5404 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

a road density of 0.58 km/km2 (0.93 

mile/mi2) within the watershed and 

considers these roads to be ‘‘a primary 

source of erosion and sediment’’

(Lefevre 2000). The Forest Service has 

no plans to address the effects of roads 

in Sycamore Canyon watershed; thus 

there will continue to be sediment 

deposition and scouring in and along 

the stream channel. 

Sycamore Canyon is a very popular 

place for recreation. The petitioners cite 

trampling and compaction of soils from 

foot traffic as negatively affecting the 

Gentry indigo bush in Sycamore 

Canyon. Gentry indigo bush plants grow 

on the floodplain terraces where hikers 

often create trails to avoid walking in 

the stream (Falk, pers. observation). Due 

to its narrow width, there are limited 

terraces in the canyon intensifying the 

use of Gentry indigo bush habitat as 

places to create trails. These activities 

degrade habitat and may reduce the 

areas occupied by Gentry indigo bush. 

We know of no plan to address the 

effects of recreation in this area. 

The Forest Service has not 

systematically monitored the species on 

its land. While lack of monitoring is not 

a direct threat to the species, it does 

prevent us from adequately assessing 

the current status of the population. 

New information would greatly enhance 

our status review. 

Two locations have been noted in 

Mexico. We have no information on 

population status or threats at these 

sites. We are not aware of any protection 

for these areas. As such, until further 

information is provided, we do not 

know how the Mexican populations will 

contribute to the status of this species. 

Factor E: Other natural or manmade 

factors affecting its continued existence. 

With respect to Factor E, the 

petitioners cite the rarity of the species 

and the possible extinction risk 

associated with stochastic events such 

as drought, flood, and wildfire. This 

species would most likely be negatively 

affected by environmental stochasticity 

(variations over time in the population’s 

operational environment) and natural 

catastrophes (Menges 1991). We agree, 

based both on information presented by 

the petitioner and other information in 

our files. The most likely scenario is 

that of catastrophic flooding. Increased 

rainfall combined with an altered 

hydrograph in Sycamore Canyon may 

result in the species being washed out. 

Long-term drought (as the one we are 

currently in) may affect the species’

ability to recover. The combination of 

small population size, reduced 

reproductive potential, and isolation 

makes this species vulnerable to 

extinction. 

Finding 

On the basis of our review, we find 

that the petition presents substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Gentry indigo bush may be warranted. 

The main potential threat to the species 

appears to be loss of plants and habitat 

associated with heavy livestock use, an 

altered hydrograph in Sycamore 

Canyon, sediment loads in the 

Sycamore Canyon watershed, and the 

effects of recreation and other human 

uses of the drainage. There is also a 

possible increased risk of extinction 

associated with small, isolated 

populations from stochastic events.

We have reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats pose an 

emergency. We have determined that an 

emergency listing is not warranted at 

this time, because the population has 

recovered in some degree, the 

population is within a RNA with some 

protections, and the potential exists for 

additional populations in Mexico. 

However, if at any time we determine 

that emergency listing of the Gentry 

indigo bush is warranted, we will seek 

to initiate an emergency listing. 

The petitioners also requested that 

critical habitat be designated for this 

species. We always consider the need 

for critical habitat designation when 

listing species. If we determine in our 

12-month finding that listing the Gentry 

indigo bush is warranted, we will 

address the designation of critical 

habitat in the subsequent proposed rule. 

Public Information Solicited 

When we make a finding that 

substantial information is presented to 

indicate that listing a species may be 

warranted, we are required to promptly 

commence a review of the status of the 

species. To ensure that the status review 

is complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are soliciting 

information on the Gentry indigo bush. 

We request any additional information, 

comments, and suggestions from the 

public, other concerned governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning the 

status of the Gentry indigo bush. We are 

seeking information regarding the 

species’ historical and current status 

and distribution, its biology and 

ecology, ongoing conservation measures 

for the species and its habitat, and 

threats to the species and its habitat, 

especially where it occurs in Mexico. 

If you wish to comment or provide 

information, you may submit your 

comments and materials concerning this 

finding to the Field Supervisor (see

ADDRESSES section). 

Our practice is to make comments and 

materials provided, including names 

and home addresses of respondents, 

available for public review during 

regular business hours. Respondents 

may request that we withhold a 

respondent’s identity, to the extent 

allowable by law. If you wish us to 

withhold your name or address, you 

must state this request prominently at 

the beginning of your submission. 

However, we will not consider 

anonymous comments. To the extent 

consistent with applicable law, we will 

make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request from 

the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is Mima Falk, Tucson Sub-Office (see

ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: January 25, 2005. 

Marshall Jones, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 05–1905 Filed 2–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AU12 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To Delist the Preble’s Meadow 

Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius 

preblei) and Proposed Delisting of the 

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding and proposed rule. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5405

SUMMARY: We the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) announce a 12-month 

finding on a petition to delist the 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 

(Preble’s) (Zapus hudsonius preblei) 

under the Endangered Species Act (Act) 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). After reviewing the best scientific 

and commercial information available, 

we find that the petitioned action is 

warranted and propose to delist or 

remove Preble’s from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

We propose this action based on a 

review of all available data, which 

indicate that Preble’s is not a discrete 

taxonomic entity, does not meet the 

definition of a subspecies, and was 

listed in error. Before this proposed 

action is finalized, the Service will 

conduct a status review and evaluate 

threats to the combined Z. h. campestris

entity in all or a significant portion of 

its range. We will also analyze whether 

the Preble’s portion of Z. h. campestris

qualifies as a Distinct Population 

Segment in need of protection. We seek 

comments from the public regarding 

this proposal.

DATES: We will consider comments on 

this notice and proposed rule received 

until the close of business on May 3, 

2005. Requests for public hearings must 

be received by us on or before March 21, 

2005.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this notice and 

proposal by one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

to Field Supervisor, Colorado Field 

Office, Ecological Services, 755 Parfet 

Street, Suite 361, Lakewood, Colorado 

80215. 

2. You may hand-deliver comments to 

our Colorado Field Office at the above 

address or send via facsimile (fax: (303) 

275–2371). 

3. You may send comments via 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

FW6_PMJM@fws.gov. See the Public 

Comments Solicited section below for 

file format and other information about 

electronic filing. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in the preparation of this 12-month 

finding and proposed rule, will be 

available for inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the above address. 

To request a public hearing, submit a 

request in writing to the Colorado Field 

Office at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, at the 

above address or telephone 303–275–

2370.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background 

The Preble’s was listed as threatened 

on May 13, 1998 (63 FR 26517). At the 

time of listing, the primary threat to 

Preble’s was habitat loss and 

degradation caused by agricultural, 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

development. On December 23, 2003, 

we received two petitions, from 

Coloradans for Water Conservation and 

Development and the State of 

Wyoming’s Office of the Governor, to 

remove Preble’s from the Federal List of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants pursuant to the Act. Both 

petitions maintain Preble’s should be 

delisted based on ‘‘data error’’ (i.e., 

subsequent investigations show that the 

best scientific or commercial data 

available when the species was listed, or 

the interpretation of such data, were in 

error) and ‘‘taxonomic revision’’ (i.e., 

Preble’s is not a valid subspecies). As 

explained in our 1996 Petition 

Management Guidance (Service 1996), 

subsequent petitions are treated 

separately only when they are greater in 

scope than, or broaden the area of 

review of, the first petition. In this case, 

as both petitions were almost identical, 

the State of Wyoming’s petition was 

treated as a comment on the first 

petition received. 

On March 31, 2004, we published a 

90-day finding in the Federal Register

that the petition presented substantial 

information to indicate the petitioned 

action may be warranted (69 FR 16944). 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires 

that within 12 months after receiving a 

petition to revise the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned action may be warranted, the 

Secretary shall make one of the 

following findings—(a) The petitioned 

action is not warranted; (b) the 

petitioned action is warranted; or (c) the 

petitioned action is warranted but 

precluded by pending proposals. Such 

12-month findings are to be published 

promptly in the Federal Register. In 

accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of 

the Act, we have now completed a 

review of the best available scientific 

and commercial information on the 

species and have reached a 

determination that the petitioned action 

is warranted. When the proposed action 

is warranted, it should be accompanied 

by, or promptly followed by, a proposed 

rule to implement the warranted action. 

In this case, we have combined the 12-

month finding and the proposed 

delisting rule into a single document.

General Species Information 

Meadow jumping mice (Zapus 

hudsonius) are small rodents with long 

tails, large hind feet, and long hind legs. 

The tail is bicolored, lightly-furred, and 

typically twice as long as the body. 

Meadow jumping mice have a distinct, 

dark, broad stripe on their backs that 

runs from head to tail and is bordered 

on either side by gray to orange-brown 

fur. The underside fur is white and very 

fine in texture. Total length of an adult 

meadow jumping mouse is 

approximately 180 to 250 millimeters 

(mm) (7 to 10 inches (in)), with the tail 

comprising 108 to 155 mm (4 to 6 in) 

of that length (Krutzsch 1954, Fitzgerald 

et al. 1994). 

Across its range, meadow jumping 

mice typically occur in moist habitats, 

including low undergrowth consisting 

of grasses, forbs, or both, in open wet 

meadows and riparian corridors, or 

where tall shrubs and low trees provide 

adequate cover (Krutzsch 1954, Quimby 

1951, Armstrong 1972). Meadow 

jumping mice prefer lowlands with 

medium to high moisture over drier 

uplands. Fitzgerald et al. (1994) 

described meadow jumping mice as 

most common in wooded areas. Because 

adequate herbaceous or grassy ground 

cover is essential for the species, 

meadow jumping mice in the northern 

Great Plains are restricted primarily to 

riparian habitats (Jones et al. 1983). 

Meadow jumping mice are primarily 

nocturnal or crepuscular, but also may 

be active during the day, when they 

have been seen moving around or sitting 

under a shrub (Shenk 1998). These mice 

are nomadic, and may roam up to 1 

kilometer (km) (0.6 mile (mi)) in search 

of moist habitat. Meadow jumping mice 

usually move in hops of about 3 to 15 

centimeters (cm) (1 to 6 in), but are 

capable of taking a few long jumps of 60 

to 90 cm (2 to 3 feet). Meadow jumping 

mice, including Preble’s, are true 

hibernators. Preble’s usually enter 

hibernation in September or October 

and emerge the following May, after a 

potential hibernation period of 7 or 8 

months. Adult Preble’s reach weights 

that enable them to enter hibernation as 

early as the third week in August, 

whereas young of the year typically 

enter hibernation in September and 

October (Meaney et al. 2003). 

Additional species information is 

available in the May 13, 1998, final rule 

to list the Preble’s as a threatened 

species (63 FR 26517) and the June 23, 

2003, final rule to designate critical 

habitat for the Preble’s (68 FR 37275). 

5406 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Taxonomy 

The Preble’s is a member of the family 

Dipodidae (jumping mice) (Holden 

1992), which contains four extant 

genera. Two of these, Zapus and 

Napaeozapus, are found in North 

America (Hall 1981, Wilson and Ruff 

1999). 

In his 1899 study of North American 

jumping mice, Edward A. Preble 

concluded there were 10 species in the 

Zapus genus. According to Preble, 

meadow jumping mice (Z. hudsonius) 

included five subspecies. Preble 

classified all specimens of meadow 

jumping mice from the States of North 

Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, 

Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, and 

Missouri as Z. h. campestris.

Krutzsch (1954) revised the taxonomy 

of the genus after studying 

morphological characteristics of 3,600 

specimens of Zapus. This revision 

recognized only 3 distinct species of 

jumping mice; the meadow jumping 

mouse, the western jumping mouse (Z. 

princeps), and the Pacific jumping 

mouse (Z. trinotatus), comprised of 11, 

11, and 4 subspecies, respectively. 

Krutzsch relegated the majority of 

species previously recognized by Preble 

(1899) to subspecific status. Krutzsch 

based his reduction in the number of 

distinct species on Mayr’s (1942) 

species concept, which defined species 

as actual or potential interbreeding 

individuals or populations that are 

reproductively isolated from other such 

groups. Mayr described a subspecies as 

a geographically localized subdivision 

of the species, which differs genetically 

and taxonomically (as illustrated by 

significant morphological 

characteristics) from other subdivisions 

of the species. 

Krutzsch retained the name Z. h. 

campestris, but restricted its use to 

specimens from the Black Hills and Bear 

Lodge Mountains of northeastern 

Wyoming, southwestern South Dakota, 

and adjacent southeastern Montana. 

Individuals from North Dakota, and 

northwestern, central, and eastern South 

Dakota were classified as the subspecies 

Z. h. intermedius. Krutzsch described 

and named Z. h. preblei (Preble’s) as 

separate from Z. h. campestris (Bear 

Lodge meadow jumping mouse) based 

on 11 specimens (4 adult and 7 nonadult). Krutzsch stated that although 

‘‘the specimens of Z. h. preblei are few, 

the differences between this and 

neighboring named kinds is 

considerable.’’ Krutzsch also 

commented on the presence of physical 

habitat barriers and lack of known 

intergradation between Preble’s, known 

only from eastern Colorado and 

southeastern Wyoming, and other 

identified subspecies of the meadow 

jumping mouse ranging to the east and 

north. Among recognized subspecies, 

Krutzsch found that Preble’s most 

closely resembled the Bear Lodge 

meadow jumping mouse from 

northeastern Wyoming, but summarized 

differences in coloration and skull 

characteristics. Preble’s was recognized 

as one of twelve subspecies of meadow 

jumping mouse by Hafner et al. (1981).

Jones (1981) examined the 

morphology of 9,900 Zapus specimens 

from across North America. Jones 

concluded that the Pacific jumping 

mouse was not a valid taxon and 

suggested reducing the number of 

species in the genus to two (the western 

jumping mouse and the meadow 

jumping mouse). At the subspecific 

level, Jones concluded that there was 

‘‘no evidence of any population of 

Zapus hudsonius being sufficiently 

isolated or distinct to warrant 

subspecific status’’ and ‘‘No named 

subspecies is geographically restricted 

by a barrier, with the possible exception 

of Z. h. preblei.’’ Jones made the 

statements above based on the 

subspecies concept proposed by 

Whitaker (1970) which said—(1) 

Subspecies must be divided by primary 

isolating mechanisms that stop or 

significantly reduce gene flow; (2) in the 

absence of primary isolating 

mechanisms, subspecies would still be 

capable of interbreeding; and (3) the 

existence of primary isolating 

mechanisms can be inferred from the 

genetic distinctness of subspecies, as 

evidenced by unique characteristics. 

The conclusions reached by Jones have 

not been incorporated into the formal 

taxonomy of the genus. These 

conclusions were never published in a 

peer-reviewed journal; therefore, the 

scientific community never formally 

assessed the validity of this work. 

In a report to the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, Riggs et al. (1997) analyzed 

mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid 

(mtDNA) from tissue samples of 

meadow jumping mice and western 

jumping mice from Colorado and 

Wyoming and concluded that Preble’s 

mice form a homogenous group 

recognizably distinct from nearby 

populations of meadow jumping mice 

and adjacent species of the genus. 

Hafner (1997) reviewed the Riggs study, 

inspected Riggs’ original sequence data, 

and agreed that Preble’s form a 

relatively homogenous group compared 

to neighboring subspecies. Ramey et al.

(2004) reviewed the Riggs study, and 

criticized the methodology for not 

rigorously testing whether Preble’s 

formed a monophyletic group (i.e., a 

grouping of evolutionary lineages that 

includes a common ancestor and all 

descendent lineages) and for not 

providing statistical tests to support 

their conclusions. 

Ramey et al. (2004) (a revision of 

Ramey et al. 2003 considered in the 90-

day finding) examined four lines of 

evidence to test the taxonomic validity 

of the Preble’s as described by Krutzsch 

(1954). First, they performed a 

phylogenetic and population genetic 

analysis of mtDNA sequence data, 

primarily from museum specimens of 

four subspecies of meadow jumping 

mouse, including Preble’s (58 

specimens), the Bear Lodge meadow 

jumping mouse (33 specimens), Zapus 

hudsonius luteus (32 specimens), and Z. 

h. pallidus (35 specimens). Ramey et al.

used Z. princeps princeps (7 

specimens), Z. p. idahoensis (3 

specimens), and Z. p. utahensis (7 

specimens) as the outgroup for the 

phylogenetic analysis. An outgroup is 

an organism from a distantly related 

group that shares a common ancestor 

with the group in question. Using an 

analysis of molecular variance 

(AMOVA), Ramey et al. examined 

genetic variation in a hierarchical 

fashion within and between Preble’s 

and Bear Lodge meadow jumping 

mouse. This comparison revealed most 

of the genetic variation was within 

subspecies (64 percent) rather than 

among these subspecies (37 percent). 

Additionally, they found that all 4 

identified Preble’s mtDNA haplotypes 

were included within the 16 identified 

Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse 

mtDNA haplotypes. However, Ramey et 

al. also documented a high level of 

mtDNA variation (nucleotide diversity) 

in Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse 

compared to Preble’s, ‘‘making these 

subspecies seem more diverged than the 

shared mtDNA haplotypes indicate.’’

Ramey et al. (2004) believed these 

findings are consistent with a founder 

effect. A founder effect is the 

establishment of a new population by a 

few original founders that carry only a 

small fraction of the total genetic 

variation of the parental population. A 

population may be descended from a 

small number of ancestral individuals 

for two reasons—(1) A small number of 

individuals may colonize a place 

previously uninhabited by their species; 

or (2) an established population may 

fluctuate in size such that a population 

passes through a ‘‘bottleneck’’ in which 

only a few individuals survive, and later 

expands again under more favorable 

conditions. Ramey et al. speculated that 

there were population ‘‘bottlenecks’’

during southward colonization into 

what is now Preble’s range. Based on 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5407

their results and analysis, the authors 

concluded that Preble’s is a less 

genetically diverse population of Bear 

Lodge meadow jumping mouse.

Second, Ramey et al. (2004) 

completed a morphometric analysis on 

skull measurements of the Preble’s and 

the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse 

(testing the same nine skull 

measurements that Krutzsch (1954) used 

to support his taxonomic assertions). 

Four repeated measurements were taken 

with digital calipers and recorded to the 

nearest hundredth of a millimeter as per 

Conner and Shenk (2003). Ramey et al.

employed the following criterion for 

testing distinguishability between 

subspecies—≥ 90 percent of specimens 

correctly classified at a posterior 

probability of p> 0.95. Employing this 

method, the analysis of Ramey et al.

found no basis for the quantitative 

morphological skull differences 

Krutzsch noted. While significant 

difference was observed between the 

Preble’s and the Bear Lodge meadow 

jumping mouse in three of the nine 

skull measurements, two of these three 

differences did not correspond to those 

Krutzsch described. 

Third, Ramey et al. (2004) performed 

a critical review of Krutzsch’s 

qualitative description of Preble’s as a 

subspecies. The authors found that the 

skull shape and pelage differences noted 

by Krutzsch (1954) had no quantitative 

basis and considered them 

‘‘unsupported opinion.’’

Fourth, Ramey et al. (2004) discussed 

ecological distinctiveness as an integral 

part of the species concept presented by 

Crandall et al. (2000). Crandall et al.

(2000) proposed a hypothesis-testing 

approach describing management units 

based upon genetic and ecological 

distinctiveness. Crandall et al.

advocated that ecological differences 

among populations can drive adaptive 

change that would not be detected by 

molecular markers alone. Ramey et al.

also examined the literature for 

evidence of ecological differences 

between subspecies. They found no 

published ecological evidence for 

discreteness between Preble’s and the 

Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. 

Ramey et al. asserts that this lack of 

published information supports his 

conclusion that these subspecies should 

be synonymized. 

Ramey et al. (2004) concluded that, 

based on the lack of genetic, 

morphological, or published ecological 

evidence for genetic distinctiveness 

between the Preble’s and the Bear Lodge 

meadow jumping mouse, these 

subspecies should be synonymized 

(considered the same subspecies) as 

Zapus hudsonius campestris. This 

taxonomic revision has not yet been 

published in a peer-reviewed journal 

and has not been incorporated into the 

formal taxonomy of the genus. 

Peer Review of Ramey et al. 2004

The Ramey et al. (2004) report has 

undergone peer review. The Colorado 

Division of Wildlife solicited and 

received nine peer reviews of this report 

and transmitted those reviews to the 

Service on April 24, 2004. We solicited 

additional peer reviews focused on 

specific aspects of the report from seven 

scientists. In addition to the report, the 

Service sent reviewers maps of the 

meadow jumping mouse range; the May 

13, 1998, final rule to list Preble’s (63 

FR 26517); and a November 5, 2003, 

working draft of a recovery plan for 

Preble’s. Five peer reviewers responded 

to Service questions and provided 

comments on the study. Reviews from 

all 14 peer reviewers ranged from strong 

support of the work, to pointed criticism 

of study design, data interpretation, and 

conclusions. These reviews are available 

in their entirety at http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/preble/. Because Ramey 

et al. 2004 remains unpublished, these 

peer reviews were crucial in our 

consideration of what constitutes the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available regarding the 

taxonomy of this subspecies. A 

summary of the peer reviews and other 

public comments follow below. 

Of the 14 peer reviews, 5 supported 

the Ramey et al. (2004) study and its 

conclusions (Robert Bradley, Texas 

Tech, in litt. 2004; Keith Crandall, 

Brigham Young University, in litt. 2004; 

David Hafner, New Mexico Museum of 

Natural History, in litt. 2004; Brett 

Riddle, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 

in litt. 2004; Lisette Waits, University of 

Idaho, in litt. 2004), 3 leaned toward 

support of the study and its conclusions 

(Carron Meaney, Meaney and 

Associates, Boulder, Colorado, in litt. 

2004; Jeffry Mitton, University of 

Colorado, Boulder, in litt. 2004; Jack 

Sites, Brigham Young University, in litt. 

2004), and 6 were generally critical of 

the study or skeptical of its conclusions 

(David Armstrong, University of 

Colorado, Boulder, in litt. 2004; Mary 

Ashley, University of Illinois at Chicago, 

in litt. 2004; Mary Conner, Utah State 

University, in litt. 2004; Marlis Douglas, 

Colorado State University, in litt. 2004; 

Sara Oyler-McCance, University of 

Denver and the Rocky Mountain Center 

for Conservation Genetics and 

Systematics, in litt. 2004; Gary White, 

Colorado State University, in litt. 2004). 

However, some of these peer reviewers 

were also supportive of portions of the 

study.

Those who supported the conclusions 

of Ramey et al. (2004) generally 

accepted most aspects of the report. 

Bradley (in litt. 2004) wrote that Ramey 

et al. was an ‘‘excellent piece of work’’

on a controversial issue and particularly 

liked the study design intended to test 

a series of hypotheses. Bradley thought 

that the morphological and mtDNA 

analyses are convincing in that the two 

taxa actually represent a single taxon. 

Crandall (in litt. 2004) believed 

appropriate markers and methods were 

used and that the conclusions were 

‘‘right on’’; he found the study 

impressive in its inclusion of both 

genetic and morphometric data coupled 

with an evaluation of previous work. 

Crandall thought the conclusions are 

well founded and well supported by the 

data. Hafner (in litt. 2004) noted that 

Ramey et al. employed appropriate 

methods, markers, evidence, and 

interpretation to convincingly argue that 

Preble’s is not a valid subspecies, but 

that the synonymized entity remains 

imperiled. Riddle (in litt. 2004) thought 

that the data supported a lack of 

substantial morphological, ecological, 

and molecular differentiation between 

these two subspecies. Riddle thought 

this was a common outcome of 

molecular analyses of taxonomic 

subspecies within close geographic 

proximity, that are ecologically similar, 

and appear to have no surmounting 

biogeographic obstacles to movements 

across the landscape (from a historical 

perspective). While he did not support 

retaining Preble’s and Bear Lodge 

meadow jumping mouse as separate 

taxonomic units, Riddle was concerned 

for the conservation status of the 

synonymized taxonomic unit. Waits (in 

litt. 2004) believed that the authors 

provided convincing evidence for 

synonymizing because the hypothesis 

testing did not reject the hypothesis that 

the two are essentially the same 

morphologically and genetically. 

Meaney (in litt. 2004) did not take a 

definitive position on the results or 

conclusions of Ramey et al., but called 

the paper overall good science. Mitton 

(in litt. 2004) noted that appropriate 

markers and methods were used and 

suggested he would support the 

conclusions of Ramey et al. if the 

grounds for the removal of certain 

specimens could be validated. Jack Sites 

(Brigham Young University, in litt. 

2004) viewed Ramey et al. as tentative 

support for synonymizing and suggested 

synonymizing if subsequent study 

validated their results. 

Of the reviewers critical of the report, 

most felt its conclusion that Preble’s and 

the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse 

5408 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

should be synonymized went beyond 

the data presented. Armstrong (in litt. 

2004) saw the report as ‘‘a small piece 

of the puzzle of geographic variation in 

the meadow jumping mouse’’ and 

suggested that ‘‘a restricted, targeted 

investigation of this kind, laid out in an 

unpublished report, is not an 

appropriate vehicle for a taxonomic 

decision of the kind proposed.’’ Ashley 

(in litt. 2004) suggested that more data 

is needed to synonymize. Conner (in 

litt. 2004) thought that ecological, 

behavioral, physiological, and 

geographic factors needed to be 

included in any testing of Preble’s 

taxonomy. Douglas (in litt. 2004) stated, 

‘‘Limitations of the data affect resolution 

of analysis and thus render the results 

inconclusive’’ and that ‘‘the overall tone 

of the manuscript lacks objectivity.’’

Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004) had ‘‘no 

problem with the study itself except for 

some of the conclusions made by the 

authors,’’ and did not feel that this 

study resolves the taxonomic question. 

Regarding the report’s conclusion, 

White (in litt. 2004) stated, ‘‘the report 

should conclude that no differences 

were detected given the measurements 

conducted, and should not jump to the 

unfounded conclusion that the two 

subspecies are identical.’’

Several reviewers discussed the use of 

mtDNA to delineate valid subspecies 

used by Ramey et al. (2004). For 

example, Douglas (in litt. 2004) noted 

that a timespan of greater than 10,000 

years is the limit for mtDNA resolution 

and that taxa more recently diverged 

would be difficult to detect via mtDNA 

analysis. Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004) 

noted that the genetic data gathered by 

Ramey et al. is from only one locus, and 

that this locus represents only the 

maternal history, which could very well 

differ from other genetic material of the 

subspecies. Oyler-McCance, Sites (in 

litt. 2004) and Riddle discussed the 

potential for introgression of Bear Lodge 

meadow jumping mouse mtDNA on the 

Preble’s nuclear background, but Riddle 

thought it unlikely to have happened 

simultaneously across the entire range 

of Preble’s, given the generally 

fragmented nature of Preble’s 

populations. 

Another issue bought up by several 

reviewers was use of ‘‘ancient DNA’’

from museum specimens. Ramey et al.

(2004) noted that since museum 

collections are accessible for future 

scientific research, reliance on museum 

specimens means the study is 

repeatable. Douglas (in litt. 2004) noted 

that the use of museum specimens 

allows for specimens to be obtained 

from a large geographic area and for a 

study to be completed in short order. 

However, Douglas also detailed 

numerous problems with the use of 

ancient DNA such as the quality of DNA 

extracted from museum specimens is 

often inferior, making amplification 

difficult or the contamination of highquality DNA from other samples 

possible.

Another issue associated with the use 

of ancient DNA is the size of DNA 

fragments (i.e., the number of base 

pairs). Ramey et al. (2004) analyzed 355 

base pairs of sequence data. Douglas (in 

litt. 2004) noted that this is a marginal 

data set for population level analyses; as 

a general rule, at least 1,000 base pairs 

should be evaluated to substantiate 

findings and make results conclusive. 

Although a larger number of base pairs 

is desirable (Courtney et al. 2004), 

mtDNA studies often utilize less than 

1,000 base pairs (Riggs et al. 1997; Haig 

et al. 2004). 

Other issues were brought up by the 

reviewers. Douglas (in litt. 2004) also 

questioned the use of western jumping 

mouse as Ramey et al.’s outgroup. 

Several reviewers discussed Ramey et 

al.’s removal of a number of specimens 

from their study and suggested their 

presumed identities be verified through 

further testing (Armstrong in litt. 2004; 

Douglas in litt. 2004; Mitton in litt. 

2004; Hafner in litt. 2004). Ashley (in 

litt. 2004), Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004), 

and Douglas (in litt. 2004) questioned 

Ramey et al.’s reliance on an AMOVA 

to evaluate variation within and among 

groups. Specifically, the standard for a 

subspecies employed by Ramey et al.

requires greater diversity among 

accepted subspecies than within them. 

Ashley (in litt. 2004) also questioned the 

use of variation within and among 

groups as a ‘‘very strict criterion’’ to 

judge a subspecies’’ validity, and 

suggested that based on haplotype 

frequencies the two subspecies are 

‘‘genetically quite distinct.’’

A number of the reviewers detailed 

the strengths and the weaknesses of the 

morphological portion of the analysis 

performed in Ramey et al. (2004). For 

example, Meaney (in litt. 2004) found 

that the morphometric data and analysis 

appear solid. Ashley (in litt. 2004) and 

Sites (in litt. 2004) noted Ramey et al.’s 

strongest case for synonymizing comes 

from the morphological aspects of the 

report, rather than the genetics analysis. 

Many of the reviewers, such as Waits 

(in litt. 2004), Meaney (in litt. 2004) and 

Riddle (in litt. 2004) discussed the 

conclusion by Ramey et al. (2004) 

regarding ecological discreteness. 

Ashley (in litt. 2004), Conner (in litt. 

2004), Douglas (in litt. 2004), and OylerMcCance (in litt. 2004) said it was not 

clear that there had been any evaluation 

of ecological difference and noted that 

the authors gave no references, making 

it difficult to judge how thoroughly they 

looked. Conner and Oyler-McCance also 

questioned what variables were 

compared. In Crandall’s view (in litt. 

2004), clear ecological differences over 

evolutionary time would result in 

morphologic differences; as none were 

found, a lack of ecological differences 

can be inferred. Overall, Crandall and 

Mitton (in litt. 2004) agreed with Ramey 

et al. (2004) that there did not appear to 

be clear ecological distinctions between 

Preble’s and closely related taxa that 

justify conservation for Preble’s. 

Other Public Comments 

On March 31, 2004, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register (69 FR 

16944) that the petition received on 

December 17, 2003, to delist Preble’s 

presented substantial information to 

indicate the petitioned action may be 

warranted. As part of this Notice, we 

requested information on the genetic 

and taxonomic classification of Preble’s, 

the abundance and distribution of the 

subspecies, and the threats faced by 

Preble’s in relation to the five listing 

factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of 

the Act). In response, we received nine 

letters containing comments and 

information from government agencies 

(Colorado Department of Natural 

Resources, El Paso Board of County 

Commissioners, Douglas County Open 

Space and Natural Resources), 

organizations (Colorado Farm Bureau, 

Center for Native Ecosystems, 

Coloradans for Water Conservation and 

Development), and individuals. As 

noted above, 14 peer reviews of Ramey 

et al. 2004a were received and 

considered. For a full discussion of this 

issue, read the Peer Review section of 

this notice above. 

Colorado Department of Natural 

Resources called for the immediate 

delisting of the Preble’s based on genetic 

studies by Ramey et al. (2004a) and 

increases in known occurrence. They 

contended that essential conservation 

efforts to protect the Preble’s in 

Colorado would be carried on by State 

and local governments regardless of 

Federal listing status. They also 

provided extensive documentation of 

State and county efforts to conserve 

habitats within the Preble’s range in 

Colorado. 

The El Paso County Board of County 

Commissioners supported delisting, 

described their efforts toward 

development of a regional Habitat 

Conservation Plan, and suggested that a 

decision to delist would save the county 

and its citizens time and money. The 

Douglas County Division of Open Space 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5409

and Natural Resources described habitat 

conditions and conservation measures 

employed in Douglas County, and 

commented that Douglas County 

populations should not be considered a 

distinct population segment of wider 

jumping mouse distribution. 

In a single letter representing their 

combined comments, the Center for 

Native Ecosystems, Biodiversity 

Conservation Alliance, Native 

Ecosystem Council, and Forest 

Guardians opposed delisting of the 

Preble’s. They discussed abundance and 

distribution of Preble’s, genetics and 

taxonomic classification, threats to 

Preble’s, and the status of the Bear 

Lodge meadow jumping mouse. The 

Colorado Farm Bureau supported 

delisting of Preble’s and commented on 

the lack of threats to Preble’s from 

agricultural activities. The Coloradans 

for Water Conservation and 

Development, one of the petitioners, 

provided comments that largely 

paralleled the contentions made in their 

petition. Three private individuals 

provided comments—One contending 

that delisting based on available genetic 

studies was premature; one largely 

criticizing the original listing; and one 

discussing threats to Preble’s in the 

broader context of human impacts to the 

environment.

Petition Finding 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

regarding the taxonomy and biology of 

this species. We reviewed the petition 

and associated documents, information 

available in our files, and other 

published and unpublished information 

submitted to us during the public 

comment period following our 90-day 

petition finding. We reviewed new data 

and other information on the genetics, 

taxonomy, life history, ecology, status, 

and existing threats to Preble’s. 

At this time, we view Ramey et al.

(2004) as the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the taxonomy of the Preble’s 

and Bear Lodge meadow jumping 

mouse. Within the next year, the Service 

expects additional genetics information 

(i.e., nuclear DNA results) that will 

verify (or refute) the conclusions of 

Ramey et al. The peer reviews of the 

report suggested a majority (8 out of 14) 

either support or lean toward 

supporting the taxonomic conclusions 

of Ramey et al. (2004). Therefore, on the 

basis of the lack of distinct genetic and 

morphologic differences between the 

two putative subspecies, we conclude 

that Preble’s is likely not a valid 

subspecies of meadow jumping mice 

(Zapus hudsonius). Based on the above 

conclusion, we find that the petitioned 

action is warranted because the original 

listing of Preble’s as a subspecies of 

meadow jumping mouse was in error. 

Accordingly, we propose to delist or 

remove Preble’s from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 

50 CFR 17.11. 

The Service will evaluate threats to 

the combined entity (Zapus hudsonius 

campestris) in all or a significant 

portion of its range before this rule is 

finalized. This finding and proposed 

rule do not attempt to analyze threats to 

the combined entity, Z. h. campestris.

We are initiating a status review and 

will analyze the threats to the species in 

the final rule. Finally, as discussed in 

the 90-day finding (69 FR 16944), the 

Service will analyze whether the 

Preble’s portion of Z. h. campestris

qualifies as a Distinct Population 

Segment in need of protection before 

this rule is finalized. 

At this time, the Service is seeking 

additional information to perform this 

analysis. We currently have only limited 

information regarding the distribution, 

life history, ecology, and habitat of Bear 

Lodge meadow jumping mouse portion 

of Z. h. campestris, and no information 

regarding its abundance or population 

trends. While we have some information 

regarding land management and habitat 

conditions in the Black Hills, we lack 

information connecting these habitat 

conditions to population effects. 

Therefore, we are seeking additional 

information and data on meadow 

jumping mouse in the vicinity of the 

Black Hills. More detail of what is 

sought is outlined in the Public 

Comments Solicited section of this 

proposed notice and rule. 

In making this determination we have 

followed the procedures set forth in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations 

implementing the listing provisions of 

the Act (50 CFR part 424). 

Effects of the Rule 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as—(i) The specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by a species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features (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 the species at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the provisions of 

section 4 of the Act, upon a 

determination by the Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior (Secretary) 

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.

Critical habitat was designated for the 

Preble’s on June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37275). 

The designation included eight habitat 

units totaling approximately 12,632 

hectares (31,222 acres) found along 

578.1 km (359.2 mi) of rivers and 

streams in eastern Colorado and in 

southeastern Wyoming. The designation 

includes river and stream reaches and 

adjacent areas in the North Platte River 

and South Platte River drainages. By 

removing the Preble’s from the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 

this proposal, if finalized, will eliminate 

all currently designated critical habitat 

for the species. 

Special Regulations Under Section 4(d) 

Section 9 of the Act prohibits take of 

endangered wildlife. The Act defines 

take to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct. However, the Act also 

provides for the authorization of take 

and exceptions to the take prohibitions. 

Take of listed species by non-Federal 

property owners can be permitted 

through the process set forth in section 

10 of the Act. For federally funded or 

permitted activities, take of listed 

species may be allowed through the 

consultation process of section 7 of the 

Act. While section 9 of the Act 

establishes prohibitions applicable to 

endangered species, the Service has 

issued regulations (50 CFR 17.31) 

applying those same prohibitions to 

threatened wildlife. These regulations 

may be tailored for a particular 

threatened species through 

promulgation of a special rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act. When a special 

rule has been established for a 

threatened species, the general 

regulations for some section 9 

prohibitions do not apply to that 

species, and the special rule contains 

the prohibitions, and exemptions, 

necessary and advisable to conserve that 

species. 

On May 22, 2001, the Service adopted 

special regulations governing take of the 

threatened Preble’s (66 FR 28125). The 

special regulations provide exemption 

from take provisions under section 9 of 

the Act for certain activities related to 

rodent control, ongoing agricultural 

activities, landscape maintenance, and 

existing uses of water. On October 1, 

2002, the Service amended those 

regulations to provide exemptions for 

5410 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

certain activities related to noxious 

weed control and ongoing ditch 

maintenance activities (67 FR 61531). 

On February 24, 2004, the Service 

proposed permanent extension of the 

amended special regulations (69 FR 

8359). On May 20, 2004, the Service 

extended the special regulations 

permanently (69 FR 29101). The current 

special regulations at 50 CFR 17.40(l) 

will be eliminated by this proposal, if 

finalized, because Preble’s will no 

longer be protected by the Act. 

Future Conservation Measures 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us 

to monitor a species for at least 5 years 

after it is delisted based on recovery. 

Because Preble’s is being delisted due to 

new information that demonstrates that 

the original classification was in error, 

rather than due to recovery, the Act 

does not require us to monitor this 

animal species following its delisting. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposal will be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we solicit comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. Generally, we seek 

information, data, and comments 

concerning the taxonomic classification 

and conservation status of Preble’s and 

Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. 

More specifically, we seek data from 

any systematic surveys for Bear Lodge 

meadow jumping mouse, as well as any 

studies that may show population size 

or trends. We request quantitative 

information regarding the life history, 

ecology, and habitat use of Bear Lodge 

meadow jumping mouse, as well as 

information regarding the applicability 

of information relevant to other 

subspecies. We solicit information on 

the threats faced by the Bear Lodge 

meadow jumping mouse and Preble’s in 

relation to the five listing factors (as 

defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act). We 

seek information regarding the effects of 

current land management on population 

distribution and abundance of Bear 

Lodge meadow jumping mouse. And 

finally, we seek information regarding 

the possibility of contact and interaction 

between Bear Lodge meadow jumping 

mouse and adjacent subspecies of 

meadow jumping mouse (i.e., Zapus 

hudsonius intermedius and Z. h. 

pallidus) or other information informing 

a Distinct Population Segment analysis. 

Submit comments as indicated under 

ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit 

comments by e-mail, please avoid the 

use of special characters and any form 

of encryption. Please also include your 

name and return address in your e-mail 

message.

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home address from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and other information 

received, as well as supporting 

information used to write this rule, will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. In making a 

final decision on this proposal, we will 

take into consideration the comments 

and any additional information we 

receive. Such communications may lead 

to a final regulation that differs from 

this proposal. 

Public Hearing 

The Act provides for one or more 

public hearings on this proposal, if 

requested. Requests must be received 

within 45 days of the date of publication 

of the proposal. Such requests must be 

made in writing and addressed to the 

Field Supervisor, Colorado Field Office, 

Ecological Services, 755 Parfet Street, 

Suite 361, Lakewood, Colorado 80215. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we will solicit the expert 

opinions of at least three appropriate 

and independent specialists for peer 

review of this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

decisions are based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

We will send peer reviewers copies of 

this proposed rule immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register. We will invite peer reviewers 

to comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed 

delisting of this species. We will 

summarize the opinions of these 

reviewers in the final decision 

document, and we will consider their 

input as part of our process of making 

a final decision on the proposal. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

require that interested members of the 

public and affected agencies have an 

opportunity to comment on agency 

information collection and 

recordkeeping activities (5 CFR 

1320.8(d)). The OMB regulations at 5 

CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of 

information as the obtaining of 

information by or for an agency by 

means of identical questions posed to, 

or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or 

disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 

or more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 

1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ‘‘ten or more 

persons’’ refers to the persons to whom 

a collection of information is addressed 

by the agency within any 12-month 

period. This rule does not include any 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Service has determined that 

Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

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). 

References 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request from 

the Colorado Field Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, the Service proposes to 

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 21 / Wednesday, February 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 5411

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.

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by 

removing the entry for ‘‘Mouse, Preble’s 

meadow jumping’’ under ‘‘Mammals’’

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife.

§ 17.40 [Amended] 

3. Section 17.40 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (l).

§ 17.95 [Amended] 

4. Section 17.95(a) is amended by 

removing the entry for critical habitat 

for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse 

(Zapus hudsonius preblei).

Dated: January 28, 2005. 

Marshall P. Jones Jr., 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

[FR Doc. 05–2020 Filed 1–31–05; 10:56 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–JB–P