Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation 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. 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 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. This alternative would cross through an area known to contain a high concentration of this species; individuals would be subjected to habitat loss, although these impacts would not likely affect viability in the Study Area. • DNR: Not listed. Route 2 Alternative (US 2) • 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. Appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of timber removal. • DNR: Not listed. Route 3 Alternative (Northern Route) • 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. Appropriate habitat area would be reduced as a result of timber removal. • DNR: Not listed. 5.2.1.7 Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) Black terns are known to occur in emergent wetlands within the CNF and the LLR. Direct & Indirect Effects Current transmission line construction practices minimize impacts to wetland habitats by spanning these areas (when possible), constructing these segments during the winter months (when appropriate), using mats to minimize impacts from heavy equipment (when appropriate), allowing native vegetation to recolonize disturbed areas and by maintaining existing hydrology and grade. Permanent loss of wetland habitat will be restricted to the footprint of transmission line structures placed in wetland areas. Forested wetlands would be converted into emergent or scrub/shrub wetlands, as trees would be removed to allow for transmission line development. Converted wetlands are not likely to create additional habitat for black terns. As black terns often forage in midflight and sometimes in colonies, they may be more susceptible to transmission line collisions than other species, if facilities are placed near breeding colonies or foraging areas. The APLIC does not discuss risk to black terns (2006). Human activity along the chosen route will be high during construction when compared to nearby areas of unfragmented habitat. This may prevent black terns from using suitable habitat along the ROW, especially if individuals have a low tolerance for humans. July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐23
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation Route 1 Alternative (Great Lakes Pipeline) No CNF or DRM observations of black terns or black tern breeding colonies have been made within one mile of Route 1. Additionally, no observations were made during the EP surveys. The DNR does not track black terns. This alternative does cross large sedge meadows which may contain appropriate foraging habitat, but may not support breeding. Minimal impacts to appropriate wetland habitat would occur as a result of structure placement. Right‐of‐way clearing would increase the area of wet meadow and emergent habitat available for this species. 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 2 Alternative (US 2) One CNF documented black tern colony is within one mile of Route 2, in a diverse wetland complex. No observations were made during the EP surveys. The DNR does not track black terns. Where this route alternative crosses appropriate wetland areas, minimal impacts would occur as a result of structure placement. Right‐of‐way clearing would increase the area of wet meadow and emergent habitat available for this species. 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 CNF or DRM observations of black terns or documented black tern breeding colonies have been within one mile of Route 3. However, five observations of black terns were made during the BGR survey. Observations were made in the vicinity of large wetlands areas, often supporting floating vegetative mats. These wetland complexes contain habitat which likely occurs in sufficient enough of area to support breeding, as a number of individuals were observed at these locations landing and taking off from vegetative mats. The DNR does not track black terns. Minimal impacts to appropriate wetland habitat would occur as a result of structure placement. Right‐of‐way clearing would increase the area of wet meadow and emergent habitat available for this species. 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. 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 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. Minimal area of appropriate habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in wetlands. Right‐of‐way clearing would increase the area of wet meadow and emergent habitat available for this species. • DNR: Not listed. July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐24
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:
Page 106 and 107: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 132: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 155: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
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?