Common use of Alternative B – No Action Alternative Clause in Contracts

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 in enrolling in the TCP would continue at current levels. Surface disturbance from participants enrolled in the TCP would be limited (up to 2,125 acres). Participants in the TCP would implement voluntary conservation measures including avoidance and reestablishment of vegetation. 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, and the overall viability of plant communities may be degraded. As a result, the No Action Alternative would likely result in short- to long-term, minor to moderate impacts and minor short-term, localized benefits due the limited take authorization for the TCP lack participants.

Alternative B – No Action Alternative. ‌ Under the No Action Alternative, all Covered Underlying Activities would continue to engage engaging in surface disturbing activities, such as construction, oil well pad development and drilling, sand mining, linear infrastructure construction, maintenance construction and operation, local government activities, and agriculture and ranching ranching, within the Covered Area. Voluntary conservation measures would continue under the existing TCP (Service et al. 2011) to avoid and minimize impacts on vegetationsoils. Participants enrolled in the TCP would limit surface disturbance of soils on up to 2,125 acres, thereby limiting disturbance or removal of vegetation. These participants would implement voluntary conservation measures including avoidance of areas soils suitable for the Covered Species, restoration, rehabilitation and erosion control measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the loss and degradation of vegetation 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 vegetationsoils. As a result, up to likely more than 34,690 acres may be disturbed over proposed duration of the same 23-year period covered by the CCAA, resulting in the disturbance or removal loss and alteration of vegetation soils from non-participant industrial and commercial 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 4.33.3 above, 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 Machenberg 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 Industry sectors would not be subject to the implementation of conservation measures activities to reduce avoid surface disturbance in areas categorized as High and Intermediate Suitability DSL Habitat contained in the 2020 DSL CCAA, other than that provided by the TCP. Specifically, under the current TCP, there would be no well density thresholds or limits on sand mining. 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 impacts to vegetationfor greater dune vegetation disturbance under this Alternative may result in increased erosion. 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 in enrolling in the TCP 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). Participants in the TCP would implement voluntary conservation measures including avoidance and reestablishment of vegetation. However, surface Surface disturbance from non-participants of the TCP would continue to occur without conservation measures to avoid or minimize the disturbance loss or removal alteration of vegetation, and the overall viability of plant communities may be degradedsoils. As a result, the No Action Alternative would likely result in short- to long-term, minor to moderate impacts major landscape level change as described above and minor short-short- to long- term, localized benefits due the limited take authorization for the to disturbance limits on TCP lack participants.

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 more than 34,690 acres may be disturbed over the same 23-year period as the 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 in enrolling in the TCP would continue at current levels. Surface disturbance from participants enrolled in the TCP would be limited (up to 2,125 acres). Participants in the TCP would implement voluntary conservation measures including avoidance and reestablishment of vegetation. 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, and the overall viability of plant communities may be degraded. As a result, the No Action Alternative would likely result in short- to long-term, minor to moderate major impacts and minor shortshort- to long-term, localized benefits due to the limited take authorization for the TCP lack participantsand conservation under other programs.