Antrim County; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment, 29667-29695 [2015-12463]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 99 (Friday, May 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29667-29695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3030-019]


Antrim County; Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) 
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 
FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Antrim County's 
application for a subsequent license for the Elk Rapids Hydroelectric 
Project (FERC No. 3030), located on the Elk

[[Page 29668]]

River in the Village of Elk Rapids in Antrim, Grand Traverse, and 
Kalkaska Counties, Michigan, and prepared an environmental assessment 
(EA).
    In the EA, Commission staff analyze the potential environmental 
effects of relicensing the project, and conclude that issuing a 
subsequent license for the project, with appropriate environmental 
measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly 
affecting 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 
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 
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll-free number at 1-866-208-3676, or 
for TTY, 202-502-8659.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this 
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please 
file the requested information using the Commission's eFiling system at 
https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please 
contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic 
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The 
first page of any filing should include docket number P-3030-019.
    For further information, please contact Patrick Ely by telephone at 
(202) 502-8570 or by email at Patrick..ly@ferc.gov.

    Dated: May 15, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

Environmental Assessment for Hydropower License

Elk Rapids Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 3030-019, Michigan

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

May 2015

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
    1.1 APPLICATION
    1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER
        1.2.1 Purpose of Action
        1.2.2 Need for Power
    1.2 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
        1.2.1 Federal Power Act
        1.2.2 Clean Water Act
        1.2.3 Endangered Species Act
        1.2.4 Coastal Zone Management Act
        1.2.5 National Historic Preservation Act
    1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT
        1.3.1 Scoping
        1.3.2 Interventions
        1.3.3 Comments on the Application
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
    2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
        2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities
        2.1.2 Project Safety
        2.1.3 Existing Project Operation
    2.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
        2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities
        2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation
        2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures
    2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE
    2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY
        2.4.1 Issuing a Non-power License
        2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project
        2.4.3 Retiring the Project
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
    3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN
    3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS
    3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES
        3.3.1 Aquatic Resources
        3.3.2 Terrestrial Resources
        3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
        3.3.4 Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetic Resources
        3.3.5 Cultural Resources
    3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS
    4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
    4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
        4.2.1 No-Action Alternative
        4.2.2 Applicant's Proposal
        4.2.3 Staff Alternative
    4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

[[Page 29669]]

 
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
        5.1.1 Measures Proposed by Antrim County
        5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff
        5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff
        5.1.4 Conclusion
6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
7.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
8.0 LITERATURE CITED
9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the Elk Rapids Hydroelectric Project, Michigan
 (Source: Antrim County, 2012; as modified by staff) 1043
Figure 2. Project facilities for the Elk Rapids Project (Source: Antrim
 County, 2012) 1049
Figure 3. Elk Rapids Project vicinity and direction of water flow
 through the chain-of-lakes (Source: Antrim County, 2012; as modified by
 staff) 1056
Figure 4. Public access sites around the Elk Rapids Project reservoir
 (Source: Antrim County, 2012; as modified by staff) 1080
Figure 5. Recreation facilities in the Elk Rapids Project boundary
 (Source: Antrim County, 2012) 1080
 

List of Tables

Table 1. Calculated monthly flows at the Elk Rapids Project intake from
 2001-2011. (Source: Michigan DNR, 2011; Antrim County, 2011; as
 modified by staff) 1060
Table 2. NPDES Permits within the Elk Rapids Project Vicinity [Source:
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2012a] 1061
Table 3. EPA and State of Michigan attainment goals at the Elk Rapids
 Project reservoir for Cold Water Fishery, Agriculture, Public Water
 Supply, and Navigation. (Source: Staff) 1062
Table 4. Summary of state water quality standards for DO and water
 temperature applicable to the Elk Rapids Project boundary (Source:
 State of Michigan, 1994, as modified by staff) 1062
Table 5. Public Water Access Sites at the Elk Rapids Project. (Source:
 Staff) 1076
Table 6. Parameters for the economic analysis of the Elk Rapids Project
 (Source: Antrim County, 2012; as modified by staff) 1085
Table 7. Summary of annual cost of alternative power and annual project
 cost for the action alternatives for the Elk Rapids Project (Source:
 Antrim County, 2012; as modified by staff) 1086
Table 8. Cost of environmental mitigation and enhancement measures
 considered in assessing the environmental effects of continued
 operation of the Elk Rapids Project (Source: Staff) 1088
 

Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE area of potential effects
cfs cubic feet per second
chain-of-lakes Elk River Chain of Lakes
Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Consumers Energy Consumers Energy Company
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
dam gage datum Elk Rapids dam gage datum
DO dissolved oxygen
EA environmental assessment
Elk Rapids Hydro Elk Rapids Hydroelectric Power, LLC
Elk Rapids Project or project Elk Rapids Hydroelectric Project
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FPA Federal Power Act
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Interior U.S. Department of Interior
Lakes Association Three Lakes Association
mg/l milligrams per liter
Michigan DEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Michigan DNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Michigan SHPO Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer
MISO Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
MiSWIMS Michigan Surface Water Information Management System
MW megawatt
MWh megawatt-hour
National Register National Register of Historic Places
NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
RFC ReliabilityFirst Corporation
USGS United States Geological Survey
Watershed Council Tipp of the Mitt Watershed Council
WQC Water Quality Certification

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Proposed Action

    On December 21, 2012, Antrim County filed an application with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) for a new license for 
the continued operation and maintenance its Elk Rapids Hydroelectric 
Project No. 3030-019 (Elk Rapids Project or project).\1\ The 0.700 
megawatt (MW) project is located on the Elk River in the Village of Elk 
Rapids in Antrim, Grand Traverse, and Kalkaska Counties, Michigan. 
Antrim County does not propose any increase in the project's generating 
capacity or any new construction. The project does not occupy any 
federal land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The project is owned by Antrim County and is manually 
operated by Elk Rapids Hydroelectric Power, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project Description

    The Elk Rapids Project consists of the following existing 
facilities: (1) A reservoir that includes the 2,560-acre Skegemog Lake 
and the 7,730-acre Elk Lake; (2) a 121-foot-long, 52-foot-high, 26-
foot-wide powerhouse that spans the north channel of the Elk River, 
with an approximate operating head of 10.5 feet; (3) intake trashracks 
having a 1.75-inch clear bar spacing; (4) four intake bays, each 22 
feet wide with sliding head gates; (5) two 525 horsepower Francis 
turbines, each coupled to a generator with an installed capacity of 
0.350 MW, for a total installed capacity of 0.700 MW; (6) two turbine 
gate cases used to spill excess water through the two intake bays that 
do not contain turbines and generators; (7) a 14-foot-wide overflow 
spillway located about 400 feet south of the powerhouse on the south 
channel of the Elk River; (8) a 4.16-kilovolt (kV) transmission line 
that extends about 30 feet from the powerhouse to a 20-foot by 30-foot 
substation enclosure; (9) a 50-foot-long underground 12.5-kV 
transmission line;

[[Page 29670]]

and (10) appurtenant facilities. Recreation facilities at the project 
include an angler walkway that is attached to the tailrace side of the 
powerhouse and a parking lot adjacent to the powerhouse. The average 
annual generation is about 2,422 megawatt-hours.
    Antrim County operates the project in a modified run-of-river 
mode.\2\ The water surface elevation of the project reservoir (measured 
as Elk Rapids dam gage datum (dam gage datum) is maintained at 590.8 
feet dam gage datum from April 15 through November 1 and at 590.2 feet 
dam gage datum from November 1 through April 15.\3\ Flows greater than 
the capacities of the project's two operating turbine/generator units 
are passed through one or both of the two overflow turbine gate cases. 
When flows in the Elk River are too low to operate one turbine/
generator unit, the overflow turbine gate case is used with decreased 
gate openings to maintain a modified run-of-river mode of operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The project is operated in a modified run-of-river mode, 
whereby the flows through the powerhouse and bypassed spillway 
approximately equals inflow of the Elk River, but are modified so as 
to maintain the seasonal water levels of Elk and Skegemog Lakes, as 
required by the order approving settlement and amending license. See 
88 FERC ] 62, 158 (1999).
    \3\ The elevations 590.80 and 590.20 feet dam gage datum are 
equivalent to 588.26 and 587.66 feet International Great Lakes Datum 
of 1955, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Environmental Measures

    Antrim County proposes to continue operating the project in a 
modified run-of-river mode to maintain existing seasonal lake levels. 
Antrim County also proposes to continue to operate and maintain the 
existing angler walkway and associated parking lot. No other 
environmental measures are proposed.

Public Involvement

    Before filing its license application, Antrim County conducted pre-
filing consultation under the Commission's 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.
    Before preparing this environmental assessment (EA), staff 
conducted scoping to determine what issues and alternatives should be 
addressed. A scoping document was distributed to interested parties on 
August 29, 2013, which solicited comments, recommendations, and 
information on the project. Two scoping meetings were held on September 
19, 2013, in Elk Rapids, Michigan. On December 26, 2013, staff issued a 
ready for environmental analysis notice, requesting comments, 
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions.

Alternatives Considered

    This EA considers the following alternatives: (1) Antrim County's 
proposal; (2) Antrim County's proposal with staff modifications (staff 
alternative); and (3) no action, meaning the project would continue to 
be operated as it presently with no changes. The staff alternative 
includes Antrim County's proposed measures with some additions as 
described below. Staff's recommended additional environmental measures 
include, or are based on, recommendations made by federal and state 
resource agencies that have an interest in resources that may be 
affected by operation of the proposed project.
    The staff alternative includes the following additional measures:
    (1) An operation compliance monitoring plan that includes a 
description of project operation and the equipment and procedures 
necessary to maintain and monitor compliance with the operational mode 
required in any license issued;
    (2) posting signage that describes proper boat maintenance 
techniques to reduce the spread of invasive plant and mussel species; 
and
    (3) if archaeological resources are discovered during project 
operation or other project-related activities, cease all activities 
related to the disturbance and discovery area, and consult with the 
Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer (Michigan SHPO) to 
determine appropriate treatment.
    Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to 
operate and the terms of the existing license. No new environmental 
protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented.

Environmental Impacts and Measures of the Staff Alternative

    The primary issue associated with relicensing the Elk Rapids 
Project is the regulation of the reservoir elevation, invasive species, 
and recreational opportunities. Below we summarize the environmental 
effects associated with staff's alternative and the measures 
recommended to address those effects.
Aquatic Resources
    Operating the project in a modified run-of-river mode would enable 
the project to continue to maintain seasonal lake levels in Elk and 
Skegemong Lakes. Because the project currently operates in a modified 
run-of-river mode, minimal changes to aquatic habitat are expected in 
the reservoir, bypassed reach, and within the project tailrace by 
continuing this mode of operation.
    An operation compliance monitoring plan that includes a description 
of project operation and the equipment and procedures that would be 
used by Antrim County to monitor project operation would provide a 
means to verify compliance with the operational requirements of any 
license issued for the project. Verifying compliance would, in turn, 
prevent possible misunderstandings of project operation and reduce the 
likelihood of noncompliance.
    Invasive curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilifoil, and zebra 
mussels, which are all primarily transferred to other waterbodies by 
boat, are found within and adjacent to the project boundary and are 
present in the Elk River Chain of Lakes (chain-of-lakes) watershed.\4\ 
Zebra mussels are so pervasive throughout the chain-of-lakes, Michigan 
DEQ has no plan to control or eradicate the in the chain-of-lakes 
watershed. Posting signage that describes proper boat maintenance 
techniques to reduce the spread of curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian 
watermilifoil, and zebra mussels would limit the spread of these 
invasive species to other waterbodies, benefiting native species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The chain-of-lakes watershed is a 75-mile-long waterway 
consisting of 14 lakes (including Elk and Skegemog Lakes) and 
connecting rivers that discharge to empty into Grand Traverse Bay, 
Lake Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terrestrial Resources
    Current project operation and the presence of the project 
powerhouse have been successful in preventing invasive fish species in 
Lake Michigan from passing upstream of project into the chain-of-lakes. 
Antrim County's proposal to continue current project operation would 
ensure that invasive fish species are blocked from passing upstream of 
the powerhouse.
Threatened and Endangered Species
    Kirtland's warbler, Rufa red knot, Pitcher's thistle, Houghton's 
goldenrod, and northern long-eared bat are known to occur in Antrim, 
Grand Traverse, and/or Kalkaska Counties, Michigan; however, no 
federally listed threatened

[[Page 29671]]

or endangered species are known to occur within the project affected 
area. Continued operation of the project would not affect the federally 
listed Kirtland's warbler, Rufa red knot, Pitcher's thistle, and 
Houghton's goldenrod because each species requires specialized habitat 
that does not exist within the project boundary or in areas potentially 
affected by the project.
    Continued operation of the project would not affect the federally 
listed northern long-eared bat. The project is located in an area that 
does not contain habitat needed for winter hibernation. Also, although 
a limited amount of dispersed riparian and wetland habitat in the 
project boundary could be used by northern long-eared bats for 
roosting, foraging, and breeding, this habitat would not be affected 
because there would be no changes to project operation, no new 
construction, and there would be no changes to seasonal water levels. 
Also, any maintenance activities would be restricted to areas around 
the powerhouse and transmission lines, which do not contain habitat for 
the northern long-ear bat.
Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetics
    There are 38 public access points and three marinas around the 
project reservoir or downstream of the project. In addition, Antrim 
County owns and operates an existing angler walkway and parking lot. 
Antrim County proposes to continue to operate and maintain the existing 
angler walkway and parking lot, and does not propose any changes to 
current project operation. The project would have no effect on existing 
recreational use because there would be no change in existing lake 
levels, recreational opportunities, or access.
Cultural Resources
    The project would not affect any known properties eligible for, or 
listed on, the National Register of Historic Places. However, there is 
a possibility that unknown archaeological resources may be discovered 
during project operation or project-related activities. To ensure 
proper treatment of any such unknown archaeological resources that may 
be discovered, Antrim County would cease all land-disturbing activities 
and notify the Michigan SHPO of any unknown archaeological resources 
that are discovered, and follow the Michigan SHPO's guidance regarding 
the evaluation of the archaeological resource and, if necessary, ways 
to avoid, lessen, or mitigate for any adverse effects.

Conclusions

    Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the project as 
proposed by Antrim County, with staff modifications and additional 
measures.
    In section 4.2 of the EA, Comparison of Alternatives, we estimate 
the likely cost of alternative power for each of the alternatives 
identified above. Our analysis shows that during the first year of 
operation under the no-action alternative, project power would cost 
$50,378, or $20.80/megawatt hour (MWh), more than the likely 
alternative cost of power. Under Antrim County's proposal, project 
power would cost $50,644, or $20.91/MWh, more than the likely 
alternative cost of power. Under the staff alternative, project power 
would cost $51,346, or $21.20/MWh, more than the likely alternative 
cost of power.
    Based on our independent review of agency comments filed on this 
project and our review of the environmental and economic effects of the 
proposed project and its alternatives, we selected the staff 
alternative, as the preferred option. The staff alternative includes 
the applicant's proposal with additional staff-recommended measures.
    We chose the staff alternative as the preferred alternative 
because: (1) The project would continue to provide a dependable source 
of electrical energy for the local area; (2) the 0.700 MW of electric 
capacity comes from a renewable resource that does not contribute to 
atmospheric pollution, including greenhouse gases; and (3) the 
environmental measures proposed by Antrim County, 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 recommended environmental measures.
    We conclude that issuing a subsequent license for the project, with 
the environmental measures we recommend, would not be 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

Elk Rapids Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 3030-019--Michigan

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 APPLICATION

    On December 21, 2012, Antrim County (or applicant) filed an 
application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 
for a subsequent license for the existing Elk Rapids Hydroelectric 
Project (Elk Rapids Project or project).\5\ The 0.700 megawatt (MW) 
project is located on the Elk River in the Village of Elk Rapids in 
Antrim, Grand Traverse, and Kalkaska Counties, Michigan (figure 1). The 
project does not occupy any federal lands. The project generates an 
average of about 2,422 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy annually. Antrim 
County is not proposing any change in operation, new construction, or 
new generating capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The project is owned by Antrim County and is manually 
operated by Elk Rapids Hydroelectric Power, LLC (Elk Rapids Hydro).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER

1.2.1 Purpose of Action
    The purpose of the Elk Rapids Project is to continue to provide a 
source of hydroelectric power to meet the region's power needs. 
Therefore, under the provisions of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the 
Commission must decide whether to issue a license to Antrim County for 
the Elk Rapids 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 a subsequent license for the project would allow Antrim 
County to generate electricity at the project for the term of a 
subsequent license, making electric power from a renewable resource 
available for sale to Consumers Energy Company (Consumers Energy).
    In this environmental assessment (EA), we assess the environmental 
and economic effects of continuing to operate the project: (1) As 
proposed by Antrim County; and (2) with staff's recommended measures 
(staff alternative). We also consider the effects of the no-action 
alternative. Important issues that are addressed include the project's 
effects on aquatic, terrestrial, threatened and endangered species, and 
recreation resources.

[[Page 29672]]

1.2.2 Need for Power
    The Elk Rapids Project would provide hydroelectric generation to 
meet part of the region's power requirements, resource diversity, and 
capacity needs. The project would have an installed capacity of 0.700 
MW and generate approximately 2,422 MWh per year.
    The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) annually 
forecasts electrical supply and demand nationally and regionally for a 
10-year period. The Elk Rapids Project is located in the 
ReliabilityFirst Corporation (RFC) regional entity of NERC. However, 
the NERC assessment was performed on the Midcontinent Independent 
System Operator, Inc. (MISO) area although the Elk Rapids Project 
belongs to the RFC regional entity. These assessment boundaries were 
intended to more accurately reflect the planning and operational 
properties of the bulk power system. MISO anticipates a system-wide 
growth rate of approximately 0.72 percent, causing Total Internal 
Demands of 96,879 MW and 103,056 MW in 2014 and 2023, respectively. The 
MISO summer Adjusted Potential Planning Reserve Margin \6\ is 
forecasted to range from 24.55 percent in 2014 to 20.28 percent in 
2023. The MISO winter Adjusted Potential Planning Reserve Margin is 
forecasted to range from 50.81 percent in 2014/2015 to 44.70 percent in 
2023/2024. Throughout the assessment period, neither the summer nor the 
winter Adjusted Planning Potential Reserve Margins are forecasted to 
fall below the Reference Margin Level of 14.20 percent. However, the 
MISO summer Anticipated Planning Reserve Margin is forecasted to range 
from 18.28 percent in 2014 to 3.44 percent in 2023. The MISO winter 
Anticipated Planning Reserve Margin is forecasted to range from 43.22 
percent in 2014/2015 to 24.44 percent in 2023/2024. Based on MISO's 
current awareness of projected retirements and the resource plans of 
its membership, Planning Reserve Margins would erode over the course of 
the next couple of years and would not meet the 14.2 percent Reference 
Margin Level. The impacts of environmental regulations and economic 
factors contribute to a potential shortfall of 6,750 MW, or a 7.0 
percent Anticipated Planning Reserve Margin (7.2 percentage points 
below the Reference Margin Level) by summer 2016. Accordingly, 
Existing-Certain resources are projected to be reduced by 10,382 MW 
because of retirement and suspended operation. At a 7.0 percent 
Anticipated Reserve Margin in 2016, MISO does not have enough Planning 
Resources to effectively manage risk associated with load uncertainty 
and system outages and has an 87.0 percent chance of shedding firm load 
on 2016 peak (NERC, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Planning Reserve Margin is approximately equivalent to the 
following: [(Capacity minus demand) divided by demand]. Planning 
Reserve Margin replaced Capacity Margin for NERC assessments in 
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We conclude that power from the Elk Rapids Project would help meet 
a need for power in the MISO area in both the short and long-term. The 
project provides 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.

[[Page 29673]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY15.000

1.2 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

    A subsequent license for the Elk Rapids Project would be subject to 
numerous requirements under the FPA and other applicable statutes. The 
major regulatory and statutory requirements are described below.
1.2.1 Federal Power Act
1.2.1.1 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions
    Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission is to require the 
construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways 
as may be prescribed by the Secretaries of Commerce or the U.S. 
Department of the Interior. No fishway prescriptions or requests for 
reservation of authority to prescribe fishways were filed under section 
18 of the FPA.
1.2.1.2 Section 10(j) Recommendations
    Under section 10(j) of the FPA, 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

[[Page 29674]]

statutory responsibilities of such agency. No recommendations were 
filed pursuant to section 10(j) of the FPA.
1.2.2 Clean Water Act
    Under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), a license applicant 
must obtain certification from the appropriate state pollution control 
agency verifying compliance with the CWA. On September 21, 2009, Antrim 
County applied to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 
(Michigan DEQ) for a section 401 water quality certification (WQC) for 
the Elk Rapids Project. Michigan DEQ issued the WQC for the Elk Rapids 
Project on June 26, 2012; however, because Michigan DEQ did not act on 
the request within 1 year from receipt of the request, the WQC is 
considered waived.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Although the 401 WQC issued by Michigan DEQ is considered 
waived, relevant conditions of the 401 WQC have been analyzed in 
this EA as recommendations pursuant to section 10(a) of the FPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.2.3 Endangered Species Act
    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal 
agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such 
species.
    Review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) records in April 
2015 indicate that one federally listed endangered species, the 
Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii), and 4 federally listed 
threatened species: (1) The Northern long-eared bat (Myotis 
septentrionalis); (2) Rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa); (3) 
Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcher); (4) and Houghton's goldenrod 
(Solidago houghtonii) are listed as occurring within one or more of the 
counties where the Elk Rapids Project exists.\8\ There is no designated 
critical habitat for these species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Except for the federally threatened Houghton's goldenrod, 
which is only listed in Kalkaska County, all of the other federally 
listed species are listed as occurring in Antrim, Grand Traverse, 
and Kalkaska Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The types of habitats needed for the Kirtland's warbler, Rufa red 
knot, Pitcher's thistle, and Houghton's goldenrod are not present at 
the project. Although a limited amount of dispersed riparian and 
wetland habitat in the project boundary could be used for foraging, 
roosting, and breeding by northern long-eared bats, this habitat would 
not be affected because there would be no changes to project operation, 
no new construction, and no trees would be removed as part of the 
proposed relicensing of the project. Also, maintenance activities would 
be restricted to areas around the powerhouse and transmission lines, 
which do not contain habitat for the northern long-ear bat. We conclude 
that licensing the Elk Rapids Project, as proposed by Antrim County and 
with staff recommended measures, would not affect listed species and no 
further consultation under section 7 is needed.
1.2.4 Coastal Zone Management Act
    Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act 
(CZMA), 16 United States Code [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 CZMA agency concurs with the license 
applicant's WQC of consistency with the state's CZMA program, or the 
agency's concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act 
within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant's WQC.
    By letter dated September 28, 2012, and filed with the license 
application, Michigan DEQ stated that the project is located within the 
state-designated coastal management boundary. However, Michigan DEQ 
determined that if the Commission's license requirements would be 
implemented, there would be no adverse effects to coastal resources 
from the relicensing of the project. Michigan DEQ concluded that the 
project would be considered consistent with the CZMA.
1.2.5 National Historic Preservation Act
    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) \9\ 
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 54 U.S.C. 306108 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By letter dated October 28, 2010, and filed with the license 
application, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer (Michigan 
SHPO) determined that there are no historic properties within the 
project's area of potential effects (APE). We have determined that 
there are no historic properties within the project's APE and that the 
project would not affect historic properties. Therefore, the 
Commission's regulatory requirements pertaining to section 106 of the 
NHPA have been satisfied.

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT

    The Commission's regulations (18 CFR 4.38) require that applicants 
consult with appropriate resource agencies, tribes, 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.
1.3.1 Scoping
    Before preparing this EA, we conducted scoping to determine what 
issues and alternatives should be addressed in the EA. A scoping 
document was distributed to interested agencies and other stakeholders 
on August 29, 2013. The scoping meeting was noticed in the Federal 
Register on September 6, 2013. Two scoping meetings were held on 
September 19, 2013, in Elk Rapids, Michigan, to request oral comments 
on the project. A court reporter recorded all comments and statements 
made at the scoping meetings, and these are part of the Commission's 
public record for the project.
1.3.2 Interventions
    On December 26, 2013, the Commission issued a notice accepting 
Antrim County's application to license the Elk Rapids Project and 
soliciting protests and motions to intervene. This notice set February 
24, 2013, as the deadline for filing protests and motions to intervene. 
In response to the notice, Michigan DNR filed a timely motion to 
intervene on February 14, 2013.
1.3.3 Comments on the Application
    A notice requesting terms, conditions, prescriptions, and 
recommendations was issued on December 26, 2013. The notice also stated 
that the application was ready for environmental analysis. No entities 
filed comments.

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

    Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to 
operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no 
new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would 
be implemented. We use this alternative to establish the baseline 
environmental conditions for comparison with other alternatives.

[[Page 29675]]

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities
    The Elk Rapids Project consists of the following existing 
facilities: (1) A project reservoir that includes the 2,560-acre 
Skegemog Lake and the 7,730-acre Elk Lake; (2) a 121-foot-long, 52-
foot-high, 26-foot-wide powerhouse that spans the north channel of the 
Elk River, with an approximate operating head of 10.5 feet; (3) intake 
trashracks having a 1.75-inch clear bar spacing; (4) four intake bays, 
each 22 feet wide with sliding head gates; (5) two 525 horsepower 
Francis turbines, each coupled to a generator with an installed 
capacity of 0.350 MW, for a total installed capacity of 0.700 MW; (6) 
two turbine gate cases used to spill excess water through the two 
intake bays that do not contain turbines and generators; (7) a 14-foot-
wide overflow spillway located about 400 feet south of the powerhouse 
on the south channel of the Elk River, which consists of two adjacent 
concrete drop structures, each with a 7-foot-long stop log to control 
the lake level, with each drop structure leading to a 62.5-foot-long by 
4.5-foot-diameter culvert that passes under Dexter Street; (8) a 4.16-
kilovolt (kV) transmission line that extends about 30 feet from the 
powerhouse to a 20-foot by 30-foot substation enclosure; (9) a 50-foot-
long underground 12.5-kV transmission line to connect the project 
substation to Consumers Energy Company's distribution lines; (10) an 
angler walkway that is attached to the tailrace side of the powerhouse 
and a parking lot adjacent to the powerhouse; and (11) appurtenant 
facilities.
    The proposed project boundary would fully enclose all permanent 
project features, including the powerhouse, overflow spillway, and the 
project reservoir, which consists of Skegemog Lake, Elk Lake, and the 
upper Elk River (i.e., the portion of Elk River upstream of the 
project's powerhouse).

[[Page 29676]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY15.001

2.1.2 Project Safety
    The project has been operating for more than 33 years under the 
existing license and during this time Commission staff has conducted 
operational inspections focusing on the continued safety of the 
structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, efficiency 
and safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the license, and 
proper maintenance. As part of the relicensing process, the Commission 
staff would evaluate the continued adequacy of the proposed project 
facilities under a subsequent license. Special articles would be 
included in any license issued, as appropriate. Commission staff would 
continue to inspect the project during the subsequent license term to 
assure continued adherence to Commission-approved plans and 
specifications, special license articles relating to construction (if 
any), operation and maintenance, and accepted engineering practices and 
procedures.
2.1.3 Existing Project Operation
    The Elk Rapids Project is operated as a modified run-of-river 
facility.\10\ The project is manually operated by Elk Rapids Hydro's 
personnel. The powerhouse operation is checked by Elk

[[Page 29677]]

Rapids Hydro two to three times each day, seven days a week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The project is operated in a modified run-of-river mode, 
whereby the flows through the powerhouse and bypassed spillway 
approximately equals inflow of the Elk River and are modified so as 
to maintain the seasonal water levels of Elk and Skegemog Lakes, as 
required by the order approving settlement and amending license. See 
88 FERC ] 62, 158 (1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Water flows to the project facilities by way of the Elk River Chain 
of Lakes (chain-of-lakes) \11\ from the Torch River into Skegemog Lake, 
then to Elk Lake and then into the Elk River located immediately 
upstream of the project. Skegemog Lake is connected to Elk Lake through 
a 0.25-mile-long, 0.25-mile-wide, 5-foot-deep section of water known as 
the Narrows. The Narrows does not restrict flow between Skegemog and 
Elk Lakes, and therefore does not cause a surface level difference 
between the lakes. Elk and Skegemog Lakes have seasonal lake levels 
required by a court order issued in 1973 by the Circuit Court in Antrim 
County, Michigan.\12\ The court order requires lake levels for the 
period from November 1 to April 15 to be maintained at 590.2 feet dam 
gage datum and 590.8 feet dam gage datum from April 15 (or the breakup 
of ice, whichever date is later) through November 1.\13\ During the 
semi-annual lake level change (every April and November), generation 
and water flow through the project is adjusted gradually over a period 
of two weeks to achieve the required lake level. The project is 
responsible for maintaining the court ordered lake levels through its 
normal operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The chain-of-lakes watershed is a 75 mile-long waterway 
consisting of 14 lakes and connecting rivers that discharge to empty 
into Grand Traverse Bay on Lake Michigan.
    \12\ Circuit Court for the County of Antrim, dated September 25, 
1973, in the Matter of the Petition of the Antrim County Board of 
Commissioners for a Determination of the Normal Height and Level of 
the Waters of Elk and Skegemog Lakes situated in the County (sic) of 
Antrim, Grand Traverse and Kalkaska, Michigan file #962-CZ.
    \13\ The elevations 590.2 and 590.8 feet dam gage datum are 
equivalent to 587.66 and 588.26 feet International Great Lakes Datum 
of 1955, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The project's normal operating head is about 10.5 feet. On the 
intake side of the powerhouse, the reservoir level is dictated by the 
required seasonal lake levels for Elk and Skegemog Lakes. At the 
powerhouse, the two north bays contain the operating turbines and 
generator units, and the two south bays, which don't have turbines or 
generating units, are used to spill excess water and provide flows when 
one or both of the generating units in the north bays are out of 
service for maintenance, when the grid goes down, or as needed to 
maintain the modified run-of-river operation. The project tailrace is 
directly connected to Grand Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan. As a result, 
the water levels in the tailrace are the same as water levels in Lake 
Michigan, and the project's net head varies as water levels in Lake 
Michigan rise and fall.
    The two turbines, located in bays #3 and #4 at the north end of the 
powerhouse, each have a maximum hydraulic capacity of 504 cubic feet 
per second (cfs). The spill control gate case at bay #1, the 
southernmost bay, has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 239 cfs. The 
spill control gate case at bay #2 has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 
442 cfs. The maximum hydraulic capacity of all four units in the 
powerhouse flowing at the same time is 1,620 cfs, which is less than 
the sum of the individual units because of flow interference between 
individual units. For the period from April 15 (or ice breakup on Elk 
and Skegemog Lakes, whichever occurs later) to November 1 the minimum 
flow increases because of the 0.6-foot higher lake level. Therefore, 
the project has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 1,675 cfs during the 
warmer months and 1,655 cfs during the colder months. Although the 1 
percent flood is 1,800 cfs, the project can pass this flood because of 
the attenuation from significant storage in Elk and Skegemog Lakes.
    About 400 feet adjacent (south) of the powerhouse, the upper Elk 
River's south channel diverts into a 14-foot-wide overflow spillway 
pond that is stop log controlled with two 5-foot-diameter culverts. 
During the winter, when the lake level is 590.2 feet dam gage datum, 
the south channel spillway provides a minimum flow of 35 cfs. During 
the summer, when the lake level is raised to 590.8 feet dam gage datum, 
the south channel spillway provides a minimum flow of 55 cfs. Flows 
over the spillway enter the Kids' Fishing Pond then continue as a small 
stream and discharge directly into Grand Traverse Bay.
    When flows are too low to operate one turbine/generator with a 
minimum of efficiency and stability of operation, bays #1 and/or #2 are 
used at smaller gate openings to maintain modified run-of-the-river 
operation. This minimum level of operation and increasing instability 
occurs at about 0.070 MW, which corresponds to a flow value of about 
280 cfs.
    Because of actively flowing water at the intakes, ice generally 
does not form in the project forebay area; however, during very cold 
weather, ice sheets can form in the forebay and sometimes these ice 
sheets break and become submerged and block flows through the 
trashracks. When sheet ice prevents project operation, different units 
are opened/started and/or closed/shut down simultaneously to shift the 
ice within the forebay so it becomes fractured, disperses among the 
four intake bays, and melts the flowing water.
    The project's average annual energy produced during the period from 
2001 to 2011 ranged from 2,162 MWh to 2,711 MWh, with an estimated 
average annual generation of 2,422 MWh.

2.2 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities
    Antrim County does not propose to construct any new facilities or 
modify any existing project facilities.
2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation
    Antrim County proposes to operate the project as it has been 
operated under the existing license.
2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures
    Antrim County proposes to operate and maintain the existing angler 
walkway, which is attached to the tailrace side of the powerhouse, and 
associated parking lot.

2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE

    Under the staff alternative, the project would include Antrim 
County's proposed measures and the following modifications and 
additional measures:
     An operation compliance monitoring plan that includes a 
description of project operation and the equipment and procedures 
necessary to maintain and monitor compliance with the operational mode 
required in any license issued;
     posting signage that describes proper boat maintenance 
techniques to reduce the spread of invasive plant and mussel species; 
and
     if archaeological resources are discovered during project 
operation or other project-related activities, cease all activities 
related to the disturbance and discovery area, and consult with the 
Michigan SHPO to determine appropriate treatment.

2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

    We considered several alternatives to the applicant's proposal, but 
eliminated them from further analysis because they are not reasonable 
in the circumstances of this case. They are: (1) Issuing a non-power 
license; (2) Federal Government takeover of the project; and (3) 
retiring the project.
2.4.1 Issuing a Non-Power License
    A non-power license is a temporary license the Commission would 
terminate whenever it determines that another governmental agency will 
assume regulatory authority and

[[Page 29678]]

supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the non-power 
license. At this time, no agency has suggested a willingness or ability 
to do so. No party has sought a non-power license, and we have no basis 
for concluding that the project should no longer be used to produce 
power. Thus, we do not consider issuing a non-power license a realistic 
alternative to relicensing the project in this circumstance.
2.4.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Project
    We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. 
Federal takeover and operation of the project would require 
Congressional approval. Although that fact alone would not preclude 
further consideration of this alternative, there is no evidence to 
indicate that federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No 
party has suggested federal takeover would be appropriate, and no 
federal agency has expressed an interest in operating the project.
2.4.3 Retiring the Project
    Project retirement could be accomplished with or without the 
removal of the powerhouse or overflow spillway. Either alternative 
would involve denial of the license application and surrender or 
termination of the existing license with appropriate conditions. No 
participant has suggested that the removal of the powerhouse or 
overflow spillway would be appropriate in this case, and we have no 
basis for recommending it. The project reservoir (i.e., Elk and 
Skegemog Lakes) formed by the powerhouse and overflow spillway serve 
other important purposes, such as use for recreational activities and 
in providing water for irrigation. Thus, removal of the powerhouse and 
overflow spillway is not a reasonable alternative to relicensing the 
project with appropriate protection, mitigation, and enhancement 
measures.
    The second project retirement alternative would involve retaining 
the powerhouse and overflow spillway, and disabling or removing 
equipment used to generate power. Project works would remain in place 
and could be used for historic or other purposes. This alternative 
would require us to identify another government agency with authority 
to assume regulatory control and supervision of the remaining 
facilities. No agency has stepped forward, no participant has advocated 
this alternative, nor have we any basis for recommending it. Because 
the power supplied by the project is needed, a source of replacement 
power would have to be identified. In these circumstances, we do not 
consider removal of the electric generating equipment to be a 
reasonable alternative.

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 the proposed action and other 
recommended environmental measures. Sections are organized by resource 
area (aquatic, recreation, etc.). Under each resource area, historic 
and current conditions are first described. The existing condition is 
the baseline against which the environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives are compared, including an assessment of the 
effects of proposed mitigation, protection, and enhancement measures, 
and any potential cumulative effects of the proposed action and 
alternatives. Staff conclusions and recommended measures are discussed 
in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative 
of the EA.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Unless otherwise indicated, our information is taken from 
the application for license filed by Antrim County on December 21, 
2012, and the response to deficiencies and requests for additional 
information filed on October 16, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN

    The chain-of-lakes watershed is a 75-mile-long waterway consisting 
of fourteen lakes (including Elk Lake and Skegemog Lake) and connecting 
rivers in the northwestern section of the Lower Peninsula of the state 
of Michigan, which empties into Lake Michigan. The total drainage area 
of the entire chain-of-lakes covers about 512 square miles across five 
counties (Antrim, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Charlevoix and Otsego) in 
northwestern Michigan.
    The project is located within the Elk-Skegemog subwatershed of the 
chain-of-lakes (figure 3). The total drainage area of the Elk-Skegemog 
subwatershed is about 214 square miles. Within the Elk-Skegemog 
subwatershed, water flows from the Torch River into Skegemog Lake, 
which is the meeting point of Antrim, Grand Traverse, and Kalkaska 
Counties. Skegemog Lake then connects to Elk Lake, and flows from Elk 
Lake into the Elk River upstream of the project (i.e., upper Elk 
River). Flows from the upper Elk River are then released into the 
section of the Elk River downstream of the project (i.e., lower Elk 
River) or over an overflow spillway through the Kids' Fishing Pond, and 
then into the east arm of Grand Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan (figure 3).

[[Page 29679]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY15.002

    The project is located on the Elk River in the Village of Elk 
Rapids in Antrim, Grand Traverse, and Kalkaska Counties, Michigan. The 
project powerhouse is located approximately 1,000 feet upstream from 
the confluence of the lower Elk River with Grand Traverse Bay, Lake 
Michigan. The project's physical structures are located on a 3.7-acre 
parcel of land owned by Antrim County, which extends from the west edge 
of Dexter Road to Grand Traverse Bay (Lake Michigan) and includes a 
narrow strip of land on both sides of the Elk River. Dam Road borders 
the north side of the project. The project occupies about 0.46 acres of 
the land parcel, and the remainder of the parcel is leased to the 
Village of Elk Rapids under a 99-year lease for use as public open 
space and recreational use.

3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

    According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.7), a 
cumulative effect is the impact on the environment that results from 
the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present 
and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency 
(federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such 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 developmental activities.
    Based on our review of the license application and agency and 
public comments, we have determined that no

[[Page 29680]]

resources would be cumulatively affected by the continued operation of 
the project. The project is located in a where there is no proposed 
future hydropower development other than the Elk Rapid Project.

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES

    Only resources that would be affected, or about which comments have 
been received, are addressed in detail in this EA and discussed in this 
section. We have not identified any substantive issues related to soils 
and geology or socioeconomics associated with the proposed action; 
therefore, we do not assess environmental effects on these resources in 
this EA. We present our recommendations in section 5.1, Comprehensive 
Development and Recommended Alternative section.
3.3.1 Aquatic Resources
    3.3.1.1 Affected Environment
Water Quantity
Project Reservoir
    Skegemog Lake, Elk Lake, and the upper Elk River have the same 
water surface elevation and constitute the project reservoir. Waterways 
upstream of the reservoir (e.g., Torch Lake) are not included in the 
project boundary because their surface water levels do not influence 
the surface levels of Elk and Skegemog Lakes.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Torch River, which connects Torch Lake with Skegemog 
Lake (see figure 1), has a flow restriction that creates a surface 
level difference between Torch Lake and Skegemog Lake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Skegemog Lake has a surface area of four square miles (2,560 acres) 
and a volume of 30,700 acre-feet, with a flushing rate of 24 days. 
Skegemog Lake has a maximum depth of about 29 feet and an average depth 
of about 12 feet. Skegemog Lake's shoreline is approximately 11 miles.
    Elk Lake, which is the last lake in the chain-of-lakes, has a 
surface area of 12 square miles (7,730 acres) and a volume of 548,830 
acre-feet, with a flushing rate of 365 days. Elk Lake has a maximum 
depth of about 192 feet and an average depth of about 71 feet. Elk 
Lake's shoreline is approximately 26 miles.
    Water flows to the project by way of the reservoir. Skegemog Lake 
is connected to Elk Lake via a 0.25-mile-long, 0.25-mile-wide, 5-foot-
deep section of water known as the Narrows (figure 3). The Narrows does 
not restrict flow between the lakes and therefore does not cause a 
surface level difference between the lakes. As discussed in section 
2.1.3, Existing Project Operation, Elk and Skegemog Lakes have the same 
seasonal, legally established lake levels. The lake level for the 
period from November 1 to April 15 are maintained at 590.2 feet dam 
gage datum and 590.8 feet dam gage datum from April 15 (or the breakup 
of ice, whichever date is later) through November 1. During the semi-
annual lake level change (every April and November), power generation 
and water flow through the project is adjusted gradually over a period 
of two weeks to achieve the required lake levels. The project is 
responsible for maintaining the court ordered lake levels through its 
normal operations.
    The project's normal operating head is about 10.5 feet. On the 
intake side of the powerhouse, the reservoir level is dictated by the 
court ordered lake levels for Elk and Skegemog Lakes. At the 
powerhouse, the two north bays contain the operating turbines and 
generator units, and the two south bays, which don't have turbines or 
generating units, are used to spill excess water and provide flows into 
the lower Elk River when one or both of the generating units in the 
north bays are out of service for maintenance. The project tailrace is 
directly connected to Grand Traverse Bay, Lake Michigan. As a result, 
the water levels in the tailrace are the same as water levels in Lake 
Michigan, and the project's net head varies as water levels in Lake 
Michigan rise and fall.
Project Outflow
    Historical generation data was used to calculate a continuous 
record of accurate outflow for the Elk River drainage basin from 2001-
2011. Generation data from the project was gathered from Consumers 
Energy. The generation data was converted into daily flow values using 
the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) calibrated turbine rating 
curves. Historic operation logs from the previous plant operator, 
Traverse City Light and Power,\16\ were used to modify the resulting 
data for bypassed flows that were encountered during repairs or down 
time of the generating units. Further adjustments were made to the data 
twice annually to offset the effects of raising and lowering the Elk 
Lake level during the legally mandated spring and fall seasons. A final 
adjustment was made by adding the flow through the spillway located on 
south channel of the Elk River. The results showed that the highest 
mean monthly flow on record is 720 cfs for the month of May and the 
lowest is 412 cfs for September, while the maximum monthly flow on 
record is 1,049 cfs for June and the minimum monthly flow is 247 cfs 
for September (table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The project was operated under contract on Antrim County's 
behalf by Traverse City Light and Power until 2007 when Antrim 
County entered into the current operating agreement with Elk Rapids 
Hydro.

 Table 1--Calculated Monthly Flows at the Elk Rapids Project Intake From
                               2001-2011.
 [Source: Michigan DNR, 2011; Antrim County, 2011; as modified by staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Max      Mean     Min
                    Month                       (cfs)    (cfs)    (cfs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January......................................      933      663      369
February.....................................      805      656      391
March........................................      857      644      375
April........................................    1,044      714      370
May..........................................    1,016      720      396
June.........................................    1,049      661      386
July.........................................      792      497      349
August.......................................      753      454      308
September....................................      904      412      247
October......................................      871      537      301
November.....................................      951      651      363
December.....................................      823      636      355
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    About 400 feet adjacent (south) of the powerhouse, the upper Elk 
River's south channel spillway diverts into a 14-foot-wide overflow 
spillway pond (i.e., Kids' Fishing Pond) that is stop log controlled 
with two 5 foot diameter culverts. During the winter, when the lake 
level is 590.2 feet dam gage datum, the south channel spillway provides 
a minimum flow of 35 cfs. During the summer, when the lake level is 
raised to 590.8 feet dam gage datum, the south channel spillway 
provides a minimum flow of 55 cfs. The flows then continue unimpeded 
after leaving the Kids' Fishing Pond as a small stream that discharges 
directly into Grand Traverse Bay.
Water Use
    The project was originally constructed to produce hydropower. 
Presently, the project continues to generate hydropower and provides 
recreational opportunities (e.g., fishing, boating, and wildlife 
viewing) to the area. The Village of Elk Rapids withdraws surface water 
for fire protection and for limited irrigation of parks and public 
properties at four locations, two upstream of the project and two 
downstream.\17\ In addition, riparian landowners and golf courses are 
permitted to withdraw surface water for irrigation; some riparian 
landowners also have seasonal pumps that they use for irrigating their 
lawns and gardens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Upstream of the project, water is withdrawn from the north 
channel of the Elk River off the west side of U.S. 31 south of 
Dexter Street and at a location east of U.S. 31. Along the south 
channel of the Elk River, water is withdrawn downstream of the 
project at Memorial Park and on Dexter Street near the Kids' Fishing 
Pond.

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

[[Page 29681]]

    There are two National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permits for discharges within the project, all of which are 
monitored by Michigan DEQ (table 2). The outfall pipe for the Village 
of Elk Rapids Water Treatment Plant (NPDES Permit MIG570208) is located 
immediately downstream of the powerhouse and discharges into the 
tailrace. The outfall for Burnette Foods is an unnamed tributary 
downstream of the south channel bypass of the Elk River.

      Table 2--NPDES Permits Within the Elk Rapids Project Vicinity
       [Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2012a]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Location                Permit holder           NPDES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elk River......................  Village of Elk      MIG570208
                                  Rapids Wastewater.
Elk River......................  Burnette Foods,     MI0000485
                                  Inc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water Quality
    The Michigan DEQ sets surface water quality standards based on 
specified designated uses. State water quality standards specify which 
uses (such as industrial or aquatic life use) individual waters should 
support (EPA, 2010). According to the Michigan Surface Water 
Information Management System (MiSWIMS) database (MiSWIMS, 2014), and 
the EPA (EPA, 2013 and 2014), the surface waters in the project 
boundary have been recently assessed for the following designated uses:

 Agriculture
 Public water supply
 Navigation
 Coldwater fishery

    Results show that the overall status of the project reservoir is 
considered ``good'', meaning that the reservoir is meeting its 
attainment goals for Cold Water Fishery, Agriculture, Public Water 
Supply, and Navigation (table 3) (EPA, 2013 and 2014; MiSWIMS, 2014).

  Table 3--EPA and State of Michigan Attainment Goals at the Elk Rapids
   Project Reservoir for Cold Water Fishery, Agriculture, Public Water
                         Supply, and Navigation
                             [Source: Staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Designated use group       Project
        Designated use *                   **               reservoir
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture....................  Agricultural..........  Good.
Cold Water Fishery.............  Fish, Shellfish, and    Good.
                                  Wildlife Protection
                                  and Propagation.
Public Water Supply............  Industrial............  Good.
Navigation.....................  Other.................  Good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* State water quality standards specify which uses individual waters
  should support.
** The parent designated use represents an EPA-assigned, general
  categorization for the specific, state-reported designated use.

    Michigan DEQ administers federal and state surface water quality 
standards for wastewater, non-point source pollution, seepage and NPDES 
permits. State water quality standards for temperature and dissolved 
oxygen (DO) applicable to the project area are summarized in table 
4.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Michigan water quality standards are described in detail in 
Part 4 Rules of Part 31 of the Water Resources Protection Act 451 of 
1994.

   Table 4--Summary of State Water Quality Standards for DO and Water Temperature Applicable to the Elk Rapids
                                                Project Boundary
                             [Source: State of Michigan, 1994, as modified by staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Parameter                         Application                           Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dissolved Oxygen........................  All surface waters of the    Min. 7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in
                                           State.                       designated coldwater fisheries; Min. 5
                                                                        mg/L in designated warmwater fisheries.
Temperature.............................  Inland Lakes...............  No receipt of a heat load is permitted
                                                                        that will increase the receiving water's
                                                                        temperature more than 3 [deg]Fahrenheit
                                                                        ([deg]F) above the existing natural
                                                                        water temperature. No receipt of a head
                                                                        load is permitted that will increase the
                                                                        temperature of the hypolimnion (the
                                                                        dense, cooler layer of water at the
                                                                        bottom of a lake) or decrease its
                                                                        volume.
                                          Great Lakes and connecting   (1) No receipt of a heat load is
                                           waters.                      permitted that will increase the
                                                                        receiving water's temperature more than
                                                                        3 [deg]F above the existing natural
                                                                        water temperature.
                                                                       (2) No receipt of a heat load is
                                                                        permitted that will increase the
                                                                        receiving water's temperature more than
                                                                        the following monthly maximum
                                                                        temperature ([deg]F):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
   Jan.      Feb.      March     April      May      June     July     Aug.    Sept.     Oct.     Nov.     Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      38        38        48        54        65       68       68       68       63       56       48       40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 29682]]

    The Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council (Watershed Council) has been 
collecting water quality data in the project boundary since 1992, and 
is currently the primary source for water quality information for Elk 
River, Elk Lake, and Skegemog Lake. Other general water quality data 
comes from Michigan DEQ who periodically collects data from Elk and 
Skegemong Lakes. The Michigan DEQ last collected water quality data 
from Elk Lake in 1985 and from Skegemog Lake in 2003. Overall, the data 
indicates that water quality within the project reservoir have remained 
relatively consistent over the past 10-20 years and typically meets 
state water quality standards.
    Elk and Skegemog Lakes experience thermal stratification \19\ 
during summer. Results from a 2007 water quality study at Elk Lake 
(Watershed Council, 2008), demonstrates that water temperatures are 
similar throughout the water column during the spring, meaning that Elk 
Lake is unstratified (i.e., completely mixed). By late June, Elk Lake 
is completely stratified, and surface water temperatures throughout the 
summer (i.e., late June through August) can occasionally exceed the 
state standard for temperature of 20 [deg]C (i.e., 68 [deg]F). Results 
from previous water quality studies conducted in Elk Lake during 1985 
and 1993 support these recent findings, where water surface 
temperatures ranged from 21.0 to 24.3 [deg]C (i.e., 69.8 to 75.7 
[deg]F) during July and August (Weiss, 1995; Antrim County, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Thermal stratification is a seasonal phenomenon that refers 
to a change in water temperatures at different depths in a lake. 
This phenomenon is caused by the seasonal changes of water 
temperatures that result in changes in water density (i.e., cold 
water sinks because it is denser than warm water). Because of this 
density-temperature relationship, a lake can stratify, that is, 
separate into distinct layers within the water column.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Elk Lake is classified as an oligotrophic lake, which are 
characteristically deep, clear, nutrient poor (i.e., low algal 
biomass), and with abundant levels of DO. Low algal biomass in the lake 
allows deeper light penetration into the lake resulting in less 
decomposition of vegetative material, which decreases DO levels. 
Because oxygen is more soluble in colder water, DO concentrations may 
therefore increase with depth below the thermocline \20\ in Elk Lake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ A thermocline is the transition layer between the mixed 
layer at the surface and the deep water layer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Watershed Council (2008), results from monitoring 
Elk Lake from 1998 through 2006 show that high DO concentrations 
persist in the deeper waters of the lake throughout the most of the 
summer, and only slightly decline in the deepest potions of the lake 
toward the end of summer. The Watershed Council (2008) also states that 
during the course of the 2007 water quality study, DO levels in Elk 
Lake throughout the water column were consistently around 8 mg/l, and 
have only been recorded below the state standard of 7 mg/l on one 
occasion in late summer at the very bottom of the lake (i.e., around 
192 feet deep). Results from previous water quality studies conducted 
in Elk Lake during 1985 and 1993 support these findings, where bottom 
DO levels in the lake ranged from 8.9 to 10.2 mg/l and surface DO 
levels in the lake ranged from 8.1 to 9.6 mg/l during July and August 
(Weiss, 1995; Antrim County, 2012).
Fishery Resources
Fish Community
    Skegemog Lake supports a mixed warmwater/coolwater fishery. Typical 
fish species found in Skegemog Lake include largemouth bass, northern 
pike, smallmouth bass, sucker species, sunfish, walleye, rock bass, 
muskellunge, and yellow perch (Michigan DNR, 2014).
    Elk Lake, the last lake in the chain-of-lakes, is classified as a 
coldwater fishery. Because of its cold, deep, and well oxygenated 
waters, Elk Lake is managed by the Michigan DNR for coldwater species 
and supports populations of lake trout, lake whitefish, lake herring 
(i.e., cisco), burbot, and deepwater sculpin. Coolwater species (e.g., 
smallmouth bass, rock bass, muskellunge, walleye) can be found 
throughout both Elk and Skegemog Lakes, but tend to concentrate around 
the Narrows.
    The most recent fish survey in the project reservoir (i.e., Elk and 
Skegemog Lakes) was conducted by Michigan DNR (2011) from April 2008 
through March 2009. During the 2008-2009 survey, a total of 21 species 
were captured using netting and electrofishing techniques; the most 
abundant species was rock bass, followed by white sucker, yellow perch, 
and smallmouth bass.
    The less than 0.5-mile-long Elk River is a mixed warmwater/
coolwater/coldwater fishery. Coldwater species from Lake Michigan, 
including steelhead trout and other salmonids, are present in the lower 
Elk River downstream of the project. The south channel bypass pond 
(Kids' Fishing Pond) is about three acres and also provides a mixed 
warmwater/coolwater/coldwater fishery; species in the Kids' Fishing 
Pond include bullhead, largemouth Bass, rainbow trout, suckers, 
sunfish, and yellow perch (Michigan DNR, 2013).
Aquatic Habitat
    Unlike Skegemog Lake, which has an abundance of submerged woody 
debris along its shoreline (Diana et al., 2014), naturally occurring 
fish cover (e.g., woody debris) in Elk Lake is limited as a result of 
shoreline development. In an effort to improve fish habitat by adding 
structural cover in Elk Lake and other lakes within the chain-of-lakes, 
a five year collaborative program headed by the Three Lakes Association 
(Lakes Association), which started in 2012, is currently underway in 
which man-made fish shelters (e.g., crates, slab trees, and tree 
stumps) are being deployed in areas devoid of natural habitat (Varga, 
2012). At present, 15 fish shelters have been deployed in Elk Lake 
(Lakes Association, 2014).
    The addition of these types of cover structures into Elk Lake and 
other water bodies is an accepted practice and is a suitable form of 
habitat enhancement, particularly in areas where cover is limiting fish 
production (Roni et al., 2005). Researchers have shown that the 
addition of physical habitat may increase juvenile fish survival in 
lakes where cover is limited (Bolding et al. 2004). For example, Tugend 
et al. (2002) referenced two studies that showed increases in 
production of age-0 fish (i.e., young-of-the year fish) as a result of 
habitat improvement efforts.
Invasive Aquatic Plants
    According to Antrim County, Eurasian watermilfoil and curly-leaf 
pondweed are present in the chain-of-lakes and within and adjacent to 
the project boundary.
Invasive Mussels
    Zebra Mussels are an invasive species that were introduced into the 
Great Lakes in the late 1980s and-have invaded most water bodies in the 
chain-of-lakes, including Elk Lake and Skegemog Lake. There is no plan 
to control or eradicate the zebra mussel in the chain-of-lakes 
watershed because it is so pervasive (Michigan DEQ, 2002).
Invasive Fish Species
    Sea lamprey, round goby, alewife, common carp, and white perch are 
all invasive fish species that are currently known to inhabit Lake 
Michigan. At present, none of these species have been detected within 
the project boundary or upstream of the project (i.e., within the 
chain-of-lakes watershed).

[[Page 29683]]

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects
Project Operation
    Antrim County proposes to continue to operate the project as 
currently operated. The project would operate in a modified run-of-
river mode, whereby outflows from the powerhouse and overflow spillway 
approximately equals inflow from the chain-of-lakes and are modified to 
maintain a seasonal reservoir water surface elevations of 590.2 feet 
dam gage datum from November 1 through April 15 and 590.8 feet dam gage 
datum from April 15 (or the breakup of ice, whichever date is later) 
through November 1. Also, the project would continue to meet the lake 
levels by gradually adjusting the project's water surface levels over a 
two-week period during each seasonal changeover period (i.e., every 
April and November).
    Michigan DEQ recommends that during adverse conditions, when the 
operational requirements specified in the 1973 court order cannot be 
met, Antrim County should consult with the Supervisor for Michigan DEQ, 
Water Resources Division, regarding emergency actions taken or proposed 
measures that are planned to meet project operation. Michigan DEQ 
additionally recommends that when operational requirements specified in 
the court order are temporarily suspended for maintenance activities, 
inspections, or dam safety related issues, Antrim County should provide 
prior notice of these actions to the Supervisor for Michigan DEQ, Water 
Resources Division.
Our Analysis
    Operating the project in a modified run-of-river mode, as proposed 
by Antrim County, would enable existing project operation to continue 
to meet the seasonal lake levels. Because the project currently 
operates in a modified run-of-river mode, minimal changes to aquatic 
habitat are expected in the reservoir, bypassed reach, and within the 
project tailrace by continuing this mode of operation.
    Scheduled maintenance activities and dam safety inspections have 
the potential to create situations whereby Antrim County may deviate 
from its modified run-of-river operation requirements. Also, adverse 
conditions or emergency situations may create situations whereby Antrim 
County is unable to comply with its modified run-of-river operation. 
However, providing notification to not only the Michigan DEQ, but also 
to the Michigan DNR before or after such incidents and consulting with 
both agencies until normal project operation can resume, would allow 
for the state resource agencies to be promptly alerted to these non-
compliance events which could potentially affect resources under their 
respective jurisdictions. Additionally, providing such notification to 
the Commission that details the cause of the deviation would assist the 
Commission with administering compliance directives for any license 
issued for the project.
    Developing a compliance monitoring operation plan, after 
consultation with Michigan DEQ and Michigan DNR, would be beneficial in 
that it would document the procedures Antrim County would employ to 
demonstrate compliance with any license requirements for operating the 
project, including but not limited to, operating in a modified run-of-
river mode, maintaining lake level requirements, and meeting reservoir 
drawdown and refill protocols. A detailed description of the equipment 
and procedures necessary to maintain, monitor, and report compliance 
would prevent possible misunderstandings of project operation and 
reduce the likelihood of complaints regarding project operation.
Water Quality and Monitoring
    Michigan DEQ recommends that Antrim County operate the project in 
such a manner as to adhere to state water quality standards (for 
temperature and DO) in the Elk River downstream of the powerhouse. 
Specifically, Michigan DEQ recommends that project operation not cause 
the waters of the Elk River downstream of the powerhouse to exceed the 
following state standard monthly average temperatures (shown in 
[deg]F):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Jan.      Feb.      March     April      May      June     July     Aug.    Sept.     Oct.     Nov.     Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      38        38        48        54        65       68       68       68       63       56       48       40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Michigan DEQ states that deviations from these water 
temperature standards would be acceptable when natural temperatures of 
Elk Lake, as measured in the Elk River upstream of the project, exceed 
these specified monthly average temperature values. Michigan DEQ also 
recommends that project operation does not cause DO concentrations to 
be less than the state standard of 7.0 mg/L in the Elk River downstream 
of the powerhouse at any time.
    To verify project-related effects on water quality, Michigan DEQ 
recommends that Antrim County monitor temperature and DO concentrations 
in the Elk River downstream of the project on an hourly basis from July 
1 through August 31 beginning the first year after license issuance, 
for a minimum of one year.
Our Analysis
    Recent and previous water quality studies demonstrate that surface 
water temperatures of Elk Lake occasionally exceed state standards 
(Weiss, 1995; Watershed Council, 2008; Antrim County, 2012), usually in 
late summer, in shallow, nearshore areas as a result of the effects of 
the thermocline, a naturally occurring phenomenon. Michigan DEQ states 
that deviations from the state water quality standards for temperature 
would be acceptable when natural temperatures of Elk Lake, as measured 
in the Elk River upstream of the project, exceed the specified monthly 
average temperature values.
    Monitoring water temperature downstream of the project would only 
reflect water temperatures that are entering the project, which 
typically meeting state standards and any deviations in water 
temperatures would be caused by natural phenomena and not project 
operation; therefore, monitoring water temperature downstream of the 
project would not provide any additional benefits.
    According to a condition of the 1999 settlement agreement, the 
project is required to operate in such a manner as to be in compliance 
with state water quality standards. Water quality assessments of 
Skegemog Lake, Elk Lake, and Elk River have demonstrated that 
temperature and DO levels within the reservoir have remained relatively 
consistent over the past 10 to 20 years and that water surface DO 
concentrations are typically at or above 8 mg/L throughout the summer 
months. Additionally, a recent study by Rediske et al. (2010) showed 
that DO levels within Grand Traverse Bay, near the project, were at or 
above 10 mg/l during July and August. Given that downstream of the 
project, the less than 0.5-mile-long Elk River flows directly into 
Grand Traverse Bay, any temporary decreases

[[Page 29684]]

in DO levels that may occur in the tailrace would be quickly mitigated 
by the high DO levels occurring in the bay. Therefore, continued 
operations of the project in the same mode of operation it has used in 
the past, would have little effect on water quality in the Elk River 
downstream of the powerhouse and that the state DO standard of 7 mg/L 
would continue to be met and monitoring DO downstream of the project 
would not be necessary.
Fish Impingement and Entrainment
    The operation of the project has the potential to result in some 
fish impingement on the project trashracks and fish entrainment through 
the project turbines. Antrim County does not propose any additional 
measures to minimize fish mortality related to entrainment and 
impingement.
Our Analysis
    The level of fish entrainment and impingement at the project is 
dependent upon many factors; including age, swim speeds, size, and the 
seasonality of entrainment and impingement patterns of fish present at 
the site (EPRI, 1992). Although turbine passage mortality rate 
estimates can be relatively variable, some trends have been recognized. 
For example, certain species typically dominate entrainment 
collections, and the dominant fishes entrained usually represent those 
species that are highly abundant (FERC, 1995) and are usually fish 
species that are very fecund (i.e., high reproductive rates). However, 
fish size rather than species is usually the critical factor 
influencing the rates of turbine-related mortality. In general, most 
fish entrained at hydroelectric projects tend to be smaller fish less 
than 4 to 5 inches long and are often juvenile fish or species such as 
minnows that never exceed a length of 3 or 4 inches (FERC, 1995; EPRI, 
1997).
    The velocity of water surrounding a hydroelectric water intake is 
also an important component in determining the level of potential fish 
entrainment and impingement. At the project, when the turbines are 
operated at full gate, the intake velocity in front of the trashrack is 
2.0 feet/sec; however, because the project operates at 90 percent of 
full gate whenever possible (about 98 percent of the time), the intake 
velocity is typically 1.8 feet/sec. Research has shown that a fish can 
swim about 8 to 12 body lengths per second in a burst mode that can 
last up to 20 seconds (Bell, 1986; Videler and Wardle, 1991; Aadland, 
2010). For example, a four-inch long fish would have a burst speed of 
around 2.7 to 4.0 feet/sec. Therefore, most fish species greater than 4 
inches in length exposed to the 1.8-2.0 feet/sec velocity at the 
project intake are likely to escape impingement and entrainment.
    Although impingement and turbine entrainment at the project likely 
causes some losses of resident fish, these losses do not approach a 
magnitude that adversely affects fish populations. Evidence supporting 
this conclusion is that the reservoir is currently meeting its 
designated use attainment goal as a Coldwater Fishery. Also, there is 
no evidence that existing levels of fish impingement, entrainment, and 
related mortality, are adversely affecting fish communities in the 
project area. Therefore, continued operation of the project in the same 
mode of operation it has used in the past, would likely have little to 
no adverse effect on the overall fish community in the project 
reservoir.
Aquatic Invasive Plant and Mussel Species
    Aquatic invasive species compete with native species for food and 
habitat, and can directly or indirectly kill or displace native 
species, degrade habitat and alter food webs. Eurasian milfoil and 
curly-leaf pondweed are present in the chain-of-lakes and within and 
adjacent to the project boundary. Also, the zebra mussel invaded the 
chain-of-lakes in the 1980s and is still present in the watershed, 
including in Elk Lake and Skegemog Lake. Antrim County does not propose 
any measures to address invasive species within the project boundary.
Our Analysis
    Dense growth of curlyleaf pondweed and Eurasian watermilfoil 
reduces populations of native submersed plant species and alters the 
ecosystem so that it is inhospitable to fish and other fauna (Wolf, 
2009; Madsen, 2009). Because curlyleaf pondweed and Eurasian 
watermilfoil can each form dense mats on the water's surface in May and 
June, they can inhibit fishing, boating, and other types of water 
recreation (Madsen, 2009).
    Because curlyleaf pondweed and Eurasian watermilifoil may become 
tangled on the nets, ropes, and propellers of recreational boats, the 
spread of these species into new waters is often the result from 
overland dispersal by recreational boaters (Leung et al., 2006).
    The zebra mussel, based on its ecological and economic effects, is 
considered the most aggressive freshwater invaders in the Northern 
hemisphere (Nalepa and Schloesser, 1993; Karatayev et al., 2014). The 
zebra mussel is a prolific filter feeder, removing substantial amounts 
of phytoplankton and suspended particulates from the host water body 
adversely affecting aquatic ecosystems by altering food webs (USGS, 
2013). Zebra mussels have high reproductive potential, planktonic free-
swimming larvae called veligers, and an attached benthic adult stage. 
This life history facilitates their success as invaders, allowing it to 
spread rapidly across landscapes, and become extremely abundant when 
introduced into a new waterbody (Karatayev et al., 2014). Because zebra 
mussels can attach to the hulls of boats, and their veligers (i.e., 
planktonic larvae) may be taken up and carried in the bilge water of 
recreational vessels, the majority of new invasions result from 
overland dispersal by recreational boaters (Leung et al., 2006).
    Curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilifoil, and zebra mussels are 
all transferred to other waterbodies primarily by boats. While there is 
no plan to control or eradicate the zebra mussel in the chain-of-lakes 
watershed because it is so pervasive, public education may reduce the 
transfer of the invasive mussel to other water bodies. Also, public 
education on how to minimize transfer of curlyleaf pondweed and 
Eurasian watermilifoil could reduce the likelihood of further invasions 
of project waters and other waterbodies. As discussed in section 
3.3.4.1, Regional Recreation Resources, the project's recreation site 
is near a marina. Developing signage, in consultation with the Michigan 
DNR and Michigan DEQ, regarding cleaning and drying of boats between 
launches, and posting the signage at the project recreation site, would 
help inform the public of proper management techniques to reduce the 
spread of curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilifoil, and zebra 
mussels.
Invasive Fish Species
    Invasive fish species are known to spread quickly and out-compete 
native fish for food and habitat, which can cause a decline in the 
diversity of aquatic ecosystems. Sea lamprey, round goby, alewife, 
common carp, and white perch are all invasive fish species that are 
currently known to inhabit Lake Michigan. At present, none of these 
species have been detected upstream of the project powerhouse (i.e., 
within the chain-of-lakes watershed). Once established in a water body 
(e.g., Lake Michigan), invasive fish species primarily spread to new 
water bodies (e.g., inland lakes) by way of direct hydrologic 
connection.

[[Page 29685]]

Our Analysis
    To date, project operation and the presence of the project 
powerhouse have been successful in preventing the invasive fish species 
identified above from passing upstream into the reservoir. No invasive 
fish species have been collected upstream of the project powerhouse 
during the surveys conducted by Michigan DNR in 1990, 1996, and 2011. 
Therefore, continuing to operate the project in a modified run-of-river 
mode, and maintaining the project powerhouse, as proposed by Antrim 
County, would likely continue to block invasive fish species from 
passing upstream of the project.
3.3.2. Terrestrial Resources
3.3.2.1 Affected Environment
Botanical Resources
    The chain-of-lakes watershed is classified as a flat lake plain 
with well-drained sand, dominated by northern hardwoods in the uplands, 
conifer swamps in the lowlands and American beech/hemlock forests in 
between (Michigan Natural Features Inventory, 1999). The Northern 
Hardwood forest community is the northernmost deciduous forest 
community in eastern North America. In general, this community is 
dominated by three deciduous tree species: yellow birch, sugar maple, 
and American beech. Two coniferous species, eastern hemlock and white 
pine, are also typically found in abundance in this forest community.
    Wetland acreage within the project vicinity totals about 4,090 
acres; of those, about 3,155 acres are classified as forested, 560 
acres as emergent, and 376 as scrub-shrub. The Watershed Council 
classifies many of the wetlands within the project vicinity as ``high 
quality''. They define high quality wetlands as wetlands that are 
large, contiguous wetlands on a major lake or stream, approximately 50 
acres or greater in size, and identified on a USGS topographic map.
    The riparian zone in the project vicinity is about 80 percent 
developed. Preliminary estimates indicate that the Skegemog Lake 
shoreline is 80 percent developed, with patches of wetlands located on 
74 percent of the shoreline parcels. Elk Lake is estimated to be 78 
percent developed with patches of wetlands on 50 percent of the 
shoreline parcels (Fuller, 2001). Over 80 percent of the Elk River's 
shoreline has been armored with seawall and riprap.
Wildlife Resources
    The upland habitat supports a variety of bird species such as 
songbirds and woodpeckers, raptors (hawks, bald eagle), and upland game 
birds (wild turkey, ruffed grouse). Larger species such as black bear, 
bobcat, coyotes, and white-tailed deer are also found in the uplands of 
the project vicinity. Habitat for populations of songbirds, waterfowl, 
shorebirds, muskrat, mink, and raccoon are provided by the wetlands and 
lakeshores. The predominant small mammal species found near the project 
are squirrel, fox, raccoon, mink, muskrat, skunk, and rabbit (Village 
of Elk Rapids, 2013).
3.3.2.1 Environmental Effects
    Antrim County does not propose any changes to project operation, 
and does not propose any new construction.
Our Analysis
    Based on the fact there would be no changes to project operation, 
and there would be no changes to seasonal water levels in the 
reservoir, the project would not affect wildlife resources and their 
habitats.
3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species
3.3.3.1 Affected Environment
    FWS records indicate that that one federally listed endangered 
species, the Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii), and 4 federally 
listed threatened species: (1) The Northern long-eared bat (Myotis 
septentrionalis); (2) Rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa); (3) 
Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcher); (4) and Houghton's goldenrod 
(Oligoneuron houghtonii) are listed as occurring within one or more of 
the counties where the Elk Rapids Project exists.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Except for the federally threatened Houghton's goldenrod, 
which is only listed in Kalkaska County, all of the other federally 
listed species are known to occur in Antrim, Grand Traverse, and 
Kalkaska Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kirtland's Warbler
    The Kirtland's warbler is federally listed as endangered. The bird 
species primarily breeds in Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas, but 
have also been documented nesting in Wisconsin and Canada since 2007 
(FWS, 2012). The Kirtland's warbler nests only in young jack pine 
forests of 80 acres or larger that grow on a special type of sandy soil 
and contain numerous small, grassy openings (FWS, 2015a). The species 
is also migratory, and winters throughout the Bahama Islands. Factors 
limiting Kirtland's Warbler populations include their highly 
specialized habitat requirements, narrow geographic range, and cowbird 
nest parasitism.\22\ No critical habitat has been designated for the 
Kirtland's warbler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Cowbirds lay one or more eggs in a Kirtland's warbler nest 
and their young typically hatch first and overpower the smaller 
Kirtland's nestlings (Mayfield, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rufa Red Knot
    The Rufa red knot is federally listed as threatened. The bird 
species is a regular, low-density spring migrant that uses the shores 
of the Great Lakes as stopover areas to rest and forage between 
wintering and breeding areas (FWS, 2013 and 2014a). Some Rufa red knots 
fly more than 9,300 miles from south to north every spring and repeat 
the trip in reverse every autumn, making this bird one of the longest-
distance migrants (FWS, 2013). The Rufa red knot is imperiled due to 
losses of both breeding and nonbreeding habitat, as well as a reduction 
in its primary prey, horseshoe crab eggs. No critical habitat has been 
designated for the Rufa red knot.
Northern Long-Eared Bat
    The northern long-eared bat is federally listed as threatened. The 
range of the northern long-eared bat includes much of the eastern and 
north central United States, as well as the southern and central 
provinces of Canada. The species hibernates in caves and mines during 
winter months, and typically prefers those with large passages and 
entrances, constant temperatures, and high humidity. In the summer, 
northern long-eared bats roost singularly or in colonies underneath 
bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (FWS, 
2015b). Males and non-reproductive females may also roost in cooler 
places, like caves and mines, and foraging primarily occurs within 
forested hillsides and ridgelines with moths, flies, and other insects 
serving as the main food source. White-nose syndrome, a fungal disease 
known to affect only bats, is the largest threat to the northern long-
eared bat, and according to the FWS (2015c), the species would likely 
not be imperiled were it not for this disease. No critical habitat has 
been designated for the northern long-eared bat.
Houghton's Goldenrod
    The Houghton's goldenrod is federally listed as threatened. The 
plant species occurs primarily in the northernmost regions of Lakes 
Huron and Michigan. Habitat of the Houghton's goldenrod is restricted 
to calcareous beach sands, cobble and rocky shores, beach flats, and 
most commonly the shallow, trough-like interdunal wetlands that 
parallel shoreline areas (Penskar et al., 2000). Fluctuating water 
levels of the

[[Page 29686]]

Great Lakes play a role in maintaining the species. During high water 
years, colonies of Houghton's Goldenrod may be submerged; when water 
levels recede some plants survive the inundation and new seedlings 
establish on the moist sand (Michigan DNR, 2015). The species is 
threatened by habitat loss or modification caused by residential 
development and recreational activities, particularly off-road 
vehicles. No critical habitat has been designated for the Houghton's 
goldenrod.
Pitcher's Thistle
    Pitcher's thistle is federally listed as threatened. The range of 
the plant species is primarily within Michigan's borders, occurring 
along the entire shoreline of Lake Michigan, with localities along the 
more limited dunes of Lake Huron and a few sites along the shores of 
Lake Superior. Pitcher's thistle is most commonly found on large, 
intact, active dunes of the Great Lakes; the species requires sand dune 
habitat that is subject to natural disturbance processes to maintain 
its early successional habitat (Higman and Penskar, 2000). The plant's 
survival is threatened by shoreline development, dune stabilization, 
recreation, and invasive non-native plants and insects. No critical 
habitat has been designated for Pitcher's thistle.
3.3.3.1.1 Environmental Effects
    Antrim County does not propose any changes to project operation, 
and does not propose any new construction. No comments regarding these 
species were provided by any resource agency or interested party.
Our Analysis
    The Kirtland's warbler nests only in young jack pine forests 
growing on a special type of sandy soil that are about 80 acres or 
larger with numerous small, grassy openings. Because this type of 
habitat is not present at the project, we conclude that continued 
operation of the project would have no effect on this species.
    The Rufa red knot and Pitcher's thistle each require specialized 
coastal shoreline habitat of the Great Lakes that does not exist within 
the project boundary and are not affected by project operations. 
Furthermore, no new construction is proposed for the project. 
Therefore, we conclude that continued operation of the project would 
have no effect on these species.
    The Houghton's goldenrod is restricted to specialized coastal 
habitat primarily consisting of interdunal wetlands and its ability to 
reproduce is dependent on the natural fluctuating water levels of the 
Great Lakes. There are no interdunal wetlands within the project 
boundary. Furthermore, because outflow from the project has no effect 
on water levels in Lake Michigan, continued operation of the project 
would have no effect on this species.
    Northern long-eared bats could potentially occur in any area with 
forested habitat in any county in Michigan; however, the project 
boundary is highly developed. According to the FWS (2014b),\23\ trees 
found in developed urban areas, such as the lands located around the 
project powerhouse, are extremely unlikely to be suitable habitat for 
northern long-ear bats. Additionally, the project is not located in an 
area that contains kart geologic features (Gillespie et al., 2008), 
which can support cave and mine habitat needed for hibernation and 
roosting. Although a limited amount of dispersed riparian and wetland 
habitat in the project area could be used for foraging, roosting, and 
breeding by northern long-eared bats, this habitat would not be 
affected because there would be no changes to project operation and 
therefore no changes to seasonal water levels. Moreover, Antrim County 
does not propose any new construction and no trees would be removed as 
part of the proposed relicensing of the project. Also, maintenance 
activities would be restricted to areas around the powerhouse and 
transmission lines, which do not contain habitat or trees at or nearby 
the facilities. Therefore, we conclude that continuing to operate the 
project would have no effect on this species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2014.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3.4 Recreation, Land Use, and Aesthetic Resources
3.3.4.1 Affected Environment
Regional Recreation Resources
    Regional recreation resources in Antrim County include 
opportunities for camping, hiking, biking, hunting, fishing, boating, 
swimming, picnicking, wildlife viewing and nature photography, ice 
skating, skiing, snowmobiling, and parks and fields for a variety of 
playground and sport activities. Within the county, outdoor recreation 
abounds with the availability of parks, trails, ponds, lakes, trails, 
natural areas, and nature preserves. Battle Creek and Kewadin Wetlands 
natural areas, along with Palustra-Holm Nature Preserve surround Elk 
Lake. Around Lake Skegemog are North Skegemog Nature Preserve and 
Skegemog Lake Wildlife Area. Cumulatively, these sites provide 3,300 
acres of habitat and wildlife view surrounding both lakes.
    Elk River, Elk Lake, and Lake Skegemog constitute the project's 
water bodies. Together, the lakes have a surface area of 16 square 
miles and a shoreline length of 37 miles. Elk River is less than a half 
mile long. There are 38 public access points and three marinas around 
the reservoir or downstream of the project. The public access points 
consist of paved boat launches, street ends, beaches, parks, overlooks, 
and walking trails. Table 5 identifies all public water access sites 
and marinas around Elk Lake and Lake Skegemog, while figure 4 provides 
a map of marinas and water access sites around Elk Lake and Lake 
Skegemog, and figure 5 provides a detailed map of the same facilities 
near the powerhouse.

      Table 5--Public Water Access Sites at the Elk Rapids Project
                             [Source: Staff]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Access site                Manager             Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Elk Lake
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bussa Road Extension..........  Antrim County....  Launch, beach.
Chippewa Trail Extension......  Antrim County....  Launch, beach,
                                                    swimming.
Easly Road Extension..........  Antrim County....  Launch, parking.
East Elk Lake Drive/Schweitzer  Antrim County....  Launch, parking.
 Lane Addition.

[[Page 29687]]

 
Elk Lake Access...............  Antrim County....  Launch, swimming,
                                                    picnic area,
                                                    seasonal floating
                                                    pier and slip,
                                                    parking.
Elk Lake Access--East 3rd.....  Village of Elk     Launch, parking.
                                 Rapids.
Elk Rest Drive................  Milton Township..  Beach, parking.
Hoopfer Road Extension........  Antrim County....  Overlook.
Kewadin Access................  Milton Township..  Paved launch,
                                                    parking.
Milton Township Beach.........  Milton Township..  Beach, swimming,
                                                    volleyball, nature
                                                    trail, parking.
Milton Township Park Annex--    Milton Township..  Pavilions, picnic
 East Elk Lake Drive.                               area, parking.
Quail Street Extension........  Antrim County....  Paved launch,
                                                    parking.
Rex Terrace Extension.........  Antrim County....  Launch, parking.
Ringler Road Park--Site #38...  Milton Township..  Beach, parking.
Rotary Park...................  Village of Elk     Pavilions, picnic
                                 Rapids.            area, parking.
Schweitzer Lane...............  Michigan DNR.....  Launch, beach,
                                                    restrooms, parking.
Terrace Avenue Extension......  Antrim County....  Launch.
Townline Road Extension.......  Antrim County....  Beach, picnic area,
                                                    swimming,
                                                    volleyball, parking.
Wahboos Road Extension........  Antrim County....  Launch, parking.
Whitewater Township Park......  Whitewater         Paved launch, beach,
                                 Township.          fishing, swimming,
                                                    pavilions, picnic
                                                    area, electric
                                                    campsites, restrooms
                                                    and showers,
                                                    volleyball, parking.
Williams Drive................  Milton Township..  Launch, beach,
                                                    fishing, swimming,
                                                    parking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Elk River
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge Street Access..........  Village of Elk     Paved launch,
                                 Rapids.            parking.
Dexter Street Walkway.........  Village of Elk     Walkway, picnic area.
                                 Rapids.
Elk Rapids Dam Fishing Park...  Village of Elk     Fishing, restrooms,
                                 Rapids.            parking.
Elk Rapids Upper Harbor.......  Village of Elk     Marina, slips and
                                 Rapids.            docks, picnic area,
                                                    restrooms, parking.
Elk River Access--East 3rd....  Village of Elk     Launch, parking.
                                 Rapids.
Elk River Access--US31........  Village of Elk     Paved launch,
                                 Rapids.            parking.
Elk River Boardwalk...........  Village of Elk     Boardwalk, seasonal
                                 Rapids.            floating slips.
Elk River Marina..............  Private..........  Marina, slips,
                                                    seasonal boat
                                                    storage and dry
                                                    docks, restrooms,
                                                    boat rentals,
                                                    customer parking.
4th Street....................  Village of Elk     Launch, parking.
                                 Rapids.
Millers Park Road North.......  Village of Elk     Access.
                                 Rapids.
Millers Park Road South.......  Village of Elk     Access, parking.
                                 Rapids.
West Meguzee Point Road.......  Village of Elk     Launch.
                                 Rapids.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Elk River Spillway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kids' Fishing Pond............  Village of Elk     Fishing, picnic area,
                                 Rapids.            parking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Grand Traverse Bay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dam Beach.....................  Village of Elk     Beach, swimming,
                                 Rapids.            picnic area,
                                                    restrooms,
                                                    volleyball, parking.
Elk Rapids Lower Harbor.......  Village of Elk     Marina, paved launch,
                                 Rapids.            slips, beach,
                                                    fishing, pavilions,
                                                    picnic area,
                                                    restrooms, parking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Lake Skegemog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baggs Landing.................  Michigan DNR.....  Paved launch,
                                                    restrooms, parking.
Fairmont Drive--Site #48......  Milton Township..  Launch.
Hoiles Drive NW...............  Clearwater         Launch, parking.
                                 Township.
Skegemog Lake Wildlife Area     Michigan DNR.....  Viewing platform,
 Viewing Platform.                                  nature trail,
                                                    parking.
Skegemog Swamp Pathway........  Michigan DNR.....  Nature trail,
                                                    parking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[[Page 29688]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY15.003


[[Page 29689]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22MY15.004

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C
Existing Project Recreation Facilities
    Within the project boundary, Antrim County owns and maintains an 
angler's walkway, attached to the tailrace side of the powerhouse, 
which anglers use to access the tailrace for fishing. Antrim County 
also owns and maintains the project's parking lot, located adjacent to 
the powerhouse, which is where anglers can park their vehicles to 
access the walkway.
Recreation Use
    The reservoir is located in the Village of Elk Rapids and the Elk 
Rapids, Milton, Clearwater, and Whitewater Townships. These communities 
all have small residential populations that nearly double during the 
summer when seasonal residents and tourists arrive. Many of the area's 
seasonal homes are converting to permanent homes as people retire, and 
there is a general demographic shift towards an older permanent 
population. A site inventory and field survey were conducted on August 
28, 2011, and reported all marinas, access sites, and recreation sites 
to be in good to excellent condition.
Land Use
    Land use on the reservoir's shorelines is 80 percent developed, 
with primary uses being residential, commercial, and parks/open space. 
Seawall and riprap cover over 80 percent of the Elk River's shoreline 
to protect the lawns of restaurants, condominiums, and other 
residential development along the river.
3.3.4.1 Environmental Effects
    Antrim County does not propose any construction or changes to 
current project operation or recreation enhancements. Antrim County 
proposes to continue operation and maintenance of angler's walkway, 
attached to the tailrace side of the powerhouse, and the project's 
adjacent parking lot, which is where anglers can park their vehicles.
Our Analysis
    The continued operation of the angler's walkway and the adjacent 
parking lot would ensure that anglers have access to fishing in the 
tailrace of the project. In addition, the project's proposed operation 
would not change; therefore, the existing recreational access sites 
would remain accessible at current water elevations.
    Numerous opportunities for public recreation and access to the 
project reservoir exist, which are owned, operated, and maintained by 
either Antrim County; the Village of Elk Rapids; the Elk Rapids, 
Milton, Clearwater, or Whitewater townships; or the Michigan DNR.
    Antrim County reviewed the most current relevant state, county, and 
local planning documents to assess whether the existing recreation 
along the reservoir are sufficient to meet current and future needs. 
Following document review, Antrim County conducted interviews with 
county and local officials to determine: (1) Whether county and local 
plans and priorities had changed since the publication of the most 
recent plan; (2) whether additional recreational needs had since been 
identified; and (3) if the local officials anticipated any changes in 
recreational access needs in the future.
    Based on the aforementioned document review and interviews, Antrim 
County determined that existing water access to the reservoir would be 
sufficient to meet current and future recreational needs. No 
quantitative information was used to aid in this determination; 
however, local jurisdictions stated that the facilities are adequate, 
and no additional recreation or access points are needed to accommodate 
current and future recreation needs.
    By 2020, the population for the towns and villages adjacent to the 
project is estimated to grow between 3 to 6 percent. The existing 
recreational access and facilities around the project's reservoir 
should be sufficient for future recreation needs. However, if existing 
recreation access or facilities were to reach or exceed capacity, the 
FERC Form 80--Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report, which 
requires a licensee to collect recreation

[[Page 29690]]

use data every 6 years, would provide a forum for adding additional 
recreation facilities.
3.3.5 Cultural Resources
3.3.5.1 Affected Environment
Area of Potential Effect
    Under section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, the Commission 
must take into account whether any historic property within project's 
APE could be affected by the project and allow the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment if any 
adverse effects on historic properties \24\ are identified within the 
project's APE. The APE is defined as the geographic area or areas in 
which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in 
the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties 
exist. In this case, the APE for the project is the lands enclosed by 
the project boundary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Historic properties are defined as any district, site, 
building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for 
inclusion in the National Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regional History
    The Village of Elk Rapids was established in the 1850s, among many 
other ``boom towns,'' that sprang up along the mouths of northern 
Michigan's rivers to ship the area's natural resources, like semi-
finished iron and lumber, to larger cities further south. The Dexter-
Noble Company, later known as the Elk Rapids Iron Company, bought land 
and timber rights in the area and merged with the Elk Rapids Iron 
Company, monopolizing all commerce and industry within the village. The 
Elk Rapids Iron Company set up an industrial park on the east side of 
Elk River, which consisted of a chemical works, charcoal kilns, and a 
pig iron blast furnace. Today, the only surviving evidence is part of 
the furnace's brick hearth and a Michigan State Historic Marker stating 
that the furnace was ``one of the nation's greatest producers of 
charcoal iron.''
    The first water-powered sawmill was installed in the early 1850s on 
the site of the project's current spillway, but by 1871, the Elk Rapids 
Iron Company had also constructed a water-powered, 4-story gristmill 
and wooden powerhouse at the site. The saw mill went through a number 
of renovations and upgrades before being relocated to the site of the 
current powerhouse. During its period of operation, the sawmill 
produced 15 million board feet of lumber annually until the facility 
was razed in 1915, along with the powerhouse and gristmill, as a result 
of the depletion of Northern Michigan white pine.
    The project's powerhouse was constructed in 1916 with a brick 
superstructure and housed two generation units in the two south bays. 
Equipment for Bay #2 was installed in 1918 and, in 1920, the turbine 
from the Elk Rapids Iron Company's old wooden powerhouse was installed 
in Bay #1. Bay #3 received a wooden superstructure and a turbine-
generating unit in 1923. Between 1929 and 1930, the brick and wood 
superstructure was removed and the current building was built to cover 
all four bays. In preparation for the project's 1981 license 
application, the Michigan SHPO determined that the building was not 
eligible for the National Register.
3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects
    Antrim County does not propose any changes to project operation or 
any new construction. In a letter dated October 28, 2010, and filed 
with the license application, the Michigan SHPO stated that based on 
the information provided for their review, no known historic properties 
would be affected by the project.
Our Analysis
    The Elk Rapids Project would not affect any known historic 
properties; however, there is always a possibility that unknown 
archaeological resources may be discovered in the future as a result of 
the project's operation or project-related activities. To ensure the 
proper treatment of any archaeological resource that may be discovered, 
a provision should be included in any license issued to notify the 
Michigan SHPO of any such unanticipated discovery, follow the Michigan 
SHPO's guidance regarding an evaluation of the discovery, and, if the 
resource would be eligible for the National Register and adversely 
affected, implement ways to avoid, lessen, or mitigate for any adverse 
effects.

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

    Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to 
operate as it has in the past. None of the applicant's proposed 
measures or the resource agencies' recommendations would be required. 
No new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures 
would be implemented.

4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS

    In this section, we look at the project's use of the Elk River for 
hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures 
would have on the project's costs and power generation. Under the 
Commission's approach to evaluating the economics of hydropower 
projects, as articulated in Mead Corp.,\25\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 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 continued operation of the 
project 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 6 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use 
in our analysis. This information, except as noted, was provided by 
Antrim County in its license application filed with the Commission on 
December 21, 2012, and in deficiency and additional information request 
responses filed on October 16, 2013. We find that the values provided 
are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items common to 
all alternatives include: (1) Taxes and insurance costs; (2) estimated 
future capital investment required to maintain and extend the life of 
plant

[[Page 29691]]

equipment and facilities; (3) licensing costs; and (4) normal operation 
and maintenance cost. Because the project is operated by a 
municipality, no federal or local taxes were considered. Pursuant to 18 
Code of Federal Regulations 11.1 (a)(1) a hydropower project's 
authorized installed capacity must be above 1.5 MW to be assessed 
annual charges. Therefore, no Commission fees are assessed. All dollars 
are year 2015.

                     Table 6--Parameters for the Economic Analysis of the Elk Rapids Project
                               [Source: Antrim County, 2012; as modified by staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Economic parameter                              Value                              Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installed capacity (MW)..................  0.700.................................  Applicant.
Average annual generation (MWh)..........  2,422.................................  Applicant.
Annual O&M cost..........................  $110,497 \a\..........................  Applicant.
Cost to prepare license application......  $179,046 \a\..........................  Applicant.
Undepreciated net investment.............  $511,560 \a\..........................  Applicant.
Period of economic analysis..............  30 years..............................  Staff.
Term of financing........................  20 years..............................  Staff.
Cost of capital (Long-term interest rate)  8.00..................................  Staff.
 (%).
Short-term interest rate (during           8.00..................................  Staff.
 construction) (%).
Insurance rate (%).......................  0.25..................................  Staff.
Energy rate ($/MWh) \b\..................  32.37.................................  Staff.
Capacity rate ($/kilowatt-year)..........  162.00................................  Staff.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Cost was provided by Antrim County in the application in $2012. Cost was indexed to $2015 using rates
  obtained from https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates.
\b\ Source: Energy Information Administration using rates obtained from Annual Energy Outlook 2014 at https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm.

4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

    Table 7 summarizes the installed capacity, annual generation, cost 
of alternative power, estimated total project cost, and the difference 
between the cost of alternative power and total project cost for each 
of the action alternatives considered in this EA: (1) No-action; (2) 
Antrim County's proposal; and (3) the staff-recommended alternative.

Table 7--Summary of Annual Cost of Alternative Power and Annual Project Cost for the Action Alternatives for the
                                               Elk Rapids Project
                            [Source: Antrim County, 2012; as modified by staff staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Antrim          Staff-
                                                                     No-action       county's       recommended
                                                                    alternative      proposal       alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installed capacity (MW).........................................           0.700           0.700           0.700
Annual generation (MWh).........................................           2,422           2,422           2,422
Annual cost of alternative power ($/MWh)........................           50.86           50.86           50.86
Annual project cost ($/MWh).....................................           71.66           71.77           72.06
Difference between the cost of alternative power and project             (20.80)         (20.91)         (21.20)
 cost ($/MWh) \a\...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A number in parentheses denotes that the difference between the cost of alternative power and project cost
  is negative, thus the total project cost is greater than the cost of alternative power.

4.2.1 No-Action Alternative
    Under the no-action alternative, Antrim County would continue to 
operate the project in its current mode of operation. The project would 
have an installed capacity of 0.700 MW and generate an average of 2,422 
MWh of electricity annually. The average annual cost of alternative 
power would be $123,183 or about $50.86/MWh. The average annual project 
cost would be $175,280 or $71.66/MWh. Overall, the project would 
produce power at a cost that is $50,378 or $20.80/MWh, more than the 
cost of alternative power.
4.2.2 Applicant's Proposal
    Under the applicant's proposal, the project would continue to 
operate in its current mode with an installed capacity of 0.700 MW and 
generate an average of 2,422 MWh of electricity annually. The average 
annual cost of alternative power would be $123,183 or about $50.86/MWh. 
The average annual project cost would be $173,827, or about $71.77/MWh. 
Overall, the project would produce power at a cost that is $50,644 or 
$20.91/MWh more than the cost of alternative power.
4.2.3 Staff Alternative
    Under the staff alternative, the project would have an installed 
capacity of 0.700 MW, and generate an average of 2,422 MWh of 
electricity annually. Table 8 shows the staff-recommended additions and 
modifications to Antrim County's proposed environmental protection and 
enhancement measures and the estimated cost of each.
    Based on an installed capacity of 0.700 MW and an average annual 
generation of 2,422 MWh, the cost of alternative power would be 
$123,183 or $50.86/MWh. The average annual cost of project power would 
be $182,473 or $72.06/MWh. Overall, the project would produce power at 
a cost which is $51,346 or $21.20/MWh, more than the cost of 
alternative power.

4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

    Table 8 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement 
measure considered in our analysis. 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.

[[Page 29692]]



  Table 8--Cost of Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Considered in Assessing the Environmental
                            Effects of Continued Operation of the Elk Rapids Project
                                                 [Source: Staff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Capital cost     Annual cost   Levelized cost
Enhancement/mitigation measure       Entities         (2015 $)        (2015 $)      (2015 $) \1\       Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Operations:
    Operate the project in a    Antrim County,                 $0              $0              $0  a, b
     modified run-of river       Staff.
     mode, except as necessary
     to seasonally drawdown or
     refill the project
     reservoir.
    Maintain the water surface  Antrim County,                  0               0               0  a, b
     elevation of the project    Staff.
     reservoir at 590.8 feet
     dam gage datum April 15
     to November 1 and 590.2
     feet dam gage datum from
     November 1 to April 15,
     except as necessary to
     seasonally drawdown or
     refill the reservoir.
    Develop an operation        Staff............           2,000             325             508  a
     compliance monitoring
     plan in consultation with
     the Michigan DNR and
     Michigan DEQ.
Aquatic Resources:
    Monitor water temperature   Michigan DEQ.....           1,500             250             158  a, f
     and DO downstream of the
     project from July 1
     through August 31 on an
     annual basis, unless upon
     Michigan DEQ approval,
     results indicate the
     monitoring requirements
     may be relaxed.
    Ensure project operation    Michigan DEQ.....               0               0               0  a, e
     does not cause water
     temperatures or DO
     concentrations downstream
     of the project to exceed
     state water quality
     standards.
    Consult with Michigan DEQ   Michigan DEQ.....               0               0               0  a
     in the event of adverse
     conditions which prevent
     Antrim County from
     complying with
     operational requirements.
    Consult with the            Staff............               0               0               0  a
     Commission, Michigan DEQ,
     and Michigan DNR in the
     event of adverse
     conditions which prevent
     Antrim County from
     complying with
     operational requirements.
    Post signage that           Staff............           1,000             100             191  a
     describes proper boat
     maintenance techniques to
     reduce the spread of
     curlyleaf pondweed,
     Eurasian watermilifoil,
     and zebra mussels.
Recreation Resources:
    Operate and maintain the    Antrim County,                  0             252             252  d
     existing angler walkway,    Staff.
     which is attached to the
     tailrace side of the
     powerhouse, and parking
     lot.
Cultural Resources:
    Cease project activities    Staff............               0               0               0  a, c
     should archaeological
     resources be identified
     during project operation
     or other project-related
     activities and consult
     with the Michigan SHPO to
     determine appropriate
     treatment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs were rounded to the nearest dollar.
\a\ Cost estimated by staff.
\b\ This measure represents a continuation of existing conditions, so there would be no additional cost to
  implement this measure.
\c\ Staff estimates that the cost to implement this measure would be negligible.
\d\ Cost provided by Antrim County in its Additional Information Response filed on October 16, 2013.
\e\ Staff was unable to assign a cost for this measure, because the project currently has no ability to control
  water temperature.
\f\ The monitoring cost is $250 for the first year only, which equates to an annualized cost of 21.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 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 licenses 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 the relicensing of the Elk Rapids Project. We weigh 
the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against other 
proposed measures.
A. Recommended Alternative
    Based on our independent review of agency comments filed on these 
projects and our review the environmental and economic effects of the 
proposed project and economic effects of the project and its 
alternatives, we selected the staff alternative as the preferred 
alternative. We recommend the staff alternative because: (1) Issuance 
of a new

[[Page 29693]]

hydropower license by the Commission would allow Antrim County to 
continue operating the project as a dependable source of electrical 
energy; (2) the 0.700 MW of electric capacity comes from a renewable 
resource that does not contribute to atmospheric pollution; (3) the 
public benefits of the staff alternative would exceed those of the no-
action alternative; and (4) the proposed measures would protect and 
enhance aquatic and recreation resources.
    In the following sections, we make recommendations as to which 
environmental measures recommended by agencies or other entities should 
be included in any license issued for the project. We also recommend 
additional staff-recommended environmental measures to be included in 
any license issued for the project and discuss which measures we do not 
recommend including in the license.
5.1.1 Measures Proposed by Antrim County
    Based on our environmental analysis of Antrim County's proposal 
discussed in section 3 and the costs discussed in section 4, we 
conclude that the following environmental measure proposed by Antrim 
County 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:
     Operate and maintain the existing angler walkway, which is 
attached to the tailrace side of the powerhouse, and associated parking 
lot.
5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff
    In addition to Antrim County's proposed measure noted above, we 
recommend including the following measures in any license issued for 
Antrim County:
     An operation compliance monitoring plan that includes a 
description of project operation and the equipment and procedures 
necessary to maintain and monitor compliance with the operational mode 
required in any license issued;
     posting signage that describes proper boat maintenance 
techniques to reduce the spread of invasive plant and mussel species; 
and
     if archaeological resources are discovered during project 
operation or other project-related activities, cease all activities 
related to the disturbance and discovery area, and consult with the 
Michigan SHPO to determine appropriate treatment.
    Below, we discuss the basis for our additional staff-recommended 
measures.
Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan
    Developing an operation compliance monitoring plan would provide a 
means to verify compliance with the operational requirements of any 
license issued for the project. An operation compliance monitoring plan 
would include a description of project operation and any mechanisms or 
structures that would be used to by Antrim County to monitor project 
operation. Therefore, we recommend that Antrim County develop, in 
consultation with Michigan DEQ and Michigan DNR, an operation 
compliance monitoring plan. Antrim County should file the plan for 
Commission approval, documenting consultation with these agencies, 
including any comments received on the plan and responses to those 
comments. The plan should also provide a detailed description of the 
protocols Antrim County would implement during scheduled and 
unscheduled project shutdowns, reservoir drawdown and refills, and a 
provision to file an annual report of the operational data with the 
Commission. Based on our review and analysis contained in section 
3.3.1, Aquatic Resources, we find that the benefits of ensuring an 
adequate means by which the Commission could track compliance with the 
operations terms of any license issued for the project would be worth 
the estimated levelized annual cost of $508.
Invasive Species Prevention
    Aquatic invasive species compete with native species for food and 
habitat, and can directly or indirectly kill or displace native 
species, degrade habitat, and alter food webs. As discussed in section 
3.3.1, Aquatic Resources, zebra mussels are found within the project 
boundary and throughout the chain-of-lakes watershed. Additionally, 
Eurasian milfoil and curly-leaf pondweed are within and adjacent to the 
project boundary and present in the chain-of-lakes.
    Curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilifoil, and zebra mussels are 
all transferred to other waterbodies primarily by boats. Zebra mussels 
are so pervasive throughout the chain-of-lakes that Michigan DEQ has no 
plan to control or eradicate them in the chain-of-lakes watershed. 
However, public education may help to minimize, and could reduce the 
likelihood of, transferring zebra mussels to other water bodies. Also, 
public education on how to minimize the transfer of curlyleaf pondweed 
and Eurasian watermilifoil could reduce the likelihood of further 
invasions of project waters. Therefore, we recommend that Antrim County 
develop signage, in consultation with the Michigan DNR and Michigan 
DEQ, which contains information on proper cleaning and drying of boats 
between launches to reduce the spread of curlyleaf pondweed, Eurasian 
watermilifoil, and zebra mussels. The project's recreation site is near 
a marina; therefore, we recommend posting the signage at the project 
recreation site to help inform the public of proper management 
techniques to reduce the spread of these invasive species.
    We estimate that the levelized annual cost of the measure would be 
$191, and conclude that the benefits of the measure would outweigh the 
costs.
Cultural Resources
    As discussed in section 3.3.5, Cultural Resources, no historic 
properties would be affected by the Elk Rapids Project; however, there 
is a possibility that unknown archaeological resources may be 
discovered during project operation or project-related activities. To 
ensure proper treatment if any unknown archaeological resource may be 
discovered, we recommend that Antrim County notify and consult with the 
Michigan SHPO: (1) To determine if a discovered archaeological resource 
is eligible for the National Register; (2) if the resource is eligible, 
determine if the proposed project would adversely affect the historic 
property; and (3) if the historic property would be adversely affected, 
obtain guidance from the Michigan SHPO on how to avoid, lessen, or 
mitigate for any adverse effects.
5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended by Staff
    Some of the measures recommended by Michigan DEQ would not 
contribute to the best comprehensive use of the Elk River water 
resources, do not exhibit sufficient nexus to project environmental 
effects, or would not result in benefits to non-power resources that 
would be worth their costs. The following discusses the basis for 
staff's conclusion not to recommend such measures.
Water Quality Monitoring
    Michigan DEQ recommends that Antrim County operate the project in 
such a manner as to adhere to state water quality standards (for 
temperature and DO) in the Elk River downstream of the powerhouse. 
However, Michigan DEQ states that deviations from these water 
temperature standards would be

[[Page 29694]]

acceptable when natural temperatures of Elk Lake, as measured in the 
Elk River upstream of the project, exceed these specified monthly 
average temperature values. Michigan DEQ also recommends that project 
operation not cause DO concentrations to be less than the state 
standard of 7.0 mg/L in the Elk River downstream of the powerhouse at 
any time. To verify project-related effects on water quality, Michigan 
DEQ recommends that Antrim County monitor temperature and DO 
concentrations in the Elk River downstream of the project on an hourly 
basis from July 1 through August 31 beginning the first year after 
license issuance, for a minimum of one year.
    Continued operation of the project in the same mode of operation 
that it has been would likely result in the same water quality in the 
Elk River downstream of the dam. As discussed in section 3.3.1, Aquatic 
Resources, recent and previous water quality studies demonstrate that 
surface water temperatures of Elk Lake occasionally exceed state 
standards usually in late summer, while water surface DO concentrations 
typically exceed state minimum standards throughout the year. Because 
any deviations in water temperatures would be caused by natural 
phenomena and not project operation, monitoring water temperature 
downstream of the project would not provide any additional benefits.
    Additionally, given that downstream of the project the less than 
0.5-mile-long Elk River flows directly into Grand Traverse Bay, any 
temporary decreases in DO levels that may occur in the tailrace would 
be quickly mitigated by the high DO levels present in the bay. 
Therefore, continued operation of the project in the same mode of 
operation it has used in the past, would likely not effect water 
quality in the Elk River downstream of the powerhouse and that the 
state DO standard of 7 mg/L would continue to be met. For these 
reasons, we do not recommend adopting Michigan DEQ's water quality 
monitoring recommendations because the information obtained from 
conducting this water quality monitoring is not worth the estimated 
levelized annual costs of $158.
5.1.4 Conclusion
    Based on our review of the resource agency and public comments 
filed on the project and our independent analysis pursuant to sections 
4(e), 10(a)(1), and 10(a)(2) of the FPA, we conclude that licensing the 
Elk Rapids Project, as proposed by Antrim County, with staff-
recommended additional measures, would be best adapted to a plan for 
improving or developing the Elk River waterway.

6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

    Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 803(a)(2)(A), requires 
the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent 
with the federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, 
developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the 
project. We reviewed eight comprehensive plans that are applicable to 
the project.\26\ No inconsistencies were found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ (1) Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 1996. 
Non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species, State management plan: A 
strategy to confront their spread in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan; 
(2) Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Fisheries 
Division strategic plan. Lansing, Michigan. June 1994; (3) Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 
Recreation Plan (SCORP): 2008-2012. Lansing, Michigan; (4) National 
Park Service. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Department of the 
Interior, Washington, DC 1993; (5) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl management 
plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986; (6) 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988; (7) The Lower Great Lakes/St. 
Lawrence Basin: A component of the North American waterfowl 
management plan. December 29, 1988; (8) U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service. 1993. Upper Mississippi River & Great Lakes region joint 
venture implementation plan: A component of the North American 
waterfowl management plan. March 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

    On the basis of our independent analysis, the issuance of a 
subsequent license for the Elk Rapids Hydroelectric Project with our 
recommended environmental measures would not constitute a major federal 
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

8.0 LITERATURE CITED

Aadland, L.P. 2010. Chapter 2: Nature-like Fishways p. 43-95. In 
Reconnecting Rivers: Natural Channel Design in Dam Removals and Fish 
Passage. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources--Ecological 
Resources Division. Fergus Falls, Minnesota. 196 pp.
Antrim County. 2012. Elk Rapids Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 
3030. License Application. Prepared by Antrim County, Bellaire, MI. 
Filed December 21, 2012.
Beall, M. 2005. Aquatic Invasive Species: A handbook for education 
efforts. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Publication WT-
825 2005.
Bolding, B., S. Bonar, and M. Divens. 2004. Use of artificial 
structure to enhance angler benefits in lakes, ponds, and 
reservoirs: A literature review. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 
12:75-96.
Diana, J.S., Hanchin, P., and Popoff, N. 2014. Movement patterns and 
spawning sites of muskellunge Esox masquinongy in the Antrim chain 
of lakes, Michigan. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 1-12.
__. 2014. My WATERS Mapper. Waterbody ID: MI040601050404-01 [Online] 
URL: https://watersgeo.epa.gov/. Accessed November 17, 2014.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1992. Fish entrainment and 
turbine mortality review and guidelines. Prepared by Stone and 
Webster Environmental Services, Boston, Massachusetts. EPRI Report 
No. TR-101231, Project 2694-01. September 1992.
__. 1997. Turbine Entrainment and Survival Database--Field Tests. 
EPRI Report No. TR-108630. Prepared by Alden Research Laboratory, 
Inc. Holden, MA.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1995. Preliminary 
assessment of fish entrainment at hydropower projects: A report on 
studies and protective measures. Paper No. DRP-10. Office of 
Hydropower Licensing, Washington, DC.
Fuller, D.R. 2001. Fish of the Elk River Chain of Lakes: A Watershed 
Perspective. Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. Petoskey, Michigan.
Gillespie, R., W.B. Harrison III, and M.G. Grammer. 2008. Geology of 
Michigan and the Great Lakes. Michigan Geological Repository for 
Research and Education. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI. 
37 pp.
Higman, P.J. and M.R. Penskar. 2000. Special plant abstract for 
Cirsium pitcheri. Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 
3 pp.
Karatayev, A.Y., L. E. Burlakova, and D.K. Padilla. 2014. Zebra 
versus quagga mussels: A review of their spread, population 
dynamics, and ecosystem impacts. Hydrobiologia, 1-16.
Leung, B., J.M. Bossenbroek and D.M. Lodge. 2006. Boats, pathways, 
and aquatic biological invasions: Estimating dispersal potential 
with gravity models. Biological Invasions 8:241-254.
Madsen, J.D. 2009. Chapter 13.2: Eurasian Watermilfoil, pp. 95-98. 
In: Biology and control of aquatic plants: A best management 
practices handbook (Gettys LA, WT Haller and M Bellaud, eds.). 
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation, Marietta GA. 210 pp.
Mayfield, H.F. 1992. Kirtland's warbler (Dendrocia Kirtlandii). In 
A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill (editors). The Birds of North 
America, No. 19. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, and The American Ornthologists' Union, Washington, DC. 
16 pp.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (Michigan DEQ). 2002. 
Michigan's Aquatic Nuisance Species State Management Plan Update. 
Lansing, Michigan. October 2002. Available: https://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-ogl-ANSPlan2002.pdf. Accessed 
December 22, 2013.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources

[[Page 29695]]

(Michigan DNR). 1990. Fish Population Survey--Elk Lake. Lansing, 
Michigan.
__. 1996. Fish Population Survey--Skegemog Lake. Lansing, Michigan.
__. 2011. Fish Population Survey Summary--Elk and Skegemog Lakes--
2008-2009. Available: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Elk-Skegemog-lakes_242175_7.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2014.
__. 2013. Elk River Bypass/Kids Pond. [Online] URL: https://
www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10364_53405-302280_,00.html. 
Accessed December 12, 2013.
__. 2014. Skegemog Lake. [Online] URL: https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/
0,4570,7-153-10364_53405-302291_,00.html. Accessed November 10, 
2014.
__. 2015. Houghton's Goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii). [Online] URL: 
https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,715310370_12146_1221361388,00.html. Accessed April 20, 2015.
Michigan Surface Water Information Management System (MiSWIMS). 
2014. Map Search: Designated uses. [Online] URL: https://www.mcgi.state.mi.us/miswims/mapBasic.aspx. Accessed December 3, 
2014.
Michigan Natural Features Inventory. 1999. Land type Associations of 
the Leelanau and Grand Traverse Peninsula: Subsection VII.5. 
Lansing. Michigan.
__. 2015. Watershed Element Data; listing of all known occurrences 
of threatened, endangered, and special concern species and high 
quality natural communities occurring within a watershed. HUC IDs: 
04060105--0404, 0405, 0406, and 0407. Michigan State University 
Extension Services. [Online] URL: https://mnfi.anr.msu.edu/data/watshd.cfm. Accessed April 13, 2015.
Nalepa, T.F., and D.W. Schloesser. 1993. Zebra Mussels Biology, 
Impacts, and Control. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton: 810.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). 2013. 2013 
Long[hyphen]Term Reliability Assessment. Atlanta, GA. December 2013.
Penskar, M.R., P.J. Higman, and S.R. Crispin. 2000. Special plant 
abstract for Solidago houghtonii (Houghton's goldenrod). Michigan 
Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 3 pp.
Rediske, R.R,. J. O'Keefe, K. Rieger, and J.D. Rediske. 2010. 
Assessment of E. coli and Microcystins in Cladophora Mats in the 
Nearshore Waters of Grand Traverse Bay, Little Traverse Bay, and 
Saginaw Bay. Scientific Technical Report 481062-07. Prepared For 
Michigan DEQ. Paper 13.
Roni, P., K. Hanson, T.J. Beechie, G.R. Pess, M.M. Pollock, and D.M. 
Bartley. 2005. Habitat rehabilitation for inland fisheries. Global 
review of effectiveness and guidance for rehabilitation of 
freshwater ecosystems. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations) Fisheries Technical Paper 484. Rome, FAO. 116 pp.
State of Michigan. 1994. Part 4 Rules of Part 31 of the Michigan 
Water Resources Protection Act 451 of 1994, as amended.
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council (Watershed Council). 1994. A 
Cladophora Survey of Elk and Skegemog Lakes. December 1994. 
Petoskey, Michigan. 21 pp.
Three Lakes Association (Lakes Associations). 2014. Elk River Chain 
of Lakes Fish Shelters Project Update--Watershed Protection Plan 
Implementation Team Project. Annual ERCOL-WPIT Meeting with local 
units of government. [Online] URL: www.3lakes.com. Accessed March 
19, 2014.
Tugend, K.I., M.S. Allen, and M. Webb. 2002. Use of artificial 
habitat structures in US lakes and reservoirs: A survey from the 
Southern Division AFS Reservoir Committee. Fisheries, 27(5): 22-27.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Waterbody Report 
for Skegemog Lake 2010. Mapped area of assessment: Elk and Skegemog 
Lakes. [Online] URL: https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_waterbody.control?p_au_id=MI040601050404-01&p_cycle=2010. 
Accessed December 16, 2013.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2012. Kirtland's 
Warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii)--Fact Sheet. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/birds/Kirtland/kiwafctsht.html. 
Accessed April 20, 2015.
__. 2013. Red knot (Calidris canutus rufa)--Fact Sheet. [Online] 
URL: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/facts.pdf. Accessed April 
20, 2015.
__. 2014a. Rufa red knot background information and threats 
assessment. Supplement to: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants; Final Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris 
canutus rufa). Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097; RIN AY17.
__. 2014b. Northern long-eared bat interim conference and planning 
guidance. USFWS Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/virginiafield/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2014.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2015.
__. 2015a. IPaC Species Information. Life History for Kirtland's 
Warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii). [Online] URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard/speciesInformation!showSpeciesInformation.action?spcode=B03I. 
Accessed April 20, 2015.
__. 2015b. Environmental Conservation Online System. Species Profile 
for Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). [Online] URL: 
https://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A0JE. Accessed April 23, 2015.
__. 2015c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened 
Species Status for the Northern Long-Eared Bat With 4(d) Rule. 
Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-2011-0024; 4500030113.
Varga, L. 2012. Fish Shelter Project Handbook. Three Lakes 
Association. Available: https://3lakes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/TLA-FIsh-Shelter-Handbook.pdf. Accessed November 03, 2014.
Videler, J.J. and Wardle, C.S. 1991. Fish swimming stride by stride: 
Speed limits and endurance. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 1: 
23-40.
Village of Elk Rapids. 2013. Five Year Community Recreation Plan. 
Parks & Recreation Commission. Available: https://www.elkrapids.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013_VillageOfElkRapids_CommunityRecreationPlan__FINAL.pdf. Accessed 
November 19, 2014.
Weiss, W.G. 1995. Compilation of Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen 
Data for Elk Lake, 1993 and 1994. Submitted to the Elk-Skegemog Lake 
Association, Elk Rapids, Michigan. February 28, 1995.
Wolf, T. 2009. Chapter 7: Mechanical control of aquatic weeds, pp. 
41-46. In: Biology and control of aquatic plants: A best management 
practices handbook (Gettys LA, WT Haller and M Bellaud, eds.). 
Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation, Marietta GA. 210 pp.

9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

Patrick Ely--Lead Project Coordinator, Aquatic Resources, 
Terrestrial Resources, and Threatened and Endangered Species 
(Fisheries Biologist; B.S., Wildlife and Fisheries Biology; M.S., 
Fisheries Biology)
Lee Emery--Assistant Project Coordinator, Aquatic Resources 
(Fisheries Biologist; B.S., Biology; M.S., Zoology)
Chelsea Hudock--Recreation Resources, Land Use, and Cultural 
Resources (Outdoor Recreation Planner; M.S., Recreation, Park and 
Tourism Sciences; B.S., Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management)
Paul Makowski--Need for Power and Developmental Analysis (Civil 
Engineer; B.S., Civil Engineering; M. Eng., Hydrosystems)

[FR Doc. 2015-12463 Filed 5-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P