Reintroduction of Wolverines to Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains Management Plan

Executive Summary 

This paper provides a management plan towards the reintroduction of wolverines to Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains. The management plan is organized in steps that include a vision statement, stakeholder groups involved, goals of the plan, overview of the project, alternatives and criteria and success assessment. In the final parts, the plan will cover learning and feedback. Based on the management plan it is possible to reintroduce wolverines to Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains if stakeholders involved stick to the objectives and plan. 

Introduction 

Wolverines were extirpated from the Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains in the early 20 th Century. Before 1919, there was a viable population of wolverines in Colorado. To go by history, Southern Colorado particularly the Rocky Mountains was home to wolverines. However, they ended being wiped out by poisoning and trapping as they were considered a threat to human beings. For an entire century, there has not been a single wolverine in Colorado. It was until 2009, that a single male wolverine, M56 was spotted in Wyoming Colorado Century (McKelvey & Buotte, 2018). Since then there have been considerations to reintroduce wolverines in the region. The major stakeholder in the entire plan is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For a long time it has withheld from listing wolverines as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Their claim was that climate change would not place wolverines in the danger of extinction. As of 2015, reintroduction was given some considerations because it could serve as a proactive step towards natural resource management. 

Vision Statement 

The vision statement states “Commitment to establish a collaborative working relationship with all stakeholders to manage the environment in order to maintain viable wolverine populations in Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains” In addition we look forward to actively implementing the objectives and goals in this plan to benefit wolverines as well and the habitats they rely on in the Rocky Mountains of Southern Colorado. Having a collaborative relationship will foster the implementation of the main objective. 

Stakeholder Groups 

For the management plan to be successful, a number of stakeholder groups have to be involved. These include the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Climate change advocates and the citizens of Colorado. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the major stakeholder because it is responsible for enlisting the wolverines as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Adkins, 2016). Citizens of Southern Colorado should also be involved because historically they were responsible for the extirpation of wolverines from the region. Involving them will enable advocates for peaceful coexistence between wolverine and the human population in the region. Climate change has been a core factor to be considered in the plan for reintroducing wolverines in Southern Colorado. Usually wolverines have specialized habitat needs including affinity to areas that have persistent snow cover and cool temperatures. With the current issues of climate change among them reduced snow cover, inclusion of climate change advocates is critical for the management plan. 

Goals and Associated Objectives 

The overarching goal of the plan is to reintroduce a viable population of wolverines in the Rocky Mountains of Southern Colorado. Other goals include the management and conservation of habitats to support the wolverine population and collaboration among various stakeholder groups to achieve the wolverine population. Objectives associated with the major goal include to facilitate connectivity among wolverine population and to enhance population exchange and demographics. Objectives of the second goal include educating citizens on impacts of wolverine population viability that arise from disturbance of snow from recreational activities and to minimize injuries of wolverines that result from trapping and shooting. Objectives of the final goal include generating support and partnerships for wolverine reintroduction through promoting stewardship of both wolverines and snowy ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains of Southern Colorado. 

Resource Overview 

The reintroduction of wolverines to Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains could, in the long run, improve both status and genetic diversity in the larger U.S. Although a previous attempt has not been made the plan is viable because of the suitability of the region. Furthermore the historical background of Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains is associated with wolverines (Danzinger, 2015). It also worth noting that historically wolverines were distributed in North America including Rocky Mountains which later sub-contracted in the mid- 1920s with range loss evident mostly in Southern Rocky Mountains. Reasons for the broader scale mortality of wolverines are attributed to trapping and poisoning. 

Rationales behind the reintroduction of wolverines in the Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains include the geographic location of the place which enhances both the biological and habitat requirements for their survivorship. From a topographical standpoint, Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains are elevated and face steep slopes of northeast. In addition, the region has little vegetation with most of the surface characterized by high snowpack (Mckelvey et al. 2018). Considering that wolverines’ paws double in size when walking, they create some type of snowy shoes when walking which helps them maintain their stability instead of falling over the snow. This makes the region suitable as the snow enables them to maneuver in the region while other animals cannot. 

Notably, the suggestions to reintroduce wolverines were brought up in 2009 when the first single wolverine was tracked since 1919. Also, there was a successful reintroduction of lynx a species that had been endangered (Buoyer, 2015). Therefore there is viability in the plan to do the same for wolverines. 

Management Alternatives 

In addition to plans of environmental management in order to reintroduce wolverine in Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains, alternative strategies that can be applied include secure conservation status on wolverine movement corridors to ensure an ecologically connected network of both private and public conservation areas (Cleer & Huijser, 2011). Consequentially, this will facilitate migrations and range shifts among other transitions resulting from climate change. Partnerships should also be developed to protect and preserve landscapes and corridors of the Southern Rocky Mountains that are critical for their reoccupation in the area. 

Another alternative is to ensure that wolverines are protected in passage areas particularly roads. According to recent research, findings reveal that transportation corridors which include railways and roads have the potential to reduce wolverine population viability through vehicle collisions (Clevenger, 2019). Although rare, once they occur they are fatal. Furthermore the study further indicates that approximately 62 wolverines were killed in North America between 1972 and 2001 due to road and railway collisions (Higgins, 2019). They are also vulnerable to collisions in the process of scavenging for ungulates. The most viable plan is to identify the linkage corridors or zones and conserve them through appropriate planning and exchanges 

Monitoring Activities 

For the purpose of evaluating the extent of distribution and the area to be occupied by the reintroduced wolverines, survey and monitoring protocols have employed the aerial surveys to cover their tracks on the snow. The monitoring protocol will detect changes in occupancy and the abundance in the Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains (Scrafford, Avgar, Abercrombie, Tigner & Joyce, 2017). Currently there are no wolverine populations in the area hence the need to monitor. 

Besides evaluating the extent of distribution, another activity lying under distribution is the development of inventory monitoring to ensure that the potential impacts of wolverines such as climate change are detected. The development refinement and implementation of monitoring protocols will provide information that is critical for the management and conservation of wolverine and the surrounding communities in the constantly changing climate (Clevenger, 2019). Among issues to be addressed in monitoring activities are knowledge gaps, climate change, and genetic and habitat connectivity. 

Assessment and Success Criteria 

Evaluation of successful reintroduction goals and objectives together with alternatives will require monitoring of long-term ecological and social indicators. Among indicators associated with wolverine population include area of occupancy, increase in population, and probability of persistence (Stegner, Karp, Rominger & Hadly, 2017). On the other hand social indicators reveal the extent to which the management plan has been supported. For instance the education of private landowners is a measure of success. Educating them on the importance of wolverine conservation zones will sequentially support the plans of reintroduction. Also the government of Colorado State should come up with programs that involve tax incentives in relation to land and areas where wolverines are supposed to be reintroduced. Also, collaboration with the Colorado Department of Transport will be used to gauge the development and monitoring of metrics necessary for identification of risky crossing areas for wolverines’ crossing. A final scale that will be used to determine the success of the plan is the production of regional projections regarding the future climate of Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains. 

Learning and Feedback 

While knowledge of wolverines’ ecology in Southern Colorado has significantly advanced due to peer research, there still remains critical gaps in ecological requirements, demography, and response. Bridging the gaps has been a challenge due to the difficulty in studying wolverines. Additional research on environmental management is important in order to make informed decisions about reintroduction of wolverines in Southern Colorado Rocky Mountains. Information needed to inform future policy range from use of forested habitats, distribution and abundance of wolverine population to wolverine response to climate change (Leslie & Hilty, 2016). Filling this gap is critical for conservation, planning, and management decisions for wolverines. 

References 

Adkins, C. (2016). The US Endangered Species Act: a powerful tool to protect biodiversity (if we use it). Biodiversity, 17(3), 101-103. 

Bouyer, Y. (2015). Managing the carnivore comeback: assessing the adaptive capacity of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) to cohabit with humans in shared landscapes (Doctoral dissertation, Université de Liège,​Liège,​​ Belgique). 

Clevenger, A. P. (2019). Mapping the Wolverine Way: Identifying Conservation Corridors and Transboundary Linkages in the Canadian Crown of the Continent Region. 

Cleer, A. veng P., & Huijser, M. P. (2011). Wildlife crossing structure handbook: design and evaluation in North America (No. FHWA-CFL-TD-11-003). United States. Federal Highway Administration. Central Federal Lands Highway Division. 

Danzinger, L. J. (2011). Using GIS to Examine Potential Wolverine Habitat in Colorado: an Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation and Wildlife Corridors. Papers in Resource Analysis, 13, 1-11. 

Higgins, S. (2019). Pedigree reconstruction reveals large scale movement patterns and population dynamics of wolverines ( Gulo gulo ) across Fennoscandia 

Leslie, E. F., & Hilty, J. (2016, January). A Journey's End?. The George Wright Forum (Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 210-216). George Wright Society. 

Mckelvey, K. S., Aubry, K. B., Anderson, N. J., Clevenger, A. P., Copeland, J. P., Heinemeyer, K. S., ... & Schwartz, M. K. (2014). Recovery of wolverines in the Western United States: Recent extirpation and recolonization or range retraction and expansion?. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 78(2), 325-334. 

Mckelvey, K. S., & Buotte, P. C. (2018). Effects of climate change on wildlife in the Northern Rockies. In Climate change and Rocky Mountain ecosystems (pp. 143-167). Springer, Cham. 

Scrafford, M. A., Avgar, T., Abercrombie, B., Tigner, J., & Boyce, M. S. (2017). Wolverine habitat selection in response to anthropogenic disturbance in the western Canadian boreal forest. Forest ecology and management, 395, 27-36. 

Stegner, M. A., Karp, D. S., Rominger, A. J., & Hadly, E. A. (2017). Can protected areas really maintain mammalian diversity? Insights from a nestedness analysis of the Colorado Plateau. Biological Conservation, 209, 546-553.