Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation 7.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The determination of effects is based upon the proposed Project as described in this BA/BE, using information collected by the project team, as well as data provided by CNF, DRM, DNR and others. Mitigation measures have been identified to minimize the Project’s effects on TES. Project changes that would require a re‐evaluation of effects upon these species include but may not be limited to: • inability or failure to implement one or more of the mitigation measures outlined in this evaluation; • substantive changes in the propose design or construction methodology that increase adverse effects upon listed species beyond what has been disclosed in this evaluation; • unknown or previously unaddressed listed species or their habitats are discovered in the project influence area and can not be avoided. The No‐build alternative would have no beneficial or adverse effects to TES in the Study Area. Table 7‐1 provides a summary of TES determinations for the proposed build alternatives. July 2010 Summary of Findings Page 7‐1
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation Species Federally Listed Species Gray Wolf Canis lupus Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Table 7‐1. Summary of TES determinations for Route1, Route 2 and Route 3 Alternatives. Route 1 Alternative Route 2 Alternative Route 3 Alternative Species present in vicinity? Determination of effect Species present in vicinity? Determination of effect Species present in vicinity? Determination of effect Yes; Wolf packs are known to occur within the Study Area. Woodland habitat area would be slightly reduced as a result of timber removal, but would be countered by increased habitat for primary prey species. No documented observations; Unverified sightings within the Study Area Appropriate habitat area would be slightly reduced as a result of timber removal. Yes – 27 CNF documented nests; one within the Route. Forest habitat for bald eagles in the project area would be reduced as a result of removal of forest cover. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting to avoid direct impacts to nest sites. Incidental take permit may be required in case of an eagle collision with the transmission line. Non‐Federal TES (CNF, DNR & DRM) – Animals Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Yes– 4 CNF documented nest sites are located in the vicinity. Appropriate breeding habitat area would be slightly reduced as a result of tree removal. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting to avoid impacts. If individuals are present during construction they may be exposed to greater levels of human activity. USFWS: Not likely to adversely effect. CNF, DNR, and DRM: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area. USFWS: Not likely to adversely effect. CNF and DRM: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area. DNR: Not listed USFWS: Not listed but protected under the BGEPS. CNF & 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. DNR: Not listed. CNF and 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. DNR: Not listed. Yes; Wolf packs are known to occur within the Study Area. Woodland habitat area would be slightly reduced as a result of timber removal, but would be countered by increased habitat for primary prey species. No documented observations; Unverified sightings within the Study Area Appropriate habitat area would be slightly reduced as a result of timber removal. Yes – 26 CNF documented nests; three within the Route. Forest habitat for bald eagles in the project area would be reduced as a result of removal of forest cover. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting to avoid direct impacts to nest sites. Incidental take permit may be required in case of an eagle collision with the transmission line. Yes ‐ 5 CNF documented nest sites are located in the vicinity. Appropriate breeding habitat area would be slightly reduced as a result of tree removal. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting to avoid impacts. If individuals are present during construction they may be exposed to greater levels of human activity. USFWS: Not likely to adversely effect. CNF, DNR and DRM: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area. USFWS: Not likely to adversely effect. CNF and DRM: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area. DNR: Not listed USFWS: Not listed but protected under the BGEPS. CNF & 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. DNR: Not listed. CNF and 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. DNR: Not listed. Yes; Wolf packs are known to occur within the Study Area. Woodland habitat area would be slightly reduced as a result of timber removal, but would be countered by increased habitat for primary prey species. No documented observations; Unverified sightings within the Study Area Appropriate habitat area would be slightly reduced as a result of timber removal. Yes – 21 CNF documented nests; none within the Route. Forest habitat for bald eagles in the project area would be reduced as a result of removal of forest cover. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting to avoid direct impacts to nest sites. Incidental take permit may be required in case of an eagle collision with the transmission line. Yes ‐ 1 CNF observation; no known nest sites. Appropriate breeding habitat area would be slightly reduced as a result of tree removal. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting to avoid impacts. If individuals are present during construction they may be exposed to greater levels of human activity. USFWS: Not likely to adversely effect. CNF, DNR and DRM: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area. USFWS: Not likely to adversely effect. CNF and DRM: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area. DNR: Not listed USFWS: Not listed but protected under the BGEPS. CNF & 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. DNR: Not listed. CNF and 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. DNR: Not listed. July 2010 Summary of Findings Page 7‐2
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:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 279: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 299: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
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?