Urban Wildlife—F'WP's effect on biodiversity from a response to urban wildlife issues would be small 

 under any alternative, and the effect would not differ from that under alternative 1 . FWP's influence 

 would be limited to providing information and recommendations to local governments, maintaining 

 public safety, and informing the public how to live with wildlife. 



Issue: Access /EfTects on Air, Soil and Water 



Overall Access—The overall effect on air, water, and soil probably would be minimal. However, 

 minor increases in soil erosion, compaction, and in-stream sedimentation probably would occur in 

 proportion to any expansion of motorized access. 



Block Management Program— Minor increases in soil erosion, compaction, and in-stream ad 



sedimentation would occur in proportion to any increase in total motorized access to private land by 

 recreationists. 



Access Through Lease, Purchase, or Easement— This alternative would increase emphasis on resource 

 protection above what would occur under alternative 1 . Minor decreases in soil erosion, compaction, 

 and in-stream sedimentation might occur with increased restriction of recreational use on land that 

 FWP controls though easement, lease, or purchase. The extent to which FWP can disperse 

 recreational use through HEP enrollments and other cooperative agreements also would reduce 

 adverse impacts to air, soil, and water. 



Interaction with Other Agencies— TWP would respond to public agencies requesting comment on 

 potential impacts of travel management and habitat alteration on wildlife habitat and motorized 

 recreation. A response would focus on actions by other agencies that potentially affect wildlife 

 habitat and wildlife-related recreation but would not obligate the agency to any action. ^^^ 



Closure of Large Private Blocks-FWP could increase access to private land under this alternative 

 through more aggressive application of access initiatives, increasing local involvement in access j- 

 issues, and continuing to provide game damage assistance. Soil erosion, compaction, and in-stream 

 sedimentation could decrease from alternative 1 by dispersing recreational use. V' 



Access Fees— FWP would not expect a net decrease in the quality on air, soil, and water from current ^» 

 levels under any alternative because access fees would not measurably affect numbers of hunters. 

 However, changes in himter distribution resulting from an FWP effort to discourage access fees could 

 locally affect the quality of air, soil, and water. 



Issue: Recreational Opportunity/Effects on Air, Soil and Water . , 



Providing Hunter Opportunities— A very small increase from alternative 1 in soil erosion, 

 compaction, and in-stream sedimentation might occur from granting motorized access exemptions by 

 FWP and private landowners to persons with disabilities imder this alternative. 



25 



