Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

Bemidji – Grand Rapids
Biological Assessment and Evaluation
Route 2 Alternative (US 2)
One CNF documented observation of a northern goshawk has occurred within Route 2, but no nests
were located within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of the Route or ROW. The Portage Lake nesting territory is
the closest documented nesting location and is within one mile of this route. No DNR or EP observations
of this species are located within one mile of the Route.
Route 2 would cross portions of six known goshawk territories. Impacts are restricted to foraging
territories. The Portage Lake foraging territory would experience the largest impact of approxiamtley 79
acres, though the Pipeline and Grass Lake foraging territories would experience 77 acres and 75 acres of
impacts, respectively. In total, approximately 327 acres of known goshawk territories would be impacted
as a result of Route 2 construction.
Route 3 Alternative (Northern Route)
One CNF observation of a northern goshawk nest is located within one mile of Route 3 (Nature’s Lake II),
as well as one DNR observation. This nest is located within 1,640 feet (500 meters) of this Route and
within approximately 500 feet (150 meters) of the ROW. No observations of this species were made
during the BGR survey. Construction restrictions would be in place if this nest site is actively being used.
Route 3 would cross portions of six known goshawk territories. The Nature’s Lake II Territory would
experience the greatest impacts where approximately 12 acres of nesting habitat and approximately 99
acres of post‐fledging would be affected. The Hinken Creek and Popple River territories would also
experience larger impacts, totaling 89 and 93 acres (respectively) of impact to foraging habitat. Total
impacts to goshawk territories would be equal to approximately 508 acres, as a result of Route 3
construction.
Given their proximity to the Route 3 Alternative, the Nature’s Lake II and Hinken Creek were surveyed
for goshawks during the summer of 2009 but no response was observed.
No Build Alternative
The no build alternative would maintain the existing conditions along each alternative. No adverse
impacts would occur.
Determination of Effects
Route 1 Alternative (Great Lakes Pipeline)
• CNF and DRM: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in
the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing. The width of the disturbed corridor
would increase from 60 feet (typical, existing) to 185 feet (existing plus Project ROW).
Appropriate breeding habitat would be slightly reduced as a result of tree removal, although
impacts would be restricted to a single known territory, where 0.4 acres of forest cover would
be removed from the Sucker Lake nesting habitat. Impacts to post‐fledging habitats would occur
within the Sucker Lake territory (14 acres) and the Ketchum territory (11 acres). Impacts to
known foraging habitats would total 609 acres across eight known territories. It is possible that
undocumented territories would be impactsed outside of these areas. Construction restrictions
would be in place during active nesting. If individuals are present during construction they may
be exposed to greater levels of human activity in the Study Area.
• DNR: Not Listed.
July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐12