Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development
Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development
Appendix F Detailed Cover Type Tables - USDA Rural Development
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Bemidji – Grand Rapids Biological Assessment and Evaluation<br />
Project TES Group<br />
Cumulative<br />
Effects<br />
Summary<br />
Forest Species Wetland Species Grassland Species Shrubland Species<br />
Past, present, and foreseeable<br />
activities within the cumulative effects<br />
area will have both adverse and<br />
beneficial impacts to forest species. In<br />
particular, timber harvesting and<br />
cutting for project rights‐of‐way have<br />
potential to negatively impact forest<br />
species. Whereas, other timber<br />
management activities focused on<br />
ecosystem restoration would have<br />
beneficial impacts on forest species.<br />
TES impact avoidance is required by<br />
Federal and state regulations, CNF<br />
management plans and DRM. Careful<br />
attention to avoidance and use of best<br />
management practices will minimize<br />
TES impacts for most projects<br />
(exception being private projects on<br />
private land). As a result, the proposed<br />
project, in conjunction with past,<br />
present, and reasonably foreseeable<br />
actions, is not expected to contribute<br />
to a significant adverse cumulative<br />
effect upon TES associated with forest<br />
habitats.<br />
Past, present, and<br />
foreseeable activities within<br />
the cumulative effects area<br />
will have minimal adverse<br />
and beneficial impacts to<br />
wetland species. In<br />
particular, timber<br />
harvesting, excavation and<br />
filling, and rights‐of‐way<br />
clearing have potential to<br />
negatively impact forested<br />
wetland species. Whereas,<br />
other management<br />
activities focused on<br />
ecosystem restoration<br />
would have beneficial<br />
impacts on wetland species.<br />
TES impact avoidance is<br />
required by Federal and<br />
state regulations, CNF<br />
management plans and<br />
DRM. Careful attention to<br />
avoidance and use of best<br />
management practices will<br />
minimize TES impacts for<br />
most projects (exception<br />
being private projects on<br />
private land). As a result,<br />
the proposed project, in<br />
conjunction with past,<br />
present, and reasonably<br />
foreseeable actions, is not<br />
expected to contribute to a<br />
significant adverse<br />
cumulative effect upon TES<br />
associated with wetland<br />
habitats.<br />
Past, present, and foreseeable<br />
activities within the cumulative<br />
effects area will have both<br />
adverse and beneficial impacts<br />
to grassland species. In<br />
particular, timber harvesting<br />
and cutting for project rights‐ofway<br />
have potential to increase<br />
grassland habitats, with<br />
potential beneficial impacts to<br />
grassland species. Likewise,<br />
management activities focused<br />
on ecosystem restoration would<br />
have beneficial impacts on<br />
grassland species. Negative<br />
impacts would be related to<br />
potential introduction of<br />
invasive species TES impact<br />
avoidance is required by Federal<br />
and state regulations, CNF<br />
management plans and DRM.<br />
Careful attention to avoidance<br />
and use of best management<br />
practices will minimize TES<br />
impacts for most projects<br />
(exception being private<br />
projects on private land). As a<br />
result, the proposed project, in<br />
conjunction with past, present,<br />
and reasonably foreseeable<br />
actions, is not expected to<br />
contribute to a significant<br />
adverse cumulative effect upon<br />
TES associated with grassland<br />
habitats.<br />
Past, present, and foreseeable<br />
activities within the<br />
cumulative effects area will<br />
have minimal adverse impacts<br />
to shrubland species, due to<br />
clearing of new rights‐of‐way.<br />
Management activities<br />
focused on ecosystem<br />
restoration would have<br />
beneficial impacts. TES impact<br />
avoidance is required by<br />
Federal and state regulations,<br />
CNF management plans and<br />
DRM. Careful attention to<br />
avoidance and use of best<br />
management practices will<br />
minimize TES impacts for most<br />
projects (exception being<br />
private projects on private<br />
land). As a result, the<br />
proposed project, in<br />
conjunction with past,<br />
present, and reasonably<br />
foreseeable actions, is not<br />
expected to contribute to a<br />
significant adverse cumulative<br />
effect upon TES associated<br />
with forest habitats.<br />
July 2010 Interre lated, Inde pendent and Cumulative Effects Page 6‐8