Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei, 52066-52107 [E9-24113]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 194 (Thursday, October 8, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52066-52107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24113]



[[Page 52065]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat 
for the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in 
Colorado; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 52066]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R6-ES-2009-0013] [92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AW45


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical 
Habitat for the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) 
in Colorado

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
revise designated critical habitat for the Preble's meadow jumping 
mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei) in Colorado, where it is listed as 
threatened in a significant portion of the range (SPR) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The proposed revised 
critical habitat is located in Boulder, Broomfield, Douglas, El Paso, 
Jefferson, Larimer and Teller Counties in Colorado. Approximately 418 
miles (mi) (674 kilometers (km)) of rivers and streams and 39,142 acres 
(ac) (15,840 hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries of the proposed 
revised designation. The proposed revised designation would therefore 
add 184 mi (298 km) of rivers and streams and 18,462 ac (7,472 ha) to 
the existing critical habitat designation of 234 mi (376 km) and 20,680 
ac (8,368 ha).

DATES: To ensure that we are able to consider your comments and 
information, we request that you provide them to us by December 7, 
2009. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the 
address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by 
November 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
https://www.regulations.govto comment on FWS-R6-ES-2009-0013, which is 
the docket number for this rulemaking.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: [FWS-R6-ES-2009-0013]; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, 
Colorado Ecological Services Office; mailing address P.O. Box 25486, 
DFC (MS 65412), Denver, CO 80225; telephone 303-236-4773; located at 
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 670, Lakewood, CO. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not revise the designation 
of specific habitat as ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    (2) Specific information on:
     The amount and distribution of Preble's meadow jumping 
mouse (PMJM) habitat in Colorado,
     Areas occupied at the time of listing and that contain 
features essential for the conservation of the species that we should 
include in the revised designation and why,
     Areas not containing features essential for the 
conservation of the species and why,
     Areas not occupied at the time of listing that are 
essential to the conservation of the species and why, and
     Areas that require special management consideration and 
protection and why.
    (3) Comments or information that may assist us with identifying or 
clarifying the primary constituent elements (see section below on 
Primary Constituent Elements).
    (4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
areas proposed as revised critical habitat and their possible impacts 
on revised critical habitat.
    (5) How the proposed boundaries of the revised critical habitat 
could be refined to more closely circumscribe the riparian and adjacent 
upland habitats occupied by the Preble's meadow jumping mouse.
    (6) Whether our proposed revised designation should be altered in 
any way to account for the effects of climate change and why.
    (7) Whether any specific areas being proposed as revised critical 
habitat should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the 
final designation, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any particular area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are specifically seeking comments from 
the public on the following lands: those covered by the Douglas County 
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (Service 2006a) and the potential 
modification of outward boundaries of proposed critical habitat to 
conform to Douglas County's Riparian Conservation Zones (RCZs) 
(streams, adjacent floodplains, and nearby uplands likely to be used as 
habitat by the PMJM) as mapped for the Douglas County HCP; lands within 
the Livermore Area HCP (Service 2006b), the Larimer County's Eagle's 
Nest Open Space HCP (Service 2004b), the Denver Water HCP (Service 
2003b), the Struther's Ranch HCP (Service 2003c), and other HCPs; lands 
within El Paso County (because the county is currently developing a 
countywide HCP); lands within the proposed Seaman Reservoir expansion 
footprint; and, lands within the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 
(NWR).
    (8) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed revised designation and, in 
particular, any impacts on small entities, and the benefits of 
including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
    (9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
revised critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public 
concerns and comments.
    We will revise the economic analysis and environmental assessment 
that were prepared for the previous designation, and we will provide 
drafts of the new economic analysis and environmental assessment to the 
public for review and comment before finalizing this proposal.
    Based on the public comments, we may find, during the development 
of the final rule, that areas proposed are not essential to the 
conservation of the species, are appropriate for exclusion under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion. In 
all of these cases, this information will be incorporated into the 
final revised designation. Further, we may find, as a result of public 
comments, that areas not proposed also should be designated as revised 
critical habitat. Final management plans that address the conservation 
of the PMJM must be submitted to us during the public comment period so 
that we can take

[[Page 52067]]

them into consideration when making our final critical habitat 
determination.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire 
comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted 
on the website. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal 
identifying information, you may request at the top of your document 
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we 
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all 
hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    We intend to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the 
designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For additional 
information on the biology of this subspecies, see the May 13, 1998, 
final rule to list the PMJM as threatened (63 FR 26517); the June 23, 
2003, final rule designating critical habitat for the PMJM (68 FR 
37275); and the July 10, 2008, final rule to amend the listing for the 
PMJM to specify over what portion of its range the subspecies is 
threatened (73 FR 39789).

Species Description

    The PMJM is recognized as 1 of 12 subspecies of meadow jumping 
mouse (Zapus hudsonius), a species that ranges from the Pacific Coast 
of Alaska to the Atlantic Coast and from the northern limit of forests 
south to New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Georgia (Hafner et al. 1981, p. 501; 
Hall 1981, p. 843; Krutzsch 1954, pp. 420-421). Meadow jumping mice are 
small rodents with long tails, large hind feet, and long hind legs. 
Total length of an adult is approximately 7 to 10 inches (187 to 255 
millimeters), with the tail comprising 4 to 6 inches (108 to 155 
millimeters) of that length (Krutzsch 1954, p. 420; Fitzgerald et al. 
1994, p. 291). The large hind feet can be one-third again as large as 
those of other mice of similar size. The PMJM has a distinct, dark, 
broad stripe on its back that runs from head to tail and is bordered on 
either side by gray to orange-brown fur. The hair on the back of all 
jumping mice appears coarse compared to other mice. The underside hair 
is white and much finer in texture. The tail is bicolored and sparsely 
furred.

Geographic Range

    The PMJM is found along the foothills in southeastern Wyoming, 
southward along the eastern edge of the Front Range of Colorado to 
Colorado Springs in El Paso County (Hall 1981, p. 844; Clark and 
Stromberg 1987, pp. 184-188; Fitzgerald et al. 1994, pp. 291-293; 
Clippenger 2002, pp. 14-15, 20). Knowledge about the current 
distribution of the PMJM comes from collected specimens and live-
trapping locations from both range-wide survey efforts and numerous 
site-specific survey efforts conducted in Wyoming and Colorado since 
the mid-1990s.
    In Colorado, the distribution of the PMJM forms a band along the 
Front Range from Wyoming southward to Colorado Springs, with eastern 
marginal captures in western Weld County, western Elbert County, and 
north-central El Paso County.
    The semi-arid climate in eastern Colorado limits the extent of 
riparian corridors and restricts the range of the PMJM in this region. 
The PMJM has not been found on the extreme eastern plains in Colorado. 
The eastern boundary for the subspecies is likely defined by the dry 
shortgrass prairie, which may present a barrier to eastward expansion 
(Beauvais 2001, p. 3).
    The western boundary of the PMJM's range in Colorado appears 
related to elevation along the Front Range. We use 7,600 feet (ft) 
(2,317 meters (m)) in elevation as the general upper limit of the 
PMJM's habitat in Colorado (Service 2004a, p. 5). The western jumping 
mouse (Zapus princeps), a separate species from the PMJM, is similar in 
appearance and can easily be confused with the PMJM. The range of the 
western jumping mouse in Colorado is generally west of, and at higher 
elevations than, the range of the PMJM. However, the two species appear 
to coexist over portions of their range in the Front Range of Colorado 
(Bohan et al. 2005; Schorr et al., 2007). Recent morphological 
examination of specimens has confirmed the PMJM to an elevation of 
approximately 7,600 ft (2,317 m) in Colorado (Bohan et al., 2005) and 
to 7,750 ft (2,360 m) in southeastern Wyoming (Service 2009). For a 
discussion of the difficulties of differentiating between the PMJM and 
the western jumping mouse see our July 10, 2008, final rule to amend 
the listing for the PMJM (73 FR 39789).
    Although there is little information on past distribution or 
abundance of the PMJM, surveys identified various locations where the 
subspecies was historically present but is now absent (Ryon 1996, pp. 
25-26). Since at least 1991, the PMJM has not been found in Denver, 
Adams, or Arapahoe Counties in Colorado. Its absence in these counties 
is likely due to urban development, which has altered, reduced, or 
eliminated riparian habitat (Compton and Hugie 1993, p. 22; Ryon 1996, 
pp. 29-30).

Ecology and Life History

    Much of the current knowledge regarding life history of the meadow 
jumping mouse comes from studies of the species in the eastern and 
midwestern United States. The meadow jumping mouse usually has two 
litters per year, with an average of five young born per litter (Quimby 
1951, p. 67; Whitaker 1963, p. 244). Research has not been conducted on 
the number or size of PMJM litters, but we assume that they are 
comparable to other subspecies of the meadow jumping mouse. The PMJM is 
a true hibernator, usually entering hibernation in September or October 
and emerging the following May, after a potential hibernation period of 
7 or 8 months (Whitaker 1963, p. 5; Meaney et al. 2003, pp. 618-619). 
Similar to other subspecies of meadow jumping mouse, the PMJM does not 
store food, but survives on fat stores accumulated prior to hibernation 
(Whitaker 1963, p. 241).
    Meadow jumping mice are primarily nocturnal or crepuscular (active 
during twilight), but also may be active during the day. Little is 
known about social interactions and their significance in the PMJM. 
While the PMJM's dispersal capabilities are thought to be limited, in 
one case a PMJM was documented moving as far as 0.7 mi (1.1 km) in 24 
hours (Ryon 1999, p. 12), and the PMJM is able to move miles along 
stream corridors over its lifetime (Schorr 2003, pp. 9-10).
    While fecal analyses have provided the best data on the PMJM's diet 
to date, they overestimate the components of the diet that are less 
digestible. Based on fecal analyses, the PMJM eats insects; fungus; 
moss; pollen; Salix (willow); Chenopodium sp. (lamb's quarters); 
Salsola sp. (Russian thistle); Helianthus spp. (sunflower); Carex spp. 
(sedge); Verbascum sp. (mullein); Bromus, Festuca, Poa, Sporobolus, and 
Agropyron spp. (grasses); Lesquerella sp. (bladderpod); Equisetum spp. 
(horsetail); and assorted seeds (Shenk and Eussen 1999, pp. 9, 11; 
Shenk and Sivert 1999a, pp. 10-11). The diet shifts seasonally; it 
consists primarily of insects and fungi after emerging from 
hibernation, shifts to fungi, moss, and pollen during mid-summer (July 
and August), with insects again added in September (Shenk and Sivert 
1999a, pp. 12-13). The shift in diet along with shifts in mouse 
movements suggests that the PMJM may require specific seasonal diets, 
perhaps related to the physiological constraints imposed by

[[Page 52068]]

hibernation (Shenk and Sivert 1999a, p. 14).
    The PMJM has a host of known predators, including the garter snake 
(Thamnophis spp.), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridus), bullfrog 
(Rana catesbiana), fox (Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon cinereoargenteus), 
house cat (Felis catus), long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), and red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) (Shenk and Sivert 1999a, p. 13; Schorr 
2001, p. 29). Other potential predators include coyote (Canis latrans), 
barn owl (Tyto alba), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), screech owl 
(Otus spp.), long-eared owl (Asio otus), northern harrier (Circus 
cyaneus), and large predatory fish. Mortality factors of the PMJM 
include drowning and being hit by vehicles (Schorr 2001, p. 29; Shenk 
and Sivert 1999a, p. 13). Introduced fauna that occupy riparian 
habitats may displace or compete with the PMJM. House mice (Mus 
musculus) were common in and adjacent to historic capture sites where 
the PMJM was no longer found (Ryon 1996, p. 26). Mortality factors 
known for the meadow jumping mouse, such as starvation, exposure, 
disease, and insufficient fat stores for hibernation (Whitaker 1963, 
pp. 225-228) also are likely causes of death in the PMJM subspecies.

Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse Habitat

    Typical habitat for the PMJM is comprised of well-developed 
riparian vegetation with adjacent, relatively undisturbed grassland 
communities and a nearby water source (Bakeman 1997, pp. 22-31, 47-48). 
The PMJM is typically captured in areas with multi-storied cover with 
an understory of grasses or forbs or a mixture thereof (Bakeman 1997, 
pp. 22-31, 28-30; Meaney et al. 1997, pp. 15-16; Shenk and Eussen 1999, 
pp. 9-11; Schorr 2001, pp. 23-24). The shrub canopy is often Salix 
spp., although other shrub species may occur (Shenk and Eussen 1999, 
pp. 9-11).
    Although the PMJM commonly uses riparian vegetation immediately 
adjacent to a stream, other features that provide habitat for the 
subspecies include seasonal streams (Bakeman 1997, p. 76), low moist 
areas and dry gulches (Shenk 2004), agricultural ditches (Meaney et al. 
2003, p. 620), and wet meadows and seeps near streams (Ryon 1996, p. 
29).
    White and Shenk (2000, pp. 7-8) determined that riparian shrub 
cover, tree cover, and the amount of open water nearby are good 
predictors of PMJM densities. Trainor et al. (2007, pp. 471-472) found 
that high-use areas for the PMJM tended to be close to creeks and were 
positively associated with the percentage of shrubs, grasses, and woody 
debris. Hydrologic regimes that support PMJM habitat range from large 
perennial rivers, such as the South Platte River, to small drainages 
only 3 to 10 ft (1 to 3 m) wide.
    Clippenger (2002, pp. 44-45) found that, in Colorado, subshrub 
cover and plant species richness are higher at most sites where meadow 
jumping mice are present when compared to sites where they are absent, 
particularly at distances of 49 to 82 ft (15 to 25 m) from streams. In 
a study comparing habitats at PMJM capture locations on the Rocky Flats 
NWR (formerly the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Rocky Flats 
Environmental Technology Site), Jefferson County, and the U.S. Air 
Force Academy (Academy) in El Paso County, the Academy sites had lower 
plant species richness at capture locations but considerably greater 
numbers of the PMJM (Schorr 2001, p. 26). However, the Academy sites 
had higher densities of both grasses and shrubs. It is likely that PMJM 
abundance is not driven by the diversity of plant species alone, but by 
the density and abundance of riparian vegetation (Schorr 2001, p. 26).
    The PMJM has rarely been trapped in uplands adjacent to riparian 
areas (Dharman 2001, pp. 19-20). However, in detailed studies of PMJM 
movement patterns using radio-telemetry, the PMJM has been found 
feeding and resting in adjacent uplands (Shenk and Sivert 1999a, pp. 
11-12; Ryon 1999, p. 12; Schorr 2001, pp. 14-15). These studies suggest 
that the PMJM uses uplands at least as far out as 330 ft (100 m) beyond 
the 100-year floodplain (Shenk and Sivert 1999b, p. 11; Ryon 1999, p. 
12; Schorr 2001, p. 14; Service 2003a, p. 26; Shenk 2004). These upland 
habitats also assist in maintaining the integrity of riparian habitats 
by protecting them from disturbance and supporting normal hydrological 
functions of rivers, streams, and floodplains.
    The PMJM constructs day nests composed of grasses, forbs, sedges, 
rushes, and other available plant material. They may be globular in 
shape or simply raised mats of litter and are most commonly above 
ground but also can be below ground. They are typically found under 
debris at the base of shrubs and trees or in open grasslands (Ryon 
2001, p. 377). An individual mouse can have multiple day nests in both 
riparian and grassland communities (Shenk and Sivert 1999a, pp. 10-12) 
and may abandon a nest after approximately a week of use (Ryon 2001, p. 
377).
    Apparent hibernacula (hibernation nests) of the PMJM have been 
located both within and outside of the 100-year floodplain of streams 
(Shenk and Sivert 1999a, pp. 12-13; Schorr 2001, pp. 14-15). Those 
hibernating outside of the 100-year floodplain would likely be less 
vulnerable to flood-related mortality. Fifteen apparent PMJM 
hibernacula have been located through radio-telemetry, all within 335 
ft (102 m) of a perennial stream bed or intermittent tributary (Shenk 
and Sivert 1999a, p. 12; Schorr 2001, p. 28; Ruggles et al. 2003, p. 
19). Apparent hibernacula have been located under Salix shrubs, Prunus 
virginiana (chokecherry), Symphoricarpos albus (snowberry), Rhus 
trilobata (skunkbrush), Rhus spp. (sumac), Clematis spp. (clematis), 
Populus spp. (cottonwood), Quercus gambelii (Gambel's oak), Cirsium 
spp. (thistle), and Alyssum spp. (alyssum) (Shenk and Sivert 1999a, pp. 
12-13). At the Academy, four of six apparent hibernacula found by 
radio-telemetry were located in close proximity to Salix exigua (coyote 
willow) (Schorr 2001, p. 28).
    Flooding is a common and natural event in the riparian systems in 
southeastern Wyoming and along the Front Range of Colorado. This 
periodic flooding helps create a dense vegetative community by 
stimulating resprouting from Salix shrubs, and allows herbs and grasses 
to take advantage of newly deposited soil. Fire is also a natural 
component of the Colorado Front Range, and PMJM habitat naturally waxes 
and wanes with fire events. Within shrubland and forest, intensive fire 
may result in adverse impacts to PMJM populations. However, in a review 
of the effects of grassland fires on small mammals, Kaufman et al. 
(1990, p. 55) found a positive effect of fire on the meadow jumping 
mouse in one study and no effect of fire on the species in another 
study.
    The tolerance of the PMJM for invasive exotic plant species is not 
well understood. Whether or not exotic plant species reduce PMJM 
persistence at a site may be due in large part to whether plants create 
a monoculture and replace native species. The Preble's Meadow Jumping 
Mouse Recovery Team (Recovery Team) was particularly concerned about 
nonnative species such as Euphorbia esula (leafy spurge) that may form 
a monoculture, displacing native vegetation and thus reducing available 
habitat (Service 2003a, p. 13).

Previous Federal Actions

    For information on previous Federal actions concerning the PMJM, 
refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on 
May 13, 1998 (63 FR 26517), the final rule designating

[[Page 52069]]

critical habitat for the PMJM in portions of Colorado and Wyoming 
published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37275), and 
the final rule to amend the listing for the PMJM to specify over what 
portion of its range the subspecies is threatened, published in the 
Federal Register on July 10, 2008 (73 FR 39789).
    On July 17, 2002, we proposed critical (67 FR 47154) and on June 
23, 2003, we published a final rule designating critical habitat for 
the PMJM. On August 22, 2003, the City of Greeley filed a complaint in 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado challenging our 
designation of critical habitat for the PMJM (City of Greeley, Colorado 
v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al., Case No. 03-CV-
01607-AP). On December 9, 2003, the Mountain States Legal Foundation 
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Wyoming challenging our 1998 listing of the PMJM and designation of 
critical habitat for the PMJM (Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Gale 
E. Norton et al., Case No. 03-cv-250-J) that was later expanded that 
complaint to include our 2008 final determination on the PMJM and 
transferred it to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado 
(Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Ken Salazar et al., Case No. 1:08-
cv-2775-JLK). These lawsuits challenged the validity of the information 
and reasoning we used to designate critical habitat for the PMJM.
    On July 20, 2007, we announced that we would review the June 23, 
2003, final rule designating critical habitat after questions were 
raised about the integrity of scientific information we used and 
whether the decision we made was consistent with the appropriate legal 
standards (Service 2007a). Based on our review of the previous critical 
habitat designation, we have determined that it is necessary to revise 
critical habitat, and this rule proposes those revisions.
    On July 10, 2008, we amended the final rule for the PMJM to specify 
over what portion of its range the subspecies is threatened (73 FR 
39789), and determined that the listing of the PMJM is limited to the 
Significant Portion of the Range (SPR) in Colorado. Upon that 
determination, all critical habitat designated in 2003 in the State of 
Wyoming was removed from the regulations of 50 CFR 17.95 for this 
species.
    On April 16, 2009, we reached a settlement agreement with the City 
of Greeley in which we agreed to reconsider our critical habitat 
designation for the PMJM. The settlement stipulated that we submit to 
the Federal Register a proposed rule for revised critical habitat by 
September 30, 2009, and a final rule for revised critical habitat by 
September 30, 2010 (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado 2009a). 
On June 16, 2009, an order was issued granting Mountain States Legal 
Foundation a motion to dismiss their claims on the 1998 listing and 
2008 final determination without prejudice, and stayed their challenge 
to the 2003 critical habitat designation pursuant to the City of 
Greeley settlement (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado 2009b).

Recovery Planning

    Restoring an endangered or threatened species to the point where it 
is recovered is a primary goal of our endangered species program. To 
help guide the recovery effort, we prepare recovery plans for listed 
species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions 
considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish 
criteria for downlisting or delisting the species, and estimate time 
and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.
    In early 2000, we established the Recovery Team under section 
4(f)(2) of the Act and our cooperative policy on recovery plan 
participation, a policy intended to involve stakeholders in recovery 
planning (59 FR 34272, July 1, 1994). Stakeholder involvement in the 
development of recovery plans helps minimize the social and economic 
impacts that could be associated with recovery of endangered species. 
Various stakeholders were represented on the Recovery Team, and other 
public participation (including oral comments at Recovery Team meetings 
and written comments on the early drafts of the recovery plan) took 
place. The Recovery Team prepared a series of drafts of a recovery plan 
for the PMJM. They identify the criteria for reaching recovery and 
delisting of the PMJM. Our June 23, 2003, final rule to designate 
critical habitat (68 FR 37275) cited the draft recovery plan dated 
March 11, 2003, which we refer to as the Working Draft (Prebles 
Recovery Team 2003). The 2003 rule and the conservation strategy that 
supported it were developed incorporating information from the Working 
Draft. We revised this Working Draft in November 2003 and released it 
to the public (https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/preble/Nov2003DraftRecoveryPlan.pdf). This version is hereafter 
referred to as the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan (or Plan) (Service 
2003a).
    For various reasons, primarily the prolonged evaluation undertaken 
in response to 2003 petitions to delist the PMJM, a draft recovery plan 
for the PMJM has not yet been finalized or issued for public comment. 
However, after inactivity from 2004 to 2009, the Recovery Team was 
reconvened and has initiated a review and update of the Preliminary 
Draft Recovery Plan. Recent Recovery Team review has largely reaffirmed 
the conservation strategies that were the basis of the Preliminary 
Draft Recovery Plan and that review is considered in this proposal. A 
draft recovery plan, once completed, will be published in the Federal 
Register, will be available for public comments, and will provide an 
additional venue for stakeholder and public participation.
    However, a final recovery plan is not a regulatory document 
(recovery plans are advisory documents because there are no specific 
protections, prohibitions, or requirements afforded to a species solely 
on the basis of a recovery plan) and does not obligate or commit 
parties to the actions or determination of the plans. Total disclosure 
and open communication with the public of our thoughts regarding 
possible future recovery scenarios are essential parts of recovery 
planning. Public review, peer review, and stakeholder involvement are 
also essential aspects of recovery planning, and are required by the 
Act and by Service policy. For these reasons, decisions we make in 
designation of critical habitat will not preclude determination or 
decisions in any aspect of recovery planning. Therefore, determinations 
of recovery strategies, criteria, or tasks within the recovery plan 
will not be limited by this proposed revision of critical habitat.

Summary of Proposed Changes to Previously Designated Critical Habitat

    The areas identified in this proposed rule constitute a proposed 
revision from the areas we designated as critical habitat for the PMJM 
on June 23, 2003 (68 FR 37275) and amended on July 10, 2008 (73 FR 
39789). This proposed rule addresses only the PMJM in the SPR in 
Colorado. The differences include the following:
    (1) We propose to include in critical habitat specific areas that 
were excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and that were identified 
in our 2003 critical habitat designation. The 2003 designation of 
critical habitat for the PMJM in the SPR in Colorado comprises 5 units 
totaling 234 mi (377 km) of stream corridors. This proposed revision 
includes 11 units comprising a total of 418 mi (674 km) of stream 
corridors currently considered essential to the

[[Page 52070]]

conservation of the PMJM. The six additional units (Cedar Creek, South 
Boulder Creek, Rocky Flats NWR, Cherry Creek, West Plum Creek, and 
Monument Creek) were all proposed as critical habitat in the same or 
similar form on July 17, 2002 (67 FR 47154), but were not included in 
the 2003 final designation.
    (2) We propose as critical habitat lands addressed in the Denver 
Water HCP (Service 2003b) that were excluded under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act in our 2003 final designation.
    (3) In Table 1, we provide a comparison between our 2003 final 
critical habitat designation and this proposed revised critical habitat 
rule.

 TABLE 1. Existing and Proposed Critical Habitat for the Preble's Meadow
                              Jumping Mouse
       by Stream Miles (Kilometers) and Acres (Hectares) per Unit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              UNIT                     EXISTING            PROPOSED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. N. Fork, Cache la Poudre       88 mi (142 km)      88 mi (142 km)
 River                            8,206 ac (3,321     8,619 ac (3,488
                                   ha)\*\.             ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cache la Poudre River          51 mi (82 km)       51mi (82 km)
                                  4,725 ac (1,912     4,944 ac (2,001
                                   ha)\*\.             ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Buckhorn Creek                 43 mi (69 km)\*\    46 mi (73 km)
                                  3,798 ac (1,537     3,995 ac (1,617
                                   ha)\*\.             ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Cedar Creek                    0                   8 mi (12 km)
                                                      668 ac (270 ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. South Boulder Creek            0                   8 mi (12 km)
                                                      856 ac (347 ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Rocky Flats NWR                0                   13 mi (20 km)
                                                      1,108 ac (449 ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Ralston Creek                  8 mi (13 km)\*\     9 mi (14 km)
                                  686 ac (277 ha)\*\  809 ac (328 ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Cherry Creek                   0                   30 mi (48 km)
                                                      2,647 ac (1,071
                                                       ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. West Plum Creek                0                   94 mi (151 km)
                                                      8,724 ac (3,530
                                                       ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Upper South Platte River      44 mi (71 km)\**\   35 mi (57 km)
                                  3,265 ac (1,321     3,353 ac ( 1,357
                                   ha)\*\.             ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Monument Creek                0                   39 mi. (62 km)
                                                      3,419 ac (1,383
                                                       ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                             234 mi (377 km)     418 mi (674 km)
                                  20,680 ac (8,368    39,142 ac (15,840
                                   ha).                ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Changes from existing to proposed result only from corrected errors
  (imprecise measurements) from 2003 designated critical habitat totals.
** Changes from existing to proposed due to a significant error in 2003
  designated critical habitat totals.

    (4) The following is a list of the areas added or enlarged in this 
proposed revision to critical habitat designation as compared to our 
2003 critical habitat designation, and an explanation of why these 
areas are being considered.
    Unit 4: We proposed the Cedar Creek Unit as critical habitat in 
2002 based on presence of jumping mice thought to be the PMJM, but 
excluded it from final designation in 2003 due to lack of confirmed 
identification to species of those jumping mice captured. We now 
consider this unit occupied by the PMJM and are proposing it as 
critical habitat. This determination is based on the elevation (lower 
than 6,000 ft (1,829 m)) of jumping mouse captures and confirmation of 
the PMJM elsewhere in this subdrainage (Service 2009). It is consistent 
with our July 10, 2008, final rule to amend the listing for the PMJM 
(73 FR 39789).
    Units 5, 8, 9, and 11: We proposed these units as critical habitat 
in 2002 but excluded them from final designation in 2003 based on HCPs 
under development in Boulder, Douglas, and El Paso Counties. We propose 
these units as critical habitat in this rule and will review them for 
possible exclusion, where appropriate, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act 
for our final designation. This proposal includes small changes from 
the 2002 proposal to Units 9 and 11, and a more substantial change to 
Unit 8 based on reevaluation of certain stream reaches.
    Unit 6: We proposed this unit on Rocky Flats National Wildlife 
Refuge (NWR) as critical habitat in 2002 but excluded it from final 
designation in 2003 based on Federal ownership by the Department of 
Energy (DOE) and pending transfer of the site to the Service as Rocky 
Flats NWR. We propose this unit as critical habitat in this rule and 
will consider it for possible exclusion from our final designation 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Units 7 and 10: In our 2003 designation, we excluded small portions 
of these Units from critical habitat based on the Denver Water HCP 
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The portions we previously excluded 
we again propose as critical habitat. We will review these specific 
areas, along with other lands we proposed as critical habitat included 
in the Denver Water HCP, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act prior to our 
final designation.

[[Page 52071]]

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features:
    (a) essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) that may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any 
endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management, such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, transplantation, and (in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be 
relieved) regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7(a)(2) of the 
Act through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, 
funding, or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires consultation on 
Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of 
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation does not allow the government or public to access private 
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, 
recovery, or enhancement measures by private landowners. Where a 
landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an 
action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the 
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in 
the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the 
landowner's obligation is not to restore or recover the species, but to 
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
must contain physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may 
require special management considerations or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life 
cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary 
constituent elements (PCEs) laid out in the appropriate quantity and 
spatial arrangement essential to the conservation of the species). 
Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed as 
critical habitat only when we determine that those areas are essential 
for the conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Act (published 
in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines (Service 2007b) 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and guidance to ensure that our 
decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require 
our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use 
of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original 
sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate 
critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and 
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of 
critical habitat may not include all habitat areas that we may 
eventually determine are necessary for the recovery of the species, 
based on scientific data not now available. For these reasons, a 
critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the 
designated area is unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the 
species.
    Areas that support occurrences, whether they are inside or outside 
the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. 
They also are subject to the regulatory protections afforded by the 
section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the 
best available scientific information at the time of the agency action. 
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species, 
whether inside or outside designated critical habitat areas, may still 
result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, HCPs, or other species conservation planning 
efforts, if new information available to these planning efforts require 
a different outcome.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas occupied at 
the time of listing to propose as critical habitat, we consider the 
physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species to be the PCEs laid out in the appropriate quantity and 
spatial arrangement for conservation of the species. In general, PCEs 
include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the PCEs required for the PMJM from its biological needs. 
The area proposed for designation as revised critical habitat provides 
riparian and adjacent upland habitat for the PMJM, including those 
habitat components essential for the biological needs of reproduction, 
rearing of young, foraging, sheltering, hibernation, dispersal, and 
genetic exchange. The PMJM is able to live and reproduce in and near 
riparian areas located within grassland, shrubland, forest, and mixed 
vegetation

[[Page 52072]]

types where dense herbaceous or woody vegetation occurs near the ground 
level, where available open water normally exists during their active 
season, and where there are ample upland habitats of sufficient width 
and quality for foraging, hibernation, and refugia from catastrophic 
flooding events. While Salix (willow) in shrub form is a dominant 
component in many riparian habitats occupied by the PMJM, the structure 
of the vegetation appears more important to the PMJM than species 
composition (Schorr 2001, p. 26).
    The PCEs associated with the biological needs of dispersal and 
genetic exchange also are found in areas that provide connectivity or 
linkage between or within PMJM populations. These areas may not include 
the habitat components listed above and may have experienced 
substantial human alteration or disturbance.
    The dynamic ecological processes that create and maintain PMJM 
habitat also are important PCEs. Habitat components essential to the 
PMJM are found in and near those areas where past and present 
geomorphological and hydrological processes have shaped streams, 
rivers, and floodplains, and have created conditions that support 
appropriate vegetative communities. PMJM habitat is maintained over 
time along rivers and streams by a natural flooding regime (or one 
sufficiently corresponding to a natural regime) that periodically 
scours riparian vegetation; reworks stream channels, floodplains, and 
benches; and redistributes sediments such that a pattern of appropriate 
vegetation is present along river and stream edges, and throughout 
their floodplains. Periodic disturbance of riparian areas sets back 
succession and promotes dense, low-growing shrubs and lush herbaceous 
vegetation favorable to the PMJM. Where flows are controlled to 
preclude a natural pattern and other disturbance is limited, a less 
favorable mature successional stage of vegetation dominated by 
cottonwoods or other trees may develop. The long-term availability of 
habitat components favored by the PMJM also depends on plant succession 
and impacts of drought, fires, windstorms, herbivory, and other natural 
events. In some cases, these naturally occurring ecological processes 
are modified or are supplanted by human land uses that include 
manipulation of water flow and of vegetation.
    Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and 
ecology of the PMJM, and the requirements of the habitat to sustain the 
essential life history functions of the species, we have determined 
that the PCEs specific to the PMJM are:
    (1) Riparian corridors:
    (A) Formed and maintained by normal, dynamic, geomorphological, and 
hydrological processes that create and maintain river and stream 
channels, floodplains, and floodplain benches and promote patterns of 
vegetation favorable to the PMJM;
    (B) Containing dense, riparian vegetation consisting of grasses, 
forbs, or shrubs, or any combination thereof, in areas along rivers and 
streams that normally provide open water through the PMJM's active 
season; and
    (C) Including specific movement corridors that provide connectivity 
between and within populations. This may include river and stream 
reaches with minimal vegetative cover or that are armored for erosion 
control; travel ways beneath bridges, through culverts, along canals 
and ditches; and other areas that have experienced substantial human 
alteration or disturbance; and
    (2) Additional adjacent floodplain and upland habitat with limited 
human disturbance (including hayed fields, grazed pasture, other 
agricultural lands that are not plowed or disked regularly, areas that 
have been restored after past aggregate extraction, areas supporting 
recreational trails, and urban-wildland interfaces).
    Existing human-created features and structures within the 
boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, parking lots, 
other paved areas, manicured lawns, other urban and suburban landscaped 
areas, regularly plowed or disked agricultural areas, and other 
features not containing any of the PCEs would not be considered 
critical habitat if this proposal is adopted.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the occupied 
areas contain the physical and biological features that are essential 
to the conservation of the species, and whether these features may 
require special management considerations or protection.
    The area proposed for designation as revised critical habitat will 
require some level of management to address the current and future 
threats to the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the PMJM. In all proposed units, special management 
considerations or protection of the essential features may be required 
to provide for the sustained function of the riparian corridors on 
which the PMJM depends.
    The PMJM is closely associated with riparian ecosystems that are 
relatively narrow and represent a small percentage of the landscape. We 
consider the decline in the extent and quality of PMJM habitat to be 
the main factor threatening the subspecies (63 FR 26517, May 13, 1998; 
Hafner et al. 1998, pp. 121-123; Shenk 1998, pp. 24-27). Special 
management considerations and protection may be required to address the 
threats of habitat alteration, degradation, loss, and fragmentation 
resulting from urban development, flood control, water development, 
agriculture, and other human land uses that have adversely impacted 
PMJM populations. Habitat destruction may affect the PMJM directly or 
by destroying nest sites, food resources, and hibernation sites; by 
disrupting behavior; or by forming a barrier to movement.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    In this proposed designation of revised critical habitat we have 
identified specific areas that include only river and stream reaches, 
and their adjacent floodplains and uplands, that are within the known 
geographic and elevational range of the PMJM, that contain the features 
essential to the conservation of the PMJM. Further, the areas included 
in proposed critical habitat contain at least one of the requisite 
PCEs, and are currently occupied by the PMJM or provide crucial 
opportunities for connectivity to facilitate dispersal and genetic 
exchange.
    This proposed critical habitat designation identifies only the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the requisite PCEs that 
we have determined to be essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies. We determined that there are more areas currently occupied 
by the PMJM than are necessary to conserve the subspecies within the 
SPR in Colorado. We base this on the known occurrence and distribution 
of the PMJM (Service 2009) and upon the conservation strategy in the 
Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan, which indicates that when specified 
criteria are met for a subset of existing populations throughout the 
range of the PMJM, the subspecies can be delisted (Service 2003a, p. 
19). To recover the PMJM to the point where it can be delisted, the 
Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan identifies the need for a specified 
number, size, and distribution of wild, self-sustaining PMJM 
populations across the known range of the PMJM. On the basis of the 
above criteria, we have chosen a subset of the areas occupied by the 
PMJM within the SPR in Colorado

[[Page 52073]]

that have the physical and biological features essential to the PMJM 
for inclusion in the proposed critical habitat.
    We only consider including unoccupied areas within critical habitat 
designations if they are essential to the conservation of the species, 
and we determine that we cannot conserve the species by only including 
occupied areas in the critical habitat . Because we have determined 
that the conservation of the PMJM can be achieved through the 
designation of currently occupied lands, we find that no unoccupied 
areas are essential at this time. The subspecies was listed primarily 
due to the threat of impending development to the existing remaining 
habitat for the species within the Front Range of Colorado. We have 
determined that recovery of the subspecies can be achieved by 
protecting a subset of the currently occupied habitat from the threat 
of development. Recolonization of former parts of the range, while 
beneficial to the subspecies, is not currently believed to be necessary 
to conserve the species in the long-term.
    In selecting areas of proposed critical habitat, we made an effort 
to avoid developed areas that are not likely to contribute to PMJM 
conservation. Our mapping incorporates the best scientific information 
available, but is limited in scale by our technical capabilities and 
the time available to us in under our settlement agreement with the 
City of Greeley (U.S. District Court, District of Colorado 2009a).
Available Information
    Our June 23, 2003, final rule designating critical habitat for the 
PMJM (68 FR 37275) cited the March 11, 2003, Working Draft of a 
recovery plan for the PMJM (Preble's Recovery Team 2003) and the 
concepts described within the Working Draft as a source of the best 
scientific and commercial data available on the PMJM. For this 
proposal, we rely heavily on the information, concepts, and 
conservation recommendations contained in the Working Draft and the 
slightly modified Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan (Service 2003a), as 
well as the current efforts of the newly formed Recovery Team. We use 
these as a starting point for identifying those areas for inclusion in 
critical habitat that contain the requisite PCEs in the appropriate 
quantity and spatial arrangement that are essential for the 
conservation of the PMJM. The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan is based 
on the work of scientists and stakeholders who met regularly over a 
period of more than three years. The plan was developed by 
incorporating principles of conservation biology and all available 
knowledge regarding the PMJM. Recovery Team meetings were open to the 
public, and drafts of the Plan were discussed in public meetings held 
in Colorado and Wyoming. We forwarded a draft of the Preliminary Draft 
Recovery Plan to species experts for review and their comments 
(Armstrong 2003; Hafner 2003) were considered prior to the Preliminary 
Draft Recovery Plan being made available on the Service website.
    We also have incorporated all new information received since 2003, 
including:
     Data in reports submitted by researchers holding recovery 
permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act;
     Research published in peer-reviewed articles and presented 
in academic theses, agency reports, and unpublished data; and
     Various Geographic Information System (GIS) data layers 
and cover type information, including land ownership information, 
topographic information, locations of the PMJM obtained from radio-
collars, and locations of the PMJM confirmed to species via 
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis, morphological analysis, and other 
verified records.
    We received information from Federal, State, and local governmental 
agencies, and from academia and private organizations that have 
collected scientific data on the PMJM.
    The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan identifies specific criteria 
for reaching recovery and the delisting of the PMJM. An important 
change since our 2003 designation of critical habitat was the 2008 
final rule limiting the listing of the PMJM to the SPR in Colorado. The 
Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan identified areas as necessary for 
recovery throughout the range of the PMJM, including areas in Wyoming 
where the PMJM was listed at the time. Identified areas within the PMJM 
SPR in Colorado were based on the best available information and 
continue to reflect our best judgment of what we believe to be 
necessary for recovery. While elements of the Preliminary Draft 
Recovery Plan may change prior to finalization of a recovery plan, our 
recent review of the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan and the recent 
Recovery Team review leads us to conclude that the concepts described 
within it continue to represent the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding steps needed for the recovery of the PMJM.
    The Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan provides a review of 
conservation biology theory regarding population viability (Service 
2003a, p. 21). To recover the PMJM to the point where it can be 
delisted, the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan identifies the need for a 
specified number, size, and distribution of wild, self-sustaining PMJM 
populations across the known range of the PMJM. It defines large 
populations as maintaining 2,500 mice and usually including at least 50 
mi (80 km) of rivers and streams. It defines medium populations as 
maintaining 500 mice and usually including at least 10 mi (16 km) of 
rivers and streams. The average number of PMJM per stream mile was 
derived from site-specific studies and used to approximate minimum 
occupied stream miles required to support recovery populations of 
appropriate size (Service 2003a, p. 21).
    The distribution of these recovery populations is intended both to 
reduce the risk of multiple PMJM populations being negatively affected 
by natural or manmade events at any one time, and to preserve the 
existing genetic variation within the PMJM. The Preliminary Draft 
Recovery Plan states, ``species well-distributed across their 
historical range are less susceptible to extinction and more likely to 
reach recovery than species confined to a small portion of their 
range.'' The document also states that ``spreading the recovery 
populations across hydrologic units throughout the range of the 
subspecies also preserves the greatest amount of the remaining genetic 
variation, and may provide some genetic security to the range-wide 
population'' (Service 2003a, p. 20). The Preliminary Draft Recovery 
Plan emphasizes the value of retaining disjunct or peripheral 
populations that may be important to recovery (Lomolino and Channell 
1995, p. 481) and may have diverged genetically from more central 
populations due to isolation, genetic drift, and adaptation to local 
environments (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, pp. 754-755).
    While the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan addresses the entire 
range of the PMJM, the SPR in Colorado where the PMJM remains listed 
includes multiple subdrainages that are addressed individually in the 
Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan (Figure 1). Within Colorado, the Plan 
identifies recovery criteria for the two major river drainages where 
the PMJM occurs (the South Platte River drainage and the Arkansas River 
drainage), and for each subdrainage judged likely to support the PMJM. 
In some cases, the Plan identifies recovery criteria for subdrainages 
where limited trapping has not confirmed the presence of the PMJM. 
Boundaries of drainages and subdrainages have been mapped by the U.S. 
Geological Survey

[[Page 52074]]

(USGS). For the Preliminary Draft Recovery Plan, 8-digit hydrologic 
unit (HUC) boundaries were selected to define subdrainages. A total of 
13 HUCs in the SPR of PMJM in Colorado are identified in the Plan as 
occupied or potentially occupied by the PMJM. Ten are identified in the 
South Platte River drainage and three in the Arkansas River drainage.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08OC09.005

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 52075]]

    One issue recently reviewed by the Recovery Team was whether the 
conservation strategy that specified the number, size, and distribution 
of PMJM recovery populations in Colorado remained valid despite the 
removal of the Wyoming portion of PMJM's range from listing. In 
Colorado, the strategy is to establish at least three large populations 
and three medium populations spread over six subdrainages. Recovery of 
the PMJM would require these populations to be protected from threats. 
Additionally, the Plan suggests establishing at least three small 
populations or one medium population in seven other subdrainages, if 
the PMJM is present. Another issue raised was whether the strategy 
required modification based on DNA testing that revealed that the PMJM 
in northern and southern areas of the subspecies' range (Wyoming and 
Larimer County in Colorado vs. Douglas and El Paso Counties in 
Colorado) exhibited significant genetic differences (King et al. 2006, 
pp. 4337-4338). The Recovery Team concluded that the previous strategy 
adequately addresses recovery across the PMJM's range in Colorado 
(Jackson 2009). The Recovery Team noted that recovery populations were 
appropriately spread north and south of the Denver metropolitan area, 
which lies between northern and southern populations examined in the 
King et al. (2006) study (Jackson 2009).
Biological Factors
    Presence of the PMJM was determined based largely on the results of 
trapping surveys, the vast majority of which were conducted in the 11 
years since listing under the Act. Consistent with our July 10, 2008, 
final rule to amend the listing for the PMJM (73 FR 39789), 
subdrainages judged to be occupied by the PMJM in Colorado include 
those that: (1) Have recently been documented to support jumping mice 
identified by genetic or morphological examination as the PMJM; or (2) 
have recently been documented to support jumping mice not identified to 
species but occurring at elevations below 6,700 ft (2,050 m), where 
western jumping mice have infrequently been documented. In our July 17, 
2002, proposal (67 FR 47154) and our June 23, 2003, designation of 
critical habitat (68 FR 37275), we summarized trapping results and 
means of positive identification for each unit. We have limited 
discussion in this proposal. See our 2003 rule designating critical 
habitat and our 2008 final rule to amend the listing for the PMJM for 
more information on our determinations regarding presence of the PMJM 
in various subdrainages.
    Boundaries of some critical habitat units extend beyond capture 
locations only to include those reaches that we believe to be occupied 
by the PMJM based on the best scientific data available regarding 
capture sites, the known mobility of the PMJM, and the quality and 
continuity of habitat components along stream reaches. Where 
appropriate, we include details on the known status of the PMJM within 
specific subdrainages in the Proposed Revised Critical Habitat 
Designation section of this proposal.
    Despite numerous surveys, the PMJM has not been found in the Denver 
metropolitan area since well before its 1998 listing and is believed to 
be extirpated from much of the Front Range urban corridor as a result 
of extensive urban development. The area does not support the spatial 
arrangement and quantity of requisite PCEs to support PMJM populations, 
and, as a consequence, we have determined that this area does not 
contain the features essential to the conservation of the species. 
Therefore, this area is not included in this proposed critical habitat 
designation.
Additional Factors Considered
    Based on the draft recovery plan , we believe that we can achieve 
conservation of the PMJM with only a subset of areas currently occupied 
or containing essential features. To identify the specific subset of 
areas for inclusion in the proposed critical habitat, we considered 
several qualitative criteria in addition to the presence of the PCEs. 
These criteria were used to judge the current status, conservation 
needs, and probable persistence of the essential features and of PMJM 
populations in specific areas and included: (1) the quality, 
continuity, and extent of habitat components present; (2) the presence 
of lands devoted to conservation (either public lands such as parks, 
wildlife management areas, and dedicated open space, or private lands 
under conservation easements); and (3) the landscape context of the 
site, including the overall degree of current human disturbance and 
presence, and likelihood of future development based on local planning 
and zoning.
    Where possible, given all