access to address game damage might have a small impact on these resources because of increased 

 motorized travel. 



Weed Co/j/ro/~Chemical treatment methods might temporarily affect air quality when chemical 

 particles are suspended in the atmosphere. Accumulation of chemical residues could result from 

 chemical application (Mont. Fish, Wildl. and Parks 1994). Herbicides could affect groundwater 

 through point source discharges (e.g., accidental spills) and might contaminate surface water through 

 runoff. These risks would be the same across all altematives but the magnitude of these effects would 

 depend on the degree to which chemicals were used. 



Biological weed control would not affect air quality. Manual and cultural methods, including 

 mowing and burning, could temporarily increase particulate matter in the air. Soil loss and reduction 

 in site productivity could result from manual control of noxious weeds (Mont. Fish, Wildl. and Parks 

 1994). Over the long term, controlling the spread of noxious weeds could maintain or improve the 

 quality of air, water, and soil by maintaining soil stability. 



Urban Wildlife-No effect. 



Issue: Access /Effects on Recreational Opportunity 



Overall Access— Access activities directed at population management of some wildlife species would 

 continue at the current level. However, this alternative's reliance on expanded I&E efforts to maintain 

 access to public and private land could maintain or increase the acreage available for public recreation 

 from alternative 1 . Increased emphasis on habitat integrity alone might not increase hunter access but 

 might increase the quality of the experience, particularly for viewers. If a new funding source is 

 developed to provide access to private land for nonhunting recreation, opportunities for these 

 activities would increase from altemative 1 . 



Block Management Program— The nimiber of BM/HEP agreements probably would increase at the 

 present rate along with opportunity for hunting on private land. If this altemative' s proposal to 

 develop a source of fimding to provide incentives to private landowners for nonhunting recreation is 

 successfiil, opportunities for the public would increase from altemative 1 . 



Access Through Lease, Purchase, or Easement— This alternative's emphasis on resource protection 

 over access in HM projects might not significantly increase access to land under FWP's control. ■< 



However, such actions might increase quality of recreation over the long term both through increased ' 

 protection of habitat and a stable or increasing addition of land to the program. The degree to which 

 FWP can disperse users through management of acquisitions and cooperative agreements on private 

 land would correspondingly increase quality of recreational opportunity. 



Interaction with Other Agencies-FWP would continue to collaborate with public land managers 

 under this altemative to optimize access on other public land. Response to issues related to travel 

 management and habitat alteration projects would focus on actions by other agencies that potentially 



27 



