

Lupinus wyethii*

Wyoming Indian paintbrush

Castilleja linariifolia

Yellow salsify

Tragopogon dubius *

FACW

Yellow sweetclover

Melilotus officinalis *

FACU

FACU FACU

Carbon County Noxious Weed

Shrubs and Sub-Shrubs Alderleaf mountain mahogany

Cercocarpus montanus

Antelope bitterbrush

Purshia tridentata var. tridentata

Black sagebrush

Artemisia nova

Birdfoot sagebrush

Artemisia pedatifida

Basin big sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata var. tridentata

Broom snakeweed

Gutierrezia sarothrae

Chokecherry

Prunus virginiana

Common juniper

Juniperus communis

Common snowberry

Symphoricarpos albus

Gardner's saltbush

Atriplex gardneri

Greasewood

Sarcobatus vermiculatus

Hairspine pricklypear

Opuntia polyacantha var. polyacantha

FACU FACU FACU

Appendix F-6

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Common Name

Scientific Name

Little sagebrush

Artemisia arbuscula

Mountain ball cactus

Pediocactus simpsonii

Nylon hedgehog cactus

Echinocereus viridiflorus

Prairie sagewort

Artemisia frigida

Rockspirea

Holodiscus discolor

Rubber rabbitbrush

Ericameria nauseosa

Shadscale saltbush

Atriplex confertifolia

Silver sagebrush

Artemisia cana

Skunkbush sumac

Rhus trilobata var. trilobata

Snowbrush ceanothus

Ceanothus velutinus

Soapweed yucca

Yucca glauca

Spiny hopsage

Grayia spinosa

Utah serviceberry

Amelanchier utahensis

Utah snowberry

Symphoricarpos oreophilus

Wax currant

Ribes cereum var. cereum

Winterfat

Krascheninnikovia lanata

Woods' rose

Rosa woodsii var. woodsii

Wyoming big sagebrush

Artemisia tridentata var. wyomingensis

Yellow rabbitbrush

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus

Noxious

Special Status

Arid West U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Rank

FACU

Trees Limber pine

Pinus flexilis

BLMS

Lodgepole pine

Pinus contorta var. latifolia

Narrowleaf cottonwood

Populus angustifolia

FACW

Narrowleaf willow

Salix exigua

FACW

Ponderosa pine

Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum

FACU

Quaking aspen

Populus tremuloides

FACU

Rocky Mountain maple

Acer glabrum var. glabrum

FACU

FAC

Appendix F-7

Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Common Name

Scientific Name

Russian olive

Elaeagnus angustifolia*

Utah juniper

Juniperus osteosperma

Noxious

Special Status

Arid West U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Rank

Wyoming Noxious Weed

Legend * Non-native species BLMS: BLM-Sensitive Species U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Rank: OBL Wetland-dependent plants that require standing water or seasonally saturated soils near the surface. FACW Plants dependent on and predominantly occur with hydric soils, standing water, or seasonally high water tables in wet habitats. FAC These plants can occur in wetlands or non-wetlands. They can grow in hydric, mesic, or xeric habitats. FACU Plants that are not wetland dependent. They are non-wetland plants by habitat preference.

Appendix F-8

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix F Greater Sage-grouse Lek and Habitat Study Report

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Contents 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3

Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 3

1.4

Background Information ............................................................................................................ 3 1.4.1 Status and Distribution ................................................................................................. 3 1.4.2 Life History and Habitat Use ........................................................................................ 4

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1

Desktop Habitat Assessment .................................................................................................... 5

2.2

Greater Sage-grouse Lek Monitoring ........................................................................................ 5

2.3

Density Disturbance Calculation Tool ....................................................................................... 6

2.4

Lek Proximity Analysis .............................................................................................................. 6

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 8 3.1

Desktop Habitat Assessment .................................................................................................... 8

3.2

Greater Sage-grouse Lek Monitoring ...................................................................................... 12

3.3

Density Disturbance Calculation Tool ..................................................................................... 13

3.4

Lek Proximity Analysis ............................................................................................................ 13

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 16 4.1

Desktop Habitat Assessment .................................................................................................. 16

4.2

Greater Sage-grouse Lek Monitoring ...................................................................................... 16

References ........................................................................................................................................ 17

Appendices Appendix A. Study Plan Appendix B. Lek Monitoring Datasheets Appendix C. Density Disturbance Calculation Tool Output

December 2022 | i

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figures Figure 1-1. Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2-1. Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Monitoring Locations ........................................................................ 7 Figure 3-1. Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Management Designations in the Study Area ............................ 9 Figure 3-2. Greater Sage-Grouse Relative Abundance in the Study Area (Hanser 2011) ......................... 10 Figure 3-3. Greater Sage-grouse Relative Probability of Occurrence in the Study Area (Keinath et al. 2010) .................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3-4. Lek Viewshed Analysis ............................................................................................................. 15

Tables Table 2-1. Greater Sage-Grouse Leks Within the Study Area...................................................................... 5 Table 2-2. Monitored Lek Locations .............................................................................................................. 6 Table 3-1. Results of 2021 and 2022 Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Monitoring ............................................. 13 Table 3-2. Distance to Nearest Project Feature from each Greater Sage-Grouse Lek. ............................. 14

December 2022 | ii

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Introduction

This Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Report has been prepared for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon), a subsidiary of rPlus Hydro, LLLP, in support of the licensing of the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No. 14787) (Project). This report describes the results of the Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study (study) conducted in 2021 and 2022 (Appendix A).

1.1

Project Description

On April 20, 2020, Black Canyon submitted a Notice of Intent to file an Application for an Original License and the accompanying Pre-Application Document to FERC for a proposed pumped storage project at and near the existing Seminoe Reservoir, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, in Carbon County (Project). Figure 1-1 shows the general vicinity of the Project. The Project involves the construction of a new 972-megawatt pumped storage facility including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The proposed upper reservoir would consist of a surface area of 114 acres at normal maximum operating pool. The Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance would also include an underground powerhouse; a power tunnel between the upper reservoir and the powerhouse; a tailrace tunnel between the powerhouse and a new intake in the existing Seminoe Reservoir; a powerhouse access tunnel; a high-voltage transmission tunnel; and a switchyard and transmission line. The Project will connect to the electric grid at the existing Aeolus Substation.

1.2

Study Area

The Project area consists of land within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance (Figure 1-1): the proposed upper Project reservoir, proposed spillway, transmission, access roads, conveyance, and primary facility corridor, as well as a 200-foot buffer surrounding each. The study area was defined in the Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Plan (study plan) (Appendix A) as all lands projected to be affected by Project construction and operation for which access permission was granted. Modifications were made to the study area to account for potential indirect impacts to greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) occurring outside the direct Footprint of Potential Disturbance of the Project. The revised study area includes a 3.1-mile buffer of all lands projected to be affected by Project construction and operation. The study area is depicted in Figure 1-1.

December 2022 | 1

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1-1. Study Area

December 2022 | 2

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

The greater sage-grouse Priority Habitat Management Areas depicted in Figure 1-1 are the areas mapped in the 2015 Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage Grouse. Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] 2015).

1.3

Environmental Setting

The study area occurs between elevations of approximately 6,200 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near Seminoe Dam to approximately 7,300 feet amsl at the proposed upper reservoir. The average temperatures range from between approximately 84 degrees Fahrenheit in July to approximately 13 degrees Fahrenheit in January. The average annual precipitation for the period of record (1948–2011) in the study area is 12.66 inches, while average annual snowfall is 21.3 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2022). The study area occurs within two distinct ecological zones. The Seminoe Mountains, where the proposed upper reservoir and powerplant will be located, is characterized by foothill shrublands and low mountains. The Seminoe Mountains, like the nearby Shirley and Ferris Mountain ranges, is an isolated, dry range with rugged topography (Chapman et al. 2004). Limber pine and mixed conifer woodlands at the top of the mountains give way to pinyon and juniper forests at mid-elevation slopes. The forests are regularly fragmented by sagebrush shrublands that also form the lower slopes of the mountain range. The Seminoe Mountains are bisected by the North Platte River, which creates a deeply incised canyon with 2,400-foot-deep walls. The Seminoe Reservoir and the downstream Kortes Reservoir are created by two like-named hydroelectric dams that take advantage of the natural constriction points on the river. The portion of the study area formed by the transmission lines is characterized by rolling sagebrush steppe. It is part of a vast region of rolling plains, with hills, mesas, terraces, and ridges. The dominant vegetation is sagebrush steppe, which gives way to more mixed-grass prairie towards the east. Much of this portion of the study area is bordered by the Seminoe, Shirley, and Freezeout Mountains to the north and the Medicine Bow River to the south. Land use consists of cattle and sheep ranching or oil, gas, and coal extraction (Chapman et al. 2004).

1.4

Background Information

1.4.1

Status and Distribution

The greater sage-grouse is a BLM Sensitive Species and Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGFD) Species of Greatest Conservation Need Tier II species. The greater sage-grouse was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2002 and became a candidate for listing in 2010 (75 Federal Register [FR] 13910). However, following a status review in 2015, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that the species was not at risk of extinction and withdrew greater sagegrouse from the candidate list (80 FR 47510). In an effort to preclude listing under the ESA, some states established relatively rigorous conservation measures, such as the State of Wyoming’s Core Area Protection Executive Orders (EOs). Current management of the greater sage-grouse in Wyoming is based largely on Governor Gordon’s EO 2019-3 (State of Wyoming 2019). In November 2021, BLM announced a new planning initiative to address management of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat on BLM lands (86 FR 66331). This effort may affect future management of the species in the study area.

December 2022 | 3

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

The historic range of the greater sage-grouse covered most of the shrublands and prairies of the intermountain west, including 16 states and three Canadian provinces. Today, the species has been extirpated from five states and one province, while its distribution has contracted substantially within its current range. Populations across the west have declined, although accurate estimates are difficult to obtain due to variability in lek attendance. The major driver of population decline and range contraction is habitat alteration, including loss and fragmentation of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) due to wildfire, cultivation, energy development, invasive species, and pinyon-juniper encroachment (Schroeder et al. 2020).

1.4.2

Life History and Habitat Use

Greater sage-grouse are closely associated with sagebrush landcover. Although there is variability in vegetative composition and topography, sagebrush is an underlying factor in all stages of the greater sage-grouse life cycle. Nests are located in areas with thick and diverse vegetative cover generally dominated by big sagebrush and, in some regions, are located near riparian habitat. Leks are located near nesting habitat on sparsely vegetated broad ridgetops, dry lake beds, disturbed areas, or grassy swales. Overwintering habitat is similar to nesting; tall sagebrush ensures access in deep snow (Schroeder et al. 2020). Males strut on leks during early morning from mid-March through mid-May. Females establish nests around this same time and initiate incubation about three weeks following copulation. Young are born about one month later and can leave the nest almost immediately. Broods remain intact near the nest site for 10 to 12 weeks, at which time juveniles disperse towards winter habitat (Schroeder et al. 2020).

December 2022 | 4

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 2-1. Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Monitoring Locations

December 2022 | 7

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Results

3.1

Desktop Habitat Assessment

The WGFD has designated 53.6 percent of the study area as a Core Population Area for the greater sage-grouse (Figure 3-1). Appendix A of EO 2019-3 provides regulations for development and management of habitat within the Core Population Areas. Additionally, the BLM has designated PHMAs which are largely consistent with the WGFD Core Population Areas and are managed to avoid and minimize further disturbance. Approximately 57.5 percent of the study area is considered a PHMA. The remainder of the study area is designated as a General Habitat Management Area (GHMA) (Figure 3-1). GHMAs are managed to allow greater flexibility for land use activities, while still designing development to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to greater sage-grouse (USFWS 2021). Almost all PHMAs in Wyoming, including that within the study area, were identified as Priority Areas for Conservation during the USFWS status review. This habitat is considered essential to the long-term conservation of the greater sage-grouse (USFWS 2015). There are known lek locations within the study area. These are discussed further in the next section. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2011) GAP/LANDFIRE landcover dataset classifies over 65 percent of the study area as sagebrush-dominated shrublands and steppe. Additional shrublands, such as greasewood flats, desert scrub, and riparian shrubland compose an additional 17 percent of the study area. The shrubland and steppe landcover types are interspersed by largely ephemeral riparian drainages throughout most of the study area. Near the proposed reservoir (i.e., the Seminoe Mountains), shrublands are uncommon and are found interspersed amongst pine forests, steeprugged terrain, and cliffs/canyons. Refer to the Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Report for additional discussion of GAP landcover types within a portion of the study area. The USGS SAGEMAP program (USGS 2002) maps 58.6 percent of the study area as sagebrush/sage-grouse habitat. Hanser (2020) mapped the proportion of sagebrush species land cover across the Wyoming Basins Ecoregional Assessment area using a circular focal moving window analysis (270-meter scale). Approximately 69.7 percent of the study area was mapped as having at least 75 percent sagebrush cover, and about 86.3 percent of the study area is mapped as having at least 50 percent sagebrush cover (Hanser 2020). Within these sagebrush habitats, the percent cover of sagebrush is predominantly under 20 percent with 78 percent of the land cover having between 4 and 25 percent cover of sagebrush based on the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2016 Sagebrush Rangeland Cover data (Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics [MRLC] 2016). Hanser (2011) developed a spatially explicit generalized ordered logistic regression model of greater sage-grouse occurrence and abundance in the Wyoming Basins Ecoregional Assessment area. The model’s output was classified into three relative abundance classes: absent, low, and high. Based on this model, 5.9 percent of the study area is expected to have high abundance of greater sage-grouse. Approximately 40.7 percent is expected to have low abundance, and greater sage-grouse are expected to be absent from the remaining 53.4 percent of the study area (Figure 3-2). The Wyoming Natural Diversity Database also mapped probability of greater sage-grouse occurrence across the state by relating known occurrence data with environmental data (Keinath et al. 2010). This model predicts that greater sage-grouse have a high probability of occurrence within 43.7 percent of the study area, a medium probability of occurrence in 40.5 percent of the study area, and a low probability of occurrence in 15.8 percent of the study area (Figure 3-3).

December 2022 | 8

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-2. Greater Sage-Grouse Relative Abundance in the Study Area (Hanser 2011)

December 2022 | 10

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.2

Greater Sage-grouse Lek Monitoring

HDR biologists monitored four (4) greater sage-grouse lek locations on April 20–22, April 27–28, and May 5–6, 2021, during the 2021 season and seven (7) greater sage-grouse lek locations on April 18, 19, and 21; April 26–28; and May 3, 5, and 6, 2022, during the 2022 season (Figure 2-1). Lek survey datasheets are included in Appendix B. Greater sage-grouse were observed at five leks at least once during monitoring in 2021 and 2022. Monitoring dates and observations are provided in Table 3-1 below. •

Males were observed strutting at the F-2583302 lek during all three lek counts in 2021, and 12 females were observed during the first count. Males were observed strutting at the F-2583302 lek during all three lek counts in 2022 but no females were present.

•

Males were observed strutting at the F-2483084 lek during all three lek counts in 2021, and three females were observed during the first count and two were observed during the second count. Males were observed strutting at the F-2483084 lek during the three lek counts in 2022, two females were observed during the second count, and one female was observed during the third count.

•

Males and females were observed strutting at the F-2481083 lek during the lek count in 2021. Males were observed during all three lek counts in 2022, and three females were observed during the first count and two females were observed during the second count. Greater sagegrouse observed at this lek were noted to be northwest of their usual location during the third count in 2022 due to cattle and cattle dogs in the area.

•

Males were observed at the F-2483144 lek during the two lek counts in 2021, with two females observed during the second count. Males were observed strutting at the F-2483144 lek during all three lek counts in 2022, and one female was observed at each of the counts.

•

Males were observed strutting at the F-2583362 lek during the count in 2021. Males were observed strutting at the F-2583362 lek during all three counts in 2022 and no females were observed.

No greater sage-grouse were observed at leks F-2583261 and F-2584252 in 2021 or 2022. When checked for sign in 2021 and 2022, scat was observed near the F-2584252 lek but no sign was found near the F-2583261 lek.

December 2022 | 12

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Discussion

4.1

Desktop Habitat Assessment

Core Population Areas and PHMAs cover over half of the study area, and sagebrush is the dominant vegetation across almost 70 percent of the study area. Two models of greater sage-grouse distribution and relative abundance/occurrence differed in their outputs but agreed that suitable habitat for the species is abundant. However, landcover mapping clearly shows that the distribution of sagebrush habitat is concentrated south and east of the Seminoe Mountains. The facilities in this portion of the study area are limited to the proposed transmission lines that would run parallel to two existing transmission lines and either a county road or existing two-track ranch road. Sagebrush habitat and modeled sagebrush occurrence near the proposed upper reservoir, which would be responsible for most of the new habitat alteration and disturbance, is minimal. Refer to Figures 3-2 and 3-3 as well as vegetation mapping in the Wildlife and Rare, Threatened, Endangered Species Report.

4.2

Greater Sage-grouse Lek Monitoring

Greater sage-grouse were observed at five lek locations at least once during the lek monitoring in 2021 and 2022. No recorded leks are located near the upper reservoir area. Occupied leks are primarily adjacent to the proposed transmission lines. Lek F-2481083 has had strong attendance numbers since 2012, the beginning of the observation record. Lek F-2483084 was checked for the first time since 2018 in 2021 and had strong attendance numbers in both 2021 and 2022. Lek F-2483144 has had very strong attendance numbers since 2012, the beginning of the observation record. Lek F-2583302 has traditionally had a strong attendance since 2014. Lek F-2583362 has had consistent attendance numbers since 2014. Lek F-2584252 was active in 2020 and scat was found on site in both 2021 and 2022; however, no individuals have been monitored at this lek since 2020. Lek F-2583261 was last noted to be active in 2018, when 7 males were observed. Habitat in the vicinity of lek F-2583261 did not appear to be suitable due to the high shrub cover density. As discussed above, it is anticipated that the Project will be submitted to the DDCT again once design progresses and based on ongoing discussions with WGFD habitat biologists. At this time, a site-scale habitat suitability assessment is not recommended. If necessary, based on final design, the estimated total debits resulting from direct and indirect impacts of the Project will be calculated for the Project using the DDCT. If determined necessary, Black Canyon will develop a mitigation plan in coordination with the WGFD. Primary facilities that may be visible from the seven occupied leks include portions of the access road along the existing transmission line and the proposed transmission lines themselves. As mentioned above, the proposed transmission lines would parallel two existing transmission lines as well as existing county roads or two-track ranch roads. Therefore, the proposed transmission lines are qualitatively expected to only minimally alter the lek viewsheds in the study area.

December 2022 | 16

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

References

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2015. Approved Resource Management Plan for Greater Sage Grouse. Casper, Kemmerer, Newcastle, Pinedale, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices. BLM/WY/PL-15/023+1610. September 2015. Chapman, S.S., Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., Despain, D.G., ZumBerge, J., and Conrad, M., 2004, Ecoregions of Wyoming (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey. Access online 8/26/2021. https://gaftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/wy/wy_eco_pg.pdf. Christiansen, T. 2012. Chapter 12: Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Handbook of Biological Techniques, pp. 12–55. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Hanser, S.E. 2011. Sagebrush habitat in the western US (90m). U.S. Geological Survey. Available from: <https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5421b350e4b06fb4967b9a47>. Accessed on December 15, 2021. ______. 2020. Proportion of All Sagebrush Species Land Cover (270-m scale) in the Wyoming Basins Ecoregional Assessment area. U.S. Geological Survey. Available from: <https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/5421d0e0e4b06fb4967b9acc>. Accessed on December 15, 2021. Keinath, D., M. Andersen, G. Beauvais. 2010. Range and modeled distribution of Wyoming’s species of greatest conservation need. Report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie Wyoming for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming and the U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado. August 20, 2010. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC). 2016. NLCD 2016 Sagebrush Rangeland Cover. Available from: <https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2016-sagebrush-rangeland-cover>. Accessed on December 15, 2021. Schroeder, M. A., J. R. Young, and C. E. Braun. 2020. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. State of Wyoming. 2019. Executive Order 2019-3. Greater Sage-grouse Core Area Protection. August. Stiver, S.J., E.T. Rinkes, D.E. Naugle, P.D. Makela, D.A. Nance, and J.W. Karl, eds. 2015. SageGrouse Habitat Assessment Framework: A Multiscale Assessment Tool. Technical Reference 6710-1. Bureau of Land Management and Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Denver, Colorado. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Greater Sage-Grouse: 2015 Not Warranted Finding Under the Endangered Species Act. September 2015. USFWS, Denver, Colorado. Available from: <https://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/PDFs/GrSG_Finding_FINAL.pdf>. Accessed on December 15, 2021. ______. 2021. Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation in Wyoming. Available online: <https://www.fws.gov/greatersagegrouse/factsheets/WyomingGrSGFactSheet_FINAL%20(1) .pdf>. Accessed on December 15, 2021.

December 2022 | 17

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS). 2002. SAGEMAP program. Available <https://www.usgs.gov/centers/forest-and-rangeland-ecosystem-sciencecenter/science/sagemap>. Accessed September 8, 2022.

online

______. 2011. GAP/LANDFIRE landcover dataset. Available online <https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/item/573cc51be4b0dae0d5e4b0c5>. Accessed on December 15, 2021. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2022. Climate Summary for the Period of Record (1948– 2011) for Seminoe Dam, Wyoming (Station 488070). Available online <https://wrcc.dri.edu/summary/>. Accessed on September 8, 2022. Western Regional Climate Center, Carbon County, WY.

December 2022 | 18

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix A. Study Plan

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Plan July 27, 2021 DRAFT FOR STAKEHOLDER REVIEW

1.0 Introduction Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon Hydro) is proposing the licensing, construction, and operation of the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) (Project) in Carbon County, Wyoming, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, on the North Platte River. The proposed Project would entail the construction of a new 750-megawatt (MW) plant including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission lines, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); these operations would not be affected by the Project’s pumped storage operations. Black Canyon Hydro has initiated a licensing process for the Project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency with jurisdiction over non-federal hydropower projects in the United States. During this process, Black Canyon Hydro will engage stakeholders and implement a suite of resource studies that will inform FERC’s environmental and developmental analyses and decision regarding license issuance. This document presents Black Canyon Hydro’s proposed approach to the scoping and implementation of a Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study assessment for the Project that will be provided to FERC to assist in the licensing analyses. Black Canyon Hydro anticipates filing a Final License Application with FERC in August 2022.

2.0 Project Nexus and Study Goals Construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project may have the potential to affect greater sagegrouse. These effects may be direct (e.g., result of ground-disturbing activities) or indirect (e.g., due to noise or addition of tall structures). The goal of this study is to assess the direct and indirect effects the Project may have on greater sage-grouse habitat. The study will include: • • •

Greater sage-grouse lek monitoring; Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT); and Proximity analysis of the Project to nearby greater sage-grouse leks.

The overall goal of this study is to conduct a fine-scale outcome-based baseline assessment of greater sage-grouse habitat and lek status nearby and within the study area. The baseline assessment is intended to be adequate for consideration of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requirements pertaining to greater sage-grouse whether the BLM’s 2015 or 2019 Resource Management Plan Amendment greater sage-grouse in Wyoming is in effect.

Page 1

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Plan

from the ground, between ½ hour before sunrise and 1 hour after, when wind speeds are less than 16 kph (10 mph) and no precipitation is falling. If no birds are observed, biologists will search the lekking areas on foot for sage-grouse sign. The results of the lek monitoring will be reported in a draft and final 2021 Greater Sage-Grouse Lek Monitoring Results report. In addition, two unoccupied leks located within 3.1 miles of the Project will be checked for visible sign of sage-grouse.

Task 4 – Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) The Project is located partially within a sage-grouse core area, and therefore Black Canyon Hydro must submit their project footprint for WGFD review through the Density and Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) as part of the permitting process per Executive Order 2019-3 guidelines. The DDCT is a spatially based application that calculates the number of disruptive activities averaged per square mile and total surface disturbance within the DDCT assessment area. Depending on the outcome of the DDCT, WGFD may require a site-scale habitat suitability assessment conducted in accordance with BLM’s Sage-grouse Habitat Assessment Framework (Stiver et al. 2015). This assessment would include mapping existing anthropogenic features and evaluating existing data on sage-grouse seasonal habitat boundaries data and ecological site descriptions to establish stratified random sampling locations to collect vegetation transect data. Transect data would be collected and analyzed with suitability criteria to characterize habitat. If required, this assessment would be conducted in 2022 and included in a separate study report.

Task 5 – Lek Proximity Analysis A proximity analysis for seven greater sage-grouse leks near the Project will be completed with GIS to model the line of sight from the nearest sage-grouse lek towards the Project. The Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment and Record of Decision (BLM 2019) stipulates that no new surface disturbance may occur within 3.1 miles of a lek within PHMA; however, this may be subject to change according to ground conditions, such as topographic features. The proximity analysis will model the line of sight and will incorporate surrounding ground conditions within the Project vicinity. Results of the proximity analysis will be delivered in a map set.

5.0 Schedule and Deliverables Black Canyon Hydro anticipates the schedule for Study completion as follows: Planning ................................................................................................................... March 2021 Study Season ................................................................................................... April – July 2021 Study Report Preparation ............................................................... October 2021-January 2022 A description of the methods and field investigation findings will be included in the Report. The Report will be incorporated into the Draft License Application.

6.0 References Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2019. Wyoming Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment and Record of Decision. March. Christiansen, T. 2012. Chapter 12: Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Handbook of Biological Techniques, pp. 12–55. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. July 27, 2021

Page 3

Attachment 1 Map of Study Area

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix B. Lek Monitoring Datasheets

Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix C. Density Disturbance Calculation Tool Output

Density and Disturbance Details for Project ID: 20220321_1, Black Canyon Hydro 20220321_1

Total

Added

Disturbance Percentage

5.08

0.85

Disturbance Acres

5567.03

936.21

Disruptions Per 640 Acres

0.06

0.00

Disruptions Count

10.00

0.00

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix G Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Report

Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Prepared for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC FERC No. 14787 Carbon County, Wyoming

December 2022

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Contents 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3

Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 1

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1

Vegetation Mapping .................................................................................................................. 6

2.2

Wildlife Habitat Assessment ...................................................................................................... 7

2.3

Raptor Nest Survey ................................................................................................................... 9

Results ............................................................................................................................................... 11 3.1

Vegetation Mapping ................................................................................................................ 11

3.2

Wildlife Habitat Assessment .................................................................................................... 15 3.2.1 Insects ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.2.2 Amphibians ................................................................................................................. 16 3.2.3 Birds ........................................................................................................................... 19 3.2.4 Mammals .................................................................................................................... 30

3.3

Raptor Nest Survey ................................................................................................................. 43

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 45 4.1

Vegetation Mapping ................................................................................................................ 45

4.2

Wildlife Habitat Assessment .................................................................................................... 45

4.3

Raptor Nest Survey ................................................................................................................. 49

References ........................................................................................................................................ 50

December 2022 | i

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figures Figure 1-2. GAP Landcover Types (USGS 2011) Mapped in the Study Area .............................................. 5 Figure 2-1. Raptor Nest Survey Area, Inaccessible Areas, and Historic Nest Locations ........................... 10 Figure 3-1. Raptor Nests Observed During 2021 Raptor Nest Surveys ..................................................... 44

Tables Table 1-1. Landcover Types Mapped Within the Study Area ....................................................................... 2 Table 2-1. Landcover Types Mapped Within the Vegetation Mapping Study Area ...................................... 6 Table 3-1. Verified Landover Types Identified Within the Vegetation Mapping Study Area ....................... 11 Table 3-2. Summary of Raptor Nests Observed During 2021 and 2022 Raptor Nest Surveys ................. 43 Table 4-1. Summary of Modeled Habitat Quality for Each Species Assessed1 ......................................... 46 Table 4-2. Summary of WGFD Designated Big Game Ranges Within the Study Area.............................. 48

Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F

Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Plan U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation Unofficial Species List List of All Special Status Species Considered for Analysis, Likelihood to Occur in Study Area, Habitat Associations, and Summary of Modeling Methods Habitat Suitability Indexes Assigned to Each GAP Landcover Type by Species Field-verified Landcover Mapping within the Vegetation Mapping Study Area Maps of Wildlife Habitat Quality Modeled in the Study Area

December 2022 | ii

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Abbreviations and Acronyms BBS

Breeding Bird Survey

BGEPA

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

centimeter(s)

ESA

Endangered Species Act

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Register

foot/feet

GAP

Gap Analysis Program

GIS

geographical information system

GPS

Global Positioning System

HEP

habitat evaluation procedure

HSI

habitat suitability index

IPaC

Information for Planning and Conservation

kilometer(s)

meter(s)

megawatt(s)

NRCS

Natural Resources Conservation Service

NWI

National Wetlands Inventory

Project

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Reclamation

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

SGCN

Species of Greatest Conservation Need

TRI

topographic roughness index

U.S.C.

United States Code

USFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

WGFD

Wyoming Game & Fish Department

WYNDD

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database

December 2022 | iii

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Introduction

This Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Report has been prepared for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (SPS), a subsidiary of rPlus Hydro, LLP (Black Canyon), in support of the licensing of the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] No. 14787) (Project). This report describes the results of the Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation (study) that was conducted in 2021.

1.1

Project Description

On April 20, 2020, Black Canyon submitted a Notice of Intent to file an Application for an Original License and the accompanying Pre-Application Document to FERC for a proposed pumped storage project at and near the existing Seminoe Reservoir, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, in Carbon County (Project). Figure 1-1 shows the general vicinity of the Project. The Project involves the construction of a new 972-megawatt (MW) pumped storage facility including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The proposed upper reservoir would consist of a surface area of 114 acres at normal maximum operating pool. The Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance would also include an underground powerhouse; a power tunnel between the upper reservoir and the powerhouse; a tailrace tunnel between the powerhouse and a new intake in the existing Seminoe Reservoir; a powerhouse access tunnel; a high-voltage transmission tunnel; and a switchyard and transmission line. The Project will connect to the electric grid at the existing Aeolus Substation.

1.2

Study Area

The study area included all lands that could be affected by Project construction and operation as defined in the Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Plan (study plan), included as Appendix A. Modifications of the study area were made after the study plan was finalized. The study area for the wildlife habitat assessment and raptor nest survey consists of the Conceptual Project Boundary and was expanded to also include a 1-mile buffer for an area totaling 53,280.8 acres (Figure 1-1). Vegetation mapping was completed in the Conceptual Project Boundary, an area totaling 3,203.2 acres and referred to herein as the ‘vegetation mapping study area’.

1.3

Environmental Setting

December 2022 | 1

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

December and January. The average annual precipitation for the study area is 9.25 inches and the average annual snowfall is 21.3 inches (WRCC 2021). The study area occurs within two distinct ecological zones. The Seminoe Mountains, where the proposed reservoir and powerplant are located, is characterized by foothill shrublands and low mountains. The Seminoe Mountains, like the nearby Shirley and Ferris Mountain ranges, is an isolated, dry range with rugged topography (Chapman et al. 2004). Limber pine and mixed conifer woodlands at the top of the mountains give way to pinyon and juniper forests at mid-elevation slopes. The forests are regularly fragmented by sagebrush shrublands that also form the lower slopes of the mountain range. The Seminoe Mountains are bisected by the North Platte River, which creates a deeply incised canyon with 750 m (2,460 ft) walls. The Seminoe Reservoir and the Kortes reservoir are created by two like-named hydroelectric dams that take advantage of the natural constriction points on the river. Recent wildfires have affected the current landcover conditions in portions of the study area (Figure 1-2). The portion of the study area within the Project transmission line corridor is characterized by rolling sagebrush steppe. It is part of a vast region of rolling plains, with hills, mesas, terraces, and ridges. The dominant vegetation is sagebrush steppe that gives way to more mixed-grass prairie toward the east. Much of this portion of the study area is bordered by the Seminoe, Shirley, and Freezeout mountains to the north and the Medicine Bow River to the south. Land use consists of cattle and sheep ranching or oil, gas, and coal extraction (Chapman et al. 2004). Based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Program (GAP)/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems dataset (USGS 2011) there are 29 landcover types present within the study area (Table 1-1; Figure 1-2). Table 1-1. Landcover Types Mapped Within the Study Area Acres

Percent of Study Area

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe

25,984

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

8,558

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe

5,749

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland

7,299

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat

957

Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

892

1,255

Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland

617

Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland

440

Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon

406

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland

299

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

122

Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland

165

Landcover Type

Open Water (Fresh)

December 2022 | 2

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop

126

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland

Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

Introduced Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Developed, Open Space

Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe

Middle Rocky Mountain Montane Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland

Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest

Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and Woodland

Developed, Low Intensity

Developed, Medium Intensity

Pasture/Hay

Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune

Western Great Plains Floodplain

Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland

Southern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa Pine Woodland

Landcover Type

Total

53,281

Source: USGS 2011

December 2022 | 3

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1-1. Study Area

December 2022 | 4

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1-2. GAP Landcover Types (USGS 2011) Mapped in the Study Area

December 2022 | 5

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Methods

The Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation was conducted in compliance with the study plan, using methods described below. Vegetation mapping efforts were conducted concurrently with special status plants and noxious weed surveys. No variances from the study plan were required.

2.1

Vegetation Mapping

Based on a preliminary review of the GAP landcover dataset there are 19 landcover types mapped within the vegetation mapping study area (USGS 2011). Table 2-1 provides the acreages for the GAP landcover types mapped within the vegetation mapping study area. Table 2-1. Landcover Types Mapped Within the Vegetation Mapping Study Area Acres

Percent of Study Area

1,657.3

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland

639.6

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

443.4

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe

234.9

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat

59.7

Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland

49.2

Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon

32.0

Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

29.7

Open Water (Fresh)

24.9

Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland

10.7

Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop

4.9

Developed, Open Space

3.7

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland

2.8

Northwestern Great Plains Mixed grass Prairie

2.6

Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland

2.6

Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest

2.5

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

1.0

Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

0.9

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland

0.80

Landcover Types Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe

Total

3,203.2

Source: USGS 2011.

According to the GAP landcover dataset, there are three dominant landcover types in the study area: the Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe, which makes up 52 percent of the study area, the Rocky

December 2022 | 6

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland, which makes up 20 percent of the study area, and the Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub, which makes up 14 percent of the study area. The Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe makes up 7 percent of the vegetation mapping study area. The remaining 15 landcover types account for 7 percent of the vegetation mapping study area (Table 2-1). Due to the relatively low level of complexity within the vegetation mapping study area, only one-third of the total acreage was directly ground-truthed during field surveys. In preparation for field efforts, the GAP landcover dataset was uploaded as polygons in ArcGIS Collector, a geographical information system (GIS) application that was used on a tablet in the field. Landcover mapping was conducted concurrently with the special-status plants and noxious weeds surveys (HDR 2021) conducted June 28 through July 2, 2021. The dominant species observed in the field was noted within each landcover type. Habitat conditions in the study area, such as level of disturbance, relative dominance of non-native species, and availability of habitat structures were noted in the field. Additionally, field biologists recorded incidental observations of wildlife within and adjacent to the vegetation mapping study area. If the landcover did not match the mapped GAP landcover type, a global positioning system (GPS) point was taken, and biologists reassigned the landcover type. Four representative photographs were also taken in each cardinal direction at each GPS point.

2.2

Wildlife Habitat Assessment

A field-based wildlife habitat assessment was conducted from June 7–11, 2021, in conjunction with raptor nest surveys (Section 2.3). During the assessment, biologists documented and mapped unique or highquality wildlife habitat. Observations of rare, threatened, endangered, and other special status species were documented, and their spatial location was recorded as necessary. Field observations and numerous geospatial datasets were used to conduct a desktop-based wildlife habitat assessment. Wildlife habitat modeling was conducted for all BLM Sensitive, state-listed, Federallylisted, and big game species with a potential to occur in the study area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database was used to develop a list of species currently listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that may occur in the study area (USFWS 2021a; Appendix B). This list also included a candidate species for listing, the monarch butterfly. The current BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species List (BLM 2010) was used to identify BLM Sensitive Species. In its comments on the study plan, the Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGFD) provided a list of Tier I and Tier II Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) (WGFD 2019) which were also included in this study. Big game species were also included based on comments from WGFD (2019) and due to their economic and social importance in the State. Plants and fish included in one of the above designations were not addressed here but were analyzed in the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study and Resident Fish Survey, respectively. The first step of the desktop-based wildlife habitat assessment was to identify which species on the above lists may occur within the study area. This initial assessment relied on publicly available peer-reviewed literature and spatial datasets from the USGS and Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). The full list of all species considered, and a determination of potential occurrence, is provided in Appendix C. The results of the vegetation mapping indicated that the GAP landcover dataset exhibited a high-level of agreement with current landcover conditions. Biologists determined that GAP landcover data would be

December 2022 | 7

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

sufficient for use in modeling wildlife habitat throughout the study area, including in areas where vegetation mapping was completed (i.e., within the Conceptual Project Boundary [vegetation mapping study area]). A habitat suitability index (HSI) value was assigned to each GAP landcover type on a scale from 0 to 3, where: • HSI of 3 = High-quality Habitat: likelihood of species occurrence is highest in this landcover type relative to other landcover types in the study area and/or landcover type provides important life history requirements. • HSI of 2 = Moderate-quality Habitat: likelihood of species occurrence is moderate in this landcover type relative to other landcover types in the study area and/or landcover type provides valuable, but not necessary, life history requirements. • HSI of 1 = Low-quality Habitat: while species may occur in this landcover type, the likelihood of species occurrence is low relative to other landcover types in the study area and/or this landcover type provides few necessary attributes for species life history. • HSI of 0 = Unsuitable/Non-Habitat: likelihood of species occurrence is very unlikely and/or this landcover type provides no necessary attributes for species life history. Appendix D includes the HSI values assigned to each GAP landcover type for each species that included GAP landcover as an input variable. As warranted for each individual species based on a qualitative assessment of all available data identified, researchers considered and used several publicly available geospatial datasets to model relative habitat quality for each species separately. Some species habitat models combined other datasets as model inputs with a ranking of GAP landcover types. Still other species habitat models excluded a ranking of GAP landcover because other variables were considered more important or other datasets more accurately described species distribution and habitat. Where multiple inputs were used in a model, the HSI scores described above were used to rank the attributes in each dataset. The methodology used to develop each species habitat model varied by species based on the habitat requirements, life history, and available spatial data. The modeling methods for each individual species are described in detail in Section 3.2. When multiple datasets were used as model inputs, a multi-criterion habitat evaluation procedure (HEP) was conducted to model potentially suitable habitat in the study area. The USFWS developed the HEP in 1976 for use in evaluation of resource development projects as an approach to document the quality and quantity of available habitat for a wildlife species. The objective is to use detailed ecological information about a species to evaluate habitat based on key characteristics (Kushwaha and Roy 2002). Publicly available literature describing habitat requirements were used to identify the key characteristics of suitable habitat for each species assessed. These characteristics were then identified within one or more of the publicly available spatial datasets listed below. Multiple spatial datasets (or model inputs) were summed using the Weighted Sum tool in the Spatial Analyst/Overlay toolbox in ArcGIS 10.7.1. Each model input was equally weighted because the relative importance of each was assumed to be equivalent. Where necessary, the inputs were adjusted or weighted to be roughly equivalent to the scaled ranking described below. The Weighted Sum tool finds the cumulative HSI score for each 30 m by 30 m pixel in the study area based on the unique model inputs used for each species. The cumulative HSI score was found by classifying the output using “Natural Breaks (Jenks).” This classification method groups data based on inherent groupings and maximizes differences between the HSI values by placing boundaries where there are relatively large differences in the HSI values.

December 2022 | 8

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

The following geospatial datasets were used to develop one or more species models: • • • • • • • • •

2.3

species habitat modeling from the USGS GAP Analysis program species distribution modeling from the WYNDD National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) wetland mapping data from the USFWS (2021b) topographic roughness index (TRI) dataset for Wyoming (USGS and BLM 2011) roads dataset from Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT 2021) Wyoming perennial water features from the Wyoming Gap Analysis Project (WWDO 2021) wildfire boundaries since 1984 from the University of Wyoming (USGS et al. 2021) golden eagle relative nest density model from USFWS (Dunk et al. 2019) aerial imagery from ArcGIS Online

Raptor Nest Survey

A ground-based raptor nest survey was conducted within accessible portions of the study area from June 7–11, 2021 (Figure 2-1). Two biologists searched for and mapped potential raptor nesting substrate, including cliffs, rock outcrops, trees, and prairie dog colonies. The nest surveys focused on suitable nesting substrate. Biologists conducted the survey by foot and vehicle, using binoculars and spotting scopes as visual aids. When nests were observed, biologists attempted to record the status, condition, species present, number of adults, number of young/eggs, and any other pertinent notes to facilitate inclusion in the BLM raptor nest database. Known, historic raptor nest locations were provided by the BLM prior to conducting field work and, as permitted by land access, each known nest site in the study area was visited to determine nest condition and status (Figure 2-1). Biologists recorded field data in a geospatial application on a field tablet. Photographs were taken of each nest site. Incidental observations (i.e., not associated with a nest) of raptors and other wildlife were recorded during the surveys. An additional raptor nest survey was conducted in April 2022 in support of geotechnical investigations in the vicinity of the proposed upper reservoir. The 2022 raptor nest survey area overlapped a portion of the study area as shown in Figure 2-1. The survey methods were identical to those conducted in 2021, except that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was used to survey a portion of the study area where groundbased access was either unsafe or inefficient. Restrictions on private land access limited the extent and coverage of the surveys. Binoculars and spotting scopes were used to the extent possible to survey areas where land access was not granted. Inaccessible portions of the study area are noted in Figure 2-1.

December 2022 | 9

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 2-1. Raptor Nest Survey Area, Inaccessible Areas, and Historic Nest Locations

December 2022 | 10

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Results

3.1

Vegetation Mapping

The landcover types identified and mapped in the vegetation mapping study area based on the June and July 2021 field surveys are presented in Table 3-1 and are displayed as a map book in Appendix E. Table 3-1. Verified Landover Types Identified Within the Vegetation Mapping Study Area Acres

Percent of Study Area

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe

845.9

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland

256.9

Developed, Open Space

183.6

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe

108.6

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

87.5

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

60.3

Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland

17.3

Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland

8.9

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat

5.9

Open Water (Fresh)

5.8

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland

3.9

Pasture/Hay

2.8

Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon

2.6

Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

1.9

Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

1.6

Western Great Plains Floodplain

1.2

Landcover Types

Total

1,594.7

The following four landcover types were mapped by the GAP landcover dataset but were not identified within the vegetation mapping study area during field surveys: • • • •

Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland

December 2022 | 11

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

There were also four new landcover types identified during the field survey that were not mapped by the GAP landcover dataset within the vegetation mapping study area. These include: • • • •

Developed/open space Pasture/hay Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland, and Western Great Plains Floodplain

The landcover composition in the vegetation mapping study area, as described by the Landcover Descriptions for the Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project (Lowry et al. 2005), is provided for the 16 landcover types below. Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe. This landcover type is dominated by perennial grasses and forbs (>25 percent cover) with big basin sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata), big sagebrush (A. t. xericensis), Wyoming big sagebrush (A. t. wyomingensis), threetip sagebrush (A. t. tripartita), and/or antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) dominating or co-dominating the open to moderately dense (10–40 percent cover) shrub layer. Shadscale saltbush (Atriplex confertifolia), yellow rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), horsebrush (Tetradymia spp.), or prairie sagewort (Artemisia frigida) may be common especially in disturbed areas. Associated graminoids include Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), plains reedgrass (Calamagrostis montanensis), thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), rough fescue (F. campestris), prairie junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata). Common forbs are spiny phlox (Phlox hoodii), sandwort (Arenaria spp.), and milkvetch (Astragalus spp.). This landcover type accounts for 57 percent of the vegetation and occurs along the transmission line east of the Seminoe Reservoir, extending the length of the vegetation mapping study area. Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland. This landcover type is characterized by an open tree canopy or patchy woodland that is dominated by either limber pine (Pinus flexilis), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), or Rocky Mountain juniper (J. scopulorum). Twoneedle pinyon (Pinus edulis) is not present in this community. A sparse to moderately dense short-shrub layer, if present, may include a variety of shrubs, such as black sagebrush (Artemisia nova), big sagebrush, curl-leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), alderleaf mountain mahogany (C. montanus), red osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), rubber rabbitbrush, antelope bitterbrush, skunkbush sumac (Rhus trilobata), or Wood’s rose (Rosa woodsii). Herbaceous layers are generally sparse, but range to moderately dense and are typically dominated by perennial graminoids such as blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), spike fescue (Leucopoa kingii), needle and thread (Hesperostipa comata), prairie junegrass, littleseed ricegrass (Piptatheropsis micrantha), Sandberg bluegrass, or bluebunch wheatgrass. This community was primarily found within and near the proposed upper reservoir. Developed, Open Space. The Developed, Open Space areas within the vegetation mapping study area consist of dirt roads and residential areas. Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe. This landcover type is composed of dwarf sagebrush shrubland and shrub-steppe that forms a matrix of large vegetation patches on the margins of high-elevation basins in central and southern Wyoming. The distinguishing feature of this system is a short-shrub stratum in which dwarf-shrubs (<30 centimeters [cm] tall) contribute at least two-thirds of the woody canopy. Four sagebrush may dominate the shrub stratum: Wyoming threetip sagebrush, black

December 2022 | 12

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

sagebrush, little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula ssp. longiloba), and wind-dwarfed Wyoming big sagebrush. Two or more of these sagebrush often co-dominate, but any of them may occur alone. Where graminoids are common and tall, the vegetation often has the appearance of grassland without shrubs; the presence of shrubs is obvious only when the vegetation is viewed up close. Where graminoids contribute less cover, the vegetation is a compact shrubland. The herbaceous component of the vegetation includes both rhizomatous and bunch-form graminoids, cushion plants, and other low-growing forbs. This landcover type is found throughout the vegetation mapping study area but is one of the more common non-forested landcover types near the proposed reservoir. Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub. This landcover type includes open-canopied shrublands of typically saline basins, alluvial slopes, and plains across the intermountain western United States. The vegetation is characterized by a typically open to moderately dense shrubland composed of one or more Atriplex species such as shadscale saltbush, fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), cattle saltbush (A. polycarpa), or spinescale saltbush (A. spinifera). Other shrubs that may be present or codominant include Wyoming big sagebrush, yellow rabbitbrush, rubber rabbitbrush, spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa), winterfat (Krascheninnikovia lanata), bud sagebrush (Picrothamnus desertorum), or horsebrush. Greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) is generally absent but, if present, is not considered a dominant. The herbaceous layer varies from sparse to moderately dense and is dominated by perennial graminoids such as Indian ricegrass, blue grama, thickspike wheatgrass, western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), or Sandberg bluegrass. Various forbs are also present. This landcover type is primarily located along the eastern portion of the vegetation mapping study area near Shirley Mountain Loop Road, along the transmission line. Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland. This landcover type is dominated by big basin sagebrush and/or Wyoming big basin sagebrush. Scattered juniper species, greasewood, and Atriplex spp. may be present in some stands. Rubber rabbitbrush, yellow rabbitbrush, antelope bitterbrush, or mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus) may co-dominate disturbed stands. Perennial herbaceous components typically contribute less than 25 percent vegetative cover. Common graminoid species include Indian ricegrass, blue grama, thickspike wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, needle and thread, basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus), western wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, or bluebunch wheatgrass. This landcover type occurs along the two-track road leading to the upper reservoir as well as throughout the study area in low draw areas. Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland. This landcover type is composed of barren and sparsely vegetated substrates (<10 percent plant cover). The harsh soil properties and high rate of erosion and deposition are driving environmental variables supporting sparse dwarf-shrubs such as mat saltbush (Atriplex corrugata), Gardner’s saltbush (Atriplex gardneri), birdfoot sagebrush (Artemisia pedatifida), and various low-growing herbaceous vegetation. This landcover type was observed in the central portion of the vegetation mapping study area along the transmission line, south and north of Hanna Leo Draw Road in isolated locations. Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland. This landcover type includes both woodlands and shrublands dominated by curl-leaf mountain mahogany. Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana), antelope bitterbrush, with species of manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), wax currant (Ribes spp.), or snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.) are often present. Undergrowth is often very sparse and dominated by bunchgrasses, usually bluebunch wheatgrass and

December 2022 | 13

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Idaho fescue. Curl-leaf mountain mahogany is a slow-growing, drought-tolerant species that generally does not resprout after burning and needs the protection from fire that rocky sites provide. This landcover type occurs in an isolated patch in the central portion of the vegetation mapping study area along the transmission line, north of Austin Creek. Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat. This landcover type typically occurs near drainages on stream terraces and flats or may form rings around playas. This community usually occurs as a mosaic of multiple communities, with open to moderately dense shrublands dominated or co-dominated by greasewood. Fourwing saltbush, shadscale saltbush, or winterfat may be present or codominant. Occurrences are often surrounded by mixed salt desert scrub. The herbaceous layer, if present, is usually dominated by graminoids. There may be inclusions of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) (where water remains ponded the longest) or common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris) herbaceous types. This landcover type was primarily observed in the eastern portion of the vegetation mapping study area in isolated locations. Open Water (Fresh). Open water areas within the vegetation mapping study area are associated with Seminoe Reservoir. Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland. This landcover type is composed of lowland depressions; it also occurs along lake borders that have more open basins and a permanent water source throughout most of the year, except during exceptional drought years. A variety of species are part of this system, including emergent species of cattail (Typha spp.), sedge (Carex spp.), spikerush (Eleocharis spp.), rush (Juncus spp.), and bulrush (Schoenoplectus spp.). The community includes submergent and emergent marshes and associated wet meadows and wet prairies. This landcover type was found in wet areas primarily along the central and eastern portions of the vegetation mapping study area. Pasture/Hay. This landcover type occurs on private lands along Difficulty Creek. Species found in this community include water foxtail (Alopecurus geniculatus), red clover (Trifolium pratense), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and species of timothy (Phleum spp.). Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon. This landcover type occurs in barren and sparsely vegetated landscapes (generally <10 percent plant cover) of steep cliff faces, narrow canyons, and smaller rock outcrops. Also included are unstable scree and talus slopes that typically occur below cliff faces. Widely scattered trees and shrubs may include white fir (Abies concolor), twoneedle pinyon, limber pine, singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla), juniper (Juniperus spp.), big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush, curl-leaf mountain mahogany, oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor), and other species often common in adjacent plant communities. Within the vegetation mapping study area, this landcover type is found in a single, small patch on the shore of Seminoe Reservoir. Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland. This landcover type is found in the riparian areas of medium and small rivers and streams. Dominant species include eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), willow (Salix spp.), silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana ssp. cana), western wheatgrass, sand dropseed (Sporobolus cryptandrus), and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium). These areas are often subjected to heavy grazing and/or agriculture and can be heavily degraded. This landcover type is found throughout the vegetation mapping study area in wooded riparian areas.

December 2022 | 14

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland. Within this landcover type Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and white fir are most frequent, but ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) may be present to co-dominant. Limber pine can be common. Douglas-fir forests occupy drier sites, and ponderosa pine is a common co-dominant. As many as seven conifer species can be found growing in the same occurrence, and there are several common cold-deciduous shrub and graminoid species, including kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), creeping barberry (Mahonia repens), mountain snowberry, fivepetal cliffbush (Jamesia americana), gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), and Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica). This landcover type was observed in the western portion of the vegetation mapping study area along the hillsides north of Seminoe Reservoir and south of the upper reservoir. Western Great Plains Floodplain. This landcover type is found in the floodplains of medium and large rivers of the western Great Plains. Dominant species include eastern cottonwood and willow. Grass cover underneath the trees is an important part of this system and is a mix of tallgrass species, including switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) and big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). Less desirable grasses and forbs can invade degraded areas within the floodplains. These areas are often subjected to heavy grazing and/or agriculture and can be heavily degraded. This landcover type occurs along the shoreline of Seminoe Reservoir.

3.2

Wildlife Habitat Assessment

In total, we assessed habitat for each of the 33 species listed in Appendix C for which their potential range partially or completely overlaps with the study area. Greater sage-grouse is an exception as the habitat and distribution of this species is thoroughly addressed as part of the Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study. Refer to the Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Report for more information on this species.

3.2.1

Insects

Monarch Butterfly Status and Distribution In December 2020, the USFWS completed an extensive status assessment of the monarch butterfly and determined that listing under the ESA was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions (85 Federal Register [FR] 81813). Therefore, the species is a candidate for listing under the ESA with a proposal for listing expected in 2024 (USFWS 2020a). Monarchs are found throughout the United States but are most common in the central plains. The eastern population breeds throughout suitable habitat east of the Rocky Mountains and overwinters in central Mexico. A smaller western population breeds and overwinters in southern California. The species is uncommon in Wyoming, as the State is on the western edge of the eastern population’s range and outside the range of the western population. Habitat loss, specifically loss of milkweed (Asclepias spp.) on which the species depends for food and reproduction, is a primary threat to the species. Habitat fragmentation, use of pesticides, and climate change are also identified as having caused steep population declines in recent decades (USFWS 2020b).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Monarch butterflies are milkweed obligates and rely on the plant during all life stages. Adult monarchs lay eggs on milkweed. Once the eggs hatch, larvae feed on milkweed until they pupate into chrysalises that

December 2022 | 15

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

are attached to milkweed leaves. After 6–14 days in a chrysalis, adults eclose and begin to feed on nectar from milkweed, starting the cycle again. There are three to four generations of monarch each summer, with most adults living from 2 to 5 weeks before laying eggs and starting the next generation. The last generation of the summer survives 6 to 9 months and migrates south to overwinter (USFWS 2020b).

Occurrence in Study Area No monarch butterflies were observed during the wildlife habitat surveys. The WYNDD (2021) maps their potential range as statewide, but recorded observations are only from the eastern plains of the State. While unlikely to occur in the study area, they may be present wherever milkweed is found. Although no milkweed was observed during the vegetation mapping field surveys, the plant may grow in mesic (i.e., riparian) habitats. Both showy milkweed (A. speciosa) and pallid milkweed (A. cryptoceras) could occur in the study area. Showy milkweed is more common and may occur within Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland, Pasture/Hay, Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland, and Western Great Plains Floodplain landcover types. It is also known to occur along roadside edges and other disturbed sites. Pallid milkweed is found in more xeric habitats and is expected to be rare in the study area. Habitat modeling for the monarch butterfly is based on 1) ranking of GAP landcover types and 2) NWI wetlands data (USFWS 2021b). See Appendix D for the rankings for each landcover type. Those landcover types that may contain milkweed (see above) were ranked with an HSI of 3. Developed areas and other mesic habitats were ranked with an HSI of 1 to represent low-quality habitat. All other areas were ranked as unsuitable (HSI = 0). All wetlands, except Seminoe Reservoir, were ranked as high-quality habitat (HSI = 3). Based on the above criteria, there are 118 acres (0.2 percent of study area) of high-quality, 1,933 acres (3.6 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 1,437 acres (2.7 percent of study area) of low-quality habitat for monarch butterflies (i.e., potential habitat for milkweed). The remaining 49,793 acres (93.5 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the monarch butterfly (Appendix F, Figure F-1).

3.2.2

Amphibians

Great Basin Spadefoot Status and Distribution The Great Basin spadefoot is a BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. Its national population is considered relatively stable, but information on abundance is difficult to obtain due to the nocturnal and subterranean nature of the species. The WGFD estimates that Great Basin spadefoot populations in Wyoming are declining and their habitat is vulnerable to impacts, but no loss has occurred and they are not considered sensitive to human disturbance (Keinath et al. 2003). The species is found throughout the intermountain west, from east of the Cascades and Sierras, including eastern Washington and Oregon, most of Nevada, Utah, and Idaho, to northern Arizona and New Mexico. The range extends as far east as western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming. In Wyoming, Great Basin spadefoot are known to occur in most of Sweetwater County, as well as parts of Fremont, Natrona, Lincoln, and Sublette Counties (Busek et al. 2005). The WYNDD maps its range into western Carbon County (Keinath et al. 2010) and the GAP species habitat model includes most of Carbon County (USGS 2017a).

December 2022 | 16

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Life History and Habitat Requirements The Great Basin spadefoot is adapted to xeric environments, such as sagebrush flats and semidesert shrublands up to 2,800 m (9,186 ft) in elevation. It avoids desiccation in these extremely dry environments by burrowing into loose, sandy soils or using pre-existing rodent burrows. The Great Basin spadefoot has been observed in pinyon-juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine woodlands, and Douglas-fir forests in the subalpine zone as well as in agricultural areas. Breeding and larvae/tadpole survival requires permanent or temporary water sources that may differ year to year based on precipitation and water levels. Breeding is most successful in permanent wetlands and waterbodies without predatory fish (Buseck et al. 2005).

Occurrence in Study Area The Great Basin spadefoot was not observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. The WYNDD (2021) includes recorded observations from the western Seminoe Mountains and eastern Ferris Mountains located outside the study area. The WYNDD species distribution model (WYNDD 2010a) does not include the study area, but WYNDD’s range map for this species includes the north slope of the Seminoe Mountains within the study area (WYNDD 2021). The GAP species analysis program maps potential distribution of the species throughout the entire study area (USGS 2017a). Based on this information, Great Basin spadefoot are likely very rare in the study area, but they could occur throughout most landcover types. Breeding habitat is more restricted to areas with reliable water sources. As such, the below habitat modeling is focused on breeding habitats. Habitat modeling for the Great Basin spadefoot was based on 1) ranking of GAP landcover types, 2) identification of perennial and ephemeral water sources (i.e., ponds, rivers, creeks, arroyos) from the NWI (USFWS 2021b), and 3) the Wyoming perennial water features dataset (WWDO 2021). See Appendix D for the rankings for each landcover type. Wetland and riparian landcover types were ranked highest, followed by sagebrush and steppe landcover types. The polyline features from the perennial water features dataset were buffered by 10 m to create polygonal features that were converted to a raster with an HSI of 3 for model input. Riverine areas from the NWI dataset were ranked with an HSI of 2, to represent moderate-quality for breeding in largely ephemeral drainages. All other NWI wetland types were ranked with an HSI of 3, except lakes. Based on the above criteria, there are 444 acres (0.8 percent of study area) of high-quality, 3,134 acres (5.9 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 40,470 acres (76.0 percent of study area) of lowquality breeding habitat for Great Basin spadefoot in the study area. The remaining 9,233 acres (17.3 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the Great Basin spadefoot (Appendix F, Figure F-2).

Northern Leopard Frog Status and Distribution The northern leopard frog is listed as a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and WGFD SGCN Tier II species. One of the most common and widespread amphibians in the United States, northern leopard frogs can be found throughout most of northern North America and the Rocky Mountains, including throughout Wyoming. However, this species has seen large declines across its range due to a combination of disease, habitat loss, pollution, non-native species, and climate change (USFWS 2015). The USFWS was petitioned to add the western population of the northern leopard frog as a threatened species under the ESA in 2006, but it was found not to warrant Federal protection in 2011 (76 FR 61896).

December 2022 | 17

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Life History and Habitat Requirements Northern leopard frogs are found in or near permanent water across many different habitats up to 2,590 m (8,500 ft) in elevation. On the plains they prefer swampy cattail marshes while in the foothills and mountains they are often found in beaver ponds where they forage among cattails, sedges, and tall grasses. Northern leopard frogs use shallow ponds for breeding and deep, permanent pools to hibernate over winter. Northern leopard frogs become active when water temperatures exceed 50 degrees Fahrenheit (WGFD 2017a).

Occurrence in Study Area No northern leopard frogs were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. The WYNDD (2021) lists two observations of northern leopard frog in the study area at Seminoe Reservoir and along the North Platte River from before 1980. More recent observations have been recorded in the general area, outside of the study area. Because this species is widespread, relatively common, and occurs in a broad range of aquatic environments, it is expected to occur in the study area. Habitat modeling for the northern leopard frog used 1) wetland mapping from NWI (USFWS 2021b), 2) the Wyoming perennial water features dataset (WWDO 2021), and 3) a species model from the USGS GAP Analysis program (USGS 2017b). It was determined that the available datasets were sufficient for describing northern leopard frog habitat in the study area and a spatial overlay (i.e., using Weighted Sum tool in ArcGIS) was not necessary. High-quality, moderate-quality, and unsuitable habitat was defined by the three input datasets. High quality habitat was denoted by the following: • •

Any wetlands except those denoted as lake or riverine. Lake and riverine type wetlands in this area refer to Seminoe Reservoir (lake) and both perennial and ephemeral drainages (riverine). The GAP habitat analysis program species model. This model is a refined binary distribution model focused on the shorelines of lakes, rivers, and wetlands with emergent vegetation. Because perennial waterbodies and wetlands with emergent vegetation are key habitat components, they were denoted as high-quality habitat.

Moderate-quality habitat was denoted by the following: • •

A 100 m buffer of all NWI wetland types except riverine A 100 m buffer of all perennial rivers

A 100 m buffer from the above wetlands and waterbodies was selected to represent use of nearshore portions of large waterbodies and upland areas adjacent to shorelines and other wetlands denoted as high-quality habitat (WGFD 2017a). The use of upland areas is secondary to and associated with use of the high-quality habitat described above. Based on the above criteria, we identified approximately 829 acres (1.6 percent of study area) of highquality habitat and 8,310 acres (15.6 percent of study area) of moderate-quality habitat for the northern leopard frog within the study area. The remaining 44,142 acres (82.8 percent of study area) within the study area is unsuitable for the northern leopard frog (Appendix F, Figure F-3).

December 2022 | 18

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.2.3

Birds

Bald Eagle Status and Distribution The bald eagle is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. It is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA; 16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 668-668c). Bald eagles (specifically individuals in Wyoming) were listed under the ESA from 1967 to 2007, when they were delisted due to recovery (72 FR 37346). Populations across North America have grown tremendously since the banning of DDT (Buehler 2020) and due to continued protections by State agencies and under the BGEPA. Bald eagles breed across much of northern North America. In Wyoming, bald eagles nest along major rivers and lakes throughout the State, with the highest concentrations in the northwestern and eastern parts of the State. Some bald eagles in Wyoming may migrate after the breeding season while others may only move locally to use available resources. Many eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem are non-migratory while eagles in much of the rest of Wyoming are migratory (WGFD 2017b).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Bald eagles typically nest and roost in tall trees near large bodies of water such as lakes and rivers that provide foraging habitat where they can catch fish, which typically makes up most of their diet. Large stick nests are built in tall, mature trees that are less than 200 m from open water. Winter roosts are found in tall trees near open water with abundant fish. In Wyoming, nesting habitat typically consists of mature cottonwoods along rivers, but tall conifers along rivers are used as well (Travsky and Beauvais 2004). Bald eagles are sensitive to human disturbance and will avoid nesting near human development and high disturbance areas. In Wyoming, courtship occurs between January and March and fledging is usually completed by mid-July (WGFD 2017b).

Occurrence in Study Area Bald eagles were observed foraging and nesting in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. Nesting substrate primarily consists of mature deciduous trees (e.g., cottonwood) within riparian habitats located a few kilometers from large waterbodies where foraging occurs, such as Seminoe Reservoir, North Platte River, and Medicine Bow River. Gravel roads in the study area (i.e., Hanna Leo Draw Road [CR 291]) are also used for scavenging carrion. A binary map of suitable nesting and foraging habitat was selected as the most accurate representation of bald eagle distribution in the study area. Nesting habitat is relatively limited in the study area and so it was digitized into ArcGIS by hand using aerial imagery and field data. Foraging habitat consists of Seminoe Reservoir, the North Platte River, and Medicine Bow River, derived from the Wyoming perennial water features dataset (WWDO 2021). The major gravel roads were derived from the WYDOT roads dataset (WYDOT 2021) and buffered by 10 m. Based on the above criteria, there are 153 acres (0.3 percent of study area) of suitable nesting habitat and 1,635 acres (3.1 percent of study area) of suitable foraging habitat for bald eagles in the study area (Appendix F, Figure F-4).

December 2022 | 19

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Brewer’s Sparrow Status and Distribution The Brewer’s sparrow is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. Brewer’s sparrows breed across much of the western United States as well as parts of western Canada. During the breeding season, Brewer’s sparrows can be found across the entirety of Wyoming in suitable habitat. They overwinter in the southwest United States and Mexico (Hansely and Beauvais 2004a). Across its range, the Brewer’s sparrow population appears to have experienced a significant decline, including -2.8 percent per year in Wyoming (Pardiek et al. 2020). Abundance is highly variable locally depending on habitat quality. The species is sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation (Knick and Rotenberry 1995a).

Life History and Habitat Requirements The Brewer’s sparrow breeds in shrublands that are dominated by sagebrush and is considered a sagebrush obligate (Hansley and Beauvais 2004a). In Wyoming, Brewer’s sparrows are associated with big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and they prefer areas with sagebrush at least 35 cm tall and creating at least 20 percent cover (WGFD 2017c). Brewer’s sparrows rely on sagebrush for a variety of purposes, including foraging, nesting, and refugia from predators. While often found in sagebrush habitats, Brewer’s sparrows can also be found nesting in shrubby forest openings and desert shrublands. Brewer’s sparrows nest between the middle of May and early August when they begin to migrate south (WGFD 2017c).

Occurrence in Study Area Although Brewer’s sparrows were not observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, they are known to occur in the study area. The WYNDD (2021) includes recorded observations throughout the study area and the nearby Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) route has consistently recorded Brewer’s sparrow as a common species (Pardieck et al. 2020). Habitat modeling for Brewer’s sparrow was based on ranking of GAP landcover types. See Appendix D for the rankings for each landcover type. Sagebrush dominated shrublands and steppe landcover types were ranked as high-quality (HSI = 3) and moderate-quality (HSI = 2) breeding habitat for the Brewer’s sparrow. Scrub habitat and greasewood flats were considered low-quality (HSI = 1), while all other landcover types were considered unsuitable (HSI = 0). Based on the above criteria, there are 31,969 acres (59.9 percent of study area) of high-quality, 9,058 acres (17.2 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 1,066 acres (1.9 percent of study area) of lowquality breeding habitat for Brewer’s sparrow in the study area. The remaining 11,189 acres (21.0 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the Brewer’s sparrow (Appendix F, Figure F-5).

Burrowing Owl Status and Distribution The burrowing owl is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier I species. Burrowing owls breed across the western United States and western Canada and overwinter in Texas, Mexico, and Central America. Recently their range has contracted, particularly in Canada and the Midwest (Lantz et al. 2004). Burrowing owls can be found in suitable habitat throughout Wyoming but are most common in the eastern grasslands of the State (WGFD 2017d).

December 2022 | 20

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Life History and Habitat Requirements Burrowing owls are found in flat, open areas such as grasslands, shrub-steppe, and deserts. They prefer areas with low vegetation and high amounts of bare ground, in areas with a gentle slope (WGFD 2017d). Burrowing owls in the western United States require burrows excavated by mammals for nesting and cover. They often use burrows in prairie dog colonies but will also use burrows from other species such as badgers and ground squirrels. While they may use burrows in inactive prairie dog colonies, they prefer nesting in active colonies near other nesting burrowing owls (Lantz et al. 2004). Burrowing owls arrive in Wyoming in early March and leave by early October (WGFD 2017d).

Occurrence in Study Area No burrowing owls were observed during the 2021 raptor nest surveys, and BLM historic nest records in the study area do not include the species. We are not aware of any burrowing owl surveys completed within the study area. However, the WYNDD includes recorded observations of burrowing owls in the study area (WYNDD 2021). Suitable habitat for burrowing owls is present in the study area, coterminous with active and abandoned prairie-dog burrows and colonies. Due to their close association with prairie dog colonies, we used the white-tailed prairie dog habitat model as a surrogate for burrowing owl nesting habitat. Please see the discussion of white-tailed prairie dog in Section 3.2.4.

Common Loon Status and Distribution The common loon is a WGFD SGCN Tier I species. The common loon breeds across the majority of Canada and northern parts of the United States, and most individuals overwinter in coastal areas. In Wyoming, the only breeding population is in the northwest part of the State in the Greater Yellowstone region. This population is separated from the rest of the breeding range by over 300 km. Migratory loons pass through the State in spring and fall, and small numbers of non-breeding adults are also found in the State during the breeding season (WGFD 2017e). The North American population of common loon has been steadily recovering since severe declines in the early to mid-1900s (Paruk et al. 2021).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Common loons prefer to nest in freshwater lakes and ponds with clear water, abundant small fish, small islands for nesting, and an irregular shoreline with coves (Spagnuolo 2016). During migration they can be found in large rivers and inland reservoirs, which are used as staging areas to replenish body reserves before making longer migratory flights. They winter on the coasts but will also overwinter on reservoirs in the southern United States (Paruk et al. 2021). As a species with a long lifespan and low annual fecundity, common loons are viewed as a valuable indicator of aquatic quality. Spring migration occurs from midApril through the beginning of May and fall migration occurs from September to October (Spagnuolo 2016).

Occurrence in Study Area Common loons are known to use Seminoe Reservoir as a stopover during migration. A common loon was heard yodeling within the study area on Seminoe Reservoir during greater sage-grouse lek counts in late April 2021. This species is not expected to occur in the study area outside of migration. Habitat modeling for common loon consisted of extracting Seminoe Reservoir from the Wyoming perennial water features dataset (WWDO 2021). In total, approximately 1,002 acres (1.9 percent of study area) of stopover habitat is located within the boundaries of the study area (Appendix F, Figure F-6).

December 2022 | 21

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Ferruginous Hawk Status and Distribution The ferruginous hawk is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. This species was petitioned for listing under the ESA in 1991 but was denied based on a lack of evidence (57 FR 37507). Range-wide populations are believed to be declining but trends vary spatially, making population-wide estimates difficult (WGFD 2017f). Populations appear to be stable (Travsky and Beauvais 2005) or declining (-0.48% per year) in Wyoming (Sauer et al. 2017). Ferruginous hawks breed in arid habitats across western North America from southern Canada into New Mexico and Arizona and winter across the southwestern United States and northern Mexico (WGFD 2017). Southern Wyoming is the northern extent of the wintering range, and the number of ferruginous hawks overwintering in Wyoming is low (WGFD 2017f).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Ferruginous hawks nest in open, arid environments, including grasslands, shrublands, and deserts, and avoid cropland, narrow canyons, and forested areas. In Wyoming, nesting ferruginous hawks are most common in the south-central part of the State (WGFD 2017f). Ferruginous hawks prefer to nest on elevated features such as boulders, low cliffs, isolated trees, and human-made structures such as power poles and windmills. They will, however, nest directly on the ground if no elevated structures are available (WGFD 2017f; Travsky and Beauvais 2005). Ferruginous hawks are sensitive to human disturbance when nesting, and nest abandonment is a common disturbance response. They will also avoid areas of human settlement and intensive agriculture (Travsky and Beauvais 2005).

Occurrence in Study Area Ferruginous hawk nesting has historically occurred in the study area. BLM records list six nests in the study area, though five of these were not found during the 2021 raptor nest surveys and the one nest that was found was inactive at the time of the survey. All historic ferruginous hawk nests in the study area are located east of Horseshoe Ridge (Appendix F, Figure F-7). Habitat modeling for ferruginous hawk was based on ranking of GAP landcover types. See Appendix D for the rankings for each landcover type. Cliffs, canyons, and shrublands were mapped as high-quality (HSI = 3) nesting habitat. Rock outcrops, rimrock, and pinnacles that are often used by ferruginous hawks as nest substrate are common in the study area amongst sagebrush shrublands and steppe habitat, which were denoted as high-quality habitat for this reason. Other landcover types accounted for moderate- and low-quality habitat (HSI = 1 or 2). The only landcover types identified as non-habitat/unsuitable (HSI = 0) were developed (i.e., human-modified) and open water. Based on the above criteria, there are 42,739 acres (80.2 percent of study area) of high-quality, 982 acres (1.8 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 8,291 acres (15.6 percent of study area) of low-quality nesting habitat for ferruginous hawks in the study area. Approximately 1,270 acres (2.4 percent of study area), primarily consisting of Seminoe and Kortes Reservoirs, are unsuitable for ferruginous hawks (Appendix F, Figure F-7).

Golden Eagle Status and Distribution The golden eagle is a WGFD SGCN Tier II species and is protected under BGEPA (16 U.S.C. 668-668c). In North America, golden eagles are primarily found across the western portions of the continent, with

December 2022 | 22

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

scattered breeding across eastern Canada (Kochert et al. 2002). Wyoming falls in the center of the golden eagle range in the western United States. Golden eagles breed throughout Wyoming and occur yearround throughout the State. Additionally, golden eagles breeding in the northern parts of the range will migrate through, and overwinter in, Wyoming (WGFD 2017g). The estimated population of golden eagles in the United States is 40,000 birds (USFWS 2016) and is trending downwards in the western United States (Millsap et al. 2013). Between 1977 and 1986, there were 804 nesting territories in Wyoming, more than any other state, and golden eagles tend to occupy territories from 34 to 89 square km (mean=60) in size (Phillips et al. 1984).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Golden eagles are found throughout Wyoming in a variety of habitats, including grasslands, sagebrush steppe, desert shrublands, riparian areas, and high elevation mountainous areas. This species primarily nests on cliffs and rock outcrops but will also nest in trees and man-made structures near foraging habitat (WGFD 2017g). In North America, golden eagles are known to primarily hunt rabbits and hares (Oakleaf et al. 2014), followed by squirrels and a variety of other mammals. Golden eagles begin territory establishment and breeding in February and March with the young fledging by the end of July. In Wyoming, resident golden eagles likely move to lower elevations in short-distance migrations (WGFD 2017g).

Occurrence in Study Area Golden eagles were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. Golden eagle nesting has historically occurred in the study area. BLM records list four known nests in the study area. During the 2021 raptor nest surveys an additional nest presumed to be a golden eagle nest was found high on a cliff above Kortes Reservoir (Appendix F, Figure F-8). No active golden eagle nests were observed in 2021, but two nests were observed to be in good condition. Nesting could occur on large cliffs, rock outcrops, and rimrock throughout the study area. Habitat modeling for golden eagles included the following three criteria: 1) ranking of GAP landcover types, 2) TRI, and 3) a relative nest density model (Dunk et al. 2019). Ranking of GAP landcover types was identical to that of ferruginous hawks. See Appendix D for the ranking for each GAP landcover type. Cliffs and canyons as well as rock outcrops and rimrock located in sagebrush and steppe habitats were ranked highly. The TRI dataset represented a positive association of golden eagle nesting and foraging with steep terrain, such as cliffs, canyons, and ridgelines. The relative nest site density model is a region-wide model that, for the Wyoming Basin region, included a contribution from each of the following variables: terrain steepness, sagebrush cover, and days above 41 degrees Fahrenheit (Dunk et al. 2019). Both the TRI surface and relative nest site density model were weighted to be equal to the GAP landcover data in order that all three datasets contributed equally to the model output (TRI was weighted by 0.038 and nest density by 3.1). The relative nest density model was only available at a coarse scale (120x120 m as opposed to 30x30 m for GAP landcover and TRI), so it was resampled using nearest neighbor to a 30x30 m resolution prior to inclusion in the model. Based on the above criteria, there are 5,935 acres (11.1 percent of study area) of high-quality, 16,945 acres (31.8 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 27,648 acres (51.9 percent of study area) of low-quality nesting habitat for golden eagles in the study area. The remaining 2,754 acres (5.2 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the golden eagle (Appendix F, Figure F-8).

December 2022 | 23

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Loggerhead Shrike Status and Distribution The loggerhead shrike is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. The loggerhead shrike is found across much of North America with breeding range extending from southern Canada through Mexico and reaching both the east and west coasts. The wintering range overlaps with the breeding range across most of the southern United States and Mexico. All of Wyoming except for the far northwest corner of the State is considered breeding range, and all loggerhead shrikes in Wyoming are migratory. Loggerhead shrikes have undergone a well-documented range-wide population decrease, but estimates show population trends in Wyoming to be stable (WGFD 2017h).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Loggerhead shrikes are found in open areas with scattered large trees or shrubs for nesting and perching. The most important features are the presence of dense trees or shrubs for nesting with a nearby open area such as grasslands or pastures where they hunt for a variety of prey including arthropods, which make up most of their diet, along with small birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (Keinath and Schneider 2005). Loggerhead shrikes also use human-modified habitats such as fence rows, orchards, maintained roadsides, golf courses, and agricultural fields. Shrikes arrive in Wyoming in May and migrate south between August and September (WGFD 2017h).

Occurrence in Study Area Loggerhead shrikes were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys and observations are noted on the nearby BBS route (Pardieck et al. 2020) as well as in the WYNDD (2021). Habitat modeling for loggerhead shrikes was based on ranking of GAP landcover types. See Appendix D for the rankings for each landcover type. Sagebrush-dominated shrublands, scrub shrub, steppe, and pasture/hay habitat types were ranked as high-quality (HSI = 3) breeding habitat for the loggerhead shrike. Deciduous woodlands and riparian/floodplains areas were ranked as moderate-quality (HSI = 2) while developed areas (open space and low intensity), badlands, coniferous woodlands, and mixed-grass prairie were considered low-quality habitat (HSI = 1). Loggerhead shrike habitat is common across the study area. Based on the above criteria, there are 41,080 acres (77.1 percent of study area) of high-quality, 1,918 acres (3.6 percent of study area) of moderatequality, and 7,726 acres (14.5 percent of study area) of low-quality breeding habitat for loggerhead shrike in the study area. The remaining 2,558 acres (4.8 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the loggerhead shrike (Appendix F, Figure F-9).

Long-billed Curlew Status and Distribution The long-billed curlew is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. The longbilled curlew breeds in patchily distributed areas across the western Great Plains, Great Basin, and intermountain valleys in the western United States. Wintering areas include the east and west coast, and the Gulf of Mexico. Wyoming makes up a large part of the long-billed curlew’s core breeding range (WGFD 2017i). During the breeding season, long-billed curlews can be found scattered throughout Wyoming where suitable habitat exists (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2004). The abundance and distribution of longbilled curlews is restricted due to limited breeding habitat. Loss of grasslands throughout the Great Plains led to significant population declines in the late-1800s. Populations began to recover following recovery of

December 2022 | 24

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

scattered grasslands in the early to mid-1900s. BBS route data suggest a non-significant population decline that is highly variable across their range. Populations in the Rocky Mountains appear to be slightly increasing, but in Wyoming, most information suggests a slight decrease over the last two to three decades (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2004).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Long-billed curlews nest in shortgrass and mixed-grass prairies, often near water (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2004). They prefer areas with vegetation less than 30 cm and will avoid areas with higher densities of tall vegetation, shrubs, and trees. Long-billed curlews nest and forage in agricultural fields such as wheat stubble, fallow fields, and grazed pasture (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2004, WGFD 2017i). In Wyoming, long-billed curlews have been documented nesting in native grasslands as well as in cultivated hay fields (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2004). Long-billed curlews arrive in Wyoming by early May and depart by mid-September (WGFD 2017i).

Occurrence in Study Area Long-billed curlews were not observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys and they have never been recorded on the nearby BBS route (Pardieck et al. 2020). The WYNDD has relatively recent (i.e., since 2010) records of observations of long-billed curlew on the southern reaches of Pathfinder Reservoir, to the north of the study area, and near Medicine Bow, to the east of the study area. The WYNDD species distribution model (WYNDD 2010b) and GAP species model (USGS 2017c) both suggest low to moderate probability of occurrence in the study area associated with functional wetlands and waterbodies. Habitat modeling for long-billed curlew was based on ranking of GAP landcover types. See Appendix D for the rankings for each landcover type. Wetlands, floodplains, and mixed-grass prairies were ranked as high-quality nesting and breeding habitat (HSI = 3). Moderate-quality breeding habitat (HSI = 2) included pastures and barren landcover types, while low-quality (HSI = 1) included dwarf shrub and greasewood flats. Forested areas and dry desert shrublands or steppe were considered unsuitable (HSI = 0). Based on the above criteria, there are 824 acres (1.5 percent of study area) of high-quality, 805 acres (1.5 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 6,705 acres (12.6 percent of study area) of low-quality long-billed curlew breeding habitat in the study area. The remaining 44,947 acres (84.4 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for long-billed curlews (Appendix F, Figure F-10).

Mountain Plover Status and Distribution The mountain plover is listed as a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier I species. The mountain plover was petitioned to be listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999, but listing was denied in 2011 after the USFWS determined the species was not in danger of becoming extinct in all or most of its range (76 FR 27756). Mountain plovers are found in the western Great Plains with Wyoming forming a large portion of their breeding range, along with eastern Colorado and eastern Montana (WGFD 2017j). The species winters in the southwest United States and Mexico (Knopf and Wunder 2020). BBS route data suggests that mountain plover populations decreased at a rate of 3.7 percent each year from 1966 to 1993, resulting in a 25 percent reduction in total abundance during that period (Knopf and Reichel 1997). There are currently at least 3,300 mountain plover breeding in Wyoming (Plumb et al. 2005a).

December 2022 | 25

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Life History and Habitat Requirements Mountain plovers are found in shortgrass prairies and sparsely vegetated desert with flat topography, vegetation that is shorter than the surrounding areas, and a high percentage of bare ground. Mountain plovers often use areas disturbed by herbivores, such as prairie dogs, bison, pronghorn, and livestock, for nesting (Smith and Keinath 2004a) and are also known to use agricultural fields and recently burned areas (WGFD 2017j). In surveys across Wyoming, Plumb et al. (2005b) also found most mountain plover nests on plateaus elevated at least 100 m above the surrounding area. Mountain plovers arrive in Wyoming by early April and leave by mid-October (WGFD 2017j).

Occurrence in Study Area Although mountain plovers were not identified during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, potentially suitable habitat was observed and mapped as shown in Appendix F, Figure F-11. The WYNDD (2021) includes records of mountain plover observations in the study area near Seminoe Reservoir and the Medicine Bow River. Habitat modeling for mountain plover included the following three criteria: 1) ranking of GAP landcover types, 2) TRI, and 3) the WYNDD species distribution model. See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. Sagebrush and grasslands mapped in the GAP landcover dataset were ranked as highquality habitat (HSI = 3). Agricultural areas and depressional wetlands were ranked as moderate-quality (HSI = 2). To rank low-relief or flat terrain higher than steep and rugged terrain, the TRI layer was inverted by weighting it by -0.038 in the model. Finally, no adjustments were necessary for the WYNDD species distribution model prior to inclusion in the model. Based on the above criteria, there are 14,370 acres (27.0 percent of the study area) of high-quality, 17,292 acres (32.4 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 11,723 acres (22.0 percent of study area) of low-quality mountain plover breeding habitat in the study area. The remaining 9,897 acres (18.6 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the mountain plover(Appendix F, Figure F-11).

Northern Goshawk Status and Distribution The northern goshawk is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier I species. In 1997, the northern goshawk population west of the 100th meridian was petitioned for listing under the ESA, but listing was denied in 1998 after the USFWS determined that the population was not in danger of becoming extinct (65 FR 35183). Current population trends are poorly understood but appear to be stable (Squires et al. 2020). Northern goshawks are found throughout the boreal and montane forests of North America. They are either year-round residents or short-distance migrants found across the majority of Wyoming in suitable habitat, except for the southeastern part of the State (WGFD 2017k).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Northern goshawks are found in a variety of forest types from dense taiga to riparian forests (Smith and Keinath 2004b). In Wyoming, they are primarily associated with mature coniferous forests and aspen groves in montane areas. Nests are located away from forest edges in mature/old-growth forests with large trees, high canopy cover, and an open understory (WGFD 2017k). Most nests in Wyoming occur in Douglas fir, lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), or quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). In winter, northern goshawks are known to use a wider range of habitats for hunting, including non-forested areas such as pinyon/juniper woodlands and shrublands (Smith and Keinath 2004b; WGFD 2017k). Goshawks in

December 2022 | 26

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Wyoming return to breeding areas by early April with egg-laying beginning in early May. Fall migration occurs from September to December (WGFD 2017k).

Occurrence in Study Area No northern goshawks were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. The WYNDD (2021) includes records of northern goshawk observations in the Shirley and Seminoe mountains, but not within the study area. The WYNDD species distribution model predicts low probability of occurrence for the entire study area, except a small area of moderate probability in the Bennet Mountains (WYNDD 2010c). Habitat modeling for the northern goshawk was based on 1) ranking of GAP landcover types and 2) the WYNDD species distribution model (Keinath et al. 2010). See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. Forested landcover types were assigned an HSI of 1 to represent low-quality habitat. The WYNDD species distribution model was left unchanged. Because no mature, old growth forests with large trees and high canopy cover were identified during field surveys or via landcover mapping, no high-quality habitat is expected to occur in the study area. Based on the above criteria, there is no high-quality breeding habitat within the study area, 333 acres (0.6 percent of study area) of moderate-quality and 7,128 acres (13.4 percent of study area) of low-quality northern goshawk breeding habitat. The remaining 45,820 acres (86.0 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the northern goshawk(Appendix F, Figure F-12)..

Peregrine Falcon Status and Distribution The peregrine falcon is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. Both the arctic (tundrius) and the American (anatum) subspecies were listed as endangered under the ESA in 1970 after large population crashes that were linked to the use of DDT. The arctic subspecies was delisted in 1994 (59 FR 50796) and the American subspecies was delisted in 1999 (64 FR 46543). Populations across the western United States have reached or surpassed pre-DDT levels (White et al. 2020). Peregrine falcons are found worldwide. In Wyoming, they occur across the State but are concentrated in the northwest region with most breeding pairs found around Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks. Most peregrine falcons winter in Central and South America but small numbers overwinter in scattered locations across the United States, including Wyoming (WGFD 2017l).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Peregrine falcons use a wide range of habitats, including urban areas, for foraging. In Wyoming, the species requires cliffs for nesting with nearby open areas for foraging (WGFD 2017l). Northwestern Wyoming provides the highest breeding densities in the State. Peregrine falcons primarily feed on birds, but will predate small mammals, amphibians, and fish as well. During winter, peregrine falcons may use any open habitat (White et al. 2020). Migratory individuals arrive in Wyoming by early April and start nesting by early May. Young fledge by the end of July, and fall migration occurs between September and October (WGFD 2017l).

Occurrence in Study Area Although no peregrine falcons were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, the WYNDD (2021) does include records of previous observations of the species in the area.

December 2022 | 27

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Habitat modeling for the peregrine falcon was based on the following criteria: 1) TRI, 2) ranking of GAP landcover types, and 3) the WYNDD species distribution model (WYNDD 2010d). High TRI values were used to represent potential cliff nesting habitat. The TRI layer was weighted by 0.038 to be equivalent to the other variables. Cliffs and canyons in the GAP landcover dataset were denoted with an HSI of 3 to represent high-quality nesting habitat. All other land cover types were denoted with an HSI of 0 (i.e., unsuitable for peregrine falcon nesting). Finally, the WYNDD species distribution model (WYNDD 2010d) was included without any modifications or weighting. Based on the above criteria, there are 4,259 acres (8.0 percent of study area) of high-quality, 10,778 acres (20.2 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 12,814 acres (24.1 percent of study area) of lowquality peregrine falcon nesting habitat in the study area. The remaining 25,430 acres (47.7 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for peregrine falcon nesting (Appendix F, Figure F-13).

Sage Thrasher Status and Distribution The sage thrasher is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. Their breeding range covers much of the interior western United States, reaching from northern New Mexico and Arizona to southern British Columbia including all of Wyoming. Wintering range includes the southwest United States, Texas, and northern Mexico (WGFD 2017m). Population trends for the species vary regionally, but data from the United States BBS routes from 1980 to 1996 suggest no significant change (Pardieck et al. 2020). There is no clear explanation why sage thrashers are doing relatively well compared with other sagebrush obligates, but researchers hypothesize the species may be more tolerant of habitat fragmentation and is more capable of avoiding nest parasitism (Knick and Rotenberry 1995b; Reynolds et al. 2020).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Sage thrashers are considered a sagebrush obligate species. Outside of sagebrush-dominated habitats, they can be found in desert shrublands, arid grasslands, and juniper woodlands (WGFD 2017m). Sage thrashers prefer areas with large, healthy sagebrush with high amounts of cover, and they are common in areas with contiguous tracts of healthy sagebrush steppe (Buseck et al. 2004). Sage thrashers arrive earlier in the spring and leave later in the fall than many other sagebrush species. They arrive in Wyoming before the end of March and leave for the winter between August and the beginning of October (Buseck et al. 2004; WGFD 2017m).

Occurrence in Study Area Sage thrashers were observed in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. In addition, they are observed very regularly on the nearby BBS route (Pardieck et al. 2020) and are one of the more common residents of sagebrush habitats within and near the study area. Habitat modeling for the sage thrasher was based on ranking of GAP landcover types. Due to the similarities in habitat preferences, sage thrasher and sagebrush sparrow both had identical HSI rankings by landcover type. See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. Sagebrush and steppe landcover types were ranked as high- and moderate-quality for both species (HSI = 2 and 3). Juniper woodlands and mixed-grass prairie were included as low-quality habitat (HSI = 1). All other landcover types were considered unsuitable (HSI = 0). Based on the above criteria, there are 26,145 acres (49.1 percent of study area) of high-quality, 16,773 acres (31.5 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 7,379 acres (13.8 percent of study area) of

December 2022 | 28

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

low-quality breeding habitat for sage thrasher and sagebrush sparrow in the study area. The remaining 2,984 acres (5.6 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the sage thrasher (Appendix F, Figure F-14).

Sagebrush Sparrow Status and Distribution The sagebrush sparrow is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. The sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli) was recently split into two species: the sagebrush sparrow (A. nevadensis) and the Bell’s sparrow (A. belli). The sagebrush sparrow is found throughout the Great Basin and other parts of the interior western United States (WGFD 2017n). They can be found across most of Wyoming in suitable habitat but are most common in the southwest part of the State, which has one of the highest breeding densities of anywhere in the sagebrush sparrow’s range (Hansley and Beauvais 2004b). Sagebrush sparrows winter across the southwest United States and parts of northern Mexico. BBS route data suggests a range-wide decrease in population from 1968 to 2013, but populations in Wyoming appeared to increase non-significantly during that same period (WGFD 2017n).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Sagebrush sparrows are a sagebrush-obligate species that, like other sagebrush-obligate species, has seen population declines as sagebrush habitats have been degraded or destroyed (Holmes and Johnson 2005). Sagebrush sparrows are often found in areas dominated by big sagebrush and bunchgrass but can also be found in sagebrush-saltbush steppe. They prefer to nest in the tallest and densest stands of sagebrush on their territory. Sagebrush sparrows are also an edge-sensitive species that avoid the edges of sagebrush habitat (Hansely and Beauvais 2004b). They arrive in Wyoming by April, but the timing of fall migration is uncertain (WGFD 2017n).

Occurrence in Study Area Sagebrush sparrows were observed in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, and the WYNDD (2021) includes numerous observations in and near the study area. Data from the nearby BBS route suggests that sagebrush sparrows have only been observed in 1982 but not in the most recent two decades. However, in 1982, they were the third most common species (Pardieck et al. 2020), which raises questions about the accuracy of the BBS route data in subsequent years. Please refer to the discussion of the sage thrasher above and Appendix F (Figure F-14) for information on habitat modeling for both the sage thrasher and sagebrush sparrow.

White-faced Ibis Status and Distribution The white-faced ibis is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. Whitefaced ibis breed across the western United States in scattered breeding colonies. They are considered rare in Wyoming with a limited amount of suitable breeding habitat available (WGFD 2017o). They are mostly known to breed in the southwest and southeast corners of the State, but non-breeding records extend across a large area of the southern part of the State (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2003a). Whitefaced ibis migrate to the southern United States and Mexico in September and October, returning in April (WGFD 2017o; Ryder and Manry 2020). The range and populations of the white-faced ibis are thought to have expanded during the last two decades, including in Wyoming, but populations do fluctuate year to year based on changing habitat conditions (Ritter and Cerovski 1990; Ryder and Manry 2020).

December 2022 | 29

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Life History and Habitat Requirements White-faced ibis are found in a variety of wetland habitats such as marshes, swamps, mudflats, and ponds where they feed on insects, crustaceans, and earthworms (WGFD 2017o). The presence of emergent vegetation, such as cattails and bulrushes, is important in providing suitable wetland habitat (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2003a). White-faced ibis nest in emergent vegetation, low shrubs, and trees over water, or on the ground on small islands. Dark-Smiley and Keinath (2003a) noted that all the breeding records they examined occurred near irrigated crops. White-faced ibis arrive in Wyoming by mid-April and leave between August and September (WGFD 2017o).

Occurrence in Study Area Although white-faced ibis were not observed in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, the WYNDD (2021) includes records of observations in the vicinity of Seminoe Reservoir. The WYNDD species distribution model also suggests high probability of occurrence on Seminoe Reservoir and the Medicine Bow River (WYNDD 2010e). Habitat modeling for the white-faced ibis was based on 1) ranking of GAP landcover types and 2) the WYNDD species distribution model. See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. Depressional wetlands were ranked as high-quality breeding habitat (HSI = 3). Introduced riparian vegetation and floodplains were considered moderate-quality (HSI = 2) while low-quality (HSI = 1) included pastures and mixed-grass prairies. Unsuitable habitat (HSI = 0) included most sagebrush, steppe, shrublands, and forested areas. Based on the above criteria, there are 704 acres (1.3 percent of study area) of high-quality, 5,387 acres (10.1 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 7,610 acres (14.3 percent of study area) of lowquality white-faced ibis breeding habitat in the study area. The remaining 39,580 acres (74.3 percent of study area) were modeled as unsuitable for white-faced ibis breeding (Appendix F, Figure F-15).

3.2.4

Mammals

Bighorn Sheep Status and distribution The bighorn sheep is a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. They are found throughout the Rocky Mountains. Bighorn sheep populations were greatly reduced during the 1800s and early to mid-1900s through a combination of hunting, disease, habitat loss, and competition from domestic grazing, leading to the loss of many herds throughout that range (Beecham et al. 2007). A combination of habitat improvement and the transplant of sheep from stable herds into historically occupied regions has seen their numbers increase over the past several decades. In Wyoming, there are four core herds in the Absaroka, Teton, Gros Ventre, and Wind River Mountains and 10 smaller herds that have been expanded or re-established using transplants with a total population estimated around 6,000–7,000 (WGFD 2017p).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Bighorn sheep are found in semi-open habitats near rocky terrain that provide foraging opportunities as well as escape routes from predators. They primarily forage on bunchgrasses but will also graze on shrubs. Sheep in the northwest part of Wyoming undergo a range of seasonal movements from high elevation alpine tundra in the summer to lower elevation grassy benches and south-facing slopes in winter. Sheep in the rest of State are mostly non-migratory and are found in grassy areas close to rocky cliffs and canyons (WGFD 2017p). The Seminoe-Ferris population is non-migratory. Habitat treatments have been

December 2022 | 30

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

implemented within the Seminoe-Ferris population, including prescribed burns to help restore habitat and installation of guzzlers to store and provide drinking water for wildlife (WGFD 2020).

Occurrence in Study Area The Seminoe and Ferris Mountains bighorn sheep herd occupies suitable habitat on the west end of the study area. This herd has seen several hundred sheep transplanted into the area starting in the 1950s. These transplants were mostly unsuccessful up through 2009 when there were fewer than 10 individuals remaining. The bighorn sheep transplanted from 2009 onwards were chosen from areas with similar high desert habitats in Devil’s Canyon, Wyoming, and the Diablo Mountains in Oregon, and have been much more successful (Dwinnel et al. 2019). The population estimate in 2019 was 245 individuals (WGFD 2020). Bighorn sheep were observed in and near the Seminoe Mountains during the 2021 wildlife field surveys as well as during the additional surveys completed in 2022. WGFD (2012a) map 1,211 acres of the study area (2.3 percent) west of Kortes Reservoir as both crucial 1 winter-yearlong 2 range and 3,275 acres as seasonal winter-yearlong range (6.1 percent) for the bighorn sheep (Appendix F, Figure F-16). Habitat modeling for bighorn sheep was based on the WYNDD species distribution model (Keinath et al. 2010). The WYNDD species distribution model created a more refined distribution map than could have been achieved by ranking GAP landcover types. Based on this model there are 9,318 acres (17.5 percent of study area) of high-quality, 4,815 acres (9.0 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 9,497 acres (17.8 percent of study area) of low-quality habitat for bighorn sheep in the study area. The remaining 29,651 acres (55.7 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable habitat for bighorn sheep (Appendix F, Figure F-16). The WGFD and University of Wyoming have developed predicted use models for the Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep herd based on GPS-collar data from 2009 to 2018. Intensity of use is extremely low throughout the study area, except for areas of moderately-low use intensity in the Seminoe Mountains which largely coincide with WGFD mapped crucial and seasonal range (Appendix F, Figure F-16). High intensity use is centered in the Ferris Mountains (Dwinnel et al 2019). Due to the coarse scale of this mapping, it was not incorporated into habitat modeling for bighorn sheep in the study area.

Elk Status and Distribution Elk were historically found across most of the continental United States, but their range was greatly reduced by the early 1900s. They can still be found across most of Wyoming, and most herds in the State are exceeding management objectives (WGFD 2018; Thuermer 2021). The study area is in the WGFD Shirley Mountain Herd Unit #534 (WGFD 2018).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Elk can be found in a wide variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, forests, and alpine areas. They prefer habitat with a combination of open areas for foraging and forested areas for cover from 1

Crucial range can include any seasonal range or habitat but describes that component which has been documented as the determining factor in a population's ability to maintain itself at or above the WGFD population objective over the long term (WGFD 2015b).

A population or a portion of a population of animals makes general use of the documented suitable habitat within this range on a year-round basis. But during the winter months (commonly between 11/15 and 4/30), there is a significant influx of additional animals into the area from other seasonal ranges (WGFD 2015b).

December 2022 | 31

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

predators. Elk populations can be migratory and non-migratory, though even the non-migratory populations may move short distances during the winter when snow cover requires them to move to lower elevations to find food. Elk forage on a variety of vegetation, including grasses, forbs, and the leaves and bark of shrubs and trees. Elk are sensitive to human disturbance and are known to avoid roads, especially during calving and hunting seasons (Innes 2011).

Occurrence in the Study Area While no elk were observed in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, sign of elk activity was observed in the Seminoe Mountains portion of the study area. Most of the study area, 34,223 acres (64.2 percent) is in yearlong 3 range for elk. Summer 4 range, 5,212 acres (9.8 percent of study area), is located on the Seminoe Mountains and winter-yearlong range, 7,933 acres (14.9 percent of study area), includes the far eastern edge of the study area near the Freezeout Mountains. Although no crucial range occurs in the study area, there is crucial winter-yearlong range in the Freezout and Ferris Mountains. Two relatively small parturition 5 areas are located north of the study area in the Shirley Mountains (WGFD 2012; Appendix F, Figure F-17).

Fringed Myotis Status and Distribution The fringed myotis is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. The fringed myotis can be found across much of western North America from southern British Columbia through southern Mexico. This species has been documented across much of Wyoming, particularly in the northeast part of the State where the M. t. thysanaodes subspecies occurs, which is only found in the Black Hills region. Abundance trends are largely unknown for this species (Keinath 2004a). Across much of its range the fringed myotis appears to be relatively rare, making up only small percentages of bats surveyed in several regions (Keinath 2003).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Fringed myotis have been found using a broad range of habitats but are commonly found in areas of ponderosa pine or pinyon, juniper, and oak woodlands that are interspersed with open areas such as grasslands or deserts, often near open water (Keinath 2003, Keinath 2004a). Both males and females roost in a variety of structures, including caves, human-made structures, abandoned mines, rock crevices, and trees. Females will collect in colonial maternity roosts while raising young. Males roost alone or in small groups (WGFD 2017q). Fringed myotis hibernate overwinter, entering hibernation during September and emerging in April. The few documented fringed myotis hibernacula across their range have included caves and abandoned mines (Keinath 2003). Only one hibernaculum has ever been found in Wyoming: a cave in southeast Wyoming (WGFD 2017q).

A population or portion of a population of animals makes general use of the suitable documented habitat within the range on a year-round basis. Exception – occasionally, under severe conditions (extremely severe winters, drought) animals may leave the area (WGFD 2015b).

A population or portion of a population of animals use the documented habitats within this range annually only (from the previous winter) to the onset of persistent winter conditions (variable, but commonly this period is between 5/1 and 11/14)(WGFD 2015b).

Documented birthing areas commonly used between 5/15 and 6/30 by the female segment members of a population. These areas may also be used as “nursery areas” by some species (WGFD 2015b).

December 2022 | 32

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Occurrence in Study Area While no bats were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, the WYNDD (2021) includes relatively recent (i.e., since 2010) records of fringed myotis in the Seminoe Mountains portion of the study area as well as north of the study area including the Shirley Mountains. Habitat modeling for the fringed myotis is based on the WYNDD species distribution model (WYNDD 2015). This model appeared to produce a more refined model than could have been achieved by ranking GAP landcover types. Based on this model there are 2,269 acres (4.3 percent of the study area) of highquality, 7,628 acres (14.3 percent of study area) moderate-quality, and 18,465 acres (34.6 percent of study area) of low-quality habitat for fringed myotis (and long-eared myotis) in the study area. The remaining 24,919 acres (46.8 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the fringed myotis (Appendix F, Figure F-18).

Long-eared Myotis Status and Distribution The long-eared myotis is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier III species. They can be found across most of western North America from southern Canada through the southwest and Baja California. In Wyoming, long-eared myotis can be found across all of the State except for parts of the Great Divide Basin, Powder River Basin, and the far southeast corner of the State, though most reports come from the western half of the State (WGFD 2017r; Schmidt 2003a). Long-eared myotis are not known to occur in large numbers (Schmidt 2003a) but have been well represented in numerous bat surveys across western North America (Buseck and Keinath 2004).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Long-eared myotis are found in a wide range of habitats across their range. They are often associated with forested areas, particularly forested areas dominated by either ponderosa pine or spruce-fir (WGFD 2017r). Long-eared myotis have been documented roosting in a variety of structures, including loose bark in tall snags, rock crevices, caves, bridges, abandoned mines, and pine stumps in clear cut areas (Buseck and Kienath 2004). The phenology of the long-eared myotis is unclear. They hibernate overwinter, entering hibernation in late fall to early winter and emerging in late spring to early summer, but information on hibernation in Wyoming is unknown. They have been found swarming at a cave entrance and hibernating in an abandoned mine in other parts of their range, and it is assumed they use the same hibernacula in Wyoming (WGFD 2017r).

Occurrence in Study Area Although no bats were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, the WYNDD (2021) includes recent (i.e., since 2010) records of observations from the Seminoe and Shirley Mountains as well as the Difficulty Creek area. The WYNDD species distribution model (Abernethy et al. 2015) suggests long-eared myotis are found consistently throughout all portions of the study area. Habitat modeling for the long-eared myotis was based on ranking of GAP landcover types. See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. Forested areas were ranked as high-quality (HSI = 3) habitat, while open landscapes were ranked lower (HSI = 2 or 1). Developed areas, waterbodies, agricultural lands, and wetlands were considered unsuitable (HSI = 0). Based on the above criteria, there are 7,471 acres (14.0 percent of study area) of high-quality, 1,489 acres (2.8 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 41,960 acres (78.8 percent of study area) of low-

December 2022 | 33

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

quality habitat for long-eared myotis in the study area. The remaining 2,360 acres (4.4 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the long-eared myotis (Appendix F, Figure F-19).

Mule Deer Status and Distribution Mule deer can be found across most of western North America from northern Canada to northern Mexico, including all of Wyoming. The study area falls within the range of the WGFD Shirley Mountain Herd Unit #540. Mule deer have declined across their range and in Wyoming in recent years. Recent data show that populations in Wyoming have fallen by approximately 31 percent between 1991 and 2016 (Mule Deer Working Group 2018).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Mule deer can be found in a wide range of arid habitats including grasslands, sagebrush, and mountains from low elevations up to alpine tundra. They feed on vegetation from shrubs, forbs, and grasses. In Wyoming, many mule deer populations are migratory and move to areas where forage is available overwinter when large portions of their range are under deep snow. These winter ranges are much smaller than summer ranges and thus are at a higher risk of disturbance. Population declines have been attributed to a variety of factors, including habitat disturbance/destruction from human-made structures, invasive species, and changes in land management regimes such as removal of periodic fires (Mule Deer Working Group 2018).

Occurrence in Study Area Mule deer were observed in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys and are considered relatively common and ubiquitous. Approximately 28,548 acres (53.6 percent of the study area) is considered crucial winter-yearlong range for mule deer. Another 19,841 acres (37.2 percent of the study area) is mapped as winter-yearlong seasonal range. Summer range, 4,337 acres, (8.1 percent of study area) for mule deer is present on the Seminoe Mountains (WGFD 2012; Appendix F, Figure F-20).

Northern River Otter Status and Distribution The northern river otter is a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. River otters historically occupied most of the major rivers across North America but were extirpated across much of their range through a combination of trapping, pollution, and habitat degradation/loss. Reintroduction efforts have helped many populations recover (Boyle 2006). In Wyoming, river otters had been extirpated from most of the State except for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. After being protected in Wyoming in 1953, the species has expanded out of the northwest corner of the State as well as into the southern portions of the State through reintroduction efforts in northern Colorado. The full distribution of otters in Wyoming is not currently clear (WGFD 2017s).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Northern river otters are found in a variety of aquatic habitats such as lakes, rivers, streams, marshes, and reservoirs. They require habitats with high water quality; open water for hunting with high concentrations of fish, crustaceans, and amphibians; and riparian vegetation for cover when out of water (WGFD 2017s; Boyle 2006). They also prefer areas with stable banks for denning and will avoid areas

December 2022 | 34

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

with gently sloping sand or gravel banks. The species does not hibernate overwinter and is restricted to areas with open water (WGFD 2017s).

Occurrence in Study Area No river otters were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. The WYNDD (2021) does have a record of an otter sighting from the 1980s in an inlet on the west side of Seminoe Reservoir; however, no observations have been recorded within the study area. Habitat modeling for the northern river otter is based on 1) a ranking of GAP landcover types and 2) the WYNDD species distribution model (WYNDD 2010f). See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. Landcover types denoted as open water were ranked with an HSI of 2 to represent moderate-quality habitat while all others were denoted as unsuitable (HSI = 0). The WYNDD species distribution model was not altered for the model. Based on the above criteria, there are 112 acres (0.2 percent of study area) of high-quality, 1,164 acres (2.2 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 2,877 acres (5.4 percent of study area) of low-quality habitat for northern river otters in the study area. Most of the study area, 49,129 acres (92.2 percent of study area) is mapped as unsuitable for this species (Appendix F, Figure F-21).

Pallid Bat Status and Distribution The pallid bat is a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. Pallid bats are found across most of the western United States from southern Canada to northern Mexico. Wyoming is part of the northeastern range boundary for the species. They can be found in basins across most of Wyoming except for the northeast part of the State (WGFD 2017t). There is very little information on abundance and population trends for the species in Wyoming. Pallid bats have not been found hibernating in Wyoming and may migrate out of the State over winter (Hester and Grenier 2005).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Pallid bats are found among cliffs and rock outcrops in open, arid habitats such as grasslands, deserts, and shrublands but they are also uncommonly found among cliffs and rock outcrops in coniferous forests (WGFD 2017t). Pallid bats roost in small colonies from 12 to 100 individuals on rock formations but have also been known to roost in places such as abandoned mines, tree cavities, caves, and human-made structures (Hester and Grenier 2005). Pallid bats are assumed to hibernate in Wyoming but there is no known information on the timing of this hibernation (WGFD 2017t). Pallid bats are quite sensitive to human disturbance and even small levels of disturbance can lead to abandonment of roosts (Hester and Grenier 2005).

Occurrence in Study Area Although no bats were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, the WYNDD species distribution model (Abernethy et al. 2015) for pallid bat suggests that the species occurs throughout the study area, and observations have been recorded in the area (WYNDD 2021). Habitat modeling for the pallid bat was based on 1) ranking of GAP landcover types and 2) TRI. See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. High-quality habitat (HSI = 3) included arid shrublands, steppe, and scrublands denoted in the landcover data. Forested areas were denoted lowquality habitat (HSI = 1). TRI was weighted by 0.038 to maintain equivalent weighting with landcover in the model.

December 2022 | 35

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Based on the above, there are 10,502 acres (19.7 percent of study area) of high-quality, 33,264 acres (62.4 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 6,860 acres (12.9 percent of study area) of lowquality pallid bat habitat in the study area. The remaining 2,655 acres (5.0 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the pallid bat (Appendix F, Figure F-22).

Pronghorn Status and Distribution Pronghorn can be found across much of western North America from southern Canada to northern Mexico. Pronghorn occur across all of Wyoming in suitable habitat, and Wyoming has the largest population of any State. The study area falls in the Pronghorn Medicine Bow Herd Unit #525 (WGFD 2016). Pronghorn populations were greatly reduced due to overhunting, habitat loss, and habitat fragmentation, such as fences and roads blocking migration corridors. The population in Wyoming has increased to approximately 400,000 individuals and appears to be stable (WGFD 2002).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Pronghorn are found in open, arid habitats such as grasslands and sagebrush habitats with flat to gently rolling topography. Their diet consists of a variety of grasses and forbs during the spring, summer, and fall and primarily consists of sagebrush during the winter. Available water is another important habitat factor with most groups of pronghorn occurring within a few kilometers of a water source, particularly during the hotter months (WGFD 2002).

Occurrence in Study Area Pronghorn were regularly observed in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. All observations of this species were in non-forested habitat, within sagebrush shrublands. The WGFD has mapped approximately 15,327 acres (28.8 percent of the study area) as crucial winter-yearlong range. Most of this range occurs along the transmission line corridor. Winter-yearlong seasonal range also occurs in this area and includes approximately 12,308 acres(23.1 percent of the study area). Summer seasonal range, 25,020 acres (47.0 percent of study area) occurs within the Seminoe Mountains and covers most of the western half of the study area (WGFD 2012; Appendix F, Figure F-23).

Pygmy Rabbit Status and Distribution The pygmy rabbit is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. Pygmy rabbits were petitioned for listing under the ESA in 2003, but listing was denied in 2010 as the USFWS determined the species was not in danger of becoming extinct in all or a significant portion of its range (75 FR 60516). Pygmy rabbits occur in the western United States in the Great Basin and parts of the intermountain areas. Wyoming is part of the eastern extent of its range, with pygmy rabbits being found scattered across the southcentral and southwest parts of the State. Abundance estimates for this species are not available. They are patchily distributed and locally abundant but are expected to be less abundant on the periphery of their range (WGFD 2017u; Keinath and McGee 2004).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Pygmy rabbits are a sagebrush obligate species. They are reliant on tall, dense stands of sagebrush with deep, stable soils that provide cover, food, and burrowing opportunities (Keinath and McGee 2004). They have almost always been found using stands of sagebrush that are taller and denser than other stands in

December 2022 | 36

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

the area (Keinath and McGee 2004). Pygmy rabbits are one of the few rabbits in North America that digs its own burrows with the entrance often at the base of a sagebrush. Like other sagebrush obligate species, the pygmy rabbit is vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and loss from alterations to sagebrush habitats (WGFD 2017u).

Occurrence in Study Area Pygmy rabbits were not observed in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys and there are no records of observations in the vicinity of the study area (WYNDD 2021). Range mapping by WYNDD and WGFD do not include the study area and most of Carbon County is extralimital for the species. While it is unlikely that pygmy rabbits occur in the study area, there is suitable habitat present. Habitat modeling for the pygmy rabbit is based on the WYNDD species distribution model (Keinath et al. 2010) which describes a patchy distribution of low-quality habitat in the study area’s sagebrush landcover types. Ranking of GAP landcover was not used to model potential habitat for this species because although there is ample suitable landcover in the study area, information on soil types is lacking. The WYNDD appears to be more refined and reliable than could have been obtained from ranking GAP landcover types. Based on the WYNDD species distribution model, there is no high- or moderate-quality habitat in the study area. There are 12,599 acres (23.6 percent of study area) of low-quality habitat in the study area and the remaining 40,681 acres (76.4 percent of study area) is considered unsuitable for the pygmy rabbit (Appendix F, Figure F-24).

Swift Fox Status and Distribution The swift fox is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. The swift fox was petitioned to be listed under the ESA in 1992, but listing was denied in 2001 after the USFWS concluded that the swift fox was more abundant and widespread than previously thought (66 FR 1295). The swift fox previously occupied most of the Great Plains from Texas to southern Canada. Currently it occupies only a small portion of that former range across the western portion of the Great Plains (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2003b). Wyoming is on the western edge of the swift fox range and swift fox are most common in the southeast and south-central parts of the State. Information on abundance and trends in Wyoming are not available (WGFD 2017v).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Swift foxes are found in shortgrass and midgrass prairies in areas with flat or gentle slopes and typically avoid areas with short sight lines such as canyons, areas with steep hills, and tall, dense vegetation (DarkSmiley and Keinath 2003b). They have also been found living in croplands as well as shrublands such as sagebrush, particularly in the western part of their range, including Wyoming. In areas with more shrubs, they typically use areas with shrubs that are less than 30 cm tall (WGFD 2017v). Swift foxes are highly dependent on dens for protection and raising young. Dens are often placed in areas of high ground, such as hill tops, with good views of the surrounding habitat and sandy soils (Dark-Smiley and Keinath 2003b). They may excavate their own burrows or enlarge burrows of other species such as badgers or ground squirrels. Swift foxes mate during winter with young being born in March or April (WGFD 2017v).

Occurrence in Study Area Although swift foxes were not observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, the WYNDD (2021) includes observations in the vicinity of Difficulty Creek and Medicine Bow, on the eastern edge of the study area.

December 2022 | 37

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Habitat modeling for the swift fox is based on ranking of GAP landcover types. See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. Grassland, shrubland, steppe, and scrub landcover types were ranked with an HSI of 3 to represent high-quality habitat. Most other landcover types, except for those that generally exhibit loose and sandy soils, were considered unsuitable (HSI = 0). Based on the above criteria, there are 41,149 acres (77.2 percent of study area) of high-quality, 959 acres (1.8 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 894 acres (1.7 percent of study area) of low-quality swift fox habitat in the study area. The remaining 10,278 acres (19.3 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the swift fox (Appendix F, Figure F-25).

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Status and Distribution The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. Townsend’s big-eared bat is found across the majority of western North America from southern British Columbia to southern Mexico. Wyoming is part of the northeastern range boundary for the species (WGFD 2017w). Despite having such a wide range, the species abundance is typically low at the local level due to limited availability of suitable roosting structures (Gruver and Keinath 2003). Townsend’s big-eared bat populations have declined across most of their range since the early 1900s and they are a species of conservation concern in the western United States. However, recent studies have suggested isolated population recovery and a gradual upward trend range wide. Future conservation depends on protection of cave hibernacula, particularly as white-nose syndrome spreads west (Whiting et al. 2018).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Townsend’s big-eared bat habitat requirements limit their distribution at the local level. This species is a cave obligate, requiring caves and abandoned mines for roosting sites year-round, but they have been recorded roosting in tree hollows and abandoned buildings (Gruver and Keinath 2003). They are known to forage along edge habitats such as forest edges or along riparian corridors, but they can also be found in shrublands and montane forests as well (Gruver and Keinath 2003; WGFD 2017w). They also require calm, open, freshwater for drinking (Gruver and Keinath 2003). Townsend’s big-eared bats hibernate during winter in caves and mine shafts, but specifics on their phenology in Wyoming is unknown. In general, they hibernate from late fall to early spring like many other bat species (WGFD 2017w).

Occurrence in Study Area Although no bats were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, the WYNDD (2021) includes recorded observations of Townsend’s big-eared bat from the Pedro and Shirley Mountains north of the study area. Habitat modeling for Townsend’s big eared bat is based on the WYNDD species distribution model (Abernethy et al. 2015). This model appeared to produce a more refined model than could have been achieved by ranking GAP landcover types. As such, there are 9,866 acres (18.5 percent of study area) of high-quality, 24,610 acres (46.2 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 17,857 acres (33.5 percent of study area) of low-quality habitat for the Townsend’s big-eared bat in the study area. The remaining 948 acres (1.8 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the Townsend’s big-eared bat (Appendix F, Figure F-26).

December 2022 | 38

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Western Small-footed Myotis Status and Distribution The western small-footed myotis is a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. The western small-footed myotis is found across most of western North America, occurring from southern Canada to northern Mexico and eastwards into the central Great Plains. They can be found throughout the State of Wyoming, although there is limited information on population trends in the State (WGFD 2017x, Whiting et al. 2018). A study in Idaho found a drastic decrease in a local population followed by a drastic increase following closure of hibernacula caves to human access (Whiting et al. 2018).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Western small-footed myotis can be found in a variety of arid habitats including desert shrublands and badlands, near rocky areas such as cliffs, canyons, and rock outcrops (Schmidt 2003b). They are also associated with riparian areas in other habitats such as grasslands, juniper woodlands, and montane forests (WGFD 2017x). This species uses rock features such as cracks and crevices in cliffs for roosting, but is also known to roost under tree bark, in buildings, under rocks, and in holes in stream banks (Schmidt 2003b; WGFD 2017x). Little is known about hibernation habitat in Wyoming. It is likely that they hibernate in caves or abandoned mines starting in late fall and emerge in early spring (WGFD 2017x).

Occurrence in Study Area Although no bats were observed in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, the WYNDD (2021) includes recorded observations of western small-footed myotis in and near the study area. The species is a habitat generalist, occurring in almost all landcover types represented in the study area. Habitat modeling for the western small-footed myotis is based on the WYNDD species distribution model (Abernethy et al. 2015). This model appeared to produce a more refined model than could have been achieved by ranking GAP landcover types. As such, there are 49,053 acres (92.1 percent of study area) of high-quality, 4,122 acres of moderate-quality (7.7 percent of study area), and 105 acres (0.2 percent of study area) of low-quality habitat for the western small-footed myotis in the study area (Appendix F, Figure F-27). No unsuitable habitat was identified.

Western Spotted Skunk Status and Distribution The western spotted skunk is a WGFD SGCN Tier III species. The western spotted skunk is found throughout most of western North America, occurring from southwestern Canada to Mexico. This species can be found as far east as central Texas. The Wyoming population of western spotted skunks is believed to make up less than 5% of the species’ global range (WYNDD 2022). There is limited information available regarding population trends of the western spotted skunk. The GAP species habitat model (USGS 2018) covers a majority of the study area.

Life History and Habitat Requirements Western spotted skunk can most commonly be found in open woodland and shrubland habitats with brushy and herbaceous components (WYNDD 2022). Western spotted skunks use dens that they typically excavate themselves. Burrows created by other species as well as natural and man-made cavities are sometimes modified and repurposed by western spotted skunks. The probability of occupancy by the western spotted skunk is positively associated with rock outcrops and negatively associated with dense

December 2022 | 39

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

canopy cover (WGFD 2015a). Preferred habitat is also associated with high juniper cover in Wyoming (Seville 2020) as well as streams (WYNDD 2022).

Occurrence in Study Area Although no skunks were observed in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys, western spotted skunks have been detected in the Shirley and Pedro Mountains, which are directly north of the study area (WGFD 2015a). Habitat modeling for the western spotted skunk is based on ranking of GAP landcover types. See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. High-quality habitat (HSI = 3) included shrublands and woodlands that are associated with rocky outcrops and junipers. Cliff and outcrop as well as riparian woodland and shrubland habitat were denoted as moderate quality (HSI = 2). Shrublands or woodlands not associated with rocky outcrops, junipers, or riparian habitat were denoted as low-quality habitat (HSI = 1). All other areas (i.e., floodplains, sagebrush habitat, and salt desert scrub) were considered unsuitable (HSI = 0). Based on the above criteria, there are 7,377 acres (13.8 percent of study area) of high-quality, 1,018 acres (1.9 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 188 acres (0.4 percent of study area) of low-quality western spotted skunk habitat in the study area. The remaining 44,697 acres (83.9 percent of study area) is unsuitable for western spotted skunk (Appendix F, Figure F-28.

White-tailed Deer Status and Distribution White-tailed deer can be found across most of North America, including most of Wyoming. The study area is in the WGFD Southeast Wyoming Herd Unit #504 (WGFD 2012). Soon after European settlement, white-tailed deer populations declined dramatically in Wyoming due to unregulated hunting. Populations rebounded in the mid-1900s following an increase in agricultural land use. Currently, concentrations of white-tailed deer are greatest in eastern Wyoming, due to the abundance of agricultural landcover. In the remainder of the State, they are rarer and more confined to riparian zones (Anderson 2007).

Life History and Habitat Requirements White-tailed deer can be found in a wide variety of habitats but are primarily found in areas with more cover including shrublands, woodlands, and forests. In the arid west, white-tailed deer are mostly limited to riparian areas and croplands where they can find sufficient forage, particularly forbs and various parts of shrubs and trees. White-tailed deer may be migratory or non-migratory with populations in areas with high snowfall often moving during the winter (Innes 2013).

Occurrence in Study Area White-tailed deer were not observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. The WYNDD (2021) includes recorded observations of the species, primarily in the Seminoe Mountains and near Seminoe Reservoir. The WGFD considers most of the study area, 51,314 acres, (96.3 percent) to have limited importance for white-tailed deer as it is not mapped as a seasonal range. Two relatively small areas, 1,393 acres (2.62 percent of study area), of winter-yearlong seasonal range occur just east of Horseshoe Ridge and a small area, 574 acres (1.1 percent of study area), of yearlong seasonal range occurs on the north slope of the Seminoe Mountains (WGFD 2012; Appendix F, Figure F-29).

December 2022 | 40

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

White-tailed Prairie Dog Status and Distribution The white-tailed prairie dog is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier II species. The white-tailed prairie dog was petitioned for listing under the ESA in 2002. Listing was denied in 2010 (75 FR 30338) but was reconsidered following a court-ordered review of the decision in 2014. Listing was again denied in 2017 after the USFWS determined that the white-tailed prairie dog was not in danger of extinction (82 FR 57562). Wyoming makes up 55–75 percent of the white-tailed prairie dog’s entire range (WGFD 2017y). The rest of the range falls in northern parts of Utah and Colorado along with a very small area in southern Montana. White-tailed prairie dog populations and distributions fluctuate rapidly. In Wyoming, monitoring of specific colonies has shown major crashes due to shooting, habitat loss, and plague, but crashes are generally followed by rebounds (Keinath 2004b).

Life History and Habitat Requirements White-tailed prairie dogs are found in colonies in arid grasslands and shrublands with moderate slopes. They prefer areas with more vegetative cover, such as grasses and shrubs, and they do not clip the vegetation around burrows. White-tailed prairie dogs are found in low densities and do not rely on auditory and visual signals from neighbors. Thus, it is likely that they are found in areas with high shrub content as protection from predators (Keinath 2004b). White-tailed prairie dogs hibernate through winter. Adult males are the first to hibernate, starting to go below ground in late July, and the first to emerge in spring starting in February. Females generally follow two or three weeks behind and juveniles will be active 1-2 months longer than adults (Keinath 2004b; WGFD 2017y).

Occurrence in Study Area White-tailed prairie dogs were observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys and they are relatively common within suitable habitat of the study area. The locations where white-tailed prairie dogs were observed are noted on Figure F-230 in Appendix F. As mentioned above, burrowing owls nest almost exclusively in white-tailed prairie dog colonies. Therefore, suitable habitat for both species is coterminous. Habitat modeling for white-tailed prairie dogs is based on 1) ranking of GAP landcover types, 2) the WYNDD species distribution model (Keinath et al. 2010), 3) species model from the USGS GAP Analysis program, and 4) TRI. See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. Grasslands, sagebrush, steppe, and scrub landcover types were ranked highly (HSI = 2 or 3). Open, barren, and sparsely vegetated landcover types were ranked as low-quality (HSI = 1) and all other areas (i.e., forested areas, cliffs/canyons, and wetlands) were considered unsuitable (HSI = 0). The values from USGS GAP Analysis program were weighted by 3 to be equivalently weighted to all other variables. The TRI layer was weighted by -0.038 to rank low relief (i.e., flat) landscapes higher than high relief areas. Based on the above criteria, there are 14,460 acres (27.2 percent of study area) of high-quality, 23,182 acres (43.5 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 4,914 acres (9.2 percent of study area) of lowquality habitat for white-tailed prairie dogs and nesting habitat for burrowing owls in the study area. The remaining 10,725 acres (20.1 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the white-tailed prairie dog (Appendix F, Figure F-30).

December 2022 | 41

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Wyoming Pocket Gopher Status and Distribution The Wyoming pocket gopher is a Wyoming BLM Sensitive Species and a WGFD SGCN Tier I species. The Wyoming pocket gopher was petitioned for listing under the ESA in 2007. Listing was denied in 2010 as the USFWS determined the species was not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (75 FR 19592). It was petitioned for listing again in 2016 but was again denied listing the same year after the USFWS determined listing was not warranted (81 FR 63160). The Wyoming pocket gopher is endemic to a small area of south-central Wyoming in Sweetwater and Carbon Counties. Abundance estimates and trends are not available for this species (WGFD 2017z; Beauvais and Dark-Smiley 2005).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Wyoming pocket gophers are found in desert shrublands and shrub steppe habitats. They typically inhabit areas with flat topography and well-draining clay soils. Pocket gophers are fossorial and require soils that are deep and tractable enough to hold burrows. Wyoming pocket gophers are associated with areas of less big sagebrush and more Gardner’s saltbush, which may be the best predictor of Wyoming pocket gopher occurrence (WGFD 2017z). Much of the life history of the Wyoming pocket gopher is unknown and assumed to be similar to other pocket gopher species. It is assumed to be active year-round and to feed primarily on vegetative materials including roots, shoots, leaves, and tubers (Beauvais and DarkSmiley 2005; WGFD 2017z).

Occurrence in Study Area Wyoming pocket gophers were not observed during the 2021 wildlife field surveys. The WYNDD (2021) does not include any observations of the species in or near the study area. The nearest recorded observation is southwest of the study area, near Haystack Mountain. The WYNND species distribution model (Keinath et al. 2014) does not predict occurrence in the study area. However, Gardner’s saltbush was identified as a regular component of the Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland landcover type (see Section 3.1). It was also identified within Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland and InterMountain Basins Greasewood Flat GAP landcover types during vegetation mapping. It is possible that the species occurs in other landcover types as well. Therefore, although Wyoming pocket gophers are likely rare, suitable habitat is predicted to occur in the study area. Habitat modeling for the Wyoming pocket gopher is based on ranking of GAP landcover types. See Appendix D for the ranking of each GAP landcover type. The three landcover types listed above that were confirmed to include Gardner’s saltbush were ranked as high-quality (HSI = 3). Other landcover types that could include Gardner’s saltbush, or other shrub and steppe type cover, were ranked as moderate- to lowquality (HSI = 1 and 2). All other landcover types were considered unsuitable (HSI = 0). Based on the above criteria, there are 1,739 acres (3.3 percent of study area) of high-quality, 8,596 acres (16.1 percent of study area) of moderate-quality, and 31,855 acres (59.8 percent of study area) of lowquality habitat for Wyoming pocket gophers in the study area. The remaining 11,091 acres (20.8 percent of study area) are considered unsuitable for the Wyoming pocket gopher (Appendix F, Figure F-31).

December 2022 | 42

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.3

Raptor Nest Survey

A total of 38 raptor nest structures were identified within the study area during the 2021 and 2022 raptor nest surveys. Of these, six were confirmed to be active (i.e., occupied by nesting birds) at the time of the survey, the status of four could not be determined, and the remaining 24 were inactive (i.e., unoccupied, no birds present) at the time of the survey. Species composition is listed in Table 3-2 and nest locations, species, and status are displayed in Figure 3-1. Nests observed and reported here include one active common raven nest, which although not a raptor, nests on structures like that of medium-sized raptors and often uses historic raptor nests. The BLM provided historic nest locations (i.e., nests first observed between 1979 and 2014) to aid in the raptor nest survey. Biologists visited each of the historic nest locations to search for nest structures. Of the 17 historic nest locations located in the study area, only five could be relocated and all five were inactive at the time of the survey. The remaining 12 historic nests could not be found. Table 3-2. Summary of Raptor Nests Observed During 2021 and 2022 Raptor Nest Surveys Species (Scientific Name)

Active

Inactive

Unknown

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Common raven (Corvus corax)

Ferruginous hawk (Buto regalis)

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)

Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis)

Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus)

Unknown raptor

Researchers incidentally (i.e., not associated with a nest; perched, flying, foraging) observed bald eagles, golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, ferruginous hawks, prairie falcons (Falco mexicanus), and American kestrels (Falco sparverius) in the study area during the 2021 wildlife field surveys.

December 2022 | 43

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-1. Raptor Nests Observed During 2021 Raptor Nest Surveys December 2022 | 44

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Discussion

4.1

Vegetation Mapping

A total of 16 landcover types were identified within the vegetation mapping study area. The USGS (2011) GAP program maps landcover types on a large-scale effort based on aerial signatures, topography, and adjacent landcover types. The field mapping effort allows for more detail, such as small areas of developed (roads and houses) and pasture/hay areas, and the verification of aerial signatures. Nonetheless, the field-verified landcover mapping exhibited a high level of agreement with the USGS GAP landcover mapping. Landcover in the vegetation mapping study area is consistent with rolling sagebrush steppe, foothill shrubland, and low mountains of the intermountain west and Wyoming basin.

4.2

Wildlife Habitat Assessment

Habitat modeling was conducted for a total of 33 wildlife species within the study area. The most common approach to mapping habitat was the ranking of GAP landcover types. However, for some species, existing models from the WYNDD were more accurate than ranking of landcover types. A HEP approach was used for most species, allowing for incorporation of multiple variables as model inputs. This approach worked well for modeling the quality and quantity of special status wildlife within the study area. The unique modeling approach for each species is described in Section 3.2 and summarized in Appendix C. The results of the modeling suggest substantial variation in distribution and habitat use by different species. Some species, such as big game (e.g., mule deer, pronghorn) are common across the entire study area regardless of landcover type. Other species, such as northern goshawk, bald eagle, river otter, and pygmy rabbit are expected to be rare and have limited suitable habitat. Almost half of the study area is within the Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe landcover type. Therefore, species that are obligate to or prefer this vegetation community are reflected in the models as having large amounts of high-quality habitat. The acres and percent of high-, moderate-, low-quality and unsuitable habitat for each species is summarized in Table 4-1. Similarly, the acres and percent of WGFD designated seasonal and crucial ranges for big game are provided in Table 4-2. The two distinct ecological zones described in Section 1.3 also segment species distribution. Those species that prefer shrublands, rolling hills, and open landscapes are more common along the portion of the study area defined by the proposed transmission line. Those species that prefer forested areas or greater topographic relief would be expected to occur within the portion of the study area formed by the proposed reservoir. Waterbodies, riparian corridors, and wetlands are relatively rare in the study area, but their presence is a strong predictor of distribution and habitat use for species that rely on these landscape features.

December 2022 | 45

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 4-1. Summary of Modeled Habitat Quality for Each Species Assessed1 Habitat Quality High

Moderate

Low

Unsuitable

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Monarch Butterfly

118

0.2

1,933

3.6

1,437

2.7

49,793

93.5

Great Basin Spadefoot

444

0.8

3,134

5.9

40,470

76.0

9,233

17.3

Northern Leopard Frog

829

1.6

8,310

15.6

44,142

82.8

Species

Bald Eagle

153 acres (0.3 %) = nesting habitat and 1,635 acres (3.1 %) = foraging habitat

Brewer's Sparrow

31,969

59.9

9,058

17.2

1,066

1.9

11,189

21.0

Burrowing Owl

14,460

27.2

23,182

43.5

4,914

9.2

10,725

20.1

Common Loon

1,002 acres (1.9 %) = stopover habitat

Ferruginous Hawk

42,739

80.2

982

1.8

8,291

15.6

1,270

2.4

Golden Eagle

5,935

11.1

16,945

31.8

27,648

51.9

2,754

5.2

Loggerhead Shrike

41,080

77.1

1,918

3.6

7,726

14.5

2,558

4.8

Long-billed Curlew

824

1.5

805

1.5

6,705

12.6

44,947

84.4

14,370

27.0

17,292

32.4

11,723

22.0

9,897

18.6

Mountain Plover

December 2022 | 46

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Habitat Quality High

Moderate

Low

Unsuitable

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Northern Goshawk

0.0

333

0.6

7,128

13.4

45,820

86.0

Peregrine Falcon

4,259

8.0

10,778

20.2

12,814

24.1

25,430

47.7

Sage Thrasher

26,145

49.1

16,773

31.5

7,379

13.8

2,984

5.6

Sagebrush Sparrow

26,145

49.1

16,773

31.5

7,379

13.8

2,984

5.6

White-faced Ibis

704

1.3

5,387

10.1

7,610

14.3

39,580

74.3

Bighorn Sheep

9,318

17.5

4,815

9.0

9,497

17.8

29,651

55.7

Fringed Myotis

2,269

4.3

7,628

14.3

18,465

34.6

24,919

46.8

Long-eared Myotis

7,471

14.0

1,489

2.8

41,960

78.8

2,360

4.4

Northern River Otter

112

0.2

1,164

2.2

2,877

5.4

49,129

92.2

10,502

19.7

33,264

62.4

6,860

12.9

2,655

5.0

–

0.0

–

0.0

12,599

23.6

40,681

76.4

Swift Fox

41,149

77.2

959

1.8

894

1.7

10,278

19.3

Townsend's Big-eared Bat

9,866

18.5

24,610

46.2

17,857

33.5

948

1.8

Species

Pallid Bat Pygmy Rabbit

December 2022 | 47

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Habitat Quality High

Moderate

Low

Unsuitable

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Western Smallfooted Myotis

49,053

92.1

4,122

7.7

105

0.2

–

0.0

Western Spotted Skunk

7,377

13.8

1,018

1.9

188

0.4

44,697

83.9

White-tailed Prairie Dog

14,460

27.2

23,182

43.5

4,914

9.2

10,725

20.1

Wyoming Pocket Gopher

1,739

3.3

8,596

16.1

31,855

59.8

11,091

20.8

Species

1 Total

study area is 53,280.8 acres. Due to rounding some totals will vary slightly.

Table 4-2. Summary of WGFD Designated Big Game Ranges Within the Study Area WGFD Designated Range Yearlong Species Bighorn Sheep

Acres

Winter-Yearlong

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Summer Acres

Crucial Winter-Yearlong

Percent of Study Area

Acres

Percent of Study Area

232

0.4

3,275

6.1

–

0.0

1,211

2.3

34,223

64.2

7,933

14.9

5,212

9.8

–

0.0

Mule Deer

–

0.0

19,841

37.2

4,337

8.1

28,548

53.6

Pronghorn

–

0.0

12,308

23.1

25,020

47.0

15,327

28.8

574

1.1

1,393

2.6

–

0.0

–

0.0

Elk

White-tailed Deer

December 2022 | 48

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

4.3

Raptor Nest Survey

In general, raptor nests identified in 2021 were evenly distributed across the study area. Five additional raptor nests were observed in the 2022 survey area. Species distribution was consistent with the habitat preferences of individual species. Most of the historic nests provided by the BLM were no longer present (i.e., destroyed) or inactive. This is not surprising due to the age of most nests in the database. The activity status of an unusually large number of nests could not be determined. This may be due to high winds and high temperatures at the time of the surveys which caused some birds to remain in their nests and out of sight or in some other protected location. The high number of unknown status nests may also be due to the rugged and largely inaccessible terrain which required researchers to view nests from long distances and restricted access to the nest site itself. Although much of the eastern portion of the study area was inaccessible due to a lack of private land access permission, suitable raptor nesting habitat in this area is limited. The topography also allowed for viewing much of the inaccessible areas through spotting scopes and binoculars. Therefore, although access was limited, coverage of much of the inaccessible areas was sufficient.

December 2022 | 49

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

References

Abernethy, I.M., M.D. Andersen, and D.A. Keinath. 2015. Bats of Wyoming: modeled distribution. Prepared for the US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Anderson, G. 2007. Chapter 3: White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus). In WGFD Handbook of Biological Techniques, August 2007. Third Edition. (editors S.A. Tessmann. and J.R. Bohne) Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Beauvais, G. P., and Dark-Smiley, D. N. 2005. Species Assessment for Wyoming Pocket Gopher (Thomomys clusius) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <https://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/wyomingpocketgoph er-jun2005.pdf>. Accessed on September 30, 2021. Beecham, J.J. Jr., C.P. Collins, and T.D. Reynolds. 2007. Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online: <https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181936.pdf>. Accessed September 28, 2021. Boyle, S. 2006. North American River Otter (Lontra canadensis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online: <https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5210168.pdf>. Accessed September 28, 2021. Buehler, D. A. 2020. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2010. BLM Wyoming Sensitive Species Policy and List. March 31, 2010. Available from <https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/docs/2021-01/wy2010027atch2.pdf>. Accessed on December 5, 2021. Buseck, R. S., and Keinath, D. A. 2004. Species assessment for Western Long-eared Myotis (Myotis evotis) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <https://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/long-earedmyotisoct2004.pdf>. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Buseck, R. S., D.A. Keinath, and M.H. McGee. 2004. Species assessment for Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/sagethrasherdec2004.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Busek, R.S., D.A. Keinath, M. Geraud. 2005. Species assessment for Great Basin Spadefoot Toad (Spea intermontane) in Wyoming. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

December 2022 | 50

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Chapman, S.S., S.A. Bryce, J.M. Omernik, D.G. Despain, J. ZumBerge, and M. Conrad. 2004. Ecoregions of Wyoming (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey. Available from: <https://gaftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/wy/wy_eco_pg.pdf>. Accessed August 26, 2021. Dark-Smiley, D., and Keinath, D. A. 2003a. Species Assessment for White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/White-FacedIbis.pdf>. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Dark-Smiley, D. N. and Keinath, D. A. 2003b. Species Assessment for Swift Fox (Vulpes velox) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management. University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. Available online: <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/SpeciesAssessments/SwiftFoxDec2003.pdf>. Accessed on September 29, 2021. Dark-Smiley, D. N. and Keinath, D. A. 2004. Species Assessment for Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management. University of Wyoming. Laramie, Wyoming. Dunk J.R., B. Woodbridge, T.M. Lickfett, G. Bedrosian, B.R. Noon, and D.W. LaPlante. 2019. Modeling spatial variation in density of golden eagle nest sites in the western United States. PLoS ONE 14(9): e0223143. Supporting geospatial data available from: <https://ecos.fws.gov/ServCat/Reference/Profile/111283> Accessed on August 1, 2021. Dwinnell, S., Donovan, V., and Monteith, K. 2019. Trends in Dispersal and Resource Use of FerrisSeminoe Bighorn Sheep 2019 Research Brief. Haub School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wyoming. Available online: <https://www.wyomingwildsheep.org/gia/December2019/FerrisSemonie_BighornSheep_ResearchBrief_05032019%20(003).pdf>. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Gruver, J. C., and Keinath, D. A. 2003. Townsend's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available from: <https://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/townsendsbigearedbat-dec2003.pdf>. Accessed on September 29, 2021. Hansley, P. L., and Beauvais, G. P. 2004a. Species Assessment for Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella breweri) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Hansley, P. L., and Beauvais, G. P. 2004b. Species Assessment for Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/sagesparrowsep2004.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). 2021. Special-status plants and noxious weeds study report. Seminoe Pumped Storage Project, Carbon County, Wyoming. FERC No. 14787. Prepared by HDR for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC. December 2021.

December 2022 | 51

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Hester, S. G., and M.B. Grenier. 2005. A conservation plan for bats in Wyoming. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Nongame Program, Lander, Wyoming. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Wildlife/Nongame/WYBAT_CONSERVATI ONPLAN.pdf>. Accessed on September 29, 2021. Holmes, J.A. and Johnson, M. J. 2005. Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available from: <https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5182060.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Innes, R.J. 2011. Cervus elaphus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from: <www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/mammal/ceel/all.html>. Accessed on October 14, 2021. Innes, R.J. 2013. Odocoileus virginianus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available from: <www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/odvi/all.html>. Accessed on October 14, 2021. Keinath, D. A. 2003. Species assessment for Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) in Wyoming, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/FringedMyotis.pdf>. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Keinath, D. A. 2004a. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): A technical conservation assessment, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available from: <https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5181913.pdf>. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Keinath, D. A. 2004b. Species assessment for White-tailed Prairie Dog (Cynomys leucurus) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available from: <https://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/whitetailedprairiedog-dec2004.pdf>. Accessed on September 30, 2021. Keinath, D. A., and M. McGee. 2004. Species assessment for Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <https://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/pygmyrabbitmar2004.pdf>. Accessed on September 29, 2021. Keinath, D. A., and C. Schneider. 2005. Species Assessment for Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in Wyoming. Available online: <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/loggerheadshrikefeb2005.pdf> Accessed on September 24, 2021. Keinath, D.A., B. Heidel, and G.P. Beauvais. 2003. Wyoming Plant and animal species of Concern. Prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database – University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. A-8.

December 2022 | 52

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Keinath, D.A., M.D. Andersen and G.P. Beauvais. 2010. Range and modeled distribution of Wyoming’s species of greatest conservation need. Report prepared by the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie Wyoming for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming and the U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins, Colorado. August 20, 2010. Keinath, D.A., H.R. Griscom, M.D. Andersen. 2014. Habitat and distribution of the Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys clusius). Journal of Mammalogy 95(4): 803-813. Knick, S. T. and J. T. Rotenberry. 1995a. Landscape characteristics of fragmented shrubsteppe habitats and breeding passerine birds. Conservation Biology 9 (5):1059-1071. Knick, S. T. and J. T. Rotenberry. 1995b. Habitat relationships and breeding birds on the Snake River Birds of Prey Area. Idaho Bureau of Land Management. Tech. Bull no. 95-5. Knopf, F. L. and J. D. Reichel. 1997. Species management abstract Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). Available online: <http://conserveonline.org/library/mopl.doc/view.html>. Accessed on December 12, 2021. Knopf, F. L. and M. B. Wunder. 2020. Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Available online: <https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.mouplo.01>. Accessed on October 25, 2021. Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C.L. McIntyre, and E.H. Craig. 2002. Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), In Birds of North America (Rodewald, P. G., Ed.), Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available online: <https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/goleag/cur/introduction>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Kushwaha, S.P.S. and P.S. Roy. 2002. Geospatial technology for wildlife habitat evaluation. Tropical Ecology 43(1): 137-150. Lantz, S., Smith, H., and Keinath, D. 2004. Species Assessment for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) in Wyoming. Available from: <http://www.uwyo.edu/WYNDD/_files/docs/reports/SpeciesAssessments/WesternBurrowing Owl-Sep2004.pdf>. Accessed on September 24, 2021. Lowry, J. H, Jr., R. D. Ramsey, K. Boykin, D. Bradford, P. Comer, S. Falzarano, W. Kepner, J. Kirby, L. Langs, J. Prior-Magee, G. Manis, L. O’Brien, T. Sajwaj, K. A. Thomas, W. Rieth, S. Schrader, D. Schrupp, K. Schulz, B. Thompson, C. Velasquez, C. Wallace, E. Waller and B. Wolk. 2005. Southwest Regional Gap Analysis Project: Final Report on Land Cover Mapping Methods, RS/GIS Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Millsap, B. A., G. S. Zimmerman, J. R. Sauer, R. M. Nielson, M. C. Otto, E. Bjerre, and R. Murphy. 2013. Golden Eagle population trends in the western United States: 1968–2010. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 1436–1448. Mule Deer Working Group. 2018. The Wyoming Mule Deer Initiative. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 80pp. Available online: < https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Mule%20Deer%20Initiative/MuleDeer-Initiative.pdf >. Accessed on September 29, 2021. Oakleaf, R. J., L.E. Olson, J.R. Squires, and Z.P Wallace. 2014. The status of Golden Eagles in Wyoming: a preliminary review. In Threatened, Endangered, and Nongame Bird and Mammal Investigations: Annual Completion Report (Orabona, A. C., and Cudworth, N., Eds.). Wyoming Game and Fish Department. pp 357-395.

December 2022 | 53

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Pardieck, K.L., D.J. Ziolkowski Jr., M. Lutmerding, V.I. Aponte, and M-A.R. Hudson. 2020. North American Breeding Bird Survey Dataset 1966 - 2019: U.S. Geological Survey data release. Available online <https://doi.org/10.5066/P9J6QUF6>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. Paruk, J. D., D. C. Evers, J. W. McIntyre, J. F. Barr, J. Mager, and W. H. Piper. 2021. Common Loon (Gavia immer), version 2.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald and B. K. Keeney, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.comloo.02>. Accessed on October 25, 2021. Phillips, R. L., T. P. McEneaney, and A. E. Beske. 1984. Population densities of breeding Golden Eagles in Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12: 269–273. Plumb, R. E., F. L. Knopf and S. H. Anderson. 2005a. Minimum population size of Mountain Plovers breeding in Wyoming. Wilson Bulletin 117:15-22. Plumb, R. E., Anderson, S. H., and Knopf, F. L. 2005b. Habitat and Nesting Biology of Mountain Plovers in Wyoming. Western North American Naturalist: Vol. 65: No2, Article 11. Available online: <https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article = 1837&context = wnan>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Reynolds, T. D., T. D. Rich, and D. A. Stephens. 2020. Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Riotto Jr., R.J. 2020. Distribution and habitat associations of spotted skunks in Wyoming. Available from: <Distribution and Habitat Associations of Spotted Skunks in Wyoming - ProQuest>. Accessed on November 18, 2022. Ritter, S. A. and A. O. Cerovski. 1990. 1990 update on the status and distribution of colonially nesting waterbirds in Wyoming. Cheyenne, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. Ryder, R. A. and D. E. Manry. 2020. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, J. E. Hines, D. J. Ziolkowski Jr., K. L. Pardieck, J. E. Fallon, and W. A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2015. Version 2.07.2017. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD, USA. Schmidt, C. A. 2003a. Conservation Assessment for the Long-eared Myotis in the Black Hills National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. USDA Forest Service, Custer, South Dakota. 22pp. Available online: <https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5226881.pdf>. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Schmidt, C.A. 2003b. Conservation Assessment for the Small-Footed Myotis in the Black Hills National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Custer, South Dakota. 22pp. Available from: <https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5226908.pdf>. Accessed on September 30, 2021. Smith, H., and D.A. Keinath. 2004a. Species Assessment for Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Available from: https://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/mountainplovernov2004.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021.

December 2022 | 54

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Smith, H., and D.A. Keinath. 2004b. Species Assessment for Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/northerngoshawkfeb2004.pdf.> Accessed on September 27, 2021. Spagnuolo, V. 2016. Wyoming Common Loon (Gavia immer) Summary Report 2015, in Threatened, Endangered, and Nongame Bird and Mammal Investigations: Annual Completion Report (Orabona, A. C., Ed.). Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Available from: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Hunting/JCRS/JCR_NONGAMEACR_201 6.pdf>. Accessed on September 24, 2021. Squires, J. R., R. T. Reynolds, J. Orta, and J. S. Marks. 2020. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (S. M. Billerman, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Thuermer, Jr., A.M. 2021. Game and fish issues 2K new elk tags as herds exceed goals. Casper Star Tribune published June 6, 2021. Available from <https://trib.com/outdoors/game-and-fishissues-2k-new-elk-tags-as-herds-exceed-goals/article_f9341774-ecd7-5402-bcbdb963c12b9e6f.html>. Accessed on December 7, 2021. Travsky, A., and G.P. Beauvais. 2004. Species assessment for Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in Wyoming. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/baldeaglenov2004.pdf>. Accessed on September 23, 2021. Travsky, A., and G.P. Beauvais. 2004. Species assessment for Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) in Wyoming. Natural Diversity Database and USDI Bureau of Land Management, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. Available online: <http://www.uwyo.edu/wyndd/_files/docs/reports/speciesassessments/ferruginoushawkjan2005.pdf>. Accessed on September 23, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Northern Leopard Frog. Available from: <https://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/nleopard_frog.html>. Accessed on: September 27, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Bald and Golden Eagles: Population Demographics and Estimation of Sustainable Take in the United States, 2016 Update. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, DC, USA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Finds Endangered Species Act Listing for Monarch Butterfly Warranted but Precluded. Press Release dated December 15, 2020. Available from: <https://www.fws.gov/news/ShowNews.cfm?ref=u.s.fish-and-wildlife-service-finds-endangered-species-act-listing-for-&_ID=36817>. Accessed December 5, 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020b. Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report, Version 2.1. September 2020. 96 pp +appendices. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Information for Planning and Consultation resource list. Generated on 7 December 2021. Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Report generated from: <https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ >.

December 2022 | 55

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021b. National Wetlands Inventory data for Wyoming. Geospatial data available for download from: <https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/DataDownload.html>. Accessed on September 7, 2021. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Gap Analysis Program. 20160513. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey. Available online: <https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0>. Accessed on 20 April 2021. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017a. Great Basin Spadefoot Species Habitat Model. USGS GAP Analysis Program. Spatial dataset. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.5066/F7DR2SR2>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017b. Northern Leopard Frog Species Habitat Model. USGS GAP Analysis Program. Spatial dataset. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.5066/F7513WH4>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2017c. Long-billed Curlew Species Habitat Model. USGS GAP Analysis Program. Spatial dataset. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.5066/F7H130B7>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Western Spotted Skunk Species Habitat Model. USGS GAP Analysis Program. Spatial dataset. Available from: <Western Spotted Skunk (Spilogale gracilis) mWSSKx_CONUS_2001v1 Habitat Map - ScienceBase-Catalog>. Accessed on November 18, 2022. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2011. BLM Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) Wyoming Basin 2011 Topographic Roughness Index Mean 270 m window. Geospatial data available from: <https://landscape.blm.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B454FF 8B0-BD7C-43C6-8E84-45B0740148F0%7D>. Accessed on September 23, 2021. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Western United States Fire Perimeters Since 1984. Geospatial dataset from the Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Wyoming. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2021. Climate Summary for the Period of Record (1892– 2016) in McGill, Nevada (Station 264950). Available online <https://wrcc.dri.edu/summary/>. Accessed June 28, 2021. Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, NV. White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. 2020. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (S. M. Billerman, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. Whiting, J.C., B. Doering, G. Wright, D.K. Englestead, J.A. Frye, T. Stefanic, and B.J. Sewall. 2018. Long-term bat abundance in sagebrush steppe. Scientific Reports 8: 12288. Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). 2021. Major Roads. Geospatial data available from: <https://gis.wyoroad.info/ >. Accessed on September 23, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2002. Pronghorn Antelope. Habitat Extension Bulletin No. 28. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/Extension%20Bulletins/B28Pronghorn-Antelope.pdf>. Accessed on October 14, 2021.

December 2022 | 56

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2012. 2012 big game crucial and seasonal range boundaries for Wyoming. ArcGIS Shapefile. Available from: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Wildlife-inWyoming/Geospatial-Data/Big-Game-GIS-Data>. Accessed on December 6, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2015a. Evaluating the Status of Spotted Skunks (Spilogale spp.) in Wyoming. In Annual Completion Report. Available from: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Hunting/JCRS/JCR_NONGAMEACR_201 5.pdf>. Accessed November 18, 2022. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2015b. Standardized definitions for seasonal wildlife ranges – revised November 2015. Available from: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Get%20Involved/ShirleyRangeDefinitions.pdf>. Accessed on December 6, 2021.Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2016. Antelope Seasonal Range Boundaries – 2016 for Wyoming and 1:100,000. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Wildlife-in-Wyoming/Geospatial-Data/Big-Game-GISData>. Accessed on October 14, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017a. Northern Leopard Frog. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Amphibians/NorthernLeopard-Frog.pdf>. Accessed September 23, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017b. Wyoming Species Account. Bald Eagle. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/BaldEagle.pdf>. Accessed on September 23, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017c. Wyoming Species Account. Brewer’s Sparrow. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/BrewersSparrow.pdf>. Accessed on September 23, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017d. Wyoming Species Account. Bald Eagle. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/BaldEagle.pdf>. Accessed on September 23, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017e. Wyoming Species Account. Common Loon. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/Common-Loon.pdf>. Accessed on September 24, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017f. Wyoming Species Account. Ferruginous Hawk. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/FerruginousHawk.pdf>. Accessed on September 24, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017g. Wyoming Species Account. Golden Eagle. Available Online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/Golden-Eagle.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017h. Wyoming Species Account. Loggerhead Shrike. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/LoggerheadShrike.pdf>. Accessed on September 24, 2021.

December 2022 | 57

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017i. Wyoming Species Account. Long-billed Curlew. Available online <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/Long-BilledCurlew.pdf>. Accessed on September 24, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017j. Wyoming Species Account. Mountain Plover. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/Mountain-Plover.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017k. Wyoming Species Account. Northern Goshawk. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/NorthernGoshawk.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017l. Wyoming Species Account. Peregrine Falcon. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/PeregrineFalcon.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017m. Wyoming Species Account. Sage Thrasher. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/Sage-Thrasher.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017n. Wyoming Species Account. Sagebrush Sparrow. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/SagebrushSparrow.pdf>. Accessed on September 27, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017o. Wyoming Species Account. White-faced Ibis. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Birds/White-FacedIbis.pdf.> Accessed on September 28, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017p. Wyoming Species Account. Bighorn Sheep. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/BighornSheep.pdf>. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017q. Wyoming Species Account. Fringed Myotis. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/FringedMyotis.pdf>. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017r. Wyoming Species Account. Long-eared Myotis. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/Long-EaredMyotis.pdf>. Accessed September 28, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017s. Wyoming Species Account. Northern River Otter. Available online:

December 2022 | 58

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

<https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/Northern-RiverOtter.pdf>. Accessed on September 28, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017t. Wyoming Species Account. Pallid Bat. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Wildlife/Nongame/WYBAT_CONSERVATI ONPLAN.pdf>. Accessed on September 29, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017u. Wyoming Species Account. Pygmy Rabbit. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/PygmyRabbit.pdf>. Accessed September 28, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017v. Wyoming Species Account. Swift Fox. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/Swift-Fox.pdf>. Accessed on September 29, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017w. Wyoming Species Account. Townsend’s Bigeared Bat. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/Townsends-BigEared-Bat.pdf>. Accessed September 29, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017x. Wyoming Species Account. Western Smallfooted Myotis. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/Western-SmallFooted-Myotis.pdf>. Accessed on September 30, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2017y. Wyoming Species Account. White-tailed Prairie Dog. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/White-tailedPrairie-Dog.pdf>. Accessed on September 30, 2021 Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). Wyoming Species Account. Wyoming Pocket Gopher. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/SWAP/Mammals/WyomingPocket-Gopher.pdf>. Accessed on September 30, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2018. Elk Seasonal Range Boundaries – 2018 for Wyoming at 1:100,000. Available online: <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Wildlife-inWyoming/Geospatial-Data/Big-Game-GIS-Data>. Accessed on October 14, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2019. Black Canyon Hydro, LLC., Pre-Application Request for Information, Seminoe Pumped Storage Project, FERC Information Request – Carbon County, Wyoming. Letter dated December 6, 2019. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2020. Ferris-Seminoe Bighorn Sheep Herd Objective Review, May 2020. Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation. Available from: < https://wyomingwildsheep.org/Resources/documents/transplants/Ferris-Seminoe-BighornSheep-Herd-Objective-Update2020-rls-edits.pdf>. Accessed on December 6, 2021. Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2021. Mule Deer Seasonal Range Boundaries – 2021 for Wyoming at 1:100,000. Available online at <https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Wildlife-inWyoming/Geospatial-Data/Big-Game-GIS-Data>. Accessed on October 14, 2021. December 2022 | 59

Habitat Assessment & RTE Species Evaluation Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2010a. Great Basin Spadefoot (Spea intermontana) Range Map and Distribution Model. Spatial database available online at <https://wyndd.org/species_list/?pointerType=dataDownloadLinks>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2010b. Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) Range Map and Distribution Model. Spatial database available online at <https://wyndd.org/species_list/?pointerType=dataDownloadLinks>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2010c. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Range Map and Distribution Model. Spatial database available online at <https://wyndd.org/species_list/?pointerType=dataDownloadLinks>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2010d. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) Range Map and Distribution Model. Spatial database available online at <https://wyndd.org/species_list/?pointerType=dataDownloadLinks>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2010e. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi) Range Map and Distribution Model. Spatial database available online at <https://wyndd.org/species_list/?pointerType=dataDownloadLinks>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2010f. Northern River Otter (Lontra canadensis) Range Map and Distribution Model. Spatial database available online at <https://wyndd.org/species_list/?pointerType=dataDownloadLinks>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2015. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): model version 2015-04-29. Spatial database available online at <https://wyndd.org/species_list/?pointerType=dataDownloadLinks>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2021. Data Explorer (Species Observations, Distribution Models, and Range Maps). Available from: <https://wyndd.org/data_explorer.php>. Accessed on November 26, 2021. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD). 2022. Western Spotted Skunk (Spilogale gracilis). Available from: <https://fieldguide.wyndd.org/?species=spilogale%20gracilis>. Accessed on November 18, 2022. Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO). 2021. Wyoming Statewide Perennial Water Features dataset. Wyoming State Water Plan. Spatial data available from: <https://waterplan.state.wy.us/gis/gis.html>. Accessed on September 23, 2021.

December 2022 | 60

Appendix A Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Plan

December 2022 | A-61

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Plan March 17, 2021

1.0

Introduction

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon Hydro) is proposing the licensing, construction, and operation of the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) (Project) in Carbon County, Wyoming, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, on the North Platte River. The proposed Project would entail the construction of a new 750 megawatt (MW) plant including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission line, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); these operations would not be affected by the Project’s pumped storage operations. Black Canyon Hydro has initiated a licensing process for the Project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency with jurisdiction over non-federal hydropower projects in the United States. During this process, Black Canyon Hydro will engage stakeholders and implement a suite of resource studies that will inform FERC’s environmental and developmental analyses and decision regarding license issuance. This document presents Black Canyon Hydro’s proposed approach to the scoping and implementation of a Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) Species Evaluation Study for the Project that would be provided to FERC to assist in the licensing analyses. Black Canyon Hydro anticipates filing a Final License Application with FERC in August 2022.

2.0

Project Nexus and Study Goals

Construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project may have the potential to affect vegetation and wildlife habitats. These effects may be direct (e.g., result of ground-disturbing activities, such as mechanical or chemical clearing of vegetation or trampling of plants), indirect (e.g., due to construction activity that results in erosion of adjacent land), or cumulative (e.g., caused by a Project activity in association with a non-Project activity, such as loss of habitat due to the introduction of invasive plants from a non-Project vector). The goal of this study is to characterize and describe the vegetation types and wildlife habitats within the Study Area and their potential to support Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed or other special-status species. This study includes the following objectives: •

Develop ground-truthed mapping of vegetation cover classes and land use in the Study Area, including assessments of habitat structure and condition.

•

Develop lists of potential wildlife species corresponding to the vegetation cover types present in the Study Area.

•

Note the occurrence of wildlife sightings (including raptors and raptor nests) during the course of the field work.

Page 1

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Plan

3.0

Summary of Existing Information

A full description of existing information can be found in the Pre-Application Document (PAD; Black Canyon Hydro 2020). Information on habitat types was collected from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems data, which is based on the NatureServe Ecological Systems Classification. There are 22 habitat types identified within the Conceptual Project Boundary (USGS 2011). Table 1 provides the total acreages for all habitat types encompassed within the Conceptual Project Boundary, however, less land may be required as Black Canyon Hydro further assesses Project requirements. Table 2 provides the total acreages for the 27 habitat types identified within 0.5 miles of the proposed Project. As shown in Table 1, there are two dominant habitat types in the Conceptual Project Boundary. The Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe, which makes up approximately 33 percent of the Conceptual Project Boundary; and the Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub, which makes up an additional 29 percent of the Project vicinity. Lesser occurrences of three habitat types collectively make up approximately 27 percent of the Project vicinity. These include Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland, Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland, and Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe. Remaining habitats collectively make up approximately 11 percent of the Project vicinity’s habitat types identified. Table 1. Habitat Types Identified within the Conceptual Project Boundary. Habitat Type Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest Southern Rocky Mountain Dry – Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland Open Water (Fresh) Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity

Total

Acreage 334.58 3.35

Percentage 9.5% <1%

1.86

<1%

4.04

<1%

34.26 13.86 11.24 35.68 86.28 62.52 1004.35 373.61 1,151.24 236.31 12.24 31.15 44.05 8.6 27.42 21.81 10.91 1.77 3,514.15

1% <1% <1% 1% 2% 2% 29% 11% 33% 7% <1% <1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

Source: USGS 2011.

Page 2

March 17, 2021

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Plan

Table 2. Habitat Types Identified Within 0.5 Miles of the Proposed Reservoirs. Habitat Type Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest Southern Rocky Mountain Dry – Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland Western Great Plains Floodplain Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie Great Plains Prairie Pothole Western Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe Inter-Mountain Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop Inter-Mountain Basins Active and Stabilized Dune Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland Pasture/Hay Open Water (Fresh) Developed, Open Space Developed, Low Intensity Developed, Medium Intensity

Total

1,878.71 5.29

Percentag e 3% <1%

14.36

<1%

30.98

<1%

3.4 820.09 22.74 3.94 0.36 90.61 1,899.85 698.67 2,096.42 10,210.60 5,529.38 9,209.94 18.21 3,453.84 19.45 787.70 507.43 249.40 0.44 19,460.69 84.10 11.92 1.43 57,109.95

<1% 1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 3% 1% 4% 18% 10% 16% 1% 6% 1% 1% 1% <1% <1% 34% <1% <1% <1%

Acreage

Source: USGS 2011.

March 17, 2021

Page 3

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Plan

4.0

Methods

4.1

Study Area

The Study Area will include lands within the Conceptual Project Boundary (Attachment 1). The surrounding landscape, including topography, land cover, and land use, will be considered in assessing use by wildlife species. Raptor nest surveys will be conducted within 1 mile of the Conceptual Project Boundary.

4.2

Study Methods

A Habitat Assessment and RTE Species Evaluation Study will be conducted consisting of four tasks: 1. Vegetation Mapping; 2. Wildlife Habitat Assessment; 3. Raptor Nest Survey; and 4. Reporting

4.2.1

Vegetation Mapping

Prior to field efforts, maps will be created depicting existing USGS GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems data mapping for the Study Area. These maps will be used to select representative vegetation polygons for ground-truthing and field verification. In the field, vegetation types will be mapped on an aerial photograph at a scale of approximately 1 inch equals 250 feet (1″ = 250′) or as appropriate for local conditions. Where vegetation overlaps another type of mapping unit (e.g., a tree canopy over water or roads), the area will be mapped according to the uppermost layer of vegetation. A minimum mapping unit of 0.5 acre will be used when differentiating vegetation types. Some vegetation types may be mapped below the level of 0.5 acre, such as vegetation types typically associated with wetlands, at the discretion of the surveyor. For each vegetation type observed in the field, species composition and percent cover will be recorded on vegetation mapping forms. General habitat condition will be assessed for each polygon using indicators such as level of disturbance, presence and relative dominance of non-native species, and availability of habitat structures. Additionally, field surveyors will record observations of wildlife encountered during field work, with a focus on special-status species and other species of interest. Depending on the access road network of a given portion of the Study Area, vegetation mapping will generally focus on road-accessible polygons. However, some areas are expected to be covered on foot. If an area is determined to be inaccessible due to high vegetation density, extreme distance from a vehicle-accessible road, or due to safety concerns, then the following method will be followed using Geographical Information Software (GIS) software in the office: •

Vegetation morphology and topography will be closely assessed for inaccessible areas using a combination of GIS software and Google Earth Imagery.

•

The nearest area with ground-truthed vegetation data that appears the most similar to an inaccessible area based on aerial features such as color, shading, slope, and texture will be used to extrapolate into the inaccessible area. Areas that require extrapolation will be noted in study reporting.

Page 4

March 17, 2021

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Plan

•

For any areas that cannot be accessed and cannot be extrapolated, the final vegetation map will default to the USGS GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems data desktop mapping. Areas that require defaulting to the USGS GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems data will be noted in study reporting.

Due to the low level of complexity of the Study Area, it is expected that only one-third of the total acreage will need to be directly ground-truthed. The remaining areas will be extrapolated based on data gathered during the field surveys.

4.2.2

Wildlife Habitat Assessment

Following ground-truthing, cover type maps will be interpreted by a qualified wildlife biologist experienced with Wyoming habitats to develop lists of wildlife potentially occurring in each vegetation type. This information will be combined with field data on habitat condition to describe the potential for wildlife use of the Study Area, and potential for the Project to adversely affect wildlife or key wildlife habitats. Additionally, areas of unusual habitat types or high-quality habitats of note will be documented, and significant wildlife sightings or observations (e.g., predatory bird nests, burrows with evidence of burrowing owl use, or any observation of ESA-listed or other special-status species) will be delineated on field maps, included in figures, and noted in study reporting.

4.2.3

Raptor Nest Survey

A ground-based raptor nest survey will be conducted within the Conceptual Project Boundary and a one-mile buffer. One round of surveys will be conducted between mid-May and early June to coincide with the peak nesting period for most species. Biologists will search for and map potential raptor nesting substrate including cliffs, rock outcrops, trees, and prairie dog colonies (burrowing owl potential nesting). The raptor species likely to use each mapped nesting substrate will be listed. Nest surveys will focus on potential nesting substrate. Surveys will be conducted by foot and vehicle; no aircraft will be required. Access to survey areas will occur via public roads and public land. Biologists will not access private lands unless expressly permitted by Black Canyon Hydro and the landowner. Where access is restricted, biologists will use spotting scopes and binoculars to survey for raptors and to document potential nesting substrate. Areas where access restrictions limit the effectiveness of the surveys will also be noted. If nests are observed, biologists will record the status, condition, species present, number of adults, number of young/eggs (if possible), and any other pertinent notes to facilitate inclusion in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) raptor nest database. The results of the raptor nest survey will be compared to and added to the current BLM raptor nest database.

4.2.4

Reporting

A Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Report will be prepared that will summarize sampling efforts and include maps detailing habitat types located within the Conceptual Project Boundary.

5.0

Schedule

The field portion of this study will be conducted in 2021. A final report will be developed following the completion of 2021 efforts.

March 17, 2021

Page 5

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Plan

6.0

References

Black Canyon Hydro. 2020. Pre-Application Document Seminoe Pumped Storage Project FERC No. 14787. April 20, 2020. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Gap Analysis Program. 20160513. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey. [Online] URL: https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0.

Page 6

March 17, 2021

Attachment 1 Conceptual Project Boundary Map

Appendix B U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation Unofficial Species List

December 2022 | B-1

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

IPaC

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location

Carbon County, Wyoming

Local office Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office  

(307) 772-2374 (307) 772-2358

334 Parsley Boulevard Cheyenne, WY 82007-4178

http://www.fws.gov/wyominges/ https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

1/10

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species1 and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries2).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Birds https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

2/10

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

NAME

STATUS

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus

Threatened

Whooping Crane Grus americana

Endangered

There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6039

There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758

Fishes NAME

STATUS

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus

Endangered

Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7162

Insects NAME

STATUS

Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus

Candidate

Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743

Flowering Plants NAME

STATUS

Blowout Penstemon Penstemon haydenii

Endangered

Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis

Threatened

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Platanthera praeclara

Threatened

Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6172

Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159

Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1669

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

3/10

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

Critical habitats Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.

Migratory birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

4/10

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

NAME

BREEDING SEASON (IF A BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus

Breeds May 15 to Aug 10

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus

Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 15

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3638

Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence ( )

Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

5/10

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season ( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort ( ) Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data ( ) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. probability of presence SPECIES

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

breeding season JUL

AUG

SEP

survey effort

no data

OCT

DEC

NOV

Evening Grosbeak BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.)

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

6/10

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Mountain Plover BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.)

Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

7/10

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

8/10

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities

Wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries REFUGE AND FISH HATCHERY INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME

This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

9/10

12/7/21, 10:54 AM

IPaC: Explore Location resources

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/BHY44Z3V3ZHZZNFHSEILI46YNI/resources

10/10

Appendix C List of All Special Status Species Considered for Analysis, Likelihood to Occur in Study Area, Habitat Associations, and Summary of Modeling Methods

December 2022 | C-1

Common Name

Scientific Name

Status

Study Area Located within Known Range of Species

Likelihood of Occurrence in Study Area

Brief Range/Habitat Description

Summary of Habitat Modeling Methods

Insects Monarch Butterfly

Danaus plexippus

ESA Candidate

Yes

Unlikely

Rare in study area, but can occur in association with milkweed which are found in mesic habitats.

1) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D) 2) NWI wetlands except lake

Boreal Toad

Anaxyrus boreas

SGCN Tier I/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Study area located outside current range, but within historic range. Habitat includes subalpine ponds and streams from 6,500-11,500 ft amsl.

Columbia Spotted Frog

Rana luteiventris

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Range in Wyoming includes forests and mountains of the western, northwest, and north-central portions of the State.

Great Basin Spadefoot

Spea intermontana

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Unlikely

Xeric adapted amphibian. Found throughout most landcover types within up to 5 km of permanent or ephemeral water sources. Breeding depends on waterbodies.

1) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D). 2) NWI wetlands (except lake and riverine) 3) Perennial water features

Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Crotalus oreganus concolor

SGCN Tier I/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Range limited to southwest Wyoming near Rock Springs; species not found in study area.

Northern Leopard Frog

Lithobates pipiens

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Data)

Near permanent water in any upland type, particularly marshy wetlands.

High Quality: 1) NWI wetlands except lake and riverine, 2) GAP species model. Moderate Quality: 1) 100 m buffer of all wetlands except riverine, 2) 100 m buffer of all perennial rivers.

Baird's Sparrow

Ammodramus bairdii

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Unlikely

Study area located within migratory route, occurrence is unlikely and intermittent.

Bald Eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Aquatic and riparian wetland systems; nest in deciduous trees; forage near open water and rivers, or for carrion along roads.

Nesting: Deciduous trees - digitized from aerial imagery Foraging: Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers, Seminoe Reservoir from Wyoming perennial water features dataset; major gravel roads from WYDOT dataset

Brewer's Sparrow

Spizella breweri

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Sagebrush obligate; also nests in shrubland openings of forests and riparian saltbush shrublands.

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

Burrowing Owl

Athene cunicularia

SGCN Tier I/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Data)

Nests almost exclusively in prairie dog colonies and other burrows.

Used white-tailed prairie dog habitat model.

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Study area located in historic but not current range.

Common Loon

Gavia immer

SGCN Tier I

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Occasional visitor during migration; known to stopover on Seminoe Reservoir

Perennial water feature (Seminoe Reservoir) from WY GAP Project

Ferruginous Hawk

Buteo regalis

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Open and mountainous shrub/scrub and woodlands

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

Golden Eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

SGCN Tier II

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Open and mountainous shrub/scrub and cliffs/canyons

1) Nest density model (Dunk et al. 2019); 2) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D) 3) Terrain Roughness Index (TRI)

Greater Sage-grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

See Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Report

Loggerhead Shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Open shrub/scrub and meadows, woodlands, edge habitat

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

Amphibians/Reptiles

Birds

December 2022 | C-2

Common Name

Scientific Name

Status

Study Area Located within Known Range of Species

Likelihood of Occurrence in Study Area

Brief Range/Habitat Description

Summary of Habitat Modeling Methods

Long-billed Curlew

Numenius americanus

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Likely

Short and mixed-grass prairie, flat to rolling terrain; avoid trees, tall grasses, shrubs, and dense vegetation; near water.

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

Mountain Plover

Charadrius montanus

SGCN Tier I/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Likely

Grassland and desert shrub, flat/rolling terrain, at least 50% bare ground.

1) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D) 2) Terrain Roughness Index (TRI; inverted to select flat terrain) 3) WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

SGCN Tier I/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Unlikely

Mature, old-growth forests with dense canopy.

1) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D) 2) WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrinus

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Data)

Cliffs near waterbodies, river and lake bluffs

1) Terrain Roughness Index (TRI) 2) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D) 3) WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Piping Plover

Charadrius melodus

ESA Threatened

Does Not Occur

Platte River Species

Sage Thrasher

Oreoscoptes montanus

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Sagebrush obligate; desert shrublands, grasslands, and juniper woodlands

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

Sagebrush Sparrow

Artemisiospiza nevadensis

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Sagebrush obligate; desert tall shrublands, steppe, and grasslands.

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

Trumpeter Swan

Cygnus buccinators

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Study area located in historic but not current range.

White-faced Ibis

Plegadis chihi

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Unlikely

Marshes, ponds, mudflats, swamps; emergent vegetation.

1) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D) 2) WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Whooping Crane

Grus americana

ESA Endangered

Does Not Occur

Platte River Species

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Study area located outside known range and suitable habitat does not exist in the study area.

Bighorn Sheep

Ovis canadensis

SGCN Tier II

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Steep, rocky terrain of desert, alpine, and forested areas.

WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Black-footed Ferret

Mustela nigripes

SGCN Tier I

Does Not Occur

Species occurs in highly isolated reintroduced populations, of which none are in or near the study area.

Black-tailed Prairie Dog

Cynomys ludovicianus

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Species occurs in the plains of eastern Wyoming, not found in study area.

Elk

Cervus canadensis

Big Game

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Alpine and subalpine grasslands, woodlands, and meadows

WGFD Seasonal and Crucial Range Mapping

Fringed Myotis

Myotis thysanodes

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Data)

Roosts in caves, mines, buildings, bridges, rock crevices, ponderosa pines and other trees in forests with low canopy closure in proximity to water; forages in woodlands near wetlands and riparian areas.

WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Idaho Pocket Gopher

Thomomys idahoensis

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Range limited to southeast Wyoming; species not found in study area.

Long-eared Myotis

Myotis evotis

SGCN Tier III/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Data)

Roosts in caves, mines, buildings, bridges, rock crevices, forests of all types; forages in wooded riparian, ponds and lakes and rivers near forests.

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

Mule Deer

Odocoileus hemionus

Big Game

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Habitat generalist, prefers meadows, woodlands, and forests

WGFD Seasonal and Crucial Range Mapping

Mammals

December 2022 | C-3

Common Name

Scientific Name

Status

Study Area Located within Known Range of Species

Likelihood of Occurrence in Study Area

Brief Range/Habitat Description

Summary of Habitat Modeling Methods

Northern River Otter

Lontra canadensis

SGCN Tier II

Yes

Unlikely

Rivers, streams, marshes, etc with vegetated and stable shorelines and structural complexity.

1) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D) 2) WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Pallid Bat

Antrozous pallidus

SGCN Tier II

Yes

Confirmed (Data)

Cliffs and rock outcrops in desert grasslands, shrublands and rarely in forests.

1) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D) 2) Terrain Roughness Index (TRI)

Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse

Zapus hudsonius preblei

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Range limited to southeast Wyoming; species not found in study area.

Pronghorn Antelope

Antilocapra americana

Big Game

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Open, rolling terrain; sagebrush, steppe, and deserts

WGFD Seasonal and Crucial Range Mapping

Pygmy Rabbit

Brachylagus idahoensis

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Unlikely

Sagebrush obligate; tall dense sagebrush with deep soils.

WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Spotted Bat

Euderma maculatum

SGCN Tier III/BLM Sensitive

Does Not Occur

Range limited to southwest and north-central Wyoming; species not found in study area.

Swift Fox

Vupes velox

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Confirmed (Data)

Shortgrass and mid-grass prairies with shrubs; flat and rolling terrain.

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

Townsend's Big Eared Bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

SGCN Tier II/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Likely

Roosts in caves and abandoned mines; forages at forest edges and riparian corridors, less often in shrublands and montane forests.

WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Western Small-footed Myotis

Myotis ciliolabrum

SGCN Tier II

Yes

Confirmed (Data)

Roosts in cliffs, canyons, rock-outcrops or badlands; forages in forested riparian areas, shrublands, and grasslands.

WYNDD Species Distribution Model

Western Spotted Skunk

Spilogale gracilis

SGCN Tier III

Yes

Likely

Open woodland and shrubland habitat associated with rock outcrops, juniper, and streams

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

White-tailed Deer

Odocoileus virginianus

Big Game

Yes

Confirmed (Data)

Habitat generalist, prefers riparian zones and agricultural fields

WGFD Seasonal and Crucial Range Mapping

White-tailed Prairie Dog

Cynomys leucurus

SGCN Tier II

Yes

Confirmed (Field)

Shrub-steppe, shortgrass prairie, meadow, mountain valleys, and low-relief transitional areas with mixed stands of shrubs and grasses.

1) Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D) 2) WYNDD Species Distribution Model 3) USGS GAP Species Analysis Model 4) Terrain Roughness Index (TRI; inverted to select flat terrain)

Wyoming Pocket Gopher

Thomomys clusius

SGCN Tier I/BLM Sensitive

Yes

Unlikely

Study area at edge of known range, dependent on Gardner's saltbush which is found in shrublands, greasewood flats, and badland landcover types in study area.

Ranking of GAP Landcover Types (see Appendix D)

Species list compiled from USFWS 2021, BLM 2010, and WGFD 2019; range and habitat descriptions compiled from literature cited in Section 3.2 of Study Report Likelihood of Occurrence: confirmed (field) = observed during 2021 wildlife field surveys; confirmed (data) = observations recorded by BLM, WGFD, WYNDD, or another third-party ESA = Endangered Species Act; WGFD = Wyoming Game & Fish Department; WYNDD = Wyoming Natural Diversity Database; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey; SGCN = WGFD Species of Greatest Conservation Need; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; NWI = National Wetlands Inventory

December 2022 | C-4

Appendix D Habitat Suitability Indexes Assigned to Each GAP Landcover Type by Species

December 2022 | D-1

GAP Landcover Type Agriculture

Developed

Open Water

Beach, Shore and Sand

Bluff and Badland

Cliff, Canyon, and Talus

Deciduous Dominated Forest & Woodland

W. Great Plains Cliff & Outcrop

InterMtn Basins Cliff & Canyon

InterMtn Basins Shale Badland

Rocky Mtn Aspen Forest and Woodland

Inter-Mtn Basins Curl-leaf Mtn Mahogany Woodland & Shrubland

Scrub Shrubland

Conifer Dominated Forest & Woodland

Rocky Mtn Foothill Limber PineJuniper Woodland

Steppe

Sagebrush Dominated Shrubland

Lowland Grasslands & Prairie

Introduced Vegetation

Depressional Wetland

Floodplain & Riparian

Rocky Mtn Lodgepole Pine Forest

S. Rocky Mtn DryMesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland

S. Rocky Mtn Ponderosa Pine Woodland

Middle Rocky Mtn Montane Doug-fir Forest & Woodland

Inter Mtn Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

Inter-Mtn Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe

Inter-Mtn Basins Montane Sagebrush Steppe

Inter-Mtn Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland

WY Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland & Steppe

Inter-Mtn Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

NW Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie

Introduced Riparian & Wetland Vegetation

W. Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland

W. Great Plains Closed Depression Wetland

W. Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland

Inter-Mtn Basins Greasewood Flat

W. Great Plains Floodplain

W. Great Plains Riparian Woodland & Shrubland

Developed/ Open Space

Developed/ Low Intensity

Developed/ Medium Intensity

Pasture/ Hay

Open Water

Inter-Mtn Basins Active & Stabilized Dune

Monarch Butterfly Amphibians

Great Basin Spadefoot Northern Leopard Frog Birds

0 NA

2 NA

1 NA

3 NA

0 NA

1 NA

0 NA

2 NA

3 NA

Bald Eagle Brewer's Sparrow Burrowing Owl Common Loon Ferruginous Hawk Golden Eagle Loggerhead Shrike Long-billed Curlew Mountain Plover Northern Goshawk Peregrine Falcon Sage Thrasher Sagebrush Sparrow White-faced Ibis

NA 0 NA NA 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 1 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 1

NA 0 NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1

NA 0 NA NA 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0

NA 0 NA NA 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NA 0 NA NA 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

NA 2 NA NA 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 2 2 0

NA 3 NA NA 3 3 3 0 2 0 0 3 3 0

NA 2 NA NA 3 3 3 2 3 0 0 2 2 0

NA 3 NA NA 3 3 3 1 3 0 0 2 2 0

NA 3 NA NA 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 3 0

NA 1 NA NA 3 3 1 3 3 0 0 1 1 1

NA 0 NA NA 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2

NA 0 NA NA 1 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3

NA 1 NA NA 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0

NA 0 NA NA 2 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 2

NA 0 NA NA 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0

NA NA NA 3 NA 0 1 NA NA 0 NA NA 3 NA 0 0

NA NA NA 3 NA 0 1 NA NA 0 NA NA 1 NA 0 0

NA NA NA 1 NA 0 3 NA NA 3 NA NA 0 NA 3 2

NA NA NA 1 NA 0 3 NA NA 3 NA NA 0 NA 3 1

NA NA NA 1 NA 0 2 NA NA 3 NA NA 0 NA 3 2

NA NA NA 1 NA 0 3 NA NA 3 NA NA 0 NA 3 3

NA NA NA 1 NA 0 3 NA NA 3 NA NA 0 NA 3 1

NA NA NA 1 NA 0 3 NA NA 3 NA NA 0 NA 2 1

NA NA NA 0 NA 0 3 NA NA 3 NA NA 0 NA 3 0

NA NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA 1 0

NA NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA 0 0

NA NA NA 2 NA 0 3 NA NA 2 NA NA 0 NA 0 3

NA NA NA 0 NA 0 0 NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA 0 0

NA NA NA 1 NA 0 1 NA NA 1 NA NA 2 NA 0 0

Species Insects

Mammals Bighorn Sheep Elk Fringed Myotis Long-eared Myotis Mule Deer Northern River Otter Pallid Bat Pronghorn Antelope Pygmy Rabbit Swift Fox Townsend's Big Eared Bat Western Small-footed Myotis Western Spotted Skunk White-tailed Deer White-tailed Prairie Dog Wyoming Pocket Gopher

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) ranking by GAP landcover type for each species which included ranking of GAP landcover type as model input HSI: 3 = high-quality habitat, 2 = moderate-quality habitat, 1 = low-quality habitat, 0 = unsuitable

December 2022 | D-2

Appendix E Field-verified Landcover Mapping within the Vegetation Mapping Study Area

December 2022 | E-1

Benn ett M oun tain Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND WESTERN GREAT PLAINS RIPARIAN WOODLAND AND SHRUBLAND WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 1 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND SOUTHERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRY-MESIC MONTANE MIXED CONIFER FOREST AND WOODLAND WESTERN GREAT PLAINS RIPARIAN WOODLAND AND SHRUBLAND WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 2 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 3 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 4 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 5 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 6 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS CLIFF AND CANYON OPEN WATER (FRESH) ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 7 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS CLIFF AND CANYON OPEN WATER (FRESH) ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND WESTERN GREAT PLAINS FLOODPLAIN

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 8 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE OPEN WATER (FRESH) ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND WESTERN GREAT PLAINS FLOODPLAIN

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 9 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 10 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 11 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND WESTERN GREAT PLAINS RIPARIAN WOODLAND AND SHRUBLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 12 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 13 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 14 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 15 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 16 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 17 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 18 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE WESTERN GREAT PLAINS RIPARIAN WOODLAND AND SHRUBLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 19 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE WESTERN GREAT PLAINS OPEN FRESHWATER DEPRESSION WETLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 20 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE WESTERN GREAT PLAINS OPEN FRESHWATER DEPRESSION WETLAND WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 21 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

H anna Leo Dr aw R d

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS CURL-LEAF MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY WOODLAND AND SHRUBLAND WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 22 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 23 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 24 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Hanna

L eo

D ra wR d

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS CURL-LEAF MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY WOODLAND AND SHRUBLAND

Rural Rd

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

aL eo

Dr aw

PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Page 25 of 66

Dr aw eo aL nn Ha

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE WESTERN GREAT PLAINS

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 26 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

H an

200 FEET

400

e na L o Dr aw Rd PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Page 27 of 66

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, H IGN, and the GIS User Community an Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap na Le contributors, and the GIS user community o D

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 28 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS SHALE BADLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 29 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND H an

na L eo D raw Rd

BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS SHALE BADLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

Shi ners Point Rd

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 30 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

Ha n na Shiners Point Rd

L eo

D ra

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 31 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 32 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 33 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS CURL-LEAF MOUNTAIN MAHOGANY WOODLAND AND SHRUBLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 34 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 35 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE Ha n

FERC PROJECT NO. # na

raw

Rd 0

200 FEET

400

Page 36 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

Hanna Leo Draw Rd

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 37 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

Hanna Leo Draw Rd

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 38 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

Rd Hanna Leo Draw

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 39 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

nn Ha

r oD

R aw

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 40 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

Service R d Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, ra w D GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, o Le na CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, n Ha IGN, and the GIS User Community Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 41 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

d raw R eo D L a an n

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 42 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Hanna Le o Dr aw Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS SHALE ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOTHILL LIMBER PINEJUNIPER WOODLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 43 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

H an n a L e o D ra

w Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS SHALE BADLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 44 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

Han na

L eo

D ra

wR d

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 45 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

Hanna Leo Dr aw Rd

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 46 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

S h ir l ey Mo u nta

LEGEND

BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS GREASEWOOD FLAT INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB WESTERN GREAT PLAINS OPEN FRESHWATER DEPRESSION WETLAND

tai n oun Shi rley M

Rd Loop

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

Ha nna Leo Draw Rd PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

200 FEET

400

Page 47 of 66

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 48 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 49 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

i d ic

w Bo

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 50 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

Shi r le

Ha nna Leo Draw Rd

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

in n ta ou yM

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS GREASEWOOD FLAT

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

op Rd

WESTERN GREAT PLAINS OPEN FRESHWATER DEPRESSION WETLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 51 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Ha n

Le o

D ra wR

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

H ann aD r

Medicine Bow Rd

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

Ha nn

200 FEET

400

Page 52 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

Medicine Bow Rd

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 53 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

B ne di c i

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 54 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

M edicine Bow Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 55 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Medicine Bow Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 56 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Medicine B ow Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 57 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

Medici ne Bow Rd

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 58 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Medici ne Bow Rd

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE PASTURE/HAY WESTERN GREAT PLAINS OPEN FRESHWATER DEPRESSION WETLAND

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 59 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE

Ccr1

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE

ic ul Diff ty R d

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

M edic in

200 FEET

400

e Bow Rd

Page 60 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY

M edicin

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

e B ow R d

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 61 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Me di cin

e Bo w

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS MIXED SALT DESERT SCRUB

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 62 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

LEGEND BOTANICAL SURVEY AREA

M ed i cin e

B ow

DEVELOPED, OPEN SPACE INTER-MOUNTAIN BASINS BIG SAGEBRUSH STEPPE WYOMING BASINS DWARF SAGEBRUSH SHRUBLAND AND STEPPE

DATA SOURCES: Imagery - Esri (2021), Species Locations - HDR (2021)

2021 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE FERC PROJECT NO. #

200 FEET

400

Page 63 of 66 PATH: I:\GIS\PROJECTS\GRIDFLEX\SEMINOE\MAP_DOCS\MXD\BOTANICAL\VEGETAT IONCOMMUNITIES.MXD - USER: SGRIFFIN - DATE: 11/17/2021

Appendix F Maps of Wildlife Habitat Quality Modeled in the Study Area

December 2022 | F-1

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

tte R

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 1

CR 35

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D

HA NN AL EO

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

ALE

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

OR D

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-1. MONARCH BUTTERFLY BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles CR

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

AL E

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-2. GREAT BASIN SPADEFOOT BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D

HA NN AL EO

SONN

YSRD

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

AL E

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

OR D

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-3. NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

NESTING HABITAT

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

FORAGING HABITAT

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

! .

BALD EAGLE NEST (ACTIVE JUNE 2021)

LOCAL ROAD

N. Pla tte R

Miles

CR 1

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D

HA NN AL EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

! .

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Evanston

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

UINTA COUNTY

§ ¨

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

OR D

WASHAKIE COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

Green River

Sheridan

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-4. BALD EAGLE BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

tte R

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 1

CR 35

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D

HA NN AL EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir CR

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

TETON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

ALE

OR D

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

CR GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-5. BREWER'S SPARROW BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

COMMON LOON STOPOVER HABITAT

tte R

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

WATERBODY LOCAL ROAD

I 0

Miles

CR 1

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D

HA NN AL EO

Seminoe Reservoir

YSRD

SONN

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

TETON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

CR GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-6. COMMON LOON BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

N. Pla tte R .

! .

HABITAT QUALITY

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

HISTORIC NESTS (BLM)

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

! .

Seminoe Reservoir

! . ! .

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

TETON COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

! .

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

! .

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

! . CR

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-7. FERRUGINOUS HAWK BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

KNOWN GOLDEN EAGLE NEST LOCATIONS

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

! . ! . ! .

tte R

WATERBODY

LOCAL ROAD

HABITAT QUALITY

HISTORIC (BLM)

HIGH-QUALITY

INACTIVE IN 2021

MODERATE-QUALITY

PROBABLE/UNKNOWN IN 2021

LOW-QUALITY UNSUITABLE

! .

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

! . YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

. !! .

! .

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-8. GOLDEN EAGLE BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla tte R

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

TETON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

AL E

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-9. LOGGERHEAD SHRIKE BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-10. LONG-BILLED CURLEW BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

POTENTIAL HABITAT OBSERVED IN FIELD

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-11. MOUNTAIN PLOVER BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

MODERATE-QUALITY

WATERBODY

LOW-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

Gillette D

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

WESTON COUNTY

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

AL E

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-12. NORTHERN GOSHAWK BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla tte R

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

TETON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-13. PEREGRINE FALCON BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-14. SAGE THRASHER & SAGEBRUSH SPARROW BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

AL E

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-15. WHITE-FACED IBIS BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

WGFD BIGHORN RANGE

HABITAT QUALITY

STUDY AREA

N. Pla tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

CRUCIAL WINTER-YEARLONG

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

WINTER-YEARLONG (SEASONAL)

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

YEARLONG (SEASONAL)

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-16. BIGHORN SHEEP BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

WGFD ELK RANGE

N. Pla tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

CRUCIAL WINTER-YEARLONG

WATERBODY

SUMMER (SEASONAL)

LOCAL ROAD

WINTER-YEARLONG (SEASONAL) YEARLONG (SEASONAL) PARTURITION AREAS

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-17. ELK BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

tte R

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

AL E

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-18. FRINGED MYOTIS BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla tte R

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

. UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

TETON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-19. LONG-EARED MYOTIS BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

WGFD MULE DEER RANGE

tte R

CRUCIAL WINTER-YEARLONG

WATERBODY

SUMMER (SEASONAL)

LOCAL ROAD

WINTER-YEARLONG (SEASONAL)

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

YEARLONG (SEASONAL)

I 0

Miles CR

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

AL E

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-20. MULE DEER BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

NATRONA COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-21. NORTHERN RIVER OTTER BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

tte R

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

SONN

YSRD

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

AL E

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

PLATTE COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-22. PALLID BAT BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

WGFD PRONGHORN RANGE

tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

CRUCIAL WINTER-YEARLONG

WATERBODY

SUMMER (SEASONAL)

LOCAL ROAD

WINTER-YEARLONG (SEASONAL) YEARLONG (SEASONAL)

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-23. PRONGHORN BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

HABITAT QUALITY

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

LOW-QUALITY

tte R

WATERBODY

UNSUITABLE

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

LOCAL ROAD

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-24. PYGMY RABBIT BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

HABITAT QUALITY

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

tte R

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

Sheridan

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-25. SWIFT FOX BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

tte R

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles CR

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Evanston

Gillette

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

WESTON COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

UINTA COUNTY

§ ¨

WASHAKIE COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

Green River

Sheridan

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-26. TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

NATRONA COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-27. WESTERN SMALL-FOOTED MYOTIS BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla tte R

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 1

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D

HA NN AL EO

YSRD

SONN

NATRONA COUNTY

Evanston

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

UINTA COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

§ ¨

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

Green River

Sheridan

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-28. WESTERN SPOTTED SKUNK BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

WGFD WHITE-TAILED DEER RANGE

N. Pla

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

WINTER-YEARLONG (SEASONAL)

WATERBODY

YEARLONG (SEASONAL)

tte R

LOCAL ROAD

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD

SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

TETON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

§ ¨ 90

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-29. WHITE-TAILED DEER BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

N. Pla

STUDY AREA

tte R .

# *

HABITAT QUALITY

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY

WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG OBSERVATIONS

UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

# * YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

# *

# * #* * #

Sheridan

Gillette D

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

WESTON COUNTY

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

AL E

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY

NATRONA COUNTY

SUBLETTE COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨

PLATTE COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-30. WHITE-TAILED PRAIRIE DOG & BURROWING OWL BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

STUDY AREA

HABITAT QUALITY

N. Pla tte R .

CONCEPTUAL PROJECT BOUNDARY

HIGH-QUALITY

WATERBODY

MODERATE-QUALITY

LOCAL ROAD

LOW-QUALITY UNSUITABLE

I 0

Miles

CR 3 5

SEMINO

ER D

U N N AM E D HA NN AL

EO RD

YSRD SONN

Seminoe Reservoir

SHERIDAN COUNTY PARK COUNTY

Sheridan

Gillette WESTON COUNTY

WASHAKIE COUNTY

§ ¨

NATRONA COUNTY

Green River UINTA COUNTY

Evanston

Casper

Project Vicinity

LINCOLN COUNTY

§ ¨

Rock Springs 80 SWEETWATER COUNTY

CARBON COUNTY

NIOBRARA COUNTY

CONVERSE COUNTY

§ ¨ 25

PLATTE COUNTY

FREMONT COUNTY SUBLETTE COUNTY

AL E

HOT SPRINGS COUNTY

JOHNSON COUNTY

TETON COUNTY

CROOK COUNTY

CAMPBELL COUNTY

BIGHORN COUNTY

GOSHEN COUNTY

ALBANY COUNTY

Laramie

LARAMIE COUNTY

Cheyenne

FIGURE F-31. WYOMING POCKET GOPHER BLACK CANYON HYDRO, LLC

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix H Recreation Resources Study Report

Recreation Resources Study 2022 Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC FERC No. 14787 Carbon County, Wyoming

December 2022

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Contents 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3

Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................... 1

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1

Recreation Facility Inventory and Condition Assessment ......................................................... 5

2.2

Reporting ................................................................................................................................... 6

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1

Recreation Facility Inventory and Condition Assessment ......................................................... 7 3.1.1 Kortes Reservoir Facilities ........................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Seminoe State Park North Red Hills Area ................................................................. 10 3.1.3 Seminoe State Park South Red Hills Area ................................................................. 12 3.1.4 Seminoe State Park Sunshine Beach ........................................................................ 15 3.1.5 Seminoe State Park Sand Mountain Day Use Area .................................................. 18 3.1.6 Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook...................................................................... 20 3.1.7 Miracle Mile Public Access ......................................................................................... 22 3.1.8 Other Nearby Recreation ........................................................................................... 25

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 28

References ........................................................................................................................................ 29

December 2022 | i

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figures Figure 1-1. Project Area ................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 1-2. Recreation Areas Inventoried for Recreation Resources Study ................................................. 4 Figure 3-1. Entrance Road to Kortes Reservoir Facilities ............................................................................. 8 Figure 3-2. Parking Area, Picnic Table, and Display at Kortes Reservoir Facilities ..................................... 8 Figure 3-3. Restroom Facilities at Kortes Reservoir Facilities ...................................................................... 9 Figure 3-4. Picnic Table, Firepit, and View of Seminoe Dam at Kortes Reservoir Facilities ........................ 9 Figure 3-5. Informational Kiosk and Pay Station at North Red Hills Area Entrance ................................... 11 Figure 3-6. Short Loop Trail with Interpretive Signage ............................................................................... 11 Figure 3-7. Restroom Facilities and Parking at the North Red Hills Area ................................................... 12 Figure 3-8. Boat Launch Area at the North Red Hills Area ......................................................................... 12 Figure 3-9. Informational Kiosk and Pay Station at the Entrance to the South Red Hills Area .................. 13 Figure 3-10. Playground and Restrooms .................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-11. Low Water Levels at South Red Hills Boat Launch ................................................................ 14 Figure 3-12. Campsite with Picnic Table, Fire Pit, and Awning .................................................................. 15 Figure 3-13. Informational Kiosk and Pay Station at Sunshine Beach ....................................................... 16 Figure 3-14. Campsite at Sunshine Beach ................................................................................................. 16 Figure 3-15. Group Campsite at Sunshine Beach ...................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-16. Gravel Parking Area at Sunshine Beach ................................................................................ 17 Figure 3-17. Access Road to the Sand Mountain Day Use Area................................................................ 18 Figure 3-18. Covered Picnic Area and Parking Lot .................................................................................... 19 Figure 3-19. Restricted Vehicle Access Signage ........................................................................................ 19 Figure 3-20. ADA-Accessible Parking Space with Sand Blown over the Pavement .................................. 20 Figure 3-21. Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook Entrance and Parking Area ..................................... 21 Figure 3-22. Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook Chain-Link Fence .................................................... 21 Figure 3-23. Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Second Overlook Pullout with Bench and Signage ................ 22 Figure 3-24. Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Second Overlook Bench with Eroding Slope .......................... 22 Figure 3-25. ADA-Compliant Parking Space and Restroom ....................................................................... 23 Figure 3-26. ADA-Compliant Trail to Boat Dock ......................................................................................... 24 Figure 3-27. Picnic Shelter near Miracle Mile Bridge .................................................................................. 24 Figure 3-28. Dispersed Camping Sites and Unpaved Roads ..................................................................... 25

Appendices Appendix A. Recreation Resources Study Plan Appendix B. Recreation Facility Inventory and Condition Assessment Forms

December 2022 | ii

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Acronyms and Abbreviations °F

degrees Fahrenheit

ADA

Americans with Disabilities Act

Black Canyon

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

BLM

Bureau of Land Management

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

OHV

off-highway vehicle

Project

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Reclamation

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

RMPPA

Resource Management Plan Planning Area

recreational vehicle

SBC

Seminoe Boat Club, Incorporated

USFS

U.S. Forest Service

WGFD

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

WRCC

Western Regional Climate Center

WSA

Wilderness Study Area

December 2022 | iii

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Introduction

This Recreation Resources Study Report has been prepared for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon), a subsidiary of rPlus Hydro, LLLP, in support of the licensing of the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC or Commission] No. 14787) (Project). This report describes the results of the Recreation Resources Study that was conducted in 2021 and 2022.

1.1

Project Description

On April 20, 2020, Black Canyon submitted a Notice of Intent to file an Application for an Original License and the accompanying Pre-Application Document to FERC for a proposed pumped storage project at and near the existing Seminoe Reservoir, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, in Carbon County (Project). Figure 1-1 shows the general vicinity of the Project. The Project involves the construction of a new 972-megawatt (MW) pumped storage facility including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The proposed upper reservoir would consist of a surface area of 114 acres at normal maximum operating pool. The Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance would also include an underground powerhouse; a power tunnel between the upper reservoir and the powerhouse; a tailrace tunnel between the powerhouse and a new intake in the existing Seminoe Reservoir; a powerhouse access tunnel; a high-voltage transmission tunnel; and a switchyard and transmission line. The Project will connect to the electric grid at the existing Aeolus Substation.

1.2

Study Area

The study area was defined in the Recreation Resources Study Plan, which is included as Appendix A, consisting of developed recreation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the Conceptual Project Boundary (within approximately 2 miles) (Figure 1-2).

1.3

Environmental Setting

The study area occurs in the Foothill Shrublands and Low Mountains and the Rolling Sagebrush Steppe Ecoregions of Wyoming (Chapman 2004). Elevation within the study area ranges from approximately 6,200 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near Seminoe Dam to approximately 7,300 feet amsl at the proposed upper reservoir; much of the elevation along the transmission line corridor is between 6,500 and 6,700 feet amsl. Average temperatures range between approximately 84 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in July to approximately 13 °F in January. The average annual precipitation for the period of record (1948 – 2011) is 12.6 inches and the average annual snowfall is 21.3 inches (WRCC 2022). Recreation resources in the vicinity of the proposed Project include recreation sites and dispersed public lands, wildlife resources, visual resources, waterways, and lakes, each of which provides different recreational opportunities (BLM 2008). The BLM Rawlins Resource Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA) offers a variety of recreational opportunities, primarily for dispersed use requiring undeveloped open space (BLM 2008). December 2022 | 1

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Boating and recreational fishing, including ice fishing, are common uses of Seminoe Reservoir. Walleye, Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, and Cutthroat Trout are all available in Seminoe Reservoir, with Rainbow Trout and Cutthroat Trout stocked annually (Reclamation 2015). Other recreational uses in the Project vicinity are wildlife viewing, hunting, hiking, backpacking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, bicycling, photography, camping, and orienteering (BLM 2008). The “Miracle Mile” is located on the North Platte River between Kortes Dam and Pathfinder Reservoir (Reclamation 2021, Wyoming Game and Fish Department [WGFD] 2019a) and is one of the most popular recreation areas in the vicinity of the Project. Anglers and other recreationists access the approximately 5.5-mile-long reach of the river at numerous locations. The access areas are used yearround and support a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities, including notably fishing, hunting, camping, and floating. An airstrip, used by recreational pilots, is located near Miracle Mile as shown on Figure 1-2. There are no existing recreation facilities within the footprint of the Project’s proposed upper reservoir. The Project’s upper reservoir access road is located adjacent to the Bennett Mountains Wilderness Study Area (WSA). This access road is the only access for the public on the western side of the Bennett Mountain WSA (BLM 2019). The Bennett Mountains WSA encompasses 6,003 acres 1 of mountain plateaus, rocky ledges, and tributary draws offering a primitive and unconfined backcountry recreation experience for visitors (BLM undated). In 2018, a Carbon County advisory committee proposed designating Bennett Mountains WSA lands as a Special Management Area with use and development restrictions (Carbon County Board of Commissioners 2018). Seminoe State Park, administered by the Division of State Parks, Historic Sites, and Trails: Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources (Wyoming State Parks), is open year-round and offers camping, boating, swimming, fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing, bird watching, and all-terrain vehicle touring (Wyoming State Parks 2020). Morgan Creek Wildlife Management Area is located approximately 2 miles west of the proposed Conceptual Project Boundary, near Seminoe Dam, and is managed by the WGFD. The 4,597-acre public access area is open from May 1st to October 31st annually and offers a variety of hunting and hiking opportunities in the rugged Seminoe Mountains (WGFD 2019b).

Through personal communication with the Rawlins BLM Field Office, this acreage may be slightly less, 5,950 acres. December 2022 | 2

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1-1. Project Area

December 2022 | 3

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1-2. Recreation Areas Inventoried for Recreation Resources Study December 2022 | 4

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Methods

The study was conducted in compliance with the study plan (Appendix A). No variances from the study plan were required. Based on comments Black Canyon received from BLM, HDR added Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook and Miracle Mile access locations to the recreation facilities inventoried.

2.1

Recreation Facility Inventory and Condition Assessment

HDR performed a field inventory and condition assessment on September 3 and 24, 2021, May 17, 2022, and October 28, 2022 to document the existing, developed, publicly-administered, recreation facilities located in the immediate vicinity of the Project, which are as follows: •

Kortes Reservoir Facilities

•

Seminoe State Park North Red Hills Area

•

Seminoe State Park South Red Hills Area

•

Seminoe State Park Sunshine Beach

•

Seminoe State Park Sand Mountain Day Use Area

•

Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook

•

Miracle Mile access locations

HDR recorded the following information for each facility: •

A description of the type and location of the existing facility;

•

The type of recreation provided (boat access, angler access, picnicking, etc.);

•

Length and footing materials of any trails;

•

Existing structures, signage, and sanitation;

•

The type of vehicular access and parking (if any);

•

Suitability of facilities to provide recreation opportunities and access for persons with disabilities (i.e., conformance with current Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] standards for accessible design); and

•

Photographic documentation of recreation facilities.

Additionally, a qualitative assessment of the condition of each recreation facility identified above was performed using a general Facilities Inventory and Condition Form (included in the study plan, Appendix A). Using the Facility Inventory and Condition Assessment Form, the recreation amenities available at the facility were rated using the following criteria: (N) Needs replacement (broken or missing components, or non-functional); (R) Needs repair (structural damage or otherwise in obvious disrepair); (M) Needs maintenance (ongoing maintenance issue, primarily cleaning); and (G) Good condition (functional and well-maintained). If a facility was given a rating of “N,” “R,” or “M,” an explanation for the rating is provided.

December 2022 | 5

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

2.2

Reporting

Results of the facility inventory and condition assessment and a summary of desktop research about recreation use in the immediate Project vicinity at Federal and State facilities are summarized and incorporated into this study report. Black Canyon will analyze the effects of Project operation on existing recreation facilities and resources and identify and evaluate any applicable mitigation to potential recreation impacts in the license application, anticipated to be filed with FERC in 2023.

December 2022 | 6

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Results

3.1

Recreation Facility Inventory and Condition Assessment

The completed Facilities Inventory and Condition Forms are included in Appendix B.

3.1.1

Kortes Reservoir Facilities

The Kortes Reservoir Facilities are owned and operated by Reclamation. HDR visited the site on September 3, 2021. The site is primarily used for shore angling along the North Platte River near the tailrace of Seminoe Dam. The site is a popular fishing area upstream of the Miracle Mile. The facilities are unstaffed and open year-round. Both road access and parking lots were noted to be in good condition (G). The road access to the site is unpaved with one entrance, one lane, and signage provided. The parking area is an open gravel lot for approximately 10 vehicles with no delineated parking spots. Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2 show roads and parking areas at the facility. The amenities provided at Kortes Reservoir Facilities include two picnic tables, one fire pit/ring, one restroom, and one interpretive display. There is one vault toilet designed for ADA accessibility. The picnic tables, fire pit/ring, and restroom were in good condition. The informational display presents an outlet works needle valve retired from Seminoe powerhouse and provides information on the engineering of Seminoe Dam and Powerplant. The signs were noted as needing repair (R) due to weathering and fading of the displays. Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 show the site amenities and views at the facility.

December 2022 | 7

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-1. Entrance Road to Kortes Reservoir Facilities

Figure 3-2. Parking Area, Picnic Table, and Display at Kortes Reservoir Facilities

December 2022 | 8

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-3. Restroom Facilities at Kortes Reservoir Facilities

Figure 3-4. Picnic Table, Firepit, and View of Seminoe Dam at Kortes Reservoir Facilities

December 2022 | 9

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.1.2

Seminoe State Park North Red Hills Area

The North Red Hills Area is administered by Wyoming State Parks as part of Seminoe State Park. HDR staff visited the site on September 3, 2021. Developed facilities at the site include a concrete boat ramp, campground, and playground. The site is also used for angling. The North Red Hills Area is open from May 1 to September 30. Reservations are required for overnight camping and fees for overnight camping range from $10 to $18 and fees for parking or day use range from $7 to $12. Access to the facility is provided via an unpaved road with one lane and one entrance and is marked with signage. The road access was noted to be good, with no noticeable potholes and was clear of trash and debris. Parking lots are paved and were noted to be in good condition, providing access to the boat launch and restroom. There is parking for seven vehicles including three designated ADA. The North Red Hills Area features day use and overnight facilities, including a campground, boat launch, playground with a basketball court, three restrooms, potable water, an information kiosk and signage, a recreational vehicle (RV) dump site, and trash receptacles. The sanitation facilities contain ten total vault restrooms (five for women and five for men), all ADA accessible. The restrooms were clean and in good condition. The entrance kiosk contains park informational signage and a pay station and was noted to be in good condition. There is also an approximately 250-foot-long loop trail near the State Park Office with information on local ecosystems, which was noted to be ADA compliant and in good condition. The playground and RV dump site were in good condition. The boat launch on the day of the site visit was a temporary gravel area below the concrete launch on the beach as the paved boat launch was not accessible due to low water levels for dam repair. The temporary access accommodates trailered boats, including a turn-around area. A temporary dock had also been installed on the shoreline near the launch. The temporary launch and dock were noted to be in good condition. The campground has 16 RV sites (two ADA accessible),15 tent sites, and one group campsite. All campsites have a fire pit/ring and one or two picnic tables. The campsites were noted to be in good condition. Figure 3-5 through Figure 3-8 provide representative photos of the North Red Hills Area.

December 2022 | 10

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-5. Informational Kiosk and Pay Station at North Red Hills Area Entrance

Figure 3-6. Short Loop Trail with Interpretive Signage

December 2022 | 11

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-7. Restroom Facilities and Parking at the North Red Hills Area

Figure 3-8. Boat Launch Area at the North Red Hills Area

3.1.3

Seminoe State Park South Red Hills Area

The South Red Hills Area is administered by Wyoming State Parks. HDR staff visited the site on September 3, 2021. Developed facilities at the site include a boat launch, campground, playground, and restrooms. The site is used for angling as well. The facility is unstaffed and open from May 1 to September 30. Reservations are required for overnight camping and fees for overnight camping range from $10 to $18 and fees for parking or day use range from $7 to $12.

December 2022 | 12

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Access to the site is provided via an unpaved road with one entrance and one lane marked with signage. The road was in good condition with no potholes or other noticeable damage. The parking lots were also in good condition. There are undelineated areas to park near the facility entrance and the boat launch. There is paved, ADA-accessible parking for three vehicles near the restroom. There are several day use amenities available at the South Red Hills Area separate from the campground, including a picnic shelter, six picnic tables, two fire pits/rings, a playground, an information kiosk, and a hard surface boat launch. The kiosk contains state park information and a pay station and was in good condition. The three total sanitation facilities contain eight total vault restroom stalls (four for women and four for men). All restrooms were clean and stocked on the date of the site visit. Similar to the North Red Hills Area, the hard surface boat launch was closed due to low water levels. Signage was provided directing visitors to use the boat launch at the North Red Hills Area. During normal conditions, motorized boats may be launched from this area and a turn-around area is also available. The campground contains one group site and 20 tent sites with one ADA-compliant tent site. All campsites were noted to be in good condition and have a fire pit/ring and at least one picnic table. Several campsites also contain shade awnings. Figure 3-9 through Figure 3-12 provide representative photos of the South Red Hills Area.

Figure 3-9. Informational Kiosk and Pay Station at the Entrance to the South Red Hills Area

December 2022 | 13

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-10. Playground and Restrooms

Figure 3-11. Low Water Levels at South Red Hills Boat Launch

December 2022 | 14

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-12. Campsite with Picnic Table, Fire Pit, and Awning

3.1.4

Seminoe State Park Sunshine Beach

Sunshine Beach is administered by Wyoming State Parks as part of Seminoe State Park. HDR staff visited the site on September 3, 2021. Sunshine Beach contains a developed campground and is also used for angling. The facility is unstaffed and open from May 1 to September 30. Reservations are required for overnight camping and fees for overnight camping range from $10 to $18 and fees for parking or day use range from $7 to $12. Access to the site is provided via an unpaved road with one entrance and one lane marked with signage. The road was in good condition with no potholes or other noticeable damage. Parking lots were also in good condition. Two paved, ADA-accessible parking spaces are available near the restrooms. Twenty-six gravel parking spaces are available in the campground. There are several day use amenities at Sunshine Beach, including four fishing trails, an informational kiosk, three restrooms, and trash receptacles. The fishing trails provide beach access from the road. The kiosk contains park information and a pay station at the facility entrance and was in good condition. There are three vault toilet facilities with eight total restrooms (four for women and four for men). All restrooms were clean, stocked, in good condition, and ADA accessible. The campground facilities were in good condition, with 29 tent sites (two ADA accessible) and two group sites. All campsites have a fire pit/ring and at least one picnic table and several sites have a shade awning. RV camping was observed during the site visit, but no hookups or dumps station are available. Figure 3-13 through Figure 3-16 provide representative photos of the Sunshine Beach Area.

December 2022 | 15

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-13. Informational Kiosk and Pay Station at Sunshine Beach

Figure 3-14. Campsite at Sunshine Beach

December 2022 | 16

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-15. Group Campsite at Sunshine Beach

Figure 3-16. Gravel Parking Area at Sunshine Beach

December 2022 | 17

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.1.5

Seminoe State Park Sand Mountain Day Use Area

The Sand Mountain Day Use Area is administered by Wyoming State Parks as part of Seminoe State Park. HDR staff visited the site on September 24, 2021. The facility contains a developed picnic area and access and parking for Seminoe Sand Dunes for OHV riding. The Sand Mountain Day Use Area is unstaffed and open year-round and day use fees range from $7 to $12. Road access to the Sand Mountain Day Use Area is available via a paved road with one entrance to the facility. The paved road turns into gravel at the intersection to the privately-owned Boat Club. The road was noted to need maintenance on the day of the site visit. The access road had several potholes and no signage indicating where the public access area was located. The parking area does not contain any delineated spaces, but contains space for approximately 10 vehicles, one paved for ADA accessibility. The parking lot was in good condition. The Sand Mountain Day Use Area amenities include one covered picnic table, three grills, one firepit/ring, and one vault restroom. The picnic table, grills, and fire pit/ring were all in good condition. The restroom is ADA accessible and was in good condition on the day of the site visit. There are several OHV trails available from the facility, but the trails were generally unmarked due to constantly changing conditions from windblown sand (Figure 3-17 through Figure 3-20). Signs provide information on areas where OHV use is prohibited (Figure 3-19). Figure 3-17 through Figure 3-20 provide representative photos of the Sand Mountain Day Use Area.

Figure 3-17. Access Road to the Sand Mountain Day Use Area

December 2022 | 18

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-18. Covered Picnic Area and Parking Lot

Figure 3-19. Restricted Vehicle Access Signage

December 2022 | 19

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-20. ADA-Accessible Parking Space with Sand Blown over the Pavement

3.1.6

Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook

Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook is administered by Reclamation. The main overlook offers views of Seminoe Dam and tailrace, Seminoe forebay, lower reservoir reaches, and mountains to the south and east. A second overlook is located approximately 0.3 mile south of the main overlook on Seminoe Road. The second overlook has views of Seminoe State Park and expansive views up Seminoe Reservoir. There are undeveloped, user-defined trails that extend a few hundred yards to various vantage points. The site is unstaffed and open year-round; however, access may be limited in the winter. Road access to the site is unpaved with one wide and short entrance to a parking area at the main overlook. The parking area is an open lot with hard-packed native material for approximately 10 vehicles with a concrete slab designated as an ADA space (Figure 3-21). Both road access and the parking lot were noted to be in good condition. Parking at the second overlook is a widened spot on the shoulder that will accommodate approximately six cars. The amenities provided at Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook include one overlook with a chainlink fence (Figure 3-22), a sitting bench, and informational signage. The ADA parking space, bench, and fencing were in good condition. The signage was weathered but legible. There are three small informational signs and one sitting bench at the second overlook (Figure 3-23). The second overlook is not accessible. The second overlook pullout, signs, and bench are in good condition, although the signs showed evidence of bird droppings. The placement of the bench at the small overlook needs maintenance, as erosion is occurring in front of the bench, which is placed on a steep slope (Figure 3-24). Weeds may be present during warm, wet weather.

December 2022 | 20

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-21. Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook Entrance and Parking Area

Figure 3-22. Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook Chain-Link Fence

December 2022 | 21

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-23. Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Second Overlook Pullout with Bench and Signage

Figure 3-24. Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Second Overlook Bench with Eroding Slope

3.1.7

Miracle Mile Public Access

The Miracle Mile public access areas are owned and operated by Reclamation. HDR visited the site on October 28, 2022. The site is a popular fishing area, extending about 5.5 miles from the tailrace of Kortes Dam to the boundary of the southern management unit of the Pathfinder National Wildlife Refuge. The facilities are unstaffed and open year-round. Access roads and parking areas are not plowed in winter (Reclamation 2021, WGFD 2019a). According to WGFD, use of the area has increased over the last 5 years (WGFD 2021b).

December 2022 | 22

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

The Miracle Mile is accessed at several locations by Seminoe Road from the southwest, Kortes Road from the northeast, and by a network of smaller roads. Kortes Road was noted to be in good condition. Ungraveled access roads had some areas of washboarding and rough terrain. A total of seven ADAcompliant parking spaces near restrooms were observed. The amenities at the Miracle Mile include numerous dispersed camping sites throughout the area, which are not delineated and do not require reservations. There are five picnic shelters and 57 picnic tables, benches, fire rings and grills, nine vault restrooms, and an ADA-compliant fishing dock. Two areas, at the Miracle Mile Bridge and in Cow Canyon, provide interpretive signage. HDR observed several formal and many informal boat launch points. Trails in the area include one ADA-compliant trail with a ramp for viewing the North Platte River. Figures 3-25 through Figure 3-28 show examples of the developed and user-defined site amenities.

Figure 3-25. ADA-Compliant Parking Space and Restroom

December 2022 | 23

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-26. ADA-Compliant Trail to Boat Dock

Figure 3-27. Picnic Shelter near Miracle Mile Bridge

December 2022 | 24

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3-28. Dispersed Camping Sites and Unpaved Roads

3.1.8

Other Nearby Recreation

While not detailed in the study plan, HDR also performed internet, email, and telephone research to better understand recreation opportunities and use at the recreation facilities in the Project vicinity. HDR contacted Wyoming State Parks, WGFD, Reclamation, and BLM, and performed internet research on other recreational opportunities.

Bennett Mountains Wilderness Study Area The Bennett Mountains WSA is introduced above in Section 1.3. Additional information on the Bennett Mountains WSA was obtained through correspondence with the BLM.2 The Bennett Mountains WSA is approximately 6,000 acres and is closed to all motorized vehicle use. The WSA is a destination for scenic vistas, quiet landscapes, and numerous recreational opportunities, such as hiking and exploration, photography, horseback riding, dispersed camping, antler collecting, hunting, bird watching, and rock climbing. The majority of recreation in the Bennett Mountains WSA occurs in the summer months.3 Motorized vehicles and other motorized equipment are prohibited in the WSA. However, visitors may access by 4-wheel drive from unimproved roads and two-tracks in the vicinity of the WSA. The area is prone to summer lightning strikes and occasional wildfires that may cause recreational closures.

Personal communication with A. Williams, Rawlins BLM Field Office, December 6, 2021.

Ibid. December 2022 | 25

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

The Bennett Mountains WSA is within a one-hour drive to several communities. 4 The recreational users of the WSA come from a variety of demographics. The area is popular with local users from Carbon County from the towns and communities of Hanna, Medicine Bow, Saratoga, Rawlins, and Elk Mountain. Out-of-state users tend to come from Colorado or Utah and spend a weekend or more in the area. Residents of Wyoming communities in Natrona, Albany, and Laramie Counties recreate in this area.

Hunting and Fishing in the Project Vicinity Terrestrial recreation use in the Project vicinity is generally focused on big-game hunting.5 In addition to recreational hunting, commercial hunting is available where Special Recreation Permits have been authorized by the BLM for Big Game Hunting and Trophy Game Hunting. These commercial permits provide an income for licensed outfitters who guide clients in this area between December and February for mostly deer, elk, big horn sheep, and mountain lion (BLM 2022). No hunting is permitted within Seminoe State Park (Wyoming State Parks 2022b). Non-consumptive recreation use in the area includes angling, bird watching, and photography. Big horn sheep photography is especially popular in the area as there are favorable public access points for photographing wildlife. While WGFD has designated 11 walk-in hunting areas in Carbon County, none are in the Project vicinity (WGFD 2021a). These are areas of private or inaccessible land on which WGFD has leased rights for public access to hunt or fish. The Miracle Mile is a very popular fishing spot due to its remote setting, grand scenery, and largesized Trout (Travel Wyoming 2014). Seminoe Reservoir is stocked annually with Cutthroat Trout while the Miracle Mile is stocked annually with Rainbow Trout (Reclamation 2021). Available species for anglers in Seminoe Reservoir also include Walleye and Brown Trout. State record Walleye have been caught in Seminoe Reservoir in years past (Wyoming State Parks 2020). Ice fishing is also popular on Seminoe Reservoir, with good numbers of small Walleye (approximately 13 inches) and plenty of midsize Rainbow Trout (approximately 16 inches) (WGFD 2021c).

Winter Recreation Seminoe Reservoir is used for ice fishing (WGFD 2021c) and Seminoe State Park is open year-round, accommodating campers during the winter (Wyoming State Parks 2022a). However, Seminoe State Park does not explicitly offer winter activities (Wyoming State Parks 2020), but winter recreation opportunities are available within Carbon County (Carbon County undated a). Winter recreation, including Nordic skiing, snowshoeing, dog sledding, and snowmobiling is available in southern Carbon County (Carbon County undated a). Designated snowmobiling areas include the Snowy Range, Sierra Madres, and Shirley Mountain (Carbon County undated b). Over 500 miles of groomed and ungroomed trails are available in Carbon County, mainly in the central-southern portion of the County. Nordic skiing, alpine skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing, and dog sledding are also available, mostly concentrated in the Medicine Bow National Forest administered by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), south of the Project area (Carbon County undated c; USFS undated). In Carbon County, trails are available for Nordic skiing, snowshoeing, and winter hiking (Bush Creek and Bottle

Ibid.

Personal communication with A. Mahoney, WGFD, December 15, 2021. December 2022 | 26

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Creek Trails) and there are also opportunities for backcountry skiing and snowboarding as well as developed ski areas such as Snowy Ridge Ski Area.

State Parks Use Levels Information was not available to characterize Wyoming State Parks use levels in the Project vicinity at the time of writing. Seminoe State Park campgrounds and recreation facilities were visited and assessed in support of this study. Recreational opportunities at Seminoe State Park include beach access, biking, boating, camping, fishing, swimming, hiking, picnicking, OHV riding, horseback riding, playgrounds, geocaching, hunting, wildlife viewing, and an interpretive trail.

Seminoe Boat Club The private Seminoe Boat Club (Club) is located adjacent to the Sand Mountain Day Use Area. Seminoe Boat Club, Incorporated (SBC) is the owner and operator of the Club facilities (SBC 2021). SBC is a non-profit organization that promotes seasonal recreation at Seminoe Reservoir. The SBC provides lot and non-lot memberships at the Club, in which there are 89 leased lots, one general store and café, and one overnight camping area, as well as a parking area for boat trailers. The store and café provide apparel, supplies, gas, wood, propane exchange, ice, and more and also serves breakfast and lunch (SBC 2021). The store and café, as well as the parking area, are open from May through September. The Club may not be accessible in winter because there is no snow removal maintenance of the turn off road to the Club off County Road 351. The store lessee also operates the overnight campground, in which full hook-ups and campsites are available. The store manager also collects boat ramp fees for non-club member access. The campground and boat launch are open to non-members for a fee.

December 2022 | 27

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Discussion

There are no recreation facilities within the Conceptual Project Boundary, however, HDR staff visited seven recreation facilities managed by Reclamation and Wyoming State Parks within approximately 2 miles of the Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance: five in September 2021, one in May 2022, and one in October 2022. In general, the facilities were in good condition and several amenities are available to visitors. These facilities include campsites, restrooms, boat launches, fishing areas, picnic areas, walking and OHV trails, and informational signage. Recreational opportunities at the facilities assessed by HDR staff include camping, fishing, boating, OHV riding, and picnicking. In addition to the recreation facility inventory and condition assessment, additional information on recreation use levels and opportunities in the Project vicinity was collected through correspondence with recreation administrators and online research. In addition to the recreation facilities discussed in Section 3.1, recreation in the Project vicinity includes hunting, hiking and exploration, photography, horseback riding, dispersed camping, antler collecting, bird watching, and rock climbing. The Bennett Mountains WSA provides outdoor recreational opportunities, and other public lands adjacent to the Project area mostly used for hunting and fishing. The private Seminoe Boat Club is also located in the Project vicinity. Black Canyon will use the results of this study in the FERC license application to support analysis of the effects of Project operation on existing recreation facilities and resources and identification and evaluation of any applicable mitigation for potential recreation impacts.

December 2022 | 28

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

References

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management Rawlins Field Office. Prepared by USDI BLM Rawlins Field Office. –––––. 2019. BLM Rawlins Field Office Response (letter). December 5, 2019. –––––. 2022. Comments of Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins Field Office on the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project under P-14787. Available on FERC eLibrary at accession number 20220906-5034. September 2. –––––. Undated. Bennett Mountains Wilderness Study Area. https://www.blm.gov/visit/bennett-mountains. (Accessed October 5, 2022.)

[Online]

URL:

Carbon County. Undateda. Things to do in Carbon County, Wyoming. [Online] URL: https://www.wyomingcarboncounty.com/things-to-do. (Accessed January 25, 2022). –––––. Undatedb. Snowmobiling. [Online] https://www.wyomingcarboncounty.com/index.php/things-to-do/snowmobiling. January 25, 2022).

URL: (Accessed

–––––. Undatedc. Cross Country Skiing, Snowshoeing and Dog Sledding. [Online] URL: https://www.wyomingcarboncounty.com/things-to-do/xcountry-skiing. (Accessed January 25, 2022). Carbon County Board of Commissioners. 2018. Carbon County WPLI Advisory Committee Recommendations to the Carbon County Board of Commissioners. [Online] URL: https://www.carbonwy.com/DocumentCenter/View/4829/WYOMING-PUBLICLANDSINITIATIVE-FINAL-RECOMMENDATIONS?bidId=. (Accessed October 24, 2022.) Chapman, S.S., Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., Despain, D.G., ZumBerge, J., and Conrad, M., 2004, Ecoregions of Wyoming (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey. https://gaftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/wy/wy_eco_pg.pdf . Accessed online August 26, 2021. Reclamation, U.S. Bureau of (Reclamation). 2015. Seminoe Reservoir Facilities. [Online] URL: https://www.usbr.gov/gp/recreation/semrrec.html. (Accessed October 24, 2022.) –––––. 2021. Wyoming Area Office (WYAO) Recreation. [Online] https://usbr.gov/gp/recreation/wyoming_recreation.html. (Accessed October 20, 2022).

URL:

Seminoe Boat Club, Incorporated (SBC). 2021. Seminoe Boat Club. [Online] URL: https://sites.google.com/site/seminoeboatclub/home?authuser=0. (Accessed December 15, 2021.) Travel Wyoming. 2014. Fishing the Miracle Mile: What You Need to Know. [Online] URL: https://travelwyoming.com/article/fishing-miracle-mile-what-you-need-know. (Accessed January 21, 2022).

December 2022 | 29

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Undated. Winter Sports, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests & Thunder Basin National Grassland. [Online] URL: https://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/mbr/recreation/wintersports. (Accessed January 25, 2022). Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2022. Climate Summary for the Period of Record (1948– 2011) in Seminoe Dam, Wyoming (Station 488070). [Online] URL: https://wrcc.dri.edu/summary/. Western Regional Climate Center, Reno, NV. (Accessed October 6, 2022.). Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2019a. North Platte River Miracle Mile – Public Access Area. [Online] URL: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Public-Access/Public-Access-Areas/North-Platte-RiverMiracle-Mile. (Accessed October 6, 2022.) –––––. 2019b. Morgan Creek – Wildlife Habitat Management Area. [Online] URL: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Public-Access/WHMA/WHMA/Morgan-Creek. (Accessed October 6, 2022.) –––––. 2021a. Carbon County Walk-in Areas. Public Access. [Online] URL: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Public-Access/Walk-In-Hunting/Carbon-County. (Accessed December 15, 2021.) –––––. 2021b. Memorandum of Joint Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee meeting regarding Miracle Mile and North Glendo/County Line Bureau of Reclamation Properties. Presented by WGFD Director Brian R. Nesvik. October 18, 2021. [Online] URL: https://wyoleg.gov/InterimCommittee/2021/06-202110252-01GFMemoreclamationproperties.pdf. (Accessed October 20, 2022). –––––. 2021c. Good Ice Fishing Expected in Casper Region. [Online] URL: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Regional-Offices/Casper-Region/Casper-Region-News/Good-Ice-FishingExpected-in-Casper-Region. (Accessed January 21, 2022). Wyoming State Parks, Historic Sites, and Trails (Wyoming State Parks). 2020. WYO Parks: Seminoe State Park. [Online] URL: https://wyoparks.wyo.gov/index.php/places-to-go/seminoe. (Accessed January 25, 2022.) –––––. 2022a. WYO Parks: Camping at Seminoe State Park. [Online] URL: https://wyoparks.wyo.gov/index.php/activities-amenities-seminoe/campsites-for-rvs-seminoe. (Accessed December 8, 2022). –––––. 2022b. WYO Parks: Hunting at Seminoe State Park. [Online] URL: https://wyoparks.wyo.gov/index.php/activities-amenities-seminoe/hunting-seminoe. (Accessed October 7, 2022).

December 2022 | 30

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix A. Recreation Resources Study Plan

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Recreation Resources Study Plan March 17, 2021

1.0

Introduction

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon Hydro) is proposing the licensing, construction, and operation of the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) (Project) in Carbon County, Wyoming, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming , on the North Platte River. The proposed Project would entail the construction of a new 750 megawatt (MW) plant including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission line, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir f or the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR); these operations would not be af f ected by the Project’s pumped storage operations. Black Canyon Hydro has initiated a licensing process f or the Project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the f ederal agency with jurisdiction over non-f ederal hydropower projects in the United States. During this process, Black Canyon Hydro will engage stakeholders and implement a suite of resource studies that will inf orm FERC’s environmental and developmental analyses and decision regarding license issuance. This document presents Black Canyon Hydro’s proposed approach to the scoping and implementat ion of a Recreation Resources Study f or the Project that would be provided to FERC to assist in the licensing analyses. Black Canyon Hydro anticipates f iling a Final License Application with FERC in August 2022.

2.0

Project Nexus and Study Goals

Construction of the Project may have the potential to af f ect recreation f acilities and resources in the vicinity of the Project through increased noise, traf f ic, or dust conditions. The goal of this Recreation Resources Study (Study) is to document and assess the condition of the existing recreation f acilities in the Project vicinity to determine baseline conditions for a Project impact analysis. The objectives of this study are to: •

Conduct an inventory and assessment of existing recreation f acilities in the Project vicinity; and

•

Analyze the ef f ects of Project operation on existing recreation f acilities in the Project vicinity.

3.0

Summary of Existing Information

Recreation resources in the vicinity of the proposed Project include recreation sites and dispersed public lands, wildlif e resources, visual resources, waterways, and lakes, each of which provides dif f erent recreational opportunities (BLM 2008). The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rawlins Resource Management Plan Planning Area (RMPPA) of f ers a variety of recreational opportunities, primarily f or dispersed use requiring undeveloped open space (BLM 2008).

Page 1

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Recreation Resources Study Plan

Boating and recreational f ishing are common uses of Seminoe Reservoir. Walleye, Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, and Cutthroat Trout are all available in Seminoe Reservoir, with Rainbow Trout and Cutthroat Trout stocked annually (BOR 2015). Other recreational uses in the Project vicinity are wildlife viewing, hunting, hiking, backpacking, Of f -highway vehicle (OHV) use, bicycling, photography, camping, and orienteering (BLM 2008). The “Miracle Mile,” is located on the North Platte River between the Seminoe Reservoir and Pathf inder Reservoir (WGFD 2019) and is one of the most popular recreation areas in the vicinity of the Project. The area is open year round and of fers a variety of outdoor recreational opportunities, including fishing, hunting, camping, and f loating.

4.0

Methods

4.1

Study Area

The Study Area will include developed recreation f acilities in the immediate vicinity of the Conceptual Project Boundary (within ~2 miles). See Attachment 1.

4.2

Study Methods

A Recreation Resources Study will be conducted consisting of two tasks: 1. Perf orm a Recreation Facility Inventory and Conditions Assessment ; and 2. Reporting.

4.2.1

Perform a Recreation Facility Inventory and Condition Assessment

Black Canyon Hydro will perf orm a f ield inventory and condition assessment to document the existing developed recreation f acilities located in the immediate vicinity of the Project, which are as f ollows: •

Kortes Reservoir Facilities

•

North Red Hills Area

•

South Red Hills Area

•

Sunshine Beach

•

Sand Mountain Day Use Area

Black Canyon Hydro will record the f ollowing information f or each f acility:

Page 2

•

A description of the type and location of existing facility;

•

The type of recreation provided (boat access, angler access, picnicking, etc.);

•

Length and f ooting materials of any trails;

•

Existing structures, signage, and sanitation;

•

The type of vehicular access and parking (if any);

•

Suitability of f acilities to provide recreational opportunities and access f or persons with disabilities (i.e., conf ormance with current Americans with Disabilities Act standards for accessible design); and

•

Photographic documentation of recreation f acilities. March 17, 2021

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Recreation Resources Study Plan

Additionally, a qualitative assessment of the condition of each recreation f acility identif ied above will be perf ormed using a general Facilities Inventory and Condition Form similar to the attached (Attachment 2). Using the Facility Inventory and Condition Assessment Form, the recreation amenities available at the f acility will be rated using the f ollowing criteria: (N) Needs replac ement (broken or missing components, or non-f unctional); (R) Needs repair (structural damage or otherwise in obvious disrepair); (M) Needs maintenance (ongoing maintenance issue, primarily cleaning); and (G) Good condition (f unctional and well-maintained). If a f acility is given a rating of “N,” “R,” or “M,” an explanation f or the rating will be provided.

4.2.2

Reporting

Results of the f acility inventory and condition assessment will be summarized and incorporated into the Recreation Study Report. The analysis and discussion will include the f ollowing: •

Identif ication and evaluation of potential recreational enhancements; and

•

An analysis of the ef fects of Project operation on existing recreation f acilities and resources in the immediate Project vicinity.

5.0

Schedule

A study report will be developed f ollowing the completion of 2021 ef f orts and will likely be issued in January 2022.

6.0

References

of Reclamation (BOR). 2015. Seminoe Reservoir Facilities. [Online] https://www.usbr.gov/gp/recreation/semrrec.html. (Accessed January 13, 2020.)

URL:

Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD). 2019. North Platte River Miracle Mile – Public Access Area. [Online] URL: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Public-Access/Public-Access-Areas/North-PlatteRiver-Miracle-Mile. (Accessed February 18, 2020.)

March 17, 2021

Page 3

Attachment 1 Developed Recreation Facilities in the Immediate Vicinity of the Conceptual Project Boundary (within ~2 miles)

Attachment 2 Facilities Inventory and Condition Form

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT PUBLIC RECREATION SITE INVENTORY FORM

Observed by:

Date/Time:

Site Name and Location: ________________________________________________________________ Latitude: _________________________ Longitude__________________________ Facility Type (Primary Purpose): Developed Facilities:  Boat Launch  Park Angling Access  Trail  Overlook  Other Day Use: Undeveloped Facilities:  Primitive Campsite  Informal Boat Launch  Informal Angling  Other Road Access:  Paved access  Unpaved access Parking Lots:

Condition Description:_____________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ # entrances ______ # lanes ______  Circular entrance/exit  Signage # entrances ______ # lanes ______  Circular entrance/exit  Signage Condition Description: ____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Type ADA Spaces Regular Spaces Vehicle & Trailer Spaces

# Paved _____ _____ _____

Operations:  Staffed  Unstaffed  Fee: (Site $_____; Parking $_____) Operating Hours_____________ Project Facility: _____________

# Gravel _____ _____ _____

Space Delineation  Painted  Curbs  Signage  Painted  Curbs  Signage  Painted  Curbs  Signage

 Seasonal (From To  Year Round Owner/Manager________________ Within FERC Project Boundary?_____________

)

Day Use Site Amenities (total # of all amenities per site; provide additional specifications on next page): # Type # Type # Type _____ Picnic Shelter _____ Overlook _____ Boat Launch/Access _____ Picnic Tables _____ Hiking/Walking Trail _____ Boating Prep Area _____ Trash Cans _____ Fishing Trail _____Designated Swim Area _____ Grills _____Fishing Pier/Platform _____Informational Signage _____ Firepit/ring _____ Safety Signage _____ Restrooms _____Information Kiosk _____Other (specify)________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

Boat Launch Facilities: Craft Type: Launch Type:

Condition Description: _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________  Motorized  Carry In  Boat Prep Area  Hard surface  Gravel  Informal (undeveloped)  ADA Compliant  Turn-around area _____ # of Lanes

Condition Description: ____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Length (ft): Condition: _____________  ADA Compliant Length (ft): Condition: _____________  ADA Compliant Length (ft): Condition: _____________  ADA Compliant

Type: Type: Type:

Interpretive/Site Information Condition Description: ___________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Display Type:  None  Kiosk  Other ___ No. of Displays Information Type:  Boating Safety  Invasive Species  Fishing Regulations  Fish Type  Regional Events  Other (specify)__________________________________ Sanitation Facilities:

Unisex Women Men Campsite:

Total # of sites ADA compliant

Condition Description: ______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ # Flush _____ _____ _____

(# ADA) (_____) (_____) (_____)

# Portable _____ _____ _____

(# ADA) (_____) (_____) (_____)

Condition Description: _______________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ RV sites ______ ______

Tent sites ______ ______

Cabins/Cottages ______ ______

Group sites ______ ______

Primitive sites ______ ______

Notes (including general condition, any restrictions/alerts, such as boating use, invasive species, etc.) :

Condition Assessment Scaling System: N – Needs replacement (broken or missing components, or non-functional) R – Needs repair (structural damage or otherwise in obvious disrepair) M – Needs maintenance (ongoing maintenance issue, primarily cleaning) G – Good condition (functional and well-maintained) If a facility is given a rating of “N”, “R”, or “M”, provide specific details.

Recreation Resources Study Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix B. Recreation Facility Inventory and Condition Assessment Forms

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT PUBLIC RECREATION SITE INVENTORY FORM

Observed by: Chris Cline

Date/Time: 9/24/2021, 9am

Seminoe Sand Dunes Site Name and Location: ________________________________________________________________

Latitude: _________________________ Longitude__________________________ Facility Type (Primary Purpose): Developed Facilities:  Boat Launch  Park  Angling Access  Trail  Overlook Picnic area  Other Day Use: Undeveloped Facilities:  Primitive Campsite  Informal Boat Launch  Informal Angling  Other Access and parking point to Seminoe sand dunes for ATV/UTV off-roading

Road Access:  Paved access  Unpaved access Parking Lots:

M - Paved access until turn-off becomes gravel at intersection to privately-owned Boat Club Condition Description:_____________________________________________________ Access road has several potholes. No signage at all indicating where public access point is. _______________________________________________________________________

1 # entrances ______ # lanes ______  Circular entrance/exit # entrances ______ # lanes ______  Circular entrance/exit

 Signage  Signage

G - Open parking area, no delineated spaces aside from one concrete pad Condition Description: ____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________

Type ADA Spaces Regular Spaces Vehicle & Trailer Spaces

# Paved 1 _____ _____ _____

Operations:  Staffed  Unstaffed  Fee: (Site $_____; Parking $_____) 7-12 Operating Hours_____________ Project Facility: _____________

# Gravel _____ _____ _____

Space Delineation  Painted  Curbs  Painted  Curbs  Painted  Curbs

 Signage  Signage  Signage

 Seasonal (From To  Year Round Owner/Manager________________ Within FERC Project Boundary?_____________

)

Day Use Site Amenities (total # of all amenities per site; provide additional specifications on next page): # Type # Type # Type _____ Picnic Shelter _____ Overlook _____ Boat Launch/Access 1 _____ Picnic Tables _____ Hiking/Walking Trail _____ Boating Prep Area _____ Trash Cans _____ Fishing Trail _____ Designated Swim Area 3 _____ Grills _____ Fishing Pier/Platform _____ Informational Signage 1 _____ Firepit/ring _____ Safety Signage 1 Restrooms _____ _____ Information Kiosk Awning over picnic area _____Other (specify)________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

Boat Launch Facilities: Craft Type: Launch Type:

N/A Condition Description: _______________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________  Motorized  Carry In  Boat Prep Area  Hard surface  Gravel  Informal (undeveloped)  ADA Compliant  Turn-around area _____ # of Lanes

N/A Fishing Prep Area/Docks: Condition Description: ______________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________  Prep Area  Fishing Dimensions:  ADA Compliant  Prep Area  Fishing Dimensions:  ADA Compliant

Trails:

N/A - All ATV/UTV trails are unmarked and because of wind, constantly shifting and changing. Condition Description: ____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Length (ft): Condition: _____________  ADA Compliant Length (ft): Condition: _____________  ADA Compliant Length (ft): Condition: _____________  ADA Compliant

Type: Type: Type:

Unisex Women Men Campsite:

Total # of sites ADA compliant

G - vault style bathroom Condition Description: ______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

# Flush _____ _____ _____

(# ADA) (_____) (_____) (_____)

# Portable _____ _____ _____

(# ADA) (_____) (_____) (_____)

# Vault 1

(#ADA) 1

N/A Condition Description: _______________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________

RV sites ______ ______

Tent sites ______ ______

Cabins/Cottages ______ ______

Group sites ______ ______

Primitive sites ______ ______

Notes (including general condition, any restrictions/alerts, such as boating use, invasive species, etc.): Condition Assessment Scaling System: N – Needs replacement (broken or missing components, or non-functional) R – Needs repair (structural damage or otherwise in obvious disrepair) M – Needs maintenance (ongoing maintenance issue, primarily cleaning) G – Good condition (functional and well-maintained) If a facility is given a rating of “N”, “R”, or “M”, provide specific details.

SEMINOE PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT PUBLIC RECREATION SITE INVENTORY FORM

Observed by:Nancy Craig

Date/Time: May 17, 2022/2:00 PM

Site Name and Location: Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Overlook ____________________________ Latitude: 42deg 9’ 7.86” N____________Longitude: 106deg 54’27.28" Facility Type (Primary Purpose):

 Park Angling Access X Overlook  Trail   Other Day Use: x Other Undeveloped Facilities:  Primitive Campsite  Informal Boat Launch  Informal Angling  User-defined trails Road Access: Condition Description:Immediately off of unpaved Seminoe Road. Entrance way is wide and short, but steep, native material graded and hard-packed. Seminoe Road may be inaccessible in the winter.  Paved access # entrances ______ # lanes ______  Circular entrance/exit  Signage _______________________________________________________________________ X Unpaved access  # entrances ______ # lanes ______  Circular entrance/exit  Signage Condition Description: Native material hard-packed, undelineated parking for approximately 16 cars. One ADA-designated space, poured in-place concrete slab with ADA sign. May become muddy and weeds may be present during wet and warm weather. Type # Paved # Gravel Space Delineation X Signage ADA Spaces __1__ _____  Painted  Curbs  Regular Spaces ____ __16__  Painted  Curbs  Signage Vehicle & Trailer Spaces _____ _____  Painted  Curbs  Signage Parking Lots:

Operations: X Unstaffed  Staffed   Fee: (Site $_0__; Parking $_0__) Operating Hours___24hrs______ Project Facility: _____________

 Seasonal (From To X Year Round  Owner/Manager________________ Within FERC Project Boundary?_____________

)

Day Use Site Amenities (total # of all amenities per site; provide additional specifications on next page): # Type # Type # Type _____ Picnic Shelter _____ _____ Boat Launch/Access 2 Overlook _____ Picnic Tables _____ _____ Boating Prep Area X Hiking/Walking Trail _____ Trash Cans _____ Fishing Trail _____Designated Swim Area X _____ Grills _____Fishing Pier/Platform _____Informational Signage _____ Firepit/ring _____ Safety Signage _____ Restrooms _____Information Kiosk X Chain link fence, 2 sitting benches _____Other (specify)________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

Boat Launch Facilities: Craft Type: Launch Type:

Fishing Prep Area/Docks: Condition Description: ______________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________  Prep Area  Fishing Dimensions:  ADA Compliant  Prep Area  Fishing Dimensions:  ADA Compliant User-defined trails extend a few hundred yards to various vantage Condition Description: ____________________________________________________ points. ______________________________________________________________________ Not accessible Type: User-defined trails Length (ft): ~ 300 Condition: _____________  ADA Compliant Type: Length (ft): Condition: _____________  ADA Compliant Type: Length (ft): Condition: _____________  ADA Compliant

Trails:

Information signage is weathered but legible. Some signs Interpretive/Site Information Condition Description: ___________________________________________ showed evidence of bird droppings. ___________ _______________________________________________.

Display Type:  None  Kiosk  Other _4__ No. of Displays Information Type:  Boating Safety  Invasive Species  Fishing Regulations  Fish Type  Regional Events  Other (specify)_History and facilities_________________________________ Sanitation Facilities: Condition Description: ______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Unisex Women Men Campsite:

Total # of sites ADA compliant

# Flush _____ _____ _____

(# ADA) (_____) (_____) (_____)

# Portable _____ _____ _____

(# ADA) (_____) (_____) (_____)

Condition Description: _______________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ RV sites ______ ______

Tent sites ______ ______

Cabins/Cottages ______ ______

Group sites ______ ______

Primitive sites ______ ______

Notes (including general condition, any restrictions/alerts, such as boating use, invasive species, etc.) : Overall condition of ADA parking, bench at main overlook, fencing, sings, and parking are in good condition (G).

Erosion is occurring in front of the bench at the small overlook, which is placed on a steep slope. This needs maintenance (M).

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix K Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC FERC No. 14787 Carbon County, Wyoming

December 2022

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Contents 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Project Description .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Proposed Project Facilities ........................................................................................... 1

1.2

Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Land Ownership ........................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Regulatory Framework and Management Plans .......................................................... 3

Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1

Viewshed Analysis and Identification of KOPs ......................................................................... 7

2.2

Project Facilities Inventory ........................................................................................................ 8

2.3

Photo simulation ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.4

Assess Visual Condition or Scenic Integrity of the Photo Simulated Project Facilities ............. 8

Visual Resources Inventory................................................................................................................. 9 3.1

Landscape Scenery ................................................................................................................... 9

3.2

Viewer Sensitivity Levels ......................................................................................................... 10

3.3

Distance Zones and Project Visibility ...................................................................................... 10

3.4

VRM Classes ........................................................................................................................... 11

3.5

Regional Landscape Setting ................................................................................................... 12

3.6

Key Observation Points ........................................................................................................... 13 3.6.1 KOP 1: Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Viewpoint ........................................................ 13 3.6.2 KOP 2: Seminoe State Park, North Red Hills ............................................................ 13 3.6.3 KOP 3: Seminoe Reservoir Viewpoint ....................................................................... 13 3.6.4 KOP 4: Seminoe Tailrace ........................................................................................... 18 3.6.5 KOP 5: Bennett Mountains WSA ............................................................................... 18

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 21 4.1

Construction and Operational Impacts .................................................................................... 21 4.1.1 KOP 1: Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Viewpoint ........................................................ 21 4.1.2 KOP 2: Seminoe State Park, North Red Hills ............................................................ 23 4.1.3 KOP 3: Seminoe Reservoir Viewpoint ....................................................................... 23 4.1.4 KOP 4: Seminoe Tailrace ........................................................................................... 26 4.1.5 KOP 5: Bennett Mountains WSA ............................................................................... 26

References ........................................................................................................................................ 29

December 2022 | i

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Tables Table 3-1. Scenic Quality Classifications ...................................................................................................... 9 Table 3-2. Sensitivity Levels ....................................................................................................................... 10 Table 3-3. VRM Class Objectives ............................................................................................................... 11 Table 3-4. Vegetation Communities Identified within the Study Area ......................................................... 12

Figures Figure 1–1. Project Location Map ................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 1–2. Viewshed Analysis and KOPs ................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3–1. KOP 1 – Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Viewpoint ................................................................... 15 Figure 3–2. KOP 2 – Seminoe State Park, North Red Hills ........................................................................ 16 Figure 3–3. KOP 3 – Seminoe Reservoir Viewpoint ................................................................................... 17 Figure 3–4. KOP 4 – Seminoe Tailrace ...................................................................................................... 19 Figure 4–1. KOP 1 Simulation – Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Viewpoint ................................................. 22 Figure 4–2. KOP 2 Simulation – Seminoe State Park, North Red Hills ...................................................... 24 Figure 4–3. KOP 3 Simulation – Seminoe Reservoir Viewpoint ................................................................. 25 Figure 4–4. KOP 4 Simulation – Seminoe Tailrace .................................................................................... 27 Figure 4–5. KOP 5 Simulation – Bennett Mountains WSA ......................................................................... 28

Appendices Appendix A. Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Plan Appendix B. BLM Maps

December 2022 | ii

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Acronyms and Abbreviations °F

degrees Fahrenheit

Black Canyon

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

BLM

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

FERC

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GIS

Geographic Information System

GPS

Global Positioning System

kilovolt

KOP

Key Observation Point

MAT

Main Access Tunnel

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Project

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Reclamation

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

RMP

Resource Management Plan

VRI

Visual Resources Inventory

VRM

Visual Resource Management

WSA

Wilderness Study Area

December 2022 | iii

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Introduction

This Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report has been prepared for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon), a subsidiary of rPlus Hydro, LLP, in support of the licensing of the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) (Project). This report describes the results of the Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study (study) that was conducted in 2021 and 2022.

1.1

Project Description

On April 20, 2020, Black Canyon submitted a Notice of Intent to file an Application for an Original License and the accompanying Pre-Application Document to FERC for a proposed pumped storage project at and near the existing Seminoe Reservoir, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming, in Carbon County (Project). Figure 1-1 shows the general vicinity of the Project. The Project involves the construction of a new 972-megawatt (MW) pumped storage facility including an underground powerhouse, associated transmission, and a new upper reservoir above the existing Seminoe Reservoir, which would be utilized as a lower reservoir for the Project. Seminoe Reservoir is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The proposed upper reservoir would consist of a surface area of 114 acres at normal maximum operating pool. The Project Footprint of Potential Disturbance would also include an underground powerhouse; a power tunnel between the upper reservoir and the powerhouse; a tailrace tunnel between the powerhouse and a new intake in the existing Seminoe Reservoir; a powerhouse access tunnel; a high-voltage transmission tunnel; and a switchyard and transmission line. The Project will connect to the electric grid at the existing Aeolus Substation.

1.1.1

Proposed Project Facilities

The Project includes the following features: upper reservoir and associated water retaining structures; intake/outlet structures in the upper and lower reservoirs; water conveyance tunnels; gate shafts; vertical shaft; surge control facilities; underground powerhouse facilities; access and egress tunnels and cable tunnels and shafts; transmission line; and access routes. Most of the Project features are below ground or are not visible from nearby areas. The access bridge, access roads, lower intake/outlet structure, upper reservoir, penstock, and transmission line are the above-ground facilities being evaluated for potential effects on aesthetic values within this report. Access to the Main Access Tunnel (MAT) portal will be provided by a new bridge to be constructed across Seminoe tailrace, north of Seminoe dam. The bridge structure will be comprised of precast beams and a cast concrete deck, consisting of six, 50-foot spans supported on sets of three columns with capping beams at each end of the bridge. The approach slab will be supported by an embankment confined by concrete reinforced earthen walls. The bridge will support a road approximately 40 feet wide. The upper reservoir will be accessed via an improved construction and maintenance road off Bennett Mountain Road. There is an existing two-track roadway up to the top of the mountain where the upper reservoir will be located, which requires grade and realignment improvements, as well as drainage improvements to support Project construction activities and ongoing maintenance and operation. The access road is planned to be on average 24 feet wide.

December 2022 | 1

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

The lower intake/outlet structure will be a precast structure installed within Seminoe Reservoir. As water levels within Seminoe Reservoir vary, the lower intake structure is designed to operate during both normal maximum water levels and normal minimum water levels. During the normal maximum water level (6,357 feet elevation (100 percent capacity)), only the top of the lower intake structure will be exposed and appear just above surface water levels. As the water level drops, more of the structure will become visible. During the normal minimum water level (6,290 feet elevation (21 percent capacity)), approximately 70 feet of the structure may be exposed and appear above surface water levels. The Project includes two, 500 kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission lines extending to the 500 kV interconnection at Aeolus Substation, approximately 30 miles to the southeast of the Project. The transmission lines are anticipated to have steel lattice towers, approximately 150 feet tall with approximately 1,000-foot spans between towers. Most of the transmission lines will be a cross-country route adjacent to and north of existing 230 kV and 115 kV transmission lines.

1.2

Study Area

The study area was defined in the Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Plan (Study Plan) (Appendix A) as consisting of lands projected to be affected by Project construction and operation, and areas within a 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-mile buffer surrounding the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. The Footprint of Potential Disturbance and Project area are depicted in Figure 1-1, and the study area along with the Project viewshed is depicted in Figure 1-2. Elevation within the study area ranges from approximately 6,200 feet above mean sea level (amsl) near Seminoe Dam to approximately 7,300 feet amsl at the proposed upper reservoir; much of the elevation along the transmission line corridor is between 6,500 and 6,700 feet amsl. Average temperatures range from between 84 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in July to 12°F in December and January. The average annual precipitation for the study area is 9.25 inches and the average total annual snowfall is 21.3 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2021). There are 19 vegetative communities identified within the study area. Broadly, vegetation surrounding Seminoe Reservoir and within the study area consists of sand dunes, yucca, greasewood, sagebrush, salt sage, willows, and marsh grasses. Special areas that will be completely avoided for potential Project activities include the Bennett Mountains Wilderness Study Area (WSA) to the east of the proposed upper reservoir and Morgan Creek Wildlife Management Area, situated to the west of the North Platte River near Seminoe Dam.

1.2.1

Land Ownership

The majority of land in the Project area is Federal land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), followed by private ownership, and Federal land administered by Reclamation. The Project’s upper reservoir and portions of the proposed transmission line will be located on Federal land managed by the BLM. Other Project features, including the MAT portal and new bridge, will be located on Federal land administered by Reclamation.

December 2022 | 2

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

1.2.2

Regulatory Framework and Management Plans

U.S. Bureau of Land Management The BLM ensures that proposed developments and use of public land meet applicable environmental laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. NEPA requires Federal agencies to “assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.” Section 102 of NEPA requires the development of procedures to ensure that environmental values are given appropriate consideration in decision-making processes in which a Federal agency is involved (BLM 2008, BLM 2013).

December 2022 | 3

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1–1. Project Location Map

December 2022 | 4

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1–2. Viewshed Analysis and KOPs

December 2022 | 5

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

To comply with these Acts, the BLM requires visual design considerations be incorporated into all surface-disturbing activities, including construction and operation of renewable energy facilities. Guidelines for the identification of visual resource management classes on public land are contained in BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory (BLM 1986). The BLM meets statutory requirements with their Visual Resource Management (VRM) program. The VRM program establishes inventorying, planning, and managing the qualities of visual resources on public lands. The BLM manages visual resources by planning objectives determined during the land use planning process with careful analyses of the visual resource inventory, other resource values, and other potential land use demands. Allowable uses and management actions must be planned in accordance with these planned management objectives. The VRM classes describe the limits of allowable visual change to the characteristic landscape. Proposed management activities must comply with the VRM classes. The BLM Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP), approved in December 2008, serves as a comprehensive management document determining how the Rawlins Field Office manages public lands. RMPs establish goals and objectives for resource management (including visual resources), and the measures needed to achieve them (management actions and allowable actions). As part of the RMP, the following visual resources management goals, objectives, and actions were established: •

•

Management Goal o Manage public land actions according to VRM classes that are determined based on land allocation decisions made in the RMP Management Objectives o Establish VRM classes for the RMP o Maintain the overall integrity of visual resource classes while allowing for development of existing and future uses Management Actions o Manage visual resources to meet the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands o VRM classes are designated as shown in the RMP.

A Visual Resources Inventory (VRI) was conducted for the Rawlins Field Office in 2011 (BLM 2017). VRIs provide nationally consistent datasets that describe the existing condition and status of public land scenic values. The VRI guidelines are described in BLM Manual Handbook H-8410-1 (BLM 1986). All BLM-administered lands, both surface and split-estate, and adjoining landscapes were inventoried as part of the VRI. The VRI consists of three primary components: • • •

Scenic quality evaluation, which measures the visual appeal of a landscape Sensitivity level analysis, which measures public concern for scenic quality Delineation of distance zones, which is an assessment of relative visibility from travel routes or Key Observation Points (KOPs).

Based on the three components (scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zone; described in Sections 3.1-3.3 of this report), all BLM-administered lands are placed into one of four VRM classes, which represent the relative value of the visual resources: Class I, II, III, or IV. Classes I and II are the most valued, Class III represents a moderate value, and Class IV represents the least value. VRM classes applicable to the Project are discussed further in Section 3.4 of this report. BLM’s visual resource contrast rating is a systematic process used to analyze whether the potential visual impacts from a project will meet VRM class objectives and the allowable level of change

December 2022 | 6

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

established for the area, or if design adjustments or additional mitigation will be required (BLM 1986). The degree to which an activity affects the visual quality of a landscape depends on the visual contrast created between a project and the existing landscape. There are four degrees of contrast: • • • •

None: the element contrast is not visible or perceived Weak: the element contrast can be seen but does not attract attention Moderate: the element contrast begins to attract attention and begins to dominate the characteristic landscape Strong: the element contrast demands attention, will not be overlooked, and is dominant in the landscape.

Carbon County, Wyoming The Carbon County Land Use Plan demonstrates the importance of the natural landscapes, with Land Use Goal 3 which states “Sustain scenic areas, wildlife habitat, and other important open spaces.” (Carbon County 2012). The Carbon County Natural Resource Management Plan establishes policies regarding the use and management of Federal lands in local governments’ jurisdictions and can influence the development and implementation of Federal policies, programs, and decision-making that may affect local communities (Carbon County 2021). Overall, Carbon County is supportive of the renewable energy opportunities within the County including wind, hydroelectric, and solar. The County’s zoning regulations specifically discuss commercial-scale energy facilities to ensure that commercial-scale energy facilities are placed in the appropriate locations and potential negative impact are mitigated; provide minimum design and development standards; and provide a consistent standard to ensure development.

Methods

The study was conducted in compliance with the Study Plan (Appendix A). No variances from the Study Plan were required.

2.1

Viewshed Analysis and Identification of KOPs

As described in the Study Plan, a viewshed analysis was conducted in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment based on location and height of proposed Project facilities, which included the upper reservoir, bridge, access roads, intake structures, and transmission line. This included a visibility analysis GIS-approach using site topography in ESRI ArcGIS extension Spatial Analysis to: • • •

Establish baseline conditions for visibility using binary (visible/not visible) technique Qualify or disqualify potential KOPs Cross-validate two-dimensional photo simulations or other deliverables that are by-product derivatives of the analysis.

From the results of the viewshed analysis, KOPs were reviewed and selected where potential visual impacts may occur. Input from stakeholders and agencies was considered in the selection of KOPs.

December 2022 | 7

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

2.2

Project Facilities Inventory

Per the Study Plan, once KOPs were selected, a digital photographic inventory of proposed Project facility locations visible from KOPs was completed. The field work to collect facilities inventory data included qualified personnel operating Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment to take photographs at each KOP. GPS location points were recorded for each simulation viewpoint using a GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. Multiple site photographs were collected at each KOP. Site photographs used in the assessment were correlated with x, y, and z coordinates and a heading angle. For each KOP, information related to GPS, camera, and ground truth was recorded as described in the Study Plan. Field work for KOPs 1-4 was completed on October 6, 2021. On that day, Seminoe Reservoir water level was low at 6,306 feet elevation (32 percent capacity); normal maximum surface elevation is 6,357 feet (100 percent capacity) and normal minimum surface elevation is 6,290 feet (21 percent capacity) (Reclamation 2022). Field work for KOP 5 was completed on November 13, 2022. Seminoe Reservoir was not visible from this KOP.

2.3

Photo simulation

As described in the Study Plan, the general procedure for creation of a photo simulation involved compositing a scaled, geo-referenced model of existing and proposed conditions with a photograph. The camera data collected in the field was entered into software (e.g., 3d Studio Max, a product widely used for architectural visualization) that digitally replicates the 3-dimensional world at full scale, and a GIS spatial model was prepared per the Study Plan. The model was then rendered into an image and overlaid on top of the photograph from the view location in Photoshop or an equivalent photo-editing software.

2.4

Assess Visual Condition or Scenic Integrity of the Photo Simulated Project Facilities

Once simulations were complete, the degree of existing visual contrast or existing scenic integrity of the Project facilities when viewed from a travel route or vista (including established viewpoints and recreation sites) is described for each KOP. Existing visual contrast and scenic integrity were reviewed in terms of form, line, color, and texture, as well as proximity, extent, duration, and aspect of viewing. Impacts to the existing visual quality are described further by analyzing and explaining if changes to the visual resources of the natural environments are compatible or incompatible with existing visual resources by land type. KOPs were analyzed to determine if the existing visual condition is compatible with the scenic integrity objectives (i.e., high, moderate, low, or very low) for the area. The degree of impact and whether the impact is adverse, beneficial, or neutral was also reviewed on BLM land to determine the scenic integrity level using the scenic integrity scale (i.e., very high, high, moderate, low, very low, and unacceptably low). Visual contrast was measured using the BLM’s visual contrast rating procedure (BLM 1986). This method assumes that the extent to which the Project results in adverse effects to visual resources is a function of the visual contrast between the Project and the existing landscape character. Contrast was assessed using photo simulations depicting Project features during the operational phase. Impact determinations were based on the identified level of contrast and are not a measure of the overall December 2022 | 8

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

attractiveness of the Project (BLM 1986). At each KOP, existing landforms, vegetation, and structures were described using the basic components of form, line, color, and texture. Project features were then evaluated using simulations, and described using the same basic elements of form, line, color, and texture. The level of perceived contrast between the proposed Project and the existing landscape was then classified as none, weak, moderate, or strong as described in Section 1.2.2. Potential modifications to the Project to comply with existing visual setting and direction were also reviewed and are identified in Section 4.2 of this report.

Visual Resources Inventory

3.1

Landscape Scenery

Scenic quality evaluation measures the visual appeal of a landscape. Public lands are rated as Class A (high scenic quality), Class B (typical or average scenic quality), or Class C (low scenic quality) based on the apparent scenic quality, and have several key factors: landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and the presence or absence of existing cultural modifications. Previously approved BLM VRM classifications have been adopted by this report from the VRI for the BLM Rawlins Field Office (BLM 2011). The study area lies within nine delineated scenic quality rating units, which are shown in Table 3-1 along with their classifications.

Table 3-1. Scenic Quality Classifications Scenic Quality Rating Unit1 047 Seminoe West 048 Cheyenne Ridge 049 Seminoe Sand Dunes

055 Seminoe Mountains 056 Miracle Mile 057 Little Basin 062 Horseshoe Ridge

Scenic Quality Classification and Explanation2 Class C: An open area between Seminoe Reservoir and the Haystack Mountains. Rolling hills, low rock outcrops, minimal visual variety. Class B: Elongated ridges with exposed rock outcrops. Rugged, somewhat imposing topography. Diverse vegetation. Class B: A large unit consisting mostly of stabilized sand dunes, vegetated with sage/rabbit brush/grass. Also contains active dunes. Notable rolling terrain. Class A: Rugged mountain range, great amount of vertical relief. Rock outcrops, steep slopes, diverse vegetation. Includes the Seminoe and Bennett Mountains. Class A: Narrow river corridor, rugged canyon, rock outcrops, some whitewater rapids. Class B: Unit lies between Shirley Mountains and Bennett Mountains and is of completely different visual character. Considerable visual variety. Class B: Elongated ridges and a pleasant stream drainage (Austin Creek). Green hay meadows.

064 Cottonwood Draw

Class B: Broken hills with rock outcrops, scattered pine trees.

065 Hanna Uplift

Class C: Distinct hills with moderately steep slopes. Rolling terrain. Reclaimed coal mines are noticeable.

Notes: 1 Scenic Quality Rating Units from VRI Map 2-1a (BLM 2011), also see Appendix B. 2 Scenic Quality Classification and Explanation from VRI Table 2-1 (BLM 2011).

December 2022 | 9

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.2

Viewer Sensitivity Levels

Sensitivity levels are a measure of public concern for scenic quality. Public land areas are assigned high, medium, or low sensitivity levels based on types of users (such as recreationists or workers), amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, and special areas (such as Wilderness areas) (BLM 1986). Based on the Rawlins Field Office VRI (BLM 2011), the study area lies within seven delineated sensitivity level rating units, which are shown in Table 3-2 along with their ratings.

Table 3-2. Sensitivity Levels Sensitivity Level Rating Unit1

Sensitivity Level Rating and Explanation2

045 Seminoe Mountains

High: Highly scenic area. High public interest in maintaining scenic quality.

049 Seminoe-Alcova Scenic Backway

High: High concern for scenic quality and visual variety influenced Byway designation; high traffic volume, recreational access corridor.

050 Seminoe West

Medium: Diverse topographic features and scenic quality; adjacent to Backcountry Byway.

070 Hanna Basin

Low: Scenic values are subordinate to commercial/industrial uses.

072 Bennett Mountains

High: High public interest; Wilderness Study Area, high scenic values.

073 Miracle Mile

High: High scenic values. Sinclair/Alcova Backcountry Byway, high recreational use.

074 Leo

Medium: Backcountry Byway between Casper and Rawlins; recreational value.

Notes: 1 Sensitivity Level Rating Units from VRI Map 3-1a (BLM 2011), also see Appendix B. 2 Sensitivity Level Rating and Explanation from VRI Table 3-1 (BLM 2011).

3.3

Distance Zones and Project Visibility

Landscapes are subdivided into three distance zones based on relative visibility from travel routes or from vistas. The observer’s proximity to elements will affect perception of their spatial importance. Longer viewing distances tend to reduce the impression of spatial enclosure and dominance. The three distance zones are defined as follows: •

•

Foreground-middleground zone: Areas less than 3 to 5 miles away from a travel route or vista. From this distance, management activities might be viewed in detail. The outer boundary of this distance zone is defined as the point where the texture and form of individual plants are no longer apparent in the landscape. Background zone: Areas beyond the 3 to 5-mile zone up to 15 miles away. This does not include areas in the background which are so far distant that the only thing discernible is the form or outline. To be included within this distance zone, vegetation should be visible at least as patterns of light and dark.

December 2022 | 10

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Seldom seen zone: Areas that are not visible within the foreground-middleground and background zones and areas beyond the background zones.

•

The BLM determines distance zones from designated travel routes and vistas (such as established campgrounds, viewpoints, or scenic byways) to a proposed project; see Appendix B for the Rawlins Field Office VRI distance zones map. Generally, most areas within the study area are within the foreground-middleground zone. For this Project, a viewshed analysis was conducted that differs from the distance zones in that it depicts locations from which proposed Project features will be visible or not visible (see Figure 1-2). As described in Section 2.1 of this report, the viewshed analysis was based on the location and height of proposed Project facilities, which included the upper reservoir, bridge, access roads, intake structures, and transmission line. Note that the upper reservoir is in a remote location, lacking hiking trails or other recreational amenities.

3.4

VRM Classes

Based on results of the VRI, maps and data for the scenic quality rating units, sensitivity-level rating units, and distance zones as described above are combined to result in inventoried VRM classifications. Each of four VRM classes (Table 3-3) has an objective that prescribes the amount of change allowed in the characteristic landscape based on perception by the public. Compliance with VRM classes is determined by comparison of the objective of the applicable class with the effects of a Project.

Table 3-3. VRM Class Objectives Class

Objective

Preserve the existing character of the landscape. Changes to the landscape character should be very low and not be evident nor attract attention.

Retain the existing character of the landscape. Changes to the landscape character should not attract the attention of a casual observer. Changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, or texture found in the predominant natural features of the landscape. The level of change should be low.

III

Partially retain the existing character of the landscape. Changes to the landscape character may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. The level of change can be moderate.

Allow for activities that modify the existing character of the landscape. Changes to the landscape character may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, these activities should minimize changes to the landscape where possible. The level of change can be high.

Source: BLM 1986.

Based on the Rawlins Field Office VRI (BLM 2011), the study area lies within Class II, Class III, and Class IV lands (Appendix B). The access bridge will be located within a Class II area. Most of the Project access roads will be located within Class II lands, with some access roads within Class III lands. The lower intake structure will be located within a Class II area. The transmission line will cross through Class II, Class III, and Class IV lands. The upper reservoir and penstock are within a Class II area. There are no designated Class I areas.

December 2022 | 11

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

The Project has been designed to completely avoid special areas, including the Bennett Mountains WSA to the east of the proposed upper reservoir and the Morgan Creek Wildlife Management Area, situated to the west of the North Platte River near Seminoe Dam.

3.5

Regional Landscape Setting

The canyons and forested ridges of the Seminoe Mountains produce a striking visual contrast with the rolling high desert grasslands and dunes in the study area, which are typical of the Wyoming Basin. The south slope of the Seminoe Mountains forms a distinct edge to the flatter, more rolling terrain to the south and to the large, flat surface of Seminoe Reservoir. There are numerous cultural modifications to the natural environment such as reservoirs, dams, roads, camping, established recreational facilities, and transmission lines that are visible in the study area. Seminoe Reservoir is the most visible modification, which adds an element of visual interest to the common grassland landscape and provides a substantial recreational attraction drawing many more viewers to the area than would otherwise be expected in this rural area. As described in the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weed Study Report, there are 19 vegetation communities identified within the study area, which are based on the U.S. Geological Survey GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems dataset (USGS 2011, HDR 2022). Table 3-4 provides the acreages for the mapped community types within the study area.

Table 3-4. Vegetation Communities Identified within the Study Area Habitat Type

Acreage

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe

Percentage

1,657.31

Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland

639.61

Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub

443.40

Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe

234.92

Inter-Mountain Basins Greasewood Flat

59.71

Inter-Mountain Basins Mat Saltbush Shrubland

49.24

Inter-Mountain Basins Cliff and Canyon

31.98

Western Great Plains Riparian Woodland and Shrubland

29.68

Open Water (Fresh)

24.86

Western Great Plains Saline Depression Wetland

10.71

Western Great Plains Cliff and Outcrop

4.85

Developed, Open Space

3.65

Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland

2.77

Inter-Mountain Basins Shale Badland

2.62

Northwestern Great Plains Mixedgrass Prairie

2.55

Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest

2.54

Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Shrubland

1.03

0.94

0.80

Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland Inter-Mountain Basins Curl-leaf Mountain Mahogany Woodland and Shrubland Source: HDR 2022.

Total

3,203.18

December 2022 | 12

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

There are two dominant vegetation communities in the study area. The Inter-Mountain Basins Big Sagebrush Steppe, which makes up 52 percent of the study area, and the Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland which makes up 20 percent of the study area. The Inter-Mountain Basins Mixed Salt Desert Scrub makes up 14 percent of the study area followed by 7% of Wyoming Basins Dwarf Sagebrush Shrubland and Steppe. The remaining 15 communities account for 7 percent of the study area. The Seminoe to Alcova Backcountry Byway is a 64-mile-long byway that goes near Alcova Reservoir, Pathfinder Reservoir, Seminoe Reservoir, and the Seminoe and Pedro Mountains. From the southern end, the byway starts at the town in Sinclair and follows County Road 351/Seminoe Road north into Natrona County ending at Alcova. A portion of this Backcountry Byway falls within the study area.

3.6

Key Observation Points

As discussed in Section 2.1, KOPs were identified to better understand existing conditions and potential viewer experience. KOPs were selected using the Project viewshed analysis and included input from stakeholders and agencies during Study Plan development. Because it is not feasible to analyze all views of the Project, five KOPs were selected to provide representative views of existing conditions and depict potential changes from the Project. The selected KOPs are shown in Figure 1-2. KOP selection focused on the most well-used locations with views of the Project, such as Seminoe State Park and viewpoints along Seminoe Road.

3.6.1

KOP 1: Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Viewpoint

KOP 1 is located off Seminoe Road, at an established viewpoint overlooking Seminoe Dam and Reservoir. This KOP is approximately 0.3 mile south of the proposed new bridge. Seminoe Road is a designated scenic byway, also known as the Seminoe to Alcova Backcountry Byway. From this elevated viewpoint, unobstructed foreground views of the Seminoe Mountains, and Seminoe Dam and Reservoir are present. The view represented by this KOP is typical of the visual experience traveling north along the scenic byway through Seminoe State Park. Seminoe Reservoir, Seminoe Dam, Seminoe Tailrace, access roads, and recreational fishing areas are visible. KOP 1 is within a Class II VRM (Appendix B). Viewer groups include travelers, recreationists, residents, and workers. KOP 1 is depicted in Figure 3-1.

3.6.2

KOP 2: Seminoe State Park, North Red Hills

KOP 2 is located at the North Red Hills Campground in Seminoe State Park, approximately 0.8 mile southwest of the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. This location is a well-used recreational area and was selected to be representative of the recreational user experience in Seminoe State Park. From this low elevation position across Seminoe Reservoir, unobstructed foreground and middleground views of the Project area, Seminoe Mountains, reservoir, and surrounding grasslands are present. The view represented by this KOP is typical of established recreational areas along Seminoe Reservoir. KOP 2 is within a Class II VRM (Appendix B). Viewer groups include travelers, recreationists, and workers. KOP 2 is depicted in Figure 3-2.

3.6.3

KOP 3: Seminoe Reservoir Viewpoint

KOP 3 is located off Seminoe Road, at an established viewpoint overlooking Seminoe Reservoir. This KOP is approximately 0.6 mile south/southeast of the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. Seminoe Road is a designated scenic byway, also known as the Seminoe to Alcova Backcountry Byway. From December 2022 | 13

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

this elevated viewpoint, foreground views of the Seminoe Mountains, Seminoe Reservoir and access roads are present. Due to the topography, views of Seminoe Dam are obscured. The view represented by this KOP is typical of the visual experience traveling north along the scenic byway through Seminoe State Park. KOP 3 is within a Class II VRM (Appendix B). Viewer groups include travelers, recreationists, residents, and workers. KOP 3 is depicted in Figure 3-3.

December 2022 | 14

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3–1. KOP 1 – Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Viewpoint

December 2022 | 15

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3–2. KOP 2 – Seminoe State Park, North Red Hills

December 2022 | 16

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3–3. KOP 3 – Seminoe Reservoir Viewpoint

December 2022 | 17

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

3.6.4

KOP 4: Seminoe Tailrace

KOP 4 is located at the Seminoe Tailrace, at the upstream extent of the Kortes Reservoir, and is approximately 300 feet south of the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. The site is primarily used for shore angling along the North Platte River near the tailrace of Seminoe Dam. From this position of relatively low elevation, foreground views of the Project area, North Platte River, and surrounding mountains are present. This location is a well-used recreational (angling) area and was selected to be representative of the recreational user experience along the North Platte River. KOP 4 is within a Class II VRM (Appendix B). Viewer groups include recreationists, anglers, and workers. KOP 4 is depicted in Figure 3-4.

3.6.5

KOP 5: Bennett Mountains WSA

KOP 5 is located in the Bennett Mountains WSA, at the western edge, and is approximately 555 feet east of the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. The WSA is a destination for scenic vistas, quiet landscapes, and numerous recreational opportunities, such as hiking and exploration, photography, horseback riding, dispersed camping, antler collecting, hunting, bird watching, and rock climbing. From this elevated viewpoint, unobstructed foreground views of the Project area, Seminoe Mountains, surrounding mountains and surrounding desert grasslands and dunes are present. The view represented by this KOP is typical of the visual experience of the WSA. KOP 5 is withing a Class II VRM (Appendix B). Viewer groups include recreationists and workers. KOP 5 is depicted in Figure 35.

December 2022 | 18

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3–4. KOP 4 – Seminoe Tailrace

December 2022 | 19

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3–5. KOP 5 – Bennett Mountains WSA

December 2022 | 20

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Discussion

Analysis of impacts to visual and aesthetic resources is subjective because the qualities that create an aesthetically pleasing visual character vary from person to person. For the purposes of this analysis, the effects of Project construction and operation on visual and aesthetic resources in the study area were determined based on the comparison of predicted change caused by the Project with the scenic quality inventory of the study area. The results are based on consideration of existing scenic quality rating/scores, existing landscape character, presence or absence of introduced features (roadways, transmission lines, developed recreation areas, fences, etc.), and the potential effect of the Project as either a new or additional cultural modification.

4.1

Construction and Operational Impacts

Construction activities will create visual and aesthetic impacts for the duration of those activities, including the presence and visibility of construction equipment, materials, and personnel; construction staging and laydown areas; and vegetation clearing. Operations will create visual and aesthetic impacts from above-ground Project features, including the bridge, access roads, lower reservoir intake structure, upper reservoir, penstock, and transmission line. Additional information is presented by KOP as follows.

4.1.1

KOP 1: Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Viewpoint

During construction, daytime Project activities will be visible from KOP 1 due to the close 0.3-mile distance from the Project. Construction will result in temporary increases in traffic along area roads, including Seminoe Road, but it is already a highly traveled route and as such, impacts will be negligible to minor from a visual impact perspective. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting; existing lighting is limited but present from nearby Seminoe State Park developments and dam facilities. A simulation of KOP 1 is depicted in Figure 4-1. Based on this simulation, the new bridge over Seminoe Tailrace (north of Seminoe Dam) would be visible. Vegetation and water visibility is not anticipated to measurably change because of the new bridge. Color, as depicted, blends in with lighter exposed natural surfaces and is consistent with the dam and other introduced features. Texture is fine when compared to the coarseness of the surrounding undeveloped hillsides and is consistent with the smooth dam texture. The bridge introduces a new horizontal line and vertical lines to the landscape, which is mountainous, but similar to the line provided by the dam and area access roads. The new bridge as depicted contrasts with adjacent natural scenery of rocky mountainsides but is consistent with the dam and access roads. While the bridge adds another introduced cultural modification to the landscape, this view is already highly modified due to Seminoe Dam structure and associated access roads. The level of change from the Project would be low, and as depicted would meet VRM Class II objectives.

December 2022 | 21

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 4–1. KOP 1 Simulation – Seminoe Dam and Reservoir Viewpoint

December 2022 | 22

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

4.1.2

KOP 2: Seminoe State Park, North Red Hills

During construction, Project activities will be visible, but due to the approximately 0.8-mile distance, activities will appear as weak contrast and not attract attention. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting; existing lighting is limited but present from nearby Seminoe State Park developments and dam facilities. A simulation of KOP 2 is depicted in Figure 4-2. Based on this simulation, the new transmission line would be visible. Two steel lattice towers are depicted on the left side of the simulation along the skyline; note that two existing lattice towers are also visible along the skyline. The lattice towers introduce new vertical features to the landscape. Changes in vegetation and water visibility are not anticipated to occur from the Project transmission line. Color as depicted for the transmission line generally blends in with the tans and greens visible at the base of the mountains, across Seminoe Reservoir, with the lattice towers providing a contrast to the skyline. Texture is fine and blends with the surrounding area. The transmission line introduces a new horizontal line to the landscape, at contrast to the mountainside but is consistent in form to the base of the mountains where landform is more rolling. The new transmission line provides weak contrast to the surrounding natural scenery of the mountains and rolling foothills. While the transmission line adds another introduced cultural modification to the landscape, the view already contains such features, including the outbuilding, fencing, and transmission lines. The level of change from the Project would be low, and as depicted would meet VRM Class II objectives.

4.1.3

KOP 3: Seminoe Reservoir Viewpoint

During construction, daytime Project activities will be visible from KOP 3 due to the close 0.6-mile distance from the Project. Workers will result in temporary increases in traffic along area roads, including Seminoe Road, but it is already a moderately traveled route and as such, impacts will be negligible to minor from a visual impact perspective. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting; existing lighting is limited but present from nearby Seminoe State Park developments and dam facilities. A simulation of KOP 3 is depicted in Figure 4-3. Based on this simulation, the lower intake structure in Seminoe Reservoir would be visible due to the low water elevation at the time of the site visit. Note that at full pool, only the top of the structure is anticipated to be visible. Vegetation and water visibility is not anticipated to measurably change from the lower intake structure or access. Color as depicted blends in with the lighter exposed reservoir banks. Texture is fine when compared to the coarseness of the surrounding undeveloped hillsides and is consistent with the smooth texture of the exposed reservoir banks. Line is similar to existing reservoir banks and consistent with the coves present along the edge of the reservoir. The lower intake structure adds an introduced cultural modification to the landscape, which is not present outside of some existing visible access roads. However, such changes should not attract the attention of the casual observer, especially during normal water levels when the majority of the lower intake structure would be covered with water. The basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the surrounding areas (particularly the character of the exposed reservoir banks) would be repeated by the lower intake structure as depicted in this simulation. As such, VRM Class II objectives would be met.

December 2022 | 23

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 4–2. KOP 2 Simulation – Seminoe State Park, North Red Hills

December 2022 | 24

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 4–3. KOP 3 Simulation – Seminoe Reservoir Viewpoint

December 2022 | 25

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

4.1.4

KOP 4: Seminoe Tailrace

During construction Project activities will be visible due to the immediate proximity to the Project. Workers will result in temporary increases in traffic and presence within the area for bridge and access road construction and may impede recreational use of the North Platte River in this location. Impacts will be moderate to high from a visual impact perspective. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting; existing lighting is limited but present from nearby Seminoe State Park developments and dam facilities. A simulation of KOP 4 is depicted in Figure 4-4. Based on this simulation, the new bridge over the river would be visible and a prominent introduced feature. Some vegetation removals would be anticipated for bridge construction, however for the most part existing vegetation would be unchanged. Visibility of the waterbody is not anticipated to measurably change because of the new bridge but may be slightly obscured by new pilings. Color as depicted contrasts with the tans of the mountains but is consistent with lighter surfaces. Texture is fine when compared to the coarseness of the surrounding mountainsides. The bridge introduces a strong horizontal line to the landscape, which is mountainous. The new bridge as depicted provides a strong contrast with the adjacent natural scenery of rocky mountainsides, evergreen trees, and the North Platte River. The bridge adds a prominent introduced cultural modification to the landscape. Such changes would attract the attention of the casual observer. Form, line, color, and texture contrast with the surrounding areas as depicted in this simulation. As such, VRM Class II objectives would not be met.

4.1.5

KOP 5: Bennett Mountains WSA

During construction Project activities will be visible and create short-term impacts from the presence and visibility of construction equipment, materials, and personnel and construction staging and laydown areas. The WSA is not heavily trafficked by recreators as it is closed to motorized vehicles. Furthermore, recreation within the WSA occurs primarily during the summer months and the WSA is prone to summer lightning strikes and occasional wildfires which may cause recreational closures. For recreators accessing the western edge of the WSA, a moderate to high visual impact is anticipated. Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting. Project operations will introduce permanent, minor sources of lighting. A simulation of KOP 5 is depicted in Figure 4-5. Based on the simulation, the upper reservoir and associated penstock are visible in the foreground and appear in the simulation as a prominent horizontal feature. The straight lines of the upper reservoir and penstock are bold when compared to the mountains, evergreen trees, and desert grasslands and dunes in the surrounding landscape. The tan color of the upper reservoir and penstocks is consistent with the exposed rock of the mountains and grasslands but contrasts with the darker browns and greens of the vegetation, specifically the evergreen trees, in the surrounding area. The smooth and fine texture of the reservoir and penstocks also contrasts with the coarseness of the surrounding mountains. The upper reservoir and penstock add prominent introduced cultural modifications to the landscape. Such changes would attract the attention of the casual observer. Form, line, color, and texture all contrast with the surrounding areas as depicted in this simulation. As such, VRM Class II objectives would not be met.

December 2022 | 26

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 4–4. KOP 4 Simulation – Seminoe Tailrace

December 2022 | 27

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 4–5. KOP 5 Simulation – Bennett Mountains WSA

December 2022 | 28

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

References

Carbon County, Wyoming. 2012. Carbon County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Adopted November 9, 2010. Amended April 3. _____. 2021. Carbon County Natural Resource Management Plan. April 13. Chapman, S.S., Bryce, S.A., Omernik, J.M., Despain, D.G., ZumBerge, J., and Conrad, M., 2004, Ecoregions of Wyoming (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed online 8/26/2021. https://gaftp.epa.gov/EPADataCommons/ORD/Ecoregions/wy/wy_eco_pg.pdf HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). 2022. Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weed Study Report. January. Reclamation, U.S. Bureau of (Reclamation). 2022. Hydromet: ARC050, Daily Data for One Year, Water Year 2021, Seminoe Reservoir SEMR: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Accessed online 3/8/2022. https://www.usbr.gov/gp-bin/arc050_form.pl?SEMR U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1984. Manual H-8400 Visual Resource Management. April. _____. 1986. Manual H-8410-1 Visual Resource Inventory. January. _____. 2008. Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan. December. _____. 2011. Visual Resource Inventory, BLM Rawlins Field Office. February. _____. 2013. Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of Renewable Energy Facilities on BLM-Administered Lands. Cheyenne, Wyoming. April. _____. 2017. Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment for Visual Resource Management, Rawlins Field Office, High Desert District, Wyoming. December. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. Gap Analysis Program. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed online. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0 Western Regional Climate Center. 2021. Climate Summary for the Period of Record (1892–2016) in McGill, Nevada (Station 264950). Accessed online June 28, 2021. https://wrcc.dri.edu/summary/

December 2022 | 29

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix A. Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Plan

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Plan March 17, 2021

1.0

Introduction

Black Canyon Hydro has initiated a licensing process for the Project with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency with jurisdiction over non-federal hydropower projects in the United States. During this process, Black Canyon Hydro will engage stakeholders and implement a suite of resource studies that will inform FERC’s environmental and developmental analyses and decision regarding license issuance. This document presents Black Canyon Hydro’s proposed approach to the scoping and implementation of a Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study for the Project that would be provided to FERC to assist in the licensing analyses. Black Canyon Hydro anticipates filing a Final License Application with FERC in August 2022.

2.0

Project Nexus and Study Goals

The goal of this Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study (Study) is to document visual resource conditions relating to proposed Project facilities and identify consistency with relevant agency visual and aesthetic resource goals, standards, guidelines, recommendations, objectives, and desired conditions and with other relevant guidance as determined through consultation. The objectives of this study are to: • Conduct an aesthetics inventory of proposed Project facility locations, including taking photographs from key viewing locations and developing photosimulation of proposed Project facilities. • Present information on whether each proposed facility is consistent with relevant agency visual and aesthetic resource goals, standards, guidelines, recommendations, objectives, and desired conditions. • For facilities that are not consistent, determine what modifications, potentially including relocation, would be necessary to make the facilities consistent. • Assess the feasibility of identified potential modifications.

Page 1

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Plan

3.0

Summary of Existing Information

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) categorizes land using Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes, which represent degrees of acceptable change to visual resources based on physical and sociological characteristics of homogenous areas (BLM 2008). These classes range from Class I, which preserves the existing natural character of the landscape, including primitive and wilderness areas, to Class IV, which allows management activities to dominate the view or landscape, including changes to the original landscape or character of the area. The majority of the Project is located within VRM Class II (BLM 2008). Based on correspondence received from the BLM Rawlins Field Office, Black Canyon Hydro anticipates an amendment to the current Rawlins Resource Management Plan (RMP) may be necessary given a majority of the Project is located within VRM Class II. This process will be addressed through this study, further consultation with the BLM, and analysis required for the License Application. Lands potentially affected by Project construction, operation, and maintenance are largely undeveloped. No formal studies documenting existing aesthetic or visual resource conditions are known to exist.

4.0

Methods

4.1

Study Area

The Study Area will consist of lands within the Conceptual Project Boundary. This study incorporates a 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-mile buffer surrounding the Conceptual Project Boundary. Attachment 1 depicts the study area.

4.2

Study Methods

A Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study will be conducted consisting of eight tasks: 1. Identification of representative and critical key viewing locations. 2. An aesthetics inventory of locations where Project facilities may be constructed, including digital photographs from key viewing locations. 3. Photosimulation of proposed Project facilities as viewed from key viewing locations. 4. Information on whether each facility is consistent with relevant agency scenic goals, standards, guidelines, recommendations, objectives, and desired conditions. 5. For facilities that are not consistent, determination of modifications necessary to make the facilities consistent. 6. An assessment of the feasibility of identified potential modifications.

4.2.1

Identification of Representative and Critical Key Viewing Locations

Black Canyon Hydro will conduct a viewshed analysis in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment based on location and height of proposed Project facilities. The Key Observation Point (KOP) development process will be used to determine where potential visual impact locations will be considered for photosimulation. Photographs will be taken at each KOP to support assessment of the potential visual impact. Steps to determine the KOP locations will consist of:

Page 2

March 17, 2021

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Plan

• Choose locations with potential for visual impact (e.g., recreation trail, road, houses). This is usually along commonly traveled routes or at other likely observation points. • Conduct preliminary line-of-sight and viewshed analysis in GIS. o

Conduct traditional “visibility analysis” GIS approach using site topography in ESRI ArcGIS extension Spatial Analyst and/or ESRI 3D Analyst to do the following: 

Establish baseline conditions for visibility using binary (visible/not visible) technique;



Qualify or disqualify potential visual receptor locations; and



Cross-validate 2D photosimulations, 3D models, animations, or other deliverables that are by-product derivatives of the analysis.

Additionally, Black Canyon Hydro will consult with stakeholders to identify representative and critical viewing locations.

4.2.2

Compile an Aesthetics Inventory of locations Where Project Facilities may be Constructed, Including Digital Photographs from Key Viewing Locations.

Black Canyon Hydro will conduct a digital photographic inventory of all proposed Project facility locations visible from the KOPs. The physical characteristics of proposed Project facilities (including lighting and distance from key viewing areas) will be described in narrative. The field work to collect facilities inventory data will entail qualified personnel operating Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment to take photographs at each location. GPS location points will be recorded for each simulation viewpoint, preferably using a GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy, but at least 3-meter accuracy, to ensure repeatability. Multiple site photographs will be collected at each location using a tripod. Site photographs to be used and an assessment will be correlated with x, y, z coordinates and heading angle. For each inventory point, the following information will be collected: • GPS – accuracy for photosimulations should be within 3 feet (+or- 1 meter horizontal). o

GPS model.

PDOP and post-processing information

• Camera o

Make, model

Camera lens information

• Ground truth

4.2.3

Confirm KOP based on logical on-site conditions

Field notes – time of day, atmospheric condition, heading of camera view

Compile a Photosimulation of Proposed Project Facilities as Viewed From Key Viewing Locations.

The general procedure for creation of a photosimulation involves compositing a scaled, georeferenced model of existing and proposed conditions with a photograph. The camera data collected in the field is entered into software (e.g., 3d Studio Max, a product widely used for architectural visualization) that digitally replicates the three-dimensional world at full scale. The computer simulation March 17, 2021

Page 3

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Plan

can vary in detail from a highly detailed architectural model of the project to a simple massing study lacking detail but representing the volume and dimensions of the project. Projects seen at a moderate distance, for instance, can be successfully simulated using a massing study because details cannot be discerned at a substantial distance. A closer view would justify a more-detailed simulation. Confirmation of scale and position of the computer rendering is often accomplished by installing marker poles on site at points correlating with the Project plan to provide registration points. The preliminary computer image will simulate the Project and poles, and the image will be positioned and scaled until the simulated poles overlay exactly those appearing in the underlying base photograph. GIS-based aerial photographs and topographic mapping is typically used to confirm locations. Use of a GIS spatial model combined with the GPS locations of each photograph provide a representation of the existing conditions to use as a base in the photosimulations. During the development of the GIS Spatial Model, the following metadata will be documented: • Source of the data; • Date the data was generated and date the data was downloaded; • Coordinate system of the data and the project; • Known limitations of the topographic data; • Process steps; • Derivatives from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) if any; • Lineage of each input and process; and • Elevation conversions. Once the GIS Spatial Model is finalized, data from GIS will be exported to the appropriate file formats required to import the model into the preferred 3D software. Gather the following engineering design data and ensure that the data is to scale and in the local Project coordinate system. • CAD (Autodesk or Bentley) of the existing Study Area; • CAD (Autodesk or Bentley) of the proposed design; • GIS files exported from the spatial model; and • KOP Photographs with camera data. Once imported into the 3D software, check that the imported data matches how it was represented in the originating software. For example, check the topography to ensure that the elevations are accurate and the scale of the aerial imagery. Next, begin setting up the 3D cameras at each location, accounting for the height of the tripod above ground. With the appropriate camera settings (focal length, film gate) loaded into each 3D camera, begin to align the camera to the photograph using existing data (CAD and/or GIS) to aid in the alignment. Once aligned and the appropriate lighting system is setup for the environment conditions, the render process of the proposed data out of V-Ray can begin, which will turn the proposed model into an image. The rendered image will then be overlaid on top of the photograph from the view location in PhotoShop or an equivalent photo-editing software. Inside of PhotoShop, the existing image will be modified and split into layers to allow the rendered image to be placed behind foreground elements and behind background elements.

Page 4

March 17, 2021

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Plan

4.2.4

Assess Visual Condition or Scenic Integrity of the Photosimulated Project Facilities (Tasks 4, 5, 6, and 7)

• Black Canyon Hydro will describe the degree of existing visual contrast or existing scenic integrity of the Project facilities when viewed from a road or use area in terms of form, line, color, and texture, as well as proximity, extent, duration, and aspect of viewing. • Black Canyon Hydro will describe the impacts to the existing visual quality by analyzing and explaining if changes to the visual resources of the natural environments are compatible or incompatible with existing visual resources by land type. On BLM land, Black Canyon Hydro will analyze if the existing visual condition is compatible with the Scenic Integrity Objectives (i.e., high, moderate, low, or very low) for the area. • Black Canyon Hydro will determine the degree of impact and whether the impact is adverse, beneficial, or neutral. On BLM lands, Black Canyon Hydro will determine the scenic integrity level using the scenic integrity scale (i.e., very high, high, moderate, low, very low, and unacceptably low). • Black Canyon Hydro will also identify any potential modifications to the Project facilities to comply with existing visual setting and direction.

4.2.5

Reporting

A Visual and Aesthetics Resources Report will be prepared that will summarize the results of the field study and will include all photo documentation and maps.

5.0

Schedule

The field portion of this study will be conducted in 2021. A final report will be developed following the completion of 2021 efforts.

6.0

References

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Proposed Resources Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyoming. [Online] URL: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?method Name=dispatchToPatternPage&c urrentPageId=88584 (Accessed February 24, 2020.)

March 17, 2021

Page 5

Attachment 1 Conceptual Project Boundary Map

Visual and Aesthetic Resources Study Report Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix B. BLM Maps

Match Line

Map 2-1a. Scenic Quality Rating Units

Match Line Scenic Quality Evaluation Page 26

Match Line

Map 3-1a. Sensitivity Level Rating Units

Match Line Sensitivity Level Analysis Page 55

Map 4-1. Distance Zones

Distance Zones Page 61

Match Line

Map 5-1a. Visual Resource Inventory Classes

Match Line Visual Resource Inventory Classes Page 73

Match Line

Map 5-1b. Visual Resource Inventory Classes

Match Line Visual Resource Inventory Classes Page 74

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix L Black Canyon DLA Comment Response Matrix

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (FERC No. 14787) rPlus Hydro, LLLP, on behalf of Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s, Response to Comments on Draft License Application (DLA) Comments Received June 28, 2022 – September 8, 2022 Comments in this table were received from: Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality – Water Quality Division (WDEQ-WQD), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff and are listed in date sequence. Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

Comments from Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) in letter dated June 28, 2022, to Luigi Resta at rPlus Hydro, LLLP, from Scott Gamo, Environmental Services Manager. WYDOT-1

All work within the WYDOT right-of-way will require permitting.

Black Canyon appreciates the input and looks forward to working with WYDOT to complete this obligation.

WYDOT-2

All Highway crossings will require a utility license, M-54 and have certain requirements.

Black Canyon appreciates the input and looks forward to working with WYDOT to complete this obligation.

WYDOT-3

Any operations/maintenance of roads will need access permits.

Black Canyon appreciates the input and looks forward to working with WYDOT to complete this obligation.

WYDOT-4

Disturbed areas will need to be restored to original conditions within the right-of-way.

Black Canyon appreciates the input and looks forward to working with WYDOT to complete this obligation.

WYDOT-5

Traffic control as per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for streets and highways.

Black Canyon appreciates the input and looks forward to working with WYDOT to complete this obligation. Black Canyon will develop a Traffic Management Plan prior to construction.

Comments from Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) – Water Quality Division (WQD) in memorandum dated August 25, 2022, to Lars Dorr and Kevin Baker at rPlus Energies. WDEQ-1

Under combinations of common “worst-case” stream flow and reservoir water level scenarios at monthly, seasonal (spring runoff, baseflow/low water, fall turnover, winter), annual and multiyear time frames, what is the risk that discharges from the hydroelectric facility to Seminoe Reservoir may: 1. Cause fish injury or mortality from ‘gas-bubble disease’ associated with development of elevated total dissolved gas supersaturated conditions; 2. Remove or weaken thermal stratification that typically develops near Seminoe Dam during the summer and early fall months; 3. Re-mobilize metals, nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) and other analytes that are currently in reservoir bottom sediments through resuspension, oxidation and/or desorption; 4. Result in exceedances of water-quality based acute and/or chronic numeric criteria protective of aquatic life and human health in the Class 2AB Seminoe Reservoir or Kortes Reservoir as a result of processes described in 1(c) (see Wyoming’s Surface Water Quality Standards, Chapter 1 Water Quality Rules at https://deq.wyoming.gov/water-quality/watershed-protection/surface-water-qualitystandards/ for a list of numeric criteria); 5. Result in increased loading (flux) of metals, nutrients and other analytes in outflows from Seminoe and Kortes Dams as a result of processes described in 1(c); 6. Result in measurable changes to the existing water quality (e.g., thermal, hydrologic, nutrients, metals, salinity, etc.) of the Class 1 North Platte River ‘Miracle Mile’ segment (Kortes Dam downstream to Pathfinder Reservoir) as a result of processes described

1. Total dissolved gas supersaturation downstream of some hydroelectric dams can cause localized gas bubble trauma or mortality in fish and other aquatic species, primarily as a result of air mixing with water during spillway use or as it is injected into turbines during operations to prevent cavitation. Because pumped storage operations do not involve spillway use and no air injection will be required as part of Project operations, gas supersaturation is not anticipated to occur. 2. Based on the results of a water temperature model, as discussed in Section 3.4 of Exhibit E, there is minimal difference in the temperature stratification with and without Project operations in 1976, even in the summer months. Based on meteorological conditions, 1976 represents a normal year that is typical of what will be seen under Project operations. In 1978, there is an increased difference in thermal stratification with and without Project operations when compared to the model scenario of 1976; however, the difference is still considered minor. The modeled scenarios show the greatest difference in thermal stratification in 1977, an unusual year with extreme low-flow conditions. When modeled without Project operations, 1977 presents unusually high stratified conditions due to extreme low river flows and, therefore, it is more sensitive to impacts from operations. The year 1977 represents the 4th percentile of the long-term distribution; that is, this river flow condition occurred about 4 percent of the time or 4 times in 100 years. This makes 1977 an extremely unusual year and, therefore, model results for 1977 should be considered as “worstcase” conditions. 3. Based on 2021 sediment sampling, the sediments near the intake are primarily fines consisting of silt and clays. With anticipated near-bottom velocities being 0 fps during pumping operations and up to 3 fps during generation in small, localized areas directly below the intake structure, the Project has the potential to resuspend sediment into the overlying water column of Seminoe Reservoir which may include concentrations of heavy metals. To prevent sediment mobilization and metal transport, Black Canyon proposes to install a clean rockfill blanket (approximately 1

Comment #

Comment in 1(a) - 1(e). Note the existing water quality of Class 1 waters must be protected at all times pursuant to Chapter 1 Water Quality Rules; 7. Result in measurable changes to in-reservoir fisheries habitat (e.g., lake bottom substrate and cover; thickness of the epilimnion and hypolimnion); 8. Redistribute lake bottom sediments and influence the operations of Seminoe Dam including outlet structures?

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response 100 feet by 100 feet) below the intake in the area where near-bottom velocities are anticipated to be the highest. This will prevent sediments, including clays and silts, from being resuspended during Project operations. More information related to the Project design, including the rockfill blanket, is included in Exhibit A. Sediment disruption during construction, including during the installation of the rockfill blanket, will be addressed in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which will detail proposed BMPs to contain and minimize sediment and metal mobilization and transport. When finalizing the Project design, Black Canyon will continue to engage in consultation with resource agencies regarding the potential for sediment mobilization as a result of Project construction and operations. 4 - 7. Project impacts on water quality in Seminoe Reservoir are discussed in Section 3.4 including and analysis of potential water quality impacts downstream of Seminoe Reservoir. 8. See response to item 3 above.

WDEQ-2

Will there be industrial and/or sanitary wastewater at the hydroelectric facility? How will this wastewater be contained, treated and disposed of?

In accordance with Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) requirements, a small wastewater treatment plant will be at the Project for sanitary waste. Other chemicals associated with maintenance of generating equipment will be handled and disposed of in accordance with state and local requirements.

WDEQ-3

What measures will be taken to protect water quality and ensure Wyoming’s Surface Water Quality Standards are met during construction of the hydroelectric facility?

As identified in the environmental measures proposed by Black Canyon in Section 2.1.2 of Exhibit E of the Final License Application (FLA), Black Canyon proposes to develop and implement an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to address erosion associated with Project construction. Using Best Management Practices (BMPs) recommended by the State of Wyoming, the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will specify erosion control measures to help minimize potential adverse impacts. Both Wyoming State law and the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting for construction activities. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will specify actions to be implemented during Project construction and operation to minimize the potential for generating windblown dust from Project activities and to control fugitive dust. Special focus in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be given to addressing earthworks in soils that are highly erodible. Black Canyon also proposes to develop a Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan, as listed in Table 2.1-3 of Section 2.1.2 of Exhibit E, to address potential issues resulting from spills of hazardous substances or fuels during construction, operation, or maintenance. It will specify materials handling procedures and storage requirements and identify spill notification and cleanup procedures for areas in which spills may occur. The Hazardous Substances Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan is proposed to identify inventory, storage, and handling methods for hazardous materials and develop employee training procedures to help minimize accidental pollutant releases which could contaminate surface or groundwater or stormwater runoff.

WDEQ-4

Will any discharges from cofferdam or site dewatering, vehicle or machine washing, drilling fluids or cuttings or other material processing operations occur? How will these discharges be stored, treated and discharged?

All construction areas will have water discharges that need processing. A water processing facility in accordance with WDEQ requirements will be located at appropriate locations on site during construction. Discharges will be stored and processed according to procedures set up for the contractor. Prior to construction, the contractor will develop a specific plan to be approved by WDEQ for handling and processing discharges of water as well as handling and spill containment in accordance with Wyoming and Federal agency standards.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

Scoping Comments from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 in letter e-filed with FERC on August 31, 2022, by Laura Margason, Lead Reviewer NEPA Branch USEPA-1

Water Resources Surface Water & Groundwater

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review for the proposed Project will be led by FERC. However, Black Canyon has prepared technical information to support the NEPA process and to facilitate FERC’s review. The following sections contain information relevant to USEPA’s comment:

We recommend the NEPA document:   



USEPA-2

Clearly describe the source or sources of water that would be acquired for initial fill and ongoing operations. Identify all quantity, quality, and sources of water needed to contribute to filling the upper reservoir, and/or meeting makeup water or other operational needs and requirements. Estimate the water rights that would need to be acquired and from whom, including negotiations with the State of Wyoming and any other parties. If purchased from other water rights holders, discuss the length of the term of any such agreements and whether the amount purchased will fulfill all or part of the Project’s operational needs. Calculate the amount of water needed to maintain adequate levels in both reservoirs, including operational levels and the amount of make-up water needed on an annual basis under various climatological conditions.

Water Resources Surface Water & Groundwater

  



Water right permitting is ongoing through discussions with private parties, the Wyoming State Engineer, and Reclamation. As these negotiations and the underlying contractual arrangements are secured, the FERC Licensing will be updated. There are no plans for acquiring water from groundwater sources for the Project. See comment response USEPA-1 for information on water sourcing. Adverse effects from the construction of the Project are discussed in Exhibit E.

Should the Project proponents decide to acquire water from groundwater sources, the EPA recommends that the NEPA document include baseline surface water and groundwater quality, quantity and interactions data; a discussion on impacts of all aspects of the Project on these hydrologic components; and a description of all required mitigation for any adverse impacts.      

Exhibit B, Sections 4.1 and 4.2 describe the sources of water that are being acquired for initial fill and ongoing operations. Exhibit B, Section 4.1 describes the quantity and source of water needed to fill the upper reservoir which is 13,400 acre-feet. Exhibit B, Section 4.1 and Section 4.2 describe the water rights that would need to be acquired. The water in Seminoe Reservoir is currently under permit number P4552.0R held by Reclamation. Water rights contracts will be acquired from Reclamation and the Casper Alcova Irrigation District (CAID) and will be permitted by the Wyoming State Engineers Office. Water rights will be obtained to fulfill all of the Project operational needs. Exhibit B, Section 4.2 describes the amount of water needed to maintain adequate levels in both reservoirs.

Describe the timing and amount of groundwater well withdrawals for the purposes of filling and maintaining the upper reservoir. Identify potential impacts to spring and seep emergences and their associated discharge rates and quality. Discuss how the Project’s use of groundwater affects other beneficial uses and water quality of water in both the source area and other affected areas, such as other groundwater users in the area. Utilize baseline groundwater information to evaluate potential project impacts to the quantity and quality of groundwater recharge and connected surface flows. Identify the methodologies used and analysis framework. Discuss the construction, operation, and maintenance of water conveyance tunnels that minimize adverse effects on groundwater aquifers and their surface expression. Address potential adverse effects that the construction of the upper reservoir and ongoing project operations would have on the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Seminoe Reservoir, Kortes Reservoir, the North Platte River and perennial streams in the area, both on-site and downstream of the Project area.

Comment # USEPA-3

Comment Water Resources Baseline Existing Conditions Existing resource conditions provide the basis for an effective analysis of potential impacts. Therefore, the EPA recommends that the NEPA document include the following baseline aquatic resource information: 

   

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Black Canyon’s Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Report contained as Appendix B of Exhibit E provides publicly available maps depicting streams, lakes, springs, and wetlands within the vicinity of the proposed Project area. Additionally, Exhibit E provides baseline information regarding downstream waters, with a focus on water resources identified within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. Exhibit E, Section 3.4 provides a summary of existing information on surface hydrology, water quality, and water quantity and usage that may be affected by the proposed Project and associated facilities. 

A publicly available map and summary of the Project area waters and downstream waters, including streams, lakes, springs, and wetlands. It would be helpful if the summary identified high resource value waterbodies and their designated beneficial uses (e.g., agriculture, fisheries, drinking water, treaty rights, recreation uses, etc.) Watershed conditions, including vegetation cover and composition, and soil conditions. Surface water information, including available water quality data in relation to current Wyoming water quality rules and regulations, stream functional assessments, stream channel/stream bank stability conditions, flood maps, sediment loads, and aquatic life. Clear identification of types, functions and acreages of wetlands, riparian areas, and springs. A map and list of Clean Water Act (CWA) impaired or threatened water body segments within, or downstream of, the Project area, including the designated uses of the water bodies and the specific pollutants of concern.



 USEPA-4

Water Resources Water Quality Data

A summary of watershed conditions is provided in Exhibit E, Section 3.4 and information describing Project area geology, surficial geology, and soils is in Exhibit E, Section 3.3. Available water quality data in relation to current Wyoming water quality rules and regulations is provided in Section 3.4.1.5 of Exhibit E. A discussion of water quality in the vicinity of the Project is provided in Section 3.4 of Exhibit E. As discussed in Section 3.4 of Exhibit E, Wyoming’s Final 2016/2018 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report stated that WDEQ/WQD removed the North Platte River from the 303(d) List and placed it into Category 2 because the North Platte River was meeting the selenium criteria protective of its coldwater fish and aquatic life other than fish designated uses. Waters in the vicinity of the proposed Project were not assessed according to Wyoming’s 2020 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer and map viewer, there are no floodplains in the vicinity of the Project. A discussion of aquatic life is presented in Section 3.5 of Exhibit E. Complete descriptions of streams, wetlands, springs, and open waters occurring within the potential area of disturbance are provided in Black Canyon’s Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Report contained as Appendix B to Exhibit E. Identification and descriptions of riparian areas occurring in the Footprint of Potential Disturbance are presented in Sections 3.4 and 3.6 of Exhibit E. There are no CWA 303(d) Listed Impaired Waters within or directly downstream of the Project area.

The DLA provided water quality data on the North Platte River from 1996 through 2005 downstream of the Project. This information has been supplemented in Section 3.4 of Exhibit E of the FLA with the WDEQ 2022 report “Water Quality Condition of Streams and Rivers in the North Platte, South Platte and Niobrara Basins, Wyoming.”

Water quality data for the streams and lakes located within the Project area provide important information as well as a baseline for future monitoring of impacts and evaluation of potential influence of the Project on downstream water quality. We recommend that the Commission’s NEPA document provide a summary of available information and monitoring data on water quality for the Project area and downstream waters that could be affected by activities in the Project area, including parameters such as total phosphorus, total nitrogen, total suspended solids or turbidity, total dissolved solids, and temperature. It will also be important to include water quality data for parameters listed for impaired water bodies within or downstream of the Project area. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division (WY DEQ/WQD) can further assist in the identification of impaired waters and development of total maximum daily loads for impaired waters under Section 303 of the CWA, as well as in identifying any significant gaps in available data that may be useful in informing a water quality monitoring plan for the Project. USEPA-5

Water Resources Effects to Stream Function/Condition In addition to impacting water quality, construction of linear facilities and/or roads that cross streams or dislodge erosive soils can have adverse impacts on stream hydrologic, geomorphic, and biological functions such as sediment transport, nutrient cycling, floodplain interspersion and connectivity, fish spawning, and overall aquatic habitat quality. Construction, increased road use, and introduction of heavy construction equipment can compact soil and disturb or eliminate vegetative cover, decreasing water infiltration and

As stated in Section 2.1.2 of Exhibit E, Black Canyon proposes to develop plans to address erosion associated with all aspects of Project construction via an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will also address practices to be established during Project construction and operation to minimize the potential for generating windblown dust from Project activities and to control fugitive dust. Special focus in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be given to addressing earthworks in soils that are highly erodible. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that will be implemented as part of the Project will provide specifications for the installation, implementation, and maintenance of BMPs while allowing for flexibility in the selection of specific BMPs based on site-specific conditions with approval from the reviewing agencies. Black Canyon’s proposed suite of comprehensive protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures as summarized in Section 2.1.2 in Exhibit E are intended

Comment #

Comment increasing surface runoff and erosion. These effects are magnified on steep slopes or in erosive, unstable soils and would have detrimental effects on stream function. We recommend the Commission’s NEPA document include functional or condition assessments for the streams in the Project area to help evaluate construction and operational alternatives and to help choose the option that would have the least impacts to stream functions.

USEPA-6

Climate Change Considerations Foreseeable Changes to Existing Environment The EPA recommends the Commission consider ongoing and projected regional and local climate change and ensure robust climate resilience/adaption planning in the Project’s design. The NEPA document should describe how the Project would be affected by foreseeable changes to the affected environment under a scenario of continued decreasing precipitation days, changing frequency of intense storms and related flood events, and increasing drought intensity in the Project area. Consider including future climate scenarios, such as those provided by the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) National Climate Assessment. http://nca2018.globalchange.gov/. Full consideration of influences from the project setting on the proposed Project may inform necessary design modifications and changes to operational assumptions for determining resource supplies, system demands, system performance requirements, and operational constraints.

USEPA-7

Climate Change Considerations Construction and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The EPA recommends including an estimate of the GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed activities and alternatives. Example tools for estimating and quantifying GHG emissions can be found on CEQ's NEPA website. https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/ceq_guidance_nepa-ghg.html. Because recent data indicate that all reservoirs are sources of methane to the atmosphere, as part of this analysis, include an estimate of potential methane emissions from any proposed reservoirs.(Beaulieu, J. J., Waldo, S., Balz, D. A., Barnett, W., Hall, A., Platz, M. C., & White, K.M. (2020). Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from reservoirs: Controls and upscaling. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 125, e2019JG005474. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JG005474.

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response to provide appropriate measures to protect natural resources and mitigate for Project effects, including potential impacts to streams and wetland resource areas. Text has been added to Section 3.7 to analyze windblown dust. As currently proposed, the construction of the upper reservoir would include inundation of approximately 114 acres (at the normal maximum water level) of degraded habitat that is heavily grazed. This area is known as Dry Lake and is known to fill with water but dries up by June/July according to local ranchers. This area was investigated as part of the Project’s Aquatic Resources Delineation Study. A wetland was identified in this area (W-2) measuring 1.48 acres. No streams, including ephemeral channels, were identified in the area of the proposed upper reservoir. Streams and wetlands identified within the proposed transmission line right-of-way are currently proposed to be crossed aerially by the transmission line, thus avoiding direct stream and wetland impacts. Pumped storage hydropower is a commercially proven, grid-scale, energy storage technology. It is needed, in conjunction with large-scale renewable energy generation, for grid reliability and grid stabilization. The Project will use off-peak or excess available energy to pump water from the lower reservoir to the upper reservoir. The Project will have a nominal 972 megawatts (MW) capacity and storage capacity of 9.7 hours, dependent on grid conditions and market demand. Annual electrical energy production is estimated to be 2,916 gigawatt hours. If the climate change results in water level decreases to less than 6,290 feet, the operations will be temporarily halted until water levels rise. This Project has been designed to aid in addressing climate change. The environmental analysis examines various environmental resources and the resulting potential environmental impacts.

The Seminoe Pumped Storage Project is proposed to help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by enabling greater integration of carbon-free energy resources such as wind and solar and offsetting fossil fuel consumption for electricity production. The creation of a new reservoir in this case will not likely create any new methane emission pathways as the reservoir will be fully cleared and lined. Some GHGs, including some amounts of methane, will be produced as a result of construction and operation of the Project. However, because the Project represents new and critically important storage for carbon-free renewable energy production in the region, it is expected to be an advancement toward GHG reduction and related climate goals. The reservoir will operate with daily cycling that will reduce the chances of significant decomposition of natural materials and, in addition, the upper reservoir will be sited above 7,000 feet elevation which in much of the year will not be a suitable environment for decomposition.

Recognizing that climate impacts are not attributable to any single action, but are exacerbated by a series of smaller decisions, we do not recommend comparing GHG emissions from a proposed action to global emissions or total U.S. emissions, as this approach is limited by the cumulative nature of GHG concentrations and the impacts of climate change. Because of these limitations, these comparisons do not provide meaningful information for a project level analysis. We also recommend using the CEQ’s recent interim guidance entitled, National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, as a resource in assessing the disclosure of GHG emissions, impacts, alternatives, and climate justice issues in NEPA documents until final updated guidance is issued by CEQ.

Comment # USEPA-8

Comment Climate Change Considerations

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response See response to comment USEPA-7.

Climate Resiliency Consistent with Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, the EPA recommends identifying measures to provide for diverse, healthy ecosystems that are resilient to climate stressors; requiring effective mitigation of impacts of the Project that would be exacerbated by climate change; and identifying and protecting areas of potential climate refugia.

The Climate Resilience Toolkit https://toolkit.climate.gov/ serves as a repository of information related to climate resilience in the U.S., including steps to build resilience, case studies, expertise, and special topic areas. USEPA-9

Project Purpose and Need and Range of Alternatives The Draft Application for the Project identifies multiple potential project elements, including a new upper reservoir, water conveyance, energy generation, storage, and transmission interconnect. The EPA recommends that the Draft EIS clearly identify the underlying purpose and need that is the basis for the Project (including each project element) and the range of alternatives that will be analyzed. State the specific objectives of the activity in a broad enough manner to allow the analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives (e.g., generate energy) and describe the need for the proposed Project by identifying the underlying conditions and problems that the Project may be addressing, such as the need to meet peak system demands. Evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives that fulfill the Project’s purpose and need in the NEPA document, including electrical storage options that may not include hydroelectric pumped facilities, such as using commercial scale batteries at solar or wind generating sites. Provide a clear discussion of the reasons for the elimination of alternatives which are not evaluated in detail.

USEPA-10

Fish and Wildlife Impacts

Project purpose and need are discussed in Section 1.1 of Exhibit E of the FLA. The range of reasonable alternatives is discussed in Exhibit B of the FLA.

Comment acknowledged.

The EPA recommends that the Commission consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGFD) to identify measures that avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Consider the following as the NEPA document is being developed:  

USEPA-11

Discuss the distribution of native or nonnative fish species in Seminoe Reservoir and connected streams, and how the Project may affect fish passage, including the potential for entrainment in pumping systems. If compensatory mitigation (restoration, establishment, enhancement, or preservation) is required or advisable, include all mitigation details in the NEPA document.

Fish and Wildlife Impacts Special-Status and Threatened and Endangered Species The proponent’s Draft Application discloses that the project area contains special status species, including Endangered Species Act listed threatened and endangered species, as well as candidate species. The EPA recommends engaging the USFWS as early in the analysis as possible.

Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 of Exhibit E provide information on special-status and threatened and endangered aquatic species, botanical species, and wildlife species, respectively. Table 3.7-5 of Exhibit E provides a list of all special status species considered for analysis, likelihood to occur in the Project area, habitat associations, and summaries of modeling methods. Additionally, Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 of Exhibit E discuss Project effects on rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) aquatic species, plant species, and wildlife species, respectively. Black Canyon has coordinated with USFWS and WGFD regarding potential impacts to threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species and potential suitable habitat, including migratory birds, bald eagles, throughout development of the Draft License Application (DLA) and FLA. Proposed PM&E measures for wildlife and botanical resources that 6

Comment #

Comment To best inform decision-makers and the public, we recommend the NEPA document:     

USEPA-12

Summarize the status and trends of the project area regarding threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species and potential suitable habitat acreages. Disclose any impacts to TES species and habitat resources (including habitat fragmentation) associated with the Project. Include design criteria, mitigation and monitoring measures, developed in coordination with the USFWS and WGFD, to ensure the proposed Project does not negatively impact habitat for migratory birds, bald eagles, or other species. Include any USFWS recommendations to reduce potential impacts to TES species from the proposed Project. Include surveying, mitigation strategies, Best Management Practices, and protocols recommended by fish and wildlife agencies for all significant and unavoidable impacts to resources. Discuss the efficacy of each.

Fish and Wildlife Impacts Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP) Species The EPA appreciates that the proponent’s Draft Application identifies and considers requirements of the PRRIP. The PRRIP was formed by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska, and the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) with the goal of managing and protecting four target species: the interior least tern, pallid sturgeon, piping plover, and whooping crane. Downstream water availability is an important concern for the North Platte River basin; therefore, we recommend the Commission engage the PRRIP’s Governance Committee and DOI representatives to ensure that the Project’s proposed water usage, including initial fill and consumption via evaporative rates, will not impact water availability for the species protected under this plan.

USEPA-13

Air Resources The Project anticipates a considerable amount of earth works to be completed, as well as the construction of various facilities to be utilized upon its completion. To minimize the environmental impacts of construction related work, EPA recommends the NEPA document identify actions to minimize the impacts to local air quality, especially any fugitive dust and diesel emissions.

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response will protect TES species, migratory birds, bald eagles, or other species are summarized in Section 2.1.2 of Exhibit E and include, among other measures, development of a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan, RTE Plant Management Plan, design of raptor-safe transmission line structures, construction timing and scheduling limits for Greater Sage-grouse, bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn, and conducting avian nesting surveys of areas near active construction during nesting season to minimize impacts.

Black Canyon appreciates the USEPA’s comment regarding species protected by the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP) and agrees that downstream water availability is an important concern for the North Platte River Basin. As described in Section 3.7 in Exhibit E, none of the four PRRIP target species is known to occur in the vicinity of the Project, and any potential Project construction or operation effects on these species would be related to water withdrawn from Seminoe Reservoir for Project initial fill or make-up water. The proposed action has no potential to affect PRRIP species or habitat because Black Canyon currently anticipates an approximate net zero change to surface water flows as the water for its initial fill will be offset by a reduction in the irrigation downstream. Ongoing make-up water demands, discussed in Section 4.2, are minimal and as all water will be drawn from Seminoe Reservoir there is not expected to be an impact to downstream flows. Further, system recharge to replace evaporation and other losses will be conducted during periods when excess water is available to conform to existing water rights. Water supply agreements with existing water right holders and the final water supply plans for the Project will be developed and finalized as the licensing process advances. Black Canyon anticipates that the existing water rights holders with whom Black Canyon makes agreements for Project initial fill and make-up water supply will be water users who already participate in the PRRIP in a manner that fulfills Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance requirements for water-depleting activities associated with withdrawals under their water rights, and that agreements made between Black Canyon and these water rights holders will be compatible with their PRRIP obligations. Air quality is addressed in the new Section 3.15 of Exhibit E. Section 3.15 describes existing environmental conditions in the Project airshed, evaluates and discloses air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. As noted in Table 2.1-3, Black Canyon has committed to developing and implementing an Air Pollution Control Plan and other PM&Es to minimize associated adverse impacts.

Protection of air quality is important to address in the NEPA document. After establishing existing environmental conditions in the Project airshed, we recommend evaluating and disclosing any air quality impacts associated with the Project and alternatives and detailing mitigation steps that will be taken to minimize any associated adverse impacts. We recommend the Commission consider opportunities to reduce vehicle emissions as well as road- and construction-related dust emissions through application of best management practices such as dust suppression and limiting vehicle idling. The EPA recommends that the NEPA document identify all Applicant Committed Environmental Protection Measures and any other required emission reduction strategies that would minimize air quality impacts during construction of the system.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

Comments from the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation in a letter dated September 1, 2022, to Lars Dorr at rPlus Hydro, LLLP from Brad Cannon, Chief, Contracts and Compliance Branch Reclamation-1

Lower Reservoir, Inlet/Outlet Structure a. What are the impacts of the flow rates coming out of the outlet structure into Seminoe Reservoir? b. Based on the velocity, are there potential impacts at the opposite bank of the reservoir (where there are landslide risks)?

Reclamation-2

Upper Reservoir, Overflow Emergency Spillway a. As previously discussed, Reclamation has a concern with the design for an overflow emergency spillway that flows into Kortes Reservoir. Kortes Reservoir is typically operated at full capacity and therefore, does not have the ability to store water that flows over your proposed emergency spillway.

b. Your DLA includes studies on recreational impacts of the project at Seminoe Reservoir. However, there is no discussion or study to the recreational impacts of having an emergency spill resulting in elevated releases from Kortes Reservoir through the Miracle Mile.

a. The Project inlet/outlet facility is currently designed for flow rates of 2 feet per second within 1 foot of the bar rack. Flow rate velocities would be reduced moving away from the inlet/outlet facility. b. The opposite bank of the reservoir is approximately 800 feet from the inlet/outlet facility. It is unlikely that flow rate velocities of 2 feet per second or less would impact the opposite shoreline, especially given the current of Seminoe Reservoir in the narrow section adjacent to the inlet/outlet facility.

a. Section 2.1 of Exhibit A has been updated to include additional description and details of a Level Protection System, and the multiple redundancies intended to prevent the occurrence of water spiling from the over-pumping emergency spillway. Below is a summary of the Level Protection System, which is redundant to the Level Control System. b. Section 3.4 of Exhibit E has been updated with an analysis of the estimated impacts from the Project in the remote scenario where all of the redundancies have failed, and the over-pumping emergency spillway experiences an overflow of water at approximately 8,300 cfs. Protection Against Spillway Discharge: Discharges over the over-pumping emergency spillway will be minimized or eliminated by redundant data sensors linked to the pumping controls. A Level Control System will be used for normal plant operation and a completely independent Level Protection System will be a fail-safe backup system to the Level Control System. Multiple types of instrumentation equipment will be used for both systems to avoid faults specific to one manufacturer. Redundancy, alternative cable routes and types, and battery backups packs at the upper reservoir will also be incorporated to mitigate the consequences of equipment failure or power supply interruptions. The independent Level Protection System will consist of, at a minimum, three sets of two electrical sensing devices, which will be set at least three inches higher than the normal shutdown level of the pump cycle. Each set will be connected to one of the units. If either of the pairs of sensors is activated, a hard-wired shutdown of the pump cycle will occur. At least two other sensors located remotely from each other will be included to back up the electrical switches and will be set at least 3 inches higher than the unit electrical sensors. Each of these extra sensors will trip all three pumps. Two additional electrical sensors will be located within the over-pumping emergency spillway – but separately from each other - to trip all pumps if any significant water volumes flow over the spillway crest. Actuation of either sensor in the overpumping emergency spillway will trip all the pump cycles and initiate an alarm. In summary, the independent emergency Level Protection system will include at least eight discrete water level sensors physically separated from each other, plus two spillway sensors. Black Canyon conducted a literature review of the reliability of water level sensors. A study by Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in 1995 indicated an average failure rate of water level sensors of between 2.2 to 6 E-7 per hour, while other selected references indicated a worst case of 2.1 E-6 per hour. The IEEE Standard of 2007 indicates a failure rate of 2.88813E-7 per hour of a pressure sensor based on a rate of 0.00253 per year. From the available data - and using a conservative value of failure rate of 2.0E-6 the proposed system of sensors would exhibit a combined failure rate of 1.6E-23 per hour which implies that water could be inadvertently discharged over the overpumping emergency spillway once every 7.13E+18 years. Including the spillway sensors in the calculation – i.e., assuming that the spillway sensors fail to register the initial discharge from over pumping, and thus allow continuous over pumping – implies a failure rate of 5.606E-31 per hour (or uncontrolled release once every 1.78E+30 years). These failure rates will be investigated, by a PFMA, in greater detail during detailed design but can be categorized as very low probability. To further enhance the safety, and reduce the possibility of spillway discharge, cameras will be installed to allow plant operators to visually monitor the water level in the upper reservoir 24 hours per day, particularly at the spillway crest. 8

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Redundant cameras will monitor a fixed staff gauge in a stilling well located in an Instrumentation Building cantilevered over the water. Additional cameras will provide a view of the reservoir. In the extremely unlikely event that all sensors fail to initiate a trip, the inflow to Kortes Reservoir would not exceed the Project pumping capacity, expected to be approximately 8,298 cfs. As a comparison, the capacity of the ungated Kortes spillway is 50,000 cfs. Therefore, any effect on the Miracle Mile stretch of the river would be delayed if Kortes Reservoir was below its top water level at the time of over pumping. If the over pumping did cause a spill from Kortes Reservoir, the flow would be lower than historical maximum flows, as described in Section 3.4 of Exhibit E.

Reclamation-3

Upper Reservoir, WAPA powerlines When rPlus Hydro wants to move the powerlines for construction of the upper reservoir, this will most likely result in outages at Reclamation powerplants and need to be properly coordinated.

Reclamation-4

Upper Reservoir, Ice Accumulation Has rPLus Hydro studied the potential for ice accumulation to occur at the upper reservoir during the long, cold winter climate that exists at the site?

Reclamation-5

Access, Seminoe/Kortes Road Reclamation has spent a significant amount of time and money re pairing the road between Seminoe State Park and the Miracle Mile. Has rPlus Hydro studied the impacts of increased construction traffic along this stretch of road?

Reclamation-6

Ice accumulation is possible in the upper reservoir during the winter but is dependent on operating cycles. The intake facility is located at an elevation to minimize the chance of ice being drawn in. Provisions to deal with frazil ice will be addressed during the detailed design phase of the Project.

Black Canyon and Project construction contractors would enter into a cost-share agreement to provide resources to maintain and upgrade roads. As part of the agreement process, a survey of roads would be conducted prior to construction.

Access, County Roads

a. Black Canyon will develop a Traffic Management Plan prior to construction.

a. Has rPlus Hydro studied the impacts of increased construction traffic along the County Roads leading from Alcova and Sinclair?

b. Black Canyon is aware that local roads are impassible at times during the winter and the construction contractor will work with Reclamation to balance road closure needs with snow removal equipment when finalizing the construction schedule.

b. Is rPlus Hydro aware that the roads to reach Seminoe Dam and the Miracle Mile are frequently impassable for days or weeks at a time during the winter? c. Has rPLus Hydro investigated the load limits of bridges that will be crossed during construction? Reclamation-7

Exhibit E, Section 2.1, Table 1.2-1 has been updated to note that Black Canyon understands that the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) will coordinate with Reclamation prior to a line outage due to impacts on operations of Reclamation’s hydropower facilities. Black Canyon will work with WAPA and Reclamation to facilitate that coordination.

Access, Proposed Bridge across the North Platte River a. There is currently a parking area that has a boat ramp down to the river below Seminoe Dam. Reclamation will want to maintain as much of this parking area and boat ramp access as possible.

c. Load limits will be investigated and addressed in the detailed design of the Project. At this time, the current bridges do not appear to be a constraint to developing the Project.

a. Comment acknowledged. Black Canyon will minimize use of areas that need to be reserved for public access. Furthermore, Black Canyon will maintain public access and parking in the parking area below Seminoe Dam. b. The final Project elevation will be determined in final design phases and are subject to review with Reclamation.

b. rPlus Hydro has designed the bridge deck elevation to be at 6250 ft. Please be aware that this elevation is approximately 100 ft. below the current elevation of Seminoe Reservoir at full capacity. As discussed, this bridge is constructed at your own risk of being inaccessible as a result of any future reconstruction or modification of Seminoe Dam.

Comment # Reclamation-8

Comment Water Rights

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Black Canyon commits to continuing to update Reclamation on water rights.

We are aware that rPlus Hydro is having conversations with multiple entities regarding the acquisition of initial and recurring water rights. Reclamation looks forward to updates on these conversations. Comments on DLA from U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management in a letter dated September 2, 2022, that was e-filed with FERC on September 6, 2022, by Timothy Novotny, Acting Field Manager BLM-1

Archaeology Appendix E, Section 3.10, general comment; Cultural and Paleontological Resources would be less confusing if they were in separate sections.

BLM-2

Archaeology Appendix E, Section 3.10, pgs. 212; Cultural resource study reports are to be provided to the BLM, RFO cultural department for review without the CEII request process.

BLM-3

Archaeology Appendix E, Section 3. 10, general comment; The cultural resource study report referenced is for the Geotechnical application. To date, the cultural resource inventory has not been provided to the BLM, RFO for the proposed project.

BLM-4

Archaeology Appendix E, Section 3.10.1.1, pg. 214, The DLA indicates that FERC is the lead for NHPA, Tribal, etc. The FERC lead archaeologist is to communicate with the BLM lead archaeologist for coordination on the proposed project.

BLM-5

Archaeology - General Comment The cultural resources inventory received did not cover the entire project area. It covered the Geotech inventory only. The BLM requires a full inventory of the entire project area to review, comment and to send for State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review. The BLM cannot make informed comments on the proposed project until the cultural resources inventory is completed and received by BLM cultural staff. The BLM expects to be included in any correspondence of tribal consultation, SHPO consultation and any interested party consultation.

BLM-6

Engineering Exhibit F, Designs, general comment: In the description of the access, it appears like there is no new road construction, but the drawings in Exhibit F show new road construction outside of the existing road alignment. It also seems that the access parallels the existing access road to avoid crossing into the wilderness study area, but the extra disturbance so close to the WSA boundary needs to be analyzed. The road alignment in ARC GIS and what is on the general design drawings do not match. The BLM would like to see final engineered road plans.

Comment acknowledged. Cultural and Paleontological Resources have been broken into two sections in Exhibit E; Section 3.10 and 3.11, respectively.

Comment acknowledged. Cultural resource study reports will be provided directly to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) when complete.

FERC has designated Black Canyon as its non-federal representative for purposes of NHPA consultation. Nonetheless, Black Canyon expects that FERC will coordinate with the lead BLM archaeologist.

Comment acknowledged. The Cultural Resources Report appends the FLA (as a Privileged document not publicly available) and will be provided to the BLM, including site forms and associated spatial data. The FERC lead archaeologist will coordinate with the BLM lead archeologist on the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project regarding additional Tribal consultation, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) consultation, and any interested party consultation.

BLM will be invited to review final design plans during the final design phases and prior to construction bidding. The Project plans to avoid encroaching into the Wilderness Study Area (WSA). The road alignment in GIS has been updated to reflect the general design drawings.

Comment # BLM-7

Comment Fisheries Desktop Fish Entrainment Study Report comment: The impingement and inlet/outlet avoidance were based on the 0.75-inch clear spacing fish exclusion screen proposed at the project. Is this the minimum size available for the fish exclusion screen? Or can you use a screen that would exclude even smaller fish than that of 0.75-inches?

BLM-8

Forestry – Exhibit A Exhibit A, Environmental Report, pg. 5, line 25; "vegetation ... will be removed.” How will this address the BLM sensitive species/old growth trees located on site of reservoir?

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response As noted in the Preliminary Supporting Design Report, current design criteria limits velocity during pumping to 2 feet per second within 1 foot in front of the inlet/outlet structure. The final bar rack size has not been selected but is expected to be discussed further with BLM and applicable resource agencies. While smaller bar spacing may be possible, it is not a viable option for the Project due to the difficulty to maintain and increased cost. Most of the fish species in the Project waters are able to avoid the bars with the low velocities anticipated under Project operations. Black Canyon proposes to develop a final plan for bar rack spacing in consultation with WGFD, USFWS, BLM, and Reclamation. The 2022 Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report (Exhibit E, Appendix E) and Exhibit E, Section 3.6 have been revised to state: “Limber pine is a primary constituent of Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland which is mapped in the Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Report (HDR 2022). This habitat occupies approximately 622 acres in the study area as described in the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report. The exact number of individual limber pine occurring within the Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland found within the upper reservoir area was not determined. The limber pine was a dominant species and, therefore, according to the 2021 study plan, was mapped as a community. Limber pine accounted for at least 30 percent of the tree cover in the upper reservoir and was observed as mature and saplings.” Black Canyon will work with the BLM to micro-site the location of temporary disturbance areas to limit impacts on old growth trees and limber pine to the extent possible. Black Canyon looks forward to continued consultation with BLM regarding Project permitting and a potential amendment to the Resource Management Plan (RMP). As noted in Exhibit E, Section 3.6, because limber pine is a primary constituent of Rocky Mountain Limber PineJuniper Woodland which is mapped by the GAP/Landfire habitat map outside of the botanical study area (USGS 2011), and over 2,000 occurrences of this habitat have been documented in the past 50 years (Intermountain Region Herbarium Network 2022), it is not expected that impacts to this species in the botanical study area would jeopardize the continued existence of this species. Information on tree age classifications was not specified in the study plan or collected during field investigations. Citations used this response: HDR. 2022. Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study Report. USGS. 2011. Gap Analysis Program. 20160513. GAP/LANDFIRE National Terrestrial Ecosystems 2011: U.S. Geological Survey. [Online] URL: https://doi.org/10.5066/F7ZS2TM0. (Accessed October 4, 2022.) Intermountain Region Herbarium Network. 2022. Records Accessed for Limber Pine and Persistent Sepal Yellowcress. [Online] URL: http://www.intermountainbiota.org/portal/. Utah State University, Utah. (Accessed February 18, 2022.)

BLM-9

Forestry – Exhibit A Exhibit A, Environmental Report, pg. 6, line 6-14; Where will the existing WAPA line be relocated? Is the relocation of the line/poles included in this proposal or is it a separate action?

The segment of the WAPA transmission lines extending over the footprint of the upper reservoir, less than 1 mile long, is proposed to be re-routed along the eastern edge of the proposed upper reservoir, between the upper reservoir wall and Bennett Mountain access road (which forms the border of the Bennett Mountains WSA) (Figure 2.1-1 in Exhibit E). Another option on the western side of the proposed reservoir is also possible and was included in the DLA. The re-route will be determined by WAPA but the current proposal by Black Canyon is to combine two existing transmission circuits onto a single steel monopole structure with the use of a 3-pole transmission structure at the beginning and end of the re-route to maintain minimal impact on existing structures. Black Canyon understands that WAPA will coordinate with Reclamation prior to a line outage due to impacts on operations of Reclamation’s hydropower facilities. The relocation of the WAPA transmission lines is included with the description of Black Canyon’s proposed Project. Exhibits discussing the WAPA transmission lines have been updated accordingly.

Comment # BLM-10

BLM-11

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

Exhibit A, Environmental Report, pg. 22, lines 30-32; If the road upgrades will require significant improvements to support construction, what level will the upgraded roads be kept at and what is the plan for vegetation along the road for maintenance purposes?

The upgraded road will be maintained in good condition to allow for routine Project maintenance and operations. Revegetation measures will follow all applicable guidelines and BMPs outlined in the BLM 2008 Rawlins Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the 2007 Record of Decision (ROD) for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM lands. Seed mixtures used for the Project will be selected in consultation with the BLM and other local agencies and will be comprised of non-invasive appropriate native or otherwise desired vegetation.

Forestry – Exhibit E

Please see response to comment BLM-8.

Forestry – Exhibit A

Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 12, line 25; "vegetation ... will be removed." How will this address the BLM sensitive species/ old growth trees located on site of reservoir? BLM-12

Forestry – Exhibit E Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 30, table 2.1-3; Impacts to RTE species should be avoided and will be in direct contrast to Rawlins RMP Vegetation Management Objective: Maintain, restore, and enhance Special Status Plant Species and unique plant communities.

BLM-13

Forestry – Exhibit E Exhibit E, Environmental Report, table 3.6-1: None of these covertypes account for the Ponderosa pine found throughout the site including the Ponderosa-Limber steppe components. Either cross reference sections or make maps consistent between different appendices for better understanding and review of the document. It appeared that the data on the forestry surveys are misrepresenting timber and the number of different types of timber.

BLM-14

Forestry – Exhibit E

As described in Black Canyon’s proposed environmental measures (Table 2.1-3), the Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan will include restoration measures for Project impacts on RTE plant species, as necessary. Additionally, Black Canyon also proposes to develop a RTE Plant Management Plan for Project operation in consultation with agencies. Black Canyon will continue to consult with BLM regarding any land-disturbing activities on BLM lands and prior to construction, the BLM will be provided copies of the Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan and the RTE Plant Management Plan for review. The GAP landcover types and land cover names used to map vegetation within the study area are not intended to describe all species potentially found within those cover types. In general, the ponderosa pine found in the area is within the Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland GAP landcover type as well as the Southern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic Montane Mixed Conifer Forest and Woodland. Section 3.6 has been updated to include this species.

See response to comment BLM-28.

Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 141, section 3.6.1.4: See comment on appendix G (above) accurate site descriptions and typing. BLM-15

Forestry – Exhibit E Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 147, section 3.6.1.21: There are 26 occurrences of limber that are included on the botanical survey of 1-10 trees each (26-260 trees) plus another 256.9 acres of Limber pine habitat not included in the survey but present on the vegetation mapping. The project is only estimating 1500 trees within the conceptual boundaries; this number is low for the actual number of trees found within the project area. A more inclusive survey will need to be completed for BLM sensitive species.

The 2021 Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Plan states “If present, limber pines would likely make up a dominant or co-dominant species in the tree layer of a vegetation type, such as Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland. As such, stands of limber pine will be mapped as a limber pine woodland during the vegetation mapping portion of the Habitat Assessment and RTE Species Study. A population estimate for each polygon of mapped/occupied limber pine woodland, along with a detailed vegetation description for all limber pine woodland found in the study area as a whole, will be provided in the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study report.” The upper reservoir was mapped as the Limber Pine Woodland community and, therefore, no exact count of this species was conducted for this area. In areas that did not constitute a community, individuals or patches of limber pine were mapped and counted. The 2022 study report (Appendix E) and Section 3.6.1 of Exhibit E of the FLA have been edited to clarify this methodology and the widespread presence of limber pine in the vicinity of the upper reservoir.

Comment # BLM-16

Comment Forestry – Exhibit E Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 148, section 3.6.2.1: How is the permanent removal of BLM Sensitive species placed on the list do to decline in health and degradation of habitat not going to have significant impacts to the population, when earlier stated there will be impacts lines 40-42 pg. 39, and removal of habitat - also the reason for listing is to maintain habitat of these species, this population is healthy, and portions of it can be considered old growth (RMP Appendix 19-18)

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Exhibit E, Section 2.1 and Section 3.6 have been updated to reflect that Black Canyon will work with the BLM to site the location of temporary disturbance areas to limit impacts to on old growth trees and BLM-sensitive species to the extent possible. Although limber pine is listed as a sensitive species, these stands are widespread within the vicinity of the Project. Along the ridge, Limber Pine – Juniper Woodland is considered a dominant vegetation community within the ecosystem. Although impacts will occur from removal of individual trees within the Project Boundary and identified Temporary Disturbance Areas, the viability and overall success of the species is unlikely to be affected because limber pine is widely distributed in the Intermountain Region at similar elevations and the Project will not affect the primary threats to the species, which are white pine blister rust (a fungal invasion), mountain pine beetle (an insect invasion), and climate change and associated modified fire regimes. Black Canyon notes that renewable energy projects and storage are important components of most carbon reduction strategies and of benefit from a climate change perspective. Black Canyon looks forward to continued consultation with BLM regarding Project permitting, renewable energy goals, and a potential amendment to the RMP.

BLM-17

Forestry – Exhibit E Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 149, section 3.6.2.3: See RMP management of BLM sensitive species, because populations and covertype is present in other areas is not equivalent to mitigating loss in the overarching protection of the species. How will the impact on these communities be mitigated?

BLM-18

Forestry – Exhibit E Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 207, section 3.9.1.1: Why is vegetation included only in wildlife section? Table 3.9-2 does not have the same acreages or cover types listed in above sections.

BLM-19

General Comment Exhibit E, general comments: Request for breakdown of permanent/long term disturbance and temporary disturbance.

BLM-20

RMP Vegetation Management This project would be in direct conflict of the RMP vegetation management goal 3 and management objective 6 (RMP 2.3.14). This project would impact the ability to follow the RMP Forest Management Goal 2: Manage woodland communities (such as aspen, limber pine, and juniper) for a healthy mix of successional stages within the natural range of variation that incorporate diverse structure and composition into each forest stand type. Need to find a way to incorporate and include old growth ponderosa and limber trees and stands into the document. Currently this is in opposition to the RMP objectives (RMP 2.3.4 management obj. 6, EO 14072)

BLM-21

Rawlins Resources Management Plan The RFO vegetation resources are to be managed in accordance with established laws, policies, and plans. The DLA Environmental Report identified that one ESA-listed plant and three BLM Sensitive Plant Species occurred or had the potential to occur within the project area. The Report failed to sufficiently address project effects on these botanical resources. The

Please see response to BLM-16. Black Canyon looks forward to continued discussion with stakeholders regarding appropriate mitigation.

Section 3.6 of Exhibit E of the FLA describes botanical resources in the Project vicinity and considers the effects of constructing and operating the Project as proposed by Black Canyon on these resources. Section 3.7 of Exhibit E of the FLA describes wildlife resources in the vicinity of the Project. Table 3.9-2 Land Cover Types Within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance has been revised in Exhibit E of the FLA to identify consistent acreages and cover types.

A summary table of expected permanent and temporary impacts expected from Project construction has been included in Exhibit E Section 3.1.

Black Canyon looks forward to continued consultation with the BLM regarding RMP goals and objectives. Of note, the Rawlins RMP is written to anticipate appropriate development of renewable energy and other projects on BLMmanaged lands. As noted in the RMP, “it is fully appropriate to consider project proposals based on the opportunity to site projects with special stipulations or mitigation measures, and with full consideration of the environmental values in a project area.” It is Black Canyon’s intention to conduct the siting, design, and construction of the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project consistent with each of these considerations.

2022 surveys confirmed that no ESA-listed plants occur within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. Two BLM Sensitive Plant Species were identified; Project effects on these species are considered in Exhibit E, Section 3.6. See response to BLM-20 regarding RMP management objectives.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

project effects that were identified in the DLA are not consistent with management objectives approved through the Rawlins Resource Management Plan. BLM-22

Rawlins Resources Management Plan

Please see response to comment BLM-20.

Policy regarding management of BLM Sensitive Status Species is found in BLM Manual 6840 (Special Status Species Management). In regards to the three Sensitive Status Plant Species found within the project area, directives can be found in Administration of Bureau Sensitive Species (2)(C): Ensure that BLM activities affecting Bureau sensitive species are carried out in a way that is consistent with its objective for managing those species and their habitats at the appropriate spatial scale. Management of the species is found in the Record of Decision and Approved Rawlins Resource Management Plan which further directs the following goals and objectives.     



BLM-23

Forest Management Goal: Manage woodland communities (such as aspen, limber pine, and juniper) for a healthy mix of successional stages within the natural range of variation that incorporate diverse structure and composition into each forest stand type. Forest Management Objective: Maintain, restore, and enhance all old growth forest stands. Vegetation Management Goal: Manage vegetation to achieve proper ecosystem function; Manage to protect, preserve, or enhance Special Status Plant Species and unique plant communities. Vegetation Management Goal: Manage vegetation to achieve and maintain proper ecosystem function. Vegetation Management Objective: Maintain, restore, and enhance vegetation communities to facilitate a healthy mix of successional stages that incorporate age class, structure, and species composition into each vegetation type, consistent with site potential. Vegetation Management Objective: Maintain, restore, and enhance Special Status Plant Species and unique plant communities.

Special Status Plant Species and Habitat Management Action

Comment acknowledged.

Known habitat for BLM Wyoming State Sensitive plant species is open to oil and gas leasing with intensive management of surface disturbing and disruptive activities (note: this was included as relevant as to allow for a multiple-use mandate while conserving sensitive plants/habitats). BLM-24

Special Status Plant Species and Habitat Management Action

Comment acknowledged.

Management practices identified on a case-by-case basis will be applied to surface disturbing activities to maintain or enhance Special Status Plant Species and their habitat. BLM-25

Botanical Resources The Report's conclusion on effects to botanical resources is inconsistent with approved management objectives for the BLM, RFO. The Report states that the project is not expected to have significant impacts to terrestrial habitats as "Black Canyon intends to mitigate for displacement and disturbance of vegetation through development of a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation and Enhancement Plan." Management objectives for the RFO emphasizes to maintain, restore, and enhance existing populations of Special Status Species. Project potential

Information regarding potential effects of the Project on Seminoe Reservoir and persistent sepal yellowcress has been added to Exhibit E, Section 3.6.2. Please also see response to comment BLM-20.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

effects on botanical resources was not adequately addressed as changes in hydrology (specifically in regards to Persistent sepal yellowcress and Ute ladies'-tresses) and impacts of continued invasive species control on non-target vegetation were not addressed. BLM-26

Botanical Resources Ute Ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) - Report states that identification could not be made due to growth stage of an unidentified Spiranthes occurrence, then states that "no Ute ladies'-tresses are currently known to occur in the botanical survey study area". The report states that "if the final configuration of the Project impacts mapped habitat for Ute ladies'tresses, then the results of a protocol focused survey for Ute ladies'-tresses would determine if and how many individual plants would be affected by the Project." This report did not adequately address concerns of ESA-protected species as surveys were inconclusive due to not being conducted in a manner which maximized the likelihood of locating the plant (plant being evident and identifiable). Indirect impacts to ESA-protected species, such as changes in surface and subsurface water availability that impact habitat suitability or impacts of invasive species control measures, were not analyzed.

BLM-27

Special Status Species Management

The individual plant that could not be identified in 2021 was revisited in 2022 during the appropriate identification period by biologists certified to conduct Ute Ladies’-tresses surveys. No Ute Ladies'-tresses was identified as occurring within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. As noted in Section 3.6 of Exhibit E, a total of 23.54 acres were identified as potential suitable habitat for Ute ladies’tresses within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. As described in the Special-Status Plants and Noxious Weeds Study Report, the data collected for the Aquatic Resources Inventory was used to determine suitable habitat for this species. Information was gathered during the wetland delineation, as it directly correlates to Ute ladies’-tresses habitat. Most of the identified Ute ladies’-tresses suitable habitat has experienced some level of disturbance, including livestock grazing and trampling as well as hay production in wet meadow areas. Most of the suitable habitat occurs in irrigated hay pastures that were inundated during the August 2022 surveys. Of the 23.54 acres of Ute ladies’-tresses suitable habitat, 21.44 acres occur on private property, with the remaining 2.34 acres occurring on BLM-managed lands. In 2021, one potential Ute ladies’-tresses individual was observed in the study area but was extremely desiccated, and a positive identification was not possible. In 2022 the specimen was relocated and determined to not be Ute ladies’-tresses. Because marginal to suitable habitat for this species does occur in the study area, protocol surveys for Ute ladies’-tresses will be required prior to Project construction. Surveys will occur for three consecutive years during the known Ute ladies’-tresses flowering period between late July and the end of August in areas where impacts cannot be avoided. Survey methodology and locations will be determined in consultation with USFWS. Comment acknowledged.

BLM Policy regarding management of BLM Sensitive Status Species is found in BLM Manual 6840 (Special Status Species Management). In regard to the three Sensitive Status Plant Species found within the project area, directives can be found in Administration of Bureau Sensitive Species (2)(C): Ensure that BLM activities affecting Bureau sensitive species are carried out in a way that is consistent with its objective for managing those species and their habitats at the appropriate spatial scale. BLM-28

Botanical Resources – Limber Pine Appendix G: Rocky Mountain foothill limber pine Juniper woodland, does not account for the large amount of Ponderosa within the covertype might need to split some areas out into a different covertype possible 0221 Rocky Mountain Subalpine-Montane Limber-Bristlecone Pine Woodland (Pinus flexilis-pinus artistata rocky mounting subalpine-montane) woodland group. Treating these separately is misleading to the amount of Limber pine associated with this project. The botanical survey only contains Limber pine where it is not associated with its main covertype, leaving 256.9 acres of limber unaccounted for on the botanical survey maps.

BLM-29

Geology/Paleontology Appendix E, Section 3.10, general comment; Cultural and Paleontological Resources are managed differently, and the discussion of these resources would be more useful separated into different sections/subsections.

Black Canyon acknowledges that the GAP landcover type name does not include all species potentially found in that landcover type, nor is that the intention. Ponderosa pine has been added as a species present within the Rocky Mountain Foothill Limber Pine-Juniper Woodland GAP landcover type in Exhibit E and Appendix E. The 2022 Study Report and Section 3.6 of Exhibit E have been revised to clearly present the limber pine occurring as a community where mapped, in addition to the isolated occurrences.

Cultural and Paleontological Resources have been broken into two sections in Exhibit E; Section 3.10 and 3.11, respectively.

Comment # BLM-30

Comment GIS Mapping The Conceptual Project Boundary GIS layer goes into the WSA. It needs to be clear that nothing is going inside the WSA. The transmission line also appears to be within the WSA. Why does the GIS veg cover not include the entire conceptual boundary, facility corridor, upper reservoir alignment shapefiles?

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response The Footprint of Potential Disturbance does not overlap or encroach on the WSA and GIS files associated with the Project have been updated to clarify this. Black Canyon will provide an updated set of GIS layers to the BLM following FLA distribution including vegetation cover files. Polygons mapped as Southern Rocky Mesic cover type were found in the field to have ponderosa pine as the dominant tree species. If requested, Black Canyon biologists can conduct a site visit of this area with BLM staff.

Southern Rocky Mesic (Covertype) also has limber pine within it. I am not sure this is the best designation for this area and should be ground truthed. BLM-31

Hydrology

See comment response to Reclamation-2.

Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 13, Section 2.1.1.1: While the 10,500 cfs is not more than the spillway capacity of the Kortes dam ungated spillway, what would be the impact of sediment delivery? 10,500 cfs is a massive amount of water to send down that drainage, which is extremely steep, and would likely result in mass wasting. Is there a possibility of a debris flow that could impact Kortes, whether from reducing capacity or sending a wave that could overtop the dam? I think you need to investigate and make a determination of the available material (colluvium and weak bedrock) that could be entrained in the event of overtopping.

Because of multiple redundant trip sensors and alarms designed into the system, the estimated failure rate of the system and therefore likelihood of water spilling over the over-pumping emergency spillway is calculated to be a failure rate of 5.606E-31 per hour (or uncontrolled release once every 1.78E+30 years). This timeline greatly exceeds the estimated life of the sun, 8.0 E+9 years (8 billion years). The maximum pumping flow under maximum operating level of the upper reservoir is 8,300 cfs. The FLA has been revised to reflect a maximum potential flow over the over-pumping emergency spillway of 8,300 cfs. Black Canyon has estimated the potential debris volume that could enter Kortes Reservoir to be 37,000 cubic yards, or approximately 22.5 ac-ft. An analysis of this scenario has been added in Section 3.4.2 of Exhibit E. The drainage channel leading from the over-pumping emergency spillway to Kortes Reservoir will be inspected in greater detail during Project detailed design. Provisions may be made for anchoring loose materials such as shotcreting, rock bolting of boulders, and placing gabions at various locations. Final design of these mitigations will include an analysis of potential slides and vulnerable materials that could be carried downslope.

BLM-32

Hydrology Pg. 29, Table 2.1.3: The BLM needs to review the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the SWPPP.

BLM-33

Hydrology Pg. 69, Section 3.3.2.2: Include analysis of identifying unstable slopes.

BLM-34

Hydrology Pg. 70, Section 3.3.2.3: This section mentions that over long periods of time, erosion may occur. However, the project has real potential to cause erosion via surface disturbance. Coupled with short duration, high intensity rain events, the project could cause significant erosion in a short amount of time. Need to address this.

BLM-35

Hydrology Pg. 72, Section 3.3.2.6: Stream crossings and stream crossing types need to be located and identified, especially for the transmission line route. We have found that this level of planning truly reduces potential for erosion as true thought into each crossing has been based on

Prior to construction, the BLM will be provided copies of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review.

This was a general statement and has been removed from Exhibit E. Several geologic studies have been conducted at the site. As part of the Reclamation’s 2013 Pumped Storage Evaluation Special Study Final Phase 2 Report for the Yellowtail, Seminoe, and Trinity Sites, Reclamation determined that no fatal flaws related to geology/seismology were identified during the study phases at the proposed projects. Additionally, in support of Project design, Black Canyon mobilized drilling in the Project vicinity in August 2022 and completed drilling in late September 2022. Reclamation efforts associated with the drilling are ongoing and will be incorporated into Project design. As stated in Section 2.1 of Exhibit E, Black Canyon proposes to develop plans to address erosion associated with all aspects of Project construction via an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will also address practices to be established during Project construction and operation to minimize the potential for generating windblown dust from Project activities. Special focus in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be given to addressing earthworks in soils that are highly erodible. Prior to construction, the BLM will be provided copies of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and the SWPPP for review. Black Canyon has included in Section 3.4 of Exhibit E a table identifying all waterbodies within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance (Table 3.4-1). Black Canyon’s Aquatic Resources Delineation Study was conducted within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance to assess the nature and degree of the Project’s potential impacts on aquatic resources, some of which are subject to 16

Comment #

Comment resources present. Furthermore, past experience shows that the desktop reviews can result in over 50% error in identifying stream crossings, particularly for ephemeral drainages. Given the topography and the high drainage density of the area, there will be multiple small drainages that access roads and structures will cross or even be right on top of. Recommending going through the line with a fine-tooth comb to identify all drainages and crossings. Although there has been an aquatic resource inventory with field surveys, that was originally informed via a desktop review. It appears by looking at aerials, there are ephemeral drainages with smaller drainage areas that have not been identified.

BLM-36

Hydrology

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response the jurisdiction of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the CWA. The Aquatic Resources Delineation Study report provides location, type, size, and boundaries of aquatic resources within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance as well as information on areas identified as potential aquatic resources in the desktop review but were not found to contain an aquatic resource (i.e., vegetated swales). Vegetated swales were numerous and characterized as well vegetated areas in a valley bottom that had the potential to contain a stream channel or wetland, but did not contain either (i.e., physical characteristics of a stream or any of the three indicators for a wetland). The Aquatic Resources Delineation Study was consistent with the Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Plan, which is consistent with generally accepted scientific practice and widely used in FERC licensing investigations, circulated to reviewing agencies prior to conducting field investigations. The Aquatic Resources Delineation Study included detailed desktop analysis followed by intensive field investigations conducted by qualified wetland scientists within the entire Footprint of Potential Disturbance. The field investigations were conducted in accordance with approved methodologies from the USACE and included identification of all ephemeral channels meeting the USACE’s and the BLM Rawlins RMP definitions for ephemeral channels. Numerous areas were identified to potentially contain an aquatic resource, particularly ephemeral channels, in the desktop review, but did not meet the USACE or the BLM Rawlins RMP definitions for ephemeral channels upon field investigation (e.g., channels lacking defined banks with no evidence of scouring, sorting, and/or vegetation removal caused by precipitation events and swales dominated by herbaceous vegetation lacking a defined channel). The Aquatic Resources Delineation Study Report contained in Appendix B of the FLA includes representative photographs of these types of features, as well as most locations where this determination was made (i.e., locations pulled from GPS data collected during the field investigation). Each resource section in Exhibit E has been updated to describe cumulative environmental effects.

Pg. 73, Section 3.3.3: Cumulative impacts were not identified in the DLA and will need thorough BLM review in Final License Application. BLM-37

BLM-38

Hydrology

See response to comment BLM-35.

Pg. 76, Section 3.4.1.2: With regards to the aquatic resource inventory 1) it mentions this is to study to basically determine jurisdictional waters, however, there will be a lot of non jurisdictional waters that are still provided protections. The BLM Rawlins RMP controls for surface disturbance within 500 ft of perennial streams, springs, riparian, and wetland areas, etc., and within 100 ft of ephemeral drainage. Any disturbance within those buffers must provide site specific plans and/or engineering drawings to be allowed an exception to those buffers. From the BLM perspective, the resource inventory needs to be accounting for more than just jurisdictional streams as we care about all streams from the landscape perspective. 2) referring to a previous comment, but desktop reviews have resulted in over 50% error in identifying stream crossings, etc. The applicant needs to either go through project and identify all streams and drainages that would be impacted, as well as have a good plan in place for what to do when encountering unmapped resources (i.e., smaller riparian areas, springs, etc.). You will encounter resources you did not map. It happens every time and there is never a plan in place and the resource takes the brunt of it because of no plan.

Black Canyon understands that surface disturbance adjacent to perennial streams, springs, riparian and wetland areas, and ephemeral drainages and disturbance within buffers adjacent to those areas may warrant site-specific mitigation planning. Black Canyon will continue to consult with BLM regarding ground-disturbing activities on BLMmanaged lands.

Hydrology

See responses to comments BLM-35 and BLM-37.

Black Canyon’s proposed PM&E measures as summarized in Section 2.1.2 in Exhibit E are intended to provide appropriate measures to protect natural resources and mitigate for Project effects, including potential encounters with small swales not meeting USACE or BLM Rawlins RMP definitions for ephemeral channels. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan that will be implemented as part of the Project will provide specifications for the installation, implementation, and maintenance of BMPs while allowing for flexibility in the selection of specific BMPs based on site-specific conditions with approval from the reviewing agencies. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will be included as part of the construction contract(s) and will provide guidelines for construction contractors to follow within specific environmental conditions to prevent and minimize erosion of disturbed soils and transportation of sediment.

Pg 79, Section 3.4.1.3: BLM needs the smaller drainages identified.

Comment # BLM-39

Comment Hydrology Pg. 89, Section 3.4.1.5: This is a great study to use as a baseline, but it is also an old study. A lot has potentially changed with climate, land use, reservoir operations, etc that could really be change how one might look at the limnology of the reservoir and how this project could impact it. Some information may be outdated.

BLM-40

Hydrology There is a concern that the existing water quality data is not as relevant. The water quality measurements below the dam provide a good baseline for hypolimnetic releases and how the project could impact those, but in terms of a good limnologic study, characterizing eutrophic sensitivity of the reservoir needs to be done. Seminoe has a history of harmful algal blooms that seemed to have gotten worse in recent years. There is not data to determine how worse it has become since 1981 (that was a long time ago), and there is no good data to determine how this project will impact that, other than best guesses.

BLM-41

Hydrology Pg. 90-94, Section 3.4.1.5: The 2021 fish survey water quality data is a line of evidence as to reservoir conditions, but to draw larger conclusions from it could be risky. Better water quality data of the reservoir is needed.

BLM-42

Hydrology Pg. 99, Section 3.4.2.1: Other than a best guess, what is the basis of not anticipating significant disruption to the thermal stratification because of the short during and and withdrawal of cooler waters. 1) June to August is not a short duration of time. That's 3 months of the year. Disrupting the thermal stratification for 3 months out of the year could have cascading effects (impacting spawning, food chains, etc). Also, you will be pumping cool water to the upper reservoir, which has a much larger surface area (120 acres?) to then pump it back into the reservoir after it may have sat all day in the sun warming. No talk about the temperature difference has been talked about or an attempt to characterize it has been made from what I can see. Also, the pumping would induce lateral and potential vertical flow movement in a place where water moves longitudinally towards the dam. How would inflow/outflow operations impact flow dynamics near the dam? If nutrient rich waters from the hypolimnion is brought to the surface, it could have drastic effects. Are disruptions to thermal stratification and its impacts (i.e., inducing more HABs from mixing) adequately characterized in the slightest to make that claim. This needs more analysis.

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Comment acknowledged. Information from WDEQ’s 2022 Report titled “Water Quality Condition of Streams and Rivers in the North Platte, South Platte and Niobrara Basins, Wyoming” has been added to Section 3.4.

The FLA considers potential Project effects on water quality in Seminoe Reservoir and downstream, including detailed temperature modeling that was not presented in the DLA (Section 3.4.1.5 of Exhibit E). Black Canyon recognizes the existing and prior history of algal blooms in Seminoe Reservoir but is not aware of a mechanism by which the Project would affect or exacerbate these existing conditions.

The FLA considers potential Project effects on water quality in Seminoe Reservoir and downstream, including temperature modeling that was not available in the DLA (Section 3.4.1.5 of Exhibit E).

Black Canyon has conducted modeling to describe the potential effects of Project operation on water temperature and thermal stratification of Seminoe Reservoir and has added this information to the FLA. Black Canyon has found through this modeling that the Project operations are unlikely to have an adverse effect on Seminoe Reservoir and the North Platte River. Upper Reservoir Temperature Model: A CE-QUAL-W2 (W2) model was used to assess the thermal impacts of Project operations on the upper reservoir. The model estimated 12.5 hours of pumping per day from Seminoe Reservoir into the upper reservoir. Therefore, under normal operating conditions, water in the upper reservoir would sit for 1.5 hours per day, which is not enough time for sun warming to have a thermal impact on anything other than the surface water in the upper reservoir. The results of the W2 model suggest that there is a negligible temperature increase between the inlet and outlet temperature, which is likely an overestimation of actual observed temperature changes. The W2 model was also run under a more critical “worst case” scenario which represented summer conditions when no water was released from the upper reservoir for three weeks. This scenario provided more opportunity for the water in the upper reservoir to warm before being released to Seminoe Reservoir. Results from this scenario suggest that the surface water layers warmed slightly more during the three weeks of no operation and the higher surface temperatures never reached the near bottom location of the outlet. In summary, the results of the W2 model for the upper reservoir suggest a negligible temperature increase between the inlet and outlet temperature, even under worst case conditions. Thermal Stratification: Based on the results of a water temperature model, as discussed in Section 3.4 of Exhibit E, there is minimal difference in the temperature stratification with and without Project operations in 1976, even in the summer months. Based on meteorological conditions, 1976 represents a normal year that is typical of what will be seen under Project operations. In 1978, there is an increased difference in thermal stratification with and without Project operations when compared to the model scenario of 1976; however, the difference is still considered minor. The modeled scenarios show the greatest difference in thermal stratification in 1977, an unusual year with extreme low-flow conditions. When modeled without Project operations, 1977 presents unusually high stratified conditions due to extreme low river flows and, therefore, it is more sensitive to impacts from operations. The year 1977 represents the 4th percentile of the long-term distribution; that is, this river flow condition occurred about 4 percent of the time or

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response 4 times in 100 years. This makes 1977 an extremely unusual year and, therefore, model results for 1977 should be considered as “worst-case” conditions. Flow Dynamics: Hydraulic analyses have been performed using a CFD model to determine flow conditions in the vicinity of the lower intake structure and tailrace tunnel. During pumping conditions, the flow entering the intake structure from Seminoe Reservoir does not exhibit excessive turbulence. The flow rate through the central bays were highest at approximately 1,714 to 1,744 cfs and decreased to 1,122 to 1,130 cfs towards each end. The flow distribution through any two bays were calculated to be within five percent of one another. The maximum flow velocity within 1 foot of the intake screen was estimate at 2.9 ft/s with the average velocities ahead of the screens varying between 1.8 and 2.3 ft/s. The free surface within the reservoir near the intake structure was not significantly disturbed during normal pumping operations. Lastly, there were no significant circulatory patterns observed near the intake structure at the near bottom where velocities were close to 0 ft/s. This suggests that the operation of the intake structure during pumping will not draw in significant amounts of sediment from Seminoe Reservoir bottom, nor damage the shoreline. Similarly, during generation the CFD model indicated that the flows through the central bays were highest and decreased towards each end. The maximum flow velocity 1 foot from the intake screen was calculated to be approximately 14.4 ft/s. The maximum flow velocity at the opposite shoreline of the intake structure was calculated at be approximately 2.0 ft/s or less. The free surface within the reservoir near the intake was not significantly disturbed during normal generating operations. Large-scale circulatory patterns were observed within the reservoir and both the surface and near bottom velocities were estimated to be lower than 6 ft/s, which suggests that operation of the intake under generation will not scour significant amounts of sediment from Seminoe Reservoir bottom, nor damage the reservoir shoreline.

BLM-43

Hydrology Pg 99, Section 3 .4.2.1: The claim that water quality will not be impacted may be true for the streams based on the implementation of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, but perhaps not for Seminoe and the North Platte (Miracle Mile). Additional analysis for Seminoe Reservoir and the North Platte River is needed.

BLM-44

Hydrology Pg. 100, Section 3.4.2.1: Please include RFO RMP stipulations with regards to the 500 ft buffer for perennial streams, riparian, and wetland areas, etc., and the 100 ft buffer for ephemeral streams. Location of transmission structures should be informed by those buffers, and steps taken to mitigate impacts should those buffers be unavoidable.

BLM-45

Hydrology

Black Canyon has conducted modeling of upper and lower reservoir water temperatures and the potential for sediment resuspension and metal transport. The results of the modeling efforts and the potential for their effects on Seminoe Reservoir and the North Platte River are presented in the FLA. Please see response to BLM-41.

During final design, Black Canyon will design the transmission facilities, to the extent practical, to avoid surfacedisturbing activity in the identified 100-year floodplains, within 500 feet of perennial waters and wetland/riparian areas, and 100 feet from the inner gorge of ephemeral channels, as specified in the BLM Rawlins Field Office RMP. If transmission structures cannot be located outside the buffers, Black Canyon will coordinate with BLM on steps to mitigate impacts to water features. Section 3.4 of Exhibit E has been updated.

See responses to comments BLM-35 and BLM-37.

Pg. 101, Table 3.4-8: As previously stated, there should be way more than what this table indicates. Please do a more in-depth review. Also, please provide locations and what type of crossing it will be. That is crucial for review. BLM-46

Hydrology Pg. 102, Section 3.4.2.1: Monitoring of recharge should be conducted post construction. Mitigation should be identified in the event recharge is cutoff or streamflows are reduced. Mitigation needs to be identified in the event there are impacts.

Black Canyon proposes to conduct pre-construction and post-construction monitoring of water flow in Number One Gulch, Number Two Gulch, and Dry Lake Creek. In the event that reduced streamflows are identified postconstruction, Black Canyon will work with the BLM to identify mitigation measures.

Comment # BLM-47

Comment Hydrology

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response See response to comment BLM-36.

Pg. 104, Section 3.4.3: Cumulative impacts were not identified in the DLA and will need thorough review in the Final License Application. BLM-48

Appendix A – General Comments

See responses to comments BLM-35 and BLM-37

Appendix A, General Comment: The aquatic resource inventory has done a good job at providing an overarching review of general resources present; however, it has not fully identified all resources that will be impacted. Looking at the maps provided and the number of stream crossings/wetlands/riparian areas that were identified, I am seeing a major underrepresentation of water resources, particularly for ephemeral channels/drainages. A full review of resources needs to take place, particularly for the transmission line. Access roads and transmission line structures are not shown. They should be so they can be correctly intersected with channels, those shown on NHD, and those shown on aerials. BLM-49

Paleontology Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 212: Cultural and paleontological resources are managed differently, and the discussion of these resources should be separated into different sections/subsections.

BLM-50

Paleontology

Cultural and Paleontological Resources have been broken into two sections in Exhibit E; Sections 3.10 and 3.11, respectively.

Comment acknowledged.

Paleontological resource survey represents an initial investigation and that later addendums may be added. BLM-51

Paleontology Exhibit E, Environmental Report pg. 236-239: Some of the descriptions of the geological units need reworking. The Madison Limestone is not devoid of documented fossils within Wyoming.

BLM-52

Rangeland/Grazing Consider evaluating the total amount of disturbance (this project and other existing projects in the area) within the Black Canyon allotment and the South Bennett North allotment. Note when there is 10% disturbance within an allotment boundary that may require a reduction in permitted grazing use.

BLM-53

Realty - General Comment BLM rights-of-way is necessary for transmission lines and access roads including detailed maps (1 :24,000 scale) with land ownership. Coordination with the BLM will be required for the reservoir and road maintenance.

BLM-54

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix H, pg. 6, Section 1.3: " ... the average annual snowfall is 1 inch." Questioning if 1-inch annual snowfall is accurate.

Description of the Madison Limestone has been corrected in the Paleontological Survey Report and in Section 3.11.2 of Exhibit E.

Table 3.9-3 in Exhibit E has been updated to reflect estimated acreages of permanent and temporary disturbance within each grazing allotment. Black Canyon received a list of allotments potentially impacted by the Project from Mike Murry with the BLM on 10/13/22. The estimated total amount of disturbance is significantly less than 10% and, therefore, it is not expected that a reduction in permitted grazing use will be required. Allotment operators will be notified of the Project by certified mail. Black Canyon is not aware of other existing projects that would impact the Black Canyon allotment or the South Bennet North allotment. Black Canyon understands that BLM right-of-way grants will be required for all Project facilities on BLM managed lands and will continue to coordinate with the BLM as described in Table 1.2-1 and Section 1.2-3.

The average annual snowfall is 21.3 inches as reported in Exhibit E. All applicable Exhibit E appendices have been updated accordingly.

Comment # BLM-55

Comment Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix H, pg. 7, Section 1.3: A very important recreation feature in the project vicinity not listed is also aerial commuters to the area. There is an airstrip, recreational pilots use for fishing at the Miracle Mile, and this area is a popular flight area with pilots from the Rocky Mtn Region. The airstrip is located northeast of the power substation near Miracle Mile.

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response The airstrip near Miracle Mile is now described in Appendix H and Section 3.8.1 of Exhibit E and it has been added to Figure 1-2 in Appendix H and Figure 3.8-1 in Exhibit E. This information on commercial hunting has been added to Exhibit E, Section 3.8.1.4, and to the Recreation Resources Study Report, Appendix H.

Also, in addition to recreation hunting, there is commercial hunting, where Special Recreation Permits have been authorized by the BLM for Big Game Hunting and Trophy Game Hunting. These commercial permits provide an income for licensed outfitters who guide clients in this area for mostly deer, elk, big horn sheep, and mountain lion (Dec.-Feb.). BLM-56

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix H, pg. 4, Figure 1-2: Update the map to reflect the Miracle Mile campground and picnic area symbology. Include the proposed access road on the map as described in the document for visual understanding of access route.

BLM-57

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix H, pg. 22, Section 3.1.7; "Private land in the Seminoe Mountains prevents the public from accessing the most favorable locations." This is an inaccurate statement and not all access is open to motorized vehicles; however, the public can access by foot or on horseback.

BLM-58

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix H, Section 3.8. l .2; Missing Recreation Site Inventory form for Miracle Mile Recreation Area, the Miracle Mile appears to be within the proposed study area. See Draft LAExhibit A Section 3.1 (lines 27-34.) “The existing access BLM Bennett Mountain Road (sometimes called Dry Lake Road) that accesses the high plateau area where the upper reservoir is proposed, is a rough road that is currently unpassable for most street vehicles. The existing road does not have the capacity to support construction or ongoing maintenance activities with a reasonable level of service, and therefore will require significant improvements to support the construction of the upper reservoir. To reach the upper reservoir site, there is a 900-foot gain in elevation, rising from elevation 6,400 feet to elevation 7,300 feet." It appears that the Bennett Mountain Rd will require improvements for traffic speeds of 25 mph. The upgrade of this road will provide additional access and use within the Bennett Mountain WSA.

BLM-59

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix H: Additional data on the Bennett Mountain WSA needs to be included. The study only analyzed what activities that were present, not the impact to the users who use the area, and the list of all the potential or eminent impact.

BLM-60

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. 1, section 1.1. l: What above ground structures will there be at the upper reservoir? Will the upper reservoir be visible from Seminoe and Bennett WSA? Will there be a parking lot at the upper reservoir, where will vehicles park, is there a vehicle entrance to the tunnel from the upper reservoir? Where are the tailings, and overburden materials going?

The campground and picnic area near Miracle Mile and the proposed access road have been added to the figure in Appendix H and to Figure 3.8-1 in Exhibit E, Section 3.8.1.

Description of access to the Bennett Mountains WSA has been revised in Exhibit E, Section 3.8 and Appendix H, Section 3.1.7. Comparison between WSA and private land has been removed.

Exhibit E, Appendix H has been updated to include the Miracle Mile area, and a Recreation Site Inventory Form has been added. Exhibit E, Section 3.8 has also been updated. Improvements to Bennett Mountain Road will provide access to the upper reservoir, but it is not intended for improvement of this road to increase access to the WSA. Public access to the upper reservoir will be restricted for public safety and Project security. The improvements to Bennett Mountain Road will also provide additional access routes for BLM staff to manage the surrounding lands.

The Recreation Resources Study describes the resources that were found during the study but does not analyze impacts. Analyses of Project effects on recreational resources are presented in Section 3.8 of Exhibit E of the FLA. Black Canyon acknowledges that the upper reservoir will be visible from the western edge of the Bennett Mountain WSA.

As described in Black Canyon’s visual resources study, the upper reservoir will not be visible from Seminoe Reservoir; however, it will be visible from the western edge of the Bennett Mountains WSA. The power facilities (including the pump turbines, motor generators, low-voltage bus, generator step-up (GSU) transformers, high-voltage switchgear, cranes, and all balance of electrical and mechanical plant) will be housed within the main cavern and

Comment #

Comment Will there be ventilation pipes visible, and is the water pumping station and electrical station visible at the upper reservoir?

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response transformer cavern located approximately 1,200 feet below ground level at the upper reservoir location. Therefore, these structures are not expected to be visible from the upper reservoir. Aboveground structures at the upper reservoir include the proposed upper reservoir, re-routed existing WAPA transmission lines, access roads, and hydraulic conveyance structures. The upper reservoir will include a rollercompacted concrete (RCC) structure and integrated gate structure, structural steel crossings of the penstock, and a take-off structure at the top of a cable shaft (including ventilation louvres). Overburden materials will be blended into the base of the RCC structures. All underground excavated materials removed from the low-pressure headrace tunnel will be used in the RCC structures. There will be a small building (approximately 40 by 25 feet in size) at the top of the transmission cable shaft (housing fans and an emergency generator) and that facility could be visible from portions of Seminoe Reservoir and shorelines. Transmission towers will be constructed as part of the WAPA re-route and for the Project. The upper reservoir and its components will not be visible from Seminoe Reservoir. The intake facility and pumping and electrical facilities are not anticipated to be visible from the Bennett Mountains WSA. There are no provisions for public parking areas at the upper reservoir and there will be no vehicle entrances to the tunnel from the upper reservoir. Security protocols will be in place to ensure the public cannot access the upper reservoir structures. Any remaining tailings and overburden materials will be spread across the immediate landscape and recontoured to match current undulations. Rock excavation is balanced, therefore, all rock excavated will be used onsite. For operations staff, there also will be no parking lot. Maintenance vehicles will drive and park on the dam structure.

BLM-61

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. l, section 1.1.1: Is the Bennett Mountain Road the BLM road 3109 that enters through the Kortes dam camp? Is the Bennett Mountain Road a road or a recreation trail? More clarification is needed on this road as the project maps stop at section 35, and no further details on the rest of the road system layout.

BLM-62

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. 1, section 1.1.1: It would be helpful instead of using feet to describe the water levels where the lower structure may be seen. Using percent capacity of reservoir may be more telling. Ex. "When the reservoir is at 30%, 40%, 55% capacity, then the structures may be seen." The BLM does not have such ability to measure the exact foot measurement mark to ensure this data is correct on when the user may see visible structures during low water. Levels described in percent of capacity full would help provide a much more familiar language. Accompanying the data with exact feet measurements of where structures will be seen is helpful but hard data to verify until built.

BLM-63

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA)

Bennett Mountain Road does not enter through the Kortes Dam Campground. Bennett Mountain Road is not considered a recreation trail (see response to BLM-64).

Reclamation considers Seminoe Reservoir to be “full” when pool elevation is at the top of active conservation pool (6,357.0 feet [1,017,273 acre-feet]). Percentage is based on total reservoir volume below that level. Historical data are available online at https://www.usbr.gov/gp-bin/arcweb_semr.pl for the pool elevation (feet), reservoir storage (acre-feet), and percent capacity of the reservoir. The water level elevations (feet) have been updated in Appendix K to also include the percentage capacity of Seminoe Reservoir based on this data for 2021.

All applicable Exhibit E appendices have been updated to indicate average total annual snowfall of 21.3 inches.

Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. 2, section 1.2: "The average annual precipitation for the period of record (8/5/1948 - 8/31/2011) is 12.66 inches and the average total annual snowfall is 21.3 inch (Western Regional Climate Center 2021)." Is this statement accurate, in Exhibit E, Appendix H, pg. 6, Section 1.3: it says l inch of snowfall, which one is correct? BLM-64

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg.11 : " ... .lacking hiking trails ... " inconsistent statement in the document, see Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. 1, "The upper reservoir will be accessed via an improved construction and maintenance road off Bennett Mountain Road, a local recreation trail." Note: Does "feature" mean, fire pits, picnic tables, toilets? Those are commonly referred to as recreation "amenities" on BLM lands.

Bennett Mountain Road is a two-track road that allows motorized vehicles. The recreation opportunities in this area include off-road vehicle use, hunting, sightseeing, and hiking. Some trails in the Bennett Mountains WSA can be accessed from Bennett Mountain Road. The BLM notes that there is no public access by vehicle to the WSA (BLM undated). Black Canyon has not found any documentation of Bennett Mountain Road being considered a recreational trail, however, it is serving as a recreational access route as well as an administrative road for BLM, rancher grazing access road, and an access road for WAPA along its transmission line system. Appendix H, Section 1.1.1 has been updated accordingly. 22

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response The term features, when referencing recreational opportunities, refers to things like fire pits, picnic tables, and toilets. Recreation features has been updated to recreation amenities in Appendix H. Citations used in this response: Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Undated. Bennett Mountains Wilderness Study Area. Online [URL]: https://www.blm.gov/visit/bennett-mountains. Accessed: October 5, 2022.

BLM-65

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg.13: This proposed project has potential to greatly change recreation use in and near the Bennet Mountain WSA. While it could be considered remote at this time, it may not be upon completion of this project. A KOP from this area is critical in describing impacts to recreation because of this project.

BLM-66

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 13, section 3.6: "While the upper reservoir may be visible from surrounding lands including portions of the BMWA, it is in a remote location, lacks hiking trails or other recreational features, and as such is anticipated to have few viewers". However in on page 12 lines 1-5 you have said the opposite, "There are numerous cultural modifications to the natural environment such as reservoirs, dams, roads, camping, established recreational facilities, and transmission lines that are visible in the study area. Seminoe Reservoir is the most visible modification, which adds an element of visual interest to the common grassland landscape and provides a substantial recreational attraction drawing many more viewers to the area than would otherwise be expected in this rural area.” This is all very confusing on how this area is being interpreted and it is being very subjective to only certain parts of the project, but then labeling the entire project on a different scale.

BLM-67

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 200, section 3.8.1.5: "the project has been designed to completely avoid special areas" This upper reservoir project couldn't be any closer to the Bennett WSA and by constructing new roads into the area designed with a 25 mph rating, this special area will be susceptible to a significant increase in visitor use with motorized use- which leads to unwanted human waste, physical garbage waste, and un-approved shooting sites. Roads adjacent to WSA's in the RFO have experienced numerous illegal road creations and is a constant strain on staff on keeping motorized vehicles out of WSA's. The Bennett Mtn WSA is one of the last WSA's to not have a heavy two track presence adjacent to its borders.

BLM-68

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. 19, section 4.1: BLM would consider 5+ years more of a mid to long term impact. Please change language to state long term impact.

BLM-69

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. 19, section 4.1.1 KOPI: “Nighttime construction activities may introduce temporary lighting; existing lighting is limited but present from nearby Seminoe State Park developments and dam facilities". What type of lighting and what does temporary mean? The lighting at Seminoe Dam is used in aid of pedestrians and parking, not for major

An additional Key Observation Point (KOP) has been added from the western edge of the WSA looking towards the proposed location of the upper reservoir and is included in Appendix K and Section 3.12 of Exhibit E.

The text referenced in this comment is in Exhibit E, Appendix K on pages 12 and 13. The quoted texts are under different section headers that clarify the scope and scale of the descriptions. The quoted text on page 13 is in Section 3.6 Key Observation Points and is referencing only the proposed upper reservoir that will be located in a remote location, lacking hiking trails and other recreational features, and is anticipated to have few viewers. The text quoted on page 12 is in Section 3.5 Regional Landscape Setting and is intended to provide context to the reader of the existing landscape on a regional scale and includes a discussion of the landscape outside of the study area and Footprint of Potential Disturbance. It should be noted that this section, and the quoted text on page 12, do not refer to the entire Project or parts of the Project but rather the regional landscape. Although there are numerous cultural modifications and recreational facilities such as Seminoe Dam and Reservoir in the vicinity of the Project, the site of the proposed upper reservoir is in a remote location, lacks hiking trails and other recreational features, and is anticipated to have few viewers.

The Project has been intentionally sited outside the Bennett Mountains WSA. Black Canyon believes the renewable energy and climate benefits of the Project warrant its construction, and Black Canyon looks forward to continued consultation with the BLM and other stakeholders regarding appropriate mitigation and environmental measures.

Exhibit E, Appendix K, Section 4.1 has been updated to reflect that construction activities will create visual and aesthetic impacts for the duration of those activities.

As discussed in Section 2.1 of Exhibit E, during construction, Black Canyon proposes to use localized and portable lighting where and when the work is occurring (temporary lighting). Lighting will likely be powered by generators and will have switches to cut power when lighting is not required during construction. Project operation exterior lighting is proposed to be minimal and consist of safety lighting. For all safety lighting, Black Canyon proposes to minimize lighting to the extent possible and use dark-sky compliant lighting fixtures. Except as required to meet minimum safety and security requirements (e.g., emergency lighting triggered by alarms), Black Canyon proposes that all lighting will 23

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

construction of drilling tunnels and installing large structures in a reservoir. More clarity needed on when lighting will be used, what type and how much, and for what operational functions.

use full cutoff luminaires and be properly shielded and mounted. Black Canyon proposes to use lighting that is amber in color, using either low-pressure sodium lamps or yellow LED lighting, which reduce skyglow and wildlife impacts from exterior lighting.

Same comment for section 4.1.3 KOP 3 and section 4.1.4 KOP 4. "The bridge introduces a new horizontal line to the landscape." The bridge does more than add a horizontal line. It also adds several large vertical lines. The two dam structures are solid and will have both vertical and horizontal lines, not to mention solid view blocking structures on each end where the bridge is joined with the landscape. The color is only matching to that of the dam and not that of the landscape. The level of change would not be low.

BLM-70

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. 19, section 4.1.2 KOP 2: "Activities will not attract attention." The concern regarding a project lasting 5 years with drilling, boring, concrete activities, line towers being assembled (with helicopters?) etc., activities within a ¾ mile distance, will attract major attention, especially from any noise being created in the area. Boat motors can be heard from more than 1 nautical mile at Seminoe. The transmission line and lattice towers add vertical and horizontal features. The existing power lines near the area does not make the level of change minimal, but in fact enhances it, drawing more attention to the user in the field. The comparison of boat launches and signs does not equal a comparison of towers and electrical lines.

BLM-71

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. 20, section 4.1.3 KOP 3: What information suggests it is a highly traveled route, and what is considered highly traveled? Are there traffic surveys with data to support this statement? The casual user will most likely be recreators on the reservoir itself, in which it will be very visible to all recreators on the lake. Western lakes are currently experiencing drought conditions in the west and Rocky Mountains. What if lake conditions are never at their high marks again? This will make structures visible constantly. The frequency of reservoirs hitting their high-water marks on repeated cycles is becoming less frequent across the west.

Appendix K and Exhibit E, Section 3.12, have been updated to note that the bridge introduces a new horizontal line and vertical lines to the landscape. This does not impact the analysis presented in Appendix K. As discussed in Appendix K, the level of change would be low from KOP 1 as the area is already highly modified due to the Seminoe Dam and associated access roads. The level of change to this area from the addition of the bridge remains low. For KOP 3, VRM Class II objectives would be met since the lower intake structure would be largely covered with water during normal water levels and, therefore, would not attract the attention of the casual observer. As noted in Appendix K, for KOP 4, the bridge would add a prominent cultural modification to the landscape and such changes would attract the attention of the casual observer and, therefore, VRM Class II objectives would not be met as the level of change would not be low. Most of the noise-generating Project construction will occur at the upper reservoir site. During construction of the reservoirs and powerhouse, blasting has the potential to be an intermittent annoyance to recreators. Other potential noises attributed to the Project primarily consist of short-term construction noise produced during heavy earthwork. It is anticipated that construction activities that generate noise will occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m, Monday through Friday, in accordance with the proposed contractor’s schedule. It is common for a Project of this magnitude to be constructed under a two-shift or three-shift schedule, generally excluding any significant construction over the weekends. The proposed construction hours limit the impact of noise on nearby recreators. More information related to the potential impacts of noise is in Section 3.16 of Exhibit E in the FLA. Appendix K has been updated to note that that the two steel lattice towers introduce new vertical features to the landscape and to remove the comparison of boat launches and signage. Co-locating the proposed transmission lines with the existing WAPA transmission line corridor would result in minimal changes when compared to the interconnection alternatives discussed in Section 2.3 of Exhibit E in the FLA which would have required additional structures to be constructed. Furthermore, where paralleling the existing transmission line, where possible, Black Canyon proposes to place the transmission structures to match the locations of structures in the existing line. Seminoe Road (County Road 351) is classified by WYDOT as a major collector road (WYDOT undated). WYDOT defines major collectors as “highways that link larger towns not served by arterials and provide the most important intracounty travel corridors. They serve major traffic generators such as agriculture, mining, recreation, and industry and also provide access to arterials. These roads are a compromise between mobility and land access” (WYDOT 2014). Annual average daily traffic on Seminoe Road is estimated to be less than 2,000 vehicles per year. Language in Appendix K has been updated to “moderately traveled route” instead of “highly traveled route.” This change does not impact the analysis presented in Exhibit E, Appendix K, Section 4.1. Additionally, Section 3.12 of Exhibit E has also been updated to “moderately traveled route.” Under severe drought conditions in which Seminoe Reservoir is consistently at low surface water elevations, the lower intake structure will be visible. The extent of this visual impact would depend on factors such as the quality of the existing viewshed and vegetation under drought conditions, sensitivity or concern of potential viewers, and number of viewers. If the area is experiencing severe drought conditions so that Seminoe Reservoir does not reach its high-water mark again, other resources in the area would be impacted such as fish, wildlife, and recreation activities. Drought affects activities that are dependent on water, such as boating and fishing. It can also result in poorer water quality and lower streamflow, thereby shortening the season for outdoor recreation and tourism in the area. Droughts also increase the risk for wildlife fires which have major impacts on outdoor recreation found near the Project. Lastly, drought alters wildlife populations and behavior, which can impact hunting and fishing (NOAA undated). The effects of drought will shorten the outdoor recreation season and will likely attract fewer recreators to the reservoir itself, thus reducing the number of views of the lower intake structure. Additionally, the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the surrounding areas (particularly the character of the exposed reservoir banks) would be repeated by the lower intake structure to minimize visual impacts of the lower intake structure.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Citations used in this response: Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). Undated. Interactive Transportation System Map. Online [URL]: https://apps.wyoroad.info/itsm/map.html. Accessed: October 13, 2022. Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT). 2014. Traffic Program Access Manual, 2014 Edition. Online [URL]: https://www.dot.state.wy.us/files/live/sites/wydot/files/shared/Traffic%20data/Access_Manual_Final_2014.pdf. Accessed: October 13, 2022. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Undated. Recreation and Tourism. National Integrated Drought Information System. Online [URL]: https://www.drought.gov/sectors/recreation-and-tourism. Accessed: October 18, 2022.

BLM-72

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, pg. 20, section 4.1.4 KOP 4: Define temporary increase to traffic. "Road construction may impede recreational use of the North Platte River." Explain how much recreational use of the North Platte River will be impacted, what uses will be affected, and for how long? Will there be alternate access/routes for recreationalist? " ... slightly obscured by new pilings." The information offered suggests these pilings will be 50' tall and the bridge will be 40' wide. These pilings are not for foot traffic. They are for large vehicles that sustain very heavy loads. These pilings will have major obscurement from the casual user on the shore. The bridge also is introducing strong vertical lines as well.

Construction of the Project may result in temporary impacts on roadways due to the movement and delivery of equipment, material, and workers. At peak construction, approximately 1,000 workers would be driving to construction sites via the road network spread out over approximately 120 miles. In addition to the construction workforce, the delivery of construction equipment and materials to the Project could temporarily congest existing traffic. Black Canyon will develop a traffic management plan prior to construction that will detail expected traffic conditions, impacts, and mitigation measures. As described in Exhibit E, workers and construction vehicles will result in temporary increases in traffic and presence near the Seminoe tailrace for bridge and access road construction. The area that will be impacted would be the Seminoe tailrace, at the upstream extent of the Kortes Reservoir, approximately 300 feet south of the Footprint of Potential Disturbance. The primary recreation activity to be impacted will be angling, specifically shoreline angling. The popular fishing spots along the Miracle Mile on the North Platte River will not be impacted. As described in Exhibit C, it is expected that the bridge over the Seminoe tailrace will be completed within the first year of construction. Once construction of the bridge is complete, most of the recreational impacts at this location will be minimized. There are no alternative access routes proposed at this time since the construction is temporary and short-term and there are numerous, similar recreation opportunities in the vicinity that will not be affected by construction. As described in Exhibit E, the bridge will support a 40-foot-wide road and will be designed for the largest delivered load during construction of the Project, which is expected to be the GSU transformers. Black Canyon proposes to design the bridge so that materials repeat and/or blend in with the existing form, line, color, and texture of the landscape to the extent feasible. Black Canyon will consult with BLM to develop specific measures to address potential impacts.

BLM-73

Recreation/VRM/Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Exhibit E, Appendix K, KOP 1 -4: A KOP from western edge of the WSA looking West/Southwest is needed.

BLM-74

Recreation General Comment What are the impacts to the public use and safety with the heavy equipment traffic and mobilization on the travel routes?

An additional KOP has been added from the western edge of the Bennett Mountains WSA looking towards the proposed location of the upper reservoir.

Construction activities could result in temporary impacts to public use in the form of noise, reduced access, and temporary road closures in the Project vicinity. The Project may create short-term, minor, and incidental increases in local traffic, but it is not expected to create substantial congestion for extended periods. Vehicle trips associated with construction would generally occur during daylight hours. The typical work week is anticipated to be 5 days but may last 6 or 7 days depending on construction scheduling. The anticipated increase in vehicle trips is negligible and would likely not adversely impact traffic flow and congestion. Given the slight increase in traffic volume and the limited anticipated congestion, adverse impacts to public safety are not likely. Furthermore, Black Canyon is developing a traffic management plan which will minimize impacts to travel routes resulting from construction activities. Construction of new access roads and improvements to existing access roads may result in temporary road closures. In the case of road closures, detours or other measures would be implemented to permit traffic flow during 25

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response construction. Road closures on major paved highways, interstate highways, and railroads are not anticipated. Road closures and detours would temporarily affect traffic flow and public access in the immediate Project vicinity. Traffic impacts would decrease and be limited to maintenance and operations following construction of the Project; therefore, there are no long-term impacts to public use and safety.

BLM-75

Weeds, Invasive & Sensitive Plants Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 30, Table 2.1-3 and pg. 151, line 22: The invasive section states that there will be no cumulative impacts from invasive/noxious species, but the phrase "to the extent practicable" negates that. If an infestation has progressed to the point that it is no longer possible to treat, then there is a potential of an impact. Committing to treatment to prevent impacts, then the phase "to the extent practicable" needs to be removed.

BLM-76

Weeds, Invasive & Sensitive Plants Exhibit E, Environmental Report: What is the plan to prevent establishment of new weeds? There is language in the DLA to manage and minimize spread. The BLM recommendation to consider treating weeds preemptively to prevent initial spread since this is a multiple year project.

BLM-77

Weeds, Invasive & Sensitive Plants Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 62-63, Section 3.3.1.5: Soil surveys are necessary and aids in reclamation. Reclamation plan should include soil survey data. Please address how differing soil types are to be handled during construction. How will topsoil be handled and reapplied? What are the potential effects of erosion from those erodible areas?

BLM-78

Weeds, Invasive & Sensitive Plants - General comments What is the total acreage of long-term disturbance versus short term disturbance (areas that will be reclaimed after construction is completed)? To reduce long term disturbance, will the disturbance beyond the road width be reduced and reclaimed post construction? Is the transmission line to be co-located with the WAPA line, and will the same access/roads be used that the WAPA line uses? When will the final location of the transmission line be finalized? The BLM will need the details to review the transmission line.

BLM-79

Weeds, Invasive & Sensitive Plants There is no discussion about the increased use of chemicals. There are usually off target effects from herbicide treatments. Treating weeds is a disturbance so there needs to be a discussion about the potential ecological effects. What are the vegetation effects and what are those effects on wildlife and pollinators?

BLM-80

Weeds, Invasive & Sensitive Plants There is no discussion about the potential change in fire regime from increased cheat grass (and other weeds).

Regarding Black Canyon’s PM&E measure to develop a Noxious Weed Management Plan, the phrase "to the extent practicable" has been removed for that PM&E measure in Sections 2.1.2 and 3.6 of Exhibit E.

Black Canyon recognizes the need for this information, which will be included in a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan developed in consultation with the BLM and other stakeholders prior to Project construction.

Black Canyon intends to conduct reclamation on all lands within the Footprint of Potential Disturbance that are not needed for Project operations and maintenance activities. Section 3.1.3 of Exhibit E provides details on the acreage of the Footprint of Potential Disturbance, FERC Project Boundary, and Temporary Disturbance Areas. Site-specific reclamation recommendations will be included in a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan developed in consultation with the BLM and other stakeholders prior to Project construction. Specific details regarding Project transmission, including the proposed relocation of the WAPA line, are presented in Exhibit A. Black Canyon recognizes that final siting of Project transmission warrants review and input from the BLM and other Project stakeholders. Prior to construction, Black Canyon will develop a Noxious Weed Management Plan to minimize and control the spread of invasive botanical species that could result from construction and operation of the Project. The Noxious Weed Management Plan will include guidelines for application of herbicides, including avoidance of known sensitive plant species. Black Canyon will coordinate with BLM regarding herbicide use on BLM lands.

Black Canyon intends to minimize and control the spread of invasive botanical species that could result from construction and operation of the Project through its Noxious Weed Management Plan. Therefore, as stated in Section 3.6, “the Project is not expected to have significant impacts to the landscape from the spread of noxious weed species.”

Comment # BLM-81

BLM-82

Comment Weeds, Invasive & Sensitive Plants

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

What are the potential effects to sensitive species from herbicide treatments in the area? Or potential spread of invasives in the area?

Black Canyon intends to minimize and control the spread of invasive botanical species that could result from construction and operation of the Project through its Noxious Weed Management Plan. The Noxious Weed Management Plan will incorporate guidelines for application of pesticides including herbicides, including avoidance of known sensitive plant species. Black Canyon will coordinate with BLM regarding herbicide use on BLM lands.

Wildlife

The potential occurrence of these species has been added to Section 3.5 of Exhibit E.

Exhibit E, Environmental Report, pg. 133, section 3.5.1.7: Amphibian species very likely include tiger salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium) and likely include boreal chorus frogs (Pseudacris maculata). Plains spadefoot (Spea bombifrons) may be present in the Shirley Basin. BLM-83

Wildlife

This correction has been made to Section 3.5 of Exhibit E.

Pg. 134, section 3.5.1.7: Should read, Boreal Toad, Columbia Spotted Frog, and Great Basin Spadefoot are unlikely to occur in the Project area. BLM-84

Wildlife Any amphibians that occur in this area are likely to be impacted by this project because they are so closely associated with water. They will likely be drawn to the upper reservoir and some mitigation measures need to be identified in anticipation of these impacts.

BLM-85

Wildlife Macroinvertebrates, especially those living within the sediment of the lake, are likely to be impacted by this project during intake of water and particularly during the outflow when sediments may be disturbed by the sudden water flowing into the lake.

BLM-86

Wildlife Pg. 135. Section 3.5.l.9: What planning is there in the event that AIS (particularly the invertebrates and plants) are found in Seminoe Reservoir? Is there a strategy to combat the potential impacts of these species on the project? The BLM requests that they comply with AIS monitoring and decontamination of equipment that will be used in the water.

BLM-87

Wildlife

The proposed upper reservoir would not mimic natural aquatic habitat because the reservoir would be lined with concrete and water levels would fluctuate often. The dam walls will be between 65 to 185 feet in height, precluding most amphibians from accessing the upper reservoir. Therefore, it is unlikely that amphibians would be attracted to this feature.

As discussed in Section 3.5 of Exhibit E, there is limited information available about aquatic macroinvertebrates that may exist in the Platte River Basin or Seminoe Reservoir. The only macroinvertebrate study of Seminoe Reservoir took place in 1976. If macroinvertebrates exist near the inlet/outlet area, impacts may occur during ground-disturbing activities of construction. BMPs will be implemented to minimize the effects of construction activities on fish and aquatic species within the affected littoral and riparian zones, and the pelagic bottom of Seminoe Reservoir where construction occurs. Aquatic invasive species (AIS) are known to occur in Seminoe Reservoir and the larger Platte River watershed, including curly pondweed, rusty crayfish, Asian clam, and Brook Stickleback, as described in Section 3.5 of Exhibit E. The WGFD currently has in place a rigorous AIS management plan that includes rotating watercraft inspections at several key locations entering the Platte River Basin that includes the Red Hills boat launches. Additionally, the WGFD provides guidance for watercraft moving into and within watersheds in the State of Wyoming. Black Canyon intends to comply with the current WGFD and BLM regulations and guidance for AIS monitoring and decontamination of equipment used in the water during construction of the Project including WS § 23-1-102 & §§ 23-4-201 through 205 and Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Regulations. Black Canyon will develop an AIS Construction Monitoring and Decontamination Plan (AIS Plan) specific to Seminoe Reservoir that will document plans for AIS monitoring and decontamination of equipment used in the water. Development of the AIS Plan will be coordinated with the BLM and WGFD following license issuance and during development of final construction plans. A discussion of Black-footed ferret (BFF) has been added to Exhibit E, Section 3.7 and Table 3.7-5 and Table 3.7-4.

Pg. 172, Table 3.7-5: The Black-footed ferret has been reintroduced into the Shirley Basin-Medicine Bow BFF Management Area. The transmission lines extend through this management area to the Aeolis substation. BFF should be listed as likely or potentially.

Comment # BLM-88

Comment Wildlife

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response This revision has been incorporated into Section 3.7.

Pg. 178, section 3.7.1.8: Change dates to reflect mid-March to mid-May. BLM-89

Wildlife Pg. 187, section 3.7.2.2: Change "can be timed" to "shall be timed". Additional analysis and potential mitigation needed. Wildlife ramps will need to be installed along the sides of the upper reservoir to allow bats, birds, small mammals, etc., to climb out of the reservoir if they were to end up in the water.

BLM-90

Wildlife Pg. 192, section 3.7.4.2: Anti-perch devices need to be installed on power line structures to prevent raptors from landing, perching, and/or nesting on the structures. This is mitigation for raptors and for GSG Core habitat.

BLM-91

Wildlife Avian surveys will need to be completed the year prior to construction to identify all (occupied and unoccupied) nests near the project. All nests (including unoccupied nests) will have the timing restrictions applied so an exception request will be required to temporarily remove those timing restrictions if any construction activities are to occur during those nesting periods. Therefore, if construction activities are needed during the nesting period, nest surveys will be needed again each spring prior to construction start up to identify which nests are occupied and protected during the nesting period.

BLM-92

Wildlife Exhibit E, Appendix F: Surveys will need to be completed to identify any leks within the project area that have not been identified previously. The surveys should be conducted from an airplane and completed in early morning (near sunrise) from mid-March to mid-April.

BLM-93

Wildlife Exhibit E, Appendix G, WildRTEl: Prior to any construction activities another raptor nest survey will be needed that includes nests on private, where access is given. Any nests that are identified, even on private, will have timing restrictions and buffers applied if the buffer overlaps with any BLM administered lands.

BLM-94

Wildlife – General Comment This specific landscape offers two Bighorn Sheep (ram) license annually by the WYGFD. Construction activities will directly impact this hunting opportunity, as most of the Bighorn Sheep in this unit reside within the proposed project area. What impacts will the project have on existing populations of Bighorn Sheep that reside within the Bennett Mountains? The Bighorn Sheep that reside in the Bennett Mountains are a separate herd unit from the Morgan Creek/Seminoe-Ferris unit. Significant impacts should be anticipated to the hunting of Bighorn Sheep and the isolated herd that resides within the project boundary (i.e. foot print).

Project design for the upper reservoir (see Exhibit A) consists of a rim dike structure that will be inaccessible to terrestrial wildlife except via a gated access road and associated ramp. The ramp is incorporated into the existing design and extends into the reservoir and Black Canyon believes this ramp will provide exit opportunities for wildlife, and looks forward to working with BLM to coordinate on specific requirements for ramps or fencing and on construction timing.

As noted in Table 2.1-3 and in Section 3.7.4.3 (Design/Pre-Construction Protection Measures) Black Canyon will design raptor safe transmission lines which comply with applicable APLIC guidelines

Black Canyon understands this requirement and is planning year-of-construction raptor nest surveys throughout the Footprint of Potential Disturbance and a 1-mile buffer. Raptor nest surveys were conducted in 2021 (described in Section 3.7.1.4), and the results of those surveys will be used to inform the year-of-construction surveys.

Black Canyon will continue to work with BLM and WGFD to avoid impacts to Greater Sage-grouse. To that end, if WGFD concurs with the recommendation for lek surveys, Black Canyon is open to conducting aerial lek surveys.

Black Canyon understands this requirement and will conduct year-of-construction raptor nest surveys throughout the Project area and a 1-mile buffer, wherever access is obtained. Raptor nest surveys were conducted in 2021 (described in Section 3.7.1.4), and the results of those surveys will be used to inform the year-of-construction surveys.

As described in Section 3.8.2, during construction, bighorn sheep are expected to be temporarily displaced from the Footprint of Potential Disturbance to other habitat surrounding the area, such as the Bennett Mountains. Following Project construction, hunting opportunities directly within the Project Boundary will no longer be available. While studies specific to Bighorn sheep were not requested by any party during study plan development, Black Canyon looks forward to discussing with the BLM and WYGFD appropriate mitigation approaches that assist in meeting bighorn sheep management goals.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

Comments on DLA from U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service in a letter dated September 6, 2022, to Luigi Resta, President of rPlus Hydro, LLLP, signed by Nathan Darnall for Tyler A Abbott, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office USFWS-1

NEPA Analysis The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis should disclose the full extent of proposed development, as well as the direct and indirect effects of all aspects of the Project and the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of who is responsible for those actions.

USFWS-2

ESA-Listed Species In accordance with section 7(c) of the ESA, we have determined that the following species or their designated habitat may be present in or may be affected by actions in the proposed Project area. The table (see table included in their September 6, 2022 letter, Page 2) has been updated since our first correspondence in 2016. We would appreciate receiving information about the current status of each of these species within the proposed Project area as the Project progresses.

USFWS-3

Platte River Water Depletions and Species Any actions that may result in water depletions should be identified. An analysis of the water depletion should include: an estimate of the amount and timing of the average annual water use (both historic and new uses) and methods of arriving at such estimates; location of water use or where diversion occurs, as specifically as possible; if and when the water will be returned to the system; and the intended use of the water. Depending on Project details, the Service may have more specific questions regarding the potential consumptive use of the water.

USFWS-4

How to Seek Coverage under the ESA for Water-related Activities through the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program If the proposed action will lead to the consumptive use of water or have the potential to affect water quality in the Platte River System, there may be impacts to threatened and endangered species inhabiting the downstream reaches of this river system the endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), threatened piping plover (Charadrius melodus), threatened western prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera praeclara), and endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) and its designated critical habitat. For more information on how to seek coverage under the ESA for water-related activities through the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, please visit https://fws.gov/partner/platte-river-recovery-implementation-program, and to view the Wyoming Depletions Plan, visit https://fws.gov/media/wyoming-depletions-planplatte-river-recovery-implementation-program.

Black Canyon’s impact analyses include the full extent of proposed development, as well as the direct and indirect effects of the Project and the cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Black Canyon looks forward to continued consultation with the USFWS.

Exhibit E discusses the current status of each of the species listed in the table. Information related to each of the species or critical habitats can be found in the following sections: Section 3.7.1.6 (monarch butterfly), Section 3.7.1.7 (Platte River species critical habitat, pallid sturgeon, piping plover, whooping crane), Section 3.6.1.20 (Ute ladies’tresses, blowout penstemon, western prairie fringed orchid), 3.6.2.3 (Ute ladies’-tresses), and Section 3.6.1.20 (western prairie fringed orchid). Black Canyon looks forward to continued consultation with the USFWS.

See Exhibit B Section 4.1 and 4.2. The Project water rights will be for non-consumptive beneficial use. Water will be recirculated between the new upper reservoir and the lower reservoir. Water loss will be relatively minor evaporation losses throughout Project operations. The Project will secure the necessary water rights and permitting for nonconsumptive beneficial use of water from Seminoe Reservoir as well as replacement water the relatively minor amount of evaporative losses during Project operations.

The proposed Project will not affect water quantity or quality in the Platte River System or impact PRRIP species or their habitat. Black Canyon anticipates relying on surface water from existing water rights within the North Platte River Basin as its water source for initial fill and make-up water for the Project. System recharge to replace evaporation and other losses will be conducted during periods when excess water is available to conform to existing water rights. Water supply agreements with existing water right holders and the final water supply plans for the Project will be developed and finalized as the licensing process advances. Black Canyon anticipates that the existing water rights holders with whom Black Canyon makes agreements for Project initial fill and make-up water supply will be water users who already participate in the PRRIP in a manner that fulfills ESA compliance requirements for water depleting activities associated with withdrawals under their water rights, and that agreements made between Black Canyon and these water rights holders will be compatible with their PRRIP obligations.

Comment # USFWS-5

Comment Blowout Penstemon On Page 145 of the Environmental Report under subsection 3.6.1.20, it states that the blowout penstemon does not have the potential to occur in the study area based on the absence of suitable habitat. If further botanical surveys are conducted and the blowout penstemon is observed within the Project footprint, please notify our office.

USFWS-6

Ute Ladies’-Tresses Ute ladies’-tresses does not flower every year; therefore, at least three consecutive years of surveys conducted by trained botanists are needed to determine its presence or absence. One year of surveys was completed in 2021; therefore, we recommend that two more years of surveys be conducted in areas that were found to be suitable for Ute ladies’-tresses, especially areas that will be disturbed by the Project....Surveys should be conducted by knowledgeable botanists trained in conducting rare plant surveys.

USFWS-7

Candidate Species Candidates are reviewed annually to determine if they continue to warrant listing or if their status or priority has changed. Conservation measures for candidate species are voluntary, but recommended. Protection provided to these species now may preclude possible listing in the future. We would appreciate receiving information as to the current status of this species in or near the Project area.

USFWS-8

Candidate Species – Monarch Butterfly Through simple conservation actions like planting native milkweed and nectar sources, this Project can benefit monarchs and other pollinators.

USFWS-9

Candidate Species – Monarch Butterfly There is no legal requirement that Federal agencies consult or conference with the Service for effects to candidate species (51 FR 19941; June 3, 1986). At this time, the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office has elected not to conference on the monarch butterfly unless the proposed action will jeopardize the continued existence of the species or if future listing of the species would potentially result in substantial project modification. The Service, however, encourages cooperative conservation efforts for candidate species because they are, by definition, species that may warrant future protection under the ESA. Conservation measures for candidate species are voluntary, but protection provided to candidate species now may preclude possible listing in the future. It may also be prudent for project proponents to consider incorporating conservation measures into their projects, especially if listing the species would potentially result in substantial project modifications in the future.

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Black Canyon did not observe blowout penstemon or suitable habitat for blowout penstemon during 2022 botanical field surveys. Black Canyon will notify the USFWS if blowout penstemon or suitable habitat for blowout penstemon is observed during future botanical surveys.

Prior to construction, Black Canyon will complete at least three consecutive years of surveys for Ute ladies’-tresses. These surveys will be conducted by trained botanists in areas that will be disturbed by the Project.

The IPaC database listed the monarch butterfly as a candidate species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the Project. An analysis of monarch butterfly potential habitat in the study area is included in Exhibit E, Appendix G, Section 3.2.1.

Section 2.1.2 and 3.7.2.3 of Exhibit E have been modified to state that milkweed (Asclepias spp.) species will be included in the native seed mixes specified in the Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan.

Based on Black Canyon’s botanical and wildlife habitat surveys of the Footprint of Potential Disturbance and the analysis in Appendix G, there is a very low potential for milkweed to occur in the footprint of the upper reservoir and, therefore, be removed. It is highly unlikely that any monarch butterfly individuals would be affected. No monarch butterflies were observed during the wildlife habitat surveys, and the vegetation surveys did not identify milkweed. However, both showy milkweed and pallid milkweed could occur in the surrounding area. Prior to construction, Black Canyon will conduct a survey and habitat assessment in areas where milkweed is most likely to occur (i.e., wetlands, roadsides, drainages, mesic areas) for suitable monarch butterfly habitat. If suitable habitat is identified in an area of proposed disturbance, Black Canyon will discuss avoidance or mitigation measures with the USFWS.

Projects such as this could result in the disturbance and inundation of large blocks of habitat for the monarch butterfly. For this reason, we recommend that an assessment be done in all proposed Project areas (i.e., disturbed and inundated) to determine the availability and suitability of existing habitat for the species and further coordination with the Service.

Comment # USFWS-10

Comment Candidate Species – Monarch Butterfly

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Black Canyon will incorporate the recommended measures to benefit pollinators, including the monarch butterfly: 

Incorporating all or some of the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) may benefit a variety of pollinators including the monarch butterfly by helping to retain existing seed sources and create new sources for monarch within the Project area during and after Project completion: 



USFWS-11

Migratory Birds and Eagles In addition to the recommendations we provided in 2016 for migratory birds and raptors, we recommend Black Canyon coordinate with our office when developing the Raptor Protection Plan. If the Project occurs within 0.5 mile of an eagle nest, Black Canyon may need to take additional steps to avoid impacts or apply for an incidental eagle take permit for Project activities and infrastructure that may cause the incidental take of eagles.

USFWS-12

Greater Sage-Grouse & Sagebrush Habitats Sage-grouse are dependent on sagebrush habitats year-round for cover and food. Habitat loss and degradation, as well as loss of population connectivity have been identified as important factors contributing to the decline of sage-grouse populations range wide. Therefore, any activities that result in loss or degradation of sagebrush habitats that are important to this species should be closely evaluated for their impacts to sage-grouse.

USFWS-13



Reclaim disturbed areas by mixing native milkweed and other flowering plants into the seed mix. For a regional and season specific plant list, see Xerces Society recommendations at http://www.xerces.org/monarch-nectar-plants, Adjust timing of vegetation management in areas containing plants used by monarchs to not interfere with monarch breeding or sources of nectar used as a food source along the migration route. (http://monarchjointventure.org/images/uploads/documents/MowingForMonarchs.pdf). Eliminate or reduce the use of pesticides. Insecticides can result in direct mortality to monarchs and herbicides can eliminate needed host and nectar plants needed by monarchs. If pesticides are used, select those pesticides that are specific to the pest; time applications to avoid monarch activity periods; establish buffers; and minimize drift to non-target areas by direct ground application. These measures can help retain existing seed sources and create new sources for monarch to continue to be present within the Project area after Project completion.

Greater Sage-Grouse & Sagebrush Habitats The State of Wyoming has adopted a “Greater Sage-grouse Core Area Protection” Executive Order 2015-4 to ensure sage-grouse conservation. According to the Executive Order, the Wyoming Core Area Protection strategy is based on the identification of important habitat areas for sage-grouse and a set of actions that, when taken, are intended to ensure the long-term survival of sage-grouse populations in Wyoming. Since the Project will occur in a greater sagegrouse core population area with multiple occupied leks surrounding the Project’s footprint, we recommend you follow the Bureau of Land Management’s seasonal and spatial restrictions for greater sage-grouse within the Project area, implement appropriate measures to minimize

The Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan will specify that during operation of the Project, Black Canyon will adjust timing of vegetation management in areas containing plants used by monarchs to not interfere with monarch breeding or sources of nectar used as a food source along the migration route. Black Canyon will work to eliminate or reduce the use of insecticides, which can result in direct mortality to monarchs. The use of pesticides including herbicides will be described in Black Canyon’s Noxious Weed Management Plan.

Comments acknowledged. Black Canyon will continue to coordinate with the USFWS, including during development of the Raptor Protection Plan.

Black Canyon is coordinating with the BLM and WGFD regarding Greater Sage-grouse and will work with these agencies to develop a Project that minimizes impacts to this species. The potential impacts to Greater Sage-grouse are described in Section 3.7.2.3 of Exhibit E.

Black Canyon is coordinating with the BLM and WGFD regarding Greater Sage-grouse and will work with these agencies to follow their guidance regarding implementation of measures to minimize any Project impacts to this species. The potential impacts to Greater Sage-grouse are described in Section 3.7.2.3 of Exhibit E.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

potential impacts from the Project to sagebrush habitats, and pursue additional consultation with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department on the core area strategy as appropriate. USFWS-14

Black Canyon’s Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement Measures Under subsection 3.7.4.2, Black Canyon identifies several Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement (PM&E) measures that they propose to incorporate into the Project. These PM&E measures will address impacts to wildlife during the Project’s design/preconstruction, construction, and operational phases. As Black Canyon continues to develop and refine their PM&E measures, we recommend that they coordinate with to our office on specific conservation measures for listed species.           

  USFWS-15

Applicant recommendations are provided in Section 3.7.4.2 of Exhibit E. Black Canyon will coordinate with USFWS and will implement these measures as either part of the Project design or as PM&Es:    

Design raptor-safe transmission line structures that comply with APLIC guidelines. Reduce habitat loss by designing the Project to use existing access roads wherever possible. Constructing the transmission lines adjacent to existing transmission lines as much as possible. Working with BLM and WGFD to plan for Project construction windows that both provide for wildlife protection and allow for feasible Project construction timelines. Develop construction timing and scheduling limits for greater sage-grouse, bighorn sheep, elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn to minimize impacts. Provide a biological training program to inform employees of the sensitive biological resources. Manage traffic by implementing a speed limit to reduce wildlife injury due to collisions. Conduct avian nesting surveys in areas near active construction during nesting season (April 1st to August 31st). Implement biological construction monitors to monitor sensitive biological resources as necessary. Develop a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan. Prior to ground disturbance Black Canyon proposes to prepare and implement a Raptor Protection Plan developed in consultation with the Service and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Minimize outdoor lighting to reduce impacts on foraging bats and migrating and nocturnal birds. Operate Project facilities in a manner that minimizes disturbance to wildlife populations.

Notification of any Decision Made on this Project

       

Transmission line structures will be designed to comply with APLIC guidelines where applicable. Black Canyon has designed the Project to use existing access roads wherever possible. Black Canyon proposes to construct the transmission lines within the existing energy corridor, parallel to existing transmission lines. Black Canyon looks forward to continuing to coordinate with BLM and WGFD to plan for Project construction windows that both provide for wildlife protection and allow for feasible Project construction timelines. Black Canyon will implement a biological training program. Black Canyon will mandate enforcement of strict speed limits to reduce wildlife collisions. Black Canyon will conduct avian nesting surveys in areas near active construction during nesting season (April 1st to August 31st). Black Canyon will implement biological construction monitors to monitor sensitive biological resources as necessary. Black Canyon will develop a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan. Prior to ground disturbance, Black Canyon proposes to prepare and implement a Raptor Protection Plan developed in consultation with the USFWS and the WGFD. Black Canyon has designed the Project to minimize outdoor lighting to reduce impacts on foraging bats and migrating and nocturnal birds. Black Canyon will operate Project facilities in a manner that minimizes disturbance to wildlife populations.

Black Canyon will notify the Wyoming Field Office of all such decisions.

For our internal tracking purposes, we would appreciate notification of any decision made on this Project (such as issuance of a permit or signing of a Record of Decision or Decision Memo). Notification can be sent in writing to the letterhead address or by electronic mail to WyomingES@fws.gov.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

Comments from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department in a letter dated September 6, 2022, to Lars Dorr of rPlus Hydro, LLLP from Angi Bruce, Deputy Director WGFD-1

Reference back to Previous Communications The following comments are provided in addition to previous communications to the proponent (including Wildlife Environmental Review letters WER 12249.00a through 12249.03).

WGFD-2

Potential Impacts Effectively Avoided or Minimized If potential impacts cannot be effectively avoided or minimized, the Department recommends that the project be redesigned or relocated to ensure these singular resources are protected.

WGFD-3

Aquatic Habitats The project’s potential area of impact to aquatic habitats consists primarily of Seminoe Reservoir and areas downstream including the North Platte River and headwater areas of Pathfinder Reservoir.... Given that effective restoration or replacement of vital habitats are unlikely if impacted or destroyed, any potential for reduced habitat function should be identified, avoided, and rectified during the project planning stage.

WGFD-4

Aquatic Wildlife Resources & Associated Recreational Opportunities Based on the design and operation details provided in the draft license application materials, the Department remains concerned about the potential for significant negative impacts to aquatic wildlife resources and associated recreational opportunities within the Seminoe Reservoir area extending downstream through the Class 1 reach of the North Platte River. There are three main areas of concern: 



The water level fluctuations are likely to be of a much larger magnitude than Exhibit E purveys and what has been used in the analyses to-date. Therefore, likely potential impacts to aquatic habitats are not adequately identified or described. The reservoir water elevations and temporal fluctuations that were used to assess the potential impacts do not adequately quantify the typical conditions nor the full range of conditions likely to occur during the operation of the project. Analyses should be re-run using a range of water levels that represent both more typical conditions and combinations of “worst-case” reservoir water level scenarios, stream flows, and water flow rates for waters circulated between the upper and lower reservoirs as part of all operational scenarios for the proposed facility and that accurately represent the temporal variability relevant to each analysis. The operation of the project will cause significant disruption of the physical aquatic environment, especially thermal regime of Seminoe Reservoir and downstream river reaches. Additional parameters of concern include mobilization and distribution of metals, nutrients, sediments, salinity, substrate depth and cover. The estimates of fish entrainment during pumping cycles, especially for walleye, could result in a loss of this wild fishery.

Comment acknowledged. Black Canyon has incorporated WGFD’s previous communications into its development of the FLA.

Black Canyon has evaluated a number of alternatives to the Project since submitting its Preliminary Permit Application to FERC in 2011, as described in Exhibit B. Notably, Black Canyon’s concept study prepared to support the 2019 PPA and PAD considered the Bennett Mountains WSA, and relocated the upper reservoir presented in Reclamation’s 2013 Phase II Report such that no Project feature would extend into the Bennett Mountains WSA. As explained in Exhibit B, none of these alternatives could fit the need as well as the proposed Project. Black Canyon looks forward to continued coordination with WGFD along with Reclamation, BLM, USFWS, and other agencies and stakeholders to avoid or minimize impacts to specific resources. Black Canyon has included analyses of potential Project effects on water quality, fisheries, and other key components of aquatic habitat function in the FLA. Black Canyon has sited and designed the Project to minimize the potential for significant adverse Project effects and to mitigate Project impacts.

Water Level Fluctuations: Exhibit B Project Operation and Resource Utilization in both the DLA and FLA presents information on historic Seminoe Reservoir fluctuation and elevation ranges. Exhibit B also presents hypothetical fluctuation duration curves for proposed Project operations under the full range of Seminoe Reservoir normal operation elevations. To summarize fluctuation effects on Seminoe Reservoir: When Seminoe Reservoir is at its lowest normal operating level (6,290 feet), the cyclic variation is under 21 inches, corresponding to a change in surface area of approximately 238 acres. When Seminoe Reservoir is at its highest normal operating level (6,357 feet), the cyclic variation is approximately 6 inches, corresponding to a change in surface area of approximately 176 acres. Black Canyon has added information about resource-specific fluctuation effects to applicable resource sections in Exhibit E of the FLA based on elevation and fluctuation information presented in Exhibit B. Sediment Mobilization and Distribution: As described in the Preliminary Supporting Design Report (Exhibit F) and in Section 3.4 of Exhibit E, a preliminary hydraulic analysis was performed to determine the flow conditions in the immediate vicinity of the lower inlet/outlet structure. Maximum velocities during generation and pumping were estimated using a CFD model to address the departure conditions and the potential for sediment mobilization. The CFD model analyzed four hypothetical scenarios which included user-specified volumetric flow rates applied at the modeled portion of the tailrace tunnel and user-specified pressure boundary attached to Seminoe Reservoir. The total flow rates used in the CFD model was 12,500 cfs and 11,955 cfs under generating and pumping modes, respectively. The water surface elevations used in the model were set to the maximum (6,357 feet) and normal minimum (6,290 feet) operating levels. Based on 2021 sediment sampling, the sediments near the intake are primarily fines consisting of silt and clays. With anticipated near-bottom velocities being 0 fps during pumping operations and up to 3 fps during generation in small, localized areas directly below the intake structure, the Project has the potential to resuspend sediment into the overlying water column of Seminoe Reservoir which may include concentrations of heavy metals. To prevent sediment mobilization and metal transport, Black Canyon proposes to install a clean rockfill blanket (approximately 33

Comment #

Comment

WGFD-5

Potential to Impact Ice Formation Page 202 of exhibit E acknowledges ice fishing as a popular activity on Seminoe Reservoir, and goes on to identify the potential to impact ice formation in the immediate vicinity of the intake structure but states “ice formation on the remainder of Seminoe Reservoir is not expected to be impacted”. Further, page 72 of exhibit E states fluctuations at water elevation 6,357 feet (full reservoir) will be approximately seven inches. Basing analysis on a full reservoir condition is not realistic, as Seminoe Reservoir is rarely at full reservoir. ......A more realistic assessment of project impacts to reservoir elevations would be a state a range of 10-15 inches daily fluctuation would be expected under average conditions, with fluctuations up to 22 inches expected during drought years.

WGFD-6

Potential to Impact Ice Formation Page 72 of exhibit E states “typical daily fluctuation of Seminoe Reservoir is for most of the year…almost 4 inches”. While Seminoe Reservoir can certainly experience daily changes in elevation of 4 inches, changes of that magnitude are only realized during relatively short periods of time coinciding with large inflows, generally during late May and June. As it pertains to ice formation, typical winter operations at Seminoe Reservoir show small daily decreases in water surface elevation as outflows exceed inflows. BOR data show the average daily change in water elevation during the last 5 winters was 0.34 inch per day. Further analysis of the effect of more realistic diurnal water level fluctuations of 10-15 inches per day, up to 22 inches per day to account for low reservoir conditions on ice formation is warranted. Potential effects beyond the immediate vicinity of the intake structure could include bridging causing a decrease in the ability of the icepack to support weight, as well as underwater topographic features creating upwelling due to currents generated by periodic withdrawal and return. This upwelling can cause areas of thinner ice, potentially reservoir wide, and to which anglers are not accustomed.

Additional information related to ice fishing activities on Seminoe Reservoir has been added to Section 3.8 of the Exhibit E. The Project design has been refined since the DLA, with reduced anticipated daily fluctuations in Seminoe Reservoir. When Seminoe Reservoir is at its lowest normal operating level (6,290 feet), the cyclic variation is projected to be up to approximately 21 inches, corresponding to a change in surface area of approximately 238 acres. These fluctuations of up to 21 inches are only expected during very low pool conditions and not under normal operating conditions. The analysis presented in Exhibit E has been updated to discuss potential ice formation impacts under such worst-case scenarios. See response to WGFD-6 for more information related to potential ice formation impacts.

As discussed in Section 3.8.2 of Exhibit E, stakeholders noted that pressure ridges can form near the shorelines of the Reservoir, as seen with many of the other reservoirs in the area. There have been soft spots observed near the shorelines, and in the “canyon” immediately upstream of Seminoe Dam. The shoreline soft spots are usually present during the start of ice formation and just before ice break up when the ice is generally thinner and temperatures are warmer. One stakeholder from Seminoe State Park noted that the center of the Reservoir will occasionally breakup and expose open water. The stakeholder hypothesized that this is due to the center of the Reservoir having deep water and a stronger current than in other areas. The breakup does not stay open for long, but he noted that the center of the Reservoir can be a dangerous area to ice fish. As discussed in Section 3.4.1.5, Black Canyon developed a CE-QUAL-W2 (W2) model for Seminoe Reservoir to further investigate potential Project effects on water temperature and ice formation. The W2 model is a twodimensional, longitudinal/vertical, hydrodynamic and water quality model. The model is best suited for the Project given the relatively long and narrow characteristics of Seminoe Reservoir, which exhibits longitudinal and vertical gradients. The W2 model is the reservoir model of choice throughout the U.S. and many other countries and serves as the two-dimensional, longitudinal/vertical hydrodynamic model of choice for Reclamation (USACE undated). The W2 model provided information about water temperatures, currents, and stratification under existing conditions and with proposed pumped storage operations. The results of the W2 model suggest that the timing of ice formation and thawing will be generally the same under Project operations, with ice forming in late November and early December, and thawing in early March. The model indicated that the area in the immediate vicinity of the inlet/outlet structure is unlikely to form ice throughout the winter season due to Project operations. Project-related upwelling is projected only occur in this area, and not, for instance, the upstream portion of Seminoe Reservoir that is frequently used for ice fishing. Based on information from local stakeholders, the vicinity of the inlet/outlet structure (in the “canyon”) is not generally used for ice fishing, as the ice is often unstable or with soft spots. However, ice formation on the remainder of Seminoe Reservoir is not expected to be impacted. Therefore, Project operations are not expected to detrimentally affect recreational uses of Seminoe Reservoir in the winter.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Citations used in this response: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Undated. CE-QUAL-W2. Online [URL]: https://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article-View/Article/554171/ce-qualw2/#:~:text=CE%E2%80%90QUAL%E2%80%90W2%20%28W2%29%20is%20a%20two%E2%80%90dimensional% 2C%20longitudinal%2Fvertical%2C%20hydrodynamic%20and,waterbodies%20exhibiting%20longitudinal%20and%2 0vertical%20water%20quality%20gradients. Accessed: November 11, 2022.

WGFD-7

Potential for Changes in Water Quality The draft license application lacks a sufficient analysis of impacts of the proposed project on various physical habitat attributes of Seminoe Reservoir and areas downstream including the North Platte River and headwater areas of Pathfinder Reservoir. Prior comments from the Department, specifically comment letters dated April 27, 2011, December 6, 2019, and April 13, 2021, raise concern regarding the potential for changes in water quality of Seminoe Reservoir and downstream. Exhibit E, page 99 touched on this by stating “the project is not anticipated to substantially disrupt thermal stratification because current stratification lasts a relatively short period of time (June to August)” with no detailed analysis of impacts within reservoir or downstream. The draft application fails to identify that the presence of stratification during the warmest periods of the year is important for ensuring suitable habitat exists within Seminoe Reservoir for salmonids, and is critical for maintaining desirable temperature regimes downstream in the Class 1 reach of the North Platte River.

WGFD-8

Spatial Influence within Seminoe Reservoir of any Mixing of Temperatures Further modeling is needed to elucidate the spatial influence within Seminoe Reservoir of any mixing on water temperatures, as well as impacts downstream though Kortes Reservoir, the Miracle Mile reach of the North Platte River, as well as the headwaters area of Pathfinder Reservoir.

WGFD-9

Suspension of Sediment from the Lake Bottom

Additional information related to Project effects on water quality, including thermal stratification, have been added to Exhibit E, Section 3.4.1.5 and 3.4.2. For more information on thermal stratification, see comment response to BLM-42.

See response to WGFD-4.

Similar to mixing effects on water temperature, questions arise as to the effect this mixing will have on suspension of sediment from the lake bottom leading to measurable changes in water quality both in Seminoe Reservoir and downstream. Potential exists for increased turbidity as well as nutrient loading and increases in metals or other analytes from disturbance of lake bottom sediments. WGFD-10

Additional Measures to Catch or Settle Overflow Channel Sediment Before Enters Reservoir

See response to Reclamation-2 and BLM-31.

The Department has additional concerns about sediments related to the over-pumping spillway associated with the upper reservoir. The ephemeral draw that the overflow channel connects to normally drains a very small area in a short very steep slope (~37%). If the overflow channel were used, a large amount of sediment could be released into Kortes Reservoir and downstream to the Miracle Mile due to an excess of water in a small channel. Additional measures should be taken to catch or settle this sediment before it is able to enter the reservoir or avoid causing erosion in the draw altogether.

Comment # WGFD-11

Comment Including Number 1 Gulch and Number 2 Gulch in Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Number 1 Gulch and Number 2 Gulch both originate on the plateau where the proposed upper reservoir is located and tie into Lost Creek which then flows into the Miracle Mile. During construction and normal operations, measures should be taken to ensure excess sediment does not enter these draws using best management practices. We support and encourage the adoption of the operator-proposed measure to enact an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and recommend including considerations for these gulches in the plan’s development.

WGFD-12

Estimated Entrainment Rates by Species Table 3.5-12 on pages 129-130 of exhibit E reference anticipated entrainment rates by species for the intake structure. Section 3.5.2.2 on page 138 of exhibit E states “overall entrainment and impingement risk to aquatic species in Seminoe Reservoir is low and these effects are not likely to significantly impact reservoir populations”. Some of the species specific entrainment rates appear to be great enough to be of concern, especially for walleye.

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Black Canyon will develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prior to construction. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will specify requisite erosion control measures to ensure that excess sediment does not enter Number 1 Gulch and Number 2 Gulch.

Black Canyon notes that the entrainment numbers provided in the DLA are estimates based on the best available information at that time. Entrainment rates used in Table 3.5-12 in the DLA indicate an estimate of entrainment of walleye as well as other fish species occurring in Seminoe Reservoir (in Section 3.5 of Exhibit E). The number of fish estimated to be entrained at the Project is attributed to the relative abundance of specific species, life history characteristics, physical and operational characteristics of the Project, reservoir stratification, and proximity of the structures to feeding and rearing habitat. Based on the habitat in the vicinity of the intake structure, it is unlikely that the area is the preferred spawning, rearing, or feeding habitat for walleye in Seminoe Reservoir. Observations during the Resident Fish Survey study show that the lentic portion of the lower reservoir (i.e., the intake vicinity) contains relatively ubiquitous and generic habitats and homogenous substrates. Although the Project has the potential to entrain walleye and other fish species in modest numbers, it should be noted that the burst swimming speeds for juvenile and adult walleye (as well as juvenile and adult species targeted by the Fish Entrainment study report) are greater than the calculated maximum intake velocities at the Project. The calculated velocities at the Project intake are low and are expected to decrease and decay substantially within a short distance from the face of the bar rack. Fish burst speeds coupled with the limited spawning, feeding, and rearing habitat preferred by walleye and other resident fish located in the vicinity of the Project intakes would significantly reduce the number of walleye and other fish from becoming entrained by the Project. Peak velocities at the intakes are generally short lived and tend to decrease as the lower reservoir elevations decrease and are confined to the face of the bar racks.

WGFD-13

Prevent Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species

Please see response to comment BLM-86.

The spread of AIS from one body of water to another is a violation of Wyoming state statute (WS § 23-1-102 & §§ 23-4-201 through 205) and Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Regulation. To prevent the spread of AIS, the following is required: • Equipment that was in contact with a water positive for zebra/quagga mussels (currently none in Wyoming) within the last 30 days, is required to undergo inspection by an authorized inspector prior to contacting a Wyoming water. • From March through November, all water hauling equipment and watercraft entering the state by land must be inspected before contacting a water of the state. • Equipment used in any Wyoming water that contains AIS, must be Cleaned, Drained and Dried before use in another water. Wyoming waters with AIS can be found at: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Fishing-and-Boating/Aquatic-Invasive-Species-Prevention/AISBoatingInformation. • When equipment that has been in contact with any Wyoming water is moved from one 4th level watershed (8-digit Hydrological Unit Code) to another within Wyoming, it must be Cleaned, Drained and Dried. Specific guidance is available at: https://wgfd.wyo.gov/Fishingand-Boating/Aquatic-Invasive-Species-Prevention/AISConstruction-and-Fire

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

.... If surface water is used for hydrostatic testing of pipelines and tanks, the Department recommends the movement of surface water from one 4th level (8-digit Hydrological Unit Code) watershed to another within Wyoming be avoided. .... Therefore, if a project proponent is planning to use surface water for the hydrostatic testing of pipelines and tanks, the Department encourages early coordination with the Department to ensure that the movement of surface water between 4th Level HUCs is avoided. This early coordination will prevent delays in the issuance of a WDEQ temporary discharge permit. WGFD-14

Portable Water Supply for Hydrostatic Test Water The concerns with transporting AIS with hydrostatic test water can be avoided by using a potable water supply. Potable water, if used for hydrostatic testing, can be moved from between watersheds without concern for moving AIS. The discharge of potable water should be accomplished in a manner that does not increase erosion or alter stream channels. Discharge should occur into temporary sedimentation basins and the dewatering of the temporary sedimentation basin should then be done in a manner that precludes erosion.

WGFD-15

Discharge of Hydrostatic Test Waters To minimize impacts, we recommend the direct discharge of hydrostatic test waters to streams other than the source water be avoided. Discharge should occur into the source drainage in a manner that does not increase erosion or alter stream channels. Discharge should occur into temporary sedimentation basins and the dewatering of the temporary sedimentation basin should then be done in a manner that precludes erosion.

WGFD-16

Additional Recommendations  



Avoid construction and staging, including servicing and fueling of equipment, within 500 feet of aquatic and riparian habitats. The Department supports the operator-proposed environmental measure to develop an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for all aspects of the project’s construction and operation. Best practices should be used to control erosion and prevent sediment from reaching waterways and guide proper development for stream crossings. We recommend beginning with conducting a standardized assessment to identify low, medium, and high risk stream reaches using a Reconnaissance Level Assessment from the Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply methodology. This approach identifies sediment sources, existing channel stability problems, and reveals specific locations that require more detailed analysis. Protect wetland and riparian habitats by implementing a buffer zone of 500-feet or the 100 year floodplain of undisturbed vegetation. Avoid construction and staging, including servicing and fueling of equipment, within this buffer zone. The project includes construction of a new bridge and roads. The Department would welcome the opportunity to discuss bridge designs to minimize impacts to aquatic habitats.

Hydrostatic packer testing will be carried out in the next phases of geotechnical exploration work. For construction, any hydrostatic testing activities will be localized and done in compliance with Wyoming water quality regulations. Testing of the main Project waterways will use water from Seminoe Reservoir and be discharged back into Seminoe Reservoir. See WDEQ - 3 comment response.

In the process of watering the pressure tunnels, the water will be used from Seminoe Reservoir and replaced into Seminoe Reservoir. No hydrostatic testing is anticipated outside of watering the power tunnels; however, any other water use in construction would follow a plan to discharge into approved locations defined by a SWPPP as well as Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the Project.

Black Canyon appreciates the input from WGFD and looks forward to continued consultation regarding the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and other environmental measures.

Comment # WGFD-17

Comment Mitigate Mortality Risk from Power Lines for Birds We support and encourage the adoption of the operator-proposed measures to follow the most current Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) guidelines for reducing electrocution risk to birds.

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Black Canyon is committed to the adoption of applicable APLIC guidelines during design of transmission facilities and to implementation of appropriate environmental measures to reduce risk of avian collision in higher risk areas. PM&E measures applicable to APLIC guidelines are described in Exhibit E Table 2.1-3 and Section 3.7.4.2.

.... Areas of increased potential for collision risk also exist along the currently proposed route, for example, the crossings of Troublesome and Difficulty Creeks may represent higher risk to waterfowl. Therefore, to further reduce the potential for impacts to birds and per prior communication, the Department continues to recommend:  



WGFD-18

We support and encourage the adoption of the operator-proposed measure to follow the most current APLIC guidelines to reduce bird collision risk: https://www.aplic.org/ Conduct a field-based assessment of collision risk along the proposed route of the power line corridor. This assessment should consists of: o Baseline pre-construction surveys to identify species, document raptor nests, and quantify use at flight altitudes that place birds at risk of collision along the proposed route of the transmission line corridor. As per prior communications, baseline surveys to document avian flight activity could be conducted using radar or remote cameras. o Use these survey data to identify areas of higher collision risk for birds. o Identifying potential suitable proactive mitigation measures for areas of higher collision risk, such as line marking, burying, or placement, to reduce risk of collision in higher risk areas.  We note that flapper-style flight diverters can reduce mortality rates for diurnally flying birds by approximately 70%. If a proactive risk assessment and mitigation measures are not adopted, we recommend conducting mortality monitoring to determine whether an adaptive management approach is needed to mitigate mortality rates.

Protect Nesting Birds and High-Use Areas for Raptors We support and encourage the adoption of the operator-proposed measures to protect nesting birds, including but not limited to: • The development of a Raptor Protection Plan in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Department. • Conducting raptor nest surveys. The proponent should consult with the USFWS and BLM on raptor nest survey recommendations, but at a minimum, nest surveys should be conducted within 1 mile of the project area, with repeated visits throughout the nesting season across a minimum of 2 years pre-construction and during construction. A single visit in a given year will not provide adequate likelihood for detecting active raptor nests. Surveys should be conducted prior to new surface disturbing activities if activity is occurring during the breeding season. o There are several previously identified raptor nests in the project area, including a Peregrine Falcon nest near the spillway location. This nest did not appear to be identified as located or active during the initial 2021 preconstruction raptor nest ground survey.

Black Canyon will develop a Raptor Protection Plan in coordination with the BLM, USFWS, and WGFD, as described in Sections 2.1.2 and 3.7.4 of Exhibit E. Raptor nest surveys have been conducted in 2021 and 2022 as described in Appendix G, Habitat Assessment and Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species Evaluation Study. Raptor nest surveys will be conducted again within a 1-mile buffer of the Project during the nesting season immediately prior to the start of construction and annually during construction. The peregrine falcon nest noted (presumably BLM ID #: PF25840801) was not observed in 2021 or 2022 despite a thorough investigation of the nest area via both pedestrian and UAV survey methods. Additional pre-construction surveys will inventory the area around the spillway, which is optimal habitat for peregrine falcons. Black Canyon will conduct winter roost site surveys for bald eagles within suitable habitat prior to the start of construction. Black Canyon will coordinate with BLM, USFWS, and WGFD on appropriate seasonal and spatial buffers of active raptor nests and bald eagle roost sites. These will be detailed in the Raptor Protection Plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will address practices to be established during Project construction and operation to minimize the potential for generating windblown dust from Project activities and to control fugitive dust.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

• Survey for bald eagle winter roost sites in suitable habitat. • Coordinate with the USFWS Wyoming Ecological Services Office, to implement the recommended seasonal and spatial buffers for active raptor nests and bald eagle winter roost sites. • Dust mitigation for roadways. WGFD-19

Greater Sage-Grouse The Department recommends: • Continue to work with the Department on transmission tower design, spacing, lines, and line heights, so we can identify the least impactful options. • As per WER 12249.02b, we support the operator’s sage-grouse study plan to monitor leks, assess disturbance and activity for compliance with the Sage-Grouse Executive Order 2019-3 (SEGO).

Black Canyon will continue to work with the WGFD to develop a transmission line design that minimizes impacts on Greater Sage-grouse. Black Canyon will conduct Greater Sage-grouse lek surveys post-construction to comply with the Sage-Grouse Executive Order 2019-3 (SGEO) (Table 2.1-3 and Section 3.7.4 of Exhibit E). Once a final Project design is developed, Black Canyon will submit that design to the Density Disturbance Calculation Tool (DDCT) and will continue to work with WGFD to reduce Greater Sage-grouse impacts.

o Continue to coordinate with the Department to monitor leks within 2 miles for a minimum of 3 years post-construction, with additional years of monitoring as needed. • Submit the more finalized project via the Disturbance and Density Calculation Tool to assess compliance with the SGEO. WGFD-20

Big Game The project area is located within important habitats which support the Ferris-Seminoe bighorn sheep herd, as well as crucial winter yearlong range for Shirley Mountain and Ferris Mountain mule deer herd. The proposed transmission line crosses through crucial winter yearlong range for Medicine Bow pronghorn. Crucial ranges provide habitat components and connectivity needed to maintain the population at objective levels over the long term. Big game crucial winter range is considered a vital habitat per the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Mitigation Policy (2016). As such, the Department is directed to recommend no loss of habitat function for crucial winter range.

There are both temporary and permanent disturbances associated with the Project. Areas that will be reclaimed and restored following construction are considered temporary disturbances while the infrastructure and access roads that will remain for the life of the Project are considered permanent. Most of the Project components on the west side of Seminoe Reservoir are temporary staging yards. As noted in Section 3.7 of Exhibit E, Black Canyon commits to working with BLM and WGFD on developing manageable timing and scheduling restrictions that can accommodate the construction schedule. Project design has considered crucial winter range as well as other environmental considerations including minimization of disturbance associated with the upper reservoir.

The proposed permanent features and construction footprint will remove important habitat from these big game species. The project proponent describes “temporary impacts” on vegetation and wildlife to include removal of vegetation for construction and staging along with dust, noise, and vibration impacts. Are these proposed for temporary, short-term disturbances, or will these areas be used by the project for the entire ~5-year construction period? If the latter, these are no longer temporary disturbances, but loss of habitats for the lifetime of most big game species. Two of these Work Zones on the western side of the North Platte River include or are immediately adjacent to crucial big game habitats, and were not considered in initial review and comment on recommended surveys because they were not identified in the original project proposal. The project as designed in the current application, with the bridge below Seminoe Dam and major construction activities on the west side of the river, impacts significantly more acreage than the original proposal.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

The Department encourages the project proponent to work closely with the BLM and the Department to avoid and minimize impacts to wildlife. To avoid impacts, we recommend: • Minimize the project’s footprint, specifically the location and size of the newly proposed upper holding reservoir. • Avoid project activities or siting project infrastructure within crucial winter range for mule deer. • Observe seasonal timing stipulations to avoid the disturbance or displacement of wintering wildlife. We recommend that construction and project activities be terminated between November 15 and April 30 in crucial winter range for mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep. WGFD-21

Reduce impacts to other Species of Greatest Conservation Need In addition to the species and measures discussed above, the Department recommends specialized surveys and targeted mitigation measures for some additional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). For the following species monitoring is recommended for 2 years pre-construction and for the duration of construction in new areas of potential disturbance.

Black Canyon recognizes the need for preconstruction surveys of species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) and intends to conduct these surveys in coordination with WGFD on methods and timing of these studies prior to their initiation (Exhibit E, Table 2.1-3 and Section 3.7.4). The western spotted skunk has been added to Appendix G, the Wildlife Study Report. Virginia Opossum has been removed from the FLA. Species lists have been developed using the State of Wyoming’s Natural Resource and Energy Explorer tool.

• Burrowing Owl are a Tier I SGCN in Wyoming. For project activities conducted in suitable habitat from April 1 to September 15: o

o o

Conduct inventories from mid-April through early August to determine the presence of nesting pairs of burrowing owls using standardized roadside pointcounts and a callbroadcast technique (protocol and datasheet available upon request). For project areas lacking a road network, a walking survey grid should be established to conduct Burrowing Owl inventories. Minimize human disturbance during the nesting season (April 1 – September 15) within 0.25 mile of occupied burrows. Protect all nest burrows from destruction, as burrowing owls often return to the same burrow to nest in subsequent years.

• Long-billed Curlew and Mountain Plover are Tier II and Tier I SGCN respectively. For project activities conducted from April 1 to July 31 in suitable habitat: o Conduct surveys from April 21 to May 15 using a standardized point-count method (protocol available upon request). For project areas lacking a road network, a walking survey grid should be established to conduct inventories. o Avoid impacts by minimizing activity during the breeding season or habitat conversions within 0.25 miles of known breeding congregations. • Swift Fox is a Tier II SGCN. For project activities conducted between April 1 to September 30 in potential suitable habitat: o Conduct den surveys. Active swift fox den sites will be most detectable between July 1 and September 30, when pups are spending time above-ground. Spotlight surveys are particularly effective at locating individuals and dens.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

o Avoid project activities within 0.25 mile of active den sites until September 30 (or based on evidence that pups have dispersed from the den site). • White-tailed Prairie Dog is a Tier II SGCN. To avoid losses of white-tailed prairie dogs and the specialized array of wildlife species these colonies support: o Delineate boundaries of active colonies during the summer months, ideally from May through July, to coincide with green-up and prairie dog activity. o When possible, site development outside of active colony boundaries. o Disease outbreaks or plague die-offs should be reported to the Department when identified. • Western Spotted Skunk is a Tier III SGCN. The Western Spotted Skunk should be added, it was not included as a potential special status species for consideration in the project analysis. o Conduct surveys targeting spotted skunk to document presence and distribution. o Pre-construction survey results should be provided to the Department for further consideration of mitigation recommendations. Finally, we note that the species lists generated by the proponent included Virginia Opossum, a species not predicted to occur in the project area. To develop a list of species of conservation concern with potential to occur in the project area, we recommend using the State of Wyoming’s Natural Resource and Energy Explorer tool (https://nrex.wyo.gov/), which allows proponents to generate site-specific fish, wildlife, and habitat information to aid in project development. WGFD-22

Control Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants We support the proponent’s proposal to develop a Habitat Restoration, Reclamation, and Enhancement Plan, and recommend that the proponent commit to control of noxious weeds and invasive plants within their project area. In addition to the species identified, we encourage the proponent to monitor for and immediately control any instances of two relatively new species of invasive annual grasses to the State of Wyoming, medusahead and ventenata. These plants are not native to Wyoming and can cause significant harm to the ecosystem when introduced. They can establish and spread quickly, resulting in significantly reduced quality of wildlife habitat and, in some cases, increased probability of catastrophic wildfire. The potential economic impacts to the State of Wyoming are severe, and once established, eradication is difficult and costly. Preventing establishment remains the best way to keep Wyoming's habitats free of these unwanted plants.

The recommended measures to prevent noxious weed and invasive plant spread have been incorporated into the description of the Noxious Weed Management Plan in Section 3.6.4 and Table 2.1-3 of Exhibit E.

To prevent the spread of noxious weeds and invasive plants, we recommend the following: 1. Prevent introduction and establishment by cleaning vehicles and equipment prior to movement to a new location in order to minimize the potential for transporting seeds. 2. Work with land managers to develop and implement a plan to assess, treat, and monitor for noxious weeds and invasive plants at the project scale and in the adjacent landscape where they are present.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

3. Work with the local Weed and Pest district to implement and fund long-term plans for successful restoration of disturbed sites. Additional information on prevention and treatment options for these grasses can be found at https://wyoweed.org. WGFD-23

Other Comments and Recommendations In order to evaluate potential impacts to wildlife in the project area, the Department recommends providing information on the following components of the project: • a)Describe the anticipated noise levels during construction and operation. • b)Develop a traffic management plan, describing: o Traffic volume (how many trucks/equipment per day during construction and operation) o Which roads are to be used, and for which activities. Stress and impacts to wildlife (and recreational users) may vary widely depending on which roads are being used. o Mile.

a) Estimates for type, number, duration, and location of heavy equipment are unknown at this time. It is anticipated that construction activities that generate noise will occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, but will be in accordance with the proposed contractor’s schedule. It is common for a project of this magnitude to be constructed under a two-shift or three-shift schedule, generally excluding any significant construction over the weekends. Most of the noise-generating Project construction will occur at the upper reservoir site. Construction equipment will include large excavators, scrapers, cranes, loaders, dump trucks, and miscellaneous material delivery by over-the-road, semi-tractor trailers. There will also be explosive blasting for rock excavation for the new upper reservoir and powerhouse. It is also likely that a portable concrete batch plant will be erected on site to produce concrete for the Project. Noise is further described in Section 3.16 of Exhibit E. b) Black Canyon will develop a traffic management plan prior to construction (Exhibit E, Table 2.1-3). The plan will describe:  

Whether construction traffic will pass over the Seminoe Range and the Miracle

      

o Plans for winter road maintenance if a yearlong schedule is to be kept. o Gravel roads that would need to be upgraded or surfaced. o Whether recreational traffic would be diverted onto the Morgan Creek Wildlife Habitat Management Area. o The difference between pre-construction traffic counts on affected roads. o Describe the use of the newly proposed access road to the upper reservoir. o Describe the purpose, frequency, timing, and duration (i.e., construction or operation phases) of use of the proposed bridge over the North Platte River, located 1,000 feet downstream of Seminoe Reservoir to access to the Main Access Tunnel Portal. o Enforce speed limits to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions. Vehicle GPS has been used to monitor construction and operational traffic in order to reduce noise and vehicle conflicts to wildlife, and may be a component of a travel management plan developed to mitigate impacts to wildlife. • c)Provide greater detail regarding the construction and operations time-frame. o The proponent describes a willingness to work within seasonal timing stipulations, however during recent discussions it was communicated that construction is proposed to occur year-round. • d)The Department supports the development of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, which will include practices to minimize dust. o Identify the proposed measures to control fugitive dust resulting from project activities.



Traffic volume (how many trucks/equipment per day during construction and operation) Which roads are to be used and for which activities. Stress and impacts to wildlife (and recreational users) may vary widely depending on which roads are being used. Whether construction traffic will pass over the Seminoe Range and the Miracle Mile. Plans for winter road maintenance if a year-long schedule is to be kept. Gravel roads that would need to be upgraded or surfaced. Whether recreational traffic would be diverted onto the Morgan Creek Wildlife Habitat Management Area. The difference between pre-construction traffic counts on affected roads. The use of the newly proposed access road to the upper reservoir. Describe the purpose, frequency, timing, and duration (i.e., construction or operation phases) of use of the proposed bridge over the North Platte River, located 1,000 feet downstream of Seminoe Reservoir to access to the Main Access Tunnel Portal. Measures to mitigate impacts to wildlife, including Project speed limits to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions and methods of enforcement.

c) Black Canyon looks forward to working with WGFD and BLM on construction timing (Exhibit E, Table 2.1-3). d) Black Canyon’s Erosion and Sediment Control Plan will address practices to be established during Project construction and operation to minimize the potential for generating windblown dust from Project activities and to control fugitive dust (Exhibit E, Table 2.1-3). e) Black Canyon will develop a biological training program for construction employees to follow to minimize impacts on biological resources. The training program will include measures to reduce the risk of collisions with wildlife, including adherence to speed limits (Exhibit E, Table 2.1-3). f) Black Canyon will mandate adherence to strict speed limits to reduce risk of collision with wildlife and to reduce fugitive dust (Exhibit E, Table 2.1-3). g) Modifications to Aeolus Substation are dependent upon negotiations with the offtake entities. h) See Exhibit F drawings for the location of potential staging and spoil areas. The main spoil area proposed is adjacent to Seminoe State Park in a small quarry area west of North Red Hills park road. This area is proposed to hold spoils that are excess to those needed in construction, and the spoil areas would be graded to natural contours 42

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

• e)The Department supports the development of a biological training program for employees. This program should include addressing the increased collision risk for wildlife resulting from project vehicles and traffic levels.

and revegetated once the Project construction is complete. Two other staging areas are identified on the east side of Seminoe Reservoir on the drawings that would be used by the contractor adjacent to the existing road to construct the various Project components.

• f)The developer should enforce speed limits to reduce impacts. Operators of other projects have effectively used Geospatial Positioning Systems (GPS) installed on vehicles to help monitor vehicle speed and presence in areas where wildlife may be impacted by traffic.

i) Black Canyon plans to retain access and full functionality for recreationist after construction. During construction, there will periods of curtailment for the general public with notifications posted in advance. Black Canyon will consult with applicable resource agencies to mitigate potential recreation losses due to Project construction.

• g)Describe the proposed further expansion of the Aeolus substation to accommodate this project. • h)Identify the location, extent, and access to staging areas, and the plan for use, storage, and management of excavated materials from the development the reservoir and underground project features. • i)The work zone identified by the bridge below Seminoe Dam would appear to block recreational access to that stretch of the North Platte River and Kortes Reservoir. Identify and describe losses of public access for recreation during both the construction and operational phases of the project. Pre-construction traffic or user data would be useful to identify appropriate mitigations. Potential recreational losses include: o River and reservoir access to the area identified as a work zone by the bridge below Seminoe Dam. o The work zone west of Seminoe State Park, while an active gravel quarry, also serves as a camping site for hunters every fall. o While in poor condition, the existing road to the upper reservoir provides access for most ORVs, and receives use by the general (hunting) public. Please describe whether construction of the newly proposed road will limit access by the public for any period of time, and what uses will be allowed of the newly proposed access road. Comments from the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in a filing issued September 8, 2022 to Matthew Shapiro, CEO, Black Canyon Hydro, LLC from David Turner, Chief NW Branch, Division of Hydropower Licensing FERC-1

General comment

Exhibit D has been updated to include capital and annual costs for environmental measures.

No costs for environmental measures are provided in the draft license application. We remind you that the Exhibit D of your final license application should include all capital and annual costs for all environmental measures you propose. FERC-2

General comment

Comment acknowledged.

In your final license application, please ensure that all acreages of land to be used for the project and acreages of land that were surveyed for various studies are consistent throughout your exhibits.

Comment # FERC-3

Comment Exhibit A Table 2.11-1 in Exhibit A indicates that the maximum flow rate for pumping would be approximately 3,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). Section 3.5.1.5 of Exhibit E states that the maximum pumping rate would be 12,000 cfs. At other points in your draft license application, you state the maximum pumping rate would be 10,500 cfs. In your final license application, please correct this discrepancy and ensure that all references to pumping and discharge flow capacities are consistent throughout your exhibits.

FERC-4

FERC-5

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response As noted in Exhibits A and B, the maximum pumping rate is 12,500 cfs and the maximum turbine unit flow rate is 4,200 cfs.

Exhibit B

Section 4 of Exhibit B has been updated and provides additional details.

Section 4.6.1 of Exhibit B states the initial fill for the upper reservoir will require approximately 14,600 acre-feet of water and anticipate that this water will come from the Seminoe Reservoir. You also state that estimates of annual make-up water needed to replace water lost to evaporation and seepage as well as an analysis of potential impacts of project operations on “Seminoe Reservoir water resources” will be provided in the final license application. However, you then state that a schedule for the initial fill “will be confirmed during the design process.” To understand how your proposed operation would affect the Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) operation of Seminoe Reservoir and downstream uses of that water, we will need more details on your procedures for filling the upper reservoir, including the amount of flow in cfs that will be pumped during the initial fill (i.e., if different than the maximum pumping flow rate), the approximate duration of time needed to fill the upper reservoir, any parameters that would influence your ability to fill the upper reservoir (e.g., any seasonal restrictions or a particular flow or water level range for Seminoe Reservoir in which fill would be conducted), and how these fill procedures may affect operations of Reclamation’s Seminoe Reservoir (including water levels and flow releases downstream). This may require modeling of flows and Seminoe Reservoir operations to illustrate how initial fill and subsequent project operations affect reservoir levels and available water for release through the reservoir. Please include this information in your final license application. Further, you must consult with Reclamation in developing your proposed fill procedures and schedule for filling the upper reservoir. Your final license application should include the results of such consultation, including how you addressed any concerns or recommendations raised by Reclamation.

Initial filling of the Project requires approximately 13,400 ac-ft of water equal to the sum of active storage (10,800 acre-feet), dead storage for the upper reservoir (2,500 ac-ft), and the volume of the conveyance system (96.4 ac-ft). Prior to the start of commercial operations, full pressure hydrostatic tests will be completed on the conduits, gates, and valves. The upper reservoir dam will be tested by slowly filling up the upper reservoir and observing its performance. The exact upper reservoir fill rate will be determined during detailed design phases in conjunction with regulatory input. This fill rate is currently estimated at approximately 5 feet per day with hold points at every 30 to 50 feet to observe the upper reservoir’s dam performance. Detailed observations of drain performance, seepage, movements, etc. at the upper reservoir dam during each hold point will confirm the reservoir is safe for further filling. The full process is expected to occur over an approximate two- to four-week period. Black Canyon consulted with Reclamation on the proposed initial fill schedule and Reclamation responded to the Applicant via email on December 13, 2022. Reclamation expressed no concerns nor recommendations regarding the initial fill and potential impacts of operation of the Project to operations of Seminoe Reservoir. A copy of the email is included in the consultation record.

Exhibit E

See comment responses to Reclamation-2 and BLM-31.

Aquatic Resources

The maximum pumping flow at maximum operating level of the upper reservoir is 8,300 cfs. The FLA has been revised to reflect a maximum potential flow over the over-pumping emergency spillway of 8,300 cfs.

Section 2.1 of Exhibit A and section 2.1.1.1 of Exhibit E states that in the event of an overpumping scenario (i.e., if the sensor equipment fails and excess water is pumped to the upper reservoir causing the water level of the upper reservoir to rise above the maximum crest elevation of 7,445 feet), water would be released from the upper reservoir via an emergency spillway into a stilling basin, which would then discharge water down a natural gulley into Kortes Reservoir, another Reclamation facility located downstream of the Seminoe Dam and Reservoir. You state that if all three pumping units were operating during a sensor failure, a maximum of 10,500 cfs could be discharged into Kortes Reservoir until the issue is resolved. While you state this flow would not exceed the spillway capacity of the ungated spillway at Kortes Dam, you provide no other details on how these emergency water releases could affect typical operations at Kortes Dam (e.g., reservoir water levels or flows released downstream of Kortes Dam). As noted in section 2.1.3 of Exhibit B and section 2.4.1 of Exhibit E, Kortes Reservoir has a “relatively small storage volume (4,765 ac-ft).” It seems like a flow of 10,500 cfs could quickly exceed the Kortes Reservoir storage and influence downstream flows and the resources within the river.

Black Canyon clarifies that in the event of an over-pumping scenario, flows would dissipate downstream of Kortes Dam in the Miracle Mile reach of river, which has historically experienced flows as high as 16,225 cfs. The 83-acre Kortes Reservoir is confined in a narrow canyon and provides storage for approximately 4,700 acre-feet of water and is normally operated at full pool levels to maximize power generation. Additional details on Kortes Reservoir operations have been added to Section 3.4 of Exhibit E. Black Canyon held an in-person meeting with Reclamation in Casper, WY, on June 16, 2022, to consult on the overpumping emergency spillway operation, in addition to other discussion generally about the DLA (included in Consultation Record). The FLA includes results of that consultation. Additional details and description of the overpumping emergency spillway operations is included in Section 2.1 of Exhibit A. Additionally, an analysis of the potential impact of the use of the over-pumping emergency spillway has been included in Section 3.4 of Exhibit E.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

Your final license application must explain in greater detail how operation of the project would not adversely impact operations at Kortes Reservoir. Please describe the current operations of Kortes Reservoir throughout the year and how an emergency release of up to 10,500 cfs of water from the upper reservoir could affect its operations including water levels and flow releases downstream. Further, you must consult with Reclamation concerning your proposed emergency spill operation. Your final license application should include the results of such consultation, including how you addressed any concerns or recommendations raised by Reclamation. FERC-6

Exhibit E Aquatic Resources Section 3.4.1.5 of Exhibit E states that the in-situ dissolved oxygen measurements collected during the 2021 fish survey (which consistently ranged between 5 to 6 milligrams per liter) are believed to be “anomalous” because the samples were collected at a time when the Seminoe Reservoir was undergoing a “significant drawdown for maintenance” and thus water was being drawn from the “deepest portions of the reservoir.” Other water quality data presented in the draft license application is sourced from baseline studies conducted by Reclamation in the 1970’s or is data collected in the North Platte River downstream of Seminoe Reservoir. However, there is not enough information in the application to understand how well this historical data and the 2021 in-situ measurements relate to the proposed depths and locations for the project’s pumps and discharges and how project operation might affect temperature and dissolved oxygen levels in the reservoir.

Concurrent with the fish sampling, in-situ water quality data was collected at each sampling site or episode. A Hydrolab® with an associated MS5 Multiparameter Mini Sonde was used to record water quality measurements, including pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, and specific conductivity. Water quality parameters were collected at the depth of the fish sampling: water quality data associated with sinking bottom gillnet sets were collected at the depth of the net sets, while water quality data collected with mid-column floating gillnets were collected at the depth of the net set. Water quality data associated with boat electrofishing was collected within one meter of the water surface. Figures illustrating gillnet sampling and electrofishing locations within Seminoe Reservoir are provided in the Resident Fish Survey Study Report included as Appendix D of Exhibit E of the FLA. A copy of the 1981 report from Reclamation titled Limnology of the Upper North Platte Reservoir System, Wyoming is available at: http://www.nativefishlab.net/library/textpdf/20516.pdf and is provided as a new Appendix M to Exhibit E. Section 3.4 of the FLA has been supplemented with information from the WDEQ 2022 report “Water Quality Condition of Streams and Rivers in the North Platte, South Platte and Niobrara Basins, Wyoming.”

Therefore, please indicate the locations and depths where water quality measurements were taken in 2021 in relation to the location and depth of your proposed pump intakes and discharge facilities within Seminoe Reservoir. Please also include a copy of the 1981 report from Reclamation titled Limnology of the Upper North Platte Reservoir System, Wyoming that you reference and include an explanation why water quality conditions have not substantially changed in Seminoe Reservoir from the period when the last comprehensive water quality study in the reservoir was completed.

FERC-7

Exhibit E Aquatic Resources Your draft license application indicates the surface area dimensions of the trash racks at the inlet/outlet structure in Seminoe Reservoir, the spacing between the bars, and the average approach velocity that would occur under maximum pumping operation. While the average approach velocities describe velocities experienced by fish as they approach the trash rack, we also need to understand the velocities through the rack which are typically higher as water is forced to pass through a smaller surface area.

To support the initial design process, a bar rack velocity of 2 fps measured at a distance of 1 foot from a proposed rack was chosen as the design criteria noting that localized “hot spots” on the order of 2 fps were created in part due to the flow distribution between the bars as well as by flow separation at/near the intake members and guide walls. These criteria result in a bar rack area of approximately 6,140 square feet, which has been incorporated into the current configuration. The intake structure consists of eight total bays of 21 feet width each and the final bar rack spacings will be determined in consultation with WGFD, BLM, USFWS, and Reclamation. The criteria in the current Project design uses 2 fps (2 feet in front of intake so fish can swim away).

This information is needed to determine the potential fish entrainment and impingement risk at the project.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

In order to calculate the through velocities, please indicate the number of bars that would be present on the trash rack at the pump intake and the approximate bar thickness (e.g., 1-inch thick, 0.5-inch thick, etc.). FERC-8

Exhibit E Terrestrial Resources

The botanical and other resource studies presented in the DLA were supplemented with additional 2022 surveys that cover the entire Footprint of Potential Disturbance, including transmission line alignment. Botanical resources are discussed in Section 3.6 of Exhibit E.

Section 3.6.1.2 of Exhibit E summarizes botanical resources in the project area, with Table 3.61 summarizing land cover types for 1,598.5 acres included in the botanical study area. Appendix E of Exhibit E states that the botanical study area totals about 1,589.5 acres (Appendix E, Figure 1-1), and that, “since study initiation, additional lands have been identified that will be included in a Conceptual Project Boundary for the Project, requiring surveys. Botanical resources on these lands will be surveyed during 2022, with exception of habitat assessments for Ute ladies’-tresses, which were completed in 2021 and included in this report. 2022 survey efforts will be described in Black Canyon’s Draft and Final License Applications.” In your final license application, please describe any additional surveys that were conducted in 2022 for land cover types based on the revised project boundary, or area of potential disturbance, that is greater than the study area presented in Section 3.6.1.2 of Exhibit E of the draft license application (1,598.5 acres). Please also confirm that the final transmission line alignment was included in the revised study area and the entire right-of-way for the chosen alignment has been surveyed for botanical resources. FERC-9

Exhibit E

Please see response to comment FERC-8.

Terrestrial Resources Section 3.6.1.20 of Exhibit E describes the results of rare, threatened, and endangered plant species in the botanical study area. The study area includes 23.78 acres of suitable habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses, twenty-six occurrences of limber pine stands (with 1-10 individuals per stand), and five occurrences of persistent sepal yellow cress along the shoreline of the Seminoe Reservoir (comprised of 648 total individuals the majority of which were found in two of the five occurrences). In your final license application, please describe any additional studies that were conducted in 2022 for these species based on the revised project boundary or area of potential disturbance that is greater than the botanical study area presented in Appendix E. FERC-10

Exhibit E

Exhibit E text has been updated, including in Table 2.1-3 and Section 3.7.4.

Terrestrial Resources Please update the raptor-safe transmission line design based on the guidance in the following publication: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2012. Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2012. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, D.C. (instead of the publication from 1994).

Comment # FERC-11

Comment Exhibit E Terrestrial Resources Table 2.1-3 of Exhibit E lists your proposed environmental measures for the project, but it does not include the following measures later described in your Exhibit E: fence and monitor the upper reservoir to prevent cattle, wild ungulates, and other medium-to large-sized animals from accessing this area; primarily use drilling and tunneling construction methods on steep cliffs between the two project reservoirs; and use a density disturbance calculation tool to calculate direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse and to define mitigation options that could include purchasing any required mitigation credits or developing a mitigation plan in coordination with the Wyoming Fish and Game Department.

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response Fencing the upper reservoir and the use of a DDCT have been added to Table 2.1-3. The PM&E measures have been updated to remove Project design elements and therefore the use of drilling and tunneling construction methods on steep cliffs has been removed from Table 2.1-3. Associated costs with the use of drilling and tunneling are considered as part of Project design and costs for this effort will be developed as Project design continues. Estimated capital and annual costs are presented in Exhibit D. Black Canyon has engaged with WGFD and submitted the preliminary Project through a DDCT. The final design will also be submitted to the DDCT at a later date as coordination with WGFD on Greater Sage-grouse continues. APLIC 2015 has been added to Table 2.1-3.

Please add these environmental measures to Table 2.1-3 along with estimated capital and annual costs of these measures in Exhibit D of your license application. Additionally, the following publication may be of use in developing a mitigation plan: Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 2015. Best Management Practices for Electric Utilities in Sage-Grouse Habitat. Edison Electric Institute and APLIC. Washington, DC. FERC-12

Exhibit E Terrestrial Resources Section 3.7.2.2 states that, “temporary access roads built for construction of the project will be decommissioned after use and revegetated to natural conditions,” and, “Construction activities are scheduled to be completed within five years of commencement and disturbed areas will be revegetated as soon as feasible following construction.”

Proposed plans call for the construction of new road segments leading up Bennett Mountain to the upper reservoir and a new, short road section leading to the headrace gate shaft and aboveground penstock sections, as well a new road segment leading to the intake facility and also the new Bridge across the North Platte River downstream of Seminoe Dam. These roads will become permanent roads. However, there are some construction roads on the west side of Seminoe Reservoir that can be restored as well as some of the upper reservoir construction work areas. Exhibit A has been updated to identify the location and total acreage of road segments and construction areas that are not needed after construction for operation and maintenance of the Project. Temporary and permanent disturbance areas are detailed in Table 3.1-1 of Exhibit E.

In your final license application, please identify the approximate location and acreage of temporary roads and construction areas to be decommissioned and revegetated. FERC-13

Exhibit E Terrestrial Resources Section 3.7.2.2 of Exhibit E states that construction of the upper reservoir could have a positive effect on a variety of bat species, and that a fenced water source, in which top wires are not more than 42 inches from the ground and at least 100 feet from water, is known to benefit spotted bats along with other bat species. Please clarify if you are proposing to fence the upper reservoir to meet these specifications for bats.

FERC-14

Exhibit E

At this time, Black Canyon is not proposing to fence the upper reservoir to meet these specifications for bats and text has been removed from Section 3.7.2.2 to clarify Black Canyon’s proposal. As stated in the FLA Table 2.1-3, Black Canyon proposes to prohibit fishing and other recreation in and around the upper reservoir and to fence the upper reservoir for site security, public safety, and wildlife protection but not for bat species. Black Canyon will work with BLM to coordinate on specific requirements for fencing.

Black Canyon has updated the figure to clarify winter range crucial habitat for the species listed.

Terrestrial Resources Please confirm that Figure 3.7-4 of Exhibit E shows winter range crucial habitat for the species listed.

Comment # FERC-15

Comment Exhibit E Terrestrial Resources

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response The 2021 and 2022 monitoring results are included in the updates to the Greater Sage-Grouse Lek and Habitat Study Report (Appendix F) and in Section 3.7 of Exhibit E.

Table 3.7-8 of Exhibit E provides the results of Black Canyon Hydro’s Greater Sage-Grouse Lek monitoring in the study area during 2021. The following occupied leks were not included in the monitoring study because they are already being monitored by the Wyoming Fish and Game Department or another entity: F-2483144, F-2583362, F-2481083. The recent status of these leks (counts of birds present by date) is needed to inform our environmental analysis of the proposed project.

Please obtain the 2021 monitoring results for these leks and provide the information in an updated table with your final license application. FERC-16

Exhibit E Terrestrial Resources

Prior to construction, Black Canyon will develop a Fire Prevention and Protection Plan to mitigate wildfire risk during construction and operation of the Project (Exhibit E Table 2.1-3, Section 3.7.4).

Wildfire risk is highlighted in several sections of the draft license application, including stating that wildfires have affected current landcover conditions in portions of the project vicinity.

In your final license application, please describe how wildfire risk will be mitigated at the project during construction and operation. FERC-17

Exhibit E Environmental Justice Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad,1 and Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,2 as amended, require federal agencies to consider if impacts on human health or the environment would be disproportionately high and adverse for environmental justice (EJ) communities in the surrounding community resulting from the programs, policies, or activities of federal agencies. To assist Commission staff with its analysis under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), we recommend that the final application include:

Black Canyon has included the requested information in Section 3.14 of Exhibit E. As described in Section 3.14.1, there are no minority communities, no low-income communities, no linguistically isolated groups, and no sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, or childcare centers within 5 miles of the Project’s Footprint of Potential Disturbance. Therefore, the Project will not affect environmental justice communities. Because none are present in the vicinity, Black Canyon did not conduct outreach to environmental justice communities. Black Canyon did not receive any comments from entities that expressed interest in environmental justice.

a) A table (see table in Comments, Page A-9) of racial, ethnic, and poverty statistics for each state, county, and census block group within the geographic scope of analysis. In this case, the geographic scope of analysis is areas within 5 miles of the proposed project boundary because of the proposed construction. The table should include the following information from the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recently available American Community Survey 5-year Estimates for each state, county, and block group (wholly or partially) within the geographic scope of analysis:  



i. Total population; ii. Total population of each racial and ethnic group (i.e., White Alone Not Hispanic, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, some other race, two or more races, Hispanic or Latino origin [of any race]) (count for each group); iii. Minority population including individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin as a percentage of total population;3 and 48

Comment #

Comment 

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

iv. Total population below poverty level as a percentage.4

The data should be collected from the most recent American Community Survey files available, using table #B03002 for race and ethnicity data and table #B17017 for low-income households. A template table is provided below. b) Identification of environmental justice populations by block group, using the data obtained in response to part a above, by applying the following methods included in EPA’s Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews (2016).5 i. To identify environmental justice communities based on the presence of minority populations, use the “50 percent” and the “meaningfully greater” analysis methods. To use the “50 percent” analysis method, determine whether the total percent minority population of any block group in the affected area exceeds 50%. To use the “meaningfully greater” analysis determine whether any affected block group affected is 10% greater than the minority population percent in the county using the following process:   

Calculate the percent minority in the reference population (county) To the reference population’s percent minority, add 10% (i.e., multiply the percent minority in the reference population by 1.1) This new percentage is the threshold that a block group’s percent minority would need to exceed to qualify as an environmental justice community under the meaningfully greater analysis method.

ii. To identify environmental justice communities based on the presence of low-income populations, use the “low-income threshold criteria” method. To use the “low-income threshold criteria,” the percent of the population below the poverty level in the identified block group must be equal to or greater than that of the reference population (county). c) A map showing the project boundary and location(s) of any project-related construction in relation to any identified environmental justice communities within the geographic scope. Denote on the map if the block group is identified as an environmental justice community based on the presence of minority population, low-income population, or both. d) A discussion of anticipated project-related impacts on any environmental justice communities for all resources where there is a potential nexus between the effect and the environmental justice community. Examples of resource impacts may include, but are not necessarily limited to, project-related effects on: erosion or sedimentation of private properties; groundwater or other drinking water sources; subsistence fishing, hunting, or plant gathering; access for recreation; housing or industries of importance to environmental justice communities; and construction-or operation-related air quality, noise, and traffic. For any identified effects, please also describe whether any of the effects would be disproportionately high and adverse. e) If environmental justice communities are present, please provide a description of your public outreach efforts regarding your project, including:    

i. a summary of any outreach to environmental justice communities conducted prior to filing the application (include the date, time, and location of any public meetings beyond those required by the regulations); ii. a summary of comments received from members of environmental justice communities or organizations representing the communities; iii. a description of information provided to environmental justice communities; and iv. planned future outreach activities and methods specific to working with the identified communities.

Comment #

Comment

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC’s Response

f) A description of any mitigation measures proposed to avoid and/or minimize project effects on environmental justice communities. g) Identification of any non-English speaking groups, within the geographic scope of analysis, that would be affected by the project (regardless of whether the group is part of an identified environmental justice community). Please describe your previous or planned efforts to identify and communicate with non-English speaking groups and identify and describe any measures that you propose to avoid and minimize any project-related effects on these communities. h) Identification of sensitive receptor locations (e.g., schools, day care centers, hospitals, etc.) within the geographic scope of analysis. Show these locations on the map generated in step c. Provide a table that includes their distances from project facilities and any project-related effects on these locations, including measures taken to avoid or minimize project-related effects. When you file your response with the Commission, please include documentation of any consultation you conducted with entities that expressed interest in environmental justice, copies of their comments, and an explanation of how you have addressed their comments in your final response. FERC-18

FERC-19

Exhibit F Sheets 32 to 40 of Exhibit F-1 show two proposed transmission line alignments. We remind you that your final license application and Exhibit F drawings should include only one proposed transmission line alignment.

The proposed Project includes two separate and generally parallel, 500 kV, overhead transmission lines extending to the 500 kV interconnection at Aeolus Substation. PacifiCorp is requiring two separate gen-tie lines to address system reliability concerns associated with the large capacity of this generator (>630 MW). The redundancy provides additional stability for the voltage and frequency of the grid and meets the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) requirements.

Exhibit F

Exhibit F has been updated to show a visible line for the Bennett Mountain WSA on Sheet 27 of 47 of Exhibit F-1.

Sheet 4 of Exhibit F-1 contains a label for the Bennett Mountain Wilderness Study Area line, but this line is not readily visible with respect to the limits of grading. In your final license application, please ensure Sheet 4 provides a visible line for the Bennett Mountain Wilderness Study Area. FERC-20

Exhibit F

Black Canyon has re-classified the single-line diagram as public information.

A single-line electrical diagram was filed as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) as part of your Exhibit F. Single-line diagrams are not considered CEII and should be filed as public information. In your license application, please file your single-line diagram as public information. FERC-21

Exhibit G Section 4.41(h) of the Commission’s regulations requires that Exhibit G include: (1) project boundary data in a geo-referenced electronic format (i.e., ArcView shapefile or similar format); (2) electronic boundary data that is positionally accurate to ±40 feet; and (3) a text file describing the map projection used for the Exhibit G data. A representative latitude/longitude location point for each recreational feature should also be included. We remind you that this information must be included in the final license application.

Black Canyon has included this information in Exhibit G. There are no Project related recreation facilities therefore representative latitude/longitude location point information is not included.

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix M Limnology of the Upper North Platte Reservoir System, Wyoming

REC-ERC-81-10

LIMNOLOGY OF THE UPPER NORTH PLATTE RESERVOIR SYSTEM, WYOMING

July 1981 Engineering and Research Center

U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation

7-2090 (4-81) Water and Power I.

REC-ERC-81-10 4.

TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 3.

REPORT NO.

TITLE AND SUBTITLE

12.

REPORT DATE

July 1981

Limnology of the Upper North Platte Reservoir System, Wyoming

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

AUTHOR(S)

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

J. J. Sartoris, J. F. LaBounty, S. G. Campbell, and J. R. Boehmke 9.

RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.

REC-ERC-81-10

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION N■jME AND ADDRESS

1 0.

WORK UNIT NO.

Bureau of Reclamation Engineering and Research Center Denver, Colorado

11.

CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

1 3.

TYPE OF REPDRT AND PERIOD COVERED

SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

Same

1976-79 1 4.

SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

I S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Microfiche and/or hard copy available at the Engineering and Research Center, Denver, Colorado. Editors: JMT EJH 1 6.

ABSTRACT

The baseline limnology of Seminoe, Kortes, Pathfinder, and Alcova Reservoirs, on the North Platte River in Wyoming, was studied by Bureau limnologists during 1976-79. The study period included 2 years of severe drought followed by two of higher than average runoff in the North Platte basin. The reservoirs differ greatly in volume and operating patterns: Seminoe (1.25 x 10° m3 ) is mainly for 6 8 power production; Kortes (5.88 X 10 m3 ) and Alcova (2.27 x 1 0 m3 ), flow regulation; and Pathfinder (1.25 x 10° m3), for storage. The three major system tributaries, - the North Platte, Medicine Bow, and Sweetwater Rivers, differ significantly in chemical composition and annual flow volume. Limnology of the Upper North Platte reservoir system is typical in many ways of the High Plains Region of the Western U.S.; i.e., the reservoir waters are dimictic and alkaline, with salinity averaging 369 mg/L and calcium carbonate hardness averaging 184 mg/L. Also, the bluegreen alga, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, blooms in late summer. Study results showed that this annual bloom depends on a shift from phosphorus-limiting conditions in early summer to more nitrogenlimiting conditions by late summer. The study also indicated that nutrient dynamics, and hence primary production in the system, is heavily influenced by the interaction of three main factors: system operating criteria, annual runoff variations in the three major tributaries, and the presence of deep outlets in all four dams.

1 7.

KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

I *Iimnology/ *reservoirs/ environments/ ecology/ chemical properties/ *aquatic environment/ *benthic fauna/ *zooplankton/ light penetration/ *heavy metals/ nutrients/ chlorophyll a.

DESCRIPTORS--

b. IDENTIFIERS--! *Seminoe, Kortes, Pathfinder, and Alcova Reservoirs, Wyo./ *Kendrick Project, Wyo./ *North Platte Project, Wyo./ LM Region c. cosari F ieic/Group 08H C°WR R: 0808 sR 1 m 7 48G 1 8.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

Available from the National Technical Information Service, Operations Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Division,

5285 (Microfiche and/or hard copy available from NTIS)

1 9.

SECURITY CLASS 21. THIS REPORT)

129

UNCLASSIFIED 20.

SECURITY CLASS

(THis PAGE/

NO. OF PAGES

22.

PRICE

UNCLASSIFIED GPO

831-316

REC-ERC-81-10

LIMNOLOGY OF THE UPPER NORTH PLATTE RESERVOIR SYSTEM, WYOMING

by J. J. Sartoris J. F. LaBounty S. G. Campbell J. R. Boehmke

July 1981

Applied Sciences Branch Division of Research Engineering and Research Center Denver, Colorado

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

SI METRIC

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Partial funding for this study was provided by the Lower Missouri Region of the Bureau of Reclamation. The remainder of the support for the study was provided through the Division of Research's ongoing project, "Limnology for the Ecological Management of Reclamation Projects" (DR-409). Chemical analyses were performed by the Chemistry, Petrography, and Chemical Engineering Section of the Applied Sciences Branch. Soil analyses were done by the Soil Testing Section of the Geotechnical Branch. Valuable field assistance was rendered by personnel of the Casper Office of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and by personnel of the Seminoe-Kortes Unit of the Bureau. Without the timely help of these people we would have literally been "up the creek" on several occasions.

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses our energy and mineral resources and works to assure that their development is in the best interests of all our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in Island Territories under U.S. administration.

The information contained in this report regarding commercial products may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and is not to be construed as an endorsement of any product by the Bureau of Reclamation.

CONTENTS Page .......... ii ..........1 ..........1 ..........2 ..........3 ..........3 ..........3 ..........3 ........1 0 ........11 ........11 ........1 5 ........16 ........16 ........16 ........16 ........16 ........19 ........20 ........26 ........32 ........33 ........33 ........33 ........34 ........34 ........34 ........45 ........49 ........60 ........65 ........67 ........67 ........67 ........69 ........69 ........69 ........70 ........73 ........77 ........77 ........89 ......101 ......113 ......125

Acknowledgments Application Summary of findings Recommendations for future study Introduction Description of study Description of reservoirs Description of area Previous studies Methods and materials General Physical/chemical Chlorophyll Plankton Benthos Results Hydrology Light Physical/chemical profiles Major ions Heavy metals Iron Manganese Zinc Copper Lead Nitrogen-phosphorus plant nutrients Primary production Zooplankton Benthos Sediments Discussion Study limitations Reservoir characterization System overview System operating criteria Annual runoff variations Deep reservoir outlets Bibliography Appendixes A. Temperature profiles B. Dissolved oxygen profiles C. pH profiles D. Conductivity profiles E. Chlorophyll a

III

CONTENTS — Continued

TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Page General description of Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming ........... Sampling dates .......................................................................... Analytical detection limits ............................................................. Reservoir system inflows and outflows, water years 1976-79 ........... Reservoir system mean depths, water years 1976-79 ....................... Observed summer ranges of light extinction coefficients at deep reservoir stations .................................................................... Observed summer ranges of physical/chemical profile data at deep reservoir stations .................................................................... Upper North Platte reservoir system water chemistry - May through October - Mean ion concentrations and TDS ................................ Upper North Platte reservoir system water chemistry - May through October - Mean heavy metal concentrations ................................ Mean 1978 nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations ......................... Tributary annual inflows and estimated nutrient loadings ................... Mean chlorophyll a ...................................................................... Comparison of areal chlorophyll a and light extinction coefficient, June-August .......................................................................... Reservoir inflows ........................................................................ Mean annual chlorophyll a concentrations ........................................ Zooplankton abundance ............................................................... Chironomids and oligochaetes, 1976-79 ........................................ Chironomids, 1976-79 ............................................................... Oligochaetes, 1976-79 ............................................................... Average benthos values ............................................................... Sediment classification and organic content .................................... Heavy metals content of bottom sediments .................................... Comparison of sediment particle-size analyses - Pathfinder Reservoir ................................................................................ Major outlet locations - Upper North Platte reservoirs .........................

10 13 15 17 19 20 22 27 32 35 46 46 50 51 51 59 64 64 64 65 66 66 67 70

FIGURES Figure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Map of Wyoming and Colorado showing the location of the Upper North Platte reservoir system ..................................................... Seminoe Reservoir ...................................................................... Kortes Reservoir ........................................................................ "Miracle Mile" .......................................................................... Pathfinder Reservoir .................................................................... Alcove Reservoir ........................................................................ Map of Upper North Platte reservoir system showing sampling locations ................................................................................ Operational patterns - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming ........... Annual storage patterns - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming

4 5 6 7 8 9 12 18 18

CONTENTS— Continued

Page

Figure Annual inflow as percent of long-term mean - Seminoe Reservoir, Wyoming 11 Light extinction coefficients - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 12 Mean water temperature of upper 15 meters - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 13 Mean pH of upper 15 meters - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 14 Bottom dissolved oxygen saturation - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 15 Bottom redox potentials (E7 ) - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 16 Total dissolved solids (TDS) - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 17 Calcium concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 18 Sodium concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 19 Bicarbonate concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 20 Sulfate concentrations, - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 21 Total inorganic nitrogen concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 22 Orthophosphate phosphorus concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 23 Mean TIN (total inorganic nitrogen) concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 24 Mean PO4-P (orthophosphate phosphorus) concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 25 Mean N/P (nitrogen/phosphorus) ratios - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 26 Estimated annual tributary loading of NO3-N (nitrate nitrogen) and TP (total phosphorus) - Seminoe Reservoir 27 Mean chlorophyll a by reservoir and year 28 Chlorophyll a concentration - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 29 Mean chlorophyll a by station at any depth 30 Zooplankton abundance - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 31 Mean zooplankton abundance - Seminoe - All stations, North Platte reservoirs 32 Mean zooplankton abundance - Kortes - All stations, North Platte reservoirs 33 Mean zooplankton abundance - Pathfinder - All stations, North Platte reservoirs 34 Mean zooplankton abundance - Alcova - All stations, North Platte reservoirs 35 Benthos biomass - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming 36 Benthos abundance - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming

........ 1 9 ........23 ........23 ........25 ........25 ........29 ........29 ........30 ........30 ........31 ........31 ........38 ........38 ........40 ........41 ........43 ........44 ........47 ........48 ........ 52 ........53 ........ 54 ........55 ........57 ........58 ........62 ........63

APPLICATION This report is a limnological characterization of Seminoe, Kortes, Pathfinder, and Alcova Reservoirs, done as part of the LM (Lower Missouri) Region's North Platte River Hydroelectric Study. Information in this report will be used by LM Region planners in evaluating possible environmental effects of various power augmentation alternatives, and in determining areas in need of more detailed investigation. The limnoligical investigations reported here were also done as part of the Division of Research's ongoing study, "Limnology for the Ecological Management of Reclamation Projects" (DR-409). This report is intended as a contribution toward better understanding of the effects of the operation of multipurpose, multireservoir systems on the aquatic ecology of both the individual reservoirs and the system as a whole. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive limnological study of an entire Bureau of Reclamation multireservoir system. Information contained in this report should be of interest to anyone involved in resource management on the Upper North Platte reservoir system, in particular, or on multireservoir systems in general.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. All four Upper North Platte reservoirs may be characterized as alkaline, hard, and somewhat saline bodies of water. Measured hydrogen ion concentrations (pH) were always greater than 7.0, mean calcium carbonate hardness was about 184 mg/L, mean TDS (total dissolved solids) approximately 318 mg/L, mean salinity (sum of anions and cations) about 369 mg/L, and conductivity readings ranged from 240 to 577 AS/cm. The major cations in the system are calcium, sodium, and magnesium, while bicarbonate and sulfate are the major anions. 2. Salinity and TDS were found to be highly correlated (r = 0.98) throughout the system. Mass balances of these two parameters, calculated on a mean annual basis, indicated the disproportionate influence of the Medicine Bow River on Seminoe Reservoir. The Medicine Bow accounts for approximately 40 percent of the annual salinity input to Seminoe Reservoir, while contributing only about 15 percent of the annual water inflow. The North Platte, on the other hand, contributes approximately 85 percent of

the annual reservoir water inflow and only about 60 percent of the salinity. 3. Summer temperature stratification in the Upper North Platte reservoirs is relatively weak and brief, mainly because the deep outlets rapidly drain off the cool hypolimnetic water. All four reservoirs are dimictic, with isothermal conditions in both spring and fall and ice covers in the winter. Maximum observed summer water temperatures ranged from about 17 to 20 °C at the surface, and 14 to 18 °C at the bottom. 4. Light penetration in the North Platte and Medicine Bow arms of Seminoe Reservoir is greatly reduced by the turbidity of the runoff in early summer. The water clears by midsummer, but a turbid underflow apparently passes through the reservoir, causing reduced light availability in Kortes Reservoir and the "Miracle Mile" in the late summer and fall. There is also evidence of similar density flows of suspended sediments in Pathfinder Reservoir. 5. Bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations reach their minimum at the deepwater reservoir stations by late August; however, the brevity of summer thermal stratification seems to prevent the development of any serious anaerobic, reducing conditions. Minimum observed bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 0.2 mg/L in Seminoe to 4.0 mg/L in Kortes. 6. Heavy metals (i.e., iron, manganese, zinc, copper, and lead) do not appear to constitute a biologic hazard in the system, although total concentrations of iron often, and manganese sometimes, exceed EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) quality criteria for domestic water supplies. 7. The percent organic content and the concentration of heavy metals in the bottom sediments of the reservoirs are strongly, positively correlated with the percentage of clay-sized fines (<5 am). 8. The benthos of the system shows some difference in composition from upstream to downstream: chironomids predominate in Seminoe Reservoir, while oligochaetes are the major benthic organisms in Alcova Reservoir. Mean depth appears to be the determining factor here, with chironomids making up the larger percentage of the benthos at shallower stations and oligochaetes predominating at deeper stations. No

significant correlation of either taxon with substrate particle size or sediment organic content was found.

North Platte River Hydroelectric Study), and was, therefore, rather broad in scope. While this report provides a general overview of the limnology of the entire Upper North Platte reservoir system, more detailed, site-specific studies would be advisable to accompany advanced planning of any given alternative.

9. Supplies of nitrogen and phosphorus in the system are closely related to the volume of annual runoff in the major tributaries. During the dry year (1977), phosphorus was present in detectable concentrations throughout the summer, and seemed to build up in the North Platte arm of Pathfinder. This accumulation of phosphorus contributed to an unusually large production of chlorophyll a in Pathfinder Reservoir. During the high-runoff years (1978 and 1979), on the other hand, phosphorus was detected in the reservoirs only in the later summer, and the production of chlorophyll a was more evenly distributed throughout the system. In all three summers, however, the presence of detectable amounts of phosphorus seemed to shift the nitrogen-tophosphorus ratio enough toward relatively nitrogen-limiting conditions to favor a late summer bluegreen algae bloom.

Of major importance would be the acquisition of a data base that is more extensive in both temporal and spatial coverage of the particular reservoir affected by the proposed alternative. Specific recommendations to achieve this coverage are: • Permanent survey stations should be established in each major basin and arm of the reservoir. The present study used only one station in each major tributary arm and one station in the deep water near the dam in any given reservoir (fig. 7). Ideal coverage would require additional stations in the intermediate basins and, perhaps, stations in the upper and lower reaches of the major tributary arms.

10. In early summer, diatoms are the major component of the phytoplankton in all four reservoirs. By late summer, the bluegreen alga, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, becomes dominant. Zooplankton populations in early summer are dominated by cladocerans and copepods. In late summer, with the onset of the bluegreen algae bloom, these populations decline and rotifiers become an important component of the zooplankton.

• Benthos and sediment sampling should be done on transects, both laterally, at each survey station, and longitudinally, from station to station. • Sampling should be year-round, including both the ice-free and ice-cover periods. Depending on available resources and initial survey results, the sampling program could be modified to encompass fewer stations and longer intervals between surveys. As a minimum, however, the affected basin, or basins, should be surveyed in particular detail (i.e., transects, etc.); the reservoir stations established during the present study also should be surveyed to maintain continuity of the baseline data record; and surveys should be performed on a monthly basis for at least 1 year.

11. The trophic state of the Upper North Platte reservoir system ranges from moderately eutrophic, in the river arms of Seminoe and Pathfinder Reservoirs, to mesotrophic, in the deepwater areas of all four reservoirs. The high production of epilithic algae and benthic organisms in the Miracle Mile of the North Platte River seems directly attributable to the deep discharges from Seminoe and Kortes Dams, which supply nutrients and ensure a relatively constant physical environment. This instream production, in turn, appears to provide a food base for trout moving into the Miracle Mile from the North Platte arm of Pathfinder Reservoir.

To properly evaluate potential environmental impacts, three aspects of reservoir ecology deserve special emphasis during any advanced study. These are:

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

• The N-P (nitrogen-phosphorus) nutrient budget of the reservoir and its relation to annual primary production.

The present investigations were in support of a systemwide planning study of various hydroelectric power augmentation alternatives (the

• Movement of suspended sediments through the reservoir and sediment depositional patterns in the affected basin or basins. 2

contribution toward understanding the effects of USBR reservoir operations on the productivity of tailwater fisheries.

• Population estimates and annual life cycles for plankton, benthos, and fish. Sediment depositional patterns should be mapped by the Bureau's Sedimentation Section, while fish population estimates and life-cycle studies would have to be developed in cooperation with the Wyoming Department of Game and Fish.

Description of Reservoirs The North Platte River rises in north-central Colorado, flows through southeast Wyoming, and joins the South Platte River to form the Platte in west-central Nebraska. The four uppermost reservoirs on the North Platte River are all located in Wyoming and from upstream to downstream, they are: Seminoe, Kortes, Pathfinder, and Alcove (fig. 1). Table 1 provides a summary description of these four impoundments, their major tributaries, and functions.

INTRODUCTION Description of Study From August 1976 through October 1979, personnel of the Division of Research, E&R (Engineering and Research) Center of the USBR (Bureau of Reclamation) carried out summer limnological surveys on the four uppermost reservoirs on the North Platte River in southeastern Wyoming. The purpose of these surveys was to obtain basic limnological data for the North Platte River Hydroelectric Study, a planning study of different ways of increasing the hydroelectric power production of the Upper North Platte reservoir system.

Seminoe Reservoir (fig. 2), located at the confluence of the North Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers, is the first impoundment on the Upper North Platte. Immediately below Seminoe Dam is Kortes Reservoir (fig. 3), a small reregulating impoundment for power releases from Seminoe. After its release from Kortes Dam, the North Platte River flows freely for a distance of about 6.4 km before entering Pathfinder Reservoir. This free-flowing stretch of river (fig. 4) is a "blue-ribbon" brown trout fishery, locally known as the "Miracle Mile" [5, 6].

Preliminary findings of the summer surveys have been reported in two GR (General Research) Reports [1, 2]1 and two Applied Sciences referral memorandums [3, 4]. This is the completion report on the entire limnological study.

Pathfinder Reservoir (fig. 5) receives its inflows from the Miracle Mile and the Sweetwater River. Normally, all releases from Pathfinder Reservoir are routed through a pressure tunnel to Fremont Canyon Powerplant on the upper end of Alcove Reservoir. Only in high-flow years, or when irrigation demands exceed the capacity of the tunnel-turbine complex, does water flow in the 6.4 km historic river channel between Pathfinder Dam and Alcove Reservoir [7, 8].

Because this was a general study and because surveys were limited to the summer season (i.e., May through October), the results reported here should be considered somewhat preliminary. More detailed and site-specific investigations should be done if and when any of the various power augmentation alternatives are selected for advanced planning.

Alcove Reservoir (fig. 6) is operating primarily to deliver irrigation water to the Kendrick Project via the Casper Canal. The present study of the limnology of the Upper North Platte reservoir system ended with Alcove.

After the first summer, additional support for the Upper North Platte reservoir system limnological study was provided by the Division of Research's ongoing project, "Limnology for the Ecological Management of Reclamation Projects" (DR-409). This additional funding made possible a more detailed investigation of nutrient dynamics, especially in the Seminoe-KortesMiracle Mile section of the system. Results of this particular part of the study are an important

Description of Area The land surrounding the four Upper North Platte reservoirs lies at elevations ranging from 2727 meters above mean sea level, on Bradley Peak in the Seminoe Mountains west of Seminoe Dam, to 1618 meters, at the town of Alcove on the

Numbers in brackets indicate references listed in the Bibliography.

WYOMING

ALCOVA

0.tvi°

.A.\%

' vsr

MIRACLE MILE

P L

CASPER

C) PAT . • R .61:ii* -

e (6.

IC II

MEDICINE BOW RIVER

„0 *CHE YENNE

*DENVER

COL OR A D 0 Figure 1. — Map of Wyoming and Colorado showing the location of the Upper North Platte reservoir system.

Figure 2.—Seminoe Reservoir. P801-D-79642.

CT)

Figure 3.—Kortes Reservoir. P801-D-79643.

• •3e-• •

010

'• - `1,. • 6

II*. -•

Figure 4.—"Miracle Mile." P801-D-79644.

Figure 5.—Pathfinder Reservoir. P801-D-79645.

Figure 6.—Alcova Reservoir. P801-0-79646.

Table 1. —General description of Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming

Reservoir

Maximum Maximum surface surface area elevation (m) (ha)

Maximum volume (m2)

Mean depth at maximum elevation (m)

Major tributaries

Major functions

Date completed

Seminoe

1937.6

8211.7 1.255 x 106

15.3

North Platte River 1. (85%)1 Medicine Bow River 2. (15%)1

Power production Irrigation storage

1939

Kortes

1872.1

33.6 5.878 x 106

17.5

North Platte River

Power production

1951

Pathfinder

1783.1

1.253 x 106

14.1

North Platte River

1909

Sweetwater River (10% )1

Irrigation storage Power production2

North Platte River

Irrigation delivery Power production

1938

Alcova

1676.4

8908.1

1000.0 2.274 x 106

(90%)1

22.7

2. ' Based on USGS long-term average annual flows. Through Fremont Canyon Powerplant, completed 1961. 2

North Platte River just below Alcova Dam. Average annual precipitation in the area ranges from about 281 mm at Casper to 265 mm at Rawlins [9]. Mean annual windspeed at Casper is 20.9 km/h [10].

River" [11] is concerned solely with the stretch of river between Alcova Reservoir and Lake McConaughy, Nebr. The results of sedimentation surveys on Pathfinder and Seminoe Reservoirs were reported by Seavy and IIlk in 1953 [12]. Sedimentation patterns in Pathfinder Reservoir were reinvestigated in October 1958 when the impoundment was completely drained to facilitate construction of the power tunnel to Fremont Canyon Powerplant [13]. Data from these surveys are referred to later in this report, in the discussions of sediments and possible turbidity underflows in the Upper North Platte reservoirs.

As may be seen on figures 2 through 6, the terrestrial environment is generally arid, windy, sagebrush steppe with scattered ranges of rugged mountains. The dams impounding the four reservoirs were built in steep, river-cut canyons. Previous Studies In 1950, the Bureau of Reclamation asked the Public Health Service to do an extensive investigation of the nature, extent, and sources of water pollution in the North Platte River Basin and to make recommendations for improving the situation. The final report [11], issued in 1951, concluded that the river above Casper was "a picture of cleanliness," although the towns of Rawlins, Sinclair, and Medicine Bow were all found to be in need of "adequate sewage treatment" for the wastewater being released to the river via tributaries. An appendix to the report entitled "Limnological Studies of the North Platte

A 1967 report by Clark [9] on water use patterns in the North Platte Basin contains little limnological data, although a good general description of the basin itself is given. Seminoe Reservoir was surveyed three times in 1975 by EPA's National Eutrophication Survey. The final report [14], issued in 1977, concluded that the reservoir was eutrophic in the North Platte and Medicine Bow arms, moderately eutrophic in the upper basin, and mesotrophic at the two stations nearest the dam. The

limiting nutrient was determined to be phosphorus in May and October, and nitrogen in August. It was believed that light might also be a limiting factor during times of high turbidity. A year of monthly tributary sampling indicated that the North Platte River contributed 60.7 percent of the annual phosphorus loading and 62.8 percent of the annual nitrogen loading, while the Medicine Bow River contributed 23.0 percent of the annual phosphorus input and 17.8 percent of the annual nitrogen input.

• • • •

Data from these USGS reports have been used in the present study to fill gaps and to provide longterm comparisons for some parameters.

The fisheries of the four Upper North Platte reservoirs and the Miracle Mile were briefly described by McKnight in 1978 [7] and 1977 [5], respectively. In general, Seminoe Reservoir's game fishery is dominated by stocked rainbow trout and introduced, but self-sustaining, walleye. Because of its difficult access, Kortes Reservoir is not stocked and the trout and walleye populations were probably introduced by spills from Seminoe Reservoir. Cutthroat as well as rainbow trout are stocked in Pathfinder Reservoir, which also hosts self-sustaining populations of walleye and brown trout. In fact, it is partly the fall spawning runs of brown trout from the North Platte arm of Pathfinder Reservoir that makes the Miracle Mile such a popular fishery. A 1976 study and comparison of five Wyoming blue-ribbon trout streams showed the Miracle Mile to be first in all categories considered, including: anglers per mile, average trout length, average trout weight, and trout catch rate per hour [5]. Alcova Reservoir has a stocked trout fishery, but no documented walleye population as of 1978 [7].

METHODS AND MATERIALS General Figure 7 is a schematic map of the Upper North Platte reservoir system, showing the locations of the main stream and reservoir sampling stations used in this study. Table 2 gives a complete listing of all stations established during the study and the dates on which they were sampled. These tables also provide a good outline of survey strategies during the 4-year limnological study. After a single reconnaissance survey of Seminoe Reservoir in August 1976, the Lower Missouri Region's Division of Planning requested that the limnological study be expanded to cover all four Upper North Platte reservoirs and be continued for the next three summers. In 1977, the study approach was to survey all four reservoirs twice: once in June, at the beginning of the summer season, and again at the end of August, when summer productivity could be expected to be at or near its peak. This same approach was followed in 1978, with the addition of three extra surveys on Seminoe and Kortes Reservoirs and two on Alcova Reservoir. These surveys were added to obtain more data on the limnological relationship between Seminoe and Kortes Reservoirs and the Miracle Mile, and to elucidate the effect of flushing on the productivity of Alcova Reservoir. By 1979, it was decided that more data were needed at two critical times of the year: at the onset of the main spring runoff and at the end of the irrigation season; consequently, the entire system was surveyed in May, August, and October of that year.

In 1978, Rinehart and Kerr [15] reported on their efforts to model the water quality of the Upper North Platte River. They concluded that TDS was "the only pertinent nnodelable water quality parameter applicable to the Upper North Platte River in Wyoming." The USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) reports [161 some water quality data from the following seven sites included in the present study: • • •

North Platte River above Pathfinder Reservoir — since WY 1969 Sweetwater River near Alcova (i.e., above Pathfinder Reservoir) — since WY 1965 Pathfinder Reservoir (two stations) — since WY 1972 North Platte River at Alcova (i.e., below Alcova Dam) — since WY 1966

North Platte River above Seminoe Reservoir — since WY (water year) 1961 Medicine Bow River above Seminoe Reservoir — since WY 1965 Seminoe Reservoir (three stations) — since WY 1972

CASPER

c_.

A I Sweetwater Arm

Stat ion SW

P-2

yHaf,

ALCOvA RESERVOIR

A-2 P- I

Fremont Canyon

PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

P-3

North Platte Arm

Miracle Mile of the North Platte Rife.

RP.

KORTES RESERVOIR

S-5 SEmINOE RESERVOIR

S-4

S-3 edicine Bow Arm North Platte Arm

5 2

--Station MB

Medicine

0 s ohon m.e.(s)

North

Stotion NP

Station N.P ( S)

Figure 7.—Map of Upper North Platte reservoir system showing sampling locations.

Table 2.—Sampling dates Station symbol

NP(S)

Station location

Dates sampled

1976

1977

Seminoe Reservoir stations North Platte at 1-80 Sept. 3 June

1 978 9

June 24 Sept. 2

June June July Aug. Sept.

2 14 19 30 29

June June July Aug. Sept.

May 23 Aug. 29 Oct. 24

June June July Aug. Sept.

1 14 19 30 28 2 14 19 30 29 2 14 19 30 29

May 25 Aug. 28 Oct. 24

North Platte at USGS gage above Seminoe

MB(S)

Medicine Bow at 1-80

Medicine Bow at USGS gage above Seminoe

June June July Aug. Sept.

Dry Creek at Carbon County Hwy 291

June 2 June 14 July 19 Aug. 30

Austin Creek at Carbon County Hwy 291

June 2 June 14 June 1 9 Aug. 30

Saylor Creek at Carbon County Hwy 291

June 2 June 14 July 19 Aug. 30

Sept.

June 9 June 24 Sept. 2

1979

5-1

Lower end of Seminoe in canyon leading to dam

Aug. 31

June 22 Sept. 1

May June July Aug. Sept.

31 15 20 31 28

May 24 Aug. 30 Oct. 25

3-2

North Platte arm of

Aug. 31

June 23 Sept. 1

June July Aug. Sept.

15 20 31 28

May 24 Aug. 30 Oct. 25

Seminoe

Table 2.—Sampling dates—Continued Station symbol

S-3

Station location

Dates sampled

1976

Medicine Bow arm of

1977

Sept.

June 23 Sept. 1

Sept.

June 22

Sept.

Seminoe S-4 S-5

Boat Club Basin of Seminoe near large sand dune Lower basin of Seminoe just down reservoir from Saylor Creek

1978

1979

June July Aug. Sept.

15 20 31 28

May 24 Aug. 30 Oct. 25

Kortes Reservoir stations K-2

Inflow to Kortes from Seminoe Dam

June 9 June 23 Aug. 31

June June July Aug. Sept.

1 14 19 30 27

May 23 Aug. 29 Oct. 24

K-1

Kortes Reservoir near

June 9 Aug. 31

June June July Aug. Sept.

1 14 19 30 27

May 23 Aug. 29 Oct. 24

dam

Pathfinder Reservoir stations Lost Creek at Carbon County Hwy 291

June 14 July 19 Aug. 30

NP'

North Platte at Miracle Mile Bridge

Sweetwater River at State Hwy 220

P-1

Pathfinder Reservoir near dam

June 7 Aug. 30

June 12 Aug. 28

May 22 Aug. 28 Oct. 23

P-2

Sweetwater arm of Pathfinder

June 8 Aug. 30

June 12 Aug. 28

May 22 Aug. 28 Oct. 23

P-3

North Platte arm of Pathfinder

June 7 Aug. 30 Alcova Reservoir stations

June 12 Aug. 28

May 22 Aug. 28

A-1

Alcova Reservoir near

June July Aug. Sept.

May 21 Aug. 27 Oct. 22

June 9 Aug. 31

June 6 Aug. 29

dam

June June July Aug. Sept.

1 14 19 30 27 June 12 Aug. 28

13 18 29 26

May 23 Aug. 28 Oct. 24

Table 2. —Sampling dates—Continued Station symbol

Station location

Dates sampled 1976

1977

1978

1979

A-2

Upper end of Alcove in Fremont Canyon

June 6 Aug. 29

June 13 July 18 Aug. 29 Sept. 26

May 21 Aug. 27 Oct. 22

NP"

North Platte below Alcova Dam

June 6 Aug. 31

June 14 July 19 Aug. 30 Sept. 27

May 23 Aug. 28 Oct. 24

Physical/Chemical

Major anions and cations

The following physical/chemical survey was routinely performed at each reservoir station throughout the period of this study.

Five heavy metals: iron, manganese, zinc, copper, and lead

Nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients

1. Depth profiles of water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, conductivity, hydrogen ion concentration, and redox (oxidation-reduction) potential were obtained by taking readings with a Hydrolab water quality probe at 2-meter depth intervals from surface to bottom.

Heavy metals samples were spiked immediately after collection with about 1 mL of concentrated nitric acid per 250-mL sample to fix the sample by keeping the metal salts in solution. Samples for N-P nutrient analysis were preserved by freezing.

2. Light penetration was measured with both a Secchi disk and a limnophotometer.

Chemical analysis of water samples were carried out according to the National Handbook of Recommended Methods for Water-Data Acquisition [17] by the Bureau's Chemistry Laboratory at the E&R Center in Denver, Colo. Detection limits for the heavy metals and N-P nutrient analyses, as of October 1979, are listed in table 3.

3. Water samples for laboratory chemical analyses were collected with a Van Dorn water sampler, generally from the 1-m, bottom, and middepth levels of the water column. Analyses included:

Table 3. —Analytical detection limits HEAVY METALS Detection limit (mg/L)

Iron

Manganese

Zinc

Copper

Lead

0.05

0.01

0.0005

NITROGEN-PHOSPHORUS NUTRIENTS Phosphorus Nitrogen Total Orthophosphate Ammonia Nitrite Nitrate Organic + ammonia' 0.001

0.001 0.01 ' i.e., TKN (total Kjeldahl nitrogen)

0.01 0.01

0.03

being sampled. The 1979 plankton samples were collected, additionally, with a closing net sampler having a No. 20 (876-pm mesh net openings) silk net and bucket. Vertical hauls were made from the surface to 5 m, 5 to 10 m, and 10 to 20 m. Samples were preserved with a 2-percent formalin solution for laboratory analyses.

Bottom sediment samples for physical analyses were collected from each of the nine main reservoir stations in June 1977. Samples were obtained with either Ponar or Ekman dredges. The Soil Testing Section of the Division of Research, E&R Center, analyzed each sample to determine gradation, standard physical properties, engineering classification, and organic content (18).

In the laboratory, three replicate subsamples were counted from each sample, using a Sedgewick-Rafter counting cell for zooplankters and a Palmer counting cell for phytoplankton. Organisms were identified at least to genus.

Tributary and effluent streams were usually surveyed by collecting water samples for laboratory analyses of major ions, heavy metals, and N-P nutrients. These samples were sometimes supplemented with in situ measurements of water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, conductivity, hydrogen ion concentration, and redox potential. Data not appearing in this report are available in the files of the E&R Center's Environmental Sciences Section.

Benthos The benthic environment of the Upper North Platte reservoirs was sampled using Ponar and Ekman dredges. The Ekman dredge (232 cm2 ) was used in 1978 on Kortes Reservoir, and the Ponar dredge (523 cm2 ) was used for the remainder of the sampling. Samples were taken at each of the nine reservoir stations. In 1979, samples were also taken at intermediate stations to give a longitudinal transect in each reservoir.

Chlorophyll Two replicate samples for chlorophyll were obtained from water collected at the 0.1-, 1.0-, 3.0-, 5.0-, 9.0-, and 15.0-m depths at each station. Following their collection, 800- or 750-mL samples were filtered through nnillipore glass filter pads and individually frozen until chlorophyll extraction and analyses were performed.

After obtaining the bottom sediment dredge samples, the material was placed in a large littoral bucket with a No. 30 (600-pm opening) mesh screen. By agitating the bucket in the water, the fine sediments were eliminated, leaving the organisms. The organisms were then handpicked, placed in a bottle, and preserved with 5 to 10 percent formalin.

In the laboratory, each filter was crushed in a test tube containing 10 ml of 90 percent acetone. The test tube was allowed to stand for 18 to 20 hours at 4 °C in the absence of light. At the end of this extraction period, each test tube was centrifuged at 2000 r/min for 60 seconds to compact filter fragments into the lower portion of the tube. A 1-mL subsample was analyzed in a Beckman model 25 spectrophotometer with a clinical sipper attachment. Wavelength readings were taken at 663, 645, and 630 nanometers for each sample. Concentrations of chlorophyll a, b, and c were then calculated from these readings using equations developed by Parsons and Strickland [19].

In the laboratory, the samples were again sieved through a 600-pm screen, and the organisms placed in a white porcelain pan. The two major taxa that were found (family Chironomidae, class Oligochaeta) were then separated, counted, and placed in vials. Once in vials, the wet mass for each was obtained. The samples were then dried at 90 °C for 20 hours, and the dry masses were obtained. Finally, the benthic abundance (number of individuals/m2 ), and the wet and dry biomass (g/m2 ) for each taxon were calculated.

Plankton Plankton samples were obtained by two different methods. From 1976 through 1978, zooplankton were collected by towing a metered Clarke-Bumpus plankton sampler having a No. 10 (158-pm mesh net openings) silk net and bucket. Tows were made in a zigzag fashion from the surface to 5 m, 5 to 10 m, 10 to 20 m, and from 20 m to the bottom, as limited by the water depth at the station

RESULTS Hydrology Although the four Upper North Platte reservoirs are operated as a system to store and release water for irrigation and power generation, their

individual operating cycles are quite different, reflecting their particular functions within the system (table 1). Figure 8 shows the operational patterns of the four reservoirs on an average monthly basis, while figure 9 shows how these operating patterns and the variation in annual runoff affected reservoir storage volumes during WY's 1976 through 1979.

10 percent, according to a spring runoff-type pattern, with nearly 65 percent of its total annual flow reaching Pathfinder from April through July and runoff peaking usually in May. Because of the North Platte's much greater volume, the combined inflow to Pathfinder arrives at a generally even monthly rate and spring flushing effects are probably confined to the Sweetwater arm of the reservoir. Releases from Pathfinder follow an irrigation demand curve, with 55 percent of the annual total being discharged from June through September. This rather complex inflow/outflow regime usually results in maximum storage levels by June, rapid drawdown during the irrigation season, and gradual refilling through the winter months.

As the first impoundment on the system, Semi-

noe Reservoir receives the uncontrolled spring runoff from the North Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers. Over 75 percent of the total annual flow of the North Platte enters Seminoe Reservoir during the period from April through July, with peak flows usually occurring in June. The Medicine Bow River inflows peak in May or June, with over 70 percent of the annual total arriving in Seminoe in the period from April through June. Seminoe Reservoir impounds this spring flood, and releases it at a relatively even monthly rate for power generation. The result of this operating pattern is that Seminoe Reservoir fills rapidly during spring runoff, usually reaching its maximum storage in July, and then is drawn down gradually to late winter minimum storage levels.

Alcove Reservoir regulates power releases from the Fremont Canyon Powerplant and delivers water to the Casper Canal during the irrigation season. Alcova's monthly inflow and outflow curves are thus nearly identical with the release curve from Pathfinder. The resulting storage pattern is a seasonal "step" curve. From May through September, Alcova is maintained at a storage capacity of about 2.214 x 106 m3 in order to make irrigation deliveries to the Casper Canal. In October, the reservoir is drawn down to about 1.924 x 109 m3 and maintained at this level until the following April, when it is raised to its irrigation season capacity. Summer flushing rates average about 46 days, while winter flushing rates average 89 days.

The primary function of Kortes Reservoir is to regulate the day-to-day fluctuations of power releases from Seminoe Dam. On an average monthly basis, inflow and outflow curves for Kortes are identical to the Seminoe release curve. Storage in Kortes, therefore, remains relatively constant at approximately 5.678 x 106 m3 throughout the year, with a mean annual flushing rate of about 2 days.

The operational regime described above is but one of two major hydrologic factors affecting the limnology of the Upper North Platte reservoir system. The second factor is the annual variation in runoff from the basin watershed.

Nearly 90 percent of the total annual inflow to Pathfinder Reservoir is contributed by the North Platte River, after release from Kortes Dam. The Sweetwater River contributes the remaining

Table 4 summarizes the total annual inflow and outflow for the reservoirs of the system during

Table 4. -Reservoir system inflows and outflows, water years 1976-79 Total annual flow, m3 x 109 Reservoir

WY' 1976 In

Seminoe Kortes Pathfinder

1.068 1.007 1.210 1.321

Out

1.007 1.007 1.321 1.309

WY 1977 In

0.572 0.827 0.954 1.229

Alcova ' WY = water year (October-September)

Out

0.827 0.827 1.229 1.218

WY 1978 In

1.473 1.196 1.366 1.026

Out

1.196 1.195 1.026 1.015

WY 1979 In Out

1.382 1.239 1.430 1.289

1.239 1.238 1.289 1.277

I ..TTO ORR.—• NCR 4111

IRT1 NOR HITT

. D O CONIOXIO OMAR 0 TO DORI 1 0.1 00 am., owe Rau Rpm

EEO I WOE

—

if TA

MIIMMIWAF/LIIIIMMIliliii

NWIM1==lp.VIIIMINITOMMI I Willl EMP a WAIIMIIIE mumm

MI ==IIIIIIM

lmwm IWIL■ N Mal -

1111

•■

MMMIIMIIIEN

4/01.

IMO

MIR

Mal

OOP

MOM

REX

NWT

ICI

OM.

MX..

aim

III

ARy

ORC

WONTED

1:1 MILO/ CYT1.111

1:1 -

ROD ORR.

vex

TIO.

IRV Ain MIT

OWN YOU. WV RON ART ORO HP, OCT ROY KC

PATHF I NOES

N ■LATIT 001.0•0 f—I SVIIITVOTIN C3 COOMORD Snow CI 4,--0 COMM

WNW

RIO MIT ICI

RAN

0-0

ALCOVA

MIR" OUTFLOW

HP,

—

11/711

MTV

••••

fOl

IMAM

YR.

Ref

RAT

TIRE - MON.!

RIOCX

1101.

••■

RJR

AR,

/OR

SORT

OCT.

NOV

TINE - WINT.S

Figure 9. —Annual storage patterns Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

Figure 8. —Operational patterns - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

Upper North

Annual runoff variations have a direct, major effect on Seminoe and Pathfinder, the two larger storage reservoirs, and little or no effect on Kortes and Alcova, the two smaller reregulating reservoirs. This situation is emphasized by table 5, which lists the mean depths, calculated on the basis of average annual reservoir elevations, for all four reservoirs for WY's 1976-79.

this study period. Figure 10 graphs recent total annual inflow to Seminoe Reservoir as a percentage of the 39-year mean [16]. It is evident from table 4 and figure 10 that WY 1977 (October 1976 through September 1977) was an unusually dry year in the Upper North Platte Basin. The effect of this drought on reservoir storage levels is apparent in figure 9. Seminoe Reservoir was only partially refilled by the low runoff during the spring of 1977; thus, less water was available for release through Kortes to Pathfinder Reservoir through the remainder of the year. In the meantime, Pathfinder was drawn down to extreme lows to meet irrigation demands and, because of low releases from Seminoe, was only partially refilled by the next spring. It was not until the spring of 1979, 1 year after the drought ended, that storage in Pathfinder rose to near predrought levels. Therefore, because of system operating criteria, storage levels in Pathfinder lagged Seminoe by about 1 year in responding to the return of wetter conditions. The two reregulating reservoirs, Kortes and Alcova, on the other hand, were maintained at nearly constant storage levels throughout the study period.

Light Energy for photosynthesis in a body of water is provided by sunlight penetrating into the water column. The depth to which sunlight can penetrate is a function of the water's clarity and is measured in terms of n, the light extinction coefficient. This coefficient is defined by the following equation: Oz = (15.9e

Eq. (1)

where: 00 = light intensity at zero depth (t)z = light intensity at any given depth Z = coefficient of light extinction or at-

%OF39- YR MEAN INFLOW

tenuation From equation (1), it can be seen that 71 is inversely related to the clarity of the water; that is, 77 becomes smaller as the water becomes clearer, thus increasing the light available at any given depth, Z.

Light extinction coefficients for the Upper North Platte reservoirs at selected times during 1 97679 are plotted on figure 11. Very different patterns of early and late summer water clarity are evident in 1977, as opposed to 1978 and 1979.

WATER YEARS

In June 1977, light extinction coefficients were uniformly low throughout the system, with somewhat higher values in Seminoe Reservoir

Figure 10.—Annual inflow as percent of long-term mean Seminoe Reservoir, Wyoming.

Table 5. —Reservoir system mean depths, water years 1976-79 Reservoir

Mean depth, m WY' 1976

WY 1977

WY 1978

WY 1979

Seminoe

1 4.4

1 3.9

13.6

1 4.1

Kortes

17.3

Pathfinder

13.0

1 2.4

12.1

12.5

Alcova

22.1

' WY = water year (October—September)

and the Sweetwater arm of Pathfinder Reservoir, reflecting spring runoff turbidity in the North Platte, Medicine Bow, and Sweetwater Rivers. Runoff volume was extremely low during 1977, so the "turbidity peaks" in the June light extinction patterns are only slightly higher than the system mean. By August 1977, algae blooms in the river arms of Seminoe and Pathfinder caused the very pronounced peaks in the light extinction pattern at stations S-2, S-3, P-2, and P-3.

The 1958 sedimentation survey of Pathfinder [13] found evidence of possible turbid underflows in that reservoir. This evidence is discussed in more detail in the section on sediments. Observed ranges of light extinction coefficients at the four deep reservoir sampling stations are listed in table 6.

Table 6.— Observed summer ranges of light extinction coefficients at deep reservoir stations

By contrast with the dry year, 1977, the wet years of 1978 and 1979 show a very different pattern of water clarity. The high volume of turbid spring runoff in the North Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers in 1978 and 1979 resulted in extremely large values of n at S-2 and S-3 in the river arms of Seminoe. By August, the turbidity had cleared and light extinction coefficients were relatively low throughout the system, except for algae bloom-caused peaks in the river arms of Pathfinder and Seminoe. Light measurements at fall overturn in October 1979 complete this cycle, with decreased clarity caused by wind mixing of the now destratified and lowered reservoirs.

Reservoir

Station

Seminoe

n min. (m-1)

S-1

n max. (m-1) 1.71

Kortes

K-1

2.84

0.56

Pathfinder

P-1

1.30

0.46

Alcova

A-1

1.50

0.45

0.48

Physical/Chemical Profiles

The major exception to the seasonal cycle outlined above is station K-1, near the dam in Kortes Reservoir. At K-1, water clarity decreases steadily from spring through fall, regardless of wet or dry years. Throughout the period of this study, it could be observed that releases from Seminoe Dam became markedly turbid by late August, even though spring runoff turbidity had cleared in the upper basins of the reservoir and fall overturn had not yet begun; Seminoe Reservoir itself appeared relatively clear. At the same time, Kortes Reservoir became extremely turbid, a condition which persisted through the fall months. Releases from Kortes Dam to the Miracle Mile also became quite turbid in the fall [6]. The cause of this phenomenon appears to be that some of the suspended sediment load carried by the spring runoff into the upper reaches of Seminoe Reservoir becomes a turbid underflow which reaches the dam in late summer and is then flushed through Kortes Reservoir into the Miracle Mile in the fall. It may be noted on figure 11 that light extinction coefficients at K-1 showed a sharper increase during the high-runoff year 1978, and this fact lends some weight to the hypothesis that the increase in turbidity is ultimately related to the turbidity of the spring inflow to Seminoe Reservoir.

A major part of the routine survey at each of the reservoir stations was the measurement of temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH (hydrogen ion concentration), conductivity, and E7 (redox potential) at various depth intervals from the surface to the bottom of the water column. These physical/chemical profiles for the nine major reservoir stations are included in this report as appendixes A through D. Temperature profiles at all nine reservoir stations indicate a typical dimictic cycle: summer and winter thermal stratification, separated by isothermal conditions (overturn) in fall and spring. Only the spring-to-fall (May through October) conditions were actually surveyed in this study, but it is known that at least partial ice covers form on all the reservoirs during the winter.2 Temperature profiles in appendix A show the onset of summer thermal stratification by late May, Personal observation and personal communications from Ron McKnight, Wyoming Game and Fish Dept. Casper, and Jerry Mathews, Seminoe Powerplant Foreman, Bureau of Reclamation. 2

Late spring and fall profiles indicate that the reservoirs are completely recharged with dissolved oxygen during the isothermal mixing periods. No evidence of permanent anoxic zones was found in any of the impoundments.

with maximum stratification usually developing by mid-July at the deep reservoir stations. Surface cooling and weakening of stratification is evident by the end of August, and isothermal conditions, with complete water column mixing, prevail by late October. The fact that all four reservoirs release cool, hypolimnetic3 water through low outlets probably accelerates the onset of isothermal conditions by lowering the thermocline and thus increasing the depth of mixing.

Hydrogen ion concentration (pH) profiles are contained in appendix C. The range of measured pH during this study was 7.10 to 9.05, with most values falling between about 7.8 and 8.6. The waters of the Upper North Platte reservoir system may, therefore, be classified as alkaline or basic (i.e., pH > 7.00). Seasonal cycles, as indicated by the profiles, however, show some variation between the deep reservoir and river arm stations. Profiles of pH at the deep reservoir stations usually show high values at all depths at the beginning of summer and decline, especially in the lower depths, as the season progresses. This overall decline in pH may be the result of increased early summer inflows diluting impoundments which had become chemically concentrated during the winter. Typical late August pH profiles at these stations are highly stratified, with peak values near the surface, caused by photosynthesis, and low values near the bottom, reflecting a hypolimnetic oxygen sag. Fall overturn usually results in uniform profiles at or below the early summer pH values. River arm stations, on the other hand, with the exception of P-3, usually begin the summer with low pH values because of the dilute nature of the spring runoff. As the season progresses, pH values rise and reach extremely high values at all four river arm stations during the late summer algae bloom. Station P-3 is something of a "hybrid" between river arm and deep reservoir conditions, because it is not subject to a spring runoff pulse (fig. 8), but it does support a strong late summer algae bloom.

The river arms of Seminoe and Pathfinder Reservoirs deviate from this pattern somewhat in that maximum thermal stratification at these stations often occurs in May or June and again in September or October. (See 1978 and 1979 profiles in appendix A). In the spring, this stratification is caused by warmer river water flowing over the surface of the cooler reservoir water. The situation is reversed in the fall, when the rivers cool more rapidly than the impoundments so that inflows plunge under the warmer reservoir water. Dissolved oxygen profiles (appendix B) indicate a depletion of hypolimnetic oxygen through the summer stratification period, with minimum concentrations usually occurring in late August, especially at the deepwater stations S-1, K-1, P-1, A-2, and A-1. This depletion was most pronounced at station S-1 in 1978, when the bottom dissolved oxygen concentration dropped to 0.2 mg/L, the lowest concentration observed during this study. Dissolved oxygen conditions in the river arms of Seminoe and Pathfinder are more variable and appear to be more directly linked to primary productivity levels. For example, the minimum observed oxygen concentration at P-3, in the North Platte arm of Pathfinder, occurred in August 1977 and coincided with the largest algae bloom observed at that station during this study. (See "Primary Production" section.) In 1978, the minimum oxygen concentration at S-3, in the Medicine Bow arm of Seminoe, was not observed until late September, which coincided with an algae bloom that was also about a month later than usual. 3

Conductivity for the system ranged from 240 to 577 MS/cm during the surveys made from 1 976 to 1979. Conductivity profiles (appendix D) display seasonal trends that are generally consistent with those noted above for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Early summer conductivity profiles at S-2 and P-2 reflect the relatively dilute nature of the North Platte and Sweetwater Rivers, respectively, with relatively warm, low-conductivity water flowing in over cooler, more concentrated reservoir water. The situation is different at S-3, because of the consistently higher conductivity of the Medicine Bow River, which manifests itself as a somewhat higher conductivity in the upper, warm layers during the early summer. Station P-3 and

Hypolimnion = bottom zone in a thermally stratified impoundment. Epilimnion = upper zone in a thermally stratified impoundment. Thermocline = level of maximum temperature change in a thermally stratified impoundment; often considered the boundary between the epliminion and the hypolimnion.

stations are generally uniform at conductivity levels equal to or less than those observed at the beginning of the ice-free season. The rivers, however, become even more saline as flows approach their minimum, so that the high-conductivity peaks at the bottom of the river arm profiles are still very much in evidence at this time.

the deepwater stations in all four reservoirs begin the summer season in a chemically concentrated condition that is responsible for their nearly vertical, high-conductivity profiles. By late August, all reservoir stations in the system are characterized by conductivity readings that have been lowered as a result of dilution by the spring runoff. From this point on through the fall, a conductivity anomaly begins to become apparent in the river arms of Seminoe. River inflows become more saline as flows decline and this, coupled with the rapid fall cooling in streams, results in cooler, higher conductivity inflows plunging under the now warmer, more dilute reservoir water. This situation is reflected in the highly stratified late season conductivity profiles at S-2 and S-3. A second conductivity anomaly appeared in Seminoe in 1978, with the development of a high-conductivity "bulge" at the bottom of the S-1 profiles in the late summer and fall. This bulge reflects chemical releases from the sediments under the low dissolved oxygen conditions prevailing at that time.

The preceding discussion of seasonal trends exhibited by the physical/chemical profile data in appendixes A through D is, of course, somewhat tentative, since these data cover only a limited period of time. Table 7 summarizes this information and lists maximum and minimum observed values of the different parameters at representative depths at each of the deep reservoir stations during this study period. Although significant differences in trends have been noted between the river arm and deep reservoir stations, the latter have been used here for summary purposes because they are probably more representative of each reservoir. Looking at yearly trends for the entire system is facilitated by the fact that early and late summer data are available at all reservoir stations for the years 1977-79. Figures 12 through 15 are systemwide plots of selected early and late summer

By late October, fall overturn is well advanced, and conductivity profiles at all deep reservoir

Table 7. -Observed summer ranges of physical/chemical profile data at deep reservoir stations'

Depth

(m)

Temperature

(0C)

Dissolved oxygen concentration

Max.

Min.

Max.

1 19

20.2 17.1 14.2

11.0 9.1 7.5

8.8 9.4 8.8

1 15

17.1 15.3 15.1

9.1 8.3 8.1

9.3 9.4 9.2

1 19

19.0 18.1 16.7

12.1 8.7 7.8

9.6 10.1 8.6

1 19

19.8 18.4 17.7

12.6 8.5 7.2

11.1 10.6 8.5

Bottom

(mg/L) Min.

Max.

Min.

Dissolved oxygen saturation

Conductivity

(MS/cm)

(mV)

Max.

Min.

Seminoe Reservoir (station S-1) 525 240 5.5 8.4 7.6 527 250 4.8 8.3 7.6 534 360 0.2 8.6 7.4 Kortes Reservoir (station K-1) 511 240 5.3 8.4 7.8 514 246 4.6 8.3 7.6 518 244 4.0 8.3 7.6 Pathfinder Reservoir (station P-1) 554 443 6.7 8.8 8.1 565 441 5.4 8.7 8.0 565 446 2.5 8.4 7.6 Alcova Reservoir (station A-1) 577 456 8.7 8.3 6.7 577 456 8.6 8.0 5.7 564 468 8.3 7.5 1.3

Max.

Min.

539

171

563

422

471

271

508

269

Max.

1.8

' The dates of observation of the various depth and maximum and minimum values do not necessarily coincide. Only bottom values are limnologically meaningful.

Min.

ISIS

1975 -1977

- 1977 .1

0-0

USE

CO-CI AUGUST 6-0 AUGUST

0-0 ONE 0-0 AUGUST 6--el AM*, 10711

ISM

1. 11

• a

•

• -•

ITTE 21

0--O

■-■

• 1

•

JUNE

• I

8-3

• •

•1

•AI

197S

OP-0 MAT

AlKAOST

ocToKs

11-■--91

NAT

AUGusT GGTOOSA

• ONPI

•

•-• 11E1

• •

RESERVOIR STATIONS

•

N-8

•

• •

• -•

STATIONS

Figure 12.—Mean water temperature of upper 15 meters Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

Figure 11.—Light extinction coefficients - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

data over these 3 years. Figure 12 is a plot of the mean water temperature of the upper 15 m at each reservoir station. These data are indicative of the temperature of the trophogenic, (productive) zone at each station from summer to summer. Seasonal patterns here are generally similar, regardless of dry or wet years. By August, temperatures of the trophogenic zone are well into the 17 to 19 °C range, except in Kortes. Lower temperatures in this reservoir at almost all times during the ice-free season reflect bottom withdrawals from Seminoe. Exceptions to this general rule, in August 1978 and October 1979, arose from conditions of weak thermal stratification, and lack of stratification, respectively, at station S-1.

August 1978, oxygen depletion does not usually reach severe proportions. Recharge of the bottom waters with dissolved oxygen appears to be complete at spring and fall overturns, as evidenced by the May, June, and October traces on figure 14. Bottom E7 (oxidation-reduction potential adjusted to pH 7.0) values systemwide are summarized on figure 15. This parameter is a semiquantitative indicator of the intensity of chemical reduction near the sediment/water interface. Thus, bottom E7 indicates the possibility of chemical releases from the sediments, and particularly the release of heavy metals, if it falls much below 300 mV. Such an extreme reducing situation was only observed once—at 5-1 in August 1978—and it was accompanied by a significant release of manganese from the sediments into the bottom of the hypolimnion. In general, though, extreme reducing conditions (i.e., very low E7) with problem releases of heavy metals, appear to be rare in this system, probably because the relatively high volume of flow through the hypolimnia of the reservoirs limits the duration and severity of bottom stagnation.

Mean pH of the upper 15 m at each station from summer to summer are plotted on figure 13. These data are indicative of the alkalinity of the productive zone, and, again, there is little evident variation between dry and wet years. The general seasonal trends in pH noted earlier are also apparent here. Dilution by spring runoff in May and June causes lower pH's in the river arms of Seminoe (S-2 and S-3), while pH's throughout the rest of the system are higher, reflecting winter concentrated conditions. By August, some dilution has occurred at the downstream stations and pH's are generally somewhat lower. The trend is opposite at S-2 and S-3, where the annual algae bloom is beginning and pH's have risen accordingly. This was also the case in the river arms of Pathfinder in August 1977, when, as noted above, the algae bloom was particularly large. The relatively low pH noted at station K-2 in August 1978 was due to withdrawal from the bottom zone of S-1, which was experiencing greater than usual oxygen depletion at the time, with consequent low pH's in the hypolimnion.

In summary (table 7), all four Upper North Platte reservoirs are dimictic, run-of-the-river impoundments that experience brief and relatively weak summer temperature stratification, which usually reaches its maximum in July and begins to break down by late August. Although there is some hypolimnetic oxygen depletion as the summer progresses, this occurrence rarely reaches extreme anoxia, and severe reducing conditions (i.e., E7 < 300 mV) are unusual. Bottom recharge of dissolved oxygen appears to be complete at both spring and fall overturn. Waters of the system are consistently alkaline (i.e., pH > 7.0), with pH's averaging from 8.0 to 8.5 in the trophogenic zone by late summer. Temperatures in this zone average between 17 and 19 °C during the same period, creating a favorable environment for algal production. Conductivity during the ice-free season ranges from about 240 to 577 AS/cm.

In general, figures 12 and 13 indicate favorable conditions for primary production in the upper 1 5 m at all stations in the system by August of each year. Water in the trophogenic zone at this time is warm and alkaline, both of which are conducive to algal growth. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate systemwide conditions in the bottom, or tropholytic, zone, where decomposition rather than production takes place. Early and late summer bottom dissolved oxygen saturation levels (fig. 14) show oxygen depletion, especially at deep reservoir stations, as the summer progresses. Except for the anoxia observed at the very bottom of station S-1 in

On a systemwide basis, Kortes and Alcova, the smaller reregulating reservoirs, tend to be hydraulically stable, rapidly flushed impoundments whose physical/chemical profiles mainly reflect low withdrawal from the deep reservoir stations immediately upstream, i.e., 5-1 and P-1, respectively. However, the physical/chemical profiles

1974 - 1977

0711 -1177 0-0 AM

, 1171WP/Manii

•*10, MOAT WO

IIIIMMENZIMME 0.-•■•■••0 ARK 0-0 WORST 0- - -101 AUGUST ISM

• I

1-I

• I

II •

A-a

•

1971 0

'EsWEIMEria

AWE

0-0 0004,31

mom= MIMI= =RIME= EWA

so 110

IMMW• •

•-•

•

1001

•

_Al■ • EllEavAMINNIMI••■■■• • ■11111:=TAI=M11•8111 • =•111WAMMIE=IMOIN • =MIWANIMMIEVARM ••11111n===WFAIIM• .1 .__a . 1111==111 1979

• -vir h•

II •

•

MAY

0-• MM070

P•

• •

P I

.===.11111M11.1.1..111 • • I P-1 • 041

RESERVOIR STATIONS

STATIONS

Figure 14.—Bottom dissolved oxygen saturation - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

Figure 13.—Mean pH of upper 15 meters - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

in the two larger storage reservoirs, Seminoe and Pathfinder, are strongly influenced by runoff volume and inflow conditions. From fall through early spring, both inflow volume and reservoir storage levels tend to be low; thus, the reservoirs become cool and chemically concentrated. With spring runoff, come surface inflows of warmer, more dilute water in the river arms of Seminoe and the Sweetwater arm of Pathfinder. By early to midsummer, the reservoirs reach maximum annual storage levels, and become chemically dilute, relatively homogeneous impoundments. In late summer and fall, the tributary rivers cool rapidly and decline in discharge, so that the river waters enter the reservoirs as plunging inflows of cooler, more saline water. The intensity of this cycle varies, of course, with the volume of the annual runoff, which is in turn dependent upon winter snowpack conditions in the Upper North Platte River Basin. Station P-3, in the North Platte arm of Pathfinder, deviates slightly from the scheme outlined above in that inflow from runoff is controlled by Kortes Dam.

to the system. All three have mean TDS concentrations well above the 120 mg/L suggested by Cole [20] as the average for rivers worldwide. The Medicine Bow River, however, has the highest mean ion and TDS concentrations in the entire system. Next in mean concentration of TDS and all ions, except magnesium and sulfate, is the Sweetwater River (SW). The North Platte River, above Seminoe, is the least concentrated of the three, except for magnesium and sulfate ions, where it ranks second.

Major Ions

For example, if the mean annual volume of inflow to Seminoe is taken as V T , then an approximate TDS mass balance for the reservoir would be:

Rinehart and Kerr [15] used TDS to model water quality changes in the Upper North Platte River of Wyoming, partly because of its conservative nature and ease of tracking as opposed to that of individual ion concentrations. It should, therefore, be possible to elucidate the influence of the three main tributary rivers on the water chemistry of the system by calculating simple mass balances for each reservoir, using the mean TDS concentrations from table 8 and the mean inflow volume percentages from table 1.

May through October mean concentrations of the major ions in the waters of the Upper North Platte reservoir system are presented, with standard deviations, in table 8. Calcium is the most abundant cation at all stations, followed by sodium, magnesium, and potassium. Major anions, in order of decreasing abundance, are: bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride, at all stations except the Medicine Bow River (MB) and S-3, where sulfate and bicarbonate are reversed in importance. Carbonate was rarely detected during this study, and then only in very small concentrations in the spring or late summer and early fall. This is to be expected, considering that the average pH of the system is about 8.0 to 8.2 [20]. Together, calcium, sodium, bicarbonate, and sulfate account for 88 to 91 percent of the sum of anions and cations at all stations.

0.85 VT (TDS)NP + 0.15 V T ( TDS)MB = V T ( TDS) K _ 2

Eq. (2)

where: V T = mean annual volume TDS = TDS concentrations Equation (2) assumes that average annual inflow is approximately equal to average annual outflow, which is generally true of the Upper North Platte reservoir system [16]. Station K-2 is taken here as being representative of the outflow from Seminoe Dam (fig. 7). Substituting appropriate mean TDS concentrations from table 8 into equation (2), and dividing through by V T gives:

May through October mean TDS concentrations, and standard deviations, for each station are also included in table 8. Tabulated values range from a low of 209 ( ± 97.5) mg/L, in the North Platte River above Seminoe Reservoir (NP), to a high of 810 ( ± 346) mg/L, in the Medicine Bow River.

0)m=( 0.85(20 9D +0_.1_ 89 19 )s giLTDS)K(T )K2 5(2 2

This result agrees closely with the observed value of 297 mg/L for the mean TDS concentration at station K-2 (table 8).

Table 8 shows a significant variation in water chemistry among the three major rivers tributary

Table 8. -Upper North Platte reservoir system water chemistry through October - Mean ion concentrations and TDS' MB

S-3

Stations S-1 S-2

- May

K-2

K-1

NP'

mg/L) Cations Ca + 2

102 (39.6) 44.3 (17.4) 91.1 (42.5) 9.00 (16.9)

47.6 (8.52) 17.2 (4.67) 32.0 (8.13) 2.52 (0.66)

36.3 (15.6) 10.4 (4.09) 21.5 (11.8) 2.73 (1.30)

36.4 (7.99) 12.2 (2.97) 21.6 (5.03) 2.25 (0.77)

42.2 (7.75) 16.4 (7.24) 29.1 (7.21) 2.45 (0.82)

44.3 (9.47) 16.5 (5.05) 29.8 (7.63) 2.72 (0.80)

43.3 (8.76) 17.0 (6.46) 30.8 (8.03) 2.84 (0.79)

45.4 (10.7) 16.7 (4.68) 30.4 (8.56) 3.60 (1.96)

1.09 (3.62) 171 (43.2) 421 (190) 33.8 (13.9)

0.21 (0.66) 128 (11.9) 138 (50.7) 13.6 (6.34)

124 (37.7) 58.7 (33.2) 10.3 (7.19)

121 (18.0) 73.6 (26.3) 11.0 (4.73)

0.24 (0.57) 1 26 (19.4) 111 (35.9) 15.8 (8.46)

3.12 (7.16) 129 (26.6) 116 (39.8) 13.6 (8.67)

3.40 (7.23) 125 (27.8) 116 (39.0) 14.8 (9.60)

1.53 (4.06) 130 (24.8) 116 (44.4) 13.0 (8.83)

Sum2

873

379

264

278

343

355

357

TDS

810 (346)

341 (63.8)

209 (97.5)

245 (48.5)

317 (80.9)

297 (75.3)

302 (81.2)

299 (78.9)

A-1

NP"

Mg +2 Na + 1 K +1 Anions CO 3 -2 HCO3 + 1 SO4 -2

Stations P-3

P-2

P-1

49.4 (5.27) 18.3 (2.81) 33.8 (4.31) 3.41 (1.35)

37.6 (10.8) 9.83 (3.65) 34.4 (16.8) 6.16 (2.33)

45.4 (4.87) 15.1 (4.41) 30.6 (3.45) 3.99 (1.56)

(mg/L) 48.3 45.7 (9.50) (8.31) 20.0 18.8 (7.65) (4.90) 34.2 31.8 (5.23) (5.48) 3.42 3.58 (1.33) (1.26)

51.6 (6.26) 18.8 (5.47) 34.5 (5.74) 3.60 (1.30)

52.0 (5.12) 17.0 (5.49) 36.4 (5.94) 3.65 (1.22)

SO4 -2

153 (42.3) 54.8 (27.8) 21.6 (9.38)

0.80 (1.53) 150 (13.0) 115 (24.1) 16.9 (6.87)

0.36 (1.07) 159 (17.4) 123 (23.2) 16.4 (6.06)

0.36 (1.07) 160 (17.5) 125 (22.6) 17.2 (9.62)

154 (11.5) 124 (19.5) 15.4 (7.54)

1.07 (2.83) 144 (16.5) 104 (18.0) 16.2 (5.94)

Sum2

398

317

360

382

405

411

407

TDS

337 (37.2)

274 (94.3)

309 (30.1)

331 (37.8)

340 (44.2)

351 (42.0)

348 (48.4)

Cations Ca + 2 Mg +2 Na +1 K Anions CO3 -2 HCO3

1 2

A-2

Standard deviations of the data are shown in parentheses. Sum of cations and anions (salinity).

156 (12.9) 126 (15.2) 16.3 (6.30)

Murphy' found the TDS and salinity (i.e., sum of anion and cation concentrations) of water samples from the Upper North Platte reservoir system to be highly correlated (correlation coefficient, r = 0.98). Substituting the appropriate mean salinities from table 8 into equation 2, instead of mean TDS concentrations, gives a sum of 355 mg/L at station K-2, which agrees exactly with the observed value for this parameter.

Equation (3) assumes that the average annual reservoir inflow and outflow are approximately equal, and calls this value, V T . Substituting the appropriate mean TDS concentrations from table 8 into equation (3), and dividing through by V T gives: 0.90 (299) + 0.10 (274) = (TDS)p_ouT

It is evident, then, that the average water chemistry of Seminoe Reservoir is the result of mixing the smaller, but more saline, Medicine Bow River with the much larger, but much more dilute, North Platte River. On an average basis, station S-2 clearly reflects the ionic composition of the North Platte River. Whereas, station S-3 more closely resembles station S-1 than the Medicine Bow River in mean ionic composition. This situation is probably caused by rising reservoir water levels and the much larger North Platte inflow which push the Medicine Bow-Seminoe Reservoir mixing point farther up the Medicine Bow arm, relative to station location, as the summer progresses.

(TDS)p_ OuT = 296 mg/L Using station P-1 as an approximation of "P-OUT," the above result falls below the observed mean TDS concentration (table 8) by a little more than 10 percent. If the mean salinities are used in equation (3) rather than mean TDS concentrations, the resultant sum would be 353 mg/L, which is about 8 percent below the observed value at station P-1. Considering the approximations noted earlier, these mass balance estimates agree fairly well with the observed values. The overriding influence of the North Platte River on the chemistry of Pathfinder Reservoir is obvious here. It should be noted that by the time this river reaches Pathfinder, mean TDS has increased by 43 percent over that observed above Seminoe, while mean salinity has increased by about 35 percent in the same distance (table 8). Even granting some underestimation of Sweetwater River ionic concentrations, it is apparent that the much smaller flow volume of the North Platte River greatly limits its influence on reservoir chemistry, even in the area of station P-2, in the lower end of the Sweetwater arm (table 8).

A comparison of major ion concentrations, salinity, and TDS at stations K-2, K-1, and NP' (table 8) emphasizes the flow-through nature of Kortes Reservoir: there is no significant change in mean concentrations from the outlet of Seminoe Dam (K-2) to the Miracle Mile (NP'). Calculating a mass balance for Pathfinder Reservoir is difficult because the data are sparse: the Sweetwater River was only sampled during the wet years of 1978 and 1979, and there was no stream sampling station immediately below the outlet of Pathfinder Dam. Station A-2, below Fremont Canyon Powerplant, is already a deepwater station in Alcova Reservoir, and thus reflects mixing within that impoundment. The following balance is, therefore, very approximate, and is included solely for rough comparison with the other reservoirs of the system.

Finally, comparisons were made of mean ionic, TDS, and salinity concentrations among stations P-1, A-2, A-1, and NP" (table 8). Results showed that Alcova Reservoir was similar to Kortes in that mean ionic composition is essentially determined by releases from the reservoir immediately upstream, while the short hydraulic residence time allows for little change in chemical composition between inlet and outlet.

The general form of a TDS mass balance for Pathfinder Reservoir, using flow volume percentages from table 1, is:

Turning from the average to the particular, figures 16 through 20 show seasonal and annual variations, on a systemwide basis, in TDS, calcium, sodium, bicarbonate, and sulfate concentrations, respectively. The general trends displayed in all five plots are similar, and may be summarized under two main headings: dry years and wet years.

0.90 VT (TDS)Np, ± 0.10 VT(TDS)SW = V T (T M)p_ ouT

Eq. (3)

A. P. Murphy, Bureau of Reclamation Chemistry Laboratory, E&R Center, Denver, personal communication.

1976 - 1 977

1 974 - 1977 0-0 J.. 0-0 RIVER reur ION • MO •• • LOOS Ore •

•

ILA

rE,

• •

••

•-•

11,

A •

•-•

•••

•-s

•-•

A-A

•-■

•-•

•-,

a-s

A-I

1•00

GOO

IMO

0---0 13 •YOLOR 0-

IRE

tee

400

8410 0-0 tirS 12 -IS -ST 0-0 AUGUST IGO

• t

IX I

• • 1•01

•

000

TOO

MOO

"" 141 I .111111 & ,L 1 ZINIRAL

I AINEWAI I

•

0----RNT o_o

111

•••••

SOO M70815

•

me,

A-.

•

• 5-5

• •

0-41

•-•

STATIONS

RESERVOIR STATIONS

Figure 15.—Bottom redox potentials (E7) - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

Figure 16.—Total dissolved solids (TDS) - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

ISTII-1971

SYSTEM PLOTS OF CALCIUM CONC.'S

11.-1977

.21

0-0 J

SYSTEM PLOTS OF SODIUM CONC.'S

0----0 aume

NS CI-0AUGUST

CI--CI ••GIMIT — AUGUST a m •••• uses Noma C•

b---a MMUS, ISM /AO •0,4111, SATE]

•

• •

4 Es

• •

•

•1

a.,

•

•S

••

111,2

▪

WS SYSTEM PLOTS OF CALCIUM CONC.'S

0-0 11--0

•S

ISTII

ISO

•12

•I

•

•I

II "

•

SYSTEM PLOTS OF SODIUM CONC.'S CO--0 OUsE 0-13 •USosi

OUSE AUGUST

moo

••

•

••

S-S

•

• 1

• S

•

▪

MP"

WS SYSTEM PLOTS OF CALCIUM CONC.'S

110

••

12711

121

••

SYSTEM PLOTS OF SODIUM CONC.'S

ol■—• moo, O0 AUGUST • OCTSMES

MAY

0-13 AUGUST 22-111 OCT0122/1

11 2

••

SI 12 2 ST•T I ONS

It o

•S

$2 3.

Figure 17. —Calcium concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

•

it I

•-•

• 1 P •-■ II T•T I ONS

P21

Figure 18.—Sodium concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

• 111711-11177

SYSTEM PLOTS

IIICANINNOATE

197'11-191T

CONC. 'S

SYSTEM PLOTS Of SULFATE COWS

JUNE

0 SUSINT . r••••••—• • .111 [0.0 ••USOS DATA]

SOO

•

• • lo

•—••••

•

••

•■I

SICAR•ONATE

NITS SYSTEM PLOTS OF

••

0-0

••

AI !

•••

CONC. ' S .0

ISM

•

••

•

••

•I

•S

lb /

NITS SYSTEM PLOTS Of SULFATE CONC.'S

0--0

JEWS

ANOUST

JUNE SWINT

IC•.•011•7

../1.

SOO

•

1071

ISO

SYSTEM PLOTS Of

•ICANIKINATE

Ig o

15711

CONC.' S S.

•••••■•

••

•i

61 .

P s

•

•■

or.

SYSTEM PLOTS OF SULFATE CONC.'S

0--• NAT 0-0 S.UST •■ ■•■• OCT..

NAT *41541ST

1•—■••••• OCTOUN oloo

• so

•

••

SI •NI STATIONS

•

•B

•I

••

•

••

Figure 19. —Bicarbonate concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

••

al Pi •• STATIONS

•■

••

Figure 20. —Sulfate concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

Table 9. -Upper North Platte reservoir system water chemistry - May through October Mean heavy metal concentrations'

Considering first the wet years of 1978 and 1979, it can be seen that the three main tributary rivers (i.e., stations MB, NP, and SW) tend to be relatively diluted at the beginning of summer, and become more concentrated as the season progresses and streamf lows decline. This increasing ionic concentration with decreasing river discharge is especially apparent in the position of the October 1979 trace on figures 16 through 20. The rest of the system, especially down through the North Platte arm of Pathfinder, tends to become more dilute through the summer and into the fall. As discussed in the previous section, this is probably due to the dilutional effect of the spring runoff. In 1979, in Alcova and the main body of Pathfinder, ionic concentrations were generally lower in May than in August. This apparent anomaly can probably be explained by the fact that maximum reservoir elevation, and thus maximum dilution, occurred in May of that year in Pathfinder (fig. 9). At any rate, the general rule on this system seems to be that during wet years, the tributary rivers become more chemically concentrated through the summer, while the rest of the system tends to become more dilute.

Metals FE Mn Zn Cu Pb

FE Mn Zn Cu Pb

A visual inspection of the 1977 patterns on figures 16 through 20, however, reveals little significant difference between the June and August traces. During this extremely dry year (figs. 9 and 10), both the tributary rivers and the rest of the system remained highly concentrated from June through August, because runoff was insufficient to dilute the rivers in the spring, or the rest of the system through the summer. This drought-year pattern of high ionic concentration throughout the Upper North Platte reservoir system may also be the characteristic winter pattern in any year.

FE Mn Zn Cu Pb

S-3

Stations NP

(mg/L) 3.59 0.62 1.10 (4.34) (1.34) (0.46) 0.09 0.02 0.05 (0.09) (0.02) (0.05) 0.02 0.01 0.01 (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) 0.006 0.002 1.003 (0.007) (0.002) (0.004) 0.0017 0.0004 0.0004 (0.0021) (0.0005) (0.0005) K-2 K-1 NP' 0.50 (0.43) 0.06 (0.07) 0.01 (0.02) 0.001 (0.003) ND2

0.49 (0.40) 0.05 (0.06) 0.02 (0.03) 0.002 (0.002) ND2

P-2

0.44 (0.40) 0.07 (0.08) 0.01 (0.01) 0.002 (0.002) 0.0009 (0.0013) P-1

0.51 (0.22) 0.03 (0.02) 0.01 (0.01) 0.002 (0.002) 0.0004 (0.0005)

0.40 (0.36) 0.02 (0.01) 0.01 (0.005) 0.003 (0.003) 0.0013 (0.0025)

0.30 (0.25) 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.03) 0.002 (0.002) ND2

A-2

S-2

S-1

0.62 (0.33) 0.04 (0.03) 0.01 (0.01) 0.002 (0.002) 0.0007 (0.0013) P-3

0.40 (0.30) 0.07 (0.07) 0.01 (0.01) 0.002 (0.002) 0.0014 (0.0034) SW

0.63 (0.54) 0.04 (0.04) 0.01 (0.004) 0.002 (0.002) 0.0004 (0.0003) A-1

3.20 (3.62) 0.08 (0.09) 0.01 (0.01) 0.003 (0.003) 0.0012 (0.0018) NP"

0.28 (0.24) 0.02 (0.02) 0.01 (0.01) 0.002 (0.002) 0.0004 (0.0002)

0.38 (0.38) 0.02 (0.02) 0.01 (0.01) 0.002 (0.002) ND2

' Standard deviations of the data are shown in parentheses. ND = Not detected during this study. 2

study (fig. 15), and the hard (table 8), alkaline (appendix C) nature of the system waters, it is unlikely that these metals are often in the dissolved, ionic form, except perhaps for such rare occurrences as the large manganese release noted at the bottom of station S-1 in August 1978 [21, 22, 23]. Therefore, these metals do not appear to constitute a significant hazard to aquatic life.

Heavy Metals Heavy metal concentrations for each station on the system are listed in table 9, along with their standard deviations. The major heavy metals sampled for during this study, in order of decreasing importance, were: iron, manganese, zinc, copper, and lead. It should be noted that the concentrations shown in table 9 are total concentrations; i.e., the total amount of metal detected per unit volume of water, without regard to whether the metal is in a dissolved or particulate form. However, considering the generally high redox potentials measured during the

Because of the extreme variability of the measured heavy metal concentrations and several changes in laboratory detection limits during this study, some basic assumptions were necessary in computing the means and standard deviations shown in table 9. First, surface, middepth, and bottom sample concentrations were averaged to

obtain a mean reservoir station concentration for each sampling date. In the calculation of these station means, ND (nondetectable) results were set equal to one-half the detection limit used in each particular analysis. This approximation was introduced to avoid either overestimating the mean, by setting ND equal to the detection limit, or underestimating the mean, by setting ND equal to zero.5 Reservoir stations at which all three depth samples were ND, and stream stations with ND results, were assigned a sampling date mean of ND. Then, in the calculation of the overall means and standard deviations listed in table 9, these remaining ND's were set equal to one-half the detection limit listed in table 3, i.e., the detection limit in effect at the end of the study. This somewhat arbitrary assumption was introduced to simplify the final computations and, considering the small values involved, should not significantly affect the accuracy of the results for overall summary and trend analysis purposes.

In summary then, although iron is usually present in the waters of the system, and concentrations often exceed EPA recommended drinking water criteria, most of this metal appears to be associated with suspended sediment particles and thus not biologically active. Manganese. —Manganese is next in occurrence in the system. The highest overall mean concentrations were found in the Medicine Bow and Sweetwater Rivers, but an examination of the means and standard deviations listed in table 9 indicates that high manganese concentrations usually occurred as isolated "spot shots." These spot shots of elevated manganese concentration often appear to be the result of releases from the bottom sediments under low dissolved oxygen conditions. The largest such release noted during this study was 0.63 mg/L in the hypolimnion at station 5-1 at the end of August 1978, when the bottom dissolved oxygen concentration dropped to 0.2 mg/L and the corresponding E7 was 171 mV. This release at the bottom of S-1 was reflected in elevated manganese concentrations in Kortes Reservoir and the Miracle Mile through late September 1978. Similar, but much smaller, manganese releases were evident at most reservoir stations in late summer when bottom dissolved oxygen was depleted, but disappeared when the hypolimnia were recharged with oxygen in the fall. Such a cycle is not unusual in productive lakes and reservoirs, and it should be noted that manganese is usually the first metal to be reduced to a soluble form and released from bottom sediments under anoxic conditions [20, 25]. The EPA recommended domestic water supply criterion for manganese is 0.05 mg/L [24]. Three reservoir stations, S-1, K-2, and K-1, exceed this limit on a mean basis, but it should be remembered that the high mean values at these stations are mainly the result of the single large manganese release at S-1 in August 1978.

Iron.—Overall mean iron concentrations at all stations of the Upper North Platte reservoir system, except A-1 and A-2 (table 9), exceed the 0.30 mg/L recommended by EPA as the criterion for domestic water supplies [24]. The main source of iron is the Medicine Bow River, followed by the Sweetwater and North Platte Rivers, respectively. Iron concentrations in the rivers vary directly with discharge, so that maximum concentrations usually occur during spring runoff. It appears likely that most of this iron is adsorbed onto particles of suspended sediment carried by the flow. In the reservoirs, much of this material settles out in the river arms, but some may pass through the reservoirs as turbid underflows, as previously discussed. Such through-flushing of particle-associated iron may be responsible for the close agreement in mean iron concentrations between stations K-2 and NP', below Seminoe and Kortes Dams, respectively.

Zinc.—Overall mean zinc concentrations in the system display no particular trends. This metal is usually present at all stations in quantities at, or slightly above, detection limits. Highest spot concentrations were found at station A-2: 0.21 mg/L at middepth in August 1978, and in the Miracle Mile: 0.10 mg/L, also in August 1978. Thes two anomalous concentrations are an order of magnitude greater than any other observed during the course of the study, and may, therefore, be due to some sampling error or concentration in organisms collected in the water sample. In any case, no observed zinc

There was also some evidence of iron releases into the lower portion of the hypolimnion from the bottom sediments during the late summer oxygen sag in 1978 at the deepwater stations S-1 and A-2. These elevated hypolimnetic iron concentrations disappeared, however, when bottom dissolved oxygen levels began to rise in September. Dr. Thomas J. Keefe, Envirostat Associates, Fort Collins, Cob., personal communication. 5

concentration anywhere in the system ever exceeded the EPA recommended domestic water supply criterion of 5.00 mg/L [24].

TKN (total Kjeldahl nitrogen) includes both the ammonia and organic forms [17], and is thus an indicator of the amount of organic input to a system as well as the rate of ammonification or bacterial decomposition of nitrogeneous organic material to inorganic ammonia. The succeeding steps whereby ammonia is oxidized to nitrite and then to nitrate are called "nitrification." These last three forms of nitrogen are all inorganic, and thus immediately available as plant nutrients [25, 261. Under aerobic conditions, however, only the NO3 form is stable. While NO2 is usually present in small quantities in lake water, it is rapidly oxidized to NO3 except under anaerobic conditions [26]. In this report, the term TIN (total inorganic nitrogen) will be used to mean the combined concentration of the NH3, NO2 , and NO3 forms.

Copper. —Copper was detected on occasion at all stations in concentrations usually ranging from 0.001 to 0.003 mg/L. The three major tributary rivers, and especially the Medicine Bow, sometimes contributed concentrations of copper in the range of 0.01 to 0.02 mg/L. These elevated concentrations appeared to be somewhat conserved throughout the system. This increased input of copper usually coincided with high spring runoff, and may have been associated with suspended sediment particles [22]. The domestic water supply criterion for copper recommended by EPA is 1.00 mg/L [24]. Lead. —Lead was rarely detected during this study, and then usually in concentrations at, or near, detection limits. Four stations, K-2, NP', A-2, and NP", never yielded detectable concentrations of lead. It is perhaps interesting to note that stations K-2, NP', and NP" are located immediately below the outlets of Seminoe, Kortes, and Alcova Dams, respectively, while station A-2 could be considered representative of the outflow from Pathfinder Reservoir. Whether or not their positions in the system coincide with the fact that lead was never detected at these stations is, at present, a provocative but moot question, given the sparsity of the data. Relatively high overall mean lead concentrations were found in the Medicine Bow and Sweetwater Rivers, at the deepwater stations, S-1, P-1, and K-1, and at station S-2, in the North Platte arm of Seminoe. In each of these cases, the relatively high means are the result of one or two isolated concentrations in the range of 0.001 to 0.007 mg/L. The remaining five stations all had overall mean concentrations of 0.004 mg/L, which are indicative of rare, barely detectable occurrences of lead. The EPA criterion for lead in domestic water supplies is 0.05 mg/L [24].

Orthophosphate is the phosphorus form that is immediately available for algal growth [20, 27]. Total phosphorus (TP), on the other hand, includes various soluble and insoluble, organic and inorganic forms of phosphorus [17]. Lambou et al. [28] point out, however, that due to the "high mobility and short turnover times of phosphorus * * * within the general 'phosphorus pool'," TP is often "a good approximation of bioavailable phosphorus." Some limitations of these data should be mentioned. First, there are no N-P data for 1976 because analytical methods adequate to detect the relatively low concentrations involved were not available until 1977. Second is the temporal sparsity of the data: early and late summer in 1977; monthly, from June through September in 1978 (except at Pathfinder, which was only surveyed in June and August); and May, August, and October in 1979. Finally, the May 1979 phosphorus data were lost through a laboratory accident, and it is thus difficult to compare early summer 1979 with the two previous years. The relatively complete N-P record from the summer of 1978 represents a "wet year" following 2 years of drought, and it may therefore be somewhat anomalous. However, these data are presented in some detail (table 10) because they display seasonal cycles that are at least representative of wet, or high-water, years.

Nitrogen-Phosphorus Plant Nutrients During this study, water samples were analyzed for total and orthophosphate (PO4 ) phosphorus, and total Kjedahl, ammonia (NH3), nitrite (NO2), and nitrate ( NO3) nitrogen (table 3). Only the inorganic forms of phosphorus and nitrogen, however, are immediately useful to autotrophic plants [20, 25, 26, 27].

The first evident cycle in table 10 is that of PO4-P. In early summer 1978, PO4-P was detectable at

Table 10. —Mean 1978 nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations Station

S-3

S-2

5-1

K-2

K-1

NP'

P-3 SW

(N 03-N) Nitrate nitrogen

(PO4-P) Orthophosphate phosphorus

Date

2 14 19 30 29 15 20 31 28 1 14 19 30 28 15 20 31 28 31 15 20 31 28

June June July Aug. Sept. June July Aug. Sept. June June July Aug. Sept. June July Aug. Sept. May June July Aug. Sept.

5 ND ND ND ND 4 ND ND 1 5 10 ND ND ND ND ND 5 2 ND ND ND 9 5

1 14 19 30 27 1 14 19 30 27

June June July Aug. Sept. June June July Aug. Sept.

ND ND ND 10 10 ND ND ND 13 10

1 14 19 30 27 12 28 12 28

June June July Aug. Sept. June Aug. June Aug.

ND ND ND 5 5 ND 4 10 ND

(NH3-N) Ammonia nitrogen

(p.g/L) Seminoe Reservoir stations ND2 15 20 25 ND 7 ND 3 10 3 27 58 ND 8 33 7 43 48 ND 10 10 7 ND 1 ND 160 ND 3 8 53 ND 3 43 25 10 85 20 172 60 132 12 68 17 1 44 7 238 Kortes Reservoir stations 35 195 ND 130 ND 25 10 228 ND 1 49 22 187 53 113 ND 2 7 235 7 1 40 Pathfinder Reservoir stations ND 175 ND 56 ND 2 ND 163 ND 100 32 32 5 107 ND 3 ND 2

ITKNI Total Kjeldahl nitrogen'

1 050 1 20 150 ND 90 320 230 310 300 480 420 240 330 300 510 90 240 270 390 340 270 410 290 300 150 300 240 270 390 350 320 290 320 300 180 240 360 240 330 200 150 ND

Table 1 0. —Mean 1978 nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations—Continued

(PO4-P)

Orthophosphate phosphorus

Station

Date

P-2

12 June 28 Aug.

P-1

1 2 June 28 Aug.

2 2

A-2

A-1

NP"

1 2

June July Aug. Sept.

ND ND ND

13 18 29 26

June July Aug. Sept.

ND ND ND

14 19 30 27

June July Aug. Sept.

ND ND ND

(NH3-N)

Nitrate nitrogen

Ammonia nitrogen

(itg/L) 6 18

13 18 29 26

(NO3-N)

11 119

35 58

490 290

20 7

570 250

Alcova Reservoir stations 17 61 ND

1 90 70

58 34 90 73

64 3 250 85

ITKNI

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen'

13 8

32 ND

13 13

20 ND ND

660 320 240 1 60 590 280 290 230 300 120 240 270

TKN (total Kjeldahl nitrogen) includes both the ammonia (NH3) and the organic nitrogen forms. ND = Not detected during this study. sediments brought in by the spring runoff, and

only two reservoir stations, S-3 and P-1, and, more importantly, in the three main tributary rivers. By July, there was no detectable Pa,-P at any stream or reservoir station sampled. Then, in late August, PO4-P was present in detectable concentrations at S-2 and 5-1 in Seminoe Reservoir, at all the stations in Kortes and Pathfinder Reservoirs, and in the Miracle Mile (NP'). By late September, PO4-P was detected at every station in the system except the three main tributary rivers, where it had not been found since peak runoff in June.

mal stratification began to break down in August, these newly liberated phosphorus supplies would be mixed throughout the water column and become available for algal production. The rather sudden appearance of detectable concentrations of bioavailable phosphorus in late August to late September 1 978 did coincide with the onset of the annual bluegreen algae bloom at all the reservoir stations in the system.

Apparently, the 1978 spring runoff in the Medicine Bow, North Platte, and Sweetwater Rivers contributed PO4-P to a reservoir system that had perhaps become depleted of its supplies of bioavailable phosphorus by through-flushing and/or uptake during the drought and the previous winter. The spring phosphorus input probably settled out with the suspended sediment load once it reached the reservoirs. By July 1 978, Seminoe's water level was the highest since 1 976 (fig. 9) and thermal stratification was at its maximum throughout the system (appendix A). Under these conditions it would not be unreasonable to think that PO4-P was being both released from the

Mean NO3-N concentrations at the various reservoir stations (table 1 0) also display a definite summer pattern, with high values in June, greatly reduced values in July, and elevated values again in late August. Hutchinson [25] writes that "maximal amounts of nitrate tend to be present [in lakes] at the end of winter or at the vernal circulation period [i.e., spring turnover]." He attributes this to ammonification of organic material during winter stagnation, with subsequent nitrification and mixing during spring turnover. In the Upper North Platte reservoir system, the cause of this early summer NO3-N peak is probably also related to an accumulation of the

desorbed from the newly inundated littoral areas that had been exposed since 1 976 [25]. As ther-

stable NO3 form [26] from the tributary inflows, and a lack of sufficient biological activity during the winter to use it up. The midsummer NO3-N "sag" here, however, seems well explained by Hutchinson [25] who writes, "In more productive lakes with clinograde [i.e., concentration decreasing with depth] oxygen curves, nitrate is usually removed by assimilation in the trophogenic layer and by reduction [i.e., denitrification] near the bottom of the lake, producing a marked dichotomic distribution with a nitrate maximum in the middle water." This pattern of low NO3-N concentrations in the upper and lower layers of the water column and a higher concentration in the middle was actually observed at S-1 and K-1 in July and at A-1 in August 1978. Finally, the higher mean NO3-N concentrations observed throughout the system beginning in late August are probably explained by the predominance of nitrogen-fixing, bluegreen algae in the trophogenic zone and by oxidation of NH3 and NO2 in the bottom zone caused by weakening of thermal stratification.

on Pathfinder, the Alcove concentrations should be a good reflection of events immediately upstream, and they bear out this generally declining trend. Perhaps a combination of increased irrigation season flushing of Pathfinder and Alcova, and a retention and utilization of nutrients further upstream limited the internal production of organic matter in the two reservoirs in the late summer of 1978. A comparison of mean NH3-N and TKN concentrations in table 10 indicates that most of the TKN observed in the three main tributaries, the Miracle Mile, and the releases from Seminoe and Alcove were in organic form during 1978. In fact, all the TKN in the Sweetwater River and the Miracle Mile was apparently in organic form since NH3-N was never detected in either stream. This observation fits well with the fact that these are all well-oxygenated streams and that, therefore, any NH3 should be rapidly oxidized to NO3. Early summer TKN peaks in these streams were probably due to overland runoff, while the later season peaks, particularly in the North Platte above Seminoe (NP), the Miracle Mile (NP'), and the North Platte above Alcove (NP"), were probably due to instream algal production. The Miracle Mile, especially, is often observed to produce large amounts of algae in mid- to late summer [6]. Detectable concentrations of NH3-N in the Medicine Bow and North Platte Rivers above Seminoe would indicate that some ammonification took place instream, while those in the releases from Seminoe and Alcova are most likely due to NH3 being produced in the bottom deposits behind the dams.

Mean NH3-N concentrations (table 10) were generally highest in June 1978 at the dam stations (S-1, K-1, P-1, and A-1), while in the three main tributary arms (S-2, S-3, and P-2), they were highest in August or September. In both cases, these higher NH3-N concentrations were probably the result of ammonification of organic deposits: (1) of internally produced organic material during winter stagnation near the dams, and (2) of runoff-deposited debris during summer stratification in the three main river arms. Concentrations of NH3-N at stations P-3 and A-2 approach the same levels as those at stations P-1 and A-1, respectively, which follows the above reasoning in that neither P-3 or A-2 are subject to direct spring runoff loading.

Figures 21 and 22 are early and late season plots of mean TIN and PO4-P concentrations, respectively, at the various system stations for 1977-79. The main trend evident on figure 21 is a bimodal distribution of TIN within the Upper North Platte reservoir system. Roughly, the trend consists of a general buildup of TIN concentrations through Seminoe to a peak in Kortes, a sharp drop in the Miracle Mile, a general low through Pathfinder, and a second buildup in Alcove. In August 1977, however, the overall pattern was very different in that there were dramatic TIN peaks in the river arms of Pathfinder Reservoir, instead of the midsystem "sag" evident in the other 2 years, and even in June of the same year. These high TIN concentrations coincided with an extremely large bluegreen algae bloom in Pathfinder.

Mean TKN concentrations (table 10) followed a general trend of relatively heavy loading from the three major tributaries during the runoff season, followed by declining concentrations as flows diminished. After a low period in July, TKN concentration rose again in August or September throughout most of the system, probably due to late summer algal production in both reservoirs and streams. Pathfinder and Alcova Reservoirs appear to have deviated somewhat from this pattern, showing a general decline in TKN concentrations from early through late summer. While the data are sparse

I OTA MS

CO--0 NANA MAUR 20*

1111111111111w 1111111ffir 11111111 11111111111111IIIIIII 111111111 11111111111111111 11115111111111111

100

se 0-0 ANNA AOSIAT

• -•

•-•

•

ay.

•

P-.

••

A-1

NP"

•

•-I

NITS

•

••

•

• •

P-.

P I

• •

N•

•

•-•

■-•

II I

•-• •-■

• •-1

urn

•

INTS

120111

as NOTE:

MAY DATA LOST .0.1AT ORONO,

IWO

••

0■—• A IS = AOWIT

•-•

1 Oa

•-i

•-•

A-8

lie

STATIC..

•

•-■

•• •

•-•

••"

STATIONS

Figure 21. —Total inorganic nitrogen concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

Figure 22.—Orthophosphate phosphorus concentrations Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

The sharp decline in TIN concentration that was evident at station NP' throughout this study may reflect utilization of available nitrogen for algal production in the Miracle Mile. As mentioned earlier, this stretch of river often supports large quantities of epilithic algae in mid- to late summer [6], and there is some evidence from studies done in Montana that algal communities immediately below deep reservoir discharges are mainly nitrogen limited [29, 301. The extent of nitrogen utilization in the Miracle Mile and any export of instream-produced organic material could, in turn, affect primary production at station P-3 in the North Platte arm of Pathfinder Reservoir.

seems to support the idea of a winter depletion of phosphorus stocks to a low level in the following spring. In summary then, the system began the drought year, 1 977, in a chemically concentrated state, as discussed in the section on major ions above, and this chemical concentration included PO4-P in relatively high concentrations. During that summer, Seminoe, the deep end of Pathfinder, and Alcova were being flushed, and Pat -P was being concentrated in the river arms of Pathfinder. In August 1977, the largest bluegreen algae bloom of this study was observed in the river arms of Pathfinder Reservoir. By June 1978, Pat -P concentrations throughout the system were low to below detection limits due to depletion and flushing since the previous August and perhaps to dilution by the heavy spring runoff. This high runoff contributed enough Pat -P to raise concentrations to significant levels in all the reservoirs by late August or September. At the same time as bioavailable phosphorus began to appear in detectable amounts, bluegreen algae began to bloom at the various stations. The incomplete 1979 data seem to support the idea that Pat -P then became depleted through the winter months to low levels in the following spring when, once again, heavy runoff increased the supply.

The loss of the May 1979 phosphorus data makes identification of seasonal trends on figure 22 somewhat speculative; however, certain important differences between the drought year, 1977, and the high-runoff years, 1 978-79, are evident. In 1977, the drought year, there was an early availability of Pat -P throughout the system. By August, Pat -P concentrations in Seminoe at P-1, and at Alcova had all declined significantly due to the flushing action of continuous power releases from Seminoe and irrigation releases from Pathfinder and Alcova. At the same time, Pat -P concentrations rose at K-2 and at P-3 and P-2 in the river arms of Pathfinder. This increased Pat -P in the "middle" of the system was apparently contributed by releases from Seminoe and by the Sweetwater River. Seminoe Reservoir was by this time extremely low for late summer, and thus approaching a quasi-riverine state in which nutrients would be more likely to pass through rather than be stored in the impoundment.

Figures 23 and 24 recapitulate the preceding discussion, showing mean reservoir TIN and Pat -P concentrations, respectively, for early and late summer of 1977-79. The relatively low June TIN concentrations in Pathfinder in all 3 years are clearly evident on figure 23. Possibly this annual phenomenon is related to nitrogen utilization by algal communities in the Miracle Mile, since they begin growing in the spring [29, 301 . Also evident on figure 23 is the comparatively high TIN concentration in Pathfinder that accompanied, and probably resulted from, the large bloom of nitrogen-fixing, bluegreen algae in August 1 977.

In 1978, the first high-runoff year after the drought, there was an early tributary input of Pat-P to a depleted, flushed reservoir system. (See also table 10 and the discussion of the 1978 data earlier in this section.) By late August, Pat-P concentrations at most reservoir stations, especially from S-2 through Kortes to P-1, had increased significantly. This late season increase in Pat -P availability affected Alcova by late September, while concentrations upstream at S-2 and S-1 began to decline (table 10). The early season Pat-P conditions in 1979 can only be guessed at, but the late August trend appears to be a similar, though more pronounced, version of that observed in August 1 978. By October 1979, a general decline in Pat -P concentration from S-1 on down through the system

Figure 24 shows the high concentrations of Pat -P present throughout the system in the lowrunoff spring of 1977, and the late summer accumulation of this bioavailable phosphorus in the "middle" of the system. Mean reservoir Pat -P concentrations in the high-runoff years, 1978-79, appear to follow the seasonal cycle outlined earlier: low to undetectable concentrations in early summer, relatively high concentrations appearing in late August and September,

Sr SEMINOE

TIN

Kr KORTES P= PATHFINDER A= ALCOVA

300

250

200

150

100

1 00

11 A .■

SK PA SKPA JUNE AUGUST

977

A 6.

SKPA SK PA JUNE AUGUST

SKPA MAY

1 978

SKPA SKPA AUGUST OCTOBER

1 979

Figure 23.—Mean TIN (total inorganic nitrogen) concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

S= SEM1NOE

PO4 - P,ii.g/L

- 20

-- 15

PO4 - P,1.4..g/L

13 04—P

K= KORTES P= PATHFINDER A= ALCOVA

-5

NO DATA ND

SK PA

SKPA

JUNE AUGUST

1977

1 978

SK PA MAY

SKPA

AUGUST OCTOBER

1979

Figure 24.—Mean PO4-P (orthophosphate phosphorus) concentrations - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

and a general decline in concentrations in the fall.

Pathfinder, in 1977, presented a favorable environment for bluegreen algae throughout the summer season.

Figure 25 synthesizes the data from the previous two figures to elucidate the interaction between the two critical plant nutrients. Nitrogen and phosphorus are, of course, utilized together by autotrophic plants, but some diatoms, for example, compete best under conditions where phosphorus is relatively scarce, while bluegreen algae, being able to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, compete well where nitrogen is the limiting nutrient [20, 251. The ratio of nitrogen-tophosphorus concentrations, or N/P ratio, is often used to indicate which nutrient is more limiting in a given situation. There are many approaches to this ratio in the limnological literature, both as to the chemical forms of nitrogen and phosphorus used in the computation and the cutoff points between nitrogen- and phosphorus-limiting conditions. Here, the approach developed by Lamboue et al. [281 was used. The immediately bioavailable forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, TIN and Pas-P, respectively, were used to compute the N/P ratios on figure 25. Suggested cutoff points established by Lambou et al. [281 are as follows:

Conditions in 1978 were rather different. In this year, the late summer appearance of detectable concentrations of Pas-P (fig. 24) caused a dramatic downward shift in the N/P ratio for Seminoe Reservoir, from high in the phosphoruslimited range to near the "transition" zone. The corresponding N/P ratio shift in Pathfinder was hardly significant, although the initial ratio here was less than half that in Seminoe. In both cases, however, the mere appearance of detectable concentrations of bioavailable phosphorus seemed to be enough to "trigger" the late summer bluegreen algae bloom in both reservoirs. The 1979 data on figure 25 are somewhat inconclusive, although the August N/P ratios for both Seminoe and Pathfinder are close to those observed in 1978. In both 1978 and 1979, bluegreen algae "bloomed" in Seminoe and Pathfinder in late August, but none was of the magnitude of the Pathfinder bloom of August

1977. Finally, the case of Kortes Reservoir should be noted. Figure 25 indicates that N/P ratios for this reservoir were often the lowest in the system because of relatively high PO4-P concentrations in the water being released from the hypolimnion of Seminoe Reservoir (fig. 24). It would seem that Kortes should, therefore, support large populations of bluegreen algae. In fact, it does not, probably because its rapid flushing rate precludes the development of large indigenous algal populations.

• N/P > 14 indicates a largely phosphoruslimited environment

• N/P < 10 indicates a largely nitrogenlimited environment

• 10 < N/P < 14 indicates a "transition," or "co-limited," environment In regard to the last, "transition," category, Lam-

bou et al. [381 state, "This group contains a number of lakes whose N/P ratios * * * suggest

The ultimate source of nutrients in the Upper North Platte reservoir system is, of course, the basin watershed. Nutrients are transported from the watershed into the reservoirs by the tributary streams, especially the three major tributaries: the North Platte, Medicine Bow, and Sweetwater Rivers.

seasonal shifts from one dominant limiting nutrient to the other across a transition zone in which pronounced interaction is likely." On figure 25, it can be seen that because of the high concentrations of Pas-P present in the system (fig. 24), both Seminoe and Pathfinder were well into the "largely nitrogen-limited" category in June 1977. By August 1977, due to the accumulation of PO4-P in the "middle" of the system (fig. 24), Pathfinder was still in the "transition," or "co-limited," zone, while Seminoe had moved into the "largely phosphorus-limited" category. While these ratios are only general indicators of relative nutrient limitation, it is evident that

Figure 26 shows an estimate, based on USGS discharge and water quality data [161, of the annual NO3-N and TP loading of Seminoe Reservoir by the North Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers during this study period. Only NO3-N and TP concentrations were available [161 for this estimate; however, considering the fact that NO3 is the only stable inorganic form of nitrogen under well-oxygenated conditions [261 and the

200

S= SEMINOE Kr KORTES N

P= PATHFINDER

A= ALCOVA

NO3+NO2+NH3

150

I--

—

150

a100 "----. z

—

Z a-

LIMIT

I4 NO DATA

N- LIMIT SKPA SK PA JUNE AUGUST

977

SKPA

SK PA JUNE AUGUST

SK PA MAY

1 9 78

SKPA SKPA AUGUST OCTOBER

I 979

Figure 25.—Mean N/P (nitrogen/phosphorus) ratios - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

250

233 TP 200

68% er,

a." 1 00

85.8

85.2

20%

80%

32%

WATER YEARS 600

NO3- N

545.4 13%

500

400

MEDICINE BOW R. 300

87%

0 200

1 00

NORTH PLATTE R.

106.5 44%

63.8

55.2

33%

50%

56%

67%

50% 76

WATER YEARS Figure 26.—Estimated annual tributary loading of NO3-N (nitrate nitrogen) and TP (total phosphorus) - Seminoe Reservoir.

rapid turnover rate of TP [28], these two forms should closely approximate the total amount of bioavailable nitrogen and phosphorus contributed by the two rivers.

phosphorus load in WY 1977, runoff only gradually increased during the next 2 years to a WY 1979 volume that was still slightly less than that of WY 1976. At the same time, TP yield in WY 1978 returned to a level about equal to that of WY 1976 and then dropped somewhat in WY 1979.

There are several recent articles on field studies of nutrient yield/runoff relationships [31-35], and the general consensus seems to be that nutrient yield from a watershed varies directly with runoff volume. In particular, Knight and Harrison [31] found that nutrient losses by leaching from a lodgepole pine forest in the Medicine Bow Mountains of Wyoming occurred only during years of heavier than normal snowfall. Lewis and Grant [32] also noted that the export of "biologically sensitive substances" from the watershed of Como Creek in the Front Range of Colorado seemed to depend upon the flushing of the biological compartments of the watershed ecosystem by increased runoff.

In summary, phosphorus loads carried by the three major system tributaries followed runoff volumes consistently throughout WY 1977; i.e., as runoff decreased dramatically in the drought year, so did phosphorus yield from the watershed. However, the pattern of return to higher yields with increased runoff in WY's 1978 and 1979 was not a clear, directly proportional increase, but varied according to the particular river and its watershed. Patterns of NO3-N loading in relation to runoff volume were more uniform among the three major tributaries (table 11). Yields of NO3-N dropped in WY 1977, increased dramatically in WY 1978, and then in WY 1979, fell to levels below those of the drought year in the Medicine Bow and Sweetwater and lower than the WY 1976 level in the North Platte. Apparently, the return of high streamflows in WY 1978 had the effect of flushing out a large amount of NO3N from all three watersheds. Perhaps this "big flush" left the watersheds relatively depleted of NO3-N in the following year.

Comparing figures 26 and 10, it is evident that the nitrogen and phosphorus loading of Seminoe Reservoir dropped significantly during the lowrunoff year, 1977, and then increased during the high-runoff years that followed. However, the nutrient yield/runoff relationships displayed by the North Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers during the two high-runoff years were more complex than a simple "yield-directly-proportional-to-runoff" model would predict. Table 11 lists the observed runoff volumes and estimated NO3-N and TP yields for all three major system tributaries for Wr 1976 through WY 1979. The North Platte River showed a direct relationship between TP yield and runoff for WY's 1976 through 1978, but TP yield in WY 1979 increased somewhat over WY 1978, even though runoff volume during the same period decreased. This was even more evident in the Medicine Bow River, where TP yield did not seem to be affected by the dramatic runoff increase in WY 1978, but then increased by an order of magnitude in WY 1979, when runoff was significantly lower.

The nitrogen and phosphorus loading estimates discussed here (table 11) are very approximate, but the trends identified should be valid, since the basic data were consistent from year to year. Nutrient yields for the three major tributary watersheds showed a direct relationship to runoff through the drought, but recovery in the succeeding high-runoff years was more complex. The reasons for this complexity are probably due to the nature of the biological sequestering mechanisms in the individual watersheds [31, 32, 33] and in the streams themselves [34]. Primary Production

The Sweetwater River displayed different trends from the other two major tributaries in runoff volume and TP yield. While the Sweetwater was also subject to a sharp decline in runoff and

Chlorophyll data are widely used to categorize lakes and reservoirs. Likens [36] uses mg/m3 of chlorophyll a to classify lakes and reservoirs into three trophic states: oligotrophic (low productivity), 0 to 3 mg/m3; mesotrophic (average productivity), 2 to 15 mg/m3; and eutrophic (high productivity), 10 to 500 mg/m3. Table 12

° The water year begins on October 1 and continues through the following September 30; e.g., WY 1976 = October 1, 1975 through September 30, 1976.

Table 11.- Tributary annual inflows and estimated nutrient loadings North Platte Riverl Water year 1976 1977 1978 1979

Medicine Bow River2

Sweetwater River3

Total Estimated loading Total Estimated loading inflow inflow (kg x 103) (kg x 103) 8 TP (m3 x 108) NO3-N TP (m3 x 108) (m3 x 10 ) NO3-N 31.6 2.024 59.2 53.5 1.494 47.3 8.253 27.8 13.1 0.917 27.5 17.2 1.269 4.362 69.0 2.087 70.5 474.9 16.8 1.707 12.240 42.5 74.1 1.600 21.2 159.0 1.917 12.074 Total inflow

Estimated loading (kg x 1 03) NO3-N 21.4 1 0.9 67.9 10.4

TP 11.1 2.90 11.5 9.77

Watershed area = ataproximatelv 13 048 km2 [121 2 Watershed area = approximately 5938 km2 [12] 2 3 Watershed area = approximately 5879 km [121

compares June and August chlorophyll a data from all four reservoirs for the years 1977-79. The four North Platte reservoirs show several interesting trophic trends when considered on a yearly basis (fig. 27). Alcove, Kortes, and Seminoe could all be classified according to their chlorophyll a biomass as oligotrophic in 1977. Pathfinder was the exception: At a mean chlorophyll value of 22.5 mg/m3 for all three stations in 1977, it was well into the eutrophic category. By comparision, all four reservoirs were in the mesotrophic range during 1978, although Kortes was low-borderline. During 1979, Kortes fell into the oligotrophic range, while the other three reservoirs were still classified as mesotrophic.

with a Clarke-Bumpus sampler equipped with a No. 10 net. Most of the planktonic algae species pass through apertures of this size. Samples were collected with a No. 20 closing net during the 1979 surveys. More of the zooplankters (i.e., rotifers and nauplii) and planktonic algal species between 0.158 and 0.076 mm were retained by the No. 20 net. Chlorophyll a concentrations throughout the system were generally derived from a phytoplankton population of diatoms in the early spring, and an abundance of the filamentous bluegreen alga, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae, later in the summer. Tabellaria was the dominant diatom species in all four reservoirs in the early spring, although Asterionella, Synedra, and Melosira were also found. By mid-July, most of the chlorophyll a was directly attributable to the onset of the annual bloom of Aphanizomenon flosaquae.

Data on phytoplankton species composition and abundance are available only for 1979. In previous years, plankton samples were collected Table 12. -Mean Chlorophyll a Reservoir

Year

June

August

October

( mg/m3) Seminoe

1976 1977 1978 1979

1.22 7.53 4.62

3.53 3.33 15.62 12.82

1.97

Kortes

1977 1978 1 979

1.09 4.48 1.53

1.09 1.35 1.80

1.11

Pathfinder

1 977 1978 1979

1.45 5.55 2.12

41.78 1 0.15 8.02

4.35

Alcove

1977 1978 1979

1.08 6.52 6.68

2.53 5.55 3.78

1.98

Profiles of chlorophyll a concentrations (fig. 28) reflect this difference in species composition between June and August. June profiles of chlorophyll a may show peak concentrations occurring at 9 or even 15 meters. Maximum chlorophyll a concentrations during August usually occur at or near the surface. This difference in the depth at which maximum chlorophyll a concentrations occur can be attributed to the light and temperature requirements of the currently dominating algal species. Diatoms dominate algal populations in early spring. They are less buoyant and more competitive at lower light intensities and cooler temperatures. Therefore, maximum abundance is often observed further down in the water column. Bluegreen algae, however, require the warmer temperatures and high light intensities which are found at the water's surface,

1976

1977

1978

1979

A = ALCOVA K = KORTES P = PATHFINDER

CHLOROPHYLL

S =

SEM1NOE

Figure 27.—Mean chlorophyll a by reservoir and year.

DATE

RESERVOIR

1 916

1 910

1 977

1 979 AUAUST

JUNE

AUGUST JUNE AUGUST

MAY

AUGUST

OCTOGEN

SEMIPAX

0 KORTES

..../.........

PATHFINDER

lor

0 ALCOVA

MEAN CHLOROPHYLL

—

S ( mg/m ) 3

Figure 28.—Chlorophyll a concentration - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

although this seems to be dependent upon the degree of wind mixing of the water column. This peak in productivity usually occurs in late August, but can be delayed by sediment-caused turbidity (table 13). During 1978, maximum chlorophyll a concentrations seem to have been delayed in the Medicine Bow arm of Seminoe Reservoir (S-3) for about a month. (See appendix E.) This phenomenon was mentioned in a previous section.

This resulted in increased flushing of the watershed accompanied by inundation of previously dry shoreline in the reservoir basin. Chlorophyll a concentrations were generally higher during 1978. This was a reflection of the increased runoff. Data in table 15 indicate the influence of increased runoff on primary productivity as expressed in concentrations of chlorophyll a. Seminoe Reservoir seems to have exhibited a "new reservoir" pattern in 1978, with a threefold increase in chlorophyll a concentrations (fig. 29). Kortes and Alcova also showed significant increases in chlorophyll a concentrations (figs. 30 and 32). However, average chlorophyll a concentration during 1979 declined, again following the "new reservoir" pattern. This indicates a significant increase in production, followed by a gradual decline as nutrients become less available for algal growth.

The magnitude of the Aphanizomenon bloom largely precludes significant multispecies algal populations because this alga produces an alphan toxin, which has been shown to inhibit growth of other biota [37]. Zooplankton populations also decrease because of sensitivity to the toxin. In addition, Aphanizomenon fouls the mouth parts of zooplankton and is difficult for them to digest [38]. U.S. Geological Survey data [16], which reports phytoplankton populations in cells per milliliter indicate that after the onset of the bloom, Aphanizomenon flos-aquae virtually comprises the total population and its concentration can exceed 85 000 cells/mL.

Pathfinder Reservoir was the exception to this pattern. The maximum chlorophyll a concentration was observed in 1977, followed by a 61-percent decline in 1978 and a 45-percent decline in 1979 from 1978 concentrations (fig. 31). While direct evidence is sparse, it is possible to speculate about physical conditions in Pathfinder which may have enhanced algal production in 1977. The overall volume of the reservoir was relatively low in 1977 (fig. 9) due to low inflow to the system (table 14). This resulted in early spring water temperatures which were warmer than usual. Aphanizomenon flos-aquae blooms are favored when water temperatures are 16 to 20 °C and pH values are 7.5 to 8.0 [38]. The entire reservoir system lies within this range in August, but early spring temperatures in high-inflow years can be below 16 °C. Since water levels were low, and remained so throughout 1977, Pathfinder Reservoir functioned as a nutrient trap, storing phosphorus entering from upstream reservoirs throughout the previous winter. A combination of events were apparently responsible for greater productivity in this low-water year in Pathfinder Reservoir: (1) a mild winter in 1976-77, (2) low spring runoff in 1977, (3) overall decreased reservoir volume, (4) warmer spring water temperatures, and (5) nutrient flushing from upstream reservoirs.

As discussed in other portions of this report, the magnitude of runoff has a tremendous influence on the ecology of the four reservoirs. Data in table 14 illustrate the change in runoff between years of relatively low runoff and those of relatively high runoff. Seminoe Reservoir is most heavily influenced by runoff. Operational patterns modify the influence of runoff on the three reservoirs downstream from Seminoe. For example, if an increase in nutrients occurred during a low-water year, extreme eutrophic conditions may exist. Because of operational patterns, these eutrophic conditions may be initially manifested in Pathfinder Reservoir due to rapid flushing of the nutrients through Seminoe and Kortes Reservoirs. This may partly explain the very high productivity found in Pathfinder in August 1977 (fig. 28), which is discussed later. Inflows to Seminoe Reservoir during 1977 were approximately half those in 1976. During the winter of 1977-78, the volume of the reservoir was drawn down to very low levels (fig. 9) to meet power generation demands. Inflows further downstream at Kortes and Alcova indicate that the overall system was operated at near normal levels despite low inflows to Seminoe in the spring of 1977. Inflows in 1978 increased greatly, reflecting larger accumulations of snow in the watershed during the winter of 1977-78. Seminoe inflows increased 21/2 times over 1977.

Zooplankton Zooplankton populations in all four North Platte reservoirs are composed of representatives of

Table 13.-Comparison of areal chlorophyll a and light extinction coefficient, June-August Reservoir

Station

Seminoe

1 2 3

Seminoe

Kortes Pathfinder

Alcova

Seminoe Seminoe Kortes Pathfinder

Alcova

Seminoe

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3

Areal chlorophyll a (rngirni

Date 1976 Aug 8

1977 June 6 Aug.

June Aug. June

6 8 6

Aug.

June

Aug.

1978 June 6 Aug.

June Aug. June

6 8 6

Aug.

June

Aug.

1979 June 6 Aug.

Light ext. coeff. ( m 1)

1 2.42 22.22 74.64

0.55 1.04 1.60

12.23 1 3.01 15.11 9.10 38.99 70.84 17.92 1 4.10 1 4.10 25.14 44.91 65.88 649.52 825.11 1 4.09 16.38 53.92 15.86

0.86 4.02 5.31 0.48 1.90 1.87 0.38 0.83 0.46 0.68 0.51 1.12 2.61 3.19 0.45 0.67 0.55 0.81

46.50 95.97 119.34 1 01.99 164.64 65.19 61.78 17.45 45.86 1 09.61 110.16 81.13 138.07 125.57 112.66 98.14 76.49 47.87

0.74 3.41 4.28 0.91 1.10 1.29 0.83 1.69 0.52 0.60 0.62 0.76 1.44 1.18 0.52 0.57 0.48 0.94

13.41 38.64 64.88 61.81 86.84 292.97

0.63 2.90 3.36 0.72 0.92 1.25

Table 13. -Comparison of areal chlorophyll a and light extinction

coefficient, June-August-Continued Reservoir

Station

..,

Kortes

1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2

Pathfinder

Alcova

Date June Aug. June

6 8 6

Aug.

June

Aug.

Areal chlorophyll a

Light ext. coeff.

( mg/m2) 20.90 25.74 25.28 40.73 34.41 24.48 138.22 86.00 92.53 93.25 56.96 33.11

0.73 1.15 0.53 0.73 0.51 0.53 0.95 0.75 0.57 0.67 0.67 0.81

( m-1)

Table 14. -Reservoir inflows Inflow Reservoir

Seminoe Kortes

Pathfinder

Alcova

1976

Percent change

1977 9

1.07 x 10 1.01 x 109 1.21 x 109 1.32 x 109

(m3)

5.72 x 10 8.27 x 108 9.54x 108 1.23 x 109

-46 -18 -21

- 7

Inflow

1 977

1978 8

5.72 x 10 8.27 x 108 9.54x 108 1.23 x 109

( m3)

1.47 x 109 1.20 x 109 1.37x 109 1.03 x 109

Percent change

258 145 144 -17

Table 1 5. -Mean annual chlorophyll a concentrations Reservoir

1977

Seminoe Kortes

13.62 6.54 120.69 10.71

Pathfinder

Alcova

(mg/m3)

1978

Percent change

1 978

49.47 12.06 47.13 31.22

+363 +184

49.47 1 2.06 47.13 31.22

- 61

+292

( mg/m3)

1979

Percent change

38.56 8.88 26.10 21.07

-22 -26 -45 -33

SEMI NOE

1970

1 979

i 976

1977

1%14

,711H

S-I 5-2 3-3

PnH

S-I S-2 3-3

5-I 8-2 5-3

S-I 5-2 3-3

— KORTES

..E KP E —

1977

VI K-I

1978

1979

M If -I

K-I

1977 . 35 x 0 ¢ 0 30

P- 8-2P-3

P- 1 P-2 P-3

ALC OVA

1978

P- 1 P-2 P-3

1979

1977 Rn A-1 A-2

A-1 A-2

A-I A-2

Figure 29.—Mean chlorophyll a by station at any depth.

1 0

15 I0

0 15

0 X

-J

0 10

L.._

5 0

11 A

0 15 10

1 z

0 V A

LEGEND

A ROTIFERS

0 V A

CLADOCERANS 5 0

COPEPODS

r 4 2

,., z 7 n

r , 6 7 7 , 4

1 976

o.: 5 o. 0 0 w 0 Z 0

r w r A z m w 6 n „ 1 977

O. 0 0 41 0 Z

F-

r J 7 6 M , U

1•: La

u 0 0 2

1 978

Figure 30. —Zooplankton abundance - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

6 < 1 979

5 0 0 0

er Li., 1—

(976

1978

1 977

Figure 31.—Mean zooplankton abundance - Seminoe - All stations, North Platte reservoirs.

1979

NUMBER PER LITER

20-

1 977

1 978

1 979

Figure 32. —Mean zooplankton abundance - Kortes - All stations, North Platte reservoirs .

three major groups: copepods, cladocerans, and rotifers.

The influence of runoff and the operation of the reservoir system has been found to significantly affect zooplankton populations. Seminoe is the upstream-most reservoir and is operated for power generation. Therefore, water levels in Seminoe Reservoir are lowest in early spring and highest in midsummer. Spring plankton populations initially may be favored by warmer inflows entering Seminoe when it is at its lowest water level. A more rapid warming may provide an early advantage to an overwintering copepod population. The early spring plankton population dominance by copepods is not sustained in Seminoe. Increasing volume of water and turbidity resulting from spring runoff may be responsible for the decrease in numbers of copepods observed in this reservoir (fig. 30).

There are two types of copepods: (1) Calanoid copepods, which are generally filter feeders, and (2) Cyclopoid copepods, which are usually predaceous. Both types are present in the Upper North Platte reservoirs. The cyclopoid copepods tend to be found in greater abundance because they prey on copepodite juveniles or nauplii of both types. Copepods tend to be the dominant zooplankter during most of the sampling season (May-October, fig. 30). Wetzel [391 states that this may be due to the ability of copepods to successfully overwinter as adult instars and begin reproducing more quickly in the spring. Rotifers and cladocerans have not been found to overwinter in significant numbers in the Upper North Platte reservoir system. They hatch from resting eggs as water temperatures increase during spring.

Kortes does not support a large plankton population. This deep, narrow canyon reservoir may be light limited as well as being significantly cooler than either Seminoe or Pathfinder (see appendix A). The topography of Kortes, the fact that it is continually cooled by bottom releases from Seminoe, and the short water retention time may be responsible for the generally low plankton population observed.

The overall abundance of zooplankton is generally highest in the spring (fig. 30). Increases in August are usually due to a rise in rotifer populations. Rotifers often increase when algal populations are at a maximum or on the decline because they feed on bacteria and detritus which develop intensively as algae decay [39]. Maximum bluegreen algal populations are frequently observed in late August to early September, which tends to support this fact. However, zooplankton abundance generally decreases from 30 to 50 percent (fig. 30) after the July onset of the Aphanizomenon bloom. This decline may be due to fouling of the mouth parts of filter feeding organisms and/or the presence of toxic substances released by bluegreen algae, which can inhibit growth and reproduction of both algal and pelagic zooplankton species [38].

Copepod populations in Pathfinder seem to increase as the season progresses. This reversal of observed plankton dominance with respect to Seminoe fits well with the difference in the operation of the two reservoirs. Pathfinder is at its greatest volume in early spring and decreases throughout the irrigation season. To a large extent, Pathfinder is free from turbidity caused by uncontrolled runoff. The clear, warming conditions which are maintained in Pathfinder as the season progresses may be favorable to increasing copepod populations. Both copepods and cladocerans serve as food sources for game fish populations, especially rainbow trout. Increased turbidity or nutrient loading which amplifies the annual bluegreen algae bloom ( Aphinozomenon flos-aquae) may decrease this available food source. Cladocerans are particularly susceptible to increased turbidity because it fouls their filter feeding apparatus and decreases feeding efficiency. Bluegreen algae are not a preferred food source for either copepods or cladocerans because the gelatinous sheath surrounding each strand of algae prevents digestion. As a result of this difficulty in digestion, the algae may pass through the gut intact, picking up essential phosphorus-nitrogen

The overall abundance of zooplankton increased during the 4 years of study due to an increase in food supply and living space in wet years (figs. 3134). Collections from 1976-78 were made using a Clarke-Bumpus sampler with No. 10 net and are generally comparable (table 16). The 1979 data were obtained using a No. 20 closing net. As previously mentioned, data using these two methods may not be comparable. The hypothesis that Seminoe is manifesting a "new reservoir" pattern—an increase followed by a decline—is not clearly illustrated by zooplankton abundance data because of this difference in sampling procedures.

NUMBER PER

1978

1977

1 979

Figure 33.—Mean zooplankton abundance - Pathfinder - All stations, North Platte reservoirs.

iLi 40 b.

cr w M m

1 978

1977

1 979

Figure 34. — Mean zooplankton abundance - Alcova - All stations, North Platte reservoirs.

Table 16.-Zooplankton abundance

Seminoe

1 2 3 4 5

3 1 2 3 3

Seminoe

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2

2 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3

1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3

3 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3

Lake

Kortes Pathfinder

Alcove

Seminoe

Kortes

Pathfinder

Total Copepods Rotifers Caldocerans Zooplankton Average Sampler 2 (Number/L)

Date 1976 Sept. 1

1977 June 1 5 Sept.

June 15 Aug. 30 June 15 Aug. 30 June

Aug. 30 1978 May 31 June 15 July

Aug. 31 Sept. 28 June 1 June 14 July 19 Aug. 30 Sept. 27 June 12 Aug. 28

7.0 20.0 20.0 28.2 30.8 7.0 12.8 31.6 9.4 6.4 4.8 87.6 1.4 80.2 52.9 81.3 2.7 2.1 3.5 47.5 62.9 0.4 0.5 226.8 283.0 0.0 10.9 90.7 36.2 140.4 52.6 100.9 36.4 26.3 40.4 44.8 207.2 70.4 18.8 9.8 7.7 359.9 1 73.4 1 68.6 36.8 136.9 1 22.7

00000 dc:iddd

Station'

Number depth intervals sampled

6.5 24.3 17.4 16.8 19.3

1 3.5 44.3 37.4 45.0 50.1

4.5 44.3 18.7 15.0 16.7

CB CB CB CB CB

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.7 20.9 24.3 3.9 5.5 4.5 11.8 0.1 54.1 1 4.4 36.4 0.7 0.0 0.5 30.0 14.3 0.4 2.7

9.7 33.7 55.9 1 4.3 12.8 9.3 99.4 2.5 134.3 67.3 117.7 4.8 2.8 4.0 77.5 77.2 0.8 11.2

4.9 11.2 30.0 3.6 6.5 4.7 33.1 0.8 44.8 33.7 58.9 2.4 1.4 1.3 25.8 25.7 0.3 3.7

CB CB CB CB CB CB CN CN CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 4.8 1.0 39.1 1 60.2 43.5 3.7 8.8 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 1.0 13.5 6.7 4.5 4.6 2.6 2.1

57.2 92.9 1.0 7.5 7.9 23.7 34.3 48.9 78.4 31.0 1 3.0 51.2 45.1 6.5 14.1 1 4.9 8.7 1.5 82.8 55.3 39.0 5.8 2.2 26.5

283.2 275.9 1.0 1 8.4 111.8 64.7 1 75.7 1 40.6 339.5 110.9 43.0 100.4 93.3 213.7 84.5 33.7 22.7 10.2 456.2 235.4 212.1 47.2 141.7 1 51.3

94.4 94.0 0.3 9.2 28.0 21.6 58.6 35.2 113.6 37.0 10.8 33.5 31.1 53.4 21.1 8.4 5.7 2.6 114.1 78.5 70.7 11.8 47.2 50.4

CN CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CN CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB

' See figure seven for location. Sampler - CB = Clarke-Bumpus, CN = closing net. 2

Table 16. -Zooplankton

Lake Alcove

Kortes Pathfinder

Alcova

1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2

3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 3

Date June 13 July

Aug. 28 Sept. 26 1979 May 24 Aug. 30 Oct. 25 Aug. 29 Oct. 24 May 22 Aug. 28 Oct. 23 May 21

Total Copepods Rotifers Caldocerans Zooplankton Average Sampler 2 Number/L) 1 20.4 93.0 86.6 66.8 95.7 100.1 31.2 181.7

7.3 4.8 1 5.7 6.3 207.6 100.4 8.6 18.2

49.2 40.0 17.7 27.7 24.0 26.9 9.7 19.5

1 76.9 137.8 1 20.0 100.8 327.3 227.4 49.5 219.4

44.2 34.5 30.0 25.2 81.8 56.9 12.4 54.9

184.8 83.1 39.0 47.6 139.9 181.4 25.4 61.6 60.1 34.5 17.9 218.8 1 78.1 139.8 107.3 230.5 107.5 73.7 52.0 134.6 251.7

1.7 2.9 35.9 34.4 19.1 1 50.4 0.0 3.2 1.1 2.5 0.3 12.0 45.0 47.0 2.6 9.1 4.0 0.3 0.6 46.4 1 7.7

39.3 14.2 2.4 27.6 1 6.2 81.8 0.4 5.0 3.3 15.0 0.6 97.1 38.0 52.9 1.9 11.6 4.9 1 7.8 23.4 3.7 27.8

226.8 100.2 77.4 109.7 1 76.0 414.1 25.9 69.6 65.2 57.4 19.8 327.3 261.0 244.9 111.8 251.2 115.4 91.8 76.0 184.1 297.3

75.6 33.4 38.7 27.4 58.7 138.0 6.5 23.2 21.7 14.4 5.0 109.1 87.0 81.6 28.0 83.7 38.5 23.0 38.0 61.4 99.1

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 00000000000000000000 0

Seminoe

Station'

Number depth intervals sampled

abundance-Continued

' See figure 7 for location. Sampler - CB = Clarke-Bumpus, CN = closing net. 2

nutrients from the zooplankter enroute [40]. Besides reducing the reproductive capacity of zooplankters, this activity may also enhance algal growth. However, inhibition of growth and reproduction of other algae and zooplankters by alphan toxin which is secreted by Aphanizomenon flos-aquae appears to be the main factor in reducing the overall abundance of zooplankton in the Upper North Platte reservoirs.

an important role in the exchange of substances between the bottom sediments and the adjacent waters. They also play an important part in the food chain of a lake, being fed upon by bottomfeeding fishes such as suckers, who are in turn fed upon by more traditional game fishes such as walleye and trout. In 1976, the two kinds of organisms were combined when counted and weighed. Seminoe Reservoir, the only reservoir sampled in 1976, averaged 406 organisms/m2 and 0.1369 g/m2 dry mass (table 17).

Benthos The benthos of the Upper North Platte reservoirs consists primarily of two kinds of organisms: oligochaetes (aquatic worms of the Oligochaeta class) and chironomids (larvae of nonbiting midges of the Chironomidae family). Both organisms play

All four reservoirs were sampled during 1977; however, abundance and biomass data for the two kinds of organisms were again combined.

0.3266 g/m2 to 0.0360 g/m2 for the chironomids and 0.9161 g/m2 to 0.2740 g/m2 for oligochaetes (table 18 and 19).

Results for the two dates sampled are found in table 17. The scope of benthic work increased during 1978 and 1979: more dates were sampled, and oligochaetes and chironomids were enumerated and weighed separately. Abundance and biomass values of chironomids and oligochaetes are in tables 18 and 19, respectively, for all four reservoirs on the dates sampled. Table 17 combines the values of the two organisms for purposes of comparing the 1978 and 1979 data with those from 1976 and 1977.

The average abundance and dry biomass of benthos in Pathfinder during 1978-79 was 207 individuals/m2 and 0.1773 g/m2, respectively, for chironomids and 786 individuals/m2 and 0.5396 g/m2, respectively, for the oligochaetes (table 20). The abundance of benthos in Alcova ranged from 96 to 0 chironomids/m2, and 5487 to 2342 oligochaetes/m2. The dry biomass ranged from 0.0708 to 0 g/m2 for the chironomids and 3.1822 to 1.0880 g/m2 for oligochaetes (tables 18 and 19). The averages for the 1978-79 surveys were 37 chironomids/m2 and 4231 oligochaetes/m2; dry mass averages were 0.0261 g/m2 for chironomids and 2.3102 g/m2 for oligochaetes (table 20).

The abundance of benthos in Seminoe Reservoir ranged from a high of 758 chironomids/m2 in May 1979 to a low of 105 chironomids/m2 in July 1978. The oligochaete abundance ranged from 2602 in July 1978 to a low of 554 in May 1978. Dry mass ranged from 1.0353 g/m2 in May 1979 to 0.0432 g/m2 in July 1978 for the chironomids, and from 1.6519 g/m2 in July 1978 to 0.1648 g/m2 in May 1978 for oligochaetes. The highest total dry biomass of 3.7828 g/m2 was measured in June 1977 when the two kinds of benthic organisms were combined, so a breakdown by type is not possible (table 17).

It is recognized that there is only limited value in characterizing the benthic communities of reservoirs with limited numbers of sampling sites and dates. Despite this fact, several conclusions and observations are made from these data. The most noticeable observation of the data is the complete dominance of the Alcova benthos by oligochaetes. Over 99 percent of the organisms surveyed during 1978 and 1979 were oligochaetes compared to 65 to 79 percent for the other reservoirs (figs. 35 and 36). The high oligochaete concentration is further exaggerated by the very low number of chironomids, which is only 23 percent of the next lowest chironomid population (in Pathfinder Reservoir).

The average number of chironomids per square meter found during the 1978-79 surveys was 384/m2 versus 1363/m2 oligochaetes. The dry mass averaged 0.3671 g/m2 for the chironomids and 0.9919 g/m2 for the oligochaetes (table 20). The abundance of benthos in Kortes Reservoir ranged from 753 chironomids/m2 in August 1979 to 71 chironomids/m2 in May 1978 and from 1997 oligochaetes/m2 in July 1978 to 57 oligochaetes/m2 in June 1978. The dry biomass of chironomids ranged from 0.1757 g/m2 in June 1978 to 0.0017 g/m2 in September 1978. Ranges for oligochaetes (dry mass) were 0.3458 g/m2 in July 1978 to 0.0069 g/m2 in June 1978 (tables 18 and 19).

Reservoir chironomid populations decrease downstream (figs. 35 and 36). In other words, the largest population is found in Seminoe and the lowest in Alcova. Seminoe Reservoir not only had the largest population of chironomids, but was also second to Alcova in abundances of oligochaetes. This reflects the diversity of habitats in terms of depth, light, nutrients, and substrate, that are found in Seminoe.

The 1978-79 average abundance and dry biomass for Kortes Reservoir were 320 chironomids/m2 , 603 oligochaetes/m2, 0.0561 g/m2 for the chironomids, and 0.1306 g/m2 for the oligochaetes dry mass (table 20).

From table 20, two different generalities are made. By comparing the percent abundance of chironomids with the percent biomass of chironomids, a relative individual size for the chironomid population can be shown. A larger percentage of the benthic biomass in Pathfinder, Alcova, and Seminoe Reservoirs was made up of chironomids. In other words, the per unit mass of the chironomids in these three reservoirs was

Abundance of benthos in Pathfinder ranged from 356 chironomids/m2 to 51 chironomids/m2 and 1255 oligochaetes/m2 to 401 oligochaetes/m2. Benthic dry biomass ranged from 61

1976

1977

1978

1979

A AUG

JUNE

AUG

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

MAY

AUG

OCT

SEMINOE 2

KORTES 2 CH IRONOM IDS

ITE

< PATHFINDER

117GC0

=0=1

A LCOVA 2

Figure 35.—Benthos biomass — Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

OL I GOCHAE TES

COMBINED

1 976 AUG

4000

SEMI NOE 2000

NUMBER OFBENTHIC ORGANISMS/mz

2000

4000

2000

6000

4000

2000

A LCOVA

AUG

MAY

JUNE

JULY

1 979 AUG

SEPT

ZZZ'

./4

AUG

OCT

ITITTM

4000

PATHFINDER

JUNE

1 978

6000

NORTE S

1 977

11 7

z721

rzz.

_L zzl_

Figure 36.—Benthos abundance - Upper North Platte reservoirs, Wyoming.

CH I RONOM I DS

I I

OL I GOCHAE TES

111111

COMB I NED

Table

17.- Chironomids and oligochaetes, 1976-79

1 978 1977 1976 Reservoir Aug. 31 June 23 Aug. 31 May 31 June 12 July 28 Aug. 28 Sept. 26 (Organisms/m2 ) 2165 993 2707 1267 1 038 853 406 1278 Seminoe 2370 1020 545 370 2327 300 588 Kortes 763 1306 984 1 362 Pathfinder 4640 5293 4716 5497 5340 2981 Alcova (Dry mass g/m2 ) Seminoe 0.1369 3.7828 0.7143 0.3350 0.3703 1.6951 0.7672 1.4423 1.0715 0.6108 0.0624 0.1826 0.4084 0.1073 0.0674 Kortes 0.4118 0.9787 0.9639 0.6933 Pathfinder 1.9439 3.1999 2.7580 2.6965 1.7992 3.3825 Alcova

1 979 May 21 Aug. 27 Oct. 22 1981 1 034 1337 2409

2134 936 490 3939

1872 592 1071 2763

2.3603 0.4238 0.9937 1.1413

1.6411 0.1292 0.3239 2.2013

2.2609 0.1126 0.8763 2.4132

Table 18. -Chironomids, 1976- 79 1 978 1977 1976 Reservoir Aug. 31 June 23 Aug. 31 May 31 June 12 July 28 Aug. 28 Sept. 26 (Organisms/m2 ) 422 1 05 1 31 580 299 Seminoe 373 316 143 71 531 Kortes 185 51 Pathfinder 50 10 0 10 Alcova (Dry mass g/m2 ) 0.1702 0.1222 0.0432 0.0641 0.4876 Seminoe 0.0200 0.1757 0.0626 0.0174 0.0017 Kortes 0.1378 0.0626 Pathfinder 0.0020 0.0177 0.0036 0 Alcova

1979 May 21 Aug. 27 Oct. 22 758 344 356 67

184 753 89 96

592 210 354 29

1.0353 0.1394 0.8750 0.0944 0.0585 0.0187 0.3233 0.0360 0.3266 0.0533 0.0350 0.0708

Table 19.- Oligochaetes, 1976- 79 1 978 1977 1976 Reservoir Aug. 31 June 23 Aug. 31 May 31 June 12 July 28 Aug. 28 (Organisms/m2 ) 554 571 2602 1136 Seminoe 704 229 57 1997 Kortes 578 1255 Pathfinder 5487 5290 4630 Alcova (Dry mass g/m2 ) 0.1648 0.2481 1.6519 0.7031 Seminoe 0.0424 0.0069 0.3458 0.0899 Kortes 0.2740 0.9161 Pathfinder 1.9449 3.1822 2.7544 Alcova

1 979 Sept. 26 May 21 Aug. 27 Oct. 22 1 585 402 5293

1223 690 981 2342

1950 363 401 3843

1280 382 717 2734

0.9547 0.0657 2.6965

1.3250 0.3294 0.6704 1.0880

0.5017 0.0707 0.2879 2.1663

1.3859 0.0939 0.5497 2.3424

Table 20. —Average benthos values Average Values 1 978-79 Reservoir

Seminoe Kortes

Pathfinder

Alcova

Chiron./ m2

384 320 207 37

Chiron. Oligo. Oligo./ dry mass, dry mass, m2

g/m2

1363 603 786 4231

0.3671 0.0561 0.1773 0.0261

0.9919 0.1306 0.5396 2.3102

larger than the per unit mass of oligochaetes. Conversely, Kortes shows the opposite phenomenon. Oligochaetes were, on the average, larger than chironomids. This may be related to the operation of Kortes Reservoir and its very short retention time.

1 976-79

Percent chiron. Abundance Biomass

22 35 21 0.87

27 30 25 1.1

Total avg. Total avg. dry mass, dry mass, g/ m2

g/ m2

1.3590 0.1867 0.7169 2.3363

1.4097 0.3176 0.7488 2.3929

with the percentage of fines smaller than 5 pm (correlation coefficient, r = 0.92). It may be seen in table 21 that the percentage of organic matter also increases as the silts and clays pass from "lean" to "fat." ("Lean" denotes fines of low plasticity and compressibility, while fines of high plasticity and compressibility are called "fat.") These observations are not unexpected since the fine particles of a soil, particularly clay-sized particles, have much higher ion and water-holding capacities than coarser particles, because of their larger surface area per unit mass and the presence of surface charges which tend to attract ions [42]. The same phenomenon accounts for the fact that the total heavy metal content of these sediments (table 22) is also strongly, positively correlated with the percentage of fines smaller than 5 pm ( r =0.91).

The second observation made from gleaning the data in table 20 involves a comparison of the total dry mass. The first value listed in table 20 is from the years 1 978 and 1 979. The second is from late study years, 1976-79. The two values are very close for Pathfinder, Alcova, and Seminoe, implying that the total average biomass values during the 1976-77 period were very close to those of the 1978-79 period. This denotes stable populations. Kortes again is different. The average total dry biomass of benthos collected from Kortes nearly doubled when data collected from 1976-77 were added to that collected during the 1978-79 period. The average biomass for the samples collected during the 1978-79 period was therefore lower than during 1976-77. The assumption is then that the benthic population had declined between 1977 and 1978.

The data presented in tables 21 and 22 should be interpreted with some caution, because of the limited number of samples collected and the extreme heterogeneity of bottom conditions throughout the reservoir system. For example, at each station the field crew tried to sample the main river channel; it is therefore possible that sediment conditions at other points of the station cross section may be very different.

Sediments Bottom sediment samples were collected at nine reservoir stations in June 1977 for physical and chemical characterization. The samples were analyzed for physical properties and organic content by the Soil Testing Section of the Geotechnical Branch [41]. Results of these analyses are summarized in table 21. Portions of the samples were also submitted to the Division of Research's Chemistry Laboratory for analysis of heavy metals content; these results are shown in table 22.

There are two sets of earlier data on bottom sediment-size characteristics in Pathfinder Reservoir that may be usefully compared with the present data. In 1 931, the Corps of Engineers did mechanical analyses of bottom sediments at 10 different locations in Pathfinder [12]. While it is difficult to relocate exactly these 1931 stations, three that appear to have been near the stations used in the present study were chosen for comparison in table 23. In October 1958, while the reservoir was drained for construction of the power tunnel to Fremont Canyon Powerplant, Bureau personnel inspected the exposed sediments and had size analyses done on samples from six different locations [13]. Two

No sample was classified as an organic soil per se [41], although the organic content of these soil samples was strongly, positively correlated

Table 21. -Sediment classification and organic content Sampling station

Soil identification

Classification symbol

Percent organic matter by ash mass

Particle-size fractions in percent Fines

Sand

(<5 Am) (5 to 75 74 64 21 25 73 8 19 23 32

ML-MH

.1 - co

CH CH SC ML-CL CH SM ML

Fat clay Fat clay Clayey sand Lean clayey silt Fat clay Silty sand Lean silt Lean-fat silt Lean clay

S-3 S-2 S-4 K-1 P-3 P-2 P-1 A-2 A-1

p,m)

(75 Am to 4.75 mm)

26 35 5 54 25 15 45 70 39

0 1 74 21 2 77 36 7 29

Table 22. -Heavy metals content of bottom sediments Sampling station

S-3 S-2 S-4 K-1 P-3 P-2 P-1 A-2 A-1

Percent fines (<5 Am)

Heavy metals

74 64 21 25 73 8 19 23 32

0.021 0.016 0.005 0.016 0.021 0.002 0.007 0.011 0.010

Total

0.038 0.035 0.008 0.035 0.044 0.010 0.020 0.022 0.020

(mg/g) 16.50 13.50 7.00 14.00 15.50 2.30 6.00 7.30 7.50

0.690 0.405 0.560 0.605 0.910 0.150 0.220 0.405 0.430

0.085 0.080 0.030 0.060 0.070 0.005 0.025 0.045 0.040

17.33 14.04 7.60 14.72 16.55 2.47 6.27 7.78 8.00

of these locations were approximately the same as stations established for the present study, and are therefore also included in table 23.

reservoir area upstream from the dam, evidence points to density flow action as the cause of deposition."

Comparisons between the 1958 and 1977 analyses at stations P-1 near Pathfinder Dam, and P-2 in the Sweetwater arm are quite close. Unfortunately, the area around station P-3 in the North Platte arm was too soft to be sampled in October 1958 [13] . It would appear, however, that the general conclusions drawn on sedimentation patterns in Pathfinder in 1958 are still valid [13] : "Three types of sediment action influence the pattern of deposition taking place in Pathfinder Reservoir: (1) deposition of bed material particles, (2) settlement of suspended particles, and (3) particle movement by density flow action. * * * At the head of both arms the larger bed load material has deposited. From the head on down through the middle of the reservoir, deposition is mostly the result of suspended sediment particle settlement. In the

The 1958 investigators [131 pointed out that the "narrows areas" in both river arms appeared to be "instrumental in forming the density flows in the lower reservoir by trapping larger sediment particles above and aiding in the collection of the smaller particles into a current or flow." These two "narrows areas" are located approximately at station P-2 near Bishop's Point in the Sweetwater arm, and just above station P-3 in the North Platte arm, which explains the "silty sand" deposits at station P-2 and the "fat clay" at P-3 (tables 21 and 23). Comparison of the 1931 data with those from 1958 and 1977 is affected by two major points of difference: (1) difficulty in relocating the oldest stations, and (2) the fact that both Seminoe and Kortes Dams were built between 1931

are similarly located with respect to their individual river arms and the main bodies of the reservoirs (fig. 7). (In comparing sediment particlesize distributions between the Seminoe and Pathfinder stations, it should be noted that the "clayey sand" sediment at station S-4 is mainly the result of eolian deposition from the large sand dunes that occupy the west bank of the reservoir in this area.) It therefore seems likely that sedimentation patterns in Seminoe Reservoir are much the same as those observed in Pathfinder [12, 13].

and 1958. The first point is especially evident at station P-2, where the nearest 1931 station was actually located somewhat below the "narrows area" [12], and thus shows a finer composition than the 1958 and 1977 samples (table 23). The second point is more evident at stations P-1 and P-3, which were similarly located in all three studies [12, 13]. After the construction of Seminoe Dam in 1939, and Kortes Dam in 1951, the Sweetwater River became the main sediment contributor to Pathfinder Reservoir [13]. It was probably the trapping of coarser particles from the North Platte River in the Seminoe and Kortes Reservoirs that was responsible for the shift toward finer sediments at stations P-1 and P-3 between 1931 and the two later surveys (table 23).

DISCUSSION Study Limitations As mentioned at the beginning of the report, this limnological study of the Upper North Platte reservoir system was subject to some important limitations. Surveys were carried out only during the season from late May through late October, so that no winter data are available. Although the investigations spanned four summers, 1976-79, the level of temporal and spatial detail varied from year to year. Only the early summer (late May to early June) and late summer (end of August) sampling periods in 1977, 1978, and 1979 were common to all four reservoirs (table 2). Sampling, counting, and analytical methods varied somewhat from year to year. (See Methods and Materials section.) Surveys were limited to nine reservoir and six stream stations during most of the study (fig. 7), and undoubtedly this tends to oversimplify the picture of the system.

Table 23.— Comparison of sediment particle-size analyses - Pathfinder Reservoir Present sampling station

Size fractions'

Percent by mass 19312 i958 1977

P-1

G S M C

0 46.8 1 4.2 39.0

0 34 51 15

0 36 45 19

P-2

G S M C

0 19.1 36.4 44.5

0 79 15 6

0 77 15 8

P-3

G S M C

0 7.8 38.5 53.7

No sample taken here

0 2 25 73

The above limitations should be kept in mind during the following discussion which first characterizes the reservoirs and then outlines systemwide relationships. This is a preliminary overview of the functioning of a large, complex limnological system. More detailed site-specific studies would be required to quantitatively assess the environmental impact of any given modification of the system. (See Recommendations section.)

' G = gravel, S = sand, M = silt (particle size approximately 5 to 75 Am), C = clay (particle size smaller than 5 p.m). Corps of Engineers data [12]. Bureau of Reclamation data [13]. 2

The evidence of "density flows" of sediment into the lower part of Pathfinder Reservoir [12, 13] bears some similarity to the evidence of "turbid underflows" in Seminoe Reservoir, presented earlier in this report. Particle-size analyses of the sediments at stations S-2 and S-3 in the river arms of Seminoe also compare closely with that at station P-3 in the North Platte arm of Pathfinder (table 21). All three of these stations

Reservoir Characterization The four Upper North Platte reservoirs usually become thermally stratified by June. Because of the continual withdrawal of cool hypolimnetic water through the low dam outlets, however, this stratification does not last beyond late August. All four reservoirs are dimictic; i.e., they

are ice covered in the winter, become isothermal in spring and fall, and devsrlop direct thermal stratification in the summer.

the water, it is unlikely that heavy metals in the ionic form ever constitute a hazard to reservoir biota.

In high-runoff years, the river arms and upper basin of Seminoe Reservoir are extremely turbid throughout the early summer. The water clears after peak runoff in June, but a turbid underflow apparently develops and passes through the reservoir. This underflow reaches the dam outlet in late summer, and its release causes Kortes Reservoir and the Miracle Mile to become turbid in the fall. During low-runoff years, reservoir turbidity is mainly a function of wave action on exposed littoral areas rather than suspended sediments carried by runoff. During late summer, light penetration in the river arms of both Seminoe and Pathfinder is limited by blooms of bluegreen algae.

Mean total inorganic nitrogen concentrations in the reservoir system ranged from less than 5014,g/L to over 250 ir,g/L during this study (fig. 23). Mean orthophosphate phosphorus concentrations, on the other hand, ranged from less than detectable to less than 20 Ag/L (fig. 24). The N/P ratios (fig. 25) for Seminoe and Pathfinder seem to indicate a "wet-year" pattern of early summer phosphorus limitation, shifting to more nitrogen-limiting conditions in late summer, and a "dry-year" pattern of nitrogen limitation throughout the summer. Both patterns led to late summer bluegreen algae blooms, but the dry-year conditions favored an accumulation of phosphorus in Pathfinder that contributed to the largest such bloom observed during this study.

Sediment patterns in Pathfinder Reservoir indicate the existence of density flows of fine sediment from the river arms into the lower basin, with the narrow portions of the arms functioning as traps for coarser sediment particles [13]. In all four reservoirs, the organic and heavy metals content of the bottom sediment is directly correlated with the percentage of clay-size fines.

As a final point, EPA [14], in 1975, found Seminoe Reservoir to be phosphorus limited in May and October and nitrogen limited in August. Figure 10 shows that 1975 was a higher than normal runoff year, so the EPA results would seem to support at least the wet-year nutrient limitation pattern outlined above.

The waters of the reservoir system can all be classified as being alkaline, hard, and relatively saline. Salinity (i.e., sum of anions and cations) of the reservoir waters averages 369 mg/L, calcium carbonate hardness averages 184 mg/L, TDS averages 318 mg/L, and the pH always exceeds 7.0. Calcium, sodium, and magnesium are the major cations, while the major anions are bicarbonate and sulfate.

Phytoplankton populations in the reservoirs are usually dominated by diatoms in early summer, and the bluegreen alga, Aphanizomenon flosaquae, in late summer. Early summer zooplankton populations are mainly composed of cladocerans and copepods, while rotifers appear in significant numbers in late summer. Zooplankton populations in general decline as the bluegreen algae becomes dominant.

The brief summer stratification period generally precludes the development of serious anaerobic or reducing conditions in the hypolimnia of the reservoirs. Some manganese releases from bottom sediments at deep reservoir stations have exceeded EPA recommended domestic water supply criteria, but these quickly disappeared with the reoxygenation that accompanied the early breakdown of thermal stratification. Iron is often present in the waters of the system in concentrations that exceed EPA recommended domestic water supply criteria; however, it appears to be mainly associated with suspended sediment particles rather than being in the bioavailable ionic form. In fact, given the hard, alkaline nature of

Species composition of the benthos populations changes from upstream to downstream in the reservoir system. The benthos of Seminoe is made up largely of chironomids, while that of Alcova is almost entirely composed of oligochaetes. This difference may reflect the fact that Seminoe is both shallower (table 5) and more subject to inputs of detritus from the watershed (fig. 11) than is Alcova. Oligochaetes feed mainly on bacteria [20], while chironomids seem to depend more directly on the detrital material that settles out of the water column [43]. Brinkhurst (431 points out that mean depth is an important factor in the production of

benthic macroinvertebrates because detritus is subject to bacterial action as it settles, and thus less food energy remains in the detrital material with increasing depth. In this study it was found that the overall mean percentage of the benthos made up by chironomids at each of the nine reservoir stations was negatively correlated with mean station depth (correlation coefficient, r = —0.83). The opposite held true for the percentage of oligochaetes versus station mean depth. No significant correlation with substrate particle size or sediment organic content was found for either chironomids or oligochaetes.

peak in late summer in response to irrigation demand. Reservoir elevations in Alcova are raised rapidly in April, held at a constant elevation until the end of September, dropped quickly in October, and then held constant at a lower elevation through the winter. This stepwise elevation pattern results in flushing rates that average about 46 days during the summer and approximately 89 days in the winter. Between summer and winter are a rapid April dilution and an equally rapid October flushing. Annual runoff variations. — Superimposed upon the system operating pattern are the effects of seasonal and annual variations in tributary flow. The limnology of Seminoe Reservoir is essentially determined by the interactions of the North Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers. Low flows in these two tributaries result in more riverine conditions in Seminoe, including increased salinity, increased flushing rate, decreased sediment load, and decreased nutrient input. High river flows result in more lacustrine conditions, with the opposite attributes of those listed above.

The EPA National Eutrophication Survey [14] classified Seminoe Reservoir as being eutrophic in the river arms, moderately eutrophic in the upper basin, and mesotrophic in the lower basins. This separate trophic classification for the river arms and the deeper basins would probably also apply to Pathfinder, where the major centers of primary production are the North Platte and Sweetwater arms. However, on the basis of a recent report by Taylor et al. [44], which lists trophic classification criteria in exhaustive detail, the Upper North Platte reservoir system should be classified as being generally mesotrophic, with somewhat more eutrophic conditions in the river arms of Seminoe and Pathfinder.

Nutrient dynamics in particular seem affected by annual runoff variations in the two major tributaries of Seminoe. Under low-flow conditions, nutrients seem to be flushed through Seminoe and Kortes and accumulate in the North Platte arm of Pathfinder, where they contribute to larger than average bluegreen algae blooms.

System Overview Three main factors influence the limnology of the Upper North Platte reservoir system: (1) system operating criteria, (2) flow variations in the three major tributaries, and (3) deep outlets in all four dams. Each factor is discussed below.

During high-runoff years, a larger proportion of the increased nutrient loading seems to be retained in Seminoe, and production of algae is more evenly distributed between this reservoir and Pathfinder. The summer pattern becomes one of early phosphorus limitation and late nitrogen limitation.

System operating criteria. — The operating criteria of the Upper North Platte reservoir system dictate the storage and release patterns of the individual reservoirs. Seminoe Reservoir stores runoff and releases water for power production; hence, it fills quickly in the spring and is drawn down gradually as water is released at a relatively even rate throughout the year. Kortes Reservoir is maintained at a constant elevation and, because of its small size relative to the flows it passes, it is flushed on the average of once every 2 days. Pathfinder Reservoir receives about 90 percent of its inflow at an even rate from Seminoe and Kortes and the remaining 10 percent is uncontrolled runoff from the Sweetwater River. Releases from Pathfinder

Increased sediment loading during high runoff may be a key factor. Early phosphorus inputs could be associated with sediment particles and thus unavailable for immediate utilization. Release of this phosphorus from the newly deposited sediments would then cause the late summer switch to nitrogen-limiting conditions. Low runoff, however, means less sediment input, so that even though overall nutrient loading is reduced, phosphorus inputs could be in a more immediately available form. They would also be flushed through the reservoir more rapidly and, given the system operating regime, would tend

to accumulate in Pathfinder, at least until late summer when irrigation releases peak.

and quality of the North Platte contribution to Pathfinder, while sediment loading and discharge extremes are largely eliminated.

The relative influence of the two tributaries on the water chemistry of Seminoe Reservoir also varies somewhat with runoff volume, since the salinity of both rivers is inversely proportional to their discharge. About 85 percent of the total annual inflow is contributed by the North Platte River, with a mean TDS of 209 mg/L. The Medicine Bow River contributes only about 15 percent of the total annual inflow, but the mean TDS of this water is 810 mg/L. Thus, the Medicine Bow, on the average, is responsible for approximately 40 percent of the TDS in the main body of the reservoir.

A second major difference is that the mean TDS of the Sweetwater River is approximately the same as that of the North Platte as it enters Pathfinder (274 and 299 mg/L, respectively). Consequently, the Sweetwater River does not have a strong chemical effect on Pathfinder Reservoir as the Medicine Bow has on Seminoe. The difference is one of degree, however, and the same general principles apply to the Sweetwater arm of Pathfinder as were discussed for the Medicine Bow arm of Seminoe. Alcova Reservoir, like Kortes, is essentially a flow-through system in which limnological conditions largely reflect those in the impoundment immediately upstream. However, some internal cycling of materials and development of plankton populations does take place in Alcova because of its larger volume and longer retention times. On the other hand, these plankton populations are much reduced by late summer, apparently by flushing into the Casper Canal at the height of the irrigation season. The rapid October drawdown also serves to flush the reservoir and prevent much retention of nutrients for internal cycling.

At the same time, the point of river-impoundment mixing moves up and down the river arms in response to the volume of river inflow and the reservoir pool elevation. This is especially the case in the Medicine Bow arm because of its smaller discharge relative to the North Platte. A high runoff after a drought period, for example, moves the mixing point downstream, and the arm becomes more of an extension of the Medicine Bow River. Conversely, at high reservoir pool elevations, the mixing point moves farther upstream as river inflow declines through the summer. In this situation, the Medicine Bow arm becomes more like an embayment of the reservoir, with chemical concentrations approximating those measured at the dam.

Deep reservoir outlets. —The third major factor affecting overall system limnology is the fact that the main outlets of all four dams are located near the bottom of the impoundment (table 24). This holds true even for Alcova, which also has a high level outlet for irrigation releases to the Casper Canal.

The limnology of Kortes Reservoir reflects conditions in the deep water immediately behind Seminoe Dam, modified only by some aeration in the Seminoe tailrace. Because of rapid flushing, Kortes has no significant effect on water chemistry between Seminoe and the Miracle Mile. Development of plankton populations in this small reregulating reservoir is probably limited by shading from the steep canyon walls, low temperature releases from Seminoe, rapid throughflushing of nutrients, and late summer turbidity.

Table 24.—Major outlet locations — Upper North Platte reservoirs

Maximum water depth at dam (m)

Pathfinder Reservoir resembles Seminoe in that its limnological conditions are basically determined by the interaction of its two large tributaries: the, North Platte and Sweetwater Rivers. One important difference lies in the fact that the North Platte River, which supplies approximately 90 percent of total annual inflow to Pathfinder, is controlled by Seminoe and Kortes Dams. As discussed earlier, runoff variations upstream from Seminoe ultimately influence the quantity

Distance from bottom of major outlet (m)

Seminoe

Kortes

Pathfinder

Alcova

61.0

43.6

55.5

54.9

8.6

11.1

1 4.3

4.3'

' Casper Canal outlet, utilized from May through September, is located approximately 4 m below maximum water surface elvation.

These low outlets affect both the reservoirs and the receiving waters downstream.

Wunderlich [45] points out the possibility of a "short-circuiting" effect in a reservoir where a low outlet is combined with an underflow. That is, the inflow tends to pass through the reservoir with a relatively short retention time and with relatively little alteration of its inflow-quality characteristics, if reservoir density stratification is sufficiently stable.

Nutrients released from the bottom of Seminoe Reservoir combined with flow regulation at Kortes Dam provide the basis for the high production of benthic algae and invertebrates observable in the Miracle Mile. Pathfinder Reservoir provides the trout, which move upstream to feed and spawn [5-7]. The result is a blue-ribbon trout fishery.

At the same time, there is an increase in epilimnion depth as cold water is withdrawn from the hypolimnion through the low outlet [45, 46]. This is because a density gradient tends to restrict vertical mixing while enhancing horizontal movement. Thus, the stratified layers resist mixing as the hypolimnetic waters are drawn off, which results in a lowering of the thermocline.

The deep discharge from Pathfinder Reservoir may also have a "subsidizing" effect on the fishery in Alcova Reservoir. Facciani8 developed the following relationship between fish yield, in lb/acre and MEI (morphoedaphic index)7, in (p/m)/ft on the basis of purse seine data from several Wyoming lakes and reservoirs. log yield = 0.7171 + 1.0251 log MEI Eq. (4)

Density gradients in the Upper North Platte reservoirs are mainly the result of summer temperature stratification, although tributary sediment load at high flows, or salinity at low flows, probably compounds the situation, particularly in Seminoe and Pathfinder. Rapid flushing of Kortes and Alcova seems to override any density effect in these reservoirs.

Both Pathfinder and Alcova Reservoirs were included in the sample. The MEI of Pathfinder was calculated as 7.32 (p/m)/ft and the measured fish yield was 34.19 lb/acre, which is slightly less than the 40.12 lb/acre that would be predicted from equation (4). The MEI at Alcova was calculated to be 4.43 (p/m)/ft, but the measured yield of fish was 36.75 lb/acre, which is slightly more than that measured in Pathfinder and 53 percent more than the 23.97 lb/acre that equation (4) would predict.

The turbid underflow in Seminoe and the density flows of sediment in Pathfinder [13] are one illustration of the short-circuiting effect described by Wunderlich [45]. Short-circuiting of incoming nutrients through the bottom of these reservoirs may also account for the lower production of algae at the deepwater stations relative to the river arm stations [46]. Finally, the rapid decay of summer temperature stratification in late summer in both Seminoe and Pathfinder is caused by loss of the cool hypolimnion through the deep outlets.

This larger than expected fish yield in Alcova may reflect a "nutrient subsidy" from Pathfinder Reservoir in the form of nutrients released through the deep outlet in Pathfinder Dam. On the basis of information contained on figures 23 and 24 and the reference on Hyalite Reservoir, Montana [29, 30], the major nutrient involved here is probably total inorganic nitrogen. The addition of nitrogen would also account for the general trend, best seen on figure 25, for Alcova, alone among the four reservoirs to become more phosphorus limited from early to late season in all 3 years where data were available. Maintaining relatively phosphoruslimiting conditions in Alcove through deep release of nitrogen from Pathfinder could affect the species composition of the phytoplankton populations in the lower reservoir, and thus, perhaps, maintain zooplankton populations that contribute to increased fish growth.

The deep discharge from all four reservoirs exercises an important influence over nutrient dynamics in the Upper North Platte system. Deep reservoir outlets tend to release mineral nutrients rather than organic detritus, and maintain the downstream receiving waters at relatively constant, cool temperatures. This combination of nutrient enrichment and environmental stability often leads to high production of benthic algae and macroinvertebrates in the tailwaters of deep discharge reservoirs [29, 30, 47-51].

Steve Facciani, Wyoming Department of Game and Fish, personal communication. 7 MEI = mean TDS/mean depth 152, 531.

The Miracle Mile is a classic example of the enrichment effect of deep discharge reservoirs.

any total inorganic nitrogen added to Alcova by the deep discharge from Pathfinder, but this "nutrient subsidy" would be sufficient to have an important effect on NIP ratios (fig. 25).

Two final questions on this line of reasoning concern MEI's and relative fish stocking rates. Morphoedaphic indexes calculated on the basis of the present study for Alcova and Pathfinder, respectively, were 4.77 and 7.94 (p/m1/ft, which compare favorably with those calculated by Facciani. The theory behind the MEI is explained in some detail by Ryder [52] and Ryder et al. [53]. There may be some question as to why nutrients added to Alcova by Pathfinder are not already reflected by the MEI, by way of TDS. The answer is that any contribution to TDS by nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient concentrations, measured in Ag/L, are entirely masked by the much larger magnitude of the major ion concentrations, measured in mg/L. Thus, the respective MEI's would not necessarily account for

The final question is more difficult: Is the greater than expected fish yield in Alcova due to a nutrient subsidy from Pathfinder, or is it merely caused by higher stocking rates in Alcova? Alcova Reservoir is primarily a stocked trout fishery, but it does not seem likely that stocking alone could account for a fish biomass per unit surface area that rivals that of Pathfinder, which hosts resident as well as stocked populations [7]. A good food source, with consequent high growth rates, would also seem to be necessary to account for the increased fish biomass.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Annual Summary with Comparative Data, Casper, Wyoming," National Climatic Center, Asheville, N.C., 4 p., 1979.

111 LaBounty, J. F., J. J. Sartoris, and R. A. Roline, "Limnological Reconnaissance of Seminoe Reservoir, Wyoming," GR-2-77, Bur. Reclam., Denver, Colo. 48 p., December 1976.

1111 U.S. Public Health Service, "North Platte River Basin Water Pollution Investigation," Missouri Drainage Basin Office, Kansas City, Mo., 182 p., January 1951.

121 LaBounty, J. F., J. J. Sartoris, and R. A. Roline, "Limnology of the Upper North Platte River System of Wyoming: 1 977 Report of Findings," GR-79-1, Bur. Reclam., Denver, Colo., 64 p., July 1 978.

1121 Seavy, L. M., and F. K. Illk, "Sedimentation Surveys of Pathfinder and Seminoe Reservoirs, North Platte River, Wyoming," Bur. Reclam., Hydrology Branch, Sedimentation Section Report, Denver, Colo., 58 p., May 1953.

131 LaBounty, J. F., J. J. Sartoris, and R. A. Roline, "Limnology Reconnaissance of Alcova Reservoir, Wyoming," Memorandum

1131 Bureau of Reclamation, "Observation of Sedimentation in Pathfinder Reservoir, Wyoming," Hydrology Branch, Sedimentation Section, Denver, Colo., 26 p., May

from Chief, Applied Sciences Branch, to Chief, Division of General Research, Applied Sciences Referral No. 77-2-11, Bur. Reclam., Denver, Colo., 18 p., December 23, 1977.

1959. 1141 Environmental Protection Agency, "Seminoe Reservoir, Carbon County, Wyoming," National Eutrophication Survey, Corvallis

141 Sartoris, J. J., S. G. Campbell, and J. R. Boehmke, "Limnological Reconnaissance of Seminoe Reservoir, Wyoming," Memor-

Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oreg., 55 p., August 1 977.

andum from Head, Environmental Sciences Section, to Chief, Applied Sciences Branch, Applied Sciences Referral No. 79-2-12, Bur. Reclam., Denver, Colo., 18 p., June 22, 1979.

1151 Rinehart, F. D., and R. D. Kerr, "Water Quality Model for the Upper North Platte River," Water Resources Series No. 72, Water Resour. Res. Inst., Univ. Wyo., Laramie, 62 p., March 1 978.

151 McKnight, R., "Fishermen Call It the 'Miraacle Mile'," Wyoming Wildlife, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 30-33, May 1977.

1161 U.S. Geological Survey, "Water Resources Data for Wyoming, Vol. 1, Missouri River Basin," USGS Water-Data Reports, Water Years 1 961 through 1979.

161 Saile, B., "Even 'Miracle Mile' Can Have an Off Day," The Denver Post, Denver, Colo., November 1, 1979.

1171 U.S. Geological Survey, National Handbook of Recommended Methods for WaterData Acquisition, U.S. Geol. Surv. Office of Water Data Coordination, Reston, Va.,

171 McKnight, R., "The Middle Section of the North Platte," Wyoming Wildlife, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 16-20, March 1 978.

1977.

[81 Bureau of Reclamation, "The North Platte

1181 Bureau of Reclamation, Earth Manual, 2d ed. Bur. Reclam., Denver, Colo., 810 p., 1974.

River Basin," GPO, Washington, D.C.,

6 p., 1973. 19 ] Clark, R. T., "Water Uses in the North Platte

1191 Parsons, T. R., and J. D. H. Strickland, "Discussion of Spectrophotometric Deter-

River Basin of Wyoming," Research Journal 21, Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ. Wyo., Laramie, 62 p., January 1 967.

mination of Marine Plant Pigments, with Revised Equations for Ascertaining Chlorophylls and Carotenoids," J. Marine Res. Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 1 55-163, 1963.

1101 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Local Climatological Data,

"Periphytic Community Response to Chronic Nutrient Enrichment by a Reservoir Discharge," Ecology, Vol. 61, No. 2, pp. 387-399, April 1980.

[30] Marcus, M.D.,

[20] Cole, G. A., Textbook of Limnology, The C. V. Mosby Co., St. Louis, Mo., 283 p., 1975.

[21] Hem, J. D., Study and Interpretation of

[31] Knight, D. H., and A. T. Harrison, "The Movement of Snow-Water through Small Plant-Soil Systems in the Medicine Bow Mountains, Wyoming," Water Resources Series No. 62, Water Resour. Res. Inst., Univ. Wyo., Laramie, 65 p., April 1976.

the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water, 2d ed., USGS Water-Supply Paper 1 473, GPO, Washington, D.C., 363 p., 1970. [22]

Shukla, U. C., S. B. Mittal, and R. K. Gupta, "Zinc Adsorption in Some Soils as Affected by Exchangeable Cations," Soil Science, Vol. 129, No. 6, pp. 366-370, June 1 980.

[32] Lewis, W. M., and M. C. Grant, "Relationships between Stream Discharge and Yield of Dissolved Substances from a Colorado Mountain Watershed," Soil Science, Vol. 1 28, No. 6, pp. 353-363, December

[23] Harrison, R. M., and D. P. H., Laxen, "Physicochemical Speciation of Lead in Drinking Water," Nature, Vol. 286, No. 5775, pp. 791-793, August 21,

1979.

[33] Bond, H. W., "Nutrient Concentration Patterns in a Stream Draining a Montane Ecosystem in Utah," Ecology, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 1184-1196, December 1979.

1980. [241 Environmental Protection Agency, Quality Criteria for Water, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Wash., D.C., 256 p., July 1 976.

[34] Meyer, J. L., and G. E. Likens, "Transport and Transformation of Phosphorus in a Forest Stream Ecosystem," Ecology, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 1 255-1269, December 1979.

[251 Hutchinson, G. E., A Treatise on Limnology, Vol. 1, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1 015 p., 1957. [26]

Golterman, H. L., Physiological Limnology, Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co., New York, N.Y., 489 p., 1975.

[27]

Benndorf, J., "A Contribution to the Phosphorus Loading Concept," Int. Revue ges. Hydrobiol, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 177-188,

[35]

[36] Likens, G. E., "Primary Production of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems", pp. 1 85-202. In H. Lieth, and R. H. Whittaker, Primary Productivity of the Biosphere, SpringerVerlag, New York, N.Y., 339 p., 1975.

1979. [28]

Schepers, J. S., E. J. Vavricka, D. R. Anderson, H. D. Wittmuss, and G. E. Schuman, "Agricultural Runoff during a Drought Period," J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 711-719, April 1980.

Lambou, V. W., L. R. Williams, S. C. Hem, R. W. Thomas, and J. D. Bliss, "Prediction of Phytoplankton Productivity in Lakes,"

[37] Carr, N. G., and B. A. Whitten, The Biology of Blue-Green Algae, Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, 676 p., 1973.

Proc. Conf. Environmental Modeling and Simulation, Apr. 19-22, 1976, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA 600/9-76-016, pp. 696-700, July 1976.

[38] Gentile, J. H., and T. E. Maloney, "Toxicity and Environmental Requirements of a Strain of Aphanizmerton flos-aquae (L.) Raefs," Canadian J. Microbiol. Vol. 1 5, No. 2, pp. 1119-1204, 1969.

[29] Marcus, M. D., J. E. Schillinger, D. G. Stuart, "Limnological Studies in Montana: Hyalite Reservoir and Responses of Lotic Periphyton to Deep-Water Discharges, Grazing and Logging," Publ. No. 92, Water Resour. Res. Center, Montana State Univ., Bozeman, 1 56 p., August 1978.

[39] Wetzel, R. G., Limnology, W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, Pa., 743 p., 1975.

[40] Porter, K. G., "Enhancement of Algal Growth and Productivity of Grazing Zooplankton," Science, Vol. 192, pp. 1332-1333, June 1976.

[47] Neel, J. K., "Impact of Reservoirs," pp. 575-593, In D. G. Frey, Limnology in North America, Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison, 734 p., 1966.

Prizio, J. V., "Results of Laboratory Testing on Soil Samples from Alcova, Pathfinder, Kortes, and Seminoe Reservoirs — North Platte River Project," Memorandum from Chief, Geotechnical Branch, to Chief, Applied Sciences Branch, Geotechnical Branch Ref. No. 78-42-3, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo., 17 p., January 11, 1978.

[48] Ward, J. V., "Comparative Limnology of Differentially Regulated Sections of a Colorado Mountain River," Arch. Hydrobiol, Vol. 78, No. 3, pp. 319-342, September 1 976.

[41]

[49] Martin, D. B., and R. D. Arneson, "Comparative Limnology of a Deep-Discharge Reservoir and a Surface-Discharge Lake on the Madison River, Montana," Freshwater Biol. Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 33-42, February 1978.

[42] Buckman, H. 0., and N. C. Brady, The Nature and Properties of Soils, 7th ed., The Macmillan Co./Collier-Macmillan, Ltd., London, England, 653 p., 1969.

[50]

[43] Brinkhurst, R. 0., The Benthos of Lakes, St. Martin's Press, New York, N.Y., 190 p., 1974. [44] Taylor, W. D., V. W. Lambou, L. R. Williams, and S. C. Hem, "Trophic State of Lakes and Reservoirs," Tech. Report E-80-3, Office, Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., 26 p., April 1980.

Hannan, H. H., and L. Broz, "The Influence of a Deep-Storage and an Underground Reservoir on the Physiochemical Limnology of a Permanent Central Texas River," Hydrobiologia, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 43-63, 1976.

[51] Edwards, R. J., "The Effect of Hypolimnion Reservoir Releases on Fish Distribution and Species Diversity," Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., Vol. 107, No. 1, pp. 71-77, 1978. [52] Ryder, R. A., "A Method for Estimating the Potential Fish Production of NorthTemperate Lakes," Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., Vol. 94, pp. 214-218, 1965.

[45] Wunderlich, W. 0., "The Dynamics of Density-Stratified Reservoirs," pp. 219231, In G. E. Hall, Reservoir Fisheries and Limnology, Special Publ. No. 8, Am. Fish. Soc., Washington, D.C., 511 p., 1971.

[53] Ryder, R. A., S. R. Kerr, K. H. Loftus, and H. A. Regier, "The Morphoedaphic Index, A Fish Yield Estimator—Review and Evaluation," J. Fish. Res. Board, Canada Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 663-688, 1974.

[46] Hannan, H. H., I. R. Fuchs, and D. C. Whitenburg, "Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Temperature, Alkalinity, Dissolved Oxygen and Conductivity in an Oligo-Mesotrophic, Deep-Storage Reservoir in Central Texas," Hydrobiologia, Vol. 66, No. 3, pp. 209-221, 1979.

APPENDIX A TEMPERATURE PROFILES

•

o. —

-13.

-26.

-39.

- 52.

CC -U. ,c(

L.1-1

0._ CL

-IS. _

a) czi

- 62

-13.

-26

- 59.

-0

:0. MAY

i5.

20. 0.

1 0.

JUNE

1 5,

I I

90. 0.

Temperature ( ° C) 5.

1 0,

JULY

I 5,

20, 0.

MONTH

1 10,

AUG

STATION S- I. SEMINOE RESERVOIR

1 15.

1 20. 0.

SEPT.

1 5.

I 20 0.

1 5.

20.

OCT.

—1 3.

9— —26.

cr.

—319

0. —

—13.

(

op a ct) >_

st.

—1 3.

—39.

—52.

—13.

—39.

115.

MAY

20. 0.

10.

JUNE

15.

Temperature ( ° C) I !I

20.

IS.

JULY

20.0.

MONTH

1 10.

115.

20,0.

AUG

STATION S-2. NORTH PLATTE ARM OF SEMINOE RESERVOIR

SEPT.

20. 0.

110.

OCT.

1 15.

20.

- 1 3.

▪ -26.

-39.

- 52. -

o. - 1 3.

IS.

cc -se.

OD<Z 1.2.1

›-

-35.

- 53. -

o. _

-26.

- 39.

1 5.

1.0.

MAY

115.

20 0.

I 5.

I 10.

JUNE

I 15.

t t

30. 0.

I 5.

I 1 0.

JULY

Temperature ( ° C) I I I I 15.

20. 0.

MONTH

STATION 5-3. MEDICINE BOW ARM OF

:0.

:5.

AUG.

SEMINOE

20. 0.

15.

SEPT. RESERVOIR

i 20. 0.

110.

OCT.

15 .

20.

- 1 3.

P.- -26.

- 39.

-52. -

o. -

(

- 1 3.

CO < "LLI

-u

-C

- 1 3.

cow

- U.

-52.

o. _

- 39.

-52.

to. MAY

15. '

20. 0.

1 0.

1 5.

JUNE

I I

10. 0.

JULY

Temperature ( ° C) I i I I S.

20. 0.

MONTH

1 5.

AUG

STATION K - I. KORTES RESERVOIR

1 I 20. 0.

SEPT.

20 0.

1 10.

OCT

115.

1 20.

0. NOTE ot 13.. duo to

Proftlo booed on USGS dote C121

- 39.

*SEE NOTE Co

Cra < Lei 0. -

P-

_c a)

-t6 - 39. - 52.

-52.

15.

MAY

200.

10.

JUNE

15.

20.0.

I 5.

Temperature ( ° C) 10.

IS.

JULY STATION

20.0.

MONTH P- I.

10 1

AUG.

PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

115.

20.0.

10.

SEPT.

15.

20. 0.

110.

OCT.

1 15.

20.

CO<

4:a >_ 1.1.1

_c O.

-13. r-

- t•

-52

o - 1 3.

r- -26.

cr.

- 39.

- 52. 0

lo. ' MAY

15.

___1

20. 0.

■

1 0.

1 5.

20. 0.

JUNE

1 0.

Temperature ( ° C) I I I i

JULY

STATION

P-2.

IS.

20. 0.

MONTH

11 0.

15.

AUG.

SWEETWATER ARM OF PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

20. 0.

15.

SEPT.

20. 0.

1 0. OCT

20.

▪

o. -13.

NOTE

Station due tonot hash•urvewod winds. In

P.- -26. at

Oot.1479

- 39.

- 52. 0.

- 1 3.

" - is.

- 52.

-13.

P.- -26.

- 39.

32.

110.

MAY

115.

1 1 20. 0.

10.

JUNE

15.

1 1 20. 0.

Temperature ( ° C) 10.

JULY

15.

20. 0.

MONTH

10.

115.

I. 1 20. 0.

AUG.

STATION P-3, NORTH PLATTE ARM OF PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

SEPT.

15.

I I 200.

10.

OCT.

15.

20.

- 39.

- 32.

o. - 1 3.

-Gt.

0. - 0_ a)

-39.

- 52.

r- -26

- 39.

- 52.

1 0. MAY

15. 1

20. 0.

I 10. JUNE

IS.

i 1

20. 0.

1 0.

Temperature I I i

JULY

1 5.

20. 0.

MONTH

( ° C) I

;O.

AUG

STATION A- I, ALCOVA RESERVOIR

IS.

___J I

20. 0.

SEPT.

1 5.

20. 0.

110.

OCT

11 5.

20.

-13. r- -26. at -39. -52. 0.

-13.

-39. -52. 0.

-13. -26. -39. -32.

10. MAY

15.

20.0.

10. JUNE

15.

)

20.0.

Temperature 5.

10. JULY

15.

•

20.0.

MONTH

( ° C) 5.

10. AUG.

15.

20.0.

STATION A- 2. FREACINT CANYON SECTION OF ALCOVA RESERVOIR

10.

SEPT.

15.

200.

10. OCT.

1 L5.

1 20.

APPENDIX B DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILES

- 1 3.

-39.

- 51. 0.

•

24.

crC

-St. -

-1iJ

0.-

(13

-1 5 S p-- I.

- 39

- 52. 0.

- 13.

cn r- -26. Of

- 39.

- 32

0.2.15

MAY

71 5

1 0. 0.

2.5

7.5

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 1 1 - '1

1 1 10. 0

2.5

JULY

7.5

10. 0.

MONTH

2.5

16 .

AUG

STATION S- I. SEMINOE RESERVOIR

7.5 1

1 0.

1 0

2.5

SEPT

7.5

1 1 0. 0.

215

5. OCT.

7.5

1 0.

- 1 3.

^-ts. - 35.

-52 0

-13.

P.- -26. a,

- 39.

- 32.

-1

MAY

75 1

1 0. 0

2.5

JUNE

7.5

I ro.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) O.

2.5

JULY

7.6

10 0

MONTH

2.5

7.5

I I

10. 0.

AUG.

STATION S-2. NORTH PLATTE ARM OF SEMINOE RESERVOIR

2.5

SEPT.

7.2

10. 0

2 .6

6. OCT.

- 52.

- 39.

•=er Co,„) L.L.1 >-

-0t . 0.

-C - 4..b

1=1 -13.

- 31I.

-St. -

1.- -25.

- 39.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) -52.

2.5

MAv

1 0 0.

2.5

JUNE

2.5

10.0.

2.5

7.5

1 0. 0.

JULY

2.5

75 1

1 I 10. 0

AUG.

MONTH STATION S-3. MEDICINE BOW ARM OF SEMINOE RESERVOIR

2.5

G. SEPT.

7.5

1 0. 0

2.5

OCT

7.6

o. - 1 5.

- 52. 0.

(D'

4 1

Lu >-

cm_

°-

13)

- 1 3. _

-52. 0. _

cr,

P.- -26. -39.

Dissolved Oxygen t (mg/L) - 52.1

2 .0

a. MAY

7 5

1 lo. 0.

2.5

JUNE

7.5

10. 0

2.5

JULY

7.5

1 0. 0

MONTH

2.5

AUG

STATION K- I. KORTES RESERVOIR

7.15

1 I 1 0. 0.

2.5

SEPT.

7.6

10. 0

2 .5

J5.

7.15

1 0.

NOTE

Profile truneated et high wind.

N. due to

PROFILO BASED ON (SOS DOTS (163

- 52. 0.

CD < ›-

*SEE NOTE

0. —

_c 0-

L=1

■

-St.

o. - 13 a a

-26

- 39

S. MAY

it. O.

S. JUNE

I I IL O.

3.1

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) I

S. JULY STATION

I 12. 0.

6. AUG.

MONTH P- I. PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

i I 12. 0.

S. -

Skin .

Ht.

6. OCT.

6..

Ii.

-13.

P.- -26. cr.

-39.

-52.

CD <

o. _

P.. -28.

- 39.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) - 32.

I 5

MAY

11.5

10. 0

2.5

7.5

10 0

2:5

7.5

JULY

JUNE

STATION

P-2.

0.0.

MONTH

2-1

7.5

10. 0.

AUG

SWEETWATER ARM OF PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

2.5

SEPT.

7.5

1 0. 0

2.5

6 OCT.

71 5

1 10 .

0.r-

NOTE Station not ou eeeee d In 0ot.1979 duo to Ilion nlnds.

o. y_

CC -Sts

CD< LL1

-C

0. -

Ii) ca)

- 39

- 62

0 _ -13

-26

-39

7.5

MAY

1 0. 0.

2.5

5. JUNE

7.5

10. 0.

Dissolved Oxygen (mq/L) 1 2.5

1 6. JULY

1_ 7.5

10. 0.

MONTH

2.5

•;.5

1 0. 0.

AUG

STATION P-3, NORTH PLATTE ARM OF PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

2.5

5. SEPT

7.6

I I

10. 0.

2.5

6. OCT

7.5

10.

o. -13.

NOTE No

1976 dote on th

000000 otr.

-26.

- 39.

- 52. 0. S.

1 0.

• -26.

cr,

-39.

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) - 32

el.

MAY

■

ica

JUNE

I I

;

+. JULY

MONTH

AUG.

STATION A- I. ALCOVA RESERVOIR

4 SEPT.

J. OCT.

It.

0. -13.

- 52. -

0. -

P.-- HI. S

CC CO ‹C C.0 1-1-1 ›-

."' .-C 4.-i

0. -

a) in

r"- an

•

- 39.

- 52. o. _

• -25. a, - 39, -

-52

MAY

I I

it. 0.

5. 1

111

JUNE

9. 1

i i

IL 0.

3. k

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) I , O.' 41. 12.O. . i JULY

MONTH

AUG.

.4. 0.1

STATION A- 2. FREMONT CANYON SECTION OF ALCOVA RESERVOIR

IL. 0

SEPT.

5. OCT.

i lt.

APPENDIX C pH PROFILES

101

•

- 52. —

0. —

•

cc -et.

0< 1 -LI

O. =75

a_ a)

-ts.

-52 0.

- 39.

52.

b. MAY

11 1 10. 6.

1 T.

pH 8. JUNE

1 1 0.6

1 7.

e. JULY

MONTH

8. AUG .

STATION S- I, SEMINOE RESERVOIR

10.

8. SEPT.

10. 6.

9. OCT

1 9.

to.

■c•

-39.

-52. o. -

4=• "-' >-

_c o. (1) GI - 1 3. -

- 39.

- 52. o._

, -26

- 39.

- 32

1 7.

IA Y.

91.

1 0 6.

JUNE

---I

pH I

JULY

1 0. 6.

MONTH

1 '7

I 1 o. 6.

AUG

STATION S-2. NORTH PLATTE ARM OF SEMINOE RESERVOIR

1 8.

SEPT

1 0. 6.

1 7 .

OCT

1 0.

-39.

- 52.

< LLI ›-

1 0.

-52.

- 13.

w. -26.

- 39. -

pH - 52.

9. 1

1 0. 6.

1 10. 6.

1 7.

MAY

1 9.

JULY

STATION

1 10. 6.

MONTH

71 .

1 9 .

10. 6.

AUG

S-3. MEDICINE BOW ARM OF SEMINOE RESERVOIR

8. SEPT.

10. 5.

OCT.

t o.

-13.

-39.

-52. O. -

-13.

o•

Es.

_s CC -52. 0

>-13.

-St. -

-13.

-26

-39

-52.

7 1

MAY

10. 6.

e. JUNE

10. 6.

pH 7.

e. JULY

10. 6.

MONTH

STATION X- I.

KORTES

18. AUG

RESERVOIR

1 0. 6.

8. SEPT

10. 6.

1 7 .

1 8. OCT

1 . 10

-13.

t47,

NOTE lot 13 0 duo to

Profflo trunootod

high wand.

-39.

o.— ij

*SEE NOTE

•--J

-St. o

- 39

- 1St

-13

-26.

-39.

pH 9.

1 0. 6.

1 e. JUNE

I 9.

1 0.5.

19 . 7.

JULY

STATION P -

1 0 6.

MONTH

71 .

AUG

PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

I 10. 6.

SEPT.

10. 6.

1. 7

OCT.

lo.

-13.

P.- -26.

- 39.

-62.

(

- 1 3.

0. =

r. -26 0 - 39.

- 52.

1 8.

MAY

91.

m. I

pH I 6.

I 7.

I 6.

I 10. 6.

9. JULY

JUNE -

io.

MONTH

' if,.

AUG.

STATION P 2. SWEETWATER ARM OF PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

51 .

SEPT.

1 0.

41. OCT.

NOTE StetIon not surveyed In Ont.I479 doe to hash winds.

1 c

.1 LJ

1 o.

pH !

;. MAY

1 0. 6.

I 8.

_1 L

1 0. 6.

JULY

JUNE STATION

P-3.

.._&

1 0. 6.

MONTH

1 0. 6.

AUG.

NORTH PLATTE ARM OF PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

SEPT.

1 0 6.

OCT.

1 0..

-13.

NOTE 40

-26.

1976 dat• en th

- 39.

- 32. o. -

-13.

14-

-211

- 39.

-52.

-13. a,

-26

-39.

- 52

8. MAY

9. 1

io. 6.

I 7.

I 3. JUNE

I 9.

I 1 0.6.

I 7.

I 8.

I 9.

JULY

STATION A-

pH I

1 0.6.

MONTH

8. AUG

ALCOVA RESERVOIR

1 I 1 0. 6.

I 7.

I 6. SEPT

I 9.

I io. 6.

I 7.

I 8. OCT

1 1 0.

- 13. NOTE Profile trunoetod doe to PH Probe eelfunetton

•••••■

*SEE NOTE

(

- 39.

- ST.

-13.

P.- -26. at

pH -sz.

MAY

I V.

io. 6.

I 8. JUNE

I I I . 6-

JULY

10. 6.

MONTH

S. AUG.

STATION A- 2, FROKINT CANYON SECTION Of ALCOVA RESERVOIR

19.

7. SEPT.

KT.

61 OCT.

10.

APPENDIX D CONDUCTIVITY PROFILES

113

- 313.

CC _st <C • I-1-1

›-

- U.

-3

Conductivity 52

1 75

350

MAY

525.

600 0.

1 75

350 JUNE

525

6000.

175

350 JULY

1 525

1000.

(pS/cm) 1 1 75

350 AUG.

MONTH

STATION S- I. SEMINOE RESERVOIR

525 1

1 600 0.

1 75

350 SEPT.

525

1$01:1

[ 0.

1 2/5

1 3 50

OCT

525

600

39.

62. 0. —

1 3.

P- - 1111.

-U. Li.J

-C CL C3

(

39.

-39.

1 1 75

1 35 0

MAY

52 5

1 600 0

1 75

1 3 50

1 526

1 600 0

i 1 75

JUNE

Conductivity (AS/cm)

1 3 50

525

6000.

I 75

JULY

MONTH_ STATION

350

52 15

1 I 600 0.

AUG

S-2. NORTH PLATTE ARM OF SEMINOE RESERVOIR

1 75

350 SEPT

525

GOO 0.

1 !75

1 35.0

OCT.

1 52 5

at%

o. - 1 3.

I.- -26. a,

- 39.

- $2.

- 1 3.

- 52. —

700

875

- 39

1 75

360

MAY

525

700 0

1 75

350

525

Conductivity (AS/cm)

700 0.

1 75

JUNE

350

525

700 0

1 75

JULY

MONTH STATION

S-3.

MEDICINE BOW ARM OF

350

1 525

700

AUG

SEMINOE

I TS

350

SEPT

RESERVOIR

523

700 0-

1 360 525 700

OCT.

- 1 3.

- 39.

- 52. -

- 152.

0. _

- 39.

-32.

1 75

360 MAY

1 62 5

I I

600 0.

1 75

I__ I ____J I

350

JUNE

526

6000.

1 75

Conductivity (AS/cm) I I I I 1

350

JULY

525

8000.

MONTH

1 75

350 AUG

STATION K- I. KORTES RESERVOIR

15 25

600 0.

I75

350 SEPT.

L___J

525

.000.

1 76

350 OCT.

1 626

600

0. - 13.

NOTE

Profile tronoeted et 13 a. due to hudi •Indo

- 39

o. — -13.

*SEE 103TE

›-

cow

- 13

- 39 1

- 62 0 -13. ori o- -26 -39

3150 MAY

521 5

601 0 O.

175

350 JUNE

I 525

1 O. 6150

I 175

Conductivity (MS/cm) i I 1 1 I

I 350

JULY

525

6000.

175

350 AUG.

MONTH

STATION P- I. PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

525

600 0.

175

350 SEPT.

525

1 S000.

17 5

350 OCT

52 5

600

- 1 3.

0- -26.

- 39.

-62.

- 1 13.

-13.

cr. - U.

- It.

-13

r- -26

-39

52.

I TS

350 1

MAY

52 1 5

1 1 600 0.

1 75

350

525

I I

6.000.

1 75

Conductivity (,AS/cm) 1 i I

350

JULY

JUNE

STATION

P-2.

625

600 0.

MONTH

1 75

350

525

I 600 0.

AUG

SWEETWATER ARM OF PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

1 75

350

SEPT

525

900 0.

1 75

3 50

OCT.

525

600

NOTE Station not au..... d in due to high ittnda.

Oot.1979

-39.

o. —

-13. at

-52.

o. -13.

1.-

-26.

-39.

-32.

1 75

350

MAY

525

Conductivity (AS/cm) I

600 0.

1 75

350

525

6000.

1 75

JUNE

350

JULY STATION

P-3.

525

6000.

MONTH

1 75

350

525

600 0.

AUG.

NORTH PLATTE ARM OF PATHFINDER RESERVOIR

1 75

360 SEPT.

526

I I

600 0,

1 75

350 OCT.

525

600

▪

0. NOTE

- 13.

No. 1976 data en 11, ▪ -26.

o. —

- 1 3.

r,'-- E..

'-'-'

cr, - 39.

-52.

- 13.

P.- -26.

- 39.

32.

1 175

1 35 0 525

MAY

ConductivitY (AS/cm) I

6000, 175 350

JUNE

525 00 0.

175

360 525

JULY

600 0.

MONTH

1 1 75

360

AUG.

STATION A- I. ALCOVA RESERVOIR

595

600 0.

1 1 1 1 15 350 525

SEPT.

000 0.

1 I 1 175 350 525 600 OCT.

▪

- 13.

- 313.

- Sr. 0.

▪ - as.

- U. 1

- St.

- 13.

I- -26.

- 39.

1 75

10 35

MAY

625

600 O.

I 75

350 JUNE

525

6000.

1 75

Conductivity (A/S/cm) 1

350 JULY

525

1 6000.

MONTH

1 75

350

52 15

1 i00 0.

AUG

STATION A- 2. FREMONT CANYON SECTION OF ALCOVA RESERVOIR

17 5

350 SEPT.

525

SOO 0

1 1 75 350

OCT.

1 625 600

APPENDIX E CHLOROPHYLL a

125

Table E-1.- Chlorophyll a - 1977 Depth (m) Reservoir

Station'

Date

1'.'fl

0.1

3.0

5.0

9.0

15.0

Seminoe

1 2 3 1 2 3

June Sept.

23 23 23 1 1 1

0.90 2.66 2.08 0.71 4.55 9.66

1.12 2.09 1.46 0.57 3.72 9.00

(mg/m ) 1.07 1.40 0.44 2.47 0.78 2.45 1.07 0.64 3.71 2.58 8.46 6.38

0.55 0.33 0.69 0.49 2.03 2.93

0.48 0.29 0.49 0.48 2.08 0.91

Kortes

1 1 2

June Aug.

9 31 31

0.58 1.30 1.07

0.51 1.14

0.95 1.61

3.21 0.89

0.73 0.63

0.58 0.94

Pathfinder

1 2 3 1 2 3

June

8 8 8 30 30 30

0.66 0.44 2.31 6.68 55.10 1 04.08

0.29 0.66 2.09 5.79 46.83 1 08.60

0.87 1.44 6.11 5.49 62.32 1 05.15

1.54 2.65 3.71 4.60 60.72 1 03.18

1.23 1.67 2.16 4.33 42.57 17.93

0.29 1.60 2.23 2.68 12.39 3.77

1 2 1 2

June

6 6 29 29

0.41 1.87 6.36 0.91

0.44 1.64 2.92 1.06

0.95 1.56 3.40 0.91

1.02 1.01 2.48 0.91

1.44 0.79 2.70 1.23

0.37 1.02 6.36 1.07

Alcove

Aug.

See figure 7 for location of sampling station.

127

Table E- 2. -Chlorophyll a - 1978

Kortes

Pathfinder

Alcova

1 2

May June July Aug. Sept.

June June July Aug. Sept. June Aug.

June July Aug. Sept.

29 15 15 15 20 20 20 31 31 31 28 28 28 1 14 19 30 27 12 12 12 28 28 28 13 13 18 18 29 29 26 26

0.9 3.4 2.0 17.7 3.1 3.9 4.5 17.9 96.7 17.4 5.8 9.4 50.7 0.9 5.5 2.2 1.5 0.9 12.5 6.2 2.9 2.8 26.5 25.8 2.2 8.0 2.0 3.2 7.0 11.9 6.9 9.2

1.4 5.7 6.6 9.5 4.5 5.4 3.7 15.4 35.3 14.8 2.9 9.6 1 7.8 0.8 4.9 2.4 2.6 0.9 1.4 9.6 3.9 4.5 21.2 16.8 4.6 10.3 2.8 2.8 8.3 8.7 7.6 8.4

(.6

1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Depth (m) 5.0 3.0 1

U")

Seminoe

1.0

R-:

Station'

0.1

(0 r•-•

Reservoir

Date

1.1 3.5 3.1 0.6 0.9 2.0 5.3 4.1 6.7 8.9 1 3.9 5.0 2.4 2.2 2.2 7.1 3.5 7.0 7.5

1.1 4.4 2.2 1.4 1.5 3.4 5.1 5.1 5.2 7.1 8.7 5.7 5.0 2.7 1.8 6.5 1.8 5.2 5.4

9.0

15.0

4.5 1.5 12.0 18.8 2.7 3.0 2.3 2.9 2.4 2.5 4.3 3.7 2.4 0.4 3.1 2.3 0.8 0.9 3.0 11.3 13.3 5.0 7.3 3.9 10.9 5.9 2.2 2.1 4.2 1.1 4.8 4.5

4.1 4.4 5.8 2

1.6 2.8 1.6 2.1 3.7 1.3 2.2 2.2 1.8 0.8 5.5 1.7 1.2 1.2 3.0 3.5 4.4 6.4 6.6 5.4 7.8 10.1 2.6 2.6 2.2 4.0 5.1 4.8

See figure 7 for location of sampling station. No sample value obtained.

128

GPO 833-921

Table E-3.- Chlorophyll a - 1979 Reservoir

Station'

Date

May 24 1 2 24 24 3 1 Aug. 30 30 2 30 3 1 Oct. 25 25 2 25 3 May 23 1 Kortes 2 23 1 Aug. 29 29 2 1 Oct. 24 24 2 1 May 22 Pathfinder 2 22 22 3 1 Aug. 28 28 2 28 3 1 Oct. 23 23 2 32 1 May 21 Alcova 21 2 Aug. 27 1 27 2 1 Oct. 22 22 2 See figure 7 for location. 2 Not surveyed in October 1979. Seminoe

0.1

1.0

1.00 5.53 16.98 8.92 31.02 23.10 1.50 2.27 4.82 1.85 1.30 1.75 1.04 1.05 1.17 1.5 3.92 0.79 1.89 41.72 9.56 2.64 8.77 _ 4.84 6.57 5.49 3.90 1.39 2.50

0.87 5.33 27.21 9.86 25.53 23.27 1.00 2.63 3.68 1.86 1.98

Depth (m) 3.0 1 5.0 (mg/m 3 ) 0.88 1.00 3.24 3.46 7.00 3.78 5.08 9.40 12.79 1.47 21.98 29.46 0.79 0.80 2.17 2.26 2.65 2.80 1.54 1.45 2.20 2.66

9.0

15.0

0.98 1.44

0.72 1.52

1.64 0.80 21.90 0.86 1.96 1.44 1.28

0.42 0.63 3.33 0.86 1.36 1.59 1.18

1.52

0.70

1.27

1.29

1.04

0.98 3.63 0.88 2.16 15.94 10.84 2.50 7.66

1.07 1.43 3.63 0.87 2.21 12.17 10.62 2.56 9.18

1.47 2.46 1.28 1.54 9.87 7.37 2.71 7.45

1.88 2.75 3.25 1.47 5.89 3.46 3.07 3.39

2.22 1.77 3.65 1.37 4.31 1.81 2.70 2.91

5.53 8.57 6.61 3.99 1.54 2.52

8.66 11.23 7.46 4.29 1.61 2.38

7.68 8.59 5.78 2.34 1.54 2.51

5.64 4.29 2.03 1.13 1.54 2.50

5.59 2.73 0.83 1.44 1.53 2.28

0.95

129

A free pamphlet is available from the Bureau of Reclamation entitled, "Publications for Sale." It describes some of the technical publications currently available, their cost, and how to order them. The pamphlet can be obtained upon request to the Bureau of Reclamation. Engineering and Research Center, P 0 Box 25007, Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 67, Denver CO 80225, Attn D-922.

Final License Application – Exhibit E Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Appendix N Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. for Black Canyon Hydro, LLC FERC No. 14787 Carbon County, Wyoming

January 2023

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Contents 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Modeling Approach ............................................................................................................................. 4

Development and Calibration of the Seminoe Reservoir Hydrodynamic Model ................................. 6

3.1

Seminoe Reservoir Model Under Existing Conditions .............................................................. 6

3.2

Upper Reservoir Model ............................................................................................................. 9

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 10 4.1

Upper Reservoir ...................................................................................................................... 10

4.2

Seminoe Reservoir .................................................................................................................. 10

4.3

Kortes Reservoir ...................................................................................................................... 19

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 23

Citations............................................................................................................................................. 24

January 2023 | i

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Tables Table 1. Monthly temperature (C) range with and without pumped storage operations (1976 – 1978) .......................................................................................................... 22

Figures Figure 1. Location of the Pumped Storage Project Inlet/Outlet Structure ..................................................... 5 Figure 2. Seminoe Reservoir Data Stations (1978) ...................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Seminoe Reservoir CE-QUAL-W2 Model Grid .............................................................................. 9 Figure 4. Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 42 - Location of the Seminoe Dam and Penstocks)................................................. 13 Figure 5. Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 41 - Location of Inlet/Outlet Structure) ..................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 40 - Upstream of the Inlet/Outlet Structure) ............................................................. 15 Figure 7. Seasonal Averages of Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 42 - Location of Seminoe Dam and Penstocks) ...................... 16 Figure 8. Seasonal Averages of Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 41 - Location of Inlet/Outlet Structure) ..................................... 17 Figure 9. Seasonal Averages of Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 40 - Upstream of the Inlet/Outlet Structure) ............................. 18 Figure 10. Seminoe Dam Penstock Water Temperature (1976-1978) ....................................................... 19 Figure 11. Probably Distribution of Annual Average Flows Recorded at USGS Gage (06630000) North Platte River near Sinclair (1950-2020) ............................................................................ 20 Figure 12. Probability Distribution of Seminoe Reservoir Dam Penstock Water Temperature (Daily Average) ................................................................................................................................... 21

January 2023 | ii

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Acronyms and Abbreviations °C

Degrees Celsius

Black Canyon

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC

DLA

Draft License Application

FERC or Commission

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Project

Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Reclamation

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

RISE

Reclamation Information Sharing Environment

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

CE-QUAL-W2

WDEQ

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

WGFD

Wyoming Game and Fish Department

January 2023 | iii

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Introduction

Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (Black Canyon) submitted a Draft License Application (DLA) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in June 2022 as part of the regulatory process required to obtain an Original License for the proposed Seminoe Pumped Storage Project (Project). The Project proposes to utilize the existing Seminoe Reservoir as the lower reservoir and construct a new upper reservoir to the west of the Bennett Mountains Wilderness Study Area. Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD), and the U.S. Bureaur of Land Management (BLM) each provided comments on the DLA related to potential Project effects on water temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir and in the North Platte River downstream. Subsequently, Black Canyon developed a hydrodynamic model to assess 1) potential temperature stratification changes in Seminoe Reservoir near the proposed location of the inlet/outlet structure (Figure 1), and 2) potential temperature changes in the Seminoe Dam outflow downstream.

Modeling Approach

The modeling approach included: •

The development and calibration of a hydrodynamic model of Seminoe Reservoir without Project operations (Seminoe Reservoir model under existing conditions).

•

The development of another version of the model, using the calibrated Seminoe Reservoir model as a foundation, that included the Project’s inlet/outlet structure (Seminoe Reservoir model with Project operations).

•

Externally linking the Seminoe Reservoir model with Project operations to the hydrodynamic model of the Project’s upper reservoir (developed by Stantec) to evaluate water temperature changes in Seminoe Reservoir associated with Project operations (upper reservoir model).1

The hydrodynamic modeling framework used to model the upper reservoir (developed by Stantec) and Seminoe Reservoir models was the CE-QUAL-W2 (W2) (Version 4.5). The W2 model is a twodimensional, longitudinal/vertical, hydrodynamic and water quality model. The model is best suited for the Project given the relatively long and narrow characteristics of Seminoe Reservoir, which exhibits longitudinal and vertical gradients. The W2 model is the reservoir model of choice throughout the U.S. and other countries and serves as the two-dimensional, longitudinal/vertical hydrodynamic model of choice for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (USACE undated). The W2 model provides information about water flow and velocity, water temperature, and temperature stratification under existing conditions and with proposed pumped storage operations.

Externally linking refers to executing each of the models separately and then transferring flows and corresponding water temperatures between models. For example, the upper reservoir releases water to Seminoe Reservoir during power generation and then water is pumped from Seminoe Reservoir to the upper reservoir to recharge the upper reservoir. January 2023 | 4

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 1. Location of the Pumped Storage Project Inlet/Outlet Structure January 2023 | 5

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Development and Calibration of the Seminoe Reservoir Hydrodynamic Model

3.1

Seminoe Reservoir Model Under Existing Conditions

Seminoe Reservoir water column temperature data were collected from 1976 to 1979 as part of a limnology study of the Upper North Platte Reservoir System performed by the Reclamation. Temperature data from 1978 (included in the Reclamation dataset) was used to calibrate the Seminoe Reservoir model under existing conditions. The 1978 dataset includes five temperature profiles near Seminoe Dam collected between May and September (Station S-1). Additional temperature profiles were collected in the North Platte Arm (Station S-2) and the Medicine Bow Arm (Station S-3) of Seminoe Reservoir. Relevant parameters needed to simulate thermal balance in Seminoe Reservoir were collected during the limnology study (e.g., water column light attenuation). The location of the three data stations is presented in Figure 2. Station S-1 was the only station used to calibrate the Seminoe Reservoir model since Stations S-2 and S-3 are far upstream from Seminoe Dam and close to the river boundaries (North Platte and Medicine Bow) and would likely reflect a combination of incoming river water temperature and reservoir backwater effects (depending on the reservoir elevation). Station S-1 represents water temperatures from Seminoe Reservoir hydrodynamics (i.e., water surface elevation and velocities throughout the water column) and the effects of meteorological parameters (e.g., wind and solar insolation). The grid for the Seminoe Reservoir model was developed from bathymetry collected in 1950 and 1951 as part of sedimentation surveys of Seminoe Reservoir performed by Reclamation. The reservoir bathymetric contours were digitized for use in the Seminoe Reservoir model (Figure 3). To properly simulate the hydrodynamics within Seminoe Reservoir, the number of vertical layers in the Seminoe Reservoir model vary from 31 to 57 layers depending on the location. Higher model grid resolution was designed near Seminoe Dam and the location of the inlet/outlet structure. Key model segments include Segment 42 (location of the Seminoe Dam and penstocks), Segment 41 (location of inlet/outlet structure), Segment 39 (location of the main calibration Station S-1), Segment 17 (location of Station S-2 in the North Platte River), and Segment 58 (location of Station S-3 in the Medicine Bow River) (Figure 3). The following model boundaries and forcing functions were required for the development of the Seminoe Reservoir models: reservoir tributary flows, water temperature associated with such flows, reservoir outflows, and meteorological data. The main rivers flowing to Seminoe Reservoir are the North Platte and Medicine Bow Rivers. The North Platte River flow is measured by a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage near Sinclair (USGS 06630000) and Medicine Bow River flow is measured by a USGS gage near Hanna (USGS 06635000). The two rivers account for approximately 90 percent of the total drainage area entering Seminoe Reservoir. The river flows were minimally scaled up in Seminoe Reservoir model to account for additional drainage areas downstream of the USGS gages. The river flows were used in the Seminoe Reservoir model to specify daily flows entering Seminoe Reservoir at the North Platte and Medicine Bow boundaries. Furthermore, the USGS gage at Big Ditch near Coyote Springs (USGS 06630300) was used to account for other small creeks (Dry Ditch, Cottonwood, Saint Mary’s Ditch) and direct drainage to Seminoe Reservoir. Rivers, creeks, and direct drainage daily water temperatures were generated from monthly water temperature samples collected at the two USGS

January 2023 | 6

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

gages used for the development of model inflows (i.e., USGS gage near Sinclair and USGS gage near Hanna).

January 2023 | 7

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 2. Seminoe Reservoir Data Stations (1978)

January 2023 | 8

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 3. Seminoe Reservoir CE-QUAL-W2 Model Grid Daily records of total reservoir outflow and include flow used for power generation (via the reservoir three penstocks) were downloaded from the Reclamation Information Sharing Environment (RISE) website. When comparing total reservoir outflows to flows used for power generation, the data indicated that all outflows were used for power generation and, therefore, reservoir spillway is not included in the model. The total reservoir outflow was assigned to an outflow structure in the Seminoe Reservoir model representing all three penstocks at the appropriate penstock elevation in the model Segment 42 (location of the Seminoe Dam and penstocks). A review of multiple data sources (airports) was performed to select the appropriate meteorological data (i.e., air temperature, dewpoint temperature, wind speed, wind direction, cloud coverage, solar radiation) to use in the Seminoe Reservoir model. All meteorological parameters except cloud coverage were available from the Rawlins Airport in Rawlins, WY. Cloud coverage data were obtained from the Hunt Field Airport in Lander, WY. Because the mean hydraulic retention time of the Seminoe Reservoir is large (~342 days), hydrodynamic conditions of a given year affect the hydrodynamic conditions of the next year. Therefore, the reservoir conditions in November and December of 1977 influenced the modeled water temperature dynamics of the first few months of 1978. Based on preliminary findings, the modeling period was extended to include 1976 and 1977 in addition to the calibration year of 1978. The model was calibrated against measured elevation throughout 1978 and the temperature vertical profiles measured at station S-1. The Seminoe Reservoir model reproduced temperature data and was deemed suitable for performing model scenarios with Project operations.

3.2

Upper Reservoir Model

The Seminoe Reservoir model was configured to include the inlet/outlet structure to predict water temperature and water temperature stratification effects under pumped storage operations. The inlet/outlet structure is located at an elevation of 6,256 feet (centerline of structure) (Segment 41). Segment 42 includes Seminoe Dam, with penstocks centerline located at an elevation of 6,192 feet. Project generating and pumping times used in the model were estimates based on current proposed Project operations at the time of model development (10 hours for generating and 12.5 hours for pumping operations). A hypothetical maximum operational daily schedule in a low carbon future utilizing the Project’s planned upper reservoir active storage volume results in approximately 10 hours of generation at maximum capacity and approximately 12.5 hours of pumping. This translates into modeled flows of 12,500 cfs during generation (flow from the Project’s upper reservoir into Seminoe Reservoir) and 10,000 cfs during pumping operations (flow from the Seminoe Reservoir to the upper reservoir) , for 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year 2. Due to the short period of time that water remains in the upper reservoir, it is unlikely that meteorological effects (e.g., temperature, dewpoint temperature, wind speed, wind direction, cloud coverage, solar radiation) could change the water temperature in the upper reservoir. Sensitivity model runs were performed with the upper reservoir model developed by Stantec to assess potential temperature changes in inlet to outlet water temperature. The potential temperature effects

This operating scenario excludes any planned or forced outages and represents the practical maximum hourly schedule. January 2023 | 9

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

from pumping water from Seminoe Reservoir (Segment 41) to the upper reservoir were modeled at a flow rate of 10,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) for 12.5 hours; water temperature for the water pumped to the upper reservoir was obtained from the Seminoe Reservoir model (Segment 41). The upper reservoir outlet was modeled to release water at a flow rate of 12,500 cfs for 10 hours. The upper reservoir model was configured to use the same meteorological data used in the Seminoe Reservoir model (1976 to 1978). The results of the upper reservoir model produced a minimal difference in temperature (inlet to outlet), with an average temperature difference of 0.1 degree Celsius (°C). An analysis of the upper reservoir model behavior indicates that the upper reservoir is recharged from the bottom; however, the volume left behind after each pumping/releasing cycle mixes very little with the volume of water recharged. Because of this, the surface layer and a few layers below the surface (out of 57 vertical layers) minimally increase in temperature. It is possible that the upper reservoir model does not properly consider the mixing due to turbulence and, therefore, the outlet temperature could simply be the inlet temperature; as a result, the modeled value of a 0.1 degree Celsius (°C) increase is considered a conservatively high estimate. A hypothetical critical scenario was modeled under summer conditions with no water being released from the upper reservoir for three weeks, representing an opportunity for the water in the upper reservoir to warm before being released to Seminoe Reservoir. This hypothetical scenario may represent a total station outage with a full upper reservoir. This would be a critical and rare scenario as the upper reservoir would typically be drained during a station outage for required tunnel inspections. Results from the critical scenario upper reservoir model were similar to the previous scenario modeled for the upper reservoir, that is, negligible water temperature changes (inlet to outlet). Although the upper reservoir surface layers warmed slightly more during the three weeks of no operations, these higher temperatures never reached the near bottom location of the outlet in Seminoe Reservoir.

Discussion

4.1

Upper Reservoir

As mentioned in Section 3.2, upper reservoir model runs indicated that there would be a negligible increase between the Project inlet and outlet temperature. Therefore, temperature changes in flows into and out of the upper reservoir were not included in the Seminoe Reservoir modeling analysis to assess Seminoe Reservoir temperature changes with and without pumped storage operations.

4.2

Seminoe Reservoir

The Seminoe Reservoir model (using the above operational parameters) was run for all three simulation years (1976 to 1978). As noted above, the negligible temperature changes flows from the upper reservoir were not used in the Seminoe Reservoir model analysis under pumped storage operations. The model-computed temperature from the water withdrawn from Seminoe Reservoir was specified as the temperature of the water released into Seminoe Reservoir via the inlet/outlet structure. The model simulation was performed seven times for Seminoe Reservoir to achieve “steady” conditions under Project operations. This was equivalent to executing the Seminoe Reservoir model for 21 years.

January 2023 | 10

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Results from the Seminoe Reservoir model under pumped storage operations was assessed for two parameters: 1) vertical temperature stratification changes near the inlet/outlet structure, and 2) water temperature changes in the water released by the Seminoe Dam penstocks into Kortes Reservoir. As documented in the literature (Reclamation, 1981) and reproduced by the Seminoe Reservoir model under existing conditions, Seminoe Reservoir reflects a typical dimictic cycle (i.e., summer and winter stratification conditions) separated by isothermal conditions (i.e., overturn) in fall and spring. From September to April the main body of Seminoe Reservoir is naturally well mixed (i.e., not thermally stratified) and from May to August a natural thermal stratification occurs. Under existing conditions, maximum temperature stratification in Seminoe Reservoir occurs during the summer months (June, July, August) (Figures 4-6). Three mechanisms were identified that may change water column temperature stratification under Project operations: 1) Seminoe Reservoir water surface elevation changes due to daily generation and pumping operations, 2) water being withdrawn from Seminoe Reservoir during pumping operations, and 3) water being released to Seminoe Reservoir during power generation. Daily water surface elevation changes due to Project operations could vary from less than 7 inches under high reservoir elevation conditions to approximately 20 inches under extremely low reservoir elevation conditions. Because Seminoe Reservoir’s normal maximum temperature stratification under existing conditions occurs in the summer when the reservoir elevation is typically the highest (as determined during model calibration), any elevation changes due to Project operations do not impact the naturally occurring thermal stratification. In the winter, when reservoir elevations are low, the elevation changes due to Project operations are larger, however, the water column is thermally well mixed (i.e., destratified) and therefore changes from Project operations are negligible. Consequently, elevation changes due to Project operations are not expected to impact naturally occurring thermal stratification or destratification. The second possible mechanism for changing water temperature stratification is that water is withdrawn from Seminoe Reservoir by the inlet/outlet structure during pumping operations. Model sensitivity runs indicate that when water is withdrawn, the withdrawal action pulls Seminoe Reservoir water from model layers (elevations) at and above the location of the inlet/outlet structure. When temperature stratification is naturally present during the summer, withdrawing water from layers at and above the inlet/outlet structure pulls in slightly warmer waters instead of only the deeper, cooler waters near the inlet/outlet structure. When warmer water is then released back from the upper reservoir into the colder water at the inlet/outlet structure elevation in Seminoe Reservoir, it is more buoyant and rises closer to the surface which can change the water column temperature stratification. Although it is difficult to specifically isolate the effects of this process in water column temperature changes, sensitivity runs indicate that such effects are relatively minor in comparison to the effects of water release operations (power generation). The third possible mechanism for changing water temperature stratification is water being released to Seminoe Reservoir by the inlet/outlet structure during power generation. Water release operations produce an exit velocity and corresponding momentum that temporally mix the temperature over a portion of the water column. The Seminoe Reservoir model with Project operations suggests that this is the mechanism for any Seminoe Reservoir destratification. Water released from the upper reservoir to Seminoe Reservoir for 10 hours per day at 12,500 cfs produces a temporal temperature destratification in a portion of the water column immediately in front of the inlet/outlet structure and surrounding areas (Figures 4-6). Figures 7 to 9 show seasonal changes in water temperature

January 2023 | 11

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

stratification patterns under existing conditions and under pumped storage operations (represented by seasonal averages).

January 2023 | 12

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 4. Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 42 - Location of the Seminoe Dam and Penstocks) Figure 4 Note: Thermal stratification in Seminoe Reservoir at the location of the Seminoe Dam and penstocks without pumped storage operations (blue) and with pumped storage operations (green). Panels A and B represent a snapshot of winter thermal stratification conditions (December 24, 1978) during morning (6:00 AM) pumping operations and evening (8:00 PM) generating operations. Similarly, Panels C and D represent a snapshot of summer thermal stratification conditions (July 4, 1978) during morning (6:00 AM) pumping operations and evening (8:00 PM) generating operations. Graphs are representative of only thermal stratification within Segment 42 and are not applicable to Seminoe Reservoir as a whole. Additionally, the graphs only show a snapshot for the aforementioned times and are not representative of any longer-term condition (e.g., daily or monthly stratification patterns).

January 2023 | 13

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 5. Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 41 - Location of Inlet/Outlet Structure) Figure 5 Note: Thermal stratification in Seminoe Reservoir at the location of the inlet/outlet structure without pumped storage operations (blue) and with pumped storage operations (green). Panels A and B represent a snapshot of winter thermal stratification conditions (December 24, 1978) during morning (6:00 AM) pumping operations and evening (8:00 PM) generating operations. Similarly, Panels C and D represent a snapshot of summer thermal stratification conditions (July 4, 1978) during morning (6:00 AM) pumping operations and evening (8:00 PM) generating operations. Graphs are representative of only thermal stratification within Segment 41 and are not applicable to Seminoe Reservoir as a whole. Additionally, the graphs only show a snapshot for the aforementioned times and are not representative of any longer-term condition (e.g., daily or monthly stratification patterns).

January 2023 | 14

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 6. Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 40 - Upstream of the Inlet/Outlet Structure) Figure 6 Note: Thermal stratification in Seminoe Reservoir at a location immediately upstream of the inlet/outlet structure without pumped storage operations (blue) and with pumped storage operations (green). Panels A and B represent a snapshot of winter thermal stratification conditions (December 24, 1978) during morning (6:00 AM) pumping operations and evening (8:00 PM) generating operations. Similarly, Panels C and D represent a snapshot of summer thermal stratification conditions (July 4, 1978) during morning (6:00 AM) pumping operations and evening (8:00 PM) generating operations. Graphs are representative of only thermal stratification within Segment 40 and are not applicable to Seminoe Reservoir as a whole. Additionally, the graphs only show a snapshot for the aforementioned times and are not representative of any longer-term condition (e.g., daily or monthly stratification patterns).

January 2023 | 15

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 7. Seasonal Averages of Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 42 Location of Seminoe Dam and Penstocks) Figure 7 Note: Seasonal average thermal stratification in Seminoe Reservoir at the location of the Seminoe Dam and penstocks without pumped storage operations (blue) and with pumped storage operations (green) in 1978. Panel A (winter) averages months from December to March, Panel C (spring) averages months April and May, Panel B (summer) averages months June to September, and Panel D (fall) averages months October and November. Winter Graphs are representative of only the stratification within Segment 42 and are not applicable to Seminoe Reservoir as a whole.

January 2023 | 16

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 8. Seasonal Averages of Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 41 Location of Inlet/Outlet Structure) Figure 8 Note: Seasonal average thermal stratification in Seminoe Reservoir at the location of the Seminoe Dam and penstocks without pumped storage operations (blue) and with pumped storage operations (green) in 1978. Panel A (winter) averages months from December to March, Panel C (spring) averages months April and May, Panel B (summer) averages months June to September, and Panel D (fall) averages months October and November. Graphs are representative of only the stratification within Segment 41 and are not applicable to Seminoe Reservoir as a whole.

January 2023 | 17

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 9. Seasonal Averages of Water Temperature Stratification With and Without Pumped Storage Operations (Segment 40 Upstream of the Inlet/Outlet Structure) Figure 9 Note: Seasonal average thermal stratification in Seminoe Reservoir at the location of the Seminoe Dam and penstocks without pumped storage operations (blue) and with pumped storage operations (green) in 1978. Panel A (winter) averages months from December to March, Panel C (spring) averages months April and May, Panel B (summer) averages months June to September, and Panel D (fall) averages months October and November. Graphs are representative of only the stratification within Segment 40 and are not applicable to Seminoe Reservoir as a whole.

January 2023 | 18

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

4.3

Kortes Reservoir

Results from the Seminoe Reservoir model were analyzed to assess potential temperature changes in the water released by Seminoe Dam penstocks into Kortes Reservoir. Figure 10 presents a timeseries plot of model-computed, daily averages of water temperature released by Seminoe Dam to Kortes Reservoir for both model scenarios, with and without Project operations. The Seminoe Reservoir model indicates that Project operations would result in a slight increase in the temperature of the water released by Seminoe Dam penstocks into Kortes Reservoir. The mechanism identified for Project operations increasing the penstock water temperature is a redistribution of the already existing water column heat due to the additional mixing during power generation; slightly warmer water is then routed through the penstocks. The greatest temperature increase corresponds to the modeled year 1977. Based on meteorological conditions, the year 1977 represents an unusual year with extreme low-flow conditions. Under existing conditions, 1977 reflects unusually high thermally stratified conditions due to extreme low river flows and, therefore, it is more sensitive to impacts from Project operations. It also reflects the coldest penstock temperature from all three simulation years and therefore, despite the temperature increase due to Project operations, the penstock water temperature is still significantly below the other two simulation years. It is important to note that Project operations do not add a thermal (heat) load to Seminoe Reservoir but rather slightly redistribute the naturally occurring water heat content.

Figure 10. Seminoe Dam Penstock Water Temperature (1976-1978)

Figure 11 presents a probability distribution of annual average river flows measured for the North Platte River near Sinclair (USGS 06630000) for the years 1950 to 2020. This figure indicates that 1977 represents the 4th percentile of the long-term distribution; that is, this river flow condition occurred about 4 percent of the time or 4 times in 100 years. This makes 1977 an extremely unusual year and, therefore, model results for 1977 should be considered as critical conditions.

January 2023 | 19

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 11. Probably Distribution of Annual Average Flows Recorded at USGS Gage (06630000) North Platte River near Sinclair (1950-2020) Figure 11 Note: Probability distribution of annual average flows recorded at North Platte River near Sinclair (1950-2020). The graph represents the probability or percent of the time that a given average annual river flow and flows less than such that value occurred. For example, an average annual river flow of ~ 1,250 cfs or less occurred 50 percent of the time. In 1977, the average annual river flow and lesser flows occurred about 4 percent of the time as indicated by 1977 on the graph.

For about 75 percent of the time, Project operations have no effect on the Seminoe Dam penstock water temperature (i.e., temperature distributions with and without Project operations overlap up to the 75th percentile) (Figure 12). The 90th percentile value for the existing conditions scenario is 15.8°C, the 90th percentile value for the scenario with Project operations is 16.5°C. Therefore, under existing conditions, 90 percent of the time, the penstock water temperature is 15.8°C or less; under Project operations, 90 percent of the time, the penstock water temperature is 16.5°C or less. The maximum temperature under existing conditions is 17.3°C and the maximum temperature with Project operations is 17.6°C (Table 1).

January 2023 | 20

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Figure 12. Probability Distribution of Seminoe Reservoir Dam Penstock Water Temperature (Daily Average) Figure 12 Note: Probability distribution of the daily-average penstock water temperature without pumped storage operations (blue) and with pumped storage operations (green) Panel A combines the results for all three simulations years (1976, 1977, 1978). Panel B combines the results for normal water years (1976 and 1978). The year 1977 represents an extremely infrequent low flow and crucial water year; therefore, 1976 and 1978 more accurately represent potential long-term effects of the Project operations on penstock water temperature.

January 2023 | 21

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Table 1. Monthly temperature (°C) range with and without pumped storage operations (1976 – 1978) 1976

1977

1978

Month

Without Pumped Storage (°C)

With Pumped Storage (°C)

Without Pumped Storage (°C)

With Pumped Storage (°C)

Without Pumped Storage (°C)

With Pumped Storage (°C)

January

0.9-4.9

1.3-4.9

1-2.5

2.2-2.3

0.9-1.2

1-1.2

1-1.4

1.3-1.6

2.5-2.7

2.3-2.5

1.3-1.5

1.3-1.6

March

1.4-2.3

1.6-2.2

2.6-2.9

2.5-2.9

1.6-3.4

1.6-3

April

2.3-4.4

2.9-4.6

2.9-5.7

3.5-5.1

3.1-5

May

4.3-6.8

4.4-7.6

4.4-8.9

6.1-9.1

4.6-8.2

4.8-8.9

June

6.9-12.4

7.8-12.6

9-9.8

9.2-10.5

9-11.8

9.2-12.2

July

12.4-14

12.8-15.2

9.7-10.7

10.4-12.5

11.5-14.5

12-15.7

13.8-16.7

15-17.3

10.7-11.7

12.4-15.1

14.2-17.3

15.7-17.6

September

14.7-17

14.7-17.1

11.9-13.4

12.8-15.1

13.1-17.3

13.3-17.4

October

8.8-14.6

8.9-14.5

8.6-12.3

8.7-12.7

9.7-12.9

9.8-13.2

November

3.9-8.6

4-8.7

3.1-8.5

3.2-8.6

4.1-9.6

4.3-9.6

December

0.8-3.6

2.3-3.8

0.8-2.9

0.7-2.9

2.7-4

2.5-4.1

Feb

August

January 2023 | 22

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Conclusions

From September to April the main body of Seminoe Reservoir is naturally well mixed (i.e., not thermally stratified) and from May to August a natural thermal stratification occurs. Under existing conditions, maximum temperature stratification in Seminoe Reservoir occurs during the summer months (June, July, August). Under pumped storage operations in the winter, during both pumping and generation, modeling results indicate there is minimal difference in the temperature stratification under existing conditions and with Project operations. In the summer, during pumping operations, there are minor differences in the temperature stratification under existing conditions and with Project operations. This indicates that the Project, when pumping, does not impact thermal stratification in Seminoe Reservoir, regardless of the natural stratification occurring throughout the year (Figures 4-6). However, in the summer during power generation, temperature becomes fully mixed (i.e., destratified) for a portion of the water column (Figures 4-6), resulting in increased absolute water temperatures under unusual low-water conditions, and a temporal shift in natural seasonal water temperatures overall. The greatest modelled temperature increase occurred in August of 1977, an extreme low-water year, with an average monthly temperature range of 10.7°C to 11.7°C under existing conditions and 12.4°C to 15.1°C under Project operations. However, 15.1°C is substantially lower than the maximum average temperature during August 1976 (16.7 °C) and 1978 (17.3 °C), more typical water years, under existing conditions (without Project operations). With Project operations, modeling indicates that water released by the Seminoe Dam penstocks into Kortes Reservoir during summer conditions in extreme low-water years (represented by 1977) will still be within the average temperature ranges during typical water years under existing conditions. Depending on the hydrologic conditions of a given year, modelling results indicate that natural seasonal temperature increases are expected to occur approximately 4 weeks earlier in a typical year as a result of Project operations. Under existing conditions, peak water temperatures generally occur in September. With Project operations, similar peak water temperatures are observed in August, with slightly reduced temperatures in September. Generally, the shift in temperature starts in late May/early June and extends through late August/early September. Modeling indicates that this period would largely occur after the spring (early April through late-May) spawning season for Rainbow Trout and prior to the initiation of fall spawning periods for Brown Trout (mid-October through December) and fall run Rainbow Trout (Scott and Crossman, 1973; Roberge et al, 2002); each of these are important species present in Seminoe Reservoir and the Miracle Mile. Based on these model results, the effects to the aquatic biota within the Kortes Reservoir and subsequently the downstream “Miracle Mile” does not appear likely to be of a magnitude or duration to cause a measurable change in the aquatic system of the North Platte River downstream of the outlet of the Seminoe Reservoir.

January 2023 | 23

Modeling Assessment of Water Temperatures in Seminoe Reservoir Under Pumped Storage Operations Seminoe Pumped Storage Project

Citations

Reclamation. 1981. Limnology of the Upper North Platte Reservoir System, Wyoming. Engineering and Research Center. Roberge, M., J.M.B. Hume, C.K. Minns, and T. Slaney. 2002. Life history characteristics of freshwater fishes occurring in British Columbia and the Yukon, with major emphasis on stream habitat characteristics. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Marina Environmental and Habitat Science Division. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2611. Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Bulletin 173. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Undated. CE-QUAL-W2. Online [URL]: https://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article-View/Article/554171/cequalw2/#:~:text=CE%E2%80%90QUAL%E2%80%90W2%20%28W2%29%20is%20a%20two%E2% 80%90dimensional%2C%20longitudinal%2Fvertical%2C%20hydrodynamic%20and,waterbodies %20exhibiting%20longitudinal%20and%20vertical%20water%20quality%20gradients. Accessed: November 11, 2022.

January 2023 | 24