Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation SWL7 • Activities that could disturb goblin ferns, their habitat, or microhabitat should not occur within 250 feet of known goblin fern populations. The exception to this standard is for administrative studies or research that contributes to the conservation of the species. • In suitable habitat that is immediately adjacent and contiguous to existing populations beyond the 250‐foot no‐activity zone, site disturbing activities should occur only during frozen ground conditions (as evidenced by and absence of rutting, compaction, or breaking through the frost layer), and a minimum canopy closure of 70 percent should be maintained. (Single tree selection would generally meet desired conditions in this standard, but group selection harvest does not meet conditions desired in this standard because of the gaps created in proximity to occupies habitat.) • Minimize the likelihood of worm invasion in existing or potential habitat areas identified as having low potential for worm invasion. Such conditions exist where areas are void of roads and trails (or where densities can be minimized), developments, lakes and streams that support game fish, or are isolated due to wetlands or some other condition not conducive to worm colonization. Examples of actions to minimize worm invasion include limiting vehicle or OHV access, road building, or summer activities that move soil into geologically isolated habitat. • In unoccupied habitat, not contiguous to occupied habitat, of moderate or high quality (generally defined as mature or older northern hardwoods, mixed hardwoods on mesic northern hardwood or rich hardwood native plant communities; on sites currently free of exotic worm populations): • In order to avoid light level changes that result in soil temperature increases, humidity and soil moisture decreases, management activities will maintain a minimum of 70 percent crown closure on average at the stand level. (Single tree of group selection harvests could be used as long as at least minimal conditions desired in the standard are met). On low quality unoccupied habitat or former habitat that has been impacted by exotic earthworms (determined at the project level by a biologist, ecologist, or botanist), management emphasis may be towards meeting other multiple use objectives and may deviate from the conditions above. While the white pine is not a CNF threatened or endangered species, it is listed as Sensitive by the DRM. The CNF Plan has provided guidance for white pine as an indicator species under the following guidance: OWL33 Increase amount of white pine to amounts more representative of native plant communities by planting or naturally regenerating white pine trees in white pine forest types and in other upland deciduous, mixed, and conifer forest types. This objective matches white pine objectives shown in the Landscape OWL34 Manage to improve white pine survival on planted sites and as many naturally regenerating sites as practical. Potential indirect effects include increased light availability and associated alteration of ambient temperature and moisuture, introduction of invasive earthworms and introduction and facilitation of invasive plant species movement. Removal of canopy removes shade cover, increasing light adjacent to cut areas. Areas adjacent to clearings are likely so see a change in species composition from plant species adapted to shade to those tolerant of openings. Often, the edges of cleared areas are dominated by brushy species not typical of July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐93
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation interior hardwood forest habitats. Additionally, these clearings can function as sources for invasive weedy plant species. A major effect to the herbaceous layers in this upland forest type is the introduction of invasive earthworms. Research on Botrychium mormo populations indicate that this species and potentially other Botrychium species are severely adversely affected by the presence of exotic earthworms. These negative effects can be facilitated by construction activities, particularly where earth moving is involved as worms are potentially moved in soil transported from site to site. Where earth moving equipment is used in areas where northern hardwood forests are present, strict equipment cleaning practices will be required when moving between sites. CNF Forest Plan Objectives limit cutting within 250 feet of known populations of B. mormo. In some cases, a shift away from known populations may not be possible, and the Applicants will be required to seek a take permit, and work with agencies to provide appropriate mitigation for adverse impacts. All other Forest Plan Objectives will be adhered to in consultation with Forest Service staff. Winter construction using matting and removal of excavated material from pole locations will limit the potential indirect effects to hydrology and soil disturbance. Where appropriate, summer construction will be performed using matting in wetland areas, limiting soil disturbance to temporary surface effects. Where clearing of canopy occurs, individual species of this guild are likely to be adversely effected indirectly if adapted to shaded habitats. Route 1 Alternative (Great Lakes Pipeline) This forest type is present as both small patches and as large mature forest stands along the route. The largest and most contiguous stands of northern hardwood forest occur on Route 1 from Pike Bay to the west side of Bena. • Two individual Botrychium dissectum plants were observed in nearby locations west of Six Mile Lake along the edge of the Great Lake Pipeline corridor and another along the Enbridge corridor near the Mississippi River. CNF data indicates that this species is present west of Cass Lake within the Great Lakes/Enbridge Corridor. • Botrychium minangense was observed during EP surveys in nine locations along the Great Lakes corridor. DNR data identifies five populations, and CNF data indicates two populations within this route. • Botrychium lanceolatum was observed in four locations along Route 1 with a total plant count of 67 individuals during Great Lakes Pipeline surveys. One individual was located on Alternative 1B and one population with 7 individuals was identified on Alternative 1C. DNR records indicate one location in Mature Hardwood Forest between Six Mile Lake and Bena within Route 1. CNF shows two data points for this species within route 1. • 13 individual Botrychium mormo plants were observed in three populations southwest of Lower Sucker Lake during EP surveys. These same locations contain records from CNF, DRM and DNR data sets dating from the 1990s with populations ranging from only one noted to more than 30 in a location • One hundred ten Botrychium simplex individuals were identified in nine populations within this route during EP surveys. • Carpinus caroliniana was recorded in five locations along Route 1 with 50 individuals noted during EP surveys. July 2010 Environmental Consequences Page 5‐94
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:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 225: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
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?