NATURAL RESOURCES - Conservation, Forestry & Wildlife Management: Wildlife Management

Executive Summary
Abbreviations
Common and Scientific Names

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Need for Restoration 
1.2 Summary of Enbridge Line 6B Oil Discharges 
1.2.1 Summary of Response Actions
1.2.2 State of Michigan Authorities and Settlement
1.3 NRDA Authority and Legal Requirements
1.3.1 Overview of Legal Requirements
1.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
1.3.3 Coordination with Responsible Party 
1.3.4 Public Participation
1.3.5 Administrative Record 
1.4 Summary of Natural Resource Injuries
1.5 Trustee Preferred Restoration Alternatives

2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
2.1 Physical Environment 
2.2 Biological Environment 
2.2.1 Aquatic habitat 
2.2.2 Riparian habitat
2.2.3 Upland habitat
2.3 Endangered and Threatened Species
2.4 Historic and Cultural Resources
2.5 Human Use Services 

3.0 INJURY ASSESSMENT AND QUANTIFICATION
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Impact Surveys and Studies
3.2.1 Floodplain Habitat Impact Surveys 
3.2.2 Aquatic Habitat Impact Surveys
3.2.3 Oiled Wildlife Surveys and Rehabilitation
3.2.4 Fish Surveys and Studies
3.2.5 Benthic Invertebrate Surveys and Studies
3.2.6 Chemical Analysis of Water
3.2.7 Recreational Lost Use
3.2.8 Non-Recreational Lost Use to Tribes
3.3 Injury Assessment, Methods and Results
3.3.1 Assessment of Recreational Losses 
3.3.2 Assessment of Injury to In-Stream Habitats
3.3.3 Assessment of Injury to Floodplain Wetlands and Uplands
3.4 Injury Quantification and Scaling 
3.4.1 Recreational Use Quantification and Scaling
3.4.2 Ecological Injury Quantification and Scaling

4.0 RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Restoration Strategy 
4.2 Restoration Project Selection Criteria 
4.3 Evaluation of Restoration Alternative 1: No-Action/Natural Recovery 
4.4 Evaluation of Restoration Alternative 2: Riverine (preferred)
4.4.1 Pigeon Creek, E Drive Crossing Replacement 
4.4.2 Rice Creek, 29 Mile Road Crossing Replacement
4.4.3 Rice Creek, Vansickle Berm Lowering
4.5 Evaluation of Restoration Alternative 3: Lake (preferred)
4.5.1 Fort Custer Lake Enhancements
4.6 Evaluation of Restoration Alternative 4: Uplands (preferred)
4.6.1 Fort Custer Oak Savanna Enhancement
4.7 Evaluation of Restoration Alternative 5: Turtles (preferred)
4.7.1 Turtle Nest Protection Program 
4.8 Evaluation of Restoration Alternative 6: Tribal (preferred)
4.8.1 Wild Rice Restoration
4.8.2 Non-recreational Use Analysis and Restoration (preferred)
4.9 Non-Preferred Alternatives Discussion
4.9.1 Non-Preferred Riverine Alternatives
4.9.2 Non-Preferred Lake Alternatives 
4.9.3 Non-Preferred Upland Alternatives 
4.9.4 Non-Preferred Projects to Specifically Benefit Migratory Birds and Aquatic Mammals
4.10 Summary of Preferred Restoration Alternatives and Costs

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF UNDERTAKING THE PREFERRED
RESTORATION ALTERNATIVE – DETEMINATIONS UNDER THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
5.1 Direct/Indirect Impacts Considered by Trustees 
5.1.1 Construction, Sound and Air Pollution
5.1.2 Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species
5.1.3 Water and Sediment Quality
5.1.4 Visual .
5.1.5 Public Access/Recreation
5.1.6 Archaeological and Cultural Resources.
5.1.7 Other (e.g., economic, historical, land use, transportation)
5.2 Cumulative Impacts
5.3 NEPA Comparison of All Restoration Alternatives Considered by Trustees

6.0 PREPARERS, AGENCIES, AND PERSONS CONSULTED
6.1 Preparers
6.2 Agencies and Persons Consulted 7
7.0 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER AUTHORITIES.
7.1 Laws
7.1.1 Federal Laws.
7.1.2 State Laws
7.1.3 Local Laws
7.2 Policies and Directives.
7.2.1 Federal Policies and Directives
7.2.2 State and Local Policies

8.0 REFERENCES.

9.0 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Photographs of the Areas Impacted by the Enbridge Line 6B Oil Discharges and Response Actions
Appendix B: Floodplain Oiling Report
Appendix C: Wildlife Response Report (LLW to finalize FWS report, then we could also include Enbridge 2012 and Doherty et al., pers com 2013 for numbers of animals)
Appendix D: Lake Allegan Fish Kill Investigation Report
Appendix E: Fish Health Assessment
Appendix F: Health Assessment and Histopathologic Analyses of Fish Collected from the Kalamazoo River, Michigan, Following Discharges of Diluted Bitumen Crude Oil from the Enbridge Line 6B
Appendix G: MDNR Fish Status and Trends Report for 2010
Appendix H: MDEQ Macroinvertebrate (Procedure 51) Reports for 2010, 2011, and 2012
Appendix I: Mussel Shell Survey Report

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Summary of Interim, Partial Claims for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Costs Presented to Enbridge
Table 1.2: Restoration and Monitoring Projects Being Directed by the State of Michigan, in Consultation with the Trustees, and Recreational Use Projects
Table 1.3: Summary of the Proposed Preferred Restoration Projects to be Implemented by Trustees and Associated Costs for Trustee Activities
Table 4.1: Summary of the Proposed Preferred Restoration Projects to be Implemented by Trustees and Associated Costs for Trustee Activities
Table 5.1: Summary of Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts