[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 2, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5404-5411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2020]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU12
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To Delist the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus
hudsonius preblei) and Proposed Delisting of the Preble's Meadow
Jumping Mouse
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding and proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5405]]
SUMMARY: We the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announce a 12-
month finding on a petition to delist the Preble's meadow jumping mouse
(Preble's) (Zapus hudsonius preblei) under the Endangered Species Act
(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). After reviewing the
best scientific and commercial information available, we find that the
petitioned action is warranted and propose to delist or remove Preble's
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We propose this
action based on a review of all available data, which indicate that
Preble's is not a discrete taxonomic entity, does not meet the
definition of a subspecies, and was listed in error. Before this
proposed action is finalized, the Service will conduct a status review
and evaluate threats to the combined Z. h. campestris entity in all or
a significant portion of its range. We will also analyze whether the
Preble's portion of Z. h. campestris qualifies as a Distinct Population
Segment in need of protection. We seek comments from the public
regarding this proposal.
DATES: We will consider comments on this notice and proposed rule
received until the close of business on May 3, 2005. Requests for
public hearings must be received by us on or before March 21, 2005.
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this notice and proposal by one of several
methods:
1. You may submit written comments to Field Supervisor, Colorado
Field Office, Ecological Services, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361,
Lakewood, Colorado 80215.
2. You may hand-deliver comments to our Colorado Field Office at
the above address or send via facsimile (fax: (303) 275-2371).
3. You may send comments via electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected]. See the Public Comments Solicited section below for file
format and other information about electronic filing.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this 12-month finding and
proposed rule, will be available for inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours, at the above address.
To request a public hearing, submit a request in writing to the
Colorado Field Office at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, at the
above address or telephone 303-275-2370.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Preble's was listed as threatened on May 13, 1998 (63 FR
26517). At the time of listing, the primary threat to Preble's was
habitat loss and degradation caused by agricultural, residential,
commercial, and industrial development. On December 23, 2003, we
received two petitions, from Coloradans for Water Conservation and
Development and the State of Wyoming's Office of the Governor, to
remove Preble's from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife and Plants pursuant to the Act. Both petitions maintain
Preble's should be delisted based on ``data error'' (i.e., subsequent
investigations show that the best scientific or commercial data
available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such
data, were in error) and ``taxonomic revision'' (i.e., Preble's is not
a valid subspecies). As explained in our 1996 Petition Management
Guidance (Service 1996), subsequent petitions are treated separately
only when they are greater in scope than, or broaden the area of review
of, the first petition. In this case, as both petitions were almost
identical, the State of Wyoming's petition was treated as a comment on
the first petition received.
On March 31, 2004, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal
Register that the petition presented substantial information to
indicate the petitioned action may be warranted (69 FR 16944). Section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that within 12 months after receiving a
petition to revise the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants that contains substantial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make one of the
following findings--(a) The petitioned action is not warranted; (b) the
petitioned action is warranted; or (c) the petitioned action is
warranted but precluded by pending proposals. Such 12-month findings
are to be published promptly in the Federal Register. In accordance
with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we have now completed a review of
the best available scientific and commercial information on the species
and have reached a determination that the petitioned action is
warranted. When the proposed action is warranted, it should be
accompanied by, or promptly followed by, a proposed rule to implement
the warranted action. In this case, we have combined the 12-month
finding and the proposed delisting rule into a single document.
General Species Information
Meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) are small rodents with long
tails, large hind feet, and long hind legs. The tail is bicolored,
lightly-furred, and typically twice as long as the body. Meadow jumping
mice have a distinct, dark, broad stripe on their backs that runs from
head to tail and is bordered on either side by gray to orange-brown
fur. The underside fur is white and very fine in texture. Total length
of an adult meadow jumping mouse is approximately 180 to 250
millimeters (mm) (7 to 10 inches (in)), with the tail comprising 108 to
155 mm (4 to 6 in) of that length (Krutzsch 1954, Fitzgerald et al.
1994).
Across its range, meadow jumping mice typically occur in moist
habitats, including low undergrowth consisting of grasses, forbs, or
both, in open wet meadows and riparian corridors, or where tall shrubs
and low trees provide adequate cover (Krutzsch 1954, Quimby 1951,
Armstrong 1972). Meadow jumping mice prefer lowlands with medium to
high moisture over drier uplands. Fitzgerald et al. (1994) described
meadow jumping mice as most common in wooded areas. Because adequate
herbaceous or grassy ground cover is essential for the species, meadow
jumping mice in the northern Great Plains are restricted primarily to
riparian habitats (Jones et al. 1983).
Meadow jumping mice are primarily nocturnal or crepuscular, but
also may be active during the day, when they have been seen moving
around or sitting under a shrub (Shenk 1998). These mice are nomadic,
and may roam up to 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 mile (mi)) in search of moist
habitat. Meadow jumping mice usually move in hops of about 3 to 15
centimeters (cm) (1 to 6 in), but are capable of taking a few long
jumps of 60 to 90 cm (2 to 3 feet). Meadow jumping mice, including
Preble's, are true hibernators. Preble's usually enter hibernation in
September or October and emerge the following May, after a potential
hibernation period of 7 or 8 months. Adult Preble's reach weights that
enable them to enter hibernation as early as the third week in August,
whereas young of the year typically enter hibernation in September and
October (Meaney et al. 2003).
Additional species information is available in the May 13, 1998,
final rule to list the Preble's as a threatened species (63 FR 26517)
and the June 23, 2003, final rule to designate critical habitat for the
Preble's (68 FR 37275).
[[Page 5406]]
Taxonomy
The Preble's is a member of the family Dipodidae (jumping mice)
(Holden 1992), which contains four extant genera. Two of these, Zapus
and Napaeozapus, are found in North America (Hall 1981, Wilson and Ruff
1999).
In his 1899 study of North American jumping mice, Edward A. Preble
concluded there were 10 species in the Zapus genus. According to
Preble, meadow jumping mice (Z. hudsonius) included five subspecies.
Preble classified all specimens of meadow jumping mice from the States
of North Dakota, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado,
and Missouri as Z. h. campestris.
Krutzsch (1954) revised the taxonomy of the genus after studying
morphological characteristics of 3,600 specimens of Zapus. This
revision recognized only 3 distinct species of jumping mice; the meadow
jumping mouse, the western jumping mouse (Z. princeps), and the Pacific
jumping mouse (Z. trinotatus), comprised of 11, 11, and 4 subspecies,
respectively. Krutzsch relegated the majority of species previously
recognized by Preble (1899) to subspecific status. Krutzsch based his
reduction in the number of distinct species on Mayr's (1942) species
concept, which defined species as actual or potential interbreeding
individuals or populations that are reproductively isolated from other
such groups. Mayr described a subspecies as a geographically localized
subdivision of the species, which differs genetically and taxonomically
(as illustrated by significant morphological characteristics) from
other subdivisions of the species.
Krutzsch retained the name Z. h. campestris, but restricted its use
to specimens from the Black Hills and Bear Lodge Mountains of
northeastern Wyoming, southwestern South Dakota, and adjacent
southeastern Montana. Individuals from North Dakota, and northwestern,
central, and eastern South Dakota were classified as the subspecies Z.
h. intermedius. Krutzsch described and named Z. h. preblei (Preble's)
as separate from Z. h. campestris (Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse)
based on 11 specimens (4 adult and 7 non-adult). Krutzsch stated that
although ``the specimens of Z. h. preblei are few, the differences
between this and neighboring named kinds is considerable.'' Krutzsch
also commented on the presence of physical habitat barriers and lack of
known intergradation between Preble's, known only from eastern Colorado
and southeastern Wyoming, and other identified subspecies of the meadow
jumping mouse ranging to the east and north. Among recognized
subspecies, Krutzsch found that Preble's most closely resembled the
Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse from northeastern Wyoming, but
summarized differences in coloration and skull characteristics.
Preble's was recognized as one of twelve subspecies of meadow jumping
mouse by Hafner et al. (1981).
Jones (1981) examined the morphology of 9,900 Zapus specimens from
across North America. Jones concluded that the Pacific jumping mouse
was not a valid taxon and suggested reducing the number of species in
the genus to two (the western jumping mouse and the meadow jumping
mouse). At the subspecific level, Jones concluded that there was ``no
evidence of any population of Zapus hudsonius being sufficiently
isolated or distinct to warrant subspecific status'' and ``No named
subspecies is geographically restricted by a barrier, with the possible
exception of Z. h. preblei.'' Jones made the statements above based on
the subspecies concept proposed by Whitaker (1970) which said--(1)
Subspecies must be divided by primary isolating mechanisms that stop or
significantly reduce gene flow; (2) in the absence of primary isolating
mechanisms, subspecies would still be capable of interbreeding; and (3)
the existence of primary isolating mechanisms can be inferred from the
genetic distinctness of subspecies, as evidenced by unique
characteristics. The conclusions reached by Jones have not been
incorporated into the formal taxonomy of the genus. These conclusions
were never published in a peer-reviewed journal; therefore, the
scientific community never formally assessed the validity of this work.
In a report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Riggs et al.
(1997) analyzed mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA) from tissue
samples of meadow jumping mice and western jumping mice from Colorado
and Wyoming and concluded that Preble's mice form a homogenous group
recognizably distinct from nearby populations of meadow jumping mice
and adjacent species of the genus. Hafner (1997) reviewed the Riggs
study, inspected Riggs' original sequence data, and agreed that
Preble's form a relatively homogenous group compared to neighboring
subspecies. Ramey et al. (2004) reviewed the Riggs study, and
criticized the methodology for not rigorously testing whether Preble's
formed a monophyletic group (i.e., a grouping of evolutionary lineages
that includes a common ancestor and all descendent lineages) and for
not providing statistical tests to support their conclusions.
Ramey et al. (2004) (a revision of Ramey et al. 2003 considered in
the 90-day finding) examined four lines of evidence to test the
taxonomic validity of the Preble's as described by Krutzsch (1954).
First, they performed a phylogenetic and population genetic analysis of
mtDNA sequence data, primarily from museum specimens of four subspecies
of meadow jumping mouse, including Preble's (58 specimens), the Bear
Lodge meadow jumping mouse (33 specimens), Zapus hudsonius luteus (32
specimens), and Z. h. pallidus (35 specimens). Ramey et al. used Z.
princeps princeps (7 specimens), Z. p. idahoensis (3 specimens), and Z.
p. utahensis (7 specimens) as the outgroup for the phylogenetic
analysis. An outgroup is an organism from a distantly related group
that shares a common ancestor with the group in question. Using an
analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA), Ramey et al. examined genetic
variation in a hierarchical fashion within and between Preble's and
Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. This comparison revealed most of the
genetic variation was within subspecies (64 percent) rather than among
these subspecies (37 percent). Additionally, they found that all 4
identified Preble's mtDNA haplotypes were included within the 16
identified Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse mtDNA haplotypes. However,
Ramey et al. also documented a high level of mtDNA variation
(nucleotide diversity) in Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse compared to
Preble's, ``making these subspecies seem more diverged than the shared
mtDNA haplotypes indicate.''
Ramey et al. (2004) believed these findings are consistent with a
founder effect. A founder effect is the establishment of a new
population by a few original founders that carry only a small fraction
of the total genetic variation of the parental population. A population
may be descended from a small number of ancestral individuals for two
reasons--(1) A small number of individuals may colonize a place
previously uninhabited by their species; or (2) an established
population may fluctuate in size such that a population passes through
a ``bottleneck'' in which only a few individuals survive, and later
expands again under more favorable conditions. Ramey et al. speculated
that there were population ``bottlenecks'' during southward
colonization into what is now Preble's range. Based on
[[Page 5407]]
their results and analysis, the authors concluded that Preble's is a
less genetically diverse population of Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse.
Second, Ramey et al. (2004) completed a morphometric analysis on
skull measurements of the Preble's and the Bear Lodge meadow jumping
mouse (testing the same nine skull measurements that Krutzsch (1954)
used to support his taxonomic assertions). Four repeated measurements
were taken with digital calipers and recorded to the nearest hundredth
of a millimeter as per Conner and Shenk (2003). Ramey et al. employed
the following criterion for testing distinguishability between
subspecies-->= 90 percent of specimens correctly classified at a
posterior probability of p> 0.95. Employing this method, the analysis
of Ramey et al. found no basis for the quantitative morphological skull
differences Krutzsch noted. While significant difference was observed
between the Preble's and the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse in three
of the nine skull measurements, two of these three differences did not
correspond to those Krutzsch described.
Third, Ramey et al. (2004) performed a critical review of
Krutzsch's qualitative description of Preble's as a subspecies. The
authors found that the skull shape and pelage differences noted by
Krutzsch (1954) had no quantitative basis and considered them
``unsupported opinion.''
Fourth, Ramey et al. (2004) discussed ecological distinctiveness as
an integral part of the species concept presented by Crandall et al.
(2000). Crandall et al. (2000) proposed a hypothesis-testing approach
describing management units based upon genetic and ecological
distinctiveness. Crandall et al. advocated that ecological differences
among populations can drive adaptive change that would not be detected
by molecular markers alone. Ramey et al. also examined the literature
for evidence of ecological differences between subspecies. They found
no published ecological evidence for discreteness between Preble's and
the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. Ramey et al. asserts that this
lack of published information supports his conclusion that these
subspecies should be synonymized.
Ramey et al. (2004) concluded that, based on the lack of genetic,
morphological, or published ecological evidence for genetic
distinctiveness between the Preble's and the Bear Lodge meadow jumping
mouse, these subspecies should be synonymized (considered the same
subspecies) as Zapus hudsonius campestris. This taxonomic revision has
not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and has not been
incorporated into the formal taxonomy of the genus.
Peer Review of Ramey et al. 2004
The Ramey et al. (2004) report has undergone peer review. The
Colorado Division of Wildlife solicited and received nine peer reviews
of this report and transmitted those reviews to the Service on April
24, 2004. We solicited additional peer reviews focused on specific
aspects of the report from seven scientists. In addition to the report,
the Service sent reviewers maps of the meadow jumping mouse range; the
May 13, 1998, final rule to list Preble's (63 FR 26517); and a November
5, 2003, working draft of a recovery plan for Preble's. Five peer
reviewers responded to Service questions and provided comments on the
study. Reviews from all 14 peer reviewers ranged from strong support of
the work, to pointed criticism of study design, data interpretation,
and conclusions. These reviews are available in their entirety at
http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/preble/. Because Ramey et al. 2004
remains unpublished, these peer reviews were crucial in our
consideration of what constitutes the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the taxonomy of this subspecies. A
summary of the peer reviews and other public comments follow below.
Of the 14 peer reviews, 5 supported the Ramey et al. (2004) study
and its conclusions (Robert Bradley, Texas Tech, in litt. 2004; Keith
Crandall, Brigham Young University, in litt. 2004; David Hafner, New
Mexico Museum of Natural History, in litt. 2004; Brett Riddle,
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in litt. 2004; Lisette Waits,
University of Idaho, in litt. 2004), 3 leaned toward support of the
study and its conclusions (Carron Meaney, Meaney and Associates,
Boulder, Colorado, in litt. 2004; Jeffry Mitton, University of
Colorado, Boulder, in litt. 2004; Jack Sites, Brigham Young University,
in litt. 2004), and 6 were generally critical of the study or skeptical
of its conclusions (David Armstrong, University of Colorado, Boulder,
in litt. 2004; Mary Ashley, University of Illinois at Chicago, in litt.
2004; Mary Conner, Utah State University, in litt. 2004; Marlis
Douglas, Colorado State University, in litt. 2004; Sara Oyler-McCance,
University of Denver and the Rocky Mountain Center for Conservation
Genetics and Systematics, in litt. 2004; Gary White, Colorado State
University, in litt. 2004). However, some of these peer reviewers were
also supportive of portions of the study.
Those who supported the conclusions of Ramey et al. (2004)
generally accepted most aspects of the report. Bradley (in litt. 2004)
wrote that Ramey et al. was an ``excellent piece of work'' on a
controversial issue and particularly liked the study design intended to
test a series of hypotheses. Bradley thought that the morphological and
mtDNA analyses are convincing in that the two taxa actually represent a
single taxon. Crandall (in litt. 2004) believed appropriate markers and
methods were used and that the conclusions were ``right on''; he found
the study impressive in its inclusion of both genetic and morphometric
data coupled with an evaluation of previous work. Crandall thought the
conclusions are well founded and well supported by the data. Hafner (in
litt. 2004) noted that Ramey et al. employed appropriate methods,
markers, evidence, and interpretation to convincingly argue that
Preble's is not a valid subspecies, but that the synonymized entity
remains imperiled. Riddle (in litt. 2004) thought that the data
supported a lack of substantial morphological, ecological, and
molecular differentiation between these two subspecies. Riddle thought
this was a common outcome of molecular analyses of taxonomic subspecies
within close geographic proximity, that are ecologically similar, and
appear to have no surmounting biogeographic obstacles to movements
across the landscape (from a historical perspective). While he did not
support retaining Preble's and Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse as
separate taxonomic units, Riddle was concerned for the conservation
status of the synonymized taxonomic unit. Waits (in litt. 2004)
believed that the authors provided convincing evidence for synonymizing
because the hypothesis testing did not reject the hypothesis that the
two are essentially the same morphologically and genetically. Meaney
(in litt. 2004) did not take a definitive position on the results or
conclusions of Ramey et al., but called the paper overall good science.
Mitton (in litt. 2004) noted that appropriate markers and methods were
used and suggested he would support the conclusions of Ramey et al. if
the grounds for the removal of certain specimens could be validated.
Jack Sites (Brigham Young University, in litt. 2004) viewed Ramey et
al. as tentative support for synonymizing and suggested synonymizing if
subsequent study validated their results.
Of the reviewers critical of the report, most felt its conclusion
that Preble's and the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse
[[Page 5408]]
should be synonymized went beyond the data presented. Armstrong (in
litt. 2004) saw the report as ``a small piece of the puzzle of
geographic variation in the meadow jumping mouse'' and suggested that
``a restricted, targeted investigation of this kind, laid out in an
unpublished report, is not an appropriate vehicle for a taxonomic
decision of the kind proposed.'' Ashley (in litt. 2004) suggested that
more data is needed to synonymize. Conner (in litt. 2004) thought that
ecological, behavioral, physiological, and geographic factors needed to
be included in any testing of Preble's taxonomy. Douglas (in litt.
2004) stated, ``Limitations of the data affect resolution of analysis
and thus render the results inconclusive'' and that ``the overall tone
of the manuscript lacks objectivity.'' Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004)
had `` no problem with the study itself except for some of the
conclusions made by the authors,'' and did not feel that this study
resolves the taxonomic question. Regarding the report's conclusion,
White (in litt. 2004) stated, `` the report should conclude that no
differences were detected given the measurements conducted, and should
not jump to the unfounded conclusion that the two subspecies are
identical.''
Several reviewers discussed the use of mtDNA to delineate valid
subspecies used by Ramey et al. (2004). For example, Douglas (in litt.
2004) noted that a timespan of greater than 10,000 years is the limit
for mtDNA resolution and that taxa more recently diverged would be
difficult to detect via mtDNA analysis. Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004)
noted that the genetic data gathered by Ramey et al. is from only one
locus, and that this locus represents only the maternal history, which
could very well differ from other genetic material of the subspecies.
Oyler-McCance, Sites (in litt. 2004) and Riddle discussed the potential
for introgression of Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse mtDNA on the
Preble's nuclear background, but Riddle thought it unlikely to have
happened simultaneously across the entire range of Preble's, given the
generally fragmented nature of Preble's populations.
Another issue bought up by several reviewers was use of ``ancient
DNA'' from museum specimens. Ramey et al. (2004) noted that since
museum collections are accessible for future scientific research,
reliance on museum specimens means the study is repeatable. Douglas (in
litt. 2004) noted that the use of museum specimens allows for specimens
to be obtained from a large geographic area and for a study to be
completed in short order. However, Douglas also detailed numerous
problems with the use of ancient DNA such as the quality of DNA
extracted from museum specimens is often inferior, making amplification
difficult or the contamination of high-quality DNA from other samples
possible.
Another issue associated with the use of ancient DNA is the size of
DNA fragments (i.e., the number of base pairs). Ramey et al. (2004)
analyzed 355 base pairs of sequence data. Douglas (in litt. 2004) noted
that this is a marginal data set for population level analyses; as a
general rule, at least 1,000 base pairs should be evaluated to
substantiate findings and make results conclusive. Although a larger
number of base pairs is desirable (Courtney et al. 2004), mtDNA studies
often utilize less than 1,000 base pairs (Riggs et al. 1997; Haig et
al. 2004).
Other issues were brought up by the reviewers. Douglas (in litt.
2004) also questioned the use of western jumping mouse as Ramey et
al.'s outgroup. Several reviewers discussed Ramey et al.'s removal of a
number of specimens from their study and suggested their presumed
identities be verified through further testing (Armstrong in litt.
2004; Douglas in litt. 2004; Mitton in litt. 2004; Hafner in litt.
2004). Ashley (in litt. 2004), Oyler-McCance (in litt. 2004), and
Douglas (in litt. 2004) questioned Ramey et al.'s reliance on an AMOVA
to evaluate variation within and among groups. Specifically, the
standard for a subspecies employed by Ramey et al. requires greater
diversity among accepted subspecies than within them. Ashley (in litt.
2004) also questioned the use of variation within and among groups as a
``very strict criterion'' to judge a subspecies'' validity, and
suggested that based on haplotype frequencies the two subspecies are
``genetically quite distinct.''
A number of the reviewers detailed the strengths and the weaknesses
of the morphological portion of the analysis performed in Ramey et al.
(2004). For example, Meaney (in litt. 2004) found that the morphometric
data and analysis appear solid. Ashley (in litt. 2004) and Sites (in
litt. 2004) noted Ramey et al.'s strongest case for synonymizing comes
from the morphological aspects of the report, rather than the genetics
analysis.
Many of the reviewers, such as Waits (in litt. 2004), Meaney (in
litt. 2004) and Riddle (in litt. 2004) discussed the conclusion by
Ramey et al. (2004) regarding ecological discreteness. Ashley (in litt.
2004), Conner (in litt. 2004), Douglas (in litt. 2004), and Oyler-
McCance (in litt. 2004) said it was not clear that there had been any
evaluation of ecological difference and noted that the authors gave no
references, making it difficult to judge how thoroughly they looked.
Conner and Oyler-McCance also questioned what variables were compared.
In Crandall's view (in litt. 2004), clear ecological differences over
evolutionary time would result in morphologic differences; as none were
found, a lack of ecological differences can be inferred. Overall,
Crandall and Mitton (in litt. 2004) agreed with Ramey et al. (2004)
that there did not appear to be clear ecological distinctions between
Preble's and closely related taxa that justify conservation for
Preble's.
Other Public Comments
On March 31, 2004, we published a notice in the Federal Register
(69 FR 16944) that the petition received on December 17, 2003, to
delist Preble's presented substantial information to indicate the
petitioned action may be warranted. As part of this Notice, we
requested information on the genetic and taxonomic classification of
Preble's, the abundance and distribution of the subspecies, and the
threats faced by Preble's in relation to the five listing factors (as
defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act). In response, we received nine
letters containing comments and information from government agencies
(Colorado Department of Natural Resources, El Paso Board of County
Commissioners, Douglas County Open Space and Natural Resources),
organizations (Colorado Farm Bureau, Center for Native Ecosystems,
Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development), and individuals. As
noted above, 14 peer reviews of Ramey et al. 2004a were received and
considered. For a full discussion of this issue, read the Peer Review
section of this notice above.
Colorado Department of Natural Resources called for the immediate
delisting of the Preble's based on genetic studies by Ramey et al.
(2004a) and increases in known occurrence. They contended that
essential conservation efforts to protect the Preble's in Colorado
would be carried on by State and local governments regardless of
Federal listing status. They also provided extensive documentation of
State and county efforts to conserve habitats within the Preble's range
in Colorado.
The El Paso County Board of County Commissioners supported
delisting, described their efforts toward development of a regional
Habitat Conservation Plan, and suggested that a decision to delist
would save the county and its citizens time and money. The Douglas
County Division of Open Space
[[Page 5409]]
and Natural Resources described habitat conditions and conservation
measures employed in Douglas County, and commented that Douglas County
populations should not be considered a distinct population segment of
wider jumping mouse distribution.
In a single letter representing their combined comments, the Center
for Native Ecosystems, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Native
Ecosystem Council, and Forest Guardians opposed delisting of the
Preble's. They discussed abundance and distribution of Preble's,
genetics and taxonomic classification, threats to Preble's, and the
status of the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. The Colorado Farm Bureau
supported delisting of Preble's and commented on the lack of threats to
Preble's from agricultural activities. The Coloradans for Water
Conservation and Development, one of the petitioners, provided comments
that largely paralleled the contentions made in their petition. Three
private individuals provided comments--One contending that delisting
based on available genetic studies was premature; one largely
criticizing the original listing; and one discussing threats to
Preble's in the broader context of human impacts to the environment.
Petition Finding
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information regarding the taxonomy and biology of this species. We
reviewed the petition and associated documents, information available
in our files, and other published and unpublished information submitted
to us during the public comment period following our 90-day petition
finding. We reviewed new data and other information on the genetics,
taxonomy, life history, ecology, status, and existing threats to
Preble's.
At this time, we view Ramey et al. (2004) as the best scientific
and commercial information available regarding the taxonomy of the
Preble's and Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. Within the next year, the
Service expects additional genetics information (i.e., nuclear DNA
results) that will verify (or refute) the conclusions of Ramey et al.
The peer reviews of the report suggested a majority (8 out of 14)
either support or lean toward supporting the taxonomic conclusions of
Ramey et al. (2004). Therefore, on the basis of the lack of distinct
genetic and morphologic differences between the two putative
subspecies, we conclude that Preble's is likely not a valid subspecies
of meadow jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius). Based on the above
conclusion, we find that the petitioned action is warranted because the
original listing of Preble's as a subspecies of meadow jumping mouse
was in error. Accordingly, we propose to delist or remove Preble's from
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 50 CFR 17.11.
The Service will evaluate threats to the combined entity (Zapus
hudsonius campestris) in all or a significant portion of its range
before this rule is finalized. This finding and proposed rule do not
attempt to analyze threats to the combined entity, Z. h. campestris. We
are initiating a status review and will analyze the threats to the
species in the final rule. Finally, as discussed in the 90-day finding
(69 FR 16944), the Service will analyze whether the Preble's portion of
Z. h. campestris qualifies as a Distinct Population Segment in need of
protection before this rule is finalized.
At this time, the Service is seeking additional information to
perform this analysis. We currently have only limited information
regarding the distribution, life history, ecology, and habitat of Bear
Lodge meadow jumping mouse portion of Z. h. campestris, and no
information regarding its abundance or population trends. While we have
some information regarding land management and habitat conditions in
the Black Hills, we lack information connecting these habitat
conditions to population effects. Therefore, we are seeking additional
information and data on meadow jumping mouse in the vicinity of the
Black Hills. More detail of what is sought is outlined in the Public
Comments Solicited section of this proposed notice and rule.
In making this determination we have followed the procedures set
forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the
listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424).
Effects of the Rule
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) The
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species, and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in
accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a
determination by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior
(Secretary) that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures
needed to bring the species to the point at which listing under the Act
is no longer necessary.
Critical habitat was designated for the Preble's on June 23, 2003
(68 FR 37275). The designation included eight habitat units totaling
approximately 12,632 hectares (31,222 acres) found along 578.1 km
(359.2 mi) of rivers and streams in eastern Colorado and in
southeastern Wyoming. The designation includes river and stream reaches
and adjacent areas in the North Platte River and South Platte River
drainages. By removing the Preble's from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, this proposal, if finalized, will eliminate all
currently designated critical habitat for the species.
Special Regulations Under Section 4(d)
Section 9 of the Act prohibits take of endangered wildlife. The Act
defines take to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
However, the Act also provides for the authorization of take and
exceptions to the take prohibitions. Take of listed species by non-
Federal property owners can be permitted through the process set forth
in section 10 of the Act. For federally funded or permitted activities,
take of listed species may be allowed through the consultation process
of section 7 of the Act. While section 9 of the Act establishes
prohibitions applicable to endangered species, the Service has issued
regulations (50 CFR 17.31) applying those same prohibitions to
threatened wildlife. These regulations may be tailored for a particular
threatened species through promulgation of a special rule under section
4(d) of the Act. When a special rule has been established for a
threatened species, the general regulations for some section 9
prohibitions do not apply to that species, and the special rule
contains the prohibitions, and exemptions, necessary and advisable to
conserve that species.
On May 22, 2001, the Service adopted special regulations governing
take of the threatened Preble's (66 FR 28125). The special regulations
provide exemption from take provisions under section 9 of the Act for
certain activities related to rodent control, ongoing agricultural
activities, landscape maintenance, and existing uses of water. On
October 1, 2002, the Service amended those regulations to provide
exemptions for
[[Page 5410]]
certain activities related to noxious weed control and ongoing ditch
maintenance activities (67 FR 61531). On February 24, 2004, the Service
proposed permanent extension of the amended special regulations (69 FR
8359). On May 20, 2004, the Service extended the special regulations
permanently (69 FR 29101). The current special regulations at 50 CFR
17.40(l) will be eliminated by this proposal, if finalized, because
Preble's will no longer be protected by the Act.
Future Conservation Measures
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to monitor a species for at
least 5 years after it is delisted based on recovery. Because Preble's
is being delisted due to new information that demonstrates that the
original classification was in error, rather than due to recovery, the
Act does not require us to monitor this animal species following its
delisting.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule. Generally, we seek information,
data, and comments concerning the taxonomic classification and
conservation status of Preble's and Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse.
More specifically, we seek data from any systematic surveys for Bear
Lodge meadow jumping mouse, as well as any studies that may show
population size or trends. We request quantitative information
regarding the life history, ecology, and habitat use of Bear Lodge
meadow jumping mouse, as well as information regarding the
applicability of information relevant to other subspecies. We solicit
information on the threats faced by the Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse
and Preble's in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act). We seek information regarding the effects
of current land management on population distribution and abundance of
Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. And finally, we seek information
regarding the possibility of contact and interaction between Bear Lodge
meadow jumping mouse and adjacent subspecies of meadow jumping mouse
(i.e., Zapus hudsonius intermedius and Z. h. pallidus) or other
information informing a Distinct Population Segment analysis.
Submit comments as indicated under ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit
comments by e-mail, please avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in
your e-mail message.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name or address,
you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment.
However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all
submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and other information received, as well as supporting
information used to write this rule, will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address. In making a final decision on this proposal, we will take into
consideration the comments and any additional information we receive.
Such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs from
this proposal.
Public Hearing
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of
publication of the proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and
addressed to the Field Supervisor, Colorado Field Office, Ecological
Services, 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361, Lakewood, Colorado 80215.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists for peer review of this
proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that decisions
are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We
will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately
following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite peer
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed delisting of this
species. We will summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final
decision document, and we will consider their input as part of our
process of making a final decision on the proposal.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320,
which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), require that interested members of the public and
affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on agency information
collection and recordkeeping activities (5 CFR 1320.8(d)). The OMB
regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of information as
the obtaining of information by or for an agency by means of identical
questions posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or
disclosure requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons. Furthermore, 5
CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or more persons'' refers to the
persons to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency
within any 12-month period. This rule does not include any collections
of information that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this determination
was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244).
References
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Colorado Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
[[Page 5411]]
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entry for ``Mouse,
Preble's meadow jumping'' under ``Mammals'' from the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife.
Sec. 17.40 [Amended]
3. Section 17.40 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(l).
Sec. 17.95 [Amended]
4. Section 17.95(a) is amended by removing the entry for critical
habitat for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius
preblei).
Dated: January 28, 2005.
Marshall P. Jones Jr.,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-2020 Filed 1-31-05; 10:56 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P