[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56481-56513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21882]
[[Page 56481]]
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 177
September 12, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered
Status for the Jemez Mountains Salamander and Proposed Designation of
Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 177 / Wednesday, September 12, 2012
/ Proposed Rules
[[Page 56482]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0063; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AY24
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed
Endangered Status for the Jemez Mountains Salamander and Proposed
Designation of Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list the Jemez Mountains salamander as an endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act); and propose to
designate critical habitat for the species. In total, approximately
90,789 acres (36,741 hectares) are being proposed for designation as
critical habitat in Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Sandoval Counties, New
Mexico.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 13, 2012. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests
for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES
section by October 29, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2012-0063,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. You may submit a
comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2012-0063; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information). The
coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps are generated
are included in the administrative record for this critical habitat
designation and are available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/, http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-
0063, and at the New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional supporting information
that we may develop for this critical habitat designation will also be
available at the above locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office,
2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505-346-2525; or by
facsimile 505-346-2542. Persons who use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Regulatory Action
Under the Act, a species or subspecies may warrant protection
through listing if it is an endangered or threatened species throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. On September 9, 2010, we
published a 12-month finding stating that listing the Jemez Mountains
salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) under the Act was warranted, but
precluded by other listing priorities (75 FR 54822). In that document
we explained that the species currently faces numerous threats of high
magnitude, and, therefore, qualifies for listing. This rule reassesses
all available information regarding status of and threats to the
salamander.
Under the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered or
threatened species based on any of five factors: (1) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the
Jemez Mountains salamander meets the definition of an endangered
species due to three of these five factors.
Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action in Question
This document consists of: (1) A proposed rule to list the Jemez
Mountains salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) as an endangered species;
and (2) a proposed rule for designation of critical habitat for the
Jemez Mountains salamander.
We will obtain opinions from knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise to review our technical assumptions, analysis,
adherence to regulations, and whether or not we had used the best
available information. These peer reviewers will analyze our methods
and conclusions and provide additional information, clarifications, and
suggestions to improve the final listing and critical habitat rule. As
a result, we will make a final determination as to whether the Jemez
Mountains salamander is an endangered or threatened species, and
designate critical habitat as appropriate, in the final rule. For this
rule, we propose to list the Jemez Mountains salamander as an
endangered species and propose to designate approximately 90,789 acres
(36,741 hectares) of critical habitat in Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and
Sandoval Counties, New Mexico.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A proposed
rule to list the Jemez Mountains salamander (salamander) as an
endangered species; and (2) a proposed critical habitat designation for
the salamander.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry,
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and regulations that may
be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its
habitat.
(4) Current or planned activities in the geographic areas occupied
by the species and possible impacts of these activities on this
species.
(5) Any information on impacts to the species resulting from fire
management practices, severe wildfire, forest composition and structure
conversions,
[[Page 56483]]
post-fire rehabilitation, other forest management practices (including
salvage logging, building of roads and trails, and recreational use).
(6) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent.
(7) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Jemez Mountains salamander
habitat;
(b) What areas that are currently occupied and contain features
essential to the conservation of the species that should be included in
the designation and why;
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(8) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(9) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the Jemez Mountains salamander and proposed critical
habitat.
(10) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families,
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these
impacts.
(11) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(12) The appropriateness of the methodology used for delineating
the proposed critical habitat (including any data that might help
further refine these areas).
(13) The likelihood of adverse social reactions to the designation
of critical habitat and how the consequences of such reactions, if
likely to occur, would relate to the conservation and regulatory
benefits of the proposed critical habitat designation.
(14) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Please include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Previous Federal Actions
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 Jemez
Mountains salamander as threatened. Subsequently, we published a
substantial 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 either an 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 Jemez Mountains 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
[[Page 56484]]
Fe National Forest, finalized a Cooperative Management Plan for the
Jemez Mountains 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 as either an endangered or threatened species 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, we published a
12-month finding on September 9, 2010, that listing the salamander as
either an endangered or threatened species was warranted but precluded
by higher priority actions (75 FR 54822). This rule constitutes our
proposal to list the Jemez Mountains salamander as an endangered
species and our proposal to designate critical habitat.
Proposed Endangered Status for the Jemez Mountains Salamander
Background
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 a member of the family Plethodontidae, is strictly
terrestrial, and 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 Jemez Mountains 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.
The Jemez Mountains salamander is one of two species of
plethodontid salamanders endemic (native and restricted to a particular
region) to New Mexico: The Jemez Mountains salamander and the
Sacramento Mountains salamander (Aneides hardii). Unlike most 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 may not have developed here,
but evidence from exposed rocky areas (felsenmeers) 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 the USFS, the National Park
Service (Bandelier National Monument), Valles Caldera National Preserve
(VCNP), and Los Alamos National Laboratory, with some habitat located
on tribal land and private lands (NMEST 2000, p. 1). The VCNP is
located west of Los Alamos, New Mexico, and is part of the National
Forest System (owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture), 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.
The species predominantly occurs at an elevation between 7,200 and
9,500 feet (ft) (2,200 and 2,900 meters (m)) (Degenhardt et al. 1996,
p. 28), but has been found as low as 6,998 ft (2,133 m) (Ramotnik 1988,
p. 78) and as high as 10,990 ft (3,350 m) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 84).
Movements, Home Range, and Dispersal
Ramotnik (1988, pp. 11-12) used implanted radioactive wires in
polyethylene tubing to track 9 individual salamanders for durations
between 2 days and 6 weeks, monitoring their movements every 1 to 3
days, and two salamanders were tracked every 2 hours throughout a 12-
hour period. Ramotnik (1988, p. 27) reported individual distances
salamanders moved between consecutive observations ranged from 0 to 108
ft (0 to 13 m) and that 73 percent of recorded movements were less than
3.3 ft (1 m). In 59 of 109 observations, salamanders did not move. When
the zero-distance movements were excluded from analysis, the average
distance salamanders moved was 7.8 ft (2.4 m), with the greatest
movement of 43 ft (13 m) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 28). Ramotnik (1988, p. 32)
also estimated the home range of six salamanders with these data and
reports the average home range was 86 square feet (ft\2\) (8.0 square
meters (m\2\); males had a larger home range (137 ft\2\ (12.7 m\2\))
than females (78 ft\2\ (7.2 m\2\)). The individuals that had larger
home ranges (greater than 54 ft\2\ (5.0 m\2\)) were often found
returning to the same cover object; whereas individuals with home
ranges less than 54 ft\2\ (5 m\2\) rarely returned to the same spot
(Ramotnik 1988, p. 32). While these data are limited because small
sample size, they provide some information on the relatively small
movements made by individuals and their relatively small home range.
In another well-studied terrestrial salamander, the red-backed
salamander (Plethodon cinereus), there is conflicting evidence
regarding its dispersal abilities. Some information suggests this
salamander exhibits small movements, even across multiple years,
consisting primarily of small home ranges and with little movement
among cover objects. However, there is other evidence of moderate-
distance homing ability, greater movement during colonization events,
and an estimated range expansion of 262 ft (80 m) per year over the
last 18,000 years (Cabe et
[[Page 56485]]
al. 2007, p. 54). Cabe et al. 2007 (pp. 53-60) measured gene flow of
red-backed salamanders across a continuous forested habitat as an
indicator of the salamander's dispersal. They suggested that gene flow
and dispersal frequency were normally low, indicating that red-backed
salamanders generally do not move much, but under certain
circumstances, they might disperse farther than normal. These unique
conditions occur when the population density of red-backed salamanders
is so high in a given area that the habitat is saturated with them, and
there is a resultant reduction in breeding success, and other, less
densely populated habitat is available (Cabe et al. 2007, p. 53). The
Jemez mountains salamander is likely similar to other terrestrial
salamanders, where dispersal distance and frequency is generally low,
but some individuals may make moderate dispersal movements into
available habitat.
In the 12-month finding for the Jemez Mountains salamander (75 FR
54822; September 9, 2010), we divided known salamander distributional
data into five 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. However, for this rule, we are no longer
using these units as reference, because we did not want to cause
confusion with the critical habitat units.
Habitat
The strictly terrestrial Jemez Mountains 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 has occasionally been 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 (particularly Douglas fir logs) considerably
more often than deciduous logs, likely due to the physical features
(e.g., blocky pieces 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 aboveground habitat and cover (Ramotnik 1988,
p. 53).
Biology
The Jemez Mountains salamander is strictly terrestrial, does not
possess lungs, and does not use standing surface water for any life
stage. Respiration occurs through the skin, which requires a moist
microclimate for gas exchange. Substrate moisture through its effect on
absorption and loss of water is probably the most important factor in
the ecology of this terrestrial salamander, as it is in other strictly
terrestrial salamander species (Heatwole and Lim 1961, p. 818). The
Jemez Mountains salamander spends much of its life underground and can
be found above ground when relative environmental conditions are warm
and wet, which is typically from July through September; but occasional
salamander observations have been made in May, June, and October.
Relatively warm and wet environmental conditions suitable for
salamander aboveground activity are likely influenced by snow
infiltration and summer monsoon rains. When active above ground, the
species is usually found under decaying logs, rocks, bark, moss mats,
or inside decaying logs or stumps.
The salamander's subterranean habitat appears to be deep,
fractured, subterranean 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 or alkalinity) may
limit distribution as well. It is unknown whether the species forages
or carries on any other activities below ground, although it is
presumed that eggs are laid and hatch underground. Salamander prey from
aboveground foraging is diverse in size and type, with ants
(Hymenoptera, Formicidae), mites (Acari), and beetles (Coleoptera)
being most important (most numerous, most voluminous, and most
frequent) 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
categories (ants, mites, and beetles).
The aboveground microhabitat (under or inside cover objects)
temperature for 577 Jemez Mountains salamanders ranged from 43 to 63
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (6.0 to 17.0 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)),
with an average of 54.9 [deg]F (12.7 [deg]C) (Williams 1972, p. 18).
Significantly more salamanders were observed under logs where
temperatures are closest to the average temperature (54.5 [deg]F (12.5
[deg]C)) than inside logs where temperatures deviated the most from the
average temperature (55.9 [deg]F (13.3 [deg]C)) (Williams 1972, p. 19).
Sexual maturity is attained at 3 to 4 years in age for females and
3 years for males (Williams 1976, pp. 31, 35). Reproduction in the wild
has not been observed; however, based on observed physiological
changes, mating is believed to occur above ground between July and
August (Williams 1976, pp. 31-36). Based on examination of 57 female
salamanders in the wild and 1 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 subterranean the spring after mating occurs (Williams 1978, p.
475). Jemez Mountains salamanders have direct-developing eggs, whereby
fully formed salamanders hatch from the eggs. The lifespan of the
salamander in the wild is unknown. However, considering the estimated
lifespan of other similar terrestrial plethodontid salamanders and the
above reproductive information, we believe that the lifespan of this
species is likely greater than 10 years.
Status of the Species
A complete overview of the available survey data and protocols for
the Jemez Mountains salamander is reported in the 12-month finding for
the salamander (75 FR 54822; September 9, 2010). In summary, we have
approximately 20 years of salamander survey data that provide detection
information at specific survey sites for given points in time. The
overall rangewide population size of the Jemez Mountains salamander is
unknown because surveys tend to be localized (approximately 200 m by
200 m areas (256 ft by 256 ft), and we cannot meaningfully relate these
data to the demographics of the species. Additionally, like most
plethodontid salamanders, monitoring population size or trends of the
Jemez Mountains salamander is inherently difficult because of the
natural variation associated with the species' behavior (Hyde and
Simons 2001, p. 624). For example, when the species is underground,
they cannot be detected. Therefore, the probability of detecting a
[[Page 56486]]
salamander is highly variable and dependent upon the environmental and
biological parameters that drive aboveground and belowground activities
(Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). Given the known bias of detection
probabilities and the inconsistent survey effort across years,
population trends and population size estimates using existing data
cannot be made accurately.
Despite our inability to quantify population size or trends for the
salamander, these qualitative data (data that are observable, but not
measurable) provide information for potential inferences. Based on
these inferences, we believe that the persistence of the salamander may
vary across the range of the species. For example, in some localities
where the salamander was once considered abundant or common, the
salamander is now rarely detected or has not been recently detected at
all (New Mexico Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets). There also
appears to be an increase in the number of areas where salamanders were
once present, but have not been observed during more recent surveys
(New Mexico Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets). Alternatively,
there are two localities on the VCNP where the salamander continues to
be relatively abundant, compared to most other recent detections
(Redondo Border located in the central portion of the VCNP, and on a
slope in the northeast portion of the VCNP). Still, the number of
individuals found at these 2 localities is far less than other
historical reports including the report in which 659 individuals were
captured in a single year in 1970 and 394 of those individuals were
captured in a single month (Williams 1976, p. 26). Currently, there is
no known location where the number of salamanders observed is similar
to that observed in 1970.
Overall, some of the localized survey areas appear to be unchanging
(survey results with similar numbers of salamanders through time during
the period in which environmental conditions for salamander aboveground
activity is warm and wet, which is typically from July through
September). However, in other areas, particularly along the western and
southern sides of the range, the number of salamanders observed during
surveys appears to be decreasing or the number of surveys resulting in
no detections at all are increasing (fewer or no salamanders observed
for the same survey effort, while environmental conditions for
salamander aboveground activity is considered optimal) (New Mexico
Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets). An assessment of
population trends using these data would not be accurate, unless we
could demonstrate that these limited data are representative of the
overall population. We expect that detecting overall trends will be
difficult for this species, given data limitations, the cost of
comprehensive surveys, and the likelihood of natural, annual, and
spatial variations.
In summary, the available data cannot be used to estimate
population size or trends in the rangewide abundance of the salamander.
Although we lack specific long-term population and trend information,
available data and qualitative observations of salamanders suggest that
the species is more difficult to find during surveys. Even though we
are not able to estimate population trends, the number of surveys
resulting in no salamander detections is increasing. Because we have
limited data regarding the status of the species or population trends,
we specifically request this information.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species 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; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The principal threats to the habitat of the Jemez Mountains
salamander include historical fire exclusion (the act of preventing
fire) and suppression (the act of putting out fire) and severe wildland
fires; forest composition and structure conversions; post-fire
rehabilitation; forest and fire management; roads, trails, and habitat
fragmentation; and recreation.
Fire Exclusion, Suppression, and Severe Wildland Fires
In the Jemez Mountains, over 100 years of fire suppression and fire
exclusion (along with livestock grazing and other stressors) have
altered forest composition and structure, and increased the threat of
wildfire in Ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer 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 that the salamander coexisted with historical fire
regimes. 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 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 burned on average 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 historical 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 historical 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 historical fire patterns were interrupted in the late 1800s
through the elimination of fine fuels, as a result of livestock
overgrazing and historical 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, past fire exclusion
activities 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
[[Page 56487]]
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).
In recent years, 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), because 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 partially reduce the risk of severe wildland fires
in areas, these efforts are not likely at a sufficient geographical
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 have 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). Between 1995 and 2010,
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).
In 2011, the Las Conchas Fire burned 150,590 ac (60,942 ha) in the
Jemez Mountains, and, until the 2012 Whitewater Complex Fire in
southwestern New Mexico, Las Conchas was New Mexico's largest wildfire
to date (USFS 2011a, p. 1). The Las Conchas Fire burned approximately
17,780 ac (7,195 ha) of modeled or known salamander habitat in the
east, south, and southeastern part of its range. This demonstrates that
the threat of severe wildland fires to salamander habitat remains high,
due to 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 the western portion of the salamander's range 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 highly susceptible to crown fire (USFS 2009a, pp. 24-
25). Moreover, we found that the risk of burning is not eliminated
following severe wildfires. Some areas that previously burned during
the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire burned again during the 2011 Las Conchas
Fire.
Increases in soil and microhabitat temperatures, which generally
increase with increasing burn severity, can have profound effects on
salamander behavior and physiology and can, therefore, influence their
ability to persist subsequent to severe wildland fires. Following the
Cerro Grande Fire, soil temperatures were recorded under potential
salamander cover objects in geographic 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 (the
temperature that causes death) (Spotila 1972, p. 97; Cummer and Painter
2007, pp. 28-31). Because widespread dry conditions are an important
factor contributing to the occurrence of severe wildfire, when severe
wildfire occurs, most salamanders are likely protected in subterranean
habitat and are not killed directly from wildfire. However, even in
moderate and high-severity burned areas where fires did not result in
the death of salamanders, the microhabitat conditions, such as those
resulting from the Cerro Grande Wildfire, would limit the timing and
duration that the salamanders could be active above ground (feeding and
mating). Moreover, elevated temperatures lead to increases in oxygen
consumption, heart rate, and metabolic rate, resulting in decreased
body water (the percentage of water in the body) 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, below.
Severe wildland fires typically increase soil pH, which could
affect the 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 soil pH of 6.6 ( 0.08) and sites without
salamanders had a soil 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 could impact the salamander, either by
making the habitat less suitable, or through physiological stress.
Including the Santa Fe National Forest, the existing risk of
wildfire on the VCNP and surrounding areas is uncharacteristically high
and is a significant departure from historical conditions over 100
years ago (VCNP 2010, p. 3.1; Allen 1989, pp. ii-346; 2001, pp. 1-10).
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,
[[Page 56488]]
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 and partners
prepared the Southwest Jemez Mountains Landscape Assessment designed to
reduce the threat of severe wildland fire in the western and southern
part of the salamander's range over the next 10 years (USFS 2009, p.
2).
In 2011, this Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration project
was selected and is eligible for up to $4 million per year to restore
approximately 210,000 ac (85,000 ha) of forest in the southwestern
Jemez Mountains (USFS 2011b, pp. 1-2), but a lack of matching funds may
limit the geographical extent of this project. Moreover, this project
will not effectively address the short-term risk of severe wildland
fire to the species because treatments are anticipated to be
implemented slowly, over a decade or more, and will likely not begin in
salamander habitat until at least 2013. Finally, it is unknown whether
the proposed treatments will effectively reduce the risk of severe
wildfire to the salamander or its habitat without causing additional
harm to the species, because measures to minimize impacts will be
experimental and have not yet been developed. We believe that this risk
of wildfire is one of the most significant threats facing this species,
and projects attempting to reduce the threat of wildland fire will need
to be implemented over a large part of the landscape before significant
risk reduction for the salamander is achieved. For these reasons, we
conclude 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 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 soil porosity, and short-term creation of hydrophobic (water-
repelling) soils. These and other effects limit the amount of available
aboveground habitat, and the timing and duration when salamanders can
be active above ground, which negatively impacts salamander behavior
(e.g., maintenance of water balance, foraging, and mating) and
physiology (e.g., increased dehydration, heart rate and oxygen
consumption, and increased energy demands). These negative impacts are
greater for hatchlings and juvenile salamanders because, relative to
their body mass size, they have a greater skin surface area than larger
salamanders, and thus have greater rates of water and gas exchange over
their skin surface. Survivorship of hatchlings and juveniles is likely
reduced from the effects of extensive stand-replacing wildland fires.
For these reasons, severe wildland fires have led to a reduction in
the quality and quantity of the available salamander habitat rangewide,
reducing the survivorship and fecundity of the salamander rangewide.
The USFS concludes, and we concur, that habitat loss from extensive,
stand-replacing wildland fire is a threat to the salamander (USFS
2009c, p. 1), and these effects will likely continue into the future,
because areas that have not burned in the past 15 years are still at
extremely high risk, and areas that have experienced severe wildfires
in the last 15 years have degraded habitat that continues to adversely
affect the salamander. We consider the reduction in the quality and
quantity of habitat from extensive stand-replacing wildland fire to be
a significant threat to the species, because this threat is rangewide
and affects salamander behavior, physiology, and reproductive success.
Therefore, we believe that severe wildland fire has substantially
impacted the salamander and its habitat, and this trend is expected to
continue throughout its range in the future, unless and until projects
attempting to reduce the threat of wildland fire are effectively
implemented over a large part of the landscape in the Jemez Mountains
which includes the habitat of the salamander.
Forest Composition and Structure Conversions
Changes in forest composition and structure may exacerbate severe
wildland fires and are, therefore, considered a threat to the
salamander. In addition, changes in forest composition and structure
may threaten the salamander by directly altering soil moisture, soil
temperature, soil pH, relative humidity, and air temperature. While it
is possible that increased canopy could provide additional shading, and
thus lower air and soil temperatures, and reduce soil moisture loss, it
is presumed that any minor gains from a slightly more closed canopy
would be lost as a result of the increase in demand for water that
would be required for evapotranspiration by an increased number of
small-diameter trees, which in turn would lead to increased drying of
the soil. Limited water leads to drought-stress in trees, and an
increase in susceptibility of trees to burning, insect infestations,
and disease. This is especially true on south-facing slopes, where less
moisture is available or during times of earlier snowmelt. Reduced soil
moisture may also influence soil temperature and relative humidity.
Reduced soil moisture disrupts other aboveground activities of
salamanders (e.g., foraging and mating), because salamanders must first
address moisture needs above all other life functions (Heatwole and Lim
196, p. 818). Additionally, ecological changes resulting from forest
composition changes could result in altered prey availability; however,
we do not know if such changes would affect the salamander. The type
and quantity of vegetation affects soil pH, and thus could also affect
the salamander. Overall, the degree of cascading ecological impacts
from shifts in forest composition and structure is currently unknown;
however, alteration of forest composition and structure contribute to
increased risk of forest die-offs from disease and insect infestation
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,
Suppression, and Severe Wildland Fires'' section, above), and, in
addition to continued predicted future changes to forested habitat
within the range of the species, are threats to the salamander.
Preliminary data collected from the VCNP indicates that an increase
in the amount of tree canopy cover in an area can decrease the amount
of snow that is able to reach the ground, and can ultimately 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. Relatively recent increases in canopy cover,
resulting from changes in forest composition and structure caused by
historical management and fire suppression, could be having significant
drying effects on salamander habitat. In summary, existing and ongoing
changes in forest composition and structure are interrelated to the
threat of severe wildland fire and may also directly
[[Page 56489]]
affect habitat suitability by altering soil moisture, soil temperature,
soil pH, relative humidity, and air temperature. Therefore, forest
composition and structure conversions resulting in increased canopy
cover and denser understory pose threats to the salamander now and are
likely to continue in the 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 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). Rehabilitation
actions following the Las Conchas Fire included road protections
(removal of culverts, installation of trash racks and drainage dips);
hand and aerial seeding; mulching; and removal of trees at ancestral
communities (USFS 2011a, pp. 7-9; USFS 2012, pp. 1-3).
In many cases, rehabilitation actions can have further detrimental
impacts on the Jemez Mountains salamander and its habitat beyond what
was caused by the fire, but the USFS has made efforts to minimize such
impacts (USFS 2012, pp. 1-3). For instance, following the Las Conchas
Fire, rehabilitation actions in the Jemez Mountains salamander's
habitat that is categorized as ``Essential'' according to the Jemez
Mountains Salamander Management Plan or categorized as an ``Occupied
Stand'' by the USFS were limited to small scales and included: an
estimated 4.3 ac (1.7 ha) of habitat being impacted for road
protections, 7.5 ac (3.0 ha) were seeded and mulched (for archeological
site protection and Nordic ski trail protection), 150 ac (60.7) were
disturbed for hazard tree removal (cutting trees that could be
dangerous by falling onto a roadway), and 3.25 ac (1.3 ha) of bulldozer
line was rehabilitated with slash placement or seeding (USFS 2011a, pp.
7-9; USFS 2012, pp. 1-3).
Some post-fire rehabilitation actions may be beneficial for the
salamander. For example, contour felling can slow erosion and, in cases
where aboveground rocks are not present or present in low numbers, the
felled logs can also provide immediate aboveground 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). Similar
recommendations were made after the Las Conchas Fire (BAER Survey
Survey Specialist Report, 2011, p. 3). We believe these actions would
benefit the salamander immediately post-fire, but these actions have
not been implemented and still need to be tested. Still, some post-fire
treatments (e.g., grass seeding, heavy equipment operation, bulldozing,
tilling, hydromulching, mulching, erosion control fabrics, and removal
of aboveground rocks to build rock dams) likely negatively impacted the
salamander.
The most common BAER treatment has been grass seeding dropped from
aircraft (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11; Peppin et al. 2010, p. 574).
Nonnative grasses have typically been seeded because they are fast-
growing and have extensive fibrous roots (Robichaud et al. 2000, p.
11); however, in more recent years, efforts have been made to use
native plant species, but their use is often limited by high cost and
inadequate availability (Peppin et al. 2010, p. 574). Overall, seeding
with grass is relatively inexpensive, and has been reported to rapidly
increase water infiltration and stabilize soil (Robichaud et al. 2000,
p. 11). However, Peppin et al. (2010, p. 573) concluded that post-
wildfire seeding in western U.S. forests does little to protect soil in
the short-term, has equivocal effect on invasion of nonnative species,
and can have negative effects on native vegetation recovery.
Nevertheless, nonnative grasses from post-fire rehabilitation efforts
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 subterranean
habitat in a manner that is unusable to the salamander. We are aware of
areas that burned with moderate and high severities in the Dome Fire
(eastern and southeastern part of its range), where these thick mats of
grass resulting from rehabilitation still persist, and salamanders are
no longer found there. It is possible that native grasses could have
the same effect, because the goal of the rehabilitation effort is to
stabilize the soil with quick-growing fibrous roots.
Additionally, grass seed mixtures 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). Finally, how mulching with straw post-fire
affects the salamander remains unknown, but could have significant
adverse effects if there is widespread use and the mulch creates an
impenetrable layer or alters the microecology in the upper layers of
the soil and at the soil's surface. While the effects to salamanders
from seeding with nonnative grasses, use of fertilizers, or mulch
application have not been specifically studied, these actions, alone or
in combination, have likely caused widespread adverse impacts to the
salamander. To reduce adverse effects to the salamander resulting from
post-fire rehabilitation efforts following the Las Conchas Fire,
efforts were made to avoid seeding in most salamander areas (USFS
2011c, p. 9), and avoiding salamander habitat was a specific criterion
for grass seeding and mulching actions (USFS 2012, p. 3). Because many
common post-fire treatment actions have the potential to have
significant, widespread adverse effects, we anticipate habitat
alterations from wildfire and post-fire rehabilitation will continue to
be a threat to the salamander localities from both past and future
treatments.
In summary, some post-fire treatments, such as contour felling of
logs and cutting and scattering rounds, may reduce some of the short-
term effects of fire to the salamander and its habitat. However, most
post-fire treatments negatively impact the salamander and its habitat
in the long-term. Small-scale impacts could occur from removing rocks
from habitat to build rock dams, and large-scale impacts include grass
seeding and associated chemicals, and possibly mulching. We conclude
that while the effects of high-severity, stand-replacing wildfire are
the most significant threat to the salamander and its habitat, actions
taken following wildfires are also a threat to the salamander's
habitat,
[[Page 56490]]
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 negatively impact
the salamander when the species is active above ground (typically from
July to September). However, the wet conditions required for salamander
aboveground activity are often not conducive to fire. Prescribed fire
in the Jemez Mountains is often planned for the fall (when the
salamanders are not active above ground), 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., premonsoon rains), the majority of fires likely preceded
the salamander's aboveground activity. Prescribed fires conducted after
September, when salamanders typically return to their subterranean
retreats, would be similar to a natural fire regime in the spring, with
low direct impacts because most salamanders are subterranean at that
time. However, it is unknown what the indirect impacts of altering the
time of year when fire is present on the landscape have on the
salamander and its habitat.
Other activities related to fire use that may have negative impacts
to the salamander and its habitat include digging fire lines, targeting
the reduction of large decaying logs, and using flares and fire-
retardant chemicals in salamander habitat. Some impacts or stressors to
the salamander can be avoided through seasonal timing of prescribed
burns and modifying objectives (e.g., leaving large-diameter logs and
mixed canopy cover) and by modifying fire management techniques (e.g.,
not using flares or chemicals) 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
salamander habitat, 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 salamander
habitat and to work towards recovery of the salamander (USFS 2009, p.
4), but specific actions or recommendations to accomplish this goal
have not yet been determined. If the salamander's needs are not
considered, fire use could make its habitat less suitable (warmer;
drier; fewer large, decaying logs), and kill or injure salamanders that
are active above ground. Alternatively, the salamander's habitat 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 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 be a threat to the salamander.
Fire Suppression Activities
Similarly, fire suppression activities may both protect and
negatively impact the salamander and its habitat. For example, fire
suppression actions that occurred in salamander habitat during the
Cerro Grande Fire included hand line construction and bulldozer line
construction (digging fire breaks down to bare mineral soil),
backfiring (burning off heavy ground cover before the main fire reached
that fuel source), and fire retardant drops (USFS 2001, p. 1). Fire
suppression actions in modeled salamander habitat on the Santa Fe
National Forest following Las Conchas Fire included 1.2 miles (mi) (1.9
kilometers (km)) of bulldozer line, 0.6 mi (0.9 km) of hand line, 1.2
mi (1.9 km) of fire retardant drop, and 1.5 ac (0.6 ha) of areas
cleared for three drop points and one Medivac area (USFS 2011d, pp. 1-
2). 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
spreading aquatic pathogens into terrestrial habitats (see C. Disease
and Predation, below).
The impacts of fire retardants and firefighting foams to the
salamander are discussed under E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting Its Continued Existence, below. Fire suppression actions,
including the use of fire retardants, water dropping, backfiring, and
fire line construction, likely impact the salamander's habitat;
however, the effects of habitat impacts from fire suppression on the
salamander remain unknown, and, based on the information available at
this time, we determine that fire suppression actions do not appear to
be a threat to the salamander's habitat. These activities improve the
chances of quick fire suppression, and thus fires 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's habitat, 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 and subsequent treatment is
needed. Mechanical treatment is a fuel-reduction technique that may be
used alone or in combination with 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 or alter ecological interactions at the soil
surface that can impact the salamander and its habitat. For example,
removal of overstory tree canopy or ground cover within salamander
habitat may cause desiccation of soil or rocky substrates. Also, a
layer of masticated material could change microhabitat conditions
making it unsuitable for salamanders (e.g., altering fungal communities
or physically making it difficult for salamanders to move through).
[[Page 56491]]
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 subterranean interstices (spaces)
used by salamanders as refuges or movement.
Activities that compact soil, alter ecological interactions at the
soil surface, remove excessive canopy cover, or are conducted while
salamanders are above-ground active would be detrimental to the
salamander and its habitat. A masticator is one type of heavy machinery
that can be used for mechanical treatment of fuels that could
potentially compact the soil and leave debris altering the soil surface
ecology. In one study at a different location, a masticator was
operated on existing skid trails (temporary trails used to transport
trees, logs, or other forest products) and did not increase soil
compaction, because the machinery traveled on existing 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). However, studies in the Jemez
Mountains and effects to soils there have not been conducted.
At this time, we do not have any specific information whether
mechanical treatments, including mastication, negatively impact the
salamander either through altering above ground habitat or soil
compaction. We encourage research on these techniques if they are to be
implemented in salamander habitat. If mechanical treatment and
hazardous fuels activities are conducted in a manner that minimizes
impacts to the salamander and its habitat, 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. However, mechanical
treatments could also pose a threat to the salamander and its habitat
if conducted in a manner that degrades or makes habitat unusable to the
salamander. Finally, if salamanders are active above ground, any of
these activities could crush salamanders present. We are not aware of
any specific large-scale mechanical treatments in salamander habitat;
however, mastication is an option for treatments in the Southwest Jemez
Restoration Project area. We request information on mechanical
treatments that may occur in salamander habitat and how those
treatments may affect the salamander and its habitat.
Forest Silvicultural Practices
Many areas of the landscape in the Jemez Mountains have been
fragmented by past silvicultural practices (the care and cultivation of
forest trees) including commercial (trees greater than 9 inches (in)
(23 centimeteres (cm)) in diameter at breast height (dbh)) and
precommercial (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. While salamanders
still occupy areas where timber harvesting has occurred, the effects of
past silvicultural practices continue to adversely affect the
salamander and its habitat through the absence of large-diameter trees
that, when they fall and decompose, provide high-quality aboveground
habitat, through the contribution of high fuels increasing the risk of
large-scale stand-replacing wildfire, and cascading effects on soil
moisture and temperature.
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 1,000 mi
(1,600 km) 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, creating a multi-tiered forest structure (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 (as opposed to high-intensity, habitat-destroying ground
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). Clear-cutting degrades forest floor
microhabitats for salamanders by eliminating shading and leaf litter,
increasing soil surface temperature, and reducing moisture (Petranka
1998, p. 16).
In a study comparing 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.
We do not know if salamanders actually occupied the logged sites prior
to logging, but significant differences in habitat features (soil pH,
litter depth, and log size) between the logged and unlogged sites were
reported (Ramotnik 1986, p. 8). 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).
Based on the differences between logged and unlogged sites, we believe
that logging can destroy or modify the Jemez Mountains salamander's
habitat in such a way that it becomes uninhabitable or less suitable
for the species.
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 control (unlogged) areas 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 in recent clear-cut areas, and they estimated that it would
take as much as 50 to 70 years for clear-cut populations to return to
preclearcut levels. We do not know the amount of time it might take for
Jemez Mountains salamanders to recover from habitat alterations
resulting from clear-cut logging, particularly because of concurrent
and ongoing factors affecting forest stand conditions (e.g., fire
suppression, livestock grazing, changes in vegetation composition and
structure).
The majority of Jemez Mountains salamander habitat has been heavily
logged, which has resulted in changes in stand structure, including a
paucity of large-diameter trees. This lack of large-diameter trees
means that there is a limited source for future large, decaying logs
that provide high-quality (e.g., relatively cool, high-moisture diurnal
retreats) aboveground habitat. Ramotnik (1986, p. 12) reported that
logs with salamanders were significantly larger and wetter than those
without salamanders, and 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). In summary,
[[Page 56492]]
there are less high-quality salamander habitat features and no material
for future high-quality salamander habitat features in areas where
large-diameter trees have been removed.
On the VCNP, only minor selective logging has occurred since 1972,
and it is expected that some thinning of secondary 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 be a threat to the salamander.
The historical clear-cut logging practices in the Jemez Mountains
have likely led to significant habitat loss for the salamander. The
cutting has contributed to current stand conditions (high fuels), and
the forest lacks large-diameter trees for future high-quality
aboveground cover objects. We believe that the effects from historical,
clear-cut logging are currently affecting the salamander and its
habitat, and will continue to do so in the 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 from biotic pests
(Wegner 1984, p. 421). Both types of cutting occur in the Jemez
Mountains salamander's habitat, and are referred to as ``salvage
logging.'' Salvage logging is a common management response to forest
disturbance (Lindenmayer et al. 2008, p. 4) and, in the salamander's
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 decay reduces the economic value
of the trees, 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 the salamander's habitat, salvage
logging can further reduce the quality of the salamander's 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 Jemez Mountains
salamander occurred following the 2002 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 fallen logs (USFS
2003, pp. 4-5). Mitigation for the salvage logging project included
conducting activities during winter to avoid soil compaction (as the
ground is more likely to be frozen and hard at that time), 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 fallen log habitat (USFS 2003, p. 29). These mitigation
measures were developed in consultation with NMEST in an effort to
minimize impacts to the Jemez Mountains 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, 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, which may result in future salvage logging
in salamander habitat. 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
continued existence of the Jemez Mountains salamander. For example,
removal of trees that may pose a safety hazard may have minimal
disturbance to surrounding soils or substrates, especially if removal
is conducted when the species is not active above ground (i.e.,
seasonal restrictions). This type of localized impact may affect a few
individuals, but it is not likely to affect a population or be
considered a threat. Likewise, precommercial thinning (removal of trees
less than 9 in (23 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 to the salamander or its habitat.
In summary of forest silvicultural practices, impacts from past
commercial logging activities continue to have detrimental effects to
the salamander and its habitat. These past activities removed large-
diameter trees, altered forest canopy structure, created roads,
compacted soil, and disturbed other important habitat features. These
effects of historical logging include the warming and drying of
habitat, and a paucity of large cover objects (decaying logs) that
would have contributed to habitat complexity and resiliency. Salvage
logging further diminishes salamander habitat subsequent to
disturbance. Therefore, we conclude that the salamander continues to
face threats from current forest silvicultural practices, including
salvage logging. These actions are smaller in scale relative to the
range of the species, and we are not aware of any proposals to salvage-
log the large area of the Las Conchas burn area. However, the habitat-
warming and drying effect of these actions may cause additional
detrimental disturbance to habitat in areas burned by severe wildfire.
We also conclude that the salamander continues to face threats
resulting from the habitat-related effects of historical logging
activities because high-quality, high-moisture retreats are presently
fewer, and future opportunities for high-quality, high-moisture
retreats will be extremely rare. Because all salamander life functions
and activities are based on the individual's water balance, limiting
opportunities for hydration affects all other aspects of survival and
reproduction, greatly contributing to the risk of extinction. This
significant threat is occurring now and will continue into 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). 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 future
[[Page 56493]]
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; 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
In our 12-month finding (75 FR 54822; September 9, 2010), we found
that residential development was a threat to the salamander, because we
visually assessed salamander occurrences on a map and it appeared that
private lands contained substantially sized, contiguous areas of
salamander habitat, with the potential for future development. However,
after conducting a GIS (Geographical Information System) analysis for
this rule (see Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat, below), we
found that only 3 percent (2,817 ac (1,140 ha) of the total modeled
habitat are private lands, of which 719 ac (291 ha) include the
Pajarito Ski area, where the habitat is already developed and unlikely
to be suitable for the salamander in the long term (see Recreation,
below). The remaining areas of private lands occur as noncontiguous
scattered parcels. However, some private lands, as well as areas with
salamander habitat on the Santa Fe National Forest, could be developed
for private use (USFS 1997, pp. 1-4; USFS 1998, pp. 1-2).
Development can destroy and fragment the salamander's 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. Furthermore, as the human population continues to increase
in the Jemez Mountains, we believe development will likely continue to
directly affect the salamander and its habitat in the future. These
activities will likely be in the form of new housing and associated
roads and infrastructure. Although we anticipate some loss and
degradation of habitat from these activities, salamander habitat on
private lands is smaller and more isolated than we thought prior to our
GIS analysis. Moreover, we found very few salamander occurrences on
private lands. For these reasons, we believe that private residential
development has the potential to impact the salamander and its habitat,
but does not constitute a significant threat to the species.
Geothermal Development
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, these wells were
drilled in the salamander's 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 future threat to the
salamander.
Roads, Trails, and Habitat Fragmentation
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 0.24 mi (0.38 km) of road per square mi (2.6 square
km) in 1935, to 2.8 mi (4.5 km) of road per square mi (2.6 square km)
in 1981, and in surface area of from 0.13 percent (610 ac; 247 ha) to
1.7 percent (7,739 ac; 3,132 ha) (Allen 1989, pp. 236-240). Allen
(1989, p. 240) reports that of 5,246 mi (8,443 km) of roads in the
Jemez Mountains in 1981, 74 percent were mapped on USFS lands (2,241
mi; 3,607 km) and private lands (1,646 mi; 2,649 km). These roads
generally indicate past logging activity of USFS and private lands
(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,
decreasing infiltration, and increasing edge effects (open areas along
roads) has led to the drying of adjacent areas of salamander habitat.
The construction of roads and trails (motorized vehicle, bicycle,
and foot trails) degrades habitat by compacting soil and eliminating
interstitial spaces above and below ground. 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).
Furthermore, roads and trails reduce or eliminate important habitat
features (e.g., lowering canopy cover or
[[Page 56494]]
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. We consider the establishment of
roads and trails to be a threat that 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, increasing the chances of extirpation of isolated populations,
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 isolated population, or decrease a
locality to such a low number of individuals that the risk of
extirpation from human disturbance, natural catastrophic events, or
genetic 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).
On the western part of the species' range, road construction on New
Mexico State Highway 126 around the town of Seven Springs occurred in
occupied salamander habitat in 2007 and 2008. Measures were implemented
by the USFS to reduce the impact of these road construction activities
on salamanders, including limiting construction to times when
salamanders would not be active above ground (October through June) and
felling of approximately 300 trees in the project area to replace large
woody debris that was being used by the salamander but removed by the
road construction. However, these measures only offered some protection
for salamanders and their habitat outside the project footprint. The
rerouting and construction of Highway 126 went through the middle of a
large salamander population where 24 ac (9.7 ha) of salamander habitat
were directly impacted by this project (USFS 2009c, p. 2). This project
destroyed and made unusable the 24 ac (9.7 ha). Also, the project
fragmented the occupied salamander habitat remaining outside of the 24-
ac (9.7-ha) footprint, because the new road has a nearly vertical cut
bank and salamanders will not be able to cross it. 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. Habitat
fragmentation of and subsequent edge effects due to this road
construction project have reduced the quality and quantity of
salamander habitat in this part of its range.
In 2007, the NMEST concluded that impacts from OHVs and motorcycles
were variable depending on their location relative to the salamander's
habitat. Because 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 by motorcycles or OHVs 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.
Therefore, OHVs and motorcycles could severely impact the salamander's
habitat.
On November 9, 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). As part of this effort, the USFS inventoried and mapped
roads and motorized trails, and is currently completing a Final
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; USFS 2010c p. 95).
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 consider unmanaged OHV
and motorcycle use to be a threat to the salamander, 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 the possible death and injury of salamanders; fragmentation and
population isolation; habitat loss; habitat modification near road
edges; and in some cases, increased exposure to chemicals, salts, and
pollution. Roads associated with private development are most likely to
be constructed or expanded in the future in the southern and eastern
portions of the species' range, because this part of the species' range
has the most private land. Also, new roads may also be constructed
through Federal lands within the salamander's range, but such
construction is unlikely because the Santa Fe National Forest is
attempting to reduce roads and road usage in the Jemez Mountains. Roads
and trails have significantly fragmented habitat and likely reduced
persistence of existing salamander localities. Therefore, we consider
roads, trails, and the resulting habitat fragmentation to be a threat
to the Jemez Mountains salamander and its habitat now and in the
future.
Recreation
The Jemez Mountains are heavily used for recreational activities
that impact the species, including camping, hiking, mountain biking,
hunting, and
[[Page 56495]]
skiing; OHV use is addressed above. Located in the southwestern Jemez
Mountains is the Jemez National Recreation Area. The Jemez National
Recreation Area comprises 57,650 acres (23,330 ha), and is managed by
the U.S. Forest Service for the promotion of fishing, camping, rock
climbing, hunting, and hiking. 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 mi (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 relative
to the Santa Fe National Forest or VCNP, attracts an average annual
visitation of more than 250,000 people (Entrix 2009, p. 92). Fenton
Lake State Park in the western part of the species' range also contains
salamander habitat. The park received more than 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's habitat through modification of small areas
by 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 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 slopes with mixed-conifer forests and many salamander
observations (New Mexico Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets)
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 and
fragmentation, 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 on USFS land, 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 aboveground
activity period (NMEST 2001, p. 1). Trail maintenance was reported as
leveling all existing ski trails with a bulldozer, which 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 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 were active above ground, may have
resulted in direct impacts to salamanders, and further fragmented and
dried 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 future for recreational
opportunities in the Jemez Mountains. Therefore, we conclude that
recreational activities are currently a threat to the salamander, and
will continue to be a threat in the future.
Livestock Grazing
Historical livestock grazing contributed to changes in the Jemez
Mountains ecosystem by removing understory grasses, contributing to
altered fire regimes and vegetation composition and structure, and
increasing 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 a direct or indirect
threat to 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. Although some small-scale habitat
modification is possible, livestock are managed to maintain a grassy
forest understory. Therefore, we do not consider livestock grazing to
be a current threat to the salamander's habitat, nor do we anticipate
that it will be in the future.
Summary
In summary of Factor A, the salamander and its habitat experience
threats from historical and current fire management practices; severe
wildland fire; forest composition and structure conversions; post-fire
rehabilitation; forest management (including silvicultural practices);
roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation; and recreation. Because these
threats warm and dry habitat, they affect all behavioral and
physiological functions of the species, and ultimately reduce the
survivorship and reproductive success of salamanders across the entire
range of the species, greatly impacting the salamander and its habitat.
Further, these significant threats are occurring now and are expected
to continue in the future. We, therefore, determine 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.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Between 1960 and 1999, nearly 1,000 salamanders were collected from
the wild for scientific or educational purposes (Painter 1999, p. 1).
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
described as having an ``abundant salamander population'' (Reagan 1967,
p. 8). The species was originally described using specimens collected
from this
[[Page 56496]]
population, which is located the southern portion of the species' range
(Stebbins and Reimer 1950, pp. 73-80). Many researchers went to this
site for collections and studies. 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). The information regarding the disposition of the
659 salamanders in this study is unclear, and it is possible more of
these individuals were collected. Nonetheless, an unspecified but
``large percentage'' of the nearly 1,000 collected salamanders was
reported from the ``Type Locality'' (Painter 1999, p.1) and was
deposited as museum specimens around the country. Although surveys have
been conducted at this locality since the 1990s, no salamanders have
been found, suggesting that salamanders in the area may have been
extirpated from overcollection. We are not aware of any other
localities where the species has been extirpated from overcollection.
Nevertheless, it is possible that repeated collections of individuals
can lead to extirpation. We believe this is no longer a threat, because
collections are stringently regulated through permits issued by NMDGF
and the USFS (see Factor D, below). Due to these measures, we do not
believe that collection will be a threat in the future.
Survey techniques associated with scientific inquiries and
monitoring the salamander can alter salamander habitat by disturbing
and drying the areas underneath the objects that provide cover, and by
destroying decaying logs as a result of searching inside them.
Beginning in 2011, the Service, NMDGF, and other partners are hosting
annual training workshops to train surveyors on techniques that will
minimize adverse effects to salamanders and their habitat, including
replacing cover objects as they were found and leaving part of every
log intact; however, impacts will 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 a few locations that have
received impacts from repeated surveys for demographic studies
conducted by NMDGF, but those studies have since concluded (NMDGF 2000,
p. 1). We are currently working with the NMDGF, the USFS, and other
partners on a survey protocol testing the efficacy of artificial cover
objects to further minimize impacts to the salamander and its habitat.
We do not have any recent evidence of threats 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 do not consider overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes to be
a threat to the salamander now or in the future.
C. Disease or Predation
The amphibian pathogenic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd)
was found in a wild-caught Jemez Mountains salamander in 2003 on the
east side of the species' range and again in another Jemez Mountains
salamander in 2010 on the west side of the species' range (Cummer et
al. 2005, p. 248; Pisces Molecular 2010, p. 3). 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 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 Jemez Mountains 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 (Ambystoma tigrinum) and the boreal chorus frog
(Pseudacris maculata) are amphibians that have aquatic life stages and
share terrestrial habitat with the Jemez Mountains 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 from 66
Jemez Mountains salamanders, 14 boreal chorus frogs, and 24 tiger
salamanders from the Jemez Mountains were all negative for Bd.
Approximately 30 additional Jemez Mountains salamanders have been
tested through 2010, resulting in the second observation of Bd in the
salamander. Overall, sampling for Bd from Jemez Mountains salamanders
has been limited and only observed on two salamanders. The observation
of Bd in the salamander indicates that the species is exposed to the
pathogen and could acquire infection; however, whether the salamander
will get or is susceptible to chytridiomycosis remains unknown.
Although Bd can be highly infectious and can lead to disease and death,
the pathogenicity of Bd and amphibians varies greatly among and within
amphibian species.
Bd may be a threat to the Jemez Mountains salamander, because we
know that this disease is a threat to many other species of amphibians,
and the pathogen has been detected in the salamander. Currently, there
is a lack of sufficient sampling to definitely conclude that Bd is a
threat, but the best available information indicates that it could be a
threat, and additional sampling and studies are needed. We intend to
continue monitoring for the prevalence of Bd in the salamander to
determine if disease rises to a level of a threat to the salamander now
or in the future, and we request information on any potential threat
posed by disease to the Jemez Mountains salamander.
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, 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 dispersal to other amphibian species. Some tiger
salamanders use adjacent upland areas and may transmit disease to Jemez
Mountains salamanders 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. The connection between
earthen stock tanks for livestock and aquatic disease transmission to
Jemez Mountains salamanders is unclear.
We are not aware of any unusual predation outside of what may
normally occur to the species by predators such as snakes (Squamata),
shrews (Soricidae), skunks (Mephitidae), black
[[Page 56497]]
bears (Ursus americanus), and owls (Strigiformes).
In summary, we have no information indicating that predation is a
threat to the Jemez Mountains salamander now or in the future. Also,
the best available information does not indicate that disease is a
threat to the salamander's continued existence now, but it could be a
threat in the future. However, additional sampling and studies are
needed.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
State Regulations
New Mexico State law provides some 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) by
prohibiting direct take of the species without a permit issued from the
State. 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's classification as
an endangered species only conveys protection from collection or harm
to the animals themselves without a permit. New Mexico's statutes are
not designed to address habitat protection, indirect effects, or other
threats to these species, and one of the primary threats to the
salamander is the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat, as
discussed in Factor A. There is no provision for 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, without addressing habitat threats, will not ensure the
salamander's long-term conservation and survival.
Although the New Mexico State statutes require the NMDGF to develop
a recovery plan that will restore and maintain habitat for the species,
the Jemez Mountains salamander does not have a finalized recovery plan.
The Wildlife Conservation Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 17-2-37-46
(1995)) states that, to the extent practicable, recovery plans shall be
developed for species listed by the State as threatened or endangered.
While 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. However, there is no requirement to follow the State's
recommendations, as was demonstrated during the construction and
realignment of Highway 126, when NMDGF made recommendations to limit
impacts to the salamander and its habitat, but none of the measures
recommended were incorporated into the project design (New Mexico Game
Commission 2006, pp. 12-13) (see A. Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range section,
above).
Federal Regulations
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 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. As noted above, the Santa Fe
National Forest may implement treatments under the Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration project that, if funded and effective, have the
potential to reduce the threat of severe wildland fire in the southern
and western part of the salamander's range over the next 10 years (USFS
2009c, p. 2). At this time, matching funding for the full
implementation of the 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.
In summary, while New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act provides
some protections for the salamander, specifically against take, it is
not designed nor intended to protect the salamander's habitat, and one
of the primary threats to the salamander is the loss, degradation, and
fragmentation of habitat. Further, while NMDGF has the authority to
consider and recommend actions to mitigate potential adverse effects to
the salamander during review of development proposals, there is no
requirement to follow these recommendations. With respect to Federal
protections, the salamander has been on the Regional Forester's
Sensitive Species List since 1990 (USFS 1990), but while this
designation provides for consideration of the salamander during
planning of activities, it does not prevent activities that may harm
salamanders or their habitats on the Santa Fe National Forest.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
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. We do not currently have information that chemical use is a
threat to the salamander. We request information on any potential
threat posed by chemicals to the Jemez Mountains 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). In 2000, fire retardant
was used in salamander habitat for the Cerro Grande Fire, but we have
no information on the quantity or location of its use (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
[[Page 56498]]
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).
We do not currently have information that the chemicals in fire
retardants or foams are a threat to the salamander. However, we will
continue to evaluate whether these chemicals may be a threat to this
species, and we request information on any potential threat posed by
fire retardant chemicals to the Jemez Mountains salamander.
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 have information
indicating that these chemicals pose a threat to the salamander.
However, we will continue to evaluate whether these chemicals are a
threat to the salamander, and we request information on any effects
these chemicals may have on the Jemez Mountains salamander.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability
of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being
a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or
indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or
negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and
other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of
climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007,
pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh
relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
Habitat drying affects salamander physiology, behavior, and
viability; 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
(Hoerling and Eicheid 2007, p. 19). Annual average 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 active above ground. 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-
[[Page 56499]]
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 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (0.2 degrees Celsius
([deg]C)) (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 20th-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) Ninety-three percent of New Mexico's watersheds 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) In the period 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).
(6) The Jemez Mountains ranked highest of 248 sites analyzed in New
Mexico in
climate exposure--a measure of average temperature and average
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 is a threat to the species, but we intend to evaluate this
issue further.
Climate Change 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 active above ground, and increase the moisture demands and
subsequent physiological stress on salamanders. Warming and drying
trends in the Jemez Mountains currently are threats to the species, and
these threats are projected to continue into the future.
Proposed Listing Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the Jemez Mountains salamander. Habitat loss, degradation, and
modification through the interrelated effects from severe wildland
fire, historical and current fire management practices, forest
composition and structure conversions, and climate change have impacted
the salamander by curtailing its range and affecting its behavioral and
physiological functions. Because the salamander has highly permeable
skin used for breathing and gas exchange, it must stay moist at all
times or it will die. Salamanders have little control in maintaining
water balance except through behaviorally changing where they are in
the environment, seeking high-moisture areas to hydrate and avoiding
warm, dry areas where they would otherwise dehydrate. Warmer
temperatures increase water use and dehydration, as well as increase
metabolic processes, which then in turn require additional energy for
the salamander. This life-history trait renders hydration maintenance
above all other life functions.
Therefore, any action or factor that warms and dries its habitat
adversely affects the salamander and its ability to carry out normal
behavior (foraging and reproduction). Furthermore, historical
silvicultural practices removed most of the large-diameter Douglas fir
trees from the Jemez Mountains, and this change affects the salamander
now and will continue to do so in the future, because a lack of these
trees results in a lack of the highest quality cover objects available
to salamanders now and in the future. It has been shown for other
related plethodontid salamanders that these types of cover objects were
an important component in providing resiliency from the effects of
factors that warm and dry habitat, such as climate change (See Factor
A).
On the basis of this information, we find that the threats to the
salamander most significantly result from habitat loss, degradation,
and modification, including severe wildland fire, but also alterations
to habitat of varying magnitude from fire suppression, forest
composition and structure conversions, post-fire rehabilitation, forest
and fire management, roads, trails, habitat fragmentation, and
recreation (see Factor A). 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
are a direct threat to the salamander. The loss of one of the largest
known populations, the documented modification of the habitat from a
variety of factors, and the cascading behavioral and physiological
effects from these alterations places this species at great risk of
extinction.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that the Jemez Mountains
salamander is presently in danger of extinction throughout all of its
range based on the severity of threats currently impacting the
salamander. The threats are both current and expected to continue in
the future, and
[[Page 56500]]
are significant in that they limit all behavioral and physiological
functions, including living, breathing, feeding, and reproduction and
reproductive success, and extend across the entire range of the
species. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we propose listing the Jemez Mountains
salamander as an endangered species, in accordance with sections 3(6)
and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Jemez Mountains salamander
proposed for listing in this rule is highly restricted in its range,
and the threats occur throughout its range. Therefore, we assessed the
status of the species throughout its entire range. The threats to the
survival of the species occur throughout the species' range and are not
restricted to any particular significant portion of that range.
Accordingly, our assessment and proposed determination applies to the
species throughout its entire range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
The NMEST Cooperative Management Plan and Conservation Agreement
were completed in 2000 (see Previous Federal Actions section above).
These are nonregulatory documents and were intended to be a mechanism
to provide for conservation and protection in lieu of listing the
salamander under the Endangered Species Act, as amended, (U.S. General
Accounting Office 1993, p. 9), The goal of these documents was to
``[hellip]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 in the Previous
Federal Actions section, above, 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 described under Factor A).
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.
Additionally, 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).
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery
tasks. Recovery teams (comprising species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be
available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and tribal lands.
If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of New Mexico would be
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote
the protection and recovery of the Jemez Mountains salamander.
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species
recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Jemez Mountains salamander is only proposed for
listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species.
Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this
species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have
for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize,
[[Page 56501]]
fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If
a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat,
the responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with
the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include landscape restoration projects (e.g., forest
thinning); prescribed burns, wildland-urban-interface projects; forest
silvicultural practices; other forest management or landscape-altering
activities on Federal lands administered by the National Park Service
(Bandelier National Monument), VCNP, and the Department of Energy (Los
Alamos National Laboratory), and USFS; issuance of section 404 Clean
Water Act permits by the Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and
maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species.
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Unauthorized modification or manipulation of forested habitat,
including restoration and thinning activities;
(3) Unauthorized actions that may further degrade salamander
habitat following severe stand-replacing wildfires, such as salvage
logging;
(4) Unauthorized use of heavy equipment in forested habitat in
which the Jemez Mountains salamander is known to occur;
(5) Unauthorized release or introduction of nonnative or native
plant species that would make salamander habitat unsuitable in areas
where the Jemez Mountains salamander is known to occur;
(6) Unauthorized discharge of chemicals into forested habitat in
which the Jemez Mountains salamander is known to occur; and
(7) Capture, survey, or collection of specimens of this taxon
without a permit from us pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the New Mexico
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Critical Habitat Designation for the Jemez Mountains Salamander
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features:
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or
adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the
[[Page 56502]]
conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected
habitat). In identifying those physical and biological features within
an area, we focus on the principal biological or physical constituent
elements (primary constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting
grounds, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are
essential to the conservation of the species. Primary constituent
elements are the specific elements of physical or biological features
that provide for a species' life-history processes, are essential to
the conservation of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species, but
that was not occupied at the time of listing, may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographic area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at
the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the
designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the
following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or
other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is no documentation that the salamander is currently
threatened by collection, and it is unlikely to experience increased
threats by identifying critical habitat. Moreover, the identification
and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to initiate any such
threat. In the absence of a finding that the designation of critical
habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits
to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted.
The potential benefits include: (1) Triggering consultation under
section 7 of the Act in new areas for actions in which there may be a
Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example,
it has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing
conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3)
providing educational benefits to State or county governments or
private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent
harm to the species.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. Lands
proposed for designation as critical habitat would be subject to
Federal actions that trigger the section 7 consultation requirements.
There may also be some educational or informational benefits to the
designation of critical habitat. Educational benefits include the
notification of the general public of the importance of protecting
habitat.
Therefore, because we have determined that the designation of
critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the
species, and will provide considerable conservation benefit to the
species, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for
the Jemez Mountains salamander.
Critical Habitat Determinability
As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following situations exist:
(1) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(2) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical
[[Page 56503]]
habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological
needs of the species and habitat characteristics where this species is
located. This and other information represent the best scientific data
available, and the available information is sufficient for us to
identify areas to propose as critical habitat. Therefore, we conclude
that the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Jemez
Mountains salamander.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features required for
the Jemez Mountains salamander from studies of this species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described below. Unfortunately, there have
been relatively few studies on the salamander and its habitat, and
information gaps remain. However, we have used the best available
information as described in the background and threats assessment above
and summarized below, as well as information from other salamanders
with similar biological requirements. To identify the physical and
biological needs of the Jemez Mountains salamander, we have relied on
current conditions at locations where the salamander has been observed
during surveys, and the best information available on the species and
its close relatives. We have determined that the following physical or
biological features are essential for the Jemez Mountains salamander:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The Jemez Mountains salamander has been observed in forested areas
of the Jemez Mountains, ranging in elevation from 6,998 to 10,990 ft
(2,133 to 3,350 m) (Ramotnik 1988, pp. 78, 84). Redondo Peak contains
both the maximum elevation in the Jemez Mountains (11,254 ft (3,430 m))
and the highest salamander observation (10,990 ft (3,350 m)). Surveys
have not yet been conducted above this highest observation on Redondo
Peak, but the habitat contains those principal biological or physical
constituent elements we have identified from areas known to contain the
salamander. Alternatively, the vegetation communities and moisture
conditions at elevations below 6,998 ft (2,133 m) are not suitable for
the Jemez Mountains salamander.
The Jemez Mountains salamander spends much of its life underground,
but it can be found active above ground from July through September,
when environmental conditions are warm and wet. The salamander's
underground habitat appears to be deep, fractured, subterranean rock in
areas with high soil moisture, where geologic and moisture constraints
likely limit the distribution of the species (NMEST 2000, p. 2). The
aboveground habitat occurs within forested areas, primarily within
areas that contain Douglas fir, blue spruce, Engelman spruce, white
fir, limber pine, ponderosa pine, Rocky Mountain maple, and aspen
(Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28; Reagan 1967, p. 17).
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Terrestrial amphibians generally inhabit environments that are
hostile to their basic physiology, but nonetheless have developed
combinations of unique morphological structures (e.g., shape,
structure, color, pattern), physiological mechanisms, and behavioral
responses to inhabit diverse terrestrial habitats (Duellman and Trueb
1986, p. 197). Terrestrial salamanders are generally active at night
and have diurnal (daytime) retreats to places that have higher moisture
content relative to surrounding areas that are exposed to warming from
the sun and air currents (Duellman and Trueb 1986, p. 198). These
daytime retreats can be under rocks, interiors of logs, depths of leaf
mulch, shaded crevices, and burrows in the soil (Duellman and Trueb
1986, p. 198). These retreats provide opportunities for terrestrial
salamanders to rehydrate during the day, and if water uptake is
sufficient during the day, the animal can afford to lose water during
nocturnal activities (Duellman and Trueb 1986, p. 198). Even though
many kinds of terrestrial amphibians are normally active only at night,
they often become active during the day immediately after heavy rains
(Duellman and Trueb 1986, p. 198).
When Jemez Mountains salamanders have been observed above ground
during the day, they are primarily found in high moisture retreats
(such as under and inside decaying logs and stumps, and under rocks and
bark) (Everett 2003, p. 24) with high overstory canopy cover. Everett
(2003, p. 24) characterized Jemez Mountains salamander's habitat as
having an average canopy cover of 76 percent, with a range between 58
to 94 percent. Areas beneath high tree canopy cover provide moist and
cool conditions when compared to adjacent areas with low canopy cover.
Diurnal retreats that provide moist and cool microhabitats are
important for physiological requirements and also influence the
salamander's ability to forage, because foraging typically dehydrates
individuals and these retreats allow for rehydration. Temperature also
affects hydration and dehydration rates, oxygen consumption, heart
rate, and metabolic rate, and thus influences body water and body mass
in Jemez Mountains salamanders ((Duellman and Treub 1986, p. 203;
Whitford 1968, pp. 247-251). Because salamanders must address hydration
needs above all other life-history needs, the salamander must obtain
its water from its habitat, and the salamander has no physiological
mechanism to stop dehydration or water loss to the environment. Based
on this information, we conclude that substrate moisture through its
effect on absorption and loss of water is the most important factor in
the ecology of this species (Heatwole and Lim 1961, p. 818). Thus,
moist and cool microhabitats are essential for the conservation of the
species.
In regard to food, Jemez Mountains salamanders have been found to
consume prey species that are diverse in size and type with ants,
mites, and beetles being eaten most often (Cummer 2005, p. 43).
Cover or Shelter
When active above ground, the Jemez Mountains salamander is usually
found within forested areas under decaying logs, rocks, bark, moss
mats, or inside decaying logs and stumps. Jemez Mountains salamanders
are generally found in association with decaying coniferous logs,
particularly Douglas fir,
[[Page 56504]]
considerably more often than deciduous logs, likely due to the
differences in physical features (e.g., coniferous logs have blocky
pieces with more cracks and spaces than deciduous logs) (Ramotnik 1988,
p. 53). Large-diameter (greater than 10 in (25 cm)) decaying logs
provide important aboveground habitat because they are moist and cool
compared to other cover; larger logs maintain higher moisture and lower
temperature longer than smaller logs. These high-moisture retreats also
offer shelter and protection from some predators (e.g., skunks, owls).
The percent surface area of occupied salamander habitat covered by
decaying logs, rocks, bark, moss mats, and stumps averaged 25 percent
(Everett 2003, p. 35); however, Everett (2003, p. 35) noted that areas
with high percentages of area of habitat covered by decaying logs,
rocks, bark, moss mats, and stumps are difficult to survey and locate
salamanders when present, and may bias the data toward lower
percentages of area covered by decaying logs, rocks, bark, moss mats,
and stumps.
Furthermore, there may be high-elevation meadows located within the
critical habitat units that are used by the Jemez Mountains salamander.
The Jemez Mountains salamanders utilize habitat vertically and
horizontally above ground and below ground. Currently, we do not fully
understand how salamanders utilize areas like meadows, where the
aboveground vegetation component differs from areas where salamanders
are more commonly encountered (e.g., forested areas); however,
salamanders have been found in high-elevation meadows. Therefore,
meadows are considered part of the physical or biological features for
the Jemez Mountains salamander.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Little is known about the reproduction of the Jemez Mountains
salamander. Although many terrestrial salamanders deposit eggs in well
hidden sites, such as underground cavities, decaying logs, and moist
rock crevices (Pentranka 1998, p. 6), an egg clutch has never been
observed during extensive Jemez Mountains salamander surveys. Because
the salamander spends the majority of its life below ground, eggs are
probably laid and hatch underground. However, we currently lack the
information to identify the specific elements of the physical or
biological features needed for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of
offspring.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the
Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
All occupied salamander habitat has undergone change resulting from
historical grazing practices and effective fire suppression, most often
resulting in shifts in vegetation composition and structure and
increased risk of large-scale, stand-replacing wildfire (see discussion
in Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range, above). This species was first
described in 1950, about halfway through the approximate 100-year
period of shifting vegetation composition and structure and building of
fuels for wildfire in the Jemez Mountains. Thus, research and
information pertaining to this species are in the context of a species
existing in an altered ecological situation. Nonetheless, while we do
not have a full understanding of how these particular alterations
affect the salamander (potentially further drying habitat through
increased water demand of increased density of trees, or,
alternatively, potentially increasing habitat moisture from a higher
canopy cover), we do know that the changes in the vegetative component
of salamander habitat has greatly increased the risk of large-scale,
stand-replacing wildfire. Furthermore, we are only aware of small-scale
treatments or implemented forest-restoration projects to reduce this
risk. Thus, there does not seem to be any areas in occupied salamander
habitat that are protected from disturbance.
However, based on the biology and the physiological requirements of
this and other terrestrial plethodontid salamanders, we believe that
the Jemez Mountains salamander is distributed in areas not burned by
large-scale, stand-replacing fires. These areas are believed to contain
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species. Managing for an appropriate vegetation composition and
designing forest restoration treatments to minimize the risk of
wildfire are difficult because we lack the information to quantify or
qualify these historical attributes. We specifically solicit further
input on methods or mechanisms that can better describe the appropriate
vegetation composition and assist in the design of forest restoration
treatments. Specific research is needed on forest restoration
treatments that could minimize impacts and maximize benefits to the
salamander.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Jemez Mountains Salamander
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Jemez Mountains salamander in the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time of listing, focusing on the
features' primary constituent elements. We consider primary constituent
elements to be the elements of physical or biological features that
provide for a species' life-history processes and are essential to the
conservation of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required sustaining the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements (PCEs) specific to the Jemez Mountains salamander's forested
habitat are:
1. Tree canopy cover greater than 58 percent consisting of the
following tree species alone or in any combination:
a. Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii);
b. blue spruce (Picea pungens);
c. Engelman spruce (Picea engelmannii);
d. white fir (Abies concolor);
e. limber pine (Pinus flexilis);
f. ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa);
g. aspen (Populus tremuloides)
and having an understory that predominantly comprises:
a. Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum);
b. New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana);
c. oceanspray (Holodiscus sp.); or
d. shrubby oaks (Quercus spp.).
2. Elevations from 6,988 to 11,254 ft (2,130 to 3,430 m).
3. Ground surface in forest areas with
a. at least 25 percent or greater of ground surface area of
coniferous logs at least 10 in (25 cm) in diameter, particularly
Douglas fir and other woody debris, which are in contact with the soil
in varying stages of decay from freshly fallen to nearly fully
decomposed, or
b. structural features, such as rocks, bark, and moss mats that
provide the species with food and cover.
4. Underground habitat in forest or meadow areas containing
interstitial spaces provided by:
a. igneous rock with fractures or loose rocky soils;
b. rotted tree root channels; or
c. burrows of rodents or large invertebrates.
With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to
identify the
[[Page 56505]]
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species through the identification of the PCEs sufficient to support
the life-history processes of the species. Because not all life-history
functions require all the PCEs, not all areas proposed as critical
habitat will contain all the PCEs. All units proposed to be designated
as critical habitat are currently occupied by the Jemez Mountains
salamander and contain one or more of the PCEs sufficient to support
the life-history needs of the species.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. The features essential to the conservation of this species
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce
the following threats: Historical and current fire management
practices; severe wildland fire; forest composition and structure
conversions; post-fire rehabilitation; forest management (including
silvicultural practices); roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation;
recreation; and climate change. Furthermore, disease and the use of
fire retardants or other chemicals may threaten the salamander, and may
need special management considerations.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include
(but are not limited to): (1) Reducing fuels to minimize the risk of
severe wildfire in a manner that considers the salamander's biological
requirements; (2) not implementing post-fire rehabilitation techniques
that are detrimental to the salamander in the geographic areas of
occupied salamander habitat, and (3) removing unused roads and trails
and restoring habitat. A more complete discussion of the threats to the
salamander and its habitats can be found in ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species'' above.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We review
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the
species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at
50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas
outside those geographic areas currently occupied are necessary to
ensure the conservation of the species. We are not proposing to
designate any areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species
because occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation of the
species.
Our initial step in identifying critical habitat was to determine
the physical or biological habitat features essential to the
conservation of the species, as explained in the previous section. We
then identified the geographic areas that are occupied by the Jemez
Mountains salamander and that contain one or more of the physical or
biological features. We used various sources of available information
and supporting data that pertains to the habitat requirements of the
Jemez Mountains salamander. These included, but were not limited to,
the 12-month finding published on September 2, 2010 (75 FR 54822),
reports under section 6 of the Act submitted by NMDGF, the salamander
Conservation Management Plan, research published in peer-reviewed
articles, unpublished academic theses, agency reports, and mapping
information from agency sources. We plotted point data of survey
locations for the salamander using ArcMap (Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS program, which were then used
in conjunction with elevation, topography, vegetation, and land
ownership information The point data consisted of detection (367
points) and nondetection (1,022 points) survey locations.
The units proposed for designation are based on sufficient elements
of physical and biological features being present to support life-
history processes of the species and are within the GIS model output.
Areas that have been burned in recent fires (e.g., Las Conchas Fire and
Cerro Grande Fire) were not excluded from the proposed units because
fire burns in a mosaic pattern (a mix pattern of burned and unburned
patches), and at least in the short-term (10 to 15 years), sufficient
elements of physical and biological features remain subsequent to
wildfire that allow salamanders to continuously occupy areas that have
been burned. We selected areas within the geographical area occupied at
the time of listing that contain the physical or biological features
essential to their conservation and may require special management
considerations or protection. Large areas that consisted of
predominantly nondetection survey locations were not included in the
proposed designation, but may contain detections. Finally, at the scale
of the unit, both units are considered wholly occupied because
salamanders use both aboveground and belowground habitat continuously,
moving and utilizing habitat vertically and horizontally. Also, there
may be high elevation meadows located within the units, but these areas
are also considered wholly occupied because the salamanders have been
found in high elevation meadows. While it is possible that salamanders
may not be detected at the small scale of a survey (measured in
meters), the entire unit is considered occupied because of the
similarity and continuous nature of the physical and biological
features within the units that are used by salamanders for foraging,
seasonal movements, and maintaining genetic variation. For clarity, we
defined occupied proposed critical habitat as those forested areas in
the Jemez Mountains that:
a. Include the majority of salamander point observations that are
representative of the distribution of the Jemez Mountains salamander
habitat needs throughout the geographical range of the species;
b. Provide the essential physical or biological features necessary
to support the species' life-history requirements surrounding
salamander point observations ; and
c. Provide connectivity between Jemez Mountains salamander habitat
to provide for seasonal surface movement and genetic variability.
After utilizing the above methods, we refined the model to remove
isolated historical point data, because the survey data for those areas
are insufficient, and we do not know if those areas contain sufficient
physical or biological features to support life-history functions
essential to the conservation of the salamander. The areas removed are
predominantly on Forest Service and VCNP lands within the northeastern
and northwestern part of the Jemez Mountains, but also include small
areas on the Pueblo of Santa Clara, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and
private lands.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we also made
every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features for the Jemez Mountains salamander. The
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left inside critical
habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been
excluded by text in the proposed
[[Page 56506]]
rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat.
Therefore, if the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal
action involving these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation
with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
In summary, we are proposing for designation of critical habitat
geographic areas that we have determined are occupied by the salamander
at the time of listing and contain sufficient elements of physical or
biological features to support life-history processes essential for the
conservation of the species. The critical habitat designation is
defined by the map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory
text, presented at the end of this document in the rule portion. We
will make the coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is
based available to the public on http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0063, on our Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/, and at the New Mexico Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing two units as critical habitat for the Jemez
Mountains salamander. The critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the salamander. The two areas we
propose as critical habitat are: (1) Western Jemez Mountains Unit and
(2) Southeastern Jemez Mountains Unit. Both units are currently
occupied by the species. The approximate area of each proposed critical
habitat unit and land ownership are shown in Table 1.
Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Units for the Jemez Mountains
Salamander
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership by Size of unit in
Critical habitat unit type acres (hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Western Jemez Mountains Unit. Federal........... 41,467 (16,781)
Private........... 978 (396)
---------------------------------------
Total Unit 1............... .................. 42,445 (17,177)
---------------------------------------
2. Southeastern Jemez Mountains Federal........... 46,505 (18,820)
Unit.
Private........... 1,839 (744)
---------------------------------------
Total Unit 2............... .................. 48,344 (19,564)
---------------------------------------
Total................... Federal........... 87,972 (35,601)
Private........... 2,817 (1,140)
Total............. 90,789 (36,741)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of the units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Jemez Mountains
salamander, below.
Unit 1: Western Jemez Mountains Unit
Unit 1 consists of 42,445 ac (17,177 ha) in Sandoval and Rio Arriba
Counties in the western portion of the Jemez Mountains of which 41,467
ac (16,781 ha) is federally managed, with 26,532 ac (10,737 ha) on USFS
lands, 14,935 ac (6,044 ha) on VCNP lands, and 978 ac (396 ha) on
private lands. This unit is located in the western portion of the
distribution of the Jemez Mountains salamander and includes Redondo
Peak. This unit is within the geographical area occupied by the
salamander and contains elements of essential physical or biological
features. The physical or biological features require special
management or protection from large-scale, stand-replacing wildfire;
actions that would disturb salamander habitat by warming and drying;
actions that reduce the availability of aboveground cover objects
including downed logs; or actions that would compact or disturb the
soil or otherwise interfere with the capacity of salamanders to move
between subterranean habitat and aboveground habitat.
Unit 2: Southeastern Jemez Mountains Unit
Unit 2 consists of 48,344 ac (19,564 ha) in Sandoval and Los Alamos
Counties in the eastern, southern, and southeastern portions of the
Jemez Mountains of which 46,505 ac (18,820 ha) is federally managed,
with 30,502 ac (12,344 ha) on USFS lands, 8,784 ac (3,555 ha) on VCNP
lands, and 7,219 ac (2,921 ha) on National Park Service lands
(Bandelier National Monument), and 1,839 ac (744 ha) are on private
lands. This unit is within the geographical area occupied by the
salamander and contains elements of essential physical or biological
features. The physical or biological features require special
management or protection from large-scale, stand-replacing wildfire;
actions that would disturb salamander habitat by warming and drying;
actions that reduce the availability of aboveground cover objects
including downed logs; or actions that would compact or disturb the
soil or otherwise interfere with the capacity of salamanders to move
between subterranean habitat and aboveground habitat.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action that is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we
[[Page 56507]]
do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an
action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under
the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of
the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would
continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for the Jemez Mountains
salamander. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to
support life-history needs of the species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the Jemez Mountains salamander. These activities
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would disturb salamander habitat by warming and
drying. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
landscape restoration projects (e.g., forest thinning and
manipulation); prescribed burns; wildland fire use; wildland-urban-
interface projects (forest management at the boundary of forested areas
and urban areas); forest silvicultural practices (including salvage
logging); other forest management or landscape-altering activities that
reduce canopy cover, or warm and dry habitat. These activities could
reduce the quality of salamander habitat or reduce the ability of the
salamander to carry out normal behavior and physiological functions,
which are tightly tied to moist cool microhabitats. Additionally, these
actions could also reduce available high-moisture retreats, which could
increase the amount of time necessary to regulate body water for
physiological function and thus reduce the amount of time available for
foraging and finding a mate, ultimately reducing fecundity.
(2) Actions that reduce the availability of the ground surface
within forested areas containing downed logs that are greater than 10
in (0.25 m) diameter and of any stage of decomposition or removal of
large-diameter trees (especially Douglas fir) that would otherwise
become future high quality cover. Such activities could include but are
not limited to activities listed above. Aboveground cover objects
within the forest provide high-moisture retreats relative to
surrounding habitat and offer opportunities to regulate body water and
influence the salamander's capacity to forage and reproduce.
(3) Actions that would compact or disturb the soil or otherwise
interfere with the capacity of salamanders to move between subterranean
habitat and aboveground habitat. Such activities could include but are
not limited to use of heavy equipment, road construction, and pipeline
installation.
(4) Actions that spread disease into salamander habitat. Such
activities could include water drops (i.e., picking up surface water
contaminated with aquatic amphibian pathogens (e.g., Bd) and dropping
it in forested habitat). While we do not know the susceptibility of
amphibian pathogens on the Jemez Mountains salamander, some pathogens
(e.g., Bd) have caused many other amphibian species extinctions and
declines and could potentially threaten the Jemez Mountains salamander.
(5) Actions that contaminate forested habitats with chemicals. Such
activities could include aerial drop of chemicals such as fire
retardants or insecticides. We do not know the effects of most
chemicals on Jemez Mountains salamanders; amphibians in general are
sensitive to chemicals with which they
[[Page 56508]]
come in contact because they use their skin for breathing and other
physiological functions.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use,
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands within the proposed
critical habitat designation.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related
factors. Potential land use sectors that may be affected by Jemez
Mountains salamander critical habitat designation include forest
management (including silvicultural practices); road or trail
construction; recreation; fire suppression or other chemical use; and
grazing. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because
of the designation.
We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as
soon as it is completed. At that time, copies of the draft economic
analysis will be available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the New Mexico Ecological
Services Field Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section). During the development of a final designation, we will
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information,
and areas may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) or lands
where a national security impact might exist. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that the lands within the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Jemez Mountains salamander are
not owned or managed by the DOD, but there are national security
interests found at Los Alamos Laboratory. Currently, there are no areas
proposed for exclusion based on impacts on national security, but we
seek comment on whether there is a national security interest at Los
Alamos Laboratory that could be adversely affected by the proposed
designation.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs for the Jemez Mountains salamander, and the proposed
designation does not include any tribal lands occupied by the species
that contain the physical or biological features essential for
conservation of the salamander. Moreover, we are unaware of any tribal
lands that are considered unoccupied by Jemez Mountains salamander that
are essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we have
not proposed designation of critical habitat for Jemez Mountains
salamander on tribal lands. However, we will coordinate with tribes in
nearby areas should there be any concerns or questions arising from
this proposed critical habitat designation. We anticipate no impact to
tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this
[[Page 56509]]
proposed critical habitat designation. There are no areas proposed for
exclusion from this proposed designation based on other relevant
impacts.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our listing determination and critical habitat designation is
based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment
period in this proposed designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least
15 days before the hearing.
Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate
in a public hearing should contact the New Mexico Ecological Services
Field Office at 505-346- 2525, as soon as possible. To allow sufficient
time to process requests, please call no later than 1 week before the
hearing date. Information regarding this proposed rule is available in
alternative formats upon request.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
At this time, we lack the available economic information necessary
to provide an adequate factual basis for the required RFA finding.
Therefore, we defer the RFA finding until completion of the draft
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and
Executive Order 12866. This draft economic analysis will provide the
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination.
We have concluded that deferring the RFA finding until completion
of the draft economic analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and
requirements of the RFA. Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will
ensure that we make a sufficiently informed determination based on
adequate economic information and provide the necessary opportunity for
public comment.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. A small portion of an existing gas pipeline is within
proposed critical habitat; however, we do not expect the designation of
this proposed critical habitat to significantly affect energy supplies,
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. However,
we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic
analysis, and review and revise this assessment as warranted.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal
[[Page 56510]]
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because only Federal lands are involved in the
proposed designation. Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment if
appropriate.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we will analyze the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the Jemez Mountains salamander in a takings
implications assessment. Following completion of the proposed rule, a
draft economic analysis will be completed for the proposed designation.
The draft economic analysis will provide the foundation for us to use
in preparing a takings implications assessment.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this
proposed rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of
the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested
information from, and coordinated development of, this proposed
critical habitat designation with appropriate State resource agencies
in New Mexico. The designation of critical habitat in geographic areas
currently occupied by the Jemez Mountains salamander imposes no
additional restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has
little incremental impact on State and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have some benefit to these governments
because the areas that contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined,
and the elements of the features of the habitat necessary to the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the Jemez Mountains salamander within the designated
areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the
species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).] However, when the
range of the species includes States within the Tenth Circuit, such as
that of Jemez Mountains salamander, under the Tenth Circuit ruling in
Catron County Board of Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), we will undertake a NEPA analysis for
critical habitat designation and notify the public of the availability
of the draft environmental assessment for this proposal when it is
finished.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
[[Page 56511]]
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
Because we are not proposing designation of critical habitat for
Jemez Mountains salamander on any tribal lands, we anticipate no impact
to tribal lands.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), add an entry for ``Salamander, Jemez
Mountains'' in alphabetical order under Amphibians to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Salamander, Jemez Mountains...... Plethodon U.S. (NM).......... U.S. (NM).......... E ........... 17.95(d) NA
neomexicanus.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (d) by adding an entry for
``Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus),'' in the same
alphabetical order that the species appears in the table at Sec.
17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Los Alamos, Rio Arriba,
and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico, on the maps below.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of Jemez
Mountains salamander consist of four components:
(i) Tree canopy cover greater than 58 percent that
(A) Consists of the following tree species alone or in any
combination: Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii); blue spruce (Picea
pungens); Engelman spruce (Picea engelmannii); white fir (Abies
concolor); limber pine (Pinus flexilis); ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa); and aspen (Populus tremuloides) and
(B) That may also have an understory that predominantly comprises:
Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum); New Mexico locust (Robinia
neomexicana); oceanspray (Holodiscus sp.); and shrubby oaks (Quercus
spp.).
(ii) Elevations of 6,988 to 11,254 feet (2,130 to 3,430 meters).
(iii) Ground surface in forest areas with
(A) At least 25 percent or greater of ground surface area of
coniferous logs at least 10 in (25 cm) in diameter, particularly
Douglas fir and other woody debris, which are in contact with the soil
in varying stages of decay from freshly fallen to nearly fully
decomposed, or
(B) Structural features, such as rocks, bark, and moss mats, that
provide the species with food and cover; and
[[Page 56512]]
(iv) Underground habitat in forest or meadow areas containing
interstitial spaces provided by:
(A) Igneous rock with fractures or loose rocky soils;
(B) Rotted tree root channels; or
(C) Burrows of rodents or large invertebrates.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, fire lookout stations, runways, roads, and other paved
areas) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created using digital elevation models, GAP landcover data, salamander
observation data, salamander habitat suitability models, and were then
mapped using the USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic USGS version
projection. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at the Service's Internet site
(http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/), at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0063, and at the New
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one of the Service regional offices,
the addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat for the Jemez Mountains
salamander follows:
[[Page 56513]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12SE12.011
* * * * *
Dated: August 23, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-21882 Filed 9-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C