Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development

Bemidji – Grand Rapids
Biological Assessment and Evaluation
The Wolf Lake WMA is located more than a quarter mile from the Route 2 boundary across a mix of
forest and open wetland and bisected by residential development and roadways. No effects to this
WMA are expected.
3.3.3 State Forests
The DNR owns and maintains forest lands along all three of the Routes. The DNR seeks to maintain
healthy, diverse, and productive forests for a range of values including: “timber production, habitat and
species preservation, wildlife conservation, scenic beauty, recreation and hunting, watershed health and
fishing (DNR, 2009).” The DNR is charged with monitoring all Minnesota forests, and directly maintaining
and managing forests on State lands. The DNR uses GIS to track state forest lands through the Forest
Inventory Management (FIM) system.
DNR FIM stand data provides information on whether a stand has been designated as “Old Growth” by
the state, and if so, DNR forestry manages these stands under the framework of the 1994 Old‐Growth
Forests Guideline and its amendments (1994 Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Timber
Harvesting and Forest Management in Minnesota (1994 Forestry GEIS)). The DNR manages Old Growth
forests in order to protect their structural complexity and unique natural characteristics, and these
forests are managed within the context of their surroundings. Management tools employed by the DNR
in these stands may include: prescribed burning for forest types requiring fire as a regeneration factor,
control of exotic species, assessing blowdown damage, developing harvest techniques that protect
these and adjacent forest stands and continuing to monitor and research Old Growth stands compared
with harvested forests. The DNR considers these stands to be integral to the larger forest ecosystem, not
just isolated patches (1994 Forestry GEIS). The DNR manages old growth forests, where practical, with
forests being harvested at longer time intervals using extended rotation forestry (ERF). The DNR has a
target of 20 percent of Federal and state forests in Minnesota designated as ERF forests. This approach
allows forestry practices to change with time, so that if an old‐growth stand is lost, then a similar stand
outside of the existing old‐growth network could be designated to replace the lost stand.
Within the Routes, only Route 2 contains a stand designated as “Old Growth” by the DNR. According to
FIM data, a stand mapped as northern hardwoods, 90 years of age at the time of survey in 1982, is
present within the route immediately northwest of Portage Lake. Approximately 1.7 acres of this stand
is located within the Route 2 boundary. Additional old growth stands, that are not officially designated,
are located in the same general area within Routes 1 and 2. The Applicants will work with the DNR to
identify old growth resources and to modify the final design to avoid these resources to the extent
practicable, for the chosen route.
3.3.4 Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS)
The Minnesota County Biological Survey (MCBS) “systematically collects, interprets, and delivers
baseline data on the distribution and ecology of rare plants, rare animals, native plant communities, and
functional landscapes needed to guide decision making (MN DNR 2009).” As the DNR collects data in a
geographic region, MCBS create maps describing the native community type, and assign a biodiversity
significance rank to each survey site. The DNR uses this information to help guide conservation and land
management in the state by making the data available to state and local government, natural resource
professionals and the public.
Biodiversity significance rankings are based on the presence of rare species, size, and condition of native
plant communities and landscape context (fragmented from, or connected to other intact native plant
communities. The four biodiversity significance ranks are outstanding, high, moderate and below.
Rankings are based on the following criteria (MN DNR 2009):
July 2010 Survey Coordination and Methods Page 3‐3