Benefits from Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Sample Clauses

Benefits from Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation. To achieve the habitat goals and the ultimate population goal, the CCAA promotes the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts of land by oil and gas development within habitat for the LEPC, with an emphasis on focal areas, connectivity zones, and high quality habitat. By creating incentives to locate new developments outside of focal areas, connectivity zones, and high quality habitat, direct and indirect impacts to LEPCs and their habitat will be greatly reduced. The CCAA encourages avoidance of focal areas, connectivity zones, and other high-quality habitat by assigning higher mitigation fees to these areas. Additionally, the CCAA encourages co-location of new oil and gas development near existing development by allowing participants to reduce mitigation fees by siting development within the impacted area associated with existing infrastructure. Similarly, Conservation Measures encourage the use of common rights-of-way for infrastructure and the use of directional drilling techniques and clustering of facilities where feasible to minimize impacts of new development to LEPC habitat. The CCAA also requires Conservation Measures that minimize impacts from development to the LEPC when complete avoidance of impacts is not possible. For example, the CCAA includes a seasonal timing restriction limiting oil and gas construction and maintenance activities in areas within 1.25 miles of leks to avoid potential disturbance of LEPCs and, where such activities cannot be avoided, the CCAA includes a daily timing restriction to benefit LEPCs by reducing indirect disturbance during the lekking, nesting and brooding seasons. Additional measures, such as the burying of distribution lines, will further minimize indirect impacts of new oil and gas development to LEPC. In situations when impacts occur which cannot be fully addressed through avoidance and minimization procedures, this CCAA employs a mitigation framework that is based on the RWP and described in Appendix A. The RWP mitigation framework is a biologically based system that incorporates space, time and habitat quality to quantify both the impacts to habitat (impact units) and improvements to habitat (offset and remediation units). The mitigation framework does not evaluate impacts based merely on the amount of surface disturbance that results from development; the mitigation framework identifies a buffer surrounding infrastructure, the size of which varies by infrastructure type. The mitigation framework...
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Benefits from Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

  • Resource Adequacy Benefits 3.4.1.During the Delivery Term, Seller grants, pledges, assigns and otherwise commits to Buyer all of the Contract Capacity, including Capacity Attributes, if any, from the Project to enable Buyer to meet its Resource Adequacy or successor program requirements, as the CPUC, CAISO or other regional entity may prescribe (“Resource Adequacy Requirements”).

  • Rights Protection Mechanisms and Abuse Mitigation ­‐ Registry Operator commits to implementing and performing the following protections for the TLD:

  • Grantee Responsibility for System Agency’s Termination Costs If the System Agency terminates the Grant Agreement for cause, the Grantee shall be responsible to the System Agency for all costs incurred by the System Agency and the State of Texas to replace the Grantee. These costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of procuring a substitute grantee and the cost of any claim or litigation attributable to Xxxxxxx’s failure to perform any work in accordance with the terms of the Grant Agreement.

  • Workplace Safety Insurance Benefits (WSIB) Top Up Benefits If the employee is in a class of employees that, on August 31, 2012, was entitled to use unused sick leave credits for the purpose of topping up benefits received under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997;

  • CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR SYSTEM AGENCY’S TERMINATION COSTS If the System Agency terminates the Contract for cause, the Contractor shall be responsible to the System Agency for all costs incurred by the System Agency and the State of Texas to replace the Contractor. These costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of procuring a substitute vendor and the cost of any claim or litigation attributable to Contractor’s failure to perform any Work in accordance with the terms of the Contract.

  • Mitigation of Harmful Effects To mitigate, to the extent practicable, any harmful effect 8 that is known to CONTRACTOR of a use or disclosure of DHCS PI or PII by CONTRACTOR or its 9 subcontractors in violation of this Personal Information Privacy and Security Contract.

  • Transition from Existing Evaluation System A) The parties may agree that 50% of more of Educators in the district will be evaluated under the new procedures at the outset of this Agreement, and 50% or fewer will be evaluated under the former evaluation procedures for the first year of implementation of the new procedures in this Agreement.

  • Program Benefits Under the Probation Status, the Participating Contractor will be eligible for all contractor incentives, its customers will have access to financing offered through the Program, and income- eligible households will be eligible to receive Program incentives.

  • PERFORMING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITY FOR SYSTEM AGENCY’S TERMINATION COSTS If the System Agency terminates the Contract for cause, the Performing Agency shall be responsible to the System Agency for all costs incurred by the System Agency and the State of Texas to replace the Performing Agency. These costs include, but are not limited to, the costs of procuring a substitute vendor and the cost of any claim or litigation attributable to Performing Agency’s failure to perform any Work in accordance with the terms of the Contract.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.