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 continue to have negative impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species by reducing or degrading available habitat and degrading water quality through the runoff of agricultural chemicals, animal wastes, and sediment, threatening aquatic species.
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, 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 runoff of agricultural chemicals, animal waste, and sediment.
Alternative B – No Action. If the No Action alternative occurs, NGPC would retain ownership and management of the isolated 27.3-acre tract as it currently exists, and BELF would retain ownership of the 15.09-acre tract. Other Alternatives Considered Purchase of the BELF Tract The BELF tract is not approved for disposal by the managing agency and is not on the current BELF disposal schedule. While outright purchase is not viable, BELF can consider a land exchange. Sale of the NGPC Tract NGPC has the authority to sell the tract outright. However, losing acreage without replacement is not NGPC’s preferred alternative if the opportunity to replace the property via an exchange exists. NGPC’s preference would be to maintain ownership of the greatest amount of high quality wildlife habitat in one contiguous tract as possible and, where viable, to open that land for public hunting opportunities. NGPC finds it unacceptable to dispose of any portion of the Xxxxxxx- Xxxxx WMA unless sufficient and adjoining replacement property can be acquired. Consequently, this is not a viable option for further consideration. Selection of the Preferred Alternative Relinquishing the 27.3-acre parcel for the BELF parcel would result in the property within the Xxxxxxx-Xxxxx WMA consisting of one coterminous tract of land. The contiguous nature of the property and clarification of boundaries would result in easier public use and navigation of the land, increased effectiveness of signage, reduction in the potential for public trespass onto adjacent private property, and greater efficiency in the implementation of future habitat management projects. Additionally, XXXX has stated that due to the physical characteristics of the 15.09-acre parcel, which is being offered to NGPC, use of that tract by BELF or by current or potential lessees is not feasible. The exchange would provide BELF the opportunity to own contiguous property which could better facilitate leasing the land for grazing or other allowable uses. Therefore, Alternative A has been selected as the Preferred Alternative. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT NGPC PARCEL Location, Topography, and Soils
Alternative B – No Action. Under the No Action Alternative, the LA CREP II would not be implemented. No land would be enrolled in CREP and the goals of the CREP would not be met. Though eligible lands could be enrolled in CRP or other conservation programs, the benefits of CREP – targeting environmentally sensitive agricultural land in Louisiana’s Coastal Prairie Region for enrollment, providing financial incentives to producers, using non-Federal financial resources – would not be realized. This alternative does not satisfy the 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, 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 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, 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.
