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 2 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 4 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 5 6 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. 7 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