ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYSIS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE aL 



Issue: Access /Effects on Wildlife 



Overall Access— ?W? assists hunters in obtaining access to private land through negotiated access 

 agreements, habitat enhancement projects, and game damage assistance to private landowners. By 

 encouraging access to private land hunters and harvest are distributed over a larger area. 

 Development of a funding source for nonhunting recreation access and increased I&E efforts would 

 increase overall access for wildlife recreation from alternative 1 . Increased administration of 

 recreational access would also result in additional protection of wildlife resources. Concentrations of 

 hunters in highly accessible areas could still result in reductions of local populations. 



Increased access for nonhunting recreation above that of alternative 1 could affect wildlife in a variety fiJ 

 of ways. For example, disturbance of big game on winter ranges by recreationists could increase 

 mortality, or increase the potential for game damage on adjacent private land. However, FWP would 

 expect expanded I&E and enforcement to reduce potential for these impacts. 



Expansion of FWP's access-related actions would not be expected to have long term negative impacts 

 on statewide population levels of harvested species. :«-. 



Block Management Policy—As under altemative 1 , FWP would expect acreage under Block 

 Management/Hunter Enhancement (BM/HEP) agreements to increase over time. This also would 

 increase the distribution of hunters and harvest and affect big game somewhat more than upland game 

 species. Populations of predators could be reduced indirectly through reduction of local prey 

 populations but would not affect populations on a statewide basis. Increased access might increase 

 the potential for taking of nontarget species, including T&E species. The overall effect on predators 

 and other nontarget species would be insignificant statewide because of the small percentage of total 

 acreage enrolled in BM/HEP agreements. Education and enforcement efforts would address this 

 concern. 



Access Through Lease, Purchase, or ^a^emenZ—Recreational access would be examined on a case by 

 case basis imder this altemative. Habitat Montana is a program that by statute emphasizes resource 

 protection over access. Consequently it may result in access restrictions on some land where FWP 

 acquires management of some or all of the resources of that land. Emphasizing resource protection 

 over access in Habitat Montana (HM) projects would reduce vulnerability of wildlife to hunting or ' ^' 

 disturbance by dispersing recreational use and could expand access over the long term. Concentration 

 of recreational use would vary with the level of restrictions established on a case by case basis. '^^' '-'^^'-^ 



Interaction with Other Agencies— Under this altemative, FWP would continue collaborating with 

 public land managers to optimize access on other public land. FWP would continue responding to 

 land use proposals for public land based on local priorities and the long term needs of wildlife, 

 habitat, and public recreational opportunity. A response from FWP could lead other agencies to 



17 



'W 



