Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation 5.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Impacts to these species typical of partial to closed canopy conifer swamp, are likely to consist of alteration of hydrological conditions, removal of forest canopy, or direct impact to individuals due to construction. The construction of H‐frame structures will likely have a limited footprint (1,000 sq. ft. per pole maximum). Individual pole locations will be sited to avoid any known TES locations. No impacts are expected to any species of this guild based on direct construction activities as all known locations will be avoided for both permanent pole siting, or during temporary construction. Transmission line construction will generally consist of H‐frame timber construction with permanent direct ground alteration limited to pole locations. Individual poles would be placed into a drilled hole and backfilled with compacted material for stability. It is not expected that any alteration of hydrology within conifer swamps would occur based on placement of transmission line poles. Species of this guild will be adversely impacted where canopy is temporarily or permanently removed for the new corridor. Arethusa bulbosa – dragon’s mouth orchid, Botrychium simplex, least moonwort, Platanthera clavellata – club spur orchid and Ranunculus lapponicus – lapland buttercup are also listed in open bog and fen communities. Though individuals of those species that may inhabit open areas are also present in these forested communities, removal of canopy can adversely affect those individuals due to the related stress of canopy removal and the potential for direct harvesting and construction related impacts. Removal of canopy will create localized increases in sunlight, favoring species adapted to open conditions, and removing habitat for those species (and individuals) not adapted to open conditions. All species in this guild present in locations where new transmission corridor would be placed would be adversely affected due to loss of canopy. Winter construction using matting and removal of excavated material from pole locations will limit the potential effects to hydrology and soil disturbance. Where clearing of canopy occurs, individual species of this guild are likely to be adversely effected, directly and indirectly by change in plant community structure. Prior to construction, field surveys will be conducted to identify individual occurrences of species in this guild and route shifts will take place where possible. Where impacts are unavoidable, the applicant will obtain necessary take permits and negotiate appropriate mitigation. Route 1 Alternative (Great Lakes Pipeline) This alternative crosses numerous conifer swamps which have been cleared in the past along existing utility corridors and presently exist as sedge meadows, shrub‐carr and regrowth conifer swamp. This alternative would likely involve widening these existing corridors. Significant conifer swamps occur in scattered stands around the south side of Lower Sucker Lake, south of Portage Lake, a mile wide portion between Portage Lake and Bena, a half mile portion north of Six Mile Lake, in a roughly four mile segment near Nushka Lake and Rice Lake, and a one‐mile portion largely maintained as utility corridor north of the Cohaset Power Plant. • Nine populations with 110 Botrychium simplex individuals were identified within this route during EP surveys. Two populations of this species were identified during Enbridge Pipeline surveys within Route 1, Alternative C. • DNR and CNF data indicates that one population of Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda is present within Route 1 south of Lower Sucker Lake. July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐77
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation • More than 292 individual Taxus canadensis individuals were identified during EP surveys in five locations along Route 1. CNF data indicates 4 locations where this species is present within Route 1. • White pine is common in all age classes along this route. These species would be adversely impacted if conifer swamp canopy cover that provides habitat for these individuals is removed adjacent to the individuals. Where clearing for ROW is required, white pine would be removed, and ongoing maintenance activities would preclude this species from reaching maturity within the corridor. All construction within conifer swamp locations will occur during winter under frozen condition conditions or during other seasons with the use of construction mats. Refinement of the route will avoid, to the greatest extent possible, identified individuals plant species within this guild. Route 2 Alternative (US 2) This alternative crosses numerous conifer swamps which have been cleared in the past along existing utility corridors. This alternative would likely involve widening these existing corridors. Significant conifer swamps occur adjacent to this route on the west side of Sucker Lake, north of the east end of Portage Lake, along the north side of Six Mile Lake, along both sides of US 2 between in a roughly four mile segment near Nushka Lake and Rice Lake, the two miles west of Zemple and two large spruce swamps between Deer River and Cohaset on the south side of US 2. • Ten new Botrychium simplex populations were located within Route 2 during EP surveys, but none in conifer swamp locations. CNF data indicates eight identified populations of this species on this route in upland locations along utility corridors. • A single population of Ranunculus lapponicus was identified on this route during Enbridge Surveys. • More than 160 individual Taxus canadensis individuals were identified in eight locations along Route 2 during surveys performed for Enbridge in 2007 and 2008. CNF data indicates five observations of this species along Route 2. • White pine is present in all age classes in conifer swamps along this route. Individuals of these species would be adversely impacted if conifer swamp canopy cover that provides habitat for these individuals is removed adjacent to the individuals. Where clearing for ROW is required, white pine would be removed, and ongoing maintenance activities would preclude this species from reaching maturity within the corridor. All construction within conifer swamp locations will occur during winter under frozen condition conditions or during other seasons with the use of construction mats. Refinement of the route will avoid, to the greatest extent possible, identified individuals plant species within this guild. Route 3 Alternative (Northern Route) This alternative crosses numerous conifer swamps which have been cleared in the past along existing utility corridors. This alternative would likely involve widening these existing corridors. Significant conifer swamps occur on private lands north of Highway 71 near Blackduck Lake in Beltrami County, numerous small cedar swamps along Forest Road 2429 east of Popple River, a large black spruce swamp with cedar swamp inclusions west of Helen Lake in Wirt Township, a high quality mixed conifer swamp near Forest Road 2402 and Spur Lake, the nearly seven mile linear crossing of a black spruce swamp in the Bowstring State Forest, or alternately, the crossing of one mile of mixed conifer swamp within the July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐78
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:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 209: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
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?