Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 72/Thursday, April 15

19592 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

48 States occur at high elevations in the for the species concurrent with the Authority Rocky, North Cascade, and Sierra listing. The authority for this action is the On October 21, 2003, we published a Nevada mountains (Aubry et al. 2007, p. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 90-day finding that the petition to list 2153). Wolverines have recently been amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). positively documented in the Sierra the North American wolverine in the Nevada range in California and the contiguous United States did not Dated: March 30, 2010. southern Rocky Mountains of Colorado present substantial scientific and Daniel M. Ashe, for the first time since the early 20th commercial information indicating that Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife century. listing as threatened or endangered may Service. Wolverines are opportunistic feeders be warranted (68 FR 60112). We did not [FR Doc. 2010–8698 Filed 4–14–10; 8:45 am] and consume a variety of foods determine whether the contiguous U.S. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P depending on availability. They population of the North American primarily scavenge carrion, but also wolverine constituted a DPS (or other prey on small animals and birds, and eat listable entity), because sufficient DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR fruits, berries, and insects (Hornocker information was not available at the and Hash 1981, p. 1290; Hash 1987, p. time. Fish and Wildlife Service 579; Banci 1994, pp. 111–113). On September 29, 2006, as a result of Wolverines have delayed onset of a complaint filed by Defenders of 50 CFR Part 17 reproduction in females and small litter Wildlife and others alleging we used the [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2008-0127] sizes, and often reproduce only every wrong standards to assess the July 2000 other year. wolverine petition, the U.S. District [MO 92210-0-0008-B2] Home ranges at the southern terminus Court, Montana District, ruled that our Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of the current range are large for 90-day petition finding was in error and and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a mammals of the size of wolverines, and ordered us to make a 12-month finding Petition to List the Wyoming Pocket may indicate that wolverines have high for the wolverine (Defenders of Wildlife Gopher as Endangered or Threatened energetic requirements and at the same et al. v. Norton and Hogan (9:05cv99 with Critical Habitat time occupy relatively unproductive DWM; D. MT)). On April 6, 2007, the niches (Inman et al. 2007a, p. 11). In Court approved an unopposed motion to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, addition, wolverines naturally occur in extend the deadline for this 12-month Interior. low densities that average about one finding to February 28, 2008, so that we ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition 2 2 wolverine per 150 km (58 mi ) would be able to use information finding. (Hornocker and Hash 1981, pp. 1292– published in the September 2007 1295; Hash 1987, p. 578; Copeland edition of the Journal of Wildlife SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 1996, pp. 31–32; Copeland and Yates Management containing a special Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 2006, p. 27; Inman et al. 2007a, p. 10; section on North American wolverine 12–month finding on a petition to list Squires et al. 2007, p. 2218). biology. On June 5, 2007, we published the Wyoming pocket gopher (Thomomys Previous Federal Actions a notice initiating a status review for the clusius) as endangered or threatened wolverine (72 FR 31048). and to designate critical habitat under We received a petition dated August On March 11, 2008, we published a the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 3, 1994, from the Predator Project (now 12-month finding on the wolverine in amended. After review of all available named the Predator Conservation the contiguous United States (73 FR scientific and commercial information, Alliance) and Biodiversity Legal 12929). In that finding, we determined we find that listing the Wyoming pocket Foundation to list the North American that the wolverine in the contiguous gopher as either endangered or wolverine in the contiguous United United States did not constitute a DPS. threatened is not warranted at this time. States as an endangered or threatened Therefore, we determined that the We ask the public to continue to submit species under the Act and to designate wolverine in the contiguous United to us any new information that becomes critical habitat concurrent with listing. States was not a listable entity under the available concerning the status of, or On April 19, 1995, we published a Act. On September 30, 2008, Defenders threats to, the Wyoming pocket gopher finding (60 FR 19567) that the petition of Wildlife et al. filed a complaint or its habitat. did not present substantial information challenging our 12-month finding on the DATES: The finding announced in this indicating that listing the North basis of our application of the DPS document was made on April 15, 2010. American wolverine in the contiguous Policy and the Act. On March 23, 2009, United States may be warranted. We did ADDRESSES: This finding is available on we settled the lawsuit with the plaintiffs the Internet at http:// not make a determination as to whether and agreed to submit a new 12-month the contiguous U.S. population of the www.regulations.gov at Docket Number finding to the Federal Register by FWS-R6-ES-2008-0127. Supporting North American wolverine constituted a December 1, 2010. DPS or other listable entity. documentation we used in preparing On July 14, 2000, we received another References Cited this finding is available for public petition dated July 11, 2000, submitted A complete list of all references is inspection, by appointment, during by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, available upon request from the Field normal business hours at the U.S. Fish Predator Conservation Alliance, Supervisor, Montana Ecological and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Defenders of Wildlife, Northwest Services Field Office (See FOR FURTHER Ecological Services Field Office, 5353 Ecosystem Alliance, Friends of the INFORMATION CONTACT). Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, WY Clearwater, and Superior Wilderness 82009. Please submit any new Action Network, to list the North Author information, materials, comments, or American wolverine within the The primary authors of this document questions concerning this finding to the contiguous United States as an are the staff members of the U.S. Fish above street address. endangered or threatened species under and Wildlife Service, Montana FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the Act and to designate critical habitat Ecological Servies Field Office. Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, Wyoming

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19593

Ecological Services Field Office (see us to address the petition in fiscal year produce extreme variation in body size ADDRESSES); by telephone at 307-772- 2008. On November 4, 2008, the of individual pocket gophers and 2374; or by facsimile at 307-772-2358. If petitioners filed a complaint with the density of pocket gopher populations you use a telecommunications device U.S. District Court for the District of (Patton and Brylski 1987, p. 504). for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Colorado against us for failing to Little is known about the Wyoming Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- complete the 90–day finding (Center for pocket gopher; assumptions about its 877-8339. Native Ecosystems and Biodiversity distribution, ecology, and status are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Conservation Alliance v. U.S. Fish and based on a few museum records, reports Wildlife Service and Kempthorne (1:08- from more than 30 years ago, and Background cv-02394-JLK)). research conducted in 2008 and 2009. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered On February 10, 2009, we published This lack of knowledge has led to the Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) our finding that the petition to list the recent efforts to obtain information on (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for Wyoming pocket gopher presented its distribution, status, and habitat use any petition to revise the Federal Lists substantial scientific or commercial (Keinath and Griscom 2008, p. 1; of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information indicating that listing the Griscom et al. 2010, p. 3). Where and Plants that presents substantial species may be warranted (74 FR 6558). specific life-history information is scientific or commercial information On March 20, 2009, the petitioners lacking, and where appropriate, we have indicating that listing the species may provided a notice of intent to sue on provided information from other pocket be warranted, we make a finding within additional grounds for failure to gopher species, mainly in the 12 months of the date of the receipt of complete the 12–month finding within Thomomys genus. the petition. In this 12–month finding, 12 months of the petition. In a June 12, The Wyoming pocket gopher is we may determine that the petitioned 2009, stipulated settlement, the Service differentiated from other pocket gophers action is: (1) Not warranted, (2) agreed to complete the 12–month in its geographical range by being warranted, or (3) warranted, but the finding by April 10, 2010, which would smaller and paler, with a yellow cast to immediate proposal of a regulation allow us to include 2009 Wyoming the coat, especially in younger animals. implementing the petitioned action is pocket gopher survey data in our The dorsal coat is uniform in color, and precluded by other pending proposals to analysis. This notice constitutes our 12– the margins of the ears are fringed with determine whether species are month finding on the August 7, 2007, whitish hairs (Thaeler and Hinesley endangered or threatened, and petition to list the Wyoming pocket 1979, p. 483; Clark and Stromberg 1987, expeditious progress is being made to gopher as endangered or threatened. p. 123; Keinath and Beauvais 2006, p. 8; add or remove qualified species from Keinath and Griscom 2008, p. 2). This the Federal Lists of Endangered and Species Information species does not display sexual Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section Life History dimorphism (differences in form 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we between the sexes) (Clark and Stromberg treat a petition for which the requested Pocket gophers are powerfully built 1987, p. 123; Keinath and Beauvais action is found to be warranted but mammals, characterized by a heavily 2006, p. 8). Adult Wyoming pocket precluded as though resubmitted on the muscled head without a noticeable gophers typically have a body length of date of such finding, that is, requiring a neck, strong front limbs with long nails 112-134 millimeters (mm) (4.41-5.28 subsequent finding to be made within used for digging, small ears, small eyes, inches (in)), hind foot length of 20-22 12 months. We must publish these 12– and fur-lined cheek pouches used to mm (0.79-0.87 in), and a weight of 44- month findings in the Federal Register. carry food (Verts and Carraway 1999, p. 72 grams (g) (1.54-2.54 ounces (oz)) 3). They are highly fossorial (adapted to (Thaeler and Hinesley 1979, pp. 483- Previous Federal Actions burrowing or digging), living, foraging, 484; Clark and Stromberg 1987, p. 123). On August 9, 2007, we received a and reproducing in burrow systems and The measurements of specimens petition, dated August 7, 2007, from the underground tunnels that provide captured in 2008 and 2009 included Biodiversity Conservation Alliance and protection from predators and from body lengths of 86-128 mm (3.38-5.04 Center for Native Ecosystems requesting extreme environmental conditions in), hind foot lengths of 15-23 mm (0.59- that we list the Wyoming pocket gopher (Clark and Stromberg 1987, p. 121). 0.91 in), and weights of 43-66 g (1.52- (Thomomys clusius) within its known Populations of pocket gophers 2.33 oz) (Griscom et al. 2010, p. 23). historic range, as threatened or generally tend to be small and patchily These somewhat smaller measurements endangered under the Act. Additionally, distributed across landscapes where for 2008-2009 data can be partly the petition requested that we designate they occur (Kennerly 1959, p. 251; explained by late summer captures that critical habitat concurrent with listing. Stinson 2005, p. 21). This distribution is included juveniles, whereas older We acknowledged receipt of the petition thought to be primarily determined by studies relied on captures prior to June in a letter dated September 6, 2007. In the availability of soils appropriate for 15 that would have included only adults that letter, we advised the petitioners digging and foraging (Kennerly 1959, p. (Griscom 2010a, pers. comm.). that we could not address their petition 249; Verts and Carraway 1999, p. 5). The Wyoming pocket gopher occurs at that time because responding to Specialization to local ecological entirely within the range of the northern existing court orders and settlement conditions has resulted in a high degree pocket gopher (Thomomys talpoides), agreements for other listing actions of morphological variation across the but the two species likely occupy required nearly all of our listing range of each species (Patton and different habitats locally (Thaeler and funding. We also concluded in that Brylski 1987, p. 493). For example, Hinesley 1979, p. 486; Keinath and September 6, 2007, letter that pocket gopher coat color is highly Beauvais 2006, p. 8; Griscom et al. 2010, emergency listing of the Wyoming variable, strongly correlated with soil p. 15). Approximately 50 percent of the pocket gopher was not warranted. color, and thought to be an adaptive known range of the species occurs on On July 11, 2008, we informed the response to predation (Ingles 1950, p. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) petitioners that, due to progress on 357; Wlasiuk and Nachman 2007, p. lands (Service 2009a, p. 1). A Wyoming addressing other priority listing actions, 567). Differences in abundance and Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) funding had become available to allow nutritional content of forage can predictive distribution model for the

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 19594 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Wyoming pocket gopher developed in Previously, the Wyoming pocket gophers can have strong effects on soil January 2010 shows the species could gopher was believed to exclusively formation, hydrology, nutrient flows, occur in Sweetwater, Carbon, and occupy well-drained, gravelly ridges plant diversity, and competitive Fremont Counties in Wyoming (Griscom instead of the valley bottoms and interactions of plants (Tilman 1983, pp. et al. 2010, p. 32). The predicted range riparian areas with deeper soils 290-292; Huntly and Inouye 1988, abuts Colorado’s northern border, but preferred by the northern pocket gopher entire; Reichman and Seabloom 2002, Colorado was not included in the (Thaeler and Hinesley 1979, p. 486). entire; Sherrod et al. 2005, pp. 586-587; distribution analysis (Griscom et al. However, recent research showed Kyle et al. 2008, p. 377). The effects of 2010, p. 32). Additional specimens are Wyoming pocket gophers occupy sites pocket gopher burrowing on physical considered unlikely to be found south of with more varied topography (Keinath and chemical soil properties vary based current distribution points (Griscom et and Griscom 2008, p. 2). Compared to on the nature of the soil (Kerley et al. al. 2010, p. 12). To date, Wyoming northern pocket gophers, Wyoming 2004, pp. 164-165). pocket gophers have been located only pocket gophers appear to prefer areas of The diet of pocket gophers consists of in Sweetwater and Carbon Counties, lesser slopes (Griscom et al. 2010, p. 15). roots, stems, and leaves of forbs, with which is consistent with historical Wyoming pocket gophers appear to use some consumption of grasses and records that show this area to be the a variety of soil types that can be more shrubs (Aldous 1951, pp. 85-86; Ward extent of the species’ range. Although compacted than those used by northern and Keith 1962, p. 747). The average the full historic range of the species has pocket gophers (Griscom et al. 2010, p. consumption of forbs by pocket gophers not been defined, we consider the 15). These soils often have a substantial in west-central Colorado, as measured capture points in Sweetwater and gravel component, usually contain little by stomach content, was highest in July Carbon Counties presented by Thaeler clay (Keinath and Griscom 2008, p. 2), and August at 96 percent, decreasing to and Hinesley (1979, pp. 482, 486-487) to and tend to be more alkaline than the 73 percent in October (Ward and Keith present an approximation of historic soils that northern pocket gophers prefer 1962, p. 747). Consumption of shrubs range. This historic range includes the (Griscom 2009a, pers. comm.). In and roots of all types increased in late type specimen collected in 1857, two general, pocket gophers in the September and October, and specimens collected in 1949 and 1951, Thomomys genus are more specialized consumption of grasses increased in and several specimens collected in the for tooth digging rather than claw June, September, and October (Ward 1960s and 1970s (Thaeler and Hinesley digging, which allows for exploitation of and Keith 1962, p. 747). Pocket gophers 1979, p. 487). Very little information a broader range of soil types (Lessa and in the Thomomys genus throughout the exists regarding the actual population Thaeler 1989, p. 696). Based on the western United States generally prefer size of the Wyoming pocket gopher characterization of the Wyoming pocket forb shoots during the growing season, (Keinath and Beauvais 2006, p. 21). The gopher’s size and habitat, it appears to and grass shoots, corms, and roots only population estimate we found was fit the island model of isolation during periods of plant dormancy (Hunt 10,000 (NatureServe 2009, displayed by other species of pocket 1992, pp. 47-48). Other species of the unpaginated). However, we are unable gophers specifically adapted to the soils Thomomys genus (e.g., northern pocket to determine the basis for this estimate of an area (Miller 1964, pp. 259-260). gopher, Botta’s (valley) pocket gopher and thus have no way to determine its The limited distribution of the (T. bottae), Townsend’s pocket gopher scientific validity. Wyoming pocket gopher relative to (T. townsendii), Mazama (western) pocket gopher (T. mazama), and Camas other species of pocket gopher may be Vegetation composition of a site may pocket gopher (T. bulbivorus)) are not due to its specialized habitat be more important in determining strict herbivores, in that they also requirements (Keinath and Beauvais habitat for the Wyoming pocket gopher seasonally consume the fungi associated 2006, pp. 12-15). than soils or topography (Keinath and with plant roots (i.e., are mycophagous) Griscom 2008, p. 2). The Wyoming Pocket gophers construct extensive (Maser et al. 1978, p. 805; Taylor et al. pocket gopher occurs primarily in small burrow systems. These systems consist 2009, p. 367). Pocket gophers may cut ‘‘islands’’ of low vegetation within a of a main tunnel with side branches of their food into small pieces and carry it sagebrush matrix. This matrix typically shallow feeding tunnels (tunnels dug to in their cheek pouches back to the main includes Artemesia tridentada forage on plant material). Additional burrow where it is consumed, stored for wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush), feeding tunnels can be constructed winter, used for nest building, or taken Chrysothamnus spp. (rabbitbrush), and when plant production is poor (Davis into tunnels and later pushed to the other low shrubs, cushion plants, 1938, p. 338; Reichman et al. 1982, p. surface (Aldous 1951, p. 84; Verts and grasses, and forbs (Keinath and Griscom 691). The main tunnel also connects to Carraway 1999, p. 6). Pocket gophers 2009, p. 1). In comparison to a smaller system of chambers that serve remain active all winter (Clark and unoccupied control sites and northern as nest sites, food caches, and latrines Stromberg 1987, p. 121). pocket gopher capture sites, the (Miller 1964, p. 257; Keinath and Based on the life histories of other Wyoming pocket gopher appears to Beauvais 2006, p. 16). Depths of the pocket gophers, Wyoming pocket prefer areas within this matrix with less burrows vary from 6 to 12 inches below gophers presumably reproduce the perennial grass cover, less Artemesia the ground surface. All aboveground calendar year following birth, have one tridentata (Big sagebrush), more entrances are plugged with soil (Clark litter with 4 to 6 young per year, and Krascheninnikovia lanata (winterfat), and Stromberg 1987, p. 121). Burrow usually do not live more than two more Atriplex gardneri (Gardner widths of the Wyoming pocket gopher breeding seasons (Keinath and Beauvais saltbush), more bare soil, less litter, and are significantly smaller than those of 2006, p. 18). However, one northern fewer surface rocks (Griscom et al. 2010, the northern pocket gopher, likely pocket gopher is known to have p. 15). Difference in habitat use would reflecting their smaller body size survived for about 4 years (Hansen be expected, given that phenotype (Griscom et al. 2010, p. 15). The extent 1962, p. 153). Some species of pocket (observable physical characteristics) has of burrow systems can vary with the gophers have more than one litter per been shown to correlate with habitat for size of the individual, soil type, and year in southern climates with longer pocket gophers (Ingles 1950, p. 357; plant production. The extensive breeding seasons (Miller 1946, pp. 335- Wlasiuk and Nachman 2007, p. 567). tunneling and feeding activity of pocket 336). Hansen (1960, p. 332) found no

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19595

evidence of more than one annual litter birth, while males typically delay necessary for positive identification. per female in the Rocky Mountain dispersal for up to one year after birth Northern pocket gophers differ from region. (Daly and Patton 1990, p. 1287). Spring Wyoming pocket gophers in that they Pocket gophers are solitary animals dispersal is common in reproductive have a karyotype of 2n = 48 or 56, and are typically found together only adults of both sexes. Fifty percent of depending on the subspecies (Thaeler during the breeding season, or when plains pocket gopher (Geomys and Hinesley 1979, p. 483). However, females have young. Variation in levels bursarius) female adults relocate after based on the amplified fragment length of tolerance between males and females raising a litter, leaving the site in polymorphism (AFLP) analysis ranges from being together only during possession of female young (Zinnel and completed on tail clippings during the mating to raising young of the year Tester 1994, p. 99). Once pocket gophers 2008 field season, field assessment of together (Hansen and Miller 1959, pp. establish territories and burrows, they phenotype was shown to be a 581-582). Pocket gophers are usually may shift to other areas based on polygynous (Reichman et al. 1982, p. environmental conditions or reasonably reliable method for 693). However, some evidence of serial interactions with other pocket gophers, discerning the two species from each monogamy has been found in Botta’s but they generally do not move far from other (Hayden-Wing Associates 2008, p. pocket gopher in Arizona (Reichman et original territories (Miller 1964, p. 262; 3; Beauvais 2009, p. 1; McDonald 2009a, al. 1982, p. 693). The sex ratio for Reichman et al. 1982, pp. 687-688; Daly pers. comm.). AFLP testing showed Botta’s pocket gopher was one male per and Patton 1990, p. 1286). strong genetic signals that clearly one female; however, the effective sex differentiate the Wyoming pocket ratio was one male per two females as Taxonomy gopher from other species of pocket some small males did not reproduce The Wyoming pocket gopher gophers (Beauvais 2009, p. 1; McDonald (Reichman et al. 1982, p. 693). (Thomomys clusius) is a member of the 2009a, pers. comm.). This recent genetic Populations of Botta’s pocket gopher in Geomyidae (pocket gopher) family. analysis has confirmed definitively California showed a much more skewed Including the Wyoming pocket gopher, what taxonomists had determined sex ratio, ranging from 1.4 to 4.67 nine species are currently assigned to historically: the Wyoming pocket females per male (Patton and Feder the genus Thomomys. The type gopher is a unique species representing 1981, p. 917). We do not have specific specimen for Wyoming pocket gopher a monophyletic clade (i.e., descended was collected in 1857 by Dr. W.A. information regarding the Wyoming from one common ancestor) (McDonald Hammond near Rawlins, Wyoming, but pocket gopher mating system or sex 2009a, pers. comm.). ratio. was not described and given the name Outside of the breeding season, Thomomys clusius until 18 years later Summary of Information Pertaining to pocket gophers are highly territorial, (Coues 1875, p. 138). The designation of the Five Factors and males and females have exclusive the Wyoming pocket gopher within territories. Generally, pocket gophers Thomomys has changed over time, with Section 4 of the Act, and its avoid each other (Reichman et al. 1982, the name clusius being applied at both implementing regulations at 50 CFR p. 693). The infrequent interactions that the species and subspecies level to 424, set forth the procedures for adding occur are mostly agonistic, occasionally various pocket gopher specimens species to, removing species from, or escalating to open combat and even collected in southern Wyoming (Keinath reclassifying species on the Federal death (Zinnel and Tester 1994, p. 96). and Beauvais 2006, p. 11). Lists of Endangered and Threatened This aggression appears to have evolved Thaeler and Hinesley (1979, entire) Wildlife and Plants. Under section as a means to ensure adequate clarified the Wyoming pocket gopher 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be individual food supplies, but could also taxonomy with karyotype (i.e., a count determined to be endangered or be related to reproductive behaviors like of the number of diploid chromosomes) threatened based on any of the and morphological analyses of pocket mate guarding (Zinnel and Tester 1994, following five factors: (A) The present or gopher specimens collected in pp. 99-100). Pocket gopher population threatened destruction, modification, or density is likely to be primarily Wyoming. Members of the pocket curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) regulated through intraspecific gopher genus Thomomys are the most aggression; the number of animals an karyotypically and morphologically overutilization for commercial, area can hold appears to be determined diverse group of mammals known recreational, scientific, or educational by combative interactions (Zinnel and (Patton 1972, p. 574; Patton and Brylski purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) Tester 1994, p. 100). 1987, p. 493). The Wyoming pocket the inadequacy of existing regulatory Dispersal strategies of the Wyoming gopher has a unique karyotype of 2n = mechanisms; or (E) other natural or pocket gopher are unknown, but may be 46, a yellowish coat, and a generally manmade factors affecting its continued similar to other pocket gopher species. small size, which support the validity of existence. Under section 4(b)(1)(A), this Although dispersal was common, 63 Wyoming pocket gopher as a distinct determination should be made on the percent of individual Botta’s pocket species within Thomomys (Thaeler and basis of the best scientific and gophers set up their territory within 40 Hinseley 1979, p. 483). These traits commercial data available and after meters (m) (131.23 feet (ft)) of their natal differed significantly from the northern conducting a status review and taking home (Daly and Patton 1990, p. 1291). pocket gopher, which occurs across the into consideration State conservation Average dispersal lengths for Botta’s range of the Wyoming pocket gopher. efforts. In making our 12–month finding pocket gopher are estimated at 100-500 Although northern pocket gophers are on a petition to list the Wyoming pocket m (328.08-1,640.42 ft) per year (Hafner generally darker and larger, they share gopher, we considered and evaluated et al. 1998, p. 281). Individual Botta’s morphological similarities with the best available scientific and pocket gophers that disperse are Wyoming pocket gophers that had led to commercial information. Information typically young, pre-reproductive, and some misidentification of specimens in pertaining to the status and threats to more likely to be female (Daly and earlier publications (e.g., Bailey 1915 the Wyoming pocket gopher in relation Patton 1990, p. 1287). Pre-reproductive and Long 1965, cited in Keinath and to the five factors provided in section juvenile females begin dispersing as Beauvais 2006, p. 11). Thus, karyotype 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. early as the summer following their analysis was previously thought

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 19596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Similarly, pocket gopher (Thomomys understand the species’ range and Destruction, Modification, or spp.) burrows were frequently observed distribution, habitat requirements and Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range along roadways in Nevada, but not the preferences, and the genetic and Wyoming pocket gopher habitat is adjacent creosote habitats, suggesting morphological differences between exposed to a number of influences that they were using areas where the habitat species (WYNDD 2009, p. 2; Hayden- may affect the species, including energy would have been unsuitable without the Wing Associates 2008, p. 1; Keinath and exploration and development, road disturbance (Garland and Bradley 1984, Griscom 2008, p. 1; Griscom et al. 2010, construction and use, climate change p. 54). In contrast, plains pocket gophers pp. 5-7). This effort resulted in the and drought, introduction of nonnative and yellow-faced pocket gophers in successful trapping of 31 confirmed species, grazing, and urbanization. southwestern Kansas are not present Wyoming pocket gophers distributed However, no studies have been within areas of intensive agricultural across the species’ currently known conducted to determine the species’ operations involving annual plowing or range (Griscom et al. 2010, p. 5; Griscom disking (Hoffman et al. 2007, p. 300). response to these influences, or to the 2010b, pers. comm.). Prior to 2008, a Intensive residential and commercial potential changes in habitat that may total of 16 confirmed Wyoming pocket development has reduced patch sizes of result. Where information specific to the gophers had been captured, and all of Mazama pocket gopher habitat in Wyoming pocket gopher is lacking, we these confirmed specimens were have utilized information from other western Washington such that the species no longer occurs in many areas collected by Charles Thaeler pocket gopher species, mainly in the approximately 40 years ago (Griscom Thomomys genus. (Service 2009b, pp. 7-8; Flotlin 2010, Literature describes both positive and pers. comm.). The response to 2009b, pers. comm). This information negative effects to other species of disturbance may be dependent on the provided both historic and recent pocket gophers resulting from various species, as the plains pocket gopher is locations for our use in creating a types of disturbance. Many pocket more common in disturbed areas, such general assessment of Wyoming pocket gopher species exhibit a positive as roadsides and cultivated fields, while gopher presence to ascertain if the response of increased rates of mound- the yellow-faced pocket gopher is more known locations of the species have building activities when vegetation has common in native shortgrass prairie in changed over time. Based on the limited been disturbed (Mielke 1977, p. 175). southeastern Colorado (Moulton et al. number of collection sites, the species Three species (Botta’s pocket gopher, 1983, p. 58). appears to be currently distributed plains pocket gopher, and yellow-faced In 2008 and 2009, WYNDD, with the throughout its known range in a pattern pocket gopher (Cratogeomys castanops)) assistance of several other groups, that approximates historic distribution are more common in disturbed areas, trapped Wyoming pocket gophers, (Figure 1). Therefore, we find no such as roadways and floodplains, in northern pocket gophers, and Idaho evidence that curtailment of the species’ New Mexico (Best 1973, p. 1314). pocket gophers (T. idahoensis) to better range is occurring.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19597

Figure 1: Historic and current capture of the Wyoming pocket gopher is These variables that may affect the locations of the Wyoming pocket gopher exposed to various influences that may species’ habitat are discussed below. (Data compiled from Service, Bureau of affect the species, including energy Energy Exploration and Development Land Management, WYNDD, U.S. exploration and development, road Geological Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, construction and use, introduction of The primary forms of existing and ESRI). nonnative species, climate change, planned energy development in the Although there is no evidence of drought, grazing, and urbanization. range of the Wyoming pocket gopher are curtailment of the species’ range, habitat oil, gas, and wind. Based on existing

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS EP15AP10.000 19598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

National Environmental Policy Act and detonating explosives or using a shifts. Therefore, we are unable to assess (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) vibrating pad that is driven across an how changes in the vegetation due to documents for major oil and gas area using heavy vehicles. The extent of herbicide use may affect the Wyoming developments, estimates of project life impacts from either exploration method pocket gopher. The BLM does not use for major oil and gas developments on pocket gophers is unknown. The pesticides or rodenticides in Wyoming within the Wyoming pocket gopher’s vibrations and potential soil impacts to protect reclamation areas (Abbott range are between 10-50 years (Service would, at a minimum, temporarily alter 2009a, pers. comm.), so we do not 2010a, p. 3). Some non-renewable habitat and may result in collapse of anticipate direct mortality from these energy development is already burrows. Pocket gophers in the substances in reclamation areas. occurring within the species’ known immediate vicinity of operations would Introduction and spread of nonnative occupied range. Renewable energy likely notice the activity, but the type of plants may result from energy development is estimated to reach response is unknown. Pocket gopher development activities, and the maximum development by 2030 (U.S. communication likely occurs through potential threat of nonnative vegetation Department of Energy 2008, p. 10), and seismic signals (Mason and Narins 2001, to the Wyoming pocket gopher is several developments are being p. 1177), and frequent vibrations could discussed separately below. considered within the species’ range. disrupt signals used to attract mates, We used information from Wyoming Based on this information, we estimate warn of intruders, or avoid predators. pocket gopher trapping and from known the foreseeable future of energy However, we have no information to oil and gas development to assess the development at a minimum of 10 years, support that energy exploration extent to which energy development but anticipate that energy development negatively impacts the species. may be affecting the species. By will be present for up to 50 years. Oil and gas development involves overlaying producing wells on a map WYNDD is analyzing potential threats staging a drilling rig and setting up with species capture sites, we found to Wyoming’s 152 species of greatest additional equipment that is used that the locations of capture sites in conservation need related to energy during production. Generally, relation to new and existing development in its Assessment of developers build roads to access each development does not appear to reflect Wildlife Vulnerability to Energy site and clear and level well pads. These a pattern of either species avoidance of, Development (AWVED). Preliminary soil-disturbing activities would affect or preference for, producing oil and gas conclusions from the AWVED analysis the habitat that lies within and adjacent wells. Some capture sites are as near as indicate that the Wyoming pocket to the footprint of well pads and roads. 95 m (312 ft) to a producing well site gopher is Wyoming’s species with the Any soil that is moved could have a (Service 2010b, p. 2), while others are in highest potential risk for energy-related direct impact on pocket gophers that are areas that have no oil or gas wells. We effects based on its proximity to existing present. Once a rig is in place, the recognize that this simple geospatial wells, the proportion of lands leased for drilling process creates vibrations that assessment has limitations in oil and gas within its range, and the could affect habitat and any pocket determining what effects oil and gas density of wells within that range gophers in the area. Once a well has development has on the species. We (Keinath 2009, pp. 12-13). This potential been drilled and is producing, energy also recognize dispersal is likely already risk is based on exposure to energy companies make regular trips to well difficult across portions of the range that development across the species’ range pads to monitor production, conduct do not currently have pocket gophers, and is not based on any known effects maintenance, or collect extracted and recolonization following local to the species from energy development resources. These regular trips may extirpation would be unlikely (Keinath activities. Our February 10, 2009, 90– disturb, either directly or through the et al. 2008, p. 7). day finding (74 FR 6558) acknowledged resulting noise, pocket gophers that are The amount of surface disturbance that the likelihood of oil and gas present at or near well pads and roads. provides another approach to consider development throughout the species’ In the past, the Wyoming pocket gopher the impacts of natural gas development. range is high based on the energy has been considered potentially The two largest natural gas development potential and existing vulnerable to disturbance because the developments not yet fully built in the leases that cover much of the range. reasons for the species’ limited Wyoming pocket gopher range are Approximately 4,000 actively producing distribution had not yet been explained Atlantic Rim and Continental Divide- oil and gas wells are within the range of (Keinath and Beauvais 2006, p. 21). Creston (Service 2010a, p. 1). The the species (Service 2010b, p. 3), and an However, as described above, certain scoping notice for the Continental- additional 10,000 oil and gas wells have types of disturbance can elicit a positive Divide Creston development states been proposed in that area (Service population response in some pocket disturbances during initial development 2010a, p. 1). In this finding, rather than gopher species. will be approximately 47,060 acres (ac) what was done in our previous 90–day Energy producers often try to (19,045 hectares (ha)) of 1.1 million ac finding on the petition, we are maintain a clear work area by using (445,154 ha), or 4.28 percent of the determining whether the best available herbicides on well pads and along project area (BLM 2006a, p. 4). The information indicates that the species roads. Herbicide use and the direct impacted area will be reduced to 1.67 meets the definition of a threatened or impacts of development would reduce percent through interim reclamation endangered species and therefore the availability and quality of (BLM 2006a, p. 4). As this proposal warrants listing under the Act, which is vegetation, creating negative effects to includes areas of infill, the amount of a more in-depth analysis than the one Wyoming pocket gopher habitat (Keith disturbance described in the scoping conducted for the 90–day finding. et al. 1959, pp. 142-144). In general, notice does not include existing Several different types of oil and gas broadcast herbicide application is development (BLM 2006a, p. 1). The exploration and development activities assumed to be minimal in southern proposed well density includes 8 wells occur within the range of the Wyoming Wyoming (Keinath and Beauvais 2006, per square mile, with a possibility of up pocket gopher. Oil and gas geophysical p. 22). We do not have information on to 16 wells per square mile in certain exploration is conducted to generate a use of herbicides for oil and gas areas (BLM 2006a, p. 1). The Record of subsurface image of fluid minerals and development, and we are unaware of Decision for the Atlantic Rim usually involves either drilling holes monitoring for resulting vegetative development allows a total surface

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19599

disturbance of 2.8 percent of the project the area around wind towers (Thelander precipitation run-off. As described area at a given time, with well spacing et al. 2003, p. 24). We anticipate that the above, roads can have a positive effect of 8 wells per square mile (BLM 2007, response of the Wyoming pocket gopher on other pocket gopher species (Best p. 10). For comparison, the existing may be similar, but we lack species- 1973, p. 1314; Moulton et al. 1983, p. Continental Divide/Wamsutter II gas specific information. Therefore, the best 58; Garland and Bradley 1984, p. 54). development has been mostly available information does not indicate The effects of roads on Wyoming pocket developed, with 22,400 ac (9,065 ha) of whether current or future wind gopher populations are not known; surface disturbance across 1,061,200 ac development will have positive or however, we have limited anecdotal (429,452 ha) (2.11 percent of the project negative effects on the Wyoming pocket observations of individual gopher area) and well densities of 1 to 8 wells gopher. occupancy near roads. In 2009, one per square mile (BLM 2000, section 2.0). Summary of Energy Exploration and Wyoming pocket gopher specimen was All of these surface disturbance Development captured 7 m (23 ft) from a graded dirt percentages are small. Although we do road, and northern pocket gophers were not know how the Wyoming pocket Little information exists to indicate captured as close as 2 m (6.5 ft) to a gopher is likely to respond to any whether the Wyoming pocket gopher graded dirt road (Griscom 2009b, pers. proposed increases in well numbers, the will be affected by an increased density comm.). Small mammals may avoid level of development indicates that large of wells or by an expansion of oil, gas, roads due to noise and other factors, but interstitial spaces will continue to be and wind development into currently roads may also provide additional available for Wyoming pocket gopher undeveloped areas. The response to habitat or movement corridors (Garland use. We know from our analysis that the disturbance in pocket gophers appears and Bradley 1984, entire; U.S. Wyoming pocket gopher does occur to be species-specific. For example, in Department of Transportation 2009, near developed areas (Service 2010b, p. southeastern Colorado, the plains unpaginated). Northern pocket gophers 2). pocket gopher is more common in have been observed digging tunnels The BLM administers approximately disturbed areas, but the yellow-faced underneath a right-of-way road (Richens half of the lands within the Wyoming pocket gopher is more common in 1966, p. 532). native versus disturbed habitats pocket gopher range (Service 2009a, p. Depending upon the size of the road (Moulton et al. 1983, p. 58). Based on 1). Throughout the range, the BLM has and the associated degree of soil our current understanding of the leased 41.23 percent of the Wyoming compaction, a road may impact the Wyoming pocket gopher, energy pocket gopher range for oil and gas dispersal of Wyoming pocket gophers. development, and 11.23 percent of the development, at levels that we can For example, distribution of the Shelton range on BLM lands has producing oil detect or anticipate, is as likely to pocket gopher (T. mazama couchi) was and gas leases (Service 2010c, p. 2). We benefit Wyoming pocket gophers as it is impacted by soil compaction around an are unable to determine whether to harm them. airport runway, and no pocket gopher development will occur on all leases. We have no information that Given limited knowledge of pocket additional energy development activity activity was observed in graded areas gopher response to oil and gas will fragment habitat in a way that will that appeared to be highly compacted development, and both the positive and significantly limit dispersal, movement, (GeoEngineers 2003, p. 15). The negative observed impacts of or genetic interchange. Using the best Wyoming pocket gopher apparently can disturbance to other species of pocket available information, we conclude that use more compacted soils than the gophers, we do not consider producing these habitat alterations do not northern pocket gopher (Griscom et al. wells at current or projected levels to be constitute a threat to the Wyoming 2010, p. 15), but we are unsure what a threat to the Wyoming pocket gopher. pocket gopher now, or in the foreseeable amount of soil compaction would begin Although little wind development has future. to limit habitat use by the Wyoming occurred within the range of the species, pocket gopher. Road Construction and Use projections for future wind energy are Many roads in the range of the significant. One major proposal, the Roads are built to create access for oil, Wyoming pocket gopher have been on Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind gas, and wind developments, as well as the landscape for decades or for more Energy Project, includes 1,000 wind for other activities that occur on the than a century, while others have been turbines across 98,500 ac (39.66 ha) landscape, including recreation, grazing, developed within the past few years. within the range of the Wyoming pocket and land management. Much of the Evidence suggests some historic wagon gopher (AECOM 2009, p. 1). Wind recent expansion of road networks in trails (a type of road) have lasted for development may cause effects to Wyoming pocket gopher habitat is well over 100 years (BLM 2009, habitat that are similar to oil and gas related to energy development, but some unpaginated), even when use of the road development. Wind development also areas have also likely experienced an is discontinued. Other roads are results in a network of pads connected increase in access by recreational reclaimed and do not have such a by roads. Soils are disturbed during vehicles. Expansion of road networks lasting effect. We anticipate that the development, and frequent maintenance may fragment the species’ habitat, create existing roads within the range of the trips are necessary. The Wyoming barriers to movement of the species, Wyoming pocket gopher will persist for pocket gopher’s response to wind isolate individual populations, and at least 10 to 50 years in support of development within its habitat is not increase opportunities for invasive energy development activities. known. For the Botta’s pocket gopher, species (Keinath and Beauvais 2006, pp. Additional roads may also be researchers mapping prey base to better 22-23). Roads may increase direct constructed to support that understand raptor mortalities at a wind mortality from vehicles, but this source development, while others are farm in California observed that pocket of mortality is not always significant to reclaimed when no longer necessary. gophers were clustered near the wind populations (Garland and Bradley 1984, We anticipate that county roads turbines (Thelander et al. 2003, p. 23). p. 52). Roads also may improve habitat providing access to livestock They attributed this to the pocket for pocket gophers in some ways by management facilities, homes, and gophers’ attraction to the vertical and providing looser soil and increasing recreational opportunities will persist lateral edges formed by access roads and vegetation in rights-of-way from indefinitely.

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 19600 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

We conclude the effects of roads on al. 1967, pp. 642-643). Grasses, when Climate Change the Wyoming pocket gopher may be not consumed with other vegetation, do The Intergovernmental Panel on positive and negative. Although we not seem to provide an adequate diet for Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded remain concerned about the potential Thomomys species (Cox 1989, p. 80). that warming of the climate is impacts of roads, the best available While Bromus tectorum may impact the unequivocal and that continued information does not indicate that road abundance of forbs in the species’ greenhouse gas emissions at or above construction and use poses a threat to habitat, B. tectorum may also be used by current rates will cause further warming the Wyoming pocket gopher now, or in Wyoming pocket gophers. Small (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Eleven of the 12 the foreseeable future. quantities of the seeds of B. tectorum years from 1995 through 2006 rank Nonnative Species have been occasionally found in tunnels among the 12 warmest years in the of northern pocket gophers, although instrumental record of global surface The introduction of nonnative species seed heads of B. tectorum were not may affect the Wyoming pocket gopher, temperature since 1850 (Independent preferred as forage (Cox 1989, pp. 78- Scientific Advisory Board 2007, p. 6). but the degree of impact from these 80). Northern pocket gophers also occur species is not clear. A review of Climate-change scenarios estimate that at locations where B. tectorum was the mean air temperature could increase Wyoming pocket gopher information considered to be a prevalent plant resulted in no information indicating a by more than 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 species (Ostrow et al. 2002, p. 992). degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 (IPCC 2007, likelihood that nonnative vegetation During their breeding season, Botta’s alters or restricts pocket gopher p. 46). The IPCC also projects that there pocket gophers have been found to will very likely be regional increases in populations; nonnative species were consume substantial quantities of viewed as a potential threat, but not a the frequency of hot extremes, heat species related to B. tectorum, B. mollis waves, and heavy precipitation (IPCC current threat (Keinath and Beauvais (soft brome) and B. rubens (red brome), 2006, p. 23). We do not fully understand 2007, p. 46), as well as increases in when the nutrient content of the plants atmospheric carbon dioxide (IPCC 2007, the extent to which nonnative species was highest (Hunt 1992, p. 49). will spread throughout the species’ p. 36). While Bromus tectorum appears to range into the future. Nonnative Plant species provide habitat and have the potential to impact Wyoming vegetation is considered a threat to the forage that affect the ability of mammal pocket gopher habitat, the spread of B. Mazama pocket gopher in western species, such as the Wyoming pocket tectorum throughout the habitat of the Washington (Service 2009b, pp. 7-8). gopher, to persist over time. A variety of The Mazama pocket gopher is adapting Wyoming pocket gopher is not a plant-related factors are not included in to the presence of many types of foregone conclusion. In Wyoming, B. climate space models, including the nonnative vegetation; however, the tectorum can be locally abundant, but effect of elevated carbon dioxide on presence of Cytisus scoparius (Scotch precipitation and elevation differences plant water-use efficiency, the broom), which has large root masses, influence where B. tectorum occurs physiological effect to the species of restricts pocket gopher dispersal. The (Smith and Enloe 2006, p. 1). In exceeding the assumed (modeled) loss of prairie habitat to conifer southern Wyoming counties, the fall bioclimatic limit, the life stage at which encroachment is also a threat to the precipitation prior to cold weather the limit affects the species (seedling Mazama pocket gopher (Flotlin 2010, needed for B. tectorum germination is versus adult), the life span of the pers. comm.). Cytisus scoparius does generally rare in zones where 14 inches species, and the movement of other not occur within the range of the or less of precipitation is received organisms into the species’ range Wyoming pocket gopher, and conifer annually (Smith and Enloe 2006, p. 1). (Shafer et al. 2001, p. 207). These factors encroachment is limited. The annual precipitation within the would likely help determine how To inform our evaluation of the range of the Wyoming pocket gopher is climate change would affect plant potential threat from nonnative species, generally less than 14 inches of species distributions. While more we looked at the potential for Bromus precipitation annually (National Atlas empirical studies are needed on what tectorum (cheatgrass) to impact 2005, unpaginated). determines species and multi-species Wyoming pocket gopher populations. In approximately the last 100 years, distributions, those data are often The conversion from A. tridentata spp. no broad-scale B. tectorum eradication lacking; in their absence, climatic space to B. tectorum has been shown to method has been developed. Given the models can play an important role in negatively impact other small mammals history of invasive plants on the characterizing the types of changes that (Yensen et al. 1992, p. 309). The spread landscape, the continued challenges in may occur so that the potential impacts of B. tectorum has the potential to controlling such species, and the on natural systems can be assessed change vegetative communities in a way current infestation of invasive plants (Shafer et al. 2001, p. 213). that could affect the Wyoming pocket across the Wyoming pocket gopher’s One study modeled potential climate gopher. As discussed previously, forbs range, we anticipate that invasive plants change impacts to A. tridentata spp., are an important component of pocket will be on the landscape for the next which are representative of the gopher diets, and high densities of B. 100 years or longer. However, studies ecosystem currently known to be tectorum reduce the biomass and indicate B. tectorum germination may occupied Wyoming pocket gopher growth rates of forbs, as well as seedling be generally rare in Wyoming pocket habitat (Shafer et al. 2001, pp. 200-215). survival for some forb species gopher habitat, possibly inhibiting the Each scenario in the study predicted a (Parkinson 2008, pp. 37-46). Further, future spread and impact of this reduction in the size of the overall range when chemical treatments were used to invasive species in Wyoming pocket of sagebrush and shift where sagebrush experimentally reduce the abundance of gopher habitat. In summary, we could may occur. These simulated changes weedy forbs in favor of grasses, a find no information suggesting that were the result of increases in the mean northern pocket gopher population nonnative species or B. tectorum, where temperature of the coldest month, declined roughly in proportion to the it occurs within the occupied range of which the authors speculated may loss of forbs (Keith et al. 1959, p. 231). the Wyoming pocket gopher, represent a interact with soil moisture levels to Pocket gophers that eat grass species threat to the species now, or in the produce the simulated impact. Each have reduced body weights (Tietjen et foreseeable future. model predicted that climate suitability

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19601

for big sagebrush would shift north into forage important to pocket gophers Summary of Climate Change and Canada. Other areas within big through shifts in timing and amount of Drought sagebrush distributions would become precipitation, or through changes in The direct, long-term impact from less suitable climatically and would seasonal high, low, or average climate change to the Wyoming pocket potentially cause a significant temperatures (Bachelet et al. 2001, p. gopher is not known. Shifts in the contraction in sagebrush range. Since 174). For example, warmer temperatures vegetative community may affect the the Wyoming pocket gopher is and greater concentrations of species’ ability to forage. However, associated with sagebrush in the matrix atmospheric carbon dioxide create given our lack of knowledge of that forms Wyoming pocket gopher conditions favorable to Bromus important food resources for the habitat, contractions of sagebrush could tectorum, which outcompetes native Wyoming pocket gopher, our resulting result in negative effects to the species. vegetation and greatly accelerates the lack of understanding about how However, although the Wyoming pocket natural fire cycle in areas where it changes in the forage base may affect the gopher occurs within sagebrush becomes established (Chambers and species, and our uncertainty regarding habitats, the species prefers vegetation Pellant 2008, p. 31; Global Climate the effects of climate change on those other than sagebrush at a finer scale Change Impacts in the United States food resources, we cannot consider within that matrix (Griscom et al. 2010, 2009, p. 83). Future carbon dioxide climate change to be a threat to the p. 15). emissions from energy use are projected species now, or in the foreseeable In some cases, effects of climate to increase by 40 to 110 percent between future. A reduction in forage availability change can be demonstrated (e.g., 2000 and 2030 (IPCC 2007, p. 44). If a may also occur during periods of McLaughlin et al. 2002, p. 6073). Where resulting shift in the vegetative it can be, we rely on that empirical communities occurs within the range of drought. However, we have no data to evidence, such as increased stream the Wyoming pocket gopher, the facilitate our understanding of what temperatures (see Rio Grande cutthroat displacement of native forbs and grasses impacts this may have on the species. trout, 73 FR 27900, May 14, 2008) or could significantly alter the availability Additionally, the Wyoming pocket loss of sea ice (see polar bear, 73 FR of sufficient forage resources. This could gopher has persisted within its known 28212, May 15, 2008), and treat it as a then be exacerbated by the continued range since at least 1857 (Thaeler and threat that can be analyzed. The degree loss of those resources as a result of the Hinesley 1979, p. 480) despite periods to which climate change will interact shortened fire cycle. of natural drought. Therefore, while with ecological processes important to Application of continental-scale there may be population variation as a Wyoming pocket gophers is not climate change models to regional result of drought, we do not have any currently known. landscapes and even more local or data indicating that drought creates a Based on the evolutionary and ‘‘step-down’’ models projecting habitat threat to the Wyoming pocket gopher ecological response of pocket gopher potential based on climatic factors is now, or in the foreseeable future. species to past global warming and informative, but contains a high level of Grazing cooling events, changes in temperature uncertainty when predicting future and precipitation may result in effects to the Wyoming pocket gopher Currently, livestock grazing is the phenotypic and density changes in and its habitat due to a variety of most widespread type of land use across Wyoming pocket gopher populations factors, including regional weather the sagebrush biome, which includes (Hadly 1997, p. 292; Hadly et al. 1998, patterns, local physiographic the known range of the Wyoming pocket p. 6896; Barnosky et al. 2003, pp. 360- conditions, life stages of individual gopher (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616; 361), but we have no information species, generation time of species, and Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-29; Knick et specific to the Wyoming pocket gopher. species’ reactions to changing carbon al., in press, p. 27). Several studies have If the Wyoming pocket gopher’s range dioxide levels. The models summarized shown that livestock grazing can result experiences increased temperatures and above are limited by these types of in reduced pocket gopher abundance reduced precipitation in the future, factors; therefore, their usefulness in and in some cases complete exclusion these changes could include reduced assessing the threat of climate change on (Phillips 1936, p. 676; Hunter 1991, p. body size and population abundance the Wyoming pocket gopher into the 117; Stromberg and Griffin 1996, p. (Hadly 1997, p. 292). Past climate- future is also limited. 1205; Eviner and Chapin 2003, p. 125). induced, population-level, phenotypic Livestock grazing has the potential to change in pocket gophers was likely the Drought negatively affect pocket gophers through result primarily of developmental Drought conditions occur within the a variety of mechanisms, such as soil plasticity within populations and not range of the Wyoming pocket gopher compaction (Phillips 1936, pp. 677- large-scale migration (Hadly et al. 1998, and are a natural process that has 678). However, direct competition for p. 6896; Barnosky et al. 2003, p. 362). historically occurred separately from forage likely has the largest negative Measured changes in phenotype and climate change. We anticipate natural effect on pocket gopher populations population size appeared to be an initial drought cycles to occur periodically (Phillips 1936, p. 677). Wild ungulate response to global warming episodes, within the range of the Wyoming pocket grazing has been found to have similar with the extent of change being gopher into the future. We could find no competitive effects to other small dependent upon the magnitude and specific information regarding the mammals (Coa¨te et al. 2004, p. 129), and duration of climatic change (Barnosky et effects of drought on the Wyoming this interaction may impact pocket al. 2003, pp. 364-365). pocket gopher. Presumably drought gophers. However, we have no Smaller body size and reduced would likely affect forage growth and information to suggest that this abundance experienced by historical potentially limit food availability. While competition is occurring with the pocket gopher populations during global this may have temporary effects on Wyoming pocket gopher. hot, dry periods is likely a response to population numbers and the Historically, pocket gophers have reduced food availability during those reproductive ability of the Wyoming been recognized by livestock producers periods (Hadly 1997, p. 290). Projected pocket gopher, the species continues to as competitors with livestock for limited climate change has the potential to occupy its known range despite historic rangeland forage (Richens 1965, p. 424; significantly alter the distribution of periods of natural drought. Julander et al. 1969, p. 325; Turner

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 19602 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

1969, p. 377; Laycock and Richardson pocket gopher now, or in the foreseeable gophers can occur where B. tectorum is 1975, p. 458). Pocket gophers primarily future. a prevalent plant species (Ostrow et al. feed on forbs; however, diet 2002, p. 992), and the seeds of B. Urbanization composition can shift seasonally to tectorum were occasionally found in include varying percentages of grasses Urbanization is considered a their burrows (Cox 1989, pp. 78-80). and shrubs (see discussion above under significant threat to other species of Many species of pocket gophers increase Life History; Aldous 1951, pp. 85-86; pocket gopher, such as the Mazama rates of mound building in areas of Ward and Keith 1962, p. 747). Cattle are pocket gopher (Service 2009b, p. 8); disturbed vegetation, while others are grazers, feeding mostly on grasses, but however, urbanization is limited within not found in areas of disturbance they will make seasonal use of forbs and the range of the Wyoming pocket (Moulton et al. 1983, p. 58). Therefore, shrub species (Vallentine 1990, p. 226). gopher. This area is largely rural, with predicting the potential effects of habitat Domestic sheep are intermediate approximately 55,000 people residing in disturbances or alteration on the feeders, making high use of forbs but Carbon and Sweetwater Counties in Wyoming pocket gopher based on the also using a large volume of grass and 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009, p. 94), responses of other pocket gophers is not shrub species (Vallentine 1990, pp. 240- which is an average of 3 people per possible. The species continues to 241). Horses are generalists, but square mile (2.6 square kilometers). occupy its known historic range despite seasonally their diets can be almost However, most of this population is habitat alterations that have occurred wholly comprised of grasses (Wagner concentrated in the population centers within that range, and we have no 1983, pp. 119-120). The degree of of Rock Springs, Green River, and evidence of population declines. competition between pocket gophers Rawlins, which are at the edges of the We conclude that the best scientific and livestock due to diet varies with potential Wyoming pocket gopher range. and commercial information available local conditions that affect type and The BLM administers approximately indicates that the Wyoming pocket abundance of vegetation, stocking rates, half of the land in the range of the gopher is not now, or in the foreseeable and types of livestock (Phillips 1936, p. species, so urban development is future, threatened by the present or 676; Eviner and Chapin 2003, p. 125). precluded from those areas. Limited threatened destruction, modification, or We are unable to assess the levels of housing development is occurring near curtailment of its habitat or range to the competition that are occurring, but Wyoming pocket gopher collection sites, extent that listing under the Act as an competition has likely remained primarily to support gas field workers. endangered or threatened species is constant since grazing levels on BLM These areas provide concentrated areas warranted at this time. of disturbance, which create fewer lands have generally been stable since Factor B. Overutilization for 1978 (Laycock et al. 1996, p. 50). We impacts to the overall range of the species. The limited amount of housing Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or anticipate future levels of competition Educational Purposes from grazing to remain constant, as the across the range of the species also recently renewed BLM Resource restricts the opportunities for domestic Overutilization is the consumptive Management Plan for much of the range pet predation on Wyoming pocket use of an organism, where individuals of the Wyoming pocket gopher does not gophers. We are unable to quantify a are intentionally captured or taken for a include a change in past livestock foreseeable future, but anticipate that variety of purposes. Examples include stocking rates (BLM 2008, pp. 2-19). additional urbanization will be limited take for human consumption, use of Domestic livestock grazing will based on the isolated nature of the area feathers or fur to create garments, and continue at present levels within the and the harsh environment that has not capture and removal of individuals for range of the Wyoming pocket gopher historically attracted many people. scientific or educational examinations (BLM 2008, pp. 2-19). The current Based on the limited amount of or study. We have no data indicating amounts, kinds, and seasons of livestock urbanization, we do not consider it to be that the Wyoming pocket gopher has grazing use will be authorized until a significant threat to the Wyoming been, is currently being, or will be in the monitoring, field observations, pocket gopher now, or in the foreseeable future, used for commercial, ecological site inventory, or other data future. recreational, or educational purposes. In the late 1970s, in Wyoming and acceptable to the BLM indicates an Summary of Factor A adjustment to grazing use is necessary Colorado, 228 pocket gophers of three (BLM 2008, pp. 2-19). While we cannot We conclude that the range of the different species were collected and provide an exact estimate of the Wyoming pocket gopher has euthanized to collect tissue for foreseeable future for grazing, we expect experienced and will continue to taxonomic delineation (Thaeler and this use to be persistent across the experience significant changes, Hinesley 1979, p. 480). Forty of the Wyoming pocket gopher’s range for primarily related to oil, gas, and wind animals collected were identified as several decades. development. The range is also likely to Wyoming pocket gophers, although the We recognize the potential for experience some changes related to authors note that tissue preparation on negative impacts to Wyoming pocket climate change. Changes from other 83 individuals was insufficient to do gopher populations due to direct sources, including nonnative vegetation, genetic analyses. Therefore, more competition with livestock, but have no grazing, and urbanization, may occur to Wyoming pocket gophers may have information about the impacts of grazing a lesser degree. However, we are unable been collected but not identified. No practices or grazing intensity to the to demonstrate that these alterations to further documented captures of the species. Livestock grazing has remained habitat will result in negative effects to Wyoming pocket gopher occurred until consistent over time, and the Wyoming the species. Examining data from 2008, when 12 individuals were trapped pocket gopher has continued to occupy studies on other species of pocket to collect genetic and morphological its known range. Additionally, we are gophers’ responses to similar information for species determination unaware of any studies linking grazing disturbances did not provide clarity as (Griscom et al. 2010, p. 5). Two of those practices to population levels of the the response appeared to vary by pocket gophers were euthanized to Wyoming pocket gopher. Therefore, we species. For example, the invasive obtain the tissue necessary for have no information to indicate that Bromus tectorum may negatively affect karyotyping procedures (McDonald grazing poses a threat to the Wyoming pocket gophers, but northern pocket 2009b, pers. comm.). Trapping

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19603

continued in 2009 to collect distribution future, threatened by overutilization for range of the Wyoming pocket gopher as and habitat information. A total of 19 commercial, recreational, scientific, or a result of energy development individuals were captured in 2009 educational purposes to the extent that activities, there is likely no effect on (Griscom 2010b, pers. comm.), with 2 listing under the Act as an endangered Wyoming pocket gophers. We were individuals found dead in the traps or threatened species is warranted at unable to find any other information to (Griscom et al. 2010, p. 9). No other this time. suggest that the predator-prey balance Wyoming pocket gopher mortalities for the Wyoming pocket gopher has Factor C. Disease or Predation from these trapping efforts were been affected by any anthropogenic reported. Tissue samples (removing the Disease and parasites have not been activity, or may be affected within the tip of the tail) were collected from 5 demonstrated to limit populations of forseeable future. individuals in 2008 and 15 individuals pocket gophers (Keinath and Beauvais Based on our understanding of past in 2009 prior to their subsequent release 2006, p. 20). In general, pocket gophers and current effects, we do not anticipate at the capture location (Griscom 2009c, host some endo- and exo-parasites, most the effects of disease, parasites, or pers. comm.; Griscom et al. 2010, p. 22). of which have been identified predation to change for the foreseeable Some individuals may have died after incidentally to other research (Keinath future. and Beauvais 2006, p. 21). In some release at the capture location; however, Summary of Factor C one Wyoming pocket gopher (Griscom cases, northern pocket gophers have 2009c, pers. comm.) and a pocket been found with sufficient levels of We conclude that the best scientific gopher of another species were botfly larvae to result in mortality, with and commercial information available recaptured a day or two after the tip of up to 25 to 37 percent of local gopher indicates that the Wyoming pocket the tail was removed (Griscom et al. populations affected (Keinath and gopher is not now, or in the foreseeable 2010, p. 11). The wounds were healing, Beauvais 2006, p. 21 and references future, threatened by disease or and the pocket gophers did not appear therein). However, the effects of these predation to the extent that listing under to show any ill effects (Griscom et al. infestations on population persistence the Act as an endangered or threatened 2010, p. 11). Northern pocket gophers were not provided. No research has species is warranted at this time. survived in a lab environment for been conducted on diseases and Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing several weeks after having their tails parasites of the Wyoming pocket Regulatory Mechanisms clipped (McDonald 2009a, pers. comm.). gopher. Therefore, combined with the This limited evidence suggests that this lack of population data, we have no way Under this factor, we examine tissue collection does not result in of assessing the current or future impact whether identified threats to the mortality. of this factor on this species. We Wyoming pocket gopher are adequately The Wyoming Game and Fish recognize that lower levels of genetic addressed by existing regulatory Department (WGFD) issued collection diversity may allow a population to mechanisms. These mechanisms could permits for Wyoming pocket gophers for have greater susceptibility to diseases include: (1) Local land use laws, the scientific work that occurred in 2008 (Sanjayan et al. 1996, p. 1525), but we processes, and ordinances; (2) State and 2009 (Emmerich 2009, p. 2). The do not have information indicating that laws and regulations; and (3) federal review associated with the permitting disease poses a threat to the Wyoming laws and regulations. Regulatory process provided a protective measure pocket gopher, and we do not have mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude to the species by limiting take to those sufficient information to describe listing if such mechanisms are judged to individuals authorized to perform the genetic diversity of the species. adequately address the threat to the work (Wyoming Game and Fish Additionally, we do not have species such that listing is not Commission (WGFC) 1998, pp. 52-8–52- information indicating that human warranted. 9). Based on recent interest in the activities in the area increase the We could find no local land use laws, Wyoming pocket gopher, we anticipate susceptibility of the Wyoming pocket processes, or ordinances that provide a that some utilization of the species gopher to disease or parasites due to regulatory mechanism for the Wyoming related to scientific research will occur increased physiological stress. pocket gopher. The State of Wyoming in 2010 and possibly in future years. Pocket gophers are subject to has identified the Wyoming pocket We could find no other information predation from gopher snakes (Pituophis gopher as a Native Species Status 4, on research or scientific use of the catenifer), rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), meaning that while populations are Wyoming pocket gopher. The lack of long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata), restricted in distribution, the species’ population data for this species results coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Lynx habitat does not appear to be declining, in difficulties in determining whether rufus), badgers (Taxidea taxus), foxes and there are no known sensitivities to the Wyoming pocket gopher is adversely (Vulpes spp.), skunks (Mephitis spp.), human disturbance (Oakleaf et al. 2002, impacted by scientific purposes. numerous owls (Keinath and Beauvais p. 263). Important conservation efforts However, we do not believe 2006, p. 20), and domestic pets (Stinson for this species identified by the WGFD overutilization to be a current or future 2005, p. 51). However, we have no data are to collect more information on the threat because relatively few individuals indicating that predation limits species’ status, trends, and habitat use. have been affected by scientific Wyoming pocket gopher populations. The Wyoming pocket gopher is research, research methodologies Ravens (Corvus corax) use road identified in the WGFD Comprehensive generally involve live captures, and networks associated with oil fields in Wildlife Conservation Strategy (WGFD available information indicates captured southwestern Wyoming for foraging 2005, pp. 250-251) as a species of individuals can survive without activities (Bui 2009, p. 31), and common concern, which signifies a decline or noticeable effects. raven abundance increases in restriction to the population or its association with oil and gas habitat or both, but confers no State Summary of Factor B development in southwestern Wyoming protection to the species. The Wyoming We conclude that the best scientific (Holmes 2009, p. 1). However, we could pocket gopher received this designation and commercial information available find no information that ravens prey based on restricted habitat and limited indicates that the Wyoming pocket upon pocket gophers. Therefore, if raven available information on the species gopher is not now, or in the foreseeable abundance is increasing within the (Emmerich 2009, p. 1). The WGFD does

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 19604 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

restrict the take of the Wyoming pocket Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade the scientific literature for all species, gopher under Chapter 52 of the WGFC Factors Affecting Its Continued Wyoming pocket gophers are not regulations (WGFC 1998, p. 52-9; Existence thought capable of dispersing long Emmerich 2009, p. 1). This designation Other natural or manmade factors distances and may be restricted by the protects individuals of the species from affecting the continued existence of the energetic demands of tunneling (Hansen take unless take is authorized by Wyoming pocket gopher that we 1962, p. 152; Vaughan 1963, p. 371; regulations or is necessary to address analyzed include vulnerability of small Keinath and Beauvais 2006, p. 16). human health or safety (WGFC 1998, populations, use of poisons to target the There may be some above-ground dispersal at night (Griscom 2009a, pers. pp. 52-58). No state regulatory species, and recreational activities. We comm.) or when there is snow cover mechanisms provide for protection of are unaware of other factors that may (Vaughan 1963, p. 369). The patchy the species’ habitat. affect the continued existence of the distribution and low dispersal The Wyoming pocket gopher has been species. identified as a sensitive species by capability result in a low probability for Region 2 of the U.S. Forest Service Vulnerability of Small Populations recolonization following local (USFS) based on the species’ rarity and The Wyoming pocket gopher is a population extinctions (Keinath et al. potential sensitivity to disturbance narrow endemic species (i.e., a species 2008, p. 7). When the area over which (Keinath and Beauvais 2006, p. 6; USFS whose natural occurrence is confined to a colonization-extinction process 2006, p. 10), although we are unaware a certain region and whose distribution operates is geographically small, as is of any occurrence of this species on is relatively limited). The best available the case with Wyoming pocket gopher, USFS lands (Keinath and Beauvais scientific data suggest that this species a single local extinction that is not 2006, p. 7). The USFS does not confer occurs in just two counties in southwest followed by recolonization can have a large impact on the occupancy of the any protective regulations to identified Wyoming. Small geographic range has total area (Oborny et al. 2005, p. 291). sensitive species. The BLM in Wyoming been identified as the most important also identifies the Wyoming pocket The Wyoming pocket gopher has single indicator of elevated extinction persisted since at least 1857 (Coues gopher as a sensitive species (Abbott risk in mammals (Purvis et al. 2000, p. 2009b, pers. comm.), which requires the 1875, p. 138) and may never have had 1949; Oborny et al. 2005, p. 291; a large population size. The species agency to consider the welfare of these Cardillo et al. 2006, pp. 4157-4158; species when evaluating any action on appears to be currently distributed Cardillo et al. 2008, p. 1445; Davies et throughout its known range in a pattern public lands (BLM 2001, pp. 21J- al. 2008, p. 11559). The inherent that approximates historic distribution 22D3c(2)). The BLM has identified the vulnerability associated with small (see Figure 1 above). However, it Wyoming pocket gopher in NEPA geographic range is due to the fact that appears to have several characteristics, documents in the areas of the Wyoming a single localized threat, whether it is such as small geographic range, isolated pocket gopher’s distribution, such as the manmade (e.g., development) or populations, and low dispersal ability, 2006 Atlantic Rim Final Environmental environmental (e.g., disease), can which increase the species’ Impact Statement (BLM 2006b, p. 4-89). potentially impact the entire vulnerability to extinction from Project proponents for future projects on distribution of the species, resulting in stochastic events and other threats on BLM lands were instrumental in an increased probability of extinction the landscape. Currently, we do not collecting distributional data in 2008 (Davies et al. 2008, p. 11559). have information on these threats to an and 2009 (Beauvais 2009, p. 4; Griscom Small population size has also been extent that allows us to know whether et al. 2010, p. 6). However, species- identified as an important predictor of small population size allows for other specific management actions have not extinction vulnerability (O’Grady et al. manmade or environmental factors to been developed by the BLM (Keinath 2004, p. 517). Although we have no create a threat to the Wyoming pocket and Beauvais 2006, pp. 6-8; Abbott information on Wyoming pocket gopher gopher. Further, the historic range and 2010, pers. comm.). Despite the lack of abundance, restricted geographic range persistence of the species’ population regulatory mechanisms, this species frequently correlates with small size indicate the species occurs in continues to occupy its known range. population size (Purvis et al. 2000, p. normally low population densities. We We anticipate no changes in the 1947). Thus, it is reasonable to assume are unable to quantify a foreseeable current regulatory mechanisms for the that abundance is low relative to other future for stochastic events that may foreseeable future, unless research on pocket gopher species with larger have disproportionate negative effects the Wyoming pocket gopher indicates geographic ranges (e.g., northern pocket on small population sizes. We do not that regulatory mechanisms are gopher). Given their restricted anticipate the effects of these events on necessary and can help prescribe distribution and presumably relatively small population size to change, but our specific effective protections. small population size, Wyoming pocket understanding of these effects may gophers are more vulnerable to Summary of Factor D improve over time. demographic, environmental, and We conclude that the best scientific genetic stochasticity than larger, more Lethal Control of Pocket Gophers and commercial information available widely distributed species, which could Campaigns to eliminate other species indicates that the Wyoming pocket affect the Wyoming pocket gopher’s of pocket gophers are often pursued in gopher is not now, or in the foreseeable likelihood for long-term persistence. association with development, future, threatened by the inadequacy of Wyoming pocket gopher distribution farmlands, and ranchlands. We have no existing regulatory mechanisms to the appears to be discontinuous, and it information that indicates that pocket extent that listing under the Act as an remains undetermined if a gophers are the target of lethal control endangered or threatened species is metapopulation structure (a group of campaigns within the range of the warranted at this time. It is unclear that spatially separated populations which Wyoming pocket gopher. Strychnine regulatory mechanisms in addition to interact at some level) exists for this and Rozol are both rodenticides those described are needed for the species (Keinath and Beauvais 2006, p. approved by the U.S. Environmental species based on the current 19). Based on the abilities of other Protection Agency for control of pocket understanding of threats. pocket gophers, which is consistent in gophers, and these substances may

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19605

create a threat to the Wyoming pocket more susceptible to threat factors, if warrants listing as threatened or gopher through targeted application or they are present. Many naturally rare endangered as those terms are defined non-target poisonings of another species species have persisted for long periods by the Act. This does not necessarily (Dickerson 2009a, pers. comm.). We are within small geographic areas, and require empirical proof of a threat. The unable to show the extent to which many naturally rare species exhibit combination of exposure and some these and similar substances are used on traits that allow them to persist despite corroborating evidence of how the private lands in the area; however, their small population sizes (Nevo et al. species is likely impacted could suffice. rangelands, which form the majority of 1997, p. 388; Rubinoff and Powell 2004, The mere identification of factors that Wyoming pocket gopher habitat, are not p. 2547; Lawson et al. 2008, p. 927; could impact a species negatively is not typically the target of pocket gopher Abeli et al. 2009, p. 3887). The sufficient to compel a finding that control measures (Dickerson 2009b, Wyoming pocket gopher is one of these listing is appropriate; we require pers. comm.). Additionally, the BLM species, existing in a limited range since evidence that these factors are operative does not use pesticides or rodenticides its discovery in 1857. We have no threats that act on the species to the in Wyoming to protect reclamation areas information that this rarity is working in point that the species meets the (Abbott 2009a, pers. comm.). We are combination with any threat factors that definition of threatened or endangered unable to determine if the Wyoming would cause the species to be likely to under the Act. We were able to quantify pocket gopher may be targeted by, or become in danger of extinction in all or the foreseeable future only for energy exposed to, substances used for lethal a significant portion of its range in the development and scientific utilization control in the future. We are unaware of foreseeable future. We have identified of the species, but discussed how we other methods that are commonly used lethal control of pocket gophers and anticipate each factor to change over for lethal control of pocket gopher recreational activities as other manmade time. We were unable to project changes populations. We currently do not have factors that may impact the species, but to the species into the future because we any information that would lead us to we have no information that these do not have sufficient data to know if anticipate an increase in lethal control factors are negatively impacting the these factors will result in positive or of the Wyoming pocket gopher for the species at this time. negative effects to the species. foreseeable future. We conclude that the best scientific Our review of the best available and commercial information available scientific and commercial information Recreational Activities indicates that the Wyoming pocket pertaining to the five factors does not Recreational activities within the gopher is not now, or in the foreseeable support the assertion that there are range of the Wyoming pocket gopher future, threatened by other natural or threats of sufficient imminence, include hunting, camping, hiking, horse manmade factors affecting its continued intensity, or magnitude to indicate the riding, use of all-terrain vehicles, and existence to the extent that listing under Wyoming pocket gopher is in danger of visiting historic sites. These activities the Act as an endangered or threatened extinction (endangered), or is likely to may cause elevated levels of human species is warranted at this time. become endangered within the presence on the landscape and resultant foreseeable future (threatened), Finding disturbances to habitat, which were throughout all or a significant portion of discussed in Factor A. We have no As required by the Act, we considered its range. Therefore, we find that listing information to indicate that increased the five factors in assessing whether the the Wyoming pocket gopher throughout human presence related to recreation Wyoming pocket gopher is endangered all or a significant portion of its range poses a threat to the Wyoming pocket or threatened throughout all or a is not warranted at this time. gopher. We anticipate that recreational significant portion of its range. We have In making this finding, we recognize activities will continue at current or carefully examined the best scientific that the Wyoming pocket gopher, slightly increased levels within the and commercial information available despite not being warranted for listing range of the Wyoming pocket gopher for regarding the status and the past, as endangered or threatened, may the foreseeable future. present, and future threats faced by the benefit from increased management Wyoming pocket gopher. We reviewed emphasis due to its limited distribution Summary of Factor E the petition, information available in and range. In particular, future oil, gas, Based on the best available our files, and other published and and wind development may have information, we have no indication that unpublished information submitted to positive or negative impacts to the other natural or manmade factors are us by the public following our 90–day species and should be carefully likely to significantly threaten the petition finding. We also consulted with considered and monitored. We existence of the species. We recognize Wyoming pocket gopher experts and recommend precautionary measures be the inherent vulnerabilities of small other Federal and State resource taken to protect the species, and that populations and restricted geographic agencies. In considering what factors additional research be pursued to range, which appear to be exhibited by might constitute threats, we must look improve the understanding of the the Wyoming pocket gopher. The beyond the mere exposure of the species species so that the responses to future impacts of various potential threats can to the factor to determine whether the potential threats can be better be more pronounced on small or species responds to the factor in a way understood. isolated populations, and we have that causes actual impacts to the identified numerous activities occurring species. If there is exposure to a factor, Distinct Vertebrate Population on the landscape within the range of the but no response, or only a positive Segments Wyoming pocket gopher (see Factor A response, that factor is not a threat. If After assessing whether the species is discussion). However, at this time, we there is exposure and the species endangered or threatened throughout its do not have information to indicate that responds negatively, the factor may be range, we next consider whether a these activities pose a threat to the a threat and we then attempt to distinct vertebrate population segment Wyoming pocket gopher. Additionally, determine how significant a threat it is. (DPS) of the Wyoming pocket gopher we do not consider a small population If the threat is significant, it may drive meets the definition of endangered or is alone to be a threat to species; rather, it or contribute to the risk of extinction of likely to become endangered in the can be a vulnerability that can make it the species such that the species foreseeable future (threatened).

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS 19606 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Under the Service’s Policy Regarding gopher is in danger of extinction or is However, if the Service determines both the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate likely to become endangered in the that a portion of the range of a species Population Segments Under the foreseeable future. is significant and that the species is Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, On March 16, 2007, a formal opinion endangered or threatened there, the February 7, 1996), three elements are was issued by the Solicitor of the Service will specify that portion of the considered in the decision concerning Department of the Interior (USDI), ‘‘The range as endangered or threatened the establishment and classification of a Meaning of ‘In Danger of Extinction under section 4(c)(1) of the Act. possible DPS. These are applied Throughout All or a Significant Portion The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ ‘‘redundancy,’’ similarly for additions to or removals of Its Range’’’ (USDI 2007, entire). We and ‘‘representation’’ are intended to be from the Federal List of Endangered and have summarized our interpretation of indicators of the conservation value of Threatened Wildlife. These elements that opinion and the underlying portions of the range. Resiliency of a include: (1) The discreteness of a statutory language below. A portion of species allows the species to recover population in relation to the remainder a species’ range is significant if it is part from periodic disturbance. A species of the taxon to which it belongs; (2) the of the current range of the species and will likely be more resilient if large significance of the population segment it contributes substantially to the populations exist in high-quality habitat to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) representation, resiliency, or that is distributed throughout the range the population segment’s conservation redundancy of the species. The of the species in such a way as to status in relation to the Act’s standards contribution must be at a level such that capture the environmental variability for listing, delisting (removal from the its loss would result in a decrease in the found within the range of the species. A list), or reclassification (i.e., is the ability to conserve the species. portion of the range of a species may population segment endangered or In determining whether a species is make a meaningful contribution to the threatened). endangered or threatened in a resiliency of the species if the area is As stated above, the Wyoming pocket significant portion of its range, we first relatively large and contains particularly gopher is a narrow endemic species, identify any portions of the range of the high-quality habitat, or if its location or historically and currently found in only species that warrant further characteristics make it less susceptible consideration. The range of a species two counties in south-central Wyoming. to certain threats than other portions of can theoretically be divided into Only 47 confirmed Wyoming pocket the range. When evaluating whether or portions in an infinite number of ways. gophers have been trapped over how a portion of the range contributes However, there is no purpose to approximately the past 40 years, and the to resiliency of the species, we evaluate analyzing portions of the range that are species appears to be currently the historical value of the portion and not reasonably likely to be significant distributed throughout its known range how frequently the portion is used by and endangered or threatened. To in a pattern that approximates historic the species, if possible. In addition, the distribution (see Figure 1 above). identify only those portions that warrant portion may contribute to resiliency for Dispersal strategies of the Wyoming further consideration, we determine other reasons—for instance, it may pocket gopher are unknown (see whether there is substantial information contain an important concentration of discussion under Life History above). indicating that: (1) The portions may be certain types of habitat that are However, in other species of pocket significant, and (2) the species may be necessary for the species to carry out its gophers, dispersal has been well in danger of extinction there or likely to life-history functions, such as breeding, documented (e.g., Daly and Patton 1990, become so within the foreseeable future. feeding, migration, dispersal, or p. 1291; Hafner et al. 1998, p. 281), and In practice, a key part of this analysis is wintering. we have no evidence to suggest that the whether the threats are geographically Wyoming pocket gopher does not concentrated in some way. If the threats Redundancy of populations may be disperse within its known range. to the species are essentially uniform needed to provide a margin of safety for Therefore, we have no evidence throughout its range, no portion is likely the species to withstand catastrophic suggesting that the Wyoming pocket to warrant further consideration. events. This does not mean that any gopher is isolated in any part of its Moreover, if any concentration of portion that provides redundancy is range. We determine, based on a review threats applies only to portions of the necessarily a significant portion of the of the best available information, that no species’ range that are not significant, range of a species. The idea is to portion of the Wyoming pocket gopher such portions will not warrant further conserve enough areas of the range such range meets the discreteness conditions consideration. that random perturbations in the system of the 1996 DPS policy. The DPS policy If we identify portions that warrant act on only a few populations. is clear that significance is analyzed further consideration, we then Therefore, each area must be examined only when a population segment has determine whether the species is based on whether that area provides an been identified as discrete. Since we endangered or threatened in these increment of redundancy that is found that no population segment meets portions of its range. Depending on the important to the conservation of the the discreteness element, and therefore biology of the species, its range, and the species. no population segment qualifies as a threats it faces, the Service may address Adequate representation ensures that DPS under the Service’s DPS policy, we either the significance question or the the species’ adaptive capabilities are will not conduct an evaluation of status question first. Thus, if the Service conserved. Specifically, the portion significance. considers significance first and should be evaluated to see how it determines that a portion of the range is contributes to the genetic diversity of Significant Portion of the Range not significant, the Service need not the species. The loss of genetically Having determined that the Wyoming determine whether the species is based diversity may substantially pocket gopher does not meet the endangered or threatened there. reduce the ability of the species to definition of an endangered or Likewise, if the Service considers status respond and adapt to future threatened species throughout its entire first and determines that the species is environmental changes. A peripheral region, we must next consider whether not endangered or threatened in a population may contribute meaningfully there are any significant portions of the portion of its range, the Service need not to representation if there is evidence range where the Wyoming pocket determine if that portion is significant. that it provides genetic diversity due to

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 2010 / Proposed Rules 19607

its location on the margin of the species’ potential threats imperil a significant the Wyoming pocket gopher or any habitat requirements. portion of the species’ range. Further, other species, we will act to provide Section 4(c)(1) of the Act requires the for those potential threats with more immediate protection. well-understood impacts to the species Service to determine whether a portion References Cited of a species’ range, if not all, meets the (e.g., poisoning), we could find no definition of endangered or threatened. portion of the range in which threats are A complete list of all references cited As stated above, based on the best concentrated or otherwise likely to in this document is available on the scientific information, we find listing impact a significant portion of the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov the Wyoming pocket gopher across its species’ range. and upon request from the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office (see entire range is not warranted. We were Conclusion unable to identify any significant ADDRESSES section). portion of the range that merits We do not find that the Wyoming Author additional analysis. The 31 Wyoming pocket gopher is in danger of extinction The primary authors of this document pocket gopher captures that occurred in now, nor is it likely to become are staff members of the Wyoming 2008 and 2009 indicate that the species endangered within the foreseeable Ecological Services Field Office (see is currently distributed throughout its future, throughout all or a significant ADDRESSES section). known historic range (see Figure 1 portion of its range. Therefore, listing above). The limited information the species as endangered or threatened Authority available on the Wyoming pocket under the Act is not warranted at this time. The authority for this action is section gopher, such as the lack of population 4 of the Endangered Species Act of numbers and dynamics, does not allow We request that you submit any new 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et us to determine what portion of the information concerning the status of, or seq.). range, if any, contributes substantially threats to, the Wyoming pocket gopher and differentially to the long-term to our Wyoming Ecological Services Dated: March 30, 2010. persistence of the species. As discussed Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) Daniel M. Ashe, previously, we do not know how the whenever it becomes available. New Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife species is likely to respond to many information will help us monitor this Service. potential threats (e.g., wind energy), and species and encourage its conservation. [FR Doc. 2010–8578 Filed 4–14–10; 8:45 am] therefore we cannot determine if the If an emergency situation develops for BILLING CODE 4310–55–S

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:01 Apr 14, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS