OLYMPIA — In an effort to make the gray wolf’s return to Washington more palatable to ranchers, the state is proposing what may be the most generous compensation package in the West for livestock killed by wolves.

“Wolves need two things,” said Madonna Luers, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife spokeswoman. “They don’t need land-use restrictions. They just need a healthy prey base, and human tolerance. So to build that, we need to reach out to the industry that is most directly impacted by this, and that is the livestock industry,” she said.

The compensation proposal is one of many plans to help wolves recover after a 70-year absence, spelled out in a 249-page draft environmental impact statement released last week.

The state will host meetings in Wenatchee and Okanogan in early November, and the public has until Jan. 8 to comment on any aspect of the proposal before the state develops and adopts a final plan next year.

Four alternatives, including no action, are explored. The state’s proposal is a middle-of-the-road plan compared with two other alternatives — one with a greater emphasis on protection, and one that allows more lethal control when wolves kill livestock or reduce deer and elk herds.

Two wolf packs already live in Washington and monitoring shows they appear to be healthy new residents, said Luers. She said the Lookout Pack — the state’s first confirmed pack living southwest of Twisp — apparently has at least seven members, including a breeding pair, four pups from this year, and one more adult that could have been one of last year’s pups. The Diamond Pack in Pend Oreille County has an estimated five members, including the breeding pair and at least three offspring, Luers said.

The draft plan covers many aspects of wolf recovery, including a few labeled as the most controversial: target numbers for down-listing and delisting endangered wolves, impacts on deer and elk hunting, and how to respond to livestock killed by wolves.

“The preferred alternative has one of the most, if not the most, generous or liberal compensation packages for livestock depredation in the West,” Luers said. It offers twice the value of an animal confirmed to be killed by a wolf on a grazing site of 100 acres or more, and full value on sites less than 100 acres. It also offers full value for animals that are considered “probable depredation” on grazing sites of 100 acres or more, and half the value of the animal for probable kills on sites less than 100 acres.

The proposal defines livestock as cattle, calves, pigs, horses, mules, sheep, lambs, llamas, goats, guarding animals and herding dogs.

“That may not fly in the final analysis,” she said, “but that’s what we are proposing.” The state Legislature will have to fund that plan, which could cost an estimated $4,000 next year, rising to $25,000 in 2015 as the wolf population multiplies.

The wolf’s return also means hunters will face added competition for deer and elk. Luers said if trends in Idaho and Montana hold true here, wolves will only seriously impact deer and elk herds in areas where they’re already in trouble due to habitat problems or other issues. “When you added wolves into the mix, that was like the final straw,” she said.

But in general, populations stay strong, Luers said. But hunters will likely see changes in the way deer, elk and moose herds act. “In Idaho, they’ve had to change their strategies. It’s not like the elk are depleted now. But they’re in littler groups. It’s harder hunting for everybody — wolves and people,” she said.

The state estimates that 200 wolves will kill up to 2,520 elk and 4,180 deer per year. By contrast, she said, hunters kill an average of 7,390 elk and 38,100 deer per year.

All three alternatives call for 15 successful breeding pairs spread across the state before wolves can be de-listed in Washington. The state’s preferred plan would require two pairs in the Northern Cascades, two pairs in Eastern Washington, five pairs in the Southern Cascades or Northwest Coast and six more pairs anywhere in the state.

Luers said all plans would also use what’s known as translocation to move wolves from one part of the state to another, if one area lags in recovery efforts.

No wolves will be brought from outside the state to help recovery, but they may be moved around in the state to get sustainable populations in other areas, she said.

Luers said moving wolves to different parts of the state will only occur if one of the zones reaches full recovery, and the other areas need a boost.

“If it’s used, it would expedite delisting of wolves, so they can get to a point where they’d have more flexibility, and be able to deal with problem wolves,” she said.

K.C. Mehaffey: 997-2512

mehaffey@wenatcheeworld.com