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 the area was repeated, along with the management alternatives. The fiscal impact of the purchase was the final addition to the assessment before a short conclusion.
In the assessment there were only two alternatives, purchasing the land was the first alternative and the second was to take no action (Vinkey, 2006). These both are fine as actions that can be taken; however, there are organizations that will procure land for conservation purposes. The Safari Club Foundation uses private donations and other procurements to promote conservation and game preserves (Safari, n. d.). The statement that “a conservation easement or lease are not feasible alternatives (Vinkey, 2006)” suggests a lack of options. This seems to be a bias on the part of the author.
The no purchase option in the socio-economic section had suggested that the economic use of the land be on assumption. Also that there were no figures to determine the economic impact; however, if assumptions were made to the economic use there should be at least theoretical figures to develop an economic impact. The tax revenue for the county is also assumed to stay the same; however, if the land was to be developed by a private citizen the value of the land would...