[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73769-73825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29335]
[[Page 73769]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 238
December 11, 2012
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Four Subspecies
of Mazama Pocket Gopher and Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 73770]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Four
Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher and Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list four
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy
Prairie) as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). We additionally propose to designate critical
habitat for these subspecies. We have determined that the Tacoma pocket
gopher is extinct, and that the listing of three other subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher (Shelton, Cathlamet, and Olympic) is not
warranted. These determinations fulfill our obligations under a
settlement agreement. These are proposed regulations, and if finalized,
the effect of these regulations will be to add these species to the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and to designate critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
February 11, 2013. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
January 25, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2012-0088, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical
habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record
for this rulemaking and are available at http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/,
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. [FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088], and at
the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting information that we may
develop for this rulemaking will also be available at the Fish and
Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and may also
be included in the preamble and/or at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken S. Berg, Manager, Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503, by telephone
(360) 753-9440, or by facsimile (360) 534-9331. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), a species may warrant protection through listing if it is an
endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The subspecies addressed in this proposed rule
are candidates for listing and, by virtue of a settlement agreement, we
must make a determination as to their present status under the Act.
These status changes can only be done by issuing a rulemaking. The
table below summarizes our determination for each of these candidate
species:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Present range Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Thomomys mazama ssp. Pierce and Thurston Proposed Threatened.
Mazama pocket gopher. glacialis, Counties, WA.
pugetensis, tumuli,
yelmensis.
Olympic pocket gopher............ Thomomys mazama Clallam County, WA. Not warranted.
melanops.
Brush Prairie pocket gopher...... Thomomys talpoides Clark County, WA... Removed due to error.
douglasii.
Cathlamet pocket gopher.......... Thomomys mazama Wahkiakum County, Not warranted.
louiei. WA.
Tacoma pocket gopher............. Thomomys mazama Extinct............ Extinct.
tacomensis.
Shelton pocket gopher............ Thomomys mazama Mason County, WA... Not warranted.
couchi.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we may
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based
on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
For those subspecies for which we are proposing listing, we have
determined that these subspecies are impacted by one or more of the
following factors to the extent that the subspecies meet the definition
of an endangered or threatened species under the Act:
Habitat loss through conversion and degradation of
habitat, particularly from agricultural and urban development,
successional changes to grassland habitat, military training, and the
spread of invasive plants;
Disease;
Predation;
Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms that allow
significant threats such as habitat loss; and
Other natural or manmade factors, including low genetic
diversity, small or isolated populations, low reproductive success,
declining population or subpopulation sizes, and control as a pest
species.
In this rule we propose to designate critical habitat for these
species. We are proposing to designate approximately 9,234 ac (3,737
ha) as critical habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher (Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie) in
Washington.
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we are
required to designate critical habitat for any species that is
determined to be endangered or threatened. We are required to base the
designation on the best available scientific data after taking into
consideration economic, national
[[Page 73771]]
security, and other relevant impacts. An area may be excluded from the
final designation of critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion will result
in the extinction of the subspecies.
We are proposing to promulgate special rules. We are considering
whether to exempt from the Act's take prohibitions (at section 9),
existing maintenance activities and agricultural practices located on
private lands where Mazama pocket gophers occur. The intent of this
special rule would be to increase support for the conservation of
Mazama pocket gophers and provide an incentive for continued management
activities that benefit the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies and their
habitats.
We are preparing an economic analysis. To ensure that we fully
consider the economic impacts, we are preparing a draft economic
analysis of the proposed designations of critical habitat. We will
publish an announcement and seek public comments on the draft economic
analysis when it is completed.
We will seek peer review. We are seeking comments from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our
technical assumptions, analysis of the best available science, and
application of that science or to provide any additional scientific
information to improve these proposed rules. Because we will consider
all comments and information received during the comment period, our
final determinations may differ from this proposal.
We are seeking public comment on this proposed rule. Anyone is
welcome to comment on our proposal or provide additional information on
the proposal that we can use in making a final determination on the
status of this species. Please submit your comments and materials
concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Within 1 year following the publication of this
proposal, we will publish in the Federal Register a final determination
concerning the listing of the subspecies and the designation of their
critical habitat or withdraw the proposal if new information is
provided that supports that decision.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The subspecies' biology, range, and population trends,
including:
(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies,
their habitat or both.
(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for the four subspecies under section 4(a) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the subspecies' habitat or range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the subspecies'
continued existence.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to these subspecies and existing
regulations that may be addressing those threats;
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of these subspecies,
including the locations of any additional populations of these
subspecies;
(5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the four subspecies, and ongoing conservation measures for the
subspecies and their habitat;
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate areas as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to the four subspecies from
human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to
the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the
benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat
may not be prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the four Thurston/
Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher;
(b) What areas that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies should be included in the designation
and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the subspecies and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher.
(10) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(12) Additional information pertaining to the promulgation of a
special rule to exempt from the section 9 take prohibitions existing
maintenance activities and agricultural practices on private lands,
including airports, where the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher occur.
(13) Whether the Brush Prairie pocket gopher, which the Service
believes was added to the candidate list in error and without basis,
should be removed from the candidate list.
(14) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
[[Page 73772]]
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
Candidate History
We first identified eight subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers
(Shelton, Roy Prairie, Cathlamet, Olympic, Olympia, Tacoma, Tenino, and
Yelm) in Washington as candidates for listing in the 2001 Notice of
Review of Native Species that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered
or Threatened (CNOR) (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001). All candidate
species are assigned listing priority numbers (LPN) that are based on
the immediacy and magnitude of threats and taxonomic status. In 2001,
all eight subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher were assigned an LPN of 6,
which reflects threats of a high magnitude that are not considered
imminent.
In 2005, the LPN for the eight Washington subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher was revised to 3 in response to imminent threats
including commercial and residential development and the operation of
gravel pits (70 FR 24870; May 11, 2005) on gopher habitat. In our 2007
CNOR (72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007), we added the Brush Prairie pocket
gopher to the list of candidate species, because at that time it was
believed to be a subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher based on genetic
data and morphological features. The candidate status for the nine
Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher was most recently
reaffirmed in the October 26, 2011, CNOR (76 FR 66370). The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) completed action plans for the nine
Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers and set conservation
targets and identified actions to achieve those targets over the next 5
years. The action plan can be found on the Service's Web site at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3085.pdf (Mazama pocket
gopher).
Petition History
In 2001, we developed an internal, discretionary candidate
assessment document for the Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher. This candidate assessment was published in the Federal Register
on October 30, 2001 (USFWS 2001). On December 10, 2002, we received a
petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Northwest
Ecosystem Alliance to list the eight subspecies of Mazama pocket
gophers endemic to Washington State as endangered species. The
petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated
concurrent with the listing. Because the Service had already determined
that these subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher warranted listing and
placed them on the candidate list in 2001, we have been evaluating
these subspecies as resubmitted petition findings on an annual basis.
On July 12, 2011, the Service filed a multiyear work plan as part of a
proposed settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity
and others, in a consolidated case in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia. The settlement agreement was approved by the
court on September 9, 2011, and will enable the Service to
systematically review and address the conservation needs of more than
250 candidate species over a period of 6 years, including the
Washington State Mazama pocket gopher subspecies. This proposed rule
fulfills, in part, the terms of that settlement agreement.
Background
We discuss below only those topics directly relevant to the
proposed listing of the Washington State Mazama pocket gopher
subspecies in this section of the proposed rule.
Species Information
Although the species Thomomys mazama, or Mazama pocket gopher,
includes numerous subspecies that are found in the States of
Washington, Oregon, and California (as described below in Taxonomy),
only the Mazama pocket gopher subspecies found in the State of
Washington are currently candidates for listing under the Act. In this
document, when we use the general term ``Mazama pocket gopher'' we are
referring collectively to only those subspecies of Thomomys mazama that
occur in the State of Washington; as used here, ``Mazama pocket
gopher'' is not intended to include any subspecies of T. mazama that
occur in the States of Oregon or California.
Adult Mazama pocket gophers are reddish brown to black above, and
the underparts are lead-colored with buff-colored tips. The lips, nose,
and patches behind the ears are black; the wrists are white. Adults
range from 7 to 11 inches (in) (175 to 273 millimeters (mm)) in total
length, with tails that range from 2 to 3 in (45 to 85 mm) (Hall 1981,
p. 465). In Washington, Mazama pocket gophers are found west of the
Cascade Mountain Range from the Olympic Mountains south through the
Puget Sound trough, with an additional single locality known from
Wahkiakum County (Verts and Carraway 2000, p. 3). Their populations are
concentrated in well-drained friable soils often associated with
glacial outwash. Mazama pocket gophers reach reproductive age in the
spring of the year after their birth and produce litters between spring
and early summer. Litter size ranges from one to nine (Wight 1918, p.
14), with an average of four (Verts and Carraway 2000, p. 3).
Taxonomy
The Mazama pocket gopher complex consists of 15 subspecies, 8 of
which occur only in Washington, 5 of which occur only in Oregon, 1 that
occurs only in California, and 1 subspecies with a distribution that
spans the boundary between Oregon and California (Hall 1981, p. 467).
The first pocket gophers collected in western Washington were
considered to be subspecies of the northern pocket gopher (Thomomys
talpoides) (Goldman 1939), until 1960 when the complex of pocket
gophers found in western Washington was determined to be more similar
to the western pocket gopher (T. mazama) based on characteristics of
the baculum (penis bone) (Johnson and Benson 1960, p. 20). Eight
western Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (T. mazama, ssp.
couchi, glacialis, louiei, melanops, pugetensis, tacomensis, tumuli,
and yelmensis) have been identified (Hall 1981, p. 467). Thomomys
mazama is recognized as a valid species by the Integrated Taxonomic
Information System (ITIS)
[[Page 73773]]
(ITIS 2012b); however, the ITIS Web site does not designate these taxa
to the subspecies level.
Although there have been some suggestions that potential changes to
the classification of some of these subspecies may be considered, as
discussed below, we have no information to suggest that any of the
presently recognized subspecies are the subject of serious dispute. We
consulted with Alfred Gardner, Curator of North American mammals,
Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, who
identified the Mammalian Species Account 641 of the American
Society of Mammalogists, authored by Verts and Carraway (2000), as the
definitive text for this taxon (Gardner 2012, pers. comm.). Thus we
follow the subspecies designations of Verts and Carraway (2000) in this
finding, as this text represents the currently accepted taxonomy for
the species Thomomys mazama.
While past descriptions of Mazama pocket gophers have focused on
morphological differences in characteristics such as pelage color,
skull features, and body size (Bailey 1915; Taylor 1919; Goldman 1939;
Dalquest and Scheffer 1942; Dalquest and Scheffer 1944a, b; Gardner
1950; Hall 1981, pp. 465-466), recent genetic evaluations have been
conducted on the Mazama pocket gopher complex using mitochondrial
deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA) sequencing of the cytochrome b gene
(Welch 2008). From these and subsequent data, Welch and Kenagy (2008,
pp. 6-7) determined that the Mazama pocket gopher complex in Washington
is geographically structured into three haplotype clades (genetic
groups) representing the following three localities: (1) Olympic
Peninsula (Clade A, which includes the Olympic pocket gopher); (2)
Mason County (Clade B, which includes the Shelton pocket gopher), and
(3) Thurston and Pierce county (Clade C, which includes the Roy
Prairie, Olympia, and Yelm pocket gophers).
Specimens from the subspecies Thomomys mazama louiei (Wahkiakum
County) were unobtainable and as such were omitted from Welch and
Kenagy's (2008, pp. 1-3) analysis, so it is unknown what clade the
Cathlamet pocket gopher belongs to or if it occupies its own clade. In
addition, no specimens from the subspecies T. m. tumuli (Tenino pocket
gopher) were readily available and were also not included in the
analysis. None of the haplotypes in the analyzed specimens were shared
between the three clades, which supports the differentiation of the
clades. The mtDNA analysis was not able to distinguish between
subspecies in Clade C; more genetic work needs to be done to determine
how closely-related these subspecies are. Verts and Carraway (2000, p.
1) recognize T. m. glacialis, pugetensis, tumuli, and yelmensis (the
Roy Prairie, Olympia, Tenino, and Yelm pocket gophers, respectively) as
separate subspecies based on morphological characteristics,
distribution, and differences in number of chromosomes. For the
purposes of this proposed rule, due to the close proximity of the four
subspecies located in Thurston and Pierce counties and the fact that at
least three of them occur in the same clade, we will be discussing
these four subspecies (T. m. glacialis, pugetensis, tumuli, and
yelmensis) together and will refer to them as ``the four Thurston/
Pierce subspecies.''
As noted above, based on these genetic analyses the Olympic pocket
gopher (Thomomys mazama melanops) may warrant consideration as a
separate species (Welch and Kenagy 2006, pp. 5-6). It is sufficiently
genetically distinct and geographically isolated from all other
subspecies, has very low genetic diversity within the subspecies (i.e.,
it is relatively inbred) compared to other extant subspecies, and does
not share haplotypes with any other T. mazama subspecies (Welch and
Kenagy 2008, pp. 6-7). In addition, the clade containing this
subspecies (Clade A) is highly divergent from the other two clades
(Welch and Kenagy 2008, p. 6). This is consistent with genetic
isolation through the last glaciation period, suggesting that the
subspecies is a relictual population that survived in the nunatak (ice-
free areas that serve as glacial refugia in mountain ranges). Verts and
Carraway (2000, p. 1) recognize T. m. melanops as a separate subspecies
based on morphological characteristics and distribution.
The Shelton pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama couchi) persists at
Scott's Prairie (which is where the Shelton airport is sited) and may
also occur in two other nearby areas (Stinson 2005, p. 40). Thomomys
mazama couchi is not only in a separate clade (Clade B) from the one
containing the Thurston/Pierce subspecies (Clade C), but landscape-
level connectivity that would allow for gene flow between clades B and
C is lacking. Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) recognize T. m. couchi as
a separate subspecies based on morphological characteristics and
distribution.
The Cathlamet pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama louiei) occurs on
commercial timber forest lands in Wahkiakum County. Despite brief
survey efforts in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2010s, gophers have not
been found at the type locality (where it was originally found) since
1956. However, these surveys did not cover the full extent of the soil
types (series) known to be used by the Cathlamet pocket gopher (Murnen
soil type). For this reason, and because survey efforts were not
exhaustive and land use hasn't changed in this area since the type
locality for the subspecies was found in 1949 (Gardner 1950), we assume
the species may still be extant. No genetic work has been conducted on
this subspecies. This subpopulation is about 64 miles (mi) (103
kilometers (km)) away from the next-nearest extant subspecies locality
(in Thurston County), with no opportunity for gene flow between them.
Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) recognize T. m. louiei as a separate
subspecies based on morphological characteristics and distribution.
Proposed Removal of Thomomys mazama tacomensis from the Candidate List
The first identified specimen of Thomomys mazama tacomensis was
collected in 1853 by Suckley and Cooper (1860) at Fort Steilacoom, but
was first described by Taylor (1919, pp. 169-171). Verts and Carraway
(2000, p. 1) recognize T. m. tacomensis as a separate subspecies based
on morphological characteristics and distribution. Its range spanned
from Point Defiance in Tacoma, south to Steilacoom, and perhaps as far
east as Puyallup. In 1920, Tacoma pocket gophers were collected in
Parkland and there are subsequent reports of gophers being caught in
Puyallup (Scheffer, unpubl. notes, 1957). Original collection sites
were long ago converted to residential and suburban development, and
one site is now a gravel mining operation. By 1970, Johnson (Johnson
1982, in litt.) believed Tacoma pocket gophers were locally extirpated.
Surveys conducted in the early 1990s by Steinberg (1996a), again in
1998 (Stinson 2005, p. 120), and during an extensive survey of
historical and potential habitat in the subspecies' known range in 2011
(Tirhi 2012a, in litt.) failed to relocate gophers at any of the
previously documented locations. Surveys were conducted during the time
of year when gopher activity should have been seen if gophers were
present.
The soils series in the area of the historical local populations
are Alderwood, Bellingham, Everett, Nisqually, and Spanaway. The entire
historical area has been heavily developed since the type locality for
this subspecies was found in 1918 (Taylor 1919, p. 169). Based on
repeated
[[Page 73774]]
surveys of previously populated areas where gophers have not been
redetected (Steinberg 1995; Tirhi 2012a, in litt.), the lack of
documented evidence of T. m. tacomensis over the last three decades,
and the lack of appropriate habitat left at historical locations, we
conclude the Tacoma pocket gopher is extinct. Therefore, we propose to
remove T. m. tacomensis from the candidate list, and this subspecies
will not be considered further in this finding.
Proposed Removal of Thomomys mazama douglasii from the Candidate List
In our 2007 CNOR (72 FR 69034; December 6, 2007), we added the
Brush Prairie pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama douglasii) to the list of
candidate species due to current (at the time) genetic data and
morphological features and based on the presumption that this
subspecies was a member of T. mazama and not T. talpoides. At the time,
a review by the State of Washington recognized the Brush Prairie pocket
gopher as a subspecies of T. mazama instead of T. talpoides, and the
Service simply accepted that classification without additional
evaluation. However, we have now further investigated the genetic and
morphological information originally used to add the subspecies to the
candidate list based on the presumption that it was a Mazama pocket
gopher (Kenagy 2012, pers. comm.; Paulson 2012, pers. comm.; Welch
2012a,b, in litt.). While it is not possible to conclusively determine
that Brush Prairie pocket gophers are not T. mazama, clear evidence to
support the conclusion that they are T. mazama does not exist at this
time. Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) do not recognize the Brush
Prairie pocket gopher as a member of T. mazama. Therefore, based upon
review of the best science available, we no longer believe the Brush
Prairie pocket gopher is a member of the species T. mazama.
The Service erred by failing to conduct a separate five-factor
threats analysis when we added the Brush Prairie pocket gopher to the
candidate list as Thomomys mazama douglasii, and we now believe it was
added in error and without basis (i.e., the population is not subject
to threats such that listing is warranted under the Act). The Brush
Prairie pocket gopher was added to the candidate list based purely on
the presumption that it was a Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher, and because all other Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket
gophers were candidates. Because the best available science suggests
that the Brush Prairie pocket gopher is not a subspecies of T. mazama,
and because it was added to the candidate list without basis, we
propose to remove T. m. douglasii from the candidate list, and this
subspecies will not be considered further in this analysis.
Habitat and Life History
The Mazama pocket gopher is associated with glacial outwash
prairies in western Washington, an ecosystem of conservation concern
(Hartway and Steinberg 1997, p. 1), as well as alpine and subalpine
meadows and other meadow-like openings at lower elevations (from this
point on in the document, we will be evaluating seven Washington
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher: Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and
Yelm (the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies); Shelton; Cathlamet; and
Olympic). Steinberg and Heller (1997, p. 46) found that Mazama pocket
gophers are even more patchily distributed than are prairies, as there
are some seemingly high quality prairies within the species' range that
lack pocket gophers (e.g., Mima Mounds NAP, and 13th Division Prairie
on Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM)). Pocket gopher distribution is
affected by the rock content of soils (gophers avoid rocky soils),
drainage, forage availability, and climate (Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-
21; Steinberg and Heller 1997, p. 45; Hafner et al. 1998, p. 279;
Stinson 2005, p. 31; Reichman 2007, pp. 273-274, WDFW 2009), thus
further restricting the total area of a prairie that may be occupied by
gophers. Prairie and meadow habitats used by pocket gophers have a
naturally patchy distribution. In their prairie habitats, there is an
even patchier distribution of soil rockiness which may further restrict
the total area that pocket gophers can utilize (Steinberg and Heller
1997, p. 45; WDFW 2009). We assume that meadow soils have a similarly
patchy distribution of rockiness, though the soil surveys to support
this are, at this time, incomplete.
In Washington, Mazama pocket gophers currently occupy the following
soils series: Alderwood, Cagey, Carstairs, Everett, Godfrey, Grove,
Indianola, Kapowsin, McKenna, Murnen, Nisqually, Norma, Shelton, Spana,
Spanaway, Spanaway-Nisqually complex, and Yelm. There is no currently-
available soils survey for the Olympia National Park, so soils occupied
by gophers there are unknown. Although some soils are sandier, more
gravelly, or siltier, most all are friable (easily pulverized or
crumbled), loamy, and deep, and generally have slopes less than 15
percent. Mapped soils series can have smaller inclusions of different
soils types. Because soils are mapped at larger scales, mapped soils
may not reflect these smaller inclusions, which may be used by gophers.
In 2011, there were reports of Mazama pocket gophers (subspecies
unknown) occurring on new types of soils and on managed forest lands in
Capitol State Forest (owned by WDNR) and Vail Forest (owned by
Weyerhaeuser) in Thurston County. These were subsequently determined to
be moles, based on trapping conducted in these areas by WDFW during the
2012 gopher survey season (Thompson 2012d, pers. comm.).
Mazama pocket gophers are morphologically similar to other species
of pocket gophers that exploit a subterranean existence. They are
stocky and tubular in shape, with short necks, powerful limbs, long
claws, and tiny ears and eyes. Their short, nearly hairless tails are
highly sensitive and probably assist in navigation in tunnels. Burrows
consist of a series of main runways, off which lateral tunnels lead to
the surface of the ground (Wight 1918, p. 7). Pocket gophers dig their
burrows using their sharp teeth and claws and then push the soil out
through the lateral tunnels (Wight 1918, p. 8; Case and Jasch 1994, p.
B-20). Nests containing dried vegetation are generally located near the
center of each pocket gopher's home tunnel system (Wight 1918, p. 10).
Food caches and store piles are usually placed near the nest, and
excrement is piled into blind tunnels or loop tunnels, and then covered
with dirt, leaving the nest and main runways clean (Wight 1918, p. 11).
The ``pockets'' of pocket gophers are external, fur-lined cheek pouches
on either side of the mouth that are used to transport nesting material
and carry plant cuttings to storage compartments. Their teeth grow
continuously, requiring gophers to constantly gnaw in order to grind
them down (Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-20). Pocket gophers don't
hibernate in winter; they remain active throughout the year (Case and
Jasch 1994, p. B-20).
A variety of natural predators eat pocket gophers, including
weasels, snakes, badgers, foxes, skunks, bobcats, coyotes, great horned
owls, barn owls, and several hawks (Hisaw and Gloyd 1926, entire;
Fichter et al. 1955, p. 13; Huntly and Inouye 1988, p. 792; Case and
Jasch 1994, p. B-21; Stinson 2005, pp. 29-30). Many different
vertebrates and invertebrates take refuge in gopher burrows, especially
during inclement
[[Page 73775]]
weather, including beetles, amphibians (such as toads and frogs),
lizards, snakes, ground squirrels, and smaller rodents (Blume and Aga
1979, p. 131; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21; Stinson 2005, pp. 29-30).
Pocket gophers are generalist herbivores and their diet includes a
wide variety of plant material, including leafy vegetation, succulent
roots, shoots, and tubers. In natural settings pocket gophers play a
key ecological role by aerating soils, activating the seed bank, and
stimulating plant growth, though they can be considered pests in
agricultural systems. In prairie and meadow ecosystems, pocket gopher
activity is important in maintaining species richness and diversity.
The home range of a Mazama pocket gopher is composed of suitable
breeding and foraging habitat. Home range size varies based on factors
such as soil type, climate, and density and type of vegetative cover
(Cox and Hunt 1992, p. 133; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21; Hafner et al.
1998, p. 279). Home range size for individual Mazama pocket gophers
averages about 1,076 square feet (ft\2\) (100 square meters (m\2\))
(Witmer et al. 1996, p. 96). Based on work done by Converse et al.
(2010, pp. 14-15), a local population of Mazama pocket gophers in the
south Puget Sound area could be self-sustaining if it occurred on a
habitat patch that was equal to or greater than 50 ac (20 ha) in size.
Foraging primarily takes place below the surface of the soil, where
pocket gophers snip off roots of plants before occasionally pulling the
whole plant below ground to eat or store in caches. If above-ground
foraging occurs, it's usually within a few feet of an opening and
forage plants are quickly cut into small pieces, and carried in their
fur-lined cheek pouches back to the nest or cache (Wight 1918, p. 12).
Any water they need is obtained from their food (Wight 1918, p. 13;
Gettinger 1984, pp. 749-750). The probability of Mazama pocket gopher
occupancy is much higher in areas with less than 10 percent woody
vegetation cover (Olson 2011a, p. 16), because such vegetation will
shade out the forbs, bulbs, and grasses that gophers prefer to eat, and
high densities of woody plants make travel both below and above the
ground difficult for gophers.
Pocket gophers reach sexual maturity during the spring of the year
following their birth, and produce one litter per year (Case and Jasch
1994, p. B-20). Gestation lasts approximately 18 days (Schramm 1961, p.
169; Anderson 1978, p. 421). Young are born in the spring to early
summer (Wight 1918, p. 13), and are reared by the female. Aside from
the breeding season, males and females remain segregated in their own
tunnel systems. There are 1-9 pups per litter (averaging 3-4), born
without hair, pockets, or teeth, and they must be kept warm by the
mother or ``packed'' in dried vegetation (Wight 1918, p. 14; Case and
Jasch 1994, p. B-20). Juvenile pelage starts growing in at just over a
week (Anderson 1978, p. 420). The young eat vegetation in the nest
within 3 weeks of birth, with eyes and ears opening and pockets
developing at about a month (Wight 1918, p. 14; Anderson 1978, p. 420).
At 6 weeks they are weaned, fighting with siblings, and nearly ready to
disperse (Wight 1918, p. 15; Anderson 1978, p. 420), which usually
occurs at about 2 months of age (Stinson 2005, p. 26). They attain
their adult weight around 4-5 months of age (Anderson 1978, pp. 419,
421). Most pocket gophers live only a year or two, with few living to 3
or 4 years of age (Hansen 1962, pp. 152-153; Livezey and Verts 1979, p.
39).
Pocket gophers rarely surface completely from their burrow except
as juveniles, when they disperse above ground from spring through early
fall (Ingles 1952, p. 89; Howard and Childs 1959, p. 312; Olson 2011b,
unnumbered pp. 3-4). They are highly asocial and intolerant of other
gophers. Each gopher maintains its own burrow system, and occupancy of
a burrow system by multiple individuals occurs only for brief periods
during mating seasons and prior to weaning young (Ingles 1952, pp. 88-
89; Witmer and Engeman 2007, p. 288; Marsh and Steele 1992, p. 209).
The mating system is probably polygynous (a single male mates with
multiple females) and most likely based on female choice. The adult sex
ratio has been reported as biased toward females in most species of
pocket gophers that have been studied, often as much as 4:1 (Howard and
Childs 1959, p. 296; Patton and Feder 1981, p. 917), though Witmer et
al. (1996, p. 95) reported a sex ratio of close to 1:1 in Mazama pocket
gophers.
Sex ratio may vary with population density, which is often a
measure of forage density and soil suitability for burrowing. One site
having a deep soil layer that was much less rocky was estimated to have
a pocket gopher population density five times that of another site
having rocky soil (Steinberg 1996, p. 26). A study of the relationship
between soil rockiness and pocket gopher distribution revealed a strong
negative correlation between the proportion of medium-sized rocks in
the soil and absence of pocket gophers in eight of nine prairies
sampled (medium sized rocks were considered greater than 0.5 inch (12.7
mm) but less than 2 inches (50.8 mm) in diameter; Steinberg 1996, p.
32). In observations of pocket gopher distribution on JBLM, pocket
gophers did not occur in areas with a high percentage of Scot's broom
cover in the vegetation, or where mole (Scapanus spp.) populations were
particularly dense (Steinberg 1995, p. 26). A more recent study on JBLM
also found that pocket gopher presence was negatively associated with
Scot's broom; however, the researcher found no relationship between
pocket gopher presence and mole density (Olson 2011a, pp. 12-13).
Pocket gophers have limited dispersal capabilities. The loss and
degradation of additional patches of appropriate habitat could result
in further isolation of populations, increasing their vulnerability to
extinction. Physiographic, demographic, historical, and stochastic
factors probably influence potential dispersal distance (Hafner et al.
1998, p. 279). Studies of other larger Thomomys gophers found that most
will only disperse less than 131 ft (40 m) from their natal territory
(Daly and Patton 1990, p. 1291), although some have been found to move
greater than 984 ft (300 m) (Williams and Baker 1976, p. 306; Daly and
Patton 1990, p. 1286), and up to 1,312 ft (400 m) (Hafner et al. 1998,
p. 279). In 2010 and 2011, WDFW conducted a study to determine
dispersal distances of juvenile Mazama pocket gophers on JBLM. Twenty-
eight juveniles were radio-collared and tracked for 17-56 days, with
all but 3 animals tracked for more than 30 days. Of these, only 9
gophers moved more than 32.8 ft (10 m), and 10 gophers were never found
more than 13.1 ft (4 m) from any previous location (Olson 2012b, p. 5).
Only 1 animal dispersed what would be considered a larger distance,
moving 525 ft (160 m) in a single day. This research is ongoing.
Historical and Current Range and Distribution
The Olympic pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama melanops) is found in
the Olympic National Park in Clallam County where it is restricted to
subalpine habitat of the higher Olympic Mountains. While the
protections of the National Park Service (NPS) suggest that this is the
most secure of the subspecies in Washington, three local populations
had been extirpated by 1951, and another was recorded as extirpated by
1976 (Johnson 1977, pp. 2-3). By 1977, Johnson (1977, p. 1) estimated
that the subspecies had been extirpated from about 30 percent of its
range, and speculated that such extirpations may
[[Page 73776]]
have been related to fire suppression, avalanches, landslides, or
weather cycles. Steinberg (1995, p. 27; 1996, p. 8) and Welch (2009, in
litt.) documented Olympic pocket gophers at several sites in the Park,
and the Burke Museum's records show that pocket gopher specimens have
been gathered from multiple locations in the Park (Burke Museum 2009).
A series of surveys were conducted in the summer of 2012, and found
evidence of Mazama pocket gophers still occurring in the same areas as
found by Johnson and Steinberg (Fleckenstein 2012, in litt.). Further
surveys need to be conducted to determine the status of this
subspecies, as no complete inventory has been conducted. There have
been no soil surveys conducted on the Olympic National Park, so soils
series names are not known at the locations where gophers occur in
Clallam County.
The Shelton pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama couchi) was known from
one local population detected at the Shelton airport in Mason County
and mounds found near the penitentiary grounds near Shelton (Stinson
2005, p. 39). A nearby regenerating clearcut was found to have been
colonized by pocket gophers after 1992 (Stinson 2005, p. 41). Other
local populations have been identified nearby on private land,
including a recent clearcut near the airport (Stinson 2011a, in litt.).
New populations have been found on commercial timber lands and private
lands in Mason County (Olson 2011b, in litt.) and more may exist
(Krippner 2011b, entire). Pocket gopher sign has been reported
elsewhere, but their presence has not been verified by trapping
(Stinson 2011b, pers. comm.). All currently known gopher sites in Mason
County occur on Carstairs, Grove, or Shelton soils.
The Cathlamet pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama louiei) is known only
from its type locality in Wahkiakum County. The Cathlamet pocket gopher
was originally found on commercial forest lands in a large burn that
subsequently regenerated to forest. The forest was clearcut in the
early 2000s, but pocket gophers have not been found at this site since
1956, despite brief survey efforts in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and
2010s (Stinson 2005, p. 34; Thompson 2012a, p. 1 in litt.). The soils
series these gophers occupy (Murnen) is locally limited in extent, and
patchily distributed. In the Service's review of this species
previously (USFWS 2010, pp. 5-6), it was characterized as likely
extinct. However, based on our further review of information for this
proposed rule, we determined that further surveys of the area are
needed to determine the status of this subpopulation, as thorough
surveys of all potential habitat have never been conducted and land use
has remained the same since the type locality was discovered in 1949
(Gardner 1950), suggesting that the subspecies may remain extant.
The following general description of the distribution of the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama
glacialis, pugetensis, tumuli, and yelmensis) is based on our current
knowledge. Steinberg (1996, p. 9) surveyed all historical and many
currently known gopher sites. This included all current and formerly
known occupied sites listed by the WDNR as having Carstairs, Nisqually,
or Spanaway gravelly or sandy loam soil, and that WDNR determined to
have vegetation that was intact prairie or restorable to prairie. WDFW
and a suite of consultants have surveyed areas of potential gopher
habitat in both counties, usually associated with proposed development
(Krippner 2011a, pp. 26-29). WDFW has also surveyed areas in relation
to various research studies, as well as conducting a 5-county-wide
distribution survey in 2012 (Thompson 2012b and c, entire).
The Roy Prairie pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama glacialis) is found
in the vicinity of the Roy Prairie and on JBLM in Pierce County. The
subspecies was described as plentiful in 1983 but was reduced to a
small population by 1993 (Stinson 2005, p. 38). Due to proximity to the
subspecies' type locality, it is likely that gophers occurring on 91st
Division Prairie and Marion Prairie in Pierce County contain this
subspecies. Soils in and around this area are Everett, Indianola,
Norma, Spanaway, and Nisqually.
The type locality for the Olympia pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama
pugetensis) was the prairie on and around the Olympia Airport (Dalquest
and Scheffer 1944b, p. 445). Gophers continue to occupy this area.
Soils in and around this area are Alderwood, Cagey, Everett, Indianola,
McKenna, Nisqually, Norma, Spana, Spanaway-Nisqually complex, and Yelm.
Tenino pocket gophers (Thomomys mazama tumuli) were originally
found in the vicinity of the Rocky Prairie NAP, near Tenino (Stinson
2005, pp. 19, 33, 38), a relatively small-extent prairie area. Gophers
still reside there, but WDFW researchers have not seen consistent
occupancy of the area by gophers in recent years (Olson 2010, in
litt.), suggesting that the colonies intermittently located in the NAP
are satellite populations dispersing from a currently unidentified
nearby source population. Soils in this area are Everett, Nisqually,
Norma, Spanaway, and Spanaway-Nisqually complex.
Yelm pocket gophers (Thomomys mazama yelmensis) were originally
found on prairies in the area of Grand Mound, Vail, and Rochester
(Dalquest and Scheffer 1944b, p. 446). Surveys conducted in 1993-1994
found no gophers near the towns of Vail or Rochester (Steinberg 1995,
p. 28); however, more recent surveys have documented gophers near
Rochester, Rainier, Littlerock, Grand Mound, and Vail (Krippner 2011a,
p. 31). Soils series in and around these areas include Alderwood,
Everett, Godfrey, Kapowsin, McKenna, Nisqually, Norma, Spana, Spanaway,
Spanaway-Nisqually complex, and Yelm.
Population Estimates/Status
There are few data on historical or current population sizes of
Mazama pocket gopher populations in Washington, although several local
populations and one subspecies are believed to be extinct. Knowledge of
the past status of the Mazama pocket gopher is limited to
distributional information. Recent surveys have focused on determining
current distribution, primarily in response to development
applications. In addition, in 2012, WDFW initiated a 5-county-wide
distribution survey. Because the object of all of these surveys has
mainly been presence/absence only, total population numbers for each
subspecies are unknown. Local population estimates have been reported
but are based on using apparent gopher mounds to delineate the number
of territories, a method that has not been validated (Stinson 2005, pp.
40-41). Olson (2011a, p. 2) evaluated this methodology on pocket gopher
populations at the Olympia Airport and Wolf Haven International.
Although there was a positive relationship between the number of mounds
and number of pocket gophers, the relationship varies spatially,
temporally, and demographically (Olson 2011a, pp. 2, 39). Based on the
results of Olson's 2011 study we believe past population estimates
(Stinson 2005) may have been too high. As there is no generally-
accepted standard survey protocol for pocket gophers, it is difficult
to make a reliable determination of population abundance or trend.
Increased survey effort since 2007 has resulted in the
identification of numerous additional occupied sites located on private
lands, especially in Thurston County (Krippner 2011, pp. 26-29). Some
of these are satellite colonies adjacent to known larger
[[Page 73777]]
populations, such as that on the Olympia Airport, and may be population
sinks (colonies that do not add to the overall population through
recruitment). Others are separate locations, seemingly unassociated
(physically) with known populations (Tirhi 2008, in litt.). The largest
known local populations of any Mazama pocket gophers in Washington
occur on JBLM (Roy Prairie and Yelm pocket gophers), and at the Olympia
and Shelton airports (Olympia and Shelton pocket gophers,
respectively).
A translocated population of Mazama pocket gophers occurs on Wolf
Haven International's land near Tenino, Washington. Between 2005 and
2008, over 200 gophers from a variety of areas in Thurston County
(mostly from around Olympia Airport (Olympia pocket gopher, Thomomys
mazama pugetensis)) were released into the 38-ac (15-ha) mounded
prairie site. Based on the best available information, we do not
believe the property contained Mazama pocket gophers previously. Today
pocket gophers continue to occupy the site (Tirhi 2011, in litt.);
however current population estimates are not available. Another site,
West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area, has received a total number of 560
translocated pocket gophers (T. m. pugetensis) from the Olympia Airport
between 2009 and 2011. Initial translocation efforts in 2009 were
unsuccessful; a majority of the pocket gophers died within 3 days due
to predation (Olson 2009, unnumbered p. 3). Modified release techniques
used in 2010 and 2011 resulted in improved survival rates of gophers
translocated to West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area (Olson 2011c,
unnumbered p. 4). It is too soon to know if the population will become
self-sustaining, or if additional translocations of gophers will be
necessary. This research is ongoing.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based
on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
In making this finding, information pertaining to each of the
species in question in relation to the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors
might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the
species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the
factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response,
that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species
responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to
determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant,
it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species
such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened
species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not
necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of
exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely
impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could
impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that
listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are
operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species
meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the
Act.
In making the 12-month finding for each of the subspecies addressed
in this document we considered and evaluated the best available
scientific and commercial information. Here we evaluate the factors
affecting the subspecies under consideration in this proposed rule.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Under this factor, the primary long term threats to the Mazama
pocket gopher are the loss, conversion, and degradation of habitat
particularly to urban development, successional changes to grassland
habitat, and the spread of invasive plants. The threats also include
increased predation pressure, which is closely linked to habitat
degradation and discussed more fully under Factor C.
The prairies of south Puget Sound are part of one of the rarest
ecosystems in the United States (Noss et al. 1995, p. I-2; Dunn and
Ewing 1997, p. v). Dramatic changes have occurred on the landscape over
the last 150 years, including a 90 to 95 percent reduction in the
prairie ecosystem. In the south Puget Sound region, where most of
western Washington's prairies historically occurred, less than 10
percent of the original prairie persists, and only 3 percent remains
dominated by native vegetation (Crawford and Hall 1997, pp. 13-14).
Development
Native prairies and grasslands have been severely reduced
throughout the range of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher and the Shelton pocket gopher as a result of human
activity due to conversion of habitat to residential and commercial
development and agriculture. Prairie habitat continues to be lost,
particularly to residential development (Stinson 2005, p. 70) by
removal and fragmentation of native vegetation and the excavation and
grading of surfaces and conversion to non-habitat (buildings, pavement,
other infrastructure) rendering soils unsuitable for burrowing.
Residential development is associated with increased infrastructure
such as new road construction, which is one of the primary causes of
landscape fragmentation (Watts et al. 2007, p. 736). Activities that
accompany low-density development are correlated with decreased levels
of biodiversity, mortality to wildlife, and facilitated introduction of
nonnative invasive species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, entire; Watts
et al. 2007, p. 736). In the south Puget Sound lowlands, the glacial
outwash soils and gravels underlying the prairies are deep and valuable
for use in construction and road building, which leads to their
degradation and destruction.
In the south Puget Sound, Mazama pocket gophers most commonly
reside in Nisqually loamy soils (Stinson 2010a, in litt.), the vast
majority of which occur in developed areas of Thurston County, or
within the Urban Growth Areas for the cities of Olympia, Tumwater, and
Lacey (Thurston County 2004; WDFW 2009a), where future development is
most likely to occur. Where pocket gopher populations presumably
extended across an undeveloped expanse of open prairie (Dalquest and
Scheffer 1942, pp. 95-96), current local populations of gophers in
these areas are now isolated to small fragmented patches.
The presumed extinction of the Tacoma pocket gopher is likely
linked directly to residential and commercial development, which has
replaced nearly all gopher habitat in the historical range of the
subspecies (Stinson 2005, pp. 18,
[[Page 73778]]
34, 46). One of the historical Tacoma pocket gopher sites was converted
to a large gravel pit and golf course (Stinson 2005, pp. 47, 120;
Steinberg 1996, pp. 24, 27). In addition, two gravel pits are now
operating on part of the site recognized as the type locality for the
Roy Prairie pocket gopher (Stinson 2005, p. 42), and another is in
operation near Tenino (Stinson 2010b, in litt.) in the vicinity of the
type locality for the Tenino pocket gopher. Many areas historically
occupied by Mazama pocket gophers in Olympia and Lacey have been lost
to development (Stinson 2005, p. 26).
Multiple pocket gopher sites in Pierce and Thurston Counties may
be, or have been lost to, gravel pit development, golf course
development, or residential and commercial development (Stinson 2005,
pp. 26, 42; Stinson 2007, in litt., and 2010b, in litt.). Multiple
prairies that used to contain local populations of pocket gophers
within the range of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies have been
developed to cities, neighborhoods, or agricultural lands, including
Yelm Prairie, Grand Mound Prairie, Baker Prairie, Chambers Prairie, and
Roy Prairie.
Where their properties coincide with gopher occupancy, many private
lands developers and landowners in Thurston County have agreed to
create gopher set-asides in order to obtain development permits from
the County (Tirhi 2008, in litt.). However, it is unknown if any
gophers will remain on these sites due to the small size of the set-
asides, extensive grading in some areas, lack of enforcement or
monitoring of set-aside maintenance (Defobbis 2011, in litt.), and lack
of control of predation by domestic or feral cats or dogs.
There are two local populations of Olympia and Shelton pocket
gophers located at and around airports (Port of Olympia's Olympia
Airport and Port of Shelton's Sanderson Field). Gophers at the Olympia
Airport are currently threatened by development from the airport itself
and adjacent landowner development. The Port of Olympia is realigning
the airport runway, and has plans to develop large portions of the
existing grassland that likely supports the largest population of the
Olympia pocket gopher in Washington (Stinson 2007, in litt.; Port of
Olympia and WDFW 2008, p.1; Port of Olympia 2012). They continue to
work with WDFW on mitigating airport expansion activities that may
impact gophers (Tirhi 2010, in litt.).
Shelton Pocket Gopher. While past construction of the Port of
Shelton's Sanderson Field previously removed prairie habitat in an area
occupied by Shelton pocket gophers, future development plans do not
include impacts to a significant amount of gopher habitat at this time.
The majority of planned development will occur in areas already
impacted (between existing buildings). Potential additions of pavement
for hangars and a runway extension are planned in gopher use areas at
the south end of the airport. However, neither project would impact a
significant portion of the entire area used by gophers (Port of Shelton
2010, 2012). In addition, the Port will have to prove to the Federal
Aviation Administration that a need exists to extend the existing
runway, which is unlikely to occur in the next 5 years (Palmer 2012, in
litt.). The Port of Shelton operates under a Gopher Habitat Management
Plan (Port of Shelton 2003) and has identified a smaller restoration
area of approximately 50 ac (20 ha) across Highway 101 from the
airport, where Scot's broom and other woody vegetation would be
controlled in order to benefit Mazama pocket gophers, although the soil
type in the restoration site (Shelton) is different from that on most
of Sanderson Field (Carstairs). The majority of other local populations
of Shelton pocket gophers in Mason County (i.e., those that occur off
of Port property) do not appear to face a threat of development, as
they largely occur on commercial timber forest lands.
Olympic, Roy, and Yelm Pocket Gophers. The Olympic pocket gopher,
occurring entirely within the Olympic National Park, the Yelm pocket
gophers at Tenalquot Preserve and Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, and the
translocated populations at West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area (all
Olympia pocket gophers from the Olympia Airport) and Wolf Haven
(largely from around the Olympia Airport, but could include other
subspecies), are currently secure from intense commercial and
residential development pressures as these populations occur on
conserved lands. JBLM local populations (which could include both Roy
Prairie and Yelm pocket gophers due to Department of Defense (DOD) land
holdings that overlap the ranges of both subspecies) are also secure
from such residential and commercial development; however, impacts due
to military training threaten gopher habitat and may lead to reduced
use of these areas by gophers (see Military Activities, below).
Cathlamet Pocket Gopher. We have no information available that
indicates that development is a threat to the Cathlamet subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher.
Loss of Ecological Disturbance Processes, Invasive Species, and
Succession
The suppression and loss of ecological disturbance regimes across
vast portions of the landscape, such as fire, has resulted in altered
vegetation structure in the prairies and meadows and has facilitated
invasion by native and nonnative woody vegetation, rendering habitat
unusable for the four Thurston/Pierce and Shelton subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher. The basic ecological processes that maintain prairies
and meadows have disappeared from, or have been altered on, all but a
few protected and managed sites.
Historically, the prairies and meadows of the south Puget Sound
region of Washington are thought to have been actively maintained by
the native peoples of the region, who lived here for at least 10,000
years before the arrival of Euro-American settlers (Boyd 1986, entire;
Christy and Alverson 2011, p. 93). Frequent burning reduced the
encroachment and spread of shrubs and trees (Boyd 1986, entire;
Chappell and Kagan 2001, p. 42), favoring open grasslands with a rich
variety of native plants and animals. Following Euro-American
settlement of the region in the mid-19th century, fire was actively
suppressed on grasslands, allowing encroachment by woody vegetation
into the remaining prairie habitat and oak woodlands (Franklin and
Dyrness 1973 p. 122; Boyd 1986, entire; Kruckeberg 1991, p. 287; Agee
1993, p. 360; Altman et al. 2001, p. 262).
Fires on the prairie create a mosaic of vegetation conditions,
which serve to maintain native prairie plant communities. In some
prairie patches fires will kill encroaching woody vegetation and reset
succession back to bare ground, creating early successional vegetation
conditions suitable for many native prairie species. Early succession
forbs and grasses are favored by Mazama pocket gophers. The historical
fire frequency on prairies has been estimated to be 3 to 5 years
(Foster 2005, p. 8).
The result of fire suppression has been the invasion of the
prairies and oak woodlands by native and nonnative plant species (Dunn
and Ewing 1997, p. v; Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 146), notably woody
plants such as the native Douglas-fir and the nonnative Scot's broom.
On tallgrass prairies in midwestern North America, fire suppression has
led to degradation and the loss of native grasslands (Curtis 1959, pp.
296, 298; Panzer 2002, p. 1297). On northwestern prairies, fire
suppression has allowed Douglas-fir to
[[Page 73779]]
encroach on and outcompete native prairie vegetation for light, water,
and nutrients (Stinson 2005, p. 7). This increase in woody vegetation
and nonnative plant species has resulted in less available prairie
habitat overall and habitat that is unsuitable for and avoided by many
native prairie species, including the Mazama pocket gopher (Tveten and
Fonda 1999, p. 155; Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 2, 27; Olson 2011a, pp.
12, 16). Pocket gophers prefer early successional vegetation as forage.
Woody plants shade out the forbs and grasses that gophers prefer to
eat, and high densities of woody plants make travel both below and
above the ground difficult for gophers. In locations with poor forage,
pocket gophers tend to have larger territories, which may be difficult
to establish in densely forested areas. The probability of Mazama
pocket gopher occupancy is much higher in areas with less than 10
percent woody vegetation cover (Olson 2011a, p. 16).
On JBLM alone, over 16,000 acres (6,477 ha) of prairie has
converted to Douglas-fir forest since the mid-19th century (Foster and
Shaff 2003, p. 284). Where controlled burns or direct tree removal are
not used as a management tool, this encroachment will continue to cause
the loss of open grassland habitats for Mazama pocket gophers and is an
ongoing threat for the species.
Restoration in some of the south Puget Sound grasslands has
resulted in temporary control of Scot's broom and other invasive plants
through the careful and judicious use of herbicides, mowing, grazing,
and fire. Fire has been used as a management tool to maintain native
prairie composition and structure and is generally acknowledged to
improve the health and composition of grassland habitat by providing a
short-term nitrogen addition, which results in a fertilizer effect to
vegetation, thus aiding grasses and forbs as they resprout.
Unintentional fires ignited by military training burn patches of
prairie grasses and forbs on JBLM on an annual basis. These light
ground fires create a mosaic of conditions within the grassland,
maintaining a low vegetative structure of native and nonnative plant
composition, and patches of bare soil. Because of the topography of the
landscape, fires create a patchy mosaic of areas that burn completely,
some areas that do not burn, and areas where consumption of the
vegetation is mixed in its effects to the habitat. One of the benefits
to fire in grasslands is that it tends to kill regenerating conifers,
and reduces the cover of nonnative shrubs such as Scot's broom,
although Scot's broom seed stored in the soil can be stimulated by fire
(Agee 1993, p. 367). Fire also improves conditions for many native
bulb-forming plants, such as Camassia sp. (camas) (Agee and Dunwiddie
1984, p. 367). On sites where regular fires occur, such as on JBLM,
there is a high complement of native plants and fewer invasive species.
These types of fires promote the maintenance of the native short-
statured plant communities favored by pocket gophers.
Management practices such as intentional burning and mowing require
expertise in timing and technique to achieve desired results. If
applied at the wrong season, frequency, or scale, fire and mowing can
be detrimental to the restoration of native prairie species. Excessive
and high intensity burning can result in a lack of vegetation or
encourage regrowth to nonnative grasses. Where such burning has
occurred over a period of more than 50 years on the artillery ranges of
the JBLM, prairies are covered by nonnative forbs and grasses instead
of native perennial bunchgrasses (Tveten and Fonda 1999, pp. 154-155).
Mazama pocket gophers are not commonly found in areas colonized by
Douglas-fir trees because gophers require forbs and grasses of an early
successional stage for food (Witmer et al. 1996, p. 96). Mazama pocket
gophers observed on JBLM did not occur in areas with high cover of
Scot's broom (Steinberg 1995, p. 26). A more recent study on JBLM also
found that pocket gopher presence was negatively associated with Scot's
broom (Olson 2011a, pp. 12-13, 16). Some subspecies of Mazama pocket
gophers may disperse through forested areas or may temporarily
establish territories on forest edges, but there is currently not
enough data available to determine how common this behavior may be or
which subspecies employ it. The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies occur
on prairie-type habitats, many of which, if not actively managed to
maintain vegetation in an early-successional state, have been invaded
by shrubs and trees that either preclude the gophers or limit their
ability to fully occupy the landscape.
Some areas which are occupied by the Olympic, Cathlamet, and to
some extent the Shelton subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher, may be at
risk due to ingrowth of trees (Vale 1981, p. 61; Magee and Antos 1992,
pp. 492-493; Woodward et al. 1995, p. 224; Zolbrod and Peterson 1999,
pp. 1970-1971). This encroachment appears to be occurring slowly and
other factors may prevent it or set it back, including increased or
decreased precipitation (depending on season), growing season duration
and temperature, timing and duration of snowpack, increased fire
frequency, or windthrow. Such factors can be extremely site-specific in
nature and microclimatically based. This makes it difficult to predict
where, when, and to what extent encroachment may occur (see discussion
under Climate Change, Factor E). The loss of natural disturbance
processes and succession aren't known to be a current threat to the
Olympic or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Where the Shelton pocket gopher occurs on Sanderson Field (the
largest open prairie habitat in the range of the Shelton pocket
gopher), airport management prevents woody vegetation from encroaching
for flight safety reasons. Vegetative encroachment is therefore not an
issue at this site. The Shelton pocket gopher's range overlaps both
prairie and commercial timberlands. Due to management actions at
Sanderson Field, and due to the subspecies' ability to take advantage
of forest openings created by management, succession or loss of habitat
does not appear to be an overall threat to this subspecies.
Military Training
Populations of Mazama pocket gophers occurring on JBLM are exposed
to differing levels of training activities on the base. The DOD's
proposed actions under `Grow the Army' (GTA) include stationing 5,700
new soldiers, new combat service support units, a combat aviation
brigade, facility demolition and construction to support the increased
troop levels, and additional aviation, maneuver, and live fire training
(75 FR 55313, September 10, 2010). The increased training activities
will affect nearly all training areas at JBLM resulting in an increased
risk of accidental fires, and habitat destruction and degradation
through vehicle travel, dismounted training, bivouac activities, and
digging. While training areas on the base have degraded habitat for
these species, with implementation of conservation measures, these
areas still provide habitat for the Mazama pocket gopher.
Several moderate- to large-sized local populations of Mazama pocket
gophers have been identified on JBLM. We believe these are likely to be
Roy Prairie and Yelm pocket gophers. Their absence from some sites of
what is presumed to have been formerly suitable habitat may be related
to compaction of the soil due to years of mechanized vehicle training,
which impedes burrowing activities of pocket gophers (Steinberg 1995,
p. 36). Training infrastructure (roads, firing
[[Page 73780]]
ranges, bunkers) also degrades gopher habitat and may lead to reduced
use of these areas by pocket gophers. For example, as part of the GTA
effort, JBLM has plans to add a third rifle range on the south impact
area where it overlaps with a densely occupied Mazama pocket gopher
site. The area may be usable by gophers when the project is completed;
however, construction of the rifle range may result in removal of
forage and direct mortality of gophers through crushing of burrows
(Stinson 2011c, in litt.). We assume, as access is not allowed there,
that gophers are unable to fully utilize the otherwise apparently
suitable central portion of 91st Division Prairie due to repeated and
ongoing bombardment of that area. Other JBLM training areas have
varying levels of use; some allow excavation (Marion Prairie) and off-
road vehicle use, while other areas have restrictions that limit off-
road vehicle use. No military training occurs in the range of the
Olympic, Cathlamet, Shelton, Olympia, or Tenino subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher.
JBLM has committed to restrictions both seasonally and
operationally on military training areas, in order to avoid and
minimize potential impacts to Mazama pocket gophers. These restrictions
include identified non-training areas, seasonally restricted areas
during breeding, and the adjustment of mowing schedules to protect the
species. These conservation management practices are outlined in an
operational plan that the Service has assisted the DOD in developing
for JBLM (Thomas 2012, pers. comm.).
Restoration Activities
Management for invasive species and encroachment of conifers
requires control through equipment, herbicides, and other activities.
While restoration has conservation value for the species, management
activities to implement restoration may also have direct impacts to the
species that are the target of habitat restoration.
In the south Puget Sound, Mazama pocket gopher habitat has been
degraded and encroached upon by native and nonnative shrubs, including
Scot's broom and several Washington State listed noxious weeds, such as
Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge) and Centaurea sp. (knapweed) (Dunn and
Ewing 1997, p. v; Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 11). Steinberg (1995, p.
26) observed that pocket gophers on JBLM did not occur in areas with
thick Scot's broom and Olson (2011a, pp. 12-13) also found that pocket
gopher presence was negatively associated with Scot's broom. Most
restoration activities are unlikely to have direct impacts on pocket
gophers, though removal of nonnative vegetation is likely to
temporarily decrease available forage for Mazama pocket gophers.
Disease Impacts to Habitat
Disease is not known to be a threat to the habitats of the
Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers.
Summary of Factor A
Here we summarize the threats to the seven subspecies of Mazama
pocket gophers under consideration in this proposed rule.
Much of the habitat originally used by the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies has been fragmented and/or lost to development. Residential
and commercial development in the restricted remaining range of the
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies is expected to continue into the
future, and is likely to continue to result in substantial impacts to
the subspecies' habitat and populations. Development removes forage
vegetation, renders soils unsuitable for burrowing by covering them
with impervious surfaces, or by grading or removing them. Proposed
development triggers Critical Area Ordinances (CAOs) in these counties,
but resultant set-asides are not always adequate to conserve local
populations into the future (for further discussion on these regulatory
assurances, see Factor D) The threat of development is not significant
for the Shelton pocket gopher. Development is not a threat for the
Olympic or Cathlamet pocket gophers.
Past military training has likely negatively impacted two of the
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies (Roy Prairie and Yelm pocket gophers)
by direct and indirect mortality from bombardment, subsequent fires,
and soils compaction on prairies. This threat is expected to continue
in the future due to planned increases in stationing and military
training at JBLM. Military training is not a threat to the five other
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Degradation of habitat by invasive shrubby species such as Scot's
broom continues to be on ongoing significant threat to the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies. Invasive species encroachment into alpine
and subalpine meadows is not known to be a threat for the Olympic,
Cathlamet, or Shelton pocket gopher.
The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies also face threats from
encroachment of native and nonnative plant species into their prairie
environments due to succession and fire suppression, and are
particularly impacted by the encroachment of woody vegetation. This has
resulted in loss of forage vegetation for pocket gophers, as well loss
of burrowing habitat, as tree and shrub roots overtake the soils. We
have no evidence to indicate that encroachment of woody vegetation is a
threat for the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet pocket gophers.
The Washington prairie ecosystem that the Mazama pocket gopher
subspecies primarily depend upon has been reduced by an estimated 90 to
95 percent over the past 150 years, with less than 10 percent of the
native prairie remaining in the south Puget Sound region today. Due to
loss and degradation of gopher habitat from ongoing and future
residential and commercial development, encroachment of shrubs and
trees into their prairie habitats, and impacts from both current and
future military training (for Roy Prairie and Yelm subspecies), we
conclude that the threats to the habitat of the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher are significant. We did not find any
information to suggest that there are habitat based threats for the
Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization of species results when the number of individuals
removed from the system exceeds the ability of the population of the
species to sustain its numbers or reduces populations of the species to
a level such that it is vulnerable to other influences (threats) upon
its survival. This overutilization can result from removal of
individuals from the wild for commercial, recreational, scientific or
educational purposes.
One local population of Mazama pocket gopher at Lost Lake Prairie
in Mason County (Shelton pocket gopher) may have been extirpated as a
result of collecting by Dalquest and Scheffer in the late 1930s or
early 1940s (Dalquest and Scheffer 1944, p. 314). Later, Steinberg
(1996, p.23) conducted surveys in the vicinity and found no evidence of
pocket gophers. In addition, Mazama pocket gophers in Washington were
used in a rodenticide experiment as recently as 1995 (Witmer et al.
1996, p. 97). Witmer et al. (1996, p. 95) claim these were likely
Thomomys mazama tumuli (Tenino pocket gophers), but these Lacey-area
gophers may fall in the range of the Olympia pocket gopher. Hundreds of
Olympia pocket gophers died during initial translocation experiments
and research conducted by WDFW at Wolf Haven and West Rocky
[[Page 73781]]
Prairie, respectively, between 2005 and 2011 (Linders 2008, p. 9; Olson
2011c; Olson 2012a, in litt.). In the case of the Wolf Haven
translocations, gophers were removed from development sites where
pocket gopher mortality would have likely occurred from direct impacts
due to site development (crushing of individuals and burrows from heavy
machinery excavation, grading, and construction, etc.). Pocket gophers
continue to occupy Wolf Haven, despite there being no known occurrence
records for the site prior to translocations. Similarly, pocket gophers
were not known to inhabit West Rocky Prairie prior to translocation
experiments there. Pocket gophers for this research were taken from the
Olympia Airport, one of the largest local populations of Mazama pocket
gophers in Thurston County. Although no analysis has been completed on
the population levels of the Olympia airport population after this
experiment, this population remains the largest in Thurston County. The
analysis and evaluation of this research is ongoing. Outside of this
controlled research, we have no information or evidence that
overutilization of any subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher is an ongoing
threat now or will become a threat in the future.
Summary of Factor B
In summary, although there is some evidence of historical mortality
from overutilization of the Mazama pocket gopher, and there may have
been recent mortality from utilization of the Mazama pocket gopher for
research purposes, we have no information to indicate that these
activities have negatively impacted the species as a whole and have no
information to suggest that overutilization will become a threat in the
future. In addition, there is no evidence that commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational use is occurring at a level
that would pose a threat to the Mazama pocket gopher.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
Most healthy ecosystems include organisms such as viruses,
bacteria, fungi, and parasites that cause disease. Healthy wildlife and
ecosystems have evolved defenses to fend off most diseases before they
have devastating impacts. An ecosystem with high levels of biodiversity
(diversity of species and genetic diversity within species) is more
resilient to the impacts of disease because there are greater
possibilities that some species and individuals within a species have
evolved resistance, or if an entire species is lost, that there will
likely be another species to fill the empty niche.
Where ecosystems are not healthy due to a loss of biodiversity and
threats such as habitat loss, climate change, pollutants or invasive
species, wildlife and ecosystems are more vulnerable to emerging
diseases. Diseases caused by or carried by invasive species are
particularly severe threats, as native wildlife may have no natural
immunity to them (National Wildlife Federation 2012).
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data
found no evidence to indicate that disease is a threat to the
Washington Mazama pocket gopher subspecies. We conclude that disease is
not a threat to the subspecies now, nor do we anticipate it to become a
threat in the future.
Predation
Predation is a process of major importance in influencing the
distribution, abundance, and diversity of species in ecological
communities. Generally, predation leads to changes in both the
population size of the predator and that of the prey. In unfavorable
environments, prey species are stressed or living at low population
densities such that predation is likely to have negative effects on all
prey species, thus lowering species richness. In addition, when a
nonnative predator is introduced to the ecosystem, negative effects on
the prey population may be higher than those from co-evolved native
predators. The effect of predation may be magnified when populations
are small, and the disproportionate effect of predation on declining
populations has been shown to drive rare species even further towards
extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75).
Predation has an impact on populations of the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. For the Mazama pocket gopher,
urbanization, particularly in the south Puget Sound area, has resulted
in not only habitat loss, but the increased exposure to feral and
domestic cats (Felis catus) and dogs (Canis lupus familiaris). Domestic
cats are known to have serious impacts on small mammals and birds and
have been implicated in the decline of several endangered and
threatened mammals, including marsh rabbits in Florida and the salt-
marsh harvest mouse in California (Ogan and Jurek 1997, p. 89).
Domestic cats and dogs have been specifically identified as common
predators of pocket gophers (Wight 1918, p. 21; Henderson 1981, p. 233;
Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21) and at least two Mazama pocket gopher
locations were found as a result of house cats bringing home pocket
gopher carcasses (WDFW 2001, entire). In addition, the last specimens
and last known individuals of the Tacoma pocket gopher were carcasses
brought home by cats (Stinson 2005, p. 34). There is also one recorded
instance of a WDFW biologist being presented with a dead Mazama pocket
gopher by a dog during an east Olympia, Washington, site visit in 2006
(Burke Museum 2012).
The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher occur
in rapidly developing areas. Local populations that survive commercial
and residential development (adjacent to and within habitat) are
vulnerable to extirpation by domestic and feral cats and dogs
(Henderson 1981, p. 233; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21). As stated
previously, predation is a natural part of the Mazama pocket gopher's
life history; however, the effect of predation may be magnified when
populations are small. The disproportionate effect of additional
predation on declining populations has been shown to drive rare species
even further towards extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75). Predation,
particularly from nonnative species, will likely continue to be a
threat to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher
now and in the future, particularly where development abuts gopher
habitat. In such areas where local populations are already small, this
additional predation pressure (above natural levels of predation) is
expected to further impact population numbers. We have no information
to indicate that predation is a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or
Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Summary of Factor C
Based on our review of the best available information, we conclude
that disease is not a threat to the Mazama pocket gopher now, nor do we
expect it to become a threat in the future.
Because the populations of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher are declining and small, we find that the effect
of the threat of predation by feral and domestic pets (cats and dogs)
is resulting in a significant impact on the subspecies. Therefore,
based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we conclude that predation is currently a threat to the
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher now and will
continue to be in the future. We have no information to indicate that
predation is a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or
[[Page 73782]]
Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the subspecies
discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
requires the Service to take into account ``those efforts, if any,
being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision
of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *.'' In
relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to
require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal
laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of
the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four
factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the subspecies. We give
strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to
management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An
example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State
statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.
The following section includes a discussion of Federal, State,
Tribal, or local laws, regulations, or treaties that apply to the
Mazama pocket gopher. It includes legislation for Federal land
management agencies and State and Federal regulatory authorities
affecting land use or other relevant management.
United States Federal Laws and Regulations
There are no Federal laws in the United States that specifically
address the Mazama pocket gopher.
The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Secretary of Defense
to develop cooperative plans with the Secretaries of Agriculture and
the Interior for natural resources on public lands. The Sikes Act
Improvement Act of 1997 requires Department of Defense installations to
prepare Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) that
provide for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on
military lands consistent with the use of military installations to
ensure the readiness of the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate, to the
maximum extent practicable, ecosystem management principles and provide
the landscape necessary to sustain military land uses. While INRMPs are
not technically regulatory mechanisms because their implementation is
subject to funding availability, they can be an added conservation tool
in promoting the recovery of endangered and threatened species on
military lands.
On JBLM in Washington, several policies and an INRMP are in place
to provide conservation measures to grassland associated species that
occupy training lands on the military base. JBLM in partnership with
local agencies and nongovernmental organizations has provided funding
to conserve these species through the acquisition of new conservation
properties and management actions intended to improve the amount and
distribution of habitat for these species. JBLM has also provided
funding to reintroduce declining species into suitable habitat on and
off military lands. In June 2011, representatives from DOD (Washington,
DC, office) met with all conservation partners to assess the success of
this program and make decisions as to future funding needs. Support
from the Garrison Commander of JBLM and all partners resulted in an
increase in funding for habitat management and acquisition projects for
these species on JBLM.
The Service has worked closely with the DOD to develop protection
areas within the primary habitat for Mazama pocket gophers on JBLM.
These include areas where no vehicles are permitted on occupied
habitat, where vehicles will remain on roads only, and where only foot
traffic is allowed.
JBLM policies include Army Regulation 420-5, which covers the
INRMP, and AR-200-1. This is an agreement between each troop and DOD
management that actions taken by each soldier will comply with
restrictions placed on specific Training Areas, or range lands. Within
the INRMP, the wildlife branch of the DOD is developing updated
Endangered Species Management Plans (ESMPs) that provide site specific
management and protection actions that are taken on military lands for
the conservation of the Mazama pocket gopher. The ESMPs will provide
assurances of available funding, and an implementation schedule that
determines when certain activities will occur and who will accomplish
these actions. ESMPs require regular updates to account for local or
rangewide changes in species status. INRMPs also have a monitoring
component that would require modifications, or adaptive management, to
planning actions when the result of that specific action may differ
from the intent of the planned action. Therefore, although current
military actions may continue to harm individuals of the species, we
expect (based on our ongoing technical assistance) that the Final ESMPs
and revised INRMP will provide greater conservation benefit to the
species than this current level of management and will protect Mazama
pocket gophers from further population declines associated with habitat
loss or inappropriate management on JBLM properties.
The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (39 Stat.
535, 16 U.S.C. 1), states that the National Park Service (NPS) ``shall
promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national
parks, monuments, and reservations * * * to conserve the scenery and
the national and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.'' The NPS Management Policies indicate that the Park
Service will ``meet its obligations under the National Park Service
Organic Act and the Endangered Species Act to both pro-actively
conserve listed species and prevent detrimental effects on these
species.'' This includes working with the Service and undertaking
active management programs to inventory, monitor, restore, and maintain
listed species' habitats, among other actions.
The Olympic pocket gopher occurs entirely on National Park land and
is protected by Federal regulations. Under Federal regulations,
disturbance, collection of, or possessing unlawfully taken wildlife,
except by authorized hunting and trapping activities is prohibited (36
CFR 2.1(a)(1)(i), 2.2(a)(1)(2)(3), and (b)(1)(2)(3)(4)). The Park also
provides some protection to the species due to its threatened status in
the State of Washington. According to the regulations codified in 36
CFR 2.5(c);
``A permit to take an endangered or threatened species listed
pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, or similarly identified by
the States, shall not be issued unless the species cannot be
obtained outside of the park area and the primary purpose of the
collection is to enhance the protection or management of the
species.''
Based on our review, we conclude that the Olympic pocket gopher is
not faced with further population declines associated with habitat loss
or inappropriate management due to the inadequacy of existing NPS
regulations.
State Laws and Regulations
Although there is no State Endangered Species Act in Washington,
the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has authority to list
species (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 77.12.020). The Mazama pocket
gopher
[[Page 73783]]
is currently listed as a threatened species by the WDFW. State-listed
species are protected from direct take and/or malicious' take' but
their habitat is not protected (RCW 77.15.120). State listings
generally consider only the status of the species within the State's
borders, and do not depend upon the same considerations as a potential
Federal listing. Habitat receives protection through county or
municipal critical area ordinances. Critical area ordinances require
environmental review and habitat management plans for development
proposals that affect state-listed species. Washington's Growth
Management Act requires counties to develop critical area ordinances
that address development impacts to important wildlife habitats.
However, the specifics and implementation of critical area ordinances
vary by county (see specific discussions below).
The Mazama pocket gopher is a Priority Species under WDFW's
Priority Habitats and Species Program (WDFW 2008, pp. 19, 80, 120). As
a Priority Species, Mazama pocket gophers benefit from some protection
of their habitats under environmental reviews of applications for
county or municipal development permits (Stinson 2005, pp. 46, 70).
WDFW provides Priority Habitats and Species Management Recommendations
to local government permit reviewers, applicants, consultants, and
landowners in order to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to Mazama
pocket gophers and their habitat (WDFW 2011, p.1). These
recommendations are not regulatory, but are based on best available
science. As discussed in Factor A, the threat of development is
greatest for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies, but is not known to
be a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies.
Under the Washington State Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09 accessed
online 2012), WDNR must approve certain activities related to growing,
harvesting or processing timber on all local government, State, and
privately-owned forest lands. WDNR's mission is to protect public
resources while maintaining a viable timber industry. The primary goal
of the forest practices rules is to achieve protection of water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and capital improvements while
ensuring that harvested areas are reforested. Presently, the Washington
State Forest Practices Rules do not specifically protect Mazama pocket
gophers or their habitat. The Shelton and Cathlamet subspecies both
occur in areas that would be subject to Washington State Forest
Practices Rules. Landowners removing over 5,000 board feet of timber on
their ownership, have the option to develop a management plan for a
listed species if it resides on their property. If landowners choose to
not develop a management plan for the subspecies with WDFW, their
forest practices application will be conditioned to protect the
relevant subspecies. If this approach does not provide the required
protections for the subspecies then WDFW and WDNR may request the
Forest Practice Board to initiate rule making, and possibly, an
emergency rule would be developed (Whipple 2008, pers. comm.).
The WDNR also manages approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of lands
as Natural Area Preserves (NAP). NAPs provide the highest level of
protection for excellent examples of unique or typical land features in
Washington State. These NAPs provide protection for the Mazama pocket
gopher and based on their proactive management, we do not find the
Mazama pocket gophers to be threatened by the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms on WDNR lands.
Based on our review of the existing regulatory mechanisms for the
State of Washington, we conclude that while the State's regulations may
protect individuals of the subspecies, they do not protect the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher, from further
population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate
management nor do they provide for these subspecies' long-term
population viability.
Local Laws and Regulations
The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 requires all
jurisdictions in the state to designate and protect critical areas. The
state defines five broad categories of critical areas, including: (1)
Wetlands; (2) areas with a critical recharging effects on aquifers used
for potable water; (3) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas;
(4) frequently flooded areas; and (5) geologically hazardous areas.
Quercus garryana (Oregon white oak) habitat and prairie both
predominantly fall into the category of fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, though due to the coarse nature of prairie soils
and the presence of wet prairie habitat across the landscape, critical
area protections for crucial aquifer recharge areas and wetlands may
also address some prairie habitat protection. As indicated previously,
Washington's Growth Management Act requires counties to develop
critical area ordinances that address development impacts to important
wildlife habitats. The specifics and implementation of critical area
ordinances vary by county although the Mazama pocket gopher is
recognized as a species of local importance in the critical area
ordinances of Pierce, Thurston, and Mason counties. Generally within
these areas, when development activities are proposed where gophers are
likely to be present, the developer must determine if gophers are
present, assess the impact to gophers, and submit a Habitat Assessment
Report (Pierce) or Habitat Management Plan (Thurston, Mason). Habitat
Management Plans have been developed for gophers for many sites in
Thurston County since 2006.
Within counties, the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) applies to all
unincorporated areas, but incorporated cities are required to
independently address critical areas within their Urban Growth Area.
The incorporated cities within the range of the Mazama pocket gopher in
Washington are: (1) Shelton (Mason County); (2) Roy (Pierce County);
and (3) Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, and Yelm (Thurston County).
In 2009, the Thurston County Board of Commissioners adopted Interim
Ordinance No. 14260, which strengthened protections for prairie and
Oregon white oak habitat in consideration of the best available
science. The County worked with the Service and WDFW to include an up-
to-date definition of prairie habitat and to delineate soils where
prairie habitat is likely to occur. In July 2010, the ordinance was
renewed and amended, including revisions to the prairie soils list and
changes to administrative language. Since July 2010, the interim
prairie ordinance has been renewed on a 6-month basis and is currently
in place. Several prairie species were also included as important
species subject to critical areas regulation, including three
subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers (for Thurston County, these would
be the Olympia, Tenino, and Yelm pocket gophers, although the CAO
doesn't separate out subspecies by name) (Thurston County 2012, p. 1).
Implementation of the ordinances includes delineation of prairie
soils at the time of any land use application. County staff use the
presence of prairie soils and soils identified as Mazama pocket gopher
habitat as well as known presence of these subspecies to determine
whether prairie habitat may be present at a site and impacted by the
land use activity. After a field review, if prairie habitat or one of
these subspecies is found on the site, the County requires a habitat
management plan (HMP) to be developed, typically
[[Page 73784]]
by a consultant for the landowner, in accordance with WDFW's Priority
Habitats and Species Management Recommendations. This HMP specifies how
site development should occur, and assists developers in achieving
compliance with CAO requirements to minimize impact to the prairie
habitat and species. The HMPs typically include onsite fencing and
semi-annual mowing. Mitigation for prairie impacts may also be
required, on-site or off (Thurston County 2012, p. 2). WDFW biologists
are not required to review or approve the HMP for adequacy and usually
are not privy to the recommendations in final Plan. Subsequently, the
County may vacate all or part of the HMP if it determines a reasonable
use exception (discussed towards the end of this section) is
appropriate.
In Clallam, Pierce, and Mason Counties, specific CAOs have not been
identified for the Olympic, Shelton, or Roy Prairie subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher. However, prairie habitats and species garner some
protection under Fish (or Aquatic) and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas (Mason County 2009, p. 64; Clallam County 2012, Part Three,
entire; Pierce County 2012, pp. 18E.40-1-3). All developments within
these areas are required to: preserve and protect habitat adequate to
support viable populations of native wildlife (Clallam County 2012,
Part Three, entire); to achieve ``no net loss'' of species and habitat
where, if altered, the action may reduce the likelihood that these
species survive and reproduce over the long term (Pierce County 2012,
p. 18E.40-1); and support viable populations and protect habitat for
Federal or State listed fish or wildlife (Mason County 2009, p. 63).
Due to its State-listed status in Washington, gophers are included
in three county CAOs in the State. Actions in gopher habitat under such
ordinances are intended to protect and minimize impacts to gophers and
their habitats. As such, development applications in suspected gopher
areas have spurred surveys and habitat assessments by WDFW or
contractors in Mason, Pierce, and Thurston Counties. While survey
techniques are more-or-less consistent from site to site, potential
development properties found to be occupied by gophers are subject to
varied species protection measures. These measures have included
habitat set-asides, on-site fencing, signage, and suggested guidelines
for long-term management. These measures are inadequate for protecting
the site from nonnative predators, ensuring long-term habitat
functioning or population viability, providing connectivity to adjacent
habitat areas, or prompting corrective management actions if the
biological functioning of the set-aside declines.
Measures are implemented with varying degrees of biological
assessment, evaluation, and monitoring to ensure ecological success. If
a site is found to be occupied by Mazama pocket gophers and unless a
reasonable use exception is determined by the County, development
properties are required to set aside fenced, signed areas for pocket
gopher protection that must be maintained into the future. However,
fencing often doesn't exclude predators, and the size of the set-asides
may not be large enough to sustain a population of gophers over time.
Additionally, there appears to be no mechanism in place for oversight
to ensure that current and future landowners are complying with the
habitat maintenance requirements, so within these set-asides, pocket
gopher habitat may become unsuitable over time. Legal procedures to
ensure performance, permanency, funding, and enforcement for long-term
site stewardship are inadequate, or are nonexistent (Defobbis 2011, in
litt.). Consequently, for the Mazama pocket gophers impacted by
development (the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies), the contribution of
these sites to maintaining pocket gopher populations and viability is
unreliable for long-term conservation.
For a few property owners in Thurston County, the size of the set-
aside would have precluded the proposed use of the properties. In these
cases, landowners were granted a ``reasonable use exception,'' allowing
development to proceed. In some cases, gophers that could be live-
trapped have been moved (translocated) to other locations. These were
termed emergency translocations. In cases such as this, or where the
set-aside doesn't wholly overlap all occupied habitat, destruction of
occupied habitats (due to building construction, grading or paving
over, etc.) likely results in death of individuals due to the gopher's
underground existence and sedentary nature, which makes them vulnerable
in situations where their burrows are crushed.
County-level CAOs do not apply to incorporated cities within county
boundaries, thus the incorporated cities of Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater,
Yelm, Tenino, and Rainier that overlap the range of the four Thurston/
Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher do not provide the same
specificity of protection as the Thurston County CAO. Below we address
the relevant city ordinances that overlap the species' range. We
conclude below with a summary of whether we deem these city ordinances
as they are tied to the County-level ordinances are adequate for the
conservation of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher.
The City of Olympia. The City of Olympia's municipal code states
that ``The Department [City] may restrict the uses and activities of a
development proposal which lie within one thousand feet of important
habitat or species location,'' defined by Washington State's Priority
Habitat and Species (PHS) Management Recommendations of 1991, as
amended'' (Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) 18.32.315 B). When development
is proposed within 1,000 feet of habitat of a species designated as
important by Washington State, the Olympia CAO requires the preparation
of a formal ``Important Habitats and Species Management Plan'' unless
waived by the WDFW (OMC 18.32.320).
The City of Lacey. The City of Lacey CAO includes in its definition
of ``critical area'' any area identified as habitat for a Federal or
State endangered, threatened, or sensitive species or State-listed
priority habitat, and calls these Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs)
(Lacey Municipal Code (LMC) 14.33.060). These areas are defined through
individual contract with qualified professional biologists on a site-
by-site basis as development is proposed. The code further states that,
``No development shall be allowed within a habitat conservation area or
buffer [for a habitat conservation area] with which state or federally
endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary
association'' (LMC 14.33.117).
The City of Tumwater. The City of Tumwater CAO outlines protections
for HCAs and for ``habitats and species of local importance.''
Tumwater's HCAs are established on a case-by-case basis by a
``qualified professional'' as development is proposed and the HCAs are
required to be consistent with the recommendations issued by the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Tumwater Municipal
Code (TMC) 16.32.60). Species of local importance are defined as
locally significant species that are not State-listed as threatened,
endangered, or sensitive, but live in Tumwater and are of special
importance to the citizens of Tumwater for cultural or historical
reasons, or if the City is a critically significant portion of its
range (TMC 16.32.055 A). Tumwater is considered a ``critically
significant portion of a species' range'' if the species'
[[Page 73785]]
population would be divided into nonviable populations if it is
eliminated from Tumwater'' (TMC 16.32.055 A2). Species of local
importance are further defined as State monitor or candidate species
where Tumwater is a significant portion of its range such that a
significant reduction or elimination of the species from Tumwater would
result in changing the status of the species to that of State
endangered, threatened, or sensitive (TMC 16.32.055 A3).
The City of Yelm. The municipal code of Yelm states that it will
``regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to,
or likely to affect one or more critical areas, consistent with the
best available science'' (Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) 14.08.010 E4f) and
mandates that ``all actions and developments shall be designed and
constructed to avoid, minimize, and restore all adverse impacts.''
Further, it states that, ``no activity or use shall be allowed that
results in a net loss of the functions or values of critical areas''
(YMC 14.08.010 G) and ``no development shall be allowed within a
habitat conservation area or buffer which state or federally
endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary
association, except that which is provided for by a management plan
established by WDFW or applicable state or federal agency'' (YMC
14.080.140 D1a). The City of Yelm municipal code states that by
``limiting development and alteration of critical areas'' it will
``maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of
unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, and * * *
conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal species'' (17.08.010
A4b).
The City of Tenino. The City of Tenino municipal code gives
Development Regulations for Critical Areas and Natural Resource Lands
that include fish and wildlife habitat areas (Tenino Municipal Code
(TMC) 18D.10.030 A) and further ``protects unique, fragile, and
valuable elements of the environment, including critical fish and
wildlife habitat'' (TMC 18D.10.030 D). The City of Tenino references
the WDNR Critical Areas Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas-Stream Typing
Map and the WDFW PHS Program and PHS Maps as sources to identify fish
and wildlife habitat (TMC 18D.10.140 E1, 2). The City also defines
critical fish and wildlife species habitat areas as those areas known
to support or have ``a primary association with State or Federally
listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species of fish or wildlife
(specified in 50 CFR 17.11, 50 CFR 17.12, WAC 232-12-011) and which, if
altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will survive and
reproduce over the long term'' (TMC 18D.40.020A, B).
The City of Rainier. The City of Rainier municipal code identifies
``critical areas as defined by RCW 36.70A.030 to include * * * fish and
wildlife habitat areas'' (Rainier Municipal Code (RMC) 18.100.030A) and
further ``protects unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the
environment, including critical fish and wildlife habitat'' (RMC
180.100.030D). The City of Rainier mandates protective measures that
include avoiding impact to critical areas first and mitigation second
(RMC 18.100.B030B). Fish and wildlife habitat critical areas may be
designated either by a contracted ``qualified professional'' or a
qualified city employee (RMC 18.100.H040H).
The City of Shelton. The CAO for the city of Shelton (Mason County)
specifies compliance with the PHS through designation of habitat
conservation areas (HCAs) (Shelton Municipal Code (SMC) 21.64.300 B1),
indicating that where HCAs are designated, development will be
curtailed (SMC 21.64.010 B) except at the discretion of the director
(city), who may allow single-family development at such sites without a
critical areas assessment report if development is not believed to
directly disturb the components of the HCA (SMC 21.64.360 B).
The City of Roy. The CAO for the city of Roy (Pierce County)
defines HCAs according to WDFW PHS (Roy Municipal Code (RMC) 10-5E1 C),
alongside habitats and species of local importance as identified by the
City (RMC 10-5E1 D). HCAs are delineated by qualified professional fish
and wildlife biologists (RMC 10-5-9 A5). These HCAs are subject to
mitigation if direct impacts to the HCA are unavoidable (RMC 10-5-13
E3).
Summary. City and County CAOs have been crafted to preserve the
maximum amount of biodiversity while at the same time encouraging high
density development within their respective Urban Growth Areas. City
and County CAOs require that potential fish and wildlife habitat be
surveyed by qualified professional habitat biologists as development is
proposed (with the exception of Rainier, where a qualified city staffer
may complete the survey). An HCA is determined according to the WDFW
PHS list, which is associated with WDFW management recommendations for
each habitat and species. If an HCA is identified at a site, the
development of the parcel is then subject to the CAO regulations.
Mitigation required by each City or County CAO prioritizes
reconsideration of the proposed development action in order to avoid
the impact to the HCA.
These efforts are laudable, but are unlikely to prevent isolation
of local populations of sensitive species. Increased habitat
fragmentation and degradation, decreased habitat connectivity and
pressure from onsite and offsite factors are not fully taken into
consideration in the establishment of these mitigation sites. This may
be due to a lack of standardization in assessment protocols, though
efforts have been made on the part of the WDFW to implement training
requirements for all ``qualified biologists'' who survey for pocket
gopher presence or absence. Variability in the expertise and training
of ``qualified habitat biologists'' has led to broad variation in the
application of CAO guidelines in completion of the HMPs. Coupled with
the lack of requirement for WDFW to review and approve every HMP, this
variability in expertise and training does not appear to equally or
adequately support the conservation of Mazama pocket gophers.
Connectivity of populations, abundance of resources (e.g. food
plants), and undisturbed habitat are three primary factors affecting
plant and animal populations. The piecemeal pattern that development
unavoidably exhibits is difficult to reconcile with the needs of the
Mazama pocket gopher within a given Urban Growth Area. Further,
previously-common species may become uncommon due to disruption by
development, and preservation of small pockets of habitat is unlikely
to prevent extirpation of some species without intensive species
management, which is beyond the scope of individual CAOs. The four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher are affected by
habitat loss through development and conversion. Protective measures
undertaken while development of lands is taking place may provide
benefits for these species; however, based on our review of the
Washington County and State regulatory mechanisms, we conclude that
these measures are currently inadequate to protect the the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher from further
population declines associated with habitat loss, inappropriate
management and loss of connectivity. We do not have any information to
suggest that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms poses a
threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher.
[[Page 73786]]
Summary of Factor D
In summary, the existing regulatory mechanisms described above are
not sufficient to significantly reduce or remove the existing threats
to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. Lack of
essential habitat protection under State laws leaves these subspecies
at continued risk of habitat loss and degradation.
On JBLM, military training, as it currently occurs, causes direct
mortality of individuals and impacts habitat for the Roy Prairie and
Yelm subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher in all areas where training and
the species overlap. However, we expect (based on our ongoing technical
assistance), that the Final ESMPs and revised INRMP will provide
greater conservation benefit to the species than this current level of
management and will protect Mazama pocket gophers from further
population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate
management on JBLM properties. Therefore, we do not find existing
regulatory mechanisms to be inadequate for the subspecies on JBLM
lands.
The Washington CAOs generally provide conservation measures to
minimize habitat removal and direct effects to the Mazama pocket
gopher. However, habitat removal and degradation, direct loss of
individuals, increased fragmentation, decreased connectivity, and the
lack of consistent regulatory mechanisms to address the threats
associated with these effects continues to occur, particularly for the
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Based upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data
available, we conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate to reduce the threats to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies
of Mazama pocket gopher now or in the future. Based on our review, we
have no information to suggest that the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms poses a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or
Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence
Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated Populations, and Low
Reproductive Success
Most species' populations fluctuate naturally, responding to
various factors such as weather events, disease, and predation. Johnson
(1977, p. 3), however, suggested that these factors have less impact on
a species with a wide and continuous distribution. Populations that are
small, fragmented, or isolated by habitat loss or modification of
naturally patchy habitat, and other human-related factors, are more
vulnerable to extirpation by natural randomly occurring events,
cumulative effects, and to genetic effects that plague small
populations, collectively known as small population effects. These
effects can include genetic drift (loss of recessive alleles), founder
effects (over time, an increasing percentage of the population
inheriting a narrow range of traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading
to increasingly lower genetic diversity, with consequent negative
effects on evolutionary potential.
To date, of the eight subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher in
Washington, only the Olympic pocket gopher has been documented as
having low genetic diversity (Welch and Kenagy 2008, p. 7), although
the other seven subspecies have local populations that are small,
fragmented, and physically isolated from one another. The four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies face threats from further loss or
fragmentation of habitat. Historically, Mazama pocket gophers probably
persisted by continually recolonizing habitat patches after local
extinctions. This process, in concert with widespread development and
conversion of habitat, has resulted in widely separated populations
since intervening habitat corridors are now gone, likely stopping much
of the natural recolonization that historically occurred (Stinson 2005,
p. 46). Although the Mazama pocket gopher (except for the Olympic
pocket gopher) is not known to have low genetic diversity small
population sizes in most sites coupled with disjunct and fragmented
habitat may contribute to further population declines, specifically for
the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. Little is
known about the local or rangewide reproductive success of Mazama
pocket gophers in Washington.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The term ``climate'' refers to the mean and variability of
different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a
typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007a, p. 78).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring, and that the rate of change has been
faster since the 1950s. Examples include warming of the global climate
system, substantial increases in precipitation in some regions of the
world, and decreases in other regions. (For these and other examples,
see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; and IPCC 2007d, pp. 35-54, 82-85.) Results of
scientific analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the
observed increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th
century cannot be explained by natural variability in climate, and is
``very likely'' (defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher
probability) due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG)
concentrations in the atmosphere as a result of human activities,
particularly carbon dioxide emissions from use of fossil fuels (IPCC
2007a, pp. 5-6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; IPCC 2007d, pp. 21-35).
Further confirmation of the role of GHGs comes from analyses by Huber
and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who concluded it is extremely likely that
approximately 75 percent of global warming since 1950 has been caused
by human activities.
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of GHG emissions, to evaluate
the causes of changes already observed and to project future changes in
temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., IPCC 2007c, entire;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527,
529). All combinations of models and emissions scenarios yield very
similar projections of increases in the most common measure of climate
change, average global surface temperature (commonly known as global
warming), until about 2030. Although projections of the extent and rate
of warming differ after about 2030, the overall trajectory of all the
projections is one of increased global warming through the end of this
century, even for the projections based on scenarios that assume that
GHG emissions will stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong
scientific support for projections that warming will continue through
the 21st century, and that the scope and rate of change will be
influenced substantially by the extent of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a,
pp. 44-45;
[[Page 73787]]
IPCC 2007c, pp. 760-764 and 797-811; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-
15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). (See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a
summary of other global projections of climate-related changes, such as
frequency of heat waves and changes in precipitation. Also see IPCC
2011(entire) for a summary of observations and projections of extreme
climate events.)
Various changes in climate may have direct or indirect effects on
species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative, and they
may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant
considerations, such as interactions of climate with other variables
(e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007e, pp. 214-246). Identifying
likely effects often involves aspects of climate change vulnerability
analysis. Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or
system) is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of
climate change, including climate variability and extremes.
Vulnerability is a function of the type, scope, and rate of climate
change and variation to which a species is exposed, its sensitivity,
and its adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al.
2011, pp. 19-22). There is no single method for conducting such
analyses that applies to all situations (Glick et al. 2011, p. 3). We
use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical approaches to weigh
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
As is the case with all threats that we assess, even if we conclude
that a species is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a
negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, it does not
necessarily follow that the species meets the definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' under the Act. If a
species is listed as endangered or threatened, knowledge regarding the
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (e.g.,
IPCC 2007a, pp. 8-12). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections
when they are available and have been developed through appropriate
scientific procedures, because such projections provide higher
resolution information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for
analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a
discussion of downscaling). With regard to our analysis for the Mazama
pocket gopher, downscaled projections are available.
The ranges of the Mazama pocket gopher subspecies extend from the
Olympic Peninsula down through the Puget Sound trough. Downscaled
climate change projections for this ecoregion predict consistently
increasing annual mean temperatures from 2012 to 2095 using the IPCC's
medium (A1B) emissions scenario (IPCC 2000, p. 245). Using the General
Circulation Model (GCM) that most accurately predicts precipitation for
the Pacific Northwest, the Third Generation Coupled Global Climate
Model (CGCM3.1) under the medium emissions scenario (A1B), annual mean
temperature is predicted to increase approximately 1.8 [deg]Fahrenheit
(F) (1 [deg]Celsius (C)) by the year 2020, 3.6 [deg]F (2 [deg]C) by
2050, and 5.4 [deg]F (3 [deg]C) by 2090 (Climatewizardcustom 2012).
This analysis was restricted to the ecoregion encompassing the
overlapping range of the species of interest and is well supported by
analyses focused only on the Pacific Northwest by Mote and
Salath[eacute] in their 2010 publication, Future Climate in the Pacific
Northwest (Mote and Salath[eacute] 2010, entire). Employing the same
GCM and medium emissions scenario, downscaled model runs for
precipitation in the ecoregion project a small (less than 5 percent)
increase in mean annual precipitation over approximately the next 80
years. Most months are projected to show an increase in mean annual
precipitation. May through August are projected to show a decrease in
mean annual precipitation, which corresponds with the majority of the
reproductive season for the Mazama pocket gopher (Climatewizardcustom
2012).
The potential impacts of a changing global climate to the Mazama
pocket gopher are presently unclear. Projections localized to the
Georgia Basin--Puget Sound Trough--Willamette Valley Ecoregion suggest
that temperatures are likely to increase approximately 5 [deg]F (2.8
[deg]C) at the north end of the region by the year 2080 based on an
average of greenhouse gas emission scenarios B1, A1B, and A2 and all
Global Circulation Models employed by Climatewizard (range = 2.6 [deg]F
to 7.6 [deg]F; 1.4 [deg]C to 4.2 [deg]C). Similarly, the mid region
projection predicts an increase an average of 4.5 [deg]F (range = 2.1
[deg]F to 7.1 [deg]F; average of 2.5 [deg]C with a range of 1.2 [deg]C
to 3.9 [deg]C) and the southern end to increase by 4.5 [deg]F (range =
2.2 [deg]F to 7.1 [deg]F; average of 2.5 [deg]C with a range of 1.2
[deg]C to 3.9 [deg]C). Worldwide, the IPCC states it is very likely
that extreme high temperatures, heat waves, and heavy precipitation
events will increase in frequency (IPCC 2007c, p. 783).
Climate change has been linked to a number of conservation issues
and changes in animal populations and ranges. However, direct evidence
that climate change is the cause of these alterations is often lacking
(McCarty 2001, p. 327). The body of work examining the response of
small mammals to climate change is small and is primarily focused on
reconstruction of mammalian communities through the comparison of small
mammal fossils from the late Pleistocene to those of the Holocene, a
time period that spans the last significant climate warming event that
took place between 15,000 and 11,000 years ago (Blois et al. 2010,
entire; Terry et al. 2011, entire). Paleontological work done by Blois
et al. (2010, p. 772) in northern California reveals a strong
correlation between climate change and the decline and extirpation of
small mammal species during the last major global warming event. The
loss in species richness (number of taxa) of small mammals at their
research site is equal to that documented for large mammal extinctions
in North America during the same warming event at the transition from
the Pleistocene to the Holocene: 32 percent (Blois et al. 2010, p.
772). Blois et al. (2010, supplemental data, p. 9) determined that
Thomomys mazama were more vulnerable to climate change than other
Thomomys species in the area due to the steep decline of T. mazama
population numbers that coincided with the first significant warming
event around 15,000 years ago and their extirpation from the site
around 6,000 years ago.
To explore the potential impacts of climate change within the
Anthropocene (the current geologic epoch), Blois (2009, p. 243)
constructed a climate niche (the estimated tolerance of environmental
variables for a given species) for Thomomys mazama reflecting the
average minimum and average maximum temperatures range wide. Blois used
climate data compiled by PRISM Group, Oregon State University, for the
years 1971-2000, to construct the climate niche. Temperatures given are
mean annual temperatures based on mean monthly averages. The climate
niche Blois constructed for the Mazama pocket gopher gives 22.3 [deg]F
(-5.4 [deg]C) for the lowest of the mean annual minimum temperatures
across all localities and 66.9 [deg]F (19.4 [deg]C) for the highest of
the
[[Page 73788]]
mean annual maximum temperatures across all localities where Mazama
pocket gophers are found. Minimum and maximum temperatures above the
surface of the soil are attenuated with increased soil depth. It is
unknown as to whether or not Mazama pocket gophers are able to regulate
the temperature in their burrow system by digging deeper in the soil;
however, it is likely that any temperature changes experienced by
pocket gophers underground are attenuated relative to observed changes
in surface temperatures.
The effects of climate change may be buffered by pocket gophers'
fossorial lifestyle and are likely to be restricted to indirect effects
in the form of changes in vegetation structure and subsequent habitat
shifts through plant invasion and encroachment (Blois 2009, p. 217).
Further, the impacts of climate change on western Washington are
projected to be less severe than in other parts of the country. While
overall annual average precipitation in western Washington is predicted
to increase, seasonal precipitation is projected to become increasingly
variable, with wetter and warmer winter and springs and drier, hotter
summers (Mote and Salath[eacute] 2010, p. 34; Climatewizard 2012).
These shifts in temperature, precipitation, and soil moisture may
result in changes in the vegetation structure through woody invasion
and encroachment and thus affect the habitat for all pocket gopher
species and subspecies in the region. Despite this potential for future
environmental changes, we have not identified nor are we aware of any
data on an appropriate scale to evaluate habitat or populations trends
for the Mazama pocket gopher subspecies or to make predictions about
future trends and whether the species will be significantly impacted by
climate change.
Stochastic Weather Events
Stochasticity of extreme weather events may impact the ability of
threatened and endangered species to survive. Vulnerability to weather
events can be described as being composed of three elements; exposure,
sensitivity, and adaptive capacity.
The small, isolated nature of the remaining populations of Mazama
pocket gophers increases the species' vulnerability to stochastic
(random) natural events. When species are limited to small, isolated
habitats, they are more likely to become extinct due to a local event
that negatively affects the population. While a population's small,
isolated nature does not represent an independent threat to the
species, it does substantially increase the risk of extirpation from
the effects of all other threats, including those addressed in this
analysis, and those that could occur in the future from unknown
sources.
The impact of stochastic weather and extreme weather events on
pocket gophers is difficult to predict. Pocket gophers may largely be
buffered from these impacts due to their fossorial lifestyle, but Case
and Jasch (1994, p. B-21) connect sharp population declines of pocket
gophers of several genera with stochastic weather events such as heavy
snow cover and rapid snowmelt with a corresponding rise in the water
table. Based on our review, we found no information to indicate that
the effects of stochastic weather events are a threat to any of the
Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Pesticides and Herbicides
The Mazama pocket gopher is not known to be impacted by pesticides
or herbicides directly, but may be impacted by the equipment used to
dispense them. These impacts are covered under Factor A.
Control as a Pest Species
Pocket gophers are often considered a pest because they sometimes
damage crops and seedling trees, and their mounds can create a
nuisance. Several site locations in the WDFW wildlife survey database
were found as a result of trapping on Christmas tree farms, a nursery,
and in a livestock pasture (WDFW 2001). For instance, the type locality
for the Cathlamet pocket gopher is on a commercial tree farm. Mazama
pocket gophers in Washington were also used in a rodenticide experiment
as recently as 1995 (Witmer et al. 1996, p. 97).
In Washington it is currently illegal to trap or poison pocket
gophers or trap or poison moles where they overlap with Mazama pocket
gopher populations, but not all property owners are cognizant of these
laws, nor are most citizens capable of differentiating between mole and
pocket gopher soil disturbance. In light of this, it is reasonable to
believe that mole trapping or poisoning efforts still have the
potential to adversely affect pocket gopher populations. Local
populations of Mazama pocket gophers that survive commercial and
residential development (adjacent to and within habitat) may be
subsequently extirpated by trapping or poisoning by humans. Lethal
control by trapping or poisoning is most likely a threat to the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies, where they overlap residential properties.
Trapping or poisoning is not a threat to the Olympic pocket gopher,
which resides wholly within the Olympic National Park.
It is unknown if this may be a threat to the Cathlamet or Shelton
pocket gophers, which are found largely on commercial timber lands or
on Port of Shelton lands. Commercial timber landowners are likely to
trap or poison gophers in areas where it is otherwise legal and where
gophers are limiting tree seedling growth. This has not been a reported
problem in either county. Shelton and Cathlamet pocket gophers are
State-listed and thus lethal control is illegal without a permit. Port
of Shelton is aware that gophers occur on their property, is operating
under a gopher habitat management plan, and have not used lethal
control there since gophers don't directly impact their operations. We
found no information to indicate that control as a pest species is a
threat to the Shelton or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Recreation
The Mazama pocket gopher is not known to be impacted by recreation
activities, although predation by domestic dogs associated with
recreational activities does occur (Clause 2012, pers. comm.). These
impacts are covered under Predation in Factor C.
Summary of Factor E
Based upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data
available, the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of prairies has
resulted in smaller local population sizes, loss of genetic diversity,
reduced gene flow among populations, destruction of population
structure, and increased susceptibility to local population extirpation
for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher from a
series of threats including poisoning and trapping, as summarized
below.
Small population sizes coupled with disjunct and fragmented habitat
may contribute to further population declines, specifically for the
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher, which occur in
habitats that face continuing fragmentation due to development.
Mole trapping or poisoning efforts have the potential to adversely
affect the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies, especially where they abut
commercial and residential areas. Such efforts may have a particularly
negative impact on these pocket gopher populations since they are
already small and isolated.
Due to small population effects caused by fragmentation of habitat,
and impacts from trapping and poisoning
[[Page 73789]]
efforts, we find that the threats associated with other natural or
manmade factors are significant for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies
of Mazama pocket gopher.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
we found no evidence to suggest that any of the factors considered here
pose a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher.
Proposed Determination
The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. The
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies historically ranged across the open
prairies and grasslands of the south Puget Sound (Dalquest and Scheffer
1942, pp. 95-96). In the south Puget Sound region, where most of
western Washington's prairies historically occurred, and where the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies occur, less than 10 percent of the original
prairie persists (Crawford and Hall 1997, pp. 13-14). These four
subspecies have varying degrees of impacts acting on them.
For the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies, we find that both
development and fire suppression have caused the loss of a majority of
prairie habitats or made such habitat unavailable to gophers due to
encroachment of native and nonnative species of plants. These
significant impacts are expected to continue into the foreseeable
future. Impacts from military training, affecting large local
populations of the Roy Prairie and Yelm pocket gopher on JBLM, are
expected to increase under the DOD's Grow the Army initiative although
we expect that JBLM's final ESMPs will provide an overall conservation
benefit to the species. Predation of gophers by feral and domestic cats
and dogs has occurred and is expected to increase with increased
residential development on prairie soils occupied by gophers. This is
of particular concern for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies.
We find that the threat of development and adverse impacts to
habitat from conversion to other uses, the loss of historically
occupied locations resulting in the present isolation and limited
distribution of the species, the impacts of military training, existing
and likely future habitat fragmentation, land use changes, long-term
fire suppression, and the threats associated with the present and
threatened destruction, modification, and curtailment of the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies habitat is significant. We conclude that
there are likely to be significant, ongoing threats to the subspecies
due to factors such as small population effects (risk of population
loss due to catastrophic or stochastic events), poisoning, and
trapping. The small size of most of the remaining local populations,
coupled with disjunct and fragmented habitat, may render them
increasingly vulnerable to additional threats such as those mentioned
above.
The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies face a combination of several
high-magnitude threats; the threats are immediate; these subspecies are
highly restricted in their ranges; the threats occur throughout the
subspecies' ranges and are not restricted to any particular significant
portion of those ranges. Therefore, we assessed the status of each of
these subspecies throughout their entire ranges and our assessment and
proposed determination will apply to these subspecies throughout their
entire ranges. For the reasons provided in this rule we propose that
the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies (Thomomys mazama pugetensis,
glacialis, tumuli, and yelmensis--the Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and
Yelm pocket gophers, respectively) be listed as threatened throughout
their ranges.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies (Thomomys mazama pugetensis, glacialis, tumuli, and
yelmensis) are likely to become endangered species throughout all or a
significant portion of their ranges within the foreseeable future,
based on the immediacy, severity, and scope of the threats described
above. We do not, however, have information to suggest that the present
threats are of such great magnitude that any of these four subspecies
are in immediate danger of extinction, but are likely to become so in
the foreseeable future. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we determine that T. m.
pugetensis, glacialis, tumuli, and yelmensis meet the definition of
threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the
Act.
This proposal is based on current information about the location,
status and threats for these subspecies. If new information is found
which results in an expanded range of habitats used by the subspecies,
or a different level of threats, we will consider that information in
the final rule.
Olympic pocket gopher. The Olympic pocket gopher occupies isolated
alpine meadows in the Olympic National Park in Clallam County. We find
that the effects due to small or isolated populations have likely had
negative impacts to the subspecies. This low-magnitude threat is not
known to be imminent, though it may continue into the foreseeable
future. This species also exhibits low genetic diversity. This is also
a low-magnitude threat, is ongoing and likely to continue into the
foreseeable future. This subspecies is highly restricted in its range,
the few threats identified occur throughout its range, and the threats
are not restricted to any particular portion of its range. However,
none of the threats faced by the Olympic pocket gopher are particularly
grave or immediate, and we do not have information to suggest that the
subspecies is suffering from any recent declines in abundance or
distribution. Occurring entirely within the boundaries of a National
Park, the Olympic pocket gopher is secure from many of the threats
facing the other Washington subspecies, such as habitat loss to
development, encroachment by woody vegetation, or predation by feral
cats and dogs. The best available information indicates that the
threats identified for the Olympic pocket gopher are relatively minor
and are not resulting in population level effects such that the
subspecies is currently in danger of extinction, or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that the Olympic
subspecies (Thomomys mazama melanops) does not meet the definition of
an endangered or a threatened species and therefore does not warrant
listing under the Act.
Shelton pocket gopher. The Shelton pocket gopher used to range
across the open prairies and grasslands of Mason County, and is now
also known to inhabit low-elevation meadow-type areas in Mason County.
We find that the effects due to small or isolated populations have
likely had negative impacts to the subspecies. This low-magnitude
threat is not known to be imminent, though it may continue into the
foreseeable future. This subspecies is highly restricted in its range,
the few threats identified occur throughout its range, and the threasts
are not restricted to any particular portion of its range. Although
likely impacted by development in the past, we have no information to
suggest that future development poses a threat to this subspecies, and
beneficial management plans are in place for some of the larger
populations of the Shelton pocket gopher.
This subspecies is not currently affected by many of the threats
that have
[[Page 73790]]
had severe impacts on other Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher, such as habitat loss due to residential or commercial
development, encroachment of woody vegetation, or predation by cats and
dogs. We have no evidence that the Shelton pocket gopher is
experiencing population-level effects from the threats identified, and
new local populations of the subspecies have been identified. Based on
the best available information, we conclude that the threats faced by
the Shelton pocket gopher are relatively minor and that the subspecies
is not currently in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within
the foreseeable future. Therefore, we find that the Shelton subspecies
(Thomomys mazama couchi) does not meet the definition of an endangered
or a threatened species and therefore does not warrant listing under
the Act.
Cathlamet pocket gopher. The Cathlamet pocket gopher occurs in low-
elevation meadow-type areas in Wahkiakum County. The subspecies is
found in a limited-extent soil type on commercial timber lands. In the
Service's review of this species previously (USFWS 2010, pp. 5-6), it
was characterized as likely extinct. However, based on our further
review of information, we determined that further surveys of the type
locality and surrounding area are needed to determine the status of
this subpopulation as thorough surveys of all potential habitat were
never conducted. In addition, land use within the type locality has
remained the same since the subspecies was discovered in 1949 (Gardner
1950), suggesting that the subspecies may remain extant.
We find that the effects due to small or isolated populations may
have had negative impacts to the subspecies. However, this low-
magnitude threat is not known to be imminent, though it will likely
continue into the future. The range and distribution of the Cathlamet
pocket gopher has not been completely surveyed and its type locality
still exists. Based on the available information, we do not have
evidence that the subspecies is impacted at a population level and
believe that any threats to the species are minor and are not
restricted to any particular portion of its range. For these reasons
and those discussed under the Factor analyses previously, we have
determined that the Cathlamet subspecies (Thomomys mazama louiei) does
not meet the definition of an endangered or a threatened species and
therefore does not warrant listing under the Act.
Distinct Population Segment and Significant Portion of the Range for
the Four Thurston/Pierce Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher
Having determined that the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher meet the definition of threatened species
throughout their ranges, we must next consider whether a distinct
population segment of any of these subspecies may be an endangered
species in accordance with the Service's Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the
Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), or whether any
significant portions of the ranges of the subspecies exist where they
are in danger of extinction. Because the range is so small for each of
these subspecies and we have considered the threats throughout the
range of each subspecies, we believe there is no relevant portion of
any of the subspecies' ranges that could be justified as a separate
Distinct Population Segment or significant portion of the range. In
addition, our evaluation did not indicate that threats for any of the
subspecies were particularly concentrated or more severe within any
geographic subset of the subspecies' range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Listing results in recognition and public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery
tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be
available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher are
listed, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety
of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of
the Act, the State of Washington would be eligible for Federal funds to
implement management actions that promote the protection and recovery
of these Mazama pocket gopher subspecies. Information on our grant
programs that
[[Page 73791]]
are available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please
let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts
for these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new
information on these species whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include actions to manage or restore critical habitat,
actions that require collecting or handling the species for the purpose
of captive propagation and translocation to new habitat, actions that
may negatively affect the species through removal, conversion, or
degradation of habitat. Examples of activities conducted, regulated or
funded by Federal agencies that may affect listed species or their
habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Military training activities and operations conducted in or
adjacent to occupied or suitable habitat on DOD lands;
(2) Activities with a Federal nexus that include vegetation
management such as burning, mechanical treatment, and/or application of
herbicides/pesticides on Federal, State, or private lands;
(3) Ground-disturbing activities regulated, funded or conducted by
Federal agencies in or adjacent to occupied and/or suitable habitat;
and
(4) Import, export or trade of the species, to name a few.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the subspecies, including
import or export across State lines and international boundaries,
except for properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least
100 years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Introduction of species that compete with or prey upon the
Mazama pocket gopher, or its habitat such as the introduction of
competing, invasive plants or animals;
(3) Unauthorized modification of the soil profiles or the
vegetation components on sites known to be occupied by the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher;
(4) Unauthorized utilization of trapping or poisoning techniques in
areas occupied by the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher;
(5) Intentional harassment or removal of pocket gophers; and
(6) When conducted over large areas, removal of forage habitat by
burning or other means i.e., the area of removal is so large that
gophers can't access foraging habitat from the center of the area.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Eastside
Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181
(telephone 503-231-6158; facsimile 503-231-6243).
If the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher are
listed under the Act, the State of Washington may enter into agreements
with Federal agencies to administer and manage any area required for
the conservation, management, enhancement, or protection of endangered
species. Funds for these activities could be made available under
section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the States) or through
competitive application to receive funding through our Recovery Program
under section 4 of the Act. Thus, the Federal protection afforded to
the subspecies by listing them as threatened species will be reinforced
and supplemented by protection under State law.
Special Rules
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary may publish a special
rule that modifies the standard protections for threatened species in
the Service's regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, which implement section 9 of
the Act, with special measures that are determined to be necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the subspecies. As a means
to promote conservation efforts on behalf of the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher, we are proposing special rules for
these subspecies under section 4(d) of the Act. In the case of a
special rule,
[[Page 73792]]
the general regulations (50 CFR 17.31 and 17.71) applying most
prohibitions under section 9 of the Act to threatened species do not
apply to that species, and the special rule contains the prohibitions
necessary and appropriate to conserve that species.
Under the proposed special rule, take of these subspecies caused by
restoration- and/or maintenance-type activities by airports on State,
county, private, or Tribal lands and ongoing single-family residential
noncommercial activities would be exempt from section 9 of the Act.
These activities include mechanical weed and grass removal on airports.
We also propose to exempt certain construction activities that occur in
already-developed sites within single-family residential development
footprints. These include the placement of above-ground fencing, garden
plots, children's play equipment, residential dog kennels, and storage
sheds and carports on block or above-ground footings. In addition, we
also propose to exempt certain normal farming or ranching activities,
including: grazing, routine fence and structure maintenance, mowing,
herbicide use, burning, and other routine activities as described under
proposed Sec. 17.40 (Special Rules--Mammals) at the end of this
document. The rule targets these activities to encourage landowners to
continue to maintain those areas that are not only important for
airport safety, agricultural use, and restoration activities, but also
provide habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher. On Federal lands, airport restoration and maintenance
type activities will be addressed through the section 7 process.
Justification
Airport Management. Some management actions taken at airports are
generally beneficial to Mazama pocket gophers. The Service believes
current management of these areas provide for safe aircraft operations
while simultaneously providing for the conservation of pocket gophers.
Under the proposed rule, covered actions would include vegetation
management to maintain desired grass height on or adjacent to airports
through mowing or herbicide use; hazing of hazardous wildlife, routine
management, repair and maintenance of roads and runways; and management
of forage, water, and shelter to be less attractive to these hazardous
wildlife. See proposed Sec. 17.40 (Special Rules--Mammals) for
specific language.
If finalized, the listing of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher would impose a requirement of airport managers
where the subspecies occur to consider the effects of their management
activities on these subspecies. Additionally, airport managers would
likely take actions to deter the subspecies from inhabiting areas where
they currently occur in order to avoid the burden of the resulting take
restrictions that would accrue from the presence of a listed species.
However, a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act for airports
which exempts activities, such as mowing or other management to deter
hazardous wildlife, that result in take under section 9 of the Act,
would encourage airports to maintain habitat for the four Thurston/
Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Agricultural Lands. Agricultural lands provide important habitats
for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Examples of farmed areas that are occupied by Mazama pocket gophers and
provide suitable habitat include livestock ranches, pastures, seed
nurseries, and open areas where vegetation is maintained in an early
seral condition. Some farming activities like tilling or discing, if
conducted during certain times of the year, can result in individuals
being injured or killed. But where adjacent local populations remain
intact, Mazama pocket gophers may recolonize disturbed areas and
continue to persist in areas that are farmed, grazed, and used for
agricultural production. Because agricultural areas provide important
habitats for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher, we propose to exempt normal farming and ranching activities,
including: grazing, routine fence and structure maintenance, mowing,
herbicide use, burning, and other routine activities as described under
proposed Sec. 17.40 (Special Rules--Mammals), which may result in take
of the Mazama pocket gopher under section 9 of the Act.
Ongoing Small Landowner Noncommercial Activities. The four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher occur on private
lands throughout Thurston and Pierce Counties. Activities by single-
family residential landowners in these areas have the potential to harm
or kill pocket gophers. Section 9 of the Act provides general
prohibitions on activities that would result in take of a threatened
species; however, the Service recognizes that routine maintenance and
some small construction activities, even those with the potential to
inadvertently take individual Mazama pocket gophers, may provide for
the long-term conservation needs of the species. The Service recognizes
that in the long term, it is a benefit to the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher to maintain the distribution of the
species across private and public lands to aid in the recovery of the
species. We believe this special rule will further conservation of the
species by discouraging conversions of the landscape into habitats
unsuitable for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher and encouraging landowners to continue managing the remaining
landscape in ways that meet the needs of their operation and provide
suitable habitat for these four subspecies. Under the proposed rule,
covered actions would include vegetative management through mowing or
herbicide use, and the construction of dog kennels, fences, garden
plots, playground equipment, and storage sheds and carports on block or
above-ground footings, as described under proposed Sec. 17.40 (Special
Rules--Mammals).
Provisions of the Proposed Special Rule
We believe these actions and activities, while they may have some
minimal level of harm or disturbance to the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher, are not expected to adversely
affect the species' conservation and recovery efforts.
This proposal will not be finalized until we have reviewed comments
from the public and peer reviewers. Exempted activities include
existing routine airport practices as outlined above by non-Federal
entities on existing airports, agricultural and ranching activities,
and routine single-family residential activities.
Critical Habitat Designation for the Four Thurston/Pierce Subspecies of
Mazama Pocket Gopher
It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for the four Thurston/
Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Olympia, Roy Prairie,
Tenino, and Yelm) in this section of the proposed rule.
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
[[Page 73793]]
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it
was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
elements of physical or biological features that provide for a species'
life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For
example, an area currently occupied by the species, but that was not
occupied at the time of listing, may be determined to be essential to
the conservation of the species and may be included in the critical
habitat designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographic area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Methods
As required by Section 4 of the Act, we used the best scientific
data available in determining those areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of these species.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species (if available), articles in peer-reviewed journals,
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological assessments, other unpublished
materials, or experts' opinions or personal knowledge. In this case we
used existing occurrence data for each species and identified the
habitat and ecosystems upon which they depend. These sources of
information included, but were not limited to:
1. Data used to prepare the proposed rule to list the species;
2. Information from biological surveys;
3. Peer-reviewed articles, various agency reports, and databases;
4. Information from the U.S. Department of Defense--Joint Base
Lewis McChord and other cooperators;
5. Information from species experts;
6. Data and information presented in academic research theses; and
7. Regional Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as
species occurrence data, land use, topography, aerial imagery, soil
data, and land ownership maps) for area calculations and mapping.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. Climate change will be a particular challenge for
biodiversity because the interaction of additional threats associated
with climate change and current threats may push species beyond their
ability to survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic
implications of climate change and habitat fragmentation are the most
threatening facet of climate change for biodiversity (Hannah et al.
2005, p. 4). Current climate change predictions for terrestrial areas
in the Northern Hemisphere indicate warmer air temperatures, more
intense precipitation events, and increased summer continental drying
(Field et al. 1999, pp. 1-3; Hayhoe et al. 2004, p. 12422; Cayan et al.
2005, p. 6; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, p.
1181). Climate change may lead to increased frequency and duration of
severe storms and droughts (Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; McLaughlin et
al. 2002, p. 6074; Cook et al. 2004, p. 1015).
The information currently available on the effects of global
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently
precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the
[[Page 73794]]
effects. Nor are we currently aware of any climate change information
specific to the habitat of the species that would indicate what areas
may become important to the subspecies in the future. Therefore, we are
unable to determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate
to include in the final critical habitat for these subspecies to
address the effects of climate change.
We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point
in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery of the subspecies. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat
outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for
recovery of the subspecies. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the subspecies, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the subspecies. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other
activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to
increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) such designation
of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
Species Proposed for Listing
As we have discussed under the threats analysis for Factor B, there
is no documentation that the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher are currently significantly threatened by collection for
private or commercial purposes.
We reviewed the information available for the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher pertaining to their biological needs
and habitat characteristics. In the absence of finding that the
designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if
there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a
prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits of critical
habitat to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher
include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act in new
areas, for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become
unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation
activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing
educational benefits to State or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to
the subspecies.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. We find
that the designation of critical habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher will benefit them by serving to
focus conservation efforts on the restoration and maintenance of
ecosystem functions that are essential for attaining their recovery and
long-term viability. In addition, the designation of critical habitat
serves to inform management and conservation decisions by identifying
any additional physical or biological features of the ecosystem that
may be essential for the conservation of these subspecies. Therefore,
because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat
will not likely increase the degree of threat to the species and may
provide some measure of benefit, we find that designation of critical
habitat is prudent for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher is determinable. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not
determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher
and habitat characteristics where these subspecies are located. This
and other information represent the best scientific data available and
led us to conclude that the designation of critical habitat is
determinable for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we identify the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
each subspecies from studies of their habitat, ecology, and life
history as described above in this document. We have determined that
the physical and
[[Page 73795]]
biological features described below are essential for the conservation
of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher, and
have further determined that these features may require special
management considerations or protection.
We have determined that the following physical or biological
features are essential for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Pocket gophers have low vagility, meaning they have a poor
dispersal capability (Williams and Baker 1976, p. 303). Thomomys mazama
pocket gophers are smaller in size than other sympatric (occurring
within the same geographic area; overlapping in distribution) or
parapatric (immediately adjacent to each other but not significantly
overlapping in distribution) Thomomys species (Verts and Carraway 2000,
p. 1). Both dispersal distances and home range size are therefore
likely to be smaller than for other Thomomys species. Dispersal
distances may vary based on surface or soil conditions and size of the
animal. For other, larger, Thomomys species, dispersal distances
average about 131 ft (40 m) (Barnes 1973, pp. 168-169; Williams and
Baker 1976, p. 306; Daly and Patton 1990, pp. 1286, 1288). Initial
results from dispersal research being conducted on JBLM indicates that
Mazama pocket gophers in Washington usually disperse from 13.1-32.8 ft
(4-10 m), though one animal moved 525 ft (160m) in 1 day (Olson 2012b,
p. 5). Suitable dispersal habitat contains gopher foraging habitat and
is free of barriers to gopher movement. Barriers include, but are not
limited to, open water, steep slopes, and soils or substrates
inappropriate for burrowing.
The home range of a Mazama pocket gopher is composed of suitable
breeding and foraging habitat (described below, under ``Food, water,
air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological
requirements''). Home range size varies based on factors such as soil
type, climate, and density and type of vegetative cover (Cox and Hunt
1992, p. 133; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21; Hafner et al. 1998, p.
279). Home range size for individual Mazama pocket gophers averages
about 1,076 square feet (ft\2\) (100 square meters (m\2\)) (Witmer et
al. 1996, p. 96). Based on work done by Converse et al. (2010, pp. 14-
15), a local population could be self-sustaining if it occurred on a
habitat patch that was equal to or greater than 50 ac (20 ha) in size.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify patches of
breeding and foraging habitat that are equal to or greater than 50 ac
(20 ha) in size or within dispersal distance of each other, as well as
corridors of suitable dispersal habitat, as physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements and Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies are associated with glacial
outwash prairies in western Washington, an ecosystem of conservation
concern (Hartway and Steinberg 1997, p. 1). Steinberg and Heller (1997,
p. 46) found that Mazama pocket gophers are even more patchily
distributed than are the prairie habitats they inhabit. That is, there
are some seemingly high quality prairies within the species' range that
lack pocket gophers. Prairie habitats have a naturally patchy
distribution, and within them, there is a patchy distribution of soil
rockiness (Steinberg and Heller 1997, p. 45; WDFW 2009a), which may
further restrict the total area that gophers can utilize since they
avoid areas of excessive rockiness.
Of the glacial outwash prairie soils or prairie-like soils present
in western Washington, the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher are most often found in deep, well-drained, friable soils
capable of supporting the forbs, bulbs, and grasses that are the
preferred forage for gophers (Stinson 2005, pp. 22-23).
In order to support typical Mazama pocket gopher forage plants,
areas supporting Mazama pocket gophers tend to be largely free of
shrubs and trees. Woody plants shade out the forbs, bulbs, and grasses
that gophers prefer to eat, and high densities of woody plants make
travel both below and above the ground difficult for gophers. The
probability of Mazama pocket gopher occupancy is much higher in areas
with less than 10 percent woody vegetation cover (Olson 2011, p. 16).
Although some soils used by Mazama pocket gophers are relatively
sandy, gravelly, or silty, those most frequently associated with the
subspecies are loamy and deep, have slopes generally less than 15
percent, and have good drainage or permeability. These soils types
additionally provide the essential physical and biological features of
cover or shelter, as well as sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing of offspring. Soils series where individuals of the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher may be found include
Alderwood, Cagey, Everett, Godfrey, Indianola, Kapowsin, McKenna,
Nisqually, Norma, Spana, Spanaway, Spanaway-Nisqually complex, and
Yelm.
Additionally, encroachment of woody vegetation into the habitat of
the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher continues
to further reduce the size of the remaining prairies and prairie-type
areas, thus reducing the amount of habitat available for gophers to
burrow, forage, and reproduce. Historically these areas would have been
maintained by natural or human-caused fires. Fire suppression allows
Douglas-fir and other woody plants to encroach on and overwhelm prairie
habitat (Stinson 2005, p. 7). Mazama pocket gophers require areas where
natural disturbance or management prevents the encroachment of woody
vegetation into their preferred prairie or meadow habitats.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify soils series
that are known to support the Mazama pocket gopher in Washington
(listed above), and vegetative habitat with less than 10 percent woody
plant cover, that provides for feeding, breeding, and foraging, as
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Mazama pocket gopher.
Habitats That Are Protected From Disturbance or Are Representative of
the Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of a Species
Predation, specifically feral and domestic cat and dog predation,
is a threat to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher. Urbanization exacerbates this threat with the addition of feral
and domestic cats and dogs into the matrix of pocket gopher habitat.
Many pets are not controlled by their owners in the semi-urban and
rural environments that the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher currently inhabit, leading to uninhibited predation of
native animals. Where local populations of native wild animals are
small or declining, predation can drive populations farther toward
extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75). Many local populations of the
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher are small and
occur in a matrix of residential and agricultural development, with
many feral and domestic pets in the vicinity. Pocket gophers need areas
free of the threat of predation by feral and domestic cats and dogs.
[[Page 73796]]
In Washington it is currently illegal to trap or poison Mazama
pocket gophers (WAC 232-12-011, RCW 77.15.194), but not all property
owners are aware of these laws, nor are most citizens capable of
differentiating between mole and pocket gopher soil disturbance. In
light of this, it is reasonable to believe that mole trapping and
poisoning efforts have the potential to adversely affect pocket gopher
populations within the range of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher. Mazama pocket gophers require areas free of human
disturbance from trapping and poisoning.
Therefore, based on the information above, we identify areas where
gophers are protected from predation by feral or domestic animals, as
well as from human disturbance in the form of trapping and poisoning,
as physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Mazama pocket gopher.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Four Thurston/Pierce Subspecies of
Mazama Pocket Gopher
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the
features' primary constituent elements (PCEs). We consider primary
constituent elements to be the elements of physical or biological
features that provide for a species' life-history processes and are
essential to the conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the
subspecies' life-history processes, we determine that the primary
constituent elements specific to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of
Mazama pocket gopher are:
(i) Friable, loamy, and deep soils, some with relatively greater
content of sand, gravel, or silt, all generally on slopes less than 15
percent in the following series:
(a) Alderwood;
(b) Cagey;
(c) Everett;
(d) Godfrey
(e) Indianola;
(f) Kapowsin;
(g) McKenna;
(h) Nisqually;
(i) Norma;
(j) Spana;
(k) Spanaway;
(l) Spanaway-Nisqually complex; and
(m) Yelm.
(ii) Areas equal to or larger than 50 ac (20 ha) in size that
provide for breeding, foraging, and dispersal activities, found in the
soil series listed in (i) that have:
(a) Less than 10 percent woody vegetation cover.
(b) Vegetative cover suitable for foraging by gophers. Pocket
gophers' diet includes a wide variety of plant material, including
leafy vegetation, succulent roots, shoots, tubers, and grasses.
Forbs and grasses that Mazama pocket gophers are known to eat
include, but are not limited to: Achillea millefolium (common
yarrow), Agoseris spp. (agoseris), Cirsium spp. (thistle), Bromus
spp. (brome), Camassia spp. (camas), Collomia linearis (tiny
trumpet), Epilobium spp. (several willowherb spp.), Eriophyllum
lanatum (woolly sunflower), Gayophytum diffusum (groundsmoke),
Hypochaeris radicata (hairy cat's ear), Lathyrus spp. (peavine),
Lupinus spp. (lupine), Microsteris gracilis (slender phlox),
Penstemon spp. (penstemon), Perideridia gairdneri (Gairdner's
yampah), Phacelia heterophylla (varileaf phacelia), Polygonum
douglasii (knotweed), Potentilla spp. (cinquefoil), Pteridium
aquilinum (bracken fern), Taraxacum officinale (common dandelion),
Trifolium spp. (clover), and Viola spp. (violet).
(c) Few, if any barriers to dispersal. Barriers to dispersal
include, but are not limited to: open water; steep slopes (greater
than 35 percent); wide expanses of rhizomatous grasses; concrete;
large areas of rock; development and buildings; and soils or
substrates inappropriate for burrowing.
With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, through the identification of the primary
constituent elements sufficient to support the life-history processes
of the species. All units and subunits proposed to be designated as
critical habitat are currently occupied by one or more of the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher and contain all of
the primary constituent elements essential to the conservation of the
species.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. Here we describe the type of special management
considerations or protections that may be required for the physical or
biological features identified as essential for Mazama pocket gophers.
The specific critical habitat subunits where these management
considerations or protections apply are identified in Table 1.
All areas designated as critical habitat will require some level of
management to address the current and future threats to the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher and to maintain or
restore the PCEs. A detailed discussion of activities influencing the
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher and their
habitats can be found in the preceding proposed listing rule. Threats
to the physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of these subspecies and that may warrant special
management considerations or protection include, but are not limited
to: (1) Loss of habitat from conversion to other uses; (2) control of
nonnative, invasive species; (3) development; (4) construction and
maintenance of roads and utility corridors; (5) predation by feral or
domestic animals; (6) disease; and (7) habitat modifications brought on
by succession of vegetation due to lack of disturbance, both small- and
large-scale. These threats also have the potential to affect the PCEs
if they are conducted within or adjacent to designated units.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher may
require special management considerations or protection to control or
prevent the establishment of invasive woody plants, which create shade
and utilize light, food and nutrients otherwise utilized by the forb,
bulb, and grass species that the gophers require for forage. Management
may be implemented using hand tools or mechanical methods, prescribed
fire, and the judicious use of herbicides. Although several management
techniques are being implemented on public lands, we may need to
improve our outreach to educate private landowners on controlling their
pets and appropriately managing grazing on their properties, as well as
to developing incentives for landowners who agree to conserve habitat.
Incentives would create protected areas, through agreements or
acquisitions. These would include corridors between existing protected
habitat areas that may require restoration, enhancement actions, and
long-term maintenance.
[[Page 73797]]
Table 1--Threats to the Four Thurston/Pierce Subspecies of Mazama Pocket
Gopher Identified in Specific Proposed Critical Habitat Subunits;
Threats Specific to the Physical or Biological Features, Which May
Require Special Management Considerations or Protection as Described in
the Text, Are Identified With an Asterisk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunits of proposed designated critical
Threat factors under the habitat for the Mazama pocket gopher
Endangered Species Act subspecies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor A:
Development *............ Unit 1: all subunits.
Loss of natural Unit 1: all subunits.
disturbance processes,
invasive species, and
succession *.
Military training *...... Unit 1: 1-A, 1-B, 1-E.
Factor B:
Overutilization for NA.
commercial,
recreational,
scientific, or
educational purposes.
Factor C:
Disease.................. NA.
Predation................ Unit 1: all subunits.
Factor D:
The inadequacy of Unit 1: all subunits.
existing regulatory
mechanisms *.
Factor E:
Low genetic diversity, NA.
small or isolated
populations, and low
reproductive success.
Stochastic weather events NA.
Climate change........... NA.
Pesticides and herbicides Unit 1: 1-D, 1-E, 1-G, and 1-H.
Control as a pest species Unit 1: 1-D, 1-E, 1-G, and 1-H.
*.
Recreation............... NA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements
of the species, and begin by assessing the specific geographic areas
occupied by the species at the time of listing. If such areas are not
sufficient to provide for the conservation of the species, in
accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 CFR
424.12(e), we then consider whether designating additional areas
outside the geographic areas occupied at the time of listing may be
essential to ensure the conservation of the species. We consider
unoccupied areas for critical habitat when a designation limited to the
present range of the species may be inadequate to ensure the
conservation of the species. In this case, since we are proposing
listing simultaneously with the proposed critical habitat, all areas
presently occupied by each of the subspecies are presumed to constitute
those areas occupied at the time of listing; those areas currently
occupied by the subspecies are identified as such in each of the unit
or subunit descriptions below. None of the subunits are believed to be
unoccupied at the time of listing. Our determination of the areas
occupied at the time of listing, is provided below.
We plotted the known locations of the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher where they occur in the south Puget
Sound lowlands using 2011 NAIP digital imagery in ArcGIS, version 10
(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer geographic
information system program.
To determine if the currently occupied areas contain the primary
constituent elements, we assessed the life history components and the
distribution of the subspecies through element occurrence records in
State natural heritage databases and natural history information on
each of the subspecies as they relate to habitat. To determine if any
unoccupied sites met the criteria for critical habitat, we considered:
(1) The importance of the site to the overall status of the subspecies
to prevent extinction and contribute to future recovery of the
subspecies; (2) whether the area presently provides the essential
physical or biological features, or could be managed and restored to
contain the necessary physical and biological features to support the
subspecies; and (3) whether individuals were likely to colonize the
site.
Occupied Areas
For the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher, we
are proposing to designate critical habitat only in areas within the
geographical area occupied by the four subspecies at the time of
listing. All units proposed for critical habitat for the four Thurston/
Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher are currently occupied as
determined by recent surveys, within the last five years (JBLM 2012,
Krippner 2011, pp. 25-29; Olson 2012, pp. 9-10; WDFW 2012), and all
provide one or more of the physical or biological features that may
require special management considerations or protection, as described
in the unit and subunit descriptions that follow.
In all cases, when determining proposed critical habitat
boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas
such as lands covered by buildings, pavement (such as airport runways
and roads), and other structures because such lands lack the essential
physical or biological features for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies
of Mazama pocket gopher. The scale of the maps we prepared under the
parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may
not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action
involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
We are proposing one critical habitat unit for designation based on
sufficient elements of physical and biological features being present
to support the
[[Page 73798]]
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. These unit is
further divided into 8 subunits. All of the subunits contain the
identified elements of physical and biological features necessary to
support the subspecies' use of that habitat.
We invite public comment on our identification of those areas
presently occupied by the subspecies that provide the physical or
biological features that may require special management considerations
or protection.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing critical habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher in the State of Washington, as
follows: The South Sound Unit (Unit 1), which includes eight subunits.
Four Thurston/Pierce Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher--Unit 1
We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we
have determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain
sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential for the conservation of the Olympia, Roy
Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
We are proposing critical habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher in one unit: the South Sound Unit,
totaling 9,234 ac (3,737 ha). This includes 6,345 ac (2,567 ha) of
Federal ownership; 820 ac (331 ha) of State ownership; 1,934 ac (783
ha) of private ownership; and 135 ac (55 ha) of lands owned by a Port,
local municipality, or nonprofit conservation organization. The South
Sound Unit for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher contains eight subunits, all of which are presently occupied by
one or more of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies. All subunits
contain one or more of the PCEs to support essential life-history
processes for these subspecies. The critical habitat areas we describe
below constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino,
and Yelm pocket gophers. The eight subunits we propose as critical
habitat are: (1) (1-A) 91st Division Prairie; (2) (1-B) Marion Prairie;
(3) (1-C) Olympia Airport; (4) (1-D) Rocky Prairie; (5) (1-E) Tenalquot
Prairie; (6) (1-F) West Rocky Prairie; (7) (1-G) Scatter Creek; and (8)
(1-H) Rock Prairie. The approximate area and landownership for each
proposed critical habitat unit and subunit is shown in Table 2.
Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Four Thurston/Pierce Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher
[Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding. Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit
boundaries]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal State Private Other *
Unit 1 South Subunit name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha) Ac (Ha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-A............... 91st Division 4,120 (1,667) 0 0 0
Prairie.
1-B............... Marion Prairie.. 720 (291) 0 0 0
1-C............... Olympia Airport. 0 0 0 676 (274)
1-D............... Rocky Prairie... 0 54 (22) 385 (156) 0
1-E............... Tenalquot 1,505 (609) 0 154 (62) 135 (55)
Prairie.
1-F............... West Rocky 0 134 (54) 0 0
Prairie.
1-G............... Scatter Creek... 0 632 (256) 98 (40) 0
1-H............... Rock Prairie.... 0 0 621 (251) 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 Totals... 6,345 (2,567) 820 (331) 1,258 (509) 811 (329)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other = Local municipalities and nonprofit conservation organization.
Here we present brief descriptions of all subunits, and reasons why
they meet the definition of critical habitat for the four Thurston/
Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher, below.
Unit 1: South Sound Unit--Four Thurston/Pierce Subspecies of Mazama
Pocket Gopher
The South Sound Unit and its constituent subunits are all currently
occupied by one or more Mazama pocket gophers of the subspecies
Thomomys mazama glacialis (Roy Prairie pocket gopher), pugetensis
(Olympia pocket gopher), tumuli (Tenino pocket gopher), or yelmensis
(Yelm pocket gopher) (the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies). All
subunits contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of these subspecies, which may require special management
considerations or protection. All subunits are subject to the same
suite of threats, aside from one suite of threats unique to DOD lands
(subunits 1-A, 1-B, and the Federal portions of subunit 1-E). The
common threats to the essential features include: development on or
adjacent to the subunits, incompatible management practices, invasive
species, and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The
threat unique to DOD lands is military training. In all subunits, the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of each
subspecies may require special management considerations or protection
to restore, protect, and maintain the essential features found in the
subunits. For those threats that are common to all subunits, special
management considerations or protection may be required to address
direct or indirect habitat loss due to development, invasive plant
species, or use of trapping or poisoning techniques by landowners or
land managers of the subunits themselves or adjacent landowners or land
managers. For those threats that are unique to DOD lands, special
management considerations or protection may be required to address
uncontrolled fires due to deployment of explosive or incendiary
devices, military training involving heavy equipment (resulting in
trampling or crushing of burrows), digging or trenching, bombardment,
or use of live ammunition.
Subunit 1-A: 91st Division Prairie. This subunit consists of 4,120
ac (1,667 ha) and is made up entirely of lands on the JBLM, owned by
the DOD. This subunit is located west-northwest of the city of Roy,
Pierce County, Washington. Subunit 1-A is occupied by the Roy Prairie
pocket gopher and the Yelm pocket gopher and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of these subspecies
due to
[[Page 73799]]
the underlying soils series (Nisqually and Spanaway), suitable forb and
grass vegetation present on-site, and its large size. The physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the Roy Prairie
pocket gopher and the Yelm pocket gopher may require special management
considerations or protection to address threats listed above that are
common to all subunits and from uncontrolled fires due to deployment of
explosive or incendiary devices, military training involving heavy
equipment (resulting in trampling or crushing of burrows), digging or
trenching, bombardment, or use of live ammunition. This critical
habitat subunit (1-A) is being considered for exemption from
designation of critical habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
contingent on our approval of the DOD INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-B: Marion Prairie. This subunit consists of 720 ac (291
ha) and contains JBLM lands owned by the DOD. This subunit is located
west of the city of Roy, Pierce County, Washington. Subunit 1-B is
occupied by the Roy Prairie pocket gopher and the Yelm pocket gopher,
and provides physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of these subspecies due to the underlying soils series
(Nisqually and Spanaway), suitable forb and grass vegetation present
onsite, and its large size. The features essential to the conservation
of the species may require special management considerations or
protection to address uncontrolled fires due to deployment of explosive
or incendiary devices, military training involving heavy equipment
(resulting in trampling or crushing of burrows), digging or trenching,
bombardment, or use of live ammunition. This critical habitat subunit
(1-B) is being considered for exemption from designation of critical
habitat under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on our
approval of the DOD INRMP for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-C: Olympia Airport. This subunit consists of 676 ac (274
ha). This subunit is made up of lands owned by the Port of Olympia and
is located south of the cities of Olympia and Tumwater, Thurston
County, Washington. Subunit 1-C is occupied by the Olympia pocket
gopher and the Yelm pocket gopher and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies due
to the underlying soils series (Cagey, Everett, Indianola, and
Nisqually), suitable forb and grass vegetation present onsite, and its
large size.
Subunit 1-D: Rocky Prairie. This subunit consists of 439 ac (178
ha) and contains lands owned by one commercial landowner, Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railroad, and WDNR, which owns the Rocky Prairie NAP,
a portion of the subunit. This subunit is located north of the city of
Tenino, Thurston County, Washington. Subunit 1-D is occupied by the
Tenino pocket gopher and the Yelm pocket gopher, and contains the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species due to the underlying soils series (Everett, Nisqually,
Spanaway, and Spanaway-Nisqually complex), suitable forb and grass
vegetation present onsite, and its large size. A portion of the State
lands include the Rocky Prairie Natural Area Preserve which makes up 35
ac (14 ha) of this critical habitat subunit (1-D) and is being proposed
for exclusion from designation of critical habitat under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the approved WDNR State Lands HCP (see
Exclusions)
Subunit 1-E: Tenalquot Prairie. This subunit consists of 1,794 ac
(726 ha) and contains lands owned by one commercial landowner, The
Nature Conservancy and DOD, which owns the largest portion of the
subunit. This subunit is located northwest of the city of Rainier,
Thurston County, Washington. Subunit 1-E is occupied by the Yelm pocket
gopher and contains the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species due to the underlying soils series
(Spanaway and Spanaway-Nisqually complex), suitable forb and grass
vegetation present onsite, and its large size. On the 1,505 ac (609 ha)
in this subunit that are owned by DOD, special management
considerations or protection may be required to address threats from
military training involving heavy equipment (resulting in trampling or
crushing of burrows). The portion of this proposed critical habitat
designation on JBLM (1,505 ac; 609 ha) is being considered for
exemption from designation of critical habitat under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, contingent on our approval of the DOD INRMP
for JBLM (see Exemptions).
Subunit 1-F: West Rocky Prairie. This subunit consists of 134 ac
(54 ha) and contains lands within the West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area,
owned by WDFW, north of the city of Tenino, Thurston County,
Washington. Subunit 1-F is occupied by the Olympia pocket gopher and
contains the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species due to the underlying soils series
(Nisqually, Norma, and Spanaway-Nisqually complex), suitable forb and
grass vegetation present onsite, and its large size.
Subunit 1-G: Scatter Creek. This subunit consists of 730 ac (296
ha) and contains lands within the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, owned by
WDFW, and one private landowner near the city of Grand Mound, Thurston
County, Washington. WDFW holds a lease on the private lands, which
totals approximately 98 ac (40 ha), and manages the habitat the same as
on adjacent WDFW lands (Hays 2012, in litt.). The lease expires in
2014. Subunit 1-G is occupied by the Yelm pocket gopher and contains
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species due to the underlying soils series (McKenna, Nisqually,
Spanaway, and Spanaway-Nisqually complex), suitable forb and grass
vegetation present on-site, and its large size. A powerline right-of-
way managed by the BPA crosses Scatter Creek Wildlife Area and may
require special management consideration. We are considering the
exclusion of approximately 98 ac (40 ha) of private property in this
subunit under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the level of public
benefits derived from encouraging collaborative efforts and encouraging
private and local conservation efforts; and the effect designation
would have on these partnerships as well as the existing WDFW lease on
this property, and the fact that this property is managed in a manner
consistent with the conservation of this species (see Exclusions).
Subunit 1-H: Rock Prairie. This subunit consists of 621 ac (251 ha)
and contains lands owned by two private residential and commercial
landowners. One of the private landowners' property (379 ac; 153 ha) is
entirely covered by a Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Grassland Reserve Program agreement and partially covered under a
permanent conservation easement. This subunit is located just west of
the city of Tenino, Thurston County, Washington. Subunit 1-H is
occupied by the Yelm pocket gopher and contains the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species due to
the underlying soils series (Yelm, Spanaway, and Nisqually), suitable
forb and grass vegetation present onsite, and its large size. The
entire acreage of the proposed critical habitat on one private
landowner's property is being considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, due to the conservation easement on approximately
530 ac (215 ha) of their property and the Grassland Reserve Program
plan developed in partnership
[[Page 73800]]
with NRCS for the long-term management of their property, which is
consistent with restoration and management needs for sustaining
prairies (see Exclusions).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service (under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species or avoid the
likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. As discussed above, the role of
critical habitat is to support the life-history needs of the subspecies
and provide for the conservation of the subspecies.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may affect the
physical or biological features of critical habitat, or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, activities that may affect
critical habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, require consultation. These activities may include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that restore, alter, or degrade habitat features
through development, agricultural activities, burning, mowing,
herbicide use or other means in suitable habitat for the four Thurston/
Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
(2) Actions that would alter the physical or biological features of
critical habitat including modification of soil profiles or the
composition and structure of vegetation in suitable habitat for the
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, construction, grading
or other development, mowing, or conversion of habitat (military
training on DOD lands, recreational use, off road vehicles on Federal,
State, private, or Tribal lands). These activities may affect the
physical or biological features of critical habitat for the four
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher by crushing burrows,
removing forage, or impacting habitat essential for completion of life
history.
(3) Activities within or adjacent to critical habitat that affect
or degrade the conservation value or function of the physical or
biological features of critical
[[Page 73801]]
habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
proposed critical habitat designation for the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher to determine if they are exempt
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of
Defense lands within the proposed critical habitat designation: (1)
91st Division Prairie, (2) Marion Prairie, and (3) Tenalquot Prairie.
All of these areas are part of JBLM, except for the portion of
Tenalquot Prairie known as the Morgan property.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord
Joint Base Lewis-McChord (formerly known as Fort Lewis and McChord
Air Force Base) is an 86,000 ac (34,800 ha) military complex in western
Washington. JBLM has an approved INRMP in place, dated July 2006, that
covers the years 2006 through 2010. This INRMP is being updated and a
revision will be submitted to the Service in 2012 (Steucke 2008, pers.
comm.). JBLM is composed of both native and degraded grasslands; shrub-
dominated vegetation; conifer, conifer-oak, oak-savannah, oak woodland
and pine woodland/savannah forests; riverine, lacustrine, and
palustrine wetlands; ponds and lakes; as well as other unique habitat,
such as mima mounds. Portions of JBLM are currently occupied by the
Mazama pocket gopher. Actions on this property include military
training, recreation, transportation, utilities (including dedicated
corridors), and land use.
The mission of JBLM is to maintain trained and ready forces for
Army commanders worldwide, by providing them with training support and
infrastructure. This includes a land base capable of supporting current
and future training needs through good stewardship of the
Installation's natural and cultural resources, as directed by Federal
statutes, Department of Defense directives, directives and programs
such as ACUB (Army Compatible Use Buffer Program), and Army and JBLM
regulations.
Although only military actions are covered by the INRMP, several
additional actions occurring on JBLM could pose substantial threats to
the Mazama pocket gopher (e.g., dog trials, model airplanes,
recreational activities), and are restricted to a few grassland
properties. Many of the avoidance measures for military training action
subgroups are implemented through environmental review and permitting
programs related to a specific action. Timing of actions and education
of users are important avoidance measures for the other activities.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord actively manages prairie habitat as part
of Fort Lewis' INRMP (U.S. Army 2006). The purpose of the plan is to
``provide guidance for effective and efficient management of the
prairie landscape to meet military training and ecological conservation
goals.'' There are three overall goals including: (1) No net loss of
open landscapes for military training; (2) no net reduction in the
quantity or quality of moderate- and high-quality grassland; and (3)
viable populations of all prairie-dependent and prairie-associated
species.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord has a stewardship responsibility that
includes actions to help recover threatened and endangered species
under the Act. It is Army policy to consider candidate species when
making decisions that may affect them, to avoid taking actions that may
cause them to be listed, and to take affirmative actions that can
preclude the need to list (AR 200-3).
Mazama pocket gophers exist on prairies on JBLM lands where
vehicular traffic is currently restricted to established roads, but
there are no specific restrictions on military training to protect
Mazama pocket gophers. Efforts to maintain and increase populations on
the installation focus on restoring or managing the overall condition
of prairie habitat.
Two regional programs managed under the INRMP and funded by the DOD
are currently underway on many of the lands where Mazama pocket gophers
occur. The Fort Lewis ACUB program is a proactive effort to prevent
``encroachment'' at military installations. Encroachment includes
current or potential future restrictions on military training
associated with currently listed and candidate species under the Act.
The Fort Lewis ACUB program focuses on management of non-Federal
conservation lands in the vicinity of Fort Lewis that contain, or can
be restored to, native prairie. Some of the ACUB efforts include
improving habitats on JBLM property for prairie-dependent species,
including the Mazama pocket gopher. It is implemented by means of a
cooperative agreement between the Army and The Nature Conservancy (now
Center for Natural Lands Management), and includes WDFW and WDNR as
partners. To date, a total of $8.23 million has been allocated to this
program (Anderson 2012, pers. comm). This funds conservation actions
such as invasive plant control on occupied sites and the restoration of
unoccupied habitat.
The JBLM Legacy program is dedicated to ``protecting, enhancing,
and conserving natural and cultural resources on DOD lands through
stewardship, leadership, and partnership.'' The Legacy program supports
conservation actions that have regional or DOD-wide significance, and
that support military training or fulfill legal obligations (DOD 2011,
p. 2). In
[[Page 73802]]
recent years, substantial effort and funding have gone toward projects,
both on and off JBLM, related to the Mazama pocket gopher.
Although JBLM's INRMP has the potential to provide a conservation
benefit to the Mazama pocket gopher, it does not currently. Since their
INRMP is currently undergoing revision and is subject to change, we are
reserving judgment on whether management under the new INRMP will meet
our criteria for exemption from critical habitat at this time. In
accordance with section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, if we determine prior
to our final rulemaking that conservation efforts identified in the
newly revised INRMP will provide a conservation benefit to the species
identified previously, we may at that time exempt the identified lands
from the final designation of critical habitat.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the species.
When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would
provide.
The Secretary can consider the existence of conservation agreements
and other land management plans with Federal, private, State, and
Tribal entities when making decisions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
The Secretary may also consider relationships with landowners,
voluntary partnerships, and conservation plans, and weigh the
implementation and effectiveness of these against that of designation
to determine which provides the greatest conservation value to the
listed species. Consideration of relevant impacts of designation or
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited to, any
of the following factors:
(1) Whether the plan provides specific information on how it
protects the species and the physical and biological features, and
whether the plan is at a geographical scope commensurate with the
species;
(2) Whether the plan is complete and will be effective at
conserving and protecting the physical and biological features;
(3) Whether a reasonable expectation exists that conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented, that those
responsible for implementing the plan are capable of achieving the
objectives, that an implementation schedule exists, and that adequate
funding exists;
(4) Whether the plan provides assurances that the conservation
strategies and measures will be effective (i.e., identifies biological
goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and is of a duration
sufficient to implement the plan);
(5) Whether the plan has a monitoring program or adaptive
management to ensure that the conservation measures are effective;
(6) The degree to which the record supports a conclusion that a
critical habitat designation would impair the benefits of the plan;
(7) The extent of public participation;
(8) Demonstrated track record of implementation success;
(9) Level of public benefits derived from encouraging collaborative
efforts and encouraging private and local conservation efforts; and
(10) The effect designation would have on partnerships.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat will result
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments received, we will evaluate
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat are appropriate for
exclusion from the final designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of excluding lands from the
final designation outweigh the benefits of designating those lands as
critical habitat, then the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the lands from the final designation.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider all relevant
impacts of the designation of critical habitat, including economic
impacts. In addition to economic impacts (discussed in the Economics
Analysis section, below), we consider a number of factors in a 4(b)(2)
analysis. For example, we consider whether there are lands owned by the
Department of Defense (DoD) where a national security impact might
exist. We also consider whether Federal or private landowners or other
public agencies have developed management plans or habitat conservation
plans (HCPs) for the area or whether there are conservation
partnerships or other conservation benefits that would be encouraged or
discouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat in
an area. In addition, we look at the presence of Indian lands or Indian
trust resources that might be affected, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Indian entities. We
also consider any other relevant impacts that might occur because of
the designation. To ensure that our final determination is based on the
best available information, we are inviting comments on any foreseeable
economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from
this proposed designation of critical habitat from governmental,
business, or private
[[Page 73803]]
interests and, in particular, any potential impacts on small
businesses.
For the reasons discussed above, if the Secretary decides to
exercise his discretion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have
identified certain areas that we are considering for exclusion from the
final critical habitat designation for the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. However, we solicit comments on the
inclusion or exclusion of such particular areas, as well as any other
areas identified in the proposed rule (see Public Comments section).
During the development of the final designation, we will consider
economic impacts, public comments, and other new information. However,
the Secretary's decision as to which, if any, areas may be excluded
from the final designation is not limited to these lands. Additional
particular areas, in addition to those identified below for potential
exclusion in this proposed rule, may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. In other
words, potential exclusions are not limited to those areas specifically
identified in this proposed rule.
However, we specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or
exclusion of such areas. In the paragraphs below, we provide a detailed
analysis of our exclusion of these lands under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors. We will announce the availability of the draft economic
analysis as soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public
review and comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis
will be available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). During
the development of a final designation, we will consider economic
impacts, public comments, and other new information, and areas may be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a
national security impact might exist. The U.S. Army's Joint Base Lewis-
McChord Military Reservation (JBLM) is the only DOD land included
within the proposed designation of critical habitat. As described
above, in preparing this proposal, we are considering JBLM for
exemption from the designation of critical habitat under section
4(a)(3) of the Act, pending our evaluation of their revised INRMP,
scheduled for completion in 2012, to determine whether it provides a
conservation benefit to the species under consideration in this
proposed rule. We have determined that the remaining lands within the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the species are not owned
or managed by the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate
no impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not
intending to exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the final
designation based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national
security, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We
consider a number of factors, including whether landowners have
developed any HCPs or other management plans for the area, or whether
there are conservation partnerships or relationships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any other relevant impacts that might occur because of
the designation. Our weighing of the benefits of inclusion versus
exclusion considers all relevant factors in making a final
determination as to what will result in the greatest conservation
benefit to the listed species. Depending on the specifics of each
situation, there may be cases where the designation of critical habitat
will not necessarily provide enhanced protection, and may actually lead
to a net loss of conservation benefit. Here we present a brief
description of three general areas considered for exclusion from the
final designations of critical habitat for the subspecies.
We are considering the exclusion of private lands associated with
the Scatter Creek Wildlife Area and Rock Prairie (Unit 1, subunits 1-G
and 1-H for the Mazama pocket gopher), both within Thurston County. The
first proposed exclusion is located in the south Puget Sound region, in
the Scatter Creek subunit of Unit 1, the South Sound Unit subunit 1-G
for the Mazama pocket gopher. We are considering excluding private
lands in this unit totaling 98 ac (40 ha) based on the benefits of
partnerships, HCPs, and other conservation agreements.
The second area is located in the south Puget Sound, in the Rock
Prairie subunit also in Unit 1, the South Sound Unit. This is subunit
1-H for the Mazama pocket gopher. In this subunit, 379 ac (153 ha) is
considered for exclusion as they are managed under a permanent
conservation easement and a Grassland Reserve Program Management Plan
agreement with NRCS.
Each area contains one landholding that is under a conservation
easement for agriculture and open space protection, species
conservation, and/or prairie conservation. We are considering the
exclusion of these privately-owned lands (1-G and 1-H for the Mazama
pocket gopher in the South Sound Unit) based on the partnerships that
have been developed for the conservation of the Mazama pocket gopher
subspecies as evidenced by the management plan and conservation
easement on those private lands as well as the conservation benefit to
the species from the management plan.
We request public comments on the relative benefits of inclusion or
exclusion of these areas (Table 3) from the designation of critical
habitat. At present, we seek public comment on the general benefits of
including or excluding private lands in this area (see PUBLIC
COMMENTS).
[[Page 73804]]
Table 3--Lands Proposed or That May Be Considered for Exclusion From the Final Rule To Designate Critical
Habitat for Several Puget Sound Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical habitat Name of agreement/
Type of agreement unit name State entity Acres Hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat Conservation Plans-- Unit 1-South Sound; WA Washington 35 14
proposed for exclusion. Subunits MPG: 1-D. Department of
Natural Resources
State Lands.
Conservation Agreements, Other Unit 1--South WA Scatter Creek 98 40
agreements or Partnerships-- Sound; Subunit Wildlife Area
proposed for exclusion. MPG: 1-G. Private Landowner
Management Plan.
Unit 1-South Sound; WA Rock Prairie 379 153
Subunit MPG: 1-H. Grassland
Easement and
Private Landowner
Partnership.
-------------------------
Total Proposed.............. ................... ........... .................. 512 207
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits of Excluding Lands with Habitat Conservation Plans
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are planning documents required
as part of an application for an ``incidental take'' permit. They
describe the anticipated effects of the proposed taking; how those
impacts will be minimized, or mitigated; and how the HCP is to be
funded. HCPs can apply to both listed and nonlisted species, including
those that are candidates or have been proposed for listing. Anyone
whose otherwise-lawful activities will result in the ``incidental
take'' of a listed wildlife species needs a permit. The Act defines
``take'' as ``* * * to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct.'' ``Harm'' includes significant habitat modification that
actually kills or injures a listed species through impairing essential
behavior such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Section 9 of the Act
prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species. The purpose of
the incidental take permit is to exempt non-Federal permit-holders--
such as States and private landowners--from the prohibitions of section
9, not to authorize the activities that result in take.
In developing HCPs, people applying for incidental take permits
describe measures designed to minimize and mitigate the effects of
their actions-- to ensure that species will be conserved and to
contribute to their recovery. Habitat Conservation Plans are required
to meet the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act:
Taking will be incidental;
The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking;
The applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the
plan will be provided;
Taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
Other measures, as required by the Secretary, will be met.
The benefits of excluding lands with approved HCPs from critical
habitat designation may include relieving landowners, communities, and
counties of any additional regulatory burden that might be imposed as a
result of the critical habitat designation. Many HCPs take years to
develop and, upon completion, are consistent with the recovery
objectives for listed species covered within the plan area. Many
conservation plans also provide conservation benefits to unlisted
sensitive species.
A related benefit of excluding lands covered by approved HCPs from
critical habitat designation is that it can make it easier for us to
seek new partnerships with future plan participants, including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, and private
landowners, which together can implement conservation actions that we
would be unable to accomplish otherwise. HCPs often cover a wide range
of species, including species that are not State and federally listed
and would otherwise receive little protection from development. By
excluding these lands, we preserve our current partnerships and
encourage additional future conservation actions.
We also note that permit issuance in association with HCP
applications requires consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
which would include the review of the effects of all HCP-covered
activities that might adversely impact the species under a jeopardy
standard, including possibly significant habitat modification (see
definition of ``harm'' at 50 CFR 17.3), even without the critical
habitat designation. In addition, all other Federal actions that may
affect the listed species would still require consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review these actions for
possible significant habitat modification in accordance with the
definition of harm referenced above.
We consider a current HCP to be appropriate for consideration for
exclusion from a final critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act if:
(1) It provides for the conservation of the essential physical and
biological features or areas otherwise determined to be essential;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will
be implemented into the future;
(3) The conservation strategies in the HCP are likely to be
effective; and
(4) The HCP contains a monitoring program or adaptive management to
ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be adapted
in the future in response to new information.
Below is a brief description of each HCP and the lands proposed as
critical habitat covered by each plan that we are proposing to exclude
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final designation of critical
habitat.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources State Lands Habitat
Conservation Plan
We are proposing to exclude lands managed under the Washington
State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) State Lands HCP in one
critical habitat subunit in Washington from the final critical habitat
designation for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher (Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm). The WDNR State Lands
HCP covers approximately 1.6 million ac (730,000 ha) of State forest
lands. The majority of the area covered by the HCP is west of the
Cascade Crest including the Olympic Peninsula. The permit associated
with this HCP, issued January 30, 1997 (61 FR 15297, April 5, 1996),
has a term of 70 to 100 years, and covers activities primarily
associated with commercial forest management, but also includes
limited, non-timber activities such as some recreational activities.
The HCP
[[Page 73805]]
covers all federally listed species in Washington that use the types of
habitats provided by covered lands at the time the HCP was approved,
and those species that have similar habitat affinities and become
listed after the HCP was approved and an incidental take permit (ITP)
was issued. If listed, the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher (Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm) would be added
to the WDNR ITP per Section 7 and 12.6 of the Implementing Agreement
(Appendix B of the HCP).
The HCP addressed multiple species through a combination of
strategies. The main focus of these strategies is the riparian
ecosystems (salmonids), northern spotted owl, and the marbled murrelet.
The main objective of these strategies was to maintain and promote late
successional forest habitats along riparian corridors and in upland
locations that would benefit spotted owls and marbled murrelets. It was
envisioned that the conservation strategies for salmonids, spotted
owls, and marbled murrelets would serve to reduce the risk of
extinction for the other wildlife species covered by the HCP. In
addition, a fourth emphasis of the HCP was to provide protection for
species that relied on uncommon or unique habitats. For these species,
additional measures were developed to meet the conservation objectives
of the HCP. These measures specifically address the protection of
talus, caves, cliffs, balds, oak woodlands, mineral springs, large
snags, and large, structurally unique trees because these features are
difficult to restore or recreate. In addition, as noted in the HCP, at
the time a new species is proposed for listing, DNR provides a written
request to add that species to its ITP and evaluates and considers
additional protection measures such as seasonal restrictions and
protection of nesting/denning sites.
The WDNR also manages approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of non-
trust lands as NAPs. A portion of Rocky Prairie (subunit 1-D) is
located within a WDNR Natural Area Preserve (NAP). While not subject to
the HCP, the Service recognizes the habitat contributions provided by
these lands in terms of meeting the conservation goals and objectives
of the HCP. NAPs provide the highest level of protection for excellent
examples of unique or typical land features in Washington State. Some
of these protected lands currently provide habitat in areas identified
as ``critical'' for the Tenino and Yelm pocket gophers at the Rocky
Prairie NAP. Details of the WDNR HCP are available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/researchscience/topics/trustlandshcp/Pages/Home.aspx.
Federal Lands
As noted above, Federal agencies have an independent responsibility
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act to use their programs in furtherance
of the Act and to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for
the conservation of endangered and threatened species. We consider the
development and implementation of land management plans by Federal
agencies to be consistent with this statutory obligation under section
7(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, Federal land management plans, in and of
themselves, are generally not an appropriate basis for exclusion from
critical habitat. The Secretary is not intending to exercise his
discretion to exclude any Federal lands from the designation of
critical habitat.
Consideration of Indian Lands
In accordance with the Secretarial Order 3206, ``American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act'' (June 5, 1997); the President's memorandum of
April 29, 1994, ``Government-to-Government Relations with Native
American Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951); Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''
(November 6, 2000, and as reaffirmed November 5, 2009); and the
relevant provision of the Departmental Manual of the Department of the
Interior (512 DM 2), we believe that fish, wildlife, and other natural
resources on Indian lands may be better managed under Indian
authorities, policies, and programs than through Federal regulation
where Indian management addresses the conservation needs of listed
species. In addition, such designation may be viewed by tribes as
unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion into Indian self-governance, thus
compromising the government-to-government relationship essential to
achieving our mutual goals of managing for healthy ecosystems upon
which the viability of threatened and endangered species populations
depend.
We have determined that there are no reserved tribal lands occupied
by the four Thurston/Pierce County subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher
that contain the physical or biological features essential to
conservation of the species, and no reserved tribal lands unoccupied by
the species that are essential for the conservation of the species.
Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat for the
Mazama pocket gopher on tribal lands.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers
to comment during this public comment period on our specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposal to list the Olympia,
Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher our
proposed critical habitat for these species as well as our other
determinations.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in the
ADDRESSES section. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal,
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
[[Page 73806]]
further that regulations must be based on the best available science
and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and
an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer
than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100
employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less
than $11.5 million in annual business, and forestry and logging
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we
will consider the types of activities that might trigger regulatory
impacts under this designation as well as types of project
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's
business operations.
Importantly, the incremental impacts of a rule must be both
significant and substantial to prevent certification of the rule under
the RFA and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are
affected by the proposed critical habitat designation, but the per-
entity economic impact is not significant, the Service may certify.
Likewise, if the per-entity economic impact is likely to be
significant, but the number of affected entities is not substantial,
the Service may also certify.
Under the RFA, as amended, and following recent court decisions,
Federal agencies are only required to evaluate the potential
incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly regulated
by the rulemaking itself, and not the potential impacts to indirectly
affected entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried by the Agency is not
likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to the specific regulatory
requirement (avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by
critical habitat designation. Under these circumstances, it is our
position that only Federal action agencies will be directly regulated
by this designation. Therefore, because Federal agencies are not small
entities, the Service may certify that the proposed critical habitat
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
We acknowledge, however, that in some cases, third-party proponents
of the action subject to permitting or funding may participate in a
section 7 consultation, and thus may be indirectly affected. We believe
it is good policy to assess these impacts if we have sufficient data
before us to complete the necessary analysis, whether or not this
analysis is strictly required by the RFA. While this regulation does
not directly regulate these entities, in our draft economic analysis we
will conduct a brief evaluation of the potential number of third
parties participating in consultations on an annual basis in order to
ensure a more complete examination of the incremental effects of this
proposed rule in the context of the RFA.
In conclusion, we believe that, based on our interpretation of
directly regulated entities under the RFA and relevant case law, this
designation of critical habitat will only directly regulate Federal
agencies which are not by definition small business entities. And as
such, certify that, if promulgated, this designation of critical
habitat would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required. However, though not necessarily
required by the RFA, in our draft economic analysis for this proposal
we will consider and evaluate the potential effects to third parties
that may be involved with consultations with Federal action agencies
related to this action.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. We do not expect the designation of this proposed
critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use as these species and proposed critical habitat do not appear to
overlap with these areas. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However,
we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic
analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
[[Page 73807]]
Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local,
or Tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to
Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food
Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State
Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living;
Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.
``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would
impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. Government lands being proposed for critical
habitat designation are owned by Washington State Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Department of
Defense (Army), the U.S. Forest Service, and Thurston County Parks and
Recreation, in Washington. None of these government entities fit the
definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and
revise this assessment as warranted. Therefore, a Small Government
Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further evaluate this
issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and revise this
assessment if appropriate.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher in a takings implications assessment. Critical habitat
designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. The
takings implications assessment concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher does not pose significant takings implications for lands
within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of
the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested
information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies
in Washington. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher
imposes no additional restrictions to those currently in place and,
therefore, has little incremental impact on State and local governments
and their activities. The designation may have some benefit to these
governments because the areas that contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly
defined, and the elements of the features of the habitat necessary to
the conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher within the proposed designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the
[[Page 73808]]
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This
position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We have determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied by the
four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher that contain
the physical or biological features essential to conservation of the
subspecies, and no Tribal lands unoccupied by the subspecies that are
essential for the conservation of the subspecies. Therefore, we are not
proposing to designate critical habitat for the Mazama pocket gopher on
Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington, and the Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, by adding entries for ``Pocket gopher, Olympia (Thomomys
mazama pugetensis)'', ``Pocket gopher, Roy Prairie'' (Thomomys mazama
glacialis)'', ``Pocket gopher, Tenino (Thomomys mazama tumuli)'', and
``Pocket gopher, Yelm (Thomomys mazama yelmensis)'' in alphabetical
order under Mammals, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historical range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Pocket gopher, Olympia........... Thomomys mazama U.S.A. (WA)........ U.S.A. (WA)........ T ........... 17.95(a) 17.40(a)
pugetensis.
Pocket gopher, Roy Prairie....... Thomomys mazama U.S.A. (WA)........ U.S.A. (WA)........ T ........... 17.95(a) 17.40(a)
glacialis.
Pocket gopher, Tenino............ Thomomys mazama U.S.A. (WA)........ U.S.A. (WA)........ T ........... 17.95(a) 17.40(a)
tumuli.
Pocket gopher, Yelm.............. Thomomys mazama U.S.A. (WA)........ U.S.A. (WA)........ T ........... 17.95(a) 17.40(a)
yelmensis.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.40 by adding paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.40 Special rules--mammals.
(a) Mazama pocket gophers (Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie)
(Thomomys mazama pugetensis, tumuli, yelmensis, and glacialis).
(1) Which populations of the Mazama pocket gophers are covered by
this special rule? This rule covers the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies
of Mazama pocket gopher (Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie)
(Thomomys mazama pugetensis, tumuli, yelmensis, and glacialis) wherever
they occur.
(2) What activities are prohibited? Except as noted in paragraphs
(a)(3)
[[Page 73809]]
through (a)(5) of this section, all prohibitions of Sec. 17.31 will
apply to the Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie pocket gophers.
(3) What agricultural activities are allowed on non-Federal lands?
Incidental take of the Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie pocket
gophers will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if the
incidental take results from routine farming, seed nursery, or ranching
activities located in or adjacent to Mazama pocket gopher habitat on
non-Federal lands. Routine farming, seed nursery, or ranching
activities are limited to the following:
(i) Livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and
established levels of intensity in terms of the number of head of
livestock per acre of rangeland.
(ii) Routine management and maintenance of stock ponds and berms to
maintain livestock water supplies. Such activities shall not involve
the use of heavy equipment.
(iii) Routine maintenance or construction of open-wire fences for
grazing management.
(iv) Planting, harvest, or rotation of crops when such activities
occur between November 1 and February 28 (inclusive).
(v) Maintenance of livestock management facilities such as corrals,
sheds, and other ranch outbuildings.
(vi) Repair and maintenance of unimproved ranch roads. This
exemption does not include improvement, upgrade, or construction of new
roads.
(vii) Discing of fencelines or perimeter areas for fire prevention
control when such activities occur between November 1 and February 28
(inclusive).
(viii) Placement of mineral supplements.
(ix) Control and management of noxious weeds through mowing,
herbicide application, and burning. Use of herbicides and burning must
occur in such a way that nontarget plants are not affected.
(4) What activities are allowed on airports on non-Federal lands?
Incidental take of the Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie pocket
gophers will not be a violation of section 9 of the Act, if the
incidental take results from routine maintenance activities in or
adjacent to Mazama pocket gopher habitat and associated with airport
operations located on non-Federal lands. Routine maintenance activities
include the following and do not involve the use of heavy equipment
that would crush burrows or compact soils:
(i) Routine management, repair, and maintenance of roads and
runways (does not include upgrades, or construction of new roads or
runways or new development at airports); and
(ii) Control and management of noxious weeds and grass through
mowing, herbicide application, or burning. Use of herbicides and
burning must occur in such a way that nontarget plants are not
affected.
(5) What activities are allowed on private land? Incidental take of
the Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie pocket gophers will not be a
violation of section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from
noncommercial activities that occur in or adjacent to Mazama pocket
gopher habitat on existing single-family residential properties. These
activities could include, but are not limited to, the following, and
must not involve the use of heavy equipment:
(i) Control and management of invasive plants and grass through
mowing, herbicide application, or burning. Use of herbicides and
burning must occur in such a way that nontarget plants are not
affected;
(ii) Construction and placement of above-ground fencing, play
equipment, and dog kennels less than 100 ft\2\ (9.29 m\2\) only if on
block, or above-ground, footings; and (iii) Construction of carports,
or storage sheds less than 100 ft\2\ (9.29 m\2\), only if on block, or
above-ground, footings.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(a) by adding entries for ``Olympia pocket
gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis)'', ``Roy Prairie pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama glacialis)'', ``Tenino pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama
tumuli)'', and ``Yelm pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama yelmensis)'' in
the same order that these species appear in the table in Sec.
17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
(a) Mammals.
* * * * *
Olympia Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Thurston County,
Washington, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
Olympia pocket gopher consist of:
(i) Friable, loamy, and deep soils, some with relatively greater
content of sand, gravel, or silt, all generally on slopes less than 15
percent in the following series:
(A) Alderwood;
(B) Cagey;
(D) Everett;
(E) Indianola;
(F) McKenna;
(G) Nisqually;
(H) Norma;
(I) Spana;
(J) Spanaway;
(K) Spanaway-Nisqually complex; and
(L) Yelm.
(ii) Areas equal to or larger than 50 ac (20 ha) in size that
provide for breeding, foraging, and dispersal activities, found in the
soil series listed in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry that have:
(A) Less than 10 percent woody vegetation cover.
(B) Vegetative cover suitable for foraging by gophers. Pocket
gophers' diets include a wide variety of plant material, including
leafy vegetation, succulent roots, shoots, tubers, and grasses. Forbs
and grasses that Mazama pocket gophers eat are known to include, but
are not limited to: Achillea millefolium (common yarrow), Agoseris spp.
(agoseris), Cirsium spp. (thistle), Bromus spp. (brome), Camassia spp.
(camas), Collomia linearis (tiny trumpet), Epilobium spp. (several
willowherb spp.), Eriophyllum lanatum (woolly sunflower), Gayophytum
diffusum (groundsmoke), Hypochaeris radicata (hairy cat's ear),
Lathyrus spp. (peavine), Lupinus spp. (lupine), Microsteris gracilis
(slender phlox), Penstemon spp. (penstemon), Perideridia gairdneri
(Gairdner's yampah), Phacelia heterophylla (varileaf phacelia),
Polygonum douglasii (knotweed), Potentilla spp. (cinquefoil), Pteridium
aquilinum (bracken fern), Taraxacum officinale (common dandelion),
Trifolium spp. (clover), and Viola spp. (violet).
(C) Few, if any, barriers to dispersal. Barriers to dispersal
include, but are not limited to: open water; steep slopes (greater than
35 percent); wide expanses of rhizomatous grasses; concrete; large
areas of rock; development and buildings; and soils or substrates
inappropriate for burrowing.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[ DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining the map units
were created on 2010 aerial photography from U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agriculture Imagery Program base maps using
ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer
geographic information system (GIS) program. The
[[Page 73810]]
maps in this entry establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at the Service's internet site,
(http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088), and at the
field office responsible for this designation. You may obtain field
office location information by contacting one of the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.006
[[Page 73811]]
(6) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-C: Olympia Airport, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-C follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.007
[[Page 73812]]
(7) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-F: West Rocky Prairie, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-F follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.008
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 73813]]
Roy Prairie Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mazama glacialis)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Thurston and Pierce
Counties in Washington on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Roy
Prairie pocket gopher consist of:
(i) Friable, loamy, and deep soils, some with relatively greater
content of sand, gravel, or silt, all generally on slopes less than 15
percent in the following series:
(A) Everett;
(B) Indianola;
(C) Nisqually;
(D) Norma; and
(E) Spanaway.
(ii) Areas equal to or larger than 50 ac (20 ha) in size that
provide for breeding, foraging, and dispersal activities, found in the
soil series listed in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry that have:
(A) Less than 10 percent woody vegetation cover.
(B) Vegetative cover suitable for foraging by gophers. Pocket
gophers' diets include a wide variety of plant material, including
leafy vegetation, succulent roots, shoots, tubers, and grasses. Forbs
and grasses that Mazama pocket gophers are known to eat include, but
are not limited to: Achillea millefolium (common yarrow), Agoseris spp.
(agoseris), Cirsium spp. (thistle), Bromus spp. (brome), Camassia spp.
(camas), Collomia linearis (tiny trumpet), Epilobium spp. (several
willowherb spp.), Eriophyllum lanatum (woolly sunflower), Gayophytum
diffusum (groundsmoke), Hypochaeris radicata (hairy cat's ear),
Lathyrus spp. (peavine), Lupinus spp. (lupine), Microsteris gracilis
(slender phlox), Penstemon spp. (penstemon), Perideridia gairdneri
(Gairdner's yampah), Phacelia heterophylla (varileaf phacelia),
Polygonum douglasii (knotweed), Potentilla spp. (cinquefoil), Pteridium
aquilinum (bracken fern), Taraxacum officinale (common dandelion),
Trifolium spp. (clover), and Viola spp. (violet).
(C) Few, if any, barriers to dispersal. Barriers to dispersal
include, but are not limited to: open water; steep slopes (greater than
35 percent); wide expanses of rhizomatous grasses; concrete; large
areas of rock; development and buildings; and soils or substrates
inappropriate for burrowing.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[ DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining the map units
were created on 2010 aerial photography from U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agriculture Imagery Program base maps using
ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer
geographic information system (GIS) program. The maps in this entry
establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are
available to the public at the Service's internet site, (at http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088), and at the field office responsible
for this designation. You may obtain field office location information
by contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of
which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
[[Page 73814]]
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.009
[[Page 73815]]
(6) Unit 1--South Sound. Subunit 1-A: 91st Division Prairie, Pierce
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-A follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.010
[[Page 73816]]
(7) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-B: Marion Prairie, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-B follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.011
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 73817]]
Tenino Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mazama tumuli)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Thurston County in
Washington on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Tenino
pocket gopher consist of two components:
(i) Friable, loamy, and deep soils, some with relatively greater
content of sand, gravel, or silt, all generally on slopes less than 15
percent in the following series:
(A) Everett;
(B) Nisqually;
(C) Norma;
(D) Spanaway; and
(E) Spanaway-Nisqually complex.
(ii) Areas equal to or larger than 50 ac (20 ha) in size that
provide for breeding, foraging, and dispersal activities, found in the
soil series listed in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry that have:
(A) Less than 10 percent woody vegetation cover.
(B) Vegetative cover suitable for foraging by gophers. Pocket
gophers' diets include a wide variety of plant material, including
leafy vegetation, succulent roots, shoots, tubers, and grasses. Forbs
and grasses that Mazama pocket gophers are known to eat include, but
are not limited to: Achillea millefolium (common yarrow), Agoseris spp.
(agoseris), Cirsium spp. (thistle), Bromus spp. (brome), Camassia spp.
(camas), Collomia linearis (tiny trumpet), Epilobium spp. (several
willowherb spp.), Eriophyllum lanatum (woolly sunflower), Gayophytum
diffusum (groundsmoke), Hypochaeris radicata (hairy cat's ear),
Lathyrus spp. (peavine), Lupinus spp. (lupine), Microsteris gracilis
(slender phlox), Penstemon spp. (penstemon), Perideridia gairdneri
(Gairdner's yampah), Phacelia heterophylla (varileaf phacelia),
Polygonum douglasii (knotweed), Potentilla spp. (cinquefoil), Pteridium
aquilinum (bracken fern), Taraxacum officinale (common dandelion),
Trifolium spp. (clover), and Viola spp. (violet).
(C) Few, if any, barriers to dispersal. Barriers to dispersal
include, but are not limited to: open water; steep slopes (greater than
35 percent); wide expanses of rhizomatous grasses; concrete; large
areas of rock; development and buildings; and soils or substrates
inappropriate for burrowing.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[ DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map unit. Data layers defining the map unit
were created on 2010 aerial photography from U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agriculture Imagery Program base maps using
ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer
geographic information system (GIS) program. The maps in this entry
establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are
available to the public at the Service's internet site, (http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088), and at the field office responsible
for this designation. You may obtain field office location information
by contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of
which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
[[Page 73818]]
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.012
[[Page 73819]]
(6) Unit 1--South Sound. Subunit 1-D: Rocky Prairie, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-D follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.013
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 73820]]
Yelm Pocket Gopher (Thomomys mazama yelmensis)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Thurston and Pierce
Counties in Washington on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
Yelm pocket gopher consist of two components:
(i) Friable, loamy, and deep soils, some with relatively greater
content of sand, gravel, or silt, all generally on slopes less than 15
percent in the following series:
(A) Alderwood;
(B) Everett;
(C) Godfrey;
(D) Kapowsin;
(E) McKenna;
(F) Nisqually;
(G) Norma;
(H) Spana;
(I) Spanaway;
(J) Spanaway-Nisqually complex; and
(K) Yelm.
(ii) Areas equal to or larger than 50 ac (20 ha) in size that
provide for breeding, foraging, and dispersal activities, found in the
soil series listed in paragraph (2)(i) of this entry that have:
(A) Less than 10 percent woody vegetation cover.
(B)Vegetative cover suitable for foraging by gophers. Pocket
gophers' diets include a wide variety of plant material, including
leafy vegetation, succulent roots, shoots, tubers, and grasses. Forbs
and grasses that Mazama pocket gophers are known to eat include, but
are not limited to: Achillea millefolium (common yarrow), Agoseris spp.
(agoseris), Cirsium spp. (thistle), Bromus spp. (brome), Camassia spp.
(camas), Collomia linearis (tiny trumpet), Epilobium spp. (several
willowherb spp.), Eriophyllum lanatum (woolly sunflower), Gayophytum
diffusum (groundsmoke), Hypochaeris radicata (hairy cat's ear),
Lathyrus spp. (peavine), Lupinus spp. (lupine), Microsteris gracilis
(slender phlox), Penstemon spp. (penstemon), Perideridia gairdneri
(Gairdner's yampah), Phacelia heterophylla (varileaf phacelia),
Polygonum douglasii (knotweed), Potentilla spp. (cinquefoil), Pteridium
aquilinum (bracken fern), Taraxacum officinale (common dandelion),
Trifolium spp. (clover), and Viola spp. (violet).
(C) Few, if any, barriers to dispersal. Barriers to dispersal
include, but are not limited to: open water; steep slopes (greater than
35 percent); wide expanses of rhizomatous grasses; concrete; large
areas of rock; development and buildings; and soils or substrates
inappropriate for burrowing.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
[ DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE].
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining the map unit
were created on 2010 aerial photography from U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agriculture Imagery Program base maps using
ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer
geographic information system (GIS) program. The maps in this entry
establish the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based are
available to the public at the Service's internet site, (http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088), and at the field office responsible
for this designation. You may obtain field office location information
by contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of
which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
[[Page 73821]]
(5) Note: Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.014
(6) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-A: 91 St Division Prairie,
Pierce County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-A is provided at
paragraph (6) of the entry for the Roy Prairie pocket gopher.
(7) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-B: Marion Prairie, Pierce
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-B, is provided at
paragraph (7) of the entry for the Roy Prairie pocket gopher.
(8) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-C: Olympia Airport, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-C is provided at paragraph
(6) of the entry for the Olympia pocket gopher.
(9) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-D: West Rocky Prairie, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-D is provided at paragraph
(6) of the entry for the Tenino pocket gopher.
[[Page 73822]]
(10) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-E: Tenalquot Prairie, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-E follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.015
[[Page 73823]]
(11) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-G: Scatter Creek, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-G follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.016
[[Page 73824]]
(12) Unit 1--South Sound, Subunit 1-H: Rock Prairie, Thurston
County, Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1-H follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11DE12.017
[[Page 73825]]
* * * * *
Dated: November 27, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-29335 Filed 12-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C