Biological Evaluation REACH 3MC II Fiber Optic Project Merit Network, Inc

Biological Evaluation REACH 3MC II Fiber Optic Project Merit Network, Inc.

United States Department of Agriculture Hiawatha National Forest

April 2012

Forest Service Eastern Region

Hiawatha National Forest

Biological Evaluation REACH 3MC II Fiber Optic Project Merit Network, Inc. Hiawatha National Forest

April 2012

/s/ Andrea Kline Prepared By: ______Andrea Kline Merit Network , Inc.

Date: ___5/3/12___

/s/ Derek Huebner /s/ Stephanie Blumer Reviewed By: ______Reviewed By: ______Derek Huebner Stephanie Blumer Wildlife Biologist Botanist

Date: _____5/7/12___ Date: __5/7/12______

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). The USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

This document was printed on recycled paper. 3

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 7 Purpose and Decision ...... 7 Background and Project Description ...... 8 Proposed Action ...... 8 No Action Alternative ...... 9 Species Considered and Evaluated ...... 13 Design Criteria ...... 17 FINDINGS BY SPECIES ...... 21 Plants ...... 21 RFSS Plants – Aquatic Habitats...... 21 RFSS Plants – Open / Wet Habitats ...... 21 RFSS Plants – Open / Dry and Beach Habitats ...... 22 RFSS Plants – Shaded Habitats ...... 23 Animals ...... 24 RFSS Birds ...... 24 RFSS Reptile...... 24 RFSS Mollusks ...... 25 RFSS Insects ...... 26 RFSS Mammals ...... 26 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ...... 27 LITERATURE CITED ...... 30

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Decision The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to document the likely effects of the activities proposed in the REACH 3MC II Project to Regional Forester sensitive species (RFSS) on the Hiawatha National Forest (HNF). Information on federally listed species on the HNF is summarized below (Table 1), but further analysis can be found in the Biological Assessment (BA) (5/26/11) and subsequent US Fish and Wildlife concurrence (6/23/2011 and 2/10/2012). The BA and BE are supplements to the Environmental Assessment (EA), and provides the Deciding Official with the information necessary to make an informed decision regarding the potential risks and benefits posed by the project to threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) plant and animal species and their habitats.

Table 1: Summary of Federally Listed Species Federal HNF Project Habitat Proposed Species No Action Status Status Action WILDLIFE Canada lynx Threatened Unoccupied habitat NE NLAA Gray wolf** Endangered Occupied habitat NE NLAA Hine’s emerald dragonfly Endangered Occupied habitat NE NLAA Kirtland’s warbler Endangered Occupied habitat NE NE Piping plover Endangered No Habitat NE NE CRITICAL HABITAT Hine’s emerald dragonfly - Present NE NLAA Piping Plover - Not Present NE NE PLANTS Pitcher’s thistle Threatened No habitat NE NE Lakeside daisy Threatened No habitat NE NE Dwarf lake iris Threatened Unoccupied habitat NE NLAA Hart’s tongue fern Threatened No habitat NE NE Houghton’s goldenrod Threatened Unoccupied habitat* NE NLAA

NE: No Effect NLAA: Not Likely to Adversely Affect *Houghton’s goldenrod occurs within one-quarter mile of the ROW. Although there is suitable habitat for Houghton’s goldenrod in the ROW, it does not occur directly within the ROW. ** Gray Wolf was delisted after the Programmatic BA and is now a Hiawatha RFSS

This project is consistent with the standards and guidelines of the HNF Forest Plan, the Programmatic BA of August 2005, and the associated Programmatic BO of March 2006. We determined that this project- level analysis and project effects are consistent with those anticipated in the Programmatic BA and BO. Additionally, we determined that the implementation of the project is not likely to result in any additional effects to federally listed species that were disclosed and evaluated in the Merit Programmatic BA and subsequent USFWS concurrence. Because the risk of effects is so small as to be discountable, implementing the Proposed Action would not add to any effects of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities.

This BE was prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual (FSM) Directives sections 2670.31, 2670.5, and 2672.4, the National Forest Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. A determination is made as to whether the action would likely have no impact, beneficial impact, may impact individuals but not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability, or likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Background and Project Description

Proposed Action In August 2010, Merit Network, Inc. (Merit) received a $69.6 million federal grant from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) through its American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, aka the federal stimulus package) funded Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). Merit is a non-profit organization that has developed a statewide backbone fiber optic network that makes high-speed data networking available to all of Michigan's universities, and many of its colleges and community colleges, schools, libraries and research organizations.

The purpose of the grant is to build the Rural, Education, Anchor, Community and Healthcare – Michigan Middle Mile Collaborative Project (REACH-3MC II) (the Project), a 1,263 mile long advanced fiber-optic network through underserved counties in Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas with diverse paths to Wisconsin and Minnesota. As a condition of this federal grant, Merit prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NTIA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in July, 2011.

Approximately 23.4 miles of the Project would cross lands within the HNF specifically in the following Ranger Districts: Rapid River (Delta County), Manistique (Schoolcraft County), Sault Ste. Marie (Chippewa County), and St. Ignace (Mackinac County). The entire project within the HNF would be installed using underground methods within the road rights-of-way (ROW’s) of I-75, M-123, H-40 and US-2 as shown in Figure 1a and b. No new access roads, woody vegetation clearing or above-ground structures are proposed.

All of the plant and animal habitats encountered along the Project route have experienced some type of past disturbance due to its location within existing road ROW’s. These ROW’s are regularly-maintained, and vegetation occurring within the ROW’s tends to be herbaceous, lacking in diversity, and composed of relatively low quality ruderal species, due to frequent maintenance activities such as mowing, clearing and de-icing.

Underground construction methods include vibratory plowing and directional drilling. Underground construction would occur exclusively within existing road ROW’s. Plowing would be used for the majority of underground construction, especially in disturbed developed areas lacking natural and cultural resources. Plowing is a trenchless installation method that involves a tractor-crawler and friction-type plow blade capable of minimal ground disturbance (approximately six inches wide and 48 inches deep). Flexible plastic conduit less two inches in diameter is plowed into the ground at least four feet deep. Once the conduit is installed, the fiber optic cable is pulled or blown through the conduit, fiber segments are spliced together, and the system is put into operation. Restoration in plowed areas would involve compaction of the original soils in the cable plow slot. Plowing, unlike trenching, does not involve the discharge of fill material.

Directional drilling would be used in the following locations: 1) environmentally sensitive areas, such as rivers and streams, sensitive wetlands, and rare species habitats; 2) areas specifically required by regulatory agencies; 3) paved road and driveway crossings; and, 4) developed sites where extensive paved areas make plowing unfeasible. Directional boring involves excavating a 5 x 5 foot area for equipment and drill bit access. Directional boring pits would be set back a minimum of 25 feet from existing stream banks. Bore pits would be placed in upland areas to the degree feasible. In general, the maximum feasible length of a directional bore segment is 2,000 feet; therefore it may be necessary to place bore pits in wetlands that are greater than 2,000 feet long. Other locations where bore pits may be needed in wetlands include road or railroad crossings that are located in wetlands. The staging of any required equipment and materials would be in upland areas. Bore pits would be restored to their original grade using the original soil materials and seeded.

Bentonite clay mixed with water would be utilized as a non-toxic boring lubricant. There is the potential for a frac-out, where drilling mud is released through the subsurface formation into the surrounding glacial drift during the boring process and travels toward the surface. However, the chances of one occurring are remote given the small size of the proposed conduit. Discharge from the entry and exit points of the bore would be contained by the upland bore pits and supplemental silt fence as necessary. Potential frac-outs would be pro-actively identified through visual monitoring of the bore length for boring fluid discharge and monitoring of the boring pressure gauge for significant drops in pressure during the bore. A Frac-Out Contingency Plan has been prepared to outline the steps to be taken if a frac-out does occur (project file).

Hand holes are 3 by 4 foot hard bottomless plastic boxes that are installed approximately 2,500 feet apart. These casings provide: 1) access for pulling the fiber optic cable through the conduit after it is installed; 2) access for maintenance; and, 3) storage for slack fiber optic cable. The maximum distance that fiber optic cable can be pulled without risking damage to the cable is 2,500 feet. Hand holes would be located in upland areas wherever feasible; however, there are wetlands along the proposed Project route in the HNF that are over 2,500 feet long making it likely that location within wetlands would be unavoidable. Hand holes would be located in areas that are excavated for bore pits. Equipment and supplies for pulling the fiber optic cable through the conduit would be staged in upland areas or on the road shoulder.

All construction-related disturbances associated with underground installation of fiber would be temporary. All disturbed areas would be restored to their pre-construction elevations and stabilized with seed and mulch. Merit would acquire and comply with all applicable state and federal permits for construction of the Project.

Underground crews would likely install underground fiber infrastructure at an approximate rate of 550 feet per day for directional boring and 2,500 feet per day for plowing. Equipment typically used for underground installation includes small track-mounted or rubber-tired backhoes, vibratory plows mounted on small bulldozers, directional drills and pipe strings, and hand tools such as shovels and rakes.

No Action Alternative The “No Action Alternative” involves not constructing the Project, and thus avoids the temporary construction impacts associated the Project. The proposed 1,263 miles of advanced fiber-optic expansion of Merit's existing 1,600+ mile backbone fiber network would not occur. Without the additional multiple strand middle mile fiber infrastructure, Merit and its sub-recipients would be unable to provide affordable, high-performance broadband Internet, voice, and video services to homes, businesses, and community anchor institutions in rural and underserved areas in 29 counties in

Michigan, eight counties in Wisconsin and the southern portion of one county in Minnesota. Many rural areas in the region would continue to suffer from no or poor broadband service, limiting residents’ ability to participate in the digital economy.

Species Considered and Evaluated Sources of data regarding potential occurrences of RFSS include the following: Michigan Natural Features Inventory database HNF Plant and Wildlife Survey Databases HNF Dragonfly surveys HNF Land snail surveys HNF Raptor surveys and raptor nest surveys HNF Winter track surveys HNF Sharptailed Grouse leks HNF Eastside MIS_TES_SC Observations HNF Westside MIS_TES_SC Observations

Using this information, the HNF RFSS list was screened to identify species with potential to occupy areas that would be affected by project activities. The species were placed into one of the three groups listed below.

No habitat: species whose presence has not been documented and which do not have suitable habitat in the project activity areas. Occupied habitat: species whose presence has been documented within the project boundary. These species do not necessarily occupy project activity areas. Unoccupied habitat: species whose presence has not been reported but which have suitable habitat in the project activity areas.

Species which are determined to have occupied or unoccupied habitat in the project area are addressed in this BE. This project would have no impact on RFSS without suitable habitat (no habitat) in the project area (these species are not discussed further). Table 2 summarizes the results of this review.

Table 2: Summary of Species Considered and Evaluated Scientific Name Common Name Project Habitat Status WILDLIFE Birds Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk Unoccupied habitat Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte’s sparrow Unoccupied habitat Asio flammeus Short-eared owl Unoccupied habitat Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk Unoccupied habitat Chlidonias niger Black tern No habitat Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow rail No habitat Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan No habitat Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler Unoccupied habitat Falco peregrinus American Peregrine falcon No habitat Gavia immer Common loon No habitat Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Occupied habitat Lanius ludovicianus migrans Loggerhead shrike Unoccupied habitat Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron No habitat Oporornis agilis Connecticut warbler Unoccupied habitat Picoides arcticus Black-backed woodpecker Occupied habitat

Scientific Name Common Name Project Habitat Status Sterna caspia Caspian tern No habitat Sterna hirundo Common tern No habitat Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed grouse Occupied habitat Fish Acipenser fulvescens Lake sturgeon No habitat Insects Hylogomphus viridifrons Green-faced clubtail No habitat Lycaeides idas nabokovi Northern blue butterfly No habitat Somatochlora incurvata Incurvate emerald Occupied habitat Trimerotropis huroniana Lake Huron locust No habitat Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony boghaunter Unoccupied habitat Williamsonia linteri Ringed boghaunter Unoccupied habitat Mammals Canis lupus Gray wolf Occupied habitat Myotis lucifugus Little brown myotis Unoccupied habitat Myotis septentrionalis Northern myotis Unoccupied habitat Mollusks Catinella exile Land snail Occupied habitat Euconulus alderi Land snail Occupied habitat Planogyra asteriscus Land snail Occupied habitat Vallonia gracilicosta Land snail No habitat Vertigo bollesiana Land snail Unoccupied habitat Vertigo morsei Land snail Occupied habitat Vertigo paradoxa Land snail No habitat Reptile Emydoidea blandingii Blanding’s turtle Unoccupied habitat PLANTS Adlumia fungosa Allegheny vine No habitat Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved orchis Unoccupied habitat Armoracia lacustris Lake cress Unoccupied habitat Asplenium rhizophyllum Walking fern No habitat Astragalus canadensis Canadian milk-vetch Unoccupied Habitat Astragalus neglectus Cooper’s milk-vetch Unoccupied Habitat Beckmannia syzigachne American sloughgrass Unoccupied habitat Botrychium campestre Prairie moonwort Occupied habitat Botrychium michiganense Michigan moonwort Unoccupied habitat (hesperium) Botrychium mormo Goblin moonwort No habitat Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobed grapefern No habitat Botrychium pallidum Pale moonwort Unoccupied habitat Botrychium rugulosum Ternate grape fern Unoccupied habitat Botrychium spathulatum Spathulate moonwort Unoccupied habitat Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal water-starwort Unoccupied habitat Calypso bulbosa Calypso orchid No habitat Carex concinna Beauty sedge No habitat Carex heleonastes Hudson Bay sedge Unoccupied habitat

Scientific Name Common Name Project Habitat Status Carex novae-angliae New England sedge Unoccupied habitat Carex richardsonii Richardson sedge Unoccupied habitat Carex scirpoidea Bulrush sedge Unoccupied habitat Crataegus douglasii Douglas’s Hawthorn Unoccupied habitat Cryptogramma stelleri Slender cliff brake fern No habitat Cypripedium arietinum Ram’s head lady slipper No habitat Cystopteris laurentiana Laurentian bladder fern No habitat Drosera anglica English sundew Unoccupied habitat Dryopteris expansa Spreading wood fern No habitat Dryopteris filix-mas Male fern No habitat Eleocharis compressa Flatstem spikerush Unoccupied habitat Elymus glaucus Blue wild-rye No habitat Empetrum nigrum Black crowberry Occupied habitat Erigeron hyssopifolius Hyssop-leaved fleabane Occupied habitat Galium brevipes Limestone swamp bedstraw Unoccupied habitat Galium kamtschaticum Boreal bedstraw No habitat Gymnocarpium robertianum Limestone oak fern No habitat Helianthus mollis Downy sunflower Unoccupied habitat Huperzia selago Fir clubmoss Occupied habitat Juglans cinerea Butternut Occupied habitat Juncus stygius Moor rush Unoccupied habitat Juncus vaseyi Vasey’s rush Unoccupied habitat Leymus mollis Dune grass No habitat Listera auriculata Heartleaf twayblade Unoccupied habitat Littorella uniflora American shoregrass Unoccupied habitat Luzula parviflora Small flowered wood rush Unoccupied habitat Lycopodiella margueritae Northern prostrate club moss Unoccupied habitat Malaxis brachypoda White adder’s mouth Unoccupied habitat Muhlenbergia richardsonis Mat muhly Occupied habitat Alternate-flowered water Unoccupied habitat Myriophyllum alterniflorum milfoil Omalotheca (Gnaphalium) Woodland cudweed Unoccupied habitat sylvatica Packera (Senecio) indecora Rayless mountain ragwort Unoccupied habitat Petasites sagittatus Sweet-coltsfoot Unoccupied habitat Pinguicula vulgaris Butterwort Occupied habitat Piptatherum (Oryzopsis) Canada rice-grass Unoccupied habitat canadense Potamogeton confervoides Algal pondweed Unoccupied habitat Pterospora andromedea Pine drops No habitat Ranunculus lapponicus Lapland buttercup Occupied habitat Rubus acaulis Dwarf raspberry Unoccupied habitat Salix pellita Satiny willow Unoccupied habitat Scirpus (Schoenoplectus) torreyi Torrey’s bulrush Occupied habitat Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie dropseed Unoccupied habitat Stellaria longipes Long-stalked stitchwort No habitat

Scientific Name Common Name Project Habitat Status Tanacetum bipinnatum ssp. Lake Huron tansy No habitat huronense Thalictrum venulosum Veiny meadow rue Unoccupied habitat Vaccinium cespitosum Dwarf bilberry Unoccupied habitat NON-VASCULAR PLANTS Caloplaca parvula Small firedot lichen Unoccupied habitat Cetraria (Ahtiana) aurescens Eastern candlewax lichen No habitat Frullania selwyniana liverwort No habitat Menegazzia terebrata Port-hole lichen No habitat Pohlia lescuriana Spongy gourd moss No habitat Ramalina farinacea Dotted line lichen No habitat Schistostega pennata Luminous moss No habitat Tetradontium brownianum Little Georgia moss No habitat

Design Criteria The 2006 Hiawatha Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) contains provisions for utility corridors in accordance with resource management direction and to meet identified Forest and public needs. The proposed Project would comply with the Guidelines for utilities identified in Section 2700, specifically:

Roads and utility distribution systems should be located within existing corridors where possible; New construction, upgrades and replacement of existing utility distribution lines should be buried where possible; and, Applicable BMP’s should be implemented to protect wetlands and water quality during construction and maintenance operations.

Additionally, the following design criteria have been developed as part of the proposal to reduce or avoid impacts.

Riparian and Water Body Protection 1. All stream and water body crossings would be directionally-drilled. A Frac-Out Contingency Plan has been prepared to identify actions to be taken to limit the potential for frac-outs to occur and minimize the extent of the impact in the unlikely event that one should occur. Install silt fencing or similar measures as necessary to prevent drilling mud from entering streams or wetlands. 2. Ground disturbance within riparian areas would be kept at least 25 feet from stream banks. No woody vegetation removal is proposed. 3. Disturbed areas would be seeded and mulched immediately after ground-disturbing activities are completed. Seed mixes would consist of native species approved by a Forest Service botanist. 4. Heavy equipment would not cross streams.

Wetland Protection 1. Directional drilling or vibratory plowing would be used to install the fiber optic cable in wetlands; no open trenching is allowed. Prior to implementing wetland crossings, the contractor shall visually inspect conditions along the route to determine the appropriate installation methods using the decision tree in Figure 1. 2. Directionally bore all wetlands with standing water, habitat for TES species, dense woody vegetation, and soils are not capable of supporting equipment without incurring rutting or other detrimental soil impacts. A rut is defined as 6 inches deep and 25 feet long (MDNR/MDEQ 2009). Implement a Frac-Out Contingency Plan to proactively identify frac-outs to limit potential impacts from inadvertent releases of drilling fluids (i.e. bentonite). 3. Vibratory plowing would be used to install the proposed fiber optic cable only in situations in which the soils are capable of supporting equipment without incurring rutting or other detrimental soil impacts. Vibratory plowing may be feasible in wetlands with mineral soils and no standing water. Where conditions allow vibratory plowing, utilize rubber-tracked equipment designed to minimize ground disturbance. If inadvertent rutting causes sedimentation in a stream, lake or open water wetland, the activity causing the rutting must stop and immediate actions taken to prevent further sediment deposition per MDEQ guidelines (MDNR/MDEQ 2009). 4. All disturbed wetland areas will be restored to original grade and seeded with a wetland seed mix approved by the Forest Service botanist.

Wildlife 1. Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly (HED) All streams and wetlands within HED Designated Critical Habitat would be directionally drilled. The fiber optic cable would be installed approximately 10 feet from the existing road shoulder in the upland road embankment along M-123 where it crosses designated Critical Habitat in the Summerby Swamp candidate Research Natural Area. 2. Kirtland’s Warbler (KW) Installation within the Stockyard KW Management Area would occur between August 15 and May 1 when the KW has left the area to migrate to its winter habitat. No vegetation clearing is proposed. 3. Locations supporting known populations of RFSS land snails would be directionally drilled. 4. Implement current bald eagle management guidelines (USFWS 2007) when and if necessary.

TES Plants 1. New TES species locations that may be found during project implementation would be protected using appropriate reserve areas. Protection measures for TES plants would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Non-Native Invasive Plant Species (NNIP) 1. No woody vegetation would be cut; all installation-related disturbances would be limited to existing cleared and maintained road rights-of-way. If woody vegetation is present within the road ROW the conduit would be installed by directional drilling. 2. All disturbed areas would be seeded with a mix of native species and/or desirable non-native species approved by a Forest Service botanist. 3. To help prevent the spread of non-native invasive plants, equipment must be cleaned before entering or leaving NFS land. All dirt and vegetation must be removed. Equipment will be inspected by Forest Service personnel for NNIP prior to operations.

Operation and Maintenance Plan The new fiber optic cable would continue to be operated and maintained in a manner consistent with present Forest Plan direction. MDOT and the Chippewa County Road Commission would be responsible for on-going maintenance of their respective road ROW’s. Merit would be responsible for operating and maintaining the fiber optic cable itself. The Operations and Maintenance Plan would describe procedures for communication between Merit and the Forest Service and stipulations for how O&M activities would be carried out to protect National Forest Resources.

Figure 1: Decision Tree for Underground Construction in Wetlands

Is standing water present? Yes Directional Drill

Has USFWS or MDNR Wildlife

Division identified this wetland Yes as supporting habitat for T&E Directional Drill species?*

Are trees or dense stands of

shrubs present? Yes Directional Drill

Are soils stable enough to No support equipment without Directional Drill rutting?

Notes: *Merit has received USFWS and MDNR, Wildlife Division Clearances for all proposed Yes crossings of areas containing element occurrences for federal and state listed species. Merit has received a letter of No Effect from the State Historic Preservation Office. All streams and lakes will be directionally drilled. No tree removal is proposed. No open trenching is proposed. 19 Vibratory Plow/Knife-In All disturbed wetland areas shall be immediately restored to pre-construction grades. Rutting or other soil disturbance shall be restored and stabilized.

FINDINGS BY SPECIES Plants To study the effects of this project 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).

RFSS Plants – Aquatic Habitats While most of the wetlands that would be crossed by the proposed fiber RFSS optic cable are considered emergent, aquatic habitats may occur where Autumnal water-starwort shallow water wetlands extend into the road ROW where the fiber optic Algal pondweed cable would be located. Surface water features and wetlands with American shore-grass standing water would be directionally drilled in accordance with the Alternate leaved water milfoil Lake cress design criteria. Therefore, no direct surface disturbance would occur. A Frac-Out Contingency Plan would be implemented to minimize the potential for inadvertent discharge of drilling fluids when installing the fiber optic cable. Although a frac-out is unlikely, the effects of a frac-out would be a localized discharge of bentonite clay that could bury or partially-bury vegetation under a thin layer of bentonite.

Although five RFSS plant species have suitable habitat in aquatic sites, there are no known occurrences of these species within the proposed project route. The potential for direct or indirect impacts to aquatic RFSS plants is small due to the limited extent of these habitats that would be crossed by the Project and the minor nature of adverse impacts in the unlikely event that a frac-out would occur. The cumulative effects of the project would also be small due to the limited spatial extent of these habitats within the road ROW’s where the project is proposed.

The No Action Alternative would have no impact to aquatic RFSS plants.

Determination Alternative 1 – May impact individuals; not likely to cause trend to listing or loss of viability Alternative 2 – No impact

RFSS Plants – Open / Wet Habitats Seventeen RFSS plant species may occur in open, wet habitats. Most of the wetlands that would be crossed by the proposed fiber optic cable are open due to road ROW maintenance practices such as mowing and brush hogging. These practices tend to limit vegetation diversity and reduce the likelihood of encountering RFSS plants within the road ROW. HNF staff have documented occurrences of the following RFSS plant species in open/wet habitats within one-quarter mile of the proposed fiber optic route Torrey’s bulrush (Schoenoplectus torreyi) Hyssop-leaved fleabane (Erigeron hyssopifolius) Fir clubmoss (Huperzia selago) Mat Muhly (Muhlenbergia richardsonis) Butterwort (Pinguicula vulgaris)

Hyssop-leaved fleabane, mat muhly, and common butterwort are known to occur in the Summerby Swamp cRNA within one-quarter mile of the proposed fiber optic route. RFSS plant species within the Summerby Swamp cRNA would be avoided entirely by locating the fiber optic cable 10 feet from the M- 123 road shoulder within the road embankment along this section of the proposed route. 21

Wet habitats that have saturated or unstable soils would be RFSS directionally drilled while wetlands with soils capable of supporting Fir clubmoss equipment without incurring rutting or other detrimental soil impacts Satiny willow Bulrush sedge would be vibratory plowed. Direct effects would be displacement of Hyssop-leaved fleabane individual plants due to soil disturbance associated with cutting through Flattened spike-rush the soil with the plow blade or excavation of bore pits, soil compaction Limestone swamp bedstraw from equipment operation, and potential burial due to frac-outs during Moor rush Mat muhly directional drilling. These potential impacts would be confined to the Dwarf raspberry existing disturbed ROW. Indirect effects may include increasing the Sweet-coltsfoot potential spread of non-native invasive plant species (NNIP). Design Rayless mountain ragwort criteria would minimize these impacts in wet, open habitats. Vasey’s rush Torrey’s bulrush Butterwort Indirect effects may include increasing the potential for spread of non- American sloughgrass native invasive plant species (NNIP). When left untreated, some NNIP English sundew may become the dominant component of the vegetative community, Northern prostrate club moss thus reducing native plant diversity and impacting wildlife habitat, visual resources and future management of infested sites. Several design criteria have been developed to limit the potential for introduction or spread of NNIP including seeding disturbed areas with a native seed mix approved by a Forest Service botanist, using weed-free straw for mulch, and cleaning equipment prior to use on HNF lands. Therefore, the potential for direct or indirect effects is small.

The direct and indirect effects described above are similar to those associated with routine road ROW maintenance; i.e. increased potential for soil disturbance, soil compaction and spread of NNIP. Implementation of the Design Criteria would limit the cumulative effects of the project; therefore the potential cumulative effects would be small.

The No Action alternative would have no impact on RFSS plans in wet, open habitats.

Determination Alternative 1 – No impact Alternative 2 – May impact individuals; not likely to cause trend to listing or loss of viability

RFSS Plants – Open / Dry and Beach Habitats Open dry habitats are the most common habitat type crossed by the proposed RFSS fiber optic cable; the Project would not cross any beach habitats. All of the Canada milk-vetch vegetation encountered along the Project route has experienced some type of Cooper’s milk-vetch Richardson sedge past disturbance due to its location within existing road ROW’s. These ROW’s Veiny meadow rue are regularly-maintained by activities such as mowing, clearing and de-icing. Blue wild-rye Due to this frequent disturbance, vegetation occurring within the ROW’s is Spathulate moonwort dominated by non-native roadside species. Prairie moonwort Black crowberry Canada rice-grass Open, dry sections of the proposed project route also include suitable habitat Downy sunflower for 16 RFSS plants species. HNF staff have documented occurrences of the Dwarf bilberry following RFSS plant species in open/dry habitats within one-quarter mile of the Pale moonwort proposed fiber optic route: Woodland cudweed Prairie moonwort (Botrychium campestre) Ternate grapefern Black crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) Prairie dropseed Michigan moonwort 22

Black crowberry is known to occur in the Summerby Swamp cRNA within one-quarter mile of the proposed project route. This species would be avoided entirely by locating the fiber optic cable 10 feet from the M-123 road shoulder within the road embankment in this section of the project route.

Vibratory plowing would be the primary method of installing the proposed fiber optic cable in open dry habitats. Direct effects would be displacement of individual plants due to soil disturbance associated with cutting through the soil with the plow blade and excavation of bore pits, and soil compaction from equipment. Design criteria would minimize these potential impacts which would be confined to the existing disturbed ROW.

Indirect effects may include potential for exacerbating the spread of NNIP. Implementation of several design criteria, including seeding disturbed areas with a native seed mix approved by a Forest Service botanist, using weed-free straw for mulch, and cleaning equipment prior to use on HNF lands, would limit the potential for introduction and spread of NNIS. Therefore, the potential for direct or indirect effects is small.

Implementation of the design criteria would limit the cumulative effects of the project; therefore the potential cumulative effects would be small.

The No Action Alternative would have no impact to RFSS plants in open, dry habitats.

Determination Alternative 1 – No impact Alternative 2 – May impact individuals; not likely to cause trend to listing or loss of viability

RFSS Plants – Shaded Habitats HNF staff have documented the following RFSS plant species in shaded RFSS habitats within one-quarter mile of the proposed fiber optic cable route: Limestone oak fern Butternut (Juglans cinerea) Round-leaved orchis Lapland buttercup (Ranunculus lapponicus) White adder’s mouth Lapland buttercup Frullania selwyniana lichen The proposed fiber optic cable is located in existing mowed road ROW’s Eastern candlewax lichen thereby limiting the extent of shaded habitats that would be crossed. Port hole lichen However, there may be instances where the fiber optic cable is located at Spongy gourd moss the outer edge of the ROW beyond the mowed area where shrubs and, in Auricled twayblade Hudson Bay sedge some cases, trees may be present. The fiber optic cable would be installed Small firedot lichen using directional drilling in these locations; no clearing of woody vegetation Ram’s head lady slipper is proposed. Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts would occur. Cumulative effects would also not occur.

The No Action Alternative would have no impact to RFSS plants in shaded habitats.

Determination Alternative 1 – No impact Alternative 2 – No impact

Animals

RFSS Birds Birds are the largest group of RFSS animals in the HNF (USDA 2007). Raptor RFSS nest surveys conducted by HNF staff did not identify any nests (red- Northern goshawk shouldered hawk or goshawk) within a quarter-mile of the proposed fiber Le Conte’s sparrow optic route. Bald eagle nest data obtained from the USFWS identified two Short-eared owl bald eagle nests in the West Unit near the mouth of the Fishdam River; both Red-shouldered hawk of these nests are a quarter-mile or more from the proposed fiber optic Prairie warbler route. One sharp-tailed grouse lek was identified near the intersection of M- Bald eagle Loggerhead shrike 123 and Lovegrove Road. Black-backed woodpecker was observed in the Connecticut warbler Summersby Swamp cRNA. Habitat exists, but no Connecticut warbler, Le Black-backed woodpecker Conte’s sparrow, short-eared owl, prairie warbler, or loggerhead shrike Sharp-tailed grouse occurrences were documented by HNF staff within a quarter-mile of the Project route.

Impacts to RFSS birds would be limited since quality habitat is not likely to extend into the road ROW’s where the fiber optic cable would be located, no roosting or nesting trees would be removed, and birds are mobile and able to avoid collisions with construction equipment. Soil disturbance associated with fiber optic cable installation would be short-term and confined to the existing road ROW; no new utility corridors or access roads are proposed. The proposed construction activity is similar to vehicular activity currently occurring within road ROW’s and cumulative disturbance levels would be small.

The No Action alternative would have no impact of RFSS birds.

Determination No Action – No impact Proposed Action – No impact

RFSS Reptile One reptile species, the Blandings turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), is included on the current list of RFSS for the HNF. 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. 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 (USDA 2007).

Occurrences of Blandings turtle have not been documented within a quarter-mile of the proposed fiber optic cable route in the HNF; however, suitable habitat may exist adjacent to the road ROW’s where the fiber optic cable would be located and they may utilize habitats within the road ROW during certain times of the year. The fiber optic cable would be installed under wetland habitats using directional drill methods since soils in these areas would be unable to support construction equipment without rutting. Upland habitats would be directionally drilled or vibratory plowed. Equipment used to install the cable would create temporary disturbance in upland habitats and may cause a temporary change in activity patterns.

Cumulative impacts would include increased vehicular traffic, additional construction activities beyond what that associated with routine ROW maintenance which could lead to additional changes in turtle activity patterns. These cumulative impacts would be small given the limited duration and spatial extent of the proposed installation activities associated with the project.

The No Action Alternative would have no impact on the Blandings turtle

Determination No Action– No impact Proposed Action– May impact individuals; not likely to cause trend to listing or loss of viability

RFSS Mollusks Two RFSS mollusk species; Euconulus alderi and Planogyra asteriscus have RFSS Mollusks been documented within a quarter-mile of the proposed fiber optic cable Catinella exile route in the Greene Cedar Swamp near the intersection of M-123 and Euconulus alderi Greene Road / Worth Road. Little is known about these species; however, Planogyra asteriscus Vertigo bollesiana the habitat characteristics in this area include tamarack-sedge Vertigo morsei communities interspersed within white cedar swamp communities. The fiber optic cable would be located 40 feet northeast the M-123 centerline near the base of the road embankment. The fiber optic cable would be directionally drilled for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet on either side of Worth / Greene Road; bore pits would be located at each end of the directionally drilled segments and a hand hole would be located at the northwest corner approximately 30 feet north of Greene Road at the base of the maintained road embankment.

Two other species (Catinella exile and Vertigo morsei) are found within Hine’s emerald dragonfly critical habitat, so design criteria implemented for Hine’s emerald dragonfly habitat (location and drilling restrictions) would reduce the potential for impacts to these species. There is suitable habitat for Vertigo bollesiana, but no individuals have been documented within a quarter-mile of the proposed route.

The potential direct and indirect effects include mortality from construction equipment/activity and any changes to local hydrology. However, all installation-related disturbances would occur within the maintained road ROW; no woody vegetation would be cleared. Additionally, measures would be taken to minimize these potential effects.

Cumulative impacts would include increased vehicular traffic, additional construction activities beyond what that associated with routine ROW maintenance which could contribute to mortality. These cumulative impacts would be small given the limited duration and spatial extent of the proposed installation activities associated with the project.

Determination No Action– No impact Proposed Action– May impact individuals; not likely to cause trend to listing or loss of viability

RFSS Insects One of the three dragonfly RFSS with suitable habitat, the incurvate emerald RFSS Insects (Somatochlora incurvata) has been documented by HNF staff within one- Warpaint emerald quarter mile of the proposed fiber optic cable route in the East and West Ebony boghaunter Units. This species utilizes bog/fen habitats within forested lands. Adults Ringed boghaunter forage in open areas, including roadways (USDA 2007). The ebony boghaunter (Williamsonia fletcheri) and the ringed boghaunter (Williamsonia lintneri) also utilize bog/fen habitats and forage in open areas. The proposed fiber optic cable would be installed under streams, bogs, and fens using directional drill methodology thus limiting the potential for direct impacts to dragonfly habitat. The potential for RFSS dragonflies could collide with equipment used for installation would be small. However, this poses a negligible risk above that already present within the road ROW where the fiber optic cable would be located.

Cumulative impacts would include increased vehicular traffic and additional construction activities beyond those currently associated with routine ROW maintenance which could contribute to increased mortality. These cumulative impacts would be small given the limited duration and spatial extent of the proposed installation activities associated with the project.

The No Action Alternative would have no impact on RFSS insects.

Determination No Action – No impact Proposed Action – May impact individuals; not likely to cause trend to listing or loss of viability

RFSS Mammals One RFSS mammal with suitable habitat, the gray wolf, has been documented RFSS Mammals within one-quarter mile of the proposed fiber optic route. While wolves may Little brown myotis be present within the general Project area, direct impacts to this species such Northern myotis as injury or mortality are unlikely to occur, given that the Project action area Gray wolf is restricted to disturbed road and utility ROW’s and the work would move rapidly through any given area. Indirect impacts may include changes in wolf travel patterns during construction. Cumulative impacts would be small given the limited spatial extent and short time period during which construction would occur.

The two RFSS bats are nocturnal, feeding primarily at night and roosting in trees and buildings during the day. The work would be done during daylight hours and no tree clearing or vegetation removal is proposed; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to RFSS bat species. Cumulative impacts would not occur.

The No Action Alternative would have no impact on RFSS mammals.

Determination No Action – No impact Proposed Action – No impact

Summary of Determinations

Table 3: Summary of Determinations of Effects for RFSS

Scientific Name Common Name No Action Proposed Action WILDLIFE Birds Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk No Impact No Impact Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte’s sparrow No Impact No Impact Asio flammeus Short-eared owl No Impact No Impact Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk No Impact No Impact Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler No Impact No Impact Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle No Impact No Impact Lanius ludovicianus migrans Loggerhead shrike No Impact No Impact Oporornis agilis Connecticut warbler No Impact No Impact Picoides arcticus Black-backed woodpecker No Impact No Impact Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed grouse No Impact No Impact Insects Somatochlora incurvata Incurvate emerald No Impact MINT Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony boghaunter No Impact MINT Williamsonia linteri Ringed boghaunter No Impact MINT Mammals Canis lupus Gray wolf No Impact MINT Myotis lucifugus Little brown myotis No Impact No Impact Myotis septentrionalis Northern myotis No Impact No Impact Mollusks Catinella exile Land snail No Impact MINT Euconulus alderi Land snail No Impact MINT Planogyra asteriscus Land snail No Impact MINT Vertigo bollesiana Land snail No Impact MINT Vertigo morsei Land snail No Impact MINT Reptile Emydoidea blandingii Blanding’s turtle No Impact MINT PLANTS Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved orchis No Impact No Impact Armoracia lacustris Lake cress No Impact MINT Astragalus canadensis Canadian milk-vetch No Impact MINT Astragalus neglectus Cooper’s milk-vetch No Impact MINT Beckmannia syzigachne American sloughgrass No Impact MINT Botrychium campestre Prairie moonwort No Impact MINT Botrychium michiganense Michigan moonwort No Impact MINT (hesperium) Botrychium pallidum Pale moonwort No Impact MINT Botrychium rugulosum Ternate grape fern No Impact MINT Botrychium spathulatum Spathulate moonwort No Impact MINT Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal water-starwort No Impact MINT 27

Scientific Name Common Name No Action Proposed Action Carex heleonastes Hudson Bay sedge No Impact No Impact Carex novae-angliae New England sedge No Impact No Impact Carex richardsonii Richardson sedge No Impact MINT Carex scirpoidea Bulrush sedge No Impact MINT Crataegus douglasii Douglas’s Hawthorn No Impact No Impact Drosera anglica English sundew No Impact MINT Eleocharis compressa Flatstem spikerush No Impact MINT Elymus glaucus Blue wild-rye No Impact MINT Empetrum nigrum Black crowberry No Impact MINT Erigeron hyssopifolius Hyssop-leaved fleabane No Impact MINT Limestone swamp Galium brevipes No Impact MINT bedstraw Gymnocarpium robertianum Limestone oak fern No Impact No Impact Helianthus mollis Downy sunflower No Impact MINT Huperzia selago Fir clubmoss No Impact MINT Juglans cinerea Butternut No Impact No Impact Juncus stygius Moor rush No Impact MINT Juncus vaseyi Vasey’s rush No Impact MINT Listera auriculata Auricled twayblade No Impact No Impact Littorella uniflora American shoregrass No Impact MINT Luzula parviflora Small flowered wood rush No Impact No Impact Northern prostrate club Lycopodiella margueritae No Impact MINT moss Malaxis brachypoda White adder’s mouth No Impact No Impact Muhlenbergia richardsonis Mat muhly No Impact MINT Alternate-flowered water Myriophyllum alterniflorum No Impact MINT milfoil Omalotheca (Gnaphalium) Woodland cudweed No Impact MINT sylvatica Packera (Senecio) indecora Rayless mountain ragwort No Impact MINT Petasites sagittatus Sweet-coltsfoot No Impact MINT Pinguicula vulgaris Butterwort No Impact MINT Piptatherum (Oryzopsis) Canada rice-grass No Impact MINT canadense Potamogeton confervoides Algal pondweed No Impact MINT Ranunculus lapponicus Lapland buttercup No Impact No Impact Rubus acaulis Dwarf raspberry No Impact MINT Salix pellita Satiny willow No Impact MINT Scirpus (Schoenoplectus) Torrey’s bulrush No Impact MINT torreyi Sporobolus heterolepis Prairie dropseed No Impact MINT Thalictrum venulosum Veiny meadow rue No Impact MINT

Scientific Name Common Name No Action Proposed Action Vaccinium cespitosum Dwarf bilberry No Impact MINT NON-VASCULAR PLANTS Caloplaca parvula Small firedot lichen No Impact No Impact

MINT - May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability

LITERATURE CITED

Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. 2009. Sustainable Soil and Water Quality Practices on Forest Land. 82 pages. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-30301_31154_31261---,00.html

USDA. March 2007. Biological Evaluation: Non-Native Invasive Plant Control Project. Hiawatha National Forest. U.S. Forest Service. Escanaba, MI.

USDA. 2006. Hiawatha National Forest 2006 Forest Plan, U.S. Forest Service. Escanaba MI. Available online in portable document format (pdf): http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/hiawatha/revision/rev_welcome.html

United States Department of Labor, Department of Labor Statistics Database. Accessed: November 4, 2010. http://www.bls.gov/