DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NEW HYDROPOWER LICENSES Hawks Nest Hydroelectric Project, P-2512-075 Glen Ferris Hydroelectric Project, P-14439-001 West Virginia Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426 December 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................... v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................... viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. x 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATION ................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ...................... 3 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................. 3 1.2.2 Need for Power ................................................................................ 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............. 4 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ............................................................................ 4 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ............................................................................... 5 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act................................................................... 5 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ........................................................ 7 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act .................................................. 8 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ............................................. 8 1.4.1 Scoping ............................................................................................. 9 1.4.2 Interventions ..................................................................................... 9 1.4.3 Comments on the Application ....................................................... 10 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................... 11 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................... 11 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities .............................................................. 11 2.1.2 Project Safety ................................................................................. 16 2.1.3 Existing Project Operation ............................................................. 17 2.1.4 Existing Environmental Measures ................................................. 18 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL .......................................................... 19 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................. 19 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation and Environmental Measures ........... 19 2.2.3 Proposed Modifications to Project Boundary ................................ 22 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ................................................................ 23 2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS................................................................. 25 2.4.1 Issuing Non-power Licenses .......................................................... 25 2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Projects .............................. 25 2.4.3 Retiring the Projects ....................................................................... 25 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 27 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN .................. 27 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS .................... 28 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ........... 28 3.3.1 Aquatic Resources .......................................................................... 29 3.3.2 Terrestrial Resources ...................................................................... 61 i 3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................. 80 3.3.4 Recreation ...................................................................................... 95 3.3.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 123 3.3.6 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 132 3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................... 136 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 137 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECTS .. 137 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................ 139 4.2.1 No-action Alternative ................................................................... 141 4.2.2 Applicant’s Proposal .................................................................... 141 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ........................................................................... 142 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ............................. 142 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 153 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................... 153 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by Hawks Nest Hydro .................................. 153 5.1.2 Additional Staff-Recommended Measures .................................. 154 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff ........................................ 166 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ..................................... 168 5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 169 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ................ 175 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...................................................... 176 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 177 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 186 APPENDIX A: LICENSE ARTICLES RECOMMENDED BY STAFF FOR THE HAWKS NEST PROJECT NO. P-2512 ..................................................................... 1 APPENDIX B: LICENSE ARTICLES RECOMMENDED BY STAFF FOR THE GLEN FERRIS PROJECT NO. P-14439 .................................................................... 1 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Hawks Nest and Glen Ferris projects (Source: staff). .............. 2 Figure 2. Hawks Nest and Glen Ferris project location and facilities (Source: license application, as modified by staff). ............................................................................. 12 Figure 3. Glen Ferris Dam and Powerhouses (Source: license application, as modified by staff). ..................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4. Annual hydrographs of inflow to the Hawks Nest reservoir during representative normal (2005), dry (1999), and wet (2003) years (Source: staff). .... 31 Figure 5. Continuous temperature data from the Hawks Nest bypassed reach during July 2012. The solid lines represent temperatures measured at the following sites: Cotton Hill (red), surge basin (green), and the spillway (blue). The red arrow on the left y-axis denotes West Virginia DEP’s maximum summer temperature threshold of 87oF. The USGS Thurmond gage is approximately 20 miles upstream of the dam; Avg FB=depth-averaged temperature in the Hawks Nest forebay (Source: license application, as modified by staff). ............................................................................. 35 Figure 6. WUA (weighted usable area) plots for species that exhibit a positive relationship between WUA and flow in the Hawks Nest bypassed reach. The total area of the study site is 91,054 m2 (Source: license application, as modified by staff). .......................................................................................................................... 49 Figure 7. WUA (weighted usable area) plots for species that exhibit a negative relationship between WUA and flow in the Hawks Nest bypassed reach. The total area of the study site is 91,054 m2 (Source: license application, as modified by staff). .......................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 8. WUA (weighted usable area) plots for species whose habitat vs. flow relationships are life stage dependent. The total area of the study site, located in the Hawks Nest bypassed reach, is 91,054 m2 (Source: license application, as modified by staff). ..................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 9. Rate of gain (m2 per cfs) in wetted (inundated) area in the Hawks Nest bypassed reach for progressive flow increases (x-axis) over the range of modeled flows (100 cfs to 2,000 cfs). For example, as flows increase from 100 cfs to 150 cfs (a 50 cfs increase), an additional 2,348 m2 of the bypassed reach becomes inundated, corresponding to a rate of 47 m2 per every 1 unit increase in cfs across this interval (Source: staff). .......................................................................................................... 53 Figure 10. Estimated daily flows in the Hawks Nest bypassed