CHAPTER 4: KNV IKONMENTAl. CONSEQUKNCES 



Table 42 presents a budget for this alternative. I^WP anticipates slightly increased administrative costs 

 because of increased coordination with USFWS (not shown) and enhanced ungulate monitoring compared 

 to Alternative 2 (Updated Council). In addition, FWP would dedicate an extra $50,000 to increase 

 technical assistance to landowners for proactive work. Because wolves would still be listed, FWP 

 assumes that WS will continue to be funded directly by Congressional appropriation or through USFWS. 

 While it is FWP's best projection of the resources required, FWP cannot assess its accuracy until the 

 agency actually assumes management authority and begins implementation 



Table 41 . Estimated livestock losses (confirmed and probable) and the economic value of livestock and 

 domestic animal losses in the year 2015 for Alternative 5 (Contingency). The columns may 

 not sum, due to rounding. 



'" Average value of all sheep and lambs and all cattle, 2001 Montana Agricultural Statistics. 



'' Historically, Defenders of Wildlife compensation payments for other domestic animals (guarding dogs, 



horses, or llamas) was 8.13% of the total payments for cattle and sheep. 



Administration, Funding, and Legal Status 



Under this alternative, administrative impacts are similar to Alternative 2 (Updated Council). An 

 important exception is that even though FWP would be the lead agency for day to day management 

 functions and is the primary decision maker, USFWS would oversee the state's implementation. Some 

 elements of the program would be implemented using federal regulations, while others would be 

 implemented using state regulations. That poses some challenges both for FWP, WS, and the public to 

 fully understand all the details. USFWS would still fulfill Section 7 consultations, not FWP. 

 Many new wolf management activities fall within existing duties and responsibilities already carried out 

 by FWP or WS. But, some activities would clearly add to existing responsibilities and work loads (see 

 Alternative 2). FWP would still dedicate some staff time to coordinate with USFWS, Idaho, and 

 Wyoming to delist the gray wolf in the northern Rockies. In addition, there remains some risk to FWP 

 that federal funds may be difficult to maintain over the long term. FWP may have to decide whether to 

 continue state involvement sometime in the future if state and private sources cannot make up the 

 difference. 



145 



