[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54214-54218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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