229
Olympic Peninsula Wolf Reintroduction Feasibility Study
Final Draft :
Feasibility Study on the Reintroduction of Gray Wolves to
the Olympic Peninsula
Submitted to:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Western Washington Office
510 Desmond Drive S.E., Suite 102
Lacey, Washington 98503-1273
Submitted by:
John T. Ratti
Mike Weinstein
J. Michael Scott
Patryce Avsharian
Anne-Marie Gillesberg
Craig A. Miller
Michele M. Szepanski
Leona K. Bomar
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources
and the
Idaho Cooperative Research Unit
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1136
25 January 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES 6
LIST OF FIGURES 10
CURRENT AND HISTORICAL STATUS OF WOLVES ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA 16
Historical Status of Wolves on the Olympic Peninsula 16
Present Status 17
CULTURAL AND SPIRITUAL CONSIDERATIONS 19
Cultural and Spiritual Value of Wolves 19
Stories and Myths 20
Ceremonies and Rituals 21
Other Relationships 23
Cultural and Spiritual Values of Primary Prey: Deer and Elk 24
Food Uses 24
Tool Uses 25
Clothing Uses 26
Other Uses 26
Spiritual Aspects 27
HABITAT SUITABILITY FOR SUPPORTING A VIABLE SELF-SUSTAINING WOLF POPULATION 30
General Description of the Olympic Peninsula 30
Topography 30
Climate 30
Flora 31
Road Density 32
Human Density 34
Amount and Distribution of Lands Capable of Supporting Wolves 36
Land Ownership and Use 43
Private 43
National Park Service 46
US Forest Service 46
Washington State 47
Implications for Reintroduction 48
Lands With Potential Conflicts 48
Livestock Abundance 48
Private-Timber Concerns 49
Small Culturally Important East-Side Populations of Elk 51
Big-Game Hunting 56
Geographic Extent of Reintroduction 58
DEMOGRAPHY AND DISTRIBUTION OF POTENTIAL PREY SPECIES 59
Black-tailed Deer 59
Occurrence 59
Habitat 59
Effects of Snow on Distribution 62
Movements 63
Social Behavior 63
Reproduction 64
Mortality 64
Rates of Increase 65
Population Estimates 66
Roosevelt elk 66
Occurrence 66
Habitat 67
Effects of Snow on Distribution 69
Movements 69
Social Behavior 70
Reproduction 70
Mortality 71
Rates of Increase 72
Population Estimates 73
Alternate Prey 74
Mountain Goats 74
Other Species 77
ADEQUACY OF HABITAT AND PREY BASE FOR SUPPORTING A VIABLE SELF-SUSTAINING WOLF POPULATION 79
Carrying Capacity of Wolves: Landscape Approach 79
Methods 79
Results 84
Discussion 84
Population Genetics 89
Stochastic Processes 91
Implications for Reintroduction 92
FUTURE PROJECTIONS FOR AN ESTABLISHED WOLF POPULATION ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA 94
Ungulate Populations 94
Methods 95
Results 100
Model limitations 103
Implications for Reintroduction 105
Vegetative Structure and Composition 105
Preface 105
General Effects of Herbivory 105
Ungulate Herbivory 107
Regional-Herbivory Effects 109
Olympic Peninsula 109
Hunting Opportunities 112
Hunting Revenue 116
Wolf Interaction with Other Predators 117
Cougars 117
Black Bear 119
Coyotes 120
Wolf-Coyote Hybridization 122
Wolf-Dog Hybridization 123
Domestic Animal Depredation 124
Background 124
Livestock Distribution and Abundance on the Olympic Peninsula 127
Estimates of Wolf Depredation Rate on Livestock 129
Wolf Depredation on Domestic Dogs 132
Disease 134
Rabies 134
Canine Parvovirus 136
Canine Distemper Virus 138
Infectious Canine Hepatitis 139
Brucellosis 139
Bovine Tuberculosis 141
Leptospirosis 142
Lyme Disease 143
Salmon Poisoning 144
Helminths 145
Human Safety 148
Attacks on Humans 148
Wildlife-Car Collisions 149
Disease 150
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH WOLF RESTORATION 151
Public Opinion 151
General Attitudes 151
Olympic Peninsula 156
Human Population Growth 162
Population Trends 162
Population Structure 163
Population Projections 165
Recreation and Tourism 167
Olympic National Park 167
Other Recreation Areas 170
Park Visitation and Wolves 171
Tourism 173
Implications for Reintroduction 173
Changes In Road Density 174
Silvicultural Changes 174
Preface 174
Productivity 175
Timber Harvest 175
Legal Aspects of Wolf Management 178
Legal Context 178
Experimental, Non-essential Designation 182
Land-use Restrictions 184
Federal vs. State Management Authority 190
Tribal Authority and Management 192
Delisting Criteria 193
Other Legalities 196
Wolf Monitoring and Control 197
Wolf Monitoring 197
Wolf Control 203
Ungulate Monitoring 208
Source Population 211
DATA LIMITATIONS AND NEEDS 215
Ungulate Data 215
Road Density 216
Wolf Dispersal 216
EXPERT OPINION 228
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 231
LITERATURE CITED 232
BIBLIOGRAPHY 271
APPENDICES 305
Appendix A: Author Resumes 305
Appendix B: Reconstructed Deer 315
Appendix C: Reconstructed Elk 323
Appendix D: Deer Population Estimates 326
Appendix E: Elk Population Estimates 329
Appendix F: Deer Harvest 335
Appendix G: Elk Harvest 344
Appendix H: Elk Herd Composition 353
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Land ownership on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington (Washington Department of Natural Resources 1995). 46
Table 2. Elk populations within east-side-river drainages: South Fork Skokomish (SFS), Lower North Fork Skokomish (LNFS), Dosewallips (DO), Duckabush(DK), Dungeness (DN), Hamma Hamma (HH), Lilliwaup Swamp (LS), and Upper North Fork Skokomish (UNFS), Olympic Peninsula, Washington (Point-No-Point Treaty Council, unpublished report) (“-“ = no available data)a. 54
Table 3. Most recent population reconstruction estimates for Columbian black-tailed deer within the Primary Analysis Area. Olympic Peninsula, Washington.a 60
Table 4. Ungulate populations and densities (km-2) within winter ranges, Olympic National Park, Washington. 61
Table 5. Maximum observed rates of increase (lm) for expanding mule and black-tailed deer populations. 65
Table 6. Most recent population estimates for Roosevelt elk in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Game Management Units and tribal lands within the Primary Analysis Area on Olympic Peninsula, Washington. 68
Table 7. Maximum observed rates of increase (lm) for expanding elk populations. 73
Table 8. Ungulate density estimates (per km2) for regions outside of Olympic National Park, Olympic Peninsula, Washington. 81
Table 9. Ungulate density estimates (per km2) for regions within Olympic National Park, Washington. 83
Table 10. Area (km2) and expected number of wolves to occupy regions within the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, that were predicted to support >2 wolvesa. 85
Table 11. Population characteristics used to model wolf, elk, and deer relationships for regions within Olympic National Park, Washington. 101
Table 12. Predicted numbers of wolves, deer, and elk in west-side drainages of Olympic National Park, Washington. 102
Table 13. Deer hunters, hunter days, and success for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Game Management Units, Olympic Peninsula, Washington (1997 and 5-year meana). 114
Table 14. Elk hunters, hunter days, and success for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Game Management Units, Olympic Peninsula, Washington (1997 and 5-year meana). 115
Table 15. Revenue from deer and elk permits with reduction in ungulates. 117
Table 16. Distribution and abundance of cattle and sheep within Olympic Peninsula counties, Washington. 128
Table 17. Livestock availability, mean depredation rates, and wolf numbers from other study areas compared to the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. 130
Table 18. Public attitudes toward wolves by age for Wyoming (Bath 1987:54) and Olympic Peninsula (Rooney 1995:20) residentsa 158
Table 19. Public attitudes toward wolves on the Olympic Peninsula by level of education (Rooney 1995:20). 160
Table 20. Population change for Clallam, Gray’s Harbor, Jefferson, and Mason counties, Washington 1970–1993 (Cook and Jordan 1994:7). 162
Table 21. Natural increase and net migration for Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, and Mason counties, Washington 1970–1993 (Cook and Jordan 1994:9). 163
Table 22. Median age (years) of residents of Washington State and Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, and Mason counties (US Census Bureau 1990). 164
Table 23. Education completed for persons 25 years and older for Washington State and counties of Olympic Peninsula (Cook and Jordan 1994:45). 164
Table 24. Expected population growth for Clallam, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, and Mason counties, Washington 1990–2010 (Office of Financial Management 1998:31-86). 166
Table 25. Recreation visitor daysa/year for the Olympic National Forest, Washington, 1991-1993b. 169
Table 26. Recreation Inventory Managementa by type of activity, 1997.b 169
Table 27. Net volume of growing stock (million m3) on timberland, by county and owner, Olympic Peninsula, Washington, 1992 (Bolsinger et al. 1997:71). 175
Table 28. Area of timberland (ha) by county and owner, Washington, 1992 (Bolsinger et al. 1997:71). 177
Table 29. Selected issues identified by the wolf reintroduction feasibility analysis and their relationship to the reintroduction decision process. Plus (+) = supportive, minus ( - ) = non-supportive, N = neutral, and U = unclear. Sections are listed in the same order as presented in the text. Section heading coincide with the Table of Contents for easy cross reference. 222
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Distribution of roads, by class, on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington (US Geological Survey 1:100,000 Digital Line Graphs, 1093)……..……..35
Figure 2. Distribution of roads, on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington (US 1:24,000 Digital Line Graphs, 1993)………….…………………….……..…37
Figure 3. Human Density on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington (US Census
Bureau, 1991)……………………………………..…………………………......38
Figure 4. Posterior probability of wolf occupancy derived from logistic regression analysis of occupied and unoccupied areas by colonizing wolves in Wisconsin. Modified from Mladenoff et al. (1997:24)……..41 Figure 5. Land Ownership within the Olympic Peninsula and primary analysis
area, Washington (Cassidy et al. 1997)……………..……………………..45
Figure 6. Distribution of significant livestock production on the Olympic
Peninsula, Washington…………………………..…………………………….51
Figure 7. Areas partially or wholly owned by timber companies, Olympic
Peninsula, Washington…………………………….……………………..……52
Figure 8. Distribution of important eastside populations of elk, Olympic Peninsula, Washington……..………………………….………………………54
Figure 9. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Game Management Units
with potential occupancy of reintroduced wolves …………..……………58
Figure 10. Probability (P) of wolf occupancy modeled following Mladenoff and Sickley (1988:1) and based upon US Geological Survey 1:100,000 Digital Line Graphs, Olympic Peninsula, Washington (25-km2 cells)……….…….87
Figure 11. Probability (P) of wolf occupancy modeled following Mladenoff and Sickley (1988:1) and based upon US Geological Survey 1:100,000 Digital line Graphs, Olympic Peninsula, Washington (1-km2 cells)……..91
Figure 12. Probability (P) of wolf occupancy modeled following Mladenoff and Sickley (1988:1) and based upon US Geological Survey 1:24,000 Digital Line Graphs, Olympic Peninsula, Washington (25-km2 cells)…….92
Figure 13. Probability (P) of wolf occupancy modeled following Mladenoff and Sickley (1988:1) and based upon US Geological Survey 1:24,000 Digital Line Graphs, Olympic Peninsula, Washington (1-km2 cells)………….….93
Figure 14. Relationship between number of wolves and predicted numbers of livestock killed per year in the Primary Analysis Area on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………………………………….145
INTRODUCTION
Several parties and individuals have recommended restoration of gray wolves (Canis lupus) to the Olympic Peninsula. In a report to the National Park Service, Murie (1935:29) suggested “consideration be given to introduction of the wolf” in response to perceived deficiencies in Roosevelt elk (Cervus elephus roosevelti) populations. This sentiment was echoed by J. C. Carpenter, a sport hunter, who conceded that wolf reintroduction “would probably be the best conservation method at this time” (cited in Dratch et al. 1975:3). The National Park Service (cited in Dixon 1997 et al., Chapter 1:5) concluded that reintroduction warranted detailed analysis.
During 1991, Booth Gardner (Governor of Washington at that time) called upon Washington State residents to pressure relevant agencies to work toward wolf reintroduction to the Olympic Peninsula. Six years later, Representative Norm Dicks, Washington, and Defenders of Wildlife President, Roger Schlickeisen, announced plans for a feasibility study. They also co-sponsored a conference during April 1997 which brought together wolf biologists, government experts, private-sector representatives, area residents, and community leaders to consider the question of wolf reintroduction (McNulty 1997:6).
Although data indicated that wolves inhabited the Olympic Peninsula historically, it remained unclear if sufficient habitat and prey to maintain a viable wolf population were still available. Extensive timber removal and resultant increased-road densities significantly altered the landscape and allowed human access to much of the Olympic Peninsula. Urbanization and development to the east and south rendered the Olympic Peninsula a biological island to large predators. Additionally, the failed effort to reintroduce red wolves (Canis rufus) to Land Between the Lakes demonstrated that lack of local-resident support was capable of undermining restoration efforts (Reading and Clark 1996:321-323). Other social factors with potential to affect wolf reintroduction to the Olympic Peninsula included affinities of resident Native American cultures to both wolves and elk, and traditions of big game harvest within both Native American and Anglo cultures.
During February 1998, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (US Fish and Wildlife Service, hereafter USFWS, Western Washington Office, Lacey) distributed a request for proposals (RFP) for a feasibility study on reintroduction of gray wolves to the Olympic Peninsula. The RFP stipulated that (1) principal investigators must be impartial and qualify as “de novo” participants (e.g., no previous publications or formal positions on wolf reintroductions), (2) the proposal was to include a detailed literature review, plan of study, and methods for completion of the contract, (3) deadline for submissions was 6 March 1998, (4) the due date for the final report was 30 August 1998, and (5) the budget was limited to $125,000.
Drs. J. Michael Scott and John T. Ratti responded to the RFP by preparation and submission of a 56-page proposal, and were awarded the contract. A cooperative agreement between the USFWS, the Idaho Cooperative Research Unit, and University of Idaho was signed on 15 April 1998. In addition to Scott and Ratti, 6 research associates (Avsharian, Bomar, Gillesberg, Miller, Szepanski, and Weinstein) were employed by the University of Idaho to assist with research and report preparation (1-page resumes for all report authors are provided in Appendix A).
Most historic wolf populations in the conterminous US have become extinct or greatly reduced. Population losses have been attributed to a number of factors, including: (1) human settlement and habitat loss, (2) conflicts associated directly with predation on livestock, (3) incomplete knowledge of wolf ecology, (4) concerns that wolves were eliminating or reducing prey important to humans (e.g., deer [Odocoileus spp.], elk [Cervus spp.] and moose [Alces alces]), and (5) aggressive wolf-control programs (Mech 1991, USFWS 1992). Wolf populations in North America were at their lowest levels during the late 1950s. By 1975, however, the US experienced an “environmental revolution” and passed 3 versions of the Endangered Species Act (Spinks 1990). Interest in wolf recovery has increased since that time (Mech 1995).
Several rigorous studies of wolf populations in North America have contributed to our current general knowledge of biology, ecology, and behavior (e.g., Murie 1944; Burkholder 1959; Mech 1966; Pimlott et al. 1969; Peterson 1977; Gasaway et al. 1983; Messier 1985a, b; Bergerud and Elliot 1986; Fuller 1989; Ballard et al. 1997; and others). These studies have also enabled identification and partial understanding of factors responsible for the decline or extinction of some wolf populations. Subsequently, opportunities have been recognized to re-establish populations in several previously occupied ranges.
Wolf reintroductions have been proposed or attempted in several areas of North America (Fritts 1993), including the northeastern (USFWS 1992, Harrison and Chapin 1997), southeastern (Parker and Phillips 1991), and western US (USFWS 1987, 1994; Cook 1993; Fritts et al. 1995; Parson and Nicholopoulos 1995; Bangs and Fritts 1996), and Mexico (Bednarz 1988). These efforts have received much attention from public and private sectors, with numerous supporters and detractors. Feasibility studies have been completed prior to some reintroduction efforts (e.g., Yellowstone National Park et al. 1990, Wolf Management Committee 1991, Bennet 1994).
CURRENT AND HISTORICAL STATUS OF WOLVES ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA
Historical Status of Wolves on the Olympic Peninsula
The gray wolf had the largest natural range of any living terrestrial mammal, including all habitats of the Northern Hemisphere except tropical forests and arid deserts (Nowak and Paradiso 1983:953). In North America, wolves were absent only from the Mojave Desert, most of California, eastern Texas, Oklahoma, southern Missouri, and those states bordering the Gulf of Mexico (Hall and Kelson 1959:849, Map 44). Twenty-four subspecies were identified in North America (Mech 1970:30, Hall and Kelson 1959:847-850). The western Washington subspecies, Canis lupus fuscus, ranged from southwestern Alaska, south through British Columbia, western Washington and Oregon, and the northeastern corner of California (Hall 1981:849). However, recent assessments of gray wolf taxonomy using modern tools of multivariate statistics and DNA analysis resulted in classification of only 5 subspecies (Brewster and Fritts 1995:375, Nowak 1995:377). The historic Olympic Peninsula population was reclassified as C. l. nubilus (Nowak 1995:395).