Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, DC November 26, 2012

Transcription

1 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Washington, DC November 26, 2012 Project No Wisconsin Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Project No Wisconsin Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Subject: Scoping Document 1 for Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project, P-1940 and Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project, P-1966 To the Party Addressed: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is currently reviewing the Pre-Application Documents submitted by Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (Wisconsin Public Service) for relicensing the Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project No (Tomahawk Project) and Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project No (Grandfather Falls Project). Both projects are located on the Wisconsin River, at river mile 315 and 302, respectively, in Lincoln County, Wisconsin. Both projects occupy lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with the Tomahawk Project occupying 4.6 acres and the Grandfather Falls Project occupying 3.5 acres. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, Commission staff intends to prepare a singe environmental assessment (EA) that addresses the proposals for both projects and will be used by the Commission to determine whether, and under what conditions, to issue new licenses for the projects. To support and assist our environmental review, we are beginning the public scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed, and that the EA is thorough and balanced. We invite your participation in the scoping process, and are circulating the attached Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to provide you with information on the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects. We are also soliciting your comments and suggestions on our preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EA. We are requesting that you identify any studies that would help provide a framework for collecting pertinent information on the resource areas under consideration necessary for the Commission to prepare the EA for the project.

2 2 We will hold two scoping meetings for the projects to receive input on the scope of the EA. A daytime meeting will be held at 1 p.m. on December 13, 2012, at the Tomahawk City Hall, 23 North 2 nd Street, Tomahawk, Wisconsin, An evening meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. at the same location and date. We invite all interested agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations, and individuals to attend one or both of these meetings. Further information on our environmental site review and scoping meetings is available in the enclosed SD1. SD1 is being distributed to both Wisconsin Public Services distribution list and the Commission s official mailing list (see section 9.0 of the attached SD1) for the projects. If you wish to be added to or removed from the Commission s official mailing list, please send your request by to efiling@ferc.gov or by mail to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A, Washington, DC All written or ed requests must specify your wish to be removed from or added to the mailing list and must clearly identify the following on the first page: Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project No and Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project No , as applicable. Please review the SD1 and, if you wish to provide comments, follow the instructions in section 6.0, Request for Information and Studies. If you have any questions about SD1, the scoping process, or how Commission staff will develop the EA for this project, please contact Lee Emery at (202) or lee.emery@ferc.gov. Additional information about the Commission s licensing process and the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects may be obtained from our website, or Wisconsin Public Services licensing website, Enclosure: Scoping Document 1 cc: Mailing List Public Files

3 SCOPING DOCUMENT 1 TOMAHAWK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO and GRANDFATHER FALLS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO WISCONSIN Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing Washington, DC November 2012

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION SCOPING PURPOSES OF SCOPING COMMENTS, SCOPING MEETINGS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SITE REVIEW PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Existing Project Facilities Existing Project Operations APPLICANT S PROPOSAL Proposed Project Facilities and Operations Proposed Environmental Measures ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY Federal Government Takeover Non-power License Project Decommissioning SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND SITE-SPECIFIC RESOURCE ISSUES CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Resources that could be Cumulatively Affected Geographic Scope RESOURCE ISSUES Tomahawk Project Geologic and Soils Resources Aquatic Resources Terrestrial Resources Threatened and Endangered Species Recreation and Land Use Resources Cultural Resources Grandfather Falls Geologic and Soils Resources Aquatic Resources Terrestrial Resources ii

5 4.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Recreation and Land Use Resources Cultural Resources PROPOSED STUDIES REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND STUDIES EA PREPARATION SCHEDULE PROPOSED EA OUTLINE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS MAILING LIST APPENDIX A STUDY PLAN CRITERIA APPENDIX B PROCESS PLAN AND SCHEDULE LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Grandfather Falls Project No and project facilities.. 3 Figure 2. Location of the Tomahawk Project No and project facilities Figure 3. Profile of the Wisconsin River showing the locations of hydropower projects and their elevations above sea level LIST OF TABLES Table 1. FERC-Licensed Hydropower Projects on the Wisconsin River Table 2. Wisconsin Public Service s Initial Study Proposals for the Tomahawk Project Table 3. Wisconsin Public Service s Initial Study Proposals for the Grandfather Falls Project iii

6 SCOPING DOCUMENT 1 Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project No and Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project No INTRODUCTION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC), under the authority of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 1 may issue licenses for terms ranging from 30 to 50 years for the construction, operation, and maintenance of non-federal hydroelectric projects. On September 28, 2012, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (Wisconsin Public Service) filed Pre-Application Documents (PAD) and Notices of Intent to seek new licenses for the Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project No (Tomahawk Project) 2 and Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project No (Grandfather Falls Project). 3 Both projects are located on the Wisconsin River in Lincoln County, Wisconsin. The Tomahawk Project is located at river mile (RM) 315 and the Grandfather Falls Project at RM 302 (figures 1, 2, and 3). Portions of both projects occupy lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These BLM landholdings include four islands that are submerged by the project reservoirs and one island that is not submerged in the Tomahawk Project reservoir. Wisconsin Public Service states the BLM lands are not identified as federal reservation lands. The Tomahawk Project is operated in a peaking mode that shapes available water to deliver power during peak-load hours with a total plant capability of 2.6 megawatts (MW) from its two turbines. The average annual generation of the Tomahawk Project is 10,008 megawatt-hours (MWh). A detailed description of the project is provided in section U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). 2 The current license for the Tomahawk Project was issued with an effective date of January 1, 1987, for a term of 29 years. However, on June 18, 2009 the Commission amended the license to extend the term of license to April 1, 2018 to coincide with the expiration of the Grandfather Falls Project. 3 The current license for the Grandfather Falls Project was issued with an effective date of April 1, 1988, for a term of 30 years and expires on March 31,

7 The Grandfather Falls Project is operated in a peaking mode that shapes available water to deliver power during peak-load hours with a total plant capability of 17.2 MW from its two turbines. The average annual generation of the Grandfather Falls Project is 74,735 MWh. A detailed description of the project is provided in section 3.0. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 4 the Commission s regulations, and other applicable laws require that we independently evaluate the environmental effects of relicensing the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects as proposed, and also consider reasonable alternatives to the licensee s proposed action for each project. At this time, we intend to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA) for both projects that describes and evaluates the probable effects, including an assessment of the site-specific and cumulative effects, if any, of the proposed action and alternatives. The EA preparation will be supported by a scoping process to ensure identification and analysis of all pertinent issues. 4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C (f) (2006). 2

8 Figure 1. Location of the Grandfather Falls Project No and project facilities (Source: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, 2012). 3

9 Figure 2. Location of the Tomahawk Project No and project facilities (Source: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, 2012). 4

10 2.0 SCOPING This Scoping Document 1 (SD1) is intended to advise all participants as to the proposed scope of the EA and to seek additional information pertinent to this analysis. This document contains: (1) a description of the scoping process and schedule for the development of the EA; (2) a description of the proposed action and alternatives; (3) a preliminary identification of environmental issues and proposed studies; (4) a request for comments and information; (5) a proposed EA outline; and (6) a preliminary list of comprehensive plans that are applicable to the project. 2.1 PURPOSES OF SCOPING Scoping is the process used to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities for enhancement or mitigation associated with a proposed action. According to NEPA, the process should be conducted early in the planning stage of the project. The purposes of the scoping process are as follows: invite participation of federal, state, and local resource agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the public to identify significant environmental and socioeconomic issues related to the proposed project; determine the resource issues, depth of analysis, and significance of issues to be addressed in the EA; identify how the project would or would not contribute to cumulative effects in the project area; identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that should be evaluated in the EA; solicit, from participants, available information on the resources at issue, including existing information and study needs; and determine the resource areas and potential issues that do not require detailed analysis during review of the project. 5

11 2.2 COMMENTS, SCOPING MEETINGS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SITE REVIEW During preparation of the EA, there will be several opportunities for the resource agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and the public to provide input. These opportunities occur: during the public scoping process and study plan meetings, when we solicit oral and written comments regarding the scope of issues and analysis for the EA; in response to the Commission s notice that the project is ready for environmental analysis; and after issuance of the EA when we solicit written comments on the EA. In addition to written comments solicited by this SD1, we will hold two public scoping meetings to discuss both projects. A daytime meeting will focus on receiving input from the resource agencies, NGOs, and Indian tribes, and an evening meeting will focus on receiving input from the public. We invite all interested agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and individuals to attend one or both of the meetings to assist us in identifying the scope of environmental issues that should be analyzed in the EA. The times and locations of the scoping meetings are as follows: Daytime Scoping Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 1:00 p.m. (CST) Location: Tomahawk City Hall, 23 North 2 nd Street, Tomahawk, WI Phone Number: (920) Evening Scoping Meeting Date and Time: Thursday, December 13, 2012, 7:00 p.m. (CST) Location: Tomahawk City Hall, 23 North 2 nd Street, Tomahawk, WI Phone Number: (920) The scoping meetings will be recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and written) will become part of the Commission s public record for the projects. Before each meeting, all individuals who attend, especially those who intend to make statements, will be asked to sign in and clearly identify themselves for the record. Interested parties who choose not to speak or who are unable to attend the scoping meetings may provide written comments and information to the Commission as described 6

12 in section 6.0. These meetings are posted on the Commission s calendar located on the internet at along with other related information. Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues and/or concerns as they pertain to the relicensing of the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects. It is advised that participants review the PADs for each project in preparation for the scoping meetings. Copies of the PADs are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission s website ( using the elibrary link. Enter the docket numbers, P-1940 or P-1966, to access the documents. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at FERCONlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at , or for TTY, (202) Copies of the PADs are also available for inspection and reproduction at the following address: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, 700 North Adams Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin Following the scoping meetings and comment period, all issues raised will be reviewed and decisions made as to the level of analysis needed. If preliminary analysis indicates that any issues presented in this scoping document have little potential for causing significant effects, the issue(s) will be identified and the reasons for not providing a more detailed analysis will be given in the EA. If we receive no substantive comments on SD1, then we will not prepare a Scoping Document 2 (SD2). Otherwise, we will issue SD2 to address any substantive comments received. The SD2 will be issued for informational purposes only; no response will be required. The EA will address recommendations and input received during the scoping process. 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES In accordance with NEPA, the environmental analysis will consider the following alternatives, at a minimum: (1) the no-action alternative, (2) the applicant's proposed action, and (3) alternatives to the proposed action. 3.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the no-action alternative, the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects would continue to operate as required by the current project licenses (i.e., there would be no change to the existing environment). No new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. We use this alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison with other alternatives. 7

13 3.1.1 Existing Project Facilities Tomahawk Project The Tomahawk Project (figure 2) is located in northern Wisconsin in Lincoln County, Wisconsin, on the Wisconsin River, a tributary of the Mississippi River. The dam is at RM on the Wisconsin River and the reservoir extends upstream to the tailwaters of the Kings Dam Project (FERC No. 2239) and the Jersey Project (FERC No. 2476). The Tomahawk dam was constructed in 1897 and enlarged in The Tomahawk Project began operating in In 1945 Wisconsin Public Service filed a license application for the project and was issued a license in The project consists of (1) a 27-foot-high, 3,400-foot-long reinforced concrete and embankment dam that includes a 9-foot-long sluice gate section, 267-foot-long radial gate section, 160-foot-long slab and buttress section, and a 60-foot-long abutment section with a crest elevation of 1,441.0 feet NGVD; (2) a 2,773-acre reservoir (Lake Mohawksin) at a full-pool elevation of 1,435.5 feet NGVD; (3) a 67-foot-long by 41-foot-wide powerhouse containing two 1.3-MW generators providing a combined installed capacity of 2.6 MW; (4) powerhouse intake trash racks with a 2.7-inch clear bar spacing; (5) 2.4- kilovolt (kv) generator leads and an associated 3.75-megavolt-ampere (MVA), 2.4/24.9- kv three phase transformer; (6) an interconnected substation located adjacent to the powerhouse; and (7) appurtenant facilities. Within the project reservoir there are two submerged islands and one exposed island with a total combined area of 4.6 acres. These islands are owned by BLM. The normal tailwater elevation of the project is 1,419.5 feet NGVD. The impoundment provides about 14.5 feet of gross head for power generation purposes. The hydraulic capacity of the project is 2,634 cfs and water flowing through the turbines is discharged via the draft tubes into the tailrace immediately below the dam. Electricity generated from the project is transmitted from the powerhouse via the 2.5-kV generator leads and the 3.75 MVA 2.4/24.9-kV three phase transformer to the adjacent substation and into Wisconsin Public Service s distribution system. Power from the facility is sold to Wisconsin Public Service customers. The Tomahawk Project has a dependable capacity of 2.4 MW and generates an average of 10,008 MWh annually. Wisconsin Public Service does not propose any new or upgraded facilities or structural changes to the project at this time. Grandfather Falls Project The Grandfather Falls Project is located in northern Wisconsin in Lincoln County, Wisconsin, on the Wisconsin River, a tributary of the Mississippi River. The dam is at RM on the Wisconsin River and the reservoir extends upstream to the tailwater of 8

14 the Grandmother Falls Project (FERC No.2180). The Grandfather Falls dam was constructed in 1906 and improved in In 1936, Wisconsin Public Service purchased the development from the Grandfather Falls Company and received its first license for the project in The project (figure 1) consists of (1) a 36-foot-high,710-foot-long reinforced concrete main dam with a crest elevation of 1,402 feet NGVD that includes a masonry non-overflow wall, a concrete spillway section with seven Tainter gates, and a nonoverflow masonry dam and a rockfill embankment with masonry core wall; (2) a 340-acre reservoir at a full-pool elevation of 1,397.1 feet NGVD; (3) a 67-foot-long by 51-footwide powerhouse containing an 11-MW generator and a 6.2-MW generator providing a combined installed capacity 17.2 MW; (4) a 300-foot-wide by 4,000-foot-long intake canal; (5) an 11-foot- diameter by 1,313-foot-long wooden stave penstock connected to a 61.5-foot-long steel penstock and a 13.5-foot-diameter by 1,307-foot-long wooden stave penstock connected to a foot-long steel penstock to the powerhouse; (7) an intake structure at the downstream end of the intake canal with two 55.5-foot-wide by 30.5-foothigh trashracks with a clear bar spacing of 2.5 inches; (8) a 20-foot-wide by 167-foot long concrete sluiceway at the canal intake structure; (9) a brick gatehouse with two headgate hoists; (10) a canal bridge that crosses the upstream end of the intake canal, with piers and stop-log slots for use in dewatering the canal; (11) two steel surge tanks connected to each penstock; (12) 6.9-kV generator leads; and (13) appurtenant facilities. The intake canal and penstocks bypass about 4,800 feet of the Wisconsin River. Within the project reservoir there are two submerged islands with a total combined area of 3.5 acres that are owned by BLM. The normal tailwater elevation of the project is 1,302.2 feet NGVD. The impoundment provides about 94 feet of gross head for power generation purposes. The hydraulic capacity of the project is 2,820 cfs and the water flowing through the turbines is discharged via the draft tubes into a bedrock excavated tailrace immediately below the dam. The project s power is transmitted from the powerhouse and nearby substation directly to Wisconsin Public Service s distribution system via 6.9-kV generator leads and two vacuum circuit breakers. Power from the facility is sold to Wisconsin Public Service customers. The Grandfather Falls Project has a dependable capacity of 17.3 MW and generates an average of 74,735 MWh annually. Wisconsin Public Service does not propose any new or upgraded facilities or structural changes to the project at this time. 9

15 3.1.2 Existing Project Operations Tomahawk Project The Tomahawk Project is operated in a limited peaking mode, with the maximum allowed daily impoundment fluctuations of about 0.8 feet (i.e., between feet NGVD and feet NGVD). The project is fully automated and is remotely operated from Wisconsin Public Service s control center in Green Bay, Wisconsin, which is staffed 24 hours a day, and 365 days a year. Remote operation includes starting and stopping the project generators, monitoring kilowatt output, monitoring headwater and tailwater gage elevations, and maintaining headpond elevations by using Gate 3. Several gate structures are heated during the winter months to ensure operation. During normal peaking operations, the impoundment is drawn down from the maximum pond elevation during the day and refilled at night providing one peaking cycle per day. The amount of fluctuation is determined primarily by the volume of water which can normally be restored to the Tomahawk reservoir during off-peak hours. Wisconsin Public Service maintains a required continuous minimum flow of 162 cfs from the project. The capacity of the Grandmother Falls Project (located about five miles downstream) also affects the duration of water released from the Tomahawk Project. The Tomahawk Project s operation is coordinated with Wisconsin Public Service s Grandfather Falls Project (located about 12.4 miles downstream of Tomahawk Dam) to maximize power production for both projects. Grandfather Falls Project The Grandfather Falls Project operates in a limited peaking operation. The project is fully automated and like the Tomahawk Project, is remotely operated from Wisconsin Public Service s control center in Green Bay, which is staffed 24 hours a day, and 365 days a year. Remote operation includes starting and stopping the project generators, monitoring kilowatt output, monitoring headwater and tailwater gage elevations, and maintaining headwater elevations through the operation of a heated gate structure. During normal peaking operations, the impoundment is drawn down from the maximum pond elevation during the day and refilled at night providing one peaking cycle per day. The maximum elevation of the impoundment is 1,397.1 feet NGVD and the minimum elevation is 1,396.1 feet NGVD. The operating regime has both seasonal and daily variation depending on precipitation and controlled releases made at upstream storage reservoirs, regulated by the Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company. Water releases from the Tomahawk and the Grandmother Falls projects and the non-power dam at Spirit Lake, (which are all located upstream from the Grandfather Falls Project) are coordinated with water releases from the Grandfather Falls Project to ensure that adequate water is available in the Wisconsin River during the seasonal low-flow periods. The 10

16 pondage provided by the 1 foot of maximum drawdown between elevation 1,396.1 feet NGVD and feet NGVD for the Grandfather Falls Project, is used to augment and adjust the timing of the peaking operation at the project. Recharge of the Grandfather Falls reservoir occurs in the late evening and early morning hours. The peaking discharges from Grandfather Falls Project are attenuated by the effects of the downstream Bill Cross Rapids (which is part of a free-flowing stretch of the Wisconsin River) with no evidence of the project s peaking effects visible at Wisconsin Public Service's downstream Alexander Project (FERC No. 1979), which operates in a run-ofriver mode. Per Article 401 of its current license, the Grandfather Falls Project maintains a minimum flow of 400 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, as measured below the project tailrace. This minimum flow includes a continuous minimum flow of 50 cfs released into the bypassed reach of the Wisconsin River between the project dam and the tailrace discharge as required by Article 402 of the current license for the project. The hydraulic capacity at the Grandfather Falls Project is 2,820 cfs. When flows in the Wisconsin River exceed 2,820 cfs, water is discharged via operation of the spillway Tainter gates at the project. 11

17 Table 1. FERC-Licensed Hydropower Projects on the Wisconsin River (Source: Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company, 2012, as modified by staff). PROJECT NAME AND FERC PROJECT NUMBER Otter Rapids 1957 Rhinelander 2161 Hat Rapids 1968 Kings Dam 2239 Jersey 2476 Tomahawk 1940 Grandmother Falls 2180 Grandfather Falls 1966 Alexander 1979 Merrill Hydroplant 1989 Wausau 1999 OWNER Wisconsin Public Service Wausau-Mosinee Paper Corp. Wisconsin Public Service Tomahawk Power & Pulp Wisconsin Public Service Wisconsin Public Service Packaging Corporation of America Wisconsin Public Service Wisconsin Public Service Wisconsin Public Service Wisconsin Public Service RESERVOIR AREA (IN ACRES) HEIGHT OF DAM (IN FEET) GENERATION CAPACITY (IN KILOWATTS) 1 3, , , ,950 1, , , , , , , , ,400 12

18 PROJECT NAME AND FERC PROJECT NUMBER OWNER RESERVOIR AREA (IN ACRES) HEIGHT OF DAM (IN FEET) GENERATION CAPACITY (IN KILOWATTS) 1 Rothschild 2212 DOMTAR Corp. 1, ,640 Mosinee 2207 Wausau-Mosinee Paper 1, ,050 Corp. Dubay 1953 Consolidated Water 7, ,200 Power Stevens Point 2110 Consolidated Water 3, ,840 Power Wisconsin River Consolidated Water ,340 Diversion or Whiting 2590 Power Biron 2192 Consolidated Water 2, ,600 Power Wisconsin Rapids Consolidated Water , Power Centralia 2255 DOMTAR Corp ,500 Port Edwards 2291 DOMTAR Corp ,400 Nekoosa 2292 DOMTAR Corp ,800 Petenwell 1984 Wisconsin River Power 23, ,000 Castle Rock 1984 Wisconsin River Power 16, ,000 Wisconsin Dells Alliant Energy 2, ,600 (Dells) 2670 Prairie Du Sac Alliant Energy 9, , Total 85, ,164 1 Based on average annual residential electrical use of three megawatthours per person 13

19 Figure 3. Profile of the Wisconsin River showing the locations of hydropower projects and their elevations above sea level (Source: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, 2012). 14

20 3.2 APPLICANT S PROPOSAL The proposed actions are to continue to operate and maintain the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects on the Wisconsin River, and implement certain environmental protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. Wisconsin Public Service proposes no new developments or changes in project operation at either project at this point in the licensing process Proposed Project Facilities and Operations No new or upgraded facilities, structural changes, or operational changes are proposed for the projects during the terms of the new licenses for both projects Proposed Environmental Measures Wisconsin Public Service proposes to continue to provide the existing protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures described below. No new PM&E measures are proposed at this time; however, several studies are proposed that have the potential for developing new PM&E measures. The need for new PM&E measures will be evaluated during the relicensing process for both projects. Geologic and Soil Resources There are no existing or proposed PM&E measures related to geology and soils for the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects. The potential need for PM&E measures for geologic and soil resources for each project would be evaluated during the relicensing process. Tomahawk Project Aquatic Resources Existing Measures Wisconsin Public Service has implemented the following PM&E measures for aquatic resources during the current license term: continue to operate the project as a limited peaking facility without any changes to current operations; 15

21 maintain the current maximum 0.8-foot daily fluctuation in impoundment surface levels; maintain a continuous minimum flow of 162 cfs from the project (i.e., downstream of the dam); continue periodic reservoir drawdown and plant de-watering for maintenance and inspection; and continue using existing intake screens to protect fish from entrainment and not make any changes in intake velocities caused by current project operation. Potential Measures Wisconsin Public Service proposes to continue implementing its existing aquatic resource measures. The potential need for additional PM&E measures for aquatic resources will be evaluated during the relicensing process. Terrestrial Resources Existing Measures Wisconsin Public Service has implemented the following PM&E measures for terrestrial resources during the current license term, including some voluntary measures: noxious weed management; and voluntary placement of an osprey nesting platform near the Tomahawk powerhouse. Potential Measures Wisconsin Public Service has identified several potential PM&E measures for consideration during the relicensing process. The potential PM&E measure for terrestrial resources include: Continue to work with stakeholders to contain and control the spread of invasive plant species on project lands. 16

22 Threatened and Endangered Species Existing Measures There are no existing or proposed PM&E measures related to threatened and endangered species for the Tomahawk Project. There are presently no federally listed threatened or endangered species in Lincoln County, Wisconsin. Potential Measures There are none at this time. The need for any PM&E measures will be evaluated during the relicensing process. Recreation and Land Use Resources Existing Measures Wisconsin Public Service currently implements the following recreation resource and land use PM&E measure for the project: Operate and maintain: (1) the reservoir boat launch; (2) the tailrace boat launch; (3) the parking lot for the reservoir and tailrace boat launches; and (4) the canoe portage. Potential Measures Wisconsin Public Service has identified the following potential PM&E measure for recreation and land use consideration during relicensing: Continue to provide public access and use of project lands and waters, as appropriate and that are consistent with project purposes. Cultural Resources Existing Measures Wisconsin Public Service is implementing its Historic Resources Management Plan for the Tomahawk Project, FERC No. 1940, filed on May 30,

23 Potential Measures Wisconsin Public Service has identified the following potential PM&E measure for cultural resources PM&E measure for consideration during relicensing: Continue to implement the Historic Resources Management Plan for the Tomahawk Project FERC No. 1940, filed on May 30, Grandfather Falls Project Aquatic Resources Existing Measures Wisconsin Public Service has implemented the following PM&E measures for aquatic resources during the current license term: operate the project as a limited peaking facility without any changes to current operations; maintain a maximum 1.0-foot daily fluctuation in impoundment surface levels during peaking operations; maintain a minimum flow of 400 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, as measured immediately below the project tailrace (this minimum flow includes the addition of 50 cfs from the bypassed reach into the Wisconsin River near the project powerhouse); periodically lower the reservoir to control aquatic plant growth; and use intake screens to protect fish from entrainment. Potential Measures Wisconsin Public Service proposes to continue implementing its existing PM&E measures for aquatic resources. In addition, Wisconsin Public Service will maintain existing velocities through the intake to prevent an increase in fish entrainment. 18

24 Terrestrial Resources Existing Measures Wisconsin Public Service has implemented the following PM&E measures for terrestrial resources during the current license term: Noxious weed management. Potential Measures Wisconsin Public Service has identified several potential PM&E measures for consideration during the relicensing process. The potential PM&E measures for terrestrial resources include: Continue to work with stakeholders to contain and control the spread of invasive plants at the project. Threatened and Endangered Species Existing Measures There are no existing or proposed PM&E measures related to threatened and endangered species for the Grandfather Falls Project. There are presently no federally listed threatened or endangered species in Lincoln County, Wisconsin. Potential Measures There are none at this time. The potential need for PM&E measures will be evaluated during the relicensing process. Recreation and Land Use Resources Existing Measures Wisconsin Public Service currently implements the following recreation resource and land use PM&E measure for the project: operate and maintain: (1) two reservoir boat launches; (2) the dam access area, which contains a fishing pier and parking lot; (3) the intake access area, which 19

25 contains a hand-carry boat launch and a parking lot; (4) the tailwater access area, which contains a hand-carry boat launch and a parking lot; and (5) the canoe portage. Potential Measures Wisconsin Public Service has identified the following potential PM&E measures for recreation and land use consideration during relicensing: continue to provide public access and use of project lands and waters, as appropriate and as consistent with project purposes; and modify the project boundary to remove lands surrounding the Grandfather Falls reservoir above the 100-year flood elevation that Wisconsin Public Service finds are not needed for project purposes. Cultural Resources Existing Measures There are no existing PM&E measures applied to properties within the proposed Grandfather Falls Project area of potential effects. Potential Measures None. 3.3 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION Commission staff will consider and assess all alternative recommendations for operational or facility modifications, as well as PM&E measures identified by the Commission, the agencies, Indian tribes, NGOs, and the public. 20

26 3.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY At present, we propose to eliminate the following alternatives from detailed study in the EA Federal Government Takeover In accordance with of the Commission s regulations, a federal department or agency may file a recommendation that the United States exercise its right to take over a hydroelectric power project with a license that is subject to sections 14 and 15 of the FPA. 5 We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal takeover of the projects would require congressional approval. While that fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is currently no evidence showing that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party has suggested that federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal agency has expressed interest in operating the projects Non-power License A non-power license is a temporary license the Commission would terminate whenever it determines that another governmental agency is authorized and willing to assume regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the non-power license. At this time, no governmental agency has suggested a willingness or ability to take over the projects. No party has sought a non-power license, and we have no basis for concluding that the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects should no longer be used to produce power. Thus, we do not consider a non-power license a reasonable alternative to relicensing the projects Project Decommissioning Decommissioning of the projects could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either alternative would require denying the relicense application and surrender or termination of the existing licenses with appropriate conditions. There would be significant costs involved with decommissioning the projects and/or removing any project facilities. The projects provide a viable, safe, and clean renewable source of power to the 5 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r). 21

27 region. With decommissioning, the projects would no longer be authorized to generate power. No party has suggested project decommissioning would be appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for recommending it. Thus, we do not consider project decommissioning a reasonable alternative to relicensing the projects with appropriate environmental measures. 4.0 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND SITE-SPECIFIC RESOURCE ISSUES 4.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R ), a cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities Resources that could be Cumulatively Affected Based on information in the PADs and preliminary staff analysis, we identified the following resources that may be cumulatively affected by the proposed operation of the projects: aquatic resources (including water quality and fishery resources) Geographic Scope Our geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined by the physical limits or boundaries of: (1) the proposed action's effect on the resources, and (2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non-hydropower activities within the Upper Wisconsin River Basin. Because the proposed action would affect the resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary. At this time, we have tentatively identified a portion of the upper Wisconsin River subbasin as our geographic scope of analysis for aquatic resources. That portion is the upper end of the Tomahawk reservoir (i.e., the tailrace of the Kings Project) downstream to the tailwater of the Grandfather Falls Project. As shown in Table 1 and figure 3, there are 25 hydropower projects on the Wisconsin River. The Tomahawk and Grandfather 22

28 Falls are two of these projects that are separated by the Grandmother Falls Project. The abundance of hydropower projects and paper mills on the Wisconsin River have altered the historic condition of the river, both in water quality and in the mix of aquatic resources. Other contributors to adverse effects on aquatic resources and water quality in the Wisconsin River include introductions of non-native fish species and mussels, urbanization, road and railroad construction, and timber harvesting, to name a few. However, the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects have the potential to affect water resources and aquatic resources in a cumulative manner by their continued operation of the projects or by any changes to operations and maintenance that may be made to the projects based on results of various studies being conducted Temporal Scope The temporal scope of our cumulative effects analysis in the EA will include a discussion of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential term of a new license, the temporal scope will look 30 to 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effect on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion will, by necessity, be limited to the amount of available information for each resource. The quality and quantity of information, however, diminishes as we analyze resources further away in time from the present. 4.2 RESOURCE ISSUES In this section, we present a preliminary list of environmental issues to be addressed in the EA. We identified these issues, which are listed by resource area, by reviewing the PADs and the Commission s record for the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects. This list is not intended to be exhaustive or final, but contains those issues raised to date that could have substantial effects. After the scoping process is complete, we will review the list and determine the appropriate level of analysis needed to address each issue in the EA. Those issues identified by an asterisk (*) will be analyzed for both cumulative and site-specific effects. Tomahawk Project Geologic and Soils Resources Effects of project operation and maintenance on shoreline erosion Aquatic Resources 23

29 Effects of project operations and maintenance on water quality, including dissolved oxygen, water temperature, and ph in the Tomahawk impoundment and in the Wisconsin River downstream of the project dam.* Effects of reservoir fluctuations associated with load-following operations (peaking operations) and maintenance drawdowns on aquatic resources, including water quality, freshwater mussels, and fish, both in the reservoir and in downstream habitats.* Effects of project operation and maintenance on fish entrainment, impingement, and turbine mortality.* Terrestrial Resources Effects of continued project operation, including reservoir fluctuations, on riparian, littoral, and wetland habitats and associated wildlife. Effects of continued project operation, including maintenance activities (e.g., road maintenance, transmission line maintenance, and rights-of-way vegetation management), on wildlife habitat and associated wildlife. Effects of continued project operation and maintenance on the introduction, establishment, and spread of invasive plant species in the project area. Effects of continued project operation and maintenance on Wisconsin state species of special concern, including the wood turtle, bald eagle, and osprey Threatened and Endangered Species None. There are currently no federally listed threatened or endangered species in Lincoln County, Wisconsin. 24

30 4.2.5 Recreation and Land Use Resources Adequacy of existing public access and recreation facilities in the project boundary to meet current and future recreational demand Cultural Resources Effects of continued project operation on properties that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Grandfather Falls Project Geologic and Soils Resources Effects of continued project operation on shoreline erosion Aquatic Resources Effects of project operations and maintenance on water quality, including dissolved oxygen, water temperature, and ph in the Grandfather Falls impoundment and in the Wisconsin River downstream of the project dam.* Effects of reservoir fluctuations associated with load-following operations (peaking operations) and maintenance drawdowns on aquatic resources, including water quality, freshwater mussels, and fish, both in the reservoir and in downstream habitats.* Effects of project operation and maintenance on fish entrainment, impingement, and turbine mortality.* Terrestrial Resources Effects of continued project operation, including reservoir fluctuations, on riparian, littoral, and wetland habitats and associated wildlife. Effects of continued project operation, including maintenance activities (e.g., road maintenance, transmission line maintenance, and rights-of-way vegetation management), on wildlife habitat and associated wildlife. Effects of continued project operation and maintenance on the introduction, 25

31 establishment, and spread of invasive plant species in the project area. Effects of continued project operation and maintenance on Wisconsin state species of special concern, including the wood turtle, bald eagle, and osprey Threatened and Endangered Species None. There are currently no federally listed threatened or endangered species in Lincoln County, Wisconsin Recreation and Land Use Resources Adequacy of existing public access and recreational facilities in the project boundary to meet current and future recreational demand. Effects of providing whitewater releases in the bypassed reach. Effects of removing non-wisconsin Public Service lands and Wisconsin Public Service-owned lands from the current project boundary on public access in the project area Cultural Resources Effects of continued project operation on properties that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 5.0 PROPOSED STUDIES Depending upon the findings of studies completed by Wisconsin Public Service and the recommendations of the consulted entities, Wisconsin Public Service will consider, and may propose certain other measures to enhance environmental resources affected by the project as part of the proposed action. Wisconsin Public Service s initial study proposals are identified by resource area in tables 2 and 3. Detailed information on Wisconsin Public Service s initial study proposals for both projects can be found in the PADs. Further studies may need to be added to these two lists based on comments provided to the Commission and Wisconsin Public Service from interested participants, including Indian tribes. 26

32 Table 2. Wisconsin Public Service s Initial Study Proposals for the Tomahawk Project (Source: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, 2012). Resource Area and Issue Aquatic Resources Fish Protection Study Fish Entrainment Mortality Study Freshwater Mussel Survey Recreation and Land Use Resources Recreation Use Study Proposed Study/Information Need Provide information on the biological and engineering feasibility of available fish protection measures that have the potential to reduce turbine entrainment at the project; also collect intake velocity measurements to develop potential design criteria for protecting fish at the intakes. Conduct a desktop analysis of potential fish entrainment mortality at the project using available data from field studies conducted at other hydropower projects with similar fish species and generating facilities. The desktop analysis would provide information needed to assess potential impacts of fish entrainment at the project and would help determine if any mitigation is needed. Conduct a mussel survey within the project boundary below the project dam. The survey would determine the population structure and current status of freshwater mussels below the project dam which would help determine if protective measures are needed. Conduct an assessment of the current use of recreational facilities within the project boundary. Information would help to inform whether any additional facilities are needed. 27

33 Table 3. Wisconsin Public Service s Initial Study Proposals for the Grandfather Falls Project (Source: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, 2012). Resource Area and Issue Aquatic Resources Fisheries Survey Fish Protection Study Fish Entrainment Mortality Study Freshwater Mussel Survey Proposed Study/Information Need Determine the presence, composition, population, and biological factors of fish occurring in the project tailrace, power canal, and bypassed reach. Information would help to inform whether any mitigation or enhancement measures are needed. Provide information on the biological and engineering feasibility of available fish protection measures that have the potential to reduce turbine entrainment at the project; also collect intake velocity measurements to help develop potential design criteria for a fish-friendly minimum flow release structure. Conduct a desktop analysis of potential fish entrainment mortality at the project using available data from field studies conducted at other hydropower projects with similar fish species and generating facilities. The desktop analysis would help to provide information needed to assess potential impacts of fish entrainment at the project and help to determine if any mitigation is needed. Conduct a mussel survey within the project boundary. Specifics of the survey have yet to be developed in consultation with the resource agencies. Identifying the mussel populations within project waters would help to identify whether mitigation or enhancement measures are needed. 28

34 Bypassed Reach Minimum Flow and Fish Habitat Study Recreation and Land Use Resources Recreation Use Study Whitewater Recreation Flow Study Conduct a study in the bypassed reach to determine the benefits to fish habitats from releasing various flow regimes. Specifics of this study have yet to be developed in consultation with the resource agencies. Identifying what flows would be most favorable for fish habitat would help to develop enhancement measures, if needed. Conduct an assessment of the current use of recreational facilities within the project boundary. The information would help to inform whether additional recreational facilities are needed. Conduct a study to determine the range of flows needed to provide whitewater boating opportunities in the bypassed reach. The information would help to inform whether additional flow releases would be needed. 6.0 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND STUDIES We are asking federal, state, and local resource agencies; Indian tribes; NGOs; and the public to forward to the Commission any information that will assist us in conducting an accurate and thorough analysis of the project-specific and cumulative effects associated with relicensing the Tomahawk and Grandfather Falls projects. The types of information requested include, but are not limited to: information, quantitative data, or professional opinions that may help define the geographic and temporal scope of the analysis (both site-specific and cumulative effects), and that helps identify significant environmental issues; identification of, and information from, any other EA, EIS, or similar environmental study (previous, on-going, or planned) relevant to the proposed relicensing of the projects; 29