[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51993-52013]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21176]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13417-002-WI]

Western Technical College; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47,897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for an original license to construct the
Angelo Dam Hydropower Project, and has prepared an environmental
assessment (EA). The proposed 205-kilowatt project would be located on
the La Crosse River in the Township of Angelo, Monroe County, Wisconsin
at an existing dam owned by Monroe County. The project would not occupy
federal lands.
    The EA includes staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate protective measures, would not constitute a major federal
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at  http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/doc-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact Commission Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please affix
Angelo Dam Hydropower Project, P-13417-002 to all comments.
    Please contact Isis Johnson by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>if you have any questions.

    Dated: August 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License; Angelo Dam Hydropower
Project

FERC Project No. 13417-002; Wisconsin

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects,
Division of Hydropower Licensing, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
August 2012.

Table of Contents

                                                               Paragraph

LIST OF FIGURES.............................................          iv
LIST OF TABLES..............................................          iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS..................................           v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................         vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................           1
    1.1 APPLICATION.........................................           1
    1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER................           1
        1.2.1 Purpose of Action.............................           1
        1.2.2 Need for Power................................           2
    1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...............           2
        1.3.1 Federal Power Act.............................           4
        1.3.2 Clean Water Act...............................           4
        1.3.3 Endangered Species Act........................           5
        1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act...................           5
        1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act............           5
    1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND CONSULTATION......................           6
        1.4.1 Scoping.......................................           6

        1.4.2 Interventions and Comments....................           6
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES........................           6
    2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE...............................           6
    2.2 PROPOSED ACTION.....................................           7
        2.2.1 Project Facilities............................           7
        2.2.2 Project Safety................................           9
        2.2.3 Project Operation.............................           9
        2.2.4 Environmental Measures........................          10
    2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE...................................          11
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS..................................          11
    3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN..............          11
    3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS................          15
    3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES.............          15
        3.3.1 Geology and Soils.............................          15
        3.3.2. Aquatic Resources............................          17
        3.3.3. Terrestrial Resources........................          24
        3.3.4. Cultural Resources...........................          27
    3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 29 13>4.0                    29
     DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS.................................
    4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT..........          30
    4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES..........................          31
        4.2.1 No-Action Alternative.........................          31
        4.2.2 Applicant's Proposal..........................          31
        4.2.3 Staff Alternative.............................          32
    4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES......................          32
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................          32
    5.1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES..........................          32
    5.2 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED                     34
     ALTERNATIVE............................................
        5.2.1. Measures Proposed by Western.................          35
        5.2.2. Additional Measures Recommended By Staff.....          35
    5.3 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS.........................          36
    5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS............          36
    5.5 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS................          37
6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNICANT IMPACT..........................          37
7.0 LITERATURE CITED........................................          37
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS.......................................          39
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of Bad Axe--La Crosse River Basin, showing the           8
 location of the project (Source: Wisconsin DNR, 2002a; as
 modified by staff).........................................
Figure 2. Project features for the Angelo Dam Project, FERC            9
 No. 13417-002 (Source: License application, as modified by
 staff).....................................................
Figure 3. Map of the watersheds in the Bad Axe--La Crosse             13
 River Basin, divided by watershed boundaries (Source:
 Wisconsin DNR, 2002a; modified by Staff)...................
Figure 4. Map of the La Crosse River and tributaries within           14
 the Upper, Little, and Lower La Crosse River watersheds
 (Source: Staff)............................................
Figure 5. Spring and summer water depth of the La Crosse              18
 River at USGS Gauge 05382325...............................
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements for the           3
 Angelo Dam Project.........................................
Table 2. Angelo Pond Specifications.........................          17
Table 3. Mean Monthly discharge rates at USGS Gauge 05382325          18
 from 1992-2011.............................................
Table 4. Ambient Temperatures and Water Quality Criteria for          19
 cold water communities.....................................
Table 5. Fish swim speed information for fish species in the          22
 project area (Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2002)...
Table 6. Sustained and burst swimming speeds of brook and             22
 brown trout (Sources: Bell, 1986 and Montana Water Center,
 2007)......................................................
Table 7. Minimum fish length protected by 1-inch trashrack            23
 spacing....................................................
Table 8. Parameters for the economic analysis of the Angelo           30
 Dam Project (Source: Staff)................................
Table 9. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and          31
 annual project cost for three alternatives for the Angelo
 Dam Project (Source: Staff)................................
Table 10. Comparison of effects for each alternative                  33
 associated with the Angelo Dam Project (Source: Staff).....

Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE area of potential effects
basin Bad Axe--La Crosse River Basin
BMP best management practice
cfs cubic feet per second
Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DO dissolved oxygen
EA environmental assessment
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
ESA Endangered Species Act
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
fps feet per second
HCP Wisconsin Habitat Conservation Plan
HPMP historic properties management plan
Interior U.S. Department of the Interior
kV kilovolt
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
msl mean sea level
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
Michigan SHPO Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer
MRO Midwest Reliability Organization
MISO Midwest Independent System Operator
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NERC North American Electric Reliability Council
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
PA Programmatic Agreement
project Angelo Dam Hydroelectric Project

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
watershed Upper La Crosse River Watershed
Western Western Technical College
Wisconsin CMP Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Office
Wisconsin DNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin SHPO Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer
WQC water quality certificate

Executive Summary

    On October 21, 2011, Western Technical College (Western) filed an
application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
for an original, minor license to construct, operate, and maintain the
proposed 205-kilowatt (kW) Angelo Dam Hydropower Project No. 13417-002
(project). The project would be located on the La Crosse River in the
Township of Angelo, Monroe County, Wisconsin at the existing Angelo dam
owned by Monroe County. The project would not occupy federal lands.

Existing Facilities and Operation

    The Angelo dam was built by Northern States Power in the 1920's.
Northern States Power generated electricity at the Angelo dam until
1969 and then removed the generating equipment and transferred the dam
and associated reservoir (Angelo Pond) to Monroe County. In 1998,
Monroe County rehabilitated the dam.
    The Angelo dam has a total length of 615.5 feet and is composed of
a left earthen embankment, a concrete spillway and non-overflow
structure, and a right earthen embankment. The left earthen embankment
has a length of 400 feet and a maximum height of approximately 14 feet.
The right earthen embankment has a length of 124 feet and a maximum
height of approximately 12 feet. The spillway and non-overflow section
are constructed of reinforced concrete and have a total length of 91.5
feet. The spillway is 72.42 feet long and 9.6 feet high from the
foundation level to its crest. The spillway has four, 13.5-foot-wide by
11.4-foot-high bays each with 13.5-foot-wide by 6.9-foot-high steel
tainter gates. The non-overflow section is 19.08 feet long, 20 feet
high, and 19.7 feet wide.
    The reservoir has a surface area of 52 acres at elevation 793 feet
mean sea level (msl). The reservoir's storage capacity is 450 acre-feet
at the dam's crest elevation of 795 feet msl.
    The dam and reservoir currently provide recreational benefits to
the project area. There is no hydroelectric generation at the dam. The
dam is operated manually in a run-of-river mode (i.e., an operating
mode where outflows from the dam and reservoir approximate inflows to
the reservoir).

Proposed Facilities and Operation

    Western proposes to acquire the rights to and utilize the Angelo
dam and reservoir for power generation. Western would convert the dam's
non-overflow section to serve as the project's intake. The conversion
would involve removing a concrete cap and plug that was poured in 1998
when the dam was rehabilitated. Western would also construct, operate,
and maintain the following facilities at the dam and reservoir: (1) A
22.84-foot-long by 16.08-foot-wide trashrack with 2-inch-clear bar
spacing installed at the intake in the non-overflow section; (2) a 20-
foot by 20-foot by 20-foot reinforced concrete box forebay; (3) a 26-
foot-long by 24.5-foot-wide by 40-foot-high powerhouse located at the
right abutment of the dam and containing a 205-kW vertical, double-
regulated Kaplan turbine; (4) a 30-foot-long, 480-volt overhead
transmission line connecting the powerhouse generator to a step-up
transformer that would be located on a pole which is part of Northern
States Power's 2.7-kilovolt (kV) distribution line; and (5) appurtenant
facilities.
    The project would be operated in a run-of-river mode using the
natural flow of the La Crosse River. The estimated average annual
project generation is about 950 megawatt-hours (MWh).

Proposed Environmental Measures

    Western proposes the following environmental measures to protect or
enhance resources in the vicinity of the proposed project:
     An erosion and sediment control plan with provisions for
using best management practices, including installing a temporary
inflatable cofferdam, and placing hay bales and siltation fabric at
locations where sediment-laden runoff could otherwise enter project
waters or adjacent non-project lands;
     Operating the project in a run-of-the-river mode to
protect water quality and quantity, and fish and aquatic resources; and
     Implementing the Commission's statewide programmatic
agreement (PA) for projects in Wisconsin, and implementing a Historic
Properties Management Plan (HPMP) for the project.
    Western also proposes to comply with all state water quality
standards while operating the project. In this environmental assessment
(EA), we consider Western's proposal to comply with state water quality
standards (i.e., state law) to be a general legal matter rather than a
specific environmental measure.

Alternatives Considered

    In addition to Western's proposed action, this EA considers
Western's proposed action with staff's modifications (staff
alternative), and a no-action alternative. Under the staff alternative,
the project would be constructed, operated, and maintained as proposed
by Western. The staff alternative also includes a recommendation for
Western to develop and implement an operation compliance monitoring
plan for proposed run-of-river operations at the project. Under the no-
action alternative, a license would be denied and Western would not
construct and operate the project.

Public Involvement

    Before filing its license application, Western conducted pre-filing
consultation under the traditional licensing process. The intent of the
Commission's pre-filing process is to initiate public involvement early
in the project planning process and to encourage citizens, governmental
entities, tribes, and other interested parties to identify and resolve
issues prior to an application being formally filed with the
Commission.
    Western filed its license application on October 21, 2011. On April
24, 2012, the Commission issued a notice accepting the license
application; soliciting motions to intervene, protests, comments, terms
and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions; stating that the
application was ready for environmental analysis; stating staff's
intent to waive scoping; and establishing an expedited schedule for
processing. The notice explained that staff intended to waive scoping
due to the project's use of an existing dam, the limited scope of
proposed construction at the project site, the applicant's close
coordination with federal and state agencies during the preparation of
the application, and the completion of studies during pre-filing
consultation. The United States Department of the Interior (Interior)
was the only entity that filed a written response to the notice.
Interior stated that it had no comments.
    The primary issues associated with licensing the project are the
potential for project effects on soil erosion and sedimentation, water
quality and fish entrainment.

Project Effects

Geology and Soils
    Project construction would require the excavation of approximately
135 cubic yards of bedrock during the construction of the proposed
powerhouse and forebay. To minimize the potential for erosion and
sedimentation related to the excavation, under the applicant's proposal
and staff alternative, Western would develop and implement an erosion
and sediment control plan.
Aquatic Resources
    Under the proposed action and the staff alternative, developing and
implementing an erosion and sediment control plan would limit erosion,
sedimentation, and increases in river turbidity.
    Under the proposed action and staff alternative, fish could be
entrained through the project's trashrack and intake, and therefore, be
subjected to turbine mortality during operation of the project.
However, the amount of entrainment and turbine mortality would likely
be small and result in an overall minimal adverse effect on the project
reservoir's (Angelo Pond's) fish community.
    Under both the proposed action and staff alternative, run-of-river
operation would maintain current aquatic resource habitats in Angelo
Pond and in the La Crosse River downstream of the Angelo dam.
Terrestrial Resources
    While some grassy areas may be temporarily disturbed and soils
slightly compacted by the movement of equipment and personnel during
construction, no long-term adverse effects to terrestrial resources are
anticipated, as the construction area would be relatively small, and
occur in an area that has been previously disturbed. Also, the project
site is fairly developed and lacks quality habitat for wildlife.
    Two federally listed species are known to occur in Monroe County,
namely the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis or
Karners) and northern wild monkshood (Aconitum noveboracense). However,
both species have specialized habitat requirements that do not exist in
the immediate vicinity of the project. Therefore, project construction
and operation would have no effect on federally listed threatened or
endangered species.
Cultural
    Western conducted cultural resource surveys, covering about 83
percent of the land within the project's area of potential effects
(APE). During the surveys, Western found no archaeological resources
that would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
(National Register). For the unsurveyed areas, an executed PA and HPMP
contain protocols that would be implemented if there are any
unanticipated discoveries. The HPMP also contains provisions to lessen,
avoid, or mitigate for any adverse effects if the discovered resources
are eligible for the National Register.

No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, a license would be denied, the
project would not be constructed, environmental resources in the
project area would not be affected, and the renewable energy that would
be produced by the project would not be developed.

Conclusion

    Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project under the
staff alternative.
    In section 4.0 of the EA, we estimate the likely cost of
alternative power for the two action alternatives identified above. Our
analysis shows that during the first year of operation under the
proposed action alternative, project power would cost $81,589 or
$86.20/MWh less than the likely alternative cost of power. Under the
staff alternative, project power would cost $81,297 or $85.47/MWh less
than the likely alternative cost of power.
    We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative
because: (1) The project would provide a dependable source of
electrical energy for the region (about 950 MWh annually); (2) the 205
kW of electric capacity available comes from a renewable resource which
does not contribute to atmospheric pollution; and (3) the recommended
environmental measures proposed by Western, as modified by staff, would
adequately protect and enhance environmental resources affected by the
project. The overall benefits of the staff alternative would be worth
the cost of the proposed and recommended environmental measures.
    We conclude that issuing an original license for the project, with
the environmental measures we recommend, would not constitute a major
federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.

Environmental Assessment

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects,
Division of Hydropower Licensing, Washington, DC

Angelo Dam Hydropower Project; FERC Project No. 13417-002

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Application

    On October 21, 2011, Western Technical College (Western) filed an
application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
for an original, minor license to construct, operate, and maintain the
proposed 205-kilowatt (kW) Angelo Dam Hydropower Project No. 13417-002
(Angelo Dam Project or project). The project would be located on the La
Crosse River in the Township of Angelo, Monroe County, Wisconsin at an
existing dam (the Angelo dam) owned by Monroe County and regulated by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR). The
estimated average annual project generation is 948.5 megawatt-hours
(MWh). The proposed project would not occupy federal lands.

1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power

1.2.1 Purpose of Action

    The purpose of the proposed Angelo Dam Project is to provide a new
source of hydroelectric power. Therefore, under the provisions of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission must decide whether to issue a
license to Western for the Angelo Dam Project and what conditions
should be placed on any license issued. In deciding whether to issue a
license for a hydroelectric project, the Commission must determine that
the project will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving
or developing a waterway. In addition to the power and developmental
purposes for which licenses are issued (such as flood control,
irrigation, or water supply), the Commission must give equal
consideration to the purposes of: (1) Energy conservation; (2) the
protection of, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and
wildlife resources; (3) the protection of recreational opportunities;
and (4) the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
    Issuing an original license for the Angelo Dam Project would allow
Western to generate electricity for the term of an original license,
making electric power from a renewable resource available to its
customers.

    This environmental assessment (EA) assesses the effects associated
with Western's proposed operation of the project and alternatives to
the proposed project. The EA also makes recommendations to the
Commission on whether to issue an original license, and if so, what
terms and conditions should become a part of any license issued.
    In this EA, we assess the environmental and economic effects
associated with the construction and operation of the project: (1) as
proposed by Western; and (2) with staff's additional recommended
measures. We also consider the effects of the no-action alternative.
Important issues that are addressed include the potential for project
effects on geology and soils, and aquatic, terrestrial, and cultural
resources.

1.2.2 Need for Power

    The proposed Angelo Dam Project would provide hydroelectric
generation to meet part of Wisconsin's power requirements, resource
diversity, and capacity needs. The project would have an installed
capacity of 205 kW and generate about 950 MWh per year.
    The North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) annually
forecasts electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a
10-year period. The Angelo Dam Project is located in the Midwest
Independent System Operator (MISO) sub region of the Midwest
Reliability Organization (MRO) region of the NERC. According to NERC's
2011 forecast, average annual demand requirements for the MISO sub
region are projected to grow at a rate of 2.9 percent from 2011 through
2021. MISO projects that resource capacity margins (generating capacity
in excess of demand) will range between 15.2 percent and 23.2 percent
of firm peak demand during the 10-year forecast period, including
estimated new capacity additions. Over the next 10 years, MRO estimates
that about 4,894 megawatts (MW) of additional capacity will be brought
on line.
    We conclude that power from the Angelo Dam Project would help meet
a need for power in the MISO sub-region in both the short and long-
term. The project would provide low-cost power that displaces
generation from non-renewable sources. Displacing the operation of non-
renewable facilities may avoid some power plant emissions, thus
creating an environmental benefit.

1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    A license for the proposed project is subject to numerous
requirements under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and other applicable
statues. The major statutory and regulatory requirements are summarized
in table 1 and described below.

 Table 1--Major Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for the Angelo Dam
                                 Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Requirement                 Agency               Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 18 of the FPA--fishway  U.S. Department    No prescriptions were
 prescriptions.                  of Interior        filed.
                                 (Interior).
Section 10(j) of the FPA......  U.S. Fish and      No recommendations
                                 Wildlife Service   were filed.
                                 (FWS).
                                Wisconsin
                                 Department of
                                 Natural
                                 Resources
                                 (Wisconsin DNR).
Clean Water Act (CWA)--section  Wisconsin DNR....  Application for
 401 water quality                                  certification was
 certification (WQC).                               received on January
                                                    24, 2011; action on
                                                    application was due
                                                    by January 24, 2012;
                                                    Wisconsin DNR did
                                                    not act on the
                                                    request.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)..  FWS..............  On August 18, 2009,
                                                    Interior stated that
                                                    no federally-listed
                                                    threatened or
                                                    endangered species,
                                                    or critical habitat,
                                                    are present in the
                                                    immediate vicinity
                                                    of the proposed
                                                    project. In the EA,
                                                    staff makes a ``no
                                                    effect'' finding
                                                    with regard to
                                                    federally listed
                                                    species; therefore,
                                                    no ESA consultation
                                                    with FWS is
                                                    necessary.
Coastal Zone Management Act     Wisconsin          On April 12, 2012,
 (CZMA).                         Department of      the Wisconsin CMP
                                 Intergovernmenta   determined that no
                                 l Relations,       federal coastal
                                 Coastal            consistency
                                 Management         certification is
                                 Program Office     required.
                                 (Wisconsin CMP).
Section 106 of the National     Wisconsin State    A programmatic
 Historic Preservation Act       Historic           agreement (PA) with
 (NHPA).                         Preservation       the Wisconsin SHPO
                                 Officer            and Michigan State
                                 (Wisconsin SHPO).  Historic
                                                    Preservation Officer
                                                    (Michigan SHPO) is
                                                    in effect that
                                                    encompasses all
                                                    hydroelectric
                                                    project licensing
                                                    actions in Wisconsin
                                                    and adjacent
                                                    portions of
                                                    Michigan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.3.1 Federal Power Act

<IP_ADDRESS> Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions
    Section 18 of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 811, states that the Commission is
to require construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of
such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretaries of Commerce or
the Interior.
    No fishway prescriptions, or requests for reservation of authority
to prescribe fishways under section 18 of the FPA, have been filed.
<IP_ADDRESS> Section 10(j) Recommendations
    Under section 10(j) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 803(j), each
hydroelectric license issued by the Commission must include conditions
based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and
wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of
fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. The Commission is
required to include these conditions unless it determines that they are
inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other
applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation,
the Commission is required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency
with the agency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise,
and statutory responsibilities of such agency.
    No federal or state fish and wildlife agency filed recommendations
pursuant to section 10(j) of the FPA.
1.3.2 Clean Water Act
    Under section 401(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1) a license applicant must obtain certification from the
appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance with
the CWA. On January 20, 2011, Western applied to the

Wisconsin DNR for 401 WQC for the Angelo Dam Project. The Wisconsin DNR
received this request on January 24, 2011. Because Wisconsin DNR has
not acted on the request within one year from receipt of the request,
the WQC is considered waived.
1.3.3 Endangered Species Act
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16
U.S.C. 1536(a), requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally
listed threatened and endangered species, or result in the destruction
or adverse modification of their designated critical habitat. There are
no federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated
critical habitat in the immediate project area that would be affected
by the construction and operation of the proposed project. Therefore,
the proposed project would have no effect on federally listed species.
1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act
    The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as amended,
requires review of the project's consistency with a state's Coastal
Management Program for projects within or that would affect the coastal
zone. Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA, 16 U.S.C. 1456(3)(A), the
Commission cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a
state's coastal zone unless the state's coastal zone management agency
concurs with the license applicant's certification of consistency with
the state's Coastal Management Program, or the agency's concurrence is
conclusively presumed by its failure to act within 180 days of its
receipt of the applicant's certification.
    The project is not located within the state-designated coastal
management zone, and the project would not affect Wisconsin's coastal
resources. Therefore, the project is not subject to Wisconsin's coastal
zone program review and no consistency certification is needed for the
action. By correspondence dated April 12, 2012 (filed on April 13,
2012), Wisconsin's Department of Intergovernmental Relations, Coastal
Management Program Office, concurred with this determination.
1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act
    Section 106 of the NHPA, 16 U.S.C. 470, requires that every federal
agency ``take into account'' how each of its undertakings could affect
historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites,
buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, and objects
significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture
that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places (National Register).
    To meet the requirements of section 106 of the NHPA, on December
16, 1993, Commission staff executed a Programmatic Agreement (PA) with
the Wisconsin SHPO and Michigan SHPO. The PA contains principals and
procedures for the protection of historic properties from the effects
of the proposed construction and operation of hydroelectric projects in
the state of Wisconsin and adjacent portions of the Upper Peninsula of
Michigan. The terms of the PA ensure that Western addresses and treats
all historic properties identified within the project's area of
potential effects (APE) through implementation of the historic
properties management plan (HPMP) entitled, Cultural Resource
Management Plan for the Proposed Licensing of the Angelo Dam
Hydroelectric Facility in Angelo Township, Monroe County, Wisconsin,
FERC Project 13417, Report of Investigations, No. 1865, June 2011 filed
on October 21, 2011, and amended by letter filed on June 14, 2012.

1.4 Public Review and Consultation

    The Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 4.38 and 16.8, require that
applicants consult with appropriate resource agencies and other
entities before filing an application for a license. This consultation
is the first step in complying with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, ESA, NHPA, and other federal statutes. Pre-filing consultation
must be complete and documented according to the Commission's
regulations.

1.4.1 Scoping

    Due to the location of the proposed project, the minor nature of
environmental effects, and the lack of response to our public notice
regarding the project,\1\ we waived formal scoping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission issued a notice on April 24, 2012, stating
that it intended to waive scoping for this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.4.2 Interventions and Comments

    On April 24, 2012, the Commission issued a notice accepting
Western's license application and asking for motions to intervene and
protests. The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) was the only
entity that filed a written response to the notice. Interior filed a
letter with the Commission on June 20, 2012, stating that it had no
comments. No motions to intervene were filed.

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 No-Action Alternative

    The no-action alternative is license denial. Under the no-action
alternative, the project would not be built, environmental resources in
the project area would not be affected, and the renewable energy that
would be produced by the project would not be developed.

2.2 Proposed Action

2.2.1 Project Facilities

    The proposed hydropower project would generate electricity using
the head created by the existing Angelo dam which is currently owned by
Monroe County.
    The Angelo dam is an earthen embankment with a maximum height of 14
feet and a spillway with a short non-overflow section. The dam has a
total length of 615.5 feet. The spillway and a short non-overflow
section are constructed of reinforced concrete and have a total length
of 91.5 feet. The spillway is 72.42 feet long, 9.6 feet high from the
foundation level to its crest, and contains four, 13.5-foot-wide by
11.4-foot-high bays each with 13.5-foot-wide by 6.9-foot-high steel
tainter gates. The non-overflow section is 19.08 feet long, 20 feet
high, and 19.7 feet wide and would be converted to serve as the
project's intake after removing the concrete cap and plug that was
poured in 1998 when the dam was rehabilitated.
    In addition to the dam, the proposed project would consist of the
following new elements: (1) A 22.84-foot-long by 16.08-foot-wide
trashrack with 2-inch-clear bar spacing installed at the intake in the
non-overflow section; (2) a 20-foot by 20-foot by 20-foot reinforced
concrete box forebay; (3) a 26-foot-long by 24.5-foot-wide by 40-foot-
high powerhouse located at the right abutment of the dam containing a
205-kW vertical, double-regulated Kaplan turbine; (4) a 30-foot-long,
480-volt overhead transmission line connecting the powerhouse generator
to a step-up transformer that would be located on a pole which is part
of Northern States Power's 2.7-kilovolt distribution line; and (5)
appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual project generation is
about 950 MWh.
    The reservoir, referred to locally as Angelo Pond, has a surface
area of 52 acres and a gross storage of 450 acre-feet at normal water
elevation 793-feet mean sea level (msl). The project boundary, with a
total area of 79.38 acres, includes

the pond up to elevation 795.0 msl,\2\ the existing dam, the new
forebay, powerhouse, and the 30-foot-long project transmission line.
The applicant and Monroe County Board have a signed agreement for the
sale of the dam and transfer of the necessary water rights by Monroe
County to the applicant. There are no federal or tribal lands within
the project boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See email communication record between staff and the
applicant filed on July 19, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU12.010

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU12.011

2.2.2 Project Safety

    As part of the licensing process, the Commission would prepare a
Safety and Design Assessment covering the adequacy of the project
facilities. Special articles would be included in any license issued,
as appropriate. Operational inspections would focus on the continued
safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications,
efficiency and safety operations, compliance with the terms of the
license, and proper maintenance.

2.2.3 Project Operation

    The dam and reservoir currently provide recreational benefits to
the project area. There is currently no hydroelectric generation at the
dam. The dam is operated manually in a run-of-river mode (i.e., an
operating mode where outflows from the dam and reservoir approximate
inflows to the reservoir).
    The proposed project would be operated in an automatic, run-of-
river mode using the 17 feet of head created by the existing Angelo
dam. The automatic mode would be achieved by use of a head pond
elevation gage that would allow the project to operate within a foot
from the maximum pond elevation of 793.6 msl. When the reservoir
elevation exceeds 793.6 msl, the tainter gates would be opened to
release flow under the gates to maintain a target pond elevation
between 793.0 and 793.6 msl, the normal operating elevation range for
the project.
    The headpond has a maximum storage capacity of 450 acre-feet at
elevation 793.0 msl (top of the tainter gates). The estimated plant
hydraulic capacity is 168 cubic feet per second (cfs) at full load and
32 cfs at minimum load. The water used for project generation would
flow through the proposed trashracks and the new opening in the dam,
continuing through an old penstock and the proposed forebay, into the
powerhouse. The flow out of the powerhouse would discharge into the
existing pool immediately downstream of the dam. Flows that exceed the
project's maximum hydraulic capacity would be discharged over or under
the dam spillway tainter gates. Currently, the spillway gates are
opened manually, but the applicant would automate them to provide
opening information as part of the proposed Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to be installed prior to project
operation. SCADA would monitor and control the powerplant from a
central location. The project would be run automatically with the help
of water surface elevation controls. Maintenance staff would visit the
facility regularly, as well as during

alarm conditions based on the automated call-in alarm to be built into
the station control system.

2.2.4 Environmental Measures

    Western proposes to incorporate the following environmental
measures into the design, operation, and maintenance of the proposed
project:
     Developing and implementing an erosion and sediment
control plan with provisions for using best management practices (BMP),
including installing a temporary inflatable cofferdam, and placing hay
bales and siltation fabric at locations where sediment-laden runoff
could otherwise enter project waters or adjacent non-project lands;
     Operating the project in a run-of-the-river mode to
minimize impacts on water quality and quantity, and fish and aquatic
resources; and
     Implementing the PA, executed on December 16, 1993, and
the HPMP, filed on October 21, 2011, and amended by letter filed on
June 14, 2012.
    Western also proposes to comply with all state water quality
standards while operating the project. We consider this proposal to
comply with state law to be a general legal matter, rather than a
specific environmental measure.

2.3 Staff Alternative

    Under the staff alternative, the project would include Western's
proposed environmental measures. Because Western's proposal to comply
with state water quality laws is a general legal matter, we do not
adopt it as an environmental measure under the staff alternative. We
note, however, that below in section 3, we do assess the effects of
proposed project construction and operation on water quality, including
the need for specific environmental measures to mitigate any adverse
water quality effects. The staff alternative also includes a condition
to implement an operation compliance monitoring plan, to verify
proposed run-of-river operations at the project.

3.0 Environmental Analysis

    In this section, we present: (1) A general description of the
project vicinity; (2) an explanation of the scope of our cumulative
effects analysis; and (3) our analysis of Western's proposed actions
and other recommended environmental measures. Sections are organized by
resource area (e.g., aquatics, terrestrial, etc.). Under each resource
area, historic conditions are first described. The existing condition
is the baseline against which the environmental effects of Western's
proposed actions and alternatives are compared, including an assessment
of the effects of Western's proposed mitigation, protection, and
enhancement measures, and any potential cumulative effects of Western's
proposed actions and alternatives. Staff conclusions and recommended
measures are discussed in section 5.2, Comprehensive Development and
Recommended Alternative of the EA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Unless noted otherwise, the sources of our information are
the license application (Western, 2011a) and additional information
filed by Western (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 General Description of the River Basin

    The Angelo Dam Project would be located on the La Crosse River,
near Angelo Township, in Monroe County, Wisconsin. The La Crosse River
flows from north central Monroe County in a southwesterly direction for
approximately 64 miles before reaching the Mississippi River. The La
Crosse River exists entirely within the Bad Axe--La Crosse River Basin
(basin), and the project area is located more specifically, in the
Upper La Crosse River Watershed (watershed) where Silver Creek enters
the La Crosse River (figures 3 and 4). The watershed has a drainage
area of approximately 126 square miles, more than half of which is
located in the Fort McCoy Military Reservation (Wisconsin DNR,
2002b).\4\ The surrounding land area in this region is characterized by
steep slopes, and narrow stream valleys.\5\ Approximately 46 percent of
the basin is forested, although agriculture is another major land use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fort McCoy is used for military training and contains firing
ranges, classrooms, and airborne drop zones.
    \5\ These characteristics are typical of the Driftless Area and
Coulee Section ecoregions of Wisconsin (EPA, 2012).
    \6\ The Neshonoc dam and 600-acre reservoir are project
facilities of the Neshonoc Water Power Project, FERC Project No.
6476.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several dams are located on the La Crosse River, including: (1)
Hazel Dell dam, forming a 2-acre reservoir; (2) Alderwood dam, forming
an 11-acre reservoir; (3) Angelo dam, the location of the proposed
project, forming a 52-acre reservoir; (4) Perch Lake dam, forming a 33-
acre reservoir; and (5) the Lake Neshonoc dam,\6\ forming a 600-acre
reservoir (Wisconsin DNR, 2002a).
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU12.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU12.013

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C

3.2 Scope of Cumulative Effects Analysis

    According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40 CFR
1508.7, a cumulative effect is the effect on the environment which
results from adding the effects of a proposed action 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.
    Based on our review of the license application, no environmental
resources would be cumulatively affected by licensing the Angelo Dam
Project. The project is located in a rural area, with very little
existing or planned future developmental activity. While several other
dams, both with and without hydropower facilities, are located on the
La Crosse River, the run-of-river operating regime proposed by Western
would maintain reservoir levels and flows consistent with existing
conditions. As such, operation of the project would not affect
reservoirs either upstream or downstream of Angelo dam.

3.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives

    In this section, we discuss the effects of the project alternatives
on environmental resources. For each resource, we first describe the
affected environment, which is the existing condition and baseline
against which we measure effects. We then discuss and analyze the site-
specific environmental issues.
    Only the resources that would be affected are addressed in this EA.
Based on this, we have determined that geology and soils, and aquatic,
terrestrial, and cultural resources may be affected by the proposed
action and action alternatives. We have not identified any substantive
issues related to recreation, land use, aesthetics, or socioeconomic
resources. We present our recommendations in section 5.1, Comprehensive
Development and Recommended Alternative.

3.3.1 Geology and Soils

Affected Environment
    The proposed project is located in an unglaciated region of
Wisconsin characterized by an upper layer of limestone, eroded over
time, followed by a layer of Potsdam sandstone surface rock. The
Potsdam sandstone layer of this western upland region is about 800 to
900 feet thick, and is Cambrian to Lower Silurian-aged. Below this
layer is Archaean-age basement rock, namely highly metamorphic gneiss,
granite, and schists. The basin is mostly composed of sand and clay
deposits with a very shallow, gradual slope. Soils in the project area
are poorly drained and level, classified as sands of the Dawson Peat
and Newson sandy loam variety. These soil types are potentially
erodible, although several areas along the river are protected by
concrete retaining walls or rip rap.
Environmental Effects
    Land-disturbing activities associated with construction of the
proposed project primarily involve development of the powerhouse and
forebay. The combined footprint of the powerhouse and forebay is
approximately 740 square feet (20 feet by 37 feet), and would require
about 135 cubic yards of excavation along the right (west) embankment.
This area is usually dry and consists primarily of exposed bedrock with
little to no soil. Western is not proposing to alter the slope or
drainage patterns at the project.
    To minimize the potential for erosion related to project
construction, Western proposes to: (1) Develop and implement an erosion
and sediment control plan; (2) install an inflatable cofferdam; and (3)
use hay bales and siltation fabric. Western would use excavated
material as riprap along the river embankments. Western also states
that Wisconsin DNR and Monroe County's shoreland zoning program both
require approval of erosion control methods.
    Heavy equipment would be limited to cranes sitting on the right
embankment, and no access via the river bank is anticipated. The
embankment in this area is also protected by a retaining wall. Less
than 0.5 acre of land adjacent to the west side of the dam would be
used as a staging area, as equipment and materials would generally be
delivered on site from storage buildings on the Sparta Campus of the
Technical College, which is located across the street from the
construction area.
Our Analysis
    Project construction would require some ground-disturbance, though
most of this material would be rock, as opposed to soil. The area of
disturbance is relatively small and the new powerhouse would occupy
roughly the same footprint as the original one, which was removed in
1968. The staging area and heavy equipment use would be located on
lands that are paved, or covered with grass, reducing the likelihood of
significant soil movement. Further, the control measures and BMPs
proposed by Western would minimize any potential erosion and
sedimentation.
    Consultation with the Wisconsin DNR and Monroe County would further
ensure that proper control measures are used, and any project effects
would be mitigated. As the project would be operated run-of-river, and
the reservoir elevation would vary by less than 1 foot, it is unlikely
that the project's operating regime would affect the occurrence of
erosion or sedimentation over the course of any license issued.

3.3.2. Aquatic Resources

Affected Environment
Water Quantity and Quality
    The headwaters of the La Crosse River originate in Monroe County
northeast of the proposed project near the Fort McCoy Military
Reservation. The La Crosse River flows in a southwesterly direction for
about 64 miles through Monroe and La Crosse counties before reaching
the Mississippi River. Five dams on the La Crosse River create Lake
Neshonoc in West Salem, Perch Lake in Sparta, Angelo Pond in the Town
of Angelo, and Alderwood Lake and Hazel Dell Pond both of which lie
within the Fort McCoy Military Reservation. The Angelo dam is located
approximately 5 miles south of Fort McCoy's main post entrance. The
drainage area of the dam site is about 115 square miles.
    The Angelo dam forms a 52-acre reservoir known locally as Angelo
Pond. Table 2 details the specific physical characteristics of Angelo
Pond.

                   Table 2--Angelo Pond Specifications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Pond surface area                         52 acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum volume.........................  450 acre-ft.
Maximum depth..........................  8 ft.
Mean depth.............................  4 ft.
Flushing rate..........................  121 hours.
Shoreline length.......................  2.62 miles.
Composition............................  Gravel, sand, and mud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Downstream of the Angelo dam, the La Crosse River flows south 2.5
miles to the city of Sparta, Wisconsin where the USGS gauge station
05382325 is located. The period of record for gauge 05382325
is from July 1992 to present. Table 3 shows the mean monthly discharge
rate (cfs) for the La Crosse River for the period of record. The La
Crosse River has a continuous, steady discharge flow of 100-200 cfs

throughout the year, with the highest flows occurring in June and the
lowest flows occurring in January.

                                       Table 3--Mean Monthly Discharge Rates at USGS Gauge 05382325 From 1992-2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Jan      Feb      Mar      Apr      May      Jun      Jul      Aug      Sept     Oct      Nov      Dec
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mean Monthly Discharge (cfs)................     131      142      171      185      178      205      166      150      151      152      149      138
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The La Crosse River in the area of the proposed project is
relatively shallow. Figure 5 depicts the La Crosse River depth at gauge
05382325, located 2.5 miles downstream of the Angelo dam. River depths
increase during periods of high discharge (April-June).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU12.014

    The Wisconsin DNR has determined the La Crosse River at the Angelo
dam to be a ``Fish and Aquatic Life Use of a Cold Water Community''.
The Wisconsin DNR further breaks down cold water communities, and
recognizes the La Crosse River as a ``Coldwater Category 5.'' This
coldwater category includes inland trout waters with brook and brown
trout, but no whitefish, cisco, or other trout or salmonid species. The
water classification and standards for Wisconsin water quality
parameters are as follows: \7\ (1) Dissolved oxygen (DO) in classified
trout streams shall not be artificially lowered to less than 6.0
milligrams per liter (mg/L) at any time, nor shall the DO be lowered to
less than 7.0 mg/L during the spawning season; (2) pH shall be within a
range of 6.0 to 9.0; and (3) water temperature may not exceed 86
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) while maintaining natural daily and
seasonal temperature fluctuations. Additional water temperature
criteria are shown in Table 4. The primary use of water in Angelo Pond
and around the Angelo dam is for recreation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ All water quality criteria for Wisconsin are contained in
four Administrative Code chapters, NR 102, 103, 104, and 105.

               Table 4--Ambient Temperatures and Water Quality Criteria for Cold Water Communities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Ambient                             Acute water
                         Month                              temperature      Sub-lethal water   quality criteria
                                                              ([deg]F)       quality criteria       ([deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January................................................                 35                 47                 68
February...............................................                 36                 47                 68

March..................................................                 39                 51                 69
April..................................................                 47                 57                 70
May....................................................                 56                 63                 72
June...................................................                 62                 67                 72
July...................................................                 64                 67                 73
August.................................................                 63                 65                 73
September..............................................                 57                 60                 72
October................................................                 49                 53                 70
November...............................................                 41                 48                 69
December...............................................                 37                 47                 69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fishery Resources
    The existing fish and aquatic communities include coldwater,
freshwater fish such as brook and rainbow trout throughout the La
Crosse River. Trout are present in Angelo Pond; however, no anadromous
species inhabit the La Crosse River or Angelo Pond. Due to the size and
shallow depth of Angelo Pond, it is seasonally a warm-water surface
source, with warm-water fish species present during those times. Angelo
Pond has regularly been stocked with largemouth bass and rainbow trout
since 1984, and is listed as an impaired waterway on the Wisconsin
Impaired Water List.
    Based on the Wisconsin DNR Trout Stream Classification, the La
Crosse River upstream of Angelo Pond is a Class II trout stream. A
Class II trout stream is categorized as having some natural
reproduction, but not enough to utilize available food and space.
Therefore, stocking is required to maintain a desirable sport fishery.
These streams have good survival and carryover of adult trout, often
producing some fish larger than average size. Angelo Pond is upstream 5
miles from Perch Lake, and both surface water bodies are connected by
the La Crosse River. The segment of the La Crosse River between Angelo
Pond and Perch Lake is classified as a Class III trout stream. Class
III trout streams are categorized by waters with marginal trout
habitat, and no natural reproduction. Annual stocking of trout is
required to provide for trout fishing, and there is generally no
carryover of trout from one year to the next.
    According to the Wisconsin DNR, Angelo Pond impounds the La Crosse
River where Silver Creek enters the river. Both streams traverse Fort
McCoy Military Installation, for a significant amount of their length.
The La Crosse River contains a sand bottom, which is slowly filling
Angelo Pond. This reservoir also slows the river's current down enough
to allow fine sediment to settle out. These fine sediments in Angelo
Pond maintain a robust aquatic plant community.
Environmental Effects
Water Quality
    Western proposes to operate the proposed project in a run-of-river
mode to minimize the impacts on water quality and quantity, and fish
and aquatic resources. Western also proposes to operate the project to
ensure discharges from the project meet state water quality standards
during project operation, construction, and maintenance.
Our Analysis
    DO, water temperature, and pH, 2.5 miles downstream of the proposed
project, are at levels in the La Crosse River that are currently
consistent with the levels specified by Wisconsin state water quality
standards.\8\ USGS data shows that DO concentrations were measured six
times from May 2002-October 2002, and ranged from 8.9-11.9 mg/L. During
the fall, when brown and brook trout typically spawn, DO concentrations
never fell below 8.9 mg/L, which is well above the state water quality
standard minimum concentration of 7.0 mg/L. The pH was also measured
six times during the same time period with values ranging from 7.2-7.7.
Temperature measurements were taken 29 times between July 1992 and
October 2002. The temperatures ranged from 32.9 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F) to 72.4[emsp14][deg]F. November through March typically
experienced the coldest water temperatures, with January 12, 1994 being
the coldest day measured. June through August typically experienced the
warmest water temperatures with July 17, 2002 being the warmest day
measured. Of the 29 measured observations, none exceeded the state
water quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ USGS Gauge 05382325 La Crosse River at Sparta, WI, water
quality samples from July 29, 1992-October 15, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed project design and operation would not interfere with
the flow of water downstream of the Angelo dam since the proposed
project will operate run-of-river. Water will continue to be discharged
at the foot of the dam or flow either over or under the existing
tainter gates. The run-of-river operations proposed by Western should
ensure that project operation would not change current DO, water
temperature, or pH levels in the La Crosse River.
    However, with the construction activities at the Angelo dam there
is a potential to temporarily increase river turbidity, which would
reduce water quality relative to existing conditions. Implementing a
short-term erosion and sediment control plan that incorporates, at a
minimum, the BMPs discussed in section 3.3.1, Geology and Soils should
ensure that any degradation of water quality would be temporary and
minimal.
Operation Compliance Monitoring
    Operation compliance monitoring is a standard requirement in all
Commission-issued licenses. Development and implementation of an
operation compliance monitoring plan and schedule would be beneficial
in this instance in that it would document the procedures Western
Technical College would employ to demonstrate compliance with its
proposed project operations.
Entrainment and Impingement
    Water intake structures at hydropower projects can injure or kill
fish that are entrained through turbines. Typically, fish injury or
mortality is caused by fish being struck by turbine blades, or being
exposed to pressure changes, sheer forces in turbulent flows, and water
velocity accelerations (Knapp et al., 1982). Fish vulnerability to
entrainment relates to powerhouse and spillway operations, fish sizes,
movement patterns, swimming speeds, approach

velocities, trashrack bar spacing, and intake configurations. The
survival rate of fish passing through turbines varies for different
sizes of fish and for turbines with different design characteristics.
For example, Winchell et al. (2000) reports mean survival rate of fish
less than 8 inches was 94.8 percent and 95.4 percent for fish less than
4 inches. Aside from fish size (with larger fish being more susceptible
to injury), species type (some fish species are hardier than others and
some species are more susceptible to entrainment), and behavior
(migratory species are more likely to be entrained) along with the
fish's burst swim speed could also influence percentages of fish
subjected to potential injury or mortality from turbine entrainment.

                    Table 5--Fish Swim Speed Information for Fish Species in the Project Area
                                   [Source: Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2002]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Burst swim speed
                  Species                              Life stage             Size (inches)    (feet/sec or fps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largemouth bass............................  Juvenile.....................                2-4                3.2
Largemouth bass............................  Juvenile.....................           5.9-10.6                4.3
Crappie....................................  Juvenile.....................                  3                1-2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Table 6--Sustained and Burst Swimming Speeds of Brook and Brown Trout
                              [Sources: Bell, 1986 and Montana Water Center, 2007]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Sustained swimming  Prolonged swimming    Burst swimming
             Species                  Life stage          speed (fps)         speed (fps)         speed (fps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brook Trout.....................  Juvenile..........  Not documented....  2.0...............  Not documented
Brown Trout.....................  Adult.............  7.0-7.8...........  Not documented....  12.2-12.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 5 and 6 show typical sustained, prolonged, and burst swim
speeds for fish species commonly found in the project area. Most
juvenile and adult game fish burst speeds exceed the average approach
velocity of 0.5 feet per second (fps) that would occur in front of the
project's intake, suggesting that most life stages of most reservoir
species would be able to escape from velocities near, and at, the
intake face and thereby avoid entrainment.
    For smaller reservoir fish that would pass through the intake, we
expect turbine mortality to be relatively minor. We note that at
Wisconsin hydroelectric projects where entrainment studies have been
conducted, small fish (less than 4 inches long) accounted for 79
percent of fish entrained during the field studies (Electric Power
Research Institute, or EPRI, 1997). Due to their small size, the vast
majority of small fish from the study survived turbine passage into
downstream aquatic habitats. The survival of these smaller fish was
relatively high, because they were less prone to mechanical injury from
turbine passage than larger fish. Smaller fish also are less prone to
injury resulting from shear stresses and rapid pressure changes.
Therefore, it is likely that the majority of the entrained fish would
be composed of the poorest swimmers (i.e., very small fish), and most
of these fish would survive turbine passage.
    In addition to entrainment effects, fish can become impinged on the
bars of a trashrack if they are not able to overcome the approach
velocity and are not able to pass between the trashrack bars due to
their larger body size. Lawler et. al. (1991) developed an equation to
determine minimum fish length protected by a trashrack or screen. The
equation is TL=10\[caret]\[log(w/[alpha])/[beta]], where TL is total
length, w is trashrack spacing, and alpha and beta are standard values.

                       Table 7--Minimum Fish Length Protected by 1-Inch Trashrack Spacing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Trashrack                                           Total length
                 Species                     spacing (w)     alpha ([alpha])    beta([beta])          (TL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black crappie...........................               2.0          0.059347          1.166856              20.3
Brown trout.............................               2.0          0.129648          1.000168              15.4
Rainbow trout...........................               2.0          0.028369          1.287580              27.2
Trout-perch.............................               2.0          0.032855          1.388542              19.2
White sucker............................               2.0          0.055538          1.187414              20.4
Yellow perch............................               2.0          0.034100          1.307944              22.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the results of the studies conducted by Lawler et. al
(1991), we calculate that the trashrack's 2-inch spacing between the
trashrack's bars would generally not allow passage of brown trout
greater than 15.4 inches total length, black crappie greater than 20.3
inches total length, and yellow perch greater than 22.4 inches total
length. The average velocity in front of the trashrack would be
approximately 0.5 fps. Brown trout larger than 15.4 inches, black
crappie larger than 20.3 inches, yellow perch larger than 22.4 inches
are in the adult life stage. Table 5 shows that a juvenile black
crappie is capable of a burst swim speed 1-2 fps. Table 6 shows that an
adult brown trout is capable of a sustained swimming speed of 7.0-7.8
fps with a burst swim speed of 12.2-12.8 fps. Since burst speeds are
typically short in duration (1-3 seconds), a brown trout could burst
ahead of the trashrack's influence and swim at a sustained speed safely
in front of the trashrack. Therefore, impingement at the project would
not be likely as most of the fish that are large enough to be subject
to impingement, such as adult brown

trout, yellow perch, and black crappie, would easily be able to escape
the intake's approach velocity.
    To summarize, we conclude that the overall effect on the fishery
due to entrainment and turbine mortality would be minimal. We also
conclude that impingement of fish on the project's trashrack would be
unlikely.

3.3.3. Terrestrial Resources

Affected Environment
    The Bad Axe-La Crosse Basin is characterized by steep slopes and
narrow river valleys, which is a distinctive attribute of the Coulee
ecoregion. Much of the land in the basin is used for agriculture,
particularly for beef and dairy farms. Outside of agricultural lands,
vegetation in the basin consists of oak forest and savanna, grassland
prairie, and bottom hardwoods (Wisconsin DNR, 2002a). Most of the
forests in the basin are oak-hickory (56 percent), followed by elm-ash-
cottonwood (16 percent), maple-ash-basswood (16 percent), aspen-birch
(8 percent), and pine (4 percent). This habitat supports a wide variety
of wildlife species including wild turkey, Cooper's hawk, ovenbird,
blue jay, brown snake, bull snake, gray tree frog, white-tailed deer,
gray squirrel, and gray fox. Avian species known to occur within the
project site include: several species of songbirds, waterfowl (e.g.,
geese, herons, and ducks), birds of prey (i.e. hawks and owls), and
other common species (e.g., crows and black birds).
    Wetlands in the basin account for approximately 2 percent of the
total land area, with about 4,000 acres in the Upper La Crosse River
watershed. While no wetlands appear to be present adjacent to the dam
or project facilities, palustrine scrub-shrub and palustrine forested
wetlands are located in the vicinity of the project (1) to the north
and east of the upper half of the reservoir, as well as (2) downstream
of the dam. Some freshwater emergent (marsh) habitat is also located
near the northeastern section of Angelo Pond. Upland vegetation in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed project includes mostly grasses,
sedges, and shrubs. As several residential homes are located around the
reservoir, some of the shoreline areas near and around Angelo Pond are
maintained as lawns.
    Several species of invasive plants are known to occur in Monroe
County, including Canada thistle, garlic mustard, Japanese knotweed,
common reed, and purple loosestrife, to name a few. The only species
known to occur in Angelo Pond according to the Wisconsin DNR, is curly-
leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), though the specific location and
density of the population is unclear. Curly-leaf pondweed becomes
invasive in some areas due to its tolerance for low light and low water
temperatures, which allows for the species to grow and bloom earlier in
the season and outcompete native plants in the spring. As the species
begin to die off mid-summer, it can contribute to a critical loss of DO
and increase nutrients to encourage algal blooms. Curly-leaf pondweed
also forms surface mats that interfere with aquatic recreation
(Wisconsin DNR, 2012a).
    Staff review of the FWS (2012a) endangered species list found that
the following threatened and endangered (T&E) species are known to
occur in Monroe County: the Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa
samuelis or Karners) and northern wild monkshood (Aconitum
noveboracense). The Karner blue butterfly is an endangered species
found in the northern part of wild lupine's range, and is most
widespread in Wisconsin. Habitat loss for the Karners is the result of
land development, and lack of natural disturbances (i.e, wildfires and
large mammal grazing) to discourage encroaching forests. In May of
2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a bulletin for
the Karners, noting that use of an insecticide called Intrepid
(methoxyfenozide) could cause potential and actual harm to the species.
As such, Western noted that it would not use Intrepid, for any reason,
either during or after construction.
    Northern monkshood is a threatened species found only in Iowa,
Wisconsin, Ohio, and New York. Northern monkshood is often found on
shaded to partially shaded cliffs, algific talus slopes,\9\ or along
cool streamsides, as it prefers cool soil, cold air drainage, and/or
cold groundwater flowage. In a letter filed with the Commission on
August 18, 2009, Interior stated that no threatened or endangered
species exist in the project area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Algific talus slopes are also called ``cold air slopes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environment Effects
    As discussed in section 3.3.1, Geology and Soils, the total area of
disturbance is 875 square feet, including 135 square feet for
excavation for the draft tube and 740 square feet for the powerhouse
and forebay, which would only require surface cleaning and concrete
bonding. The project would generate electricity using a 205-kW, 480-
volt generator. The main power leads would leave the powerhouse
overhead and connect to an existing distribution line less than 30 feet
away. No land-disturbing activities are associated with the
transmission line.
    Access to the project works would be from the existing cul-de-sac
near the west side of the dam and created during the realignment of the
old Highway 21. The cul-de-sac is approximately 130 feet west of the
project works. Limited staging of equipment during project construction
would occur on 0.5 acre of land, with most of the necessary equipment
stored off-site.
    While some grassy areas may be temporarily disturbed and soils
slightly compacted by the movement of equipment and personnel during
the construction of the proposed project, no long-term adverse effects
to terrestrial resources are anticipated. The construction area would
be relatively small, and would occur over an area that has been
previously disturbed, due to changes in land use over time (e.g.,
sawmill, installation and subsequent removal of the former powerhouse).
The dam is located in an area with a fair amount of development,
including Highway 21, the Sparta Campus of Western Technical College,
some residential development, and the Fort McCoy Military Reservation.
As such, the project site is lacking in high quality habitat for
wildlife. While there may be some noise associated with the ground-
disturbing activities that could temporarily deter some species, any
impacts would be minor and short-term.
    While curly-leaf pondweed was found in Angelo Pond in 2006, all
ground-disturbing activities are happening in the dry, away from the
impoundment. Further, the water levels in the reservoir will not change
and as such project operations would likely have no effect on any
existing pondweed populations. The wetlands in the vicinity of the
project are also located well outside of the construction zone and
would not be otherwise affected by project operation due to the
proposed run-of-river operating regime.
    Karners rely primarily on the presence of wild lupine (Lupinus
perennis), a perennial wildflower that prefers sandy areas in open or
partially shaded landscapes. In Wisconsin, this habitat is typically
dry, sandy openings, including openings in oak savannas, jack pine
stands, and dune or sandplain communities. Other areas with wild lupine
may include utility, or road rights-of-way, abandoned agricultural
fields, and military training areas and bombing ranges (FWS, 2012b), as
wild lupine responds well to occasional ground-disturbance. While these
species

are known to occur in Monroe County, it is unlikely that either species
are present in the area of disturbance. Although the soils in the
proposed area of disturbance include sands and sandy loams, the soils
are poorly drained, and therefore, unsuitable for wild lupine. In
addition, most of the construction area is bedrock, with little to no
soil.
    The algific talus slopes required by northern monkshood are rare
communities with steep, fractured limestone slopes that retain ice
throughout the growing season. These slopes support mountain maple
(Acer spicatum), extensive beds of bulbet fern (Cystopteris bulbifera)
and mosses (Wisconsin DNR, 2012b). The project area is not located on
an algific talus slope, which are more common further west toward the
Mississippi River, and in Grant County Wisconsin. The project area is
relatively level, and, where vegetation exists, is mainly composed of
grasses.
    To summarize, because there are no Karners, northern monkshood, nor
habitat for either species within the project area, project
construction and operation would have no effect on these species.

3.3.4. Cultural Resources

Affected Environment
Area of Potential Effects
    Under section 106 of the NHPA, the Commission must take into
account whether any historic property within the project's APE could be
affected by the issuance of a license. The APE is defined as the
geographic area in which an undertaking may directly or indirectly
cause alterations in the character or use of a historic property, if
any such property exists. In this case, the APE for the project is the
proposed project boundary.
Regional History
    The earliest evidence of Native American occupation in Wisconsin
dates to the Paleo-Indian period (10,000-8500 B.C.). Occupation
continued through the Archaic (8,000-1,000 B.C.), Woodland (1000-300
B.C.), and Mississippian periods (A.D. 900-1600). Upon European
contact, much of Wisconsin, including the project area, was occupied by
the Ho-Chunk. Beginning in 1840, there were a series of forcible
relocations throughout the state, which resulted in the Ho-Chunk being
moved to lands west of the Mississippi River. The forcible relocations
continued until 1875, at which time a majority of the remaining Ho-
Chunk were relocated to Monroe and Jackson counties, Wisconsin.
    European settlement in Monroe County occurred in 1842. Between 1852
and 1854, Dr. Seth Angle built a dam and sawmill at the site of the
current Angelo dam. The sawmill prospered, and the village of Athens
was settled around the mill and dam in 1856. The village's name was
later changed to Angelo. By the 1900's, the population of Angelo had
declined because of the high price of land and because the railroad did
not travel by the town.
    In 1897, the sawmill was converted into the Sparta Electric Plant.
The Wisconsin-Minnesota Light and Power Company purchased the plant,
and in 1920, rebuilt the dam. In 1947, Northern States Power Company
bought the facility, and in 1968 refurbished the dam and demolished the
powerhouse. In 1969, Northern States Power Company ceased operation of
the facility. In 1998, the refurbished dam was demolished, and Angelo
dam was constructed in its place (Salkin, 2011).
Archaeological and Historic Resources
    A phase I survey of the APE, conducted in 2010, revealed no surface
or sub-surface archaeological resources, Euro-American artifacts, or
buildings or structures that would be eligible for the National
Register. The existing Angelo dam is not eligible for the National
Register, because it is less than 50 years old.
    A portion of the APE to be surveyed was inaccessible during the
initial survey; therefore, a second phase I survey was conducted in
March and April of 2012. No surface or sub-surface archaeological
resources were discovered during the second survey. In total, the two
surveys covered about 87 percent of the APE. The Wisconsin SHPO, in
letters filed on October 21, 2011, and June 14, 2012, concurred with
the two surveys' findings.
Environmental Effects
    Proposed project construction and operation may affect unknown
historic properties within the APE. The executed PA requires that every
proposed hydroelectric project in Wisconsin develop an HPMP to avoid,
lessen, or mitigate for any adverse effects on both identified and
unidentified historic properties within the APE. To address any
potential adverse effects on unidentified historic properties,\10\
Western proposes to implement its HPMP, filed on October 21, 2011 and
amended by letter filed on June 14, 2012. The HPMP contains policies
and procedures for: (1) The completion of a phase I survey of the
unsurveyed areas within the APE; (2) treatment of unanticipated
archaeological resource discoveries or human remains; (3) the
determination of the National Register-eligibility of any discovered
archaeological resource; (4) the treatment of any unknown historic
property over the term of any license issued; and (5) the appointment
of an HPMP coordinator. In letters filed on October 21, 2011 and June
14, 2012, the Wisconsin SHPO accepted the proposed HPMP with its
amendments.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ There are no known historic properties within the APE.
    \11\ Pursuant to section II.B., Historic Resources Management
Plan, of the executed PA, if the Wisconsin SHPO agrees with the
HPMP, then Western shall implement the HPMP, if a license is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Analysis
    Western conducted two cultural resource surveys, but was unable to
survey about 17 percent of the land within the project's APE. In these
unsurveyed areas, project operations could adversely affect unknown
archaeological resources that could be eligible for the National
Register. Also during project construction or operation, unknown
archaeological sites or human remains may be discovered. The proposed
HPMP contains protocols and procedures to adequately address any
unanticipated discoveries during future surveys or proposed project
construction and operation. Also the proposed HPMP contains provisions
to lessen, avoid, or mitigate for any adverse effects if the discovered
properties are eligible for the National Register or if human remains
are discovered.
    We anticipate that any effects on unknown historic properties would
be taken into account through the executed PA and the proposed HPMP.
The documents would ensure that any adverse effects on historic
properties within the APE would be resolved.

3.4 No-Action Alternative

    Under the no action alternative, a license for the project would
not be issued and the Angelo Dam Project would not be constructed.
There would be no changes to the physical, biological, or cultural
resources in the area, and there would be no hydroelectric generation
at the dam to contribute to the regional need for power.

4.0 Developmental Analysis

    In this section, we look at Western's use of the La Crosse River
for hydropower purposes to see what effects various environmental
measures would have on the projects' costs and

power generation. Under the Commission's approach to evaluating the
economics of hydropower projects, as articulated in Mead Corp.,\12\ the
Commission compares the current project cost to an estimate of the cost
of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using a likely
alternative source of power for the region (cost of alternative power).
In keeping with Commission policy as described in Mead Corp, our
economic analysis is based on current electric power cost conditions
and does not consider future escalation of fuel prices in valuing the
hydropower project's power benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ]
61,027 (July 13, 1995). In most cases, electricity from hydropower
would displace some form of fossil-fueled generation, in which fuel
cost is the largest component of the cost of electricity production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For each of the licensing alternatives, our analysis includes an
estimate of: (1) The cost of individual measures considered in the EA
for the protection, mitigation and enhancement of environmental
resources affected by the project; (2) the cost of alternative power;
(3) the total project cost (i.e., for construction, operation,
maintenance, and environmental measures); and (4) the difference
between the cost of alternative power and total project cost. If the
difference between the cost of alternative power and total project cost
is positive, the project produces power for less than the cost of
alternative power. If the difference between the cost of alternative
power and total project cost is negative, the project produces power
for more than the cost of alternative power. This estimate helps to
support an informed decision concerning what is in the public interest
with respect to a proposed license. However, project economics is only
one of many public interest factors the Commission considers in
determining whether, and under what conditions, to issue a license.

4.1 Power and Economic Benefits of the Project

    Table 8 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use
in our analysis. This information was provided by Western in its
license application and subsequent submittal. We find that the values
provided by Western are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis.
Cost items common to all alternatives include: Taxes and insurance
costs; estimated capital investment required to develop the project;
licensing costs; normal operation and maintenance cost; and Commission
fees.

 Table 8--Parameters for the Economic Analysis of the Angelo Dam Project
                             [Source: Staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Parameter                              Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period of analysis (years)................  30.
Term of financing (years).................  20.\a\
Taxes (real estate, local, federal).......  $0.\b\
Project cost..............................  $1,376,000.
Licensing cost, $.........................  $50,000.
Operation and maintenance, $/year.........  $10,000.
Energy value ($/MWh)......................  $90.
Capacity value ($/MW-year)................  $159,000.
Interest rate.............................  10 percent.\c\
Discount rate.............................  10 percent.\c\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Western was awarded $1,200,000 in public funding. Staff assumes that
  the remainder of the cost to develop the project would be financed.
\b\ Western is a state entity, and therefore, does not pay taxes.
\c\ See license application at 7.

    The Angelo Dam Project would have an installed capacity of 205 kW
and would generate an average of 948.5 MWh annually. Table 8 includes
an energy value of $90/MWh which is the price at which Western would
sell the project power to Northern States Power as agreed in a Power
Purchase Agreement between the two entities.\13\ The capacity value of
$159,000/MW-year (table 8) is based on the amortization and fixed
operation and maintenance cost for a simple-cycle combustion turbine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See license application at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.2 Comparison of Alternatives

    Table 9 summarizes the installed capacity, annual generation, cost
of alternative power, estimated total project cost, and difference
between the cost of alternative power and total project cost for each
of the alternatives considered in this EA: no-action, the applicant's
proposal, and the staff alternative.

 Table 9--Summary of the Annual Cost of Alternative Power and Annual Project Cost for Three Alternatives for the
                                               Angelo Dam Project
                                                 [Source: Staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Western's
                                                              No action          proposal      Staff alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installed capacity (kW).................................                 0             205                205
Annual generation MWh)..................................                 0             948.5              948.5
Dependable Capacity (kW)................................                 0         205 \a\                205
Annual cost of alternative power ($/MWh)................                 0             124.86             124.86
Annual project cost ($/MWh).............................                 0              38.35              38.65
Difference between the cost of alternative power and                     0              86.20              80.71
 project cost ($/MWh)...................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ See license application at 23.

4.2.1 No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, the Angelo Dam Project would not
be constructed and there would be no hydropower generation, costs, or
benefits at this site.

4.2.2 Applicant's Proposal

    Western proposes to construct a new hydropower facility at the
existing Angelo dam. Upon completion of the construction, the proposed
project would have a total installed capacity of 205 kW, a dependable
capacity of 205 kW, and an average annual generation of 948.5 MWh.
Additionally, Western proposes to implement the executed PA and an
associated HPMP at a capital cost of $27,000 and an annual cost of
$1,500, which is included in the total project cost of $1,376,000. In
addition, Western proposes to develop and implement an erosion and
sediment

control plan, use BMPs, and operate the project in run-of-river mode.
The costs of these measures are included in the total project costs.
The average annual cost of alternative power would be $118,432, or
$124.86/MWh. The capital cost of the project including protection,
mitigation, and enhancement measures is estimated to be $1,376,000. In
total, the average annual project cost would be $36,371, or $38.65/MWh.
Overall, the project as proposed would produce power at a cost which is
$81,589, or $86.20 MWh less than the cost of alternative power.

4.2.3 Staff Alternative

    The staff alternative includes the same developmental and
environmental measures as Western's proposal and, therefore, would have
the same capacity and energy attributes. In addition to applicant's
environmental measures, staff recommends that Western develop and
implement an operation compliance monitoring plan and schedule, for
Angelo dam at a cost of $2,500 in capital expenditure.
    Based on a total installed capacity of 205 kW, a dependable
capacity of 205 kW, and an average annual generation of 948.5 MWh, the
cost of alternative power would be $118,432, or about $124.86/MWh. The
average annual project cost would be $36,663, or about $38.65/MWh.
Overall, the project would produce power at a cost which is $81,297, or
$85.471/MWh, less than the cost of alternative generation.

4.3 Cost of Environmental Measures

    Western is proposing to implement the executed PA and associated
HPMP at a capital cost of $27,000 and an annual cost of $1,500 which is
included in the total project cost of $1,376,000. The costs associated
with Western's proposal to develop and implement an erosion and
sediment control plan, use BMPs, and operate the project in run-of-
river mode, as stated above, are included in the total project costs.
Staff is recommending that an operation compliance monitoring plan and
schedule be developed at a capital cost of $2,500, to ensure compliance
with the proposed run-of-river operating regime. We convert all costs
to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period of analysis to
give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its
cost. Staff's recommended operation compliance monitoring plan would
add about $292 to the project cost, annually.

5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Comparison of Alternatives

    In this section, we compare the developmental and non-developmental
effects of Western's proposal, Western's proposal as modified by staff,
and the no-action alternative.
    We estimate the annual generation of the project under the three
alternatives identified above. Our analysis shows that the annual
generation would be 948.5 MWh for the proposed action, 948.5 MWh for
the staff alternative, and 0 MWh for the no-action alternative.

           Table 10--Comparison of Effects for Each Alternative Associated With the Angelo Dam Project
                                                 [Source: Staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Staff recommended
               Resource                 No action alternative       Proposed action            alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generation...........................  No hydroelectric         948.5 MWh of             948.5 MWh of
                                        generation.              electricity produced     electricity produced
                                                                 annually.                annually.
Geologic and Soils Resources.........  No changes to geology    Western would excavate   Same as proposed
                                        or soils at or near      approximately 135        action.
                                        the proposed project     cubic yards of bedrock
                                        site.                    to construct the
                                                                 proposed powerhouse
                                                                 and forebay. To ensure
                                                                 the protection of
                                                                 project resources from
                                                                 sedimentation and
                                                                 erosion, Western would
                                                                 develop, and implement
                                                                 (BMPs) during project
                                                                 construction as well
                                                                 as develop and
                                                                 implement an erosion
                                                                 and sediment control
                                                                 plan. There would,
                                                                 nonetheless, be the
                                                                 potential for
                                                                 temporary and minor
                                                                 erosion and
                                                                 sedimentation at the
                                                                 site.
Aquatic Resources....................  No changes to current    There would be           Same as proposed
                                        water quality            temporary, minor         action.
                                        conditions where DO,     increases in turbidity
                                        water temperature, and   associated with
                                        pH are at levels         construction. Run-of-
                                        consistent with state    river operation would
                                        water quality            maintain current water
                                        standards.               quality.
Terrestrial..........................  No changes to existing   Project construction     Same as proposed
                                        terrestrial resources.   would cause minor,       action.
                                                                 short-term disturbance
                                                                 of grassy areas,
                                                                 compaction of soils,
                                                                 and generation of
                                                                 noise associated with
                                                                 excavation activities.
Cultural Resources...................  No changes to the        Construction and         Same as proposed
                                        current conditions       operation of the         action.
                                        where there are no       proposed project could
                                        known historic           adversely affect
                                        properties. There        unknown historic
                                        would be no potential    properties. Western
                                        for unknown historic     proposes to implement
                                        properties to be         the HPMP filed on
                                        affected by the          October 21, 2011, and
                                        project.                 amended by letter
                                                                 filed on June 14,
                                                                 2012, to mitigate for
                                                                 any adverse effects on
                                                                 newly discovered
                                                                 historic properties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.2 Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative

    Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the FPA require the Commission to give
equal consideration to the power development purposes and to the
purposes of energy conservation; the protection, mitigation of damage
to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife; the protection of
recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of
environmental quality. Any license issued shall be such as in the
Commission's judgment will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for
improving or developing waterway or waterways for all beneficial public
uses. This section contains the basis for, and a summary of, our
recommendations for licensing the Angelo Dam Project. We weigh the
costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other
proposed measures.
    Based on our independent review of the environmental and economic
effects of the proposed project and its alternatives, we selected
Western's proposal with staff's modifications as the preferred
alternative. We recommend this alternative because: (1) Issuance of an
original hydropower license by the Commission would allow the applicant
to construct and operate the project as an economically beneficial and
dependable source of electrical energy; (2) the 205 kW of electric
capacity would come from a renewable resource which does not contribute
to atmospheric pollution; (3) the public benefits of this alternative
would exceed those of the no-action alternative; and (4) the
recommended measures would protect, mitigate, and enhance environmental
resources affected by building, operating, and maintaining the project.

5.2.1. Measures Proposed by Western

    Based on our environmental analysis of Western's proposal in
section 3, and the costs presented in section 4, we conclude that the
following environmental measures proposed by Western would protect and
enhance environmental resources and would be worth the cost. Therefore,
we recommend including these measures in any license issued for the
project:
     Developing and implementing an erosion and sediment
control plan with provisions for using BMPs, including installing a
temporary inflatable cofferdam, and placing hay bales and siltation
fabric at locations where sediment-laden runoff could otherwise enter
project waters or adjacent non-project lands;
     Operating the project in a run-of-the-river mode to
minimize impacts on water quality and quantity, and fish and aquatic
resources; and
     Implementing the PA, executed on December 16, 1993, and
the HPMP, filed on October 21, 2011, and amended by letter filed on
June 14, 2012.

5.2.2. Additional Measures Recommended By Staff

    In addition to Western's proposed measures noted above, we
recommend that Western develop and implement an operation compliance
monitoring plan and schedule to monitor compliance with run-of-river
operations. In section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, we determined that
such a plan would ensure that Western would be able to demonstrate
compliance with its proposed run-of-river operating regime. In section
4, staff concluded that developing and implementing an operation
compliance monitoring plan would have an annualized cost of $292. The
benefits of the plan justify the annualized cost of $292.
    As noted in section 2.2.4, Western also proposes to comply with all
state water quality standards while operating the project. We consider
this proposal to comply with state law to be a general legal matter
rather than a specific environmental measure, and therefore, do not
adopt it as an environmental measure under the staff alternative.
Nevertheless, in section 3, we analyzed the effects of proposed project
construction and operation on water quality in the La Crosse River and
concluded that with the exception of the potential for short-term,
minor increases in turbidity during construction, Western's proposal to
operate the project in a run-of-river mode would ensure that there
would be no long-term adverse effects on water quality.

5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

    As discussed in section 3.3.1, Geology and Soils Resources, 135
cubic yards of rock would be permanently excavated. Also, any potential
erosion or sedimentation that would occur during project construction
would be minimized through the development and implementation of an
erosion and sediment control plan.
    As discussed in section 3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, construction
activities may cause minor, short-term adverse effects on water
turbidity, but developing and implementing an erosion and sediment
control plan would limit the severity and scope of these effects. The
operation of the proposed project would also result in some entrainment
and mortality of resident fish. However, these effects would likely be
minor as most large fish would be able to escape the intake's approach
velocity, and the majority of small fish are more likely to survive
passage through the project turbine. Therefore, any adverse effects
would be minimal and are unlikely to negatively impact the project
reservoir's (Angelo Pond's) fish community as a whole.

5.4 Fish and Wildlife Agency Recommendations

    Under section 10(j) of the FPA, 16 USC 803(j), each hydroelectric
license issued by the Commission must include conditions based on
recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife
agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and
wildlife resources affected by the project.
    No federal or state fish and wildlife agency filed recommendations
pursuant to section 10(j) of the FPA.

5.5 Consistency With Comprehensive Plans

    Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA, 16 USC 803(a)(2)(A), requires the
Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with
federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or
conserving a waterway or waterways affected by a project. We reviewed
three plans that are applicable to the project and found no
inconsistencies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ (1) The Department of the Interior. 1993. The Nationwide
Rivers Inventory; (2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Undated.
Fisheries USA: The recreational fisheries policy of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service; and (3) Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. 1995. Wisconsin's forestry best management practices for
water quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.0 Finding of No Signicant Impact

    On the basis of our independent analysis, the issuance of an
original license for the Angelo Dam Project, as proposed, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.

7.0 Literature Cited

Bell, Milo C. 1986. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements &
biological criteria. University of Michigan Library, Michigan.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1997. Turbine survival and
entrainment database--field tests. EPRI Report No. TR-108630.
Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory, Inc. Holden, MA.
Knapp, W.E., B. Kynard, and S.P. Gloss. 1982. Potential effects of
Kaplan, Ossberger, and Bulb turbines on anadromous fishes of the
northeast United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Massachusetts.
Lawler, Matucky and Skelly Engineers. 1991.

Length/width size estimation. In fish entrainment monitoring program
at Hodenpyl Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2599, Application.
Jackson, MI: Consumers Power Company, 1991.
Montana Water Center. February 2007. http://wildfish.montana.edu
Normandeau Associates, Inc., Tapoco Hydroelectric Project--FERC No.
2169--Fish and Aquatics Study 5, Fish Entrainment Assessment, Draft,
APGI Tapoco Division, 2002.
Salkin, P. 2011. A Cultural Resources Study of the Project Corridor
for the Proposed Angelo Dam Hydroelectric Project in Angelo
Township, Monroe County, Wisconsin, FERC Project 13417, Report of
Investigations, No. 1851. Archaeological Consulting and Services,
Inc., Verona, Wisconsin May 2011.
-------- . 2012. An Addendum to the Cultural Resources Study of the
Project Corridor for the Angelo Township, Monroe County, Wisconsin
and the Cultural Resources Management Plan, Report of
Investigations, No. 1892. Archaeological Consulting and Services,
Inc., Verona, Wisconsin. May 2012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012. Western Ecology
Division: Ecoregions of Wisconsin. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/wi_eco.htm. Accessed June 15, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2012a. Midwest Region: State
and County Lists--Wisconsin. http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/wisc-cty.html
-------- . 2012b. Midwest Region: Karner Blue Butterfly--Wisconsin
Statewide HCP Questions and Answers. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/insects/kbb/kbbhcpfs.html
Western Technical College (Western). 2012. Angelo Dam Hydroelectric
Project. FERC Project No. 13417, Response to Deficiency of License
Application and Request for Additional Information. February 10,
2012.
-------- . 2011a. Angelo Hydropower Project Application, FERC
Project No. 13417-002. October 21, 2011.
-------- . 2011b. Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Proposed
Licensing of the Angelo Dam Hydroelectric Facility in Angelo
Township, Monroe County, Wisconsin, FERC Project 13417 Report of
Investigations, No. 1865. Archaeological Consulting and Services,
Inc., Verona, Wisconsin. June 2011.
Winchell, F., S. Amaral, and D. Dixon. 2000. Hydroelectric turbine
entrainment and survival database: An alternative to field studies,
Hydrovision 2000--New Realities, New Responses, CD-ROM, Charlotte,
North Carolina, August 8-11, 2000.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR). 2012a.
Invasive Species: Curly-leaf Pondweed. Available at: http://dnr.wi.gov/invasives/fact/curlyleaf_pondweed.htm
-------- . 2012b. Topics--Endangered Resources: Aligific Talus
Slope. Available at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/EndangeredResources/Communities.asp?mode=detail&Code=CTGEO085WI
-------- . 2002a. State of the Bad Axe--La Crosse River Basin. PUBL
WT 557 2002. http://dnr.wi.gov/water/basin/balax/index.htm. Accessed
June 29, 2012.
-------- . 2002b. Wisconsin Watershed Database: Watershed--Upper La
Crosse River (BLO6). http://dnr.wi.gov/water/watershedDetail.aspx?code=BL06&Name=Upper%20La%20Crosse%20River

8.0 List of Preparers

Janet Hutzel--Cultural Resources (Outdoor Recreation Planner; B.S.,
Environmental Analysis and Planning; M.S.,Geography)
Isis Johnson--Project Coordinator, Geology and Soils, Terrestrial
Resources, (Environmental Biologist; M.S. Sustainable Development
and Conservation Biology, B.S Wildlife Conservation and Entomology)
Bryan Roden-Reynolds--Aquatic Resources (Fisheries Biologist; B.S.,
Wildlife and Fisheries Science)
Sergiu Serban--Need for Power and Developmental Analysis (Civil
Engineer; B.S. and M.S., Civil Engineering)

[FR Doc. 2012-21176 Filed 8-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P