DR.\n EIS APHKNDIX I 



increasingly managing lands from an ecosystem-level perspective, considering all components and functional 

 relationships. 



Mf^WP manages ungulate populations by balancing natural population fluctuations with public hunting. By 

 definition, MFWP manages ungulate populations with the long-term welfare of the resource as the foundation. By 

 maintaining healthy ungulate populations, MFWP assures that adequate prey will be available to sustain a wolf 

 population. 



In its downlisting proposal, the USFWS (2000) concluded that there were no foreseeable habitat-related threats or 

 reasons to suspect a significant decline in native ungulate populations that could jeopardize a recovered wolf 

 population. MFWP agrees with this conclusion and believes that its comprehensive ungulate program substantiates 

 that finding. 



Travel/Access Management 



The responsibility for managing human access and travel on public lands resides with the administering land 

 management agency, whether state or federal. Human access can be managed by time period (e.g. seasonal 

 closures) or by localized area restrictions. Outside of Yellowstone and Glacier national parks, most federal lands 

 utilized by wolves are administered by the USPS. The USPS manages access and motorized travel to meet 

 management objectives or legal requirements. NPS restricts motorized travel to paved routes only, while foot/horse 

 travel is permitted most places. In some circumstances, even foot travel is restricted due to seasonally imposed 

 closures in areas of concentrated wildlife activity. MFWP closes most of its WMAs to human access during the 

 winter period to prevent disturbance to wintering ungulates. 



Wolves do not demonstrate any particular behavioral aversion to roads. In fact, they readily travel on roads, 

 frequently leaving visible tracks and scat (Singleton 1995). New wolf activity is often confirmed in an area by 

 searching roads for wolf sign. Research in the upper Great Lakes states examined road densities and wolf activity. 

 In those flatter, more homogeneous habitats, wolves existed in higher densities in areas with lower road densities 

 (Mcch et al. 1988, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 1999). It would be difficult to extrapolate those 

 results to our region becau.se of differences in human population densities, habitat characteristics, and land 

 physiography. The underlying concern about road density in the northern Rockies stems from the potential l?r 

 illegal killing (Boyd-Heger 1997, Pletscher et al. 1997). Most researchers agreed that increased road densities 

 reduced wolf survival (see summary in Boyd-Heger 1997). In the mountainous landscapes of the northern Rockies, 

 wolves selected areas that were lower elevation, flatter, and closer to roads (Boyd-Heger 1997). However, an 

 increased probability of human-caused mortality was associated with increased road use by wolves (Boyd-Heger 

 1997). 



Whereas MFWP has and will continue to consult with land management agencies about access and travel 

 management, MFWP has no legal authority to implement access or travel restrictions on land it does not own. 

 Presently, there are no restrictions on road use or road-density on USPS or U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands 

 due solely to the presence of wolves. Upon delisting, MFWP does not anticipate a need to suggest amendments to 

 federal or state travel plans becau.se of wolf activity. MFWP would encourage land management agencies to 

 continue their assessments of habitat security for all wildlife species. Changes in this policy do not appear 

 necessary. Some wolf packs outside national parks have private lands within their home ranges. Land-use or travel 

 restrictions are not necessary for private lands, cither. 



Connectivity 



Connectivity implies that wolves in each of the three states are functionally connected through emigration and 

 immigration events, resulting in the exchange of genetic material between sub-populations. This functional 

 relationship is consistent with the biological intent of the recovery plan and is an underlying prerequisite for 

 successful wolf recovery in the northern Rockies. MFWP supports the continued recognition of functional 

 ecological relationships by land and wildlife management agencies, private landowners, and conservation 

 organizations. 



26 



