Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation • Unaccomplished CNF projects under decision but not yet harvested or roads not yet decommissioned. These activities were covered by Environmental Assessments for the following projects: Mississippi River, Leech Lake River, Portage, Conifer Thin, Cass Lake, and Sand Plain. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed these activities will be completed within the next 5 years. MnDOT has planned/proposed and completed a number of US 2 improvement projects between Bemidji and Grand Rapids. The projects include installation of signals, resurfacing, bridge replacement, and adding a lane (in Deer River). The US 2 improvement projects are completed, planned, or currently under way. See http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadwork/hwy2.html for additional information. Little to no impacts beyond the existing right‐of‐way are anticipated; therefore, these projects are not included in the cumulative effects analysis. 6.2 Cumulative Effects The following table presents the potential for cumulative effects for the proposed Project in combination with other past, present, and future actions that may occur within the Study Area. For the purposes of this evaluation, similar projects are grouped since they would likely have similar impacts. For example, most CNF resource management projects include harvest, planting, site preparation and road changes. Therefore, it is appropriate to group these projects together. July 2010 Interrelated, Independent and Cumulative Effects Page 6‐3
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation Table 6‐1. Summary of potential cumulative effects for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Project TES Group Pipeline Project CNF Resource Management & Vegetation Management Projects Forest Species Wetland Species Grassland Species Shrubland Species Pipeline construction may result in negative impact to forest plants and animal species due to permanent tree clearing; may introduce earthworms into ROW which could alter duff layer and have negative impact on understory plants; may introduce weed seed during construction and long term maintenance of the ROW; and may allow invasion by cowbirds on cleared ROW, with potential negative impact to forest edge songbirds due to predatory nesting. The project will include best management practices to avoid and minimize potential negative impacts to forest species. Commercial harvest and transportation improvements may result in negative impact to forest plants and animal species due to permanent tree clearing; may introduce earthworms into ROW which could alter duff layer and have negative impact on understory plants; may introduce weed seed on harvest/construction equipment. The projects will include best management practices to avoid and minimize potential negative impacts to forest species. Pipeline construction may have negative impact to wetland plants and animal species due to tree clearing, excavation, and fill activities, and may introduce weed seed during construction and long term maintenance of the ROW. The project will include best management practices to avoid and minimize potential negative impacts to wetland species. Commercial harvest and transportation improvements may have negative impact to wetland plants and animal species due to tree clearing, excavation and fill activities; and may introduce weed seed on harvest/ construction equipment. The projects will include best management practices to avoid and minimize potential negative impacts to wetland species. Pipeline construction may have both negative and positive impacts to grassland species. Permanent tree and brush clearing will increase grassland habitat available, with potential for beneficial impact. Negative impacts may occur due to potential introduction of earthworms, weed seed, and invasion by cowbirds. The project will include best management practices to avoid and minimize potential negative impacts to grassland species. Transportation improvements may have negative impact to grassland plants and animal species due to construction activities; and may introduce weed seed on harvest/ construction equipment. Prescribed burns may have beneficial impact to grassland species that are fire dependent. The projects will include best management practices to avoid and minimize potential negative impacts to grassland species. Pipeline construction may have negative impact to shrubland plants and animal species due to tree clearing, excavation and fill activities; and may introduce weed seed during construction and long term maintenance of the ROW. The project will include best management practices to avoid and minimize potential negative impacts to shrubland species. Transportation improvements may have negative impact to shrubland plants and animal species due to construction activities; and may introduce weed seed on harvest/construction equipment. Prescribed burns may have beneficial impact to shrubland species that are fire dependent. The projects will include best management practices to avoid and minimize potential negative impacts to shrubland species. July 2010 Interrelated, Independent and Cumulative Effects Page 6‐4
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:
Page 195 and 196: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 279: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
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?