Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The proposed Project currently includes three potential alternative routes that are at least 1,000 feet wide. A final 1,000‐foot‐wide route will be chosen through the environmental review process, which includes consideration of this BA/BE analysis. Construction of the transmission line will require a 125‐ foot‐wide right‐of‐way. The final alignment of the transmission line within the selected route will be determined based on engineering constraints, avoidance requirements (including biological considerations), co‐located ROWs, and landowner consultation. Since the final alignment is not yet known, the environmental consequences discussion refers to the 1,000‐foot‐wide route and identifies potential avoidance and minimization opportunities that are likely to be incorporated for development of the 125‐foot‐wide right‐of‐way needed to construct the Project. For purposes of the following discussion, direct and indirect impacts are related to: • Changes in habitat and plant communities – reducing forest area due to tree clearing, increasing grassland area, potentially increasing shrublands, and adding perches • Potential forest fragmentation by increasing the width of existing disturbed corridors and by constructing a new corridor though undisturbed (greenfield) areas • Construction activity – equipment operation, vehicles and human activity • Not electrocutions since line design has changed • Not changes in hydrology since pole installation won’t change hydrology, temporary construction impacts would use mats if soils are wet, and permanent access roads are not anticipated to be necessary • Potential for avian collision with the in‐place conductors • Maintenance activities post construction • Potential for non‐native invasive species (NNIS) to become established due to right‐of‐way clearing and equipment • Potential for cow birds, other prey/predators and people to use the right‐of‐way • Potential for great‐horned owls and red‐tailed hawk to become established in an increasingly fragmented corridor. Cummulative effects are discussed in Section 6.0. The discussion of cumulative effects includes evaluation of past, present and reasonably forseeable future projects that may occur within the project area, including projects proposed by others that are not directly related to the Bemidji to Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Line project. Based on the information gathered about the species, this BA/BE includes a proposed Determination of Effects. These determinations are subject to review and approval by the USFWS, CNF, DNR and LLR Tribal Council. In general, the criteria used for the determinations included: • Presence/absence of appropriate habitat • Presence/absence of observations within the 1,000‐foot‐wide Route • Presence/absence of observations within the Study Area July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐1
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation • Potential to avoid and minimization impacts through timing restrictions and best management practices • Level of potential impact in relation to known populations The relationship of these criteria is shown in the flow chart depicted in Figure 5. This flow chart was generally followed for all determinations; exceptions are noted in the discussion leading to the determination. 5.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species 5.1.1 Gray Wolf Gray wolves have been observed within the Study Area in a wide mix of habitat types. There are no documented dens within the proposed Routes. 5.1.1.1 Direct & Indirect Effects Construction of transmission line infrastructure requires the permanent removal of trees within the proposed 125‐foot right‐of‐way (ROW). As large portions of the Study Area are forested, the amount of appropriate forest cover for gray wolves in the Study Area would be slightly reduced as a result of ROW clearing. This would increase the width of the existing corridors and reduce the area of large tracts of forest favored by gray wolves. Human access and use of the area would primarily be limited to construction and maintenance activities, with potential for traditional gathering on public lands. The removal of forested cover could increase the patchy habitat types and regeneration favored by deer and other prey sources for gray wolves. Temporary impacts may occur due to construction and/or maintenance of the transmission line as wolves would likely change their movements to avoid areas where prolonged activity would take place. Additionally, construction activity that would occur proximate to dens during breeding season may result in failure and abandonment. If an active den is located during construction, then construction activities would be restricted to avoid failure or abandonment of the denning site. The location and avoidance measures would be coordinated with the USFWS, CNF, DRM and DNR, as appropriate. Route 1 Alternative (Great Lakes Pipeline) Gray wolves are known to occur along the Route 1 Alternative. Three CNF observations of gray wolves have been made within five miles of this route. Additionally, dispersed observations of single individuals and packs have been documented in the vicinity of this alternative (Erb, 2008). It is likely that individual wolves would be affected along this route by removal of forest cover and conversion to grasslands and shrublands. Forest conversion to grasslands would provide additional habitat for prey species. In most cases, the width of the existing disturbed corridor would more than triple. Route 2 Alternative (US 2) Gray wolves are known to occur along the Route 2 Alternative. Three CNF observations of gray wolves have been made within five miles of this route. Additionally, dispersed observations of single individuals and packs have been documented in the vicinity of this alternative (Erb, 2008). It is likely that individual wolves would be affected along this route by removal of forest cover and conversion to grasslands and shrublands. Forest conversion to grasslands would provide additional habitat for prey species. In most cases, the width of the existing utility/railroad/road corridor would increase by less than 30 percent. July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐2
Page 1 and 2:
Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tabl
Page 3 and 4:
2006). Grassland (Surrogate) Surrog
Page 5 and 6:
upland coniferous forests in the Me
Page 7 and 8:
Table F-1: Vegetation Cover Types w
Page 9 and 10:
Table F-2: Vegetation Cover Type wi
Page 11 and 12:
Table F-4: Vegetation Cover Type wi
Page 13 and 14:
Appendix G Biological Assessment an
Page 18 and 19:
Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 132: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 279:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 299:
Page 302:
Wilton Map Document: (\\mspe-gis-fi
Page 306:
Habitat Present? Yes Observations w
Page 315 and 316:
Appendix I Draft Avian Mitigation P
Page 317 and 318:
Avian Mitigation Plan 1.0 INTRODUCT
Page 319 and 320:
Avian Mitigation Plan 2.0 SITE AND
Page 321 and 322:
Avian Mitigation Plan 4.0 OPERATION
Page 323:
Avian Mitigation Plan Leech Lake Re
show all

Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?