[Federal Register: September 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 174)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 54822-54845]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09se10-23]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0041]
[MO 92210-0-008]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon
neomexicanus) as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the Jemez Mountains salamander
(Plethodon neomexicanus) as an endangered or threatened species and to
designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the Jemez Mountains salamander as
endangered or threatened throughout its range is warranted. Currently,
however, listing the Jemez Mountains salamander is precluded by higher
priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition
finding, we will add the Jemez Mountains salamander to our candidate
species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the Jemez
Mountains salamander as our priorities allow. We will make any
determination on critical habitat during development of the proposed
rule. In the interim period, we will address the status of the
candidate taxon through our annual Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 9,
2010.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2009-0041. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services
Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above address.
[[Page 54823]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, New
Mexico Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 505-
346-2525; or by facsimile at 505-346-2542. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that listing the species may be
warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of
the petition. In this finding we determine that the petitioned action
is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are
endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add
or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
We initially considered the Jemez Mountains salamander (Plethodon
neomexicanus) for listing under the Act in the early 1980s (General
Accounting Office 1993, p. 30). In December 1982, we published a notice
of review classifying the salamander as a Category 2 species (47 FR
58454, December 30, 1982). Category 2 status included those taxa for
which information in the Service's possession indicated that a proposed
listing rule was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on
biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a
proposed rule.
On February 21, 1990, we received a petition to list the salamander
as threatened. Subsequently, we published a positive 90-day finding,
indicating that the petition contained sufficient information to
suggest that listing may be warranted (55 FR 38342; September 18,
1990). In the Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) published on November
21, 1991, we announced the salamander as a Category 1 species with a
``declining'' status (56 FR 58814). Category 1 status included those
species for which the Service had on file substantial information
regarding the species' biological vulnerability and threat(s) to
support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species. The
``declining'' status indicated decreasing numbers, increasing threats,
or both.
On May 30, 1991, the Service, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and
the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) signed a Memorandum
of Agreement outlining actions to be taken to protect the salamander
and its habitat on the Santa Fe National Forest lands, including the
formation of a team of agency biologists to immediately implement the
Memorandum of Agreement and to develop a management plan for the
species. The management plan was to be incorporated into the Santa Fe
National Forest Plan. On April 3, 1992, we published a 12-month finding
that listing the salamander was not warranted because of the
conservation measures and commitments within the Memorandum of
Agreement (57 FR 11459). In the November 15, 1994, CNOR, we included
the salamander as a Category 2 species, with a trend status of
``improving'' (59 FR 58982). A status of ``improving'' indicated those
species known to be increasing in numbers or whose threats to their
continued existence were lessening in the wild.
In the CNOR published on February 28, 1996, we announced a revised
list of animal and plant taxa that were regarded as candidates for
possible addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants (61 FR 7596). The revised candidate list included only former
Category 1 species. All former Category 2 species were dropped from the
list in order to reduce confusion about the conservation status of
those species, and to clarify that the Service no longer regarded them
as candidates for listing. Because the salamander was a Category 2
species, it was no longer recognized as a candidate species as of the
February 28, 1996, CNOR.
In January 2000, the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team (NMEST), a
group of interagency biologists representing NMDGF, the Service, the
U.S. Geological Survey, and the Santa Fe National Forest, finalized a
Cooperative Management Plan for the salamander on lands administered by
the Santa Fe National Forest (Cooperative Management Plan), and the
agencies signed an updated Conservation Agreement that superseded the
Memorandum of Agreement. The stated purpose of the Conservation
Agreement and the Cooperative Management Plan was to provide for the
long-term conservation of salamanders by reducing or removing threats
to the species and by proactively managing their habitat (NMEST 2000
Conservation Agreement, p. 1). In a Decision Notice and Finding of No
Significant Impact for the Forest Plan Amendment for Managing Special
Status Species Habitat, signed on December 8, 2004, the Cooperative
Management Plan was incorporated into the Santa Fe National Forest
Plan.
On October 15, 2008, we received a petition dated October 9, 2008,
from WildEarth Guardians requesting that we list the Jemez Mountains
salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) (salamander) as endangered or
threatened under the Act, and designate critical habitat. On August 11,
2009, we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented
substantial information that listing the salamander may be warranted
and that initiated a status review of the species (74 FR 40132). On
December 30, 2009, WildEarth Guardians filed suit against the Service
for failure to issue a 12-month finding on the petition (WildEarth
Guardians v. Salazar, No. 09-1212 (D.N.M.)). Under a stipulated
settlement agreement, the 12-month finding is due to the Federal
Register by September 8, 2010. This notice constitutes our 12-month
finding for the petition to list the Jemez Mountains salamander as
endangered or threatened.
Species Information
The salamander is uniformly dark brown above, with occasional fine
gold to brassy coloring with stippling dorsally (on the back and sides)
and is sooty gray ventrally (underside). The salamander is slender and
elongate, and it possesses foot webbing and a reduced fifth toe. This
salamander is strictly terrestrial and is a member of the family
Plethodontidae. The salamander does not use standing surface water for
any life stage. Respiration occurs through the skin, which requires a
moist microclimate for gas exchange.
Taxonomy and Species Description
The salamander was originally reported as Spelerpes multiplicatus
(=Eurycea multiplicata) in 1913 (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 27);
however, it was described and recognized as a new and distinct species
(Plethodon neomexicanus) in 1950 (Stebbins and Riemer, pp. 73-80). No
subspecies are recognized.
[[Page 54824]]
It is a member of the Plethodontidae family. Two species of
plethodontid salamanders are endemic (native and restricted to a
particular region) to New Mexico: the Jemez Mountains salamander and
the Sacramento Mountains salamander (Aneides hardii). Unlike all other
North American plethodontid salamanders, these two species are
geographically isolated from all other species of Plethodon and
Aneides.
Distribution
The distribution of plethodontid salamanders in North America has
been highly influenced by past changes in climate and associated
Pleistocene glacial cycles. In the Jemez Mountains, the lack of glacial
landforms indicates that alpine glaciers did not develop here, but the
abundance of evidence from exposed rock surfaces that have been quickly
broken up by frost action may reflect near-glacial conditions during
the Wisconsin Glacial Episode (Allen 1989, p. 11). Conservatively, the
salamander has likely occupied the Jemez Mountains for at least 10,000
years, but this could be as long as 1.2 million years, colonizing the
area subsequent to volcanic eruption.
The salamander is restricted to the Jemez Mountains in northern New
Mexico, in Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Sandoval Counties, around the
rim of the collapsed caldera (large volcanic crater), with some
occurrences on topographic features (e.g., resurgent domes) on the
interior of the caldera. The majority of salamander habitat is located
on federally managed lands including USFS, Valles Caldera National
Preserve (VCNP), National Park Service (Bandelier National Monument),
and Los Alamos National Laboratory, with some habitat located on tribal
land and private lands (NMEST 2000, p. 1). The species predominantly
occurs at an elevation between 2,200 and 2,900 meters (m) (7,200 and
9,500 feet (ft)) (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28), but has been found as
low as 2,133 m (6,998 ft) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 78) and as high as 3,350 m
(10,990 ft) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 84).
We divided known salamander distributional data into 5 units (Unit
1-Western; Unit 2-Northern; Unit 3-East-South-Eastern; Unit 4-Southern;
and Unit 5-Central) to provide clarity in describing and analyzing the
potential threats that may differ across the species' range. We
developed these units based on the best information available to us,
but some of the unit boundaries are based on incomplete occupancy
information. These units reflect where surveys have occurred and
generally follow breaks in topography. For example, there are areas
(e.g., VCNP) where few surveys have been conducted and occupancy may
not be uniform. Because the salamander has been found to occupy a wide
variety of sites, we do not know the extent of geographic or genetic
connectivity between localities. The VCNP is located west of Los
Alamos, New Mexico, and is owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(part of the National Forest System), but run by a nine-member Board of
Trustees: the Supervisor of Bandelier National Monument, the Supervisor
of the Santa Fe National Forest, and seven other members with distinct
areas of experience or activity appointed by the President of the
United States (Valles Caldera Trust 2005, pp. 1-11). Prior to Federal
ownership in 2000, the VCNP was privately held.
Habitat
The terrestrial salamander predominantly inhabits mixed conifer
forest, consisting primarily of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),
blue spruce (Picea pungens), Engelman spruce (P. engelmannii), white
fir (Abies concolor), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), Ponderosa pine (P.
ponderosa), Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), and aspen (Populus
tremuloides) (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28; Reagan 1967, p. 17). The
species can also be found in stands of pure Ponderosa pine and in
spruce-fir and aspen stands, but these forest types have not been
adequately surveyed. Predominant understory includes Rocky Mountain
maple (Acer glabrum), New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana),
oceanspray (Holodiscus sp.), and various shrubby oaks (Quercus spp.)
(Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28; Reagan 1967, p. 17). Salamanders are
generally found in association with decaying coniferous logs, and in
areas with abundant white fir, Ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir as the
predominant tree species (Ramotnik 1988, p. 17; Reagan 1967, pp. 16-
17). Salamanders use decaying coniferous logs considerably more often
than deciduous, likely due to the physical features (e.g., blocky
chunks with cracks and spaces) that form as coniferous logs decay
(Ramotnik 1988, p. 53). Still, the species may be found beneath some
deciduous logs and excessively decayed coniferous logs, because these
can provide surface habitat and cover (Ramotnik 1988, p. 53).
Biology
The salamander is strictly terrestrial and does not possess lungs.
The salamander does not use standing surface water for any life stage.
Respiration occurs through the skin, which requires a moist
microclimate for gas exchange. The salamander spends much of its life
underground; it can be found at the surface from July through
September, when relative environmental conditions are warm and wet.
When active at the surface, the species is usually found under decaying
logs, rocks, bark, moss mats, or inside decomposing stumps. The
salamander's underground habitat appears to be deep, fractured, sub-
surface rock in areas with high soil moisture (NMEST 2000, p. 2) where
the geologic and moisture constraints likely limit the distribution of
the species. Soil pH (acidity) may limit distribution as well. It is
unknown whether the species forages or carries on any other activity
below ground, although it is presumed that eggs are laid and hatch
beneath the surface.
The surface microhabitat temperature for 577 Jemez Mountains
salamanders ranged from 6.0 to 17.0 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (43 to 63
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), with a mean of 12.7 [deg]C (54.9 [deg]F)
(Williams 1972, p. 18). Significantly more salamanders were observed
under logs where temperatures are closest to the mean temperature (12.5
[deg]C (54.5 [deg]F)) than inside logs where temperatures deviated the
most from the mean temperature (13.3 [deg]C (55.9 [deg]F)) (Williams
1972, p. 19). Changes to microhabitat temperatures are discussed under
Factors A and E, below.
Sexual maturity is attained at 3 to 4 years in females and 3 years
in males (Williams 1976, pp. 31, 35). Reproduction in the wild has not
been observed; however, based on observed physiological changes,
reproduction is believed to occur above ground between mid-July and
mid-August (Williams 1976, pp. 31-36). Based on examination of 57
female salamanders in the wild and one clutch of eggs laid in a
laboratory setting, Williams (1978, p. 475) concluded that females
likely lay 7 or 8 eggs every other year or every third year. Eggs are
thought to be laid underground the spring after mating occurs (Williams
1978, p. 475). Fully-formed salamanders hatch from the eggs. The
lifespan of the salamander in the wild is unknown; however, based on
reproductive information that indicates the species is not sexually
mature until age 3 or 4 years and that it only lays eggs every 2 or 3
years, and considering the estimated lifespan of other terrestrial
plethodontid salamanders, we estimate that the species likely lives
more than 10 years.
Salamander prey from above ground foraging is diverse in size and
type, with ants, mites, and beetles being most
[[Page 54825]]
important in the salamander's diet (Cummer 2005, p. 43). Cummer (2005,
pp. 45-50) found that specialization on invertebrate species was
unlikely, but there was likely a preferential selection of prey.
Overview of Survey Data
Standardized survey protocols have been used for the salamander
since 1987 (NMDGF 2000, p. 2), but the number and location of surveys
have been variable and opportunistic. Survey methods involve searching
under potential cover objects (e.g., logs, rocks, bark, moss mats) and
inside decomposing coniferous logs when environmental conditions are
likely best for detecting surface-active salamanders, generally May
through September, when summer monsoon rains occur. Unfortunately,
methods for determining locations to survey salamanders over the past
20 years have not been systematic, and though we have conducted a
comprehensive review, the data have not been consistently available to
allow comparison of the status of the salamander over its entire range.
Three survey protocols have been in use since 1987 (NMEST 2000b,
pp. 27-29). Protocol A (presence or absence) has been used when
attempting to determine whether an area is occupied (NMEST 2000b, p.
27). Following this protocol, surveys cease after 2 ``person-hours'' of
effort (e.g., one person searching for 2 hours or two people searching
for 1 hour) or when the first salamander is observed, whichever comes
first. Because the salamander utilizes underground habitat and an
unknown number of individuals may be active at the surface, repeated
surveys may be necessary to determine occupancy of a locality (NMEST
2000b, p. 27).
Protocol B (population levels and trends) has been used for
comparing plots, monitoring trends through time, or evaluating how
salamander localities fluctuate in response to environmental variables
(NMEST 2000b, p. 28). For this protocol, a survey is conducted for 2
person-hours, with all salamanders tallied.
Protocol C (detailed environmental data) collects microhabitat data
to characterize potential salamander habitat (NMEST 2000b, p. 28). This
protocol involves collecting data on important habitat features within
a 50 m (160 ft) by 2 m (6.6 ft) transect, in addition to surveying for
salamanders under cover objects.
The rangewide population size of the salamander is also unknown.
Monitoring the absolute abundance of plethodontid salamanders is
inherently difficult because of the natural variation associated with
surface activity (Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624), which ultimately
affects the probability of detecting a salamander. The probability of
detection varies over space and time and is highly dependent upon the
environmental and biological parameters that drive surface activity
(Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). Given the known bias of detection
probabilities and the inconsistent survey effort across years,
population size estimates using existing data cannot be made
accurately.
Despite our inability to assess the rangewide population of the
salamander in a comprehensive manner, the survey data are useful to
understand that persistence of the salamander in localities may vary
across the range of the species. For example, some localities where the
salamander was once considered abundant or common (e.g., many parts of
Unit 2, the Type Locality or the location where the salamander was
originally found (Unit 4), and VCNP-Old Beaver Pond (Unit 5)), either
the salamander no longer persists, or it persists at very low numbers.
Alternatively, there are also three localities (Redondo Border, VCNP
(Unit 5), and North East Slope VCNP (northern part of Unit 3)) where
the salamander continues to be relatively abundant compared to most
currently occupied sites. However, the numbers in these relatively
abundant areas are far less than historic reports for the type
locality, where 659 individuals were captured in a single year (1970),
394 of them in a single month (Williams 1976, p. 26). We know of no
location where salamander abundance is similar to that observed in
1970. Overall, a few localized areas appear to be stable; however,
there appears to be a decreasing trend within areas (decrease in
numbers of salamanders observed during surveys) and a possible
rangewide declining trend (an increase in the number of areas where
salamanders were once present and have not been observed in recent
surveys). The apparent declining trend is evident in Units 1 and 3,
where we have the best survey information. Because it appears that the
species is relatively long-lived, has relatively low reproductive
output, has limited dispersal ability, and a small home range, it is
likely that the apparent decreasing and declining trends both within
localized areas and across the landscape represent actual declines in
salamanders over the past 20 to 30 years.
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (U.S.C. 1533 et seq.) and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to
the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on 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; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to the
species, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to
evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that
causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and,
during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how
significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or
contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms
are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that
could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the information in the petition and our files is
substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to
suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the
species to the point that the species may meet the definition of
endangered or threatened under the Act.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the salamander in
relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is
discussed below.
Factor A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
Under Factor A, we considered whether the Jemez Mountains
salamander is threatened by the following: fire exclusion and severe
wildland fires; forest composition and structure conversions; post-fire
rehabilitation; forest and fire management (fire use, fire suppression,
mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels, and forest silvicultural
practices
[[Page 54826]]
(timber harvest, salvage logging, forest thinning, and forest
restoration projects)); dams and mining; private (residential)
development; geothermal development; roads, trails, and habitat
fragmentation; recreation; and livestock grazing.
Fire Exclusion and Severe Wildland Fires
Fire exclusion and wildfire threaten the salamander. In the Jemez
Mountains, the results of over 100 years of fire suppression and fire
exclusion (along with cattle grazing and other stressors) have altered
forest composition and structure and increased the threat of wildfire
in Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests in semi-arid western
interior forests (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, p. 318). Fire has been an
important process in the Jemez Mountains for at least several thousand
years (Allen 1989, p. 69), indicating the salamander evolved with fire.
Frequent, low-intensity, surface fires and patchy, small scale, high-
intensity fires in the Jemez Mountains historically maintained
salamander habitat. These fires spread widely through the grassy
understory fuels, or erupted on very small scales. The natural fire
intervals prior to the 1900s ranged from 5 to 25 years across the Jemez
Mountains (Allen 2001, p. 4). Dry mixed conifer forests burned on
average every 12 years, whereas wet mixed conifer forests averaged
every 20 years. Historically, patchy surface fires within mixed conifer
forests would have thinned stands and created natural fuel breaks that
would limit the extent of fires. Still, in very dry years, there is
evidence of fires occurring across entire watersheds, but they did not
burn with high severity over entire mountain sides (Jemez Mountains
Adaptive Planning Workshop Session II Final Notes 2010, p. 7). Aspen
stands are evidence of historic patchy crown fires that represent the
relatively small-scale, stand-replacing fires that have historically
occurred in the Jemez Mountains, which are also associated with
significantly dry years (Margolis et al. 2007, p. 2236).
These historic fire patterns were interrupted in the late 1800s
through the elimination of fine fuels as a result of livestock
overgrazing and managed fire suppression. This interruption and
exclusion of fire promoted the development of high forest stand
densities with heavy accumulations of dead and downed fuel, and growth
of ladder fuels (the dense mid-story trees that favor development of
crown fires) (Allen 2001, pp. 5-6). In fact, fire exclusion in this
area converted historically low- to moderate-severity fire regimes with
small, patchy fires to high-severity, large-scale, stand-replacing
fires that have the potential to significantly destroy or degrade
salamander habitat (USFS 2009a, pp. 8-9). The disruption of the natural
cycle of fire and subsequent accumulation of continuous fuels within
the coniferous forests on south and north-facing slopes has increased
the chances of a severe wildfire affecting large areas of salamander
habitat within the Jemez Mountains (e.g., see USFS 2009a, 2009b).
Prescribed fire at VCNP has been limited, with only one burn in
2004 that was described as creating a positive vegetation response
(ENTRIX 2009, p. 97). A prescribed fire plan is expected to be
developed (ENTRIX 2009, p. 97), as there is concern for severe wildland
fires to occur (Parmenter 2009, cited in Service 2010). The planned
Scooter Peak prescribed burn between the VCNP and Bandelier National
Monument is a fuel reduction project in occupied salamander habitat,
but is small in scale (approximately 960 acres (ac) (390 hectares (ha))
(ENTRIX 2009, p. 2). Although future thinning of secondary growth may
somewhat lessen the risk of severe wildland fires in areas, these
efforts are not likely at a sufficient geographic scale to lessen the
overall threat to the salamander.
The frequency of large-scale, high-severity, stand-replacing
wildland fires has increased in the latter part of the 20th century in
the Jemez Mountains. This increase is due to landscape-wide buildup of
woody fuels associated with removal of grassy fuels from extreme year-
round livestock overgrazing in the late 1800s, and subsequent fire
suppression (Allen 1989, pp. 94-97; 2001, pp. 5-6). The majority of
wildfires over the past 20 years has exhibited crown fire behavior and
burned in the direction of the prevailing south or southwest winds
(USFS 2009a, p. 17). The first severe wildland fire in the Jemez
Mountains was the La Mesa Fire in 1977, burning 15,400 ac (6,250 ha).
Subsequent fires included the Buchanon Fire in 1993 (11,543 ac (4,671
ha)), the Dome Fire in 1996 (16,516 ac (6,684 ha)), the Oso Fire in
1997 (6,508 ac (2,634 ha)), the Cerro Grande Fire in 2000 (42,970 ac
(17,390 ha)), and the Lakes Fire Complex (Lakes and BMG Fires) in 2002
(4,026 ac (1,629 ha)) (Cummer 2005, pp. 3-4). Over the past 15 years,
severe wildland fires have burned about 36 percent of modeled or known
salamander habitat on USFS lands (USFS 2009, p. 1). Following the Cerro
Grande Fire, the General Accounting Office reported that these
conditions are common in much of the western part of the United States
turning areas into a ``virtual tinderbox'' (General Accounting Office
2000, p. 15). The threat of severe wildland fires to salamander habitat
remains high due to the tons of dead and down fuel, overcrowded tree
conditions leading to poor forest health, and dense thickets of small-
diameter trees. There is a 36 percent probability of having at least
one large fire of 4,000 ac (over 1,600 ha) every year for the next 20
years in the southwest Jemez Mountains (USFS 2009a, p. 19). Moreover,
the probability of exceeding this estimated threshold of 4,000 ac
(1,600 ha) burned in the same time period is 65 percent (USFS 2009a, p.
19). As an example of the severe fire risk, the Thompson Ridge-San
Antonio area, in Unit 1, has extensive ladder fuels and surface fuels
estimated at over 20 tons per acre, and the understory in areas
contains over 800 dense sapling trees per acre within the mixed conifer
and Ponderosa pine stands (USFS 2009a, pp. 24-25). The canyon
topography aligns with south winds and steep slopes, making this area
more susceptible to crown fire (USFS 2009a, pp. 24-25).
Increases in soil and microhabitat temperatures, which generally
increase with increasing burn severity, can have profound effects on
salamander behavior and physiology, and thus their ability to persist
subsequent to severe wildland fires. Following the Cerro Grande Fire,
soil temperatures were recorded under potential salamander cover
objects in areas occupied by the salamander (Cummer and Painter 2007,
pp. 26-37). Soil temperatures in areas of high severity burn exceeded
the salamander's thermal tolerance, which would have resulted in the
death of any salamanders present (Spotila 1972, p. 97; Cummer and
Painter 2007, pp. 28-31). Even in moderate and high-severity burned
areas where fires did not result in the death of salamanders, the
microhabitat conditions, such as those occurring during the Cerro
Grande Wildfire, would limit the timing and duration that the
salamanders could be surface active (feeding and mating). Moreover,
elevated temperatures lead to increases in oxygen consumption, heart
rate, and metabolic rate, resulting in decreased body water and body
mass (Whitford 1968, pp. 247-251). Physiological stress from elevated
temperatures may also increase susceptibility to disease and parasites.
Effects from temperature increases are discussed in greater detail
under Factor E.
Severe wildland fires typically increase soil pH, which could
affect the
[[Page 54827]]
salamander. In one study of the Jemez Mountains salamander, soil pH was
the single best indicator of relative abundance of salamanders at a
site (Ramotnik 1988, pp. 24-25). Sites with salamanders had a pH of 6.6
( 0.08) and sites without salamanders had a pH of 6.2
( 0.06). In another species of a terrestrial plethodontid
salamander, the red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus), soil pH
influences and limits its distribution and occurrence as well as its
oxygen consumption rates and growth rates (Wyman and Hawksley-Lescault
1987, p. 1823). Similarly, Frisbie and Wyman (1991, p. 1050) found the
disruption of sodium balance by acidic conditions in three species of
terrestrial salamanders. A low pH substrate can also reduce body
sodium, body water levels, and body mass (Frisbie and Wyman 1991, p.
1050). Changes in soil pH following wildfire likely impact the
salamander either by making the habitat less suitable or through
physiological stress.
Several regulatory attempts have been made to address and correct
the altered ecological balance of New Mexico's forests resulting from a
century of fire suppression, logging, and livestock grazing. Congress
enacted the Community Forest Restoration Act to promote healthy
watersheds and reduce the threat of large, high-intensity wildfires;
insect infestation; and disease in the forests in New Mexico (H.R.
2389, Public Law 106-393). The subsequent Omnibus Public Land
Management Act, also called the ``Forest Landscape Restoration Act''
(Title, IV, Public Law III-II, 2009), established a national program
that encourages ecological, economic, and social sustainability and
utilization of forest restoration byproducts to benefit local rural
economies and improve forest health. As a result, the Santa Fe National
Forest is preparing the Southwest Jemez Mountains Landscape Assessment
that, if funded, may reduce the threat of severe wildland fire in Units
1 and 4 of the salamander's range over the next 10 years (USFS 2009, p.
2). However, funding of this project is not certain, nor is it likely
to address the short-term risk of severe wildland fire; thus, the
efficacy of this program is unsure.
We are not aware of any recently completed or currently funded
large-scale projects to address the risk of severe wildland fire on the
Jemez Ranger District of the Santa Fe National Forest. Thinning and
burning activities in the Southwest Jemez Restoration Assessment area
have ranged from 12 ac (5 ha) to about 7,100 ac (2,900 ha) since 1989
(USFS 2009f, pp. 16-18). Still, most of these activities have focused
on Ponderosa pine, with precommercial thinning (removing trees less
than 9 inches (in) (23 centimeters (cm)) in diameter at breast height
(dbh)) occurring on only 6,000 ac (2,400 ha) since 1986 (USFS 2009f, p.
18). Many of the forest stands remain densely stocked, creating multi-
tiered fuels that add to crown fire risk. As such, the limited scale of
these thinning and burning activities has not reduced the overall risk
of severe crown fire in the area (e.g., see USFS 2009, 2009a, 2009b).
The existing risk of wildfire on the VCNP and surrounding areas is
uncharacteristically high and is a significant departure from historic
conditions over 100 years ago (VCNP 2010, p. 3.1; Allen 1989, pp. ii-
346; 2001, pp. 1-10). Therefore, it is highly probable that the overall
risk of severe wildland fire will not be significantly reduced or
eliminated on USFS lands, National Park Service lands, the VCNP, or
surrounding lands in the foreseeable future.
Since 1977, these severe wildland fires have significantly degraded
important features of salamander habitat including removal of tree
canopy and shading, increases of soil temperature, decreases of soil
moisture, increased pH, loss or reduction of soil organic matter,
reduced porosity, and short-term creation of water-repelling soils.
These and other effects limit the amount of available surface habitat
and the timing and duration when salamanders can be surface active,
which negatively impacts salamander behavior (e.g., foraging and
mating). For these reasons, severe wildland fires have led to a
reduction in the quality and quantity of the available salamander
habitat rangewide. For this reason, the USFS believes, and we concur,
that habitat loss from extensive, stand-replacing wildland fire
threatens the salamander (USFS 2009c, p. 1). These effects will likely
continue into the foreseeable future because we do not anticipate
large-scale changes to funding or initiation of projects that would
significantly alleviate the currently high risk of wildfire. Therefore,
we believe that fire exclusion and suppression has substantially
affected the salamander and this trend is expected to continue.
Forest Composition and Structure Conversions
Changes in forest composition and structure threaten the salamander
by directly altering soil moisture, soil temperature, soil pH, relative
humidity, and air temperature. With an increase of small-diameter trees
on the Jemez Mountains, there is an increase in demand for water
required for evapotranspiration, which in turn can lead to increased
drying of the soil. Limited water leads to drought-stressed trees, and
increases their susceptibility to burning, insects, and disease. This
is especially true on south-facing slopes, where less moisture is
available or during times of earlier snowmelt. Furthermore, reduced
soil moisture may disrupt surface activities of salamanders (e.g.,
foraging) or alter prey availability. The degree of these impacts is
currently unknown; however, alteration of forest composition and
structure contribute to increased risk of forest die-offs from disease
and insects throughout the range of the salamander (USFS 2002, pp. 11-
13; 2009d, p. 1; 2009a, pp. 8-9; 2010, pp. 1-11; Allen 2001, p. 6). We
find that the interrelated contributions from changes in vegetation to
large-scale, high-severity wildfire and forest die-offs are of a
significant magnitude across the range of the species (e.g., see ``Fire
Exclusion and Severe Wildland Fires'' section, above), and in addition
to continued predicted future changes to forested habitat within the
range of the species, threaten the salamander.
Preliminary data collected from the VCNP indicates that an increase
in the amount of tree canopy cover in an area influences the amount of
snow that is able to reach the ground, and can decrease the amount of
soil moisture and infiltration (Enquist et al. 2009, p. 8). On the
VCNP, 95 percent of coniferous forests have thick canopy cover with
heavy understory fuels (VCNP 2010, pp. 3.3-3.4; USFS 2009a, p. 9). In
these areas, snow accumulates in the tree canopy over winter, and in
the spring can quickly evaporate without reaching or infiltrating the
soil. For this reason, recent increases in canopy cover, resulting from
fire exclusion and suppression, could be having significant drying
effects on salamander habitat and threaten the salamander now and in
the foreseeable future.
Post-fire Rehabilitation
Post-fire management practices are often needed to restore forest
dynamics (Beschta et al. 2004, p. 957). In 1971, USFS was given formal
authority by Congress for Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER)
(Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 1) and integrated the evaluation of fire
severity, funding request procedures, and treatment options. Treatment
options implemented by USFS and BAER teams include hillslope treatments
(grass seeding, contour-felled logs, mulch, and other methods to reduce
surface runoff and keep post-fire soil in place, such as tilling,
temporary fencing, erosion control fabric, straw wattles, lopping, and
scattering of slash) and channel treatments (straw bale
[[Page 54828]]
check dams, log check dams, rock dams, and rock cage dams (gabions))
(Robichaud et al. 2000, pp. 11-21). Rehabilitation actions following
the Cerro Grande fire in salamander habitat included heavy equipment
and bulldozer operation, felling trees for safety reasons, mulching
with straw and placement of straw bales, cutting and trenching trees
(contour felling and securing on slope), hand and aerial seeding, and
aerial hydromulch (wet mulch with fertilizer and seed) (USFS 2001, p.
1). Some contour felling is likely beneficial for the salamander post-
fire because it can slow erosion and, in cases where surface rocks are
not present or present in low numbers, the logs can also provide
immediate cover. Following the Cerro Grande Fire, the BAER Team
recommended felling large-diameter Douglas fir logs and cutting four
disks off each log (rounds) to provide immediate cover for salamanders
before summer rains (Interagency BAER Team 2000, p. 87; USFS 2001, p.
1). It remains unknown if these measures are effective, but they
probably benefit the salamander in the short term. Alternatively, some
post-fire treatments (e.g., grass seeding, tilling, erosion control
fabrics, and removal of surface rocks to build rock dams) likely
negatively impact the salamander. The most common BAER treatment is
grass seeding dropped from aircraft (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11).
This treatment is inexpensive, rapidly increases water infiltration,
and stabilizes soil (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11). Nonnative grasses
are typically seeded because they are fast-growing and have extensive
fibrous roots (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11). Nevertheless, these
nonnative grasses have created thick mats that are impenetrable to the
salamander because the species has short legs and cannot dig tunnels.
The existing spaces in the soil fill with extensive roots, altering the
sub-surface habitat in a manner that is unusable to the salamander.
Finally, grass seeds can also contain fertilizer that is broadcast over
large areas of habitat (e.g., hydromulch used in post-fire treatments
for the Cerro Grande Fire). Fertilizers can contain nitrate, which is
toxic to amphibians at certain levels (Rouse et al. 1999, p. 799).
While the effects of seeding with nonnative grasses and the use of
fertilizers on salamanders have not been specifically studied, this
action has likely caused widespread adverse impacts to the salamander.
Because this action is a common post-fire treatment, it will likely
continue to negatively impact salamander localities from both past and
future treatments.
In summary, some post-fire treatments could benefit the salamander,
such as some contour felling of logs. Additional measures, such as
cutting and scattering rounds, can also benefit the salamander.
However, other post-fire treatments negatively impact the salamander.
Small-scale impacts could occur from removing rocks from habitat to
build rock dams, and large-scale impacts include grass seeding and
associated chemicals. We conclude that while the effects of high-
severity, stand-replacing wildfire, also referred to as severe wildland
fires, are the most significant threat to the salamander, actions taken
subsequent to the wildfires could determine whether the salamander will
persist in or return to those areas. We therefore find that post-fire
rehabilitation treatments are currently a threat to the salamander, and
are expected to continue in the future.
Fire Use
Fire use includes the combination of wildland fire use (the
management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific
resource management objectives) and prescribed fire (any fire ignited
by management actions to meet specific objectives) applications to meet
natural resource objectives (USFS 2010b, p. 1). Fire use can benefit
the salamander in the long term by reducing the risk of severe wildland
fires and by returning the natural fire cycle to the ecosystem.
Alternatively, other practices such as broadcast burning (i.e.,
conducting prescribed fires over large areas) consume ground litter
that helps to create moist conditions and stabilize soil and rocky
slopes. Depending on time of year, fire use can also impact the
salamander if the species is active on the surface, which is typically
from July to September. Conditions for salamander surface activity
(wet) are often not conducive to fire. Prescribed fire in the Jemez
Mountains is often planned for the fall (when the salamanders are not
active), because low wind and increased moisture during this time allow
more control, lowering chances of the fire's escape. Because fire
historically occurred prior to July (i.e., pre-monsoon rains), the
majority of fires likely preceded surface activity. Prescribed fires
conducted after September, when salamanders typically return to their
underground retreats, would be similar to a natural fire regime in the
spring with low direct impacts because most salamanders are subsurface.
However, it is unknown what the indirect impacts to the salamander
would be by altering the time of year when fire is present on the
landscape.
Other impacts to the salamander from fire use can include digging
fire lines, targeting the reduction of large decomposing logs, and
chemical use (such as flares and fire retardant) in salamander habitat.
Some impacts to the salamander can be avoided through seasonal timing
of prescribed burns and modifying objectives (e.g., leaving large
diameter logs, greater canopy cover) and techniques (e.g., not using
flares or chemicals) of the prescribed fire in salamander habitat
(Cummer 2005, pp. 2-7). As part of the Southwest Jemez Restoration
Project proposal, the Santa Fe National Forest has set specific goals
pertaining to the salamander including reduction of the risk of high-
intensity wildfire in salamander habitat and retention of a moisture
regime that will sustain high-quality salamander habitat (USFS 2009a,
p. 11). The Santa Fe National Forest intends to minimize impacts to the
salamander and to work towards its recovery (USFS 2009, p. 4), but
specific actions or recommendations to accomplish this goal have not
yet been determined. If the salamander is not considered, fire use
could make its habitat less suitable (warmer; drier; fewer large,
decomposing logs) and kill or injure salamanders that are surface
active. Alternatively, the species may benefit if seasonal restrictions
and maintaining key habitat features (e.g., large logs and sufficient
canopy cover to maintain moist microhabitats) are part of managing the
fire. Given the current condition of forest composition and structure,
the risks of severe wildland fire on a large geographic scale will take
a long-term planning strategy. Fire use is critical to the long-term
protection of the salamander's habitat, although some practices are not
beneficial to the species and may threaten the salamander.
Fire Suppression Activities
Similarly, fire suppression activities both protect and negatively
impact the salamander or its habitat. For example, fire suppression
actions that occurred in salamander habitat during the Cerro Grande
Fire included hand line construction, backfiring with the capacity of
burning off heavy ground cover, fire retardant drops, and bulldozer
line (USFS 2001, p. 1). Water dropping from helicopters is another fire
suppression technique used in the Jemez Mountains, where water is
collected from accessible streams, ponds, or stock tanks. By dropping
surface water into terrestrial habitat, there is a significant
increased risk of
[[Page 54829]]
spreading aquatic pathogens into terrestrial habitats (see Factor C,
Disease).
Fire retardants and fire fighting foams are addressed under Factor
E. Fire suppression actions including the use of fire retardants, water
dropping, backfiring, and fire line construction likely impact the
salamander; however, the magnitude of impacts from fire suppression
remains unknown, and we do not have enough information at this time to
determine if fire suppression actions threaten the salamander. However,
these activities improve the chances of quick fire suppression and
would be relatively smaller in scale and could have fewer impacts than
a severe wildland fire. Therefore, we do not find that fire suppression
activities are a threat to the salamander, nor do we expect them to
become a threat in the future.
Mechanical Treatment of Hazardous Fuels
Mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels refers to the process of
grinding or chipping vegetation (trees and shrubs) to meet forest
management objectives. When these treatments are used, resprouting
vegetation often grows back in a few years, if the area is not
maintained through prescribed fire. Mechanical treatment may include
the use of heavy equipment or manual equipment to cut vegetation (trees
and shrubs) and to scrape slash and other debris into piles for burning
or mastication. Mastication equipment uses a cutting head attached to
an overhead boom to grind, chip, or crush wood into smaller pieces and
is able to treat vegetation on slopes up to 35 to 45 percent while
generally having little ground impact (soil compaction or disturbance).
The debris is left on the ground where it decomposes and provides
erosion protection or it is burned after drying out.
Mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels such as manual or machine
thinning (chipping and mastication) may cause localized disturbances to
the forest structure that can impact the salamander. For example,
removal of overstory tree canopy or ground cover within salamander
habitat may cause desiccation of soil or rocky substrates.
Additionally, tree-felling or use of heavy equipment has the potential
to disturb the substrate, resulting in destabilization of talus and
compaction of soil, which may reduce sub-surface interstices used by
salamanders as refuges or for their movements. Similarly, if
salamanders are surface active, any of these activities could crush
salamanders present under surface cover objects (through use of heavy
equipment or heavy foot traffic).
Also of concern is soil compaction from the use of heavy equipment.
The masticator largely operated on skid trails (temporary trails used
to transport trees, logs, or other forest products), and mastication
did not increase soil compaction, because the machinery traveled on
trails covered with masticated materials (wood chips, etc.), which more
evenly distributed the weight of the machinery and reduced soil
compaction (Moghaddas and Stephens 2008, p. 3104). Activities that
compact soil, remove excessive canopy cover, or are conducted while
salamanders are surface active would be detrimental to the salamander
and its habitat. If mechanical treatment and hazardous fuels activities
are conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to the salamander
while reducing the risk of severe wildland fire, the salamander could
ultimately benefit from the reduction in the threat of severe wildland
fire and the improvement in the structure and composition of the
forest. While mechanical treatments likely impact a few individual
salamanders, we do not have enough information at this time to
determine whether mechanical treatments threaten the species.
Forest Silvicultural Practices
Forest silvicultural practices (the care and cultivation of forest
trees) threaten the salamander. Many areas of the landscape in the
Jemez Mountains has been fragmented by past commercial (trees greater
than 9 in (23 cm) dbh) and pre-commercial (trees less than 9 in (23 cm)
dbh) timber harvesting. Much of the forests of the Jemez Mountains lack
large-diameter trees and have become overgrown with small-diameter
trees. Salamander localities are found generally within the intact
stands of mature forest, but can still be found in areas where evidence
of logging exists. We assessed whether timber harvest (logging) or
salvage logging threaten the salamander.
From 1935 to 1972, logging (particularly clear-cut logging) was
conducted on VCNP (ENTRIX 2009, p. 164). These timber activities
resulted in about 50 percent of VCNP being logged, with over 1,600
kilometers (km) (1,000 miles (mi)) of 1960s era logging roads (ENTRIX
2009, p. 164) being built in winding and spiraling patterns around
hills (ENTRIX 2009, pp. 59-60). On the VCNP, 95 percent of forest
stands contain dense thickets of small-diameter trees (VCNP 2010, pp.
3.3-3.4). This multi-tiered forest structure is similar to surrounding
areas and provides ladder fuels that favor the development of crown
fires (Allen 2001, pp. 5-6; USFS 2009a, p. 10). Additionally, all
forest types on the VCNP contain very few late-stage mature trees
greater than 16 in (41 cm) dbh (less than 10 percent of the overall
cover) (VCNP 2010, pp. 3.4, 3.6-3.23). The lack of large trees is an
artifact of intense logging, mostly from clear-cutting practices in the
1960s (VCNP 2010, p. 3.4), and we believe this to be similar for
surrounding forests. Clear-cutting degrades forest floor microhabitats
by eliminating shading and leaf litter, increasing soil surface
temperature, and reducing moisture (Petranka 1998, p. 16).
In a comparison of four logged sites and five unlogged sites in
Jemez Mountains salamander habitat, Ramotnik (1986, p. 8) reports that
a total of 47 salamanders were observed at four of the five unlogged
sites, while no salamanders were observed on any of the logged sites.
It is unclear whether salamanders were observed at the sites prior to
logging, but significant differences in habitat features (soil pH,
litter depth, and log size) between the logged and unlogged sites are
reported. On the unlogged sites, salamanders were associated with cover
objects that were closer together and more decayed, and that had a
higher canopy cover, greater moss and lichen cover, and lower
surrounding needle cover, compared to cover objects on logged sites
(Ramotnik 1986, p. 8). Cover objects on logged sites were less
decomposed and accessible by the salamanders, had a shallower
surrounding litter depth, and were associated with a more acidic soil
than were cover objects on the unlogged sites (Ramotnik 1986, p. 8).
Consistent with the findings of Ramotnik (1986, p. 8), deMaynadier
and Hunter (1995; in Olson et al. 2009, p. 6) reviewed 18 studies and
found that salamander abundance after timber harvest was 3.5 times
greater on controls than in clear-cut areas. Furthermore, Petranka et
al. (1993; in Olson et al. 2009, p. 6) found that Plethodon abundance
and richness in mature forest were five times higher than those in
recent clear cuts, and they estimated that it would take as much as 50
to 70 years for clearcut populations to return to pre-clearcut levels.
In the Jemez Mountains, historic clearcut logging practices likely led
to significant habitat loss for the salamander with effects that
continue today.
The majority of salamander habitat has been heavily logged, which
has resulted in changes in stand structure and a paucity of large-
diameter trees. This lack of large-diameter trees means
[[Page 54830]]
that there is a limited source for future large, decomposing logs
needed for high-quality salamander habitat. Ramotnik (1986, p. 12)
reports that logs with salamanders present were significantly larger
and wetter than those without salamanders. Further, most salamanders
were found in well decomposed logs. In a similar plethodontid
salamander, large logs provide refuge from warmer temperatures and
resiliency from impacts that can warm and dry habitat (Kluber et al.
2009, p. 31).
On the VCNP, only minor selective logging has occurred since 1972,
and it is expected that some thinning of second growth forests will
continue to occur to prevent severe wildfires. However, no commercial
logging is proposed or likely in the foreseeable future (Parmenter
2009b, cited in Service 2010). Although commercial timber harvest on
the Santa Fe National Forest has declined appreciably since 1988 (Fink
2008, pp. 9, 19), the effects from historical logging and associated
roads will continue to threaten the salamander and are expected to
continue in the foreseeable future.
Salvage cutting (logging) removes dead, dying, damaged, or
deteriorating trees while the wood is still merchantable (Wegner 1984,
p. 421). Sanitation cutting, similar to salvage, removes the same kinds
of trees as well as those susceptible to attack, but for the purpose of
reducing the spread of biotic pests (Wegner 1984, p. 421). Both types
of cutting are used in salamander habitat, and are referred to as
``salvage logging.'' Salvage logging is a common response to forest
disturbance (Lindenmayer et al. 2008, p. 4) and, in salamander habitat,
is most likely to occur after a forest die-off resulting from fire,
disease, insects, or drought. The purposes for salvage logging in the
Jemez Mountains have included firewood for local use, timber for small
and large mills, salvage before economic decay, creation of diverse
healthy and productive timber stands, management of stands to minimize
insect and disease losses (USFS 1996, p. 4), and recovery of the timber
value of fire-killed trees (USFS 2003, p. 1). When conducted in
salamander habitat, it can further reduce the quality of the habitat
remaining after the initial disturbance by removing or reducing the
shading afforded by dead standing trees (Moeur and Guthrie 1984, p.
140) and future salamander cover objects (removal of trees precludes
their recruitment to the forest floor), and by interfering with habitat
recovery (Lindenmayer et al. 2008, p. 13).
Recent salvage logging within the range of the salamander occurred
following the Lakes and BMG Wildfire. The USFS stated that mitigation
measures for the Lakes and BMG Wildfire Timber Salvage Project would
further protect the salamander and enhance salamander habitat by
immediately providing slash and down logs (USFS 2003, pp. 4-5).
Mitigation for the salvage logging project included conducting
activities during winter to avoid soil compaction, and providing for
higher snag retention (by leaving all Douglas fir trees (16 percent
fire-killed trees) and 10 percent of other large snags) to provide
future down log habitat (USFS 2003, p. 29). These mitigation measures
were developed in consultation with NMEST in an effort to minimize
impacts to salamander from salvage logging; however, NMEST recommended
that salvage logging be excluded from occupied salamander habitat
because it was not clear that even with the additional mitigations that
it would meet the conservation objectives of the Cooperative Management
Plan (NMEST 2003, p. 1). The mitigation measures would likely benefit
the salamander in the short term if conducted without salvage logging.
It is not known if mitigation measures offset the impacts of salvage
logging in salamander habitat; however, Lindenmayer et al. (2008, p.
13) reports that salvage logging interferes with natural ecological
recovery and may increase the likelihood and intensity of subsequent
fires. We believe that removal of trees limits the amount of future
cover and allows additional warming and drying of habitat. The
potential for large-scale forest die-offs from wildfire, insect
outbreak, disease, or drought is high in the Jemez Mountains (see
Factors A and E), which may result in future salvage logging in
salamander habitat in the foreseeable future. We believe that salvage
logging in salamander habitat further diminishes habitat quality and
may be a determining factor of salamander persistence subsequent to
forest die-off.
Some timber harvest activities likely pose no threat to the
salamander. For example, removal of hazard trees may have minimal
disturbance to surrounding soils or substrates, especially if removal
is conducted when the species is not surface-active (i.e., seasonal
restrictions). This type of localized impact may affect a few
individuals but is not likely to affect a population or be considered a
threat. Likewise, precommercial thinning (removal of trees less than 9
in (22.9 cm) dbh) or shrub and brush removal (without the use of
herbicides) to control vegetation, and without disturbing or compacting
large areas of the surrounding soils, likely could be conducted without
adverse effects on the salamander.
In summary, current commercial logging levels are very low and do
not threaten the salamander. Because most of the high-quality, large-
diameter trees have been removed from the Jemez Mountains, we believe
that commercial logging levels will remain low for the foreseeable
future. Nevertheless, impacts from past commercial logging activities
continue to have detrimental effects to the salamander and its habitat.
These past activities removed large-diameter trees, removed forest
canopy, created roads, compacted soil, and disturbed other important
habitat features. These effects of historic logging include the warming
and drying of habitat, and no source for future large cover objects
(decomposing logs) that contribute to habitat complexity and
resiliency. Salvage logging further diminishes salamander habitat
subsequent to disturbance. Therefore, we conclude that the salamander
continues to be threatened by forest silvicultural practices, including
salvage logging, and we expect that these practices and the resulting
threats to the species will continue in the future.
Dams
Following the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire, water retention dams were
constructed within potential salamander habitat to minimize soil
erosion within burned areas (NMDGF 2001, p. 1; NMEST 2002, pp.1-2; Kutz
2002, p. 1). Surveys were not conducted prior to construction, and we
do not know if the areas were occupied by salamanders, but the areas
are in the vicinity of occupied salamander habitat. Because these types
of structures were installed to slow erosion subsequent to wildfire,
additional dams or flood control features could be constructed within
salamander habitat in the foreseeable future following severe wildland
fires. Some individual salamanders may be killed or injured by this
activity; however, the impact to the species and habitat from
construction of retention dams would be relatively minor. For this
reason, we do not consider the construction of dams to currently be a
significant threat to the salamander, nor do we expect dam construction
to be a threat to the species in the future.
Mining
Pumice mining activities (e.g., Copar Pumice Company, the Copar
South Pit Pumice Mine, and the El Cajete Pumice Mine) have been
evaluated for impacts to the salamander (USFS 1995, pp. 1-14;
[[Page 54831]]
1996, pp. 1-3). Pumice mines are located within areas of volcanic
substrate that are unlikely to support salamanders (USFS 2009c, p. 2).
However, associated infrastructure from expansion of the El Cajete
Mine, such as access roads and heavy equipment staging areas, may have
the potential to be located in potential salamander habitat. Although
no decision on authorizing the extension to the El Cajete Mine has been
made (USFS 2009. p. 2), these activities would be small in scale and
not likely considered a threat to the species, either currently or in
the future.
Private (Residential) Development
Private property development threatens the salamander. Although the
majority of salamander habitat is located on Federally managed lands,
private land contains substantially sized, contiguous areas of
salamander habitat. Additionally, some areas with salamander habitat on
the Santa Fe National Forest could be developed for private use (as
proposed in USFS 1997, pp. 1-4; USFS 1998, pp. 1-2). Development can
destroy and fragment habitat through the construction of homes and
associated infrastructure (e.g., roads, driveways, and buildings),
making those areas unusable to salamanders and likely resulting in
mortalities to salamanders within those areas. These activities have
reduced the quantity and quality of salamander habitat primarily within
the southern part of Unit 1, the central and eastern parts of Unit 3,
and large inholdings in Unit 4. As the human population continues to
increase in New Mexico, we believe development will likely continue to
directly affect the salamander within these units in the foreseeable
future. These activities will likely be in the form of new housing and
associated roads and infrastructure. Because development occurs, or is
likely to occur, in part of the range of the salamander, and because we
anticipate the continuing loss and degradation of habitat in these
areas, we determine that private property development currently
threatens the salamander, and this threat will continue in the future.
Geothermal Development
Geothermal development does not threaten the salamander. A large
volcanic complex in the Jemez Mountains is the only known high-
temperature geothermal resource in New Mexico (Fleischmann 2006, p.
27). Geothermal energy was explored for possible development on the
VCNP between 1959 and 1983 (USFS 2007, p. 126). In July 1978, the U.S.
Department of Energy, Union Oil Company of California (Unocal), and the
Public Service Company of New Mexico began a cooperative geothermal
energy project (USFS 2007, p. 126). The demonstration project drilled
20 exploratory wells over the next 4 years. One of the geothermal
development locations was south of Redondo Peak on the VCNP, and the
canyon in this area was occupied by the salamander (Sabo 1980, pp. 2-
4). An Environmental Impact Statement analyzed a variety of
alternatives, including placement of transmission towers and lines
(U.S. Department of Energy cited in Sabo 1980, pp. 2-5). Nevertheless,
the project ended in January 1982, because Unocal's predictions
concerning the size of geothermal resources were not met. Out of the 40
wells drilled in the Valles Caldera in the Redondo Creek and Sulphur
Springs areas, only a few yielded sufficient resources to be considered
production wells (USFS 2007, p. 126). In some cases, primarily in Unit
5, this occurred in salamander habitat and concrete well pads were
built. Although the geothermal resources are found within the range of
the salamander in the Jemez Mountains, extraction of large quantities
of hot fluids from these rocks has proven difficult and not
commercially viable (USFS 2007, p. 127). As such, we are not aware of
any current or future plans to construct large or small-scale
geothermal power production projects within salamander habitat.
Moreover, in 2006, the mineral rights on the VCNP were condemned,
including geothermal resources (VallesCaldera.com 2010, p. 1). For
these reasons, geothermal development does not present a current or
foreseeable threat to the salamander.
Roads, Trails, and Habitat Fragmentation
Roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation have had significant
detrimental impacts that threaten the salamander now and in the
foreseeable future. Construction of roads and trails has historically
eliminated or reduced the quality or quantity of salamander habitat,
reducing blocks of native vegetation to isolated fragments and creating
a matrix of native habitat islands that have been altered by varying
degrees from their natural state. Allen (1989, pp. 46, 54, 163, 216-
242, and 302) collected and analyzed changes in road networks
(railroads, paved roads, improved roads, dirt roads, and primitive
roads) in the Jemez Mountains from 1935 to 1981. Landscape-wide road
density increased 11.75 times from 0.382 km (0.237 mi) of road per
square km (0.386 square mi) in 1935 to 4.490 km (2.790 mi) of road per
square km in 1981, and in surface area of the map area from 0.131
percent (247 ha; 610 ac) to 1.667 percent (3,132 ha; 7,739 ac) (Allen
1989, pp. 236-240). Allen (1989, p. 240) reports that of 8,443 km
(5,246 mi) of roads in the Jemez Mountains in 1981, 74 percent was
mapped on USFS lands (3,607 km; 2,241 mi) and private lands (2,649 km;
1,646 mi). These roads generally indicate past logging activity (Allen
1989 p. 236). Ongoing effects of roads and their construction on the
VCNP may exceed the effects of the timber harvests for which the roads
were constructed (Balmat and Kupfer 2004, p. 46). The majority of roads
within the range of the salamander are unpaved, and the compacted soil
typically has very low infiltration rates that generate large amounts
of surface runoff (Robichaud et al. 2010, p. 80). Increasing runoff and
decreasing infiltration has led to the drying of adjacent areas of
salamander habitat.
The construction of roads and trails degrades habitat by compacting
soil and eliminating interstitial spaces on the surface and sub-
surface. Furthermore, roads and trails reduce or eliminate important
habitat features (e.g., lowering canopy cover or drying of soil) and
prevent gene flow (Saunders et al. 1991, p. 25; Burkey 1995, pp. 527,
528; Frankham et al. 2002, p. 310; Noss et al. 2006, p. 219). Vehicular
and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use of roads and trails can kill or
injure salamanders. Roads are known to fragment terrestrial salamander
habitat and act as partial barriers to movement (deMaynadier and Hunter
2000, p. 56; Marsh et al. 2005, p. 2004). We find that the
establishment of roads and trails will likely continue to impact the
salamander and its habitat, increasing the risk of extirpation of some
localities.
Road clearing and maintenance activities can also cause localized
adverse impacts to the salamander from scraping and widening roads and
shoulders or maintaining drainage ditches or replacing culverts. These
activities may kill or injure individuals through crushing by heavy
equipment. Existing and newly constructed roads or trails fragment
habitat, accelerating extirpation of localities, especially when
movement between suitable habitat is not possible (Burkey 1995, p. 540;
Frankham et al. 2002, p. 314). Isolated populations or patches are
vulnerable to random events, which could easily destroy part of or an
entire salamander locality, or decrease a locality to such a low number
of individuals that the risk of extirpation from human disturbance,
natural catastrophic events, or genetic
[[Page 54832]]
and demographic problems (e.g., loss of genetic diversity, uneven male
to female ratios) would increase greatly (Shaffer 1987, p. 71; Burkey
1995, pp. 527, 528; Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 310-324).
Terrestrial salamanders are impacted by edge effects, typically
adjacent to roads and areas of timber harvest, because microclimate
conditions within forest edges often exhibit higher air and soil
temperatures, lower soil moisture, and lower humidity, compared to
interior forested areas (Moseley et al. 2009, p. 426). Moreover, by
creating edge effects, roads can reduce the quality of adjacent habitat
by increasing light and wind penetration, exposure to pollutants, and
the spread of invasive species (Marsh et al. 2005, pp. 2004-2005). Due
to the physiological nature of terrestrial salamanders, they are
sensitive to these types of microclimate alterations, particularly to
changes to temperature and moisture (Moseley et al. 2009, p. 426).
Generally, more salamanders are observed with increasing distance from
some edge types, which is attributed to reduced moisture and
microhabitat quality (Moseley et al. 2009, p. 426).
Road construction on New Mexico State Highway 126 around the town
of Seven Springs in 2007-2008 occurred in occupied salamander habitat
in Unit 1. Measures were implemented by the USFS reduce the impact of
these road construction activities on salamanders including limiting
construction to times when salamanders would not be active on the
surface and felling of approximately 300 trees in the project area to
replace large woody debris used as salamander habitat. However, at
least 24 ac (9.7 ha) of salamander habitat were directly impacted by
this project (USFS 2009c, p. 2), which resulted in the destruction and
fragmentation of occupied salamander habitat. Continued maintenance of
State Highway 126 in the future will likely involve the use of salts
for road de-icing, and increase the exposure of adjacent areas to
chemicals and pollution from vehicular traffic. Fragmentation of parts
of Unit 1 and subsequent edge effects have reduced the quality and
quantity of salamander habitat.
In 2007, the NMEST concluded that impacts from OHVs and motorcycles
were variable depending on their location relative to salamander
habitat. Since the width of a trail is generally smaller than a road,
canopy cover typically remains over trails. In some cases (e.g., flat
areas without deeply cut erosion), the trails do not likely impede
salamander movement. Alternatively, severe erosion caused by heavy
trail use in some places formed trenches approximately 2 ft wide by 2
to 3 ft deep (0.6 m wide by 0.6 to 0.9 m deep), which would likely
prevent salamander movement, fragment local populations, and trap
salamanders that fall into the trenches. Often, the most severely
impacted areas from OHVs had been the best salamander habitat prior to
OHV use, because they were located on steep, north-facing slopes, with
loose rocky soils that are easily eroded.
In November 2005, the USFS issued the Travel Management Rule that
requires designation of a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor
vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, by time of year (70
FR 68264; November 9, 2005). As part of this effort, the USFS
inventoried and mapped roads and motorized trails, and is currently
completing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to change the usage
of some of the current system within the range of the salamander. The
Santa Fe National Forest is attempting to minimize the amount of
authorized roads or trails in known occupied salamander habitat and
will likely prohibit the majority of motorized cross-country travel
within the range of the species (USFS 2009c, p. 2). Nevertheless, by
closing some areas to OHV use, the magnitude of impacts in areas open
to OHV use in salamander habitat will be greater (NMEST 2008, p. 2). We
acknowledge that some individual salamanders may be killed or injured
by vehicles and OHVs and that OHV use impacts salamander habitat.
However, we believe the Santa Fe National Forest is attempting to
minimize impacts to the salamander and its habitat. Furthermore, we
believe that the revised travel management regulations will reduce the
impact of motorized vehicles on the salamander and its habitat by
providing a consistent policy that can be applied to all classes of
motor vehicles, including OHVs. We conclude that OHV and motorcycle use
threatens the salamander if left unmanaged, but with the implementation
of the forthcoming management of motorized trails on the Santa Fe
National Forest, the threat will be greatly reduced.
In summary, the extensive roads that currently exist in the Jemez
Mountains have significantly impacted the salamander and its habitat
due to death and injury of salamanders; fragmentation and population
isolation; habitat loss; habitat modification from edges; and in some
cases, increased exposure to chemicals, salts, and pollution. Roads
associated with private development are most likely to be constructed
in the future in portions of Units 3 and 4, which has the most private
land. However, new roads may also be constructed through Federal lands
within the salamander's range. Roads and trails have significantly
fragmented habitat and likely reduced persistence of existing
salamander localities. Therefore, we conclude that roads, trails, and
the resulting habitat fragmentation currently present a threat to the
salamander, and this threat will continue in the future.
Recreation
Recreational activities threaten the salamander now and in the
foreseeable future. The Jemez Mountains are heavily used for dispersed
recreational activities that have the potential to impact the species,
including camping, hiking, mountain biking, hunting, and skiing; OHV
use is addressed above. There is overlap of the Jemez National
Recreation Area, a 57,650 ac (23,330 ha) area of the southwestern Jemez
Mountains, and salamander Units 1 and 4. It is estimated that nearly
1.6 million people visit the Jemez National Recreation Area for
recreational opportunities each year (Jemez National Recreation Area
2002, p. 2). Despite an existing average road density of approximately
2.5 mi (4.0 km) of road per square mile (2.6 square km) on the Jemez
National Recreation Area, off road use continues to occur resulting in
new roads being created or decommissioned roads being reopened (Jemez
National Recreation Area 2002, pp. 10, 11). Using current population
and travel trends, the potential visitation demand on the VCNP is
between 250,000 and 400,000 visits per year (Entrix 2009, p. 93). Of
this projection, the VCNP is expected to realize 120,000 visitors per
year by the year 2020 (Entrix 2009, p. 94). To put this in context,
from 2002 to 2007 the VCNP averaged about 7,600 visitors per year
(Entrix 2009, p. 13). Bandelier National Monument, which has a smaller
proportion of salamander habitat, overlaps with the southern portion of
Unit 3, and attracts an average annual visitation of over 250,000
people (Entrix 2009, p. 92). Fenton Lake State Park in Unit 1 also
contains salamander habitat. The park received over 120,000 visitors on
its 70 ac (28 ha) containing hiking trails and a fishing lake (Entrix
2009, p. 92).
Campgrounds and associated parking lots and structures have likely
impacted the salamander through modification of small areas of habitat
from soil compaction and vegetation removal. Similarly, compaction of
soil from hiking or mountain biking trails has modified a relatively
small amount of habitat. The majority of these trails likely do not act
as barriers to
[[Page 54833]]
movement nor create edge effects similar to roads because they are
narrow and do not reduce canopy cover. However, similar to OHV trails,
deeply eroded mountain bike trails could act as barriers and entrap
salamanders.
The Pajarito Ski Area in Los Alamos County was established in 1957
and expanded through 1994. Ski runs were constructed within salamander
habitat. A significant amount of high-quality habitat (north-facing
mountain with mixed conifer forests and many salamander observations)
was destroyed with construction of the ski areas and the runs and roads
have fragmented and created a high proportion of edge areas.
Nevertheless, surveys conducted in 2001 in two small patches of
forested areas between ski runs detected salamanders (Cummer et al.
2001, pp. 1, 2). Most areas between runs remain unsurveyed. However,
because of the large amount of habitat destroyed, the extremely small
patch sizes that remain, and relatively high degree of edge effects,
the salamander will likely not persist in these areas in the long term.
Adjacent to the downhill ski runs are cross country ski trails.
These trails are USFS lands, but maintained by a private group. In
2001, trail maintenance and construction with a bulldozer was conducted
by the group in salamander habitat during salamander surface activity
period (NMEST 2001, p. 1). Trail maintenance was reported as leveling
all existing ski trails with a bulldozer, that involved substantial
soil disturbance, cutting into slopes as much as 2 ft (0.6 m), filling
other areas in excess of 2 ft (0.6 m), widening trails, and downing
some large trees (greater than 10 in (25.4 cm) dbh), ultimately
disturbing approximately 2 to 5 ac (1 to 2 ha) of occupied salamander
habitat (Sangre de Christo Audubon Society 2001, pp. 2-3). This type of
trail maintenance while salamanders are surface active could result in
direct impacts to salamanders, and further fragment and dry habitat. We
do not know if there are future plans to modify or expand the existing
ski area.
The Jemez Mountains are currently heavily used for recreational
activities, and as human populations in New Mexico continue to expand,
there will likely be an increased demand in the foreseeable future for
recreational opportunities in the Jemez Mountains. Large-scale
recreational projects in salamander habitat would threaten the
salamander. Therefore, we conclude that recreational activities
currently threaten the salamander, and will continue to be a threat in
the future.
Livestock Grazing
Historical livestock grazing changed the Jemez Mountains ecosystem
by removing understory grasses, contributing to altered fire regimes,
altered vegetation composition and structure, and increased soil
erosion. Livestock grazing generally does not occur within salamander
habitat because cattle concentrate outside of forested areas where
grass and water are more abundant. We have no information that
indicates livestock grazing is directly or indirectly threatening the
salamander or its habitat. However, small-scale habitat modification,
such as livestock trail establishment or trampling, in occupied
salamander habitat is possible. The USFS and VCNP manage livestock to
maintain fine grassy fuels and should not limit low-intensity fires in
the future. Indirect effects from livestock activities may include the
risk of aquatic disease transmission from earthen stock ponds that
create areas of standing surface water. Earthen stock tanks are often
utilized by tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum), which are known to
be vectors for disease (i.e., they can carry and spread disease)
(Davidson et al. 2003, pp. 601-607). Earthen stock tanks can also
concentrate tiger salamanders, increasing chances of disease. Some
tiger salamanders use adjacent upland areas and may transmit disease to
the Jemez Mountains salamander in areas where they co-occur. However,
we do not have enough information to draw conclusions on the extent or
role tiger salamanders may play in disease transmission. Although some
small-scale habitat modification is possible, livestock are managed to
maintain a grassy forest understory, and the connection between earthen
stock tanks for livestock and aquatic disease transmission is unclear.
Therefore, we conclude that livestock grazing is not a current threat
to the salamander, nor do we believe it will be in the future.
Summary
In summary, the salamander and its habitat are threatened by
historical and current fire management practices; severe wildland fire;
forest composition and structure conversions; post-fire rehabilitation;
forest management (including silvicultural practices); private
(residential) development; roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation;
and recreation. Due to the limited extent of habitat occupied by the
salamander, the severity and magnitude of the threat of severe wildland
fire, and ongoing impacts from the existing extensive road network and
previous logging practices, we have determined that the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat and
range represents a current significant threat to the salamander, and
will continue to be so in the future.
Factor B. Overutilization For Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization does not threaten the salamander now or in the
foreseeable future, but has likely caused salamander extirpation at the
most abundant location known historically. Between 1960 and 1999,
nearly 1,000 salamanders were collected from the wild for scientific or
educational purposes. The majority (738 salamanders) were collected
between 1960 and 1979 (Painter 1999, p. 1). Since 1999, very few
salamanders have been collected, and all were collected under a valid
permit issued by either NMDGF or USFS. This species is difficult to
maintain in captivity, and we know of no salamanders in the pet trade
or in captivity for educational or scientific purposes.
In 1967, salamanders were only known from seven localities (Reagan
1967, p. 13). Only one of these localities (the ``Type Locality'') was
considered to have an abundant salamander population (Reagan 1967, p.
8). The species was originally described using specimens collected from
this type locality within Unit 4 (Stebbins and Reimer 1950, pp. 73-80).
Reagan (1967, p. 11) collected 165 salamanders from this locality
between 1965 and 1967, whereas Williams collected an additional 67 of
659 salamanders found at this locality in 1970 (1972, p. 11). Although
surveys have been conducted at this locality since the 1990s, no
salamanders have been found, suggesting that salamanders in the area
have likely been extirpated from overcollection. We are not aware of
any other localities where the species has been extirpated from
overcollection. Nevertheless, it is apparent that repeated collections
of individuals can lead to extirpation. Still, we believe this is no
longer a threat because collections are stringently regulated through
permits issues by NMDGF and the USFS (see Factor D below).
Additionally, due to these measures, we do not believe that collection
will be a threat in the future.
Survey techniques can alter salamander habitat by disturbing and
drying the areas underneath the objects that provide cover, and
destroying decaying logs by searching inside them. Surveyors are now
trained to replace cover objects as they were found and to
[[Page 54834]]
leave part of every log intact; however, impacts still occur. When
surveys are dispersed and there are multiple intervening years, impacts
are likely lessened; however, when a location is repeatedly surveyed,
habitat quality is diminished. We are aware of only a few locations
that have received impacts from repeated surveys (e.g., Activity
Plots).
We do not have any recent evidence of risks to the salamander from
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes, and we have no reason to believe this factor will
become a threat to the species in the future. Therefore, based on a
review of the available information, we find that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a
threat to the salamander now or in the foreseeable future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
The petition did not present any information indicating that
disease or predation threatens the salamander. Additionally, we have no
information in our files that indicates that disease or predation are a
threat to the salamander currently or likely to become a threat in the
future.
The amphibian pathogenic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd)
was found in a wild-caught salamander in 2003 (Cummer et al. 2005, p.
248). Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis causes the disease
chytridiomycosis, whereby the Bd fungus attacks keratin in amphibians.
In adult amphibians, keratin primarily occurs in the skin. The symptoms
of chytridiomycosis can include sloughing of skin, lethargy, morbidity,
and death. Chytridiomycosis has been linked with worldwide amphibian
declines, die-offs, and extinctions, possibly in association with
climate change (Pounds et al. 2006, p. 161). In New Mexico, Bd has
caused significant population declines and local extirpations in the
federally threatened Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates [Rana]
chiricahuensis) (USFWS 2007, p. 14). It is also implicated in the
decline of other leopard frogs and the disappearance of the boreal toad
(Bufo boreas) from the State (NMDGF 2006, p. 13). Prior to the
detection of Bd in the salamander, Bd was considered an aquatic
pathogen (Longcore et al. 1999, p. 221; Cummer et al. 2005, p. 248).
The salamander does not have an aquatic life stage and is strictly
terrestrial; thus the mode of transmission of Bd remains unknown. It is
possible that the fungus was transported by other amphibian species
that utilize the same terrestrial habitat. Both the tiger salamander
and the boreal chorus frog (Pseudacris maculata) are amphibians that
have aquatic life stages and share terrestrial habitat with the
salamander. In California, Bd has been present in wild populations of
another strictly terrestrial salamander since 1973, without apparent
population declines (Weinstein 2009, p. 653).
Cummer (2006, p. 2) reported that noninvasive skin swabs on 66
Jemez Mountains salamanders, 14 boreal chorus frogs, and 24 tiger
salamanders from the Jemez Mountains were all negative for Bd. The
observation of Bd in the salamander indicates that the species may be
susceptible. However, virulence relative to the salamander remains
unknown. Although Bd can be highly infectious and lethal, we have no
information to suggest that the disease threatens the salamander
currently or in the future. We intend to monitor the prevalence of Bd
in the salamander using noninvasive skin swabs. Therefore, we do not
find that disease or predations is currently a threat to the
salamander, nor do we find it likely they will be so in the future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
One of the primary threats to the salamander is the loss,
degradation, and fragmentation of habitat. As described below, existing
regulatory mechanisms are not sufficient to protect the salamander or
its habitat. New Mexico State law provides limited protection to the
salamander. The salamander was reclassified by the State of New Mexico
from threatened to endangered in 2005 (NMDGF 2005, p. 2). This
designation provides protection under the New Mexico Wildlife
Conservation Act of 1974 (i.e., State Endangered Species Act) (19 NMAC
33.6.8), but only prohibits direct take of species, except under
issuance of a scientific collecting permit. The New Mexico Wildlife
Conservation Act defines ``take'' or ``taking'' as harass, hunt,
capture, or kill any wildlife or attempt to do so (17 NMAC 17.2.38). In
other words, New Mexico State status as an endangered species only
conveys protection from collection or intentional harm to the animals
themselves. New Mexico State statutes do not address habitat
protection, indirect effects, or other threats to these species. There
is no formal consultation process to address the habitat requirements
of the species or how a proposed action may affect the needs of the
species. Because most of the threats to the species are from effects to
habitat, protecting individuals will not ensure their long-term
conservation and survival.
The New Mexico State statutes require the NMDGF to develop a
recovery plan that will restore and maintain habitat for the species.
Although the species does not have a finalized recovery plan, NMDGF has
the authority to consider and recommend actions to mitigate potential
adverse effects to the salamander during its review of development
proposals. There is no requirement to follow the recommendations as
seen during the construction and realignment of Highway 126, when NMDGF
made recommendations, but none of the measures recommended were
incorporated into the project design to limit impacts to the salamander
or its habitat (New Mexico Game Commission 2006, pp. 12-13) (see Factor
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
the Species' Habitat or Range section, above).
The NMEST Cooperative Management Plan and Conservation Agreement
were completed in 2000 (see Previous Federal Actions section above).
The goal of these non-regulatory documents was to ``...provide guidance
for the conservation and management of sufficient habitat to maintain
viable populations of the species'' (NMEST 2000, p. i.). However, they
have been ineffective in preventing the ongoing loss of salamander
habitat, and they are not expected to prevent further declines of the
species. As discussed elsewhere, the intent of the agreement was to
protect the salamander and its habitat on lands administered by the
USFS; however, there have been projects that have negatively affected
the species (e.g., State Highway 126 project) (WildEarth Guardians
2008, pp. 28-54). The Cooperative Management Plan and Conservation
Agreement have been unable to prevent ongoing loss of habitat, and they
are not expected to prevent further declines of the species. They do
not provide adequate protection for the salamander or its habitat.
Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C.
1600 et seq.), the USFS is directed to prepare programmatic-level
management plans to guide long-term resource management decisions.
Under this direction, the salamander has been on the Regional
Forester's Sensitive Species List since 1990 (USFS 1990). The Regional
Forester's Sensitive Species List policy is applied to projects
implemented under the 1982 National Forest Management Act Planning Rule
(49 FR 43026, September 30, 1982). All
[[Page 54835]]
existing Plans continue to operate under the 1982 Planning Rule and all
of its associated implementing regulations and policies.
The intent of the Regional Forester's sensitive species designation
is to provide a proactive approach to conserving species, to prevent a
trend toward listing under the Act, and to ensure the continued
existence of viable, well-distributed populations. The USFS policy (FSM
2670.3) states that Biological Evaluations must be completed for
sensitive species and signed by a journey-level biologist or botanist.
The Santa Fe National Forest will continue developing biological
evaluation reports and conducting analyses under the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for each project that
will affect the salamander or its habitat. The Santa Fe National Forest
is also preparing the Southwest Jemez Mountains Landscape Assessment
that, if funded, may reduce the threat of severe wildland fire in Units
1 and 4 of the salamander's range over the next 10 years (USFS 2009c,
p. 2). At this time, funding of this project is not certain, nor is it
likely to address short-term risk of severe wildland fire. While the
Regional Forester's sensitive species designation provides for
consideration of the salamander during planning of activities, it does
not preclude activities that may harm salamanders or their habitats on
the Santa Fe National Forest.
Finally, populations of salamanders have been observed on Tribal
lands, Los Alamos National Laboratory lands, the VCNP, and private
lands. Los Alamos National Laboratory has committed to, whenever
possible, retaining trees in order to maintain greater than 80 percent
canopy cover, and avoiding activities that either compact soils or dry
habitat (Los Alamos National Laboratory 2010, p. 7).
In summary, the salamander currently does not receive adequate
regulatory protection through the USFS sensitive species designation,
State regulations, or the guidelines provided in the Cooperative
Management Plan and Conservation Agreement. Outside of the limited
protection from collection and intentional harm through the New Mexico
Wildlife Conservation Act, there are no State or Federal regulations
providing specific protections for the salamander or its habitat on
these areas.
The existing regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ensure the
species' long-term conservation and survival because they do not
specifically prevent threats to its habitat. We believe this lack of
effective regulatory protection will affect the overall ability of the
species to persist into the future. In light of this information, we
conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms have been ineffective
and inadequate at preventing actions that threaten the salamander and
its habitat, and this is expected to continue into the foreseeable
future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence
Under Factor E, we considered whether the Jemez Mountains
salamander is threatened by chemical use and climate conditions.
Chemical Use
There is a potential for the salamander to be impacted by chemical
use. Chemicals are used to suppress wildfire and for noxious weed
control. Because the salamander has permeable skin, and breathes and
carries out physiological functions with its skin, it may be
susceptible if it comes in contact with fire retardants or herbicides.
Many of these chemicals have not been assessed for effects to
amphibians, and none have been assessed for effects to terrestrial
amphibians. Therefore, we do not have enough information to determine
whether chemical use threatens the salamander.
Prior to 2006 (71 FR 42797; July 28, 2006), fire retardant used by
the USFS contained sodium ferrocyanide, which is highly toxic to fish
and amphibians (Pilliod et al. 2003, p. 175). Fire retardant was used
in salamander habitat for the Cerro Grande Fire (Unit 3), but we do not
know the quantity or location of this effort (USFS 2001, p. 1). While
sodium ferrocyanide is no longer used by USFS to suppress wildfire,
similar retardants and foams may still contain ingredients that are
toxic to the salamander. Beginning in 2010, the USFS will begin phasing
out the use of ammonium sulfate because of its toxicity to fish and
replacing it with ammonium phosphate (USFS 2009e, p. 1), which still
may have adverse effects to the salamander. One of the ingredients of
ammonium phosphate (a type of salt) appeared to have the greatest
likelihood of adverse effects to terrestrial species assessed (birds
and mammals) through ingestion (USFS/LABAT Environmental 2007, pp. 24-
27), and in amphibians, salts can disrupt osmoregulation (regulation of
proper water balance and osmotic or fluid pressure within tissues and
cells). Currently, we do not have enough information to determine
whether the chemicals within fire retardants or foams threaten the
salamander. However, we will continue to evaluate whether these
chemicals may be a threat to this species.
The USFS is in the process of completing an Environmental Impact
Statement regarding the use of herbicides to manage noxious or invasive
plants (Orr 2010, p. 2). Chemicals that could be used include 2,4,D;
Clopyralid; Chorsulfuron; Dicamba; Glyphosate; Hexazinone; Imazapic;
Imazapyr; Metasulfuron Methyl; Sulfometuron Methyl; Picloram; and
Triclopyr (Orr 2010, p. 2). We reviewed the ecological risk assessments
for these chemicals at http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/
risk.shtml, but found few studies and data relative to amphibians. We
found a single study for Sulfometuron Methyl conducted on the African
clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) (an aquatic frog not native to the United
States). This study resulted in alterations in limb and organ
development and metamorphosis (Klotzbach and Durkin 2004, pp. 4-6, 4-
7). The use of chemicals listed above by hand-held spot treatments or
road-side spraying (Orr 2010, p. 2) in occupied salamander habitat
could result in impacts to the salamander. Because of the lack of
toxicological studies of these chemicals, we do not know if there is a
threat to the salamander. However, we will continue to evaluate whether
these chemicals are a threat to the salamander.
Climate Conditions
Climate conditions have contributed to the status of the salamander
now and will continue to in the foreseeable future. Habitat drying
affects salamander physiology, behavior, and persistence; will affect
the occurrence of natural events such as fire, drought, and forest die-
off; and will increase the risk of disease and infection. Trends in
climate change and drought conditions have contributed to temperature
increases in the Jemez Mountains, with a corresponding decrease in
precipitation. Because the salamander is terrestrial, constrained in
range, and isolated to the higher elevations of the Jemez Mountains,
continued temperature increases and precipitation decreases could
threaten the viability of the species over its entire range.
Climate simulations of Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI) (a
calculation of the cumulative effects of precipitation and temperature
on surface moisture balance) for the Southwest for the periods of 2006-
2030 and 2035-2060 show an increase in drought severity with surface
warming. Additionally, drought still increases during wetter
simulations because of the effect of heat-related moisture loss
[[Page 54836]]
(Hoerling and Eicheid 2007, p. 19). Annual mean precipitation is likely
to decrease in the Southwest as well as the length of snow season and
snow depth (International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007b, p.
887). Most models project a widespread decrease in snow depth in the
Rocky Mountains and earlier snowmelt (IPCC 2007b, p. 891). Exactly how
climate change will affect precipitation is less certain, because
precipitation predictions are based on continental-scale general
circulation models that do not yet account for land use and land cover
change effects on climate or regional phenomena. Consistent with recent
observations in climate changes, the outlook presented for the
Southwest and New Mexico predict warmer, drier, drought-like conditions
(Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181; Hoerling and Eischeid 2007, p. 19).
McKenzie et al. (2004, p. 893) suggest, based on models, that the
length of the fire season will likely increase further and that fires
in the western United States will be more frequent and more severe. In
particular, they found that fire in New Mexico appears to be acutely
sensitive to summer climate and temperature changes and may respond
dramatically to climate warming.
Plethodontid salamanders have a low metabolic rate and relatively
large energy stores (in tails) that provide the potential to survive
long periods between unpredictable bouts of feeding (Feder 1983, p.
291). Despite these specializations, terrestrial salamanders must have
sufficient opportunities to forage and build energy reserves for use
during periods of inactivity. As salamander habitat warms and dries,
the quality and quantity of habitat decreases along with the amount of
time that salamanders could be surface active. Wiltenmuth (1997, pp.
ii-122) concluded that the Jemez Mountains salamanders likely persist
by utilizing moist microhabitats and they may be near their
physiological limits relative to water balance and moist skin. During
field evaluations, the species appeared to be in a dehydrated state. If
the species has difficulty maintaining adequate skin moisture (e.g.,
see Wiltenmuth 1997, pp. ii-122), it will likely spend less time being
active. As a result, energy storage, reproduction, and long-term
persistence would be reduced.
Wiltenmuth (1997, p. 77) reported rates of dehydration and
rehydration were greatest for the Jemez Mountains salamander compared
to the other salamanders, and suggested greater skin permeability.
While the adaptation to relatively quickly rehydrate and dehydrate may
allow the salamander to more quickly rehydrate when moisture becomes
available, it may also make it more susceptible and less resistant to
longer dry times because it also quickly dehydrates. Dehydration
affects the salamander by increasing heart rate, oxygen consumption,
and metabolic rate (Whitford 1968, p. 249), thus increasing energy
demand, limiting movements (Wiltenmuth 1997, p. 77), increasing
concentration and storage of waste products (Duellman and Trueb 1986,
p. 207), decreasing burst locomotion (stride length, stride frequency,
and speed) (Wiltenmuth 1997, p.45), and sometimes causing death.
Moisture-stressed salamanders prioritize hydration over all else,
thereby reducing salamander survival and persistence. Additional
impacts from dehydration could include increased predation because
burst locomotion is impaired (which reduces ability to escape) and
increased susceptibility to pathogens resulting from depressed immunity
from physiological stress of dehydration. Any of these factors, alone
or in combination, could lead either to the reduction or extirpation of
salamander localities, especially in combination with the threats of
habitat-altering activities, as discussed under Factor A. The IPCC
(2007, pp. 12, 13) predicts that changes in the global climate system
during the 21st century will very likely be larger than those observed
during the 20th century. For the next 2 decades, a warming of about 0.2
[deg]C (0.4 [deg]F) per decade is projected (IPCC 2007, p. 12). The
Nature Conservancy of New Mexico analyzed recent changes in New
Mexico's climate. Parts I and II of a three-part series have been
completed. In Part I, the time period 1961-1990 was used as the
reference condition for analysis of recent departures (1991-2005; 2000-
2005). This time period is consistent with the baseline used by
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the IPCC for
presenting 20\th\-century climate anomalies and generating future
projections (Enquist and Gori 2008, p. 9). In Part II, trends in
climate water deficit (an indicator of biological moisture stress, or
drying), snowpack, and timing of peak stream flows were assessed for
the period of 1970-2006 (Enquist et al. 2008, p. iv). The Nature
Conservancy of New Mexico concludes the following regarding climate
conditions in New Mexico and the Jemez Mountains:
(1) Over 95 percent of New Mexico has experienced mean temperature
increases; warming has been greatest in the Jemez Mountains (Enquist
and Gori 2008, p. 16);
(2) 93 percent of New Mexico's watersheds have experienced
increasing annual trends in moisture stress during 1970-2006, that is,
they have become relatively drier (Enquist et al. 2008, p. iv);
(3) Snowpack has declined in 98 percent of sites analyzed in New
Mexico; the Jemez Mountains has experienced significant declines in
snowpack (Enquist et al. 2008, p. iv);
(4) Between 1980-2006, the timing of peak run-off from snowmelt
occurred 2 days earlier than in the 1951-1980 period (Enquist et al.
2008, pp. 9, 25);
(5) The Jemez Mountains have experienced warmer and drier
conditions during the 1991-2005 time period (Enquist and Gori 2008, pp.
16, 17, 23); and
(6) The Jemez Mountains ranked highest of 248 sites analyzed in New
Mexico in climate exposure--a measure of mean temperature and mean
precipitation departures (Enquist and Gori 2008, pp. 10, 22, 51-58).
Although the extent of warming likely to occur is not known with
certainty at this time, the IPCC (2007a, p. 5) has concluded that the
summer season will experience the greatest increase in warming in the
Southwest (IPCC 2007b, p. 887). Temperature has strong effects on
amphibian immune systems and may be an important factor influencing
susceptibility of amphibians to pathogens (e.g., see Raffel et al.
2006, p. 819); thus increases in temperature in the Jemez Mountains
have the potential to increase the salamander's susceptibility to
disease and pathogens. As noted, we have no information that indicates
disease threatens the salamander currently or in the future, but we
intend to evaluate this further.
Climate Conditions Summary
In summary, we find that current and future effects from warmer
climate conditions in the Jemez Mountains could reduce the amount of
suitable salamander habitat, reduce the time period when the species
can be surface active, and increase the moisture demands and subsequent
physiological stress on salamanders. Warming and drying trends in the
Jemez Mountains currently threaten the species, and these threats are
projected to continue into the foreseeable future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the
salamander is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future
[[Page 54837]]
threats faced by the salamander. We reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, and other available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with salamander experts and other
Federal, State, and tribal agencies.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petitioned action to list the Jemez
Mountains is warranted, due to a combination of risk of historical and
current fire management practices, severe wildland fire, forest
composition and structure conversions, post-fire rehabilitation
treatments, forest management (including silvicultural practices),
private residential development, roads, trails, habitat fragmentation,
and recreation. The salamander may also be threatened by disease and
chemical use. Some of these threats may be exacerbated by the current
and projected effects of climate change, and we have determined that
the current and projected effects from climate change directly threaten
the salamander. The loss of one of the largest known populations, the
documented modification of the habitat from fire exclusion, and severe
wildland fire places this species at great risk. Cumulative threats to
the salamander are not being adequately addressed through existing
regulatory mechanisms. Because of the limited distribution of this
endemic species and its lack of mobility, threats are likely to render
the species at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future. We will
make a determination on the status of the species as endangered or
threatened when we prepare a proposed listing determination. However,
as explained in more detail below, an immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing this action is precluded by higher priority
listing actions, and progress is being made to add or remove qualified
species to or from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants.
We reviewed the available information to determine if the existing
and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of extinction now
such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the
species under section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. We determined
that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the species is
not warranted for this species at this time because, within the current
distribution of the species throughout its range, there are at least
some populations of the salamander that exist in relatively natural
conditions that are unlikely to change in the short term. However, if
at any time we determine that emergency listing of the salamander is
warranted, we will initiate an emergency listing.
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098),
to establish a rational system for allocating available appropriations
to the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying
threatened species to endangered status. The system places greatest
importance on the immediacy and magnitude of threats, but also factors
in the level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in
descending order to monotypic genera, full species, and subspecies (or
equivalently, distinct population segments of vertebrates). As a result
of our analysis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we assigned the Jemez Mountains salamander a listing
priority number (LPN) of 2, based on our finding that the species faces
imminent and high-magnitude threats from the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat and the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The salamander and its
habitat are threatened by historical and current fire management
practices; severe wildland fire; forest composition and structure
conversions; post-fire rehabilitation; forest management (including
silvicultural practices); private (residential) development; roads,
trails, and habitat fragmentation; and recreation. Due to the limited
extent of habitat occupied by the salamander, the severity and
magnitude of the threat of severe wildland fire, and ongoing impacts
from the existing extensive road network and previous logging
practices, we have determined that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat and range
represents a current significant threat to the salamander. Existing
regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ensure the species' long-term
conservation and survival because they do not specifically prevent
threats to its habitat. One or more of the threats discussed above is
occurring or is expected to occur throughout the entire range of this
species. These threats are ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., loss of
habitat through forest management), considered irreversible. While we
conclude that listing the Jemez Mountains salamander is warranted, an
immediate proposal to list this species is precluded by other higher
priority listings, which we address below.
Significant Portion of the Range
The Act defines an endangered species as one ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
a threatened species as one ``likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.'' The term ``significant portion of its range'' is not
defined by the statute. For the purposes of this finding, a significant
portion of a species' range is an area that is important to the
conservation of the species because it contributes meaningfully to the
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species. The
contribution must be at a level such that its loss would result in a
decrease in the ability to conserve the species.
If an analysis of whether a species is endangered or threatened in
a significant portion of its range is appropriate, we engage in a
systematic process that begins with identifying any portions of the
range of the species that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose in analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and
endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial
information indicating that (i) the portions may be significant and
(ii) the species may be in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future. In practice, a key part of
this analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in
some way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform
throughout its range, no portion is likely to warrant further
consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats applies only
to portions of the range that are unimportant to the conservation of
the species, such portions will not warrant further consideration.
On the basis of an analysis of factors that may threaten the Jemez
Mountains salamander, we have determined that listing is warranted
throughout its range. Therefore, it is not necessary to conduct further
analysis with respect to the significance of any portion of its range
at this time. We will further analyze whether threats may be
disproportionate and warrant further consideration as a significant
portion of the species' range when we develop a proposed listing
determination.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and competing demands for
those resources. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY),
[[Page 54838]]
multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work
on a proposed listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a
proposal is warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for
the Listing Program is available to support work involving the
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual
determinations on prior ``warranted but precluded'' petition findings
as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat
petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical
habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management
functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to
Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach
regarding listing and critical habitat). The work involved in preparing
various listing documents can be extensive and may include, but is not
limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial
data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our
decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing,
and evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed
rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The
number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more
complex actions generally are more costly. For example, during the past
several years, the cost (excluding publication costs) for preparing a
12-month finding, without a proposed rule, has ranged from
approximately $11,000 for one species with a restricted range and
involving a relatively uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for another
species that is wide-ranging and involving a complex analysis.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds which may be
expended for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly
appropriated for that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was
designed to prevent funds appropriated for other functions under the
Act (for example, recovery funds for removing species from the Lists),
or for other Service programs, from being used for Listing Program
actions (see House Report 105-163, 105\th\ Congress, 1st Session, July
1, 1997).
Recognizing that designation of critical habitat for species
already listed would consume most of the overall Listing Program
appropriation, Congress also put a critical habitat subcap in place in
FY 2002 and has retained it each subsequent year to ensure that some
funds are available for other work in the Listing Program: ``The
critical habitat designation subcap will ensure that some funding is
available to address other listing activities'' (House Report No. 107 -
103, 107\th\ Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and each
year until FY 2006, the Service has had to use virtually the entire
critical habitat subcap to address court-mandated designations of
critical habitat, and consequently none of the critical habitat subcap
funds have been available for other listing activities. In FY 2007, we
were able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations for high-priority candidate species. In
FY 2009, while we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap
funds to fund proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this
money to fund the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing
determinations so that the proposed listing determination and proposed
critical habitat designation could be combined into one rule, thereby
being more efficient in our work. In FY 2010, we are using some of the
critical habitat subcap funds to fund actions with statutory deadlines.
Thus, through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the
amount of funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat
designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the
amount of money available for other listing activities. Therefore, the
funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-
mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on
our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress also recognized that the availability of resources was the
key element in deciding, when making a 12-month petition finding,
whether we would prepare and issue a listing proposal or instead make a
``warranted but precluded'' finding for a given species. The Conference
Report accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the current
statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states (in
a discussion on 90-day petition findings that by its own terms also
covers 12-month findings) that the deadlines were ``not intended to
allow the Secretary to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any
reason other than that the existence of pending or imminent proposals
to list species subject to a greater degree of threat would make
allocation of resources to such a petition [that is, for a lower-
ranking species] unwise.''
In FY 2010, expeditious progress is that amount of work that can be
achieved with $10,471,000, which is the amount of money that Congress
appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the
Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations
for species that are already listed). However these funds are not
enough to fully fund all our court-ordered and statutory listing
actions in FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of our critical habitat
subcap funds in order to work on all of our required petition findings
and listing determinations. This brings the total amount of funds we
have for listing actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our process is to
make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to ensure
that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first and
also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis. The
$11,585,417 is being used to fund work in the following categories:
compliance with court orders and court-approved settlement agreements
requiring that petition findings or listing determinations be completed
by a specific date; section 4 (of the Act) listing actions with
absolute statutory deadlines; essential litigation-related,
administrative, and listing program-management functions; and high-
priority listing actions for some of our candidate species. In 2009,
the responsibility for listing foreign species under the Act was
transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority, International
Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program. Starting in FY
2010, a portion of our funding is being used to work on the actions
described above as they apply to listing actions for foreign species.
This has the potential to further reduce funding available for domestic
listing actions, although there are currently no foreign species issues
included in our high-priority listing actions at this time. The
allocations for each specific listing action are identified in the
Service's FY 2010 Allocation Table (part of our administrative record).
In FY 2007, we had more than 120 species with an LPN of 2, based on
our
[[Page 54839]]
September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for each candidate
species (48 FR 43098). Using this guidance, we assign each candidate an
LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high vs.
moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and
taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: monotypic genus
(a species that is the sole member of a genus); species; or part of a
species (subspecies, distinct population segment, or significant
portion of the range)). The lower the listing priority number, the
higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would
have the highest listing priority). Because of the large number of
high-priority species, we further ranked the candidate species with an
LPN of 2 by using the following extinction-risk type criteria:
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, Heritage rank (provided by
NatureServe), Heritage threat rank (provided by NatureServe), and
species currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or 4 or fewer
populations. Those species with the highest IUCN rank (critically
endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage
threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and currently with fewer
than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, comprised a group of
approximately 40 candidate species (``Top 40''). These 40 candidate
species have had the highest priority to receive funding to work on a
proposed listing determination. As we work on proposed and final
listing rules for these 40 candidates, we are applying the ranking
criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN of 2 and 3 to
determine the next set of highest priority candidate species.
To be more efficient in our listing process, as we work on proposed
rules for these species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, available staff
resources are also a factor in determining high-priority species
provided with funding. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of
threatened species to endangered are lower priority, since as listed
species, they are already afforded the protection of the Act and
implementing regulations.
We assigned the Jemez Mountains salamander an LPN of 2, based on
our finding that the species faces immediate and high magnitude threats
from the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat; predation; and the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms. One or more of the threats discussed above are
occurring in each known population in the United States. These threats
are ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., nonnative species), considered
irreversible. Under our 1983 Guidelines, a ``species'' facing imminent
high-magnitude threats is assigned an LPN of 1, 2, or 3 depending on
its taxonomic status. Because the Jemez Mountains salamander is a
species, we assigned it an LPN of 2 (the highest category available for
a species). Therefore, work on a proposed listing determination for the
Jemez Mountains salamander is precluded by work on higher priority
candidate species; listing actions with absolute statutory, court
ordered, or court-approved deadlines; and final listing determinations
for those species that were proposed for listing with funds from
previous fiscal years. This work includes all the actions listed in the
tables below under expeditious progress.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add or remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. (Although we do not discuss it in
detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing
species from the Lists under the Recovery program, which is funded by a
separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. As
explained above in our description of the statutory cap on Listing
Program funds, the Recovery Program funds and actions supported by them
cannot be considered in determining expeditious progress made in the
Listing Program.) As with our ``precluded'' finding, expeditious
progress in adding qualified species to the Lists is a function of the
resources available and the competing demands for those funds. Given
that limitation, we find that we are making progress in FY 2010 in the
Listing Program. This progress included preparing and publishing the
following determinations:
Table 1: FY 2010 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/08/2009 Listing Lepidium Final Listing 74 FR 52013-52064
papilliferum (Slickspot Threatened
Peppergrass) as a
Threatened Species
Throughout Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/27/2009 90-day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 74 FR 55177-55180
Petition To List the Petition
American Dipper in the Finding, Not
Black Hills of South substantial.
Dakota as Threatened or
Endangered..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/28/2009 Status Review of Arctic Notice of Intent to 74 FR 55524-55525
Grayling (Thymallus Conduct Status Review
arcticus) in the Upper
Missouri River System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/03/2009 Listing the British Proposed Listing 74 FR 56757-56770
Columbia Distinct Threatened
Population Segment of
the Queen Charlotte
Goshawk Under the
Endangered Species Act:
Proposed rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/03/2009 Listing the Salmon- Proposed Listing 74 FR 56770-56791
Crested Cockatoo as Threatened
Threatened
Throughout Its Range
with Special Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/23/2009 Status Review of Notice of Intent to 74 FR 61100-61102
Gunnison sage-grouse Conduct Status Review
(Centrocercus
minimus)................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54840]]
12/03/2009 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 74 FR 63343-63366
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Black-tailed Prairie warranted
Dog as Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/03/2009 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 74 FR 63337-63343
Petition to List Petition
Sprague's Pipit as Finding, Substantial...
Threatened or Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/15/2009 90-Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 74 FR 66260-66271
Petitions To List Nine Petition
Species of Mussels From Finding, Substantial...
Texas as Threatened or
Endangered With
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/16/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding Notice of 90-day 74 FR 66865-66905
on a Petition to List Petition
475 Species in the Finding, Not
Southwestern United substantial and
States as Threatened or Subtantial.
Endangered With
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/17/2009 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 74 FR 66937-66950
Petition To Change the petition finding,
Final Listing of the Warranted but
Distinct Population precluded..............
Segment of the Canada
Lynx To
Include New Mexico......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/05/2010 Listing Foreign Bird Proposed 75 FR 605-649
Species in Peru and ListingEndangered
Bolivia as
Endangered Throughout
Their Range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/05/2010 Listing Six Foreign Proposed 75 FR 286-310
Birds as Endangered ListingEndangered
Throughout Their Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/05/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Proposed rule, 75 FR 310-316
Rule to List Cook's withdrawal
Petrel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/05/2010 Final Rule to List the Final Listing 75 FR 235-250
Galapagos Petrel and Threatened
Heinroth's Shearwater
as Threatened
Throughout Their Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/20/2010 Initiation of Status Notice of Intent to 75 FR 3190-3191
Review for Agave Conduct Status Review
eggersiana and Solanum
conocarpum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/09/2010 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 6437-6471
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
American Pika as warranted
Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/25/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 8601-8621
Petition To List the petition finding, Not
Sonoran Desert warranted
Population of the Bald
Eagle as a Threatened
or
Endangered Distinct
Population Segment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/25/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Withdrawal of Proposed 75 FR 8621-8644
Rule To List the Rule to List
Southwestern
Washington/Columbia
River Distinct
Population Segment of
Coastal Cutthroat Trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki
clarki) as Threatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/18/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 13068-13071
Petition to List the Petition
Berry Cave Finding, Substantial...
salamander as Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 13717-13720
Petition to List the Petition
Southern Hickorynut Finding, Not
Mussel (Obovaria substantial.
jacksoniana) as
Endangered or
Threatened..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 13720-13726
Petition to List the Petition
Striped Newt as Finding, Substantial...
Threatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/23/2010 12-Month Findings for Notice of 12-month 75 FR 13910-14014
Petitions to List the petition
Greater Sage-Grouse finding,Warranted but
(Centrocercus precluded..............
urophasianus)as
Threatened or
Endangered..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/31/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 16050-16065
Petition to List the petition
Tucson Shovel-Nosed finding,Warranted but
Snake (Chionactis precluded..............
occipitalis klauberi)
as Threatened or
Endangered with
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54841]]
4/5/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 17062-17070
Petition To List Petition
Thorne's Hairstreak Finding, Substantial...
Butterfly as or
Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/6/2010 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 17352-17363
Petition To List the petition finding, Not
Mountain Whitefish in warranted
the Big Lost River,
Idaho, as Endangered or
Threatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/6/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 17363-17367
Petition to List a Petition
Stonefly (Isoperla Finding, Not
jewetti) and a Mayfly substantial.
(Fallceon eatoni) as
Threatened or
Endangered with Critical
Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/7/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 17667-17680
Petition to Reclassify petition
the Delta Smelt From finding,Warranted but
Threatened to precluded
Endangered Throughout
Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/13/2010 Determination of Final ListingEndangered 75 FR 18959-19165
Endangered Status for
48 Species on Kauai and
Designation of Critical
Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/15/2010 Initiation of Status Notice of Initiation of 75 FR 19591-19592
Review of the North Status Review
American Wolverine in
the Contiguous United
States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/15/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 19592-19607
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Wyoming Pocket Gopher warranted
as Endangered or
Threatened with
Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/16/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 19925-19935
Petition to List a Petition
Distinct Population Finding, Substantial...
Segment of the Fisher in
Its United States
Northern Rocky Mountain
Range as Endangered or
Threatened with
Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/20/2010 Initiation of Status Notice of Initiation of 75 FR 20547-20548
Review for Sacramento Status Review
splittail (Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/26/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 21568-21571
Petition to List the Petition
Harlequin Butterfly as Finding, Substantial...
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/27/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 22012-22025
Petition to List petition finding, Not
Susan's Purse-making warranted
Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia
susanae) as Threatened
or
Endangered..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/27/2010 90-day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 22063-22070
Petition to List the Petition
Mohave Ground Finding, Substantial...
Squirrel as Endangered
with Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 23654-23663
Petition to List Hermes Petition
Copper Butterfly as Finding, Substantial...
Threatened or
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/1/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 30313-30318
Petition To List Petition
Castanea pumila var. Finding, Substantial...
ozarkensis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/1/2010 12-month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 30338-30363
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
White-tailed Prairie warranted
Dog as Endangered or
Threatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/9/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 32728-32734
Petition To List van Petition
Rossem's Gull-billed Finding, Substantial...
Tern as Endangered
orThreatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/16/2010 90-Day Finding on Five Notice of 90-day 75 FR 34077-34088
Petitions to List Seven Petition
Species of Finding, Substantial...
Hawaiian Yellow-faced
Bees as Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/22/2010 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 35398-35424
Petition to List the petition
Least Chub as finding,Warranted but
Threatened or precluded..............
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 75 FR 35746-35751
Petition to List the Petition
Honduran Emerald Finding, Substantial...
Hummingbird as
Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54842]]
6/23/2010 Listing Ipomopsis Proposed 75 FR 35721-35746
polyantha (Pagosa ListingEndangeredPropo
Skyrocket) as sed Listing Threatened
Endangered Throughout
Its Range, and Listing
Penstemon debilis
(Parachute Beardtongue)
and Phacelia submutica
(DeBeque Phacelia) as
Threatened Throughout
Their Range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/24/2010 Listing the Flying Final ListingEndangered 75 FR 35990-36012
Earwig Hawaiian
Damselfly and Pacific
Hawaiian Damselfly As
Endangered Throughout
Their Ranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/24/2010 Listing the Cumberland Proposed 75 FR 36035-36057
Darter, Rush Darter, ListingEndangered
Yellowcheek Darter,
Chucky Madtom, and
Laurel Dace as
Endangered Throughout
Their Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/29/2010 Listing the Mountain Reinstatement of 75 FR 37353-37358
Plover as Threatened Proposed
ListingThreatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in FY 2010 but have not yet been completed to date. These
actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the table are
being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in the middle
section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory timelines,
that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the bottom
section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These actions
include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and selection of
these species is partially based on available staff resources, and when
appropriate, include species with a lower priority if they overlap
geographically or have the same threats as the species with the high
priority. Including these species together in the same proposed rule
results in considerable savings in time and funding, as compared to
preparing separate proposed rules for each of them in the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Birds from Eurasia Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flat-tailed horned lizard Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain plover Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Birds from Peru Proposed listing
determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento splittail Proposed listing
determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison sage-grouse 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic grayling 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agave eggergsiana 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solanum conocarpum 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain plover 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorne's Hairstreak Butterfly 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes copper butterfly 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and Final listing determination
rough hornsnail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
African penguin Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Foreign bird species (Andean flamingo, Final listing determination
Chilean woodstar, St. Lucia forest
thrush)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54843]]
5 Penguin species Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern rockhopper penguin - Campbell Final listing determination
Plateau population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Bird species from Brazil Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Charlotte goshawk Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salmon-crested cockatoo Proposed listing
determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black-footed albatross 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mount Charleston blue butterfly 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mojave fringe-toed lizard\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kokanee - Lake Sammamish population\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta smelt (uplisting) 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern leopard frog 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehachapi slender salamander 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coqui Llanero 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-sided jackrabbit 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dusky tree vole 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Lake trout\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 of 206 species 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desert tortoise - Sonoran population 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gopher tortoise - eastern population 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amargosa toad 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific walrus 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrights marsh thistle 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
67 of 475 southwest species 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Southwest mussel species 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 parrots (foreign species) 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Cave salamander\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striped Newt\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher - Northern Rocky Mountain Range\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohave Ground Squirrel\1\ 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western gull-billed tern 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. 12-month petition finding
ozarkensis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI yellow-faced bees 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering 90-day petition finding
pop. of piping plover\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54844]]
Eagle Lake trout\1\ 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smooth-billed ani\1\ 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Springs salamander\1\ 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 species of snails and slugs\1\ 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calopogon oklahomensis\1\ 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-bark pine 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red knot roselaari subspecies 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peary caribou 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plain bison 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giant Palouse earthworm 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican gray wolf 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring pygmy sunfish 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco manzanita 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay skipper 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsilvered fritillary 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas kangaroo rat 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot-tailed earless lizard 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern small-footed bat 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern long-eared bat 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prairie chub 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 species of Great Basin butterfly 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden-winged warbler 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand-verbena moth 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aztec (beautiful) gilia 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapahoe snowfly 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Priority Listing Actions\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species\3\ (16 plants, 3 Proposed listing
damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN
= 3, 1 with LPN =9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Maui-Nui candidate species\3\ (14 Proposed listing
plants, 3 tree snails) (12 with LPN = 2,
2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand dune lizard\3\ (LPN = 2) Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Arizona springsnails\3\ (Pyrgulopsis Proposed listing
bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
trivialis (LPN = 2))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 New Mexico springsnails\3\ (Pyrgulopsis Proposed listing
chupaderae (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
thermalis (LPN = 11))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 mussels\3\ (rayed bean (LPN = 2), Proposed listing
snuffbox No LPN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 mussels\3\ (sheepnose (LPN = 2), Proposed listing
spectaclecase (LPN = 4),)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54845]]
Ozark hellbender\2\ (LPN = 3) Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altamaha spinymussel\3\ (LPN = 2) Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell Proposed listing
(LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2),
Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN =
5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe
(LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
previous FYs.
\2\ We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead
of other species with LPN of 2, because the threats to the species
were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency
listing if we were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in
FY 2008.
\3\ Funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY
2008 or 2009.
We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
The Jemez Mountains salamander will be added to the list of
candidate species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will
continue to monitor the status of this species as new information
becomes available. This review will determine if a change in status is
warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing
procedures.
We intend that any proposed listing action for the Jemez Mountains
salamander will be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue
to accept additional information and comments from all concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested party concerning this finding.
References Cited
A complete list of all references is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the Field Supervisor,
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the New
Mexico Ecological Services Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 23, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-22455 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S