52066 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R6-ES-2009-0013] [92210-1117-0000- 

B4] 

RIN 1018-AW45 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for 

the Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

revise designated critical habitat for the 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius preblei) in Colorado, where it 

is listed as threatened in a significant 

portion of the range (SPR) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The proposed revised 

critical habitat is located in Boulder, 

Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, 

Larimer and Teller Counties in 

Colorado. Approximately 418 miles (mi) 

(674 kilometers (km)) of rivers and 

streams and 39,142 acres (ac) (15,840 

hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries 

of the proposed revised designation. 

The proposed revised designation 

would therefore add 184 mi (298 km) of 

rivers and streams and 18,462 ac (7,472 

ha) to the existing critical habitat 

designation of 234 mi (376 km) and 

20,680 ac (8,368 ha). 

DATES: To ensure that we are able to 

consider your comments and 

information, we request that you 

provide them to us by December 7, 

2009. We must receive requests for 

public hearings, in writing, at the 

address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

November 23, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.govto comment on 

FWS-R6-ES-2009-0013, which is the 

docket number for this rulemaking. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: [FWS-R6- 

ES-2009-0013]; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, 

Colorado Ecological Services Office; 

mailing address P.O. Box 25486, DFC 

(MS 65412), Denver, CO 80225; 

telephone 303-236-4773; located at 134 

Union Boulevard, Suite 670, Lakewood, 

CO. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800-877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

suggestions on this proposed rule. We 

particularly seek comments concerning: 

(1) The reasons why we should or 

should not revise the designation of 

specific habitat as ‘‘critical habitat’’ 

under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). 

(2) Specific information on: 

•The amount and distribution of 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 

(PMJM) habitat in Colorado, 

• Areas occupied at the time of listing 

and that contain features essential for 

the conservation of the species that we 

should include in the revised 

designation and why, 

• Areas not containing features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and why, 

• Areas not occupied at the time of 

listing that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and why, 

and 

• Areas that require special 

management consideration and 

protection and why. 

(3) Comments or information that may 

assist us with identifying or clarifying 

the primary constituent elements (see 

section below on Primary Constituent 

Elements). 

(4) Land use designations and current 

or planned activities in the areas 

proposed as revised critical habitat and 

their possible impacts on revised critical 

habitat. 

(5) How the proposed boundaries of 

the revised critical habitat could be 

refined to more closely circumscribe the 

riparian and adjacent upland habitats 

occupied by the Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse. 

(6) Whether our proposed revised 

designation should be altered in any 

way to account for the effects of climate 

change and why. 

(7) Whether any specific areas being 

proposed as revised critical habitat 

should be excluded under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act from the final 

designation, and whether the benefits of 

potentially excluding any particular 

area outweigh the benefits of including 

that area under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. We are specifically seeking 

comments from the public on the 

following lands: those covered by the 

Douglas County Habitat Conservation 

Plan (HCP) (Service 2006a) and the 

potential modification of outward 

boundaries of proposed critical habitat 

to conform to Douglas County’s Riparian 

Conservation Zones (RCZs) (streams, 

adjacent floodplains, and nearby 

uplands likely to be used as habitat by 

the PMJM) as mapped for the Douglas 

County HCP; lands within the 

Livermore Area HCP (Service 2006b), 

the Larimer County’s Eagle’s Nest Open 

Space HCP (Service 2004b), the Denver 

Water HCP (Service 2003b), the 

Struther’s Ranch HCP (Service 2003c), 

and other HCPs; lands within El Paso 

County (because the county is currently 

developing a countywide HCP); lands 

within the proposed Seaman Reservoir 

expansion footprint; and, lands within 

the Rocky Flats National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR). 

(8) Any foreseeable economic, 

national security, or other potential 

impacts resulting from the proposed 

revised designation and, in particular, 

any impacts on small entities, and the 

benefits of including or excluding areas 

that exhibit these impacts. 

(9) Whether we could improve or 

modify our approach to designating 

revised critical habitat in any way to 

provide for greater public participation 

and understanding, or to better 

accommodate public concerns and 

comments. 

We will revise the economic analysis 

and environmental assessment that were 

prepared for the previous designation, 

and we will provide drafts of the new 

economic analysis and environmental 

assessment to the public for review and 

comment before finalizing this proposal. 

Based on the public comments, we 

may find, during the development of the 

final rule, that areas proposed are not 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, are appropriate for exclusion 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are 

not appropriate for exclusion. In all of 

these cases, this information will be 

incorporated into the final revised 

designation. Further, we may find, as a 

result of public comments, that areas 

not proposed also should be designated 

as revised critical habitat. Final 

management plans that address the 

conservation of the PMJM must be 

submitted to us during the public 

comment period so that we can take 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52067 

them into consideration when making 

our final critical habitat determination. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

If you submit a comment via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

comment, including any personal 

identifying information, will be posted 

on the website. If you submit a 

hardcopy comment that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Background 

We intend to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat in this 

proposed rule. For additional 

information on the biology of this 

subspecies, see the May 13, 1998, final 

rule to list the PMJM as threatened (63 

FR 26517); the June 23, 2003, final rule 

designating critical habitat for the PMJM 

(68 FR 37275); and the July 10, 2008, 

final rule to amend the listing for the 

PMJM to specify over what portion of its 

range the subspecies is threatened (73 

FR 39789). 

Species Description 

The PMJM is recognized as 1 of 12 

subspecies of meadow jumping mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius), a species that ranges 

from the Pacific Coast of Alaska to the 

Atlantic Coast and from the northern 

limit of forests south to New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Georgia (Hafner et al. 

1981, p. 501; Hall 1981, p. 843; Krutzsch 

1954, pp. 420-421). Meadow jumping 

mice are small rodents with long tails, 

large hind feet, and long hind legs. Total 

length of an adult is approximately 7 to 

10 inches (187 to 255 millimeters), with 

the tail comprising 4 to 6 inches (108 to 

155 millimeters) of that length (Krutzsch 

1954, p. 420; Fitzgerald et al. 1994, p. 

291). The large hind feet can be onethird again as large as those of other 

mice of similar size. The PMJM has a 

distinct, dark, broad stripe on its back 

that runs from head to tail and is 

bordered on either side by gray to 

orange-brown fur. The hair on the back 

of all jumping mice appears coarse 

compared to other mice. The underside 

hair is white and much finer in texture. 

The tail is bicolored and sparsely furred. 

Geographic Range 

The PMJM is found along the foothills 

in southeastern Wyoming, southward 

along the eastern edge of the Front 

Range of Colorado to Colorado Springs 

in El Paso County (Hall 1981, p. 844; 

Clark and Stromberg 1987, pp. 184-188; 

Fitzgerald et al. 1994, pp. 291-293; 

Clippenger 2002, pp. 14-15, 20). 

Knowledge about the current 

distribution of the PMJM comes from 

collected specimens and live-trapping 

locations from both range-wide survey 

efforts and numerous site-specific 

survey efforts conducted in Wyoming 

and Colorado since the mid-1990s. 

In Colorado, the distribution of the 

PMJM forms a band along the Front 

Range from Wyoming southward to 

Colorado Springs, with eastern marginal 

captures in western Weld County, 

western Elbert County, and northcentral El Paso County. 

The semi-arid climate in eastern 

Colorado limits the extent of riparian 

corridors and restricts the range of the 

PMJM in this region. The PMJM has not 

been found on the extreme eastern 

plains in Colorado. The eastern 

boundary for the subspecies is likely 

defined by the dry shortgrass prairie, 

which may present a barrier to eastward 

expansion (Beauvais 2001, p. 3). 

The western boundary of the PMJM’s 

range in Colorado appears related to 

elevation along the Front Range. We use 

7,600 feet (ft) (2,317 meters (m)) in 

elevation as the general upper limit of 

the PMJM’s habitat in Colorado (Service 

2004a, p. 5). The western jumping 

mouse (Zapus princeps), a separate 

species from the PMJM, is similar in 

appearance and can easily be confused 

with the PMJM. The range of the 

western jumping mouse in Colorado is 

generally west of, and at higher 

elevations than, the range of the PMJM. 

However, the two species appear to 

coexist over portions of their range in 

the Front Range of Colorado (Bohan et 

al. 2005; Schorr et al., 2007). Recent 

morphological examination of 

specimens has confirmed the PMJM to 

an elevation of approximately 7,600 ft 

(2,317 m) in Colorado (Bohan et al., 

2005) and to 7,750 ft (2,360 m) in 

southeastern Wyoming (Service 2009). 

For a discussion of the difficulties of 

differentiating between the PMJM and 

the western jumping mouse see our July 

10, 2008, final rule to amend the listing 

for the PMJM (73 FR 39789). 

Although there is little information on 

past distribution or abundance of the 

PMJM, surveys identified various 

locations where the subspecies was 

historically present but is now absent 

(Ryon 1996, pp. 25-26). Since at least 

1991, the PMJM has not been found in 

Denver, Adams, or Arapahoe Counties 

in Colorado. Its absence in these 

counties is likely due to urban 

development, which has altered, 

reduced, or eliminated riparian habitat 

(Compton and Hugie 1993, p. 22; Ryon 

1996, pp. 29-30). 

Ecology and Life History 

Much of the current knowledge 

regarding life history of the meadow 

jumping mouse comes from studies of 

the species in the eastern and 

midwestern United States. The meadow 

jumping mouse usually has two litters 

per year, with an average of five young 

born per litter (Quimby 1951, p. 67; 

Whitaker 1963, p. 244). Research has 

not been conducted on the number or 

size of PMJM litters, but we assume that 

they are comparable to other subspecies 

of the meadow jumping mouse. The 

PMJM is a true hibernator, usually 

entering hibernation in September or 

October and emerging the following 

May, after a potential hibernation period 

of 7 or 8 months (Whitaker 1963, p. 5; 

Meaney et al. 2003, pp. 618-619). 

Similar to other subspecies of meadow 

jumping mouse, the PMJM does not 

store food, but survives on fat stores 

accumulated prior to hibernation 

(Whitaker 1963, p. 241). 

Meadow jumping mice are primarily 

nocturnal or crepuscular (active during 

twilight), but also may be active during 

the day. Little is known about social 

interactions and their significance in the 

PMJM. While the PMJM’s dispersal 

capabilities are thought to be limited, in 

one case a PMJM was documented 

moving as far as 0.7 mi (1.1 km) in 24 

hours (Ryon 1999, p. 12), and the PMJM 

is able to move miles along stream 

corridors over its lifetime (Schorr 2003, 

pp. 9-10). 

While fecal analyses have provided 

the best data on the PMJM’s diet to date, 

they overestimate the components of the 

diet that are less digestible. Based on 

fecal analyses, the PMJM eats insects; 

fungus; moss; pollen; Salix (willow); 

Chenopodium sp. (lamb’s quarters); 

Salsola sp. (Russian thistle); Helianthus 

spp. (sunflower); Carex spp. (sedge); 

Verbascum sp. (mullein); Bromus, 

Festuca, Poa, Sporobolus, and 

Agropyron spp. (grasses); Lesquerella sp. 

(bladderpod); Equisetum spp. 

(horsetail); and assorted seeds (Shenk 

and Eussen 1999, pp. 9, 11; Shenk and 

Sivert 1999a, pp. 10-11). The diet shifts 

seasonally; it consists primarily of 

insects and fungi after emerging from 

hibernation, shifts to fungi, moss, and 

pollen during mid-summer (July and 

August), with insects again added in 

September (Shenk and Sivert 1999a, pp. 

12-13). The shift in diet along with 

shifts in mouse movements suggests that 

the PMJM may require specific seasonal 

diets, perhaps related to the 

physiological constraints imposed by 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52068 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

hibernation (Shenk and Sivert 1999a, p. 

14). 

The PMJM has a host of known 

predators, including the garter snake 

(Thamnophis spp.), prairie rattlesnake 

(Crotalus viridus), bullfrog (Rana 

catesbiana), fox (Vulpes vulpes and 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus), house cat 

(Felis catus), long-tailed weasel 

(Mustela frenata), and red-tailed hawk 

(Buteo jamaicensis) (Shenk and Sivert 

1999a, p. 13; Schorr 2001, p. 29). Other 

potential predators include coyote 

(Canis latrans), barn owl (Tyto alba), 

great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), 

screech owl (Otus spp.), long-eared owl 

(Asio otus), northern harrier (Circus 

cyaneus), and large predatory fish. 

Mortality factors of the PMJM include 

drowning and being hit by vehicles 

(Schorr 2001, p. 29; Shenk and Sivert 

1999a, p. 13). Introduced fauna that 

occupy riparian habitats may displace 

or compete with the PMJM. House mice 

(Mus musculus) were common in and 

adjacent to historic capture sites where 

the PMJM was no longer found (Ryon 

1996, p. 26). Mortality factors known for 

the meadow jumping mouse, such as 

starvation, exposure, disease, and 

insufficient fat stores for hibernation 

(Whitaker 1963, pp. 225-228) also are 

likely causes of death in the PMJM 

subspecies. 

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 

Habitat 

Typical habitat for the PMJM is 

comprised of well-developed riparian 

vegetation with adjacent, relatively 

undisturbed grassland communities and 

a nearby water source (Bakeman 1997, 

pp. 22-31, 47-48). The PMJM is typically 

captured in areas with multi-storied 

cover with an understory of grasses or 

forbs or a mixture thereof (Bakeman 

1997, pp. 22-31, 28-30; Meaney et al. 

1997, pp. 15-16; Shenk and Eussen 

1999, pp. 9-11; Schorr 2001, pp. 23-24). 

The shrub canopy is often Salix spp., 

although other shrub species may occur 

(Shenk and Eussen 1999, pp. 9-11). 

Although the PMJM commonly uses 

riparian vegetation immediately 

adjacent to a stream, other features that 

provide habitat for the subspecies 

include seasonal streams (Bakeman 

1997, p. 76), low moist areas and dry 

gulches (Shenk 2004), agricultural 

ditches (Meaney et al. 2003, p. 620), and 

wet meadows and seeps near streams 

(Ryon 1996, p. 29). 

White and Shenk (2000, pp. 7-8) 

determined that riparian shrub cover, 

tree cover, and the amount of open 

water nearby are good predictors of 

PMJM densities. Trainor et al. (2007, pp. 

471-472) found that high-use areas for 

the PMJM tended to be close to creeks 

and were positively associated with the 

percentage of shrubs, grasses, and 

woody debris. Hydrologic regimes that 

support PMJM habitat range from large 

perennial rivers, such as the South 

Platte River, to small drainages only 3 

to 10 ft (1 to 3 m) wide. 

Clippenger (2002, pp. 44-45) found 

that, in Colorado, subshrub cover and 

plant species richness are higher at most 

sites where meadow jumping mice are 

present when compared to sites where 

they are absent, particularly at distances 

of 49 to 82 ft (15 to 25 m) from streams. 

In a study comparing habitats at PMJM 

capture locations on the Rocky Flats 

NWR (formerly the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE’s) Rocky Flats 

Environmental Technology Site), 

Jefferson County, and the U.S. Air Force 

Academy (Academy) in El Paso County, 

the Academy sites had lower plant 

species richness at capture locations but 

considerably greater numbers of the 

PMJM (Schorr 2001, p. 26). However, 

the Academy sites had higher densities 

of both grasses and shrubs. It is likely 

that PMJM abundance is not driven by 

the diversity of plant species alone, but 

by the density and abundance of 

riparian vegetation (Schorr 2001, p. 26). 

The PMJM has rarely been trapped in 

uplands adjacent to riparian areas 

(Dharman 2001, pp. 19-20). However, in 

detailed studies of PMJM movement 

patterns using radio-telemetry, the 

PMJM has been found feeding and 

resting in adjacent uplands (Shenk and 

Sivert 1999a, pp. 11-12; Ryon 1999, p. 

12; Schorr 2001, pp. 14-15). These 

studies suggest that the PMJM uses 

uplands at least as far out as 330 ft (100 

m) beyond the 100-year floodplain 

(Shenk and Sivert 1999b, p. 11; Ryon 

1999, p. 12; Schorr 2001, p. 14; Service 

2003a, p. 26; Shenk 2004). These upland 

habitats also assist in maintaining the 

integrity of riparian habitats by 

protecting them from disturbance and 

supporting normal hydrological 

functions of rivers, streams, and 

floodplains. 

The PMJM constructs day nests 

composed of grasses, forbs, sedges, 

rushes, and other available plant 

material. They may be globular in shape 

or simply raised mats of litter and are 

most commonly above ground but also 

can be below ground. They are typically 

found under debris at the base of shrubs 

and trees or in open grasslands (Ryon 

2001, p. 377). An individual mouse can 

have multiple day nests in both riparian 

and grassland communities (Shenk and 

Sivert 1999a, pp. 10-12) and may 

abandon a nest after approximately a 

week of use (Ryon 2001, p. 377). 

Apparent hibernacula (hibernation 

nests) of the PMJM have been located 

both within and outside of the 100-year 

floodplain of streams (Shenk and Sivert 

1999a, pp. 12-13; Schorr 2001, pp. 14- 

15). Those hibernating outside of the 

100-year floodplain would likely be less 

vulnerable to flood-related mortality. 

Fifteen apparent PMJM hibernacula 

have been located through radiotelemetry, all within 335 ft (102 m) of 

a perennial stream bed or intermittent 

tributary (Shenk and Sivert 1999a, p. 12; 

Schorr 2001, p. 28; Ruggles et al. 2003, 

p. 19). Apparent hibernacula have been 

located under Salix shrubs, Prunus 

virginiana (chokecherry), 

Symphoricarpos albus (snowberry), 

Rhus trilobata (skunkbrush), Rhus spp. 

(sumac), Clematis spp. (clematis), 

Populus spp. (cottonwood), Quercus 

gambelii (Gambel’s oak), Cirsium spp. 

(thistle), and Alyssum spp. (alyssum) 

(Shenk and Sivert 1999a, pp. 12-13). At 

the Academy, four of six apparent 

hibernacula found by radio-telemetry 

were located in close proximity to Salix 

exigua (coyote willow) (Schorr 2001, p. 

28). 

Flooding is a common and natural 

event in the riparian systems in 

southeastern Wyoming and along the 

Front Range of Colorado. This periodic 

flooding helps create a dense vegetative 

community by stimulating resprouting 

from Salix shrubs, and allows herbs and 

grasses to take advantage of newly 

deposited soil. Fire is also a natural 

component of the Colorado Front Range, 

and PMJM habitat naturally waxes and 

wanes with fire events. Within 

shrubland and forest, intensive fire may 

result in adverse impacts to PMJM 

populations. However, in a review of 

the effects of grassland fires on small 

mammals, Kaufman et al. (1990, p. 55) 

found a positive effect of fire on the 

meadow jumping mouse in one study 

and no effect of fire on the species in 

another study. 

The tolerance of the PMJM for 

invasive exotic plant species is not well 

understood. Whether or not exotic plant 

species reduce PMJM persistence at a 

site may be due in large part to whether 

plants create a monoculture and replace 

native species. The Preble’s Meadow 

Jumping Mouse Recovery Team 

(Recovery Team) was particularly 

concerned about nonnative species such 

as Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge) that 

may form a monoculture, displacing 

native vegetation and thus reducing 

available habitat (Service 2003a, p. 13). 

Previous Federal Actions 

For information on previous Federal 

actions concerning the PMJM, refer to 

the final listing rule published in the 

Federal Register on May 13, 1998 (63 

FR 26517), the final rule designating 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52069 

critical habitat for the PMJM in portions 

of Colorado and Wyoming published in 

the Federal Register on June 23, 2003 

(68 FR 37275), and the final rule to 

amend the listing for the PMJM to 

specify over what portion of its range 

the subspecies is threatened, published 

in the Federal Register on July 10, 2008 

(73 FR 39789). 

On July 17, 2002, we proposed critical 

(67 FR 47154) and on June 23, 2003, we 

published a final rule designating 

critical habitat for the PMJM. On August 

22, 2003, the City of Greeley filed a 

complaint in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Colorado challenging our 

designation of critical habitat for the 

PMJM (City of Greeley, Colorado v. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

et al., Case No. 03–CV–01607–AP). On 

December 9, 2003, the Mountain States 

Legal Foundation filed a complaint in 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Wyoming challenging our 1998 listing 

of the PMJM and designation of critical 

habitat for the PMJM (Mountain States 

Legal Foundation v. Gale E. Norton et 

al., Case No. 03-cv-250-J) that was later 

expanded that complaint to include our 

2008 final determination on the PMJM 

and transferred it to the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Colorado 

(Mountain States Legal Foundation v. 

Ken Salazar et al., Case No. 1:08-cv2775-JLK). These lawsuits challenged 

the validity of the information and 

reasoning we used to designate critical 

habitat for the PMJM. 

On July 20, 2007, we announced that 

we would review the June 23, 2003, 

final rule designating critical habitat 

after questions were raised about the 

integrity of scientific information we 

used and whether the decision we made 

was consistent with the appropriate 

legal standards (Service 2007a). Based 

on our review of the previous critical 

habitat designation, we have determined 

that it is necessary to revise critical 

habitat, and this rule proposes those 

revisions. 

On July 10, 2008, we amended the 

final rule for the PMJM to specify over 

what portion of its range the subspecies 

is threatened (73 FR 39789), and 

determined that the listing of the PMJM 

is limited to the Significant Portion of 

the Range (SPR) in Colorado. Upon that 

determination, all critical habitat 

designated in 2003 in the State of 

Wyoming was removed from the 

regulations of 50 CFR 17.95 for this 

species. 

On April 16, 2009, we reached a 

settlement agreement with the City of 

Greeley in which we agreed to 

reconsider our critical habitat 

designation for the PMJM. The 

settlement stipulated that we submit to 

the Federal Register a proposed rule for 

revised critical habitat by September 30, 

2009, and a final rule for revised critical 

habitat by September 30, 2010 (U.S. 

District Court, District of Colorado 

2009a). On June 16, 2009, an order was 

issued granting Mountain States Legal 

Foundation a motion to dismiss their 

claims on the 1998 listing and 2008 

final determination without prejudice, 

and stayed their challenge to the 2003 

critical habitat designation pursuant to 

the City of Greeley settlement (U.S. 

District Court, District of Colorado 

2009b). 

Recovery Planning 

Restoring an endangered or 

threatened species to the point where it 

is recovered is a primary goal of our 

endangered species program. To help 

guide the recovery effort, we prepare 

recovery plans for listed species native 

to the United States. Recovery plans 

describe actions considered necessary 

for conservation of the species, establish 

criteria for downlisting or delisting the 

species, and estimate time and cost for 

implementing the recovery measures 

needed. 

In early 2000, we established the 

Recovery Team under section 4(f)(2) of 

the Act and our cooperative policy on 

recovery plan participation, a policy 

intended to involve stakeholders in 

recovery planning (59 FR 34272, July 1, 

1994). Stakeholder involvement in the 

development of recovery plans helps 

minimize the social and economic 

impacts that could be associated with 

recovery of endangered species. Various 

stakeholders were represented on the 

Recovery Team, and other public 

participation (including oral comments 

at Recovery Team meetings and written 

comments on the early drafts of the 

recovery plan) took place. The Recovery 

Team prepared a series of drafts of a 

recovery plan for the PMJM. They 

identify the criteria for reaching 

recovery and delisting of the PMJM. Our 

June 23, 2003, final rule to designate 

critical habitat (68 FR 37275) cited the 

draft recovery plan dated March 11, 

2003, which we refer to as the Working 

Draft (Prebles Recovery Team 2003). 

The 2003 rule and the conservation 

strategy that supported it were 

developed incorporating information 

from the Working Draft. We revised this 

Working Draft in November 2003 and 

released it to the public (http:// 

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ 

mammals/preble/ 

Nov2003DraftRecoveryPlan.pdf). This 

version is hereafter referred to as the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan (or 

Plan) (Service 2003a). 

For various reasons, primarily the 

prolonged evaluation undertaken in 

response to 2003 petitions to delist the 

PMJM, a draft recovery plan for the 

PMJM has not yet been finalized or 

issued for public comment. However, 

after inactivity from 2004 to 2009, the 

Recovery Team was reconvened and has 

initiated a review and update of the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan. Recent 

Recovery Team review has largely 

reaffirmed the conservation strategies 

that were the basis of the Preliminary 

Draft Recovery Plan and that review is 

considered in this proposal. A draft 

recovery plan, once completed, will be 

published in the Federal Register, will 

be available for public comments, and 

will provide an additional venue for 

stakeholder and public participation. 

However, a final recovery plan is not 

a regulatory document (recovery plans 

are advisory documents because there 

are no specific protections, prohibitions, 

or requirements afforded to a species 

solely on the basis of a recovery plan) 

and does not obligate or commit parties 

to the actions or determination of the 

plans. Total disclosure and open 

communication with the public of our 

thoughts regarding possible future 

recovery scenarios are essential parts of 

recovery planning. Public review, peer 

review, and stakeholder involvement 

are also essential aspects of recovery 

planning, and are required by the Act 

and by Service policy. For these 

reasons, decisions we make in 

designation of critical habitat will not 

preclude determination or decisions in 

any aspect of recovery planning. 

Therefore, determinations of recovery 

strategies, criteria, or tasks within the 

recovery plan will not be limited by this 

proposed revision of critical habitat. 

Summary of Proposed Changes to 

Previously Designated Critical Habitat 

The areas identified in this proposed 

rule constitute a proposed revision from 

the areas we designated as critical 

habitat for the PMJM on June 23, 2003 

(68 FR 37275) and amended on July 10, 

2008 (73 FR 39789). This proposed rule 

addresses only the PMJM in the SPR in 

Colorado. The differences include the 

following: 

(1) We propose to include in critical 

habitat specific areas that were excluded 

under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and 

that were identified in our 2003 critical 

habitat designation. The 2003 

designation of critical habitat for the 

PMJM in the SPR in Colorado comprises 

5 units totaling 234 mi (377 km) of 

stream corridors. This proposed revision 

includes 11 units comprising a total of 

418 mi (674 km) of stream corridors 

currently considered essential to the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52070 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

conservation of the PMJM. The six 

additional units (Cedar Creek, South 

Boulder Creek, Rocky Flats NWR, 

Cherry Creek, West Plum Creek, and 

Monument Creek) were all proposed as 

critical habitat in the same or similar 

form on July 17, 2002 (67 FR 47154), but 

were not included in the 2003 final 

designation. 

(2) We propose as critical habitat 

lands addressed in the Denver Water 

HCP (Service 2003b) that were excluded 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in our 

2003 final designation. 

(3) In Table 1, we provide a 

comparison between our 2003 final 

critical habitat designation and this 

proposed revised critical habitat rule. 

TABLE 1. EXISTING AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE

by Stream Miles (Kilometers) and Acres (Hectares) per Unit. 

UNIT EXISTING PROPOSED 

1. N. Fork, Cache la Poudre River 88 mi (142 km) 

8,206 ac (3,321 ha)*

88 mi (142 km) 

8,619 ac (3,488 ha) 

2. Cache la Poudre River 51 mi (82 km) 

4,725 ac (1,912 ha)*

51mi (82 km) 

4,944 ac (2,001 ha) 

3. Buckhorn Creek 43 mi (69 km)*

3,798 ac (1,537 ha)*

46 mi (73 km) 

3,995 ac (1,617 ha) 

4. Cedar Creek 0 8 mi (12 km) 

668 ac (270 ha) 

5. South Boulder Creek 0 8 mi (12 km) 

856 ac (347 ha) 

6. Rocky Flats NWR 0 13 mi (20 km) 

1,108 ac (449 ha) 

7. Ralston Creek 8 mi (13 km)*

686 ac (277 ha)*

9 mi (14 km) 

809 ac (328 ha) 

8. Cherry Creek 0 30 mi (48 km) 

2,647 ac (1,071 ha) 

9. West Plum Creek 0 94 mi (151 km) 

8,724 ac (3,530 ha) 

10. Upper South Platte River 44 mi (71 km)**

3,265 ac (1,321 ha)*

35 mi (57 km) 

3,353 ac ( 1,357 ha) 

11. Monument Creek 0 39 mi. (62 km) 

3,419 ac (1,383 ha) 

Total 234 mi (377 km) 

20,680 ac (8,368 ha) 

418 mi (674 km) 

39,142 ac (15,840 ha) 

* Changes from existing to proposed result only from corrected errors (imprecise measurements) from 2003 designated critical habitat totals. 

** Changes from existing to proposed due to a significant error in 2003 designated critical habitat totals. 

(4) The following is a list of the areas 

added or enlarged in this proposed 

revision to critical habitat designation as 

compared to our 2003 critical habitat 

designation, and an explanation of why 

these areas are being considered. 

Unit 4: We proposed the Cedar Creek 

Unit as critical habitat in 2002 based on 

presence of jumping mice thought to be 

the PMJM, but excluded it from final 

designation in 2003 due to lack of 

confirmed identification to species of 

those jumping mice captured. We now 

consider this unit occupied by the 

PMJM and are proposing it as critical 

habitat. This determination is based on 

the elevation (lower than 6,000 ft (1,829 

m)) of jumping mouse captures and 

confirmation of the PMJM elsewhere in 

this subdrainage (Service 2009). It is 

consistent with our July 10, 2008, final 

rule to amend the listing for the PMJM 

(73 FR 39789). 

Units 5, 8, 9, and 11: We proposed 

these units as critical habitat in 2002 but 

excluded them from final designation in 

2003 based on HCPs under development 

in Boulder, Douglas, and El Paso 

Counties. We propose these units as 

critical habitat in this rule and will 

review them for possible exclusion, 

where appropriate, under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act for our final designation. This 

proposal includes small changes from 

the 2002 proposal to Units 9 and 11, and 

a more substantial change to Unit 8 

based on reevaluation of certain stream 

reaches. 

Unit 6: We proposed this unit on 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) as critical habitat in 2002 but 

excluded it from final designation in 

2003 based on Federal ownership by the 

Department of Energy (DOE) and 

pending transfer of the site to the 

Service as Rocky Flats NWR. We 

propose this unit as critical habitat in 

this rule and will consider it for 

possible exclusion from our final 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

Units 7 and 10: In our 2003 

designation, we excluded small portions 

of these Units from critical habitat based 

on the Denver Water HCP under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. The portions we 

previously excluded we again propose 

as critical habitat. We will review these 

specific areas, along with other lands we 

proposed as critical habitat included in 

the Denver Water HCP, under section 

4(b)(2) of the Act prior to our final 

designation. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52071 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features: 

(a) essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(b) that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by a species 

at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided under the Act 

are no longer necessary. Such methods 

and procedures include, but are not 

limited to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management, such 

as research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, 

transplantation, and (in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot otherwise be relieved) regulated 

taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act through 

the prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires consultation on Federal actions 

that may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

private landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the 

event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the landowner’s 

obligation is not to restore or recover the 

species, but to implement reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing must 

contain physical and biological features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species, and be included only if 

those features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific data available, habitat 

areas that provide essential life cycle 

needs of the species (i.e., areas on which 

are found the primary constituent 

elements (PCEs) laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement essential to the 

conservation of the species). Under the 

Act, we can designate critical habitat in 

areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it is 

listed as critical habitat only when we 

determine that those areas are essential 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the Act 

(published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the 

Information Quality Act (Section 515 of 

the Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines (Service 2007b) provide 

criteria, establish procedures, and 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is often dynamic, and species 

may move from one area to another over 

time. Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all habitat areas that we may 

eventually determine are necessary for 

the recovery of the species, based on 

scientific data not now available. For 

these reasons, a critical habitat 

designation does not signal that habitat 

outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not promote the 

recovery of the species. 

Areas that support occurrences, 

whether they are inside or outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to conservation 

actions we implement under section 

7(a)(1) of the Act. They also are subject 

to the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available scientific information at the 

time of the agency action. Federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species, whether inside or outside 

designated critical habitat areas, may 

still result in jeopardy findings in some 

cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, HCPs, or other species 

conservation planning efforts, if new 

information available to these planning 

efforts require a different outcome. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

of the Act and the regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), in determining which areas 

occupied at the time of listing to 

propose as critical habitat, we consider 

the physical and biological features that 

are essential to the conservation of the 

species to be the PCEs laid out in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement for conservation of the 

species. In general, PCEs include, but 

are not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historic, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derive the PCEs required for the 

PMJM from its biological needs. The 

area proposed for designation as revised 

critical habitat provides riparian and 

adjacent upland habitat for the PMJM, 

including those habitat components 

essential for the biological needs of 

reproduction, rearing of young, foraging, 

sheltering, hibernation, dispersal, and 

genetic exchange. The PMJM is able to 

live and reproduce in and near riparian 

areas located within grassland, 

shrubland, forest, and mixed vegetation 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52072 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

types where dense herbaceous or woody 

vegetation occurs near the ground level, 

where available open water normally 

exists during their active season, and 

where there are ample upland habitats 

of sufficient width and quality for 

foraging, hibernation, and refugia from 

catastrophic flooding events. While 

Salix (willow) in shrub form is a 

dominant component in many riparian 

habitats occupied by the PMJM, the 

structure of the vegetation appears more 

important to the PMJM than species 

composition (Schorr 2001, p. 26). 

The PCEs associated with the 

biological needs of dispersal and genetic 

exchange also are found in areas that 

provide connectivity or linkage between 

or within PMJM populations. These 

areas may not include the habitat 

components listed above and may have 

experienced substantial human 

alteration or disturbance. 

The dynamic ecological processes that 

create and maintain PMJM habitat also 

are important PCEs. Habitat components 

essential to the PMJM are found in and 

near those areas where past and present 

geomorphological and hydrological 

processes have shaped streams, rivers, 

and floodplains, and have created 

conditions that support appropriate 

vegetative communities. PMJM habitat 

is maintained over time along rivers and 

streams by a natural flooding regime (or 

one sufficiently corresponding to a 

natural regime) that periodically scours 

riparian vegetation; reworks stream 

channels, floodplains, and benches; and 

redistributes sediments such that a 

pattern of appropriate vegetation is 

present along river and stream edges, 

and throughout their floodplains. 

Periodic disturbance of riparian areas 

sets back succession and promotes 

dense, low-growing shrubs and lush 

herbaceous vegetation favorable to the 

PMJM. Where flows are controlled to 

preclude a natural pattern and other 

disturbance is limited, a less favorable 

mature successional stage of vegetation 

dominated by cottonwoods or other 

trees may develop. The long-term 

availability of habitat components 

favored by the PMJM also depends on 

plant succession and impacts of 

drought, fires, windstorms, herbivory, 

and other natural events. In some cases, 

these naturally occurring ecological 

processes are modified or are 

supplanted by human land uses that 

include manipulation of water flow and 

of vegetation. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the life history, biology, and ecology of 

the PMJM, and the requirements of the 

habitat to sustain the essential life 

history functions of the species, we have 

determined that the PCEs specific to the 

PMJM are: 

(1) Riparian corridors: 

(A) Formed and maintained by 

normal, dynamic, geomorphological, 

and hydrological processes that create 

and maintain river and stream channels, 

floodplains, and floodplain benches and 

promote patterns of vegetation favorable 

to the PMJM; 

(B) Containing dense, riparian 

vegetation consisting of grasses, forbs, or 

shrubs, or any combination thereof, in 

areas along rivers and streams that 

normally provide open water through 

the PMJM’s active season; and 

(C) Including specific movement 

corridors that provide connectivity 

between and within populations. This 

may include river and stream reaches 

with minimal vegetative cover or that 

are armored for erosion control; travel 

ways beneath bridges, through culverts, 

along canals and ditches; and other 

areas that have experienced substantial 

human alteration or disturbance; and 

(2) Additional adjacent floodplain and 

upland habitat with limited human 

disturbance (including hayed fields, 

grazed pasture, other agricultural lands 

that are not plowed or disked regularly, 

areas that have been restored after past 

aggregate extraction, areas supporting 

recreational trails, and urban–wildland 

interfaces). 

Existing human-created features and 

structures within the boundaries of the 

mapped units, such as buildings, roads, 

parking lots, other paved areas, 

manicured lawns, other urban and 

suburban landscaped areas, regularly 

plowed or disked agricultural areas, and 

other features not containing any of the 

PCEs would not be considered critical 

habitat if this proposal is adopted. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the occupied areas 

contain the physical and biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and 

whether these features may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. 

The area proposed for designation as 

revised critical habitat will require some 

level of management to address the 

current and future threats to the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

PMJM. In all proposed units, special 

management considerations or 

protection of the essential features may 

be required to provide for the sustained 

function of the riparian corridors on 

which the PMJM depends. 

The PMJM is closely associated with 

riparian ecosystems that are relatively 

narrow and represent a small percentage 

of the landscape. We consider the 

decline in the extent and quality of 

PMJM habitat to be the main factor 

threatening the subspecies (63 FR 

26517, May 13, 1998; Hafner et al. 1998, 

pp. 121-123; Shenk 1998, pp. 24-27). 

Special management considerations and 

protection may be required to address 

the threats of habitat alteration, 

degradation, loss, and fragmentation 

resulting from urban development, flood 

control, water development, agriculture, 

and other human land uses that have 

adversely impacted PMJM populations. 

Habitat destruction may affect the PMJM 

directly or by destroying nest sites, food 

resources, and hibernation sites; by 

disrupting behavior; or by forming a 

barrier to movement. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

In this proposed designation of 

revised critical habitat we have 

identified specific areas that include 

only river and stream reaches, and their 

adjacent floodplains and uplands, that 

are within the known geographic and 

elevational range of the PMJM, that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the PMJM. Further, the 

areas included in proposed critical 

habitat contain at least one of the 

requisite PCEs, and are currently 

occupied by the PMJM or provide 

crucial opportunities for connectivity to 

facilitate dispersal and genetic 

exchange. 

This proposed critical habitat 

designation identifies only the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement of the requisite PCEs that 

we have determined to be essential to 

the conservation of the subspecies. We 

determined that there are more areas 

currently occupied by the PMJM than 

are necessary to conserve the subspecies 

within the SPR in Colorado. We base 

this on the known occurrence and 

distribution of the PMJM (Service 2009) 

and upon the conservation strategy in 

the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan, 

which indicates that when specified 

criteria are met for a subset of existing 

populations throughout the range of the 

PMJM, the subspecies can be delisted 

(Service 2003a, p. 19). To recover the 

PMJM to the point where it can be 

delisted, the Preliminary Draft Recovery 

Plan identifies the need for a specified 

number, size, and distribution of wild, 

self-sustaining PMJM populations across 

the known range of the PMJM. On the 

basis of the above criteria, we have 

chosen a subset of the areas occupied by 

the PMJM within the SPR in Colorado 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52073 

that have the physical and biological 

features essential to the PMJM for 

inclusion in the proposed critical 

habitat. 

We only consider including 

unoccupied areas within critical habitat 

designations if they are essential to the 

conservation of the species, and we 

determine that we cannot conserve the 

species by only including occupied 

areas in the critical habitat . Because we 

have determined that the conservation 

of the PMJM can be achieved through 

the designation of currently occupied 

lands, we find that no unoccupied areas 

are essential at this time. The subspecies 

was listed primarily due to the threat of 

impending development to the existing 

remaining habitat for the species within 

the Front Range of Colorado. We have 

determined that recovery of the 

subspecies can be achieved by 

protecting a subset of the currently 

occupied habitat from the threat of 

development. Recolonization of former 

parts of the range, while beneficial to 

the subspecies, is not currently believed 

to be necessary to conserve the species 

in the long-term. 

In selecting areas of proposed critical 

habitat, we made an effort to avoid 

developed areas that are not likely to 

contribute to PMJM conservation. Our 

mapping incorporates the best scientific 

information available, but is limited in 

scale by our technical capabilities and 

the time available to us in under our 

settlement agreement with the City of 

Greeley (U.S. District Court, District of 

Colorado 2009a). 

Available Information 

Our June 23, 2003, final rule 

designating critical habitat for the PMJM 

(68 FR 37275) cited the March 11, 2003, 

Working Draft of a recovery plan for the 

PMJM (Preble’s Recovery Team 2003) 

and the concepts described within the 

Working Draft as a source of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

on the PMJM. For this proposal, we rely 

heavily on the information, concepts, 

and conservation recommendations 

contained in the Working Draft and the 

slightly modified Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a), as well 

as the current efforts of the newly 

formed Recovery Team. We use these as 

a starting point for identifying those 

areas for inclusion in critical habitat 

that contain the requisite PCEs in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement that are essential for the 

conservation of the PMJM. The 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan is 

based on the work of scientists and 

stakeholders who met regularly over a 

period of more than three years. The 

plan was developed by incorporating 

principles of conservation biology and 

all available knowledge regarding the 

PMJM. Recovery Team meetings were 

open to the public, and drafts of the 

Plan were discussed in public meetings 

held in Colorado and Wyoming. We 

forwarded a draft of the Preliminary 

Draft Recovery Plan to species experts 

for review and their comments 

(Armstrong 2003; Hafner 2003) were 

considered prior to the Preliminary 

Draft Recovery Plan being made 

available on the Service website. 

We also have incorporated all new 

information received since 2003, 

including: 

• Data in reports submitted by 

researchers holding recovery permits 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act; 

•Research published in peer-reviewed 

articles and presented in academic 

theses, agency reports, and unpublished 

data; and 

• Various Geographic Information 

System (GIS) data layers and cover type 

information, including land ownership 

information, topographic information, 

locations of the PMJM obtained from 

radio-collars, and locations of the PMJM 

confirmed to species via 

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis, 

morphological analysis, and other 

verified records. 

We received information from 

Federal, State, and local governmental 

agencies, and from academia and 

private organizations that have collected 

scientific data on the PMJM. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

identifies specific criteria for reaching 

recovery and the delisting of the PMJM. 

An important change since our 2003 

designation of critical habitat was the 

2008 final rule limiting the listing of the 

PMJM to the SPR in Colorado. The 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

identified areas as necessary for 

recovery throughout the range of the 

PMJM, including areas in Wyoming 

where the PMJM was listed at the time. 

Identified areas within the PMJM SPR in 

Colorado were based on the best 

available information and continue to 

reflect our best judgment of what we 

believe to be necessary for recovery. 

While elements of the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan may change prior to 

finalization of a recovery plan, our 

recent review of the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan and the recent Recovery 

Team review leads us to conclude that 

the concepts described within it 

continue to represent the best scientific 

and commercial data available regarding 

steps needed for the recovery of the 

PMJM. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

provides a review of conservation 

biology theory regarding population 

viability (Service 2003a, p. 21). To 

recover the PMJM to the point where it 

can be delisted, the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan identifies the need for a 

specified number, size, and distribution 

of wild, self-sustaining PMJM 

populations across the known range of 

the PMJM. It defines large populations 

as maintaining 2,500 mice and usually 

including at least 50 mi (80 km) of rivers 

and streams. It defines medium 

populations as maintaining 500 mice 

and usually including at least 10 mi (16 

km) of rivers and streams. The average 

number of PMJM per stream mile was 

derived from site-specific studies and 

used to approximate minimum 

occupied stream miles required to 

support recovery populations of 

appropriate size (Service 2003a, p. 21). 

The distribution of these recovery 

populations is intended both to reduce 

the risk of multiple PMJM populations 

being negatively affected by natural or 

manmade events at any one time, and to 

preserve the existing genetic variation 

within the PMJM. The Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan states, ‘‘species welldistributed across their historical range 

are less susceptible to extinction and 

more likely to reach recovery than 

species confined to a small portion of 

their range.’’ The document also states 

that ‘‘spreading the recovery 

populations across hydrologic units 

throughout the range of the subspecies 

also preserves the greatest amount of the 

remaining genetic variation, and may 

provide some genetic security to the 

range-wide population’’ (Service 2003a, 

p. 20). The Preliminary Draft Recovery 

Plan emphasizes the value of retaining 

disjunct or peripheral populations that 

may be important to recovery (Lomolino 

and Channell 1995, p. 481) and may 

have diverged genetically from more 

central populations due to isolation, 

genetic drift, and adaptation to local 

environments (Lesica and Allendorf 

1995, pp. 754-755). 

While the Preliminary Draft Recovery 

Plan addresses the entire range of the 

PMJM, the SPR in Colorado where the 

PMJM remains listed includes multiple 

subdrainages that are addressed 

individually in the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan (Figure 1). Within 

Colorado, the Plan identifies recovery 

criteria for the two major river drainages 

where the PMJM occurs (the South 

Platte River drainage and the Arkansas 

River drainage), and for each 

subdrainage judged likely to support the 

PMJM. In some cases, the Plan identifies 

recovery criteria for subdrainages where 

limited trapping has not confirmed the 

presence of the PMJM. Boundaries of 

drainages and subdrainages have been 

mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52074 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(USGS). For the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan, 8-digit hydrologic unit 

(HUC) boundaries were selected to 

define subdrainages. A total of 13 HUCs 

in the SPR of PMJM in Colorado are 

identified in the Plan as occupied or 

potentially occupied by the PMJM. Ten 

are identified in the South Platte River 

drainage and three in the Arkansas 

River drainage. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52075 

One issue recently reviewed by the 

Recovery Team was whether the 

conservation strategy that specified the 

number, size, and distribution of PMJM 

recovery populations in Colorado 

remained valid despite the removal of 

the Wyoming portion of PMJM’s range 

from listing. In Colorado, the strategy is 

to establish at least three large 

populations and three medium 

populations spread over six 

subdrainages. Recovery of the PMJM 

would require these populations to be 

protected from threats. Additionally, the 

Plan suggests establishing at least three 

small populations or one medium 

population in seven other subdrainages, 

if the PMJM is present. Another issue 

raised was whether the strategy required 

modification based on DNA testing that 

revealed that the PMJM in northern and 

southern areas of the subspecies’ range 

(Wyoming and Larimer County in 

Colorado vs. Douglas and El Paso 

Counties in Colorado) exhibited 

significant genetic differences (King et 

al. 2006, pp. 4337-4338). The Recovery 

Team concluded that the previous 

strategy adequately addresses recovery 

across the PMJM’s range in Colorado 

(Jackson 2009). The Recovery Team 

noted that recovery populations were 

appropriately spread north and south of 

the Denver metropolitan area, which 

lies between northern and southern 

populations examined in the King et al. 

(2006) study (Jackson 2009). 

Biological Factors 

Presence of the PMJM was determined 

based largely on the results of trapping 

surveys, the vast majority of which were 

conducted in the 11 years since listing 

under the Act. Consistent with our July 

10, 2008, final rule to amend the listing 

for the PMJM (73 FR 39789), 

subdrainages judged to be occupied by 

the PMJM in Colorado include those 

that: (1) Have recently been documented 

to support jumping mice identified by 

genetic or morphological examination as 

the PMJM; or (2) have recently been 

documented to support jumping mice 

not identified to species but occurring at 

elevations below 6,700 ft (2,050 m), 

where western jumping mice have 

infrequently been documented. In our 

July 17, 2002, proposal (67 FR 47154) 

and our June 23, 2003, designation of 

critical habitat (68 FR 37275), we 

summarized trapping results and means 

of positive identification for each unit. 

We have limited discussion in this 

proposal. See our 2003 rule designating 

critical habitat and our 2008 final rule 

to amend the listing for the PMJM for 

more information on our determinations 

regarding presence of the PMJM in 

various subdrainages. 

Boundaries of some critical habitat 

units extend beyond capture locations 

only to include those reaches that we 

believe to be occupied by the PMJM 

based on the best scientific data 

available regarding capture sites, the 

known mobility of the PMJM, and the 

quality and continuity of habitat 

components along stream reaches. 

Where appropriate, we include details 

on the known status of the PMJM within 

specific subdrainages in the Proposed 

Revised Critical Habitat Designation 

section of this proposal. 

Despite numerous surveys, the PMJM 

has not been found in the Denver 

metropolitan area since well before its 

1998 listing and is believed to be 

extirpated from much of the Front 

Range urban corridor as a result of 

extensive urban development. The area 

does not support the spatial 

arrangement and quantity of requisite 

PCEs to support PMJM populations, 

and, as a consequence, we have 

determined that this area does not 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. Therefore, 

this area is not included in this 

proposed critical habitat designation. 

Additional Factors Considered 

Based on the draft recovery plan , we 

believe that we can achieve 

conservation of the PMJM with only a 

subset of areas currently occupied or 

containing essential features. To 

identify the specific subset of areas for 

inclusion in the proposed critical 

habitat, we considered several 

qualitative criteria in addition to the 

presence of the PCEs. These criteria 

were used to judge the current status, 

conservation needs, and probable 

persistence of the essential features and 

of PMJM populations in specific areas 

and included: (1) the quality, 

continuity, and extent of habitat 

components present; (2) the presence of 

lands devoted to conservation (either 

public lands such as parks, wildlife 

management areas, and dedicated open 

space, or private lands under 

conservation easements); and (3) the 

landscape context of the site, including 

the overall degree of current human 

disturbance and presence, and 

likelihood of future development based 

on local planning and zoning. 

Where possible, given all other 

criteria being comparable, and the 

specific areas meeting the definition of 

critical habitat under section 3 of the 

Act (in that they are within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species and contain features essential to 

the conservation of the species which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection), we 

evaluated land ownership as a selection 

criterion for inclusion in proposed 

critical habitat. We first selected Federal 

lands where effective land management 

strategies can be employed by Federal 

agencies to conserve PMJM populations. 

Federal agencies already have an 

affirmative conservation mandate under 

the Act to contribute to the conservation 

of listed species. Therefore, we find that 

federally owned lands are more likely to 

meet the requirements for recovery of 

the species than private lands that are 

not subject to the Act’s affirmative 

conservation mandate. However, we 

cannot depend solely on federally 

owned lands for proposed critical 

habitat, as these lands are limited in 

geographic location, size, and habitat 

quality within the range of the PMJM. In 

addition to the federally owned lands, 

we selected some non-Federal public 

lands, including lands owned by the 

State of Colorado and by local 

governments, and privately owned 

lands. 

This proposed designation of revised 

critical habitat in Colorado includes six 

units designed to support three large 

and three medium PMJM recovery 

populations, corresponding to those 

designated in the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan. While the Preliminary 

Draft Recovery Plan designates the 

approximate location of these large and 

medium recovery populations, it does 

not delineate specific boundaries. In 

addition, the Plan identifies seven other 

HUCs within the PMJM’s range in 

Colorado, where a large or medium 

recovery population is not designated. 

In these seven additional HUCs, the 

Plan suggests establishing three small 

recovery populations (including at least 

3 mi (5 km) of rivers or streams) or one 

medium recovery population in each, 

except for those HUCs which, when 

adequately surveyed, are without an 

existing PMJM population. The Plan 

does not identify the locations of 

recovery populations within these 

remaining seven HUCs. In this proposed 

designation of revised critical habitat, 

we are not proposing critical habitat 

units corresponding to Plan 

requirements in all of these remaining 

seven HUCs. In some, occurrence or 

distribution of PMJM populations is 

largely unknown; in others the quality, 

continuity, and extent of physical and 

biological features essential to the PMJM 

are lacking. Designating critical habitat 

in each of these remaining HUCs is not 

necessary to provide for the 

conservation of the subspecies. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

anticipates that, in the future, the 

locations of these remaining recovery 

populations will be designated and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52076 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

specific boundaries of all recovery 

populations (large, medium, and small) 

will be delineated by State and local 

governments, and other interested 

parties, working in coordination with 

us. In contrast to the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan, this proposed revised 

designation of critical habitat must 

delineate specific boundaries for all 

critical habitat areas proposed in order 

to meet the requirements of the Act and 

our implementing regulations. As a 

result, any future recovery plan 

developed for the PMJM may designate 

recovery populations or delineate their 

boundaries in a manner inconsistent 

with the critical habitat units we 

propose. This is likely to occur if future 

information changes our understanding 

of the distribution of PMJM populations. 

In some HUCs identified in the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan, little is 

known regarding the status of the 

PMJM. For example, PMJM has not been 

confirmed to occur in the Crow Creek, 

Lone Tree, and Bijou HUCs within the 

South Platte River drainage in Colorado 

or the Big Sandy HUC in the Arkansas 

River drainage. If the PMJM is not 

present, designation of recovery 

populations in these HUCs may not be 

warranted, and these HUCS may be 

deleted from any future recovery plan. 

We do not believe that these areas 

contain features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species, so we are 

not proposing critical habitat within 

these four HUCs. We have determined 

that we can meet the statutory 

requirements of critical habitat by 

proposing a subset of lands that contain 

the PCEs essential to the conservation of 

the PMJM. 

The conservation strategy employed 

in the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

emphasizes the importance of protecting 

additional PMJM populations beyond 

those designated as recovery 

populations, to provide insurance for 

the PMJM in the event that designated 

recovery populations cannot be 

effectively managed or protected as 

envisioned, or are decimated by rare but 

uncontrollable events such as 

catastrophic fires or flooding. The Plan 

recommends directing recovery efforts 

toward public lands rather than private 

lands where possible, and calls upon all 

Federal agencies to protect and manage 

for the PMJM wherever it occurs on 

Federal lands. For this reason, we 

prioritized inclusion of Federal lands 

where possible. However, Federal lands 

alone cannot fully provide for the 

conservation of the species. Therefore, 

we included some non-Federal lands 

when we found those lands contained 

the PCEs in the appropriate quantity 

and spatial arrangement to provide the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We believe that the designation 

of areas of critical habitat outside of 

those areas identified for recovery 

populations on Federal land is essential 

for the conservation of the PMJM. 

Should unforeseen events cause the 

continued decline of PMJM populations 

throughout its range, PMJM populations 

and the PCEs on which they depend are 

more likely to persist and remain viable 

on Federal lands, where consistent and 

effective land management strategies 

can be more easily employed. These 

additional PMJM populations on 

Federal lands could serve as substitute 

recovery populations should designated 

recovery populations decline or fail to 

meet recovery goals. In addition, some 

PMJM populations on Federal lands 

have been the subject of ongoing 

research that could prove vital to the 

conservation of the PMJM. Therefore, in 

addition to proposing critical habitat for 

sites consistent with those listed in the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan, we 

reviewed other sites of PMJM 

occurrence, especially Federal lands, 

and are proposing certain additional 

units for designation as critical habitat 

that include the requisite PCEs and are 

known to support the PMJM. 

Based on this conservation strategy, 

we propose to designate critical habitat 

preferentially on certain Federal lands 

that support required PCEs in the 

appropriate spatial arrangement and 

quantity and are occupied by the PMJM, 

where Federal property extends along 

stream reaches at least 3 mi (5 km). This 

length corresponds to the minimum size 

of small recovery populations as defined 

by the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan. 

These areas of proposed critical habitat 

may include intervening non-Federal 

lands that in some cases support all 

PCEs needed by the PMJM or, if 

fragmented by human development, 

contain at least one of the PCEs and are 

at least likely to provide connectivity 

between areas of PMJM habitat on 

adjacent Federal lands. 

Revisions to the critical habitat 

designation may be necessary in the 

future to accommodate shifts in the 

occupied range of the PMJM. For 

example, there is potential for impacts 

to the PMJM and its habitat from 

currently predicted future climate 

changes. While specific effects to PMJM 

are somewhat uncertain, a trend of 

climate change in the mountains of 

western North America is expected to 

decrease snowpack, hasten spring 

runoff, and reduce summer flows 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2007, p. 11). Resultant changes 

to vegetative communities may compel 

PMJM distribution to shift to higher 

elevations not currently occupied, but 

still within the designated boundary of 

the SPR in Colorado. While effects from 

climate change may result in an 

increased PMJM dependence on these 

areas in the future if lower elevation 

areas become less habitable, elevations 

above 7,600 ft (2,317 m) are not known 

to support the PMJM at this time. The 

preponderance of lands above 7,600 ft 

(2,317 m) within subdrainages 

supporting the PMJM are in Federal 

ownership. 

South Platte River Drainage North of 

Denver 

In the Cache la Poudre HUC, stream 

reaches that contain requisite PCEs are 

widespread. We are proposing critical 

habitat along the lower portions of the 

North Fork of the Cache la Poudre River 

and its tributaries, to provide for the 

large recovery population specified in 

the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan. We 

are also proposing a second area further 

south in this subdrainage on National 

Forest System lands along the main 

stem of the Cache la Poudre River and 

on selected tributaries. The two 

proposed units in the lower reaches and 

subdrainage contain the appropriate 

spatial arrangement of the requisite 

PCEs to ensure the conservation of the 

PMJM. While additional stream reaches 

that support requisite PCEs are present 

in the upper reaches of the North Fork 

of the Cache la Poudre and its 

tributaries, including Bull Creek, 

Willow Creek, Mill Creek, and Trail 

Creek, the PCEs in these reaches are of 

limited quantity. As a consequence, we 

are not proposing critical habitat in the 

upper reaches because we have 

determined that they do not contain the 

features essential for the conservation of 

the species. Therefore, we propose no 

critical habitat in the upper reaches of 

the North Fork. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

specifies a medium recovery population 

on South Boulder Creek within the St. 

Vrain HUC. Consistent with our 2002 

proposal of critical habitat (67 FR 

47153), we are including portions of the 

South Boulder Creek and Spring Creek 

as proposed critical habitat. Previously, 

we considered designating critical 

habitat along the St. Vrain River and 

adjacent tributaries and ditches between 

the towns of Hygiene and Lyons. 

However, we find that the areas along 

South Boulder Creek that contain the 

requisite PCEs are preferable to the St. 

Vrain River area because they are of 

higher habitat quality, while some of the 

areas and features along the St. Vrain 

River are being impacted by aggregate 

mining and other human development. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52077 

We also find only one unit within this 

general area is necessary to the 

conservation of the PMJM as outlined in 

the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan. 

Therefore, we are selecting the areas 

along South Boulder Creek for inclusion 

in proposed ciritcal habitat instead of 

the St. Vrain River, due to the quality, 

quantity, and spatial arrangement of the 

PCEs and subsequent essential features.. 

We also considered proposing critical 

habitat for the PMJM on higher 

elevations along the North St. Vrain 

Creek and the Middle St. Vrain Creek. 

However, since limited trapping efforts 

targeted at the PMJM have been 

conducted in these areas and occupancy 

by the PMJM appears uncertain, we are 

not proposing critical habitat along 

these creeks. The lack of presence of the 

mouse would mean that we would need 

to determine that these lands are 

essential to the conservation of the 

mouse in order to include them in the 

proposed designation. As stated 

previously, we determined that we 

could meet the statutory requirements of 

critical habitat by designating a subset 

of the known occupied lands. 

Rocky Flats NWR spans portions of 

the St. Vrain HUC and the Middle South 

Platte–Cherry Creek HUC. Requisite 

PCEs are present and the site supports 

small streams largely unimpacted by 

human development. Rocky Flats NWR 

has been a focus of research on the 

PMJM and monitoring of populations 

took place for several years when the 

site was owned by the Department of 

Energy (DOE) (PTI 1998). We proposed 

the site as critical habitat in 2002, but 

excluded in our 2003 final designation 

of critical habitat based on our section 

4(b)(2) analysis that concluded the area 

did not require special management 

efforts. We propose the site again as 

critical habitat and we will again 

evaluate whether it is appropriate to 

exclude the site from critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act. 

As in our 2003 final designation of 

critical habitat (68 FR 37275), we are 

proposing critical habitat in the Big 

Thompson HUC on Buckhorn Creek and 

its tributaries consistent to provide for 

the medium recovery population as 

advised in the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan. We are also proposing 

one additional area as critical habitat 

that is a tributary to the Big Thompson 

River, centered on National Forest 

System lands on portions of Dry Creek 

and its tributaries. We excluded this 

area from our 2003 designation of 

critical habitat in part due to 

uncertainty regarding identity of the 

jumping mice present. We know that the 

area both supports the PMJM and 

contains the PCEs essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

We also assessed National Forest 

System lands along the Big Thompson 

River and Little Thompson River for 

possible inclusion as critical habitat. 

Areas along the Big Thompson River 

and the North Fork of the Big Thompson 

River that contain the PCEs essential to 

the conservation of the PMJM are largely 

in private ownership that are impacted 

by substantial human development. The 

remaining protected lands (i.e., USFS 

holdings) are highly fragmented or are 

present only as stream reaches near the 

7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation. Requisite 

PCEs are generally not in the 

appropriate spatial arrangement and 

quantity to provide for the conservation 

of the PMJM. Therefore, we propose no 

critical habitat on the Big Thompson 

River, the North Fork of the Big 

Thompson River, or the Little 

Thompson River. 

The Lone Tree-Owl HUC provides 

requisite PCEs along limited stream 

reaches in Colorado. While the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a) suggests three small or 

one medium recovery population in the 

Lone Tree-Owl HUC if PMJM are 

present, it is questionable whether the 

PMJM occurs within this HUC. On July 

17, 2002, we proposed two small areas 

of critical habitat along Lone Tree Creek, 

one in Wyoming and one in Colorado 

(67 FR 47154). However, we omitted 

critical habitat along Lone Tree Creek 

from our June 23, 2003, designation (68 

FR 37275) because, despite the 

relatively low elevation of the stream, to 

date the only jumping mice verified to 

species from Lone Tree Creek are 

western jumping mice (Service 2009). 

This corresponds to the pattern in 

southern Wyoming where, unlike in 

most of Colorado, western jumping mice 

are found regularly below 6,700 ft (2,043 

m). No further captures of jumping mice 

have occurred in the Colorado portion 

of this HUC since our 2003 designation. 

The lack of presence of PMJM would 

mean that we would need to determine 

that these lands are essential to the 

conservation of the mouse in order to 

include them in the proposed 

designation. As stated previously, we 

determined that we could meet the 

statutory requirements of critical habitat 

by designating a subset of the known 

occupied lands. Therefore, we are not 

proposing critical habitat in the Lone 

Tree-Owl HUC. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

suggests three small recovery 

populations or one medium recovery 

population in the Crow Creek HUC, if 

PMJM are present. The Crow Creek HUC 

has few stream reaches that support 

requisite PCEs in the appropriate spatial 

arrangement and quantity to be essential 

to the conservation of the PMJM within 

the SPR in Colorado. Further, trapping 

within this HUC in Colorado has not 

resulted in captures of jumping mice 

(Service 2009). The lack of presence of 

the mouse would mean that we would 

need to determine that these lands are 

essential to the conservation of the 

mouse in order to include them in the 

proposed designation. As stated 

previously, we determined that we 

could meet the statutory requirements of 

critical habitat by designating a subset 

of the known occupied lands. Therefore, 

we are proposing no critical habitat 

within this HUC. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

suggests three small recovery 

populations or one medium recovery 

population in the Clear Creek HUC, if 

PMJM are present. The PMJM has been 

confirmed along a segment of Ralston 

Creek above Ralston Reservoir (Service 

2009). We propose critical habitat on 

this reach similar to that in our 2003 

designation of critical habitat. Based on 

limited occurrence of stream reaches 

that contain the requisite PCEs and 

existing human development patterns, 

we are limiting our proposed 

designation of critical habitat within the 

Clear Creek HUC to this single reach. 

South Platte River Drainage South of 

Denver 

Within the Upper South Platte HUC, 

we propose critical habitat along West 

Plum Creek and its tributaries consistent 

with the large recovery population 

called for in the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan. Based on public 

comments and information received in 

2002, some small changes have been 

made to the tributaries previously 

proposed as critical habitat. We are not 

including portions of one unnamed 

tributary to West Plum Creek and the 

upper portion of Metz Canyon because 

they do not support the features 

essential to the PMJM. 

Consistent with our 2003 final 

designation of critical habitat within the 

Upper South Platte HUC, we propose 

critical habitat on Army Corps of 

Engineers’ lands upstream of Chatfield 

Reservoir along the South Platte River 

and on three areas centered on National 

Forest System land in the Pike–San 

Isabel National Forest within the South 

Platte River watershed. The four areas of 

proposed critical habitat should ensure 

that a population of the PMJM sufficient 

for its conservation is maintained in the 

portion of this HUC upstream of 

Chatfield Reservoir on the South Platte 

River and its tributaries. However, we 

are not proposing to include some 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52078 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

National Forest System lands on some 

major tributaries of the South Platte 

River, because the habitat components 

required by the PMJMdo not contain 

features essential to the subspecies 

conservation since they have been 

degraded by catastrophic fire, flooding, 

or both. The Buffalo Creek watershed 

has been highly degraded by fire, 

followed by flooding, accompanying 

erosion, and sedimentation. While there 

is evidence of recovery of the habitat 

occurring, we conclude that, in the 

foreseeable future, this area will not 

develop the essential physical or 

biological features in the appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement to 

provide for the conservation of the 

PMJM; therefore, we are not proposing 

critical habitat in the Buffalo Creek 

watershed. The Wigwam Creek area, 

proposed as a critical habitat subunit in 

2002, was not designated as critical 

habitat in 2003 following intense 

burning by the 2002 Hayman Fire, and 

is not being included in this proposal. 

The area remains degraded, and 

minimally supports PCEs necessary for 

the conservation of the PMJM, and we 

conclude that it is not appropriate to 

propose critical habitat in the area. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a) specifies a medium 

recovery population along Cherry Creek 

in the Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek 

HUC. PCEs essential to the conservation 

of the PMJM in the upper reaches of the 

Cherry Creek basin appear widespread 

and there are multiple options as to 

where we could designate critical 

habitat for a medium recovery 

population. Similar to our July 17, 2002, 

proposal of critical habitat (67 FR 

47154), we include portions of Cherry 

Creek, Lake Gulch, and Upper Lake 

Gulch as proposed critical habitat 

because it contains the best spatial 

arrangement and quanity of requisite 

PCEs within the HUC. After additional 

review of the quality, continuity and 

extent of requisite PCEs; PMJM 

distribution; conservation potential; and 

conservation efforts within upper 

reaches of Cherry Creek and its 

tributaries, including East Cherry Creek 

and West Cherry Creek, we are 

proposing a second subunit of critical 

habitat on portions of Antelope Creek 

and Haskel Creek. We believe that this 

area contains the features essential to 

the conservation of the PMJM and could 

serve as an alternate or additional 

medium recovery population consistent 

with our recovery strategy. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

suggests either three small populations 

or one medium population in the Kiowa 

HUC if PMJM are present. No 

confirmation of the PMJM existed at the 

time of 2003 critical habitat designation 

for this subdrainage, and no critical 

habitat was designated. Since 2003, 

PMJM were captured at two sites within 

the Kiowa (Service 2009). Various 

stream reaches throughout southern 

portions of the HUC support some of the 

PCEs and may support the PMJM. 

However, we do not believe that the 

areas contain the PCEs in the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement. As a consequence, we are 

not proposing any critical habitat within 

the HUC. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

suggests either three small populations 

or one medium population in the Bijou 

HUC if PMJM are present. While 

requisite PCEs are present in the Bijou 

HUC, the limited trapping efforts that 

have occurred have not resulted in 

captures of jumping mice (Service 

2009); therefore, consistent with our 

determination that areas not known to 

be occupied by the PMJM are not 

essential to its conservation, we are not 

proposing critical habitat in this HUC. 

Arkansas River Drainage 

Within the Fountain Creek HUC, the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a) specifies a large 

recovery population along Monument 

Creek and its tributaries including lands 

within the U.S. Air Force Academy 

(Academy). While the Academy lands 

support the requisite PCEs, a significant 

PMJM population, and are essential to 

maintaining this recovery population, 

we determined that the Academy land 

merits exemption pursuant to section 

4(a)(3) of the Act. We propose critical 

habitat east and north of the Academy 

similar to the area we proposed on July 

17, 2002 (67 FR 47154), with the 

addition of one stream reach. In 

determining boundaries of critical 

habitat we considered whether 

documented PMJM populations on 

some stream reaches remained 

connected to the larger population 

present along Monument Creek and its 

tributaries on the Academy or whether, 

due to fragmentation caused by past 

development, they have become 

permanently isolated. 

A significant barrier to PMJM 

movement is present on Kettle Creek in 

the form of a large detention basin on 

the Academy just east of Interstate 

Highway 25 and accompanying outflow 

structure that channels creek flow under 

the highway. We have had discussions 

with the Academy regarding possible 

means of improving connectivity 

between upstream and downstream 

PMJM populations along this reach. 

Since improved connectivity may be 

possible and could prove essential in 

meeting the recovery criteria in this 

HUC, we are proposing critical habitat 

upstream of this reach of Kettle Creek. 

Along the upper reaches of 

Monument Creek, Monument Lake and 

the dam that forms it create at least a 

partial barrier to PMJM movement 

upstream and downstream. Mitigation 

associated with a project that modified 

Monument Lake Dam was intended to 

enhance connectivity for the PMJM 

through this reach of Monument Creek 

(Service 2002a). However, the 

mitigation has thus far not been 

completed. In addition some reaches 

upstream from Monument Lake have 

been significantly altered by human 

activity. We have not included these 

upper reaches in our proposed 

designation because they do not contain 

the requisite PCEs in an appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement. 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

suggests either three small recovery 

populations or one medium recovery 

population to meet recovery criteria in 

both the Chico and the Big Sandy HUCs, 

if PMJM are present. We did not 

propose critical habitat in either of these 

HUCs in 2002 or designate it in 2003. 

We are not proposing critical habitat in 

the Chico HUC because the PCEs appear 

very limited in quantity and spatial 

arrangement within the subdrainage 

and, therefore, the area does not contain 

the features essential to the conservation 

of the PMJM. Additionally, the PMJM 

has been found at two locations within 

the Chico HUC, in apparently marginal 

habitat along an unnamed tributary of 

Black Squirrel Creek and at a site in the 

upper reaches of Black Squirrel Creek 

that is under development pressure 

(Service 2009). Subsequent trapping 

could not relocate the PMJM at the 

former site. In the Big Sandy HUC, 

requisite PCEs are limited to a few short 

reaches and, therefore, the area does not 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the PMJM. For this 

reason we are not proposing critical 

habitat in the Big Sandy HUC. In this 

location, limited trapping efforts 

targeted at the PMJM have not 

confirmed the presence of the PMJM 

(Service 2009). 

Delineation of Critical Habitat 

Boundaries 

We propose revised critical habitat for 

the PMJM based on the interpretation of 

multiple sources used during our June 

23, 2003, designation of critical habitat 

(68 FR 37275) and using new 

information in the preparation of this 

revised proposed rule. For this proposed 

rule, we used GIS-based mapping using 

ESRI ArcGIS software incorporating 

USGS National Hydrography Dataset 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52079 

streams along with stream order (by 

Strahler code), Colorado Department of 

Transportation roads, U.S. Census 

Bureau cities, USGS topographic maps, 

2005 Farm Service Agency, National 

Agricultural Inventory Program 1m 

color imagery, and the COMaP dataset 

(Theobald et al. 2008). We divided 

lands we are proposing as critical 

habitat into specific mapping units, i.e., 

critical habitat units, often 

corresponding to individual HUCs. For 

the purposes of this proposed rule, these 

units are described primarily by latitude 

and longitude, and by Public Land 

Survey, Township, Section, and Range, 

to mark the upstream and the 

downstream extent of proposed critical 

habitat along rivers and streams. 

As in 2003, we are faced with a 

decision concerning the outward extent 

of critical habitat into uplands. Studies 

suggest that the PMJM uses uplands at 

least as far out as 330 ft (100 m) beyond 

the 100-year floodplain (Shenk and 

Sivert 1999a, p. 11; Ryon 1999, p. 12; 

Schorr 2001, p. 14; Shenk 2004; Service 

2003a, p. 26). Apparent hibernacula 

have ranged outward to 335 ft (102 m) 

of a perennial stream bed or intermittent 

tributary (Ruggles et al. 2003, p. 19). We 

have typically described potential 

PMJM habitat as extending outward 300 

ft (90 m) from the 100-year floodplain of 

rivers and streams (Service 2004a, p. 5). 

The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a) defines PMJM habitat as 

the 100-year floodplain plus 330 ft (100 

m) outward on both sides, but allows for 

alternative delineations that provide for 

all the needs of the PMJM and include 

the alluvial floodplain, transition 

slopes, and appropriate upland habitat. 

To allow normal behavior and to 

ensure that the PMJM and the PCEs on 

which it depends are protected, we 

believe that the outward extent of 

critical habitat should at least 

approximate the outward distances 

described above in relation to the 100- 

year floodplain. Unfortunately, 

floodplains have not been mapped for 

many streams within the PMJM’s range. 

Where floodplain mapping is available, 

we have found that it may include local 

inaccuracies. While alternative 

delineation of critical habitat based on 

geomorphology and existing vegetation 

could accurately portray the presence 

and extent of required habitat 

components, we lack an explicit data 

layer that could support such a 

delineation of critical habitat. 

In 2003, we also considered 

determining the outward extent of 

critical habitat based on a distance 

outward from features such as the 

stream edge, associated wetlands, or 

riparian areas. We judged wetlands an 

inconsistent indicator of habitat extent 

and found no consistent source of 

riparian mapping available across the 

range of the PMJM. We also considered 

using an outward extent of critical 

habitat established by a vertical distance 

above the elevation of the river or 

stream to approximate the floodplain 

and adjacent uplands likely to be used 

by the PMJM. This proved unacceptable 

over the diverse topography that 

surrounds stream reaches occupied by 

the PMJM. 

For this proposed revised designation, 

we maintain consistency with our 2003 

designation of critical habitat in 

delineating the upland extent of critical 

habitat boundaries as a set distance 

outward from the river or stream edge 

(as defined by the ordinary high water 

mark) varying with the size (order) of a 

river or stream. We compared known 

floodplain widths to stream order over 

a series of sites and approximated 

average floodplain width for various 

orders of streams. To that average we 

added 328 ft (100 m) outward on each 

side. For example, this analysis 

determined the average flood plain for 

streams of order 1 and 2 (the smallest 

streams) is 33 feet (10 m). Based on this 

calculation, for streams of order 1 and 

2, we propose critical habitat as 361 ft 

(110 m) outward from the stream edge; 

for streams of order 3 and 4, we propose 

critical habitat as 394 ft (120 m) outward 

from the stream edge; and for stream 

orders 5 and above (the largest streams 

and rivers), we propose critical habitat 

as 459 ft (140 m) outward from the 

stream edge. While proposed critical 

habitat will not extend outward to all 

areas used by individual mice over time, 

we believe that these corridors of 

critical habitat ranging from 722 ft (220 

m) to 918 ft (280 m) in width (plus the 

river or stream width) will support the 

full range of PCEs essential for 

conservation of PMJM populations in 

these reaches and should help protect 

the PMJM and their habitats from 

secondary impacts of nearby 

disturbance. Following our July 17, 

2002, proposal of critical habitat (67 FR 

47154), we received a number of public 

comments regarding the appropriate 

outward limits of critical habitat and 

means of establishing them. However, 

most comments suggested either 

standardizing a single outward distance 

for all rivers and streams, site specific 

mapping of critical habitat for each 

reach, or relying on alternative mapping 

created for HCPs as a surrogate for sitespecific mapping of critical habitat. We 

determined that none of these 

alternatives were both feasible with the 

resources available to us and more 

accurate rangewide than the 

methodology employed above. 

Proposed Revised Critical Habitat 

Designation 

The proposed critical habitat 

contained within units discussed below 

constitutes our best evaluation of areas 

necessary to conserve the PMJM. Table 

1 above provides a summary of the 

length of stream reach with habitat in 

each unit that is proposed as revised 

critical habitat. Proposed critical habitat 

for the PMJM includes approximately 

426 mi (686 km) of rivers and streams 

and 39,835 ac (16,121 ha) of lands in 

Colorado. Lands proposed as critical 

habitat are under Federal, State, local 

government, and private ownership 

(Table 2). No lands proposed as critical 

habitat are under tribal ownership. 

Estimates reflect the total river or stream 

length and area of lands within critical 

habitat unit boundaries. Limited areas 

within these boundaries may not 

include any of the requisite PCEs. 

Therefore, excluding certain developed 

areas or other areas not supporting any 

of the requisite PCEs, the areas proposed 

be less than that indicated in Table 2. 

TABLE 2. PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT ACREAGE FOR THE PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE IN COLORADO

COUNTIES. 

by Land Ownership 

COUNTY FEDERAL STATE LOCAL GVT OTHER TOTAL 

Boulder 6 ac 

(2 ha) 

515 ac 

(208 ha) 

351 ac 

(142 ha) 

871 ac 

(352 ha) 

Douglas 3,024 ac 

(1,224 ha) 

762 ac 

(308 ha) 

512 ac 

(207 ha) 

9,599 ac 

(3,885 ha) 

13,896 ac 

(5,624 ha) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52080 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2. PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT ACREAGE FOR THE PREBLE’S MEADOW JUMPING MOUSE IN COLORADO

COUNTIES.—Continued 

by Land Ownership 

COUNTY FEDERAL STATE LOCAL GVT OTHER TOTAL 

El Paso 59 ac 

(24 ha) 

0 160 ac 

(65 ha) 

3,199 ac 

(1,285 ha) 

3,419 ac 

(1,383 ha) 

Jefferson/Broomfield* 1,564 ac 

(633 ha) 

195 ac 

(79 ha) 

311 ac 

(126 ha) 

584 ac 

(236 ha) 

2,654 ac 

(1,074 ha) 

Larimer 7,867 ac 

(3,184 ha) 

2,363 ac 

(956 ha) 

187 ac 

(76 ha) 

7,809 ac 

(3,160 ha) 

18,226 ac 

(7,376 ha) 

Teller 77 ac 

(31 ha) 

0 0 0 77 ac 

(31 ha) 

Total 12,596 ac 

(5,097 ha) 

3,319 ac 

(1,343 ha) 

1,685 ac 

(682 ha) 

21,542 ac 

(8,718 ha) 

39,142 ac 

(15,840 ha) 

*Broomfield County extends minimally on to Rock Flats NWR (Unit 7). 

Lands proposed as revised critical 

habitat are divided into 11 critical 

habitat units containing all of those 

PCEs necessary to meet the primary 

biological needs of the PMJM 

throughout Colorado where it is listed. 

Each unit has all of the requisite PCEs 

present, and, based on the best scientific 

data available, all are believed to 

currently support the PMJM. Individual 

stream reaches designated within each 

unit contain at least one of the PCEs, 

and are either believed to be occupied 

by the PMJM or provide crucial 

opportunities for connectivity to 

facilitate dispersal and genetic exchange 

within the unit. 

In proposing critical habitat, we did 

not include all areas currently occupied 

by the PMJM. A brief description of 

each PMJM critical habitat unit is 

provided below. The units are generally 

based on geographically distinct river 

drainages and subdrainages. These units 

have been subject to, or are threatened 

by, varying degrees of degradation from 

human use and development. For these 

reasons, the essential features within 

each of the specific areas we are 

proposing as critical habitat may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. Management may include 

additional measures in addition to those 

that may already be in place to preserve 

such areas; to avoid, reduce, or offset 

human-induced and natural impacts; 

and to restore such areas following 

unavoidable adverse impacts, including 

fire or flooding. 

Unit 1: North Fork of the Cache la 

Poudre River, Larimer, Colorado. 

Unit 1 encompasses approximately 

8,619 ac (3,488 ha) on 88 mi (142 km) 

of streams within the North Fork of the 

Cache la Poudre River watershed. It 

includes the North Fork of the Cache la 

Poudre River from Seaman Reservoir 

upstream to Halligan Reservoir. Major 

tributaries within the unit include 

Stonewall Creek, Rabbit Creek 

(including its North Fork, Middle Fork, 

and South Fork), and Lone Pine Creek. 

The unit includes both public and 

private lands. It includes portions of the 

Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, as 

well as Lone Pine State Wildlife Area. 

The unit is located in the Cache la 

Poudre HUC and is proposed to address 

the large recovery population 

designated for this area in the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a). The area remains rural 

and agricultural with habitat 

components likely to support relatively 

high densities of the PMJM. Pressure for 

expanded development is increasing 

within the area. 

Unit 2: Cache la Poudre River, Larimer 

County. 

Unit 2 encompasses approximately 

4,944 ac (2,001 ha) on 51 mi (82 km) of 

streams within the Cache la Poudre 

River watershed. It includes the Cache 

la Poudre River from Poudre Park 

upstream to the 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (below Rustic). Major 

tributaries within the unit include 

Hewlett Gulch, Young Gulch, Skin 

Gulch, Poverty Gulch, Elkhorn Creek, 

Pendergrass Creek, and Bennett Creek. 

The unit is primarily composed of 

Federal lands of the Arapaho-Roosevelt 

National Forest, including portions of 

the Cache la Poudre Wilderness, but 

includes limited non-Federal lands. 

Since this unit is located in the same 

Cache la Poudre HUC as Unit 1, it is 

unlikely to serve as an initial recovery 

population. However, it encompasses a 

significant area of habitat likely to 

support a sizeable population of the 

PMJM. Due to Federal ownership, 

development pressure is minimal; 

however, the area is subject to 

substantial recreational use (rafting, 

kayaking, fishing) in the Cache la 

Poudre River corridor. Non-Federal 

lands include existing development that 

may limit the habitat components 

present. Some such reaches may serve 

the PMJM mostly as connectors between 

areas containing all necessary PCEs. 

Unit 3: Buckhorn Creek, Larimer 

County. 

Unit 3 encompasses approximately 

3,995 ac (1,617 ha) on 46 mi (73 km) of 

streams within the Buckhorn Creek 

watershed. It includes Buckhorn Creek 

from just west of Masonville, upstream 

to the 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation. Major 

tributaries within the unit include Little 

Bear Gulch, Bear Gulch, Stringtown 

Gulch, Fish Creek, and Stove Prairie 

Creek. The unit includes both public 

and private lands and portions of the 

Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest. 

The unit is located in the Big 

Thompson HUC and is proposed to 

address the medium recovery 

population called for this area in the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a). Pressure for expanded 

rural development exists on non-Federal 

lands within the unit. 

Unit 4: Cedar Creek, Larimer County. 

Unit 4 encompasses approximately 

668 ac (270 ha) on 8 mi (12 km) of 

streams within the Cedar Creek 

watershed, including Dry Creek and Jug 

Gulch. Cedar Creek is a tributary of the 

Big Thompson River and enters the Big 

Thompson River at Cedar Cove. The 

unit is centered on Federal lands of the 

Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, but 

includes some stream reaches on nonFederal lands. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52081 

This unit is located in the Big 

Thompson HUC and, while unlikely to 

serve as an initial recovery population, 

it supports a population on mostly 

Federal lands of the upper Big 

Thompson River. It is isolated, at least 

in terms of riparian connection, from 

the PMJM population on nearby 

Buckhorn Creek. This site is upstream of 

The Narrows of the Big Thompson 

Canyon, a barrier to PMJM movement, 

while the confluence of the Big 

Thompson River and Buckhorn Creek is 

downstream from The Narrows. 

However, the close proximity of the 

headwaters of Jug Gulch within this unit 

to the headwaters of Bear Gulch within 

the Buckhorn Creek unit suggests that 

some individual mice may pass between 

the two populations and thus between 

the two significant watersheds within 

this HUC. 

Unit 5: South Boulder Creek, Boulder 

County. 

Unit 5 encompasses approximately 

856 ac (347 ha) on 8 mi (12 km) of 

streams within the South Boulder Creek 

watershed. It includes South Boulder 

Creek from Baseline Road upstream to 

Eldorado Springs, and includes the 

Spring Brook tributary. The unit 

includes both public and private lands. 

It includes substantial lands owned by 

the City of Boulder Open Space and 

Mountain Parks. 

This unit is located in the St. Vrain 

HUC and is proposed to address the 

medium recovery population designated 

for this area in the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a). Portions 

of the area have been the subject of 

PMJM research funded by the City of 

Boulder and, in places, high densities of 

the PMJM have been documented 

(Meaney et al. 2003, pp. 616 - 617). A 

wide floodplain, complex ditch system, 

and the irrigation of pastures make 

habitat within the lower portions of this 

unit unique. In places, the outward 

extent of PCEs surpasses the standard 

distance outward from the stream used 

to define critical habitat in this 

designation. Pressure for expanded 

development is occurring on private 

lands within the unit. Recreational use 

of the City of Boulder lands is 

considerable and may adversely impact 

the PMJM. 

Unit 6: Rocky Flats NWR, Jefferson and 

Broomfield Counties.. 

Unit 6 encompasses approximately 

1,108 ac (449 ha) on 13 mi (20 km) of 

streams on the subunits corresponding 

to the Rock Creek, Woman Creek, and 

Walnut Creek watersheds. The unit 

includes only Federal lands on the 

Rocky Flats NWR. 

The Rock Creek subunit is located in 

the St. Vrain HUC and the Woman 

Creek and Walnut Creek subunits are in 

the Middle South Platte-Cherry Creek 

HUC. Since the unit extends to two 

HUCs, both of which have designated 

recovery population elsewhere, this unit 

is unlikely to serve as an initial recovery 

population. However, this unit is 

unique because it is limited entirely to 

Federal lands and populations on the 

site have been the subject of the longest 

continuing research on the PMJM. After 

cleanup and closure of the DOE’s Rocky 

Flats Environmental Technology Site, 

the property was transferred to the 

Service to become part of our National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Streams within 

the unit are small and habitat 

components present do not support a 

high density of the PMJM. The site 

presents an opportunity to study small 

populations and their viability over 

time. 

Unit 7: Ralston Creek, Jefferson County. 

Unit 7 encompasses approximately 

809 ac (328 ha) on 9 mi (14 km) of 

streams within the Ralston Creek 

watershed. It includes Ralston Creek 

from Ralston Reservoir upstream to the 

7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation. The unit 

includes both public and private lands 

including lands in Golden Gate Canyon 

State Park and White Ranch County 

Park. 

This unit is located in the Clear Creek 

HUC and we are proposing to designate 

it as critical habitat to partially address 

the criteria of three small recovery 

populations or one medium recovery 

population called for in this area in the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a). The segment of Ralston 

Creek that passes through the Cotter 

Corporation’s existing Schwartzwalder 

Mine serves as a connector between 

areas supporting all PCEs required by 

the PMJM located upstream and 

downstream. 

Unit 8: Cherry Creek, Douglas County. 

Unit 8 encompasses approximately 

2,647 ac (1,071 ha) on 30 mi (48 km) of 

streams within the Cherry Creek 

watershed. It includes two subunits. 

The first includes Cherry Creek from the 

downstream boundary of the 

Castlewood Canyon State Recreation 

Area, upstream to its confluence with 

Lake Gulch. Tributaries within the unit 

include Lake Gulch and Upper Lake 

Gulch. It includes portions of the 

Castlewood Canyon State Recreation 

Area, as well as Douglas County’s 

recently acquired Green Mountain 

Ranch property. The second subunit 

includes Antelope Creek from its 

confluence with West Cherry Creek 

upstream and a tributary, Haskel Creek. 

Both subunits include both public and 

private lands. These subunits are 

located in the Middle South PlatteCherry Creek HUC and address the 

medium recovery population designated 

for this area in the Preliminary Draft 

Recovery Plan (Service 2003a). Some 

development pressure is occurring from 

expanding rural development on private 

lands within these areas. 

Unit 9: West Plum Creek, Douglas 

County. 

Unit 9 encompasses approximately 

8,724 ac (3,530 ha) on 94 mi (151 km) 

of streams within the Plum Creek 

watershed. It includes Plum Creek from 

Chatfield Reservoir upstream to the 

confluence with West Plum Creek then 

continues upstream on West Plum Creek 

to its headwaters. Major tributaries 

within the unit include Indian Creek, 

Jarre Creek, Garber Creek (including 

North, Middle, and South Garber Creek), 

Jackson Creek, Spring Creek, Dry Gulch, 

Bear Creek, Starr Canyon, Gove Creek, 

and Metz Canyon. The unit is a 

combination of public and private 

lands. It includes portions of the PikeSan Isabel National Forest, as well as 

Chatfield State Recreation Area (Army 

Corps of Engineers’ property), and 

Colorado Division of Wildlife’s 

Woodhouse Ranch property. 

This unit is located in the Upper 

South Platte HUC, and we propose to 

designate it as critical habitat to address 

the large recovery population 

designated for this area in the 

Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan 

(Service 2003a). Aside from a portion of 

Plum Creek, the area remains rather 

rural and includes habitat components 

likely to support relatively high 

densities of the PMJM. Pressure for 

expanded suburban and rural 

development is occurring within the 

area. 

Unit 10: Upper South Platte River, 

Douglas, Jefferson, and Teller Counties. 

Unit 10 encompasses approximately 

3,353 ac (1,357 ha) on 35 mi (57 km) of 

streams within the Platte River 

watershed. It includes four subunits. 

The Chatfield Subunit includes a 

section of the South Platte River 

upstream of Chatfield Reservoir within 

Chatfield State Recreation Area (Army 

Corps of Engineers’ property). The Bear 

Creek Subunit includes Bear Creek and 

West Bear Creek, tributaries to the South 

Platte River on National Forest System 

lands. The South Platte Subunit 

includes a segment of the South Platte 

River upstream from Nighthawk, 

including the tributaries Gunbarrel 

Creek and Sugar Creek. This subunit is 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52082 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

centered on Federal lands of the PikeSan Isabel National Forest but includes 

some intervening non-Federal lands. 

The Trout Creek Subunit includes 

portions of Trout Creek, a tributary to 

Horse Creek, and also portions of Eagle 

Creek, Long Hollow, Fern Creek, Illinois 

Gulch, and Missouri Gulch. This 

subunit is centered on Federal lands of 

the Pike-San Isabel National Forest but 

includes some intervening non-Federal 

lands along Trout Creek. 

This unit is located in the same Upper 

South Platte HUC as West Plum Creek, 

where a large recovery population has 

been designated and, therefore, is 

unlikely to serve as an initial recovery 

population. The unit encompasses four 

areas of primarily Federal land spread 

through the drainage, three within the 

Pike-San Isabel National Forest 

boundary. Habitat components present 

and the likely density of PMJM 

populations vary. The Trout Creek 

Subunit appears to have high quality 

PMJM habitat and may provide a 

continued opportunity to research 

relationships between the PMJM and the 

western jumping mouse, both of which 

have been verified from the same 

trapping effort in the subunit (Schorr et 

al. 2007). 

Unit 11: Monument Creek, El Paso 

County. 

Unit 11 is located in the Arkansas 

River drainage. It encompasses 

approximately 3,419 ac (1,383 ha) on 39 

mi (62 km) of streams within the 

Monument Creek watershed. It includes 

Monument Creek from the confluence of 

Cottonwood Creek upstream to the 

southern boundary of the U.S. Air Force 

Academy and from the northern 

boundary of the Academy upstream to 

the dam at Monument Lake. Major 

tributaries within the unit include 

Kettle Creek, Black Squirrel Creek, 

Monument Branch, Middle Tributary, 

Smith Creek, Jackson Creek, Beaver 

Creek, Teachout Creek, and Dirty 

Woman Creek. The unit is primarily on 

private lands. It includes a small portion 

of the Pike-San Isabel National Forest. 

This unit is located in the Fountain 

Creek HUC and we are proposing it as 

critical habitat to address the large 

recovery population designated for this 

area in the Preliminary Draft Recovery 

Plan (Service 2003a). The area is unique 

in that it represents the only known 

PMJM population of significant size 

within the Arkansas River drainage and 

the southernmost known occurrence of 

the PMJM. Development pressure is 

extremely high on some private lands 

within the unit. Development has 

resulted in changes in flows from 

increased stormwater runoff and has 

affected stream channels and associated 

riparian systems (Mihlbachler 2007). 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that actions they fund, 

authorize, or carry out are not likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th 

Circuit Courts of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ 

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) 

and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 

442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely 

on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the PCEs 

to be functionally established) to serve 

its intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with us on 

any action that is likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of a species 

proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. Conference 

reports provide conservation 

recommendations to assist the agency in 

eliminating conflicts that may be caused 

by the proposed action. We may issue 

a formal conference report if requested 

by a Federal agency. Formal conference 

reports on proposed critical habitat 

contain an opinion that is prepared 

according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if we had 

designated critical habitat. We may 

adopt the formal conference report as 

the biological opinion when the critical 

habitat is designated, if no substantial 

new information or changes in the 

action alter the content of the opinion 

(see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The 

conservation recommendations in a 

conference report or opinion are 

advisory. 

If a species is listed or critical habitat 

is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to ensure that 

activities they authorize, fund, or carry 

out are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of such a species or 

to destroy or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

(action agency) must enter into 

consultation with us in most cases. As 

a result of this consultation, we 

document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: (1) A concurrence letter 

for Federal actions that may affect, but 

are not likely to adversely affect, listed 

species or designated critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that are likely to adversely affect 

listed species or designated critical 

habitat. 

An exception to the concurrence 

process referred to in (1) above occurs 

in consultations involving National Fire 

Plan projects. In 2004, the USFS and the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

reached agreements with us to 

streamline a portion of the section 7 

consultation process (BLM 2004, pp. 1– 

8; USFS 2004, pp. 1–8). The agreements 

allow the USFS and the BLM the 

opportunity to make ‘‘not likely to 

adversely affect’’ determinations for 

projects implementing the National Fire 

Plan. Such projects include prescribed 

fire, mechanical fuels treatments 

(thinning and removal of fuels to 

prescribed objectives), emergency 

stabilization, burned area rehabilitation, 

road maintenance and operation 

activities, ecosystem restoration, and 

culvert replacement actions. The USFS 

and the BLM must ensure staff are 

properly trained, and both agencies 

must submit monitoring reports to us to 

determine if the procedures are being 

implemented properly and that effects 

on endangered species and their 

habitats are being properly evaluated. 

If we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

•Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

•Can be implemented consistent with 

the scope of the Federal agency’s legal 

authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

•Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying its 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52083 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is not likely to 

jeopardize a listed species or adversely 

modify its critical habitat but may result 

in incidental take of listed animals, we 

provide an incidental take statement 

that specifies the impact of such 

incidental taking on the species. We 

then define ‘‘reasonable and prudent 

measures’’ considered necessary or 

appropriate to minimize the impact of 

such taking. Reasonable and prudent 

measures are binding measures the 

action agency must implement to 

receive an exemption to the prohibition 

against take contained in section 9 of 

the Act. These reasonable and prudent 

measures are implemented through 

specific ‘‘terms and conditions’’ that 

must be followed by the action agency 

or passed along by the action agency as 

binding conditions to an applicant. 

Reasonable and prudent measures, 

along with the terms and conditions that 

implement them, cannot alter the basic 

design, location, scope, duration, or 

timing of the action under consultation 

and may involve only minor changes 

(50 CFR 402.14). We may provide the 

action agency with additional 

conservation recommendations, which 

are advisory and not intended to carry 

binding legal force. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

PMJM or its designated critical habitat 

will require section 7 consultation 

under the Act. Activities on State, tribal, 

local, or private lands requiring a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from us 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act) or 

involving some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) also 

will be subject to the section 7 

consultation process. Federal actions 

not affecting listed species or critical 

habitat, and actions on State, tribal, 

local, or private lands that are not 

federally funded, authorized, or 

permitted, do not require section 7 

consultations. 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not imply that lands outside of 

critical habitat do not play an important 

role in the conservation of the PMJM. 

Federal actions that may affect areas 

outside of critical habitat, such as 

development, agricultural activities, and 

road construction, are still subject to 

review under section 7 of the Act if they 

may affect the PMJM, because Federal 

agencies must consider both effects to 

the species and effects to critical habitat 

independently. The prohibitions of 

section 9 of the Act applicable to the 

PMJM under 50 CFR 17.31 also continue 

to apply both inside and outside of 

designated critical habitat. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or would retain its current 

ability for the primary constituent 

element(s) to be functionally 

established. Activities that may destroy 

or adversely modify critical habitat are 

those that alter the physical and 

biological features to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for the PMJM. 

Generally, the conservation role of the 

proposed revised PMJM critical habitat 

units is to support viable populations. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat those 

activities involving a Federal action that 

may destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may adversely affect critical 

habitat and, therefore, should result in 

consultation for the PMJM include, but 

are not limited to, the following: 

(1) Any activity that results in 

development or alteration of the 

landscape within a unit, including: land 

clearing; activities associated with 

construction for urban and industrial 

development, roads, bridges, pipelines, 

or bank stabilization; agricultural 

activities such as plowing, disking, 

haying, or intensive grazing; off-road 

vehicle activity; and mining or drilling 

of wells. 

(2) Any activity that results in 

changes in the hydrology of the unit, 

including: construction, operation, and 

maintenance of levees, dams, berms, 

and channels; activities associated with 

flow control, such as releases, 

diversions, and related operations; 

irrigation; sediment, sand, or gravel 

removal; and other activities resulting in 

the draining or inundation of a unit. 

(3) Any sale, exchange, or lease of 

Federal land that is likely to result in 

the habitat in a unit being destroyed or 

appreciably degraded. 

(4) Any activity that detrimentally 

alters natural processes in a unit 

including the changes to inputs of 

water, sediment and nutrients, or that 

significantly and detrimentally alters 

water quantity in the unit. 

(5) Any activity that could lead to the 

introduction, expansion, or increased 

density of an exotic plant or animal 

species that is detrimental to the PMJM 

and to its habitat. 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat and actions on 

non-Federal lands that are not federally 

funded or permitted do not require 

section 7 consultation. 

Note that the scale of these activities 

would be a crucial factor in determining 

whether, in any instance, they would 

directly or indirectly alter critical 

habitat to the extent that the value of the 

critical habitat for the survival and 

recovery of the PMJM would be 

appreciably diminished. 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the 

Endangered Species Act 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

The Sikes Act of 1997 required each 

military installation that includes land 

and water suitable for the conservation 

and management of natural resources to 

complete an Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan (INRMP) 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52084 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

by November 17, 2001. An INRMP 

integrates implementation of the 

military mission of the installation with 

stewardship of the natural resources 

found on the base. Each INRMP 

includes: 

(1) An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

(2) A statement of goals and priorities; 

(3) A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

(4) A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP 

must, to the extent appropriate and 

applicable, provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

We consult with the military on the 

development and implementation of 

INRMPs for installations with federally 

listed species. We analyzed INRMPs 

developed by military installations that 

are located within the range of the 

PMJM and that contain those features 

essential to the species’ conservation for 

exemption under the authority of 

section 4(a)(3)(B) of the Act. 

U.S. Air Force Academy 

The U.S. Air Force Academy 

(Academy) in El Paso County, Colorado, 

is the lone Department of Defense 

property in the area of the proposed 

revised critical habitat. The Academy 

has a completed INRMP that contains 

those features essential to the species’ 

conservation. The Academy has 

completed an INRMP (U.S. Air Force 

1998), a 1999 ‘‘Conservation and 

Management Plan for the Prebles 

Meadow Jumping Mouse at the U.S. Air 

Force Academy’’ (U.S. Air Force 1999), 

and the Service completed a 2000 

programmatic section 7 consultation 

addressing certain activities at the 

Academy that may affect the PMJM 

(Service 2000). The Conservation and 

Management Plan provides guidance for 

Air Force management decisions. 

Following its initial 5–year duration, the 

Conservation and Management Plan was 

renewed and extended annually (Linner 

2007). The plan was based upon the 

most current scientific knowledge 

available at the time that it was 

developed. Research regarding the 

PMJM is ongoing at the Academy, and 

we anticipate that an update to the 

Conservation and Management Plan will 

be finalized in 2009. 

The Academy’s INRMP describes 

habitats found at the Academy, 

including habitats used by the PMJM 

(U.S. Air Force 1998). It addresses 

management concerns, goals and 

objectives regarding the PMJM, and 

describes management actions designed 

to accomplish those objectives. The 

INRMP also requires monitoring, 

evaluation of the plan’s effectiveness, 

and provides for modification of 

management actions when appropriate. 

We have reviewed these measures and 

have concluded that they address the 

four criteria identified above. As a 

result, such lands are not included in 

the proposed designation. 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the statute, as well as the legislative 

history, is clear that the Secretary has 

broad discretion regarding which 

factor(s) to use and how much weight to 

give to any factor (Department of the 

Interior, 2008). 

We are updating the previous 

economic analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed designation of revised critical 

habitat, which will be available for 

public review and comment when it is 

complete. Based on public comment on 

that document, on the proposed 

designation itself, and on the 

information in the revised final 

economic analysis, the Secretary may 

exclude from critical habitat additional 

areas beyond those identified in this 

assessment under the provisions of 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. This also is 

addressed in our implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.19. 

The National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

analysis we will conduct also may 

disclose other impacts we may consider 

in our analysis under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. In considering whether to 

exclude a particular area from the 

designation, we must identify the 

benefits of including the area in the 

designation, identify the benefits of 

excluding the area from the designation, 

and determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion. If based on this analysis, we 

determine that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, then 

we can exclude the area only if such 

exclusion would not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

When considering the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider the 

additional regulatory benefits that area 

would receive from the protection from 

adverse modification or destruction as a 

result of actions with a Federal nexus, 

the educational benefits of mapping 

essential habitat for recovery of the 

listed species, and any benefits that may 

result from a designation due to State or 

Federal laws that may apply to critical 

habitat. 

When considering the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation; 

the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships; or 

implementation of a management plan 

that provides equal to or more 

conservation than a critical habitat 

designation would provide. 

In the case of the PMJM, the benefits 

of critical habitat include public 

awareness of the PMJM’s presence and 

the importance of habitat protection, 

and in cases where a Federal action 

exists, increased habitat protection for 

the PMJM due to the protection from 

adverse modification or destruction of 

critical habitat. 

When we evaluate the existence of a 

conservation plan to consider the 

benefits of exclusion, we consider a 

variety of factors, including but not 

limited to, whether the plan is finalized; 

how it provides for the conservation of 

the essential physical and biological 

features; whether there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions 

contained in a management plan will be 

implemented into the future; whether 

the conservation strategies in the plan 

are likely to be effective; and whether 

the plan contains a monitoring program 

or adaptive management to ensure that 

the conservation measures are effective 

and can be adapted in the future in 

response to new information. 

After evaluating the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

determine whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If we determine that they do, we then 

determine whether exclusion would 

result in extinction. If exclusion of an 

area from critical habitat would result in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52085 

extinction, we will not exclude it from 

the designation. 

Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands 

Most federally listed species in the 

United States will not recover without 

cooperation of non-Federal landowners. 

More than 60 percent of the United 

States is privately owned (National 

Wilderness Institute 1995), and at least 

80 percent of endangered or threatened 

species occur either partially or solely 

on private lands (Crouse et al. 2002, p. 

720). Stein et al. (1995, p. 400) found 

that only about 12 percent of listed 

species were found almost exclusively 

on Federal lands (90 to 100 percent of 

their known occurrences restricted to 

Federal lands) and that 50 percent of 

federally listed species are not known to 

occur on Federal lands at all. 

Given the distribution of listed 

species with respect to land ownership, 

conservation of listed species in many 

parts of the United States is dependent 

upon working partnerships with a wide 

variety of entities and the voluntary 

cooperation of many non-Federal 

landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, p. 

1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James 

2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and 

promoting voluntary cooperation of 

landowners are essential to 

understanding the status of species on 

non-Federal lands, and are necessary to 

implement recovery actions such as 

reintroducing listed species, habitat 

restoration, and habitat protection. 

Many non-Federal landowners derive 

satisfaction from contributing to 

endangered species recovery. We 

promote these private-sector efforts 

through the Department of the Interior’s 

Cooperative Conservation philosophy. 

Conservation agreements with nonFederal landowners (safe harbor 

agreements, other conservation 

agreements, easements, and State and 

local regulations) enhance species 

conservation by extending species 

protections beyond those available 

through section 7 consultations. In the 

past decade, we encouraged non-Federal 

landowners to enter into conservation 

agreements, based on a view that we can 

achieve greater species conservation on 

non-Federal land through such 

partnerships than we can through 

regulatory methods (December 2, 1996, 

61 FR 63854). 

As discussed above, consultation 

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, and the 

duty to avoid jeopardy to a listed 

species and adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat, is only 

triggered where Federal agency action is 

involved. In the absence of Federal 

agency action, the primary regulatory 

restriction applicable to non-Federal 

landowners is the prohibition against 

take of listed animal species under 

section 9 of the Act. In order to take 

listed animal species where no 

independent Federal action is involved 

that would trigger section 7 

consultation, a private landowner must 

obtain an incidental take permit under 

section 10 of the Act. 

However, many private landowners 

are wary of the possible consequences of 

encouraging endangered species to their 

property. Mounting evidence suggests 

that some regulatory actions by the 

Federal government, while wellintentioned and required by law, can 

(under certain circumstances) have 

unintended negative consequences for 

the conservation of species on private 

lands (Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5-6; Bean 

2002, pp. 2-3; Conner and Mathews 

2002, pp. 1-2; James 2002, pp. 270-271; 

Koch 2002, pp. 2-3; Brook et al. 2003, 

pp. 1639-1643). Many landowners fear a 

decline in their property value due to 

real or perceived restrictions on landuse options where threatened or 

endangered species are found. 

Consequently, harboring endangered 

species is viewed by many landowners 

as a liability. This holds true for PMJM 

presence on private lands in Colorado. 

This perception results in anticonservation incentives because 

maintaining habitats that harbor 

endangered species represents a risk to 

future economic opportunities (Main et 

al. 1999, pp. 1264-1265; Brook et al. 

2003, pp. 1644-1648). 

According to some researchers, the 

designation of critical habitat on private 

lands significantly reduces the 

likelihood that landowners will support 

and carry out conservation actions 

(Main et al. 1999, p. 1263; Bean 2002, 

p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644-1648). 

The magnitude of this negative outcome 

is greatly amplified in situations where 

active management measures (such as 

reintroduction, fire management, and 

control of invasive species) are 

necessary for species conservation (Bean 

2002, pp. 3-4). We believe that the 

judicious exclusion of specific areas of 

non-federally owned lands from critical 

habitat designations can contribute to 

species recovery and provide a superior 

level of conservation than critical 

habitat alone. 

The purpose of designating critical 

habitat is to contribute to the 

conservation of threatened and 

endangered species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The outcome 

of the designation, triggering regulatory 

requirements for actions funded, 

authorized, or carried out by Federal 

agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the 

Act, can sometimes be 

counterproductive to its intended 

purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus the 

benefits of excluding areas that are 

covered by partnerships or voluntary 

conservation efforts can often be high. 

Benefits of Excluding Lands with 

Habitat Conservation Plans 

The benefits of excluding lands with 

approved HCPs from critical habitat 

designation, such as HCPs that cover the 

PMJM, include relieving landowners, 

communities, and counties of any 

additional regulatory burden that might 

be imposed as a result of the critical 

habitat designation. Many HCPs take 

years to develop, and upon completion, 

are consistent with the recovery 

objectives for listed species that are 

covered within the plan area. Many 

HCPs also provide conservation benefits 

to unlisted sensitive species. 

A related benefit of excluding lands 

covered by approved HCPs from critical 

habitat designation is the unhindered, 

continued ability it gives us to seek new 

partnerships with future plan 

participants, including States, counties, 

local jurisdictions, conservation 

organizations, and private landowners, 

which together can implement 

conservation actions that we would be 

unable to accomplish otherwise. The 

HCPs often cover a wide range of 

species, including listed plant species 

and species that are not State and 

federally listed and would otherwise 

receive little protection from 

development. By excluding these lands, 

we preserve our current partnerships 

and encourage additional conservation 

actions in the future. 

We also note that permit issuance in 

association with HCP applications 

requires consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, which would include 

the review of the effects of all HCPcovered activities that might adversely 

impact the species under a jeopardy 

standard, including possibly significant 

habitat modification (see definition of 

‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3), even without 

the critical habitat designation. In 

addition, all other Federal actions that 

may affect the listed species would still 

require consultation under section 

7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review 

these actions for possibly significant 

habitat modification in accordance with 

the definition of harm referenced above. 

The information provided in the 

previous section applies to the 

following discussions of potential 

exclusions under section (4)(b)(2) of the 

Act. We are considering the exclusion of 

lands covered by such plans. Portions of 

the proposed revised critical habitat 

units and their subunits may warrant 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52086 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

exclusion from the proposed 

designation of revised critical habitat 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based on 

the partnerships, management, and 

protection afforded under these 

approved and legally operative HCPs. In 

this revised proposed rule, we are 

seeking input from the stakeholders in 

these HCPs and the public as to whether 

or not we should exclude these areas 

from the final revised critical habitat 

designation. We also are asking for 

public comment on the possible 

exclusion of proposed critical habitat 

within the El Paso County HCP 

planning area; this HCP is currently 

under development. Below is a brief 

description of each plan and the lands 

within the units proposed as revised 

critical habitat that relate to each plan. 

Douglas County Habitat Conservation 

Plan 

On May 11, 2006, we issued a section 

10 incidental take permit for the 

Douglas County HCP (Service 2006a). 

This permit covers the PMJM. The 

Douglas County HCP covers specified 

activities conducted by Douglas County 

and the Towns of Castle Rock and 

Parker, on private and non-Federal 

lands within a Riparian Conservation 

Zone (RCZ) as mapped by Douglas 

County. The activities covered by the 

Douglas County HCP include 

construction, use, maintenance, and 

closure of roads, bridges, trails, and 

recreational facilities; maintenance and 

repair of existing structures and 

facilities; emergency activities; habitat 

improvements that benefit the RCZ; and 

other necessary County or town public 

improvements. These activities are 

subject to conditions and best 

management practices to minimize 

impacts to known or potential PMJM 

habitat. 

The RCZ depicts the geographic limits 

of known or potential PMJM habitat 

over 283 stream mi (456 km) and over 

18,000 ac (7,000 ha) in Douglas County. 

Impacts to the RCZ associated with the 

covered activities are mitigated by the 

permanent protection of portions of the 

RCZ and the restoration of habitat from 

temporary impacts. Stream segments 

totaling 15 mi (24 km) in length and 

1,132 ac (458 ha) of the RCZ have been 

permanently protected as part of the 

Douglas County HCP. Management 

plans exist or are in development for 

these protected properties (Dougherty 

2009). In addition, the Douglas County 

HCP establishes an impact cap of 430 ac 

(174 ha) of the RCZ. The permanent 

impacts associated with the covered 

activities are distributed throughout 

Douglas County and the RCZ and may 

permanently affect 308 ac (125 ha) of 

the RCZ (about 1.6 percent of the RCZ) 

over the 10-year life of the permit. 

However, in the period from permit 

issuance in May 2006, through May 

2009, only about 12 ac (5 ha) of impacts 

have been documented (Dougherty 

2009). 

A related issue on which we seek 

comment is the potential modification 

of outward boundaries of proposed 

critical habitat within the RCZ to 

conform to Douglas County’s mapped 

RCZ boundaries. While boundaries of 

the proposed critical habitat units 

include standard distances outward 

from streams (varying based on stream 

order), the RCZ represents a site-specific 

attempt to map boundaries of PMJM 

habitat. 

Proposed critical habitat Units 8 and 

9 are within the boundaries of the 

Douglas County HCP; a small amount of 

non-Federal property in Unit 10 is also 

within the boundaries of the Douglas 

County HCP. Protected properties 

serving as mitigation under the Douglas 

County HCP that are all or in part 

within Unit 8 include the Nelson Ranch 

and Dupont Property; those all or in part 

within Unit 9 include the Prairie 

Canyon Ranch, Greenland Ranch, and 

Lake Gulch Property. 

Livermore Area Habitat Conservation 

Plan 

On May 11, 2006, we issued a section 

10 incidental take permit for the 

Livermore Area HCP (Service 2006b). 

This permit covers the PMJM. The 

Livermore Area is located in northern 

Larimer County (Colorado) in the 

Laramie Foothills, near the Wyoming 

border. The Livermore Area HCP 

planning area includes approximately 

750 square mi (1,940 square km) and 

796 mi (1,282 km) of streams including 

a PMJM ‘‘conservation zone’’ estimated 

at approximately 201 mi (324 km) of 

stream and 21,320 ac (8,570 ha). The 

HCP cites protection of 71 mi (114 km) 

of stream, mostly on State lands 

managed for the conservation of their 

natural resources, but also on private 

lands held by The Nature Conservancy 

and managed for the protection of 

biodiversity, or on private lands where 

owners have placed conservation 

easements on their properties to ensure 

their protection in perpetuity. It is not 

clear what proportion of these areas 

support the PMJM. 

Local landowners and public agencies 

holding land within the boundaries of 

the Livermore Area HCP may opt for 

coverage under the HCP and receive 

incidental take permits for activities 

consistent with the Livermore Area 

HCP. The Livermore Area HCP is 

designed to support current land uses, 

including ranching and farming. 

However, inclusion of landowners is 

optional, and they may choose to pursue 

land uses inconsistent with those 

specified in the Livermore Area HCP. 

Many of the private landowners 

represent large land holdings that 

potentially support the PMJM and other 

sensitive species. These large holdings 

are managed primarily for ranching and 

other agricultural uses. Most of the 

rivers, creeks, and tributaries in the 

Livermore Area are located on these 

properties. The Livermore Area HCP 

includes proposed critical habitat 

within Unit 1. 

Eagle’s Nest Open Space Habitat 

Conservation Plan 

We issued Larimer County a section 

10 incidental take for an HCP on their 

Eagle’s Nest Open Space (ENOS) 

property located in the Laramie 

Foothills region of Larimer County 

(Service 2004b). This permit covers the 

PMJM. The ENOS encompasses 755 ac 

(306 ha) of rolling foothills and steep 

slopes and includes 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of 

the North Fork of the Poudre River. 

There are approximately 264 ac (107 ha) 

of PMJM habitat on the ENOS HCP. Less 

than 3 ac (1 ha) can be permanently 

affected by a river access area and trail 

under the ENOS HCP. 

This area is protected as open space 

by the Larimer County Open Lands 

program. The protection and 

enhancement of wildlife habitat is one 

of the primary goals on ENOS. The 

majority of the riparian zone will be 

managed for PMJM conservation. 

Habitat restoration and enhancement 

will be employed to offset impacts to 

PMJM habitat at a minimum ratio of 

1.5:1. The ENOS HCP includes 

proposed critical habitat in Unit 1. 

Denver Water Habitat Conservation Plan 

On May 1, 2003, we issued a section 

10 incidental take permit to Denver 

Water for their HCP (Service 2003b). 

This permit covers the PMJM. Denver 

Water owns various properties 

(including easements), facilities, and 

infrastructure within the PMJM’s range. 

The Denver Water HCP covers the water 

facilities and infrastructure owned and 

operated by Denver Water including: the 

Foothills, Marston, and Moffat treatment 

plants; 17 pump stations; 29 treated 

water storage reservoirs; and 2,464 mi 

(3,968 km) of pipe. The permit area 

includes approximately 6,000 ac (2,700 

ha) of occupied and potential PMJM 

habitat on Denver Water properties in 

Boulder, Jefferson, and Douglas 

Counties. The HCP promotes 

implementation of applicable best 

management practices to benefit the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52087 

PMJM that avoid, minimize, and 

eliminate impacts to occupied and 

potential PMJM habitat. Where impacts 

occur, Denver Water conducts 

mitigation as required in the HCP. 

Denver Water is authorized to take up 

to 25 ac (10 ha) of occupied and 

potential habitat through impacts from 

the covered activities at any one time 

with a maximum of 75 ac (30 ha) total 

disturbed over the 30–year term of the 

HCP. The Denver Water HCP includes 

proposed critical habitat within Units 5, 

6, 9, and 10. 

Struther’s Ranch Habitat Conservation 

Plan 

We issued a section 10 incidental take 

permit for the Struthers Ranch 

residential development consistent with 

the Struther’s Ranch HCP on December 

12, 2003 (Service 2003c). This permit 

covers the PMJM. The site supported 

approximately 49 ac (20 ha) of PMJM 

habitat. Approximately 35.5 ac (14.4 ha) 

of undeveloped land along Black Forest 

Creek was withdrawn from cattle 

grazing, returned to a more natural 

condition, and is maintained as a 

preserve with conservation measures to 

restore and enhance vegetation for 

wildlife. 

Flooding has heavily impacted the 

middle and upper portions of Black 

Forest Creek. A 1999 flood event 

inundated the middle fork and 

deposited a large amount of sand and 

silt downstream. The HCP is designed to 

minimize the possibility of future severe 

flooding events, substantially improve 

remaining PMJM habitat, and minimize 

any adverse effects resulting from 

developed areas nearby. Lands 

preserved as PMJM habitat are deedrestricted and managed for the PMJM. 

The deed restriction prohibits any 

activities that would adversely impact 

PMJM habitat. The Struther’s Ranch 

HCP includes portions of proposed 

critical habitat Unit 11. 

Other Habitat Conservation Plans 

On November 19, 2002, we approved 

an HCP, and we issued a section 10 

incidental take permit covering the 

PMJM for a single family residence on 

the Lefever Property in Black Forest, El 

Paso County (Service 2002b). Under the 

HCP, 0.561 ac (0.252 ha) of PMJM 

habitat was permitted to be disturbed 

and 4.515 ac (1.828 ha) of the property 

was placed in a conservation easement 

and deeded to El Paso County to be 

managed according to specific 

requirements laid out in the HCP. The 

permit expires November 19, 2012. The 

Lefever Property is within proposed 

critical habitat Unit 11. 

On July 23, 2002, we approved an 

HCP, and we issued a section 10 

incidental take permit covering the 

PMJM for a single family residence on 

the Dahl Property, Thunderbird Estates, 

in Colorado Springs, El Paso County 

(Service 2002c). Under the HCP, 0.15 ac 

(0.06 ha) of upland PMJM habitat was 

permitted to be disturbed and 0.5 ac (0.2 

ha) of the property was preserved in a 

native and unmowed condition and 

enhanced through weed control and 

Salix planting. The take permit expired 

July 29, 2007; however, preservation of 

PMJM habitat continues in perpituity. 

The Dahl Property is within proposed 

critical habitat Unit 11. 

Proposed El Paso County Habitat 

Conservation Plan 

El Paso County, in coordination with 

the Service, is developing a countywide 

HCP for the PMJM. We have no 

assurance as to if, when, or in what form 

this HCP will be completed and 

approved, or an incidental take permit 

under section 10 issued. Any 

countywide plan would likely cover 

most or all of the area in proposed 

critical habitat Unit 11. 

Other Properties 

For the following properties, currently 

proposed as critical habitat, we invite 

comment regarding potential exclusion 

from revised critical habitat under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Rocky Flats NWR is located in 

Jefferson County and covers 

approximately 6,262 ac (2,534 ha), of 

which approximately 5,900 ac (2,388 

ha) forms an undeveloped buffer zone 

around a central formerly industrialized 

portion. The site was a nuclear 

industrial facility for the DOE between 

1951 and the end of the Cold War. 

Buildings and other structures at the site 

have been decommissioned and 

demolished, and the disturbed areas 

have been or are undergoing restoration. 

A programmatic section 7 consultation 

on cleanup activities was completed by 

the Service in 2004 (Service 2004c). 

This consultation addressed removal of 

manmade structures in and adjacent to 

PMJM habitat. The site became the 

Rocky Flats NWR in 2005. 

The final Rocky Flats NWR 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) was announced in the Federal 

Register on April 18, 2005 (70 FR 

20164). The CCP outlines the 

management direction and strategies for 

NWR operations, habitat restoration, 

and visitor services for a period of 15 

years. The CCP provides a vision for the 

NWR; guidance for management 

decisions; and the goals, objectives, and 

strategies to achieve the NWR’s vision 

and purpose. One objective of the CCP 

is to protect, maintain, and improve 

approximately 1,000 ac (400 ha) of 

PMJM habitat on the NWR. All of 

proposed critical habitat Unit 6 is 

within Rocky Flats NWR. 

Proposed Expansion of the Milton 

Seaman Reservoir 

Portions of critical habitat Unit 1 are 

within the footprint of the planned 

expansion area of Milton Seaman 

Reservoir along the North Fork of the 

Cache la Poudre River in Larimer 

County. Expansion under the existing 

plan would inundate 2.96 mi (4.77 km) 

within critical habitat designated on 

June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37275), that also 

is included in this revised proposal. The 

proposed reservoir expansion is not 

planned until about 2029. The City of 

Greeley, in a letter dated May 20, 2009, 

outlined its concerns regarding 

designation of critical habitat in this 

area and requested exclusion of the area 

under section 4(2)(b) of the Act (Kolanz, 

in litt., 2009). The letter contended that 

the area in question is not essential to 

the conservation of the species and that 

designation would create significant 

financial burden on the City of Greeley. 

In addition, the letter cited Federal and 

local cooperation in the development of 

water resources in the drainage, that 

impacts from inundation would be 

offset by mitigation, and that reservoir 

expansion would not result in 

extinction of the PMJM. 

Economic Analysis 

We conducted an analysis of the 

potential economic impacts of 

designating critical habitat for the PMJM 

in 2003 when we designated critical 

habitat (68 FR 37275; June 23, 2003). We 

will update that analysis with any new 

information that may be available in 

addition to considering the economic 

impacts on lands that are proposed in 

this revision but that were not 

previously proposed. We will announce 

the availability of the draft economic 

analysis as soon as it is completed, at 

which time we will seek public review 

and comment. At that time, copies of 

the draft economic analysis will be 

available on the Internet at 

www.regulations.gov, on the Internet at 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ 

species/mammals/Preble/, or by 

contacting the Colorado Ecological 

Services Office directly (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our joint policy 

published in the Federal Register on 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52088 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will be 

obtaining the expert opinions of at least 

three appropriate independent 

specialists regarding this proposed rule. 

The purpose of peer review is to ensure 

that our proposed designation of revised 

critical habitat is based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

We will invite these peer reviewers to 

comment during this public comment 

period on our specific assumptions and 

conclusions in this proposed 

designation. 

Public Hearings 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal if we 

receive any requests for hearings. We 

must receive your request for a public 

hearing within 45 days after the date of 

this Federal Register publication. Send 

your request to the mailing address 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. We will schedule 

public hearings on this proposal, if any 

are requested, and announce the dates, 

times, and places of those hearings, as 

well as how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations, in the Federal 

Register and local newspapers at least 

15 days before the first hearing. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review - 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant and has not reviewed 

this proposed rule under E.O. 12866. 

The OMB bases its determination upon 

the following four criteria: 

(1) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(2) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(3) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency must 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA 

to require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of factual basis for certifying 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

We conducted a draft analysis of the 

economic impacts for our previous 

proposed critical habitat designation 

and made it available to the public on 

January 28, 2003 (68 FR 4160). We 

issued an addendum to the economic 

analysis on June 3, 2003 (Service 

2003d). The costs associated with 

critical habitat for the PMJM, across the 

entire area considered for designation 

(areas later designated or excluded), 

were primarily a result of the potential 

effect of critical habitat on residential 

development (almost 80 percent), 

followed by transportation, and other 

activities, including agriculture (Service 

2003d, pp. 1-2). We estimated the 

economic impact to be between $79 and 

$183 million over the next 10 years 

(Service 2003d, p. 1). We presented an 

analysis of the effects of critical habitat 

on small business and certified that the 

designation would not have a significant 

effect on a substantial number of small 

entities in our June 23, 2003, 

designation of critical habitat (68 FR 

37275). 

While we do not believe our revised 

designation, as proposed in this 

document, would result in a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

business entities based on the previous 

designation, we are initiating new 

analyses to more thoroughly evaluate 

potential economic impacts of this 

revision to critical habitat. Therefore, 

we defer the RFA finding until 

completion of the draft economic 

analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) 

of the Act and E.O. 12866. The draft 

economic analysis will provide the 

required factual basis for the RFA 

finding. Upon completion of the draft 

economic analysis, we will announce its 

availability in the Federal Register and 

reopen the public comment period for 

the proposed revised designation. We 

will include with this announcement, as 

appropriate, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis or a certification that 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities accompanied 

by the factual basis for that 

determination. We conclude that 

deferring the RFA finding until 

completion of the draft economic 

analysis is necessary to meet the 

purposes and requirements of the RFA. 

Deferring the RFA finding in this 

manner will ensure that we make a 

sufficiently informed determination 

based on adequate economic 

information and provide the necessary 

opportunity for public comment. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act, we make the 

following findings: 

(1) This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5) – (7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal 

governments,’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52089 

funding, assistance, permits, or 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action may be indirectly impacted by 

the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(2) Based in part on an analysis 

conducted for the 2003 designation of 

critical habitat and extrapolated to this 

proposed revised designation, we do not 

expect this rule to significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Small governments would be affected 

only to the extent that any programs 

having Federal funds, permits, or other 

authorized activities must ensure that 

their actions will not adversely affect 

the critical habitat. Therefore, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. However, as we conduct our 

economic analysis for the revised rule, 

we will further evaluate this issue and 

revise this assessment if appropriate. 

Takings – Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating revised critical habitat for 

the PMJM in a takings implications 

assessment. The takings implications 

assessment concludes that this proposed 

designation of revised critical habitat for 

the PMJM does not pose significant 

takings implications for lands within or 

affected by the proposed designation. 

Federalism – Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with E.O. 13132, this 

proposed rule does not have significant 

Federalism effects. A Federalism 

assessment is not required. In keeping 

with Department of the Interior and 

Department of Commerce policy, we 

requested information from, and 

coordinated development of, our 2003 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

Colorado and Wyoming. We used the 

information gathered in that 

coordination effort in this revised 

proposal. We believe that the 

designation of revised critical habitat for 

the PMJM would have little incremental 

impact on State and local governments 

and their activities. The designation of 

critical habitat in areas currently 

occupied by the PMJM imposes no 

additional restrictions to those currently 

in place and, therefore, has little 

incremental impact on State and local 

governments and their activities. The 

designation may have some benefit to 

these governments because the areas 

that contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species are more clearly defined, 

and the PCEs necessary to support the 

life processes of the species are 

specifically identified. This information 

does not alter where and what federally 

sponsored activities may occur. 

However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-case consultations under section 7 of 

the Act to occur). 

Civil Justice Reform – Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with E.O. 12988, (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We propose designating 

revised critical habitat in accordance 

with the provisions of the Act. This 

proposed rule uses standard property 

descriptions and identifies the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species within the 

designated areas to assist the public in 

understanding the habitat needs of the 

PMJM. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the 

United States for the Tenth Circuit, we 

do not need to prepare environmental 

analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) in connection with 

designating critical habitat under the 

Act. We published a notice outlining 

our reasons for this determination in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld 

by the Circuit Court of the United States 

for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 

1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 

(1996)). However, when the range of the 

species includes States within the tenth 

circuit, such as that of the PMJM, under 

the tenth circuit ruling in Catron County 

Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th 

Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA 

analysis for revised critical habitat 

designation and notify the public of the 

availability of a NEPA document for this 

proposal. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by E.O. 12866 and 

E.O. 12988 and by the Presidential 

Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write 

all rules in plain language. This means 

that each rule we publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship with Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, 

the Department of the Interior’s manual 

at 512 DM 2, and Secretarial Order 

3206, we readily acknowledge our 

responsibility to communicate 

meaningfully with recognized Federal 

tribes on a government-to-government 

basis. In accordance with Secretarial 

Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American 

Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the 

Endangered Species Act), we readily 

acknowledge our responsibilities to 

work directly with tribes in developing 

programs for healthy ecosystems, to 

acknowledge that tribal lands are not 

subject to the same controls as Federal 

public lands, to remain sensitive to 

Indian culture, and to make information 

available to tribes. Tribal lands in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
52090 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Colorado are not included in this 

proposed designation, and the PMJM is 

not believed to exist on or near tribal 

lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use – 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

E.O. 13211 (Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) on 

regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

The E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 

prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. We 

do not expect this proposed rule to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use based on the 

economic analysis we completed for the 

July 17, 2002, proposed PMJM critical 

habitat rule (67 FR 47154). Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action, and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. However, we will 

further evaluate this issue as we 

conduct our economic analysis, and 

review and revise this assessment as 

warranted. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available online at 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ 

species/mammals/Preble/, or upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, 

Colorado Ecological Services Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section). 

Author(s) 

The primary author(s) of this package 

are the staff members of the Colorado 

Ecological Services Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, for the reasons we have 

stated in the preamble, we propose to 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 

U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; 

Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless 

otherwise noted. 

2. In § 17.95(a), revise the entry for 

‘‘Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius preblei)’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and 

wildlife. 

(a) Mammals. 

* * * * * 

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius preblei) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Colorado. Maps and descriptions 

follow. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse are: 

(i) Riparian corridors: 

(A) Formed and maintained by 

normal, dynamic, geomorphological, 

and hydrological processes that create 

and maintain river and stream channels, 

floodplains, and floodplain benches and 

promote patterns of vegetation favorable 

to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse; 

(B) Containing dense, riparian 

vegetation consisting of grasses, forbs, or 

shrubs, or any combination thereof, in 

areas along rivers and streams that 

normally provide open water through 

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse’s 

active season; and 

(C) Including specific movement 

corridors that provide connectivity 

between and within populations. This 

may include river and stream reaches 

with minimal vegetative cover or that 

are armored for erosion control; travel 

ways beneath bridges, through culverts, 

along canals and ditches; and other 

areas that have experienced substantial 

human alteration or disturbance; and 

(ii) Additional adjacent floodplain 

and upland habitat with limited human 

disturbance (including hayed fields, 

grazed pasture, other agricultural lands 

that are not plowed or disked regularly, 

areas that have been restored after past 

aggregate extraction, areas supporting 

recreational trails, and urban–wildland 

interfaces). 

(3) Existing features and structures 

within the boundaries of the mapped 

units, such as buildings, roads, parking 

lots, other paved areas, lawns, other 

urban and suburban landscaped areas, 

regularly plowed or disked agricultural 

areas, and other features not containing 

any of the PCEs are not considered 

critical habitat. 

(4) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52091 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.006</GPH>
52092 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(5) Map Unit 1: North Fork Cache la 

Poudre River, Larimer County, 

Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of 88.3 mi (142.1 

km) of streams and rivers. North Fork 

Cache la Poudre River from Seaman 

Reservoir (40 43 7N 105 14 32W, T.9N., 

R.70W., Sec. 28) upstream to Halligan 

Reservoir spillway (40 52 44N 105 20 

15W, T.11N., R.71W., Sec. 34). Includes 

Lone Pine Creek from its confluence 

North Fork Cache la Poudre River (40 47 

54N 105 15 30W, T.10N., R.70W., Sec. 

32) upstream and continuing upstream 

into North Lone Pine Creek to 7,600 ft 

(2,317 m) elevation (40 49 58N 105 34 

09W, T.10N., R.73W., Sec. 15). Includes 

Columbine Canyon from its confluence 

with North Lone Pine Creek (40 49 47N 

105 33 31W, T.10N., R.73W., Sec. 15) 

upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation 

(40 49 32N 105 33 58W, T.10N., R.73W., 

Sec. 15). Also includes Stonewall Creek 

from its confluence with North Fork 

Cache la Poudre River (40 48 19N 105 

15 21W, T.10N., R.70W., Sec. 29) 

upstream to (40 53 26N 105 15 40W, 

T.11N., R.70W., Sec. 29). Includes 

Tenmile Creek from its confluence with 

Stonewall Creek (40 51 49N 105 15 

32W, T.10N., R.70W., Sec. 5) upstream 

to Red Mountain Road (40 53 00N 105 

16 09W, T.11N., R.70W., Sec. 31). Also 

includes Rabbit Creek from its 

confluence with North Fork Cache la 

Poudre River (40 48 30N 105 16 07W, 

T.10N., R.70W., Sec. 30) upstream to the 

confluence with North and Middle 

Forks of Rabbit Creek (40 49 34N 105 20 

49W, T.10N., R 71W., Sec. 21). Also 

includes South Fork Rabbit Creek from 

its confluence with Rabbit Creek (40 48 

39N 105 19 45W, T.10N., R.71W., Sec. 

27) upstream to (40 49 39N 105 24 40W, 

T.10N., R.72W., north boundary Sec. 

24). Includes an unnamed tributary from 

its confluence with South Fork Rabbit 

Creek (40 47 28N 105 20 47W, T.10N., 

R.71W., Sec. 33) upstream to (40 47 28N 

105 23 12W, T.10N., R.71W., Sec. 31). 

Which in turn has an unnamed tributary 

from their confluence at (40 47 17N 105 

21 48W, T.10N., R.71W., east boundary 

Sec. 32) upstream to (40 46 55N 105 22 

16W, T.9N., R.71W., Sec. 5). Also 

includes Middle Fork Rabbit Creek from 

its confluence with Rabbit Creek (40 49 

34N 105 20 49W, T.10N., R 71W., Sec. 

21) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (40 49 46N 105 26 59W, 

T.10N., R.72W., Sec. 15). This includes 

an unnamed tributary from its 

confluence with Middle Fork Rabbit 

Creek (40 49 56N 105 25 51W, T.10N., 

R.72W., Sec. 14) upstream to 7,600 ft 

(2,317 m) elevation (40 48 48N 105 26 

29W, T.10N., R.72W., Sec. 23). This unit 

includes North Fork Rabbit Creek from 

its confluence with Rabbit Creek (40 49 

34N 105 20 49W, T.10N., R.71W., Sec. 

21) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (40 49 38N 105 29 19W, 

T.10N., R.72W., Sec. 17). Includes an 

unnamed tributary from its confluence 

with North Fork Rabbit Creek (40 50 

45N 105 27 44W, T.10N., R.72W., Sec. 

9) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (40 50 57N 105 28 46W, 

T.10N., R.72W., Sec. 9). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52093 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.007</GPH>
52094 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(6) Map Unit 2: Cache la Poudre 

River, Larimer County, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of 50.6 mi (81.5 

km) of streams and rivers. Cache la 

Poudre River from Poudre Park (40 41 

16N 10 18 2W, T.8N., R.71W., Sec. 2) 

upstream to (40 42 02N 105 34 04W, 

T.9N., R.73W., west boundary Sec. 34). 

Includes Hewlett Gulch from its 

confluence with Cache la Poudre River 

(40 41 16N 105 18 24W, T.8N., R.71W., 

Sec. 2) upstream to the boundary of 

Arapahoe-Roosevelt National Forest (40 

43 29N 105 18 51W, T.9N., R.71W., Sec. 

23). Also includes Young Gulch from its 

confluence with Cache la Poudre River 

(40 41 25N 105 20 57W, T.8N., R.71W., 

Sec. 4) upstream to (40 39 14N 105 20 

13W, T.8N., R.71W., south boundary 

Sec. 15). Also includes an unnamed 

tributary from its confluence with Cache 

la Poudre River at Stove Prairie Landing 

(40 40 58N 105 23 23W, T.8N., R.71W., 

Sec. 6) upstream to (40 39 31N 105 22 

34W, T.8N., R.71W., Sec. 17). Includes 

Skin Gulch from its confluence with the 

aforementioned unnamed tributary at 

(40 40 33N 105 23 16W, T.8N., R.71W., 

Sec. 7) upstream to (40 39 40N 105 24 

16W, T.8N., R.72W., Sec. 13). Unit 2 

also includes Poverty Gulch from its 

confluence with Cache la Poudre River 

(40 40 28N 105 25 44W, T.8N., R.72W., 

Sec. 11) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (40 39 01N 105 26 40W, T.8N., 

R.72W., Sec. 22). Also includes Elkhorn 

Creek from its confluence with Cache la 

Poudre River (40 41 50N 105 26 24W, 

T.9N., R.72W., Sec. 34) upstream to (40 

44 03N 105 27 34W, T.9N., R.72W., Sec. 

21). Also includes South Fork Cache la 

Poudre River from its confluence with 

Cache la Poudre River (40 41 11N 105 

26 50W, T.8N., R.72W., Sec. 3) upstream 

to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation (40 38 

48N 105 29 22W, T.8N., R.72W., Sec. 

20). Includes Pendergrass Creek from its 

confluence with South Fork Cache la 

Poudre River (40 39 56N 105 27 30W, 

T.8N., R.72W., Sec. 15) upstream to 

7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation (40 38 34N 

105 27 28W, T.8N., R.72W., Sec. 22). 

Also included in the unit is Bennett 

Creek from its confluence with Cache la 

Poudre River (40 40 26N 105 28 41W, 

T.8N., R.72W., Sec. 9) upstream to 7,600 

ft (2,317 m) elevation (40 39 19N 105 31 

29W, T.8N., R.73W., Sec. 13). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 2 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52095 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.008</GPH>
52096 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(7) Map Unit 3: Buckhorn Creek, 

Larimer County, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of 45.5 mi (73.2 

km) of streams. Buckhorn Creek from 

(40 30 20N 105 13 39W, T.6N., R.70W., 

east boundary Sec. 9) upstream to 7,600 

ft (2,317 m) elevation (40 34 17N 105 25 

31W, T.7N., R.72W., Sec. 14). Includes 

Little Bear Gulch from its confluence 

with Buckhorn Creek (40 31 17N 105 15 

33W, T.6N., R.70W., Sec. 5) upstream to 

(40 30 43N 105 16 35W, T.6N., R.70W., 

Sec. 6). Also includes Bear Gulch from 

its confluence with Buckhorn Creek (40 

31 16N 105 15 52W, T.6N., R.70W., Sec. 

5) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (40 29 45N 105 20 4W, T.6N., 

R.71W., Sec. 10). Also includes 

Stringtown Gulch from its confluence 

with Buckhorn Creek (40 32 21N 105 16 

42W, T.7N., R.70W., Sec. 30) upstream 

to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation (40 30 

30N 105 20 50W, T.6N., R.71W., Sec. 4). 

Also includes Fish Creek from its 

confluence with Buckhorn Creek (40 32 

48N 105 18 20W, T.7N., R.70W., Sec. 

30) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (40 30 56N 105 21 20W, T.6N., 

R.71W., Sec. 4). Includes North Fork 

Fish Creek from its confluence with 

Fish Creek (40 32 48N 105 18 20W, 

T.7N., R.71W., west boundary Sec. 25) 

upstream and following the first 

unnamed tributary northwest to (40 33 

34N 105 19 45W, T.7N., R.71W., Sec. 

22). Also includes Stove Prairie Creek 

from its confluence with Buckhorn 

Creek (40 34 16N 105 19 48W, T.7N., 

R.71W., Sec. 15) upstream to the dirt 

road crossing at (40 35 22N 105 20 17W, 

T.7N., R.71W., Sec. 10). Also includes 

Sheep Creek from its confluence with 

Buckhorn Creek (40 34 15N 105 20 53W, 

T.7N., R.71W., Sec. 16) upstream to 

7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation (40 33 08N 

105 21 47W, T.7N., R.71W., Sec. 20). 

Also includes Twin Cabin Gulch from 

its confluence with Buckhorn Creek (40 

34 38N 105 23 13W, T.7N., R.71W., Sec. 

18) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (40 35 45N 105 23 36W, T.7N., 

R.71W., Sec. 6). 

(ii) Note: Map of Units 3 and 4 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52097 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.009</GPH>
52098 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(8) Unit 4: Cedar Creek, Larimer 

County, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of 7.5 mi (12.1 

km) of streams. Cedar Creek from the 

boundary of Federal land (40 26 46N 

105 16 17W, T.6N., R.70W., Sec. 31) 

upstream to the boundary of Federal 

land (40 28 15N 105 18 11W, T.6N., 

R.71W., Sec. 24). Includes Dry Creek 

from its confluence with Cedar Creek 

(40 27 07N 105 16 16W, T.6N., R.70W., 

Sec. 30) upstream to the boundary of 

Federal land (40 28 52N 105 16 21W, 

T.6N., R.70W., Sec. 18). Also includes 

Jug Gulch from its confluence with 

Cedar Creek (40 28 15N 105 17 41W, 

T.6N., R.71W., Sec. 24) upstream to the 

boundary of Federal land (40 29 07N 

105 18 28W, T.6N., R.71W., Sec. 14). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4 appears at 

paragraph (7)(ii) of this entry. 

(9) Unit 5: South Boulder Creek, 

Boulder County, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of 7.6 mi (12.2 

km) of streams. Including South Boulder 

Creek from Baseline Road (40 0 0N 105 

12 54W, T.1S., R.70W., Sec. 3) upstream 

to near Eldorado Springs, Colorado (39 

56 7N 105 16 16W, T.1S., R.70W., Sec. 

30). Also Spring Brook from the 

Community Ditch near Eldorado 

Springs (39 55 59N 105 16 10W, T.1S., 

R.70W., Sec. 30) upstream to South 

Boulder Diversion Canal (39 55 11N 105 

16 12W, T.1S., R.70W., Sec. 31). 

(ii) Note: Map of Units 5, 6, and 7 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52099 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.010</GPH>
52100 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(10) Unit 6: Rocky Flats NWR and 

Ralston Creek, Jefferson County and 

Broomfield Counties, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of three subunits 

including 12.5 mi (20.1 km) of streams 

as follows: 

(A) Subunit Woman Creek from 

Indiana Street (39 52 40N 105 9 55W, 

T.2S., R.70W., east boundary Sec. 13) 

upstream to (39 53 3N 105 13 20W, 

T.2S., R.70W., west boundary Sec. 15). 

Includes unnamed tributary from 

confluence with Woman Creek (39 52 

43N 105 10 11W, T.2S., R.70W., Sec. 13) 

upstream to (39 52 39N 105 12 11W, 

T.2S., R.70W., west boundary Sec. 14). 

(B) Subunit Walnut Creek from 

Indiana Street (39 54 5N 105 9 55W, 

T.2S., R.70W., east boundary Sec. 1) 

upstream to (39 53 49N 105 11 59W, 

T.2S., R.70W., Sec. 11). Includes 

unnamed tributary from its confluence 

with Walnut Creek (39 54 6N 105 10 

42W, T.2S., R.70W., Sec. 1) upstream to 

(39 53 35N 105 11 29W, T.2S., R.70W., 

Sec. 11). 

(C) Subunit Rock Creek from State 

Highway 128 (39 54 53N 105 11 40W, 

T.1S., R.70W., Sec. 35) upstream to (39 

54 17N 105 13 20W, T.2S., R.70W., west 

boundary Sec. 3). Includes an unnamed 

tributary from its confluence with Rock 

Creek (39 54 40N 105 12 11W, T.2S., 

R.70W., east boundary Sec. 3) upstream 

to (39 54 42 N 105 13 00W, T.2S., 

R.70W., Sec. 3). Also includes an 

unnamed tributary from its confluence 

with Rock Creek at (39 54 26N 105 12 

34W, T.2S., R.70W., Sec. 3) upstream to 

(39 54 7N 105 12 52W, T.2S., R.70W., 

Sec. 3). Another unnamed tributary 

from its confluence with Rock Creek at 

(39 54 23N 105 12 56W, T.2S., R.70W., 

Sec. 3) upstream to (39 54 8N 105 13 

20W, T.2S., R.70W., west boundary Sec. 

3. Another unnamed tributary from its 

confluence with Rock Creek at (39 54 

15N 105 13 5W, T.2S., R.70W., Sec. 3) 

upstream to (39 54 08N 105 13 09W, 

T.2S., R.70W., Sec. 3). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6 appears at 

paragraph (9)(ii) of this entry. 

(11) Unit 7: Ralston Creek, Jefferson 

County, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of 8.7 mi (13.9 

km) of streams. Ralston Creek from 

Ralston Reservoir (39 49 12N 105 15 

35W, T.3S., R.70W., Sec. 6) upstream 

into Golden Gate Canyon State Park to 

7,600 ft (2,300 m) elevation (39 50 53 

105 21 16W, T.2S., R.71W., Sec. 29). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 7 appears at 

paragraph (9)(ii) of this entry. 

(12) Unit 8: Cherry Creek, Douglas 

County, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of two subunits 

including 29.8 mi (47.9 km) of streams 

as follows: 

(A) Subunit Lake Gulch including 

Cherry Creek from the northern 

boundary of Castlewood Canyon State 

Recreation Area (39 21 44N 104 45 39W, 

T.8S., R.66W., south boundary Sec. 10) 

upstream to the confluence with Lake 

Gulch (39 20 24N 104 45 36W, T.8S., 

R.66W., Sec. 23). Lake Gulch from the 

aforementioned confluence upstream to 

(39 15 37N 104 46 05W, T.9S., R.66W., 

south boundary Sec. 15). Includes 

Upper Lake Gulch from its confluence 

with Lake Gulch (39 17 24N 104 46 

11W, T.9S., R.66W., Sec. 3) upstream to 

(39 13 24N 104 50 21W, T.9S., R.67W., 

mid-point Sec. 36). 

(B) Subunit Antelope Creek including 

Antelope Creek from its confluence with 

West Cherry Creek (39 16 11N 104 42 

49W, T.9S R.65W., S18) upstream to the 

Franktown Parker Reservoir (39 10 20N 

104 46 16W, T.10S R.66W., S22). It also 

includes Haskel Creek from its 

confluence with Antelope Creek (39 13 

43N, 104 45 5W, T.9S R.66W., S35) 

upstream to the Haskel Creek Spring 

Pond at 7,000 ft (2,134 m) elevation (39 

11 60N 104 47 40N, T.10S R.66W., S8). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 8 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52101 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.011</GPH>
52102 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(13) Unit 9: West Plum Creek, Douglas 

County, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of 93.9 mi (151.1 

km) of streams. Plum Creek from 

Chatfield Lake (39 32 35N 105 03 07W, 

T.6S., R.68W., Sec. 7) upstream to its 

confluence with West Plum Creek and 

East Plum Creek (39 25 49N 104 58 8W, 

T.7S., R.68W., Sec. 23). West Plum 

Creek from the aforementioned 

confluence (39 25 49N 104 58 8W, 

T.7S., R.68W., Sec. 23) upstream to the 

boundary of Pike-San Isabel National 

Forest and 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation 

(39 13 07N 104 59 20W, T.9S., R.68W., 

Sec. 34). Includes Indian Creek from its 

confluence with Plum Creek (39 28 22N 

104 59 57W, T.7S., R.68W., Sec. 4) 

upstream to Silver State Youth Camp 

(39 22 24N 105 05 13W, T.8S., R.69W., 

Sec. 11). Indian Creek includes an 

unnamed tributary from its confluence 

with Indian Creek at Pine Nook (39 23 

01N 105 04 24W, T.8S., R.69W., Sec. 2) 

upstream to (39 22 10N 105 04 08W, 

T.8S., R.69W., Sec. 12). Also includes 

Jarre Creek from its confluence with 

Plum Creek (39 25 50N 104 58 15W, 

T.7S., R.68W., Sec. 23) upstream to 

7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation (39 21 50N 

105 03 20W, T.8S., R.69W., Sec. 12). 

Jarre Creek includes an unnamed 

tributary from its confluence with Jarre 

Creek (39 22 58N 105 01 52W, T.8S., 

R.68W., Sec. 5) upstream to (39 22 44N 

105 02 14W, T.8S., R.68W., Sec. 8). Also 

includes an unnamed tributary from its 

confluence with West Plum Creek (39 

22 20N 104 57 39W, T.8S., R.68W., Sec. 

11) upstream to (39 21 33N 104 55 29W, 

T.8S, R67W., Sec.18). Unit 9 also 

includes Garber Creek from its 

confluence with Plum Creek (39 22 10N 

104 57 49W, T.8S., R.68W., Sec. 11) 

upstream to its confluence with South 

Garber Creek and Middle Garber Creek 

(39 21 02N 105 02 13W, T.8S., R.68W., 

Sec. 18). Including South Garber Creek 

from its confluence with Garber Creek 

(39 21 02N 105 02 13W, T.8S., R.68W., 

Sec. 18) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (39 19 14N 105 03 13W, T.8S., 

R.69W., Sec. 25). Including Middle 

Garber Creek from its confluence with 

Garber Creek (39 20 55N 105 02 35W, 

T.8S., R.68W., Sec. 18) upstream to (39 

19 48N 105 04 09W, T.8S., R.69W., west 

boundary Sec. 25). Including North 

Garber Creek from its confluence with 

Middle Garber Creek (39 20 55N 105 02 

35W, T.8S., R.68W., Sec. 18) upstream 

to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation (39 20 

47N 105 04 37W, T.8S., R.69W., Sec. 

23). Includes Jackson Creek from its 

confluence with Plum Creek (39 21 02N 

104 58 30W, T.8S., R.68W., Sec. 14) 

upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation 

(39 17 59N 105 03 57W, T.9S., R.69W., 

Sec. 1). Includes Spring Creek from its 

confluence with West Plum Creek at (39 

19 04N 104 58 26W, T.8S., R.68W., Sec. 

35) upstream to (39 15 21N 105 01 40W, 

T.9S., R.68W., Sec. 20). Including Dry 

Gulch from its confluence with Spring 

Creek (39 17 54N 104 59 58W, T.9S., 

R.68W., Sec. 4) upstream to 7,600 ft 

(2,317 m) elevation (39 16 07N 105 02 

33W, T.9S., R.68W., Sec. 18). Including 

Bear Creek from its confluence with 

West Plum Creek (39 17 30N 104 58 

25W, T.9S., R.68W., Sec. 2) upstream to 

7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation (39 13 57N 

105 06 06W, T.9S., R.68W., Sec. 29). 

Including Gove Creek from its 

confluence with West Plum Creek (39 

14 07N 104 57 42W, T.9S., R.68W., Sec. 

26) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (39 11 50N 104 58 32W, 

T.10S., R.68W., Sec. 11). Includes Merz 

Canyon stream from its confluence with 

Gove Creek (39 13 05N 104 57 33W, 

T.9S., R.68W., Sec. 36) upstream to (39 

12 39N 104 57 04 W, T.10S., R.68W., 

Sec.1). Includes Starr Canyon stream 

from its confluence with West Plum 

Creek (39 13 07N 104 58 41W, T.9S., 

R.68W., Sec. 35) upstream to 7,600 ft 

(2,317 m) elevation (39 12 32N 104 59 

01W, T.10S., R.68W., Sec. 3). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 9 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52103 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.012</GPH>
52104 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(14) Unit 10: Upper South Platte 

River, Douglas, Jefferson, and Teller 

Counties, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of four subunits 

including 35.2 mi (56.6 km) of rivers 

and streams as follows: 

(A) Subunit South Platte River north 

segment, on the border of Jefferson 

County and Douglas County from 

Chatfield Lake (39 31 35N 105 04 49W, 

T.6S., R.69W., Sec. 14) upstream to the 

boundary of U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers property (39 29 33N 105 05 

15W, T.6S., R.69W., south boundary 

Sec. 26. 

(B) Subunit Bear Creek, Douglas 

County from Pike–San Isabel National 

Forest boundary (39 25 27N 105 07 

40W, T.7S., R.69W., west boundary Sec. 

21) upstream to (39 22 32N 105 06 40W, 

T.8S., R.69W., south boundary Sec. 4). 

Includes West Bear Creek from its 

confluence with Bear Creek (39 25 15N 

105 07 30W, T.7S., R.69W., Sec. 21) 

upstream to a confluence with an 

unnamed tributary (39 24 17N 105 07 

38W, T.7S., R.69W., Sec. 33). 

(C) Subunit South Platte River south 

segment, on the border of Jefferson 

County and Douglas County from 

Nighthawk (39 21 05N 105 10 23W, 

T.8S., R.70W., Sec. 13) upstream to (39 

17 27N 105 12 24W, T.9S., R.70W., Sec. 

3). Includes Sugar Creek, Douglas 

County from its confluence with South 

Platte River at Oxyoke (39 18 22N 105 

11 47W, T.8S., R.70W., Sec. 35) 

upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation 

(39 18 28N 105 08 07W, T.8S., R.69W., 

Sec. 32). Includes Gunbarrel Creek, 

Jefferson County from its confluence 

with South Platte River at Oxyoke (39 

18 22N 105 11 47W, T.8S., R.70W., Sec. 

35) upstream to (39 18 41N 105 14 34W, 

T.8S., R.70W., Sec. 32). 

(D) Subunit Trout Creek, Douglas 

County upstream into Teller County 

from (39 13 02N 105 09 31W, T.9S., 

R.69W., Sec. 31) upstream to 7,600 ft 

(2,317 m) elevation which is 0.8 mi (1.3 

km) into Teller County (39 07 13N 105 

05 49W, T.11S., R.69W., Sec. 3). 

Includes Eagle Creek from its 

confluence with Trout Creek (39 11 52N 

105 08 27W, T.10S., R.69W., Sec. 8) 

upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation 

(39 12 06N 105 07 12W, T.10S., R.69W., 

Sec. 9). Also including an unnamed 

tributary from its confluence with Trout 

Creek (39 11 07N 105 08 05W, T.10S., 

R.69W., Sec. 17) upstream to (39 10 18N 

105 08 23W, T.10S., R.69W., Sec. 20). 

Also including Long Hollow from its 

confluence with Trout Creek (39 10 56N 

105 08 01W, T.10S., R.69W., Sec. 17) 

upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) elevation 

(39 11 30N 105 06 19W, T.10S., R.69W., 

Sec. 10). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 10 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52105 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.013</GPH>
52106 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(15) Unit 11: Monument Creek, El 

Paso County, Colorado. 

(i) This unit consists of 38.6 mi (62.0 

km) of streams. Monument Creek from 

its confluence with Cottonwood Creek 

(38 55 36N 104 48 55W, T.13S., R66W., 

Sec. 7) upstream to the southern 

property boundary of the U.S. Air Force 

Academy (38 57 08N 104 49 49W, 

T.13S., R.66W., Sec. 6). Then 

Monument Creek from the northern 

property boundary of the U.S. Air Force 

Academy (39 02 31N 104 51 05W, 

T.12S., R.67W., north boundary Sec. 2) 

upstream to Monument Lake (39 05 19N 

104 52 43W, T.11S., R.67W., Sec. 15). 

Includes Kettle Creek from the property 

boundary of the U.S. Air Force 

Academy (38 58 33N 104 47 55W, 

T.12S., R.66W., Sec. 29) upstream to its 

intersection with a road at (39 00 07N 

104 45 24W, T.12S., R.66W., east 

boundary Sec. 15). Which includes an 

unnamed tributary from its confluence 

with Kettle Creek (38 59 06N 104 46 

55W, T.12S., R.66W., Sec. 21) upstream 

to (38 59 14N 104 46 19W, T.12S., 

R.66W., Sec. 22). Also includes Black 

Squirrel Creek from the property 

boundary of the U.S. Air Force 

Academy (39 00 06N 104 49 00W, 

T.12S., R.66W., Sec. 18) upstream to (39 

02 30N 104 44 38W, T.12S., R.66W., 

north boundary Sec. 2). Including an 

unnamed tributary from its confluence 

with Black Squirrel Creek (39 01 19N 

104 46 21W, T.12S., R.66W., Sec. 10) 

upstream to (39 02 30N 104 45 42W, 

T.12S., R.66W., north boundary Sec. 3). 

Which includes another unnamed 

tributary from (39 01 50N 104 46 20W, 

T.12S., R.66W., Sec. 3) upstream to (39 

02 30N 104 46 03W, T.12S., R.66W., 

north boundary Sec. 3). Also includes 

an unnamed tributary from the property 

boundary of the U.S. Air Force 

Academy (39 00 14N 104 49 3W, T.12S., 

R.66W., Sec. 18) upstream to 6,700 ft 

(2,043 m) elevation (39 0 29N 104 48 

24W, T.12S., R.66W., Sec. 17). Including 

an unnamed tributary from (39 0 19N 

104 48 55W, T. 12S., R.66W., Sec. 18) 

upstream to (39 0 30N 104 48 48N, T. 

12S., R.66W., Sec. 18). Unit 11 also 

includes Monument Branch from the 

property boundary of the U.S. Air Force 

Academy (39 00 50N 104 49 24W, 

T.12S., R.66W., Sec. 7) upstream to (39 

01 10N 104 48 45W, T.12S., R.66W., 

east boundary Sec. 7). Also includes 

Smith Creek from the property 

boundary of the U.S. Air Force 

Academy (39 01 36N 104 49 46W, 

T.12S., R.66W., Sec. 7) upstream to (39 

02 24N 104 48 00W, T.12S., R.66W., 

Sec. 5). Also includes an unnamed 

tributary from the property boundary of 

the U.S. Air Force Academy (39 02 30N 

104 50 23W, T.12S., R.67W., Sec. 1) 

upstream to 6,800 ft (2,230 m) elevation 

(39 02 45N 104 49 57W, T.11S., R.67W., 

Sec. 36). Also includes Jackson Creek 

from its confluence with Monument 

Creek (39 02 33N 104 51 13W, T.11S., 

R.67W., Sec. 35) upstream to (39 04 30N 

104 49 10W, T.11S., R.66W., Sec. 19). 

Includes an unnamed tributary from its 

confluence with Jackson Creek (39 04 

12N 104 50 05W, T.11S., R.67W., Sec. 

25) upstream to Higby Road (39 04 42N 

104 49 40W, T.11S., R.66W., Sec. 19). 

Also includes Beaver Creek from its 

confluence with Monument Creek (39 

02 52N 104 52 02W, T.11S., R.67W., 

Sec. 35) upstream to 7,600 ft (2,317 m) 

elevation (39 03 08N 104 55 32W, 

T.11S., R.67W., Sec. 31). Also includes 

Teachout Creek from its confluence 

with Monument Creek (39 03 44N 104 

51 53W, T.11S., R.67W., Sec. 26) 

upstream to Interstate 25 (39 04 19N 104 

51 29W, T.11S., R.67W., Sec. 23). Also 

includes Dirty Woman Creek from its 

confluence with Monument Creek (39 

04 55N 104 52 35W, T.11S., R.67W., Sec 

22) upstream to Highway 105 (39 05 

35N 104 51 30 W, T.11S., R.67W., Sec 

14). 

(ii) Note: Map of Unit 11 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 52107 

* * * * * Dated: September 28, 2009 

Thomas L. Strickland 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks 

[FR Doc. E9–24113 Filed 10–7–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08OC09.014</GPH>