Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation • 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. Some individuals may be subjected to habitat loss. 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. Some individuals may be subjected to habitat loss. 5.3 DNR, LLR, and CNF Listed Plant Species This analysis uses plant communities to evaluate potential impacts to TES plants. The plant community includes a grouping of TES plants, a plant guild, that have similar habitat requirements. In most cases, several plant communities were grouped together according to habitat similarities. The analysis includes a listing of the plant communities, the TES that make up each guild, a description of the community/habitat, and the potential effects. Species with varied habitat requirements were included in more than one guild. A summary table is provided in Chapter 7.0 of this document. The Forest Plan for the CNF provides general maintenance and protection guidelines for listed RFSS. These guidelines are provided in Chapter 4.0 of this document. Forest Plan language specific to all plant species are provided under the following guidance: • O‐WL‐31: Enhance or restore high‐quality habitat on a minimum of 20 (average of 2 sites per year) known sites of sensitive plants. Priority for habitat improvement will generally be for those species and habitats for which: a. Proactive management (versus protection based on avoidance of any management activities) is needed to maintain species and b. Coarse filter management does not provide adequate maintenance or restoration. • S‐WL‐6: Prohibit the harvesting of sensitive and State listed threatened and endangered plants. Exceptions may be made for scientific research purposes or in fulfillment of treaty rights. Additional guidance is provided specifically for Botrychium mormo (Goblin Fern) and Pinus strobus (White Pine). This language is provided below in Section 5.2.2.6 Surveys for the three routes include data collected for the Enbridge Southern Lights Project and surveys performed on all other public lands where alternatives are proposed. Occurrence citations are based on the raw data collected during these surveys conducted from 2007 to 2009. Plant populations are determined to be TES listed plant populations with same‐species occurrences merged into a single population if their point locations occur within 300 feet of each other and are on the same side of the cleared right‐of‐way and/or road. 5.3.1 Bog and Fen Communities This guild includes eleven TES that have potential to be found within these communities: • Arethusa bulbosa – Dragon’s mouth orchid July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐67
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation • Botrychium simplex – least moonwort • Drosera intermedia – spatulate‐leaved sundew • Eleocharis olivacea – olivaceous spike‐rush • Eleocharis quinqueflora ‐ few‐flowered spike‐rush • Hierchloe odorata – sweet grass • Platanthera flava var. herbiola – tubercled rein‐orchid • Platanthera clavellata – club spur orchid • Ranunculus lapponicus – Lapland buttercup • Sparganium glomeratum – northern bur‐reed • Torreyochloa pallida – Torrey’s Manna Grass 5.3.1.1 Description of Habitat <strong>Type</strong> These two wetland communities include open habitats, usually on floating mats of peat, with scattered to abundant Sphagnum moss. Open Sphagnum bogs occur where an area is too wet to support tree species (usually black spruce). The water in true bogs is nutrient‐poor, due to elevated peat becoming isolated from mineral‐rich runoff or groundwater and with nutrients being supplied only by precipitation. Ground layer plant communities may be dominated by ericaceous shrubs, sedges, or cotton grasses. Sphagnum is common to continuous in all bog communities. According to DRM, this plant community can be slow to recover from disturbance because it is, generally, a slow growing plant community. Fen communities range from poor to rich fens based on nutrient availability in the subsurface hydrology. Poor fens are considered transitional communities between open bogs and rich fens. They occur on deep peat and receive minimal nutrient rich runoff from surrounding uplands. Poor fens are located in the interior of small basins isolated from upland runoff or on large peatland sites with infiltration from adjacent raised bogs. Surface water is slightly acidic and nutrient poor. Rich fen communities occur within the Northern Floristic Region on deep peat or floating peat mats (DNR, 2003) with characteristic species Carex lasiocarpa, C. limosa, C. chordorrhiza, and Rhynchospora alba common. Rich fens generally contain higher species diversity and species adapted to higher levels of nutrients. Surface waters in rich fens are slightly acidic to circumneutral with moderate levels of nutrients. Mosses in rich fens may be abundant or scarce and shrub species, which may be present, are typically bog birches, willows and shrubby cinquefoils. DNR data does not identify any calcareous seepage fens within the Study Area. Forested bog communities and associated species are considered in the conifer swamp community. 5.3.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects This guild is adapted to open wetland habitats. Direct adverse impacts related to project activities would be restricted to direct taking of individual plants during construction. The construction of H‐frame structures will likely have a limited footprint (1,000 sq. ft. per structure). Vehicles accessing the structure sites may result in ground disturbance, and also have potential to directly take individual plants. Tree clearing could result in beneficial impacts since additional open habits would be created or maintained. Winter construction using matting and removal of excavated material from pole locations will limit the potential indirect effects to bog and fen communities. No indirect effects to species of this guild are July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐68
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:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 199: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
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?