Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation 6.0 INTERRELATED, INDEPENDENT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS This section provides an analysis of cumulative impacts for the Project in combination with other past, present, and future actions. Cumulative impacts are not causally linked to the Project, but are the total effect of actions with similar impacts in a broader geographic area. The purpose of a cumulative impacts analysis is to look for impacts that may be minimal and therefore neither significant nor adverse when examined within the context of a single proposed action, but that may accumulate and become both significant and adverse over a large number of actions. The Councel on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations define cumulative effects as: “Cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non‐Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). 6.1 Methodology 6.1.1 Study Area Definition The BA/BE evaluation of direct and indirect effects considers potential impacts within the Study Area, which includes all of the route alternatives plus a buffer. This Study Area includes a substantial portion of the CNF and LLR, as well as the towns and cities proximate to the Project. This same Study Area will be used for the cumulative effects analysis, since it includes the area where most activates would occur, especially as they relate to potential impact to local biological resources. 6.1.2 Time Frame The temporal scope of this review begins during initial project planning and agency consultation and extends through completion of construction, approximately May 2007 through Fall 2011. In addition, this analysis considers the potential cumulative effects of other planned, proposed, or funded projects that are reasonably foreseeable within five years after Project construction, through 2013. 6.1.3 Projects to be Considered The projects that are considered in the cumulative effects analysis include the following: • Alberta Clipper ‐ Enbridge Pipeline Project (EPP), an approved project that includes construction of additional pipelines along an existing pipeline corridor. Most of Route 2 would parallel the EPP. The project is in its initial phase of construction. • The Cuba Hill Resource Management Project (RMP), a proposal by the CNF, would include various management activities in an area entirely south of US 2 and east of Minnesota Highway 371. Activities include commercial harvest, transportation projects, prescribed burns, and other activities consistent with the Forest Plan. The Cuba Hill RMP is expected to be implemented during the next five years. The project was evaluated in an Environmental Assessment, with a Decision Notice/Findings of No Significant Impacts (date unknown). • The Lower East Winnie Vegetation Management Project (VMP), a proposed CNF project, would primarily constitute timber harvest, conversion, and planting, but would also include road and impoundment decommissioning. The Lower East Winnie VMP area is centered on US 2 from the cities of Bena to Ball Club, north to Lake Winnibigoshish, and south to the Deer River Ranger District boundary. The decision on this project was recently made in September 2008. The Lower July 2010 Interrelated, Independent and Cumulative Effects Page 6‐1
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation East Winnie VMP is expected to be implemented during the next five years. The project was evaluated in an Environmental Assessment, with a Decision Notice/Findings of No Significant Impacts (date unknown). • The Boy River 2 Resource Management Project, a proposed CNF project, would include timber harvest and non‐harvest management activities, prescribed burns, seeding/planting, riparian improvements, road repair and road removal, culvert repair, and invasive species treatment. The Study Area encompasses most of the Boy River watershed, the east side of Leech Lake, and south of Bena. The project was evaluated in an Environmental Assessment that was published in July 2009. A Decision Notice/Findings of No Significant Impacts has not been received. • The Upper East Winnie VMP, a proposed CNF project, would include commercial harvest, planting, fuel management, site preparation, road decommissioning, impoundment restoration or maintenance, and bridge replacement. The Study Area extends from north of Lake Winnie to Squaw Lake and northeast of Lake Winnie to Sand Lake. The project was evaluated in an Environmental Assessment, with a Decision Notice/Findings of No Significant Impacts (August 2009). • The North Winnie Semi‐private Non‐motorized Area Boundary Change and Trail Project, a proposed CNF project, includes extension of the boundary to the south (approximately three square miles), road decommissioning, addition of new trail segments and various gat improvements. The Study Area is located north of Lake Winnie and south of Squaw Lake, near the Lower Pigeon Lake Game Refuge. The project was evaluated in an Environmental Assessment, with a Decision Notice/Findings of No Significant Impacts (June 2009). • The Continental Divide Resource Management project, a proposed CNF project, includes timber harvest and vegetation management activities, various road changes, and changes to offhighway vehicle access. The approximate Study Area extends from Tenstrike on the west to the Itasca/Beltrami county line on the east, and from Blackduck on the north to the Leech Lake Reservation boundary on the south. The project was evaluated in an Environmental Assessment, with a Decision Notice/Findings of No Significant Impacts (May 2009). • A NNIS plant management program is being developed for the CNF. The program would identify weed control treatments (mechanical, chemical, or manual) to be used along access roads, utility rights‐of‐way, and other project related areas for a select group of undesirable plants. A 10‐year time frame for treatment/control is proposed. The project is currently in the scoping phase. • The Lydick RMP, a proposed CNF project that would occur north of US 2. No other information is available for this project. • County Road 33 (Mission Road) Reconstruction would occur north Cass Lake, between CR 8 and CR 12. This project would use existing and expanded rights‐of‐way, with several minor alignment shifts necessary to improve the safety of the road. The project was evaluated in an Environmental Assessment, with a Decision Notice/Findings of No Significant Impacts (August 2009) • Past CNF harvest projects accomplished within the last five years include: Mississippi River, Leech Lake River, Portage, Conifer Thin, Cass Lake, and Sand Plain. These projects were covered by Environmental Assessments. July 2010 Interrelated, Independent and Cumulative Effects Page 6‐2
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:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 279: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
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?