20160721-3031 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/21/2016 MULTI-PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Upper Red Lake Dam Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2484-018 Weed Dam Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2464-015 Wisconsin Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 July 2016 20160721-3031 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/21/2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................viii 1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Application .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need For Power........................................................ 5 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................ 5 1.2.2 Need for Power................................................................................ 5 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements ....................................................... 6 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ........................................................................... 6 1.3.2 Clean Water Act .............................................................................. 7 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act.................................................................. 7 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ....................................................... 8 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act.................................................. 8 1.4 Public Review and Comment........................................................................ 9 1.4.1 Scoping ............................................................................................ 9 1.4.2 Interventions .................................................................................... 9 1.4.3 Comments on the License Applications........................................ 10 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES................................................... 11 2.1 No-action Alternative .................................................................................. 11 2.1.1 Project Description ........................................................................ 11 2.1.2 Project Safety................................................................................. 12 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation ............................................................ 12 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL...................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Project Facilities ............................................................................ 14 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation........................................................... 14 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ............................................... 14 2.3 Staff Alternative .......................................................................................... 16 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 17 2.4.1 Issuing a Non-power License ........................................................ 17 2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Projects.............................. 18 2.4.3 Retiring the Projects ...................................................................... 18 i 20160721-3031 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/21/2016 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS......................................................................... 19 3.1 General Description of the River basin ....................................................... 19 3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis........................................................ 20 3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives................................................... 20 3.3.1 Geological and Soil Resources...................................................... 20 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................................................... 26 3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources ..................................................................... 57 3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species............................................. 62 3.3.6 Recreation and Land Use Resources ............................................. 67 3.3.7 Cultural Resources......................................................................... 74 3.4 No-action Alternative .................................................................................. 77 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 78 4.1 Power and Developmental Benefits of the Projects.................................... 78 4.2 Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................ 80 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................... 81 4.2.2 Applicants’ Proposals.................................................................... 81 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................ 81 4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures ................................................................ 82 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. 99 5.1 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative .................. 99 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by the Applicant ............................................ 99 5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff............................. 101 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff........................................ 108 5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects.................................................................... 112 5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 112 5.4 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans ................................................... 125 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...................................................... 126 7.0 LITERATURE CITED......................................................................................... 127 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 132 ii 20160721-3031 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/21/2016 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location for the Upper Red Lake and Weed Projects, Shawano County, Wisconsin (Source: staff). .......................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Project location and project works for the Upper Red Lake Project (Source: Gresham, 2013, as modified by staff).......................................................... 3 Figure 3. Project location and project works for the Weed Project (Source: Gresham, 2013, as modified by staff). ........................................................................ 4 Figure 4. Locations of stream bank erosion of the Weed Project (Source: Gresham, 2013a)........................................................................................................ 24 Figure 5. Percent of time flows exceed the associated daily mean annual flow at the Weed Project from October 1992 through April 2013 (Source: Gresham, 2013a; as modified by staff)...................................................................................... 29 Figure 6. Percent of time flows exceed the associated daily mean annual flow at the Upper Red Lake Project from October 1992 through April 2013 (Source: Gresham, 2013a; as modified by staff)...................................................................... 30 Figure 7. Map showing reaches one through four assessed during Wisconsin DNR’s (2012b) comprehensive aquatic survey in the Red River downstream from the Weed Project (Source: Gresham 2013a, as modified by staff). ......................... 35 Figure 8. Map of Wisconsin DNR’s (2012b) mussel survey site locations on the Red River. Red dots indicate qualitative site locations and green dots indicate quantitative site locations. UR = Upstream of the Upper Red Lake Project, LR = Downstream of the Weed Project, and Q = quantitative sampling site (Source: Gresham, 2013a; as modified by staff)...................................................................... 37 iii 20160721-3031 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/21/2016 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Estimated Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Monthly Flows (cfs) at the Weed Project, prorated from USGS (gage no. 04077630) flow data using the period of record (1992-2012) (Source: Gresham, 2013a). ....................................... 27 Table 2. Estimated Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Monthly Flows (cfs) at the Upper Red Lake Project, prorated from USGS (gage no. 04077630) flow data using the period of record (1992-2012) (Source: Gresham, 2013a). ........................ 28 Table 3. Summary of selected Wisconsin water quality standards applicable to the Upper and Lower Red Lakes and the Red River (Source: Gresham,