CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSi:QlJli:NC:i':S 



This is consistent with existing policies that these lands were purchased to benefit all wildlife, but that 

 they be managed with particular attention to wintering big game. 



Wolf Habitat, Connectivity, and Land Management. Connectivity requirements are met because the 

 wolf population should provide an adequate number of dispersers that emigrate to Idaho, Canada, or 

 Wyoming. Furthermore, wolves coming to Montana from these other areas should have a greater chance 

 to join an e.xi.sting pack or locale other dispersers to start a new pack. FWP would continue to participate 

 in technical discussions with land management agencies and the Montana Department of Transportation 

 about habitat connectivity issues for wide ranging carnivore species. Public land management activities, 

 whether logging, grazing, or travel management are not affected by this alternative, although land 

 management agencies may adopt policies or make changes for other management purposes. Land 

 managers may adopt localized area closures around dens or rendezvous sites, particularly within national 

 parks. FWP would continue to work with land management agencies and private landowners on projects 

 to enhance wildlife habitats. 



Monitoring. Through the monitoring program, FWP will ensure that the Montana population is secure 

 and above the recovery goal. It is also an important component of the adaptive management framework 

 so that FWP can evaluate the effects and outcomes of management decisions. This new information will 

 also improve management decisions. The monitoring program will also allow FWP to document wolf 

 activity in new areas as well as the status of existing packs. This in turn, will allow FWP to more closely 

 monitor certain ungulate populations or to coordinate more closely with land managers or private 

 landowners. 



During the first five years of implementation, FWP will monitor the Montana wolf population and 

 tabulate the number of breeding pairs according to the federal recovery definition and the more general 

 definition of social groups (four or more traveling in winter). If the more general definition adequately 

 demonstrates reproduction and the security of Montana's gray wolf population and that the number of 

 breeding pairs in Montana satisfies the legal requirement, FWP will adopt the more general definition. 

 Furthermore, FAVP will reduce monitoring intensity for some packs in remote areas that have a small 

 likelihood of causing confiicts. This would allow personnel to focus more monitoring effort on other 

 packs with a higher probability for conflict. The monitoring budget would also be used more effectively 

 or even be decreased to meet wildlife monitoring needs for other species. 



Monitoring responsibilities for boundary packs would be shared between FWP and the adjacent 

 jurisdiction. Additional administrative time will be required to share information or coordinate field 

 activities. 



Prey Populations. At the regional and statewide scale, prey populations will fluctuate through time due 

 to all causes of mortality (e.g. predation, natural mortality, human hunting, habitat conditions, and 

 weather events) similar to the historical patterns described in Chapter 2 (Existing Environment). At a 

 localized level, prey populations may be more infiuenced by wolf predation, particularly in combination 

 with predation by other large carnivores. Predation pressures may exaggerate a population decline 

 initiated by unfavorable weather events or even slow population recovery, particularly il' human harvest 

 rates of anllerless animals are loo high. Localized prey populations may even stabilize al a smaller level. 

 Wolf predation on small ungulate populations, even if infrequent, may be more intlucnlial on population 

 trend than for larger ungulate populations because predation may remove a greater proportion of the herd. 



Under this alternative, FWP would be able to manage gray wolves and ungulates in an integrated, 

 ecological manner and within the context of other environmental factors. If a local prey population were 

 significantly impacted by wolf predation in conjunction with other environmental factors, FWP would 

 consider reducing wolf pack size. If there were fewer than 15 breeding pairs, relocation would be 



124 



