CHAPTER I: P{iRI>O.SK AND NBI-D TOR ACTION 



4. Comments suggesting changes in state or federal highway design and construction, changes to 

 federal land management practices, grazing management, travel management strategies, road 

 densities, area closures, use of motorized vehicles, creation of more wilderness areas, etc. 



These issues were not analyzed in significant detail because FWP does not have statutory authority 

 over federal land management practices, decisions, or policies. However, FWP already does engage 

 federal land managers during informal consultations to meet shared management objectives and 

 assure habitat integrity for wildlife. Biologists with the Montana Department of Transportation are 

 involved with minimizing impacts to the environment through the design, permitting, and wetland 

 mitigation efforts for highways in Montana. Because habitat fragmentation, particularly for wide- 

 ranging carnivores, is an important issue across a bigger geographic scale, the USPS appointed a 

 national coordinator for wildlife/transportation issues who is located at the USPS Regional Office in 

 Missoula. FWP personnel participate at the technical level, but FWP is not the lead agency for these 

 efforts. 



5. Comments suggesting that delisting the gray wolf in the northern Rockies is premature because the 

 population had not reached the biological recovery criteria. Related comments indicated that the 

 wolf population would continue to warrant the protections of ESA even after reaching the biological 

 recovery goals because of concerns about how western states would manage the population. 



The decision to delist the gray wolf in the northern Rockies rests with USFWS, under the authority 

 granted by the U.S. Congress. USFWS will also determine the adequacy of the regulatory 

 mechanisms and the conservation plans of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to assure that the gray wolf 

 would not need to be relisted in the future. These decisions are not within the statutory authority of 

 the State of Montana. Nonetheless, this EIS will outline the philosophies, management strategies and 

 tools by which Montana proposes to manage a delisted wolf population and maintain its contribution 

 to the northern Rockies population. Upon completion of state planning efforts, USFWS will seek 

 independent scientific peer review to determine the adequacy of the state plans to maintain the 

 recovered population. 



6. Comments addressing the USFWS proposal to reclassify' the gray wolf and adopt new regulations, as 

 published in the Federal Register July 2000. 



USFWS is the agency responsible for determining the classification of species protected by the 

 federal ESA. The reclassification proposal published in the Federal Register in July 2000 pertains to 

 the classification of the gray wolf while the species is still listed and recovery efforts are ongoing. 

 The proposal is not directly relevant to the future conservation and management of a recovered, 

 delisted wolf population in Montana. 



7. Comments addressing ESA, the need to modify it. or the scope of federal authority to recover species; 

 other comments questioned why there was not a public "vote" about recovering wolves in Montana. 



USFWS is responsible for planning and implementing recovery of rare and imperiled species, with 

 cooperative participation by the state wildlife agencies. Actual species recovery proceeds according 

 to provisions of ESA as they are implemented by USFWS and by species recovery plans, not by 

 popular vote. USFWS is legally required to provide opportunities for public comment on its 

 proposed actions and welcomes that public participation. Amending ESA is beyond the scope of this 

 EIS. 



