Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation Impacts to individuals and appropriate habitat areas will be minimized by spanning wetland areas when possible and by applying BMPs to construction in wetlands. If an active nest is found during construction, potential impacts and avoidance will be assessed and coordinated with the appropriate agencies. No Build Alternative The no build alternative would maintain the existing conditions along each alternative. No habitat impact would occur. Determination of Effects Route 1 Alternative (Great Lakes Pipeline) • CNF: Not listed. • DNR: Not listed. • 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. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in wetlands. Right‐of‐way clearing would increase the area of meadow and emergent habitat available for this species. Route 2 Alternative (US 2) • CNF: Not listed. • DNR: Not listed. • 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. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in wetlands. Right‐of‐way clearing would increase the area of meadow and emergent habitat available for this species. Route 3 Alternative (Northern Route) • CNF: Not listed. • DNR: Not listed. • 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. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in wetlands. Right‐of‐way clearing would increase the area of meadow and emergent habitat available for this species. 5.2.1.6 Red‐shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) Red‐shouldered hawks are known to occur in the project Study Area in mixed coniferous‐deciduous woodlands, moist hardwood forests, swamps, river bottomlands, wooded marsh openings, and along the borders of lakes and streams (Johnsgard, 1990). Direct & Indirect Effects Construction of transmission line infrastructure requires the permanent removal of trees within the ROW. As portions of each route are forested, the amount of appropriate habitat for red‐shouldered hawk in the Study Area may be reduced as a result of removal of forest cover. Forested wetlands would be converted to open wetland habitat. July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐21
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation As a forest species, the Avian Powerline Interaction Committee (APLIC) categorizes the risk of electrocution and collision for this raptors species as low (2006). Human activity along the chosen route will be high during construction when compared to nearby areas of unfragmented habitat. This may prevent red‐shouldered hawks from using suitable habitat along the ROW, especially if individuals have a low tolerance for humans. Route 1 Alternative (Great Lakes Pipeline Corridor) Seven DNR documented red‐shouldered hawk observations occur within one mile of Route 1. Two observations of this species were made during the EP surveys along the Route 1 alternative. No CNF or DRM observations are located within one mile of this route. These observations occur within forest stands in the vicinity of lakes, streams and wetlands, which are a part of the largest concentration of high quality red‐shouldered hawk habitat in the area. Where Route 1 crosses forests of appropriate habitat, it would be converted into grassy and shrubby habitat. In particular, this species may also be sensitive to the conversion of forested wetland habitats into emergent wetlands, as forested wetlands can be used by this species for foraging. Habitat loss would compound upon historical habitat destruction in the area to further limit the range of this species in the area. The width of the disturbed corridor would increase from 60 feet (typical, existing) to 185 feet (existing plus Project ROW). No nests are known to exist within the route. Impacts to individuals and appropriate habitat areas will be minimized by applying BMPs to construction activities (see Section 8.0 for a description of BMPs). If an active nest is found during construction, potential impacts and avoidance will be assessed and coordinated with the appropriate agencies. Route 2 Alternative (US 2) No DNR, DRM, or CNF observations of this species occur within one mile of Route 2. This species was not observed along this route during the EP surveys. Where this route crosses appropriate forested areas, it would be converted into grassy and shrubby habitat. In particular, this species may also be sensitive to the conversion of forested wetland habitats into emergent wetlands, as forested wetlands can be used by this species for foraging. Habitat loss would compound upon historical habitat destruction in the area to further limit the range of this species in the area. The width of the disturbed corridor would increase from 580 feet (typical, existing) to 800 feet (existing plus Project ROW). No nests are known to exist within the route. Impacts to individuals and appropriate habitat areas will be minimized by applying BMPs to construction activities. If an active nest is found during construction, potential impacts and avoidance will be assessed and coordinated with the appropriate agencies. Route 3 Alternative (Northern Route) No DNR, DRM, or CNF observations of red‐shouldered hawks have been made within one mile of Route 3. During the BGR surveys of Route 3, no additional observations of red‐shouldered hawks were made, although appropriate habitat likely exists in woodlands near streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands. Where Route 3 crosses mature forests near lakes minimal loss of habitat would occur as these areas would be converted to grassland or scrub/shrub habitat. In particular, this species may also be sensitive to the conversion of forested wetland habitats into emergent wetlands, as forested wetlands can be used by this species for foraging. This habitat loss would compound upon historical habitat destruction in the area to further limit the range of this species in the area. The width of the disturbed corridor would increase from 100 feet (typical, existing) to 225 feet (existing plus Project ROW). July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐22
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:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 132: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 153: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?