1

July 31, 2014

Honorable Dan Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1849 C Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240

RE: Listing Determination for the Wolverine

Dear Director Ashe,
On behalf of the Society for Conservation Biologys North America Section
(SCB-NA)
1
, and the American Society of Mammalogists (ASM)
2
, we are writing you to
communicate our concern about recent events involving the listing determination for
the wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus). SCB-NA and ASM have a long history of
involvement in carnivore science and conservation, as well as in issues relating to
scientific integrity in implementation of the Endangered Species Act
3
. The recent
memo
4
from the Regional Director of the FWS Mountain-Prairie Region regarding
listing of the wolverine raises concerns in both these areas.
The wolverine, the largest terrestrial member of the mustelid family, forms an
important component of the group of species associated with the rapidly diminishing
subnivean habitat of the United States
5
. As such, the wolverine may serve as an
umbrella species for a much larger group of taxa that share the wolverines habitat and
are also threatened by the same factors. The species was petitioned for listing as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2000. In December 2010, in

1
1he SocleLy for ConservaLlon 8lology (SC8) ls an lnLernaLlonal professlonal organlzaLlon whose mlsslon ls Lo
advance Lhe sclence and pracLlce of conservlng Lhe LarLh's blologlcal dlverslLy, supporL dlssemlnaLlon of
conservaLlon sclence, and lncrease appllcaLlon of sclence Lo managemenL and pollcy.
2
1he Amerlcan SocleLy of MammaloglsLs (ASM) was esLabllshed ln 1919 for Lhe purpose of promoLlng lnLeresL ln
Lhe sLudy of mammals worldwlde. ASM has long provlded lnformaLlon for publlc pollcy, educaLlon and resources
managemenL, and we sLrongly supporL Lhe conservaLlon and responslble use of wlld mammals based on currenL,
sound, and accuraLe sclenLlflc knowledge.
3
See hLLp://www.conblo.org/pollcy and hLLp://www.mammalsocleLy.org/commlLLees/conservaLlon respecLlvely.
4
Walsh, n. L. Memo of May 30, 2014: Wolverlne flnal llsLlng deLermlnaLlon recommendaLlon. uSul MounLaln
ralrle 8eglon, uenver, CC.
3
aull, !., 8. Zuckerberg, !. WhlLeman, and W. orLer. 2013. 1he subnlvlum: a deLerloraLlng seasonal refuglum.
lronLlers ln Lcology and Lhe LnvlronmenL 11: 260-267.
2


response to litigation, the FWS completed a 12-month determination that, based on the
best available science, the species warranted protection under the ESA, but listing was
precluded due to higher funding priorities. In response to litigation challenging the
Services expansive use of the warranted but precluded designation, the FWS agreed
to make a final determination as to whether to protect the wolverine by the end of 2014.
In February 2013, the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing of the
wolverine as threatened, based on the best available science assembled by Service
biologists. At that time, ASM submitted comments that concurred with the Services
proposed listing and interpretation of available information
6
. This proposed listing was
then subject to two stages of independent peer review. In February 2013, a group of 7
experts considered the science behind the proposed listing. Five of the 7 reviewers
supported the conclusion that the proposed listing was logical and supported by the
available evidence. In April 2014, a 9-member science panel convened by the FWS
concluded unanimously that the scientific conclusions in the proposed listing regarding
threats to the species from climate change were well supported.
The ESA specifies that listing determinations shall be based solely on best
available scientific and commercial data. The Department of Interiors 2011 Scientific
and Scholarly Integrity Policy
7
also mandates that the FWS use the best available
science in agency policy decisions. On the basis of the two scientific peer reviews and
the conclusions of FWS scientists, the Assistant Regional Director of the Mountain-
Prairie Region recommended listing of the species as threatened in May 2014.
However, on May 30, 2014, the Regional Director of the Mountain-Prairie Region
overruled this recommendation. The Regional Director explained her conclusion by
characterizing the evidence of threats to wolverine from loss of snow cover under future
climates as speculative. This conclusion was not based on new scientific data, but
rather on the Regional Directors ad hoc interpretation of a non-binding legal opinion
8

(termed the M-Opinion) regarding the foreseeable future clause in the ESAs
definition of a threatened species.
The May 30 memo is problematic for several reasons. Notably, the M-
Opinion defines the foreseeable future as extending as far into the future as
predictions based on best available data can provide a reasonable degree of confidence.
This does not preclude use of predictive modeling approaches that are well-supported in
the scientific literature, such as those used to project future effects of climate change on
snow cover, and of loss of habitat components such as snow cover on species dependent
on or limited by these factors
9
. In the case of the wolverine, the best available science

6
ASM. 2013. CommenLs Lo Lhe uS llsh and Wlldllfe Servlce regardlng proposed llsLlng of Lhe wolverlne.
7
uS ueparLmenL of Lhe lnLerlor. 2011. ollcy on lnLegrlLy of SclenLlflc and Scholarly AcLlvlLles . Avallable aL
hLLp://www.dol.gov/sclenLlflclnLegrlLy/lndex.cfm.
8
uS ueparLmenL of Lhe lnLerlor. 2009. 1he meanlng of "loreseeable luLure" ln SecLlon 3(20) of Lhe Lndangered
Specles AcL. Memorandum M37021. Cfflce of Lhe SollclLor, uSul, WashlngLon, u.C.
9
8rodle, !.l., and L. osL. 2010. nonllnear responses of wolverlne populaLlons Lo decllnlng wlnLer snowpack.
opulaLlon Lcology 32:279287.
Copeland, !.., k.S. Mckelvey, k.8. Aubry, A. Landa, !. ersson, 8.M. lnman, !. krebs, L. LofroLh, P. Colden, !.8.
Squlres, A. Magoun, M.k. SchwarLz, !. WllmoL, C.L. Copeland, 8.L. ?aLes, l. ko[ola, and 8. May. 2010. 1he blocllmaLlc
envelope of Lhe wolverlne (Culo gulo): do cllmaLlc consLralnLs llmlL lLs geographlc dlsLrlbuLlon? Canadlan !ournal of
Zoology 88:233246.
Mckelvey, k.S., !.. Copeland, M.k. SchwarLz, !.S. LlLLell, k.8. Aubry, !.8. Squlres, S.A. arks, M.M. Llsner, and C.S.
3


necessarily incorporates results from predictive modeling. The May 30 memo interprets
the M-Opinion to require data specifically experimental evidence -- that in all
likelihood would be impractical or impossible to obtain for a rare free-living mammal.
The memo thus represents an arbitrarily narrow interpretation of the M-Opinion that, if
generally applied, would substantially limit the ability of science to inform listing
determinations.
In this respect, the Regional Directors interpretation of the M-Opinion
resembles past legislative proposals such as the 2004 Sound Science for Endangered
Species Act Planning Act (H.R. 1662) that would have limited the use of predictive
models in listing determinations. These proposals were not enacted, in part because
they ran counter to recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC).
Specifically, in its report entitled Science and the Endangered Species Act
10
, the NRC
recommended greater use of predictive modeling techniques such as population
viability analysis in ESA decision-making.
In overriding the conclusions of staff scientists and two independent peer
review panels, the May 30 memo demonstrates a serious flaw in the FWSs listing
determination process and continues a troubling pattern of disregard for best available
science that has characterized other recent FWS listing and delisting determinations
11
.
In order to demonstrate the Services commitment to scientific integrity in the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act, the Society for Conservation Biologys
North America Section and the American Society of Mammalogists urge your agency
to reconsider the determination made in the May 30 memo that listing of the wolverine
as threatened is not warranted. We believe that this decision is inconsistent with both
the best available science and the language of the statute. If you believe that further
external review of the relevant science is warranted, both SCB-NA and ASM are
willing to assist in that review.



Mauger. 2011. CllmaLe change predlcLed Lo shlfL wolverlne dlsLrlbuLlons, connecLlvlLy, and dlspersal corrldors.
Lcologlcal AppllcaLlons 21:28822897.
SchwarLz, M.k., !.. Copeland, n.!. Anderson, !.8. Squlres, 8.M. lnman, k.S. Mckelvey, k.L. llgrlm, L.. WalLs, and
S.A. Cushman. 2009. Wolverlne gene flow across a narrow cllmaLlc nlche. Lcology 90:32223232.
10
naLlonal 8esearch Councll. 1993. Sclence and Lhe Lndangered Specles AcL. naLlonal Academles ress,
WashlngLon, uC.
11
lor example, an lndependenL sclenLlflc peer revlew panel concluded ln lebruary 2014 LhaL Lhe lWS dellsLlng
proposal for Lhe gray wolf (!"#$% &'('%) was noL based on besL avallable sclence (naLlonal CenLer for Lcologlcal
Analysls and SynLhesls. 2014. 8evlew of roposed 8ule 8egardlng SLaLus of Lhe Wolf under Lhe Lndangered Specles
AcL. nCLAS, SanLa 8arbara, CA.).
4


Respectfully submitted,



Carlos Carroll, President of SCB-NA



Eileen Lacey, President of ASM



Doug Parsons, SCB-NA Policy Director



Bradley Bergstrom, ASM Conservation Committee Chair


cc: The Honorable Sally Jewell
Secretary
Department of the Interior
1849 C St. N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Noreen Walsh
Regional Director
Mountain-Prairie Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
134 Union Boulevard
Lakewood, Colorado 80228-1807