[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54214-54218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21377]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing Five 
Subspecies of Mazama Pocket Gopher From the Candidate List for 
Endangered and Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), remove five 
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher (Tacoma, Brush Prairie, Shelton, 
Olympic, and Cathlamet) from the list of candidates for listing as 
threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. After review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that the Tacoma pocket gopher is likely 
extinct; the Brush Prairie pocket gopher was misidentified as a 
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher and was added to the list in error; 
and listing of the Shelton, Olympic, and Cathlamet pocket gophers is 
not warranted. However, we invite the submission of any new information 
concerning the status of, or threats to, the Shelton, Olympic, or 
Cathlamet pocket gophers or their habitats to our Washington Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) whenever it becomes available. 
New information will help us monitor these three subspecies of Mazama 
pocket gopher and encourage their conservation. If an emergency 
situation develops for any of these three subspecies or any other 
species, we will act to provide immediate protection. We will continue 
to monitor these three subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher as species of 
concern.

ADDRESSES: This notice and supporting documentation are available on 
the internet at http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/indexPublic.do and http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2012-0088). Supporting 
documentation for this determination is also available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond 
Drive SE., Lacey, WA 98503; by telephone at 360-753-9440; or by 
facsimile at 360-534-9331.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken S. Berg, Manager, Washington Fish 
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES, above). Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) (Act), requires that we identify species of wildlife and plants 
that are endangered or threatened, based on the best available 
scientific and commercial information. As defined in section 3 of the 
Act, an endangered species is any species which is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a 
threatened species is any species which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Through the Federal rulemaking 
process, we add species that meet these definitions to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11 or the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants at 50 CFR 17.12. As part of this 
program, we maintain a list of species that we regard as candidates for 
listing. A candidate species is one for which we have on file 
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened, but for which 
preparation and publication of a proposal is precluded by higher 
priority listing actions. We may identify a species as a candidate for 
listing after we have conducted an evaluation of its status on our own 
initiative, or after we have made a positive finding on a petition to 
list a species.
    We maintain this list of candidates for a variety of reasons: To 
notify the public that these species are facing threats to their 
survival; to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that could 
affect decisions of environmental

[[Page 54215]]

planners and developers; to provide information that may stimulate and 
guide conservation efforts that will remove or reduce threats to these 
species and possibly make listing unnecessary; to request input from 
interested parties to help us identify those candidate species that may 
not require protection under the Act or additional species that may 
require the Act's protections; and to request necessary information for 
setting priorities for preparing listing proposals.

Previous Federal Actions for Mazama Pocket Gophers

    On December 11, 2012, we published a proposed rule (77 FR 73770) to 
list four subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher as threatened under the 
Act and to designate critical habitat for these four subspecies in the 
State of Washington. In that document, we used the general term 
``Mazama pocket gopher'' to refer collectively only to those subspecies 
of Thomomys mazama that occur in the State of Washington. The four 
subspecies we proposed for listing and designation were Roy Prairie 
(Thomomys mazama glacialis), Olympia (T. m. pugetensis), Tenino (T. m. 
tumuli), and Yelm (T. m. yelmensis). We also determined at that time 
that the Tacoma pocket gopher (T. m. tacomensis) is extinct, that the 
Brush Prairie pocket gopher (T. m. douglasii) is not a subspecies of 
Thomomys mazama and was added to the candidate list without basis, and 
that the listing of three other subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher 
(Olympic [T. m. melanops], Cathlamet [T. m. louiei], and Shelton [T. m. 
couchi]) is not warranted, and proposed to remove all five entities 
from our candidate list. For a description of previous Federal actions 
concerning the Mazama pocket gophers, please refer to the proposed rule 
(December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule 
to list four subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher during two comment 
periods: The first opened December 12, 2012, and closed February 11, 
2013, and the second opened April 3, 2013, and closed May 3, 2013 (78 
FR 20074; April 3, 2013). During these open comment periods, we 
received comments from one of the peer reviewers, the State, and one 
private citizen regarding the five other subspecies of Mazama pocket 
gopher that we determined to be not warranted for listing under the 
Act. Below we address those comments that were relevant to these five 
subspecies. We fully considered all substantive information offered; 
however, none of the comments that we received changed our initial 
determination for these five subspecies described in the December 11, 
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 73770).

Comments From Peer Reviewers

    (1) Comment: A peer reviewer disagreed with our statement that it 
is not possible to conclusively determine that Brush Prairie pocket 
gopher is not T. mazama. This peer reviewer then provided a narrative 
that detailed the history of the taxonomic status of Brush Prairie 
pocket gopher, concluding that T. talpoides douglasii is clearly 
distinguishable from T. mazama using standard, scientifically accepted 
morphological characteristics to separate the species.
    Our Response: We appreciate this account of the taxonomic status of 
Brush Prairie pocket gopher and the clarification in support of the 
taxonomic separation of the two species in our proposed determination. 
We have incorporated this information into our final determination for 
the Brush Prairie pocket gopher, below.
    (2) Comment: A peer reviewer was concerned that our determination 
that the Tacoma pocket gopher is likely extinct may be premature. The 
peer reviewer stated that the ``historical locations'' are likely 
highly biased and certainly few in number, so the lack of appropriate 
habitat at those sites today does not mean that such habitat, and 
potential populations, do not occur elsewhere.
    Our Response: The presumption of extinction for the Tacoma pocket 
gopher is based on well-documented habitat loss due to intense urban 
development, repeated negative surveys of known historical locations, 
and negative surveys of potentially suitable habitat throughout the 
subspecies' known range (for details, see our proposed rule dated 
December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770, pp. 73773-73774). The State of 
Washington has likewise concluded that, based on extensive survey 
efforts over the past few decades and the observed loss and 
fragmentation of habitat, the Tacoma pocket gopher is likely extinct, 
the last record of this subspecies having been reported in 1974 
(Stinson 2013, pp. 24-25).

Comments From the State

    We received comments from the Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (WDFW) and the Washington Department of Natural Resources 
(WDNR) related to biological information, threats, and recommendations 
for the management of habitat for one or more of these five subspecies.
    On February 11, 2013, during our first public comment period, we 
received comments from WDFW on our proposed rule. We discussed these 
comments in a series of meetings. On April 19, 2013, during our second 
comment period on the proposed rule, we received additional comments 
from WDFW indicating appreciation for our responsiveness to their 
initial concerns and clarifying their perspective as a result of the 
productive conversations between our organizations. Below are our 
responses to the initial comment letter.
    (3) Comment: WDFW asserted that it is difficult to argue that the 
Cathlamet pocket gopher still exists given it has not been found for 
more than 60 years, and recent surveys were conducted in 2012. They 
asserted that the Service used similar logic to conclude that the 
Tacoma pocket gopher is likely extirpated.
    Our Response: The Service made the determination that the Cathlamet 
pocket gopher may still be extant based on the historically sporadic 
survey effort for the subspecies at the single site from which it was 
identified, and the lack of any survey effort across potentially 
suitable habitat in the surrounding area or even the extent of the soil 
type from which the type specimen was originally collected. This 
determination is in contrast to our presumption of extinction for the 
Tacoma pocket gopher, which is based on evidence from extensive survey 
efforts for the subspecies across suitable habitat and historical sites 
over many years, as well as the observed loss and fragmentation of its 
habitat to development (see also our response to Peer Review Comment 2, 
above). Based on our review of the best scientific and commercial data 
available, we have made different conclusions for the Cathlamet pocket 
gopher than for the Tacoma pocket gopher because surveys of all 
potential habitat have never been conducted for the Cathlamet pocket 
gopher. Land use has remained essentially the same since the type 
locality was discovered in 1949, which suggests that Cathlamet pocket 
gophers have not been affected by factors such as extensive residential 
development or the development of gravel mining operations. 
Consequently, we are not prepared to declare the species extinct 
(December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770, p. 73776). In summary, as discussed in 
our proposed rule, unlike the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of Mazama 
pocket gopher proposed for listing, we have no information to suggest 
that the Cathlamet pocket

[[Page 54216]]

gopher is similarly impacted by threats such as development, military 
training, or control as a pest species. Therefore, we have concluded 
that the Cathlamet pocket gopher does not meet the definition of 
threatened or endangered under the Act, and does not warrant listing 
(December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770, p. 73790).
    (4) Comment: WDNR acknowledged that factors affecting the 
conservation status of the Olympic pocket gopher are significantly 
different from those affecting the four Thurston/Pierce subspecies of 
Mazama pocket gopher proposed for listing, but believed its status is 
not, however, significantly different. WDNR believed the Olympic pocket 
gopher is confined to a very small and fragmented range, available 
habitat continues to be reduced by encroachment of woody species, 
population numbers are very low, and surviving animals face a 
theoretical, but likely, threat of predation by coyotes.
    Our Response: We appreciate the comments from WDNR, but we did not 
receive any data in association with their comments to support the 
claims made. In response to WDNR's comment, the Service contacted 
Olympic National Park researchers directly and requested any 
quantifiable data relating to a number of factors, including 
encroachment of woody species into known occupied habitat, predation, 
extirpation, or manmade threats. We did not receive any data providing 
evidence that the Olympic pocket gopher faces population-level threats 
from factors such as predation by coyotes, thus we were unable to 
identify any metric that led us to conclude that the Olympic pocket 
gopher is threatened with extinction now or within the foreseeable 
future. The Olympic pocket gopher occurs entirely within the boundary 
of Olympic National Park and is secure from many of the threats facing 
the other Washington subspecies proposed for listing. Our review of the 
best scientific and commercial data available indicates that any 
factors that may be impacting the Olympic pocket gopher are relatively 
minor and are not resulting in population-level effects. Based on this 
review and as described in detail in the proposed rule (December 11, 
2012; 73 FR 73770), we conclude that the Olympic pocket gopher does not 
meet the definitions of an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act.
    (5) Comment: Both WDNR and WDFW commented that available habitat 
for the Olympic pocket gopher appears to continue to be reduced due to 
invasion by woody vegetation. In addition, WDFW asserted that 
encroachment of woody vegetation is likely impacting the Shelton and 
Cathlamet pocket gophers. They stated that the succession to forest 
that eliminates habitat is much more prevalent in Mason County than in 
Thurston and Pierce counties, and Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius) is 
also a problem.
    Our Response: Although we acknowledge that woody vegetation 
encroachment could be a threat, we have not located nor been provided 
any data with which to quantify this potential threat to the Olympic, 
Shelton, or Cathlamet pocket gophers. However, we encourage collection 
of data on encroachment of woody vegetation to monitor this potential 
threat to these subspecies.
    (6) Comment: WDFW suggested that conversion from forest cover to 
development is likely to reduce the availability of potentially 
suitable habitat for the Shelton pocket gopher in Mason County in the 
future. However, WDFW also pointed out that recent openings created by 
timber harvest can result in suitable, but currently ephemeral, habitat 
for Shelton pocket gophers.
    Our Response: In making our determination, the Service considers 
whether threats to the species are such that the species is presently 
in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future (threatened). Although we agree that loss of 
suitable habitat from conversion of forest land to development has the 
potential to negatively impact individuals of the Shelton pocket 
gopher, we have no evidence to suggest that the severity or rate of 
development in Mason County in the future rises to the level of a 
population-level threat such that the subspecies as a whole is 
presently in danger of extinction, or will become threatened with 
extinction within the foreseeable future (see analysis in our proposed 
rule, December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770, p. 73778).
    (7) Comment: WDFW stated that the summary statement for Factor E in 
our threats analysis for all nine subspecies was not well supported. 
Specifically, they indicate no evidence was presented in the proposal 
to support the occurrence of ``reductions in population size, loss of 
genetic diversity, reduced gene flow among populations, destruction of 
population structure, and increased susceptibility to local population 
extirpation.''
    Our Response: It is true that few to no data support changing 
trends in population numbers for Mazama pocket gophers. What is clear 
is that suitable habitat for some subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher is 
increasingly lost to development, fragmented, reduced, or completely 
eliminated, and that connective habitat corridors allowing for gene 
flow have been permanently lost through conversion to incompatible land 
uses. Based on the evidence from the extinction of the Tacoma pocket 
gopher, the Service infers that when habitat or connective corridors 
are lost to development, the opportunity for recolonization of 
previously occupied habitat patches is also lost, leading to a 
reduction in gene flow between populations and reduced population 
numbers. However, we have no evidence to suggest that these factors are 
affecting the Olympic, Shelton, or Cathlamet subspecies of Mazama 
pocket gopher to a degree that makes them in danger of extinction at 
the present time, or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future. We also refer readers to the proposed rule (December 11, 2012; 
77 FR 73770, pp. 73786-73789) for citations supporting the concluding 
statement under factor E.
    (8) Comment: WDFW indicates the following statement ``this 
subspecies [Shelton pocket gopher] is highly restricted in its range, 
the few threats identified occur throughout its range, and the threats 
are not restricted to any portion of its range'' could apply to any and 
all of the Mazama pocket gopher subspecies in Washington. The only 
exception is that military training affects some of the Thurston and 
Pierce subspecies and not others. Thus they were not sure how this 
could be used as an argument against listing the Shelton pocket gopher.
    Our Response: Our determination of ``not warranted'' was based on 
whether or not the threats were active, not the similarity to threats 
affecting other subspecies of pocket gopher. However, we have no 
evidence to suggest that these factors are affecting the Shelton 
subspecies of Mazama pocket gopher to a degree that makes them in 
danger of extinction at the present time, or likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future (see our proposed rule, 
December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770, pp. 73789-73790).

Findings

    Here we affirm our final determinations on the actions as stated in 
the proposed rule (December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770):

Removal of the Tacoma Pocket Gopher From the Candidate List

    The first identified specimen of the Tacoma pocket gopher (Thomomys 
mazama tacomensis) was collected in 1853 by Suckley and Cooper (1860) 
at

[[Page 54217]]

Fort Steilacoom, but was first described by Taylor (1919, pp. 169-171). 
Verts and Carraway (2000, p. 1) recognize the Tacoma pocket gopher 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 the Tacoma pocket gopher over the last three 
decades, and the lack of appropriate habitat left at historical 
locations, we conclude the Tacoma pocket gopher is extinct. We, 
therefore, remove the Tacoma pocket gopher (T. m. tacomensis) from the 
candidate list.

Removal of the Brush Prairie Pocket Gopher From the Candidate List

    In our 2007 Notice of Review of Native Species That Are Candidates 
for Listing as Endangered or Threatened--Candidate Notice of Review 
(CNOR) (72 FR 69034; December 6, 2007), we added the Brush Prairie 
pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama douglasii) to the list of candidate 
species. The addition was made following a review by the State of 
Washington, which recognized the Brush Prairie pocket gopher as a 
subspecies of Thomomys mazama instead of Thomomys talpoides based on 
current (at the time) genetic data and morphological features. At that 
time, since all of the subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers in the State 
of Washington were considered candidates for listing, the Service 
accepted the classification of the Brush Prairie pocket gopher as a 
subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher and added it to the candidate 
list without additional evaluation.
    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.). In our proposed rule (December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770, p. 
73774), we pointed to the lack of evidence to support the conclusion 
that the Brush Prairie pocket gopher is in fact a subspecies of 
Thomomys mazama, and additionally noted that Verts and Carraway (2000, 
p. 1) do not recognize the Brush Prairie pocket gopher as a member of 
T. mazama. Peer review of our proposed rule provided definitive support 
of our conclusion that the Brush Prairie pocket gopher is not a 
subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher. Therefore, based upon review of 
the best scientific and commercial data 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. The Brush Prairie pocket gopher was 
added to the candidate list in 2007 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. As such, we believe it was added to the candidate list in 
error. We, therefore, remove the Brush Prairie pocket gopher (T. m. 
douglasii) from the candidate list.

Removal of the Olympic Pocket Gopher From the Candidate List

    The Olympic pocket gopher occupies isolated alpine meadows in the 
Olympic National Park in Clallam County. We find that the effects due 
to small or isolated populations have likely had some negative impacts 
to the subspecies; however, we have no information to suggest that 
these impacts rise to the level such that the subspecies is in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. 
This species also exhibits low genetic diversity; however, again we 
have no evidence to suggest that the consequences of this are such that 
the subspecies is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future. This subspecies is highly restricted in 
its range, the few factors potentially impacting the subspecies occur 
throughout its range, and these factors are not restricted to any 
particular portion of its range. However, none of the impacts faced by 
the Olympic pocket gopher are particularly grave or immediate, such 
that would lead us to conclude that the subspecies is presently in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future, and we do not have information to suggest that the subspecies 
is suffering from any recent declines in abundance or distribution (see 
the proposed rule for the full threats analysis of the Olympic pocket 
gopher, December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770).
    Occurring entirely within the boundaries of a National Park, the 
Olympic pocket gopher appears secure from many of the threats facing 
the other Washington subspecies of Mazama pocket gophers, such as 
habitat loss to development, encroachment by woody vegetation, or 
predation by feral cats and dogs. The best available information 
indicates that the factors impacting the Olympic pocket gopher are 
relatively minor and are not resulting in population-level effects such 
that the subspecies is currently in danger of extinction, or likely to 
become so within the foreseeable future. For these reasons and those 
discussed in the proposed rule previously (December 11, 2012; 77 FR 
73770), we find that the Olympic pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama 
melanops) does not meet the definition of an endangered or a threatened 
species and does not warrant listing under the Act. Therefore, we 
remove the Olympic pocket gopher (T. m. melanops) from the candidate 
list.

Removal of the Shelton Pocket Gopher From the Candidate List

    The Shelton pocket gopher used to range across the open prairies 
and grasslands of Mason County, and is now also known to inhabit low-
elevation meadow-type areas in Mason County. We find that the effects 
due to small or isolated populations have likely had some negative 
impacts to the subspecies; however, we have no information to suggest 
that these impacts rise to the level such that the subspecies is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable 
future. This subspecies is highly restricted in its range, the few 
factors potentially impacting the subspecies occur throughout its 
range, and these factors are not restricted to

[[Page 54218]]

any particular portion of its range. Although likely impacted by 
development in the past, we have no information to suggest that ongoing 
or future development poses a threat to this subspecies, and beneficial 
management plans are in place for some of the larger populations of the 
Shelton pocket gopher. The full threats analysis for the Shelton pocket 
gopher is provided in the proposed rule published December 11, 2012 (77 
FR 73770).
    The Shelton pocket gopher is not currently affected by many of the 
threats that have had severe impacts on other Washington subspecies of 
Mazama pocket gopher, such as habitat loss due to residential or 
commercial development, encroachment of woody vegetation, or predation 
by cats and dogs. We have no evidence that the Shelton pocket gopher is 
experiencing population-level effects from the factors identified, and 
new local populations of the subspecies have been identified. Based on 
the best available information, we conclude that the factors impacting 
the Shelton pocket gopher are relatively minor and that the subspecies 
is not currently in danger of extinction, or likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future. For these reasons and those discussed in the 
proposed rule previously (December 11, 2012; 77 FR 73770), we find that 
the Shelton pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama couchi) does not meet the 
definition of an endangered or a threatened species and does not 
warrant listing under the Act. Therefore, we remove the Shelton pocket 
gopher (T. m. couchi) from the candidate list.

Removal of the Cathlamet Pocket Gopher From the Candidate List

    The Cathlamet pocket gopher occurs in low-elevation meadow-type 
areas in Wahkiakum County. The subspecies is found in a limited-extent 
soil type on commercial timber lands. In the Service's review of this 
subspecies previously (USFWS 2010, pp. 5-6), it was characterized as 
likely extinct. However, based on our further review of information, we 
determined that further surveys of the type locality and surrounding 
area are needed to determine the status of this subspecies, as thorough 
surveys of all potential habitat were never conducted. In addition, 
land use within the type locality has remained the same since the 
subspecies was discovered in 1949 (Gardner 1950), suggesting that 
threats such as residential development, predation by cats or dogs, or 
control as a pest species have not impacted the Cathlamet pocket 
gopher, such that the subspecies may remain extant. The full threats 
analysis for the Cathlamet pocket gopher is provided in the proposed 
rule published December 11, 2012 (73 FR 73770).
    The range and distribution of the Cathlamet pocket gopher has not 
been completely surveyed, and its type locality still exists. The 
available evidence suggests that, due to the nature of the area 
occupied by the subspecies and the fact that land use has not changed 
significantly since it was first identified, any factors potentially 
impacting the Cathlamet pocket gopher are likely relatively minor and 
are not restricted to any particular portion of its range. For these 
reasons and those discussed in the proposed rule previously (December 
11, 2012; 77 FR 73770), we have determined that the Cathlamet pocket 
gopher (Thomomys mazama louiei) does not meet the definition of an 
endangered or a threatened species and does not warrant listing under 
the Act. Therefore, we remove the Cathlamet pocket gopher (T. m. 
louiei) from the candidate list.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this package are the staff members of the 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington.

Authority

    This notice is published under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: August 21, 2013.
 Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-21377 Filed 8-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P