18.06.2014 Views

Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Bemidji – Grand Rapids<br />

Biological Assessment and Evaluation<br />

underneath the litter layer are usually whitish and lack chlorophyll (Wagner and Wagner, 1981). The<br />

plant first emerges from the leaf litter in June or July and can often be identified into October.<br />

Species Habitat<br />

This species occurs in rich hardwood sites in full to partial shade, typically on north‐facing slopes on<br />

moist, mineral‐rich soils (Ostlie, 1990c) and often found at the base of basswood trees. The fern grows<br />

in the leaf litter, and is dependent on mycorrhizal associations that allow it to grow whether or not it<br />

emerges above the surface of the duff. Under some habitat conditions, the fern can remain below<br />

ground or below the duff surface for several years (Berlin et al., 1998). This makes observing the fern<br />

very difficult. Sites are known in the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan, northern Wisconsin, and<br />

Minnesota. Common associates include sugar maple, yellow birch and basswood trees, Lonicera<br />

canadensis, Carex intumescens, Caulophyllum thalictroides, Allium tricoccum, Asarum canadense,<br />

Trillium grandiflorum, and Aralia nudicaulis (Chadde 1999; MNFI 1996).<br />

This fern is very sensitive to moisture conditions and drought effects (Ostlie, 1990c). Natural succession<br />

and development of old‐growth conditions may make the area better B. mormo habitat, e.g. by allowing<br />

different mycorrhizal fungal species to colonize the soils. Conversely, these processes may not have any<br />

effect on the quality of the habitat; we do not know enough about this rare fern and its needs to be<br />

certain, although it seems to prefer mature forests (Ostlie, 1990c).<br />

The major threat to B. mormo across its range is non‐native earthworms. Some B. mormo populations<br />

and habitat are currently threatened by these worms (and others will become threatened, as the worms<br />

continue to expand their range), which have colonized hardwood stands after release (probably<br />

unintentional) from bait buckets (Berlin et al., 1998) and other sources. Many of the worms used as bait<br />

are not native to the Upper Great Lakes and do not have naturally‐occurring predators.<br />

Species Distribution and Occurrences within the Study Area<br />

B. mormo has a very limited range, known only from Minnesota,<br />

Wisconsin, and Michigan and in the Canadian province of Quebec<br />

(DNR, 2009).<br />

<strong>USDA</strong> Plants Database at:<br />

http://plants.usda.gov/java/county?state_name=Minnesota&statefips<br />

=27&symbol=BOMO2<br />

Botrychium mormo is listed by the DNR, DRM and the CNF with<br />

element occurrence data available by each agency. Point data provided<br />

by these agencies identifies 115 distinct populations throughout the<br />

Study Area. Chadde and Kudray (2001) cite 162 known occurrences in<br />

the state of Minnesota and 249 known global populations. According<br />

to DRM, the largest known concentration of plants is found on Guthrie Till plain soils of Ottertail Point of<br />

Leech Lake. This is the area that Route 1 proposes to cross. This alternative would pass through a major<br />

section of habitat for this species, immediately adjacent to a long term study site for the species.<br />

Summer 2009 surveys performed for the BGR project located 13 new populations ranging from single<br />

isolated plants to a single location with more than 300 individuals along Route 3. More than 550<br />

individual plants were observed in total, all within 500 feet of the existing transmission line corridor.<br />

New observations generally took place in areas apparently unaffected by the presence of non‐native<br />

invasive earthworms. All new locations were distant from paved roadways, were generally found<br />

between major drainage areas (a likely barrier to earthworm movement) and apparently isolated from<br />

July 2010 Species and Associated Habitat Page 4‐49

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!