Comment on FR Doc # 2010-08698

1) The taxonomy, biology, genetics, and status of wolverines in the contiguous United States; Wolverines once ranged from the pacific coast to as Far East as New York. The species is now only found in Washington, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. The wolverine is gone from Oregon, California, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and New York. The current downward spiral of the wolverine population in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming will continue unless the species receives permanent protection under ESA. Protecting the wolverine and their habitat from the multitude of threats to the species is overdue. The 2008 decision by the USFWS to not list the wolverine was disappointing. If any species deserves protection under ESA, it is the wolverine. Significant threats to habitat, loss of linkage zones, and dwindling numbers, all contribute to the conclusion that without federal protection the species will be extirpated in the lower 48. 2) Specific information relevant to the consideration of the potential distinct population segment (DPS) of wolverines in the United States. The DPS policy considers two elements: whether the population is geographically isolated from other populations and if the population is significant to the survival of the species; DPS Policy The USFWS concluded in 2008 that the population of wolverine in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming, were not a distinct population segment (DPS) from the Canadian population and thus listing was not warranted. DPS policy considers two elements: whether the population is geographically isolated from other populations and if the population is significant to the survival of the species. 2008 Decision One of the reasons used by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to exclude the wolverine from inclusion under the Endangered Species Act was that a healthy Canadian population would repopulate habitat voids in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Idaho. Even if the Canadian population of wolverine were to migrate south into Montana, what would the fate of those individuals be if no protections existed? Is it realistic to expect individual wolverines to continue their journey from Canada south to repopulate the state of Wyoming? The decision not to list the species fails to address the fact that the remaining habitat of the wolverine in the U.S. and southern Canada is all becoming increasingly fragmented and compromised by motorized recreation, timber harvest, mining, and road building. Montana’s isolated population of wolverine It is highly unlikely that the population of wolverine in the state of Montana would be recharged from Canada because of the increasing fragmentation of habitat, north and south of the border. Many of Montana’s subpopulations are isolated from each other by logging, mining, and the interstate road system. The connectivity between wolverine subpopulations in Montana is either non-existent or extremely perilous at best. These populations are becoming increasingly isolated due to several factors, including the interstate road system, with I-15 and I-90 separating the state into quadrants. If Montana’s small population of wolverine is isolated from each other, how is it that Canada’s population would be able to traverse existing obstacles? Our analyses indicate clearly that Montana wolverines are not a panmictic population and at least three wolverine subpopulations exist within the state. This result is surprising, given the geographical proximity of the subpopulations and the dispersal capabilities of wolverines. (Assessing population structure and gene flow in Montana wolverines using assignment-based approaches pp. 2913) Wolverines in Montana are not able to able to access other populations within the state because of primarily roads and development. This isolation is further exacerbated by the fact that individual populations are disappearing because of poor wildlife management practices on behalf of the state of Montana. Genetically distinct The wolverine population in Montana is grouped into at a minimum three subpopulations. The Connectivity of these three isolated populations is either non-existent or minimal at best. The limited connectivity and isolation of these wolverines would create a situation where by which these populations are genetically distinct due to a lack of genetic drift. The detection of reduced gene flow levels among wolverine populations in Montana adds to a growing body of literature that documents an increasingly fragmented landscape for large carnivores in the Northwestern United States. (Assessing population structure and gene flow in Montana wolverines using assignment-based approaches pp. 2916) These findings conclude that the isolated subpopulations within the state of Montana are distinct. Based upon these studies, the most likely attributes influencing the observed population genetic structure in Montana are major roads, cities and agricultural areas in the lowland valleys. Interstate highways 15 and 90 are two major road- ways that bisect the study area along with human populations inhabiting the cities and surrounding areas of Butte, Bozeman and Missoula, Montana. Even recreational snowmobile use may affect wolverine distribution. (Assessing population structure and gene flow in Montana wolverines using assignment-based approaches pp. 2918) The lack of linkage zones and travel corridors continue to fragment the habitat. At the same time habitat is not protected from the harmful impacts of snowmobiling. Our analyses indicate clearly that Montana wolverines are not a panmictic population and at least three wolverine subpopulations exist within the state. This result is surprising, given the geographical proximity of the subpopulations and the dispersal capabilities of wolverines. These sub- populations are separated by approximately 300 km, a distance within the range of wolverine annual movements. The detection of significant genetic structure across this spatial scale contrasts with results observed in wolverine populations of Canada and Alaska reported little genetic structure across distances of 1000–2000 km within a continuous distribution of wolverines in northern Canada and Alaska. The higher genetic structure observed among Montana wolverines suggests that habitat in Montana is much more fragmented than habitats in Canada and Alaska. Kyle & Strobeck (2002) also report increasing F ST values and genetic structure when analyzing wolverine populations from more human fragmented landscapes in southern Canada and Idaho. (Assessing population structure and gene flow in Montana wolverines using assignment-based approaches pp.2913) The isolated and fragmented habitat of the wolverine in Montana cannot be compared with the almost continuous available habitat in Alaska and parts of Canada. It is also illustrated that the habitat in southern Canada is also fragmented and not capable of supplementing Montana’s wolverine population. Significance of roads Roads and highways impact wildlife through collision related mortality, direct loss and fragmentation of habitat, the obstruction of travel corridors, and the displacement of the individual species. Maintaining the roadless character of the wolverine’s habitat is essential. Extensive protections of wolverine habitat and travel corridors are required for the species to migrate freely in the four state regions. This would require protecting the roadless habitat of the wolverine complete with secure linkage zones. The wolverines’ large spatial requirements and high mobility makes the species susceptible to direct road mortality as well as the barrier effects of roads on their movements. The deaths of large animals from vehicle collisions are easily observed and documented, yet the indirect impacts of road avoidance on carnivores are believed to well exceed either the direct impacts of road kills or direct habitat loss in road corridors. Dispersal of individuals is necessary to maintain small populations through movement of individuals (and their genes) both within and between populations and to allow recolonization of areas where a species has been extirpated. Road avoidance and direct mortality from road kill can have major population- level effects if the dispersal of wolverines between populations is limited to relatively few individuals, or if entire populations are limited to a few individuals. Wolverines require space and secure travel corridors. (The association between landscape features and transportation corridors on movements and habitat-use patterns of wolverines pp 11) All roads are a major contributor to the isolation and mortality of the species. The importance of the population in the lower 48 The USFWS listed the wolverine population in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington, to be approximately five hundred. Other sources are more conservative in their population estimates. The majority of the wolverines in the contiguous U.S. reside in the state of Montana. Montana should be considered the source of wolverines to colonize adjacent states, not Canada. This would necessitate providing ESA protection, securing travel corridors, linkage zones, and habitat. The U.S. has no control over the management of the wolverine in Canada. The U.S. has no authority over the condition of the habitat and travel corridors in Canada. We also have no say in how the Canadian government manages the numerous threats to the habitat of the wolverine, including mining, logging, tar sand development, oil and gas development, coal production, and human population increases. It is nonsensical for us to consider Canada a dependable source of wolverine with so many extractive industries operating just north of the border. 3) The conservation status of wolverines in the United States Wolverines once ranged across the northernmost tier of the United States from Maine to Washington, and south into the Adirondacks of New York, the Rocky Mountains as far south as New Mexico, and the Sierra Nevada-Cascade and Siskiyou Mountains as far south as California. The wolverine has been eliminated from all but a fragment of this historic range due to destruction of its wilderness habitat. Wolverines were extirpated from the upper Midwest states by the early 1900s, and from the Northeast shortly thereafter. Wolverine populations are known to exist in the lower-48 states only in the northern Cascades of Washington and the Rocky Mountain regions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. All available information indicates that the wolverine population in the lower-48 United States is significantly imperiled with extinction. The current wolverine population in the United States comprises an estimated 500 wolverines in the northern Rocky Mountains in Idaho, Wyoming and Montana, a small population in the North Cascades mountain range. However this population analysis likely overestimates the northern Rockies population. Regional and local populations continue to be extirpation die to the lack of federal and state (Montana) protections. Small populations that are critical to the repopulation process, continue to be trapped to extinction due to poor wildlife management practices by the state of Montana. Wolverine Survival Of the 14 wolverine captured and instrumented, we were able to monitor 12 individuals for a minimum of 6 months, and 7 individuals for at least 1-year (range 1-24 months). Annual survivorship on our study area over the 4-year study was 0.51. As of June 31, 2005, we documented 2 natural mortalities and 6 mortalities of instrumented wolverines from trapper harvest. The resident male (M2) in the Pioneers was harvested in January 2003, and the adult male (M9) that moved in to take over his former home range was harvested in December 2005. F6, a pregnant female, was initially captured by the project in February 2003, and was harvested by trappers the following week. The lone animal captured in the Flint Creek Range (M7) was harvested in December 2004. Lastly, the resident male (M10) and the only female (F12) captured in the Beaverhead Mountains were harvested in the same drainage during the same week in February 2005. In addition to these instrumented study animals, 4 non-marked wolverines were harvested from areas of the Anaconda-Pintler Mountains where we did not have project trapping coverage. Of the remaining 6 study animals, 3 are alive and were monitored through June 2005. (The association between landscape features and transportation corridors on movements and habitat-use patterns of wolverines pp 21) From a 2006 study prepared for Montana Dept. of Transportation, which illustrates how quickly small populations can be extirpated because of a lack of protections and poor wildlife management by the state of Montana. It is shameful that an entire family unit was legally extirpated because of Montana’s management policies. The loss of entire populations is illustrated by this 2006 study done by the USFS and University of Montana for the Montana Department of Transportation in 2006. The state of Montana lacks the essential regulations required to manage a species as fragile as the wolverine. Their continued authorized trapping season and resulting extirpation of local populations is an example why federal protection is essential for this species to survive. 4) Specific information regarding threats to the wolverine Trapping Montana’s continued trapping season is a significant threat to the sustainability of the wolverine population in the lower 48. With so few wolverines remaining in the state of Montana, the taking of a single individual has a significant impact the population. As illustrated earlier, once trappers locate a population the risks are extremely high that the family unit will be extirpated. Road building The construction of roads cutoff wolverine migration routes and prevents the species from repopulating habitat now void of the species. Roads into wolverine habitat risk displacing the species from habitat and give access to poachers that would not normally be available. Snowmobiling Snowmobiles seek the high alpine, country that would be wolverine habitat. The noise of the machines and the human intrusion would displace the species, impact denning, and the rearing of young. Logging Logging in wolverine habitat would displace the species. Timber harvest in linkage zones and travel corridors would likely prevent the species from migrating into uninhabited regions because of the wolverine’s aversion to open habitat. Mining Mining projects significantly alter habitat, create considerable noise, and would likely cutoff corridors necessary for the viability of the species in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming. Mining projects could create better access to wolverine habitat, increasing the risks of poaching and trapping. 5) Specific information regarding conservation actions to improve wolverine habitat or decrease threats; The first conservation action that should be taken on the wolverine is to cease immediately the continued harvesting authorized by the state of Montana. Banci [8] surmised that wolverine populations across their distribution are negatively affected by human activity and alteration of habitat; therefore, proposals to limit new road building or to rehabilitate USFS roads to benefit grizzlies and aquatic species may also benefit wolverines by decreasing general disturbance as well as reducing trapper harvest. (The association between landscape features and transportation corridors on movements and habitat-use patterns of wolverines pp 38) For the species to repopulate vacated regions, secure travel corridors are a necessity and should be protected. These linkage zones should also be considered along highway corridors to protect the species from vehicle mortality by providing conditions by which wolverines can safely traverse the roadway. Grazing should be limited or prohibited in habitat that either contains wolverines or is suitable for the species. Wolverine habitat should be protected from mining proposals that would either interrupt travel corridors, destroy habitat, or displace the species. Two mining proposals have been made in the Kootenai National Forest that would disturb and displace wolverine from habitat. The Rock Creek and Montanore mines are examples of projects that would have an impact on the habitat of the wolverine. Lynx and wolverine would be cumulatively affected by a reduction in travel and dispersal capabilities because of a reduction in remote areas and a constriction of the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. An increased trapping risk from both mines' increase in local human populations would cumulatively increase the risk that trapping could exceed the ability of the three species to maintain population numbers. Although trapping is under management control, the effects on sensitive species may not be noticed until well after the populations have been suppressed. From the 2001 Environmental Impact Statement on the Rock Creek mine. (Rock Creek EIS 4-172) The mines would have a devastating impact to the small wolverine population in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. These two massive projects would isolate the southern portion of the wilderness from the larger northern portion. Protecting the high elevation habitat of the species from road building, motorized incursions, logging, and mining should be a priority. Included in these conservation efforts should be recognition and conservation of essential travel corridors that connect the small populations. The single most significant conservation action that could be taken in conjunction with listing the wolverine under ESA, would be protecting habitat under the Wilderness Act of 1964. Securing additional wilderness protection for the remaining roadless would provide habitat for the wolverine by restricting the human intrusion that is so damaging to the productivity of the species. The inclusion of travel corridors, linking habitat and populations would be necessary ingredient for the species survival in the contiguous United States. 6) Specific information regarding the potential effect of climate change on wolverines, their habitat, and food sources. Climate change will likely result in less snow cover for the wolverine and their habitat. These warmer conditions will impact the wolverine’s ability to hunt because the species relies on an ability to navigate deep snow and the inability of the prey to negotiate deep powder. Spring snow cover. —All historical wolverine records in the western United States, and most in the eastern United States, were located in areas with a measurable probability of snow cover persisting through the wolverine denning period during the last 40 years. (Distribution and Broadscale Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States pp 2152) Lack of snow cover will also significantly impact the survival of offspring. Snow dens give kits protection from predators and also provide thermal benefits for young. Persistent snow cover is usually located in prime rearing habitat, an additional benefit to offspring. The climactic impacts to wolverines from the possible scenario of less snow and earlier runoff may result in poor survivability rates for kits. This possibility would have disastrous implications for the species in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming. Snow is generally regarded as an important component of the wolverine’s seasonal habitat requirements. Virtually all reported wolverine reproductive dens (sites where kits are born and raised prior to weaning) are relatively long, complex snow tunnels that may or may not be associated with large structures, such as fallen trees or boulders. (Distribution and Broadscale Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States pp 2153) 7) Conclusion The cumulative impacts to the wolverine from loss and fragmentation of habitat, compromised travel corridors, a Montana trapping season, and the impacts from climate change would likely lead to the extirpation of the species in Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming. Essential steps for the long-term survival of the wolverine. 1) Grant protection of the species under ESA 2) Protect habitat and travel corridors. 3) Stop all harvesting. 4) Create linkage zones to connect sub-populations. Protection under Endangered Species Act is warranted for the wolverine. KEITH B. AUBRY, KEVIN S. MCKELVEY, JEFFREY P. COPELAND 2006. Distribution and Broadscale Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States, 2152-2153 C. C. CEGELSKI, L. P. WAITS, N. J. ANDERSON 2003. Assessing population structure and gene flow in Montana wolverines (Gulo gulo) using assignment-based approaches pp 2916, 2914, 2913 John R. Squires, Todd J. Ulizio Leonard F. Ruggiero Daniel H. Pletscher, 2006. THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS ON MOVEMENTS AND HABITAT-USE PATTERNS OF WOLVERINES, pp 2, 21, 22, 38 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [FWS-R6-2008-0029; 1111 FY07 MO-B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened US Forest Service and Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality Rock Creek Environmental impact Statement Rock Creek mine Volume 1, Section 4, page 172