Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse Throughout Its Range, 33119-33137 [2014-13094]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
i. Remove North English, under Iowa,
Channel 246A.
■ j. Remove Burgin, under Kentucky,
Channel 290A; Morgantown, Channel
256A; and Science Hill, Channel 291A.
■ k. Remove Leesville, under Louisiana,
Channel 224A.
■ l. Remove Monticello, under Maine,
Channel 234A.
■ m. Remove Frederic, under Michigan,
Channel 237A and Paradise, Channel
234A.
■ n. Remove Greenwood, under
Mississippi, Channel 277A; Holly
Springs, Channel 243A; and Marietta,
Channel 250A.
■ o. Remove Doolittle, under Missouri,
Channel 283A; Grandin, Channel 283A;
Lowry City, Channel 285A; Madison,
Channel 247C3; Marceline, Channel
256A; Marquand, Channel 295A.
■ p. Remove Lewistown, under
Montana, Channel 300C1 and Montana
City, Channel 293A; and Outlook,
Channel 289C.
■ q. Remove Firth, under Nebraska,
Channel 229A; Hyannis, Channel
250C1; and Pierce, Channel 248C2.
■ r. Remove Pittsburg, under New
Hampshire, Channel 246A.
■ s. Remove under New Mexico,
Channel 283C2 at Las Vegas.
■ t. Remove Garysburg, under North
Carolina, Channel 276A and Ocracoke,
Channel 224C1.
■ u. Remove Pawhuska, under
Oklahoma, Channel 233A and Sayre,
Channel 269C2.
■ v. Remove Meyersdale, under
Pennsylvania, Channel 253A and
Sykesville, Channel 240A.
■ w. Remove Pendleton, under South
Carolina, Channel 240A.
■ x. Remove Wall, under South Dakota,
Channel 299C
■ y. Remove Linden, under Tennessee,
Channel 267A; Oliver Springs, Channel
291A; and Pigeon Forge, Channel 292A.
■ z. Remove Baird, under Texas,
Channel 243C3; Ballinger, Channel
238A; Benavides, Channel 282A; Big
Wells, Channel 271A; Camp Wood,
Channel 271A; Childress, Channel
281C2; Channel 242A at Cotulla;
Channel 229A at Dilley; Eagle Lake,
Channel 237C3; Channels 285A and
293A at Eldorado; Channel 273A at
Encinal; Grapeland, Channel 232C3;
Hamilton, Channel 299A; Channel 254A
at Hebbronville; Hewitt, Channel 294A;
Mason, Channel 269C3; Pineland,
Channel 256A; Sabinal, Channel 296A;
Savoy, Channel 297A; and Sweetwater,
Channel 221C3.
■ aa. Remove Parowan, under Utah,
Channel 300C2.
■ bb. Remove Glenville, under West
Virginia, Channel 299A.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
■
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
cc. Remove Ephraim, under
Wisconsin, Channel 295A and Rosholt,
Channel 263A.
■ dd. Remove Reliance, under
Wyoming, Channel 254C3 and Sinclair,
Channel 267C.
■
[FR Doc. 2014–13537 Filed 6–9–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0023;
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AY50
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for the New Mexico
Meadow Jumping Mouse Throughout
Its Range
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered species status under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act),
as amended, for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse (Zapus
hudsonius luteus) found in Arizona,
New Mexico, and Colorado. The effect
of this regulation will be to add this
species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. We have also
determined that critical habitat for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is
prudent and determinable and will soon
publish in the Federal Register our final
designation of critical habitat for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
DATES: This rule becomes effective July
10, 2014.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available
on the internet at https://www.fws.gov/
southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm,
and https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0023.
Comments and materials received, as
well as some supporting documentation
used in the preparation of this final rule,
are available for public inspection at
https://www.regulations.gov. Some
supporting documentation is also
available at https://www.fws.gov/
southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm. All
of the comments, materials, and
documentation that we considered in
this rulemaking are available by
appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
New Mexico Ecological Services Field
Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33119
NM 87113; by telephone 505–346–2525;
or by facsimile 505–346–2542.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office, 2105
Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by
telephone 505–346–2525; or by
facsimile 505–346–2542. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, a species or subspecies may
warrant protection through listing if it is
endangered or threatened throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species can only be
completed by issuing a rule. On June 20,
2013 (78 FR 37363; 78 FR 37328), we
proposed to list the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse under the Act
as an endangered species and proposed
to designate critical habitat. We found
that the species currently faces
numerous threats of high magnitude,
and, therefore, qualifies for listing, and
we requested additional information
and comments on the proposed listing.
This final rule considers all comments
received by peer reviewers, tribes, State
agencies, Federal agencies, and the
public regarding the proposed rule to
list the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse.
This rule will finalize the listing of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as
endangered.
The basis for our action. Under the
Act, a species may be determined to be
an endangered or threatened species
based on any of five factors: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We
have determined that the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse meets the
definition of an endangered species
primarily because of the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and other natural and
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Our consideration of these
factors is described in section 5.1
‘‘Habitat Loss’’ and section 5.3
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
33120
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘Protective Regulations’’ of the SSA
Report. The other two of the five factors
are not contributing to the current status
of the species. See section 5.2 ‘‘Other
Factors’’ in the SSA Report for our
consideration of these factors.
Peer review and public comment. We
sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our
designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
We invited these peer reviewers to
comment on our listing proposal. We
also considered all comments and
information received during the
comment period.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing
rule for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse (78 FR 37363, June 20,
2013) for a detailed description of
previous Federal actions concerning this
species.
We determined that critical habitat for
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse is prudent and determinable and
will soon publish in the Federal
Register our final determination
designating critical habitat for the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
Background
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Species Information
The Final New Mexico Meadow
Jumping Mouse Species Status
Assessment Report (SSA Report; Service
2014, entire), available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R2–ES–2013–0023, provides a thorough
assessment of New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse biology and natural
history, and assesses demographic risks
(such as small population sizes), threats,
and limiting factors in the context of
determining viability and risk of
extinction for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse. In the SSA Report, we
compile biological data and a
description of past, present, and likely
future threats (causes and effects) facing
the species. Because data in these areas
of science are limited, some
uncertainties are associated with this
assessment. Where we have substantial
uncertainty, we have attempted to make
our necessary assumptions explicit in
the SSA Report. We base our
assumptions in these areas on the best
available information. Importantly, the
SSA Report does not represent a
decision by the Service on whether this
taxon should be listed as a threatened or
endangered species under the Act. The
SSA Report does however, provide the
scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decision (see Summary of
Biological Status and Threats), which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
involves the application of standards
within the Act and its implementing
regulations, and Service policies (see
Determination).
Summary of Biological Status and
Threats
Our SSA Report documents the
results of the comprehensive biological
status review for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse and provides a
thorough account of the species’ overall
viability and, conversely, extinction risk
(Service 2014, entire). The SSA Report
contains the data on which this final
rule is based. The following is a
summary of the results and conclusions
from the SSA Report.
The New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse is a small mammal whose
historical distribution likely included
riparian wetlands along streams in the
Sangre de Cristo and San Juan
Mountains from southern Colorado to
central New Mexico, including the
Jemez and Sacramento Mountains and
the Rio Grande Valley from Espanola to
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife
Refuge, and into parts of the White
Mountains in eastern Arizona.
In conducting our status assessment
we first considered what the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse needs
to ensure viability. We generally define
viability as the ability of the species to
persist over the long term and,
conversely, to avoid extinction. We next
evaluated whether the identified needs
of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse are currently available and the
repercussions to the subspecies when
provision of those needs is missing or
diminished. We then consider the
factors that are causing the species to
lack what it needs, including historical,
current, and future factors. Finally,
considering the information reviewed,
we evaluate the current status and
future viability of the species in terms
of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation.
Resiliency is the ability of the species
to withstand stochastic events (arising
from random factors such as drought,
flooding, or wildfire) and, in the case of
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse, is best measured by habitat size.
Redundancy is the ability of a species to
withstand catastrophic events within
part of its range, and can be provided by
the duplication and distribution of
resilient populations across the range of
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. Representation is the ability of
a species to adapt to changing
environmental conditions and can be
measured by the breadth of genetic
diversity within and among
populations, and the ecological
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
diversity of populations across the
species’ range. In the case of the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, we
evaluate representation based on the
extent of the geographical range as an
indicator of genetic and ecological
diversity. The main areas of uncertainty
in our analysis include the minimum
amount of suitable habitat needed to
support resilient populations and the
number of redundant populations
needed to provide for adequate
redundancy and representation.
Our assessment concluded that the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
has an overall low viability (probability
of persistence) in the near term
(between now and the next 10 years)
and a decreasing viability in the longterm future (beyond 10 years). The New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse occurs
within eight geographic management
areas, which are defined by the external
boundaries of the geographic
distribution of historical populations.
We use the term geographic
management area to describe the
geographic region where populations of
jumping mice are located. For the
subspecies to be viable, the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse needs to have
multiple resilient populations
distributed throughout different
drainages within the eight geographic
management areas. In this summary, we
present an overview of the
comprehensive biological status review.
A detailed discussion of the information
supporting this overview can be found
in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire).
For the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse to be considered viable,
individual mice need specific vital
resources for survival and completion of
their life history. One of the most
important aspects of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse’s life history is
that it hibernates about 8 or 9 months
out of the year, which is longer than
most other mammals. Conversely, it is
only active 3 or 4 months during the
summer. Within this short timeframe, it
must breed, birth and raise young, and
store up sufficient fat reserves to survive
the next year’s hibernation period. In
addition, jumping mice only live 3 years
or less, and have one small litter
annually, with seven or fewer young, so
the subspecies has limited capacity for
high population growth rates due to this
low fecundity (reproductive potential).
As a result, if resources are not available
in a single season, jumping mice
populations would be greatly stressed
and would likely have lower
reproduction and over-winter survival
during hibernation.
The New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse has exceptionally specialized
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
habitat requirements to support these
life-history needs and maintain
adequate population sizes. Habitat
requirements are characterized by tall
(averaging at least 61 centimeters (cm)
(24 inches (in)), dense riparian
herbaceous vegetation (plants with no
woody tissue) primarily composed of
sedges (plants in the Cyperaceae Family
that superficially resemble grasses but
usually have triangular stems) and forbs
(broad-leafed herbaceous plants). This
suitable habitat is found only when
wetland vegetation achieves full growth
potential associated with perennial
flowing water. This vegetation is an
important resource need for the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
because it provides vital food sources
(insects and seeds), as well as the
structural material for building day
nests that are used for shelter from
predators. New Mexico meadow
jumping mice must have rich, abundant
food sources during the summer so they
can accumulate sufficient fat reserves to
survive their long hibernation period. In
addition, individual jumping mice also
need intact upland areas (areas up
gradient and beyond the floodplain of
rivers and streams) adjacent to riparian
wetland areas because this is where they
build nests or use burrows to give birth
to young in the summer and to
hibernate over the winter. Some
uncertainty exists about the particular
location of hibernation sites relative to
riparian areas.
These suitable habitat conditions
need to be in appropriate locations and
of adequate sizes to support healthy
populations of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse. Historically, these
wetland habitats would have been in
large patches (movements of 200 to 700
meters (m) (656 to 2,297 feet (ft)) to
disperse to other habitat patches within
stream segments) located intermittently
along long stretches of streams.
Connectivity between patches of
suitable habitat is necessary to facilitate
daily and seasonal movements, and
dispersal to increase the likelihood of
long-term viability of jumping mouse
populations. The ability of New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse populations to
be resilient to adverse stochastic events
depends on the robustness of a
population and the ability to recolonize
if populations are extirpated (the loss of
a population or a species from a
particular geographic region). Counting
individual mice to assess population
sizes is very difficult because the
subspecies is trap-wary and hibernates
for an extended time; thus, data are
unavailable. We can best measure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
population health by the size of the
intact, suitable habitat available.
Our assessment uses the best available
information to estimate the minimum
length of specific stream reaches or
segments of ditches and canals, and the
corresponding suitable habitat patch
sizes that we think will provide a high
likelihood of long-term persistence for
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. Because the subspecies has
limited daily and seasonal movements,
dense riparian herbaceous habitat along
streams, ditches, and canals needs to be
of sufficient length to support large
population sizes and multiple local
populations dispersed throughout
specific waterways. This continuous
spatial arrangement is necessary to
support breeding, nonbreeding, and
daily and seasonal movements of New
Mexico meadow jumping mice.
In considering the area needed for
maintaining resilient populations of
adequate size with the ability to endure
adverse events (such as floods or
wildfire), we estimate that resilient
populations of jumping mice need
connected areas of suitable habitat in
the range of at least about 27.5 to 73.2
hectares (ha) (68 to 181 acres (ac)), along
9 to 24 kilometers (km) (6 to 15 miles
(mi)) of flowing streams, ditches, or
canals. The minimum area needed is
given as a range due to the uncertainty
of an absolute minimum and because
local conditions within drainages will
vary. This distribution and amount of
suitable habitat would allow for
multiple subpopulations of New Mexico
meadow jumping mice to exist along
drainages and would provide for
sources of recolonization if some areas
were extirpated due to disturbances.
The suitable habitat patches must be
relatively close together, no more than
about 100 m (330 ft) apart, because the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
has limited movement and dispersal
capacity for natural recolonization.
Rangewide, we determined that the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse needs
at least two resilient populations (where
at least two existed historically) within
each of eight identified geographic
management areas. This number and
distribution of resilient populations is
expected to provide the subspecies with
the necessary redundancy and
representation to provide for viability.
The New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse life history (short active period,
short lifespan, low fecundity, specific
habitat needs, and low movement and
dispersal ability) makes populations
highly vulnerable to extirpations when
habitat is lost and fragmented. Based on
historical (1980s and 1990s) and current
(from 2005 to 2012) data, the
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33121
distribution and abundance of the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse has
declined significantly rangewide. The
majority of local extirpations have
occurred since the late 1980s to early
1990s, as we found about 70 formerly
occupied locations are now considered
to be extirpated.
Since 2005, researchers have
documented 29 remaining populations
spread across the 8 geographic
management areas (2 in Colorado, 15 in
New Mexico, and 12 in Arizona). Nearly
all of the current populations are
isolated and widely separated, and all of
the 29 populations located since 2005
have patches of suitable habitat that are
too small to support resilient
populations of New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse. None of them are larger
than the needed 27.5 to 73.2 ha (68 to
181 ac), and over half of them are only
a few acres in size. In addition, 11 of the
29 populations documented as extant
since 2005 have been substantially
compromised since 2011 (due to water
shortages, excessive grazing, or wildfire
and postfire flooding), and these
populations could already be extirpated.
Seven additional populations in
Arizona may also be compromised due
to postfire flooding following recent
large wildfires. For example, the
population at Sugarite Canyon State
Park has been significantly impacted
since the 2011 Track Wildfire (Frey and
Kopp 2013, entire; Service 2013c,
entire). Additionally, no New Mexico
meadow jumping mice were captured at
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife
Refuge in 2013, despite intensive
surveys within suitable habitat (Frey
2013, entire; Service 2013, entire; 2013a,
entire; 2013b, entire). At this rate of
population extirpation (based on known
historical population losses and
possible recent population losses) the
probability of persistence of the
subspecies as a whole is severely
compromised in the near term.
Four of the eight geographic
management areas have two or more
locations known to be occupied by the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
since 2005, but all are insufficient (too
small) to support resilient populations.
The remaining four geographic
management areas each have only one
location of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse known to be occupied
since 2005, and each population is
insufficient (too small) to be resilient.
Therefore, although researchers have
some uncertainty about population sizes
of extant localities, the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse does not
currently have the number and
distribution of resilient populations
needed to provide the needed levels of
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
33122
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
redundancy and representation (genetic
and ecological diversity) for the
subspecies to demonstrate viability.
We next analyzed the past, present,
and likely future threats (causes and
effects) that may put New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse populations at
risk of future extirpation. Because the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
requires such specific suitable habitat
conditions, populations have a high
potential for extirpation when habitat is
altered or eliminated. In addition,
because of the current conditions of
isolated populations, when localities are
extirpated, there is little or no
opportunity for natural recolonization of
the area due to the subspecies’ limited
movement and dispersal capacity.
We found a significant reduction in
occupied localities likely due to
cumulative habitat loss and
fragmentation across the range of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
The past and current habitat loss has
resulted in the extirpation of historical
populations, reduced the size of existing
populations, and isolated existing small
populations. Ongoing and future habitat
loss is expected to result in additional
extirpations of more populations. The
primary sources of current and future
habitat losses include grazing pressure
(which removes the needed vegetation)
and water management and use (which
causes vegetation loss from mowing and
drying of soils), lack of water due to
drought (exacerbated by climate
change), and wildfires (also exacerbated
by climate change). Additional sources
of habitat loss are likely to occur from
scouring floods, loss of beaver, highway
reconstruction, residential and
commercial development, coalbed
methane development, and unregulated
recreation.
These multiple sources of habitat loss
are not acting independently, but
produce cumulative impacts that
magnify the effects of habitat loss on
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
populations. Historically, larger
connected populations of New Mexico
meadow jumping mice would have been
able to withstand or recover from local
stressors, such as habitat loss from
drought, wildfire, or floods. However,
the current condition of small
populations makes local extirpations
likely more common. In addition, the
isolated state of existing populations
makes natural recolonization of
impacted areas highly unlikely or
impossible in most areas.
Considering the subspecies’ biological
status now and its likely status into the
future, without active conservation (i.e.,
grazing management and water
management) existing populations are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
vulnerable to extirpation (at least 11
have already undergone substantial
impacts since 2011) and, therefore, the
subspecies as a whole is currently at an
elevated risk of extinction. None of the
29 populations known to exist since
2005 are of sufficient size to be resilient.
Assuming this rate of population loss
continues similar to recent years, the
number of populations could be
severely curtailed in the near term,
eliminating the level of redundancy
needed to withstand catastrophic
drought and wildfire, along with the
additive impacts of multiple threats. In
addition to past sources of habitat loss,
ongoing grazing, water shortages, and
high-impact wildfire (the latter two
exacerbated by climate change) will
continue to put all of the remaining
locations at considerable risk of
extirpation in the near-term (between
now and the next 10 years) and
increasing over the long term. In
considering the needed level of
representation, while sufficient
diversity likely still exists across the
eight geographic management areas, the
subspecies representation is relatively
low because none of these geographic
management areas currently have
resilient populations. Therefore, we
conclude that the overall probability of
persistence is low in the near term and
decreasing in the future due to the lack
of adequate resiliency, redundancy, and
representation.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
We requested written comments from
the public on the proposed rule during
a comment period that opened on June
20, 2013 (78 FR 37363), and closed on
August 19, 2013. We contacted
appropriate Federal and State agencies,
tribes, scientific experts and
organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on
the proposal. During the comment
period, a newspaper notice inviting
general public comment was published
in the Albuquerque Journal. On August
15, 2013, we also held an informational
meeting in Durango, Colorado, after
receiving requests from interested
parties. We did not receive any requests
for a public hearing.
During the comment period, we
received 24 comment letters, including
3 peer review comment letters,
addressing the proposed listing of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
In this final rule, we address only the
comments regarding the proposed
listing of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse. Comments addressing
the proposed critical habitat designation
will be fully addressed in a separate
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
rulemaking action, and published in the
Federal Register at a later date. All
substantive information provided
during the comment period has either
been incorporated directly into this final
determination, the SSA Report, or
addressed below.
Comments From Peer Reviewers
In accordance with our peer review
policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinion
from four knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that are familiar
with the subspecies, the geographic
region in which the subspecies occurs,
and conservation biology principles. We
received responses from three of the
four peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received
from the peer reviewers for substantive
issues and new information regarding
the listing of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse. All three of the peer
reviewers agreed that the information
presented in the proposed rule to list
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse as an endangered species is
scientifically sound; that the
assumptions, analyses, and conclusions
are well reasoned; and that the
information is complete and the best
available, and the risks or threats to the
subspecies are not undervalued. In
addition, two of the three peer reviewers
provided clarifications and suggestions
to improve the final rule to list the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse as
endangered. These comments are
addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into the final rule as
appropriate.
(1) Comment: New information
documents the possible extirpation of
the Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge population (Frey 2013,
entire); the continued loss of New
Mexico meadow jumping mice and
habitat from the 2011 Track Wildfire in
Sugarite Canyon (Frey and Kopp 2013,
entire); additional survey efforts within
the Sacramento Mountains that failed to
document any new populations (Frey
2013c, entire); and new genetic data that
continues to support the validity of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as
a subspecies and its imperiled status
(Malaney et al. 2012, entire; Malaney
and Cook 2013, entire).
Our Response: We have incorporated
this new information in the SSA Report
(see 4.3 Population Estimates and Status
in the SSA Report; Service 2014, entire).
The data continue to support our
determination that the subspecies is
endangered.
(2) Comment: We received comments
pertaining to dispersal distances. One
suggestion, to plan for the
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
interconnectivity of populations, was
that the Service should consider
dispersal distances from studies on the
Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus
hudsonius preblei) of up to 4.3 km (2.7
mi), whereas another suggestion found
our characterization of dispersal
distances and home range sizes of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
appropriate.
Our Response: Schorr (2003, p. 10;
2012, p. 1279) did report the Preble’s
meadow jumping mouse can move up to
4.3 km (2.7 mi). However, as stated in
the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire),
studies indicate that the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse does not
appear to travel as great a distance as
the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse.
Further, movement data is available on
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. The maximum distance
travelled between two successive points
by all radio-collared jumping mice on
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife
Refuge was 744 m (2,441 ft), but most
regular daily and seasonal movements
were less than 100 m (328 ft) (Frey and
Wright 2012, pp. 16, 109; Figure 9). See
2.6 Movements and Home Range in the
SSA Report for additional information.
The conservation of New Mexico
meadow jumping mice should plan for
interconnectivity between populations
using movement distances that are
likely more common, rather than the
maximum possible distance (see
Trakhtenbrot et al. 2005, p. 175). As
opposed to using the phrase, ‘‘maximum
dispersal distance’’ in the draft SSA
Report, we have clarified this as the
distance between patches of suitable
habitat to provide for population
connectivity for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse. In the SSA
Report, we found that appropriately
sized patches of suitable habitat should
be no more than about 200 m (656 ft)
apart within waterways, which would
encompass the majority of regular (daily
and seasonal) movements of
individuals.
(3) Comment: The proposed rule and
SSA Report provide virtually no
information on the historical (pre-1980)
distribution of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse. These reports use only
two time periods, historical (1980 to
1999) and current records (2005
forward). Almost no records of the
subspecies obtained prior to 1980 were
included in the SSA Report. The
distribution and status of the 1980 to
1999 period was likely already
significantly compromised.
Our Response: While the historical
and current distributional data for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is
categorized into two time periods in the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), we
did include all known distribution
records. While we did not provide a
map or table detailing the pre-1980
distribution of the subspecies in the
SSA Report, we summarized the
comprehensive reports of the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse’s
historical range and distribution (i.e.,
Frey 2008c, entire; Hafner et al. 1981).
These authors (Frey 2008c, pp. 35, 46;
Hafner et al. 1981, pp. 501–502)
reported that the historical range and
distribution of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse likely included riparian
wetlands along the Sangre de Cristo and
San Juan Mountains from southern
Colorado to central New Mexico and
into parts of the White Mountains of
Arizona.
We found no capture records of
jumping mice between 1996 and 2005.
Surveys conducted since 2005
documented locations where the
subspecies was historically present, but
is now apparently absent or at levels too
low for detection. Based on this
information and previous reviews, we
continue to find that the comparison
between historical (1980 to 1999) and
current New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse records (2005 forward) is
appropriate and the pre-1980 records
were sufficiently considered and
incorporated in the SSA Report.
The Service agrees that the
distribution and status of the subspecies
was compromised by 1999. However,
the Service’s analysis of the five factors
threat analysis listed in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act includes the consideration of
present threats and threats anticipated
into the near future. We evaluated
whether the subspecies is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (endangered) or is
likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range
(threatened).
Comments From Federal Agencies
(4) Comment: Snap traps have a
higher capture success rate than live
traps. As such, historical data collected
by Morrison should not be compared
with current data collected using
nonlethal means.
Our Response: As noted in the SSA
Report, use of live traps for inventory
and monitoring are preferable, because
some New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse populations are likely extremely
small, and killing and removal of even
a few individuals from the population
using snap traps could be detrimental.
Further, the Service is required to use
the best available scientific and
commercial data. Data collected using
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33123
live traps were not designed to estimate
population size, but, to locate
populations (Morrison 1988, pp. 47, 52;
1989, p. 3; 1990, p. 138; 1991, pp. 3–4).
Frey (2005a, p. 68; 2011, p. 9; 2013d,
pp. 24, 28) recommended targeted
survey efforts to determine presence or
absence of jumping mice should be 400
to 700 trap-nights over 3 consecutive
nights using Sherman live traps baited
with sweet grain mixture. Although
Morrison used both Sherman and snap
traps, these efforts resulted in locating
populations (1988, pp. 47, 52; 1991, pp.
3–4). Consequently, we believe
comparing data from Morrison’s studies
to current information on population
presence is valid.
(5) Comment: Some surveys have not
been completed on areas that contained
suitable habitat because they were
deemed too small or disjunct; yet, the
Lincoln National Forest recently
documented presence of the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse in
areas that were thought to be ‘‘too
small.’’
Our Response: The Service does not
have any records documenting the
presence of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse in areas that were
considered too small or disjunct on the
Lincoln National Forest or other areas.
The information the Service has
indicates the Lincoln National Forest
has only documented the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse in two new
areas, Cox Canyon and Mauldin Spring
in Wills Canyon (United States Forest
Service (USFS) 2012h, pp. 2–3, 2013a,
entire), since Frey (2005, entire)
completed surveys. The Cox Canyon site
was surveyed in 2005 by Frey (2005, pp.
9, 20, 33), with no New Mexico meadow
jumping mice captured at the time,
likely because no suitable habitat was
present. However, in 2012, New Mexico
meadow jumping mice were captured at
Cox Canyon, following the cessation of
grazing for 2 years (USFS 2012h, pp. 2–
4; Service 2012d, p. 2; U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers 2012, entire; 2012a, entire).
The Mauldin Spring area was not
deemed to be too small during Frey’s
2005 surveys, but is located in a remote
area over 0.4 mi (0.6 km) from a road.
(6) Comment: Some sites on the
Lincoln National Forest that had New
Mexico meadow jumping mice in the
1980s (Morrison 1989, entire) have not
been surveyed recently. The presence of
New Mexico meadow jumping mice was
confirmed in these areas in the 1990s by
Ward (2001) and there is a still a high
potential for New Mexico meadow
jumping mice to be present. The most
recent trapping efforts conducted on the
Lincoln National Forest have
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
33124
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
demonstrated that the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is present.
Our Response: Since 2005, all of the
previously occupied sites on USFS
lands from the 1980s have been
resurveyed. The USFS did not provide
information on who conducted the
recent trapping efforts or the specific
sites from the 1980s that were not
surveyed. However, since 2005, we are
aware of the following survey efforts on
the Lincoln National Forest: (1) Frey
(2005a, entire (2,375 trap nights of
effort) and 2013c, entire (1,280 trap
nights of effort)); and (2) USFS (2010,
entire (1,310 trap nights of effort);
2012h, entire (3,480 trap nights of
effort); and 2013, entire (2,494 trap
nights of effort)). Through these surveys,
all of the historical Morrison (1989,
entire) sites on public lands and other
areas that contained potentially suitable
habitat were surveyed (Frey and
Malaney 2009, p. 33; USFS 2010, entire;
2012h, entire; 2013, entire). Frey (2005,
p. 38) only found the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse present at two
historical locations, Silver Springs and
Agua Chiquita. The Lincoln National
Forest (2012h, entire; 2013a, entire)
found the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse present at two
additional locations, Cox Canyon and
Mauldin Spring. Only the Cox Canyon
population found by the USFS was a
historical location reported by Morrison
(1989, entire). Ward ((2005, entire) cited
by Frey 2005a, pp. 9, 22, 73; Frey and
Malaney 2009, p. 44)) confirmed New
Mexico meadow jumping mice at only
one location (Mauldin Spring) in the
1990s, and there is no longer suitable
habitat present at this location.
Consequently, all sites with suitable
habitat on the Lincoln National Forest
have been surveyed since 2005, and
only 4 locations (3 historical and 1 new)
have been confirmed as extant.
(7) Comment: What will the delisting
factors be for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse?
Our Response: We have not
developed delisting criteria yet for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
Now that the subspecies is listed as
endangered, a draft and final recovery
plan will be prepared. The recovery
plan will identify site-specific
management actions, including
measurable criteria that determine when
the subspecies may be downlisted or
delisted, and methods for monitoring
recovery progress.
(8) Comment: The term ‘‘excessive
grazing’’ is never clearly defined in the
SSA Report or proposed rules.
Our Response: Our use of the phrase
excessive grazing is in the context of
suitable New Mexico meadow jumping
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
mouse habitat. Excessive ungulate
grazing in this context occurs when
there is an inadequate amount of tall
dense herbaceous riparian vegetation to
support the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse (see ‘‘Specific
Microhabitat Requirements’’ section in
the SSA Report; Service 2014, entire).
Indications of excessive grazing are:
trampling of streambanks, loss of
riparian cover, soil compaction,
modification of riparian plant
communities, lowering water tables, and
the resulting changes to New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse microhabitat.
Excessive grazing in riparian areas can
result in changes to the hydrology and
soils, leading to downcutting or
headcutting, which can further degrade
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat.
(9) Comment: There is no mention of
whether feral hogs or wild horses are
considered threats to the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse. What would
be expected and allowed for trapping
and removal of these animals?
Our Response: The USFS did not
provide any specific information on
feral hogs or wild horses for us to
consider and we did not receive any
information regarding this topic during
the public comment period. We have no
information concerning feral hogs or
wild horses currently occurring within
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat. There are confirmed feral hog
populations in Otero and Socorro
Counties, New Mexico, but there is no
information indicating their presence in
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat or of impacts to the subspecies
(APHIS 2010, p. 10; USFS 2011d). We
acknowledge that both animals have the
potential to impact riparian areas and
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat, but have no data on if or where
this is occurring or how much habitat
may be affected now or in the future.
Under Section 7(a)(1) of the Act,
Federal agencies, such as the USFS,
could utilize their existing authorities
by carrying out programs such as the
removal of feral hogs or wild horses for
the conservation of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse.
(10) Comment: What will the
herbicide use or non-use expectation be
for non-native invasive plant control?
Our Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the
Act requires Federal agencies to ensure
that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of 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 consultation with the Service. If a
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Federal agency proposes to use
herbicide to control nonnative plants
and it may affect the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into consultation with the
Service.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of
the Act make it illegal for any person to
take (includes harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect; or to attempt any of these),
import, 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. We may issue permits to
carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. A list of activities that
could potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act is in this final rule
under Available Conservation Measures
section. This list is not comprehensive.
The Service can also work with private
landowners to provide technical
assistance or we may issue permits for
incidental take of a species in
connection with otherwise lawful
activities.
(11) Comment: What will be allowable
for piping water from streams or springs
to water troughs for wildlife or cattle?
Will travel corridors that assist in
moving cattle from winter to summer
pastures be allowed across streams so
that cattle can move and access water
troughs?
Our Response: If a Federal agency
implements, authorizes, or funds water
use or livestock grazing activities that
may affect the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse, then they must enter
into consultation with the Service.
Consultation would analyze and
determine to what degree the subspecies
is impacted by the proposed action.
Each consultation is evaluated on a
case-by-case basis following our
regulations (50 CFR part 402). See our
response to comment (10) above
regarding the prohibitions of section
9(a)(2) of the Act.
(12) Comment: How does the Service
intend to manage livestock grazing and
associated actions such as fencing
riparian areas and providing water
points?
Our Response: The Service does not
intend to manage livestock grazing or
associated actions. Rather the Service
will work with Federal agencies during
consultation under section 7 of the Act,
to ensure that any actions they fund,
authorize, or carry out would not
jeopardize the continued existence of
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. These section 7 consultations
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
will determine whether the management
of a Federal livestock permit jeopardizes
the continued existence of the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Our
regulations require that we use the best
scientific and commercial data available
for consultations (50 CFR 402.14(d)).
This information is used to update and
analyze the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural activities or events
that have led up to the current status of
the subspecies and its habitat.
Consequently, any requirements to
minimize the effects of livestock grazing
and associated activities will be
appropriately applied through section 7
provisions 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2), which can
be changed if new information reveals
effects to the subspecies or critical
habitat in a manner or extent not
previously considered (see 50 CFR
402.16(b)).
The Service can also work with
private landowners to provide technical
assistance or we may issue permits for
incidental take of a species in
connection with otherwise lawful
activities.
(13) Comment: Roads are not listed as
a factor affecting the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse; however, dirt
roads can cause indirect effects through
sedimentation or by impeding spring
flows.
Our Response: We acknowledge that
it is possible for roads to indirectly or
directly impact riparian areas, springs,
or New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat. However, the USFS did not
provide any specific information for us
to consider and the best available
scientific and commercial data does not
indicate how or where dirt roads may be
causing indirect effects to New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse habitat through
sedimentation or by impeding spring
flows now or in the future.
Comments From States
(14) Comment: A lack of probabilistic
sampling designs and estimation of
detection probabilities for New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse survey efforts
prevents using occupancy data in
determining distribution and
populations trends through time.
Our Response: Counting individual
mice to estimate population sizes is very
difficult and data are currently
unavailable. Recent surveys have relied
on detection or nondetection
(sometimes called presence or absence)
data to determine whether New Mexico
meadow jumping mice persist in areas
that contained historical populations or
areas that currently contain suitable
habitat. As we found in the SSA Report,
species-specific surveys have been
useful for determining occupancy, but
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
are limited in their usefulness for
capture probabilities and, therefore,
estimating population size. We
recognize that detection or nondetection
data may not provide conclusive
evidence of the true population status at
each of the 29 locations found since
2005; however, the failure to detect New
Mexico meadow jumping mice in areas
where they were located in the 1980s
and loss of previously suitable habitat at
over 70 historical sites since this period
are likely representative of real
population extirpations.
As a result, detection or nondetection
surveys represent the best scientific and
commercial data we have regarding the
rangewide distribution and persistence
of populations. Based on these data, we
find that the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse has declined sharply
due to the extirpation of populations
and is generally restricted to small,
isolated patches of suitable habitat. We
acknowledge that research is needed to
determine the size and demographics of
remaining populations, but the best
scientific and commercial data available
on the threats to this subspecies is
sufficient to make a listing
determination (For a full discussion, see
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species and Determination sections,
below).
(15) Comment: Without conducting
rigorous experiments, it is scientifically
indefensible and speculative to attribute
the loss of New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse habitat to livestock
grazing and recreation. There were no
experimental controls used to make
comparisons and too many extraneous
variables to conclude that these
activities were the cause of habitat and
population loss.
Our Response: We agree that it would
be useful to have more information on
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. However, the best available
scientific and commercial data indicate
what the habitat requirements of the
mouse are, including vegetation type
and size. Further, it is evident that
livestock grazing and recreational
activities can negatively impact the
required vegetation for mouse habitat,
without doing further experimentation.
In fact, such experimentation with a
scarce, potentially endangered species
may further imperil the species. In the
SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), we
present the best commercial and
scientific data available, albeit
observational evidence, to conclude that
livestock grazing, recreation, and other
causal factors have resulted in the
alteration and destruction of New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33125
(16) Comment: The Service assumed a
correlation between habitat patch size
and New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse populations without providing
documentation.
Our Response: We acknowledge that
the best available information regarding
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
population abundance is not complete.
However, because the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse requires
specialized habitat requirements to
support its life-history needs, they
would not be found in areas that lack
suitable habitat. Consequently, we
estimated the size of intact, suitable
habitat surrounding capture locations of
jumping mice found since 2005 as a the
best proxy to evaluate population
viability. We think this is a reasonable
approach, because it is probable that
small areas of suitable habitat can
support only a limited number of New
Mexico meadow jumping mice, and
small population sizes are more
vulnerable to extirpation than large
population sizes. Moreover, studies
conducted on the similar Preble’s
meadow jumping mouse found smaller
patches of habitat are unable to support
as many Preble’s as larger patches of
habitat (Service 2003, p. 11). Schorr
(2012, p. 1279) suggested that habitat
connectivity and the incorporation of
immigrants may be vital to the
persistence of Preble’s meadow jumping
mouse populations, indicating that
degradation of surrounding habitat and
geographic isolation likely increase the
vulnerability of some populations.
Therefore, our conclusion that small
isolated areas of New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse habitat are expected to
have small populations with a high risk
of extinction is based upon Preble’s
meadow jumping mouse studies,
general conservation biology principles,
and metapopulation theory (Hanski
1999, entire; Service 2003, entire).
(17) Comment: A lack of knowledge
about New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse population sizes and dynamics
should be a concern to the Service.
Determinations of endangered or
threatened status should use the best
available scientific and commercial
information and should not be based
upon conjecture.
Our Response: It is often the case that
data is limited for rare species, but we
have used the best available scientific
and commercial data. As we found in
the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire),
jumping mice population sizes are
assumed to be naturally regulated by the
amount of suitable habitat available to
support them. Jumping mice
populations probably expand and
contract in response to fluctuations in
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
33126
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
riparian vegetation from flooding,
inundation, drought, and the resulting
changes in the extent and location of
floodplains and river channels (Service
2002, pp. D13–D15). For populations to
persist over the long term, habitat
patches need to be of sufficient size and
configuration to accommodate these
fluctuations in habitat availability.
When the suitable habitat patches are
small and isolated, periods of drought or
other disturbances can cause New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitats to shrink or become fragmented
and lead to reductions in population
sizes or even extirpation of New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse populations.
Therefore, New Mexico meadow
jumping mice need suitable habitat
sufficient in size to support the natural
fluctuations of populations as they
expand and contract, to reduce the risk
of local extirpation and extinction, and
to attain the densities necessary to
persist through catastrophic events and
seasonal fluctuations of food resources
(i.e., maintain healthy resilient
populations). Based on our review of the
best available scientific and commercial
data, we conclude that the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is currently in
danger of extinction throughout all of its
range, and therefore, meets the
definition of an endangered species (see
Determination, below). The analysis
used to make this decision was subject
to peer-review to ensure sound science
and decisionmaking. See 2.7.2 Habitat
Patch and Population Sizes in the SSA
Report for additional information on
this subject.
(18) Comment: The SSA Report
contains ‘‘substantial areas of
uncertainty’’ and is not a ‘‘thorough
assessment.’’ The Service should not
make assumptions; assumptions are not
scientific data and should not be used
in a listing determination.
Our Response: We did not base our
listing decision on the areas of
uncertainty. The main areas of
uncertainty in our analysis include the
minimum amount of suitable habitat
needed to support resilient populations
and the number of redundant
populations needed to provide for
adequate redundancy and
representation. The proposed rule and
SSA Report (Service 2014, entire) were
peer reviewed, and found to be an
accurate representation of the status of
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. The peer reviewers agreed that
the scientific and commercial data
available on the threats to this
subspecies is adequate to make a listing
determination. As a result, we have
found that the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse is presently in danger of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
extinction throughout all of its range
based on the severity of threats.
(19) Comment: The SSA Report lists
livestock grazing as a threat to the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse within
Lake Dorothey State Wildlife Area in
Colorado; however, the area is not
grazed by domestic livestock and there
are no plans to begin such a use.
Our Response: We understand that
the Lake Dorothey State Wildlife Area in
Colorado is closed to domestic livestock
grazing, but unauthorized livestock use
has occurred. The Lake Dorothey State
Wildlife Area is in the Sugarite Canyon
in Colorado and New Mexico, which
burned in the 2011 Track Wildfire. The
Lake Dorothey State Wildlife Area
borders Sugarite Canyon State Park in
New Mexico. The fire resulted in
downed fences between private lands
and Sugarite Canyon State Park,
allowing cattle to access the area.
Trespass cattle that entered Sugarite
Canyon State Park in New Mexico
accessed the Lake Dorothey State
Wildlife Area. Employees of Sugarite
Canyon State Park noted at least 30
trespass cattle within their park (Service
2013, pp. 1–2; Wildermuth 2012,
entire). Trespass cattle have been
consistently observed within Soda
Pocket Creek Campground and
Segerstrom Creek of the Sugarite
Canyon State Park, sites that were
previously occupied by the New Mexico
jumping mouse (Service 2012c, pp. 2,
10; 2013, pp. 1–2). We have clarified
this information in the SSA Report.
(20) Comment: The SSA Report lists
livestock grazing and development as
threats within the Sambrito Creek
Geographic Management Area in
Colorado. This area is within Navajo
State Park and is not grazed by domestic
livestock and unlikely to be developed
due to ownership by the Bureau of
Reclamation and management by
Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Our Response: We understand that
Navajo State Park is closed to domestic
livestock grazing, but unauthorized
livestock use has occurred repeatedly at
several locations within the geographic
management area (Bureau of
Reclamation 2008, p. 3–62; Colorado
Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 261).
This unauthorized use is due to the lack
of fences, incomplete fences, and poorly
constructed or maintained fences. Areas
with high incidences of livestock
trespass include the Miller MesaSambrito area, and the upper river arms
(Bureau of Reclamation 2008, p. 3–62),
which also includes New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse locations and
proposed critical habitat.
Sambrito Creek is surrounded on
three sides by privately owned lands
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that are partially developed, including
agricultural fields, pastures, residences,
and oil and gas wells (Colorado Natural
Heritage Program 2006, p. 261). We
acknowledge that the occupied area of
Sambrito Creek is within Navajo State
Park; however, the potential for further
residential or oil and gas development
on the surrounding private lands is
high, which would likely result in less
hydrologic input, and, therefore,
shrinking and drying of the wetland
area (Colorado Natural Heritage Program
2006, p. 261) and New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse habitat.
(21) Comment: The description of
activities that could result in take under
section 9 is too vague. The Service
should provide specific dates for the
active season of the jumping mouse.
Further, the Service should clarify
whether destruction of habitat by any
means is illegal, which implies that a
land owner would be responsible for
controlling against natural
modifications such as browsing by
native wildlife, flooding, drought,
wildfire, or the diversion of water rights,
wildfire restoration, grazing, and spread
of invasive plants, even if these actions
were occurring on other properties
within the watershed.
Our Response: The prohibitions of
section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50
CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in
part, make it illegal for any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to take (includes harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these), import, 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. Under the Lacey Act (18
U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), it
is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Section 9 applies to persons that carry
out or attempt to carry out the actions
listed above, not actions such as
weather events and native wildlife
foraging.
The intent of describing potential
section 9 violations is to increase public
awareness of the effect of a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of a listed species. We have
clarified the list of potential section 9
violations below (see Available
Conservation Measures). These may
include, but are not limited to, the
alteration or removal of specific
microhabitat components (as described
in this rule or within the May 2013 SSA
Report (Service 2013) through new
construction, livestock grazing, or
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
dredging or filling in streams or
wetlands.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: for
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities
(including but not limited to grazing,
construction, and wetland alterations).
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Service’s Ecological Services
Field Office in the State where the
proposed activities will occur.
We have generally defined the active
season of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse in the SSA Report
(Service 2014, entire) as May through
October.
(22) Comment: The size and stream
length range of estimates for resilient
populations of New Mexico meadow
jumping mice have no citations, or
justification of how these were
determined.
Our Response: In the SSA Report
(Service 2014, entire), we estimate how
much suitable habitat is likely necessary
to support healthy, resilient populations
of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse by considering information
regarding the Preble’s meadow jumping
mouse and information from Frey
(2006d, pp. 18–21; 2011, p. 29; 2012b,
p. 16) for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse. For examples, the
Recovery Team for the Preble’s meadow
jumping mouse recommended that at
least several medium-sized populations
(at least 500 mice) should be protected
with each population distributed along
a 14- to 26-km (to 16-mi) network of
connected streams whose hydrology
supports riparian vegetation (Service
2003, pp. 24–25). Following fires, we
found that, depending on fire intensity
and the subsequent ash and debris flow
within stream reaches, New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse populations
can be significantly affected and likely
extirpated, even when 15 km (9 mi) of
continuous suitable habitat existed prior
to the fire (Sugarite Canyon; Frey 2006d,
pp. 18–21; 2012b, p. 16). Therefore, we
estimate that stream lengths should be
at least two to three times of those
characterized by Frey (2011, p. 29) in
order to have adequate population sizes
necessary to persist through these types
of stochastic and catastrophic events.
After reviewing this information, we
conclude that current New Mexico
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
meadow jumping mouse populations
need connected areas of suitable habitat
along at least 9 to 24 km (5.6 to 15 mi)
of continuous suitable habitat to support
viable populations of jumping mice
with a high likelihood of long-term
persistence. See 2.7.2 Habitat Patch and
Population Sizes in the SSA Report for
additional information on this subject.
Comments From the Public
(23) Comment: Is there observer bias
associated with using primarily
information from the Frey surveys and
conclusions? Have there been any other
groups or individuals providing data or
information on the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse?
Our Response: The Act requires that
we identify species of wildlife and
plants that are endangered or threatened
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available. We did not
primarily use information from Frey,
but relied on a variety of information
including State wildlife agencies, other
researchers, and Federal agencies (e.g.,
see Museum of Southwestern Biology
1960, entire; 2007, entire; 2007a, entire;
Findley et al. 1975, pp. 271–272; Hafner
et al. 1981, pp. 501–502; Hink and
Ohmart 1984, p. 96; Dodd 1987, entire;
Morrison 1988, pp. 9–28; 1991, pp. 14–
16; 1992, pp. 308–310; 2012, entire;
VanPelt 1993, p. 8; Najera 1994, entire;
Jones 1999, entire; Frey 2003, pp. 38–39;
2005a, pp. 6–10, 58–59; 2006, p. 54;
2006c pp. 1–2; 2006d, pp.65–78; 2007b,
pp. 9–13, 25–27; 2008, p. 3; 2008c,
entire; 2010, entire; 2011, entire; 2012a,
entire; 2012, entire; 2012e, entire; 2013,
entire; 2013a, entire; Frey et al. 2007a p.
1; Frey and Malaney 2009, pp. 33–34;
Frey and Kopp 2013, entire; Frey and
Wright 2012, pp. 22–23; Underwood
2007, pp. 1–4; USFS 2009, entire;
2012h, entire; 2013a, entire; AGFD
2012a, p. 3; Colorado Parks and Wildlife
2012, entire; 2013, entire; 2013a, entire;
Malaney et al. 2012, entire; Service
2013, entire; 2013a, entire; 2013b,
entire). Based on this information, we
find there is unbiased and sound
scientific and commercial data to reach
our final determination that the species
is endangered.
(24) Comment: The SSA Report
indicates that the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse is difficult to capture
because individuals are trap wary, but
then uses the recent survey information
to justify listing as endangered. This
seems contradictory.
Our Response: Please see our
responses to comments (4) and (14)
above. Although the subspecies is
difficult to capture, surveyors (Jones
1999, entire; Frey 2005a, pp. 6–10, 58–
59; 2006d, pp. 65–78; 2007b, pp. 9–13,
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33127
25–27; 2008, p. 3; 2008c, pp. 36, 42;
2010, entire; 2011, entire; 2012, entire;
Frey et al. 2007a, p. 1; Frey and Malaney
2009, entire; Museum of Southwestern
Biology 2007, entire; 2007a, entire;
Underwood 2007, entire; Frey and
Wright 2012, pp. 22–23; Forest Service
2009, entire; 2010, p. 2; 2012a, entire;
2012b, entire; 2012h, entire; Colorado
Parks and Wildlife 2012, entire, 2013, p.
1) have been able to provide information
on presence or absence in specific areas,
and using this best available
information, we are able to make a
status determination for the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Since
2003, New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse surveys in New Mexico, Arizona,
and Colorado involved 200 localities
and 68,102 trap nights (over 100
historically occupied sites plus 136
localities that appeared to have the
highest quality potentially suitable
habitat) (see ‘‘Current Records of
Localities Found Since 2005’’ in the
SSA Report; Service 2014).
(25) Comment: Information is
insufficient or lacking on the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and
more research is needed prior to listing,
including more surveys. The proposed
rule and SSA Report are based on
assumptions rather than the best
scientific information available as
required. Peer reviewing the
information would ensure the listing
decision and critical habitat
determination are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions,
and analyses.
Our Response: We acknowledge that
additional study on some life-history
aspects of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse would be helpful, but as
required by the Act, we based our
proposal and this final rule on the best
available scientific and commercial
data. We requested new information on
our June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37363; 78 FR
37328) proposed rule during the open
public comment period. We reviewed
information in our files and other
available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with
recognized species experts, State
agencies, tribes, and other Federal
agencies. Peer reviewers indicated that
we used the best available science and
our assessment correctly concluded the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
should be classified as an endangered
species. We must make listing
determinations on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial information
available at this time, and we may not
delay our decision until more
information about the subspecies and its
habitat are available (see Southwest
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
33128
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Center for Biological Diversity v.
Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2000)).
(26) Comment: Livestock grazing has
been reduced over the last 20 years on
many areas of the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forest, Arizona, due to listing
the southwestern willow flycatcher
(Empidonax traillii extimus), loach
minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), Little
Colorado spinedace (Lepidomeda
vittata), and spikedace (Meda fulgida);
however, the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse has declined during this
same period. What other actions could
have caused its decline?
Our Response: Please refer to the SSA
Report (Service 2014, entire) for review
of the past, present, and likely future
threats (causes and effects) to New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
populations in Arizona and throughout
its range. We found the primary sources
of past and future habitat losses are from
grazing pressure, water management
and use, lack of water due to drought,
and wildfires. Current USFS forage
utilization guidelines are 30 to 40
percent, meaning 60 to 70 percent of
forage should not be removed by
livestock (USFS 2005, p. 4; 2013, entire;
Service 2005a, entire). This amount of
utilization has limited the availability of
adequate vertical cover of herbaceous
vegetation and significantly affected
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat in areas that are not protected
from livestock (i.e., outside of livestock
exclosures). Current grazing practices in
many areas of the Apache-Sitgreaves
National Forest, Arizona, have resulted
in the removal of dense riparian
herbaceous vegetation that historically
provided New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse habitat and caused the loss of
historical populations (Frey 2011,
entire). Additional sources of habitat
loss are likely to occur from scouring
floods, loss of beaver, highway
reconstruction, and unregulated
recreation.
(27) Comment: Recreation is a greater
threat to the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse populations within the
Jemez Mountains, New Mexico than
livestock grazing as it is practiced on the
San Diego Allotment along the Rio
Cebolla and Rio de las Vacas within the
Jemez Mountains.
Our Response: Throughout the Rio
Cebolla and Rio de las Vacas drainages,
riparian habitat is fragmented and
isolated as a result of both livestock
grazing and recreation (USFS 2003,
entire; 2004a, entire; Frey 2005a, pp.
25–29, 58–63, 67; Service 2012a, entire).
Current grazing practices in many areas
have resulted in the removal of dense
riparian herbaceous vegetation that
historically provided New Mexico
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
meadow jumping mouse habitat and
caused the loss of historical
populations. For example, the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse has
been extirpated entirely from 3 of 13
(Jemez Mountains, New Mexico)
historical montane riparian sites over
the last 2 decades (Frey 2003, entire;
2005a, entire; 2011, entire; 2012a, pp.
42, 46, 52; Frey and Malaney 2009,
entire; USFS 2012h, entire; Figure 15).
Importantly, the presence of a
functioning livestock exclosure has been
reported as the best predictor of New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
occupancy in montane riparian areas
(Frey 2005a, pp. 59–60; Frey and
Malaney 2009, pp. 35, 37). However,
livestock grazing continues to be
documented within many of the fenced
exclosures surrounding the recently
documented New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse populations when
fencing was cut or not maintained, gates
were open, or wildfire burned and
eliminated fences, and cattle entered the
area (Frey 2005a, pp. 25–26, 29, 36;
2006, p. 1; 2011, pp. 41–42; Colorado
Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 260;
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2008, pp. 3–
62; USFS 2007, p. 1; 2010, p. 2; 2011c,
pp. 1–5; 2012h, p. 2; ADGF 2012a,
entire; Service 2012a, pp. 1–2; 2012c,
pp. 1, 6–8; 2012d, p. 2). See 5.1.1
Livestock Grazing and 5.1.10 Recreation
in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire)
for additional detail on these threats.
Within the Jemez Mountains
Geographic Management Area for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse,
specific forms of management (e.g.,
fencing of riparian areas) may be
required through formal consultation
with the Forest Service to provide areas
containing functionally connected
patches of currently suitable or
restorable habitat. Management may
also be needed to address livestock use,
the reduction in the distribution and
abundance of beaver, and recreational
use.
(28) Comment: The SSA Report
(Service 2014, entire) indicates that
climate change and drought affect the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
How would listing the subspecies affect
these threats?
Our Response: The Service
acknowledges that listing the subspecies
as endangered cannot fully address
some of the natural threats facing the
subspecies (e.g., climate change and
drought). However, climate change and
drought can exacerbate other threats
such as wildfire and grazing, and can
lower the resiliency of populations to
withstand other threats. Listing of
species can focus attention on these
other threats to improve the overall
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
status and increase the likelihood that
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse can be recovered.
Once a species is listed as either
endangered or threatened, the Act
provides many tools to advance the
conservation of listed species; available
tools include recovery planning under
section 4 of the Act, interagency
cooperation and consultation under
section 7, grants to the States under
section 6, and safe harbor agreements
and habitat conservation plans under
section 10. In addition, recovery funds
may become available, which could
facilitate recovery actions (e.g., funding
for additional surveys, management
needs, research, captive propagation
and reintroduction, monitoring) (see
Available Conservation Measures,
below). Because we are listing the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse as
endangered, funding for recovery
actions will be available from a variety
of sources, including Federal budgets,
State programs, and cost share grants for
non-Federal landowners, the academic
community, and nongovernmental
organizations. In addition, under to
section 6 of the Act, the States of
Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico
would be eligible for Federal funds to
implement management actions that
promote the protection and recovery of
this subspecies. Information on our
grant programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at https://
www.fws.gov/grants.
(29) Comment: A plan in the 1990s
removed dispersed recreation and
limited campsites along the East Fork of
the Black River, Arizona. Is the
subspecies threatened by other activities
in this area?
Our Response: The commenter does
not identify a specific plan for us to
reference. As noted in the SSA Report
(Service 2014, entire), the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is also
threatened by climate change, wildfire,
flooding, loss of beaver, and recreation
in this area (Please see the SSA Report,
Table 3).
(30) Comment: Contrary to what is
presented in the SSA Report (Service
2014, entire), the adverse impacts from
livestock grazing, water diversion, and
recreation were halted in Arizona in
1980s and 1990s when other species
were listed as endangered.
Our Response: The commenter did
not provide information demonstrating
that livestock grazing, water diversion,
and recreation are not threats to the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in
Arizona. The best scientific and
commercial information demonstrates
the continuing threats of livestock
grazing, recreation, and other sources of
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
past and future habitat losses in
Arizona. See the SSA Report for
additional information.
We did identify water diversion as a
threat to the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse in Arizona. However,
reliance on such water sources for
development and maintenance of
suitable herbaceous riparian vegetation
may be problematic because the
availability (in quantity, timing, and
quality) is often subject to dramatic
changes based on precipitation and
irrigation use patterns associated with
water rights. Other recently located
populations (e.g., Florida River, Sugarite
Canyon, Coyote Creek in New Mexico)
are located in areas where surface water
is diverted into irrigation canals and
ditches, rather than the natural flow
remaining within the stream drainage
(ADGF 2006, p. 473; Frey 2005a, p. 63;
2006d, p. 55; 2011, p. 19; U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation 1995, entire). The
suitable habitat along Sambrito Creek in
Colorado is associated with wetlands
that are fed by irrigation water return
flows (Colorado Natural Heritage
Program 2006, p. 261; U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation 2008, pp. 3–23). These
changes in hydrology degrade and
eliminate potentially suitable New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat,
to the point that so much water is being
diverted in some streams that they no
longer support an herbaceous zone of
riparian habitat (Frey 2005a, p. 63;
2006d, p. 55).
(31) Comment: In the SSA Report,
Figure 13 compares a grazed area to an
ungrazed area. If a fire were to burn in
the ungrazed area during drought
conditions, the tall dense vegetation
would burn completely, eliminating the
riparian habitat and killing all of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mice.
Alternatively, the grazed area that lacks
tall dense grass would not burn
completely, suggesting grazing may be
beneficial for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse.
Our Response: Although the grazed
area in Figure 13 is unlikely to burn
completely, it does not provide suitable
habitat for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse, because grazing
eliminated dense riparian vegetation.
So, whether the grazed area burns or
not, the subspecies will not be able to
use this grazed area. Excessive livestock
grazing has not only eliminated the fine
fuel load that historically contributed to
frequent low-intensity fires (see
discussion in the SSA Report under
‘‘Livestock Grazing’’ section; Service
2014, entire)), but has also altered the
suitability of habitat for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse, which is a
significant threat to the subspecies,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
demonstrated by Figure 13. Further, if
the ungrazed portion burns and remains
ungrazed this area will return to preburn vegetation conditions depicted in
Figure 13, generally within a year.
(32) Comment: How would listing the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
complement or contradict consultation
or recovery actions of other threatened
or endangered species such as the
southwestern willow flycatcher or Rio
Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus
amarus)?
Our Response: Some native species
that share ecosystems often face a suite
of common factors that may be a threat
to them, and ameliorating or eliminating
these threats for one species will benefit
multiple species, often with the
implementation of similar management
actions. Effective management of these
threats often requires implementation of
complementary conservation actions to
enhance or restore critical ecological
processes and native habitat, and
provide for long-term viability of those
species in their native environment. In
some of the geographic management
areas, we will likely consider the need
to address other listed species in our
future recovery planning efforts for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
This will also be the case for section 7
consultations when a proposed action
affects multiple species.
(33) Comment: Trapping and livestock
grazing are not contributing factors to
loss of beaver ponds.
Our Response: Baker and Hill (2003,
p. 303) indicated that beaver are highly
vulnerable to overharvest from trapping
because their slow rate of reproduction
and delayed sexual maturity preclude
reproduction as a means to offset
intensive annual harvest. As noted in
the SSA Report (see 5.1.6 Loss of Beaver
of the SSA Report; Service 2014, entire),
the decline and near elimination of
beaver due to overharvesting is well
documented (Naiman et al. 1988, entire;
Baker and Hill 2003, p. 288; Crawford
et al. 1993, p. 39). Moreover, beaver
continue to be subject to extensive
management and removal (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service 2011,
entire; Wild 2011, p. 5).
Limiting factors for beaver
populations are typically related to the
availability of food resources (e.g., trees,
tubers, roots, shoots, and many
herbaceous plants) (Boyle and Owens
2007, p. 21). Intense herbivory by
ungulates or livestock can disrupt
beaver populations (Baker et al. 2005, p.
117) because grazing can reduce or
eliminate adequate herbaceous and
riparian plants that are required for
beaver food. Sufficient food is necessary
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33129
to sustain beaver populations. Beaver
continue to be lost from across the range
of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse; therefore, we consider this
another causative factor in the ongoing
loss of suitable New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse habitat now and into the
future (Please see the SSA Report for
further information).
(34) Comment: If the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is listed as
endangered, are private landowners
obliged to follow the Act? Is this a
taking of private property rights?
Our Response: Section 9 of the Act
makes it illegal for anyone to ‘‘take’’
(defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect,
or attempt any of these actions) an
endangered species (see section 9 of
Available Conservation Measures,
below). However, the mere
promulgation of a regulation, like listing
a species under the Act, does not take
private property, unless the regulation
on its face denies the property owners
all economically beneficial or
productive use of their land, which is
not the case with the listing of this
subspecies. Programs are available to
private landowners for managing habitat
for listed species, as well as permits that
can be obtained to protect private
landowners from the take prohibition
when such taking is incidental to, and
not the purpose of, the carrying out of
an otherwise lawful activity. Private
landowners may contact their local
Service field office to obtain information
about these programs and permits.
(35) Comment: There is a fixation on
livestock grazing in the proposed rule
and no consideration of other types of
ungulate grazing such as feral horses or
elk.
Our Response: In the SSA Report
(Service 2014, entire, we found that
livestock and elk grazing within New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat
affects individual mice by reducing the
availability of food resources (Morrison
1987, p. 25; Morrison 1990, p. 141; Frey
2005a, p. 59; 2011, p. 70). Cattle and
sometimes elk, have contributed
substantially to alterations of riparian
ecosystems throughout the range of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
However, there is a strong tendency for
livestock to congregate in riparian
habitat, whereas elk may range farther
from water sources and riparian areas
than cattle (USFS 2006, pp. 76–77).
Timing of livestock grazing also
coincides with the active season of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
We note that grazing is only one of
several concerns for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse. Please see the
SSA Report for further information. See
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
33130
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
our response to comment (9) above for
additional information on feral horses.
(36) Comment: Some of the
information used in the SSA Report
comes from documents that indicate the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is
‘‘endangered’’ (e.g., Frey, J.K. 2006.
Capture of the endangered New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse (Zapus
hudsonius luteus) at Coyote Creek State
Park, New Mexico. Frey Biological
Research, Radium Springs, New
Mexico). This report was produced prior
to the Service considering the animal for
endangered status. Because
‘‘endangered’’ was used in the title of
the report, is there a potential for bias?
Our Response: Use of the term
‘‘endangered’’ in the Frey (2006) report
does not indicate bias. The New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is classified as
an endangered species under the New
Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act of
1974 (i.e., State Endangered Species
Act) (19 New Mexico Administrative
Code 33.6.8). This is an entirely
different process and statute than the
Act. We adhered to the requirements of
the Act in order to determine whether
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse meets the definition of an
endangered species under the Act,
based on our assessment of the five
listing factors and using the best
available scientific and commercial
data.
(37) Comment: If the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is listed as
endangered, fuels treatments to reduce
the risk of fire may be inhibited due to
the complexity and additional time
required to complete consultation with
the Service. In this example, the Federal
agency would likely reduce the size of
the forest treatment (e.g., prescribed
burn), or the project would be stopped
altogether when the subspecies is listed.
Our Response: Listing the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse is
unlikely to reduce proactive treatments
necessary to alleviate the risk of
catastrophic wildfire because the
majority of treatments are likely to be
confined to forested lands and not
within riparian and adjacent upland
habitat used by the species. However,
the USFS or other Federal agency will
need to determine whether any fuels
treatments may affect the subspecies in
accordance with section 7 of the Act. If
a Federal agency funds, authorizes, or
carries out an action that may affect the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse,
the agency is required to consult with
the Service. The regulatory
requirements under the Act were
determined by Congress to ensure that
otherwise lawful actions that affect
species listed under the Act are not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of those listed species.
Consultations analyze and determine to
what degree the species is impacted by
a proposed action. Each consultation is
evaluated on a case-by-case basis
following our regulations (50 CFR part
402). In the SSA Report (Service 2014,
entire), we identify opportunities for
habitat improvement, which includes
reducing fuels to minimize the risk of
severe wildland fire.
(38) Comment: New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse habitat has been lost in
some areas following the Wallow
Wildfire, but habitat for the subspecies
has been gained in other areas.
Although the Wallow Wildfire had a
huge impact on the landscape, the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
continues to be found in areas following
the fire. In fact, post-fire flooding
carried sediments to some areas where
herbaceous vegetation now meets 60-cm
(24-in) stubble height.
Our Response: The commenter did
not provide any specific information on
areas where jumping mouse habitat may
have been gained following the Wallow
Wildfire. We also did not receive any
information regarding this topic from
the Arizona Game and Fish Department
(AGFD 2012, entire; 2014, entire). New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat
is located within riparian areas that are
subject to dynamic changes from
flooding such as the loss and regrowth
in the quantity and location of dense
riparian herbaceous vegetation over
time. If suitable habitat has been gained
or restored in some areas and the habitat
is beyond the movement or dispersal
capabilities of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse, it is unlikely to become
occupied. New Mexico meadow
jumping mice are generally believed to
have limited vagility (ability to move)
and possibly limited dispersal
capabilities (Morrison 1988, p. 13; Frey
and Wright 2012, pp. 43, 109).
Consequently, suitable habitat should be
no more than about 200 m (656 ft) from
existing populations, which would
increase the likelihood of emigrating
individuals repopulating sites that have
been extirpated due to natural or
manmade events or moving into areas
where suitable habitat has been
restored.
Severe wildland fires, such as the
Wallow Wildfire, can have dramatic,
long-lasting impacts on jumping mice
and their habitat (See SSA Report for
additional information). We continue to
find that the 2011 Wallow and Track
Wildfires have significantly impacted
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse, resulting in extirpation of some
populations and further loss of habitat,
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
including loss of beaver (AGFD 2012,
entire; Colorado Parks and Wildlife
2013a, p. 1; Frey and Kopp 2013, entire;
Service 2013c, entire).
(39) Comment: More sampling and
surveys of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse need to be completed to
determine whether populations are
confined to true livestock exclosures.
Our Response: Since 2003, New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
surveys in New Mexico, Arizona, and
Colorado involved 200 localities and
68,102 trap nights (over 100 historically
occupied sites plus 136 localities that
appeared to have the highest quality
potentially suitable habitat) (see
‘‘Current Records of Localities Found
Since 2005’’ in the SSA Report; Service
2014). In all but one case where the
jumping mouse was found since 2005,
livestock were being excluded (Frey
2005a, pp. 58–62; Frey 2006d, pp. 49,
55; Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 37; Frey
2011, pp. 41–42; 2012, entire; Colorado
Parks and Wildlife 2012, entire; Service
2012a, pp. 1–2; 2012c, pp. 1, 6–8;
2012d, p. 2). The habitat conditions at
this one locality where livestock grazing
was occurring were suitable for New
Mexico meadow jumping mice
occupancy and similar to fenced New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
localities because the presence of beaver
naturally inhibited livestock grazing
(Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 37).
Moreover, additional areas that
contained potentially suitable New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat
were also surveyed, with many of the
survey locations outside of livestock
exclosures in which no individuals
were captured (Frey 2003, entire; 2005a,
entire; 2007b, entire; 2011, p. 42; 2013c,
entire; Chambers 2012, entire; USFS
2012h, entire). As we found in the SSA
Report, the presence of a functioning
livestock exclosure has been reported as
the best predictor of New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse occupancy in
montane riparian areas (Frey 2005a, pp.
59–60; Frey and Malaney 2009, pp. 35,
37). However, unauthorized livestock
grazing continues to be documented
within 15 of 29 existing New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse populations
when fencing was cut or not
maintained, gates were open, or wildfire
burned and eliminated fences, and
cattle entered the area (ADGF 2012a,
entire; USFS 2007, p. 1; 2010, p. 2;
2011c, pp. 1–5; 2012h, p. 2; Frey 2005a,
pp. 25–26, 29, 36, 58–62; 2006, p. 1;
2006d, pp. 49, 55; 2011, pp. 41–42; Frey
and Malaney 2009, p. 37; Frey 2011, pp.
41–42; 2012, entire; Colorado Natural
Heritage Program 2006, p. 260; Colorado
Parks and Wildlife 2012, p. entire;
Service 2012a, pp. 1–2; 2012c, pp. 1, 6–
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
8; 2012d, p. 2; U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation 2008, pp. 3–62).
(40) Comment: Listing a species may
reduce beneficial management activities
or obstruct or prevent entities from
executing conservation agreements and
partnerships to protect the species. The
Service should recognize ongoing
conservation efforts.
Our Response: The Service does
recognize ongoing conservation efforts.
The Act requires us to make a
determination using the best available
scientific and commercial data after
conducting a review of the status of the
species and after taking into account
those efforts, if any, being made by any
State or foreign nation, or any political
subdivision of a State or foreign nation
to protect such species, whether by
predatory control protection of habitat
and food supply, or other conservation
practices, within any area under its
jurisdiction. The only conservation
actions implemented since the species
became a candidate for listing in 2007
were the installation of Langemann
water control structures and restoration
of habitat on Bosque del Apache
National Wildlife Refuge, and the
replacement of one barbed-wire
livestock exclosure with a pipe fence on
the Lincoln National Forest. These few
actions did not reduce or eliminate
threats to the subspecies, and the
jumping mouse still meets the definition
of an endangered species under the Act.
Further, the listing of a species does
not obstruct the development of
conservation agreements or partnerships
to conserve the species. Once a species
is listed as either endangered or
threatened, the Act provides many tools
to advance the conservation of listed
species. Conservation of listed species
in many parts of the United States is
dependent upon working partnerships
with a wide variety of entities,
including the voluntary cooperation of
non-Federal landowners. Building
partnerships and promoting cooperation
of landowners are essential to
understanding the status of species on
non-Federal lands, and may be
necessary to implement recovery actions
such as reintroducing listed species,
habitat restoration, and habitat
protection. We promote these privatesector efforts through the Department of
the Interior’s Cooperative Conservation
philosophy (see https://www.fws.gov/
landscape-conservation/lcc.html for
more information). Once a species is
listed, for private or other non-Federal
property owners we offer voluntary Safe
Harbor Agreements that can contribute
to the recovery of species, Habitat
Conservation Plans that allows activities
(e.g., grazing) to proceed while
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
minimizing effects to species, funding
through the Partner’s for Fish and
Wildlife Program to help promote
conservation actions, and grants to the
States under section 6 of the Act.
(41) Comment: The Service should
recognize the economic impact of listing
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. Listing the mouse could result
in short-term, long-term, and
cumulative impacts for species on
human activities.
Our Response: The Act requires us to
use the best scientific and commercial
data available in our listing
determinations. The Act does not allow
us to consider the impacts of listing on
economics or humans activities whether
over the short term, long term, or
cumulatively.
(42) Comment: Will recreation sites be
shut down or Federal land use be
greatly restricted if the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is listed as
endangered?
Our Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the
Act requires Federal agencies to ensure
that activities they authorize, fund, or
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the subspecies 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 consultation with the Service.
During consultation with the Federal
agency, we will analyze and determine
to what degree the subspecies would be
impacted by proposed recreational
activities and will work with the
Federal agency to determine necessary
modification of planned activities, in
order to avoid and minimize adverse
impacts to the subspecies.
(43) Comment: There is no scientific
justification for defining the historical
(1980s and 1990s) baseline for the
subspecies’ distribution. There must
have been some other challenging
environmental changes that the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
survived to reach population levels in
the 1980s. Therefore, what scientific
basis is there for presuming the species
could not survive now without
endangered species protection?
Our Response: Please see our
response to comment number (3), above.
While the historical and current
distributional data for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is categorized
into two time periods in the SSA Report
(Service 2014, entire), we included all
known distribution records and
summarized the comprehensive reports
regarding the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse (i.e., Frey 2008c, entire;
Hafner et al. 1981). We found no capture
records of New Mexico meadow
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33131
jumping mice between 1996 and 2005.
Surveys conducted since 2005 in
locations where the subspecies was
historically present indicate that the
subspecies is now apparently absent or
at levels too low for detection. Based on
this information and previous reviews,
we continue to find that the comparison
between historical (1980 to 1999) and
current New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse records (2005 forward) is
appropriate, and the pre-1980 records
were sufficiently considered and
incorporated in the SSA Report.
We evaluated whether the subspecies
is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range
(endangered), or is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range
(threatened). Also, please see our
Determination section, below for a
detailed explanation of why this
subspecies meets the definition of an
endangered species under the Act.
Finally, see the SSA Report for our
analysis of long-term viability and
extinction risk for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse. (see Chapter 6.
Viability of the SSA Report)
(44) Comment: The Service should
include a special 4(d) rule, similar to
Preble’s meadow jumping mouse that
exempts take of the subspecies under
section 9 of the Act for any continued
use of water rights.
Our Response: Section 4(d) of the Act
pertains only to threatened species, not
endangered species. Section 4(d) of the
Act reads that, whenever any species is
listed as a threatened species, the
Secretary shall issue such regulations,
as she deems necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of such
species. Because we are listing the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse as
endangered and not threatened, a 4(d)
rule is not applicable.
(45) Comment: According to
Wikipedia, the jumping mouse is
capable of having two to three litters per
year.
Our Response: Although jumping
mice (Zapus hudsonius) in Minnesota
and New York average two to three
litters (Quimby 1951, p. 69; Whitaker
1963, p. 244), the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse only has one litter each
year (Morrison 1987, pp. 14–15; 1989, p.
22; Frey 2011, p. 69; 2012b, p. 5).
(46) Comment: Over the last few
years, mowing along irrigation ditches
has ceased and the vegetation grows
over the areas, especially along those in
the middle Rio Grande.
Our Response: The commenter did
not provide any information
demonstrating mowing has ceased. The
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
33132
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
information we reviewed indicates that
mowing continues to be part of regular
maintenance activities along irrigation
ditches and canals on Bosque del
Apache National Wildlife Refuge and
throughout the middle Rio Grande
(Bureau of Reclamation 2013, pp. 55–59,
62; Frey and Wright 2012, pp. 6, 35;
SSA Report pp. 88–91). Moreover,
neither the Florida Water Conservancy
District, nor the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District indicated in their
public comments that mowing has
ceased as part of their normal
maintenance operations (Florida Water
Conservancy District 2013, entire;
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District
2013, entire).
(47) Comment: Were the jumping
mice captured along the Florida River
positively identified as New Mexico
meadow jumping mice using genetic
analyses?
Our Response: Yes. The Florida River
individuals were confirmed as New
Mexico meadow jumping mice using
mitochondrial DNA (genetic) analyses
(Museum of Southwestern Biology 2007,
entire; 2007a, entire; Malaney et al.
2012, p. 695, Appendix S1).
(48) Comment: The Service fails to
provide a scientific basis for the
unrealistic vegetation cover
requirements.
Our Response: Based on the best
available scientific evidence, the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse has
exceptionally specialized requirements
for dense herbaceous riparian habitat as
described in the ‘‘Specific Microhabitat
Requirements’’ section of our SSA
Report (Service 2014).
(49) Comment: There is no scientific
historical baseline to compare habitat or
populations to in order to determine
whether New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse populations have been impacted.
The Service did not use actual
population numbers or long-term trends
to make a determination to list the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse as
endangered.
Our Response: In the SSA Report
(Service 2014, entire), we used
historical and current data to determine
that the distribution and number of
populations of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse has declined
significantly rangewide with the
majority of local extirpations occurring
since the late-1980s and early 1990s. At
least 70 former locations occupied by
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse are considered no longer
occupied (Frey 2005a, pp. 6–10; 2007b,
pp. 23–27; 2011, pp. 26–27; 2012e,
entire; AGFD 2012, entire; Frey and
Kopp, 2013, entire; Frey and Wright
2012, p. 28; Frey 2013, entire). See also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
our response to comment number 3
above.
(50) Comment: High predation rates or
disease may cause high mortality and
reduce New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse populations.
Our Response: As we found in 5.2.2
Disease or Predation of our SSA Report
(Service 2014), we did not identify
predation and disease as significant risk
factors for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse.
(51) Comment: The Service has failed
to address the conflict between the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse and
already listed predators such as the
Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis
lucida) and Mexican gray wolf (Canis
lupus baileyi), which could be
significant sources of mortality.
Our Response: We acknowledge that
the Mexican spotted owl and Mexican
gray wolf could eat jumping mice,
because they can be highly sought-after
food sources as prey for these species.
However, the best scientific and
commercial data available does not
indicate that either of these species are
significant predators on the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse. Nevertheless,
predation is a naturally occurring event
in the life history of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse, and, as we
found in 5.2.2 Disease or Predation of
our SSA Report (Service 2014),
predation is not a significant risk factor.
(52) Comment: No data are provided
for the assumption that only limited
portions of New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse habitat would be
affected by natural disturbances (flood,
wildfire, or drought). These natural
disturbances operate at the landscape
scale, which would decimate habitat
patches that are small and localized.
Our Response: As we noted in the 5.1
Habitat Loss section of the SSA Report
(Service 2014), natural disturbances can
vary from small to large-scale events.
Large-scale disturbances can have
dramatic, long-lasting impacts on New
Mexico meadow jumping mice and their
habitat, while small-scale disturbances
may help maintain riparian
communities in an early seral stage,
which would provide suitable habitat
for the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. The New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse may exhibit some
natural resiliency to small disturbances
when populations were larger and wellconnected to one another, but there is
cause for concern because many of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
populations are either extremely small
or highly fragmented. As a result, we
found that these natural disturbances
are an important causal factor in the
ongoing and future loss of New Mexico
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
meadow jumping mouse suitable
habitat, making all of the remaining
small and fragmented populations of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
more vulnerable to extirpation.
(53) Comment: Coal bed methane
development should be removed from
the list of potential threats to the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
because there are no wellpads or
associated non-well facilities near the
populations in Colorado (Florida River,
Sambrito Creek, or Sugarite Canyon).
Moreover, existing regulations at the
State (Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission) and local
levels (La Plata County land use code,
Chapter 90; Archuleta County land use
code, Section 9) have resulted in no oil
or gas wells or facilities within these
areas.
Our Response: The areas surrounding
the Florida River and Sambrito Creek
contain extensive gas fields, and, based
on the best available scientific and
commercial data, production from
coalbed methane is projected to increase
(Bureau of Land Management and USFS
2006, entire; Papadopulos and
Associates 2006, entire). In 2005, there
were about 1,650 production wells in
production in the Colorado portion of
the San Juan Basin (Papadopulos and
Associates 2006, p. 1). Projections are
that this number will increase because
future gas production wells have
already been permitted (Papadopulos
and Associates 2006, p. 92, Figure 6–2;
Bureau of Reclamation 2007, pp. 3–55–
3–60). Similarly, coalbed methane
development will likely continue to
expand in the Raton Basin, which
includes the Sugarite Canyon, New
Mexico (Hoffman and Brister 2003, p.
110).
Future impacts may occur to riparian
habitat in these watersheds or result in
the alteration of hydrological regimes
(Bureau of Land Management and USFS
2006, Appendix H, p. 27). For example,
recent data indicates that existing
coalbed methane development has
depleted 80,176 cubic m (65 ac ft) of
water per year from the Animas,
Florida, and Pine Watersheds (Bureau of
Land Management and USFS 2006,
Appendix H, p. 27). We also queried the
Colorado Oil and Gas Database (https://
cogcc.state.co.us/) and located at least
10 producing wells within 91 to 221 m
(300 to 725 ft) of the active Florida River
channel and 5 producing wells within
61 to 609 m (200 to 2,000 ft) of Sambrito
Creek (Service 2013d, entire). These
distances have the potential to affect
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat from ground disturbance for
roads, drilling pads, pipelines, and
other utilities and infrastructure (e.g.,
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
see Bureau of Reclamation 2007, pp. 3–
55–3–60, 4–5, 4–26). There may also be
longer-term water table issues, irrigation
water changes, and nonnative plant
infestations in areas that are developed
for coal bed methane extraction, which
would contribute to further loss of
dense herbaceous riparian vegetation
that constitutes jumping mouse habitat
(National Park Service 2003, p. 2).
We found that La Plata and Archuleta
Counties only provide protection to
wildlife resources and floodplains,
wherever it is reasonably practicable, to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse
impacts from coal bed methane
development (Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission 2008, entire;
La Plata County 2001, entire; Archuleta
County 2012, entire). For example, the
La Plata County land use code requires
new development to be located no less
than 15 m (50 ft) from wetlands, which
may still result in indirect effects to
wetland and riparian habitat (2001, pp.
6.7–6.8) that would then impact the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
and its habitat. Moreover, the
regulations are intended to balance oil
and gas development with wildlife
conservation by incorporating best
management practices (Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission
2008, entire) or standard operating
procedures (Archuleta County 2012,
entire). Consequently, it is unclear
whether this will fully or even partially
protect the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse and its habitat. Finally,
we found no regulations that might
provide some protection to the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
population in Sugarite Canyon, New
Mexico from coalbed methane
development.
Based on this information,
development of coalbed methane gas in
the Raton and San Juan Basins is
projected to continue into the future,
potentially impacting the Florida River,
Sambrito Creek, and Sugarite Canyon,
Colorado, New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse populations. All of this
information demonstrates that coalbed
methane development and related
infrastructure have the potential to
affect New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse populations within the Florida
River, Sambrito Creek, and Sugarite
Canyon, Colorado.
(54) Comment: Rio Arriba County,
New Mexico, has taken measures to
protect and enhance the habitat required
by the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse by adopting the Rio Arriba
County Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance 2012–004 (Floodplain
Ordinance).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
Our Response: Although Rio Arriba
County’s comments indicate that the
Floodplain Ordinance aims to foster
sound land use activities in federally
designated floodplains and riparian
areas, we are not aware of any areas that
are currently occupied by the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse within
Rio Arriba County. The only critical
habitat proposed for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse in the County
was located along the Rio Grande within
Ohkay Owingeh, which would not be
subject to the Floodplain Ordinance.
(55) Comment: The comment period
was too brief. Local governments and
interested individuals were not notified
in writing of the proposal to list the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
Our Response: We provided the
normal 60-day comment period
associated with the publication of the
proposed rule, which opened on June
20, 2013 (78 FR 37363), and closed on
August 19, 2013. We sent letters to State
congressional representatives, local
governments, and interested parties; we
published public notices in area
newspapers; and we issued a news
release on our Web site.
(56) Comment: One commenter
encouraged the Service to invest
additional resources in public outreach
for the Florida River Geographic
Management Area because most of the
Florida River is under private
ownership.
Our Response: On August 15, 2013,
we held an informational meeting in
Durango, Colorado, as part of our public
outreach for the Florida River
Geographic Management Area, to
answer questions about the implications
of the potential listing and critical
habitat designation of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse.
(57) Comment: The Service should
not settle legal actions with activist
groups that appear to create arbitrary
listings of threatened or endangered
species.
Our Response: On July 12, 2011, the
Service filed a multiyear work plan as
part of a settlement agreement with the
Center for Biological Diversity and
others, in a consolidated case in the U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia. A settlement agreement in In
re Endangered Species Act Section 4
Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS),
MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10,
2011) was approved by the court on
September 9, 2011. The settlement
enables the Service to systematically,
over a period of 6 years, review and
address the needs of more than 250
candidate species to determine if they
should be added to the Federal Lists of
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33133
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. We adhered to the
requirements of the Act, to determine
whether a species warrants listing based
on our assessment of the five-factor
threats analysis using the best available
scientific and commercial data. A
species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to
one or more of the five factors described
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Listing
actions may be warranted based on any
of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. We already determined,
prior to the court settlement agreement,
that the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse warranted listing under the Act,
but was precluded by the necessity to
commit limited funds and staff to
complete higher priority species actions.
The New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse has been included in our annual
Candidate Notices of Review for
multiple years, during which time
scientific literature and data have and
continue to indicate that the subspecies
is detrimentally impacted by ongoing
threats, and we continued to find that
listing was warranted but precluded.
The listing process is not arbitrary, but
uses the best available scientific and
commercial data and peer-review to
ensure sound science and sound
decisionmaking.
(58) Comment: The purpose of listing
this highly specialized subspecies is
only in support of the preservationists’
philosophy of radical environmental
organizations. Most often listing has
forced land management agencies to
totally abandon their missions in favor
of a hands-off, do-nothing approach.
Our Response: The commenter did
not provide any additional information
for the Service to consider. Land
management agencies continue to
provide for multiple use activities on
their lands, including the conservation
of federally listed species.
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
33134
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Determination
Standard for Review
Section 4 of the Act, and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part
424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Under section 4(b)(1)(a), the
Secretary is to make threatened or
endangered determinations required by
subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available to her after conducting a
review of the status of the species and
after taking into account conservation
efforts by States or foreign nations. The
standards for determining whether a
species is threatened or endangered are
provided in section 3 of the Act. An
endangered species is any species that
is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.’’
A threatened species is any species that
is ‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ Per section 4(a)(1) of the Act,
in reviewing the status of the species to
determine if it meets the definitions of
threatened or endangered, we determine
whether any species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because
of any of the following five factors: (A)
The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E)
other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
Until recently, the Service has
presented its evaluation of information
under the five listing factors in an
outline format, discussing all of the
information relevant to any given factor
and providing a factor-specific
conclusion before moving to the next
factor. However, the Act does not
require findings under each of the
factors, only an overall determination as
to status (e.g., threatened, endangered,
not warranted). Ongoing efforts to
improve the efficiency and efficacy of
the Service’s implementation of the Act
have led us to present this information
in a different format that we believe
leads to greater clarity in our
understanding of the science, its
uncertainties, and the application of our
statutory framework to that science.
Therefore, while the presentation of
information in this rule differs from past
practice, it differs in format only. We
have evaluated the same body of
information we would have evaluated
under the five listing factors outline
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
format, we are applying the same
information standard, and we are
applying the same statutory framework
in reaching our conclusions.
Final Listing Status Determination
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present,
and future threats to the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse. Based on our
review of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we
conclude that the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse is currently in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range
and, therefore, meets the definition of
an endangered species. This finding,
explained below, is based on our
conclusions that the subspecies exhibits
low viability as characterized by having
no resilient populations, resulting in
low overall representation across the
subspecies’ entire range and no
redundancy. We found the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse to be at an
elevated risk of extinction now and no
data indicate that the situation will
improve without significant
conservation intervention. We,
therefore, find that the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse warrants an
endangered species listing status
determination.
On the basis of our biological review
documented in the SSA Report, we
found that the subspecies is inherently
vulnerable to population extirpations
due to its short active period, short
lifespan, low fecundity, specific habitat
needs, and low movement and dispersal
ability (Factor E). The subspecies is
currently known to be limited to, at
most, 29 small, isolated populations, all
of which are incapable of withstanding
adverse events, and, therefore, are not
resilient (Factor E). This total is reduced
from nearly 70 locations known
historically. Of these 29 populations
where the New Mexico meadow
jumping mice have been found extant
since 2005, at least 11 populations have
been substantially compromised in the
past 2 years and 7 others may have been
affected by recent wildfires. Because
these populations have been
compromised, the actual current
number of extant populations may
already be less than 29, placing the
subspecies at a higher risk of extinction.
At this rate of population extirpation
(based on known historical population
losses and possible recent population
losses) the probability of persistence of
the subspecies as a whole is severely
compromised in the near term.
The remaining small, isolated New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse
populations are particularly threatened
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
with extirpation from habitat loss and
modifications (Factor A). The main
sources of habitat loss, degradation, and
modification, include grazing pressure
(which removes the needed vegetation),
water management and use (which
causes vegetation loss from mowing and
drying of soils), lack of water due to
drought (exacerbated by climate
change), and wildfires (also exacerbated
by climate change). Additional sources
of habitat loss are likely to occur from
floods, loss of beaver, highway
reconstruction, residential and
commercial development, coalbed
methane development, and unregulated
recreation.
Each of the 29 remaining locations
where the jumping mouse has been
found recently is vulnerable to at least
4 of these 10 sources of habitat loss.
Some populations are at risk from as
many as 8 of these sources (Service
2014, Table 3). As a result, these
multiple sources of habitat loss are not
acting independently, but may produce
cumulative impacts that magnify the
effects of habitat loss on jumping mouse
populations. Historically larger
connected populations of jumping mice
would have been able to withstand or
recover from local stressors, such as
habitat loss from drought, wildfire, or
floods. However, the current condition
of small populations makes local
extirpations more common. Further, the
isolated state of existing populations
makes natural recolonization of
impacted areas highly unlikely or
impossible in most areas. With each of
these sources of habitat loss, the
probability increases of the future
reduction in size of existing populations
of jumping mice and eventual
additional losses of additional
populations. With each population lost
in the future, a decrease in viability of
the subspecies will occur as species
redundancy and representation are
reduced.
The Act defines an endangered
species as any species that is ‘‘in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ and a
threatened species as any species ‘‘that
is likely to become endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range within the foreseeable future.’’
We evaluated whether the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is an
endangered species or a threatened
species. The foreseeable future refers to
the extent to which the Secretary can
reasonably rely on predictions about the
future in making determinations about
the future conservation status of the
species. A key statutory difference
between a threatened species and an
endangered species is the timing of
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
when a species may be in danger of
extinction, either now (endangered
species) or in the foreseeable future
(threatened species).
Because of the fact-specific nature of
listing determinations, there is no single
metric for determining if a species is ‘‘in
danger of extinction’’ now. In the case
of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse, the best available information
indicates that, while major range
reductions (that is the overall
geographic extent of the subspecies
occurrences) have not happened, habitat
destruction and isolation have resulted
in significant loss of populations and
reductions in total numbers of
individuals. These losses are ongoing as
at least 11 of the 29 known populations
have been significantly compromised
since 2011. Without substantial
conservation efforts, this trend of
population loss is expected to continue
and result in an elevated risk of
extinction of the subspecies. Many of
the threats faced by the subspecies
would not have historically been
significant, but past reductions in
population size and fragmentation
(mainly due to habitat loss from grazing)
causing isolation of populations makes
the current threats particularly severe.
As a result, the subspecies is currently
at an elevated risk that stochastic events
(e.g., drought, wildfire, and floods) will
affect all known extant populations
putting the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse at a high risk of
extinction. Therefore, because no
resilient populations currently exist to
support persistence of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse, it is in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range
now, and appropriately meets the
definition of an endangered species (i.e.,
in danger of extinction). Therefore, on
the basis of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we
determine endangered status for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in
accordance with sections 3(6) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is threatened or endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. The threats to the survival of
this species occur throughout its range
and are not restricted to any particular
significant portion of its range.
Accordingly, our assessments and
determinations apply to this species
throughout its entire range.
In conclusion, as described above, the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
has experienced significant reductions
in populations (based on habitat
reductions and fragmentation), is
especially vulnerable to impacts due to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
its life history and ecology, and is
subject to significant current and
ongoing threats now. After a review of
the best available scientific information
as it relates to the status of the
subspecies and the five listing factors,
we find the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse is in danger of
extinction now. Therefore, on the basis
of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we determine
endangered status for New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse, in accordance
with section 3(6) of the Act. We find
that a threatened species status is not
appropriate for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse because the
overall risk of extinction is high at this
time because none of the existing
populations are sufficiently resilient to
support viable populations, and this
subspecies is currently in danger of
extinction.
Available Conservation Measures
Regulations at 50 CFR 424.18 require
final rules to include a description of
conservation measures available under
the rule. Following is an explanation of
the measures which may be
implemented for the conservation of the
jumping mouse under this final rule.
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened species 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 by
Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies,
private organizations, and individuals.
The Act encourages cooperation with
the States and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by
Federal agencies and the prohibitions
against certain activities are discussed,
in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act requires the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
33135
sustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed,
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan, and revisions to the plan as
significant new information becomes
available. The recovery outline guides
the immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. The recovery plan identifies sitespecific management actions that will
achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when
a species may be downlisted or delisted,
and methods for monitoring recovery
progress. Recovery plans also establish
a framework for agencies to coordinate
their recovery efforts and provide
estimates of the cost of implementing
recovery tasks. Recovery teams
(comprising species experts, Federal
and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are
often established to develop recovery
plans. When completed, the draft
recovery plan and the final recovery
plan will be available on our Web site
(https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or
from our New Mexico Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). We have
completed a Recovery Outline that
provides an interim strategy to guide the
conservation and recovery of the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse until a
final recovery plan is finalized. The
Recovery Outline is based on the SSA
Report, as well as preliminary objectives
and actions needed for recovery. The
Recovery Outline can be downloaded at:
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
NewMexico/index.cfm, https://
www.fws.gov/endangered, or https://
www.regulations.gov.
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States, Tribe,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may not occur
primarily or solely on non-Federal
lands. To achieve recovery of these
species requires cooperative
conservation efforts on private, State,
and Tribal lands.
Because this subspecies is listed as
endangered, funding for recovery
actions will be available from a variety
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
33136
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
of sources, including Federal budgets,
State programs, and cost-share grants for
non-Federal landowners, the academic
community, and nongovernmental
organizations. In addition, pursuant to
section 6 of the Act, the States of
Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona
would be eligible for Federal funds to
implement management actions that
promote the protection and recovery of
the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at: https://
www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery
efforts for this subspecies. Additionally,
we invite you to submit any new
information on this subspecies
whenever it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
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 designated.
Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the
Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of
the Act requires Federal agencies to
ensure that activities they authorize,
fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
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 consultation
with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the
species habitat that may require
consultation as described in the
preceding paragraph include livestock
grazing, irrigation ditch maintenance
and repair, recreational activities
associated with Federal agencies or
State parks that may affect habitat or the
species; issuance of section 404 Clean
Water Act permits by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; and construction
and maintenance of roads or highways
by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered wildlife. The
prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered
wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to take (includes harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt
any of these), import, 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. Under the Lacey Act
(18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378),
it is also 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.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered species, and at 17.32 for
threatened species. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: For
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities.
Our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), is 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 a listing on proposed and
ongoing activities within the range of
listed species. The following activities
could potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling,
possessing, selling, delivering, carrying,
or transporting of the species, including
import or export across State lines and
international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique
specimens of these taxa at least 100
years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1)
of the Act.
(2) Unauthorized modification or
manipulation of riparian habitat,
including mowing or prescribed burning
of occupied habitats, especially during
the active season (generally May
through October).
(3) Activities that take or harm the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
on public or private lands by causing
significant habitat modification or
degradation such that the activities
cause actual injury by significantly
impairing the species’ essential behavior
patterns, without authorization or
coverage under the Act for these
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
impacts. This may include, but is not
limited to, the alteration or removal of
specific microhabitat components (as
described in this rule or within the SSA
Report) through new construction,
livestock grazing, or dredging or filling
in streams or wetlands.
(4) Unauthorized modification of any
stream or water body or removal or
destruction of herbaceous vegetation in
any stream or water body in which the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is
known to occur.
(5) Unlawful destruction or alteration
of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitats (e.g., unpermitted instream
dredging, impoundment, water
diversion or withdrawal,
channelization, discharge of fill
material) that impairs essential
behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering, or results in killing or
injuring a New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse.
(6) Capture, survey, or collection of
specimens of this taxon without a
permit from us under to section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the New Mexico Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have 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 listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species under
the Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
10JNR1
33137
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 111 / Tuesday, June 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
References Cited
A complete list of references used in
support of this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov within the Final
SSA Report (Service 2014, Literature
Cited) and upon request from the New
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
PART 17—[AMENDED]
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the New
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.
■
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Vertebrate population
where endangered or
threatened
Historic range
Common name
Scientific name
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. In § 17.11(h), add an entry for
‘‘Mouse, New Mexico meadow
jumping’’ in alphabetical order under
Mammals to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:
■
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
Species
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
Status
*
When
listed
*
Critical
habitat
Special
rules
MAMMALS
*
Mouse, New Mexico
meadow jumping.
*
Zapus hudsonius
luteus.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
U.S. (AZ, CO, NM) .... Entire .........................
*
*
*
E
*
*
Dated: May 27, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
*
[FR Doc. 2014–13094 Filed 6–9–14; 8:45 am]
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jun 09, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\10JNR1.SGM
*
838
10JNR1
NA
NA
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33119-33137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13094]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0023; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY50
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse Throughout
Its Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended, for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus
hudsonius luteus) found in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. The
effect of this regulation will be to add this species to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We have also determined that
critical habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is prudent and
determinable and will soon publish in the Federal Register our final
designation of critical habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse.
DATES: This rule becomes effective July 10, 2014.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm, and https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0023. Comments and
materials received, as well as some supporting documentation used in
the preparation of this final rule, are available for public inspection
at https://www.regulations.gov. Some supporting documentation is also
available at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm. All
of the comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in
this rulemaking are available by appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological
Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by
telephone 505-346-2525; or by facsimile 505-346-2542.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office,
2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505-346-2525; or by
facsimile 505-346-2542. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species or
subspecies may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered
or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be
completed by issuing a rule. On June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37363; 78 FR
37328), we proposed to list the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse under
the Act as an endangered species and proposed to designate critical
habitat. We found that the species currently faces numerous threats of
high magnitude, and, therefore, qualifies for listing, and we requested
additional information and comments on the proposed listing. This final
rule considers all comments received by peer reviewers, tribes, State
agencies, Federal agencies, and the public regarding the proposed rule
to list the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
This rule will finalize the listing of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse as endangered.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species based on any of
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse meets the definition of an endangered species primarily
because of the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural and manmade factors affecting
its continued existence. Our consideration of these factors is
described in section 5.1 ``Habitat Loss'' and section 5.3
[[Page 33120]]
``Protective Regulations'' of the SSA Report. The other two of the five
factors are not contributing to the current status of the species. See
section 5.2 ``Other Factors'' in the SSA Report for our consideration
of these factors.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers
to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and
information received during the comment period.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse (78 FR 37363, June 20, 2013) for a detailed description
of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
We determined that critical habitat for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse is prudent and determinable and will soon publish in the
Federal Register our final determination designating critical habitat
for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
Background
Species Information
The Final New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse Species Status Assessment
Report (SSA Report; Service 2014, entire), available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0023, provides a
thorough assessment of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse biology and
natural history, and assesses demographic risks (such as small
population sizes), threats, and limiting factors in the context of
determining viability and risk of extinction for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse. In the SSA Report, we compile biological data and a
description of past, present, and likely future threats (causes and
effects) facing the species. Because data in these areas of science are
limited, some uncertainties are associated with this assessment. Where
we have substantial uncertainty, we have attempted to make our
necessary assumptions explicit in the SSA Report. We base our
assumptions in these areas on the best available information.
Importantly, the SSA Report does not represent a decision by the
Service on whether this taxon should be listed as a threatened or
endangered species under the Act. The SSA Report does however, provide
the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decision (see Summary
of Biological Status and Threats), which involves the application of
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations, and Service
policies (see Determination).
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
Our SSA Report documents the results of the comprehensive
biological status review for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse and
provides a thorough account of the species' overall viability and,
conversely, extinction risk (Service 2014, entire). The SSA Report
contains the data on which this final rule is based. The following is a
summary of the results and conclusions from the SSA Report.
The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is a small mammal whose
historical distribution likely included riparian wetlands along streams
in the Sangre de Cristo and San Juan Mountains from southern Colorado
to central New Mexico, including the Jemez and Sacramento Mountains and
the Rio Grande Valley from Espanola to Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge, and into parts of the White Mountains in eastern
Arizona.
In conducting our status assessment we first considered what the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse needs to ensure viability. We generally
define viability as the ability of the species to persist over the long
term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. We next evaluated whether
the identified needs of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse are
currently available and the repercussions to the subspecies when
provision of those needs is missing or diminished. We then consider the
factors that are causing the species to lack what it needs, including
historical, current, and future factors. Finally, considering the
information reviewed, we evaluate the current status and future
viability of the species in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation.
Resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand stochastic
events (arising from random factors such as drought, flooding, or
wildfire) and, in the case of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, is
best measured by habitat size. Redundancy is the ability of a species
to withstand catastrophic events within part of its range, and can be
provided by the duplication and distribution of resilient populations
across the range of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Representation
is the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental
conditions and can be measured by the breadth of genetic diversity
within and among populations, and the ecological diversity of
populations across the species' range. In the case of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse, we evaluate representation based on the extent of
the geographical range as an indicator of genetic and ecological
diversity. The main areas of uncertainty in our analysis include the
minimum amount of suitable habitat needed to support resilient
populations and the number of redundant populations needed to provide
for adequate redundancy and representation.
Our assessment concluded that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
has an overall low viability (probability of persistence) in the near
term (between now and the next 10 years) and a decreasing viability in
the long-term future (beyond 10 years). The New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse occurs within eight geographic management areas, which are
defined by the external boundaries of the geographic distribution of
historical populations. We use the term geographic management area to
describe the geographic region where populations of jumping mice are
located. For the subspecies to be viable, the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse needs to have multiple resilient populations distributed
throughout different drainages within the eight geographic management
areas. In this summary, we present an overview of the comprehensive
biological status review. A detailed discussion of the information
supporting this overview can be found in the SSA Report (Service 2014,
entire).
For the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse to be considered viable,
individual mice need specific vital resources for survival and
completion of their life history. One of the most important aspects of
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse's life history is that it
hibernates about 8 or 9 months out of the year, which is longer than
most other mammals. Conversely, it is only active 3 or 4 months during
the summer. Within this short timeframe, it must breed, birth and raise
young, and store up sufficient fat reserves to survive the next year's
hibernation period. In addition, jumping mice only live 3 years or
less, and have one small litter annually, with seven or fewer young, so
the subspecies has limited capacity for high population growth rates
due to this low fecundity (reproductive potential). As a result, if
resources are not available in a single season, jumping mice
populations would be greatly stressed and would likely have lower
reproduction and over-winter survival during hibernation.
The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has exceptionally specialized
[[Page 33121]]
habitat requirements to support these life-history needs and maintain
adequate population sizes. Habitat requirements are characterized by
tall (averaging at least 61 centimeters (cm) (24 inches (in)), dense
riparian herbaceous vegetation (plants with no woody tissue) primarily
composed of sedges (plants in the Cyperaceae Family that superficially
resemble grasses but usually have triangular stems) and forbs (broad-
leafed herbaceous plants). This suitable habitat is found only when
wetland vegetation achieves full growth potential associated with
perennial flowing water. This vegetation is an important resource need
for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse because it provides vital food
sources (insects and seeds), as well as the structural material for
building day nests that are used for shelter from predators. New Mexico
meadow jumping mice must have rich, abundant food sources during the
summer so they can accumulate sufficient fat reserves to survive their
long hibernation period. In addition, individual jumping mice also need
intact upland areas (areas up gradient and beyond the floodplain of
rivers and streams) adjacent to riparian wetland areas because this is
where they build nests or use burrows to give birth to young in the
summer and to hibernate over the winter. Some uncertainty exists about
the particular location of hibernation sites relative to riparian
areas.
These suitable habitat conditions need to be in appropriate
locations and of adequate sizes to support healthy populations of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Historically, these wetland habitats
would have been in large patches (movements of 200 to 700 meters (m)
(656 to 2,297 feet (ft)) to disperse to other habitat patches within
stream segments) located intermittently along long stretches of
streams. Connectivity between patches of suitable habitat is necessary
to facilitate daily and seasonal movements, and dispersal to increase
the likelihood of long-term viability of jumping mouse populations. The
ability of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations to be resilient
to adverse stochastic events depends on the robustness of a population
and the ability to recolonize if populations are extirpated (the loss
of a population or a species from a particular geographic region).
Counting individual mice to assess population sizes is very difficult
because the subspecies is trap-wary and hibernates for an extended
time; thus, data are unavailable. We can best measure population health
by the size of the intact, suitable habitat available.
Our assessment uses the best available information to estimate the
minimum length of specific stream reaches or segments of ditches and
canals, and the corresponding suitable habitat patch sizes that we
think will provide a high likelihood of long-term persistence for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Because the subspecies has limited
daily and seasonal movements, dense riparian herbaceous habitat along
streams, ditches, and canals needs to be of sufficient length to
support large population sizes and multiple local populations dispersed
throughout specific waterways. This continuous spatial arrangement is
necessary to support breeding, nonbreeding, and daily and seasonal
movements of New Mexico meadow jumping mice.
In considering the area needed for maintaining resilient
populations of adequate size with the ability to endure adverse events
(such as floods or wildfire), we estimate that resilient populations of
jumping mice need connected areas of suitable habitat in the range of
at least about 27.5 to 73.2 hectares (ha) (68 to 181 acres (ac)), along
9 to 24 kilometers (km) (6 to 15 miles (mi)) of flowing streams,
ditches, or canals. The minimum area needed is given as a range due to
the uncertainty of an absolute minimum and because local conditions
within drainages will vary. This distribution and amount of suitable
habitat would allow for multiple subpopulations of New Mexico meadow
jumping mice to exist along drainages and would provide for sources of
recolonization if some areas were extirpated due to disturbances. The
suitable habitat patches must be relatively close together, no more
than about 100 m (330 ft) apart, because the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse has limited movement and dispersal capacity for natural
recolonization. Rangewide, we determined that the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse needs at least two resilient populations (where at least
two existed historically) within each of eight identified geographic
management areas. This number and distribution of resilient populations
is expected to provide the subspecies with the necessary redundancy and
representation to provide for viability.
The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse life history (short active
period, short lifespan, low fecundity, specific habitat needs, and low
movement and dispersal ability) makes populations highly vulnerable to
extirpations when habitat is lost and fragmented. Based on historical
(1980s and 1990s) and current (from 2005 to 2012) data, the
distribution and abundance of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has
declined significantly rangewide. The majority of local extirpations
have occurred since the late 1980s to early 1990s, as we found about 70
formerly occupied locations are now considered to be extirpated.
Since 2005, researchers have documented 29 remaining populations
spread across the 8 geographic management areas (2 in Colorado, 15 in
New Mexico, and 12 in Arizona). Nearly all of the current populations
are isolated and widely separated, and all of the 29 populations
located since 2005 have patches of suitable habitat that are too small
to support resilient populations of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
None of them are larger than the needed 27.5 to 73.2 ha (68 to 181 ac),
and over half of them are only a few acres in size. In addition, 11 of
the 29 populations documented as extant since 2005 have been
substantially compromised since 2011 (due to water shortages, excessive
grazing, or wildfire and postfire flooding), and these populations
could already be extirpated. Seven additional populations in Arizona
may also be compromised due to postfire flooding following recent large
wildfires. For example, the population at Sugarite Canyon State Park
has been significantly impacted since the 2011 Track Wildfire (Frey and
Kopp 2013, entire; Service 2013c, entire). Additionally, no New Mexico
meadow jumping mice were captured at Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge in 2013, despite intensive surveys within suitable
habitat (Frey 2013, entire; Service 2013, entire; 2013a, entire; 2013b,
entire). At this rate of population extirpation (based on known
historical population losses and possible recent population losses) the
probability of persistence of the subspecies as a whole is severely
compromised in the near term.
Four of the eight geographic management areas have two or more
locations known to be occupied by the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
since 2005, but all are insufficient (too small) to support resilient
populations. The remaining four geographic management areas each have
only one location of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse known to be
occupied since 2005, and each population is insufficient (too small) to
be resilient. Therefore, although researchers have some uncertainty
about population sizes of extant localities, the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse does not currently have the number and distribution of
resilient populations needed to provide the needed levels of
[[Page 33122]]
redundancy and representation (genetic and ecological diversity) for
the subspecies to demonstrate viability.
We next analyzed the past, present, and likely future threats
(causes and effects) that may put New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
populations at risk of future extirpation. Because the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse requires such specific suitable habitat
conditions, populations have a high potential for extirpation when
habitat is altered or eliminated. In addition, because of the current
conditions of isolated populations, when localities are extirpated,
there is little or no opportunity for natural recolonization of the
area due to the subspecies' limited movement and dispersal capacity.
We found a significant reduction in occupied localities likely due
to cumulative habitat loss and fragmentation across the range of the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. The past and current habitat loss has
resulted in the extirpation of historical populations, reduced the size
of existing populations, and isolated existing small populations.
Ongoing and future habitat loss is expected to result in additional
extirpations of more populations. The primary sources of current and
future habitat losses include grazing pressure (which removes the
needed vegetation) and water management and use (which causes
vegetation loss from mowing and drying of soils), lack of water due to
drought (exacerbated by climate change), and wildfires (also
exacerbated by climate change). Additional sources of habitat loss are
likely to occur from scouring floods, loss of beaver, highway
reconstruction, residential and commercial development, coalbed methane
development, and unregulated recreation.
These multiple sources of habitat loss are not acting
independently, but produce cumulative impacts that magnify the effects
of habitat loss on New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations.
Historically, larger connected populations of New Mexico meadow jumping
mice would have been able to withstand or recover from local stressors,
such as habitat loss from drought, wildfire, or floods. However, the
current condition of small populations makes local extirpations likely
more common. In addition, the isolated state of existing populations
makes natural recolonization of impacted areas highly unlikely or
impossible in most areas.
Considering the subspecies' biological status now and its likely
status into the future, without active conservation (i.e., grazing
management and water management) existing populations are vulnerable to
extirpation (at least 11 have already undergone substantial impacts
since 2011) and, therefore, the subspecies as a whole is currently at
an elevated risk of extinction. None of the 29 populations known to
exist since 2005 are of sufficient size to be resilient. Assuming this
rate of population loss continues similar to recent years, the number
of populations could be severely curtailed in the near term,
eliminating the level of redundancy needed to withstand catastrophic
drought and wildfire, along with the additive impacts of multiple
threats. In addition to past sources of habitat loss, ongoing grazing,
water shortages, and high-impact wildfire (the latter two exacerbated
by climate change) will continue to put all of the remaining locations
at considerable risk of extirpation in the near-term (between now and
the next 10 years) and increasing over the long term. In considering
the needed level of representation, while sufficient diversity likely
still exists across the eight geographic management areas, the
subspecies representation is relatively low because none of these
geographic management areas currently have resilient populations.
Therefore, we conclude that the overall probability of persistence is
low in the near term and decreasing in the future due to the lack of
adequate resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule
during a comment period that opened on June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37363), and
closed on August 19, 2013. We contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, tribes, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. During
the comment period, a newspaper notice inviting general public comment
was published in the Albuquerque Journal. On August 15, 2013, we also
held an informational meeting in Durango, Colorado, after receiving
requests from interested parties. We did not receive any requests for a
public hearing.
During the comment period, we received 24 comment letters,
including 3 peer review comment letters, addressing the proposed
listing of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. In this final rule, we
address only the comments regarding the proposed listing of the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Comments addressing the proposed critical
habitat designation will be fully addressed in a separate rulemaking
action, and published in the Federal Register at a later date. All
substantive information provided during the comment period has either
been incorporated directly into this final determination, the SSA
Report, or addressed below.
Comments From Peer Reviewers
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from four knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that are familiar with the
subspecies, the geographic region in which the subspecies occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from three of
the four peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse. All three of the peer reviewers agreed
that the information presented in the proposed rule to list the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse as an endangered species is scientifically
sound; that the assumptions, analyses, and conclusions are well
reasoned; and that the information is complete and the best available,
and the risks or threats to the subspecies are not undervalued. In
addition, two of the three peer reviewers provided clarifications and
suggestions to improve the final rule to list the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse as endangered. These comments are addressed in the
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
(1) Comment: New information documents the possible extirpation of
the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge population (Frey 2013,
entire); the continued loss of New Mexico meadow jumping mice and
habitat from the 2011 Track Wildfire in Sugarite Canyon (Frey and Kopp
2013, entire); additional survey efforts within the Sacramento
Mountains that failed to document any new populations (Frey 2013c,
entire); and new genetic data that continues to support the validity of
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as a subspecies and its imperiled
status (Malaney et al. 2012, entire; Malaney and Cook 2013, entire).
Our Response: We have incorporated this new information in the SSA
Report (see 4.3 Population Estimates and Status in the SSA Report;
Service 2014, entire). The data continue to support our determination
that the subspecies is endangered.
(2) Comment: We received comments pertaining to dispersal
distances. One suggestion, to plan for the
[[Page 33123]]
interconnectivity of populations, was that the Service should consider
dispersal distances from studies on the Preble's meadow jumping mouse
(Zapus hudsonius preblei) of up to 4.3 km (2.7 mi), whereas another
suggestion found our characterization of dispersal distances and home
range sizes of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse appropriate.
Our Response: Schorr (2003, p. 10; 2012, p. 1279) did report the
Preble's meadow jumping mouse can move up to 4.3 km (2.7 mi). However,
as stated in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), studies indicate
that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse does not appear to travel as
great a distance as the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Further,
movement data is available on the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. The
maximum distance travelled between two successive points by all radio-
collared jumping mice on Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge was
744 m (2,441 ft), but most regular daily and seasonal movements were
less than 100 m (328 ft) (Frey and Wright 2012, pp. 16, 109; Figure 9).
See 2.6 Movements and Home Range in the SSA Report for additional
information.
The conservation of New Mexico meadow jumping mice should plan for
interconnectivity between populations using movement distances that are
likely more common, rather than the maximum possible distance (see
Trakhtenbrot et al. 2005, p. 175). As opposed to using the phrase,
``maximum dispersal distance'' in the draft SSA Report, we have
clarified this as the distance between patches of suitable habitat to
provide for population connectivity for the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. In the SSA Report, we found that appropriately sized patches of
suitable habitat should be no more than about 200 m (656 ft) apart
within waterways, which would encompass the majority of regular (daily
and seasonal) movements of individuals.
(3) Comment: The proposed rule and SSA Report provide virtually no
information on the historical (pre-1980) distribution of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse. These reports use only two time periods,
historical (1980 to 1999) and current records (2005 forward). Almost no
records of the subspecies obtained prior to 1980 were included in the
SSA Report. The distribution and status of the 1980 to 1999 period was
likely already significantly compromised.
Our Response: While the historical and current distributional data
for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is categorized into two time
periods in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), we did include all
known distribution records. While we did not provide a map or table
detailing the pre-1980 distribution of the subspecies in the SSA
Report, we summarized the comprehensive reports of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse's historical range and distribution (i.e., Frey
2008c, entire; Hafner et al. 1981). These authors (Frey 2008c, pp. 35,
46; Hafner et al. 1981, pp. 501-502) reported that the historical range
and distribution of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse likely included
riparian wetlands along the Sangre de Cristo and San Juan Mountains
from southern Colorado to central New Mexico and into parts of the
White Mountains of Arizona.
We found no capture records of jumping mice between 1996 and 2005.
Surveys conducted since 2005 documented locations where the subspecies
was historically present, but is now apparently absent or at levels too
low for detection. Based on this information and previous reviews, we
continue to find that the comparison between historical (1980 to 1999)
and current New Mexico meadow jumping mouse records (2005 forward) is
appropriate and the pre-1980 records were sufficiently considered and
incorporated in the SSA Report.
The Service agrees that the distribution and status of the
subspecies was compromised by 1999. However, the Service's analysis of
the five factors threat analysis listed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
includes the consideration of present threats and threats anticipated
into the near future. We evaluated whether the subspecies is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(endangered) or is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(threatened).
Comments From Federal Agencies
(4) Comment: Snap traps have a higher capture success rate than
live traps. As such, historical data collected by Morrison should not
be compared with current data collected using nonlethal means.
Our Response: As noted in the SSA Report, use of live traps for
inventory and monitoring are preferable, because some New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse populations are likely extremely small, and killing and
removal of even a few individuals from the population using snap traps
could be detrimental. Further, the Service is required to use the best
available scientific and commercial data. Data collected using live
traps were not designed to estimate population size, but, to locate
populations (Morrison 1988, pp. 47, 52; 1989, p. 3; 1990, p. 138; 1991,
pp. 3-4). Frey (2005a, p. 68; 2011, p. 9; 2013d, pp. 24, 28)
recommended targeted survey efforts to determine presence or absence of
jumping mice should be 400 to 700 trap-nights over 3 consecutive nights
using Sherman live traps baited with sweet grain mixture. Although
Morrison used both Sherman and snap traps, these efforts resulted in
locating populations (1988, pp. 47, 52; 1991, pp. 3-4). Consequently,
we believe comparing data from Morrison's studies to current
information on population presence is valid.
(5) Comment: Some surveys have not been completed on areas that
contained suitable habitat because they were deemed too small or
disjunct; yet, the Lincoln National Forest recently documented presence
of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in areas that were thought to be
``too small.''
Our Response: The Service does not have any records documenting the
presence of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in areas that were
considered too small or disjunct on the Lincoln National Forest or
other areas. The information the Service has indicates the Lincoln
National Forest has only documented the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
in two new areas, Cox Canyon and Mauldin Spring in Wills Canyon (United
States Forest Service (USFS) 2012h, pp. 2-3, 2013a, entire), since Frey
(2005, entire) completed surveys. The Cox Canyon site was surveyed in
2005 by Frey (2005, pp. 9, 20, 33), with no New Mexico meadow jumping
mice captured at the time, likely because no suitable habitat was
present. However, in 2012, New Mexico meadow jumping mice were captured
at Cox Canyon, following the cessation of grazing for 2 years (USFS
2012h, pp. 2-4; Service 2012d, p. 2; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2012,
entire; 2012a, entire). The Mauldin Spring area was not deemed to be
too small during Frey's 2005 surveys, but is located in a remote area
over 0.4 mi (0.6 km) from a road.
(6) Comment: Some sites on the Lincoln National Forest that had New
Mexico meadow jumping mice in the 1980s (Morrison 1989, entire) have
not been surveyed recently. The presence of New Mexico meadow jumping
mice was confirmed in these areas in the 1990s by Ward (2001) and there
is a still a high potential for New Mexico meadow jumping mice to be
present. The most recent trapping efforts conducted on the Lincoln
National Forest have
[[Page 33124]]
demonstrated that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is present.
Our Response: Since 2005, all of the previously occupied sites on
USFS lands from the 1980s have been resurveyed. The USFS did not
provide information on who conducted the recent trapping efforts or the
specific sites from the 1980s that were not surveyed. However, since
2005, we are aware of the following survey efforts on the Lincoln
National Forest: (1) Frey (2005a, entire (2,375 trap nights of effort)
and 2013c, entire (1,280 trap nights of effort)); and (2) USFS (2010,
entire (1,310 trap nights of effort); 2012h, entire (3,480 trap nights
of effort); and 2013, entire (2,494 trap nights of effort)). Through
these surveys, all of the historical Morrison (1989, entire) sites on
public lands and other areas that contained potentially suitable
habitat were surveyed (Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 33; USFS 2010, entire;
2012h, entire; 2013, entire). Frey (2005, p. 38) only found the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse present at two historical locations, Silver
Springs and Agua Chiquita. The Lincoln National Forest (2012h, entire;
2013a, entire) found the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse present at two
additional locations, Cox Canyon and Mauldin Spring. Only the Cox
Canyon population found by the USFS was a historical location reported
by Morrison (1989, entire). Ward ((2005, entire) cited by Frey 2005a,
pp. 9, 22, 73; Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 44)) confirmed New Mexico
meadow jumping mice at only one location (Mauldin Spring) in the 1990s,
and there is no longer suitable habitat present at this location.
Consequently, all sites with suitable habitat on the Lincoln National
Forest have been surveyed since 2005, and only 4 locations (3
historical and 1 new) have been confirmed as extant.
(7) Comment: What will the delisting factors be for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse?
Our Response: We have not developed delisting criteria yet for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Now that the subspecies is listed as
endangered, a draft and final recovery plan will be prepared. The
recovery plan will identify site-specific management actions, including
measurable criteria that determine when the subspecies may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
(8) Comment: The term ``excessive grazing'' is never clearly
defined in the SSA Report or proposed rules.
Our Response: Our use of the phrase excessive grazing is in the
context of suitable New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat. Excessive
ungulate grazing in this context occurs when there is an inadequate
amount of tall dense herbaceous riparian vegetation to support the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse (see ``Specific Microhabitat Requirements''
section in the SSA Report; Service 2014, entire). Indications of
excessive grazing are: trampling of streambanks, loss of riparian
cover, soil compaction, modification of riparian plant communities,
lowering water tables, and the resulting changes to New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse microhabitat. Excessive grazing in riparian areas can
result in changes to the hydrology and soils, leading to downcutting or
headcutting, which can further degrade New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat.
(9) Comment: There is no mention of whether feral hogs or wild
horses are considered threats to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
What would be expected and allowed for trapping and removal of these
animals?
Our Response: The USFS did not provide any specific information on
feral hogs or wild horses for us to consider and we did not receive any
information regarding this topic during the public comment period. We
have no information concerning feral hogs or wild horses currently
occurring within New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat. There are
confirmed feral hog populations in Otero and Socorro Counties, New
Mexico, but there is no information indicating their presence in New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat or of impacts to the subspecies
(APHIS 2010, p. 10; USFS 2011d). We acknowledge that both animals have
the potential to impact riparian areas and New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse habitat, but have no data on if or where this is occurring or how
much habitat may be affected now or in the future.
Under Section 7(a)(1) of the Act, Federal agencies, such as the
USFS, could utilize their existing authorities by carrying out programs
such as the removal of feral hogs or wild horses for the conservation
of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
(10) Comment: What will the herbicide use or non-use expectation be
for non-native invasive plant control?
Our Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 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 consultation with the Service. If a
Federal agency proposes to use herbicide to control nonnative plants
and it may affect the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act make it illegal for
any person to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import,
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. We may issue permits to carry out otherwise
prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened wildlife
species under certain circumstances. A list of activities that could
potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act is in this
final rule under Available Conservation Measures section. This list is
not comprehensive. The Service can also work with private landowners to
provide technical assistance or we may issue permits for incidental
take of a species in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
(11) Comment: What will be allowable for piping water from streams
or springs to water troughs for wildlife or cattle? Will travel
corridors that assist in moving cattle from winter to summer pastures
be allowed across streams so that cattle can move and access water
troughs?
Our Response: If a Federal agency implements, authorizes, or funds
water use or livestock grazing activities that may affect the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, then they must enter into consultation
with the Service. Consultation would analyze and determine to what
degree the subspecies is impacted by the proposed action. Each
consultation is evaluated on a case-by-case basis following our
regulations (50 CFR part 402). See our response to comment (10) above
regarding the prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act.
(12) Comment: How does the Service intend to manage livestock
grazing and associated actions such as fencing riparian areas and
providing water points?
Our Response: The Service does not intend to manage livestock
grazing or associated actions. Rather the Service will work with
Federal agencies during consultation under section 7 of the Act, to
ensure that any actions they fund, authorize, or carry out would not
jeopardize the continued existence of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. These section 7 consultations
[[Page 33125]]
will determine whether the management of a Federal livestock permit
jeopardizes the continued existence of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. Our regulations require that we use the best scientific and
commercial data available for consultations (50 CFR 402.14(d)). This
information is used to update and analyze the effects of past and
ongoing human and natural activities or events that have led up to the
current status of the subspecies and its habitat. Consequently, any
requirements to minimize the effects of livestock grazing and
associated activities will be appropriately applied through section 7
provisions 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2), which can be changed if new information
reveals effects to the subspecies or critical habitat in a manner or
extent not previously considered (see 50 CFR 402.16(b)).
The Service can also work with private landowners to provide
technical assistance or we may issue permits for incidental take of a
species in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
(13) Comment: Roads are not listed as a factor affecting the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse; however, dirt roads can cause indirect
effects through sedimentation or by impeding spring flows.
Our Response: We acknowledge that it is possible for roads to
indirectly or directly impact riparian areas, springs, or New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse habitat. However, the USFS did not provide any
specific information for us to consider and the best available
scientific and commercial data does not indicate how or where dirt
roads may be causing indirect effects to New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse habitat through sedimentation or by impeding spring flows now or
in the future.
Comments From States
(14) Comment: A lack of probabilistic sampling designs and
estimation of detection probabilities for New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse survey efforts prevents using occupancy data in determining
distribution and populations trends through time.
Our Response: Counting individual mice to estimate population sizes
is very difficult and data are currently unavailable. Recent surveys
have relied on detection or nondetection (sometimes called presence or
absence) data to determine whether New Mexico meadow jumping mice
persist in areas that contained historical populations or areas that
currently contain suitable habitat. As we found in the SSA Report,
species-specific surveys have been useful for determining occupancy,
but are limited in their usefulness for capture probabilities and,
therefore, estimating population size. We recognize that detection or
nondetection data may not provide conclusive evidence of the true
population status at each of the 29 locations found since 2005;
however, the failure to detect New Mexico meadow jumping mice in areas
where they were located in the 1980s and loss of previously suitable
habitat at over 70 historical sites since this period are likely
representative of real population extirpations.
As a result, detection or nondetection surveys represent the best
scientific and commercial data we have regarding the rangewide
distribution and persistence of populations. Based on these data, we
find that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has declined sharply due
to the extirpation of populations and is generally restricted to small,
isolated patches of suitable habitat. We acknowledge that research is
needed to determine the size and demographics of remaining populations,
but the best scientific and commercial data available on the threats to
this subspecies is sufficient to make a listing determination (For a
full discussion, see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species and
Determination sections, below).
(15) Comment: Without conducting rigorous experiments, it is
scientifically indefensible and speculative to attribute the loss of
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat to livestock grazing and
recreation. There were no experimental controls used to make
comparisons and too many extraneous variables to conclude that these
activities were the cause of habitat and population loss.
Our Response: We agree that it would be useful to have more
information on the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. However, the best
available scientific and commercial data indicate what the habitat
requirements of the mouse are, including vegetation type and size.
Further, it is evident that livestock grazing and recreational
activities can negatively impact the required vegetation for mouse
habitat, without doing further experimentation. In fact, such
experimentation with a scarce, potentially endangered species may
further imperil the species. In the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire),
we present the best commercial and scientific data available, albeit
observational evidence, to conclude that livestock grazing, recreation,
and other causal factors have resulted in the alteration and
destruction of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat.
(16) Comment: The Service assumed a correlation between habitat
patch size and New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations without
providing documentation.
Our Response: We acknowledge that the best available information
regarding New Mexico meadow jumping mouse population abundance is not
complete. However, because the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse requires
specialized habitat requirements to support its life-history needs,
they would not be found in areas that lack suitable habitat.
Consequently, we estimated the size of intact, suitable habitat
surrounding capture locations of jumping mice found since 2005 as a the
best proxy to evaluate population viability. We think this is a
reasonable approach, because it is probable that small areas of
suitable habitat can support only a limited number of New Mexico meadow
jumping mice, and small population sizes are more vulnerable to
extirpation than large population sizes. Moreover, studies conducted on
the similar Preble's meadow jumping mouse found smaller patches of
habitat are unable to support as many Preble's as larger patches of
habitat (Service 2003, p. 11). Schorr (2012, p. 1279) suggested that
habitat connectivity and the incorporation of immigrants may be vital
to the persistence of Preble's meadow jumping mouse populations,
indicating that degradation of surrounding habitat and geographic
isolation likely increase the vulnerability of some populations.
Therefore, our conclusion that small isolated areas of New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse habitat are expected to have small populations
with a high risk of extinction is based upon Preble's meadow jumping
mouse studies, general conservation biology principles, and
metapopulation theory (Hanski 1999, entire; Service 2003, entire).
(17) Comment: A lack of knowledge about New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse population sizes and dynamics should be a concern to the Service.
Determinations of endangered or threatened status should use the best
available scientific and commercial information and should not be based
upon conjecture.
Our Response: It is often the case that data is limited for rare
species, but we have used the best available scientific and commercial
data. As we found in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), jumping
mice population sizes are assumed to be naturally regulated by the
amount of suitable habitat available to support them. Jumping mice
populations probably expand and contract in response to fluctuations in
[[Page 33126]]
riparian vegetation from flooding, inundation, drought, and the
resulting changes in the extent and location of floodplains and river
channels (Service 2002, pp. D13-D15). For populations to persist over
the long term, habitat patches need to be of sufficient size and
configuration to accommodate these fluctuations in habitat
availability. When the suitable habitat patches are small and isolated,
periods of drought or other disturbances can cause New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse habitats to shrink or become fragmented and lead to
reductions in population sizes or even extirpation of New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse populations. Therefore, New Mexico meadow jumping mice
need suitable habitat sufficient in size to support the natural
fluctuations of populations as they expand and contract, to reduce the
risk of local extirpation and extinction, and to attain the densities
necessary to persist through catastrophic events and seasonal
fluctuations of food resources (i.e., maintain healthy resilient
populations). Based on our review of the best available scientific and
commercial data, we conclude that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, and
therefore, meets the definition of an endangered species (see
Determination, below). The analysis used to make this decision was
subject to peer-review to ensure sound science and decisionmaking. See
2.7.2 Habitat Patch and Population Sizes in the SSA Report for
additional information on this subject.
(18) Comment: The SSA Report contains ``substantial areas of
uncertainty'' and is not a ``thorough assessment.'' The Service should
not make assumptions; assumptions are not scientific data and should
not be used in a listing determination.
Our Response: We did not base our listing decision on the areas of
uncertainty. The main areas of uncertainty in our analysis include the
minimum amount of suitable habitat needed to support resilient
populations and the number of redundant populations needed to provide
for adequate redundancy and representation. The proposed rule and SSA
Report (Service 2014, entire) were peer reviewed, and found to be an
accurate representation of the status of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. The peer reviewers agreed that the scientific and commercial
data available on the threats to this subspecies is adequate to make a
listing determination. As a result, we have found that the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is presently in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range based on the severity of threats.
(19) Comment: The SSA Report lists livestock grazing as a threat to
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse within Lake Dorothey State Wildlife
Area in Colorado; however, the area is not grazed by domestic livestock
and there are no plans to begin such a use.
Our Response: We understand that the Lake Dorothey State Wildlife
Area in Colorado is closed to domestic livestock grazing, but
unauthorized livestock use has occurred. The Lake Dorothey State
Wildlife Area is in the Sugarite Canyon in Colorado and New Mexico,
which burned in the 2011 Track Wildfire. The Lake Dorothey State
Wildlife Area borders Sugarite Canyon State Park in New Mexico. The
fire resulted in downed fences between private lands and Sugarite
Canyon State Park, allowing cattle to access the area. Trespass cattle
that entered Sugarite Canyon State Park in New Mexico accessed the Lake
Dorothey State Wildlife Area. Employees of Sugarite Canyon State Park
noted at least 30 trespass cattle within their park (Service 2013, pp.
1-2; Wildermuth 2012, entire). Trespass cattle have been consistently
observed within Soda Pocket Creek Campground and Segerstrom Creek of
the Sugarite Canyon State Park, sites that were previously occupied by
the New Mexico jumping mouse (Service 2012c, pp. 2, 10; 2013, pp. 1-2).
We have clarified this information in the SSA Report.
(20) Comment: The SSA Report lists livestock grazing and
development as threats within the Sambrito Creek Geographic Management
Area in Colorado. This area is within Navajo State Park and is not
grazed by domestic livestock and unlikely to be developed due to
ownership by the Bureau of Reclamation and management by Colorado Parks
and Wildlife.
Our Response: We understand that Navajo State Park is closed to
domestic livestock grazing, but unauthorized livestock use has occurred
repeatedly at several locations within the geographic management area
(Bureau of Reclamation 2008, p. 3-62; Colorado Natural Heritage Program
2006, p. 261). This unauthorized use is due to the lack of fences,
incomplete fences, and poorly constructed or maintained fences. Areas
with high incidences of livestock trespass include the Miller Mesa-
Sambrito area, and the upper river arms (Bureau of Reclamation 2008, p.
3-62), which also includes New Mexico meadow jumping mouse locations
and proposed critical habitat.
Sambrito Creek is surrounded on three sides by privately owned
lands that are partially developed, including agricultural fields,
pastures, residences, and oil and gas wells (Colorado Natural Heritage
Program 2006, p. 261). We acknowledge that the occupied area of
Sambrito Creek is within Navajo State Park; however, the potential for
further residential or oil and gas development on the surrounding
private lands is high, which would likely result in less hydrologic
input, and, therefore, shrinking and drying of the wetland area
(Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 261) and New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse habitat.
(21) Comment: The description of activities that could result in
take under section 9 is too vague. The Service should provide specific
dates for the active season of the jumping mouse. Further, the Service
should clarify whether destruction of habitat by any means is illegal,
which implies that a land owner would be responsible for controlling
against natural modifications such as browsing by native wildlife,
flooding, drought, wildfire, or the diversion of water rights, wildfire
restoration, grazing, and spread of invasive plants, even if these
actions were occurring on other properties within the watershed.
Our Response: The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act,
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, 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.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Section 9 applies to persons
that carry out or attempt to carry out the actions listed above, not
actions such as weather events and native wildlife foraging.
The intent of describing potential section 9 violations is to
increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and
ongoing activities within the range of a listed species. We have
clarified the list of potential section 9 violations below (see
Available Conservation Measures). These may include, but are not
limited to, the alteration or removal of specific microhabitat
components (as described in this rule or within the May 2013 SSA Report
(Service 2013) through new construction, livestock grazing, or
[[Page 33127]]
dredging or filling in streams or wetlands.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance
the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities (including but not limited
to grazing, construction, and wetland alterations). Questions regarding
whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9
of the Act should be directed to the Service's Ecological Services
Field Office in the State where the proposed activities will occur.
We have generally defined the active season of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire) as May
through October.
(22) Comment: The size and stream length range of estimates for
resilient populations of New Mexico meadow jumping mice have no
citations, or justification of how these were determined.
Our Response: In the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), we estimate
how much suitable habitat is likely necessary to support healthy,
resilient populations of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse by
considering information regarding the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and
information from Frey (2006d, pp. 18-21; 2011, p. 29; 2012b, p. 16) for
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. For examples, the Recovery Team
for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse recommended that at least several
medium-sized populations (at least 500 mice) should be protected with
each population distributed along a 14- to 26-km (to 16-mi) network of
connected streams whose hydrology supports riparian vegetation (Service
2003, pp. 24-25). Following fires, we found that, depending on fire
intensity and the subsequent ash and debris flow within stream reaches,
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations can be significantly
affected and likely extirpated, even when 15 km (9 mi) of continuous
suitable habitat existed prior to the fire (Sugarite Canyon; Frey
2006d, pp. 18-21; 2012b, p. 16). Therefore, we estimate that stream
lengths should be at least two to three times of those characterized by
Frey (2011, p. 29) in order to have adequate population sizes necessary
to persist through these types of stochastic and catastrophic events.
After reviewing this information, we conclude that current New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse populations need connected areas of suitable
habitat along at least 9 to 24 km (5.6 to 15 mi) of continuous suitable
habitat to support viable populations of jumping mice with a high
likelihood of long-term persistence. See 2.7.2 Habitat Patch and
Population Sizes in the SSA Report for additional information on this
subject.
Comments From the Public
(23) Comment: Is there observer bias associated with using
primarily information from the Frey surveys and conclusions? Have there
been any other groups or individuals providing data or information on
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse?
Our Response: The Act requires that we identify species of wildlife
and plants that are endangered or threatened based on the best
scientific and commercial data available. We did not primarily use
information from Frey, but relied on a variety of information including
State wildlife agencies, other researchers, and Federal agencies (e.g.,
see Museum of Southwestern Biology 1960, entire; 2007, entire; 2007a,
entire; Findley et al. 1975, pp. 271-272; Hafner et al. 1981, pp. 501-
502; Hink and Ohmart 1984, p. 96; Dodd 1987, entire; Morrison 1988, pp.
9-28; 1991, pp. 14-16; 1992, pp. 308-310; 2012, entire; VanPelt 1993,
p. 8; Najera 1994, entire; Jones 1999, entire; Frey 2003, pp. 38-39;
2005a, pp. 6-10, 58-59; 2006, p. 54; 2006c pp. 1-2; 2006d, pp.65-78;
2007b, pp. 9-13, 25-27; 2008, p. 3; 2008c, entire; 2010, entire; 2011,
entire; 2012a, entire; 2012, entire; 2012e, entire; 2013, entire;
2013a, entire; Frey et al. 2007a p. 1; Frey and Malaney 2009, pp. 33-
34; Frey and Kopp 2013, entire; Frey and Wright 2012, pp. 22-23;
Underwood 2007, pp. 1-4; USFS 2009, entire; 2012h, entire; 2013a,
entire; AGFD 2012a, p. 3; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2012, entire;
2013, entire; 2013a, entire; Malaney et al. 2012, entire; Service 2013,
entire; 2013a, entire; 2013b, entire). Based on this information, we
find there is unbiased and sound scientific and commercial data to
reach our final determination that the species is endangered.
(24) Comment: The SSA Report indicates that the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse is difficult to capture because individuals are trap
wary, but then uses the recent survey information to justify listing as
endangered. This seems contradictory.
Our Response: Please see our responses to comments (4) and (14)
above. Although the subspecies is difficult to capture, surveyors
(Jones 1999, entire; Frey 2005a, pp. 6-10, 58-59; 2006d, pp. 65-78;
2007b, pp. 9-13, 25-27; 2008, p. 3; 2008c, pp. 36, 42; 2010, entire;
2011, entire; 2012, entire; Frey et al. 2007a, p. 1; Frey and Malaney
2009, entire; Museum of Southwestern Biology 2007, entire; 2007a,
entire; Underwood 2007, entire; Frey and Wright 2012, pp. 22-23; Forest
Service 2009, entire; 2010, p. 2; 2012a, entire; 2012b, entire; 2012h,
entire; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2012, entire, 2013, p. 1) have been
able to provide information on presence or absence in specific areas,
and using this best available information, we are able to make a status
determination for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Since 2003, New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse surveys in New Mexico, Arizona, and
Colorado involved 200 localities and 68,102 trap nights (over 100
historically occupied sites plus 136 localities that appeared to have
the highest quality potentially suitable habitat) (see ``Current
Records of Localities Found Since 2005'' in the SSA Report; Service
2014).
(25) Comment: Information is insufficient or lacking on the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and more research is needed prior to
listing, including more surveys. The proposed rule and SSA Report are
based on assumptions rather than the best scientific information
available as required. Peer reviewing the information would ensure the
listing decision and critical habitat determination are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
Our Response: We acknowledge that additional study on some life-
history aspects of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse would be
helpful, but as required by the Act, we based our proposal and this
final rule on the best available scientific and commercial data. We
requested new information on our June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37363; 78 FR
37328) proposed rule during the open public comment period. We reviewed
information in our files and other available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with recognized species experts, State
agencies, tribes, and other Federal agencies. Peer reviewers indicated
that we used the best available science and our assessment correctly
concluded the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse should be classified as
an endangered species. We must make listing determinations on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial information available at this
time, and we may not delay our decision until more information about
the subspecies and its habitat are available (see Southwest
[[Page 33128]]
Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir.
2000)).
(26) Comment: Livestock grazing has been reduced over the last 20
years on many areas of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona,
due to listing the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii
extimus), loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), Little Colorado spinedace
(Lepidomeda vittata), and spikedace (Meda fulgida); however, the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse has declined during this same period. What
other actions could have caused its decline?
Our Response: Please refer to the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire)
for review of the past, present, and likely future threats (causes and
effects) to New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations in Arizona and
throughout its range. We found the primary sources of past and future
habitat losses are from grazing pressure, water management and use,
lack of water due to drought, and wildfires. Current USFS forage
utilization guidelines are 30 to 40 percent, meaning 60 to 70 percent
of forage should not be removed by livestock (USFS 2005, p. 4; 2013,
entire; Service 2005a, entire). This amount of utilization has limited
the availability of adequate vertical cover of herbaceous vegetation
and significantly affected New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat in
areas that are not protected from livestock (i.e., outside of livestock
exclosures). Current grazing practices in many areas of the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona, have resulted in the removal of
dense riparian herbaceous vegetation that historically provided New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat and caused the loss of historical
populations (Frey 2011, entire). Additional sources of habitat loss are
likely to occur from scouring floods, loss of beaver, highway
reconstruction, and unregulated recreation.
(27) Comment: Recreation is a greater threat to the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse populations within the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico
than livestock grazing as it is practiced on the San Diego Allotment
along the Rio Cebolla and Rio de las Vacas within the Jemez Mountains.
Our Response: Throughout the Rio Cebolla and Rio de las Vacas
drainages, riparian habitat is fragmented and isolated as a result of
both livestock grazing and recreation (USFS 2003, entire; 2004a,
entire; Frey 2005a, pp. 25-29, 58-63, 67; Service 2012a, entire).
Current grazing practices in many areas have resulted in the removal of
dense riparian herbaceous vegetation that historically provided New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat and caused the loss of historical
populations. For example, the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has been
extirpated entirely from 3 of 13 (Jemez Mountains, New Mexico)
historical montane riparian sites over the last 2 decades (Frey 2003,
entire; 2005a, entire; 2011, entire; 2012a, pp. 42, 46, 52; Frey and
Malaney 2009, entire; USFS 2012h, entire; Figure 15). Importantly, the
presence of a functioning livestock exclosure has been reported as the
best predictor of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse occupancy in montane
riparian areas (Frey 2005a, pp. 59-60; Frey and Malaney 2009, pp. 35,
37). However, livestock grazing continues to be documented within many
of the fenced exclosures surrounding the recently documented New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse populations when fencing was cut or not
maintained, gates were open, or wildfire burned and eliminated fences,
and cattle entered the area (Frey 2005a, pp. 25-26, 29, 36; 2006, p. 1;
2011, pp. 41-42; Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 260; U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation 2008, pp. 3-62; USFS 2007, p. 1; 2010, p. 2;
2011c, pp. 1-5; 2012h, p. 2; ADGF 2012a, entire; Service 2012a, pp. 1-
2; 2012c, pp. 1, 6-8; 2012d, p. 2). See 5.1.1 Livestock Grazing and
5.1.10 Recreation in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire) for
additional detail on these threats.
Within the Jemez Mountains Geographic Management Area for the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, specific forms of management (e.g.,
fencing of riparian areas) may be required through formal consultation
with the Forest Service to provide areas containing functionally
connected patches of currently suitable or restorable habitat.
Management may also be needed to address livestock use, the reduction
in the distribution and abundance of beaver, and recreational use.
(28) Comment: The SSA Report (Service 2014, entire) indicates that
climate change and drought affect the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
How would listing the subspecies affect these threats?
Our Response: The Service acknowledges that listing the subspecies
as endangered cannot fully address some of the natural threats facing
the subspecies (e.g., climate change and drought). However, climate
change and drought can exacerbate other threats such as wildfire and
grazing, and can lower the resiliency of populations to withstand other
threats. Listing of species can focus attention on these other threats
to improve the overall status and increase the likelihood that the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse can be recovered.
Once a species is listed as either endangered or threatened, the
Act provides many tools to advance the conservation of listed species;
available tools include recovery planning under section 4 of the Act,
interagency cooperation and consultation under section 7, grants to the
States under section 6, and safe harbor agreements and habitat
conservation plans under section 10. In addition, recovery funds may
become available, which could facilitate recovery actions (e.g.,
funding for additional surveys, management needs, research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, monitoring) (see Available Conservation
Measures, below). Because we are listing the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse as endangered, funding for recovery actions will be available
from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs,
and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic
community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, under to
section 6 of the Act, the States of Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions
that promote the protection and recovery of this subspecies.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at https://www.fws.gov/grants.
(29) Comment: A plan in the 1990s removed dispersed recreation and
limited campsites along the East Fork of the Black River, Arizona. Is
the subspecies threatened by other activities in this area?
Our Response: The commenter does not identify a specific plan for
us to reference. As noted in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is also threatened by climate change,
wildfire, flooding, loss of beaver, and recreation in this area (Please
see the SSA Report, Table 3).
(30) Comment: Contrary to what is presented in the SSA Report
(Service 2014, entire), the adverse impacts from livestock grazing,
water diversion, and recreation were halted in Arizona in 1980s and
1990s when other species were listed as endangered.
Our Response: The commenter did not provide information
demonstrating that livestock grazing, water diversion, and recreation
are not threats to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in Arizona. The
best scientific and commercial information demonstrates the continuing
threats of livestock grazing, recreation, and other sources of
[[Page 33129]]
past and future habitat losses in Arizona. See the SSA Report for
additional information.
We did identify water diversion as a threat to the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse in Arizona. However, reliance on such water
sources for development and maintenance of suitable herbaceous riparian
vegetation may be problematic because the availability (in quantity,
timing, and quality) is often subject to dramatic changes based on
precipitation and irrigation use patterns associated with water rights.
Other recently located populations (e.g., Florida River, Sugarite
Canyon, Coyote Creek in New Mexico) are located in areas where surface
water is diverted into irrigation canals and ditches, rather than the
natural flow remaining within the stream drainage (ADGF 2006, p. 473;
Frey 2005a, p. 63; 2006d, p. 55; 2011, p. 19; U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation 1995, entire). The suitable habitat along Sambrito Creek in
Colorado is associated with wetlands that are fed by irrigation water
return flows (Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 261; U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation 2008, pp. 3-23). These changes in hydrology
degrade and eliminate potentially suitable New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse habitat, to the point that so much water is being diverted in
some streams that they no longer support an herbaceous zone of riparian
habitat (Frey 2005a, p. 63; 2006d, p. 55).
(31) Comment: In the SSA Report, Figure 13 compares a grazed area
to an ungrazed area. If a fire were to burn in the ungrazed area during
drought conditions, the tall dense vegetation would burn completely,
eliminating the riparian habitat and killing all of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mice. Alternatively, the grazed area that lacks tall
dense grass would not burn completely, suggesting grazing may be
beneficial for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
Our Response: Although the grazed area in Figure 13 is unlikely to
burn completely, it does not provide suitable habitat for the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, because grazing eliminated dense riparian
vegetation. So, whether the grazed area burns or not, the subspecies
will not be able to use this grazed area. Excessive livestock grazing
has not only eliminated the fine fuel load that historically
contributed to frequent low-intensity fires (see discussion in the SSA
Report under ``Livestock Grazing'' section; Service 2014, entire)), but
has also altered the suitability of habitat for the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse, which is a significant threat to the subspecies,
demonstrated by Figure 13. Further, if the ungrazed portion burns and
remains ungrazed this area will return to pre-burn vegetation
conditions depicted in Figure 13, generally within a year.
(32) Comment: How would listing the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
complement or contradict consultation or recovery actions of other
threatened or endangered species such as the southwestern willow
flycatcher or Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus)?
Our Response: Some native species that share ecosystems often face
a suite of common factors that may be a threat to them, and
ameliorating or eliminating these threats for one species will benefit
multiple species, often with the implementation of similar management
actions. Effective management of these threats often requires
implementation of complementary conservation actions to enhance or
restore critical ecological processes and native habitat, and provide
for long-term viability of those species in their native environment.
In some of the geographic management areas, we will likely consider the
need to address other listed species in our future recovery planning
efforts for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. This will also be the
case for section 7 consultations when a proposed action affects
multiple species.
(33) Comment: Trapping and livestock grazing are not contributing
factors to loss of beaver ponds.
Our Response: Baker and Hill (2003, p. 303) indicated that beaver
are highly vulnerable to overharvest from trapping because their slow
rate of reproduction and delayed sexual maturity preclude reproduction
as a means to offset intensive annual harvest. As noted in the SSA
Report (see 5.1.6 Loss of Beaver of the SSA Report; Service 2014,
entire), the decline and near elimination of beaver due to
overharvesting is well documented (Naiman et al. 1988, entire; Baker
and Hill 2003, p. 288; Crawford et al. 1993, p. 39). Moreover, beaver
continue to be subject to extensive management and removal (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
2011, entire; Wild 2011, p. 5).
Limiting factors for beaver populations are typically related to
the availability of food resources (e.g., trees, tubers, roots, shoots,
and many herbaceous plants) (Boyle and Owens 2007, p. 21). Intense
herbivory by ungulates or livestock can disrupt beaver populations
(Baker et al. 2005, p. 117) because grazing can reduce or eliminate
adequate herbaceous and riparian plants that are required for beaver
food. Sufficient food is necessary to sustain beaver populations.
Beaver continue to be lost from across the range of the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse; therefore, we consider this another causative
factor in the ongoing loss of suitable New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat now and into the future (Please see the SSA Report for further
information).
(34) Comment: If the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is listed as
endangered, are private landowners obliged to follow the Act? Is this a
taking of private property rights?
Our Response: Section 9 of the Act makes it illegal for anyone to
``take'' (defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, collect, or attempt any of these actions) an endangered
species (see section 9 of Available Conservation Measures, below).
However, the mere promulgation of a regulation, like listing a species
under the Act, does not take private property, unless the regulation on
its face denies the property owners all economically beneficial or
productive use of their land, which is not the case with the listing of
this subspecies. Programs are available to private landowners for
managing habitat for listed species, as well as permits that can be
obtained to protect private landowners from the take prohibition when
such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out
of an otherwise lawful activity. Private landowners may contact their
local Service field office to obtain information about these programs
and permits.
(35) Comment: There is a fixation on livestock grazing in the
proposed rule and no consideration of other types of ungulate grazing
such as feral horses or elk.
Our Response: In the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire, we found
that livestock and elk grazing within New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
habitat affects individual mice by reducing the availability of food
resources (Morrison 1987, p. 25; Morrison 1990, p. 141; Frey 2005a, p.
59; 2011, p. 70). Cattle and sometimes elk, have contributed
substantially to alterations of riparian ecosystems throughout the
range of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. However, there is a
strong tendency for livestock to congregate in riparian habitat,
whereas elk may range farther from water sources and riparian areas
than cattle (USFS 2006, pp. 76-77). Timing of livestock grazing also
coincides with the active season of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse. We note that grazing is only one of several concerns for the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Please see the SSA Report for further
information. See
[[Page 33130]]
our response to comment (9) above for additional information on feral
horses.
(36) Comment: Some of the information used in the SSA Report comes
from documents that indicate the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is
``endangered'' (e.g., Frey, J.K. 2006. Capture of the endangered New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) at Coyote Creek
State Park, New Mexico. Frey Biological Research, Radium Springs, New
Mexico). This report was produced prior to the Service considering the
animal for endangered status. Because ``endangered'' was used in the
title of the report, is there a potential for bias?
Our Response: Use of the term ``endangered'' in the Frey (2006)
report does not indicate bias. The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is
classified as an endangered species under the New Mexico Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1974 (i.e., State Endangered Species Act) (19 New
Mexico Administrative Code 33.6.8). This is an entirely different
process and statute than the Act. We adhered to the requirements of the
Act in order to determine whether the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act, based on
our assessment of the five listing factors and using the best available
scientific and commercial data.
(37) Comment: If the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is listed as
endangered, fuels treatments to reduce the risk of fire may be
inhibited due to the complexity and additional time required to
complete consultation with the Service. In this example, the Federal
agency would likely reduce the size of the forest treatment (e.g.,
prescribed burn), or the project would be stopped altogether when the
subspecies is listed.
Our Response: Listing the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is
unlikely to reduce proactive treatments necessary to alleviate the risk
of catastrophic wildfire because the majority of treatments are likely
to be confined to forested lands and not within riparian and adjacent
upland habitat used by the species. However, the USFS or other Federal
agency will need to determine whether any fuels treatments may affect
the subspecies in accordance with section 7 of the Act. If a Federal
agency funds, authorizes, or carries out an action that may affect the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, the agency is required to consult with
the Service. The regulatory requirements under the Act were determined
by Congress to ensure that otherwise lawful actions that affect species
listed under the Act are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of those listed species. Consultations analyze and determine
to what degree the species is impacted by a proposed action. Each
consultation is evaluated on a case-by-case basis following our
regulations (50 CFR part 402). In the SSA Report (Service 2014,
entire), we identify opportunities for habitat improvement, which
includes reducing fuels to minimize the risk of severe wildland fire.
(38) Comment: New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat has been lost
in some areas following the Wallow Wildfire, but habitat for the
subspecies has been gained in other areas. Although the Wallow Wildfire
had a huge impact on the landscape, the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
continues to be found in areas following the fire. In fact, post-fire
flooding carried sediments to some areas where herbaceous vegetation
now meets 60-cm (24-in) stubble height.
Our Response: The commenter did not provide any specific
information on areas where jumping mouse habitat may have been gained
following the Wallow Wildfire. We also did not receive any information
regarding this topic from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD
2012, entire; 2014, entire). New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat is
located within riparian areas that are subject to dynamic changes from
flooding such as the loss and regrowth in the quantity and location of
dense riparian herbaceous vegetation over time. If suitable habitat has
been gained or restored in some areas and the habitat is beyond the
movement or dispersal capabilities of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse, it is unlikely to become occupied. New Mexico meadow jumping
mice are generally believed to have limited vagility (ability to move)
and possibly limited dispersal capabilities (Morrison 1988, p. 13; Frey
and Wright 2012, pp. 43, 109). Consequently, suitable habitat should be
no more than about 200 m (656 ft) from existing populations, which
would increase the likelihood of emigrating individuals repopulating
sites that have been extirpated due to natural or manmade events or
moving into areas where suitable habitat has been restored.
Severe wildland fires, such as the Wallow Wildfire, can have
dramatic, long-lasting impacts on jumping mice and their habitat (See
SSA Report for additional information). We continue to find that the
2011 Wallow and Track Wildfires have significantly impacted the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, resulting in extirpation of some
populations and further loss of habitat, including loss of beaver (AGFD
2012, entire; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2013a, p. 1; Frey and Kopp
2013, entire; Service 2013c, entire).
(39) Comment: More sampling and surveys of the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse need to be completed to determine whether populations are
confined to true livestock exclosures.
Our Response: Since 2003, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse surveys
in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado involved 200 localities and 68,102
trap nights (over 100 historically occupied sites plus 136 localities
that appeared to have the highest quality potentially suitable habitat)
(see ``Current Records of Localities Found Since 2005'' in the SSA
Report; Service 2014). In all but one case where the jumping mouse was
found since 2005, livestock were being excluded (Frey 2005a, pp. 58-62;
Frey 2006d, pp. 49, 55; Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 37; Frey 2011, pp.
41-42; 2012, entire; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2012, entire; Service
2012a, pp. 1-2; 2012c, pp. 1, 6-8; 2012d, p. 2). The habitat conditions
at this one locality where livestock grazing was occurring were
suitable for New Mexico meadow jumping mice occupancy and similar to
fenced New Mexico meadow jumping mouse localities because the presence
of beaver naturally inhibited livestock grazing (Frey and Malaney 2009,
p. 37).
Moreover, additional areas that contained potentially suitable New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat were also surveyed, with many of
the survey locations outside of livestock exclosures in which no
individuals were captured (Frey 2003, entire; 2005a, entire; 2007b,
entire; 2011, p. 42; 2013c, entire; Chambers 2012, entire; USFS 2012h,
entire). As we found in the SSA Report, the presence of a functioning
livestock exclosure has been reported as the best predictor of New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse occupancy in montane riparian areas (Frey
2005a, pp. 59-60; Frey and Malaney 2009, pp. 35, 37). However,
unauthorized livestock grazing continues to be documented within 15 of
29 existing New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations when fencing
was cut or not maintained, gates were open, or wildfire burned and
eliminated fences, and cattle entered the area (ADGF 2012a, entire;
USFS 2007, p. 1; 2010, p. 2; 2011c, pp. 1-5; 2012h, p. 2; Frey 2005a,
pp. 25-26, 29, 36, 58-62; 2006, p. 1; 2006d, pp. 49, 55; 2011, pp. 41-
42; Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 37; Frey 2011, pp. 41-42; 2012, entire;
Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 260; Colorado Parks and
Wildlife 2012, p. entire; Service 2012a, pp. 1-2; 2012c, pp. 1, 6-
[[Page 33131]]
8; 2012d, p. 2; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2008, pp. 3-62).
(40) Comment: Listing a species may reduce beneficial management
activities or obstruct or prevent entities from executing conservation
agreements and partnerships to protect the species. The Service should
recognize ongoing conservation efforts.
Our Response: The Service does recognize ongoing conservation
efforts. The Act requires us to make a determination using the best
available scientific and commercial data after conducting a review of
the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts,
if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political
subdivision of a State or foreign nation to protect such species,
whether by predatory control protection of habitat and food supply, or
other conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction.
The only conservation actions implemented since the species became a
candidate for listing in 2007 were the installation of Langemann water
control structures and restoration of habitat on Bosque del Apache
National Wildlife Refuge, and the replacement of one barbed-wire
livestock exclosure with a pipe fence on the Lincoln National Forest.
These few actions did not reduce or eliminate threats to the
subspecies, and the jumping mouse still meets the definition of an
endangered species under the Act.
Further, the listing of a species does not obstruct the development
of conservation agreements or partnerships to conserve the species.
Once a species is listed as either endangered or threatened, the Act
provides many tools to advance the conservation of listed species.
Conservation of listed species in many parts of the United States is
dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of entities,
including the voluntary cooperation of non-Federal landowners. Building
partnerships and promoting cooperation of landowners are essential to
understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands, and may be
necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing listed
species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection. We promote these
private-sector efforts through the Department of the Interior's
Cooperative Conservation philosophy (see https://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/lcc.html for more information). Once a species is listed,
for private or other non-Federal property owners we offer voluntary
Safe Harbor Agreements that can contribute to the recovery of species,
Habitat Conservation Plans that allows activities (e.g., grazing) to
proceed while minimizing effects to species, funding through the
Partner's for Fish and Wildlife Program to help promote conservation
actions, and grants to the States under section 6 of the Act.
(41) Comment: The Service should recognize the economic impact of
listing the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Listing the mouse could
result in short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts for species on
human activities.
Our Response: The Act requires us to use the best scientific and
commercial data available in our listing determinations. The Act does
not allow us to consider the impacts of listing on economics or humans
activities whether over the short term, long term, or cumulatively.
(42) Comment: Will recreation sites be shut down or Federal land
use be greatly restricted if the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is
listed as endangered?
Our Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies
to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies 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 consultation with the Service. During
consultation with the Federal agency, we will analyze and determine to
what degree the subspecies would be impacted by proposed recreational
activities and will work with the Federal agency to determine necessary
modification of planned activities, in order to avoid and minimize
adverse impacts to the subspecies.
(43) Comment: There is no scientific justification for defining the
historical (1980s and 1990s) baseline for the subspecies' distribution.
There must have been some other challenging environmental changes that
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse survived to reach population levels
in the 1980s. Therefore, what scientific basis is there for presuming
the species could not survive now without endangered species
protection?
Our Response: Please see our response to comment number (3), above.
While the historical and current distributional data for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is categorized into two time periods in the SSA
Report (Service 2014, entire), we included all known distribution
records and summarized the comprehensive reports regarding the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse (i.e., Frey 2008c, entire; Hafner et al.
1981). We found no capture records of New Mexico meadow jumping mice
between 1996 and 2005. Surveys conducted since 2005 in locations where
the subspecies was historically present indicate that the subspecies is
now apparently absent or at levels too low for detection. Based on this
information and previous reviews, we continue to find that the
comparison between historical (1980 to 1999) and current New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse records (2005 forward) is appropriate, and the
pre-1980 records were sufficiently considered and incorporated in the
SSA Report.
We evaluated whether the subspecies is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (endangered), or
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (threatened).
Also, please see our Determination section, below for a detailed
explanation of why this subspecies meets the definition of an
endangered species under the Act. Finally, see the SSA Report for our
analysis of long-term viability and extinction risk for the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse. (see Chapter 6. Viability of the SSA Report)
(44) Comment: The Service should include a special 4(d) rule,
similar to Preble's meadow jumping mouse that exempts take of the
subspecies under section 9 of the Act for any continued use of water
rights.
Our Response: Section 4(d) of the Act pertains only to threatened
species, not endangered species. Section 4(d) of the Act reads that,
whenever any species is listed as a threatened species, the Secretary
shall issue such regulations, as she deems necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of such species. Because we are listing
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as endangered and not threatened, a
4(d) rule is not applicable.
(45) Comment: According to Wikipedia, the jumping mouse is capable
of having two to three litters per year.
Our Response: Although jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) in Minnesota
and New York average two to three litters (Quimby 1951, p. 69; Whitaker
1963, p. 244), the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse only has one litter
each year (Morrison 1987, pp. 14-15; 1989, p. 22; Frey 2011, p. 69;
2012b, p. 5).
(46) Comment: Over the last few years, mowing along irrigation
ditches has ceased and the vegetation grows over the areas, especially
along those in the middle Rio Grande.
Our Response: The commenter did not provide any information
demonstrating mowing has ceased. The
[[Page 33132]]
information we reviewed indicates that mowing continues to be part of
regular maintenance activities along irrigation ditches and canals on
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge and throughout the middle
Rio Grande (Bureau of Reclamation 2013, pp. 55-59, 62; Frey and Wright
2012, pp. 6, 35; SSA Report pp. 88-91). Moreover, neither the Florida
Water Conservancy District, nor the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District indicated in their public comments that mowing has ceased as
part of their normal maintenance operations (Florida Water Conservancy
District 2013, entire; Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 2013,
entire).
(47) Comment: Were the jumping mice captured along the Florida
River positively identified as New Mexico meadow jumping mice using
genetic analyses?
Our Response: Yes. The Florida River individuals were confirmed as
New Mexico meadow jumping mice using mitochondrial DNA (genetic)
analyses (Museum of Southwestern Biology 2007, entire; 2007a, entire;
Malaney et al. 2012, p. 695, Appendix S1).
(48) Comment: The Service fails to provide a scientific basis for
the unrealistic vegetation cover requirements.
Our Response: Based on the best available scientific evidence, the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has exceptionally specialized
requirements for dense herbaceous riparian habitat as described in the
``Specific Microhabitat Requirements'' section of our SSA Report
(Service 2014).
(49) Comment: There is no scientific historical baseline to compare
habitat or populations to in order to determine whether New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse populations have been impacted. The Service did
not use actual population numbers or long-term trends to make a
determination to list the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as
endangered.
Our Response: In the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), we used
historical and current data to determine that the distribution and
number of populations of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has
declined significantly rangewide with the majority of local
extirpations occurring since the late-1980s and early 1990s. At least
70 former locations occupied by the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse are
considered no longer occupied (Frey 2005a, pp. 6-10; 2007b, pp. 23-27;
2011, pp. 26-27; 2012e, entire; AGFD 2012, entire; Frey and Kopp, 2013,
entire; Frey and Wright 2012, p. 28; Frey 2013, entire). See also our
response to comment number 3 above.
(50) Comment: High predation rates or disease may cause high
mortality and reduce New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations.
Our Response: As we found in 5.2.2 Disease or Predation of our SSA
Report (Service 2014), we did not identify predation and disease as
significant risk factors for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
(51) Comment: The Service has failed to address the conflict
between the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse and already listed
predators such as the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida)
and Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), which could be significant
sources of mortality.
Our Response: We acknowledge that the Mexican spotted owl and
Mexican gray wolf could eat jumping mice, because they can be highly
sought-after food sources as prey for these species. However, the best
scientific and commercial data available does not indicate that either
of these species are significant predators on the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse. Nevertheless, predation is a naturally occurring event
in the life history of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and, as we
found in 5.2.2 Disease or Predation of our SSA Report (Service 2014),
predation is not a significant risk factor.
(52) Comment: No data are provided for the assumption that only
limited portions of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat would be
affected by natural disturbances (flood, wildfire, or drought). These
natural disturbances operate at the landscape scale, which would
decimate habitat patches that are small and localized.
Our Response: As we noted in the 5.1 Habitat Loss section of the
SSA Report (Service 2014), natural disturbances can vary from small to
large-scale events. Large-scale disturbances can have dramatic, long-
lasting impacts on New Mexico meadow jumping mice and their habitat,
while small-scale disturbances may help maintain riparian communities
in an early seral stage, which would provide suitable habitat for the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
may exhibit some natural resiliency to small disturbances when
populations were larger and well-connected to one another, but there is
cause for concern because many of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
populations are either extremely small or highly fragmented. As a
result, we found that these natural disturbances are an important
causal factor in the ongoing and future loss of New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse suitable habitat, making all of the remaining small and
fragmented populations of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse more
vulnerable to extirpation.
(53) Comment: Coal bed methane development should be removed from
the list of potential threats to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
because there are no wellpads or associated non-well facilities near
the populations in Colorado (Florida River, Sambrito Creek, or Sugarite
Canyon). Moreover, existing regulations at the State (Colorado Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission) and local levels (La Plata County land use
code, Chapter 90; Archuleta County land use code, Section 9) have
resulted in no oil or gas wells or facilities within these areas.
Our Response: The areas surrounding the Florida River and Sambrito
Creek contain extensive gas fields, and, based on the best available
scientific and commercial data, production from coalbed methane is
projected to increase (Bureau of Land Management and USFS 2006, entire;
Papadopulos and Associates 2006, entire). In 2005, there were about
1,650 production wells in production in the Colorado portion of the San
Juan Basin (Papadopulos and Associates 2006, p. 1). Projections are
that this number will increase because future gas production wells have
already been permitted (Papadopulos and Associates 2006, p. 92, Figure
6-2; Bureau of Reclamation 2007, pp. 3-55-3-60). Similarly, coalbed
methane development will likely continue to expand in the Raton Basin,
which includes the Sugarite Canyon, New Mexico (Hoffman and Brister
2003, p. 110).
Future impacts may occur to riparian habitat in these watersheds or
result in the alteration of hydrological regimes (Bureau of Land
Management and USFS 2006, Appendix H, p. 27). For example, recent data
indicates that existing coalbed methane development has depleted 80,176
cubic m (65 ac ft) of water per year from the Animas, Florida, and Pine
Watersheds (Bureau of Land Management and USFS 2006, Appendix H, p.
27). We also queried the Colorado Oil and Gas Database (https://cogcc.state.co.us/) and located at least 10 producing wells within 91
to 221 m (300 to 725 ft) of the active Florida River channel and 5
producing wells within 61 to 609 m (200 to 2,000 ft) of Sambrito Creek
(Service 2013d, entire). These distances have the potential to affect
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat from ground disturbance for
roads, drilling pads, pipelines, and other utilities and infrastructure
(e.g.,
[[Page 33133]]
see Bureau of Reclamation 2007, pp. 3-55-3-60, 4-5, 4-26). There may
also be longer-term water table issues, irrigation water changes, and
nonnative plant infestations in areas that are developed for coal bed
methane extraction, which would contribute to further loss of dense
herbaceous riparian vegetation that constitutes jumping mouse habitat
(National Park Service 2003, p. 2).
We found that La Plata and Archuleta Counties only provide
protection to wildlife resources and floodplains, wherever it is
reasonably practicable, to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts
from coal bed methane development (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission 2008, entire; La Plata County 2001, entire; Archuleta County
2012, entire). For example, the La Plata County land use code requires
new development to be located no less than 15 m (50 ft) from wetlands,
which may still result in indirect effects to wetland and riparian
habitat (2001, pp. 6.7-6.8) that would then impact the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse and its habitat. Moreover, the regulations are
intended to balance oil and gas development with wildlife conservation
by incorporating best management practices (Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission 2008, entire) or standard operating procedures
(Archuleta County 2012, entire). Consequently, it is unclear whether
this will fully or even partially protect the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse and its habitat. Finally, we found no regulations that might
provide some protection to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
population in Sugarite Canyon, New Mexico from coalbed methane
development.
Based on this information, development of coalbed methane gas in
the Raton and San Juan Basins is projected to continue into the future,
potentially impacting the Florida River, Sambrito Creek, and Sugarite
Canyon, Colorado, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations. All of
this information demonstrates that coalbed methane development and
related infrastructure have the potential to affect New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse populations within the Florida River, Sambrito Creek, and
Sugarite Canyon, Colorado.
(54) Comment: Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, has taken measures to
protect and enhance the habitat required by the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse by adopting the Rio Arriba County Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance 2012-004 (Floodplain Ordinance).
Our Response: Although Rio Arriba County's comments indicate that
the Floodplain Ordinance aims to foster sound land use activities in
federally designated floodplains and riparian areas, we are not aware
of any areas that are currently occupied by the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse within Rio Arriba County. The only critical habitat
proposed for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in the County was
located along the Rio Grande within Ohkay Owingeh, which would not be
subject to the Floodplain Ordinance.
(55) Comment: The comment period was too brief. Local governments
and interested individuals were not notified in writing of the proposal
to list the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
Our Response: We provided the normal 60-day comment period
associated with the publication of the proposed rule, which opened on
June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37363), and closed on August 19, 2013. We sent
letters to State congressional representatives, local governments, and
interested parties; we published public notices in area newspapers; and
we issued a news release on our Web site.
(56) Comment: One commenter encouraged the Service to invest
additional resources in public outreach for the Florida River
Geographic Management Area because most of the Florida River is under
private ownership.
Our Response: On August 15, 2013, we held an informational meeting
in Durango, Colorado, as part of our public outreach for the Florida
River Geographic Management Area, to answer questions about the
implications of the potential listing and critical habitat designation
of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
(57) Comment: The Service should not settle legal actions with
activist groups that appear to create arbitrary listings of threatened
or endangered species.
Our Response: On July 12, 2011, the Service filed a multiyear work
plan as part of a settlement agreement with the Center for Biological
Diversity and others, in a consolidated case in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia. A settlement agreement in In re
Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS),
MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011) was approved by the court on
September 9, 2011. The settlement enables the Service to
systematically, over a period of 6 years, review and address the needs
of more than 250 candidate species to determine if they should be added
to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We adhered to the
requirements of the Act, to determine whether a species warrants
listing based on our assessment of the five-factor threats analysis
using the best available scientific and commercial data. A species may
be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A)
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. We already determined, prior to the court settlement
agreement, that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse warranted listing
under the Act, but was precluded by the necessity to commit limited
funds and staff to complete higher priority species actions. The New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse has been included in our annual Candidate
Notices of Review for multiple years, during which time scientific
literature and data have and continue to indicate that the subspecies
is detrimentally impacted by ongoing threats, and we continued to find
that listing was warranted but precluded. The listing process is not
arbitrary, but uses the best available scientific and commercial data
and peer-review to ensure sound science and sound decisionmaking.
(58) Comment: The purpose of listing this highly specialized
subspecies is only in support of the preservationists' philosophy of
radical environmental organizations. Most often listing has forced land
management agencies to totally abandon their missions in favor of a
hands-off, do-nothing approach.
Our Response: The commenter did not provide any additional
information for the Service to consider. Land management agencies
continue to provide for multiple use activities on their lands,
including the conservation of federally listed species.
[[Page 33134]]
Determination
Standard for Review
Section 4 of the Act, and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(b)(1)(a), the Secretary is to make threatened or endangered
determinations required by subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available to her after
conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into
account conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. The
standards for determining whether a species is threatened or endangered
are provided in section 3 of the Act. An endangered species is any
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' A threatened species is any species
that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Per
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, in reviewing the status of the species to
determine if it meets the definitions of threatened or endangered, we
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened
species because of any of the following five factors: (A) The present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence.
Until recently, the Service has presented its evaluation of
information under the five listing factors in an outline format,
discussing all of the information relevant to any given factor and
providing a factor-specific conclusion before moving to the next
factor. However, the Act does not require findings under each of the
factors, only an overall determination as to status (e.g., threatened,
endangered, not warranted). Ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency
and efficacy of the Service's implementation of the Act have led us to
present this information in a different format that we believe leads to
greater clarity in our understanding of the science, its uncertainties,
and the application of our statutory framework to that science.
Therefore, while the presentation of information in this rule differs
from past practice, it differs in format only. We have evaluated the
same body of information we would have evaluated under the five listing
factors outline format, we are applying the same information standard,
and we are applying the same statutory framework in reaching our
conclusions.
Final Listing Status Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range and, therefore, meets the definition of an
endangered species. This finding, explained below, is based on our
conclusions that the subspecies exhibits low viability as characterized
by having no resilient populations, resulting in low overall
representation across the subspecies' entire range and no redundancy.
We found the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse to be at an elevated risk
of extinction now and no data indicate that the situation will improve
without significant conservation intervention. We, therefore, find that
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse warrants an endangered species
listing status determination.
On the basis of our biological review documented in the SSA Report,
we found that the subspecies is inherently vulnerable to population
extirpations due to its short active period, short lifespan, low
fecundity, specific habitat needs, and low movement and dispersal
ability (Factor E). The subspecies is currently known to be limited to,
at most, 29 small, isolated populations, all of which are incapable of
withstanding adverse events, and, therefore, are not resilient (Factor
E). This total is reduced from nearly 70 locations known historically.
Of these 29 populations where the New Mexico meadow jumping mice have
been found extant since 2005, at least 11 populations have been
substantially compromised in the past 2 years and 7 others may have
been affected by recent wildfires. Because these populations have been
compromised, the actual current number of extant populations may
already be less than 29, placing the subspecies at a higher risk of
extinction. At this rate of population extirpation (based on known
historical population losses and possible recent population losses) the
probability of persistence of the subspecies as a whole is severely
compromised in the near term.
The remaining small, isolated New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
populations are particularly threatened with extirpation from habitat
loss and modifications (Factor A). The main sources of habitat loss,
degradation, and modification, include grazing pressure (which removes
the needed vegetation), water management and use (which causes
vegetation loss from mowing and drying of soils), lack of water due to
drought (exacerbated by climate change), and wildfires (also
exacerbated by climate change). Additional sources of habitat loss are
likely to occur from floods, loss of beaver, highway reconstruction,
residential and commercial development, coalbed methane development,
and unregulated recreation.
Each of the 29 remaining locations where the jumping mouse has been
found recently is vulnerable to at least 4 of these 10 sources of
habitat loss. Some populations are at risk from as many as 8 of these
sources (Service 2014, Table 3). As a result, these multiple sources of
habitat loss are not acting independently, but may produce cumulative
impacts that magnify the effects of habitat loss on jumping mouse
populations. Historically larger connected populations of jumping mice
would have been able to withstand or recover from local stressors, such
as habitat loss from drought, wildfire, or floods. However, the current
condition of small populations makes local extirpations more common.
Further, the isolated state of existing populations makes natural
recolonization of impacted areas highly unlikely or impossible in most
areas. With each of these sources of habitat loss, the probability
increases of the future reduction in size of existing populations of
jumping mice and eventual additional losses of additional populations.
With each population lost in the future, a decrease in viability of the
subspecies will occur as species redundancy and representation are
reduced.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We evaluated whether the New Mexico
meadow jumping mouse is an endangered species or a threatened species.
The foreseeable future refers to the extent to which the Secretary can
reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making
determinations about the future conservation status of the species. A
key statutory difference between a threatened species and an endangered
species is the timing of
[[Page 33135]]
when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now (endangered
species) or in the foreseeable future (threatened species).
Because of the fact-specific nature of listing determinations,
there is no single metric for determining if a species is ``in danger
of extinction'' now. In the case of the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse, the best available information indicates that, while major range
reductions (that is the overall geographic extent of the subspecies
occurrences) have not happened, habitat destruction and isolation have
resulted in significant loss of populations and reductions in total
numbers of individuals. These losses are ongoing as at least 11 of the
29 known populations have been significantly compromised since 2011.
Without substantial conservation efforts, this trend of population loss
is expected to continue and result in an elevated risk of extinction of
the subspecies. Many of the threats faced by the subspecies would not
have historically been significant, but past reductions in population
size and fragmentation (mainly due to habitat loss from grazing)
causing isolation of populations makes the current threats particularly
severe. As a result, the subspecies is currently at an elevated risk
that stochastic events (e.g., drought, wildfire, and floods) will
affect all known extant populations putting the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse at a high risk of extinction. Therefore, because no
resilient populations currently exist to support persistence of the New
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, it is in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range now, and appropriately meets the definition of an
endangered species (i.e., in danger of extinction). Therefore, on the
basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
determine endangered status for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is threatened or endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of this
species occur throughout its range and are not restricted to any
particular significant portion of its range. Accordingly, our
assessments and determinations apply to this species throughout its
entire range.
In conclusion, as described above, the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse has experienced significant reductions in populations (based on
habitat reductions and fragmentation), is especially vulnerable to
impacts due to its life history and ecology, and is subject to
significant current and ongoing threats now. After a review of the best
available scientific information as it relates to the status of the
subspecies and the five listing factors, we find the New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse is in danger of extinction now. Therefore, on the basis
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we
determine endangered status for New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, in
accordance with section 3(6) of the Act. We find that a threatened
species status is not appropriate for the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse because the overall risk of extinction is high at this time
because none of the existing populations are sufficiently resilient to
support viable populations, and this subspecies is currently in danger
of extinction.
Available Conservation Measures
Regulations at 50 CFR 424.18 require final rules to include a
description of conservation measures available under the rule.
Following is an explanation of the measures which may be implemented
for the conservation of the jumping mouse under this final rule.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species 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 by Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery
tasks. Recovery teams (comprising species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the draft
recovery plan and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web
site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our New Mexico Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We have
completed a Recovery Outline that provides an interim strategy to guide
the conservation and recovery of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse
until a final recovery plan is finalized. The Recovery Outline is based
on the SSA Report, as well as preliminary objectives and actions needed
for recovery. The Recovery Outline can be downloaded at: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm, https://www.fws.gov/endangered, or https://www.regulations.gov.
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribe, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and
private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may not occur primarily or solely on
non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Because this subspecies is listed as endangered, funding for
recovery actions will be available from a variety
[[Page 33136]]
of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of
the Act, the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection and recovery of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for this subspecies. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
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 designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 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 consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include livestock
grazing, irrigation ditch maintenance and repair, recreational
activities associated with Federal agencies or State parks that may
affect habitat or the species; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, 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.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
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.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
Our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), is 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 a listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of listed species. The
following activities could potentially result in a violation of section
9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
(2) Unauthorized modification or manipulation of riparian habitat,
including mowing or prescribed burning of occupied habitats, especially
during the active season (generally May through October).
(3) Activities that take or harm the New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse on public or private lands by causing significant habitat
modification or degradation such that the activities cause actual
injury by significantly impairing the species' essential behavior
patterns, without authorization or coverage under the Act for these
impacts. This may include, but is not limited to, the alteration or
removal of specific microhabitat components (as described in this rule
or within the SSA Report) through new construction, livestock grazing,
or dredging or filling in streams or wetlands.
(4) Unauthorized modification of any stream or water body or
removal or destruction of herbaceous vegetation in any stream or water
body in which the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is known to occur.
(5) Unlawful destruction or alteration of New Mexico meadow jumping
mouse habitats (e.g., unpermitted instream dredging, impoundment, water
diversion or withdrawal, channelization, discharge of fill material)
that impairs essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering, or results in killing or injuring a New Mexico meadow
jumping mouse.
(6) Capture, survey, or collection of specimens of this taxon
without a permit from us under to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have 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 listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
[[Page 33137]]
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work
directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to
acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to
make information available to tribes.
References Cited
A complete list of references used in support of this rulemaking is
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov within the
Final SSA Report (Service 2014, Literature Cited) and upon request from
the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), add an entry for ``Mouse, New Mexico meadow
jumping'' in alphabetical order under Mammals to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
---------------------------------------------------------- population where When Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Mouse, New Mexico meadow jumping.. Zapus hudsonius U.S. (AZ, CO, NM).... Entire.............. E 838 NA NA
luteus.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: May 27, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-13094 Filed 6-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P