DOCSLIB.ORG

FERC Project No. 1940-029

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FERC Project No. 1940-029 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSES Tomahawk Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 1940-029 Grandfather Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 1966-054 Wisconsin Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 January 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... I LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. V LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. VI ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................... VIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1.1 Tomahawk Project ................................................................................ 1 1.1.2 Grandfather Falls Project ...................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ...................................... 4 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .................................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Need for Power ..................................................................................... 4 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............................. 5 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ................................................................................. 5 1.3.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions ....................................... 5 1.3.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations ......................................... 5 1.3.2 Clean Water Act .................................................................................... 6 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act........................................................................ 6 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ............................................................. 7 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ....................................................... 7 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ............................................................ 8 1.4.1 Scoping .................................................................................................. 8 1.4.2 Interventions .......................................................................................... 9 i 1.4.3 Comments on the Application ............................................................ 10 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 11 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ................................................................... 11 2.1.1.1 Tomahawk Project ............................................................ 11 2.1.1.2 Grandfather Falls Project .................................................. 11 2.1.2 Existing Project Boundary .................................................................. 12 2.1.2.1 Tomahawk Project ............................................................ 12 2.1.2.2 Grandfather Falls Project .................................................. 12 2.1.3 Project Safety ...................................................................................... 12 2.1.4 Existing Project Operation .................................................................. 13 2.1.4.1 Tomahawk Project ............................................................ 13 2.1.4.2 Grandfather Falls Project .................................................. 13 2.1.5 Existing Environmental Measures ...................................................... 14 2.1.5.1 Tomahawk Project ............................................................ 14 2.1.5.2 Grandfather Falls Project .................................................. 15 2.2 WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE’S PROPOSAL ........................................ 15 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities .................................................................. 15 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation ................................................................ 15 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ..................................................... 16 2.2.3.1 Tomahawk Project ............................................................ 16 2.2.3.2 Grandfather Falls Project .................................................. 17 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................... 19 ii 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 20 2.4.1 Issuing a Non-power License .............................................................. 20 2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project ..................................... 20 2.4.3 Retiring the Project ............................................................................. 20 3.0. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................................ 22 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN .................................. 22 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS .................................... 28 3.2.1 Geographic Scope ............................................................................... 28 3.2.2 Temporal Scope .................................................................................. 28 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ........................... 29 3.3.1 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................... 29 3.3.2 Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................... 61 3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................. 69 3.3.4 Recreation and Land Use .................................................................... 71 3.3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 100 3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................... 105 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ............................................................. 106 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT .................... 106 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 109 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative....................................................................... 111 4.2.2 Applicant’s Proposal ......................................................................... 111 4.2.2.1 Tomahawk Project .......................................................... 111 4.2.2.2 Grandfather Falls Project ................................................ 112 iii 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ................................................................................ 112 4.2.3.1 Tomahawk Project .......................................................... 112 4.2.3.2 Grandfather Falls Project ................................................ 112 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ............................................ 113 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 132 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................... 132 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by Wisconsin Public Service ............................ 132 5.1.1.1 Tomahawk Project .......................................................... 133 5.1.1.2 Grandfather Falls Project ................................................ 134 5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff .................................. 135 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff ............................................. 142 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS .................................................... 144 5.3 SUMMARY OF SECTION 10(J) RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 144 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ............................... 146 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................. 148 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................ 149 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................... 153 APPENDIX A LICENSE CONDITIONS FOR THE TOMAHAWK PROJECT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ........................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B LICENSE CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANDFATHER FALLS PROJECT RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ......................................................... B-1 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of project and facilities for the Tomahawk Project (Source: Google Earth, 2016; as modified by staff). .............................................................. 2 Figure 2. Location of project and facilities for the Grandfather Falls Project (Source: Google Earth, 2013; as modified by staff). ............................................... 3 Figure 3. Location of Commission-licensed projects on the Wisconsin River. The figure does not show the Wisconsin River Headwaters Project (P-2113), located between Lac View Desert and the Otter Rapids Project (P-1957). (Source: Wisconsin Valley Improvement Company, 1991). ...............................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City of Tomahawk Comprehensive Plan
    City of Tomahawk Comprehensive Plan Mirror Lake Adopted 2006 Prepared by: North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission CITY OF TOMAHAWK City Council Mike Loka Rejeana Ebert Bruce Hetzel Tom Koth Jim Graeber Jeffrey F. West Jim Brimacombe Tim Glaeser Donald Nelson Planning Commission Bob Lee, Mayor Gregg Albert Chuck Theiler Bill Erickson Tom Koth Don Nelson John Koth Paul Garner, Clerk/Treasurer Comprehensive Plan Committee Jeffrey F. West. Chairman Rejeana Ebert Joe Story Glenn Christianson Christine Brown Bill Erickson Voight Smith A.J. Theiler November 2006 Photos NCWRPC Tomahawk Leader Tomahawk Area Historical Society TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 1 Chapters 1. ISSUES & OPPORTUNITIES...................................................................... 5 Demographics...................................................................................... 24 2. NATURAL, AGRICULTURAL, & CULTURAL RESOURCES ...................... 32 Inventory & Trends.............................................................................. 35 3. HOUSING ................................................................................................ 51 Inventory & Trends.............................................................................. 60 4. TRANSPORTATION................................................................................. 71 Inventory & Trends.............................................................................. 74 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Bradley Land Use Plan Adopted: 5/30/01
    Ó VANDEWALLE & ASSOCIATES 2001. All rights reserved. The party to whom this document is conveyed (“Client”) from VANDEWALLE & ASSOCIATES is granted the limited, non-transferable, non-exclusive right to copy this document in its entirety and to distribute such copies to others. In no event shall VANDEWALLE & ASSOCIATES be liable to Client or any third party for any losses, lost profits, lost data, consequential, special, incidental, or punitive damages, delays, or interruptions arising out of or related to the recommendations contained in this document. VANDEWALLE & ASSOCIATES shall not be liable or otherwise responsible for any future modifications to this document or their effect on the results of the implementation of the recommendations contained herein. In the event that Client modifies this document, the following disclaimer applies: This document is based on copyrighted materials of VANDEWALLE & ASSOCIATES. This document contains modifications that have not been reviewed or approved by VANDEWALLE & ASSOCIATES. As a result, VANDEWALLE & ASSOCIATES expressly disclaims any and all warranties associated with, or liability resulting or arising in any way from, this modified document. Town of Bradley Land Use Plan Adopted: 5/30/01 Town of Bradley Land Use Plan Acknowledgements Town Board Jack Huston, Chairperson William Jelinek, Supervisor Elsie Bartz, Supervisor Ed Remmers, Supervisor Town Land Use Committee Diana Smith, Member Dave Marquardt, Member Lin Kenworthy, Member Harry Galdwin, Member Chuck Schaar, Member Hal Schrage, Member Bill Jelinek, Member Town Clerk Ann Eckman County Staff Liaison Nic Sparacio Consultant Lead Staff Michael Slavney 1 Town of Bradley Land Use Plan Adopted: 5/30/01 I. Purpose of Town Land Use Plan The Town of Bradley Land Use Plan will allow the Town to guide future land development in a way that preserves the rural character of the community, protects natural resources, enhances recreational tourism opportunities, and provides for efficient service delivery.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire
    UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – EAU CLAIRE REDEFINING THE NATURE OF LOGGING TOWNS: THE FIRST AND SECOND PHASES IN THE EVOLUTION OF TOMAHAWK, WISCONSIN, 1886-1940 FOR PRESENTATION TO HISTORY 489 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY BY NICHOLAS A LILEK EAU CLAIRE, WI SPRING 2008 © 2008 Copyright for this work is owned by the author. This digital version is published by McIntyre Library, University of Wisconsin Eau Claire with the consent of the author. Table of Contents Maps and Figures …………………………………………………….……………… 2 Abstract ………….…………………………………………………………………... 3 Prologue: Tomahawk‟s Prehistory to Conception ………………………………….. 4 In Others‟ Words: A Few Thoughts on Sources …………………………………... 6 Building a Beachhead: Preparing for the Logging Invasion ………………………... 9 Addition by Subtraction: Spurring Growth by Thinning the Forests ………………. 12 Diversifying the Portfolio: Economic Entities Beyond the Mills …………………... 15 Money Isn‟t Everything: Creating Functional Institutions …………………………. 21 Aiming for Achievement: Advances in Education …………………………………. 26 Epilogue: The End of the Beginning ……………………………………………….. 29 Works Cited …………………………………………………………………………. 31 1 Maps and Figures Figure 1: Map of Lincoln County‟s Major Settlements ……………………………... 5 Figure 2: Tomahawk‟s Population, 1887-1930, 2000 ………………………………. 8 2 Abstract This paper examines the early history of the city of Tomahawk, Wisconsin, a settlement in the north-central part of the state that was originally founded as a logging town. The typical life cycle of a logging town in the late 19th and early 20th centuries involved a miniature population boom as the mills came followed by up to a couple decades of furious logging and prosperity (depending on the size of the forested areas nearby). Usually, though, after the logging industry would leave as abruptly as it came once the trees thinned out, leaving these towns devoid of an economic function; there was little the towns could do to survive and they often vanished.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of TOMAHAWK COMMON COUNCIL Tuesday, August 1, 2017 City Hall, Council Chambers 7:00PM 23 N 2Nd Street AGENDA COUNCIL A
    CITY OF TOMAHAWK COMMON COUNCIL Tuesday, August 1, 2017 City Hall, Council Chambers 7:00PM 23 N 2nd Street AGENDA COUNCIL A. CALL TO ORDER MEMBERS B. ROLL CALL STEVEN E TASKAY MAYOR C. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TERM EXP. 2018 PRESIDING OFFICER D. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Public Hearing on the Recommended City of Tomahawk Proposed Comprehensive MICKEY LOKA Plan TERM EXP. 2019 E. PUBLIC COMMENTS (During this item on the agenda the Council listens to oral PATRICIA E. HASKIN comments from members of the public on non-agenda items. When speaking please TERM EXP. 2020 state your name and limit your time to five minutes.) ALAN HANSON F. MINUTES – July 18, 2017 TERM EXP. 2018 JEFF KAHLE G. CHECKS – General Fund account checks 105187 – 105388, 4 automatic tax TERM EXP. 2019 withdrawals, 2 automatic deferred compensation withdrawals and 1 Employee Trust PRESIDENT Fund withdrawal in the total amount of $328,216.69, payroll checks 50865 – 50885 and direct deposit checks V6052– V6131 in the amount of $82,601.31 and Solid Waste DALE ERNST Fund checks 1499 – 1504 in the amount of $9,594.41 TERM EXP. 2020 H. REPORTS WILL GARSKE 1. Committee Reports TERM EXP. 2018 i. Planning and Zoning Commission ii. Board of Public Works MIKE LOKA iii. Health and Safety Committee TERM EXP. 2018 iv. Finance Committee v. Park and Recreations Committee JIM GRAEBER TERM EXP. 2019 vi. Water and Sewer Utility Commission vii. Solid Waste and Recycling Committee STEVE “DING” BARTZ viii. Commission on Aging (Alderperson Mike Loka) TERM EXP. 2020 ix. Library Board (Alderperson Hanson) 2.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Tomahawk Outdoor Recreation Plan
    City of Tomahawk Outdoor Recreation Plan 2020-2024 Acknowledgements City of Tomahawk Council Members Steven E. Taskay, Mayor Mickey Loka Will Garkse Patricia E. Haskin Tadd Wegener Ed Nystrom Steve "Ding" Bartz Jeff Kahle Mike Loka Dale Ernst Tomahawk Parks & Recreation Commission Jeff Kahle, Chairperson Tim Albert Mickey Loka Steve Bartz Dan Schuller Chad Gauerke Sue Thompson Staff for this plan John Cole, Director of Public Works Amanda Bartz, Clerk-Treasurer Fred Heider, AICP, NCWRPC Planner September 2019 2020-2024 Effective January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2024 This plan was prepared under the direction of the City of Tomahawk Parks and Recreation Department by the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. For more information contact: NORTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 210 MCCLELLAN STREET, SUITE 210 WAUSAU, WI 54403 Phone: 715-849-5510 www.ncwrpc.org TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 A. Purpose................................................................................... 1 B. Provisions For Updating Plan .................................................. 1 C. Reference Plans....................................................................... 2 2. BACKGROUND OF TOMAHAWK ................................................................. 4 A. Introduction ............................................................................ 4 B. Natural Environment .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln County, Wisconsin Comprehensive Plan 2012-2021 Effective January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2021
    Lincoln County, Wisconsin Comprehensive Plan 2012-2021 Effective January 1, 2012 – December 31, 2021 Completed December, 2011 1 Lincoln County Board of Supervisors Robert Lussow, Chairperson Daniel Caylor, Vice Chairperson James Alber Ronald Mittelsteadt John Bailey Donald Nelson Richard Berndt Ramona Pampuch Ray Bloomer Graham Rankin David Fox Greta Rusch Bruce Giese Frank Saal Ronald Krueger E. Richard Simon Robert Lee Robert Weaver Michael Loka Patricia (Patsy) Woller Arlene Meyer William Zeitz Prepared under the direction of the Lincoln County Planning & Zoning Committee Frank Saal – Chair Ronald Mittelsteadt – Vice Chair Greta Rusch - Secretary Arlene Meyer Donald Nelson 2 Prepared by the Lincoln County Land Services Department Diane Hanson, Land Services Director Primary Author Art Lersch Community Resource Development Educator University of Wisconsin – Extension Lincoln County 3 Acknowledgements The Lincoln County Planning & Zoning Department appreciates the involvement of various community stakeholders in the creation of new Transportation, Housing, Agricultural and Natural Resources, and Economic Development plans for the county. The names and organizations of those persons participating in the planning processes are included in the appropriate section of this comprehensive plan. Also appreciated was the involvement of the Lincoln County Land Services Group consisting of: • Diane Hanson, Land Services Department Head • Randy Scholz, Lincoln County Administrative Coordinator • Kevin Kleinschmidt, Forestry, Land & Parks • Dan Miller,
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Highlands
    Key characteristics: Northern Highlands » Exceptional density of glacial kettle lakes ecological landscape » Former enormous pinery with important stands of white and red pines remaining » Large peatlands (bogs Attributes and Characteristics supplying wood to cities further south. and conifer swamps) Aspen and other trees common to earlier » Intense development pressure Studded with thousands of mostly small kettle succession forests are now common in many along lakeshores lakes, this area epitomizes for many residents areas. Significant stands of older hemlock- » Very soft water lakes the image of “going north” to sit on the shore hardwood forest occur in several parts of a quiet, cool lake under the shade of a majestic Size: of this ecological landscape. white pine. Viewed from an airplane, some » 2,080 square miles areas in this landscape look more like a vast Development pressure in this ecological » 1,331,000 acres lake with many islands rather than upland landscape is intense and focused along lake (3.7% of Wisconsin) with many lakes. This enormous concentration shores and rivers. There are now more than Population: 23,000 seasonal homes in Vilas and Oneida of lakes is a result of the pitted outwash plain » 63,000 left by glaciers and is believed to be the third Counties, the overwhelming majority of which (1.2% of Wisconsin’s highest concentration of lakes in the world. are located along lakes and flowages. Many are population) being converted to year-round residences. Land The area’s other key characteristic is its use in the uplands is largely oriented towards Notable species: forests. White and red pines, once forming the timber and pulp production; recreation is also » Black bear largest pine forests in the state, dominated the important and contributes significantly to » Common loon, osprey uplands.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Lake Alice
    A History of Lake Alice A LAKE NAMED ALICE 1 Prepared by Dave Barrows, Lake Alice Association Dean Premo Ph.D. noted, in the Lake Alice Stewardship Program: Phase 1, that you have to view and study Lake Alice as part of a larger landscape, if you are going to effectively understand it and the tightly connected ecological system of which it is a part.2 The same is true of the history of Lake Alice. When we purchased our place on Lake Alice, we were excited and curious. My wife asked, “How did Alice get its name?” 3 We did not find out the answer to this question until almost seven years later, but that simple question lead to learning a fascinating story of glaciers, Indians, French voyageurs and coureurs de bois, lumberjacks, lumber barons and much more. OF ICE & TIME In Northern Wisconsin, we live in a landscape that was shaped by ice. In Canada, unmelted snow accumulated and compacted into ice thousands of feet thick. Between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, this ice pushed southward in finger-like lobes called glaciers. Several of these glaciers advanced across the immense rock dome, the Northern Highland rock shield that extends down from Hudson Bay to cap northern Wisconsin. The part of the glacier that covered all of Oneida and Vilas counties and nearly two thirds of the of the upper part Lincoln County, is known as the Chippewa lobe.4 For those living around Lake Alice today, it is interesting to try imagine seeing an endless wall of ice a mile high, looming over us, rather than our beautiful lake views.
    [Show full text]