18.06.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!