Montana gray wolf conservation and management plan : draft environmental impact statement

292 Pages·2003·14.1 MB·English

by  Montana. Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

333.959773
^ F2mgw
2003
DRAFT
Environmental
.-^i^j§^^-«*«'*>-«-iii#?
Impact
Statement
Mon
Wolf
anagement
Conservatioii
March 2003
COLLECTION
JATE DOCUMENTS
riAR 2 ^\ 7003
STAVtUdK^RY
MONTANA
59620
HELE^N^A^'mON^^A^a'
ij^i
MONTANASTATELIBRARY
3 0864 1001 8621 5
P.O. Box 200701
MT
Helena, 59620-0701
[phone]
FAX: [phone]
Ref: DOO127-03
March 10, 2003
Dear Interested Party:
This draft environmental impact statement (EIS) has been prepared by Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. The
EIS describes five alternative approaches to conserve and manage Montana's recovered gray wolf
population. It also evaluates the expected environmental consequences ofeach alternative.
In anticipation of the wolf's recovery, former Gov. Marc Racicot appointed the 12-member Wolf
Management Advisory Council to consider a wolf management approach for Montana to follow once the
wolf is delisted. After months of public deliberations over a wide range of issues, the council submitted its
findings to Gov. Judy Martz in 2001. This draft EIS was prepared in response to the council's
recommendations and is in part based on the group's suggested approach to wolf management in Montana.
On behalf of the people of Montana, FWP once again thanks the members of the Wolf Management
Advisory Council for theircommitment to this important wildlife conservation and management effort.
FWP looks forward to hearing from you about this important issue. You can send your written comments to
WolfIssues, FWP, 490 N. Meridian Rd., Kalispell, MT 59901 You can comment on-line by visiting FWP's
.
website at www.fwp.state.mt.us. Click on "Montana Wolf Management" in the Hot Topics box and then
click on the "Comments" link. We also look forward to working with you at one of the following
connmunity work sessions.
March 27: Billings April 8: Missoula April16: Dillon April21 Great Falls
:
April1: Glasgow April14: Bozeman April16: Butte April23: Kalispell, Whitefish
April3: Avon April15: Gardiner April17: Ennis April24: Rexford
Additional information may be obtained from our website www.fwp.state.mt.us or by contacting Carolyn
Sime at 406-751-4586. The public comment period will close May 12, 2003.
Sincerely,
M. JeffHagener
Director

DRAFT
Environmental
Impact
Statement
MonMffllji^ Wolf
Conservation an#iianagenient
Plan
-rcrsaB«o=»~
March 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
LIST OFTABLES
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
CHAPTER PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
1: 1
Introduction
1
Purpose and Need forthe Proposed Action 1
Benefits ofthe Proposed Action 2
Decisions to be Made 2
OtherAgencies that have Jurisdiction orResponsibility 2
Pubhc Involvement Process 3
Issues Identified through Public Scoping and Evaluated in the EIS 5
Issues not Evaluated in the EIS 8
CHAPTER AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
2: 13
A Review ofthe Gray Wolfin Montana 13
History 13
Current Population Status and Distribution 13
Ecology 15
Social and Cultural Values 22
Legal Status and Classification under Montana Statutes 22
FWP
Administration 23
FWP Funding 24
Wildlife Resources 25
Categories ofWildlife Defined in Montana Statutes 25
Wolf-Prey Relationships 26
Wildlife Habitat 30
Plant Species ofSpecial Concern 30
Noxious Weeds 31
Land Management 31
Travel/Access Management 31
Connectivity 31
WolfDen and Rendezvous Sites 32
Economics/Livelihoods 32
Livestock Depredation 32
Big Game Hunting 37
Outfitted Hunting 45
Regional Economics 47
Recreational and Social Values 50
FWP
Fiscal Environment 54
Human Safety 55
Wolf-Human Encounters 56
WolfMonitoring 58
Private Property 59
Hybrids 60
Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resources 61
Physical Environment 61
Air 61
Soil 61
Aquatics, WaterQuality, and Fisheries 61
1
CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED 63
Introduction 63
Alternatives Selected for Analysis 64
Alternatives Identified during Scoping but not Considered in the EIS 65
Description ofthe Alternatives Considered 65
Alternative 1. No Action 65
Implementation ofthis Alternative 66
How Does this Address the Major Issues? 66
Alternative 2. Updated Council, FWP Preferred 69
Implementation ofthis Alternative 69
How Does this Address the MajorIssues? 70
Alternative 3. Additional Wolf 87
Implementation ofthis Alternative 87
How does this Address the Major Issues? 88
Alternative 4. Minimum Wolf 90
Implementation ofthis Alternative 90
How Does this Address the MajorIssues? 90
Alternative 5. Contingency 95
Implementation ofthis Alternative 96
How does this address the major issues? 96
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 107
Introduction 107
Methods Used to Estimate Some ofthe Environmental Consequences 107
WolfNumbers and Distribution 107
Prey Populations and HunterOpportunity 108
Economics 109
Alternative 1. No Action 1 1
Biological Environment 112
Human Environment 1 13
Economics/Livelihoods 114
FWP
Fiscal Impacts 1 19
Administration, Funding, and Legal Status 120
Physical Environment 120
ShortTerm, Long Term, and Cumulative Effects 122
Mitigation 122
Irretrievable Commitments 122
Alternative 2. Updated Council, FWP Preferred 123
Biological Environment 123
Human Environment 125
Economics/Livelihoods 126
FWP Fiscal Impacts 128
Administration, Funding, and Legal Status 129
Physical Environment 130
ShortTerm, Long Term, and Cumulative Effects 130
Mitigation 130
Irretrievable Commitments 131
Alternative 3. Additional Wolf 131
Biological Environment 131
Human Environment 132
Economics/Livelihoods 132
11
FWP
Fiscal Impacts 134
Administration, Funding, and Legal Status 134
Physical Environment 134
Short Term, Long Term, and Cumulative Effects 134
Mitigation 135
Irretrievable Commitments 135
Alternative 4. Minimum Wolf 136
Biological Environment 136
Human Environment 137
Economics/Livelihoods 138
FWP
Fiscal Impacts 139
Administration, Funding, and Legal Status 140
Physical Environment 140
Short Term, Long Term, and Cumulative Effects 140
Mitigation 141
Irretrievable Commitments 142
Alternative 5. Contingency 142
Biological Environment 142
Human Environment 143
Economics/Livelihoods 144
FWP
Fiscal Impacts 144
Administration, Funding, and Legal Status 145
Physical Environment 146
ShortTerm, Long Term, and Cumulative Effects 146
Mitigation 147
Irretrievable Commitments 147
PREPARERS, AGENCIES OR INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE CONSULTED OR
CONTRIBUTED TO THE EIS 153
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
155
BIBLIOGRAPHY
161
APPENDIX 1. MontanaWolfConservation and Management Planning Document.
Draft, Prepared in Response to the WolfManagement Advisory Council, January
2002 171
APPENDIX 2. Species ofConcern in Montana 269
APPENDIX 3. Noxious Weeds ofMontana 275
in
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. The main issues identified through pubhc scoping, spring 2002, and their
frequency 9
Table 2. Six majorecosystems ofMontana based on topography, climate and vegetation 30
Table 3. Cattle and calfinventory, value per head, and death losses in Montana from all
causes 1990-1999 (Montana Agricultural Statistics: October 1999, p. 146,
information on January 33
1.)
Table 4. Annual predator losses (all species combined) and non-predator losses ofsheep
and lambs (numberofhead) in Montana, 1990-1998, (Montana Agricultural
Statistics: October 1999, pp. 150-51) 33
Table 5. Summary ofthe numberofwolf-related complaints received and investigated
by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service Wildlife Services WolfDepredation Control Program in Montana 1997-
2002, according to federal fiscal years (October 1 - September 30) 35
Table 6. Probable wolf-caused losses that were unconfirmed by Wildlife Services during
federal fiscal years 1999-2001 (WS unpubl. data) 37
Table 7. Payment from the Defenders ofWildlife Bailey Wildlife Foundation Wolf
Compensation Trust Fund (rounded to nearest dollar) forconfirmed livestock
losses or injuries caused by wolves, 1987-2001 in the states ofMontana, Idaho,
,
and Wyoming (see www.defenders.org/wolfcomp.html) 38
Table 8. Average numberofmoose permits available in MontanaFish, Wildlife & Parks
Regions 1-5 for 1995-2001 40
Table 9. Summary ofNorthern Yellowstone Elk Herd population and late season harvest
data, 1968-2002. Source: 2002 GardinerLate Elk Hunt Annual Report, Montana
Fish Wildlife and Parks (Table 9) 46
Table 10. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Region 3 elk hunting information, 1990-2001 46
Table 1 1. Outfitter-reported total numberofclients served on hunts for all big game
species in northwestern Montana (Flathead and Lincoln counties) and southwest
Montana (Gallatin, Beaverhead, Sweet Grass, and Madison counties), 1995-
2001. The totals include big game hunting clients served peryearforboth those
clients buying licenses through the outfitter-sponsored license quota and those
buying licenses on theirown (non-sponsored) 47
Table 12. State ofMontana, Output, Employment and Income: 1999. Industry output
is reported in millions of 1999 dollars 49
Table 13. Summary ofexpenditures associated with hunting in Montana by all U.S.
Residents, 1996 50
IV