I have a few thoughts on this topic...
It mostly sounds like the Federal Government is passing the buck to the State Governments. As it was for the Federal Gov, it is in the State's best interest to maintain Grizzly bear numbers. As has been mentioned by others, without the grizzly's, Yellowstone is just a campground. Yeah, I'll go see the geysers if I'm passing through, but I'm not going to make a destination vacation of it.
Also, do not forget that should grizzly populations should fall back below an expected species survivability limit, the Federal Gov will step back in and re-establish the "threatened" status, and re-instate federal species population controls.
So, essentially, the Fed decided they'd save themselves some money during these trying time and pass the expenses for managing the grizzly population down to the states... Kind of a punk move in my opinion, since state budgets are suffering more than the fed lately, but justifiably so. The states will need to work out a deal among themselves as to who pays what portion of the management processes (I'd assume a proportionate system, based on the proportion of which state pays for vs benefits from the park)
To be honest, I'm really doubting that this means they're going to vastly change the management practices. The only real change is who's paying the bills.