/. 



CHAKl KR M Al.TI KNA nVKS 



delisting is postponed because of delays in state planning efforts or because prolonged litigation 

 blocked transfer of full authority to Montana. This alternative represents an interim step. FWP 

 would be working to accomplish delisting with USFWS, but FWP would begin managing the 

 Montana gray wolf population while the delisting process is completed. Once delisted, FWP 

 would implement the remaining elements of Alternative 2 (Updated Council) that had previously 

 been prohibited by federal regulations. 



Alternatives Identified during Scoping, but not Considered Further 



No gray wolf recovery program in the northern Rockies or individual wolves present in Montana. 



This alternative was not considered because it is outside the sideboards established by the Northern 

 Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan, which calls for a viable, secure wolf population in the states of 

 Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. The question of whether or not wolves will be present in Montana has 

 been addressed through various legal challenges to the federal recovery program. All litigation has been 

 resolved and wolves will remain. Although there have been previous reports of gray wolves in Montana, 

 wolves began dispersing into northwestern Montana from Canada in the early 1980s and were 

 reintroduced to YNP and central Idaho in the mid 1990s. Removing all wolves from Montana is neither 

 feasible nor legal. Relevant alternatives for this EIS must address the question of how gray wolves in 

 Montana will be managed in the future. 



2. Delist the gray wolf from ESA, but USFWS retains management responsibility. 



The U.S. Congress charges USFWS with the recovery of listed species, and ESA directs USFWS to delist 

 species once recovery criteria are met. There is no legal mechanism or precedent for USFWS to manage 

 a delisted species. Indeed, the opposite is true. The respective state fish and wildlife agencies are the 

 traditional and appropriate entity to manage non-imperiled species-as resident, native wildlife according 

 to state laws and regulations. For USFWS to continue managing the gray wolf in Montana, the species 

 would need to remain listed under ESA, even after recovery criteria are met. This would conflict with 

 USFWS 's authority and the legal requirements of ESA to delist species once recovery goals are met. 



3. Changes in how USFWS implements the recovery program in Montana. A related alternative could 

 involve changes to ESA. 



The states, through their respective fish and wildlife agencies, are encouraged to conserve and manage 

 species so that federal ESA protections are not warranted. However, once a species is listed under ESA, 

 the U.S. Congress invests almost sole authority to oversee recovery efforts with USFWS and their 

 cooperating partners due to the national value associated with recovering rare and imperiled species. In 

 1995, FWP decided that it would not formally participate as a cooperator in shaping and implementing 

 the recovery program. However, FWP has participated informally through consultation and information 

 exchange since then. FWP continues to informally consult with USFWS, but does not have any decision- 

 making authority in the federal program currently. Modification of ESA is a separate issue and well 

 beyond the scope of the proposed action. 



Description of the Alternatives Considered 



Alternative 1. No Action 



Under this alternative, Montana does not prepare or adopt a state conservation and management plan. 

 Because the state would not develop a plan, USFWS would not propose to delist the gray wolf. 



65 



