Laserfiche WebLink
<br />nIJJ3:i.~ <br /> <br />.Co <br /> <br />Colorado Field Supervisor <br />United States Fish and Wildlife Service <br />July 21, 1997 <br />Page Three <br /> <br />3, If the Mouse is listed as threatened or endangered, then the Service should work <br />with state and local interests in the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan <br />["HCP'l that both protects the species and provides for the continuance of lawful <br />activities. Under Sec. 9 of the ESA. a HCP could be established which would <br />guarantee limited take of the species, no surprises and a safe harbor as proposed <br />in recent Federal Reeister published notices, The process of identifying and <br />protecting riparian habitat for the Mouse is not complicated, Further, controlled <br />Mouse breeding could be readily established once a recovery program is <br />undertaken, If Mouse habitat is also found to include private property, a HCP is a <br />useful tool in protecting private land interests while at the same time assuring <br />Mouse habitat. Such a program might include further testing and identification of <br />Mouse populations, predator control, habitat protection and enhancement, limited <br />"take" permits for a time certain. species propagation program, no surprises and <br />safe harbor. It is the Water Congress' understanding that the State of Colorado <br />through its Department of Natural Resources is willing to undertake a HCP <br />concerning the Mouse, so long as the Service assists in information gathering, and <br />assurances to non-federal property owners that any agreement entered into will <br />provide certainty as to present and future approved uses, <br /> <br />4, In any type oflisting and/or agreement it is critical the Service identify recovery <br />needs in a measurable manner, One of the inherent problems in other ongoing <br />recovery efforts is that there is no readily identifiable recovery goal in terms of <br />population numbers or habitat protection and enhancement. Once the established <br />goals of a recovery program are met, the species should be delisted, <br /> <br />5, Iflisting occurs, the Service needs to credit mitigation measures to gather <br />information, protect the Mouse and increase its numbers already undertaken by <br />such diverse groups as the City of Colorado Springs and the Colorado Rock <br />Products Industry. The Service needs to give recognition for protection activity <br />during this pre-listing period, <br /> <br />6, The Service has stated a listing decision will be made no later than March 28, <br />1998, Due to the dearth of adequate information as stated under "I" above, it is <br />requested that a listing decision not occur until at least 6 months later or-.;. ... <br />September 28, 1998, As information is developed, disagreement and scientific <br />ambiguities appear inevitable. For example, there are some repons which view <br />the mouse as a "relic population" which might require protection but not <br />recovery, There:lIe other reports which call for full recovery, There are some <br />claims grnzing has contributed to the decline of the mouse. but others point to <br />housing development :md house cats, The :morrnarion base is inadequate and <br />