Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, industry, local government and 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, 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 avoid, minimize, or offset potential impacts to the Covered Species. In particular, there would be no required disturbance limits in areas of High and Intermediate Suitability DSL Habitat. As a result, there may be a loss of individuals or nests, or avoidance by individuals from areas where surface development activities are occurring in occupied habitat due to the use of heavy machinery and OHV, seismic activities, and 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 high and intermediate suitability habitats other than where it 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 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 a result, long-term, moderate impacts would occur under the No Action Alternative, and any short- to long- term benefits that would occur under the No Action Alternative as a result of the TCP or conservation activities implemented by individual landowners or users might not be offset. 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 on the DSL beyond those that currently exist or are voluntarily implemented. Any beneficial effects or reduction of negative impacts on the DSL that may result from t...
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, all Covered Activities would continue to engage in surface disturbing activities, such as construction, oil well pad development and drilling, sand mining, linear infrastructure construction, maintenance 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 vegetation. Participants enrolled in the TCP would limit surface disturbance of on up to 2,125 acres, thereby limiting disturbance or removal of vegetation. These participants would implement voluntary conservation measures including avoidance of areas suitable for the Covered Species, restoration, rehabilitation and erosion control measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the loss and degradation of vegetation (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 vegetation. As a result, up to 34,690 acres may be disturbed over proposed duration of the CCAA, resulting in the disturbance or removal of vegetation 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 4.3, the removal of vegetation 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). As described in Section 3.4, vegetation within the Covered Area was historically threatened by overgrazing (Xxxxxxxx and Xxxx 1998). Under the No Action Alternative, participants of the TCP would implement conservation measures to minimize impacts to vegetation from grazing, brush management, fence, water facilities and windmill construction and maintenance (Service et al. 2011). However, non- participants in the TCP would not be subject to the implementation of conservation measures activities to reduce potential impacts to vegetation. Under the No Action Alternative, conservation measures are discretionary, and impacts to vegetation from sectors not covered in the TCP or from non-participants not interested i...
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, private, commercial and industrial activities, such as Covered Activities including construction, oil well pad development and drilling, sand mining, linear infrastructure construction, maintenance and operation, agriculture and ranching, and local government activities would continue within the Covered Area without the conservation benefits of the 2020 CCAA. Groundwater conservation for the Ogallala Aquifer would continue to be managed by the Llano Estacado Underground Water Conservation District; groundwater conservation for the Pecos Valley and Dockum Aquifers would continue to be implemented at the discretion of the landowner. Voluntary conservation measures would continue under the existing TCP (Service et al. 2011) to avoid and minimize impacts to surface disturbance would continue; however, there are no conservation measures in the TCP aimed at the reduction of water use or the protection or management of water resources. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would result in fewer voluntary conservation measures for groundwater resources barring any required reporting of water use to the state of Texas, and may lead to more groundwater use within the Covered Area compared to the Proposed Action Alternative.
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Land ownership frequently changes as a result of population and development growth and is expected to continue to change under the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, developers would continue their operations without limitation for purposes of DSL conservation. Development associated with the Covered Activities would not be restricted or precluded by Conservation Measures under the 2020 DSL CCAA. Restrictions to development would occur through other regulatory mechanisms (e.g., permits) and developers may choose to pursue other voluntary conservation programs. The extent and duration of development on new surfaces may result in temporary or permanent and localized or widespread changes or restrictions to land use, depending on the activity. Permanent conversion of existing land uses under the No Action Alternative may occur but would be limited to the extent allowed by the responsible agency and in accordance with 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. As a result, impacts on land use and ownership under the No Action Alternative would be short- to long-term and minor to moderate. Under the No Action Alternative, there would not be the implementation of Conservation Measures that encourage or incentivize non-Participants to become Participants or to cooperate with Participants. As a result, stratification of lands within the Covered Area would continue, and there would be no cooperation between split estate surface and mineral owners or lessees to minimize new disturbances or develop approaches to development that avoid, minimize, or offset impacts from development on severed properties. The benefits provided under the Proposed Action related to addressing stratification issues would not be experienced under the No Action Alternative.
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, voluntary conservation measures would continue under the TCP (Service et al. 2011) and other conservation programs (such as NRCS) to avoid and minimize potential impacts to wildlife habitat. However, surface disturbance by non-participants in these programs within the Covered Area would not be subject to additional conservation measures to minimize or avoid impacts to wildlife habitat. Under the No Action Alternative, conservation measures outside those defined in the TCP are discretionary and impacts to vegetation from sectors not covered in the TCP or other conservation programs, or from non-participants not interested in enrolling in these programs would continue at current levels. Surface disturbance from participants enrolled in the TCP would be limited (up to 2,125 acres). However, surface disturbance from non-participants of the TCP would continue to occur without conservation measures to avoid or minimize the disturbance or removal of vegetation. As a result, the No Action Alternative would result in short- to long-term, minor to moderate impacts similar to the Action Alternative, and minor, short- to long-term, benefits due to the disturbance limits under the TCP for its participants.
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, voluntary conservation measures would continue under the TCP (Service et al. 2011) to avoid and minimize potential impacts to listed, proposed or candidate species (other than the Covered Species). However, surface disturbance by non-participants in the TCP within the Covered Area would not be subject to additional conservation measures to minimize or avoid impacts to the habitat of these species. Under the No Action Alternative, conservation measures outside those defined in the TCP are discretionary and impacts to habitat from sectors not covered in the TCP or from participants not interested in enrolling in the TCP would continue at current levels. Any potential impacts to habitats of State-listed, proposed, and candidate species would be minimized or avoided in compliance with Texas State law. If the Covered Species becomes Federally listed under the ESA and the Applicant and each potential Participant seek individual ITPs, for which DSL Habitat is used as a surrogate for incidental take, mitigation and avoidance measures may be implemented for listed species. However, these would be implemented on a project-by-project basis and only for areas of each project where a reasonable likelihood of take could not be avoided. As a result, the No Action Alternative would result in short- to long-term, minor to moderate impacts and short- to long-term benefits.
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not approve the Permit. 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 B – No Action Alternative. 22 4.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 22
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative the proposed LA CREP II would not be implemented. Lands that would have been eligible for enrollment would remain in agricultural production. The continued use of land for agriculture would increase susceptibility to invasion by exotic species which are adapted to invade highly disturbed environments. Runoff of agricultural chemicals, animal wastes and sediment would also continue to degrade water quality and therefore potentially degrade habitat for native aquatic plants and animals.
Alternative B – No Action Alternative. If the LA CREP II were not implemented lands that could have been enrolled in the program would remain in agricultural production. None of the improvements expected to result from the program would be realized. Agricultural monocultures would remain in place and such homogeneous and highly disturbed habitat would continue to attract a limited number of animal species. The continuation of current agricultural practices is expected to result in runoff of agricultural chemicals and sediment which degrade aquatic habitat by increasing turbidity and contaminants and over-enriching waters, resulting in a reduction in light available to aquatic plants and ultimately less dissolved oxygen available to aquatic animals.
