Alternative A – Proposed Action. The total maximum surface disturbance associated with the Covered Activities in the Covered Area is 34,940 acres. Surface disturbance during restoration, reclamation and re-grading would temporarily result in the disturbance of localized soils. Surface disturbance associated with the Covered Activities would be subject to Conservation Measures to reduce direct impacts to the soils and increase conservation of soils in the Covered Area. All Participants for all Covered Activities except the agriculture and ranching sectors would implement Conservation Measures to avoid new surface disturbance through coordination on use of existing infrastructure, access roads, and ROWs. Reduced development footprints are intended to reduce the amount of surface disturbance on Enrolled Properties. Implementing site specific plans to maximize use of existing infrastructure, access roads and ROWs and minimize the footprint of development, traffic and use of OHV would reduce the direct adverse impacts on soils pertaining to their removal and disturbance. Conservation Measures would be implemented to restore ROWs, reclaim abandoned oil well pads and roads, and re-grade disturbed areas. These activities would minimize the loss and alteration of soils in the Covered Area. The reduction of surface disturbance would also reduce wind erosion and vegetation removal (by preserving sand dune stabilizing vegetation), thereby indirectly reducing the loss and alteration of soils (Xxxxxxxxxx 1984; Muhs and Xxxxxxxx 1995, 2001; NRCS 2020). Under the Proposed Action, all Participants would be required to avoid High and Intermediate Suitability Habitat of the Covered Species for all Covered Activities subject to a set of sector-specific exceptions, and shift their operations out of DSL Habitat to areas categorized as Low Suitability Habitat or to areas with existing development (e.g., where oil well pad densities are greater than 13 xxxxx pads/mi2). Dynamic dunelands, which are more susceptible to wind erosion from vegetation removal, are found in the High and Intermediate Suitability Habitat. By shifting activities away from dunelands to relatively flatter and more stable areas less susceptible to wind erosion (Machenberg 1984; Muhs and Xxxxxxxx 1995, 2001; NRCS 2020), soil losses and alterations would be reduced. Conservation Measures would be implemented for Covered Activities related to sand mining including limiting annual surface disturbance to 60 acres, total disturbance per mine on ...
Alternative A – Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, groundwater would be used for Covered Activities occurring in the Covered Area. Conservation Measures would be implemented to minimize groundwater use and provide site- specific data on water use through the development and implementation of water use and minimization plans. Each plan includes monitoring and annual performance reports that would be submitted by the Participants to the Administrator. Participants of the sand mining industry would also complete a TWDB water use survey containing information on groundwater drawn by aquifer. Other Conservation Measures associated with surface landscape management (as discussed in Section 4.4 and 4.5) would also indirectly reduce impacts from the Covered Activities related to groundwater flows, infiltration, and recharge. Given the limitations of groundwater use data within and beyond the Covered Area, the impacts of these Conservation Measures on the groundwater supply cannot be quantitatively analyzed. While the development and implementation of site-specific water use and minimization plans would reduce groundwater usage in the Covered Area, these benefits, which would occur over the long-term, are not anticipated to be detectable or perceptible. Similarly, these benefits to dune-stabilizing vegetation are not anticipated to be detectible or perceptible. Therefore, the Proposed Action would result in negligible changes to groundwater resources within the Covered Area.
Alternative A – Proposed Action. As part of the Proposed Action, the Conservation Measures (see Section 2.1.4) would avoid or minimize surface disturbances within the Covered Area. Setting a limit on development activities within the Covered Area would minimize the loss of habitat present in the Covered Area by limiting and offsetting surface disturbance, thus benefitting the local wildlife that utilize habitat that overlaps DSL habitat. By relocating or concentrating development activities outside of DSL habitat within the Covered Area and onto adjacent lands where wildlife may occupy suitable habitat, some habitats may be disturbed or changed and some species may be displaced or avoid the area. Displacement of wildlife species individuals would potentially force the wildlife into competition with residents of adjacent habitat for available resources. This displacement could produce short-term changes in localized species composition (Xxxxx and Xxxx 1981) or lead to reduced physical condition and health of affected individuals. Habitat disturbance or changes would be reduced and minimized in the Covered Area under the Proposed Action, thereby preserving other species habitat in areas that overlap DSL habitat. However, activities in adjacent areas may lead to habitat disturbance or change, or displacement, avoidance, injury or mortality of wildlife species. It is anticipated that wildlife would avoid disturbed areas during construction or other noise-producing activities. Once activities have ceased, wildlife would return to the area, if habitat for these species still exists. As a result, the Proposed Action would result in short- and long-term due to modification of the landscape and vegetation, minor to moderate impacts; and minor, short- to long-term benefits to wildlife, depending on the participation level and amount of impact avoidance and minimization implemented.
Alternative A – Proposed Action. No Federally listed or proposed species (other than the Covered Species) have the potential to be present in the Covered Area, and there is no designated or proposed critical habitat in the Covered Area. As a result, the Proposed Action would have no impact and no effect on these resources. Of the State-listed, proposed, and candidate species, the Texas State-listed Dune Umbrella Sedge and Texas Horned Lizard were identified to have potential presence within the Covered Area (see Chapter 3.6). Conservation Measures implemented under the Proposed Action would avoid or minimize new development and surface disturbances within the Covered Area. By limiting new surface disturbances within the Covered Area, changes would be avoided or minimized to potential habitat for any Dune Umbrella Sedge plants or Texas Horned Lizards. Setting a cap on development activities within the Covered Area would encourage the preservation of open grassland habitats utilized by the Texas Horned Lizard and limit disturbances to blowouts within sand dunes used by the Dune Umbrella Sedge. However, by limiting surface disturbances within the Covered Area, and by moving development activities out of DSL habitat within the Covered Area, this may move activities into adjacent suitable habitat. Any potential impacts to habitats of State-listed, proposed, and candidate species would be minimized or avoided in compliance with Texas State law. As a result, the Proposed Action would have no impact on listed, proposed, or candidate species, and avoidance or limits to surface disturbance as part of Conservation Measures would provide short- to long-term benefits to these species by minimizing the threat of habitat loss. Given these findings, the Proposed Action would not result in significant impacts to non-covered listed, proposed, or candidate species.
Alternative A – Proposed Action. Land ownership would not change as a result of the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, development associated with certain Covered Activities would be restricted or precluded in areas of High and Intermediate Suitability DSL Habitat, subject to certain exceptions, as part of implemented Conservation Measures. Overall new surface disturbance by sand mining operations of DSL Habitat in the Covered Area would be limited to 60 acres annually and would not exceed 1,380 acres over the duration of Permit and 2020 DSL CCAA term. The use of existing developed areas and ROW for developing infrastructure would be encouraged, and the footprint for development would be minimized. Utilizing existing developed areas would also allow more efficiencies during development activities because less new area and infrastructure would need to be developed. As a result, restrictions or changes to existing land uses would be temporary and localized. Any temporary restrictions or closures to land uses, including recreation opportunities, would be coordinated as appropriate with those landowners and applicable management agencies. Where new development is necessary to accommodate permanent infrastructure, the Participants would comply with existing zoning regulations and applicable land use plans and avoid, to the extent possible, any permanent conversion of existing land uses. Where permanent conversion of existing land uses is necessary, the Proposed Action would comply with permit allowances and applicable land use policies or regulations. Temporary and permanent changes to land use may result in delays for obtaining permits or leases due to additional agency involvement and expanded necessary approvals. Therefore, under the Proposed Action, impacts on land use and ownership would be short- to long-term and minor to moderate. Non-Participant mineral development on Enrolled Properties, or “stratification,” could lead to the diminishment of benefits or improvements of Conservation Measures implemented under the 2020 DSL CCAA. However, as part of the 2020 DSL CCAA, non-Participants sharing access to the same surface estate as Participants would be encouraged to become Participants. For severed properties, surface and mineral estate owners would collaborate to develop approaches to development that avoid, minimize, or offset impacts from development. These approaches may include cooperation to minimize new disturbances through the use of an existing or shared right-of-way or...
Alternative A – Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would entail avoidance, minimization, and offset of disturbance of the Covered Area, and by extension, minimization of harm to Covered Species via the voluntary implementation of Conservation Measures (see Section 2.1.4). The issuance of the Permit and approval of a CCAA constitutes an undertaking using the definition found in 36 CFR 800.16(y) of the implementing regulations of the NHPA. However, the undertaking is limited to the evaluation of the efficacy, legality, suitability of the CCAA and permitting of the incidental take of the Covered Species, should the species be listed in the future. The underlying commercial, industrial and other sector activities, including oil and gas development and sand mining are not authorized by the Proposed Action and do not require a federal approval. Additionally, no historic structures or cemeteries have been recorded in the vicinity, and no NRHP individual properties or districts have been recorded within, or within 1 mile of, the Covered Area. Finally, the Covered Species is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, as it is not a site, building, structure, or object (54 USC 300308). Thus, the Proposed Action has no potential to affect historic properties. Given these findings, the Proposed Action will have no effect on cultural resources.
Alternative A – Proposed Action. Lower Padre Canyon Detention Basin - Access within Tuacahn Wash The Proposed Action is for the USFWS to approve Snow Canyon State Parks in granting a ROW easement to Ivins City in conjunction with the construction of a detention basin and dam on Ivins City property. Under Alternative A, the proposed site for construction of the dam and main detention basin would occur in the Reserve on property owned by Ivins City. The site is 300 feet east of Tuacahn Drive, 2,500 feet south of the Tuacahn High School/Center for the Arts (400 feet south of Tuacahn property), and 3,000 feet north of the subdivisions (see Figure 2, Photo 1), in the SW¼ of Section 28, T41S R16W. The total construction cost for Alternative A would be approximately $760,000 (refer to Appendix E for cost breakdown).
