CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 



Many new wolf management activities fall within existing duties and responsibilities already carried out 

 by FWP or WS. But, some activities would clearly add to existing responsibilities and workloads. Some 

 wildlife biologists, for example, would have new wolf monitoring responsibilities. Some segments of the 

 public will expect the same intense level of monitoring and wolf control currently carried out by the 

 USFWS and WS. FWP field wardens would now investigate potential illegal wolf mortalities. Other 

 changes for wardens and/or biologists may include: working with landowners to address concerns, 

 handling or referring livestock damage calls, responding to wolf sightings and perceived threats to public 

 safety, increased ungulate monitoring effort, addressing hunter concerns and complaints associated with 

 wolves, and responding to reports of injured or road-killed wolves. The FWP Wildlife Laboratory will 

 experience an increased workload associated with processing wolf carcasses, fulfilling wolf health and 

 disease surveillance responsibilities, and filling educational requests. Existing budget and personnel 

 resources cannot absorb this expansion. 



Because FWP needs supplemental sources of funding to implement this alternative, it would be working 

 to secure the funding while the gray wolf is still listed. FWP will pursue all possible funding sources 

 including, but not limited to public/private foundations, federal or slate appropriations, and other private 

 sources. 



State laws and FWP administrative rules would now guide management and establish the legal 

 framework. The gray wolf would be removed from the state's endangered species list and reclassified as 

 a "species in need of management." FWP would seek state legislation to make the unlawful taking of a 

 gray wolf a misdemeanor and to include the species under the restitution section of MCA 87-1-1 1 1. 

 These changes would allow more effective law enforcement and serve as a greater deterrent to 

 indiscriminant killing. These changes would be consistent with how black bears and mountain lions are 

 treated in Montana statute. 



Physical Environment 



Same as Alternative 1 (No Action). 



Short Term, Long Term, and Cumulative Effects 



During the first five years after delisting, FWP will implement the program but will be overseen by 

 USFWS. Ongoing informal consultation may be required as FWP personnel gain more experience with 

 wolves. The public will also be making that transition as well. Wolf numbers will probably increase and 

 so will wolf distribution. Localized impacts to prey populations, individual outfitters, or individual 

 businesses may also develop in the short term. Hunter opportunity will still continue to fluctuate for a 

 variety of reasons, which may include wolf predation. Livestock losses to wolves will still be 

 documented and increased management costs will still affect individual producers. Over the long term, 

 gray wolves should become more accepted in Montana because the management program is flexible, 

 responsive, and adaptive to people and the wolf population. Conflicted public debate and controversy 

 should decrease because the program is guided by local interests, while still meeting our legal 

 responsibility to maintain a viable population into the future. 



Mitigation 



One benefit of an adaptive management approach is that it allows FWP to manage the Montana wolf 

 population with a fair degree of flexibility to meet different needs and expectations. To that end, many of 

 the management tools within this alternative are designed to mitigate the potential for negati\e impacts of 

 a recovered population while, at the same time, maximizing the benefits to the degree possible in a 



130 



