Federal Register, Volume 79 Issue 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)

[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