Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership Pipeline Operation ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Warpaint emerald dragonfly Ringed boghaunter MINT MINT MINT REPTILE

Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership

Pipeline Operation and Maintenance Activities

Hiawatha National Forest

Biological Evaluation

November 20, 2009

Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities

November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) owns and operates a liquid hydrocarbon transmission

pipeline that traverses the Hiawatha National Forest (HNF). Enbridge operates the pipeline under the

provisions of a Special Use Authorization. Periodically, Enbridge performs operations and maintenance

(O&M) activities on its pipeline system to keep it operational, in good repair, and to meet safety

requirements. Enbridge’s Special Use Authorization requires the development and implementation of

an O&M Plan.

In addition to fulfilling the Special Use Authorization permit requirement, the O&M Plan also serves to

streamline the HNF notification, review, and approval process for O&M projects. The implementation

of an O&M project usually occurs on a much faster timeline than a new expansion/construction project,

after an area is identified as needing maintenance attention. Most O&M activities are routine, small in

scope and environmental impact, and occur at locations where there are no special resource areas that

may require a site-specific review.

This Biological Evaluation (BE) analyzes the effects of O&M activities on federally threatened and

endangered (T&E) species, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) within the HNF,

collectively known as TES. By evaluating potential species impacts now for routine O&M activities

that may occur in the future, HNF review time for those O&M projects can be greatly reduced. This

process allows for quicker regulatory processing, reducing unplanned HNF staff resource time

requirements, and allows Enbridge to complete the O&M activity in a timely manner, which is

necessary for operating the pipeline.

This BE groups O&M activities into three categories based on impact level: No Disturbance, Minor

Disturbance, and Disturbance activities. “No Disturbance” activities occur within the maintained

pipeline corridor and do not involve ground disturbance or vegetation clearing. “Minor Disturbance”

activities are also contained within the maintained pipeline corridor, but do involve vegetation clearing

and small scale excavations of the pipeline to allow for physical inspection and maintenance work.

“Disturbance” activities may occur outside of the maintained pipeline corridor and include larger

excavations of the pipeline, but are still contained within the original construction footprint of the

pipeline.

This BE documents the effects of proposed O&M activities on TES. Effects are disclosed, analyzed and

determinations are made. The BE also provides information to support the determinations. A summary

of determinations of the BE are included in the following two tables, Table ES-1 and ES-2.



Table ES-1

Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) – Summary of Determinations of Effects

Species Evaluated Determination of Effecta

ANIMALS

Canada lynx NLAA

Gray wolf NLAA

BIRDS

Piping plover NE

Piping plover critical habitat NE

Kirtland’s warbler NLAA

INSECTS

Hine’s emerald dragonfly NE

Hine’s emerald dragonfly critical habitat NE

PLANTS

Hart’s tongue fern NE

Pitcher’s thistle NE

Lakeside daisy NLAA

Dwarf lake iris NLAA

Michigan monkey-flower NE

Houghton’s goldenrod NLAA

a NE – No effect; NLAA – Not likely to adversely affect; LAA – Likely to adversely affect



Table ES-2

Regional Forester Sensitive Species – Summary of Determinations of Effects


ANIMALS

Gray wolf MINT

BIRDS

Raptors

Bald eagle

Northern Goshawk

Red-shouldered hawk

Short-eared owl

MINT

MINT

MINT

MINT

Wetland birds

Le Conte’s sparrow

Yellow rail

MINT

MINT

Grassland/Shrub birds

Prairie warbler

MINT

Connecticut warbler MINT

INSECTS

Lake Huron locust MINT

Northern blue butterfly MINT

Dragonflies

Ebony boghaunter

Warpaint emerald dragonfly

Ringed boghaunter

MINT

MINT

MINT

REPTILE

Blanding’s turtle MINT

MOLLUSKS

Eastern flat-whorl MINT

Euconulus alderi MINT

Vertigo morsei MINT

PLANTS (by habitat type)

Open/wet/habitat MINT

Open/dry & beach habitat MINT

Shaded/wet habitat MINT

Shaded habitat MINT

a NI – No impact; MINT – May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability; MILT – May impact

individuals but likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.


November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) owns and operates a natural gas pipeline system in

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The pipeline system crosses about 32 miles of National Forest

System lands in the Hiawatha National Forest (HNF). This pipeline is currently authorized to operate

under the provisions of a Special Use Authorization (User Number 4012-01).

Enbridge’s pipeline system consists of single 30-inch-diameter pipeline, that crosses about 21.2 miles of

HNF-owned land within the proclamation boundary of the West Unit of the HNF (between approximate

Enbridge pipeline milepost (MP) 1352.44 and MP 1386.73) and 11 miles of HNF-owned land within the

proclamation boundary of the East Unit of the HNF (between approximate MP 1459.56 and MP

1473.48). Private land holdings do occur scattered along the pipeline system between the proclamation

boundaries of the Forest. The figure located on the next page illustrates the location of Enbridge’s

pipeline within the HNF.

Periodically, Enbridge is required to perform operations and maintenance activities on its pipeline

system to keep it operational and in good repair. Condition 28 of the Special Use Authorization requires

Enbridge to develop and implement a plan that addresses operation and maintenance (O&M) of its

pipeline on the HNF. This plan, known as Enbridge’s O&M Plan, describes O&M activities undertaken

by Enbridge as well as the best management practices and conservation measures designed to eliminate

or minimize environmental impacts during O&M activities. Enbridge has prepared the O&M Plan to be

consistent with the 2006 Forest Plan. O&M activities described in the O&M Plan are analyzed in this

biological evaluation (BE).

In addition to fulfilling the Special Use Authorization permit requirement, the O&M Plan also serves to

streamline the HNF notification, review, and approval process for O&M projects. Unlike larger

expansion/construction projects where regulatory planning and coordination occurs well in advance of

the project work, the implementation of an O&M project usually occurs on a much faster timeline, after

an area is identified as needing maintenance attention. If HNF review and approval of O&M projects

were to be addressed on an individual project-specific basis, time delays could affect the completion of

the O&M work as HNF staff resources and schedules may not coincide with the timing needs of the

O&M project.

Enbridge holds easements with landowners along the pipeline which allow for a 60-foot-wide permanent

right-of-way centered over the pipeline. Most O&M activities are routine, small in scope and

environmental impact, and occur within the 60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way at locations where

there are no special resource areas that may require a site-specific review. Through the evaluations

completed in this BE, conservation measures are developed to minimize potential impacts to protected

species. These conservation measures are then in turn included in the O&M Plan for implementation

when an O&M activity may occur in the future. By evaluating potential species impacts now for routine

O&M activities that may occur in the future, HNF review time for those O&M projects can be greatly

reduced. This process allows for quicker regulatory processing, reducing unplanned HNF staff resource

time requirements, and allows Enbridge to complete the O&M activity in a timely manner, which is

necessary for operating the pipeline.





1.1 Purpose of Biological Evaluation

The purpose of this BE is to document the likely effects of the activities proposed in Enbridge’s O&M

Plan on federally threatened and endangered (T&E) species, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species

(RFSS) within the HNF, collectively known as TES. The BE is a supporting document to the Decision

Memo and provides the Deciding Official with the necessary information to make an informed decision

regarding the potential risks and benefits posed by the project to TES plant and animal species and their

habitats.

The BE is programmatic in nature to accommodate future O&M projects while acknowledging that TES

occurrences will change over time. Recognizing this, Enbridge will fund ongoing inventory/survey

work along the pipeline corridor. This is designed to keep occurrence information up to date, and

facilitate HNF review and response of projects within the constraints indicated in the O&M Plan.

Enbridge and the HNF will coordinate annually to review changes in regulations, species designations,

or species occurrences and distribution along the corridor identified through surveys; all of which may

warrant modification to conservation measures contained in the O&M Plan. At this coordination

meeting, the parties will revise, remove, or develop new conservation measures for the O&M Plan

needed to reflect changes in species occurrences along the pipeline corridor.

1.2 Proposed O&M Activities

This BE groups O&M activities into three categories based on impact level: No Disturbance, Minor

Disturbance, and Disturbance activities. “No Disturbance” activities occur within the maintained

pipeline corridor and do not involve ground disturbance or vegetation clearing. “Minor Disturbance”

activities are also contained within the maintained pipeline corridor, but do involve vegetation clearing

and small scale excavations of the pipeline to allow physical inspections and/or remediation.

“Disturbance” activities may occur outside of the maintain pipeline corridor and include larger

excavations of the pipeline.

Outside of routine O&M activities, an extraordinary or emergency situation could also occur.

Emergency situations are activities resulting from unforeseen events that require immediate response.

These situations are outside the scope of this BE. However, Enbridge would implement the procedures

in the O&M Plan as feasible during the emergency response activities and, through consultation with the

HNF, would work to address environmental concerns including those that may arise during post-

emergency activities and restoration. Enbridge will verbally inform the HNF of an emergency situation

within 8 hours of undertaking remedial action.

The determinations of effect for TES species evaluated in this BE are limited to the activities described

in Enbridge’s O&M Plan and as summarized below under the activity level subheadings. In

consultation with the HNF, Enbridge has developed several prerequisite criteria that defines which

O&M activities are routine and allowable under the O&M Plan. The O&M prerequisite criteria were

chosen based on size of the project, and potential impact to sensitive species and unique resource

features. The O&M screening criteria are summarized below:



O&M Activity Level Matrix for Environmental Screening Criteria Activity Level TES & CR ROW work-space limits Waterbodies

No Disturbance Avoid impacts Within 60 feet No

Minor Disturbance Avoid impacts Within 60 feet No

Disturbance Avoid impacts May Occur Outside 60 feet Yes

O&M activities that deviate from these criteria are outside the scope of this BE and the project

authorizations described in the O&M Plan. These types of projects will be reviewed on a site-specific

basis and may require biological field surveys; additional HNF review; and a separate NEPA analysis,

documentation, and decision, including an associated BE. A summary of the project authorization

process described in the O&M Plan follows below:

• No Disturbance activities are automatically authorized by way of implementing the O&M Plan.

• Minor Disturbance activities are automatically authorized by way of implementing the O&M

Plan, provided that no new protected resource information has been identified by the HNF since

the last annual coordination meeting with Enbridge.

• Disturbance activities require project-specific approval from the HNF. Approval could take the

form of an approval letter, or may require the issuance of a Temporary Special Use

Authorization.

1.2.1 No Disturbance Activities

No Disturbance activities are minor activities that:

• occur entirely within the 60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, or within the fenced boundaries

of an existing facility;

• do not involve mechanized vegetative clearing or earth movement; and

• do not involve work in a waterbody.

No Disturbance activities include:

1. Simple Maintenance / Housekeeping Activities. Examples include trash clean-up, grass

mowing of road ditches and around road crossing markers, washing and painting of existing

facilities, repairing or replacing pipeline markers or survey monuments, and repairing right-

of-way access fencing or barriers.

2. Non-Invasive Integrity Surveys. Examples include aerial fly-over inspections, internal

pipeline inspections surveys using electronic pigs, and on-site inspections or walkovers of the

right-of-way.

3. Minor Mechanical Work at Existing Facilities. Examples include new equipment or changes

to piping or communications components, or small buildings at existing developed facilities.

Time needed to complete a No Disturbance activity ranges from a few minutes to a few hours.

Environmental impacts from No Disturbance activities include brief noise and movement disturbances



resulting from a pedestrian survey, driving a pick-up truck or all-terrain vehicle along the right-of-way,

and/or an individual or small group working with hand tools.

1.2.2 Minor Disturbance Activities

Minor Disturbance activities are relatively small projects that:

• occur entirely within Enbridge’s 60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way;

• do involve mechanized vegetative clearing and earth movement; and

• do not involve work in a waterbody.

Minor Disturbance activities include:

1. Cathodic protection Installation and Repair. Test leads and ground beds.

2. Sub-Surface Investigations.

3. Routine Right-of-way Clearing and Brushing.

4. Pipe and Pipe Coating Inspection and Repair less than 200 feet in length.

Mechanical equipment used to complete Minor Disturbance activities could include the use of a tractor-

mounted brushing rig, a track hoe, a bulldozer, pick-up trucks, and chainsaws.

Time needed to complete a Minor Disturbance activity ranges from a few hours up to a few days.

Environmental impacts from Minor Disturbance activities include noise and movement disturbances,

localized vegetation clearing, and localized soil disturbance from small-scale grading and trench

excavations, and soil exposure.

1.2.3 Disturbance Activities

Disturbance activities are larger projects that:

• may occur, in part, outside of Enbridge’s 60-foot-wide permanent right-of-way, but still within

the original construction footprint of the pipeline (generally within existing tree lines);

• do involve mechanized vegetative clearing and earth movement; and

• may involve work in a waterbody.

Disturbance activities include pipe coating inspections and/or pipe replacement projects where the

resulting ground disturbance from the excavation activity exceeds 200 feet in length.

Disturbance activities require several weeks of time to complete. Environmental impacts from

Disturbance activities include noise, vegetation clearing, soil disturbance from grading and trench

excavations, and soil exposure.



2.0 FINDINGS BY SPECIES

2.1 Federal Threatened and Endangered Species

A goal under the HNF’s 2006 Forest Plan is to contribute to the conservation and recovery of federal

threatened and endangered species and work cooperatively with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), Tribes, other state and federal agencies and recovery teams to update and implement

threatened and endangered species recovery plans and management strategies. Section 7 of the ESA

directs federal agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by agencies are not

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed threatened or endangered species or result in

the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

Table 2.1-1 below lists all federally listed species located within the counties crossed by Enbridge’s

pipeline system on the HNF. This list was further evaluated by the Regional Forester to determine

presence of known occupied habitat or suitable habitat along the Enbridge pipeline corridor within the

Proclamation Boundary of the HNF (USFS, 2009). This section evaluates and discloses effects to

federal threatened or endangered species that are known to occur or have suitable habitat within or

adjacent to the project area, and therefore, could potentially be affected by the proposed activities.

Table 2.1-1

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) – Habitat Analysis along pipeline corridor

Species Known Occupied Habitat?

(Y or N)

Suitable Habitat Present?

(Y or N)

ANIMALS

Canada lynx No Yesa

Gray wolf No Yes

BIRDS

Piping plover No No

Piping plover critical habitat No Nob

Kirtland’s warbler Yesc Yesc

INSECTS

Hine’s emerald dragonfly No Yes

Hine’s emerald dragonfly critical

habitat No Nob

PLANTS

Hart’s tongue fern No No

Pitcher’s thistle No No

Lakeside daisy No Yes

Dwarf lake iris No Yes

Michigan monkey-flower No No

Houghton’s goldenrod No Yes

a Marginal habitat located adjacent to the pipeline corridor. b Enbridge’s pipeline system does not cross areas designated as critical habitat for this species. c Located adjacent to the pipeline corridor.



One of the following determinations of effect is made for each species and, if applicable, its critical

habitat:

• No effect (NE)

• Not likely to adversely affect (NLAA)

• Likely to adversely affect (LAA)

2.1.1 Mammals

Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis)

Status of the Species: Federally Threatened A Canada lynx was confirmed on the HNF in Mackinac County in November 2003. This was the first

verified sighting in Michigan in approximately 20 years. Hiawatha National Forest biologists monitor

for lynx activity through winter track surveys. The USFWS has no recovery plan for the species. The

USFWS Biological Opinion for the 2006 Forest Plan includes detailed information regarding species

status and natural history information for the Canada lynx (USFWS, 2006). The Biological Assessment

for the 2006 Forest Plan includes comparable information (USDA, 2005). As of April 2009 there had

been no change in the status of this species.

Habitat and Biology

Snowshoe hare are the primary prey of lynx, especially in the winter. Canada lynx populations are

closely aligned with those of snowshoe hare, which primarily occupy areas receiving and maintaining

deep snow and habitats replete with conifers and a dense shrub layer. Canada lynx are physiologically

adapted to hunting snowshoe hare in deep snow having a loose or powdery consistency. Detailed life

history can be found in documents associated with the 2006 Forest Plan (USFWS, 2006).

Environmental Factors

The greatest pressure on populations of lynx is the size of hare populations, the primary prey for lynx.

However, lynx occupy the southern extent of the range in transition forests and this habitat has lower

density of snowshoe hare. Other environmental factors include the replacement of older forests with

early successional stage plant communities. Bobcats may compete with lynx to their exclusion over

most of the area. Five hair samples collected during the National Lynx Survey indicate some

distribution of bobcat populations in the Upper Peninsula. Although lynx are protected, accidental

trapping is also a mortality factor. Roads and other human encroachments are also environmental

factors for lynx.

Analysis of Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

Noise and/or physical disturbance would prompt lynx to vacate the area for a short period of time (a few

minutes for a No Disturbance activity, up to a few days for a Minor Disturbance activity, up to a few

weeks for a Disturbance activity). Project effects would be minor and temporary. Since the lynx is a

mobile species and the right-of-way does not contain denning habitat (tree cover) lynx would merely

move away from the local area of disturbance, and could begin using the area shortly after cessation of

activities. Lynx movement may be temporarily impeded and individuals may be displaced, but the

distance involved is not great and the effect on the lynx population would be small. Any changes in

plant communities along the maintained corridor that may affect prey populations would also be

temporary, as the right-of-way would return to pre-activity conditions. Most clearing would occur

immediately adjacent to the already cleared corridor and would represent a relatively small area when



compared to the surrounding unoccupied, suitable habitat available in the Upper Peninsula. These

effects are judged as minor; no species-specific conservation measures are necessary/practicable.

Cumulative Effects

Title 50 CFR Part 402 regulations require federal agencies to evaluate a proposed project for cumulative

impacts, which are defined in Section 402.02 as the following:

“Cumulative effects means those effects of future state or private activities, not involving

Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the

particular Federal action subject to consultation. Cumulative effects do not include future

Federal activities that are physically located within the action area of the particular

Federal action under consultation.”

While several current and future HNF vegetation management projects occur in adjacent areas of the

proposed project, no future state or private activities have been identified within the action area.

Therefore the risk of cumulative effects for No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance

Activities would be so small as to be insignificant.

Determination of Effects

No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = NLAA

Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

Status of the Species: Federally Endangered The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has recently reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs in a

lawsuit challenging the Service’s 2009 rule removing the Endangered Species Act protections for gray

wolves in the Western Great Lakes. Under the terms of the agreement, which must still be approved by

the court, the Service will provide an additional opportunity for public comment on the rule to ensure

compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. Under acceptance of this agreement by the court,

and while the Service gathers additional public comment, gray wolves in the Western Great Lakes area

will again be protected under the Endangered Species Act. All restrictions and requirements in place

prior to the delisting will be reinstated.

The gray wolf is present on the HNF. National Forests biologists and Michigan DNR biologists monitor

for wolf activity through winter track surveys and other techniques. The USFWS has a signed recovery

plan for the species. The USFWS Biological Opinion for the 2006 Forest Plan includes detailed

information regarding species status and natural history information for the gray wolf (USFWS, 2006, p.

138-142). The Biological Assessment for the 2006 Forest Plan includes comparable information

(USDA, 2005). There is a possibility the gray wolf (Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment

(DPS)) will be removed from the endangered species list again in 2009, after additional public

comments are gathered. Should this occur, the species would be listed as a RFSS for the Forests on

which they occur for not less than 5 years (USDA, 2001, FSM 2670, 3).

Habitat and biology

Wolves are pack animals and tend to be habitat generalists with ties to preferred prey (white-tailed deer

and beaver), rather than vegetation type and age. Detailed life history can be found in documents

associated with the 2006 Forest Plan (USFWS, 2006, p. 140-41).


Since gray wolves have generalized habitat requirements, an increasing population trend and are a

widely distributed species in the project area, it is expected that disturbances associated with O&M



activities would be temporary and insignificant. O&M activities along Enbridge’s pipeline right-of-way

may cause minor, localized disturbances such as short-term increases in noise, vehicle and equipment

traffic, and vegetation disturbance. These disturbances may have a minimal effect on the wolf and its

prey species, but these impacts would be discountable due to the infrequency of the activities and the

temporary duration of the work.

Analysis of Effects


Noise and/or physical disturbance would prompt the wolf to vacate the area for a short period of time (a

few minutes for a No Disturbance activity, up to a few days for a Minor Disturbance activity, and up to a

few weeks for a Disturbance activity). Since the wolf is a mobile species and the right-of-way does not

contain denning habitat (tree cover) or known rendezvous sites, the wolf would merely move away from

the local area of disturbance, and could begin using the area shortly after cessation of activities. Project

effects would be minor and temporary. Wolf movement may be temporarily impeded and individuals

may be displaced, but the distance involved is not great and the effect on the wolf population would be

small. Any changes in plant communities along the maintained corridor that may affect prey

populations would also be temporary, as the right-of-way would return to pre-activity conditions. Most

clearing would occur immediately adjacent to the already cleared corridor and would represent a

relatively small area when compared to the surrounding unoccupied, suitable habitat available in the

Upper Peninsula. These effects are judged as minor; no species-specific conservation measures are

necessary/practicable.

Cumulative Effects










Therefore the risk of cumulative effects for No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance and Disturbance O&M

activities would be so small as to be insignificant.



2.1.1 Birds

Kirtland’s Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii)

Status of the Species: Federally Endangered

The species is present on the Forest during the nesting season. Management efforts for Kirtland’s

warbler on the HNF generally began in the mid-1990s. Nesting populations have fluctuated from the

1990s to the present. In 2006, 18 of the 21 singing males counted in the Upper Peninsula were observed

on the HNF. Nine females were also observed during the U.P. census, all on the HNF (Sjogren, 2006).

The recent low number of documented males (4) occurred in 2002 (USFWS, 2006). The USFWS has a



signed recovery plan for the species. The USFWS Biological Opinion for the 2006 Forest Plan includes

detailed information regarding species status and natural history information for the Kirtland’s Warbler

(USFWS, 2006). The Biological Assessment for the 2006 Forest Plan includes comparable information

(USDA, 2005). As of April 2009 there had been no change in the status of this species.

Habitat and biology

The species typically occupies jack pine stands greater than 80 acres, with a stocking density of 1,089 or

more trees per acre, and scattered small openings. Detailed life history can be found in documents

associated with the 2006 Forest Plan (USFWS, 2006).


The primary limiting factor for the warbler is availability of its specific nesting habitat in parcels

approximately 80 acres or greater (Byelich et al., 1985).

Analysis of Effects


Habitat for this species does not exist within the 60-foot-wide maintained, permanent right-of-way

corridor; however, there is a documented occurrence located adjacent and close to the right-of-way at

MP 1359.7.

Since the documented occurrence location is close to the right-of-way, noise and visible movements

associated with No Disturbance activities within the 60-foot-wide maintained permanent right-of-way

corridor could prompt the warbler to leave the area for a very short period of time. No Disturbance

activities are brief (typically a few minutes), transitory actions that entail only a low level of activity

(e.g., pedestrian survey, one or two passes with a pick-up truck or all-terrain vehicle driving along the

right-of-way, and/or an individual or small group working with hand tools). Enbridge’s standard

operating procedure for driving a vehicle on the right-of-way is to operate it in a professional, non-

disruptive manner (e.g., no engine revving, no unnecessary tire spinning, etc.). The degree of effect

from a No Disturbance activity is unknown and could be variable.

Noise and movement associated with Minor Disturbance and Disturbance Activities within the 60-foot-

wide maintained permanent right-of-way corridor would prompt the warbler to leave the area and/or

interrupt nesting activities. In addition, tree clearing associated with Disturbance activities located

outside of the 60-foot-wide maintained permanent right-of-way corridor may alter primary warbler

breeding habitat, but removal of jack pines greater than 18 feet in height may have a beneficial effect by

providing new habitat when jack pine stands become too mature. In order to avoid impacts to Kirtland’s

warbler during O&M activities, project-specific consultation with the HNF and USFWS will be

required prior to commencing No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, or Disturbance Activities

between MPs 1359.28 and 1360.28 during the nesting season (May 1 through September 15).

Enbridge recognizes the location of this occurrence may change over time; therefore, as future surveys

are conducted, the location of this occurrence will be updated annually in the O&M Plan.

Cumulative Effects












Therefore the risk of cumulative effects for No Disturbance, 2 and Disturbance O&M activities would

be so small as to be insignificant.


No Disturbance Activities = NLAA

Minor Disturbance and Disturbance Activities = NE

Overall Determination = NLAA

2.1.3 Insects

Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) and proposed critical habitat

Status of the Species: Federally Endangered The species is present on the Forest. There are currently 12 known occupied sites in the Upper

Peninsula, all within the proclamation boundary of East Unit of the Forest. The USFWS Biological

Opinion for the 2006 Forest Plan includes detailed information regarding species status and natural

history information for the Hine’s emerald (USFWS, 2006). The Biological Assessment for the 2006

Forest Plan includes comparable information (USDA, 2005). As of April 2009 there had been no

change in the status of this species. A proposal to designate critical habitat on the HNF and several

other areas was been published in July 2006 (USFWS, 2006b). Final critical habitat for the Hine’s

Emerald Dragonfly was designated in September 2007 (USFWS, 2007). In April 2009, the USFWS

announced the reopening of the comment period on the July 2006 proposed rule to reconsider

designating habitat on the HNF and at one location in Missouri (USFWS, 2009). The comment period

will close on June 22, 2009. The Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly (HED) Recovery Team provided a list of

primary constituent elements for the species (USFWS, 2007). The following features are included:

• Physical and Biological features essential for Hine’s emerald dragonfly egg deposition and larval

growth and development consist of the following:

o Shallow, organic soils (histosols, or with organic surface horizon) overlying calcareous

substrate (predominantly dolomite and limestone bedrock);

o Calcareous water from intermittent seeps and springs that form shallow, small, slow

flowing streamlet channels, rivulets, and/or sheet flow within fens;

o Emergent herbaceous and woody vegetation for emergence facilitation and refugia;

o Occupied, maintained crayfish burrows for refugia; and

o Sufficient prey base of macroinvertebrates, including mayflies, aquatic isopods,

caddisflies, midge larvae, and aquatic worms.

• Physical and biological features essential for Hine’s emerald dragonfly adult foraging, roosting,

reproduction, and refugia should consist of the following:

o Natural habitat near the breeding/larval habitat; and

o Prey base of small, flying insect species.

Habitat and biology

On the HNF, Hine’s emerald dragonflies occupy calcareous fens. Sites are located in groundwater-fed,

alkaline habitats underlain by shallow dolomite. Detailed life history can be found in documents

associated with the 2006 Forest Plan (USFWS, 2006; USDA, 2005).



Environmental Threats

The most significant threats to the existence of this species have been identified as habitat destruction or

alteration, and contamination. Types of direct habitat loss include commercial and residential

development, quarrying, creating landfills, constructing pipelines and filling wetlands (Zercher, 1999).

Alteration of habitats includes changing the hydrology of sites. This may include building roads,

railways, pipelines, and ditches; flooding areas; pulling surface water from nearby areas for irrigation

purposes; or pumping groundwater, which could lower groundwater levels (Zercher, 1999). Roads and

railroads which bisect suitable habitat are especially problematic. Wetland hydrology and quality should

also be maintained by preventing improper off-road vehicle use and controlling invasive weeds in these

areas.

Analysis of Effects


No known occurrences have been documented by the USFWS or the Regional Forester along the

pipeline corridor on the HNF. However, that does not preclude the species being present in the low

quality habitat throughout the remainder of the project area. To avoid impacts to the Hine’s emerald

dragonfly, a 50-foot shrub buffer will be maintained around emergent wetlands between MPs

1459.58 - 1473.48. “No Disturbance Activities” are allowed within the buffer zone and wetland

areas, however, project-specific consultation with the HNF would be required prior to conducting

all Minor Disturbance or Disturbance Activities within the buffer zone and/or wetland.

As surveys are conducted along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to determine presence of occupied and/or

suitable habitat, the buffer will be removed from those areas where suitable habitat is not present.

Enbridge recognizes the location of an occurrence may change over time; therefore, locations of

occurrences will be updated annually in the O&M Plan reflecting new survey information.

Determination of Effects for Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly

No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = NE

2.1.4 Plants

Lakeside daisy (Hymenoxys herbacea)

Occurrences on Forest: 1 site. Federally Threatened.

This population of lakeside daisy occurs on two sides of a county road within the Forest boundary on

federal and state land. It is a Great Lakes endemic with less than 10 occurrences in the U. S. (Michigan,

Ohio, and Illinois) and about 20 sites in southern Ontario (NatureServe, 2006). A recovery plan was

signed for this species (USFWS, 1990) that provides management guidance for “restoring and/or

protecting” lakeside daisy.

Habitat and biology

Lakeside daisy habitat is restricted to barren dolomite and limestone outcrops typical of alvar and

limestone prairie on shorelines of the Great Lakes. The 2006 HNF Forest Plan BA has a more detailed

biology and habitat description for this plant (USDA, 2005).

Environmental Threats

Surface disturbance and encroachment from woody vegetation that could establish a canopy over the

plants would adversely affect the species.

Analysis of Effects




There are no known occurrences of lakeside daisy along the pipeline corridor; however, suitable habitat

may exist along or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way on the HNF. Future surveys will be conducted

along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to determine presence of occupied and/or suitable habitat. For those

areas found to have occupied habitat, a project-specific consultation will be required prior to

working in those areas. Enbridge recognizes locations of occurrence may change over time; therefore

annual surveys will be conducted and the proper mitigation will be updated annually in the O&M Plan.

Cumulative Effects
















Dwarf lake iris (Iris lacustris)

Occurrences on Forest: 3 sites. Federally Threatened.

The known locations of Dwarf lake iris on the HNF are on Round Island Wilderness and within two

candidate Research Natural Areas (Wedens Bay and Pointe aux Chenes) (USDA, 2005, pp. 246-247,

USFWS, 2006, p. 102). There are 70 sites in Michigan. Dwarf lake iris was listed as threatened in 1988.

As of April 2009, there was no federal Recovery Plan for the species.

Habitat and biology

Dwarf lake iris is endemic to the northern shores of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan, and restricted to

the ancient and modern shorelines with calcareous rock or soils. Habitat is beach ridges and stabilized

dunes, limestone ledges, forest gaps and edges often with northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) and

roadsides. The 2006 HNF Forest Plan BA has a more detailed biology and habitat description for this

plant (USDA, 2005, pp. 245 - 246).


Since the dwarf lake iris is largely restricted to the shores of the Great Lakes area, it is highly vulnerable

to ongoing shoreline development and intensive recreation, but this species is a persistent and

ecologically resilient plant and can tolerate occasional minor disturbances (e.g., overstory removal,

occasional trampling, and shading). It is clearly sensitive to mechanical disturbance or removal of its

substrate, but can often recolonize small disturbed areas if it flourishes nearby (Penskar, Crispin, and

Higman, 2001).

Analysis of Effects


There are no known occurrences of dwarf lake iris along the pipeline corridor; however, suitable habitat

may exist along or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way on the HNF. Future surveys will be conducted

along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to determine presence of occupied and/or suitable habitat. For those

areas found to have occupied habitat, a project-specific consultation will be required prior to

working in those areas. Enbridge recognizes locations of occurrence may change over time; therefore

annual surveys will be conducted and the proper mitigation will be updated annually in the O&M Plan.

Cumulative Effects
















Houghton’s goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii)

Occurrences on Forest: 9 sites. Federally Threatened.

The recovery plan lists eight Houghton's goldenrod occurrences on the HNF (USDA, 2005, p. 263). One

additional site is listed in the MNFI database (USFWS, 2006, p. 90). A federal Recovery Plan was

signed in 1997 (USFWS, 1997a).

Habitat and biology

Houghton's goldenrod is endemic to the north shores of Lake Huron and Lake Michigan (USDA, 2005,

p. 261). It is found in open situations where there is relatively little competing vegetation. Occurrences

are found in interdunal wetlands paralleling the shore, on sandy or cobble beach flats, and on seasonally

wet limestone pavements. The HNF has two atypical occurrences at the edge of marl ponds on ancient

shorelines or lakebeds now located inland from the present shores of the Great Lakes (USFWS, 1997a,

p. 10). The 2006 HNF Forest Plan BA has a more detailed biology and habitat description for this plant

(USDA, 2005, pp. 261-262).


Surface disturbance from recreational users and development to the shoreline-specific habitat

requirements provides the greatest threat to Houghton’s goldenrod.

Analysis of Effects


There are no known occurrences of Houghton’s goldenrod along the pipeline corridor; however, suitable

habitat may exist along or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way on the HNF. Future surveys will be

conducted along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to determine presence of occupied and/or suitable habitat.

For those areas found to have occupied habitat, a project-specific consultation will be required

prior to working in those areas. Enbridge recognizes locations of occurrence may change over time;

therefore annual surveys will be conducted and the proper mitigation will be updated annually in the

O&M Plan.

Cumulative Effects
















2.2 Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Forest-wide Plan direction for Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) is found in the Hiawatha

Forest Plan (USDA, 2006a pg 2-17). These protection measures apply to all Regional Forester Sensitive

Species, including future additions to this list.

• Goal 2. Contribute to the conservations of RFSS and work cooperatively with state and federal

agencies to complete and implement conservation assessments and strategies.

• Guideline 1. Conservation approaches for RFSS should be implemented.

• Guideline 2. Non-native invasive plants within element occurrences of RFSS should be

eliminated or controlled.

• Guideline 3. Adverse impacts to known occurrences of RFSS should be avoided or mitigated.

• Guideline 4. Prior to implementing management activities, surveys should be conducted for

RFSS where suitable habitat exists.

Table 2.2-1 below lists all currently listed RFSS on the HNF. This list was evaluated by the HNF staff

biologist to determine presence of known occupied habitat or suitable habitat along the Enbridge

pipeline corridor within the Proclamation Boundary of the HNF (USFS, 2009). This section evaluates

and discloses effects to RFSS that are known to occur or have suitable habitat within or adjacent to the

project area, and therefore, could potentially be affected by the proposed activities.

One of the following determinations of effect is made for each species:

• No impact (NI): when the proposed action will not have an effect.

• Beneficial impact (BI): when proposed action is determined to be wholly beneficial without

potential negative impacts.

• May impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability

(MINT): when the proposed action may cause some negative effects, even if overall effects to

species may be beneficial.

• May impact individuals and likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability

(MILT): where effects are expected to be detrimental and substantial.

Unless otherwise noted, the analysis area for cumulative effects is the entire HNF, and private, State,

and Tribal lands within its boundaries.



Table 2.2-1

Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) – Habitat Analysis along pipeline corridor


(Y or N)


(Y or N) ANIMALS

Gray wolf N Y

BIRDS

Raptors

American peregrine falcon

Bald eagle

Northern Goshawk

Red-shouldered hawk

Short-eared owl

N

Y a

N

N

N

N

Y a

Y

Y a

Y

Wetland birds

Black tern

Black-crowned night heron

Caspian tern

Common loon

Common tern


Trumpeter swan

Yellow rail

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

N

Y


Migrant loggerhead shrike

Prairie warbler

Sharp-tailed grouse

N

N

N

N

Y

N

Black-backed woodpecker N N

Connecticut warbler N Y

INSECTS

Lake Huron locust N Y

Northern blue butterfly N Y

Dragonflies

Ebony boghaunter

Green-faced clubtail


Ringed boghaunter

N

N

Y a

N

Y

N

Y a

Y

FISH

Lake sturgeon N N

REPTILE

Blanding’s turtle N Y

MOLLUSKS

Delicate vertigo N N

Eastern flat-whorl N Y

Euconulus alderi N Y

Mystery vertigo N N

Vallonia gracilicosta albula N N

Vertigo morsei N Y


Aquatic habitat

Autumnal water-starwort

Algal pondweed

American shore-grass

Alternate leaved water milfoil

Lake cress

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N



Table 2.2-1



(Y or N)


(Y or N) Open/wet/habitat

Fir clubmoss

Satiny willow

Bulrush sedge

Hyssop-leaved fleabane

Flattened spike-rush

Wiegand’s sedge

Moor rush

Mat muhly

Dwarf raspberry

Sweet-coltsfoot

Vasey’s rush

Torrey’s bulrush

Butterwort

American sloughgrass

English sundew

Northern prostrate club moss

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Open/dry & beach habitat

Canada milk-vetch

Cooper’s milk-vetch

Richardson sedge

Veiny meadow rue

Blue wild-rye

Spathulate moonwort

Dune grass

Long-stalked stitchwort

Prairie moonwort

Lake Huron tansy

Black crowberry

Canada rice-grass

Downy sunflower

Dwarf bilberry

Pale moonwort

Foam lichen

Ternate grapefern

Prairie dropseed

Michigan moonwort

Plains Ragwort

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Shaded/wet habitat

Limestone oak fern

Round-leaved orchis

White adder’s mouth

Lapland buttercup

Frullania selwyniana lichen

Eastern candlewax lichen

Spongy gourd moss

Heartleaf twayblade

Calypso orchid

Hudson Bay sedge

Small firedot lichen

Ram’s head lady slipper

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y



Table 2.2-1



(Y or N)


(Y or N) Shaded habitat

Little Georgia moss

Beauty sedge

Pine drops

Laurentian bladder fern

Douglas’s Hawthorn

Northern three-lobed bedstraw

Goblin moonwort

Spreading wood fern

Male fern

Northern wild licorice

Butternut

Slender cliff brake fern

Woodland cudweed

Small flowered wood rush

Allegheny vine

Walking fern

Luminous moss

Blunt-lobed grapefern

New England sedge

Northern wild comfrey

Green spleenwort

Porthole lichen

Dotted line lichen

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

a Located adjacent to the pipeline corridor.

2.2.1 Mammals

Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

Habitat and biology

Wolves are pack animals and tend to be habitat generalists with ties to preferred prey (white-tailed deer

and beaver), rather than vegetation type and age. Detailed life history can be found in documents

associated with the 2006 Forest Plan (USFWS, 2006, p. 140-41).


Since gray wolves have generalized habitat requirements, an increasing population trend and are a

widely distributed species in the project area, it is expected that disturbances associated with O&M

activities would be temporary and insignificant. O&M activities along Enbridge’s pipeline right-of-way

may cause minor, localized disturbances such as short-term increases in noise, vehicle and equipment

traffic, and vegetation disturbance. These disturbances may have a minimal effect on the wolf and its

prey species, but these impacts would be discountable due to the infrequency of the activities and the

temporary duration of the work.

Analysis of Effects


Noise and/or physical disturbance would prompt the wolf to vacate the area for a short period of time (a

few minutes for a No Disturbance activity, up to a few days for a Minor Disturbance activity, up to a

few weeks for a Disturbance activity). Project effects would be minor and temporary. Since the wolf is

a mobile species and the right-of-way does not contain denning habitat (tree cover) or known

rendezvous sites, the wolf would merely move away from the local area of disturbance, and could begin



using the area shortly after cessation of activities. Wolf movement may be temporarily impeded and

individuals may be displaced, but the distance involved is not great and the effect on the wolf population

would be small. Any changes in plant communities along the maintained corridor that may affect prey

populations would also be temporary, as the right-of-way would return to pre-activity conditions. Most

clearing would occur immediately adjacent to the already cleared corridor and would represent a

relatively small area when compared to the surrounding unoccupied, suitable habitat available in the

Upper Peninsula. These effects are judged as minor; no species-specific conservation measures are

necessary/practicable.

Cumulative Effects

Because the risk of adverse impacts is minimal, O&M activities would not add to any effects of past,

present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities.


No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance and Disturbance Activities = MINT

2.2.2 Birds

Eighteen bird species are included on the most recent list of RFSS for the HNF, of which eight species

have suitable habitat along the pipeline right-of-way corridor. Four of these species (bald eagle,

northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, and short-eared owl) are raptors (i.e., birds of prey) that feed

on fish, small mammals, or other birds. Two of the species (Le Conte’s sparrow and yellow rail) are

associated with wetlands. Grasslands, barrens and shrub cover constitute habitat for one species, the

prairie warbler. The final species, the Connecticut warbler, has habitat requirements not readily fitting

into any of the groups. Separate effects discussions are provided for raptors, wetland birds,

grassland/shrub birds, and the Connecticut warbler.

Raptors Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald eagles typically inhabit areas near lakes and large rivers which contain their primary prey (fish and

waterfowl). Eagles feed primarily on live fish, and to a lesser extent on waterfowl and carrion (e.g., deer

carcasses in the Upper Peninsula). Bald eagles build nests in the top of a large, tall tree, usually within a

short distance of a large river or lake that is used for foraging by the adults. Waterbodies containing

abundant fish are common across the HNF, and many of these waters have suitable nest trees

surrounding them. Detailed life history can be found in documents associated with the 2006 Forest Plan

(USFWS, 2006, pp. 225-229; USDA, 2005, pp. 8-10).

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

The northern goshawk is an aggressive, area-sensitive raptor that can be found in a variety of forest

types, such as coniferous stands, deciduous stands, mixed stands, riverine forests, and conifer

plantations. The species prefers large tracts of forest with an intermediate amount of canopy closure,

relatively free of dense understory, which allows them to maneuver in and below the canopy. In

addition to forest cover, habitat features important to goshawks include habitat for prey species. The

diet of goshawks consists of moderate sized birds and mammals with ruffed grouse, snowshoe hare and

red squirrel common prey species in the Great Lakes states (USDA, 2006b, pp. 63-64). The primary

threat to this species in Michigan is habitat alteration and destruction due to timber harvest, road

construction, and residential development. Habitat manipulation directly impacts the species by

alteration of suitable structure around the nest site and indirectly by influencing the abundance,

distribution, and vulnerability of prey species. Fragmentation of mature forest stands and the creation of



larger openings favor the immigration of nest competitors and predators such as the red-tailed hawk

(Buteo jamaicensis) and great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus). Standard HNF nest protection measures

(Piehler, 2006) apply to all existing and future northern goshawk nests within the project area (USDA,

2006b, pp. 63-64).

Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus)

The distribution of breeding red-shouldered hawks has apparently shifted from their historical range in

the southern Lower Peninsula to their present concentration in the northern Lower Peninsula. There is a

limited population in the Upper Peninsula. The red-shouldered hawk is migratory along the northern

edge of its range and generally returns to Michigan in late February to early March, moving north with

the retreating snow. In Michigan, red-shouldered hawks utilize mature forested floodplain habitat.

However, the majority of nests in Michigan have been found in large (usually >300 acres.), relatively

mature deciduous or mixed forest complexes (medium to well-stocked pole or saw timber stands)

(USDA, 2006b, pp. 92-93). Typically, these forest complexes have wetland habitats nearby or wetlands

interspersed among these forested habitats. Wetland areas, such as beaver ponds, wet meadows and

lowland forests, are used primarily for foraging purposes. Nest sites tend to be located in dense stands

of timber with a closed canopy structure and near wetland habitat (typically within 1/8 mile). The most

commonly cited risk for this species is loss of nesting habitat across eastern and central North America.

Fragmentation of mature forest stands and the creation of larger openings favor the immigration of nest

competitors and predators such as the red-tailed hawk and great-horned owl. Standard HNF nest

protection measures (Piehler, 2006) apply to all existing and future red-shouldered hawk nests within the

project area.

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)

The short-eared owl is a migratory species in the Upper Peninsula. Short-eared owls require large

(typically > 250 ac) open grassland or emergent wetland habitats such as prairie, hayfields, fallow fields,

small grain stubble, and marshes for breeding habitat. However, smaller grassland/wetland fragments,

as small as 75 ac., can be utilized. Nest sites are placed on the ground and consist of a bowl-shaped

depression. Their diet is primarily composed of small mammals, particularly voles, with smaller

percentages of the diet encompassing various openland/wetland bird species. The primary threat to this

species in Michigan is alteration and destruction of habitat due to development, intensive agriculture,

and successional changes. Habitat manipulation and destruction directly impacts the species by

alteration of suitable nesting habitat, and indirectly, by influencing abundance, distribution, and

vulnerability of prey species. Fragmented openland habitats increase the likelihood of nest destruction

from predators, such as skunks, raccoons, foxes, and coyotes. (USDA, 2006b, pp. 107-108).


The primary threat to these species is habitat alteration and destruction due to timber harvest, road

construction, and residential development. Habitat manipulation directly impacts the species by

alteration of suitable structure around nest sites and indirectly by influencing the abundance,

distribution, and vulnerability of prey species.

The pipeline right-of-way consists primarily of early successional habitats such as upland openings and

wet meadows that these raptors might use for foraging. O&M activities affect small portions of the

right-of-way and therefore could have a minor, temporary effect on foraging raptors. It is expected that

these species, disturbed by the activity, would move to other suitable areas of the right-of-way or other

foraging habitats away from the right-of-way.



Analysis of Effects


Raptors that are nesting within one-quarter mile of the O&M activities could be affected by the noise

and equipment associated with the work.

Red-shouldered hawk, Northern goshawk, and Short-eared owl: There are no known occurrences of the red-shouldered hawk, northern goshawk, or short-eared owl

along the pipeline corridor; however, suitable habitat may exist along or adjacent to the pipeline right-

of-way on the HNF. The closest known occurrences of red-shouldered hawk occur between MPs 1365

and 1368, ½ to one mile south of the pipeline. Future surveys will be conducted along Enbridge’s

pipeline corridor to determine the presence of the red-shouldered hawk closer to the pipeline corridor, or

occupied and/or suitable habitat for the northern goshawk or short-eared owl. For those areas found to

have occupied habitat, a project-specific consultation will be required prior to working in those

areas. Enbridge recognizes locations of occurrence may change over time; therefore annual surveys

will be conducted and the proper mitigation will be updated annually in the O&M Plan.

Bald eagle: Habitat for the bald eagle does not exist within the 60-foot-wide maintained, permanent right-of-way

corridor; however, there is one documented bald eagle occurrence located adjacent to the right-of-way,

approximately ¼ mile north of MP 1358.4. Noise associated with No Disturbance activities within the

60-foot-wide maintained permanent right-of-way corridor could potentially prompt the eagle to leave the

area for a very short period of time. However, No Disturbance activities are limited to brief (typically a

few minutes), transitory actions that entail only a low level of activity (e.g., pedestrian survey, one or

two passes with a pick-up truck or all-terrain vehicle driving along the right-of-way, and/or an individual

or small group working with hand tools). Enbridge’s standard operating procedure for driving a vehicle

on the right-of-way is to operate it in a professional, non-disruptive manner (e.g., no engine revving, no

unnecessary tire spinning, etc.). Potential disturbance to nesting eagle would be minor and exceptional

as active nest sites would be shielded from noise and visual movements from No Disturbance activities

by vegetation along the edge of the right-of-way.

Noise and disturbance associated with Minor Disturbance or Disturbance activities within the 60-foot-

wide maintained permanent right-of-way corridor would likely prompt the eagle to leave the area for a

longer time period and/or interrupt nesting activities. In addition, tree clearing associated with

Disturbance activities located outside of the 60-foot-wide maintained permanent right-of-way corridor

may alter eagle habitat. To avoid impacts to eagle, a one-quarter mile radius buffer will be

maintained around the nest locations for Minor Disturbance and Disturbance activities. Project-

specific consultation with the HNF will be required prior to commencing all Minor Disturbance

and Disturbance activities between MPs 1358.24 – 1358.5 during the nesting season (March 1 to

August 31). Enbridge recognizes the location of this occurrence may change over time; therefore, as

future surveys are conducted, the location of this occurrence will be updated annually in the O&M Plan.

Cumulative Effects




No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT



Wetland Birds LeConte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii)

The species is a breeding season resident in Michigan (NatureServe, 2006, Brewer et al., 1991). Habitat

for Le Conte’s sparrow is typically emergent wetlands of sedges and rushes. Nests usually are found on

the edge of large areas of sedge, grass and rush. The species appears to select dense litter in which to

locate nests. In Michigan and neighboring Minnesota, Le Conte’s sparrows prefer areas free of shrubs

and other woody vegetation. Adults feed on insects and forb and grass seeds. Insects comprise the entire

diet of nestlings (NatureServe, 2006). Brewer et al. (1991) includes confirmed breeding in three

counties, including Chippewa, Schoolcraft and Keweenaw.

Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis)

Yellow rails typically arrive in the Seney National Wildlife Refuge, located northeast of Manistique, MI,

during the last week of April or first week of May. Pair formation probably occurs on breeding grounds.

The species breeds in open bog and sedge meadow heavily dominated by Carex lasiocarpa, a tall mat-

forming sedge. Some consider this species a semi-colonial nester, since it is more typical to find groups

of birds nesting together than it is to find single pairs. The nest is a thick cup of woven fine grasses and

sedges concealed in a natural hollow and covered with a canopy of dead vegetation. Average clutch size

is 8 with a range of 5-10. Incubation is by the female alone and lasts for 16-18 days. The male may

remain near the nest during incubation. Primary foods taken include small snails (most important),

aquatic insects, and seeds. Yellow rails depart in September pass through the Lower Peninsula into late

October. Although the species is widely distributed in North America during the breeding season, its

presence is local. Historical and current abundance in Michigan is not well known. The species is

probably more common and widespread historically than the few records indicate, due to the yellow

rail's secretive nature and infrequently visited habitat. The yellow rail has always had a widely scattered

and poorly known distribution in Michigan, with few confirmed breeding records. Loss of wetlands due

to human activity is probably the most important factor affecting yellow rail populations range-wide.

However, federal and state agencies and private landowner’s protect the few known breeding sites in

Michigan. The encroachment of woody vegetation into known breeding sites reduces suitability for

yellow rails, so management may be required (i.e., burning, water level management, etc.) to maintain

these sites. (USDA, 2006b, pp. 114-115).

Analysis of Effects


There are no known occurrences of these species along the pipeline corridor; however, suitable habitat

does exist along or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way on the HNF. Future surveys will be conducted

along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to determine presence of occupied habitat. For those areas found to




Cumulative Effects







Grassland/Shrub Birds Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor)

Spring migrants sometimes reach Michigan in the first few days of May, but most arrive about the

middle of May in the Lower Peninsula. Breeding activity usually occurs from late May through early

July. Breeding occurs in a variety of upland shrub habitats associated with poor soils, including

dune/lakeshore communities, fallow fields with scattered trees, etc. The nest is a compact cup of plant

fibers, small dead leaves, grasses, bud scales, fern and seed down, bound with spiders' webs, lined with

hair and/or feathers and placed in a shrub or sapling 1-10 feet above ground. Egg laying occurs in June.

Young are fed primarily caterpillars; adults eat a variety of small invertebrates and glean insects and

spiders from vegetation. It will occasionally take prey mid-air. Currently, the populations of prairie

warbler in Michigan are small and scattered, though much suitable habitat appears to be available

(USDA, 2006b, pp. 88-89). This observation has led some researchers to believe that the prairie

warbler’s habitat requirements may be more confined than originally thought. Beneficial practices

include prescribed burning, allowing natural succession in fields, creating large cut-over areas,

maintenance of large thickets in agricultural areas, and the establishment of young pine forests (USDA,

2001b).

Analysis of Effects


There are no known occurrences of this species along the pipeline corridor; however, suitable habitat






Cumulative Effects





Other Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis)

The Connecticut warbler is an uncommon, elusive neotropical migrant. They are one of the latest of

spring migrants, arriving on their breeding grounds in Michigan in mid-May to early-June. The U.P. of

Michigan is near the southern edge of the Connecticut warbler’s breeding range; 85% of breeding range

is in Canada. Distribution is spotty in the U.P., even in suitable habitat. The species uses a multitude of

habitat types in Great Lakes states, breeding in habitats from black spruce bogs, young-pole size jack

pine, mixed hardwoods, dry uplands, lowlands, sedge meadows and a dozen other types. A well-

developed shrub-understory layer may be more important than the forest type in determining habitat

suitability for this species, described as an ericaceous understory (heath family). The habitat

Connecticut warblers occupy on the HNF is local, even though suitable areas appear to be abundant.

The species exists at low abundance on the HNF (USDA, 2006b, pp. 60- 61). The Connecticut warbler

feeds primarily on insects, including gleaning insects off foliage, and to a lesser extent on berries.




Alterations of habitats that contain a substantial, well-developed understory of shrubs and low ground

cover are the primary impacts to the Connecticut warbler population. Removal of shrubby ingrowth

along the pipeline and mowing of pipeline or other utility corridors, and natural succession are the main

threats to the warbler.

Analysis of Effects








Cumulative Effects





2.2.3 Reptiles

One reptile species is included on the most recent list of RFSS for the HNF. Description of Blanding’s

turtle habitat and ecology on the HNF is provided first, then followed by potential effects.

Blanding’s turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)

Habitat and biology

Blanding’s turtles inhabit productive, clean, shallow waters with abundant aquatic vegetation and soft

muddy bottoms over firm substrates. This species is found in ponds, marshes, swamps, bogs, wet

prairies, river backwaters, embayments, sloughs, slow-moving rivers, protected coves, and lake shallows

and inlets. Blanding’s turtles also occupy terrestrial habitats in the spring and summer, during the

mating and nesting seasons, and in the fall, to a lesser extent. They prefer to nest in open, sunny areas

with moist but well-drained sandy or loamy soil. Blanding’s turtles are active as early as late March or

April. During the active season, they are often seen basking on muskrat lodges, stumps, logs, sedge or

cattail clumps, or steep banks of dikes and ditches. At night, these turtles are found in or under aquatic

vegetation. During the summer and fall, when shallow water habitats start to dry, some Blanding’s

turtles migrate overland to new bodies of water, while others aestivate on land, burrowing under roots,

mud, or plants. Blanding's turtles typically enter hibernation sites between September and late

November. They usually hibernate underwater in deeper water bodies, often buried in organic substrate.

Mating can occur anytime during the active season (late March/April - November) but occurs primarily

from March through May. Mating occurs in shallow to deep water in wetland habitats. Females leave

the wetlands to excavate nests in upland, open, often disturbed sandy areas adjacent to or near wetlands.

Blanding’s turtles are omnivorous. They feed predominantly on crayfish and aquatic insects but also

consume small fish, earthworms, snails, leeches, tadpoles, frogs and aquatic plants. They feed primarily

under water, and generally forage along the substrate. Raccoons, foxes, and skunks are the primary

predators of Blanding’s turtle eggs, hatchlings and juveniles. (USDA, 2006b, p. 120-122). The



distribution of this species is generally spotty with some widely disjunct populations. Up until 2005,

MNFI had no element occurrence records for Blanding's turtle within the HNF. The first verified

occurrence was within the boundary in Delta County in 2005. Before that event, Jim Harding reported

that Blanding's turtles do occur in the HNF but must be very rare. Blanding’s turtles are threatened

across their range, by habitat loss and degradation. Blanding’s turtles require clean, shallow water with

abundant aquatic vegetation, and appear to be sensitive to habitat alteration. (USDA, 2006b, p. 120-

122).


The primary threat to Blanding’s turtles is habitat loss and degradation (Van Dam, 1993; Harding,

1997). Blanding’s turtles require clean, shallow water with abundant aquatic vegetation, and appear to

be sensitive to habitat alteration (Kofron and Schreiber, 1985). Sources of habitat loss and alteration

include drainage or inundation of wetlands, river channelization, water impoundments, agricultural

activities along edges of sloughs and ponds, herbicide and pesticide use, and development of upland

nesting areas (Kofron and Schreiber, 1985). Habitat fragmentation can pose a significant threat since

nest predation, primarily by raccoons, skunks, and opossums, was found to increase near habitat edges

(Temple, 1987).

Analysis of Effects








Cumulative Effects





2.2.4 Mollusks

Three mollusks on the recent list of RFSS provided by the HNF have suitable habitat within or adjacent

to the Enbridge pipeline corridor. All are included as one group due to similarities in applicable Forest

Plan protections. Descriptions of habitat and ecology appear first, followed by potential effects. There

is limited information available regarding these species, and there are very few occurrences for each

species. Generally, habitat is patchy across the landscape, outcrops of the Niagara escarpment occur in a

narrow band and are not continuous across the Forest. Much habitat remains to be surveyed, and not all

suitable habitat on the Forest is occupied.

Eastern flat-whorl (Planogyra asteriscus)

Of the ten occurrences recorded in the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), six of the sites had

an occurrence of cedar (Thuja occidentalis) described as acidic white cedar/black spruce swamp forest

to open marl flats; remnant white cedar swamp; cedar-tamarack swamp forest with interdigitation of

tamarack-sedge wetland and rich cedar forest; white cedar swamp with abundant speckled alder. Other



habitat descriptions were associated with limestone outcrops: dry, upland hemlock forest over shallow

limestone adjacent to cobble beach; low moist north-facing limestone ridge with water seepage present;

sandy upland woods on steep west-facing bank with seepages at base and rich undisturbed swamp forest.

Threats were not listed in the references that were checked. However, it is likely they would be similar

to other terrestrial gastropods in this group and include anthropogenic activity (e.g., highway corridors,

railroad right-of-ways), hydrologic regime alterations, agriculture and forest management. All

occurrences in Michigan are in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. These include Delta County (1

occurrence), Chippewa County (1 occurrence), Mackinac County (5 occurrences), Schoolcraft County (1

occurrence) and Keweenaw County (2 occurrences). All of these observations were made in 1998 when

surveys for the Terrestrial Gastropod Inventory of the Niagarian Escarpment Keweenaw Volcanic Belt

were conducted. One occurrence in Mackinac County is on the HNF (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2006).

A land snail (Euconulus alderi)

This species has been found at ten sites in the Upper Peninsula including 2 fens, 1 cobble beach, 3

tamarack-sedge wetlands, and 3 white cedar wetlands. These sites are limited to the vicinity of the Lake

Michigan-Lake Huron shore. It is most frequently encountered in tamarack-sedge communities within

its distribution where it is consistently co-occurs with Vertigo elatior and Vertigo nylanderi (USDA

2006b, p. 139). Threats to the species include anthropogenic activity (e.g., highway corridors, railroad

right-of-ways), hydrologic regime alterations, agriculture and forest management. Acid rain may also be

a threat (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2003b, p. 8). On the HNF, this species is known from only three locations.

One site is a candidate research natural area, a designation that will provide protection from motorized

use and vegetation management. The other two sites are near a wilderness (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2003a, p.

8).

A land snail (Vertigo morsei)

This species is found in calcareous open wetlands and fens, and usually associated with the margins of

those features. In Mackinac County, MI, this species was found in calcareous fens with organic-rich soil

overlaying marl (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2003d). Since 1986, five occurrences have been found in calcareous

fen habitat in Wisconsin and Iowa (USDA, 2006b, p. 139). Threats to Vertigo morsei have been listed

generally as: human development, highway corridors, agriculture, forest management and other

disturbances (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2003d). Other threats might include quarrying, rock climbing,

spelunking and ATV use. In area with populations of land snails, forest clearing has negative impacts,

as well as any activities that may alter groundwater flow (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2003d). The two

occurrences of V. morsei, during the 1998 inventory, that are on the HNF include: along the boundary of

a wilderness area, and another site near a state highway. In the U.P. two counties are listed as having

occurrences, including Chippewa and Mackinac (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2003d).

Analysis of Effects Direct and Indirect Effects







Cumulative Effects







2.2.5 Insects

Five insects on the recent list of RFSS provided by the HNF have known occupied or suitable habitat

within or adjacent to the Enbridge pipeline corridor. Three of the species (warpaint emerald, ebony

boghaunter, and ringed boghaunter) are dragonflies. Of the remaining two species in this group, one is a

butterfly (Nabokov’s or northern blue) and one a locust (Lake Huron locust). For the effects discussions,

all of the dragonflies were grouped. Separate effects discussions are provided for northern blue and

Lake Huron locust. In all of the effects analyses, description of habitat and ecology on the HNF appears

first, and is followed by potential effects.

Lake Huron locust (Trimerotropis huroniana)

Habitat and biology

The Lake Huron locust is strictly ground dwelling, essentially never climbing on foliage or other

supports (Rabe, 1999 p. 1; Cuthrell, 2003). On sunny, windless days, locusts are most common on

sparsely vegetated sands, where they are evenly distributed with territories of several feet in diameter. In

windy, overcast weather, individuals are densely distributed within the heavy dune grass cover,

apparently seeking shelter. Host plant use by the Lake Huron locust is not restricted to grasses, although

these probably make up a large portion of the diet. Dune grasses are among the most preferred species,

but several dune forbs apparently are included in the diet. Three plant species were common to all sites

with Lake Huron locusts, dune grass (Calamovilfa longifolia), beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata)

and wild wormwood (Artemisia campestris). Significant among the acceptable forbs is Pitcher’s thistle

(Cirsium pitcheri), a federally protected species restricted to the dunes. Lake Huron locusts do show

significant preference for dry, loose sand substrates characteristic of shoreline dune habitats and not

stabilized, wooded dunes or most inland habitats. The largest, apparently most stable populations of the

locust are associated with areas of extensive, wide dunes. Shorelines that are one mile or more in length

with at least two sets of dunes containing blowout areas are ideal. The locust occurs along the Lake

Michigan shoreline, including the offshore islands, from Mason to Emmet and Mackinac to Schoolcraft

counties; the Lake Huron shoreline from Iosco to Cheyboygan and Mackinac to Chippewa counties; and

the Lake Superior shoreline from Chippewa to Alger County (NatureServe, 2007; USDA, 2006b, pp.

152-154). Rabe (1999) indicates that Lake Huron locust can persist with low to medium levels of

human disturbance, as long as the basic dune structure remains intact. Scholtens et al. (2005) surveys of

lakeshore dunes on Lakes Michigan, Huron and Superior in Michigan indicate the species is fairly

tolerant of disturbance.


Significant areas of the locust’s high-quality dune habitat have been degraded or destroyed by shoreline

home and recreational development throughout the Great Lakes area. Although a dune-obligate species,

the Lake Huron locust apparently can persist with low to medium levels of human-related disturbance.

The extent of the dunes protected at a site should be large enough to allow natural processes to locally

change the character of the dunes through blowouts, which create new habitat or stabilization by plants,

which reduces locust habitat. When disturbance changes the character of the habitat away from a typical

dune system to one with a large number of invasive weeds, or lack of sand movement, the Lake Huron

locust seems to drop significantly in numbers (Rabe, 1999)



Analysis of Effects








Cumulative Effects





Northern blue butterfly (Lycaeides idas nabokovi)

Habitat and biology

The species has a one-year life cycle. Adults are found starting from late-June in southern areas and

persist through July. Males patrol open areas of the host plant, Vaccinium caespitosum and other

Vaccinium, and attempt to mate with females. Females lay eggs singly on the host plant or underneath

the plant on other debris or vegetation. Eggs overwinter, and the larvae hatch in May and pupate in

June, possibly slightly later in upper Michigan. Adults of both sexes feed on a variety of nectar-bearing

plants such as clovers, yarrow, Potentilla, harebells, and others. Larvae feed only on the host plant.

Larvae and pupae are usually tended by Formica sp. ants. Resting adults show little preference for

roosting plants. Forest habitats around the breeding locations are often pine with shrubs, and

occasionally upland black spruce. Bracken fern is often present at the forested edge of the openings.

Other vegetation includes various Vaccinium, lichens, mosses, Carex pennsylvanic and Viola pubescens.

The host plant requires natural or manmade openings on poor soils. This may be sand or thin soils over

bedrock. Vegetative encroachment, both woody and herbaceous, and conifer plantings threatens these

sites. Manual removal is often preferable to poorly planned burnings to maintain openings, because all

phase of the life cycle of L. i. nabakivi are sensitive to fire, and V. caespitosum is susceptible to

excessive fire. Parasitism of eggs is a major source of annual mortality, but it has not been established

whether the parasites are native or introduced. Exotic plants may colonize disturbed areas and

outcompete V. caespitosum. On the HNF, the northern blue butterfly population depends on the

abundance of dwarf bilberry, a RFSS.


Successional changes in vegetation threaten the viability of dwarf bilberry patches, but burning to

maintain the openings needed for dwarf bilberry is detrimental to the host plant and may also harm

unprotected eggs or larvae, and competition with aggressive species such as sweet fern and bracken fern

in the openings is also problematic.

Analysis of Effects










Cumulative Effects





Dragonflies

Most of the rare insects on the HNF are dragonflies. With the possible exception of the green-faced

clubtail, all of the rare dragonflies on the HNF prefer bog/fen habitat, with adults also foraging in edge

and openings nearby. The green-faced clubtail utilizes streams and rivers with rocky substrate. Both

boghaunter species and the warpaint emerald are found in the same areas and appear to use similar

habitat. All of the dragonflies are grouped in this BE due to commonality that all occupy wet areas.

Two major threats for this group are vehicular traffic and changes to the water table or hydrology.

Ebony boghaunter

The ebony boghaunter dragonfly uses bog/fen habitat throughout the eastside of the HNF. The egg

and larva stages occur in bog/fen habitat within forested lands. Adults forage in a variety of

openings, locations which can include roadways. Sunlit clearings in the forest are used by adults in

territorial flights, especially near breeding habitat, which makes forest clearing and fragmentation

potentially deleterious to species viability (NatureServe, 2006). Williamsonia fletcheri is small and

very dark with bright rings at base of abdomen. Flight is early and very short. The species is not

very active and has been observed to perch on the ground or on dead branches. The species ranges

across the northern tier of U.S. from Maine to Minnesota and north in to Canada. The 2006

University of Michigan Odonata Survey Master Database contains 22 Michigan records of the

species, with 18 records for the U.P. Seven of the records are inside the proclamation boundary of

the HNF in Chippewa County. In 1991, the first specimen from the HNF on the Eastside of the

Forest were identified. The next observations of the species also occurred on the Eastside in

Chippewa County in 2003, when multiple individuals were seen and one voucher specimen was

taken. Since then, at least four more specimens have been collected from different sites on the HNF.

The species is difficult to survey since the bog habitat is often in remote locations and it can be

difficult to time the survey correctly to find target individuals in flight. It may be quite common in

Michigan, but currently there is little supporting documentation. Michigan water quality BMP’s and

wetland protections are in place to reduce risks to habitat.


This species is also known by the common name, incurvate emerald. Warpaint emerald dragonflies

use bog/fen habitat throughout the eastside of the HNF. This species has three life stages (egg, larva,

and adult). The egg and larva stage occur in bog/fen habitat, but, as an adult, the species forages in a

variety of openings including roadways (NatureServe, 2005). It is a rarely encountered species in

part because its boggy habitat is difficult and unpleasant to sample during the adult flight season, and

extremely difficult to sample for larvae. There are undoubtedly additional, undiscovered

occurrences on the forest. Surveys several miles north of Trout Lake in 2001 discovered the species

at numerous locations in a large block of mostly contiguous bog and black spruce-jack pine bog

forest. This species has been considered uncommon throughout its range, but is probably more



common than is thought. It was originally discovered and described from Michigan’s Upper

Peninsula, and has since been found in only a half-dozen states and several provinces. Recent

surveys are finding it in more locations, both locally and internationally. Peat mining and

disturbance to the water and water table are the major threats. Wetland loss is a threat. Roadkill

occurs and is of unknown threat magnitude.

Ringed boghaunter

The ringed boghaunter dragonfly uses bog/fen habitat, as well as openings on the HNF. The egg and

larva stages occur in bog/fen habitat, but, as an adult, the species forages in open woods.

Characteristic habitats for ringed boghaunter are shallow bog pools and acid fens with sparse shrub

cover and wiry sedges (Langstaff, 2006c). Adults are usually found in adjacent woodlands either

basking on the ground in openings or on tree trunks, while the larvae cling to vegetation or other

organic substrate in open pools. The current known distribution of the species is throughout the

coastal New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and

Connecticut) with isolated populations known from Michigan and Wisconsin (NatureServe, 2006).

Dragonfly surveys for sensitive species have been conducted on the HNF since the late 1990’s, but

Williamsonia lintneri was not considered a target species until 2003. Until this time, no individuals

had been observed on the HNF (Langstaff, 2006c). During the 2003 surveys, two sites for W.

lintneri were found on the HNF, one in Chippewa County and one in Delta County. These were the

first records for the species in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Two additional sites have been

found in Chippewa County since then (Langstaff, 2006c). The bog habitat that this species uses

requires considerable effort to access, and it can be difficult to time the surveys correctly to find

individuals in flight. Clearing forested uplands, filling in wetland habitats, use of pesticides,

pollution, ditching, and water-level manipulations are the main threats to the species.

Analysis of Effects

There are no known occurrences of the ebony boghaunter, warpaint emerald or ringed boghaunter on the

pipeline corridor. However, there is a documented occurrence of the warpaint emerald dragonfly in a

wetland located approximately 200 feet north of the pipeline at MP 1365.6 (the wetland is north of a

gravel road running parallel along the north side of the pipeline). In order to avoid impacts to the

warpaint emerald dragonfly at this location, project-specific consultation with the HNF is

required prior to commencing Disturbance Activities at MP 1365.6. As suitable habitat does exist

along or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way for the ebony boghaunter, warpaint emerald or ringed

boghaunter on the HNF, future surveys will be conducted along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to

determine presence of occupied habitat. For those areas found to have occupied habitat, a project-

specific consultation will be required prior to working in those areas. Enbridge recognizes locations

of occurrence may change over time; therefore annual surveys will be conducted and the proper

mitigation will be updated annually in the O&M Plan.

Cumulative Effects







2.2.6 Plants

To study the effects of O&M activities on RFSS plants, species were grouped by some very general

habitat conditions. More information on biology, life history, distribution, and habitat associations for

each species can be found in the BE for the HNF Forest Plan (USDA, 2006b).

2.2.6.1 OPEN/WET HABITATS

RFSS plants evaluated under the open/wet habitat type:

Wiegand’s sedge

Flatstem spikerush

Hyssop-leaved fleabane

Bulrush sedge

Butterwort

Fir clubmoss

Vasey’s rush

Northern prostrate club moss

English sundew

Dwarf raspberry

Mat muhly

Sweet-coltsfoot

American sloughgrass

Moor rush

Torrey’s bulrush

Habitat associations

The rare plants in the open/wet habitat group occupy a broad range of wetland conditions where they

receive nearly full sun all day. These include fen, bog, lakeshore, stream bank, interdunal wetland,

marsh, moist rock, and moist alvar. Each has specific soil and nutrient requirements but generally,

temperature restricts their ranges. Most of these species have the center of their range in Canada where

these types of habitats and cooler temperatures are more common. Northern prostrate clubmoss so far is

found only in Michigan. There is some crossover in habitat between this grouping and the open/dry and

beach group following. For example, the milk-vetches could be placed here because they prefer slightly

moister sand.


Plants that occur in this habitat type are most vulnerable to competition with non-native invasive plant

species that may infest a disturbed site (i.e., purple loosestrife, swamp thistle, reed canary grass,

common reed, and glossy buckthorn).

Analysis of Effects


does exist along or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way on the HNF for all species in the open/wet

habitat group. Future surveys will be conducted along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to determine

presence of occupied habitat. For those areas found to have occupied habitat, a project-specific

consultation will be required prior to working in those areas. Enbridge recognizes locations of

occurrence may change over time; therefore annual surveys will be conducted and the proper mitigation

will be updated annually in the O&M Plan.

Cumulative Effects







2.2.6.2 OPEN/DRY AND BEACH HABITATS

RFSS plants evaluated under the open/dry and beach habitat type:

Canadian milk-vetch

Cooper’s milk-vetch

Prairie moonwort

Michigan moonwort

Pale moonwort

Plains ragwort

Ternate grapefern

Spathulate moonwort

Downy sunflower

Canada rice-grass

Prairie dropseed

Long-stalked stitchwort

Veiny meadow rue

Dwarf bilberry

Foam lichen

Richardson sedge

Black crowberry

Lake Huron tansy


The plants in the open/dry and beach habitat group are found in a variety of open, sunny habitats. Most

of them have only one or two occurrences on the HNF, but may be more widespread throughout their

range. Some, such as prairie moonwort and prairie dropseed favor calcareous limestone or alvar. Pine

barrens and dry prairie support Canada rice-grass, downy sunflower, dwarf bilberry, foam lichen and

ternate grapefern.


Plants that fall under the open/dry and beach habitat type are susceptible to competition with non-native

invasive plant species that prefer a similar habitat type. These non-native species are aggressive,

produce many seeds, and reproduce abundantly and are likely to infest disturbed sites.

Analysis of Effects


does exist along or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way on the HNF for all species in the open/dry and

beach habitat group. Future surveys will be conducted along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to determine





Cumulative Effects





2.2.6.3 SHADED/WET HABITATS

RFSS plants evaluated under shaded/wet habitat type:

Calypso orchid

Hudson Bay sedge

Ram’s head lady slipper

White adder’s mouth

Lapland buttercup

Eastern candlewax lichen

Liverwort

Spongy gourd moss


These RFSS plants require the lower light and higher moisture condition found in older cedar swamp or

hardwood swamp. However, some can grow in the partial shade of forest edges. Spongy gourd moss

grows on the edges of streams under a canopy.




Plants that require shaded and wet habitats, such as cedar swamps, hardwood swamp and stream banks

within forests can be threatened by the removal of trees, as well as non-native invasive plant species that

may infest disturbed sites (i.e., buckthorn, honeysuckle, and burdock to a lesser degree).

Analysis of Effects


does exist along or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way on the HNF for all species in the shaded/wet

habitat group. Future surveys will be conducted along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to determine





Cumulative Effects





2.2.6.3 SHADED HABITATS

RFSS plants evaluated under shaded habitat type:

Blunt-lobed grapefern

Beauty sedge

Northern three-lobed bedstraw

Northern wild comfrey

Woodland cudweed

Pine drops

Dotted line lichen


This is a large, diverse group of RFSS plants, that all require shade and the higher moisture generally

found under a canopy of trees. Many of these rare plants have their home range farther north and occur

here in Michigan at the southern edge of where they can survive. Port-hole and dotted line lichen are

found on trees in mesic forest. Most of these RFSS have only a few known sites on the forest.


Plants that require shaded habitats (under the canopy of forest trees) can be threatened by the removal of

trees, as well as competition with non-native invasive plant species that may infest disturbed sites.

Analysis of Effects


does exist along or adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way on the HNF for all species in the shaded habitat

group. Future surveys will be conducted along Enbridge’s pipeline corridor to determine presence of

occupied habitat. For those areas found to have occupied habitat, a project-specific consultation

will be required prior to working in those areas. Enbridge recognizes locations of occurrence may

change over time; therefore annual surveys will be conducted and the proper mitigation will be updated

annually in the O&M Plan.



Cumulative Effects







3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS

Table D-1

Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) – Summary of Determinations of Effects


ANIMALS

Canada lynx NLAA

Gray wolf NLAA

BIRDS

Piping plover NE

Piping plover critical habitat NE

Kirtland’s warbler NLAA

INSECTS

Hine’s emerald dragonfly NE

Hine’s emerald dragonfly critical habitat NE

PLANTS

Hart’s tongue fern NE

Pitcher’s thistle NE

Lakeside daisy NLAA

Dwarf lake iris NLAA

Michigan monkey-flower NE

Houghton’s goldenrod NLAA

a NE – No effect; NLAA – Not likely to adversely affect; LAA – Likely to adversely affect



Table D-2

Regional Forester Sensitive Species – Summary of Determinations of Effects


ANIMALS

Gray wolf MINT

BIRDS

Raptors

Bald eagle

Northern Goshawk

Red-shouldered hawk

Short-eared owl

MINT

MINT

MINT

MINT

Wetland birds


Yellow rail

MINT

MINT


Prairie warbler

MINT

Connecticut warbler

MINT

REPTILE

Blanding’s turtle MINT

MOLLUSKS

Eastern flat-whorl MINT

Euconulus alderi MINT

Vertigo morsei MINT

INSECTS

Lake Huron locust MINT

Northern blue butterfly MINT

Dragonflies

Ebony boghaunter


Ringed boghaunter

MINT

MINT

MINT


Open/wet/habitat MINT

Open/dry & beach habitat MINT

Shaded/wet habitat MINT

Shaded habitat MINT

a NI – No impact; MINT – May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability; MILT – May impact

individuals but likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.



4.0 REFERENCES

Brewer, R, G. A. McPeek, and R. J. Adams, Jr. 1991. The atlas of breeding birds of Michigan.

Michigan State University Press, East Lansing Michigan.

Byelich, J., M.E. DeCapita, G.W. Irvine, R.E. Radtke, N.I. Johnson, W.R. Jones, H. Mayfield and W.

Mahalak. 1976, revised 1985. Kirtland’s Warbler recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Cuthrell, D. L. 2001. Press Release. Michigan – Trimerotropis huroniana (Lake Huron locust). 1 p.

Harding, J.H. 1997. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Great Lakes Region. U. of Mich. Press, Ann

Arbor, MI. 378 pp.

Langstaff. 2006c. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service. Risk Evaluation for Ringed

Boghaunter (Williamsonia lintneri).

Kofron, C.P. and A.A. Schreiber. 1985. Ecology of two endangered aquatic turtles in Missouri:

Kinosternon flavescens and Emydoidea blandingii. J. Herpetol. 19(1):27-40.

Kudell-Ekstrum. 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service. Risk Evaluation for

Planogyra asteriscus. 3 pp.

Kudell-Ekstrum. 2003a. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service. Risk Evaluation for

Catinella exile. 10 pp.

Kudell-Ekstrum. 2003b. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service. Risk Evaluation for

Euconulus alderi. 11 pp.

Kudell-Ekstrum. 2003d. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Forest Service. Risk Evaluation for

Vertigo morsei. 11 pp.

NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version

6.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

NatureServe, 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version

6.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Accessed November 25, 2006; March 8, 2007.

NatureServe, 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version

6.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed:

November 25, 2006; March 8, 2007).

Penskar, M.R., S.R. Crispin, & P.J. Higman, 2001. Species Account for Iris lacustris (dwarf lake iris)

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI.

Piehler, K. G. 2006. Forest-wide Policy for Implementing Northern Goshawk and Red-shouldered Hawk

Territory Protection Guidelines. Letter for NEPA Project File. 4 pp.



Rabe, M. L. 1999. Special animal abstract for Trimerotropis huroniana (Lake Huron locust). Michigan

Natural Features Inventory. Lansing, MI. 3pp.

Scholtens, B. G., Reznik, J., and J. Holland. Factors affecting the distribution of the threatened Lake

Huron locust (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Journal of Orthoptera Research. Vol 14, Issue 1 (January 2005).

pp. 45-52.

Sjogren, S. 2006. Kirtland’s warbler census results – Upper Peninsula of Michigan. August 2006.

Temple, S.A. 1987. Predation on turtle nests increases near ecological edges. Copeia 1987(1):250-252.

USDA. 2001. FSM 2600 – Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plant Habitat Management. Chapter 2670 -

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Supplement No.: 2600-2001-1. Effective

Date: February 23, 2001.

USDA. 2001b. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. 2002. Conservation Assessment for Prairie

Warbler (Dendroica discolor). 16pp. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/wildlife/tes/ca-

overview/birds.html.

USDA, 2005. Biological Assessment for the Hiawatha National Forest. August 2005.

USDA. 2006a. Hiawatha National Forest 2006 Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service. Escanaba MI.

USDA. 2006b. Biological Evaluation for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Hiawatha National

Forest Plan. Government Printing Office, 2006. Available at: U.S. Forest Service, Escanaba MI.

USFS, 2009. Federally listed plant species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species list considered for

analysis along and adjacent to Enbridge’s pipeline corridor. Hiawatha National Forest. May 4, 2009.

USFWS, 1990. Recovery plan for the Lakeside Daisy (Hymenoxys acaulis var. glabra). U.S. Fish and

Wildife Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota.

USFWS, 1997a. Recovery Plan for Houghton’s goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii A Gray). U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, MN. Prepared by Michael Penskar, Michigan Natural Features

Inventory, Lansing, MI, September 17, 1997.

USFWS, 2006. Biological Opinion for the Hiawatha National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan, March 2006. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Office, MI.

USFWS, 2006b. Proposal to designate habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly in Michigan,

Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing

Office, MI. July 24, 2006.

USFWS, 2007. Final rule designating critical habitat for the Hine’s emerald dragonfly in Illinois,

Michigan, and Wisconsin. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. September 5, 2007.



USFWS, 2009. Reopening public comment period, proposal to designate additional critical habitat unit

on the HNF in Michigan, and in Missouri. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

April 22, 2009.

Van Dam, B. 1993. Element stewardship abstract for Emydoidea blandingii (Holbrook) Blanding’s

turtle. Michigan natural Features Inventory, Lansing, MI. 25 pp.

Zercher, D. 1999. Hine’s emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana) draft recovery plan. Report to

USFWS, Fort Snelling, MN.

Documents

Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership Pipeline Operation ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · Warpaint emerald dragonfly Ringed boghaunter MINT MINT MINT REPTILE