Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation Species LeConte’s sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Nelson’s sharptailed sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni Short‐eared owl Asio flammeus American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in meadows. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting if a nest is found within the construction zone. 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 – 1 CNF observation CNF & DRM: May adversely impact Yes – 1 CNF observation. CNF & DRM: May adversely impact Yes – 15 BGR observations in the CNF & DRM: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a individuals, but not likely to result in a vicinity in sedge meadows and hay individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, loss of viability in the Planning Area, fields. loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward Federal nor cause a trend toward Federal nor cause a trend toward Federal listing. listing. listing. DNR: Not listed. DNR: Not listed. DNR: Not listed. No documented observations – suitable habitat may be present but may not be extensive enough for breeding. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in sedge meadows, but may be offset by forest clearing and conversion to open grasslands. No documented observations – though this species is not tracked by the DNR or CNF. Minimal area of appropriate habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement. No documented observations – though this species is not tracked by the DNR or CNF; appropriate habitat is present. Wetland impacts will be avoided to the extent practicable. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area may be reduced as a result of structure placement. 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 & 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: Not listed. DNR: Not listed. 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. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in meadows. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting if a nest is found within the construction zone. No documented observations – suitable habitat may be present but may not be extensive enough for breeding. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in sedge meadows, but may be offset by forest clearing and conversion to open grasslands. No documented observations – though this species is not tracked by the DNR or CNF. Minimal area of appropriate habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement. No documented observations – though this species is not tracked by the DNR or CNF; appropriate habitat is present. Wetland impacts will be avoided to the extent practicable. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area may be reduced as a result of structure placement. 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 & 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: Not listed. DNR: Not listed. 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. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in meadows. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting if a nest is found within the construction zone. No documented observations – suitable habitat may be present that is extensive enough for breeding. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in sedge meadows, but may be offset by forest clearing and conversion to open grasslands. No documented observations – though this species is not tracked by the DNR or CNF. Minimal area of appropriate habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement. Yes –1 BGR observation. Wetland impacts will be avoided to the extent practicable. Minimal area of appropriate breeding habitat area may be reduced as a result of structure placement. 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 & 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: Not listed. DNR: Not listed. 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. July 2010 Summary of Findings Page 7‐3
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation Species Red‐shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus 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 – 7 DNR and 2 EP documented observations in the vicinity. Appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of timber removal. 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. No documented observations – suitable habitat may be present. Appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of timber removal. 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. No documented observations – suitable habitat may be present. Appropriate breeding habitat area would be reduced as a result of timber removal. 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. Black tern Chlidonias niger No documented observations – suitable foraging habitat may be present. Wetland impacts will be avoided to the extent practicable. Minimal area of appropriate habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in wetlands. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting. No documented observations – suitable habitat may be present. 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. Yes – 1 CNF documented observation of a black tern colony. Wetland impacts will be avoided to the extent practicable. Minimal area of appropriate habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in wetlands. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting. 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. Yes – 5 BGR documented observations. Wetland impacts will be avoided to the extent practicable. Minimal area of appropriate habitat area would be reduced as a result of structure placement in wetlands. Construction restrictions would be in place during active nesting. 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. Yellow rail Conturicops navoboracensis Minimal impacts to appropriate habitats would occur as a result of structure placement. Impacts to individuals and appropriate habitat areas will be minimized by spanning wetland areas when possible, applying BMPs to construction in wetlands and by limiting construction activities to outside of the breeding season. No documented observations – suitable habitat may be present. CNF, DNR & 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. No documented observations – suitable habitat may be present. Minimal impacts to appropriate habitats would occur as a result of structure placement. Impacts to individuals and appropriate habitat areas will be minimized by spanning wetland areas when possible, applying BMPs to construction in wetlands and by limiting construction activities to outside of the breeding season. No documented observations – suitable habitat may be present. CNF, DNR & 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. Yes – 2 BGR documented observations. Minimal impacts to appropriate habitats would occur as a result of structure placement. Impacts to individuals and appropriate habitat areas will be minimized by spanning wetland areas when possible, applying BMPs to construction in wetlands and by limiting construction activities to outside of the breeding season. Yes – 3 BGR and 1 DNR documented observations. CNF, DNR & 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. Trumpeter swan Cygnus buccinator Minimal impacts to appropriate wetland habitats would occur as a result from pole placement. Impacts to individuals and appropriate habitat areas will be minimized by spanning wetland areas when possible, applying BMPs to construction in wetlands and by limiting construction activities to outside of the breeding season. CNF, DNR & 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. Minimal impacts to appropriate wetland habitats would occur as a result from pole placement. Impacts to individuals and appropriate habitat areas will be minimized by spanning wetland areas when possible, applying BMPs to construction in wetlands and by limiting construction activities to outside of the breeding season. CNF, DNR & 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. Minimal impacts to appropriate wetland habitats would occur as a result from pole placement. Impacts to individuals and appropriate habitat areas will be minimized by spanning wetland areas when possible, applying BMPs to construction in wetlands and by limiting construction activities to outside of the breeding season. CNF, DNR & 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. July 2010 Summary of Findings Page 7‐4
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:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?