enbridge energy, limited partnership pipeline operation...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation ES-3
Table ES-2
Regional Forester Sensitive Species – Summary of Determinations of Effects
Species Evaluated Determination of Effecta
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 2
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 3
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:
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 4
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 5
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 6
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 7
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 8
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).
Environmental Factors
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 9
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
Direct and Indirect 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
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 O&M
activities would be so small as to be insignificant.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = NLAA
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 10
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).
Environmental Factors
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
Direct and Indirect 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
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 11
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, 2 and Disturbance O&M activities would
be so small as to be insignificant.
Determination of Effects
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).
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 12
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
Direct and Indirect 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
Direct and Indirect Effects
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 13
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
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 14
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).
Environmental Factors
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
Direct and Indirect 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
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 15
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).
Environmental Factors
Surface disturbance from recreational users and development to the shoreline-specific habitat
requirements provides the greatest threat to Houghton’s goldenrod.
Analysis of Effects
Direct and Indirect 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
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 16
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 17
Table 2.2-1
Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) – Habitat Analysis along pipeline corridor
Species Known Occupied Habitat?
(Y or N)
Suitable Habitat Present?
(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
Le Conte’s sparrow
Trumpeter swan
Yellow rail
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Grassland/Shrub birds
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
Warpaint emerald dragonfly
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
PLANTS (by habitat type)
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 18
Table 2.2-1
Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) – Habitat Analysis along pipeline corridor
Species Known Occupied Habitat?
(Y or N)
Suitable Habitat Present?
(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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 19
Table 2.2-1
Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) – Habitat Analysis along pipeline corridor
Species Known Occupied Habitat?
(Y or N)
Suitable Habitat Present?
(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).
Environmental Factors
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
Direct and Indirect 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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 20
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.
Determination of Effects
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 21
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).
Environmental Factors
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 22
Analysis of Effects
Direct and Indirect 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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 23
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
Direct and Indirect 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
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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 24
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
Direct and Indirect Effects
There are no known occurrences of this 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
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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 25
Environmental Factors
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
Direct and Indirect Effects
There are no known occurrences of this 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
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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 26
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).
Environmental Factors
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
Direct and Indirect Effects
There are no known occurrences of this 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
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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 27
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
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
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
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 28
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
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.
Environmental Factors
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)
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 29
Analysis of Effects
Direct and Indirect Effects
There are no known occurrences of this 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
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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
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.
Environmental Factors
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
Direct and Indirect Effects
There are no known occurrences of this 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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 30
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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
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.
Warpaint emerald dragonfly
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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 31
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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 32
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.
Environmental Factors
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
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 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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 33
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
Habitat associations
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.
Environmental Factors
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
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 for all species in the open/dry and
beach 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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
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
Habitat associations
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 34
Environmental Factors
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
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 for all species in the shaded/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
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
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
Habitat associations
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.
Environmental Factors
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
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 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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 35
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.
Determination of Effects
No Disturbance, Minor Disturbance, and Disturbance Activities = MINT
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 36
3.0 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS
Table D-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
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 37
Table D-2
Regional Forester Sensitive Species – Summary of Determinations of Effects
Species Evaluated Determination of Effecta
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
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
Warpaint emerald dragonfly
Ringed boghaunter
MINT
MINT
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 38
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 39
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.
Hiawatha National Forest Enbridge’s O&M Activities
November 20, 2009 Biological Evaluation 40
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.