but less under this alternative because of reduced reliance on chemical control and increased reliance 

 on biological control. 



Urban Wildlife— ^y taking an active role in providing information to local decision makers, FWP 

 could increase consideration of wildlife and habitat issues at the local level. This would prevent 

 much of the need for design changes or delays in development, sparing developers lost time and 

 money. FWP's involvement in planning could prevent future economic loss by subdivision residents, 

 adjacent residents, and agricultural producers by considering such things as how the proposed 

 development could influence game damage and lessen the potential for nuisance animals. 



Consideration of wildlife viewing opportimities in local planning could help communities realize 

 increased revenues from wildlife viewers. Increased reliance on other entities to address some 

 human/wildlife conflicts and alternative funding sources to address wildlife issues on the urban 

 interface would shift the burden of paying for these services from hunters and anglers to those 

 receiving the services. 



Issue: Access /Effect on Other Agencies and StafT 



Overall Access— VW? would increase effort from alternative 1 to provide recreational access. The 

 number of groups involved in recreational access under this alternative would expand to include 

 conservation groups, private landowners, and land management agencies. 



Integrating landowner/sportsmen and resource protection issues through expanded enforcement and 

 I«&E efforts would require increased internal coordination. External coordination would emphasize 

 educating landowners and the public about FWP's access programs and availability of land. 

 Conflicting goals between agencies and differing needs among landowners, such as control of access 

 and game populations, would continue to require significant staff time. 



Block Management Policy-FWP's efforts to provide public access through BM/HEP would continue 

 at the present rate of growth. Efforts directed toward providing nonhunting recreational opportunities 

 imder this alternative would expand the number of groups and organizations from alternative 1 vnth 

 which FWP would coordinate to provide public access for both hunting and viewing and would 

 include conservation and land preservation groups besides private landowners, sportsmen's groups, 

 and land management agencies. 



Internal coordination would maintain consistent services and compensation to landowners across the 

 program. 



Access Through Lease, Purchase, or Easement-Maintaimng a high level of commitment to habitat 

 protection and quality of recreation on land under FWP control through dispersal of recreational use 

 might require a small increase in internal and external cooperation and coordination from alternative 

 1. Internally, this would require coordination across administrative lines to identify and work toward 

 statewide wdldlife and recreation objectives. 



