to address some human/wildlife conflicts and providing technical services at the local level might A/.ter- 

 more effectively resolve conflicts on the urban interface. 



Issue: Access /Effects on Biodiversity 



Overall Access-FWP would expect the effects of overall access under this alternative to remain H 



imchanged from alternative 1. Impacts to biodiversity would be in proportion to any change in total 

 access. A small increase in hunter access could reduce biodiversity although FWP expects these 

 impacts to be negligible. 



Block Management Policy-This alternative would increase the acreage of private land accessible to 

 recreationists from that anticipated under alternative 1 . The impacts to biodiversity, such as the effect 

 of htmting on sex and age structure of some game species, would remain negligible as under 

 alternative 1. 



Access Through Lease. Purchase, or Easement-?Totecting wildlife habitat through land acquisitions 

 by easement, purchase, or lease would favor conservation of biodiversity on that land under all 

 alternatives. Protection might vary among alternatives depending on the extent to which FWP could 

 disperse overall recreational use and hunter harvest across a broader base of land ownership. 



Interaction with Other Agencies-ln responding to other agencies' requests for comment on motorized 

 access and other land use proposals on public land, FWP would offer recommendations for protecting 

 habitats that consider cumulative effects of agency decisions. If implemented, such recommendations 

 would favor conservation of biodiversity. Any action relative to FWP's recommendations would be 

 at the discretion of the requesting agency. 



Closure of Large Private Blocks-FV/P's response to closures of private land under this alternative >. 

 would change very little from alternative 1 . Any impacts to biodiversity would result from effects of 

 hunter access on sex and age structure of local game populations. If this alternative increased overall 

 access from alternative 1 by discouraging closure of private land and improving distribution of 

 hunters and harvest, the benefit to biodiversity could slightly increase. 



Access Fees-UndcT this alternative, FWP would continue to apply its habitat and access programs, 

 game damage assistance, and a landowner preference system to discourage landowners from charging 

 access fees. Increasing access to private land could benefit conservation of biodiversity by dispersing 

 himters and harvest and reduce local disturbance to wildlife and damage to vegetation that would 

 occur if the same number of recreationists were confined to a smaller land base. 



Issue: Recreational Opportunity /Effects on Biodiversity 



Providing Hunter Opportunities-¥WP regulations can affect sex and age structure of harvestable 

 wildlife through hunting, but no effects on biodiversity have been documented. Effects on wildlife 

 populations from granting access exemptions to persons v^th disabilities or landowner preference for 



22-: 



