[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33119-33137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13094]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0023; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY50


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Status for the New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse Throughout 
Its Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 
hudsonius luteus) found in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. The 
effect of this regulation will be to add this species to the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We have also determined that 
critical habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is prudent and 
determinable and will soon publish in the Federal Register our final 
designation of critical habitat for the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse.

DATES: This rule becomes effective July 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm, and http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0023. Comments and 
materials received, as well as some supporting documentation used in 
the preparation of this final rule, are available for public inspection 
at http://www.regulations.gov. Some supporting documentation is also 
available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm. All 
of the comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in 
this rulemaking are available by appointment, during normal business 
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological 
Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by 
telephone 505-346-2525; or by facsimile 505-346-2542.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 
2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505-346-2525; or by 
facsimile 505-346-2542. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species or 
subspecies may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered 
or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be 
completed by issuing a rule. On June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37363; 78 FR 
37328), we proposed to list the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse under 
the Act as an endangered species and proposed to designate critical 
habitat. We found that the species currently faces numerous threats of 
high magnitude, and, therefore, qualifies for listing, and we requested 
additional information and comments on the proposed listing. This final 
rule considers all comments received by peer reviewers, tribes, State 
agencies, Federal agencies, and the public regarding the proposed rule 
to list the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
    This rule will finalize the listing of the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse as endangered.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species based on any of 
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse meets the definition of an endangered species primarily 
because of the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural and manmade factors affecting 
its continued existence. Our consideration of these factors is 
described in section 5.1 ``Habitat Loss'' and section 5.3

[[Page 33120]]

``Protective Regulations'' of the SSA Report. The other two of the five 
factors are not contributing to the current status of the species. See 
section 5.2 ``Other Factors'' in the SSA Report for our consideration 
of these factors.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers 
to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and 
information received during the comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse (78 FR 37363, June 20, 2013) for a detailed description 
of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
    We determined that critical habitat for the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse is prudent and determinable and will soon publish in the 
Federal Register our final determination designating critical habitat 
for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.

Background

Species Information

    The Final New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse Species Status Assessment 
Report (SSA Report; Service 2014, entire), available online at 
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2013-0023, provides a 
thorough assessment of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse biology and 
natural history, and assesses demographic risks (such as small 
population sizes), threats, and limiting factors in the context of 
determining viability and risk of extinction for the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse. In the SSA Report, we compile biological data and a 
description of past, present, and likely future threats (causes and 
effects) facing the species. Because data in these areas of science are 
limited, some uncertainties are associated with this assessment. Where 
we have substantial uncertainty, we have attempted to make our 
necessary assumptions explicit in the SSA Report. We base our 
assumptions in these areas on the best available information. 
Importantly, the SSA Report does not represent a decision by the 
Service on whether this taxon should be listed as a threatened or 
endangered species under the Act. The SSA Report does however, provide 
the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decision (see Summary 
of Biological Status and Threats), which involves the application of 
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations, and Service 
policies (see Determination).

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    Our SSA Report documents the results of the comprehensive 
biological status review for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse and 
provides a thorough account of the species' overall viability and, 
conversely, extinction risk (Service 2014, entire). The SSA Report 
contains the data on which this final rule is based. The following is a 
summary of the results and conclusions from the SSA Report.
    The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is a small mammal whose 
historical distribution likely included riparian wetlands along streams 
in the Sangre de Cristo and San Juan Mountains from southern Colorado 
to central New Mexico, including the Jemez and Sacramento Mountains and 
the Rio Grande Valley from Espanola to Bosque del Apache National 
Wildlife Refuge, and into parts of the White Mountains in eastern 
Arizona.
    In conducting our status assessment we first considered what the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse needs to ensure viability. We generally 
define viability as the ability of the species to persist over the long 
term and, conversely, to avoid extinction. We next evaluated whether 
the identified needs of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse are 
currently available and the repercussions to the subspecies when 
provision of those needs is missing or diminished. We then consider the 
factors that are causing the species to lack what it needs, including 
historical, current, and future factors. Finally, considering the 
information reviewed, we evaluate the current status and future 
viability of the species in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation.
    Resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand stochastic 
events (arising from random factors such as drought, flooding, or 
wildfire) and, in the case of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, is 
best measured by habitat size. Redundancy is the ability of a species 
to withstand catastrophic events within part of its range, and can be 
provided by the duplication and distribution of resilient populations 
across the range of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Representation 
is the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental 
conditions and can be measured by the breadth of genetic diversity 
within and among populations, and the ecological diversity of 
populations across the species' range. In the case of the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse, we evaluate representation based on the extent of 
the geographical range as an indicator of genetic and ecological 
diversity. The main areas of uncertainty in our analysis include the 
minimum amount of suitable habitat needed to support resilient 
populations and the number of redundant populations needed to provide 
for adequate redundancy and representation.
    Our assessment concluded that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
has an overall low viability (probability of persistence) in the near 
term (between now and the next 10 years) and a decreasing viability in 
the long-term future (beyond 10 years). The New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse occurs within eight geographic management areas, which are 
defined by the external boundaries of the geographic distribution of 
historical populations. We use the term geographic management area to 
describe the geographic region where populations of jumping mice are 
located. For the subspecies to be viable, the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse needs to have multiple resilient populations distributed 
throughout different drainages within the eight geographic management 
areas. In this summary, we present an overview of the comprehensive 
biological status review. A detailed discussion of the information 
supporting this overview can be found in the SSA Report (Service 2014, 
entire).
    For the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse to be considered viable, 
individual mice need specific vital resources for survival and 
completion of their life history. One of the most important aspects of 
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse's life history is that it 
hibernates about 8 or 9 months out of the year, which is longer than 
most other mammals. Conversely, it is only active 3 or 4 months during 
the summer. Within this short timeframe, it must breed, birth and raise 
young, and store up sufficient fat reserves to survive the next year's 
hibernation period. In addition, jumping mice only live 3 years or 
less, and have one small litter annually, with seven or fewer young, so 
the subspecies has limited capacity for high population growth rates 
due to this low fecundity (reproductive potential). As a result, if 
resources are not available in a single season, jumping mice 
populations would be greatly stressed and would likely have lower 
reproduction and over-winter survival during hibernation.
    The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has exceptionally specialized

[[Page 33121]]

habitat requirements to support these life-history needs and maintain 
adequate population sizes. Habitat requirements are characterized by 
tall (averaging at least 61 centimeters (cm) (24 inches (in)), dense 
riparian herbaceous vegetation (plants with no woody tissue) primarily 
composed of sedges (plants in the Cyperaceae Family that superficially 
resemble grasses but usually have triangular stems) and forbs (broad-
leafed herbaceous plants). This suitable habitat is found only when 
wetland vegetation achieves full growth potential associated with 
perennial flowing water. This vegetation is an important resource need 
for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse because it provides vital food 
sources (insects and seeds), as well as the structural material for 
building day nests that are used for shelter from predators. New Mexico 
meadow jumping mice must have rich, abundant food sources during the 
summer so they can accumulate sufficient fat reserves to survive their 
long hibernation period. In addition, individual jumping mice also need 
intact upland areas (areas up gradient and beyond the floodplain of 
rivers and streams) adjacent to riparian wetland areas because this is 
where they build nests or use burrows to give birth to young in the 
summer and to hibernate over the winter. Some uncertainty exists about 
the particular location of hibernation sites relative to riparian 
areas.
    These suitable habitat conditions need to be in appropriate 
locations and of adequate sizes to support healthy populations of the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Historically, these wetland habitats 
would have been in large patches (movements of 200 to 700 meters (m) 
(656 to 2,297 feet (ft)) to disperse to other habitat patches within 
stream segments) located intermittently along long stretches of 
streams. Connectivity between patches of suitable habitat is necessary 
to facilitate daily and seasonal movements, and dispersal to increase 
the likelihood of long-term viability of jumping mouse populations. The 
ability of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations to be resilient 
to adverse stochastic events depends on the robustness of a population 
and the ability to recolonize if populations are extirpated (the loss 
of a population or a species from a particular geographic region). 
Counting individual mice to assess population sizes is very difficult 
because the subspecies is trap-wary and hibernates for an extended 
time; thus, data are unavailable. We can best measure population health 
by the size of the intact, suitable habitat available.
    Our assessment uses the best available information to estimate the 
minimum length of specific stream reaches or segments of ditches and 
canals, and the corresponding suitable habitat patch sizes that we 
think will provide a high likelihood of long-term persistence for the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Because the subspecies has limited 
daily and seasonal movements, dense riparian herbaceous habitat along 
streams, ditches, and canals needs to be of sufficient length to 
support large population sizes and multiple local populations dispersed 
throughout specific waterways. This continuous spatial arrangement is 
necessary to support breeding, nonbreeding, and daily and seasonal 
movements of New Mexico meadow jumping mice.
    In considering the area needed for maintaining resilient 
populations of adequate size with the ability to endure adverse events 
(such as floods or wildfire), we estimate that resilient populations of 
jumping mice need connected areas of suitable habitat in the range of 
at least about 27.5 to 73.2 hectares (ha) (68 to 181 acres (ac)), along 
9 to 24 kilometers (km) (6 to 15 miles (mi)) of flowing streams, 
ditches, or canals. The minimum area needed is given as a range due to 
the uncertainty of an absolute minimum and because local conditions 
within drainages will vary. This distribution and amount of suitable 
habitat would allow for multiple subpopulations of New Mexico meadow 
jumping mice to exist along drainages and would provide for sources of 
recolonization if some areas were extirpated due to disturbances. The 
suitable habitat patches must be relatively close together, no more 
than about 100 m (330 ft) apart, because the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse has limited movement and dispersal capacity for natural 
recolonization. Rangewide, we determined that the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse needs at least two resilient populations (where at least 
two existed historically) within each of eight identified geographic 
management areas. This number and distribution of resilient populations 
is expected to provide the subspecies with the necessary redundancy and 
representation to provide for viability.
    The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse life history (short active 
period, short lifespan, low fecundity, specific habitat needs, and low 
movement and dispersal ability) makes populations highly vulnerable to 
extirpations when habitat is lost and fragmented. Based on historical 
(1980s and 1990s) and current (from 2005 to 2012) data, the 
distribution and abundance of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has 
declined significantly rangewide. The majority of local extirpations 
have occurred since the late 1980s to early 1990s, as we found about 70 
formerly occupied locations are now considered to be extirpated.
    Since 2005, researchers have documented 29 remaining populations 
spread across the 8 geographic management areas (2 in Colorado, 15 in 
New Mexico, and 12 in Arizona). Nearly all of the current populations 
are isolated and widely separated, and all of the 29 populations 
located since 2005 have patches of suitable habitat that are too small 
to support resilient populations of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. 
None of them are larger than the needed 27.5 to 73.2 ha (68 to 181 ac), 
and over half of them are only a few acres in size. In addition, 11 of 
the 29 populations documented as extant since 2005 have been 
substantially compromised since 2011 (due to water shortages, excessive 
grazing, or wildfire and postfire flooding), and these populations 
could already be extirpated. Seven additional populations in Arizona 
may also be compromised due to postfire flooding following recent large 
wildfires. For example, the population at Sugarite Canyon State Park 
has been significantly impacted since the 2011 Track Wildfire (Frey and 
Kopp 2013, entire; Service 2013c, entire). Additionally, no New Mexico 
meadow jumping mice were captured at Bosque del Apache National 
Wildlife Refuge in 2013, despite intensive surveys within suitable 
habitat (Frey 2013, entire; Service 2013, entire; 2013a, entire; 2013b, 
entire). At this rate of population extirpation (based on known 
historical population losses and possible recent population losses) the 
probability of persistence of the subspecies as a whole is severely 
compromised in the near term.
    Four of the eight geographic management areas have two or more 
locations known to be occupied by the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
since 2005, but all are insufficient (too small) to support resilient 
populations. The remaining four geographic management areas each have 
only one location of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse known to be 
occupied since 2005, and each population is insufficient (too small) to 
be resilient. Therefore, although researchers have some uncertainty 
about population sizes of extant localities, the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse does not currently have the number and distribution of 
resilient populations needed to provide the needed levels of

[[Page 33122]]

redundancy and representation (genetic and ecological diversity) for 
the subspecies to demonstrate viability.
    We next analyzed the past, present, and likely future threats 
(causes and effects) that may put New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
populations at risk of future extirpation. Because the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse requires such specific suitable habitat 
conditions, populations have a high potential for extirpation when 
habitat is altered or eliminated. In addition, because of the current 
conditions of isolated populations, when localities are extirpated, 
there is little or no opportunity for natural recolonization of the 
area due to the subspecies' limited movement and dispersal capacity.
    We found a significant reduction in occupied localities likely due 
to cumulative habitat loss and fragmentation across the range of the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. The past and current habitat loss has 
resulted in the extirpation of historical populations, reduced the size 
of existing populations, and isolated existing small populations. 
Ongoing and future habitat loss is expected to result in additional 
extirpations of more populations. The primary sources of current and 
future habitat losses include grazing pressure (which removes the 
needed vegetation) and water management and use (which causes 
vegetation loss from mowing and drying of soils), lack of water due to 
drought (exacerbated by climate change), and wildfires (also 
exacerbated by climate change). Additional sources of habitat loss are 
likely to occur from scouring floods, loss of beaver, highway 
reconstruction, residential and commercial development, coalbed methane 
development, and unregulated recreation.
    These multiple sources of habitat loss are not acting 
independently, but produce cumulative impacts that magnify the effects 
of habitat loss on New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations. 
Historically, larger connected populations of New Mexico meadow jumping 
mice would have been able to withstand or recover from local stressors, 
such as habitat loss from drought, wildfire, or floods. However, the 
current condition of small populations makes local extirpations likely 
more common. In addition, the isolated state of existing populations 
makes natural recolonization of impacted areas highly unlikely or 
impossible in most areas.
    Considering the subspecies' biological status now and its likely 
status into the future, without active conservation (i.e., grazing 
management and water management) existing populations are vulnerable to 
extirpation (at least 11 have already undergone substantial impacts 
since 2011) and, therefore, the subspecies as a whole is currently at 
an elevated risk of extinction. None of the 29 populations known to 
exist since 2005 are of sufficient size to be resilient. Assuming this 
rate of population loss continues similar to recent years, the number 
of populations could be severely curtailed in the near term, 
eliminating the level of redundancy needed to withstand catastrophic 
drought and wildfire, along with the additive impacts of multiple 
threats. In addition to past sources of habitat loss, ongoing grazing, 
water shortages, and high-impact wildfire (the latter two exacerbated 
by climate change) will continue to put all of the remaining locations 
at considerable risk of extirpation in the near-term (between now and 
the next 10 years) and increasing over the long term. In considering 
the needed level of representation, while sufficient diversity likely 
still exists across the eight geographic management areas, the 
subspecies representation is relatively low because none of these 
geographic management areas currently have resilient populations. 
Therefore, we conclude that the overall probability of persistence is 
low in the near term and decreasing in the future due to the lack of 
adequate resiliency, redundancy, and representation.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule 
during a comment period that opened on June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37363), and 
closed on August 19, 2013. We contacted appropriate Federal and State 
agencies, tribes, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. During 
the comment period, a newspaper notice inviting general public comment 
was published in the Albuquerque Journal. On August 15, 2013, we also 
held an informational meeting in Durango, Colorado, after receiving 
requests from interested parties. We did not receive any requests for a 
public hearing.
    During the comment period, we received 24 comment letters, 
including 3 peer review comment letters, addressing the proposed 
listing of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. In this final rule, we 
address only the comments regarding the proposed listing of the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Comments addressing the proposed critical 
habitat designation will be fully addressed in a separate rulemaking 
action, and published in the Federal Register at a later date. All 
substantive information provided during the comment period has either 
been incorporated directly into this final determination, the SSA 
Report, or addressed below.

Comments From Peer Reviewers

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from four knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that are familiar with the 
subspecies, the geographic region in which the subspecies occurs, and 
conservation biology principles. We received responses from three of 
the four peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse. All three of the peer reviewers agreed 
that the information presented in the proposed rule to list the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse as an endangered species is scientifically 
sound; that the assumptions, analyses, and conclusions are well 
reasoned; and that the information is complete and the best available, 
and the risks or threats to the subspecies are not undervalued. In 
addition, two of the three peer reviewers provided clarifications and 
suggestions to improve the final rule to list the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse as endangered. These comments are addressed in the 
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
    (1) Comment: New information documents the possible extirpation of 
the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge population (Frey 2013, 
entire); the continued loss of New Mexico meadow jumping mice and 
habitat from the 2011 Track Wildfire in Sugarite Canyon (Frey and Kopp 
2013, entire); additional survey efforts within the Sacramento 
Mountains that failed to document any new populations (Frey 2013c, 
entire); and new genetic data that continues to support the validity of 
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as a subspecies and its imperiled 
status (Malaney et al. 2012, entire; Malaney and Cook 2013, entire).
    Our Response: We have incorporated this new information in the SSA 
Report (see 4.3 Population Estimates and Status in the SSA Report; 
Service 2014, entire). The data continue to support our determination 
that the subspecies is endangered.
    (2) Comment: We received comments pertaining to dispersal 
distances. One suggestion, to plan for the

[[Page 33123]]

interconnectivity of populations, was that the Service should consider 
dispersal distances from studies on the Preble's meadow jumping mouse 
(Zapus hudsonius preblei) of up to 4.3 km (2.7 mi), whereas another 
suggestion found our characterization of dispersal distances and home 
range sizes of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse appropriate.
    Our Response: Schorr (2003, p. 10; 2012, p. 1279) did report the 
Preble's meadow jumping mouse can move up to 4.3 km (2.7 mi). However, 
as stated in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), studies indicate 
that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse does not appear to travel as 
great a distance as the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. Further, 
movement data is available on the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. The 
maximum distance travelled between two successive points by all radio-
collared jumping mice on Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge was 
744 m (2,441 ft), but most regular daily and seasonal movements were 
less than 100 m (328 ft) (Frey and Wright 2012, pp. 16, 109; Figure 9). 
See 2.6 Movements and Home Range in the SSA Report for additional 
information.
    The conservation of New Mexico meadow jumping mice should plan for 
interconnectivity between populations using movement distances that are 
likely more common, rather than the maximum possible distance (see 
Trakhtenbrot et al. 2005, p. 175). As opposed to using the phrase, 
``maximum dispersal distance'' in the draft SSA Report, we have 
clarified this as the distance between patches of suitable habitat to 
provide for population connectivity for the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse. In the SSA Report, we found that appropriately sized patches of 
suitable habitat should be no more than about 200 m (656 ft) apart 
within waterways, which would encompass the majority of regular (daily 
and seasonal) movements of individuals.
    (3) Comment: The proposed rule and SSA Report provide virtually no 
information on the historical (pre-1980) distribution of the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse. These reports use only two time periods, 
historical (1980 to 1999) and current records (2005 forward). Almost no 
records of the subspecies obtained prior to 1980 were included in the 
SSA Report. The distribution and status of the 1980 to 1999 period was 
likely already significantly compromised.
    Our Response: While the historical and current distributional data 
for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is categorized into two time 
periods in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), we did include all 
known distribution records. While we did not provide a map or table 
detailing the pre-1980 distribution of the subspecies in the SSA 
Report, we summarized the comprehensive reports of the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse's historical range and distribution (i.e., Frey 
2008c, entire; Hafner et al. 1981). These authors (Frey 2008c, pp. 35, 
46; Hafner et al. 1981, pp. 501-502) reported that the historical range 
and distribution of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse likely included 
riparian wetlands along the Sangre de Cristo and San Juan Mountains 
from southern Colorado to central New Mexico and into parts of the 
White Mountains of Arizona.
    We found no capture records of jumping mice between 1996 and 2005. 
Surveys conducted since 2005 documented locations where the subspecies 
was historically present, but is now apparently absent or at levels too 
low for detection. Based on this information and previous reviews, we 
continue to find that the comparison between historical (1980 to 1999) 
and current New Mexico meadow jumping mouse records (2005 forward) is 
appropriate and the pre-1980 records were sufficiently considered and 
incorporated in the SSA Report.
    The Service agrees that the distribution and status of the 
subspecies was compromised by 1999. However, the Service's analysis of 
the five factors threat analysis listed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act 
includes the consideration of present threats and threats anticipated 
into the near future. We evaluated whether the subspecies is in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(endangered) or is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(threatened).

Comments From Federal Agencies

    (4) Comment: Snap traps have a higher capture success rate than 
live traps. As such, historical data collected by Morrison should not 
be compared with current data collected using nonlethal means.
    Our Response: As noted in the SSA Report, use of live traps for 
inventory and monitoring are preferable, because some New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse populations are likely extremely small, and killing and 
removal of even a few individuals from the population using snap traps 
could be detrimental. Further, the Service is required to use the best 
available scientific and commercial data. Data collected using live 
traps were not designed to estimate population size, but, to locate 
populations (Morrison 1988, pp. 47, 52; 1989, p. 3; 1990, p. 138; 1991, 
pp. 3-4). Frey (2005a, p. 68; 2011, p. 9; 2013d, pp. 24, 28) 
recommended targeted survey efforts to determine presence or absence of 
jumping mice should be 400 to 700 trap-nights over 3 consecutive nights 
using Sherman live traps baited with sweet grain mixture. Although 
Morrison used both Sherman and snap traps, these efforts resulted in 
locating populations (1988, pp. 47, 52; 1991, pp. 3-4). Consequently, 
we believe comparing data from Morrison's studies to current 
information on population presence is valid.
    (5) Comment: Some surveys have not been completed on areas that 
contained suitable habitat because they were deemed too small or 
disjunct; yet, the Lincoln National Forest recently documented presence 
of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in areas that were thought to be 
``too small.''
    Our Response: The Service does not have any records documenting the 
presence of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in areas that were 
considered too small or disjunct on the Lincoln National Forest or 
other areas. The information the Service has indicates the Lincoln 
National Forest has only documented the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
in two new areas, Cox Canyon and Mauldin Spring in Wills Canyon (United 
States Forest Service (USFS) 2012h, pp. 2-3, 2013a, entire), since Frey 
(2005, entire) completed surveys. The Cox Canyon site was surveyed in 
2005 by Frey (2005, pp. 9, 20, 33), with no New Mexico meadow jumping 
mice captured at the time, likely because no suitable habitat was 
present. However, in 2012, New Mexico meadow jumping mice were captured 
at Cox Canyon, following the cessation of grazing for 2 years (USFS 
2012h, pp. 2-4; Service 2012d, p. 2; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2012, 
entire; 2012a, entire). The Mauldin Spring area was not deemed to be 
too small during Frey's 2005 surveys, but is located in a remote area 
over 0.4 mi (0.6 km) from a road.
    (6) Comment: Some sites on the Lincoln National Forest that had New 
Mexico meadow jumping mice in the 1980s (Morrison 1989, entire) have 
not been surveyed recently. The presence of New Mexico meadow jumping 
mice was confirmed in these areas in the 1990s by Ward (2001) and there 
is a still a high potential for New Mexico meadow jumping mice to be 
present. The most recent trapping efforts conducted on the Lincoln 
National Forest have

[[Page 33124]]

demonstrated that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is present.
    Our Response: Since 2005, all of the previously occupied sites on 
USFS lands from the 1980s have been resurveyed. The USFS did not 
provide information on who conducted the recent trapping efforts or the 
specific sites from the 1980s that were not surveyed. However, since 
2005, we are aware of the following survey efforts on the Lincoln 
National Forest: (1) Frey (2005a, entire (2,375 trap nights of effort) 
and 2013c, entire (1,280 trap nights of effort)); and (2) USFS (2010, 
entire (1,310 trap nights of effort); 2012h, entire (3,480 trap nights 
of effort); and 2013, entire (2,494 trap nights of effort)). Through 
these surveys, all of the historical Morrison (1989, entire) sites on 
public lands and other areas that contained potentially suitable 
habitat were surveyed (Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 33; USFS 2010, entire; 
2012h, entire; 2013, entire). Frey (2005, p. 38) only found the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse present at two historical locations, Silver 
Springs and Agua Chiquita. The Lincoln National Forest (2012h, entire; 
2013a, entire) found the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse present at two 
additional locations, Cox Canyon and Mauldin Spring. Only the Cox 
Canyon population found by the USFS was a historical location reported 
by Morrison (1989, entire). Ward ((2005, entire) cited by Frey 2005a, 
pp. 9, 22, 73; Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 44)) confirmed New Mexico 
meadow jumping mice at only one location (Mauldin Spring) in the 1990s, 
and there is no longer suitable habitat present at this location. 
Consequently, all sites with suitable habitat on the Lincoln National 
Forest have been surveyed since 2005, and only 4 locations (3 
historical and 1 new) have been confirmed as extant.
    (7) Comment: What will the delisting factors be for the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse?
    Our Response: We have not developed delisting criteria yet for the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Now that the subspecies is listed as 
endangered, a draft and final recovery plan will be prepared. The 
recovery plan will identify site-specific management actions, including 
measurable criteria that determine when the subspecies may be 
downlisted or delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress.
    (8) Comment: The term ``excessive grazing'' is never clearly 
defined in the SSA Report or proposed rules.
    Our Response: Our use of the phrase excessive grazing is in the 
context of suitable New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat. Excessive 
ungulate grazing in this context occurs when there is an inadequate 
amount of tall dense herbaceous riparian vegetation to support the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse (see ``Specific Microhabitat Requirements'' 
section in the SSA Report; Service 2014, entire). Indications of 
excessive grazing are: trampling of streambanks, loss of riparian 
cover, soil compaction, modification of riparian plant communities, 
lowering water tables, and the resulting changes to New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse microhabitat. Excessive grazing in riparian areas can 
result in changes to the hydrology and soils, leading to downcutting or 
headcutting, which can further degrade New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
habitat.
    (9) Comment: There is no mention of whether feral hogs or wild 
horses are considered threats to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. 
What would be expected and allowed for trapping and removal of these 
animals?
    Our Response: The USFS did not provide any specific information on 
feral hogs or wild horses for us to consider and we did not receive any 
information regarding this topic during the public comment period. We 
have no information concerning feral hogs or wild horses currently 
occurring within New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat. There are 
confirmed feral hog populations in Otero and Socorro Counties, New 
Mexico, but there is no information indicating their presence in New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat or of impacts to the subspecies 
(APHIS 2010, p. 10; USFS 2011d). We acknowledge that both animals have 
the potential to impact riparian areas and New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse habitat, but have no data on if or where this is occurring or how 
much habitat may be affected now or in the future.
    Under Section 7(a)(1) of the Act, Federal agencies, such as the 
USFS, could utilize their existing authorities by carrying out programs 
such as the removal of feral hogs or wild horses for the conservation 
of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
    (10) Comment: What will the herbicide use or non-use expectation be 
for non-native invasive plant control?
    Our Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy 
or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may 
affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service. If a 
Federal agency proposes to use herbicide to control nonnative plants 
and it may affect the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation 
with the Service.
    The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act make it illegal for 
any person to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, 
kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, 
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any listed species. We may issue permits to carry out otherwise 
prohibited activities involving endangered and threatened wildlife 
species under certain circumstances. A list of activities that could 
potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act is in this 
final rule under Available Conservation Measures section. This list is 
not comprehensive. The Service can also work with private landowners to 
provide technical assistance or we may issue permits for incidental 
take of a species in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
    (11) Comment: What will be allowable for piping water from streams 
or springs to water troughs for wildlife or cattle? Will travel 
corridors that assist in moving cattle from winter to summer pastures 
be allowed across streams so that cattle can move and access water 
troughs?
    Our Response: If a Federal agency implements, authorizes, or funds 
water use or livestock grazing activities that may affect the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, then they must enter into consultation 
with the Service. Consultation would analyze and determine to what 
degree the subspecies is impacted by the proposed action. Each 
consultation is evaluated on a case-by-case basis following our 
regulations (50 CFR part 402). See our response to comment (10) above 
regarding the prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act.
    (12) Comment: How does the Service intend to manage livestock 
grazing and associated actions such as fencing riparian areas and 
providing water points?
    Our Response: The Service does not intend to manage livestock 
grazing or associated actions. Rather the Service will work with 
Federal agencies during consultation under section 7 of the Act, to 
ensure that any actions they fund, authorize, or carry out would not 
jeopardize the continued existence of the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse. These section 7 consultations

[[Page 33125]]

will determine whether the management of a Federal livestock permit 
jeopardizes the continued existence of the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse. Our regulations require that we use the best scientific and 
commercial data available for consultations (50 CFR 402.14(d)). This 
information is used to update and analyze the effects of past and 
ongoing human and natural activities or events that have led up to the 
current status of the subspecies and its habitat. Consequently, any 
requirements to minimize the effects of livestock grazing and 
associated activities will be appropriately applied through section 7 
provisions 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2), which can be changed if new information 
reveals effects to the subspecies or critical habitat in a manner or 
extent not previously considered (see 50 CFR 402.16(b)).
    The Service can also work with private landowners to provide 
technical assistance or we may issue permits for incidental take of a 
species in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
    (13) Comment: Roads are not listed as a factor affecting the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse; however, dirt roads can cause indirect 
effects through sedimentation or by impeding spring flows.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that it is possible for roads to 
indirectly or directly impact riparian areas, springs, or New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse habitat. However, the USFS did not provide any 
specific information for us to consider and the best available 
scientific and commercial data does not indicate how or where dirt 
roads may be causing indirect effects to New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse habitat through sedimentation or by impeding spring flows now or 
in the future.

Comments From States

    (14) Comment: A lack of probabilistic sampling designs and 
estimation of detection probabilities for New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse survey efforts prevents using occupancy data in determining 
distribution and populations trends through time.
    Our Response: Counting individual mice to estimate population sizes 
is very difficult and data are currently unavailable. Recent surveys 
have relied on detection or nondetection (sometimes called presence or 
absence) data to determine whether New Mexico meadow jumping mice 
persist in areas that contained historical populations or areas that 
currently contain suitable habitat. As we found in the SSA Report, 
species-specific surveys have been useful for determining occupancy, 
but are limited in their usefulness for capture probabilities and, 
therefore, estimating population size. We recognize that detection or 
nondetection data may not provide conclusive evidence of the true 
population status at each of the 29 locations found since 2005; 
however, the failure to detect New Mexico meadow jumping mice in areas 
where they were located in the 1980s and loss of previously suitable 
habitat at over 70 historical sites since this period are likely 
representative of real population extirpations.
    As a result, detection or nondetection surveys represent the best 
scientific and commercial data we have regarding the rangewide 
distribution and persistence of populations. Based on these data, we 
find that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has declined sharply due 
to the extirpation of populations and is generally restricted to small, 
isolated patches of suitable habitat. We acknowledge that research is 
needed to determine the size and demographics of remaining populations, 
but the best scientific and commercial data available on the threats to 
this subspecies is sufficient to make a listing determination (For a 
full discussion, see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species and 
Determination sections, below).
    (15) Comment: Without conducting rigorous experiments, it is 
scientifically indefensible and speculative to attribute the loss of 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat to livestock grazing and 
recreation. There were no experimental controls used to make 
comparisons and too many extraneous variables to conclude that these 
activities were the cause of habitat and population loss.
    Our Response: We agree that it would be useful to have more 
information on the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. However, the best 
available scientific and commercial data indicate what the habitat 
requirements of the mouse are, including vegetation type and size. 
Further, it is evident that livestock grazing and recreational 
activities can negatively impact the required vegetation for mouse 
habitat, without doing further experimentation. In fact, such 
experimentation with a scarce, potentially endangered species may 
further imperil the species. In the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), 
we present the best commercial and scientific data available, albeit 
observational evidence, to conclude that livestock grazing, recreation, 
and other causal factors have resulted in the alteration and 
destruction of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat.
    (16) Comment: The Service assumed a correlation between habitat 
patch size and New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations without 
providing documentation.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that the best available information 
regarding New Mexico meadow jumping mouse population abundance is not 
complete. However, because the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse requires 
specialized habitat requirements to support its life-history needs, 
they would not be found in areas that lack suitable habitat. 
Consequently, we estimated the size of intact, suitable habitat 
surrounding capture locations of jumping mice found since 2005 as a the 
best proxy to evaluate population viability. We think this is a 
reasonable approach, because it is probable that small areas of 
suitable habitat can support only a limited number of New Mexico meadow 
jumping mice, and small population sizes are more vulnerable to 
extirpation than large population sizes. Moreover, studies conducted on 
the similar Preble's meadow jumping mouse found smaller patches of 
habitat are unable to support as many Preble's as larger patches of 
habitat (Service 2003, p. 11). Schorr (2012, p. 1279) suggested that 
habitat connectivity and the incorporation of immigrants may be vital 
to the persistence of Preble's meadow jumping mouse populations, 
indicating that degradation of surrounding habitat and geographic 
isolation likely increase the vulnerability of some populations. 
Therefore, our conclusion that small isolated areas of New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse habitat are expected to have small populations 
with a high risk of extinction is based upon Preble's meadow jumping 
mouse studies, general conservation biology principles, and 
metapopulation theory (Hanski 1999, entire; Service 2003, entire).
    (17) Comment: A lack of knowledge about New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse population sizes and dynamics should be a concern to the Service. 
Determinations of endangered or threatened status should use the best 
available scientific and commercial information and should not be based 
upon conjecture.
    Our Response: It is often the case that data is limited for rare 
species, but we have used the best available scientific and commercial 
data. As we found in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), jumping 
mice population sizes are assumed to be naturally regulated by the 
amount of suitable habitat available to support them. Jumping mice 
populations probably expand and contract in response to fluctuations in

[[Page 33126]]

riparian vegetation from flooding, inundation, drought, and the 
resulting changes in the extent and location of floodplains and river 
channels (Service 2002, pp. D13-D15). For populations to persist over 
the long term, habitat patches need to be of sufficient size and 
configuration to accommodate these fluctuations in habitat 
availability. When the suitable habitat patches are small and isolated, 
periods of drought or other disturbances can cause New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse habitats to shrink or become fragmented and lead to 
reductions in population sizes or even extirpation of New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse populations. Therefore, New Mexico meadow jumping mice 
need suitable habitat sufficient in size to support the natural 
fluctuations of populations as they expand and contract, to reduce the 
risk of local extirpation and extinction, and to attain the densities 
necessary to persist through catastrophic events and seasonal 
fluctuations of food resources (i.e., maintain healthy resilient 
populations). Based on our review of the best available scientific and 
commercial data, we conclude that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range, and 
therefore, meets the definition of an endangered species (see 
Determination, below). The analysis used to make this decision was 
subject to peer-review to ensure sound science and decisionmaking. See 
2.7.2 Habitat Patch and Population Sizes in the SSA Report for 
additional information on this subject.
    (18) Comment: The SSA Report contains ``substantial areas of 
uncertainty'' and is not a ``thorough assessment.'' The Service should 
not make assumptions; assumptions are not scientific data and should 
not be used in a listing determination.
    Our Response: We did not base our listing decision on the areas of 
uncertainty. The main areas of uncertainty in our analysis include the 
minimum amount of suitable habitat needed to support resilient 
populations and the number of redundant populations needed to provide 
for adequate redundancy and representation. The proposed rule and SSA 
Report (Service 2014, entire) were peer reviewed, and found to be an 
accurate representation of the status of the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse. The peer reviewers agreed that the scientific and commercial 
data available on the threats to this subspecies is adequate to make a 
listing determination. As a result, we have found that the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse is presently in danger of extinction throughout 
all of its range based on the severity of threats.
    (19) Comment: The SSA Report lists livestock grazing as a threat to 
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse within Lake Dorothey State Wildlife 
Area in Colorado; however, the area is not grazed by domestic livestock 
and there are no plans to begin such a use.
    Our Response: We understand that the Lake Dorothey State Wildlife 
Area in Colorado is closed to domestic livestock grazing, but 
unauthorized livestock use has occurred. The Lake Dorothey State 
Wildlife Area is in the Sugarite Canyon in Colorado and New Mexico, 
which burned in the 2011 Track Wildfire. The Lake Dorothey State 
Wildlife Area borders Sugarite Canyon State Park in New Mexico. The 
fire resulted in downed fences between private lands and Sugarite 
Canyon State Park, allowing cattle to access the area. Trespass cattle 
that entered Sugarite Canyon State Park in New Mexico accessed the Lake 
Dorothey State Wildlife Area. Employees of Sugarite Canyon State Park 
noted at least 30 trespass cattle within their park (Service 2013, pp. 
1-2; Wildermuth 2012, entire). Trespass cattle have been consistently 
observed within Soda Pocket Creek Campground and Segerstrom Creek of 
the Sugarite Canyon State Park, sites that were previously occupied by 
the New Mexico jumping mouse (Service 2012c, pp. 2, 10; 2013, pp. 1-2). 
We have clarified this information in the SSA Report.
    (20) Comment: The SSA Report lists livestock grazing and 
development as threats within the Sambrito Creek Geographic Management 
Area in Colorado. This area is within Navajo State Park and is not 
grazed by domestic livestock and unlikely to be developed due to 
ownership by the Bureau of Reclamation and management by Colorado Parks 
and Wildlife.
    Our Response: We understand that Navajo State Park is closed to 
domestic livestock grazing, but unauthorized livestock use has occurred 
repeatedly at several locations within the geographic management area 
(Bureau of Reclamation 2008, p. 3-62; Colorado Natural Heritage Program 
2006, p. 261). This unauthorized use is due to the lack of fences, 
incomplete fences, and poorly constructed or maintained fences. Areas 
with high incidences of livestock trespass include the Miller Mesa-
Sambrito area, and the upper river arms (Bureau of Reclamation 2008, p. 
3-62), which also includes New Mexico meadow jumping mouse locations 
and proposed critical habitat.
    Sambrito Creek is surrounded on three sides by privately owned 
lands that are partially developed, including agricultural fields, 
pastures, residences, and oil and gas wells (Colorado Natural Heritage 
Program 2006, p. 261). We acknowledge that the occupied area of 
Sambrito Creek is within Navajo State Park; however, the potential for 
further residential or oil and gas development on the surrounding 
private lands is high, which would likely result in less hydrologic 
input, and, therefore, shrinking and drying of the wetland area 
(Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 261) and New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse habitat.
    (21) Comment: The description of activities that could result in 
take under section 9 is too vague. The Service should provide specific 
dates for the active season of the jumping mouse. Further, the Service 
should clarify whether destruction of habitat by any means is illegal, 
which implies that a land owner would be responsible for controlling 
against natural modifications such as browsing by native wildlife, 
flooding, drought, wildfire, or the diversion of water rights, wildfire 
restoration, grazing, and spread of invasive plants, even if these 
actions were occurring on other properties within the watershed.
    Our Response: The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, 
codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it 
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States 
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship 
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. 
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also 
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Section 9 applies to persons 
that carry out or attempt to carry out the actions listed above, not 
actions such as weather events and native wildlife foraging.
    The intent of describing potential section 9 violations is to 
increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and 
ongoing activities within the range of a listed species. We have 
clarified the list of potential section 9 violations below (see 
Available Conservation Measures). These may include, but are not 
limited to, the alteration or removal of specific microhabitat 
components (as described in this rule or within the May 2013 SSA Report 
(Service 2013) through new construction, livestock grazing, or

[[Page 33127]]

dredging or filling in streams or wetlands.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be 
issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance 
the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in 
connection with otherwise lawful activities (including but not limited 
to grazing, construction, and wetland alterations). Questions regarding 
whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 
of the Act should be directed to the Service's Ecological Services 
Field Office in the State where the proposed activities will occur.
    We have generally defined the active season of the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire) as May 
through October.
    (22) Comment: The size and stream length range of estimates for 
resilient populations of New Mexico meadow jumping mice have no 
citations, or justification of how these were determined.
    Our Response: In the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), we estimate 
how much suitable habitat is likely necessary to support healthy, 
resilient populations of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse by 
considering information regarding the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and 
information from Frey (2006d, pp. 18-21; 2011, p. 29; 2012b, p. 16) for 
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. For examples, the Recovery Team 
for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse recommended that at least several 
medium-sized populations (at least 500 mice) should be protected with 
each population distributed along a 14- to 26-km (to 16-mi) network of 
connected streams whose hydrology supports riparian vegetation (Service 
2003, pp. 24-25). Following fires, we found that, depending on fire 
intensity and the subsequent ash and debris flow within stream reaches, 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations can be significantly 
affected and likely extirpated, even when 15 km (9 mi) of continuous 
suitable habitat existed prior to the fire (Sugarite Canyon; Frey 
2006d, pp. 18-21; 2012b, p. 16). Therefore, we estimate that stream 
lengths should be at least two to three times of those characterized by 
Frey (2011, p. 29) in order to have adequate population sizes necessary 
to persist through these types of stochastic and catastrophic events. 
After reviewing this information, we conclude that current New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse populations need connected areas of suitable 
habitat along at least 9 to 24 km (5.6 to 15 mi) of continuous suitable 
habitat to support viable populations of jumping mice with a high 
likelihood of long-term persistence. See 2.7.2 Habitat Patch and 
Population Sizes in the SSA Report for additional information on this 
subject.

Comments From the Public

    (23) Comment: Is there observer bias associated with using 
primarily information from the Frey surveys and conclusions? Have there 
been any other groups or individuals providing data or information on 
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse?
    Our Response: The Act requires that we identify species of wildlife 
and plants that are endangered or threatened based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available. We did not primarily use 
information from Frey, but relied on a variety of information including 
State wildlife agencies, other researchers, and Federal agencies (e.g., 
see Museum of Southwestern Biology 1960, entire; 2007, entire; 2007a, 
entire; Findley et al. 1975, pp. 271-272; Hafner et al. 1981, pp. 501-
502; Hink and Ohmart 1984, p. 96; Dodd 1987, entire; Morrison 1988, pp. 
9-28; 1991, pp. 14-16; 1992, pp. 308-310; 2012, entire; VanPelt 1993, 
p. 8; Najera 1994, entire; Jones 1999, entire; Frey 2003, pp. 38-39; 
2005a, pp. 6-10, 58-59; 2006, p. 54; 2006c pp. 1-2; 2006d, pp.65-78; 
2007b, pp. 9-13, 25-27; 2008, p. 3; 2008c, entire; 2010, entire; 2011, 
entire; 2012a, entire; 2012, entire; 2012e, entire; 2013, entire; 
2013a, entire; Frey et al. 2007a p. 1; Frey and Malaney 2009, pp. 33-
34; Frey and Kopp 2013, entire; Frey and Wright 2012, pp. 22-23; 
Underwood 2007, pp. 1-4; USFS 2009, entire; 2012h, entire; 2013a, 
entire; AGFD 2012a, p. 3; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2012, entire; 
2013, entire; 2013a, entire; Malaney et al. 2012, entire; Service 2013, 
entire; 2013a, entire; 2013b, entire). Based on this information, we 
find there is unbiased and sound scientific and commercial data to 
reach our final determination that the species is endangered.
    (24) Comment: The SSA Report indicates that the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse is difficult to capture because individuals are trap 
wary, but then uses the recent survey information to justify listing as 
endangered. This seems contradictory.
    Our Response: Please see our responses to comments (4) and (14) 
above. Although the subspecies is difficult to capture, surveyors 
(Jones 1999, entire; Frey 2005a, pp. 6-10, 58-59; 2006d, pp. 65-78; 
2007b, pp. 9-13, 25-27; 2008, p. 3; 2008c, pp. 36, 42; 2010, entire; 
2011, entire; 2012, entire; Frey et al. 2007a, p. 1; Frey and Malaney 
2009, entire; Museum of Southwestern Biology 2007, entire; 2007a, 
entire; Underwood 2007, entire; Frey and Wright 2012, pp. 22-23; Forest 
Service 2009, entire; 2010, p. 2; 2012a, entire; 2012b, entire; 2012h, 
entire; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2012, entire, 2013, p. 1) have been 
able to provide information on presence or absence in specific areas, 
and using this best available information, we are able to make a status 
determination for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Since 2003, New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse surveys in New Mexico, Arizona, and 
Colorado involved 200 localities and 68,102 trap nights (over 100 
historically occupied sites plus 136 localities that appeared to have 
the highest quality potentially suitable habitat) (see ``Current 
Records of Localities Found Since 2005'' in the SSA Report; Service 
2014).
    (25) Comment: Information is insufficient or lacking on the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and more research is needed prior to 
listing, including more surveys. The proposed rule and SSA Report are 
based on assumptions rather than the best scientific information 
available as required. Peer reviewing the information would ensure the 
listing decision and critical habitat determination are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that additional study on some life-
history aspects of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse would be 
helpful, but as required by the Act, we based our proposal and this 
final rule on the best available scientific and commercial data. We 
requested new information on our June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37363; 78 FR 
37328) proposed rule during the open public comment period. We reviewed 
information in our files and other available published and unpublished 
information, and we consulted with recognized species experts, State 
agencies, tribes, and other Federal agencies. Peer reviewers indicated 
that we used the best available science and our assessment correctly 
concluded the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse should be classified as 
an endangered species. We must make listing determinations on the basis 
of the best scientific and commercial information available at this 
time, and we may not delay our decision until more information about 
the subspecies and its habitat are available (see Southwest

[[Page 33128]]

Center for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 
2000)).
    (26) Comment: Livestock grazing has been reduced over the last 20 
years on many areas of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona, 
due to listing the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 
extimus), loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), Little Colorado spinedace 
(Lepidomeda vittata), and spikedace (Meda fulgida); however, the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse has declined during this same period. What 
other actions could have caused its decline?
    Our Response: Please refer to the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire) 
for review of the past, present, and likely future threats (causes and 
effects) to New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations in Arizona and 
throughout its range. We found the primary sources of past and future 
habitat losses are from grazing pressure, water management and use, 
lack of water due to drought, and wildfires. Current USFS forage 
utilization guidelines are 30 to 40 percent, meaning 60 to 70 percent 
of forage should not be removed by livestock (USFS 2005, p. 4; 2013, 
entire; Service 2005a, entire). This amount of utilization has limited 
the availability of adequate vertical cover of herbaceous vegetation 
and significantly affected New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat in 
areas that are not protected from livestock (i.e., outside of livestock 
exclosures). Current grazing practices in many areas of the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest, Arizona, have resulted in the removal of 
dense riparian herbaceous vegetation that historically provided New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat and caused the loss of historical 
populations (Frey 2011, entire). Additional sources of habitat loss are 
likely to occur from scouring floods, loss of beaver, highway 
reconstruction, and unregulated recreation.
    (27) Comment: Recreation is a greater threat to the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse populations within the Jemez Mountains, New Mexico 
than livestock grazing as it is practiced on the San Diego Allotment 
along the Rio Cebolla and Rio de las Vacas within the Jemez Mountains.
    Our Response: Throughout the Rio Cebolla and Rio de las Vacas 
drainages, riparian habitat is fragmented and isolated as a result of 
both livestock grazing and recreation (USFS 2003, entire; 2004a, 
entire; Frey 2005a, pp. 25-29, 58-63, 67; Service 2012a, entire). 
Current grazing practices in many areas have resulted in the removal of 
dense riparian herbaceous vegetation that historically provided New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat and caused the loss of historical 
populations. For example, the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has been 
extirpated entirely from 3 of 13 (Jemez Mountains, New Mexico) 
historical montane riparian sites over the last 2 decades (Frey 2003, 
entire; 2005a, entire; 2011, entire; 2012a, pp. 42, 46, 52; Frey and 
Malaney 2009, entire; USFS 2012h, entire; Figure 15). Importantly, the 
presence of a functioning livestock exclosure has been reported as the 
best predictor of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse occupancy in montane 
riparian areas (Frey 2005a, pp. 59-60; Frey and Malaney 2009, pp. 35, 
37). However, livestock grazing continues to be documented within many 
of the fenced exclosures surrounding the recently documented New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse populations when fencing was cut or not 
maintained, gates were open, or wildfire burned and eliminated fences, 
and cattle entered the area (Frey 2005a, pp. 25-26, 29, 36; 2006, p. 1; 
2011, pp. 41-42; Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 260; U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation 2008, pp. 3-62; USFS 2007, p. 1; 2010, p. 2; 
2011c, pp. 1-5; 2012h, p. 2; ADGF 2012a, entire; Service 2012a, pp. 1-
2; 2012c, pp. 1, 6-8; 2012d, p. 2). See 5.1.1 Livestock Grazing and 
5.1.10 Recreation in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire) for 
additional detail on these threats.
    Within the Jemez Mountains Geographic Management Area for the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, specific forms of management (e.g., 
fencing of riparian areas) may be required through formal consultation 
with the Forest Service to provide areas containing functionally 
connected patches of currently suitable or restorable habitat. 
Management may also be needed to address livestock use, the reduction 
in the distribution and abundance of beaver, and recreational use.
    (28) Comment: The SSA Report (Service 2014, entire) indicates that 
climate change and drought affect the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. 
How would listing the subspecies affect these threats?
    Our Response: The Service acknowledges that listing the subspecies 
as endangered cannot fully address some of the natural threats facing 
the subspecies (e.g., climate change and drought). However, climate 
change and drought can exacerbate other threats such as wildfire and 
grazing, and can lower the resiliency of populations to withstand other 
threats. Listing of species can focus attention on these other threats 
to improve the overall status and increase the likelihood that the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse can be recovered.
    Once a species is listed as either endangered or threatened, the 
Act provides many tools to advance the conservation of listed species; 
available tools include recovery planning under section 4 of the Act, 
interagency cooperation and consultation under section 7, grants to the 
States under section 6, and safe harbor agreements and habitat 
conservation plans under section 10. In addition, recovery funds may 
become available, which could facilitate recovery actions (e.g., 
funding for additional surveys, management needs, research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, monitoring) (see Available Conservation 
Measures, below). Because we are listing the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse as endangered, funding for recovery actions will be available 
from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, 
and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic 
community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, under to 
section 6 of the Act, the States of Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico 
would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions 
that promote the protection and recovery of this subspecies. 
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species 
recovery can be found at http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    (29) Comment: A plan in the 1990s removed dispersed recreation and 
limited campsites along the East Fork of the Black River, Arizona. Is 
the subspecies threatened by other activities in this area?
    Our Response: The commenter does not identify a specific plan for 
us to reference. As noted in the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is also threatened by climate change, 
wildfire, flooding, loss of beaver, and recreation in this area (Please 
see the SSA Report, Table 3).
    (30) Comment: Contrary to what is presented in the SSA Report 
(Service 2014, entire), the adverse impacts from livestock grazing, 
water diversion, and recreation were halted in Arizona in 1980s and 
1990s when other species were listed as endangered.
    Our Response: The commenter did not provide information 
demonstrating that livestock grazing, water diversion, and recreation 
are not threats to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in Arizona. The 
best scientific and commercial information demonstrates the continuing 
threats of livestock grazing, recreation, and other sources of

[[Page 33129]]

past and future habitat losses in Arizona. See the SSA Report for 
additional information.
    We did identify water diversion as a threat to the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse in Arizona. However, reliance on such water 
sources for development and maintenance of suitable herbaceous riparian 
vegetation may be problematic because the availability (in quantity, 
timing, and quality) is often subject to dramatic changes based on 
precipitation and irrigation use patterns associated with water rights. 
Other recently located populations (e.g., Florida River, Sugarite 
Canyon, Coyote Creek in New Mexico) are located in areas where surface 
water is diverted into irrigation canals and ditches, rather than the 
natural flow remaining within the stream drainage (ADGF 2006, p. 473; 
Frey 2005a, p. 63; 2006d, p. 55; 2011, p. 19; U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation 1995, entire). The suitable habitat along Sambrito Creek in 
Colorado is associated with wetlands that are fed by irrigation water 
return flows (Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 261; U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation 2008, pp. 3-23). These changes in hydrology 
degrade and eliminate potentially suitable New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse habitat, to the point that so much water is being diverted in 
some streams that they no longer support an herbaceous zone of riparian 
habitat (Frey 2005a, p. 63; 2006d, p. 55).
    (31) Comment: In the SSA Report, Figure 13 compares a grazed area 
to an ungrazed area. If a fire were to burn in the ungrazed area during 
drought conditions, the tall dense vegetation would burn completely, 
eliminating the riparian habitat and killing all of the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mice. Alternatively, the grazed area that lacks tall 
dense grass would not burn completely, suggesting grazing may be 
beneficial for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
    Our Response: Although the grazed area in Figure 13 is unlikely to 
burn completely, it does not provide suitable habitat for the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, because grazing eliminated dense riparian 
vegetation. So, whether the grazed area burns or not, the subspecies 
will not be able to use this grazed area. Excessive livestock grazing 
has not only eliminated the fine fuel load that historically 
contributed to frequent low-intensity fires (see discussion in the SSA 
Report under ``Livestock Grazing'' section; Service 2014, entire)), but 
has also altered the suitability of habitat for the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse, which is a significant threat to the subspecies, 
demonstrated by Figure 13. Further, if the ungrazed portion burns and 
remains ungrazed this area will return to pre-burn vegetation 
conditions depicted in Figure 13, generally within a year.
    (32) Comment: How would listing the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
complement or contradict consultation or recovery actions of other 
threatened or endangered species such as the southwestern willow 
flycatcher or Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus)?
    Our Response: Some native species that share ecosystems often face 
a suite of common factors that may be a threat to them, and 
ameliorating or eliminating these threats for one species will benefit 
multiple species, often with the implementation of similar management 
actions. Effective management of these threats often requires 
implementation of complementary conservation actions to enhance or 
restore critical ecological processes and native habitat, and provide 
for long-term viability of those species in their native environment. 
In some of the geographic management areas, we will likely consider the 
need to address other listed species in our future recovery planning 
efforts for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. This will also be the 
case for section 7 consultations when a proposed action affects 
multiple species.
    (33) Comment: Trapping and livestock grazing are not contributing 
factors to loss of beaver ponds.
    Our Response: Baker and Hill (2003, p. 303) indicated that beaver 
are highly vulnerable to overharvest from trapping because their slow 
rate of reproduction and delayed sexual maturity preclude reproduction 
as a means to offset intensive annual harvest. As noted in the SSA 
Report (see 5.1.6 Loss of Beaver of the SSA Report; Service 2014, 
entire), the decline and near elimination of beaver due to 
overharvesting is well documented (Naiman et al. 1988, entire; Baker 
and Hill 2003, p. 288; Crawford et al. 1993, p. 39). Moreover, beaver 
continue to be subject to extensive management and removal (U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
2011, entire; Wild 2011, p. 5).
    Limiting factors for beaver populations are typically related to 
the availability of food resources (e.g., trees, tubers, roots, shoots, 
and many herbaceous plants) (Boyle and Owens 2007, p. 21). Intense 
herbivory by ungulates or livestock can disrupt beaver populations 
(Baker et al. 2005, p. 117) because grazing can reduce or eliminate 
adequate herbaceous and riparian plants that are required for beaver 
food. Sufficient food is necessary to sustain beaver populations. 
Beaver continue to be lost from across the range of the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse; therefore, we consider this another causative 
factor in the ongoing loss of suitable New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
habitat now and into the future (Please see the SSA Report for further 
information).
    (34) Comment: If the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is listed as 
endangered, are private landowners obliged to follow the Act? Is this a 
taking of private property rights?
    Our Response: Section 9 of the Act makes it illegal for anyone to 
``take'' (defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 
trap, capture, collect, or attempt any of these actions) an endangered 
species (see section 9 of Available Conservation Measures, below). 
However, the mere promulgation of a regulation, like listing a species 
under the Act, does not take private property, unless the regulation on 
its face denies the property owners all economically beneficial or 
productive use of their land, which is not the case with the listing of 
this subspecies. Programs are available to private landowners for 
managing habitat for listed species, as well as permits that can be 
obtained to protect private landowners from the take prohibition when 
such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out 
of an otherwise lawful activity. Private landowners may contact their 
local Service field office to obtain information about these programs 
and permits.
    (35) Comment: There is a fixation on livestock grazing in the 
proposed rule and no consideration of other types of ungulate grazing 
such as feral horses or elk.
    Our Response: In the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire, we found 
that livestock and elk grazing within New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
habitat affects individual mice by reducing the availability of food 
resources (Morrison 1987, p. 25; Morrison 1990, p. 141; Frey 2005a, p. 
59; 2011, p. 70). Cattle and sometimes elk, have contributed 
substantially to alterations of riparian ecosystems throughout the 
range of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. However, there is a 
strong tendency for livestock to congregate in riparian habitat, 
whereas elk may range farther from water sources and riparian areas 
than cattle (USFS 2006, pp. 76-77). Timing of livestock grazing also 
coincides with the active season of the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse. We note that grazing is only one of several concerns for the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Please see the SSA Report for further 
information. See

[[Page 33130]]

our response to comment (9) above for additional information on feral 
horses.
    (36) Comment: Some of the information used in the SSA Report comes 
from documents that indicate the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is 
``endangered'' (e.g., Frey, J.K. 2006. Capture of the endangered New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus) at Coyote Creek 
State Park, New Mexico. Frey Biological Research, Radium Springs, New 
Mexico). This report was produced prior to the Service considering the 
animal for endangered status. Because ``endangered'' was used in the 
title of the report, is there a potential for bias?
    Our Response: Use of the term ``endangered'' in the Frey (2006) 
report does not indicate bias. The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is 
classified as an endangered species under the New Mexico Wildlife 
Conservation Act of 1974 (i.e., State Endangered Species Act) (19 New 
Mexico Administrative Code 33.6.8). This is an entirely different 
process and statute than the Act. We adhered to the requirements of the 
Act in order to determine whether the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act, based on 
our assessment of the five listing factors and using the best available 
scientific and commercial data.
    (37) Comment: If the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is listed as 
endangered, fuels treatments to reduce the risk of fire may be 
inhibited due to the complexity and additional time required to 
complete consultation with the Service. In this example, the Federal 
agency would likely reduce the size of the forest treatment (e.g., 
prescribed burn), or the project would be stopped altogether when the 
subspecies is listed.
    Our Response: Listing the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is 
unlikely to reduce proactive treatments necessary to alleviate the risk 
of catastrophic wildfire because the majority of treatments are likely 
to be confined to forested lands and not within riparian and adjacent 
upland habitat used by the species. However, the USFS or other Federal 
agency will need to determine whether any fuels treatments may affect 
the subspecies in accordance with section 7 of the Act. If a Federal 
agency funds, authorizes, or carries out an action that may affect the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, the agency is required to consult with 
the Service. The regulatory requirements under the Act were determined 
by Congress to ensure that otherwise lawful actions that affect species 
listed under the Act are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of those listed species. Consultations analyze and determine 
to what degree the species is impacted by a proposed action. Each 
consultation is evaluated on a case-by-case basis following our 
regulations (50 CFR part 402). In the SSA Report (Service 2014, 
entire), we identify opportunities for habitat improvement, which 
includes reducing fuels to minimize the risk of severe wildland fire.
    (38) Comment: New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat has been lost 
in some areas following the Wallow Wildfire, but habitat for the 
subspecies has been gained in other areas. Although the Wallow Wildfire 
had a huge impact on the landscape, the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
continues to be found in areas following the fire. In fact, post-fire 
flooding carried sediments to some areas where herbaceous vegetation 
now meets 60-cm (24-in) stubble height.
    Our Response: The commenter did not provide any specific 
information on areas where jumping mouse habitat may have been gained 
following the Wallow Wildfire. We also did not receive any information 
regarding this topic from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD 
2012, entire; 2014, entire). New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat is 
located within riparian areas that are subject to dynamic changes from 
flooding such as the loss and regrowth in the quantity and location of 
dense riparian herbaceous vegetation over time. If suitable habitat has 
been gained or restored in some areas and the habitat is beyond the 
movement or dispersal capabilities of the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse, it is unlikely to become occupied. New Mexico meadow jumping 
mice are generally believed to have limited vagility (ability to move) 
and possibly limited dispersal capabilities (Morrison 1988, p. 13; Frey 
and Wright 2012, pp. 43, 109). Consequently, suitable habitat should be 
no more than about 200 m (656 ft) from existing populations, which 
would increase the likelihood of emigrating individuals repopulating 
sites that have been extirpated due to natural or manmade events or 
moving into areas where suitable habitat has been restored.
    Severe wildland fires, such as the Wallow Wildfire, can have 
dramatic, long-lasting impacts on jumping mice and their habitat (See 
SSA Report for additional information). We continue to find that the 
2011 Wallow and Track Wildfires have significantly impacted the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, resulting in extirpation of some 
populations and further loss of habitat, including loss of beaver (AGFD 
2012, entire; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2013a, p. 1; Frey and Kopp 
2013, entire; Service 2013c, entire).
    (39) Comment: More sampling and surveys of the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse need to be completed to determine whether populations are 
confined to true livestock exclosures.
    Our Response: Since 2003, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse surveys 
in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado involved 200 localities and 68,102 
trap nights (over 100 historically occupied sites plus 136 localities 
that appeared to have the highest quality potentially suitable habitat) 
(see ``Current Records of Localities Found Since 2005'' in the SSA 
Report; Service 2014). In all but one case where the jumping mouse was 
found since 2005, livestock were being excluded (Frey 2005a, pp. 58-62; 
Frey 2006d, pp. 49, 55; Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 37; Frey 2011, pp. 
41-42; 2012, entire; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2012, entire; Service 
2012a, pp. 1-2; 2012c, pp. 1, 6-8; 2012d, p. 2). The habitat conditions 
at this one locality where livestock grazing was occurring were 
suitable for New Mexico meadow jumping mice occupancy and similar to 
fenced New Mexico meadow jumping mouse localities because the presence 
of beaver naturally inhibited livestock grazing (Frey and Malaney 2009, 
p. 37).
    Moreover, additional areas that contained potentially suitable New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat were also surveyed, with many of 
the survey locations outside of livestock exclosures in which no 
individuals were captured (Frey 2003, entire; 2005a, entire; 2007b, 
entire; 2011, p. 42; 2013c, entire; Chambers 2012, entire; USFS 2012h, 
entire). As we found in the SSA Report, the presence of a functioning 
livestock exclosure has been reported as the best predictor of New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse occupancy in montane riparian areas (Frey 
2005a, pp. 59-60; Frey and Malaney 2009, pp. 35, 37). However, 
unauthorized livestock grazing continues to be documented within 15 of 
29 existing New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations when fencing 
was cut or not maintained, gates were open, or wildfire burned and 
eliminated fences, and cattle entered the area (ADGF 2012a, entire; 
USFS 2007, p. 1; 2010, p. 2; 2011c, pp. 1-5; 2012h, p. 2; Frey 2005a, 
pp. 25-26, 29, 36, 58-62; 2006, p. 1; 2006d, pp. 49, 55; 2011, pp. 41-
42; Frey and Malaney 2009, p. 37; Frey 2011, pp. 41-42; 2012, entire; 
Colorado Natural Heritage Program 2006, p. 260; Colorado Parks and 
Wildlife 2012, p. entire; Service 2012a, pp. 1-2; 2012c, pp. 1, 6-

[[Page 33131]]

8; 2012d, p. 2; U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2008, pp. 3-62).
    (40) Comment: Listing a species may reduce beneficial management 
activities or obstruct or prevent entities from executing conservation 
agreements and partnerships to protect the species. The Service should 
recognize ongoing conservation efforts.
    Our Response: The Service does recognize ongoing conservation 
efforts. The Act requires us to make a determination using the best 
available scientific and commercial data after conducting a review of 
the status of the species and after taking into account those efforts, 
if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political 
subdivision of a State or foreign nation to protect such species, 
whether by predatory control protection of habitat and food supply, or 
other conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction. 
The only conservation actions implemented since the species became a 
candidate for listing in 2007 were the installation of Langemann water 
control structures and restoration of habitat on Bosque del Apache 
National Wildlife Refuge, and the replacement of one barbed-wire 
livestock exclosure with a pipe fence on the Lincoln National Forest. 
These few actions did not reduce or eliminate threats to the 
subspecies, and the jumping mouse still meets the definition of an 
endangered species under the Act.
    Further, the listing of a species does not obstruct the development 
of conservation agreements or partnerships to conserve the species. 
Once a species is listed as either endangered or threatened, the Act 
provides many tools to advance the conservation of listed species. 
Conservation of listed species in many parts of the United States is 
dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of entities, 
including the voluntary cooperation of non-Federal landowners. Building 
partnerships and promoting cooperation of landowners are essential to 
understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands, and may be 
necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing listed 
species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection. We promote these 
private-sector efforts through the Department of the Interior's 
Cooperative Conservation philosophy (see http://www.fws.gov/landscape-conservation/lcc.html for more information). Once a species is listed, 
for private or other non-Federal property owners we offer voluntary 
Safe Harbor Agreements that can contribute to the recovery of species, 
Habitat Conservation Plans that allows activities (e.g., grazing) to 
proceed while minimizing effects to species, funding through the 
Partner's for Fish and Wildlife Program to help promote conservation 
actions, and grants to the States under section 6 of the Act.
    (41) Comment: The Service should recognize the economic impact of 
listing the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Listing the mouse could 
result in short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts for species on 
human activities.
    Our Response: The Act requires us to use the best scientific and 
commercial data available in our listing determinations. The Act does 
not allow us to consider the impacts of listing on economics or humans 
activities whether over the short term, long term, or cumulatively.
    (42) Comment: Will recreation sites be shut down or Federal land 
use be greatly restricted if the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is 
listed as endangered?
    Our Response: Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the subspecies or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service. During 
consultation with the Federal agency, we will analyze and determine to 
what degree the subspecies would be impacted by proposed recreational 
activities and will work with the Federal agency to determine necessary 
modification of planned activities, in order to avoid and minimize 
adverse impacts to the subspecies.
    (43) Comment: There is no scientific justification for defining the 
historical (1980s and 1990s) baseline for the subspecies' distribution. 
There must have been some other challenging environmental changes that 
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse survived to reach population levels 
in the 1980s. Therefore, what scientific basis is there for presuming 
the species could not survive now without endangered species 
protection?
    Our Response: Please see our response to comment number (3), above. 
While the historical and current distributional data for the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse is categorized into two time periods in the SSA 
Report (Service 2014, entire), we included all known distribution 
records and summarized the comprehensive reports regarding the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse (i.e., Frey 2008c, entire; Hafner et al. 
1981). We found no capture records of New Mexico meadow jumping mice 
between 1996 and 2005. Surveys conducted since 2005 in locations where 
the subspecies was historically present indicate that the subspecies is 
now apparently absent or at levels too low for detection. Based on this 
information and previous reviews, we continue to find that the 
comparison between historical (1980 to 1999) and current New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse records (2005 forward) is appropriate, and the 
pre-1980 records were sufficiently considered and incorporated in the 
SSA Report.
    We evaluated whether the subspecies is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (endangered), or 
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (threatened). 
Also, please see our Determination section, below for a detailed 
explanation of why this subspecies meets the definition of an 
endangered species under the Act. Finally, see the SSA Report for our 
analysis of long-term viability and extinction risk for the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse. (see Chapter 6. Viability of the SSA Report)
    (44) Comment: The Service should include a special 4(d) rule, 
similar to Preble's meadow jumping mouse that exempts take of the 
subspecies under section 9 of the Act for any continued use of water 
rights.
    Our Response: Section 4(d) of the Act pertains only to threatened 
species, not endangered species. Section 4(d) of the Act reads that, 
whenever any species is listed as a threatened species, the Secretary 
shall issue such regulations, as she deems necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of such species. Because we are listing 
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as endangered and not threatened, a 
4(d) rule is not applicable.
    (45) Comment: According to Wikipedia, the jumping mouse is capable 
of having two to three litters per year.
    Our Response: Although jumping mice (Zapus hudsonius) in Minnesota 
and New York average two to three litters (Quimby 1951, p. 69; Whitaker 
1963, p. 244), the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse only has one litter 
each year (Morrison 1987, pp. 14-15; 1989, p. 22; Frey 2011, p. 69; 
2012b, p. 5).
    (46) Comment: Over the last few years, mowing along irrigation 
ditches has ceased and the vegetation grows over the areas, especially 
along those in the middle Rio Grande.
    Our Response: The commenter did not provide any information 
demonstrating mowing has ceased. The

[[Page 33132]]

information we reviewed indicates that mowing continues to be part of 
regular maintenance activities along irrigation ditches and canals on 
Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge and throughout the middle 
Rio Grande (Bureau of Reclamation 2013, pp. 55-59, 62; Frey and Wright 
2012, pp. 6, 35; SSA Report pp. 88-91). Moreover, neither the Florida 
Water Conservancy District, nor the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 
District indicated in their public comments that mowing has ceased as 
part of their normal maintenance operations (Florida Water Conservancy 
District 2013, entire; Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 2013, 
entire).
    (47) Comment: Were the jumping mice captured along the Florida 
River positively identified as New Mexico meadow jumping mice using 
genetic analyses?
    Our Response: Yes. The Florida River individuals were confirmed as 
New Mexico meadow jumping mice using mitochondrial DNA (genetic) 
analyses (Museum of Southwestern Biology 2007, entire; 2007a, entire; 
Malaney et al. 2012, p. 695, Appendix S1).
    (48) Comment: The Service fails to provide a scientific basis for 
the unrealistic vegetation cover requirements.
    Our Response: Based on the best available scientific evidence, the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has exceptionally specialized 
requirements for dense herbaceous riparian habitat as described in the 
``Specific Microhabitat Requirements'' section of our SSA Report 
(Service 2014).
    (49) Comment: There is no scientific historical baseline to compare 
habitat or populations to in order to determine whether New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse populations have been impacted. The Service did 
not use actual population numbers or long-term trends to make a 
determination to list the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse as 
endangered.
    Our Response: In the SSA Report (Service 2014, entire), we used 
historical and current data to determine that the distribution and 
number of populations of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse has 
declined significantly rangewide with the majority of local 
extirpations occurring since the late-1980s and early 1990s. At least 
70 former locations occupied by the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse are 
considered no longer occupied (Frey 2005a, pp. 6-10; 2007b, pp. 23-27; 
2011, pp. 26-27; 2012e, entire; AGFD 2012, entire; Frey and Kopp, 2013, 
entire; Frey and Wright 2012, p. 28; Frey 2013, entire). See also our 
response to comment number 3 above.
    (50) Comment: High predation rates or disease may cause high 
mortality and reduce New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations.
    Our Response: As we found in 5.2.2 Disease or Predation of our SSA 
Report (Service 2014), we did not identify predation and disease as 
significant risk factors for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
    (51) Comment: The Service has failed to address the conflict 
between the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse and already listed 
predators such as the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) 
and Mexican gray wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), which could be significant 
sources of mortality.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that the Mexican spotted owl and 
Mexican gray wolf could eat jumping mice, because they can be highly 
sought-after food sources as prey for these species. However, the best 
scientific and commercial data available does not indicate that either 
of these species are significant predators on the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse. Nevertheless, predation is a naturally occurring event 
in the life history of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, and, as we 
found in 5.2.2 Disease or Predation of our SSA Report (Service 2014), 
predation is not a significant risk factor.
    (52) Comment: No data are provided for the assumption that only 
limited portions of New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat would be 
affected by natural disturbances (flood, wildfire, or drought). These 
natural disturbances operate at the landscape scale, which would 
decimate habitat patches that are small and localized.
    Our Response: As we noted in the 5.1 Habitat Loss section of the 
SSA Report (Service 2014), natural disturbances can vary from small to 
large-scale events. Large-scale disturbances can have dramatic, long-
lasting impacts on New Mexico meadow jumping mice and their habitat, 
while small-scale disturbances may help maintain riparian communities 
in an early seral stage, which would provide suitable habitat for the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. The New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
may exhibit some natural resiliency to small disturbances when 
populations were larger and well-connected to one another, but there is 
cause for concern because many of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
populations are either extremely small or highly fragmented. As a 
result, we found that these natural disturbances are an important 
causal factor in the ongoing and future loss of New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse suitable habitat, making all of the remaining small and 
fragmented populations of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse more 
vulnerable to extirpation.
    (53) Comment: Coal bed methane development should be removed from 
the list of potential threats to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
because there are no wellpads or associated non-well facilities near 
the populations in Colorado (Florida River, Sambrito Creek, or Sugarite 
Canyon). Moreover, existing regulations at the State (Colorado Oil and 
Gas Conservation Commission) and local levels (La Plata County land use 
code, Chapter 90; Archuleta County land use code, Section 9) have 
resulted in no oil or gas wells or facilities within these areas.
    Our Response: The areas surrounding the Florida River and Sambrito 
Creek contain extensive gas fields, and, based on the best available 
scientific and commercial data, production from coalbed methane is 
projected to increase (Bureau of Land Management and USFS 2006, entire; 
Papadopulos and Associates 2006, entire). In 2005, there were about 
1,650 production wells in production in the Colorado portion of the San 
Juan Basin (Papadopulos and Associates 2006, p. 1). Projections are 
that this number will increase because future gas production wells have 
already been permitted (Papadopulos and Associates 2006, p. 92, Figure 
6-2; Bureau of Reclamation 2007, pp. 3-55-3-60). Similarly, coalbed 
methane development will likely continue to expand in the Raton Basin, 
which includes the Sugarite Canyon, New Mexico (Hoffman and Brister 
2003, p. 110).
    Future impacts may occur to riparian habitat in these watersheds or 
result in the alteration of hydrological regimes (Bureau of Land 
Management and USFS 2006, Appendix H, p. 27). For example, recent data 
indicates that existing coalbed methane development has depleted 80,176 
cubic m (65 ac ft) of water per year from the Animas, Florida, and Pine 
Watersheds (Bureau of Land Management and USFS 2006, Appendix H, p. 
27). We also queried the Colorado Oil and Gas Database (http://cogcc.state.co.us/) and located at least 10 producing wells within 91 
to 221 m (300 to 725 ft) of the active Florida River channel and 5 
producing wells within 61 to 609 m (200 to 2,000 ft) of Sambrito Creek 
(Service 2013d, entire). These distances have the potential to affect 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse habitat from ground disturbance for 
roads, drilling pads, pipelines, and other utilities and infrastructure 
(e.g.,

[[Page 33133]]

see Bureau of Reclamation 2007, pp. 3-55-3-60, 4-5, 4-26). There may 
also be longer-term water table issues, irrigation water changes, and 
nonnative plant infestations in areas that are developed for coal bed 
methane extraction, which would contribute to further loss of dense 
herbaceous riparian vegetation that constitutes jumping mouse habitat 
(National Park Service 2003, p. 2).
    We found that La Plata and Archuleta Counties only provide 
protection to wildlife resources and floodplains, wherever it is 
reasonably practicable, to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts 
from coal bed methane development (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 
Commission 2008, entire; La Plata County 2001, entire; Archuleta County 
2012, entire). For example, the La Plata County land use code requires 
new development to be located no less than 15 m (50 ft) from wetlands, 
which may still result in indirect effects to wetland and riparian 
habitat (2001, pp. 6.7-6.8) that would then impact the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse and its habitat. Moreover, the regulations are 
intended to balance oil and gas development with wildlife conservation 
by incorporating best management practices (Colorado Oil and Gas 
Conservation Commission 2008, entire) or standard operating procedures 
(Archuleta County 2012, entire). Consequently, it is unclear whether 
this will fully or even partially protect the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse and its habitat. Finally, we found no regulations that might 
provide some protection to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
population in Sugarite Canyon, New Mexico from coalbed methane 
development.
    Based on this information, development of coalbed methane gas in 
the Raton and San Juan Basins is projected to continue into the future, 
potentially impacting the Florida River, Sambrito Creek, and Sugarite 
Canyon, Colorado, New Mexico meadow jumping mouse populations. All of 
this information demonstrates that coalbed methane development and 
related infrastructure have the potential to affect New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse populations within the Florida River, Sambrito Creek, and 
Sugarite Canyon, Colorado.
    (54) Comment: Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, has taken measures to 
protect and enhance the habitat required by the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse by adopting the Rio Arriba County Flood Damage Prevention 
Ordinance 2012-004 (Floodplain Ordinance).
    Our Response: Although Rio Arriba County's comments indicate that 
the Floodplain Ordinance aims to foster sound land use activities in 
federally designated floodplains and riparian areas, we are not aware 
of any areas that are currently occupied by the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse within Rio Arriba County. The only critical habitat 
proposed for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in the County was 
located along the Rio Grande within Ohkay Owingeh, which would not be 
subject to the Floodplain Ordinance.
    (55) Comment: The comment period was too brief. Local governments 
and interested individuals were not notified in writing of the proposal 
to list the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
    Our Response: We provided the normal 60-day comment period 
associated with the publication of the proposed rule, which opened on 
June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37363), and closed on August 19, 2013. We sent 
letters to State congressional representatives, local governments, and 
interested parties; we published public notices in area newspapers; and 
we issued a news release on our Web site.
    (56) Comment: One commenter encouraged the Service to invest 
additional resources in public outreach for the Florida River 
Geographic Management Area because most of the Florida River is under 
private ownership.
    Our Response: On August 15, 2013, we held an informational meeting 
in Durango, Colorado, as part of our public outreach for the Florida 
River Geographic Management Area, to answer questions about the 
implications of the potential listing and critical habitat designation 
of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.
    (57) Comment: The Service should not settle legal actions with 
activist groups that appear to create arbitrary listings of threatened 
or endangered species.
    Our Response: On July 12, 2011, the Service filed a multiyear work 
plan as part of a settlement agreement with the Center for Biological 
Diversity and others, in a consolidated case in the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Columbia. A settlement agreement in In re 
Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), 
MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011) was approved by the court on 
September 9, 2011. The settlement enables the Service to 
systematically, over a period of 6 years, review and address the needs 
of more than 250 candidate species to determine if they should be added 
to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We adhered to the 
requirements of the Act, to determine whether a species warrants 
listing based on our assessment of the five-factor threats analysis 
using the best available scientific and commercial data. A species may 
be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or 
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) 
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may 
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. We already determined, prior to the court settlement 
agreement, that the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse warranted listing 
under the Act, but was precluded by the necessity to commit limited 
funds and staff to complete higher priority species actions. The New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse has been included in our annual Candidate 
Notices of Review for multiple years, during which time scientific 
literature and data have and continue to indicate that the subspecies 
is detrimentally impacted by ongoing threats, and we continued to find 
that listing was warranted but precluded. The listing process is not 
arbitrary, but uses the best available scientific and commercial data 
and peer-review to ensure sound science and sound decisionmaking.
    (58) Comment: The purpose of listing this highly specialized 
subspecies is only in support of the preservationists' philosophy of 
radical environmental organizations. Most often listing has forced land 
management agencies to totally abandon their missions in favor of a 
hands-off, do-nothing approach.
    Our Response: The commenter did not provide any additional 
information for the Service to consider. Land management agencies 
continue to provide for multiple use activities on their lands, 
including the conservation of federally listed species.

[[Page 33134]]

Determination

Standard for Review

    Section 4 of the Act, and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(b)(1)(a), the Secretary is to make threatened or endangered 
determinations required by subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available to her after 
conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into 
account conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. The 
standards for determining whether a species is threatened or endangered 
are provided in section 3 of the Act. An endangered species is any 
species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.'' A threatened species is any species 
that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' Per 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, in reviewing the status of the species to 
determine if it meets the definitions of threatened or endangered, we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following five factors: (A) The present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence.
    Until recently, the Service has presented its evaluation of 
information under the five listing factors in an outline format, 
discussing all of the information relevant to any given factor and 
providing a factor-specific conclusion before moving to the next 
factor. However, the Act does not require findings under each of the 
factors, only an overall determination as to status (e.g., threatened, 
endangered, not warranted). Ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency 
and efficacy of the Service's implementation of the Act have led us to 
present this information in a different format that we believe leads to 
greater clarity in our understanding of the science, its uncertainties, 
and the application of our statutory framework to that science. 
Therefore, while the presentation of information in this rule differs 
from past practice, it differs in format only. We have evaluated the 
same body of information we would have evaluated under the five listing 
factors outline format, we are applying the same information standard, 
and we are applying the same statutory framework in reaching our 
conclusions.

Final Listing Status Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Based on our review of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the 
New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is currently in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range and, therefore, meets the definition of an 
endangered species. This finding, explained below, is based on our 
conclusions that the subspecies exhibits low viability as characterized 
by having no resilient populations, resulting in low overall 
representation across the subspecies' entire range and no redundancy. 
We found the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse to be at an elevated risk 
of extinction now and no data indicate that the situation will improve 
without significant conservation intervention. We, therefore, find that 
the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse warrants an endangered species 
listing status determination.
    On the basis of our biological review documented in the SSA Report, 
we found that the subspecies is inherently vulnerable to population 
extirpations due to its short active period, short lifespan, low 
fecundity, specific habitat needs, and low movement and dispersal 
ability (Factor E). The subspecies is currently known to be limited to, 
at most, 29 small, isolated populations, all of which are incapable of 
withstanding adverse events, and, therefore, are not resilient (Factor 
E). This total is reduced from nearly 70 locations known historically. 
Of these 29 populations where the New Mexico meadow jumping mice have 
been found extant since 2005, at least 11 populations have been 
substantially compromised in the past 2 years and 7 others may have 
been affected by recent wildfires. Because these populations have been 
compromised, the actual current number of extant populations may 
already be less than 29, placing the subspecies at a higher risk of 
extinction. At this rate of population extirpation (based on known 
historical population losses and possible recent population losses) the 
probability of persistence of the subspecies as a whole is severely 
compromised in the near term.
    The remaining small, isolated New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
populations are particularly threatened with extirpation from habitat 
loss and modifications (Factor A). The main sources of habitat loss, 
degradation, and modification, include grazing pressure (which removes 
the needed vegetation), water management and use (which causes 
vegetation loss from mowing and drying of soils), lack of water due to 
drought (exacerbated by climate change), and wildfires (also 
exacerbated by climate change). Additional sources of habitat loss are 
likely to occur from floods, loss of beaver, highway reconstruction, 
residential and commercial development, coalbed methane development, 
and unregulated recreation.
    Each of the 29 remaining locations where the jumping mouse has been 
found recently is vulnerable to at least 4 of these 10 sources of 
habitat loss. Some populations are at risk from as many as 8 of these 
sources (Service 2014, Table 3). As a result, these multiple sources of 
habitat loss are not acting independently, but may produce cumulative 
impacts that magnify the effects of habitat loss on jumping mouse 
populations. Historically larger connected populations of jumping mice 
would have been able to withstand or recover from local stressors, such 
as habitat loss from drought, wildfire, or floods. However, the current 
condition of small populations makes local extirpations more common. 
Further, the isolated state of existing populations makes natural 
recolonization of impacted areas highly unlikely or impossible in most 
areas. With each of these sources of habitat loss, the probability 
increases of the future reduction in size of existing populations of 
jumping mice and eventual additional losses of additional populations. 
With each population lost in the future, a decrease in viability of the 
subspecies will occur as species redundancy and representation are 
reduced.
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We evaluated whether the New Mexico 
meadow jumping mouse is an endangered species or a threatened species. 
The foreseeable future refers to the extent to which the Secretary can 
reasonably rely on predictions about the future in making 
determinations about the future conservation status of the species. A 
key statutory difference between a threatened species and an endangered 
species is the timing of

[[Page 33135]]

when a species may be in danger of extinction, either now (endangered 
species) or in the foreseeable future (threatened species).
    Because of the fact-specific nature of listing determinations, 
there is no single metric for determining if a species is ``in danger 
of extinction'' now. In the case of the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse, the best available information indicates that, while major range 
reductions (that is the overall geographic extent of the subspecies 
occurrences) have not happened, habitat destruction and isolation have 
resulted in significant loss of populations and reductions in total 
numbers of individuals. These losses are ongoing as at least 11 of the 
29 known populations have been significantly compromised since 2011. 
Without substantial conservation efforts, this trend of population loss 
is expected to continue and result in an elevated risk of extinction of 
the subspecies. Many of the threats faced by the subspecies would not 
have historically been significant, but past reductions in population 
size and fragmentation (mainly due to habitat loss from grazing) 
causing isolation of populations makes the current threats particularly 
severe. As a result, the subspecies is currently at an elevated risk 
that stochastic events (e.g., drought, wildfire, and floods) will 
affect all known extant populations putting the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse at a high risk of extinction. Therefore, because no 
resilient populations currently exist to support persistence of the New 
Mexico meadow jumping mouse, it is in danger of extinction throughout 
all of its range now, and appropriately meets the definition of an 
endangered species (i.e., in danger of extinction). Therefore, on the 
basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we 
determine endangered status for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse in 
accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is threatened or endangered throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The threats to the survival of this 
species occur throughout its range and are not restricted to any 
particular significant portion of its range. Accordingly, our 
assessments and determinations apply to this species throughout its 
entire range.
    In conclusion, as described above, the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse has experienced significant reductions in populations (based on 
habitat reductions and fragmentation), is especially vulnerable to 
impacts due to its life history and ecology, and is subject to 
significant current and ongoing threats now. After a review of the best 
available scientific information as it relates to the status of the 
subspecies and the five listing factors, we find the New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse is in danger of extinction now. Therefore, on the basis 
of the best available scientific and commercial information, we 
determine endangered status for New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, in 
accordance with section 3(6) of the Act. We find that a threatened 
species status is not appropriate for the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse because the overall risk of extinction is high at this time 
because none of the existing populations are sufficiently resilient to 
support viable populations, and this subspecies is currently in danger 
of extinction.

Available Conservation Measures

    Regulations at 50 CFR 424.18 require final rules to include a 
description of conservation measures available under the rule. 
Following is an explanation of the measures which may be implemented 
for the conservation of the jumping mouse under this final rule.
    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information 
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate 
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to 
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, 
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or 
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans 
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery 
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery 
tasks. Recovery teams (comprising species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often 
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the draft 
recovery plan and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web 
site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our New Mexico Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We have 
completed a Recovery Outline that provides an interim strategy to guide 
the conservation and recovery of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse 
until a final recovery plan is finalized. The Recovery Outline is based 
on the SSA Report, as well as preliminary objectives and actions needed 
for recovery. The Recovery Outline can be downloaded at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm, http://www.fws.gov/endangered, or http://www.regulations.gov.
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribe, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and 
private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may not occur primarily or solely on 
non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    Because this subspecies is listed as endangered, funding for 
recovery actions will be available from a variety

[[Page 33136]]

of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share 
grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and 
nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of 
the Act, the States of Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection and recovery of the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. 
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species 
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for this subspecies. Additionally, we invite you to 
submit any new information on this subspecies whenever it becomes 
available and any information you may have for recovery planning 
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require 
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include livestock 
grazing, irrigation ditch maintenance and repair, recreational 
activities associated with Federal agencies or State parks that may 
affect habitat or the species; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act 
permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and 
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship 
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. 
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also 
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With 
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the 
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation 
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities.
    Our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34272), is to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the 
time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within the range of listed species. The 
following activities could potentially result in a violation of section 
9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import 
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for 
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years 
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act.
    (2) Unauthorized modification or manipulation of riparian habitat, 
including mowing or prescribed burning of occupied habitats, especially 
during the active season (generally May through October).
    (3) Activities that take or harm the New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse on public or private lands by causing significant habitat 
modification or degradation such that the activities cause actual 
injury by significantly impairing the species' essential behavior 
patterns, without authorization or coverage under the Act for these 
impacts. This may include, but is not limited to, the alteration or 
removal of specific microhabitat components (as described in this rule 
or within the SSA Report) through new construction, livestock grazing, 
or dredging or filling in streams or wetlands.
    (4) Unauthorized modification of any stream or water body or 
removal or destruction of herbaceous vegetation in any stream or water 
body in which the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse is known to occur.
    (5) Unlawful destruction or alteration of New Mexico meadow jumping 
mouse habitats (e.g., unpermitted instream dredging, impoundment, water 
diversion or withdrawal, channelization, discharge of fill material) 
that impairs essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or 
sheltering, or results in killing or injuring a New Mexico meadow 
jumping mouse.
    (6) Capture, survey, or collection of specimens of this taxon 
without a permit from us under to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New Mexico 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal

[[Page 33137]]

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered 
Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work 
directly with tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to 
acknowledge that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as 
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to 
make information available to tribes.

References Cited

    A complete list of references used in support of this rulemaking is 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov within the 
Final SSA Report (Service 2014, Literature Cited) and upon request from 
the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), add an entry for ``Mouse, New Mexico meadow 
jumping'' in alphabetical order under Mammals to the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Species                                                       Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------------                          population where                        When     Critical   Special
                                                               Historic range         endangered or          Status        listed    habitat     rules
            Common name                Scientific name                                 threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Mammals
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Mouse, New Mexico meadow jumping..  Zapus hudsonius        U.S. (AZ, CO, NM)....  Entire..............  E                      838         NA         NA
                                     luteus.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-13094 Filed 6-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P