CHAFrcR 4: KNVIR{>NMENTAr> CONSEQliENCIuS 



population grows more slowly than predicted. The population could be higher if the management tools 

 that FWP could implement didn't slow population growth to the extent assumed for this EIS. This 

 population would be secure and still provide the maximum management fiexibility allowed under federal 

 regulations. FWP would not expect the population to drop unexpectedly close to the relisting level, but it 

 will fluctuate through time. 



Wolf distribution would be the same as for Alternative 2 (Updated Council). 



Wolf Habitat, Connectivity, and Land Management. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). 



Monitoring. Same as Alternative 2(Updated Council). 



Prey Populations. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). However, in circumstances where reliable 

 data indicate that wolves are disproportionately affecting a local prey population, FWP would not be able 

 to adjust the wolf-prey balance using regulated wolf harvest. Instead, FWP could only use wolf 

 relocation techniques and adjust human hunter opportunity for ungulates to address the situation. 



Other Wildlife. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). 



Human Environment 



Social Factors. In most respects, the consequences of this alternative would be similar to Alternative 2 

 (Updated Council). One important difference is that the gray wolf would still be listed under ESA. FWP 

 can still implement an adaptive program and respond to the needs of people and wolves in most ways 

 desired. However, FWP could not implement all the management tools that are included in Alternative 2 

 (Updated Council). 



This alternative could be a reasonable interim step in the event that wolf delisting is delayed for an 

 extended period of time. It provides a mechanism for FWP to carry out day to day wolf management. 

 Because it is adaptive, it would allow FWP to meet the differing management expectations and needs that 

 exist across the spectrum of social values. For some citizens, FWP may fulfill these needs and 

 expectations more effectively. Other citizens may not agree, believing that federal authorities alone 

 should manage species listed under ESA. Still others may believe the federal government should manage 

 wolves in perpetuity. This alternative would call on the public to accept the legitimacy of FWP to 

 manage gray wolves while the species is still officially listed under ESA. 



Public Outreach. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). Some additional effort would be required 

 initially to inform the public about the rules and regulations, as FWP would be assuming management 

 authority of a listed species from USFWS. 



Human Safety. Same as Alternative I (No Action). FWP would implement the federal regulations 

 pertaining to defense of human life. Under federal regulations, wolves could be harassed or killed in 

 defense of human life in the presence of an immediate and direct threat. Federal regulations would also 

 permit harassment or lethal control of a wolf if it is a demonstrable, but not immediate threat to human 

 life or safety. There is a 24-hour reporting requirement. 



Private Property. Same as Alternative 2 (Updated Council). 



143 



