5-Year Review Short Form Summary
Species Reviewed: Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei)
FR Notice Announcing Initiation of This Review: March 31, 2004. 90-Day Finding for a Petition to Delist the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse in Colorado and Wyoming and Initiation of a 5-Year Review (69 FR 16944-16946).
Lead Region/Field Office: Region 6, Seth Willey, Recovery Coordinator, 303-236-4257. Colorado Field Office, Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, 303-236-4773.
Name of Reviewer: Peter Plage, Colorado Field Office, 303-236-4750.
Cooperating Field Office: Wyoming Field Office, Brian Kelly, Field Supervisor, 307-772-2374.
Current Classification: Threatened rangewide.
Current Recovery Priority Number: 9c. This recovery priority number is indicative of a subspecies facing a moderate degree of threat, a high recovery potential, and whose recovery may be in conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity.
Methodology used to complete the review: The 5-year review for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Preble’s) was accomplished through the petition and rulemaking process.
On December 23, 2003, we received two nearly identical petitions from the State of Wyoming’s Office of the Governor and from Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development, seeking to remove the Preble’s from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Both petitions were similar and maintained that the Preble’s should be delisted based on the taxonomic revision, and based on new distribution, abundance, and trends data that suggested the Preble’s was no longer threatened. On March 31, 2004, we published a notice announcing a 90-day finding that the petitions presented substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted and initiated a 5-year review (69 FR 16944-16946). This notice opened a 60-day public comment period. On February 2, 2005, we published a 12-month finding that the petitioned action was warranted based on taxonomic revision and proposed to remove the Preble’s from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (70 FR 5404-5411). This notice opened a 90-day public comment period.
On February 17, 2006, the Service extended the rulemaking process an additional 6 months, as allowed under section 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), because there was substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available taxonomic data relevant to the determination contained in our proposed rule (71 FR 8556). This notice opened a
- 1 - 60-day public comment period, later extended an additional 30 days (71 FR 16090, March 30, 2006). Given this disagreement, we then contracted with Sustainable Ecosystems Institute (SEI) to organize a scientific review panel to analyze, assess, and weigh the reasons why the data, findings, and conclusions of scientific studies regarding taxonomy of the Preble’s differed. On July 21, 2006, SEI delivered a final report to the Service.
On November 7, 2007, we published a revised proposed rule based on the best scientific and commercial information available (72 FR 62992-63020). This 5-year review is based on this proposed rule. In this proposal we compiled information from our files, published and unpublished literature, comments and information submitted during the public comment periods (69 FR 16944, March 31, 2004; 70 FR 5404, February 2, 2005; 71 FR 8556, February 17, 2006; 71 FR 16090, March 30, 2006), and the final SEI report. Information also was obtained by contacting knowledgeable individuals that we felt could provide relevant data on the Preble’s distribution and status of populations. Using this best scientific and commercial information available, we then assessed the Preble’s status.
Review Summary: Our November 7, 2007 revised proposed rule provides a comprehensive evaluation of the species’ status including taxonomy, distribution, abundance, population trends, threats, and management efforts (72 FR 62992). This evaluation concludes that: (1) the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is a valid subspecies and should not be delisted based upon taxonomic revision; (2) the subspecies is not threatened throughout all of its range; and (3) the portion of the current range of the subspecies located in Colorado represents a significant portion of the current range where the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future, and the subspecies in that portion of its range should retain its threatened status. A detailed description and justification for the above conclusions is available in the revised proposed rule (attached). A final determination on this proposal will be submitted to the Federal Register by June 30, 2008.
New Recovery Priority Number: The recovery priority number remains a 9c pending a final determination on our revised proposed rule.
Brief Rationale: This recovery priority number is indicative of a subspecies facing a moderate degree of threat, a high recovery potential, and whose recovery may be in conflict with construction or other development projects or other forms of economic activity. Should a final rule remove protections in portions of the subspecies range, the recovery priority number will be refined to reflect the smaller portion of range still listed and protected under Federal Regulation.
Recommendations for Future Actions:
Listing Status under the Act – The status of the Preble’s has been in flux since late 2003. Before any other major actions can be completed, we must make a final determination on our November 7, 2007 revised proposed rule. According to a 2007 court settlement, this determination is due to the Federal Register no later than June 30, 2008 (State of Wyoming v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 07CV025J (District of Wyoming 2007)).
Critical Habitat – On July 20, 2007, the Service announced plans to review and take further
- 2 - action, as appropriate, for eight decisions made under the Endangered Species Act, after questions were raised about the integrity of the scientific information used and whether the decisions made were consistent with appropriate legal standards. The decisions in question were overseen by former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Julie MacDonald, who resigned May 1, 2007.
Two of these eight decisions were related to Preble’s. The first was our February 2, 2005, 12- month finding and proposed delisting (70 FR 5404-5411). Our 2007 revised proposed rule addressed the need to revisit this decision.
The second was our June 23, 2003 critical habitat designation (68 FR 37276). According to a November 23, 2007, letter from Director Hall to Chairman Rahall, “Once a final listing rule is issued, we anticipate reviewing the final critical habitat designation and, if necessary, proceeding with a revision when funding is available.” Funding has been allocated this fiscal year to begin this review.
Recovery Planning – A preliminary draft of a recovery plan for the Preble’s, based on recommendations of the Preble’s recovery team and modified by the Service, was released to the public on our website in November 2003. However, recovery planning has not progressed since the receipt of the December 2003 delisting petitions.
The preliminary draft of the recovery plan outlined four recovery criteria: (1) document and maintain wild, self-sustaining Preble’s populations; (2) protect and manage habitat of Preble’s populations; (3) abate threats to Preble’s populations; and (4) develop and implement a long-term management plan and cooperative agreement prior to delisting.
The plan provided a series of tasks necessary to reach these recovery goals. Minimal progress has been made toward accomplishing these tasks or reaching any of these goals. The plan stated: “We believe that adequate numbers, sizes, and distribution of populations may currently exist to meet recovery criteria, but there are substantial threats to these populations that need to be abated to prevent further decline and endangerment of the species.” Even with protections of the ESA in place, Preble’s populations in Colorado have likely decreased since this preliminary draft was written. Each year that passes without a recovery plan in place and a concerted effort to address recovery will make recovery of Preble’s more difficult.
The recovery team should be reconvened to work toward finalizing the draft recovery plan for the portion of the range where the subspecies remains listed. Both the membership of the team and the focus of recovery efforts are likely to be impacted by our final determination regarding the 2007 revised proposed rule. Following publication of the draft recovery plan and public comment, we should quickly move toward a final recovery plan. Once a final plan is in place, implementation should begin in earnest.
- 3 -
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Part III
Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing for the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) To Specify Over What Portion of Its Range the Subspecies Is Threatened; Proposed Rule
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 62992 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR and each public hearing will run from (3) Current and foreseeable threats 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. faced by the Preble’s meadow jumping Fish and Wildlife Service ADDRESSES: Written Comments: If you mouse in relation to the five factors (as wish to comment on this revised defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 50 CFR Part 17 proposed rule, you may submit your U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)); comments and materials by any one of (4) Effects of current and foreseeable RIN 1018–AV64 several methods: land management practices on Preble’s meadow jumping mouse status, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (1) By mail to: Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, Colorado Field Office, including conservation efforts; and Plants; Revised Proposed Rule To (5) Our analysis and conclusions Amend the Listing for the Preble’s Ecological Services, P.O. Box 25486, MS–65412, Denver Federal Center, regarding the conservation status of the Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus Preble’s meadow jumping mouse hudsonius preblei) To Specify Over Denver, CO 80225. (2) By hand-delivery to: Susan Linner, throughout all of its range, in particular What Portion of Its Range the information relative to the long-term Subspecies Is Threatened Colorado Field Office at 134 Union Blvd., Suite 670, Lakewood, CO 80228. security of existing populations of the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (3) By fax to: (303) 236–4005. subspecies in Wyoming. Interior. (4) By electronic mail (e-mail) to: (6) Our analysis and conclusions _ regarding ‘‘significant portion of its ACTION: Revised proposed rule. FW6 [email protected]. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section range’’ in light of the March 14, 2007, Department of the Interior, Solicitor SUMMARY: Under the authority of the below for other information about Memorandum opinion available at Endangered Species Act of 1973, as electronic filing. amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and (5) By the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.doi.gov/solicitor/ Wildlife Service (Service), revise our at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow M37013.pdf; (7) The contribution of both the February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5404), proposed the instructions on that Web site for Wyoming and Colorado portions of the rule to remove the Preble’s meadow submitting comments. range to the status of the subspecies; jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius Open House and Public Hearing: We (8) The range of the subspecies as preblei) (Preble’s) from the List of will hold an open house and public defined in this proposal and the areas Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. hearing at the Colorado Field Office, 134 where the protections of the Act should We now propose to amend the listing Union Boulevard, Room 100A—Eagle remain in place (see ‘‘Significant for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Conference Room, Lakewood, CO 80228 Portion of the Range Where the to specify over what portion of its range and at the First State Bank Conference Subspecies is Threatened’’ for specific the subspecies is threatened. The best Center, 1405 16th Street, Wheatland, information solicited) and scientific and commercial data available WY 82201. (9) The Sustainable Ecosystems demonstrates that: The Preble’s meadow FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Institute (SEI) report ‘‘Evaluation of jumping mouse is a valid subspecies Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, U.S. scientific information regarding Preble’s and should not be delisted based upon Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado meadow jumping mouse’’ (available at taxonomic revision; the subspecies is Field Office at 134 Union Blvd., Suite http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ not threatened throughout all of its 670, Lakewood, CO 80228; telephone species/mammals/preble/) and other range; and the portion of the current (303) 236–4773; facsimile (303) 236– information concerning the taxonomic range of the subspecies located in 4005. If you use a telecommunications status of Preble’s meadow jumping Colorado represents a significant device for the deaf (TDD), call the mouse. portion of the current range where the Federal Information Relay Service You may submit your comments and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is (FIRS) at (800) 877–8339. materials concerning this revised likely to become endangered within the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: proposed rule by one of several methods foreseeable future, and the subspecies in (see ADDRESSES). If you use e-mail to that portion of its range should retain its Public Comments Solicited submit your comments, please submit threatened status. We seek comments We intend that any final action them in ASCII file format and avoid the from the public regarding this revised resulting from this proposal will be as use of special characters and proposal. Comments previously accurate and as effective as possible. encryption. Please include ‘‘Attn: submitted need not be resubmitted as Therefore, we solicit data, comments, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse’’ in they have already been incorporated new information, or suggestions from your e-mail subject header, preferably into the public record and will be fully the public, other concerned with your name and return address in considered in the final determination. governmental agencies, the scientific the body of your message. If you do not DATES: Written Comments: We will community, industry, or any other receive a confirmation from the system consider comments on this revised interested party concerning this revised that we have received your e-mail, proposed rule that we receive by the proposed rule. Generally, we seek contact us directly by calling our close of business on January 22, 2008. information, data, and comments Colorado Field Office at (303) 236–4773. Any comments we receive after the concerning: Please note that we must receive closing date may not be considered in (1) Survey results for Preble’s meadow comments by the date specified in the our final decision on the proposal. jumping mouse, as well as any studies DATES section in order to consider them Open House and Public Hearing: We that may show distribution, status, in our final determination and that we will hold an open house and public population size, or population trends; will close out the e-mail address hearing on this revised proposed rule in (2) Pertinent aspects of life history, [email protected] at the termination Colorado on December 10, 2007 and in ecology, and habitat use of Preble’s of the public comment period. Wyoming on December 12, 2007. Each meadow jumping mouse, especially Before including your address, phone open house will run from 4 p.m. to 5 those pertaining to its relationship to number, e-mail address, or other p.m., with brief presentations about this the western jumping mouse (Zapus personal identifying information in your revised proposed rule given at 4 p.m., princeps); comment, you should be aware that
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 62993
your entire comment—including your Previous Federal Actions meadow jumping mouse should be personal identifying information—may We listed Preble’s meadow jumping delisted based on the taxonomic be made publicly available at any time. mouse as threatened under the Act on revision suggested by Ramey et al. While you can ask us in your comment May 13, 1998 (63 FR 26517). We (2003) and new distribution, abundance, to withhold your personal identifying designated critical habitat for Preble’s and trends data which suggested the information from public review, we meadow jumping mouse on June 23, subspecies was no longer threatened or cannot guarantee that we will be able to 2003 (68 FR 37275). On May 22, 2001 endangered (Freudenthal 2003, p. 1; do so. We will always make (66 FR 28125), we adopted a final Sonnenberg 2003, p. 1). On March 31, 2004, we published a submissions from organizations and section 4(d) special rule for the Preble’s notice announcing a 90-day finding that businesses, and from individuals meadow jumping mouse that provides the petitions presented substantial identifying themselves as exemptions from section 9 take information indicating that the representatives or officials of prohibitions for certain rodent control petitioned action may be warranted (69 organizations and businesses, available activities, ongoing agricultural FR 16944). On February 2, 2005, we for public inspection in their entirety. activities, maintenance and replacement published a 12-month finding that the Comments and materials we receive, of existing landscaping, and existing petitioned action was warranted, and a as well as supporting documentation we uses of water. On October 1, 2002 (67 proposed rule to remove Preble’s used in preparing this revised proposed FR 61531), we amended this rule to meadow jumping mouse from the rule, will be available for public provide exemptions for certain noxious Federal List of Endangered and inspection, by appointment, during weed control and ditch maintenance Threatened Wildlife, and opened a 90- normal business hours at the U.S. Fish activities. The special rule, as amended, day public comment period (70 FR and Wildlife Service Colorado Field was scheduled to sunset May 22, 2004, 5404). The proposed delisting was based Office, 134 Union Blvd., Suite 670, but was made permanent on May 20, upon a taxonomic revision suggested by Lakewood, CO 80228, (telephone (303) 2004 (69 FR 29101). Ramey et al. (2004a (a revision of Ramey 236–4773) . We will take into In June 2000, the Service established et al. 2003)), which concluded that consideration all substantive comments the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Preble’s meadow jumping mouse should and any pertinent information we Recovery Team composed of scientists be synonymized with a neighboring receive during the comment period on and stakeholders. In June 2003, the subspecies (Ramey et al. 2004a, pp. 1, this revised proposed rule during the Recovery Team provided their 13). Although this report remained preparation of a final rulemaking. recommendations to the Service in the unpublished and had received mixed Accordingly, the final decision may form of a draft recovery plan. This peer reviews, we concluded that a lack differ from this proposal. technical working draft was revised by of distinct genetic and morphologic the Service in November 2003. The differences suggested that Preble’s Open Houses and Public Hearings Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan meadow jumping mouse was likely not suggested long-term protection of: One We will hold open houses and public a valid subspecies of meadow jumping large population (with June abundances mouse (Zapus hudsonius). Considering hearings on the dates listed in the DATES of 2,500 or more individuals), two section, and at the addresses listed in the weight that we gave Ramey et al. medium populations (with June (2004a) in the proposed delisting, the ADDRESSES section, of this abundances of 500–2,499 individuals), document. Anyone wishing to make an verifying the results of this study prior and six small populations (with to making a final decision on the oral statement for the record at either of evidence of occupancy; possibly 150 the public hearing is encouraged to proposal was a high priority of the mice) within the North Platte River Service (Williams 2004; Morgenweck provide a written copy of his or her basin two large, three medium, and 2005). As such, we contracted with the statement and present it to us at the eighteen small populations within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to hearing. Persons wishing to make an South Platte River basin and one large conduct additional genetic analysis of oral statement at the public hearing may population, and six small populations Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and sign up only at the open house or at the within the Arkansas River basin four neighboring subspecies of meadow public hearing; we will not reserve (Service 2003b, p. 19–23). Recovery jumping mice (U.S. Geological Survey speaking time in advance of the open planning efforts were halted in 2005, pp. 1–4). house. In the event that there is a large December 2003 after new information On January 25, 2006, USGS released attendance, the time allotted for oral became available questioning the its report concluding that Preble’s statements may be limited. Oral and taxonomic validity of the subspecies. meadow jumping mouse should not be written statements receive equal While the availability of this document synonymized with neighboring consideration. There are no limits on (hereafter referred to as the Preliminary subspecies of meadow jumping mice the length of written comments Draft Recovery Plan (Service 2003b)) has (King et al. 2006a, pp. 2, 29). On submitted to us. If you have any not yet been announced in the Federal February 17, 2006, the Service extended questions concerning the open house or Register, it represents the best available the rulemaking process an additional 6 public hearing, please contact Sharon information on the recovery needs of the months as allowed under section Rose at (303) 236–4580. Persons needing subspecies. 4(b)(6)(B)(i) of the Act because this reasonable accommodations in order to On December 23, 2003, we received USGS study indicated that there was attend and participate in the open house two nearly identical petitions, from the substantial disagreement regarding the or public hearing should contact Sharon State of Wyoming’s Office of the sufficiency or accuracy of the available Rose as soon as possible in order to Governor and Coloradans for Water data relevant to the determination allow sufficient time to process Conservation and Development, seeking contained in our proposed rule (71 FR requests. Please call no later than 1 to remove Preble’s meadow jumping 8556). We reopened the comment week before the hearing date. mouse from the Federal List of period for an additional 60 days and Information regarding this revised Endangered and Threatened Wildlife announced that we intended to proposal is available in alternative (Freudenthal 2003; Sonnenberg 2003). assemble a panel of experts to carefully formats upon request. The petitions maintained that Preble’s review and assess the two studies.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 62994 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
On March 30, 2006, we published a 6 comments from local governments; where tall shrubs and low trees provide notice of availability of the King et al. and 57 comments from individuals or adequate cover (Krutzsch 1954, p. 351; (2006a) and Ramey et al. (2005) data and groups. During the reopened comment Armstrong 1972, p. 248; Jones et al. extended the comment period on the period we also received a challenge 1983, p. 238). Trainor et al. (2007, pp. proposed delisting rule an additional 30 under the Information Quality Act (44 471–472) found that high use areas for days (71 FR 16090). We then contracted U.S.C. 3516) to influential information Preble’s meadow jumping mouse tended with Sustainable Ecosystems Institute disseminated by the Service during this to be close to creeks and were positively (SEI) to organize a scientific review rulemaking process. This challenge and associated with the percentage of panel to analyze, assess, and weigh the our response are available at http:// shrubs, grasses, and woody debris. reasons why the data, findings, and www.fws.gov/informationquality/. This Hydrologic regimes that support conclusions of King et al. differ from the response has been appealed and the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat data, findings, and conclusions of appeal is currently under review by the range from large perennial rivers such as Ramey et al. (as written in this sentence, Service. Because we received the the South Platte River to small drainages and hereafter, ‘‘Ramey et al.’’ or ‘‘King original challenge during the open only 1 to 3 meters (m) (3 to 10 feet (ft)) et al.’’ without a modifying date refers public comment period, these issues are in width. to the overall work of these authors considered public comments on our Meadow jumping mice are primarily instead of a specific publication) proposed rule. nocturnal or crepuscular (active during (Service 2006, p. 14). On July 21, 2006, In accordance with our July 1, 1994, twilight), but also may be active during SEI delivered a final report to the Interagency Cooperative Policy for Peer the day. The Preble’s meadow jumping Service (SEI 2006a). Review in Endangered Species Act mouse uses uplands at least as far out On September 26, 2006, the State of Activities (59 FR 34270), we solicited as 100 m (330 ft) beyond the 100-year Wyoming submitted a 60-day notice of five expert peer reviews of our proposed floodplain (Shenk and Sivert 1999a, p. intent to sue over our failure to publish rule (70 FR 5404, February 2, 2005). We 11; Ryon 1999, p. 12; Schorr 2001, p. 14; a final determination on our 2005 selected peer reviewers for expertise in Shenk 2004; Service 2003b, p. 26). proposed delisting rule within the genetics, systematics (the science of While the Preble’s meadow jumping timeframes allowed by the Act. On dealing with the diversity of organisms), mouse dispersal capabilities are thought January 24, 2007, the State of Wyoming and small mammals. We excluded to be limited, in one instance a Preble’s filed a petition for review with the previous peer reviewers of Ramey et al. meadow jumping mouse was court. On June 22, 2007, the Service and and King et al. from this solicitation. documented moving as far as 1.1 the State of Wyoming reached a Three of the experts approached kilometers (km) (0.7 mile (mi)) in 24 settlement agreement which required provided comments (Hoekstra 2005; hours (Ryon 1999, p. 12). The Preble’s that, by October 31, 2007, we submit to Kelt 2005; Spencer 2005). After meadow jumping mouse typically enters the Federal Register for publication reopening the public comment period hibernation between September and either (1) a withdrawal of our 2005 on February 17, 2006 (71 FR 8556), we October and emerges the following May proposed delisting regulation; or (2) a contacted the same five experts and (Whitaker 1963, p. 5; Meaney et al. new proposed regulation considering invited them to provide additional 2003). the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse’s comments given the availability of new For additional information on the taxonomy and the subspecies’ information (i.e., King et al. 2006a). Two biology of this subspecies, see the May threatened status in light of all current of these reviewers provided comments 13, 1998, final rule to list the Preble’s distribution, abundance, and trends data (Kelt 2006; Spencer 2006a). meadow jumping mouse as threatened (State of Wyoming v. U.S. Department of All previously submitted comments (63 FR 26517) and the June 23, 2003, the Interior, No. 07CV025J (District of have been included in the public record final rule designating critical habitat (68 Wyoming 2007)). If a new proposed and will be considered in the final FR 37275). regulation is deemed necessary, the determination regarding this proposal. Taxonomy Service is required to submit a final Comments previously submitted need determination to the Federal Register not be resubmitted. Additionally, all of The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse no later than June 30, 2008. the previously submitted comments and is a member of the family Dipodidae reviews relevant to the taxonomy (jumping mice) (Wilson and Reeder Public Comments on the 2005 Proposed discussion were made available to the 1993, p. 499), which contains four Rule SEI panel for its consideration. extant genera. Two of these, Zapus From February 2, 2005, through May Substantive comments will be (jumping mice) and Napaeozapus 3, 2005 (70 FR 5404, February 2, 2005), addressed in a series of issues and (woodland jumping mice), are found in and from February 17, 2006, through responses in our final determination. North America (Hall 1981, p. 841; May 18, 2006 (71 FR 8556, February 17, Wilson and Ruff 1999, pp. 665–667). 2006; 71 FR 16090, March 30, 2006), we General Information In his 1899 study of North American solicited, from all interested parties, Meadow jumping mice (Zapus jumping mice, Edward A. Preble comments and information that might hudsonius) are small rodents with long concluded the Zapus genus consisted of contribute to the final delisting tails, large hind feet, and long hind legs. 10 species (Preble 1899, pp. 13–41). determination for the Preble’s meadow Total length of an adult is According to Preble (1899, pp. 14–21), jumping mouse. We received a total of approximately 187 to 255 millimeters (7 Z. hudsonius (the meadow jumping 67 written comments, including 28 to 10 inches), with the tail comprising mouse) included five subspecies. Preble comments during the initial comment 108 to 155 millimeters (4 to 6 inches) of (1899, pp. 20–21) classified all period and 39 during the reopened that length (Krutzsch 1954, p. 420; specimens of the meadow jumping comment period. These included Fitzgerald et al. 1994, p. 291). mouse from North Dakota, Montana, comments from: The Governor of the Across their range, meadow jumping South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, State of Wyoming; the Attorney General mice typically occur in moist habitats, Colorado, and Missouri as a single of the State of Wyoming; the Colorado including low undergrowth consisting subspecies, Z. hudsonius campestris. Department of Natural Resources; U.S. of grasses, forbs, or both, in open wet Cockrum and Baker (1950, pp. 1–4) later Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region; meadows and riparian corridors, or designated specimens from Nebraska,
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 62995
Kansas, and Missouri as a separate 406–407; Hall and Kelson 1959, pp. the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse subspecies, Z. h. pallidus. 774–776; Jones 1981, p. iv). specimens formed a homogenous group Krutzsch (1954, pp. 352–355) revised Krutzsch’s description (1954) as recognizably distinct from other nearby the taxonomy of the Zapus genus after modified by Hafner et al. (1981, p. 501), populations of meadow jumping mice studying morphological characteristics with 12 subspecies of meadow jumping (Riggs et al. 1997, p. 12). At the request of 3,600 specimens. This revision mice, was generally accepted by most of the Service, Hafner (1997, p. 3) reduced the number of species within small mammal taxonomists for the past reviewed the Riggs study, inspected this genus from 10 to 3, including Z. half-century (Hall and Kelson 1959, pp. Riggs’ original sequence data, and hudsonius (the meadow jumping 771–774; Long 1965, pp. 664–665; agreed with its conclusions. The Riggs mouse), Z. princeps (the western Armstrong 1972, pp. 248–249; Whitaker et al. (1997) results were not published jumping mouse), and Z. trinotatus (the 1972, pp. 1–2; Hall 1981, pp. 841–844; in a peer-reviewed journal. Prior to Pacific jumping mouse). According to Jones et al. 1983, pp. 238–239; Clark and listing, this study was the only available Krutzsch (1954, pp. 385–453), the Stromberg 1987, p. 184; Wilson and information concerning the genetic meadow jumping mouse included 11 Reeder 1993, p. 499; Hafner et al. 1998, uniqueness of the Preble’s meadow subspecies. pp. 120–121; Wilson and Ruff 1999, pp. jumping mouse. Krutzsch (1954, pp. 452–453) 666–667). Our original listing determined that described and named the subspecies Krutzsch’s (1954) revision of the Other Taxonomic Information Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus meadow jumping mouse species, Available Prior to Listing hudsonius preblei) based on geographic including the description of the Preble’s separation and morphological (physical As part of a doctoral dissertation, meadow jumping mouse, was widely form and structure of an organism) Jones (1981, pp. 4–29, 229–303, 386– supported by the scientific community differences. Krutzsch (1954, pp. 452– 394, 472) analyzed the morphology of as indicated by the available published 453) discussed the presence of physical 9,900 specimens within the Zapus literature (63 FR 26517, May 13, 1998). habitat barriers and the lack of known genus from across North America, Our 1998 determination weighed the intergradation (merging gradually including 39 Preble’s meadow jumping information in unpublished reports, through a continuous series of mouse specimens. Jones’s dissertation such as Jones (1981), and public intermediate forms or populations) (1981, p. 144) concluded that the Pacific comments on the rule and found that between the Preble’s meadow jumping jumping mouse was not a valid taxon they did not contain enough mouse, known only from eastern and suggested reducing the number of scientifically compelling information to Colorado and southeastern Wyoming, species in the genus to two (the western suggest that revising the existing and other identified subspecies of jumping mouse and the meadow taxonomy was appropriate (63 FR meadow jumping mice ranging to the jumping mouse). At the subspecific 26517, May 13, 1998). Our 1998 east and north. Additionally, Krutzsch level, Jones (1981, pp. V, 303) conclusion was consistent with Service (1954, pp. 452–453) evaluated the concluded that no population of regulations that require us to rely on morphometric characteristics of 4 adult meadow jumping mouse was standard taxonomic distinctions and the and 7 non-adult specimens. sufficiently isolated or distinct to biological expertise of the Department Acknowledging the small number of warrant subspecific status. Regarding and the scientific community samples upon which his conclusion was the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, concerning the relevant taxonomic based, Krutzsch (1954, p. 453) Jones (1981, pp. 288–289) wrote that group (50 CFR 424.11). nonetheless concluded that the ‘‘No named subspecies is geographically differences between Preble’s meadow restricted by a barrier, with the possible Taxonomic Information Solicited After jumping mouse and neighboring exception of Z. h. preblei [Preble’s Listing meadow jumping mice was considerable meadow jumping mouse]’’ which In July 2003, we entered into a and enough to warrant a subspecific ‘‘appears to be isolated,’’ but that ‘‘no cooperative agreement with the Denver designation. characteristics indicate that these Museum of Natural Science (DMNS) to In Krutzsch’s analysis, the subspecies populations have evolved into a determine if the Preble’s meadow neighboring Preble’s meadow jumping separate taxon.’’ Jones did not compare jumping mouse was a unique subspecies mouse included Z. h. campestris in the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse to relative to other nearby subspecies of northwestern Wyoming, southwestern Z. h. campestris, a neighboring meadow jumping mice (Service 2003a, South Dakota, and southeastern subspecies, nor did he conduct pp. 1–2). This task was a priority of the Montana; Z. h. intermedius in North statistical tests of morphology between Recovery Team (Service 2003a, pp. 1–2; Dakota, and northwestern, central, and the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Service 2003b, pp. iv, 38, 43, 76). In eastern South Dakota; and Z. h. pallidus and any other subspecies. Jones’s (1981) December 2003, we received a draft (Cockrum and Baker 1950) in Nebraska, findings were not published in a peer- report from the DMNS examining the Kansas, and Missouri (Krutzsch 1954, reviewed journal and were not uniqueness of the Preble’s meadow pp. 441–442, 447–452). Among incorporated into the formal jumping jumping mouse relative to other nearby recognized subspecies, Krutzsch (1954, mouse taxonomy, leaving his subspecies of meadow jumping mice p. 452) found that Preble’s meadow conclusions difficult to evaluate. (Ramey et al. 2003). In August 2005, an jumping mouse most closely resembled Prior to listing, the Colorado Division expanded version of this original report Z. h. campestris from northeastern of Wildlife (CDOW) contracted for a was published in the journal ‘‘Animal Wyoming, but documented differences genetic analysis of the Preble’s meadow Conservation’’ (Ramey et al. 2005). This in coloration and skull characteristics. jumping mouse (Riggs et al. 1997). Riggs publication included an examination of In 1981, Hafner et al. (1981, p. 501) et al. (1997, p. 1) examined a small morphometric differences, mtDNA, and identified Zapus hudsonius luteus from number of base-pairs (433) in one region microsatellite DNA (a short, noncoding Arizona and New Mexico as the 12th of the mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic DNA sequence, usually 2 to 5 base- subspecies of meadow jumping mouse. acid (mtDNA) (maternally inherited pairs, that is repeated many times This population had previously been genetic material) across 5 subspecies of within the genome of an organism). assumed to be a subspecies of western meadow jumping mouse (92 Ramey et al. (2005, pp. 339–341) also jumping mouse (Krutzsch 1954, pp. specimens). This study concluded that examined the literature for evidence of
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 62996 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ecological exchangeability among 2004a). Eleven of these reviewers relied solely upon an unpublished subspecies (a test of whether provided comments (Ashley 2005; Baker report (Ramey et al. 2004a) that had individuals can be moved between and Larsen 2005; Bradley 2005; Crandall received mixed peer reviews (see populations and can occupy the same 2005; Douglas 2005; Hafner 2005; above), verifying these results was a ecological niche). Maldonado 2005; Mitton 2005; Oyler- high priority of the Service Ramey et al.’s morphometric analysis McCance 2005; Waits 2005; White (Morgenweck 2005; Williams 2004). tested 9 skull measurements of 40 2005). In August 2006, ‘‘Animal Thus, in 2006, the Service contracted Preble’s meadow jumping mice, 40 Z. h. Conservation’’ published two critiques with USGS to conduct an independent campestris, and 37 Z. h. intermedius of Ramey et al. (2005) (Martin 2006; genetic analysis of several meadow specimens (Ramey et al. 2005, p. 331). Vignieri et al. 2006) and two responses jumping mouse subspecies (U.S. Their results did not support Krutzsch’s (Crandall 2006b; Ramey et al. 2006a). Geological Survey 2005, pp. 1–4). The (1954, p. 452) original description of the While many of the reviewers USGS study concluded that the Preble’s Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as supported the findings of Ramey et al. meadow jumping mouse should not be ‘‘averaging smaller in most cranial (Baker and Larsen 2005; Bradley 2004, synonymized with neighboring measurements’’ (Ramey et al. 2005, p. 2005; Crandall 2004, 2005; Hafner 2004; subspecies (King et al. 2006a, pp. 2, 29). 334). Ramey et al. (2005, p. 334) found Maldonado 2005; Meaney 2004; Mitton An expanded version of this report was that only one cranial measurement was 2004, 2005; Riddle 2004; Sites 2004; published in the journal ‘‘Molecular significantly smaller, while two cranial Waits 2004, 2005), the reviews raised a Ecology’’ (King et al. 2006b). This measurements were significantly larger. number of important issues. Some of the publication included an examination of Ramey et al. examined a small most significant issues identified microsatellite DNA, 2 regions of number of base-pairs (346) in 1 region included: (1) Reliance upon museum mtDNA, and 15 specimens critical to the of the mtDNA across 5 subspecies of specimens which can be prone to conclusions of Ramey et al. (2005). meadow jumping mice (205 specimens) contamination (Douglas 2004, 2005; King et al.’s (2006b, p. 4336) (Ramey et al. 2005, pp. 331–332, 335). Maldonado 2005); (2) the reliability of, microsatellite analysis examined Ramey et al. (2005, p. 335, 338) found and failure to validate, specimens’ approximately 4 times the number of low levels of difference between the museum tag locality (and thus microsatellite loci (21) and 11⁄2 times Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and subspecies) identification (Ashley 2005; more specimens (348 specimens) than neighboring subspecies. Their data Douglas 2004, 2005; Hafner 2004; Oyler Ramey et al. (2005) across the same 5 demonstrated that all of the mtDNA McCance 2004, 2005); (3) reliance upon subspecies of meadow jumping mice. haplotypes (alternate forms of a a small portion of mtDNA (Ashley 2004, King et al. (2006b, p. 4337) concluded particular DNA sequence or gene) found 2005; Baker and Larsen 2005; Crandall that their microsatellite data in the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 2004, 2005; Douglas 2004, 2005; Hafner demonstrated a strong pattern of genetic were also found in Z. h. campestris. The 2005; Maldonado 2005; Oyler-McCance differentiation between the Preble’s mtDNA data demonstrated evidence of 2004, 2005; Riddle 2004; Sites 2004; meadow jumping mouse and recent gene flow between the Preble’s Waits 2004, 2005); (4) the small number neighboring subspecies. King et al. meadow jumping mouse and of microsatellite DNA loci examined (2006b, pp. 4336–4341) also reported neighboring subspecies (Ramey et al. (Vignieri et al. 2006, p. 241); (5) the that multiple statistical tests of the 2005, p. 338). criteria used and factors considered to microsatellite data verified this Ramey et al. (2005, pp. 333–334, 338) test taxonomic validity as well as differentiation. analyzed a small number (5) of alternative interpretations of the data In their evaluation of mtDNA, King et microsatellite loci (the specific position (Ashley 2004; Conner 2004; Douglas al. (2006b, p. 4341) examined of a gene or other chromosomal marker) 2004, 2005; Hafner 2005; Oyler- approximately 4 times the number of across 5 subspecies of meadow jumping McCance 2004, 2005; Vignieri et al. base-pairs across 2 regions (374 control mice (195 specimens). Ramey et al. 2006, pp. 241–242; White 2004); (6) region and 1,006 cytochrome-B region (2005, p. 340) concluded that these whether the authors used an appropriate base-pairs) and 11⁄2 times more results were consistent with outgroup (a closely related group that is specimens (320 specimens for the morphometric and mtDNA results. used as a rooting point of a phylogenetic control region analysis and 348 for the Based on morphometrics, mtDNA, tree) (Douglas 2004); (7) the sampling cytochrome-B analysis) than Ramey et and microsatellites data, and a lack of regime and its impact on the analysis al. (2005) across the same 5 subspecies recognized adaptive differences, Ramey (Maldonado 2005; Oyler-McCance of meadow jumping mice. King et al. et al. (2005, p. 340) suggested 2004); (8) failure to test all of the (2006b, p. 4341) concluded that these synonymizing the Preble’s meadow morphological characters examined by data suggested strong, significant jumping mouse and Z. h. intermedius Krutzsch (1954) (Vignieri et al. 2006, p. genetic differentiation among the five with Z. h. campestris. 238); (9) an inadequate evaluation of subspecies of meadow jumping mice Prior to publication of Ramey et al. ecological exchangeability and habitat surveyed. Additionally, their results (2005) in ‘‘Animal Conservation,’’ the differences among subspecies (Ashley indicated that the Preble’s meadow CDOW and the Service solicited 16 peer 2004; Conner 2004; Douglas 2004; jumping mouse did not share reviews of the 2004 draft report Meaney 2004; Mitton 2004; Oyler- haplotypes with any neighboring provided to the Service (Ramey et al. McCance 2004, 2005; Sites 2004; subspecies (King et al. 2006b, p. 4341). 2004a). Fourteen of these reviewers Vignieri et al. 2006, p. 238; Waits 2004, Such haplotype sharing had led Ramey provided comments (Armstrong 2004; 2005); and (10) failure to consider the et al. to previously conclude that the Ashley 2004; Bradley 2004; Conner Preble’s meadow jumping mouse’s Preble’s meadow jumping mouse was 2004; Crandall 2004; Douglas 2004; geographic isolation (Vignieri et al. not unique; specifically, Ramey et al. Hafner 2004; Meaney 2004; Mitton 2006, pp. 237–238). Collectively, these concluded that because all of the 2004; Oyler-McCance 2004; Riddle critiques indicated that delisting based Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 2004; Sites 2004; Waits 2004; White on the conclusions of Ramey et al. alone haplotypes were found in Z. h. 2004). In 2005, the Service approached might be premature. campestris, the Preble’s meadow the same 16 experts to review Ramey et Because the proposed rule to delist jumping mouse was a less genetically al. 2004b (an expansion of Ramey et al. the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse variable population of Z. h. campestris
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 62997
(Ramey et al. 2004a, pp. 1, 9; 2005, p. SEI assembled a panel of experts with exchangeability of the subspecies 335). Because of these conflicting the necessary scientific expertise in remains unknown (SEI 2006a, p. 41). results, King et al. (2006b, pp. 4355– genetics and systematics (SEI 2006a, p. MtDNA: The panel noted that data 4357) reexamined 15 specimens from 7). The panelists reviewed, discussed, provided by Ramey et al. (2005) and the University of Kansas Museum and evaluated all of the literature King et al. (2006b) differed in collection relied upon by Ramey et al. relevant to this issue, including geographic sampling strategy, amount of in determining that neighboring published literature, unpublished sequence data examined, aspects of the subspecies shared haplotypes. Among reports, third-party critiques, and other analysis, and quality (SEI 2006a, p. 41). the specimens reported to contain the materials suggested by interested parties All of these could help explain why the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse’s (SEI 2006a, pp. 48–55). Additionally, two studies came to differing haplotypes by Ramey et al. (2005, pp. the panel examined and reanalyzed the conclusions. However, the panel noted 335–336), King et al. (2006b, p. 4357) raw data (SEI 2006a, pp. 8, 21) used by that the most significant difference found that the results could not be Ramey et al. and King et al., including between the two studies in terms of repeated. If these specimens were the mtDNA data, microsatellite DNA mtDNA was whether the Preble’s removed from the analysis, neither data, and original sequence meadow jumping mouse shared any study would illustrate haplotype chromatograms (automated DNA mtDNA haplotypes with other sharing between the Preble’s meadow sequence data output recordings) (SEI subspecies of meadow jumping mice. jumping mouse and neighboring 2006a, pp. 8, 23). The scientific review Upon review of the raw data, the panel subspecies. King et al. (2006b, p. 4357) panel was open to the public and found evidence of contamination within concluded that ‘‘these findings have allowed for interactions among panel some of the key sequences reported by identified the presence of a systemic members, Dr. King, Dr. Ramey, other Ramey et al. The panel concluded that error in the control region data reported scientists, and the public. there was no reliable evidence of any by Ramey et al. (2005)’’ and ‘‘calls into In July 2006, SEI delivered a report haplotype sharing (SEI 2006a, p. 42). question all of the results of Ramey et outlining their conclusions to the The panel further determined that if al. (2005) based on the mtDNA genome Service (SEI 2006a). Although the these conflicting mtDNA sequences and prevents analysis of the combined panelists were not obligated to reach a were removed from consideration, the data.’’ King et al. (2006, p. 4357) noted consensus, they did not disagree on any two studies’ mtDNA data would largely that possible reasons for the difference substantive or stylistic issues (SEI agree (SEI 2006a, p. 32). The panel also in sequences included contamination, 2006a, p. 9). Thus, the report suggested that because the western mislabeling of samples, or other represented the consensus of all three jumping mouse and the meadow procedural incongruity. panelists, as well as the individual jumping mouse are distantly related, western jumping mouse may perform Overall, King et al. (2006b, p. 19) opinions of each panelist. The panel concluded that there was considerable poorly as an outgroup, leading to poor organized its evaluation into four genetic differentiation among all five resolution of relationships among sections corresponding with the subspecies and found no evidence to meadow jumping mouse subspecies. different types of scientific evaluations support the proposal to synonymize the While both Ramey et al. and King et al. performed, including morphology, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, Z. h. used this outgroup, unrooted analysis ecological exchangeability, mtDNA, and campestris, and Z. h. intermedius. showed clearer structuring between the microsatellite DNA. The panel’s Prior to its release, King et al. (2006a) subspecies (SEI 2006a, p. 42). underwent an internal peer review per findings with regard to each are Microsatellite DNA: The panel found USGS policy (U.S. Geological Survey summarized briefly below. The full that the two microsatellite datasets 2003, pp. 3, 6, 12, 28–33). In an effort report is available for review at http:// contain similar information. The panel to provide consistent, comparable www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ pointed out that both the Ramey et al. mammals/preble/ reviews, we solicited peer reviews from _ _ (2005) and King et al. (2006) the same 16 reviewers asked to review Prebles SEI report.pdf. microsatellite data, as well as Crandall Ramey et al. (2004a, 2004b). Nine of the Morphology: Although Ramey et al. and Marshall’s (2006) reanalysis of these experts provided comments (Armstrong (2005) examined two of the seven data, strongly support a statistically 2006; Ashley 2006; Bradley 2006; morphological characters identified by significant independent cluster that Crandall 2006a; Douglas 2006; Hafner Krutzsch (1954, pp. 452–453), the panel corresponds to the Preble’s meadow 2006; Maldonado 2006; Oyler-McCance found that all seven of these characters jumping mouse, providing support for a 2006; Riddle 2006). Some of the most should have been reexamined in order distinct subspecies (SEI 2006a, pp. 42– significant issues raised included the to support the proposed taxonomic 43). The panel indicated that while the sampling regime and its impact on the revision. The panel also concluded that microsatellite data alone did not make analysis (Armstrong 2006; Ashley 2006; the type specimen (a single specimen a strong case for evolutionary Crandall 2006a; Douglas 2006; Oyler- designated as the type by the original significance, in concert with the mtDNA McCance 2006; Riddle 2006); and the author at the time of publication of the data (discussed above), the two datasets criteria used and factors considered to original description of a taxon) of each corroborate the distinctness of the test taxonomic validity and alternative taxon should have been included in the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (SEI interpretations of the data (Bradley analysis. The panel’s conclusion was 2006a, pp. 43). 2006; Crandall 2006a). that an insufficient test of the The panel’s overall conclusion was Given the discrepancies between the morphological definition of the Preble’s that the available data are broadly Ramey et al. and King et al. reports, we meadow jumping mouse had been consistent with the current taxonomic contracted for a scientific review to conducted to support the synonymy of status of the Preble’s meadow jumping analyze, assess, and weigh the reasons the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse mouse as a valid subspecies and that no why the data, findings, and conclusions with other subspecies (SEI 2006a, p. 41). evidence was presented that critically of the two studies differed (Service Ecological Exchangeability: The panel challenged its status (SEI 2006a, p. 4). 2006, p. 14). Following an open and concluded that no persuasive evidence In August 2006, Ramey et al. (2006c) competitive bid process, we selected SEI was presented regarding ecological submitted a statement to the Service as the contractor (Service 2006). exchangeability, and that the ecological disputing the findings and conclusions
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 62998 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
of the SEI report. No new data or definitions (Mayr and Ashlock 1991, pp. efforts have been at locations with no analyses were presented in this 43–45; Patten and Unitt 2002, pp. 26– record of historical surveys, most have statement, and the panel previously 34; SEI 2006a, p. 44). In reaching this been within the presumed historical considered most of the contentions conclusion, we do not use a range of the Preble’s meadow jumping (Ramey et al. 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005, presumption that we must rely on the mouse or in adjacent drainages where 2006a, 2006b; SEI 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). established taxonomy in the absence of habitat and elevation appeared suitable. Other evaluations of the available conclusive data to the contrary (see SEI Thus, the recent increase in sites of literature and data include Ramey et al. report at p. 39). In Therefore, after a Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (in press), King et al. (in review), review of all available information, we occurrence likely represents an Crandall and Marshall (2006), Spencer have determined that the taxonomic improvement in our understanding of (2006b), and Cronin (2007). revision for the Preble’s meadow the subspecies range as a result of jumping mouse suggested in our Taxonomic Conclusions increased trapping effort rather than any proposed delisting rule (70 FR 5404, actual expansion of the range of the When listed in 1998, the Preble’s February 2, 2005) is no longer Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. meadow jumping mouse was widely appropriate. recognized as a valid subspecies by the In Wyoming, recent captures and scientific community (Hall and Kelson Historical Range and Recently confirmed identification have expanded 1959, pp. 771–774; Long 1965, pp. 664– Documented Distribution our knowledge of the distribution of the 665; Armstrong 1972, pp. 248–249; Generally, the Preble’s meadow Preble’s meadow jumping mouse from Whitaker 1972, pp. 1–2; Hall 1981, pp. jumping mouse range includes portions the two sites documented at the time of 841–844; Jones et al. 1983, pp. 238–239; of the North Platte, the South Platte, and listing to include over two dozen new Clark and Stromberg 1987, p. 184; the Arkansas River basins (Long 1965, p. plains, foothills, and montane sites east Wilson and Reeder 1993, p. 499; Hafner 665; Armstrong 1972, pp. 248–249; of the Laramie Mountains in the North et al. 1998, pp. 120–121; Wilson and Clark and Stromberg 1987, p. 184; Platte River basin, and presence in the Ruff 1999, pp. 666–667). At the time of Fitzgerald et al. 1994, p. 293; Clippinger Upper Laramie River drainage in Albany listing, Krutzsch (1954) represented the 2002, p. 20). County (Taylor 1999; Service 2007). best available information on the At the time of listing, we described Post-listing activities have identified taxonomy of the Preble’s meadow the historical range in Wyoming as many additional sites occupied by the jumping mouse (63 FR 26517, May 13, including five counties (Albany, subspecies. These data also reveal that 1998). Our 1998 conclusion was Laramie, Platte, Goshen, and Converse), the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse consistent with Service regulations that but cited only two sites with recent occurs in four of the five counties require us to rely on standard taxonomic reports of jumping mice likely to be the described as the likely historical range distinctions and the biological expertise Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. We at the time of listing including Albany, of the Department and the scientific cited a study by Compton and Hugie Laramie, Platte, and Converse Counties. community concerning the relevant (1993, p. 6) suggesting the subspecies At the time of listing, we discussed taxonomic group (50 CFR 424.11). might be extirpated in Wyoming and how increased trapping efforts in However, when the best available comments by the Wyoming Game and Colorado had recently documented science indicates that the generally Fish Commission that the Preble’s distribution in Elbert, Larimer, and accepted taxonomy may be in error, the meadow jumping mouse had likely been Weld Counties. We also suggested other Service must rely on the best available extirpated from most or all of its science (Center for Biological Diversity, historical range in Wyoming (Wichers sites where trapping should occur to et al., v. Robert Lohn, et al., 296 F. 1997). determine if the Preble’s meadow Supp. 2d. 1223 W.D. Wash. 2003). Such At the time of listing, we assumed jumping mouse were present. considerations led to our February 2, that most of the subspecies’ current Additional trapping since listing has 2005, proposal to delist Preble’s based range was in Colorado. Within expanded the documented distribution upon information which questioned the Colorado, the final listing rule described of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse subspecies’ taxonomic validity (70 FR a presumed historical range including in Colorado to include: additional 5404). portions of ten counties (Adams, foothill and montane sites along the We now determine the best scientific Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Front Range in Larimer, Boulder, and commercial data available support Paso, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, and Jefferson, and Douglas Counties; the conclusion that the Preble’s meadow Weld) and cited recent trapping efforts previously untrapped rural prairie and jumping mouse is a valid subspecies. that documented the subspecies in foothill streams in southern Douglas Specifically, the Preble’s meadow seven of these ten counties (Boulder, County and adjacent portions of Elbert jumping mouse’s geographic isolation Douglas, El Paso, Elbert, Jefferson, County; and additional prairie and from other subspecies of meadow Larimer, and Weld). foothill streams in northwestern El Paso jumping mice (Krutzsch 1954, pp. 452– Since we listed the Preble’s meadow County. Although we have identified 453; Long 1965, pp. 664–665; SEI 2006a, jumping mouse in 1998, knowledge some additional sites occupied by the p. 34) has resulted in the accretion of about distribution of the subspecies has Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, over considerable genetic differentiation grown substantially. Numerous trapping 80 percent of such trapping efforts (King et al. 2006b, pp. 4336–4348; SEI surveys conducted during the last 9 throughout Colorado have failed to 2006a, pp. 41–43). The available data years in Wyoming and Colorado have capture Preble’s meadow jumping mice suggest that the Preble’s meadow documented the subspecies’ presence or (as illustrated in Figure 1 below) jumping mouse meets or exceeds likely absence at locations of suitable (Service 2007). numerous, widely accepted subspecies habitat. While many recent trapping BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 62999
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C These negative trap results suggest extirpated from many portions of the that the subspecies is rare or possibly subspecies’ historical range in Colorado.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 EP07NO07.000 63000 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Areas where the subspecies is presumed foothills (Smith et al. 2004, p. 10). Using Thompson, and Upper South Platte extirpated is discussed in the Factor A this as a guide, many jumping mice River drainages. discussion below. were trapped and released without Below is a summary of recent (since The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse being conclusively identified as either a 1980) trapping data by drainage (as has now been recently documented in Preble’s meadow jumping mouse or a defined by 8-digit USGS hydrologic portions of Albany, Laramie, Platte, and western jumping mouse. Because units), within both Wyoming (e.g., the Converse Counties in Wyoming; and in western jumping mice have been North and South Platte River basins) portions of Boulder, Douglas, El Paso, verified at elevations well below the and Colorado (e.g., the South Platte Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, and Weld upper elevation limit of the Preble’s River and Arkansas River basins). Counties in Colorado (Figure 1). The meadow jumping mouse (Smith et al. Although trapping data is important North Platte River at Douglas, Wyoming, 2004, p. 11), this leads to difficulty in because it absolutely confirms the marks the northernmost confirmed making assumptions regarding occurrence of jumping mice at location for the Preble’s meadow identification based on elevation. particular locations, as discussed in jumping mouse. Specimens from detail below, trapping data is one of Drainages where overlapping ranges Colorado Springs, Colorado, mark the several lines of evidence we use to have been verified include the Glendo southernmost documented location of estimate the actual current range of the Reservoir, Lower Laramie, Upper the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. subspecies. Records have been compiled The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Laramie, and Horse Creek drainages in by the Service (2007) in coordination is generally found at elevations between Wyoming (Conner and Shenk 2003b, pp. with the Wyoming Natural Diversity 1,420 m (4,650 ft) and 2,300 m (7,600 ft), 31–35; Meaney 2003; King 2006a; King Database, State of Wyoming, and although elevations vary across the 2006b; King et al. 2006b, pp. 4351– CDOW. In addition, Figure 1 above range of the subspecies. At the lower 4353); and the Cache La Poudre, Big illustrates all recent Preble’s meadow end of this elevation gradient, the semi- Thompson, and Upper South Platte jumping mouse specimens, historical arid climate of southeastern Wyoming River drainage in Colorado (Bohon et al. (pre-1980) locations no longer believed and eastern Colorado limits the extent of 2005; King 2005; King 2006a; King et al. to be occupied, and recent negative riparian corridors and restricts the range 2006b, pp. 4351–4353; Schorr et al. trapping efforts. Given wide areas of of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 2007). overlapping range in Wyoming, we (Beauvais 2001, p. 3). The Preble’s Size, external morphology, dentition, require all Wyoming specimens to be meadow jumping mouse is likely an Ice skull measurements, and genetic confirmed as Preble’s meadow jumping Age relic; once the glaciers receded from analysis can all be used to differentiate mice in order to be considered below. In the Front Range of Colorado and the meadow jumping mice (including the Colorado, jumping mice are considered foothills of Wyoming and the climate Preble’s meadow jumping mouse) from Preble’s meadow jumping mice when became drier, the Preble’s meadow western jumping mice (Krutzsch 1954, identification is confirmed or if they jumping mouse was confined to riparian pp. 351–384; Klingenger 1963, p. 252; occur in areas where western jumping systems where moisture was more Riggs et al. 1997, pp. 2–8; Conner and mice are not known. plentiful (Fitzgerald et al. 1994, p. 1994; Shenk 2003a; Ramey et al.; King et al.). North Platte River Basin, Wyoming. In Smith et al. 2004, p. 293). The eastern The following description of the the North Platte River basin, occurrence boundary for the subspecies is likely Preble’s meadow jumping mouse’s of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse defined by the dry shortgrass prairie, current documented distribution and has been confirmed in four Wyoming counties (Converse, Platte, Albany, and which may present a barrier to eastward status is based primarily on individuals expansion (Beauvais 2001, p. 3). In Laramie) as reported by drainage below. positively identified as Preble’s meadow Wyoming, the Preble’s meadow jumping The Middle North Platte drainage jumping mice, with emphasis on mouse has not been found east of represents the northern extent of the locations where individual mice have Cheyenne, Laramie County (Beauvais reported Preble’s meadow jumping been identified by genetic analysis or 2001, p. 3). Habitat modeling and mouse range; however, trapping surveys trapping suggest the subspecies may not discriminant function analysis (DFA) have been quite limited and generally at occur in Wyoming’s Goshen, Niobrara, (analysis of cranial measurements and high elevations. Although several and eastern Laramie Counties (Keinath an anterior medial toothfold jumping mice have been trapped in this 2001, p. 7). In Colorado, the Preble’s characteristic) (Conner and Shenk drainage, these specimens have not been meadow jumping mouse has not been 2003a). Information regarding confirmed as Preble’s meadow jumping found on the extreme eastern plains individual mice and capture locations mice. (Clippinger 2002, pp. 20–21). can be found in Riggs et al. (1997, pp. In the Glendo Reservoir drainage, the At the higher elevations, discerning 8–11, A2–A5), Conner and Shenk Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is the status of the Preble’s meadow (2003b, pp. 31–35), and King et al. known from several locations, including jumping mouse is complicated by the (2006b, pp. 4351–4353). Positive along the North Platte River at Douglas overlap in the ranges of the Preble’s identification of individual mice is most (King 2006b), Cottonwood Creek and its meadow jumping mouse and the important in areas where both the tributaries (Meaney 2003; King 2006a; western jumping mouse (Long 1965, pp. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and King 2006b; King et al. 2006b), and the 665–666; Clark and Stromberg 1987, pp. the western jumping mouse occur. Horseshoe Creek area (Krutzsch 1954, p. 184–187; Schorr 1999, p. 3; Bohon et al. Overlap appears to occur in most of 453). While the western jumping mouse 2005; Schorr et al. 2007, p. 5). Field Wyoming’s occupied drainages. In has also been confirmed from the differentiation between the Preble’s Colorado, with few exceptions, jumping Glendo Reservoir drainage, the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and the mice below 2,050 m (6,700 ft) have been meadow jumping mouse appears more western jumping mouse is difficult positively identified as Preble’s meadow common. (Conner and Shenk 2003a, p. 1456). jumping mice. Above 2,050 m (6,700 ft) In the Lower Laramie drainage, the Generally, the western jumping mouse in Colorado, Preble’s meadow jumping Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has occurs in the montane and subalpine mice and western jumping mice are been confirmed from the Laramie River zones and the Preble’s meadow jumping known to have an overlapping and its tributaries, including the North mouse occurs lower, in the plains and distribution in the Cache La Poudre, Big Laramie River, and Sturgeon, Wyman,
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63001
Rabbit, and Luman Creeks; as well as occurrence in this drainage remains Collins, Larimer County, at elevations several locations along Chugwater Creek uncertain. Specimens from Warren Air consistent with known Preble’s meadow and its tributaries (King 2006b; King et Force Base were assumed to be Preble’s jumping mouse distribution. These sites al. 2006b). Both Preble’s meadow meadow jumping mice based on the include the main stem Cache La Poudre jumping mice and western jumping elevation of 1,900 m (6,150 ft), but River and its tributaries, including mice occur in the Sybille Creek, Friend subsequent analyses identified only Young Gulch and Stove Prairie Creek, Creek and the Friend Park areas (Conner western jumping mice (Riggs et al. 1997; and the North Fork Cache La Poudre and Shenk 2003b; King 2006a; King Conner and Shenk 2003b; King 2006a). River and its tributaries, including 2006b; King et al. 2006b). The Lower The only trapping evidence confirming Stonewall, Rabbit, and Lone Pine Laramie drainage appears to support Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Creeks. Shenk and Eussen (1999, pp. coexisting Preble’s meadow jumping occurrence in this drainage comes from 11–12) cautioned that both Preble’s mice and western jumping mice in a specimen from the South Crow Creek meadow jumping mice and western multiple locations. Reservoir area originally identified as a jumping mice were likely present in In the Horse Creek drainage, the western jumping mouse by the DMNS some of these areas. Subsequent genetic Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has and then re-identified as a Preble’s analysis confirmed both Preble’s and the been widely documented west of meadow jumping mouse based on a western jumping mouse in Cherokee Interstate Highway 25 (I–25) and at one DFA analysis considering dental Park at 2,260 m. (7,480 ft) (King 2005, site east of I–25. The majority of these characteristics (Meaney 2003). 2006b), but only Preble’s meadow recent captures have been made in Bear Additional specimens have only jumping mice have been confirmed from Creek and its tributaries, and in verified western jumping mice from lower elevations, including Rabbit and headwaters of Horse Creek and its Middle Crow Creek, the South Fork of Lone Pine Creeks, the Livermore tributaries. Both Preble’s meadow Middle Crow Creek, and South Crow Mountain area, and the North Fork of jumping mice and western jumping Creek Reservoir (Meaney 2003; King the Cache La Poudre River (Riggs et al. mice inhabit multiple sites on both 2006a). No jumping mice have been 1997; King et al. 2006b). Despite a creeks (Conner and Shenk 2003b; reported trapped downstream of number of trapping efforts, no jumping Meaney 2003; King 2006b; King et al. Cheyenne. mice have been recently documented 2006b). The Lone Tree Creek drainage was within the Fort Collins, Larimer County, In the Upper Laramie drainage, the previously assumed to be inhabited by area or downstream on the Cache La Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Poudre River to its confluence with the been confirmed at Hutton Lake National based on the field identification of low South Platte River at Greeley, Weld Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and from a site elevation captures of jumping mice County (Service 2007). north of Laramie (Meaney 2003). Other (1,900 m (6,200 ft)). However, DFA Within the Big Thompson drainage, specimens at these same sites have been analysis of existing museum specimens the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse confirmed as western jumping mice (Conner and Shenk 2003b) and genetic has been documented in foothills sites (Meaney 2003; King 2006a). Therefore, analysis of specimens obtained from along Buckhorn Creek and certain of its it appears both Preble’s meadow trapping efforts (Riggs et al. 1997; King tributaries, and on Dry Creek, in Larimer jumping mice and western jumping 2006a), have only confirmed presence of County. Genetic analysis of mice from mice are present in this drainage. Based western jumping mice in this drainage. three tributaries of Buckhorn Creek up on positive identification of the Preble’s South Platte River Basin, Colorado. to 2,240 m (7,360 ft) support meadow jumping mouse from the sites Recent presence of the Preble’s meadow identifications as Preble’s meadow mentioned above, Smith et al. (2004, p. jumping mouse in Colorado has been jumping mice; however, both Preble’s 12) suggested the range of the Preble’s documented within the South Platte meadow jumping mice and western meadow jumping mouse may extend River basin in seven counties: Larimer, jumping mice were confirmed from the into the Upper Laramie River, Little Weld, Boulder, Jefferson, Douglas, Lakey Canyon site at 2,170 m (7,120 ft) Laramie River, Rock Creek, and possibly Elbert, and El Paso. From the Wyoming and a mouse from the North Fork of the the Medicine Bow River. State line south through the Denver Big Thompson River at 2,170 m (7,120 South Platte River Basin, Wyoming. area, little recent documentation of the ft) was identified as a western jumping Within the Wyoming portion of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse exists mouse (King 2006a). Despite a number South Platte River basin, trapping efforts from sites east of the foothills where of trapping efforts, the Preble’s meadow have confirmed Preble’s meadow most of the subspecies’ historical jumping mouse has not been jumping mouse occurrence, albeit recordings occurred. This area largely documented on the Big Thompson and possibly in low numbers, within two corresponds to the Front Range urban Little Thompson Rivers through the drainages in Laramie and Albany corridor, an area experiencing Front Range urban corridor, but has Counties. continued human population growth been found on both rivers east of I–25, In the Upper Lodgepole drainage, and development (Clippenger 2002, pp. in Weld County. jumping mice have been found from 22–26; Colorado Demography Office In the Saint Vrain drainage, the several locations at and upstream of 2007). At higher elevation plains and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has Highway 211. While at least one foothills sites south of the Denver area, been documented along the Saint Vrain Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse River, its tributaries and water been confirmed (Riggs et al. 1997), most has been documented at a number of conveyance ditches upstream of the of the captured mice have been locations where riparian habitats are town of Hygiene, on two tributaries of identified as western jumping mice still largely intact. With rare exception, Boulder Creek west of the City of (Meaney 2003; King 2006a). Therefore, all jumping mouse records verified Boulder, and along South Boulder while this drainage supports the below 2,050 m (6,700 ft) in the South Creek, all in Boulder County; and on Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, its Platte River drainage of Colorado have upper reaches of Coal and Rock Creeks, distribution may be limited. been Preble’s meadow jumping mice. Jefferson County. On Rocky Flats NWR, Although historically reported from In the Cache La Poudre River Jefferson County, the Preble’s meadow the Crow Creek drainage at Cheyenne, drainage, jumping mice have been jumping mouse has been documented Preble’s meadow jumping mouse documented on sites upstream of Fort on Rock Creek as well on nearby Walnut
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63002 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
and Woman Creeks (within the Middle suitable habitat, and estimated 64 km 2006b). The Preble’s meadow jumping South Platte-Cherry Creek drainage). (40 mi) of streams occupied by the mouse has been well studied at the U.S. Several of these locations include mice Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. On Air Force Academy (Academy) on confirmed as Preble’s meadow jumping the downstream portion of this Monument Creek and its tributaries, and mice by genetic analysis or DFA (Riggs drainage, below Chatfield Reservoir, has been documented farther upstream et al. 1997; Conner and Shenk 2003b). there is no recent documentation of on Monument Creek and on tributaries The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Preble’s meadow jumping mouse’s to the east and north toward the Palmer occurrence has not been confirmed by presence on the South Platte River Divide. Numerous records of Preble’s trapping efforts along eastern parts of through Denver. meadow jumping mouse captures on the drainage, the Saint Vrain River from In the Middle South Platte, Cherry streams in northwestern El Paso County Hygiene, Boulder County, downstream Creek drainage, Preble’s meadow are the result of extensive trapping that to its confluence with the South Platte jumping mice have been found on has taken place in conjunction with River, along Boulder Creek from the City Cherry Creek and its tributaries from proposed development projects. of Boulder east to its confluence with approximately the Arapahoe County- Downstream of the Academy, numerous the Saint Vrain River, or downstream of Douglas County line, upstream to the trapping surveys indicate that the Rocky Flats NWR on Walnut, Woman, headwaters of East and West Cherry Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has or Dry Creeks. Creeks near the Palmer Divide in El little likelihood of occurrence along In the Clear Creek drainage, the Paso County. Also within Middle South Monument Creek through the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has Platte-Cherry Creek drainage, limited downtown portions of Colorado been verified in the foothills on Ralston trapping efforts have documented the Springs. Similarly, extensive trapping Creek (Riggs et al. 1997), and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse on surveys suggest that the Preble’s unidentified jumping mice have been Running Creek and a tributary, Hay meadow jumping mouse may be captured on two tributaries of Clear Creek, in Elbert County. Based on extirpated from Cottonwood Creek and Creek at elevations of potential Preble’s limited genetic analysis and DFA, its tributaries. meadow jumping mouse occurrence western jumping mice have not been In the Chico Creek drainage, jumping (below 2,300 m (7,600 ft)). No jumping confirmed from this drainage. The mice (assumed to be Preble’s meadow mice have been captured on either creek Preble’s meadow jumping mouse jumping mice as explained above) have downstream through the urban corridor occurrence has not been confirmed by been documented on the upper reaches to the South Platte River. trapping downstream along Cherry of Black Squirrel Creek and on a In the Upper South Platte drainage, Creek through Arapahoe County and tributary, both in El Paso County. the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Denver to the South Platte River. Limited trapping efforts in potential has been documented immediately Because of numerous negative trapping Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat upstream of Chatfield Reservoir on the efforts and lack of contiguous suitable farther to the east in the Chico Creek South Platte River, and also well habitat, we no longer consider the drainage and in the Big Sandy Creek upstream on the South Platte River and greater Denver area (including most of drainage have not confirmed Preble’s its tributaries in Jefferson and Douglas Denver County and portions of Adams, meadow jumping mouse occurrence. Counties to near the Teller County- Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Downstream, to the east and south, Douglas County line. The U.S. Forest Douglas, and Jefferson Counties) to be these drainages appear to have little Service provided a summary of Preble’s occupied. On the South Platte River habitat suitable for the Preble’s meadow meadow jumping mouse trapping efforts downstream from the Denver area, a jumping mouse. at 15 sites in the Upper South Platte single Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Within the Arkansas River basin drainage in the Pike National Forest. was recently captured from near the south of the documented Preble’s Based on examination of voucher South Platte River in Milliken, Weld meadow jumping mouse locations, specimens, Preble’s meadow jumping County, not far from the confluence of trapping efforts targeting the Preble’s mice were confirmed at six sites up to the Big Thompson River and South meadow jumping mouse conducted in 2,300 m (7,600 ft) and western jumping Platte River (Savage and Savage 2001). southern El Paso County, Pueblo mice were confirmed from six sites, the Farther east, there are two records of County, and Fremont County, including lowest of which, at 2,030 m (6,660 ft), a Preble’s meadow jumping mice on surveys funded and carried out by the was lower than five Preble’s meadow Kiowa Creek, Elbert County. Additional Department of the Army at Fort Carson, jumping mouse sites (Bohon et al. 2005). trapping in Elbert County would be have not resulted in capture of jumping Schorr et al. (2007) also summarized co- useful to document whether the Preble’s mice (Bunn et al. 1995; Werner 2003). occurrence of Preble’s and the western meadow jumping mouse is present In conclusion, the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in the same area. Also along significant reaches of the Middle jumping mouse appears to be in the Upper South Platte drainage, the South Platte-Cherry Creek and Kiowa widespread in the North Platte River Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has Creek drainages, and on the Bijou Creek basin were trapping efforts confirm the been widely documented upstream of drainage, Elbert County, which has not subspecies’ distribution across at least Chatfield Reservoir on Plum Creek, been trapped. four drainages. The Preble’s meadow including occurrences on East Plum Arkansas River Basin, Colorado. In jumping mouse appears scarce within Creek, West Plum Creek, and various the Arkansas River basin, confirmed the Wyoming portion of the South Platte tributaries, all in Douglas County (Riggs current occurrence of the Preble’s River basin, where trapping efforts to et al. 1997; Conner and Shenk 2003b; meadow jumping mouse is limited date provide few confirmed occurrences King et al. 2006b). Western jumping largely to the Fountain Creek drainage of the subspecies and suggest that the mice have also been identified in this and specifically to Monument Creek and western jumping mouse is much more drainage at 1,800 m (5,900 ft) and 1,950 its tributaries north of Colorado Springs. widespread. Trapping efforts within the m (6,400 ft) (Conner and Shenk 2003b). Genetic analysis and DFA have thus far Colorado portion of the South Platte Pague and Schuerman (1998, p. 5) confirmed no western jumping mice River Basin indicate the Preble’s assessed Preble’s meadow jumping from within the Preble’s meadow meadow jumping mouse has little mouse habitat throughout the Plum jumping mouse’s range in this drainage likelihood of occurrence in portions of Creek watershed, randomly trapped (Conner and Shenk 2003b; King et al. some drainages that coincide with the
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63003
Front Range development corridor mouse populations on study sites over dominated by pine forest (Bohon et al. (areas around I–25 from Fort Collins 4 years, noted absence of the Preble’s 2005). Poor trapping success even in south through the Denver metropolitan meadow jumping mouse at certain sites suitable habitat suggested low area), is more widespread in foothills during some seasons, and suggested that population densities in Pike National and some montane areas within these 10 or more years of study might be Forest compared to those at lower same drainages, and generally present in necessary to assess the full extent of elevations (Bohon et al. 2005; Hansen rural portions of drainages south of population variation. 2006, p. 168). In studies targeting the Denver. In the Arkansas River basin in White and Shenk (2000, p. 9) Preble’s meadow jumping mouse at 11 Colorado, Preble’s meadow jumping summarized abundance estimates from higher elevations (1,890 to 2,420 m mouse distribution appears very nine sites in Colorado for field work (6,200 to 7,940 ft)) riparian sites in limited, with trapping efforts confirming conducted during 1998 and 1999 Douglas, Jefferson, and Teller Counties, occurrence largely in upper Monument (Meaney et al. 2000; Kaiser-Hill 2000; Schorr et al. (2007, p. 4) reported a 0.6 Creek and some headwater tributaries. Ensight Technical Services 1999, 2000, percent capture rate of jumping mice Data limitations, such as limited 2001; Shenk and Sivert 1999b; Schorr over 19,500 trap nights. Since trapping data, do not allow us to equate 2001). Since Preble’s meadow jumping coexistence of both the Preble’s meadow documented distribution with range. mice are found in linear riparian jumping mouse and the western For example, the subspecies has been communities, abundances were jumping mouse was confirmed in these documented in several places along Hay estimated in number of individuals per studies, the capture rate of the Preble’s Creek in Elbert County, and it is km (or mi) of stream corridor. Estimates meadow jumping mouse was probably reasonably likely to occur further of linear abundance ranged widely, from much lower. In comparable trapping downstream in Arapahoe County, but 4 to 67 mice/km (6 to 107 mice/mi) with effort in high quality habitat at lower no trapping has occurred to confirm or a mean of 33 +/¥5 mice/km (53 +/¥8 elevations, Schorr (2001, p.18) reported deny this assertion (See figure 1). mice/mi) (White and Shenk 2000, p. 9). a 3.5 percent capture rate of Preble’s Similarly, on Trout Creek a Preble’s The subsequent addition of new sites meadow jumping mice over 14,700 trap meadow jumping mouse was found in and 2 more years of data (2000–2001) nights at the Academy, and Meaney et Douglas County near the Teller County provided a range of 2 to 67 mice/km (3 al. (2003, p. 616) reported a 3.4 percent line and it is reasonable to assume the to 107 mice/mi) and a mean of 27 +/¥4 capture rate of Preble’s meadow subspecies may also occur in Teller mice/km (44 +/¥6 mice/mi) (Shenk jumping mice over 21,174 trap nights County. Given the data limitations, 2004). along South Boulder Creek, Boulder ‘‘range’’ (relative to the March 14, 2007, The above estimates, coupled with County. We believe that more research Department of the Interior, Solicitor sufficient knowledge of occupied stream is needed before conclusions can be Memorandum opinion) is defined in the miles, can provide a rough indicator of drawn regarding Preble’s meadow Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis Preble’s meadow jumping mouse jumping mouse abundance and security section of this rule below. numbers within a stream reach or along montane streams and headwaters. drainage. For example, the Preble’s Abundance meadow jumping mouse Recovery Team Trends Intensive trapping studies designed to used the above estimate (Shenk 2004) to Without comprehensive population estimate populations of the Preble’s approximate stream miles required to estimates for the subspecies, the only meadow jumping mouse have occurred support varying sized populations of the basis for trend assessment is presence or on only a few sites. Because not all Preble’s meadow jumping mouse absence surveys in historical habitat appropriate habitat has been surveyed (Service 2003b, p. 25). Hayward (2002) (Smith et al. 2004, p. 29). This presence/ for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse cautioned that reliance on an average absence information paints a very occurrence and because population number of mice per length of stream to different picture for Wyoming compared estimates are available for only a few predict population sizes would result in to Colorado. selected sites, no regional, Statewide, or the overestimation of actual population In Wyoming, we now have much rangewide population estimates for the size for about half of all sites. Of more information regarding Preble’s Preble’s meadow jumping mouse have additional concern in any assessment of meadow jumping mouse distribution been developed. Population density and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse than we had at time of listing, when we trends are not well known in Wyoming population size is the potential for described only two occupied sites. (Wyoming Game and Fish Department including western jumping mice in the Much of what we noted in the listing to 2005, p. 36). There are a few population estimate (Bohon et al. 2005; Schorr et al. be historical range of the Preble’s estimates but little trend information for 2007, p. 4). This is of particular meadow jumping mouse in Wyoming Preble’s meadow jumping mouse importance in areas where both Preble’s has now been definitively found to populations in Colorado. In addition, meadow jumping mice and western support Preble’s. But, while many because jumping mouse populations in jumping mice are known to occur, jumping mice have been confirmed as a given area vary significantly from year including higher elevation Colorado Preble’s meadow jumping mice in the to year (Quimby 1951, pp. 91–93; sites and at most sites in Wyoming. North Platte River basin, the subspecies Whitaker 1972, p. 4), short-term studies Another potential source of error is appears uncommon in the South Platte may not accurately characterize that the Preble’s meadow jumping River basin, with only western jumping abundance. In an ongoing trapping mouse population estimates above do mice previously confirmed at several study, population highs of 24 Preble’s not include estimates for riparian locations believed to be within Preble’s meadow jumping mice per site were corridors along mountain streams or any meadow jumping mouse range. estimated for two control sites in 1998 sites in Wyoming. In Pike National In Colorado, historical trapping and 1999; subsequent trapping in 2002, Forest, Colorado, site inspection of records establish that the Preble’s during regional drought conditions, many streams previously mapped as meadow jumping mouse was present in estimated no Preble’s meadow jumping Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat a range that included major plains mice present at either site (Bakeman revealed poorly developed or streams from the base of the Colorado 2006, p. 11). Meaney et al. (2003, p. 620) intermittent riparian vegetation Front Range east to at least Greeley, estimated Preble’s meadow jumping surrounded by sparse uplands Weld County (Armstrong 1972, p. 249;
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63004 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Fitzgerald et al. 1994, p. 293, Clippenger ‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become above estimates could be extrapolated 2002, p. 18). Recent trapping efforts endangered within the foreseeable out into the more distant future, have documented that the Preble’s future throughout all or a ‘‘significant development projections beyond this meadow jumping mouse is rare or, portion of its range.’’ The word ‘‘range’’ point are of increasingly lower value as perhaps, absent from these same areas in the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its uncertainty escalates. today (Ryon 1996, p. 2; Clippinger 2002, range’’ refers to the range in which the The following analysis examines all p. 22; Service, 2007). This pattern is species currently exists. Range is five factors currently affecting, or that especially apparent along prairie discussed further in the Conclusion of are likely to affect, the Preble’s meadow riparian corridors directly or indirectly the 5-Factor Analysis section of this jumping mouse within the foreseeable impacted by human development. This proposal below. future. For the purposes of this analysis, we issue is discussed further in Factor A A. The Present or Threatened will evaluate whether the currently below. Destruction, Modification, or listed subspecies is threatened or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Summary of Factors Affecting the endangered. This determination is a Subspecies multiple-step analysis. If we determine Introduction. Decline in the extent Section 4 of the Act and its that the subspecies is endangered and quality of Preble’s meadow jumping implementing regulations (50 CFR part throughout all of its range, we list it as mouse habitat has been considered the 424) set forth the procedures for listing, endangered throughout its range and no primary factor threatening the reclassifying, or removing species from further analysis is necessary. If not, we subspecies (Bakeman 1997, p. 78; listed status. ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the then evaluate if the subspecies meets Hafner et al. 1998, p. 122; Pague and Act as including any species or the definition of threatened throughout Grunau 2000). In our 1998 final rule to subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, all of its range. If the subspecies is list Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as and any distinct vertebrate population threatened in all of its range, we list as threatened (63 FR 26517, May 13, 1998), segment of fish or wildlife that threatened and consider if any we stated that Colorado east of the Front interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. significant portions of the range Range and adjacent areas of 1532(16)). Once the ‘‘species’’ is warrants consideration as endangered. If southeastern Wyoming had changed, determined we then evaluate whether we determine that the subspecies is not over time, from predominantly prairie that species may be endangered or threatened or endangered in all of its habitat intermixed with perennial and threatened because of one or more of the range, we consider whether any intermittent streams and associated five factors described in section 4(a)(1) significant portions of the subspecies’ riparian habitats to an agricultural and of the Act. We must consider these same range warrant consideration as increasingly urban setting. five factors in delisting determinations. threatened or endangered. We would In our listing decision, we stated that Under 50 CFR 424.11(d), we may then only list that significant portion of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse remove the protections of the Act if the its range as threatened or endangered populations had experienced a decline best available scientific and commercial and not list the remaining portion of its and faced continued threats linked to data substantiate that the species is range. widespread loss and fragmentation of neither endangered nor threatened for Foreseeable future is determined by the subspecies’ required riparian habitat the following reasons: (1) the species is the Service on a case-by-case basis, from human land uses including: urban, extinct; (2) the species has recovered taking into account a variety of species- suburban, and recreational and is no longer endangered or specific factors such as lifespan, development; highway and bridge threatened; or (3) the original scientific genetics, breeding behavior, construction; water development; data used at the time the species was demography, threat-projection instream changes associated with classified were in error. Data error only timeframes, and environmental increased runoff and flood control applies when subsequent investigations variability. For the purposes of this efforts; aggregate (sand and gravel) show that the best scientific or proposal, we define foreseeable future mining; and overgrazing (63 FR 26517, commercial data available when the based upon a threat-projection May 13, 1998). These human land-use species was listed, or the interpretation timeframe because future development activities affect the Preble’s meadow of such data, were in error. intensity and patterns are likely to be jumping mouse by directly destroying We may delist a species for any of the the single greatest factor contributing to its protective cover, nests, food above reasons only if such data the subspecies’ future conservation resources, and hibernation sites; substantiate that the species is neither status. As described in more detail disrupting behavior; or acting as a endangered nor threatened. Determining below, human-population-growth barrier to movement. We noted that whether a species meets these projections extend out to 2035 in such impacts reduced, altered, definitions requires consideration of the Colorado and 2036 in Wyoming. fragmented, and isolated habitat to the same five categories of threats specified Similarly, water requirements are point where Preble’s meadow jumping in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For species estimated through 2030 in Colorado and mouse populations may no longer that are already listed as endangered or 2035 in Wyoming. A Center for the West persist. We also noted that patterns of threatened, this analysis of threats is an model predicting future land-use capture suggested that Preble’s meadow evaluation of both the threats currently patterns projects development changes jumping mouse populations fluctuate facing the species and the threats that within the range of Preble’s through greatly over time at occupied sites, are reasonably likely to affect the 2040. Such projections frame our raising questions regarding security of species in the foreseeable future analysis as they help us understand the many currently documented following the delisting or downlisting what factors can reasonably be populations which are isolated and and the removal or reduction of the anticipated to meaningfully affect the affected by human development. Act’s protections. subspecies’ future conservation status. Historical records in Colorado (pre- Under section 3 of the Act, a species In our view, the foreseeable future for 1980) illustrate areas of Preble’s is ‘‘endangered’’ if it is in danger of this subspecies, based on the currently meadow jumping mouse occupancy extinction throughout all or a available data, does not extend beyond along the Front Range within both ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is 2040. While it is likely some of the foothill and prairie riparian corridors
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63005
(Armstrong 1972, p. 249; Fitzgerald et consisting of intensive trapping efforts within the foreseeable future. It appears al. 1994, p. 293). Between 1980 and and assessments of habitat quality, only unlikely that the Preble’s meadow 2005, the human population of Colorado 1 of 17 of these documented historical jumping mouse can be returned to the counties within the Preble’s meadow sites of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse historical localities within the Front jumping mouse range increased by occurrence in Colorado (Bear Creek, Range urban corridor; however, we find nearly 60 percent, from 1.7 million to Boulder County) is thought to currently that the subspecies’ apparent local 2.7 million (Colorado Demography support the Preble’s meadow jumping extirpation from areas of human Office, 2007). As explained further mouse. development provides useful below, the apparent absence of the Recent trapping records maintained perspective about the potential impacts Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in by the Service indicate that Preble’s of future development within the areas of substantial development, where meadow jumping mouse populations remaining range of the Preble’s meadow trapping had previously confirmed have little likelihood of occurrence jumping mouse. If the protections of the subspecies presence, supports the along large portions of major river and Act are removed, we expect these threat conclusion that human land uses stream reaches within the subspecies’ factors, discussed in more detail below, adversely affect Preble’s meadow historical described range in Colorado would continue to affect the subspecies jumping mouse populations. including: in large portions of its current range into • Ryon (1996) evaluated the condition The Cache La Poudre River within the foreseeable future. of eight historical Preble’s meadow Fort Collins and downstream to its For the purposes of this revised proposed rule, we reviewed and jumping mouse capture sites in six confluence with the South Platte River considered the best available Colorado counties based on vegetation at Greeley, 60 km (37 mi); • information regarding threats within the structure, dominant plant species, and The Big Thompson River and Little range of the Preble’s meadow jumping trapping results. Ryon reported no Thompson River through the Front mouse, including Ryon (1996), Shenk Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Range urban corridor, approximately 50 (1998), Bakeman (1997), Pague and captures at any of the seven sites km (32 mi); • The Saint Vrain River from Hygiene Granau (2000), Clippinger (2002), and trapped (one site no longer contained to its confluence with the South Platte Service (2003b). We summarize these suitable habitat) (1996, p. 25). In River, 35 km (22 mi); accounts below. addition, he reported that the historical • Boulder Creek from Boulder east to Following listing, The Nature sites contained fewer native species in its confluence with the Saint Vrain Conservancy, under a contract with the plant communities and were lacking the River, approximately 35 km (22 mi); Colorado Division of Natural Resources, multi-strata vegetation structure he • Walnut, Woman, and Dry Creeks formed a Preble’s Meadow Jumping observed at sites where trapping had downstream from Rocky Flats National Mouse Science Team (Pague 1998). recently confirmed Preble’s meadow Wildlife Refuge (NWR) to the With guidance from the Science Team jumping mouse presence (Ryon 1996, p. confluence of Dry Creek and beyond to and following numerous meetings with 30). Investigations into land-use changes the South Platte River, 40 km (25 mi); scientists and stakeholders, Pague and at the historical sites suggested that • Ralston Creek and Clear Creek Grunau (2000) developed a conservation most had been directly altered in terms through the urban corridor to the South planning handbook that addressed each of habitat or had been influenced by Platte River, approximately 40 km (25 of seven Colorado counties containing habitat fragmentation (Ryon, 1996, p. mi); Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 30). Clippinger (2002, pp. 14–29) • The South Platte River downstream populations. The document provided mapped and compared past (through of Chatfield Reservoir through Denver to ‘‘issues and stresses’’ for all presumed 1972) and current (post-1972) Brighton, 60 km (38 mi); threat factors operating in known or distribution records of the Preble’s • The South Platte River downstream suspected Preble’s meadow jumping meadow jumping mouse in central from Brighton to Greeley, approximately mouse habitat, and assigned a Colorado and southeastern Wyoming 55 km (34 mi) (one recent Preble’s qualitative risk assessment level to each based on museum specimens, published capture); of the identified issues. The work of accounts, and unpublished reports. • Cherry Creek from the Arapahoe Pague and Granau (2000) continues to Clippinger reported that his distribution County-Douglas County line provide important, science-based maps illustrated a loss of Preble’s downstream through Denver to the insight into threats to, and potential populations in expanding urban and South Platte River, 30 km (19 mi); conservation strategies for, the Preble’s suburban areas, especially around • Monument Creek downstream from meadow jumping mouse in Colorado on Cheyenne, Denver, and Colorado its confluence with Cottonwood Creek a county-by-county basis. Habitat- Springs, and in general along the eastern through Colorado Springs, related ‘‘issues’’ identified as high or extent of historical range (Clippinger approximately 15 km (9 mi). very high priority in one or more 2002, p. 22). Note that Clippinger’s In total, Preble’s meadow jumping counties included habitat conversion reference to historical range is based on mouse populations appear to have little through housing, commercial, and the few existing records (through 1972) likelihood of occurrence along 420 km industrial construction; travel corridor documenting Preble’s meadow jumping (260 mi) in and downstream of areas (i.e., roadway) construction; travel mouse occurrence. These records are with concentrated human development. corridor maintenance; fragmentation of focused around what is now the I–25 However, despite apparent local habitat and corridors; hydrological flow urban corridor and based upon our extirpations, many of these streams impairment; habitat conversion to a current knowledge of the subspecies do continue to support Preble’s meadow reservoir; bank stabilization; high not truly represent the extent of the jumping mouse populations in their impact livestock management; rock and range of the subspecies. The apparent upstream reaches or tributaries. sand extraction; invasive weeds; and loss of historically occupied sites (those Historical losses relative to ongoing catastrophic fire (Pague and Granau sites where the subspecies was threats are relevant in predicting 2000, pp. 1–15, 2–12, 3–13, 4–14, 5–14, documented to occur prior to 1980) also whether the subspecies is likely to 6–15, 7–14). Pague (2007) provided provides some insight into this become endangered in all or a observations updating the 2000 report. relationship. Based on Service records, significant portion of its current range No comparable document exists for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63006 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
four Wyoming counties where the modification of critical habitat. Thus far, environmental integrity in riparian areas subspecies occurs. the section 7 process has been and associated upland areas in the Colorado’s Comprehensive Wildlife successful in avoiding adverse effects, Colorado Piedmont. These data Conservation Strategy lists the meadow from Federal actions, that would be demonstrate that nearby development jumping mouse (including both the likely to jeopardize the continued increases the risk of extirpation of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and existence of the species or result in the Preble’s meadow jumping mice from Zapus hudsonius luteus which occurs destruction or adverse modification of occupied sites. in extreme south-central Colorado) as a critical habitat. Theobold et al. (1997) emphasized ‘‘Species of Greatest Conservation Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act both housing density and spatial Need,’’ citing threats to habitat and authorizes the Service to issue permits patterns in evaluating effects of range including habitat conversion (due for non-Federal actions that result in the residential development on wildlife to housing, urban, and exurban incidental taking of listed wildlife. habitat. They concluded that while development) and habitat degradation Incidental take permit applications must clustered development can decrease (due to altered native vegetation and be supported by an HCP that identifies habitat disturbance (Theobold et al. altered hydrological regime) (CDOW conservation measures that the 1997, p. 34), much of the Rocky 2006, p. 102). permittee agrees to implement for the Mountain West is experiencing what The Wyoming Comprehensive species to avoid, minimize, and mitigate has been termed ‘‘rural sprawl’’ where Wildlife Plan (WCWP) also lists the impacts of the requested incidental rural areas are growing at a faster rate meadow jumping mouse (including both take. than urban areas (Theobold et al. 2001, the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse As of August 2007, we have p. 4). In Colorado, residential demand and Zapus hudsonius campestris which conducted 124 formal section 7 and State law encourage developers to occurs in northeastern Wyoming) as a consultations (109 in Colorado, 15 in design subdivisions with lots of at least ‘‘Species of Greatest Conservation Wyoming) and issued 19 HCP related 14 ha (35 ac) each with one house, to Need.’’ This plan identifies ecoregions incidental take permits (all in Colorado) avoid detailed county subdivision in the State and provides a summary of for projects affecting the Preble’s regulations (Riebsame et al., p. 420). The ‘‘mean habitat quality’’ scores for each meadow jumping mouse. We have Larimer County Master Plan (Larimer ecological system (or habitat) within the authorized take for actions that did not County Planning Division 1997) cites a ecoregion (WGFD 2005, pp. 19–25). result in jeopardy but nevertheless trend toward residential properties with Within the three Wyoming ecoregions resulted in permanent impacts to over relatively large lots, which leads to that include Preble’s meadow jumping 320 hectares (ha) (800 acres (ac)) of scattered development and more mouse range (Central Shortgrass Prairie, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse agricultural land taken out of Northern Great Plains Steppe, and habitat, and temporary impacts to more production. Where public and private Southern Rocky Mountains), the two than twice that amount of land. These lands are intermingled, private land ecological systems most likely to projects have incorporated conservation ownership typically follows valley support the Preble’s meadow jumping measures or mitigation to avoid or bottoms (Theobald et al. 2001, p. 5), mouse (Rocky Mountain Lower minimize adverse impacts to the thus rural development is likely to Montane Foothill Riparian and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. disproportionately affect valley-bottom Shrubland, Western Great Plains However, even with the protections riparian areas (Riebsame et al., p. 402), Riparian/Western Great Plains afforded to the species under section 7, the favored habitat of the Preble’s Floodplain) ranked in the lowest 20 habitat overall has continued to decline meadow jumping mouse. Beyond direct percent in mean habitat quality relative in quality and quantity, especially in impact to habitat, when ranches are to the State’s other ecosystems (WGFD Colorado. In the absence of listing, subdivided, subsequent residential 2005, pp. 19–25). Among threats to projects in Preble’s meadow jumping construction and associated disturbance habitat in these ecoregions are invasive mouse habitat would otherwise go can result in the disruption of wildlife plants, residential development forward with little Federal oversight. movement along stream corridors radiating from the Cheyenne area, and Other Federal, as well as State and local (Riebsame et al., p. 402). Rural recreation in the Southern Rocky regulatory mechanisms, that may development disproportionately occurs Mountain region (WGFD 2005, pp. 53, provide protection for the Preble’s around edges of undisturbed public 55, 56). meadow jumping mouse and its habitat lands and affects the conservation value The direct impacts of development on are evaluated under Factor D below. of the undisturbed public lands (Hansen the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Residential and Commercial et al. 2005, p. 1900). and its habitat have likely slowed since Development. Clippinger (2002) Human development often causes our 1998 listing because of protection assessed the impacts of residential subtle effects on riparian habitat as well. afforded to the Preble’s meadow development on the Preble’s meadow Indirect effects of human settlement jumping mouse and its critical habitat jumping mouse. He analyzed Colorado have resulted in declines in native trees rangewide under the Act. One land-cover data compared to positive and shrubs, greater canopy closure, and indication of continuing impacts to the and negative trapping results for the a more open understory with reduced Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and its Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in a ground cover within riparian habitat habitat is the number of formal geographic information system analysis (Miller et al. 2003, p. 1055). An open consultations performed to date under and concluded that the likelihood of understory does not favor the Preble’s section 7 of the Act and the number of successful trapping of Preble’s meadow meadow jumping mouse, which prefers section 10 permits issued to date in jumping mice was reduced by either dense ground cover of grasses and conjunction with approved Habitat low-or high-density residential shrubs and is less likely to use open Conservation Plans (HCPs). Section 7 of developments when the developments areas where predation risks are assumed the Act requires Federal agencies to were within 210 m (690 ft) of the to be higher (Trainor et al. 2007, pp. consult with the Service to ensure that trapping sites (Clippinger 2002, pp. iv, 472–476; Clippinger 2002, pp. 69, 72). their actions do not jeopardize the 94). Clippinger (2002, p. iv) noted that Fragmentation is another indirect continued existence of the subspecies or the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse impact of development in proximity to cause destruction or an adverse can be a useful indicator of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63007
habitat. The Preble’s meadow jumping droughts or floods. Recent development the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse mouse is closely associated with narrow pressure has been most concentrated will increase by about 11,000 people riparian systems that represent a small south of Denver, Colorado, in Douglas from 2005 to 2020, including: an percentage of the landscape within the and El Paso Counties; eight section 7 increase of 800 in Albany County; an subspecies’ range. Fragmentation of consultations and three HCPs have increase of 1,500 in Converse County; these linear habitats limits the extent occurred in the Middle South Platte- an increase of 9,100 in Laramie County; and size of Preble’s meadow jumping Cherry Creek drainage, all south of and a decrease of 400 in Platte County mouse populations. As populations Denver, and six section 7 consultations (Wyoming Department of become fragmented and isolated, it and four HCPs have occurred in the Administration and Information 2007). becomes more difficult for them to Fountain Creek drainage. We have also Commercially available estimates persist (Caughley and Gunn 1996, pp. worked with other Federal agencies and suggest counties supporting the Preble’s 165–189). Major risks associated with a substantial number of landowners and meadow jumping mouse will increase small populations include— developers to avoid adverse impacts to by about 18,400 people from 2006 demographic stochasticity (an increased Preble’s meadow jumping mouse through 2036, including: a decline of risk of decline in small populations due habitat, thus avoiding formal 3,700 in Albany County; an increase of to variability in population growth rates consultation. Additional planned 3,500 in Converse County; an increase arising from random differences among residential and commercial of 18,300 in Laramie County; and an individuals in survival and development projects that would increase of 300 in Platte County reproduction within a season); adversely affect Preble’s meadow (Economy.com 2007 as provided by Lui environmental stochasticity (an jumping mouse habitat in Colorado are 2007). increased risk of decline in small continually being reviewed by the While population growth rates populations due to variation in birth Service. Since listing, protections provide valuable insight into and death rates from one season to the afforded under the Act have slowed, but development pressures, they may not next in response to weather, disease, not eliminated, the loss of Preble’s provide a complete picture. For competition, predation, or other factors meadow jumping mouse habitat due to example, human population increases external to the population); and loss of residential and commercial in Cheyenne, Fort Collins, Greeley, genetic variation (a reduction in the development in Colorado. We believe Longmont, the immediate Denver amount of diversity retained within that in the absence of the protections metropolitan area, and much of populations and an increased chance under the Act, Preble’s meadow Colorado Springs are likely to have little that deleterious recessive alleles may be jumping mouse habitat in Colorado and direct impact on the Preble’s meadow expressed; the loss of diversity can limit the populations it supports would be jumping mouse because the subspecies a population’s ability to respond lost at a greatly increased rate. appears to have little likelihood of adaptively to future environmental Continued rapid development is occurrence within and downstream changes) (Caughley and Gunn 1996, pp. expected along Colorado’s Front Range from these cities. Conversely, 165–189). These issues are discussed in as the human population continues to substantial human population increases greater detail in Factor E below. The grow. The State of Colorado expects the in the Laramie Foothills of Larimer Recovery Team determined that small, population of counties supporting the County, Colorado, or southern portions fragmented units of habitat will not be Preble’s meadow jumping mouse to of Douglas County, Colorado, are likely increase by an additional 1.5 million to have a high impact to the Preble’s as successful in supporting the Preble’s people by 2035, including: 99,000 in meadow jumping mouse. In Wyoming, meadow jumping mouse in the long Boulder County; 272,000 in Douglas given the small projected increases in term as larger areas of habitat (Service County; 42,000 in Elbert County; the human population, we expect rural 2003b, p. 21). On a landscape scale, 369,000 in El Paso County; 143,000 in development will continue to have only maintenance of dispersal corridors Jefferson County; 201,000 in Larimer small, localized impacts. linking patches of Preble’s meadow County; and 323,000 in Weld County Modeling exercises can also provide jumping mouse habitat may be critical (Colorado Demography Office 2007). some insights into future land-use to the subspecies’ conservation (Shenk These expected increases support Pague development patterns. While these 1998, p. 21). and Grunau’s (2000) conclusion that models have weaknesses, such as an One indicator of the level of habitat conversion is a very high inability to accurately predict economic development pressure since listing is priority issue to the Preble’s meadow upturns or downturns, uncertainty the number of development-related jumping mouse in Larimer, Weld, and regarding investments in infrastructure section 7 consultations and HCPs El Paso Counties, and a high priority that might drive development (such as completed by the Service. Of the 109 issue for the remaining counties roads, airports, or water projects), and formal consultations and 19 HCPs supporting the Preble’s meadow an inability to predict open-space completed in Colorado, 17 section 7 jumping mouse in Colorado. acquisitions, we nevertheless believe consultations and 10 HCPs were In contrast to the situation in such models are useful in adding to our specifically for residential and Colorado, no formal section 7 understanding of likely patterns. For commercial developments with direct consultations or HCPs have been sought example in 2005, Center for the West adverse effects to the Preble’s meadow for residential or commercial produced a series of maps predicting jumping mouse or its habitat. Approved development in Wyoming. This reduced growth through 2040 for the west projects allowed for adverse impacts level of consultations reflects the including the Colorado Front Range and (permanent or temporary) in excess of general lack of development pressure Wyoming (Travis et al. 2005, pp. 2–7). 180 ha (450 ac) of Preble’s habitat. within Preble’s meadow jumping mouse The projections for the Colorado Front While conservation measures or habitat. This lack of development Range (available at: http:// mitigation in various forms have been pressure is predicted to continue into www.centerwest.org/futures/frtrng/ incorporated into all permitted projects, the foreseeable future as described 2040.html) illustrate significant implementation of these habitat below. increases in urban/suburban, low- restoration and enhancement measures Wyoming estimates that the density suburban, and exurban land has been limited by factors such as population of the counties supporting uses across virtually all private lands
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63008 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
within the Colorado portion of the meadow jumping mouse habitat over a Since the listing of the Preble’s meadow Preble’s meadow jumping mouse range. 10-year period (Service 2006). jumping mouse in 1998, a dozen Only small isolated patches of Preble’s One of the largest road projects is a recreational trail projects with proposed meadow jumping mouse habitat in proposed improvement to I–25 in El impacts to Preble’s meadow jumping public ownership, including headwater Paso County, Colorado. The proposed mouse habitat in Larimer, Boulder, areas in Federal ownership, would construction would affect 10 of the 11 Douglas, and El Paso Counties, avoid the direct impacts of residential to 14 eastern tributaries of Monument Colorado, have been addressed through and associated commercial Creek thought to support Preble’s section 7 consultations or HCPs. An development. Although similar maps for (Bakeman and Meaney 2001, p. 21). additional 24 trail projects have been Wyoming are less refined (available at: Impacts to Preble’s would include permitted under the Douglas County http://www.centerwest.org/futures/west/ habitat fragmentation and modification, Regional HCP. As human populations 2040.html), they suggest only limited change in population size, and continue to increase (as discussed increases in development, primarily behavioral impacts (Bakeman and above), we anticipate increased demand around Cheyenne. Meaney 2001, pp. 18–20). While for recreational development in public Based upon known impacts to the measures to avoid, minimize, and open space and on conservation Preble’s meadow jumping mouse mitigate impacts were identified, the properties. Without protections afforded associated with development and best project would have significant by the Act, Preble’s meadow jumping available projections for future cumulative effects on Preble’s meadow mouse populations on properties free development (as described above and in jumping mice in the Monument Creek from residential and commercial Factor D below), we conclude that drainage, especially east of I–25 development threats will still be subject residential and commercial (Bakeman and Meaney 2001, pp. i, ii, to widespread threats from future development constitutes a substantial 22–27). recreational development and increased With an increased human population, threat to the Preble’s meadow jumping human use. a high level of road construction and mouse in Colorado, now and into the Many utility lines (sewer, water, gas, maintenance projects will occur; in the foreseeable future. In Wyoming, communication, and electric lines, and absence of the Act’s protective residential and commercial municipal water ditches) cross Preble’s measures, impacts to Preble’s and its development is likely to be limited with meadow jumping mouse habitat. habitat would likely be substantial. only small, localized impacts to the Current and future utility rights-of-way While the Act rarely stops such projects, through these habitats will cause habitat Preble’s meadow jumping mouse it does promote measures to avoid, destruction and fragmentation from expected. While some development is minimize, or compensate for impacts periodic maintenance and new projected in the vicinity of Cheyenne, and helps control the level of negative construction. Since the listing of the trapping efforts to date have not impacts to the Preble’s meadow jumping Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, 18 confirmed presence of Preble’s meadow mouse and its habitat. Pague and utilities projects adversely affecting the jumping mice in this area. Grunau (2000) considered ‘‘travel Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and its Transportation, Recreation, and Other corridor construction’’ to be a high habitat have been evaluated through Rights of Way Through Habitat. At the priority issue to Preble’s meadow section 7 consultations (3 in Wyoming, time of listing, the Service concluded jumping mouse populations in Weld, 15 in Colorado). In addition, an that roads, trails, or other linear Douglas, Elbert, and El Paso Counties in approved HCP with Denver Water development through the Preble’s Colorado. permits impacts to 34 ha (84 ac) of meadow jumping mouse’s riparian Human-caused impacts associated Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat habitat could act as partial or complete with recreation include backcountry at multiple sites in Colorado. While barriers to dispersal (63 FR 26517, May roads, trails, and campgrounds, which often more costly than trenching, 13, 1998). These forms of development are often located along streams and near avoidance measures such as directional have continued to affect and fragment water (Wyoming Game and Fish drilling under riparian crossings can Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Department 2005, p. 56). Recreational reduce or avoid impacts to the Preble’s habitat. Since listing, the Service has trail systems are frequently located meadow jumping mouse. If the Preble’s conducted 38 formal consultations within riparian corridors (Meaney et al. meadow jumping mouse were to be under section 7 of the Act for road or 2002, p. 116). The development of trail delisted, we do not anticipate that bridge projects (32 in Colorado and 6 in systems can affect the Preble’s meadow project operators would voluntarily Wyoming) resulting in permitted jumping mouse by modifying its habitat, directionally drill to avoid Preble’s impacts to approximately 50 ha (125 ac) nesting sites, and food resources in both meadow jumping mouse habitat. of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse riparian and upland areas. Use of these Overall, we believe threats related to habitat. In addition, a formal 2005 trails by humans or pets can alter transportation, recreation, and other programmatic section 7 consultation wildlife activity and feeding patterns rights of way through habitat are with the Federal Highway (Theobold et al. 1997, p. 26). Meaney et directly related to human population Administration for the Wyoming al. (2002, pp. 131–132) suggest fewer pressures. Thus, we expect these issues Statewide Transportation Improvement Preble’s meadow jumping mice were will have substantial impacts to Preble’s Program could result in 19 future found on sites with trails than on sites meadow jumping mouse populations in highway projects with impacts to 42 ha without trails. While temporal and Colorado, but only minimal impacts to (104 ac) of Preble’s meadow jumping spatial variation in Preble’s meadow Preble’s meadow jumping mouse mouse habitat (Service 2005). Under the jumping mouse numbers resulted in low populations in Wyoming. Douglas County (Colorado) Regional precision of population estimates and Hydrologic Changes. Establishment HCP for the Preble’s meadow jumping weak statistical support for a negative and maintenance of riparian plant mouse, completed in May 2006, 67 trail effect, the authors considered the communities are dependent on the approved road and bridge construction magnitude of the potential effect interactions between surface-water projects by Douglas County, and the sufficient to encourage careful dynamics, groundwater, and river- cities of Parker and Castle Rock, may management and additional research channel processes (Gregory et al. 1991, affect up to 122 ha (302 ac) of Preble’s (Meaney et al. 2002, pp. 115, 131–132). pp. 542–545). Changes in hydrology can
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63009
alter the channel structure, riparian detention basins, outfall structures, drop groundwater levels and downcut vegetation, and valley-floor landforms structures, riprap banks, impervious channels in or near Preble’s meadow (Gregory et al. 1991, pp. 541–542; Busch cement channels; and other structural jumping mouse habitat by employing and Scott 1995, p. 287). Thus, changes stabilization. Structural stabilization rock or sheet pile drop structures. in the timing and abundance of water methods designed to manage runoff and If we were to delist the Preble’s can be detrimental to the persistence of control erosion can increase the rate of meadow jumping mouse, we believe the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in stream flow, shorten channel length, that runoff-related impacts to riparian these riparian habitats due to resultant narrow riparian areas, destroy riparian habitats within and downstream of changes in vegetation (Bakeman 1997, p. vegetation, and prevent or prolong the development may increase in areas of 79). Changes in hydrology may occur in time required for vegetation high development, such as along many ways, but two of the more reestablishment (Booth and Jackson Colorado’s Front Range urban corridor, prevalent are the excessively high and 1997, p. 4). These impacts may affect and that restoration of impacted riparian excessively low runoff cycles in plant composition, soil structure, and systems would be less likely to occur. watersheds with increased areas of physiography of riparian systems to the At the time of listing, we stated that paved or hardened surfaces, and point where habitat supporting the the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse disruption of natural flow regimes Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is so depended on vegetative habitat that was downstream of dams, diversions, and altered that populations can no longer in turn dependent on physical factors alluvial wells (Booth and Jackson 1997, persist. Pague and Grunau (2000) including surface flows and pp. 3–5; Katz et al. 2005, pp. 1019– considered ‘‘bank stabilization’’ to be a groundwater. Water development and 1020). high-priority issue for the Preble’s management in its various forms alters Urbanization can dramatically meadow jumping mouse in Weld and El vegetation composition and structure, increase frequency and magnitude of Paso Counties. Since the listing of the riparian hydrology, and flood-plain flooding while decreasing base flows Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, 22 geomorphology directly, as well as (the portion of stream flow that is not stormwater management, stream through alterations to habitat located surface runoff and results from seepage stabilization, or outfall structure downstream; these alterations often, but of water from the ground into a channel projects with impact to Preble’s meadow not always, have adverse impacts to the slowly over time; base flow is the jumping mouse habitat have been Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (63 FR primary source of running water in a addressed through formal section 7 26517 May 13, 1998). The creation of stream during dry weather) (Booth and consultations in Colorado; none have irrigation reservoirs at the expense of Jackson 1997; pp. 8–10; National occurred in Wyoming. native wetlands is a factor that Research Council 2002, pp. 182–186). The Preble’s meadow jumping negatively affected Preble’s meadow Infiltration of precipitation is greatly mouse’s apparent absence downstream jumping mouse populations over the reduced by increases in impervious from most areas of extensive previous century (Fitzgerald et al. 1994, surfaces. The magnitude of peak flows urbanization (including Cheyenne, p. 293). Reservoirs with barren increases in urban areas as water runs Wyoming, and Fort Collins, Longmont, shorelines can create barriers to Preble’s off as direct overland flow. Increased Boulder, Golden, Denver, Parker, and meadow jumping mouse movement and peak flows can exceed the capacity of Colorado Springs, Colorado) may be fragment populations along stream natural channels to transport flows, attributable to such changes in corridors. Current and future reservoir trigger increased erosion, and degrade hydrology. Corn et al. (1995, p. 14) and construction is necessary to respond to habitat (Booth and Jackson 1997, pp. 3– Schorr (2001, p. 30) expressed concern municipal water needs. By 2030, 5). Changes in hydrology associated over the integrity of protected riparian municipal and industrial demand for with urbanization can result in channel habitats on Monument Creek and its water in Colorado will increase 60 downcutting, lowering of the water table tributaries through the U.S. Air Force percent, by 578 million cubic meters in the riparian zone, and creation of a Academy (Academy) because of (m3) (469,000 acre-feet (af)) yearly in the ‘‘hydrologic drought,’’ which in turn development activities upstream. In South Platte River drainage and by 41 alters vegetation, soil, and microbial 2007, all eastern tributaries of percent, 133 million m3 (108,000 af) processes (Groffman et al. 2003, p. 317). Monument Creek on the Academy yearly in the Arkansas River drainage Meanwhile, reduced infiltration results experienced adverse impacts to (Colorado Water Conservation Board in reduced groundwater recharge, occupied Preble’s meadow jumping 2004). Even under the most optimistic reduced groundwater contributions to mouse habitat due to erosive head scenarios, the Colorado Water stream flow, and, ultimately, reduced cutting, channel degradation, and Conservation Board (2004, p. 13–17) base flows during dry seasons (National impacts to vegetation that were estimated a shortfall relative to Research Council 2002, p. 182; attributable to regional stormwater municipal and industrial demands of Groffman et al. 2003, p. 317). management, and commercial and 111 million m3 (90,000 af) of water in Established methods of mitigating residential development (Mihlbachler the South Platte drainage and 22 million downstream impacts of urban 2007). (m3) (18,000 af) in the Arkansas development, such as detention basins, Efforts to restore degraded riparian drainage by 2030. Pague and Grunau have only limited effectiveness; habitats have occurred in Colorado, in (2000) considered hydrological impacts downstream impacts are probably part to benefit the Preble’s meadow (water quality, flow regime, and inevitable without limiting the extent of jumping mouse. Efforts to restore groundwater) to be a high-priority issue watershed development (Booth and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Jackson 1997, p. 17). through a 0.86 km (0.54 mi) urban in all Colorado counties supporting In response to altered hydrology, stream reach of East Plum Creek, populations. stormwater-management, flood-control, Douglas County appear to have Three water projects currently being and erosion-control efforts occur along increased vegetation cover and Preble’s considered may significantly affect many streams within the former and meadow jumping mouse numbers Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat current range of the Preble’s meadow (Bakeman 2006, pp. 4, 8). Similarly, including: The proposed expansions of jumping mouse. The methods used recent projects on Cherry Creek, Douglas existing Halligan and Seaman reservoirs include channelization; construction of County, have attempted to restore in the Cache La Poudre drainage,
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63010 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Larimer County, Colorado, and storage listed. Measures to minimize and Agriculture. At the time of listing we reallocation at Chatfield Reservoir, in compensate for impacts specific to the cited conclusions by Compton and the Upper South Platte drainage, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and its Hugie (1993a; 1993b) that human Jefferson and Douglas Counties, habitat are less likely to be incorporated activities, including conversion of Colorado. Options being considered at into project plans if the subspecies were grasslands to farms and livestock Halligan Reservoir could inundate up to to be delisted. Fewer and smaller grazing, had adversely impacted 4.0 km (2.5 mi) of Preble’s meadow projects are likely to occur in Wyoming. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. They jumping mouse habitat and affect Aggregate Mining. At the time of concluded that development of irrigated Preble’s critical habitat at the site of the listing, we cited alluvial aggregate farmland had a negative impact on proposed dam. At Seaman Reservoir, mining as a threat to the Preble’s Preble’s meadow jumping mouse the currently favored option would meadow jumping mouse. Aggregate habitat, and that any habitat creation it inundate about 4.0 km (2.5 mi) of mining is focused on floodplains, where produced was minimal (Compton and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse critical these mineral resources most commonly Hugie 1993a; Compton and Hugie habitat, while another option being occur, and specifically on the same 1993b). In general, negative trapping considered would inundate about 11 km gravel deposits that may provide results suggest that the Preble’s meadow (7 mi). Options being investigated at important hibernation sites (63 FR jumping mouse does not occur in areas Chatfield Reservoir have generated a 26517, May 13, 1998). Alluvial aggregate cultivated for row crops. Historically, preliminary estimate that up to 130 ha mining continues to be a threat to the the rapid rate of native habitat (330 ac) of existing Preble’s meadow Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in conversion to row crops likely had a jumping mouse habitat, including Colorado. Alluvial aggregate extraction significant adverse impact on the almost 28 ha (70 ac) of critical habitat, may produce long-term changes to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. would be inundated. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat Because conversion of native habitat to In Wyoming, estimates of projected by removing (often permanently) shrub row crops has become increasingly rare water use in the Platte River Basin and herbaceous vegetation, and by in both Colorado and Wyoming (U.S. through 2035, range from a 38 million altering hydrology. Often, mined pits Department of Agriculture 2000, Tables 3 m (31,000 af) decrease (2 percent) to a are constructed with impervious liners 2, 3, & 9), such conversions are unlikely 3 90 million m (73,000 af) increase (6 and converted to water reservoirs after to present a similar threat in the future percent) (Wyoming Water Development aggregate is removed. This conversion in any portion of the subspecies range. Commission 2006, p. 10). No significant precludes restoration of riparian reservoir projects are currently planned shoreline vegetation and alters adjacent The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse within Preble’s habitat in Wyoming. groundwater flow. uses native grass and alfalfa hayfields While the Platte River Plan identifies Since listing, we have conducted when they are in or adjacent to suitable ‘‘upper Laramie River storage’’ as a formal consultation under section 7 of riparian habitat. This juxtaposition is future storage opportunity (Wyoming the Act regarding impacts to the Preble’s often the case, since hay production Water Development Commission 2006, meadow jumping mouse at two requires large amounts of water. p. 31), potential impacts to Preble’s aggregate mines in Colorado and we Mowing of hay may directly kill or meadow jumping mouse are uncertain have worked to avoid impacts at others. injure Preble’s meadow jumping mice, based on limited knowledge of the At Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge reduce food supply (since many plants subspecies’ occurrence in the drainage (NWR), private aggregate mining will not mature to produce seed), and and uncertainty regarding the location activities could affect Preble’s meadow remove cover. Late season mowing may of any future water projects. jumping mouse habitat directly or be especially problematic, because Beyond direct effects to the Preble’s through alteration of hydrology along Preble’s meadow jumping mice are meadow jumping mouse and its habitat Rock Creek. While aggregate mining approaching hibernation and their through construction or inundation, continues to affect floodplains in the nutritional needs are high (Clippinger changes in flows related to water Colorado Front Range, many project 2002, p. 72). Additionally, hay diversion, storage, and use also affect sites are along downstream reaches of production may preclude growth of riparian habitats downstream in a larger streams and rivers where Preble’s willows and other shrubs that are variety of ways. As flows are captured meadow jumping mouse populations important as hibernation habitat for the or diverted, or as groundwater supplies appear absent. Pague and Grunau (2000) Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. are depleted through wells, natural flow considered ‘‘rock and sand extraction’’ Hayfields often are irrigated through patterns are changed, and more xeric to be a high-priority issue in Weld, ditch systems. The Preble’s meadow plant communities replace the riparian Jefferson, and Douglas Counties. In jumping mouse uses overgrown water vegetation. Sediment transport is Wyoming, aggregate mining has not conveyance ditches and pond edges, disrupted by on-stream reservoirs. Loss been an issue in Preble’s meadow and may use agricultural ditches as of sediment encourages channel jumping mouse habitat and we have no dispersal routes (Meaney et al. 2003, pp. downcutting, which in turn affect information on any proposed mines in 612–613). Ditch maintenance activities groundwater levels (Katz et al. 2005, p. this portion of its range. may kill individual Preble’s meadow 1020). The resulting conversion of Overall, we believe threats related to jumping mice and periodically alter habitats from moist or mesic, shrub- aggregate mining are likely to be more their habitat. Existing special dominated systems to drier grass-or intense in areas in close proximity to regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(1) exempt forb-dominated systems make the area residential and commercial certain ditch maintenance operations less suitable for the Preble’s meadow development. Thus, we expect this issue from take prohibitions of the Act in jumping mouse. will have an impact on Preble’s meadow recognition that habitat the ditches Given the projected future demands jumping mouse populations in provide is dependent on the ditches for water, we believe that major water Colorado. In Wyoming, we expect retaining their function. Preble’s development projects affecting the aggregate mining will have little, if any, meadow jumping mouse populations Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in effect on Preble’s meadow jumping have persisted in areas hayed for many Colorado would likely occur regardless mouse populations as future years (Taylor 1999). Haying operations of whether the subspecies remains development is projected to be far less. that allow dense riparian vegetation to
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63011
remain in place are likely compatible maintaining Preble’s meadow jumping managed. We now believe that with persistence of Preble’s meadow mouse populations (Ensight Technical agricultural operations that have jumping mouse populations. Services 2004, p. 9). The recent drought, maintained habitat supportive of Impacts to riparian habitat from in combination with grazing, may have Preble’s meadow jumping mouse livestock are well documented in the had an increased effect on Preble’s populations are consistent with scientific literature (Kauffman and meadow jumping mouse habitat. conservation and recovery of the Krueger 1984, pp. 431–435; Armour et Overgrazing threats are not limited to subspecies. In recognition of this, we al. 1991, pp. 7–11; Fleischner 1994, pp. large livestock producing operations. On adopted in 2001 special regulations at 629–638; Belsky et al. 1999, pp. 419– subdivided ranch properties, often 50 CFR 17.40(1) which exempted 431; Freilich et al. 2003, pp. 759–765). termed ‘‘ranchettes,’’ horses and other existing agricultural activities, including Livestock have damaged 80 percent of livestock can heavily affect the small grazing, plowing, seeding, cultivating, stream and riparian ecosystems in the tracts within which they are fenced minor drainage, burning, mowing, and western United States (Belsky et al. (Pague and Grunau 2000, pp. 1–14). harvesting, from the prohibitions of the 1999, p 419.). Adverse impacts of Pague and Grunau (2000) considered Act. The exemption does not apply to grazing include changes to stream ‘‘high impact livestock grazing’’ to be a new agricultural activities or to those channels (downcutting, trampling of high-priority issue for the Preble’s that expand the footprint or intensity of banks, increased erosion), to flows meadow jumping mouse in Larimer, the activity. We established the (increased flow and velocity, decreased Weld, Elbert, and El Paso Counties in exemption to provide a positive late-season flow), to the water table Colorado, largely due to the projected incentive for agricultural interests to (lowering of the water table), and to increase in such ranchettes. participate in voluntary conservation vegetation (loss to grazing, trampling, In Wyoming, where large-scale activities and to support surveys and and through altered hydrology) commercial ranching is more prevalent studies designed to determine status, (Kauffman and Krueger 1984, pp. 432– in the Preble’s meadow jumping distribution, and ecology of Preble’s 435). mouse’s range than in Colorado, meadow jumping mouse, which in turn Impacts from cattle grazing to other overgrazing is thought to occur could lead to more effective recovery jumping mice subspecies have been sporadically across the landscape, most efforts. documented by Frey (2005), Giuliano obviously where cattle congregate in The number of cattle in counties and Homyack (2004), and Medin and riparian areas in winter and spring. currently known to support the Preble’s Clary (1989). Ryon (1996, p. 3) cited Grazing has occurred within Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in Wyoming livestock grazing as a contributor to the meadow jumping mouse habitat for totaled 270,000 head in 2006 (National lack of structural habitat diversity he many decades, and populations of Agriculture Statistics Service 2007). observed on historical Preble’s meadow Preble’s meadow jumping mice have Cattle numbers appear stable in Albany, jumping mouse sites in Colorado. On a been documented on sites with a long Converse, and Laramie Counties, but working ranch in Douglas County, history of grazing. For example, jumping higher than the average for the last 20 Colorado, Preble’s meadow jumping mice were trapped at 18 of 21 sites on years in Platte County. Cattle numbers mice were detected within cattle True Ranches properties (mice from 14 in Colorado counties supporting the exclosures, but not on grazed areas. of these sites have since been confirmed Preble’s meadow jumping mouse totaled Previous trapping had documented as Preble’s meadow jumping mice (King 666,000 head in 2006, but they total Preble’s meadow jumping mice et al. 2006b, p. 4351)), primarily within only 116,000 head if Weld County, upstream and downstream, but not on sub-irrigated hay meadows that have where few Preble’s meadow jumping the ranch (Ensight Technical Services been subjected to livestock grazing and mice are thought to persist, is excluded 2004, p. 9). On private lands in Douglas hay production for approximately 100 (National Agriculture Statistics Service County, Colorado, Pague and years (Taylor 1999, p. 5). 2007). Excluding Weld, all of these Schuerman (1998, pp. 4–5) observed a At the time of listing, we addressed Colorado counties have shown a marked swift rate of residential land overgrazing by livestock, stating that it downward trend in cattle numbers over development and significant may have caused significant impacts to the past 20 years, reflecting human fragmentation of habitat, but noted that Preble’s meadow jumping mouse development on former agricultural in some cases accompanying secession habitat, but that timing and intensity of lands (National Agriculture Statistics of grazing had allowed recovery of grazing were probably important to Service 2007). degraded riparian habitats. some degree in maintaining habitat and Overall, we expect traditional grazing In Colorado, City of Boulder lands that maintenance of woody vegetative operations to continue in Wyoming. endured intensive grazing, farming, or cover could be key (63 FR 26517, May Such operations have generally proven haying regimes until they became part 13, 1998). Overgrazing was thought to compatible with Preble’s meadow of the Boulder Open Space system. have eliminated the Preble’s meadow jumping mice as timing and intensity Grazing and haying, used as land jumping mouse from much of its former have been managed appropriately. This management tools, continue on Boulder Wyoming range (Clark and Stromberg management has taken place without Open Space sites currently supporting 1987, p. 185; Compton and Hugie ESA oversight as allowed in the special the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. In 1993b, p. 4). Trapping efforts since regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(1). We have their study of small mammals on listing have greatly expanded our no reason to believe the management of Boulder Open Space, Meaney et al. understanding of the subspecies’ range these facilities will change significantly (2002, p. 133) found no adverse effects in Wyoming, suggesting that our in the future. of managed grazing on abundance of assertions that grazing eliminated In Colorado, many large ranch individual small mammal species or on Preble’s from these areas were incorrect. properties are being subdivided into species diversity. As suggested by Bakeman (1997, p. ‘‘ranchettes.’’ These small tracts can be Cattle can undoubtedly greatly affect 79) and Pague and Grunau (2000, p. 1– heavily affected by concentrated grazing herbaceous vegetation, especially in 17), and as supported by the examples pressures. We believe that this times of drought; grazing practices that above, grazing is compatible with represents a widespread threat to assure maintenance of riparian shrub Preble’s meadow jumping mouse when significant areas of Colorado, where an cover may be a key consideration in timing and intensity are appropriately increase in rural development is forecast
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63012 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
in the foreseeable future. Based on not rise to the level that would affect the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse growth projections, subdivision of populations of the subspecies, nor is it were to be delisted and Federal ranches is expected to be minimal in likely to do so if we remove the protection under the Act discontinued, portions of Wyoming where the Preble’s protections of the Act. similar covenants on new development meadow jumping mouse exists. in and near Preble’s meadow jumping C. Disease or Predation Summary. Within Colorado, human mouse habitat would be less likely, and land uses within the Preble’s meadow At the time of listing, we had no existing covenants may not be as strictly jumping mouse’s range have destroyed, evidence of disease causing significant enforced. Beyond previously known or degraded, and fragmented habitat and impacts to the Preble’s meadow jumping anticipated predators of jumping mice, continue to do so. While protections of mouse (63 FR 26517, May 13, 1998). No introduction of non-native bullfrogs the Act have avoided, minimized, and further evidence exists that any parasite (Rana catesbiana) in Colorado has helped to compensate for direct human or disease has caused a significant resulted in predation on Preble’s land-use impacts to occupied Preble’s impact to populations. While plague meadow jumping mice (Trainor 2004, p. meadow jumping mouse habitat, relationships for most North American 58). However, we have no information secondary impacts to riparian habitats rodents are poorly understood, plague to suggest that predation from bullfrogs have likely diminished the areas that are may interact synergistically with other has affected Preble’s meadow jumping capable of sustaining Preble’s natural and human-induced mouse populations. populations. Given the projected future disturbances, increasing risk of local While many uncertainties remain growth rates in Colorado, and absent extirpation and rangewide extinction regarding disease and predation, we protections associated with Federal (Biggins and Kosoy 2001, p. 913). Plague believe the best available scientific and activities and listing under the Act, we has not been documented in the Preble’s commercial data suggest that disease is believe that threats posed by human meadow jumping mouse. However, most likely to only be a factor in small development activities discussed above Pague and Grunau (2000, pp. 1–19) and fragmented populations, and that would rise dramatically following considered disease to be a potentially increases in predation will likely only delisting. Most of the new Preble’s high-priority issue for the Preble’s contribute to the reduction, meadow jumping mouse sites meadow jumping mouse. They cited fragmentation, and loss of Preble’s documented since listing in Colorado unknown resistance of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse populations are subject to the same level of threats meadow jumping mouse to plague and when such populations are exposed to discussed above for the Colorado other diseases, and noted that small increased human presence. As noted portion of the range in general and do populations could be especially above, increased human presence is not change our conclusion as to the vulnerable to effects of an epizootic. expected to be a significant issue in current and future conservation status of Should disease materialize into a Colorado and of minimal concern in the subspecies in this portion of its substantive issue, we believe Wyoming. Thus, we expect these issues range. Regulatory mechanisms that populations in Colorado would be at have the potential to meaningfully affect could help reduce such negative higher risk because development Preble’s meadow jumping mouse impacts, while currently limited, are pressures in this portion of the range are populations in developing areas of discussed under Factor D below. more likely to result in small, Colorado, but comparable impacts in In Wyoming, the Preble’s meadow fragmented, and unsustainable Wyoming are not expected. jumping mouse appears to be much populations. more widely distributed than previously At the time of listing, we addressed D. The Inadequacy of Existing assumed, while current and future potential predators of the Preble’s Regulatory Mechanisms threats to habitat and range appear meadow jumping mouse whose This factor considers the regulatory limited. Such impacts to the Wyoming densities could increase in the suburban mechanisms that would remain in place portion of the subspecies’ range are or rural environment, including striped in the absence of the Act’s protective likely to be minor with only small and skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon measures. Current and likely future localized effects. Therefore, we believe (Procyon lotor), and the domestic cat protections are considered. If the that present or threatened destruction, (Felis catus) (63 FR 26517, May 13, protections of the Act are removed, the modification, or curtailment of the 1998). Increased impacts of native and Service has no assurances previous Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat exotic predators that accompany rural conservation commitments made under and range in Wyoming do not suggest development can affect species viability sections 7 or 10 of the Act would remain that this subspecies is likely to become (Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1899). We noted in place. endangered within the foreseeable opinions that free-ranging domestic cats At the time of listing, we cited the future throughout all of its range. and feral cats locally presented a lack or ineffectiveness of laws and problem to Preble’s meadow jumping regulations protecting the Preble’s B. Overutilization for Commercial, mouse populations. Where predator meadow jumping mouse and its habitat Recreational, Scientific, or Educational populations are increased through (63 FR 26517, May 13, 1998). Protective Purposes human land uses, they may contribute measures discussed below include The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse to the loss or decrease of Preble’s Federal, State, and local protections. is not collected for commercial or meadow jumping mouse. Generally, we Federal Protections. Existing Federal recreational reasons. Some collection of have found proponents of new laws, such as the Clean Water Act (33 specimens occurs for scientific and residential developments near Preble’s U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Federal Power Act educational purposes, but currently meadow jumping mouse habitat to be (16 U.S.C. 791a et seq.), Fish and only through permits issued by the receptive to prohibitions on free-ranging Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. Service, CDOW, or WGFD. Although cats and dogs (Canis domesticus) when 661 et seq.), National Forest unintentional mortalities have resulted negotiating minimization measures Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et from capture and handling of Preble’s through section 7 of the Act. However, seq.), Federal Land Policy and meadow jumping mice by permitted enforcement is often through covenants Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701 et researchers, we believe that the level of administered by homeowners’ seq.), Food Security Act (16 U.S.C. 3801 take associated with this activity does associations with uncertain success. If et seq.), and National Environmental
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63013
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 670a et seq.) requires each facility that mouse. These measures, which include provide limited protection for non-listed includes land and water suitable for the explicit standards to avoid, minimize, species. conservation and management of and mitigate any impacts to the covered Section 404 of the Clean Water Act natural resources to complete an (sub)species and its habitat, are generally requires avoidance, Integrated Natural Resources designed to ensure that the biological minimization (when practicable), and Management Plan (INRMP). This plan value of covered habitat for the Preble’s mitigation of adverse impacts to must integrate implementation of the meadow jumping mouse is maintained, jurisdictional wetlands and waters of military mission of the installation with expanded, or improved. Large regional the United States associated with filling. stewardship of the natural resources HCPs expand upon the basic Human impacts to jurisdictional found there. In both Colorado and requirements set forth in section wetlands may be permitted when Wyoming, this process has provided the 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and reflect a alternatives that would avoid wetlands opportunity to consider the potential voluntary, cooperative approach to are found not to be practicable. Section impacts of military actions on the large-scale habitat and (sub)species 404 of the Clean Water Act does not Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. conservation planning. The primary apply to non-jurisdictional waters or Warren Air Force Base in Laramie goal of such HCPs is to provide for the wetlands that include some streams County, Wyoming, has an INRMP and a protection and management of habitat corridors known to support the Preble’s conservation and management plan. essential for the conservation of the meadow jumping mouse (most notably However, the base may only support the (sub)species while directing Running Creek and its tributaries in western jumping mouse. The Air Force development to other areas. In any HCP, Elbert County, Colorado, but potentially Academy in El Paso County, Colorado, permittees may terminate their on other streams with intermittent flows has an INRMP in place, a conservation participation in the agreement and or where there is no regular connection and management plan, and a abandon the take authorization set forth to waters of the United States). In these programmatic consultation under in the permit. cases, activities effecting these waters or section 7 of the Act, which provides To date, we have approved 19 single wetlands would not require Federal guidance for Air Force management species HCPs for the Preble’s meadow permits under Section 404 of the Clean decisions for certain activities that may jumping mouse, all in Colorado. Water Act. In addition, Section 404 of affect the subspecies. Research on the Eighteen of the associated permits allow the Clean Water Act provides no Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is approximately 280 ha (700 ac) of comparable safeguards for nearby ongoing at the Academy; the permanent or temporary impact to uplands used by the Preble’s meadow conservation and management plan is Preble’s meadow jumping mouse jumping mouse. Thus, the Clean Water designed to be updated as new habitat, and preserve or enhance habitat Act provides only limited protection of information is collected. Both plans are to offset impacts. The largest of these, habitats utilized by the Preble’s meadow designed to be in place for 5 years. The the approved HCP for Douglas County jumping mouse and is not capable of emphasis given to conservation of the and the Towns of Castle Rock and substantially reducing threats to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in Parker, allows impacts of up to 170 ha individual Preble’s populations or to the these plans may decline in the future if (430 ac), in exchange for the acquisition subspecies as a whole. the subspecies were to be delisted. of 9 km (15 mi) of stream and 455 ha On lands administered by the U.S. The presence of Preble’s meadow (1,132 ac) of habitat, was acquired and Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land jumping mouse has been documented at preserved for the long-term benefit of Management, the current status of the two of the Service’s NWRs. We manage the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as the Rocky Flats NWR, near Boulder, The remaining HCP, issued in January threatened invokes management Colorado, in a manner consistent with 2006, is the Livermore Area HCP in priorities in accordance with the Act. If conservation of the Preble’s meadow Larimer County. The planning area for delisted, these protections would no jumping mouse. This management is this HCP includes a large portion of longer apply. However, Federal land- unlikely to change if the Preble’s Larimer County, approximately 1,940 management agencies, through their meadow jumping mouse were to be square km (750 square mi), including a regulations, policies, and management delisted. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse plans, work to ensure long-term More recently, a single Preble’s ‘‘conservation zone’’ estimated at protection of all listed species. Of the meadow jumping mouse as well as approximately 324 km (201 mi) of three National Forests supporting western jumping mice have been stream and 8,570 ha (21,320 ac). The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse confirmed from Hutton Lake NWR near HCP cites protection of 114 km (71 mi) populations, the Medicine Bow—Routt Laramie, Wyoming. Because this of stream, mostly on CDOW lands; National Forest has a forest management subspecies was only recently however, it is not clear what proportion plan that includes standards and documented on Huttom Lake NWR, the of these areas support Preble’s. Local guidelines specific to conservation of subspecies needs are not explicitly landowners and public agencies holding the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. addressed in management documents land within the boundaries of this HCP The Arapahoe-Roosevelt National Forest (Timberman 2007). While it is unknown may opt for coverage under the HCP and and the Pike-San Isabel National Forest if ongoing management (primarily receive take permits for activities have forest plans that predate the listing waterfowl oriented) is consistent with consistent with the HCP. The Livermore of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse the subspecies’ needs, the refuge has Area HCP is designed to support current (Warren 2007). If delisted, the Preble’s expressed a willingness to provide for land uses, including ranching and meadow jumping mouse would likely the needs of the subspecies in the future farming. However, inclusion of be considered a subspecies warranting (Timberman 2007). landowners is optional, and they may conservation concern by Federal land- Service-approved HCPs and their choose to pursue land uses inconsistent holding agencies and, as such, retain incidental take permits contain with those specified in the HCP. Thus some continued degree of conservation management measures and protections far, we have issued no individual priority. for identified areas that protect, restore, permits under this HCP. On military installations, the Sikes and enhance the value of these lands as Of the two regional HCPs in the Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. habitat for the Preble’s meadow jumping process of being developed, the El Paso
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63014 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
County effort is proceeding slowly and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse’s Preble’s meadow jumping mouse on the Boulder County effort appears to be distribution and its conservation. many of these properties has not been on hold. It is unlikely that these Local Protections. At the time of extensively documented. For example, conservation plans will be completed or listing, we pointed out that while a while there are 23.4 km (14.5 mi) of implemented if the Preble’s meadow myriad of regional or local regulations, mapped riparian corridors on the large jumping mouse does not remain listed incentive programs, and open-space Greenland Ranch conservation property, under the Act. programs existed, especially in the presence of the Preble’s meadow State Protections. Under the nongame Colorado, few specifically protected the jumping mouse has been documented at provisions of the CDOW Regulations Preble’s meadow jumping mouse or its only two sites. Future conservation (Chapter 10, Article IV) the Preble’s habitat from inadvertent or intentional efforts to augment protected areas and to meadow jumping mouse currently may adverse impacts (63 FR 26517, May 13, link protection over large expanses of only be taken legally by permitted 1998). Many local regulations create a connected streams in Douglas County personnel for educational, scientific, or process of site-plan review that could contribute greatly to maintaining rehabilitation purposes. However, if ‘‘considers’’ or ‘‘encourages’’ secure Preble’s meadow jumping mouse delisted, Colorado could rescind its conservation of wildlife, wetlands, and populations in the Upper South Platte current State designation of threatened. other natural habitats. Effectiveness of and Middle South Platte—Cherry Creek In Wyoming, continued classification of local regulations in maintaining drainages. Should the Preble’s meadow the meadow jumping mouse as a naturally functioning riparian corridors jumping mouse be delisted, ‘‘nongame species’’ under Section 11 of varies greatly depending on how these management priorities on protected Chapter 52 (Nongame Wildlife) of the apparently flexible regulations are lands and direction of future Wyoming Game and Fish Commission implemented. Following listing under conservation efforts would likely regulations would protect the Preble’s the Act, development and other projects change. In order to ensure long-term meadow jumping mouse from takings in and near Preble’s meadow jumping management for the Preble’s meadow and sales by allowing the issuance of mouse habitat have received increased jumping mouse, the Preliminary Draft permits only for the purpose of scrutiny from local jurisdictions, often Recovery Plan suggests the Service and scientific collection. As mentioned in coordination with Service authorities. our partners develop and implement previously in our discussion under Open-space acquisitions and easements long-term management plans and Factor B, overutilization for commercial, have also taken the presence of the cooperative agreements prior to recreational, scientific, or educational Preble’s meadow jumping mouse into delisting (Service 2003b, pp. iv, 33, 39, purposes is not now, nor is it likely to account. It is not clear what level of 47–47, 51–52). become a significant threat to the interest in Preble’s meadow jumping Larimer County has acquired or subspecies, even if the protections mouse conservation would continue secured easements to considerable afforded the subspecies under Colorado following delisting. Local governments lands, including some properties under and Wyoming laws are removed. would likely relax review procedures the Laramie Foothills Project, in Numerous State lands (CDOW lands, for projects in known or suspected partnership with The Nature State Park lands, State Land Board Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Conservancy, the City of Fort Collins, lands) and mitigation properties (such habitat. Beyond the direct impact to and the Legacy Land Trust. While as those of the Colorado Department of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse conservation efforts have increased, Transportation) would continue to habitat, secondary impacts of especially in the Livermore Valley, provide a measure of protection for the development (including increased residential development remains the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse should recreational use, altered flow regimes largest threat to Preble’s in the county it be delisted. While some conservation and groundwater levels, and increase in (Pague 2007). The extent to which properties may have management domestic predators) are unlikely to be Preble’s meadow jumping mouse specifically designed to preserve and adequately addressed. While certain populations are supported by these enhance Preble’s meadow jumping local regulations are designed to properties, the fate of remaining private mouse habitat, others concentrate more conserve wetlands or floodplains on lands in the North Fork Cache La on open-space preservation and general private lands, it is unlikely they would Poudre River and its tributaries, and the wildlife-habitat conservation. effectively control land uses (grazing, ability to link conservation lands and State programs have been available to mowing, cutting, and burning) that may traditional agricultural lands supporting help preserve the Preble’s meadow affect the hydrology, vegetation, and the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse jumping mouse through the acquisition, hibernacula sites on which Preble’s along stream reaches are key to preservation, and management of its depends. The adequacy of such protecting the potentially large Preble’s habitat. These include the Great protective measures is more important meadow jumping mouse population Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund and the within Colorado than Wyoming given thought to exist in this area. Species Conservation Trust Fund. In the intense development pressures in The City of Boulder, Boulder County, comments to the Service, then Colorado the Colorado counties where the and Jefferson County have extensive Department of Natural Resources Preble’s meadow jumping mouse lands protected under their open-space Commissioner, Russell George, stated occurs. programs. While the extent of known that State and local initiatives could Douglas County, Colorado, owns 14 Preble’s meadow jumping mouse provide for conservation of the Preble’s properties that encompass 24 km (15 occurrences in these counties is limited meadow jumping mouse, independent mi) of stream and associated riparian compared to that documented in of Federal oversight. He listed nearly 40 habitats potentially beneficial to the Larimer and Douglas Counties, known conservation projects in 5 Front Range Preble’s meadow jumping mouse populations exist on open space Colorado counties where the Preble’s (Matthews 2004). Of Douglas County protected from residential and meadow jumping mouse ‘‘may be streams on non-Federal property within commercial development. present’’ (George 2004). The the Riparian Conservation Zone, 105 km Summary. In the absence of the Act’s conservation value of many of these (65 mi), or 23 percent, are under some protective measures, Federal projects is uncertain since most were form of permanent protection (Matthews conservation efforts for the Preble’s developed without specific regard to the 2004). However, occurrence of the meadow jumping mouse would be
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63015
largely limited to Federal properties, E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors large numbers of Preble’s meadow where the subspecies may be Affecting the Subspecies’ Continued jumping mice or multiple populations. maintained as a priority subspecies and Existence Following more intense fires, conserved through existing or future At the time of listing, we judged this precipitation in a burned area may management plans. subspecies susceptible to a number of degrade Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat by causing greater levels While state regulations in both other factors, including impact from of flooding, erosion, and sedimentation Colorado and Wyoming would regulate naturally occurring events such as fire and flooding, invasive weeds and weed along creeks. As habitat redevelops, it killing of Preble’s meadow jumping will likely be reoccupied by the Preble’s mice, as noted in Factor B above, we do control programs, pesticides and herbicides, and secondary impacts meadow jumping mouse, assuming that not view this as a significant concern there are occupied, connected stream associated with human-caused driving the subspecies long-term reaches where sufficient Preble’s development (63 FR 26517, May 13, conservation status. If delisted, State meadow jumping mouse populations 1998). For most of these factors, we have and local regulations would do little to have continued to persist. conserve the Preble’s meadow jumping little more information than we had at An example of catastrophic fire in the time of listing. Additional concerns mouse or its habitat on private lands. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat that were not considered at the time of Public land holdings, conservation occurred in 2002. The Hayman and listing include the potential for Schoonover fires in Jefferson and easements, and other conservation competition between the Preble’s efforts, past and future, could support Douglas Counties, Colorado, meadow jumping mouse and the encompassed over 3,000 ha (7,500 ac) of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse on western jumping mouse, and future specific sites. potential Preble’s meadow jumping effects of changing climate on the mouse habitat, or approximately 20 In Colorado, the extent and pattern of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. percent of the potential habitat within conservation efforts in relation to Flooding and fire are natural the boundaries of Pike National Forest Preble’s meadow jumping mouse components of the Wyoming and (Mike Elson 2003). Approximately 342 distribution, and the appropriate Colorado foothills and plains, and ha (844 ac) of proposed critical habitat management of Preble’s meadow Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat were burned. While riparian habitat that jumping mouse habitat, would largely naturally waxes and wanes with these was lightly burned was expected to dictate the long-term viability of events. While these natural events may recover relatively quickly, increases in Preble’s meadow jumping mouse affect Preble’s meadow jumping mouse erosion and sedimentation downstream populations. At this time, no large populations by killing individuals and have been severe, and may continue to populations and few medium by destroying riparian and adjacent affect Preble’s meadow jumping mouse upland habitat on which they depend, populations, as described in the habitat for several years. Because of the effects to vegetation are often Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan, are severe fire-related impacts, we temporary. Normal flooding and fire known to exist in Colorado on withdrew from the final critical habitat events also may help maintain the designation for the Preble’s meadow contiguous stream reaches that are vegetative communities that provide secure from development. Management jumping mouse (68 FR 37275, June 23, suitable habitat for the Preble’s meadow 2003) a portion of Gunbarrel Creek that plans that specifically address threats to jumping mouse. Increase in impervious the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse are we had proposed as critical habitat for surfaces and denuding of vegetation the subspecies before the Hayman fire. few, and management priorities would caused by human activity can result in Even prior to the Hayman and likely change if we were to delist the increased frequency and severity of Schoonover fires, Pague and Granau subspecies. Much of the intervening flood events and prevent the re- (2000) considered catastrophic fire to be private lands would likely be subject to establishment of favored riparian a high-priority issue for Douglas County. development within the foreseeable communities. An extreme flood event We believe fire has the potential to future (this issue is described in more may eliminate an entire Preble’s affect the Preble’s meadow jumping detail in Factor A above). If we were to meadow jumping mouse population in mouse populations both directly and delist the subspecies, given current and an affected stream reach or drainage. indirectly. The intensity, extent, and projected levels of protections, we Periodic fire may be of value in location of any fire event will likely believe that most Preble’s meadow maintaining riparian, transitional, and dictate the severity of the impact to the jumping mouse populations in Colorado upland vegetation within Preble’s Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. would not be secure into the foreseeable meadow jumping mouse habitat. In a Catastrophic fire events are, by their future. review of the effects of grassland fires nature, rare. on small mammals, Kaufman et al. Invasive, noxious plants can encroach In Wyoming, the best available (1990) found a positive effect of fire on upon a landscape, displace native plant scientific and commercial information meadow jumping mice in one study and species, form monocultures of suggests that at least one large no effect on the species in another vegetation, and may negatively affect population and two medium study. Fire may regenerate decadent food and cover for the Preble’s meadow populations occur in the State as willow (Salix sp.) stands along streams jumping mouse. The control of noxious recommended in the Preliminary Draft and encourage higher stem densities weeds may entail large-scale removal of Recovery Plan (Service 2003b, pp. 19, considered more favorable to the vegetation and mechanical mowing 22). While regulatory measures in Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. operations, which also may affect the Wyoming do not guarantee protection of Long periods of fire suppression Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. The these populations, such assurances are result in fuel build-up, especially in tolerance of the Preble’s meadow not needed because threats to the forested areas, and can result in jumping mouse for invasive plant Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and catastrophic fires that alter habitat species remains poorly understood. the subspecies’ habitat are limited for dramatically, change the structure and Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) may the foreseeable future. composition of the vegetative form a monoculture, displacing native communities, and potentially affect vegetation and thus reducing available
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63016 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
habitat (Selleck et al. 1962; Pague and Colorado’s Comprehensive Wildlife warming in the mountains of western Grunau 2000, p. 1–18). Nonnative Conservation Strategy lists ‘‘scarcity’’ as North America is expected to decrease species including tamarisk (Tamarix a threat to meadow jumping mice that snowpack, hasten spring runoff, and ramosissima) and Russian olive may lead to inbreeding depression reduce summer flows (Elaeagnus angustifolia) may adversely (CDOW 2006, p. 102). Small (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate affect the Preble’s meadow jumping populations can be threatened by Change 2007, p. 10). Increased summer mouse (Garber 1995, p. 16; Pague and stochastic, or random, changes in a wild heat may increase the frequency and Grunau 2000, p. 1–18). Existing special population’s demography or genetics intensity of wildfires (Intergovernmental regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(1) exempt (Brussard and Gilpin 1989, pp. 37–48; Panel on Climate Change 2007, p. 14). take incidental to noxious weed control. Caughley and Gunn 1996, pp. 165–189). Stream-flow reductions or seasonal We instituted this exemption to A stochastic demographic change in changes in flow due to climate change recognize that control of noxious weeds small populations, such as a skewed age will probably cause a greater disruption is likely to produce long-term benefits to or sex ratio (for example, a loss of adult in watersheds with a high level of native vegetation supportive of the females), can negatively affect human development than in those with Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. reproduction and increase the chance of a lower level of development (Hurd et It remains unknown to what extent extirpation. Isolation of populations al. 1999, p. 1402). The three major river point and non-point source pollution may disrupt gene flow and create basins that support the Preble’s meadow (sewage outfalls, spills, urban or unpredictable genetic effects that could jumping mouse have heightened agricultural runoff) that degrades water impact Preble’s meadow jumping mouse vulnerability to the effects of climate quality in potential habitat may affect persistence in a given area. While the change due to the degree of human the abundance or survival of the susceptibility of the Preble’s meadow development, natural variability in Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. jumping mouse to such events has not stream-flow, ratio of precipitation lost to Likewise, it is unknown whether been researched, the documented evapotranspiration, and groundwater pesticides and herbicides, commonly tendency for Preble’s meadow jumping depletion (Hurd et al. 1999, p. 1404). used for agricultural and household mouse populations to vary widely over Conflicts between human needs for purposes within the range of the time heightens concern for small and water and maintenance of existing Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, pose isolated populations. The lowest wetland and riparian habitats will be a threat to Preble’s meadow jumping population numbers of Preble’s meadow heightened. Therefore, while it appears mice directly, or through their food jumping mice more accurately reflect reasonable to assume that Preble’s supply, including possible potential vulnerability than typical or meadow jumping mouse may be bioaccumulation. average population numbers present. affected, we lack sufficient certainty to Human-caused development creates a Although many trapping efforts have know how climate change will affect the range of additional potential impacts targeted Preble’s meadow jumping mice subspecies. (through human presence, noise, in small, isolated reaches of habitat, few Overall, the impacts associated with increased lighting, introduced animals, have documented presence. As noted other natural or manmade factors and the degradation of air and water above, we believe populations in affecting the Preble’s meadow jumping quality) that could alter Preble’s Colorado would be at higher risk mouse and the subspecies’ habitat meadow jumping mouse behavior, because development pressures in this remain largely unassessed, and increase the levels of stress, and portion of the range are more likely to therefore, largely unknown. Although ultimately contribute to loss of vigor or result in small, fragmented and questions remain regarding these death of individuals, and extirpation of unsustainable populations. populations. Introduced animals The relative ranges, abundance, and factors, we do not have sufficient associated with human development relationship between the Preble’s information to indicate that these factors may displace, prey upon, or compete meadow jumping mouse and the are a threat to Preble’s meadow jumping with the Preble’s meadow jumping western jumping mouse are not yet mouse long-term conservation status. To mouse. Feral cats and house mice were clearly understood, especially in the extent that meaningful impacts are common in and adjacent to historical Wyoming. Recent confirmation of possible, small and fragmented capture sites where Preble’s meadow extensive range overlap in Wyoming populations are likely to be more jumping mice were no longer found and the apparent predominance of the vulnerable. (Ryon 1996, p. 26). While no cause and western jumping mouse in some Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis effect relationship was documented, the southern Wyoming drainages with few Preble’s meadow jumping mouse was 13 or no Preble’s meadow jumping mice, Is the Subspecies Threatened or times less likely to be present at sites provide reason for concern. It is Endangered throughout ‘‘All’’ of its where house mice were found unknown whether western jumping Range—As required by the Act, we (Clippinger 2002, p. 104). We have an mice are actively competing with considered the five potential threat incomplete understanding of the Preble’s meadow jumping mice, factors to assess whether the Preble’s mechanisms by which the breadth of affecting Preble’s meadow jumping meadow jumping mouse is threatened human-caused development impacts mouse population size and possibly or endangered throughout all or a Preble’s meadow jumping mouse limiting distribution, or if this significant portion of its range. When populations. However, the absence of distribution patterns is unrelated to considering the listing status of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse their interaction. Additional study of subspecies, the first step in the analysis populations in portions of Colorado this issue would be desirable. Although is to determine whether the subspecies drainages where riparian habitat questions remain, we do not have is in danger of extinction throughout all appears relatively favorable but human sufficient information to indicate this is of its range. If this is the case, then we encroachment is pervasive suggests a a threat to the Preble’s meadow jumping list the subspecies in its entirety. For potential cause-and-effect relationship. mouse in any portion of its range. instance, if the threats to a subspecies A combination of factors in addition to Impacts to the Preble’s meadow are directly acting on only a portion of habitat loss may contribute to local jumping mouse under predicted future its range, but they are at such a large extirpations. climate change are unclear. A trend of scale that they place the entire
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63017
subspecies in danger of extinction, we governments, many of these areas also available data do not support the would list the entire subspecies. are likely to experience habitat conclusion that the Preble’s meadow Destruction and modification of degradation in the absence of the Act’s jumping mouse is likely to become habitat and the resulting curtailment of protections. Some of these areas will endangered in the foreseeable future range is the most significant factor experience negative indirect effects from throughout ‘‘all’’ of its range. We affecting the future conservation status upstream development. Where determine this because distributional of the subspecies. Within Wyoming, conservation properties are not data has verified that the subspecies is new distributional data and a better extensive, the Preble’s meadow jumping more widespread in the North Platte understanding of threats has altered our mouse populations are likely to be River basin of Wyoming than previously perception of the subspecies’ status in small, fragmented, and unsustainable. known, and we are not aware of any this portion of its range. At the time of Additional recovery efforts are required threats that are likely to have significant listing, data confirming the presence of to provide such extensive contiguous affects on the long-term conservation the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse conservation properties in Colorado. status of populations of Preble’s was available for only a few sites in In contrast to Wyoming, our improved meadow jumping mouse in Wyoming. Wyoming. Since listing, additional understanding of the subspecies’ range We expect impacts to the Wyoming distributional data has verified that the in Colorado has not changed our portion of the subspecies’ range to be subspecies is widespread in the North conclusion as to the Preble’s meadow minor with only small and localized Platte River basin with distribution jumping mouse’s status in this portion effects. We believe a lack of present or across at least four drainages. Trapping of the subspecies’ range. As noted threatened impacts to the Preble’s efforts to date suggest that the above, new data have expanded the meadow jumping mouse in Wyoming subspecies may remain limited in confirmed distribution of the Preble’s suggests that this subspecies is neither number and distribution within the meadow jumping mouse to include in danger of extinction, nor likely to Wyoming portion of the South Platte additional sites in Boulder, Douglas, El become endangered within the River basin. An improved Paso, Jefferson, and Larimer Counties. foreseeable future in this portion of its understanding of the subspecies’ Most of the newly discovered sites are range. Threats in the Colorado portions distribution suggests that historical subject to the same level of threats of the subspecies’ range, while severe, agricultural activities, such as grazing discussed above. Thus, unlike do not place the entire subspecies in and haying, have had a minimal impact Wyoming, recently documented sites in danger of extinction within the on the subspecies to date. In short, Colorado do not meaningfully alter the foreseeable future. Thus, the Preble’s continuation of these long-standing future conservation status of the meadow jumping mouse does not merit activities appears supportive of existing subspecies in this portion of its range. continued listing as threatened Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Besides ‘‘present or threatened throughout ‘‘all’’ of its range. populations. We have no indication destruction, modification, or Is the Subspecies Threatened or these agricultural practices are likely to curtailment of its habitat or range,’’ a Endangered in a Significant Portion of change in the foreseeable future in ways variety of other factors were considered its Range—Having determined that the that would affect the subspecies’ long- including: Overutilization, disease, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse does term conservation status. A low predation, fire, flooding, invasive not meet the definition of threatened or projected human population growth rate weeds, weed control programs, endangered in all of its range, we must is predicted for the four Wyoming pesticides, herbicides, non-point source next consider whether there are any counties occupied by the Preble’s pollution, secondary impacts associated significant portions of the subspecies’ meadow jumping mouse, suggesting that with human-caused development, range that are in danger of extinction or few development-related threats are scarcity, the potential for competition are likely to become endangered in the likely in this portion of the subspecies’ between the Preble’s meadow jumping foreseeable future. On March 16, 2007, range into foreseeable future. mouse and the western jumping mouse, a formal opinion was issued by the Within Colorado, riparian habitat has and the future effects of climate change. Solicitor of the Department of the been severely modified or destroyed by The threats to the Preble’s meadow Interior, ‘‘The Meaning of ‘In Danger of human activities. With current and jumping mouse from these factors are Extinction Throughout All or a projected human population increases generally poorly understood and Significant Portion of Its Range’’ (U.S. and commensurate increases in urban difficult to predict. Although questions Department of the Interior 2007). We and rural development, road remain regarding these factors, we do have summarized our interpretation of construction, and water use, the ongoing not have sufficient information to that opinion and the underlying loss and modification of riparian habitat indicate that these factors are a threat to statutory language below. A portion of will continue in much of the Preble’s the subspecies long-term conservation a subspecies’ range is significant if it is meadow jumping mouse Colorado status. To the extent that meaningful part of the current range of the range. Even with protection under the impacts are possible, these factors are subspecies and is important to the Act, development in Colorado has likely to be more significant in areas conservation of the subspecies because continued to affect Preble’s meadow where development pressures have or it contributes meaningfully to the jumping mouse habitat, both directly are likely to destroy or modify habitat representation, resiliency, or and indirectly. Much of the Preble’s resulting in small and fragmented redundancy of the subspecies. The meadow jumping mouse current range populations. Thus, we expect these contribution must be at a level such that in Colorado is on private land. In the issues could be meaningful as its loss would result in a decrease in the absence of the Act’s protections, most of cumulative impacts in the Colorado ability to conserve the subspecies. this habitat would be lost or made portion of subspecies’ range where The first step in determining whether unsuitable within the foreseeable future. development pressures are high. In a subspecies is threatened or While appreciable lands in Colorado Wyoming, we expect these factors will endangered in a significant portion of its supporting the Preble’s meadow continue to have only small, localized range is to identify any portions of the jumping mouse are controlled by impacts on the subspecies. range of the subspecies that warrant Federal or State agencies, or have been Based on a better understanding of further consideration. The range of a set aside as open space by local distribution and threats, we find that the subspecies can theoretically be divided
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63018 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
into portions in an infinite number of contributes to resiliency of the of the range based on river basins (i.e., ways. However, there is no purpose to subspecies, it may help to evaluate the only removing protections in the analyzing portions of the range that are historical value of the portion and how drainages of the North Platte River not reasonably likely to be both frequently the portion is used by the basin), we believe this would be more significant and either threatened or subspecies. In addition, the portion may difficult to administer with little endangered. To identify those portions contribute to resiliency for other conservation benefit to the species. We that warrant further consideration, we reasons; for instance, it may contain an believe removing protections in the determine whether there is substantial important concentration of certain types Wyoming portion of the South Platte information indicating that (1) the of habitat that are necessary for the River basin (comprised of the Upper portions may be significant, and (2) the subspecies to carry out its life-history Lodgepole Creek drainage and portions subspecies may be in danger of functions, such as breeding, feeding, of the Crow Creek and Lone Tree Creek extinction there or likely to become so migration, dispersal, or wintering. drainages) would be of little biological within the foreseeable future. In Redundancy of populations may be consequence. While limited trapping practice, a key part of this analysis is needed to provide a margin of safety for data and analysis of museum specimens whether the threats are geographically the subspecies to withstand catastrophic provide evidence of Preble’s meadow concentrated in some way. If the threats events. This concept does not mean that jumping mouse occurrence in two of to the subspecies are essentially uniform any portion that provides redundancy is these drainages, trapping data also throughout its range, no portion is likely per se a significant portion of the range indicate that the western jumping to warrant further consideration. of a subspecies. The idea is to conserve mouse is much more widespread Moreover, if any concentration of enough areas of the range such that suggesting that in these drainages the threats applies only to portions of the random perturbations in the system act Preble’s meadow jumping mouse may range that are unimportant to the on only a few populations. Therefore, simply be uncommon. Thus, given that conservation of the subspecies, such we must examine each area based on any additional biological benefit to the portions will not warrant further whether that area provides an increment subspecies is likely to be minimal and consideration. of redundancy that is important to the our assertion that the respective threats If we identify any portions that conservation of the subspecies. to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse warrant further consideration, we then Adequate representation ensures that appear to be significantly different in determine whether in fact the the subspecies’ adaptive capabilities are the two states we are instead proposing subspecies is threatened or endangered conserved. Specifically, we should State lines as the northern boundary for in any significant portion of its range. evaluate a portion to see how it the Colorado significant portions of Depending on the biology of the contributes to the genetic diversity of range. We are accepting comments on subspecies, its range, and the threats it the subspecies. The loss of genetically this approach and may consider using faces, it may be more efficient for the based diversity may substantially river basins in a final rule should the Service to address the significance reduce the ability of the subspecies to available data demonstrate such an question first, or the status question respond and adapt to future approach is more appropriate. first. Thus, if the Service determines environmental changes. A peripheral Within Colorado, threats to the that a portion of the range is not population may contribute meaningfully Preble’s meadow jumping mouse are significant, the Service need not to representation if there is evidence comparable between the South Platte determine whether the subspecies is that it provides genetic diversity due to River basin and Arkansas River basin. threatened or endangered there; if the its location on the margin of the Similarly, threats to the Preble’s Service determines that the subspecies subspecies’ habitat requirements. meadow jumping mouse are comparable is not threatened or endangered in a Based on the discussion above, we north and south of Denver. Because both portion of its range, the Service need not readily identified the Colorado portion of these possible partitions have a determine if that portion is significant. of the current range of the Preble’s comparable status, further division of The terms ‘‘resiliency,’’ meadow jumping mouse as warranting the subspecies’ range between these two ‘‘redundancy,’’ and ‘‘representation’’ are further consideration to determine if it portions of its range in Colorado is intended to be indicators of the is a significant portion of the range that unnecessary. conservation value of portions of the is threatened or endangered. Even with Another possibility to consider is range. Resiliency of a subspecies allows the new information confirming the whether smaller units might be the subspecies to recover from periodic extent of the range in Wyoming, the appropriate. For example, one could disturbances. A subspecies will likely range in Colorado still constitutes the consider each individual drainage or be more resilient if large populations bulk of the current range, and the each individual county. Given the best exist in high-quality habitat that is threats are largely concentrated in that scientific and commercial information distributed throughout the range of the portion. available, we do not believe such subspecies in such a way as to capture We had to consider the question of subdivisions would result in units that the environmental variability found how to define the portion of the current would each meaningfully contribute to within the range of the subspecies. It is range that we would consider further. the representation, resiliency, or likely that the larger size of a population We concluded that it was appropriate to redundancy of the subspecies at a level will help contribute to the viability of consider all of the current range in such that its loss would result in a the subspecies overall. Thus, a portion Colorado as a single portion of the range decrease in the ability to conserve the of the range of a subspecies may make for the purpose of this analysis. We subspecies. In our view, only when a meaningful contribution to the believe the Wyoming/Colorado State drainages or counties are aggregated are resiliency of the subspecies if the area line is an appropriate delineation for they significant per the above definition. is relatively large and contains separating the populations in the two The most logical aggregation of particularly high-quality habitat or if its States here because the respective drainages is basins which are already location or characteristics make it less threats to the subspecies appear to be considered above. The most logical susceptible to certain threats than other significantly different in the two states. aggregation of Counties within Colorado portions of the range. When evaluating While we could also consider splitting is a north and south of Denver split whether or how a portion of the range the subspecies into significant portions which is also already considered above.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63019
Therefore, further division of the within Colorado would result in a mouse is threatened in a significant subspecies’ range within Colorado is decrease in the ability to conserve the portion of its range. Therefore, we must either not appropriate or unnecessary. subspecies. We have determined that, describe that portion because it is the To determine whether the Preble’s based on its importance to the area where the protections of the Act meadow jumping mouse is threatened conservation of the subspecies and would remain in place. As previously in any significant portion of its range, because it contributes meaningfully to stated the range of a species is the we first consider how the concepts of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse general area in which the species can be resiliency, representation, and representation, resiliency, or found, including migratory corridors, redundancy apply to the conservation of redundancy, the Colorado portion of the seasonal habitats, and habitats used on this particular subspecies. The Preble’s range constitutes a significant portion of a regular, though not necessarily Meadow Jumping Mouse Preliminary the subspecies’ range as described in the seasonal, basis. Draft Recovery Plan provides some Act. The scale at which one defines the perspective. The Preliminary Draft calls If we identify any portions as range of a particular species is fact and for populations across the current range significant, we then determine whether context dependant. In other words, of the subspecies and because the in fact the subspecies is threatened or whether one defines the range at a Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is a endangered in this significant portion of relatively course or fine scale depends riparian-associated subspecies, contends its range. This determination involves on the life history of the species at issue, that river drainages provide an weighing the magnitude and immediacy the data available, and the purpose for appropriate geographic scale and unit of the threats. In our view, the which one is considering range. for addressing their conservation. The cumulative magnitude of threat within The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Preliminary Draft states (Service 2003b, Colorado is very high. Immediacy will is secretive, almost never observed p. 20), ‘‘Species well-distributed across vary geographically across the range. without trapping, and relatively rare their historical range are less susceptible Some areas will be subject to imminent even where present. Confirmed to extinction and more likely to reach threats that would, in the absence of the occupancy is based almost entirely on recovery than species confined to a Act’s protections, extirpate populations intensive trapping efforts, requiring small portion of their range. Distributing in the near future. In other areas, direct hundreds of traps set over multiple populations throughout different and indirect impacts, in the absence of nights. Preble’s meadow jumping mice drainages reduces the risk that a large the Act’s protections, will not result in are able to move miles along stream portion of the range-wide population extirpation for some time. Thus, based corridors over their lifetime (Ryon 1999; will be negatively affected by any on the best scientific and commercial Shenk and Sivert 1999a), typically particular natural or anthropogenic information available, we find that the utilizing riparian (river) corridors. event at any one time. Spreading the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is Although the subspecies commonly recovery populations across hydrologic likely to become endangered within the uses riparian vegetation immediately units throughout the range of the foreseeable future throughout the adjacent to a stream, other features that subspecies also preserves the greatest Colorado portion of its range. provide habitat for the subspecies amount of the remaining genetic In conclusion, the best scientific and include seasonal streams (Bakeman variation, and may provide some genetic commercial data suggest that the 1997), low moist areas and dry gulches security to the range-wide population.’’ Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is not In this case, projected losses of habitat likely to become endangered in the (Shenk 2004), agricultural ditches in Colorado would meaningfully affect foreseeable future throughout all of its (Meaney et al. 2003), and wet meadows the representation, resiliency, or range. We base this conclusion and seeps near streams (Ryon 1996). redundancy of the subspecies, making primarily on a lack of present or Given records of confirmed presence this portion of the range a significant threatened impacts to the Preble’s and patterns of existing riparian habitat, portion of the range. The Colorado meadow jumping mouse or its habitat in we can draw inferences as to what we portion of the range includes: Wyoming. Threats in the Colorado would consider occupied drainages or • Two of the 3 river basins within the portions of the subspecies’ range, while portions of these drainages. subspecies’ range, amounting to severe, do not place the entire To date, aside from some earlier work approximately 65 percent of the subspecies in danger of extinction from Colorado Department of Wildlife subspecies’ habitat by river-mile and within the foreseeable future. However, and the Colorado Natural Heritage total acreage (67 FR 47154, July 17, based on the magnitude of development Program, the objective of most trapping 2002); threats and other pressures to the surveys has not been to document the • Thirteen (11 for which trapping has populations throughout the Colorado limits of occupied habitat in Colorado. confirmed presence) of the 19 drainages portion of the range, and the lack of While much of the Preble’s meadow comprising the range of the Preble’s effective regulatory mechanisms in the jumping mouse’s distribution is on meadow jumping mouse (each of which absence of the Act’s protective private lands, most trapping surveys on should, according to the Preliminary measures, we conclude that the private lands have been conducted by Draft Recovery Plan, contain at least one significant portion of the subspecies’ consultants based on anticipated population in order to achieve range within Colorado continues to development of the property by representation, resiliency, and meet the definition of threatened under landowners (in compliance with section redundancy) including 3 of the 4 the Act, and should remain listed. 7 of the Act). This has resulted in far recommended large populations and 3 Therefore, we propose to amend the more trapping within the expanding of the 5 recommended medium listing for the Preble’s meadow jumping development corridor than in rural populations (Service 2003b, p. 22); and mouse to specify that the subspecies is lands where no current development is • Genetic material substantially threatened in the Colorado portion of its planned. Therefore, we have less unique within the range of the Preble’s range only. assurance of current presence or meadow jumping mouse (King et al. Significant Portion of the Range potential absence of the Preble’s 2006b, pp. 4336–4347). Where the Subspecies Is Threatened— meadow jumping mouse in areas east, In conclusion, we believe that loss of We propose to amend the list to specify south and west of the development the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse that the Preble’s meadow jumping corridor.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63020 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
Trapping can only confirm presence, unnecessary expense on the part of the presumption that at least a small not prove absence. At some sites, Service or the public because, as population occurs in each. The intent of researchers have seen dramatic changes described in detail below, existing the Preliminary Recovery Plan was to in estimated populations from season to guidance on block clearance zones will preserve populations throughout the season and year to year. A single remain in place. Therefore, in the existing range to maximize the trapping effort in any presumed context of describing the current range preservation of the remaining genetic occupied site could be unsuccessful if it for the purpose of defining the scope of diversity that may be present. corresponded to times when few or no the listing for the Preble’s meadow animals are present. There is jumping mouse, we have determined For convenience in distinguishing speculation that the Preble’s meadow that it is appropriate to use a relatively this boundary on-the-ground we employ jumping mouse may move in and out of coarse scale to capture all of the areas latitude and longitude coordinates. We areas (individuals have been shown to where the best available data suggests believe the latitude and longitude move miles along stream corridors over the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is boundaries below provide an their lifetime). In areas within the range likely to occur. appropriate delineation for the of the subspecies, multiple trap efforts The Preliminary Recovery Plan significant portion of the Preble’s in a drainage or portions of a drainage suggests maintaining at least one meadow jumping mouse range in are needed to provide strong evidence recovery population within each Colorado. These boundaries are that Preble’s meadow jumping mice are drainage (to provide resiliency, inclusive of all areas likely to support likely absent. Again, in many areas representation, and redundancy) within Preble’s meadow jumping mouse outside the Front Range development the existing range of the subspecies. The populations in Colorado. As a result, all corridor trapping has been more limited Preliminary Recovery Plan, which records confirming Preble’s meadow and in some areas where presence has represents the best available science, jumping mouse occurrence in Colorado not been confirmed by trapping, we do identifies thirteen drainages that are captured within these boundaries. not believe trapping data is comprise the area significant to the We believe that it is highly unlikely that determinative of Preble’s presence at conservation of the subspecies there will be discovery of currently particular sites, much less whole including Big Sandy, Big Thompson, existing Preble’s meadow jumping Bijou, Cache La Poudre, Clear Creek, drainages of portions thereof . mouse populations outside these As with other determinations under Crow Creek, Fountain Creek Chico, boundaries in Colorado. Therefore, we the Act, we do not define the current Kiowa, Lone-Tree Owl, Middle South range on the basis of conclusive Platte—Cherry Creek, Saint Vrain, and believe removing protections outside evidence; rather, we use the best Upper South Platte (as illustrated in these boundaries would be of little available data. The purpose of defining figure 2). Recognizing that complete biological consequence. Thus, based on range (and hence the significant portion information is currently lacking that best available data, we have identified of the range) is to set the boundaries of would definitively confirm the presence the portion of Colorado west of 103 the protections of the Act. Therefore, of existing Preble’s meadow jumping degrees 40 minutes West, north of 38 defining the boundaries too narrowly mouse populations and suitable habitat degrees 30 minutes North, and east of may lead to the failure to protect some in some drainages, these drainages have 105 degrees 50 minutes West as the Preble’s meadow jumping mice. On the been included in the Preliminary significant portion of the range of the other hand, drawing the boundaries Recovery Plan as representative of the subspecies (illustrated in figure 2). relatively expansively will not lead to current range of the subspecies on the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63021
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C Eastern boundary (103 degrees, 40 inclusive of all areas within the current minutes west)—This boundary is survey guidelines (east to a north-south
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 EP07NO07.001 63022 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
line through Fort Morgan, Morgan subspecies, but we believe that discussed above, this proposed rule is County) and also includes the eastern approach would be impractical and ill- based on an intermediate scale. extent of the Big Sandy drainage advised. For example, Preble’s meadow (3) How should the boundaries of the (designated in the draft of the recovery jumping mouse block clearance zones portion of the range at issue be defined? plan). expand on a near annual basis. If a By latitude and longitude lines? By Southern Boundary (38 degrees, 30 revision to the Code of Federal drainage boundaries? By county lines? minutes north)—This boundary is Regulations was required to achieve this By reference to particular streams? By inclusive of all areas within the current revision, the process would require some other means? survey guidelines (south including all of annual proposed and final rules. This (4) Is it appropriate to use the El Paso County) and also includes the would be both unwieldy from a Colorado/Wyoming border to divide the majority of the Fountain Creek and workload perspective and result in an range of the subspecies? If the Preble’s Chico Creek drainages (designated in unnecessary delay in reducing our meadow jumping mouse in particular the draft of the recovery plan). Habitat regulatory oversight as this process sites within Colorado (particularly those in the southern portion of El Paso typically takes a year to complete. adjacent to the border with Wyoming) County is limited. The small portions of Furthermore, the listing backlog (i.e., a are not threatened, should they be the Fountain and Chico drainages that shortfall of funds that preclude the included within the significant portion fall outside the boundary are outside the listing of species that are warranted-but- of the range specified as threatened? current survey guidelines and believed precluded from threatened or Likewise, if the Preble’s meadow not to support Preble’s. endangered status and the designation jumping mouse in particular sites Western boundary (105 degrees 50 of critical habitat) would preclude within Wyoming (particularly those minutes west)—This boundary is relisting areas even if future information adjacent to the border with Colorado) inclusive of elevations to 7,600 feet suggests the area was removed are threatened, should they be included (2,316 meters) in the Cache La Poudre prematurely (unless emergency listing within the significant portion of the River, Clear Creek and Upper South was deemed appropriate). This double range specified as threatened? (5) If we use a relatively coarse scale Platte drainages and all portions of the standard as well as the difficult and to define the current range of the Big Thompson and St. Vrain drainages. time-consuming nature of the process Administrative Processes—As part of subspecies, how should we address an suggests this approach is not realistic, our management of the subspecies on- area within that range if we have not desirable, and inappropriate. As we the-ground within this significant information suggesting that the have in the past, the Service will portion of range area, the Service will subspecies does not currently occupy— consider modification of the current continue to utilize block clearance or has never actually occupied—that block-clearance zones, or the addition of zones to eliminate unnecessary particular area within its overall range? new zones, when the available data processes (e.g., compliance with section Should those areas be geographically demonstrate such an action is 7 of the Act) while protecting the listed excluded from the significant portion of appropriate. species. In designating a block clearance the range specified as threatened? Or are zone, the Service eliminates the need for The above discussion relating to those areas best addressed through individuals or agencies to coordinate specifying a significant portion of the administrative implementation, such as with the Service prior to conducting range of the Preble’s meadow jumping the block clearance zones described activities at locations within the Preble’s mouse as threatened represents our above? What impacts to the subspecies, meadow jumping mouse range. The current thinking based on the data we the public, and the Service will result establishment of these block clearance now have available. However, this is our from employing each of the possible zones is based on the likely absence of first proposal to specify such a portion strategies? the subspecies within the area, and little since issuance of the opinion of the (6) If we determine to define the likelihood that any of the area would be Solicitor’s Office on this topic on March portion of the range specified as of importance to the recovery of the 16, 2007. Thus, we note that we will be threatened as excluding areas (at the subspecies. Block clearance zones have considering alternative formulations appropriate scale) that the best data been approved for the Denver and analyses before issuing a final available suggests are not currently metropolitan area (including most of determination, and the final occupied by the Preble’s meadow Denver County and portions of Adams, determination may vary in its jumping mouse, how should we do that? Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, particulars from this proposed rule. Should such areas (for example, parts of Douglas, and Jefferson Counties) and We particularly invite data, analyses, the Denver metropolitan area) be along Monument, Cottonwood, and and other comments regarding the mapped, or excluded by narrative text? Sand Creeks in the Colorado Springs following issues: What sort of boundaries would be area. While this substantially reduces (1) What is the current range of the available for defining such areas as not the regulatory burden, should an Preble’s meadow jumping mouse? In the part of the range specified as individual Preble’s meadow jumping absence of confirmation of presence of threatened? What purposes would be mouse be found in a block-cleared area, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse by served by adding to the complexity of it would be fully protected under the trapping, what information is sufficient the listing rule? What purposes would Act. In addition, outside of the block for the Service to determine that, based be served by reducing the complexity of clearance zone, but within the SPR, we on the best data available, an area is part the listing rule? would continue to identify, on a project- of the current range of the subspecies? (7) Is it appropriate to aggregate all of by-project basis, whether surveys for the (2) On how fine or coarse a scale the current range of the Preble’s Preble’s meadow jumping mouse are should we define the portion of the meadow jumping mouse in Colorado needed based on whether suitable range that we may specify as both into one portion for the purpose of this habitat is present within the action area significant and threatened? analysis? If particular sites within of the project. Theoretically, the scale could be as Colorado are not independently We considered excluding block coarse as the entire state of Colorado, or significant portions of the range of the clearance zones from the listing as as fine as the scale used in critical Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, outside the current range of the habitat designations. For the reasons should they still be considered part of
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules 63023
the portion of the range that is The selected reviewers were selected for certain actions. As this proposed rule is collectively significant? their expertise in genetics, systematics, not expected to significantly affect Depending on the comments received and small mammals. We will ask these energy supplies, distribution, or use, during the public comment period and reviewers to review this proposal’s this action is not a significant energy our further analysis of these issues, the taxonomic discussion. Second, we will action and no Statement of Energy final determination could incorporate contact an additional five experts to Effects is required. any of the possible answers to these review the remainder of this proposal. Paperwork Reduction Act questions. We will select reviewers for expertise in This proposed rule does not contain Effects of the Proposed Rule small-mammal biology, riparian- community ecology and status, any new collections of information that If finalized, this action would amend population dynamics and extinction require approval by the Office of the listing for the Preble’s meadow risk, and/or development trends and Management and Budget (OMB) under jumping mouse by specifying that the land-use conflicts. The purpose of such the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 subspecies is threatened in the Colorado review is to ensure that we base our (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed portion of its range. This action also final decision on scientifically sound rule will not impose recordkeeping or would eliminate critical habitat (June data, assumptions, and analyses. We reporting requirements on State or local 23, 2003, 68 FR 37275) in Wyoming. will send copies of this proposed rule to governments, individuals, businesses, or Additionally, the take exemptions of the these peer reviewers immediately organizations. An agency may not 4(d) species rule would no longer be following publication in the Federal conduct or sponsor, and a person is not necessary, and therefore would no Register. We will invite these peer required to respond to, a collection of longer apply, in Wyoming (May 22, reviewers to comment, during the information unless it displays a 2001, 66 FR 28125; October 1, 2002, 67 public comment period, on the specific currently valid OMB control number. FR 61531; May 20, 2004, 69 FR 29101). assumptions and conclusions regarding National Environmental Policy Act Thus, the prohibitions and conservation our revised proposal. We will consider measures provided by the Act would no all comments and information received The Service has determined that longer apply to this subspecies in during the comment period on this Environmental Assessments and Wyoming. Federal agencies would no proposed rule during preparation of a Environmental Impact Statements, as longer be required to consult with us to final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final defined under the authority of the insure that any action they authorize, decision may differ from this proposed National Environmental Policy Act of fund, or carry out in Wyoming would rule. 1969, need not be prepared in not likely jeopardize the continued connection with regulations adopted existence of the subspecies or result in Clarity of the Rule pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We destruction or adversely modify critical We are required by Executive Orders published a notice outlining the habitat in Wyoming. However, to the 12866 and 12988 and by the Service’s reasons for this determination extent an activity in Wyoming would Presidential Memorandum of June 1, was published in the Federal Register adversely affect the subspecies or 1998, to write all rules in plain on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). critical habitat within its range listed in language. This means that each rule we References Colorado, consultation under section 7 publish must: would still be required. (a) Be logically organized; A complete list of all references cited Future Conservation Measures (b) Use the active voice to address herein is available upon request from readers directly; the Colorado Field Office (see No specific preservation or (c) Use clear language rather than ADDRESSES). management programs exist for the jargon; Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in (d) Be divided into short sections and Author Wyoming. We believe that sufficient sentences; and The primary authors of this document habitat will remain in Wyoming over (e) Use lists and tables wherever are staff located at the Colorado Field the foreseeable future to allow for the possible. Office (see ADDRESSES). continued viability of this subspecies. In If you feel that we have not met these the significant portion of the range requirements, send us comments by one List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 within Colorado, the Preble’s meadow of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES Endangered and threatened species, jumping mouse would continue to be section. To better help us revise the Exports, Imports, Reporting and record protected under the Act. rule, your comments should be as keeping requirements, Transportation. specific as possible. For example, you Peer Review should tell us the numbers of the Proposed Regulation Promulgation In accordance with our peer review sections or paragraphs that are unclearly Accordingly, we propose to amend policy published in the Federal Register written, which sections or sentences are part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270) and the too long, the sections where you feel 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as Office of Management and Budget’s lists or tables would be useful, etc. set forth below. (OMB) Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, we seek the Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use PART 17—[AMENDED] expert opinions of appropriate and On May 18, 2001, the President issued 1. The authority citation for part 17 independent specialists regarding this an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions continues to read as follows: proposal. In this case, we will seek the Concerning Regulations That comments of two sets of reviewers. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. First, we will contact the same five Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– experts invited to provide comments on significantly affect energy supply, 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. the previous proposed rule (70 FR 5404, distribution, and use. The E.O. 13211 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the February 2, 2005; 71 FR 8556, February requires agencies to prepare Statements entry for ‘‘Mouse, Preble’s meadow 17, 2006; 71 FR 16090, March 30, 2006). of Energy Effects when undertaking jumping’’ under ‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 63024 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
List of Endangered and Threatened § 17.11 Endangered and threatened (h) * * * Wildlife to read as follows: wildlife. * * * * *
Species Historic range Vertebrate population where Status When Critical Special Common name Scientific name endangered or threatened listed habitat rules
Mammals
******* Mouse, Preble’s Zapus hudsonius U.S.A. (CO, WY) U.S.A., north-central CO (that por- T ...... 636 17.95(a) 17.40(l) meadow jump- preblei. tion of Colorado west of 103 de- ing. grees 40 minutes West, north of 38 degrees 30 minutes North, and east of 105 degrees 50 minutes West).
*******
3. Amend § 17.40(l) as follows: that apply to the herbicides proposed § 17.95 [Amended] a. By revising paragraph (l)(2)(vi)(E) to for use within the species’ range as 4. In § 17.95(a), amend the entry for read as set forth below; and specified in § 17.11(h). ‘‘Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse b. By revising paragraph (l)(4) to read * * * * * (Zapus hudsonius preblei)’’ by removing as set forth below. paragraphs (4) through (7), and by (4) Where does this rule apply? The § 17.40 Special rules—mammals. redesignating paragraphs (8) through take exemptions provided by this rule (13) as (4) through (9), respectively. * * * * * are applicable within the range of the (l) * * * Preble’s meadow jumping mouse as Dated: October 30, 2007. (2) * * * specified in § 17.11(h). H. Dale Hall, (vi) * * * * * * * * Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (E) Any future revisions to the [FR Doc. 07–5486 Filed 11–1–07; 8:45 am] authorities listed in paragraphs BILLING CODE 4310–55–P (l)(2)(vi)(A) through (D) of this section
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:15 Nov 06, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07NOP2.SGM 07NOP2 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS2 REFERENCES CITED
Armour, C.L., D.A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 16(1):7-11.
Armstrong, D.M. 1972. Distribution of mammals in Colorado. Museum of Natural History Monograph, University of Kansas, Lawrence. 415 pp.
Bakeman, M.E. (ed.) 1997. Conclusions and recommendations from the report on habitat findings of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. 13 pp. + tables and figures. In Report on habitat findings on the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (ed. M. E. Bakeman). Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 91 pp.
Bakeman, M. 2006. 2005. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse abundance and survival at the East Plum Creek conservation bank, Douglas County, Colorado. Unpublished report for the Colorado Department of Transportation. 15 pp.
Bakeman, M.E., and C. Meaney. 2001. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse issues within the I-25 project area in northern El Paso County, Colorado. Report by Ensight Technical Services to Wilson and Company. 62 pp.
Beauvais, G.P. 2001. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Wyoming: Status report, July 2001. Unpublished report of the Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 13 pp.
Belsky, A.J., A. Matzk, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-431.
Biggins, D.E., and M.Y. Kosoy. 2001. Influences of introduced plague on North American mammals: implications from ecology of plague in Africa. Journal of Mammalogy 82:906-916.
Booth, D.B., and C.R. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems – Degradation thresholds, stormwater detention, and limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 22(5)1-19.
Brussard, P.F., and M.E. Gilpin. 1989. Demographic and genetic problems of small populations. Pages 37-48 in Conservation biology and the black-footed ferret (U.S. Seal, E.T. Thorne, M.A. Bogan, and S.H. Anderson, eds.). Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 302 pp.
- 1 - Bunn, R.L., R.E. Day, W.R. Maynard, S.A.M. Stern. 1995. Summary of the 1995 survey efforts at Fort Carson, Colorado for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Fort Carson (Colorado): Directorate of Environmental Compliance and Management: Wildlife Office Fort Carson. 50 pp.
Busch, D.E., and M.L. Scott. 1995. Western riparian ecosystems. Pages 286-290 in Our living resources: A report to the nation on the distribution, abundance and health of the U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems (eds. E.T. LaRoe, et al.). U.S. Department of Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C. 530 pp.
Caughley, G., and A. Gunn. 1996. Conservation biology in theory and practice. Blackwell Science, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts. 459 pp.
Center for Biological Diversity, et al., v. Robert Lohn, et al., 296 F. Supp. 2d. 1223 W.D. Wash. 2003. United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle. Case 2:02-cv-02505-RSL. Document 50. Filed December 17, 2003.
Clark, T.W., and M.R. Stromberg. 1987. Mammals in Wyoming. University of Kansas Museum, Lawrence. 314 pp.
Clippinger, N.W. 2002. Biogeography, community ecology, and habitat of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado. Doctoral thesis. University of Colorado, Boulder. 164 pp.
Cockrum, E.L., and R.H. Baker. 1950. A new jumping mouse (genus Zapus) from Kansas. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 63:1-4.
Colorado Demography Office, Division of local governments. 2007a. County and municipal estimates – results. Available online at: http://www.dola.state.co.us/demog_webapps/population_estimates. Accessed on July 20, 2007.
Colorado Demography Office, Division of local governments. 2007b. Population totals for Colorado counties. Available online at: http://www.dola.state.co.us/dlg/demog/pop_cnty_forecasts.html. Accessed on June 26, 2007.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2006. Colorado’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy and wildlife action plans. Available online at: http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/ComprehensiveWildlifeConservationStrategy/.
Colorado Water Conservation Board. 2004. Statewide water supply initiative. Denver, Colorado.
Compton, S.A., and R.D. Hugie. 1993a. Status report on Zapus hudsonius preblei, a candidate endangered species. Pioneer Environmental Services, Inc., Logan, Utah. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 32 pp.
- 2 - Compton, S.A., and R.D. Hugie. 1993b. Addendum to the status report on Zapus hudsonius preblei, a candidate subspecies. Pioneer Environmental Services, Inc., Logan, Utah. Report Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. 8 pp.
Conner, M.M., and T.M. Shenk. 2003a. Distinguishing Zapus hudsonius preblei from Zapus princeps princeps by using repeated cranial measurements. Journal of Mammalogy 84(4):1456-1463.
Conner, M.M., and T.M. Shenk. 2003b. Use of morphometric measurements to differentiate Zapus hudsonius preblei from Zapus princeps princeps in Colorado and Southeastern Wyoming. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse Recovery Team. 14 pp. + tables and appendices.
Corn, J.G., C.A. Pague, A.R. Ellingson, M. Sherman, T. Zwiejacz, G. Kittel, and C. Fleming. 1995. Final report on the geographic extent of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse population on the United States Air Force Academy. Presented to the U.S. Air Force Academy. 44 pp.
Crandall, K.A. 2006b. Letter from the Editor: Advocacy dressed up as scientific critique. Animal Conservation, The Zoological Society of London. 9:250–251.
Crandall, K.A., and J.C. Marshall. 2006. An assessment of the threatened subspecific status of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius) based on the current molecular data set. Report prepared by Genoma LLC for the State of Wyoming, Office of the Attorney General. 68 pp. + appendices.
Cronin, M.A. 2007. The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse: subjective subspecies, advocacy and management. Animal Conservation, The Zoological Society of London. 10:159.
Ensight Technical Services. 1999. Report on Preble’s meadow jumping mouse movement assessment at Dirty Woman and Monument creeks, El Paso County, Colorado. 24 pp. + figures and tables. Unpublished report to Colorado Department of Transportation.
Ensight Technical Services. 2000. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 1999 data summary for Dirty Woman Creek, Town of Monument, El Paso County, Colorado. Unpublished report to Colorado Department of Transportation.
Ensight Technical Services. 2001. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 2000 data summary for Dirty Woman Creek, Town of Monument, El Paso County, Colorado. Unpublished report to the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Ensight Technical Services. 2004. Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 2004 Survey on the Dellacroce Ranch, El Paso County, Colorado. Unpublished report to Wilson & Company, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Colorado Department of Transportation, Pueblo, Colorado. 20 pp.
- 3 - Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. 467 pp.
Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing on western North America. Conservation Biology 8(3):629-644.
Freilich, J.E., J.M. Emlen, J.J. Duda, D.C. Freeman, and P.J. Cafaro. 2003. Ecological effects of ranching: a six-point critique. BioScience 53(8):759-765.
Freudenthal, D. 2003. Governor, State of Wyoming. Petition to delist the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Dated December 17, 2003. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Field Office, December 19, 2003.
Frey, J.K. 2005. Status Assessment of Montane Populations of the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) in New Mexico. Final Report (Professional Services Contract 05-516.57). Submitted to Conservation Services Division, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. December 8, 2005. 74 pp.
Garber, C.S. 1995. A status survey for Preble’s jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), in southeastern Wyoming, including the F.E. Warren Air Force Base. Unpublished report prepared by The Nature Conservancy, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Laramie, Wyoming, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and F.E. Warren Air Force Base. 22 pp. + appendices.
Giuliano, W.M., and J.D. Homyack. 2004. Short-term grazing exclusion effects of riparian small mammal communities. Rangeland Ecology and Management 57(4):346-350.
Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between land and water. Bioscience 41:540-551.
Groffman, P.M. , D.J. Bain, L.E. Band, K.E. Belt, G.S. Brush, J.M. Grove, R.V. Pouyat, I.C. Yesilonis, and W.C. Zipperer. 2003. Down by the riverside: urban riparian ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(6):315-321.
Hafner, D.J. 1996. Z. hudsonius ssp. preblei. In: IUCN 2004. 2004 IUCN red list of threatened species. Available online at: http://www.redlist.org.
Hafner, D.J. 1997. Evaluation of the taxonomic, genetic, and conservation status of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonius preblei, and associated subspecies. Unpublished report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 8 pp.
Hafner, D.J., K.E. Petersen, and T.L. Yates. 1981. Evolutionary Relationships of Jumping Mice (Genus Zapus) of the Southwestern United States. Journal of Mammalogy 62(3):501-512.
- 4 - Hafner, D.J., E. Yensen, and G.L. Kirkland, Jr. 1998. North American rodents: Status survey and conservation action plan. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. 171 pp.
Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1,181 pp.
Hall, E.R., and K.R. Kelson. 1959. The Mammals of North America. Volume II. The Roland Press Company, New York.
Hansen, A.J., R.L. Knight, J.M. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Brown, P.H. Gude, and K. Jones. 2005. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Applications 15:1893-1905.
Hansen, C.M. 2006. Monitoring and movements of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in montane drainages of Pike National Forest, Colorado. M.S. Thesis, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. 181 pp.
Hurd, B., N. Leary, R. Jones, and J, Smith. 1999. Relative regional vulnerability of water resources to climate change. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35:1399-1409
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. (Summary for policymakers) Geneva, Switzerland. 22 pp.
Jones, G.S. 1981. The systematics and biology of the genus Zapus (Mammalia, Rodentia, Zapodidae). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Indiana State University, Terre Haute. 568 pp.
Jones, J.K., Jr., D.M. Armstrong, R.S. Hoffmann, and C. Jones. 1983. Mammals of the northern Great Plains. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. (pages 238-244).
Kaiser-Hill. 2000. 1999 Preble’s meadow jumping mouse study at Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. In: Annual wildlife report. Kaiser-Hill Company, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Golden, Colorado.
Katz, G.L., J.M. Friedman, and S.W. Beatty. 2005. Delayed effects of flood control on a flood-dependent riparian forest. Ecological Applications 15:1019-1035.
Kauffman, J.B., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications…a review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430-437.
Kaufman, D.W., E.J. Finch, and G.A. Kaufman. 1990. Small mammals and grassland fires. Pages 46-80 in Fire in North American tallgrass prairies (S.L. Collins and L.L. Wallace, eds.). University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
- 5 - Keinath, D.A. 2001. Habitat associations of Preble’s meadow jumping mice in Wyoming: A GIS model and descriptive analysis. Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie, Wyoming. 18 pp.
King, T.L., J.F. Switzer, C.L. Morrison, M.S. Eackles, C.C. Young, B. Lubinski, and P. Cryan. 2006a. Comprehensive analysis of molecular phylogeographic structure among the meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) reveals evolutionarily distinct subspecies. A report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. January 27, 2006. 62 pp.
King, T.L., J.F. Switzer, C.L. Morrison, M.S. Eackles, C.C. Young, B. Lubinski, and P. Cryan. 2006b. Comprehensive genetic analyses reveal evolutionary distinction of a mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) proposed for delisting from the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Molecular Ecology 15:4331–4359.
King, T.L., J.F. Switzer, C.L. Morrison, M.S. Eackles, C.C. Young, B. Lubinski, and P. Cryan. In Review.
Klingenger, D. 1963. Dental evolution of Zapus. Journal of Mammalogy 44:248-260.
Krutzsch, P.H. 1954. North American jumping mice (genus Zapus). University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. 7:349-472.
Larimer County Planning Division. 1997. Larimer County Master Plan. Available online at: http://www.co.larimer.co.us/planning/planning/masterplan/toc.htm. Accessed on August 8, 2007.
Long, C.A. 1965. The mammals of Wyoming. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. 14:349-472.
Martin, A. 2006. Letter to the Editor: Advocacy dressed up as science: response to Ramey et al. (2005). Animal Conservation, The Zoological Society of London. 9:248–249.
Mayr, E., and P.D. Ashlock. 1991. Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Meaney, C.A., A. Ruggles, N. Clippinger, and B. Lubow. 2000. Monitoring for Preble’s meadow jumping mice along South Boulder Creek and four ditches. Unpublished report to City of Boulder Open Space. 12 pp.
Meaney, C.A., A. Ruggles, N.W. Clippinger, and B. Lubow. 2002. The impact of recreational trails and grazing on small mammals in the Colorado Piedmont. The Prairie Naturalist 34(3/4):115-136.
Meaney, C.A., A.K. Ruggles, B.C. Lubow, and N.W. Clippinger. 2003. Abundance survival , and hibernation of Preble’s meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Boulder County, Colorado. The Southwest Naturalist 48 (4):610-623.
- 6 - Medin, D.E., and W.P. Clary. 1989. Small mammal populations in a grazed and ungrazed riparian habitat in Nevada. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Research Paper INT-413. 6 pp.
Miller, J.R., J.A. Wiens, N.T. Hobbs, and D.M. Theobald. 2003. Effects of human settlement on bird communities in lowland riparian areas of Colorado (USA). Ecological Applications 13(4):1041-1059
National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2007. U.S. and all states county data – livestock. Available online at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US_CNTY.jsp. Accessed on July 20, 2007.
National Research Council. 2002. Riparian areas, functions and strategies for management. Committee on Riparian Zone Functioning and Strategies for Management, Water Science and Technology Board. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. 444 pp.
NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life[web application]. Version 4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://www.naturserve.org/explorer.
Pague, C.A., and L. Grunau. 2000. Conservation planning handbook for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Unpublished report to the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. 284 pp.
Pague, C.A., and T.P. Schuerman. 1998. The distribution of Zapus hudsonius preblei in the Plum Creek Watershed of Douglas County, Colorado, 1998 Final Report. Colorado Natural Heritage Program. Fort Collins. 12 pp.
Patten M.A., and P. Unitt. 2002. Diagnosability versus mean differences of Sage Sparrow subspecies. Auk 119:26–35.
Preble, E.A. 1899. Revision of the jumping mice of the genus Zapus. U.S. Department of Agriculture, North American Fauna 15:1-41.
Quimby, D.C. 1951. The life history and ecology of the jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonius. Ecological Monographs 21:61-95.
Ramey, R.R. II, H.P. Liu, and L. Carpenter. 2003. Testing the taxonomic validity of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Report to the Governor of Wyoming and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 24 pp.
Ramey, R.R. II, H.P. Liu, and L. Carpenter. 2004a. Testing the taxonomic validity of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Report to the Governor of Wyoming and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (revised). 27 pp.
- 7 - Ramey R.R. II, H.P. Liu, L. Carpenter, and C. Epps. 2004b. Testing the uniqueness of Z. h. intermedius relative to Z. h. campestris. Draft report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 13 pp.
Ramey, R.R., H.P. Liu, C.W. Epps, L.M. Carpenter, and J.D. Wehausen. 2005. “Genetic relatedness of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) to nearby subspecies of Z. hudsonius as inferred from variation in cranial morphology, mitochondrial DNA, and microsatellite DNA: implications for taxonomy and conservation.” Animal Conservation 8:329-346.
Ramey, R.R. II, J. D. Wehausen, H.P. Liu, C.W. Epps, and L.M. Carpenter. 2006a. Response to Vignieri et al. (2006): Should hypothesis testing or selective post hoc interpretation of results guide the allocation of conservation effort? Animal Conservation, The Zoological Society of London. 9:244–247.
Ramey, R.R. II, J.D. Wehausen, H.P. Liu, C.W. Epps, and L.M. Carpenter. 2006c. Response to the report: Evaluation of Scientific Information Regarding Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (prepared by the Sustainable Ecosystems Institute). August 10, 2006. 14 pp.
Ramey, R.R. II, J.D. Wehausen, H.P. Liu, C.W. Epps, and L.M. Carpenter. In Press. How King et al. (2006) define an “evolutionary distinct” mouse subspecies: a response. Molecular Ecology.
Riebsame, W.E., H. Gosnell, and D.M. Theobald. 1996. Land use and landscape change in the Colorado Mountains I: theory, scale, and pattern. Mountain Research and Development 16:395-405.
Riggs, L.A., J.M. Dempcy, and C. Orrego. 1997. Evaluating distinctness and evolutionary significance of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse: Phylogeography of mitochondrial DNA non-coding region variation. Final Report submitted to Colorado Division of Wildlife. 13 pp. + appendices.
Ryon, T.R. 1996. Evaluation of the historic capture sites of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in Colorado. MS thesis, University of Colorado, Denver. 65 pp.
Ryon, T.R. 1999. Travel distance and movement patterns of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) at the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. Journal of Colorado-Wyoming Academy of Science 31:12.
Savage, M., and E.A. Savage. 2001. Milliken I and II projects, Weld County, Colorado: Preble’s meadow jumping mouse survey report. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 10 pp.
Schorr, R.A. 1999. Small mammal surveys on Pike National Forest, Douglas County, Colorado: Trout Creek, South Platte River, and Indian Creek. Unpublished report to Pike National Forest, South Platte Ranger District. 13 pp.
- 8 - Schorr, R.A. 2001. Meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius preblei) on the U.S. Air Force Academy, El Paso County, Colorado. Colorado Natural Heritage Program unpublished report to the Natural Resources Branch, U.S. Air Force Academy. 55 pp.
Schorr, R.A, C.A. Meaney, G.M. Hanson, and M.E. Bakeman. 2007. Draft manuscript, Co-occurrence of Zapus hudsonius and Zapus princeps in Colorado. 11 pp.
Selleck, G.W., R.T. Coupland, and C. Frankton. 1962. Leafy spurge in Saskatchewan. Ecological Monographs 32:1-29.
Shenk, T.M. 1998. Conservation assessment and preliminary conservation strategy for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Unpublished report of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 38 pp + appendix.
Shenk, T.M., and J.T. Eussen. 1999. Habitat use and distribution of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Larimer and Weld Counties, Colorado. Unpublished report of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 25 pp. + figures.
Shenk, T.M., and M.M. Sivert. 1999a. Movement patterns of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) as they vary across time and space. Unpublished report of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 27 pp. + figures.
Shenk, T.M., and M.M. Sivert. 1999b. Temporal and spatial variation in the demography of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Unpublished report of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 16 pp.
Smith, H. G.P. Beauvais, and D.A. Keinath. 2004. Species assessment for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Wyoming. Unpublished report to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 53 pp.
Sonnenberg, J. 2003. Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development. Subject: Petition to delist the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Dated December 17, 2003. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, December 18, 2003.
State of Wyoming v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 07cv025J (District of Wyoming 2007).
Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. 2006a. Evaluation of Scientific Information Regarding Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse. July 21, 2006. 82 pp.
Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. 2006b. Science Review Transcripts. Volume 1. Thursday, July 6, 2006. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. 2006c. Science Review Transcripts. Volume 2. Friday, July 7, 2006. Fort Collins, Colorado.
- 9 - Taylor, R.C. 1999. Trapping report Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) on True Ranch properties in southeastern Wyoming. Unpublished report provided to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Pages 2-5.
Theobald, D.M., J.R. Miller and N.T. Hobbs. 1997. Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape and Urban Planning 39(1997) 25-36.
Theobald, D.M., D. Schrupp, and L. O’Brian. 2001. Assessing risk of habitat loss due to private land development in Colorado. Final report for cooperative agreement No. 00HQAG0010. Natural Resource Ecology Lab, Colorado State University, and Habitat Section, Colorado Division of Wildlife. 62 pp.
Trainor, A.M. 2004. Influence of resource supplementation on movements of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) and habitat use characteristics. M.S. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 106 pp.
Trainor, A.M., T.M. Shenk, and K.R. Wilson. 2007. Microhabitat characteristics of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse high-use areas. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:469-477.
Travis, W.R., D.M. Theobald, G.W. Mixon, and T.W. Dickinson. 2005. Report from the Center #6. Western Futures: A look into the Patterns of Land Use and Future Development in the American West. Center for the West. University of Colorado at Boulder. Available online at: http://www.centerwest.org/futures/western_futures_final_draft.pdf.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory (revised December 2000), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, D.C., and Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 89 pages. (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/1997/summary_report/)
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. 2007. The Meaning of “In Danger of Extinction Throughout All or a Significant Portion of its Range.” Memorandum Opinion number: M-37013. March 16, 2007. Available online at: http://www.doi.gov/solicitor/M37013.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Interim survey guidelines for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. 12 pp. + forms.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Cooperative agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. FWS agreement number: 1448-60181-03-J501. Entered July 31, 2003. 13 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Draft Recovery Plan Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Region 6, Lakewood, Colorado. November 5, 2003. 95 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Award of Purchase Order 601816P269, Scientific & Technical Consulting Services to Lead a Scientific Review Panel of Two Recent Genetics
- 10 - Studies with Endangered Species Implications. Government Purchase Order No. 60181-6-P269. June 1, 2006. 26 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Zapus hudsonius preblei and Zapus princeps princeps database.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Leetown Science Center Research Documentation Manual. Revised December 2003. 33 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Study Plan, Leetown Science Center Aquatic Ecology Laboratory. Technical Assistance through Population Genetics and Molecular Systematics: Robust Tools for Delineation of Evolutionary-Based Conservation Units. Number: 2069.12. June 22, 2005. 11 pp.
Vignieri, S.N., E.M. Hallerman, B.J. Bergstrom, D.J. Hafner, A. Martin, P. Devers, P. Grobler, and N. Hitt. 2006. Mistaken view of taxonomic validity undermines conservation of an evolutionarily distinct mouse: a response to Ramey et al. (2005). Animal Conservation, The Zoological Society of London. 9:237–243.
Werner, C. 2003. Small mammal surveys on Beaver Creek, Eight Mile Creek and Beaver Creek State Wildlife Area, Fremont County, Colorado. Unpublished reports to the Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1963. A study of meadow jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonius (Zimmerman), in central New York. Ecological Monographs 33:215-254.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1972. Zapus hudsonius. Mammalian Species 11:1-7.
White, G.C., and T.M. Shenk. 2000. Relationship of Preble's meadow jumping mouse densities to vegetation cover. Unpublished report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife. 17 pp.
Wilson, D.E., and D.M. Reeder (eds.). 1993. Mammal species of the world. Smithsonian Institute Press, 1206 pp. Available online at: http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw.
Wilson, D.E., and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 750 pp.
Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2007. Wyoming population estimates and forecasts. Available online at: http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/. Accessed on: June 26, 2007.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2005. A comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for Wyoming. Approved by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission July 12, 2005. Available online at: http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/index.asp.
Wyoming Water Development Commission. 2006. Platte River basin plan, executive summary.
- 11 - Cheyenne, Wyoming. 14pp.
- 12 - In Literature and Personnel Communications
Armstrong, D.M. 2004. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. Subject: Ramey et al. Report on Zapus hudsonius preblei. Dated March 24, 2004. Received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 23, 2004.
Armstrong, D.M. 2006. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. Subject: Report by King et al. (2006). Dated February 7, 2006. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 9, 2006.
Ashley, M.V. 2004. Department of Biological Science, University of Illinois at Chicago. Subject: Review of report, “Testing the taxonomic validity of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei),” by R.R. Ramey II, H.P. Liu, and L. Carpenter. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, July 12, 2004.
Ashley, M.V. 2005. Department of Biological Science, University of Illinois at Chicago. Subject: Review of report, “Testing the uniqueness of Z. h. intermedius relative to Z. h. campestris,” by R.R. Ramey II, H.P. Liu, L. Carpenter, and C.W. Epps. Dated May 30, 2005. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, May 30, 2005.
Ashley, M.V. 2006. Department of Biological Science, University of Illinois at Chicago. Subject: Evaluation of King et al. 2006, “Comprehensive Analysis of Molecular Phylogeographic Structure Among Meadow Jumping Mice (Zapus hudsonius) Reveals Evolutionarily Distinct Subspecies.” Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 27, 2006.
Baker, R., and P. Larsen. 2005. Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University. Subject: Review of Ramey et al. 2004b. Dated June 2, 2005. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, June 6, 2005.
Bohon, D., S. Culver, S. Tapia, S. Leutzinger, and C. Hansen. 2005. U.S. Forest Service, Pike National Forest. Subject: Response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat and populations within the Pike National Forest. Dated July 30, 2005. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Colorado Field Office, August 8, 2005.
Bradley, R. 2004. Department of Biology, Texas Tech University. Subject: Review of Ramey et al. 2004a. Dated June 22, 2004. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, June 22, 2004.
Bradley, R. 2005. Department of Biology, Texas Tech University. Subject: Review of Ramey et al. 2004b. Dated March 31, 2005. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, March 31, 2005.
- 13 - Bradley, R. 2006. Department of Biology, Texas Tech University. Subject: Review of King et al. manuscript. Dated February 22, 2006. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 22, 2006.
Conner, M.M. 2004. Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Sciences, Utah State University. Subject: Review of Ramey et al. 2004a. Dated April 9, 2004. Received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 23, 2004.
Crandall, K. 2004. Department of Integrative Biology, Brigham Young University. Subject: Specific questions to consider for review of Dr. R. R. Ramey’s genetic analysis on Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 23, 2004.
Crandall, K. 2005. Department of Integrative Biology, Brigham Young University. Subject: Review for USDI – Fish and Wildlife Service, “Testing the Uniqueness of Z. h. intermedius relative to Z. h. campestris,” Ramey et al. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, May 7, 2005.
Crandall, K. 2006a. Department of Integrative Biology, Brigham Young University. Subject: Review of “Comprehensive analysis of molecular phylogeographic structure among the meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) reveals evolutionarily distinct subspecies.” Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 19, 2006.
Douglas, M. 2004. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. Subject: Review: Report by R. R. Ramey on Zapus subspecies. Received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 23, 2004.
Douglas, M. 2005. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. Subject: Review: Report by R. R. Ramey (2004b) on Zapus subspecies. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, May 27, 2005.
Douglas, M. 2006. Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. Subject: Review reports submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, January 27, 2006: “Comprehensive analysis of molecular phylogeographic structure among the meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) reveals evolutionary distinct subspecies.” Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 24, 2006.
Elson, M. 2003. U.S. Forest Service, Pike and San Isabel National Forests. Subject: Biological assessment amendment, Upper South Platte watershed protection and restoration project. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office January 29, 2003.
- 14 - George, R. 2004. Executive Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado. Comments on petition to delist Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and initiation of a 5-year review. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office on June 2, 2004.
Hafner, D.J. 2004. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. Subject: Review of Ramey et al.: Testing the taxonomic validity of Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 23, 2004.
Hafner, D.J. 2005. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. Subject: Review of Ramey et al.: Testing the taxonomic validity of Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei); and Testing the Uniqueness of Z. h. intermedius relative to Z. h. campestris. Dated May 20, 2005. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, May 26, 2005.
Hafner, D.J. 2006. New Mexico Museum of Natural History. Subject: Review: “Comprehensive analysis of molecular phylogeographic structure among the meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) reveals evolutionary distinct subspecies” (T.L. King, J.F. Switzer, C.L. Morrison, M.S. Eackles, C.C. Young, B. Lubinski, and P. Cryan). Dated February 14, 2006. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 16, 2006.
Hayward, G.D. 2002. Assistant Professor, Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming. Peer review of proposal to designate critical habitat for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office on December 13, 2002.
Hoekstra, H. 2005. Division of Biological Sciences, University of California, San Diego. Subject: Peer review of the proposed rule to delist Zapus hudsonius preblei. Dated July 15, 2005. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, July 18, 2005.
Kelt, D.A. 2005. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis. Subject: Review of documents pertaining to delisting of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Dated June 5, 2005. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, June 5, 2005.
Kelt, D.A. 2006. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis. Subject: Revised review of documents pertaining to delisting of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Dated March 12, 2006. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, March 13, 2006.
King, T.L. 2005. U.S. Geological Survey. Subject: Western jumping mouse tissue samples. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Regional Office August 22, 2005.
- 15 - King, T.L. 2006a. U.S. Geological Survey. Subject: Species ID results – slightly revised version. Dated: February 6, 2006. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 6, 2006.
King, T.L. 2006b. U.S. Geological Survey. Subject: preliminary results from the WY samples provided by DMNS. Dated: March 30, 2006. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, March 30, 2006.
Lui, W. 2007. Wyoming Department of Administration & Information, Economic Analysis Division, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Subject: Re: population projects. Economy.com population projection data attached. Dated: September 20, 2007.
Maldonado, J. 2005. Genetics Program, Smithsonian Institute. Subject: Review of Ramey et al. 2004b. Dated June 3, 2005. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, June 3, 2005.
Maldonado, J. 2006. Genetics Program, Smithsonian Institute. Subject: Review of the report entitled “Comprehensive analysis of molecular phylogeographic structure among the meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) reveals evolutionary distinct subspecies” by King et al. Dated February 23, 2006. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 25, 2006.
Matthews, C. 2004. Director, Douglas County Division of Open Space and Natural Resources, Castle Rock, Colorado. Comments on petition to delist Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and initiation of a 5-year review. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office on May 27, 2004.
Meaney, C. 2003. Denver Museum of Natural History and University of Colorado Museum. Subject: Revised Wyoming DFA Table. Dated July 26, 2003. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office July 28, 2003.
Meaney, C. 2004. Denver Museum of Natural History and University of Colorado Museum. Subject: Review of Ramey et al. 2004a. Dated March 30, 2004. Received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 23, 2004.
Mihlbachler. B. 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Subject: Erosion damage to Monument Creek tributaries and Preble’s habitat. Dated July 19, 2007.
Mitton, J. 2004. Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado at Boulder. Subject: Review: Testing the taxonomic validity of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), R.R. Ramey, H.P. Liu, and L.M. Carpenter. Received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 23, 2004.
- 16 - Mitton, J. 2005. Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado at Boulder. Subject: Review: R.R. Ramey, H.P. Liu, L.M. Carpenter, and C.W. Epps. Testing the uniqueness of Z. h. intermedius relative to Z. h. campestris. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, June 2, 2005.
Morgenweck, R. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain Prairie Regional Director. Subject: Prebles Mouse. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Office, March 24, 2005.
Oyler-McCance, S. 2004. College of Biological Sciences, University of Denver. Rocky Mountain Center for Conservation Genetics and Systematics. Received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 23, 2004.
Oyler-McCance, S. 2005. College of Biological Sciences, University of Denver. Rocky Mountain Center for Conservation Genetics and Systematics. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, May 27, 2005.
Oyler-McCance, S. 2006. College of Biological Sciences, University of Denver. Rocky Mountain Center for Conservation Genetics and Systematics. Subject: Review of “Comprehensive analysis of molecular phylogeographic structure among the meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) reveals evolutionary distinct subspecies” by King et al. 2006. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 24, 2006.
Pague. C.A. 1998. Conservation Scientist, The Nature Conservancy of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. Subject: Formation of Conservation Science Team for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Received July 16, 1998, by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office.
Pague, C.A. 2007. Senior Conservation Ecologist, The Nature Conservancy of Colorado, Boulder. Subject: Comments on current status and threats to Preble's in Colorado. Received September 13, 2007, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Field Office.
Ramey, R.R., J.D. Wehausen, H.P. Liu, C.W. Epps, and L.M. Carpenter. 2006b. Is the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse a distinct subspecies? Comments on the report by King et al. (2006). Dated: May 18, 2006. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, May 18, 2006.
Riddle, B.R. 2004. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Subject: Review of: Testing the taxonomic validity of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, August 6, 2004.
- 17 - Riddle, B.R. 2006. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Subject: Review of King et al. (prepublication copy): Comprehensive analysis of molecular phylogeographic structure among the meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) reveals evolutionary distinct subspecies. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, February 23, 2006.
Shenk, T. 2004. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado. Subject: Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat use, movement patterns, and population estimates: appropriate citation and unpublished data. Dated December 1, 2004.
Sites, J.W. 2004. Brigham Young University. Subject: Review of Ramey et al. “Testing the taxonomic validity of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei).” Dated July 5, 2004. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, July 5, 2004.
Spencer, W.D. 2005. Conservation Biology Institute, San Diego Office. Subject: Peer review of 12-month finding on a petition to delist the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) and proposed delisting of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (ES/CO: T&E: Preble’s delisting; mail stop 65412). Dated June 16, 2005. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, June 16, 2005.
Spencer, W.D. 2006a. Senior Conservation Biologist. Conservation Biology Institute, San Diego Office. Subject: Second peer review of 12-month finding on a petition to delist the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) and proposed delisting of the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (ES/CO: T&E Preble’s mail stop 65412). Dated May 17, 2006. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, May 17, 2006.
Spencer, W.D. 2006b. Conservation Biology Institute, San Diego Office. Subject: Peer review of Genoma LLC report concerning genetic assessment of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) and further comments on studies by King et al. Dated July 5, 2006. Received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office, July 5, 2006.
Timberman, A. 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arapahoe National Wildlife Refuge Complex Project Leader. Subject: Preble’s Information Needs. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain Prairie Regional Director, October 29, 2007.
Waits, L. 2004. Department of Fish and Wildlife, University of Idaho. Subject: Peer review of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse report by Dr. Rob Ramey II et al. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, July 14, 2004.
Waits, L. 2005. Department of Fish and Wildlife, University of Idaho. Subject: Review of Ramey et al. 2004b. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, May 26, 2005.
- 18 - Warren, N. 2007. U.S. Forest Service. Subject: Forest plans that address Preble’s. Telephone conversation and fax received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Colorado Field Office September 11, 2007.
White, G. 2004. Department of Fishery & Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. Subject: Review of Ramey et al. 2004a. Dated March 20, 2004. Received by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, forwarded to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 23, 2004.
White, G. 2005. Department of Fishery & Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University. Subject: Preble’s meadow jumping mouse – Genetics report peer review request. Dated April 28, 2005. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Regional Office, April 28, 2005.
Wicher, B. 1997. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Subject: Proposed Rule to List the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse as an Endangered Species. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Field Office May 13, 1997.
Williams, S.A. 2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Director. Subject: Preble’s Plan. Received by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain Prairie Regional Director, December 29, 2004.
- 19 -