i:H APTER 4: KNVIRONMKNTAl. CONSEQUENCES 



program before relisting becomes necessary. Reintroducing wolves from Canada or other adjacent states 

 could augment (he Montana population. FWP could also mitigate that impact by modifying specific 

 aspects of how this alternative is implemented. FWP could manage more conservatively or issue fewer 

 permits to private landowners. These same measures would also mitigate for the constraints this 

 alternative places on FWP. 



Irretrievable Commitments 



In the future, wolves will be present in Montana. FWP would make the commitment to maintain the 

 population. That commitment would be irretrievable in the sense that FWP does not intend to default on 

 its legal responsibilities to maintain a viable, but small population. By assuming the lead role for wolf 

 management, FWP would be committing staff and financial resources to fulfill the needs of the program. 

 Those resources would be partially unavailable to other program areas to the extent that responsibilities 

 don't overlap. Some wolves will still kill livestock. Even though wolves are not expected to have a 

 measurable effect on the livestock industry, a few producers could sustain substantial los.ses in a given 

 year. The number of depredations will be small, but irretrievable nonetheless. 



Alternative 5. Contingency 



In order to estimate the environmental consequences. FWP assumed that the proposed reclassification 

 rules proposed by USFWS would be adopted. For compari.son, the environmental consequences of this 

 and the other alternatives are presented in a summary at the end of this chapter (Table 43). 



Biological Environment 



Wolf Management . The consequences would be similar to Alternative 2 (Updated Council). FWT would 

 implement an adaptive program with a 15-breeding pair trigger to move from conservative to liberal tools 

 and vice versa. FWP would have the tlexibility to implement most provisions outlined in Alternative 2, 

 but all FWT management options and decisions would be guided by federal regulations until the gray 

 wolf was fully delisted in the northern Rockies. If the wolf population increa.ses at the low rate of growth, 

 liberal management tools would be available in 2006. If the population grew at the higher rate, liberal 

 tools would be available starting in 2004. 



The proactive provisions of this alternative would be emphasized to a much greater degree than under 

 Alternative I (No Action, USFWS authority). FWP would have more personnel resources from which to 

 draw because personnel are distributed more widely than USFWS personnel. Furthermore, because 

 federal rules are more restrictive about the conditions under which wolves could be harassed or killed, 

 proactive strategies become increasingly more important. Emphasizing proactive strategies earlier on 

 may dampen or avoid future conflicts. Wolves could still be harassed or killed in certain circumstances. 

 Special kill permits will be available to landowners, but the permits would be provisioned according to 

 federal rules. Nonetheless, fewer wolves would probably be harassed or killed under this alternative than 

 for Alternative 2 (Updated Council) because certain provisions of state law allowing defense of property 

 would not be allowed. Defense of property would be guided by federal laws. 



Numbers and Distribution . Between 421 and 1,167 (or 35-95 breeding pairs according to the federal 

 definition) could be present in Montana in 2015 under this alternative. FWP expects the population to be 

 closer to the low end of the range, which is fewer than for Alternative I (No Action), but more than 

 Alternatives 2, 3 and 4. This result could be expected since not all liberal management tools would be 

 available to FWP until delisting is fully complete. It is possible that there would be fewer wolves if the 



142 



