Vol. 79 Wednesday, No. 68 April 9, 2014

Part III

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Olympia Pocket Gopher, Roy Prairie Pocket Gopher, Tenino Pocket Gopher, and Yelm Pocket Gopher, With Special Rule; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19760 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, activities that promote the maintenance Lacey, WA 98503, by telephone 360– or restoration of habitat conditions Fish and Wildlife Service 753–9440, or by facsimile 360–534– required by the Mazama pocket gopher 9331. Persons who use a consistent with regulations necessary 50 CFR Part 17 telecommunications device for the deaf and advisable for the continued [FWS–R1–ES–2012–0088; 4500030113] (TDD) may call the Federal Information conservation of the four subspecies Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. (Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and RIN 1018–AZ17 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Yelm pocket gophers). Specifically, the Service is promulgating a special rule Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Executive Summary under section 4(d) of the Act to exempt and Plants; Threatened Species Status Why we need to publish a rule. Under take of these listed species for general for the Olympia Pocket Gopher, Roy the Act, a species may warrant activities conducted on agricultural and Prairie Pocket Gopher, Tenino Pocket protection through listing if it is ranching lands, regular maintenance Gopher, and Yelm Pocket Gopher, With endangered or threatened throughout all activities on civilian airports, control of Special Rule or a significant portion of its range. noxious weeds and invasive plants, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Listing a species as an endangered maintenance of roadside rights-of-way, Interior. species or threatened species can only and limited activities on private ACTION: Final rule. be completed by issuing a rule landowner parcels. If an activity This rule will finalize the listing of the resulting in take of the Mazama pocket SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Olympia pocket gopher (Thomomys gopher is not exempted under this 4(d) Wildlife Service (Service), determine mazama pugetensis), Roy Prairie pocket special rule, then the general threatened species status under the gopher (T. m. glacialis), Tenino pocket prohibitions at 50 CFR 17.31 for Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act or gopher (T. m. tumuli), and Yelm pocket threatened wildlife would apply, and ESA), as amended, for four subspecies gopher (T. m. yelmensis) as threatened we would require a permit pursuant to of the Mazama pocket gopher found in species under the Act. This rule also section 10 of the Act for such an Thurston and Pierce Counties of establishes a special rule under section activity, as specified in our regulations. Washington State: The Olympia pocket 4(d) of the Act to provide for the Nothing in this 4(d) special rule would gopher (Thomomys mazama conservation of the Mazama pocket affect the consultation requirements pugetensis), Roy Prairie pocket gopher gopher. Critical habitat for these four under section 7 of the Act. The intent (T. m. glacialis), Tenino pocket gopher subspecies of the Mazama pocket of this special rule is to increase support (T. m. tumuli), and Yelm pocket gopher gopher is published elsewhere in for the conservation of the Mazama (T. m. yelmensis). We are also today’s Federal Register. pocket gopher and provide an incentive promulgating a special rule under The basis for our action. Under the for continued management activities authority of section 4(d) of the Act that Act, we can determine that a species is that benefit the Olympia, Roy Prairie, provides measures that are necessary an endangered or threatened species Tenino, and Yelm subspecies and their and advisable for the conservation of the based on any of five factors: (A) The habitat. Mazama pocket gopher. The effect of present or threatened destruction, Peer review and public comment. We this regulation is to add these modification, or curtailment of its sought comments from independent subspecies to the list of Endangered and habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for specialists to ensure that our Threatened Wildlife, extend the Act’s commercial, recreational, scientific, or designation is based on scientifically protections to these subspecies, and educational purposes; (C) Disease or sound data, assumptions, and analyses. establish a 4(d) special rule for the predation; (D) The inadequacy of We invited these peer reviewers to conservation of the Olympia, Roy existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) comment on our listing proposal. We Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm pocket Other natural or manmade factors obtained opinions from two gophers. affecting its continued existence. We knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise regarding the DATES: This rule becomes effective May have determined that the four Thurston/ Mazama pocket gopher. These peer 9, 2014. Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher are negatively impacted by one reviewers generally concurred with our ADDRESSES: This final rule is available or more of the following factors to the methods and conclusions and provided on the internet at http:// extent that each of these subspecies additional information, clarifications, www.regulations.gov and http:// meets the definition of a threatened and suggestions to improve this final www.fws.gov/wafwo/mpg.html. species under the Act: rule. Information we received from peer Comments and materials we received, as • Habitat loss through conversion and review is incorporated in this well as some of the supporting degradation of habitat, particularly from document. We also considered all documentation we used in preparing development, successional changes to comments and information received this rule, are available for public grassland habitat, military training, and from the public during our three open inspection at http:// the spread of woody plants; comment periods, which were open a www.regulations.gov. All of the • Predation; total of 135 days. We held two public comments, materials, and • Inadequate existing regulatory information workshops and a public documentation that we considered in mechanisms that allow the impacts of hearing on the proposed rule in April this rulemaking are available by significant threats such as habitat loss; 2013. appointment, during normal business and hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, • Other natural or manmade factors, Previous Federal Actions Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, including small or isolated populations, The full candidate history and 510 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503; declining population or subpopulation previous Federal actions for the telephone 360–753–9440, facsimile sizes, and control as a pest species. Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm 360–534–9331. We are promulgating a special rule. pocket gophers (hereafter referred to as FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken We are exempting from the Act’s take ‘‘the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of S. Berg, Manager, Washington Fish and prohibitions (at section 9) certain the Mazama pocket gopher’’) are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19761

described in the proposed rule to list, comment periods. The first comment special rule for the four Thurston/Pierce establish a 4(d) special rule, and period, associated with the publication subspecies of the Mazama pocket designate critical habitat for these four of the proposed rule (77 FR 73770; gopher, and are addressed in the subspecies, published December 11, December 11, 2012), was open for 60 following summary and incorporated 2012 (77 FR 73770). In that same days, from December 11, 2012, through into the final rule as appropriate. proposed rule, we identified five February 11, 2013. We then made Comments From Peer Reviewers subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher in available the DEA of the proposed the State of Washington for removal critical habitat designation and In accordance with our peer review from the candidate list: The Olympic, reopened the comment period on the policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Shelton, and Cathlamet pocket gophers proposed rule for an additional 30 days, 34270), we solicited expert opinion (Thomomys mazama melanops, T.m. from April 3, 2013, to May 3, 2013 (78 from six knowledgeable individuals louiei, and T.m. couchi, respectively) FR 20074; April 3, 2013). We also with scientific expertise that included because we determined that they are not contacted appropriate Federal, State, familiarity with the Mazama pocket warranted for listing; the Tacoma pocket tribal, county, and local agencies; gopher and its habitats, biological gopher (T.m. tacomensis) because it is scientific organizations; and other needs, and threats. Two peer reviewers extinct; and the Brush Prairie pocket interested parties and invited them to responded, and both were supportive of gopher (T. talpoides douglasii) because comment on the proposed rule and the the Service’s evaluation of the best it was added to the list due to DEA. We held two public information scientific and commercial data available taxonomic error. We published a notice workshops and a public hearing in April in proposing to list the four Thurston/ of availability of the draft economic 2013 on the proposed rule to list the Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket analysis (DEA) of the critical habitat subspecies, the associated 4(d) special gopher. Our requests for peer review are designation and announcement of rule, and the proposed critical habitat limited to a request for review of the public information meetings and a designations. On September 3, 2013, we merits of the scientific information in public hearing on our proposed announced a 6-month extension of the our documents; if peer reviewers have rulemaking on April 3, 2013 (78 FR final determination on the listing and volunteered their personal opinions on 20074), and a 6-month extension of the critical habitat designation for the four matters not directly relevant to the final determination for the proposed Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the science of our proposed listing, we do listing and designation of critical habitat Mazama pocket gopher (78 FR 54218) not respond to those comments here. for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies and reopened a third comment period (1) Comment: Both peer reviewers of the Mazama pocket gopher on on the proposed rule to list, establish a provided corrections and suggestions for September 3, 2013 (78 FR 54218). We 4(d) special rule, and designate critical clarifying and improving the accuracy of extended our final determination under habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce the Background, Habitat and Life section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the Act in subspecies for an additional 45 days. History, Historical and Current Range response to substantial scientific The total time available for public and Distribution, Summary of Factors disagreement surrounding the accuracy comment on the proposed rulemakings Affecting the Species, and Conservation or sufficiency of available data regarding for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies Measures sections of the preamble of the the degree of threat to the Mazama of the Mazama pocket gopher was 135 proposed rule. pocket gopher from various agricultural days. Our Response: We appreciate these and ranching activities. We worked During the 3 public comment periods, corrections and suggestions, and have collaboratively with the Washington we received close to 220 comment made changes to this final rule to reflect State Department of Agriculture letters and emails from individuals and the peer reviewers’ input. (WSDA) during this extension to organizations, as well as speaker (2) Comment: One peer reviewer address these uncertainties to the extent testimony at the public hearing held on recommended that an education and possible. April 18, 2013. These comments incentives program be implemented for Details regarding the comment addressed the proposed listing and private landowners to help conserve the periods on the proposed rulemaking to associated special rule, or the proposed four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the list the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies, critical habitat (or both) for Mazama Mazama pocket gopher. promulgate a 4(d) special rule, and pocket gopher. We received comment Our Response: The Service supports a designate critical habitat are provided letters from two peer reviewers, one variety of programs that conserve below. On September 3, 2013, we State agency, and two Federal agencies species, including Habitat Conservation published a notice in the Federal on these four subspecies of the Mazama Planning and Safe Harbor Agreements. Register affirming the removal of the pocket gopher. The final rule The Service is working with the Natural Olympic, Shelton, Cathlamet, Tacoma, designating critical habitat for the four Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Brush Prairie pocket gophers from Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Thurston County, Washington the candidate list (78 FR 54214). Critical Mazama pocket gopher is published Department of Fish and Wildlife habitat for the Olympia, Roy Prairie, separately elsewhere in today’s volume (WDFW), and various nongovernmental Tenino, and Yelm subspecies of the of the Federal Register, and comments entities to develop and implement Mazama pocket gopher is published specific to the critical habitat are education and incentive programs for separately elsewhere in today’s issue of addressed in that rulemaking. Here we the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Federal Register. address only those comments relevant the Mazama pocket gopher. We to the proposed listing and the appreciate the suggestion, and will keep Summary of Comments and associated special rule under section this in mind as we move forward with Recommendations 4(d) of the Act. recovery planning for these species. We requested written comments from All substantive information provided However, such a consideration is not the public on the proposed listing, the during comment periods has either been directly relevant to our evaluation of the associated 4(d) special rule, and the incorporated directly into this final rule status of the species. designation of critical habitat for the or is addressed below. Comments we (3) Comment: One peer reviewer four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the received are grouped into general issues found the section on unauthorized Mazama pocket gopher during three specifically relating to the listing or 4(d) collecting, handling, possessing, etc., to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19762 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

be confusing where it referenced multiple years and undergo multiple regulations necessary and advisable for possession of specimens not more than reproductive cycles per year are likely the continued conservation of the four 100 years old but collected prior to to exhibit fairly large fluctuations in Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the 2012. population number, but we point out Mazama pocket gopher. However, we Our Response: We have deleted this the following: All of the data we note 4(d) rules can be revoked or section because it did not accurately currently have indicates that Mazama amended through rulemaking at any describe the Act’s prohibitions. pocket gophers are short lived (1–2 time should the Service determine that However, we can clarify for the reviewer years), have a single reproductive event they are no longer consistent with the that possession of specimens collected per year, and average five young. If conservation of the species. prior to listing is not prohibited. predation and disease pressures are low While the Service did not list the and reproductive success is high, this Shelton pocket gopher (Thomomys Comments From State could result in a fairly large population mazama couchi; September 3, 2013, 78 Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the increase, but without the means to FR 54214), which largely resides on the Secretary shall submit to the State monitor population numbers, it is a Port of Shelton’s Sanderson Field (also agency a written justification for his difficult assertion to either support or known as Shelton Airport), it remains a [her] failure to adopt regulations disprove. Since there is only a weak State-listed species and as such, the Port consistent with the agency’s comments correlation between the number of of Shelton will be required to continue or petition.’’ Comments we received pocket gopher mounds and the number to conserve the species on their from State agencies regarding the of resident pocket gophers (Olson property. If the status of the Shelton proposal to list four Thurston/Pierce 2011a, p. 37), and since there are many pocket gopher changes such that Federal subspecies of the Mazama pocket different scenarios under which an listing may be warranted, the Service gopher subspecies as threatened under individual pocket gopher may increase retains discretion to propose listing this the Act are addressed below. We the number of mounds it makes subspecies. received comments from WDFW, (optimal foraging, re-excavation, new Washington Department of Natural Washington Department of Natural excavation, etc.), the Service believes it Resources Resources (WDNR), and Washington is currently impossible to document State Department of Transportation fluctuations in population size. In (7) Comment: WDNR, as well as the (WSDOT) related to biological arriving at our determination that the Natural Resources Conservation Service information, threats, and the 4(d) four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the (NRCS), suggested additions and special rule. Mazama pocket gopher meet the changes to the list of allowed WDFW and WDNR provided a definition of ‘‘threatened’’ under the agricultural activities and a revision to number of recommended technical Act, we note our conclusion is not based the calendar dates that some of those corrections or edits to the proposed on estimates of population size, but on activities may take place under the listing determination for the four the reduction in range and numbers of proposed 4(d) special rule. They Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the populations due to past threats, and the suggested these changes in order to Mazama pocket gopher. We have negative impact of ongoing threats to avoid possible unintended evaluated and incorporated this those few populations that remain. We consequences of some of the proposed information into this final rule where discuss this further in our response to requirements, which they believe might appropriate to clarify the final listing Comment 15, below. compromise the goal of encouraging determination. In instances where the (6) Comment: WDFW suggested continued agricultural use of these Service may have disagreed with an clarifications to the list of allowed areas. WDFW raised concern about the interpretation of the technical activities on airports and on single- lack of restrictions on conversion from information that was provided, we have family residential properties under the one agricultural use to another, since responded in separate communication proposed 4(d) special rule. WDFW Mazama pocket gophers do not respond with either WDFW or WDNR. expressed the concern that any special positively to all agricultural practices. rules pertaining to airports be carefully Our Response: The Service worked Washington Department of Fish and crafted, and that there should be a closely with our State and Federal Wildlife mechanism in place to monitor Mazama partners to understand which (4) Comment: WDFW noted that no pocket gophers on all occupied airports agricultural practices and related citation was given for the list of soils we as they will face increasing pressure activities could be covered under the described as being occupied by the from surrounding development over 4(d) special rule. Not all suggested Mazama pocket gopher in Washington. time. changes were incorporated because not Our Response: The list of soil types Our Response: We have amended the all activities that were suggested met described in the proposed rule were 4(d) special rule to clarify the list of our criteria for what is appropriate for compiled by using the WDFW Heritage allowed activities that are covered. The inclusion under a 4(d) special rule for Database to document where occurrence Mazama pocket gopher special rule that the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of records of the Mazama pocket gopher pertains to civilian airports has been the Mazama pocket gopher (under overlapped mapped soil type. While not reworded based on input from a variety section 4(d) of the Act, such a special all USDA soil type descriptions include of commenters, including the Port of rule must be ‘‘necessary and advisable slope, the majority of soil types where Olympia and informal comments for the conservation of the species’’). We slope was included were described as submitted by the Federal Aviation have amended the rule to clarify the being below 15 percent. Administration (FAA). We believe our terms used, revised the dates that (5) Comment: WDFW stated that it is final 4(d) special rule addresses covered activities are allowed, and important to consider that pocket concerns and incorporates revised the list of agricultural activities gopher populations are known to recommendations we received on our that are covered, where appropriate. We fluctuate and that those fluctuations proposal, and exempts from the believe our final 4(d) special rule may be fairly large. prohibitions of section 9 certain ongoing addresses concerns and incorporates Our Response: The Service agrees that activities on civilian airports and recommendations we received on our some species of pocket gophers that live residential properties consistent with proposal and exempts from the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19763

prohibitions of section 9 certain ongoing Comments From Federal Agencies (10) Comment: Several commenters agricultural practices consistent with believed that an ongoing collaboration Natural Resources Conservation Service regulations necessary and advisable for between the U.S. Geological Survey the continued conservation of the four Comments from the NRCS have been (USGS) and the Service is designed to subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. incorporated into Comment 7, above. definitively determine whether or not With the help of our Federal and State Comments From the Public the present subspecies distinctions upon which the proposed listing relies partners, we will continue to work with (9) Comment: Several commenters agricultural landowners as necessary to are in fact scientifically accurate, and questioned the use of the current believed the Service should delay its more fully cover their activities while taxonomy for the Mazama pocket conserving the Mazama pocket gopher listing determination until these results gopher for the purposes of listing. are completed. using a range of available conservation Our Response: The Service Our Response: Scientific knowledge is tools, such as permits and other acknowledges that the original an ever-growing body of work to which authorizations (see also our response to taxonomy of the Mazama pocket gopher many researchers and studies Comment 38). was based on morphotype (the contribute. There is no one point in time difference between the appearances of at which ‘‘science’’ is complete, Washington State Department of separate subspecies) and that the Transportation however, the Service is required to use examination of genetic material would ‘‘the best scientific and commercial data (8) Comment: WSDOT asked that we provide greater insight into the degree of available’’ at the time a listing relatedness between subspecies. consider expanding the exemptions determination is made. The ongoing However, under the Act we are to make listed under our 4(d) special rule to collaboration between USGS and the a listing determination based on the best include vegetation management of Service that was referenced by the scientific and commercial data available commenters was designed to assist in roadside rights-of-way, including at the time of our rulemaking; we cannot mechanical mowing, weed control, and the ongoing conservation of the four speculate as to what future research may Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the woody vegetation control (mechanical or may not reveal. The currently or herbicide control measures), as well Mazama pocket gopher, and was not accepted subspecific designations of intended to support a determination of as fencing operations. They pointed out Thomomys mazama (the Mazama whether or not listing them as that these activities maintain suitable pocket gopher) stand according to the threatened under the Act is warranted. habitat conditions for the pocket accepted rules of the International The results of this study would allow gophers by reducing the woody Commission on Zoological the Service to establish: (a) The vegetation that they avoid, and Nomenclature. No compelling functional unit of management for the maintaining the low vegetation cover information is available nor has been species (e.g., the subspecies level, the that they favor. The agency additionally submitted through the appropriate metapopulation level, or the population pointed out that suitable habitat for the scientific channels necessary to effect a level); and (b) where the physical Mazama pocket gopher is found along revision in the established taxonomy. boundaries for those units exist on the highways and roadways that traverse Some genetic work conducted on the landscape. This assessment will be prairie habitats throughout Thurston Mazama pocket gopher created made based on whether or not the and Pierce Counties. confusion regarding their taxonomy, but results indicate genetic differentiation that work was never published in a has resulted in evolutionarily divergent Our Response: We agree that the peer-reviewed journal. roadside management activities paths for different populations. It is possible that ongoing genetic Evidence of evolutionary divergence described by WSDOT benefit the work will clarify the relationship will dictate the future management Mazama pocket gopher by restoring or between the subspecies in the future, strategies for the Mazama pocket maintaining habitat in a condition and if the International Commission on gopher. This is not the same question as suitable for the subspecies. As we do Zoological Nomenclature receives and whether the evidence suggests a not wish to discourage the continuation accepts a revised taxonomy for the possible redefinition of subspecies, of proactive management activities that Mazama pocket gopher that is at odds though that could be a logical outgrowth benefit the conservation of the Mazama with the taxonomy used here, we can of the research conducted if the results pocket gopher, as described in the revisit the listing at that time. To date, support that outcome. See also our Special Rule section of this document, however, there has been no publication response to Comment 9, above. we conclude that it is necessary and of any data that could lead to a formal (11) Comment: One commenter stated advisable for the conservation of the submission for a revision of the that the presumption of earlier four Thurston/Pierce subspecies to add taxonomy of the Mazama pocket gopher expansive occupancy for the Mazama roadside vegetation management and to the International Commission on pocket gopher across undeveloped fencing activities to the list of Zoological Nomenclature, nor is there prairies is without merit. exemptions from section 9 in our 4(d) any record indicating that they have Our Response: It is impossible to special rule. This exemption applies to received any petition to consider a know for certain the full extent of the revision. Therefore, consistent with the historical occupancy for the Mazama all Federal. State, county, private, or direction from the Act (i.e., based on the pocket gopher in Washington State for Tribal vegetation management activities best scientific and commercial data the entirety of the species’ evolutionary on highways or roadside rights-of-way. available at the time of our finding), we history. Extrapolating from the geologic Under the 4(d) special rule, although are using the established taxonomy for record, we can reasonably assert that exemptions from the prohibitions of the Mazama pocket gopher, which pocket gophers were more widespread section 9 are provided, any activities recognizes the Olympia, Roy Prairie, and likely occupied a much wider range subject to a Federal nexus and that may Tenino, and Yelm pocket gopher as of habitats across a much broader area affect the species or its critical habitat separate subspecies. See the prior to the descent of the Vashon lobe still require consultation under section ‘‘Taxonomy’’ section of this document of the Cordilleran ice sheet during the 7 of the Act. for further information. last glaciation period. This is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19764 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

demonstrable through the isolated and (2013a) Mazama Pocket Gopher primarily fossorial, living almost genetically distinct population of Distribution and Habitat study, which entirely underground. What most Mazama pocket gopher in the Olympic used a randomized design to sample people see when they become aware of Mountains and other isolated approximately 800 locations in Grays pocket gophers are mounds of dirt populations, such as the Cathlamet Harbor, Lewis, Mason, Pierce, and excavated from the tunnel systems pocket gopher in western Washington. Thurston Counties on public and where the pocket gophers live, and they Pocket gophers simply cannot disperse private lands, the vast majority of which may extrapolate from the number of quickly across great distances where were outside of any UGA. We also note mounds to the number of gophers, habitat is discontiguous, indicating that that this study reinforced the current assuming that many mounds equates to the ability of populations to extend known distribution of the Mazama many gophers. Research has across the state over a short period of pocket gopher in western Washington demonstrated that the correlation time would have been extremely by providing insight into where Mazama between the number of mounds and the improbable. In order for prehistoric pocket gopher sign was detected number of pocket gophers is weak pocket gopher populations to reach the (positive survey data) and where it was (Olson 2011a, p. 37), and there are many Olympic Mountains, they would have not detected (negative survey data). The different circumstances that can lead to had to have had a much wider strength of this effort and its results an increase in the number of mounds distribution across a greater variety of support our current understanding of when there are not many gophers. Such habitats than they currently inhabit. the distribution of the Mazama pocket circumstances include instances of soil Mazama pocket gophers, as we know gopher in Thurston County. compaction (a response to tunnels being them, have evolved to require friable, (13) Comment: Two commenters crushed or damaged), in cases of sparse well-drained soils in relatively open referenced the reports from contract vegetation (which forces the animals to areas. The prairies of the south Puget biologists who claim to have found dig farther for forage material), or when Sound landscape are exactly that. Mazama pocket gopher mounds outside gophers disperse into a new area and Considering the potential for of the currently known range. have to excavate a completely new evolutionary adaptation on the geologic Our Response: The Service took these tunnel system. time scale, it is completely reasonable to reports into consideration, but Since Mazama pocket gophers are expect that pocket gopher populations subsequent trapping conducted by extremely territorial, their density is low were historically far more widespread in WDFW at the sites in question have except when young are present. Another western Washington. That said, all resulted in the capture of only moles complicating factor is that Mazama species are somewhat patchily (Scapanus spp.), whose mounds are pocket gophers and moles can coexist at distributed based on habitat availability often confused with those of Mazama the same site, creating the impression and each species’ ability to disperse to, pocket gophers. Neither Service nor that there are many more gophers than compete for, and exploit resources, so it WDFW biologists have been able to actually occur. There is currently no is possible some historical prairies or locate any other Mazama pocket gopher effective and accurate way to count live areas of prairies may never have been sign in the area despite broad survey pocket gophers. However, the Service occupied. We further acknowledge here efforts. did determine larger-scale changes in and elsewhere in this document that the (14) Comment: Several commenters population status such as local Mazama pocket gopher exhibits patchily expressed the opinion that the extirpations and range contractions, and distributed use of available habitat, distribution and population sizes evaluated potential future status in the meaning that not all suitable areas are currently known for the Mazama pocket threats analysis section of this rule for likely to be occupied at all times. The gopher have been underestimated, while the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of current fragmented and discontiguous another commenter stated that the Mazama pocket gopher by focusing state of apparently suitable habitat, such populations are either stable or on factors such as habitat destruction as the remaining undeveloped prairies, increasing. Several other commenters and fragmentation, predation, and lack has rendered it impossible for the stated that the Mazama pocket gopher of gene flow between extant Mazama pocket gopher to sustain should not be given Federal protection populations. Based on our evaluation of widespread occupancy, as the Service under the Act when it appears as if they these considerations, we have asserts was likely the case. It is occur in great numbers. concluded that each of the four reasonable to state, based on knowledge Our Response: The extensive Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the of dispersal capability, current distribution study recently conducted Mazama pocket gopher meets the distribution, and the distribution of by WDFW (2013a) reinforced the known definition of a threatened species under similar Thomomys species, that the distribution of the Mazama pocket the Act. Mazama pocket gopher likely had a gopher in Washington State and (15) Comment: One commenter much broader historical distribution provided valuable ‘‘negative’’ survey questioned whether or not there was a that included a greater portion of the data by documenting areas where reduction in population numbers of the prairie habitat in the south Puget Sound Mazama pocket gophers were not Mazama pocket gopher in Washington than they currently occupy, as did detected. It is important to note that the and asserted that if a decrease in Dalquest and Scheffer (1942, p. 95; Service did not use population size population numbers does exist, it 1944a, p. 311). while conducting the threats analysis should be attributed to past pest control (12) Comment: One commenter stated because there is no established way to efforts, of which Mazama pocket that the only distribution studies being accurately estimate and monitor gophers were a target as recently as conducted on the Mazama pocket population size for the Mazama pocket 1992. The same commenter stated that gopher involved lands within the gopher. No data were collected that Mazama pocket gophers are ‘‘rodents,’’ Thurston County Urban Growth Areas would provide information about implied that rodents are immune to the (UGAs), and believed Mazama pocket population trends, nor would it have efforts of humans to eradicate them, and gophers exist in many other areas of the been possible to obtain this data in a provided a list of documents reporting County. single survey season. on efforts to control or eradicate many Our Response: We draw the Very few people actually see Mazama different species of Thomomys and commenter’s attention to the WDFW pocket gophers because they are many subspecies of T. mazama. Most of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19765

these studies were conducted in Oregon Service) with the Washington the presence of sufficient state-led and where gophers were considered Department of Fish and Wildlife conservation actions.’’ pests at tree farms. (WDFW), which is the State of (18) Comment: Several commenters Our Response: Because there is Washington’s fish and wildlife mistakenly used the term ‘‘endangered’’ currently no practical way to count management agency. instead of ‘‘threatened’’ to refer to the individual Mazama pocket gophers Our Response: While the Service, as Service’s proposed listing status of the within a population, the status a Federal agency, works collaboratively four subspecies of the Mazama pocket evaluation of each subspecies was with the State of Washington and gopher found in Pierce and Thurston conducted using other metrics. The maintains close working relationships Counties. Service determined that the suitable with their expert biologists, we cannot Our Response: An ‘‘endangered’’ habitat available has been reduced to speak to the agreements negotiated species is any species that is in danger the point that many historical between WDFW and other parties, of extinction throughout all or a populations have been permanently except where we explicitly rely upon significant portion of its range; a extirpated (such as in heavily developed information in those agreements, nor are ‘‘threatened’’ species is any species that areas) and gene flow between surviving we able to account for any perceived is likely to become an endangered populations has been restricted to the inconsistencies in information produced species within the foreseeable future point of preventing the natural recovery by the State. It is especially important throughout all or a significant portion of of the subspecies. Past pest control to recognize that a conservation its range. Endangered species are at the efforts directed at Mazama pocket agreement negotiated between State brink of extinction today, while gophers may have contributed to agencies, such as WDFW, and threatened species are likely to be at the fragmentation and decline in some independent parties is not automatically brink in the near future if their status populations. extended to include the Service or does not improve or at least stabilize. While it is true that Mazama pocket accepted by the Service, regardless of We have made the determination that gophers are rodents, it is important to the conservation benefit to the species. the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of note that the documented reproductive (17) Comment: Several commenters the Mazama pocket gopher found in strategy of Mazama pocket gophers is observed that WDFW clarified their Pierce and Thurston Counties are likely unlike that of most rodents. Mazama position on the necessity of a Federal to become an endangered species in the pocket gophers only reproduce once a listing for the Mazama pocket gopher foreseeable future, therefore each will be year and have an average lifespan of just between the first comment period and listed as a ‘‘threatened’’ species under a year or two in the wild. Even though the second comment period. the Act. they generally have a litter of around Our Response: The Service received five pups, they are still a prey species, two comment letters from WDFW (19) Comment: Many commenters so it is reasonable to expect that only during the public comment periods. questioned the data and the science one or two of their offspring will survive WDFW initially stated, ‘‘While WDFW used to determine the threatened status each year, depending on supports the objective of ensuring of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies contemporaneous predation pressure. appropriate conservation measures are of the Mazama pocket gopher, averring This life history is in contrast to most in place for the species, federal listing that the state of our collective other rodents, many of which have and critical habitat designation is not knowledge about the Mazama pocket flexible reproductive cycles and the necessary at this time due to ongoing gopher and its known threats is ability to produce multiple large litters county, state, and federal conservation incomplete and that more studies are of offspring each year. efforts.’’ required to make a determination. Even within the same species of During the second comment period, Our Response: We are required to pocket gopher, evolutionary adaptation the Director of WDFW submitted a make our determination based on the plays a role in the ability of individual second comment letter that stated, in best scientific and commercial data subspecies to utilize particular habitats. part ‘‘The GMA [Washington State’s available at the time of our rulemaking, The majority of the subspecies of Growth Management Act] provides except in cases where the Secretary Thomomys mazama in Washington landscape-scale planning and finds that there is substantial inhabit soils associated with prairies conservation policies and tools, while disagreement regarding the sufficiency and glacial outwash, not forests. the ESA focuses on protection for or accuracy of the available data Douglas-fir trees (Pseudotsuga species and the ecosystems upon which relevant to the determination. In such a menziesii) will encroach into the soil they depend. Each authority plays an case, under section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the types and prairies that the four important role in achieving our shared Act, the Secretary may extend the 1-year Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the goals for prairie habitat and species period to make a final determination by Mazama pocket gopher prefer, but conservation; however, in this case up to 6 months for the purposes of Mazama pocket gopher habitat in implementation to date of GMA alone soliciting additional data. In this case, Washington historically consisted of has not provided enough certainty of we did extend our final determination open areas. To extrapolate from the future conservation for the species to on the listing status of the four literature regarding other species of fully address the threats identified in Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Thomomys and even from other the proposed federal ESA listing. More Mazama pocket gopher by 6 months due subspecies of T. mazama that live in work is needed to identify specific to substantial disagreement regarding different habitat types could lead to protection standards at the landscape the sufficiency or accuracy of some of erroneous conclusions about the ability and site scale in order to achieve those the available threats information, which of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies goals. Policy makers and planners is the maximum extent allowable under of the Mazama pocket gopher to persist continue to work together to identify the statute. We considered the best without protection. these standards so that we can work scientific and commercial data available (16) Comment: Many commenters together jointly to help other entities regarding the subspecies of Mazama with concerns about the listing of the prepare for these potential listings, and pocket gophers and their habitats in Mazama pocket gopher conflated the perhaps eliminate the need for Washington State to evaluate their U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the additional listings in the future due to potential status under the Act.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19766 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

In the case of the Olympic pocket section 4(a)(1)(A) of the Act the completed, this HCP would provide gopher (Thomomys mazama melanops), Secretary is to make that determination long-term regulatory assurances under the Shelton pocket gopher (T. m. based solely on the basis of the best the Act for people who live, work, or couchi), and the Cathlamet pocket scientific and commercial data available conduct business in Thurston County. gopher (T. m. louiei), we determined (emphasis added). The question of In addition, we have attempted to that the best available data did not whether or not there may be some recognize the conservation contribution support listing under the Act positive benefit to the listing cannot by of non-Federal landowners through the (September 3, 2013; 78 FR 54214). For law enter into the determination. The issuance of a 4(d) special rule, which the Olympia pocket gopher, Roy Prairie evaluation of economic impacts comes exempts individuals from the take pocket gopher, Tenino pocket gopher, into play only in association with the prohibitions of the Act for certain and Yelm pocket gopher, as detailed in designation of critical habitat under activities, such as the construction of the Summary of Factors Affecting the section 4(b)(2) of the Act, as described dog kennels or installation of fences or Species section of this document, our in detail in our final designation of play equipment on their property. The evaluation of the best available critical habitat for Mazama pocket 4(d) special rule additionally identifies scientific data leads us to determine that gopher, published elsewhere in the specific agricultural practices, noxious these subspecies each meet the Federal Register today. Therefore, weed and invasive plant control, and definition of a threatened species under although we did not consider the roadside maintenance activities that are the Act. We solicited peer review of our economic impacts of the proposed consistent with regulations necessary evaluation of the available data, and our listing, as such a consideration is not and advisable for the continued peer reviewers supported our analysis. allowable under the Act, we did conservation of the Mazama pocket Science is a cumulative process, and the consider the potential economic impacts gopher. body of knowledge is ever-growing. In of the critical habitat designation, We also note that any restrictions or light of this, the Service will always take including the potential benefits of such regulations already in place for the new research into consideration. If designation. Mazama pocket gopher and its habitat plausible new research supports (22) Comment: Numerous and any costs associated with those amendment or revision of this rule in commenters expressed concerns that the restrictions or regulations under the the future, the Service will modify the listing of the four Thurston/Pierce GMA and associated critical areas rule consistent with the Act and our subspecies of the Mazama pocket ordinances were not the result of listing established work priorities at that time. gopher would result in sweeping under the Act, but are a consequence of (20) Comment: Several commenters adverse economic impacts. Among these State laws and regulations that were suggested that the Service did not take concerns was that much of the privately already in place. We acknowledge that into account WDFW’s ongoing research owned land and housing would be some economic impacts are a possible that had not been formally completed rendered worthless, and that businesses consequence of listing a species under when the proposed rule was published. would be ruined. One commenter the Act; for example, there may be costs Our Response: The Service was fully expressed concerns that their property to the landowner associated with the informed by the researchers who were would be sold to developers, or that development of an HCP. In other cases, conducting this work and cited data there would be no compensation for if the landowner does not acquire a provided by those individuals directly property that would be rendered permit for incidental take, the where their current state of knowledge unusable. Several commenters landowner may choose to forego certain differed from their previously published expressed concerns that restrictions activities on their property to avoid reports. WDFW’s January 2013 summary associated with the listing would hinder violating the Act, resulting in potential report of the extensive Mazama pocket economic development, and implied lost income. However, as noted in our gopher distribution and habitat survey that the uncertainty associated with the response to Comment 21, above, the that was conducted in 2012 reinforced listing could hinder the ability to pass statute does not provide for the the known distribution of Mazama bonds for school construction. consideration of such impacts when pocket gophers in Washington State. Our Response: We understand that making a listing decision. Section The report stated that only one there is a lot of confusion and concern 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act specifies that potentially new location had been about the effect of a listing and critical listing determinations be made ‘‘solely identified, but subsequent investigation habitat designation for the four on the basis of the best scientific and did not result in confirmation of pocket Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the commercial data available.’’ Such costs gopher presence at that site. The WDFW Mazama pocket gopher. We encourage are therefore precluded from survey was a valuable contribution to any landowners with a listed species consideration in association with a our current state of knowledge about present on their property and who listing determination. Mazama pocket gopher distribution and thinks they carry out activities that may The Act does provide for the habitat use in that it provided both negatively impact that listed species to consideration of potential economic positive and negative survey data that work with the Service. We can help impacts in the course of designating reinforced the previously established those landowners determine whether a critical habitat. However, the regulatory pattern of distribution. habitat conservation plan (HCP) or safe consequence of critical habitat (21) Comment: One commenter harbor agreement (SHA) may be designation is limited to actions with a requested substantiated data appropriate for their needs. These plans Federal nexus (activities that are demonstrating a positive benefit of or agreements provide for the funded, authorized, or carried out by a listing the Mazama pocket gopher, and conservation of the listed species while Federal agency). The designation of asked whether there had been an providing the landowner with a permit critical habitat has no regulatory effect evaluation of the economic impact of for incidental take of the species during on private lands lacking a Federal the pending action. the course of otherwise lawful activities. connection. Critical habitat designation Our Response: In making a We are working with Thurston County itself does not prevent development or determination as to whether a species to develop a county-wide HCP for alteration of the land, create a wildlife meets the Act’s definition of an grassland and prairie associated species, preserve, or require any sort of response endangered or threatened species, under including the Mazama pocket gopher. If or management from a private

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19767

landowner. Therefore, the designation density of 334 people per square mile ability to adapt to changing conditions. of critical habitat would not directly (47 square miles of which are water and Several commenters observed that some result in any specific requirements by thus uninhabitable by gophers). Clearly, environmental consultants are the Federal Government on the part of there is a significant difference in the recommending against protection for the private landowners. Even in the case of human population between these areas, four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the a Federal nexus, such as in a case where which extends to a high degree of Mazama pocket gopher and that they are a private landowner should require a difference in the density of roads; for reporting observations of pocket gophers Federal permit for an activity, the only this reason, the Service determined that in clear cuts, on Christmas tree farms, requirement is that the Federal agency road construction may not have a large and in areas where soils have been involved in permitting the activity effect in the case of the Wyoming pocket highly disturbed through anthropogenic avoids the destruction or adverse gopher but could have a negative effect processes, such as in the Artillery modification of critical habitat. on the Mazama pocket gopher Impact Area (AIA) at Joint Base Lewis- Infrequently there are some costs to subspecies in Thurston County. With McChord (JBLM). private landowners in such cases as the population of Thurston County Our Response: While it may look as third-party applicants. projected to increase by approximately if there are a lot of new mounds in areas The Service believes that restrictions 141,000 people by the year 2040 where soil disturbance has recently alone are neither an effective nor a (Thurston Regional Planning Council occurred, this may be the activity of as desirable means for achieving the 2012, pp. 30, 32), raising the density to few as one or two pocket gophers that conservation of listed species. We prefer greater than 550 people per square mile, are excavating new tunnel systems, to work collaboratively with private the corresponding increase in attempting to reconstruct compacted or landowners, and strongly encourage infrastructure will only further disrupt destroyed burrows, or, if much of the individuals with listed species on their and fragment the remaining remnants of herbaceous vegetation has been property to work with us to develop habitat. removed from the surface of the soil, incentive-based measures such as SHAs (24) Comment: One commenter they may be expanding their tunnel or HCPs, which have the potential to asserted that the listing determination system in order to increase their forage provide conservation measures that incorrectly assumes that development in area. The presence of numerous gopher effect positive results for the species and Thurston County poses the same risk to mounds does not necessarily mean that its habitat while providing regulatory the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of there are a lot of gophers or that the relief for landowners. The conservation Mazama pocket gopher as earlier gophers present are thriving and able to and recovery of endangered and development did in Pierce County for persist long term (Olson 2011a, p. 37). threatened species, and the ecosystems the Tacoma pocket gopher, which is Due to fire suppression, much of the upon which they depend, is the now presumed extinct. historical prairie landscape has been ultimate objective of the Act, and the Our Response: While we do not converted to timber through the Service recognizes the vital importance disagree that the threat of development succession of the plant community. If of voluntary, nonregulatory in Pierce County is likely unequal to the the underlying soils were formerly conservation measures that provide threat of development in Thurston suitable Mazama pocket gopher habitat, incentives for landowners in achieving County, the threat analyses conducted removal of timber re-exposes this that objective. for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies temporarily inaccessible habitat and any (23) Comment: One commenter of Mazama pocket gopher took many nearby population could potentially argued that, while the Service factors into account when making the disperse into or otherwise make use of determined road construction associated determination of threatened species the opening. Similarly, Christmas tree with development causes fragmentation status. The tremendous loss of Mazama farms that are situated on suitable or of habitat in the south Puget Sound pocket gopher habitat to development in occupied habitat may not exclude region, the Service previously Thurston County is indisputable. Mazama pocket gophers, especially if concluded that road construction can Combined with fragmentation and the associated agricultural practices do have a positive effect on pocket gopher isolation of habitat; the subsequent loss not include heavy herbicide use or species, referencing a rule issued for of connectivity between populations extensive mechanical soil manipulation. another species of pocket gopher in and, therefore, gene flow, increased It is true that the AIA of JBLM appears Wyoming. predation pressures associated with to have been continuously occupied, at Our Response: The Service referenced proximity to development, habitat least patchily, for a very long time. The the rule cited by the commenter, which degradation due to the spread of Service believes the ability of Mazama states ‘‘We conclude the effects of roads invasive plants, and successional pocket gophers to use this habitat is due on the Wyoming pocket gopher may be changes in grasslands attributable to in part to, not in spite of, the year-round both positive and negative. Although we development-associated fire bombardment of the central impact area: remain concerned about roads, the best suppression, we made the Ignition of dry standing vegetation available information does not indicate determination that the four Thurston/ attributable to bombardment leads to that road construction and use pose a Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket low-intensity burns across the 91st threat to the Wyoming pocket gopher gopher are indeed threatened. This Division Prairie where the AIA is now, or in the foreseeable future.’’ (75 determination stands despite the likely located. The effect of these burns, aside FR 19600; April 15, 2010). We draw the differential in development pressures of from mimicking the historical burning commenter’s attention to the Wyoming historical Pierce and present-day regime, is that they prevent woody counties discussed in the finding and Thurston Counties. encroachment and encourage a highlight the following: The human (25) Comment: One commenter vegetative community similar to the population density of Sweetwater and suggested that increased burrowing kind the Mazama pocket gopher evolved Carbon Counties in 2010 when the activity after soil disturbance and other with; in essence, their ideal forage determination was made for the manmade environmental modifications community. Due to the sporadic nature Wyoming pocket gopher was 4 and 5 such as installation of underground of artillery training, it is not unexpected people per square mile, respectively. utility services or land clearing was that individual Mazama pocket gophers Thurston County has a population evidence of the Mazama pocket gopher’s would disperse and create tunnels into

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19768 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

the high-intensity impact area at the In most cases, biologists do not consider ensure the conservation of the Mazama center of the prairie, especially if the predation on individual animals as a pocket gopher. outer edges of the prairie have a high threat to their respective populations as (29) Comment: One commenter density of Mazama pocket gophers. a whole; when considering endangered concluded that the final rule (26) Comment: One commenter or threatened species, though, determining threatened status for the suggested that a translocation study populations may be depressed to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of previously conducted on Mazama point that the loss of individual animals Mazama pocket gopher would reverse pocket gophers supports the relocation becomes disproportionally important. the benefits of Washington State’s GMA of pocket gophers from urban areas to Mazama pocket gophers are somewhat by reducing human population density unoccupied prairies as a viable solitary in nature, and due to the known in the Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) and management tool to sustain the species loss of occupied habitat through increasing sprawl in rural areas. over the long term. conversion to incompatible uses (e.g., Our Response: The Service is actively Our Response: The study referenced development, mineral extraction, etc.) engaged with county and municipal was discussed at length in the proposed and the increasingly fragmented habitat governments (e.g., Thurston County, rule (77 FR 73770; December 11, 2012). that remains, we contend that loss of City of Tumwater, and Port of Olympia) It was the first of its kind and initially individual animals may have greater to support the results of Washington’s resulted in extremely high mortality than normal impacts to the overall GMA and land-use planning under the rates for the translocated gophers. While health of their populations. In WDFW’s Act. deaths attributable to translocation second comment letter they agreed that (30) Comment: One commenter declined as techniques improved, long- predation was appropriate to include as posited that the development threats term monitoring will be required before a threat, so it could be further examined and pressures that may have led to the it is possible to determine whether or and compared to the other well- extirpation of the Tacoma pocket gopher not a ‘‘new’’ population has been documented threats to determine took place prior to the passage of established without continual addition actions that may be needed during the Washington State’s GMA and that, due to the differences between past and of new individuals. Further it is difficult recovery process for the four Thurston/ current regulations, conclusions about to determine whether or not a site (e.g., Pierce subspecies Mazama pocket current and future threats to the Mima Mounds Natural Area Preserve or gophers. Mima Prairie Glacial Heritage Preserve) Mazama pocket gopher in Washington (28) Comment: Many commenters provides appropriate habitat if there is should not be considered to be believe that Washington State’s Growth no historical record of occupancy. Some equivalent. In other words, the Management Act (GMA) provides of these sites superficially appear to commenter felt the more recent State enough regulatory certainty to protect have characteristics of suitable habitat, regulations are sufficient to prevent the but are not currently documented as Mazama pocket gophers in Washington four Thurston/Pierce subspecies from occupied and have no historical record into the foreseeable future, therefore, going the way of the Tacoma pocket of occupancy. Overall, we do not precluding the need to list them as a gopher. believe translocation of gophers from threatened species under the Act. Our Response: We generally agree that one area to another is a sustainable Our Response: We disagree. the GMA has helped to reduce threats approach to conserving the species in Washington State’s GMA was crafted to to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies, the long term. We are collaborating with provide land use guidance that would although loss of Mazama pocket gopher land owners, local governments, and the result in conservation of State resources habitat to development pressures still business community to develop a range- and wise land use practices. The GMA remains a threat. Additionally, although wide habitat conservation strategy that outlines 13 goals to guide the the GMA and associated critical areas may include translocation as an development of regulations at the protections have certainly provided appropriate tool in certain county and municipality levels, but it greater protection to priority habitats circumstances. does not mandate the establishment of and species than existed prior to their (27) Comment: One commenter performance measures or the passage, it does not necessarily follow suggested that there is not enough requirement of monitoring, thus there is that they are sufficient to conserve the information about pet predation on no standardized metric or means by four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket gophers to conclude which to quantify the success or failure Mazama pocket gopher given the that the threat is significant and cited a of the resulting regulation. The Service subspecies’ current status and comment submitted by the WDFW recognizes that the GMA has produced fragmented distribution. Overall the stating the same. some tangible conservation benefits, but effectiveness or timeliness of regulations Our Response: While the Service is variability in the formulation, to conserve a species is partially unaware of any pet predation studies implementation, and enforcement of the dependent upon when the actual that apply specifically to the Mazama ensuing regulations has allowed for conservation concern for the species of pocket gopher, we have received divergent planning practices across the interest was recognized or identified as numerous firsthand reports of pet State as well as a broad range of results a need. Regulations implemented after predation on pocket gophers in general at individual sites where required significant habitat has been lost will not and Mazama pocket gophers specifically mitigation has taken place. Further, have the same conservation impact as from both WDFW and Service current implementation of the GMA those implemented when significant biologists. Supplementing these fails to sufficiently curb the continued portions of habitat still remain intact. observations with citizen reports fragmentation and loss of Mazama (31) Comment: One commenter received from non-biologists and pocket gopher populations and habitat. asserted that the Service dismisses the incidents documented by video, we (Also see response to Comment 17). For WDFW Priority Habitat and Species have concluded that pet predation is these reasons and others, as detailed in (PHS) program as a legal nullity for likely a common occurrence and we our Summary of Factors Affecting the listing under the Act. Another consider it a threat to the four Thurston/ Species, we have determined that commenter said that the WDFW PHS Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket existing regulatory mechanisms, recommendations requires the use of gopher in the south Puget Sound region. including the GMA, are inadequate to standardized performance measures in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19769

the development of Habitat Management (32) Comment: Several commenters industry asserted that the impacts of Plans (HMPs) and that the either asked how effective mitigations impending climate change are not recommendation is enough of a resulting from the current GMA critical foreseeable. safeguard against variability in the areas regulations have been or stated Our Response: The vast majority of implementation of the HMPs to that the mitigations had been successful the body of literature contributed by preclude the listing of the four or unsuccessful. Some commenters adherents to the scientific method Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the averred that successful mitigation projects an increasing trend toward Mazama pocket gopher. should preclude the listing of the four higher-than-average temperatures Our Response: The Service does not Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the worldwide accompanied by an dismiss the contribution that the PHS Mazama pocket gopher while others increased frequency in stochastic program provides in the form of highlighted the weaknesses in the weather events, many of which present consultation and guidance on land use implementation of the real and foreseeable threats. The Service issues affecting priority habitats and recommendations and regulations. does not consider climate change as a species. However, we note the Our Response: Due to the lack of threat for the four Thurston/Pierce limitations of their PHS Management performance measures, there is no subspecies of the Mazama pocket Recommendations, and reflect WDFW’s standard metric of success or failure of gopher because the threat is not own characterization of the PHS: ‘‘These the GMA critical areas regulations. imminent given the organism’s fossorial recommendations are not regulatory, but Furthermore, due to lack of monitoring, lifestyle and propensity to use are based on best available science for there is not a comprehensive list of sites exceedingly well-drained soils, which avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating where mitigation measures have been may provide a buffer from the most impacts to gophers and their habitat, implemented and where Mazama pocket predictable aspects of a changing which is primarily located in South gopher populations are being tracked. climate. This should not be Puget Sound. WDFW recommends the Of the sites where Habitat Management misconstrued as an indicator that the following mitigation sequence for Plans (HMPs) have been developed as Service believes that climate change is reviewing and conditioning proposed required under the critical areas not a threat in the long term. development projects with potential regulations and shared with the Service, (35) Comment: One commenter stated impacts to Mazama pocket gophers’’ many of the plans do not appear to have that, despite following State (WDFW 2011, p. 1). Because these are adequately provided for the habitat recommendations for infrastructure recommendations and are explicitly not needs of the Mazama pocket gopher, in development that complies with the regulatory in nature, we do not weight some cases overlaying water retention Clean Water Act while simultaneously them equally to existing law when ponds with habitat set-asides. Due to the accommodating projected population evaluating the adequacy of existing lack of consistency between regulations, growth in Thurston County, the listing regulatory mechanisms. variability in implementation of determination and designation of While the PHS allows for WDFW approved HMPs, the lack of requirement critical habitat for the four Thurston/ recommendations to become mandatory of performance measures or monitoring, Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket performance measures in HMPs when and a lack of enforcement, the Service gopher communicates to the public that required and adopted by local does not find the existing regulations to participation in such processes is a governments, this has not occurred be effective at protecting and sustaining useless exercise. consistently. Performance measures Mazama pocket gopher populations or Our Response: The Service must be capable of assessing the quality habitat at a level consistent with the encourages all parties involved in the and efficacy of the executed plan. In persistence of the species into the development of infrastructure to comply order to do so, performance measures foreseeable future. with all Federal and State must mandate objective and measurable (33) Comment: Several commenters recommendations and laws. We metrics that are used to delineate concluded that the Service found the additionally wish to draw attention to performance thresholds for success and existing State and local regulatory the annually updated list of species that are standardized across all plans. scheme adequate to protect gophers in are candidates for listing under the Act, Further, the PHS specifies that the areas outside of Thurston County, which has included the Mazama pocket recommendations for HMP development despite the fact that those jurisdictions gopher since 2001. The Service works are not regulatory in nature, leaving have even lesser critical area closely with Federal, State, county, and individual planning authorities to protections. municipal planners to publicize the determine implementation practices, Our Response: This statement is not status of these candidate species so that including management and correct. The Service actually concluded the public, and specifically developers, enforcement. While the PHS that although the existing State and will be able to make informed decisions recommendations do specify that HMPs local regulatory schemes provided some when planning for future development should be submitted to WDFW for conservation measures, they are at all scales. review, the review process only occurs inadequate to reduce the threats within (36) Comment: Several commenters as WDFW resources allow, which leads both Thurston and Pierce Counties (See suggested that, faced with the prospect to inconsistent results. Further, should threats discussion in our proposed rule; of Federal regulations attributable to the WDFW staff make specific 77 FR 73770, pp. 73782–73786). In other listing of the Mazama pocket gopher, recommendations, these counties where the Olympic, Shelton, or land owners will be more inclined to recommendations may or may not be Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket maintain their land in a way that would implemented by the County, especially gophers are located, we currently have discourage pocket gopher presence on where a land use variance has been no evidence to suggest existing their property. approved. The Service does not agree regulatory mechanisms are inadequate Our Response: Although some that these recommendations provide to such a degree that they pose a threat landowners may choose to maintain enough regulatory certainty to given the current status of these their land in such a way, we do not ameliorate threats to the Mazama pocket subspecies and their habitats. anticipate this to universally be the gopher to the extent that listing would (34) Comment: A comment submitted case. Many Thurston and Pierce County not be warranted. by a representative of the petroleum landowners have communicated a

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19770 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

desire to manage their lands in such a effects of these practices, it is difficult additional agricultural practices under way that enhances prairie habitat. The to know if they are detrimental to the 4(d) special rule (See Special Rule, Service recognizes these landowners Mazama pocket gopher populations below.) and encourages positive stewardship where tilling and Mazama pocket (39) Comment: Many commenters that preserves biodiversity and local gophers may co-occur. provided suggestions for revising the ecosystems. In this final rule, we have During the 6-month extension for 4(d) special rule. expanded the protections provided to making our final determination, the Our Response: The 4(d) special rule is residential and agricultural landowners Service worked collaboratively with the a provision of the Act that allows for under the 4(d) special rule for activities Washington State Department of some ‘‘take’’ of a protected species when that support the maintenance of the Agriculture (WSDA) to address the overall outcome of the allowed open, early-seral conditions the Mazama uncertainties surrounding the accuracy actions are ‘‘necessary and advisable to pocket gopher prefers. We also or sufficiency of the data we used to provide for the conservation of the encourage property owners who believe assess the threat of various agricultural species.’’ The special rule is not they have Mazama pocket gophers on and ranching activities to the Mazama intended to cover activities that do not their property to investigate the pocket gopher. As part of this effort, provide some clear conservation benefit potential for a conservation agreement WSDA conducted an assessment with to the species. Many parties requested with the Service, some of which allow cooperating agricultural landowners to coverage for their actions under the 4(d) increased flexibility in land use in evaluate the co-occurrence of the special rule without identifying the exchange for the maintenance of Mazama pocket gopher with certain conservation benefit those actions suitable habitat. For more information, representative agricultural practices. would provide for the Mazama pocket please visit: http://fws.gov/endangered/ The results of the assessment suggest gopher. The Service carefully and see the ‘‘For Landowners’’ tab. that the Mazama pocket gopher is able considered all requests and amended (37) Comment: One commenter urged to persist in at least some areas where the rule where appropriate, but was the Service to take into consideration these practices occur. While some of the unable to cover many of the proposed lands that have been recently protected practices recorded in the assessment actions. See the section entitled as conservation areas before publishing may kill individual pocket gophers or ‘‘Special Rule’’ for details on the revised a final rule. negatively impact specific pocket 4(d) special rule. Our Response: We have carefully gopher populations, we have expanded considered the contribution of all the list of permitted activities under our Summary of Changes From the protected lands to the conservation and 4(d) special rule to include a broader Proposed Rule recovery of the four Thurston/Pierce range of agricultural practices, or In making our final determination, we subspecies of the Mazama pocket address the specific timing of certain fully considered comments from the gopher before making a final listing practices. We note that some public and the peer reviewers on our decision for each subspecies. We agricultural practices are likely proposed rule to list the four Thurston/ concluded there are currently an detrimental to the Mazama pocket Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket insufficient number and distribution of gopher, but may be perceived as gopher as threatened species, and to permanently protected areas for the four relatively harmless due to the continued promulgate a 4(d) special rule for the Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the presence of gophers on agricultural conservation of these subspecies. This Mazama pocket gopher to preclude the sites. Among all agricultural activities, final rule incorporates changes to our need to list them under the Act. deep tillage appears to have the highest proposed listing and 4(d) special rule (38) Comment: Several commenters likelihood of inadvertently killing the based on the comments and new wanting the Service to make the greatest number of individual gophers. information that we received, as proposed 4(d) special rule more The potential scope of impact this summarized above. Changes from the inclusive provided anecdotal accounts activity may cause is limited by virtue proposed rule that we have incorporated of Mazama pocket gophers persisting in of its application to only a subset of here are as follows: landscapes where certain agricultural agricultural lands and its intermittent • We have expanded our discussion practices have been taking place for use (recommended at a frequency of no of occupied habitat and peripheral (or many years (e.g., ranching, raising of more than once every 10 years, by ‘‘stepping stone’’) populations in the nursery trees, row cropping, etc.), but NRCS). Continued presence of gophers Habitat and Life History section of this failed to provide the Service with any on any tilled site may be the result of document, as well as our discussion of means by which to verify their reoccupancy by remnant individuals minimum habitat patch size. statements. from undisturbed field edges, and are • We received additional distribution Our Response: The Service is aware of not necessarily representative of data for the Mazama pocket gopher in some sites where Mazama pocket established and enduring populations western Washington, which we have gophers appear to persist concordantly within these sites. incorporated here. However, this with certain agricultural practices. We The value of maintaining actively information did not alter the conclusion have limited information on how working agricultural lands as open and of our analysis. different kinds of agricultural practices undeveloped areas provides a • We included a more thorough affect individual Mazama pocket substantial conservation benefit to the discussion of the use of soil types and gophers or their populations. Some four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the soil type complexes by the four practices such as subsoil or moldboard Mazama pocket gopher. Furthermore, Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the ploughing may conceivably have a we now have some additional Mazama pocket gopher, which can also greater impact on Mazama pocket information available to us regarding the be found under the Habitat and Life gophers in the path of the plough than compatibility of certain practices with History section. would most grazing and ranching Mazama pocket gopher conservation, as • We made some technical practices. Similarly, shallow tillage may the result of the 6-month extension on corrections and reevaluated the threats have a very different effect on animals this final listing rule and an assessment to all four subspecies of the Thurston/ present than deep tillage. Without being conducted during that time by WSDA. Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket able to examine the short- and long-term As a result, we have exempted some gopher based on comments received

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19771

from our State partners, as well as other underparts are lead-colored with buff- Verts and Carraway (2000), as the comments received. Although our colored tips. The lips, nose, and patches definitive text for this taxon (Gardner analysis of these potential threats is behind the ears are black; the wrists are 2012, pers. comm.). Thus we follow the different from that in our proposed rule, white. Adults range from 7 to 9 inches subspecies designations of Verts and none of the information changed our (in) (189 to 220 millimeters (mm)) in Carraway (2000) in this finding, as this determination that listing each of the total length, with tails that range from text represents the currently accepted four subspecies of the Mazama pocket 2 to 3 in (45 to 85 mm) (Verts and taxonomy for the species Thomomys gopher as threatened species is Carraway 2000, p. 2). In Washington, mazama. warranted. Mazama pocket gophers are found west While past descriptions of Mazama • We have revised the 4(d) special of the Cascade Mountain Range in the pocket gophers have focused on rule based on Federal and State agency Olympic Mountains and in the Puget morphological differences in comments and public comments. The Sound trough, with an additional single characteristics such as pelage color, 4(d) special rule included in our final locality known from Wahkiakum skull features, and body size (Bailey determination has been broadened from County (Verts and Carraway 2000, p. 3). 1915; Taylor 1919; Goldman 1939; the proposed special rule and has Their populations are concentrated in Dalquest and Scheffer 1942; Dalquest increased the scope of activities and well-drained friable soils often and Scheffer 1944a, b; Gardner 1950; allowable timing of those activities associated with glacial outwash. Hall 1981, pp. 465–466), recent genetic occurring on airport and agricultural Mazama pocket gophers reach evaluations have been conducted on the and ranching lands; increased the scope reproductive age in the spring of the Mazama pocket gopher complex using of activities occurring on single-family year after their birth and produce litters mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid residential properties; more broadly between spring and early summer. Litter (mtDNA) sequencing of the cytochrome allowed the control of invasive plants size ranges from one to nine (Wight b gene (Welch 2008). From these and and noxious weeds; and included the 1918, p. 14), with an average of five subsequent data, Welch and Kenagy addition of routine vegetation (Scheffer 1938, p. 222). (2008, pp. 6–7) determined that the management activities and fencing Mazama pocket gopher complex in along roadside rights-of-way. We have Taxonomy Washington is geographically structured found that such measures are necessary The Mazama pocket gopher complex into three haplotype clades (genetic and advisable for the conservation of the consists of 15 subspecies, 8 of which groups) representing the following three species, and, as such, are appropriate for occur only in Washington, 5 of which localities: (1) Olympic Peninsula (Clade inclusion in our 4(d) special rule. As occur only in Oregon, 1 that occurs only A, which includes the Olympic pocket with all other activities covered by the in California, and 1 subspecies with a gopher); (2) Mason County (Clade B, 4(d) special rule, although exempted distribution that spans the boundary which includes the Shelton pocket from the prohibitions of section 9 of the between Oregon and California (Hall gopher), and (3) Thurston and Pierce Act, consultation under section 7 of the 1981, p. 467). The first pocket gophers Counties (Clade C, which includes the Act is still required for those activities collected in western Washington were Roy Prairie, Olympia, and Yelm pocket that may affect the listed species or their considered to be subspecies of the gophers). critical habitat in cases where there is a northern pocket gopher (Thomomys Specimens from the subspecies Federal nexus. talpoides) (Goldman 1939), until 1960 Thomomys mazama louiei (Wahkiakum when the complex of pocket gophers County) were unobtainable and as such Background found in western Washington was were omitted from Welch and Kenagy’s Below, in this section of the rule, we determined to be more similar to the (2008, pp. 1–3) analysis, so what clade discuss only those topics directly western pocket gopher (T. mazama) the Cathlamet pocket gopher belongs to relevant to the listing of the Olympia, based on characteristics of the baculum or if it occupies its own clade is Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm (penis bone) (Johnson and Benson 1960, unknown. In addition, no specimens subspecies of the Mazama pocket p. 20). Eight western Washington from either the subspecies T. m. tumuli gopher found in Thurston and Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket (the Tenino pocket gopher) or the Counties of Washington State. gopher (T. mazama, ssp. couchi, presumed extinct subspecies T. m. glacialis, louiei, melanops, pugetensis, tacomensis (the Tacoma pocket gopher) Species Information tacomensis, tumuli, and yelmensis) have were readily available and were also not Although the species Thomomys been identified (Hall 1981, p. 467). included in the analysis. None of the mazama, or the Mazama pocket gopher, Thomomys mazama is recognized as a haplotypes in the analyzed specimens includes numerous subspecies that are valid species by the Integrated were shared between the three clades, found in the States of Washington, Taxonomic Information System (ITIS), which supports the differentiation of the Oregon, and California (as described as are each of the subspecies (ITIS clades. The mtDNA analysis was not below in Taxonomy), only the four 2014). able to distinguish between subspecies Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Although there have been some in Clade C; more genetic work needs to Mazama pocket gopher are the subject of suggestions that potential changes to the be done to determine how closely this rulemaking. In this document, classification of some of these related these subspecies are. Verts and when we use the general term ‘‘Mazama subspecies may be considered, as Carraway (2000, p. 1) and the ITIS pocket gopher,’’ we are referring discussed below, we have no (2014) recognize T. m. pugetensis, collectively to only those subspecies of information to suggest that any of the glacialis, tumuli, and yelmensis (the Thomomys mazama that occur in the presently recognized subspecies are the Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm State of Washington; as used here, subject of serious dispute. We consulted pocket gophers, respectively) as separate ‘‘Mazama pocket gopher’’ is not with Alfred Gardner, Curator of North subspecies based on differences in intended to include any subspecies of T. American mammals, Smithsonian morphological characteristics (for mazama that occur in the States of Institution, National Museum of Natural example, pelage coloration; skull shape, Oregon or California. History, who identified the Mammalian size, and weight; shape and form of Adult Mazama pocket gophers are Species Account 641 of the American zygomatic arch; jugal bone; foot and tail reddish brown to black above, and the Society of Mammalogists, authored by length) and distribution. For the reasons

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19772 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

described above, we accept this such as ‘‘Spanaway gravelly sandy Weyerhaeuser) in Thurston County. classification of the Olympia, Roy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.’’ These were subsequently determined Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm pocket We are purposely not using specific not to be Mazama pocket gophers but gophers as separate subspecies of the map unit names because we know that instead moles (Scapanus spp.), based on Mazama pocket gopher. there are imperfections in soil mapping. followup surveying and/or trapping Mapped soil survey information may be conducted in these areas by Washington Habitat and Life History imperfect for a variety of reasons. First, Department of Fish and Wildlife The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies maps are based on the technology, (WDFW) during the 2012 gopher survey of the Mazama pocket gopher are standards, and tools that were available season (Thompson 2012b, pers. comm.). associated with glacial outwash prairies at the time soil surveys were conducted, Please see the discussion in Historical in western Washington, an ecosystem of sometimes up to 50 years ago. We and Current Range and Distribution for conservation concern (Hartway and recognize that soil survey boundaries more information about the current state Steinberg 1997, p. 1) Steinberg and may be adjusted in the future, and that of knowledge on this matter for the Heller (1997, p. 46) found that Mazama soil series names may be added or Mazama pocket gopher. pocket gophers are even more restricted removed on the NRCS’s soil survey Mazama pocket gophers are in distribution than are prairies, as there maps database. As a result, the overlap morphologically similar to other species are some remnant high-quality prairies of gopher locations with soil series of pocket gophers, all of which exploit seemingly within the species’ range that names may be different in the future. a subterranean existence. They are lack pocket gophers (e.g., Mima Mounds The soils information presented here is stocky and tubular in shape, with short Natural Area Preserve (NAP), and 13th based on best scientific data available at necks, powerful limbs, long claws, and Division Prairie on JBLM). Pocket the time of listing. tiny ears and eyes. Their short, nearly gopher distribution is affected by the We also recognize that some of these hairless tails are highly sensitive and rock content of soils (gophers avoid the soil series or soil series complexes are probably assist in navigation in tunnels. rockiest soils), drainage, forage not typically either deep or well- Burrows consist of a series of main availability, and climate (Case and Jasch drained. For a variety of reasons, a runways, off which lateral tunnels lead 1994, p. B–21; Steinberg and Heller specific mapped soil type may or may to the surface of the ground (Wight 1997, p. 45; Hafner et al. 1998, p. 279; not have all of the characteristics of that 1918, p. 7). Pocket gophers dig their Reichman 2007, pp. 273–274; WDFW soil type as described by NRCS, and the burrows using their sharp teeth and 2009; also see Stinson 2005, p. 31), thus actual soil that occurs on the ground claws and then push the soil out further restricting the total area of a may have characteristics that make it through the lateral tunnels (Wight 1918, prairie that may be occupied by inhabitable by Mazama pocket gophers. p. 8; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B–20). gophers. Prairie and meadow habitats These reasons may include map Nests containing dried vegetation are used by pocket gophers have a naturally boundary or transcription errors, map generally located near the center of each patchy distribution. In their prairie projection errors or differences, map pocket gopher’s home tunnel system habitats, there is an even patchier identification or typing errors, soil or (Wight 1918, p. 10). Food caches and distribution of soil rockiness, which hydrological manipulations that have store piles are usually placed near the may further restrict the total area that occurred since mapping took place, nest, and excrement is piled into blind pocket gophers can utilize (Steinberg small-scale inclusions in the mapped tunnels or loop tunnels, and then and Heller 1997, p. 45; WDFW 2009). soil type that are different from the covered with dirt, leaving the nest and We assume that meadow soils have a mapped soil and which may be used by main runways clean (Wight 1918, p. 11). similarly patchy distribution of Mazama pocket gophers, etc. The ‘‘pockets’’ of pocket gophers are rockiness, though the soil surveys to Nevertheless, based on best available external, fur-lined cheek pouches on support this are, at this time, data, these are the areas where Mazama either side of the mouth that are used to incomplete. pocket gopher locations and mapped transport nesting material and carry In Washington, Mazama pocket soils have been found to overlap when plant cuttings to storage compartments. gophers currently occupy the following mapped in GIS. All of these soils could As with all rodents and lagomorphs soil series and soil series complexes: potentially be suitable for any of the (rabbits and hares), their incisors grow Alderwood, Cagey, Carstairs, Everett, four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the continuously (Case and Jasch 1994, p. Everett-Spanaway complex, Everett- Mazama pocket gopher. In addition, the B–20), though the rate of growth of Spanaway-Spana complex, Godfrey, four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the pocket gopher incisors is higher than Grove, Indianola, Kapowsin, McKenna, Mazama pocket gopher may be able to most rodents, perhaps to compensate for Murnen, Nisqually, Norma, Shelton, forage or burrow in soil series not on the increased wear resulting from tooth- Spana, Spana-Spanaway-Nisqually above list. For these reasons, our list of digging. Pocket gophers also have ever- complex, Spanaway, Spanaway- soils may be incomplete or appear to be growing cheek teeth (aradicular Nisqually complex, and Yelm. No soil overly inclusive. Although some soils hypsodont teeth), presumably an survey information is currently are sandier, more gravelly, or may have adaptation to compensate for the high available for the Olympic National Park, more or less silt than described, most all rate of wear due to an abrasive diet. so soils series occupied by gophers there soils used by Mazama pocket gophers Pocket gophers don’t hibernate in are unknown. These soil series and soil are friable (easily pulverized or winter; they remain active throughout series complex names were derived crumbled), loamy, and deep, and the year (Case and Jasch 1994, p. B–20). from a GIS overlay of gopher locations generally have slopes less than 15 Many different vertebrates and with USDA NRCS GIS soil survey data percent. invertebrates take refuge in gopher layer (accessed June 20, 2008 for In 2011, there were reports of Mazama burrows, especially during inclement Thurston County; received from JBLM pocket gophers (subspecies unknown) weather, including beetles, amphibians May 30, 2013 for Pierce County). These occurring on new types of soils and on (such as toads and frogs), lizards, soil type names are very broad-scale soil managed forest lands in Capitol State snakes, ground squirrels, and smaller series names, and don’t include the Forest (owned by Washington rodents (Blume and Aga 1979, p. 131; more specific soil characteristics that Department of Natural Resources Case and Jasch 1994, p. B–21; also see come with a full soil map unit name, (WDNR)) and Vail Forest (owned by Stinson 2005, pp. 29–30).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19773

A variety of natural predators eat square meters (m2)) for Mazama pocket vegetation is cited by WDNR as a threat pocket gophers, including weasels, gophers in one location in Thurston to habitat occupied by the Mazama snakes, badgers, foxes, skunks, bobcats, County, Washington. Gopher density pocket gopher in Olympic National Park coyotes, great horned owls, barn owls, varies greatly due to local climate, soil (the Olympic pocket gopher), causing and several hawks (Hisaw and Gloyd suitability, and vegetation types (Case fragmentation and reducing the 1926, entire; Fichter et al. 1955, p. 13; and Jasch 1994, p. B–21; Howard and possibility that individual Mazama Huntly and Inouye 1988, p. 792; Case Childs 1959, pp. 329–336), and pocket gophers will emigrate or and Jasch 1994, p. B–21; Stinson 2005, densities are likely to be higher when immigrate, (thus reducing gene flow) pp. 29–30). habitat quality is better. Therefore, this and eventually lead to complete In addition to natural predators, one report on the Mazama pocket exclusion (Fleckenstein 2013, p. 3). predation by feral and domestic dogs gopher (Witmer et al. 1996) is unlikely Mazama pocket gophers are not known (Canis lupus familiaris) and cats (Felis to represent the average density across to occupy areas where woody vegetation catus) is an increasing problem for the all soil types, vegetation types, and is dense and no suitable forage is four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the other unique site characteristics across available (Marsh and Steel 1992, p. 210), Mazama pocket gopher. Many local the ranges of the four Thurston/Pierce which includes areas invaded by the populations of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket native Douglas fir tree and the invasive subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher. Research on other species of shrub, Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius). gopher are presumed to be small, based Thomomys pocket gophers in other The Service considers encroachment by on the extent of mounding activity and states showed a wide range of home woody vegetation to have the potential the solitary and territorial nature of range sizes from approximately 80 to to have substantial negative impacts on Mazama pocket gophers. Due to their 14,370 ft2 (7.4 to 1,335 m2). Some of occupied Mazama pocket gopher habitat solitary and territorial nature, many these are estimates based on density of and thus their populations. sites occupied by one of the four gophers trapped per acre, and some are Pocket gophers have been Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the based on measurements of individual documented to reach sexual maturity Mazama pocket gopher may contain a gopher territory sizes. during the spring of the year following small number of individuals and occur In the absence of studies their birth, and generally produce one in a matrix of residential and demonstrating the minimum possible litter per year (Case and Jasch 1994, p. agricultural development. With feral or patch size for persistence of the Mazama B–20), though timing of sexual maturity uncontrolled domestic animals in the pocket gopher, we used 50 ac (20 ha) as has been shown to vary with habitat vicinity, Mazama pocket gophers are the smallest area necessary for recovery quality (Patton and Brylski 1987, p. 502; exposed to increased levels of predation of Mazama pocket gopher populations, Patton and Smith 1990, p. 76). Gestation in these semi-urban and rural which was the agreed upon estimate of lasts approximately 18 days (Schramm environments. In addition, some local an expert panel (Converse et al. 2010, 1961, p. 169; Anderson 1978, p. 421). populations of the Mazama pocket pp. 14–15) assembled to assist with the Young are born in the spring to early gopher occur in areas where people construction of a prairie habitat summer (Wight 1918, p. 13), and are recreate with their dogs, bringing these modeling exercise. We acknowledge the reared by the female. Aside from the potential predators into environments uncertainty with this estimate, but there breeding season, males and females that may otherwise be relatively free of are currently no studies regarding remain segregated in their own tunnel them, such as wildlife areas or expanses minimum patch size available for the systems. There are 1–9 pups per litter of prairie controlled by DOD, Mazama pocket gopher, nor are there (averaging 5), born without hair, consequently increasing the risks to the any obvious means by which a better pockets, or teeth, and they must be kept pocket gopher. answer can be obtained. Thus, the best warm by the mother or ‘‘packed’’ in Pocket gophers are generalist available scientific data in this case is dried vegetation (Wight 1918, p. 14; herbivores and their diet includes a the opinion of an informed expert panel. Scheffer 1938, p. 222; Case and Jasch wide variety of plant material, including Foraging primarily takes place below 1994, p. B–20). Juvenile pelage starts leafy vegetation, succulent roots, shoots, the surface of the soil, where pocket growing in at just over a week and tubers. In natural settings pocket gophers snip off roots of plants before (Anderson 1978, p. 420). The young eat gophers play a key ecological role by occasionally pulling the whole plant vegetation in the nest within 3 weeks of aerating soils, enriching soils with below ground to eat or store in caches. birth, with eyes and ears opening and nutrients, activating the seed bank, and If above-ground foraging occurs, it’s pockets developing at about a month stimulating plant growth, though they usually within a few feet of a tunnel (Wight 1918, p. 14; Anderson 1978, p. can be considered pests in agricultural opening and forage plants are quickly 420). At 6 weeks they are weaned, systems. In prairie and meadow cut into small pieces, and carried in fighting with siblings, and nearly ready ecosystems, pocket gopher activity is their fur-lined cheek pouches back to to disperse (Wight 1918, p. 15; important in maintaining species the nest or cache (Wight 1918, p. 12). Anderson 1978, p. 420), which usually richness and diversity. Any water they need is obtained from occurs at about 2 months of age (Stinson The home range of a Mazama pocket their food (Wight 1918, p. 13; Gettinger 2005, p. 26). They attain their adult gopher is composed of suitable breeding 1984, pp. 749–750). The probability of weight around 4–5 months of age and foraging habitat. Home range size Mazama pocket gopher occupancy is (Anderson 1978, pp. 419, 421). Most varies based on factors such as soil type, much higher in areas with less than 10 pocket gophers live only a year or two, climate, and density and type of percent woody vegetation cover (Olson with few living to 3 or 4 years of age vegetative cover (Cox and Hunt 1992, p. 2011a, p. 16). It is reasonable to (Hansen 1962, pp. 152–153; Livezey and 133; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B–21; conclude that increasing amounts of Verts 1979, p. 39). Hafner et al. 1998, p. 279). Little woody vegetation will shade out the Pocket gophers rarely surface research has been conducted regarding forbs, bulbs, and grasses that gophers completely from their burrow except as home range size for individual Mazama prefer to eat, and high densities of juveniles, when they disperse above pocket gophers. Witmer et al. (1996, p. woody plants make travel both below ground from spring through early fall 96) reported an average home range size and above the ground difficult for (Ingles 1952, p. 89; Howard and Childs of about 1,076 square feet (ft2) (100 gophers. Encroachment of woody 1959, p. 312). They are highly asocial

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19774 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

and intolerant of other gophers. Each soil conditions and size of the animal. Highway 512, and west of State gopher maintains its own burrow For other, larger, Thomomys species, Highway 7. There are prairie-type areas system, and occupancy of a burrow dispersal distances average about 131 ft within this described area that have system by multiple individuals occurs (40 m) (Barnes 1973, pp. 168–169; been surveyed multiple times with no only for brief periods during mating Williams and Baker 1976, p. 306; Daly detections of pocket gophers, so this seasons and prior to weaning young and Patton 1990, pp. 1286, 1288). Initial description is likely to be an (Ingles 1952, pp. 88–89; Witmer and results from dispersal research being overestimate of the subspecies’ range, Engeman 2007, p. 288; Marsh and Steele conducted on JBLM indicate that and likely includes areas surveyed 1992, p. 209). The mating system is juvenile Mazama pocket gophers in within the historical range of the probably polygynous (a single male Washington usually make movements Tacoma pocket gopher, which is mates with multiple females) and most from 13.1–32.8 ft (4–10 m), though these presumed extinct. We acknowledge that likely based on female choice. The adult may not be dispersal movements. One few surveys have been conducted off sex ratio has been reported as biased juvenile made a distinct dispersal JBLM lands in this area, and our specific toward females in most species of movement of 525 ft (160 m) in 1 day knowledge of the range of this pocket gophers that have been studied, (Olson 2012b, p. 5). Suitable dispersal subspecies could change in the future. often as much as 4:1 (Howard and habitat is free of barriers to gopher In Thurston County, the Olympia, Childs 1959, p. 296; Patton and Feder movement, and may need to contain Tenino, and Yelm pocket gophers are 1981, p. 917), though Witmer et al. foraging habitat if an animal is required known to occur east of Black River and (1996, p. 95) reported a sex ratio of close to make a long-distance dispersal move. south of Interstate 5 and State Highway to 1:1 in Mazama pocket gophers. Potential barriers include, but are not 101. There are no historical records of Sex ratio may vary with population limited to, forest edges, roads (paved Mazama pocket gophers occurring density, which is often a measure of and unpaved), abrupt elevation changes, outside of these areas within Thurston forage density and soil suitability for Scot’s broom thickets, (Olson 2012b, p. County. Soil series and soil series burrowing (Patton and Smith 1990, p. 3), highly cultivated lawns, inhospitable complexes that are known to support 6). One researcher concluded that a site soil types (Olson 2008, p. 4) or pocket gophers do occur outside of having a deep soil layer that was much substrates, development and buildings, these areas. Multiple surveys conducted less rocky had a pocket gopher slopes greater than 35 percent, and open west of the Black River have population density five times that of water. Barriers may be permeable, consistently yielded negative results another site having rocky soil (Steinberg meaning that they may impede (WDFW 2013a). For that reason, there is 1996, p. 26). A study of the relationship movement from place to place without some confidence that the Black River is between soil rockiness and pocket completely blocking it, or they may be a range-restrictive landscape feature. gopher distribution revealed a strong impermeable, meaning they cannot be Fewer surveys have been conducted negative correlation between the crossed. Permeable barriers, as well as north of Interstate 5 and State Highway proportion of medium-sized rocks in the lower quality dispersal habitats, may 101 (WDFW 2013a), but those also soil and presence of pocket gophers in present an intensified risk of mortality yielded negative results. It is possible eight of nine prairies sampled (medium to animals that use them (e.g., open that the Mazama pocket gopher may sized rocks were considered greater than areas where predation risk is increased occur north of these highways in 0.5 in (12.7 mm) but less than 2 in (50.8 during passage or a paved area where Thurston County, but we presently have mm) in diameter; Steinberg 1996, p. 32). vehicular mortality is high). no gopher occurrence data to support In observations of pocket gopher that potential. distribution on JBLM, pocket gophers Historical and Current Range and The present outermost boundaries of did not occur in areas with a high Distribution the ranges of each of the four Thurston/ percentage of Scot’s broom cover in the The following general description of Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket vegetation, or where mole populations the distribution of the Olympia, Roy gopher are likely approximately the were particularly dense (Steinberg 1995, Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm subspecies of same as they were historically. p. 26). A more recent and methodical the Mazama pocket gopher is based on However, entire prairie areas or portions study conducted throughout Thurston our current knowledge. Steinberg (1996, thereof within those outer perimeters and Pierce Counties also found that p. 9) surveyed all historical and many have been lost to development and pocket gopher presence was negatively currently known gopher sites. This woody plant encroachment (see associated with Scot’s broom; however, included all current and formerly Summary of Factors Affecting the the researcher found no relationship known occupied sites listed by the Species). Therefore, at present Mazama between pocket gopher presence and WDNR as having Carstairs, Nisqually, or pocket gophers likely occupy fewer total mole density (Olson 2011a, pp. 12–13). Spanaway gravelly or sandy loam soil, acres than they did historically, and also Pocket gophers have low vagility, and that WDNR determined to have occupy fewer total areas (that is, there meaning they have a poor dispersal vegetation that was intact prairie or are fewer populations within the area of capability (Williams and Baker 1976, p. restorable to prairie. WDFW and a suite their diminished range). These four 303). Thomomys mazama pocket of consultants have surveyed areas of subspecies are known to still occur in gophers are smaller in size than other potential gopher habitat in both their type locality locations (described sympatric (occurring within the same counties, usually associated with below), and the areas immediately geographic area; overlapping in proposed development (WDFW 2012). around those locations are considered to distribution) or peripatric (immediately WDFW has also surveyed areas in still be part of each subspecies’ range. adjacent to each other but not relation to various research studies, as Beyond these areas, uncertainty remains significantly overlapping in well as conducting distribution surveys as to the entire areal extent of each distribution) Thomomys species (Verts across five counties in 2012 (Thompson subspecies’ range, and where or if and Carraway 2000, p. 1). Both dispersal 2012a and b, entire). populations of subspecies coexist or distances and home range size are Based on current and historical abut one another; each subspecies’ range therefore likely to be smaller than for survey information, in Pierce County, is presumed to extend beyond their type other Thomomys species. Dispersal Roy Prairie pocket gophers occur localities. For this reason, the list of distances may vary based on surface or generally south and east of I–5, south of soils given for each subspecies below is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19775

shorter than the list given in our final 3). Soil series and soil series complexes of these new detections are adjacent to designation of critical habitat for in and around these areas that may other known occupied sites, such as the Mazama pocket gopher, published support Mazama pocket gophers include population at the Olympia Airport. The elsewhere in the Federal Register today. Alderwood, Everett, Godfrey, Kapowsin, full extent of these smaller The type locality for the Olympia McKenna, Nisqually, Norma, Spana, discontiguous sites is currently pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama Spanaway, Spanaway-Nisqually unknown, and no research has been pugetensis) was the prairie on and complex, and Yelm. done to determine whether or not these around the Olympia Airport, known as aggregations are ‘‘stepping stone’’ sites Bush Prairie (Dalquest and Scheffer Population Estimates/Status that may facilitate dispersal into nearby 1944b, p. 445). Gophers continue to There are few data on historical or unoccupied suitable habitat or if they occupy this area. Soil series and soil current population sizes of Mazama series complexes in and around this pocket gopher populations in are population sinks (sites that do not area that may support Mazama pocket Washington, although several local add to the overall population through gophers include Alderwood, Cagey, populations and one subspecies are recruitment). Others of these additional Everett, Indianola, McKenna, Nisqually, believed to be extinct. Knowledge of the occupied sites are separate locations, Norma, Spana, Spanaway-Nisqually past status of the Mazama pocket gopher seemingly unassociated (physically) complex, and Yelm. is limited to distributional information. with known populations (Tirhi 2008, in The Roy Prairie pocket gopher Recent surveys have focused on litt.). The largest known expanse of (Thomomys mazama glacialis) is found determining current distribution, areas occupied by any subspecies of the in the vicinity of the Roy Prairie and on primarily in response to development Mazama pocket gopher in Washington JBLM in Pierce County. The subspecies applications. In addition, in 2012, occur on JBLM (Roy Prairie and Yelm was described as plentiful in 1983 but WDFW initiated a 5-county-wide pocket gophers), and at the Olympia and by 1993 the extent of activity at the type distribution survey. Because the object Shelton airports (Olympia and Shelton locality was described as a ‘‘small of all of these surveys has mainly been pocket gophers, respectively). population’’ (Steinberg 1996, p. 24). Due to determine presence/absence only, to proximity to the subspecies’ type total population numbers for each A translocated population of Mazama locality, it is likely that gophers subspecies are unknown. As discussed pocket gophers occurs on Wolf Haven occurring on 91st Division Prairie and under Current and Historical Range and International’s land near Tenino, Marion Prairie in Pierce County contain Distribution, the precise boundaries of Washington. Between 2005 and 2008, this subspecies. Soil series and soil each subspecies’ range are not currently over 200 gophers from a variety of areas series complexes in and around this known. Local population estimates have in Thurston County (some from around area that may support Mazama pocket been reported but are based on using Olympia Airport (Olympia pocket gophers include Alderwood, Everett, apparent gopher mounds to delineate gopher, Thomomys mazama Everett-Spanaway complex, Everett- the number of territories, a method that pugetensis)) and some from near the Spanaway-Spana complex, Nisqually, has not been validated (Stinson 2005, intersection of Rich Road and Yelm Spana-Spanaway-Nisqually complex, pp. 40–41). Olson (2011a, p. 2) Highway (assumed to be Olympia and Spanaway. evaluated this methodology on pocket pocket gophers) were released into the Tenino pocket gophers (Thomomys gopher populations at the Olympia 38-ac (15-ha) mounded prairie site. mazama tumuli) were originally found Airport and Wolf Haven International. Based on the best available information, in the vicinity of the Rocky Prairie NAP, Although there was a positive we do not believe the property near Tenino (Dalquest and Scheffer relationship between the number of contained Mazama pocket gophers 1942, p. 96), a relatively small-extent mounds and number of pocket gophers, previously. Today pocket gophers prairie area. Gophers still reside there, the relationship varies spatially, continue to occupy the site (Tirhi 2011, but WDFW researchers have not seen temporally, and demographically (Olson in litt.); however, current population consistent occupancy of the area by 2011a, pp. 2, 39). Based on the results gophers in recent years (Olson 2010, in of Olson’s 2011 study we believe past estimates are not available. Another site, litt.), suggesting that the activity population estimates (Stinson 2005) West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area, has intermittently detected in the NAP may may have been too high. As there is no received a total number of 560 be attributable to individuals dispersing generally accepted standard survey translocated pocket gophers (T. m. in from a currently unidentified nearby protocol to determine population size pugetensis) from the Olympia Airport source. Soil series and soil series for pocket gophers, it is not currently between 2009 and 2011. Initial complexes in this area that may support possible to obtain an estimate of translocation efforts in 2009 were only Mazama pocket gophers include Everett, subspecies population sizes or trends. marginally successful; a majority of the Nisqually, Norma, Spanaway, and Overall habitat availability has declined, pocket gophers died within 3 days due Spanaway-Nisqually complex. however, and habitat has a finite ability to predation (Olson 2009, unnumbered Yelm pocket gophers (Thomomys to support pocket gophers, though the p. 3). Modified release techniques used mazama yelmensis) were originally number of gophers any one patch can in 2010 and 2011 resulted in improved found on prairies in the area of Grand support may vary due to a variety of survival rates of gophers translocated to Mound, Vail, and Rochester (Dalquest factors related to habitat quality and West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area (Olson and Scheffer 1944b, p. 446). Surveys population dynamics. For these reasons, 2011c, unnumbered p. 4). It is too soon conducted in 1993–1994 found no the Service concludes the overall to know if the population will become gophers near the towns of Vail or population trend of each of the four self-sustaining in the absence of Rochester (Steinberg 1995, p. 28). More Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the additional translocations. Here we note recent surveys have reported gophers Mazama pocket gopher is negative. that this experimental population was near Grand Mound, Littlerock, Rainier, Increased survey effort since 2007 inadvertently placed within what Rochester, and Vail (Krippner 2011, p. resulted in the identification of 31), though WDFW biologists question numerous additional occupied sites appears to have been the historical the validity of the reports near Littlerock located on private lands, especially in range of the Tenino pocket gopher (T. and Vail (WDFW 2013b, enclosure 1, p. Thurston County (WDFW 2013a). Some m. tumuli).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19776 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Summary of Factors Affecting the Factor A. The Present or Threatened In the south Puget Sound, Nisqually Species Destruction, Modification, or loamy soils appear to support high Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range densities of Mazama pocket gophers Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), (Stinson 2010a, in litt.; Olson 2008, p. and its implementing regulations at 50 Under this factor, the primary long- 6), the vast majority of which occur in CFR part 424, set forth the procedures term threats to the Mazama pocket developed areas of Thurston County, or for adding species to the Federal List of gopher are the loss, degradation, and within the Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife conversion of habitat, particularly to for the cities of Olympia, Tumwater, and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the urban development, successional and Lacey (Thurston County 2004; Act, we may list a species based on any changes to grassland habitat, and the WDFW 2009), where future of the following five factors: (A) The spread of invasive plants. The threats development is most likely to occur. present or threatened destruction, also include increased predation Where pocket gopher populations modification, or curtailment of its pressure, which is closely linked to presumably historically extended across habitat or range; (B) overutilization for habitat degradation and discussed more an undeveloped expanse of open prairie commercial, recreational, scientific, or fully under Factor C. (Dalquest and Scheffer 1942, pp. 95–96), educational purposes; (C) disease or The prairies of south Puget Sound are areas currently occupied by the four predation; (D) the inadequacy of part of one of the rarest ecosystems in Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) the United States (Noss et al. 1995, p. Mazama pocket gopher are now isolated other natural or manmade factors I–2; Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. v). to small fragmented patches due to affecting its continued existence. Listing Dramatic changes have occurred on the development and conversion of suitable actions may be warranted based on any landscape over the last 150 years, habitat to incompatible uses. of the above threat factors, singly or in including a 90 to 95 percent reduction As an example, the presumed combination. Each of these factors is in the prairie ecosystem. In the south extinction of the related Tacoma pocket discussed below. Puget Sound region, where most of gopher is likely linked directly to western Washington’s prairies In making this finding, information residential and commercial historically occurred, less than 10 pertaining to each of the subspecies in development, which has replaced nearly percent of the original prairie persists, question in relation to the five factors all gopher habitat in the historical range and only 3 percent remains dominated provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is of the subspecies (Stinson 2005, pp. 18, by native vegetation (Crawford and Hall discussed below. In considering what 34, 46). One of the historical Tacoma 1997, pp. 13–14). factors might constitute threats, we must pocket gopher sites was converted to a look beyond the mere exposure of the Development large gravel pit and golf course (Stinson 2005, pp. 47, 120; Steinberg 1996, pp. species to the factor to determine 24, 27). In addition, two gravel pits are whether the species responds to the Native prairies and grasslands have now operating on part of the site factor in a way that causes actual been severely reduced throughout the recognized as the type locality for the negative impacts to the species. If there range of the four Thurston/Pierce Roy Prairie pocket gopher (Stinson is exposure to a factor, but no response, subspecies of the Mazama pocket 2005, p. 42), and another is in operation or only a positive response, that factor gopher as a result of human activity due near Tenino (Stinson 2010b, in litt.) in is not a threat. If there is exposure and to conversion of habitat to residential the vicinity of the type locality for, and the species responds negatively, the and commercial development and the only known population of, the factor may be a threat and we then agriculture. Prairie habitat continues to Tenino pocket gopher. attempt to determine how significant a be lost, particularly to residential Multiple pocket gopher sites in Pierce threat it is. If the threat is significant, it development (Stinson 2005, p. 70), by removal and fragmentation of native and Thurston Counties may be, or have may drive or contribute to the risk of vegetation and the excavation, grading, been, lost to or degraded by gravel pit extinction of the species such that the and/or heavy equipment-caused development, golf course development, species warrants listing as an compaction of surfaces and conversion residential and commercial endangered or threatened species as to non-habitat (buildings, pavement, development (Stinson 2005, p. 42; those terms are defined by the Act. This other infrastructure), rendering soils Stinson 2007, in litt., and 2010b, in litt.) does not necessarily require empirical unsuitable for burrowing. Residential or military base development. Multiple proof of a threat. The combination of development is associated with prairies that used to contain exposure and some corroborating increased infrastructure such as new uninterrupted expanses of prairie evidence of how the species is likely road construction, which is one of the habitat suitable for pocket gophers impacted could suffice. The mere primary causes of landscape within the range of the four Thurston/ identification of factors that could fragmentation (Watts et al. 2007, p. 736). Pierce subspecies have been developed impact a species negatively is not Activities that accompany low-density to cities, neighborhoods, agricultural sufficient to compel a finding that development are correlated with lands, or military bases, and/or listing is appropriate; we require decreased levels of biodiversity, negatively impacted by such evidence that these factors are operative mortality to wildlife, and facilitated development, including Baker Prairie, threats that act on the species to the introduction of invasive species Bush Prairie, Chambers Prairie, Frost point that the species meets the (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, entire; Prairie, Grand Mound Prairie, Little definition of an endangered species or Watts et al. 2007, p. 736). In the south Chambers Prairie, Marion Prairie, Roy threatened species under the Act. Puget Sound lowlands, the glacial Prairie, Ruth Prairie, Woods Prairie, We considered and evaluated the best outwash soils and gravels underlying Violet Prairie, and Yelm Prairie. Some available scientific and commercial the prairies used by Mazama pocket of these prairie areas still contain information in evaluating the factors gophers are deep and valuable for use in smaller areas that support pocket affecting each of the Mazama pocket construction and road building, which gophers, and some appear to no longer gopher subspecies under consideration also leads to their degradation and support pocket gophers at all (WDFW in this rule. destruction. 2012).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19777

Where their properties coincide with development. The Tenino pocket gopher fires will kill encroaching woody gopher occupancy, many private land has a single known population, which vegetation and reset succession back to developers and landowners in Thurston has been detected during surveys on the bare ground, creating early successional County have been required to create Rocky Prairie NAP, although the vegetation conditions suitable for many gopher set-asides or agree to other intermittent nature of these detections native prairie species. Early mitigation activities in order to obtain suggests it must be part of a larger successional forbs and grasses are development permits from the County metapopulation that occurs across favored by Mazama pocket gophers. The (Tirhi 2008, in litt.). However, it is nearby areas that have not been historical fire frequency on prairies has unknown if any gophers will remain on accessible for surveys. No known been estimated to be 3 to 5 years (Foster these sites due to the small size of the development poses a threat to the NAP, 2005, p. 8). On sites where regular fires set-asides, extensive grading in some but any future conversion of the occur, there is a high complement of areas adjacent to set-asides, lack of surrounding area to incompatible land native plants and fewer invasive dedicated funding for enforcement or use would likely hinder the recovery of species. These types of fires promote the monitoring of set-aside maintenance this subspecies. The Yelm pocket maintenance of the native short-statured (Thurston County Long Range Planning gophers on Tenalquot prairie (which is plant communities favored by pocket and Resource Stewardship 2011, in litt., owned in large part by JBLM) and gophers. p. 2), and lack of control of predation by Scatter Creek Wildlife Area are also The result of fire suppression has domestic or feral cats and dogs. In secure from such residential and been the invasion of the prairies and oak addition, some landowners have commercial development, but the Yelm woodlands by native and nonnative received variances from Thurston pocket gopher habitat on Rock Prairie plant species (Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. County that allowed development to north of Old Highway 99 is in an area v; Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 146), occur without a requirement to set aside that is likely to be developed soon, notably woody plants such as the native areas for gophers. which may negatively affect any local Douglas-fir and the nonnative Scot’s A population of Olympia pocket populations in the vicinity. broom. On tallgrass prairies in gophers is located at and around the midwestern North America, fire Port of Olympia’s Olympia Airport, Loss of Ecological Disturbance suppression has led to degradation and which is sited on the historical Bush Processes, Invasive Species, and the loss of native grasslands (Curtis Prairie. Gophers on Bush Prairie are Succession 1959, pp. 296, 298; Panzer 2002, p. currently vulnerable to negative impacts The suppression and loss of 1297). On northwestern prairies, fire from proposed future development by ecological disturbance regimes across suppression has allowed Douglas-fir to the Port of Olympia and ongoing vast portions of the landscape, such as encroach on and outcompete native development by adjacent landowners. fire, has resulted in altered vegetation prairie vegetation for light, water, and The Port of Olympia has plans to structure in prairies and meadows and nutrients (Stinson 2005, p. 7). This develop large portions of the existing has facilitated invasion by native and increase in woody vegetation and grassland that likely supports the largest nonnative woody vegetation, rendering nonnative plant species has resulted in population of the Olympia pocket habitat unusable for the four Thurston/ less available prairie habitat overall and gopher in Washington (Stinson 2007, in Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket habitat that is unsuitable for and litt.; Port of Olympia and WDFW 2008, gopher. The basic ecological processes avoided by many native prairie species, p.1; Port of Olympia 2012). The that maintain prairies and meadows including the Mazama pocket gopher Olympia Airport is realigning the have disappeared from, or have been (Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 155; airport runway, which is in known altered on, all but a few protected and Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 2, 27; occupied habitat. They continue to work managed sites. Olson 2011a, pp. 12, 16). Pocket gophers with the Service and WDFW on Historically, the prairies and prefer early successional vegetation as mitigating airport expansion activities meadows of the south Puget Sound forage. Woody plants shade out the that may negatively impact gophers region of Washington are thought to forbs and grasses that gophers prefer to (Tirhi 2010, in litt.). have been actively maintained by the eat, and high densities of woody plants Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and native peoples of the region, who lived make travel both below and above the Yelm Pocket Gophers. The Olympia here for at least 10,000 years before the ground difficult for gophers. In locations pocket gopher has a population at the arrival of Euro-American settlers (Boyd with poor forage, pocket gophers tend to Olympia Airport that spans several 1986, entire; Christy and Alverson 2011, have larger territories, which may be hundred acres, and there are two p. 93). Frequent burning reduced the difficult or impossible to establish in translocated populations: One at West encroachment and spread of shrubs and densely forested areas. The probability Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area (some trees (Boyd 1986, entire; Chappell and of Mazama pocket gopher occupancy is individuals from the Olympia Airport) Kagan 2001, p. 42), favoring open much higher in areas with less than 10 and one at Wolf Haven (individuals grasslands with a rich variety of native percent woody vegetation cover (Olson from the Olympia Airport and some plants and animals. Following Euro- 2011a, p. 16). from near the intersection of Rich Road American settlement of the region in the On JBLM alone, over 16,000 acres and Yelm Highway). The population mid-19th century, fire was actively (6,477 ha) of prairie has converted to centered on the Olympia Airport could suppressed on grasslands, allowing Douglas-fir forest since the mid-19th be negatively impacted by plans for encroachment by woody vegetation into century (Foster and Shaff 2003, p. 284). development both on and off the airport, the remaining prairie habitat and oak Where controlled burns or direct tree while the two translocated populations woodlands (Franklin and Dyrness 1973 removal are not used as a management are currently secure from intense p. 122; Boyd 1986, entire; Kruckeberg tool, this encroachment will continue to commercial and residential 1991, p. 287; Agee 1993, p. 360; Altman cause the loss of open grassland habitats development pressures as they occur on et al. 2001, p. 262). for Mazama pocket gophers and is an conserved lands. The Roy Prairie pocket Fires on the prairie create a mosaic of ongoing threat for the species. gopher is known to occur across a large vegetation conditions, which serve to Restoration in some of the south Puget expanse of prairie on JBLM, which is maintain native prairie plant Sound grasslands has resulted in currently secure from the threat of communities. In some prairie patches temporary control of Scot’s broom and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

other invasive plants through the careful (Steinberg 1995, p. 26). A more recent pocket gophers in ‘‘priority habitat’’ and judicious use of herbicides, study on JBLM also found that pocket areas on base (areas that were proposed mowing, grazing, and fire. Fire has been gopher presence was negatively as critical habitat); enforcing restrictions used as a management tool to maintain associated with Scot’s broom (Olson on recreational use of occupied habitat native prairie composition and structure 2011a, pp. 12–13, 16). Some subspecies by dog owners and horseback riders; and is generally acknowledged to of the Mazama pocket gopher may and continuing to support the off-base improve the health and composition of disperse through forested areas or may recovery of the four Thurston/Pierce grassland habitat by providing a short- temporarily establish territories on subspecies of the Mazama pocket term nitrogen addition, which results in forest edges, but there is currently not gopher. a fertilizer effect to vegetation, thus enough data available to determine how Several moderate- to large-sized areas aiding grasses and forbs as they common this behavior may be or which occupied by Mazama pocket gophers resprout. subspecies employ it. The four have been identified on JBLM within Unintentional fires ignited by military Thurston/Pierce subspecies occur on the historical range of the Roy Prairie training burn patches of prairie grasses prairie-type habitats, many of which, if pocket gopher (Pierce County) and Yelm and forbs on JBLM on an annual basis. not actively managed to maintain pocket gopher (Thurston County). Their These light ground fires create a mosaic vegetation in an early-successional state, absence from some sites of what is of conditions within the grassland, have been invaded by shrubs and trees presumed to have been formerly maintaining a low vegetative structure that either preclude the gophers or limit suitable habitat may be related to of native and nonnative plant their ability to fully occupy the compaction of the soil due to years of composition, and patches of bare soil. landscape. Certain typical airport mechanized vehicle training, which Because of the topography of the management actions at civilian airports impedes burrowing activities of pocket landscape, fires create a patchy mosaic prevent woody vegetation from gophers (Steinberg 1995, p. 36). of areas that burn completely, some encroaching onto the areas surrounding Training infrastructure (roads, firing areas that do not burn, and areas where the runways and taxiways for flight ranges, bunkers) also degrades gopher consumption of the vegetation is mixed safety reasons. Woody vegetation habitat and may lead to reduced use of in its effects to the habitat. One of the encroachment is therefore not a threat at these areas by pocket gophers. For benefits of fire in grasslands is that it civilian airports. example, as part of the Grow the Army tends to kill regenerating conifers, and effort, JBLM has plans to add a third reduces the cover of nonnative shrubs Military Training such as Scot’s broom, although Scot’s Populations of Mazama pocket rifle range on the south impact area broom seed stored in the soil can be gophers occurring on JBLM are exposed where it overlaps with a densely stimulated by fire (Agee 1993, p. 367). to differing levels of training activities occupied Mazama pocket gopher site. Fire also improves conditions for many on the base. The DOD’s proposed The area may be usable by gophers native bulb-forming plants, such as actions under their ’’Grow the Army’’ when the project is completed; however, Camassia sp. (camas) (Agee and initiative include stationing 5,700 new construction of the rifle range may Dunwiddie 1984, p. 367). On sites soldiers, new combat service support result in removal of forage and direct where regular fires occur, such as on units, a combat aviation brigade, facility mortality of gophers through crushing of JBLM, there is a high complement of demolition and construction to support burrows (Stinson 2011, in litt.). Recent native plants and fewer invasive the increased troop levels, and survey access to the center of the species. These types of fires promote the additional aviation, maneuver, and live artillery impact area on 91st Division maintenance of the native short-statured fire training (75 FR 55313; September Prairie, where bombardment is plant communities favored by pocket 10, 2010). The increased training presumably of the highest intensity, did gophers. activities will affect nearly all training detect some unspecified level of Management practices such as areas at JBLM, resulting in an increased occupancy by the Roy Prairie pocket intentional burning and mowing require risk of accidental fires, and habitat gopher (WDFW 2013b, enclosure 1, p. expertise in timing and technique (i.e., destruction and degradation attributable 6). This apparently suitable central best management practices) to achieve to vehicle use in occupied areas, portion of the 91st Division Prairie is desired results. If applied at the wrong mounted and dismounted training, subject to repeated and ongoing season, frequency, or scale, fire and bivouac activities, and digging. While bombardment, which may create an mowing can be detrimental to the training areas on the base have degraded ecological trap for dispersing juveniles. restoration of native prairie species. habitat for the Mazama pocket gophers, JBLM training areas have varying levels Excessive and high-intensity burning with implementation of conservation of use; some allow excavation and off- can result in a lack of vegetation or measures, these areas still provide road vehicle use, while other areas have encourage regrowth to nonnative habitat for the Roy Prairie and Yelm restrictions that limit off-road vehicle grasses. Where such burning has subspecies that are found there. JBLM’s use. The ESMP specifically requires occurred over a period of more than 50 recently signed Mazama pocket gopher coordination between the JBLM Fish years on the artillery ranges of the Endangered Species Management Plan and Wildlife personnel and the JBLM JBLM, prairies are covered by nonnative (ESMP) will serve to minimize such entities responsible for training forbs and grasses instead of native threats across the base by redirecting activities (e.g., Range Support, battalion perennial bunchgrasses (Tveten and some training activities to areas outside commanders, and/or first field grade Fonda 1999, pp. 154–155). of occupied habitat, designating areas officers) to ensure all parties are aware Mazama pocket gophers are not where no vehicles are permitted, of where gopher-occupied areas occur in commonly found in areas colonized by designating areas where vehicles will relation to training activities, the effects Douglas-fir trees because gophers remain on roads only, and designating of training, and the potential require forbs and grasses of an early areas where no digging is allowed, ramifications of habitat destruction or successional stage for food (Witmer et among other conservation measures. animal mortality. Since military training al. 1996, p. 96). Mazama pocket gophers JBLM has further committed to has the potential to directly or indirectly observed on JBLM did not occur in areas enhancing and expanding suitable harm or harass Mazama pocket gophers, with high cover of Scot’s broom habitat for the Roy Prairie and Yelm we conclude that these activities will

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19779

negatively impact the Roy Prairie and pocket gopher presence was negatively has resulted in loss of forage vegetation Yelm pocket gophers. associated with Scot’s broom. Most for pocket gophers, as well as loss of JBLM has committed to operational restoration activities are unlikely to burrowing habitat, as tree and shrub restrictions on military training areas, in have direct impacts on pocket gophers, roots overtake the soils. Degradation of order to avoid and minimize potential though removal of nonnative vegetation habitat due to encroachment by woody negative impacts to Roy Prairie and is likely to temporarily decrease species such as Scot’s broom and Yelm pocket gophers on portions of the available forage for Mazama pocket Douglas-fir continues to be an ongoing base. Currently-occupied areas will be gophers and, if heavy equipment is used significant threat to the four Thurston/ buffered from training activities, with an during the removal (e.g., the mowing of Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket emphasis on occupied habitat in established Scot’s broom), burrows and gopher. ‘‘priority habitat’’ areas. Regular surveys individuals could be crushed. Where While restoration activities are will be conducted with a goal of best management practices are intended to improve prairie ecosystem determining distribution of Mazama implemented, these impacts could be function, some types of restoration have pocket gophers, protecting gophers and minimized or avoided. the potential to negatively impact their habitat from disturbance or Mazama pocket gophers, such as destruction, and determining Summary of Factor A instances where heavy equipment may population status. Where possible, Here we summarize the factors be used in occupied areas, especially JBLM will alleviate training pressure by associated with the destruction or when best management practices such transferring training activities to degradation of habitats for the four as avoidance of active areas are not unoccupied areas where encroaching Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the carefully implemented. forest has been removed from former Mazama pocket gopher. The Washington prairie ecosystem prairie habitat. This strategy has the Much of the habitat originally used by upon which the four Thurston/Pierce effect of both releasing large areas of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies has subspecies of the Mazama pocket land that were historically prairie and been fragmented and/or lost to gopher primarily depend has been providing unoccupied areas where development. Residential and reduced by an estimated 90 to 95 training is free of the risk of negatively commercial development in the percent over the past 150 years, with impacting Roy Prairie or Yelm pocket restricted remaining range of the four less than 10 percent of the native prairie gophers. While the Service fully Thurston/Pierce subspecies is expected remaining in the south Puget Sound supports the implementation of these to continue into the future, and is likely region today. Due to loss and impact minimization efforts and will to continue to result in substantial degradation of gopher habitat from continue to collaborate with DOD to negative impacts to the subspecies’ ongoing and future residential and address all aspects of training impacts habitat and populations. Development commercial development, on the species, not all adverse impacts removes forage vegetation, renders soils encroachment of shrubs and trees into of training on the pocket gophers can be unsuitable for burrowing by covering their prairie habitats, and negative fully avoided. Military training them with impervious surfaces or impacts from both current and future continues to pose a threat to the Roy compacting them, or by grading or military training (for Roy Prairie and Prairie and Yelm subspecies at this removing them. Proposed development Yelm subspecies), we conclude that the time. triggers Critical Areas Ordinances threats to the habitat of the four No military training occurs in the (CAOs) in Thurston and Pierce Counties Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the range of the Olympia or Tenino where the pocket gophers occur, but Mazama pocket gopher are significant. subspecies of the Mazama pocket resultant set-asides are not always Factor B. Overutilization for gopher. adequate to conserve local populations into the future (for further discussion on Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Restoration Activities existing regulatory mechanisms, see Educational Purposes Management for invasive species and Factor D). Overutilization of species results encroachment of woody plants requires Past military training at JBLM has when the number of individuals control through equipment, herbicides, likely negatively affected two of the four removed from the system exceeds the and other activities. While restoration Thurston/Pierce subspecies (Roy Prairie ability of the population of the species has conservation value for the and Yelm pocket gophers) by direct and to sustain its numbers or reduces subspecies, management activities to indirect mortality from bombardment populations of the species to a level implement restoration may also have and other types of military training, such that it is vulnerable to other directly negative impacts to the unintentional fires, and soils influences (threats) upon its survival. subspecies that are the target of habitat compaction on prairies. These threats This overutilization can result from restoration if best management practices are expected to continue in the future removal of individuals from the wild for are not followed. due to planned increases in stationing commercial, recreational, scientific, or In the south Puget Sound, Mazama and military training at JBLM, but the educational purposes. pocket gopher habitat has been negative impacts will be partially One local population of the Mazama degraded and encroached upon by ameliorated through the measures pocket gopher at Lost Lake Prairie in native and nonnative woody plants, outlined in the ESMP recently Mason County (Shelton pocket gopher) including Scot’s broom and Douglas-fir, developed for the conservation benefit may have been extirpated as a result of and several Washington State listed of the Mazama pocket gopher. collecting by Dalquest and Scheffer in noxious weeds, such as Euphorbia esula The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies the late 1930s or early 1940s (Dalquest (leafy spurge) and Centaurea sp. of the Mazama pocket gopher also face and Scheffer 1944a, p. 314), though (knapweed) (Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. threats from encroachment of native and based on the numbers of gophers v; Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 11). nonnative plant species into their removed, this must have already been a Steinberg (1995, p. 26) observed that prairie environments due to succession very small local population prior to pocket gophers on JBLM did not occur and fire suppression, and are such collection. Later, Steinberg (1996, in areas with thick Scot’s broom, and particularly negatively affected by the p. 23) conducted surveys in the vicinity Olson (2011a, pp. 12–13) also found that encroachment of woody vegetation. This and found no evidence of pocket

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19780 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

gophers. In addition, Mazama pocket from collection and outside of this Predation gophers in Washington were used in a controlled research, we have no rodenticide experiment as recently as information or evidence that Predation is a process of major 1995 (Witmer et al. 1996, p. 97). Witmer overutilization of any four Thurston/ importance in influencing the et al. (1996, p. 95) claim these were Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket distribution, abundance, and diversity likely Thomomys mazama tumuli gopher is an ongoing threat now or will of species in ecological communities. (Tenino pocket gophers), but these become a threat in the future. Generally, predation leads to changes in Lacey-area gophers may fall in the range both the population size of the predator of the Olympia pocket gopher. As Summary of Factor B and that of the prey. In unfavorable awareness of the plight of the Mazama environments, prey species are stressed In summary, although there is some or living at low population densities pocket gopher subspecies in evidence of historical mortality from Washington has grown, the scientific such that predation is likely to have overutilization of the Mazama pocket negative effects on all prey species, thus community has found less invasive gopher, and there may have been some ways to monitor and study these lowering species richness. In addition, recent mortality from utilization of the when a nonnative predator is animals. Further, the agricultural and Mazama pocket gopher for research silvicultural communities are introduced to the ecosystem, negative purposes, we have no information to effects on the prey population may be developing new practices that allow for indicate that these activities have both crop production and the use of higher than those from co-evolved negatively impacted the subspecies as a native predators. The effect of predation suitable habitat by Mazama pocket whole, and have no information to gophers. may be magnified when populations are suggest that overutilization is presently small, and the disproportionate effect of Beyond direct collection of occurring or will become a significant individuals, research may affect pocket predation on declining populations has threat in the future. In addition, we have been shown to drive rare species even gopher populations through other no evidence that commercial, avenues as well. During the initial further towards extinction (Woodworth recreational, scientific, or educational 1999, pp. 74–75). translocation experiments and research use is occurring at a level that would conducted by WDFW at Wolf Haven and pose a threat to any of the four Predation has an impact on West Rocky Prairie, respectively, Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the populations of the four Thurston/Pierce between 2005 and 2011, pocket gopher Mazama pocket gopher. subspecies of the Mazama pocket mortality was extremely high (Linders gopher. For these four subspecies, 2008, p. 9; Olson 2011c; Olson 2012a, in Factor C. Disease or Predation urbanization has resulted in not only litt.). In the case of the Wolf Haven habitat loss, but the increased exposure Disease translocations, gophers were removed to feral and domestic cats and dogs. from development sites near Olympia Most healthy ecosystems include Domestic cats are known to have serious Airport and at the intersection of Yelm organisms such as viruses, bacteria, impacts on small mammals and birds Highway and Rich Road, where pocket fungi, and parasites that cause disease. and have been implicated in the decline gopher mortality would have likely Healthy wildlife and ecosystems have of several endangered and threatened occurred as a result of direct negative evolved defenses to fend off most mammals, including marsh rabbits in impacts due to site development diseases before they have devastating Florida and the salt-marsh harvest (crushing of individuals and burrows impacts. An ecosystem with high levels mouse in California (Ogan and Jurek from heavy machinery excavation, of biodiversity (diversity of species and 1997, p. 89). Domestic cats and dogs grading, and construction, etc.). Pocket genetic diversity within species) is more have been specifically identified as gophers continue to occupy Wolf resilient to the impacts of disease common predators of pocket gophers Haven, despite there being no known because there are greater possibilities (Wight 1918, p. 21; Henderson 1981, p. occurrence records for the site prior to that some species and individuals 233; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B–21) and translocations. Similarly, pocket within a species have evolved at least two Mazama pocket gopher gophers were not known to inhabit West resistance, or if an entire species is lost, locations were found as a result of Rocky Prairie prior to translocation that there will likely be another species house cats bringing home pocket gopher experiments there, though West Rocky to fill the empty niche. carcasses (WDFW 2001, entire). Prairie was likely contiguous with Informal interviews with area biologists Rocky Prairie in the recent past, making Where ecosystems are not healthy due document multiple incidents of it probable that West Rocky Prairie was to a loss of biodiversity and threats such domestic pet predation on pocket within the historical range of the Tenino as habitat loss, climate change, gophers generally as well as Mazama pocket gopher. In the case of the West pollutants or invasive species, wildlife pocket gophers specifically (Clouse Rocky Prairie translocated population, and ecosystems are more vulnerable to 2012, in litt.; Chan 2013, in litt.; Skriletz pocket gophers were taken from the emerging diseases. Diseases caused by 2013 in litt.; Wood 2013 in litt.). There Olympia Airport, where a large and or carried by invasive species can be is also one recorded instance of a well-studied expanse of densely particularly severe threats, as native WDFW biologist being presented with a occupied Mazama pocket gopher habitat wildlife may have no natural immunity dead Mazama pocket gopher by a dog occurs in Thurston County. Although no to them (National Wildlife Federation during an east Olympia, Washington, comparative analysis has been 2012). site visit in 2006 (Burke Museum 2012; conducted on the number of individuals Our review of the best available McAllister 2013, in litt.). Some local at the Olympia Airport site before and scientific and commercial data found no populations of the Mazama pocket after the translocations, there is no evidence to indicate that disease is a gopher occur in areas where people evidence that the source population threat to the Mazama pocket gopher recreate with their dogs, bringing these suffered any adverse effects from the subspecies found in Washington. We potential predators into environments research conducted. The analysis and conclude that disease is not a threat to that may otherwise be relatively free of evaluation of this research is ongoing. the subspecies now, nor do we them, consequently increasing the risks Aside from historical negative impacts anticipate it to become so in the future. to individual pocket gophers and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19781

populations that may be small and the negative impacts of active military develop cooperative plans with the isolated. training through conservation measures Secretaries of Agriculture and the The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies outlined in the ESMP. The relatively Interior for natural resources on public of the Mazama pocket gopher occur in fewer known occurrences of the Roy lands. The Sikes Act Improvement Act rapidly developing areas. Local Prairie pocket gopher that have been of 1997 requires Department of Defense populations that survive commercial identified off the base are likely subject installations to prepare Integrated and residential development (adjacent to increased predation pressure from Natural Resources Management Plans to and within habitat) are potentially feral and domestic cats and dogs where (INRMPs) that provide for the vulnerable to extirpation by domestic they are situated closely to developed conservation and rehabilitation of and feral cats and dogs (Henderson areas. The Tenino pocket gopher is not natural resources on military lands 1981, p. 233; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B– currently surrounded by properties consistent with the use of military 21). As stated previously, predation is a subject to increasing development, and installations to ensure the readiness of natural part of the Mazama pocket thus predation pressure for the Tenino the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate, gopher’s life history; however, the effect pocket gopher is likely restricted to that to the maximum extent practicable, of predation may be magnified when of native predators, such as coyotes and ecosystem management principles and populations are small and habitat is birds of prey. Therefore, based on our provide the landscape necessary to fragmented. The disproportionate effect review of the best available scientific sustain military land uses. While of additional predation on declining and commercial information, we INRMPs are not technically regulatory populations has been shown to drive conclude that predation is currently a mechanisms because their rare species even further towards threat to the four Thurston/Pierce implementation is subject to funding extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74– subspecies of the Mazama pocket availability, they can be an added 75). Predation, particularly from gopher now and will continue to be in conservation tool in promoting the nonnative species, will likely continue the future. recovery of endangered and threatened to be a threat to the four Thurston/ species on military lands. Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing On JBLM in Washington, several gopher now and in the future. This is Regulatory Mechanisms policies and an INRMP are in place to particularly likely where development Under this factor, we examine provide conservation measures to abuts gopher habitat, resulting in whether existing regulatory mechanisms grassland-associated species, including increased numbers of cats and dogs in are inadequate to address the threats to the endangered species, Taylor’s the vicinity, and in areas where people the subspecies discussed under the checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas recreate with their dogs—particularly if other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the editha taylori), and threatened species, dogs are off-leash and not prevented Act requires the Service to take into streaked horned lark (Eremophila from harassing wildlife. In such areas account ‘‘those efforts, if any, being alpestris strigata), that occupy training where local populations of pocket made by any State or foreign nation, or lands on the military base. JBLM in gophers are already small, this any political subdivision of a State or partnership with local agencies and additional predation pressure (above foreign nation, to protect such species. nongovernmental organizations has natural levels of predation) is expected . . .’’ In relation to Factor D under the provided funding to conserve these to further negatively impact population Act, we interpret this language to species through the acquisition of new numbers. require the Service to consider relevant conservation properties and Federal, State, and Tribal laws, management actions intended to Summary of Factor C regulations, and other such mechanisms improve the amount and distribution of Based on our review of the best that may minimize any of the threats we habitat for these species. JBLM has also available information, we conclude that describe in threat analyses under the provided funding to reintroduce disease is not a threat to the four other four factors, or otherwise enhance declining species into suitable habitat Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the conservation of the subspecies. We give on and off military lands. In June 2011, Mazama pocket gopher now, nor do we strongest weight to statutes and their representatives from DOD (Washington, expect it to become a threat in the implementing regulations and to DC, office) met with all conservation future. management direction that stems from partners to assess the success of this Areas of suitable occupied habitat for those laws and regulations. An example program and make decisions as to future the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of would be State governmental actions funding needs. Support from the the Mazama pocket gopher are small enforced under a State statute or Garrison Commander of JBLM and all and declining and often occur as constitution, or Federal action under partners resulted in an increase in fragments of isolated habitat islands, statute. funding for habitat management and frequently in proximity to increasingly The following section includes a acquisition projects for these species on urbanized areas with high numbers of discussion of Federal, State, Tribal, or JBLM. cats and dogs. This consideration, in local laws, regulations, or treaties that The Service has worked closely with conjunction with the fact that feral and apply to the Mazama pocket gopher. It the DOD to develop conservation domestic cats and dogs are known includes legislation for Federal land measures for military training as well as predators of Mazama pocket gophers, management agencies and State and recreation activities that occur within leads us to conclude that predation by Federal regulatory authorities affecting ‘‘priority habitat’’ areas (areas that were feral and domestic pets (cats and dogs) land use or other relevant management. proposed as critical habitat) for the Roy likely has a negative impact on these Prairie and Yelm Mazama pocket subspecies. At present, this impact is United States Federal Laws and gophers on JBLM. These include, but are likely greatest on the Olympia and Yelm Regulations not limited to, areas where no vehicles subspecies, which occur in close No Federal laws in the United States are permitted on occupied habitat, proximity to intensely developed areas; specifically address the Mazama pocket where vehicles are restricted to roads, the Roy Prairie pocket gopher occurs gopher or any of its subspecies. and where digging is prohibited. The primarily on JBLM, where DOD is The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) ESMP further dictates the establishment working with the Service to diminish authorizes the Secretary of Defense to of buffer zones around occupied areas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19782 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

and specific coordination and training Code of Washington (RCW) 77.12.020). Washington, we conclude that, while requirements for entities responsible for The Mazama pocket gopher is currently the State’s regulations may protect troops who may train in occupied listed as a threatened species by WDFW individuals of the subspecies, they do habitat (e.g., Range Support, battalion (the State does not list each of the not guarantee protection for the four commanders, and/or first field grade Mazama pocket gopher subspecies as Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the officers). Rules regarding recreation will threatened individually; all eight Mazama pocket gopher from further be fully funded and enforced in all subspecies of the Mazama pocket population declines associated with occupied areas. gopher that occur in Washington are habitat loss or inappropriate JBLM policies include Army listed by the State as threatened as a management, nor do they provide for Regulation 420–5, which covers the single taxon). State-listed species are these subspecies’ long-term population INRMP, and AR–200–1. This is an protected from direct take and/or viability. agreement between each troop and DOD malicious ’ take’, but their habitat is not Local Laws and Regulations management that actions taken by each protected (RCW 77.15.120). State soldier will comply with restrictions listings generally consider only the The Washington State Growth placed on specific Training Areas, or status of the species within the State’s Management Act (GMA) of 1990 range lands. Within the INRMP, the borders, and do not depend upon the requires all jurisdictions in the State to wildlife branch of the DOD has same considerations as a potential designate and protect critical areas. The developed an updated ESMP that Federal listing. The Washington State State defines five broad categories of provides site-specific management and Growth Management Act of 1990 critical areas, including: (1) Wetlands; protection actions that are taken on requires counties to develop CAOs that (2) areas with critical recharging effects military lands for the conservation of address development impacts to on aquifers used for potable water; (3) the Mazama pocket gopher. The ESMP important wildlife habitats, thus habitat fish and wildlife habitat conservation provides assurances of available funding receives protection through county or areas; (4) frequently flooded areas; and to achieve intended goals of Mazama municipal CAOs. CAOs may require (5) geologically hazardous areas. pocket gopher conservation. environmental review and habitat Quercus garryana (Oregon white oak) Compliance, implementation, and management plans for development habitat and prairie both predominantly effectiveness monitoring reports will be proposals that affect State-listed species, fall into the category of fish and wildlife submitted annually to the USFWS. depending on the county. The specifics habitat conservation areas, though due ESMPs require regular updates to and implementation of CAOs vary by to the coarse nature of prairie soils and account for local or rangewide changes county (see specific discussions below). the presence of wet prairie habitat in species status. INRMPs also have a The Mazama pocket gopher (i.e., all across the landscape, critical area monitoring component that would subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher in protections for crucial aquifer recharge require modifications in the form of, or Washington) is a Priority Species under areas and wetlands may also address adaptive management to, planning WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species some prairie habitat protection. The actions when the result of that specific Program (WDFW 2008, pp. 19, 80, 120). GMA requires counties to develop CAOs action may differ from the intent of the As Priority Species, the four Thurston/ that address development impacts to planned action. Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket important wildlife habitats. The Under the Sikes Act, the JBLM INRMP gopher benefit from some protection of specifics and implementation of CAOs (and associated ESMP) includes their habitats under environmental vary by county, although the Mazama provisions that will promote protection reviews of applications for county or pocket gopher is recognized as a species and conservation practices to support municipal development permits of local importance in the CAOs of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of (Stinson 2005, pp. 46, 70). WDFW Mason, Thurston, and Pierce Counties. the Mazama pocket gopher (due to provides Priority Habitats and Species In Thurston County, when development conservation efforts they help fund both Management Recommendations to local activities are proposed where pocket on- and off-base). These efforts will government permit reviewers, gophers are likely to be present, the facilitate the prevention of further applicants, consultants, and landowners developer must determine if gophers are population declines in the Roy Prairie in order to avoid, minimize, and present, assess the impact to gophers, and Yelm pocket gophers associated mitigate negative impacts to Mazama and submit a Habitat Management Plan. with habitat loss or destruction on JBLM pocket gophers and their habitat Habitat Management Plans have been properties. However, current military (WDFW 2011, p.1). These developed for Mazama pocket gophers actions are likely to continue to result recommendations are not regulatory, but for many sites in Thurston County since in the mortality of individual animals are based on best available science. 2006. In Pierce County, a Habitat and damage or destroy occupied habitat, WDNR manages approximately 66,000 Assessment Report is required only even with the above mitigating efforts ac (26,710 ha) of lands as Natural Area where Mazama pocket gophers are implemented by the military. Thus we Preserves (NAP). NAPs provide the known to be present (but not in areas conclude that the regulatory highest level of protection for excellent where they are likely to be present, but mechanisms in place at JBLM are not examples of unique or typical land have not been documented), resulting in sufficient to fully offset the negative features in Washington State. These substantially weaker protection for the impacts of military training activities to NAPs provide protection for the Roy Prairie pocket gophers that exist off the Roy Prairie and Yelm pocket Mazama pocket gopher where they JBLM. gophers where they occur on the base. overlap with Mazama pocket gopher Due to their State-listed status in habitat, and, based on their proactive Washington, Mazama pocket gophers State Laws and Regulations management, we do not find that the are included in three county CAOs in Although the State of Washington has inadequacy of existing regulatory the State (Mason, Pierce, and Thurston). no State Endangered Species Act, the mechanisms poses a threat to the four Within counties, CAOs apply to all Washington Fish and Wildlife Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the unincorporated areas, but incorporated Commission has authority to list species Mazama pocket gopher on WDNR lands. cities are required to independently as endangered or threatened (in addition Based on our review of the existing address critical areas within their UGA. to other possible designations; Revised regulatory mechanisms for the State of The incorporated cities within the range

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19783

of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies pocket gopher may be present at a site monitoring of HMP set-asides due to of the Mazama pocket gopher in and negatively impacted by the land use lack of available staff (Clark 2013, in Washington are: (1) Olympia, Lacey, activity. After a field review, if prairie litt.). Consequently, for the Mazama Rainier, Tenino, Tumwater, and Yelm habitat, gopher soils, or one of these pocket gophers negatively impacted by (Thurston County); and (2) Roy (Pierce species is found on the site and impacts development in Thurston County, the County). Actions in gopher habitat to the prairie habitat or occupied area contribution of these sites to under such ordinances are intended to cannot be avoided through changes to maintaining pocket gopher populations protect and minimize impacts to the development application, the and viability is unreliable for long-term gophers and their habitats. As such, County requires a habitat management conservation. development applications in suspected plan (HMP) to be developed, typically For a few property owners in gopher areas have spurred surveys and by a consultant for the landowner, in Thurston County, the size of the set- habitat assessments by WDFW or accordance with WDFW’s Priority aside would have precluded the contractors in Thurston and Pierce Habitats and Species Management proposed use of the properties. In these Counties. While survey techniques are Recommendations. This HMP specifies cases, landowners may apply for a more-or-less consistent from site to site, how site development should occur, ‘‘reasonable use exception,’’ which potential development properties found and assists developers in achieving would allow development to proceed if to be occupied by gophers are subject to compliance with CAO requirements to approved. In some cases, gophers that varied species protection measures. minimize negative impacts to the prairie could be live-trapped have been moved These measures have included habitat habitat and species. The HMPs typically (translocated) to other locations. These set-asides, on-site fencing, signage, and include onsite fencing and semi-annual were termed emergency translocations. suggested guidelines for long-term mowing. Mitigation for prairie impacts In cases such as this, or where the set- management. These measures are may also be required, on-site or off aside doesn’t wholly overlap all inadequate for protecting the site from (Thurston County 2012, p. 2). HMPs are occupied habitat, destruction of nonnative predators, ensuring long-term required to be submitted to WDFW for occupied habitats (due to building habitat functioning or population review as part of the permitting process, construction, grading or paving over, viability, providing connectivity to but WDFW biologists only review HMPs etc.) likely results in death of adjacent habitat areas, or prompting as staff time allows, and the permitting individuals due to the gopher’s corrective management actions if the county or city is not required to underground existence and sedentary biological functioning of the set-aside incorporate WDFW comments, thus nature, which makes them vulnerable in declines. WDFW review is not a required step situations where their burrows are In 2009, the Thurston County Board before implementation by a developer. crushed. of Commissioners adopted Interim After HMP development, the County County-level CAOs do not apply to Ordinance No. 14260, which may still vacate all or part of the HMP incorporated cities within county strengthened protections for prairie and if it determines a reasonable use boundaries, thus the incorporated cities Oregon white oak habitat in exception (discussed towards the end of of Lacey, Olympia, Rainier, Tenino, consideration of the best available this section) is appropriate. science. Thurston County worked with Tumwater, and Yelm that overlap the the Service and WDFW to include an Measures are implemented with ranges of the four Thurston/Pierce up-to-date definition of prairie habitat varying degrees of biological subspecies of the Mazama pocket and to delineate soils where prairie assessment, evaluation, and monitoring gopher do not provide the same habitat is likely to occur. In July 2010, to ensure ecological success. Unless a specificity of protection as the Thurston the ordinance was renewed and reasonable use exception is determined County CAO. Below we address the amended, including revisions to the by Thurston County, development relevant city ordinances that overlap the prairie soils list and changes to properties occupied by Mazama pocket subspecies’ ranges. We conclude below administrative language. Since July gophers are required to set aside fenced, with a summary of our evaluation of 2010, the interim prairie ordinance has signed areas for pocket gopher these existing ordinances in regard to been renewed on a 6-month basis. The protection that must be maintained into the conservation of the four Thurston/ provisions of this ordinance were made the future. However, the required Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket permanent with the adoption of fencing is often inadequate to exclude gopher. Thurston County’s CAO in July 2012. predators, and the size of the set-asides The City of Lacey. The City of Lacey Several prairie species were also may not be large enough to sustain a CAO includes in its definition of included as important species subject to population of gophers over time. ‘‘critical area’’ any area identified as critical areas regulation, including three Additionally, there appears to be no habitat for a Federal or State subspecies of the Mazama pocket mechanism in place for oversight to endangered, threatened, or sensitive gopher (for Thurston County, these ensure that current and future species or State-listed priority habitat, would be the Olympia, Tenino, and landowners are complying with the and calls these Habitat Conservation Yelm pocket gophers, although the CAO habitat maintenance requirements, so Areas (HCAs) (Lacey Municipal Code doesn’t separate out subspecies by within these set-asides, pocket gopher (LMC) 14.33.060). These areas are name) (Thurston County 2012, p. 1). habitat may become unsuitable over defined through individual contract Implementation of the Thurston time. Because monitoring is a County with qualified professional biologists on County CAOs includes delineation of policy issue, with no dedicated funding a site-by-site basis as development is prairie soils at the time of any land use (Thurston County Long Range Planning proposed. The Code further states that, application. County staff use the and Resource Stewardship 2011, in litt., ‘‘No development shall be allowed presence of prairie soils and soils p. 2), legal procedures to ensure within a habitat conservation area or identified as Mazama pocket gopher performance, permanency, funding, and buffer [for a habitat conservation area] habitat as well as known presence of enforcement for long-term site with which state or federally these or other prairie-dependent species stewardship are inadequate. endangered, threatened, or sensitive to determine whether prairie habitat Enforcement is largely complaint species have a primary association’’ and/or soils that support the Mazama driven, and there is no scheduled (LMC 14.33.117).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19784 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

The City of Olympia. The City of by a ‘‘qualified professional’’ as plant and animal species’’ (17.08.010 Olympia’s municipal code states that development is proposed and the HCAs A4b). ‘‘The Department [City] may restrict the are required to be consistent with the The City of Roy. The CAO for the city uses and activities of a development recommendations issued by the WDFW of Roy (Pierce County) defines HCAs proposal which lie within one thousand (Tumwater Municipal Code (TMC) according to WDFW PHS (Roy feet of important habitat or species 16.32.60). Species of local importance Municipal Code (RMC) 10–5E1 C), location,’’ defined by WDFW’s Priority are defined as locally significant species alongside habitats and species of local Habitat and Species (PHS) Management that are not State-listed as threatened, importance as identified by the City Recommendations of 1991, as amended endangered, or sensitive, but live in (RMC 10–5E1 D). HCAs are delineated (Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) Tumwater and are of special importance by qualified professional fish and 18.32.315 B). When development is to the citizens of Tumwater for cultural wildlife biologists (RMC 10–5–9 A5). proposed within 1,000 ft (305 m) of or historical reasons, or if the City is a These HCAs are subject to mitigation if habitat of a species designated as critically significant portion of its range direct impacts to the HCA are unavoidable (RMC 10–5–13 E3). important by Washington State, the (TMC 16.32.055 A). TMC 16.32.050 A.1 Olympia CAO requires the preparation Summary. County and City CAOs further states that Areas with which have been crafted with the intent of of a formal ‘‘Important Habitats and State or Federally designated Species Management Plan’’ unless preserving the maximum amount of endangered, threatened, and sensitive waived by WDFW (OMC 18.32.325). biodiversity while at the same time The City of Rainier. The City of species have a primary association are encouraging high-density development Rainier municipal code identifies considered fish and wildlife habitat within their respective UGAs. County ‘‘critical areas as defined by RCW areas that are to be protected within the and City CAOs require that potential 36.70A.030 to include . . . fish and city of Tumwater. Tumwater is fish and wildlife habitat be surveyed by wildlife habitat areas’’ (Rainier considered a ‘‘critically significant qualified professional habitat biologists Municipal Code (RMC) 18.100.030A) portion of a species’ range’’ if the as development is proposed (with the and further ‘‘protects unique, fragile, species’ population would be divided exception of Rainier, where a qualified and valuable elements of the into nonviable populations if it is city staffer may complete the survey). It environment, including critical fish and eliminated from Tumwater’’ (TMC should be noted that, although the cities wildlife habitat’’ (RMC 180.100.030D). 16.32.055 A2). Species of local of Rainier, Roy, Tenino, and Yelm have The City of Rainier mandates protective importance are further defined as ‘‘State language relating to protection of State- measures that include avoiding impact monitor’’ or ‘‘candidate species’’ where listed or locally important species, none to critical areas first and mitigation Tumwater is a significant portion of its of these four cities are presently second (RMC 18.100.B030B). Fish and range such that a significant reduction requiring surveys for Mazama pocket wildlife habitat critical areas may be or elimination of the species from gophers to be conducted as part of the designated either by a contracted Tumwater would result in changing the development permit review process, ‘‘qualified professional’’ or a qualified status of the species to that of State despite the fact that it is listed by the city employee (RMC 18.100.H040H). endangered, threatened, or sensitive State as a threatened species, as is the The City of Tenino. The City of (TMC 16.32.055 A3). case in the cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tenino municipal code gives The City of Yelm. The municipal code Tumwater (WDFW 2013b, enclosure 1, Development Regulations for Critical of Yelm states that it will ‘‘regulate all p. 8). An HCA is determined according to the WDFW PHS list, which is Areas and Natural Resource Lands that uses, activities, and developments include fish and wildlife habitat areas associated with WDFW management within, adjacent to, or likely to affect (Tenino Municipal Code (TMC) recommendations for each habitat and one or more critical areas, consistent 18D.10.030 A) and further ‘‘protects species. If an HCA is identified at a site, with the best available science’’ (Yelm unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the development of the parcel is then Municipal Code (YMC) 14.08.010 E4f) the environment, including critical fish subject to the CAO regulations. and mandates that ‘‘all actions and and wildlife habitat’’ (TMC 18D.10.030 Mitigation required by each County or D). The City of Tenino references the developments shall be designed and City CAO prioritizes reconsideration of WDNR Critical Areas Fish and Wildlife constructed to avoid, minimize, and the proposed development action in Habitat Areas-Stream Typing Map and restore all adverse impacts.’’ Further, it order to avoid the impact to the HCA. the WDFW PHS Program and PHS Maps states that ‘‘no activity or use shall be These efforts are laudable, but are as sources to identify fish and wildlife allowed that results in a net loss of the unlikely to prevent isolation of local habitat (TMC 18D.10.140 E1, 2). The functions or values of critical areas’’ populations of sensitive species. City also defines critical fish and (YMC 14.08.010 G) and ‘‘no Increased habitat fragmentation and wildlife species habitat areas as those development shall be allowed within a degradation, decreased habitat areas known to support or have ‘‘a habitat conservation area or buffer connectivity, and pressure from onsite primary association with State or which state or federally endangered, and offsite factors are not fully taken Federally listed endangered, threatened, threatened, or sensitive species have a into consideration in the establishment or sensitive species of fish or wildlife primary association, except that which of these mitigation sites. This may be (specified in 50 CFR 17.11, 50 CFR is provided for by a management plan due to a lack of standardization in 17.12, WAC 232–12–011) and which, if established by WDFW or applicable assessment protocols, though efforts altered, may reduce the likelihood that state or federal agency’’ (YMC have been made on the part of WDFW the species will survive and reproduce 14.080.140 D1a). The City of Yelm to implement training requirements for over the long term’’ (TMC 18D.40.020A, municipal code states that by ‘‘limiting all ‘‘qualified biologists’’ who survey for B). development and alteration of critical pocket gopher presence. Variability in The City of Tumwater. The City of areas’’ it will ‘‘maintain healthy, the expertise and training of ‘‘qualified Tumwater CAO outlines protections for functioning ecosystems through the habitat biologists’’ has led to broad HCAs and for ‘‘habitats and species of protection of unique, fragile, and variation in the application of CAO local importance.’’ Tumwater’s HCAs valuable elements of the environment, guidelines in completion of the HMPs. are established on a case-by-case basis and . . . conserve the biodiversity of Coupled with the lack of requirement

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19785

for WDFW to review and approve every be used by the Yelm pocket gopher traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading HMP and flexibility in application of within its range. Military training, to increasingly lower genetic diversity, county and city CAO guidelines, this despite the policies and regulations in with consequent negative effects on variability does not equally or place on JBLM, will continue to result evolutionary potential. adequately support the conservation of in mortality events and loss and To date, of the eight subspecies of the Mazama pocket gophers and their destruction of occupied Roy Prairie and Mazama pocket gopher in Washington, habitat. Yelm pocket gopher habitat; thus we only the Olympic pocket gopher has Connectivity of populations, conclude that the inadequacy of existing been documented as having low genetic abundance of resources (e.g., forage regulatory mechanisms poses a threat to diversity (Welch and Kenagy 2008, p. 7), habitat), and undisturbed habitat are the Roy Prairie and Yelm subspecies on although the six other extant subspecies three primary factors affecting plant and JBLM lands. In addition, as discussed in have local populations that are small, animal populations. The piecemeal the Summary of Factors Affecting the fragmented, and physically isolated pattern that development typically Species, where these subspecies occur from one another. The four Thurston/ creates is difficult to reconcile with the off JBLM lands and are not covered by Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket needs of the Mazama pocket gopher the ESMP, we do not consider existing gopher face threats from further loss or within a given location. Further, regulatory mechanisms to be adequate fragmentation of habitat. Historically, previously common species may to ameliorate threats to the subspecies Mazama pocket gophers probably become uncommon due to disruption by (in Pierce County for the Roy Prairie persisted by continually recolonizing development, and preservation of small pocket gopher and Thurston County for habitat patches after local extinctions. pockets of habitat is unlikely to prevent the Yelm pocket gopher). This process, in concert with extirpation of some species without The Washington CAOs generally widespread development and intensive species management, which is provide conservation measures to conversion of habitat, has resulted in beyond the scope of individual CAOs. minimize habitat removal and direct widely separated populations since The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of effects to the four Thurston/Pierce intervening habitat corridors are now the Mazama pocket gopher are affected subspecies of the Mazama pocket gone, likely stopping much of the by habitat loss through development gopher. However, habitat removal and natural recolonization that historically and conversion. Protective measures degradation, direct loss of individuals, occurred (Stinson 2005, p. 46). undertaken while development of lands increased fragmentation, decreased Although the four Thurston/Pierce is taking place may provide benefits for connectivity, and the lack of consistent subspecies of the Mazama pocket these species; however, based on our regulatory mechanisms to address the gopher are not known to have low review of the Washington State, County, threats associated with these effects genetic diversity, small population sizes and City regulatory mechanisms, we continues to occur. at most sites, coupled with disjunct and conclude that these measures are Based upon our review of the best fragmented habitat, may contribute to currently inadequate to protect the four commercial and scientific data further population declines. Little is Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the available, we conclude that the existing known about the local or rangewide Mazama pocket gopher from further regulatory mechanisms are inadequate reproductive success of the four population declines associated with to reduce the threats experienced by the Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the habitat loss, inappropriate management, four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher. and loss of connectivity. Mazama pocket gopher now or in the Climate Change future. Summary of Factor D Our analyses under the Act include In summary, the existing regulatory Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade consideration of ongoing and projected mechanisms described above are not Factors Affecting Its Continued changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ sufficient to significantly reduce or Existence and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the remove the negative threats presently Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated experienced by the four Thurston/Pierce Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’ subspecies of the Mazama pocket Populations, and Low Reproductive refers to the mean and variability of gopher. Lack of essential habitat Success different types of weather conditions protection under State laws leaves these Most species’ populations fluctuate over time, with 30 years being a typical subspecies at continued risk of habitat naturally, responding to various factors period for such measurements, although loss and degradation. such as weather events, disease, and shorter or longer periods also may be On JBLM, regulations applying to the predation. Andre´n (1999, p. 358), used (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). The term Mazama pocket gopher are covered by however, suggested that population ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change the current INRMP and ESMP. We decline is more likely when habitat in the mean or variability of one or more conclude that military training, as it quality declines and habitat measures of climate (e.g., temperature or currently occurs, causes direct mortality fragmentation increases. Populations precipitation) that persists for an of individuals and negatively affects that are small, fragmented, or isolated extended period, typically decades or habitat for the Roy Prairie and Yelm by habitat loss or modification of longer, whether the change is due to subspecies of the Mazama pocket naturally patchy habitat, and other natural variability, human activity, or gopher in all areas where training and human-related factors, are more both (IPCC 2007a, p. 78). the subspecies overlap. Both the Roy vulnerable to extirpation by natural Scientific measurements spanning Prairie pocket gopher and the Yelm randomly occurring events, cumulative several decades demonstrate that pocket gopher are known to occur on effects, and to genetic effects that plague changes in climate are occurring, and JBLM. Within the estimated range of the small populations, collectively known that the rate of change has been faster Roy Prairie pocket gopher, more than 80 as small population effects. These since the 1950s. Examples include percent of the soils known to be used by effects can include genetic drift (loss of warming of the global climate system, the subspecies are within JBLM’s recessive alleles), founder effects (over substantial increases in precipitation in boundaries. JBLM also provides roughly time, an increasing percentage of the some regions of the world, and 14 percent of the area of soils known to population inheriting a narrow range of decreases in other regions. (For these

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19786 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

and other examples, see IPCC 2007a, p. other relevant considerations, such as from 2012 to 2095 using the IPCC’s 30; and IPCC 2007d, pp. 35–54, 82–85.) interactions of climate with other medium (A1B) emissions scenario (IPCC Results of scientific analyses presented variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 2000, p. 245). Using the General by the IPCC show that most of the (IPCC 2007e, pp. 214–246). Identifying Circulation Model (GCM) that most observed increase in global average likely effects often involves aspects of accurately predicts precipitation for the temperature since the mid-20th century climate change vulnerability analysis. Pacific Northwest, the Third Generation cannot be explained by natural Vulnerability refers to the degree to Coupled Global Climate Model variability in climate, and is ‘‘very which a species (or system) is (CGCM3.1) under the medium likely’’ (defined by the IPCC as 90 susceptible to, and unable to cope with, emissions scenario (A1B), annual mean percent or higher probability) due to the adverse effects of climate change, temperature is predicted to increase observed increase in greenhouse gas including climate variability and approximately 1.8 °Fahrenheit (F) (1 (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere extremes. Vulnerability is a function of °Celsius (C)) by the year 2020, 3.6 °F (2 as a result of human activities, the type, scope, and rate of climate °C) by 2050, and 5.4 °F (3 °C) by 2090 particularly carbon dioxide emissions change and variation to which a species (Climatewizardcustom 2012). This from use of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007a, pp. is exposed, its sensitivity, and its analysis was restricted to the ecoregion 5–6 and figures SPM.3 and SPM.4; IPCC adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007a, p. 89; encompassing the overlapping range of 2007d, pp. 21–35). Further confirmation see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19–22). No the subspecies of interest and is well of the role of GHGs comes from analyses single method for conducting such supported by analyses focused only on by Huber and Knutti (2011, p. 4), who analyses applies to all situations (Glick the Pacific Northwest by Mote and concluded that it is extremely likely that et al. 2011, p. 3). We use our expert Salathe´ in their 2010 publication, approximately 75 percent of global judgment and appropriate analytical Future Climate in the Pacific Northwest warming since 1950 has been caused by approaches to weigh relevant (Mote and Salathe´ 2010, entire). human activities. information, including uncertainty, in Employing the same GCM and medium Scientists use a variety of climate our consideration of various aspects of emissions scenario, downscaled model models, which include consideration of climate change. runs for precipitation in the ecoregion natural processes and variability, as As is the case with all threats that we project a small (less than 5 percent) well as various scenarios of potential assess, even if we conclude that a increase in mean annual precipitation levels and timing of GHG emissions, to species is currently affected or is likely over approximately the next 80 years. evaluate the causes of changes already to be affected in a negative way by one Most months are projected to show an observed and to project future changes or more climate-related impacts, it does increase in mean annual precipitation. in temperature and other climate not necessarily follow that the species May through August are projected to conditions (e.g., IPCC 2007c, entire; meets the definition of an ‘‘endangered show a decrease in mean annual Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ precipitation, which corresponds with Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). All under the Act. If a species is listed as the majority of the reproductive season combinations of models and emissions endangered or threatened, knowledge for the Mazama pocket gopher scenarios yield very similar projections regarding the vulnerability of the (Climatewizardcustom 2012). of increases in the most common species to, and known or anticipated The potential impacts of a changing measure of climate change, average impacts from, climate-associated global climate to the Mazama pocket global surface temperature (commonly changes in environmental conditions gopher are presently unclear. known as global warming), until about can be used to help devise appropriate Projections localized to the Georgia 2030. Although projections of the extent strategies for its recovery. Basin-Puget Sound Trough-Willamette and rate of warming differ after about Global climate projections are Valley Ecoregion suggest that 2030, the overall trajectory of all the informative, and, in some cases, the temperatures are likely to increase projections is one of increased global only or the best scientific information approximately 5 °F (2.8 °C) at the north warming through the end of this available for us to use. However, end of the region by the year 2080 based century, even for the projections based projected changes in climate and related on an average of greenhouse gas on scenarios that assume that GHG impacts can vary substantially across emission scenarios B1, A1B, and A2 and emissions will stabilize or decline. and within different regions of the all Global Circulation Models employed Thus, there is strong scientific support world (e.g., IPCC 2007a, pp. 8–12). by Climatewizard (range = 2.6 °F to 7.6 for projections that warming will Therefore, we use ‘‘downscaled’’ °F; 1.4 °C to 4.2 °C). Similarly, the mid- continue through the 21st century, and projections when they are available and region projection predicts an increase that the scope and rate of change will be have been developed through on average of 4.5 °F (range = 2.1 °F to influenced substantially by the extent of appropriate scientific procedures, 7.1 °F; average of 2.5 °C with a range of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007a, pp. 44–45; because such projections provide higher 1.2 °C to 3.9 °C) and the southern end IPCC 2007c, pp. 760–764 and 797–811; resolution information that is more to increase by 4.5 °F (range = 2.2 °F to Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555–15558; relevant to spatial scales used for 7.1 °F; average of 2.5 °C with a range of Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). (See analyses of a given species (see Glick et 1.2 °C to 3.9 °C). Worldwide, the IPCC IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for a summary of other al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a discussion of states that it is very likely that extreme global projections of climate-related downscaling). With regard to our high temperatures, heat waves, and changes, such as frequency of heat analysis for the four Thurston/Pierce heavy precipitation events will increase waves and changes in precipitation. subspecies of the Mazama pocket in frequency (IPCC 2007c, p. 783). Also see IPCC 2011 (entire) for a gopher, downscaled projections are Climate change has been linked to a summary of observations and available. number of conservation issues and projections of extreme climate events.) Downscaled climate change changes in animal populations and Various changes in climate may have projections for the Puget Sound trough ranges. However, direct evidence that direct or indirect effects on species. ecoregion, where the four Thurston/ climate change is the cause of these These effects may be positive, neutral, Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket alterations is often lacking (McCarty or negative, and they may change over gopher are found, predict consistently 2001, p. 327). The body of work time, depending on the species and increasing annual mean temperatures examining the response of small

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19787

mammals to climate change is small and attenuated relative to observed changes 21) connect sharp population declines is primarily focused on reconstruction in surface temperatures. of pocket gophers of several genera with of mammalian communities through the The effects of climate change may be stochastic weather events such as heavy comparison of small mammal fossils buffered by pocket gophers’ fossorial snow cover and rapid snowmelt with a from the late Pleistocene to those of the lifestyle and are likely to be restricted to corresponding rise in the water table. Holocene, a time period that spans the indirect effects in the form of changes in Based on our review, we found no last significant climate warming event vegetation structure and subsequent information to indicate that the effects that took place between 15,000 and habitat shifts through plant invasion of stochastic weather events are a threat 11,000 years ago (Blois et al. 2010, and encroachment (Blois 2009, p. 217). to any of the four Thurston/Pierce entire; Terry et al. 2011, entire). Further, the impacts of climate change subspecies of the Mazama pocket Paleontological work done by Blois et on western Washington are projected to gopher. be less severe than in other parts of the al. (2010, p. 772) in northern California Pesticides and Herbicides reveals a strong correlation between country. While overall annual average precipitation in western Washington is climate change and the decline and The Mazama pocket gopher is not predicted to increase, seasonal extirpation of small mammal species known to be impacted by pesticides or precipitation is projected to become during the last major global warming herbicides directly, but may be affected increasingly variable, with wetter and by the equipment used to dispense event. The loss in species richness warmer winters and springs and drier, (number of taxa) of small mammals at them. These impacts are covered under hotter summers (Mote and Salathe´ 2010, Factor A. their research site is equal to that p. 34; Climatewizard 2012). These shifts documented for large mammal in temperature, precipitation, and soil Control as a Pest Species extinctions in North America during the moisture may result in changes in the Pocket gophers are often considered a same warming event at the transition vegetation structure through woody from the Pleistocene to the Holocene: 32 pest because they sometimes damage plant invasion and encroachment and crops and seedling trees, and their percent (Blois et al. 2010, p. 772). Blois thus affect the habitat for all pocket et al. (2010, supplemental data, p. 9) mounds can create a nuisance. Several gopher species and subspecies in the site locations in the WDFW wildlife determined that Thomomys mazama region. Despite this potential for future were more vulnerable to climate change survey database were found as a result environmental changes, we have not of kill-trapping on Christmas tree farms, than other Thomomys species in the identified nor are we aware of any data a nursery, and in a livestock pasture area due to the steep decline of T. on an appropriate scale to evaluate (WDFW 2001). For instance, the type mazama population numbers that habitat or populations trends for the locality for the Cathlamet pocket gopher coincided with the first significant four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the is on a commercial tree farm. Mazama warming event around 15,000 years ago Mazama pocket gopher or to make pocket gophers in Thurston County and their extirpation from the site predictions about future trends and were also used in a rodenticide around 6,000 years ago. whether the subspecies will be experiment as recently as 1995 (Witmer significantly impacted by climate To explore the potential impacts of et al. 1996, p. 97). change. climate change within the In Washington it is currently illegal to Anthropocene (the current geologic Stochastic Weather Events trap or poison pocket gophers or trap or epoch), Blois (2009, p. 243) constructed Stochasticity of extreme weather poison moles where they overlap with a climate niche (the estimated tolerance events may impact the ability of Mazama pocket gopher populations, but of environmental variables for a given threatened and endangered species to not all property owners are cognizant of species) for Thomomys mazama survive. Vulnerability to weather events these laws, nor are most citizens capable reflecting the average minimum and can be described as being composed of of differentiating between mole and average maximum temperatures range three elements: Exposure, sensitivity, pocket gopher soil disturbance. In light wide. Blois used climate data compiled and adaptive capacity. of this, it is reasonable to believe that by PRISM Group, Oregon State The small, isolated nature of the mole trapping or poisoning efforts still University, for the years 1971–2000, to remaining populations of the four have the potential to adversely affect construct the climate niche. Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the pocket gopher populations. Local Temperatures given are mean annual Mazama pocket gopher increases the populations of Mazama pocket gophers temperatures based on mean monthly subspecies’ vulnerability to stochastic that survive commercial and residential averages. The climate niche Blois natural events. When species are limited development (adjacent to and within constructed for the Mazama pocket to small, isolated habitats, they are more habitat) may be subsequently extirpated ° ¥ ° gopher gives 22.3 F ( 5.4 C) for the likely to become extinct due to a local by trapping or poisoning by humans. lowest of the mean annual minimum event that negatively affects the Lethal control by trapping or poisoning temperatures across all localities and population. While a population’s small, is most likely to be a threat to the four 66.9 °F (19.4 °C) for the highest of the isolated nature does not represent an Thurston/Pierce subspecies where their mean annual maximum temperatures independent threat to the species, it ranges overlap with residential across all localities where Mazama does substantially increase the risk of properties. pocket gophers are found. Minimum extirpation from the effects of all other Recreation and maximum temperatures above the threats, including those addressed in surface of the soil are attenuated with this analysis, and those that could occur The Mazama pocket gopher is not increased soil depth. Whether or not in the future from unknown sources. known to be directly negatively Mazama pocket gophers are able to The impact of stochastic weather and impacted by recreation activities, regulate the temperature in their burrow extreme weather events on pocket although predation by domestic dogs system by digging deeper in the soil is gophers is difficult to predict. Pocket associated with recreational activities unknown; however, it is likely that any gophers may largely be buffered from does occur (Clause 2012, pers. comm.). temperature changes experienced by these impacts due to their fossorial These impacts are covered under pocket gophers underground are lifestyle, but Case and Jasch (1994, p. B– Predation in Factor C.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19788 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Summary of Factor E is likely to become endangered locations resulting in the present Based upon our review of the best throughout all or a significant portion of isolation and limited distribution of the commercial and scientific data its range within the foreseeable future.’’ subspecies, the impacts of military available, the loss, degradation, and We have carefully assessed the best training, existing and likely future fragmentation of prairies has resulted in scientific and commercial data available habitat fragmentation, land use changes, smaller local population sizes, potential regarding the past, present, and future long-term fire suppression, and the loss of genetic diversity, reduced gene threats to the four Thurston/Pierce threats associated with the present and subspecies of the Mazama pocket threatened destruction, modification, flow among populations, destruction of gopher. The Mazama pocket gophers of and curtailment of the four Thurston/ population structure, and increased Washington State are hypothesized to Pierce subspecies’ habitat is significant. susceptibility to local population have initially dispersed into and later We conclude that there are likely to be extirpation for the four Thurston/Pierce fully occupied the glacial outwash significant, ongoing threats to the four subspecies of the Mazama pocket aprons after the last glaciation period Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the gopher from a series of threats including (Dalquest and Scheffer 1942, pp. 95–96), Mazama pocket gopher due to factors poisoning and trapping, as summarized which would have later become the such as small population effects (risk of below. open prairies and grasslands of the population loss due to catastrophic or Small population sizes coupled with south Puget Sound. In the south Puget stochastic events), predation, poisoning, disjunct and fragmented habitat may Sound region, where most of western and trapping. The small size of most of contribute to further population Washington’s prairies historically the remaining local populations, declines for the four Thurston/Pierce occurred, and where the four Thurston/ coupled with disjunct and fragmented subspecies of the Mazama pocket Pierce subspecies occur, less than 10 habitat, may render them increasingly gopher, which occur in habitats that percent of the original prairie persists vulnerable to additional threats such as face continuing fragmentation due to (Crawford and Hall 1997, pp. 13–14). those mentioned above. development and land conversion. Each of these four subspecies has The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies Mole trapping or poisoning efforts varying degrees of impacts acting on face a combination of several high- have the potential to adversely affect the them. magnitude threats; the threats are four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the We find that both development and immediate; these subspecies are highly Mazama pocket gopher, especially fire suppression have caused the loss of restricted in their ranges; the threats where they abut commercial and a majority of prairie habitats or made occur throughout the subspecies’ ranges residential areas. Such efforts may have such habitat unavailable to the four and are not restricted to any particular a particularly negative impact on the Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the significant portion of those ranges. populations that are already small and Mazama pocket gopher due to Therefore, we assessed the status of isolated. conversion of land to incompatible uses each of these subspecies throughout Due to small population effects (e.g., residential and commercial their entire ranges, and our assessment caused by fragmentation of habitat, and development) and the encroachment of and proposed determination will apply impacts from trapping and poisoning native and nonnative species of woody to each of these subspecies throughout efforts, we find that the threats plants. These significant impacts are their entire ranges. associated with other natural or expected to continue into the Therefore, for the reasons provided in manmade factors are significant for the foreseeable future. Impacts from this rule, on the basis of the best four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the military training, affecting large available scientific and commercial Mazama pocket gopher, when expanses of areas occupied by the Roy information, we are listing the four considered in conjunction with the Prairie and Yelm pocket gopher on Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the other factors considered here. JBLM, are expected to increase under Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys Determination the DOD’s Grow the Army initiative, mazama pugetensis, glacialis, tumuli, although JBLM’s Mazama pocket gopher and yelmensis—the Olympia, Roy Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), ESMP provides an overall conservation Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm pocket and its implementing regulations at 50 benefit to the subspecies. Predation of gophers, respectively) as threatened CFR part 424, set forth the procedures gophers by feral and domestic cats and throughout their ranges in accordance for adding species to the Federal Lists dogs has occurred and is expected to with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife increase with increased residential Act. and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the development on prairie soils occupied Under the Act and our implementing Act, we may list a species based on (A) by gophers, and to continue to occur regulations, a species may warrant The present or threatened destruction, where people recreate with their dogs in listing if it is endangered or threatened modification, or curtailment of its areas occupied by Mazama pocket throughout all or a significant portion of habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for gophers. Increased predation pressure is its range. The Act defines an commercial, recreational, scientific, or of particular concern for the Olympia endangered species as any species that educational purposes; (C) Disease or and Yelm pocket gophers, while the is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout predation; (D) The inadequacy of majority of the Roy Prairie pocket all or a significant portion of its range’’ existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) gopher populations are buffered from and a threatened species as any species Other natural or manmade factors increasing development by their ‘‘that is likely to become endangered affecting its continued existence. Listing location on JBLM, and the Tenino throughout all or a significant portion of actions may be warranted based on any pocket gopher is currently isolated from its range within the foreseeable future.’’ of the above threat factors, singly or in residential development due to the We find that the four Thurston/Pierce combination. location of their only known subspecies (Thomomys mazama The Act defines an endangered population. pugetensis, glacialis, tumuli, and species as any species that is ‘‘in danger We find that the threat of yelmensis) are likely to become of extinction throughout all or a development and adverse impacts to endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its range’’ and a habitat from conversion to other uses, significant portion of their ranges within threatened species as any species ‘‘that the loss of historically occupied the foreseeable future, based on the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19789

immediacy, severity, and scope of the Recovery planning includes the species recovery can be found at: threats described above. We do not, development of a recovery outline http://www.fws.gov/grants. however, have information to suggest shortly after a species is listed and Please let us know if you are that the present threats are of such great preparation of a draft and final recovery interested in participating in recovery magnitude that any of these four plan. The recovery outline guides the efforts for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies are in immediate danger of immediate implementation of urgent subspecies of the Mazama pocket extinction (that is, they do not meet the recovery actions and describes the gopher. Additionally, we invite you to definition of an endangered species). process to be used to develop a recovery submit any new information on these Rather, we conclude that they are likely plan. Revisions of the plan may be done subspecies whenever it becomes to become so in the foreseeable future to address continuing or new threats to available and any information you may (which is the definition of a threatened the species, as new substantive have for recovery planning purposes species). Therefore, on the basis of the information becomes available. The (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). best available scientific and commercial recovery plan identifies site-specific Section 7(a) of the Act requires data, we determine that T. m. management actions that set a trigger for Federal agencies to evaluate their pugetensis, glacialis, tumuli, and review of the five factors that control actions with respect to any species that yelmensis meet the definition of whether a species remains endangered is proposed or listed as an endangered threatened species in accordance with or may be downlisted or delisted, and or threatened species and with respect sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. methods for monitoring recovery to its critical habitat, if any is The threats to the survival of the four progress. Recovery plans also establish designated. Regulations implementing Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the a framework for agencies to coordinate this interagency cooperation provision Mazama pocket gopher occur their recovery efforts and provide of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part throughout the range of each subspecies estimates of the cost of implementing 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires and are not restricted to any particular recovery tasks. Recovery teams Federal agencies to confer with the significant portion of that range. (composed of species experts, Federal Service on any action that is likely to Accordingly, our assessment and and State agencies, nongovernmental jeopardize the continued existence of a determination applies to each organizations, and stakeholders) are species proposed for listing or result in subspecies—the Olympia, Roy Prairie, often established to develop recovery destruction or adverse modification of Tenino, and Yelm pocket gophers— plans. When completed, the recovery proposed critical habitat. If a species is throughout its entire range. outline, draft recovery plan, and the listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to Available Conservation Measures final recovery plan will be available on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ ensure that activities they authorize, Conservation measures provided to endangered, or at http://www.fws.gov/ fund, or carry out are not likely to species listed as endangered or jeopardize the continued existence of wafwo/mpg.html (see FOR FURTHER threatened under the Act include the species or destroy or adversely INFORMATION CONTACT). recognition, recovery actions, modify its critical habitat. If a Federal requirements for Federal protection, and Implementation of recovery actions action may affect a listed species or its prohibitions against certain practices. generally requires the participation of a critical habitat, the responsible Federal Recognition through listing results in broad range of partners, including other agency must enter into consultation public awareness, and conservation by Federal agencies, Tribes, States, with the Service. Federal, Tribal, State, and local nongovernmental organizations, Federal agency actions within the agencies, private organizations, and businesses, and private landowners. species’ habitat that may require individuals. The Act encourages Examples of recovery actions include conference or consultation or both as cooperation with the States and requires habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of described in the preceding paragraph that recovery actions be carried out for native vegetation), research, permanent include management and any other all listed species. The protection habitat protection, and outreach and landscape-altering activities on Federal required by Federal agencies and the education. The recovery of many listed lands administered by any Federal prohibitions against certain activities species often cannot be accomplished agency. These activities include any are discussed, in part, below. solely on Federal lands because their actions to manage or restore critical The primary purpose of the Act is the range may occur primarily or solely on habitat, actions that require collecting or conservation of endangered and non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery handling the species for the purpose of threatened species and the ecosystems of these species requires cooperative captive propagation and translocation to upon which they depend. The ultimate conservation efforts on Tribal, State, and new habitat, actions that may negatively goal of such conservation efforts is the private lands. affect the subspecies through removal, recovery of these listed species, so that When this listing becomes effective, conversion, or degradation of habitat. they no longer need the protective funding for recovery actions will be Examples of activities conducted, measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of available from a variety of sources, regulated or funded by Federal agencies the Act requires the Service to develop including Federal budgets, State that may affect the four Thurston/Pierce and implement recovery plans for the programs, and cost-share grants for non- subspecies of the Mazama pocket conservation of endangered and Federal landowners, the academic gopher or their habitat include, but are threatened species. The recovery community, and nongovernmental not limited to: planning process involves the organizations. In addition, pursuant to (1) Military training activities and identification of actions that are section 6 of the Act, the State of operations conducted in or adjacent to necessary to halt or reverse the species’ Washington will be eligible for Federal occupied or suitable habitat; decline by addressing the threats to its funds to implement management (2) Activities with a Federal nexus survival and recovery. The goal of this actions that promote the protection or that include vegetation management process is to restore listed species to a recovery of the four Thurston/Pierce such as burning, mechanical treatment, point where they are secure, self- subspecies of the Mazama pocket and/or application of herbicides/ sustaining, and functioning components gopher. Information on our grant pesticides on Federal, State, or private of their ecosystems. programs that are available to aid lands;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19790 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Ground-disturbing activities known to be occupied by any of the four for these subspecies under section 4(d) regulated, funded, or conducted by Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the of the Act. Under this special rule, all Federal agencies in or adjacent to Mazama pocket gopher; prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR occupied and/or suitable habitat; and (3) Unauthorized utilization of 17.31 apply to the Olympia, Roy Prairie, (4) Import, export, or trade of the trapping or poisoning techniques in Tenino, and Yelm pocket gophers, subspecies. areas occupied by any of the four except for the activities described here. The Act and its implementing Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the These activities are specifically regulations set forth a series of general Mazama pocket gopher; and exempted from the take prohibitions of prohibitions and exceptions that apply (4) Intentional harassment or removal section 9 of the Act, because we have to endangered and threatened wildlife. of any of the four Thurston/Pierce determined it necessary and advisable The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the subspecies of the Mazama pocket for the conservation of the four Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it gopher. Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the illegal for any person subject to the Questions regarding whether specific Mazama pocket gopher for the reasons jurisdiction of the United States to take activities would constitute a violation of outlined below. (which includes harass, harm, pursue, section 9 of the Act should be directed Under the special rule, take of these hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, to the Washington Fish and Wildlife subspecies caused by certain airport or collect; or to attempt any of these) Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION management actions on civilian endangered wildlife within the United CONTACT). Requests for copies of the airports; certain common practices by States or on the high seas. In addition, regulations concerning listed animals agricultural operations on State, county, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, and general inquiries regarding private, or Tribal lands; certain ongoing receive, carry, transport, or ship in prohibitions and permits may be single-family residential non- interstate or foreign commerce in the addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife commercial activities; noxious weed course of commercial activity; or sell or Service, Ecological Services, Eastside and invasive plant control conducted on offer for sale in interstate or foreign Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, non-Federal lands; and certain commerce any listed species. It is also Portland, OR 97232–4181 (telephone vegetation management actions and illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 503–231–6158; facsimile 503–231– fencing of roadside rights-of-way on transport, or ship any such wildlife that 6243). highways and roads by Federal, State, has been taken illegally. Certain When the listing of the four Thurston/ county, private, or Tribal entities would exceptions apply to employees of the Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket be exempt from section 9 of the Act. Service, the National Marine Fisheries gopher under the Act becomes effective, Activities on Federal lands or with any Service, other Federal land management the State of Washington may enter into Federal agency involvement will still agencies, and State conservation agreements with Federal agencies to need to be addressed through agencies. administer and manage any area consultation under section 7 of the Act. We may issue permits to carry out required for the conservation, Although we are exempting these otherwise prohibited activities management, enhancement, or activities from section 9 of the Act, we involving endangered wildlife under protection of endangered species. Funds strongly encourage landowners and certain circumstances. Regulations for these activities could be made managers to use best management governing permits are codified at 50 available under section 6 of the Act practices when they conduct actions CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered (Cooperation with the States) or through that may negatively impact the four wildlife, a permit may be issued for the competitive application to receive Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the following purposes: for scientific funding through our Recovery Program Mazama pocket gopher, and to avoid purposes, to enhance the propagation or under section 4 of the Act. Thus, the impacts to these subspecies to the survival of the species, and for Federal protection afforded to the maximum extent practicable. Although incidental take in connection with subspecies by listing them as threatened this special 4(d) rule exempts any otherwise lawful activities. There are species will be reinforced and ‘‘take’’ (e.g., harass, harm, wound, kill) also certain statutory exemptions from supplemented by protection under State associated with conducting the the prohibitions, which are found in law. activities described below, as a sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Special Rule recommended conservation measure we It is our policy, as published in the encourage landowners to avoid soil- Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR Under section 4(d) of the Act, the disturbing activities in areas of known 34272), to identify to the maximum Secretary may publish a special rule or suspected active pocket gopher extent practicable at the time a species that modifies the standard protections activity to minimize such take. is listed, those activities that would or for threatened species in the Service’s Avoidance may include operating would not constitute a violation of regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, which around such areas of activity or delaying section 9 of the Act. The intent of this implement section 9 of the Act, with the ground-disturbing activity at a site policy is to increase public awareness of special measures that are determined to until pocket gopher activity appears to the effect of a listing on proposed and be necessary and advisable to provide have ceased. ongoing activities within the range of for the conservation of the species. As Routine Maintenance Activities and listed species. The following activities a means to promote conservation efforts Wildlife Hazard Management at Civilian could potentially result in a violation of on behalf of the four Thurston/Pierce Airports. Some management actions section 9 of the Act; this list is not subspecies of the Mazama pocket taken at civilian airports are generally comprehensive: gopher, we are promulgating a special beneficial to Mazama pocket gophers. (1) Introduction of species that rule for these subspecies under section Mazama pocket gophers maintain compete with or prey upon the Mazama 4(d) of the Act. As a means to promote populations at airports in the south pocket gopher, or its habitat, such as the conservation efforts by encouraging Puget Sound (i.e., Olympia Airport and introduction of competing, invasive activities that inadvertently create Shelton Airport). Airports routinely plants or animals; needed habitat for the four Thurston/ implement programs to minimize the (2) Unauthorized modification of the Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket presence of hazardous wildlife on soil profiles or the forage habitat on sites gopher, we are issuing this special rule airfields, and these activities

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19791

unintentionally create suitable habitat activities (i.e., hazing of hazardous provide important habitats for the four for Mazama pocket gophers. While some wildlife, management of forage, water, Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the airport management activities like and shelter to deter hazardous wildlife, Mazama pocket gopher, we are discing or grading can result in use of additional methods to control exempting normal agricultural individuals being injured or killed, large noxious weeds and invasive plants). See activities, including: Grazing; stock areas of airport lands are kept free of also Summary of Changes from the water facility installation and shrubs and trees that would otherwise Proposed Rule section of this document. maintenance; routine installation and overtake occupied gopher habitat and We believe that a 4(d) special rule for maintenance of fencing; planting, render it unsuitable for use by gophers. specific activities on civilian airports is harvest, fertilization, etc., of crops; These same areas are largely fenced, necessary and advisable to provide for maintenance of corrals, sheds, and other which restricts access to airport lands the conservation of the four Thurston/ outbuildings; maintenance of existing by coyotes, a major predator of Mazama Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket roads; placement of animal, plant, or pocket gophers. While the airports are gopher. We therefore exempt take of the soil supplements; noxious weed and in operation, safety measures require Olympia gopher resulting from routine invasive plant management; and that airport-maintained lands management activities and wildlife occasional deep tillage. Although among themselves (areas adjacent to runways, hazard management activities on all of these activities, deep tillage has taxiways, etc.) remain open and civilian airports, which are specified the highest likelihood of inadvertently undeveloped. below in the Regulation Promulgation killing gophers, the potential scope of Section 9 of the Act provides general section, under section 9 of the Act. impact this activity may incur is limited prohibitions on activities that would Agricultural Activities. Agricultural by virtue of its application only to a result in take of a threatened species; lands provide important habitats for the subset of agricultural lands and its however, because the Olympia Airport four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the intermittent use within a year or provides important habitat for the Mazama pocket gopher. This is between years. Olympia subspecies of the Mazama particularly true for the Olympia, The Service recognizes that in the pocket gopher, and the subspecies has Tenino, and Yelm pocket gophers, in long term, it is a benefit to the four persisted there under current Thurston County, as the majority of Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the management, we are exempting certain known locations of the Roy Prairie Mazama pocket gopher to maintain routine airport management activities at pocket gopher occur on JBLM. While those aspects of the agricultural civilian airports. The special rule for there are sites occupied by the Roy landscape that can aid in the recovery airport management acknowledges the Prairie pocket gopher in and around the of the species. We believe this special benefits to pocket gophers from these City of Roy, the known occurrences are rule will further conservation of these activities; covered actions would extremely limited off the base. Examples subspecies by discouraging conversions include vegetation management to of farmed areas that are occupied by of the agricultural landscape into maintain desired grass height on or Mazama pocket gophers and provide habitats unsuitable for the four adjacent to airports through mowing, suitable habitat include livestock Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the discing, herbicide use, or burning; ranches, pastures, seed nurseries, Mazama pocket gopher and encouraging hazing of hazardous wildlife (geese and market crop farms, and open rural areas landowners to continue managing the other large birds and mammals); routine where vegetation is maintained in an remaining landscape in ways that meet management, repair and maintenance of early seral condition. Agricultural lands the needs of their operation and provide runways, roads, taxiways, and aprons; in Thurston County account for a suitable habitat for these subspecies. and management of forage, water, and portion of the total area that the Service In addition, we believe that, in certain shelter to be less attractive to these believes may be occupied or could be instances, easing the general take hazardous wildlife, as described under occupied by Mazama pocket gophers, prohibitions on non-Federal agricultural the Regulation Promulgation section, approximately 15,370 ac (6,220 ha) of lands may encourage continued below. Many of the activities that approximately 180,000 ac (72,843 ha) of responsible land uses that provide an benefit the Mazama pocket gopher on suitable soils. While some farming overall benefit to the subspecies. We civilian airports such as the Olympia activities like tilling or discing can also believe that such a special rule will Airport are a result of practices to result in individuals being injured or promote the conservation efforts and maintain safe conditions for aviation; killed, if individual Mazama pocket private lands partnerships critical for we recommend that airport operators gophers remain unharmed in adjacent species recovery (Bean and Wilcove follow the guidance provided in Federal undisturbed areas, they may readily 1997, pp. 1–2). However, in easing the Aviation Administration advisory recolonize the disturbed areas and take prohibitions under section 9, the circular 150/5200–33C Hazardous continue to persist in areas that are measures developed in the special rule Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports farmed, grazed, and used for agricultural must also contain prohibitions (FAA 2007, entire), and all other production, thereby providing a net necessary and appropriate to conserve applicable related guidance. conservation benefit. the species. In response to public comments Lands that are currently occupied by As discussed elsewhere in this rule, received on the proposed rule, we have Mazama pocket gophers and that have Mazama pocket gophers face many revised the 4(d) special rule for the four been subject to repeated years of threats. Foremost among these is the Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the previous tilling are likely capable of loss of suitable vegetative habitat on Mazama pocket gopher. Based on sustaining continued tilling without suitable soils. With the loss of these feedback from the FAA and Port of significant impact to the population, natural habitats during the last century, Olympia (Olympia Airport), we have assuming practices remain consistent, alternative breeding, foraging, and amended the list of covered activities to and surrounding lands are also managed dispersal sites, including active address specific airport management as they have been in the past. Section agricultural lands, have become critical practices that may affect the Mazama 9 of the Act provides general for the continued survival and recovery pocket gopher by deleting restrictions prohibitions on activities that would of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies on use of heavy equipment from the 4(d) result in take of a threatened species; of the Mazama pocket gopher. The special rule and adding other allowable however, because agricultural areas unique challenge for conservation of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19792 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

these subspecies on agricultural lands related descriptions from the 4(d) methods, and the construction and will be to find a way to work with special rule (i.e., restrictions on types of placement of fencing, garden plots, play private landowners to voluntarily create fencing, timing restrictions on ground- equipment, dog kennels, storage sheds, habitat for these subspecies rather than disturbing activities, and discing of and carports. allow the habitats on their lands to fencelines for fire control) and added This special rule, which exempts the become unsuitable through inaction. other allowed activities (i.e., non-commercial, single-family Section 9 of the Act prohibits a range of maintenance of troughs, tanks, residential activities listed above, and actions that would take a listed species, pipelines, and watering systems, which may otherwise result in take including actions that destroy habitats fertilization, harrowing, tilling of less under section 9 of the Act, reduces the essential to individuals of the species. than or equal to a 12-in (30.5-cm) depth, incentive for small landowners to However, section 9 of the Act does not placement of plant nutrients and soil eliminate populations of Mazama prohibit inaction; thus, a landowner’s amendments, use of discing, fungicides, pocket gopher from their lands. In failure to disturb habitat on a regular and fumigation to control noxious addition, we believe that in certain basis to maintain the vegetation weeds and invasive plants, and deep instances, easing the general take structure needed by Mazama pocket tillage not to exceed once every 10 prohibitions on non-Federal small gophers would not be a violation of years). See also the Summary of landowner lands may encourage section 9 of the Act. If recovery of the Changes from the Proposed Rule section continued responsible land uses that four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the of this document. provide an overall benefit to the Mazama pocket gopher requires the We believe that a 4(d) special rule for subspecies. We also believe that such a availability of agricultural lands, and we activities on agricultural lands is special rule will promote the believe it does, then we need to give necessary and advisable to provide for conservation efforts and private lands landowners reasons and incentives to the conservation of the four Thurston/ partnerships critical for species recovery manage their lands in ways that allow Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket (Bean and Wilcove 1997, pp. 1–2). gophers to thrive on those lands. gopher. We therefore exempt take of the Conservation partnerships can provide While it appears that Mazama pocket Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm positive incentives to private gophers may be benefiting from pocket gophers resulting from normal landowners to voluntarily conserve agricultural practices, much remains to agricultural activities, which are natural resources, and can remove or be learned about the effects of specified below in the Regulation reduce disincentives to conservation agricultural activities on these Promulgation section, under section 9 of (Knight 1999, p. 224; Brook et al. 2003, subspecies. We have concluded that the Act. p. 1644; Sorice et al. 2011, p. 594). The developing a conservation partnership Single-family Residential Landowner Service will work closely with Thurston with the agricultural community will Non-commercial Activities. The four County and private landowners to allow us to answer important questions Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the develop ways to monitor impacts on about the impact of various agricultural Mazama pocket gopher occur on private Mazama pocket gophers from routine practices, and will provide valuable lands throughout their ranges in non-commercial activities. We conclude information to assist in the recovery of Thurston and Pierce Counties in that this commitment is necessary and the subspecies. We further believe that, Washington. Activities by single-family appropriate, and will provide further where consistent with the discretion residential landowners in these areas insights into land stewardship practices provided by the Act, implementing have the potential to harm or kill pocket that foster the continued use of private policies that promote such partnerships gophers. Section 9 of the Act provides lands in ways beneficial to both is an essential component for the general prohibitions on activities that Mazama pocket gophers and the recovery of listed species, particularly would result in take of a threatened community. where species occur on private lands. species; however, the Service recognizes In response to public comments Conservation partnerships can provide that routine maintenance and some received on the proposed rule, we have positive incentives to private small construction activities, even those revised the 4(d) special rule for the four landowners to voluntarily conserve with the potential to inadvertently take Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the natural resources, and can remove or individual Mazama pocket gophers, may Mazama pocket gopher. Based on reduce disincentives to conservation on the whole, provide a conservation feedback from Thurston County and (Knight 1999, p. 224; Brook et al. 2003, benefit to the subspecies, especially on private landowners, we deleted two p. 1644; Sorice et al. 2011, p. 594). The properties larger than 1 acre (0.40 ha). restrictions on activities from the 4(d) Service will work closely with the The Service recognizes that in the long special rule (i.e., restrictions on types of farming community to develop ways to term, it is a benefit to the four Thurston/ fencing and play equipment) and added monitor impacts on Mazama pocket Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket allowed activities (i.e., use of fungicide gophers from routine agricultural gopher to maintain their distribution or fumigation to control noxious and activities. We conclude that this across private and public lands to aid in invasive plants). Please see the commitment is necessary and their recovery. We believe this special Summary of Changes from the Proposed appropriate, and will provide further rule will further conservation of the Rule section of this document for a insights into land stewardship practices subspecies by discouraging conversions complete list of changes to the 4(d) that foster the continued use of farm of the landscape into habitats unsuitable special rule between the proposed and land in ways beneficial to both Mazama for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies final rule stages. pocket gophers and the agricultural of the Mazama pocket gopher and We believe that a 4(d) rule for single- community. encouraging landowners to continue family residential landowner non- In response to public comments managing the remaining landscape in commercial activities is necessary and received on the proposed rule, we have ways that meet their needs and provide advisable to provide for the revised the 4(d) special rule for the four suitable habitat for these four conservation of the four Thurston/Pierce Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the subspecies. Under the rule, covered subspecies of the Mazama pocket Mazama pocket gopher. Based on actions would include noxious weed gopher. We therefore exempt take of the feedback from NRCS and agricultural and invasive plant management through Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm interests, we deleted several activities or mowing or herbicide use or other pocket gophers resulting from ongoing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19793

non-commercial activities on small the long-term conservation needs of the and invasive plants or encroaching landowner properties, which are Mazama pocket gopher. The Service woody plants, provides the same specified below in the Regulation recognizes that in the long term, it is a benefit, if applied selectively. In Promulgation section, under section 9 of benefit to the Mazama pocket gopher to association with these vegetation the Act. remove noxious weeds wherever they management activities, the repair and Noxious Weed and Invasive Plant may occur. maintenance of fences along roadside Control on Non-Federal Lands. Based on We believe that a 4(d) rule for control rights-of-way may be helpful in terms of public comments, we are adding of noxious weeds and invasive plants is clearly delineating the area targeted for noxious weed and invasive plant necessary and advisable to further the management, as well as assisting in control activities on non-Federal lands conservation of the four Thurston/Pierce containment of woody plants or to the list of activities in the 4(d) special subspecies of the Mazama pocket exclusion of potential predators. rule that are exempt from take under gopher by helping to prevent spread of Many routine vegetation management section 9 of the Act. those noxious weeds and invasive activities along roadsides of highways The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies plants that may render habitat and roads are beneficial to the four of the Mazama pocket gopher breed and unsuitable for the Mazama pocket Thurston/Pierce subspecies, because forage in areas of short-statured gopher, and by encouraging landowners they effectively mimic the disturbance vegetation. These areas include, but are to manage their lands in ways that meet regimes that historically maintained the not limited to, native and managed their property management needs as early seral conditions preferred by prairies, fallow and active agricultural well as helping to prevent degradation Mazama pocket gophers. Such activities fields and pastures, and some crop or loss of suitable habitat for the include those aimed at removing or fields. As mentioned under Factor A, Mazama pocket gopher. We therefore controlling encroachment of woody the suppression and loss of ecological exempt take of the Olympia, Roy Prairie, plants, and mowing or use of herbicides disturbance regimes, such as fire, across Tenino, and Yelm pocket gophers under to control noxious weeds and invasive vast portions of the landscape have section 9 of the Act resulting from plants, which results in the resulted in altered vegetation structure routine removal or other management of maintenance of the short-statured in these areas. This has facilitated noxious weeds and invasive plants, as vegetation preferred by pocket gophers. invasion by woody vegetation, described under the Regulation The Service wishes to encourage the rendering habitat unsuitable for the four Promulgation section, under section 9 of continuation of such activities, because Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the the Act. there are areas known to be occupied by Mazama pocket gopher. Roadside Right-of-Way Maintenance pocket gophers along the roadsides of Habitat management to maintain Activities on Federal and Non-Federal highways and roads within the range of short-statured vegetation is essential to Lands. Based on comments from maintaining suitable breeding, Federal, State, and County officials, we the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of wintering, and foraging habitat for are adding roadside rights-of-way the Mazama pocket gopher, and in Mazama pocket gophers. Although activities on Federal and non-Federal addition to maintaining safe conditions Mazama pocket gophers are known to highways and roads to the list of for motorists, these management actions eat weedy forbs and grasses, and while activities in the 4(d) special rule that are provide for the conservation of the use of certain equipment can destroy exempt from take under section 9 of the pocket gophers by actively maintaining burrows, nests and young, as well as Act. suitable habitat conditions for the listed removing above-ground forage plants, As described above, the four subspecies. removal of noxious weeds wherever Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Section 9 of the Act provides general they may occur will help to maintain Mazama pocket gopher breed and forage prohibitions on activities that would the short-statured vegetation required by in areas of short-statured vegetation. result in take of a threatened species. Mazama pocket gophers. Targeted The suppression and loss of ecological These prohibitions will apply to the plants include those on County, State, disturbance regimes, such as fire, across four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the and Federal noxious weed lists (see vast portions of the landscape have Mazama pocket gopher upon the State and Federal lists via links at resulted in altered vegetation structure effective date of this final listing rule, at http://plants.usda.gov/java/ in these areas. This has facilitated which point landowners and managers noxiousDriver; Washington State encroachment by woody vegetation, will need to consider how their counties each have a noxious weed rendering habitat unsuitable for the four activities may affect the species and control Web site). By their nature, Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the whether that activity may result in an noxious weeds and invasive plants grow Mazama pocket gopher. illegal take. However, the Service aggressively and multiply quickly, Habitat management to maintain recognizes that vegetation management negatively affecting all types of habitats, short-statured vegetation and remove for the purposes of maintaining safe including those used by Mazama pocket woody plants is essential to maintaining highway and roadside conditions, even gophers. Some species of noxious weeds suitable breeding and foraging habitat with the potential to inadvertently take spread across long distances through for Mazama pocket gophers. Although individual Mazama pocket gophers on wind, water, and animals, as well as via Mazama pocket gophers are known to occasion, is necessary and has the humans and vehicles, thereby affecting eat weedy forbs and grasses, and while additional benefit of restoring and habitats far away from the source plants. use of certain equipment can destroy maintaining habitat in the early seral Section 9 of the Act provides general burrows, nests, and young, as well as condition preferred by the pocket prohibitions on activities that would removing above-ground forage plants, gophers. The Service recognizes that in result in take of a threatened species; the removal of certain noxious weeds, the long term, it is a benefit to the however, the Service recognizes that invasive plants, and woody vegetation Mazama pocket gopher to encourage removal of noxious weeds and control and mowing to maintain low vegetation this active management that contributes of invasive plants, even those with the height will help to maintain the open, to the control of woody plants and potential to inadvertently take short-statured vegetation required by maintenance of short-statured individual Mazama pocket gophers, is Mazama pocket gophers. Similarly, vegetation in areas occupied by pocket necessary and may in part provide for herbicide use to reduce noxious weeds gophers.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19794 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

We believe that a 4(d) rule for species on their property that is not healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that roadside right-of-way maintenance covered under the Special Rule (see also tribal lands are not subject to the same activities on Federal and non-Federal § 17.40 Special Rules—Mammals, later controls as Federal public lands, to highways and roads is necessary and in this document) to contact the Service remain sensitive to indigenous culture, advisable to further the conservation of to explore options for developing a safe and to make information available to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of harbor agreement or habitat tribes. the Mazama pocket gopher by conservation plan that can provide for References Cited encouraging managers of roadside the conservation of the species and offer rights-of-way to manage these areas in management options to landowners, A complete list of references cited in ways that meet their safety management associated with a permit to protect the this rulemaking is available on the needs as well as helping maintain party from violations under section 9 of Internet at http://www.regulations.gov suitable habitat characteristics in areas the Act (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION and upon request from the Washington occupied by the Mazama pocket gopher, CONTACT). Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services without the additional concern of Field Office (see FOR FURTHER Required Determinations whether these beneficial activities may INFORMATION CONTACT). inadvertently violate section 9 of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 Authors Act. We therefore exempt take of the U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm We have determined that The primary authors of this final rule pocket gophers under section 9 of the are the staff members of the Washington Act resulting from routine vegetation environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services management and fencing activities Field Office. along roadside rights-of-way, as defined under the authority of the described under the Regulation National Environmental Policy Act List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not Promulgation section, under section 9 of Endangered and threatened species, the Act below. be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or Exports, Imports, Reporting and Provisions of the Special Rule threatened species under the recordkeeping requirements, Transportation. We determine that issuance of this Endangered Species Act. We published special rule is necessary and advisable a notice outlining our reasons for this Regulation Promulgation to provide for the conservation of the determination in the Federal Register four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Accordingly, we amend part 17, Mazama pocket gopher. We believe the subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Government-to-Government Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: actions and activities discussed above, Relationship With Tribes while they may cause some level of ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 harm to or disturbance to individuals of In accordance with the President’s continues to read as follows: the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– the Mazama pocket gopher, on balance 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. create and improve habitat for the with Native American Tribal subspecies, create or foster conservation Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding entries partnerships with landowners, and are Order 13175 (Consultation and for ‘‘Pocket gopher, Olympia important elements in the subspecies’ Coordination With Indian Tribal (Thomomys mazama pugetensis),’’ conservation and recovery efforts. Governments), and the Department of ‘‘Pocket gopher, Roy Prairie’’ Exempted activities include certain the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we (Thomomys mazama glacialis),’’ routine agricultural activities, certain readily acknowledge our responsibility ‘‘Pocket gopher, Tenino (Thomomys existing routine civilian airport to communicate meaningfully with mazama tumuli),’’ and ‘‘Pocket gopher, maintenance and wildlife hazard recognized Federal Tribes on a Yelm (Thomomys mazama yelmensis)’’ management activities, certain routine government-to-government basis. In in alphabetical order under Mammals to single-family residential activities, accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 the List of Endangered and Threatened control of noxious weeds and invasive of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Wildlife to read as follows: plants on non-Federal lands, and certain Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust roadside rights-of-way maintenance Responsibilities, and the Endangered § 17.11 Endangered and threatened activities. Species Act), we readily acknowledge wildlife. We encourage any landowner our responsibilities to work directly * * * * * concerned about potential take of listed with tribes in developing programs for (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate population where Critical Special Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules Common name Scientific name threatened

******* MAMMALS

******* Pocket gopher, Thomomys mazama U.S.A. (WA) ...... Entire ...... T 828 17.95(a) 17.40(a) Olympia. pugetensis. Pocket gopher, Roy Thomomys mazama U.S.A. (WA) ...... Entire ...... T 828 NA 17.40(a) Prairie. glacialis.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 19795

Species Vertebrate population where Critical Special Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules Common name Scientific name threatened

Pocket gopher, Thomomys mazama U.S.A. (WA) ...... Entire ...... T 828 17.95(a) 17.40(a) Tenino. tumuli. Pocket gopher, Yelm Thomomys mazama U.S.A. (WA) ...... Entire ...... T 828 17.95(a) 17.40(a) yelmensis.

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by adding paragraph Incidental take of the Olympia, Roy (E) Maintenance of livestock (a) to read as follows: Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm pocket management facilities such as corrals, gophers will not be a violation of sheds, and other ranch outbuildings; § 17.40 Special rules—mammals. section 9 of the Act, if the incidental (F) Repair and maintenance of (a) Mazama pocket gophers (Olympia, take results from agricultural or unimproved agricultural roads (This Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm) horticultural (farming) practices exemption does not include (Thomomys mazama pugetensis, implemented on such lands consistent improvement, upgrade, or construction glacialis, tumuli, and yelmensis)—(1) with State laws on non-Federal lands. of new roads.); Which populations of the Mazama For the purposes of this special rule, (G) Placement of mineral pocket gopher are covered by this farm means any facility, including land, supplements, plant nutrients, or soil special rule? This special rule covers the buildings, watercourses, and amendments; four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the appurtenances, used in the commercial (H) Harvest, control, or other Mazama pocket gopher (Olympia, Roy production of crops, nursery or orchard management of noxious weeds and Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm) (Thomomys stock, the propagation and raising of invasive plants through mowing, mazama pugetensis, glacialis, tumuli, nursery or orchard stock, livestock or discing, herbicide and fungicide and yelmensis) wherever they occur. poultry, or livestock or poultry application, fumigation, or burning (Use (2) What activities are prohibited? products. of herbicides, fungicides, fumigation, Except as noted in paragraphs (a)(3) (i) For the purposes of this special and burning must occur in such a way through (7) of this section, all rule, an agricultural (farming) practice that nontarget plants are avoided to the prohibitions of § 17.31 apply to the means a mode of operation on a farm maximum extent practicable.); and Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm that: (I) Deep tillage (usually at depths of pocket gophers. (A) Is or may be used on a farm of a 18–36 inches (45.7–91.4 cm), for (3) What activities are allowed on similar nature; compaction reduction purposes) civilian airports? Incidental take of the (B) Is a generally accepted, occurring between September 1 and Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm reasonable, and prudent method for the February 28, no more often than once in pocket gophers will not be a violation of operation of the farm to obtain a profit 10 years. section 9 of the Act, if the incidental (5) What noncommercial activities are in money; take results from non-Federal routine allowed on single-family residential (C) Is or may become a generally maintenance activities in or adjacent to private land? Incidental take of the accepted, reasonable, and prudent Mazama pocket gopher habitat and Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm method in conjunction with farm use; associated with airport operations on pocket gophers will not be a violation of civilian airports. Routine maintenance (D) Complies with applicable State section 9 of the Act, if the incidental activities include the following: laws; take results from noncommercial (i) Routine management, repair, and (E) Is done in a reasonable and activities that occur in or adjacent to maintenance of runways, roads, and prudent manner. Mazama pocket gopher habitat on taxiways (does not include upgrades, or (ii) Accepted agricultural or existing single-family residential construction of new runways, roads, or horticultural (farming) practices properties. These activities include the taxiways, or new development at include: following: airports); (A) Grazing; (i) Harvest, control, or other (ii) Hazing of hazardous wildlife; (B) Routine installation, management, management of noxious weeds and (iii) Management of forage, water, and and maintenance of stock water invasive plants through mowing, shelter to reduce the attractiveness of facilities such as stock ponds, berms, herbicide and fungicide application, the area around airports for hazardous troughs, and tanks, pipelines and fumigation, or burning. Use of wildlife; and watering systems to maintain water herbicides, fungicides, fumigation, and (iv) Control or other management of supplies; burning must occur in such a way that noxious weeds and invasive plants (C) Routine maintenance or nontarget plants are avoided to the through mowing, discing, herbicide and construction of fencing; maximum extent practicable; fungicide application, fumigation, or (D) Planting, harvest, fertilization, (ii) Construction and placement of burning. Use of herbicides, fungicides, harrowing, tilling, or rotation of crops fencing, garden plots, or play fumigation, and burning must occur in (Disturbance to the soils shall not equipment; and such a way that nontarget plants are exceed a 12-inch (30.5-cm) depth. All (iii) Construction and placement of avoided to the maximum extent activities that do not disturb the soil dog kennels, carports, or storage sheds practicable. surface are also allowed, such as haying, less than 120 ft2 (11.15 m2) in size. (4) What agricultural activities are baling, some orchard and berry plant (6) What noxious weed and invasive allowed on non-Federal lands? management activities, etc.); plant control activities are allowed on

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 19796 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

non-Federal lands? Incidental take of (iv) Fumigation; and avoided to the maximum extent the Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and (v) Burning. practicable: Yelm pocket gophers will not be a (i) Mowing; violation of section 9 of the Act, if the (7) What roadside right-of-way (ii) Mechanical removal of noxious incidental take results from routine maintenance activities are allowed on weeds or invasive plants; removal or other management of Federal and non-Federal lands? (iii) Selective application of noxious weeds and invasive plants. Incidental take of the Olympia, Roy herbicides for removal of noxious weeds Routine removal or other management Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm pocket or invasive plants; and of noxious weeds and invasive plants gophers will not be a violation of (iv) Repair or maintenance of fences. section 9 of the Act, if the incidental are limited to the following, and must * * * * * be conducted in a way that impacts to take results from routine maintenance of nontarget plants are avoided to the roadside rights-of-way on Federal and Dated: March 26, 2014. maximum extent practicable: non-Federal lands. Routine maintenance Rowan W. Gould, (i) Mowing; activities of roadside rights-of-way of Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife (ii) Discing; highways and roads are limited to the Service. (iii) Herbicide and fungicide following, and must be conducted in a [FR Doc. 2014–07414 Filed 4–8–14; 8:45 am] application; way that impacts to nontarget plants are BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:04 Apr 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\09APR3.SGM 09APR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3