Alternative B – No Action. Under the No Action Alternative the proposed UCFRB CREP Agreement would not be implemented. Lands that would have been eligible for enrollment would remain in agricultural production. The continued use of land for agriculture or the conversion of land to another type of agricultural production would reduce vegetative diversity, increasing susceptibility to invasion by exotic species, thus reducing wildlife habitat. The runoff of agricultural chemicals, animal wastes, and sediment would continue to degrade water quality, threatening aquatic biodiversity.
Alternative B – No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the 2020 DSL CCAA would not be implemented, and the Service would not issue a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Permit to the Applicant for activities covered in the 2020 DSL CCAA. Activities resulting in the disturbance of DSL Habitat are ongoing and would continue on private property across the Covered Area without being subject to the Conservation Measures required under the 2020 DSL CCAA. This includes ongoing commercial, industrial and other activities such as oil and gas development and sand mining in DSL habitat, which generally do not require approvals from the Service or other Federal agencies to be conducted on private property in West Texas. Because there is no “close causal relationship” between the proposed action and these activities, which do not require the Service’s approval, impacts associated with the underlying effects of these activities are not direct or indirect effects of the proposed action or consequences of the proposed action. See, e.g.,
Alternative B – No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, farming practices in the proposed UCFRB CREP area would continue. Though the continued use of these previously disturbed areas as pasture and rangeland is not expected to impact archaeological resources, a change in farming practices that would disturb previously undisturbed areas could result in impacts to known or unknown archaeological resources.
Alternative B – No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the CPs described in Section 2.1 would not be implemented. The use of land for agriculture or conversion of lands to other types of agricultural production could result in the continued degradation of water quality from fertilizers and agricultural chemicals. No reduction in the decline of the groundwater level in the surficial aquifers would occur.
Alternative B – No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the State of Montana’s UCFRB CREP Agreement would not be implemented. No land would be enrolled in CREP and the goals of CREP would not be met. Though eligible lands could be enrolled in CRP or other conservation programs, the benefits of CREP – targeting land in Montana’s watersheds for enrollment, providing financial incentives to producers, using non-Federal financial resources – would not be realized. This alternative does not satisfy purpose and need but will be carried forward in the analysis to serve as a baseline against which the impacts of the Preferred Alternative can be assessed.
Alternative B – No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, farming practices in the UCFRB CREP area would continue. Though the continued use of these previously disturbed areas as pasture and rangeland is not expected to impact TCPs, a change in farming practices that would disturb previously undisturbed areas could result in impacts to TCPs.
Alternative B – No Action. Under Alternative B, the No Action Alternative, the CPs described in Section 2.1 would not be implemented and no change to existing wetland acreage would occur. Continued runoff of agricultural chemicals, erosion of soils, and the impacts of these to wetlands would be expected if the No Action alternative were implemented.
Alternative B – No Action. Implementation of Alternative B would have not change existing floodplains. Under this alternative, the CPs described in Section 2.1 that would have beneficial effects on floodplain conditions would not be implemented.
Alternative B – No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the CPs would not be implemented and no change to existing soil conditions would not occur. Erosion of soils by wind and water is expected to continue on lands that remain in production.
Alternative B – No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the UCFRB CREP Agreement would not be implemented within the ROI. Socioeconomic conditions would continue to follow the trends associated with the ROI and southwestern Montana and surrounding States. Farmland would continue to be sold for development rights; unique and prime farmland areas would continue to be targeted for purchase of conservation easements.
