Proposed Property Acquisition Blue-Eyed Nellie Wildlife Management Area North Lily Property

1017 Words3 Pages

The environmental assessment (EA), Proposed Property Acquisition Blue-Eyed Nellie Wildlife Management Area North Lily Property, in reference to the NEPA Environmental Assessment Checklist, has the proper parts for a well-written assessment. The purpose and need statement is full of rich content allowing the reader to feel fully versed on the topic. It describes the property in question in detail along with the vegetation and animals populating the area. The ability to partake in the purchase is illustrated through the authority of the Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (MFWP) given by state law (Vinkey, 2006). The overall monetary cost of the purchase was disclosed in the description of the action in the assessment. Alternatives to the proposed action were also given. Also an extensive and informative environmental effects section was developed to strengthen the argument for the purchase. Lastly in the assessment the issue of public involvement was addressed and a statement that an environmental impact statement was not needed.

The management plan for the land combined with previously acquired land was divulged. An introduction to the plan was given including the description of the overall proposed wildlife management area (WMA) (Vinkey, 2006). A goal section listed the objectives for the purchase along with the problems that need to be taken of care and the planned strategies to reach those goals. Monitoring of the WMA was the final part of the given management plan.

The last section of the proposal was the Socio-Economic Assessment North Lily Property Fee Title Acquisition. The socio-economic assessment detailed the law authorizing and purpose of the acquisition. A brief synopsis of the current population and use of th...

... middle of paper ...

...etical or actual need to be used to quantify the impact. The EA and the socio-economic assessment also need not to contradict each other on the county tax levy without the purchase.

The wildlife and vegetation sections of the environmental effect of action need to be partially rewritten. The contradiction about the impact on the bull trout needs to be removed. Presumed development is not a quantifying assessment of impact on the westslope cutthroat trout or the bighorn sheep. The weed control suggested by the management plan needs to be developed more, giving the means of control, and the impacts of said control.

In conclusion the EA is a good start and structurally sound. A few ideas need to be expanded or quantified. The biased language of the author should be toned down. Lastly a couple contradictions need to be rewritten to form continuity in the EA.

Open Document