Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, all Underlying Activities would continue engaging in surface disturbing activities, such as construction, oil well pad development and drilling, sand mining, linear infrastructure construction and operation, local government activities, and agriculture and ranching, within the Covered Area. Voluntary conservation measures would continue under the existing TCP (Service et al. 2011) to avoid and minimize impacts on soils. Participants enrolled in the TCP would limit surface disturbance of soils on up to 2,125 acres. These participants would implement voluntary conservation measures including avoidance of soils suitable for the Covered Species, restoration, rehabilitation and erosion control measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the loss and degradation of soils (Service et al. 2011). Activities conducted by non-participants in the TCP are anticipated to continue at current levels, and surface disturbance within the Covered Area would not be subject to additional conservation measures to minimize or avoid impacts to soils. As a result, up to 34,690 acres may be disturbed over the term of the CCAA, resulting in the loss and alteration of soils from non-participant activities including vegetation clearing, grading, use of heavy machinery, construction of facilities, excavation, mining, application of caliche or other materials onto the surface, and application of herbicide to vegetation. As described in Section 3.3, soils within the Covered Area demonstrate moderate to very high wind erosion potential. Surface disturbance under the No Action Alternative would result in the removal of vegetation that would indirectly subject soils to increased wind erosion, leading to the loss of soils, particularly the fine xxxxx particulates (Xxxxxxxxxx 1984; Muhs and Xxxxxxxx 1995, 2001; NRCS 2020). Industry sectors would not be subject to the implementation of conservation measures to avoid surface disturbance in areas categorized as High and Intermediate Suitability DSL Habitat contained in the 2020 DSL CCAA. Removal of vegetation in dunelands, which are more susceptible to wind erosion from vegetation removal, may result in increases or decreases in acreage of dunes, or these dunes may shift in location across the landscape over short-term and long-term timeframes (Machenberg 1984; Muhs and Xxxxxxxx 1995, 2001; Xxxxxxx et al. 2013). Similar impacts of alteration in geomorphology of the dunes, including those in areas extending beyond the activity area, may occur in the form of pile up of sand near structures or removal of sand during the removal or alteration of vegetation (Machenberg 1984). Winds carrying loose sand may harm adjacent vegetation via abrasion and sandblasting, thereby hindering plant recolonization in disturbed areas (Machenberg 1984). While these changes may occur under either Alternative, the potential for greater dune vegetation disturbance under this Alternative may result in increased erosion. Under the No Action Alternative, impacts to soils would continue at current levels. Surface disturbance from participants enrolled in the TCP would continue but would be limited to up to 2,125 acres. Surface disturbance from non-participants of the TCP would continue to occur without conservation measures to avoid or minimize the loss or alteration of soils. As a result, the No Action Alternative would result in short- to long-term, minor to major widespread impacts as described above and minor short- to long-term, localized benefits due to disturbance limits on TCP participants.
Appears in 2 contracts
Samples: Conservation Agreement, Conservation Agreement
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, all Underlying Activities would continue engaging in surface disturbing activities, such as construction, oil well pad development and drilling, sand mining, linear infrastructure construction and operationindustry, local government activities, and agriculture and ranching, within the Covered Area. Voluntary conservation measures would continue under the existing TCP (Service et al. 2011) to avoid and minimize impacts on soils. Participants enrolled in the TCP would limit surface disturbance of soils on up to 2,125 acres. These participants would implement voluntary conservation measures including avoidance of soils suitable for the Covered Species, restoration, rehabilitation and erosion control measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the loss and degradation of soils (Service et al. 2011). Activities conducted by non-participants in the TCP agricultural activities are anticipated to continue at current levels. The potential impacts to the Covered Species are anticipated to occur in the form of loss, and surface modification, degradation, or fragmentation of DSL habitat. Surface disturbance within the Covered Area that may be located in DSL habitat would not be subject to additional conservation measures to minimize avoid, minimize, or avoid offset potential impacts to soilsthe Covered Species. In particular, there would be no required disturbance limits in areas of High and Intermediate Suitability DSL Habitat. As a result, up to 34,690 acres there may be disturbed over a loss of individuals or nests, or avoidance by individuals from areas where surface development activities are occurring in occupied habitat due to the term of the CCAA, resulting in the loss and alteration of soils from non-participant activities including vegetation clearing, grading, use of heavy machinerymachinery and OHV, construction of facilities, excavation, mining, application of caliche or other materials onto the surfaceseismic activities, and application other survey and exploration efforts associated with development. Conservation, protection, restoration, and reclamation may not occur or may occur at smaller scales relative to the Proposed Action. There would be no specific avoidance of herbicide high and intermediate suitability habitats other than where it overlaps with the TCP habitat definitions. Then it would be subjected to vegetationimpacts from participants under the authorized impacts within the habitat classifications in the TCP. There would be no well density thresholds or limits on sand mining impacts. Therefore, there would be less happenstance conservation of the meta-populations and the four phylogenetic groups in the covered area identified by Xxxx et. al. (2020). So the impacts on species genetic representation, resilience and redundancy would be anticipated to be greater under this alterative. Conservation activities would be implemented at the discretion of the landowner or user at a project-specific scale for entities not enrolled in the TCP. As described in Section 3.3a result, soils within long-term, moderate impacts would occur under the Covered Area demonstrate moderate No Action Alternative, and any short- to very high wind erosion potential. Surface disturbance long- term benefits that would occur under the No Action Alternative would as a result in of the removal of vegetation that would indirectly subject soils to increased wind erosion, leading to the loss of soils, particularly the fine xxxxx particulates (Xxxxxxxxxx 1984; Muhs and Xxxxxxxx 1995, 2001; NRCS 2020). Industry sectors would TCP or conservation activities implemented by individual landowners or users might not be subject to the implementation of conservation measures to avoid surface disturbance in areas categorized as High and Intermediate Suitability DSL Habitat contained in the 2020 DSL CCAA. Removal of vegetation in dunelands, which are more susceptible to wind erosion from vegetation removal, may result in increases or decreases in acreage of dunes, or these dunes may shift in location across the landscape over short-term and long-term timeframes (Machenberg 1984; Muhs and Xxxxxxxx 1995, 2001; Xxxxxxx et al. 2013). Similar impacts of alteration in geomorphology of the dunes, including those in areas extending beyond the activity area, may occur in the form of pile up of sand near structures or removal of sand during the removal or alteration of vegetation (Machenberg 1984). Winds carrying loose sand may harm adjacent vegetation via abrasion and sandblasting, thereby hindering plant recolonization in disturbed areas (Machenberg 1984). While these changes may occur under either Alternative, the potential for greater dune vegetation disturbance under this Alternative may result in increased erosionoffset. Under the No Action Alternative, industries and landowners would operate and manage lands as they currently do with no additional requirements or incentives to minimize their impacts to soils would continue at current levelson the DSL beyond those that currently exist or are voluntarily implemented. Surface disturbance Any beneficial effects or reduction of negative impacts on the DSL that may result from participants enrolled in the TCP would continue but would be limited to up to 2,125 acres. Surface disturbance from non-participants implementation of the TCP 2020 DSL CCAA would continue to not occur without conservation measures to avoid or minimize the loss or alteration of soilsunder this alternative. As a result, the The No Action Alternative would likely result in short- to long-term, minor term moderate to major widespread impacts as described above do to habitat loss and minor fragmentations and impacts on the genetic representation. The No Action Alternative is likely to provide minor, short- to long-term, localized term benefits due to disturbance limits on through the TCP participantsand ongoing land management actions of property owns.
Appears in 2 contracts
Samples: Conservation Agreement, Conservation Agreement
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, all Underlying Activities would continue engaging in surface disturbing activities, such as construction, oil well pad development and drilling, sand mining, linear infrastructure construction and operationindustry, local government activities, and agriculture and ranching, within the Covered Area. Voluntary conservation measures would continue under the existing TCP (Service et al. 2011) to avoid and minimize impacts on soils. Participants enrolled in the TCP would limit surface disturbance of soils on up to 2,125 acres. These participants would implement voluntary conservation measures including avoidance of soils suitable for the Covered Species, restoration, rehabilitation and erosion control measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the loss and degradation of soils (Service et al. 2011). Activities conducted by non-participants in the TCP agricultural activities are anticipated to continue at current levels. The potential impacts to the Covered Species are anticipated to occur in the form of loss, and surface modification, degradation, or fragmentation of DSL habitat. Surface disturbance within the Covered Area that may be located in DSL habitat would not be subject to additional conservation measures or commitments to minimize avoid, minimize, or avoid offset potential impacts to soilsthe Covered Species. In particular, there would be no required disturbance limits in areas of High and Intermediate Suitability DSL Habitat. As a result, up to 34,690 acres there may be disturbed over a loss of individuals or nests, or avoidance by individuals from areas where surface development activities are occurring in occupied habitat due to the term of the CCAA, resulting in the loss and alteration of soils from non-participant activities including vegetation clearing, grading, use of heavy machinerymachinery and OHV, construction of facilities, excavation, mining, application of caliche or other materials onto the surfaceseismic activities, and application other survey and exploration efforts associated with development. Conservation, protection, restoration, and reclamation may not occur or may occur at smaller scales relative to the Proposed Action. If disturbance overlaps with the TCP habitat definitions, then it would be subjected to impacts from participants under the authorized impacts within the habitat classifications in the TCP. There would be no well density thresholds or limits on sand mining impacts. Therefore, there would be less conservation of herbicide to vegetation. As described the meta-populations and the four phylogenetic groups in Section 3.3, soils within the Covered Area demonstrate moderate identified by Xxxx et. al. (2020), and the impacts on species genetic representation, resilience, and redundancy would be anticipated to very high wind erosion potentialbe greater under this alterative. Surface disturbance under Conservation activities would be implemented at the No Action Alternative would result discretion of the landowner or user at a project-specific scale for entities not enrolled in the removal of vegetation that would indirectly subject soils to increased wind erosion, leading to the loss of soils, particularly the fine xxxxx particulates (Xxxxxxxxxx 1984; Muhs and Xxxxxxxx 1995, 2001; NRCS 2020). Industry sectors would not be subject to the implementation of conservation measures to avoid surface disturbance in areas categorized as High and Intermediate Suitability DSL Habitat contained in the 2020 DSL CCAA. Removal of vegetation in dunelands, which are more susceptible to wind erosion from vegetation removal, may result in increases or decreases in acreage of dunes, or these dunes may shift in location across the landscape over short-term and long-term timeframes (Machenberg 1984; Muhs and Xxxxxxxx 1995, 2001; Xxxxxxx et al. 2013). Similar impacts of alteration in geomorphology of the dunes, including those in areas extending beyond the activity area, may occur in the form of pile up of sand near structures or removal of sand during the removal or alteration of vegetation (Machenberg 1984). Winds carrying loose sand may harm adjacent vegetation via abrasion and sandblasting, thereby hindering plant recolonization in disturbed areas (Machenberg 1984). While these changes may occur under either Alternative, the potential for greater dune vegetation disturbance under this Alternative may result in increased erosionTCP. Under the No Action Alternative, industries and landowners would operate and manage lands as they currently do with no additional requirements or incentives to minimize their impacts to soils would continue at current levelson the DSL beyond those that currently exist or are voluntarily implemented. Surface disturbance Any beneficial effects or reduction of negative impacts on the DSL that may result from participants enrolled in the TCP would continue but would be limited to up to 2,125 acres. Surface disturbance from non-participants implementation of the TCP 2020 DSL CCAA would continue to not occur without conservation measures to avoid or minimize the loss or alteration of soilsunder this alternative. As a result, the The No Action Alternative would likely result in short- to long-term, minor term moderate to major widespread impacts as described above associated with habitat loss and minor fragmentation and impacts on genetic representation. The No Action Alternative is likely to provide minor, short- to long-term, localized term benefits due to disturbance limits on through the TCP participantsand ongoing land management actions of property owners.
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: Conservation Agreement
