Proposed Action: The Proposed Action should result in no impact on public 

 services or utilities. The proposed action will have no impact on local schools 

 and should not require any other government services (outside of FWP) except 

 during the development of a weed management plan. The proposed project will 

 result in increased management responsibility for FWP; this could be 

 translated into service contracts or employment. The costs may be shared 

 between the Riparian/ Wetland Conservation Program and FWP wildlife 

 management area programs. 



Alternative 1 (Conservation Easement): Most of the impacts would be the 

 same as the Proposed Action. There would be no expected impact to 

 government services, schools, or public utilities. The management costs for 

 FWP may be less under a conservation easement which requires annual 

 monitoring and coordination with the landowner than with purchase which 

 requires design and implementation of management plans. 



No Action: Minimal impacts expected to government services, schools, or 

 public utilities due to low probability of development occurring within the 

 main channel of the Flathead River. 



Existing and Future Land Uses/ Industrial & Agricultural Production/ 

 Housing 



Proposed Action: No impact to existing land uses expected as existing low 

 intensity recreational land uses would not change. Because of its current 

 location in the middle of the Flathead mainstem, the site is not generally suited 

 for agricultural crops, industrial (other than sand and gravel), residential, or 

 commercial activities (other than recreation based). Industrial activities such as 

 sand and gravel operations or commercial activities such as private hunting 

 preserve would be precluded by public ownership. Land use impacts associated 

 with fee-title acquisitions under the Riparian/Wetland Conservation Program 

 have also been disclosed in the Riparian/Wetland Programmatic BIS issued 

 September 1995 by FWP. 



Alternative 1 (Conservation Easement): Existing low intensity recreational 

 land use would not change; however, it may be more limited and/or regulated 

 depending on future landowner desires. Other extractive land uses such as sand 

 and gravel, timber or agriculture would be precluded. This alternative would 

 not preclude a private or commercial hunting preserve. 



No Action: Although there is a low probability of residential, industrial, or 

 commercial development occurring on an island in the main channel of the 

 Flathead River, these land uses would not be precluded under the no action 

 alternative. Potential land uses, although limited include sand and gravel 



10 



