Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26517

upgrading is appropriate, based on the

incremental benefits and costs and applicable

statutory criteria, the agency issues an NPRM

proposing to upgrade the FMVSS to the level

of Country B’s std. If upgrading is not

appropriate, NHTSA considers issuing an

NPRM proposing to add the requirements of

Country B’s std to the FMVSS as an

alternative compliance option. The proposal

to add the compliance option would set forth

the basis for the agency’s conclusion that

upgrading the FMVSS is inappropriate.

If NHTSA issues an NPRM, it would request

comment on the tentative determination and

the proposed amendment.

3. Decision whether to issue a final rule.

Any final decision to make a determination

regarding relative benefits and functional

equivalency and to amend the FMVSS will

be made in accordance with the process in

the flowchart and applicable law and only

after careful consideration and analysis of the

public comments.

Issued on May 6, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–12598 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AE06

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Final Rule to List the

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse as a

Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service determines the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius

preblei) to be a threatened species

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

(Act) of 1973, as amended. The Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse, a small rodent

in the family Zapodidae, is known to

occur in seven counties in Colorado and

two counties in Wyoming. Historical

records document its former presence in

additional counties in Colorado and

Wyoming. The Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse lives primarily in

heavily vegetated riparian habitats.

Habitat loss and degradation caused by

agricultural, residential, commercial,

and industrial development imperil its

continued existence. This action

implements the protection of the Act for

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

DATES: This rule is effective June 12,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s Colorado Field Office, 755

Parfet Street, Suite 361, Lakewood,

Colorado.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LeRoy W. Carlson, Field Supervisor,

Colorado Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 25486,

Denver Federal Center, Denver,

Colorado 80225–0207 (telephone 303/

275–2370).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

(Zapus hudsonius preblei) (Preble’s) is a

small rodent in the family Zapodidae

and is 1 of 12 recognized subspecies of

the species Z. hudsonius, the meadow

jumping mouse (Krutzsch 1954,

Whitaker 1972, Hafner 1981). The

family Zapus consists of small to

medium-sized mice with long tails and

long feet adapted for jumping. Krutzsch

(1954) provided a revision of the

taxonomy of the genus Zapus in North

America and recognized three living

species, Z. hudsonius, Z. trinotatus, and

Z. princeps. As the most recent revision

of Z. hudsonius, this stands as the

authority for taxonomy. Fitzgerald et al.

(1994) described Z. hudsonius as

greyish to yellowish-brown in color

with an indistinct mid-dorsal band of

darker hair and paler sides, large

hindlegs and hindfeet, and a sparsely

haired tail that accounts for more than

60 percent of the total length.

In his 1899 revision of North

American jumping mice, E. A. Preble

referred specimens of the meadow

jumping mouse from Colorado and

southeastern Wyoming to the subspecies

Z. h. campestris (Preble 1899, cited by

Krutzsch 1954). Krutzsch (1954)

described and named Z. h. preblei as

separate from Z. h. campestris,

indicating as the holotype a specimen

obtained by E. A. Preble in July 1895

from Loveland, Larimer County,

Colorado. All records of Preble’s are

from southeastern Wyoming and eastern

Colorado. The coloration of Preble’s was

described by Krutzsch (1954) as ‘‘color

dull, back from near Clay Color to near

Tawny-Olive with a mixture of black

hair forming poorly defined dorsal

band; sides lighter than back from near

Clay Color to near Cinnamon-Buff;

lateral line distinct and clear

Ochraceous-Buff; belly white,

sometimes faint wash of clear

Ochraceous-Buff; tail bicolored,

brownish to light brownish-black above,

grayish-white to yellowish-white

below’’ (capitalized color terms refer to

a scientific standard, while lower case

terms reflect common usage). Krutzsch

(1954) also provided a technical

description of the skull of Preble’s,

which can prove important to its

identification.

There is a similarity of appearance

between the Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse and Z. princeps, which also

occurs in portions of Colorado and

Wyoming. In general, Z. hudsonius may

be distinguished from Z. princeps by

average external size and cranial size

(Krutzsch 1954, Whitaker 1972).

Preble’s may be distinguished from Z.

princeps by a less pronounced middorsal band, smaller average total

length, and a skull that is small and

light with a narrower braincase and

smaller molars (Fitzgerald et al. 1994).

Since coloration of the mid-dorsal band

and total length are not definitive

characteristics, skull measurements are

most useful for positive identification.

Ranges of the Preble’s and Z. princeps

are not known to overlap in Colorado

but the relationships between respective

ranges in Wyoming is less clear (Garber

1995, Armstrong 1972).

Krutzsch (1954) commented on the

presence of physical habitat barriers and

lack of known intergradation between

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse,

known only from eastern Colorado and

southeastern Wyoming, and other

identified subspecies of Z. hudsonius

ranging to the east and north. Among

recognized subspecies, Krutzsch found

that Preble’s most closely resembled Z.

campestris from northeastern Wyoming,

but summarized differences in

coloration and skull characteristics.

Krutzsch concluded that considerable

differences existed between Preble’s and

related subspecies. In contrast, Jones

(1981) studied specific and intraspecific

relationships within Zapus and

recognized no subspecies of Z.

hudsonius. Jones did, however cite that

Z. hudsonius populations in Colorado

and southeastern Wyoming were

apparently isolated from other

populations. Hafner et al. (1981)

described an additional subspecies Z.

hudsonius luteus present in New

Mexico and Arizona and differentiated

it from Preble’s. This subspecies was

previously considered Z. princeps

luteus, a subspecies of the western

jumping mouse. Recently, Z. h. luteus

was found in Las Animas County,

Colorado (Riggs et al. 1997), the furthest

north that the subspecies has been

recorded, but over 100 miles south of

the confirmed range of Preble’s in

Colorado.

Results from genetic analysis of mice

from Rocky Flats Environmental

Technology Site (Rocky Flats) in

Jefferson County, Colorado, Z.
26518 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

hudsonius from Minnesota and Indiana,

and, Z. princeps from Colorado,

provided clear evidence that the Rocky

Flats mice were of the species Z.

hudsonius. However, the analysis did

not provide a means of separating

subspecies of Z. hudsonius (Bruce

Wunder, Colorado State University,

pers. comm. 1996). Under a cost-sharing

agreement with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, the Colorado Division

of Wildlife supported genetic studies of

Preble’s trapped in Colorado and

Wyoming during the 1996 and 1997

field seasons. Tissue samples from

presumed Preble’s trapped at 23

locations in Colorado and 2 in Wyoming

were assessed, through mitochondrial

DNA analysis, and compared to

reference samples of Z. princeps and to

samples of Z. hudsonius from outside

the known range of Preble’s. The

analysis indicated that mice from

Albany County, Wyoming (Medicine

Bow National Forest) to western Las

Animas County, Colorado (San Isabel

National Forest) formed a coherent

genetic group (Riggs et al. 1997). The

report concluded that ‘‘data appear

consistent with the view that a

geographically contiguous set of

populations previously recognized as

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Z. h.

preblei) form a homogenous group

recognizably distinct from other nearby

populations and from geographicallyadjacent species of the genus’’ (Riggs et

al. 1997). However, some specimens of

Z. hudsonius from outside the known

range of Preble’s, including Z. h.

campestris from northern Wyoming,

were indistinguishable from Preble’s

based on the analysis. Hafner (1998)

reviewed the report cited above and

found no fault with the currently

accepted taxonomic relationship of the

subspecies Z. h. preblei, Z. h.

campestris, and Z. h. luteus. He

commented that current recognition of

these subspecies is appropriately based

on geographic variation of

morphological traits and distribution.

Other conclusions of interest from the

Riggs et al. (1997) genetic study

included a specimen from San Isabel

National Forest, Las Animas County,

Colorado, which was identified as Z.

princeps when it was collected, but was

later determined to be most similar to

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. The

presence of Preble’s in Las Animas

County would significantly expand its

known range southward. Reexamination

of this specimen confirmed diagnostic

dentation of Z. princeps (Cheri Jones,

Denver Museum of Natural History, in

litt. 1998). A mouse from Lone Tree

Creek, Weld County, Colorado, and six

mice from F.E. Warren Air Force Base,

Laramie County, Wyoming, were

identified as Preble’s when they were

trapped and later determined to be most

similar to Z. princeps (Riggs et al. 1997).

Hafner (1998) suggested that the

discrepancies in species associations

found in the analysis by Riggs et al.

(1997) could be due to the specific DNA

segment chosen for analysis, or to

limited hybridization in areas where the

two species’ ranges overlap. Riggs et al.

(1997), Hafner (1998), Tanya Shenk

(Colorado Division of Wildlife, in litt.

1998), and David Armstrong (University

of Colorado, in litt. 1998) encouraged

additional genetic and morphological

investigations to further define

relationships among Zapus in the

region.

The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

has not been studied as extensively as

other subspecies of Z. hudsonius have

been studied elsewhere. Preble’s is

thought to be similar to other Z.

hudsonius in patterns of diet, behavior,

breeding, and habitat utilization. In

general, Z. hudsonius subsists on seeds,

small fruits, fungi, and insects, and

hibernates from October to May

(Whitaker 1972, Fitzgerald et al. 1994).

It is adapted for digging, creates nests of

grasses, leaves, and woody material

several centimeters below the ground,

and is primarily nocturnal or

crepuscular, but can be observed during

daylight. During the breeding season

(June to mid-August), females typically

have 2 to 3 litters of 5 to 6 young per

litter (Quimby 1951, Fitzgerald et al.

1994). Z. hudsonius hibernates

approximately 7 months of the year in

an underground burrow that it excavates

itself (Quimby 1951, Whitaker 1963).

Krutzsch (1954), Quimby (1951), and

Armstrong (1972) agree that across its

range, Z. hudsonius occurs mostly in

low undergrowth consisting of grasses,

forbs (herbaceous plants other than

grasses), or both, in open wet meadows

and riparian corridors, or where tall

shrubs and low trees provide adequate

cover. In addition, Z. hudsonius prefers

lowlands with medium to high moisture

over drier uplands. Whitaker (1972)

concluded that Z. hudsonius avoids the

sparse vegetation that is generally

associated with low moisture habitats.

Fitzgerald et al. (1994) described Z.

hudsonius as most common in lush

vegetation along watercourses or in

herbaceous understories in wooded

areas. Tester et al. (1993) suggested that

proximity to water may be the most

important factor influencing habitat

selection and utilization by Z.

hudsonius.

Some aspects of Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse life history, behavior,

and habitat utilization have been

documented. Armstrong et al. (1997)

and Shenk (in litt. 1998) have compiled

summaries of information on Preble’s

gleaned from recent studies. Data on the

timing of the initial breeding period and

time of hibernation of the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse have been

gathered by researchers at Rocky Flats

(PTI Environmental Services 1996a).

The month of May marks the beginning

of the active period for Preble’s, with

May 5 the earliest capture date at Rocky

Flats. Breeding probably occurs soon

after emergence. Adults begin

hibernation in early September, while

juveniles enter hibernation from midSeptember to late October. The latest

recorded date of capture of Preble’s at

Rocky Flats is October 27. Adults reach

approximately 20 percent body fat

before going into hibernation (Wunder

pers. com. 1997).

Little information exists on Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse food

preferences. It has been speculated that

Preble’s may need an open water source

to fulfill dietary water requirements.

Armstrong et al. (1997) reported that

trapping success in ephemeral drainages

decreased notably in late summer after

creekflow ceased.

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has

been shown to move a significant

distance along drainages but has not

been shown to cross dry uplands to

reach adjacent drainages. A male

Preble’s was recaptured 1.6 kilometers

(km) (1 mile) (mi) upstream from a

previous capture site and a female

Preble’s captured 1.2 km (.75 mi)

downstream from a previous capture

site (Thomas Ryon, PTI Environmental

Services, pers. com. 1998).

At Rocky Flats, the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse appears to be primarily

dependent on riparian shrublands, and

on mesic mixed grasslands that are

adjacent to shrublands and in close

proximity to streams (PTI

Environmental Services 1996b). Field

studies at Rocky Flats led to the

conclusion that Preble’s is typically

found in or near complex riparian

communities with multi-strata

woodland and herbaceous species

(Harrington et al. 1996). Capture

locations were typically humid with

high litter content. In a spring 1996

study at Rocky Flats, all captures were

within 25 meters (m) (82 feet) (ft) of

streams, with 48 percent of captures

within 5 m (16 ft) of streams (PTI

Environmental Services 1996a). In the

same study, 90 percent of captures

occurred within 5 m (16 ft) of canopy

edge consisting of Salix exigua (coyote

willow), Symphoricarpos occidentalis

(western snowberry), Prunus americana
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26519

(choke cherry), and other species.

Margins of artificial ponds at Rocky

Flats are thought to be important

foraging sites (Harrington et al. 1996).

Most successful capture sites at Rocky

Flats were in dense vegetation that

presented burrowing or nesting

opportunities. Five nests were located

in dense vegetation (Harrington et al.

1995). Based on a single underground

hibernaculum, located through use of

telemetry, upland habitats may be used

for hibernation by Preble’s (Fred

Harrington, Pawnee Natural History

Society, pers. comm. 1995). Robert

Schorr (Colorado Natural Heritage

Program, pers. com. 1997) reported four

apparent hibernacula located by

telemetry from 7 m (23 ft) to 31 m (101

ft) from the creek bed of Monument

Creek, U.S. Air Force Academy, El Paso

County, Colorado. All four hibernacula

appeared to be below Salix exigua.

Ryon (1996) reported that four of five

recent (1990 or later) Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse capture sites he

evaluated in Colorado had five

structural habitat components: trees, tall

shrubs, short shrubs, herbaceous

vegetation, and ground cover. The fifth

site had few trees. In contrast, historical

capture sites where Ryon failed to

capture Preble’s generally lacked one or

more of these components.

Preble’s was captured along

Monument Creek within the U.S. Air

Force Academy lands primarily in

densely vegetated riparian communities

where Salix spp., Symphoricarpos

occidentalis, Populus angustifolia

(narrow-leaf cottonwood), and thick

grass understory were dominant (Corn

et al. 1995). Garber (1995) characterized

capture sites along Lodgepole Creek,

Albany County, Wyoming as moist areas

near beaver ponds with dense sedges

and Salix sp. Ryon (1996) suggested that

where Preble’s occupies habitat along

intermittent streams, adjacent wet

meadows and seeps may be important

habitats in dry periods.

Armstrong et al. (1997, p. 77)

described typical Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse habitat as ‘‘welldeveloped plains riparian vegetation

with relatively undisturbed grassland

and a water source in close proximity.’’

Also noted was a preference for ‘‘dense

herbaceous vegetation consisting of a

variety of grasses, forbs and thick

shrubs.’’ Meaney et al. (1997) suggested

that Preble’s has a broader ecological

tolerance than previously thought and

while they require diverse vegetation

and well developed cover, this can be

met in a variety of circumstances.

Recent captures that were exceptions to

the typical habitat described include

individuals found along a small

irrigation ditch and in a mesic grassy

field on City of Boulder Open Space

land (Clint Miller, City of Boulder, in

litt. 1996). Ensight Technical Services

(1997) reported instances of Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse trapped at or

near sites of human alteration including

ditches along roads and driveways, and

wetlands adjacent to highways. Meaney

et al. (1997) emphasized that vegetated

ditches may be a significant habitat for

Preble’s and may provide dispersal

routes.

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse may

never have been widespread in the

period since western settlement.

Armstrong (1972) described it as poorly

known in Colorado and apparently

nowhere abundant. The known

historical range of Preble’s may

represent a relict of a more southern

range of Z. hudsonius, occupied when

the climate was cooler and more damp

(Fitzgerald et al. 1994). The apparent

local extirpation of Preble’s from

historically occupied sites in Colorado

and Wyoming, and the difficulty in

finding it in patches of apparently

adequate but fragmented habitat isolated

by human land uses, suggests a decline

in populations of Preble’s in recent

decades.

Records for Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse define a range including Adams,

Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El

Paso, Elbert, Jefferson, Larimer, and

Weld Counties in Colorado; and Albany,

Laramie, Platte, Goshen, and Converse

Counties in Wyoming (Krutzsch 1954,

Compton and Hugie 1993). Historical

sites in Colorado were further discussed

by Meaney and Clippinger (1995), Ryon

(1996), and Ryon and Harrington (1996).

Garber (1995) discussed historical sites

from Wyoming and suggested that some

Zapus from Wyoming may have been

misidentified. He indicated that based

on study skins alone (without skulls)

positive identification was not possible.

Garber concluded that two specimens

from the University of Wyoming

collection listed as Preble’s were

probably Z. princeps, and that several

specimens listed as Z. princeps are

believed to be Preble’s.

As one might expect, given the

intensity of recent surveys for Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse, more

individuals have been trapped in the

decade of the 1990’s than were

documented prior to 1990. Preble’s is

thought to currently exist in seven

counties in Colorado and two in

Wyoming, but it is not known to be

present in three other counties in

Colorado and three counties in

Wyoming where it was previously

documented.

Colorado

Recent (since 1992) presence of

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse in

Colorado has been documented in seven

counties along the following

watercourses and their tributaries:

South Boulder Creek and St. Vrain

Creek (Boulder County); Coal Creek, and

Ralston Creek, and Rock Creek, Walnut

Creek and Woman Creek at Rocky Flats

(Jefferson County); East Plum Creek,

West Plum Creek, and Indian Creek

(Douglas County); Monument Creek and

tributaries including West Monument

Creek, Smith Creek, Beaver Creek, Pine

Creek, Jackson Creek, Dirty Woman

Creek, and Cottonwood Creek (El Paso

County); Lone Tree Creek (Weld

County); Rabbit Creek and Lone Pine

Creek (Larimer County); and, Running

Creek (Elbert County).

A number of historical and recent

records of Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse exist for Boulder County. A

summary of past records and a report of

1995 survey results was provided by

Armstrong et al. (1996). In 1995,

extensive surveys were conducted,

through a challenge grant cost-share

agreement with the Service, to

determine the presence of Preble’s on

City of Boulder and Boulder County

Open Space lands supporting suitable

habitat. Of 13 sites surveyed, Preble’s

were captured from 2 sites, both along

South Boulder Creek (Armstrong et al.

1996). In 1996, 3 Preble’s were captured

on City of Boulder Open Space along

South Boulder Creek, during an

extensive study of grassland

biodiversity entailing 6,600 trapnights

(one trap set for one night equals one

trapnight) of effort (Miller in litt. 1996).

Perhaps indicative of population

fluctuations, Carron Meaney (Denver

Museum of Natural History, in litt.

1998) reported a total of 55 individual

Preble’s captured during 1997 studies

along South Boulder Creek.

Meaney et al. (1996) reported

capturing at least seven different

Preble’s meadow jumping mice at a

Boulder County Open Space site on St.

Vrain Creek, the only captures on five

Boulder County sites they surveyed in

1996. A 1997 survey failed to find

Preble’s on a site along St. Vrain Creek

near the 1996 capture site (Meaney et al.

1997). However, 1997 surveys

conducted for the Colorado Department

of Transportation along State Highway

36 at St. Vrain Creek, and at various

wetland sites up to two miles south,

resulted in captures of Preble’s in six of

seven locations (Ensight Technical

Services 1997).

Annual studies have taken place at

Rocky Flats since the discovery of the
26520 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse there

in 1991 (Harrington et al. 1996). Recent

populations have been reported in all

four major drainages within the Rocky

Flats buffer zone. During the 1995 field

season, 61 Preble’s were trapped at

Rocky Flats, bringing the total number

of individual mice trapped since 1991 to

161 (Harrington pers. comm. 1995).

Estimated density of Preble’s in areas

trapped during 1995 studies ranged up

to 36 per hectare (ha) (15 per acre (ac)).

Spring 1996 trapping studies at Rocky

Flats, designed to document emergence

from hibernation, resulted in 29

captures of Preble’s in 3,553 trapnights

(PTI Environmental Service 1996a).

During summer 1996 studies at Rocky

Flats, 3,882 trapnights of effort resulted

in capture of only 4 Preble’s (PTI

Environmental Service 1996b).

During 1996 and 1997 the Colorado

Natural Heritage Program reviewed

numerous sites on Jefferson County

Open Space lands for potential presence

of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and

trapped at eight sites. In 1996, Preble’s

were captured on Jefferson County Open

Space land near the mouth of Coal

Creek Canyon, west of Rocky Flats

(Fleming et al. 1996). In 1997, Preble’s

were captured at Ralston Creek (White

Ranch Park, Jefferson County Open

Space) (Peterson 1997).

In Douglas County, Preble’s meadow

jumping mice were captured from a site

on East Plum Creek, near Larkspur in

1995 (Harrington 1995). Also in 1995,

the Colorado Natural Heritage Program

located Preble’s at two sites, one on East

Plum Creek and one on West Plum

Creek, Douglas County. Surveys in 1996

(Meaney et al. 1996) located Preble’s at

an additional site on West Plum Creek

south of Sedalia, and at a Colorado

Division of Wildlife property on Indian

Creek (a tributary to Plum Creek) south

of Louviers. In 1997 the Colorado

Natural Heritage Program identified,

through aerial photographs, 104 sites in

the Plum Creek watershed in Douglas

County that appeared to have suitable

Preble’s habitat. Preble’s were captured

on 10 of 13 private land sites trapped.

Use of a habitat relationships model

provided an estimate of 30.6 miles of

occupied streamside habitat in the

watershed (Chris Pague and Parker

Schuerman, The Nature Conservancy, in

litt. 1998). Meaney et al. (1997) captured

Preble’s at two of three sites they

trapped within the Plum Creek drainage

in 1997; Willow Creek in Roxborough

State Park, and a site along East Plum

Creek currently being purchased by The

Conservation Fund.

In El Paso County, the Colorado

Natural Heritage Program discovered the

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse on

U.S. Air Force Academy lands along

Monument Creek while performing

small mammal surveys in 1994. In

comprehensive 1995 studies, 67 Preble’s

were captured (Corn et al. 1995). Using

varying assumptions regarding trapping

results and habitat available, total

population estimates for Air Force

Academy property of 308 and 449

Preble’s were generated. These

correspond to density estimates in

occupied habitat of 2.00 per ha (0.81 per

ac) and 2.92 per ha (1.18 per ac).

Twenty Preble’s were captured in 1996

on private land along Smith Creek, east

of the Air Force Academy (Meaney et al.

1996). Trapping surveys submitted to

the Service in 1997 from sites of

proposed construction documented

Preble’s within the Monument Creek

drainage off of Air Force Academy

property at Monument Creek, Pine

Creek, Black Squirrel Creek,

Cottonwood Creek, and Dirty Woman

Creek. Meaney et al. (1997) located

Preble’s within the Monument Creek

drainage on Beaver Creek.

Meaney et al. (1997) reported an

improved ability to recognize suitable

habitat and, by targeting mostly small

drainages with dense vegetation,

captured Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse at 7 of 10 sites trapped, including

sites in 3 counties not known to have

extant populations. Preble’s were

captured at Rabbit Creek and Lone Pine

Creek, within Cherokee Park State

Wildlife Management Area, Larimer

County. A single apparent Preble’s was

captured on private land along Lone

Tree Creek, Weld County (see

discussion of genetic studies by Riggs et

al. 1997). In Elbert County, a single

Preble’s was found at Hay Gulch, a

tributary of Running Creek. Among sites

recommended for future surveys were

the confluence of Lone Tree Creek and

the South Platte River (Weld County),

and Bijou Creek, Kiowa Creek, and

Running Creek (Elbert County) (Meaney

et al. 1997).

Wyoming

In Wyoming, Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse has been recently

documented in two counties, along

Crow Creek at F.E. Warren Air Force

Base (Laramie County) and in the

Lodgepole Creek drainage, within the

Medicine Bow National Forest (Albany

County). The Wyoming Cooperative

Research Unit successfully captured two

Preble’s on F.E. Warren Air Force Base,

Laramie County, in the 1995 field

season (Garber 1995). Garber conducted

Preble’s surveys at four Wyoming sites

during the 1995 field season. He was

unable to locate any Preble’s on F.E.

Warren Air Force Base, but did find

Preble’s at two locations in the

Lodgepole Creek drainage within the

Medicine Bow National Forest in

Albany County. The Colorado Natural

Heritage Program surveyed for Preble’s

at Warren Air Force Base in 1996 and

captured 8 apparent Preble’s (see

discussion of genetic studies by Riggs et

al. 1997) in 2,200 trapnights of effort

(Schuerman and Pague 1997).

Previous Federal Action

The Service included the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse as a category 2

candidate species in the 1985 Animal

Notice of Review (50 FR 37958) and

retained that status in subsequent

notices, published in the Federal

Register on January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554),

November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58810), and

November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). In

1996 the Service discontinued the

practice of maintaining a list of category

2 species and the Preble’s did not

appear in the February 28, 1996 (61 FR

7596), Notice of Review. Category 2

species were those species for which

information in the Service’s possession

indicated that listing was possibly

appropriate, but for which substantive

data on biological vulnerability and

threats were not available to support a

proposed rule. Candidate species are

currently defined as those species for

which the Service has sufficient

information on file detailing biological

vulnerability and threats to support

issuance of a proposed rule, but

issuance of the proposed rule is

precluded by other listing actions.

On August 16, 1994, the Service

received a petition from the Biodiversity

Legal Foundation to list the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse as endangered

or threatened throughout its range and

to designate critical habitat within a

reasonable amount of time following the

listing. The petitioner submitted

information that Preble’s populations in

Colorado and Wyoming are imperiled

by: ongoing and increasing urban,

industrial, agricultural, ranching, and

recreational development; ongoing and

increasing wetland/riparian habitat

destruction and/or modification; small

size of known populations; and

inadequacy or lack of governmental

protection for the species and its

habitats.

On March 15, 1995 (60 FR 13950), the

Service published notice of the 90-day

finding that the petition presented

substantial information indicating that

listing the Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse may be warranted, and requested

comments and biological data on the

status of the mouse. On March 25, 1997,

the Service issued a 12 month finding

on the petitioned action along with a
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26521

proposed rule to list Preble’s as an

endangered species and announced a

90-day public comment period (62 FR

14093). On May 5, 1997, the Service

announced three public hearings

regarding the proposed rule and

extended the comment period through

July 28, 1997 (62 FR 24387). The Service

reopened the public comment period on

December 23, 1997, for a period of 30

days, through January 22, 1998 (62 FR

67041).

Summary of Comments and

Recommendations

In the March 25, 1997, proposed rule

and associated notifications, and in

subsequent notices to extend or reopen

the public comment period, all

interested parties were requested to

submit factual reports or information

that might contribute to the

development of a final rule. The public

comment period was extended through

July 28, 1997 (62 FR 24387) and

reopened from December 23, 1997,

through January 22, 1998 (62 FR 67041).

Various Federal and State agencies,

county governments, scientific

organizations, and other interested

parties were contacted and requested to

comment. Newspaper notices were

published in the Rocky Mountain News

(Denver, CO), the Colorado Springs

Gazette-Telegraph (CO), the Boulder

Daily Camera (CO), the Casper Star

Tribune (WY), and the Wyoming Eagle

Tribune (Cheyenne, WY), which invited

general public comment and attendance

at public hearings.

Public hearings were initiated by the

Service and held May 19, 1997, in

Cheyenne, Wyoming; May 21, 1997, in

Colorado Springs, Colorado; and May

22, 1997, in Denver, Colorado. Each

hearing began with opening comments

by the Service followed by an

opportunity for public comments. In

Cheyenne, 8 people attended and 1

commented; in Colorado Springs 28

attended and 8 commented; and in

Denver 27 attended and 4 commented.

One hundred and thirty-eight written

comments were received. Significant

issues are discussed below. Several

individuals or groups submitted

comments in both the original and the

reopened comment periods, or during

hearings and later in writing. Senator

Craig Thomas of Wyoming opposed the

proposal. Two Federal agencies

commented and opposed the proposal;

the Department of Energy’s Rocky Flats

Field Office supported a 6-month

extension of the proposed rule. The

Department of Energy’s Western Area

Power Administration supported a

threatened listing. Six State agencies

commented, four from Wyoming and

two from Colorado. From Wyoming,

three State agencies opposed the

proposal (two of the three supported an

extension) and one Wyoming agency

neither supported nor opposed the

proposed rule. From Colorado, one

agency opposed the proposal and

supported an extension and one neither

supported nor opposed the proposed

rule. Of 128 comments by individuals or

other groups, 29 supported the proposed

rule, 74 opposed it, and 25 were neutral.

Five stockgrowers or farm organizations

provided comments opposing the

proposal. Five of six conservation or

environmental groups supported the

proposal and one was neutral.

Written comments and oral

statements presented at the public

hearings and received during the

comment periods are addressed in the

following summary. Comments of

similar nature are grouped under a

number of general issues.

Issue 1: The Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse is not a valid subspecies since

genetic studies conducted to date have

not conclusively differentiated it from

certain other subspecies of Z.

hudsonius.

Response: Preble’s is widely

recognized as a valid subspecies by the

scientific community. Genetic studies

point to an aggregate of similar Z.

hudsonius populations consistent with

ecological, distributional, and

morphological information on Preble’s

(Z. h. preblei).

Issue 2: Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse identification in the field is not

possible because of the similarity

between Preble’s and Z. princeps.

Response: Field identification of

Zapus is difficult when attempted by

individuals not thoroughly familiar with

both species. To date, no overlap has

been documented between the range of

Preble’s and the range of Z. princeps in

Boulder, Jefferson, Douglas, and El Paso

Counties in Colorado. These counties

support the vast majority of currently

known Preble’s populations. Since the

two species may coexist in portions of

southeastern Wyoming, some historical

records from Wyoming are difficult to

confirm. Recent genetic studies may

indicate some uncertainty regarding the

identity of apparent Preble’s trapped in

Weld County, Colorado and Laramie

County, Wyoming. However,

populations of Zapus that are consistent

morphologically and ecologically with

Preble’s, will be considered Preble’s by

the Service pending conclusive studies

resolving the identities of the two

species. Identification of any Zapus

captured in Weld County, Colorado (as

well as in adjacent Larimer County,

Colorado) and in southeastern Wyoming

should be throughly documented and

tissue samples should be obtained for

future genetic analysis.

Issue 3: Historical trapping records

support the contention that Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse has long been

a rare mammal and they provide a poor

baseline from which to measure current

trends in populations.

Response: Conclusions regarding the

status and trends of Preble’s made by

the Service are based on the best

available historical and recent

population information on Preble’s, the

distribution of its preferred habitats, and

on the significant threats to these

habitats. While historical records come

from diverse trapping efforts that rarely

targeted Zapus, they document a former

presence in locations where Preble’s is

not currently found. Recent surveys of

several historical sites have failed to

locate Preble’s. Loss of these

populations has been attributed to

changes in habitat.

Issue 4: Comprehensive trapping

surveys throughout Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse range are needed to

ascertain its true status and distribution.

Response: Existing data are sufficient

to determine the overall status of

Preble’s. Additional trapping studies

will be conducted to better document

Preble’s status within certain portions of

its range. Since 1992, numerous studies

have addressed the status and

distribution of Preble’s. Trapping

studies supported by the Colorado

Division of Wildlife in 1995, 1996, and

1997 helped to document distribution of

Preble’s in Colorado. In 1997 alone,

more than 120 locations in Colorado

were trapped, with a minimum of 400

trapnights of effort at each location.

Limited access to private lands has

hampered survey efforts at some

locations and will probably continue to

do so in the future.

Issue 5: Since Preble’s exists on some

sites where grazing, mowing, and other

human land uses occur, these activities

should not be considered threats.

Response: Land uses that have a

dramatic adverse impact on habitats that

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

requires can present significant threats

to its existence. The relationships

between human land use and Preble’s

populations are undoubtedly complex

and need further study. The manner,

timing, and extent of grazing or mowing

may dictate what effects these activities

have on Preble’s and its habitat.

However, Preble’s do coexist in grazed

areas such as the Medicine Bow

National Forest in Wyoming and

Boulder Open Space lands in Colorado,

and some ranching and farming

practices are thought likely to be
26522 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

compatible with maintaining Preble’s

populations. The Service believes that

best management ranching and farming

practices, which avoid adverse affects

on habitat characteristics, are

compatible with many natural resource

objectives.

Issue 6: Water projects and irrigation

may be beneficial to the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse, since these

activities can create wetland habitat.

Response: Preble’s seems largely

dependent on moist habitat with dense

vegetation in or near riparian corridors.

Effects of water projects on Preble’s and

its habitat can vary greatly. Water

projects can effectively eliminate,

degrade, or fragment Preble’s habitat.

However, activities that enhance and

extend such habitat can benefit Preble’s.

Issue 7: Trapping studies are a

significant threat to Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse.

Response: The scientific value of

trapping studies will be measured

against the threats such studies

represent to Preble’s. The Service will

issue permits to qualified individuals

conducting approved trapping studies

on Preble’s. While ‘‘live traps’’ are being

used, the Service is aware of a few

mortalities associated with recent

trapping. Trapping techniques that best

safeguard Preble’s will be required by

the Service.

Issue 8: Predators may be a threat to

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

and should be controlled.

Response: While Preble’s has coexisted with a community of predators

over time, little is known regarding the

effect of predators or competing species

on Preble’s populations. Human

activities have undoubtably altered

predator populations. Human

development may, for example, increase

numbers of great-horned owls and

raccoons. However, there is presently

insufficient evidence to demonstrate

that control of predators would benefit

Preble’s.

Issue 9: Captive breeding and release,

and relocation of the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse should be used to

stabilize populations and eliminate the

need for listing.

Response: Scarcity of suitable habitat

presumably limits current Preble’s

distribution. Maintenance of quality

habitat is the principal conservation

goal. Relocation and reintroduction of

Preble’s into unoccupied sites with

suitable habitat may become a part of

the future recovery of this species.

Issue 10: If the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse were protected on

Federal land there would be no need to

protect it on private land.

Response: The Service is working

with the U.S. Air Force, the Department

of Energy, and the Forest Service to

assure that conservation of Preble’s is

carried out on all Federal lands on

which it currently exists. While both the

Air Force Academy and Rocky Flats

support apparently stable populations of

Preble’s, these sites compose a small

fraction of the total Preble’s range.

Protection of these sites alone would not

alleviate the need for listing of Preble’s

or achieve recovery.

Issue 11: Local regulations exist that

currently protect the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse and its habitat.

Response: The Service has received

from the Colorado Department of

Natural Resources a summary of local

regulations, incentive programs,

Colorado Water Conservation Board

instream flow decrees, and open space

purchase programs that help protect

habitats that support Preble’s. A variety

of regulations apply to activities in

riparian areas and, in effect, contribute

to conservation of Preble’s. However,

few local ordinances currently provide

direct protection of Preble’s or its

habitat. Natural areas and wildlife

habitat may be considered in zoning or

development review, but most

ordinances will permit significant

variance and provide for considerable

latitude in interpretation. For example,

construction within the 100-year

floodplain may be tightly restricted by

such measures, but the mowing, cutting,

or overgrazing of Preble’s habitat is

generally not addressed. The City of

Boulder wetlands protection ordinance

has a specific provision designed to

protect rare and declining species

including Preble’s. Fort Collins provides

protection for ‘‘endangered species

habitat’’ in development review, but

apparently does not address rare,

declining, or threatened species.

Incentives and purchase programs

contribute to riparian conservation but

afford no direct legal protection for

Preble’s. While often beneficial to

Preble’s, public acquisition of riparian

areas may, at times, result in increased

human use incompatible with Preble’s.

The Service supports use of local land

use regulations to conserve Preble’s and

its habitat; however, the best measure of

their past effectiveness in protecting

Preble’s is the success of these

regulations in maintaining the integrity

of riparian systems within Preble’s

range. Direct and secondary effects of

human activity continue to cause

alteration of riparian areas despite these

protections. The Service is currently

engaged in discussions with the

Colorado Department of Natural

Resources and the Colorado Preble’s

Meadow Jumping Mouse Working

Group to determine how local

regulations and acquisition programs

can be used more effectively to protect

Preble’s and its habitat.

Issue 12: The Service should

designate critical habitat for Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse.

Response: The Service has

determined that designation of critical

habitat will not provide additional

benefits beyond that achieved by the

listing of Preble’s at this time (see the

Critical Habitat section of this rule). The

Service could reevaluate designation of

critical habitat at some future time

should circumstances change and more

becomes known about Preble’s, its

habitat, and potential benefit to the

species to be gained from designation of

critical habitat.

Issue 13: The Service should extend

the proposed rule for a period of 6

months.

Response: The Service can only

extend a proposed rule when it finds

that there is a substantial disagreement

among scientists knowledgeable about

the species regarding the sufficiency or

accuracy of the data available relevant

to the listing. The Service finds no

substantial disagreement among

scientists knowledgeable about Preble’s

that would serve as a basis for extension

of the proposed rule.

Issue 14: The collaborative planning

process for Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse conservation, initiated by the

State of Colorado, should be pursued as

an alternative to listing.

Response: Consistent with the spirit

and intent of the 1995 ‘‘Memorandum of

Agreement between the State of

Colorado and the Department of Interior

Concerning Programs to Manage

Colorado’s Declining Native Species,’’

the Service fully supports the

collaborative planning process for

Preble’s conservation that is under way

in Colorado. The intent of the

Memorandum of Agreement is to

facilitate and promote collaboration and

cooperation in managing and conserving

fish and wildlife in Colorado. It was not

intended to serve as an alternative to

listing threatened or endangered species

as required by the Endangered Species

Act. The collaborative planning process

includes stakeholders from local

governments, the private sector, the

State, and Federal agencies. This final

rule to list Preble’s as a threatened

species is not intended to discourage or

detract from this conservation effort;

however, the Service recognizes that it

will take time and commitment on the

part of numerous stakeholders for this

process to achieve meaningful

protection of Preble’s. The Service
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26523

believes that, ultimately, this process

will produce a conservation plan and

implementation agreements that both

protect Preble’s and its habitat over the

long term and will minimize regulatory

and economic effects of this listing.

These products may form the basis of

one or more Habitat Conservation Plans

or a rule prepared in accordance with

section 4(d) of the Endangered Species

Act. To this end, the Service is

providing financial support to help

move this process forward.

Issue 15: Rodents are destructive and

carry disease. Listing the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse may impact

pest control and lead to disease or

increased crop losses.

Response: Preble’s has not been

implicated as a vector for human

disease. Its rarity and dependence on

riparian and wetland areas minimize its

potential as a pest. Pest control efforts

within and around residences and other

buildings, and in crop fields when

carried out in accordance with pesticide

label restrictions, are unlikely to conflict

with Preble’s conservation. However, in

some cases the application or discharge

of agrichemicals, or other pollutants,

and pesticides, onto plants, soil, ground

water, or other surfaces within areas

that drain into streams occupied by

Preble’s may result in the deterioration

of Preble’s habitat and cause harm to the

species. Use of such chemicals in

violation of label directions, or any use

following Service notification that such

use, application or discharge is likely to

harm the species, would be evidence of

unauthorized use, application or

discharge.

Peer Review

In accordance with policy

promulgated July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),

the Service solicited the expert opinions

of independent specialists regarding

pertinent scientific or commercial data

and assumptions relating to the

taxonomy, population models, and

supportive biological and ecological

information for species under

consideration for listing. The purpose of

such review is to ensure listing

decisions are based on scientifically

sound data, assumptions, and analyses,

including input of appropriate experts

and specialists.

The data and assumptions regarding

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

were reviewed by three specialists. Peer

reviewers were identified through

inquiries to research institutions,

universities, and museums for

individuals with recognized expertise

with the subject taxa. The reviewers

were asked to comment upon specific

assumptions and conclusions regarding

the species. Their comments have been

incorporated into the final rule as

appropriate and are summarized below.

One reviewer provided a context for

species status over time scales reflecting

long-term climate change and effects of

European settlement within Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse range. The

same reviewer (citing a relative lack of

species-specific trapping efforts prior to

the 1990’s and geographical gaps in

recent survey efforts) stated that while

conclusions regarding recent Preble’s

decline might be accurate, they were not

strongly supported by capture data. The

reviewer suggested that examination of

the adverse changes to the riparian

habitats required by Preble’s could

provide additional insight to population

status and trends.

The reviewers of the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse information concluded

that additional study of habitat

requirements and population biology

are needed to implement effective

conservation of Preble’s. Specifically,

the limited knowledge of hibernation

habitat requirements was cited by two

reviewers. A better understanding of

Preble’s movement patterns was cited

by two reviewers as important. One

reviewer emphasized that more

information on Preble’s food habitats is

needed.

All three reviewers discussed threats

to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

One reviewer suggested that known

populations at the Air Force Academy

and Rocky Flats reflect the long-term

protection of these sites from human

disturbance rather than presence of

optimal Preble’s habitat. Another

reviewer concluded that currently only

two or three sites supporting Preble’s

are adequately protected. Threats

discussed by reviewers included

fragmentation of riparian corridors,

gravel mining, and alteration of water

regimes and the resulting effects on

riparian vegetation.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations

(50 CFR Part 424) promulgated to

implement the listing provisions of the

Act set forth the procedures for adding

species to the Federal lists. A species

may be determined to be a threatened or

endangered species due to one or more

of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius

preblei) are as follows:

A. The present or threatened

destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. After

reviewing the best scientific data

currently available, the Service believes

that Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

has undergone a decline in range and

that populations within its remaining

range have been lost. Habitat loss and

fragmentation resulting from human

land uses have adversely impacted

Preble’s populations, and continue to do

so. Armstrong (in litt. 1997) concluded

that the meadow jumping mouse, in this

region as elsewhere, is a habitat

specialist, and that its specialized

habitat is declining. As the summary

below demonstrates, a variety of known

and potential threats to its habitat have

been documented.

The Colorado Natural Heritage

Program ranks Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse as T2, imperiled

globally, and S2, imperiled in Colorado;

the Wyoming Natural Diversity database

ranks Preble’s as S1, critically imperiled

in Wyoming (Schuerman and Pague

1997).

A study by Compton and Hugie

(1993), which was funded by the

Service, found it difficult to assess

historical trends and current status of

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse due to

the scarcity of demographic data. Based

on their review, they recommended that

Preble’s be federally listed as a

threatened species. However, after a

largely unsuccessful search for suitable

habitat in Wyoming and unsuccessful

trapping surveys for Preble’s at five sites

in southeastern Wyoming in 1993, they

concluded that Preble’s might be

extirpated from Wyoming (Compton and

Hugie 1994). Their revised

recommendation was that Preble’s be

federally listed as an endangered

species.

Since 1993, efforts to document

existing populations of Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse have increased

commensurate with rising concern over

its status. Recent trapping efforts have

located Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse populations in some areas

(Douglas, El Paso, and Elbert counties,

Colorado) where few or no historical

records exist. However, recent trapping

has also failed to produce captures at

historical sites and sites with apparently

suitable habitat within Preble’s

historical range. Preble’s is not known

to be currently present in Adams,

Arapahoe, and Denver counties in

Colorado where it was historically

documented.

Ryon (1996, in litt. 1997) investigated

nine historical Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse capture sites in six

Colorado counties through trapping and

site history. Ryon concluded that

Preble’s was absent at all nine sites and

related absence of Preble’s to changes in

habitat (see also Ryon and Harrington
26524 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1996). Specific human activities

impacting habitat at these sites included

real estate development, highway

construction, stream alteration, and

grazing. In addition, offsite impacts may

have caused isolation of sites that

rendered them unsuitable for Preble’s.

Ryon concluded that the range of

Preble’s has decreased, especially

adjacent to or east of the Interstate

Highway 25 urban corridor.

Extensive studies of public lands in

Boulder County in 1995 resulted in

capture of 23 Preble’s, on 2 of 13 sites

surveyed, in 17,800 trapnights of effort

(Armstrong et al. 1996). Sites were

selected, in part, based on documented

historical presence and perceived

quality of habitat. Among the authors’

conclusions were that Preble’s is not

abundant in the Colorado Piedmont of

Boulder County and that suitable habitat

appeared to be present on some sites

where trapping was unsuccessful.

Recent surveys for Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse at certain other sites

with potential habitat in Colorado have

been unsuccessful in documenting

presence. Surveys funded and carried

out by the Department of the Army at

the Army’s Fort Carson Military

Reservation in El Paso and Pueblo

counties resulted in no Preble’s captures

despite 3,311 trapnights of effort in

apparently suitable habitat (Bunn et al.

1995). Private researchers and U.S.

Department of Agriculture Forest

Service personnel found no Preble’s in

limited surveys of seemingly adequate

habitats within the Forest Service’s

Pawnee National Grassland in northern

Weld County (Harrington pers. comm.

1995).

Patterns of capture suggest that

populations may fluctuate over time at

occupied sites (Shenk in litt. 1998). This

raises questions regarding security of

documented populations and

significance of unsuccessful trapping

reports. However, trapping surveys

provide the best available information

regarding current status and distribution

of Preble’s.

Over 150 surveys for Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse have been conducted in

recent years at locations where

development is anticipated. In 1997,

results of 104 Colorado surveys were

submitted to the Service for proposed or

potential development sites that

supported potential Preble’s habitat.

Nine of 35 surveys in El Paso County,

7 of 19 in Boulder County, and 1 of 17

from Jefferson County documented

Preble’s presence. All successful

surveys in El Paso County were on

Monument Creek and its tributaries

upstream from (north of) downtown

Colorado Springs. In contrast,

approximately 15 trapping studies from

El Paso County downstream of the

Cottonwood Creek and Monument

Creek confluence (on Monument Creek,

Fountain Creek, and their tributaries)

failed to document Preble’s. Six of 7

successful Boulder County surveys were

near a 2-mile segment of State Highway

36 near Lyons (Ensight Technical

Services 1997). Thirty-three 1997

surveys from Adams, Arapahoe, Denver,

Douglas, Larimer, and Weld counties

failed to locate Preble’s. Fragmentation

and isolation of habitat have apparently

caused local extirpation of Preble’s in

highly developed areas. Shenk (in litt.

1998) suggested that development of the

Denver metropolitan area has created a

north-south gap in Preble’s range.

In contrast to surveys above at

anticipated development sites, Meaney

et al. (1997) targeted likely Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse habitat

throughout its known range and

successfully trapped Preble’s at 7 of 10

sites in 1997. Their results filled gaps

regarding Preble’s status in north-central

Colorado and suggest that their ability to

identify Preble’s habitat has improved

over their 1995 and 1996 efforts which

found Preble’s at 0 of 10 and 4 of 10

sites respectively.

While historical status in Wyoming is

less clear (Garber 1995), Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse is not currently

known from its former range in Albany,

Goshen, and Natrona counties. Garber

documented Preble’s persisting at only

two Wyoming sites, commented on the

difficulty of capturing Preble’s at these

sites, and concluded that substantial

additional work was needed to fully

determine the status of Preble’s in

Wyoming. The Wyoming Game and Fish

Department (Bill Wichers in litt. 1997)

concurred with the conclusion that

Preble’s has likely been extirpated from

most or all of its historical range in

Wyoming.

Trapping surveys provide evidence

that the Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse has declined throughout portions

of its range. This decline and future

threats to existing Preble’s populations

are linked to widespread habitat

alteration. The Colorado Piedmont east

of the Front Range and adjacent areas of

southeastern Wyoming have changed

from predominantly prairie habitat

intermixed with perennial and

intermittent streams and associated

riparian habitats, to a more agricultural

and urban setting with grazing,

residential, commercial, industrial, and

recreational development. The Colorado

Front Range urban corridor represents

only about 4 percent of the State’s land

area but supports 80 percent of its

population (Wright 1993).

Unfortunately, this area of development

corresponds almost directly to known

Preble’s range. Fueled by human

population increases, an increase of 1

million people is estimated by 2020,

development in this area continues at an

unprecedented rate.

Compton and Hugie (1993, 1994)

cited human activities that have

adversely impacted Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse including: conversion of

grasslands to farms; livestock grazing;

water development and management

practices; and residential and

commercial development. They

mentioned the effects of urbanization

occurring from Colorado Springs,

Colorado, to Cheyenne, Wyoming, as a

continuing threat to remaining

populations. Ryon (1995) commented

that recent capture sites he observed

were on large, historically undisturbed

lands supporting native plant

communities.

Shenk (in litt. 1998) linked potential

threats to ecological requirements of

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and

suggested that factors which impacted

vegetation composition and structure,

riparian hydrology, habitat structure,

distribution, geomorphology, and

animal community composition must be

addressed in any conservation strategy.

Some researchers hypothesize that

overgrazing by livestock may be an

important cause of the decline of the

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.

Compton and Hugie (1994) stated that in

southeastern Wyoming almost all

private land of appropriate topography

and hydrology to support Preble’s

habitat was heavily grazed by livestock

and that overgrazing was the most

significant factor in reducing habitat for

Preble’s. While not mentioning grazing

specifically, the Wyoming Game and

Fish Commission (Wichers in litt. 1997)

cited riparian degradation as the

primary cause of Preble’s decline in

Wyoming and stated that the situation

would not improve without active

management. Ryon (1996) cited

livestock grazing as a contributor to lack

of structural habitat diversity he

observed on historical Preble’s sites in

Colorado. Two of the largest

documented populations of Preble’s

exist on Federal properties (Rocky Flats

and the U.S. Air Force Academy) where

livestock grazing is excluded.

The importance of ‘‘late season

obesity’’ (the buildup of fat reserves) in

meadow jumping mice and its positive

correlation to hibernation survival, posthibernation development, and

successful reproduction has been well

documented (Nichols and Conley 1982,

Muchlinski 1980). Preble’s meadow

jumping mice entering hibernation with
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26525

low fat reserves are less likely to survive

the winter or to successfully breed the

following spring. Late season grazing of

Preble’s habitat, as well as mowing or

burning, could adversely affect Preble’s

by reducing the availability of food

resources essential for buildup of fat

reserves.

City of Boulder Open Space lands

endured intensive grazing, farming, or

haying regimes until they became part

of the City of Boulder Open Space

system. Grazing and haying continue on

sites supporting the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse, largely as land

management tools. Impacts of current

management practices to Preble’s and

their habitats are largely unknown.

The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

has been documented to coexist on sites

supporting grazing, including the

Medicine Bow National Forest in

Wyoming and Plum Creek, Douglas

County, in Colorado. Armstrong et al.

(1997) suggested that timing and

intensity of grazing are probably

important factors in maintaining

Preble’s habitat and that maintenance of

woody vegetative cover may be a key

consideration.

Human development has produced

profound changes in the hydrology of

streams flowing east from the Colorado

Front Range. Riparian habitat on which

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

depends is in turn dependent on surface

flows and groundwater. Water

development and management in its

various forms can alter Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse habitat, often, but not

always, with adverse impacts. Fitzgerald

et al. (1994) stated that inundation of

riparian areas to create reservoirs had

decreased available Preble’s habitat.

Compton and Hugie (1993) concluded

that management of water for

commercial and residential use tends to

channelize and isolate water resources,

and has reduced in size and fragmented

riparian habitats used by Preble’s. They

found development of irrigated

farmland had a negative impact on

Preble’s habitat, and that any habitat

creation it produced was minimal.

However, Preble’s has been shown to

use overgrown water conveyance

ditches and pond edges and may use

ditches for dispersal (Meaney et al.

1997, Shenk in litt. 1998).

Water diversions and associated land

use changes can impact Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse habitat

directly, as well as through hydrologic

alterations to Preble’s habitat located

downstream. While an integrated

natural resource management plan at

the Air Force Academy includes

specific provisions for Preble’s

conservation, Corn et al. (1995)

expressed concern over the hydrologic

integrity of Monument Creek and its

tributaries because of activities

upstream of the Air Force Academy.

Flood control, through the placement of

riprap and other structural stabilization

options, has been proposed on areas that

support Preble’s, including portions of

Monument Creek and its tributaries.

While Rocky Flats supports one of the

largest known populations of Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse and has served

as a refuge for Preble’s, the future

conservation of Preble’s at this site is

uncertain due to possible impacts to

occupied habitats. Without careful

planning, Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse habitats at Rocky Flats could be

impacted by the Department of Energy’s

planned bioremediation (the

detoxification of toxic substances using

biological agents) and hazardous

contaminant cleanup, associated water

management practices designed to

contain hazardous materials spills and

prevent their migration offsite, and dam

safety and maintenance activities. An

additional threat is potential disruption

of the current hydrology by mining

operations. There are proposals to

expand existing commercial sand and

gravel extraction and processing

activities in the Rock Creek drainage

both outside and within the boundary of

Rocky Flats. The Department of Energy

does not control mineral rights on the

land in question. The Service is

currently working with the Department

of Energy to provide permanent

protection of Preble’s habitat at Rocky

Flats.

Alluvial aggregate extraction, often in

or near riparian habitats, continues to

expand as development intensifies

along the Colorado Front Range. Ryon

(1996) and Armstrong et al. (1997)

suggested that such mining can destroy

and fragment Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse habitat. Armstrong (in litt. 1997)

suggested that mining impacts are

significant and, unlike some other

human uses, cause permanent changes

to Preble’s habitat. Mining also targets

gravel deposits that may provide key

hibernation sites.

Residential and commercial

development, accompanied by highway

and bridge construction, and instream

alterations to implement flood control,

directly remove Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse habitat, or reduces,

alters, fragments, and isolates habitat to

the point where Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse can no longer persist.

Corn et al. (1995) proposed that a 100

m (328 ft) buffer of unaltered habitat be

established to protect the floodplain of

Monument Creek from a range of human

activities that might adversely effect

Preble’s or its habitat. At some historical

capture sites, habitat appears intact, but

isolation has probably rendered the sites

unsuitable for Preble’s (Ryon 1996).

Roads, trails, or other linear

development through Preble’s habitat

may act as barriers to movement. Shenk

(1998) suggested that on a landscape

scale, maintenance of acceptable

dispersal corridors linking patches of

Preble’s habitat may be critical to its

conservation.

Development and heavy use of trails

within occupied Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse habitats may impact the

species by destroying its habitat, nests,

and food resources, or by disrupting

behavior. Recreational trail systems

have been established or are proposed

along many riparian corridors within

Preble’s range. Heavily used recreational

trails currently exist on City of Boulder

Open Space lands, including sites that

support Preble’s. A current study near a

new paved trail along South Boulder

Creek is assessing impacts to a known

Preble’s population (Meaney in litt.

1998).

Habitat alteration may encourage

invasion of weeds. While little is known

regarding impact of invasive, nonnative

vegetation on Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse, Ryon (1996) expressed concern

and Garber (1995) stated that this may

represent one of the most serious

problems facing the mouse. Corn et al.

(1995) discussed both the problem of

invasive weeds degrading Preble’s

habitat and the potential problem of

weed control programs removing cover

and thereby impacting Preble’s habitat.

In summary after reviewing the best

scientific data currently available, the

Service finds that Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse has undergone a decline

in range and that populations within its

remaining range have been lost. Habitat

alteration, degradation, loss, and

fragmentation resulting from residential,

commercial, recreational, flood control

and water development, and

agricultural and livestock grazing land

uses have adversely impacted and

fragmented Preble’s populations.

Significant threats to the continued

existence of Preble’s are also posed by

hazardous materials, mining, and

highway and bridge construction. This

species is also highly susceptible to

localized extinction from naturally

occurring events such as flooding,

predation, and disease outbreaks.

B. Overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes. The Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse has no known commercial or

recreational value. Scientific and

educational collecting has not been

widespread over the past century. While
26526 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

the Service is aware of a small amount

of incidental mortality associated with

recent scientific studies, this is not

thought to present a threat to Preble’s

populations.

C. Disease or predation. The Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse, as well as

other native rodents, carries parasites

and diseases that may reduce vigor,

curtail reproductive success, and cause

death. There is no evidence whether or

not any epizootic disease has caused

significant impact to Preble’s. While

plague is regularly found in other rodent

species within Preble’s range, its impact

to Preble’s populations is not known.

Predation on the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse has always existed as a

naturally occurring association between

predator and prey. While evidence is

scant, human development may have

altered this relationship. Armstrong et

al. (1996) recommended studies be

conducted on influences of the

suburban environment and associated

densities of species such as striped

skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon

(Procyon lotor), and the domestic cat

(Felis catus) on Preble’s. Free-ranging

domestic cats may locally present a

problem to Preble’s. Corn et al. (1995)

recommended a 1.5 km (.9 mi) setback

of housing development from Preble’s

habitat to exclude predation by ‘‘house

cats.’’ As an alternative they suggested

a strict prohibition on free-ranging cats.

More information is needed about the

effects from predation by domestic and

feral cats, and perhaps dogs (Canis

familiaris), on Preble’s.

D. The inadequacy of existing

regulatory mechanisms. The decline of

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse is

partially due to the inherent weakness

or non-application of the existing laws

and regulations that could serve to

protect Preble’s and its habitat. Relevant

Federal laws include the Clean Water

Act, Endangered Species Act, Federal

Power Act, Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act, Food Security Act,

and National Environmental Policy Act.

Federal regulations and policies have

limited protection authority and scope

for non-listed species. These statutes

only recommend, not require, that

projects carried out, funded, or

permitted by the Federal government

attempt to mitigate impacts to species of

special concern due to scarcity or

decline.

Colorado Division of Wildlife

Regulations (Chapter 10, Article IV)

classify Z. hudsonius as a ‘‘nongame’’

species. This designation means that

permits must be obtained for take of

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse related

to scientific, educational, or

rehabilitation purposes. Preble’s is a

‘‘species of special concern’’ in

Colorado; however, this is not a

statutory designation. Preble’s is

currently under consideration for

endangered species designation in

Colorado. In Wyoming, the Wyoming

Game and Fish Department has

classified Z. hudsonius as a nongame

species protected under Wyoming Game

and Fish Department Nongame Wildlife

Regulations promulgated by WF23–1–

103 and 23–1–302. This designation

protects Preble’s from takings and sales

by only issuing permits for the purpose

of scientific collection. While the above

regulations limit the taking of Preble’s,

they provide no measures to protect the

species’ habitats. State listing

encourages State agencies to allocate

funds and exercise authority to achieve

recovery, stimulate research, and allow

redirection of priorities within State

natural resource departments. However,

without additional measures to protect

habitat, such State laws are generally

inadequate.

There are few regional or local laws,

regulations, or ordinances that

specifically protect Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse or its habitat from

inadvertent or intentional adverse

impacts. A myriad of local regulations,

incentive programs, and open space

programs exist, as documented in

materials forwarded to the Service by

the Colorado Department of Natural

Resources. While certain regulations are

designed to conserve wetlands or

floodplains, it is unlikely that they

effectively control land uses (grazing,

mowing, cutting, burning) that may

impact vegetation on which Preble’s

depends. Further, Preble’s may be

dependent on hibernacula sites outside

the protected wetlands or floodplains.

Many existing local regulations create a

process of site plan review which

‘‘considers’’ or ‘‘encourages’’

conservation of wildlife, wetlands, and

natural habitats. Effectiveness of local

regulations in maintaining naturally

functioning riparian corridors may vary

greatly depending on how these

apparently flexible regulations are

implemented. Beyond direct impact to

Preble’s habitat, secondary impacts of

development (increased recreational

use, altered flow regimes and

groundwater levels, and increase in

domestic predators) may not currently

be addressed at the local level.

Of note is the 1997 creation of a

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse

Working Group, organized by the

Colorado Department of Natural

Resources to initiate a collaborative

planning process designed to produce a

legally and scientifically sound

approach to conservation of Preble’s.

This effort is supported in part by

appropriations from Congress,

specifically for the Preble’s planning

process. The Service is an active

participant in this process and is fully

supportive of the goal of developing a

Preble’s conservation plan and

implementing agreements. However,

there are no such plans or agreements

currently in place. The Service

anticipates that this planning process

may lead to the creation of one or more

Habitat Conservation Plans or to the

application of the Service’s

discretionary rule-making authority

pursuant to section 4(d) of the

Endangered Species Act.

E. Other natural or manmade factors

affecting its continued existence. Use of

pesticides and herbicides has

undoubtably increased across known

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse range

as human land use has intensified.

These chemicals could directly poison

Preble’s or may be ingested through

contaminated food or water. Specific

impacts to Preble’s from pesticides and

herbicides are not currently known.

Intensive human development creates a

range of additional environmental

impacts (including but not limited to

noise, and the degradation of air and

water quality) that could alter Preble’s

behavior, increase the levels of stress,

and ultimately contribute to loss of

vigor or death of individuals, and

extirpation of populations.

In summary, the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse, historically a rare

mammal, has declined. Seven counties

in Colorado and two in Wyoming are

known to support Preble’s populations.

Riparian habitats required to support

Preble’s have been severely modified or

destroyed by human activities in many

areas east of the Colorado Front Range

and in southeastern Wyoming. With

current human population increases, the

loss and modification of riparian habitat

continues. Existing regulations have

proven to be inadequate to protect

Preble’s, as witnessed by its apparent

decline and the continued destruction

and modification of its habitats.

The Service has carefully assessed the

best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past,

present, and future threats faced by this

species in developing this rule. Based

on this evaluation, the preferred action

is to list the Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse as a threatened species. The

Service has determined that the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse is likely to

become endangered within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range and

therefore meets the requirements to be

listed as threatened. Based on 1997
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26527

survey data, Preble’s is now known to

exist in several additional sites in

Colorado. In addition, 1997 studies in

Douglas County, Colorado, suggest

substantial occupied habitat exists along

East Plum Creek and West Plum Creek.

For this reason, the Service believes that

a designation as threatened more

accurately reflects the threats facing this

species than the endangered status that

was identified in the March 25, 1997,

proposed rule. The Service knows of no

substantial disagreement among

scientists knowledgeable about Preble’s

regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of

the available data relevant to this

determination, which would serve as a

basis for extension of the proposed rule.

Critical habitat is not being proposed for

the reasons stated below.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as: (i) the specific areas

within the geographical area occupied

by the species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations or

protection; and, (ii) 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’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to bring the species to the point at

which listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, the Secretary designate

critical habitat at the time the species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. Service regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of

critical habitat is not prudent when one

or both of the following situations exist:

(1) The species is threatened by taking

or other human activity, and

identification of critical habitat can be

expected to increase the degree of threat

to the species, or (2) such designation of

critical habitat would not be beneficial

to the species. The Service finds that

designation of critical habitat is not

prudent for Preble’s meadow jumping

mouse for the reasons described below.

Critical habitat receives consideration

under section 7 of the Act with regard

to actions carried out, authorized, or

funded by a Federal agency (see

Available Conservation Measures

section). As such, designation of critical

habitat may affect activities on Federal

lands and may affect activities on nonFederal lands where such a Federal

nexus exists. Potential benefits of

critical habitat designation derive from

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, which

requires Federal agencies, in

consultation with the Service, to ensure

that their actions are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of

listed species or to result in the

destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat of such species.

Critical habitat, by definition, applies

only to Federal agency actions. 50 CFR

402.02 defines ‘‘jeopardize the

continued existence of’’ as meaning to

engage in an action that would

reasonably be expected, directly or

indirectly, to reduce appreciably the

likelihood of both the survival and

recovery of a listed species in the wild

by reducing the reproduction, numbers,

or distribution of that species. Both

jeopardizing the continued existence of

a species and adverse modification of

critical habitat have similar standards

and thus similar thresholds for violation

of section 7 of the Act. In the section

7(a)(2) consultation process, the

jeopardy analysis focuses on potential

effects on the species’ populations,

whereas the destruction or adverse

modification analysis focuses on habitat

value, specifically on those constituent

elements identified in the critical

habitat listing.

Common to both jeopardy and

destruction or adverse modification

biological opinions is the requirement

that the Service find an appreciable

effect on both the species’ survival and

recovery. This is in contrast to the

public perception that the adverse

modification standard sets a lower

threshold for violation of section 7 than

that for jeopardy. Thus, Federal actions

satisfying the standard for adverse

modification are nearly always found to

also jeopardize the species concerned,

and the existence of designated critical

habitat does not materially affect the

outcome of consultation. Biological

opinions that conclude that a Federal

agency action is likely to adversely

modify critical habitat but is not likely

to jeopardize the species for which it is

designated are extremely rare

historically; none have been issued in

recent years. Thus, the Service believes

that, from a section 7 consultation

perspective, little or no additional

conservation benefit would be achieved

for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse by

the designation of critical habitat.

Additionally, designation of critical

habitat provides protection only on

Federal lands or on non-Federal lands

when there is Federal involvement,

through authorization or funding or

participation, in a project or activity.

Four populations of the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse are located on

Federal lands administered by the U.S.

Forest Service, U.S. Air Force and the

Department of Energy. These agencies

are aware of the species’ occurrence at

these sites and the requirement to

consult with the Service. The

Department of Energy (DOE) at Rocky

Flats and the Air Force Academy have

both been active in Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse survey, research and

conservation. The DOE continues to

study Preble’s at Rocky Flats, has

mapped occupied and potential habitat,

and is developing a PMJM Protection

Plan for the facility. The Air Force

Academy has been active in surveying

for Preble’s and continues to support

research into habitat use including radio

tracking of animals. Warren Air Force

Base and the Forest Service have

supported some survey work with

additional work remaining to be

accomplished. In each case these

facilities, Rocky Flats and the Air Force

Academy, both of which support

important populations, are well aware

of their responsibilities regarding

section 7. The designation of critical

habitat would provide no change in

their present operations and impart no

additional benefit. Therefore, informing

these agencies of the species location

and need to consult is unnecessary.

Designation of critical habitat

provides no limitations or constraints

on private landowners if there is no

Federal nexus, and, as such, provides

the species no benefit. Activities on

private lands rarely have a federal

nexus. A Federal nexus may in some

cases be found for parcels of lands

where there is an activity either funded,

authorized or permitted by a Federal

agency. Under the Clean Water Act

section 404 a permit is required for any

activity resulting in the discharge of

dredge and fill material from

jurisdictional waters. Generally such

activities on small parcels of private

lands are excluded from individual

permit requirements under the Corps

section 404 Nationwide Permit program.

In all cases where there is a Federal

nexus to an activity occurring on private

lands, any underlying Federal action

(the issuance of a permit) triggering the

standard for adverse modification

would also be found to trigger the

jeopardy standard, with the existence of

designated critical habitat not materially

affecting the outcome of consultation.

Therefore such designation of critical

habitat on balance would not afford the

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse any

additional benefit.
26528 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Expansive blocks of public lands

ensures that Federally sponsored

activities will receive the benefit of

section 7 consultation, regardless of

whether or not critical habitat is

designated. Protection of the habitat of

the species will also be addressed

through the Act’s recovery process.

Only through the recovery process will

a recovery plan be created that will

prescribe specific management actions

and the establishment of numerical

population goals. In addition, the

landowners may choose to develop a

habitat conservation plan through the

section 10 permitting process that will

manage for the conservation of the

species. Thus, protection of habitat can

be addressed through the recovery,

section 10 and section 7 consultation

processes, and designation of critical

habitat would afford the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse no additional

benefit.

Listing of the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse as a threatened species

also publicizes the present vulnerability

of this species and, thus, can be

reasonably expected to increase the

threat of vandalism or intentional

destruction of the species habitat. In

light of the vulnerability of this species

to vandalism or the intentional

destruction of its habitat (for example

poisoning, lethal trapping, burning or

cutting of habitat), the designation of

critical habitat in and of itself and the

publication of maps providing its

precise locations and descriptions of

essential elements, as required for the

designation of critical habitat, would

reasonably be expected to increase the

degree of threat to the species and its

habitat, increase the difficulties of law

enforcement, and further contribute to

the decline of Preble’s.

The Service acknowledges that

critical habitat may provide some minor

benefit in that it may identify areas

important to a species, call attention to

those areas in special need of protection

and contribute a positive influence for

securing funding or land acquisitions,

etc., if a parcel of land is designated as

critical habitat. However, in this case,

where identification of such areas is

expected to exacerbate a potentially

serious additional threat (vandalism),

information regarding the special needs

of the species for protection can be

disseminated more effectively through

alternative means, and such designation

could also impart negative connotations

and dissuade people from participating

in conservation activities simply

because an area is designated critical

habitat.

Therefore, because of the increased

threat of taking, the fact that designation

of critical habitat would provide little

different or greater benefit than that

provided by the jeopardy standard

under section 7 regulations, and that

any minor benefits accruing from such

designation are outweighed by its

negative effects, the Service has

determined that the designation of

critical habitat for the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse is not prudent.

The Service will continue its efforts to

obtain more information on Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse biology and

ecology, including essential habitat

characteristics, current and historical

distribution, and existing and potential

sites that can contribute to conservation

of the species. The information resulting

from this effort will be used to identify

measures needed to achieve

conservation of the species, as defined

under the Act. Such measures could

include, but are not limited to,

development of conservation

agreements with the States, other

Federal agencies, local governments,

and private landowners and

organizations.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to a

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain practices.

Recognition through listing results in

public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, State, and local

agencies, private organizations, and

individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition, cooperation

with the States, and requires that

recovery actions be carried out for all

listed species. The protection required

of Federal agencies and the prohibitions

against taking and harm are discussed,

in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act requires

Federal agencies to evaluate their

actions with respect to any species that

is proposed or listed as endangered or

threatened, and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is being

designated. Regulations implementing

this interagency cooperation provision

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part

402. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal

agencies to insure that activities they

authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the species or destroy or

adversely modify its critical habitat. If a

Federal action may affect a listed

species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter

into formal consultation with the

Service.

The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

occurs on lands administered by the

U.S. Air Force, Department of Energy,

U.S. Forest Service, Colorado Division

of Wildlife, Colorado State Parks,

Boulder County, Jefferson County, City

of Boulder, and on private lands. For

Federal lands where Preble’s occur, the

Act would require the appropriate land

management agency to evaluate

potential impacts to Preble’s that may

result from activities they authorize or

permit. The Act requires consultation

under section 7 of the Act for activities

on Federal, State, county, or private

lands, including tribal lands, that may

impact the survival and recovery of

Preble’s, if such activities are funded,

authorized, carried out, or permitted by

Federal agencies. The Federal agencies

that may be involved as a result of this

proposed rule include the Service,

Department of Energy, Forest Service,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, Bureau

of Land Management, Bureau of

Reclamation, Department of the Army,

Department of the Air Force, Office of

Surface Mining, Western Area Power

Administration, Rural Utilities Service,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Federal Highway

Commission, and Environmental

Protection Agency. Federally listing

Preble’s as a threatened species will

require these agencies to consider

potential impacts to Preble’s prior to

approval of any activity authorized or

permitted by them (e.g., Clean Water

Act’s section 404 permits, grazing

management, military maneuvers,

bioremediation and hazardous materials

cleanup, mining permitting and

expansion, highway construction, etc.).

Federal agency actions that may

require consultation as described in the

preceding paragraph include: removing,

thinning or altering vegetation;

implementing livestock grazing

management that alters vegetation

during warm seasons; construction of

roads or access along or through

riparian areas; channelization and other

alteration of perennial and intermittent

streams and their hydrological regimes

for flood control and other water

management purposes; permanent and

temporary damming of streams to create

water storage reservoirs or deviate the

stream’s course; human activities in or

near Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

habitats; construction of residential,

commercial, and industrial

developments, including roads, bridges,

public utilities and telephone lines,

pipelines, and other structures;

bioremediation and hazardous materials
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 26529

management, containment, and cleanup

efforts such as those at Rocky Flats; and,

sand and gravel and other types of

mining activities within or upstream of

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse

habitats.

The Act and implementing

regulations set forth a series of general

prohibitions and exceptions that apply

to all listed wildlife. The prohibitions

codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make

it illegal for any person subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States to take

(including harass, harm, pursue, hunt,

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or

collect; or attempt any of these), import

or export, ship in interstate commerce

in the course of commercial activity, or

sell or offer for sale in interstate or

foreign commerce any listed species. It

also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver,

carry, transport, or ship any such

wildlife that has been taken illegally.

Certain exceptions apply to agents of the

Service and State conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities

involving listed wildlife under certain

circumstances. Regulations governing

permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22

and 17.23. Such permits are available

for scientific purposes, to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species,

and/or incidental take in connection

with otherwise lawful activities.

Information collections associated with

these permits are approved under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., and assigned Office and

Management and Budget clearance

number 1018–0094. For additional

information concerning these permits

and associated requirements, see 50 CFR

17.32.

Requests for copies of the regulations

regarding listed wildlife and inquiries

about prohibitions and permits may be

addresses to U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal

Center, Denver, Colorado 80225

(telephone 303/236–8155, Facsimile

303/236–8192).

The Service adopted a policy on July

1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the

maximum extent practicable at the time

a species is listed, those activities that

would or would not constitute a

violation of section 9 of the Act. The

intent of this policy is to increase public

awareness of the effect of the listing on

proposed and ongoing activities within

a species’ range. The Service believes

that, based upon the best available

information, the following actions will

not result in a violation of section 9,

provided these activities are carried out

in accordance with existing regulations

and permit requirements:

(1) Activities authorized, funded, or

carried out by Federal agencies (e.g.,

grazing management, agricultural

conversions, wetland and riparian

habitat modification, flood and erosion

control, mineral development, housing

and commercial development,

recreational trail development, road and

dam construction, hazardous material

containment and cleanup activities,

prescribed burns, pest control activities,

pipelines or utility lines crossing

riparian/wet meadow habitats, logging,

military maneuvers and training) when

such activity is conducted in

accordance with any incidental take

statement prepared by the Service in

accordance with section 7 of the Act;

(2) Activities such as grazing

management, flood and erosion control,

agricultural conversions, wetland and

riparian habitat modification, mineral

development, housing and commercial

development, road and dam

construction, recreational trail

development, hazardous material

containment and cleanup activities,

prescribed burns, pest control activities,

pipelines or utility lines crossing

riparian/wet meadow habitats, logging,

military maneuvers and training when

such activity does not occur in habitats

suitable for the survival and recovery of

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse,

does not alter downstream hydrology or

riparian habitat supporting Preble’s, and

does not result in actual death or injury

to the species by significantly modifying

essential behavioral patterns;

(3) Within the hibernation period and

outside denning areas, controlled burns

and mowing, or other activities that

temporarily alter the Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse food sources. The

period when mowing and burning

activities would not impact the Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse nourishment

may vary at specific locations, but

would usually fall between October 15

and April 15 of every year;

(4) Human recreational activities

undertaken on foot or horseback at

breeding, feeding, and hibernating sites

that do not degrade Preble’s meadow

jumping mouse habitat (e.g., waterfowl

hunting, bird watching, sightseeing,

photography, camping, hiking); and,

(5) Application of pesticides in

accordance with label instructions, in

areas that do not drain into Preble’s

meadow jumping mouse habitats.

Activities that the Service believes

could potentially result in a violation of

section 9 include, but are not limited to:

(1) Unauthorized or unpermitted

collecting, handling, harassing, or taking

of the species;

(2) Activities that directly or

indirectly result in the actual death or

injury death of Preble’s meadow

jumping mice, or that modify the known

habitat of the species, thereby

significantly modifying essential

behavioral patterns (e.g., plowing,

mowing, or cutting; conversion of wet

meadow or riparian habitats to

residential, commercial, industrial,

recreational areas, or cropland;

overgrazing; road and trail construction;

water development or impoundment;

mineral extraction or processing; offhighway vehicle use; and, hazardous

material cleanup or bioremediation);

when such activities are not carried out

pursuant to either a section 10(a)(1)(B)

permit issued by the Service; a

protective regulation issued under

section 4(d) necessary and advisable for

the conservation of the species, or in

accordance with any reasonable and

prudent measures given by the Service

under section 7(b)(4)(C)(ii) of the Act.

(3) The application or discharge of

agrichemicals, or other pollutants, and

pesticides, onto plants, soil, ground

water, or other surfaces in violation of

label directions, or any use following

Service notification that such use,

application or discharge is likely to

harm the species; would be evidence of

unauthorized use, application or

discharge.

Questions regarding whether specific

activities, such as changes in land use,

will constitute a violation of section 9

should be directed to the Colorado Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

The prohibition against intentional

and unintentional ‘‘take’’ of listed

species applies to all landowners

regardless of whether or not their lands

are within designated critical habitat

(see 16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1), 1532(1a) and

50 CFR 17.3). Section 10(a)(1)(B)

authorizes the Service to issue permits

for the taking of listed species incidental

to otherwise lawful activities such as

agriculture, surface mining, and urban

development. Take permits authorized

under section 9 must be supported by a

habitat conservation plan (HCP) under

section 10 that identifies conservation

measures that the permittee agrees to

implement to conserve the species,

usually on the permittee’s lands. The

Service would approve an HCP, and

issue a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit only if

the plan would minimize and mitigate

the impacts of the taking and would not

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the

survival and recovery of that species in

the wild.

National Environmental Policy Act

The Service has determined that

Environmental Assessments and

Environmental Impact Statements, as

defined under the authority of the
26530 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared in

connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to Section 4(a) of the Act. A

notice outlining the Service’s reasons

for this determination was published in

the Federal Register on October 25,

1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined this

regulation under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to

contain no information collection

requirements. This rulemaking was not

subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

is available upon request from the

Colorado Field Office (see ADDRESSES

above).

Author. The primary author of this

document is Peter Plage of the Colorado

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service amends part

17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of

the Code of Federal Regulations, as

amended, 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. Section 17.11(h) is amended by

adding the following, in alphabetical

order under Mammals, to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to

read as follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

Mammals:

* * * * * * *

Mouse, Preble’s

meadow

jumping.

Zapus hudsonius

preblei.

U.S.A. (CO, WY) ..... ......do ...................... T 636 NA NA

* * * * * * *

Dated: May 8, 1998.

John G. Rogers,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 98–12828 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P