Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Four Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher and Designation of Critical Habitat, 73769-73825 [2012-29335]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 238
December 11, 2012
Part III
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73770
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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: https://
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 https://
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 https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo/, https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
DATES:
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
Species
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Thomomys
mazama
ssp.
glacialis,
pugetensis, tumuli, yelmensis.
Thomomys mazama melanops .................
Thomomys talpoides douglasii ..................
Thomomys mazama louiei ........................
Thomomys mazama tacomensis ..............
Thomomys mazama 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
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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:
Present range
Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama
pocket gopher.
Olympic pocket gopher ..............................
Brush Prairie pocket gopher ......................
Cathlamet pocket gopher ..........................
Tacoma pocket gopher ..............................
Shelton pocket gopher ...............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
[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 https://www.regulations.gov.
Jkt 229001
Pierce and Thurston Counties, WA.
Clallam County, WA ...........
Clark County, WA ...............
Wahkiakum County, WA .....
Extinct .................................
Mason County, WA .............
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Status
Proposed Threatened.
Not warranted.
Removed due to error.
Not warranted.
Extinct.
Not warranted.
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73771
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.’’
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73772
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
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 https://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 https://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).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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: https://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,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 buffcolored 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)
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
able to distinguish between subspecies
in Clade C; more genetic work needs to
be done to determine how closelyrelated 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73773
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73774
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
(ft2) (100 square meters (m2)) (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 furlined 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73775
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
73776
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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, SpanawayNisqually 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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 generallyaccepted 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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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 38ac (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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73777
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,
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
73778
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 setasides 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 EuroAmerican 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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 shortterm 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73779
(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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73780
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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 nontraining 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73781
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73782
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 privatelyowned 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73783
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-todate 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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
73784
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 setaside 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’
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 Statelisted 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’
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73785
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.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73786
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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;
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 °Fahrenheit (F) (1
°Celsius (C)) by the year 2020, 3.6 °F (2
°C) by 2050, and 5.4 °F (3 °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
´
Salathe in their 2010 publication,
Future Climate in the Pacific Northwest
´
(Mote and Salathe 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 °F (2.8 °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 °F to 7.6
°F; 1.4 °C to 4.2 °C). Similarly, the mid
region projection predicts an increase an
average of 4.5 °F (range = 2.1 °F to 7.1
°F; average of 2.5 °C with a range of 1.2
°C to 3.9 °C) and the southern end to
increase by 4.5 °F (range = 2.2 °F to 7.1
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73787
°F; average of 2.5 °C with a range of 1.2
°C to 3.9 °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 °F (¥5.4 °C) for the
lowest of the mean annual minimum
temperatures across all localities and
66.9 °F (19.4 °C) for the highest of the
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73788
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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 Salathe 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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, longterm 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 highmagnitude 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
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73789
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 lowmagnitude 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 lowmagnitude 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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
73790
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 lowelevation 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, 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 sitespecific 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 (https://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 nonFederal 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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
are available to aid species recovery can
be found at: https://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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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;
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73791
(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,
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73792
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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 § 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
§ 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 aboveground footings, as described under
proposed § 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 singlefamily 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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(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 nonFederal 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73793
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 peerreviewed 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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73794
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 longterm 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
(ft2) (100 square meters (m2)) (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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73795
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 humancaused 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 semiurban 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.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73796
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 largescale. 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.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 habitat for the Mazama
pocket gopher subspecies
Threat factors under the Endangered Species Act
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Factor A:
Development * ..............................................................................................................................................
Loss of natural disturbance processes, invasive species, and succession * ..............................................
Military training * ...........................................................................................................................................
Factor B:
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes ........................................
Factor C:
Disease .........................................................................................................................................................
Predation ......................................................................................................................................................
Factor D:
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms * ..................................................................................
Factor E:
Low genetic diversity, small or isolated populations, and low reproductive success ..................................
Stochastic weather events ...........................................................................................................................
Climate change ............................................................................................................................................
Pesticides and herbicides ............................................................................................................................
Control as a pest species * ..........................................................................................................................
Recreation ....................................................................................................................................................
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Unit 1: all subunits.
Unit 1: all subunits.
Unit 1: 1–A, 1–B, 1–E.
NA.
NA.
Unit 1: all subunits.
Unit 1: all subunits.
NA.
NA.
NA.
Unit 1: 1–D, 1–E, 1–G, and 1–H.
Unit 1: 1–D, 1–E, 1–G, and 1–H.
NA.
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73798
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
1–A
1–B
1–C
1–D
1–E
1–F
1–G
1–H
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
.............
..............
State
Private
Other *
Ac (Ha)
Unit 1
South Sound
Ac (Ha)
Ac (Ha)
Ac (Ha)
Subunit name
91st Division Prairie .......................................
Marion Prairie .................................................
Olympia Airport ..............................................
Rocky Prairie ..................................................
Tenalquot Prairie ............................................
West Rocky Prairie ........................................
Scatter Creek .................................................
Rock Prairie ....................................................
4,120 (1,667)
720 (291)
0
0
1,505 (609)
0
0
0
0
0
0
54 (22)
0
134 (54)
632 (256)
0
0
0
0
385 (156)
154 (62)
0
98 (40)
621 (251)
0
0
676 (274)
0
135 (55)
0
0
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 SpanawayNisqually 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73799
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 SpanawayNisqually 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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73800
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.
Exemptions
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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, oaksavannah, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73801
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 prairieassociated 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 nonFederal 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 prairiedependent 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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73802
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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;
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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 https://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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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-togovernment 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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73803
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).
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73804
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—LANDS PROPOSED OR THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION FROM THE FINAL RULE TO DESIGNATE
CRITICAL HABITAT FOR SEVERAL PUGET SOUND SPECIES
Type of agreement
Critical habitat unit name
Habitat Conservation Plans—proposed for exclusion.
Conservation Agreements, Other
agreements or Partnerships—
proposed for exclusion.
Unit 1-South Sound; Subunits
MPG: 1–D.
Unit 1—South Sound; Subunit
MPG: 1–G.
WA
Unit 1–South
MPG: 1–H.
WA
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Total Proposed ......................
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Subunit
......................................................
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Sound;
Jkt 229001
State
WA
Name of agreement/entity
Washington Department of Natural Resources State Lands.
Scatter Creek Wildlife Area Private Landowner Management
Plan.
Rock Prairie Grassland Easement and Private Landowner
Partnership.
......................................................
• 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 HCPcovered 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Acres
Hectares
35
14
98
40
379
153
512
207
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 https://www.dnr.wa.gov/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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-togovernment 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73805
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73806
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 nonFederal 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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 caseby-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.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73807
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73808
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Washington
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Species
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 § 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:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
Historical range
Common name
Vertebrate
population
where endangered
or threatened
*
U.S.A. (WA) ............
*
U.S.A. (WA) ............
*
T
*
....................
17.95(a)
17.40(a)
U.S.A. (WA) ............
U.S.A. (WA) ............
T
....................
17.95(a)
17.40(a)
U.S.A. (WA) ............
U.S.A. (WA) ............
T
....................
17.95(a)
17.40(a)
U.S.A. (WA) ............
U.S.A. (WA) ............
T
....................
17.95(a)
17.40(a)
Scientific name
Status
When listed
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
MAMMALS
*
Pocket gopher,
Olympia.
Pocket gopher, Roy
Prairie.
Pocket gopher,
Tenino.
Pocket gopher, Yelm
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
*
*
Thomomys mazama
pugetensis.
Thomomys mazama
glacialis.
Thomomys mazama
tumuli.
Thomomys mazama
yelmensis.
*
*
3. Amend § 17.40 by adding
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 17.40
Special rules—mammals.
(a) Mazama pocket gophers (Olympia,
Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
*
*
(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
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
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)
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
through (a)(5) of this section, all
prohibitions of § 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
(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 ft2 (9.29
m2) only if on block, or above-ground,
footings; and (iii) Construction of
carports, or storage sheds less than 100
ft2 (9.29 m2), only if on block, or aboveground, footings.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 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
§ 17.11(h), to read as follows:
§ 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73809
(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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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, (https://
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov
(https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
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
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.006</GPH>
73810
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
C follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.007</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
(6) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
C: Olympia Airport, Thurston County,
73811
73812
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
F follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.008</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
(7) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
F: West Rocky Prairie, Thurston County,
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73813
(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 https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov
(https://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.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73814
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(5) Note: Index map follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.009</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
A follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.010</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
(6) Unit 1—South Sound. Subunit 1–
A: 91st Division Prairie, Pierce County,
73815
73816
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
B follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.011</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
(7) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
B: Marion Prairie, Thurston County,
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
73817
(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, (https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov
(https://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.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73818
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(5) Note: Index map follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.012</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
D follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.013</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
(6) Unit 1—South Sound. Subunit 1–
D: Rocky Prairie, Thurston County,
73819
73820
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
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’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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, (https://
www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov
(https://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.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
73821
(5) Note: Index map follows:
(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–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(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.
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.014</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
(10) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
E: Tenalquot Prairie, Thurston County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
E follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.015</GPH>
73822
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
G follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.016</GPH>
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
(11) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
G: Scatter Creek, Thurston County,
73823
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
(12) Unit 1—South Sound, Subunit 1–
H: Rock Prairie, Thurston County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
Washington. Map of Unit 1, Subunit 1–
H follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
EP11DE12.017</GPH>
73824
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
*
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]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:24 Dec 10, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\11DEP2.SGM
11DEP2
73825
]]>Agencies
[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: https://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 https://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 https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/,
https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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:
https://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 (https://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: https://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 https://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 https://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 https://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,
(https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov (https://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 https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov (https://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, (https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov (https://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, (https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/), Regulations.gov (https://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
