CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMKN TAl. CONSKQUFNCBS 



could more directly influence license sales for antlerless elk, deer B licenses, or moose. This is because 

 FWP uses antlerless harvest to tine-tune ungulate population numbers in relation to management 

 objectives. If localized deer or elk populations are negaii\ely affected by wolf predation, hunter 

 opportunity for antlerless animals could decrease. Conversely, if deer or elk populations were not 

 affected by wolf predation and actually exceeded management objectives, opportunity for antlerless 

 harvest would increase. Similarly, a recovered wolf population could more directly influence moose sales 

 because all moose hunting is limited to permit-only opportunities. It is difficult to predict how antlerless 

 opportunity will change in the future under this alternative. 



Therefore, fiscal impacts to FWP are estimated based on the observed historic variation in statewide 

 licenses sales due to all causes for antlerless elk permits. Deer B licenses, and moose permits. The FWP 

 Commission establishes final quotas for these licenses and permits. Revenue derived from these sales 

 will change in proportion to the historic variation in past availability and sales from 1990-2001. Table 34 

 summarizes the lower and upper bounds for the number of license.s/permits that would probably be 

 available in 2015 and the revenue generated by selling them. Several assumptions were made and are 

 footnoted. A major assumption is that prices are constant in real terms. But in fact, nonresident prices 

 have increased significantly in the past decade. 



Adniinistratiun, Funding, and Legal Status 



Under this alternative, FWP's role consists of informal consultation, with limited influence over wolf 

 management outcomes. All decisions are made by USFWS and no significant administrative demands 

 are expected for FWP. USFWS decisions would be made primarily at the local level, but the northern 

 Rockies program is also guided by policy established within the national scope of wolf recovery. 

 USFWS would still be required to consult with private individuals or businesses and other federal 

 agencies under Section 7 of ESA. 



Because the program remains with USFWS, the adequacy of future budgets is less certain. The Northern 

 Rockies Wolf Recovery Program would be competing again.st other national interests and priorities to 

 secure adequate funding and staff. Because the program is federal, budgeting is still accomplished 

 through Congressional appropriations. Thus, adequate staffing to meet the needs of Montanans most 

 directly affected by the presence of wolves is not assured. The expected shonfall in personnel and 

 budgets to meet those needs could be problematic for Montana, particularly as needs in Idaho and 

 Wyoming increase, too. WS costs will likely increase due to the higher number of wolves in more areas. 



Because the gray wolf would still be protected under ESA, federal rules and regulations apply. Federal 

 authorities, not state authorities, would prosecute violations of federal law or regulations. However, the 

 gray wolf would remain listed as endangered under state law. 



In addition to the existing fluctuations in license sales, FWP would incur up to $5,000 in administrative 

 costs associated with informal consultations with USFWS. These expenditures would come out of the 

 existing budget for the endangered species program. No new revenue would be generated through license 

 sales for regulated harvest of wolves. 



Physical Environment 



No impacts to air, soil, or water resources are predicted under this alternative. Vegetation may be 

 affected to the extent that wolf presence changes ungulate grazing patterns in localized areas (National 

 Research Council 2002). Although wolf hair may capture and later redistribute noxious weed seeds, 

 compared to other methods of seed di.spersal, this will not be significant. No archcological sites would be 

 disrupted by this alternative. 



120 



