CHAKl'KR 3: AI.TKKNATIVES 



control and that, in the absence of a more proactive program, conflicts would become increasingly severe 

 and difficult to resolve. 



Administration, Delisting. Under this alternative, the gray wolf would still be federally listed and 

 classified as "experimental, non-essential" in the Yellowstone and Idaho recovery areas. In the 

 Northwestern Montana Recovery Area, the gray wolf is currently classified as "endangered. " However, 

 in 2000, USFWS proposed new rules that would downlist wolves in the Northwestern Montana recovery 

 area from "endangered" to "threatened." The new mles, if finalized, would provide for greater agency 

 management flexibility, particularly in resolving conflicts. If the final rule was similar to the original 

 proposal, FWP could implement most elements of this alternative. Federal rules and regulations would 

 apply as they were published, either in the experimental areas or the Northwestern Montana Recovery 

 Area. There are few differences between the federal rules applicable to each area, but any differences 

 could be addressed in the FWP/USFWS agreement so that management would be more consistent across 

 Montana. 



Prey Populations. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council), with one exception. FWP would still 

 integrate the wolf management with ungulate management as described for Alternative 2. However, 

 FWP's wolf management tools would be limited to relocafion if reliable data indicate that a local prey 

 population is significantly impacted by wolf predation in conjunction with other environmental factors. 

 Regulated harvest could not be used to reduce pack size while wolves are still listed under ESA. 



Montana's final plan will need to describe what the adverse impacts are, how they will be measured, and 

 identify possible mitigation measures. Before FWP initiates capture and relocation efforts, USFWS 

 would need to approve the state's final plan and determine that such actions will not inhibit wolf 

 population growth toward recovery. USFWS may itself, in cooperation with FWP, capture and relocate 

 wolves. FWP's prey monitoring efforts are an important aspect to assessing wolf predation effects on 

 ungulate populations. Hunter opportunity for ungulates will still fluctuate according to ungulate 

 population status - as it is influenced by weather, predation, previous hunter success, etc. 



Funding. Funding to implement this alternative would be split between Montana and the federal 

 government because the species would still be listed and Montana lacks a significant source of funding 

 dedicated to ESA-listed species. Section 6 of ESA provides for 90% of the funding, but Montana would 

 need to fund the remaining 10%. This 90-10 cost share is also predicated on the condition that Montana 

 continues to coordinate with the other states to recover and delist the gray wolf, which most certainly will 

 be the ca.se. FWP would fund its share either through private sources or by state license revenue. 

 Although regulated harvest of wolves is not allowed, this alternative would allow wolves to be relocated 

 if a localized ungulate populafion were significantly impacted. In anticipation of delisting, FWP would 

 still be trying to secure funding for the day when Montana assumes full management authority. 



The estimated FWP budget for this alternative is $699,046. The costs of a compensation program would 

 be in addition to that amount. Compared to Alternative 2 (Updated Council), this alternative requires that 

 WS continue to obtain the funding for resolution of wolf-livestock conflicts from federal sources through 

 a combination of Congressional appropriations and USFWS, as is cunently the case. FWP would still 

 direct $50,000 towards increased efforts to minimize the risk of wolf-livestock conflicts and proactive 

 management strategies. 



According to this alternative, the State of Montana intends to find or create an entity to administer a 

 compensation program. This is reflected in the detailed budget presented in Chapter 4, but the funds 

 would not be sourced from FWP funds, matching federal funds, or other state revenue. 



97 



