Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Background Information Otter Tail Power Company (Otter Tail Power), Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. (Minnkota Power), collectively referred to as “the Applicants,” on behalf of themselves and Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation (Xcel Energy) and Great River Energy, a Minnesota cooperative association (collectively, the Utilities) propose constructing a new 230 kV transmission line. The Project would extend from the Wilton Substation, located just west of Bemidji, Minnesota, to the Boswell Substation, located in Cohasset, Minnesota. Three potential routes are being evaluated in a joint State/Federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Draft EIS and Final EIS are scheduled to be completed during the fall 2009 and winter 2009/2010. Portions of the Project may cross the CNF and Leech Lake Reservation, depending on which route is approved through the State/Federal processes. The following Project actions trigger the need to complete this BA/BE: • Minnkota Power has submitted a funding application to the US Department of Agriculture ‐ <strong>Rural</strong> Utilities Service (RUS) for the Project. • The Project will likely require a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). • The Project will likely cross portions of the CNF and would require a USFS Special Use Permit. • The Project will likely cross portions of the LLR and will require Reservation Tribal Council and BIA approval and permits if located on LLR lands with retained treaty rights and interests. Construction would begin by fall 2010, and be completed by the end of 2011 to meet the anticipated 2011/2012 winter peak demand in the Bemidji area. 2.2 Previous Project Studies CapX2020 is a joint initiative of 11 transmission‐owning utilities in Minnesota and the surrounding region. The CapX2020 planning group formed in response to planning studies that show increased demand for electricity by 4,000 to 6,000 megawatts by 2020. Each utility is responsible for meeting the electrical demand for their customers. As a group, the CapX2020 has identified the need to construct four new transmission lines to ensure reliable electric service in Minnesota and the surrounding region. The proposed Bemidji to Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Line Project is one of four lines identified in the CapX2020 studies. See http://www.capx2020.com/index.html for more information on the CapX2020 planning efforts. The Applicants have completed a number of preliminary studies for the Project as a basis for identifying the project need and routing options. The following studies are available on‐line from the Minnesota Public Utilities (http://energyfacilities.puc.state.mn.us/Docket.html?Id=19344): • Certificate of Need Application for the Bemidji – Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Line Project (March 17, 2007) • Application for a Route Permit for the Bemidji – Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Line Project (June 4, 2008) • Advisory Task Force Report for the Bemidji – Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Line Project (September 24, 2008) July 2010 Description of the Proposed Action Page 2‐1
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation • Public Scoping Comments (November 18, 2008) • Public Information Meeting Transcripts (March 25, 2009) • Bemidji – Grand Rapids EIS Scoping Decision (April 2, 2009) • Bemidji – Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Project Environmental Report (May 4, 2009) The following studies are available on‐line from the <strong>Rural</strong> Utilities Service (http://www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/eis.htm#Minnkota%20Electric%20Cooperative,%20Inc.0): • Macro‐Corridor Study Report (June 2008, revised 9/2/08) • Alternative Evaluation Study (June 2008) Transmission planning, designing, engineering, and environmental criteria were used to develop three route alternatives. State, tribal, and Federal regulatory requirements, as well as input from stakeholders, were also considered. Route alternatives were developed by considering the following: • Follow existing rights‐of‐way, survey lines, natural division lines, and agricultural field boundaries when feasible – A primary factor in identifying routes is Minnesota’s policy that new right‐of‐way for a project should be avoided where existing right‐of‐way can be used. This is called the nonproliferation policy, adopted by the Minnesota Supreme Court in People for Environmental Enlightenment and Responsibility, Inc. (PEER) v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Council, 266 N.W.2d 858, 868 (Minn.1978). In that case, the Supreme Court held that “as a matter of law, [one should] choose a pre‐existing route unless there are extremely strong reasons not to do so.” Id. At 868. The Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) rules also recognize that nonproliferation is an important consideration in selecting final routes for new transmission. Minn. R. 7849.5910 H and J. Selecting a route that would result in completely new right‐of‐way would run counter to the nonproliferation policy. The Applicants used geographic information system (GIS) mapping and field verification to identify existing rights‐of‐way (transmission lines, pipelines, railroads, roads, etc.), and natural division and field boundaries. • Minimize length – Minimizing the length of a route generally decreases its impacts on the environment. In some situations, however, a longer route or route segment is chosen to avoid specific, undesirable impacts. • Avoid populated areas where feasible – One of the most common comments received at the Applicants’ public meetings was that residences should be avoided where possible. • Avoid major environmental features where feasible – Major natural features such as nonfragmented forest land, threatened and endangered species, waterbodies and wetlands, and biodiversity areas identified by the CNF, DRM, and the Minnesota County Biological Survey (including Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), Scientific and Natural Areas (SNAs), and State Game Refuges (SGRs)) were identified, mapped, and avoided where feasible. • Maximize transmission system reliability and promote system redundancy where feasible – Both the routing of the Project in close proximity to existing lines or double‐circuiting it with existing lines were considered. In some cases, however, there were system reliability and safety concerns that supported keeping the Project separate. Routing options were excluded from further consideration if the construction or maintenance of the Project as a double‐circuit or parallel line with an existing transmission line would compromise system reliability or violate North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) regulations. July 2010 Description of the Proposed Action Page 2‐2
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 22: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 25: Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
Page 76 and 77:
Bemidji - Grand Rapids Biological A
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:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?