DOCSLIB.ORG

3. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
3. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Bemidji – Grand Rapids Transmission Line February, 2010 Draft EIS 3. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation This section describes the environmental setting as it relates to each alternative considered under the proposed Project. The resources and environmental settings included for analysis within this section were identified during the scoping process for the Project. The following subsections are divided into discussions about the affected environment, potential direct and indirect impacts from the Project, and potential mitigation measures. The discussion of affected environment describes the resources and environmental settings found in the Study Area. For purposes of analysis, the Study Area is defined as the generally 1,000-foot wide route proposed for each of the build alternatives (Route Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 and their associated Segment Alternatives A through T). The discussion about direct and indirect impacts describes the potential effects from the Project alternatives, including the No-Build Alternative. For each of the Route Alternatives, the Applicants identified a feasible 125-foot wide Right of Way (ROW) that could be located within the 1,000-foot wide route. Analysis of direct and indirect impacts was conducted assuming the placement of the feasible 125-foot wide ROW identified by the Applicants. For those Segment Alternatives for which a feasible ROW has not been identified, analysis was conducted assuming the placement of the ROW along the centerline of the 1,000-foot wide route. A comparison of the Project alternatives is presented in Section 5, Comparison of Alternatives. The actual location and width of a ROW for the Project is unknown at the time this document was prepared, and will be determined in the Commission’s High Voltage Transmission Line (HVTL) Route Permit for the Project. The potential effects of the Project on resources within the boundaries of the Leech Lake Reservation and Chippewa National Forest are described separately for each resource, to identify unique potential impacts to those geographic areas. The mitigation discussion provides potential measures to reduce or eliminate anticipated direct and indirect impacts identified for each resource area. Mitigation measures are not discussed for identified potential direct and indirect effects that are either not anticipated to occur under construction or operation of the Project or are anticipated to result in a positive effect. The mitigation discussion includes typical High Voltage Transmission Line (HVTL) permit conditions issued by the Commission, mitigation strategies proposed by the Applicants in the Application for a Route Permit, and additional mitigation measures that may be warranted. For mitigation measures that have been proposed or agreed to by the Applicants, the text specifies that these mitigation measures “would” occur. For all other mitigation measures, including those that may be required by the HVTL permit or imposed by regulating agencies, the text specifies that these mitigation measures “could” occur. 55 3. Affected Environment, Impacts, and Mitigation Bemidji – Grand Rapids Transmission Line February, 2010 Draft EIS 3.1. Aesthetics This section provides information about the existing visual landscape in the Study Area and describes identified scenic areas and sensitive visual receptors. For the purposes of this analysis, the Study Area is comprised of each of the 1,000-foot-wide Route Alternatives and Segment Alternatives. The potential aesthetic impacts would occur to viewers (e.g., residents, historical users of the Study Area, recreational users, and those traveling on area highways and roads) that could view the newly cleared Project right- of-way (ROW) of up to 125 feet and associated transmission line structures from within and outside of the Project ROW. For purposes of analysis, potential impacts to the ROW were calculated using the feasible 125-foot ROW identified by the Applicants for each of the Route and Segment Alternatives. The focus of this analysis is placed upon visual experiences, which are the ways in which people view the landscape. The active recreational use of these resources is discussed within Section 3.13, Recreation and Tourism. Potential impacts of each of the Route and Segment Alternatives were evaluated based upon two methods, overall impacts to visual resources/users and to Chippewa National Forest (CNF) scenic integrity objective (SIO) classifications. With the former method of analysis, visual simulations were evaluated for the Study Area. The Applicants commissioned a visual impact assessment in 2008 that incorporated methods commonly used by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for linear projects. For that assessment, the MnDOT Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) process was augmented to include VIA techniques developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and scenic management practices developed by the USFS (FHWA, 1981; MnDOT, 2009d). As part of the visual impact assessment, visual simulations of the Project’s potential infrastructure were created. The visual simulations were used to determine the effects of the Project, which include whether or not residents and visitors to the Project area would be able to see the transmission lines and other infrastructure from common vantage points (see Appendix E). As indicated in Section 2.4.1, Transmission Design, the typical structure material would be either wood or steel. The visual simulations appear to utilize a wood structure. Where available, photographs are provided to analyze typical urban/highway settings within the Study Area, locations within an existing utility ROW for transmission lines and/or a pipeline, and in locations where a new ROW would have to be created for the Route Alternatives. For the second method, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Handbook for Scenery Management and the concept of “landscape visibility” discuss the relative scenic importance of locations within the Study Area. The CNF SIO classifications were used to classify visual resources for the alternatives both within and outside of the CNF. The definitions of high, moderate, and low SIO values were used within a geographic information systems (GIS) program to determine the percentage of each Route and Segment Alternative located within an area of a particular SIO value. The GIS program also matched the existing land cover and use to the various categories to determine the amount of land acreage with High, Moderate, and Low SIO values. 56 3.1 Aesthetics Bemidji – Grand Rapids Transmission Line February, 2010 Draft EIS The model also was extrapolated and applied to the Study Area outside of the CNF. For Route Alternatives of outside the CNF, the following categories were evaluated: • High SIO: U.S. and MN roads, Lakes with Public Access, the Mississippi River, the Paul Bunyan Trail, and the Heartland Trail; • Moderate SIO: County State Aid Highways and Municipal Areas; and • Low SIO: All areas not identified according to the aforementioned criteria (Otter Tail Power et al., 2008a). Determining the potential impacts to the SIO ratings is difficult to do because the ratings are based upon the overall characteristic of an entire roadway, landform, location, or in the case of the CNF, a management area. Therefore, as described in Section 3.1.2, it could only be stated the Route Alternatives generally would not directly alter the overall SIO rating of a particular resource, the impacts would be localized and would be minimal in scale. For instance, Route Alternatives 1 and 2 cross the Mississippi River west of Ball Club, but the overall SIO value of this resource (i.e., the Mississippi River) would not be impacted, because only a minimal portion of the river’s total length would be affected by the construction and operation of the Project. 3.1.1. Affected Environment The area in northern Minnesota that the Route and Segment Alternatives cross tends to be positively valued for the “scenic” quality of its forests, lakes, and unique natural resources. These landscapes are often viewed from individual homes by residents in the area. For visitors, these landscapes are typically experienced from the vantage point of a road, trail, or body of water. United States highways, state highways, large bodies of water, and municipal areas are the most frequently used vantage points within the Study Area. Additional information about these types of resources is provided in Section 3.13, Recreation and Tourism. Section 3.13 provides information about both the active and passive uses of resources located within the Study Area. This section describes the current conditions within the Study Area and provides assessments of the existing scenic character and viewer sensitivity in the Study Area. It includes a general overview of the alternatives, specific information for each alternative, and a brief overview of the Chippewa National Forest. 3.1.1.1. Overview of the Study Area The Study Area consists of a mixture of forested areas, with areas of residential settlement and agriculture. The Project also would require crossing of the Mississippi River, and would cross or pass near a number of other water bodies and recreational trails, important focuses of recreational use throughout the Study Area. The area is crossed by transportation and utility corridors, including U.S. Highway 2, county roads 57 3.1 Aesthetics Bemidji – Grand Rapids Transmission Line February, 2010 Draft EIS municipal roads, forest roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and railroads.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Little Fork River, Minnesota 1. the Area
    Little Fork River , Minnesota 1. The area surrounding the river: a. The Little Fork watershed is located in Itasca, St. Louis, and Koochichinz Counties, Minnesota. It rises in a rather flat region in St. Louis County and follows a meandering course to the northwest through Koochiching County to its junction with the Rainy River about 19 miles below Little Fork, Minnesota. The area is a hummocky rolling surface made up of morainic deposits and glacial drift laid over a bedrock composed largely of granitic, volcanic, and metamorphic rocks. The upper basin is covered with dense cedar forests with some trees up to three feet in diameter. Needles form a thick layer over the ground with ferns turning the forest floor into a green carpet. In the lower basin the forest changes to hardwoods with elm predominating. Dense brush covers the forest floor. Farming is the major land use other than timber production in the area of Minnesota, but terrain limits areas where farming is practical. Transportation routes in this area are good due to its proximity to International Falls, Minnesota, a major border crossing into Canada. U. S. 53 runs north-south to International Falls about 25 miles east of the basin. U. S. 71 runs northeast-southwest and crosses the river at. Little Fork, Minnesota, and follows the U. S. /Canadian border to International Falls. Minnesota Route 217 connects these two major north-south routes in an east-west direction from Little Fork, Minnesota. Minnesota Route 65 follows the river southward from Little Fork, Minnesota. b. Population within a 50-mile radius was estimated at 173, 000 in.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Assessment for White Adder's Mouth Orchid (Malaxis B Brachypoda)
    Conservation Assessment for White Adder’s Mouth Orchid (Malaxis B Brachypoda) (A. Gray) Fernald Photo: Kenneth J. Sytsma USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region April 2003 Jan Schultz 2727 N Lincoln Road Escanaba, MI 49829 906-786-4062 This Conservation Assessment was prepared to compile the published and unpublished information on Malaxis brachypoda (A. Gray) Fernald. This is an administrative study only and does not represent a management decision or direction by the U.S. Forest Service. Though the best scientific information available was gathered and reported in preparation for this document and subsequently reviewed by subject experts, it is expected that new information will arise. In the spirit of continuous learning and adaptive management, if the reader has information that will assist in conserving the subject taxon, please contact: Eastern Region, USDA Forest Service, Threatened and Endangered Species Program, 310 Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203. Conservation Assessment for White Adder’s Mouth Orchid (Malaxis Brachypoda) (A. Gray) Fernald 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • July/August 2020 Number 7/8 $12.00
    UUns United Northern Sportmen’s News Conservation Pledge: I give my pledge as an American to save and faithfully to defend from waste, ___________________________________________________________________________________the natural resources of my country - its’ air, soil and minerals, its’ forests, waters and wildlife. VOLUME 65 JULY/AUGUST 2020 NUMBER 7/8 $12.00 UNITED NORTHERN SPORTSMEN’S CLUB Club Calendar CAMPGROUND OPEN July 19 Carry Class, Steve Holt The Board of Directors and club volunteers have completed 9am-4:30pm preparing the campground and other club areas and they are Pistol Range Reserved: open for member’s use. This includes the development and im- 3pm-4:30pm plementation of a DNR COVID-19 Response Plan that allowed us to open the campground on June 1st. We want to thank all July 20-21 Rifle Range Reserved: the volunteers who helped us in this effort. 8am-Noon CANCELLED UNS EVENTS Aug. 3-4 Rifle Range Reserved: 8am-Noon As stated in the last newsletter, due to the COVID-19 pandem- ic, we canceled the spring banquet normally held in April and Aug. 5 UNS Board Meeting the annual walleye fishing contest held in early June. At the 7pm, UNS Retreat June board of directors meeting the board, with regrets, also canceled two other traditional summer events. Our youth field Aug. 17-18 Rifle Range Reserved: day and annual picnic, both held each year in August, will not 8am-Noon be held this year in order to adhere to the governor’s safety guidelines regarding larger group gatherings. At this time we Sept. 2 UNS Board Meeting have no plans to reschedule any of these events later in 2020, 7pm, UNS Retreat but do look forward to resuming them again in 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Minnesota Statutes 2013 89.021 89.021 State Forests
    1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2013 89.021 89.021 STATE FORESTS. Subdivision 1. Established. There are hereby established and reestablished as state forests, in accordance with the forest resource management policy and plan, all lands and waters now owned by the state or hereafter acquired by the state, excepting lands acquired for other specific purposes or tax-forfeited lands held in trust for the taxing districts unless incorporated therein as otherwise provided by law. History: 1943 c 171 s 1; 1963 c 332 s 1; 1982 c 511 s 9; 1990 c 473 s 3,6 Subd. 1a. Boundaries designated. The commissioner of natural resources may acquire by gift or purchase land or interests in land adjacent to a state forest. The commissioner shall propose legislation to change the boundaries of established state forests for the acquisition of land adjacent to the state forests, provided that the lands meet the definition of forest land as defined in section 89.001, subdivision 4. History: 2011 c 3 s 3 Subd. 2. Badoura State Forest. History: 1963 c 332 s 1; 1967 c 514 s 1; 1980 c 424 Subd. 3. Battleground State Forest. History: 1963 c 332 s 1 Subd. 4. Bear Island State Forest. History: 1963 c 332 s 1 Subd. 5. Beltrami Island State Forest. History: 1943 c 171 s 1; 1963 c 332 s 1; 2000 c 485 s 20 subd 1; 2004 c 262 art 2 s 14 Subd. 6. Big Fork State Forest. History: 1963 c 332 s 1 Subd. 7. Birch Lakes State Forest. History: 1963 c 332 s 1; 2008 c 368 art 1 s 23 Subd.
    [Show full text]
  • 1~11~~~~11Im~11M1~Mmm111111111111113 0307 00061 8069
    LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE LIBRARY ~ SD428.A2 M6 1986 -1~11~~~~11im~11m1~mmm111111111111113 0307 00061 8069 0 428 , A. M6 1 9 This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp (Funding for document digitization was provided, in part, by a grant from the Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Program.) State Forest Recreation Areas Minnesota's 56 state forests contain over 3.2 million acres of state owned lands which are administered by the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. State forest lands are managed to produce timber and other forest crops, provide outdoor recreation, protect watershed, and perpetuate rare and distinctive species of flora and fauna. State forests are multiple use areas that are managed to provide a sustained yield of renewable resources, while maintaining or improving the quality of the forest. Minnesota's state forests provide unlimited opportunities for outdoor recreationists to pursue a variety of outdoor activities. Berry picking, mushroom hunting, wildflower identification, nature photography and hunting are just a few of the unstructured outdoor activities which can be accommodated in state forests. For people who prefer a more structured form of recreation, Minnesota's state forests contain over 50 campgrounds, most located on lakes or canoe routes. State forest campgrounds are of the primitive type designed to furnish only the basic needs of individuals who camp for the enjoyment of the outdoors. Each campsite consists of a cleared area, fireplace and table. In addition, pit toilets, garbage cans and drinking water may be provided.
    [Show full text]
  • This Document Is Made Available Electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library As Part of an Ongoing Digital Archiving Project
    This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp (Funding for document digitization was provided, in part, by a grant from the Minnesota Historical & Cultural Heritage Program.) Minnesota's .56 state forests contain over 3.2 mill ion needs of individuals who canp for the enjo.J1Tl€11t of the acres of state o.vned lands which are adninisterecr by the outdoors. Each canp:;ite consists of a cleared area, Departrrent of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. fireplace and table. In addition, pit toilets, garbage State forest 1ands are rranaged to produce timber and cans and drinking water are provided at canp:Jmunds that other forest crops, provide outdoor recreation, protect charge a fee. Sane campgrounds have hiking trails, watershed, and perpetuate rare and distinctive species water access sites and swimning beaches. of flora and fauna. State forests are multiple use areas that are rranagecl to provide a sustained yield of In addition to canpgrounds, over 20 day use areas have renew:i.ble resrurces, while maintaining or irrproving the been developed adjacent to canp:Jmunds or at other quality of the forest. scenic locations within state forests. Day use areas are c011T0nly equipped with picnic tables, fire rings, Minnesota's state forests provide unlimited drinking water, toilets and garbage cans. Many have opportunities for outdoor recreationists to pursue a boat accesses and swimning beaches. variety of outdoor activities. Berry picking, mushroan hunting, wildflov.er identification, nature photography To accarrnodate hikers and skiers, there are more than and hunting are just a fe>J of the unstructured outdoor 150 miles of trails spread throughout the forests.
    [Show full text]
  • Chippewa Area, the DNR Coordinated Its Work with Citizens, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, County Boards and Land Departments, and the US Forest Service
    Forest Classification and Forest Road and Trail Designations for State Forest Lands in and Near the Chippewa National Forest May 31, 2008 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Chippewa Road & Trail Designation Team Bob Moore ........................................................................................................ Trails & Waterways Michael North .................................................................................................Ecological Resources Keith Simar .......................................................................................................................... Forestry Ken Soring ....................................................................................................................Enforcement Mark Spoden............................................................................................................ Fish & Wildlife Rick Jaskowiak ............................................................................ Geographic Information Systems Jack Olson............................................................................................................................. Planner © 2008, State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is available to all individuals regardless of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Discrimination inquiries
    [Show full text]
  • Map of the Big Fork State Forest
    BIG FORK STATE FOREST 74,817 ACRES • ESTABLISHED 1963 FOREST LANDSCAPE: Located between Scenic State Park and Northome, Big Fork State Forests feature boreal forests of pine, spruce, and aspen. Many lakes and streams dot the landscape, including picturesque rapids along the Big Fork River. A WORKING FOREST: From year to year, you may see changes in this forest. The DNR manages the trees, water, and wildlife in state forests to keep them healthy and meet recreational, environmental, and economic goals. Trees are harvested to make a variety of products, such as lumber and building materials, pulp for making paper, pallets, fencing, and telephone poles. Through careful planning, harvesting, and planting, land managers work to improve wildlife habitat. The DNR manages state forests for everyone to use, while preventing wildfires and ensuring forests continue to keep air and water clean. HISTORY: After the last ice age, glacial Lake Agassiz inundated the area that is today’s Big Fork State Forest. As the shallow lake slowly drained to the northwest, receding waters deposited clayey to loamy soils. Today, the landscape is mostly flat to slightly rolling. The southern part of the forest, east of Wirt, is hillier, with more lakes. A succession of Woodland Indians occupied the region for at least 2,500 years. The Dakota (or Sioux) inhabited the area until the Ojibwe (Chippewa) arrived. In the late 1800s, a group of Chippewa/Bois Forte lived along the Big Fork River in bark wigwams. Logging between the late 1880s and early 1900s profoundly transformed the area, as millions of board feet of pine logs were floated downstream (north) along the Big Fork to lumber mills in Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Bemidji to Grand Rapids 230 Kv Transmission Project
    Environmental Report: Bemidji to Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Project April 30, 2009 In the Matter of the Application of Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative for a Certificate of Need for 230- kV Transmission Line and Associated System Connections from Bemidji to Grand Rapids Minnesota PUC Docket No.E01, E015, ET-6/CN-07-1222 Page Left Intentionally Blank RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT UNIT PROJECT PROPOSERS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Otter Tail Power Company OFFICE OF ENERGY SECURITY Minnesota Power 85 7th Place East, Suite 500 Minnkota Power Cooperative St. Paul, Minnesota 55101‐2198 PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE Suzanne Lamb Steinhauer Bob Lindholm Energy Facility Permitting Manager‐Strategic Environmental 651.296.2888 Initiatives [email protected] Minnesota Power 30 West Superior Street Duluth, MN 55802 (218) 355‐3342 Abstract On March 17, 2008, Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative (Applicants) applied for a Certificate of Need (CON) from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) to build the proposed Bemidji – Grand Rapids 230 kV Transmission Project (Project). The application was accepted as complete by the Commission on July 22, 2008. The Project is a Large Energy Facility as defined by Minnesota Statute 216B.2421 and requires a CON from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. The Project also will require a route permit, which will be reviewed by the Commission in a separate proceeding under Docket 07‐ 1327. An Environmental Report (ER) is required for the CON. The Department of Commerce is responsible for the preparation of this report under Minnesota Rules 7849.7010‐7110.
    [Show full text]
  • Lost 40 SNA Itasca County
    Lost 40 SNA Itasca County N47 46.417 W94 4.875 N47 46.290 N47 46.422 W94 4.916 W94 5.405 Big Fork State Forest N47 46.289 W94 4.747 Brook se M o o trail N47 46.140 W94 5.350 N47 46.111 W94 5.183 N47 46.085 W94 5.135 N47 46.053 W94 5.078 N47 46.016 W94 5.150 N47 45.992 Chippewa National Forest W94 5.078 N47 45.984 W94 5.028 Blackduck Area N47 45.988 Parking N47 46.036 W94 4.747 N47 45.970 W94 5.048 W94 5.065 © 2017 MinnesotaSeasons.com. All rights reserved. Based on Minnesota DNR data dated 10/27/2017 Lost 40 SNA Itasca County N47 46.417 W94 4.875 N47 46.290 N47 46.422 W94 4.916 W94 5.405 Big Fork State Forest N47 46.289 W94 4.747 Brook se M o o trail N47 46.140 W94 5.350 N47 46.111 W94 5.183 N47 46.085 W94 5.135 N47 46.053 W94 5.078 N47 46.016 W94 5.150 N47 45.992 Chippewa National Forest W94 5.078 N47 45.984 W94 5.028 Blackduck Area N47 45.988 Parking N47 46.036 W94 4.747 N47 45.970 W94 5.048 W94 5.065 © 2017 MinnesotaSeasons.com. All rights reserved. Based on Minnesota DNR data dated 10/27/2017 Lost 40 SNA Itasca County N47 46.417 W94 4.875 N47 46.290 N47 46.422 W94 4.916 W94 5.405 Big Fork State Forest N47 46.289 W94 4.747 Brook se M o o trail N47 46.140 W94 5.350 N47 46.111 W94 5.183 N47 46.085 W94 5.135 N47 46.053 W94 5.078 N47 46.016 W94 5.150 N47 45.992 Chippewa National Forest W94 5.078 N47 45.984 W94 5.028 Blackduck Area N47 45.988 Parking N47 46.036 W94 4.747 N47 45.970 W94 5.048 W94 5.065 © 2017 MinnesotaSeasons.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota Statutes 2020, Section 89.021
    1​ MINNESOTA STATUTES 2020​ 89.021​ 89.021 STATE FORESTS.​ Subdivision 1. Established. There are hereby established and reestablished as state forests, in accordance​ with the forest resource management policy and plan, all lands and waters now owned by the state or hereafter​ acquired by the state, excepting lands acquired for other specific purposes or tax-forfeited lands held in trust​ for the taxing districts unless incorporated therein as otherwise provided by law.​ History: 1943 c 171 s 1; 1963 c 332 s 1; 1982 c 511 s 9; 1990 c 473 s 3,6​ Subd. 1a. Boundaries designated. The commissioner of natural resources may acquire by gift or purchase​ land or interests in land adjacent to a state forest. The commissioner shall propose legislation to change the​ boundaries of established state forests for the acquisition of land adjacent to the state forests, provided that​ the lands meet the definition of forest land as defined in section 89.001, subdivision 4.​ History: 2011 c 3 s 3​ Subd. 2. Badoura State Forest.​ History: 1963 c 332 s 1; 1967 c 514 s 1; 1980 c 424; 2018 c 186 s 10 subd 1​ Subd. 3. Battleground State Forest.​ History: 1963 c 332 s 1​ Subd. 4. Bear Island State Forest.​ History: 1963 c 332 s 1; 2016 c 154 s 15 subd 1​ Subd. 5. Beltrami Island State Forest.​ History: 1943 c 171 s 1; 1963 c 332 s 1; 2000 c 485 s 20 subd 1; 2004 c 262 art 2 s 14​ Subd. 6. Big Fork State Forest.​ History: 1963 c 332 s 1​ Subd.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Fork River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report
    z c s Big Fork River Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report December 2013 Authors The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs MPCA Big Fork River Watershed Report Team: by using the Internet to distribute reports and April Lueck, Jesse Anderson, Mike Kennedy, Nolan information to wider audience. Visit our website Baratono, Dave Christopherson, David Duffey, for more information. Stacia Grayson, Jeff Jasperson, Benjamin Lundeen, MPCA reports are printed on 100 percent post- Bruce Monson, Shawn Nelson, Kris Parson, consumer recycled content paper manufactured Andrew Streitz. without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Contributors / acknowledgements Citizen Stream Monitoring Program Volunteers Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | www.pca.state.mn.us | 651-296-6300 Toll free 800-657-3864 | TTY 651-282-5332 This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us Document number: wq-ws3-09030006b List of acronyms AUID Assessment Unit Identification MDNR Minnesota Department of Natural Determination Resources CCSI Channel Condition and Stability Index MINLEAP Minnesota Lake Eutrophication CD County Ditch Analysis Procedure CI Confidence Interval MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency CLMP Citizen Lake Monitoring Program MSHA Minnesota Stream
    [Show full text]