The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has joined Douglas County in
looking for alternatives for landowners to deal with the threatened
Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and the Endangered Species Act.
Federal regulations limiting development in the Preble’s mouse
habitat has affected streamside development across the Front
Range.
The Preble’s meadow jumping mouse was listed as threatened in
May 1998. The only place in the world that the mouse has been found
is in high plains riparian areas, namely in undeveloped Front Range
streambeds. The habitat, several hundred yards on either side of
streams, often is inside the 100-year floodplain.
“We believe it is important to recognize good land stewardship
and the landowners’ interest in conserving the Preble’s by
providing exemptions for the ongoing land management activities,”
states a recent USFWS report.
Preble’s habitats also coincide with two other threatened
species habitats , the Colorado butterfly plant and the Ute ladies
tresses plant.
Killing any Preble’s mouse or digging up its habitat is illegal,
because of federal ESA restrictions. Property rights advocates in
Colorado and Wyoming have been frustrated since the mouse was
listed two and a half years ago. They cannot always legally do
whatever they want on their property as they could before the mouse
was listed.
In one of the fastest-growing counties in the nation, Douglas
County developers on creekbed land have been subject to increased
planning regulations and construction restrictions. They regularly
tell local, state and national representatives of their financial
frustrations caused by the threatened mouse.
Last year, Douglas County began a three-year process to get a
habitat conservation plan. The plan would allow certain instances
where Preble’s riparian habitat could be altered.
Some landowners are not sure what exactly they are prohibited
from doing on their own land as the law exists. They are not sure
what extent of activity irreparably, and illegally, harms Preble’s
habitat. The service also stated there is also confusion about
where the species is found, and where it has not turned up.
Douglas County, and now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, want
to clarify what landowners with mouse habitat on their property can
and cannot do.
The USFWS has several proposed alternatives that could amend the
Endangered Species Act.
One alternative would establish specific areas where mouse
habitat could not be harmed, unless local government approved.
Local governments could sacrifice no more than four percent of the
identified mouse protection areas.
Another alternative favored by the USFWS would allow certain
amounts of ditch maintenance, noxious weed control, rodent control,
landscape maintenance, and ongoing agricultural and water right
activities for 36 months. There would be no mouse protection areas.
Local governments would not have any control with this
alternative.
Another alternative would allow the mentioned activities for 18
months.