# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Four Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher and Designation of Critical Habitat

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-29335

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** December 11, 2012
- **Citation:** 77 FR 73770

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Four Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list four subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie) as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We additionally propose to designate critical habitat for these subspecies. We have determined that the Tacoma pocket gopher is extinct, and that the listing of three other subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Shelton, Cathlamet, and Olympic) is not warranted. These determinations fulfill our obligations under a settlement agreement. These are proposed regulations, and if finalized, the effect of these regulations will be to add these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act.

DATES:

We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before February 11, 2013. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
by January 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

(1)
Electronically:
Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov.
In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”.

(2)
By hard copy:
Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.

We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov.
This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

The coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical habitat maps are generated are included in the administrative record for this rulemaking and are available at
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo
/,
http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. [FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088], and at the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
). Any additional tools or supporting information that we may develop for this rulemaking will also be available at the Fish and Wildlife Service Web site and Field Office set out above, and may also be included in the preamble and/or at
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ken S. Berg, Manager, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503, by telephone (360) 753-9440, or by facsimile (360) 534-9331. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule.
Under the Endangered Species Act (Act), a species may warrant protection through listing if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The subspecies addressed in this proposed rule are candidates for listing and, by virtue of a settlement agreement, we must make a determination as to their present status under the Act. These status changes can only be done by issuing a rulemaking. The table below summarizes our determination for each of these candidate species:

Species

Present range
Status

Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher

Thomomys mazama
ssp.
glacialis, pugetensis, tumuli, yelmensis

Pierce and Thurston Counties, WA
Proposed Threatened.

Olympic pocket gopher

Thomomys mazama melanops

Clallam County, WA
Not warranted.

Brush Prairie pocket gopher

Thomomys talpoides douglasii

Clark County, WA
Removed due to error.

Cathlamet pocket gopher

Thomomys mazama louiei

Wahkiakum County, WA
Not warranted.

Tacoma pocket gopher

Thomomys mazama tacomensis

Extinct
Extinct.

Shelton pocket gopher

Thomomys mazama couchi

Mason County, WA
Not warranted.

The basis for our action.
Under the Endangered Species Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

For those subspecies for which we are proposing listing, we have determined that these subspecies are impacted by one or more of the following factors to the extent that the subspecies meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act:

• Habitat loss through conversion and degradation of habitat, particularly from agricultural and urban development, successional changes to grassland habitat, military training, and the spread of invasive plants;

• Disease;

• Predation;

• Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms that allow significant threats such as habitat loss; and

• Other natural or manmade factors, including low genetic diversity, small or isolated populations, low reproductive success, declining population or subpopulation sizes, and control as a pest species.

In this rule we propose to designate critical habitat for these species.
We are proposing to designate approximately 9,234 ac (3,737 ha) as critical habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Olympia, Tenino, Yelm, and Roy Prairie) in Washington.

The basis for our action.
Under the Endangered Species Act, we are required to designate critical habitat for any species that is determined to be endangered or threatened. We are required to base the designation on the best available scientific data after taking into consideration economic, national

security, and other relevant impacts. An area may be excluded from the final designation of critical habitat if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction of the subspecies.

We are proposing to promulgate special rules.
We are considering whether to exempt from the Act's take prohibitions (at section 9), existing maintenance activities and agricultural practices located on private lands where Mazama pocket gophers occur. The intent of this special rule would be to increase support for the conservation of Mazama pocket gophers and provide an incentive for continued management activities that benefit the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies and their habitats.

We are preparing an economic analysis.
To ensure that we fully consider the economic impacts, we are preparing a draft economic analysis of the proposed designations of critical habitat. We will publish an announcement and seek public comments on the draft economic analysis when it is completed.

We will seek peer review.
We are seeking comments from knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions, analysis of the best available science, and application of that science or to provide any additional scientific information to improve these proposed rules. Because we will consider all comments and information received during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal.

We are seeking public comment on this proposed rule.
Anyone is welcome to comment on our proposal or provide additional information on the proposal that we can use in making a final determination on the status of this species. Please submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES
section. Within 1 year following the publication of this proposal, we will publish in the
Federal Register
a final determination concerning the listing of the subspecies and the designation of their critical habitat or withdraw the proposal if new information is provided that supports that decision.

Information Requested

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

(1) The subspecies' biology, range, and population trends, including:

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;

(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and

(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies, their habitat or both.

(2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination for the four subspecies under section 4(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
), which are:

(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the subspecies' habitat or range;

(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(c) Disease or predation;

(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or

(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the subspecies' continued existence.

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to these subspecies and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats;

(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of these subspecies, including the locations of any additional populations of these subspecies;

(5) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of the four subspecies, and ongoing conservation measures for the subspecies and their habitat;

(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate areas as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
), including whether there are threats to the four subspecies from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be prudent.

(7) Specific information on:

(a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher;

(b) What areas that were occupied at the time of listing (or are currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the conservation of the subspecies should be included in the designation and why;

(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing; and

(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the subspecies and why.

(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.

(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of climate change on the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

(10) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.

(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

(12) Additional information pertaining to the promulgation of a special rule to exempt from the section 9 take prohibitions existing maintenance activities and agricultural practices on private lands, including airports, where the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher occur.

(13) Whether the Brush Prairie pocket gopher, which the Service believes was added to the candidate list in error and without basis, should be removed from the candidate list.

(14) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and comments.

Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES
section. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in the
ADDRESSES
section.

If you submit information via
http://www.regulations.gov,
your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on
http://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on
http://www.regulations.gov,
or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
).

Previous Federal Actions

Candidate History

We first identified eight subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers (Shelton, Roy Prairie, Cathlamet, Olympic, Olympia, Tacoma, Tenino, and Yelm) in Washington as candidates for listing in the 2001 Notice of Review of Native Species that are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened (CNOR) (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001). All candidate species are assigned listing priority numbers (LPN) that are based on the immediacy and magnitude of threats and taxonomic status. In 2001, all eight subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher were assigned an LPN of 6, which reflects threats of a high magnitude that are not considered imminent.

In 2005, the LPN for the eight Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher was revised to 3 in response to imminent threats including commercial and residential development and the operation of gravel pits (70 FR 24870; May 11, 2005) on gopher habitat. In our 2007 CNOR (72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007), we added the Brush Prairie pocket gopher to the list of candidate species, because at that time it was believed to be a subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher based on genetic data and morphological features. The candidate status for the nine Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher was most recently reaffirmed in the October 26, 2011, CNOR (76 FR 66370). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) completed action plans for the nine Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers and set conservation targets and identified actions to achieve those targets over the next 5 years. The action plan can be found on the Service's Web site at:
http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/action_plans/doc3085.pdf
(Mazama pocket gopher).

Petition History

In 2001, we developed an internal, discretionary candidate assessment document for the Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. This candidate assessment was published in the
Federal Register
on October 30, 2001 (USFWS 2001). On December 10, 2002, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance to list the eight subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers endemic to Washington State as endangered species. The petitioners also requested that critical habitat be designated concurrent with the listing. Because the Service had already determined that these subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher warranted listing and placed them on the candidate list in 2001, we have been evaluating these subspecies as resubmitted petition findings on an annual basis. On July 12, 2011, the Service filed a multiyear work plan as part of a proposed settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity and others, in a consolidated case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The settlement agreement was approved by the court on September 9, 2011, and will enable the Service to systematically review and address the conservation needs of more than 250 candidate species over a period of 6 years, including the Washington State Mazama pocket gopher subspecies. This proposed rule fulfills, in part, the terms of that settlement agreement.

Background

We discuss below only those topics directly relevant to the proposed listing of the Washington State Mazama pocket gopher subspecies in this section of the proposed rule.

Species Information

Although the species
Thomomys mazama,
or Mazama pocket gopher, includes numerous subspecies that are found in the States of Washington, Oregon, and California (as described below in Taxonomy), only the Mazama pocket gopher subspecies found in the State of Washington are currently candidates for listing under the Act. In this document, when we use the general term “Mazama pocket gopher” we are referring collectively to only those subspecies of
Thomomys mazama
that occur in the State of Washington; as used here, “Mazama pocket gopher” is not intended to include any subspecies of
T. mazama
that occur in the States of Oregon or California.

Adult Mazama pocket gophers are reddish brown to black above, and the underparts are lead-colored with buff-colored tips. The lips, nose, and patches behind the ears are black; the wrists are white. Adults range from 7 to 11 inches (in) (175 to 273 millimeters (mm)) in total length, with tails that range from 2 to 3 in (45 to 85 mm) (Hall 1981, p. 465). In Washington, Mazama pocket gophers are found west of the Cascade Mountain Range from the Olympic Mountains south through the Puget Sound trough, with an additional single locality known from Wahkiakum County (Verts and Carraway 2000, p. 3). Their populations are concentrated in well-drained friable soils often associated with glacial outwash. Mazama pocket gophers reach reproductive age in the spring of the year after their birth and produce litters between spring and early summer. Litter size ranges from one to nine (Wight 1918, p. 14), with an average of four (Verts and Carraway 2000, p. 3).

Taxonomy

The Mazama pocket gopher complex consists of 15 subspecies, 8 of which occur only in Washington, 5 of which occur only in Oregon, 1 that occurs only in California, and 1 subspecies with a distribution that spans the boundary between Oregon and California (Hall 1981, p. 467). The first pocket gophers collected in western Washington were considered to be subspecies of the northern pocket gopher (
Thomomys talpoides
) (Goldman 1939), until 1960 when the complex of pocket gophers found in western Washington was determined to be more similar to the western pocket gopher (
T. mazama
) based on characteristics of the baculum (penis bone) (Johnson and Benson 1960, p. 20). Eight western Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (
T. mazama,
ssp.
couchi, glacialis, louiei, melanops, pugetensis, tacomensis, tumuli,
and
yelmensis)
have been identified (Hall 1981, p. 467).
Thomomys mazama
is recognized as a valid species by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)

(ITIS 2012b); however, the ITIS Web site does not designate these taxa to the subspecies level.

Although there have been some suggestions that potential changes to the classification of some of these subspecies may be considered, as discussed below, we have no information to suggest that any of the presently recognized subspecies are the subject of serious dispute. We consulted with Alfred Gardner, Curator of North American mammals, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, who identified the Mammalian Species Account #641 of the American Society of Mammalogists, authored by Verts and Carraway (2000), as the definitive text for this taxon (Gardner 2012, pers. comm.). Thus we follow the subspecies designations of Verts and Carraway (2000) in this finding, as this text represents the currently accepted taxonomy for the species
Thomomys mazama.

While past descriptions of Mazama pocket gophers have focused on morphological differences in characteristics such as pelage color, skull features, and body size (Bailey 1915; Taylor 1919; Goldman 1939; Dalquest and Scheffer 1942; Dalquest and Scheffer 1944a, b; Gardner 1950; Hall 1981, pp. 465-466), recent genetic evaluations have been conducted on the Mazama pocket gopher complex using mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA) sequencing of the cytochrome b gene (Welch 2008). From these and subsequent data, Welch and Kenagy (2008, pp. 6-7) determined that the Mazama pocket gopher complex in Washington is geographically structured into three haplotype clades (genetic groups) representing the following three localities: (1) Olympic Peninsula (Clade A, which includes the Olympic pocket gopher); (2) Mason County (Clade B, which includes the Shelton pocket gopher), and (3) Thurston and Pierce county (Clade C, which includes the Roy Prairie, Olympia, and Yelm pocket gophers).

Specimens from the subspecies
Thomomys mazama louiei
(Wahkiakum County) were unobtainable and as such were omitted from Welch and Kenagy's (2008, pp. 1-3) analysis, so it is unknown what clade the Cathlamet pocket gopher belongs to or if it occupies its own clade. In addition, no specimens from the subspecies
T. m. tumuli
(Tenino pocket gopher) were readily available and were also not included in the analysis. None of the haplotypes in the analyzed specimens were shared between the three clades, which supports the differentiation of the clades. The mtDNA analysis was not able to distinguish between subspecies in Clade C; more genetic work needs to be done to determine how closely-related these subspecies are. Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) recognize
T. m. glacialis, pugetensis,

tumuli,
and
yelmensis
(the Roy Prairie, Olympia, Tenino, and Yelm pocket gophers, respectively) as separate subspecies based on morphological characteristics, distribution, and differences in number of chromosomes. For the purposes of this proposed rule, due to the close proximity of the four subspecies located in Thurston and Pierce counties and the fact that at least three of them occur in the same clade, we will be discussing these four subspecies (
T. m. glacialis, pugetensis,

tumuli,
and
yelmensis
) together and will refer to them as “the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies.”

As noted above, based on these genetic analyses the Olympic pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama melanops
) may warrant consideration as a separate species (Welch and Kenagy 2006, pp. 5-6). It is sufficiently genetically distinct and geographically isolated from all other subspecies, has very low genetic diversity within the subspecies (i.e., it is relatively inbred) compared to other extant subspecies, and does not share haplotypes with any other
T. mazama
subspecies (Welch and Kenagy 2008, pp. 6-7). In addition, the clade containing this subspecies (Clade A) is highly divergent from the other two clades (Welch and Kenagy 2008, p. 6). This is consistent with genetic isolation through the last glaciation period, suggesting that the subspecies is a relictual population that survived in the nunatak (ice-free areas that serve as glacial refugia in mountain ranges). Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) recognize
T. m. melanops
as a separate subspecies based on morphological characteristics and distribution.

The Shelton pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama couchi)
persists at Scott's Prairie (which is where the Shelton airport is sited) and may also occur in two other nearby areas (Stinson 2005, p. 40).
Thomomys mazama couchi
is not only in a separate clade (Clade B) from the one containing the Thurston/Pierce subspecies (Clade C), but landscape-level connectivity that would allow for gene flow between clades B and C is lacking. Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) recognize
T. m. couchi
as a separate subspecies based on morphological characteristics and distribution.

The Cathlamet pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama louiei)
occurs on commercial timber forest lands in Wahkiakum County. Despite brief survey efforts in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2010s, gophers have not been found at the type locality (where it was originally found) since 1956. However, these surveys did not cover the full extent of the soil types (series) known to be used by the Cathlamet pocket gopher (Murnen soil type). For this reason, and because survey efforts were not exhaustive and land use hasn't changed in this area since the type locality for the subspecies was found in 1949 (Gardner 1950), we assume the species may still be extant. No genetic work has been conducted on this subspecies. This subpopulation is about 64 miles (mi) (103 kilometers (km)) away from the next-nearest extant subspecies locality (in Thurston County), with no opportunity for gene flow between them. Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) recognize
T. m. louiei
as a separate subspecies based on morphological characteristics and distribution.

Proposed Removal of
Thomomys mazama tacomensis
from the Candidate List

The first identified specimen of
Thomomys mazama tacomensis
was collected in 1853 by Suckley and Cooper (1860) at Fort Steilacoom, but was first described by Taylor (1919, pp. 169-171). Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) recognize
T. m. tacomensis
as a separate subspecies based on morphological characteristics and distribution. Its range spanned from Point Defiance in Tacoma, south to Steilacoom, and perhaps as far east as Puyallup. In 1920, Tacoma pocket gophers were collected in Parkland and there are subsequent reports of gophers being caught in Puyallup (Scheffer, unpubl. notes, 1957). Original collection sites were long ago converted to residential and suburban development, and one site is now a gravel mining operation. By 1970, Johnson (Johnson 1982,
in litt.
) believed Tacoma pocket gophers were locally extirpated. Surveys conducted in the early 1990s by Steinberg (1996a), again in 1998 (Stinson 2005, p. 120), and during an extensive survey of historical and potential habitat in the subspecies' known range in 2011 (Tirhi 2012a,
in litt.
) failed to relocate gophers at any of the previously documented locations. Surveys were conducted during the time of year when gopher activity should have been seen if gophers were present.

The soils series in the area of the historical local populations are Alderwood, Bellingham, Everett, Nisqually, and Spanaway. The entire historical area has been heavily developed since the type locality for this subspecies was found in 1918 (Taylor 1919, p. 169). Based on repeated

surveys of previously populated areas where gophers have not been redetected (Steinberg 1995; Tirhi 2012a,
in litt.
), the lack of documented evidence of
T. m. tacomensis
over the last three decades, and the lack of appropriate habitat left at historical locations, we conclude the Tacoma pocket gopher is extinct. Therefore, we propose to remove
T. m. tacomensis
from the candidate list, and this subspecies will not be considered further in this finding.

Proposed Removal of
Thomomys mazama douglasii
from the Candidate List

In our 2007 CNOR (72 FR 69034; December 6, 2007), we added the Brush Prairie pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama douglasii)
to the list of candidate species due to current (at the time) genetic data and morphological features and based on the presumption that this subspecies was a member of
T. mazama
and not
T. talpoides.
At the time, a review by the State of Washington recognized the Brush Prairie pocket gopher as a subspecies of
T. mazama
instead of
T. talpoides,
and the Service simply accepted that classification without additional evaluation. However, we have now further investigated the genetic and morphological information originally used to add the subspecies to the candidate list based on the presumption that it was a Mazama pocket gopher (Kenagy 2012, pers. comm.; Paulson 2012, pers. comm.; Welch 2012a,b,
in litt.
). While it is not possible to conclusively determine that Brush Prairie pocket gophers are not
T. mazama,
clear evidence to support the conclusion that they are
T. mazama
does not exist at this time. Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) do not recognize the Brush Prairie pocket gopher as a member of
T. mazama.
Therefore, based upon review of the best science available, we no longer believe the Brush Prairie pocket gopher is a member of the species
T. mazama.

The Service erred by failing to conduct a separate five-factor threats analysis when we added the Brush Prairie pocket gopher to the candidate list as
Thomomys mazama douglasii,
and we now believe it was added in error and without basis (i.e., the population is not subject to threats such that listing is warranted under the Act). The Brush Prairie pocket gopher was added to the candidate list based purely on the presumption that it was a Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher, and because all other Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers were candidates. Because the best available science suggests that the Brush Prairie pocket gopher is not a subspecies of
T. mazama,
and because it was added to the candidate list without basis, we propose to remove
T. m. douglasii
from the candidate list, and this subspecies will not be considered further in this analysis.

Habitat and Life History

The Mazama pocket gopher is associated with glacial outwash prairies in western Washington, an ecosystem of conservation concern (Hartway and Steinberg 1997, p. 1), as well as alpine and subalpine meadows and other meadow-like openings at lower elevations (from this point on in the document, we will be evaluating seven Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher: Olympia, Roy Prairie, Tenino, and Yelm (the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies); Shelton; Cathlamet; and Olympic). Steinberg and Heller (1997, p. 46) found that Mazama pocket gophers are even more patchily distributed than are prairies, as there are some seemingly high quality prairies within the species' range that lack pocket gophers (e.g., Mima Mounds NAP, and 13th Division Prairie on Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM)). Pocket gopher distribution is affected by the rock content of soils (gophers avoid rocky soils), drainage, forage availability, and climate (Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21; Steinberg and Heller 1997, p. 45; Hafner
et al.
1998, p. 279; Stinson 2005, p. 31; Reichman 2007, pp. 273-274, WDFW 2009), thus further restricting the total area of a prairie that may be occupied by gophers. Prairie and meadow habitats used by pocket gophers have a naturally patchy distribution. In their prairie habitats, there is an even patchier distribution of soil rockiness which may further restrict the total area that pocket gophers can utilize (Steinberg and Heller 1997, p. 45; WDFW 2009). We assume that meadow soils have a similarly patchy distribution of rockiness, though the soil surveys to support this are, at this time, incomplete.

In Washington, Mazama pocket gophers currently occupy the following soils series: Alderwood, Cagey, Carstairs, Everett, Godfrey, Grove, Indianola, Kapowsin, McKenna, Murnen, Nisqually, Norma, Shelton, Spana, Spanaway, Spanaway-Nisqually complex, and Yelm. There is no currently-available soils survey for the Olympia National Park, so soils occupied by gophers there are unknown. Although some soils are sandier, more gravelly, or siltier, most all are friable (easily pulverized or crumbled), loamy, and deep, and generally have slopes less than 15 percent. Mapped soils series can have smaller inclusions of different soils types. Because soils are mapped at larger scales, mapped soils may not reflect these smaller inclusions, which may be used by gophers.

In 2011, there were reports of Mazama pocket gophers (subspecies unknown) occurring on new types of soils and on managed forest lands in Capitol State Forest (owned by WDNR) and Vail Forest (owned by Weyerhaeuser) in Thurston County. These were subsequently determined to be moles, based on trapping conducted in these areas by WDFW during the 2012 gopher survey season (Thompson 2012d, pers. comm.).

Mazama pocket gophers are morphologically similar to other species of pocket gophers that exploit a subterranean existence. They are stocky and tubular in shape, with short necks, powerful limbs, long claws, and tiny ears and eyes. Their short, nearly hairless tails are highly sensitive and probably assist in navigation in tunnels. Burrows consist of a series of main runways, off which lateral tunnels lead to the surface of the ground (Wight 1918, p. 7). Pocket gophers dig their burrows using their sharp teeth and claws and then push the soil out through the lateral tunnels (Wight 1918, p. 8; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-20). Nests containing dried vegetation are generally located near the center of each pocket gopher's home tunnel system (Wight 1918, p. 10). Food caches and store piles are usually placed near the nest, and excrement is piled into blind tunnels or loop tunnels, and then covered with dirt, leaving the nest and main runways clean (Wight 1918, p. 11). The “pockets” of pocket gophers are external, fur-lined cheek pouches on either side of the mouth that are used to transport nesting material and carry plant cuttings to storage compartments. Their teeth grow continuously, requiring gophers to constantly gnaw in order to grind them down (Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-20). Pocket gophers don't hibernate in winter; they remain active throughout the year (Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-20).

A variety of natural predators eat pocket gophers, including weasels, snakes, badgers, foxes, skunks, bobcats, coyotes, great horned owls, barn owls, and several hawks (Hisaw and Gloyd 1926, entire; Fichter
et al.
1955, p. 13; Huntly and Inouye 1988, p. 792; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21; Stinson 2005, pp. 29-30). Many different vertebrates and invertebrates take refuge in gopher burrows, especially during inclement

weather, including beetles, amphibians (such as toads and frogs), lizards, snakes, ground squirrels, and smaller rodents (Blume and Aga 1979, p. 131; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21; Stinson 2005, pp. 29-30).

Pocket gophers are generalist herbivores and their diet includes a wide variety of plant material, including leafy vegetation, succulent roots, shoots, and tubers. In natural settings pocket gophers play a key ecological role by aerating soils, activating the seed bank, and stimulating plant growth, though they can be considered pests in agricultural systems. In prairie and meadow ecosystems, pocket gopher activity is important in maintaining species richness and diversity.

The home range of a Mazama pocket gopher is composed of suitable breeding and foraging habitat. Home range size varies based on factors such as soil type, climate, and density and type of vegetative cover (Cox and Hunt 1992, p. 133; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21; Hafner
et al.
1998, p. 279). Home range size for individual Mazama pocket gophers averages about 1,076 square feet (ft
2
) (100 square meters (m
2
)) (Witmer
et al.
1996, p. 96). Based on work done by Converse
et al.
(2010, pp. 14-15), a local population of Mazama pocket gophers in the south Puget Sound area could be self-sustaining if it occurred on a habitat patch that was equal to or greater than 50 ac (20 ha) in size.

Foraging primarily takes place below the surface of the soil, where pocket gophers snip off roots of plants before occasionally pulling the whole plant below ground to eat or store in caches. If above-ground foraging occurs, it's usually within a few feet of an opening and forage plants are quickly cut into small pieces, and carried in their fur-lined cheek pouches back to the nest or cache (Wight 1918, p. 12). Any water they need is obtained from their food (Wight 1918, p. 13; Gettinger 1984, pp. 749-750). The probability of Mazama pocket gopher occupancy is much higher in areas with less than 10 percent woody vegetation cover (Olson 2011a, p. 16), because such vegetation will shade out the forbs, bulbs, and grasses that gophers prefer to eat, and high densities of woody plants make travel both below and above the ground difficult for gophers.

Pocket gophers reach sexual maturity during the spring of the year following their birth, and produce one litter per year (Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-20). Gestation lasts approximately 18 days (Schramm 1961, p. 169; Anderson 1978, p. 421). Young are born in the spring to early summer (Wight 1918, p. 13), and are reared by the female. Aside from the breeding season, males and females remain segregated in their own tunnel systems. There are 1-9 pups per litter (averaging 3-4), born without hair, pockets, or teeth, and they must be kept warm by the mother or “packed” in dried vegetation (Wight 1918, p. 14; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-20). Juvenile pelage starts growing in at just over a week (Anderson 1978, p. 420). The young eat vegetation in the nest within 3 weeks of birth, with eyes and ears opening and pockets developing at about a month (Wight 1918, p. 14; Anderson 1978, p. 420). At 6 weeks they are weaned, fighting with siblings, and nearly ready to disperse (Wight 1918, p. 15; Anderson 1978, p. 420), which usually occurs at about 2 months of age (Stinson 2005, p. 26). They attain their adult weight around 4-5 months of age (Anderson 1978, pp. 419, 421). Most pocket gophers live only a year or two, with few living to 3 or 4 years of age (Hansen 1962, pp. 152-153; Livezey and Verts 1979, p. 39).

Pocket gophers rarely surface completely from their burrow except as juveniles, when they disperse above ground from spring through early fall (Ingles 1952, p. 89; Howard and Childs 1959, p. 312; Olson 2011b, unnumbered pp. 3-4). They are highly asocial and intolerant of other gophers. Each gopher maintains its own burrow system, and occupancy of a burrow system by multiple individuals occurs only for brief periods during mating seasons and prior to weaning young (Ingles 1952, pp. 88-89; Witmer and Engeman 2007, p. 288; Marsh and Steele 1992, p. 209). The mating system is probably polygynous (a single male mates with multiple females) and most likely based on female choice. The adult sex ratio has been reported as biased toward females in most species of pocket gophers that have been studied, often as much as 4:1 (Howard and Childs 1959, p. 296; Patton and Feder 1981, p. 917), though Witmer
et al.
(1996, p. 95) reported a sex ratio of close to 1:1 in Mazama pocket gophers.

Sex ratio may vary with population density, which is often a measure of forage density and soil suitability for burrowing. One site having a deep soil layer that was much less rocky was estimated to have a pocket gopher population density five times that of another site having rocky soil (Steinberg 1996, p. 26). A study of the relationship between soil rockiness and pocket gopher distribution revealed a strong negative correlation between the proportion of medium-sized rocks in the soil and absence of pocket gophers in eight of nine prairies sampled (medium sized rocks were considered greater than 0.5 inch (12.7 mm) but less than 2 inches (50.8 mm) in diameter; Steinberg 1996, p. 32). In observations of pocket gopher distribution on JBLM, pocket gophers did not occur in areas with a high percentage of Scot's broom cover in the vegetation, or where mole (
Scapanus
spp.) populations were particularly dense (Steinberg 1995, p. 26). A more recent study on JBLM also found that pocket gopher presence was negatively associated with Scot's broom; however, the researcher found no relationship between pocket gopher presence and mole density (Olson 2011a, pp. 12-13).

Pocket gophers have limited dispersal capabilities. The loss and degradation of additional patches of appropriate habitat could result in further isolation of populations, increasing their vulnerability to extinction. Physiographic, demographic, historical, and stochastic factors probably influence potential dispersal distance (Hafner
et al.
1998, p. 279). Studies of other larger
Thomomys
gophers found that most will only disperse less than 131 ft (40 m) from their natal territory (Daly and Patton 1990, p. 1291), although some have been found to move greater than 984 ft (300 m) (Williams and Baker 1976, p. 306; Daly and Patton 1990, p. 1286), and up to 1,312 ft (400 m) (Hafner
et al.
1998, p. 279). In 2010 and 2011, WDFW conducted a study to determine dispersal distances of juvenile Mazama pocket gophers on JBLM. Twenty-eight juveniles were radio-collared and tracked for 17-56 days, with all but 3 animals tracked for more than 30 days. Of these, only 9 gophers moved more than 32.8 ft (10 m), and 10 gophers were never found more than 13.1 ft (4 m) from any previous location (Olson 2012b, p. 5). Only 1 animal dispersed what would be considered a larger distance, moving 525 ft (160 m) in a single day. This research is ongoing.

Historical and Current Range and Distribution

The Olympic pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama melanops)
is found in the Olympic National Park in Clallam County where it is restricted to subalpine habitat of the higher Olympic Mountains. While the protections of the National Park Service (NPS) suggest that this is the most secure of the subspecies in Washington, three local populations had been extirpated by 1951, and another was recorded as extirpated by 1976 (Johnson 1977, pp. 2-3). By 1977, Johnson (1977, p. 1) estimated that the subspecies had been extirpated from about 30 percent of its range, and speculated that such extirpations may

have been related to fire suppression, avalanches, landslides, or weather cycles. Steinberg (1995, p. 27; 1996, p. 8) and Welch (2009,
in litt.
) documented Olympic pocket gophers at several sites in the Park, and the Burke Museum's records show that pocket gopher specimens have been gathered from multiple locations in the Park (Burke Museum 2009). A series of surveys were conducted in the summer of 2012, and found evidence of Mazama pocket gophers still occurring in the same areas as found by Johnson and Steinberg (Fleckenstein 2012,
in litt.
). Further surveys need to be conducted to determine the status of this subspecies, as no complete inventory has been conducted. There have been no soil surveys conducted on the Olympic National Park, so soils series names are not known at the locations where gophers occur in Clallam County.

The Shelton pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama couchi)
was known from one local population detected at the Shelton airport in Mason County and mounds found near the penitentiary grounds near Shelton (Stinson 2005, p. 39). A nearby regenerating clearcut was found to have been colonized by pocket gophers after 1992 (Stinson 2005, p. 41). Other local populations have been identified nearby on private land, including a recent clearcut near the airport (Stinson 2011a,
in litt.
). New populations have been found on commercial timber lands and private lands in Mason County (Olson 2011b,
in litt.
) and more may exist (Krippner 2011b, entire). Pocket gopher sign has been reported elsewhere, but their presence has not been verified by trapping (Stinson 2011b, pers. comm.). All currently known gopher sites in Mason County occur on Carstairs, Grove, or Shelton soils.

The Cathlamet pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama louiei
) is known only from its type locality in Wahkiakum County. The Cathlamet pocket gopher was originally found on commercial forest lands in a large burn that subsequently regenerated to forest. The forest was clearcut in the early 2000s, but pocket gophers have not been found at this site since 1956, despite brief survey efforts in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2010s (Stinson 2005, p. 34; Thompson 2012a, p. 1
in litt.
). The soils series these gophers occupy (Murnen) is locally limited in extent, and patchily distributed. In the Service's review of this species previously (USFWS 2010, pp. 5-6), it was characterized as likely extinct. However, based on our further review of information for this proposed rule, we determined that further surveys of the area are needed to determine the status of this subpopulation, as thorough surveys of all potential habitat have never been conducted and land use has remained the same since the type locality was discovered in 1949 (Gardner 1950), suggesting that the subspecies may remain extant.

The following general description of the distribution of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama glacialis, pugetensis,

tumuli,
and
yelmensis
) is based on our current knowledge. Steinberg (1996, p. 9) surveyed all historical and many currently known gopher sites. This included all current and formerly known occupied sites listed by the WDNR as having Carstairs, Nisqually, or Spanaway gravelly or sandy loam soil, and that WDNR determined to have vegetation that was intact prairie or restorable to prairie. WDFW and a suite of consultants have surveyed areas of potential gopher habitat in both counties, usually associated with proposed development (Krippner 2011a, pp. 26-29). WDFW has also surveyed areas in relation to various research studies, as well as conducting a 5-county-wide distribution survey in 2012 (Thompson 2012b and c, entire).

The Roy Prairie pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama glacialis
) is found in the vicinity of the Roy Prairie and on JBLM in Pierce County. The subspecies was described as plentiful in 1983 but was reduced to a small population by 1993 (Stinson 2005, p. 38). Due to proximity to the subspecies' type locality, it is likely that gophers occurring on 91st Division Prairie and Marion Prairie in Pierce County contain this subspecies. Soils in and around this area are Everett, Indianola, Norma, Spanaway, and Nisqually.

The type locality for the Olympia pocket gopher (
Thomomys mazama pugetensis
) was the prairie on and around the Olympia Airport (Dalquest and Scheffer 1944b, p. 445). Gophers continue to occupy this area. Soils in and around this area are Alderwood, Cagey, Everett, Indianola, McKenna, Nisqually, Norma, Spana, Spanaway-Nisqually complex, and Yelm.

Tenino pocket gophers (
Thomomys mazama tumuli
) were originally found in the vicinity of the Rocky Prairie NAP, near Tenino (Stinson 2005, pp. 19, 33, 38), a relatively small-extent prairie area. Gophers still reside there, but WDFW researchers have not seen consistent occupancy of the area by gophers in recent years (Olson 2010,
in litt.
), suggesting that the colonies intermittently located in the NAP are satellite populations dispersing from a currently unidentified nearby source population. Soils in this area are Everett, Nisqually, Norma, Spanaway, and Spanaway-Nisqually complex.

Yelm pocket gophers (
Thomomys mazama yelmensis
) were originally found on prairies in the area of Grand Mound, Vail, and Rochester (Dalquest and Scheffer 1944b, p. 446). Surveys conducted in 1993-1994 found no gophers near the towns of Vail or Rochester (Steinberg 1995, p. 28); however, more recent surveys have documented gophers near Rochester, Rainier, Littlerock, Grand Mound, and Vail (Krippner 2011a, p. 31). Soils series in and around these areas include Alderwood, Everett, Godfrey, Kapowsin, McKenna, Nisqually, Norma, Spana, Spanaway, Spanaway-Nisqually complex, and Yelm.

Population Estimates/Status

There are few data on historical or current population sizes of Mazama pocket gopher populations in Washington, although several local populations and one subspecies are believed to be extinct. Knowledge of the past status of the Mazama pocket gopher is limited to distributional information. Recent surveys have focused on determining current distribution, primarily in response to development applications. In addition, in 2012, WDFW initiated a 5-county-wide distribution survey. Because the object of all of these surveys has mainly been presence/absence only, total population numbers for each subspecies are unknown. Local population estimates have been reported but are based on using apparent gopher mounds to delineate the number of territories, a method that has not been validated (Stinson 2005, pp. 40-41). Olson (2011a, p. 2) evaluated this methodology on pocket gopher populations at the Olympia Airport and Wolf Haven International. Although there was a positive relationship between the number of mounds and number of pocket gophers, the relationship varies spatially, temporally, and demographically (Olson 2011a, pp. 2, 39). Based on the results of Olson's 2011 study we believe past population estimates (Stinson 2005) may have been too high. As there is no generally-accepted standard survey protocol for pocket gophers, it is difficult to make a reliable determination of population abundance or trend.

Increased survey effort since 2007 has resulted in the identification of numerous additional occupied sites located on private lands, especially in Thurston County (Krippner 2011, pp. 26-29). Some of these are satellite colonies adjacent to known larger

populations, such as that on the Olympia Airport, and may be population sinks (colonies that do not add to the overall population through recruitment). Others are separate locations, seemingly unassociated (physically) with known populations (Tirhi 2008,
in litt.
). The largest known local populations of any Mazama pocket gophers in Washington occur on JBLM (Roy Prairie and Yelm pocket gophers), and at the Olympia and Shelton airports (Olympia and Shelton pocket gophers, respectively).

A translocated population of Mazama pocket gophers occurs on Wolf Haven International's land near Tenino, Washington. Between 2005 and 2008, over 200 gophers from a variety of areas in Thurston County (mostly from around Olympia Airport (Olympia pocket gopher,
Thomomys mazama pugetensis
)) were released into the 38-ac (15-ha) mounded prairie site. Based on the best available information, we do not believe the property contained Mazama pocket gophers previously. Today pocket gophers continue to occupy the site (Tirhi 2011,
in litt.
); however current population estimates are not available. Another site, West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area, has received a total number of 560 translocated pocket gophers (
T. m. pugetensis
) from the Olympia Airport between 2009 and 2011. Initial translocation efforts in 2009 were unsuccessful; a majority of the pocket gophers died within 3 days due to predation (Olson 2009, unnumbered p. 3). Modified release techniques used in 2010 and 2011 resulted in improved survival rates of gophers translocated to West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area (Olson 2011c, unnumbered p. 4). It is too soon to know if the population will become self-sustaining, or if additional translocations of gophers will be necessary. This research is ongoing.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

In making this finding, information pertaining to each of the species in question in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is appropriate; we require evidence that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the point that the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act.

In making the 12-month finding for each of the subspecies addressed in this document we considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information. Here we evaluate the factors affecting the subspecies under consideration in this proposed rule.

Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

Under this factor, the primary long term threats to the Mazama pocket gopher are the loss, conversion, and degradation of habitat particularly to urban development, successional changes to grassland habitat, and the spread of invasive plants. The threats also include increased predation pressure, which is closely linked to habitat degradation and discussed more fully under Factor C.

The prairies of south Puget Sound are part of one of the rarest ecosystems in the United States (Noss
et al.
1995, p. I-2; Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. v). Dramatic changes have occurred on the landscape over the last 150 years, including a 90 to 95 percent reduction in the prairie ecosystem. In the south Puget Sound region, where most of western Washington's prairies historically occurred, less than 10 percent of the original prairie persists, and only 3 percent remains dominated by native vegetation (Crawford and Hall 1997, pp. 13-14).

Development

Native prairies and grasslands have been severely reduced throughout the range of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher and the Shelton pocket gopher as a result of human activity due to conversion of habitat to residential and commercial development and agriculture. Prairie habitat continues to be lost, particularly to residential development (Stinson 2005, p. 70) by removal and fragmentation of native vegetation and the excavation and grading of surfaces and conversion to non-habitat (buildings, pavement, other infrastructure) rendering soils unsuitable for burrowing. Residential development is associated with increased infrastructure such as new road construction, which is one of the primary causes of landscape fragmentation (Watts
et al.
2007, p. 736). Activities that accompany low-density development are correlated with decreased levels of biodiversity, mortality to wildlife, and facilitated introduction of nonnative invasive species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, entire; Watts
et al.
2007, p. 736). In the south Puget Sound lowlands, the glacial outwash soils and gravels underlying the prairies are deep and valuable for use in construction and road building, which leads to their degradation and destruction.

In the south Puget Sound, Mazama pocket gophers most commonly reside in Nisqually loamy soils (Stinson 2010a,
in litt.
), the vast majority of which occur in developed areas of Thurston County, or within the Urban Growth Areas for the cities of Olympia, Tumwater, and Lacey (Thurston County 2004; WDFW 2009a), where future development is most likely to occur. Where pocket gopher populations presumably extended across an undeveloped expanse of open prairie (Dalquest and Scheffer 1942, pp. 95-96), current local populations of gophers in these areas are now isolated to small fragmented patches.

The presumed extinction of the Tacoma pocket gopher is likely linked directly to residential and commercial development, which has replaced nearly all gopher habitat in the historical range of the subspecies (Stinson 2005, pp. 18,

34, 46). One of the historical Tacoma pocket gopher sites was converted to a large gravel pit and golf course (Stinson 2005, pp. 47, 120; Steinberg 1996, pp. 24, 27). In addition, two gravel pits are now operating on part of the site recognized as the type locality for the Roy Prairie pocket gopher (Stinson 2005, p. 42), and another is in operation near Tenino (Stinson 2010b,
in litt.
) in the vicinity of the type locality for the Tenino pocket gopher. Many areas historically occupied by Mazama pocket gophers in Olympia and Lacey have been lost to development (Stinson 2005, p. 26).

Multiple pocket gopher sites in Pierce and Thurston Counties may be, or have been lost to, gravel pit development, golf course development, or residential and commercial development (Stinson 2005, pp. 26, 42; Stinson 2007,
in litt.,
and 2010b,
in litt.
). Multiple prairies that used to contain local populations of pocket gophers within the range of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies have been developed to cities, neighborhoods, or agricultural lands, including Yelm Prairie, Grand Mound Prairie, Baker Prairie, Chambers Prairie, and Roy Prairie.

Where their properties coincide with gopher occupancy, many private lands developers and landowners in Thurston County have agreed to create gopher set-asides in order to obtain development permits from the County (Tirhi 2008,
in litt.
). However, it is unknown if any gophers will remain on these sites due to the small size of the set-asides, extensive grading in some areas, lack of enforcement or monitoring of set-aside maintenance (Defobbis 2011,
in litt.
), and lack of control of predation by domestic or feral cats or dogs.

There are two local populations of Olympia and Shelton pocket gophers located at and around airports (Port of Olympia's Olympia Airport and Port of Shelton's Sanderson Field). Gophers at the Olympia Airport are currently threatened by development from the airport itself and adjacent landowner development. The Port of Olympia is realigning the airport runway, and has plans to develop large portions of the existing grassland that likely supports the largest population of the Olympia pocket gopher in Washington (Stinson 2007,
in litt.;
Port of Olympia and WDFW 2008, p.1; Port of Olympia 2012). They continue to work with WDFW on mitigating airport expansion activities that may impact gophers (Tirhi 2010,
in litt.
).

Shelton Pocket Gopher.
While past construction of the Port of Shelton's Sanderson Field previously removed prairie habitat in an area occupied by Shelton pocket gophers, future development plans do not include impacts to a significant amount of gopher habitat at this time. The majority of planned development will occur in areas already impacted (between existing buildings). Potential additions of pavement for hangars and a runway extension are planned in gopher use areas at the south end of the airport. However, neither project would impact a significant portion of the entire area used by gophers (Port of Shelton 2010, 2012). In addition, the Port will have to prove to the Federal Aviation Administration that a need exists to extend the existing runway, which is unlikely to occur in the next 5 years (Palmer 2012,
in litt.
). The Port of Shelton operates under a Gopher Habitat Management Plan (Port of Shelton 2003) and has identified a smaller restoration area of approximately 50 ac (20 ha) across Highway 101 from the airport, where Scot's broom and other woody vegetation would be controlled in order to benefit Mazama pocket gophers, although the soil type in the restoration site (Shelton) is different from that on most of Sanderson Field (Carstairs). The majority of other local populations of Shelton pocket gophers in Mason County (i.e., those that occur off of Port property) do not appear to face a threat of development, as they largely occur on commercial timber forest lands.

Olympic, Roy, and Yelm Pocket Gophers.
The Olympic pocket gopher, occurring entirely within the Olympic National Park, the Yelm pocket gophers at Tenalquot Preserve and Scatter Creek Wildlife Area, and the translocated populations at West Rocky Prairie Wildlife Area (all Olympia pocket gophers from the Olympia Airport) and Wolf Haven (largely from around the Olympia Airport, but could include other subspecies), are currently secure from intense commercial and residential development pressures as these populations occur on conserved lands. JBLM local populations (which could include both Roy Prairie and Yelm pocket gophers due to Department of Defense (DOD) land holdings that overlap the ranges of both subspecies) are also secure from such residential and commercial development; however, impacts due to military training threaten gopher habitat and may lead to reduced use of these areas by gophers (see Military Activities, below).

Cathlamet Pocket Gopher.
We have no information available that indicates that development is a threat to the Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

Loss of Ecological Disturbance Processes, Invasive Species, and Succession

The suppression and loss of ecological disturbance regimes across vast portions of the landscape, such as fire, has resulted in altered vegetation structure in the prairies and meadows and has facilitated invasion by native and nonnative woody vegetation, rendering habitat unusable for the four Thurston/Pierce and Shelton subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. The basic ecological processes that maintain prairies and meadows have disappeared from, or have been altered on, all but a few protected and managed sites.

Historically, the prairies and meadows of the south Puget Sound region of Washington are thought to have been actively maintained by the native peoples of the region, who lived here for at least 10,000 years before the arrival of Euro-American settlers (Boyd 1986, entire; Christy and Alverson 2011, p. 93). Frequent burning reduced the encroachment and spread of shrubs and trees (Boyd 1986, entire; Chappell and Kagan 2001, p. 42), favoring open grasslands with a rich variety of native plants and animals. Following Euro-American settlement of the region in the mid-19th century, fire was actively suppressed on grasslands, allowing encroachment by woody vegetation into the remaining prairie habitat and oak woodlands (Franklin and Dyrness 1973 p. 122; Boyd 1986, entire; Kruckeberg 1991, p. 287; Agee 1993, p. 360; Altman
et al.
2001, p. 262).

Fires on the prairie create a mosaic of vegetation conditions, which serve to maintain native prairie plant communities. In some prairie patches fires will kill encroaching woody vegetation and reset succession back to bare ground, creating early successional vegetation conditions suitable for many native prairie species. Early succession forbs and grasses are favored by Mazama pocket gophers. The historical fire frequency on prairies has been estimated to be 3 to 5 years (Foster 2005, p. 8).

The result of fire suppression has been the invasion of the prairies and oak woodlands by native and nonnative plant species (Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. v; Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 146), notably woody plants such as the native Douglas-fir and the nonnative Scot's broom. On tallgrass prairies in midwestern North America, fire suppression has led to degradation and the loss of native grasslands (Curtis 1959, pp. 296, 298; Panzer 2002, p. 1297). On northwestern prairies, fire suppression has allowed Douglas-fir to

encroach on and outcompete native prairie vegetation for light, water, and nutrients (Stinson 2005, p. 7). This increase in woody vegetation and nonnative plant species has resulted in less available prairie habitat overall and habitat that is unsuitable for and avoided by many native prairie species, including the Mazama pocket gopher (Tveten and Fonda 1999, p. 155; Pearson and Hopey 2005, pp. 2, 27; Olson 2011a, pp. 12, 16). Pocket gophers prefer early successional vegetation as forage. Woody plants shade out the forbs and grasses that gophers prefer to eat, and high densities of woody plants make travel both below and above the ground difficult for gophers. In locations with poor forage, pocket gophers tend to have larger territories, which may be difficult to establish in densely forested areas. The probability of Mazama pocket gopher occupancy is much higher in areas with less than 10 percent woody vegetation cover (Olson 2011a, p. 16).

On JBLM alone, over 16,000 acres (6,477 ha) of prairie has converted to Douglas-fir forest since the mid-19th century (Foster and Shaff 2003, p. 284). Where controlled burns or direct tree removal are not used as a management tool, this encroachment will continue to cause the loss of open grassland habitats for Mazama pocket gophers and is an ongoing threat for the species.

Restoration in some of the south Puget Sound grasslands has resulted in temporary control of Scot's broom and other invasive plants through the careful and judicious use of herbicides, mowing, grazing, and fire. Fire has been used as a management tool to maintain native prairie composition and structure and is generally acknowledged to improve the health and composition of grassland habitat by providing a short-term nitrogen addition, which results in a fertilizer effect to vegetation, thus aiding grasses and forbs as they resprout.

Unintentional fires ignited by military training burn patches of prairie grasses and forbs on JBLM on an annual basis. These light ground fires create a mosaic of conditions within the grassland, maintaining a low vegetative structure of native and nonnative plant composition, and patches of bare soil. Because of the topography of the landscape, fires create a patchy mosaic of areas that burn completely, some areas that do not burn, and areas where consumption of the vegetation is mixed in its effects to the habitat. One of the benefits to fire in grasslands is that it tends to kill regenerating conifers, and reduces the cover of nonnative shrubs such as Scot's broom, although Scot's broom seed stored in the soil can be stimulated by fire (Agee 1993, p. 367). Fire also improves conditions for many native bulb-forming plants, such as
Camassia
sp. (camas) (Agee and Dunwiddie 1984, p. 367). On sites where regular fires occur, such as on JBLM, there is a high complement of native plants and fewer invasive species. These types of fires promote the maintenance of the native short-statured plant communities favored by pocket gophers.

Management practices such as intentional burning and mowing require expertise in timing and technique to achieve desired results. If applied at the wrong season, frequency, or scale, fire and mowing can be detrimental to the restoration of native prairie species. Excessive and high intensity burning can result in a lack of vegetation or encourage regrowth to nonnative grasses. Where such burning has occurred over a period of more than 50 years on the artillery ranges of the JBLM, prairies are covered by nonnative forbs and grasses instead of native perennial bunchgrasses (Tveten and Fonda 1999, pp. 154-155).

Mazama pocket gophers are not commonly found in areas colonized by Douglas-fir trees because gophers require forbs and grasses of an early successional stage for food (Witmer
et al.
1996, p. 96). Mazama pocket gophers observed on JBLM did not occur in areas with high cover of Scot's broom (Steinberg 1995, p. 26). A more recent study on JBLM also found that pocket gopher presence was negatively associated with Scot's broom (Olson 2011a, pp. 12-13, 16). Some subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers may disperse through forested areas or may temporarily establish territories on forest edges, but there is currently not enough data available to determine how common this behavior may be or which subspecies employ it. The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies occur on prairie-type habitats, many of which, if not actively managed to maintain vegetation in an early-successional state, have been invaded by shrubs and trees that either preclude the gophers or limit their ability to fully occupy the landscape.

Some areas which are occupied by the Olympic, Cathlamet, and to some extent the Shelton subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher, may be at risk due to ingrowth of trees (Vale 1981, p. 61; Magee and Antos 1992, pp. 492-493; Woodward
et al.
1995, p. 224; Zolbrod and Peterson 1999, pp. 1970-1971). This encroachment appears to be occurring slowly and other factors may prevent it or set it back, including increased or decreased precipitation (depending on season), growing season duration and temperature, timing and duration of snowpack, increased fire frequency, or windthrow. Such factors can be extremely site-specific in nature and microclimatically based. This makes it difficult to predict where, when, and to what extent encroachment may occur (see discussion under Climate Change, Factor E). The loss of natural disturbance processes and succession aren't known to be a current threat to the Olympic or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

Where the Shelton pocket gopher occurs on Sanderson Field (the largest open prairie habitat in the range of the Shelton pocket gopher), airport management prevents woody vegetation from encroaching for flight safety reasons. Vegetative encroachment is therefore not an issue at this site. The Shelton pocket gopher's range overlaps both prairie and commercial timberlands. Due to management actions at Sanderson Field, and due to the subspecies' ability to take advantage of forest openings created by management, succession or loss of habitat does not appear to be an overall threat to this subspecies.

Military Training

Populations of Mazama pocket gophers occurring on JBLM are exposed to differing levels of training activities on the base. The DOD's proposed actions under `Grow the Army' (GTA) include stationing 5,700 new soldiers, new combat service support units, a combat aviation brigade, facility demolition and construction to support the increased troop levels, and additional aviation, maneuver, and live fire training (75 FR 55313, September 10, 2010). The increased training activities will affect nearly all training areas at JBLM resulting in an increased risk of accidental fires, and habitat destruction and degradation through vehicle travel, dismounted training, bivouac activities, and digging. While training areas on the base have degraded habitat for these species, with implementation of conservation measures, these areas still provide habitat for the Mazama pocket gopher.

Several moderate- to large-sized local populations of Mazama pocket gophers have been identified on JBLM. We believe these are likely to be Roy Prairie and Yelm pocket gophers. Their absence from some sites of what is presumed to have been formerly suitable habitat may be related to compaction of the soil due to years of mechanized vehicle training, which impedes burrowing activities of pocket gophers (Steinberg 1995, p. 36). Training infrastructure (roads, firing

ranges, bunkers) also degrades gopher habitat and may lead to reduced use of these areas by pocket gophers. For example, as part of the GTA effort, JBLM has plans to add a third rifle range on the south impact area where it overlaps with a densely occupied Mazama pocket gopher site. The area may be usable by gophers when the project is completed; however, construction of the rifle range may result in removal of forage and direct mortality of gophers through crushing of burrows (Stinson 2011c,
in litt.
). We assume, as access is not allowed there, that gophers are unable to fully utilize the otherwise apparently suitable central portion of 91st Division Prairie due to repeated and ongoing bombardment of that area. Other JBLM training areas have varying levels of use; some allow excavation (Marion Prairie) and off-road vehicle use, while other areas have restrictions that limit off-road vehicle use. No military training occurs in the range of the Olympic, Cathlamet, Shelton, Olympia, or Tenino subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

JBLM has committed to restrictions both seasonally and operationally on military training areas, in order to avoid and minimize potential impacts to Mazama pocket gophers. These restrictions include identified non-training areas, seasonally restricted areas during breeding, and the adjustment of mowing schedules to protect the species. These conservation management practices are outlined in an operational plan that the Service has assisted the DOD in developing for JBLM (Thomas 2012, pers. comm.).

Restoration Activities

Management for invasive species and encroachment of conifers requires control through equipment, herbicides, and other activities. While restoration has conservation value for the species, management activities to implement restoration may also have direct impacts to the species that are the target of habitat restoration.

In the south Puget Sound, Mazama pocket gopher habitat has been degraded and encroached upon by native and nonnative shrubs, including Scot's broom and several Washington State listed noxious weeds, such as
Euphorbia esula
(leafy spurge) and
Centaurea
sp. (knapweed) (Dunn and Ewing 1997, p. v; Vaughan and Black 2002, p. 11). Steinberg (1995, p. 26) observed that pocket gophers on JBLM did not occur in areas with thick Scot's broom and Olson (2011a, pp. 12-13) also found that pocket gopher presence was negatively associated with Scot's broom. Most restoration activities are unlikely to have direct impacts on pocket gophers, though removal of nonnative vegetation is likely to temporarily decrease available forage for Mazama pocket gophers.

Disease Impacts to Habitat

Disease is not known to be a threat to the habitats of the Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers.

Summary of Factor A

Here we summarize the threats to the seven subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers under consideration in this proposed rule.

Much of the habitat originally used by the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies has been fragmented and/or lost to development. Residential and commercial development in the restricted remaining range of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies is expected to continue into the future, and is likely to continue to result in substantial impacts to the subspecies' habitat and populations. Development removes forage vegetation, renders soils unsuitable for burrowing by covering them with impervious surfaces, or by grading or removing them. Proposed development triggers Critical Area Ordinances (CAOs) in these counties, but resultant set-asides are not always adequate to conserve local populations into the future (for further discussion on these regulatory assurances, see Factor D) The threat of development is not significant for the Shelton pocket gopher. Development is not a threat for the Olympic or Cathlamet pocket gophers.

Past military training has likely negatively impacted two of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies (Roy Prairie and Yelm pocket gophers) by direct and indirect mortality from bombardment, subsequent fires, and soils compaction on prairies. This threat is expected to continue in the future due to planned increases in stationing and military training at JBLM. Military training is not a threat to the five other subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

Degradation of habitat by invasive shrubby species such as Scot's broom continues to be on ongoing significant threat to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies. Invasive species encroachment into alpine and subalpine meadows is not known to be a threat for the Olympic, Cathlamet, or Shelton pocket gopher.

The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies also face threats from encroachment of native and nonnative plant species into their prairie environments due to succession and fire suppression, and are particularly impacted by the encroachment of woody vegetation. This has resulted in loss of forage vegetation for pocket gophers, as well loss of burrowing habitat, as tree and shrub roots overtake the soils. We have no evidence to indicate that encroachment of woody vegetation is a threat for the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet pocket gophers.

The Washington prairie ecosystem that the Mazama pocket gopher subspecies primarily depend upon has been reduced by an estimated 90 to 95 percent over the past 150 years, with less than 10 percent of the native prairie remaining in the south Puget Sound region today. Due to loss and degradation of gopher habitat from ongoing and future residential and commercial development, encroachment of shrubs and trees into their prairie habitats, and impacts from both current and future military training (for Roy Prairie and Yelm subspecies), we conclude that the threats to the habitat of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher are significant. We did not find any information to suggest that there are habitat based threats for the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

Overutilization of species results when the number of individuals removed from the system exceeds the ability of the population of the species to sustain its numbers or reduces populations of the species to a level such that it is vulnerable to other influences (threats) upon its survival. This overutilization can result from removal of individuals from the wild for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes.

One local population of Mazama pocket gopher at Lost Lake Prairie in Mason County (Shelton pocket gopher) may have been extirpated as a result of collecting by Dalquest and Scheffer in the late 1930s or early 1940s (Dalquest and Scheffer 1944, p. 314). Later, Steinberg (1996, p.23) conducted surveys in the vicinity and found no evidence of pocket gophers. In addition, Mazama pocket gophers in Washington were used in a rodenticide experiment as recently as 1995 (Witmer
et al.
1996, p. 97). Witmer
et al.
(1996, p. 95) claim these were likely
Thomomys mazama tumuli
(Tenino pocket gophers), but these Lacey-area gophers may fall in the range of the Olympia pocket gopher. Hundreds of Olympia pocket gophers died during initial translocation experiments and research conducted by WDFW at Wolf Haven and West Rocky

Prairie, respectively, between 2005 and 2011 (Linders 2008, p. 9; Olson 2011c; Olson 2012a,
in litt.
). In the case of the Wolf Haven translocations, gophers were removed from development sites where pocket gopher mortality would have likely occurred from direct impacts due to site development (crushing of individuals and burrows from heavy machinery excavation, grading, and construction, etc.). Pocket gophers continue to occupy Wolf Haven, despite there being no known occurrence records for the site prior to translocations. Similarly, pocket gophers were not known to inhabit West Rocky Prairie prior to translocation experiments there. Pocket gophers for this research were taken from the Olympia Airport, one of the largest local populations of Mazama pocket gophers in Thurston County. Although no analysis has been completed on the population levels of the Olympia airport population after this experiment, this population remains the largest in Thurston County. The analysis and evaluation of this research is ongoing. Outside of this controlled research, we have no information or evidence that overutilization of any subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher is an ongoing threat now or will become a threat in the future.

Summary of Factor B

In summary, although there is some evidence of historical mortality from overutilization of the Mazama pocket gopher, and there may have been recent mortality from utilization of the Mazama pocket gopher for research purposes, we have no information to indicate that these activities have negatively impacted the species as a whole and have no information to suggest that overutilization will become a threat in the future. In addition, there is no evidence that commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational use is occurring at a level that would pose a threat to the Mazama pocket gopher.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

Disease

Most healthy ecosystems include organisms such as viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites that cause disease. Healthy wildlife and ecosystems have evolved defenses to fend off most diseases before they have devastating impacts. An ecosystem with high levels of biodiversity (diversity of species and genetic diversity within species) is more resilient to the impacts of disease because there are greater possibilities that some species and individuals within a species have evolved resistance, or if an entire species is lost, that there will likely be another species to fill the empty niche.

Where ecosystems are not healthy due to a loss of biodiversity and threats such as habitat loss, climate change, pollutants or invasive species, wildlife and ecosystems are more vulnerable to emerging diseases. Diseases caused by or carried by invasive species are particularly severe threats, as native wildlife may have no natural immunity to them (National Wildlife Federation 2012).

Our review of the best available scientific and commercial data found no evidence to indicate that disease is a threat to the Washington Mazama pocket gopher subspecies. We conclude that disease is not a threat to the subspecies now, nor do we anticipate it to become a threat in the future.

Predation

Predation is a process of major importance in influencing the distribution, abundance, and diversity of species in ecological communities. Generally, predation leads to changes in both the population size of the predator and that of the prey. In unfavorable environments, prey species are stressed or living at low population densities such that predation is likely to have negative effects on all prey species, thus lowering species richness. In addition, when a nonnative predator is introduced to the ecosystem, negative effects on the prey population may be higher than those from co-evolved native predators. The effect of predation may be magnified when populations are small, and the disproportionate effect of predation on declining populations has been shown to drive rare species even further towards extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75).

Predation has an impact on populations of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. For the Mazama pocket gopher, urbanization, particularly in the south Puget Sound area, has resulted in not only habitat loss, but the increased exposure to feral and domestic cats (
Felis catus
) and dogs (
Canis lupus familiaris
). Domestic cats are known to have serious impacts on small mammals and birds and have been implicated in the decline of several endangered and threatened mammals, including marsh rabbits in Florida and the salt-marsh harvest mouse in California (Ogan and Jurek 1997, p. 89). Domestic cats and dogs have been specifically identified as common predators of pocket gophers (Wight 1918, p. 21; Henderson 1981, p. 233; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21) and at least two Mazama pocket gopher locations were found as a result of house cats bringing home pocket gopher carcasses (WDFW 2001, entire). In addition, the last specimens and last known individuals of the Tacoma pocket gopher were carcasses brought home by cats (Stinson 2005, p. 34). There is also one recorded instance of a WDFW biologist being presented with a dead Mazama pocket gopher by a dog during an east Olympia, Washington, site visit in 2006 (Burke Museum 2012).

The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher occur in rapidly developing areas. Local populations that survive commercial and residential development (adjacent to and within habitat) are vulnerable to extirpation by domestic and feral cats and dogs (Henderson 1981, p. 233; Case and Jasch 1994, p. B-21). As stated previously, predation is a natural part of the Mazama pocket gopher's life history; however, the effect of predation may be magnified when populations are small. The disproportionate effect of additional predation on declining populations has been shown to drive rare species even further towards extinction (Woodworth 1999, pp. 74-75). Predation, particularly from nonnative species, will likely continue to be a threat to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher now and in the future, particularly where development abuts gopher habitat. In such areas where local populations are already small, this additional predation pressure (above natural levels of predation) is expected to further impact population numbers. We have no information to indicate that predation is a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

Summary of Factor C

Based on our review of the best available information, we conclude that disease is not a threat to the Mazama pocket gopher now, nor do we expect it to become a threat in the future.

Because the populations of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher are declining and small, we find that the effect of the threat of predation by feral and domestic pets (cats and dogs) is resulting in a significant impact on the subspecies. Therefore, based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that predation is currently a threat to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher now and will continue to be in the future. We have no information to indicate that predation is a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or

Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Under this factor, we examine whether existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to address the threats to the subspecies discussed under the other factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires the Service to take into account “those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species * * *.” In relation to Factor D under the Act, we interpret this language to require the Service to consider relevant Federal, State, and Tribal laws, regulations, and other such mechanisms that may minimize any of the threats we describe in threat analyses under the other four factors, or otherwise enhance conservation of the subspecies. We give strongest weight to statutes and their implementing regulations and to management direction that stems from those laws and regulations. An example would be State governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or Federal action under statute.

The following section includes a discussion of Federal, State, Tribal, or local laws, regulations, or treaties that apply to the Mazama pocket gopher. It includes legislation for Federal land management agencies and State and Federal regulatory authorities affecting land use or other relevant management.

United States Federal Laws and Regulations

There are no Federal laws in the United States that specifically address the Mazama pocket gopher.

The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop cooperative plans with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior for natural resources on public lands. The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 requires Department of Defense installations to prepare Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) that provide for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military lands consistent with the use of military installations to ensure the readiness of the Armed Forces. INRMPs incorporate, to the maximum extent practicable, ecosystem management principles and provide the landscape necessary to sustain military land uses. While INRMPs are not technically regulatory mechanisms because their implementation is subject to funding availability, they can be an added conservation tool in promoting the recovery of endangered and threatened species on military lands.

On JBLM in Washington, several policies and an INRMP are in place to provide conservation measures to grassland associated species that occupy training lands on the military base. JBLM in partnership with local agencies and nongovernmental organizations has provided funding to conserve these species through the acquisition of new conservation properties and management actions intended to improve the amount and distribution of habitat for these species. JBLM has also provided funding to reintroduce declining species into suitable habitat on and off military lands. In June 2011, representatives from DOD (Washington, DC, office) met with all conservation partners to assess the success of this program and make decisions as to future funding needs. Support from the Garrison Commander of JBLM and all partners resulted in an increase in funding for habitat management and acquisition projects for these species on JBLM.

The Service has worked closely with the DOD to develop protection areas within the primary habitat for Mazama pocket gophers on JBLM. These include areas where no vehicles are permitted on occupied habitat, where vehicles will remain on roads only, and where only foot traffic is allowed.

JBLM policies include Army Regulation 420-5, which covers the INRMP, and AR-200-1. This is an agreement between each troop and DOD management that actions taken by each soldier will comply with restrictions placed on specific Training Areas, or range lands. Within the INRMP, the wildlife branch of the DOD is developing updated Endangered Species Management Plans (ESMPs) that provide site specific management and protection actions that are taken on military lands for the conservation of the Mazama pocket gopher. The ESMPs will provide assurances of available funding, and an implementation schedule that determines when certain activities will occur and who will accomplish these actions. ESMPs require regular updates to account for local or rangewide changes in species status. INRMPs also have a monitoring component that would require modifications, or adaptive management, to planning actions when the result of that specific action may differ from the intent of the planned action. Therefore, although current military actions may continue to harm individuals of the species, we expect (based on our ongoing technical assistance) that the Final ESMPs and revised INRMP will provide greater conservation benefit to the species than this current level of management and will protect Mazama pocket gophers from further population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate management on JBLM properties.

The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, as amended (39 Stat. 535, 16 U.S.C. 1), states that the National Park Service (NPS) “shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations * * * to conserve the scenery and the national and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” The NPS Management Policies indicate that the Park Service will “meet its obligations under the National Park Service Organic Act and the Endangered Species Act to both pro-actively conserve listed species and prevent detrimental effects on these species.” This includes working with the Service and undertaking active management programs to inventory, monitor, restore, and maintain listed species' habitats, among other actions.

The Olympic pocket gopher occurs entirely on National Park land and is protected by Federal regulations. Under Federal regulations, disturbance, collection of, or possessing unlawfully taken wildlife, except by authorized hunting and trapping activities is prohibited (36 CFR 2.1(a)(1)(i), 2.2(a)(1)(2)(3), and (b)(1)(2)(3)(4)). The Park also provides some protection to the species due to its threatened status in the State of Washington. According to the regulations codified in 36 CFR 2.5(c);

“A permit to take an endangered or threatened species listed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, or similarly identified by the States, shall not be issued unless the species cannot be obtained outside of the park area and the primary purpose of the collection is to enhance the protection or management of the species.”

Based on our review, we conclude that the Olympic pocket gopher is not faced with further population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate management due to the inadequacy of existing NPS regulations.

State Laws and Regulations

Although there is no State Endangered Species Act in Washington, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission has authority to list species (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 77.12.020). The Mazama pocket gopher

is currently listed as a threatened species by the WDFW. State-listed species are protected from direct take and/or malicious' take' but their habitat is not protected (RCW 77.15.120). State listings generally consider only the status of the species within the State's borders, and do not depend upon the same considerations as a potential Federal listing. Habitat receives protection through county or municipal critical area ordinances. Critical area ordinances require environmental review and habitat management plans for development proposals that affect state-listed species. Washington's Growth Management Act requires counties to develop critical area ordinances that address development impacts to important wildlife habitats. However, the specifics and implementation of critical area ordinances vary by county (see specific discussions below).

The Mazama pocket gopher is a Priority Species under WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species Program (WDFW 2008, pp. 19, 80, 120). As a Priority Species, Mazama pocket gophers benefit from some protection of their habitats under environmental reviews of applications for county or municipal development permits (Stinson 2005, pp. 46, 70). WDFW provides Priority Habitats and Species Management Recommendations to local government permit reviewers, applicants, consultants, and landowners in order to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to Mazama pocket gophers and their habitat (WDFW 2011, p.1). These recommendations are not regulatory, but are based on best available science. As discussed in Factor A, the threat of development is greatest for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies, but is not known to be a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies.

Under the Washington State Forest Practices Act (RCW 76.09 accessed online 2012), WDNR must approve certain activities related to growing, harvesting or processing timber on all local government, State, and privately-owned forest lands. WDNR's mission is to protect public resources while maintaining a viable timber industry. The primary goal of the forest practices rules is to achieve protection of water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and capital improvements while ensuring that harvested areas are reforested. Presently, the Washington State Forest Practices Rules do not specifically protect Mazama pocket gophers or their habitat. The Shelton and Cathlamet subspecies both occur in areas that would be subject to Washington State Forest Practices Rules. Landowners removing over 5,000 board feet of timber on their ownership, have the option to develop a management plan for a listed species if it resides on their property. If landowners choose to not develop a management plan for the subspecies with WDFW, their forest practices application will be conditioned to protect the relevant subspecies. If this approach does not provide the required protections for the subspecies then WDFW and WDNR may request the Forest Practice Board to initiate rule making, and possibly, an emergency rule would be developed (Whipple 2008, pers. comm.).

The WDNR also manages approximately 66,000 ac (26,710 ha) of lands as Natural Area Preserves (NAP). NAPs provide the highest level of protection for excellent examples of unique or typical land features in Washington State. These NAPs provide protection for the Mazama pocket gopher and based on their proactive management, we do not find the Mazama pocket gophers to be threatened by the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms on WDNR lands.

Based on our review of the existing regulatory mechanisms for the State of Washington, we conclude that while the State's regulations may protect individuals of the subspecies, they do not protect the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher, from further population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate management nor do they provide for these subspecies' long-term population viability.

Local Laws and Regulations

The Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990 requires all jurisdictions in the state to designate and protect critical areas. The state defines five broad categories of critical areas, including: (1) Wetlands; (2) areas with a critical recharging effects on aquifers used for potable water; (3) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (4) frequently flooded areas; and (5) geologically hazardous areas.
Quercus garryana
(Oregon white oak) habitat and prairie both predominantly fall into the category of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, though due to the coarse nature of prairie soils and the presence of wet prairie habitat across the landscape, critical area protections for crucial aquifer recharge areas and wetlands may also address some prairie habitat protection. As indicated previously, Washington's Growth Management Act requires counties to develop critical area ordinances that address development impacts to important wildlife habitats. The specifics and implementation of critical area ordinances vary by county although the Mazama pocket gopher is recognized as a species of local importance in the critical area ordinances of Pierce, Thurston, and Mason counties. Generally within these areas, when development activities are proposed where gophers are likely to be present, the developer must determine if gophers are present, assess the impact to gophers, and submit a Habitat Assessment Report (Pierce) or Habitat Management Plan (Thurston, Mason). Habitat Management Plans have been developed for gophers for many sites in Thurston County since 2006.

Within counties, the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) applies to all unincorporated areas, but incorporated cities are required to independently address critical areas within their Urban Growth Area. The incorporated cities within the range of the Mazama pocket gopher in Washington are: (1) Shelton (Mason County); (2) Roy (Pierce County); and (3) Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, and Yelm (Thurston County).

In 2009, the Thurston County Board of Commissioners adopted Interim Ordinance No. 14260, which strengthened protections for prairie and Oregon white oak habitat in consideration of the best available science. The County worked with the Service and WDFW to include an up-to-date definition of prairie habitat and to delineate soils where prairie habitat is likely to occur. In July 2010, the ordinance was renewed and amended, including revisions to the prairie soils list and changes to administrative language. Since July 2010, the interim prairie ordinance has been renewed on a 6-month basis and is currently in place. Several prairie species were also included as important species subject to critical areas regulation, including three subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers (for Thurston County, these would be the Olympia, Tenino, and Yelm pocket gophers, although the CAO doesn't separate out subspecies by name) (Thurston County 2012, p. 1).

Implementation of the ordinances includes delineation of prairie soils at the time of any land use application. County staff use the presence of prairie soils and soils identified as Mazama pocket gopher habitat as well as known presence of these subspecies to determine whether prairie habitat may be present at a site and impacted by the land use activity. After a field review, if prairie habitat or one of these subspecies is found on the site, the County requires a habitat management plan (HMP) to be developed, typically

by a consultant for the landowner, in accordance with WDFW's Priority Habitats and Species Management Recommendations. This HMP specifies how site development should occur, and assists developers in achieving compliance with CAO requirements to minimize impact to the prairie habitat and species. The HMPs typically include onsite fencing and semi-annual mowing. Mitigation for prairie impacts may also be required, on-site or off (Thurston County 2012, p. 2). WDFW biologists are not required to review or approve the HMP for adequacy and usually are not privy to the recommendations in final Plan. Subsequently, the County may vacate all or part of the HMP if it determines a reasonable use exception (discussed towards the end of this section) is appropriate.

In Clallam, Pierce, and Mason Counties, specific CAOs have not been identified for the Olympic, Shelton, or Roy Prairie subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. However, prairie habitats and species garner some protection under Fish (or Aquatic) and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (Mason County 2009, p. 64; Clallam County 2012, Part Three, entire; Pierce County 2012, pp. 18E.40-1-3). All developments within these areas are required to: preserve and protect habitat adequate to support viable populations of native wildlife (Clallam County 2012, Part Three, entire); to achieve “no net loss” of species and habitat where, if altered, the action may reduce the likelihood that these species survive and reproduce over the long term (Pierce County 2012, p. 18E.40-1); and support viable populations and protect habitat for Federal or State listed fish or wildlife (Mason County 2009, p. 63).

Due to its State-listed status in Washington, gophers are included in three county CAOs in the State. Actions in gopher habitat under such ordinances are intended to protect and minimize impacts to gophers and their habitats. As such, development applications in suspected gopher areas have spurred surveys and habitat assessments by WDFW or contractors in Mason, Pierce, and Thurston Counties. While survey techniques are more-or-less consistent from site to site, potential development properties found to be occupied by gophers are subject to varied species protection measures. These measures have included habitat set-asides, on-site fencing, signage, and suggested guidelines for long-term management. These measures are inadequate for protecting the site from nonnative predators, ensuring long-term habitat functioning or population viability, providing connectivity to adjacent habitat areas, or prompting corrective management actions if the biological functioning of the set-aside declines.

Measures are implemented with varying degrees of biological assessment, evaluation, and monitoring to ensure ecological success. If a site is found to be occupied by Mazama pocket gophers and unless a reasonable use exception is determined by the County, development properties are required to set aside fenced, signed areas for pocket gopher protection that must be maintained into the future. However, fencing often doesn't exclude predators, and the size of the set-asides may not be large enough to sustain a population of gophers over time. Additionally, there appears to be no mechanism in place for oversight to ensure that current and future landowners are complying with the habitat maintenance requirements, so within these set-asides, pocket gopher habitat may become unsuitable over time. Legal procedures to ensure performance, permanency, funding, and enforcement for long-term site stewardship are inadequate, or are nonexistent (Defobbis 2011,
in litt.
). Consequently, for the Mazama pocket gophers impacted by development (the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies), the contribution of these sites to maintaining pocket gopher populations and viability is unreliable for long-term conservation.

For a few property owners in Thurston County, the size of the set-aside would have precluded the proposed use of the properties. In these cases, landowners were granted a “reasonable use exception,” allowing development to proceed. In some cases, gophers that could be live-trapped have been moved (translocated) to other locations. These were termed emergency translocations. In cases such as this, or where the set-aside doesn't wholly overlap all occupied habitat, destruction of occupied habitats (due to building construction, grading or paving over, etc.) likely results in death of individuals due to the gopher's underground existence and sedentary nature, which makes them vulnerable in situations where their burrows are crushed.

County-level CAOs do not apply to incorporated cities within county boundaries, thus the incorporated cities of Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater, Yelm, Tenino, and Rainier that overlap the range of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher do not provide the same specificity of protection as the Thurston County CAO. Below we address the relevant city ordinances that overlap the species' range. We conclude below with a summary of whether we deem these city ordinances as they are tied to the County-level ordinances are adequate for the conservation of the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

The City of Olympia.
The City of Olympia's municipal code states that “The Department [City] may restrict the uses and activities of a development proposal which lie within one thousand feet of important habitat or species location,” defined by Washington State's Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) Management Recommendations of 1991, as amended” (Olympia Municipal Code (OMC) 18.32.315 B). When development is proposed within 1,000 feet of habitat of a species designated as important by Washington State, the Olympia CAO requires the preparation of a formal “Important Habitats and Species Management Plan” unless waived by the WDFW (OMC 18.32.320).

The City of Lacey.
The City of Lacey CAO includes in its definition of “critical area” any area identified as habitat for a Federal or State endangered, threatened, or sensitive species or State-listed priority habitat, and calls these Habitat Conservation Areas (HCAs) (Lacey Municipal Code (LMC) 14.33.060). These areas are defined through individual contract with qualified professional biologists on a site-by-site basis as development is proposed. The code further states that, “No development shall be allowed within a habitat conservation area or buffer [for a habitat conservation area] with which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association” (LMC 14.33.117).

The City of Tumwater.
The City of Tumwater CAO outlines protections for HCAs and for “habitats and species of local importance.” Tumwater's HCAs are established on a case-by-case basis by a “qualified professional” as development is proposed and the HCAs are required to be consistent with the recommendations issued by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Tumwater Municipal Code (TMC) 16.32.60). Species of local importance are defined as locally significant species that are not State-listed as threatened, endangered, or sensitive, but live in Tumwater and are of special importance to the citizens of Tumwater for cultural or historical reasons, or if the City is a critically significant portion of its range (TMC 16.32.055 A). Tumwater is considered a “critically significant portion of a species' range” if the species'

population would be divided into nonviable populations if it is eliminated from Tumwater” (TMC 16.32.055 A2). Species of local importance are further defined as State monitor or candidate species where Tumwater is a significant portion of its range such that a significant reduction or elimination of the species from Tumwater would result in changing the status of the species to that of State endangered, threatened, or sensitive (TMC 16.32.055 A3).

The City of Yelm.
The municipal code of Yelm states that it will “regulate all uses, activities, and developments within, adjacent to, or likely to affect one or more critical areas, consistent with the best available science” (Yelm Municipal Code (YMC) 14.08.010 E4f) and mandates that “all actions and developments shall be designed and constructed to avoid, minimize, and restore all adverse impacts.” Further, it states that, “no activity or use shall be allowed that results in a net loss of the functions or values of critical areas” (YMC 14.08.010 G) and “no development shall be allowed within a habitat conservation area or buffer which state or federally endangered, threatened, or sensitive species have a primary association, except that which is provided for by a management plan established by WDFW or applicable state or federal agency” (YMC 14.080.140 D1a). The City of Yelm municipal code states that by “limiting development and alteration of critical areas” it will “maintain healthy, functioning ecosystems through the protection of unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, and * * * conserve the biodiversity of plant and animal species” (17.08.010 A4b).

The City of Tenino.
The City of Tenino municipal code gives Development Regulations for Critical Areas and Natural Resource Lands that include fish and wildlife habitat areas (Tenino Municipal Code (TMC) 18D.10.030 A) and further “protects unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, including critical fish and wildlife habitat” (TMC 18D.10.030 D). The City of Tenino references the WDNR Critical Areas Fish and Wildlife Habitat Areas-Stream Typing Map and the WDFW PHS Program and PHS Maps as sources to identify fish and wildlife habitat (TMC 18D.10.140 E1, 2). The City also defines critical fish and wildlife species habitat areas as those areas known to support or have “a primary association with State or Federally listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species of fish or wildlife (specified in 50 CFR 17.11, 50 CFR 17.12, WAC 232-12-011) and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will survive and reproduce over the long term” (TMC 18D.40.020A, B).

The City of Rainier.
The City of Rainier municipal code identifies “critical areas as defined by RCW 36.70A.030 to include * * * fish and wildlife habitat areas” (Rainier Municipal Code (RMC) 18.100.030A) and further “protects unique, fragile, and valuable elements of the environment, including critical fish and wildlife habitat” (RMC 180.100.030D). The City of Rainier mandates protective measures that include avoiding impact to critical areas first and mitigation second (RMC 18.100.B030B). Fish and wildlife habitat critical areas may be designated either by a contracted “qualified professional” or a qualified city employee (RMC 18.100.H040H).

The City of Shelton.
The CAO for the city of Shelton (Mason County) specifies compliance with the PHS through designation of habitat conservation areas (HCAs) (Shelton Municipal Code (SMC) 21.64.300 B1), indicating that where HCAs are designated, development will be curtailed (SMC 21.64.010 B) except at the discretion of the director (city), who may allow single-family development at such sites without a critical areas assessment report if development is not believed to directly disturb the components of the HCA (SMC 21.64.360 B).

The City of Roy.
The CAO for the city of Roy (Pierce County) defines HCAs according to WDFW PHS (Roy Municipal Code (RMC) 10-5E1 C), alongside habitats and species of local importance as identified by the City (RMC 10-5E1 D). HCAs are delineated by qualified professional fish and wildlife biologists (RMC 10-5-9 A5). These HCAs are subject to mitigation if direct impacts to the HCA are unavoidable (RMC 10-5-13 E3).

Summary.
City and County CAOs have been crafted to preserve the maximum amount of biodiversity while at the same time encouraging high density development within their respective Urban Growth Areas. City and County CAOs require that potential fish and wildlife habitat be surveyed by qualified professional habitat biologists as development is proposed (with the exception of Rainier, where a qualified city staffer may complete the survey). An HCA is determined according to the WDFW PHS list, which is associated with WDFW management recommendations for each habitat and species. If an HCA is identified at a site, the development of the parcel is then subject to the CAO regulations. Mitigation required by each City or County CAO prioritizes reconsideration of the proposed development action in order to avoid the impact to the HCA.

These efforts are laudable, but are unlikely to prevent isolation of local populations of sensitive species. Increased habitat fragmentation and degradation, decreased habitat connectivity and pressure from onsite and offsite factors are not fully taken into consideration in the establishment of these mitigation sites. This may be due to a lack of standardization in assessment protocols, though efforts have been made on the part of the WDFW to implement training requirements for all “qualified biologists” who survey for pocket gopher presence or absence. Variability in the expertise and training of “qualified habitat biologists” has led to broad variation in the application of CAO guidelines in completion of the HMPs. Coupled with the lack of requirement for WDFW to review and approve every HMP, this variability in expertise and training does not appear to equally or adequately support the conservation of Mazama pocket gophers.

Connectivity of populations, abundance of resources (e.g. food plants), and undisturbed habitat are three primary factors affecting plant and animal populations. The piecemeal pattern that development unavoidably exhibits is difficult to reconcile with the needs of the Mazama pocket gopher within a given Urban Growth Area. Further, previously-common species may become uncommon due to disruption by development, and preservation of small pockets of habitat is unlikely to prevent extirpation of some species without intensive species management, which is beyond the scope of individual CAOs. The four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher are affected by habitat loss through development and conversion. Protective measures undertaken while development of lands is taking place may provide benefits for these species; however, based on our review of the Washington County and State regulatory mechanisms, we conclude that these measures are currently inadequate to protect the the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher from further population declines associated with habitat loss, inappropriate management and loss of connectivity. We do not have any information to suggest that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms poses a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

Summary of Factor D

In summary, the existing regulatory mechanisms described above are not sufficient to significantly reduce or remove the existing threats to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher. Lack of essential habitat protection under State laws leaves these subspecies at continued risk of habitat loss and degradation.

On JBLM, military training, as it currently occurs, causes direct mortality of individuals and impacts habitat for the Roy Prairie and Yelm subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher in all areas where training and the species overlap. However, we expect (based on our ongoing technical assistance), that the Final ESMPs and revised INRMP will provide greater conservation benefit to the species than this current level of management and will protect Mazama pocket gophers from further population declines associated with habitat loss or inappropriate management on JBLM properties. Therefore, we do not find existing regulatory mechanisms to be inadequate for the subspecies on JBLM lands.

The Washington CAOs generally provide conservation measures to minimize habitat removal and direct effects to the Mazama pocket gopher. However, habitat removal and degradation, direct loss of individuals, increased fragmentation, decreased connectivity, and the lack of consistent regulatory mechanisms to address the threats associated with these effects continues to occur, particularly for the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

Based upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data available, we conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to reduce the threats to the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher now or in the future. Based on our review, we have no information to suggest that the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms poses a threat to the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Low Genetic Diversity, Small or Isolated Populations, and Low Reproductive Success

Most species' populations fluctuate naturally, responding to various factors such as weather events, disease, and predation. Johnson (1977, p. 3), however, suggested that these factors have less impact on a species with a wide and continuous distribution. Populations that are small, fragmented, or isolated by habitat loss or modification of naturally patchy habitat, and other human-related factors, are more vulnerable to extirpation by natural randomly occurring events, cumulative effects, and to genetic effects that plague small populations, collectively known as small population effects. These effects can include genetic drift (loss of recessive alleles), founder effects (over time, an increasing percentage of the population inheriting a narrow range of traits), and genetic bottlenecks leading to increasingly lower genetic diversity, with consequent negative effects on evolutionary potential.

To date, of the eight subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher in Washington, only the Olympic pocket gopher has been docum

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-29335. Public record. Not legal advice.