Peer Review Report for the Gray Wolf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Summary Report of Independent Peer Reviews for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gray Wolf Delisting Review May 2019 Forward Atkins North America, Inc. (Atkins), was retained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to facilitate an independent scientific review of the Gray Wolf Biological Report (October 31, 2018) and the Proposed Rule for Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife [50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 17, March 15, 2019]. Atkins believes the peer reviewers have successfully met the Service’s charge for their reviews, which provide opinions and/or detailed analysis on the scientific data and interpretation of the data in the documents. Reviewer comments are focused on two questions related to the objectives of the Draft Biological Report: provision of an adequate and concise overview and potential oversights or omissions. Reviewer comments also address five questions regarding the Proposed Delisting Rule: provision of an adequate review and analysis, adequate consideration of impacts of range reduction, reasonable conclusions, oversights or omissions, and demonstrable errors of fact or interpretation. Summary Report of Independent Peer Reviews for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Gray Wolf Delisting Review Atkins | Version 1.0 | May 2019 | 1000062975 Contents Chapter Page 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Background ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Purpose and Scope of Peer Review ................................................................ 1 2. Peer Review Process ...................................................................................................... 3 2.1. Selection of Reviewers ..................................................................................... 3 2.2. Document Review and Report Development ................................................... 5 Appendices Appendix A. Reviewer Curricula Vitae Appendix B. Completed Conflict of Interest Forms Appendix C. Compiled Individual Reviews and Responses to Clarification Questions Table Table 1. Summary of Peer Reviewer Selection Criteria and Qualifications .................................. 4 Summary Report of Independent Peer Reviews for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Gray Wolf Delisting Review Atkins | Version 1.0 | May 2019 | 1000062975 Page i 1. Introduction 1.1. Background The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has completed a proposed rule to remove the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. In accordance with the Service’s July 1, 1994 peer review policy (59 FR 34270) and the Office of Management and Budget’s December 16, 2004, Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, the Service is subjecting this proposal to independent expert peer review. The Service is seeking peer review of the Draft Biological Report and the Proposed Delisting Rule. 1.2. Purpose and Scope of Peer Review The purpose of this review was to provide external scientific peer reviews of the information in the Draft Biological Report and Proposed Delisting Rule and supporting technical memoranda. The Draft Biological Report and Proposed Delisting Rule peer review was conducted to ensure use of the best scientific and commercial information available and to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information upon which the proposal is based, as well as to ensure that reviews by qualified experts are incorporated into the rulemaking process. The Service asked Atkins to select five peer review participants based on expertise, with due consideration of independence and conflict of interest. While expertise was the primary consideration, reviewers were also selected to represent a diversity of scientific perspectives relevant to the subject. The reviewers were charged with identifying and characterizing any scientific uncertainties within the two documents and were advised not to provide advice on policy. The reviewers were instructed to provide a written review of the Draft Biological Report and Proposed Delisting Rule, with special emphasis on answering the key questions related to the logic of the Service’s assumptions, arguments, and conclusions and to provide any other relevant comments, criticisms, or thoughts. The reviewers did not have a defined format and were free to comment on any aspects of the Draft Biological Report and Proposed Delisting Rule and supporting data to which they felt a comment was warranted. Reviewers were provided the references cited by the Service and also encouraged to include additional references in their review, if appropriate, as well as refer to citations used by the Service. Specifically, the Service requested that the peer reviewers cover, but not be limited to, the topics listed below and that the reviews focus on how thoroughly and logically the topics have been treated, and how well the conclusions are supported by the data and analyses. Not all reviewers were required to address all issues noted below but instead reviewers were asked to comment on areas within their expertise and were given the option to abstain from other areas. Questions on the Draft Biological Report for Peer Review: 1. Does the draft report provide an adequate and concise overview of gray wolf (Canis lupus) taxonomy, biology, and ecology as well as the changes in the biological status (range, distribution, abundance) of the gray wolf in the contiguous 48 United States over the last several decades? 2. Please identify any oversights or omissions of data or information, and their relevance to the report. Are there other sources of information or studies that were not included that are relevant to the biological report? What are they and how are they relevant? Summary Report of Independent Peer Reviews for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Gray Wolf Delisting Review Atkins | Version 1.0 | May 2019 | 1000062975 Page 1 Questions on the Proposed Rule for Peer Review: 1. Does the proposed rule provide an adequate review and analysis of the factors relating to the persistence of the gray wolf population currently listed under the Endangered Species Act in the contiguous 48 states (human-caused mortality, habitat and prey availability, disease and predation, and effects of climate change)? 2. Have we (the Service) adequately considered the impacts of range reduction (i.e., lost historical range) on the long-term viability of the gray wolf in its remaining range in the lower 48 states (outside of the northern Rocky Mountains) and, if not, what information is missing and how is it relevant? 3. Is it reasonable for the Service to conclude that the approach of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota to wolf management, as described in their Plans and the proposed rule and in the context of wolf management in the Western Great Lakes area, are likely to maintain a viable wolf population in the Western Great Lakes area into the future? 4. Please identify any oversights or omissions of data or information, and their relevance to the assessment. Are there other sources of information or studies that were not included that are relevant to the proposed rule and, if so, what are they and how are they relevant? 5. Are there demonstrable errors of fact or interpretation? Have the authors of the Proposed Delisting Rule provided reasonable and scientifically sound interpretations and syntheses from the scientific information presented in the Draft Biological Report and the proposed rule? Are there instances in the proposed rule where a different but equally reasonable and sound interpretation might be reached that differs from that provided by the Service? If any instances are found where this is the case, please provide the specifics regarding those particular concerns. Summary Report of Independent Peer Reviews for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Gray Wolf Delisting Review Atkins | Version 1.0 | May 2019 | 1000062975 Page 2 2. Peer Review Process Atkins was retained by the Service to facilitate the peer review process. The terms of the contract included the following: • Acceptance of anonymous proposed peer reviewers by the Service (see Section 2.1 for the reviewer selection process); • Organize, structure, lead, and manage the scientific review; • Facilitate specific follow-up questions/answers between the Service and the reviewers, without attribution; and • Prepare and submit a Final Report and Administrative Record to the Service. Atkins Project Manager, Cheryl Propst, with oversight from Project Director, Matt Cusack, and the assistance of Principal Technical Professional, Don Deis, facilitated this review (i.e., Atkins Team). 2.1. Selection of Reviewers Atkins was responsible for assigning an experienced, senior, and well-qualified project manager to oversee the selection of five well-qualified, objective, independent reviewers. Qualified reviewers were required by the Service to have the following credentials: 1. Each reviewer must have a Ph.D. or an M.S. with significant experience in Wildlife Biology, Ecology, or Wildlife Management; and 2. In combination, the expertise of qualified reviewers shall include the following; however, each individual is not required to meet all qualifications: a. Demonstrated experience or expertise with large carnivore management, especially wolves. b. Expert